One of the things I was taught somewhere between, um, birth and now, was that you're supposed to present a united front with your spouse and never disagree in front of the children. I'm here to tell you this is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. One thing kids need to learn in order to become fully-functional battleships members of society and future participants in business and social schemes is that disagreement happens, even within close relationships, and how to work it out when it happens.
I'm guessing that so far, we're doing a decent job of this, because the other day, when Dan refused to let the kids eat a snack in the basement (something I generally permit), Reese reported directly to me and Griffin promptly posted a sign calling for a family meeting that night. Clearly, disagreement is not at all unusual under our roof, and just as clearly, the masses wish to have a democratically-agreed-upon set of guidelines.
This particular meeting went off without a hitch: all parties sat at the dining room table and submitted their recommendations for rooms in which food is permitted. Uninterested parties (Xander, Reese) then left the table and went about their business. Voting members (Griffin, me, Dan) stayed and discussed the pros and cons of each suggested location.
Griffin (who represented his younger brothers at the meeting) proposed that eating be allowed in the dining room, studio, kitchen, screened porch, basement, children's bedrooms, and office.
I proposed that food be permitted in the dining room, kitchen, studio, screened porch, and basement. I submitted my observation that previous attempts at flexibility regarding upstairs eating (bedrooms, office) had resulted in crumbs, smears, and spills in the office, on the computer, and in children's beds.
Dan suggested that food only be allowed in the dining room and kitchen. He cited a fear of attracting bugs to other areas of the house.
Griffin indicated his willingness to clean up messes that he caused and to
"be careful" in order to avoid crumbs and spills. I observed that previously relaxed standards had resulted in smears of food on the computer and children's bedroom furniture/bedding as well as lots of crumbs on the floors. I also observed that basement snacks had not resulted in such messes, and that no unusual insect activity had been noted. Furthermore, Griffin and I explained to Dan that we found his desire to limit dining activity to two rooms of the house to be excessively restrictive to those of us who spend more time in the house than he does. Porch dining and occasional studio/basement snacking are something we frequently (and responsibly) enjoy. I indicated my willingness to assist in cleaning up messes in those areas and my unwillingness to clean up upstairs messes. I reported that the children have been very helpful with main floor and basement clean-up.
Our agreement: food will be permitted in the areas proposed by me (dining room, kitchen, studio, screened porch, and basement). This represents a compromise between Griffin's wishes and Dan's proposal. Dan reserves the right to review and further restrict food access if insect activity is noted or if excessive messes are observed. We met in the middle, and it felt good to everybody.
(We didn't really talk like that, but it's more fun to write.)
The meeting actually only took a couple of minutes and everybody felt heard and satisfied with the outcome. In the past, however, we have sometimes run up against situations in which one person is simply unwilling to budge and wanted to place restrictions on the whole family with which the rest of the family did not wish to comply.
What do you do when one person wants to set rules that seem ridiculous to the rest of you? Because of my role as Official Stay-at-Home Mom, I spend more time with the kids and in the house than Dan does, so sometimes the way the kids and I want to use this space differs from what he wants. Sometimes he's not familiar with our standard MO and makes a proclamation that offends the natives, who are accustomed to a different type of rule. I have (perhaps too frequently, perhaps just frequently enough) accused Dan of being a Stick in the Mud, laying down the law when nobody else thinks a law should be laid. Sometimes it's a knee-jerk "NO!" reflex, sometimes he has different ideas of how something should work, and sometimes it hints at some other issue that could be handled in another way.
(We pause here to give applause to Dan for being A Really Good Sport about posing for these pictures. He knows he's the most buttoned-down one in the family, in more ways than one. Bless his heart.)
Whatever the reasons, when somebody is being a Stick in the Mud and they're overruled 4:1, meeting in the middle might not feel fair to the rest of the family. How do you handle it when you think they should JUST GET OVER IT?
I do not recommend calling them Dr. Grumpypants. Instead, why don't you...
Dig deeper. What is really bugging them? Is the issue at hand really about what it seems to be about, or is the person worried about something totally different happening? Find out as much as you can about the reasons they're saying NO.
Make an offer. If they are willing to bend a little, what could you do in return to alleviate their concerns?
Have a trial period. Ask the outvoted person: what if we try it our way for a while and see if it still bugs you in a week or two? Maybe they'll get used to it. Maybe you can show them their fears are unfounded.
Compromise now, revisit later. Same as the trial version, but the majority party relaxes their stance for a given amount of time, in order to ease everybody into a transition. Later the family can decide if their original positions are still as important as they were before. Maybe you don't really need to do things the way you wanted to. And maybe the person saying NO was a little bit right?
Consider whether you're stuck in the mud, too. Even if one person is overwhelmingly overruled, is it possible that the rest of the family is being equally inflexible about something that probably seems equally silly to the outnumbered guy? Is the thing you want so important that it's worth bugging them? Can you take one for the team, this time? Modeling flexibility may help the other person to relax their demands in the future. This is especially true if one particular person always seems to be getting overruled. Which I'll admit happens in our house. (Pause for sympathy for Dan.)
Stick to your guns. Look, sometimes compromise isn't the best thing. Sometimes, you what one person might need to hear is "you're inconveniencing the rest of the family over something that is really only your issue. We're happy to hear you out, but this time, we're not willing to change our ways." If you're the Stick in the Mud, accept it when the problem is YOU, figure out your issue, and deal with it.
Democracy rules. Not everybody gets their way all of the time, but we get to explore some interesting issues, and everybody gets a say in the process of deciding the Family Plan.
Tell us your democratic family stories in the comments!
