xmas gitfs for Bks and Sks
joyojoy
about waiting for them to arrive before BKs can open presents I was
wondering how others manage the actual presents.
I have 2 SKs and 3 BKs (one from my first marriage 2 from my present
marriage). In my family we have to be fairly limilted with the cost of
presents. We actually spend about $50 on each child. We are big believers in
showing absolute fairness between all our kids so this rule is stuck to. The
trouble is $50 does not go very far and it makes the present giving ceremony
go very fast. It is a bit sad that we cant spoit everyone more. What I would
like to do to make the presents seem bigger is include a few everyday items
that I would buy the BKs anytime not just Christmas. Things like new socks.
undies, school items etc. Unfortunately if we did this for Bks we would also
have to do it for Sks so to keep things fair we just dont do it.
I will be feeling especially sad for my 12 y/o this year because his BF has
disowned him and probably wont send any present. I hope the Sks will be
discreet about all the lovely things that they will undoubtedly receive from
their other family.
Because the Sks are of an age where they are difficult to buy for (14 and
16) and because we really just dont know their tastes well enough we have
given them money to buy their own present for some years now. To even
things up we have given my 12 y/o money also. I buy a few little items to go
in their Santa stockings (about $10 worth ) but apart from this they are
only given cash of $40. The 1y/o and 4y/o BKs are shopped for in the usual
fashion. $50 seems to buy plenty for a 1y/o boy but $50 does not seem to buy
much for a 16y/o girl!!
Oh well at least we know we are being fair. Or are we?
joyojoy
Sian Lee Reid
<joy...@primus.com.au> wrote:
> Because the Sks are of an age where they are difficult to buy for (14 and
> 16) and because we really just dont know their tastes well enough we have
> given them money to buy their own present for some years now. To even
> things up we have given my 12 y/o money also. I buy a few little items to go
> in their Santa stockings (about $10 worth ) but apart from this they are
> only given cash of $40. The 1y/o and 4y/o BKs are shopped for in the usual
> fashion. $50 seems to buy plenty for a 1y/o boy but $50 does not seem to buy
> much for a 16y/o girl!!
>
> Oh well at least we know we are being fair. Or are we?
>
I've grappled with this one too, Joy, and I think it changes with the
children's ages. Your SKs are actually old enough to broaden their
definitions of 'fair' to meanings beyond 'exactly equal'. (Although I
don't think I've even met a teen who thinks they're getting a 'fair'
deal!)
Here's one way to look at it. Your SKs have two parents, each of whom
buys them gifts. Their parents happen to be in two different locations,
so only half of the presents are at your house. Your biokids have two
parents, each of whom buys them presents, but they both live in the same
house, so all the presents are in one spot.
I'm sure your SKs will understand if your BKs have packages of clothes and
underwear to open. If they complain, you respond with something to the
effect of 'I thought your Mom bought you lots of that stuff. Would you
rather I had bought you underwear and pyjamas than given you money to go
to the mall?'
Having said that, we tend to spend about the same amount on our BD and my
SD (although as you've noted, you can't buy as much stuff for a preteen as
you can for a preschooler with the same funds!); however, BD is my
parent's only grandchild, and they therefore provide me with a good chunk
of money for her every Christmas to spend on her. So if there is a
*really* big item we want BD to have, it becomes 'from BD's
grandparents'. SD understands that she has a different relationship to my
parents than her sister does (although she also gets a small gift from
them every year).
Ultimately though, you just have to do what you are most comfortable with...
Sian
Tracey
>about waiting for them to arrive before BKs can open presents I was
>wondering how others manage the actual presents.
I've tried three times now to explain the actual 'present distribution'
in our house and, all three times, I've come up against the fact that
I sound pretty cold and mean about it and, if I try and explain why
I feel the way I do, it turns into a long, unwieldy post. So, I'll just
leave it at this: The amount of money spent on my 3 SKs and our
2 BKs is nowhere near equal. For various reasons, our 2 BKs
do get more money spent on their presents than my 3 SKs.
Tracey
--
In dog years.....I'd be dead.
Tracey
I'm not sure what 'fair' you're asking about. Are you asking is it fair
that SS ends up with more stuff (because it's his birthday)? That one
should be taken care of just with a gentle reminder that *she* gets
stuff that he doesn't when it's her birthday.
If you're asking if it's fair that your SS gets more in quantity than your
SD gets, she's old enough to understand money (especially since she's
working.) Since our daughter's been born, we've had 'the talk' every
year with our son to make sure that our son understands that the quantity
of presents may be different, but that's a function of how much it costs
to buy him something he really wants versus what it costs to buy her
what she really wants. Of course, it helps if you can give concrete
examples. Our son is quite able to realize that a $50 video game is
equivalent to 5 $10 gifts for his sister.
--
floridanewbie
wrote:
This may not help but I grew up with a SSister and 5 bio-siblings. My
folks had limited funds for Christmas ... heck, they had limited funds
period. We got a lot of stuff at Christmas we would have got anyhow
(clothing, underwear and socks) but somehow they managed to come up
with one or two special things we each really wanted (I can assure you
none of us had underwear, socks or clothing on that list until we were
a LOT older). I have three recollections about our Christmas gifts:
First, I always wanted more (who doesn't?) but knew it would not
happen. Second, I cannot ever remember wanting to compare prices or
quantities with the other family members. Third, I have incredibly
fond memories of Christmas and family and cannot remember more than a
couple of specific gifts. It is the spirit of the occassion that
lives on, not the material stuff ... I also learned how to earn my own
money so I could get what I wanted on my own.
Does it surprise anyone when I say that as adults all of us (seven
former kids) like each other, see each other often and are in constant
communication through e-mail and the telephone? I guess my folks did
something right despite not having higher educations or a lot of money
Floridanewbie
Anne Robotti
Not the present distribution thing, everybody does it their own way and
whatever works works. But the bit about "this is unequal but every time
I try to write why I get into a big long thing..." etc. Because the same
thing happens to me all the time. I wonder if it's not just because I'm
trying to come up with a reason for a situation that just exists be-
cause I just want it that way and it's my money, you know? Not even
about the presents, but things like why we buy SD school clothes but
not school shoes, and why I pay for gifts for her friends here but not
her friends at her Mom's.
Anyway, i just thought that was interesting, it really struck a chord
with me.
Anne
Tracey
>I try to write why I get into a big long thing..." etc. Because the same
>thing happens to me all the time. I wonder if it's not just because I'm
>trying to come up with a reason for a situation that just exists be-
>cause I just want it that way and it's my money, you know?
I think it is because we sometimes feel we have to 'justify' our
decisions. For me, God, if I tried to explain everything that has
happened to get me to the point I'm at right now, it sounds like
a lot of petty, fairly insignificant things happened and I should
have just got over it and then I feel compelled to point out why
I *couldn't* just get over it at the time and then it turns into a
whinefest or a lot of excuses as to why I didn't do this or why
I didn't do that. Anyway, it gets so unwieldy and, sometimes,
I get to feeling that I'm trying to justify a decision to everyone
when, really, the only person who needs justification is myself.
I'm fairly comfortable with the way things are now. Or, to put
it another way, I see no reason to change the way things are.
I would *like* for them to be different. I would *prefer* for
me to know my stepkids well enough that I could walk through
a mall and see twenty things that I think they would like. I
would *like* to be able to be emotionally connected to them
enough that I felt compelled to spontaneously do things for
them. But, I've said this before, there's not much I can do when
everyone else seems satisfied with the status quo. I long ago
gave up trying to change situations where everyone else seems
okay with the way things are. What's that saying? Don't try to
teach a pig to whistle. You just frustrate yourself and piss the
pig off.
You know what your reply brought up for me? It seems there's
a 'Code of Conduct' for stepparents and parents who are NC
that doesn't apply to parents from intact families. A couple I
can think of off the top of my head are:
1. Thou must make sure that things are 'fair' by spending the
same amount on every child and making sure that the 'stuff'
bought comes out even.
Why? My parents are still together. And I'll tell you what.
I don't *ever* remember questioning what they spent their
money on. That was their money. They made the decisions
as to what it got spent on. If my sister got a new pair of shoes,
then I guess she needed them. That didn't mean *I* got a new
pair of shoes no matter what. If I didn't need them, I didn't
get them.
Why is it that stepparents and NCBP seem to be expected to
make sure that things are 'equal', when intact families aren't
held to that same standard? I'm going to rule out cases where
one child in an intact family is dressing in name brand clothes
and has twenty different pairs of shoes and another child is
clothed solely in Salvation Army stuff, but, in 'normal' cases,
no one would question parents from an intact family who
bought one child a pair of shoes or a pair of jeans and didn't
buy them for the other one or think anything of it. But, step-
and non-custodial parents get that all of the time and seem
to held to a higher standard than intact families, IMO.
2. There is *no* justification for treating your stepkids or
your kids who live with their other parent any differently than
the kids who live in your house.
Again I ask, why? Back to my parents again. They treated all
three of us differently. *Because we were three different people
and we were three different ages and their lives changed as time
passed.* That, in intact families, seems to be taken for granted
sometimes. It happens. It's the way things work. One child gets
to go to a movie by themselves when they're 13 because they're
stable, mature and responsible enough to handle it. Another child
doesn't get to go to a movie by themselves until they're 14 or 15
because they're *not* stable enough or responsible enough at 13.
It happens. But, put those two children in a situation where one
is in a noncustodial situation and, depending on who is who in
the situation, either the stepparent or NCBP is favoring the child
that lives with them OR they're coddling the child that doesn't.
I can't think of any more right now and I need to get busy painting
some tree decorations, but feel free to add others if you think of
them.
One last thing here that relates to Christmas. My sister was five
years older than me, my brother is six years older. My brother
and sister moved out of my parents house when they were almost
17 and almost 18. So, I was 11 going on 12. By the time I hit six-
teen, both my brother and sister were either married or living with
someone and Christmases went like this: I, being younger and still
at home, would have a pile of packages to open Christmas Day.
My brother and sister, much less than I did. Did that mean that my
parents loved me more and thus, loved them less? No, not at all.
>From what's happened since then, it was a matter of who had re-
sponsibility for making sure we all had 'good' Christmases. As
adults with spouses or SOs, my parents felt that the majority of
the responsibility fell to those SOs to make sure that my brother
and sister had a 'good' Christmas. The 'If *I* don't buy them
presents for Christmas, no one else will' had changed to 'I can
give gifts that they want/need, but someone else will be doing
the same thing and I'm not responsible for the entire package
anymore' with my brother and sister. They still had the majority
of the responsibility for *me* though.
And, I think, for me, that's why I don't feel a burning need to
make sure that I spend the same amount of time, energy or
money on my stepkids as I do on my biokids. Let me explain
it this way: IF a 'good' Christmas could be given a numerical
value of 100, for our biokids, we're responsible for, say, 90
out of that 100, with the other 10 being filled by grandparents/
friends/relatives/etc. For my stepkids, take that 10 away that's
being filled by grandparents/friends/relatives/etc., and that leaves
90. Their mother is responsible for half of that <45> and that
leaves 45 to be filled by their father <and me>.
So, in a nutshell, the differences in ages in the kids (oldest SS will be
22 soon, youngest biochild is 4) and what I see as a difference in the
level of responsibility to make sure that the holidays are good ones are
the two major reasons why I don't feel it's necessary or even fair to
*all* the kids to try and keep the gift-giving equal in our situation.
jane lawrence
>
>
> You know what your reply brought up for me? It seems there's
> a 'Code of Conduct' for stepparents and parents who are NC
> that doesn't apply to parents from intact families. A couple I
> can think of off the top of my head are:
>
> 1. Thou must make sure that things are 'fair' by spending the
> same amount on every child and making sure that the 'stuff'
> bought comes out even.
>
> 2. There is *no* justification for treating your stepkids or
> your kids who live with their other parent any differently than
> the kids who live in your house.
From the CP perspective:
What kills me is is that I have to pretend there is no
dissension between me and the NCPs.
Generally, I'm pretty honest with the kids. BD seems to have a
zero tolerance policy about conflict with my ex and his SO,
though. That's definitely an "I'm not asking you to be honest"
area. I don't understand it, because it's fine for me to
disagree with DH about anything and everything. If the ex and I
don't see eye to eye on East Timor, I get "the look." So if he
and I are going to argue about her visitation dates, for
example, I always have to ask her to go walk the dog.
The situation with SD is a little different. Her mother and I
don't like each other. I don't pretend I do, but I try to
present it as a difference in personalities, which it is, rather
than as her mother being a jerk. Unlike BD, SD tries to lead me
to criticize her mother. I think she's looking for support in
their emotional wrangling. Wild horses couldn't drag me into
that one.
Anyway, the artificiality of it all chafes.
jane
Tracey
>What kills me is is that I have to pretend there is no
>dissension between me and the NCPs.
Okay, maybe we can change it to 'Code of Conduct for
People in Step Situations.'
And that's a biggie, I think.
>Anyway, the artificiality of it all chafes.
I'm usually fairly good at being noncommital in certain situations
(when I have time to prepare myself. It's when I'm caught off-
guard or distracted that I'm tactless!) But, I've found, I can't
even be noncommital when it comes to my stepkids or their
mother. I'm thinking specifically of my in-laws and my husband.
It's like being noncommital or totally neutral is as bad as being
negative. As an example, I remember one conversation in par-
ticular with my in-laws where my FIL stated 'They're really
good kids, you know, Tracey,' and I said 'I'm sure they are.'
And you know what? You would have thought I had just
stated that they were all potential sociopaths who should be
locked away forever.