to think that 'mini-wife' is problematic for exactly the same reasons that 'jailbait' is problematic?

[ArsenicyOldFace]

In that it transfers responsibility from adult men onto female children?

Thankfully one doesn't hear the word 'jailbait' much any more; society has moved on and we now understand the process of grooming etc

But that's what I am saying the term mini wife does not describe a child who is doing all the things listed because she wants to meet her parents emotional need. It is nearly always used in a scathing/frustrated/jealous way with barely a mention of the fathers part in it all.

I also don't agree that a child sitting on her dads knee, grooming him is spousified. My own daughters (7 yo) do this with their father because they love him and want to be close with him. The same way my 10 yo son will come and sit beside me with his head on my knee so I give him a stroke. Children do these things to meet their own emotional needs also it does not always mean that spousification is present.

Flossy this is what I'm confused about too - where is the line between 'normal' and 'spousified'. Because obviously the line can't be 'if a stepparent finds it troublesome, it's not normal'. Is there information somewhere about what the indicators are?

And I guess this is where the miniwife thing comes in - where it DOES seem to blame the child, and be related to the feelings of the stepparent, and I think, if I were to hear someone use that term, who was using it interchangeably with spousification, it might make me doubt their judgement of the situation a little?

This is why these phrases shouldn't really be used on a forum like this because no-one has a clearly expressed definition that everyone understands. It is better not to label but to describe behaviours exactly as they are witnessed, the child's and the adult's.

A SM will usually only post about them if something seems a bit 'off' and they can get lots of support and advice, without needing to label or blame a child.

Is there information somewhere about what the indicators are?

There's quite a lot of information but deciding whether or not the behaviour is 'normal' or spousified' would be the job of professionals, not something that armchair psychologists can 'diagnose' over the internet, based on a few facts from one person's point of view.

flossy no one is saying it is.

What "spousification" refers to is the motive behind the action. If a child does those things to meet their own emotional needs, then they are not spousified.
If however, their parent needs the child to behave in that way towards him in order for their own emotional needs to be met, and encourages and promotes a relationship with their child that meets those needs,then eventually, the child will eventually be self-motivated to meet their parents emotional needs.
that is the dynamic that is described as spousification.

And, that is the dynamic that a stepparent who comes onto MN is trying to understand. What she perceives are the child's underlying motives, but what she describes in her post are the child's actions. Which are considered innocent and natural by other posters, and she is criticised for being jealous of her stepchild. So in a clumsy manner, the OP tries to explain her perception of the child's motives "it's like she's a wife to him!". whereas what the stepmum is actually witnessing is the consequence of emotional abuse of the child by the parent. But the stepmum doesn't witness the abuse, or the parents role in the child's subsequent behaviour.

This is why the term mini wife or wife should not be used. How many mothers would describe their DD this way?

The term mini wife blurs the lines for the step mother and I suppose people on this forum who will try to reply with advice. It does also give the impression that the SM is jealous and that is because of what the term MW means to other people/posters.

what she describes in her post are the child's actions. Which are considered innocent and natural by other posters, and she is criticised for being jealous of her stepchild. So in a clumsy manner, the OP tries to explain her perception of the child's motives "it's like she's a wife to him!". whereas what the stepmum is actually witnessing is the consequence of emotional abuse of the child by the parent.

Which is why it needs to be pointed out that MW is not the correct term to use and explained that the child's behaviours are as a consequence of the adult's behaviour. Therefore she needs to focus on the adult, not the child.

Then the thread can move on to advise how she might do that, etc. Instead of some posters trying to defend the use of the term and derailing the thread.

Thanks Fairenuff. Agree with you totally.

How common do you think "spousification" actually is wakey?How prevalent? Also would you agree that many cases of this may also be attributed to the jealousy and lack of understanding on the part of the incoming step parent? I keep returning to this because it seems to me that whenever these kind of issues are described it is an immediate jump to "mini wife" often alongside really hateful language directed towards the child, with this being defended by the SP "right to vent". I have seen it done in RL too. I realise how frustrating it must be to deal with IF a genuine case but do think that up till now there's been a real risk of normal behaviours being labelled as inappropriate because of lack of understanding or even plain jealousy, with the result that the complainant feels vindicated when they should be feeling anything but.

The focus should always be on the parent who caused this dynamic. The problem is not the child, nor is it the SP. It is the fault of the parent who cares only about what they want and need. Perhaps instead of using MW, the correct phrase should be Selfish Idiot.

After all the parent foists the step family relationship on their DC and DP without addressing their needs and wants. Where step families work, the parent has done the work to create a harmonious relationship between their child and partner before they are all living together. This means establishing health parent-child boundaries, allowing adequate "getting to know you time" for the DC and DP, dealing with ExPs and letting the DC and DP develop a relationship of their own. Failure to do so breeds resentment in the DC and the DP and they tend to target eachother rather than the person they both love.

But the truth is that anyone willing to do this to their children and partner is selfish and idiotic and they are not good people to be in a relationship with.

nicky everybody has a right to vent - even if they know it's totally out of order or unreasonable. Mn is a great sounding board for this. There will always be some one around to listen and bring you back to earth. You can't expect every one to be cool calm and collected 100% of the time.

Jesus if my dd1 was my dds I would have packed up and run for the hills. In fact there was many times I wished a could. When posters post you get a tiny snap shot of what's occurring right then. To outsiders it's looks terrible but in reality emotions are running high and things get a bit skewed.

Although there are some posters that seem to post the same shit day in day out and don't take advice just want to vent, I suppose those are the threads you need to avoid.

I think it happens a lot more than realised, in varying degrees. It's not only girls that this happens to but nobody seems arsed about the boys

I don't think I said people couldn't vent did I? But on some the threads I have seen the "right to vent" has been strenuously used as a defence to shut down dissenting points of view. And personally I don't think the right to vent means that certain opinions and points of view should go unchallenged.

nicky everybody has a right to vent - even if they know it's totally out of order or unreasonable. Mn is a great sounding board for this. There will always be some one around to listen and bring you back to earth. You can't expect every one to be cool calm and collected 100% of the time.

Right. Do if my DH starts a sexual 'relationship' witha 15 year old next week and I start a thread 'venting' about the 'jailbait' who seduced him, how do you think that would go?

Don't sippose it matters - just exercising my 'right to vent' right?

It's not only girls that this happens to but nobody seems arsed about the boys

I'm sure they are, it's just that this thread is about the use of the term mini wife or mini wife syndrome and no-one applies that to boys.

the "right to vent" has been strenuously used as a defence to shut down dissenting points of view

Yes, that can be a problem on threads, I've seen it happen. If a poster has a "right to vent" then other posters also have a right to air their own thoughts and feelings on the matter (within guidelines, of course).

nicki I think it's a lot more common than people may be prepared to admit.

Take shaskas post up thread. It refers to a child acting out when a stepmum comes on the scene especially if they have been placed in a position of responsibility that they now feel is threatened.
That is indicative of spousification - a child being given inappropriate responsibilities that they take ownership of and defend against other adults.

And yet that has been dismissed as "natural". Yes, it's natural, against the backdrop of low level emotional abuse that places the child in the position of responsibility in the first place.

No of course it doesn't mean that it shouldn't go unchallenged (if you strongly contest it). That the whole point on MN many people with many views and opinions. That's why it works so well. Other wise every one would have the same veiws, same opinions and frankly it would be very boring and very weird.

Somebody venting something you don't agree with doesn't make them a bad person, after a discussion about it they may change their minds or they may tell you to chuff off - either way it's a free posting forum.

To be fair, Wakey we can't tell from what people post if it's spousification or not can we? That would take a professional working with the family.

I suspect that the reason the threads are heavily weighted against the step-daughters would be because the vast majority of posters are female, so they wouldn't be affected by the boy-mum dynamic, only by the girl-dad dynamic.

But what do we mean by "venting"?

Posting just to put something into words for oneself, and the OP won't be bothered if there's not a single reply.

Or posting in the hope of other people saying soothing things? Which for some OPs means only saying things which validate them and any challenge is forbidden?

Because if venting is the latter, I wouldn't want to validate some things I see posted on MN.

I don't really know why we are having this discussion because I think all that too .

My point is that others don't think we should all have a say, certainly if you're not in agreement with them and will use it as a way to shut poster and their dissenting views up.

wakey thanks for answering me, but what do you think of the second part of my question because personally my RL experiences have shown me that the issue often lies with the step parent whether that be through jealousy or simply not understanding the relationship dynamics between a father and daughter.

Somebody venting something you don't agree with doesn't make them a bad person, after a discussion about it they may change their minds or they may tell you to chuff off - either way it's a free posting forum.

Yes, I agree with this too softly and this thread is about opening a discussion without heated arguments so that posters can see it from both sides and maybe change their minds.

I think it's important to recognise that posters do have a right to challenge the language used even when venting. After all, we wouldn't allow something racist or disablist to go unchallenged even if it was just a rant.

I'm not sure it is about being prepared to admit it, more about not banding the term spousification around willy nilly.

For me this thread is discussing the term mini wife not spousification. The thread is asking to think that 'mini-wife' is problematic for exactly the same reasons that 'jailbait' is problematic?

Nobody as far as I can tell is denying spousification exists what is being discussed is the problems of using mini wife to describe a female child.

arsenicy you have taken that massively out of context.

If threads were monitored so tightly how are people going to come on and find out new things/points of view/opinions.

I've been on MN getting on five years now and my views have changed massively due to reading other posters experience/points of view ect..

If a sm came on and was complaining about her sd 'MWS' then yes they can vent away but they will more often than not be told what the actual score was. It doesn't mean knives have to be drawn.

Or posting in the hope of other people saying soothing things? Which for some OPs means only saying things which validate them and any challenge is forbidden?

It is certainly not unknown for it to be used that way.

Constructive posters have been ordered off threads by third parties on the grounds that 'this is her safe place to vent' (whatever that means)

arsenicy you have taken that massively out of context.

Have I? Have I really?

I wasn't depending on a context. Depending on a dubious concept called 'the right to vent' as a defence for using a dubious term about children is something I would call into question in any context at all.

I'm all for getting things off your chest, but why is the specific phrase 'mini-wife' or 'mini-wife-syndrome' intrinsically necessary to the process?

And when did the reasonableness and catharsis of unburdening one's frustrations beome a 'right to vent'?