4 ms·
What the hell? The woman took his kids and somehow he's a monster because he called her a bitch?
by slowmotiony 12y ago
What the hell? The woman took his kids and somehow he's a monster because he called her a bitch?
- ytNumbers 12y agoIf he even cared a tiny bit about his kids, then he would treat their mother with respect.
- kevingadd 12y agoThe use of 'his' here is pretty suspicious. The original story says 'the' kids. We don't know whether they're her kids from another relationship, kids they had together, or his kids from a previous relationship. They could be adopted. But NATURALLY, they're his kids because it was unspecified and you identify with the father, and because them being his kids makes her a bitch. Now it's internally consistent!
- kolinko 12y agoYou're nitpicking.
- wastedhours 12y agoLike everyone else in this thread...
- ScottBurson 12y agoWhat the hell? "The kids" are suddenly now "his kids"? And the woman is described as "his girlfriend", meaning they weren't married, meaning even if he's the biological father, he has no rights to them. If he's not going to take on the responsibilities of getting married, he's in no position to complain when she leaves! -- Anyway, I didn't say his used of "bitch" proved anything. But I've seen enough people in abusive relationships to know that it's a clue. The fact that he would illegally (and surely, contrary to company policy) abuse his position as an AT&T employee to stalk her further clarifies the picture.
- mikeash 12y agoThere is no legal requirement to be married in order for the father to have rights to his children.