I've been sitting here trying to come up with something intelligent to say in response to this woman's question; something that incoporates the various emotions and memories from my own experience as a stepchild: my anger at my father for getting remarried after my mother died, my confusion at how the various family roles were supposed to play out, my sadness at seeing the changes in the old family traditions, my terror at the possibilty of losing my home to her and her own children as my father came ill himself, my grief following his death, my rage when she kicked me and my siblings out of the house less than a year later, the frustration and tediousness of the long legal battle that followed, the hollowness and anger and helplessness that I still feel today towards the situation.

But all I can seem to write-- what keeps coming to my mind-- is "What a bitch."

I've been reading this thread, and have participated, with a lot of interest. I think it's intriguing as much for the way in which we talk about the issue as much as for what the opinions we express are.

I do find a lot of what those sympathetic to the letter writer say to be tough to swallow. Many of their arguments go as follows:

She is being honest! (Well, yes. But I supposed people who are racist are being honest when they voice racist attitudes. Does that somehow make their racism alright? Simply because you are honest in saying something awful doesn't make it any less awful to hold that attitude.)

The people who attack her don't show any empathy for her position. (And do you show empathy for the stepchildren? Calls for empathy cut both ways. It is precisely her lack of empathy, I'm willing to bet, that drives so many people to respond. Her attempts to protect herself from criticism by announcing her guilt seem so lame and insincere, it's difficult for me to drum up any support for her.)

Those attacking the LW are transferring their own mother issues onto the LW. (And you aren't transferring your own child issues onto them?)

She didn't really know what she was getting into. (Probably not. But you know what? That's a part of adult life. It's called responsibility. You are forced to deal with the consequences of your actions, even if you weren't perfectly informed to begin with.)

And that to me is the crux of the situation. The point isn't that the children are blameless, or that I can't find room to see things from her perspective. The point is that she is the adult, and she made the choice, however ill-informed it may have been. These stepchildren are children-- they have an incredible lack of agency in the world around them, an inability to alter the course of their own lives. They are the ones who are supposed to be selfish and ignorant and unfair. They are yet fully formed people.

And, yes, it does matter-- it absolutely does matter-- that they weren't the ones who made the choice. They had this hoisted onto them, and they have to deal with it. And it takes a remarkably cold heart to not feel some responsibility for their feelings. This woman made a choice. As many people have pointed out, she "didn't really know" what she was getting into. But that's what being an adult is, dealing with the consequences of your choices, even when they weren't well thought out. And being a compassionate person means doing everything you can to make it easier on this children who made no such choice.

I just can't comprehend the number of people who are lionizing this woman for her "honesty" or her "maturity" in writing this letter. She is not "dealing with the situation"-- she is looking to get sympathy from an anonymous internet columnist at an arms length from the situation. She's looking for an authority to excuse her horrible attitudes.

Look, you can feel badly for this woman. You can emphathize with this woman. But don't play her off to be some sort of hero for making her selfishness known. Because that's what she is, selfish. Are the kids threatening her? Breaking up the marriage? Making life truly miserable for her? No. It is their very existence that she begrudges them. She got into a relationship with a man she knew had kids, and when she realized she didn't like it she demands that they just "go away."

I've been searching for a way to properly articulate this-- why does it matter, really, who painted it? I mean I understand that monetary value has a lot to do with a painting (and painter's) pedigree. But how can aesthetically judging a painting be influenced by who painted it? Shouldn't we judge an individual piece of artwork based on its own merits, not the reputation of who we think created it?

I mean, if I've got this right, if it's a Reubens, it's priceless, but if it's by someone else, it's worthless. That's not art. That's autographs.