How Can This Be Right
My brother is in the process of a separation and divorce where his wife of almost ten years has had an affair and called time on their marriage and taken the five children. This occurred almost a month ago and since then he has been going through an absolute nightmare. His wife took the option to leave as her new boyfriend had set up house for her. She took what she thought she wanted and moved out. However since that time she has been returning to my brother’s house whenever to take more items and basically whatever she wanted. Despite telling my brother to change the locks and prevent her from doing this he has kept things the same. This all came to a head over the weekend when she turned up to collect some more stuff and my brother refused to let her in to the bedrooms and in the end a physical confrontation occurred unfortunately in front of the children. In desperation to try and get her out of the house my brother called the police who promptly showed up but then sided with her saying that my brother had assaulted her when in fact all he had done was restrain her from entering his private domain. The police then made my brother stand in the corner whilst she and her boyfriend filled boxes with whatever they wanted and leave with a car load of stuff. He wasn’t even allowed to take a look at what was taken. Can someone please explain to me how in the hell this can happen???!!! Is there anything he can do???!!!
Under the DVA basically NOTHING. she got him. If he had changed the locks ……
Have they got anything else in joint names? He should start procedings immediately for a parenting order, though with the possibility (Liklihood) of a PO that will be difficult. He should also commence procedings under the relationship property act.
He doesn’t need a lawyer, there are many men capable of helping him selfrepresent. Much cheaper, and if she uses a lawyer, think of the money he can cost her!
Oh, our modern age. Cancel all cards including Video stores, and library. Change ALL his internet pass words especially email and internet banking.
Finally, this list is open which can be a strength. We have Pauls-News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pauls-news/
It is “Hidden” If the X starts nosying she can read here, she can’t read Pauls news! (That like the open groups is both a strength and a weakness)
He will have to “Join” if he mentions this group and post there will be no problem. What general area of the country are you in?
This is URGENT. Get things, especially those locks done today!
Thought, include the locking system on the car, (Boat, caravan, or other valuable asset)
Sorry I’m a bit disjointed, Check the values in Superannuation schemes including kiwi saver.
Comment by alastair — Tue 6th October 2009 @ 2:02 pm
And start writing a list of everything he can think of that she’s taken thus far. He’ll need it when it comes to property settlement….
Get a valuation done on any major assets such as a house, including documenting outstanding mortgage.
Comment by Fearless Frank — Tue 6th October 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Valuations can be expensive. I know one couple who valued their bits and pieces at a cost of $3,000 for the valuer to be told they had a value of less than the cost of having them valued. Valuation are needed at time of transfer or sale and getting them valued at separation is often just money spent too early, even though the court asked that question in an MP1 affidavit or a CS application.
On the main issue this guy can probably think himself liucky he isn’t in the Protection Order club. Fancy him objecting to her and her new Bo takling what they wish, unheard of.
Opps is my toungue in my check.
Comment by [email protected] — Tue 6th October 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Mate,
You should take notes and tell her to sort this ‘out of court’ ie without any more cops,
family court or lawyers. Come up with an email of an exit agreement.
Include your best idea of a plan for contact with the kids.
Be realistic, but how old are the children? Hope for shared care one day, but maintain contact.
Whatever the ex does, or how your relationship ends, and your emotional state needs attention,
get regular, quality time with each of children, any time you can.
Write letters, tell them you still love them, will always be there for them.
Make heaps of phone calls, give them cards and presents and lots of hugs.
Talk with someone who can help you get this plan together…
Do you have a local father’s support group?
Comment by BG Smith — Tue 6th October 2009 @ 10:19 pm
I’ll tell you why this has happened. Because you, yes YOU dear reader is apathetic. YOU have sat back and allowed misandry law after misandry law be passed by your pathetic law makers. You have kept your mouths shut at crucial times throughout history. If we could collectively come together and become a force to reckon with. A collective voice that will not be shat upon anymore.
But in our world, do we really need marriage anymore. Is it not time to take control of your sperm and YOU decide when YOU want to be a father and not allow it to be raped from you to pamper to spoilt little brats screaming to be just like her friends. These woman view you as nothing more than an opportunity. When you move on from this, and make them survive alone, then you will be empowered. Despite ALL false feminist notions, man is still the provider and still the victim and you, YOU just sit back and let it happen.
Apathy reigns to vagina’s gains!
Comment by Masculist UK — Wed 7th October 2009 @ 2:50 am
I reject this where I think YOU Mr Masculist UK – perpetuate our collective problem even if I think the essence of your fundamental message may be sound.
Yes, men need to work collectively.
Yes, men need to recognise they are different from women.
Yes, ardent feminism has perpetuated women as victims of men.
Yes, women pleading victim are unassailable adversaries.
But anger against women appears to me to be an identical idiocy bent on the same results for a future of perpetual conflict.
Masculinity does not require hostility under pressure; yet, should all but demand deference.
Kind regards,
Benjamin Easton
The Political Busker
(of a) father’s coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 7th October 2009 @ 8:18 am
Forgotten father,
the action available to your brother are
a) Warn her on trepass.
b) Warn her that uninvited or without prior arrangement visits are aggressive psychological abuse and will merit a protection order.
c) Refuse her entry and tell her to get a lawyer.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
LAOS New Zealand
(of a) father’s coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 7th October 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Your comments really do not contain any advice at all for the person who posted the question..
Find another hilltop to shout from. I do not think this is the correct forum to vent your idea’s & thoughts.
Comment by Cazz — Thu 8th October 2009 @ 3:44 pm
You must be more careful now as women normally have the tendency of taking revenge / harass their ex-partner by using the law. Law is blind in any country and runs on women wolf tears and helps her in harassing you and spoiling your life publicly. There is no use in shouting against it as it got deaf ears for you.
So I would suggest to get a secret video and audio recording device and carry with you anywhere and everywhere. If she tries to appear before you or call you or tries to contact you in any way, start recording it without her notice so as to save yourself from her. Get every possible evidence that you are innocent and think before you act. It’s not worth to spoil your life because of instant decisions. Take control over your anger / frustration and act wisely. Don’t try to be alone for at least the next few months.
Your highest priority at this stage should be to save yourself from her public harassment.
Comment by A victim — Thu 8th October 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Cazz, have noticed there is masculist and masculinist?
Comment by julie — Fri 9th October 2009 @ 12:01 am
I beat the Male-Haters by doing exactly what #6 advises. I secretly recorded everything – the threatening phone calls from the ex & the shocking liars working for CYFS. I protected my privacy by having the ex trespassed from my residence.
I won custody of my children. She lost her husband, home and children & owes a small fortune to the legal aid authority.
That’s what happens when you have your innocent husband removed by the Police after he rings them for assistance due to your violence and you lie to them. Deal with it bitch!
Be a winner!
RECORD EVERYTHING!
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 9th October 2009 @ 4:59 am
Julie and Cazz
It was a perfectly reasonable response highlighting the reasons why men (the law makers) have discriminated against their brothers to appease the whinging and whining of your kind.
Julie yes indeed a masculist and masculinist. Now pop along and go and discover their legitimacy.
Comment by Masculist UK — Fri 9th October 2009 @ 7:45 am
Note that there are various posts that have been appearing here over the last year or so that seem to be spam to clog up groups like this. The post from Cazz is probably one of them. They are characterized by their vague nature without any specific reference to any of the matters under discussion. They could appear in any thread anywhere and initially seem to fit in with the discussion.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 9th October 2009 @ 8:39 am
I suggest the response of Masculinist UK and others demonstrates the real advantage of the “Closed” and safe lists. Julie, to me you have only ever been an encouragement. Remember, empty cans make the most noise!
Comment by alastair — Fri 9th October 2009 @ 8:57 am
I don’t want to rain on your parade, but actually…
…if your brother and his wife have been married almost ten years, that house is as much hers as it is his regardless of what is on the certificate of registration. She has an equal share in equity to the marriage home (and probably everything in it).
No doubt she had no right to take whatever she pleased, but restraining her from entering her house was the wrong thing to do. After all, there is time to recover these items later when they have both calmed down and worked out a settlement.
And unfortunately, under law restraint is assault – particularly if done harshly and in anger (which, by the way you described it, it probably was).
I’m not trying to sound like I’m taking the wife’s side, I’m just approaching this issue from a purely legal perspective.
Comment by Sympathiser — Sun 11th October 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Sympathiser, you may be correct given current relationship property law but I’m not sure it is so simple.
Could the man go to the woman’s new residence and retrieve what he wanted of the joint property? If not, why not?
If it had been the man who had moved out to live with a new partner, do you think the police and Courts would have supported his repeated home invasions of what was now her domestic sanctuary? Or charged her if she tried to stop him? No. And would his actions in bringing his new partner to the home invasion be seen as provocative or abusive? Yes.
I expect there are laws that could have been used to protect this man from the indignity of home invasion at the woman’s whim. For example, from the moment she moved out he would be seen as renting her share of the house and no doubt he will be charged for this in the eventual settlement. So police could have required her to observe principles of tenancy law, e.g. giving reasonable notice before a landlord’s visit and entry to the house. But when it is a man who needs protection from abusive actions of a woman, efforts to protect him are seen as unnecessary.
It seems to me that relationship property law in western countries has sunk to ridiculous depths of injustice. It appears to have been intended mainly as a mechanism for transferring wealth from men to women. It has discarded a previously fundamental right to own the fruits of one’s own labour (after paying tax). It provides no right to retain what one’s own talents or effort earned long before ever meeting a current partner. It is a law so bad that most people have to pay lawyers to opt out of it if they want what most reasonable people would see as a fair financial arrangement. It sees greedy women extracting millions from the likes of Sir Paul McCartney and John Cleese and somehow believing that’s ok. Strange that we seldom hear of men exploiting their female partners in similar fashion. Why is that? And on the rare occasion we do, the man is widely seen as despicable.
Remember also that the Clark government changed NZ law to enable women to obtain considerably more than half of “relationship property” under various pretexts, and case law is developing to that end.
It is important to be clear about what might be fair law and to fight for this. For example, I would like relationship property defined as only that accrued during the course of a relationship, excluding what was owned by the partners prior to the relationship. Marriage and civil union could include inventories of personal property that will remain with each party after any separation. (This would also provide an incentive for marriage and give it some useful legal basis.) I would like the law to protect the sanctuary of one’s home when a partner moves out. I would also like the law to return to the principle of a clean break, reversing the increasing tendency for Courts to order periods of spousal maintenance, again always from men to women.
Why don’t we have such sensible laws already? Because feminism rather than fairness has been the primary consideration in the development of current law.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 11th October 2009 @ 6:12 pm
You make some interesting points and to some extent I agree with you, or can at least see where you are coming from.
However, your comments about current relationship property laws I think are a bit unfair. After all, Paul McCartney’s wife is a horrible, horrible bitch and I suspect slightly mentally ill! – to call her representative of the female population does women a gross injustice. And let’s remember that the courts in that case awarded her, in the end, a very small percentage of McCartney’s fortune – while it is still a huge sum to us, her case is actually indicative that relationship property laws are being applied fairly.
Don’t forget that a husband (or wife) can protect the property they owned before entering a relationship by undertaking a prenuptial agreement. This is freely available and easily done. I would go so far as to say that if a husband doesn’t do this, really he gets what he deserves!
The reason that all property is seen as equally the husband and wife’s regardless of who owns what is, I think, for mainly two reasons:
a) Marriage is a partnership. Treating assets as being owned separately completely undermines this concept.
b) Often a wife’s contribution to the marriage cannot be assessed monetarily. Often the wife is the one who is raising the kids while the husband works (in traditional families) and therefore her contribution is huge and yet no one can put a monetary value on it. Laws that treat property as equally the husband and wife’s take this into account and because of this, men and woman are on hugely more equal terms.
Now – how the courts assess this is a vasty different issue and has very little to do with what is actually the law; I don’t think it is fair to criticise Helen Clark’s government for reforming the law in this way.
Comment by Sympathiser — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 1:08 pm
‘Sympathiser’,
you’re obviously unaware of the many cases whereby a pre-nuptual agreement gets overidden in preference for feminist jurisprudence in women’s favour.
It’s attitudes like yours that are leading more and more men to reassess marrying or living de-facto with western women.
As much as you’d like to beleive that men are getting a fair shake when relationships break down I’ve met literally thousands of men in person and online who are now relationship wary after being shafted. indeed there’s a whole movement of these men these days. just try googling – the marriage strike, or ghost nation (of men).
You say – “Often the wife is the one who is raising the kids while the husband works (in traditional families) and therefore her contribution is huge and yet no one can put a monetary value on it”.
Holy bejesus! How gullible do you think we are around here?
Western women are having about 1.5 babies. That’s not a huge amount of work to do with modern conveniences, appliances and the kind of social and economic support men can only dream of!
For the record I took turns looking after my kid day on-day off for five years. Compared to working fulltime with a supervisor watching over me and work targets to meet taking care of a kid was a breeze. To compare the two like their even roughly the same level of stress and intensity is (unless the kid/s are high needs e.g. disabled) is not only dumb but selfish and immoral. Just what I’ve come to expect from most modern western women. Scratch the surface and there’s usually a victim feminist lurking somewhere within.
Please keep posting though.
Another woman, Julie did so and will tell you she see things a whole lot differently after being challenged to think about things from outside of the feminist lens which infects much modern dialogue.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Sympathizer – I don’t know that Heather Mills is particularly horrible. The law invited her to seize millions of undeserved pounds and she did so. Lawyers no doubt fed her ways of thinking that conveniently sanitized her greed. I frequently come across men who have experienced exactly the same treatment from ex-wives albeit on a lower economic scale.
Heather Mills attempted to grab half of Paul McCartney’s entire fortune. The fact that the law allowed her to steal around 25 million pounds plus 70 thousand pounds per year ex-wife support plus all school and nanny expenses for their daughter in no way indicates anything fair about the nature or application of property laws.
Prenuptual agreements are available but not free, certainly not if you want yours to stand up in Court. The point I was making was that any law requiring most people to pay lawyers to opt out of it is not a good law.
Some other women I have spoken to have also responded with your attitude that Paul McCartney and other men deserve to be taken to the cleaners if they did not organize prenuptual agreements. So when a man is vulnerable because he did not go out of his way to stay safe, it’s ok to take whatever you can from him? The appalling nature of that argument may be evident when applied to people burgled when they didn’t put alarms on their house, victims of internet scams or for that matter women raped while walking alone at night. It’s simply blaming the victim for the unethical actions of the exploiter.
Maintaining separate personal bank accounts or owning some separate assets does not “completely undermine” the concept of partnership at all. In my experience, when women come into a relationship with more wealth than the man’s they always insist on a prenuptual agreement to ensure they continue to own their original assets separately. Are they all completely undermining the concept of partnership? A strange assertion to make.
Of course partners in a role of child caring deserve a share of the couple’s income and acquired assets. I don’t see it is fair however that they expect half or indeed any of the other partner’s previously acquired assets. If they are made legal owners of half the assets and wealth accumulated during the period of the partnership then surely that’s fair? Often more than fair if the partner’s pre-existing wealth, effort, education or talent has provided the basis for the added wealth.
In what way isn’t it fair to criticize the Clark government for “reforming” the law to allow women to seize well over half of “relationship property”? I criticize it roundly, and the feminist ideology used to justify it. I have previously provided details of my criticisms.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 10:42 pm
You reminded me of a letter that I had read:
http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?s=7cc0e92f3bbfc2365799999cf72f71c3&showtopic=7623
This was written to Susan Reimer in July 2003 in response to her article “Grow-up Men! We need you in the family!”
Greetings, Ms. Reimer!
I really enjoyed your article from July 1: “Grow up, men: We need you in the family.” Wonderful. Simply a wonderful piece of writing.
It was highly relevant to my situation– mainly because I am one of those accursed 20-something males who obstinately refuses to ‘grow up’ and stick his head in the noose.
Allow me to introduce myself: I’m 28 and am not living in my parent’s home… (I moved-out some 10 years ago). I am sometimes accused of being good looking. I have an MBA, I speak several languages fairly fluently and I moved to Japan in early 2001. I simply love it here- my life has never been better.
One of the reasons I decided to move is because back in 1999 I made a very solemn vow: to never marry an American woman as long as I live. And if you bear with me, I would like to explain why (I think you’ll be somewhat surprised…)
But first, I wish to make a few general observations about your article…
I have noticed that one of the double-standards in American society is thus: If a woman decides not to marry, she is asserting her independence. But if a man decides not to marry, he is immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed and living-out his “adult-olescence” (Boo! Hiss!)
If a woman does it, it is a legitimate choice. But if a man does it, it is a character flaw.
Ideally, such sexism should not require me to point it out. But American society seems blind to those forms of sexism which stigmatize or disadvantage men. I guess you could say that I first became cynical about American women when they would oink at me while insisting that I was the pig. I started to get cynical when they would shame me for making the tiniest sexist remark… but would soon afterwards laugh at a cut-off penis joke.
Bizarrely, men are the only gender which ever gets portrayed as being sexist. The negative stereotyping of males in the media and the blaming of men for all the world’s ills are a major factor in making me decide to leave (…but not the only factor. More on that later). It is clear that men’s respect for women enjoys a higher priority than women’s respect for men. For instance:
When writing your article, you showed little to no interest in actually asking a 20-something single man about why he makes the choices he does. I am very aware of my own motivations for my choices. But no, it’s much more entertaining to make a list of my purported flaws and failures and inadequacies.
But in your entire article, this was my favorite quote: “Women, for their part, are losing patience with this guy.”
Oh yes, so saintly are women to put up with us intolerable barbarians, I know! They were so wonderful to allow me to breathe the same air. But why on earth would I pursue a woman who views me with scorn and distaste?
As you said yourself, I don’t really have any other positive features except for my 29-inch waist and my full head of hair (a charming sentiment). But if I am so incredibly objectionable and uncouth and have so few redeeming features and if women are so rapidly losing patience with me… then I should no longer burden them with my odious presence. Good riddance to me, eh?
Being regarded as an unworthy annoyance seems hardly worth all the effort that goes into courtship.
I think the phenomenon of men refusing to “grow up”, as you put it, is far less due to the inability of women to convince men to change their behaviors than to the fact that too many women have not adjusted theirs to show the barest bit of common respect for men. Culturally, husbands seem to have been reduced to the status of walking wallets and sources of sperm. I find the promise of that existence to be an unacceptable future.
So, let me describe some of the joys of marring an American woman. Statistically, speaking, of course:
1. There is a more than 50% likelihood that my marriage will end in divorce within eight years. (Any product which self-destructs 50% of the time will not have many customers.)
2. Furthermore, if divorce happens, the odds are about 70% it will be my wife, not me, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that I was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.
3. While the courts may grant me and my ex-wife joint legal custody of our kids, the odds are overwhelming that my ex-wife will win physical custody. Overnight, I might very well become a “14 percent dad” – a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children.
4. Once we are divorced, odds are at least even that my ex will interfere with my visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.
5. Ex-wife will keep the house and most of the assets. I will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of my take-home pay to the wife in child support.
As bad as all of this is, it would still make me one of the lucky ex-husbands. After all, I could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or I could be one of those fathers who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.
I could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. I could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.
I could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which I could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system’s endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. Or I could simply commit suicide… post-divorce men kill themselves about nine times more frequently than normal.
So this is what is possibly in store for me if I marry an American woman. Goodie! A 50% chance of divorce, 70% chance of it being initiated by my wife over my objections. Half of my stuff gone. My kids traumatized and taken away from me and turned into pawns so she can act-out her vindictive rage on me. Zero enforcement of visitation rights. Alimony masquerading as child support. Arrests and prosecution for DV on no evidence but a complaint. Debts and suicide. Give me two heaping scoops please!
Do you think that we men are so mindless and unthinking that we don’t take these things into consideration while planning our lives?
Why won’t I just ‘grow-up’ and drink my poison like a good little boy? I would have to be an IDIOT to marry an American woman. It is the stupidest thing I could ever do with my life. And yet, you publish articles like yours… absolutely confounded and baffled as to why men aren’t lining-up to have their lives demolished! Astonishing!
Ms. Reiner, today’s young men have grown up watching their fathers get screwed-over. And they want no part of it. They saw their fathers having no time for children, working two jobs. They saw their fathers dragged into court for revenge. They’ve watched their fathers weep and die by their own hands.
And you wonder why young men are increasingly saying, “No thanks”? Astonishing!
The fact that many men have quit wanting wives couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that women have been quite willing to make fun of us for being men and seem to regard masculinity as some kind of contaminant or pathology. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that women have relentlessly been telling us how redundant and useless and expendable we are. It has nothing to do with their insistence that we are incompetent as parents, hopeless as cooks and unsuitable for playing a meaningful role in raising children. No, it couldn’t possibly be anything about the civil rights abuses inherent in the divorce system. No, it is not even because of anything a woman ever says thinks or does… It is entirely because of the unfathomable and incomprehensible quality of young men to prolong their adolescences!
Ms. Reimer, the hard lesson that your female readers really need to hear is this: by denying and negating our needs, by relentlessly shaming and belittling our masculinity, by cruelly locking fathers out of their children’s lives while extorting child support… all of this has killed our desire for marriage.
Sure, you can heap shame on us all you like. Call us immature. Accuse us of being afraid of commitment. Whatever makes your female readers feel superior.
But it will not induce us to marry in greater numbers as long as the underlying cultural biases and legal institutions remain unaddressed and unchanged!!
Perhaps if American women stopped thinking of families as their exclusive domain, but as something they have to include men in. Maybe if they stopped viewing families in terms of “my needs” and more as a partnership. Maybe if they stopped seeing husbands as beasts of burden and more as human beings… well I can dream, can’t I?
Fortunately I consider myself to be great husband material. And great daddy material, too. It’s really too bad that “aside from a 24-inch waist and a styled head of hair, there isn’t much to recommend the 20-something American female…” (Whoops, sacrilege!)
But I simply adore my Japanese girlfriend. She is wonderful. She treats me with the amount of respect owed to a human being. She doesn’t see me as a walking ATM machine. She doesn’t see me as her oppressor or as a Neanderthal. She doesn’t joke about kneeing me in the groin or smirk about cutting-off my penis. She believes that marriage is something that she should take seriously, not something which can be erased on a whim. She wants me in her life, she treats me with kindness and generosity and understanding. She sees my libido is a good thing rather than as a petty irritant or a means of exploitation.
And, best of all– she realizes that the position of the toilet seat just isn’t worth fighting about.
One day, I will definitely be a great husband. I actually am the marrying type and a hopeless romantic. But I will marry on my terms– it is a choice, not a failure of character.
But whoever my future wife is, she certainly won’t be from your country. You can bet on it.
–NG
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 6:02 am
HI Skeptik –
I don’t think you can use your one experience of raising children as evidence that raising children in general is “a breeze”. I’m sure there are people out there who share your experience but many, many more who do not. Moreover, your situation – where you were the main child-carer – is pretty unusual (albeit a fast-growing concept). You’re lucky that you had the choice to do this. Many women find themselves in the unlucky position of being forced to be the sole child-carer and are unable to pursue their own career. Feminism exists to give women this choice.
Also…caring for another human being is pretty stressful! I think it’s a bit rough to call my argument “selfish” and “immoral”…this completely undermines the tireless effort put in by our many caregivers, babysitters, kindergarten teachers, not to mention parents.
Comment by Sympathiser — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 10:24 am
Apologies for my wording – I didn’t quite mean that Paul McCartney deserved to be taken to the cleaners necessarily. I was trying to say that if no prenuptial agreement was drawn up, surely he was prepared to take the consequences of the divorce (I assume that he would have known Mills would be entitled to a huge chunk of his fortune should the relationship break up).
As far as Heather Mills goes…I don’t know her obviously but have you seen her talk? It’s quite funny! I’m pretty sure she’s batty. There’s a wealth of vitriol for that woman all over the internet…she’s quite special…
Pre-nuptial agreements: expensive, yes. But if you’re intent on protecting your property, chances are it’s a worthy expense. And I completely agree with you that owning separate assets etc does not undermine the concept of marriage, but I’m simply saying that if your previously-owned property means that much to you, why not take the time to protect it?
And my point about the government was that it is not, in fact, the law that women can “seize well over half of ‘relationship property'” – my point was that it is the way the law is interpreted by the courts that results in this unfortunate outcome in some cases. (Such a thing is true of many other laws, ranging from murder to trespass and so on…I would blame the Judges).
Comment by Sympathiser — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 10:29 am
In England prenuptial agreements are not very strong. All a woman has to do is to say is that she was
forced into signing it, and it is immediately forgotten. This is probably on top of other false allegations of domestic violence ( as in heather mill’s case )
Comment by Maninoz-no-cs — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 12:24 pm
This stupid bitch troll is never going to listen
Comment by Maninoz-no-cs — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 12:33 pm
You’ve missed the point.
Nowhere did I say that my observation was based only on my experience of raising a child.
You’ve done the classic job of minmising and distorting my comments to suit your own world view.
Caring for another person is pretty streeful eh?
Well maybe for you.
For the record, and to make things extra, super, uber clear (but still possibly distortable by you!) I’ve seen many thousands of couples who have kids. In the vast majority of cases the guys working his ass off under the watchful eye of supervisor/s, meeting deadlines, having to watch his back in a competetive workplace environment. Meanwhile the woman’s having a much less stressful existence at home and out and about shopping etc where she can work at her own pace unsupervised, she can entertain the kid/s with media whilst she does her own thing. And she’s far from not hands on involved with the kid/s all the time, just there in the background incase……
She has creches and other supports, oftentimes family and friends, hell even fast food resataurants have turned into creches for her kind! She can be seen strolling through malls at a leisurely pace or in small groups with like kind having coffee in starbucks etc.
Your comments not only belittle men, but elevate women to a status they don’t deserve, but in western feminist culture have come to expect.
Bets are on that you’ll distort what i’ve written here and/or counter it with some other entitled princess ‘logic’.
And we wonder why there’s a growing marriage strike?
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 1:24 pm
In NZ a certificate attached to the pre nuptial and the property settlement made out by each parties lawyer that they received seperate advice is largely a defence against this type of theft.
Comment by alastair — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 1:33 pm
I was the primary caregiver of three children while also working full-time.
Raising kids is a breeze compared to working full-time. I know.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Sympathizer. You said “I would go so far as to say that if a husband doesn’t do this, really he gets what he deserves!” But when I pointed out the victim-blaming nature of your argument, you claim that you didn’t really mean what you said. Then you repeated another version of the same argument. Your latest version of the argument might be applied in “..if the woman didn’t stay indoors at night, surely she was prepared to take the consequences of meeting a rapist”. Taking advantage of another’s weakness in order to exploit them cannot morally be blamed on the weaker party. And the fact that the law allows such exploitation does not change this.
How can you completely agree with me that owning separate assets does not undermine the concept of partnership when you previously stated “Marriage is a partnership. Treating assets as being owned separately completely undermines this concept.”? If you do completely agree with me, how about admitting your previous statement was flawed, rather than claiming you were “simply saying” something different from what you actually said?
It is, in fact, now the law that women can seize well over half of relationship property. See the 2005 amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, especially sections 15, 15A, 17, 18, 18B. Those changes were based on clear and publicized feminist reasoning by the Clark government that women were not getting enough at 50% under various circumstances. Increasing women’s share was exactly the intent and result of Clark’s 2005 law changes. We are not talking about some new interpretation by Courts of previous law as you seem to be suggesting.
It’s great that people come and participate in these important discussions. But it is courteous to ensure you understand others’ posts before firing off challenges to them, and it is courteous to admit when your arguments or knowledge have themselves been shown to be faulty.
I won’t hold my breath though.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Thanks for posting this excellent letter.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Hans Laven – It’s interesting that you see the sections you mentioned above as favouring women over men.
“Section 15: Court may award lump sum payments or order transfer of property
(1) This section applies if, on the division of relationship property, the Court is satisfied that, after the marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship ends, the income and living standards of 1 spouse or partner (party B) are likely to be significantly higher than the other spouse or partner (party A) because of the effects of the division of functions within the marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship while the parties were living together.”
This section recognises that a partner’s contribution to the relationship and relationship property may be non-monetary. It doesn’t specifically mention females but yes, it is easy to envisage that the majority of relationships that are involved in a dispute under this section would involve the woman being Party A and the man being Party B, because the majority of cases involve the man being the sole breadwinner (this relationship structure is slowly changing though, of course, and I think we’ll start to see a lot more cases where the situation is reversed – where the man has been a “stay-at-home Dad”).
I suppose the question I would have to ask you then, is whether you believe women (or men for that matter) are capable of making non-monetary contributions to a relationship and whether these should be recognised; because if you don’t believe this, then I can certainly see where you are coming from. If you do recognise these kinds of contributions, though, I can’t really see why you’d be upset with the legislation.
I won’t go into detail with the other sections as that would be boring, but they basically all reinforce the same idea – that a partner’s contribution can be non-monetary and therefore can be recognised over and above the surface-level monetary contributions to a relationship. Is this your reading of them too?
Let’s not forget that the principles of equity will often intervene when a legal result is patently unfair. Are you familiar with the case of Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 43? In that case, the courts proceeded from an assumption that the husband and wife are seen to be equal contributors and therefore entitled to an equal share of relationship property – but after examining all the facts, they decided to award the husband 65% of the marriage property, because it was obvious to them that the couple intended to keep their affairs separate. This is only one example but it’s not particularly exceptional – it shows that the courts are keen to have a fair result, and that this may mean the wife is entitled to less.
So after all that, my overall point is that the law is neutral when it comes to gender. It’s not feminist at all (in my view). To me, it favours both parties. But it also recognises the huge contribution that a wife – as it will be in most cases, but could be the husband – makes, even when they have not contributed financially – contributions that can be hard to evaluate but are important nevertheless.
And, ah, Maninoz-no-cs: let’s be nice please! Keen on intelligent debate but not so keen on name-calling.
Comment by Sympathiser — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Sympathizer – In my recent posts on this topic I have several times stated that I believe both parties deserve a fair share of relationship property. Either you did not read them or you are being deliberately patronizing by asking my if I believe women’s contribution should be recognized.
The legislation may be written in gender neutral terms but as I said it was always based on feminist reasoning and it was always intended to enable women to get more. There may be occasional cases where the law ends up benefiting a man, but that was not its raison d’etre. The arguments for providing home executives (usually women) with the opportunity to grab more than 50% are no more valid than many other arguments that could justify the money providers (usually men) getting more. I have never agreed with them or with the financial exploitation of men that this legislation was intended to achieve and is now bringing about. If changing roles in society get to a stage where men are mainly benefiting from this legislation, just watch how quickly feminists will call for it to be changed.
I still look forward to your acknowledgement that some of your earlier arguments were unsustainable.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Sympathiser, you seem slightly Schizophrenic in your postings
In this post you say
Laws that treat property as equally the husband and wife’s take this into account and because of this, men and woman are on hugely more equal terms.
yep got to have the equality dont we?
But in another thread you have this opinion,
And a final note: yes — this is very harsh for men who wish to keep the child. I recognise that. But — that’s just the way it is. Not everything in life is equal. Sometimes you have to get over it.
So this equality thing isnt actually set in stone, so to speak, with you.
Comment by mits — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Sympathiser appears to want it both ways – equality when it suits her and no equality when it suits her!!
Typical feminist victim princess syndrome.
Prescription for cure – Oral medication 3 times daily for next 5 days.
In other words for goodness sakes Shut upa ya face! and listen! If you must say something at least TRY to make it empathic to what guys have to say about being guys for a change. YOU WILL LEARN ALLOT by listening more deeply instead of reacting ans spouting off nonesense as others have pointed out to you.
Comment by Skeptil — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 7:05 pm
We’re in agreement on a lot of points. Where I see us differing, at least on the legislation point, (and please, correct me if I’m wrong because I don’t want to put words in your mouth) is that I have faith that the legislation brings about a just result – even if it was designed to favour women – and you see it as enabling women to get more, period. The legislation has a number of criteria that must be fulfilled – I don’t see the legislation as giving women an automatic entitlement to a greater share of relationship property. At the end of the day, they’ve got to meet those criteria and if they don’t, they will only get their fair share – which could very well be less.
In regards to your statement “If changing roles in society get to a stage where men are mainly benefiting from this legislation, just watch how quickly feminists will call for it to be changed” – well, feminists have already called for it to be changed, from what it was. The sheer lack of rights women used to have under old Property legislation was astounding.
Just as interesting aside, what do you think the legislation should read? What would make it more fair to men, in your view? (This is a genuine question, I’m not trying to set up an argument 🙂 ).
Comment by Sympathiser — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 11:00 am
Ignore that last part, I just read an earlier post of yours where you outlined this very thing – now I have to go away and have a think about it…. 🙂
Comment by Sympathiser — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 11:07 am
“I have faith that the legislation brings about a just result — even if it was designed to favour women ”
So your all for equality you just want to be “more equal”
What a joke!
Comment by mits — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 11:22 am
Reminds me of that classic line from George Orwell’s book Animal Farm where the pigs seize power and proclaim – All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Sympathiser (sic) said –
“The sheer lack of rights women used to have under old Property legislation was astounding”.
Ah yes the classic victim feminist warped guilt trip surfaces once again! What you conveniently overlook is that the time in history you talk of no-body had much in the way of rights.
It’s the old old old feminist tactic of mentioning a percieved discrimination against women whilst FAILING to put it into it’s proper context and acknowledge discrimination against men also………..duh. MISANDRIC BULLSHIT.
Just underscores how risible and grandiose the choice of Sympathiser is as a name.
Rather than explain this to you myself though I’ll let the excellent Angry Harry do it for me here. Read on!
Jeeze, and we men wonder how we can get treated with due dignity and fairness with folks like you pushing this feminist claptrap?
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Oh and by the way Symapthiser (sic) prior to modern day property laws Men were owners of property who get that and the vote by upholding the responsibility of defending the country by being drafted into war and dying if necessary. this wasn’t expected of women which is why Angry Harry rightly displays pictures of Thousands of MALE only headstones in graveyards as here
One other thing – Men who owned property and married women were expected by law to take care of their wives and property. So if a woman went out and racked up huge household bills it was the MAN who went to debter’s prison not her.
For goodness sakes ‘Sympathiser’ get educated! Or I’m afraid you’ll continue making yourself look like a right chump.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Good gracious! You’re quite angry, Skeptik! …unsure about this.
Comment by Sympathiser — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Never mind Sympathiser Maybe he hasn’t taken his medication yet. Times have changed! Men & Women were created to complement each other – not compete!
Comment by alastair — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Skeptic has every right to be angry Sympathiser. Anger is good – it’s what makes us fight the good fight. Pathological fear, on the other hand, is the most undiagnosed malady of our time.
Comment by rc — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Sympathiser (sic),
no need to be condescending by trying to assert that I’m angry or in need of taking meds.
Fact is you can only guess how I feel about Sympathisers postings.
Also you’ve said nothing to try and refute the points I’ve made about men’s and women’s oppression in earlier posts.
Alistair,
there’s delicious irony in you stating –
“Men & Women were created to complement each other — not compete!”
that is given that she has seemed intent on portraying women as the victims of historical oppression and therefore entitled to contemporary priveliges men DON’T enjoy.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 17th October 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Sympathizer – Thanks for debating the topic and sticking to the issue at hand.
You express faith that the Clark government’s legislation brings about a just result. The results I have come across to date seem far from just. If we look more closely at those law changes it’s easy to see why.
Section 15 gave litigants an opportunity to grab more than 50% of “relationship property” if their income and living standards were likely to be lower than that of their partner after separation because of the effects of division of functions within the marriage. So if man was prepared and able to earn enough to support his wife’s choice to apply herself mainly to raising the children and enjoying the family living space, she can later claim that privilege disadvantaged her future lifestyle relative to his and therefore he should compensate her for it. The role she adopted was her choice; there is nothing in the law that requires him to have forced her into it. In law her right would be upheld to choose to continue her career and to make other provisions for child care etc. The man also chose his role on behalf of the family’s welfare, but where is the provision in law to compensate him for the loss in emotional closeness to his children, or for his irretrievable loss of experiences such as watching his children take first steps etc? Where is the provision in law compensating the man for the damage to his body, the stress-related heart attacks and the several years less life that his particular contribution to the family brought about? A law that was not myopically feminist would have recognized the male perspective and sacrifices. Instead, this law introduces a new feminist principle, that reproducing with a man entitles you forever to expect an equivalent living standard to his. Not much just about that, just self-serving feminism.
Section 15A allows the Court to compensate litigants for loss of future earnings claimed to be brought about by the division of functions within the marriage. The responses above to section 15 apply here also. There is no recognition of the non-financial sacrifices made by the money-earner (usually the man), yet he is plundered to make up for the woman’s claimed future disadvantage. The principle of a clean break is abandoned in order to make men responsible for the alleged possible “future earnings” of women. The fact that the man’s own future earnings may have been seriously compromised, e.g. because he chose to continue in a job that paid the bills rather than continue his university studies or break into a new career, doesn’t get a look in.
These law changes were an attempt to protect women from feeling jealous that their ex-partners might do better financially than they would. They were also part of a broader feminist-socialist aim to transfer wealth created and owned by men to women. The law counts the cost to women of their family roles while ignoring the privileges, and totally disregards the cost to men of their roles. While the wording of the law may be gender neutral, gender balance in its formulation was simply irrelevant.
That’s my opinion anyway. And I confidently predict that as the law is tested and applied its injustice towards men will become increasingly obvious.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 18th October 2009 @ 11:35 am
***11.
Hans said “It’s great that people come and participate in these important discussions. But it is courteous to ensure you understand others’ posts before firing off challenges to them, and it is courteous to admit when your arguments or knowledge have themselves been shown to be faulty”.
I completely agree, and similar to you don’t expect a feminist such as ‘Sympathiser’ (sic) to be so respectful towards us.
Hans,
Your errudite logic leaves her looking foolish, and worse grandiose and graceless enough to not admit so.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 18th October 2009 @ 3:29 pm
On the contrary, Skeptik, I think this whole discussion has so far been very respectful, even-tempered and logical. Although I don’t agree with the points made, it’s so important to be open-minded and constantly keep questioning. I’ve got my own opinions, yes, but I’m always keen to hear the other side and – despite what you may think – am always willing to have my point of view changed. But unfortunately several posters here appear to get angry at the mere hint of disagreement. There’s room for us all here to have different points of views. So if I’ve hurt your feelings in any way, Skeptik, I apologise right now – that’s not my intention at all.
Comment by Sympathiser — Sun 18th October 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Cyberthetic,
Whoever you are.
Apology accepted.
Just remember where you are and realise that many men are going to get triggered when you mouth occasionally the kinds of feminist rationalles that folks held when they were institutionally stripped of their homes, families, security, health and welfare at the hands of nz feminists over the past 40 ODD years.
Indeed some will react more strongly than others given the degree of trauma they have suffered. Just because they don’t post at this site doesn’t mean they aren’t reading the posts. At over a thousand hits a day at this site MENZ is obviously a beacon of hope for many – hats of to John Potter for providing the well organisd space for this.
For the sake of reconcilliation, healing and progress forward in gender relations they need your deepest compassionate listening, not argumewntative feminist polemic. Don’t alienate yourself that way and you’ll find good friends here.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 18th October 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Yes, I agree (belatedly) Sympathiser. It’s important to debate fairly and rationally and I think you attempted to do so. Many men who contribute to this blog are wounded and reactive. It’s pretty freaky being a man in the current milieu.
In one of my replies in this thread (below reply #14) I stated “And I confidently predict as (this) law is applied and tested its injustice towards men will become increasingly obvious.” Well, check out this news story today where a man is ordered to pay $10,000 per month to keep his ex-wife in the style she has become accustomed to. That is exactly in keeping with the intent of the current law. And just wait for the eventual settlement!
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th November 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Yes we could run a sweep on this one.
60;40 is fairly common, 70;30 rare but not unheard of.
For those who are not into Matrimonial property this is how much she gets versus how little he gets from the combined pot. Given what we know of this family he has made the assets in the pot and she has enjoyed spending them and rubbed his feet when he has occasionally found time to sit down.
Comment by Allen — Sat 28th November 2009 @ 9:19 am
I have difficulty with this one too – mainly because I have little sympathy for rich snobs (I mean, a $42,000 clothing allowance?! Good gracious). Then again, it’s all relative. The husband here is obviously insanely wealthy and a useful question would be to ask exactly what percentage of his income the $10,000 a month is – could be a very low percentage indeed. But who knows what the real facts are.
On the husband’s side: why should he have to pay such exorbitant amounts to keep his wife in the lifestyle to which she’s been accustomed? Surely there is no intrinsic right to live in luxury – even if he paid her an average weekly income of $500-$600 that would still be quite generous. Not to mention that once the pair have settled, the wife will get a decent split of the relationship property.
From the wife’s point of view: as the Judge said, she gave up her work to fit in with his lifestyle, depriving her of what could have been a very decent income (although we don’t know what kind of career she would have had, had she not given it up) and therefore justifying a large payout.
On the other hand, there was no mention of kids in the equation so it’s hard to see what contribution she made to the partnership.
But the flipside of that is that the judge had the benefit of hearing all of the evidence, and there are, I’m sure, many things about the relationship situation that we will never know.
So I’m definitely divided on this one. I really dislike women – and men, for that matter – who sponge off other people and expect things that they don’t deserve. At the end of the day I guess that is the bottom line.
Comment by Sympathiser — Sat 28th November 2009 @ 1:12 pm
The relationship property law invented by the Clark regime was designed to ensure women continue to enjoy the life they are accustomed to. The 2005 amendment to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, section 15 brought into law the principle that the income and living standards of one spouse should not be significantly lower after separation than that of the other spouse “because of the effects of the division of functions within the marriage”. The latter part of the law is clearly strained in this case, based apparently on the woman’s claim that she gave up her work to fit in with her husband’s lifestyle. Her self-sacrificing contribution to the marriage then required her to fulfill such onerous tasks as travelling to Europe to buy herself expensive clothes. Regardless, the Court was true, in spectactular fashion, to the principle of the Clark law, that a “spouse” (read “woman”) is entitled to expect forever a similar lifestyle to that of any man she has a 2-year relationship with. In the eventual property settlement, this law will probably also provide her with a huge, undeserved share of the assets he earned long before meeting her.
The current law basically legalizes theft from and enslavement of men.
As an aside though, I draw attention to the fact that our (somewhat) free press is exposing feminist excess in this case. I have conveyed my appreciation to the news source.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 28th November 2009 @ 6:44 pm
“But the flipside of that is that the judge had the benefit of hearing all of the evidence”
I think youre giving these judges a little to much credit Sympathiser.
Even after hearing all the evidence I have found their so called judgements can be pretty myopic.
Remember a judge is just another grubby lawyer who has just got his snout further into the trough. And Im sure to a overpaid judge $10,000 a month probably seems like chump change.
Comment by mits — Sat 28th November 2009 @ 10:22 pm
“The 2005 amendment to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, section 15 brought into law the principle that the income and living standards of one spouse should not be significantly lower after separation than that of the other spouse ‘because of the effects of the division of functions within the marriage'”.
Correction. Section 15 states that the section applies IF the difference in income between the parties is due to the effects of the division of functions within the relationship. That is a very different proposition.
And Mits – you seem to have pre-judged (no pun intended) the situation by assuming that a) all judges are money-hungry and not interested in justice, and b) that the result in this case was a foregone conclusion because this judge was clearly of this ilk. Such a view is not objective and does not seem to appreciate that the facts of every case are different, and the players within the story are complex and at times unfathomable creatures. Now, I don’t say this to discredit your view and advocate this wife’s behaviour – because on the face of it, this result seems unfair – but to assume that this particular judge was biased and money-hungry simply by virtue of coming to a result that you disagree with, to me is narrow-minded.
Comment by Sympathiser — Sun 29th November 2009 @ 12:55 am
Sympathizer – Your correction was unnecessary and inappropriate.
a) My phrasing means the same as yours
b) My use of the word “because” was taken directly from the wording of the legislation which refers to charging party B (read “father”) more in situations where “…the income and living standards of 1 spouse or partner (party B) are likely to be significantly higher than the other spouse or partner (party A) because of the effects of the division of functions within the marriage…”
Also, I would appreciate acknowledgement that my earlier description of the underlying intent of the law has been vindicated by this blatant case, exactly in line with my prediction of how we would see the law working in practice.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 29th November 2009 @ 12:39 pm
you draw a very long bow sympathiser
I didnt say I wether I agreed with this judge or not.
If I have a view on something I will give it to you. Quoting me verbatim would be a courtesy because Thanks but no thanks I dont need you to rewrite my posts to make them more palateable to you.
“b) that the result in this case was a foregone conclusion”
Well what other conclusion was there?
Comment by mits — Sun 29th November 2009 @ 7:09 pm