Issues with the Child Support Act 1991
This was a list of issues with the child support tabled with David Cunlifee, the Minister Responsible for child Support in 2004 on the steps of Parliament.
I would like to seek suggestions for further issues to pass onto Peter Dunne.
Please keep them concise.
MEN’S CONVOY 2004
Men on the Move for
Child Support Reform
1. A “one size fits all” formula assessment.
2. The objects of the Child Support Act 1991 focus on “benefit recovery” and not the best interest of children.
3. The formula assessment is based on gross (before tax) income.
4. Voluntary agreements can be replaced by a formula assessment at any time.
5. No account is taken of Student Loan commitments when calculating the formula.
6. The living allowance of the formula assessment takes no account of the cost of access for liable parents.
7. The departure order process is fundamentally flawed, with Administrative Review Officers and Judges trapped in a system that is locked in a set of precedents from the early 1990’s.
8. There is no accountability that the money collected actually goes to support children.
9. Administration and application of the Child Support Act by Inland Revenue favours the custodial parent at the expense of the paying parent and child.
10. The living allowance takes no account of any extra necessary payments made by the paying parent.
11. Ability of the Commissioner to create a Child Support income that defies Standard Accounting Principles to inflate paying parents income to unrealistically high levels that do not reflect the real income of the parent.
12. A reciprocal agreement with Australia that subjects New Zealand Parents to Australian Legal process and Law.
13. A ballooning debt crises that points to a fundamental failure if the “simple formula” ” approach of the Child Support Act 1991
Regards
Scrap
Tell him we stand upon his doorstep with neither forgiveness nor forbearance.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 12:05 am
Comment ONE = BOTHERING
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 10:40 am
Add 14 – Any Bureaucrat seen to damage a Childs relationship with any part of their **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY** without due process, will be dismissed and proscuted.
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 10:46 am
Scrap,
Here are some items you may wish to add to the list.
1. There is absolutely no recognition in the Child TAX Act or by our political “leaders” that, when a Family separates, there are now TWO complete households to support and [generally] the same or a lesser amount of money.
2. There is no allowance for the cost of maintaining a home where I am able to see my Team of 3. If it were just me on my own, I may manage with only one bedroom, but when my 3 arrive this becomes untenable.
3. There is no allowance for the ABSOLUTE right of every Child to be raised by BOTH parents, whether or not they reside in the same household. Instead, our political “leaders” extort Child TAX at a level where many Parents are forced to choose between seeing their children and being able to subsist/survive.
4. General taxation (Income Tax or PAYE and GST) pays for ALL benefits. Taxing some Parents based on the number of Children they have in order to “recover benefit payments” is simply unlawful double taxation. In reality, the approx. $170 million they collect to offset the $2,400 million DPB bill is ridiculous when you consider it costs nearly $70 million to collect it.
5. The “Child Support Agency” are responsible for the administration of the Child
SupportTax Act. However, at the direction of the government, they have deliberately put aside their duty of care to ALL the people (Mums, Dads AND Children) who are affected by the law to become a group who:exist solely to collect Child Tax;fail to follow their own processes and procedures;knowingly give out improper and untimely advice;actively create alleged “debt” to provide [through the punitive penalties system] revenue for the crown;If our political “leaders” had even one ounce of integrity between them, this law would never have been passed. Every politician including Davis (nee Clark), Cullen, Dunne, Brownlee, English, Cunliffe, Palmer and Lange are all guilty of nothing less than VIOLENT CHILD ABUSE.
It has to change. The politicians are accountable and we will hold them responsible.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 12:16 pm
This is great stuff MEN,
I commend those working on these issues that currently tear our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES** apart as Mark-S has so HandsOnClearly illustrated.
I am priveleged to know Marks Kids and can assure you he is a dearly loved DAD and FATHER.
Dare I suggest that NUMBER 1/One and 2/Two must be after **Equal** Parenting is the governing foundation of ALL Family Law and Social Policy
Preferably HandsOnEqualParenting so that Kids have the opertunity to be HandsOnEqualParented by their own Mum and Dad and the Whole extended Family NOT Village which opens the doors to the Anti-Family brigade
Where Govts are bound to support BOTH Parents **Equally** as they FATHER/MOTHER their Kids in or out of Happy Families.
Preferably no more than 30/40 hours a week out of the FAMILY, working, and most certainly always having one Parent at home when Kids are out of school and even then Parents being easily able to return home should there be kids days off for sickness or fun.
Whereby Govts encourage Parenting not OUT-of-Home working and thus Kids bring themselves up, or others bringing them up or tied Parents for that matter.
ALL other issues which many of you have wisely added over the years since the conference, MENS-Table and of course our MENS-Convoys etc are **Child Support refinements after **Equal**Parenting.
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 1:23 pm
“Child Support” should be calculated on the total household incomes, in both parent’s households.
This would then be consistent with the way government benefits are calculated. It would also ensure that financial support paid between households is not able to be manipulated by whether the mother=custodial parent works or stays at home, which is essentially irrelevant to the support that should be paid between the parent’s two households.
The “Child Support” should also be based on the relative time that the children spend in each household, without the 40% step, which results in most “non-custodial” parent’s costs being simply ignored. It also gives incentive to custodial parents to deny access, for financial “reward”. In my experience, familycaught judges turn a blind eye and a dishonest empty head to these situations.
Child Support should be based on the costs of bringing up children, not simply as a % of income, up to a limit far beyond the honest costs of raising children.
Child Support should only be paid when the custody of the children has been agreed between the parents and this agreement is being honoured. In other words, the present practice of the familycaught in rewarding-abductor mothers with custody and child support payments, should be stopped. This would be in line with civilised societies, such as USA. NZ is fully a generation behind and still showing no signs of catching ethically up.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Hi Murray,
I agree wholeheartedly that CS needs to be based on the essential needs of children as described in the Donkin Method.
However, anything that ties CS back to income(s) just makes it a Child TAX.
The whole system (child tax + the Matrix of Family Law + boshier & crew + the Family Caught) is completely f***ed. It needs to be thrown out on its thinly feathered little arse before we start again from a basic presumption of EQUAL parental rights AND responsibilities as described in Jayden’s Law.
Any person (especially a public servant) who supports any part of the existing regime is practising violent child abuse by actively impeding EVERY child’s absolute right to be raised by BOTH their Mum AND their Dad.
There are currently over 400,000 Mums, Dads and Children afflicted with the current regime.
The current regime FAILS all of them in some way.
All of the current regime must be thrown out and replaced by a system based on equal parental rights and responsibilities that is backed up with financial support based solely on the essential needs of children.
This will happen. It’s just a matter of when.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Mark,
Think you have made a typo,700,000 is IRD supplied figure.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Oops!
Comment by Mark Shipman — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 3:40 pm
I think child support need to be totally revamped . I ‘ve pay child support for over ten years now my ex wife has totally manipulated the system in respect of making sure my eldest child does not work 30 or more hours a week but convenitley working 28hrs while she gets a good amount of money for her job i’m still paying full child support (it’s wrong). The system is taxing me twice on my income why are we sitting idle and letting this happen. There needs to be a bill put to parliment over the system seems to me that the burocrats putit in the too hard basket not good enough.
Comment by DARREN — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 3:36 pm
WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY FULL CHILD SUPPORT TO MY EX WHEN MY ELDEST DAUGHTER IS EARNING MORE THAN THE DOLE.ALSO MY EX IS EARNING EXTRA MONEY UNTAXED NUDER THE TABLE . THE GOVERNMENT NEED TO LOOK INTO THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE WHO RIP THE PAYING PARENT OFF AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENT.(GREED IS ALL IT IS )
Comment by DARREN — Wed 14th January 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Thank you for all the information I have been able to gather from your website. As a woman who believed (naively, before the following trauma and manipulation by my ex) in the benifit of my children having a shared, equal relationship with both parents, I have seen my life completly change because of IRD.
My ex-husband is on a benifit that he recieves fully while he ‘studies’ even though we share our kids half the time each. Because I work full time I have to pay $110 per week to the government which is offset by his ‘minimum’ payment that comes out of his benifit. I have studied and worked full time to further myself in my carrer as well as ballancing my children and paying half for their activities etc yet I still have to pay child support each week – while he still recieves a full benifit whether my children are with him or not. What is worse, he is now manipulating them to make sure that he does not fall under the 40% nights.
And on the other side I have my step kids whose mother is with a very wealthy new partner and uses my husbands child support (that she recieves even when they are here most of the holidays and weekends) for her ‘shoe budget’. She also is very careful to make sure that we do not have them for more than 39% of the nights.
When will our system realise the diversity of our families, and that their way of collecting revenue creates parents who manipulate, and resentment of children for the creation of limited resources that child support creates.
Here I am at midnight trying to find a way of reducing our child support payments because of our stressed financial situation – a situation that has no other areas left to cut. How can we afford to pay food for all our children through the holidays when we are already paying $230 each week to our ex’s for our children’s food? Money for them when they are HERE eating, not at our ex’s.
I am in a position that the the original child support act would never have expected a mother to be in – working hard while my ex sits on a benifit, and a benifit that is all or nothing and not recognising that every second week he only has to feed himself. And now my ex has decided to do his masters degree…
My heart goes out to all of you who are being manipulated too because of money. It is not just woman who are using this injust system to their advantage.
It is money that dictates my children’s lives, not what is best for them or what resources they need. When will there be change? What can we do to stop this injustice? Who will finally listen to the pain across NZ because of this ACT?
Comment by Mandy — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 12:44 am
Hi Mandy (poster #12). Thanks for telling your story. I would encourage you to communicate your situation with the authorities including the minister responsible (Peter Dunne). Change will be much more likely when government realises that women also are disadvantaged by the current legislation. Men’s suffering doesn’t seem to matter and of course the welfare of children is the last thing that matters to our “child support” administration, but if you and a few other women show that current inequities can sometimes adversely affect women then we might get some action.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 9:38 am
Child Support needs revamping – Having just been reassessed (with a 3.5% loading on top) of my gross earnings I am now in the situation of probably being better off not working for a taxable income. The fairest system would be to require employers to provide a certificate of earnings for the BASE annual gross income and assess on that amount. I have been forced in the past year to work overtime just to pay the basic bills (remember that CS is worked on the gross taxable income then taken from your nett in hand pay) but all this has done is increase substantively the amount I am now forced to pay. There must be equity in the system – this year to avoid paying more child support I am fortunate to be able to timebank hours worked on overtime to take them as paid days off at a later date so this is where my worked overtime will go, however I am still stuck with the other overtime I receive for working statutory days, attending and providing specialised training and in turn being assessible for CS (plus there is a limit as to how much time you want off work if you can’t afford to go and see your kids).
Perhaps if the Minister was to look at making the system more equitable for the paying parent there may be more compliance and less recovery costs involved. The minister can contact me if he likes to see all the facts surrounding the issue.
Comment by Chris — Thu 19th February 2009 @ 3:23 am
hi, i am trying to ring mens center,to ask if there is any one i can talk to in taranaki,about the abuse i get from the ex, after reading womans refuge safety plan,she ticks all the boxs,even to the point of telling me she is going to teach my baby to hate me,because i wanted out of her abuse in the relationship
Comment by jason — Thu 19th February 2009 @ 1:24 pm
The courts wont even consider it, they dont care, and if you get a childs lawyer well they even worse they just want the case filed. My ex’s partner would tell the kids they were going to beat me up and going to sort the rest of the family out, nothing ever happened and if I wasn’t dead then the police wouldn’t do anything about it. But its now been 10 years and my family and myself are still abused by the ex in Aussie, I have a protection order but I might as well wipe my ass on it, I gave up and let one of my children go live with the ex, let this point be known my daughter has not contacted me for months and has been brainwashed with the exs hate so painful as this is I have let it go and I beleive that one day she will know right from wrong.
Good Luck
Comment by Rob — Thu 19th February 2009 @ 9:43 pm
FRAUD AT THE HIGHIEST LEVEL!
is child support child support? under the law or are we misled, and in fact it is benefit and child support we pay. who is misrepresenting who? i,ll leave this to the people to decide?
day to day (IRD CHILD SUPPORT) what a joke theymake this law under section 1 and what they therm as day to day care?
question for all
if a recieving parent lives in rotorua and the child is living with the sister in masterton. since july last year and continues who has the day to day care.? well in the eyes of irdcs they say the parent in rotorua, so how if prople read the act on day to day care they make an ass of themselves, as people in the street deem day to day care is having that child,and being with that child every day?
courts and lawyers
one of the problems i,ve found, is generaly when a lawyer for child is representing a child they are mainly woman and the first contact they have with any of the parents is the mother. this generaly happens weeks before they contact the father, as it doesn,t matter if the father is the person whom has orginally file for custody. not only in my case but also other cases and they seem to band together with the mothers lawyer to do what ever they can to dicredit the father, showing there preference being the mother, as a sexiest statement that a mother has or should be the only custodian parent and have the day to day care.
child support:
you have no rights civil or legal under this act to challenge or obtain
additional information supplied by the mother to this department, as they say it comes under the privacy act, so you as a paying parent cannot agree or contest that information, even thou i pertains to the paying parent in regards to then taking money from you for child support even if you object. this even happens after notice of child support has ceased, and then they reinsate based on additional info by the non paying parent. we as paying parents have had our human rights or any other rights stripped away from us to be able to challenge there system, and is tied up with clauses of law that run in circle knowing full well if filed in court. the procedures needed to be taken to file is extremely impossible for the paying parent.
to contest anything or veiw info pertaining to you the laws on the recieving parent and this needs to change in the manner where, if child support is payed both parties have the right, or access to information supplied or supporting that child, or children, as with alterations to claiming or paying.
is this cild support or benefit support?
benerficeries:
if a person recieves a benefit part of the child support payments off set this and only a part is child support. this is wrong we as paying parent are not responsible for the other persons action they chose to take by going on the dpb (living the life of riley),that was there choice not ours and whe are not responsible for others who don,t pay or whom are on the dpb, but we do through legal laws imposed by the goverment. this being over payments goes directly into the goverment coffers to off set those whom don,t pay. our taxes pay for this and here again the paying parent pays again, as with there idiotic assessment system. enough is enough and if im the only one to take a stand even though i can,t afford a lawyer i will reprsent my self as i have no choice and take this goverment and there laws on, through court and the media. its time to stand up and be counted not kicked around no more by these biase laws.
Comment by glenn olsson — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 11:08 am
The current legislation is an income tax levied on certain parents and not on others. I refer to it as a child tax because that is in fact what it is. It is an illegal tax under the NZ Bill of Rights.
There is nothing in the legislation that relates to the cost of caring for a child.
The money collected under this legislation is based on income of a certain minority. There is very little provision for any other factor other than the income of this minority group. The income of the receiving party is not considered by this legislation. The main point is that it is an income tax. It is not a cost-of-caring-for-child tax.
There is no requirement, monitoring or control for money collected under this legislation to be spent on caring for a child. The money can and is spent on anything at all.
The money collected under this legislation goes either to the government consolidated fund or it goes to whomever the receiving party chooses. What I mean by this is that the person who is nominated to receive this money can elect to have the money sent directly to anyone they like for any reason. It could be directed straight to their TAB account for example. The legislation explicitly provides that the money can go to someone other than the person nominated as being a carer of the child. This is but one example in the legislation that makes it clear that it is a form of tax to be used by the recipient anyway desired.
Comment by Dave — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 2:30 pm
“The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 can protect your rights in two ways:
– The Courts can recognise your rights. However, the Courts may need to balance your rights against the rights of others and the interest of the whole community.
– The Bill of Rights requires the Attorney General to report to Parliament if any proposed law appears inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The government will have to justify the need for such a law.
The Act says that any limits on your rights must be reasonable.”[1]
“3. Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights
You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.” [1]
[1] Source Ministry of Justice: http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/bill_rights_act.html
Comment by Dave — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 2:30 pm
The current legislation clearly discriminates against a minority in the community based on marital and family status in favour of another group based on their marital and family status.
The legislation must therefore pass the test of balancing the rights of the people being taxed against the rights of others and the interest of the whole community
The current legislation does not protect the rights or interests of the child.
As stated previously the current legislation has nothing at all to do with the cost of caring for the child. There is no requirement, monitoring or control that the money must be spent in the child’s interests. In fact the legislation explicitly allows for the money to be spent on other things.
There is only a vague relationship between the care of the child and who gets the money collected. For example much of the money goes to the government. More importantly, in general the care of the child by the person being taxed is not considered.
As the current legislation has been amended over and over again, clauses that may have provided some protection to the rights of the child have been explicitly removed. There Trend of law makers with this legislation illustrates that the intent of the legislation has moved even further away from protecting the rights of the child and further towards an income tax.
This means that the current legislation does not balance the rights of the child against the fact that is discriminates against a minority of people based on marital status and family status.
Comment by Dave — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 2:31 pm
It also does not protect the interests of other children involved in blended families. In fact it makes their lives more difficult.
I am not aware of any research or evidence that the community is better off with this current legislation. There are arguments based on ideology and anecdotal evidence both ways on this point. Part of the problem with assessing the net outcome for the community is that the legislation has no relation to the cost for caring for the child. Part of the problem is that the simplistic assumptions of the legislation are ideological, outdated and deeply flawed. Part of the problem is that the implementation of the legislation is a failure. A large number of people can not or will not comply with this system. An even greater number are experiencing real hardship and loss of freedom in order to try to comply.
In addition when considering the interests of the community an erroneous assumption is made that insufficient money would be made available to care for the child. This is not substantiated by the available evidence.
Further more if this legislation was determined to be illegal under the Bill of Rights it would clearly be replaced by other child focused and equitable legislation. In other words the comparison is not between this legislation and having no scheme at all. When weighing the interests of the community of this legislation one must consider that rather than no scheme, some other scheme based on the cost of raising a child would replace it.
Hence the current legislation fails the test of whether the discrimination against one minority based on family status and marital status is balanced by the rights of others and the interests of the whole community.
Comment by Dave — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 2:31 pm
The current scheme is illegal under the NZ Bill of Rights 1990.
I also believe it is illegal under UN conventions of human rights.
The current scheme is NOT a child support scheme it is a minority income tax scheme.
It would be simple to replace the current scheme with a scheme based on the cost of raising a child across two households. This has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions such as in Australia.
Comment by Dave — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 2:32 pm
The current legislation provides nothing but incentives, a veritable ‘launching pad’ for people, mostly women as it happens, who for whatever reason (in this no-fault divorce system), cannot be bothered any longer with the work of making a relationship function, to become financially better off by removing their partner from the relationship. In so doing, they take the house, the children, the family history, and arbitrarily consign their partner to systematic destruction by the CS Formula and Family Law. I do not blame these people. They do it because they can, because the system legislatively provides for it, and why wouldn’t they? Much is spoken of the cost of raising a child, the sharing of that responsibility between parents, and finding solutions ‘in the best interests of the child.’ Whereas I have no issue with making a contribution, which should be used for the purpose by the way, it should be related to actual costs and not income related, within limits. But, what I want to know is, why do the things that are taken away from the paying parent, the milestones, first steps, first day of school, paintings coming home, the wonder of the penny dropping about some obscure subject, being able to witness this growing person, inch by inch, minute by minute day by day, all of the things that the non-custodial parent is removed from – why do these things have no value? Why does that pain not carry any weight in Family Court proceedings. The emotional upheaval that the custodial parent endures is well noted, AND is translated into dollars payable by the other. Is that equitable? Do the beaurocrats think that providing an easy launch into DPB, and/or child support, without any requirement for justification, is doing ANYTHING to foster a consolidation of core family values? The problem is much, much deeper that just Family Court and Child Support, but it is one which can be addressed legislatively I believe.
Comment by glenn — Wed 29th April 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Hear, hear Glenn (Reply #22). Trouble is no politician seems to understand the damage that the the DPB system is wreaking on our society, or that the DPB is based on immoral enslavement of men and plundering of the fruits of their labour. Or if any politicians do recognize it, they have insufficient integrity to acknowledge it as needing change. Instead, feminist ideology rules the day and any changes likely are in the direction of more trampling and exploitation of men.
Unfortunately, most men chose not to support the one party last election that had policies addressing these travesties. Rather than use their democratic vote, they prefer to moan endlessly on sites like this.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 29th April 2009 @ 4:21 pm
So, what is the fix? I think that if we encourage, hey, even solicit griping attitudes from these (mainly) men, and amass good documented evidence, sooner or later, we will spark the interest of someone who has the capacity, the resources and the will to really make a stand. Although it needs to be approached from a political platform in the end, in order to make the difference that is so sorely needed, it matters not where the vote goes, since single issue Political Parties tend not to gether that much momentum. The government of the day, whomsoever it may be, needs to be smacked over the head with it, repeatedly, until it is heard, but we need to get men over the huge hurdle of ‘silent acceptance.’ We can be our own worst enemy, in more ways than one. I have been in this trap for over twenty years – two families, where both wives decided it was easier to go down Ripoff Road, ably assisted by the Government, rather than do anything with a view to providing a nurturing two parent haven for the children. So I am guilty too – of letting it happen.
Comment by glenn — Wed 29th April 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Yes!
I love the concept!
Speaking as one of this sites most vocal gripers.
Thanks for the validation.
I hope certain readers here are taking this on board.
Stoicism is for dead men.
A gripe a day keeps the doctor away.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 30th April 2009 @ 2:09 am
Hans,
Unfortunately most NZ men would have had no idea there was a party addressing thier issues.
So I suppose there must be much more grass roots level consciousness raising of that fact. The major parties certainly aren’t going to let people know that.
No way. They’re going to ignore the issues until the noise of people in the know gets too much for them to ignore any longer.
Then and only will they pull thier fingers out and do what needs to be done.
People don’t hear what men don’t say.
Gripers unite to fight the fight!
I’m thinking the male pill will help hugely to circumvent DPB.
The fems know this which is why they maintain a blanket silence on the topic.
I imagine their terrified at how it’s arrival will bring about the next sexual revolution with men firmly in the reproductive driver’s seat.
Your thoughts on this with the start of a new thread please.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 30th April 2009 @ 2:23 am
Yes, good comments Skeptic. Of course griping is an important part of the gender war. It is surprising though to me, that when there was an opportunity to use democratic power to support the changes all the gripers have been calling for, few took that opportunity.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 30th April 2009 @ 8:52 am
What will change the DPB is the big movement of child care happening as we speak.
But one damn good reason for wanting a male pill is so that the expected increase in single mothers by choice and gay adoption increase will not happen without a man’s consent or the use of his money through CS.
Comment by julie — Thu 30th April 2009 @ 10:28 am
A very common side effect of the Male Pill is plummeting libido.
Pharmaceutical companies think this may be a minus despite the best marketing plans they can devise.
Very effective contraception even better than ongoing Child Support payments!!
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 30th April 2009 @ 2:48 pm
No side effects for the upcoming (no pun intended!) male pill sited here.
Nor here.
Nor here.
Even some women’s health advocates are getting excited about it – here
remember the old school hym?…….
Oh come all ye faithful
Joyful and triumphant
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 30th April 2009 @ 11:28 pm
Nobody doubts the efficacy of these male contraceptives at reducing the ability of sperm to fertilise. However all my reading indicates that the current possibilities reduce libido to such an extent that blokes are not going to stand up and come.
The articles above are 2003, 2006 and 2006. Drugs do take time to be researched, trialed and liscenced but if they had potential there would be more noise about them by now.
I’m sure the feminist extreme, the radical lesbian and misandrist lobby in our community would be more than happy for such “therapy” to be compulsory for all males over the age of 13.
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 12:18 am
Allan,
You’re missing the point.
All the links I provided are indeed to articles from 2003 and 2006.
however they give details of trials that have already taken place where no side effects have been noted.
To quote one of the articles –
“Scientists have discovered a substance that can temporarily block the development of sperm without altering testosterone levels and without causing unwanted side effects”.
Certain feminist extreme, radical lesbian and misandric types may well want the pill to be compulsory for males over the age of 13. Not a political reality though.
If they’d had the clout to bring about chemical castration and lowered libido we’d have bromide in our water supply by now.
The fact remains that when the male pill inevitably comes onto the market it will foolproof guys against a host of oppressive situations they now fall foul of.
Hey guys……
Want to avoid paternity fraud?…….take the male pill
Want to avoid seeing your kid unilaterally aborted?……..take the male pill
Want to avoid getting trapped into paying 19 years of child tax?……..take the male pill
Want to become a father when YOU’RE ready not just when she feels like it?……take the male pill
Want to avoid being forced to stay in the paid workforce whilst she’s doing the stay at home cofee mornings mommy track?…………take the male pill.
Men invented the technology to liberate women from their former roles……it’s only a matter of time before they invent the technology to free themselves……..they’re guys after all.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 6:43 am
Yes I saw the point you were after BUT the reality is that it does have side effects and the most significant was the loss of libido which also achieves the same goals you trumpet.
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 7:49 am
Allan,
Show us the research that backs that claim.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 11:40 am
Hey, it’s me again.
Sorry to change the subject, but I too have just been screwed over again with another Formula assessment, a much more bitter pill than any male contraceptive.
I want to pass on how I see things, and what I think should happen. The first thing is, in order to have any credibility, we must maintain a sense of balance. I will have some difficulty with that.
This is going to be pretty long, so I apologise for that, but please persevere and be sure to think about it and post your own thoughts.
There is a need for change, and a need for someone to take the reins. Bags Not – we all seem to say in unison.……. but someone will grow some balls when it gets tough enough, and then we can all jump on the bandwagon.
This is how I see The Child Support and Family Law ‘System’ as it is.
1. Biologically, it is women who get pregnant and women who bear children. Legislation will never change that. This is a presumption.
2. The institution and sanctity of marriage, or a relationship in the nature of a marriage has been legislatively dismantled by the introduction of the no-fault divorce principles.
3. This has resulted in tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of failed marriages around the country, because it has been made preferable for people to just walk away from their vows where there are children involved, and put their hand out, with the backing of Government, for legislated entitlements, and so they do.
4. If a couple get married, have children and stay married, (yep there are still some women out there who maintain their moral fibre, or who are not yet up-with-the-play) they have to fend for themselves.
5. It is true that it takes two to make a pregnancy, but, current legislation has engendered this:- Women, particularly those who are not married, or not in a committed relationship, now see a pregnancy or a child as a meal ticket rather than a personal responsibility. They are actively encouraged by the law to think this way. One would imagine, in this so-called age of enlightenment, in our first-world (hmm that could be debated) country, where there are so many contraceptive methods widely available, and so much information, that any child born would be planned, wanted, accepted, nurtured, and loved no matter what the domestic or financial situation of the parents is, and the Government should have no need to intervene. This, alas, because of the law, is not the case. Children are seen first as a meal ticket. How sad is that?
6. This attitude has inevitably spilled over to infect the mothers of children that were planned and wanted, and were conceived within the bounds of a stable relationship. Why? Because the law says it can. And so, when the work of raising the children gets difficult, and has to be meshed in with the work of sustaining a relationship, it is the relationship that fails, because it is the children that are the meal ticket, not the relationship.
7. On the other hand, men, (who will become the victim fathers,) sadly tend now to see children as a long term liability, and why wouldn’t they; something to be avoided if at all possible, but are often reassured or duped into believing that their relationship is strong, or their partners are protected by the pill or whatever, when the reality is that, in the bedroom, their partners are looking directly at a meal ticket. How sad is that? Blokes now have to be really careful about who they sexually associate with, even within a long term committed relationship. But they are not. The condom and abstinence are the only male controls, and as we all know, that moment doesn’t always involve control.
8. The laws as they exist, pertaining to family and children, have single-handedly and systematically destroyed the very fabric of the society that it claims to protect.
9. Trust between the genders is the fundamental cost, and the flow on consequences are enormous and shared thoroughly inequitably.
10. Because it is far more likely that it will be mothers that take, or are awarded, custody of the children after a relationship split, it is much more likely that it is mothers who see the meal ticket, mothers who remove the fathers from the household and fathers who are forced into living in the Hamster Wheel of Child Support. These laws are constructed so that women are encouraged to exploit them, at the expense of the men they condemn to suffer them.
11. Salaried or waged liable parents are far more disadvantaged than those in business because personal incomes from business can be masked, and wages or salaries are totally visible.
12. As things are, there is little wonder that there are billions of dollars of outstanding child support contributions out there, little wonder that men are running for cover all over the place, moving to places where there is no reciprocal agreement between countries, creating alternative identities, or staying on the dole to keep liability to a minimum. Recovery of these monies is what the Government makes the big issue of, and there is a January 09 Bill in the pipeline to make hunting down these ‘criminals’ easier. No thought of examining the efficacies of the system is entertained, as it was engineered by well-meaning dickheads with no foresight, and is the law. The Government maxim seems to be “If it doesn’t work, don’t fix it — spend huge taxpayer dollars to justify it.”
This is just a mere scratching of the surface, and I accept that it is liberally coated with cynicism, but it is there because I am hoping there will be some reaction…………….
I have some ideas about what the law should include, and exclude, which will be much more positive, but I will leave that to the next post. G.
Comment by glenn — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 4:00 pm
By the way, who is the current Minister responsible for Father Alienation, I mean Child Support? I might drop her a chatty wee line. I bet it is a lady…..
Comment by glenn — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Glenn (reply #28): Everything you write seems accurate to me. It is beyond belief that we as a society should tolerate the situation.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 5:06 pm
#28.
Glen,
Finely written words!
Aptly spelling out cogently the position of NZ and other western nation’s menfolk.
Don’t worry nor apologise thinking it’s off topic.
Everything you so skillfully explain related very strongly to the need for a male pill.
There are some who trot out the trite arguments that ‘men can’t be trusted to take an oral or patch type contraceptive regularly enough. Others even glibly say men don’t have the incentives to take the male pill so it’ll be a commercial flop!
Clearly when the current situation is that men are terrible vulnerable and often exploited by being reproductively hijacked they will recognise and act on the enormous incentives to go on and stay on the pill.
The tide wil then turn a full 180 degrees as it will only be at men’s bequest that women become pregnant. Men’s reporoductive value in the marketplace called ‘relationships’ which is at something of an all time low will soar.
Indeed I get the sense that as with the female sexual revolution where we didn’t see the half of what was it’s social impact, such will be the same with the male pill.
It is for that reason that I am so sociologically fascinated by it’s imminent arrival and welcome others comments.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Thank you Skeptik.
I absolutely agree that an effective male pill will eventually turn the tide.
But, if you will excuse the pun, it will not address the ‘root’ of the problem.
That will only happen with a sustained effort which needs to be generated from a groundswell of disaffected blokes that see the need for a change in their treatment. One of the most important things to remember though, is this:- Do not suffer or allow any man to lay the blame at the feet of women. They are, after all, our mates, in the biological sense as much as any other. It is the system that provides them with the encouragement and wherewithall to treat men as they are treated, and that is where our focus should be – on the system, and not on our mates.
Comment by glenn — Fri 1st May 2009 @ 11:36 pm
I agree the focus has to be on changing the system.
However I also think ‘the sytem’ is something we’re all part of – mates included.
The change therefore has to come from all.
Therefore under current gynocracy I would be very circumspect about any
woman I chose as a mate.
I’ve met many women in NZ who in private make sympathetic noises
about the need for reforms to laws that currently favor women over men.
However I’ve met VERY FEW women in NZ who actually are prepared to DO ANYTHING to change that situation. They therefore seem very hypocritical and selfish.
So I urge aware men to only choose women who are real mates not just those who only talk the talk and continue to milk the system and (mostly but not exclusively) thier taxpaying menfolk.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 2nd May 2009 @ 5:23 am
Again Skeptik, we generally agree –
We ARE all in this together, and it is absolutely appropriate, as it has always been, to be very very careful about selecting a mate.
The fact that you have identified VERY FEW women prepared to do ANYTHING about it illustrates exactly MY point. Why would they want to? The do not have the incentive because the law is loaded in their favour. I want to know where all the MEN are, that we need to advocate for. I am beginning to think, that if we cannot overcome our own stupid complacency, perhaps we deserve our situation.
Comment by glenn — Sat 2nd May 2009 @ 10:06 am
I am a little concerned that all thinking is that women deliberately ensnare men.
it is just as important for a man to make sure he is sexually safe, both for disease and pregnancy.
Most seem to be Ex- wives that now have new husbands etc and don’t have a sense of fair play.
My Ex was collecting benefits, getting money from me and living with her employed partner, go figure.
IRD refuses to listen to sense also, it is supposedly a proportion of wages for maintenance but ALL my increases disappear.
When I rang and queried this, blanket answer was “thats what our calculator says”.
I said it can not be right as it is meant to be a percentage, ” well thats what our calculator
says”.
Access has always been an issue too, after 8 yrs of crap, we give up.
sick of going backwards and forwards to family court.
advice from counsellor is let them come when they are grown, gee thanks.
I guess its only another 2 yrs for my daughter and 5 yrs for my son.
Asked Ex wife what she was spending money on (clothing was rags on my kids) and was told shoes, Imelda Marcos doesn’t spend $42k on bloody shoes lol.
Comment by Jesson — Mon 4th May 2009 @ 11:57 am
Jesson,
We should ALL be concerned about that, men and women alike. I know that your concern is about the attitude – ‘all women want to ensnare men,’ which is clearly not healthy, but, I have known of numerous single women over the years, who, as their youngest child approaches school age, see their best option as another pregnancy. The alternative would be to enter the work force, which for many would be their first foray into paid employment and it is too scary. Many of these women have a different father for each child. They are only responding to, and making the most of what is available through the law. I say, do not blame the women for using the system to shape their lifestyle, blame the system that engineered this state of affairs, and make the noise necessary to change it. Of course though, this is only one of the many ‘effects.’ All of the effects need to be bundled into a ‘package’ and presented along with a more workable alternative. But, a handful of voices is not going to make a difference.
Comment by glenn — Mon 4th May 2009 @ 1:01 pm
“But, a handful of voices is not going to make a difference”.
True, but millions of men on the male pill will………in ways we can only imagine.
Hhat about when legions of young men take a look at the legislation and social attitudes which are misandric left right and centre and decide quietly, personally and privately to opt out of impregnating women until a fairer system is put in place which honors men.
Just imagine the millions of hysterical barren women that will ensue.
Those women left unfulfilled because they can’t find a man to impregnate them are going to be very pissed off with the curent feminist laws which are abusing men through giving them NO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS WHATSOEVER…..thus encouraging men to effectively go on a fertility strike……..
Of course I can just imagine the smart arse fems amongst us thinking that they’l be OK because they’ll get artificailly inseminated in a clinic somewhere and become solo moms.
The trouble with that little pipedream is that at present there aren’t near enough sperm donors to meet demand (for instance here), let alone when millions upon millions of men opt out of the father trap created by greedy fem types who just ab/use men as wallets.
and forgive the smug pun…….it’s coming……..soon…….
tick..tick…tick…..
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 4th May 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Skeptic #35
What do you mean by honors them?
Is anyone in NZ honoring anyone? Just looking for an example to understand?
Comment by julie — Mon 4th May 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Julie,
I’m sure you know from the many postings you’ve posted or others have posted and you’ve read and supported with replies that you know exactly as well as I what kind of fairness needs to be put in place to honor NZ men.
I don’t understand nor have the patience right now for you playing the simpleton.
However if you insist on playing that game I’ll simply dig out some examples of such and repost them to prove the point.
Here’s one of yours just for starters.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 1:01 am
Also Julie,
your comment “is anyone in NZ honoring anyone?” seems to me both inane and
extraordinarily over the top cynicism.
Are you burnt out?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 1:04 am
Ok, OK, Skeptic. But just to let you know, … “I am not trying to be a simpleton, I am sick with the flu.” (that’s the truth)
Comment by julie — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 1:55 am
I am probably past burnt out. But I want the IMD to happen. Just waiting for a few personal things to pass by before I get right on it.
Comment by julie — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 1:57 am
If a man causes a death accidentally, it is about a two year sentence, maybe.
If a man causes a death deliberately, it might be ten years.
If a man causes a life, accidentally or intentionally, it is a nineteen year sentence.
Go figure……
Ok, the analogy might be a little O.T.T. especially if these new lives are wanted by the men etc, as in truth, they mostly are, but you get my point.
I find it hard to believe that, with the imminent advent of the male pill, men will flock to use it. I think most of them are too lazy, and too smug, which is largely why we suffer the Laws we do. And that needs to change as much as the laws do. And it is men that need to do the work to change it. But men tend not to be wired to do the social networking thing, as women are. There is no Adrenalin reward in it. It is a fundamental difference which needs to be somehow addressed. I have no clue how to wake men up, but we will be stuck here, I believe, until we do.
Comment by glenn — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 10:04 am
I visited a mate who’s dog was lying on the front deck. There was a large
rusty nail sticking in to the dogs haunches as he lay there.
I asked my mate “why doesn’t your dog move?”
He explained “because it’s not hurting him enough yet”.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 10:23 am
Haha… exactly. I like it!!
Comment by glenn — Tue 5th May 2009 @ 10:41 am
Yes Glenn there are career birthers, I agree.
The system allows for it, as a solo mother with one child you can receive more than you can in employment at minimum wage.
No wait more than middle class wage, I know personally of one solo mother that was earning my wages with one child.
They know the system and get grants for everything.
What bothers me mainly is the system is weighted against rational situations.
Our children are worth $18 and my two others are worth over $130 each?
The fight goes on and this system should be on base salary, so at least if I work harder for my family, we get to have some of it.
The entrapment you speak of though is as much the male fault as the woman.
Pregnancy isn’t fatal, aid’s amd diseases are.
Male pill won’t safe guard against that.
Comment by Jesson — Wed 6th May 2009 @ 9:31 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/6673555/IRD-on-overseas-students-scent-for-loans.
This relates to student loans.
Comment by Down Under — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 3:02 pm
reply to Jesson#54
And don’t forget many of these so called ‘solo’ mothers have a live in boyfriend and in many cases they are also supporting them financially ,and if any prying eyes come forth from any government department such as ‘WINZ’ …
There explanation is ‘Oh he just a ‘friend’ who as fallen on hard times and I just helping them out for a short period of time’…’Yeah right’…I see another Tui advert billboard coming …..
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 3:38 pm
reply to Jesson#43
Excellent posts you written so far Jesson…All what I can say ‘been there, done that’ and at long last… I have left this feminist hell hole…And I vow upon my blood to never return this paradise of the ‘The republic of social engineered feminist N.Z’
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 4:09 pm
john dutchie.im confident in thanking the correct person for once gifting me a 3 mth gold membership of a nz website.im pleased to be able to eventually thank you kind sir
Comment by ford — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 4:20 pm
All good
…No worries Ford,it was my humble pleasure good sir and I hope you are still ‘stirring the pot’ on that particular website,especially one vile female snake that abodes there…L.O.L
Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 5:18 pm
Bardzo interesujÄ…ce źródÅ‚o. Jestem bardzo zainteresowana co bÄ™dzie można znaleźć w kolejnych postach. Szczerze pozdrawiam autorów – Beata
Comment by sex filmy — Sat 21st April 2012 @ 7:00 am