Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
'Spin Sisters' Reveals Phony Feminist Hype of Media Princesses
Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com
Thursday, April 1, 2004
It's dangerous to be a woman. From the contents of a handbag to Krispy Kreme doughnuts to deadly molds, there is just no end to the threats.
If you don't believe it, just pick up a copy of Glamour, Cosmopolitan or nearly any woman's magazine, or turn on Barbara, Katie or Diane (as in Walters, Couric or Sawyer).
As Good Housekeeping recently declared, "just making it to midnight without a major catastrophe is an accomplishment."
But the biggest danger of all could lie in the influence that these media queens and their colleagues peddle.
As a former editor of Ladies Home Journal and a former member of the spin sisters, Myrna Blyth comes clean in her new book, "Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America."
"I am partly to blame for creating the negative messages of victimization and unhappiness that bombard women today," she writes. "Too much weight, too little time; too few eggs; the right man at the wrong time; the wrong man at the right time ... and enough diseases to satisfy the worst hypochondriac among us."
Having realized that the spin sisters and their enormous influence on the women of America had become manipulative and often damaging, Blyth saw the light.
Now she's doing "penance" by detailing the inside stories of how "an army of editors, journalists, TV executives, producers and publicists" and celebrities she knows so well fabricate and sell narcissism, victimization and their own destructive, leftist political agendas to American women and their $6 trillion in annual buying power, and turned self-nurturing into a cottage industry.
And you thought feminism was about empowerment.
Katie, the Leftist Terrorist's Mouthpiece
Blyth reveals:
# Katie Couric wrote in a letter to left-wing Unabomber terrorist Ted Kaczyinski that she would like to give him the chance to explain his experiences "to our huge audience," "to share your views" and how she "would be more than happy to just come and meet" with him if he thought "it would be helpful."
# A former editor of Harper's Bazaar, when the look of the moment was more anorexic than usual, reportedly posted a sign in the bathroom that said, "Don't vomit in here."
# The editor with a million-dollar salary who announced after 9/11 that her magazine was launching a historic new fashion-industry initiative to help the recently liberated but still downtrodden women of Afghanistan by bringing them beauty salons. Vanity Fair applauded her, for building Afghan women's self esteem.
# When Joy Behar on "The View" exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus" because it was the last day of one of her many diets, the politically correct ABC censors deleted her thanks before rebroadcasting the show.
# Sawyer and Walters assisted Rosie O'Donnell in trying to overturn Florida law not allowing gays to adopt, with a televised special promoted on "Good Morning America," and "ABC World News Tonight." The title: "Rosie's Story: For the Sake of the Children."
"After watching it, if you weren't sympathetic to Rosie 'for the sake of the children' you felt there was something very wrong with you," Blyth writes, noting that the comedian was also "hell on wheels" behind the scenes, "rude and crude," even to New York first lady Libby Pataki.
A Feminist Bill of Goods
In rereading her mother's old magazines from the 1950s and '60s, Blyth writes that she was amazed at the presumption that all women were like June Cleaver, and that they good and strong.
"Though less educated than we are today and less self-sufficient financially, women were seen as able to cope with whatever hardship they had to face. Maybe because the readers of those magazines had grown up during a depression and lived through a war, they were seen as tough and resilient."
But by 1970, she remembers, Betty Crocker was out and Betty Friedan - who once compared women's lives "of nothingness and emptiness" to images of concentration camps - was in. Gloria Steinem told Johnny Carson that women had to focus on themselves and that sisterhood was powerful.
Blyth recounts how female reporters such as Lesley Stahl and Ann Compton brought more emotion into news, and how Barbara Walters took this "feminized" journalism to new heights, forever changing television news.
Women in the media, reports Blyth, are the most liberal segment of the media and think that all women should and do agree with them. But what will surprise even the most media-savvy reader about Blyth's book is the incestuousness of the relationships between the celebrities, liberal politicians, left-wing "non-profits" and the spin sisters - all of whom "adore Bill Clinton."
"They support the same causes, they give each other awards, and it benefits people socially and professionally. If only I could do a chart and show the interconnections of all the spin sisters," Blyth tells NewsMax.
Before the early '90s, there was rarely a cover line about "stress or being exhausted or just plain unhappy with your life" on the covers of women's magazines, reports Blyth. But by the end of the "I Feel Your Pain" decade, the $7-billion-a-year industry of women's magazines was based on telling American women that they were "perpetually frazzled, frumpy, and failing. That their lives are too tough for them to handle and that they should feel very sorry for themselves," writes Blyth.
A sampling of headlines:
# "Stalked! Why No Woman is Safe!" (1992)
# "He's Going to Kill Me! Is Anybody Listening?" (1994)
# "Could He Be a Stalker? Danger Signals You Might Miss" (1997)
And in 2000, reports Blyth, "while Good Housekeeping's diet-conscious readers seemed menaced by the proliferation of Krispy Kreme franchises, Glamour's readers were in the crosshairs of an AK-47. 'Glamour Investigates the Gunning Down of American Women' (January 2000). Never mind all the women's lives saved by guns.
Rarely do articles appear that encourage women to take personal responsibility. More often, they urge them to try to force government to take action. For example, notes Blyth, the spin sisters ignore the women fighting in Iraq unless they become victims, such as in the case of Jessica Lynch.
Magazines such as Glamour and Cosmo "constantly send the message that narcissism is an advanced evolutionary stage of female liberation. ... They also encourage young women to mimic men sexually," and promote that being "predatory is the most important step in their personal liberation."
Much of the sex articles in the women's magazines are nothing less than soft-core porn that is rarely if ever fact checked, with quotes that are often made up, Blyth reveals.
"These kinds of stories - true or not -- have had significant cultural force, shaping and reinforcing young women's attitudes about sexuality and relationships."
Next: Victim chic and women's reality
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
NewsMax Scoops
Bernard Goldberg and Dr. Laura Schlessinger urgently recommend Myrna Blyth's "Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America." Click here to order.
> Subject: hello from CNN:shock:
> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:28:50 -0500
> From: "Abate, Angelena" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
>
> Charles,
>
> My name is Angelena and I am a producer at CNN's Paula Zahn Now program.
>
> We are working on a story about battered men and I got your name from Lisa who works with DV victims. I have also talked to Marc Angelucci and several others.
>
> I would like to talk to you about your experience helping men who have experienced domestic violence.
>
> I can be reached at 212-275-8340 or I am happy to call you if you give me a good number. I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Angelena
______________________________
I received the above from Angelena Abate with CNN and spoke with her on the phone today. She would like to speak to men who have been physically abused by their wives or girlfriends within the past three years and are willing to discuss their experience.
Given CNN's global coverage I would assume this invitation includes men in the many other countries the EJF works with. Also please feel free to forward this to your local lists if you think any in your group would possibly be interested.
Her phone number and email address are given above if you meet this criteria, and would like to talk about it, please contact her directly.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
Michigan Courts Use Cohabitation Law to Restrict Father's Visitation Rights (12/21/2005)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [email protected]
ACLU Asks Michigan Supreme Court to Strike "Lewd and Lascivious" Cohabitation Law
DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has appealed to the state Supreme Court on behalf of a divorced man whose overnight visitation with his children has been restricted by the court of appeals. The court order, based on an antiquated law that criminalizes "lewd and lascivious cohabitation," prohibits his girlfriend from sleeping at their shared home on the nights when the children are in the home.
"This antiquated law allows the state to unconstitutionally interfere with a parent's relationship with his or her children," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director. "It is based upon the notion that there is something sinful when unmarried adults spend the night together rather than on the best interests of the children and the family."
Thirty-five-year-old Christian Muller of Ferndale shares legal custody of his two daughters with his ex-wife. But when he became involved in a committed relationship after the divorce, Muller's ex-wife asked the court to forbid him from having overnight visitation with his children when his girlfriend, Michelle Moon, was present.
After a Friend of the Court Referee would not recommend that her request be granted, the case went to Oakland County Circuit Judge Daniel Patrick O'Brien. Judge O'Brien issued an order contrary to the decision of the referee, prohibiting either parent from having overnight visitation with the children when they had unrelated overnight guests of the opposite sex.
"By forcing the woman that I share my life with to leave our home sends the message that daddy is doing something bad, daddy is doing something morally wrong," said Muller. "This court order undermines my rights as a parent, as an adult, and as an American with the right to choose how to live my life."
"The unfounded restriction they have put on my parenting time has done nothing but cause confusion, resentment, physical and psychological hardship and distrust, which affects the whole family," Muller added.
Michigan made "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" a crime in 1838, the same year it prohibited interracial marriages. Although the state repealed its prohibition on marriage between the races in 1883, the prohibition against unmarried cohabitation remained. Michigan is now one of only seven states that retain this archaic provision.
"We haven't found a decision upholding a criminal prosecution under the statute since 1925," said Moss. "Now, in 2005, Michigan courts have used the statute to force a father to choose between visitation with his children and his intimate relationship with his girlfriend. It's time to finally make clear the statute is unconstitutional."
The restriction at issue focuses on unmarried cohabitation and suggests that it creates a greater risk to children. According to the U.S. Census, there are now 5.5 million cohabiting households in the United States, an 11-fold increase since 1960, and 39 percent of these households have children under 18.
"Mr. Muller and Ms. Moon are still living together, and Ms. Moon is sleeping in her car, his van, and sometimes at her parents' house when his children are there," said Bethany Berger, the ACLU Cooperating Attorney who is working on the appeal. "The order has not ended their unmarried relationship, but instead stands in the way of their efforts to fully share their home with his children and ensure that his children remain a full part of his life despite his divorce from their mother."
According to the ACLU brief submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court, "If courts are permitted to restrict divorced parents from living with both their unmarried partners and their children without evidence that this restriction is justified by the interests of the children, it will either undermine their ability to move toward permanent loving relationships or their efforts to fully include their children in their lives. Both are contrary to the legislative will in enacting the Child Custody Act, and contrary to the constitutional authority of the state to inject itself into the lives of Michigan families.
The Court of Appeals even stated that 'the best interests of the children were not actually the issue before the trial court.'"
To read the leave application filed in the Michigan Supreme Court, go to: www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/mullerleaveapplication.pdf
http://2theadvocate.com/stories/120705/new_custodyabuse001.shtml
By ELLEN TANDY
[email protected]
2theadvocate.com staff
From a report by News 2's Ken Pastorick [email protected]
Should custody or visitation rights be awarded to a man booked with beating his 6-year-old son? After the death of the child's mother last year, an East Baton Rouge Parish judge ordered his grandmother and his father to share custody until both sides return to court next week.
Since the death of his mother, the boy has been living with his grandmother, Linda Nelson. The child's father, Kevin Jerome Spears Sr. landed in jail two weeks ago, charged with aggravated second degree battery of his child.
Spears is still allowed visitations rights per a court order which specifies that "visitation shall continue on a seven-day period for each party, there shall be no corporal punishment with either party."
Nelson said she is frustrated with the entire situation. She contends that Spears should never be allowed to see his son, and she points to alleged abuse as the reason.
Police reports say investigators found bruises all over the child's backside, and Nelson said she discovered the bruises when she brought her grandson to the emergency room for a fever. Doctors observed the boy and determined the bruises could have been the result of child abuse, and they notified the Department of Social Services.
"He told the doctor his dad had whipped him for wetting the bed," Nelson explained.
Nelson said that, a month after she was told that the case would be investigated, Judge Toni Higginbotham ordered joint custody and stipulated "no corporal punishment" should be administered to the child.
Department of Social Services Assistant Secretary Marketa Gautreau said that the case is closed. She also said it's not uncommon to have child abuse allegations in a custody battle.
Judge Higginbotham said she is not allowed to comment on pending cases, and Spears' attorney also declined to comment. The custody case returns to court next Tuesday.
As reported Dec. 7 on News 2 Louisiana. If you have information or comments related to this story, e-mail them to [email protected].
Department of Social Services Assistant Secretary Marketa Gautreau said that the case is closed. She also said it's not uncommon to have child abuse allegations in a custody battle.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,1657718,00.html
Family courts' veil of secrecy will lift to win back public confidence
· Reform to quell 'festering' doubts over justice system
· Judges may let public and media into hearings
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Monday December 5, 2005
The Guardian
The curtain of secrecy hiding what goes on in the family courts of England and Wales is to be lifted, after concerns from senior judges and MPs that it damages public confidence in the administration of justice, the Guardian has learned. The move follows claims by parents accused of child abuse and by divorced fathers denied the right to see their children that the courts are unaccountable and have mishandled their cases behind closed doors.
The judges believe that lifting the veil, while preserving the anonymity of the family, would help dispel fears that courts are removing children from their families on flimsy or dubious medical evidence, and that miscarriages of justice are widespread in the family justice system.
A government consultation paper in the spring will outline a range of options for reform. The most radical would be to open the courts to the media and the public, subject to the judge's right to exclude the public in particular cases.
That would be in line with a recommendation in February from the Commons constitutional affairs committee, which said: "A greater degree of transparency is required in the family courts. An obvious move would be to allow the press and public into the family courts under appropriate reporting restrictions and subject to the judge's discretion."
Less radical would be to make it a rule that all judgments are published in family cases, unless there are exceptional circumstances. At present, judges publish judgments at their discretion if they consider them to be legally important.
The restrictions on publicity in England and Wales go much further than those in Scotland and other Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia. Not only are the media and public excluded from family courts - except the magistrates' family proceedings court - but publishing anything that has happened in a children's case, including unpublished judgments or evidence from expert witnesses, without the judge's permission is contempt of court. The solicitor Sarah Harman fell foul of this provision when she sent information about a Munchausen syndrome by proxy case to her sister, Harriet Harman, then solicitor general, as well as to her client's MP and several journalists. The law has now been altered to allow disclosure to MPs, but not to journalists.
Mr Justice Munby, the judge who found Sarah Harman guilty of contempt of court, is a leading advocate of greater openness in the family courts. His strongest criticism of her in the case concerned - and probably the main reason why she was suspended from practising law for three months last week by the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal - was for misleading the court by applying to release information without admitting that she had already done so.
In a recent lecture Mr Justice Munby made a strong plea for more transparency, suggesting that the current restrictions may even breach the European convention on human rights and concluding: "It really is time that something was done about all this."
Because of the secrecy, he said, "misunderstandings about how the family justice system operates are allowed to grow and fester unchecked and uncorrected".
He added: "If opening the family courts generally to the public is a bridge too far - but is it, and if so why? - then surely there is a compelling case for opening all the family courts to the press, in the way in which the family proceedings court already is." As long as anonymity was preserved, he suggested, "what would be the damage, either to individual litigants or their witnesses or to the public interest, in allowing the media access to the family courts?"
A move to greater openness is also supported by the president of the family court division, Sir Mark Potter, and other senior judges.
But family law barristers have advised caution, pointing to fears that witnesses, particularly family members and doctors, who have been vilified in the media and who are increasingly unwilling to act as experts in childcare cases, would be inhibited about giving evidence.
Local authorities are also expected to oppose further relaxation of the court restrictions.
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/
Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman
The Ombudsman's Column
December 2, 2005
Greetings, and welcome to my maiden voyage as the first ombudsman in the 36-year history of the Public Broadcasting Service. To find out more about me and my mission you can click on two links: biography, and mission & approach. But basically I'm here to serve viewers, online visitors, and PBS by listening to comments, complaints and compliments from viewers, sorting out those that go to the journalistic mission of PBS, getting reactions and explanations from PBS producers and officials, and providing independent assessments, when necessary, about whether PBS programs measured up to their own editorial guidelines and standards.
I joined PBS on Nov. 15. Before I got here, the plan was that my first column, and the Ombudsman's full Web site, would be launched on Dec. 20. But some controversy got here before I did and the main subject of this column is a PBS program, "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," that aired on Oct. 20. Rather than wait until two months after the program was presented, I'm posting this column early while the events are still reasonably fresh.
Allow me also, at the outset, to explain that I am not one of the two ombudsmen hired last April by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I work only for PBS, have a contract that assures total independence and non-interference in carrying out my duties, and have no connection to the CPB.
I mention this because it has been confusing for people who know that I have been hired by PBS, but who have read a great deal in the newspapers or watched on TV in recent weeks about the CPB and its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who resigned in November. That coverage focused mostly on a CPB Inspector General's report that was highly critical of Tomlinson and the board's own corporate governance. The report, which Tomlinson has challenged, found evidence that he had "violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of ethics" in one case, that "political tests" were used in recruiting a new Chief Executive Officer," and that "established procurement and contracting procedures were bypassed" in other actions. News coverage of the report also often included references to the two CPB ombudsmen who were selected by Tomlinson.
The CPB was created by Congress in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation with a nine-member board, each appointed by the President to six-year terms subject to Senate confirmation. No more than five may be members of the same political party. One of its roles is to distribute federally-appropriated funds to public broadcasting nationwide. PBS gets about 24% of its funding via the CPB and Federal grants.
The IG report also pointed out, however, that the CPB plays a "sometimes contradictory role" in that it is mandated to act as a "heat shield" protecting public broadcasting from political interference, yet also has authority to address "objectivity and balance issues." Tomlinson invoked that provision when deciding to hire ombudsmen for the CPB.
The IG report, which you can read on the CPB Web site, said: "We could not determine whether any 'political test' was used to select the ombudsmen. While the former Chairman (Tomlinson) initially considered having the ombudsman represent different political perspectives, he stated that he came to realize that it was more important to have two respected journalists just expressing their views and opinions." That latter role sounds a lot better to me than the first idea.
The two CPB ombudsmen are: Ken Bode, who worked for NBC and CNN, was the moderator of the PBS "Washington Week in Review" show from 1994 to 1999, and is now a journalism professor at DePauw University in Indiana; and William Schulz, a former Executive Editor at Reader's Digest, where he worked for 35 years. Tomlinson also worked at that magazine. You can also read their work on the CPB Web site, including a recent review of "Breaking the Silence" by Bode.
"Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories"
Waiting for me on my first day at PBS was a stack of e-mails, the great majority of them critical, and commentaries about a PBS documentary titled, "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories." That program first aired on Oct. 20. It was co-produced by veteran documentary-makers Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur, and Connecticut Public Television (CPTV). Funding was provided by the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.
According to PBS statistics, the program has been aired by 235 stations, about 69% of all PBS stations, some 387 times between its Oct. 20 debut and Nov. 20. That group of stations is available to 77% of all U.S. TV households, but the number of people having viewed that actual program would be only a tiny fraction of those households, perhaps less than 1%, according to fragmentary data.
The film was described this way by CPTV in the press release before the premier: "This powerful new PBS documentary chronicles the impact of domestic violence on children and the recurring failings of family courts across the country to protect them from their abusers. In stark and often poignant interviews, children and battered mothers tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts. The one-hour special also features interviews with domestic violence experts, attorneys and judges who reveal the disturbing frequency in which abusers are winning custody of their children and why these miscarriages of justice continue to occur."
The abusers are not seen or heard from in this film, but they are all fathers. The abused are all children and/or their mothers, who have also lost custody of the children in court. There are also two high-profile men who appear on the program who, as children, were victims of abusive fathers -- New York Yankees' manager Joe Torre, and Walter Anderson, the chairman and CEO of Parade Magazine.
This is, indeed, a powerfully-presented documentary and does reveal what is undeniably a tragic and frustrating domestic and legal nightmare for many mothers and children. The stories told by the children, in particular, leave no doubt about the length and depth of sadness and loss accompanying these cases.
Reviewing the program in the Albany, NY, Times Union newspaper, Bob Port writes that producer Lasseur "deserves a Nobel Prize for honesty. This exquisite documentary, like no other production I have seen, makes comprehensible the subtlety of a scandal that recurs in custody proceedings in New York and other states. It is an almost impossible story to tell, one from which journalists flee, and it boils down to this: A judge, often misled by self-interested lawyers and court-appointed professionals, ignores a protective mother, ignores the wishes of children and awards custody to a man who is an abuser, emotionally or physically, of his wife or their children."
Other reviews I saw, including Bode's, tended to be generally critical.
Boston Globe reviewer Cathy Young, for example, wrote on Nov. 21 that: "There is no question that our legal system fails children all too often. But the PBS documentary presents a skewed and sensationalist picture." She also questions the accuracy of statistics cited in the film and used as back-up on the producer's Web site.
Writing in the Fresno Bee in California on Oct. 20, Rick Bentley interviewed the director of a local facility for victims of domestic violence who said she thought the program lacked balance, that it focused on extreme cases, that those cases seem to date back several years, and that they "portrayed the court systems and attorneys as being very biased toward men and unconcerned for the safety of children. This may be the case in some areas of the country, but not ours," she said.
The mail arriving at PBS has been overwhelmingly critical. This is not surprising since much of it -- aside from perhaps several dozen e-mails and letters -- seemed to have been generated by various fathers' rights groups, including Fathers & Families, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Father Rights activist Glenn Sacks, and from a group called RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Violence Reporting). PBS reports receiving almost 4,000 e-mails, with more than 3,500 of them negative. More than 90 of 105 phone calls were also negative as were virtually all of the few dozen letters.
The critics challenged the program on many counts, including a lack of balance and objectivity that they claimed violates PBS editorial standards, a lack of evidence to back up assertions on the program, the complete absence of fathers and their perspective in the documentary, failure to cite statistics that critics say contradict the thrust of the program, the promotion of negative stereotypes that work against fathers in custody disputes, and some very specific challenges about one case, in particular, that was discussed in the film.
There were also strong objections to the portrayal of what is called "Parental Alienation Syndrome" as "junk science" on the program. The original press release about the program said that: "Despite being discredited by the American Psychological Association and similar organizations, PAS continues to be used in family courts as a defense for why a child is rejecting the father." This prompted the Association to issue a statement that it "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome-pro or con. The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect." Later, however, the Executive Director of the Association said to me that the group has "raised concerns about the so-called syndrome because of the lack of data to support the diagnosis."
One viewer, John Dennis, summed up his criticism this way. The documentary, he said, was "filled with misinformation and emotional baiting, the characteristics of propaganda not journalism...designed only to persuade the viewer of the producers distorted view. Where was the opposing viewpoint? Where were your fact checkers? Where was the balance? Where was the father's perspective? I am not dismissing that elements of the program were valid or that genuine issues of abuse are present and need addressing. However, I am complaining the program took only one side of a complex issue and gave it the veneer of truth because it emanated from a respected journalistic source when in fact there were gross inaccuracies presented. Shame on you for perpetuating popular myths to a wide audience instead of crafting a program that courageously tackles the pressing social issue of custody in a factual and informed manner."
PBS, to its credit, is taking these challenges seriously and is reviewing the research that went in to the program and the conclusions drawn, and has promised a response to these challenges early in December.
Producer Lasseur, who has also prepared an extensive point-by-point rebuttal to the critics, says that "having reviewed the PBS editorial guidelines, we stand by 'Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories' and how we went about producing it.
"As the guidelines recognize," he says, "'the producer of informational content neither deals in absolute truth nor in absolute objectivity.' Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to report on because of the emotional nature of the issues involved. The stories we focused on are true and verified stories and were reported on with honesty, integrity and sound judgment. The 'common sense' and 'open mindednesses' cited in the PBS guidelines are what directed us in our reporting.
"It is common sense to be outraged by the fact that courts are using phony science to take children from protective mothers and giving them to men who have abused them physically, psychologically and/or sexually.
"Our open mindedness did not include the opportunity for fathers who had a destructive political agenda to be represented in the piece. We spoke with members of fathers' rights organizations and did extensive research on their views. We made the decision not to interview them on camera because they would not have provided any balance and fairness to the piece.
"Our story is about children becoming bargaining chips for abusive fathers in custody battles. The program was clearly set in the context of contested custody cases in which there was a history of domestic violence and/or abuse. We regret if some individuals and groups believed we were stating facts about the universe of custody issues in general. As many will acknowledge, we've provided a 'courageous and responsible treatment' of the issue and agree with PBS that 'the surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas.' "
My assessment, as a viewer and as a journalist, is that this was a flawed presentation by PBS. I have no doubt that this subject merited serious exposure and that these problems exist and are hard to get at journalistically. But it seemed to me that PBS and CPTV were their own worst enemy and diminished the impact and usefulness of the examination of a real issue by what did, indeed, come across as a one-sided, advocacy program.
I'm not saying that there is necessarily another side to tragic cases where a child is abused and handed over to the abuser. But this is a broad issue, often complex, hotly debated and contested, with dueling statistics pouring out of both sides. Yet, there was no recognition of opposing views on this program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side.
This presentation made no concession to the viewer and to the legitimate questions one would have or expect. Not only were no fathers heard from to state their side of the individual stories presented, there was no explanation (with one exception) as to whether the producers even tried to get their views, or if the fathers were asked but declined, or, as we now know from Lasseur's statement, that there was a decision not to give air time to critics or groups holding opposing views.
The one exception was a disclaimer printed on the screen, but with no voice attached, after the filmed portion of the program ended, that a father of one young woman, who continues to seek custody of his daughter in the court, declined to be interviewed.
The studies that one presumes back up the statistics stated on the program are not cited. Research that Lasseur uses to back up the program in his response to critics is not cited in the film; nor are the statistics cited by critics.
It is not clear when several of the interviews with mothers and children took place, nor how old the cases are. In a few interviews, references are made to the mid-1990s. Some of the talking heads that make lengthy and numerous appearances as explainers on the program are scantily identified with a sub-title. Lundy Bancroft, who plays a major and informative role as explainer, is only identified as an "Abuse Intervention Specialist." Richard Ducote, also a major explainer, is identified only once in a sub-title as an "attorney," and if you blink you'll miss it.
It seemed to me that what was badly missing in this presentation was a reporter, or skilled presenter, who could provide at least some of the context and controversy surrounding this issue, explain the cast of characters, and deal with the basic questions of fairness and balance that come quickly to mind. Even in Port's very positive review, he writes: "Some facts are in order here. We're talking about a big but very narrow problem. Custody is not disputed in court in the overwhelming majority of divorces, as many as nine in 10 cases settle amicably, according to studies. In uncontested custody, mothers win out over fathers, taking custody about 2-1, although this is partly because some fathers see trying to win custody as futile."
The question of "balance" is not one that I rate at the top of the list of yardsticks for measuring good journalism. Some stories don't have a real balance to them and it becomes distorting to give equal time and space to every viewpoint. It can create a false sense of equivalence among readers or viewers in cases where that is not justified. But I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation.
PBS editorial standards and guidelines are quite thorough and cover lots of situations. In fact, you can find rationales for most approaches to programs in one section or another. They state, for example, in discussing editorial standards, that "a criterion considered mandatory for straight news reporting may not be appropriate for a documentary or dramatic program."
On the other hand, it could be argued that the program certainly bumped up against, and maybe breached, editorial standards set out in the section on "Fairness," which says that "individuals or organizations that are the subject of attack or criticism (should be given) an opportunity to respond." But defenders might say that no organizations were attacked and no fathers were mentioned by name. The "Objectivity" section presents a clearer case, saying that producers involved with controversial subjects should explain to the audience "why choices were made so the public can understand," and "why certain questions could not be answered." The defense here may be that they were never asked.
So, I am not claiming here that PBS editorial guidelines were clearly breached, although many critics argue precisely that point, some citing references to the Public Broadcasting Act and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which calls for "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." Rather, my assessment is that the totality of the presentation came across as quite tilted to me, as a viewer who understands that the vast majority of fathers do not behave badly and that women are also capable of being abusers, and who is quite open to the idea that there are miscarriages of justice in this field that need to be exposed and corrected. The way this topic was presented actually distracted from the message it was sending because it was so noticeably devoid of any balance. It would have been easy to fix, in my opinion.
Here are some other reasons why I feel this way.
The program opens with an unidentified male voice declaring that, "All over America, battered mothers are losing custody of their children when they file for divorce." That's probably true but the viewer has no idea if it is really true or of the scale.
Then the unseen and unidentified narrator says, "Even with a proven record, abusers are winning joint and sole custody." That's also probably true at least in some cases, but, again, how common is it and is it as true today as it was some years ago?
Then an unidentified woman comes on camera and says, "To win custody of the kids over and against the mother's will is the ultimate victory short of killing the kids." Wow! That's pretty powerful stuff.
Then the unseen narrator comes on again to say, "A third of the women in the U.S. will be victims of domestic violence. It will have a devastating effect on their children. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation is proud to underwrite this program." I guess that first statement is true but are all those women who are victims of domestic violence mothers? And I guess the Foundation supports the thrust of what we've heard so far, a beginning that sets the tone for the whole program and makes a fairly sweeping indictment of what is going on with no alternative views presented.
Yankees' manager Torre and CEO Anderson then make very early appearances with very compelling stories of their youth. But I got the feeling they were there to try and quickly introduce some credibility for the program for male viewers. Maybe I'm wrong about that aspect, but that's how, in hindsight, their featured presence right at the beginning struck me.
The unseen narrator doesn't appear again until the credits at the end when the underwriters, the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, are recognized and when the narrator repeats the opening claims about battered mothers losing custody of their children and says the Foundation is "proud to underwrite this program."
The rest of the program consists only of talking heads -- many of them very convincing, revealing, dramatic and articulate -- but uninterrupted by anyone providing some context or answers to questions that a fair-minded viewer might be expected to raise.
The PBS Ombudsman, Michael Getler, can be reached at [email protected].
I stumbled across the news three years ago when researching a book on marriage after feminism. I found that among the educated elite, who are the logical heirs of the agenda of empowering women, feminism has largely failed in its goals. There are few women in the corridors of power, and marriage is essentially unchanged. The number of women at universities exceeds the number of men. But, more than a generation after feminism, the number of women in elite jobs doesn't come close.
Why did this happen? The answer I discovered -- an answer neither feminist leaders nor women themselves want to face -- is that while the public world has changed, albeit imperfectly, to accommodate women among the elite, private lives have hardly budged. The real glass ceiling is at home.
How many anecdotes to become data? The 2000 census showed a decline in the percentage of mothers of infants working full time, part time, or seeking employment. Starting at 31 percent in 1976, the percentage had gone up almost every year to 1992, hit a high of 58.7 percent in 1998, and then began to drop -- to 55.2 percent in 2000, to 54.6 percent in 2002, to 53.7 percent in 2003. Statistics just released showed further decline to 52.9 percent in 2004. Even the percentage of working mothers with children who were not infants declined between 2000 and 2003, from 62.8 percent to 59.8 percent.
It is possible that the workplace is discriminatory and hostile to family life. If firms had hired every childless woman lawyer available, that alone would have been enough to raise the percentage of female law partners above 16 percent in 30 years. It is also possible that women are voluntarily taking themselves out of the elite job competition for lower status and lower-paying jobs. Women must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. It defies reason to claim that the falloff from 40 percent of the class at law school to 16 percent of the partners at all the big law firms is unrelated to half the mothers with graduate and professional degrees leaving full-time work at childbirth and staying away for several years after that, or possibly bidding down.
What is going on? Most women hope to marry and have babies. If they resist the traditional female responsibilities of child-rearing and householding, what Arlie Hochschild called "The Second Shift," they are fixing for a fight. But elite women aren't resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women's work.
Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism "failed" because it was too radical, because women didn't want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism's heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it's because feminism wasn't radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn't change men, and, more importantly, it didn't fundamentally change how women related to men.
CONCORD, N.H. - Judges would be required to explain in writing what evidence they used in making child custody decisions under a compromise bill recommended by a House panel.
The House Children and Family Law Committee voted unanimously to support the amended bill last week after months of deliberations and heated exchanges between father's rights groups and advocates for children and domestic abuse victims, the House.
"Something remarkable has happened. We've taken a contentious issue and put forward an extraordinary effort to find a compromise," said committee Chairman Ed Moran, R-Bedford. "No one side is particularly thrilled, so it must be just about right."
The original bill called for judges to begin custody proceedings by giving each parent equal custody of the children. If the judge decided that shared custody was not in the best interest of the child, he or she would have had to issue a written order based on "clear and convincing evidence" explaining the decision.
Rep. David Bickford, R-New Durham, and father's rights groups argued the legislation was needed to give men equal footing in child custody cases. But mandating an equal share of custody from the start alarmed children's and women's advocacy groups.
"We did not want to set the bar for judges by saying, 'Okay, this is where you start.' Our position all along was the legislation has to be written to provide the best protection in the very small number of cases where there is abuse," said Grace Mattern, executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
The compromise does not start the custody debate at equal time, but does require a judge to base decisions on a preponderance of evidence. Also, the decision must be in a written order, something not currently prescribed in law.
During public hearings on the bill, Moran said dozens of people _ mostly men and some women _ testified that they felt they were treated unfairly by the child custody process in the courts.
"By the fact so many people told similar stories, clearly there is something wrong," Moran said. "At the very least, people need to perceive they've been treated fairly."
Bickford called the end product "a good compromise," noting he felt it was essential to mandate judges base custody orders on evidence and put those orders in writing.
"Ideally, I think we all believe both parents should share custody, but in some cases, in fact, in most cases that may not be practical," Bickford said. "This is the only area of the law that is open to absolute power and with this bill, we're now bringing in judicial procedures."
The legislation will go to the House floor in January, and if it passes, will move on to the Senate.
The compromise does not start the custody debate at equal time, but does require a judge to base decisions on a preponderance of evidence. Also, the decision must be in a written order, something not currently prescribed in law.
All:
On Nov. 29th I'm meeting with Dick Frank, the Chairman/CEO of Chuck E. Cheese (the chain of children's pizza parlors) to ask for his and his organization's support.
This is high potential. You can help by writing a short letter to Dick. Just begin it like this:
Dick Frank
Chairman/CEO
Chuck E. Cheese, Inc.
Dear Mr. Frank:
Thanks for meeting with the Chairman of People for Equal Parening, Jim Loose.
After opening the letter than way, tell him how bad it is to be treated unequally before the law and how terrible it is to be treated as a second class parent for no reason other than to profit a bunch of lawyers. Add any personal details you like (but keep it short!) and ask for his help.
Then sign it.
Mail your letter to me:
Jim Loose
1801 Etain Rd.
Irving, TX 75060
I will hand deliver the entire stack to Dick at our meeting. I believe a great deal of good can come of this, folks, so let's get it on!
Best,
Jim Loose
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/pbs-pledges-111005.php
PBS Pledges 'Review of the Research Behind and Conclusions Presented' by Breaking the Silence, Says It Will be Completed by Early December
November 10
PBS is now sending a response to those protesting against Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories which says that they "have initiated a review of the research behind and conclusions presented" by the film, and that their review will be completed by early December. I was contacted a couple weeks ago by Jan McNamara, PBS's Director of Corporate Communications, who informed me of this review. I offered McNamara the input of fathers' advocates in the review, explaining that I couldn't see how it could be complete without it. Reading the letter below, it does not appear that any fatherhood advocates are involved in the review. I hope I'm wrong.
Nevertheless, I commend PBS for acknowledging and responding to our concerns. As I've said from the beginning, our goal is that fatherhood advocates be given a meaningful chanced to present our side of these issues on national PBS. PBS affiliates in Houston, Texas, Columbus, Ohio, and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton, Pennsylvania have already done this, and in each case the 30 or 60 minute program was professional, respectful and informative. Hopefully national PBS will see the wisdom in this and follow suit. PBS's new letter appears below.
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Dear Concerned Viewer:
Thank you for taking the time to write to PBS about your concerns regarding BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN'S STORIES. Comments from our viewers - both positive and negative - are among the best guides we have to make future programming decisions.
As you may know, PBS has received emails, letters and calls from across the country both protesting and praising BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN'S STORIES.
All of us at PBS understand that the issues surrounding domestic abuse and contested custody are complex and emotionally provocative.
When BREAKING THE SILENCE was reviewed for broadcast, our senior content team determined that it was based on solid research and met our editorial standards. We still believe this to be the case.
However, in our role as the nation's trusted public broadcaster, we take very seriously all comments we receive from the public. For that reason, we have initiated a review of the research behind and conclusions presented by the documentary. As part of our review process, we are working with the producers of the film, Tatge/Lasseur Productions, to ascertain answers to specific questions posed by viewers. We anticipate concluding our review in 30 days or less (as of November 8 ), with a resolution as to PBS' next steps.
PBS remains committed to advancing the highest standard in national programming on a variety of subjects, and strives to be sensitive to all of our viewers when preparing programs for broadcast.
As we have noted to many of the individuals who have already contacted PBS about BREAKING THE SILENCE, we welcome the opportunity to review proposals for other programs related to this difficult topic. PBS accepts programming from independent producers from across the country and all over the world to ensure that our schedule offers a wide range of viewpoints and opinions.
In recent years, PBS has examined the issues of custody, divorce, abuse and parenting in a variety of programs, including two FRONTLINE reports - "The Taking of Logan Marr," which tells the story of five-year-old Logan Marr who was found dead in the basement of her foster mother's home, and "Did Daddy Do It," a reopening of the case of Frank Fuster, convicted over 20 years ago of sexual abuse - as well as IN THE MIX "Divorce and Custody: Breaking Apart/Coming Together," FATHERHOOD USA: DEDICATED NOT DEADBEAT and many other examples.
As public broadcasters we will continue to air programs with unique perspectives and various points of view. Your feedback helps us to fulfill this mission.
We appreciate your interest in our program and hope you will continue to watch and support your local PBS station.
Sincerely,
Madison
PBS Viewer Services
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11092005/news/72119.htm
Dads making strides in child custody battles
By Karen Dandurant
[email protected]
PORTSMOUTH - Family law experts say they are seeing a change from the presumption that a children are always better off with their mothers in cases of divorce.
Family law professor Mary Pilkington-Casey, of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said fathers are more frequently being granted custody of their children because the courts are looking more carefully at the roles of both parents.
"In 2005, I see the courts looking very carefully at both parents, at their roles in the home, to see who is the parent providing the nurturing," said Pilkington-Casey. "Courts want to know what is the father's role, and more and more fathers have become noticeably involved with their children, through coaching, attending school events and taking the child to the doctor's and dentist's. Those were traditionally considered the mother roles."
One reason for the shift is that more and more mothers are in the workplace, and may not be the one providing the bulk of the care, said Pilkington-Casey. She said, sometimes, it's the father who has the greater flexibility.
"For a brief history, before the early 1900s, it was always the presumption that the father was the head of the household," said Pilkington-Casey. "He had total control over the wife and children, so if a breakup occurred, custody automatically went to the father.
"In the early 1900s, courts moved toward the maternal preference, especially for very young children. The presumption was, it was mothers at home, raising children. It was the tender-years doctrine. Towards 1970 and later, courts started saying, 'Wait - look at both parents, at who is the better parental choice.' I think fathers are correct that it hasn't been fair, because through the 1980s, courts still gave custody to mothers even though more and more women were working outside the home."
Lawyer Alex Nossiff has been dealing with divorce cases for 27 years and said he sees more support for fathers' rights.
"I would say there definitely is a trend toward courts considering the interest of fathers in custody matters," said Nossiff. "That's particularly true in Maine - less in New Hampshire, and far less in Massachusetts."
Nossiff said the passage of HB640, which involves both parents planning for their children's future, is designed to further even the field.
"I've read the parenting plan, and it really is a breakthrough," said Pilkington-Casey. "It advances the concept that both parents will be involved and allows the parents to plan for the children and both of their roles in their lives. To plan together rather than in an adversarial situation, there is a much greater likelihood of success."
But fathers' rights groups such as NHcustody.org, are advocating for passage of HB529. The bill allows the court to begin proceeding under the premise that both parents have equal rights.
HB529 has been deferred until the 2006 session.
Michael Geanoulis is the president of the New Hampshire chapter of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. He said that 35 to 40 percent of children in this country go to bed at night without a father in the home.
"I think the courts do not see fathers as important as mothers, and that's tragic when you consider the research on the role of fathers for the formation of children's personality and development," said Geanoulis. "Women have had difficulty establishing their role as contributors in the workplace, but men (are) having difficulty establishing themselves as nurturers of children. Part of that is traceable to fathers who do not see themselves (as) important to their kids."
Geanoulis is involved primarily because he and his sister were moved 1,200 miles away from their father following his parents' divorce.
"I was an 8-year-old, and I reflect on that often," he said "I was totally blown away. I worshipped the ground he walked on. He was everything to me. I know in my heart of hearts it's wrong. What are we doing to these kids?"
"The family structure is always changing, always a moving target," said Nossiff. "When I started, fathers worked, mothers stayed home with kids - no longer the case. Courts are focusing more and more on what's best for the children. Oftentimes, maybe the mother is not in the best position to be primary caregiver."
Nossiff said society's attitude has changed.
"There's a whole Mr. Dad phenomenon," he said "I predict, in 20 years, we will see far more (parents splitting) physical custody, provided the parents live in the same town and are equally committed to the soccer games, the music lessons and the kids' friendships."
Print this Story Email this Article
Back to the Portsmouth Herald
Portsmouth Herald Home Delivery Best Offer
Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Media Group.
Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please read our
Copyright Notice and Terms of Use. Seacoast Media Group is a subsidiary of
Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., a Dow Jones Company.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=4066962&nav=0RbQ
Senate Committee Passes Measure on Soldier Custody
Nov 3, 2005, 03:19 AM
Legislation meant to help Military members with child custody battles has been passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bills would prevent a court from making a decision about a child's custody based on a parent's separation while serving overseas. It also would prohibit permanent custody from being decided while a parent is deployed overseas. The legislation already passed the State House. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
http://www.freep.com/features/living/riley23e_20051023.htm
ROCHELLE RILEY: Where are the college men?
October 23, 2005
BY ROCHELLE RILEY
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
The irony was overwhelming.
Newspaper reports heralding a drug that could extend the lives of women suffering from breast cancer competed for attention with reports expressing concern that the number of men attending college continues to decline below the number of women.
At a time when women are finally making some headway in a society that has treated them as instruments for male superiority; at a time when women are in positions to ensure that medical research more effectively extends to women's illnesses; at a time when a woman is the U.S. president's secretary of state and could possibly mount a viable campaign for president in three years -- there is an outcry that perhaps the nation has done too much for women, that we may have gone too far.
What struck me in the news reports was the obvious optimism about possibly saving women's lives and the panic in some analysts' comments about the plight of boys, a panic that has been nearly nonexistent in discussions about women and minorities.
Gender imbalance
About 57.4 percent of college enrollees eligible for federal student aid two years ago were women; 42.6 percent were men. The gender imbalance has some college administrators, according to USA Today, wringing their hands as they figure out what to do.
Initially, this felt like so much overreaction, until I read the words of Jim McCorkell, founder of a college-preparatory program for low-income kids in St. Paul, Minn., who was concerned that only 30 percent of his clients were boys last year.
"We actually did a little affirmative action," he told USA Today. "If we had a tie (between a male and a female), we gave it to a boy."
Only in America.
Or Iraq.
Think young
Analysts are concerned about the future of boys, whose careers were made in blue-collar jobs. Those have dried up in the dust of technological advancements that require college experience for many jobs that once didn't have such a learning curve.
McCorkell wondered why there isn't more of an outcry.
Perhaps, it is because there is nothing wrong.
Perhaps, instead of concentrating on the differences between boys and girls and whether more girls are going to college, we could concentrate more on children in elementary school. One college professor suggested that, if the gap persists, preferences should be given to men.
Such ill-advised action might help a few boys. But it also might harm the future career of the woman who discovers a cure for breast cancer. And that would set America back by quite a few decades.
.
Catch Rochelle on "Am I Right?" on WTVS-TV (Channel 56) at 8:30 p.m. Fridays. Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick follows an appearance last week by mayoral candidate Freman Hendrix. Want a copy of Rochelle's book "Life Lessons: Essays on Parenthood, America, 9/11 and Detroit" (Detroit Free Press, $14.95)? Order it at 800-245-5082 or www.freep.com/bookstore Contact ROCHELLE RILEY at 313-223-4473 or [email protected]
Denver Nuggets' top draftee Julius Hodge accused of assault by woman on probation for domestic violence
Abstracted from articles by Jim Kirksey, Adam Thompson, and Kirk Mitchell, Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3154731
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3126782
Reproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.
October 18, 2005 - In a case reminiscent of the Kobe Bryant fiasco Denver police are investigating an accusation that the Nuggets' No. 1 draft pick, and former North Carolina State guard Julius Hodge attempted to sexually assault a 37-year-old woman in his near-downtown condominium at 300 West 11th Avenue on October 12, 2005, between 11 and 11:15 PM. Earlier that day she was fired from a restaurant job she had held for two weeks.
Denver police Detective John White said: "What is being alleged is criminal attempt sexual assault. It is an active investigation. We are taking it seriously. No arrest has been made, but Mr. Hodge is cooperating."
Police did not ask Hodge to leave the team on its road swing and return early to Denver and he hasn't yet been interviewed regarding the complaint, Hodge's attorney Rick Kornfeld said. "We are in the process of trying to arrange that." Plans are for Hodge to be interviewed when the team returns. "The DA was comfortable with that," Kornfeld said. "We are cooperating. We think these allegations are baseless. No equivocation. He categorically denies these allegations and categorically denies he did anything wrong, committed any crime."
Hodge didn't know the woman well according to Kornfeld and apparently the woman expected him to "wine and dine" her, and he wasn't willing to do that. "There's also some evidence to indicate she was aware he was a professional basketball player," he said, and "The allegation is completely false and appears to be financially motivated."
"Unfortunately these guys are in a very vulnerable position because of what they do for a living," Kornfeld said. "For somebody in the position of being a professional athlete, the mere allegation can be devastating to their career and to their family. Here's a guy who hasn't even played a game yet. He did not do this. He did not do anything." [EJF note: Such allegations are a disaster for any man.]
Prior criminal history
Further investigation reported in the October 27, 2005, Denver Post (p. 1B-4B) revealed that the woman who accused Julius Hodge has been convicted of crimes in four states, including domestic violence in Colorado and perjury in California.
The woman, 37, was arrested days after she reported the alleged incident with Hodge for violating conditions of her probation on a menacing conviction in which she held a butcher knife to her husband's throat according to Jefferson County District Court records. She was released on bail October 21, 2005, from the Jefferson County Detention Facility.
According to records, the woman was sentenced to probation in 1985 for misdemeanor larceny in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
In 1989, she was named in two misdemeanor check-writing cases in Alamance County, North Carolina, according to a court clerk. Authorities have not served her with an arrest summons, but those cases are still pending.
In 1999, she served 2 1/2 months in the Bucks County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania for an aggravated assault conviction, a jail official said.
In 2002, prosecutors in Fresno, California, charged her with four counts of perjury and welfare fraud after she was overpaid $9,798 in food stamps and welfare payments, according to Fresno County Superior Court records. She failed to report child-support payments she received from her former husband, records show. She served a 45-day jail sentence and was on probation for three years after she pled no contest to one felony county of perjury.
On November 24, 2003, the woman held a butcher knife to the throat of another former husband, according to Jefferson County records. She was convicted of felony menacing in April 2004 and sentenced to three years probation.
In a July 7, 2005, letter, she gave a judge a glimpse of what her life was like after felony menacing conviction. A pregnancy ended in a stillborn delivery after a doctor discovered her fetus was dead. She has been in and out of a domestic violence shelter [EJF note: She is convicted of domestic violence and then given shelter at taxpayer's expense!] and was forced to deal with the molestation of her daughter by a former day-care owner. She began drinking to self-medicate and said: "I am having a hard time coping with my personal life," she said in the letter to the judge.
In a group therapy session, she called herself a "predator of men," and was subsequently prohibited from having men at her house, records show.
She has also violated terms of her probation several times by breaking her 7 PM curfew, according to a report by her probation officer. The incident with Hodge proved that she had violated her curfew again, according to court documents.
The Denver Post is withholding the woman's name because she alleges she was a victim of an attempted sexual assault. Efforts to reach the woman for comment were unsuccessful.
In an obligatory, ideologically-based redfem dogmatic statement, Sandi Garcia, spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said she is concerned that rehashing the woman's background might prevent victims in other sex-assault cases from coming forward. "If it was a mugging, we wouldn't begin to look at her past," Ms. Garcia said. Unfortunately, reports of similar false allegations are a routine occurrence for the Equal Justice Foundation and we strongly recommend a background check on the accuser in all such cases. We maintain the naive assumption that a citizen should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
--
______________________________________________
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
President, Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820
Telephone: (719) 520-1089
Domestic violence against men in Colorado: http://www.dvmen.org
Personal home page: http://corry.ws
Curriculum vitae: http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/charleselmocorry/Default.aspx
The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.
Benjamin Franklin
This Sunday's PEP-Talk features Attorney Stanley Charles Thorne, sua sponte appointed by the 6th Cir. to the Galluzzo appeal.
He will be focused on two things:
1. The constitutional defects of the child custody system (at least in most states);
2. The coming tidal wave of personal injury lawsuits against Family Lawyers for not asserting the constitutional rights of fit parents to equal custody.
As always, people within a 60 mile radius of Houston, TX can listen live 1-2 p.m. on KSEV 700 AM. Everywhere else can listen to live webcast: http://www.pepintexas.org/radio.htm Go to the website to call in.
Best,
Jim Loose
The Father's Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle: A Tour Through the Predatory World of Judges, Lawyers, Psychologists & Social Workers, in the Subculture of Divorce by Robert Seidenberg
Jim Joseph
The author portrays everyone as predatory , except for the father, he's real objective. Just alibis for abusive fathers/husbands, October 16, 2005
The book build upon a foundation of rubbish "reasearch". Parental Alienation Syndrome is a fictional disorder created by the "mens movement" to account for (1) Why they were not liked by thier children (maybe the men in question were simply not likeable),and (2) Why a child of thiers said they abused them (because they abused them).
Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond from a Vindictive Ex by Richard A. Warshak
Edition: Paperback
Jim Joseph
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME DOES NOT EXIST, DOES THE AUTHOR GET IT?, ITS NOT REAL, October 16, 2005
This was a waste of time and money, and should not have been written. The "Parental Alienation Syndrome" Richard A. Warshak wrote about is a fictional disorder, meaning it does not exist.
Children Held Hostage by Stanley S. Clawar
Edition: Paperback
Jim Joseph
"Children Held Hostage " is not worth the ransom, Its nonsense, October 16, 2005
The book builds upon a foundation of rubbish "reasearch". Parental Alienation Syndrome is a fictional disorder created by the "mens movement"
The Shredding of Families by Lillian D. Dunsmore
Edition: Paperback
Jim Joseph
Author forgets that kids don't make false reports of abuse, although child molesters would tell you so., October 16, 2005
This author thinks "The Real Victims" are the parents who use drugs, hit thier children, and sexuallly abuse thier daughters.
True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse by Richard A. Gardner
Jim Joseph
Author blames victims rather than abusers, speaks about False accusations when 1 in 3 females will be abused (in lifetime), October 15, 2005
This is a terrible book that was based on data that was created by him for the purpose of his creating the fiction that false alelgations are common. The whole foudation of his argument is fictitious, and this book suffers from his delusions.
Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused by Dean Tong
Jim Joseph
Book is a complete fabrication, there are few if any false allegations, October 15, 2005
This is an angry, perhaps furious book that attacks women and children rather than child molesters. This book was written to help pedophiles escape thier consequences, that is molesters can deny thier offences by describing (a non existent) epidemic of false allegations.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville8.html
Rejected by National Review.
Wedded to the State
by Stephen Baskerville
by Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Writing recently in National Review Online, Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), describes the huge social costs of family breakdown and the benefits to children and society of marriage. He also points out that his agency spends $46 billion each year on programs "the need for [which] is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages." He rightly argues that we need to address this costly "family breakdown" problem.
In fact, one could look beyond his Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and even HHS and make a similar point about virtually all programs for law enforcement, substance abuse, and school performance.
Indeed, his argument demonstrates more than that the runaway growth in domestic government spending is attributable to family breakdown. It is also an acknowledgement that the federal government and its hangers-on have a clear self-interest in broken families. ACF and the half-trillion dollar HHS generally constitute a massive in-house lobby of social workers, psychotherapists, lawyers and others who are not so candid as Dr. Horn about how they depend upon a steady supply of fatherless and troubled children to justify their huge consumption of tax dollars - dollars that in turn subsidize and increase the number of such children.
The fact that Dr. Horn has a tiger by the tail may explain why, as remedy, he can offer only palliatives in the form of yet another government program, this time state-sponsored psychotherapy: "Through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught." In what Christina Sommers and Sally Satel have called in their book title, One Nation Under Therapy, does anyone really believe that our multi-billion dollar family crisis is due to a lack of communication workshops and anger-management classes? And do we really want the federal government defining (and potentially re-defining) the terms of marriage?
The smorgasbord of programs Dr. Horn lists is more than a response to broken families; it is a major cause of broken families. Before we initiate new federal programs, we ought to remember the first rule of public policy intervention, which is to first examine the effect of existing programs to see if adjusting them may correct the problem. Could our current public programs and policies be contributing to the family breakdown problem, and, if so, how can we alter them to yield better results?
Dr. Horn provides a good example of how a federal program can be altered to become much more socially productive. Our welfare system used to be a major direct cause of family breakdown or non-formation. We used to pay poor mothers not to marry or work. With welfare reform, we changed that system to allow them to marry and no longer pay them not to work. As he notes, this change in the system has been a huge success. Our welfare rolls have decreased, and child poverty has declined.
Similar political courage will be needed to address the other known public programs and policies that are undermining marriage. These include:
(1) The states have failed, since the 1960's, to treat marriage as a real contract.
Currently anyone who wants out of a marriage can unilaterally end it without penalty. This is not what was intended when marriage laws were changed in the 1970's. "No fault" divorce was to be allowed only when both parties agreed to it. This would have made marriage more like a real contract, with less interference by the state in the matter of its ending. Instead, marriage has become a non-contract, with no protection for those who invest in it.
(2) Paternalistic "family" courts and new laws have seriously undermined fatherhood.
There has long been a huge bias in divorce courts to grant custody of children to mothers. As this bias threatened to diminish, feminists pushed through the Violence Against Women Act, which makes it easy for any mother considering divorce to toss the father out of his own home and claim the family assets, including the children, simply by accusing him of domestic violence. No evidence or formal charge is required, and domestic "violence" need not even be violent. Shared parenting provisions would end this winner-take-all lottery.
(3) Federally funded state child support systems set excessive awards and penalize non-payment harshly, even when the circumstances for non-payment are clearly outside the control of the payer.
Child support awards are so high that the children have become a profit center for middle class divorcing moms - an additional financial incentive for them to divorce. As Kimberly Folse and Hugo Varela-Alvarez write in the Journal of Socio-Economics, "Strong enforcement...may... lead to the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of divorce." Yet in a striking slight-of-hand, disbursements under the "healthy marriage" mantra have actually gone less to counseling than to child support enforcement.
Is it any surprise that divorce in families with children is almost entirely instituted by the moms? But young men have gotten the message and are increasingly avoiding marriage and avoiding having children inside or outside of marriage. These men are scolded for their lack of "commitment" by the National Marriage Project, whose interpretation Dr. Horn is using to formulate policy. But no man in his right mind would start a family today if he understood how the federal government subsidizes the stealing of his children and his own incarceration for an assortment of newfangled gender "crimes" they make it impossible for him not to commit.
Exhorting people to marry is pointless so long as marriage is a bate-and-switch carrying financial rewards for those who break it. People will simply not invest in a worthless investment, no matter how much you preach at them. If marriage was a worthwhile investment, we would see more of it.
October 21, 2005
Stephen Baskerville [send him mail] is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views expressed are his own.
Copyright © 2005 Stephen Baskerville
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/houston-pbs-affiliate-102105.php
Houston PBS Affiliate Agrees to Air Opposing Views on
Breaking the Silence
October 21, 2005
To its credit, Houston PBS has agreed to air opposing views of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories and Parental Alienation Syndrome on its round-table discussion show The Connection on Friday, October 28 at 8 PM CST and Sunday, October 30 at 5 PM CST.
Dr. Reena Sommer, an expert on Parental Alienation Syndrome, will be appearing, along with guests of various views. To write to Ken Lawrence, the Director of Programming for PBS of Houston, to commend him for his evenhandedness, click here.