What do you mean, 'we'? We didn't all miss it. :P

I agree that would be best for all. I was about half teasing about escorting him to the door with a gun, but tormenting a child just he is sensitive is not appropriate and should not be allowed. Thnat is outrageous.

That is the kind of abusive behavior that leads to a life of emotional problems and this mother has a responsibility to protect the welfare of her son. No child's welfare should be sacrificed because some step-parent "can't stand" him.

shaddup, Markos!

That's a pretty good suggestion. Perhaps he'll find the behavior less annoying. Perhaps he'll find it MORE annoying if he learns it's far from the norm.

Either way, at the end, if he finds it annoying, it's annoying and he can be annoyed without being an abuser, or devoid of love for the child or his mother, etc.

Finding the behavior annoying doesn't mean he's a bad guy as some have suggested. No more so than finding behavior acceptable doesn't make him a good guy.

Finding the behavior annoying says about much about his character as learning that I had fish and chips for dinner last night.

All we know is that he finds it annoying. He could be the best salt of the earthy guy, or not. It really doesn't tell us anything other than he's annoyed.

Ditto for being angry. It doesn't mean he or she is an abuser. It means they are angry.

Without more specifics, we don't really know about the behavior, and how concerned the mother should or shouldn't be.

Maybe he sees something the mother cannot see because she is not objective, or in 10 years doesn't perceive the behavior as abnormal, or troubling, or what have you.

Maybe he has a fresh perspective.

Maybe he is a louse!

We simply don't know.

What we do know is that he's annoyed and there are folks who on one hand will say he shouldn't judge, but have no problem passing judgment upon him.

Again, if he shouldn't judge, then the same standard should be applied to those judging him.

I seem to remember that. If they fix the error on the archives maybe I can find it. I do remember he told them to separate until the children were grown and out of the house. Of course, in this situation, there is an 8 month old baby so that makes for a different dynamic.

I am reminded of a sad situation that occurred after my new H and I were married for only a few months. My 10 year old son ran in from playing outside and accidentally knocked the door into the dog who was drinking from her water bowl. My H got angry and yelled at S10, who began to cry saying that he had run in the house because he had fallen off the swing and was hurt. That made my H even angrier and he told S10 that he was lying. I stepped in the middle and diffused the situation.

The next morning S10's hand was swollen. H felt terrible and bandaged it for S10 and apologized for his behavior the previous day. I took S to the doctor and got it x-rayed and it was a minor sprain. H and I had a very long talk that night. I suggested that we move the dog's bowl to a different part of the kitchen, which solved the problem. H is now very close to S10 and he knows that I will not tolerate AO's toward my children.

Anyone can change and grow to be a more understanding and loving person.

So while some see an abusive step dad, I see a step son who not only didn't want his mother to re-marry, but is now making the life of his stepdad a living hell!


Perhaps we need some clarification here. Is the OP saying he has 20 years experience in human services and can recognize these sorts of things. Some have suggested he's guessing. What if he's making an educated observation based on his professional experience?


So he brings this to her attention. I don't see where he used anger, or intimidation. It appears he MAY have said, "Honey, you know I have experience in these sorts of things and it looks like SS may have some LD issues and is acting out as well. He didn't want us to marry, and his behavior is getting worse, not better.

So what does she do? She doesn't address the issue, she goes defensive.

So far, I don't see a guy who is abusive. I see a guy who has been subjected to a pretty crappy situation, and has likely raised the issue respectfully.


OK, so the child knows how to push the buttons of the OP. Apparently, instead of addressing the child's behavior, the mom got upset with him for being bothered by the child's behavior.


So he tries to have a conversation with the child and gets no where. Not only that, but his wife is mad at him, actually mad at BOTH him and her son for not getting along. (So if his anger is abusive, isn't hers?)


I think he's just fed up. Is calling the behavior stupid going to get anywhere? No.

But apparently attempting to have a respectful conversation about it has also failed and that was the first attempt.

I see a guy who is so frustrated he doesn't know what to do next. I don't see an abusive guy. I see a guy ready to pull his last hairs out of his head.

So if the above is true, is the problem with the son, or the mother who refuses to accept that her son may have problems and refuses to consider getting help for the child?

He didn't just "find behavior unacceptable." He is losing control and punishing the child in anger. Dr. Harley classifies this all over the place as abuse, and as insanity.

Look at the original post:


He calls the boy stupid and gets angry with him. He minimizes his anger by saying it's only "a bit much."

He refuses to change and justifies his anger as being a part of his nature rather than an unacceptable and abusive choice.


He loses control at the boy and then blames the boy for "setting him off." That's an abuser blaming his victim. And his victim is not a grown woman who can leave him, it's a poor defenseless ten year old boy who deserves a childhood and deserves to be loved.

Then look at his response to me:

In other words, some angry outbursts are okay, and his should be tolerated. The child's behavior, on the other hand, needs to be clamped down on severely.


He sees angry outbursts as normal and acceptable and not something which can be changed.


He's not willing to stop having angry outbursts at the boy.

Enlightened, do you really mean to be defending this? I'm all for this marriage being saved if possible. I'm all for his valid concerns about the boy's behavior being addressed. But the FIRST problem here is a grown man who doesn't believe he can keep his cool with a ten year old boy. That is a scary situation that should not be tolerated at all, and Marriage Builders advice in the face of someone who cannot or will not control angry outbursts is to separate.

Marriage Builders cannot help this couple until he agrees to end his angry outbursts. I suggest he call the MB coaching center for advice.

There is some awesome, awesome material in the most recent edition of Love Busters on how to learn to NEVER react with an angry outburst. The author himself used to have an angry outburst problem.

Do you believe one person can make another person have an angry outburst? Who is responsible for not losing his temper, here?


Yes, certainly. Dr. Harley says people who live with abusers tend to become abusive themselves. He even "read between the lines" in a letter once on the air recently and shocked Joyce by suggesting a woman who wrote in was beginning to respond to AO with AO of her own; the woman wrote back in and confirmed that he was right.

All angry outbursts start with a demand. You won't take no for an answer. The OP is unwilling to negotiate, sees his perspective as gospel truth and his wife as ignorant about her own son, and is causing his own angry outbursts by his hard line.

The men want him out, too.

In no way do I believe the anger does any good. And yes, he should go first when it comes to addressing the anger.

Maybe the best thing is for him to state the boundary and say his anger is not appropriate, and neither is HER anger. After all, she too is angry.

All the anger management in the world will do no good if someone is pushed past their point of being able to handle the anger. A responsible person removes themselves from that circumstance.

I think we largely see that here. He doesn't perceive the situation will change, and he's giving that final warning. I'm past the point of being able to handle this, so if things don't change, I have to leave.

Is he being cruel, or manipulative? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not defending anything. I'm simply asking folks to examine their assumptions and consider that he is as rational as anyone responding here. That he is in as much control over his behavior and emotions as anyone else.

Also, we don't know what he means by being set off. Anger itself is not bad. In fact, it's a healthy means of letting you and those around you know something is wrong. We shouldn't avoid anger, nor should be hide it, or treat anger as if it were something bad.

However, we do have to ensure we don't hurt someone in the expression of our anger.

So maybe he needs anger management, maybe he needs to leave the situation if the situation is not going to get better.

We really don't know. Folks here have been writing as if they know, as if he has no reason to be angry. I think he has AMPLE reason to be angry.

Now what he does or doesn't do with that anger may be up for debate. However, I don't see the same sort of condemnation for her anger, and it was HER anger spelled out first. I don't see where he initially approached the issue with anger.

Like others, I too am making assumptions. Not because I am defending him. Rather, I'm presenting reasonable doubt to the court of public opinion that seeks to convict him with the facts. I simply encourage others to take a different view, leave their assumptions of guilt at home, and find a way to understand his frustration and present him with a plan that will allow him to have his concerns heard and his marriage healed.

That will not happen if 99.44% of the participants here assume he's a abuser with anger problems and the mother and child are 100% innocent.

Signs point to the child being a troublemaker in the home given the child's expressed unhappiness with the marriage. It's not a far stretch to think the child may be trying to sabotage the marriage so he has mom all to himself again.

If the mom rejects that observation, as well as the others, then who is really destroying the marriage? Him with his anger, or her with her head in the sand approach to the issues between her son and her husband?

It's all speculation, so we really don't know. However, if we take the OP at face value, he has plenty of valid concerns and valid reasons to be angry.

But who started down the track of gospel, the man who may have observed something that concerned him, or the wife who rejected it, saying he can't possibly be true.

I don't doubt what you are saying. I simply question that either of us know who started with the hard line.

After all, look at all the motherly responses here. Is it possible the hard line began with her? Of course it is. That's how his account reads as well.

The child didn't want them to marry. He had a hard time with BOTH step children, but has made improvements with the step daughter. Meanwhile, the stepson's behavior got worse. He shared observations with his wife and she rejected his concerns, and when the stepson provokes the stepfather, she gets angry with BOTH of them.

So given that the relationship with the stepdaughter has improved, it seems he is capable of improving a relationship. I doubt the stepdaughter did all the heavy lifting to improve that relationship.

So if they worked together and that relationship is improved or improving, what's different in the other relationship?

Not the stepdad, but the stepson.

So perhaps the stepson is more of a problem than folks are thinking here, and he's getting little if any help from his wife with respect to this.

Possible? Certainly.

Abuser? I really doubt it. I'm not ruling it out. Certainly not as a pattern of normal behavior. In response to a seriously stressful circumstance? Certainly possible.

Could he have better tools with which to deal? Probably.

But a day to day, hard core abusive person. I don't really see it. A person who is pushed beyond his limits from time to time? Probably.

He needs better tools and some support from his life. He doesn't need a label.

Enlightened, I am trying to take the OP at face value. He says the child sets him off; he blames the child for his angry outbursts. If a woman came here saying her husband did this to her, we would call him an abuser and recommend she leave him if he is not willing to get help. He has said he is not willing to get help. By his own words, at face value, he blames the child for his angry outbursts.

This is how children end up with broken arms, broken legs, broken heads.

Enlightened, you clearly haven't listened to much of what Dr. Harley says about angry outbursts. I can tell because his perspective is very different from yours. If you shared Dr. Harley's perspective, you wouldn't be debating whether this is abusive or not.

I believe all the problems here can be resolved with the Four Guidelines For Successful Negotiation, and the first guideline is going to require that this man make things safe by eliminating his disrespectful judgments and angry outbursts. Yes, it also has requirements for her as well. But she is not here asking for help, and he is.

neuschwanstein, do you want to save this marriage? We have a plan that can maximize your chances of doing that, if you will follow it.

Actually, I have read it and no where have I said his AO's (or as he's described, being set off) are going to help the situation.

I think he should be out. He should refuse to negotiate until both he can control his anger AND his wife can make it a safe place.

We don't know who had the first AO. We do know she has been angry with both her husband and her child. I've yet to read where anyone is accusing her of abuse. So while his anger at the child is abuse, her anger at the child gets a pass from those commenting on the topic.

To me, that destroys the credibility of anyone who doesn't speak out with the same enthusiasm regarding her anger at her own child. So while folks are worried about his anger, at the age of 10, she is likely capable of inflicting the same physical and emotional abuse.

But as long as folks are silent on her anger, but raking him over the coals, I don't see them as credible.

I've clearly said their anger should be treated the same. If his is wrong, her's is too. If her's is valid and not abusive, then his is the same.

Angry outbursts are never an acceptable response to anything. They are always abusive. Even in response to angry outbursts. It doesn't matter who started it. Like you said, a responsible person should remove himself if he can't keep from having an angry outburst. That would protect the women and children in this situation.

Women actually have more angry outbursts than men. But men are likely to do much more damage.


Enlightened, have you read his observations about the boy? His observations are that the boy is "tender," which is normal for a child. His observations are a disrespectful judgment in the first place. They are his opinion, and he reports them as fact, and judges her for not agreeing with him. Her opinion here is just as valid as his, but he doesn't seem to understand that.


I'm not saying the stepson doesn't have behavioral issues.

I'm saying that step one of the Marriage Builders plan to fix this, the Four Guidelines for Successful Negotiation, is going to require the OP to take a hard line with his own angry outbursts and choose to control them and decide to change. Marriage Builders doesn't work if you don't follow it. Ground Rule #2 of FGSN is "Put safety first-do not make demands, show disrespect, or become angry when you negotiate, even if your spouse makes demands, shows disrespect, or becomes angry with you."

Enlightened, do you know a way to make Marriage Builders work for this poster if he will not follow it?

Then we are agreed. Why don't we focus on convincing him of this?


Why does it matter?


The thread's flying fast, so you probably missed where you asked "(So if his anger is abusive, isn't hers?)" and I replied "Yes, certainly."

The question is, is she willing to address her anger? She's not here to ask. The startling, shocking, dangerous, and unacceptable fact is that HE IS NOT WILLING TO ADDRESS HIS. As long as that is true, it doesn't even matter what she does, because there is no hope.

Furthermore, he blames the child for his angry outbursts. We don't know if she would respond that way when asked, or if she would take responsibility for behaving badly herself. And again, it doesn't matter as long as he is not willing to admit this is a problem and take steps to change.

You would make the first to say her anger is abusive. I've yet to see the gun toting moms to call her anger abusive.

I've seen a lot of validation and saying their anger would be normal and healthy, and pointing a gun and asking him to leave would be a positive and acceptable behavior.

Perhaps the child is too enmeshed with his mother and sees the stepdad as a threat. Who knows what he meant by too soft. We can't assume that he's a bad guy because of how he phrased it. Just as we cannot assume the mother is a good person because she rejects this observation.

One can have an unhealthy attachment to the parents and perhaps that's what he sees. Maybe? Maybe not? But why assume his observations are suspect and should be discarded?

Many people accept the idea of the use of force in self defense, and a gun can be used without anger. Her angry outburst is abuse and is a problem, but it pales in comparison to his because he's been made aware that he is abusive and still won't change. She hasn't had that chance, yet.

Her angry outburst is a problem. Her defense of her child from an abuser is not. Forcibly removing the abuser from the home is not an angry outburst, nor is it abuse. It needs to be done, and someone, hopefully law enforcement, may need to do it at the point of a gun. Hopefully it won't come to that.

If the child sees the stepdad as a threat, HE IS EXACTLY RIGHT. Stepdad is a threat because he has angry outbursts and blames little children for them and will not do anything to change. That's a major threat to the child's emotional well being and maybe to his physical well being as well.

I can't imagine anything he could have possibly meant by "too soft" that would justify what he said. It's one thing to be annoyed by a child's behavior. It's another thing to disrespectfully judge the child and present your PERSONAL OPINION ("too soft") as an "observation" as if it were an objective fact. Look at his wording "I brought this to my wife's attention." You don't "bring to your wife's attention" the fact that your son is too soft. That's wording for objective facts.

Proper example: let me bring to your attention the fact that it is 9:30. I'm bringing an objective fact to your attention.

Improper example: let me bring to your attention the fact that your favorite politician is a douche bag. What I'm stating is personal opinion, not objective fact. See how it grates? The reason it grates is it is a disrespectful judgment. It doesn't allow for any other opinion to be right.

How we phrase things is important. It indicates whether we will take no for an answer or not. It indicates whether we are willing to be persuaded that we are wrong or not. He is convinced that his view of childrearing is objective fact; he started the entire issue with a disrespectful judgment, which is abusive in and of itself. He's calling a ten year old stupid. Don't you see that as verbally abusive, Enlightened?

As for whether the mother is a good mother or not, that's immaterial. I don't know whether she's a good mother or not, but I do know by his wording that he is an abuser. I don't think anyone has claimed she is a good mother, but I think most of us here including myself feel that she needs to protect her children from this man until he becomes willing to change.

If someone told me my son was too soft and stupid, I wouldn't care any more if he found my son annoying. I don't blame his wife for not validating any legitimate complaints he has, in that context.

And it would be incredibly disrespectful if that person then went around saying "I brought to Markos' attention the fact that his son is stupid and too soft, and he got mad at me!" Of course I would protect my son from such a person.