The injustice of justice in NZ
This is for people who cannot understand why they are getting poorer. They think they voted for the social justice government of New Zealand. That’s those who rob from the rich and steel from the poor. Now read that again — I didn’t say rob from the rich and give to the poor. The NZ Justice Department has been turned into the biggest collection agency in NZ. Government uses (and it is usury) this department to indebt and deceitfully tax those already living in abject poverty. Operations like the speed campaign create massive fines and debt, which is then inflated with penalties which has left thousands of people living in the confines of protected income. This idea of protected income sounds like the noble steed of righteous government — We will never take more than 60% of your net income. This threshold operates in the same fashion tax bracket creep does. An increase in low wage incomes deflates the value of the previous 60% and increases the government’s value of recovery. Child support operates in the same fashion. Once anyone reaches the threshold of protected income they have no option but to gradually descend into increasing poverty. I saw a recent figure of 3 billion quoted for the effect of tax bracket creep in the last 12 month period, and I haven’t worked it out but I wager you a pound to a pinch of snuff that more money was stolen from the poor through the deterioration of the 60% threshold than was robbed from the rich through bracket creep. Beyond this, (as you have published Scrap) Kiwisaver will effectively reduce the 60% threshold to at least 56%. This is a very insidious form of bracket creep as it moves to financial slavery by child support. (child support is number one on the list of state induced debts in collection order)
There is this false presumption floating around that this Government is good because it redistributes wealth, takes from the rich and gives to the poor. In this context the nature of gullibility is such that the rich think their money is going to the poor and the poor don’t realize they are having more taken from them than they are getting given.
The land of nzers (New Zealanders) or the land of snzers (snoozers).
Bevan, this is a fair post. I say fair becuse you are right in that the poor don’t move ahead. But in saying that I know there are loop holes for the poor to use regarding fines and the like such as electricity etc. You can have a judge dismiss (remittal, i think it is called) your fines and you can have the electricity department pay for your electricity through money they give to a charity trust but child support stands on its own. There is no way out of that. No matter how poor you are. And by poor I mean the “MEANS TEST” being your income minus your outgoings. It is the only thing i know of that doesn’t care.
But in saying that also, can’t you get the fines dismissed?
What is that all about? Straight out greed from the Government. Money they are spending without receiving.
Comment by julie — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 8:42 pm
This is the first time I have looked at this site and I can sure understand the way you all feel.The same thing is happening to my husband and myself.It suited his greedy ex-wife just fine while my husband was paying her more than he had to in a mutual agreement,but when he got a job promotion,that wasn’t enough for her anymore.It just happened to coincide with when we got married and bought a house.Funny that.This woman would walk over the dead to satisfy her greed.I have calculated that the money she rakes in now is $45-000 in her hand each year while our outgoings now exceed our income and she can’t even afford a couple of dollars each week so her kids can join a sporting group.She thinks the money that is being collected is for herself,for more chocolate biscuits so she can get even more obese.She is doing the same to her children.the nine year old weighs over 50 kilos.I can’t work cos I have a disability and even if I could,I would be expected to contrbute towards even more mellow puffs.It’s time that this government looked at these issues more realistically.Although we are all in favour of supporting our own children,surely fathers have a right to a life too.If we had to split because of this and I had to go on a benefit,the government would then have to support me.
Comment by caz — Sun 1st July 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Please excuse the spelling mistakes:
Tena koe British High Commissioner to New Zealand,
I request a reply to my letter, if possible before the 12 th July 2007.
The letter to which I reply enclosed details the arrest and imprisonment of Michael Cox. Michael Cox is a United Kingdpm lawyer who has rejected paying child support for a period of many years where he has directly applied his contribution in the physical care of his children for 50%. He is being asked unreasonably to contribute more financially to the children’s care with considerable mandatory payments that are made to government, a proportion of which are then forwarded on to the children’s mother. I believe the children’s mother is objecting to the imprisonment.
Such a condition is unreasonable. It is a direct exploitation of children most especially where Michael’s children are unhappy with the actions allegedly protecting their rights and securities.
As I am in New Zealand it is difficult for me to share in the protests of Michael’s supporters. It is my intention to exercise my right to protest in this country and I write this letter as a preliminary advice that I intend to exercise this right outside the Commission, once I have receievd your reply and, of course, unless your reply can shed a different light onto my conclusions of dysfunctional culpability to an inherent bureaucratic evil which appears so manifest that bureaucrats demand it will be ignored.
My first question then, where I am unfamiliar with your UK laws is: (1)
How is it fair and protective of the fathers’ children to charge him any child support over and above the expense expended caring physically and financially for his children 50%?
I seldom use the word evil and I dislike its implications and the level of fervour created for its demand by allegation, yet on this occassion I refer to a term of negotiation used by the Crown in negotiations with the native peoples of New Zealand when calculating terms of reposinsibilty for the joining parties in our preamble. Her Majesty scribed the term “evil consequences” as a means to recognise the unavoidability absense of law. Among other means and some more forthright, to draw to your attention that the provisions of conviction and sentence of Michael Cox are unreasonable within the frame of good faith and honour I wish to draw to your attention your British obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 18 (2) 2.
“For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children”
Asking my second question:
(2) How did putting Michael into prison benefit this obligation to convention and Michael’s children against the benefit of recognising the State’s unreasable absence to be fair: thereby securing the document’s natural principles?
While I am familiar that my question can be sidestepped by the bureaucracies intention to institute and apply law as inconsistent to the convention, I ask this in the same light as I intent to challenge my own government for in such more definable and describable unlawful practices and their affiliation with human exhaustion and frustration causing the need for individuals to take the law into their own hands.
I appreciate where the number of men protesting against the absolute abuse and outright damage to which they and their sons and daughters are presently exposed may not excite you to think that the bureaucratic practices entertained by the many administrations you protect could in any way incite the kinds of conditions that contributed to the revolution in England in 1689. Yet communication technology is different in this modern era and the truth behind the deceiptful practices that are presently being manipulated, for me at least, is not difficult to describe.
So I request an answer please to my two questions, before the date given, so that my right to protest the conditions of adverse treatment and the abuse of Michael Cox and his family – present and separated be justified.
Most respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Steve Bayliss wrote:
http://news. bbc.co.uk/ player/nol/ newsid_6240000/ newsid_6243200/ 6243276.stm? bw=nb&mp= rm
http://fathers- 4-justice. org/f4j// index.php? option=com_ content&task= view&id=21& Itemid=42
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages
To visit our main website, go to:
http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
To visit our group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News/
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 5th July 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Hi Caz,
I am so sorry for not noticing your comments. Welcome to the group. This group is not just for men. The men’s movement is very special that way.
Comment by julie — Thu 5th July 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Pleased to hear the great news Steve! & (Matt).
However, I still want my response from the Commission: Just because (if)judges begin to see the light to better days and ways, it cannot yet excuse any executive in past or for intention.
I was trying to think of how to protest outside the Commission in a new way and came up with an idea that might be useful – (for either to you lot, or us down here). I no longer need to do it outside the British High Commission after Michael Cox’s release.
I had planned to run a full and mock trial outside the Commission. We have a legendary guy here from Auckland called Jim Bagnall who acts up as Judge Dread when dressing down in wig and gown. Search menz.org.nz.
I had a excellent candidate to play Michael Cox lined up and ready – but no matter – these things are given to try us all. It’s not a bad idea if for another rainy day.
Congratulations and good on your lot Steve – the very best of British from us lot here down under.
Benjamin Easton.
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Steve Bayliss wrote:
FULL REPORT TO FOLLOW
I am delighted to announce that Michael Cox was freed today after an
appeal hearing.
Coxy was represented by our old friend David Burrows who presented
the case to Mr Justice Gray in the high court.
The judge – get this – said he had read all about the case in the
Times, the media and on the F4J site!!!
He thought it was a disgrace that Cox had been committed and that he
should be given unconditional bail with a view to quashing the
conviction.
Burrows, in total shock, referred the Judge to the legislation to
which the Judge spent a few seconds scanning before saying he had
seen everything relevant. When asked whether he had the power to do
this the Judge said, ‘I am a high court Judge – I can do what I like!’
This has been a triumph for F4J, for our media campaign and for
everybody who made it to Bristol – a heartfelt thanks to you all from
us and Michael, kids and family.
Please, for the moment, leave him in peace as I am arranging PR etc –
a press release will follow tomorrow.
Well done to you all. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with
you.
Matt
PS Well done Mark and Lisa Harris on Richard & Judy also!!!
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 6th July 2007 @ 1:46 pm
So Julie, this special men’s movement – is that the one for men and the women they can tolerate, or is it for women and the men they can tolerate, (and you know what I’m talking about)
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sat 7th July 2007 @ 10:52 am
Funny, funny Bevan. Men (and women whose men are suffering). Is that better?
Comment by julie — Sat 7th July 2007 @ 11:32 am
So in these posts and making them consistent to the post by Bevan answering Cas, justifiably I believe, where a and the common denominator in what Bevan is saying is that there is a collective inconsistency in political and social administration that escapes a (human if not) national psyche where our sexuality left exposed and conditioned to exploitation kills an as yet non statistic as supported percentage of our populace. Now this is comprehensively obvious and its expression in the obvious is that sometimes people die from circumstances that are all 1: beyond that person’s control, 2: outside the practical statistics that condition our society, so to respond to a terminal end resulting from that loss and 3: within the scope given to political responsibility to avoid such events. These conditions end conclusively in (1) either a function of incompetance, (2) an overburden of responsibility on those accepting (and paid) to administer on behalf of the public and / or (3) a direct exploitation of any adverse condition as entry for any minority so to exploit the paramountcy of [its] detail to dysfunction.
This is and can be boiled down with any other similar example, yet Bevan has made his view as relative to gender issues quite distinct and as I agree, if we look logistically of human societies directly within the basic principles of our existance (forget about race, region or religion for teh moment, let alone reading arithmatic or writing).
He has claimed signigficant ground by detailing that the result of the adverse condition about which he complains ends in public death. The dead group are being marginalised if not in teh extreme (to which I subscribe in agreement – eradicated). The shock of this will be overpowering to most: most especially those who run the systems, so don’t any feel you have to subscribe at this point but additionally it is reasonable to adice you not allow your aversion to extremes demand that you stop reading.
So the question first to ask is: Is he right? Linking this to the Kiwisaver debate and how [it] is a capitalisation in this condition that Bevan claims is highly adverse and in gender is disaffecting (to the point of unnecessary deaths) a significant proportion of the population and he asks Cas what she will do about it, parallel my dilemma and fundamental principle to be contributing on this site into the same question. Who is doing what? The answer from those who live in their power relegated state of public mass from those who would attempt to organise against any disaffection that is mandatory if a corrupted condition is to be the predominant force is: Not much.
So in reply to these comments I come back to the simple issue of the man and woman, woman and man debate and claim that both Bevan and Julie are there or there abouts, but have to sidetrack the paramount issue in order to maintain invulnerability against the power that overrides and is soon set to preside for its own invulnerability from criticism and disaffection.
IN order for homosexual people to escape discrimination they had to demand by discrimination that this condition in their naturality was accepted by mainstream. The discrimination point may have been reasonable to expose as fair, yet for those hetrosexual it is difficult to fathom primarily not knowing why even when the answer is blatant and simple. This confusion was, has been and is exploited using the dominance of phobic paranoia as an instrument to disempower the group [any] challenging the authority of equality as claimed first by women and secondly by homosexuality. The simplicity of reply that hasn’t been exploited by those threatened for teh advance of homosexuality is that under our laws of discrimination it is wrong to discriminate against sex and in order for the homosexual group to have any affect they had to establish themselves as equal recognising that they are a gender of their own. This is obvious and reflected in our laws. It is striaght forward. Yet is it? In the first place it is wrong. IN order to establish equality homosexual people had to discriminate against men and women saying that they might not actually be (quite) right. In fact the hetrosexuals might be a bit queer and not really recognise what being human is, overlooking the word natuaral. This discrimination presumes in the word natural accepting that homosexuality is natural and that hetrosexualism is not. This is where the debate becomes intricate. The demand of naturality is a licence to breed. This creates a new argument that has been exploited recently and introduces the value and point of the events on June 10th and 11th 2003 as I describe them. It is about giving birth to children. This idea that homosexuality has earned itself the licence to breed because it is a natural condition, so having to discriminate in gender to achieve such status requires the (now) assumption that discrimination against children is fine because it is all natural. This status presumes that indirect discrimination as implimented against fatherhood with the COC Act 2004 isn’t unlawful where quite clearly it is, or that overwriting the United Nations Convention on teh Rights of the Child – let alone the rights of association, is as well acceptable. Why is it acceptable?” Because those in power say it is. How can this be fair and just? Because the public are rejecting their obligation to protect the child from harm. How does this compliment Bevan’s observations? Because what I am saying is absolutely true and it is beyond redress where it is substantiated in correspondence with government as well as blatantly clear in fact.
The point is is that Bevan may well be right. While it is that he isn’t supported by the mass as their champion in this the mass will suffer and men will continue to be slowly eradicated from naturality and the evolution of technology will bring the mass to accept that they are a species no longer needed. And if not we will just become “naturally” extinct. How can you support Bevan? Ask him – and then back him.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 7th July 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Bevan,
as you are aware, I am putting in two complaints with the Ombudsman, and I think I’ll complete this by the end of the week.
The first was intended only to be an inquiry to test their independence by preemptive meeting. I had planned and organised to have two members of the public come with me, 1 a potential organiser within the anarchists circle and the second a representative from the Peoples’ cantre of Wellington.
I’ve upgraded my inquiry into the full complaint challenging the Human Rights Commission for thier handling of (1) the men’s rights complaints and (2) subverting to excuse unlawful discrimination by faulted authority of office.
In this I want to use your complaint on the COC Bill as an example. I want to compare it to a recent case where a female worker complained she was discriminated against and the HR Tribunal agreed with her. She said on Radio NZ National that she didn’t have to do anyhting – she just complained. In your case you were asked to quote the legislation clause for clause identifying the discrimination you could see was being applied by the legislature and being disquised by and through the executive. Lawyer David Peirse in reply said he needed to know which area discriminated against the child to have an association with their natural father before he could approach Crown Law. The HRC reply that they don’t have to do any investigation as it is not their function is really quite ridiculous and as you may be aware I challenge anyway where as an independent body they have extraordinary powers to employ to cope with any corruption by a Prime Minister or administration. So while I haven’t had direct contact with you on this, I hope you will consider that your complaint on the legislation is not only its last remaining challenge but that it for how it has been handled is significant tio disassemble the corruption of the present system. Your call, not mine, I’ll just fire it up.
I am not happy with the responses of the Ombusdmen’s Office so far and there is every indication that they are preparing to function as yet another extension of butreaucratic corruption which we (sic) have challenged and is as proved as it can be proved.
The inactivity in urgency of the Ombudsman won’t stop me from tabling the complaints it just means that the end decision of the Ombudsman will have to navigate my allegations. To do this without concluding with the facts as they have already been proved: Being; 1: MW’s responsibility to the office of the AG and the AG’s responsibility in office to due process and manner and form beyond the excuses of [any] bureaucracy where directly brought to account before the public – as the complaints will do. 2: That when this was presented to the judiciary (as have the fourth estate) they have smudged it into their justifications, in the end blatantly damaging my children from the lack of the administration to protect them from rampant and declared alienation.
I suppose in the case of the fourth estate I have a little bit of sympathy where a television camera big enough to screen the corruption of this truth hasn’t yet been invented. Not really – apparently Willie Jackson’s producer is having a civil union this weekend so I think the truth is a little more that teh media are deeply in bed with the corrupt practices which have gone by.
Because I don’t trust anyone, I’ll publish the complaints over this site. Please think about what I have said and how ready you are to stand behind the complaint you have already made. The only people who are going to protect the children from the corruption that is now both illegal as it is manifest are the dads. Not only is it reasonable to expect this commitment from fathers because of their responsibility to parenting but because it is they whose function or lack thereof is the primary focus of the exploitation.
Cheers,
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Press Release
6th July 2007
Breaking News: CSA Barrister Freed After F4J Campaign
Fathers 4 Justice barrister Michael Cox was dramatically freed last
night
after an appeal hearing yesterday in Bristol.
Mr Cox from Hythe, near Southampton, was committed to prison last week
after
failing to comply with an order to repay the Child Support Agency some
£42,000 in unpaid child support.
Cox had argued that he looked after his children 50% of the time and
was
therefore not liable for the other half. His ex-wife had also written
to the
court asking that he was not committed to prison as it would force her
out
of work and onto benefits.
On Monday, Cox had been moved into solitary confinement following a
demonstration at Horfield Prison in Bristol last Sunday by campaign
group
Fathers 4 Justice who had also set up a Owww.freemichaelcox.com¹ web
site
with the help of his three boys.
Sitting in Bristol Crown Court, Mr Justice Gray gave Cox unconditional
bail
with a view to quashing the committal decision after hearing
representations
from Mr Cox¹s legal representative, Bristol solicitor David Burrows.
In an unusual move, the Judge said that he had been made aware of the
case
through the high-profile media campaign led by Fathers 4 Justice.
Said Michael Cox late last night, OThe tragic irony of this case is
that the
only time I have been unable to care for my children is when the state
removed me from them. I have suffered the trauma of being locked in
solitary
confinement for no good reason and naturally I have been anxious about
the
welfare of my children and family.¹
OToday¹s decision is a victory for common-sense and equality. Yet again
the
CSA has been shown to be spectacularly incompetent in pursuing this
malicious and wholly disproportionate prosecution. By making this stand
I
hope that my colleagues and I in Fathers 4 Justice have sounded the
alarm,
to warn parents that family law is in a state of national emergency.¹
Mr Cox said he was now planning on spending time with his boys and
family
over the next few days.
Fathers 4 Justice tonight said that they expressed their gratitude to
Mr
Justice Gray and Mr Burrows and were now supporting Mr Cox in making an
unprecedented appeal in the European Court of Human Rights over the
failure
of the government to divide benefits between two parents in shared
parenting
arrangements.
ENDS
ALL MEDIA ENQUIRIES AND BIDS MUST BE MADE DIRECTLY THROUGH FATHERS 4
JUSTICE
ON: 07795 547 374 AFTER 10.00AM TODAY
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 9th July 2007 @ 12:41 pm
It seems that the Ombudsmen don’t like the idea of my posting the complaint up on this website. I got this this morning. I’d already talked with Stephen Blackstock on the phone. From the nature of the letter it seems he has forgotten this conversation. LEVERAGE! if the menz movement doesn’t get into the scap the scrap will beat the menz movement as we have seen time and time again. Leverage: (everyone – apply it for pities sake) get outside yourselves folkes, make them work as they are supposed to and not lick the cream as they want.
I do not need to publish my complaint given that I have had this response, yet that does not mean that the complaint is not still open to publication.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton.
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Dear Mr Easton
I understand that you wis h to have a meeting to discuss your concerns. I am happy to facilitate that. On the face of it you are raising concerns about the Ministry of Social Development but it would be helpful to have your confirmation so we can be adequately prepared for the issues you wish to address.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Blackstock
Deputy Assistant Ombudsman
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 11th July 2007 @ 11:24 am
Benjamin,
Did the Ombudsman write this to you.
**Leverage: (everyone – apply it for pities sake) get outside yourselves folkes, make them work as they are supposed to and not lick the cream as they want.**
Comment by julie — Thu 12th July 2007 @ 7:50 am
Benjamin,
sorry. i hadn’t read the whole comment. But that sounds to have a meeting.
Comment by julie — Thu 12th July 2007 @ 9:40 am
I’ve written back to Stephen Blackstock, Deputy Assistant Ombudsman, and turned down the need for my as requested meeting. The point being, that I have made above is that he has already fobbed me off.
I had as I wrote in another submission above intended to bring with me two representatives – one a friend who I am presuming is richly accessible to the anarchist movement and would work effieciently to keep the NZ public honest to their views and another as invited (but not confirmed for SB’s failure to get back to me) from the Wellington People’s Centre. These two groups host a body of other organisations who are unhappy with the system and are prepared and capable in complaining about how we all are being treated, enslaved and exploited.
(Please not the comment on enslavement requires an elaboration to be justified to any wider context yet under affiliation to any truth to Scrap’s “child tax” claim; in this group it is subjectively strong).
My direct reply to SB is centred accurately. I have revoked for the present my need to walk between parliaments and stepped back as above from publishing my complaint on thhis site. I have done this because in order to maintain my emphasis and all credibility I have to stay within the strict grounds of the s.81 of the Crimes Act 61: sedition. This is why parliament want the sedition law removed from legislation. It is my effective, proper and water tight defence. Without it and once gone, parliament are under no further obligation to listen to me until I functionally break the law. (Which i can argue even though I have breached the protection order, where the Courts refuse to allow me the jurisdiction to argue that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 isn’t constituted law) I have not yet done. So you see – as much as any might not understand what I have said -I must keep to the realm of “good faith”.
This leads to why I didn’t carry on through with the protest outside former Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahoney’s house recently. As much as I don’t like the street protests they are the effect that we as a movement instituted that broke down the boundary protecting those in the family law industry to the protection of their oath free from fear or favour.
I believe we were right and have been justified to do what we have done.(Our brethren are dying at apparently one a week in suicides. Our brethren are miserable and don’t know how to escape the discrimination and bias they face where they and we all are informed overtly and covertly, subliminaly or proceeduraly that we are from the subclass – we are the deadbeats of society, we are the lost cause, we are the violent few, we are the difficult fathers).
I abandoned the protest because I said I would if respect was shown to the meeting before the Families Commission as carried out by Viv Roberts on the back of Mike Read and Craig Jackson – and a few others.
The respect was shown – not quite how I expected and in every fact in far greater manner than I could conclude prior to my demands. But it was shown. And my whole challenge is about honour and integrity: so, I cannot manipulate what I say and for my own legal security must stay controlled to the dividend of my intent. Not that that is all meant to mean very much but for one or two of the conditioned readers.
So no meeting. I will simply table my complaint next week. From what I have read so far my submission has the ability to dissapear into the realm of politics, which is what I advocate: which is why you should look to Bevan; which is why you should all stop tinking and get that crowd going. All the best Julie for the west Auckland seminar. I won’t be coming up for it but I wish you the very best – good on you for being so proactive!!!
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th July 2007 @ 11:46 am
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/gender-bias-in-government-men-hold-59-of-highest-paid-jobs/5XZVVZAWB7X63PIJH5GXMTNBBU/
From this posts title, and article title.
Cant read it due to paywall.
Title says it all.
All 3 top positions at the law Commission, are female.
Even the deputy executive is female.
Significant majority of staff as well.
Once upon a time lead by Mr Palmer.
Who after voting for a sex act, crime, crime against humanity.
Against young men, all men.
Famously said,”want rape prosecutions to be easier”.
The Governor General, female.
Prime Minister, female.
Minister of Police, female.
Top Judge, female.
Top Family Court Judge, female.
Minister for Women, Geez
I wonder if the reporter noticed that.
Yes, “got the Minister of Women, evidence”
“Now lets look at the Minister of Men, evidence”
What? an infinity % difference!
Why are these few, rare men.
Paid more?
Need to be paid lots.
To sell ones soul, to a new master.
…………
Error sorry.
Mr Little is Minister of Justice.
Then again.
He did a review of DV.
3 women, one man, panel, led by a female.
Man, a Lawyer for Child specialist.
“Want Child lawyers to be compulsory”
“Paid more as well”
And female lawyer, from an all women, only, law firm.
Who wanted to ban fathers, only.
From being present at interviews, with lawyers.
Psychologists, everybody, just ban men.
I suspect he is like the speaker.
So emasculated, that nobody, has bothered.
Outing, his sex life, or his toxic masculinity.
Even if they need to invent things.
………………
This will get them.
Of government spending.
What % of money, is payed to females, as wages, or salary vs to males.
Since, apart from a few high paid men.
All the rest of the money is going to predominantly women.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 1st May 2021 @ 7:52 am