Does a blended family actually work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the general consensus here is if you divorce, no family for you. I get divorce is awful, and it’s awful for all involved, not just the children, but how is it that you should then be doomed to a life of solitude? Marriage and family are normal desires, and those that are divorced still have normal human desires.

If you are able to navigate a blended family in a reasonable, responsible, mature way, I think it can work. We only live once, one shouldn’t deprive themselves of happiness because of a past error.

No, I think the general consensus here is that it is dishonest to pretend that there is not a very high probability of significant negative consequences on the first set of kids. You have to make your decision and live with the consequences; it is the pretending that there aren’t, or shouldn’t be, any such consequences that people are reacting so negatively to.

Just speaking for myself, who was in a relatively late and relatively benign situation: it is at minimum deeply obnoxious to be pressured to pretend that people you aren’t related to, have nothing in common with, and don’t particularly like are “family.” It’s worse when they make bad decisions regarding relationships, money, or substances—your family life is now pressured, and potentially compromised, by people you have no interest in. And they are at every Christmas, Thanksgiving, graduation, etc. Forever. The reasonable best case, it seems to me, is for the initial set of children to distance themselves from the family unit in general, with a reasonably high probability of some sort of train wreck. I’m sure there are a few outliers with very positive experiences. I understand the feeling that it shouldn’t have to be that way. But reality is what it is.

Marriage and family are normal desires, I agree. But I was married and I have my family.

Now I'm divorced. I dont believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Therefore I am now free to have as much sex as I want. I already have a family, and believe strongly that I need to put them first, despite my failed marriage. As such, I will not remarry, probably ever, but will 100% NOT "blend" families while I have kids in my house (so, 8 more years). Ive looked at the pros, I've looked at the cons......the cons win the day, for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resentment toward step-relations is astounding. Is it anger about divorce? Competition? Wouldn’t life be easier if you embraced and formed relationships with steps? I know multiple people whose relationships with step-siblings is incredibly strong, and I do think with the right attitudes it is possible to create a family dynamic that works.

You are absolutely right that positive attitudes BY EVERYONE can make it work. This includes biological parents, stepparents, in laws, and all bio/step kids.

Sadly, the vast majority will never be able to achieve this for a variety of reasons including biological hard-wiring favoring their own children, resentment over resources, and just plain anger and jealousy because the family of origin dissolved. Introducing new people into this kind of boiling environment, no matter how decent or well-meaning they are, will inevitably fail.

Most people want their choice of spouse to be at least accepted with an open mind by their loved ones. Certainly most kids would like it if their parents gave their spouse a chance. It also includes parents who want to find a partner. Look at the poster above you for a clue. Words like "command performance" and "sad charade of a family" are telling.

None of this will ever change until education about stepfamilies is approached in a comprehensive manner which deals with the emotional and mental issues that can arise. It includes courts recognizing that parental alienation after divorce is real and can have a profoundly negative impact on children. It also means resolving and dispelling the age-old stereotypes regarding stepparents. The vast majority of stepparents are doing incredible jobs trying to balance everyone's complex lives, not step on anyone's toes, figure out when to step back and when to lean forward, and still be able to love whom they chose without prejudice.

The reality is we are living longer and the odds that most people will stay with one person for 60 years or more is not realistic. Statistically there will be more than one partner in a person's life. It's time we address it.

It's not a matter of a positive attitude! First, a lot of parents make bad choices in relationships. Children shouldn't have to accept a partner who behaves inappropriately or is exploitative, or someone whose family brings problematic things like drugs into the family. People have the right to date and remarry, sure, but they don't have the right to force me to spend time with people whose behaviors are unacceptable. My positive attitude isn't going to sober up my dad's wife. It isn't going to stop my mom's boyfriend from being a racist. I'm not the problem here.

Second, where is all this time supposed to come from? Spending time with people costs time and money, and sorry but I'm fresh out. I'm a working mom with young kids of my own. And I have my own marriage to maintain. It's already an exhausting ordeal just to travel to spend the minimal amount of time with my parents. Yet they can't accept that their divorce means 50/50 time forever. They're always pushing for more, so we can be a big happy faaaaamily. I just don't have time for two step-extended-families in addition to my own two parents in two locations and my in-laws as well. I need to focus on my actual relatives, not my fictional ones. If they would accept that the blending just isn't going to happen, we'd have a better relationship.

Amen!!! My (well, now ex) step siblings are perfectly decent people. They are all employed, none are addicts or unkind in any way, they were nice to my kids. I have zero against them, but we have zero in common. I wouldn’t choose to be friends with them. I feel about them the same way I might feel about a bland coworker.

And the instant our parents divorced, the relationship was over (including my stepmom who had been “grandma” to my kids).

I absolutely don’t hate my ex-step siblings, I truly wish them well but I have no interest whatsoever in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resentment toward step-relations is astounding. Is it anger about divorce? Competition? Wouldn’t life be easier if you embraced and formed relationships with steps? I know multiple people whose relationships with step-siblings is incredibly strong, and I do think with the right attitudes it is possible to create a family dynamic that works.

You are absolutely right that positive attitudes BY EVERYONE can make it work. This includes biological parents, stepparents, in laws, and all bio/step kids.

Sadly, the vast majority will never be able to achieve this for a variety of reasons including biological hard-wiring favoring their own children, resentment over resources, and just plain anger and jealousy because the family of origin dissolved. Introducing new people into this kind of boiling environment, no matter how decent or well-meaning they are, will inevitably fail.

Most people want their choice of spouse to be at least accepted with an open mind by their loved ones. Certainly most kids would like it if their parents gave their spouse a chance. It also includes parents who want to find a partner. Look at the poster above you for a clue. Words like "command performance" and "sad charade of a family" are telling.

None of this will ever change until education about stepfamilies is approached in a comprehensive manner which deals with the emotional and mental issues that can arise. It includes courts recognizing that parental alienation after divorce is real and can have a profoundly negative impact on children. It also means resolving and dispelling the age-old stereotypes regarding stepparents. The vast majority of stepparents are doing incredible jobs trying to balance everyone's complex lives, not step on anyone's toes, figure out when to step back and when to lean forward, and still be able to love whom they chose without prejudice.

The reality is we are living longer and the odds that most people will stay with one person for 60 years or more is not realistic. Statistically there will be more than one partner in a person's life. It's time we address it.

It's not a matter of a positive attitude! First, a lot of parents make bad choices in relationships. Children shouldn't have to accept a partner who behaves inappropriately or is exploitative, or someone whose family brings problematic things like drugs into the family. People have the right to date and remarry, sure, but they don't have the right to force me to spend time with people whose behaviors are unacceptable. My positive attitude isn't going to sober up my dad's wife. It isn't going to stop my mom's boyfriend from being a racist. I'm not the problem here.

Second, where is all this time supposed to come from? Spending time with people costs time and money, and sorry but I'm fresh out. I'm a working mom with young kids of my own. And I have my own marriage to maintain. It's already an exhausting ordeal just to travel to spend the minimal amount of time with my parents. Yet they can't accept that their divorce means 50/50 time forever. They're always pushing for more, so we can be a big happy faaaaamily. I just don't have time for two step-extended-families in addition to my own two parents in two locations and my in-laws as well. I need to focus on my actual relatives, not my fictional ones. If they would accept that the blending just isn't going to happen, we'd have a better relationship.

Amen!!! My (well, now ex) step siblings are perfectly decent people. They are all employed, none are addicts or unkind in any way, they were nice to my kids. I have zero against them, but we have zero in common. I wouldn’t choose to be friends with them. I feel about them the same way I might feel about a bland coworker.

And the instant our parents divorced, the relationship was over (including my stepmom who had been “grandma” to my kids).

I absolutely don’t hate my ex-step siblings, I truly wish them well but I have no interest whatsoever in them.

Adult stepkids like you are the reason why I don’t want to be anyone’s grandma should I remarry. There’s this weird contradiction between new spouses being expected to invest in their steps, including kids of the adult stepkids, and just ditching them when the marriage falls apart. Sounds like users!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resentment toward step-relations is astounding. Is it anger about divorce? Competition? Wouldn’t life be easier if you embraced and formed relationships with steps? I know multiple people whose relationships with step-siblings is incredibly strong, and I do think with the right attitudes it is possible to create a family dynamic that works.

You are absolutely right that positive attitudes BY EVERYONE can make it work. This includes biological parents, stepparents, in laws, and all bio/step kids.

Sadly, the vast majority will never be able to achieve this for a variety of reasons including biological hard-wiring favoring their own children, resentment over resources, and just plain anger and jealousy because the family of origin dissolved. Introducing new people into this kind of boiling environment, no matter how decent or well-meaning they are, will inevitably fail.

Most people want their choice of spouse to be at least accepted with an open mind by their loved ones. Certainly most kids would like it if their parents gave their spouse a chance. It also includes parents who want to find a partner. Look at the poster above you for a clue. Words like "command performance" and "sad charade of a family" are telling.

None of this will ever change until education about stepfamilies is approached in a comprehensive manner which deals with the emotional and mental issues that can arise. It includes courts recognizing that parental alienation after divorce is real and can have a profoundly negative impact on children. It also means resolving and dispelling the age-old stereotypes regarding stepparents. The vast majority of stepparents are doing incredible jobs trying to balance everyone's complex lives, not step on anyone's toes, figure out when to step back and when to lean forward, and still be able to love whom they chose without prejudice.

The reality is we are living longer and the odds that most people will stay with one person for 60 years or more is not realistic. Statistically there will be more than one partner in a person's life. It's time we address it.

It's not a matter of a positive attitude! First, a lot of parents make bad choices in relationships. Children shouldn't have to accept a partner who behaves inappropriately or is exploitative, or someone whose family brings problematic things like drugs into the family. People have the right to date and remarry, sure, but they don't have the right to force me to spend time with people whose behaviors are unacceptable. My positive attitude isn't going to sober up my dad's wife. It isn't going to stop my mom's boyfriend from being a racist. I'm not the problem here.

Second, where is all this time supposed to come from? Spending time with people costs time and money, and sorry but I'm fresh out. I'm a working mom with young kids of my own. And I have my own marriage to maintain. It's already an exhausting ordeal just to travel to spend the minimal amount of time with my parents. Yet they can't accept that their divorce means 50/50 time forever. They're always pushing for more, so we can be a big happy faaaaamily. I just don't have time for two step-extended-families in addition to my own two parents in two locations and my in-laws as well. I need to focus on my actual relatives, not my fictional ones. If they would accept that the blending just isn't going to happen, we'd have a better relationship.

Amen!!! My (well, now ex) step siblings are perfectly decent people. They are all employed, none are addicts or unkind in any way, they were nice to my kids. I have zero against them, but we have zero in common. I wouldn’t choose to be friends with them. I feel about them the same way I might feel about a bland coworker.

And the instant our parents divorced, the relationship was over (including my stepmom who had been “grandma” to my kids).

I absolutely don’t hate my ex-step siblings, I truly wish them well but I have no interest whatsoever in them.

Adult stepkids like you are the reason why I don’t want to be anyone’s grandma should I remarry. There’s this weird contradiction between new spouses being expected to invest in their steps, including kids of the adult stepkids, and just ditching them when the marriage falls apart. Sounds like users!

maybe you just shouldn’t remarry ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the “Evil Stepmother“ is an historic archetype for a reason, she‘s existed in oral tradition even predating written history. Since women died so often in childbirth, widowers always remarried with their children and fathered more with new wives. If you ever venture into the sewage of Steptalk, you will witness how little has changed. The studies show that men admit to disliking their stepchildren at about a 50% rate and women hate them even MORE. A lot of this is because the childcare falls almost always on the stepmom. But you cannot ignore the preference you instinctively have for your children over another woman’s (who birthed them with your husband!). How people in the 21st century think they will escape the biological imperative imprinted in their DNA (and thousand year old fairy tales!) is baffling.

You are right in some respects. But there is a world of difference between a historic-era woman trying to raise a deceased woman's kids along with her own, often with highly limited resources, compared to today's scenarios where the biological mother (and father) are very much involved in day-to-day life.

The most vital element in any potential "blended" success story is the children's biological mother. Numerous studies which have shown that if the children's mother can show them she is accepting of the SM - not as an actual mother, per se - but as an important adult in the child's life, there is a potential for the family to succeed. Unfortunately, this rarely happens since most women are imprinted in their DNA to fear other women who form bonds with their kids. It is next to impossible to let another woman become a important to your children without jealousy eventually rearing its head, especially when that woman is now with your former husband.

Different poster here

I think that actually proves pp's point even more. For the historic-era step mother, the previous wife/mom was dead, she was no longer any type of threat or competition. Modern day step mother, the ex wife/bio mom is still there, showing up at the house several times a week to exchange custody of the kids, right there in the same room at school plays and baseball games, etc.
Yes, historic era step mom had a lot of the work/responsibility of raising her husband's kids, but she also had a lot of authority and power as the sole "mother figure" in their life.
Today's step mom still has some of the work/responsibility, still has her time/schedule disrupted by the events/activities in her stepchild's life--yet really has NO authority or power.

Exactly. It does prove the point. Since the old stereotype continues to persist, the modern stepmother is often reviled and blamed for stepfamily issues by society at large despite her best efforts. Children learn to hate stepmothers at an early age even if they don't have one. Think Cinderella. If someone says "I hate my stepmother." they are immediately sympathized with. If a stepmother says, "The situation with my stepkids is very difficult." she is immediately told, "You knew what you were getting into. Suck it all up without complaint because the kids [no matter their ages, including adult kids] come first."

The Evil Stepmother archetype is so persistent (and ancient) because it describes a psychological behavior that is rooted in biology: every fairy tale features the new mother (Evil Stepmother) who is angered by the presence of a young child who competes for her husband‘s affections and resources. Steptalk refers to their stepdaughters as mini-wives (without even a hint of self-reflective irony!), these cunning little creatures whom Dad never says No to (which is also true, divorced dads often compensate for their guilt by being overly permissive). Cinderella even describes the conflict of bio kids - the stepmother wants her daughters to be wed to the prince and despises her stepdaughter for being more loved and beautiful than her own. Hansel and Gretel is about a stepmother who is asked to share the last of their food (resources) with her stepchildren and she gets angry at her husband for “choosing“ his children‘s lives over hers. And by the way, all of the fairy tale stories end with the Stepmother’s attempt to “kill“ the creature taking away her husband‘s love and resources so she and their biological children together will be a complete family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the “Evil Stepmother“ is an historic archetype for a reason, she‘s existed in oral tradition even predating written history. Since women died so often in childbirth, widowers always remarried with their children and fathered more with new wives. If you ever venture into the sewage of Steptalk, you will witness how little has changed. The studies show that men admit to disliking their stepchildren at about a 50% rate and women hate them even MORE. A lot of this is because the childcare falls almost always on the stepmom. But you cannot ignore the preference you instinctively have for your children over another woman’s (who birthed them with your husband!). How people in the 21st century think they will escape the biological imperative imprinted in their DNA (and thousand year old fairy tales!) is baffling.

You are right in some respects. But there is a world of difference between a historic-era woman trying to raise a deceased woman's kids along with her own, often with highly limited resources, compared to today's scenarios where the biological mother (and father) are very much involved in day-to-day life.

The most vital element in any potential "blended" success story is the children's biological mother. Numerous studies which have shown that if the children's mother can show them she is accepting of the SM - not as an actual mother, per se - but as an important adult in the child's life, there is a potential for the family to succeed. Unfortunately, this rarely happens since most women are imprinted in their DNA to fear other women who form bonds with their kids. It is next to impossible to let another woman become a important to your children without jealousy eventually rearing its head, especially when that woman is now with your former husband.

Different poster here

I think that actually proves pp's point even more. For the historic-era step mother, the previous wife/mom was dead, she was no longer any type of threat or competition. Modern day step mother, the ex wife/bio mom is still there, showing up at the house several times a week to exchange custody of the kids, right there in the same room at school plays and baseball games, etc.
Yes, historic era step mom had a lot of the work/responsibility of raising her husband's kids, but she also had a lot of authority and power as the sole "mother figure" in their life.
Today's step mom still has some of the work/responsibility, still has her time/schedule disrupted by the events/activities in her stepchild's life--yet really has NO authority or power.

Exactly. It does prove the point. Since the old stereotype continues to persist, the modern stepmother is often reviled and blamed for stepfamily issues by society at large despite her best efforts. Children learn to hate stepmothers at an early age even if they don't have one. Think Cinderella. If someone says "I hate my stepmother." they are immediately sympathized with. If a stepmother says, "The situation with my stepkids is very difficult." she is immediately told, "You knew what you were getting into. Suck it all up without complaint because the kids [no matter their ages, including adult kids] come first."

The Evil Stepmother archetype is so persistent (and ancient) because it describes a psychological behavior that is rooted in biology: every fairy tale features the new mother (Evil Stepmother) who is angered by the presence of a young child who competes for her husband‘s affections and resources. Steptalk refers to their stepdaughters as mini-wives (without even a hint of self-reflective irony!), these cunning little creatures whom Dad never says No to (which is also true, divorced dads often compensate for their guilt by being overly permissive). Cinderella even describes the conflict of bio kids - the stepmother wants her daughters to be wed to the prince and despises her stepdaughter for being more loved and beautiful than her own. Hansel and Gretel is about a stepmother who is asked to share the last of their food (resources) with her stepchildren and she gets angry at her husband for “choosing“ his children‘s lives over hers. And by the way, all of the fairy tale stories end with the Stepmother’s attempt to “kill“ the creature taking away her husband‘s love and resources so she and their biological children together will be a complete family.

Notice how the focus seems to be on the evil stepmother? Is that intent or an actual reflection of reality at that time? If you delve into fairy tales (particularly in the original languages) it becomes an interesting study.

The Brothers Grimm rewrote Snow White in 1819 to change the character from an evil MOTHER to an evil Stepmother.

By the fourth edition (1840) of Hansel and Gretel the evil character had transformed from the biological mother to stepmother:

"Originally it was just a mother in dire poverty ... threatened to be starving, [who] talks her husband into abandoning the children in the woods, and had to die off-stage before the children come home (probably to avoid the confrontation). Later editions and adaptions either turned her into an evil stepmother or made her regret bitterly what the couple had done to the kids."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4nsel_und_Gretel

I suggest it is time to retire literature, particularly which influences young children, that continues to solidify stereotypes of step relationships. We do this with stories and books which are racist and otherwise bigoted, why not steps? Imagine the difference if children were read books which teach them that their family may change over time, and that is not a horrible, evil thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the general consensus here is if you divorce, no family for you. I get divorce is awful, and it’s awful for all involved, not just the children, but how is it that you should then be doomed to a life of solitude? Marriage and family are normal desires, and those that are divorced still have normal human desires.

If you are able to navigate a blended family in a reasonable, responsible, mature way, I think it can work. We only live once, one shouldn’t deprive themselves of happiness because of a past error.

No, I think the general consensus here is that it is dishonest to pretend that there is not a very high probability of significant negative consequences on the first set of kids. You have to make your decision and live with the consequences; it is the pretending that there aren’t, or shouldn’t be, any such consequences that people are reacting so negatively to.

Just speaking for myself, who was in a relatively late and relatively benign situation: it is at minimum deeply obnoxious to be pressured to pretend that people you aren’t related to, have nothing in common with, and don’t particularly like are “family.” It’s worse when they make bad decisions regarding relationships, money, or substances—your family life is now pressured, and potentially compromised, by people you have no interest in. And they are at every Christmas, Thanksgiving, graduation, etc. Forever. The reasonable best case, it seems to me, is for the initial set of children to distance themselves from the family unit in general, with a reasonably high probability of some sort of train wreck. I’m sure there are a few outliers with very positive experiences. I understand the feeling that it shouldn’t have to be that way. But reality is what it is.

Marriage and family are normal desires, I agree. But I was married and I have my family.

Now I'm divorced. I dont believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Therefore I am now free to have as much sex as I want. I already have a family, and believe strongly that I need to put them first, despite my failed marriage. As such, I will not remarry, probably ever, but will 100% NOT "blend" families while I have kids in my house (so, 8 more years). Ive looked at the pros, I've looked at the cons......the cons win the day, for sure.

Good for you PP. I am glad there are people like you that focus on their kids rather than jumping on marrying anyone. If you are independent and secure then a marriage and living together doesn't make any difference to your love life. Infact, it's very healthy to be on your own for some time.

[Anonymous]

If you’re not divorced you have no right to comment on this board. The condescending attitudes about what’s right and “not just marrying anyone” are uncalled for. No one is talking about just marrying anyone. The question is about two people that suffered through divorce finding happiness again and hoping to expand a family.

Yes, it can work if done correctly, especially if the children are young and already get along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not divorced you have no right to comment on this board. The condescending attitudes about what’s right and “not just marrying anyone” are uncalled for. No one is talking about just marrying anyone. The question is about two people that suffered through divorce finding happiness again and hoping to expand a family.

Yes, it can work if done correctly, especially if the children are young and already get along.

Adult children of divorce have a perspective you won't get from divorced people. Divorced people can be very self-deluding about the consequences of their choices, and will stubbornly insist that everything is great, when really things are pretty bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not divorced you have no right to comment on this board. The condescending attitudes about what’s right and “not just marrying anyone” are uncalled for. No one is talking about just marrying anyone. The question is about two people that suffered through divorce finding happiness again and hoping to expand a family.

Yes, it can work if done correctly, especially if the children are young and already get along.

I am the PP who posted this and I am divorced. I have seen very common phenomenon or an urge in single mothers to marry anyone asap after the divorce as they don't want to be alone. These kind of issues need to be worked before entering a new relationship otherwise "marrying anyone" would be another downfall for you and your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not divorced you have no right to comment on this board. The condescending attitudes about what’s right and “not just marrying anyone” are uncalled for. No one is talking about just marrying anyone. The question is about two people that suffered through divorce finding happiness again and hoping to expand a family.

Yes, it can work if done correctly, especially if the children are young and already get along.

Adult children of divorce have a perspective you won't get from divorced people. Divorced people can be very self-deluding about the consequences of their choices, and will stubbornly insist that everything is great, when really things are pretty bad.

nope, that perspective isn't wanted, just people affirming their own wishes and pretending everything is fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not divorced you have no right to comment on this board. The condescending attitudes about what’s right and “not just marrying anyone” are uncalled for. No one is talking about just marrying anyone. The question is about two people that suffered through divorce finding happiness again and hoping to expand a family.

Yes, it can work if done correctly, especially if the children are young and already get along.

Adult children of divorce have a perspective you won't get from divorced people. Divorced people can be very self-deluding about the consequences of their choices, and will stubbornly insist that everything is great, when really things are pretty bad.

A lots of divorced parents just want to avoid the real problems their kids are having and jump into moving in together or re-marriage. Imagine what the kids would go through!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the “Evil Stepmother“ is an historic archetype for a reason, she‘s existed in oral tradition even predating written history. Since women died so often in childbirth, widowers always remarried with their children and fathered more with new wives. If you ever venture into the sewage of Steptalk, you will witness how little has changed. The studies show that men admit to disliking their stepchildren at about a 50% rate and women hate them even MORE. A lot of this is because the childcare falls almost always on the stepmom. But you cannot ignore the preference you instinctively have for your children over another woman’s (who birthed them with your husband!). How people in the 21st century think they will escape the biological imperative imprinted in their DNA (and thousand year old fairy tales!) is baffling.

You are right in some respects. But there is a world of difference between a historic-era woman trying to raise a deceased woman's kids along with her own, often with highly limited resources, compared to today's scenarios where the biological mother (and father) are very much involved in day-to-day life.

The most vital element in any potential "blended" success story is the children's biological mother. Numerous studies which have shown that if the children's mother can show them she is accepting of the SM - not as an actual mother, per se - but as an important adult in the child's life, there is a potential for the family to succeed. Unfortunately, this rarely happens since most women are imprinted in their DNA to fear other women who form bonds with their kids. It is next to impossible to let another woman become a important to your children without jealousy eventually rearing its head, especially when that woman is now with your former husband.

Different poster here

I think that actually proves pp's point even more. For the historic-era step mother, the previous wife/mom was dead, she was no longer any type of threat or competition. Modern day step mother, the ex wife/bio mom is still there, showing up at the house several times a week to exchange custody of the kids, right there in the same room at school plays and baseball games, etc.
Yes, historic era step mom had a lot of the work/responsibility of raising her husband's kids, but she also had a lot of authority and power as the sole "mother figure" in their life.
Today's step mom still has some of the work/responsibility, still has her time/schedule disrupted by the events/activities in her stepchild's life--yet really has NO authority or power.

Exactly. It does prove the point. Since the old stereotype continues to persist, the modern stepmother is often reviled and blamed for stepfamily issues by society at large despite her best efforts. Children learn to hate stepmothers at an early age even if they don't have one. Think Cinderella. If someone says "I hate my stepmother." they are immediately sympathized with. If a stepmother says, "The situation with my stepkids is very difficult." she is immediately told, "You knew what you were getting into. Suck it all up without complaint because the kids [no matter their ages, including adult kids] come first."

The Evil Stepmother archetype is so persistent (and ancient) because it describes a psychological behavior that is rooted in biology: every fairy tale features the new mother (Evil Stepmother) who is angered by the presence of a young child who competes for her husband‘s affections and resources. Steptalk refers to their stepdaughters as mini-wives (without even a hint of self-reflective irony!), these cunning little creatures whom Dad never says No to (which is also true, divorced dads often compensate for their guilt by being overly permissive). Cinderella even describes the conflict of bio kids - the stepmother wants her daughters to be wed to the prince and despises her stepdaughter for being more loved and beautiful than her own. Hansel and Gretel is about a stepmother who is asked to share the last of their food (resources) with her stepchildren and she gets angry at her husband for “choosing“ his children‘s lives over hers. And by the way, all of the fairy tale stories end with the Stepmother’s attempt to “kill“ the creature taking away her husband‘s love and resources so she and their biological children together will be a complete family.

Notice how the focus seems to be on the evil stepmother? Is that intent or an actual reflection of reality at that time? If you delve into fairy tales (particularly in the original languages) it becomes an interesting study.

The Brothers Grimm rewrote Snow White in 1819 to change the character from an evil MOTHER to an evil Stepmother.

By the fourth edition (1840) of Hansel and Gretel the evil character had transformed from the biological mother to stepmother:

"Originally it was just a mother in dire poverty ... threatened to be starving, [who] talks her husband into abandoning the children in the woods, and had to die off-stage before the children come home (probably to avoid the confrontation). Later editions and adaptions either turned her into an evil stepmother or made her regret bitterly what the couple had done to the kids."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4nsel_und_Gretel

I suggest it is time to retire literature, particularly which influences young children, that continues to solidify stereotypes of step relationships. We do this with stories and books which are racist and otherwise bigoted, why not steps? Imagine the difference if children were read books which teach them that their family may change over time, and that is not a horrible, evil thing.

Okay, let‘s do that. Obviously we’ll get rid of Homer‘s Odyssey for the misogyny. Probably the Torah for rampant slavery and the whole sacrificing babies to Molech. Oh yeah, and of course we‘d need to ban Shakespeare altogether for the fratricide, that’s not conducive to positive family modeling.

Fairy tales are not pleasant little make-believe stories to entertain, they are mythical tales that our ancestors used to describe a real truth about humanity (which is why they so stubbornly persist for thousands of years). Had someone understood the stories as warnings, they might not end up on Steptalk thirty years later, lamenting the lazy husband they married whose children despise their new mother for taking their father away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the “Evil Stepmother“ is an historic archetype for a reason, she‘s existed in oral tradition even predating written history. Since women died so often in childbirth, widowers always remarried with their children and fathered more with new wives. If you ever venture into the sewage of Steptalk, you will witness how little has changed. The studies show that men admit to disliking their stepchildren at about a 50% rate and women hate them even MORE. A lot of this is because the childcare falls almost always on the stepmom. But you cannot ignore the preference you instinctively have for your children over another woman’s (who birthed them with your husband!). How people in the 21st century think they will escape the biological imperative imprinted in their DNA (and thousand year old fairy tales!) is baffling.

You are right in some respects. But there is a world of difference between a historic-era woman trying to raise a deceased woman's kids along with her own, often with highly limited resources, compared to today's scenarios where the biological mother (and father) are very much involved in day-to-day life.

The most vital element in any potential "blended" success story is the children's biological mother. Numerous studies which have shown that if the children's mother can show them she is accepting of the SM - not as an actual mother, per se - but as an important adult in the child's life, there is a potential for the family to succeed. Unfortunately, this rarely happens since most women are imprinted in their DNA to fear other women who form bonds with their kids. It is next to impossible to let another woman become a important to your children without jealousy eventually rearing its head, especially when that woman is now with your former husband.

Different poster here

I think that actually proves pp's point even more. For the historic-era step mother, the previous wife/mom was dead, she was no longer any type of threat or competition. Modern day step mother, the ex wife/bio mom is still there, showing up at the house several times a week to exchange custody of the kids, right there in the same room at school plays and baseball games, etc.
Yes, historic era step mom had a lot of the work/responsibility of raising her husband's kids, but she also had a lot of authority and power as the sole "mother figure" in their life.
Today's step mom still has some of the work/responsibility, still has her time/schedule disrupted by the events/activities in her stepchild's life--yet really has NO authority or power.

Exactly. It does prove the point. Since the old stereotype continues to persist, the modern stepmother is often reviled and blamed for stepfamily issues by society at large despite her best efforts. Children learn to hate stepmothers at an early age even if they don't have one. Think Cinderella. If someone says "I hate my stepmother." they are immediately sympathized with. If a stepmother says, "The situation with my stepkids is very difficult." she is immediately told, "You knew what you were getting into. Suck it all up without complaint because the kids [no matter their ages, including adult kids] come first."

The Evil Stepmother archetype is so persistent (and ancient) because it describes a psychological behavior that is rooted in biology: every fairy tale features the new mother (Evil Stepmother) who is angered by the presence of a young child who competes for her husband‘s affections and resources. Steptalk refers to their stepdaughters as mini-wives (without even a hint of self-reflective irony!), these cunning little creatures whom Dad never says No to (which is also true, divorced dads often compensate for their guilt by being overly permissive). Cinderella even describes the conflict of bio kids - the stepmother wants her daughters to be wed to the prince and despises her stepdaughter for being more loved and beautiful than her own. Hansel and Gretel is about a stepmother who is asked to share the last of their food (resources) with her stepchildren and she gets angry at her husband for “choosing“ his children‘s lives over hers. And by the way, all of the fairy tale stories end with the Stepmother’s attempt to “kill“ the creature taking away her husband‘s love and resources so she and their biological children together will be a complete family.

Notice how the focus seems to be on the evil stepmother? Is that intent or an actual reflection of reality at that time? If you delve into fairy tales (particularly in the original languages) it becomes an interesting study.

The Brothers Grimm rewrote Snow White in 1819 to change the character from an evil MOTHER to an evil Stepmother.

By the fourth edition (1840) of Hansel and Gretel the evil character had transformed from the biological mother to stepmother:

"Originally it was just a mother in dire poverty ... threatened to be starving, [who] talks her husband into abandoning the children in the woods, and had to die off-stage before the children come home (probably to avoid the confrontation). Later editions and adaptions either turned her into an evil stepmother or made her regret bitterly what the couple had done to the kids."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4nsel_und_Gretel

I suggest it is time to retire literature, particularly which influences young children, that continues to solidify stereotypes of step relationships. We do this with stories and books which are racist and otherwise bigoted, why not steps? Imagine the difference if children were read books which teach them that their family may change over time, and that is not a horrible, evil thing.

Okay, let‘s do that. Obviously we’ll get rid of Homer‘s Odyssey for the misogyny. Probably the Torah for rampant slavery and the whole sacrificing babies to Molech. Oh yeah, and of course we‘d need to ban Shakespeare altogether for the fratricide, that’s not conducive to positive family modeling.

Fairy tales are not pleasant little make-believe stories to entertain, they are mythical tales that our ancestors used to describe a real truth about humanity (which is why they so stubbornly persist for thousands of years). Had someone understood the stories as warnings, they might not end up on Steptalk thirty years later, lamenting the lazy husband they married whose children despise their new mother for taking their father away.

Some convoluted interpretation there.

No one is reading Homer or Shakespeare to their small children. The example is to illustrate that stereotyping stepmothers as evil[u] in children's books should be curtailed. Why is it acceptable for that trope about stepmothers to remain in children's books but we are horrified and root out all other negative stereotypes in books - based on race, ethnicity, etc.? Statistically most women have a likelihood they will become a stepmother some day so why not "describe [that] real truth about humanity?"

BTW, I wouldn't exactly call fairy tales by the Grimm Brothers as "mythical" since they were written in the 1800s. As were Hans Christian Anderson's.

I wonder what elicited such knee-jerk vitriol. Let me guess: you have a stepmother you hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not divorced you have no right to comment on this board. The condescending attitudes about what’s right and “not just marrying anyone” are uncalled for. No one is talking about just marrying anyone. The question is about two people that suffered through divorce finding happiness again and hoping to expand a family.

Yes, it can work if done correctly, especially if the children are young and already get along.

Adult children of divorce have a perspective you won't get from divorced people. Divorced people can be very self-deluding about the consequences of their choices, and will stubbornly insist that everything is great, when really things are pretty bad.

I get this, but I'm not sure how having parents who are miserably still together, or miserably single with no partner for emotional support, is really that better for kids? At some point you do have to drop the bitterness.