Mama Elephants: Celebrating Step-Motherhood

07/08/2025

Embracing the Mama Elephant: Challenging the Weaponized Maternal Archetype in Blended Families
By Weaponized Stepmom

Abstract
This paper critiques the cultural dominance of the “mama bear” metaphor as it appears in maternal advocacy and parenting discourse, particularly among high-conflict custody groups such as One Mom’s Battle. While often framed as a symbol of fierce love, the mama bear archetype reinforces possessiveness, territorial behavior, and resistance to coparenting. These traits hinder child well-being in blended families. In contrast, the mama elephant offers a more grounded and biologically accurate model of maternal leadership. She is protective but communal, wise, patient, and emotionally intelligent. Drawing from ethology, developmental psychology, and custody research, this paper argues for a paradigm shift in how stepmothers and caregiving are conceptualized. It urges a move away from fear-based metaphors toward models that honor the complex long-view leadership required in high-conflict post-divorce parenting.

Introduction
Stepmothers are too often framed as intruders in the family system. Tolerated at best, rejected at worst. Despite being present in children’s lives, contributing to their stability, routines, and care, stepmothers are denied legitimate narrative space in most maternal-focused parenting cultures. This erasure is not accidental. It is the outcome of years of branding motherhood through metaphors that glorify biological control while vilifying emotional inclusion. The “mama bear” is perhaps the most prolific of these symbols. It is especially popular within high-conflict coaching communities such as One Mom’s Battle, where maternal loyalty is conflated with aggressive exclusivity.

But what if we have been using the wrong metaphor all along

The Problem with the Mama Bear Archetype
At first glance, the “mama bear” appears to symbolize a protective loving parent who will do anything to safeguard her children. But beneath the surface lies a biologically aggressive and emotionally insecure figure. In ethological terms, bears are solitary and territorial. A female bear with cubs will abandon or allow them to be killed if a new male enters her territory, often because the male bear’s infanticide brings her back into estrus (Hrdy, 1999). These survival instincts are not symbolic of emotional intelligence. They reflect resource scarcity and reproductive strategy.

Applied to human parenting, especially in post-divorce families, this metaphor becomes not protective but destructive. It celebrates isolation. It casts new family members, particularly stepmothers, as threats. It sets the stage for maternal gatekeeping under the banner of instinctual love. This distorted narrative is openly marketed by mother-focused custody networks like One Mom’s Battle, where “mama bears” are encouraged to weaponize their fear of replacement into legal and emotional exclusion tactics (Swithin, 2024).

MLM Motherhood and the Business of Victimhood
Many advocacy groups that push the “mama bear” narrative operate like multi-level marketing schemes. They profit not from healing but from perpetual conflict. One Mom’s Battle, for example, offers coaching certifications to mothers, most of whom have no formal mental health training, to teach others how to frame their ex-partners and their partners’ new spouses as narcissistic abusers regardless of clinical verification (Jorgensen, 2023). These programs emphasize narrative dominance, not collaborative parenting. They discourage compromise and reframe any form of coparenting as complicity with abuse.

This is not empowerment. It is emotional monopoly.

In these circles, children are taught, sometimes directly and sometimes by implication, that a bond with a stepmother is a betrayal of the biological mother. Loyalty binds are nurtured, not broken. Fathers who attempt shared parenting are painted as unstable or dangerous. Meanwhile, mothers are lauded for “fighting for their cubs” even when they are undermining the child’s relationships and overall development (Papernow, 2013).

The Mama Elephant: A Model of Collaborative Maternity
In stark contrast stands the mama elephant. Elephants are matriarchal, communal, and emotionally literate. Female elephants lead extended families composed of mothers, daughters, and aunties, all of whom engage in allomothering, the shared care of calves (Moss, 2011). These herds do not isolate new mothers. They incorporate them. They do not reject calves born from outside bulls. They raise them. The mama elephant leads not by hoarding authority but by embodying wisdom and emotional regulation. She remembers. She waits. She protects the collective, not just her own.

Ethograms cataloging elephant behavior reveal a range of protective, communicative, and nurturing responses unmatched by most mammals. From vocal reassurance to body shielding and coordinated movement, elephant mothers create safe developmental space for their young (Poole and Granli, n.d.). These behaviors mirror what effective stepmothers do. They create calm, hold emotional space, provide guidance, and integrate without force.

Evidence from Shared Parenting Research
The mama bear metaphor is not just misguided. It is empirically dangerous. Multiple studies show that children benefit most from having access to both parents after divorce, especially when each parent offers consistent high-quality care (Nielsen, 2014; Fabricius and Suh, 2017). Shared parenting arrangements correlate with better emotional, physical, and academic outcomes, even in cases involving moderate conflict (van Dijken et al., 2021).

The barrier, then, is not conflict itself. It is how parents respond to it. Narrative-driven parenting models, those that assign roles of “hero” and “abuser” based on feelings rather than fact, interfere with the child’s attachment system. Children in these homes often suffer cognitive dissonance as they are forced to choose one parent over another to maintain emotional stability (White and Epston, 1990). This is not safety. It is trauma by proxy.

Narrative Therapy Misused: When Stories Replace Reality
Narrative therapy, while valuable in individual contexts, becomes dangerous when weaponized in custody battles. By centering a parent’s subjective interpretation over objective relational dynamics, narrative therapy can reinforce distortions in high-conflict cases. Without third-party verification or cross-household collaboration, the “story” becomes the legal reality, often at the expense of the other parent’s credibility (Lamb and Kelly, 2001). It also paves the way for coaching industries to insert themselves into the legal process, helping parents rehearse narratives that will win sympathy, not truth.

This is where maternal metaphors like “mama bear” become more than harmless clichés. They are rhetorical devices used to justify exclusion, emotional abuse, and identity-based control.

Conclusion
The mama bear is not a symbol of empowerment. She is a warning. When wielded by fear-based parenting ideologies and profit-driven coaching platforms, this metaphor becomes a script for emotional tyranny cloaked in the language of protection. The mama elephant, on the other hand, offers us a new archetype. One rooted in patience, memory, and strength through community. She does not react. She responds. She does not dominate. She leads.

It is time for stepmothers to reclaim the maternal narrative. Not by mimicking the aggression we have been excluded by, but by modeling the grounded wisdom our children need. Mama bears are territorial. Mama elephants are transformational.

References

Bradshaw, G. A., and Schore, A. N. (2007). How elephants are opening doors: Developmental neuroethology, attachment and social context. Ethology, 113(5), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01349.x

Fabricius, W. V., and Suh, G. W. (2017). Should infants and toddlers have frequent overnight parenting time with fathers? The policy debate and new data. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000108

Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. Ballantine Books.

Jorgensen, K. (2023). Narrative warfare in family court: Framing as custody currency. JBP Legal Blog. https://www.jbplegal.com/blog/child-custody-and-narrative-framing-in-high-conflict-cases

Lamb, M. E., and Kelly, J. B. (2001). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 39(4), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00609.x

Moss, C. J. (2011). Elephant memories: Thirteen years in the life of an elephant family. University of Chicago Press.

Nielsen, L. (2014). Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared residential parenting research. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 55(8), 586–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2014.965936

Papernow, P. L. (2013). Surviving and thriving in stepfamily relationships: What works and what doesn’t. Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Thriving-Stepfamily-Relationships-Doesnt/dp/0415894387

Poole, J., and Granli, P. (n.d.). Elephant ethogram. ElephantVoices. https://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-ethogram.html

Swithin, T. (2024). Strategic communication: Understanding the language of the narcissist. One Mom’s Battle. https://www.onemomsbattle.com/strategic-communication

van Dijken, M. W., van der Valk, I. E., and Grietens, H. (2021). Parenting arrangements and children’s well-being after high-conflict divorce: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 24, 439–460. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7986964



Time




Truth

06/05/2025

Love is your husband saying, “Hey, I’ll grab dinner”even after a long day at work because he noticed you’ve been rearranging the whole house and forgot to eat.

It’s the quiet kind of love. The kind that sees you without you having to say a word.

Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group In My Life (Remastered 2009) · The Beatles Rubber Soul ℗ 2009 Calderstone Productions Limited (a division of ...

06/03/2025

I don’t remember how old I was in this photo, early 2000s maybe. At The Breaks State Park. My college boyfriend took it. That part of my life is long over, but somehow, the photo stayed.

When my son was little, he pulled it off the shelf and just… loved it. Didn’t know the backstory, didn’t need to. He just saw his mom smiling, and that was enough for him.

And it hit me today as Im rearranging the furniture: something from a time that ended completely can still find a way to matter later. A relationship that’s done can still leave behind something good. That picture didn’t stay tied to who took it…it became part of a different story when my son claimed it.

He’s almost grown now. And my stepson,my last little boy, lets me feel that small kind of love for just a little longer. The kind where they just love you because you’re you. Not because they understand your past, or your choices. They just see the heart of you.

Two things can be true. That relationship is long gone, and this photo still means something. I’ve come so far from the girl in that picture. I’ve learned the hard way what love isn’t. And now I get to live every day with someone who shows me what love really is.

Sometimes the past sends you a reminder not to drag you back, but just to say: look how far you’ve come. And maybe… look how much of you was already there.

05/18/2025

To all of us who are holding little hearts we didn’t make but are holding in our arms all the same I wish you a happy stepmother’s day!! I hope you had a great day loving on your bonus babies and got to celebrate with them!!

01/15/2025

12/07/2024

And that’s on them….

Don’t let them win… do not lower your standards or break your boundaries.

10/18/2024

08/13/2024

Debunking the Myths: Why Dismissing Parental Alienation is Dangerous and Misleading

Tina Swithin would have you believe that parental alienation is nothing more than a debunked concept, a tactic invented by one man, Richard Gardner, to protect abusive fathers. She argues that the term “parental alienation” has no scientific basis and exists solely to deflect from the reality of child abuse. But this argument, while compelling on the surface, crumbles under scrutiny. Let’s break it down and see why dismissing parental alienation is not only misleading but also dangerous.

The Origin of Parental Alienation: More Than One Man’s Idea

It’s true that Richard Gardner coined the term “parental alienation,” but to suggest that the entire concept is flawed because of its origin is disingenuous. Gardner’s observations in 1985 were a starting point, not the final word. Since then, countless professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, and legal experts have expanded on the idea, recognizing that alienation is a real and harmful phenomenon. The fact that Gardner’s views were controversial doesn’t erase the thousands of cases where children have been manipulated into rejecting a parent, often with devastating consequences.

Gardner’s work opened the door to a much needed conversation about how parents can, and do, weaponize their children against the other parent in high conflict divorces. Over time, the concept has been refined and studied extensively. Today, we know that parental alienation is not just a theoretical idea, it’s a real issue that affects countless families, with serious implications for the emotional and psychological well being of children.

Why the Absence of Parental Alienation in the DSM 5 is Not a Valid Argument Against Its Existence

Some argue that parental alienation isn’t real or important because it’s not listed as a specific disorder in the DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition). But this misses the mark, it misunderstands both what the DSM 5 is for and what parental alienation really is.

The DSM 5 is a tool that mental health professionals use to diagnose mental disorders in individuals. It’s focused on identifying issues within a person’s mental health. But parental alienation isn’t about a disorder within the child. It’s about one parent manipulating a child to turn them against the other parent. This is a form of psychological abuse, not a mental disorder the child has.

Parental alienation isn’t in the DSM 5 because the DSM 5 doesn’t diagnose behaviors or abuse inflicted by someone else. It’s about diagnosing internal issues within an individual, not external actions like manipulation or coercion. So, the fact that parental alienation isn’t in the DSM 5 doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t harmful. It’s just not the kind of thing the DSM 5 is designed to cover.

This is the same reason why other forms of abuse, like emotional abuse or coercive control, aren’t listed as standalone disorders in the DSM 5. But that doesn’t mean these forms of abuse aren’t real. They’re serious issues recognized in courts, in therapy, and by social services, where the focus is on stopping the abuser, not diagnosing the victim.

In legal and psychological circles, the harmful effects of parental alienation are well known. Custody evaluations, psychological assessments, and expert testimony help identify and address the damage caused by this kind of abuse. Research shows how deeply parental alienation can affect a child’s emotional and psychological well being, even though it doesn’t fit neatly into a DSM 5 diagnosis.

It’s also important to remember that the DSM 5 isn’t the only guide to understanding psychological and emotional harm. Just because something isn’t in the DSM 5 doesn’t mean it’s not real or serious. The DSM 5 is for diagnosing disorders within individuals, not for categorizing abusive behaviors in relationships. So, dismissing parental alienation because it’s not in the DSM 5 misses the point.

Parental alienation is a serious form of emotional abuse with long lasting effects on children and families. The fact that it’s not in the DSM 5 shouldn’t be used to dismiss its reality or the need for legal and therapeutic interventions.

In short, the DSM 5’s exclusion of parental alienation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t harmful. It just means the DSM 5 isn’t designed to diagnose abusive behaviors. So, using the DSM 5 to argue against the reality of parental alienation doesn’t hold up.

The “Cottage Industry” Myth: Conflating Legitimate Practice with Misconduct

Tina Swithin likes to paint the professionals who work with alienated children as part of a “lucrative cottage industry,” profiting off childhood trauma. This argument deliberately confuses unethical practices with legitimate efforts to help children and families. Yes, there are unethical professionals in every field, but that doesn’t invalidate the work of those who genuinely want to protect children from the harm caused by alienation.

Reunification therapy, for example, isn’t inherently traumatizing or wrong, it’s a process that can help repair relationships and heal the psychological wounds inflicted by alienation. When done properly, reunification therapy provides a safe space for children to rebuild trust with a parent they’ve been taught to fear or hate without reason. Dismissing these efforts as part of a “cottage industry” ignores the positive outcomes that many families experience when they receive appropriate support.

Let’s not forget that in any profession, there will always be a few bad apples. But to throw out the entire concept of parental alienation because of them is not only irresponsible but also harmful to the very children these professionals aim to protect. The focus should be on regulating and improving the quality of services, not on dismissing the existence of a real and damaging issue.

The Hypocrisy Behind Tina Swithin’s Profit Model

While Tina Swithin criticizes others for allegedly profiting from the concept of parental alienation, it’s important to examine her own practices. Tina has built an entire business model around promoting her self created, self promoted high conflict coaches, individuals who support her views without any formal accreditation or proper vetting. These coaches, operating under the banner of “protective parenting,” often push strategies that are, in reality, thinly veiled parental alienation tactics.

Tina’s program isn’t about genuine protection; it’s about teaching women how to manipulate the legal system to avoid sharing co parenting responsibilities equally. She openly shares her disdain for the court system, and her agenda is clear: to equip women with the tools to win custody battles, even if it means engaging in alienating behaviors. By using the term “protective parenting,” Tina and her followers obscure the fact that they are engaging in the very strategies they claim to fight against. This isn’t just unethical, it’s dangerous.

Tina is not just participating in a so called “cottage industry”; she’s creating one. Her approach profits off the fear and vulnerability of parents in high conflict situations, offering them a pathway to gain the upper hand in custody battles, regardless of the long term damage to the children involved. This is a clear conflict of interest that needs to be exposed and addressed.

The False Dichotomy Between Parental Alienation and Child Abuse

Another tactic Swithin uses is to create a false dichotomy, suggesting that acknowledging parental alienation means ignoring child abuse. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is, courts and professionals must be vigilant about both. Sometimes, a parent can be both an abuser and an alienator. Other times, false allegations of abuse are used as a weapon to alienate a child from the other parent.

Dismissing parental alienation as a myth doesn’t protect children; it puts them at greater risk. When courts and professionals are forced to choose between two competing narratives, abuse versus alienation, children often become the collateral damage. What we need is a balanced approach that recognizes the potential for both abuse and alienation, ensuring that children are protected from all forms of harm.

It’s not about choosing one over the other, it’s about acknowledging that both can exist and that both need to be addressed with care and attention. Ignoring parental alienation doesn’t protect children; it leaves them vulnerable to ongoing manipulation and psychological harm.

The Real Impact on Children: The Consequences of Alienation

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Tina Swithin’s argument is how it dismisses the real, long lasting impact that alienation can have on children. When one parent successfully alienates a child from the other, the child suffers. They lose out on a relationship with a loving parent, are forced to internalize false narratives, and often grow up with a distorted view of reality.

Alienation doesn’t just impact the parent child relationship in the short term, it can have profound effects on a child’s emotional and psychological development. Children who are alienated from one parent often struggle with issues of identity, trust, and self esteem. They may carry these wounds into adulthood, affecting their ability to form healthy relationships and leading to ongoing emotional turmoil.

Ignoring this reality doesn’t help children, it harms them. By dismissing parental alienation as a myth, Tina Swithin is not only denying the experiences of countless children and parents but also perpetuating a cycle of harm that can last for generations.

Conclusion: Why We Need to Take Parental Alienation Seriously

Tina Swithin’s arguments against parental alienation are built on a foundation of half truths and oversimplifications. Yes, the concept of parental alienation has its roots in the work of Richard Gardner, but it has since evolved into a well documented and widely recognized phenomenon. Ignoring or dismissing it is not just misleading, it’s dangerous. We owe it to our children to recognize the full spectrum of harm that can be done in high conflict custody battles, and that includes acknowledging the very real damage that parental alienation can cause.

The focus should be on improving how we handle these cases, ensuring that the best interests of the child are always at the forefront. This means recognizing both the potential for genuine child abuse and the insidious effects of parental alienation. Dismissing parental alienation as a myth doesn’t protect children, it leaves them vulnerable to ongoing manipulation and psychological harm. It’s time to move beyond outdated arguments and focus on what really matters: the well being of our children.

We must also be vigilant about the motivations behind those who seek to profit from these highly sensitive issues. Tina Swithin’s self promoted high conflict coaches, who are neither accredited nor properly vetted, contribute to a narrative that encourages manipulation of the legal system under the guise of “protective parenting.” This approach doesn’t serve the best interests of children; it serves the interests of those looking to avoid shared responsibility in co parenting.

As we continue to advocate for the recognition and proper handling of parental alienation, it is crucial to expose the hypocrisy and financial motivations behind those who dismiss or downplay its impact. We must push for a more balanced and informed approach in family courts, one that takes into account all forms of abuse, including the psychological manipulation that parental alienation represents.

By acknowledging the reality of parental alienation and rejecting the misleading arguments against it, we can work toward a legal and therapeutic system that truly prioritizes the health and happiness of children. It’s time to move beyond self serving agendas and focus on what’s really at stake: the future well being of our children and the integrity of our family courts.

Parents BattlesParental Alienation Resourcenation Resource

08/13/2024

Send a message to learn more