- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -

MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Wed 30th September 2009

Lindsay Mitchell in the Herald

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:06 pm

Lindsay Mitchell makes important observations about the consequences of our DPB system. However, she claims that

The DPB has made fathering and fleeing commonplace and accepted. Before the DPB men were jailed for not supporting their families. Draconian, possibly.

and makes no mention of the more frequent impact of the DPB in helping mothers to break up their families for their own selfish reasons.

I have written to the Herald and others may wish to do so also. Letters can be sent via http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/feedback/letters/index.cfm

Here is my letter:

Dear Editor
Lindsay Mitchell is correct in drawing our attention to the ever-increasing social damage caused by our DPB system, and the importance of both parents in raising children to be the best adults possible. However, she takes a cheap and unbalanced shot at men by stating that the “DPB has made fathering and fleeing commonplace and accepted”. In fact, research shows that families are now broken up by women’s decisions much more often than by men. The no-fault DPB has made women’s ejection of men from their homes and families commonplace and accepted. The reasons are usually to do with women wanting “independence” or new, more exciting relationships and lives, rather than escaping from domestic violence as is often cited in justification of the DPB. And those ejected men are then required to reimburse the government as much as possible for its foolish facilitation of family wrecking. For many men it’s like paying for their own execution.

Sat 26th September 2009

Denied weight-loss surgery because he is a man

Filed under: General,Men's Health — Darryl Ward @ 9:38 am

Letters may be sent to letters@dompost.co.nz

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2905232/Denied-weight-loss-surgery-because-he-is-a-man

Denied weight-loss surgery because he is a man

By TIM DONOGHUE and RUTH HILL – The Dominion Post

A Wellington man was horrified to be told he would not get taxpayer-funded weight-loss surgery because he is a man.

Ron Blair, 68, who weighs 132 kilograms, was referred for the potentially life-saving operation by his heart specialist in July but turned down by Capital and Coast District Health Board, which began funding a handful of weight-loss operations two years ago.

In a letter to his specialist, surgeon Kusal Wickremesekera revealed that “as a male, [Mr Blair] falls outside our current guidelines for surgery” but his case could be reconsidered in future.

Wed 16th September 2009

I’m confused. Please explain again why when we have 50/50 custody we still have to pay CS?

Filed under: General — Gravesie @ 4:32 pm

As said i’m just a little confused on this matter. I have my two children on a 50/50 shared care basis, great i have no complaints on that fact. Where my mind becomes a little confused though is why i am still required to pay excessive amounts each month to their mother when she has a new partner, who earns a similar amount each year to myself, so as to provide for my children? Surely i am doing this anyway by having the kids 50% of the time. Is this actually shared assets and not shared custody? My ex wife has holidays, new clothes, cars houses whilst working in part time employment. Am i funding a lifestyle or the childrens wellbeing, i honestly wonder.

Don’t get me wrong, i have no problem with supporting my children but since going 50/50 my payment came down by less than a third, how can this be i ask myself.

Thu 10th September 2009

Should we believe the experts?

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 12:34 pm

NZCPR Guest Forum 
Stuart Birks
Director of the Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, Massey University.
29 July 2009
Should we believe the ‘experts’

Because economic and social phenomena are so forbidding, or at least so seem, and because they yield few hard tests of what exists and what does not, they afford to the individual a luxury not given by physical phenomena. Within a considerable range, he is permitted to believe what he pleases. He may hold whatever view of this world he finds most agreeable or otherwise to his taste.

(Galbraith, 1999, p.6) (J K Galbraith, noted economist and President of the American Economic Association in 1972)

 In the critically important discussion about the actual solutions to real-world problems, no set of theoretical tools is likely to be fully adequate. Such problems are, almost by definition, too complex to allow theory to be applied simply and straightforwardly. (Buchanan, 1967, p.196) (J M Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Laureate in Economics)

We place a lot of weight on the word of authority figures, especially if they have qualifications and can call on supporting research. The media often report on research as if the findings are points of fact. Is this confidence misplaced? 

There are three very simple points that should be remembered if we are to interpret this sort of information realistically. I describe them here in relation to theories as these are central to academic analyses, and use a recent claim by the Principal Family Court Judge as an illustration.

Wed 9th September 2009

NZ Mike Moore On Smacking

Filed under: General — gh @ 9:20 am

Mike Moore: Smacking-referendum hoax John Key’s biggest mistake
By Mike Moore
The expensive, puerile, futile controversy over the ill-considered anti-smacking legislation is a monument to political cowardice and opportunism.

The legislation was never going to achieve what its promoters claimed, and was never going to send good parents to court, as its opponents suggested. Monsters who harm babies are not going to consult the Law Library, and no sane court is going to convict a parent because of a gentle, corrective pat.

Why the multimillion-dollar political hoax of a referendum? Because a series of dreadful child abuse cases hit the headlines and some politicians needed a headline and wanted to be seen to be doing something.

Fri 4th September 2009

Big Sister is watching you

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 2:07 pm

Inland Revenue has retrieved $20.1 million in child support, since it launched a joint operation with the Customs Service last year.

Under a data matching arrangement which began last September, Customs checks names provided by the IRD against its arrival and departure information.

In the nine months to the end of March, IRD was informed of 4608 border crossings by people with a child support debt.

Of that figure, 1208 people have entered into repayment arrangements with the IRD totalling $20.1 million.

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar