JNM,

I see it a little differently. If SD wont play with BS, mom gets BS extra toys -- presumabley ones that SD cant have on her own. Then, later, mom sits with BS and says SD cant watch movie. This is not people treating you the way you treat them (unless you view mom and her son as one unit). If her SON had said, you cant sit with me, then that would have been the same.

Mom is using her parental power and clearly siding with her son. And she is the "adult" - I dont think so. She has made it clear that her son comes first. And a darn good job she has done. It makes me sick to think of SD growing up with her.

kkny, your analogy doesn't make ANY sense. They are not on a playground. There is not another mother there to glare at or reprimand the child, the child is part of her family. She is the mother, step or bio. She is the one teaching the child that you don't treat family (or anyone else) like that. The child that you perceive as being 'singled out' is not her only step child. It is the child that is being 'snotty'. Some children are snotty and as a mom, I'd rather teach my child the consequence of being 'snotty' at home, rather than at school or a playground where the kids that retaliate will be more cruel to him/her. In a family setting, the child may learn the lesson and all is forgiven and everyone will go on but in a school setting where the child is seen as 'snotty', when the other children label the child a 'snot' and don't want to play with him/her anymore, that can last a lot longer.

My stepdaughter went to school for Kindergarten thru 2nd grade at the same school with the same kids. She does have some social skill problems, either she's rude, annoying or bullied other kids or for some reason, she had problems making or keeping friends. Perhaps it's her personality or her parents hadn't taught her any social skills, but she would cry in the 2nd grade about kids that were still teasing her for stuff she did in kindergarten. Those kids didn't see that she isn't the same two or three years later or they are just cruel that way. (or she is the one with a problem... but then I'm running the risk of being accused of being against her because I'm telling it how it is) and those problems occurred long before I met her dad and it really is both of her parent's fault she has that problem. They didn't properly socialize her, in my opinion.

She still has social skill problems in the 3rd grade that we're still working on. She's at a new school and I've gotten a few calls from her teacher, the bus driver and a few parents, that she does things totally inappropriate. She won't see that she's doing anything wrong, she will blame everyone else (hmmm, just like nothing is ever her mom's fault, but I'm an evil step mom for saying that, I'm sure.)

I don't perceive OP as siding with her son. I see OP is trying to teach the child some social skills because if she went to school with that snotty attitude, she might get beat up or shunned for years. Not many kids want to play with a snotty child. She may not always be a snotty child, but if she acts like one today, later on that's all the other kids will see.

"I don't see that she's siding against her stepchild. I see a woman who is upset that one of her children is being rude and mean to the others and then crying because she didn't get to play something she might have enjoyed. (See tye-dye t-shirt paragraph)
In no way have I seen that she's siding against her step-daughter, she's simply trying to teach her that being rude to people doesn't feel good and it hurts people's feelings."

Riiight, so with the tye dye incident they should be even right? Why does the adult have to keep punishing or proving a point? Did SD do something between the tye dye incident and movie that she needed to be proved to again?

Kids do all kinds of things to one another, I'm sure there are instances where the BS does things to SD too.

I am pretty sure I would be upset if DD would be mistreated by other kids. So I understand how OP feels, I don't agree with her methods to deal with it though.

I rememebr that when DD was in day care one of the mean kids told her: your mom will never come to pick you up. So DD cried for 3 hours straight. I felt awfully bad but I didn't come up to that kid and said: your mom won't come back for you. I didn't think I need to be cruel to teach the lesson. Then there was this kid who was playing way too rough with kids including DD. daycare teacher saw it and taslked to the kid and his parents, but neither me nor the teacher started beating up the kid to teach the lesson. I think talking to kids is more than enough. This kind of lesson doesn't teach much.

It was son and SS.

And the difference about posting about BC.... I can call friends and family and voice my issues with them.... and not have to here condescending remarks like:

You knew he had kids
Why don't you just leave.
You have no obligation to those kids.
Runaway
You have no right to tell those kids what to do
You can't love them like your own
You shouldn't do anything for them.
You can't impose your values on them.
They are to do whatever they want whenever they want with out regard to anyone or anything.

None of my family has ever dealt with the dynamics of a Stepfamily... so they wouldn't have a clue on how to help me deal with MY feelings....

And if I have an issue with my kids or their dad I take it up with my kids and their dad.... I don't go around blaming other SM's if my ex isn't holding up his end of the bargain ... I take it up with him personally.

Playground I meant interacting with each other no parental involvement ... some will play nicely others will not.

And how do you know its the "mother" could be a SM who "can't" discipline a child.

I think OP has to distinguish between rudeness and playing with -- I dont see that. I hope I am wrong. Nivea, as to what BS has done -- when you have the enforcer behind you, no need to do anything -- but I dont hear that and you could be making assumptions.

Ima, I think the focus should be on politeness everywhere, and as to SD getting along with her peers, that should be with guidance counselors.

Actually the one I hope doesnt show at work where I work is the son. I suspect he will have an atittude "Everyone must be nice to me, or my mom will bring me a color printer and we wont let them use it"

And I'm sure she'd correct her BS the same as she'd correct SD, Nivea. Every parent is different and their methods may not be what you like or what you'd do, but who is to say it's correct or not?

How are lessons learned? Do you teach children how to be inclusive by excluding them? Do you teach children love by showing them hate? Do you stop a child from crying by spanking them? In my view that is a backward approach to teaching children values.

Hey, I made a similar mistake but not in a family situation, and I wish I never did. It haunts me to this day to remember the look of pain on a little girl's face caused by my first instinct to anger rather than understanding. She has likely forgotten about it (hopefully) but I have not.

It is NEVER correct for adults to fight their children's battles, in the same way children fight them, even when, or even especially when, they are your own children. Remember Lori Drew and the tragic outcome of her adult interferrence in her teenage daughter's issues.

As an adult and parent you must be as objective as possible with all your children in these matters. And, as I have said it is even more sensitive when a stepfamily is involved. It is never correct to assume as an adult that you are teaching a child a lesson based on how you assume another child feels. You really don't know how the child feels, you only know how you, the adult, feel.

We all make mistakes, we do, but hopefully we learn from them and make better choices the next time.

"And I'm sure she'd correct her BS the same as she'd correct SD, Nivea. Every parent is different and their methods may not be what you like or what you'd do, but who is to say it's correct or not?"

Yep, every parent is different. However, I think it is pretty well proven that over-correcting a child is just as harmful as under-correcting.

What I find funny here is there is KKNY who tells me how awful I am and has such a hatred for sm's that she has to chalk this up to a biochild vs. stepchild situation! Then there is TOS who says that children can be rude at home so they will somehow learn not to be rude in the real world? And then there is finedreams, who I am not sure isn't really another poster on here with a second log in, who tries to say kids who don't rebel at home will rebel outside of the home. Funny how they don't offer any real advice, but want to argue with what was done. The post was asking for advice.....

As for the other posters, those who agreed and those who did not, thanks for your advice and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

This has been an ongoing thing with sd. We have tried the show her how it feels to be included by doing stuff with them all, but unfortunatley that has not worked.

"I don't see that she's siding against her stepchild. I see a woman who is upset that one of her children is being rude and mean to the others and then crying because she didn't get to play something she might have enjoyed. (See tye-dye t-shirt paragraph)
In no way have I seen that she's siding against her step-daughter, she's simply trying to teach her that being rude to people doesn't feel good and it hurts people's feelings." This ie exactly the issue. Since including her in things had not worked I thought that excluding her may show her how it feels and keep her from wanting to make other people feel that way in the future. During the tye-dye incident sd never came and aked to join in. It was after the fact that she walked around pouting and crying that the boys had fun without her! And my point was well she said she did not want to play with them! IF they were all playing together and said they were bored I would have still pulled out the tye-dye stuff we had recently bought and all 3 or 4 of them could have tye-dyed.

As for the movie, sd ended up watching the movie with us. I just said the initial comments to her to make her see how it feels to want to do something with others and be told no. She had not been told no to the tye-dying. She chose not to play with them before finding out what they were planning on doing.

Well thats a clever way of ignoring people -- FD might be another poster. And what about Coleens and Niveas points. I think there are lot of people here who think you might have been heavy handed and unnessarily cruel.

As for "I just said the initial comments to her to make her see how it feels to want to do something with others and be told no. " -- I think that is up to your son to say.

Who gives a damn? It's over and done with.

"I think that is up to your son to say."

KKNY, Do you really think it's up to a little boy to teach his big sister how to treat him? Isn't that an adult job, to teach children how to treat others?

"Actually the one I hope doesnt show at work where I work is the son. I suspect he will have an atittude "Everyone must be nice to me, or my mom will bring me a color printer and we wont let them use it"

Well to your comment KKNY, it just shows your ridiculousness!

To be just as ridiculous as you, I must point out that your dd may not be someone I would want to work with. Handing her everything she wants on a silver platter (expensive car and all the extras you talk about), plus having an au pair spend most of dd's day after school and activities with her, while you work long hours, may not be shaping your dd into a great person. Who is there to teach her values & morals? Your working long hours and your ex is uninvolved. So you just hand her whatever she wants and accept any behavior and say, well I am not a stepmom so I must be doing it all right? I think it is very possible for your dd to turn into a spoiled brat that thinks in the real world she should be handed everything! In the workplace she may very well be one of those people who complains about everything and thinks that everyone should be doing everything for her!

"Yep, every parent is different. However, I think it is pretty well proven that over-correcting a child is just as harmful as under-correcting."

Nivea,

I understand what your saying and I really do not over-correct the children. I do not step in unless my kids are screaming, yelling, hurting someone, or being rude. Most times I let them work out their disagreements, as long as they are doing so respectfully. That is why I just stood outside the room when I heard my sd was being snotty and did not correct her, but when she saw me she showed she knew it was wrong by correcting herself.

It was only the following day, when she exhibited the same type of behavior that I stepped in. If I were to let it go then she would think it is fine to constantly exclude some people and cry and complain to me when she doesn't like the choice she made. And she would think it is fine to be rude to others as long as nobody else sees it happen.

I actually offered you a suggestion. talk to a kid instead of teaching a lesson. Like sit her down and tell her that it is wrong to do this or that. instead of "teaching a lesson". if you didn't like it you don't have to follow it, but then why do you ask for an advice if you don't want one? as about another poster with the second log in, you can be one just as well. lol

I put in one of the posts on this thread that my dh and I have both talked to her about this type of behavior. So I agreed with your advice, and have tried it finedreams. It just did not prove to be effective for her.

mom2emall,

Seriously, I think you are in a tough spot. I think you do the best you can and that is to be commended. I know that I can post bluntly, mostly because I don't have much time, but I do believe you are a good mom and are doing what you think is right.

I can certainly understand trying to enforce a rule or to show SD what it felt like. I just don't see the need to bring it up again in front of the family. Quite honestly, I think it bothers you too much and it shouldn't. So, I'm thinking of you and SD when I posted to you.

Colleen had some pretty insightful posts and worded a lot better than I can manage at the moment.

Oh my, I think it is up to the MOM to teach him. And favoring him wont help.

I said that after when someone earlier said people respond to how they are treated, my response was it wasnt boys response it was moms. I think Colleen said this best when she said dont fight your children's battles for them. I think that is great advice.

and Mom2emall -- my DD has been respected and asked back at albeit only a summer job. And yes I have high standards for her. Do I spend less time at home than you? Likely, More one on one time with my one child vs. your four? Who knows. I never said four children could be easy. I think TOS is doing a great job with multiples.

"I think it is up to the MOM to teach him."

Are you saying that instead of trying to teach SD respect for her brother that she should be teaching her son to disrespect SD back?

No, I think as Colleen said it best, you shouldnt fight your children's battles for them. If safety, etc are at stake, she has to take action (the first being removing a threatened child from the danger). My mom always emphasized that. Rudeness should be discouraged -- but OP was rude in response. What does that say? What lesson does that teach?

It seems to me that there is a SM upset when her son is excluded. And I said before every mother cries inside when that happens. OP seems excessive about it. I still think if she focuses only on rudeness and sets a good example, everyone will be better off.

Isn't that what this whole discussion has been about? OP's focus on rudeness and the fact that being rude is completely uncalled for and that SD doesn't have to be rude to say "no"?

And how would you set a good example KKNY? When you've talked to a child about something & your husband has also? How would you go about convincing a child who has been warned and talked to repeatedly about rudeness to be nice?

Personally, I would take the child away from activity after he/she was rude. And then I would say (In private) "You were rude. Until you can speak to people like you would prefer to be spoken to, please remain here while the others play. When and if you think you can be nice and not get snotty with people, you can come out and play after you apologize for being mean and ask them to play."

Seriously KKNY, what would you do?

No, the problem is we aren't just talking about rudeness. OP is also upset over HER child being excluded. Those are two seperate issues. At least to me. And I think that the more OP FORCES SD to play with her son, the more resentfulness there will be.

So you should wait until arguments escalate to a safety issue before intervening in children's disputes? I think not. In our home rudeness is plain unacceptable and respect is not optional.

What did what OP did say? It said, "See how this feels? Now do you get it?"

What lesson did that teach? Empathy, actually being able to envision how someone else might have felt.

You might not like OP's methods, but I certainly wouldn't let any child in my house torture another mentally just because there's not a physical safety issue. Children deserve emotional safety too, and before you get all worked up, while initially hurtful to tell SD no, she couldn't watch the movie, it was immediately explained to her why that was said in the context of helping her realize how her words can harm others, and I serious doubt that lesson emotionally scarred her.

From the original post:

"The other day I was babysitting my friends daughters and they were playing with all 4 of our kids. I checked in on them in the playroom every so often and one time I was watching my son and ss try to play with the girls and my middle sd was so rude! She was telling them "you can't play with us" and saying "duh!"

So today, the boys were asking my sd's to play with them. Both girls said no, they wanted to play alone. One was drawing and one was listening to music. That was fine, they do not have to stop what they want to do to play with the boys.

"So boys came to me and said they were bored. Well I got out some tye dying stuff and old t-shirts and let them dye them at the table.A little while later middle sd came into the room in sunglasses and I could tell she had been crying. I ignored it. Then she came up to me and took off the sunglasses and was crying about how she wanted to play with the boys!"

KKNY, I don't see where exactly it is that you think that she's upset that her child is being excluded because SS was being exluded too and OP got on to SD about being mean to her BROTHERS. Read the post before you start condemning people for showing favoritism for BC over SC. This SM is upset with SD for being rude with her two brothers, which are OP's SS and BS.

She probably still didn't want to play with the boys LOL, she probably wanted to participate in tye dyeing. I think tye dye is a little different than free play time.

Thanks hecallsmemom! This was never a biochild vs. stepchild issue, as KKNY tries to make it. But my sd has to learn to treat and talk to others as she would like to be treated. My dh and I have discussed this with her and set many positive examples for her. Finally, I showed her how it felt to be treated as she treated others and she didn't like it one bit! Now maybe she will think about this lesson the next time she thinks about being snotty to others, or the next time she says she does not want to play before finding out what they will be playing.

AND LIKE I SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS POST, I DO NOT EXPECT ALL THE KIDS TO PLAY TOGETHER ALL THE TIME. I DO EXPECT THEM TO PLAY TOGETHER SOMETIMES, AND IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO PLAY TOGETHER THEN DO NOT WHINE AND CRY WHEN YOU FIND OUT THE ONES WHO DID PLAY TOGETHER HAD FUN-YOU SHOULD HAVE ASKED WHAT THEY PLANNED ON PLAYING BEFORE SAYING NO RIGHT AWAY.

Nivea,

She never asked to tye dye. She was in her room playing when the boys were tye dying. She cried after the fact when she found out the boys decided to tye dye!

mom2emall,

Right, that is exactly what I mean. It was never about playing with the boys, it was tye dye. She could probably care less if they were playing cops or robbers or reading books to each other, but when she found out they were tye dyeing than it was a problem.

It seems to me that OP will be extra good to her son and whomever plays with him. I will be nicer to my DDs friends than to people who arent nice to her also. So if BS is left out, mom pulls out the really good toys. Seems to me that there is favortism.

And SMs wonder why kids try to break up marriages and wont talk to them. Got me on that one.

KKNY,

Maybe I wrote my post in a way you don't understand. Maybe it is written clearly and you just like to read into it what is not there. My sd could have tye dyed with them if she was playing with them. Even if she would have walked into the room as we were doing it she could have joined. She didn't ask to join and I never even saw her walk past the room while we were doing it.

As for me and my sd we usually get along wonderfully. We do things together all the time, so this is not a favoritism issue. Believe me, she gets her fair share of attention. Just last week we spent 2 hours together practicing for her band concert. I played the same instrument that she plays so we played together.

You may be a nice person, and in general nice to your SD. But that doesnt mean you care more about your son. I think making them play together is a mistake. I dont think you can be impartial.

"You may be a nice person, and in general nice to your SD. But that doesnt mean you care more about your son."

Your right, it doesn't mean I care more about him. And it does not mean that I can not be impartial. I treat my skids THE SAME that I treat my bioson.

And my sd's behavior would have been treated the same way if it would have been my son acting that way.

Mom2emall,

Treating people fairly doesnt mean treating them the same. My experience (albeit with my own siblings, cousins, general observation) is that it is generally an older one who declines to play with younger one, not vice versa. So I doubt your son will ever be on the exclusionaery side of this. So you are pretty safe in treating them the same. But that doesnt make it fair in my book. A lot of people here have issues making a child play with a sibling. The fact that you dont do it all the time doesnt make it less fair.

instead of saying mom2emall, you put "mom to 1, SM to 3"?

it wasn't too subtle....

fair in your book is sitting around adding onto the list of things your exH has to pay for because you don't like what SM's here say or do. So, the fact that it doesn't make it fair in your book, well not all of us agree what is written in your book.

I know you dont like me, not the point right now, the point is whether OP is treating her SD unfairly. I still dont think so. And I think it pathetic that OP can bully a child.

get one thing straight. I don't know you so I can't like or not like you. I only know what you say here and from that, I don't agree with your idea of what is fair or what is right or wrong. You are one sided and have never walked in the shoes of a step mom so I wouldn't expect you to understand what it's like. You are entitled to your opinion and if you consider it bullying to exclude a child because they excluded someone and you want to show them how they are making someone else feel, then I'm a bully too. I had four boys and two girls, all within four years of each other and at one time or another, I told them all to go play. (and if they were fighting, that got them 'partnered' with the person they were fighting with. They would have to sit together on the couch or in the same room until they worked it out. They were siblings and they always came out of it wanting to go play or laughing together) I didn't allow them to be mean to each other. and if one was being a brat or bully, they might get a taste of their own medicine, even if I had to administer it. and it didn't matter who's kids they were. If a neighbor kid or a kid in my cub scout den had an attitude problem and was in my house, (especially if it were an ongoing problem, maybe not a one time thing), I'd certainly call them on it. I sure the heck did sit one disruptive boy to sit solo at a table doing nothing for the remainder of a cub scout meeting because he was taunting some of the other kids and being a brat. and when his dad came to get him and I told him why his son sat there, well his dad wasn't too happy with him. He sure didn't jump on me over it. It's the parent's job to teach their kids to behave, not mine but they are damn well gonna behave if they are in my care. Sorry, you don't have to agree. I really don't care. You have your own agenda and it's not helping step families.

I think Colleen was absolutely right when she said,
"How are lessons learned? Do you teach children how to be inclusive by excluding them? Do you teach children love by showing them hate? Do you stop a child from crying by spanking them? In my view that is a backward approach to teaching children values."

"while initially hurtful to tell SD no, she couldn't watch the movie, it was immediately explained to her why that was said in the context of helping her realize how her words can harm others, and I serious doubt that lesson emotionally scarred her."

I disagree. I think it is quite possible that the "lesson" did emotionally scar her, especially since it seems likely she has been or will be on the receiving end of such lessons on more than one occasion.

"but when she saw me she showed she knew it was wrong by correcting herself."

I don't think that that shows she knew it was wrong - it only shows that she knew she was about to get into trouble.

I think would have been far better to model inclusion. It matters not that it doesn't seem to work - that is no reason to switch to modeling exclusion. Just because she doesn't seem to be "learning the lesson," doesn't mean she isn't internalizing it.

"Just because she doesn't seem to be "learning the lesson," doesn't mean she isn't internalizing it. "

Well if she was internalizing it then we would not still have these issues. Like I previously said we have modeled inclusion--didn't help with her.

Ima, the differernce is the neighborhood kid goes home to his parent. The SD cant go home. This is supposed to be her home. And there is a difference between being mean and not being inclusive.

more psychology theotherside?

"I disagree. I think it is quite possible that the "lesson" did emotionally scar her, especially since it seems likely she has been or will be on the receiving end of such lessons on more than one occasion"

on what basis do you draw that conclusion?

and then you say: "I don't think that that shows she knew it was wrong - it only shows that she knew she was about to get into trouble."

Really? That wouldn't be the reason why everyone slows down when they see a highway patrol on the highway? Of course not, only people that were taught to fear getting in trouble slow down, the rest of the people that were raised 'correctly' with good modeling (oh yeah, and internalized that modeling) don't even speed, they know better and choose to do the right thing. And there are no criminals that have law abiding parents, breaking the law, is that modeled? If the parents are law abiding, the kids will learn their modeled behavior and if they 'internalize' it, they will never commit a crime.

Wow, have you tested your theory in the real world yet?

you are right. the child was being mean to the others. I know it's hard to believe when your one child is perfect, that children can be mean, but they can be. The difference is that the neighbor kid might go home to his parent and that parent is responsible for teaching him to behave wherever he goes. If he comes back and still behaves poorly, then I can tell him that I 'expect' him to behave or he can't come back. and you are right, the SD can't go home. It is her home. If SM is the mom in the home, it's HER job to teach the child to behave. and I'm telling you that I see nothing wrong with her methods. The only reason it's even an issue is that she's not mom, she's SM. That's BS! I've done the same damn thing with MY kids and if she excluded her own child for acting that way, I doubt you'd say a thing about it. If the child lives with SM, then it's up to the custodians to teach her how to treat others. I'm sure her dad is in agreement with SM. (and my DH is sometimes more harsh with his daughter than i would be and I have gotten him to ease up on her before, so your argument that father's just roll over and let SM's take over doesn't hold water in my house)

No, the issue is that she is making SD play with her child, and there is a difference between rudeness and not wanting to play with little brother. And OP appears to be over-reacting. And Dad may be looking for cheap childcare. Who knows? I feel for the little girl. And the boy too.

I have been reading these posts. I have to say that kkny your getting out of hand on here and your going for the throat with your comments. In one thread you insulted her, her son and her husband. "cheap childcare" that dig was worse than the others! I am appauled at your behavior!

I don't care if this is a stepchild issue, a boy vs girl issue, a younger vs older child issue or something else entirely. I think what the OP did re initialing excluding the girl was wrong.

"Well if she was internalizing it then we would not still have these issues."

Internalizing is a long-term process - she is ten, not 25.

"That wouldn't be the reason why everyone slows down when they see a highway patrol on the highway? Of course not, only people that were taught to fear getting in trouble slow down, the rest of the people that were raised 'correctly' with good modeling (oh yeah, and internalized that modeling) don't even speed, they know better and choose to do the right thing.
Yes, that is correct.

And there are no criminals that have law abiding parents, breaking the law, is that modeled? If the parents are law abiding, the kids will learn their modeled behavior and if they 'internalize' it, they will never commit a crime.

Of course there are no guarantees - but children are a lot more likely to grow up as law abiding citizens if their parents were too.

Breathe ... and thank _____(whoever you pray to or with) that we have don't have to deal with either one of them in the "real world" .... keyboard psychologist and the all powerful biomom.

I think I will send my SC's BM a nice thank you note tomorrow she could be so much worse.

The biggest reason why people follow any rule or law is the fear of getting into trouble.

And I have to agree KKNY you are getting out of hand here... there is nothing to even remotely suggest the there is a need to feel sorry for mom's skids or any reason to insult her relationship and demean its worth with comments of he may just be looking for cheap childcare.

And I NEVER in my wildest dreams thought that people could argue over wether or not we should make kids play together...

I know I'm weighing in at the end... but I spent all weekend at a Biology fair, teaching kids about fun science and didn't have a chance to log in until last night.

I think Mom2emall is absolutely right to expect better behavior than she saw from SD. She was terribly rude and deserved to be called out on it. You remember how one of our new house rules is "It's OK to say your opinion, as long as you don't hurt anyone's feelings"?? Well, IMO, that's exactly what happened here. Like many people have said, SD could have been nice about saying "No thanks, I'd rather play by myself" or "Right now we want to play just the two of us, but you can play later". I also don't think it's OK to choose to not play, and then be mad because you missed out on the fun. Richard Scarry even had characters about that (anyone remember Pig Will and Pig Won't and how Pig Won't missed out on everything, so he became Pig Me Too?)
I do think Mom2emall went a little far in how she excluded SD when they were all sitting on the couch, but since it was quickly followed (as I recall) with letting her come sit with the family and including her, I'm not too worked up about it. I'd probably be more concerned if the "punishment" had been that SD spent the evening in her room while the rest of the family watched a movie together and ACTUALLY been excluded, rather than just told she was.

I'm used to rude and anti-SM remarks from KKNY (you'd think that as an adult, KK could handle "It's OK to say your opinion, as long as you don't hurt anyone's feelings", but maybe I have unreasonable expectations) but I'm really annoyed with that KKNY keeps calling Mom2emall "OP". "Mom2emall" is a bit long to type out all the time, so maybe if KK is feeling lazy, she could say M2EA? I might be the only one, but I think it's incredibly rude, and actually a form of adult bullying, to not use someone's name. IMO, continuously calling M2EA "Original Poster" is really disrespectful.

Ima, I agree that TOS is spewing psychobabble as gospel again, but IMO, in this case, she's not being rude or anti-SM, so let's cut her some slack on this one. She's giving her opinion and wasn't being a big jerk about it, so I think we should respect that TOS has a right to express her opinion.

About "forcing" the kids to play together.... That's not how I see this at all. My perception of this situation is that it's OK to play separately, as long as you're being nice about it. Mom2emall wants all the kids to be able to get along and play together, but also seems to respect their own space and individual interests, as long as everyone is being nice to each other... So I'm not sure why anyone is saying she shouldn't encourage the kids to play together. I think she's bang-on by encouraging them to be nice about playing, whether it's together or apart.

Calling someone OP is common blog reference. If that is viewed as disresptful, I can see how SMs often view stepchildren as disrespectful. And Ceph, it was made clear it wasnt just rudeness, it was also about forced playing togethor, which I think can exacerbate rudeness.

I think when the thread gets as long as this one is, using OP helps to keep some of the issues straight. Someone who is newer,or who rarely posts, could feel bewildered at that plethorea of names here. I will continue to use OP, not meaning any disrespect for anyone.