The Male Deficit.
Looking at the 2005 population statistics, from Stats NZ website, we have some interesting information.
We are showing a population increase for the year of 36,800 people, 19,100 males and 17,700 females. Nothing too unhealthy about that except that it is only marginally above our death rate — but wait there’s more.
If you draw a line at 50 and do a bit of addition it tells a different story. Under 50 population increased by a dismal 7,900 and the over 50 increased by a staggering 28,900.
But wait, there’s more. If you look at the Gender Balance that also tells a story. The age group between 25 — 49 has a male deficit of 41 280 of which 33 410 are between 30 — 44. The same age group 10 years ago had a male deficit of 12,770 and the same population group 10 years earlier had a male deficit of 13 450.
We have suffered an extra-ordinary male loss of approximately 20,000 in the last 10 years, and an extra-ordinary loss of 40,000 men over a longer period of time.
The Gender Balance in the under 25’s, shows slightly more males and in the over 50’s slightly more females, and would be consistent with a normal population.
So who has been hunting male lately? I would really like to know, how many of those missing men are in another country? and how many are in a coffin?
Well, well, well. Here I am at 46 years of age. Smack bang in the midst of the cohort Bevan points out.
An unsurprised ex-pat NZer.
Thanks for the confirmation though Bevan.
It seems plenty of guys about my age have enough nous to have figured out NZ now compares unfavourably to other places.
It’s a shame. Even some of the guys in the men’s movement over there seem to deny misandry is alive and kicking in NZ. Duh!
How many more good men will leave out of the frustration of being treated as the second class sex is anybody’s guess.
In a globalised setting why stick around and be treated like shit? And pay massive taxes for the trouble? Why not join the exodus to fairer places?
You make your bed and you lay on it as my Grandma used to say.
More baloney by Berg. “So who has been hunting male lately” – am I the only one unable to make any sense of that gibberish?
It might pay, Mr Berg, to point out that the figures you refer to are estimates only and, further, if you are alleging a link between the apparent difference in numbers between men and women in that age range and the child support regime, then you should just come out and say so.
Your feeble rhetoric has the very real potential to be counter-productive to those who are working very hard to reform the unfair CS regime.
Fascinating! Who are you, John Self? I’m not familiar with your name, but I’m very curious about your comments. I for one can’t figure out why you are quite so vitriolic towards Bevan Berg, and hope you will enlighten us.
Meanwhile, I do suspect that you are “the only one unable to make any sense of” what you so pejoratively label both “more baloney” and “that gibberish” in the space of three lines.
But as they say, There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Personally, I don’t see where Bevan Berg has made any reference or even allusion to the narrow issue of the unfair, anti-male Child Support Regime, and I would personally imagine that he refers to a whole raft of anti-male legislation and social policies collectively, as the most likely explanation for an apparent exodus of productive New Zealand males from these troubled shores.
But if you wanted to highlight and draw attention to a possible argument against the existing, unjust NZ CS Regime, well, you’ve done a very fine job.
So, would you explain: how DO Bevan Berg’s comments have “the very real potential to be counter-productive to those who are working very hard to reform the unfair CS regime“?
Or is this some kind of “territorial” or “ownership” issue? Has Mr Berg encroached upon hallowed ground that you already “own”? Or are you more intent on protecting the CS Regime from well-deserved attack?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
And while we’re on the subject, why should Mr Berg come out and say so?
Why should he do anything you suggest?
Who are you? The Prime Minister? You sound more like John Read!
As for the petty detail about the figures only being estimates, it seems to me that the confirmed 2004 figures show exactly the same thing, perhaps even more authoritatively. What’s the big deal? It happened in 9 years instead of 10?
Don’t see you post very often here. I have a query for you or someone with a bit more legal-ese than I have.
The query I have relates to the term “equity” as used in the CS Act (1991). A definition of it within the CS Act itself would (to me) be logical, but I cannot find one.
Does “equity” in this legislation mean the same as it does in the dictionary? If not, where will it be defined?
Can’t figure out what Bevan’s done to upset “so many people”… And I’d have to say your question here is “Off Thread,” but never mind. 😉
On the question of equity – it’s a good question, in the light of its use in the CSA, but I’m no expert. Save us from the experts!
S4(h) of the CSA 1991 (The Objects) uses the word, ‘obviously’ in its ordinary sense…
Here’s what the Concise Oxford has to say:
Â· n. (pl. equities)
1 the quality of being fair and impartial.
2 Law a branch of law that developed alongside common law in order to remedy some of its defects in fairness and justice.
3 (Equity) a trade union for professional actors.
4 the value of the shares issued by a company. Ã˜ (equities) stocks and shares that carry no fixed interest.
5 the value of a mortgaged property after deduction of charges against it.
— ORIGIN ME: from OFr. equitÃ©, from L. aequitas, from aequus ‘equal’.
I’d go for the general sense, meaning #1.
However, S201(4) uses it in the legal sense, but I’m not sure if that’s where you’re focussed?
I’d say look in the Income Tax Act for more ideas. (I get 58 records with hits…)
The Search Tab at
is very useful (and quite usable) for this kind of thing…
Many thanks for this.
Yes, it was off-post and I apologise for this. I simply took the opportunity of catching you when I saw your post.
My apologies, Mark Shipman
please don’t be put off by a few of the negative comments made by posters on this site. I have found exactly the same attitude on some other mens issues sites. If your posts really were a problem, JohnP will be letting you know about it.
Mr Candy, you appear to overlook the category under which Mr Berg has chosen to file this and other of his writings. By posting them there Mr Berg invites the reader to consider his invective within that context. For the reader the result is obfuscation of a quite high order.
An effective campaign for legislative reform requires coherent argument and clear policy. And the momentum of the present push for reform of the CS regime (it seems to me) has been gathering because of this approach.
Mr Berg’s descriptions (e.g. “hunting male”) often border on the hysterical serving only to muddy the waters.
Hey Mr Self,
I’m not clear what Bevan Berg’s comment about ‘who has been hunting male lately’ means exactly either. But I would have thought that asking him to clarify what he was trying to express would have been the sensible and decent thing to do. Instead I see you pillory the guy for expressing ‘gibberish’ and ‘hysteria’.
It may be he simply trying to say that in a global marketplace males will be headhunted and leave NZ.
If he is indeed trying to establish linkage between faulty Child Support laws and an exodus of men from NZ I can only say he may not be far off the mark.
For I’ll repeat what I’ve said on other threads –
I’d have been off like a shot overseas years ago instead of sticking around paying CS for an aliented son I didn’t see for years. Stupid me though thought that the Family Court and Inland revenue would see justice done fairly for dads though. That I’d contribute more than being a wallet for a vindictive X.
Just goes to show how dumbassed I was.
Dear John, or may I call you Sarah. In either case I am sure you have probably received a dear John letter before, perhaps that’s what left the scar.
But for others who have been following these comments, just to clarify what I meant about hunting male, and for the benefit of Sarah’s perceived obfuscation, I will give you an example of the hunting feminazi game. It is a vicious occupation based on psychological intimidation.
In this particular case I accompanied a man to a protection order hearing. A lawyer was not affordable, so he had to rely on legal aid. His legal aid lawyer walked into the interview room, and said you will be pleading guilty then. When he said he would plead not guilty, she responded,
Well who is going to represent you then. At this point I interjected and said – If you don’t represent him he would be left to represent himself. She through his file at him and walked out.
It’s not about guns and bows and arrows, its about a poison mind.
A little tolerance often goes a long way. Bevan probably isn’t perfect. Nor am I.
Some people here have suffered extreme trauma (maybe you are among their number?) and tend to be a bit unbalanced. Maybe you could be more forgiving? The world would be a better place, I suspect.
As for invective…
Â· n. strongly abusive or critical language.
— ORIGIN ME (orig. as adj. meaning ‘abusive’): from OFr. invectif, -ive, from late L. invectivus ‘attacking’, from invehere (see inveigh).
and muddying the waters…
I would have to call that Projection!