Parental Alienation

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"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.
===
Nope, haven't thought of that. I suppose it could be.

On Feb 4, 10:26*pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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
Sad but true. Hopefully those types of girls will keep thier hands off
of my son, because I told him if a woman comes at you like a man,
treat her like one. If she hits you, hit her back. Sorry, and I know
everyone is probably going to jump down my stuff, but my son knows if
a girl hits him to hit her back. The fembitches need to keep thier
kids in check, because there are playground rules that says it's ok
for boys to hit girls BACK.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 10:26 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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
Sad but true. Hopefully those types of girls will keep thier hands off
of my son, because I told him if a woman comes at you like a man,
treat her like one. If she hits you, hit her back. Sorry, and I know
everyone is probably going to jump down my stuff, but my son knows if
a girl hits him to hit her back. The fembitches need to keep thier
kids in check, because there are playground rules that says it's ok
for boys to hit girls BACK.

I agree with you on this one, Leah. Except I tell the kids to 1) Demand
that the agressor stop, 2) walk away, then 3) Do what you need to do to
protect yourself. In that order. Under no circustances are they to stand
there and let themselves be abused--but they are not to use the agression
toward them as an excuse to flatten the other person, either. Just enough
to get away.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 10:26 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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
Sad but true. Hopefully those types of girls will keep thier hands off
of my son, because I told him if a woman comes at you like a man,
treat her like one. If she hits you, hit her back. Sorry, and I know
everyone is probably going to jump down my stuff, but my son knows if
a girl hits him to hit her back. The fembitches need to keep thier
kids in check, because there are playground rules that says it's ok
for boys to hit girls BACK.

I agree with you on this one, Leah. Except I tell the kids to 1) Demand
that the agressor stop, 2) walk away, then 3) Do what you need to do to
protect yourself. In that order. Under no circustances are they to stand
there and let themselves be abused--but they are not to use the agression
toward them as an excuse to flatten the other person, either. Just enough
to get away.

That approach may work to control 5-6 year olds behavior, but an adult male
will end up in jail every time for following that advice.

When I was that young the rule was "Strictly hands off." That meant nobody
touched anybody, period.

The advice above given to children seems to say if you get attacked, take
it. And when it is too much and you get assaulted while walking away,
retaliate. Those are some pretty sophisticated concepts for a 5-6 year old
to understand. And a very difficult scenario to prove.

I say, when girls/women want to box it out with boys/men, the males should
be allowed to fight back and kick their asses to a pulp. Allowing women to
be physically aggressive against men while restricting men from defending
themselves is ludicrous.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 10:26 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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
Sad but true. Hopefully those types of girls will keep thier hands off
of my son, because I told him if a woman comes at you like a man,
treat her like one. If she hits you, hit her back. Sorry, and I know
everyone is probably going to jump down my stuff, but my son knows if
a girl hits him to hit her back. The fembitches need to keep thier
kids in check, because there are playground rules that says it's ok
for boys to hit girls BACK.

I agree with you on this one, Leah. Except I tell the kids to 1) Demand
that the agressor stop, 2) walk away, then 3) Do what you need to do to
protect yourself. In that order. Under no circustances are they to
stand there and let themselves be abused--but they are not to use the
agression toward them as an excuse to flatten the other person, either.
Just enough to get away.

That approach may work to control 5-6 year olds behavior, but an adult
male will end up in jail every time for following that advice.

I was talking about children, Bob. I wouldn't ever suggest that an adult do
so.


When I was that young the rule was "Strictly hands off." That meant
nobody touched anybody, period.

I'm pretty sure it is the same today. But *if* someone becomes aggressive
and does not follow that rule, a child needs to know how to protect
him/herself. I have seen children stand and take a beating rather than
raise a hand to protect themselves because they have no idea what to do.


The advice above given to children seems to say if you get attacked, take
it. And when it is too much and you get assaulted while walking away,
retaliate. Those are some pretty sophisticated concepts for a 5-6 year
old to understand. And a very difficult scenario to prove.

Not really--first use your words, then you walk away, then you protect
yourself. You neve just stand there and take it. But I am talking about
young children--certainly not jr. high or high school kids. Most of the
time these young ones are not going for blood--they are fighting over some
object or a place in line or some other little thing. But by learning to
deal with these small issues, they are building up experience that might
help them deal with larger issues further down the road.


I say, when girls/women want to box it out with boys/men, the males should
be allowed to fight back and kick their asses to a pulp. Allowing women
to be physically aggressive against men while restricting men from
defending themselves is ludicrous.

I agree.

On Feb 7, 10:42*pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 4, 10:26 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:





"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.

On Jan 27, 1:29*am, jana chenoweth wrote:
A few words about my current perspective on parental alienation:
In my opinion, the best defense is to stand proud and tall in who you
are, and trust your child to see the truth for herself. My kids were 3
and 6 when we got divorced. It's scary when they are young and you
know their other parent is telling them lies about you.
My strategy to counter this was to stay cool and calm when they
reported the lies to me, and to acknowledge that their dad has a right
to his opinion about me. I then shared that I saw myself very
differently. I would ask them to be honest with me about how THEY saw
me, and would make it completely safe for them to tell me the truth.
And then we would take steps together to mitigate whatever issues they
were having with me.
I went about my life very transparently, SHOWING them who I am, as
opposed to telling them, never arguing against their dad's opinion of
me. I adopted the attitude of, 'Oh my, that's a tough one. I know you
love both daddy and me, and I bet it's hard for you to hear him say
things that are so different from what you feel is true about me. Is
there anything you want to ask me about?'...

More About Custody:http://groups.google.com/group/custodyinfo

I agree with you partly on this. I left my oldest son's dad when he
was 15 months old because I FINALLY after 3 yrs of abuse go the
strength to leave. However, I made it clear to my family to speak
badly of my son's father around him, PERIOD, and they didn't nor did
I. My son's father was never in his life, until my son was seven, I
thought maybe I could be the better person and try to get them
together so my son had his father in his life. I contacted my son's
father and within in a year and half he only saw my son a total of 5
times. I finally put a stop to it, because everytime he would promise
to be there to pick my son up and then wouldn't show, I had to deal
with the aftermath. Now my son has strong issues and confusion in his
life and I REGRET ever letting him talk to his father. I tell my son
now the truth about why his father and I divorced and that he will not
be allowed to talk to him until his an adult and wishes to pursue it
on his own. I informed my son that he may hate me now but I KNOW that
later he will thank me because he will realize that his dad is a piece
of ****.

"Jen3" wrote
....................
I agree with you partly on this. I left my oldest son's dad when he
was 15 months old because I FINALLY after 3 yrs of abuse go the
strength to leave. However, I made it clear to my family to speak
badly of my son's father around him, PERIOD, and they didn't nor did
I. My son's father was never in his life, until my son was seven, I
thought maybe I could be the better person and try to get them
together so my son had his father in his life. I contacted my son's
father and within in a year and half he only saw my son a total of 5
times. I finally put a stop to it, because everytime he would promise
to be there to pick my son up and then wouldn't show, I had to deal
with the aftermath. Now my son has strong issues and confusion in his
life and I REGRET ever letting him talk to his father. I tell my son
now the truth about why his father and I divorced and that he will not
be allowed to talk to him until his an adult and wishes to pursue it
on his own. I informed my son that he may hate me now but I KNOW that
later he will thank me because he will realize that his dad is a piece
of ****.
===
I'm not sure it's the child's fault that you chose his father unwisely.

On Feb 15, 11:58*am, "Gini" wrote:
"Jen3" wrote
...................
I agree with you partly on this. I left my oldest son's dad when he
was 15 months old because I FINALLY after 3 yrs of abuse go the
strength to leave. However, I made it clear to my family to speak
badly of my son's father around him, PERIOD, and they didn't nor did
I. My son's father was never in his life, until my son was seven, I
thought maybe I could be the better person and try to get them
together so my son had his father in his life. *I contacted my son's
father and within in a year and half he only saw my son a total of 5
times. I finally put a stop to it, because everytime he would promise
to be there to pick my son up and then wouldn't show, I had to deal
with the aftermath. Now my son has strong issues and confusion in his
life and I REGRET ever letting him talk to his father. I tell my son
now the truth about why his father and I divorced and that he will not
be allowed to talk to him until his an adult and wishes to pursue it
on his own. I informed my son that he may hate me now but I KNOW that
later he will thank me because he will realize that his dad is a piece
of ****.
===
I'm not sure it's the child's fault that you chose his father unwisely.

No it's not my child's fault but choosing his father unwisely isn't my
fault either. I had no clue that his father would turn out the way he
did. If I had known he was like that in the beginning I wouldn't have
CHOSE him. I don't regret meeting his father no matter what he did to
me because then I wouldn't have my son. I don't blame my son for
anything either. I just feel that it is in his best interest that he
doesn't see his father.

"Jen3" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 11:58 am, "Gini" wrote:
"Jen3" wrote
...................
I agree with you partly on this. I left my oldest son's dad when he
was 15 months old because I FINALLY after 3 yrs of abuse go the
strength to leave. However, I made it clear to my family to speak
badly of my son's father around him, PERIOD, and they didn't nor did
I. My son's father was never in his life, until my son was seven, I
thought maybe I could be the better person and try to get them
together so my son had his father in his life. I contacted my son's
father and within in a year and half he only saw my son a total of 5
times. I finally put a stop to it, because everytime he would promise
to be there to pick my son up and then wouldn't show, I had to deal
with the aftermath. Now my son has strong issues and confusion in his
life and I REGRET ever letting him talk to his father. I tell my son
now the truth about why his father and I divorced and that he will not
be allowed to talk to him until his an adult and wishes to pursue it
on his own. I informed my son that he may hate me now but I KNOW that
later he will thank me because he will realize that his dad is a piece
of ****.
===
I'm not sure it's the child's fault that you chose his father unwisely.

No it's not my child's fault but choosing his father unwisely isn't my
fault either. I had no clue that his father would turn out the way he
did. If I had known he was like that in the beginning I wouldn't have
CHOSE him. I don't regret meeting his father no matter what he did to
me because then I wouldn't have my son. I don't blame my son for
anything either. I just feel that it is in his best interest that he
doesn't see his father.
====
You might be right. But, denial of access of a child to his father is an
extreme measure to be taken only under the dire circumstances. To me, that
means only for abuse or neglect. Sons without dads are high risk for all
kinds of unpleasant things.