The One Kind Of Kidnapping That Isn't Punished By Law
That's Parental Alienation -- keeping a parent away from (usually) his or her children. Finally, a judge is sending a Long Island woman to jail for it. Kieran Crowley and Leonard Greene write in the New York Post:
Lauren Lippe is a vengeful roadblock, the barbed wire standing in the way of her two daughters and their desperate dad, Judge Robert Ross said.Lippe often went nuclear, launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls -- calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag" and "f - - - ing asshole."
Ross said Lippe, 47, was a scheming manipulator who deliberately planned last-minute trips and events when her ex was scheduled to visit the girls.
"He was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls," Ross wrote in his ruling, which found Lippe in contempt for violating the couple's joint custody agreement.
If Rubin protested, Lippe berated him mercilessly.
"We all hope you die from cancer," she once blared at him, the court papers said, with both daughters in her arms.
Lippe even had the nerve to smirk in court when an emotional Rubin described the agony of missing out on Hanukkah with his children. Ross said Rubin was relegated to visit at the end of his ex's driveway, where he lit a menorah with his daughters in his truck and watched them open presents from their grandparents.
But the worst, Ross wrote, was "the crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct" involving false accusations of sexual abuse.
Lippe charged in 2008 that Rubin had fondled the breasts of one of his daughters. Lippe later conceded that she knew nothing sexual had occurred.
"The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement," Ross wrote in a decision handed down last week.
The judge was also annoyed, the story reports, that Lippe had punished the children for wanting to spend time with their dad.
Further details here.
And some thoughts on Parental Alienation on a posting about this case by Robert Franklin, Esq., at GlennSacks.com:
It's worthwhile to look closely at what parental alienation really means, and this case, and Judge Ross' findings allow us to do just that. Above all, parental alienation is an attack on children. It is an attack on their relationship with the other parent. It is a sustained effort to deprive children of the love, affection, security, guidance and protection of the other parent. If it succeeds, the child will not only miss those things, he/she will be afraid of the other parent who can provide them. Beyond that, the child loses the many benefits of the extended family of the alienated parent. Thus, paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. will also be denied to the child.That's what Judge Ross meant by saying Lippe placed "her own interests above those of the child." What long-term damage has been done to the two girls by their mother's campaign against their father won't be known for some time. With luck, Ted Rubin nipped that in the bud by virtue of his refusal to give up in the face of the most humiliating tactics employed by his ex-wife.
Well, rock on, Judge Ross!
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people? I mean, there's acrimonious divorce and then there's just demented. How could a mother say such horrible things in front of her children? Horrible things directed at anyone, but especially at the girls' father? I'm not one to throw diagnoses around, but I feel the need to mention the words "disorder," "narcissistic," and "personality," not necessarily in that order. This is the kind of thing that happens to some women who have kids for the sole purpose of having someone that has to love them back. Kind of like that woman we discussed a while back who was trying to berate her husband into having children.
Punishing the girls for wanting to see their father definitely seems to speak to the fact that she thinks it's all about her, no matter what she or her lawyer say. Speaking of her lawyer, I know they have to say that their clients are in the right, but this (from the link above) is pretty ludicrous:
Ms. R.'s attorney, Kieth I. Rieger of Barrocas & Rieger in Garden City, N.Y., praised Ross, but criticized the decision, likening it to last week's missed umpire call that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher a perfect game.
"I think all of us make mistakes, and I think he's just made a good-faith, honest mistake in his assessment of this case," Rieger said. "That's why there's an Appellate Division. I think he just did not accurately assess my client."
A bad call costing someone a perfect game? Not hardly. Her record was spotless until this judge made a bad call? The false accusations of sexual abuse would speak differently. Is he expecting a teary apology from the judge and a noble acceptance from Lippe? I would hope he's not banking his license on that.
NumberSix at June 14, 2010 11:59 PM
It's really sad that men aren't even encouraged to stand up for their children. I know of someone, whose ex-wife told their teenaged children that 'they would have had an older sibling but she had an abortion'. He was stunned when his kids told him that!
She emotionally abuses the kids and he doesn't think he can do anything about it. He's worried that he will just look like a malicious parent.
Kendra at June 15, 2010 12:54 AM
My dad is trying to tell the judge my mom is doing this to him b/c my sister and I refuse to talk to him, in order to get her punished somehow (no joke he's using actual "parental alienation").
Let's all hope that he doesn't actually think he'll get to have custody of a 21 and 25 year old.
Anywho. Does this nutjob still have custody of her children?! I would think she is so mentally unsound, and such an unhealthy influence on their emotional development that the dad would get primary?
Also: this guy made babies with her WHY?
Gretchen at June 15, 2010 4:25 AM
The sex abuse accusation alone should have her in a room with striped sunlight.
Just sayin'.
brian at June 15, 2010 6:24 AM
"Also: this guy made babies with her WHY?"
Because when she was looking to get something from him and she had no leverage, she was all sweetness and light. Now she has leverage (his children, his Achille's heel) and he's getting corn-holed 24/7. Master manipulator. NumberSix is spot on with narcissistic personality disorder.
Not to go wearing my heart on my sleeve, but this was how my parent's divorce played out. It started back in the early 80's, and my mom still does this crap today. Says that my dad will molest my daughters and nieces, that he'll leave venereal diseases on our toilet seats, that he'll leave porn on our computers or show it to our kids. Tells the girls to not let grandpa touch them where they go pee-pee. Try explaining that to a 10 year old. She had the audacity to yell at me for going to my grandmother's funeral (my father's mother). Throws ultimatums around like rice at a wedding. Utterly bizarre stuff.
The good news is there's a chance for the kids, that they do figure it out eventually. Sure, there's a hell of a lot of scarring, but the manipulator will lose it all in the end. The kids will move as far away as possible, and PsychoMom will be left desperately alone, scratching her head, and crying to her friends about how hateful and ungrateful her children are.
(Shrugs).
Juliana at June 15, 2010 6:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/15/the_one_kind_of.html#comment-1723820">comment from JulianaPeople who do this to their children are evil.
I do have to say, many of the relationship problems of people who write to me are caused by an unwillingness to really look at the other person early on.
Unfortunately, I can only recommend this book -- The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life -- after they write to me.
Amy Alkon at June 15, 2010 6:40 AM
Unfortunately, I have not been so lucky to find a Judge that is willing to call a spade a spade.
With the exception of the sexual allegations, this could be my case. I've filed countless motions to have my ex held in contempt, but the most Judges seem to want to do is scold a parent and get a promise not to do it again. I am in the process of filing an appeal on a ruling from last month that not only didn't hold my ex in contempt, but then further reduced my time with my kids.
Gary at June 15, 2010 7:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/15/the_one_kind_of.html#comment-1723826">comment from GaryIt happens in Canada as well. I got a similar story from a guy there very recently.
Amy Alkon at June 15, 2010 7:07 AM
"I do have to say, many of the relationship problems of people who write to me are caused by an unwillingness to really look at the other person early on."
This is pretty much what happened to me. I will say, somewhat in the defense of people who have had this happen to them, that narcissists can be pretty damn good at putting up a false front when they are in pursuit of something they want. But there are always little slips and things. If you're in a relationship with something and you start to notice "odd" things that they say or do, you've got to pay attention. Don't ignore it like I did.
I'm a bit afraid to go here, but what the hey, it's early: in family court, behavior like Ms. Lippe's usually goes unpunished. In fact, it is often rewarded. I do note that the sentence imposed on her amounts to a whopping 12 days in jail, servable in little bite-sized chunks. Maybe Mr. Rubin consented to this with the best interests of the children in mind. But I'm questioning the deterrent value here. Remember, if you reward a behavior, you get more of it.
Cousin Dave at June 15, 2010 7:10 AM
Certain feminist organizations, who usually get government funds, claim Parental Alienation Syndrome, does not exist. That it is an invention of abusive and violent men who are trying to cause problems for sweet mommies.
>>It's really sad that men aren't even encouraged to stand up for their children.
>>She emotionally abuses the kids and he doesn't think he can do anything about it. He's worried that he will just look like a malicious parent.
He is right. I supplied counseling to divorced fathers between 1984 and 1993, and he is right.
No matter how much evidence he presents, she WILL end up with the kids, period. Unless there is a body. And, he will be the ogre who gave sweet mommy a hard time.
There is a mechanism in these cases, much akin to the Stockholm Syndrome.
And, worse, all she has to do is claim sexual abuse, with absolutely no evidence at all, and he is forked!
Women assume if men do something, the results will be the same as if a woman does them. Hee, hee.
>>The sex abuse accusation alone should have her in a room with striped sunlight.
B-b-but, this will discourage women with real sex abuse cases from coming forward. I know this because 50,000 insane feminists say it is so.
And, this is why exactly nothing is done about false sex abuse charges.
One of my favorite success stories came out several years ago. A high income man tired of constant insults and anger from his wife, and realized he wanted a divorce.
He went to a high powered attorney to ask what was involved. Of course, he was told of the financial consequences, but also was warned there WOULD be charges of sexual abuse.
So, he suggested to his wife they have the kids given a complete psychiatric work-up, to make sure they were not doing anything harmful or wrong. They did, it cost quite a bit.
Almost immediately after the work-up showed they were in perfect mental health, he dropped the papers.
Shortly thereafter, she claimed he had been sexually abusive. He presented the detailed work-up to the court, and that ended that. However, as is normal, nothing was done to her or to her lying, conniving attorney.
In one state I know of, before I retired, a fiend gets 4 false charges, before the state is ALLOWED to ignore them. Not forced to ignore them, allowed if they choose.
irlandes at June 15, 2010 7:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/15/the_one_kind_of.html#comment-1723835">comment from irlandesI'm not for the pathologizing of everything, but this is clearly a horrible thing that happens too often -- see the blog item above.
Amy Alkon at June 15, 2010 7:28 AM
Womens groups and feminists groups have been "educating" and "training" judges and law enforcement on domestic violence/abuse for years. And they not surprisingly have the upper hand in the "Family Court" systems.
One thing they don't train them on and one thing they don't want anyone to recognize is Parental Alienation. Why? Because it is almost always committed by women and women almost always have custody. They will do everything in their power to make sure this syndrome is NOT recognized ny the courts.
There are varying degrees of Parental Alienation.
My ex- moved 200 miles away and refused to use my last name for our daughter. Besides being hateful, vengeful, angry every chance she gets. However, I have managed to stay in my daughter's life.
A friend of mine's wife tried to kill herself and my friend was awarded temporary custody.
Before she even got out of the hospital she accused him of sexually abusing their daughters. He was hauled down to child protective offices and interrogated in front of 7 people including 2 uniformed police officers. They determined the alegations were baseless and apologized to him. The girls were thriving in his care and she took him back to court regain custody. Shockingly after her attempting to kill herself, falsely accusing him of sexually abusing their daughters, and the girls thriving in his care, she was awarded custody. They promptly were taken where they moved in with her and her boyfriend, the one she cheated with that broke up there marraige.
I absolutely LOVE the "Family Court" system. They are my idols!
David M. at June 15, 2010 7:40 AM
Ms. Lippe should not be allowed access to her children, she is a criminal who has mentally abused her own daughters.
Juliana, I cannot believe you allow your mother near your children. If anyone ever said to my daughter what your mother said to yours I would ensure that person was never allowed to see my daughter again. I know she is your mother but she is sick and her statements could really hurt your daughter.
Ingrid at June 15, 2010 7:46 AM
I second that Ingrid...
I don't want to jump all over you, Julianna, but I'm surprised you have a relationship with your mom! Sometimes, simply being biologically related to someone isn't enough to justify their presence. You must have a good therapist to deal with her and a lot of patience.
Gretchen at June 15, 2010 7:56 AM
I thought isolating behavior was one of the signs of an abusive relationship. I guess that doesn't apply to kids. The irony is that NOW and similar organizations say that claims of PAS are a ploy by abusive parents, when in fact it is an attempt to get the kids away from an abusive parent.
The real issue is the legal system and gender bias in it. There are male narcissists as well as female narcissists, but far fewer alienating fathers because of the way custody awards go, and the way that even non-custodial mothers are favored in the system. (Although I certainly agree with favoring a non-custodial mother over an laienating father.) See Gretchen's example above.
A big part of the problem with the legal system is the almost total lack of repercussions for false allegations, such as the sexual abuse allegations Gary has had to deal with. At a minimum no court should entertain any allegations without sworn statements, and perjury on these statements shoudl be rigourosly prosecuted.
Ingrid - co-sign. The lady is toxic.
Jim at June 15, 2010 8:07 AM
It's about time these "mothers" start getting slapped for their bad behavior.
I REALLY hope this is the start of a trend. No one should be allowed to do what she has done to her children, and she'll never get me to believe she gives a rat's ass about them, the way she is using them as a means to get back at her ex for whatever it is she thinks she needs to punish him for.
Ann at June 15, 2010 8:18 AM
The family court system tends to favor the irresponsible party. Guys who want to be responsible fathers can get screwed by psychopathic spouses, but guys who just walk away from their kids often get away scot free.
Cousin Dave at June 15, 2010 8:25 AM
The whole justice system is skewed towards men = bad women = innocent victim. It makes me wonder what a woman has to do to lose custody.
All in the name of best interest of the child.
Come-on M.K. Letourno was a convicted repeat offender child rapist. And some judge believed it was in the childs best interest to be raised in jail, surrounded by druggies, murderers and abusers, with Mom being a convicted felon than with the Dad and his intact parental family.
PAS happens all the time.
Joe at June 15, 2010 8:32 AM
Stupid people and the expense they bring upon the rest of us. Who do you suppose pays for this "family courts" farce? WE do. And none of this would be necessary if people didn't make such incredibly stupid decisions.
If the children of these divorces learn anything, I hope it's how to choose partners better, and to do it later in life.
I mean these parents, the ones like Juliana's mother or the woman described in the article. Does it not EVER occur to them that it is an incredible waste of a preciously short life to do nothing but marinate in bitterness? These people have no idea what is good for themselves or their children.
Pirate Jo at June 15, 2010 8:46 AM
Why are you people like this? Why why why?
A problem is identified. It is felt that someone should do something about it. You turn to the most powerful forces you think of. And, pathetically, that force is government. You want government to make things better.
You want government to get in there and fuck with people's family dramas. You somehow feel that they'll give better handling to the most delicate feelings in the human heart than you get while in line at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, or the airport security checkpoint.
Perhaps you think government has already been paid for... No matter how desperately Obama raises your taxes.
Whatever. I don't get it. I don't understand how the country with the most freedom the world has ever known, the one that taught the human soul what liberty can really mean, has suddenly come to believe that life is lived through (and FOR) government.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 8:53 AM
> Who do you suppose pays for this "family courts"
> farce? WE do.
PEE JAY... A ray of sunshine peeked through the clouds just as I was typing my own comment.
Luv you, Peejster.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 8:54 AM
Misandry
Fred: Three men robbed the bank.
Mike: Thankfully, eight police personnel caught them.
02/26/10 - Classical Values by Eric, (video 7:35)
[edited] "The word "misandry" was flagged in red, unknown to the spell-checker, even though it is hardly a new word. Misandry is the hatred of men."
"Men do not exist unless they commit crimes or do bad things. Men are "people" or "personnel" when they do good things. They are "men" when they do bad things.
There is a connection between misandry and feminism. This has been slipped by me, over the years. I'm pissed off. I don't take kindly to being manipulated."
Andrew_M_Garland at June 15, 2010 9:07 AM
More power to this guy, but he better know that she is going to nuke him later. Going to jail even for a few days is simply going to make the mom more psycho... with luck the kids will figure all this out later, but that doesn't mean it will end well. When I asked my lawyer what the odds were of getting full custody, he chuckled mirthlessly and said "there isn't enough money in the world, unless she's a felon, and even then 50/50."
This guy must be well financed, indeed. As for why'd he marry her? People can really change if you try and take certain things away from them that they regard as theirs... Like the cuddly lapdog that WILL bite you if you try and take their food.
Parents protecting their children can be viscious if the need arises. The question becomes what are you protecting them from? When you imagine that you've been betrayed by a spouse, regardless if you hate them anyway, regardless if you're the one that threw them out of the house... once you hate them in that way, you have no problem rationalizing them into a threat to your children. There isn't a lot of rational thought there.
I certainly count my blessings that my ex- is nowhere near that psycho... but it has become interesting recently, because she berates me in front of the kids... and they defend me, which makes it worse. So i have taken to telling them not to do that, even while I appreciate the effort. It isn't good for them to be in the middle. Fortunately my ex generally avoids me anyway, so there are fewer chances.
What Crid says about family court is true... but just like civil courts for business dealing, we need an arbiter for when people refuse to be reasonable. I kept the whole divorce out of court, because my lawyer warned me about going there, so all they did was sign off on the decree. From that moment on, my ex has violated the decree constantly, because she knows the only way to enforce it is to take her to court. When you deal with someone like that, what is the best thing to do?
SwissArmyD at June 15, 2010 10:13 AM
Back at ya, Crid! All this dithering about the court system is an example of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that!
Pirate Jo at June 15, 2010 10:22 AM
Can I ask a few legitimate questions without being attacked, please?
Is it not possible in some cases that there are reasons a custodial parent is rightfully angry or reluctant to hand a child over for visitation?
Is it not possible that the non-custodial parent consistently leaves the custodial parent to pick up the pieces after visitation because of lifestyle and other choices?
Is it not possible that the non-custodial parent who claims parental alienation is alienating his (or her) own children by withholding child support and refusing the children all extras in order to punish the ex?
Does anyone agree that if the tables were turned, and men were being awarded the majority of custody and women were being ordered to pay child support and had a strict visitation schedule, that the same behavior would occur in pretty much the same numbers, only with the roles reversed because divorce is rarely pretty?
I think there are a lot of paths to parental alienation, and that sometimes the person claiming it is occurring is actually the person whose behavior is causing it. But it's easier to lay blame than look hard at yourself.
But let it be said that this woman sounds like a whack job and an extreme case and there's no excuse for it.
elementary at June 15, 2010 10:22 AM
In my brief family law practice I noticed the clients were pretty good at coming up with the abuse charges all on their own. I think they were inspired by Oprah or the Lifetime Channel..and my first reaction was, oh please...and I knew the court's reaction would be the same if there wasn't more evidence than diaper rash.
I'm with Amy, throwing the "narcissist" diagnosis around is about as helpful as calling people "insecure" which was big in the 1960s, or any other kind of armchair psychologizing.
carol at June 15, 2010 10:24 AM
That is possibly true, elementary, that if the tables were turned, it would still happen.
Does that make it any more right?
also, witholding child support is a slippery one. When the court can, and often does, award more than CAN be paid... Can you really call that witholding? My ex uses her engineering degree to answer phone part time, and the court shrugged. They would impute my income in a heartbeat, but they give her a pass, because she's the mom. Therefore the magical math says I have to pay everything. I went bankrupt paying it all. Is that witholding?
I don't see your point. The system isn't balanced at all, we dont have to assume where the alienation in this case is coming from, or if it would be the reverse if the roles were reversed.
They aren't. In addition, men and women are quite different. If the roles were reversed, I would anticipate that any alienation that took place would have a different character, based on gender differences.
SwissArmyD at June 15, 2010 10:37 AM
The whole justice system is skewed towards men = bad women = innocent victim. It makes me wonder what a woman has to do to lose custody.
She has to be an alcoholic crackhead. My sister's boyfriend just got custody of his 11-year-old daughter from his ex-wife. She was married before him, and her first ex got custody of their three kids. And my sister's boyfriend is also a recovering addict who has had his own less-than-stellar parenting record, which tells you how bad she had to be.
MonicaP at June 15, 2010 10:44 AM
> Can I ask a few legitimate questions without
> being attacked, please?
Goddammit, NO!!!!
> throwing the "narcissist" diagnosis around is about
> as helpful as calling people "insecure" which was
> big in the 1960s, or any other kind of armchair
> psychologizing.
Point taken, but try to pull back the microscope a couple orders of magnitude... This whole thing is a matter of armchair psychologizing, both in the particular cases cited and in the enthusiasm for the family court matters seen on this blog. And it's one in which the armchair psychologists seek to enforce the treatments of their diagnoses by rule of law... And do so with distance from both the patient and the outcome of the treatment.
That's bad.
> we need an arbiter for when people refuse
> to be reasonable.
In some final analysis, that's probably true. Society has to hire garbage collectors, too, because sometimes there's just ugly shit that needs to be dealt with even when things are going well. Also, we build prisons.
But family is the biggest project for any species. People here seem horny for tales of white-hat sheriffs with good holster technique... As if this were just a movie about a remote time in a remote setting. There's no limit to the drama people will extract from the far reaches of their culture when that drama has no apparent cost to them personally.
Family courts are band-aids, inexpensive dressings with poor adhesive. More to the point, they do nothing to prevent the next injury, and that's where the action is.
These people were probably "unreasonable" long before they got to court. Someone in their life should have insisted –probably many years ago– that they stop being such assholes.
That someone is not government. When a society (not a government, but the whole society) takes a dim view of something, it stops. When was the last time you saw someone take a piss on the street in the United States? Do you think it's the law that stops that from happening?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 10:55 AM
My father says one of the big problems with civil court is they assume that people will just go along with the ruling as obedient people and when someone doesn't the courts seem unable or unwilling to deal with it.
I think he is right.
The Former Banker at June 15, 2010 11:05 AM
"When was the last time you saw someone take a piss on the street in the United States? Do you think it's the law that stops that from happening?"
Answer: Sex offender laws, silly.
Since being put on a sex offender registry for pissing behind a dumpster has become a reality, people my age are much more careful where/when/how they choose to urinate in public than their ancestors!
I think a better example would be people doing #2 in public. People just don't do that b/c they would not have any friends since they would be really gross - sex offender registry or not. But point taken, I guess.
Gretchen at June 15, 2010 11:07 AM
"That someone is not government. When a society (not a government, but the whole society) takes a dim view of something, it stops"
Agreed to a point. If people all agree X is bad, and if someone does X that person is excommunicated and suffers a miserable life of an outcast that might be effective.
But you always go on about how it's not the GOVERNMENT'S job and that people should just behave better. Then, and only then, would we achieve Optimal Everything as we'd live in a self-correcting system where everyone takes care of themselves just perfectly. All without higher taxes or government interference. That's great.
Except:
1. Any ideas how we might bring about such change? Most people don't have a lot of incentive to act decently b/c our collective standards are in the rubbish.
2. You rely on the idea that people care what others think of them. No one in my family can stand my father - not me, not his siblings, not his friends - yet he continues to behave like a ninny. Where is this self-correcting behavior?! Without introspection and a proper level of collective mental health I cannot see this working.
Cridders: you cannot provide a manifesto for revolution without instructions.
Gretchen at June 15, 2010 11:15 AM
> Since being put on a sex offender registry for pissing
> behind a dumpster has become a reality, people my
> age are much more careful where/when/how they
> choose to urinate in public than their ancestors!
First of all, that's preposterous. Secondly, it's ridiculous. Third, it's evasive. Fourth, you're pissing me off.
Every now and then we read stories of contemporary travel wherein the intrepid reporter goes to a third world marketplace to scrounge some Tuesday lunch. And as he fondles scrawny tubers and pokes sullen fruit, he looks over his shoulder to see a middle aged woman lift her skirt and take a dump fifteen feet from a tree in the crowded village center.
Doesn't happen in the United States, and hasn't for centuries. The group you describe is the 0.4% of the population, young and undercooked, who still like to spend weekend evenings getting out-of-their-minds drunk in exotic neighborhoods. The scattered gossip about these furtive, transgressive droppings is exactly they point: People know this just isn't done.
And again, it's isn't— When was the last time time you saw someone relieve themselves in public? Hidden by a dumpster in darkness when you and your young friends were out partying? Very good then, the point is affirmed. When society wants something to stop it applies social pressure to make it stop, and it stops... Even if there are several opportunities in a day for the rule to be broken. Law is the least of it.
Y'know the reason society doesn't bring even that much opprobrium to the incompetent execution of family responsibilities?
I don't.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 11:29 AM
Interesting questions, Elementary.
No, I don't think that a parent should be shut out because the other parent is angry. Yes, you have issues when you divorce, and maybe he cheated on you with his hunky masseusse, but that's no reason to withhold.
If dad becomes "Disneyland Daddy" during his visitation time, and returns the children hyper and sensory/sugar overloaded, withholding is still not an option. Discuss your issues with him, and if he has managed to become an adult at some point, I'm sure he'll listen. But don't expect much change. The solution, in my opinion, would be to give him more time with the kids, so that every visit is not like a grand vacation. If there is some other "lifestyle" choice that is effecting the children negatively, such as if an ex joins a cult where you learn to breathe for nourishment, and the children return starving...well, that's a no-brainer. However, most problems can be solved with open discussion. Carry out the discussion in writing, if you think the ex will react badly.
Being unable to provide child support is not
Always reason to withhold. Did the ex lose a job? Are they suddenly disabled/on emergency disability? My co-worker went through this when her ex lost his job, and the courts relieved the ex of the burden of support until he got a job, and did not lose custody rights.
Fathers being kept from their kids upsets me. When I was a kid, I would have loved for my father to come and see me, but he did not. To this day, he calls my mother to see how I'm doing, and no matter how many times we give him my number, he will not call me. I don't doubt that he loves me...in his way...but he doesn't want the responsibility. If you were to ask him why he never sees or hears from me, though, he always blames my mom, even though she used to beg him to see me. It's like the opposite of what's going on in Amy's article. So, because of that, when I know of a dad who loves and wants his kids, but is being kept from them, I get angry. It is not fair to keep them from their fathers. Parents setting aside their own animosity and bitterness for each other will do a lot more for their kids, and save their children a lot on psychiatric visits in the future.
Heidi at June 15, 2010 11:51 AM
Elementary, a custodial parent may have to pick up pieces. A custodial parent does not have the right to constantly belittle and attack the non-custodial parent. If a non-custodial parent is behind on child support it does not mean he/she is not allowed to see the child/children. A mother who belittles a father and vice versa only hurts the child. Divorce is hard enough on kids even in the best circumstances. Adults behaving like bratty kids who don't know how to get along only make it worse on the kids.
This was a mother who hated her ex and chose to hurt him through the kids which in turn hurts her kids. The vile and vicious things she spewed on a regular basis could never be justified. I don't care if he was the worst husband. Let him be a father. And let those kids have a father. Her actions were sick. She is lucky that he is being so generous as to asking the judge to only give her jail on weekends and such a short sentence. He just wants to have a relationship with his kids. To not allow that is a crime.
Kristen at June 15, 2010 11:54 AM
"People here seem horny for tales of white-hat sheriffs with good holster technique... "
No no no. What I want is: if marriage is going to be treated as a contract, then damn it, let's treat it as a contract. Let's give the contracting parties the same rights that all other contracting parties have, which are the rights to negotiate the terms to their mutual choosing. Let's get rid of this business where the state is an uninvited third party, with the power to unilaterally alter the terms and post-facto circumscribe the rights of the contracting parties. Let's grant the marriage contract the legal sanctity that all other contracts enjoy.
(The alternative, if marriage isn't going to be treated as a contract, would be to go back to the way it used to be -- a matter of criminal law, where you can be jailed for violating the terms. I don't want to go there personally, but if we are going to have marriage at all, it must have some kind of consistent legal status.)
Cousin Dave at June 15, 2010 12:00 PM
"Y'know the reason society doesn't bring even that much opprobrium to the incompetent execution of family responsibilities?"
At some time during the past week I saw a letter to an advice columnist, written by a woman who had either one or two kids "and another on the way" - yet her husband refused to get a job and didn't help support the family in any way.
Out of all that was said, the comment screaming from the front of my brain was left out: "THEN WHY DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER BABY ON THE WAY, YOU DUMBASS???" Stupid people.
Pirate Jo at June 15, 2010 12:33 PM
Just for balance, I feel the need to let you know of a friend whose ex-HUSBAND is doing this. After every visit with his dad, this little boy comes home and asks my friend questions like, "why don't you like me?" "why did you try to sell me?" and my favorite, "why did you want to abort me?" (fyi: the dad threatened that if my friend didn't have an abortion, he'd leave. And then he did just that, yet still demands visitation rights.) Her son tells her that his dad's new girlfriend is going to be his new mommy. It goes on and on. And despite repeated appeals to family court, she is powerless to stop it.
Biscuit at June 15, 2010 12:58 PM
My father says one of the big problems with civil court is they assume that people will just go along with the ruling as obedient people and when someone doesn't the courts seem unable or unwilling to deal with it.
I think he is right.
Posted by: The Former Banker at June 15, 2010 11:05 AM
---------------------------
One of the BIG Problems of the "Family Courts" is that most things happen outside of the view of the public. There is no jury only a single judge making a decision about you and your childs life. Typically no one is sitting in the courtroom other than the participants and their lawyers.
My first Judge treated me terribly for no other reason that I can figure is that I'm male. He mad some remarks in the court room toward me that violated the judicial canons, and surprisingly the court reporter put them in the court record, and I was able to get the judge recused. The second Judge was female and treated me much better. She retired.
The third judge took the attorneys into chambers away from the courtroom and any prying ears. He told my attorney he was thinking of having me pay a lot of money in so many words if I didn't drop my contempt of court against my daughters mom. My attorney said I could have my day in court out in the open courtroom. I said "but I risk pissing off the judge." She affirmed in so many words. And he was threatening to raise my child support and make it retro-active for 14 months. He had me by the balls. I could always appeal but I don't have $20,000 for an appeal just to get a contempt of court! The dictators of the "famiy courts" do this out of sight of any public.
David M. at June 15, 2010 1:00 PM
Gretchen, who peed in your Wheaties?
> if someone does X that person is
> excommunicated and suffers a miserable
> life of an outcast that might
> be effective.
LET'S TRY IT.
Let's have a few generations where the most important thing in life for those who have children is to raise them well, and from the word go... Select the right partners, supporting each other and the brood properly, with courage and patience and sacrifice. And when people don't do that, let's let them know that they've failed, and mark their character as flawed and disgraceful, weak hearts for whom our better society holds no quarter.
> But you always go on about how [...]
...And then you get all stupid. (You get kinda sarcastic, which I sorta like, but mostly you get stupid, which I don't like.)
I hate when people translate. It's just so dumb. I never said any of the things you've implied: "just behave better", "self-correcting system", and "everyone takes care of themselves just perfectly". It's not like you're trying to present a reflection by characterizing my arguments that way. Hell, Gretchen, you're just confusing yourself!— A moment later I'm challenged with this (note exclamation mark):
> yet he continues to behave like
> a ninny. Where is this
> self-correcting behavior?!
Well, "this" behavior is your own invention. I never said anything of the kind. I'm the guy who says people are misbehaving because the rest of us aren't applying pressure.
That you would imagine government to be the proper tool for the correction suggests that you think government is not "self", that it's this whole other player. But it's not... At least in America. We ourselves pay the taxes and make it happen... And we authorize it to carry guns and levy taxes, which is how things get out of hand. I want EVERYONE to apply pressure to people who do these things badly, rather than make excuses for them (which happens a lot in blogs, and I suspect, people's personal lives). If you wait for police to write a citation for everyone who feels and then answers the urge to shit while walking down your street, your house will be uninhabitable in two days. (Last use of the metaphor, I promise.)
(Probably.)
You know why you needed to put that as "Optimal Everything"?.. Capitalized, even? Because I'm asking you to do something unpleasant... To recognize that there is no Daddy out here. There's is no Daddy Deity. There is no Daddy President. And I, despite gray hair, am not your Daddy Taxpayer, the distant-but-reliable figure who can change the rules or pay the costs so that life is pleasant and no one ever has to suffer.
> people don't have a lot of
> incentive to act decently b/c
> our collective standards are in
> the rubbish.
Right. Let's raise our standards.
> Without introspection and a proper
> level of collective mental health
> I cannot see this working.
Introspection is not of interest here... Your interior life is your own beeswax. I want people to behave well. I don't know what's up with your father, and am not asking for details. Offhand, I'd bet there'd be some instruction for the others in his life –the friends and siblings you describe– if they saw that he had a beautiful blond daughter who (dispassionately, not theatrically) makes no time for him... Or for them, when they act as "ninnies".
> you cannot provide a manifesto
> for revolution without instructions.
I'm not into revolution, I'm into civilization. I grew up on a college campus in the sixties, and learned early that chatter about 'revolution' was horseshit. It always embarrassing to look at the earliest careers of a Hitchens or a Paglia, wherein they really imagined themselves to be compellingly innovative thinkers, songbirds of some Proud New Dawn, Children of the New Miracle, the first in history to see the world as it is and kick the ball forward. Most people grow out of that... Hitchens has (meekly) renounced his socialist days and conceded the that only revolution that really delivered the goods, and continues to do so, is the American Revolution.
Want a manifesto? Here's Ambrose Bierce:
Be as decent as you can. Don't believe without evidence. Treat things divine with marked respect -- don't have anything to do with them. Do not trust humanity without collateral security; it will play you some scurvy trick. Remember that it hurts no one to be treated as an enemy entitled to respect until he shall prove himself a friend worthy of affection. Cultivate a taste for distasteful truths. And, finally, most important of all, endeavor to see things as they are, not as they ought to be.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 1:03 PM
> What I want is: if marriage is going to be treated
> as a contract, then damn it, let's treat it as a contract.
You can't have that. There are too many larger issues to pretend this is like a commercial transaction gone wrong. We handle it with law because we handle everything with law... Civilization has found that no matter how extreme the circumstances, law is the least-poisonous cleanser for cleaning up messes. But let's not pretend that law is what this is about.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 1:10 PM
>>I grew up on a college campus in the sixties, and learned early that chatter about 'revolution' was horseshit.
Were you a somewhat priggish kid, Crid?
Jody Tresidder at June 15, 2010 1:14 PM
Quite the opposite... famously outré. There was gossip.
Here's a fun website for whiling away these carefree summertime hours. At this moment it's playing with chirpy orchestral music, like the credits of a 1950's Hitchcock film.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 1:23 PM
Also, sorry about "cleanser for cleaning". Time for lunch
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 1:25 PM
We have a family friend that has an ex similar to this. Not as bad, but similar. I recall meeting her a few times before the divorce. She seemed nice and even keeled at the time. Now she goes off the deep end when talking to others about him - and the divorce happened years ago. It is as if she lives to hate him. At some point you would hope she would move on.
I guess the good news is the youngest daughter figured out what her mother was up to early on. Father and daughter have a good relationship now. And the oldest is even coming around. I believe it was last week that the two of them worked together for the first time in awhile as Denny helped her move into a new apartment. It was good to see, and happy our friend hung in there.
Soul at June 15, 2010 1:38 PM
Ingrid/ Gretchen-
Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been offline for most of the day. As to your question why I let her near my kids, it's never without supervision. This started when she was pumping my oldest for info on my husband and in-laws. This "visitation arrangement" is made easier by the fact that we live 340 miles away, and she hates my husband (he won't put up with her #$%) so she won't come here. Having a relationship with her consists of waiting for the drive-by, the pot-shot, the "when you least expect it". I continue to keep in touch because my brother lives 5 miles away from her, it's tough to visit without my nieces saying something to her about our arrival, and if I don't, she takes it out on him, makes his life hell. Something like he and his family are at risk, eh? Inversely, my stepfather is an incredible person, and we have a very good relationship. She had managed to keep her junk under wraps as far as he knew for 15 years, but once he retired and was home more often, he figured it out and made her go for help.
As to the point of biological relation, irony being is, I'm adopted. Which lends something to Numbersix's first observation: "This is the kind of thing that happens to some women who have kids for the sole purpose of having someone that has to love them back." The thought has definitely occurred to me over the years. Repeatedly. Have had many an apology from my father (adopted) for the hell she has wrought after their divorce. It may have been a catalyst, but there is no excuse for the @#$% she has rained down on my brother and I, we had nothing to do with it. I forgave my dad for his part. Her, not so much, since she's perfectly innocent of all wrongdoing to this day. (insert big blinking anime eyes here)
juliana at June 15, 2010 2:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/15/the_one_kind_of.html#comment-1723916">comment from BiscuitJust for balance, I feel the need to let you know of a friend whose ex-HUSBAND is doing this.
Note how I wrote the top of the blog item. It's both sexes that do this, but it happens far more often TO husbands.
Amy Alkon at June 15, 2010 3:12 PM
Read your blog post and then ran across this little news item:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/arizona-mother-arrested-move-children/story?id=10919821&page=3
Really, just because you can reproduce doesn't mean you should. . . The sad thing is the older kid sounds like he's pretty together and has been taking care of himself and his brother for quite awhile.
Nanc in Ashland at June 15, 2010 4:19 PM
This is sort of what my brother in law is going through. He married a woman who chased him to Europe and back when he was a pilot in the Air Force. It took her about five years to talk him into marriage. He got out and joined the Air Guard later in life where he had a more stable job. They had two kids, and then when the kids were 6 and 8 she decides she wants a divorce because as she told me on the phone "they just weren't close anymore" She apparantly had this vision of taking the kids back to the West Coast where she is from to be closer to her own family. When she found out that the courts were not going to allow that, she tried to back out of the whole divorce thing but by that time the BIL was pissed. They got the divorce finally and I found out from the BIL's new girlfriend that the ex is being a vindictive bitch who will not even allow him on the property anymore to pick up the kids and throws nasty fits if they are even fifteen minutes late back from an outing. I guess some people need hatred and vengence as a reason to live. In my experience, men are more likely to let things go. A lot of women will remember a real or imagined slight for ten years or more until they have an opportunity to stab you in the back for it. Isabel
Isabel1130 at June 15, 2010 4:21 PM
The reason this happens, as well stated, is nothing happens to women who do it. Well, except for "you go grrl" from female friends.
There is a solution. It is happening slowly. Marriage rates are dropping. One of the big complaints of women in their 30's is men won't make a commitment to them. Good deal!
Men are moving to other countries. And, encouraging other men to move as well.
The most primitive, ignorant African slave knew to escape to Canada if he/she could. There is no excuse for any man with any self-respect to be in the US, at least be working on an exit plan.
As far as fixing things, it's too late. This has been 40 years in the making, and even here in Amy country, we have women who try to weasel out of the fact that women are actually doing something wrong.
This country simply does not have the 40 years it needs to fix this - if indeed we could even start with women controlling the political environment.
irlandes at June 15, 2010 5:28 PM
Too often negative comments are directed at women in general, and that in itself is part of the problem.
There are certainly a percentage of women that are completely insane. There is also a certain percentage of men that would fall in the same category.
Cat at June 15, 2010 6:03 PM
> There is no excuse for any man
> with any self-respect to be in
> the US, at least be working on
> an exit plan.
That's categorically insane, fully wackazoid. Did the freckle-nosed head cheerleader break your heart or something?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 7:19 PM
Good call, Crid.
So many people fail to give a good look at who they're planning on spending the rest of their life with. Hormones carry you through the first six months, and maybe the high remains for a couple years...and then what?
A lot of times, the people whining about their evil significant others are doing it because it beats blaming themselves for choosing blindfolded and just hoping it would work out okay.
Me? I spent eight years alone before Gregg. Had plenty of dates, few I saw more than once, twice or a few times.
Amy Alkon at June 15, 2010 8:16 PM
@irlandes: If I make plans to move to another country, it will be because the things Barack Hussein 0b0z0 is doing to our economy, not because of women problems.
Some people flee the country. I, on the other hand, am content with simply not thinking of them as the fairer sex.
@Crid: the only person who typically has a shot at the head cheerleader is the quarterback.
mpetrie98 at June 15, 2010 8:43 PM
"Introspection is not of interest here..."
- Criddich
Yes it is.
The forces of society can create better behavior. Agreed. But there is an internal reconciliation people go through first, before their behavior can change or they choose to do the right thing. I'm not saying we need to care about how people arrive at the conclusion to not do Bad Thing X (have babies they can't afford; turn children against good dads; abuse welfare; murder) b/c it'll mean ostracize-ation. But it's important to realize that someone who is a totally self-centered jackass will not go through this. There are many of these people.
The only choice we have is to simply shun them: Don't marry them. Don't be their friend. Don't buy them father's day cards (can't wait for the "you're an ungrateful bitch!" voicemail Monday morning), etc. Just shut them out. Reasoning with them and talking them down fails. They'll be forced into the underbelly of society: outcasts. Only once they realize this existence sucks will they POSSIBLY come around. But it's been my experience this will only harden their spiteful resolve to be assholes. Being wrong, and admitting it, isn't an option for many people.
You think this is all quite simple. I argue that, while I agree with your philosophy, it would be much more difficult to achieve than you make it sound.
Gretchen at June 16, 2010 7:30 AM
The good news is there's a chance for the kids, that they do figure it out eventually. Sure, there's a hell of a lot of scarring, but the manipulator will lose it all in the end. -Juliana
Do you mean your kids? becuse it seems to me it be far simpler to tell your mother to fuck of and stay away then wait for your kids to figure out their grandmother is a bitch
lujlp at June 16, 2010 7:38 AM
Too often negative comments are directed at women in general, and that in itself is part of the problem.
There are certainly a percentage of women that are completely insane. There is also a certain percentage of men that would fall in the same category.
Posted by: Cat
Cat the same could be said while swictch the genders.
The biggest complaint most men have is that women, generally, are not called to task for their crap in the same way men are.
For example - fathers day is comming upo and papers aroud the counrty or running articles on how they arent needed.
Meanwhile here in AZ a boy called the cops - seems his mother(single) was running off to LA to fulfill her dreams of being a stripper and wanst going to take them.
Cops show up, she tells the cops to take the kids, and the punches one of her children in the belly for trying to hug her goodbye.
$20 bucks says the kids go into foster care and not their father and the story never makes the national media.
That woamn in texas slaughtered her kids and the media rushed to blame her husband for not being emotionally supportive enough.
When was the last time anyone ever blamed a woman for not giving enough emotional support after her husband killed the kids?
lujlp at June 16, 2010 8:03 AM
> What I want is: if marriage is going to be treated
> as a contract, then damn it, let's treat it as a contract.
You can't have that. There are too many larger issues to pretend this is like a commercial transaction gone wrong. "
That's right. Don't treat it as a commercial contract. Treat it like an enlistment. It's not a transaction, it's a relationship, and neither side can break it on a whim - you didn't get paid this month? (budget BS in October) tough shit - if you stop working, that's mutiny and you go to jail. If you just leave, that's desertion and the hounds of hell pursue you - to Leavenworth ultimately. The same should apply to marriage until the kids are grown and gone. These are children's lives and childhoods at stake - your personal happiness and emotional fulfillment are secondary considerations.
Jim at June 16, 2010 8:56 AM
> there is an internal reconciliation people go
> through first
Well, that sounds very poignant and darling and lyrical and pooty-faced. OK, so you (or whomever) can go and light your scented candles and keep your little journals and listen to your winsome music and show up for therapy and have your intimate little ceremonies...
...But I thought we were talking about something closer to policy. I'm never going to care about every stranger in the world enough to sit down and git to know 'em and make sure they've had this precious "internal reconciliation"... And there's no reason on Earth that I should. I want and expect people to behave well anyway.
> it's been my experience this will only harden
> their spiteful resolve to be assholes. Being
> wrong, and admitting it, isn't an option for
> many people.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR INTERIOR CONDITIONS. I AM NOT CLOSE TO THEM IN ANY RESPECT. I don't care about their spite or their resolve. I don't care about their tears or their shame or their hate or their neediness or their "options" or any of that shit. This is not a psychologist's office. Any social policy that demands taking account of these matters on an individual level is doomed to failure.
Not only because of the obvious impracticality....
...But also because... I • don't • care .
And I (or you, or your neighbor, or your senator, or anyone else) shouldn't HAVE to care on such an personal level. Listen, if that's the kind of involvement we have to give to each other to make society work, then we're absolutely fucked... We're completely constipated, and there's no point in worrying about anyone at all.
> You think this is all quite simple.
No, I think you're quite simply wrong. Your complexities are personal... I have other friends who are going through this. You're still in the dance with someone who should have been better to you but wasn't. You're trying to hard to extrapolate about human nature from a single sample.
_________________________________
And now, a photograph from the beach in Alabama.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 11:03 AM
Interesting article reviewing a book that argues so-called "family values" actually increase divorce rates and single parenthood
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20100501_5904.php
Sam at June 16, 2010 4:33 PM
>>> There is no excuse for any man
> with any self-respect to be in
> the US, at least be working on
> an exit plan.
That's categorically insane, fully wackazoid. Did the freckle-nosed head cheerleader break your heart or something?
Posted by: Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 15, 2010 7:19 PM
Name calling and insults with no comment at all? Oh, yeah, it's Crid.
It is called shaming language, and it is extremely 80's.
In fact, I have been married for 35 years. How about yourself? Anyone? No? I thought not. Not real good at relationships, huh?
I am going to say it again, with all the horrid things that are being done to men in the US, any man who isn't working on an exit plan is an idiot. Yourself not excepted.
The same thing happened to the Jews in Germany. When some started bailing in the 20's, they were called names like you just did. They survived. The superior people stayed and died.
In most cases, the problem is most of you don't pay attention as long as your own ox isn't being gored, so have no real idea how bad it is, and in your self-centered narcissism imagine bad things only happen to men who deserve it.
No problem can be fixed until people are aware there is a problem. Stupid name-calling and shaming language do not solve problems.
Try finding out just how many men are leaving every year. Maybe you will discover it isn't as wackazoid as you imagine it is.
In UK, the census bureau admitted a few years ago that a million men are missing. And, that was after they imputed another million. They are bailing every direction.
If I get a man to visit another country, one that is not hostile to men as the US is, they go home and start developing an exit plan. Every time.
If you enter a house, the first few minutes you might smell something bad, like cabbage as an extreme example. After an hour, you don't notice it.
Those of you who have never seriously moved in a male-friendly society are so used to how men are treated in the US, as long as you aren't being especially kicked around, you don't notice it. When men go to a male-friendly society, the difference cannot be lied away.
irlandes at June 16, 2010 7:27 PM
> I am going to say it again
You can if you want, but repetition doesn't make it any more sane. Apparently there's some large but delicate part of your masculinity that's so desperately needy that you moved to the challenging and futuristic social paradise of Mexico to have it stroked. Fine by me, be happy down there.
But the millions of men (and others) who stream across the border in THIS direction seeking fulfillment (as well as the means to support their women in Mexico) suggest that you're not really seeing the big picture.
Perhaps the Midnight Train to Georgia (Woot Woo!) has a southern spur.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 8:18 PM
The same thing happened to the Jews in Germany.
Godwin says we're done here.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 7:24 AM
Those of you who have never seriously moved in a male-friendly society are so used to how men are treated in the US, as long as you aren't being especially kicked around, you don't notice it. When men go to a male-friendly society, the difference cannot be lied away.
Posted by: irlandes at June 16, 2010 7:27 PM
-----------------------
I know EXACTLY what irlandes is talking about here.
I spent several years in Europe, and the differences are so dramatic that what was invisible to me in the states, is now as clear as a Georgia summer day. (And I don't mean a rainy day!)
I thought most women over the world were pretty much the same. But the cultural behavior embraced by most of America's female population is 100% different than that of Europe's female population.
And when I say different, I mean the behavior of American women towards the men in their lives is by and large 100% WORSE.
A woman I dated in Europe took it upon herself without a request from me, when I stepped out the morning after our first night together, to sweep and mop my floor, do and put away my laundry, and was waiting for me with breakfast and in nothing but an apron on in my kitchen by the time I got back.
I came back from that little work emergency with coffee cake, coffee, flowers, and in an otherwise romantic mood ready to do what I thought men were supposed to do to make women happy, and found a woman who was out to make ME happy in return.
Do women in the U.S. do this? SOME. And yes that will include some of you ladies.
But your anecdotes of your own willingness to do these things being something I'll admit to, you KNOW all to well that such inspired actions are increasingly rare from the fairer sex.
The expectations of, and behavior by, American women, versus their European counterparts, is radically different, and no amount of obfuscation and argument on the part of yourselves ladies, will change that fact. Unless you've actually been there, you don't know what you're talking about.
Robert at June 18, 2010 10:00 AM
I've discovered that this stuff isn't that hard. Treat people well. Stay with the ones who treat you well. Ditch the ones who don't. Don't make babies before you know the difference.
The world -- and even America -- is full of men and women who will treat each other well if given half a chance. I don't believe the only women who treat their partners well are on Amy's blog.
When I was dating, I came a cross a few men with the "women are bitches ready to screw men over" mentality. I ended things quickly. That much negativity is unappealing except to people who are equally negative.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 11:41 AM
Yeah— Sometimes people are soliciting the demons they prefer when they do that stuff. I remember dating a woman (more than one actually, but never for long) who had freaky energy about fidelity. It came up in a lot of conversations about how people pair off. I remember her talking about how some women hire others to tempt their men when they're away on business, etc etc. It got kind of macabre, because eventual it felt like a question: Wanna dance?
Pasadena.
cridcomment@gmail.com at June 19, 2010 6:17 AM
Leave a comment