With
no shows on the father's issues, which
are ruining families and damaging
an entire generation of children,
yet a constant stream of shows on
"Women's issues" should
men really be supporting this network?
I will listen, but NEVER contribute
money to this propaganda machine.
With quality programming it is amazing
how this constant bias can happen.
Jones, Ken A. (Civ,ARL/SEDD) wrote:
My letter to NPR, another publically
supported organization that seems
to be increasingly anti-male.
If enough people complain, maybe they
will become more father friendly out
of fear of loosing their public subsidies
and advertizing support.
Regards,
Ken in MD
Dear Ms. Rehm:
While listening to All Things Considered
last night and hearing about the polygamist
colony in West Texas, I realized what
made me uncomfortable with your somewhat
self righteous statement that you
always provide a fair and balanced
view in response to a caller from
St. Louis on Tuesday. After
hearing about the Conference on Women
in Bejing thirteen times on one All
Things Considered Program some years
ago, I concluded that NPR is a propaganda
machine for the radical feminists
and have not supported it since then.
However, I have continued to listen
because there is much that is good,
and some of us like to see how long
it will take NPR to air some of the
outrageous statements made by NOW
- an organization that has about as
much appreciation for factual knowledge
as does Rush Limbaugh. The answer
is usually the same day, but most
certainly within a week. In
a few instances we even heard something
announced on NPR before it was officially
released by NOW.
A few cases in point were the separate
"studies" in California
and Massachusetts supported by NOW
that irrefutably showed that the family
and probate courts favor men in child
custody cases. The fact that
in Massachusetts that women get custody
93% of the time and men do only 4%
of the time - the remaining 3% are
mutually agreed to joint custody -
wasn't deemed to be important enough
to mention. I heard a number
of sympathetic interviews with the
mother in California who was not allowed
to take her children with her when
her new husband wanted to move to
Ohio because it would destroy the
relationship the children had with
their involved, noncustodial father.
Of course, there was no interview
with the father, and the millions
of fathers who come home one day to
find themselves "visitors"
in their children lives where they
are "allowed" to "visit"
their children every other weekend
and on some holidays and have to pay
dearly for this "privilege".
You also never hear about the bizarre
cases of move-away moms where a judge
concluded it was okay for Mom to move
from Boston back to Long Island to
live with her mother and three preschool
children because both Mom and Dad
were good with computers so that Dad
could "visit" his twin two
year old daughters via video every
Tuesday and Thursday evening at 6:30.
In another instance I heard about
this poor mother, Bridget Marks, who
had lost custody of her twin six year
old daughters to this older, rich
casino owner who had fathered the
girls while married to another woman.
The implication, of course, is that
the 'victor' was rich, evil, and male,
and the 'victim' was poor, sweet,
and female. It was never reported
that the reason Ms. Marks had initially
lost custody was because she had coached
her daughters to say that they had
been molested by their father so that
he would be denied the "visitation
rights" he had. Nor was
it reported that an appeals court
gave custody back to Mom, and that
one of the judges stated in her opinion
that there is no demonstrative evidence
that training your young daughters
that they were molested by their father
has any negative effects on their
development.
Which brings me back to the connection
between the report on the polygamist
colony and your self righteous statement.
Whereas I applaud your attempts to
be fair by usually having a person
with a liberal point of view and another
with one that is conservative and
I marvel at the breadth of your knowledge,
I take issue with the choice of topics
you chose to discuss. I recall
you having a number of programs concerned
with issues with women as victims,
such as domestic violence, but not
one such as restraining order abuse
or false paternity claims where men
are the victims. I almost weep
when I think about how this marvelous
institution called NPR has become
more irrelevant as it increasingly
advocates the radical feminist point
of view and ignores the other.
Because of your inherent desire to
be fair, I think a part of you is
able to listen to what I say, but
I see even you slipping away into
the morass of gender politics.
My mother once told me that if I am
criticized by a single person to consider
the source, but if I am criticized
by a number of people that I should
consider the possibility there is
at least an element of truth in what
they say. It is good advice.
I sincerely hope you will consider
it.
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Jones
Silver Spring, MD
|
