To ask what you think of this situation and who's being unreasonable?

[HillProp]

John is married to Lisa who he shares DC with. He also shares DC with Kate (so Lisa's DSC). Lisa works part time (although not massively part time to be fair!) due to young DC so tends to take on more childcare for all of the children than John.

Whenever there is an argument between John and Lisa, one of Lisa's responses is that John do X Y or Z for his own kids from now on. For example: 'You can cook for your own kid from now on' meaning her DSC. She will say this even if DSC are there.

Lisa's DSC have told their Mum, Kate, about this who has now told John she's annoyed about this and thinks it's cruel of Lisa. DSC generally like Lisa and they get on well typically.

Lisa feels like John leaves a lot of his children's care to her and this is her retaliation when things blow up between them although it isn't always actually anything to do with the DC but this is her way of 'getting to him', by refusing to do anything for his older DC.

Who's unreasonable?

Lisa for using DSCs care as a means to punish John?

Or Kate for having a go at John about this comment?

Or options 3.. John for putting too much onto Lisa in relation to his older DC?

Does Lisa’s schedule ever get so busy she can’t feed her kids? What happens then? They just don’t get fed?

Can you only imagine if women had this attitude? 🙄

It depends on the arrangement. Since LIsa only works part time and not that much, then perhaps cooking meals for the family was part of the arrangement of her not being at work and not contributing as much financially?

I think any kids in the home - biological, step, foster, adopted etc are all part of the family. Both adults have joined or created a home / family with the knowledge that there are children that are a part of it and so I really have no tolerance for anyone acting like the children in the home are a nuisance and not really part of the family. Lisa married someone with children - if she wanted a husband and home an family with no existing children, then she shouldn't have married John.

John seems to be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to financial responsibility so I would expect Lisa to do more of the heavy lifting when it comes to at home work for the family.

The innocent ones are the kids and their mother. John and Lisa need to decide on a fair division of financial and household based responsibilities given the family they have that includes all children. And Lisa needs to stop being rude and disrespectful and exclusionary to the kids. That is just mean. And adults who are mean to kids as a way to get back at their spouses are really not nice people.

Lisa and John both need to grow up and stop shouting and saying nasty things in front of the kids.
John needs to pull his weight more by the sounds of it.
Kate is pissed off with her kids hearing these things and I don't blame her to be honest.
Everyone needs to communicate better.

Both adults have joined or created a home / family with the knowledge that there are children that are a part of it and so I really have no tolerance for anyone acting like the children in the home are a nuisance and not really part of the family.

You having no tolerance for it does not mean that step parents do not have the right to set boundaries about how much parenting they are willing to do for their step children. They do.

Both adults enter the relationship knowing there are kids involved that are one of theirs and not the others. It's up to the individuals to decide if they want to help out with those children.

Lisa works almost FT, and they have joint children. Even if she were not working at all but was looking after their joint child, this would be a fair division of responsibilities. This is not a situation where Lisa "owes" him childcare for his other children.

@aSofaNearYou

Well obviously at the end of the day an adult can treat a child any way they want. They can be mean and they can be spiteful and if the other person puts up with that then yes, that is on them.

Do I have tolerance for that when an adult choses to join family knowing there were children and then try to exlcude those children - no I don't. You can say stepparents have no duty to the children that aren't their own and so they can do whatever it takes to make them feel as horrible as they can, to get them to not want to be there, to get them to not be around their parent to make sure they know they are intruders and unwanted in the home. You can act and say things to let them know this is your home and your family and not theirs and you will do nothgint for them. You can treat children however you want. I don't have to tolerate it. If you do not want any children in the home other than your own, then don't marry or move in with someone with children. It is pretty simple. Children dont' choose to have other adults move into their home and family - and they shouldn't be treated like unwanted pests.

And yes, John or any parent is responsible for bringing a Lisa or a step parent or any adult into their children's lives who can't treat them like part of the family and who makes them feel unwelcome and unwanted in their own home.

Totally agree.

@Midlifemusings

You're confusing setting boundaries around parenting responsibilities with "being as nasty as you can" to the stepchildren and deliberately making them feel unwelcome. One is a practical arrangement, the other is an emotional response. They are not the same. My take on what @aSofaNearYou is saying is that as a step parent you have every right to be boundaried about how little or how much you are prepared to take on in terms of practical parenting and responsibility for your partner's children. I entirely agree with that.

There is already inequality though. And it’s driven by John (and Kate).

In the scenario where John has said ‘Lisa, SD didn’t like that dinner’, he’s singling out the SC as different and more important.

The dinner was fine for everyone else. But SD didn’t like it so her father has pulled her SM up on this. In front of the kids. He’s singled her out as someone whose preferences must be a Priority and Lisa must have done something wrong because Sc didn’t like her dinner.

Then SC has reported things to her mother and her mother has decided to intervene on her behalf.

This is the animal farm brand of equality that seems to operate in so many stepfamilies. All children are equal, but everyone seems to tacitly agree that stepchildren are more equal.

Stepmothers are awful and resentful. Lisa needs to know her place, get in line and be grateful she’s involved at all.

@Sofielou

I don't agree that refusing to feed children in the home while preparing food for other members of the family because you are mad at your spouse and making a point about only wanting to feed some people and not others in front of the children you dont want to feed is setting a boundary.

Personally I can't imagine making a meal and only serving some of the family and leaving some children in the family hungry because they aren't biologically mine. We even feed friends of our kids if they are over. I just can't imagine looking at children who had no say and getting annoyed in front of them that they expected food or to be fed in their own home.

I disagree that as a step parent you can move in and then decide that your boundary is that you want nothing to do with the kids and want no responsibility for any aspect of their lives or wellbeing or basic needs, I just disagree that is how you treat the children in your own family. And if you feel that way - then don't marry or move in with someone with children. The children exist reagardless of how much you wish they didn't.

@SoggyPaper

You are reading a different OP than this one. It says the refusal to feed the kids was in retaliation for an argument and a way to punish John.

Does John actually parent any of his kids ever? Pull his weight with housework? If neither of those things then he's definitely the unreasonable one in the scenario.

@Midlifemusings

I can well imagine getting to that point through sheer resentment if the load of looking after the kids (step and your own) falls to you time and time again. It's not right. Of course you get to a point where you draw a line with their parent and say enough is enough.

It's not refusing to feed them or wishing they didn't exist - your use of emotive language is deliberate and it's clouding the issue. It's handing over the responsibility to their parent (rightfully), who is taking the piss with their expectations of you.

My point@PurassicJarkis that it requires prejudice to use the word 'helping' in relation to man's domestic responsibilities. No-one who is not prejudiced, in an entrenchedly sexist way, ever uses that word in that context. That's because describing a man as 'helping' with domestic tasks implies that someone else is inherently responsible for those tasks.

Just try turning it around. Whenever you think or speak of a woman doing housework or childcare, insert the word 'helping'. It quickly become apparent how absurd that is. Helping who? In fact just doing what adults, what parents, do.

That’s Kate’s take on it.

sorry the OP’s.

I don't agree that refusing to feed children in the home while preparing food for other members of the family because you are mad at your spouse and making a point about only wanting to feed some people and not others in front of the children you dont want to feed is setting a boundary.

It is if your spouse just criticises your for not feeding his children in the right way.

Saying ‘fine. You feed your child then since what everyone else is having us not good enough’ isn’t punishment. It’s setting a boundary.

If the father doesn’t like it or feels his child is being excluded, he should stop using that child as a means to criticise his wife.

The adults need to rework things for the sake of the children so they can avoid the arguing and find a good solution.

The idea that having to care for his children by cooking for them is ‘punishment’ is incredibly telling.

The idea that this is a woman’s responsibility is so entrenched that saying to a man that he should actually look after his own child is apparently ‘getting back at him’ or ‘punishment’.

@SoggyPaper

I have reread OPs posts and I just dont' see where you see that was happening in this scenario? There are no posts from John or further elaboraiton that the argument was that John attacked and criticized Lisa for not making the food his child wanted. I am not seeing where you are getting the details you are including as part of this post?

@Midlifemusings

Also, it's a bit of a stretch to imply that Lisa wishes the children didn't exist, when the OP states:

DSC generally like Lisa and they get on well typically.

How has this positive relationship managed to evolve with Lisa "wishing they didn't exist"?

She clearly just wishes to no longer be treated like a mug. I don't blame her.

The same entrenched beliefs go the other man that the man is inherently responsible for all the financial obligations and responsibilities of a home and family and women often 'help' with the bills but aren't seen as having primary responsibility. It is clear in this case that Lisa doesn't contribute equally to all the financial responsibilities - and many would see it as punishment if he retaliated in an argument by telling her she needed to work full time and pay for 50% of all financial obligations.

There are many entrenched traditional values that impact all parties.

@Sofielou

I think actions speak louder than words. Almost every step parent post has a comment about liking the kids before going on to define actions that show otherwise. I think it is a social expectation that people have to pretend or say that. It is like saying, I am not racist but....

And this is AIBU. I personally think it is unreasonable to use children and feeding them as a means to retaliate against your spouse because you are upset. Others think that is reasonable and feel you should use the children however you want in arguments to get what you want or need. People feel differently hence these posts having more than one option.

women often 'help' with the bills but aren't seen as having primary responsibility

What? Not in our house! I'm the higher earner and have been financially independent my whole life so..... I strongly disagree with this.

I'm wondering if it was a case of the child didn't want what Lisa was making so wanted something else. Lisa said "No I'm making this". John intervenes with "But child doesn't want that so can't you do something that they do want as well?" Lisa refuses, John insists so Lisa says "since child's wants and needs seem to be more important than everyone else's YOU cook his dinner from now on"
Child goes back to Kate and says "Lisa told dad to cook my dinner when she cooked for everyone else". Kate sees this as a slight on her child so blames Lisa.

Only on MN are SC seen as some sort of demigods and SM's are mere servants to pander to their every wish. John needs to step up and start parenting his children (all of them), Kate needs to keep out of it , unless she believes there is a safeguarding issue and Lisa needs to tell the pair of them to get off her back or else she's out of there and bang goes their free childcare.

@Sofielou No generalization applies to every situation or home. Just like in some homes men do most or all of the childcare and domestic tasks. I have a brother that does 95% of all things childcare related - that doesn't mean that is true in every home.

Both ways - these traditional norms and expectations of responsibility are still clearly present but not in every situation.

Once again, very emotive language. No one is "using the kids to get what they want". It's about drawing your line and saying this is my boundary. Which is bloody fair enough and even more so for kids that aren't yours.

As for not liking the SC, this gets thrown about on every thread when an SM has an issue with something. Every single time. It's utter rubbish and it's a lazy argument. Parents don't accused of not liking their own kids when they express frustration about them or their behaviour, or that of their partner. This only comes up in relation to SMs. Funny that.

You can like your SC and still have boundaries because they are not your children. I like my SC - that's genuine and not pretend as you seem to imply. I like them as little people, they're lovely company. But I have my boundaries as to how much I am prepared to take on in terms of responsibility and that doesn't take anything away from my liking them.

You are confusing two different issues imo, like I said - you are making practical arrangements and decisions emotive. They are not.