We'll Always Have Parasite
When I got remarried, I inherited a stepdaughter. At the time, I was happy about this. Though she and my husband had been estranged for many years, I was instrumental in getting them to reconcile. I've come to regret this. She is a rageaholic, spendaholic party girl. She has three DUIs and an extravagant lifestyle that's financially draining her dad and me. Though I have no problem cutting her off, my husband can't say no to his little girl -- which has us on opposing ends of a bitter battle.
--Stressed-Out Stepmother
If you had the traditional kind of parasite, you could just put a lit match to its butt.
Welcome to the bottomless hole of wrongheaded empathy -- the daddy guilt version of that "bottomless cup of coffee" that (if you ask politely) the Denny's waitress will keep refilling until you finally die in the booth. Obviously, your husband means well. Unfortunately, he's engaging in what's called "pathological altruism." The primary researcher on this, Dr. Barbara Oakley, explains it as an intention to help that actually ends up doing harm (sometimes to both the do-gooder and the do-goodee).
Enabling can feel so right in the moment, Oakley explains -- in part because we get something out of it: activation of the same regions of the brain that "light up" from drugs and gambling. (Say hello to the "helper's high.") Refusing to "help," on the other hand, is uncomfortable and tends to lead to ugly interactions, like screaming matches if Daddy says no to putting his retirement money into retiring last season's Versace for this season's Vuitton.
Being judiciously helpful takes asking the feel-bad questions, like "What's the likely result of consistently attaching a garden hose to our bank account and washing away any consequences from Princess Partyhardy's actions?" That's a question that should get answered before she gets her fourth DUI -- possibly leading to a need for somebody to pick up not only the cost of the fancy DUI lawyer but the pieces of some cute 5-year-old from along the side of the road.
You can keep telling your husband this until your teeth fall out, but because of his emotional ensnarement -- along with the fear and anger that you'll try to stop him -- he'll probably just fight harder to go along with her little-girl-voiced shakedowns. And though, with your emotional distance, you have a clearer eye on how your step-sponge is playing her dad, there are surely a few rationality-eating emotions bubbling up in you. There's got to be anger (because your money's getting tossed down the drunken-spendy princesshole) and some fear (that you'll end up on a street corner, begging people to drop change into your "World's Greatest Stepmom" mug).
Fear and anger make for the worst argument partners. They trigger the amygdala, a central player in the brain's threat-detection circuit. It, in turn, sounds the alarm, triggering the release of fight-or-flight hormones and shutting down functions not needed to battle or bolt, like -- whoops -- higher reasoning. And more bad news: When you keep repeating a behavior, your brain cells go, "Wait -- we do this all the time; let's put that on auto." And this is what has happened here -- which is to say, you two could be doing permanent damage to your relationship.
Advice columnists tend to squawk like parrots, "Therapy! Therapy!" (Like that option wouldn't otherwise occur to anybody.) However, in your situation -- because you two can't seem to dial down the "bitter battle" -- there is an intermediary you should consider engaging: a mediator. (Look for a marital one at Mediate.com) Mediation is dispute resolution. It's issue-focused, so it's worlds faster than therapy. (The mediator won't take a month to figure out how you really felt when you were 6 and you didn't get that cookie.)
The mediator's job is to dial down the emotional temperature and get you two listening to each other -- to the point where you understand each other's feelings. (This is how you come to empathize with somebody -- which motivates you to act in their interest and not just in your own.) The mediator then guides you to come to a decision as a couple and can help you set up a framework for discussing emotionally charged issues so date night doesn't devolve into hate night.
Still, it's important to recognize that every problem isn't perfectly solvable. What's essential, however, is the "C-word" -- compromise: understanding that you ultimately win by being willing to lose a little. This means accepting that you won't always get the exact outcome you want -- which, in this case, would probably involve picking up a time machine at Best Buy so you could go persuade your stepdaughter's mother to have a purse dog instead of a child.
The "only" thing that worked for me was to pick my particular "this is it" battle and calmly state that "I'm not spending another Christmas with them in the house." and then went for a ride on my Harley.
A few days later the wife asked me what I had meant and I simply restated the statement. The same a month later. No arguing. No temper. Just a simple "I'm done.".
2 months later the wife asked her daughter/2 grandsons to leave and I stayed.
You really do need to decide what YOU NEED in order to be happy at home. After that it's all relatively painless 'cause where you are at is so fucking painful. The first breakup is devastatingly awful. The second one is survival.
Bob in Texas at May 3, 2016 7:12 PM
Although I sympathize with the lw's plight, I would need to know a few more things about this marriage to determine if she has the right of it.
I have known a couple of childless women in second marriages who were extremely selfish and covetous of their husband assets. So much so that they were of the "what's mine is mine, and what's his is mine too" persuasion.
If this woman truly has her own assets, and her own career, maybe she needs to keep the peace by separating the bank accounts, and the mortgage payment, household expenses etc. fairly, and let her husband blow all of his fun money on the daughter if he chooses too.
If he can't keep himself solvent without her assets, than the resentment is going to build to the point where she will want out of the relationship.
If it is mostly all his money to begin with, and she is no longer the sugar baby, that is a different story. It will really be hard to negotiate a bigger piece of the pie, for her wants and needs when he has other priorities for his money.
This scenario is EXACTLY why I will never ever get married again should I be unfortunate enough to lose my incredibly wonderful husband.
Isab at May 3, 2016 8:42 PM
Isab's solution would have worked for me except for the 'living at home' thing.
I know I'm generalizing but I think parents (both sexes) most always pick their kids over their own lives and their spouses as well (except for those that seem to stay w/violent abusers for some reason).
Like Isab I do not plan on getting married again but when that time comes I do plan on putting the effort in to find a 'special' person to share my days with.
This will conflict w/the Christian ladies but unless we can keep finances separate (mine are slim anyway) I'm not going to the place LW is in ever again.
Bob in Texas at May 4, 2016 6:27 AM
Isab points out something I didn´t notice at first read - the LW is talking about money. Are her finances tied to husbands, and in what type of relationship? This could put a different light on the situation.
& Bob you mean parenting is like a life sentence without parole? What a horrible concept.
zapf at May 4, 2016 6:39 AM
I'm zeroing in on the money issue, too. LW specifically says "she's financially draining her dad and me."
I'm about to embark on my first marriage and we are keeping our finances separate (except for a joint account from which shared expenses -- rent, utilities, etc.) will be auto-drafted. And an agreed-upon amount from our paychecks will be automatically routed to said account on payday.
I suppose there could still be problems with the LW's husband blowing all his "fun money" on his daughter. Saving for vacations, a better house, retirement, for example, would all be on LW's plate and that could lead to resentment. But at least she'll know any money she earns will be safe.
sofar at May 4, 2016 7:43 AM
Sofar, the bestest of luck to you in your upcoming marriage.
I do suggest that you keep your retirement money separate as well if that is possible.
Separate and if all goes well it comes together at the end.
If all does not end well then it's just emotional heartbreak and not financial.
Again, the Irish say it best:
"Land without rent to you.
A child every year to you.
And if you can't go to heaven, May you at least die in Ireland."
Bob in Texas at May 4, 2016 1:09 PM
zapf: "& Bob you mean parenting is like a life sentence without parole? What a horrible concept."
I've spent more on my step-children than on myself. Their Dads have sent them "fun" stuff, I'm the one that every few years kept the lights on, the oil tank filled, and so on.
This battle for me has ended just last month as I decided that I"m through after this last bail-out.
Again no temper just cold logic and let the wife know she can do whatever she wants. BTDT so she knows when I've reached a GTH point.
So yes, kids are a life sentence as they should be. Otherwise they are just some bloke w/their hand out.
Bob in Texas at May 4, 2016 1:17 PM
The step daughter is exactly who Dr Tara Palmatier writes about over at Shrink4men.com, and Robert Glover from No More Mr Nice Guy!: narcissist with toxic dependancy issues. The only way to 'cure' someone like her is to cut her totally off... meaning she'll just find some other Nice Guy to mooch off of.
jefe at May 4, 2016 4:37 PM
The step daughter is exactly who Dr Tara Palmatier writes about over at Shrink4men.com, and Robert Glover from No More Mr Nice Guy!: narcissist with toxic dependancy issues. The only way to 'cure' someone like her is to cut her totally off... meaning she'll just find some other Nice Guy to mooch off of.
jefe at May 4, 2016 4:37 PM
Correct, but this isn't really the LW's problem, is it?
For no particularly good reason, she has not only married a man with an adult daughter, who is a psychiatric mess, but apparently has co mingled all her assets with his.
(Either that or she has no assets, and is now expecting sugar daddy to provide for her retirement and winters in Cancun)
I had a step mother in law like that. She would volunteer a lot, and work a few days a week to buy presents for her grandkids. It was my FIL's job to provide her with a house, the Mercedes 450SEL in the garage, and regular trips to Europe.
Now this financial decision has come back to bite LW in the ass.
You wonder why sane people don't get married more than once, if at all?
This, Is why.....
Marriage is first and foremost a financial arrangement friends. It has little or no bearing on who you like to fuck.
I keep saying that, but it never seems to get through to the clueless romantic rubes who frequent this forum.
Isab at May 4, 2016 6:14 PM
I don't know if you intend to have kids Sofar. At that point it may make sense for one of you to be a stay at home parent. I don't recommend going to a single bank account if that happens. Draw up a budget. Split the one income fairly between the two of you and keep your separate accounts. As Isab said a fair part of marriage is money. And if you treat it stupidly it can break you.
Ben at May 5, 2016 5:52 AM
@BobinTexas said
I do suggest that you keep your retirement money separate as well if that is possible.
That's the plan. We've both been in the working world for more than a decade at this point and have our own retirement accounts.
I don't know if you intend to have kids Sofar. At that point it may make sense for one of you to be a stay at home parent. I don't recommend going to a single bank account if that happens.
We don't plan on kids. We don't even have live plants in our place. But I agree with your advice wholeheartedly. I've seen a few stay-at-home parents get screwed over because they have no money AND no money-management skills.
Also very curious if the LW came into the marriage with her own income/assets. If, indeed, she was looking for a sugar daddy, she's horrible at picking a good one. From her letter, though, it seems as if she had her husband's best interests at heart and got sucked into providing for the daughter. But she needs to separate out her finances starting now.
sofar at May 5, 2016 7:33 AM
I think Isab brings up excellent questions regarding the state of LW's financial relationship with her husband, and that the use of a mediator probably is the the best bet. If LW is upset that the Hubs is spending money that he has earned on his daughter instead of on luxuries for her, I'm not sure what the solution is there... but if he's spending money that LW has earned, and risking her assets/retirement/whatever, they really need to separate their financial lives.
My husband and I keep separate checking accounts, but have very intertwined financial lives- but we've been married for quite a while now, and have little kids. Neither of us owned anything of real value or had established careers when we got together. Sometimes I make more money, sometimes he makes more money. Second marriages involving children (actual children or dependent adults) are a whole different animal.
ahw at May 5, 2016 9:08 AM
"Marriage is first and foremost a financial arrangement friends."
This is almost word for word what an attorney told me: "Nobody ever thinks of it this way when they do it, but marriage is a financial contract."
Lizzie at May 6, 2016 5:58 AM
In a community property state, keeping your finances separate only protects you to a slight extent. No matter whose name is on the account or on the title, every asset is community property and will be divided equally in the event of a divorce. A woman I know is staying married for just that reason: she and her husband keep their money separate, but he's spent his while she's saved hers, so she'd lose half her savings if they split.
Rex Little at May 6, 2016 10:16 PM
In a community property state, keeping your finances separate only protects you to a slight extent. No matter whose name is on the account or on the title, every asset is community property and will be divided equally in the event of a divorce. A woman I know is staying married for just that reason: she and her husband keep their money separate, but he's spent his while she's saved hers, so she'd lose half her savings if they split.
Rex Little at May 6, 2016 10:16 PM
This is correct. Which is why it is foolish to live in, or get married in a community property state, unless you have a prenuptial agreement that overrides the statutory division of assets.
This is one of the reasons why prenuptial agreements are such a big deal in California.
You never go into a contract without knowing what the penalties are for getting out of it.
If the person in your scenario wanted a divorce, I would first move all my liquid assets to another state, then move myself there. Then I would try and reach a negotiated settlement with my spouse for real property left in the community property state. Failing that, establish residency in a non community property state, and file for divorce there. (Unless your husband sells out in California and accompanies you to the new residence, which would be ideal.)
Now if property in question happens to be a Calpers pension, you are probably going to lose half of that, but Calpers is going to be broke in five years, and everyone will take a huge haircut so who cares?
Isab at May 7, 2016 11:40 AM
I don't GAF about this topic or what Amy's take on it is, because I'm still too impressed with the title to read further.
Crid at May 8, 2016 12:44 AM
Err... "We'll Always Have Parasites" appeared ~4 years ago.
Tough to be new all the time.
Radwaste at May 14, 2016 12:18 PM
Leave a comment