[quote=scaredyclassic]children are such tender sprouts. they vibrate with emotion and long for acceptance. to know someone is there and fighting for you. so important.
i made some pad thai ina box for my boys who are very large last night. put a big steaming plate of it infront of the 18 year old.
“my pa loves me” he said, reflexively.
elliot couldnt even walk into his da’ds house without getting a big pile of shit from his stepmother. bullshit.[/quote]
I’ve been “swamped” this past month and haven’t read this whole thread or Rodger’s manifesto, scaredy. But you just touched on the elephant in the room here. Rodger had divorced parents (from a young age?). It is not at all uncommon for children of divorced or single parents to be raised with one parent’s values in one household and another parent’s values in another household which are diametrically opposed to one another. (The same condition applies to children whose parents never married.) Sometimes kids of single parents must even go to churches with vastly different teachings every other weekend with each parent. Compound that confusion with one or both parents’ values being influenced by a subsequent spouse.
I believe that often the sole reason (or biggest reason) parents end up divorcing is due to both of them not seeing eye-to-eye on how to raise children. Children pick up on this very early (even while their warring parents still live “together”) and quickly learn how to play one parent against the other to get what they want.
Add to this phenomenon that in CA (and many other states), each parent typically gets 50% custody timeshare in a domestic court in the absence of their pending or current mental health or substance abuse rehab stint or their pending or current incarceration stint (either parent). Even in the presence of any or all three conditions (above), said affected parent losing child custody temporarily is free to come back to court after their release and prove themselves fit to eventually take back their entire 50% custody timeshare (or <50% if they desire less).
The moral here is, no matter how young one is when they are contemplating marriage and/or having children, one needs to pick the other parent of their future children very, very carefully ... or choose to drop their plans for marriage/having kids with a potentially unsuitable (for them) individual and wait to find another, more suitable co-parent if they still have time (women). If a prospective parent is running out of time and desires children, then choosing to adopt or use in-vitro fertilization where the father's identity is unknown to them is highly preferable to subjecting themselves to a long sentence of having to raise their kids with another parent whose values are diametrically opposed to their own.
I don't think we can blame Rodger's parents individually for his current mental illness anymore than we can blame the Colorado theatre shooter's parents (located here in SD and presumably still "together") for his mental illness. Each divorced or otherwise single parent likely does the best he/she can with their children during their respective child custody timeshares but have absolutely no control over what goes on with their kid(s) at the other parent’s house. Ex: if kids are lavished with material goods and complete freedom to come and go as they please while with one parent, they will often just end up “choosing” not to visit the parent of less means and/or who gives them less freedom as soon as they are old enough to legally do so. If the parent who is overly generous and lenient with the kids is ALSO the payor of child support (most likely scenario), then that parent will often push their kids to choose in court which parent they want to spend the most time with (or ALL their time with) as soon as they are old enough to be credible to the court or their court-appointed social worker.
I’ve seen a lot of domestic child custody cases in my day and have come to the conclusion that, in CA, whichever parent has the most earning power/assets eventually wins the kids hearts and minds over the other parent and that parent is usually the pay(OR) of child support. This unfortunate result is why the CA legislation on child support being solely tied to percentages of custody timeshare for each parent needs to be repealed or in the alternative, lined out and rewritten.
I believe the above consequences are ALSO why millions of “warring parents” in CA just end up turning indifferent to one another for the duration of child-rearing and move into separate rooms of the house until the last of their kids graduate from HS. This way, the family remains intact and the lesser-earning or non-earning parent will still have unfettered regular contact with their kids.
“Rodger” was no doubt a product of this “system.” It all works out okay IF the parents can continually, successfully and cohesively co-parent though the balance of their children’s minorities but I believe the families who can do this through all of their inevitable life changes are a distinct minority. This feat also requires each of the parents to prioritize security over all else and have the financial wherewithal to continue to live close in proximity to one another for a long duration to make it easier on their kid(s) to frequently move from home to home.
