Was I a witness to emotional abuse?

[Writer]

I was out to lunch with a friend who has a 5 year-old girl. We ordered a hot dog and fries for the little girl, while we ate our adult food. After we finished our meals, my friend decided to "steal" a couple of fries from her daughter, which at first didn't seem like anything serious. Unfortunately, she grabbed a particularly long fry that her daughter had her eyes on. The little girl started to cry and was rather upset at my friend, exclaiming "You took the fry I wanted!" My friend said that she didn't mean to take the fry, but her daughter looked squarely at her and said "Yes, you did!" My friend then looked straight at the little girl and said, in a low and somewhat defensive voice, "No, I did not MEAN to take your fry... and that's why I apologized." (My friend did not, in fact, apologize.) The little girl said, "No, you didn't!" My friend maintained that she did, in fact, apologize, then proceeded to ignore her. I tried to reassure the little girl, telling her that there are many plates of wonderful french fries in the world, and she has yet to eat them. My friend told me not to talk to her, lest I "encourage" her crying.

I don't have children yet, but something was funny about this interaction. Is this normal for a 5 year-old and her mother? It sticks in my mind as being a little odd.

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. Seems like the mom plays mind games with the kid

[Writer]

3. I'm trying to remain open-minded about this, but here is why I'm asking:

I thought that, perhaps, my friend wasn't respecting her daughter's emotions. That perhaps it was more important to my friend to protect herself from feeling guilty than it was to try consoling her daughter's reaction.

[rug]

2. No.

Once I forgot to put money under the pillow for a tooth and my daughter was upset. I told her a bear ate the tooth fairy.

[vadawg]

4. rofl, seems like the op is reading to much into this

id hate to have my kids and i under such scrutiny....

[Writer]

5. That's not fair. I'm asking a question and leaving open the option that nothing is wrong. n/t

[vadawg]

8. sorry i wasnt meaning that as an attack, just saying that i think every parent

in the world has moments where its a battle of wills with their kids and strangers looking in would see it differently. The funniest for me is my son tells people that i shoot people and sell drugs and that i spend a lot of time in jail.

[Writer]

9. Thanks, I"m trying to get the perspective of parents.

Why does your son say such things about you? How old is he?

[vadawg]

12. oh hes 4, and i am a cop, hes still not sure what that means

but hes sure i shoot people with my guns, and no idea where he got the drugs thing from and i do spend a lot of time in the jail.. :)

[Writer]

13. That is pretty funny. n/t

[vadawg]

17. lol try explaining to teachers for the first time, when you look like a meth user

when you go to pick your kids up after working all night. :)

[Sky Masterson]

15. Don't let it get to you

I read it how you meant it.

[lillypaddle]

143. yep.

agree. arm chair quarterbacks.

[lillypaddle]

148. LOL

Good for you. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Did you check for bruises?

:eyes:

[Ptah]

7. No, not abuse.

[susanr516]

10. I don't think it's emotional abuse

However, mom should have asked if she could have a few french fries. I assume she wouldn't have stolen french fries off your plate, so why should she do that to her child? I have eaten quite a few of my kids' french fries over the years, but I've always asked first (unless they had already left the table.)

[RandomThoughts]

19. As an analogy...

The child is developing self identity, and part of that is boundaries. Her fries being hers is probably part of that, the mother did not see it as that kind of thing.

If the mother would have asked and the child said no, there could be a conversation on sharing, but since she just took the fry, both child and mother thought in terms of just ownership from there own perspective. The child's perspective is that the fry is hers because it is in front of her, technically you could argue the fry came from the mother buying the meal so she had the right to take the fry.

The child's weaker or less developed understanding of ownership makes her upset, the mother if she feels she has the right to take the fry, should explain why, of coarse that would bring up feelings of community and less feelings of individuality, since the argument would be that the fries belong to both the mother and the child. If the mother thinks it is the child's fry then it would make sense for her to apologize.


Although my comment does not go to the topic of abuse, it is the same comment that spoiled people with alot of material things make about taxes.

The mother is the average workers that buy the fries for the child, but the child only sees the things in front of them as theirs and throws a tantrum when taxed. So I would say the moral is education of the ideas behind many economic systems, so that people can see that starving the worker is not a good idea.

Edit: meant to post as reply to OP.

[Madrone]

11. You are not alone in your feelings, Writer.

As someone who spent my entire childhood being physically AND emotionally beaten ... your friend was out of line. Was she torturous abuse out of line? Of course not ... but she blatantly lied to her daughter, suggested to the girl that SHE was the one lying, and then proceeded to invalidate her feelings, leaving the girl frustrated, angry, and unheard. That's called a mindfuck where I come from, and it's highly passive aggressive. Your friend was WRONG.

As for whether it's normal or not... it (and worse) was for MY mother.

[Dystopian]

25. I agree with you....

The child's feelings needed to be validated...and were ignored. A lie is a lie.
This is not about a French fry.
Aptly put.

peace~

[Madrone]

28. Well thanks.

I was beginning to think I'd woken up in a world full of my mother.

lol

I'm glad someone gets it.

[LynzM]

63. You nailed it, Madrone.

Kids are people, too. Small, irrational at times, but still people, and still deserving of the same respect you give to friends, other adults, etc.

[GOPisEvil]

14. I'm with your friend's daughter on this one.

First off, touch my fries without asking and it's ON. Second, kids know when they're being lied to. Your friend would have scored more points if she'd acknowledged her "misstatement" and actually apologized.

The ignoring thing? Not good. Your friend acted like a child in this situation.

[Zomby Woof]

167. I touched your sushi once

But strangely, you seemed to enjoy it.

[Madrone]

170. Um

Ew.

Filthy perverts.

:P

[Zomby Woof]

172. He is rather fond of his "dragon roll"

Very spicy!

[Schema Thing]

16. did the kid eat all of the fries?

[Writer]

18. No, she turned around and hid her face in the cushion of the booth. n/t

[Schema Thing]

20. So the mom didn't steal a fry, she just ate one of the fries

she purchased. Not that it would really be *stealing* even if the kiddo had finished the rest of the fries, it's just not a big deal either way. That doesn't stop a kid from trying to make it a big deal; which is always a good teaching opportunity: keep things in perspective, don't be a drama king.



Parents are usually aware of how much food their young need, and if they can afford to lose a fry or not.


It's smart to encourage playfulness in children. Sometimes people conflate encouraging playfulness (letting a child be a child) with encouraging childish, selfish behavior, e.g. "those were MY fries!".

[driver8]

21. Not emotional abuse -- but the Mom should ask before taking food from her daughter.

My son gets very upset if we take food from his plate; we have learned that we just need to ask.

It might sound strange, but it saves a lot of drama!

[Blue Diadem]

22. Did she ask her daughter if she could have a fry or two?

Asking first would have probably headed off the tears and upset. Chances are the little girl would have loved to share. IMO, the Mom is setting a bad example by not asking first and then not apologizing for taking it.

[woo me with science]

23. When all you have is a hammer,

everything looks like a nail.

Yes, it is time to step back and take a reality check. Human interactions are complex and sometimes messy, but most of them do not need to be viewed through the lens of "abuse."

[UndertheOcean]

24. please ..... no please ...

[Madrone]

26. Some of the answers to this question are blowing my mind.

Obviously there's a lack of understanding about what emotional abuse IS on this forum. Fixating on the mother taking the fry instead of her lying to her child about it and invalidating her feelings illustrates this. Is the mother emotionally abusive? Probably not - but her behavior in this situation WAS. I also don't get the suggestion that the child is a whiny little brat for being upset. I suspect if the child in question WAS that kind of child it would have been mentioned, or it wouldn't have bothered Writer enough to mention it in the context she did.

TYPES OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE: (in part)

Denying

* Denying a person's emotional needs, especially when they feel that need the most, and done with the intent of hurting, punishing or humiliating (Examples)

* The other person may deny that certain events occurred or that certain things were said. confronts the abuser about an incident of name calling, the abuser may insist, "I never said that," "I don't know what you're talking about," etc. You know differently.

* The other person may deny your perceptions, memory and very sanity.

* Withholding is another form of denying. Withholding includes refusing to listen, refusing to communicate, and emotionally withdrawing as punishment. This is sometimes called the "silent treatment."

* When the abuser disallows and overrules any viewpoints, perceptions or feelings which differ from their own.

* Denying can be particularly damaging. In addition to lowering self-esteem and creating conflict, the invalidation of reality, feelings, and experiences can eventually lead you to question and mistrust your own perceptions and emotional experience.

* Denying and other forms of emotional abuse can cause you to lose confidence in your most valuable survival tool: your own mind.



Invalidation

* The abuser seeks to distort or undermine the recipient's perceptions of their world. Invalidating occurs when the abuser refuses or fails to acknowledge reality. For example, if the recipient tells the person they felt hurt by something the abuser did or said, the abuser might say "You are too sensitive. That shouldn't hurt you."



Minimizing

* Minimizing is a less extreme form of denial. When minimizing, the abuser may not deny that a particular event occurred, but they question the recipient's emotional experience or reaction to an event. Statements such as "You're too sensitive," "You're exaggerating," or "You're blowing this out of proportion" all suggest that the recipient's emotions and perceptions are faulty and not be trusted.

* Trivializing, which occurs when the abuser suggests that what you have done or communicated is inconsequential or unimportant, is a more subtle form of minimizing.




MORE ON INVALIDATION:


Invalidation is to reject, ignore, mock, tease, judge, or diminish someone's feelings. It is an attempt to control how they feel and for how long they feel it.

Constant invalidation may be one of the most significant reasons a person with high innate emotional intelligence suffers from unmet emotional needs later in life.(1) A sensitive child who is repeatedly invalidated becomes confused and begins to distrust his own emotions. He fails to develop confidence in and healthy use of his emotional brain-- one of nature's most basic survival tools. To adapt to this unhealthy and dysfunctional environment, the working relationship between his thoughts and feelings becomes twisted. His emotional responses, emotional management, and emotional development will likely be seriously, and perhaps permanently, impaired. The emotional processes which worked for him as a child may begin to work against him as an adult. In fact, one defintion of the so-called "borderline personality disorder" is "the normal response of a sensitive person to an invalidating environment" (2)

Psychiatrist R.D. Laing said that when we invalidate people or deny their perceptions and personal experiences, we make mental invalids of them. He found that when one's feelings are denied a person can be made to feel crazy even they are perfectly mentally healthy. (Reference)

Recent research by Thomas R. Lynch, Ph.D. of Duke University supports the idea that invalidation leads to mental health problems. He writes "...a history of emotion invalidation (i.e., a history of childhood psychological abuse and parental punishment, minimization, and distress in response to negative emotion) was significantly associated with emotion inhibition (i.e., ambivalence over emotional expression, thought suppression, and avoidant stress responses). Further, emotion inhibition significantly predicted psychological distress, including depression and anxiety symptoms.) (Reference)

Invalidation goes beyond mere rejection by implying not only that our feelings are disapproved of, but that we are fundamentally abnormal. This implies that there is something wrong with us because we aren't like everyone else; we are strange; we are different; we are weird.

None of this feels good, and all of it damages us. The more different from the mass norm a person is, for example, more intelligent or more sensitive, the more he is likely to be invalidated. When we are invalidated by having our feelings repudiated, we are attacked at the deepest level possible, since our feelings are the innermost expression of our individual identities.

Psychological invalidation is one of the most lethal forms of emotional abuse. It kills confidence, creativity and individuality.

Telling a person she shouldn't feel the way she does feel is akin to telling water it shouldn't be wet, grass it shouldn't be green, or rocks they shouldn't be hard. Each persons's feelings are real. Whether we like or understand someone's feelings, they are still real. Rejecting feelings is rejecting reality; it is to fight nature and may be called a crime against nature, "psychological murder", or "soul murder." Considering that trying to fight feelings, rather than accept them, is trying to fight all of nature, you can see why it is so frustrating, draining and futile. A good guideline is:

First accept the feelings, then address the behavior.

[GOPisEvil]

27. Basic lack of understanding here at DU?

Never!

:D

[Madrone]

29. Well, that ... Or...

1. People are so lucky they've never suffered any emotional abuse, so they are unable to recognize it.

2. They ARE emotional abusers doing a fine job of practicing ridicule and invalidation of the OP's thoughts.

[GOPisEvil]

30. Or...

...this type of parenting is experienced by such a large number of people that the behavior seems normal.

I don't understand why people don't see that children should be treated as humans, not as glorified pets. Hell, I'd expect any pet living with me to complain if I nicked his food then acted as though I was the victim.

Oh, but then I'm not a parent, so I don't understand. :eyes:

[Madrone]

31. Well, maybe this mother will remember this incident...

...when the daughter is 13 and didn't MEAN to take that $20 out of her purse. :D

[GOPisEvil]

32. Haha!

I will not take that bet. :D

[Dystopian]

33. Thank you, once again...

You've also succeeded in validating Writer's concern...She knew it didn't feel right.
I applaud her for bringing this to the board...and you've given the reality of the situation.
Sadly, this type of parent/child interaction is too common, and leaves a child feeling helpless/without worth...
Hence the tears. These were not the tears of a child 'wanting her own way'...as you well know.
I'm sorry that your childhood wasn't as it should have been...neither was mine.
All parents make mistakes...but this was an example of how this particular mother deals with her child.
Sometimes what appears to be heartless is merely not knowing what to say or do because of one's own upbringing.
You learned from yours...words of wisdom.
Thank you for taking the time to put it all out there.


peace~

[Madrone]

40. This bears repeating:

These were not the tears of a child 'wanting her own way'...as you well know.


Thanks to you for taking the time as well.

[woo me with science]

34. Oh, for pete's sake.

Some of this useful, but some of it is nothing short of ludicrous, applied to this particular situation. Specifically, this is a list of "invalidations" that covers all of human experience and crudely slaps labels of "abuser" and "victim" based on ANY less-than-totally-satisfying, uber-sensitive, and wholly supportive response by one person to another.

Seriously, look at some of what you've said here. Unless someone is completely, absolutely, and enthusiastically accepting of everything you ever say or do, you will have evidence of "abuse."

______________________________________________________________________________________
"The other person may deny your perceptions, memory..."

"Minimizing is a less extreme form of denial. When minimizing, the abuser may not deny that a particular event occurred, but they question the recipient's emotional experience or reaction to an event. Statements such as "You're too sensitive," "You're exaggerating," or "You're blowing this out of proportion" all suggest that the recipient's emotions and perceptions are faulty and not be trusted."

"Trivializing, which occurs when the abuser suggests that what you have done or communicated is inconsequential or unimportant, is a more subtle form of minimizing."
________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, gee. Sometimes people, including children, DO overreact, and it is not necessarily abusive to give a reality check. Sometimes people WILL disagree with you on your perceptions of reality. That is simply part of being a human being among other human beings who have separate brains and perceptions and experiences. Every human being will not always respond to every other human being as though everything they say is the most important thing in the world. SOMETIMES, it will feel like others are trivializing what you say. When that happens, most of us, even children, learn to understand that it is not the end of the world and does not negate the overall relationship with the other person. In fact, it is part of NOT being a narcissist to understand that every social interaction you have with someone is not going to stroke every emotional need and desire you have. Parents are human beings, and they have moments of being harried, tired, and less than perfectly emotionally responsive to their children. To label a mother "abusive" based on this interaction alone is beyond irresponsible and unrealistic. It smacks of an agenda.


According to some of the particularly ridiculous criteria here, every child in the world is being "abused" and undergoing "soul rape."


______________________________________________________________________


As an aside, I would lay money that whoever wrote this description of what constitutes "abuse" is involved in the psychological subculture of abuse memory recovery or at least very bad therapy that borders on the subculture. It is admittedly a guess, but this way of thinking is extremely familiar to me. OF COURSE, harmful, sustained, and clearly abusive emotional interactions are endured by some children. But, IMO, only people who have been well-trained in these sorts of descriptions of faux abuse would interpret "soul rape" based on the tiny, cross-sectional slice of a relationship observed by the OP.

This is EXACTLY the cognitive process of relabeling human interactions that faux "survivors" go through with their therapists or fellow memory seekers, prior to creating the really intense sexual abuse and ritual torture memories. This is the prelude during which they learn to reframe normal childhood memories of complex, human, non-idealized family interactions in sinister ways, matching them up against this wholly unrealistic template of how ALL parents SHOULD think and feel and respond to their children at ALL times. Eventually, they discover, slowly, that their parents were actually sadistic abusers and they were helpless, traumatized victims, never realizing any of it until they went into therapy.

Do that kind of cognitive reframing long enough, and then you are ready for the big stuff...

[wickerwoman]

36. I agree.

Mom did something slightly insensitive (took a fry without asking), got embarrassed when her daughter made a big deal about it and then tried to cover her ass. There's a very good chance in the stress of the moment that she forget whether she had apologized or not. It's not like she had a transcript of the conversation on hand.

In normal, healthy loving relationships, it's normal or even affectionate to playfully take food from family members or friends. The girl misinterpreted this and overreacted.

If Mom had had infinite time and no stress to craft a response, she probably would have reacted differently. But I don't necessarily see the intention to hurt, invalidate or even deceive her daughter. Put on the spot, I often forget exact details of what I said only seconds before. And rushing to head off a tantrum is pretty damned stressful.

Cut Mom some slack. It's not like she called the kid names or accused her of lying or took all of the food away just to prove that she could.

On edit: In the same situation, my parents would have taken all of the food away and said "If you can't share, you can't have any."

[grasswire]

44. I think the mom did apologize.

She said "I didn't mean to take your fry" -- the one the girl specifically had her eye on.

I think that's an apology. End of story.

[wickerwoman]

45. Yeah,

she didn't actually use the words "I'm sorry" but the intention is pretty clear.

[surrealAmerican]

53. It's clear to us because we're not five-year-olds.

To the child, it just sounded like being accused of lying.

[wickerwoman]

80. So the mother is responsible for the child's misinterpretation?

Sorry, but basically anything that anyone ever says can be twisted into "emotional abuse". Your disagreeing with me in the last post isn't validating my world view, therefore you're emotionally abusing me. Are you accusing me of lying? We could play this all night, but come on... life is about people not seeing things your way. The girl isn't going to get very far if she considers herself an abuse victim every time someone contradicts what she says, thinks or feels.

"I didn't mean to take your fry" is not an accusation of lying to anyone who speaks English; it's an apology. Is the mother supposed to pre-think everything she says so that it couldn't possible be interpreted any other way even by someone who barely understands what the words mean?

Have you ever spent five years being screamed at every time a noise is annoying, someone is a little hungry, the room is too dark or too noisy or too orange, there's an odd number of french fries and by God, someone else *has* to have the longest one? *That's* emotional abuse. And Mom has been putting up with it for years. It puts you on edge a bit, to say the least, and it means that when you sense another tantrum brewing, you head it off in the fastest and most expedient way you can, even if that means phrasing some things a little more awkwardly than you would if you weren't sleep deprived and afraid of causing a scene in a public place.

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. Wow, you think CHILDREN are capable of inflicting "emotional abuse" on adults?

That's fucked up. They're LITTLE KIDS. You can't expect them to think as clearly and logically as you. They're NOT CAPABLE of logical thought, and you can't deal with them the way you'd deal with an adult or a teenager.

"The girl isn't going to get very far if she considers herself an abuse victim every time someone contradicts what she says, thinks or feels."

She isn't sophisticated enough to even conceive of the phrase "abuse victim" because she's FIVE YEARS OLD. All she knows is that her feelings were hurt and her mom is confusing her and blaming her for her own hurt feelings. Which whether you want to admit it or not is at the VERY least immature, if not outright emotional abuse.

But then again the fact that you think you, an adult, feel that you can be emotionally abused by a five year old child who can't interact with you like a little adult and tell you how she feels in perfect adult English is very telling.

[Madrone]

97. Amen!

:applause:

[wickerwoman]

98. "You can't expect them to think as clearly and logically as you."

Right back at you. Why should a mother who has probably barely slept in five years and spends all day dealing with a screaming, irrational child be held to the same standards of clarity, instant recall and logic as someone who doesn't have a five year old? She didn't hit the kid, call her names, punish her, deny her right to have fries in the first place... she made a mistake, tried to apologize and then moved on rather than dragging out an argument that was turning into a power struggle.

I think there is such a thing as emotional abuse, but I don't think you can apply it to the normal parent-five year old dynamic, on either end, over a french fry.

I'm not saying she self-identifies as an abuse victim... yet. But if she grows up with Mom grovelling and apologizing every time they disagree about anything or Mom is a little tired and doesn't deal with something like a paragon of patience, rationality and communication skills, she sure as hell will think that way when she's an adult.

The girl was actually pretty rude. She didn't want to share her fries, she flew off the handle about something trivial and she accused her mother of lying unfairly. Sure she's five, but how do you think she's going to become a civilized adult if nobody ever confronts any of that behavior for fear of not validating her and committing "emotional abuse". Some behavior actually shouldn't be validated because it's rude, self-absorbed and needlessly confrontational. And a five year old is perfectly developmentally ready to deal with social issues like sharing, understanding and accepting an apology graciously and handling her emotions without screaming.

I understand how the girl feels as well as you do, given that neither of us have ever met her, or her mother, nor did we witness the event or the normal dynamic between them.

All I know is I want all the perfect, long fries myself. But I'm also mature enough to recognize that I'm not always going to get them and that that's OK. Life goes on. Thank god my parents "emotionally abused" me.

My challenge to you is to sign up to sub in a kindergarten and make it through six hours without "emotionally abusing" anyone, as determined by a committee of armchair parenting experts who will review the tapes and transcripts. And if you do make it, come back and convince me that it was in the best interests of the kids not to call them out on any of their behavior for fear of shaming, denying, invalidating or otherwise inflicting psychic papercuts on them.

[Madrone]

103. A couple of things....

You understand the feelings of a child as much of the rest of us, "given that neither of us have ever met her, or her mother, nor did we witness the event or the normal dynamic between them." Ironic, then, that you attribute a bunch of feelings to the mother, attempting to show that you understand HER better than anyone else.


As for : "Sure she's five, but how do you think she's going to become a civilized adult if nobody ever confronts any of that behavior for fear of not validating her and committing "emotional abuse". Some behavior actually shouldn't be validated because it's rude, self-absorbed and needlessly confrontational."


You're damned skippy. Confronting inappropriate behavior is essential. EVEN WHEN it's a mother's behavior. To reiterate one of your points - "Some behavior actually shouldn't be validated because it's rude, self-absorbed and needlessly confrontational."

NOT - "Some behavior actually shouldn't be validated because it's rude, self-absorbed and needlessly confrontational." - unless the person is older than 5, of course. Then all bets are off!

[wickerwoman]

107. Sorry, but

I never said this: "attempting to show that you understand HER better than anyone else" or this: "unless the person is older than 5, of course. Then all bets are off!"

In fact, I said the mother could have handled it better. Repeatedly. But I also know that few people act as well as they could all the time and that parenting is *the* most exhausting thing in the world, especially in public with an audience.

I'm offering an alternative interpretation of the situation from the one in OP, which I feel is a valid probability based on my experience with under-fives. I don't mean to suggest that I know the mother better than anyone else or that in an ideal world there was no better way to relate to her child.

I do know enough about dealing with small children that I can understand normal adults *will* inevitably make mistakes, but that those mistakes do not usually constitute "emotional abuse".

Confronting the mother with less than ideal behavior is not even in the same ballpark as screaming "abuse! abuse!" and not even trying to understand where she might be coming from.

[Madrone]

111. Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

I think the disconnect is coming from the words "emotional abuse." I'm not saying that because this incident happened that the child is emotionally abused - something that suggests abuse on a long term and much more severe scale. I'm not saying the mother is abusive. I AM saying that this one incident, as relayed, is a demonstration of emotional abuse. And it's not about the fry. It's about the child feeling slighted, unheard (invalidated) and ignored. Whether or not the mother's statement was intended to be an apology it appeared to the CHILD to be that she was lying, then telling the child she didn't see/hear what she did. The alleged apology was also worded poorly enough that another adult (and an intelligent one, at that) saw it the same way the child did.

I don't think the mother is a terrible parent - and I've said repeatedly that shit happens and even the best parent isn't perfect. That said - her reaction in this particular incident was inappropriate.

[wickerwoman]

112. I'll give you "less than ideal"

but I'm afraid I can't stretch to "inappropriate" or "abusive". :)

"It appeared to the CHILD to be that she was lying, then telling the child she didn't see/hear what she did"... and the child was wrong, unless the mother really is a fry-snatching, cackling Cruella deVille. The child's perception of reality did not match any reasonable adult's perception. How will the child's perception of reality ever come to match a reasonable adult's perception if the mother constantly indulges it or is afraid to share her own, more rational perception for fear of crushing her child's fragile spirit?

Mom could absolutely improve her communication skills. But just because she didn't phrase her apology in the best or clearest way, doesn't mean that she acted inappropriately (she, correctly in my opinion, tried to drop an issue that was turning into a pointless power struggle, at least until the OP tried to revive it) and it certainly doesn't mean that she was abusive. She has a right to her own reality as much as her child does (and even more so when her reality matches actual reality and the child's doesn't.) And I'm not convinced you can call an incident abusive without implying that the person behind it is an abuser.

[Madrone]

113. Ummm....

Are you forgetting there was a "reasonable adult" there? Or are you calling Writer out? ;)

Unfortunately, perception IS reality.

[woo me with science]

116. Yeah!

I perceive that I was satanically ritually abused. Therefore, I was!

[Madrone]

118. I'm not sure if you're purposefully obtuse in order to inflame,

or if you really don't understand. Either way, it's futile.

[woo me with science]

122. No, it's sad. nt

[wickerwoman]

127. Not trying to call anyone out.

I don't know anything about Writer and can't testify to his/her intelligence, agenda or accuracy. The only evidence I have of reasonableness or unreasonableness is the OP and I'm sorry but it seems more the latter to me. Who would take such a mundane incident in their "friend's" life and post it on a public discussion board to be dissected by strangers and then try to twist it into an accusation of abuse (something that can have severe and devastating consequences in the real world)? I can't believe anyone would do that to a real "friend" so from the OP, I can already tell we're not getting an unbiased account of the story.

This "perception" (that Mom meant to steal the fry because she's oh so evil and insensitive and then she really did lie to her daughter about apologizing instead of forgetting what she said because she likes to play mindgames and gets off on dominating her kid and of course the kid will be scarred for life and will never self-actualize as a result) seems pretty unrealistic to me. That's my perception, and therefore reality, eh?

Maybe Mom's a sociopath or maybe she's a tired human being. My vote is for the later. Writer and the daughter can vote any way they like. And I can consider that kind of self-righteousness immature and unreasonable.

[Madrone]

130. I was really kidding about the calling out thing. :)

I don't think the perception you are attributing to the OP is at all accurate. The interaction she witnessed disturbed her in the same way it did me (and others that have posted the same idea as myself, and many others who are afraid to post because they don't want to visit this drama upon themselves when it's seeming to be the unpopular opinion) when I read it - she was wondering about her gut reaction so she posted about it.

She never insinuated the mother is evil or a sociopath or gets off on dominating her kid. She did not ask "Is this mother abusive?" - if THAT had been the question my answer would have been different. Or my initial answer would have, anyway. I've gotten around to the same point now in a number of posts which is - the mother is not likely an abuser but that incident can be an illustration of EMOTIONAL abuse. There's no doubt in my mind that the mother did not MEAN to cause the reaction in her child, but it was within her power to deal with it effectively after the fact. She blew it. Tired or not. Shit happens, we've ALL done things we later wished we'd handled differently - acknowledge your error and move on. Fighting tooth and nail about why it's not your fault or about how you were just tired (therefore justified), or that you didn't mean it isn't productive.

Will the kid be scarred for life based on this one incident? Likely not. If this incident is illustrative of a pattern in their interactions - it most certainly could cause her lifelong issues. People are making fun of "invalidation" in this thread - but it's a very real and a very serious issue - if you can be a cognizant grown up about it.

As for Writer - she's great and a genuinely good person. :)

[Writer]

132. I'm certainly a busy person.

And for that reason, I'm sorry I haven't been able to tend to this thread, but that's what doctoral work does to your schedule. I do appreciate your thoughts, Madrone, and your kind words.

~Writer~

[Madrone]

142. You're welcome.

And the fact that you asked the question makes me believe you will be a wonderful parent when (and if) the time comes, Writer. Not only THAT - I bet you'll be able to be compassionate without grooming a narcissistic brat! I'm thinking there are too many people that don't see that as possible. :shrug:

[wickerwoman]

139. I would be the last person

to say that there is no such thing as emotional abuse or to try to invalidate the experiences of genuine victims. And I totally believe that Writer is a great person with good intentions here.

But I'm an educator and I'm required by law to report suspected abuse. Do you (or anyone else) genuinely believe that this qualifies as something that should be reported to the authorities? If not, why go to "abuse"? Why not poor or questionable parenting?

And if I see a kid with a black eye and he says his mom hit him, is that an incident that illustrates physical abuse but the mother is not necessarily an abuser? I still don't believe that you can label an incident abuse but not imply that the instigator is an abuser.

And people's lives, seriously, can be destroyed by throwing around words like "abuse". I really hope "Writer" appreciates the power that words like that can have.

Peace to all. :toast:

[Madrone]

140. I think we agree more than we disagree, but are getting hung up on semantics.

So on that note, I both agree AND disagree with what you've said above - but we're in agreement on the general thought.

[surrealAmerican]

96. Nobody suggested that the child sees herself as an abuse victim.

And, yes, the mother should keep her child's normal, developmentally predictable responses in mind when she's talking to her.

I'm not saying this is abuse; I'm saying the mother could have handled it better.

[wickerwoman]

104. Neither am I.

I'm saying raising your child in a psychic bubble where no one ever contradicts anything that she says, thinks or feels leads to a helpless victim mentality when life inevitably comes knocking as an adult.

I totally agree that the mother could have handled it better. But given that we don't know the context of this incident, including the child's normal behavior, developmental stage in terms of social skills and mother's level of exhaustion, it is unfair to judge and second-guess her as an "abuser" or "shitty parent" over one mistake when I bet there isn't a single person in this thread who hasn't done something a hell of a lot more "emotionally abusive" in their lives.

[Madrone]

38. That was a long winded way to miss the point.

"To label a mother "abusive" based on this interaction alone is beyond irresponsible and unrealistic. It smacks of an agenda."

That quote may be relevant... in a conversation in which I claimed the mother was abusive based on that interaction alone. Unfortunately for you, I did not. In FACT, I said I doubted the mother WAS abusive, but that particular ^incident^ was emotionally abusive. And it was.

A child has no power and cannot always communicate their feelings effectively. A 5 year old may only be able to cry to express hurt and frustration over her mother lying about what she did, then basically accusing the child of lying when the child tried to point it out. An attitudinal, smack talking 16 year old may call her a lying bitch and tell her she must be fucking STUPID to think anyone would believe she didn't MEAN to take something she plainly DID.

My judgment of this incident is ONLY about the incident itself - not about whether the mother is an abuser or not. Many (dare I say, most?) parents will perform some emotionally abusive act on their child at some time during it's life. People are human, parents aren't perfect. Emotional abuse is STILL emotional abuse, however. Whether it only ever happens once, whether it's long term and repeated, whether it was unintentional or on purpose.

The little girl in question is probably lucky, because I suspect her mother doesn't make a habit out of treating her child like this. I make that assumption based on the idea that I don't think Writer would be friends with such an obvious bitch.

[grasswire]

41. project much? (eom)

[Madrone]

42. ,,,

:eyes:

[Sky Masterson]

47. +1

People love to assume.
I know the OP she is a very nice and wonderful person.

[Madrone]

43. ,,,

:eyes:

[Blue Diadem]

48. I wasn't sure if it was emotional abuse or not.

Thank you for that definition. After reading that, I think more emotional abuse takes place than people realize.

IMO, the initial act of the mother taking the fry without asking and getting the child's permission also falls into invalidation. She didn't care what her daughter thought or felt, she was going to take what she wanted. That initial act says to that child that the child has no right to her own food and no right to make the choice of saying yes or no. Her feelings do not matter. Then when the child reacted, the mother went further into that invalidation by lying and denying the girl's right to feelings.

[Madrone]

164. It's also a perfect situation to use teaching personal resposibility to the daughter.

If you don't catch it in the moment, circle back later and tell her that you're sorry for taking it without asking, and that she truly did not mean to hurt her feelings by taking the prized one Explain that she's sorry her words didn't make the girl feel she got an apology. Done deal.

A parent that screws up and admits it to the child, explains where she was coming from and that she understands the hurt that resulted from the miscommunication is a parent that is teaching by her own actions how to be responsible for one's actions and cognizant of the feelings of others.

That's how I'd roll.

[Xithras]

179. Emotional invalidation is an important part of parenting.

Teaching your kids what types of things are, and are not, important to get emotional over (like a silly fry) is a core part of raising a child. People who fail to do so raise narcissistic little demons who throw temper tantrums in grocery stores when they don't get the cereal they want.

Abusive emotional invalidation occurs when a line is crossed an an abuser attempts to invalidate legitimate emotional issues.

[CBHagman]

181. Links, please.

I get a great many hits when I Google one of the phrases in your response. Specifically, which sources are you quoting?

[omega minimo]

35. Yes, they put chicken lips and pig anuses in hot dogs

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. I wonder what kind of person needs to "win" a battle of wills with a five year old

This seems excessively immature to me; why not just let the kid have the specific fry she wanted? The story you related sounds like an older sibling arguing with the girl, not the mom. Very juvenile, at least, although I certainly don't know enough about the deeper situation to be prepared to say it's emotional abuse.

[grasswire]

39. no

Sorry, but I think the premise is silly. I have witnessed abuse in public. Like the man who hauled off and slapped his teenage boy in the face in the chichi shopping mall and then the whole family rode the escalator silently with the boy being totally humiliated and scarlet-faced for all the world to see. That's just one example.

I'd say that parents are more likely than not to snag a fry in the middle of a conversation, just as a child may snag a pickle from mom.

Life is too short to give children so much power over trivialities.

Just my opinion.

[Orsino]

46. Lying to kids could eff 'em up.

Tell them one thing, while their eyes tell them another, and then lie about the lie? These particular instances may not rise to what most of us would call abuse, but if they're indicative of a pattern, I don't see how I could call the result anything but abusive.

[soleiri]

49. French fry hoarding became an epic battle of wills between me and my two sons.

They both went through a phase of setting aside the best, longest french fry to eat last. Which was fine if it was just their plate of fries, but didn't work so well when it was a communal plate.
I realize that this was a little different because the mother had bought the fries for her daughter, but she might have thought since she bought them in the first place, that it wasn't a big deal that she took a few. It sounds like the problem wasn't that she took some fries, but that she took that particular one. It seemed that the mom didn't take the longest french fry on purpose, then didn't do the best job in handling it afterwards, even good parents aren't perfect.

[mnhtnbb]

50. If your friend didn't ask her little girl first if she might have one of her fries,

it was a demonstration of not very nice behavior. Abusive? Hmm..I don't think so, but definitely
not polite and not a very good example of treating someone the way you would wish to be treated.

I'd call it more selfish, disrepectful and unaware behavior than abusive, or in other words the mother behaved like
a jerk.

[brendan120678]

51. I'm ready to get flamed for saying this, but...

Sounds like the 5 year old was acting like a spoiled brat.

:hide:

[NJmaverick]

52. That 5 year old needed some good adult supervision

when a 5 year old feels comfortable suggesting an adult is lying, there is a serious lack of parental guidance, in my opinion.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. adults do lie. if a 5 year old lives with a particularly lying adult, they know this

why shouldnt they express it?

[NJmaverick]

58. In this case the accusation was baseless

and with a child or an adult that is wrong. One should not suggest another is lying with out some sort of evidence to back up the claim.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. i disagree, most moms know what their kids love to eat. she was lying

she did "steal" the fry. took the fry her daughter wanted. pretended she didnt mean to and didnt apologize. i dont think thats necessarily abusive but i do think she lied.

kids are not as stupid as we like to think and they have very rigid definitions of right/wrong & lie/truth.

[NJmaverick]

60. First off I am pretty sure the child did not purchase that meal

so ownership is some what tenuous. Secondly you, like the 5 year old, are not a mind reader. You don't know, nor is there any reason to believe, that the friend deliberately took the fry the 5 year old was eying up. Finally there is a matter of teaching a child priorities. At 5 years of age it's time to start teaching the kid about what is and isn't appropriate to cry or make a scene over.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. i think teaching a kid honesty and standing up for themselves is far more important.

[NJmaverick]

65. The child has no problem standing up for herself

table manners and decorum on the other hand.... beyond that there is the matter of honestly and the child can not honestly dispute the adult's assertion that she deliberately targetted her favorite french fry.

[Amaya]

64. i agree

(from mother of 4 )

[alphafemale]

120. And a budding drama queen to boot. This behavior should never EVER be rewarded.

If it is the parents are going to be in for one Helluva a ride. The kid will get continually better at these little poutfests if it's acknowledged in the slightest.

Be ready for the "I HATE YOU!!! YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND!" and the near constant cacophony sound of slamming doors in about 6 to 12 years. That is if this nonsense isn't shunned as inappropriate behavior right the fuk now.

It is ridiculous to suggest that a 5 year old deserves to have every one of her feelings respected. Many of her feelings are going to be wildly inappropriate and selfish.

It's not the job of a parent to be sure a child's feelings are never hurt. Not unless you are trying to create the most narcissistic human on the face of the planet.

[woo me with science]

125. Excellent post.

This style of thinking breeds faux victims and drama queens. You summarize it very well.

[Amaya]

137. Thank you@!

:applause:

[nini]

165. exactly.. this was a mini tantrum

and the little precious needs to deal with such things. My dad used to sneak fries from us as a kid but I never felt entitled to not 'share' considering he bought the damn things for us in the first place and we all had plenty to eat.

This kid is selfish and ready to grow into a major pain in the ass teen.

Notice the child is pissed about the long frechfry - a good one - before reacting. She wanted the BEST one and felt entitled to it.

God.. I'm glad my kid is grown and my grandkid is perfect :evilgrin:

[surrealAmerican]

54. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "abuse", but ...

... it was definitely not good parenting. The mother needs to remember to model good behavior for her daughter. Even good parents forget this sometimes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. One incident doesnt really make for emotional abuse. I think your friend is a somewhat shitty mother

there is no way on earth, my mother would steal my best fry. preserving the best food for children, is acceptable norm amongst good parents. however part of her weird behavior could be because she was embarrassed by this stealing/lying in front of her friend. so she reacted more defensively than usual.

[Beer on a stick]

56. I feel that this entire thread is emotionally abusing me.

[datasuspect]

73. yes, i am scarred by this thread and need a grown up RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

my "team" will have plenty of work to do to unpeel the onion of this transgression against my tender soul.

[Amaya]

61. are you kidding?

:wow:

[HERVEPA]

66. Bad parenting: yes. Abuse: no. You're interjection: Not helpful ...

Speaking as a parent and grandparent.
I just spent time with my 16 month old granddaughter and would not think of taking any of her food without asking her. (Yes, she would understand the question).
My daughter or son-in-law would not think of doing it either.
You need to respect the child all the time, though you may (will) have to do things the child dislikes sometimes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. You need to respect the child all the time, though you may (will) have to do things the child....etc

excellent advice on parenting

[HERVEPA]

81. Thanks. It worked well with my kids.

And also, kids are seldom too young to have the "why" explained to them.
If you refuse a kid's request, or ask him/her to do something they don't want to, they may not agree with the "why", and they may challenge it, but much more respectful of the child than "because I said so".
Also a good idea to listen to the kid. They may be right, and great and affirming for them to let them know it. It shouldn't be about the parent's ego, EVER!

[wickerwoman]

82. You will make mistakes. Don't catastrophize them.

And don't let other people, who don't have kids and don't know what you're going though, make you feel like a shitty parent because you distractedly ate the wrong friggin' french fry and then fumbled your sincere apology in your rush to head off a temper tantrum.

Better advice on parenting.

[guitar man]

67. I don't know about that little girl

But I know that my 3 1/2 year old might not have cared less about that fry until someone else decided to pick it up, she'd happily let it go to the trash can but might decide to make an issue of it not because she wanted the fry, but just because she could. As far as your friend not actually apologizing then saying she did, that seems a bit crappy.

[grasswire]

69. This thread is extremely revealing...

...and potentially explains what's wrong with America's teenagers today. Their narcissism, their sense of entitlement, the me-me-me nature of the culture -- all could be explained by adults making serious issues out of trivialities. It's a bit like the way Americans treat their dogs, projecting qualities that are realistically the realm of adult humans on to them.

I have learned a lot from the posters on this thread. And it's kind of dismal stuff.

[woo me with science]

70. You put it well.

The sad part is that many of the institutions that claim to help people become more well-adjusted (e.g., self-help resources, therapy, parenting support) instead encourage thinking that churns out narcissists and victims.

[NJmaverick]

76. those are some very compelling points

[NJmaverick]

77. dupe

[NJmaverick]

78. dupe

[NJmaverick]

79. I would tend to agree

[WildEyedLiberal]

85. Really? In my experiences, narcissists learned early on how to treat other people like shit

Usually because their parents or older siblings treated them that way.

Your tired old complaint about "what's wrong with America's teenagers today" is the same tired old complaint that every single generation has voiced since time immemorial.

[NJmaverick]

87. You have it wrong

naricissist treat people like shit because all they think of is themselves. Clearly there were many DUers that encouraged that mind set. The child failed to share (why think of others), falsely accused an adult of lying (more all about me), make a huge scene over a frickin french fry (why worry about the other people eating) and made the person taking a fry feel aweful (again failure to appreciate the feelings of others) .

[woo me with science]

119. Good post.

I get so sick of the portrayal of children as hothouse flowers who should not be forced to experience any negative emotion, EVER.

You want to really screw up a kid? Teach her that only her feelings matter, and that she is a fragile creature who experiences "soul rape" when she is "invalidated" over a french fry.

[NJmaverick]

129. Agreed

[alphafemale]

151. Treat them as fragile and that only their feelings matter.

They will grow to be fragile, selfish adults. "Soul Rape" over a french fry. :rofl:

Having your feelings hurt on occasion is not emotional abuse. Having your feelings hurt is a part of growing up and learning that you are NOT the center of the universe.

[grasswire]

90. you have a shallow understanding of narcissism.

There is garden variety narcissism -- inflated ego, sense of entitlement, etc. -- and there is narcissistic personality disorder, a pathological disease that is devastating to those who encounter it.

The first may be seen in today's teenagers simply by watching one who didn't win a contest -- whole lotta cussing and nasty "you'll be sorry -- my momma said I was the best!!).

The tyranny of the mediocre has been allowed by permissive parenting and self-help therapy gone awry. The tyranny of the tot produces demanding, rigid teenagers and what is commonly called "high-maintenance" young adults who dare not be crossed.

We all know children whose parents are afraid of ruffling their children's emotions to the extent that they are creating people no one will ever want to live with.

[alphafemale]

173. the "tyranny of the mediocre" I like that.

Indulging the selfish whims of a child isn't parenting.

[Madrone]

94. You're right, it certainly IS revealing.

There's an overabundance of defensiveness on this thread.

I wonder what kind of narcissism or sense of entitlement manifests with a parent that will not respect their children's boundaries?

[datasuspect]

95. french fry boundaries are an utterly crucial piece of the child development puzzle

geez.

[Madrone]

99. It's not ABOUT the french fry.

But feel free to continue arguing that point. :eyes:

[grasswire]

100. it's not about any LIE, either

nor any ABUSE, either.

There was no lie.

There was no abuse.

[Madrone]

105. It appeared to be a lie to both people there to witness it.

If the mother didn't communicate her thought properly the it's not the fault of those that misunderstood her meaning.

Jesus. You people act like it would have been SO difficult for the adult to properly address the situation - and that because she didn't it's everyone else's fault. The mother handled it badly. Period. Shit happens and no parent is perfect - but HOPEFULLY a parent is able to self-evaluate and understand when they could have handled a situation better and do it better next time. This may apparently be a problem for many overly defensive DUers.

[woo me with science]

114. You might want to reconsider your own viewpoint,

since so many reasonable people are disagreeing with you.

This thread really is ludicrous and would be even funnier if it weren't so sad. Not because of the child's "soul rape," but because it is just more evidence of how we have bred a culture (or at least a subculture...see my other post) of narcissism and self-absorbed hypersensitivity in this country that churns out victims incapable of appreciating the complexity of normal human relationships. Go on labeling every "less-than-ideal" interaction as abuse, and you will certainly come to see yourself as fundamentally abused by all the world.

By the way, I heretofore request that you stop soul raping me by disagreeing with me. You are invalidating, minimizing, and trivializing my perceptions of reality. :hurts:

[Madrone]

117. Why would I reconsider my viewpoint when I am confident in my position?

I don't follow the herd. I'm a liberal.

What's really ironic is that none of you people arguing with me have any idea what my views are on child-rearing, personal responsibility, or what I like to call "professional victimhood." As they likely don't match your assumptions, you'd probably be quite surprised. :rofl:

[woo me with science]

121. Oh, what you've put here is enough

all by itself.

[Madrone]

123. Your attempts at insulting or being condescending to me might carry a little more bite -

if they were at all grounded in reality. You're entitled to your erroneous opinion of me. I promise my feelings will not be hurt. lol

[woo me with science]

128. No, I have been insulting and condescending to the ridiculous screed you posted

about "emotional abuse." I don't know you from Adam....or Eve.

It is certainly interesting that you take it as a personal attack, though. When you adhere to a philosophy that perceives resilient human beings as hothouse flowers potentially "abused" by any invalidation at all, that response is wholly expectable.

I don't know you, but I am extremely familiar with this way of thinking. I help clinics and hospitals screen out therapists invested in this sort of faux victim psychology, so I am very aware of the lingo and the dogma.

It is the worst type of psychobabble, because it really is harmful to children and adults.

I know you are firm in your beliefs. I am not arguing with you here for your benefit, but for people who may be reading. I have to say that I am encouraged, though, that the bulk of the respondents here are healthily skeptical of this crap.

[Madrone]

133. I don't know you...

You most certainly do not, as is evident to anyone that actually does.

I also believe you are taking my argument, expanding upon it, then attributing your expansion back to me. Whatever works for you.

[woo me with science]

136. I quoted what you posted.

It speaks, ridiculously, for itself.

[Madrone]

138. ORLY?

If you say so. Continue to "quote" me by expanding upon what I said and attributing it to me, then. If it works for ya.

[woo me with science]

150. One point worth reiterating:

People have touched on it a couple of times.

In a nutshell, the screed you posted sets up wholly unrealistic expectations for human interactions and labels anything that falls short of the golden ideal as abusive. You even admitted, in some postings above, that the interaction in the restaurant was more "less than ideal" than catastrophic. Yet you continue to use the word "abuse."

Words matter.

"Abuse" is an ugly word, for a reason. It means something. This sort of accusatory relabeling of normal interactions is exactly how faux victims BECOME faux victims. They learn to continually compare real, imperfect human interactions to some template of the ideal. As a result, they are constantly offended and wounded by interactions that others would consider a part of normal life.

When you apply the word "abuse" to any interaction that falls short of ideal, then you are bound to experience incident after incident after incident of "abuse" in your life, simply because of pure reality and the imperfection of human relationships.

When you start to perceive and label all these benign incidents as repeated "rapes to your soul," you assume the identity of a repeatedly raped "victim." You lose your compassion for how real, imperfect people interact with each other, and you lose compassion for the real, imperfect people you are labeling with this ugly word, "abuse." You become a narcissist. Or you teach your child to be one.

This is not an instance of emotional abuse. However, it is an excellent example of a particularly sick and insidious brand of pop psychology that infects how too many people perceive relationships today.

[Madrone]

157. Okay -

Number one - the "screed" I posted was a copy and paste from a website describing what ->can<- constitute emotional abuse, as I am SURE you know.

Number two - perhaps I was in error for thinking DUers would be intelligent enough to understand that not every "less than ideal" event in one's life, described by the "screed" as potential emotional abuse, would indeed be catastrophic or abusive. I wouldn't think that would need to be spelled out for you, but apparently some of you need a dictionary. Hint: When you look up "headache" on the internet and it comes up with a link about brain tumors, it does NOT mean that just because a headache can be a symptom of a brain tumor that it is automatically a brain tumor. Besides, I thought that sort of black and white literalism was for fundies and republicans. No one here better ever look up signs and symptoms of domestic abuse either - because we'd all find out we're victims of that too.

Number three - this is not, nor has it ever been about a child throwing a fit over a fry.

Number four - I, more than anyone else I've ever known, have a "thing" about not rewarding bad behavior. Nothing irritates me more than a professional victim, and it's amusing to me that you maintain I would ever advocate or foster such a mindset. As I said - you really don't know me.

Number five - I answered the question in the way it was asked. I do not believe the OP suggested the mother is an abuser and I don't believe she took my answer as saying she is either. Many of the rest of you, obviously, need it broken down and analyzed 6 ways from Sunday which, I guess, makes your repeated posts about this make sense.



Number six - I am fully aware of the meaning of the word abuse, and it's not because I have a victim mentality.

[grasswire]

144. I don't see any defensive people on this thread

...do you? Who are they? And why would they be defensive about a situation in which they did not participate?

Oh, maybe you think critics are defensive about their opinions?

Sure doesn't look that way to me.

Look, I am sorry you were abused as a child. I know adults who were emotionally battered as children, and they are deeply wounded, still. We all should be sensitive to this issue.

But it is equally damaging to raise a child without some boundaries of behavior that are reality based. That is called "socialization" and is preparation for how the child must interact with humans for many, many years.

[woo me with science]

145. One problem, though,

is that it is exactly this type of thinking that creates people who BELIEVE they were abused when they actually weren't.

When you can relabel any interaction that falls short of ideal as "abuse," you create someone who will be a perpetual victim, based on simple reality and the imperfection of human relationships.

[Madrone]

147. What type of thinking, exactly?

The kind of magical thinking you continue to have regarding my position?

I'm beginning to wonder what YOUR issue is. False abuse memories you recently found out the truth about? wtf.

[woo me with science]

153. Here we go.

Please check my post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9049791&mesg_id=9051433

Yes, it must always be abuse, mustn't it?

[Madrone]

156. Yes, it must always be abuse, mustn't it?

I do believe you are the one going on and on and on and on about false abuse memories, no? Did you not read the post you are responding to?

[grasswire]

158. stop it

Stop the veiled accusations against people here. Just stop.

[Madrone]

162. WTF are you talking about?

Sincerely.

Veiled ... what? Explain yourself, because you're not making sense.

:wtf:

[datasuspect]

102. what's the point?

spoiled kid has a tantrum.

adult acts like an adult. what is the issue?

[cwydro]

108. I truly do not mean any offense to anyone posting on this subject,

but this is a hilarious thread.

This may forever be known as "the french fry boundary thread" (and thank you for that name, datasuspect!) and go down in history with the fried chicken, Olive Garden and other great threads of yore...:rofl: :popcorn:

[datasuspect]

110. everyone's shit is all emotional right now

what with the french fry shortage and their ain't no burrito coverins

[grasswire]

159. there ain't no sanity clause, either

RIP Marx Bros.

[Zomby Woof]

169. As I've mentioned 1,000 times or more

The fried chicken flame war was the phoniest in DU history. It had NOTHING to do with how people prepare their chicken, and EVERYTHING to do with bringing the 2004 primary battles over from GD into here. It was stupid and wrongheaded (and the targeted party long ago received her due apology), but truly, had NOTHING to do with corn flakes or fried chicken, except on the surface.

[datasuspect]

71. if that is abuse

then i must be attilla the hun.

[Amaya]

92. me too!

:o

[datasuspect]

72. some of you guys REALLY need some hobbies

this vested interest in being a victim is a sickness in and of itself.

seriously, take a hiatus from therapy and go outside.

IT'S JUST A FUCKING FRENCH FRY PEOPLE!!!!!

christ, i wonder how some of you folks manage to leave the house every day.

[VMI Dem]

75. the wussification of our youth continues.

[rug]

83. Wait a minute, it was a particularly long french fry.

[datasuspect]

91. nice post, ghenghis khan

fryburglar

YOU LIE!!!!

[cwydro]

109. But was it crispy?

See when I was younger, I would give all the long limp ones to my mom. I wanted only the crisp ones.

And now that I think about it, she would chastise me for my pickiness. :rofl:

[Amaya]

93. WORD!

:rofl:

[Zomby Woof]

168. Hell fucking yeah

[latebloomer]

74. It may not be the prime example of perfect parenting

but to call it abuse is way over the top.

Now, if she had called her a selfish annoying little piece of shit- THAT would have been abuse.

Parents have their moments. I am a good mother but I would not fare well if every interaction I've had with my kids was put up for group analysis.

[Shell Beau]

155. Parents have bad days. Kids have bad days.

Being a parent is the hardest job there is IMO. Mistakes are made. Parents get tired, kids get tired, things happen. This wasn't abuse. Maybe a bad day. People calling her a bad mother when they don't even have a clue as to what kind of mother she really is is what is sad.

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

86. Nah

if the mother would have picked up her fork and pointed it menacingly at her daughter and told her to "shut the fuck up before I knock you off of chair" that would have been emotional abuse. That's how my dad did it. Sounds like a normal mother/daughter relationship to me.

[NJmaverick]

89. or the way my mother would have handled me making a scene

stop that crying now, before I give you something to cry about!

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

101. I recall that one

and it usually ended in really something to cry about, like a sore ass and going to bed with no dinner.

[Lex]

88. I would've gotten in trouble for acting like a little shit about a french fry.

My mother apologize to me about it? LOL.

[HERVEPA]

115. I hope you have no kids.

Or if you do, they have some other role models. Referring to a kid as a little shit reveals a lot about you.

[Lex]

126. Yeah, kids are perfect and never throw temper tantrums. They are always right.

LOL. I bet yours are like that, huh? The ones all the other parents hate to see coming over.

[HERVEPA]

174. My kids did not throw tantrums.

Treat kids respectfully and they are less likely to.
And I was commenting on your term "little shit", if you happened to actually read the post.

[Lex]

175. I figured as much. LOL.

nt

[Bucky]

106. This is a normal interaction. We are a selfish whiny society and our kids reflect that

The parent asked you to stay out because the child was mostly looking for attention and acting out by being possessive about french fries. You have to model letting unimportant things slide to kids. I know you found that scene upsetting, but kids can be intense, particularly in public. It sounds like that child just needed some mommy time and hadn't found an appropriate way to seek it out -- and the mom, aware of this, was concerned that by giving her attention now would be training her child that whining works.

Ugh, what a mess being a parent is. But I wouldn't trade off these past 19 wonderful whiny years for a billion dollars. My daughter is awesome for putting up with my whiny ways.

[ScreamingMeemie]

176. After reading DU sometimes, I feel like I should just get it over with

and call CPS on myself.

[Lyric]

124. No.

And I saw the "I didn't mean to take the fry" bit as an apology.

Of course, my son isn't the sort of child who'd get upset if he didn't get the french fry he wanted, and he's also the sort of kid who will cheerfully and gladly share his food and toys, so I can't exactly say that I've experienced this exact scenario. Still, I certainly don't see anything abusive about it.

:shrug:

[grasswire]

134. exactly

A child who is allowed to pitch a fit when mom bums a french fry is the child who "doesn't play well with others" in school.

[JVS]

131. After reading this thread, I would never leave my kid with some of the people here.

:crazy:

[crim son]

135. It's not a perfect exchange

but I have no trouble imagining the scene, and it being pretty normal. The fact that your friend sounded defensive is telling and I am wondering if your presence affected the interaction. I can picture being embarrassed by mistakenly starting an argument over a french fry, and then I can picture myself trying to figure out what's the best way to handle it. Especially as a young mom, it's easy to make mistakes. IOW, I wouldn't think too much of what you saw.

[lillypaddle]

141. people who aren't parents

like to psychoanalyze everthing. Don't make more of this than should be. Parents are human. We're not all Dr. Spock (am I dating myself?). Gawd, my "baby boy" is 41 years old. I made plenty of mistakes. He's a wonderful person, and actually so am I. We both survived each other.

chill.

[latebloomer]

146. Even Dr. Spock

probably wasn't Dr. Spock! :D

We can't be perfect in every way in our interactions with our children.

That's why in psychology there is the concept of the "good enough" mother.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

149. We are obviously dealing

with a French Fry Gap
I'll trust the Doomsday Mustard doesn't come into play

I never had kids, reasons ranging from the more serious to the trivial
Just my opinions
The daughter's initial reaction looks like this mind game has been going on for awhile
Kids know when someone is lying to them
Seems like this is a sort of back and forth thing that has been going on too long
Mom is the adult and needs to stop this cycle

I don't like the "ownership" excuse, Mom bought the food so it is technically "hers"
Reminds me of something that happened to me:
Getting in the car for my mom to drive me to HS one morning
Mrs M next door was out in her yard, waved to us and told me she liked my new sweater
Mommie Dearest replied: it's not hers, I paid for it

[madeline_con]

152. When your friend said that she didn't mean to take the fry, it was an implied apology. n/t

[Schema Thing]

163. An actual apology too,

since "apology" also means explanation, defense, excuse.




I agree with you though, there was very likely an implied "I'm sorry" in her words and inflection, though that isn't necessary for it to be an apology.

[handmade34]

154. dysfunctional interaction

unfortunately may be more normal than it should be. The fries are irrelevant, but the lack of respectful communication isn't. ...and ignoring and asking you not to talk to the child is cruel

[flvegan]

160. I have no children, but

I wanted to post in this thread anyway.

If I did have kids, they'd only be allowed tater tots or crispy crowns. THAT's American.

[City of Mills]

161. Giving children french fries is child abuse

How about some nice carrot sticks instead? Healthy eating habits are formed at a young age.














































































































:hide:

[elleng]

166. No, but not great parenting, imo.

[ScreamingMeemie]

171. No. I don't think it was emotional abuse.

And yes, I would say it's pretty normal for a child and her mother. Is it a comfortable situation? No, but it happens all the time. The other thing is, unless it's asked for, a lot of parents will have a problem with a friend/grandma/aunt/uncle injecting themselves into the conversation. I hate the way my sister in law is with her kids, but I also realize that she isn't abusing them. She's just not the parent that I am. I am far from perfect and I would hate to have my "less than perfect" days labeled as abuse.

[PassingFair]

177. I usually point in another direction to distract the child while I steal her fries.

Look, over there...

No harm, no foul.

[ScreamingMeemie]

178. You know... I told them that you do that.

:hide:

[PassingFair]

180. I do it to friends and other relatives, too...

The abuse does NOT stop with my children.

:evilgrin: