This copy printed 01/12/98
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Think about the children
In today's TIMES, Paul Barker discusses the suppression by THE GUARDIAN of research results about the effect on children of divorce. He writes that the latest Rowntree Foundation study was more prominently and more accurately reported in the DAILY MAIL.
On the same day, your leading editorial had the gall to calumniate MPs for their obvious ignorance in last Wednesday's debate on the same subject. I myself was watching the debate on Channel 23, and was so appalled by their platitudinous ignorance that I switched off, realising that a Parliament with so little factual information could not legislate constructively on the matter. (In any case, I know from experience that in our secret family courts, judges ignore the law. I have written apologies from Lord Mackay for illegal activity in our courts.)
THE GUARDIAN and other non-reactionary journals have primary responsibility for having suppressed the information that our MPs need. When Lady Olga Maitland triggered the earlier revolt, I telephoned her assistant and confirmed that there is a desperate lack of information available to MPs. It is of the utmost importance that the ideologues in your editorial hierarchy stop blocking the information that the country and our MPs need, including key research results, most importantly by Patricia Morgan, but also Daniel Amneus, Norman Dennis and a number of others.
You broke your total block on key information with the Ros Coward article on 12apr96, which incidentally mentioned censorship. Much more must be disclosed quickly in order to fend off the major social catastrophe predicted by Bronislow Malinowski. It would be helpful if the embargo on publishing copy written by men were lifted. The GUARDIAN article by Hockenjos on 20mar96 is a start, but not enough.
Female chauvinist sows like Greer, Purves, Rayner are trying to backtrack and deliver the new backlash copy. They will fail to contribute constructively because they lack the concept of Man as Sentient Being, and think and write only in terms of Man as Object. Examples are Purves in the TIMES on 9aug95 and 23apr96, where Purves twice shows her failure to think of men as so many more human beings. In contrast, Greer, Sunday Times, 3mar96, attempting to swim with the new tide, adds contempt for women to her previous contempt for men. This pseudo-reformed comment is destructive, as were their previous offerings.
You could do immeasurable good by immediately commissioning an article by Patricia Morgan. Please do what you can to limit the damage to our children by opening up THE GUARDIAN to information flow on this crucial subject.
Yours sincerely, Penelope Lyon
[25sep96. 3days later on 29apr The Guardian re-published an article by Morgan previously published elsewhere!]
cc THE EDITOR, THE TIMES,
PO Box 495, Virginia St.,
London E1 9XY
On Monday, the Rowntree Foundation published its latest study. It kept track of a thousand young people. OPne of the main findings was that boys and girls who are still living with both "biological parents" at the age of 15 are the least likely to start using drugs or to become unemployed. The girst are also least likely to become teenage mothers. The DAILY MAIL put these findings on page one .... THE GUARDIAN tucked them away on page seven, under the headline "'Standard' Family No Key to Success." .... I have to report that the MAIL was more accurate than THE GUARDIAN.
- Paul Barker, THE TIMES, 26apr96, p20
Rarely can the Commons have heard so much humbug as in Wednesday night's divorce debate. Spurious platitudes were piled on specious truisms in a fraudulent attempt to demonstrate family values. Research, hard evidence and expert advice were all ignored ....
- Leading leader, THE GUARDIAN, 26apr96, p16
[added 7may96] by Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph, 7may96, p18 The prattle of the sexes.
.... .... .... But in the meantime, the professional complainers are having a field day. This is one area where I would accept that men are being disadvantaged. The feminist complaint lobby has the media so cowed that any BBC programme which does not fill its quota of female "spokespersons" puts itself in jeopardy. (I am not exaggerating.) The absurd result of this is that women commentators like me field dozens of requests from television and radio to take part in discussions, not necessarily because we have the appropriate expertese but because we have the right genital plumbing. Desperate programme researchers respond to my suggestions of male colleagues with the piteous admission: "But we need a woman". Perhaps the cruellest irony is that the barrel-scraping to which this policy leads will so obviously backfire on women - as equal opportunity law already has. If a less good woman is preferred to a better man, then her presence can incur only contempt. And that can only make it harder in the long run for individual women who want to be promoted - or listened to - because they deserve to be.
The Clever take the Brilliant
Politics of Knowledge in Science.
(Lecture to the Ethical Society)
Top of page