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

Ex-Wives Less Likely to Pay Child Support Than Men (UK Government Paper Reports)

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 1:19 pm Tue 11th July 2006

Dateline: England
Author: Timocrat
From: Anti-Misandry (Part of the Priority Men’s New Exchange Program)
Via: The Honor Network

Ex-Wives Less Likely to Pay Support to Kids than Husbands

In a report out from the UK government ex-wives were even slightly less likely to pay child support when the ex-husband has custody. The question of course to ask is, “Why do we only hear about the unfair dead-beat-father distortion.” This is gradualism of the worst sort, not to mention the fact that some men with custody probably wave off support to be rid of the ex-visa card challenged spouse?

The public has no idea of the situation for the established media give no wind of the truth (unless on the back page). Well, just place it on top of all the other unfair points for the list is piling up.


  1. Tell me about it, I paid child support on time every month for 14 years. Now that is is my Ex’s time to pay me life is a different story, talk about all the excuses in the world.

    Comment by SNMP — Tue 11th July 2006 @ 1:32 pm

  2. Dear SNMP,
    I guess the first 14 years she was a equality women, and now she is the old fashion women. Funny how it flips at the most opportune time.

    Comment by Intrepid — Tue 11th July 2006 @ 5:54 pm

  3. Intrepid, So very true. Also interesting how she can accuse me of not supporting my children when I was paying $27,000 per year in support and now she wishes to pay nothing but that is supporting her children.. Go figure.

    Comment by SNMP — Tue 11th July 2006 @ 6:49 pm

  4. Only a purely tyrannical soul could try and rationalize that. So without ever meeting your ex, I know competely why you left her. Religious people say one should stick with a spouse like yours, but how does one deal with such a person. They have no real answer, though they may be well meaning. They end up agruing you must endure such leadership or abuse. I really like it in the movies and TV when they try and tell us, if we were smart, we men would just put up with leadership of the tyrannical kind.

    In the next breathe they go on about how Tyarannical governments are so bad, but see no connection between tyrannical leadership of the family and tyrannical government.

    Comment by Intrepid — Tue 11th July 2006 @ 7:46 pm

  5. My husbands ex-wife is a crazy lunatic and you would not believe the amount of welfare she gets. They don’t count her new husbands income while my husband pays $700.00 per month. She is like” I can’t work cause I’m taking care of the babies, I love my babies.” No she doesn’t and maybe this time she won’t fake suicide. I mean how can you hold a straight face and say “I just took bottles of pills, but I listed what they were and the miligrams in order from most to least so you know what I have taken.” dumb B**ch

    Comment by Tabitha Nance — Wed 22nd August 2007 @ 12:03 pm

  6. That’s a grand comment Intrepid! It constructs an existence without an end and for absolute justification that under any code of law must be reasonable based on objective and probative fact where to say otherwise would be to accept that there is “never a corruption”.

    The answer is as ancient and universal as the conundrum itself. The answer is obvious. Communities and education are the means to fix the problem. These can only be established to an egalitarian effect if those who would want equity, equality and peace to evolve are prepared to directly challenge the corruption of capitalism. Capitalism is the sticking point and it thrives within human rights dialogue that sets one group against another without observing that limits must constrain greed before being steered at discrimination. Yet: government is only stable for a public commanding respect. Which seems to rule many westernised nations (if not the whole caboodle) out of contention. So the public response to being adversly treated is the primary function to relegate corruption.

    In the meantime though; this doesn’t assist Tabitha and the millions out of the hole, and to further justify the authorities in maintaining the corruption, she must be subject to their intrusive and leading questions such as… have you undertaken a review?… have you made a submission?… did you write to the minister?… etc.

    If the public want to effect change then first they have to comply with state compliance which is to be active by answering the bureaucrats questions.

    This should give every individual some confidence and self respecting power for having stood up against an oppression as best they see fit without priming a bomb. For my experience that’s a promise. The more you directly challenge the administration in and by the means it deems as reasonable the stronger you become to handle the adversity of the brutal policies that you and your family are subject. Additionally, if you research teh information, you will become stronger in teh law and this will give you better access to the grounds for why decisions are made. Once you know why then you can argue with… “why”? Then you get somewhere. Then you start talking with your friends and they ask the same questions, posing and closing with the bombshell question of “why”? at the end. So education and communication are in some part, for your part resolved.

    Yet we still aren’t getting anywhere and as intrepid points out, once this new found confidence finds its mark then it starts all over as those with power begin to exploit to their own ends. But it is a start.

    I think you are wrong Intrepid. I think that the fatalistic view doesn’t help anyone, let alone the poor souls who are burdened with a daily injustice. I think that the principal problem from which we have devolved was that the separation of powers in the Westminister system, from Christianity to secular control, miss the value that those who are now in authority have gained their power from a willingness to surrender.

    To stop the surrender before God, is not tyrannical at all. It is rational. It should be treated as such, and therefore every power that could control in perverse or corrupted fashion would be limited to balance against that which it would overthrow. Belief is still important.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 22nd August 2007 @ 12:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar