Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JayR" data-source="post: 1248926" data-attributes="member: 8613">Don't fall for the child abandonment angle.&nbsp; The clip leaves us with the impression that the guy is abandoning his kid and wants nothing to do with him, despite the mother desperately wanting him involved.&nbsp; So, man = bad, woman = good, right?The MSM wants us to believe that 99% of single men are assholes impregnating women all over the place and heartlessly abandoning mother and child.&nbsp; Though it is possible this guy doesn't want anything to do with his kid, true cases of child abandonment like that are extremely rare for fathers.&nbsp; The &quot;epidemic&quot; of men willfully abandoning children is a myth we've been force-fed for decades to justify the child-support apparatus and perpetuate the transfer of wealth from men to women.More likely, this guy wants to be involved with his kid, but he's being blocked by the mother.&nbsp; Maternal gatekeeping.&nbsp; Why would a mother do this?&nbsp; A few reasons:Cash -- The more she can limit the time dad spends with that kid, the more she receives in monthly child support payments (not alimony -- that's ex-wife support, does not apply in this case).&nbsp; That's how these formulas work.&nbsp; Child support policy actually provides mothers with a financial incentive to keep father and child apart.Sympathy -- &quot;I have to raise the baby alone!&nbsp; I'm a single mom!&nbsp; I receive no help from him!&nbsp; Feel bad for me!&quot;&nbsp; This was on full display in the clip.Leverage -- For this crazy woman, that baby is a permanent link to the rich, famous, alpha, baller daddy she's obsessed with.&nbsp; If he wants to see the kid, he has to go through her.&nbsp; Court-ordered &quot;visitation&quot;?&nbsp; Doesn't matter -- she's most likely got primary physical custody and controls his access to the kid.&nbsp; If he wants to see the baby, he's got to go through her.&nbsp; Bonus -- if he really loves his son, she can &quot;punish&quot; Dad at will for 18+ years for the wrongs she perceives he has inflicted on her by limiting their time together.&nbsp; And, if she really wants to turn the screws on Dad, she can add in some parental alienation along the way and turn the kid against Dad.&nbsp; The fact is, most men want to be involved with their children, but do you really expect the producers of a man-hating clip like this to show us that?&nbsp; Doing so would completely undermine the toxic-masculinity/man-bad narrative that is clearly the goal of this interviewer and program.Women like this know that kids are a financial and emotional gold mine, and will use the kid as a pawn to get what they want.&nbsp; All without a care for the devastating impact this has on the kid.&nbsp; It's evil shit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JayR, post: 1248926, member: 8613"] Don't fall for the child abandonment angle. The clip leaves us with the impression that the guy is abandoning his kid and wants nothing to do with him, despite the mother desperately wanting him involved. So, man = bad, woman = good, right? The MSM wants us to believe that 99% of single men are assholes impregnating women all over the place and heartlessly abandoning mother and child. Though it is possible this guy doesn't want anything to do with his kid, true cases of child abandonment like that are extremely rare for fathers. The "epidemic" of men willfully abandoning children is a myth we've been force-fed for decades to justify the child-support apparatus and perpetuate the transfer of wealth from men to women. More likely, this guy wants to be involved with his kid, but he's being blocked by the mother. Maternal gatekeeping. Why would a mother do this? A few reasons: [b]Cash [/b]-- The more she can limit the time dad spends with that kid, the more she receives in monthly child support payments (not alimony -- that's ex-wife support, does not apply in this case). That's how these formulas work. Child support policy actually provides mothers with a financial [i]incentive[/i] to keep father and child apart. [b]Sympathy [/b]-- "I have to raise the baby alone! [b]I'm a single mom[/b]! I receive no help from him! Feel bad for me!" This was on full display in the clip. [b]Leverage [/b]-- For this crazy woman, that baby is a permanent link to the rich, famous, alpha, baller daddy she's obsessed with. If he wants to see the kid, he has to go through her. Court-ordered "visitation"? Doesn't matter -- she's most likely got primary physical custody and controls his access to the kid. If he wants to see the baby, he's got to go through her. Bonus -- if he [i]really [/i]loves his son, she can "punish" Dad at will for 18+ years for the wrongs she perceives he has inflicted on her by limiting their time together. And, if she really wants to turn the screws on Dad, she can add in some parental alienation along the way and turn the kid against Dad. The fact is, most men want to be involved with their children, but do you really expect the producers of a man-hating clip like this to show us that? Doing so would completely undermine the toxic-masculinity/man-bad narrative that is clearly the goal of this interviewer and program. Women like this know that kids are a financial and emotional gold mine, and will use the kid as a pawn to get what they want. All without a care for the devastating impact this has on the kid. It's evil shit. [/QUOTE]

Verification