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

Reply to UF Gender Affairs and voting

Filed under: General — UF @ 6:40 pm Thu 11th September 2008

Actually,  Scrap,  you have your facts wrong.

UnitedFuture policy is clear and on the website at  It would not keep the MWA as it is at all.

UnitedFuture would rename and refocus the MWA and split it, between a work programme to look at issues pertaining to women and an equal work programme to look at issues pertaining to men.

This is because the specific needs of both genders co-exist and can only be addressed by recognising the effects that any policy has on both men and women. 

It is also because UnitedFuture is about getting things done, not lobbying, and a move to completely scrap the MWA all together would be met with such opposition it would never get the numbers in the House to be achieved.  So UF tries to make small but significant steps…

It is effectively creating a mens affairs office to complement/offset the womens affairs office, but under an umbrella Ministry, as it makes sense as much of the research and studies undertaken are of interest and relevance to both genders – so sharing could occur for more robust research and advocacy.  but obviously not in all cases.

The Families Commission was created by UnitedFuture but was never under it’s control. 

However the new Commissioner is Jan Pryor is highly praised could see a new phase int eh commissions advocacy and research.  

Upcoming work includes a study into families after separation, the kids, the mums and the dads, and how to improve things – this was a request of UnitedFuture.

UnitedFuture is the only party (that has any chance at being in parliament) that has a Gender Affairs policy.

it includes:

Recognise that men and women are both perpetrators and victims and target family violence policy accordingly.

End gender discrimination, recognising that both women and men can face unwelcome discrimination.

Extend paid and unpaid parental leave to both parents.

Recognise the imperative for fathers to bond with their newborns by an extension of parental leave.

Support flexible working hours.

Change the law to a presumption of shared parenting in custody disputes as it is usually in the best interests of the child to continue his/her relationship with both parents.

This is on top of getting a DNA paternity testing bill on the order paper and having a shared parenting bill in the ballot.

It begs the question of why some commenters choose to attack the Party that most closely advocates policies that promote the rights of fathers and men.  Of course it doesn’t go as far as some of the extremes would like – but this is the reason they are still in parliament.

One could ask whether it makes more sense to give a vote to a party that has no hope of making it into parliament, in which case it will be distributed among the main parties, or voting for a party that will be back, and can and is changing things, albiet one step at a time. 

With only 2 MPs UnitedFuture cannot overhaul of the entire governmental system and environment, any more than a lobby group can.  But it is best and only chance that mens and fathers rights will be progressed in the next term.  the more MPs it gets, the more power and influence it has to make change.

Some policies such as shared care in the family court are critised because it doesn’t explicitly state that it should be 50/50.  This is politically naive criticism.

If the goal is to change things, to change the law, then you need the support of more than 50% of parliament.  UnitedFuture can try and put shared parenting on the agenda and get it voted upon – but the more strict one gets, the more oppostion we find.  Muriel Newman found this. 

Would you rather have shared care go thru, with both parents at least 40% of the time… or have a bill get voted down that said equal 50/50 care?

Once shared care goes ahead, amendments can occur to make things 50/50 if we get there, but it HAS TO PASS THE VOTE.

this is what many dont realise.  If you want things actually to change, it happens bit by bit and you take what you can get that helps.

Politics is the art of the achievable.  That is what UnitedFuture is doing.

Lobby groups can hold on to their strict ideals and oppose anything that doesnt meet their every demands.  That, with respect is what the Republicans are.

That is fine, but ultimately a complete waste of vote in an electoral sense.

Fathers and mens issues will be serves better off with an extra MP if it gets and extra 0.7% of the vote from men like you, than if the republicans get 0.7% and that vote is then redistributed among National and Labour and the Greens.

Think about it.


  1. and this from a party that agreed that two lesbians and a turkey baster constitute a family

    Comment by bruce dewar — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 7:09 pm

  2. Bruce and others,

    You comments are unnecessarily derogatory. The Families Commission decided that any definition of Family was tough and it needed to be very broad. I agree with the Families Commission and you that 2 women with a turkey baster and some semen from a willing (or unwilling) bloke is a family. Once a child is arriving it has to be a Family otherwise heaven help the child. Better 2 loving women parents than so many kids who have just one parent.
    Get out of your narrow preconceptions and think of the children. Kids don’t ask to be born and when they are they need every support we as a community can give them. That includes recognising even “weird” families.

    I think United Future has the best change policies for Families at this time. (I am talking of those parties with current representation in the parliament) They should be proud of what they have been able to implement given they have only 2 MP’s. At least they focus on Families and are broad enough to see fathers as important in most families. That is heaps better than Judith Collins view and her views will be National Party’s implementation agenda unless there is some coalition partners who think otherwise. Both main parties have a history of marginalising men.

    I can agree with what Scrap says that Dunne overseas Child Support with vicious collection enthusiasm but Judith Collins will be worse.

    Whoever has posted the original message I thank them for the information and if they wish to send me more to [email protected] I would be pleased to distribute it more widely.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 7:52 pm

  3. This is just a load of crap from United Future.
    99 times out of a hundred, it is men who are being hurt and screwed by child support issues.
    Why didn’t they try to do something before is what I want to know instead of appearing to be concerned about the plight of men now when it’s time for another election.
    Men who have been driven to just about take their own lives are not about to say now “OH yes we believe in you”
    Many have been forced to pay up to $400 a week for child support then when they get ill they find out that they are entitled to $153 a week while on a sickness benefit.IF it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
    Nothing is going to change.National is going to be in power soon and United Future will quickly forget their promises.

    Comment by rosie — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 8:39 pm

  4. UF you are doing a Winston Peters.

    The information in my post came from two independent sources who heard it first hand fom Judy Turner.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 8:50 pm

  5. There is little to think about.

    Peter Dunne, United Failure Leader, is Minister Responsible for Child Tax and has, supported by Judy Turners vote- enacted legislation that has created a more punitive and unfair child tax system.

    Vote for United Failure and you will get claytons shared care, i.e with Mum 60% of the time.

    DNA testing will be at via a Judge as gatekeeper.

    Child Tax – you can all see Dunnes Record – imagine him with Judith Collins (United Failure as a Party will sleep with any other party if it means a ministers role for Peter)

    Dont flush you vote down the Dunney.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 9:04 pm

  6. Allan,

    You said **Once a child is arriving it has to be a Family otherwise heaven help the child. Better 2 loving women parents than so many kids who have just one parent.**

    Are you declaring DAD unneccassary?

    Are you declaring 2 Mums is as good as a DAD and a MUM

    Are you declaring DADS redundant?

    Are you declaring Kids don’t need the input ONLY a DAD can offer?

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 9:43 pm

  7. Lobby groups can hold on to their strict ideals and oppose anything that doesnt meet their every demands. That, with respect is what the Republicans are.

    That is fine, but ultimately a complete waste of vote in an electoral sense.

    So a registered political party is a lobby group – now you really are as confused as Winston Peters.

    Its nice to see that you are so concerned about the Republicans that you spin the old “wasted vote” myth.

    One thing is sure the Republicans promote equal parental rights and responsibilities and fair and reasonable child support while Judy Turner supports the leader Peter Dunne as he screws over parents (mainly dads) as Minister Responsible for Child Tax.

    A vote for United Future is worse than a wasted vote, if you pay Child Tax its like voting for your own execution.
    Dont throw your vote down the Dunney

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 10:21 pm

  8. Re # 6
    Hi Jim,
    No I’m not declaring Dad unnecessary but I do know that both Mum and Dad can die and in that case the parent remaining has to provide all that is necessary.
    2 loving parents is always best for kids. Best is Mum and Dad but whatever 2 loving parents is good for kids.
    Whoever volunteers to fill a turkey baster may be declaring himself redundant.
    Sad for kid but his choice. I do know one gay guy who provided a sample and was real surprised to have different feeling after the child was on the way. Wonderful for the kid that the sperm donor found he also wanted to be a Dad. Mum has other ideas but we are working on that (child currently 9 months of age).
    I don’t think there is any input only a Dad can offer. I find granddads, uncles, godfathers, neighbours, Big Brothers, etc can offer fatherless kids heaps. I do think there is “male stuff” that is important for all kids. I also accept that knowing biological parents and your own identity is a real gift that all children benefit from. When parents die it is so sad for the kids. Those who decide to suicide rob their children of much and leave a hollow that is impossible to fill (and often real guilt for their kids).
    Jim I know you are a God fearing man as well. When kids do loose one or both parents I do trust that Heaven (God) will help the child and that is my fervent prayer when it happens that a parent is lost to a child.
    Thanks for your polite questions. Its nice to see you debating in a friendly fashion.
    Allan Harvey

    Comment by more accurately — Thu 11th September 2008 @ 11:21 pm

  9. Why didn’t they try to do something before is what I want to know instead of appearing to be concerned about the plight of men now when it’s time for another election.

    To be completely fair, Judy Turner for a few years now has consistently been releasing statements defending boys in education, men and health, criticising the family court system and the fact men get shafted..and has been about the only one who has said any of this.

    There is that DNA testing bill that she did as well that is a really good thing no matter how you look at it.

    Shes also been calling for govt and others to recognise domestic violence is not just a mens problem but womens too. So to say they are just starting now at the election is not giving credit where it’s due, no matter your opinion on United. just to be fair

    Comment by doug — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:01 am

  10. Re # 8

    I see almost all that you have said as weakening the relationship a Child has with BOTH Parents – Nice words but words of a sort that come from those intent on destroying Family – Charming but deadly – Onward and wary of your ilk – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:25 am

  11. Jim,
    Perhaps you need to decribe what you mean by Family?
    Start with Javen if you like.
    The days when Family meant Mum, Dad and kids with lots of Family support are unfortunately gone. The kids I teach about 50% come from non-nuclear arangements. If there is only one parent in their lives that is very sad. I totally agree that the best parent after seperation is Both parents.
    How does anything I say above weaken that relationship.
    Unfortunately your paranoia is showing again and you have again resorted to playing the man rather than debating the issues.

    Comment by more accurately — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:36 am

  12. The days of Mum, Dad and the Kids have been cleverly destroyed

    To accept the result of the destruction as the status quo is to drive Law and Social Policy further away from Mum, Dad and the Kids

    What destructive word smiting your last sentence be.

    The sentence shows clearly how deeply you have succumbed to Spin Doctored nonsense by those intent on destroying Mum, Dad and the Kids

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:49 am

  13. Jim,
    You have deliberately closed yourself off from your own child. You have told us all that he begged you to allow him to share his time with you. You refused him that.
    I may well accept that Mum, Dad and the Kids days are over (as you do as well). But I still have a very significant role in my own children’s lives.
    There is no clever word smithing there.
    Get off here, stop your destructive nonsense, walk your own talk.
    Get on with parenting Javen as best you are able. You were an Equal Hands On Parent. You have given that up Jim. No one else is to blame.
    Not spin doctors, not politicians. Look in the mirror man.
    Parenting children is the real work we do. That has to be our first task.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 8:03 am

  14. Doug,

    To be fair Judy Turner supports Peter Dunne as he screws dads over as Minister of Child Tax.

    Thats what United Failure have actually delivered in legislation,a more punitive Child Tax Regieme. Check the voting record.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 8:28 am

  15. Reg: If you want to join the People’s Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.
    Brian: I do!
    Reg: Oh yeah, how much?
    Brian: A lot!
    Reg: Right, you’re in.

    Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!
    [they all stab themselves]
    Suicide Squad Leader: That showed ’em, huh?

    Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?
    Reg: Fuck off! We’re the People’s Front of Judea
    REG:The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People’s Front.

    Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
    Attendee: Brought peace?
    Reg: Oh, peace – shut up!
    Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
    Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
    Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there’s one. But otherwise, we’re solid.

    “Reg, our glorious leader and founder of the P.F.J., will be coordinating consultant at the drain head, though he himself will not be taking part in any terrorist action, as he has a bad back.”

    “BRIAN: We mustn’t fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!

    EVERYONE: The Judean People’s Front?!

    BRIAN: No, no! The Romans! ”

    AND FINALLY ————————- >

    REG: They’ve bled us white, the bastards. They’ve taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers’ fathers.

    Comment by M Swash — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 10:51 am

  16. Allan,

    Your lack of attention to detail makes me suspect your ablity as a so called Sage

    Your mates in the LABOUR camp have blocked my HandsOnEqualParenting in all but time

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 11:51 am

  17. Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN

    the film pokes fun at politically revolutionary groups (LIKE FATHERS’ GROUPS – writer), who seem to share a common cause (in the film, they are all opposing the Roman occupation of Judea) but are in fact more interested in the easier task of being at odds with one another, constantly engaged in futile disputes about which group has the most charisma, infamy and “ideological purity”. They harangue their ‘rivals’ with cries of “splitters”. Examples include; The Judean People’s Front, The Peoples’ Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People’s Front and the Popular Front of Judea

    Comment by M Swash — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:04 pm

  18. What I would like to know is why women who are still a numerical minority in Parliament have been so successful in getting male MP’s to vote for feminist causes. It ought to be a piece of cake to vote the MWA out of existence. It is time men acted as brothers. We need a strong brotherhood to oppose the sisterhood. I sometimes wonder whether there is a lack of ‘alpha’ males in NZ. Maybe they all end up overseas. We should not try to appease the feminists. Feminisation of NZ society has been disasterous for social cohesion. Our society is simply falling apart and a proper analysis would have to lay most of the blame at feminism. Anybody who can remember back to the 50’s will remember a time when crime was virtually non-existant, and divorce was extremely rare. In fact you could not file for divorce unless you had grounds to do so, such as adultery.

    Comment by Eric — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:15 pm

  19. Read
    Legalising Misandry From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young Published 2006 by McGill-Queens University Press.
    If you live in Wel;lington you can borrow my copy. 650 pages.
    They have a second volume which is about how the m,edia have perpetuated things even further. I don’t own a copy of that one.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 12th September 2008 @ 12:40 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