There are three main factors that contribute to PAS:
1. The parent brainwashing the child
2. Situational factors
3. The child's contributions
The loved parent embarks upon an unrelenting campaign of denigrations that may last for years. A mother, for example, whose divorce was the result of marital problems that contributed to her husband's seeking the affection of another woman, may continually vilify the father to her children with such terms as, 'adulterer,' 'philanderer,' and 'abandoner.' Similarly, she may refer to the father's new woman friends as a 'slut,' 'whore,' and 'home-breaker.' No attention is given to the problems in the marriage, especially such a mother's problem(s) that may have contributed to the new involvement.My first instinct is to laugh at this description. Doesn't it seem in the least bit comical--maybe because of how frequently we see this in our own lives or the lives of people surrounding us. Damnit, I'm nearly convinced that everyone is walking around with PAS!
But seriously, if one parent is been speaking about the other FOR YEARS, then how long has the other parent not been around in order to correct or rebut his/her own character assassination? Perhaps the problem may be that the other parent has absent FOR YEARS, of his own accord, and returns to "discover" that this has occurred. Isn't the campaign of denigration valid at this point?
The name-calling presented above, can only be considered vilification if it is not TRUE. For example, a man (or woman) who cheats on his/her spouse, IS an adulterer. Right? And isn't the person with whom the man cheated also equally involved in the action (if that person was previously aware of the situation)? Wouldn't that make her a homewrecker?
Okay, maybe these things shouldn't be said in front of the child. But, if they are, who is to stop the child from buying into the language? This would involve a conversation in which both parents would have to be honest about the situation and call it what it is...adultery...sinning...or whatever language that would be used in the context of that household.
How much "attention to the problems in the marriage" should be given to the child? It would depend on the age. I can't imagine discussing with a toddler the fact that his parent was an adulterer. Even if you did, what the child sees is the end result...the FIGHTING, the ARGUING, the ABANDONMENT.
If the child is older or appropriately mature, both parents would have to sit down with the child to discuss the marital problems and the effects on the family. But you see, this conversation is not bound to happen by mere fact that when the parents are divorcing, it is because of lack of communication....maybe the same reason why they are cheating.
**Interesting to note though, how Gardner tries to lay the responsibility of the father's adultery, back on the mother.
There are mothers who, when talking to the children about their husbands having left the homes, will make such statements as, 'Your father's abandoned us.' In most cases the father has left the mother and has not lost any affection for the children. Clumping the children together with herself (by using the word 'us' rather than 'me') promulgates the notion that they too have been rejected.
Hmmm...
If the father left the home, isn't he abandoning the family (which would include the child)? But wait, even before that...if the father was cheating, wasn't he abandoning the family? Wasn't he already putting his needs first, and not dually considering the ramifications of his actions?
And how do we know that "in most cases...[the father] has not lost any affection for the children?" What is the evidence to prove this? Because he pays child support or sends gifts? I'm just not sure on this one, but I am aware that even when married men cheat, it may not mean that they have lost affection for their wives either...they just like to explore sex outside of their current relationship, and their spouse doesn't appreciate it.
What are we to think?
0 advocates for peace:
Post a Comment