In most family courts across the country, a standard non-disparagement order is made at the outset of every case involving children, and most parenting plans include non-disparagement clauses. A non-disparagement clause or order prohibits the parents from speaking negatively about the other parent in front of the children. Non-disparagement orders are what I call “fluff” orders because mothers never obey them and it is impossible for fathers to enforce them in court.
It is common for mothers to constantly and openly criticize the father in front of the children after the marriage or co-habitation ends. In their solipsistic minds, mothers actually believe they need to protect the children from the father in every instance. Typically, he has done nothing wrong, and to the contrary, he has been a loyal, faithful, and hard-working husband and father for years. Like most men, he has taken the unappreciated, submissive, and thankless secondary role of family workhorse, with the mother taking credit for all family successes. This is especially true with the successes of the children. Further, if the man gets a promotion at work, or succeeds in running a business, it’s because he had a “strong” woman behind him, and not due to his own efforts. People, and even the men themselves, often say things like “he could have never done it without her”, when in reality she was more of a burden than a boon to his success.
When the marriage or co-habitation ends, mothers need to transform the father into a dangerous threat in their minds to avoid any accountability and to mentally justify their abandonment of the father and family unit. If Mothers dealt with reality as it is, they may actually feel personal responsibility and remorse, but this never happens. Our Feminine Primary Social Order teaches us that women are always the victims and they are never to blame for anything, and a woman’s solipsistic nature reinforces these beliefs. It is always the oppressive patriarchy, or any other convenient scapegoat, that is to blame for women’s problems, not themselves.
Women are very rational, but they have no concern for realism and the objective truth. The “truth” for women is defined as whatever paradigm and belief system serves them best in reaching their current objectives. Men use objective, evidence-based truths when making logical conclusions. Women “rationally” arrive at conclusions using fabrications that they call truths. A woman’s flexibility with what qualifies as “truth” gives her a flexibility in making conclusions that men don’t typically afford themselves. As I mentioned in my previous post Modern Chemical Castration of Men, if it serves her to view her son as a mentally ill patient in need of medication, she will adopt that viewpoint with no regard for the consequences.
Also remember that a woman’s “truth” is always subject to change. Women always reserve their right to change their minds at any time, no matter how illogical and dishonorable it is. They will readily admit to men that their truth was based on their temporary and fleeting “feelings” at the time, and since their “feelings” have changed, so has their truth. This rationale is obviously flawed, but it’s very convenient for women, and thus it makes logical “sense” to them. Men in our society are not afforded the same luxury and convenience of being able to dishonor their word, lack integrity, and change their minds with no accountability or consequences. Men are supposed to honor their word and commitments to women no matter how their feelings change, but women have no such obligation. Women attempt to guilt men into keeping their word by openly questioning the man’s “honor” and “masculinity”, but men should always identify and resist this type of female manipulation.
A woman’s nature causes her to falsely believe the father is dangerous, which makes her feel justified in disparaging the father in front of the children. In reality though, the mother is just fulfilling her selfish need for attention and victimhood, and she wants the children to take her “side”, no matter what the long-term consequences are to the children.
There are many social constructs and norms in place that facilitate mothers who poison their sons against their fathers. The FPSO teaches us that mothers are loving, innocent, sympathetic, and emotionally sensitive creatures and fathers are the opposite, so the boy ends up hating and resenting his father. His mother’s disparagement of his father unfairly and tragically forces the boy to choose between his father or her, and boys almost always choose their mothers in this situation. The resulting estrangement between father and son leads to misery, confusion, and a myriad of other problems for the son that can affect him for the rest of his life.
Due to their solipsistic nature, mothers are completely incapable of seeing, or caring about, the negative effect their behavior has on their son’s life. Even less likely is the mother actually taking responsibility and accountability for the misery and dysfunction she has brought to her son’s life. It is always the father’s fault, or the son has mental illness, or anything else is to blame but her. In our Feminine Primary Social Order, nothing is ever her fault and she is always the victim.
The FPSO teaches us that the role of a father in a child’s life is not important, and that a mother can fulfill the roles of mother and father herself without the child suffering therefrom. So no one bats an eye or recognizes a problem when she poisons her son against his father and takes the boy away from his father. After all, she’s a woman and the boy is better off without the toxic masculinity of a father anyways!
In my legal practice, mothers have repetitively shown me their solipsistic nature by choosing what was best for themselves over what was best for their children. One of the biggest societal fallacies and lies about mothers is that they love and care for their children more than the father. The flawed logic goes like this: Since women carried the child for nine months and went through the pain of childbirth, they must be superior parents and love their children more.
However, I have seen a mountain of evidence that reveals the exact opposite is true, as mothers are more than willing to use their children as pawns in their crusades to get paid and destroy their husbands. Fathers, in their rational nature, wish to protect the children and end the conflict quickly with minimal damage to all parties involved. Mothers are almost always the unreasonable party that escalates the conflict and protracts the family court litigation unnecessarily.