What an effing joke, not having posted on here recently - until this particular email from the Gods who are MumsNet!

[Tappergirl]

Hi Tappergirl,

We wanted to drop you a line about your posts on Mumsnet, because we've have had a few reports from other posters about them, particularly your posts on the step parenting threads. And when we took a look, we could understand why other posters thought they broke our Talk Guidelines (www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette).

We know that step-parenting has become quite a fraught area of the site, and that two opposing 'camps' of posters seem to have emerged. Our take on this is that everyone is welcome to post in the Step-parents topic - so long as they do so within our Talk Guidelines - and we'd really appreciate it if everyone concerned in the bad feeling could step back a bit and concentrate on the issues raised by each thread, rather than thrashing out ongoing disputes with other posters.

Our aim is to make parents' lives easier by pooling and sharing advice and support, and we ask members to respect each other's opinions, even when they don't agree with them. We do understand that everyone can get a bit het up on the internet from time to time, but we'd be grateful if you could bear this in mind in future.

Step parenting is never easy, so we think a bit of peace, love and support wouldn't go amiss. And please rest assured that you are by no means the only poster we're contacting about this.

Thanks and best,
MNHQ

I do think 'mini wife' is a horrible phrase.
I also don't care for it. I think it is most often used by people trying to describe symptomatic behaviour, though. Spousification, as the name suggests, does mean a process where the child has been given a 'spouse-like' role (and yes, different from parentification), so someone observing it is quite likely to see that similarity and to describe it as such. It is used in ignorance, and it seems like the best approach when it is used would be not to attack the poster and focus on their language, but help them to think about what that might mean for the child, and how it could be viewed within the context of their parenting, and suggest that if they are really concerned, they look for family counseling to help properly identify the problem they are sensing.

The idea that it is a popular term here, or one that stepparenting is 'promoting', is flawed. Oddly, it appears that the posters who are most uncomfortable with the term have done more to spread its usage than anyone else. As I said earlier, Prior to 1 August 2014, when these posters decided to make a bit of a campaign about this issue, the term "mini-wife" [or mini wife] seems to have appeared on MN (as a whole) 48 times. That includes multiple mentions within the same thread.
Put another way, in the entirety of searchable threads on MN, the term appears to have been used in 35 threads (and furthermore only about half of those were on the stepparenting board). Considerably more people than that have identified a dynamic that concerns them, without using the term.
Being unhappy with the term is one thing. Being resistant to the fact that this dynamic happens is another. Focusing on the term seems to be a deliberate strategy for bun-fighting and derailment of the topic.

Coupled with the fact that there are social and emotional reasons for responding posters to feel uncomfortable about the scenario described, and it often becomes easier for readers to dismiss or deny an OPs experience, rather than support or even just ignore it. There's evidence of that on this thread - posters denying the existence of evidence in favour of their own feelings. A natural reaction, but one which will undoubtedly create further emotional turmoil for the OP...It was happening, I was being honest, but it was so far outside some posters experience and left them feeling uncomfortable so their natural response was to challenge my perception, make accusations and accuse me of lying.
Well put, wakey.

Having now read about the background behind the phrase 'mini-wife (ie. spousification) I can easily understand that it is a real 'thing' and may well be a professionally recognised as a 'thing' and that a child can suffer because of it.

But I also see very real scope here for insecure women who are jealous of the close bond between their partner and his daughter and who resent not being their man's number one priority at all times to misuse the phrase 'mini-wife' in an accusatory way that assumes the child is a rival.

But I also see very real scope here for insecure women who are jealous of the close bond between their partner and his daughter and who resent not being their man's number one priority at all times to misuse the phrase 'mini-wife' in an accusatory way that assumes the child is a rival.

Sure. And obviously for that matter every person who comes on to MN to post about a problem may be complaining about someone else's behaviour because of their own insecurities or whatever. But it is unfair to assume this when a poster comes on to describe what they are living with - just as in any other situation, we do have to sort of deal with the evidence actually provided by the poster, not projection and assumption based on the sole fact that they are a stepmum or on our own discomfort or inexperience with the problem they are having (like wakey says above). Maybe to put it another way - The burden of proof (I mean proof that the poster is being honest and reasonably 'fair' in her reporting of a situation) should be no higher than for any other poster who reports on a situation in their life. Questioning and suggesting other interpretations of that situation seems reasonable behaviour - attacks on character don't. Neither does it seem reasonable to simply tell a poster they must be inventing a problem for their own questionable motives, instead of discussing the issue they have presented.

So, if it is not a syndrome, there is no such thing as 'mini wife syndrome', can I take it that the correct, professional term is 'spousification'?

And if it's not something that can be professionally diagnosed as one person suffering from it how should the 'dynamic' be described? For example, rather than saying 'the child is a mini wife', one should say.... what, exactly? The child has been spousified, the parent is spousifying the child?

Facebook,btw in case it could be misunderstood as a direct reply to your post, I wasn't suggesting by the way that you have done this ("...attacks on character don't. Neither does it seem reasonable to simply tell a poster they must be inventing a problem for their own questionable motives, instead of discussing the issue they have presented"), but was participating in the wider discussion about the boards and how to approach the topic and replying to your post in that context.

It's used by therapists specialising in families to describe a 'dynamic' - so "the child is spousified" or "subject to parentification" would be correct; and just to reiterate, they are different things, but can occur co-morbidly (at the same time) within a family to the same, or different, children.

So, if it is not a syndrome, there is no such thing as 'mini wife syndrome', can I take it that the correct, professional term is 'spousification'?
Yes. That's not to say that everyone who uses the term "mini wife" is in fact talking about spousification, they may be describing things ('symptoms', if I may use that word in a non-medical sense, as when we say that wet ground is symptomatic of rainfall!) which look the same but stem from a different cause. But yes, the professional term used in the literature on the thread river has linked to above is "spousification".

And if it's not something that can be professionally diagnosed as one person suffering from it how should the 'dynamic' be described? For example, rather than saying 'the child is a mini wife', one should say.... what, exactly? The child has been spousified, the parent is spousifying the child?
Yes, that seems to be the language used within a therapeutic or academic approach. The origins of the term, if you look at the literature, lie in family systems therapy - so the idea really includes in it the point that it isn't about one individual within a family, but about how this impacts and involves the family as a system. So the behaviours of the child - which emerge in response to actions of the parent(s) - have an impact of their own. That isn't the same as blaming a child, but it does acknowledge that there is more going on (wherever it 'began') than a one-way adult-child interaction. The spousification or parentification of one child can have repercussions for other children in the home (as previous posters have said about their own experience).

sorry, wakey, cross-post!

I agree with Thumb, that "inappropriate adultification" would be a better term and one that pathologises the child less.

Regardless of what we think upon reading it on a MN thread, these terms have an existence of their own and established meanings, developed by the professionals over 40-some years and with quite a lot of research and practice behind them. I'm not sure that there's much usefulness in coming up with new terms made up on the spot, which might prevent people from actually knowing what is being talked about.

To be a tiny bit flippant - I don't much like the term "Cesarean section" (historically dubious and apparently rooted in a pretty misogynistic practice under Roman law) - but it is the correct term and making up alternatives - what? "tummy birth"? - is both pointless and counterproductive if one actually wishes to learn about C-sections.

I guess one can substitute phrases in one's own mind that one prefers, much as some people probably do if they are uncomfortable with the proper words for genitalia. [shrugs] The point is that it's not really open to debate or discussion what the thing "should" be called, as it already has a pretty firmly established actual name.
A lot of people are distressed by people using the the term "mini wife" which I think it is clear has no meaning within professional practice or academic discourse. Perhaps using the proper terms for things ought to be the goal here.

Debating the terminology defined in DSM and other clinical classification systems is probably material for a whole other thread - AIBU to think that you can catch chickenpox from chickens? - the fact is, the terms "Parentification" and "Spousification" are defined in such systems, and used by therapists in order to prescribe appropriate family therapy interventions.

Denying their existence and refusing to engage in meaningful discussion because the medical terms offend is self-defeating, or at the very least, willingly ignorant.

X-post; sorry brdgrl!

that's twice in a row we've done that,. wakey!

YABVU about the chickenpox, btw.

I don't think anyone is denying the term Spousification or Parentification though are they "Wakey*? Some are saying that they don't like it or that it is often applied incorrectly to a situation but I don't think anyone denies that that kind of family dynamic does exist and that it is damaging to the child.

Faire, I think, without looking back up thread, that this thread has seen a bit of a breakthrough, in that no one on this thread has come out and said it is "a fantasy" or "an internet buzzword", but there have been repeated attempts on thread after thread, to deny both the existence of the entire concept, and to deny posters' individual experience of behaviours that might be helpfully considered in the context of the ideas. Hopefully we can now move on from the basic position of having to 'prove' something exists!

I think too that the insistence on 'debating' the terminology is (and perhaps this is deliberate and perhaps it is not) another way of undermining the actual discussion of the very real concepts. It's a distraction, and it also, if left to stand, might add to a general misconception that these are not in fact widely accepted therapeutic concepts.

On the few threads where I have discussed MWS & the other 2 my stance was and still is this.

I dislike MWS. I think it is very ill fitting of the issue and goes some way to blaming the child. I think it is applied to many situations where it is unsuitable and for me is a label that could cause more harm than good.

Parentification/Spousification are used in some professional circles to describe the complex and damaging situations children end up in because of the adults who care for their upbringing and well being. However I do not think this applies to all situations and careful consideration should be given when stating 'this sounds like .......ification'

I have never attacked a poster or said it was fantasy/all in their head etc. I also do not agree with the all SM are evil either in fact more often than not it is the father's behaviour that has influenced the child. I have expressed a dislike for the term MWS and explained why. On the few SM threads I have posted on I try to see it from all angles and offer advice where I can.

I have no problem debating a topic or subject but I am tired of the behaviour of some that disagree with me and others who dislike the term MWS. A debate loses it's strength when posters resort to name calling/accusations and general nastiness which I have observed the last few days.

Tapper I also received the same e-mail. I have accepted what MNHQ have asked even though I have not (to my knowledge) had a post deleted in the last 10 days from any of the threads I have commented on. I will continue to share my experience with others while standing by my convictions but adhering the request from MNHQ.

Can you link to any posts where the issues themselves have been denied completely? Where the Step Parent has been told it's all in their head? Because personally I believe I have only ever taken issue with spiteful name calling towards children, the use of the term "mini wives" and have resisted the idea that a CHILD is any way responsible for such situations. I post strenuously against that idea and seem to be known for it, yet don't believe I have ever denied the problem entirely, which is now being claimed is the REAL issue.

As far as I can tell that is what the majority of posters have argued. It seems quite a new one on me this claim of utter denial of these particular issues. Most posters have argued that it is wrong to be spiteful and blameful towards the children involved. Which is quite right and everyone seems to be in agreement with that.......now.

Makes me wonder what we are all arguing about? Since we now all seem to be in agreement.

Oh and everything flossymoo said.

Parentification/Spousification are used in some professional circles to describe the complex and damaging situations children end up in because of the adults who care for their upbringing and well being

I'm sorry to labour the point, but these aren't terms that are just "used in some professional circles", they appear in national/internationally recognised Medical Classification Systems.
They are, just like the personality disorder definitions introduced in the '80s, debated within medical circles, as to their accuracy, benefits and inclusion - but these terms have progressed from being a term used by a few professionals who observe similarities between cases to being an agreed and documented definition, for which treatments can be proposed.

I do agree though, they can, just like any other term, be used inappropriately in armchair diagnosis. A read of the mental health board, or the relationship board, reveals that other terms, such as personality disorders, PTSD and similar terms are also challenged when diagnosed by posters. Unlike here on the step- board though, there is rarely the level of personal judgement applied to the person using such terms.

I believe, given what has gone before, that if I link to individual threads and posts, that I will be then criticised for doing so, and i have no intention of giving that opening. I also have no intention of giving certain posters yet another 'go' at individuals who have already been attacked for mentioning their own experiences within their homes.

If any reader doubts that the existence of spousification and parentification has been denied as a thearapeutic concept generally, I suggest that they have a read themselves of the threads on the SP board over the last two-three weeks. They will find a number of crystal clear examples in whihc people deny, in their ignorance, the very existence of this very real concept. I would suggest that that reader look particularly at the lengthier threads. Alternatively, the interested reader might wish to search the terms "mini-wife" and "spousification" and read the entirety of the threads in which the terms are mentioned. These are long reads, I know, but I think they will be quite revealing to anyone who has a genuine interest in the topic and the way it has been discussed on the SP boards.

If anyone has any doubt about the way that women who raise concerns about what they see as unhealthy dynamics in their home, regarding parent-child boundaries, they will have a slightly more time-consuming task before them, as they can go back literally years on the SP board to find cases of posters being attacked or told that they have imagined, or created out of jealousy, the same dynamic.

The nice thing about very nasty and mob-handed threads being left to stand, of course, is that people may find themselves caught in their own words.

Yes brd it is a shame nasty name calling and accusatory posts aren't left to stand also.

Oh I certainly agree with your last paragraph, though also believe that a plethora of deletions for breaking talk guidelines can be equally useful in indicating how to perceive certain posters too.

I agree entirely, Flossy, and suggest a statistical analysis of the percentage of posts deleted would provide very interesting reading indeed. For instance, I have no name-changes, an enormous number of posts, and yet a relatively small number of deletions. Most that I do have seem to be in response to the same posters, which is another interesting statistical factor.
I suppose maybe it helps that I have a genuine interest in posting on step-parenting issues.

I do agree though, they can, just like any other term, be used inappropriately in armchair diagnosis. A read of the mental health board, or the relationship board, reveals that other terms, such as personality disorders, PTSD and similar terms are also challenged when diagnosed by posters.

Yes, this is what I was getting at earlier. It isn't always helpful to offer a label which we cannot know is appropriate. It would, presumably, take the intervention of a family therapist or other qualified professional.

In all the cases though, it is agreed that the child cannot change anything because they have neither the power nor intellect to do so. What it boils down to is some posters blaming children for behaviour which they have little or no control of. Instead they should be questioning the adults' behaviour.

I haven't seen any issues raised that have been denied completely or called a fantasy. There is no doubt that the child may well be exhibiting inappropriate behaviour and there is no doubt that the adult is the one who needs to do something about it. No-one has denied that, as far as I can remember.

Makes me wonder what we are all arguing about? Since we now all seem to be in agreement.

I agree Nicki and I think it may be because we have all now taken the time to stop and listen, without taking comments personally or throwing around insults or sarcasm.

Perhaps HQ are right after all - peace and love

Clashcityroller and perpendicular thank you yes things are much better now as he eventually left home after sending me abusive texts and refusing to retract or apologise. He left home rather than do so.
To those that have doubted anyone would defend such actions or behaviour as his then all I can say is 'only in Stepland' would such behaviour be explained away or excused for some reason or the parent(s) would be blamed. There were/are hardcore posters who equate stepchild = cant possibly be a bad 'un and concentrate on defending them and suggesting ways other people can modify their behaviour around them etc. anything except blame the 'child' though in my case obviously he was a young adult.