Parental Alienation

wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 12:26 pm, "DB" wrote:
wrote in

You mean like good old mom dumped dad in 85% of the cases over his
objections and he tells the children the truth?
Where did you get 85% from? That number is just astounding and I would

like to see the statistics because a lot of divorced people with
children whom I know were able to *nicely* divorce and work out
custody arrangements, and it wasn't an 85% split rate for just the
people I know.

Since when is a failed marriage and broken family a nice thing?
Did the Titanic sink without a scream?

Since when is a failed marriage and broken family a nice thing?
It's not nice, but can be absolved *nicely*, as I said, especially
when both parties are mature enough to do so. I see the way you turned
that though, so I can see how you would feel that no couple can come
to terms because you and your ex may not have been able to. Not
everyon has bad experience. My ex and I have dinner together every Sat
night and catch up. We share 50/50 time with our kids, and the same
goes for medical, clothing, holidays, pretty much everything. It was
just much better for us to be friends rather than lovers.
We must not be the norm because my co-workers are surprised that my ex-
husband is my BFF, but who else besides myself would know me better?
Last night we went out to eat (ex paid for dinner) and then to see The
Orphanage (I paid for tickets, and drinks). Next weekend he will pick
the resturant and I'll pay, and I'll pick the after activity and he'll
pay.

Parenting is a 50/50 type of thing, and you'll get nowhere if you
can't compromise. We both love the kids, and the kids love us both. We
wouldn't be good parents if we didn't handle everything nicely, and we
wouldn't have so much fun on our "Family fun vacations", which my ex
and I split the cost of. This year we are looking forward to a week in
Orlando, and a week long cruise from there.

It would be nice if everyone could do that. Does any child support change
hands in your situation? Has one of you ever wanted more $$$, and decided
to use the court system to squeeze if out of the other? Did either of you
assume that your lifestyl should not change one iota after divorce, and
expect the other to foot the bill for that ongoing lifestyle? If the answer
to those questions is 'no' (as it should be if you are mature adults) then,
obviously, you are not the norm.

And, unfortunately, all it takes is one person to answer 'yes' to the above
questions to make it impossible to do what you and your ex have done.
Which, BTW, I think is wonderful. Your children are very fortunate.

"teachrmama" wrote in

And, unfortunately, all it takes is one person to answer 'yes' to the
above questions to make it impossible to do what you and your ex have
done. Which, BTW, I think is wonderful. Your children are very fortunate.

They're going on cruises and vacations together, dining together every
Saturday, that's no different than an open marriage and they're just playing
house for the kids sake.

OK, that's the best they can do for a worst case event like a failed
marriage!
Too bad they couldn't come to terms in their marriage but somebody made a
decision that the union wasn't working and they wanted out, despite all the
vows of commitment they took to God and their families.

IN this society, we marginalize the marriage vows for the sake of
convenience!
Is it any wonder why we allow the court systems to treat people like cattle
and classify NCP's as second class citizens where judges do what they like
with no regard to the NCP's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
freedom!

In my view, in the U.S. the whole public image of divorce and "child
support" is grossly distorted. I very much doubt whether there will be any
meaningful reform until this distortion is removed. Typically, most people
have swallowed--hook, line, and sinker--the notion that fathers abandon
their families, and then go off and have a good time, helped by the fact
that they do so well financially after the divorce. I find this mistaken
view easy to understand. I used to think that way myself, before my own
divorce. Like most divorced fathers, I know differently now.

Why is the public image so grossly distorted? After about 20 years of
observing the situation, I think it's a combination of factors. One is that
the feminist movement carefully preserves, despite all the changes of the
last 30-40 years, the picture of women as the victims of men. Another
element is the fact that most men (me included, except in this news group)
don't talk about the circumstances of their own divorces. They don't want
to admit how helpless they were to do anything about the situation. As
someone I know says, "the strength of women is the pretense of weakness, and
the weakness of men is the pretense of strength."

Another element in the public image distortion is that family issues are
regarded as the specialty of women, not men. So the reporters who write
about these issues, or produce TV programs, and the sociologists who
research them, are nearly all women. Just think of "Lying Lenore" (Lenore
Weitzman), who made a major impact on the public with the grotesque lie that
the standard of living of men rises sharply after divorce, whereas that of
women falls dramatically. This "research" was done in the mid-eighties and
continues to influence the thinking of many people, despite the fact that
Weitzman recanted some years back, trying to blame a computer error (for
more information, see http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm and
http://www.hisside.com/2_29_04.htm).

As to the initiation of divorce, at the time when I looked into the
issue, no one had specifically researched this issue. I made a rough
average of the data that were available, and came to the conclusion that
about 75 percent of divorces were initiated by wives, and predominantly NOT
for the traditional fault reasons like adultery, but for much more
touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart." Since then a woman called
Margaret Brinig has done more systematic research. She concluded that the
strong likelihood that wives will get custody of the children, and all that
follows from that, is the crucial element in the fact that wives initiate
the breakup of most marriages (see
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...tract/2/1/126).

In my observation, the thinking of most women on this issue goes through
several stages, all motivated by the unshakeable belief that women are the
victim of men. Stage One is when someone calls attention to the undoubted
fact that most divorces are initiated by wives. The reply then is that the
women must merely have been filing the papers, and the marriage was already
effectively over. Stage Two starts when it is pointed out that, no,
questioning former spouses about who wanted the divorce and who didn't is
the prime basis of the conclusion that most marriages break up because the
wives wanted them to do so. Then the reply is that the wives MUST have had
a reason for wanting divorces. See the [illiterate] comment by leabuckley
below: "Does it say how many of those came about from accusations of abuse,
sexuall assualt, or adultry?"

The fact of the matter is that the law in the U.S. embodies a variety of
powerful incentives (one being "child support") for wives to create
fatherless families. Such families produce a wide range of social
pathologies, such as crime--particularly violent crime--educational failure,
and teenage suicides. Those incentives are unlikely to be changed until
there is wider understanding of the fact that, predominantly, it is wives,
not husbands, who are responsible for breaking up two-parent families.





wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 9:46 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:





"DB" wrote in message

...

"jana chenoweth" wrote in

It's scary when they are young and you know their other parent is
telling
them lies about you.

In time, the truth always comes out!

You mean like good old mom dumped dad in 85% of the cases over his
objections and he tells the children the truth?

These femwit sites try to re-define parental alienation syndrome away
from
CP moms saying horrible things about a child's father to drive a wedge
between the father/child relationship, and make it sound like PAS is the
dads bad mouthing the moms.
You mean like good old mom dumped dad in 85% of the cases over his
objections and he tells the children the truth?

Where did you get 85% from? That number is just astounding and I would
like to see the statistics because a lot of divorced people with
children whom I know were able to *nicely* divorce and work out
custody arrangements, and it wasn't an 85% split rate for just the
people I know.

------------------------------------------

Sorry for the typo. I meant to type 65%. There have been a number of
studies on this issue and they all indicate women initiate divorce 65-75%
of
the time. A few researchers you can use as resources are Judith
Wallerstein, Constance Ahrons, and Sanford Braver.

Braver is the only researcher I am aware of who developed statistics on
divorce being a mutual decision. His study sample showed 4-9% of divorces
were mutual.

The reason the results vary is based on how the samples are selected and
how
the questions are asked. Some resultant divorce rates are based on all
divorces, some with joint children, some where the other spouse objected,
some comparing first and subsequent marriages, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry for the typo. I meant to type 65%. There have been a number of
studies on this issue and they all indicate women initiate divorce 65-75%
of
the time.
Does it say how many of those came about from accusations of abuse,
sexuall assualt, or adultry? Not to say that all divorces come about
because of those three things, but surely some of those percentages
are attributted to those three things.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 9:46 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:





"DB" wrote in message

...

"jana chenoweth" wrote in

It's scary when they are young and you know their other parent is
telling
them lies about you.

In time, the truth always comes out!

You mean like good old mom dumped dad in 85% of the cases over his
objections and he tells the children the truth?

These femwit sites try to re-define parental alienation syndrome away
from
CP moms saying horrible things about a child's father to drive a wedge
between the father/child relationship, and make it sound like PAS is the
dads bad mouthing the moms.
You mean like good old mom dumped dad in 85% of the cases over his
objections and he tells the children the truth?

Where did you get 85% from? That number is just astounding and I would
like to see the statistics because a lot of divorced people with
children whom I know were able to *nicely* divorce and work out
custody arrangements, and it wasn't an 85% split rate for just the
people I know.

------------------------------------------

Sorry for the typo. I meant to type 65%. There have been a number of
studies on this issue and they all indicate women initiate divorce 65-75%
of
the time. A few researchers you can use as resources are Judith
Wallerstein, Constance Ahrons, and Sanford Braver.

Braver is the only researcher I am aware of who developed statistics on
divorce being a mutual decision. His study sample showed 4-9% of divorces
were mutual.

The reason the results vary is based on how the samples are selected and
how
the questions are asked. Some resultant divorce rates are based on all
divorces, some with joint children, some where the other spouse objected,
some comparing first and subsequent marriages, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry for the typo. I meant to type 65%. There have been a number of
studies on this issue and they all indicate women initiate divorce 65-75%
of
the time.
Does it say how many of those came about from accusations of abuse,
sexuall assualt, or adultry? Not to say that all divorces come about
because of those three things, but surely some of those percentages
are attributted to those three things.

-------------------------------

Braver looked at the divorce motivation factors for men and women initiating
divorce. Abuse and sexual assault would probably fit into what he
categorized as "violence between the spouses" if they are physical
aggression. That factor ranked 16th among women initiating divorce and 21st
among men. "Husbands affair" ranked 6th for women and 22nd for men.
"Wife's affair" ranked 24th for women and 5th for men. Braver did not
distinguish between accusations and factual reasons.

The top three factors for women initiating divorce were all loosey-goosey
things like growing apart, differences in values, and not feeling loved or
appreciated. Interestingly, the 3rd highest factor for men seeking divorce
was related to verbal abuse and assault, i.e. "severe and intense fighting,
frequent conflict".

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
...........................
.......................
Interestingly, the 3rd highest factor for men seeking divorce was related
to verbal abuse and assault, i.e. "severe and intense fighting, frequent
conflict".
============
Yeah, but...that conflict was all his fault. He didn't take out the garbage;
he spent money without her permission; he cares more about football than his
wife; he left his socks on the floor; he refuses to cook or vacuum; he's
never on time. Yep. It was all his fault alright. Sarcasm? Not at all. This
is how many *wives* see the relationship. Women seem to feel they have the
right (or responsibility) to micro-manage their mate's life. Not that men
are perfect. This pettiness is just what marriage has become. It is not for
the children. It is not for better or worse. It is for however long they
both think it's a good idea..and women tend to think it's not a good idea
sooner than men do.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:UPqpj.17173$hF2.7462@trnddc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
..........................
.......................
Interestingly, the 3rd highest factor for men seeking divorce was
related to verbal abuse and assault, i.e. "severe and intense fighting,
frequent conflict".
============
Yeah, but...that conflict was all his fault. He didn't take out the
garbage; he spent money without her permission; he cares more about
football than his wife; he left his socks on the floor; he refuses to cook
or vacuum; he's never on time. Yep. It was all his fault alright. Sarcasm?
Not at all. This is how many *wives* see the relationship. Women seem to
feel they have the right (or responsibility) to micro-manage their mate's
life. Not that men are perfect. This pettiness is just what marriage has
become. It is not for the children. It is not for better or worse. It is
for however long they both think it's a good idea..and women tend to think
it's not a good idea sooner than men do.

I have always pictured this scenario as a 120 lbs. woman standing toe-to-toe
with a 200 lbs. husband, poking him in the chest with her bony finger, and
telling him how to live his life her way. She knows he can't respond by
touching her without risking arrest and being removed from his home, so she
continues to rail at him unmercilously until he concedes to her control.
Apparently a lot of men experience this female aggression in their marriages
since filing for divorce to get away from women's verbal assaults is the 3rd
highest reason men seek divorce.

Men without children just get tired of being provoked with such aggression
and the fear any response they make can be used against them. Men with
children are forced to take it knowing full well the financial costs they
will pay if they decide they have had enough. We have no-fault divorce to
thank for allowing women to get away with this abhorrent behavior. Women
who verbally abuse their men know they can go down to the local courthouse
and get an RO against the man even when their fear of him is the result of
him being provoked by her.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
.......................
Interestingly, the 3rd highest factor for men seeking divorce was
related to verbal abuse and assault, i.e. "severe and intense fighting,
frequent conflict".
============
Yeah, but...that conflict was all his fault. He didn't take out the
garbage; he spent money without her permission; he cares more about
football than his wife; he left his socks on the floor; he refuses to
cook or vacuum; he's never on time. Yep. It was all his fault alright.
Sarcasm? Not at all. This is how many *wives* see the relationship. Women
seem to feel they have the right (or responsibility) to micro-manage
their mate's life. Not that men are perfect. This pettiness is just what
marriage has become. It is not for the children. It is not for better or
worse. It is for however long they both think it's a good idea..and women
tend to think it's not a good idea sooner than men do.

I have always pictured this scenario as a 120 lbs. woman standing
toe-to-toe with a 200 lbs. husband, poking him in the chest with her bony
finger, and telling him how to live his life her way. She knows he can't
respond by touching her without risking arrest and being removed from his
home,
====
Heh, reminds me of what number 3 son told me when he was about five..."Girls
hit ya cause they know it's against the law to touch 'em." I admit, I'm
partly responsible for his characterization--I learned from raising my now
grown boys that the most important thing little boys must know about little
girls is to not touch them (#3 son is a hugger), because "if you do, all
kinds of things can go wrong." I didn't tell him it was against the law,
though. :-)

On Feb 3, 12:41*pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 28, 12:26 pm, "DB" wrote:

wrote in

You mean like good old mom dumped dad in 85% of the cases over his
objections and he tells the children the truth?
Where did you get 85% from? That number is just astounding and I would

like to see the statistics because a lot of divorced people with
children whom I know were able to *nicely* divorce and work out
custody arrangements, and it wasn't an 85% split rate for just the
people I know.

Since when is a failed marriage and broken family a nice thing?
Did the Titanic sink without a scream?
Since when is a failed marriage and broken family a nice thing?

It's not nice, but can be absolved *nicely*, as I said, especially
when both parties are mature enough to do so. I see the way you turned
that though, so I can see how you would feel that no couple can come
to terms because you and your ex may not have been able to. Not
everyon has bad experience. My ex and I have dinner together every Sat
night and catch up. We share 50/50 time with our kids, and the same
goes for medical, clothing, holidays, pretty much everything. It was
just much better for us to be friends rather than lovers.
We must not be the norm because my co-workers are surprised that my ex-
husband is my BFF, but who else besides myself would know me better?
Last night we went out to eat (ex paid for dinner) and then to see The
Orphanage (I paid for tickets, and drinks). Next weekend he will pick
the resturant and I'll pay, and I'll pick the after activity and he'll
pay.

Parenting is a 50/50 type of thing, and you'll get nowhere if you
can't compromise. We both love the kids, and the kids love us both. We
wouldn't be good parents if we didn't handle everything nicely, and we
wouldn't have so much fun on our "Family fun vacations", which my ex
and I split the cost of. This year we are looking forward to a week in
Orlando, and a week long cruise from there.

It would be nice if everyone could do that. *Does any child support change
hands in your situation? *Has one of you ever wanted more $$$, and decided
to use the court system to squeeze if out of the other? *Did either of you
assume that your lifestyl should not change one iota after divorce, and
expect the other to foot the bill for that ongoing lifestyle? *If the answer
to those questions is 'no' (as it should be if you are mature adults) then,
obviously, you are not the norm.

And, unfortunately, all it takes is one person to answer 'yes' to the above
questions to make it impossible to do what you and your ex have done.
Which, BTW, I think is wonderful. *Your children are very fortunate.


Does any child support change hands in your situation?
No "child support" changes hands. We do everything 50/50 for the
childrens expenses. Don't get me wrong, we do help eachother out. Last
month I was short on car insurance so my ex paid it, but two months
ago I paid his gas, electric, and water because he had to take some
time off work for the flu. We don't keep track, we just do for each
other because we're still friends.
Has one of you ever wanted more $$$, and decided to use the court system to squeeze if out of the other?
No. Let me tell you this: If vindictive women knew how to compromise
and keep thier trap shut, keep access to the children unobstructed,
the *extras* add up to a hell of a lot more! I could have been cruddy,
but then I wouldn't have anything to do on Saturday's-lol
Serious-We were able to work it all out ourselves.
Did either of you assume that your lifestyl should not change one iota after divorce, and expect the other to foot the bill for that ongoing lifestyle?
What lifestyle? We worked together to run our household-I worked days,
he worked nights, and we BOTH took/take care of our kids. The only
thing that has changed is we both work days, split the nights (one
week I have the kids 4 nights-the other week my ex has them 4 nights).
I get a break, and that helps from getting burned out, and he get
access to the kids whenever he wants, and when he needs a break he
gets one. Don't get me wrong, I love my kids to death, but who in the
hell want's to be stuck with them all of time.

And, unfortunately, all it takes is one person to answer 'yes' to the above
questions to make it impossible to do what you and your ex have done.
Which, BTW, I think is wonderful. Your children are very fortunate.
I couldn't imagine my life without all of the people I care about,
including my Ex. I couldn't imagine hurting my children by keeping
them from thier dad because they love us both equal.

On Feb 3, 1:35*pm, "DB" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

And, unfortunately, all it takes is one person to answer 'yes' to the
above questions to make it impossible to do what you and your ex have
done. Which, BTW, I think is wonderful. *Your children are very fortunate.

They're going on cruises and vacations together, dining together every
Saturday, that's no different than an open marriage and they're just playing
house for the kids sake.

OK, that's the best they can do for a worst case event like a failed
marriage!
Too bad they couldn't come to terms in their marriage but somebody made a
decision that the union wasn't working and they wanted out, despite all the
vows of commitment they took to God and their families.

IN this society, we marginalize the marriage vows for the sake of
convenience!
Is it any wonder why we allow the court systems to treat people like cattle
and classify NCP's as second class citizens where judges do what they like
with no regard to the NCP's *right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
freedom!

They're going on cruises and vacations together, dining together every
Saturday, that's no different than an open marriage and they're just playing
house for the kids sake.
We are not playing house! We are family, we just don't live together.
We do function as a family UNIT. I can't afford to take the children
on vacation by myself, and neither can my ex. What's wrong that we
work together to get the job done instead of going back and forth over
a few bucks? Sorry, but that's not how I want to live my life, and I
don't think our children would like to live that type of life since
they didn't ask for who thier parents were going to be.

OK, that's the best they can do for a worst case event like a failed marriage!
Too bad they couldn't come to terms in their marriage but somebody made a
decision that the union wasn't working and they wanted out, despite all the
vows of commitment they took to God and their families.
We got married because we thought we were in "love", but at six-teen
and seven-teen you don't know what love is. We stayed married for 8
years, but we no longer "loved" each other in a Husband and Wife type
of way. We haven't broken any vows because we still love, honor, and
cherish each other, we are just not married any more, and we don't
have spousal relations. We are strictly friends!
My ex and I both have mates, and they both know the *family Unit*
comes first. I like her (the GF) because she is very sweet to our
kids. She never complains about how much time my ex spends at my
place, and she is always very nice and polite when I'm over there.
Sometimes the two of us go out together. She is a very nice woman, and
I am happy my ex found her.
She can't have her own kids, so she does "play" mom to my kids when
they are with them, but that doesn't bother me. It puts me at ease to
know if something happened to me (God forbid), my kids would have at
least one person to be there for them in the mom role.

You can be bitter, or you can be sweet.
Sugar is easier to lick than lemons, and life's too short to be ****ed
off all the time

"Gini" wrote in message
news:K6spj.2328$xE.2172@trnddc01...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
.......................
Interestingly, the 3rd highest factor for men seeking divorce was
related to verbal abuse and assault, i.e. "severe and intense fighting,
frequent conflict".
============
Yeah, but...that conflict was all his fault. He didn't take out the
garbage; he spent money without her permission; he cares more about
football than his wife; he left his socks on the floor; he refuses to
cook or vacuum; he's never on time. Yep. It was all his fault alright.
Sarcasm? Not at all. This is how many *wives* see the relationship.
Women seem to feel they have the right (or responsibility) to
micro-manage their mate's life. Not that men are perfect. This pettiness
is just what marriage has become. It is not for the children. It is not
for better or worse. It is for however long they both think it's a good
idea..and women tend to think it's not a good idea sooner than men do.

I have always pictured this scenario as a 120 lbs. woman standing
toe-to-toe with a 200 lbs. husband, poking him in the chest with her bony
finger, and telling him how to live his life her way. She knows he can't
respond by touching her without risking arrest and being removed from his
home,
====
Heh, reminds me of what number 3 son told me when he was about
five..."Girls hit ya cause they know it's against the law to touch 'em." I
admit, I'm partly responsible for his characterization--I learned from
raising my now grown boys that the most important thing little boys must
know about little girls is to not touch them (#3 son is a hugger), because
"if you do, all kinds of things can go wrong." I didn't tell him it was
against the law, though. :-)

Have you considered your son was told by a girl she could hit him but he
couldn't hit back because it's against the law. The feminist indoctrination
of little girls starts early from the femwit mothers, not the non-feminist
mothers and fathers.