media injustice

Anonymous User writes "While people might differ about the importance of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, everyone should agree that it's a tragedy for fathers to be turned into wallets and be legally deprived of the opportunity to be a father. Yet the fact that the guy in this case cares about his daughter is being used in a front-page Washington Post article (Dec. 2, "An Allegiance to Dissent") to portray him as a weirdo! Here's my response to the Post:"


Click "Read More" for the text of the very well-written letter."Your front-page story, "An Allegiance to Dissent," (Dec. 2), associates Michael Newdow's challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance with his battle for custody of his daughter. This story associates these two issues with vague insinuations of character flaws while trivializing neglected stories important to your readers.

The story insinuates that "California atheist" Newdow is a weirdo and a congenital troublemaker. He "has a restless, uncompromising mind, a mind that dissents radically from many widely accepted aspects of American life." He says that the whole system of family law is "a crock of dung." The first two paragraphs of the story set up a freakish (?) contrast between Newdow representing himself in family court and him participating once a week in co-parenting classes. The story notes that Newdow objects to gender-specific pronouns: "Newdow uses 'ree' instead of 'he' or 'she,' and 'rees' instead of 'his' or her.'" The story suggests that he's an "out-of-control epitome of the Me generation," someone seeking "a right to be fastidiously self-indulgent and intolerant." Towards the end of the article, a reader might notice that Newdow, who once personally was worth $3 million, may go bankrupt, and that he is spreading himself very thin working on causes not directly related to his own personal welfare. Perhaps that's just more evidence of his selfishness.

What's so bizarre about Newdow and his situation? He is a man who realizes that men in the U.S. today have no reproductive rights whatsoever. The Post runs countless front-page articles about restrictions on partial birth abortion and their grave implications of such laws for women's lives. Meanwhile, the Post does its part to maintain total media silence about men who face an unplanned pregnancy. Simply by virtue of having reproductive-type sex, men can suffer, under the strictures of U.S. family law, harsh financial penalties ("child support payments"), emotional distress, and prison sentences. Such a result could follow from an unplanned pregnancy in which a woman does not choose to have an abortion, does not choose give the baby up for adoption, does not choose to abandon the child, and chooses, sometime in the next 18 years, to identify the father. Image someone who dissents from this widely accepted aspect of American life!

But it's worse than that. In addition to being legally required to pay child support, Newdow loves his daughter and likes to be able to see her. But a judge, who considers himself to be the authority on the best interests of Newdow's child, has told Newdow that if he doesn't get along with his ex-girlfriend, Newdow won't be allowed to see his daughter. Your reporter might have asked if the judge requires Newdow to regularly compliment his ex-girlfriend's hairstyle in order for Newdow to be able to see his daughter. Or perhaps just invite her over for dinner occasionally? The judge ruled that Newdow could not involve his daughter in the case without his ex-girlfriend's consent. Without his ex-girlfriend's consent, such involvement would present a risk to the girls' "health and safety"; with his ex-girlfriend's consent, such risk evidently vanishes. A widely accepted aspect of America life is for men to accept that in a divorce, their children will be taken from them and they will be transformed into nothing more than a source of money. Image dissenting from sexism in child custody cases and family law transforming fathers into wallets!

This story indicates that the Washington Post simply accepts that males are second-class citizens and cares nothing for the real injustices that men face today. The Post needs to make its reporters sensitive to men's issues. I suggest, for a start, that your reporters regularly read Glenn J. Sacks columns, available at www.glennjsacks.com While there are legions of "feminist" columnists, Sacks is one of the few journalists who writes about gender issues from a male perspective. Your paper needs to become aware of that perspective, or it will rapidly lose the respect of its readers."

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/03/12/04/0713213.shtml