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

Child Support Changes A Response.

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 8:29 pm Tue 30th August 2011

Peter Dunne, Revenue Minister in a National Government has proposed changes to the Child Support Act. These changes have been the subject of much comment on MENZ.

To assist making submissions the Select Committee that reviews this bill, over the next couple of weeks I will post an analysis of the changes and the reason for them.

According to Dunne’s Speech, what is changing?

The changes included:
“¢ The number of nights a year used to determine shared care being reduced from 40 percent to 28 percent of nights;
“¢ Having child support payments deducted directly from the paying parent’s pay-packet; and
“¢ Changing the penalty rules for parents defaulting on their payments so they are not so punitive as to discourage parents from resuming payments……..
– be based on more up-to-date estimated expenditures for raising a child;
“¢ recognise shared care of a child at lower levels than the current 40 percent of nights test – instead, shared care will be recognised using a tiered system starting at 28 percent of nights; and
“¢ take the income of both parents into account, rather that just the paying parent’s income….
“¢ changing the definition of “income” for child support purposes so that it excludes tax losses and includes certain trust income;
“¢ making it compulsory for child support payments to be automatically deducted from salary and wages;
“¢ changing the late payment penalty rates for child support; and
“¢ relaxing the circumstances in which penalties can be written off (for example, when a payment arrangement is entered into).

To understand the driving source of the changes I will start with;
“¢ making it compulsory for child support payments to be automatically deducted from salary and wages;

What is the explanation (Spin) for this change? (Taken from Dunne’s Speech)

Mr Dunne said parents who believed the system was fundamentally fair would be more likely to comply with their obligations, but in the end, all parents were responsible for their children and society has a right to expect children to be supported by their parents.
Paying parents will have their payments automatically deducted from their salary to ensure that as many child support payments as possible are made, and made on time.

Is it fair that all salary and wage earners must have compulsory automatic deductions?

It is recognised that some paying parents will have concerns with this, for example about their employers knowing that they are making child support contributions, however the public interest in operating an effective child support scheme should outweigh these individual concerns.

The Analysis

The proposed changes came from an “IRD Officials Review” of the Child Support Act (CSA) and its hardly surprising that tax officials would suggest taxing at source. Deduction at source is the ultimate compliance tool for a Tax Collector, an administrative dream that makes non compliance virtually impossible. Compliance and collection are the driving force behind these changes, that’s what has always driven tax collectors.

Ironically IRD already has the power to remove Child Tax from your wages, within clear predefined boundaries and many of you will have experienced this. This changes the ballgame and puts Child Tax in place as a soft revenue target. By soft I mean Politicians will overtime continue to increase the assessments because they can, because we let them get away with it. When deduction at source is embedded this will see the unchanged fundamental flaws of this type of child tax system embedded in law for the next 30 years. No government wants to give up revenue and remember most Child Tax goes to State Coffers, for benifit recovery, not the children.

Lets not forget we all pay tax already, that tax is supposed to cover the costs of Government services and benifits, Peter Dunne is enshrining double taxation for seperated parents. Lets not forget to be grateful.

That’s enough to start a discussion.



  1. How, Mr Dunne, will your proposal provide parents with confidence that the system is fundamentally fair? Especially where those parents are salary or wage earners. The proposal makes no attempt to demonstrate equity. Should we believe, just because you say so, that that is the case? Do you think so highly of yourself, that the minnows who pay you will swallow anything you say?

    The bulk of income tax is taken from salary and wage earners, most of which are men, whether they are parents or not. Salary and wage earners incomes are 100% visible. Here comes the IRD and the new NCP C.S. message -“This is how much you earned, so we are taking it. – Oh here’s a fiver – go get some fish and chips”

    Self employed incomes are not 100% visible. Taxable incomes can be manipulated by Business people and they are, because taxation legislation provides for it, just as family law provides for men’s wealth to be plundered and transferred to women. Self employed people can live extremely well, while making a tax loss, which their tax liability and C.S. liability is calculated on. I don’t see much goodwill, or much equity in that.

    The days of pulling the wool over the eyes of one of the main income sources for Western Governments are rapidly drawing to a close Mr Dunne. Salary and Wage earners. The lack of jobs means that those Non Custodial Parents still stupid enough to live in NZ because it is where their estranged children are, and who are not on benefits at taxpayers cost, will create their own jobs, oh, and run them at a loss. I do not suggest that self employed people have it easy, because they don’t, but they seem to have more tax and C.S. assessment choices than the salaried or waged.

    But, on the other hand Mr Dunne, it is pleasing to see that someone within the halls of power appears to be making an attempt, it is just that you haven’t quite stumbled across reality so far – so we are not to the comforting stage – yet.

    Thankyou Scrap for posting this. G.

    Comment by glenn — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 9:24 am

  2. Sticking with the taking the tax straight from our pay packet, we’re gonna have to watch them like a hawk. They always make mistakes with how much I “owe”, almost every month. It is gonna be a pain in the neck now trying to get that money back.

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 10:11 am

  3. Im one of the surrender monkeys who has given up on the IRD ever making my child tax understandable or even comprehendable.
    I have allowed them to take the tax directly from my employer as a wage and salary earner and resigned myself to getting by on what they leave after the all the taxes have been taken. I can tell you Scott that when they make a mistake (surprise surprise) you dont normally get your money back, they just airily say they will adjust the next take. This is of course after hours of getting through to anyone.
    Good on you Scrap for the post.
    Even though I have my child support directly taken from my wages I am under the impression that this was my choice. Dunne nothings proposals would seem to remove this choice from me.
    Shared care isnt an option for me as she moved the children far enough away to make that an impractical exercise.
    apparently this is in the handbook handed to women leaving a relationship do this to prevent a shared care situation arising.
    Change the threshold for nights that will affect what I pay. I pay the full whack now and dont get to see the children, how will they enforce more access while reducing her take?
    No sorry Bruce T I dont gain any confidence with this current round of proposed changes.
    One they are only proposals and in the 12 years Ive been paying child tax nothing has ever changed despite all the “planned propsals”
    and two I havent seen anything in these changes that would actually make it fairer or ensure that the tax went to the children.

    Comment by Mits — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 12:00 pm

  4. Mits, I know. Also our stories sound similar.

    The way I pay at the moment, means when they make a mistake, I just pay them the balance next month and it usually works out fine. The way they are proposing means that they will just steal from us and like you said, we won’t see that money ever again!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 12:23 pm

  5. If they are lowering the nights for shared care they should lower the amount you have to pay or nothing at all. The courts decided I was responsible for 50% care of my son, but the IRD say Im responsible for 100% of the costs

    Comment by Trying Hard — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 12:46 pm

  6. Speaking of the handbook, it must exist, I hear too many things coming from too many women or relayed by men that are exactly word for word! Most of the time I can finish their sentences cause I know how the lie/story goes!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 12:46 pm

  7. The only thing to do is to stop child tax. That is the only solution.

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 12:51 pm

  8. You can see where this is heading. Having a child or children automatically changes the male’s tax code. So men are facing automatic taxation per head to fund the states children. It is more than a privacy issue, every time your name goes on a birth certificate your tax status changes. But what will also happen is that unemployed men will have their benefit reduced. If you calculate the current situation the maximum child support deduction allowed reduces the unemployment benefit to the same level as a sickness beneficiary. When we see this recession really take hold and unemployed numbers rise women will still get the DPB, but men will live on the bread line. In the time line that you are referring to scrap this will also provide the opportunity to reduce old age pensions. There must be thousands of men who will never have the financial means to get themselves out of child support arrears and penalties. If our population trends continue and male numbers decline further politicians will only have to satisfy the female vote. Throw into that being stopped at the border, and why wouldn’t our young men go and make Australia their home. I can’t see much future in this God forsaken place.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 2:38 pm

  9. Changing the definition of income. Great idea this one – if you want to destroy small business in New Zealand and export the next generation of tradesmen. You could write a thesis on the stupidity of this one, I’m not even going to start.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 2:52 pm

  10. We need to form a united group.Get in a front man like Lindsay Perigo to do adds on tv.Also make it hard for inland revenue by some form of civil disobedience.We need to get the message across that working men and good fathers are not going to take this any more.Its the year 2011 and women and men should share their childrens up brining.May be we should all use a block vote and vote for? sorry theres no party I can think of who are interested in the future of NZ men and children

    Comment by Rocknrollstar — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 7:12 pm

  11. This tax begins when a mother makes an allegation. She simply states that the fatehr has the child for less than 28 per cent of the nights. It makes no difference if this claim is true or false – 18% or more of his gross pay will be deducted automatically. If down the track this was found to be a lie she simply makes it a reality by force. There are no negative consequences for her under the law or the adminstration at all.

    This all assumes the Child Tax is applied correctly which is very often not the case.

    The current child tax scheme has been so unfair for so long what it needs is a major PR excercise. These automatic deductions are going to provide even more incentive for non-compliance.

    Comment by Vman — Mon 5th September 2011 @ 8:55 pm

  12. These changes still do not address the fundamental problem with the Child Tax. It is a income tax based on selected people’s maritial status. These tweeks do not address that at all.

    Comment by Vman — Mon 5th September 2011 @ 8:56 pm

  13. Sorry Vman I don’t get it. Marital status has little do with it.
    Single people may pay, maried people may pay, divorced people may pay. Remarrying has zero effect (normally). What is the fundamental problem you are highlighting?
    Scrap would argue that we pay tax and this includes provision for WINZ benefits for all. He says some are selected for a second child tax based on their own children’s circumstances. Why should some be targeted for double taxation.
    The Govt response is probably because parents are responsible for their own children unless they can’t then it is assumed that for some of these children an absent parent should meet the costs of both the children AND the indolent parent who cannot care for the children themselves.
    If we are to attack Child Support we need to focus on what our objections are.

    WINZ sets a rate for the additional cost of caring for a child that they are willing to pay on top of a solo person’s benefit (or a couple’s benefit). If that is the rate struck for child support then why does Child Support want so much more. The problem I see is that Child Support is about benefit recovery for the children AND the ex hence it contains a high content of spousal support.
    Clean break? not with Child Suport in the equation.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 7:53 am

  14. @Allan – My primary objection to child support is its lack of necessity in almost all instances to which it is applied. In almost all instances of child support, a better alternative is shared parenting. This alternative is particularly applicable in a small country like New Zealand where geographical separation of any significance is not likely. Even in the US as big as it is, involuntary geographical separation of parents is not common. Concerning instances in which the mother (and it is almost always the mother) does not want to share parenting and imposes a hostile parent veto upon the arrangement, then she would be forced into visitation and paying child support. But once the mother realizes this is a consequence of her hostile parent veto, then her compliance with shared parenting will improve dramatically. Child support is CHILD TRAFFICKING and CHILD ABUSE and SLAVERY for fathers. It serves no purpose but to enable the mother’s pathology and funnel wealth from the father to the Divorce Industry and the rich. This kind of usury breaks the economy.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 8:57 am

  15. Another important objection of mine is that child support exceeds the cost or raising a child by multiples of two to three and what the father should be paying by a multiple of four to six in most instances and the mother contributes nothing financially. Child support was created to reimburse the State for welfare it gives to the mother. However, most mothers who receive child support are capable of getting jobs as good or better than the fathers and have higher degrees. So, they are in no need of welfare. If they are not capable of getting such jobs, there are educational opportunities for them that they should be forced to pursue before applying for child support. These women are just being lazy and gaming the system.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 9:02 am


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 11:26 am

  17. Darryl , Im sorry to say but even with shared care you still have to pay 12%, and a parent can even go on the DPB with shared care….

    Comment by Trying Hard — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 2:13 pm

  18. Thanks for that Scrap. Reinforces what I said recently; Dunne has bullshit on his lips and blood money in his back pocket. With the direction our universities are heading in, it will be a grey day in the distant future before we see any such glimpses of reality.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 3:21 pm

  19. Darryl X

    Do you think that $74 a month for three children as Child Support is enough?Do you think that would buy the milk even?Do you really believe that the government aka the Tax Payer should pay for all the cost of children of separated parents.Did you know that most couples with children are hard up?They struggle to pay the bills.Why do you think that you should not have some struggle as you help pay the bills when you are separated?I want some answers from you.

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 6:37 pm

  20. dear Tanya do you think $2500/ month is less for raising one child? do you think this does not cover for more than basic needs? I want some answers from you… hehehe…

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 7:00 pm

  21. You must earn a hell of a lot to pay that much for three kids

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 7:21 pm

  22. sorry one kid

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 7:22 pm

  23. Do you think that $74 a month for three children as Child Support is enough?Do you think that would buy the milk even?Do you really believe that the government aka the Tax Payer should pay for all the cost of children of separated parents.Did you know that most couples with children are hard up?They struggle to pay the bills.Why do you think that you should not have some struggle as you help pay the bills when you are separated?I want some answers from you.

    1) The goverment is not the tax payer.
    2) The current child tax system is double taxation, we already pay taxes to cover the cost of benifits like working for families, national super etc…
    3) Allan is on track when he says that a large chunk of current Child Tax is spousal maintenance.
    4) Approaching child support via a child tax system like we have has caused massive “debt ballons” in countries that use %formulas
    5) Money is only a small part of the child support, its a large part of child tax.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 7:59 pm

  24. Tanya (reply #19): Firstly, a father paying $74 per month under our so-called ‘child support’ formula will be earning very little, perhaps on a benefit. Unfortunately, life will be very hard financially whether he is contributing to the children from within their household or from outside it.

    Secondly, one could equally ask if what he is left with after paying the $74 is enough for him to live above a poverty line.

    Thirdly, whether the government should pay for children depends for me on the reason the children’s parents are separated and the reason the children are in the ‘custody’ of one of the parents. If the separation was initiated by the children’s primary caregiver who intended to retain ‘custody’ on the DPB and there was no recent conviction against the other parent for serious domestic violence, then yes, the primary caregiver and the government should take all further financial responsibility for the children’s needs. If the government chooses to pay primary caregivers to break up their children’s families then let the government take responsibility for its foolishness. Why make the provider/protector parent pay after the government has waded in to replace him/her? However, if the separation was initiated by a provider/protector parent who was not willing to provide half the subsequent child care, then the leaving parent should be made to pay. That parent should pay at least a half share of children’s needs as well as reimbursement to the other parent for that portion of the provider/protector’s half share of child care that he/she is not undertaking. If such payments bring the paying parent’s life to below an acceptable standard of living, then that’s a matter for the welfare state to consider.

    Fourth, under the current so-called ‘child support’ formula, many paying parents pay $500 to $1000 per month, and high earning parents can pay over $2500 per month. This is supposed to represent their half share of the children’s costs. It is absurd to suggest that children’s basic needs could ever be that much, therefore much of the so-called ‘child support’ is actually a dishonest form of spousal support.

    Fifth, regardless of parental income the best outcome for children will be achieved by giving both separated parents the choice to provide half the child care without any ongoing money changing hands except voluntarily. This will give children the fullest possible relationship with each parent, allow both parents equal opportunity to get on with their lives, and will reduce the massive amount of ill-will and conflict caused by the current system.

    Finally, I am reminded of a female comedian’s line: When I date a man I might consider marrying, I first ask myself “Is this the man I want my children to spend every second weekend with?”.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 9:10 pm

  25. Thank you Hans for the well crafted and very sensible outline for Tanya *19.
    It’s good to have you back.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 9:53 pm

  26. @Hans – Yes, thank you for the very reasoned response to Tanya. Seventy-four dollars per month is too much for the father of your children to be paying you. You shouldn’t be receiving any child support. You should share parenting. If you were incapable of that during marriage then you should do it after divorce. If you can’t do it after divorce then you should stop complaining and turn custody of your children over to the father and pay him much more than AU$74/mo, as you are almost certainly responsible for breakdown of the marriage and divorce and for all the problems it has caused everyone. Seldom is it the case that the father will not share parenting. Most mothers do not share parenting. Mothers are responsible for most hostile parent veto and parental alienation and maternal gate-keeping. Mothers are responsible for most divorce and marriage breakdown and domestic violence and child abuse. Mothers are responsible for all paternity fraud and adultery.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 12:39 am

  27. @Tanya – Sorry. The second part of my last post was for you (#26).

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 12:43 am

  28. @Hans – I think you are suggesting that child support is legitmate in some instances and I disagree. My position has and continues to be that there should be no such thing as child support. I am familiar with no instances in which child support is administered responsibly and not abused. It is usury. It is child trafficking and abuse and slavery for fathers. But I appreciate the sentiment of your argument. And it’s nice to have you back. If you don’t mind me asking, where have you BEEN?

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 1:07 am

  29. @Tanya – I did not know that most couples with children are “hard up”. I would like to consult any data supporting that conclusion. If that is the case, and I doubt it is, the reason most couples may have trouble supporting a family is the mother driving the family’s finances into the ground with her excessive lifestyle choices. Both during marriage and after, the mother makes unrealistic and unnecessary financial demands on the family, driving entire economies to bankruptcy. I have argued before and continue to argue that child support and irresponsible financial management of women are the primary reasons for our current global economic crisis. Until child support is eliminated and women are forced to take responsibilty for their excesses, the global economy will not recover. Evidence for this conclusion is considerable, including difference in preparedness for retirement of men and women, all other things being equal, the relative standard of living of men and women before and after divorce, the difference in amount of personal debt taken on by men and women, and the difference in amount of public debt allocated to women and men. I understand your concerns, but they have no basis in reality and reflect a lack of basic comprehension about mathematics.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 1:20 am

  30. And has anyone noticed that Tanya’s writing style and cadence is the same as Bill’s?

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 1:33 am

  31. @Trying Hard – Thanks for the info. I’m in the US and am learning on this site the nuances of the child support system in New Zealand. Although all the systems with which I am familiar are different in very specific ways, the abstract mechanisms and motives are the same. So, I tend to couch my arguments in abstract terms. Sucks that even with shared parenting the noncustodial parent still pays 12%. What is the logic behind that? Or is there any?

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 1:44 am

  32. Please can you give me evidence that women are the cause of the global economic crisis?In NZ many men do not want to share custody.In NZ couples with children generally struggle financially.I base this on what is reported in the news and the many people I meet at work and otherwise.

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 6:40 am

  33. I look at the claims about how things should be – the fact is many people have to deal with how things are.

    I have 50|50 shared for two boys and are IRD’d for $1300 a month.

    So I meet their costs for the time that they are with me. In fact the costs for both parents must be substantively the same. It’s a distraction to say that I must earn a lot and must be able to afford it.

    I can’t discern how this is going to change under the proposals but hold out little hope that it will be truly substantive or fair..

    Comment by Fair Shared — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 7:29 am

  34. @Tanya – I asked you first for evidence that couples with children are “hard up”. The mainstream media and anecdotal reports from people with whom you work are not reliable sources that couples with children are “hard up”. As I explained before, if couples with children are “hard up”, it’s usually because the mother is driving the finances of the family into the ground. There are plenty of resources to consult for information about who spends money and how. Marketing agencies, Depts of Public Health and Human Services, etc…

    Evidence that women are responsible for the global economic crisis is extensive and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. “The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments” by William S Comanor and additional articles by authors who have contributed to this one publication are just a few of thousands of examples of published data (this particular one is in the context of child support but there are many others concerning fraudulent claims about medical care to misdirect funds to solely womens causes and the list goes on). Women spend eighty-five cents of every dollar in the US – breakdown of how that money is spent may be found in a variety of sources but needless to say it is not responsible or long-term investments in families or communities but short-sighted and self-serving waste. Concerning budgets in the US, more money is allocated to child support enforcement (where it is almost all wasted and completely unnecessary) than on emergency relief (FEMA for instance). The list goes on. The excesses of feminism have taxed economies of the world to such great extremes that infrastructure allocated to feminist causes has broken their budgets for generations to come. Most wars are to satisfy excessive lifestyles of women, especially when you consider that eighty-five cents of every dollar spent in the US is by women and those wars are being fought to satisfy that excess and women for the most part produce nothing for that investment.

    I do not believe that most men in NZ do not want to share parenting. Based upon extensive data, fathers have been driven from the lives of their children through financial destruction and hostile parent veto. Again, a simple on-line search or visit to your library will reveal thousands of comprehensive reviews of the circumstances imposed upon fathers in families and after divorce. One exceptionally good reference is “Taken Into Custody: America’s War Against Fathers, Children and the Family” by Stephen Baskerville. This book and many other articles by him presents comprehenisve data and discussion about how women and the gov’t use children as hostages for ransom and profit, promoting usury and wasting tax dollars and how much money is wasted by women on the vast Divorce Industry, the single largest industry in the history of the world. There are few data gathered and reported in compliance with the Scientific Method that contradict this conclusion. That men do not want to parent their children is a myth with no support. That women traffic their children for profit and deny them access to their fathers is fact supported by considerable volume of data in the scientific literature and case law. In your search, use the terms “parental alienation”, “hostile parent veto”, “maternal gate-keeping” just for starters.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 7:44 am

  35. Well said Darryl, you only need look at the Polynesian families in Auckland for a good example. Take a mother living on the DPB and living with her parents. Father has child support deducted from his wages, but in order to see his child must pay the Grandmother up to $100.00 per visit to enter the house. This is the maternal gate keeper in action in South Auckland, (that’s right here in New Zealand). This is a downside of multiculturalism. The same circumstance takes a different form in different cultures. This has two effects.

    a. It masks the numbers involved because of cultural divisions.
    b. It masks the numbers involved because of the age of the disaffected.

    The affects are not just those we see around us – i.e. generally older people that participate in these discussions – but an ongoing and much more significant effect rippling through our younger generation and affecting an increasing number of people in society.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 9:08 am

  36. A 5 minute search of revealed the following books that you may want to check out, if that is you have ANY interest in actually finding out the facts.
    Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family [Hardcover]
    Stephen Baskerville
    The Myth of Male Power [Paperback]
    Warren Farrell
    The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men [Bargain Price] [Paperback]
    Christina Hoff Sommers
    Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care [Paperback]
    Kathleen Parker
    That Bitch: Protect Yourself Against Women With Malicious Intent [Paperback]
    Roy Sheppard & Mary T Cleary (Author)
    The Manipulated Man [Paperback]
    Esther Vilar
    Booby Trapped: Men Beware! The Dirty Seven Sisters: A Dating Guide for the 21st Century [Paperback]
    June Marshall
    The Predatory Female: A Field Guide to Dating and the Marriage-Divorce Industry [Mass Market Paperback] Lawrence Shannon
    There is plenty of information out there, all you have to do is look for it.
    PS: As you may or may not have noticed, many of these books are written by women.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 9:31 am

  37. @Mr A – There’s another really great book (also written by a woman) called “When She Was Bad”. It brings up some very important scientific observations about the motivations of women who divorce and snatch the children and terrorize their ex-husbands. It is not a scientific publication but for a non-scientist, the author makes some brilliant observations and draws some interesting correlations. The author is Patricia Pearson.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 11:30 am

  38. The change in the penalty structure is an interesting move. This might sound like a move toward less draconian behaviour by the state holding the big stick, but it is not. This will have little impact on the continued accumulation of penalties currently around the two billion mark. What this change will do is allow a move toward alternative means of collection. The lobby group being satisfied here is women with well healed payers whom they cannot collect from, or cannot collect enough from. This will have some negative outcomes. I can see people getting hurt here. A few dead women, some orphaned kids and other unfortunate people who think they are just doing their job. Bit dramatic you think – let’s just freeze frame this one for an update down the track.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 3:14 pm

  39. You should call this site ‘The Women Haters Club’.That is what you really are.Anyone can find research to support their arguments if they have the time.People get paid for writing books.

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 5:20 pm

  40. @ Tanya..
    i may earn a hell of a lot but still does not justify that one kid costs as much to raise per month… still the same extreme you quote except on the other end of the scale.

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 6:14 pm

  41. @ tanya – the ex is happy to keep the child away (without any contact) inorder to collect this much cos she knows she cannot earn in her own capacity. she is also happy to not share custody cos of the amount she gets from CS.


    Comment by kiran jiharr — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 6:16 pm

  42. Tanya (reply #39). What a trite, offensive response. Various people have spent considerable time preparing replies for your initial questions. Yet you return and simply slag everyone off with quite unfounded accusations, and with no rational contribution to the discussion that you initiated. How destructive and disrespectful. Have you bothered to read and consider any of the replies to your initial question? If so, why don’t you discuss what has been written rather than issuing childish insults that clearly took no effort on your part and certainly no intelligence? The only thing from me now is to challenge you to provide one shred of evidence of ‘hatred towards women’ to support your outrageous slur. Other than that, I shall ignore you roundly unless you actually participate in rational discussion.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 6:38 pm

  43. Tanya, we have heard all your shaming methods before, every single one of them are very familiar to ANY man who has been around this site for more than a few weeks. But, since you insist on bombarding us with your (inefectual) retoric, here is the well known list.

    ‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’

    “Shaming tactics.” This phrase is familiar to many Men’s Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.

    Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.

    Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men’s issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.

    Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

    Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:

    * “You’re bitter!”
    * “You need to get over your anger at women.”
    * “You are so negative!”

    Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

    Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)

    Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples:

    * “You need to get over your fear.”
    * “Step up and take a chance like a man!”
    * “You’re afraid of a strong woman!”

    Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.

    Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples:

    * “Stop whining!”
    * “Get over it!”
    * “Suck it up like a man!”
    * “You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
    * “You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
    * “Your fragile male ego “¦”
    * “Wow! You guys need to get a grip!”

    Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (“yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

    Charge of Puerility (Code Green) – The Peter Pan Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples:

    * “Grow up!”
    * “You are so immature!”
    * “Do you live with your mother?”
    * “I’m not interested in boys. I’m interested in real men.”
    * “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”

    Response: It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

    Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:

    * “You guys are scary.”
    * “You make me feel afraid.”

    Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression.

    Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:

    * “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”

    Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?” At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”

    Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:

    * “You’re one of those right-wing wackos.”
    * “You’re an extremist”
    * “You sound like the KKK.”
    * “”¦ more anti-feminist zaniness”

    Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are “out of the mainstream” is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of “False Compromise”).

    Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

    Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:

    * “Are you gay?”
    * “I need a real man, not a sissy.”
    * “You’re such a wimp.”

    Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

    Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)

    Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples:

    * “I’m not like that!”
    * “Stop generalizing!”
    * “That’s a sexist stereotype!”

    Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.

    Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

    Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:

    * “You misogynist creep!”
    * “Why do you hate women?”
    * “Do you love your mother?”
    * “You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
    * “You are mean-spirited.”
    * “You view women as doormats.”
    * “You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
    * “You are going to make me cry.”

    Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

    Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:

    * “You’re unstable.”
    * “You have issues.”
    * “You need therapy.”
    * “Weirdo!”

    Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

    Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)

    Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples:

    * “You are so materialistic.”
    * “You are so greedy.”

    Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, “So you are saying I shouldn’t spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you -and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?”

    Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) – The All-That-Glitters Charge

    Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples:

    * “If you didn’t go after bimbos, then “¦”
    * “How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?”

    Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, “high-maintanence” women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).

    Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:

    * “I bet you are fat and ugly.”
    * “You can’t get laid!”
    * “Creep!”
    * “Loser!”
    * “Have you thought about the problem being you?”

    Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

    Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)

    Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation. Examples:

    * “Stop being so negative.”
    * “You are so cynical.”
    * “If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.”
    * “C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.”

    Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

    Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) – The Pink Whip

    Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples:

    * “No woman will marry you with that attitude.”
    * “Creeps like you will never get laid!”

    Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).

    Perhaps if you can come up with an argument that DOESN’T use one of these methods, we might take you seriously (or any other feminist that might want to try posting here). On the other hand, I doubt that it is actually possible for anybody, male or female to come up with a decent non-shaming based argument because, quite frankly, there isn’t one.


    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 6:46 pm

  44. Skeptik (#25), Dsrryl X (#28) and others: I have been visiting the Australian outback for a much-needed holiday, and now I’m back on deck. Unfortunately, there were a few gender issue matters that I was unable to forward while away without internet access. One was a complaint to TVNZ for screening the appalling article on its 20/20 show giving the opportunity for violent offenders Lani Aperahama and Kaycee Wall to blame their male victim and to traumatize him further, without making any attempt to interview him or to include his perspective. I was not able to make a complaint within the allowed time.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 6:56 pm

  45. Hans, Kiran & Mr Anonymous
    If you care to go back over and read most of the comments about women on this site you can not fail to notice a common thread.
    Women are ugly,dumb,users,spenders,unproductive,evil,schemers and on and on .Just read them.if I had to list all the times you make women out to be worthless I would be here for weeks.
    As for that long list of how apparently women put men down I have heard almost all of those directed at women in my time.
    If there was any intelligent discussion going on I might be able to participate

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 7:11 pm

  46. Tanya have you are on a men’s sight, run by men, organised for men and mostly frequented by men. It is a site specifically dedicated to MEN’S experience. So of course you are going to find examples of this. Get a bunch of men together, and when women aren’t around, one horror story comes out after another. The only difference with this site is that instead of the conversations going dead when a woman walks in, you get to be able to participate.
    Don’t for one moment think that this site is simply a place for pissed off men to come and rant, this site, in my own experience, provides a pretty good microcosm of the realities of being a man in New Zealand.
    You accuse us of being full of hate….I suggest you read some feminst literature, and see just how hateful feminism really is.
    Let’s start with a well known feminst document. The S.C.U.M. Manifesto. Have a read and try to tell me that this isn’t a document of hate against men.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 7:31 pm

  47. I post this because if you support feminism, you really should understand what it is you are supporting.
    As activists, we have a very good understanding of feminism. Many of us have been “in the trenches” for years, we are very familiar with every single tactic that feminists and their supporters use in their systematic ripping down of men and all things masculine. It may come as a surprise to you, but the most common tactics all involve lying, and missrepresentation.
    That is why so many of us are concerned with information from provable, verifiable and politically neutral sources. The good thing about it is that without exception, feminist arguments crumble when confronted with factual data, every single feminist concept is based on lies. This is why we have no problems at all with engaging with feminists, because every single time they will resort to either shaming tactics (also known as emotional abuse), refer to politically endorsed studies (which distort the truth for political gain), or simply lie.
    Feminists on the whole have no interest in the truth at all, and will go to extrodinary lengths to try and lead people away from it.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 7:44 pm

  48. If I am a female does this mean I am a feminist?
    Do men only write the truth and women all lie?
    Please I am trying to get to grips with what you are on about.

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 7:55 pm

  49. Tanya, your messages show very clearly a support of feminist ideals, so whether you are aware of your beliefs or not you come across as a feminist. Do all men tell the truth? Certainly not, it would be a blatant lie to say all men tell the truth all the time, just as it would be a blatant lie to claim the same of women. However, it’s important to understand when discussing feminism that EVERY one of the claims made by feminism as an ideology about men is either a distortion, or a blatant lie, therefore, NOTHING told to you from feminist sources can be trusted. Research from feminist sources is also not to be trusted, as almost all of it is politically backed, therefore putting an agenda behind it. Look for sources supporting feminism and invariably they will be backed by someone who has something to gain from a feminist supporting document.
    The only sources of information that can be trusted are independent studies, and these studies you will soon discover invariably expose the lies created from feminist sources.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 8:18 pm

  50. Thank you.So what would I have to believe in not to be a feminist?
    Can any research be independent?How would we know if it was?

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 8:36 pm

  51. Tanya, please explain to us all how you think child support should work and how fair you think the current system is and why? Also what do you think of the proposed changes? (not looking for a one word answer to that either!)

    After all, this is a thread about child support.

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 9:08 pm

  52. Hmmm. You have come up with a good question in what you would belive in to not be a feminist. Firstly it’s important to understand that Feminism is primarily a set of belief systems, that then lead to certain observable behaviours. It’s actually a pretty big topic to discuss, and because femisim is so engound into the psyche of most Western women it’s also dificult to get past this level of conditioning.
    One thing I am not going to to though is to tell you how to think. I would however suggest that you use discernment in where you get your information from. It is important to understand that the ideals of feminism are so ingrained into our society that they are sometimes very difficult to spot. We have after all been going down the track of a feminist orientated country for the last 40+ years.
    I would suggest simply opening your eyes to what you observe and watching with an open and questioning mind. You will soon see how insidious feminist ideas can be.
    The key things to look for is anything that shows a bias against men, rather than giving men a fair deal. Good examples are the divorce industry (which routinely places blame on men for divorce, even when statistically 75% of divorces are initiated by women), and the child support system, (which is presented to the public as being about children, but in reality is about punishing men for becoming fathers by enfocing excessive child support payments and is of course run by the revenue collecting arm of the government (50% of child support goes into government coffers, despite New Zealand having one of the worst records of child poverty in the developed world, but this statistic is routinely ignored). These two systems I might add work together. Another area is healthcare, where substantially more is spent on female related problems then men’s. There are however many, many other areas that you will find the anti-male bias, if you are brave enough to look.
    Be prepared for a shock though, because once you realise how ingrained this bias is against men and boys and how strong the victim mentality is in women, how readily misandry appears and how much blame and hate there is directed at men you will most likely find it hard to stomach, even as a woman.
    As for your questions about independent research, the answer is simple. Look to who is conducting the research, this will give you a clue as to whether they have an agenda that they are trying to support. Organisations like women’s refuge for example, have good reason to discover certain “facts” about domestic violence.
    One other good suggestion with research is always look at multiple independent studies, never simply one. If 4 or 5 independent studies show the same, or similar results, then you have discovered the truth.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 9:19 pm

  53. This is a thread on child support.

    Tanya, please explain to us all how you think child support should work and how fair you think the current system is and why? Also what do you think of the proposed changes? (not looking for a one word answer to that either!)

    After all, this is a thread about child support.

    Waiting for the answer.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 9:55 pm

  54. I’d be interested in Tanya’s response to the first point.

    “¢ The number of nights a year used to determine shared care being reduced from 40 percent to 28 percent of nights;

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 10:21 pm

  55. Tanya (#45): I have made no such comments about women so please don’t falsely accuse me of such. I have checked but was unable to find evidence of most of the words you claim were used by anyone here to describe women. A few posters in some threads have made critical comments about women as generalizations but most do not do so, and we don’t all agree with everything others say here. Ironically, your behaviour here lends considerable support to the criticisms you object to. But the fact is that most of the contributions in this thread have sensibly discussed so-called ‘child support’ and the changes that are now being suggested in that regard.

    Tanya (#48): It is quite obvious that you have no interest in trying to come to grips with anything here, and that you have no intention of participating in discussions in any genuine way. It also seems likely that you are the same person as ‘Bill’ and you are continuing to refuse to acknowledge or debate others’ points but usually respond only with trite insults, invalid generalizations and new questions that you are not interested in having answered.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 7th September 2011 @ 11:09 pm

  56. @Tanya – The best source of information that most accurately reflects the world around us and reality is referred to as the primary literature. Primary literature is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or other volumes. Primary literature is not perfect and is not without error or bias or mistakes. However, primary literature because it is subject to a rigorous peer review process and report about sources of funding for the research is required, this form of literature (primary literature) is the most reliable and objective. That being said, if you are reading an example of “primary literature” published in the Journal of Domestic Violence based upon research funded by the Nat’l Organization for Women, You should be very suspicious of this example of literature as it is likely to contain considerable bias (Murray Strauss, whose work was funded by the Nat’l Org for Women, published results of his work in a journal and because it contradicted the agenda of the Nat’s Org for Women, they pulled his grant funding – and even sent death threats to him). Just as if you were reading a report in the Journal of Pharmacology about the results of testing for a new drug and the research was funded by the company who invented and is marketing the drug – probably not a reliable source for information about that drug as the company funding the research has everything to gain in the short-term by overstating its performance and nothing to lose in the short-term by neglecting report of any problems. But despite these instances, which are more common than they should be as there will always be greed and ego influencing scientific work, the primary literature is still the most reliable and objective. A body of work is reviewed by the scientist’s peers, so if there is an error, it has a greater chance of being discovered before publication and broadcast to the public. It is not to say there aren’t good investigative journalists out there working for magazines or newspapers or the internet who are not biased and aren’t good at their jobs. There are. And there are some rigorous constraints on what they can and cannot report and how they document or cite or support their reports. The primary literature is just often more rigorous.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 1:04 am

  57. @Tanya – The Scientific Method and peer review of work generated from it was invented four-thousand years ago. Like marriage, it is the distinction between civilization and not. Feminism broadcasts propaganda and lies and false flags for the purpose of manipulating and decieving. Feminism is antithetical to civilization and faith.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 1:07 am

  58. @Tanya – Feminism is institutionalized psychopathy and malignant narcissism. Not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. Feminists are also male enablers of female pathology and chronic victimhood. Approximately 80% of women occupy a place high on the continuum of malignant narcissism. Approximately 20% of men occupy a position high on the continuum of malignant narcissism. These proportions reflect assortive mating strategies among human and other primate populations as they might organize socially in a caste.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 1:32 am

  59. @Tanya re #45 – Reporting facts and data, especially those published in peer reviewed scientific literature, that reflect poorly upon women in a civilization is not the same thing as claiming they are worthless. They are not worthless. Within the context of civilization but without any constraints placed upon their irresponsible and destructive behavior, they are worse than worthless as they actively destroy civilization (if they were just worthless, they just wouldn’t contribute to civilization, which most don’t either). Complaining about report of facts and data that reflect poorly upon women is a reflection on those complaining about the facts and not upon the facts and data and those reporting them. Don’t shoot the messanger if you don’t like the message. If you disagree with the message supported by considerable facts and data, especially those published in the scientific literature, then it is your obligation to either contradict the message with data and facts or withdraw your disagreement and complaint.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 2:16 am

  60. @Tanya re #45 – Reporting facts and data, especially those published in peer reviewed scientific literature, that reflect poorly upon women in a civilization is not the same thing as claiming they are worthless. They are not worthless as they had value before the advent of feminism. Within the context of civilization but without any constraints placed upon their irresponsible and destructive behavior and since the advent of feminism, they are worse than worthless as they actively destroy civilization (if they were just worthless, they just wouldn’t contribute to civilization, which most don’t either since the advent of feminism). Complaining about report of facts and data that reflect poorly upon women is a reflection on those complaining about the facts and data and not upon the facts and data and those reporting them. Don’t shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message. Measurement of facts and data may be replicated within certain tolerances. If you disagree with the message supported by considerable facts and data, especially those published in the scientific literature, then it is your obligation to either contradict the message with data and facts or withdraw your disagreement and complaint.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 2:20 am

  61. So I may know or not know whether I am a feminist?
    About Child Support.
    By the way I am not Bill?
    My 3 children are a recipients of Child Support.Well I recieve it and spend it on our costs of living.It varies a bit but I can usually count on $74 a month total.My husband formed a relationship with a student he was studying with at Uni.After some time about a year I decided that I did not want to live with him.We had been to counselling and it was not a success.He was in some ways happy to leave.The relationship with the woman ended shortly after.It was too late for me and I was still recovering from depression that had set in in the previous year.I had three children to raise.I work at a couple of different jobs and am not on a benefit.I had to raise half the value of the family home to pay him out as per law.The house had been bought by me prior to having children.My husband had worked intermittently and made some mortgage payments.I am not fat,ugly or money waster.Actually I am extremely beautiful,slim and a great house keeper.They call be a Domestic Goddess truely.On top of that I love going gardening and decorating.Any takers?
    Am I a feminist for asking my husband to leave?
    We never did shared care then or now.He found another partner and she wasnt keen.I dont know if he is working.This is not information the IRD is able to give me.He does see the children in the hols and saw them more often before I moved away to get a better job where I could support my three growing children.They are now teenagers.
    I have had a couple of relationships with men over the years and even lived with one for a year.He finally admitted that he was a chronic alcoholic which explained some of his unpleasant behaviors.My kids loved him and it was very hard to ask him to leave.He did not accept that a bottle of Vodka and a dozen stubbies was extreme in a day.I feel like I have let my children down again.I dont know what else I could have done in both relationships.Do you men have any suggestions?

    Comment by Tanya — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 6:07 am

  62. Sorry

    And this has what to do with child tax and the current reforms mooted?
    wouldnt it be better to start another thread on the topic of relationships and leave this one to child tax?

    Just a thought.

    Comment by Mits — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 7:24 am

  63. dear tanya
    still waiting for an answer to my first question to you…

    are you intelligent enough to answer it??..

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 3:19 pm

  64. Kiran, it’s nothing to do with intelligence, but everything to do with motive. Why is she here? Why will she not answer questions?

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 4:10 pm

  65. Don’t be too hard on the girl; she wanted to tell her story. How many guys have we seen here who just wanted to tell their story. When you are over that, you can become objective, so she has told her story, let’s wait and see. It is nothing to do with intelligence, which is a variable remember and one that increases in the right direction, once we get people past that hurdle.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 5:07 pm

  66. Kiran Jiharr
    I must not be intelligent enough to answer the question.I was not blessed with a lot of intellect at birth I have been told.It could have something to do with being a female.
    Do I have to have a motive?I really just want to know what people commenting are about.

    Comment by Tanya — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 5:12 pm

  67. Also my comment did have ‘Child Tax’? in it.$74 a month for 3 children.And also my husband didnt request shared care.

    Comment by Tanya — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 5:14 pm

  68. Fair enough Tanya is the $74 dollars enough, to much, or not enough?

    what would you feel is a sufficient amount of child tax?
    By that I mean how much do you feel you should get from your ex?
    Is there a dollar amount that you would be satisfied with

    Comment by Mits — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 6:02 pm

  69. Hi Mits
    I dont think $74 is enough for 3 children in a month.
    I earn about $845 a week after tax and pay $306 for mortgage.It cost around $270 for food a week.That is if I spend a lot of time in the kitchen.
    Then there is rates,power,phone,insurance,petrol,car repairs ,school fees and materials for school,clothing,medical and many other necesities that I am too tired to think of.I do get some Working for families.
    I have no savings for emergencies or retirement.I should be in Kiwi Saver but I failed to make the payments that I set up.I have to remortgage my house every five or so years to update my car.My car is a 1991.I have tried not to but if I dont i end up spending too much money on repairs.I have not had a holiday of more than a week for 14 years.When I did go away I had to stay with family which is not always good.
    We have a boarder and what I make from this pays for my childrens sport.
    I think a more appropriate amount of Child Support would be $300 a month but of course I could use more.It costs me more than $300 to keep them.I am not complaining though.I love my children and wonder what would have happened if their Dad had wanted to look after them.There was a chance of this at the time as I was depressed.But he didnt push for this as I think he had other things on his mind.
    It would be good to see my mortgage go down.I once had a mortgage free house in the town I now live in 22 years ago.I suppose when the children are gone I can sell and buy a unit and that will mean I may not have a mortgage.

    Comment by Tanya — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 6:52 pm

  70. And also my husband didn’t request shared care.

    So says you.
    The fact is he isn’t here to verify that.
    So the jury is out on that one.
    Besides even if it’s true perhaps he didn’t request it because he realized in his neck of the woods he a snowball’s chance in feminist hell of getting it. Again he’s not here to verify that either.
    So another question for you Tanya – “How respectful is you’re matronizing your ex by trying to speak for him?”

    And another “Do you often engage in that kind of emotional abuse – speaking for other men characterizing them without their knowledge or permission?”

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 7:01 pm

  71. Skeptic
    I had not realized that i had spoken for my ex husband.He did not ask for custody or shared custody.I think he had other things on his mind.Like the woman he was having an affair with.I do think you are overreacting.I am not sure that I am a feminist.If he had wanted custody he had a good chance of getting it.He had family that would support him and I was suicidal.

    Comment by Tanya — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 7:20 pm

  72. Hi Tania;
    Thank you for explaining your background and your experiences with regard to your ex and especially with regard child support/tax.

    I can imagine that it’s tough being in your situation. It’s true that this is a thread about child support changes, although I’d just like to say that there are men out there who are great men. Look for one who has children himself, especially if he has shared custody or is trying to get it. They’re rare but worth finding.
    With regard to the thread; what would you tell Mr Dunne if you saw him? How much should child support be? Should it depend on your ex’s earnings? Should it depend on how much your ex cares and contributes to the children?
    What if your ex wanted to have the children more. Would you allow that ? And would you be prepared to see your child support go down?
    If you are not working, should your ex pay the child support directly to the government so you only receive benefit? What if he is late with a payment? Should the IRD pay the amount he owes at the correct time or should the IRD pay the penalty + interest he must pay to you ? Or should the government keep that as they currently do? These are just some of the questions that we all need to answer. If we are to get anywhere men and women need to work to change the proposal so that there is a faie replacement. In my view that would be no less than a fundamental change to shared parenting and child support. But that’s my own opinion. Your welcome to post on here. Just remember though, it is a male orientated forum so we will look at the posts with our male coloured spectacles on 🙂

    Comment by noconfidenceinNZfamilycourt — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 7:31 pm

  73. I had not realized that i had spoken for my ex husband.He did not ask for custody or shared custody.I think he had other things on his mind.Like the woman he was having an affair with.I do think you are overreacting.I am not sure that I am a feminist.If he had wanted custody he had a good chance of getting it.He had family that would support him and I was suicidal.

    You’re doing it again!
    Characterizing your ex husband behind his back.
    This time as an unfaithful philanderer.
    Over many years I’ve observed that such behavior (demonizing men with gossip and playing the victim) is standard feminist practice.

    Comment by Skeptik — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 8:35 pm

  74. @Tanya – Unfortunately, whether you are a feminist or not is irrelevant. You benefit from a vast legal and political and social machine that was created and is operated by feminists. You participate and enable that machine as long as it exists. Claims by feminists that a great patriarchy used to abuse women the way feminism abuses men today is a myth. Women have always had it very good, it’s just that now they have it much better but it has come at the considerable expense of men and civilization.

    Also, from a statistical perspective, that your husband left you for another woman AND refused to share parenting or custody is improbable. Even one of those developments alone would be improbable but that a woman was married to a man who did both to her is even more improbable. Just off the cuff analysis, less than one in three hundred. First, and this is easily documented by both historical data and present data (Dept of Public Health and Human Services, the Heritage Foundation, etc…), almost all men share parenting and will not interfere with relationship between the mother and their children. However, most women will NOT share parenting and will interfere with the relationship between a father and their children.

    Second, there are considerable data concerning adultery and paternity fraud by women because of DNA evidence and studies and because there are more practical and measurable consequences for a woman’s adultery than a man’s. There are fewer data concerning adultery because many researchers (psychologists and sociologists and others in the natural sciences) have concluded that the incidence of adultery (affairs, whatever) is much less among men than among women, and that there are tremendous consequences for a man when a woman commits adultery (paternity fraud, women are more likely than men to transmit STD’s, women are more likely than men to use an affair with a paramour to defraud their spouse in ways other than paterniy fraud) but few if any consequences to a woman when a married man commits adultery. So, there is more to study when a woman commits adultery than when a man does.

    It’s not nice when someone refuses to share parenting or accept custody, but more often than not, if that is in fact the case, usually there is great reason for it (the father was driven from his children’s lives by the mother and the gov’t – happens all the time). And it’s not nice when someone cheats on you, but if you are woman and your husband is cheating on you, there are few if any practical consequences. It’s not nice and it feels bad and it is a betrayal of trust but again, unlike if a woman did it to a man, there are few if any practical consequences and the betrayal is not nearly as bad as had it been a woman, which is much more common.

    Feminism is solipsism. The emotional consequences or perceived emotional consequences to a woman of a man’s behavior is incongruous when compared to the real practical consequences to a man of a woman’s behavior. Unfortunately, feminism has spent the past forty years trying to equate the two with disasterous consequences.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 11:59 pm

  75. I’m with Down Under. Don’t be too hard on the girl. But don’t let her get away with anything either. We’ve all got our stories to tell and we’ve told ’em too. Under such a vast and oppressive feminist regime, most women do not know what womanhood is any more than most men don’t know what manhood is or at least are permitted to behave like men.

    That being written, as a man, I will not acquiesce to any woman who tries to manipulate others with the public spectacle of her chronic victimhood. Manipulating others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood is inherent to women (it was selectively adapted for in a caste system of early social organizing and allowed women to out-group and promote greater genetic diversity in and among populations but it has no place in a civilization and in the context of that civilization it is maladaptive). The Scientific Method and marriage were invented in the first place to preempt expression of that trait. And it is those two things (science and marriage) that feminists hate the most because they are the greatest obstacles to women and their male enablers who want to satisfy their addiction to power and control by destroying civilization and returning to a caste.

    You are a feminist for asking your husband to leave. He is head of the household and not you. You do not ask him to leave. He asks you. And almost no man will do that no matter how bad the behavior of his wife is – it’s very rare, which illustrates the extraordinary tolerance by men. Women who live with men outside a marriage are feminists and so are men who do it.

    Relationship advice. Don’t live with a man unless you are married to him. And don’t have a relationship with a man just for sex. Neurotransmitters associated with sexuality are very addictive, especially for women who are much more solipsistic and do not have as many opportunities to exercise their intellects (as so much of their development early on in life is allocated to their reproductive systems and less to the brain for enforcing communication between their corpus callosa and their cerebrums). That’s why the life of a woman is much more fulfilling when it is realized through a relationship with a man in marriage. And vice versa. Marry a man with whom you can have a good conversation because sex will not always be that important.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 1:09 am

  76. @Tanya – To comply with request by at least one participant in this thread (with whom I agree) that it be confined to child support, here’s my contribution. You are a feminist because you receive child support. Child support is an invention of feminists created solely for the purpose of transferring vast amounts of wealth from men to women and the poor to the rich. It is a misnomer because it has nothing to do with supporting children. The fate of children growing up in poor households is the same as those growing up in wealthy ones. So, money has very little or nothing to do with a child’s future. The most important contribution to a person’s longevity (from a recently concluded longitudinal study that began almost one-hundred years ago) is weather or not a child’s parents are divorced (or were ever married to start with). Concerning quality of a child’s life, the most important variable is relationship with their fathers. Child support is the most important mechanism responsible for alienating children from their fathers. The second most important is adultery by the mother. Child support is child trafficking and abuse and slavery for fathers.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 1:46 am

  77. NoconfidenceinNZcourts
    Thank you for your reasonable reply
    Darryl X
    I think you are a person with extreme views on women and men.You seem to have done much research.
    I am not the only woman that has had a husband cheat on me and felt that to survive they had to ask them to leave.There were other factors.For years my husband chose not to be employed.I was worn down to being depressed and suicidal.My ex husband did not ask to have the children.If he wanted them even part time he would have had a very good chance.He had other things going on obviously.I am not speaking for him.I have observed what was happening at the time and like everyone on the planet made a judgement.You make judgements too.Some would say too many.
    Please Darryl I would like to know where you are coming from.Are you a religious man? You may have told your story on this site previously that Being new to this site I am not aware of?Can you tell me what you see that happened in your life that has made you seek support from this group?You can make judgements based on what you saw,heard and know about the situation.I will try not to judge you .I promise.

    Comment by Tanya — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 7:03 am

  78. Daryl X, Perhaps it’s time you actually gave us the sources of the “scientific information” you are so fond of referring too. I’m sure that you must have a long list of “scientific” journals that you can supply to us, along with specific articles contained within those journals, and of course links to the databases that they are from. While I am not taking sides here, feminists have a tendency to refer to non-existent or questionable studies, and it would be inappropriate for anyone, male or female to formulate an argument in either direction, voice extreme views and make blanket statements, and expect anyone to take them seriously without genuine sharing of the sources of their information.
    I also have been curious as to why you are on this site, as very little of what you discuss is focused on the New Zealand experience of men.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 9:22 am

  79. Under such a vast and oppressive feminist regime, most women do not know what womanhood is any more than most men don’t know what manhood is or at least are permitted to behave like men.

    Totally agree with you there. Which is why my standard response now to supposed “mens rights activists” is GROW SOME BALLS you will never achieve anything in the battle against feminsm without them. Men need to look first to their own inability to behave like men, and do something to reclaim their masculinity before they will ever have a chance to engage and win against feminism. It’s simply too easy to place the blame soley on women and feminism and not admit that the pathetic state of masculinity is our (men’s) fault, not theirs. As I have stated before if the average man had “testicles the size of basketballs” society would not have the problems it does.

    Comment by Phoenix — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 9:33 am

  80. Phoenix
    You sound reasonable.
    To blame everything on women(over half of the population I believe in NZ anyway)is not believable.
    What would men growing balls involve?
    I agree that many men are walked over by women.I have 6 brothers and have witnessed this myself with some of their partners and wives.I also think a subservient man is unattractive.I think men should lead with respect of course.Sometimes I think women want men that will obey them and when they get one they like me find them unattractive.It must be nature.

    Comment by Tanya — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 10:08 am

  81. @Mr A – Understood. What scientific information do you want? Domestic violence and child abuse (Daniel Whitaker, former CDC scientist; Murray Strauss, prof Univ New Hampshire are my favorits but there are many more). Information concerning neurotransmitters and sexuality and addiction (any medical journal emphasizing endochrinology or neurology during the past forty years and manuscripts concerning research related to sexual addiction or function of neurotransmitters in behavior). Primate social organizing (any reference text and all scientific manuscripts contained therein about anthropology or primatology). Divorce and child custody and child support (Dept of the Census, Dept of Public Health and Human Services, Private Foundations like the Heritage Foundation, and many others charged with monitoring status of families and required to generate annual reports concerning it with the federal and state funds they receive – many of these data are included in many examples of the scientific literature). Child support (William Comanor, Sanford Braver and all their books and scientific publications in journals including the American Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Family Studies and many other scholars). Incidence of incarceration for child support arrears or false rape allegations (Dept of Justice, State Depts of Corrections, many manuscripts in legal journals, local records of county and state “detention” centers or “containment” facilities. What else do you want? The information is out there and there is so much. Parental alienation (Thomas Gardner, Amy Baker and again many others who have been studying the phenomenon). The Innocence Project has considerable data concerning incidence of incarceration for false rape allegations. Of course there are many other sources. The Dept of the Navy did a frequently cited study because false rape allegations were creating so many problems for this arm of our military, especially after the incident at the Tail Hook Convention. This information is available to anyone who wants to look for it and ask tough questions and challenge conventional feminist wisdom. Although I admit sometimes it helps to have a strong background in statistics and modelling and the sciences to interpret and often times a layperson’s version is not available. I appreciate your concern about my participation in this site. I’m just trying to help and provide a frame of reference from somewhere else in the world that is experiencing similar challenges. The US is much bigger than NZ and has been dealing with feminism longer and has been generating much more data concerning its consequences – if I’m not mistaken, the US is the largest country in the world with a firmly established and greatly funded feminist lobby of its legislation. I don’t think I have ever provided any misinformation and I have cited references many times (and I confess I do get a little tired of writing them over and over again so I get a little lazy sometimes – sorry). I think you are misdirected comparing me with feminists who make claims that have absolutely no scientific support like one-quarter of all women in college have been raped or that three-quarters of all married women are victims of domestic violence or that one-third of all women who visit emergency rooms every year are victims of domestic violence or that incidence of domestic violence increases by a multiple of four on Superbowl Sunday (these are all claims made by the Nat’l Organization for Women and other related organizations in the US and they have been disproven over and over by sound studies). Based upon what I have read on this site, similar misinformation and propaganda and lies and false flags are common among countries like NZ and the US with strong feminist lobbies. Not that they have to be as they make no sense to begin with. And of course if you want me to leave this site I will. I first became aware of it when I found it on the web and saw an article relating to feminism as a world war and I was intrigued. And thought that you might appreciate a foreigner’s perspective on the feminist war against the world. I always direct colleagues of mine to it for information about feminism and its consequences in other parts of the world – doesn’t get any further away from the US than NZ. Are you still pissed because of that joke I made. I really am sorry. I’ve never been accused of having too much tact. I’m an American. What do you want?

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 12:33 pm

  82. @Mr A – And if I’ve never mentioned it, I am genuinely grateful for an opportunity to interact with everyone here. I don’t think I have ever involved myself in any bickering or aruging and I have tried to keep my comments as respectful as possible. And I have tried to stay on topic. Sorry when I’ve strayed. And on rare instances I’ve relied upon JP to keep me in line.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 1:14 pm

  83. @Tanya

    I do not seek support from this group per se. Although I am inspired that other people all over the world have similar experiences and I take every opportunity I can to learn from them. For instance, I am woefully ignorant of the child support and family law system in NZ and am learning about it. That being written, from an abstract perspective, the system in NZ was created by the same kinds of people for the same reasons basically as that in the US. Another motive for my participation on this site is that early on I recognized at least one participant had left NZ for the same reasons that I have considered leaving the US. I was interested in that person’s experience and learning what options may be available to me.

    I think previously on this thread I identified my motives for contributing to this site: Circumstances in the US in some ways are much worse than in NZ. In other ways they are not as bad. Men in the US are jailed for inability to pay child support but not in NZ. Also, our passports are suspended and revoked. In NZ, child poverty and infant mortality as a result of feminism is worse than in the US – which I was astounded to learn because it is very bad in the US and I have read frequently that they are the worst in the US, but have since learned that comparison of the US with a small country (NZ) one-seventieth (that’s 1/70) its population size was simply ignored. My understanding is that feminism is a more recent development in NZ than in the US and because NZ is a smaller population and more isolated, it took over much more quickly with much less opposition. Because the population in NZ is more isolated, I believe the impact of feminism has been much more acute (as evidenced by child poverty and infant mortality and exodus of large numbers of men among other things). In the US, feminism has taken over much more slowly and has encountered much more opposition than in NZ. Despite or maybe because of the slow emergence of feminism in the US, I believe its impact has been much more insidious and its consequences more extreme. Perhaps feminists are punishing men and women in the US for their resistance in ways they did not punish men and women in NZ who did not resist so much. I am concerned, however, that the consequences visited upon the US by feminists will be visited upon NZ too.

    For instance, an amendment to our Constitution, which would have established a de facto feminist regime in the US more than forty years ago was defeated in Congress, mostly because of the efforts of one person, who happens to be a woman, Phylis Schlaffly. In retaliation for this conspicuous and embarrassing defeat, feminists spent the next forty years lobbying Congress to pass laws piece-meal which have allowed them to achieve the goals over forty years they could not achieve in a single amendment to the Constitution forty years before. Among them are laws requiring the incarceration of innocent men for false allegations of rape with no more evidence than a woman’s allegation, false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse resulting in the forced separation of tens of millions of children from tens of millions of fathers, and for inability to pay excessive child support feminist courts order them to pay.

    As evidence of the opposition to the oppressive and tyrannical feminist regime in the US, a recent decision by our Supreme Court (June 2011) has recommended that before a man can be incarcerated for inability to pay excessive child support, a lower court must provide adequate safeguarding mechanisms to prevent his incarceration and show that he is willfully in contempt of the order. This is already the law of course and the Supreme Court is just reiterating what other courts have already decided during the past two-hundred-and-thirty-years and you’d think that even without any laws it is common sense. But states receive kickbacks from the federal government in exchange for ordering excessive child support and there are no immediate consequences to sending innocent men to jail (except revolution, which is likely soon), so courts are aware of their obligations under the law, but have neglected them in exchange for money. Another example of opposition to the feminist regime is the Innocence Project, which endeavors to use recent DNA technology for reversing the sentences of innocent men railroaded into prison on false allegations of rape. This technology was not available decades before when the men were incarcerated. Likely, if it was available, it would have been ignored anyway.

    The US is a very corrupt and backward third-world nation with a small population trying desperately to slow its accelerating decline. I represent one of those people who are trying to slow its decline. I am concerned that circumstances in the US will visit NZ if it does not exercise due diligence. Contrary to reports by our government, more than half the adult population, approximately than three-quarters of whom are men, live way below the threshold for poverty. Claims that more women than men live below the threshold for poverty are feminist propaganda and lies. Like many oppressive regimes, the US is very good at broadcasting lies and propaganda.

    For instance, our government reports an incidence of unemployment of presently 9.2%. But that figure is calculated differently than it was thirty years ago in many ways and differently than other countries calculate unemployment. The most important difference is that 9.2% of the entire population is the part that is receiving unemployment benefits from a state. Not the actual percent of the adult population that is unemployed. Population of the US is approximately 350-million. Approximately 240-million are adults. Of that adult population that is eligible for employment, the unemployment benefits of many have expired but they are still unemployed. Furthermore, there are many who were never eligible for unemployment benefits in the first place (like me for instance, because I owe child support, I am ineligible for public assistance of any kind because my gross income exceeds the threshold for poverty even though my take-home pay is less than one-half the threshold). The proportion of the “adult” population really unemployed actually exceeds 30%. And that number grows every day as more of the population from Generation-Y graduates into adulthood and can’t find any jobs and the unemployment benefits for more people expire and fewer apply for them. The number of underemployed, like me, exceeds twenty percent (20%) of the adult population (that’s the number of people who have incomes not exceeding the poverty threshold).

    Our feminist governments lie to distract the populations from their fraud as they rob us blind and transfer vast amounts of wealth from men to women and from the poor to the rich and from those who are responsible to those who are irresponsible. As an obvious example of this wealth transfer, the Federal Reserve (a Central Bank like those in Europe and England) artificially holds interests rates near zero, punishing those who saved and invested in their country and families and retirement, and rewarding those who took on huge debts they could never realistically pay off and drove our economy into the ground. Child support is an example of those debts (at least the kind that was imposed on others, particularly men). If interest rates remain low, there is no inflation. If there is no inflation, investments won’t exceed the devaluation of our currency and retirement annuities and homes. All that wealth of the poor and middle class will be lost – most of it reserved for their futures. Meanwhile, those who invest in the stock markets on a microsecond or daily scale or collect child support and other public assistance will be rewarded by the vast amounts of money the Federal Reserve is throwing at it.

    I am not particularly religious. But I try to see the hand of God in everything, which has helped me while an oppressive and tyrannical post feminist dystopian police state emerges and while I pursue my study of the natural sciences. Like half of all fathers in the US, my children were snatched from me and held hostage for ransom. Like more than two-million men, I have been incarcerated for inability to comply with orders for excessive child support. Like many millions more, I have been incarcerated for false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence. Like so many, I live way below the poverty threshold. But my faith in God gets me by. But there are only so many ways to prepare rice and beans before it is no longer appetizing and there are only so many ways to sleep on concrete before sleep is no longer rejuvenating and there are only so many ways to pull wisdom teeth without any anaesthesia before the acute pain of pulling them is worse than the chronic pain of leaving them in. These experiences were much more tolerable when I was younger. Such is life in a post feminist dystopian police state. Currently, I am looking for a country to which I may go, no longer for refuge but to die, as the US, which abandoned me and spat in my face and snatched my children and holds them hostage for ransom, does not deserve my corpse fertilizing its soil.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 1:19 pm

  84. Daryl X, I think it’s important that if you are going to refer to studies, that you specify what studies you are referring too. As you aware of, feminists refer to studies too, but the sources distort the facts in order to present the conclusion they are seeking. If we are to use studies to present an argument, it’s important to give sources, that way the independent reader can see for themselves if they are independent and neutral sources (that seek truth wherever it leads without an agenda) or whether we have another example of biased research.

    We can only overcome the blatant lies and misrepresentation of feminism with the truth. After all, feminism is based on lies, every part of it is based on lies. The best way to battle this is the truth, unbiased and clearly presented. As you would be well aware, once feminists are confronted with the truth, they run, every time, because they have no argument.
    As guys we don’t want to resort too, or even appear to resort too the same tactics as feminists. We can’t fight fire with fire, we have to fight it with water. You have given some excellent starting points for those interested in the research you refer too but it would be good for other readers to access this info as well. We are after all fighting an information based war, and the more facts we have at our disposal the more chance we have of making progress.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 1:21 pm

  85. Tanya it was not my intention to sound resonable. You see the article that Daryl x refers too, about Feminism and World War III was written by me.

    The thing is that we are in a gender war, and until men stand up to the plate, grow their balls back and actually enter this conflict, nothing will change.

    I should also add that many women seriously need to have a ballanectomy. That is have the testicles that many of them have grown removed and recognise that unlike guys they actually aren’t supposed to have them in the first place. Women need to start regrowing their ovaries and learn that it is actually ok to be feminine.

    When men behave like men, and women behave like women, the gender war will end. Until then, be prepared to tolerate wimpy pathetic men who are almost incapable of anything beyond crying when someone slaps their hand, and butch tough women who think that not wearing a bra will give them something other than saggy breasts.

    Comment by Phoenix — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  86. Phoenix
    So Ok you are unreasonable.Not so much as some though.
    Why do you think that some women have grown balls?
    Do you think that they all want balls?
    Was it a choice for them to grow balls?
    I am asking because I think I have balls.Its what has helped me survive.I never depend on someone else helping me.Maybe I have never been able to or thought I was could’nt rely on anyone.I can be intimidating to males and females.What does’nt kill you makes you stronger they say.
    I do absolutely wear a bra.
    Thanks for the information.I now know a little bit more about where you are coming from.It sounds like you are living rough.However you have access to a computer and Internet.They are great tools.It is a shame that you do not seem to have work.The US is a particularly hard country to live in without money I hear.Can you tell me more about how you ended up being in arrears with CS.Do you have any contact with your children?In the end your children will make their own choices about who to see/spend time with.
    Remember your children will grow up and leave school and then you wont have to pay anymore.Im looking forward to an empty nest much as I love my children.I hope to travel which is something I have had to put off for decades.

    Comment by Tanya — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 2:02 pm

  87. @Tanya – Yes, traveling is great if you can afford it. Where have you wanted to go? I’ve been to China, Vietnam, Central America, Cuba, Australia (Canberra at least), Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, many places have lost their cultural distinction and travel for exposure to different cultures has lost its interest for me. The US is a very expensive place to visit and to live in. It has priced itself out of the market. Even illegal Mexican immigrants are leaving and going back to Mexico by droves. Many Americans are going with them.

    I understand that my children will grow up some day and make their own decisions. I hope they decide to see me. I think many fathers on this site who have not seen their children for a long time (as I know there are some who haven’t) would like that. For those fathers on this site and everywhere else who have relationships with their children but those relationships are strained by an oppressive culture that comdemns fatherhood, I think they would like their children to understand the truth when they grow up. If they are like me, then they do not want to be the ones to deliver that message but will want the message to be conspicuous and omnipresent so that the fathers do not have to be the messenger. I think I am like many fathers who do not want to be the ones who condemn the criminal behavior and misconduct of their children’s mothers. The same way that when presented an opportunity to condemn my ex’s behavior in court, I would not do it. I think many husbands cut their wives a lot of slack and chivalry prevents them from taking advantage of their wives in a compromising situation like divorce. The truth would have to be from another source. I do not know who would be willing to do that.

    I have not seen my son in about five years and my daughter is about three. One son passed away young and onother is an adult. Four kids.

    Approximately half of all fathers in the US pay child support. Approximately half of them (one-quarter of all fathers) are or have been in arrears at some time during the past forty years because the orders for child support are so excessive (exchanged for federal subsidies). It’s unavoidable. Even if the father is not really in arrears, administrative errors result that put him in arrears. Those administrative errors on the part of the child support bureaucracy is not enough of an excuse to prevent incarceration. Happens all the time. Although I am now in arrears because I cannot afford the child support ordered, I first went to jail for arrears because of an administrative error. Cost for time I spent in jail was several thousand dollars. After being released, I was in more arrears than before I went in from the administrative error and then I was threatened with jail again. Crazy.

    Many fathers in the US and other places live rough. Being a father is a very daunting experience today. I would not advise it. If I’m not mistaken, approximately 250-thousand fathers have committed suicide in the US during the past forty years because of these kinds of circumstances (have to check that figure – been a while since I reviewed data concerning differential incidence of suicide between men and women and variables associated with it). Faced with no prospects for survival and with every opportunity closed to them and with so much hate directed at them just for their fatherhood, they would rather die. Like in Australia recently, a man in New Hampshire committed self-immolation a few months ago because the courts denied him access to his children for no reason. He left behind a very elegant letter explaining his reasons for suicide. Although portrayed as insane by the mainstream media (to the extent they reported it at all which wasn’t much), he was anything but. He was compassionate and intelligent. And he understood what was being done to him and his children by the gov’t and the children’s mother and was guilt-stricken because he could not stop them. A lifetime of being rotated in and out of jail for child support arrears prevented him from ever seeing his children again.

    Yes, as Phoenix pointed out, the article to which I referred in my last post was written by him (forgot about that). We are in a gender war that encompasses the globe and the stakes are all of civilization and the future and defeat is not an option. I would rather die a free man than live a slave. If you believe living under the alleged patriarchy was tough, wait till the feminists screw things up more than they have. As bad as men have had it, the women will have it far worse.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th September 2011 @ 6:09 pm

  88. @Tanya – I use computer and internet resources at our local public library. When those are not available, I sometimes impose upon acquaintances or colleagues. I actually live in an apartment right now but have no refrigerator, cell phone or land line, computer or internet, television or cable, toaster, microwave oven, or furniture. I do have indoor plumbing. To pay for the apartment, I recently had to deny myself treatment for shingles (it is one of the most debilitating diseases I have ever had so if you ever get a chance I recommend the vaccine against it). Almost certainly this development is the result of the extremely stressful circumstances imposed upon me (I am only forty-three and shingles for someone my age is not common).

    Concerning suicide and numbers of men, the figure of 250-thousand is correct. In the past forty years, 1.1-million men in the US have committed suicide (greater than the number of women by a multiple of four). That is a staggering number. Suicide as a result of divorce and destitution and loss of children and incarceration is approximately 250-thousand (@Mr A – that is from a variety of sources, including Nat’l Institute for Mental Health and the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization and publications resulting from studies by those organizations – they all report slightly different numbers but for our purposes they are close enough). Unfortunately, these men who have killed themselves are regarded as mentally unhealthy when their mental health actually is very healthy – they just don’t want to have to spend life in and out of prison or on the street. Nothing irrational about that. The only thing that’s irrational is condemning them to prison or the street in the first place. Sounds like the ones who are of questionable mental health are the feminists who have condemned them.

    Concerning your ex-husbands deliberate or voluntary unemployment:

    Please forgive my lack of sympathy about that development (if I understand it correctly). I understand it is not a pleasant one and that it has consequences for you and your family. That being written, the development about which you complain is the result of a feminist regime and not your husband’s disposition. Your obligation was to condemn and destroy the feminist regime and not ask your husband to leave. Your primary responsibility is to support your husband in all ways possible. All other responsibilities are such a distant second that you can’t even see them from where you are and for all intents and purposes do not exist. As far as smoking a dozen “stubbies” a day, I don’t understand the problem. He puts up with far worse from you and everyone else, especially under such an oppressive feminist regime. I am a cigar aficionado, so side with your husband on this one (I do miss a good cigar once in a while as I cannot currently afford them). I don’t care if he farts lightning bolts from his ass, he’s your husband and you married him and have an obligation to support him. Controlling everything he does is not support. Especially for something as minor as a cigar.

    When I was sitting in a bar with a colleague of mine (the top administrator for a local hospital and medical care consortium), he asked me a question, confiding in me about his personal life, which he seldom if ever does, explaining that he wanted a different perspective about a problem his birth-family was having and he knew he would likely get it from me without any reservation (and he did).

    The problem: his sister is married to a man who does not and refuses to seek employment. He is not an alcoholic (although she thought he drank to excess, there appeared to be no consequences for his drinking). He has a wonderful relationship with his two children, who love him very much. She is a school teacher so does not bring in a lot of income, but enough to support a comfortable existence for her family. He does not enjoy an excessive lifestyle and does not impose upon her financially. He just refuses employment. The birth-family of my friend and his sister are very angry at this man and condemn him (in front of his children no less) for not supporting the family.

    My response to this “problem” is: this is the smartest man in the world. What a keeper. He has a wonderful relationship with his children who love him. His family has all its necessities paid for and some considerable luxuries (at least by my standards). His wife has the career that she and other feminists have fought so hard for. He takes care of the kids and works hard around the house. What’s the problem? This man not only has no incentive to get a job but an active disincentive. And his wife, who is one of those complaining, is directly responsible for her circumstances and yet refuses to accept the consequences of her actions.

    In the US (and likely NZ and elsewhere – no reference), more than 50% of marriages end because the wife initiates divorce. The reasons for divorce are to facilitate her adultery, for profit (property settlement, alimony, child support), and for emotional dependency on her children (parental alienation, hostile parent veto, maternal gate-keeping). Divorce satisfies her addiction to power and control, her malignant narcissism. As long as he has no job and no education, the probability that this man’s wife will pursue divorce and that he will lose a relationship with his children is considerably smaller than someone like me with a PhD and a respectable employment history and average annual income.

    In the US, average sex ratio at universities currently is three women to two men (that’s quite a spread). An important reason for this disparity is probability that a man can find a job relative to a woman when they graduate, the difference between cost of education for men and women (women have many more opportunities for financial assistance not available to men so it costs men much much more), the probability that a man will be unilaterally divorced by his wife, the probability that he will have to pay excessive child support, the probability that he will lose custody of and a relationship with his children. Child support orders are based upon earning “potential” and income is imputed as a function of education and salary at the time of divorce (and if it’s a man, if his income increases or if he completes additional degrees, his income will be adjusted upward. The Bradley Amendment prevents downward modification of a child support order for any reason. As an example of the Bradley Amendment, 6% of child support obligors for whom arrears continue to accumulate (almost all men) are in fact dead. Even death is not a good excuse for not paying child support under the Bradley Amendment. Child support can increase but not decrease. Seldom is it the case that a child support order against a man is decreased but frequent is the case in which it is increased.

    So, getting an education and a job are out of the question for most men in the US. My friend’s brother-in-law knows it. There are no benefits to the excessively hard work and considerable consequences in most instances. For a man, an education and a job will never pay for itself and may land him in jail. At the very least, it will land him homeless on the street or at least in severe poverty in about one-quarter of all instances of marriage in which the man is the head of household drawing an income.

    An additional development is the federal gov’t’s push for legislation to incarcerate graduates unable to pay their federally funded student loans. Since the cost for men to attend university is much higher than for a woman, most of those at risk for prison when they cannot pay their loans are men.

    Although you portray my ideas about men and women as extreme, as recently as only forty or fifty years ago, they were normal throughout the world (no reference). Extreme are our current ideas concerning men and women and they are completely unsustainable in the context of civilization.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 2:44 am

  89. Darryl X
    I will comment on your comment later as i am off to work.Stubbies in NZ are either short pants or beers.i was refering to beers.That was on top of a daily bottle of Vodka.

    Comment by Tanya — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 7:42 am

  90. @Tanya – Oops. See. I learn something new about NZ every day here. Although I don’t get the connection between short pants and beer. LOL In the US a stubby is a cheap cigar.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 8:51 am

  91. Getting very off-topic I know, but relevant to recent comments from Phoenix about feminization of men, here’s an article today in the Herald headlined “Young Kiwi males embrace cosmetics“. Research showed that young men were becoming more ‘aware’ of their appearance and their appearance was becoming important to them from a younger age. Female Otago University researcher Dr Lisa McNeill (who conducted the research with another woman associated with the L’Oreal cosmetic company) appeared to approve thoroughly of the male trend claiming that it “revealed really positive things about the NZ male” and she also suggested that the cosmetics were “good from a hygeine and self-care perspective”.

    It does seem that in recent decades maleness and male preferences have become synonymous with ‘bad’ and ‘undesirable’ while women sometimes confuse femaleness and everything women prefer as being morally and socially good and desirable. This male cosmetics trend is an interesting example in which anxiety about appearance from an early age and the practice of hiding one’s natural appearance in favour of artificial self-misrepresentation are labelled as desirable traits, and even as positive for health and hygeine. Mmm, my understanding is that most cosmetics are little more than temporary skin paint or perfume and that in many cases their use, far from assisting health or hygeine, brings long-term health risks.

    One might suspect that the research grant from L’Oreal was a generous one.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 9:27 am

  92. That’s if you believe the “research”

    Comment by Scott B — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 10:22 am

  93. DarrylX
    In my story my ex husband did not work much.He was not a drinker that was my next partner(Bottle vodka and 1/2 doz beers a day).My Ex husband would also not look after the children.I had them in Daycare or Kindy while I worked.I agree a woman going out to work while the husband is at home doing housework,childminding and pick ups is a viable situation for many.Unfortunately that was not the case here.
    Here in NZ it is the same cost for same course.As far a s I know there are no extra shcolarships for women as opposed to men. .however if you are a Maori(NZ native) there are many.We the Pakeha(foriegners)are just visitors apparently.
    If we think that the way of things 40- 50 years ago was great and things are worse now we could say that going back to living in caves and using stones could be better?Was 40-50 years ago great for women?In NZ women were required to work to support the war effort and replace the men that went off to war in industry and agriculture.5 years of this would have changed the culture in NZ to some degree.There was no going back then.Women in NZ have worked hard along with the men from the days of the early settlers.Clearing bush,building fences same as in the US.My grandmother was the ballast on a backyard built grader making roads in the back blocks of this country.What a claim to fame, pictures to show.
    I believe we all have to learn to live in the world we have today as best we can.There is no going back.It is well for a man to say that women have lost out.I agree also but we have gained also.Do you not think that at times I would like to be more feminine(I do a manly job) and be looked after by a man a bit.Let them make the decisions?
    I have looked after myself for so long that I think it would be impossible to be subservient(dont know if that is the word I want) to a man.
    In NZ most families strive to have two incomes with both parents working the norm.I have no problem with either party not working as long as they are fully supporting the person in employment by making sure their workload at home is light.The fact that the man you mentioned refuses to work is a worry.When the children are not at school I can see a point.It is good for everybody to be in the workforce.It is good for their welfare in every way and they are forced to interact with people for better or worse.My ex husband became very isolated from the world and odder and odder.I had multiple jobs all going nowhere and low paying.I did not have enough time or energy to organize something better and more worthwhile.
    Your adult son.Does he visit you?

    Comment by Tanya — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 10:35 am

  94. Tanya, have you addressed my questions yet?

    Comment by Scott B — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 10:51 am

  95. Tanya, Kiwi women are well known as being tough, macho and masculine (where have you been?) If you want an idea of what a feminine woman is like you would need to look to countries where feminism has not (yet) taken hold, a quick search online will revel those countries. Find a woman from a non-feminist country, and you will invariable find a woman who celebrates having ovaries, and would not dream of thinking that growing testicles was in any way a good thing. I would also refer you to the following:

    Please try actually reading some of the material that us guys refer you too before replying, or do some of your own research though, as many of the guys here have written lengthy answerers to your questions that deserve more than a 3 line reply from you.

    Comment by Phoenix — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 5:02 pm

  96. When did anyone last post a child tax comment, relating to the topic on this thread?

    Dunne is moving significant changes through and this thread has become a reality tv show with the masculists trying to convert the feminist.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 7:37 pm

  97. I disagree, Scrap. I agree that the thread has digressed a bit from Dunne and child tax but is still abstractly related and still revolves around child support.

    That being written, I have looked at the proposed changes listed above and their interpretation. Here’s my take:

    There have been a few instances in which “shared parenting” was tried – most recently in Oregon. It resulted in a more acrimonious and longer and more expensive divorce and more false allegations against the father and more abuse of children. This development illustrates the degree to which women will go to maintain “possession” of their children. An article concerning this development and its analysis can be found at I’ll find it and identify it in a later post (I usually have a bad signal so connection is slow otherwise I would do it now). This development and example is why I have said that there should be no legislation concerning shared parenting unless it is in tandem with legislation that actively punishes and discourages false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse and actively punishes parental alienation and perjury.

    Someone mentioned in a previous post (I can’t find it but recall this so correct me if I’m wrong) that even with shared parenting, the mother would still collect 12% of the father’s gross income. Why? Isn’t that an important goal of shared parenting to eliminate the incentive of money for a woman to snatch her children and alienate them from the father? Am I missing something here?

    As far as taking the incomes of both parents into consideration, I doubt that will happen. In the US, the income of both parents is “taken into consideration”. If the income of both parents are equal, then they both pay the same amount of child support. Sounds great EXCEPT: the cost for raising a child is set artificially high at approximately twice the cost of raising a child so the mother who has custody isn’t really paying anything. For instance, it costs approximately $250,000 to raise a child. Split between the two parents, that’s $125,000 per parent over twenty-one years. But the Income Shares Model (which sounds like what Dunne is proposing) requires each parent to contribute 17% of their income each. Well, on an average annual income, 17% of gross income for twenty-one years exceeds $250,000 (closer to $300,000 and maybe a little more). So, only the father will be paying for the child. The mother would be contributing something too, but only if it really cost $500,000 or $600,000 to raise a child which it doesn’t. I hope you understand how perverted the system is.

    On top of that mess, the father pays taxes on the child support he is paying. Not the mother.

    The system is so easily abused by those who wish to abuse it and it sounds like Dunne is intent on abusing it. That is why I have asserted that child support cannot be administered responsibly and must be eliminated. All child support is child trafficking and abuse. There is no way to administer it such that it is not child trafficking and abuse.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 2:17 am

  98. @Phoenix – I recently read a report about number of sexual partners men and women in different countries have. I wish I could find it again. It was in the past five months. I found it on-line. Anyway, it reported number of sexual partners for fifty or so “developed” countries including NZ. Of all the countries, men and women in NZ were regarded as having more sexual partners than men in women in any other country. Or maybe it was third on the list. It was one of the highest. BUT it is the only country in which the number of sexual partners for women exceeded that of men and by a considerable margin.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 4:39 am

  99. @Phoenix – Here’s a reference to that phenomenon I identified in my last post (# 98). “New Zealand women most promiscuous” The Sydney Morning Herald. There were other references and this one is actually listed on Wikipedia under “promiscuity”.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 4:45 am

  100. @Hans and Phoenix – I appreciate the article about “male cosmetics”. As a hairy man with a thick beard (too much information?), I am routinely criticized by women not just because I wear a beard but because I have a lot of hair (to most women, fundamental characteristics of virility are unattractive). Even my female supervisor regards it as unprofessional and has recommeded I shave and get waxed routinely – seriously. And since much of that hair has turned prematurely white, I am criticized for being too old (even by women older than me) even though I am only forty-three. I think it is disappointing that the virtues of men have been substituted with virtues that until recently have only been female and not too long ago weren’t even female.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 6:35 am

  101. @Tanya – Please consult my other post (# 12) under “Maybe there really is a Santa Claus” that put under the wrong section.

    “Do you not think that at times I would like to be more feminine (I do a manly job) and be looked after by a man a bit. Let them make the decisions?” Sure. Many decisions only he can make. A man is the only obstacle between a woman and her enslavement by the government. Governments inevitably grow too big and enslave everyone. Support your man and you will always be protected from the government and other elements. Seldom is it the case that subservience to any man is worse than a government and the elements. Some women can look after themselves, but most require the support of a man. A female friend of mine and I were walking along a road near her home recently when we encountered a mountain lion (damn thing fell out of a tree when the branch it was on broke) – about 200 lbs. She is smaller than I am and not as scary. If I were not there, she would have been eaten. It happens sometimes. There are some very wild places here in the Appalachians.

    “My ex husband became very isolated from the world and odder and odder. I had multiple jobs all going nowhere and low paying. I did not have enough time or energy to organize something better and more worthwhile.” It isn’t your responsibility to organize something better and more worthwhile. It’s his. And sometimes it is not possible to do better and not in the best interest of either of you. The harder you work and the more you have, the more the government will take. Consider my circumstances. No woman would want to submit to me as a man in a marriage. I’m strung out. A woman would have to be nuts. That being said, she’d have to be more nuts to submit to the government, which almost all do. The short-term costs may not be so bad, but the long-term costs certainly are. Living under an oppressive feminist regime or any kind of oppressive regime is very taxing to a man. A man cannot compete with the vast resources of a government, which engages usury and borrows excessively from Central Banks. Of course he became isolated from the world. That’s how some men respond to an oppressive government. It’s adaptive and smart. You don’t understand it because the government is not an immediate threat to you. His isolation is better than acquiescence. I don’t know about odder and odder. All people are different and most people I know are pretty stupid in their obsequity. Most people think I’m pretty odd in my defiance. But when I consider the ridiculous decisions most people make under a feminist regime, their decisions are stupid. I’d rather be odd than stupid. Our current economy is an example of the long-term consequences of the bad decisions people make under a feminist regime, particularly the women. Had those decisions not been made forty years ago, we would not be in the mess we are today. Odd isn’t bad. Bad decisions are bad. Acquiescing to an imposing government is bad. Usury is bad. Behavior that tries to limit that imposition as odd as it may appear at times isn’t bad. It may actually be very responsible. Like I say, I’d trust a man over the government.

    “I have looked after myself for so long that I think it would be impossible to be subservient (dont know if that is the word I want) to a man.” Practice makes perfect. And you haven’t looked after yourself for so long. Like all developed nations which have borrowed excessively from Central Banks, most of the populations of those countries are beneficiaries of the single greatest social welfare program in the entire history of the world. Those who have benefitted the most are women. The men were hung out to dry. Some of that borrowed money went to displace the man with the government in the family. It’s demoralizing to a man.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 9:49 am

  102. I cannot see anyone who pays child suppport being happy with these changes. Certainly not going to help children in any way at all!

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 12:49 pm

  103. dear tanya if you “have balls” as you claim and do not rely on others than why are you whining about the amount of child support you recieve??

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 3:55 pm

  104. Good post Daryl X

    What women like Tanya don’t seem to realise is that most women in Western Nations have gone from depending on a man who would provide for them and their families (over simplification as women in the past were very DEFFINATELY involved in providing for their families as well) to depending on the government to be a provider for them, but they are still depending on a provider.
    Women are just as dependent, in fact in most ways more so, than they were in the 1950s.
    Have a think about this Tanya. Who fixes your roads, who keeps your car going, who makes sure that electricity comes to your home, who fixes the pluming in your house, who built the house in the first place? I can almost guarantee that all these people are men. Men are responsible for almost every single significant discovery and invention throughout history. Even now, when women are recieving education, what are they contributing? What Western Women really need to understand is that without men to keep civilisation going, it stops.
    On the other hand, if women ceased to do any work in Western civilisation NOTHING WOULD CHANGE!!!! Except us guys wouldn’t have a bit of eye candy to look at while we work. Women need men a hell of a lot more than men need women.
    Study some history and you will note an interesting fact:

    There are however a number of examples of civilisations where women decided they wanted more ‘rights’ where the civilisation ended soon after.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 4:53 pm

  105. Oh puhleeeeeeeeese Tanya,
    Pull your head in!

    You go on about having ‘balls’.
    Yet you and every other woman in NZ are dependent upon so much taxpayer largesse it isn’t funny.
    It’s hard to keep track of all the programs for women only. The effort of doing so is dizzying!
    ………………And which sex pays by far the most tax to Gobmint, who in turn dish it out to you and other ’empowered’ ‘independent’ ‘strong’ women?

    ROTF & LMAO!!!

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 7:59 pm

  106. Tanya,
    Mr Anonymous is correct in my view too.
    Take a look at anything around you.
    The vast majority of it all invented and mostly created by men with incredible fortitude, courage and generativity – from the screen you’re looking onwards.
    Men are amazing and yet you come to this site and insult them with ignorant slander.

    It looks like some kind of inferiority complex from here.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 8:06 pm

  107. kirin jahhir
    I would not say that recieving $74 a month in Child Support is exactly relying on a man.No one would I think.

    Mr Anonymous
    >Women do work.I do.Yes probably the Plumber, Electrian, Builder etc are almost all men.It is not work that women generally choose to do.Would you rather that they did?
    Not based on any research just a hunch that if women went on stop work you would would seriously notice pretty quickly.In some countries women do the vast majority of the labour.I havent been to them yet but have watched documentaries.There is of course unpaid work which is in the main from what I see done by women.
    I do see that some men on this site have very valid beliefs,views and so forth.I am not in disagreement with the general themes.I need this insight as I try to discover what is going on with men and women.I have 2 sons .They are teenagers and I need to see the world that they are growing up into as it is now.Also soon I will have a son in law and my daughter has been raised in the main with a women as the main parent.I need to learn more that is for sure.

    Comment by Tanya — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 8:09 pm

  108. Hi Skeptic
    I have not insulted men with ignorant slander.Please specify what you mean.

    Comment by Tanya — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 8:28 pm

  109. Skeptic
    Maybe men pay the most tax because they earn more.
    They have been for eternity I believe.
    They don’t give birth,breastfeed etc…They generally don’t have gaps in their careers.
    Please can you tell me more about the programmes for women as I feel like I have/am missing out.
    Also why did women not invent the TV or radio or what ever?Please can you tell me?

    Comment by Tanya — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 8:43 pm

  110. @Tanya – Thanks for your last posts. Where to begin…

    I can speak for the US about programs for women, but most of these programs will apply, at least in the abstract, to NZ too.

    I already explained about programs for education available to women but denied men. Also, of course, is child support. Alimony and property settlements and husbands paying legal expenses for the women who initiate divorce too (exclusively female). Men pay taxes on child support and women don’t because almost all child support is paid by men. Don’t forget tax credits for women who are pursuing an education that men can’t (so even though the credits aren’t discriminatory, the policies that encourage men to pursue an education and discourage men are such that they favor women over men). Pro bono legal services for women in divorce and the workplace that are only available to women and denied men. Hiring quotas for women concerning private industry and gov’t (private industry gets tax breaks and subsidies from the federal gov’t for hiring women and the gov’t generally is required to maintain a “non-discrimination” hiring process that gives women advantages for hiring over men – a lesser qualified woman can get hired into a position solely because she is a woman). Differences in jobs held by women and men – men hold much more hazardous and low paying jobs with tougher hours than jobs available to men. Difference in income between men and women, all things being equal – women have significantly greater incomes than men (your belief that men have higher incomes, all things beingn equal, is incorrect and women actually have higher incomes than men – that women still have lower incomes than men after forty years of feminism is nothing but propaganda broadcast by the Nat’l Organizatin for Women and related organizations and is easily disproven). Differences in credit available to men and women – women often have greater lines of credit than men and special programs for loans (besides just student loans for education). The list goes on and on.

    In New Zealand, between 1986 and 2006, ratio of women to men in New Zealand dropped from the thirty years prior to 1986 from approximately 1.00:1.00 to 0.93:1.00 ( That’s a huge difference. Other sources I have consulted suggest that the difference in number of domestic males and domestic females is actually much greater and that this 0.93:1.00 ratio of men to women is the result of migration of men to NZ from other parts of the world. without that migration, the ratio of men to women would actually be much smaller – a greater than 10% difference instead of 7%. Although there are different explanations for this disparity in population of men and women, one explanation identified in numerous articles is mass exodus of domestic males from the islands (I’ll find at least one of those articles and post it).

    I am not familiar with any countries in which women do more work and make more sacrifices than men. Certainly, in the developed world, those sacrifices by men are actively punished and not compensated or rewarded.

    Receipt of $74/mo is relying on a man and the government. I don’t just think that but that is what it is.

    The reason you and many others believe that you do not benefit from men and the gov’t is that you have become habituated to the support. That’s bad enough, but women in general have become so habituated from the support they receive from men and the gov’t that they actually condemn the sources of that support because they are not receiving more. Welfare is like the object of any addiction. The more a woman receives, the more she wants. And she will manipulate and con anyone she can to satisfy her addiction to get more instead of relying upon her own devices to support herself.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 1:00 am

  111. @Tanya – During the past forty years in the US, women have been eligible for reciept of public assistance that 20% of men are denied eligibility for because those men are paying, in part, for that assistance. That assistance, includes food stamps, housing vouchers and unemployment. For many reasons, women are exempt from paying for these examples of public assistance but they are not exempt from receiving them.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 1:04 am

  112. Correction to my post # 10: “…ratio of women to men in New Zealand dropped from the thirty years prior to 1986 from approximately 1.00:1.00 to 0.93:1.00.” should be “…ratio of men to women in New Zealand dropped from the thirty years prior to 1986 from approximately 1.00:1.00 to 0.93:1.00.” That means that there are considerably fewer men in NZ than women.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 1:09 am

  113. Tanya,
    I think it’s pointless giving you the feedback you say you want.
    I think I made my points clear enough for readers to understand what I’m going on about.

    The solipsism and bait and switch between playing naive then professorial is unremarkable.
    Typical of many modern women I see who don’t really want to understand just win an argument to save face.

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 1:17 am

  114. Skeptic,Darryl X
    I am off to work so can only answer to some of what you have said.
    Darryl X I am very aware of the women men ratio in NZ.A lot of men with a university education leave NZ once the finish Uni.Also many unskilled or low skilled people leave to work in Australia where they are paid a lot more.It would be difficult to justify returning to NZ.
    In NZ I do not see that it is easier for women to go to Uni.It is the same for both men and women.Maori do get special treatment .We call it reverse discrimination.
    If you believe that $74 a month Child Support is me relying on a man what do you think my Ex husbands contribution should be bearing in mind that we have been apart for more than 15 years.Should he be able to make decisions in his life which have repercussions and then just leave them behind and start on a clean page?Got to go.

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 7:13 am

  115. Hi Tanya

    Interesting points you raise

    My answer to how much your Ex husband should pay should be pretty simple to calculate.
    How much do you give him when he has the children with him during the holidays?

    Do you give him the $74 dollar he pays or equivalent on a daily/ weekly basis or do you give him the $300 dollar equivalent that you yourself state is a fairer amount?

    As to “should he be able to make decisions in his life which have repercussions”
    “He does see the children in the hols and saw them more often before I moved away to get a better job where I could support my three growing children.”would seem to indicate that you were both making decisions at the time.
    I suppose my argument here would be that if you see the $74 dollars as such an inadequate amount and with none of us knowing your Ex’s situation we have to take your word that this is all he can pay. Why dont you take the moral high ground and as youre not on the DPB say to the ex “your relationship with the children is far more important than mere dollars that I get to spend, why dont we come to an agreement where you stop paying me and instead spend the money on the children?”
    If it worked and he did, it would be such a positive step for you to take for your children showing them cohesion and mutual support from their parents
    And if it didnt you could always fall back on the state and IRD to coerce and then extort this money from him as they do now.
    Sort of a win win situastion for you the only win/lose I see is the kids where you wont let go of the financial power of controlling what the ex pays through the state even though you find his contribution so inadequate.

    Whadda ya reckon???

    Comment by Mits — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 11:29 am

  116. @Mits and Tanya – There should be no such thing as child support. Anytime money is attached to children it turns them into commodities to be bought and sold like property. It promotes their trafficking and abuse. If you eliminate their monetary value, then only those who love children will care for them. The value of fatherhood so outweighs any amount of financial child support that any mother intent on keeping custody of the children should pay the father to remain in their lives and not the other way around and mothers should be punished when they don’t. Many studies have shown (and I will try to list them) that presence or absence of a father (and not as a visitor in the child’s life) has a far greater impact on the fate of children than whether or not they grow up in poverty or how much money the mother has or the father can pay or is extracted from him. Currently, mothers simply use children as hostages for ransom. In the US, states enable the mother because they receive federal subsidies in exchange for transferring child support from mothers to fathers (basically, the federal gov’t pays states to assist the mother in kidnapping her own children from the father and holding them hostage for ransom).

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 1:13 pm

  117. Newt Gingrich used to be Speaker of the House here in the US. Whether you love him or hate him, he is a very smart man. I personally can’t stand him but admire his intellect and ability to see problems that most politicians can’t and to articulate them in an environment that is hostile to intellect and expression of politically incorrect ideas. One thing that Gingrich has said is that a woman has three options for income: she can work, she can collect welfare, or she can marry/divorce. A man also has three options for income: he can work, he can work or he can work. Basically, Gingrich is notorious for attacking the Nat’l Organization for Women and acknowledging that men are slaves in our culture. Your conclusion that women do not have more educational opportunities than men is incorrect because any woman can choose to divorce her husband and collect excessive child support from her ex and use it to pay for an education (as mine does). Seldom is it the case that a man can collect child support from his ex and use it for his own personal advancement. And I understand that not all men make enough money to support an excessive lifestyle for their ex-wives but from a demographic perspective and given the excessive orders for child support, much more than half do. And most woman can go to university and get a degree and marry and have children and divorce and collect enough child support to pay off the cost of their educaton and the benefits of the man’s education are eclipsed by the divorce and child support such that he never should have gotten one in the first place. A man seldom has this opportunity to divorce and collect child support and if he did (as has been the case in the past), he never took advantage of it because it is the wrong thing to do. Whether child support was intended to be abused this way is irrelevant, it happens all the time. Most orders for child support so exceed the cost of raising a child that they are of considerable benefit to the mother way beyond the immediate and direct costs of raising children. Another important problem with child support is that the mother uses it to finance her “next” family. That’s adultery which is fraud. Basically, most child support is institutionalized adultery. Usually, the father hasn’t enough income left to support another family or even any social opportunties and he is left alone as I have been. When you are forty-three years old and know that you have been discarded and enslaved by most of your community, it doesn’t inspire much will to live. That is why so many men kill themselves. It’s not that they are emotionally unstable or mentally ill or distraught but that they realize correctly any reason for living has been robbed from them. They can’t even pursue an education beyond what they already have if they so choose and the education that they already have has already counted so much against them. There are no risks for a woman when she marries but there are tremendous risks when a man does. Those risks limit his options but not hers, including educational ones.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  118. Mits
    No I dont pay my Ex for having the children in the holidays.He has them for a total of 4 weeks out of the year max.It is a good time for me to try an have some social time and maybe go out to see some performance /live music and so on.
    I still do not understand why you believe that a non custodial parent should not pay child support.You also believe the government should not pay either.I agree that the Government should not pay unless this is the only option.
    Last time I checked it takes two people to make a baby and the government has no say in this.
    Saying that women hold children as ransom could be true in some cases.There are many different people with different motives.
    I am sure that like me there are a lot of custodial parents left holding the baby(ies) with all the cost and responsiblity.I believe many men dont want to be responsible.Thats why there is separations in the first place.
    Sorry but I cant see your point about not paying Child Support.

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 4:40 pm


    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 4:55 pm

  120. @ tanya.. $74 or $740 or$7400… it doesn’;t matter. end of the day you are dependent on this money even if you want to deny this..otherwise why would you whine about the amount you recieved in the first place…so in your words.. you don’t “have balls” to be “independent”. besides you did move away for more money (your own admission) so I would bet my bottom dollar that the decision enforced of seeing the kids less was enforced onto your husband by yourself as u did admit he saw them more often before you moved away. Guys the issue is this woman. no amount of educating her will change her entitlement personality. nor will she take responsibility of her actions.

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 5:31 pm

  121. kiran jiharr
    Excuse me I am and have been responsible.How can you make a judgement?
    I moved because I could no longer afford to live whaere there was not better paying work available to me.To stay and not afford to give my children a decent life and opportunities would be irresponsible.My children were in complete agreement at the time and now they still believe it was the best course of action.
    I am independent.I know that I am not making any headway with retirement savings but who knows who will make it there.I could do without the $74 a month.However I could find another way to make extra money.However what would that be telling my children.They already know I have ‘Balls’.I would not want my children to side step their responsibilities.I have told them if they have a child and do not take responsibility for it they will be disinherited in favour of the child.And I mean it.They know I do.
    My problem is that I have been too responsible.
    Tell me your story kiran jihhir so i can make some harsh judgements about you maybe?

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 6:19 pm

  122. And that, Darryl X is how you get a entitlement princess to admit child tax has nothing to do with support

    Kiran, as we all know its not about the money, The $74 dollars is the only way she can still feel connected to the ex. The kids are still in contact with him and she’s the deserted one.

    its the hell hath no fury syndrome, 15 years later and she still hasnt got over it.

    Notice how any suggestion that the money might be better with the kids and maybe she could relingish the role of gate keeper with the childrens “support” is ignored if it gets mentioned and then we get the “I was left holding the baby” blurt which doesnt actually correspond to her earlier posts about how her and the ex broke up.

    Poor old Tanya cant see my point about not paying child support in the same post that she agrees she see’s no need for her to pay it. The kids apparently cost nothing when theyre not with her.
    She can only get a bit of “me time” when the kids are with their father. C’mon how clingy is that with teenage children unless she means that since theyre out of the house she can spend the “support” she gets without feeling guilty as the kids arent there to see

    Its sad really.

    Comment by Mits — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 6:31 pm

  123. Mits
    You are the sad one.
    So what do you suggest I should have done when my husband was having an affair and had no intention of not?Tell me what you would have done.Its easy to critisize me.What would you have done Mits?Remember that violence is against the law in NZ.

    Comment by Tanya — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 7:12 pm

  124. to be honest Tanya it was 15 years ago if your telling the truth.
    This is a thread on child tax and the changes mooted
    whether or not you could keep a man that you chose to have children with all those years ago is irrelevant.
    Im not critising you. Im using you as an example to others on how child tax gets such traction with the people in receipt of it against the poor saps that have to pay it.
    I applaud your posting here as it provides me with the exact scenario’s that I use to prove my point that child tax has very little to do with children and nothing to do with support.

    Comment by Mits — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 7:20 pm

  125. Tanya, please explain to us all how you think child support should work and how fair you think the current system is and why? Also what do you think of the proposed changes? (not looking for a one word answer to that either!)

    After all, this is a thread about child support

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 13th September 2011 @ 7:20 pm

  126. @Tanya – “So what do you suggest I should have done when my husband was having an affair and had no intention of not? Tell me what you would have done.” You are responsible for your behavior and NOT that of your husband. There are no practical consequences for you if your husband has an affair. There are considerable practical consequences if you as his wife pursues an affair. Adultery is fraud and can only be committed by a wife, as the husband is head of the household and responsible for the finances. When a wife has an affair, she is compromising the finances of her husband and her family. When a husband and father has an affair, he is not compromising the finances of his wife and his family. He shouldn’t do it because it is a betrayal of trust (but only if he is lying to you about it). Your obligation to yourself and your family is to acknowledge his wrongdoing and condemn it in a reasonable way. But not to defraud him and your own children and the public by divorcing him and collecting child support and interfering with his relationship with your children by moving away. You have an obligation to confront him with objections to his affair and forgive him. That’s your responsibility as his wife. He has responsibilities to you too. But that is his business and it is your responsibility as his wife to remain married. People make mistakes. If the consequences of every little mistake real or not that a woman perceives holds for a man the consequences of divorce and financial ruin for him and separation of him and his children, those are unlivable circumstances and chances are any mistakes he makes are result of those circumstances. Women are notorious throughout history for creating the problems they fear the most. An oppressive feminist regime allows all those worst fears of a woman to be realized and its irrational and disproportionate consequences imposed upon the husband. At the same time, the completely irrational behavior of the wife is ignored. Even though the consequences of my wife’s adultery and fraud and abuse were infinitely worse than anything she falsely alleged of me even if I actually was guilty, I would have gladly stayed married to her but she chose otherwise. Unfortunately, almost all women will choose otherwise because divorce and child support are very profitable. Almost all women are very self-serving and don’t care about the consequences to everyone else of their poor decisions. The kinds of sacrifices I describe here that I expect from a wife are small compared to the kinds of sacrifices that husbands make every day for their wives. Complaining about inconsequential decisions like your husband’s affair and whether or not he opened the door for you to walk through is narcissistic. Even without a huge feminist political and legal and social machine to enable them, almost all women are very controlling and addicted to that power. That machine enables her to realize her addiction but like all addictions, there is never enough power to satisfy it. As I’ve mentioned before, a husband is there to mitigate his wife’s addiction to power and control. With a huge feminist machine, he is unable to do that and his wife destroys him everything around them in most instances (whether they stay married or not). Chances are, the behavior of your husband (including his affair) is the direct result of that huge feminist machine that you enable (I’m not excusing his behavior) and if you have problems with his behavior, your responsibility was to destroy the feminist machine and not your husband and your children through divorce. There are seldom legitimate reasons for a woman to divorce. A woman’s solipsism institutionalized in law and politics and society isn’t any of them and citing those as reasons amount to nothing but a poor excuse for her to do what she wants to do anyway. Marriage is tough and most women when presented an easier option that requires less work and sacrifice choose it. However, the long-term benefits of a father to his children and his family and his wife and his community far outweigh the short-term benefits to a woman through divorce. And now we are realizing the long-term consequences for which so many women are responsible as evidenced by the accelerating decline of our economy and number of fatherless children and incidence of suicide and incarceration and destitution among men.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 1:44 am

  127. Darryl X
    So in a nutshell you believe that a women should put up and shut up.In your world we are down there with the pet dog?

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 6:50 am

  128. @Tanya – Of course not. But the emotional consequences for you of his actions aren’t more important than the practical consequences for him of your actions. I condemn any man who cheats on his wife. But I condemn any woman more for cheating on her husband. Unfortunately, current interpretation of law under feminism is not consistent with the facts. And I do not have a dog but currently dogs and axe murderers have far more rights than fathers.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 7:38 am

  129. @Tanya – On second thought, maybe I don’t know what you mean by “put up”. Can you explain please?

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 10:35 am

  130. Darryl X (#26). I disagree with a number of your claims and philosophies. I would not want these to be seen as representing the men’s movement or many contributors on MENZ. Most men supporting the men’s movement seek a realistic gender equality similar to what feminism initially purported to seek; your philosophy appears to support the same kind of gender inequality that men now complain about. Some of your attitudes are likely to provide justification for ongoing feminist excess.

    Firstly, there most certainly are practical and other consequences for a woman if her male partner has an affair. Her partner’s unfaithfulness subjects her to risk of venereal diseases. Resources that the husband spends on pursuing the affair, and especially on supporting any offspring that might result from the affair, cause a reduction in the resources available to the wife and the children she had to him. His breach of the partnership agreement damages her trust and therefore her ability to continue working towards the partnership, at least as much as would be the case for a business partnership if one of the partners breached its agreement.

    Secondly, although adultery may originally have been something that applied only to a married woman’s infidelity, it has long been seen as applying to either spouse. Even in ancient China adultery by male spouses was severely punished. Your assertion that “adultery can only be committed by a wife” as if that is a current or even a recent definition of the term, appears to reflect the archaic nature of some of your general philosophies, such as “the husband is the head of the household”. In my opinion that kind of gender heirarchy is based on superstitious tradition, exactly the kind of thing that women through feminism reasonably objected to.

    Thirdly, both husbands and wives must make many sacrifices on their biologically-driven journeys. Life is hard for both men and women, especially fathers and mothers. It is difficult as well as futile to try to prove that one gender’s sacrifices are greater than the other’s. Early feminists saw that some sacrifices were unnecessarily imposed on them through superstitious traditions of gender inequality, but feminists since then have failed almost completely to acknowledge men’s sacrifices.

    Fourth, both women and men are “controlling”. We all try to control our circumstances and environment to some extent, in an effort to meet our needs and preferences,. The Duluth ‘power and control model’ is unscientific feminist ideology that attempts to understand everything in terms of ‘power’ and ignores the fact that women seek power and control as much as men do. Traditionally, pollitical and legal systems mainly helped men to impose the power and control that suited them but now those same systems give open slather for women to practise their preferred power and control against men. It seems to me that a smaller proportion of women show fairness and empathy in exercising power and control than men used to when the law supported their superiority. However, the abuse of power and control by a proportion of men under the old rules seriously fuelled the feminist movement. Also, men’s superior physical strength enabled abusive men to dominate women and this continues to some extent despite increased legal protections for women.

    I agree with other things you write, such as the importance of fathers in children’s lives, the foolishness of a state that encourages family break up, the foolishness of laws that trust women to be any more responsible, reasonable or fair than men ever were, and the exploitation of men that underpins our current (and temporary) feminist fools’ paradise.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 1:13 pm

  131. @Hans – OK. I think data do not support some of your points but its your site.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 2:47 pm

  132. @Hans – OK. I think data do not support some of your points but it’s your site.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 2:48 pm

  133. @Hans – OK. I think there are considerable data to refute some of your points, especially about STD’s and resources invested in an affair and about the historical concept of adultery, but it’s your site.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  134. Darryl X
    Many women have caught Venereal diseases from their husbands/partners.Apart from being gross diseases the danger to the unborn child is well known.I would call that a practical issue for sure.
    A husband not being home to support the family because he is having an affair would be a practical issue.
    Of course an affair would have a financial cost.
    Trust issues and the effect on the betrayed partners state of mind,moods and so on would have an effect on the relationship with the children and their ability to do their job and so forth effectively is a practical issue.
    Also sometimes people have affairs and think it is OK and dont give a shit what their partner/wife ,husband thinks ,feels about it.With HIV it is now a life and death issue.Not something to be glossed over.

    Hans Laven
    Thanks for your reasonable comment.I was beginning to wonder if Darryx X was average in his extreme opinions for this site.
    I believe that fathers are very important in their childrens lives.That is why I am on this site.I want to find out what is going on with mens issues.I have 2 sons and need to know the world they are growing up in.I want them to be great husbands and fathers of course.We need them.The whole of earth needs them.I have a nephew who does not see his father more than once a year.He is a bit of a mess,an angry young boy.Unfortunately his father makes promises that he does not keep.I dont think there is any real replacement for his own father.It is sad.

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 4:21 pm

  135. ahem

    Child Support Changes.

    Does that ring any bells here

    Thought this thread was about the proposed changes to the child tax rules.

    I dont want to appear glib here, but why dont you relationship peeps “get a room” or at least your own thread.
    Start one up if you cant find one to add to.

    Comment by Mits — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 4:40 pm

  136. @ TANYA.. ..i have made an observation based on your comments which contradict each other.. and your feeling of not getting money.. if u had “balls” which u don’t you wouldn’t worry about the money. you would support your kids yourself… (guys here’s where she will come in with “oh so the father shouldn’t pay?? etc etc “… while totally missing or glossing and even denying the point she is relying on someone elses’s money). Tanya.. you could have found employment close to the childrens father.. you didn’t. you make up an excuse that u cannot get a better paying job. this has been used over and over as an excuse to alienate kids from their fathers. it is a very sorry excuse to use to breakup relationships which you did.

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 5:40 pm

  137. So Tanya, are you ever going to respond?

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 6:25 pm

  138. Scott B
    Probably I in the wrong discussion.
    I have never been able to rely on child support.I have mostly not figured it into my budget.It goes up and down and sometimes disappears without warning.You cant raise a mortgage on it.
    I think if two parents have 50-50 (half of the days and nights each)time with the kids there should be no CS and they should share the cost of things like school fee,clothing and so forth equally.So if the present laws do not allow for this I think it is unjust.It would be great if all ex partners were amicable with each other for the sake of the kids.My experience with this is that the amicable bit changes without notice also.Some people manage to be very civil though.
    I dont see CS as a child tax.Everyone should be responsible for their children if they are well enough.Paying for their needs is what all parents should be doing together or apart.Looking to the tax payer to pay is not on.If you dont ever want kids there are options for men and women.There are also sperm banks in case you change your mind.

    Comment by Tanya — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 6:45 pm

  139. Tania;

    Glad you are on topic. The best way to stop it getting off topic is not to respond to those who leave off-topic remarks.
    When I split, we had 50/50 share of children. My ex wanted everything to go through IRD. When she realized that she hadn’t declared her income properly and the IRD was after her for interest + penalties then she wanted a private arrangement. This I was happy to do, and then 2 years later she unilaterally goes to IRD and double dips as I had already paid her for the month that IRD start asking money for. Since my experiences in the family court the care arrangement has gone in favour of my ex. The 1st time after she assaulted me and my daughter, and the second time after my son gets into trouble at his mums and she buggers off out of the country and dumps them with a child abuser.
    Anyway; I am now starting to get quite mad at the IRD who have reneged on a agreement for me to pay a set amount while a dispute is resolved. They not only ignored the dispute issue but then charged me interest and penalties, even though the previous payments had been agreed upon by them.

    I think we need to get our next tax minister (please let it not be ‘Dunne nothing’ again) to realize that IRD are not the best organization to manage child support because they have made it into a tax.

    I’m pleased you think that no child support should be required in a a50/50 shared care arrangement. Imagine if the instances of that occurring increased. The amount of staff required to administer this child support could be reduced thus saving all of us money (via our taxes), and any incentive for children to be with both mum and dad has to be good for the kids.
    Unfortunately NZ has got itself in a catch 22 situation because there are too many people feeding of custody disputes. Lawyers, judges, IRD, etc.

    How about others that have been leaving messages on this thread. What do you think about what changes there should be to child support?

    Comment by noconfidenceinNZfamilycourt — Wed 14th September 2011 @ 10:16 pm

  140. @Tanya and Hans – “Many women have caught Venereal diseases from their husbands/partners.” Many more men have caught STD’s from their wives/partners – it’s Epidemiology 101. Because of physiology, anatomy and biology, females of most animals are a greater reservoir of pathogens that cause STD’s. Furthermore, females of most animals tend to resist the pathogens longer before succumbing to or demonstrating symptoms of the pathogens longer and transmit them longer. Females of most animals are more social and encounter opportunities for transmitting pathogens that cause STD’s. (This last observation is particularly true in a country like NZ, the population of which demonstrates one of the highest incidences of promiscuity and is the only country in which women have more sex partners than men.) Paternity fraud is an exclusively female crime. Again, I am neither suggesting nor have I ever suggested, as evidenced from my previous posts, that husbands should cheat on their wives and I certainly don’t condone it. Only that that the practical consequences are much greater when wives cheat on their husbands and that the frequency of wives cheating on their husbands is greater than husbands cheating on their wives. Currently, female adultery is institutionalized in law throughout the developed world and a huge industry profits from it. So, the practical solution would seem logically to be discourage wives from cheating on their husbands rather than discourage husbands from cheating on their wives, as no one profits from husbands cheating on their wives and the consequences are extremely small compared to the opposite. Discourage the bigger problem with more practical consequences and not the smaller one with fewer practical consequences instead of punishing the victims of the bigger problem with more practical consequences. Just being rational.

    You are misdirected interpreting my conclusions based upon objective analysis of facts and data in compliance with the Scientific Method as ‘extreme’ opinions. My position may not be popular and it may disagree with interpretations of others but at least it acknowledges and takes into account facts that are measurable within certain tolerances instead of dismissing them out of hand and it is not ‘extreme’. That my philosophies are archaic is irrelevant because they worked toward an advance of civilization and equality between men and women (The entire concept of a hypthesis-based approach to solving problems is archaic but after millenia, it is the only one that works.) Only in the last forty years of feminism has inequality been so pronounced relative to history. In the end, only the truth matters, and the ones who understand the truth are the ones who do not let their feelings and emotions interfere with their practical and objective decisions. I stick by my previous statement that emotional consequences for a woman of a man’s actions aren’t more important than the practical consequences for a man of a woman’s actions. The past forty years of feminism have shown the consequences of exchanging practical responses to everyday dilemmas with emotional responses. Emotions and feelings are important but only if mitigated with an intellect and pragmatism and objectivity and vice versa. Solipsism is the result of emotions without intellect and is an accurate description of our present feminist culture.

    The Nazi’s and the Stalinists and the Khmer Rouge and many other oppressive regimes used vague platitudes like the word “extreme” to describe scholars and intellects, Tanya, and treated sense and reason and scholar as a threat to the pursuit of absolute power, as those seeking absolute power usually manipulate feelings and emotions independent of intellect and scholar to achieve their goals. The first thing these oppressive regimes did is to condemn the scholars to labor camps or prison death. It has been the strategy of feminists for forty years to manipulate others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. Your condemnation of my sense and reason (despite how archaic it may be) is the kind of response that has condemned millions of innocent men and crippled our economy. Your retreat to such dishonest and irresponsible strategies and tactics typical of feminists neither intimidates nor discourages me.

    My posts provide more than just generalities.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 4:35 am

  141. Darryl X
    You are obviously passionate about research.You must spend a lot of time reading and analysing facts.I hope that you are using your intellect and passion to help pay to educate and feed your offspring.That is the best use for your talents in my view.
    Its something to strive for DarrylX.

    Comment by Tanya — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 7:08 am

  142. @Tanya – With limited financial resources, I spend a lot of time in our public library. It’s better than drinking and drugging and other less constructive pursuits.

    “I hope that you are using your intellect and passion to help pay to educate and feed your offspring.” I have alrady addressed this statement of yours, Tanya. There is no relationship between intellect or passion and income. Throughout history, some of the most intelligent and creative people died young and broke. Few became rich. Almost none of the wealthiest people in the world earned their wealth but borrowed from Central Banks and used the money they borrowed to get rich quick in a varity of Ponzi schemes. The entire economy of the US, and indeed the developed world, is based upon usury and most financial instruments are accumulating with those who work the least for them. Even fifty years ago, an education and its responsible application were respected and compensated. Today, they are punished. That being written, while I live way below the threshold of poverty, my two children (and their mothers) receive approximately $32,000 in child support per year (as long as I can continue to live this way and still remain employed, which likely isn’t long). Many studies have shown that fate of children has little or nothing to do with finances of parents, otherwise all parents living in poverty would be condemned to prison in the US. One factor far more important than finances of parents affecting fate of children is their relationship with their fathers. Unfortunately, mine have been denied access to me, as the children of more than 50% of children in the US have been denied access to their fathers during the past forty years. That is an important part, if not the most important part, of their education and they have been denied it.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 7:59 am

  143. I don’t know where I read it Daryl x, but I seem to remember an article which stated that more children have been rendered fatherless in the US since 1970 by the system, then were rendered fatherless during World War One and Two combined! That’s comparing just the loss of fathers to children in the US to the entire worldwide losses in the two World Wars. Shocking.
    It would be interesting to find out the numbers for New Zealand.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 10:20 am

  144. Darrl X; what is this thread about ? Child support!
    What has STDs got to do with it? Why are you saying such utter crap with no evidence…
    Here’s an example of evidence….

    With regard to your mention of your own child support situation, I can sympathize. How do we move from here ? How, for example, do we influence these changes for child support? After I finish with the family court I intend to become active in gender lobbying to help the many men (and women) who are not as fortunate as myself.
    By that I mean I still see my kids and can (just) afford the child support payments (although the recent letter from IRD tells me that I will start to be one that will incur penalties for the rest of my life as they have increased it by 400%!

    Comment by noconfidenceinNZfamilycourt — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 12:35 pm

  145. How do we move from here ? How, for example, do we influence these changes for child support?

    How about taking action? Seriously guys, just DO SOMETHING. Then we can look at what works and what doesn’t, change approach and take some more action.
    This is the big problem with the “Mens’ Rights Movement.” the biggest load of “action” is jaw flapping, which we already know is not good form making changes happen. Talk is cheap, and whether we like it or not, the governments of Western Countries don’t give a shit about we we think or say. I mean come on, do you seriously think that any changes in policy are going to happen without Western Governments being forced to make them?
    Have a look at what happened in South Africa guys, was apartheid broken with cheap talk, whining and pussy foot action? If we are to break the power of feminist nonsense, then it will take a bit more than the tedious mucking around that seems to predominate at the moment.
    Get serious guys.
    PS: And how about stopping all this tedious infighting, the last thing we need is to be so busy with pissing contests that we get distracted away from what matters. Dealing with the problem.

    Comment by Phoenix — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 1:10 pm

  146. @Mr A – Population of the US in 1945 was 140-million and about 92-million during 1917 (about 350-million now). About 534,000 men died during the wars. Divorce is negligible during that time. Most of those killed during the wars likely were young and didn’t have children but I don’t know the age distribution of the dead. I don’t have any specific data to look at but even if half of those men from the US who died had chidren, then 267,000 fathers were lost to both wars. Nothing compared to developments after 1970. I think there were around nine-million troops from the US. So the children of any fathers in those numbers would have been without fathers for an average deployment of four years (maybe a little more than 10% of the entire population of children). I had always estimated number of fathers lost since 1970 in NZ to be around 460,000 (the US is around 32-million). I don’t know the number of children who lost their fathers. Without better demographic data to consult and a more thorough analysis, I would estimate number of children to be about what it is in the US – greater than the number of fathers by a multiple of 1.5 during the past forty years in NZ (about 52-million in the US – and that includes visitation 2-4 days per month and some holidays – but only about half in the US enjoy this outcome and half of children never see their fathers again after separation). Assuming the same or similar demographics of the US, which I think is reasonable given that England and the US and Australia and Canada and New Zealand have similar cultures and a huge baby-boomer population. The US has a huge Generation-Y about the same as the baby-boomers (using 20 yrs as the delimitations of a generation starting in 1945). In NZ, approximately 20% of the entire population is legal immigrants during the past twenty years. About 10% of the domestic male population has left the island during the past twenty years. Does that sound about right?

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 1:15 pm

  147. Got it NoCo. Child support. Just responding to some developments. Sorry. I’ve been trying to stay on topic. Thx.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 1:19 pm

  148. @Phoenix – Yup. Action.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 1:32 pm

  149. Hmmm. Just quickly checked and there were about 34 million military deaths in WW1 and WW2 combined (worldwide). Kind of puts the rate of fatherlessness due to feminism in perspective doesn’t it.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 5:28 pm

  150. I am informed that 3,000 NZ children lost their fathers who died during WW2. About 12,000 NZ men lost their lives in the conflict.
    The family Court used to defather about 20,000 children every year. Maybe things are getting better as Protection Orders have fallen from close to 10,000 a year down to about 4,000 a year these days butif we assume 2 children per order it still makes world war seema sideline to the lose of a parent because of Family Court intervention.

    Comment by fred — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 9:05 pm

  151. @fred and Mr A and Phoenix – Yes, it does put the rate of fatherlessness due to feminism in perspective. Kind of like a World War. (The 534,000 deaths I reported was for just the US.) In the US, frequency of protection orders has not increased recently as much as it was during the 70’s and 80’s and not as many children are being “defathered” (great term) today as they used to BUT that is because the percent of the population marrying has declined (by about a half) and because the number of children and mothers who do not know who the father is in the first place has increased so dramatically during the past three years (that illustrates how irresponsible women are). During the past three years, for which there are data, approximately 25% (yes, twenty-five) of children born in the US are to unknown fathers. So, when feminists claim that percent of mothers receiving child support is not increasing as much as it had been or that percent of fathers paying child support is not increasing in proportion to the population, it likely is for all the wrong reasons. Percent of fathers paying child support has not increased in proportion to increase in the population because so many mothers can’t identify the father and with paternity testing they no longer have the luxury of misidentifying the father with the same frequency they used to (paternity fraud). Although paternity fraud in the US is still around 10% of all children (plus or minus a little bit), if it was increasing the way it had over the past forty years, it would be much higher by now but it has leveled off. The mothers of another 15% of children don’t even know who the father is and can’t even hazard a guess as to who should get a paternity test so she can target him for child support. It’s that bad and when everyone thought it couldn’t get worse,it actually is. And given the small popualation of NZ during World War II, 3,000 children losing their fathers is dramatic to say the least.

    Comment by Darryl X — Thu 15th September 2011 @ 11:33 pm

  152. @Phoenix – re DO SOMETHING! – some thoughts…

    In the United States, two primary organizations have taken the lead in relieving fathers and their children of an oppressive post feminist dystopian police state and the trafficking and abuse of children and enslavement of fathers: Fathers and Families (F&F) and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC).

    Goal of both organizations is legal reform. They also invest considerable resources in publicizing the dilemmas which fathers and their children confront in a corrupt system of usury and excess. An important book published by a former Chairman of ACFC, Stephen Baskerville, called Taken Into Custody: America’s War Against Fathers, Children and the Family helped people like myself understand the political, legal and social elements of our problem. It has helped others but not enough. I have previously identified other important publications on this site and other participants have too.

    Although I support as best I can personally and professionally all efforts of both, I am critical. Laws already exist which address concerns of fathers and their children, and those laws are ignored routinely in family courts every day. So I believe legal reform is not an option. As I’ve said before, complaining to our leaders about this problem is used by them to evaluate their success in oppressing us and encourages them to impose upon us more.

    Recently, ACFC has sponsored a FaceBook campaign called Save The Turnips! Goal of the campaign is publicizing and broadcasting the plight of fathers to recruit popular support for legal reform. A problem both organizations have identified is the lack of public understanding about the dilemmas fathers and their children are confronted with, so both have stepped up their efforts to broadcast information about the basic civil liberties, particularly freedom of parents to parent their children with limited interference by the gov’t, which have been denied us.

    Expectations of over a thousand visits to Save The Turnips! in the first month were not met and after almost five months, the campaign has attracted less than 1,100 visits. An important reason for so few visits is that, although approximately 32-million fathers have been forcibly separated from approximately 53-million children during the past forty years, about half of those fatehrs have paid off the support and arrears and did it during a flush economy twenty years ago and don’t want to revisit their experience. Only about 18-million are currently in the system. Of those, only about nine-million have been in arrears. Of those, only about two-million have been in prison. The only reason most of the others haven’t been to prison is because 250,000 have suicided, and the rest are either fugitives or destitute and on the street. So not a lot of support from them. Also, too many other people profit from child support and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them, and a bad economy eclipses this problem as most people look to the gov’t for a handout or to a solution to the problem of our economy (unfortunatly, the gov’t and the Central Banks caused the problem so people are looking in the wrong places – idiots).

    The United States is a big country with a big population so solving a problem here like family law is like turning an aircraft carrier – it takes a long time, a lot of highly motivated people, coordination and a big turning radius. BUT New Zealand is a small country with a small population. A movement to reform family law should be easier to start there and has a greater probability of success. Success in New Zealand will be a good catalyst. John Potter and participants on this site have the right idea by first creating a forum for discussion of the problem. I’ve read many good ideas on this site. Before it can be solved, the problem must be articulated correctly and honestly and accurately and then broadcast. You need a simple unifying message that is not a platitudinal soundbite (I like “Save The Turnips!”).

    MENZ is a good forum for discussion. And I always direct people to this site for a frame of reference and as an example of an exceptionally organized and well-thought-out site. It’s one of the best I’ve seen on the web (wished I knew more about computers and stuff so I could get in on the game here in the US similar to John). Discussion is good and very important but a goal is needed – a small one to start with. Family law is a huge problem so there needs to be a starting point, an emphasis, like in the US with Save The Turnips! We’re focusing on incarceration of fathers. I think (IMOHO) you need to find a particular offense of interest that is going to captivate the entire population of men AND women and promote an interest in changing things (I’ve commented on this site before about funding in the US for child support eclipsing emergency response – was your emergency response to or preparedness for natural disasters like recent earth quakes compromised by lack of men or severed relationships between fathers and their children?). And the women need to approach the problem amongst themselves. I think about the self-immolation of Thomas Ball in New Hampshire and the other man in Australia who did the same should be rallying events (like the man in Tunisia was). They can be rallying events for New Zealand – no need for one of you to set yourselves on fire.

    Also, I think you should approach other organizations for support, including F&F and ACFC in the US. Dr Ned Holstein (F&F) and Mike McCormick and Marti Ryan (ACFC) are good contacts. Although I think New Zealand can succeed in defeating its oppressors on its own, the fight for fathers and their children is global. No one country won World War I or II on its own. It was a cooperative effort. I think that any successes of a country like New Zealand would be short-lived unless its success was enjoyed on an international scale, especially since organizations like the UN are responsible, in part, for globalizing the problem.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th September 2011 @ 7:00 am

  153. I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why
    I used to love this web site. Thank you, I’ll
    try and check back more often. How frequently you update your website?

    Comment by real estate agents in adelaide — Tue 25th September 2012 @ 1:48 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