Ok, Ok, where's the magic Rule Book then?

[SpaceshiptoMars]

I keep seeing posts saying ''Step parents should... blah blah blah". No good reasons why, just 'because I say so'.

So come on then, all those who want to be rule setters for Step Mums. Where is your authority? Why do you think you get to tell other adults how to behave in their own home? Is it some kind of religious thing? Where is all this coming from?

@Steptoeandson @Tuesday598 I own this house as well. (We rent out DH's house just in case) when I decorated SD's bedroom single handed and went to huge expense furnishing it (DH's budget was knackered due to maintenance) SD posted it on her socials saying how great her new bedroom at her dads was.

@pitchforksandflamethrowers god no. The one and only time I laid down the law asking for privacy on SD's flailing attempts to be a "gram" influencer and stop blasting details of my home to random strangers bought for likes she went catatonic on me. We've not spoken for 2 years now. SS is a sweetheart though

the expectation that you should ‘be the bigger person’ and display pictures of your husband’s ex in your home is one of those ridiculous SP things. Your feelings or comfort in your own home matter less than anyone else’s.

And, of course, there is no way a child could feel welcome if there aren’t photos of their mother in the house. Is there?

Just bonkers logic that has no basis in reality.

I personally never ever understand the insistence that children should sooner go to someone their parent pulled off the street than back to their other parent on a day that isn't "theirs".

I'll never for the life of me understand that and I could never operate like that personally as a parent.

Yep it's open to abuse by a flakey ex, I get that. But if my ex is shitty then unfortunately that falls on me as my child's mother. I would HATE my child to think I'd refused to have them when their dad chooses not to. Obviously different if you're at work but you see it all the time on here like 'no, dad will need to hire a nanny, it doesn't matter if mum is at home doing nothing it's not HER DAY'. Just ew. I couldn't be like that as a mother personally. I'm my child's mother every single day and if my ex was so shit and flakey I'd be going back to court to get the agreement altered so my child was with me more often not locking my door and refusing to let them back in my home until it was my day again.

I just couldn't imagine saying 'no you'll have to stay with your step mother for the weekend if your dad isn't there, it's not my time to have you dear'.

People go on about the poor children, it's better for them to be in their routine going to dad's house even if he's not there. I honestly disagree. I lived with my dad growing up and I can tell you for certain if my mum decided she wasn't going to be around for contact I'd much sooner have stayed at home with my dad then be sent to just sit in the house with my SF (and I like my SF!).

I always find it interesting how the same posters who declare "when you marry a man with children blah blah blah you must look after them in your home even when dad isn't there as it's their home and they have a right to be in it whenever suits them and their mother blah blah they will know how you feel about them if you don't let them in blah blah don't come crying to us if in 20 years time they don't want to know your child blah blah blah"
Yeah, those posters...They never seem to think that the child will know how their own mother felt about them when she would not have them when it wasn't her day, never seem to think that might be hurtful/damaging etc. It's only when the only adult who didn't actually produce the child and doesn't have any parental responsibility for the child has the temerity to have other things to do than look after them that there is a risk to the child's long term emotional well-being.
The Rules are very contrary to indeed.

It always strikes me that the people shouting most loudly on any of those kind of threads about how they are your family and it’s their home and poor kids are generally the furthest away from any actual
consideration of how the children might feel or what they might want.

But, because the problem is that the child’s
parents don’t want to put the child they chose to have first, the focus must be on the third party who can more easily be blamed. The fact the mother doesn’t want her child because its her time off, in particular, is not viewed negatively because there’s a stepmother to blame for not living up to her responsibilities. Same with the child’s father who cannot be expected to sort his own childcare out because there a woman who is somehow obligated to just be that childcare whenever it suits.

The rule that stepmothers are always in the wrong works amazingly to deflect attention away for the inadequacies of the child’s actual parents.

I love the 'when you marry a man with a child' posts. They are always said as if you should have foreseen this EXACT scenario before marrying him and therefore cannot find it maddening or annoying.

You could say something like 'my 18 year old SS just walked in and took a shit on my living room carpet and is now refusing to clean it up, AIBU to be really mad about this and insist he cleans it' and you'll get someone saying 'what did you expect when you married a man with children?'.

You can marry a man with children and still get cross or mad at unreasonable behaviour ffs. It's always said like a gotcha answer as well. And they never come back to actually explain their thinking either 9 times out of 10.

the furthest away from any actual
consideration of how the children might feel or what they might want.

No, most of the time on those threads it's solely about what the mother wants (not having her kids back early or on dad's day). That's not to say dad is right but if we're being honest, most kids are going to want to be with their mother over their step mother if dad isn't around. It's nothing to do with the child's best interests.

And the 'they should be able to be in their home whenever they want' only works one way. Because if the child said I want to be at mum's then in that situation it would be 'but it's not MY DAYYYYYYYY'.

If your ex is useless then yes it's really shit and its annoying to always have to be the one to cancel plans or pick up the slack. But no one else is going to do it for my child other than me if my ex chooses to be a useless father and nor should they. It's very much my cross to bear imo.

Had someone suggested you should?!

I saw a poster yesterday who basically said if you're not willing to accept that you'll never do anything right and get stick from the child's actual parents all the time whilst sitting back quietly and saying nothing and loving the children unconditionally then you should never have become a step parent in the first place.

Do these people hear themselves?

It’s their home is problematic. Because it is not their only or main home. And everyone knows it. It’s affects things in so many ways.

As is the total lack of consideration for the actual child in claims that you must treat SC like your own child. Few SC actually want that. For many that would be extremely upsetting.

It’s all won’t anyone think of the children in the abstract. The realities and practicalities are just inconvenient to the narrative.

It amazes me that they cannot or will not see that it’s the child’s parents who are behaving badly and letting everyone down.

It seems that the unspoken subtext of the wedding vows goes both ways. The SM is apparently signing up for this shit. And her husband is not promising to care about her or taking on responsibilities to her at all. It just sounds like it, but the small print tells a very different story. He doesn’t have to care about his wife’s well-being because she signed up for this.

That’s, of course, why hus and his ex’s ’I chose this’ badges can go in the bin.

He doesn’t have to care about his wife’s well-being because she signed up for this
That's it exactly. It's the worst kind of misogyny. He's not marrying to have a wife and an equal partner to go through life with, he's signing a contract for a skivvy to jump to the demands of his ex and children, apparently. He owes her nothing and she owes him everything - her labour, her time, her money, endless compromising and sacrifice. And "she knew what she was getting into so she deserves all she gets, silly woman" is always the subtext.
I do wonder if the people who believe this is reasonable have any sense of how real life humans and healthy relationships operate.

The Rules are very contrary indeed.

They are @Yousee. It’s like the rules when you’re being made to play a game with an 8 year old girl. They just keep shifting so that you’re never doing anything right.

I’m sure you can all picture the misery. No. You can’t do that because… Then she does it, but that’s fine because…. But that thing you did before is now wrong.

standing on shifting sands.

I don't understand either why it's only ever step children that require 5 million people doing things for them. Most children get by just fine with two even one parent but noooooooooooo, it's mightily unreasonable to suggest DSC do whatever their two parents can accommodate.

I think a lot of issues would be solved by the parents just parenting as if the step parents didn't exist. For example getting your child to school but you start work too early? Well what would you if SM wasn't around? Do that.

Too many parents think they have a right to someone's help with their children and then get pissy at it not being done properly or to their standard or when and exactly how they want it. Do it yourself then and there wouldn't be a problem.

And when they do get pissy, you always have a hoard of poster's encouraging it because it's the step parents 'obligation'. Hahaha no.

Another one of my favourites is the ones who think a step mother should ring the child's mother to check something or get her permission for something even when their husband, the child's father, has okay'd it (or just allowed his wife to make a decision because he trusts her judgement).

Hell would freeze before I rang my DSCs mother to ask her permission to do anything 😂 it she doesn't like something, take it up with DH. His is the only opinion I really care about when it comes to DSC and even then, if there was something we fundamentally disagreed about in regards to them I'd tell him to sort it himself then rather than be instructed what to do.

The Rule Bookers will also claim in all seriousness that what the parents would do if the SM wasn't around is irrelevant if she wants her marriage to survive because she is around to service everyone's needs.
Then in the next breath claim that what the SM would do if the DSC was her child is extremely relevant because The Rule is that the DSC is her child.
Which is a lie that unravels pretty quickly IMO once the SM starts to get involved with discipline and tickets to school plays and all of a sudden shes not a real parent and should stay in her lane.

Oooo yes the 'what would you do if it were your child?'

Whataboutery that has no relevance 99% of the time.

Or another good one 'what if their mum died'.

Well she hasn't so what is your point?

What if the aliens invaded tomorrow? Stupid questions that aren't actually relevant to the discussion.