I lived with my late mother. My sister and I saw our male parent every three weeks, on average, and spoke to him on the telephone once a week. My male parent is the alienator.
My case was unusual, wasn't it?
Normally the alienator is the mother and the alienated is the father, but not all cases are the same.
It still astounds me that he could do so much damage to my head when he wasn't even there most of the time!! I don't understand that and if someone can explain it, I'd love to hear.
What I think is most likely is that he got in there first: he began telling me that my mother didn't love me the minute she said she wanted a divorce ("Mummy doesn't love us anymore!"), and he kept it up. It was consistent and continuous and a barrage and always, ALWAYS at the back of my mind - for thirty years. Every time my mother said no to me or didn't do what I wanted, I believed it was because she did not love me or want me - because he said so. Without exception. I thought every single one of her NOs was because she didn't love me. Can you imagine growing up with that? Growing up in a house with a parent you thought didn't want you? I still believed this a year ago (now I'm just confused). I grew up thinking that she was cruel and deliberately nasty - because he said so.
He said that she only wanted me in the house to get her own back on him, to control me, to exert her power over me. He commonly said she had a "god complex" and was "a big fish in a small pond". He also told me about nearly every aspect of their divorce. He made me watch KRAMER VS KRAMER so I could compare him with Mr Kramer. If you haven't seen the movie, Mr Kramer is not treated well in the divorce and my male parent put himself in his position. At one point, the couple's son falls off a swing (?) at the park and hurts himself. Mr Kramer rushes him to hospital. The incident is brought up at the court case, Mr Kramer being yelled at for allowing the child to fall. I may have details wrong here, but I've got the general idea. He ranted at me after this scene. "Look how they've taken a tiny accident and blown it up into something major!" He was furious that, he felt, they were deliberately distorting the truth against Mr Kramer in order to make him look bad. "That's what they do!" he raged. I did not really understand what he was saying, other than that the truth was not being told about him. Now, it seems to me to have been a preemptive strike? Or making excuses?