Re: Letting an adult "suffer the consequences" UPDATE Pg. 8

[Ms_Cellany]

Yeah, pervert seems like quite a stretch! Mean spirited, liar, emotional abuser, the guy seems like a lot of things. But I'm not getting "pervert" out of anything here.

Maybe not "pervert" in the more commonly used sense, but I would say anyone who takes such delight in tormenting a child is clearly perverted in the "Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state." sense.

I agree in a strictly etymological sense. The most common use of "pervert" is in relation to sexual misdeeds, but we do talk of someone taking a "perverse pleasure" in something. In this case, he's enjoying tormenting the poor kid.

However, the overwhelming connotation is still sexual, so I'd say it's unfair to stick that label on grandpa without an adjective.

[WillyNilly]

The behavior is perverse, therefore the guy is a pervert. His behavior is deviant and debases and corrupts the trust within the relationship. Its not a common usage of the word, but I think its valid.  There's a reason a "sexual pervert" is qualified as "sexual" - because not all perverts are sexual in nature.

[Iris]

My FIL used to do this. He wasn't (and isn't) and evil or horrible man, he just genuinely doesn't know how to react to children and has never grown out of the notion that teasing is 'fun'. FWIW I will outline my thoughts and actions that I undertook in the hopes that your friend finds them useful. DDs are now adolescent and do have a healthy, but not close, relationship with their Grandfather.

1. I don't like the 'leave her to have a tantrum' idea. Firstly, it should never get to tantrum stage, secondly it is not supporting DD when she has been emotionally hurt by someone she trusts and thirdly (and least importantly), it's not teaching the daughter about appropriate behaviour which at 4 she is old enough to *start* learning.

2. We didn't want to go with a nuclear option so we went with teaching DDs that "Grandfather is a tricker". As soon as he started on one of his idiotic stories we'd casually say with a smile "Remember, sweetie, you can't believe that because GF is a tricker." Grandfather heard "Because he's such a jolly joker and we'll all play along" and so a fight was avoided, whereas the message DDs got was "Don't believe a word he says". Very quickly DDs didn't need prompting, they'd just say "You're being a tricker, GF" as soon as he started. He gave up because it wasn't fun anymore. It's important to note that our attitude was key. We set the tone for DD's reaction by our attitude of "Yeah, whatever, not worth getting worked up about, it's just GF being silly. Ho hum."

3. There was a less immediate and very real consequence to his behaviour. DDs adore MIL. They are fond of FIL but there is just not ever going to be that level of closeness that they have with their other grandparents.

This same pattern has happened with every single one of his grandchildren. By the time the third one rolled around their siblings and cousins would just say "Oh, don't listen to GF, he's just being a tricker  " and the parents had to take very little action.

[blarg314]

I would say that the parents' solution of leaving FIL to deal with the screaming, badly upset toddler is still a pretty cruel thing to do to the child.

If FIL were doing this sort of thing to an *adult* he would still be a nasty man who was getting entertaining by being deliberately cruel to someone for the fun of it. He's doing it to a four year old who doesn't have the facilities to understand that the promised treat is a joke or to realize (more globally) that Grandpa is a liar who thinks hurting her feelings is amusing. She also doesn't have the ability to avoid his presence, or remove herself when things get out of hand.

Telling a toddler she's going to get a special treat, then saying that it's just a joke, having her melt down, and then leaving her to cry it out with the person who was tormenting her and nobody comforting her might make FIL uncomfortable in return, but it's still a pretty nasty way to treat a child who has done nothing wrong.

It needs to be made very, very clear to FIL that this behaviour is not acceptable, and if he tries it again the family will leave immediately, and he will be banned from seeing or interacting the child for a period of time (say a couple of weeks). The next time he does it, the banning period doubles. If, after three or four times, he doesn't get the point, then the FIL is barred from any contact with the child whatsoever, for an indefinite period of time.

[baglady]

This isn't an etiquette question. Letting consequences for bad behavior happen isn't rude ... it's life. The age of the victim -- if there is one -- doesn't matter. Cruelty is cruelty and there should be consequences.

If I were Taylor's parents, I'd call Grandpa's bluff. If he offers to have Taylor come stay with him and Grandma for a week, pack her bag, thrust her into his arms and say, "Have a nice time!" When he tries to weasel out of it: "You mean you lied? To a four-year-old? How could you?"

If they don't want to go there, I think having Grandpa clean up the mess he made -- i.e., deal with Taylor's upset all by himself -- is a reasonable consequence. When the episode is over and Grandpa's gone home, then take Taylor aside and explain about this bad habit of his, and brainstorm ways to deal with it in the future.

[Mental Magpie]

Yeah, pervert seems like quite a stretch! Mean spirited, liar, emotional abuser, the guy seems like a lot of things. But I'm not getting "pervert" out of anything here.

Maybe not "pervert" in the more commonly used sense, but I would say anyone who takes such delight in tormenting a child is clearly perverted in the "Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state." sense.

I agree in a strictly etymological sense. The most common use of "pervert" is in relation to sexual misdeeds, but we do talk of someone taking a "perverse pleasure" in something. In this case, he's enjoying tormenting the poor kid.

However, the overwhelming connotation is still sexual, so I'd say it's unfair to stick that label on grandpa without an adjective.

The behavior is perverse, therefore the guy is a pervert. His behavior is deviant and debases and corrupts the trust within the relationship. Its not a common usage of the word, but I think its valid.  There's a reason a "sexual pervert" is qualified as "sexual" - because not all perverts are sexual in nature.

Yup, if I take a step back and think of other uses of the word perverted and perverse, it actually makes sense.

I do apologize, LeveeWoman; I did immediately go to sexual pervert unwarranted.

[gmatoy]

I see this kind of "teasing" as a form of bullying. I would tell FIL that I do . not . condone . bullying!

[snowdragon]

I think all the adults here are failing that child. She should never get to the point where someone, anyone, let alone someone she is supposed be able to trust.
  All of them are participating in the emotional abuse of that child. The FIL because of what he does to her. And the rest of them for not stopping it, by either removing her or not bringing her to him to be abused in the first place.

[cicero]

I would ask them point blank - How long are you going to allow FIL to emotionally taunt and abuse your daughter? It is their responsibility to not allow this man to continue torment this child. If that means MIL doesn't get to see her - to bad. MIL needs to tell FIL to grow up and stop abusing their grandchild.

The child's reaction is normal developmentally for her age.

this

I don't think the parents are doing the right thing either. I would not have left that poor child alone with the grandfather, he is either just mean, or clueless, or sick.

I would stop letting that child near her grandfather. period.

[weeblewobble]

OK, the responses are pretty loud and clear.  The next time Annette mentions this, (she doesn't know I'm posting about this) I will talk to her about more severe "loss of contact" consequences for FIL, which may make MIL take a more active stance against the behavior, and how it may not be a good idea to leave Taylor alone with the person who hurt her feelings in the first place.

ETA: I will also tell her about the "Grandpa is a liar/tricker" response.

[cicero]

OK, the responses are pretty loud and clear.  The next time Annette mentions this, (she doesn't know I'm posting about this) I will talk to her about more severe "loss of contact" consequences for FIL, which may make MIL take a more active stance against the behavior, and how it may not be a good idea to leave Taylor alone with the person who hurt her feelings in the first place.

ETA: I will also tell her about the "Grandpa is a liar/tricker" response.

i think the focus should be on the child. this is't about "the grandfather", or about the grandfather's "loss of contact" consequences. this is about protecting and supporting a child.

[Redsoil]

I think the whole family needs to have a serious "come to Jesus" meeting with Grandpa, and tell him just how twisted and nasty his behaviour is.  He needs to understand that this bullying and tormenting is not in any way acceptable to anyone with any shred of moral fibre.  He's tormenting his grandchild the way nasty kids would torment a frog for fun.  Both actions are reprehensible, and should not ever be condoned by anyone.  Make him realise just how cruel he is being, and that everyone involved thinks much less of him because of it.  If he doesn't mend his ways, then no contact with grandchild.  Why allow this torment to continue?

[Perfect Circle]

This needs to stop. This is unspeakably cruel to the child.

[KenveeB]

The behavior is perverse, therefore the guy is a pervert. His behavior is deviant and debases and corrupts the trust within the relationship. Its not a common usage of the word, but I think its valid.  There's a reason a "sexual pervert" is qualified as "sexual" - because not all perverts are sexual in nature.

"Pervert" is a very loaded word with a very specific meaning in today's society, and one that (deservedly) comes with an awful lot of baggage and consequences. I don't think it should be used in any form other than the common usage, both to avoid giving those consequences to someone who doesn't deserve them and (more importantly, IMO) to avoid downplaying the word so it doesn't carry the meaning that it should. (Think of kids who think "r@pe" is just a descriptive slang word rather than a horrible attack.) I don't think FIL here is a pervert at all. He's a mean, nasty, cruel man. Call him that, and save pervert for the people who deserve that term.

Back to the main issue, I think that the key thing to remember is that what happened here wasn't letting FIL suffer the consequences, it was letting Taylor suffer them. Letting FIL suffer the consequences will be being called a liar repeatedly and to his face until he accepts that he's not being funny, he's being cruel.

[TootsNYC]

Iris has really, really great advice! What a wonderful solution for a really unfair situation.
(I especially love the "Grandpa is a tricker" choice of wording--not "teaser" and not "liar.")


I agree that I'd start working with Taylor. It's sad to have to teach her never to trust her grandpa, but it's *accurate*.

I think it's our job as parents to teach our children, at a very young age, how to navigate the world. There are jerks in it, and when one pops up with any consistency, it's important to teach kids how to handle it. Taylor is 4--that's old enough.

And it's not going to end, and Taylor needs a tool she can use for years to come.

If you want to have Grandpa "suffer the consequences," then the appropriate consequence would be for every one of them, including Taylor to leave the room the moment Grandpa starts. And the house if necessary.