Problem Pages

[DanaC]

Every so often a problem page letter grabs my attention. The ones in the Guardian in particular, as that's my usual news site. The beauty of online news is of course the room for discussion in the comments section, and sometimes they are very interesting.

This letter includes the problem solver's response. And, the subsequent discussion was very interesting.

The letter:

I am concerned about my husband’s attitude to managing the behaviour of our two young children. He is in many ways a good husband and father. We both want our children to grow up to be well behaved, polite and respectful to others, but my husband seems to fear that they will not unless he is very firm.

I care for them most of the time and feel that they are perfectly normal children. They have their moments but on the whole we have a lovely time and I don’t find their behaviour a problem. This is a view supported by both sets of grandparents. My husband goes for long periods without spending quality time with them. When he does, he starts to take issue with the slightest thing, leading to their behaviour being the main focus of our time together. He is completely unreasonable in what he considers a suitable punishment. He does not know it but if he has smacked them, I tell them I don’t think he should have done it because I don’t want them to think it is right. I do talk to him about his attitude and for a while he might be a bit more positive, but he seems to have several unshakeable beliefs with which I strongly disagree.

He believes that children should be afraid of their father and need to be dealt with harshly if they misbehave. He sees nothing wrong with smacking, grabbing, dragging them by the wrist, pinching, cuffing or jabbing them in the ribs with his finger and reprimanding them verbally in a way that I can only describe as nasty.

When he has been in a good mood for a while, is more positive and uses treats they start to trust him and are affectionate, wanting to spend time with him. They seem very keen to love him, but their confidence in him just keeps being knocked.

The response:

I found your letter increasingly difficult to read. What started off seeming like two different parenting styles quickly became behaviour, from your husband, which I thought was abusive and, in parts, possibly criminal, even falling under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, “cruelty to persons under 16”.

I think your husband is confusing fear for respect, bullying for strength.

I wonder if he has thought beyond childhood? There will come a time when your children’s fear will turn to anger and later, possibly, hate. There will come a time when he is the weak one; will he be happy, then, with how he has taught them?

Ryan Lowe, a child and family therapist, says: “The extremity of his punishments with even very young children, leads me to believe that he is either acting from experience of his own childhood or from some extreme anxiety about his children, possibly both.”

Please note that this is not a justification for his behaviour.

What was your husband’s childhood like? How was he parented?

“What,” asks Lowe, “was he afraid of in himself as a child? Did he have strong impulses that he is afraid his children will enact? Was he afraid of his father and this is the only reason he didn’t act on his feelings? If so, if he could see that some of his strong feelings and impulses were probably the result of the control and fear that his father had over him, rather than the other way around, it would help.

The other possibility is that his parenting was the opposite, lax and uncontained, without boundaries, and this made him feel unsafe, so he would like to do it differently with his children.”

Your husband can only reach a different level of understanding of children, and of himself, by doing a lot of soul-searching. I hope that he will seek help. I understand, however, how hard it is to get him to accept that and to seek help, and he may never change. This, Lowe suggests, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek help and support to help you (via your GP or childpsychotherapy.org.uk).

I know this goes against popular opinion, but I would undermine my husband in front of the children if he acted like this towards them. Nothing in your letter leads me to believe that your husband is abusive towards you (if he were, I would not recommend confrontation). I would want my children to know that his behaviour is not acceptable, that I stand by them, that I protect them. I don’t believe in a united front at all costs.

I hope that with help your husband can come to understand that a parent is doing a good job by having appropriately behaved children, rather than blindly compliant ones. You may find this article I wrote previously, helpful.

For the discussion that followed, followthe link:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...mment-41475985

[classicman]

The father seems severely misguided at least. I would say he is abusive.

[DanaC]

I completely agree.

[DanaC]

Reading the discussion in the comments pages, it's amazing how completely different people's approaches can be. Some of the responses are of the 'well I got leathered as a kid and it never did me any harm'. Others talk about the way their parents disciplined them and the impact it has had on their lives and relationships. Really interesting, I thought.

[classicman]

I got my ass best as a kid. My mom was 5' tall on her tip toes with 4 kids at home and a husband who spent as much time in your country as mine. My 2 brothers and I deserved most of it because we were always trying to take advantage of her. Once she realized the "wait till your dad gets home" (in 3 weeks) didn't cut it...she took charge. Yardsticks on asses were not uncommon.

[DanaC]

I think the most damaging aspect of this dad's behaviour isn't so much that he is smacking the kids - but that it seems to be arbitrary and dependent on his mood more than the kids' behaviour. He seems to be lashing out and being cruel (verbally) in order to instil fear when he is in a bad mood- and then trying to win them over with treats and affection when he is in a good mood.

I am totally against physical punishment for children - but - it isn't necessarily in and of itself a damaging thing as long as the kid knows it comes from a position of love and is consistent (and also not over the top).

But it's a huge risk to take - because whilst lots of kids come through it understanding where their parent was coming from and respecting them, lots come through it having learnt that their parents are frightening and that the way to resolve issues is through violence.

@ Classic: tell me to sod off if you like :p but how do/did you feel about that?

[classicman]

It was what it was. We were asshats and she had to rule the house. We didn't respect anything else she tried. We learned and so did she. The threat of real & immediate repercussions to our actions worked...for us.

[sexobon]

... I don’t find their behaviour a problem. This is a view supported by both sets of grandparents. ...

Yet there's no mention of either set of grandparents speaking to the husband about this even though the husband's behavior may be possibly criminal, even falling under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, “cruelty to persons under 16”. I hear a forked tongue.

The response completely ignores the possibility that the husband may be using the children to modify the wife's behavior: if she doesn't like his responses to the children, then she can help raise them to accommodate each parent's boundaries and not just her own.

Of course we don't hear the husband's side of the story; or, from two sets of grandparents who don't get to speak for themselves. We only hear from a wife who's chosen a public venue that provides a one sided presentation designed to garner support for doing things her way. The letter is even structured to elicit a knee jerk reaction supporting her POV.

Too many red flags to consider the wife's story credible even concerning the circumstances of her husband's alleged actions. The responder, considering the glaring omission of another rationale I pointed out for a contrarian husband, was either duped into taking the wife at face value; or, looking for a soapbox. Funny how the unimpressive seem to find each other. Meh.

[DanaC]

Well, it's a worthwhile caveat to bear in mind - but I think it's pretty much standard practice to assume a problem letter is genuine and to take it at face value. Whatever the rationale, whatever the motive (modifyingthe wife's behaviour etc), if the husband is engaging in the behaviour described then that is not really acceptable.

[sexobon]

If the husband is engaging in the behaviour described; then, the person (or people) who didn't stop it in progress are not really acceptable either.

[DanaC]

Too bloody right.

[monster]

Several days ago I heard something on a "problem page" segment of a crappy breakfast show on a crappy radio station that really stood out and stayed with me.

A guy wrote that he'd reconnected via facebook with a female former coworker with whom he had got on very well as a friend (not GF), had given her his cell# and they'd chatted once (with the knowledge of his wife) and enjoyed catching up and reminiscing.

Then, much later, out of the blue, she'd texted him asking if he would be free to talk privately. He was uncomfortable so just ignored that and the subsequent text. His wife found out and was mad. He felt he'd done the right thing by not responding to the coworker.

The male DJ and male callers agreed. the female DJ and female callers did not, although they weren't very good as explaining why. The (male) psychologist sided with the women and had this to say (and I paraphrase)

Your plan means nothing until you have to defend it. We all make plans. To lose weight, to get a better job etc. but until you have to defend it, it is meaningless. You say you're on a diet. but that's easy when you're at home and you clear out all the junk food. What about when you're at work an the boss wants to celebrate your birthday with a cake? you take a piece to be polite, you didn't defend your plan.

In this case the plan was marriage -to stay with and be faithful to one person. The guy didn't do anything that wasn't compatible with the plan, but neither did he defend The Plan when he suspected the action requested of him wasn't compatible with the plan. He didn't say "no, this is not appropriate......" "this makes me feel uncomfortable'.... "I'm not sure what you want to chat about but I am happily married...." etc.

[sexobon]

The guy was probably already banging one of his wife's girlfriends and didn't inform his wife about his former coworker's request because he didn't want the wife telling her girlfriend about the situation so the girlfriend wouldn't think that she might not be his only mistress.

Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

[BigV]

I think this brand new standard for the validity of plans "defend it or it's meaningless" is absurd. We have a well established standard for the validity of a plan, "did you achieve your goal?". So, I suppose the standard one uses matters. You said the goal was "marriage, staying faithful to one person", and that he did achieve that--no one was challenging that. But the responses were divided.

I think the "plan" was misidentified. I think (going out on a limb here, to say the least. the wife/women should speak for herself(s)) the reason the women were mad is because the wife wasn't kept informed about this new development. The initial contact was communicated, but not the subsequent ones. When she found out, she was mad. Why not tell her about the subsequent contacts? Certainly the husband gave his reason, "he was uncomfortable so just ignored that and the subsequent text." Your post about the story doesn't say what her response to his answer was. Maybe she accepted his answer and all was well. Maybe she was still mad. If she's still mad, it can't rationally be because he broke/failed the "plan" of marriage fidelity. As you point out he did nothing incompatible with that plan. But he did change how he communicated to his wife, and that change could be problematic.

Why might she be mad after learning about the subsequent messages that the husband didn't share with her? Was he intending to tell her, but she beat him to it? Was he intending to act on the messages but she beat him to it? That kind of unknowing can be very uncomfortable, exacerbating insecurities.

I think she was mad because he stopped keeping her informed about continuing and escalating communication with the former coworker.

monster, you said the story stuck with you, what was your opinion of the situation?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by BigV

I think this brand new standard for the validity of plans "defend it or it's meaningless" is absurd.

I don't get why ignoring the followup texts was a problem. He didn't respond, she knows the deal, and he didn't get into a fruitless conversation with someone he apparently has no interest in. Defending the marriage doesn't have to include going on the offense.