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

Poor Women

Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts,Men's Health — Downunder @ 4:43 pm Sun 12th August 2007

Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan agrees women should educate themselves and start saving for retirement. “A man is not a financial plan,” she says.

Auckland University economics lecturer Susan St John says linking a tax credit only to paid work cheapens the importance of caregiving.

“Once you start to reward work and tie saving incentives to work, then you are devaluing caregiving.”

St John also suggests that women, who are more likely to be caregivers, are valued (by the scheme) only if they are working.

“We need to be clear as a society that caregiving is actually work.”

But basic calculators provided on KiwiSaver websites don’t take into account the years women are likely to spend out of fulltime work – meaning,

You thought marriage was safe – here comes child support payments for the

unseparated men.


  1. Yes Bevan,
    This goes to show that women want it both ways.
    No matter how it is, MEN will pay for this.
    I can’t help but think that the article on Stuff yesterday about how women will be dis-advantaged by Kiwi-Saver sounds like so much hocum, when men work longer hours and die younger.
    Well, a man might not be a financial plan, but the women of this country need to be told of this fact.
    But we are paying for the DPB in our taxes aren’t we.

    Comment by MikeT — Sun 12th August 2007 @ 7:23 pm

  2. BTW,
    Did anyone see the crap on Stuff yesterday about how apparently there are not enough women in senior positions in the Universities these days?.
    As if we need more feminists in the system ruling the roost.
    Do they want to fill the Uni’s up with Womens Studies groups and the like?.
    I say cut thier funding, let them get out and have a sausage sizzle to raise the cash.

    Comment by MikeT — Sun 12th August 2007 @ 7:29 pm

  3. The kettle is on the boil and about to spill over and burn the feminazi whores like Clark ,dykeson, dalzeel, kingy, and Braford as these feminazi whores are strangling New Zealand with mad law !!

    Comment by dad4justice — Mon 13th August 2007 @ 7:49 am

  4. National not on 53pc support – PM
    Prime Minister Helen Clark says she does not believe National’s support is at 53 per cent.

    Should be PM in denial, cannot understand why the country does not want her anymore.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 13th August 2007 @ 11:08 am

  5. Hear! Hear!

    It’s about time ALL men were made to suffer the same FASCIST treatment that Sue-the-Slapper Bradford, The ANTI-Clark, Annette-I’m-King-and-I-Don’t-Give-a-f**k, Peter the-Dunce-Dunny-Boy, Judith Goebells (aka Collins) and Chris Take-It-Up-the-Khyber-Pass-Carter have been handing out to the rest of us for decades.

    Comment by Ethos — Mon 13th August 2007 @ 12:48 pm

  6. I reiterate an earlier comment:
    Men! Sign up to Kiwi Saver. Do it. We should all be saving for our retirements.
    But the day you enter into a relationship, CEASE all contributions to your fund. ALWAYS keep the fund-to-date seperate from matrimonial property. Do not contribute to it in any way, whilst you are in the relationship (if you must continue to save whilst in a relationship, find another vehicle / fund for your matrimonial-based savings, but keep them compkletely seperate from pre-matrimonial savings.
    That way, when the ievitable happens, only superannuation savings amassed whilst in the relationship can be considered for matrimonial property.

    The especially astute co-habitant will ensure the matrimonial savings are in a joint fund, and that you BOTH contribute exactly and precisely equally, since that is the probably proportion you will ultimately exit with.


    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 14th August 2007 @ 6:50 pm

  7. Peter and Ethos,

    There is something you both seem intent on forgetting. The anger that you are generating with your posts is unwarranted. You make it worse for us all if we are to take in truth the pendulum and secure it to gravity.

    These women in power are not whores. They are flesh and blood. They are advancing their professional carreers on the back of an agenda that has been advanced improperly and illegally.

    What more do you want? If you want more then you are damaging everyone by demanding that such anger is justified. It is not. You show yourselves to be brutal – which is the last thing necessary if we are all collectively to achieve the ends which individuals like you Peter have done so much work to effect.

    Just stop it. Please. Stop being the kind of people that demand systems are put into place to protect society from unbalanced views of hatred. Then, together, we will all succeed and what you want to achieve – (is this the protection of fatherhood) will be accessible.

    If you don’t calm down you will damage the future for us all. We can get there without such unrequired bouts of anger.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 11:03 am

  8. These comments by Susan St John are another example of the deep flaws in socialist thinking.

    “Once you start to reward work and tie saving incentives to work, then you are devaluing caregiving.”

    Saving schemes are not tied to work they are tied to income. Nobody ever suggested saving schemes were tied to work. In the real world wealth matters. In the real world some people earn $17 an hour and some people earn $60 an hour. This is true even in contemporary communist countries. If Susan St John doesn’t like it she is free to move to North Korea. Nobody is stopping her. We might even fund raise to get her a one way ticket.

    This is a typical feminist strategy.
    Start with a fact and bend it all out of shape so you can justify your position.

    This is supposed to be an intelligent person. An economics lecturer of all things! Apparently you don’t need to have a comprehension of what income is to be a female economics lecturer. Apparently when pushing feminist, socialist agendas it is perfectly OK to be delusional.

    Shit it is real hard work for me to be a student. Obviously the tax payer should be not only subsidising my education but should also be paying into a savings scheme for me. I mean if you don’t, that just shows you don’t value education in this country.

    Also it is hard work being in jail with nothing to do all day. The tax payer should cough up for criminals too – otherwise they are not valuing justice.

    And another thing, it is not easy being a child. There is lots of work involved in learning about the world. If the tax payer doesn’t pay for children’s savings then it is just another demonstration that children are not valued in this country.

    Oh and another thing – my computer has to work very hard. The tax payer should be paying into a fund to get it replaced.

    Oh and another thing – I work hard all day but I can’t afford a car. The tax payer should by me a car. After all the tax payer has one.

    Comment by Dave — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 7:03 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