Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Queen, post: 84995, member: 27"] A clip lit the fuse, Sol Phenduka jumped in, and suddenly, everyone is arguing about money, access, and who really gets hurt. How this debate even started [LIST] [*]So basically, radio personality Sol Phenduka reacted to a video making the rounds online. [*]In that clip, media figure Gogo Skhotheni questioned whether a dad who is not paying should even see his child. [*]The internet did what it always does and took sides immediately. [/LIST] Sol’s take, access over cash [LIST] [*]Sol’s stance was simple but loud: seeing your child should not be treated like a prize you unlock with money. [*]He framed presence as support too, especially for a child’s mental and emotional well-being. [*]His logic was that kids eventually figure out who showed up and who did not, without adults blocking the process. [/LIST] Why does he think blocking access backfires [LIST] [*]According to Sol, using access as punishment is a long-term mistake. [*]He warned that the child might later resent the parent who controlled the gate. [*]The message was basically let the relationship play out and let the truth reveal itself over time. [/LIST] The internet splits in real time [LIST] [*]Some people backed Sol hard, saying children need their fathers regardless of finances. [*]Others pushed back, arguing that love does not pay for food, clothes, or transport. [*]The comments turned into a full-on values debate. [/LIST] Penuel enters with a harder line [LIST] [*]Author and podcaster Penuel Mlotshwa jumped in with a more critical angle. [*]He questioned the idea that time alone counts as real support when daily needs cost money. [*]His point was blunt: kids still need to eat, get dressed, and move around. [/LIST] Breaking down the practical reality [LIST] [*]Penuel zoomed in on logistics, like who buys the food, who pays for transport, and who covers communication costs. [*]He argued that even without a job, effort still matters. [*]Hustling small items or borrowing to contribute was framed as proof of intent. [/LIST] Where he agreed, sort of [LIST] [*]Penuel did say access should not be blocked if the mother is also struggling financially. [*]In cases where both parents are broke and relying on grants, he felt denial made no sense. [*]That was his one big caveat. [/LIST] Who should decide on financial support [LIST] [*]He pushed back on mothers being the sole judges of what counts as enough. [*]His view was that fathers should calculate costs based on their lifestyle and cover half. [*]The responsibility, in his eyes, needs structure, not vibes. [/LIST] The final line in the sand [LIST] [*]Penuel ended by defending dads who are paying or genuinely trying. [*]Blocking access in those cases, according to him, should not fly. [*]And just like that, the debate stayed very much unresolved. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Name