Boundaries are important for making a child feel secure. Boundaries are part of secure attachment.
An intruder into the dynamic must be cognisant of the fact that they will alter those boundaries. Those boundaries need to be re-established slowly and sensitively if, and only if, the intruder is going to be a permanent fixture.
You don't go mucking around with those boundaries with a sledgehammer in an untimely manner. You don't try and usurp the child for your own needs. You don't ignore that the child is the most needy, most vulnerable and most powerful person in the dynamic. You don't confuse the boundaries (with inappropriate behavioural, cognitive and emotional expectations of yourself and others) about who is the adult and who is the child.
Perhaps we're talking about two different kinds of independence, here.
I agree with you, a child with insecure attachments is maybe likely to learn to practically survive at a young age, but there's also the issue of emotional independence, or relying on inner emotional strength and confidence.
Not learning the skills to form healthy relationships in childhood may lead to social/emotional isolation, or dysfunction. It may then be difficult for that person to have the emotional confidence and independence to allow significant others to have relationships with other friends and family members.
I'm not sure I've explained that very well, but I'm conscious of not using too much technical language.
It's interesting that you comment on the widespread practice of extended families living together as if there's something wrong with it.
There's nothing wrong with strong bonds between parents and children, Max. For many people it's also an issue of practicalities and supporting each other, whether that's for financial reasons, or caring for children, or elderly parents, whoever is vulnerable and needs care. There's nothing wrong with families looking after each other.
No, you didn't say you called her names, you did call her names:
You were critical of her, rather than attempting to understand the dynamic. Ypou blamed her, rather than looking at why the situation was evoking a response in you. You were more concerned about your wants and needs than hers, or her child's. You wanted the child's place for yourself.
So, you were trying to exclude the child from the interaction from his/her mother when he/she was obviously trying to communicate something for his/herself? Is that a good way of dealing with a situation when you are the intruder in the mother/child dynamic?
Again, you were the intruder in the dynamic. You should be able to behave like the grown-up and not expect the child to be perfect at behaving like a grown up so you can assume the power position. You need to recognise the child's needs and feelings. You need to recognise the bond between mother and child otherwise you're going to be told to butt out. Which is exactly what happened.
I'm really concerned about this comment you made to JeanKimberly. For the second time you claim to have been a stranger to the child and for the second time you expect to have a more powerful position in the dynamic with the child's mother than the child. This is so inappropriate.
You seem to think you're more capable of parenting a child than their own parent. This will be a major problem for you in terms of becoming involved with women who have children. This will inhibit mothers from accepting you. It is your responsibility to behave acceptably so you will be accepted.
As a grandmother living with my daughter and granddaughter, I disagree with you about where to draw the line and how to draw the line. You appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, rather than managing a sensitive situation with sensitivity. You appear to be prioritising your needs over the child's needs.
I could say more detail about your response to JeanKimberly with respect to your attitude about power and money, but I think until you work through your own issues, it's best for you not to try and have relationships with women who have children. It's unlikely to work out well for you and it certainly doesn't look like it would work out well for the child(ren).
People have different parenting styles. There is merit in not giving attention to a child who is having a tantrum in order to get attention. Even negative attention may reinforce the behaviour.
Children are at times utterly disrespectful, just as they are utterly egocentric - they're not born with the capacity to be aware of other's needs, only their own. Interacting with others is a developmental process which requires patient handling, self- and other awareness. It can be a very difficult thing for adults to handle appropriately at times, as we have needs too.
Telling a child to behave 'normally' is perhaps a bit useless if 'normal' for them in that moment is to express their frustration. You're perhaps also suppressing their emotions which can be developmentally damaging. An alternative to ignoring the tantrum might be stating the child's emotions for them - this can be a very powerful technique. So simply stating, "You're angry and frustrated" not only provides recognition and acceptance of how the child is feeling (they're entitled to their own feelings as we all are!), it provides an example of a more appropriate way of expressing those feelings; they can learn from your example to say, "I'm feeling frustrated and angry" rather than chucking a wobbly. If they calm down you can then go on to explore how those feelings have come about for the child and start to negotiate the dynamic ("No, I'm sorry you can't have/do that right now because blah, blah, blah...but you can blah, blah, blah...)
It seems your developmental process regarding interacting with others is to assume you're right and disparage the child's own mother by calling her names (is this a good example to set?) It sounds to me from your post that you allowed yourself to be manipulated by the child and interact emotionally; the child got you to join in with their tantrum. Remember, the child might be the most physically vulnerable person in the house (they need their physical/emotional needs to be met in order to survive and grow), but they are the most powerful person in the house as a consequence - providing for their needs sets the timetable and dynamic within the family unit.
In turn, the mother reacted to your tantrum and told you to butt out. I get why she did that - you were probably interrupting their unspoken rhythm rather than observing and understanding how you could fit in with that long established bond and communication between them (also a very difficult thing to do). The tiniest movement of the eyes between mother and child can be a communication which speaks volumes, never forget that, never expect to power over it. You have some responsibility for finding a way of joining in with that intimate, subtle and complex bond.
Right now, you could to start with examining the resentment you've expressed in your post. The interaction you describe is as much to do with you as anyone else in that dynamic.
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: does dating a woman with a CHILD cause problems
Boundaries are important for making a child feel secure. Boundaries are part of secure attachment.An intruder into the dynamic must be cognisant of the fact that they will alter those boundaries. Those boundaries need to be re-established slowly and sensitively if, and only if, the intruder is going to be a permanent fixture.
You don't go mucking around with those boundaries with a sledgehammer in an untimely manner. You don't try and usurp the child for your own needs. You don't ignore that the child is the most needy, most vulnerable and most powerful person in the dynamic. You don't confuse the boundaries (with inappropriate behavioural, cognitive and emotional expectations of yourself and others) about who is the adult and who is the child.