PBS Documentary "Breaking the Silence": Evidently a Conspiracy

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/usher/...eaking-silence
..html
PBS Documentary "Breaking the Silence": Evidently a Conspiracy


In October, PBS released a scandalous documentary about domestic violence
titled "Breaking the Silence". Despite studied science on the issue, the
producers of the show intentionally censored all information contrary to
their partisan mission, which we know now was to go to extraordinary lengths
portraying fathers as batterers who take custody of children as the final
act of abuse.

Breaking the Silence pretends that the system "routinely penalizes women who
are victims of domestic violence by favoring their abusers in battles over
child custody". Anyone who knows about how domestic violence laws are
routinely applied knows that when a woman files any allegation of abuse, or
even fear of abuse, the father is immediately thrown out of the home and has
little chance of custody and even visitation.

The tactical purpose of the documentary is to synthesize an epidemic of
unrestrained male batterers who seize children from completely unprotected
abused women. Perhaps if this documentary were about life in Sudan, they
might have a point.

The producers walked into their own trap. One of the supposedly-abused
women, who was attempting to seize custody of the child from the father, was
found responsible for multiple acts of child abuse in court. Despite being
informed of this fact in advance, the producers filmed the documentary
according to the prefabricated story board, while refusing to include any
perspectives from fathers with legitimate cases.

CPB and PBS Ombudmen Agree That Breaking the Silence Is Flawed

A tsunami of equalitarian organizations and activists rose to the occasion,
taking PBS and CPB to task. Glenn Sacks, Carey Roberts, Wendy McElroy, Cathy
Young, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Mark Rosenthal,
Fathers and Families, and a cotillion of others called PBS and CPB out on
the carpet.

It did not take long for ombudsmen from PBS and CPB to agree with us. Ken
Bode, the CPB ombudsman found that "there is no hint of balance in Breaking
the Silence". The PBS Ombudsman, Michael Gettler opined "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."

PBS published an article in Current, glossing over the major flaws in the
documentary. The focus is quickly shifted away from the core issues we
raise -- which are that the documentary is deeply unbalanced, partisan,
sexist, and a fakery of science. Current conveniently changes the subject,
pretending that the brouhaha is merely over whether parental alienation
syndrome (PAS) exists or not.

Whether or not parental alienation is a diagnosable psychological disorder
is not an issue we have raised. We are interested in the fact that parental
alienation often takes in divorce and custody situations, most often
disrupting the child's relationship with the father. It should be noted that
even the leading critics in the "syndrome diagnosis" debate agree with us
that parents often alienate children in divorce and custody situations. The
issue we raise is the maltreatment of fathers, science, and facts
surrounding divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, and parental alienation
that masqueraded as documentary on domestic violence, intended to ensure
that men are not afforded equal standing to be custodial parents in the
event of divorce.

Censorship, Multiple Abuses of Science, and Absence of Journalistic Ethics

Dr. Richard Gardner defined parental alienation as "any constellation of
behaviors, whether conscious or unconscious, that could evoke a disturbance
in the relationship between a child and the other parent". Breaking the
Silence is, in itself, an act of parental alienation aimed at all fathers.
It is intended to cover for or rationalize-away the alienating behaviors of
mothers -- even mothers known to be abusers - and generate irrational public
fears and discrimination against fathers in public policy and law.

Dr. Murray Straus, the leading authority on domestic violence objected
strongly to misuse of his research cited out-of-context in the NNEDV Guide
to "Breaking the Silence". The intent of the guide was to create an illusion
that fathers are responsible for the substantial majority of spousal and
child abuse.

Lasseur flatly justified censorship of all fathers perspectives (reasonable
or otherwise), on the insupportable grounds that the fathers perspective is
generically "destructive". Read: when you are getting paid a half million
dollars by radical feminists to do a partisan documentary, you only cite
liturgy from the feminist "bible".

Lasseur's alternate (and equally indefensible) excuse for his decision to
entirely censor the father's perspective pretends that censorship is somehow
more balanced than giving the father's perspective short shrift; "If we had
featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of
domestic abuse, statistically we would have overstated the problems of men
in this area. Nevertheless, we recognize that men are also victims and men
are also sometimes victimized by family courts, but the fact is that many
more women are victims".

Despite the torrent of valid criticism of the documentary, Dominique
Lasseur, the producer of Breaking the Silence, clings defiantly to his
indefensible film. He states in the Current article, "we believe that the
comments and concerns that have come in so far [concerning the documentary]
are often not based on the full and complete content of the program". The
reverse is true: the content of the program was intentionally not full or
complete, as the producer has admitted in his prior two statements. We
strenuously object to the fact that the producer intentionally censored
information and perspectives that do not explicitly adhere to the radical
feminist propaganda he attempts to transmogrify into social policy and
jurisprudence.

The Current article also features an evasive exculpatory statement by the
producers, but nothing by anyone legitimately criticizing the film. Here,
the producer cites the long-debunked feminist myth "while women are less
likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to
eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner",
as his excuse for committing an hour of journalistic hate crimes.

Lasseur has generated a number of nebulous statements in defense of his
film. None of them would win in debate class because he has never directly
rebutted the points of our remonstrance.

Evidence Of Conspiracy

Our complaint is now much more serious than before. I have uncovered
evidence that the producers of Breaking the Silence were aware that it was
not an honest film.

Lasseur is planning another documentary aimed at establishing judicial
accountability when judges do not acquiesce to the demands of radical women'
s organizations. He is apparently working with Meera Fox, an attorney and
executive Director of Abuse Solutions located in Berkeley, Ca, who among
other things works the issues of domestic violence and child abuse as a
trainer and presenter for public policy symposiums. Fox is evidently working
with street-level women's operatives, including the Mothers Research and
Resource Center (MRRC), located in Gilbert, Arizona.

As is the case with most non-professional street-level feminist advocates,
MRRC is rather loose-lipped about what it is doing, revealing feminist
Schadenfreude that can often be witnessed when internal information
accidentally falls into the public eye. The MRRC website demonstrates what
the entire chain of actors was really thinking and doing behind-the-scenes
of Breaking the Silence.

Both Meera Fox and Dominique Lasseur are apparently aware they are
fabricating yet another false documentary, and that collecting supportive
anecdotal footage might not be an easy task. The MRRC website contains an
apparent confession [emphasis added]: "Dominique is passionately interested
in continuing his work in this area, as he can see how raising the public's
consciousness about this problem and indeed, creating a public outcry about
it, will be key to achieving the reforms we seek in Family Court .. I know
you will all agree that this is a project that would be worth its weight in
gold if he [Lasseur] can pull it off. He envisions marketing a series on
Family Court failure to Court TV, Frontline, America Undercover, or all
three, if we can get him enough information, footage and support. The reason
he met with me about this project is because I know all of you and he was
hoping I could rally you troops to help him with his project."

The phrase "worth its weight in gold" likely reveals Meena Fox's end-goal as
a feminist attorney in steering courts to liquidate fatherhood, seize family
assets, and children. Is there any other substantial benefit she could
possibly be chasing? We think not. "Pulling it off" is a term commonly used
in planning bank robberies, political subterfuge, and other illegitimate
activities. The statement that Lasseur is actively pursing the same target,
and driving the execution of it all, suggests that he is on the same page.

We have archived this web page for future reference, since it will probably
be deleted by the time you read this article.

The business relationships between the Mary Kay Foundation, the producers,
PBS, and feminist activists appear to constitute a profitable conspiracy
against men in marriage and society. The actors used the profits of
cosmetics to finance a false and inflammatory documentary, transmitted via
the federally-supported public television network, thus allowing feminists
the largesse to easily end marriages behind the closed doors of courtrooms
for arbitrary and even irresponsible reasons. This can be done successfully
only if radical feminists can project all family problems on the husband,
thus seizing chattel control of family, assets, and income.

Breaking the Silence plays into the larger multi-billion-dollar conspiracy
of the "no-fault" divorce industry, that has bilked about half the fathers
in America out of their earnings, savings, and social position as husbands
and fathers. Divorce hurts far more women than it helps. In fact, divorce
has left more women and children in poverty, without health insurance, and
at risk than any other event in American history. CPB does not understand
that it can help more women and children by helping spouses work through the
normal problems and processes of marriage and aging than it does by
perversely magnifying feminist agenda into a cause celebre for mass divorce.

Dissembling Science to Suit Feminism

Both MRRC and Meera Fox repeatedly refer to mothers as being the "protective
parent" {archived copy]. In their usage, "Protective parent" means that
motherly interference with the father-child relationship is expected to take
place on ideological grounds alone. Read: parental alienation is
"protective" when committed by a mother, but destructive and to women and
children when committed by the father.

The conversion of parental alienation into a label with two vastly disparate
meanings based solely on gender of the actor, and the tactical reason for
using this label, has certainly been discussed with Lasseur given the fact
that it is core terminology for Fox and MRRC.

In their review of Breaking the Silence, CPB and PBS must take note that
"Protective parent" is a clearly fraudulent substitute label for parental
alienation. This leaves Lasseur with no foundation in credibility to now
justify the legitimacy of his recipe applied in Breaking the Silence.

MRRC makes wildly-expansive claims about the results of its "National
Protective Parents Survey", reciting many factoids about divorce and
domestic violence known to be either unreliable or false. Elsewhere on the
MRRC web site, Meera admits that the survey includes only 157 respondents
(apparently all are women). As is the norm for feminist activists, the MRRC
website is loaded with anectodal stories, emotion, and factoids; and lacks
any evidence of scientific balance or credibility. It is quite clear that
MRRC is a highly-unreliable partisan information source that any responsible
journalist would immediately avoid, but which Lasseur is apparently actively
engaged.

A major thrust of the pending documentary is to create the illusion that
abusive fathers seizing control of children is somehow an American epidemic.
This is absolutely false. According to The US Census Department, in 2003
single mothers represent 80% of all single-parent households, single fathers
only represent 20%. If fathers seizing control of children in divorce is
pandemic, the statistics would be reversed. If anything, the statistics
prove that mothers seizing control of families is a problem - a fact
reflected by the fact that father-absence has become our greatest social
problem since 1960.

MRRC and the documentary attempt to create the illusion that men are
responsible for all family violence. The vast majority of credible studies
and papers prove that women initiate slightly over half of all serious
spousal altercations, and are responsible for over 2/3 of all serious child
abuse. Breaking the Silence takes a position opposite of these facts by
citing a variety of unreliable feminist studies.

When observed from an aerial view, it is not unreasonable to conclude that
Breaking the Silence was an act of parental alienation, collectively
committed by all parties involved the creation and dissemination of the
documentary. This places additional responsibility on CPB and PBS to make a
robust and accurate documentary, to undo the damage it has done.

Many Organizations Expect Responsible Decision by PBS

PBS has taken a surprisingly long time to publish the results of its
inquiry. At worst, this could be "stonewalling" (as they say in management
science parlance). I do not see any justification for further delay. The
issues are bright and clear.

There is no evidence suggesting that this documentary is well-founded either
in truth, science, or balance. It is merely a question of whether PBS has
the simple corporate candor to set the record straight and make an
acceptable compensatory documentary to correct the damage it has done to
public attitudes towards men.

PBS cannot take the position that it is innocent. At least on PBS affiliate
was actively working with local feminist activists to place the film as
training material to influence legislation and court decisions. PBS
affiliates were also providing free advertising directing women to local
feminist activists. CPB and PBS have done great damage by allowing Breaking
the Silence to be aired on hundreds of stations, completely unvetted by
leading experts on domestic violence and parental alienation.

PBS now has a distinct responsibility to issue a balanced documentary, which
should feature balanced, well established scientists on family violence,
such as Dr. Murray Straus. It should openly include the situations of
fathers who are most often the target of parental alienation. PBS must also
implement a stringent pre-release review policy for all programs covering
marriage, divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse, since they have often
been similarly misrepresented by both NPR and PBS in the past.

Given the seriousness of this situation, I anticipate PBS will respond
responsibly. In the event they do not, we are all fully prepared to pursue
this issue, using all ethical means at our disposal, for as long as it takes
until PBS finds reason to be responsible.

Fathers will no longer sit for being abused by the media. Nine years ago, I
organized the first national protest in the history of the men's movement,
over the movie "First Wives Club". The protest, hastily organized in eight
days and held in 26 cities across America, was covered briefly in Time
Magazine. A segment was filmed for Hard Copy. Universal Studios immediately
cancelled the sequel, which was already in progress, and has avoided these
waters ever since.

Our 2001 "Bridges for Children" father's day informational protest was held
in 226 cities around the world. Our movement is much stronger today. The
Violence Against Women Act [HR 3402] now requires appropriate funding for
services for men living in violent environments. Many women have walked away
from radical feminism to advocate for healing and marital responsibility
within the legitimate marriage and family-rights movements. Structural
discrimination against men in education, home, and family is now common
knowledge, and a major issue for forthright media outlets and state
legislatures. Times have changed, and so must CPB.

If PBS fails to honor its public mandate, Congress should end all funding of
CPB and PBS. CPB is using public funds to broadcast perverse feminist social
re-engineering propaganda to illegitimately influence legislation and
judicial decisions.

Secondly, if PBS fails to act appropriately, everyone considering membership
or making a gift to CPB or PBS, should take note that their monies may be
misused to spread hate and arbitrarily destroy marriage, fatherhood, and the
futures of thousands of women and children.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.