Scare tatics to prevent DPB reform
Guys we need you to hammer every news site and discussion site you can. We need to influence public opinion and shout down the DPB bludgers.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
103 Comments »
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.
As much as I dislike Family First at least they are pointing int he right direction:
Not just one case.
Comment by Vman — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:47 pm
While it may be sensible to encourage, provide incentives for and even mildly to pressure sole parents to go into paid employment, I don’t see that as an adequate solution. I would prefer measures to discourage people from going on the DPB in the first place. To this end I have long advocated a stand-down period of, say, 6 months before any DPB is paid, except in strictly limited cases such as a recent conviction (beyond reasonable doubt) of the mother’s partner for serious violence or where she can prove she has been financially abandoned by the primary money earner. Faced with a period of hardship, many teenage girls would think twice before creating a baby to gain two decades of secure lifestyle funding from the government and ultimately from the bloke she f***ed, and many mothers would think twice before trashing their children’s family units. Those with high enough motivation to leave a relationship could still find ways of doing so, having to save for some time in preparation and/or rely on family and friends to get by for 6 months; this in itself would provide important checks on impetuous decisions.
How much blame should really be placed on those who do what the government invites them to do? Rather than criticize people as DPB bludgers, most blame should go on the government and ultimately the voters for maintaining the DPB in its current form as an incentive to wreck families.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 1:15 pm
I don’t know what the rationale is behind the IRD keeping child support if the mother is on a benefit but I know at least one who uses it for revenge, pure and simple. Remove that incentive and you’d cause a small but significant drop in claimants straight away. At least with the DPB it gets harder and harder to justify as the kids get older. If you can score a sickness or invalids benefit you’re in the money – and your ex is in the crap – for life.
I don’t think language like DPB bludgers is helpful in public forums either, however true it might be. It’s too easy for the opposition to brush it off as coming from disaffected loonies.
Comment by Dan — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 4:07 pm
Hans,
There’s a certain circularity to this argument –
Yes, many folks (most usually women) take the opportunity to go on DPB.
I’ve seen many use it as a lifestyle of choice. To me clearly lazy arsed bludgers.
But then Government turns around and says “oh look, we need DPB for all these folks”. Provides soft jobs for a lot of Government office props.
So I blame both parties.
I agree that there should be pressure to applied to stop people going on the DPB in the first place and DPB should be restricted to limited cases only as you describe.
The current system is far too often infantalizing rather than challenging folks to grow beyond DPB dependency.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 5:58 pm
The DPB is not required. There is nothing to stop an unemployed person getting a benifit while they look for work. Other assistance is also available. The DPB is forcing the tax payer to fund someone elses’ life style choice.
Comment by Dave — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 8:44 pm
The formula components for the 2011/2012 child support year have now been finalised and as follows:
Inflation factor: 4%
Minimum formula assessment annual rate: $848
Maximum assessable income: $121,833
Living allowances:
L1 – Single person with no dependents $14,281
L2 – Partnered with no dependents $19,490
L3 – Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,628
L4 – Single/ Partnered with two dependents $30,558
L5 – Single/ Partnered with three dependents $33,487
L6 – Single/ Partnered with four dependents $36,417
How on earth is this calculated, my livind allowance is less than my child support assessment for the whole year. This government does not support hard working men, but supports women who choose to keep children away from their father and choose NOT to work. I will not vote this year.
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 9:03 pm
Pointing out the evils and huge social costs of the DPB does not equal “let’s hate”.
The DPB is a life style choice and your irrelevant comments will not stop us pointing that out.
Comment by Dave — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 9:14 pm
L3 – Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,628
L1 – Single person with no dependents $14,281
27,628 – 14,281 = $13,347 for one child.
Therefore Child support payments should be capped at $13,327 for one child. It is inappropriate for the state to value some children more than others. This is the worse kind of discrimination.
Comment by Dave — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 9:18 pm
Hans,
thinking about this a bit more I realize that all the women I’ve known who collected DPB did so after having separated from their husbands. That would number about a dozen or so. I know some women who spent years, up to a decade on DPB who even bought good houses and cars, sat in cafes reading magazines and relaxing all day whilst their kids were in school whilst many regularly employed working stiffs looked on in envy at how their mortgages were being paid whilst they lived a life of leisure!
Then there were the lesbian DPBers who lived in Thames, Coromandel, Whangarei and Napier collecting two lots of DPB.
Now those couples were really living it up! DPB, Food Banks, Study Grants etc.
But I’m digressing slightly.
What I meant to say was if I’m not mistaken the vast majority of those who get DPB would be women who have chosen separation and/or divorce.
Right?
They can do this because it’s so easy for them.
If I’m right about this ultimately the culprit is that Elephant in the room many don’t wish to discuss – No fault divorce.
Recently I spoke to some muslim folks from Northern India and some Chinese and Korean folks. I asked them what they thought of being able to divorce without either the husband or wife having to prove the other had been involved in any wrongdoing, but simply on whim (no fault), they gave me interesting responses.
The Indian woman and her husband thought westerners were barmy and they couldn’t see western civilization continuing for very long.
The wife got very animated and asked “how can your civilization last for very long with half your marriages ending in divorce and children then being in broken homes?”
I had no reply.
I was quite stunned not realizing this is how we westerners are seen.
The Chinese folks were a bit less forthcoming.
I guess they didn’t want to see me being a westerner loose face.
However after some prodding from me they too quietly concurred with the Indian couple.
They have given me much food for thought.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 26th January 2011 @ 7:01 am
I am not aware of the government making a good CS deal with anyone. Yes I have a bad deal personally.
The core issue is that CS should not be founded on supporting a life style choice. It should be a bare minimum to prevent excesses.
This particular post is about how the government places a far greater value on some children than others based on the marital status of their parents. It is a key point to illustrate the ideologically flawed foundation of the system.
Why doesn’t the government legislate how much parents must spend on their children prior to separation of the parents? Tell me that. This is a key question which exposes the flawed principals of the entire system.
Comment by Vman — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 3:02 pm
None of this explains why it is the tax payers job to fund other people’s life style choices with the DPB.
In fact it mostly illustrates why it is a bad idea.
It is not the tax payers job to fund a woman to have 6 children under 7 with a violent man. What prospects did she think child number 6 would have? She is free to make those life style choices at her own expense. She got a free education so she can make her own informed life style choices. She will still get assistance like another other unemployed person with 6 children.
If you want to fund her life style choices through your own charity go right ahead. We wont stop you. We’ll even give you a tax break to help you do it.
None of it justifies forcing tax payers to work in order to fund these choices. Choices that we know are bad for children and bad for society.
Why not pick another street and list all the folk who choose to have none, one or 2 children because they knew very well that they could not afford to provide a quality life for any more children. Particularly because they knew they had to pay high taxes in order to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars given to other people who made very poor life style choices.
Comment by Vman — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 3:25 pm
The DPB costs more than $1.7 billion dollars.
According to my calculations every working tax payer works for the first week of the year to pay for the life style choice of the DPB.
I was going to post all the references and calculations I did to get that figure but the government makes the information so misleading and hard to find that my explanation was growing into a booklet.
Unfortunately that means some will not accept they are working for a week of every year to pay for other people’s life style choices. To be fair it does depend on certain definitions. I found it could be over 2 weeks or 4 days depending on how you defined tax payer for example.
What everyone can understand is that tax payers are working for part of the year to fund the life style choices of other people.
I then tried to map the trend. This was even more buried in government misinformation and depends on more definitions. What is clear is that that rate of people going on the DPB far exceeds the number of new tax payers. In other words the group paying for it is not growing as fast as the people receiving it. In other words as each year goes by a greater share of your working year is spent funding other people’s life style choices.
Here are some facts for you:
* There were 97,000 New Zealanders on DPB for sole parents in February 2010. This is up from 90,000 in February 2009 – an increase of 8 per cent.
* 43,000 sole parents on DPB have a child aged six and over. Over half had one child and 30 per cent had two children.
* New Zealand is one of the few countries in the OECD to have no work expectations for sole parents with children aged under 18 years.
* Sole mother full-time employment rates increased rapidly when work tests were previously introduced for people receiving DPB (1997-2003).
Comment by Vman — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 8:03 pm
What everyone can understand is that tax payers are working for part of the year to fund the life style choices of other people.
Yes we do – Superanuitants,LAQC operators,”investors” who are greedy and invest in dodgy finance companies ……The list is endless. Tax-payers pay tax – governments spend it.
The attack on the DPB is a red herring – what you should be attacking is why “liable parents” are taxed via child tax to recover the DPB when we already pay substantial Tax that covers the provision of benifits.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 9:59 am
Yes child tax is a more serious problem.
Personally I agree that it is double taxation. The counter argument that is used is that the tax payer should not pay for the DPB, the other parent should pay for it.
On the surface that seems reasonable. Dig a little deeper and you find it is full of hypocrisy and all manner of problems and inconsistencies.
In any case, the results make that discussion rather academic.
At the end of the day parents are unwilling to pay child support that does not go directly to their own children. Rightly or wrongly, it is model doomed to fail. As you point out it is a child tax. So if we want systems that work then we can’t pay a benefit and try to claim that back from a section of the population through child support/tax for the simple reason it doesn’t work.
Politically it is difficult to admit that this model does not work. The burden of the DPB keeps growing, it is bad for society and it is increasingly difficult to convince all tax payers that they should fund it. On the other hand if the DPB was scraped then there goes the motivation to recover this money via child support/tax.
Politically this has other advantages. The child support claimed can be reduced yet more people will receive it. This is because all that money that was going to the government now goes to parents.
In addition, it begins to look like child support rather than a child tax.
In other words scraping the DPB makes it easier to make needed reforms to the current child tax system.
Comment by Vman — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 11:16 am
Absolutely it is double taxation, it’s amazing how a 62% marginal rate makes you wonder why the hell you bother. On top of that there’s the monthly threats from a system that is designed to get tax out of businesses not ordinary guys who aren’t equipped to fight them.
Now I see they’ve put the thresholds up but not the living allowance and have given themselves an extra 4%. What sort of people sit around the table and decide these things? What do they talk about while deciding?
Comment by Dan — Sun 30th January 2011 @ 12:58 am
Let me think.
If I work another hour, I earn a bonus $30.00. Out of that, I’m going to lose
$9.00 in tax (30% rate)
$5.40 in child support (18%)
$3.00 in SWtudent Loan repayments (10%)
$0.45 in ACC Levy (1.5%)
$1.20 in KiwiSaver (4% from me)
That leaves me $10.95, to spend, as i please.
If I spend the lot, I pay another $1.64 in GST.
Which leaves me around $9.30 (so l,ong as I don’t spend it on petrol, or booze or smokes).
Tell me, Mr Key, wtf should I work another hour?
Comment by Steve — Sun 30th January 2011 @ 7:25 pm
Suppose I should be glad I didn’t have 4 kids; I’d have paid another $3.60 in spousal maintenance.
Comment by Steve — Sun 30th January 2011 @ 7:26 pm
Sorry Steve,
It’s actually worse than that if you as many Kiwis do you use a motor vehicle to go and spend the remaining $9.30.
What with all the fuel tax and other road user fees.
Then you may have to pay for parking too!
Plus whatever you spend the $9.30 on will most likely mean paying Goods and Service Tax.
Of course any non-compostable waste you produce from purchasing the products – wrapping, packaging etc you will one way or another have to pay for to have disposed.
New Zealand – lots of nice natural and pastoral views, crying shame about trying to get ahead for a great many folks though.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 30th January 2011 @ 8:55 pm
And don’t forget also that next year the IRD will increase your assessment by $30 plus 4% so there goes another $6 – I hope you haven’t splashed out on those smokes yet!
Comment by Dan — Mon 31st January 2011 @ 4:31 pm
Hi Skeptic; I allowed for GST, and made mention of petrol; but the parking and waste disposal would certainly add up.
Comment by Steve — Mon 31st January 2011 @ 5:58 pm
A couple of links I felt we could all relate to. Enjoy.
.
.
A song dedicated to all those chicks who make their money by having babies.
Welfare Sluts
.
.
Ok, this video is from America, but it’s still relevant.
Welfare Queens
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 3rd February 2011 @ 7:50 am
I’ve noticed with great displeasure at the amount of people calling the DPB a “Life style choice”. When I met my ex husband he was a good man…until he started beating me and taking drugs. Now, I stayed with this person for years before I decided that I wasn’t going to be treated like this anymore, NOR was I about to allow the son we have together, grow up to think that THIS was what it meant to be a man.
Now at the time that I left him I worked part-time and I studied part-time. My ex husband REFUSED to pay for anything for our child. He wouldn’t even pay for pull-ups!!! So I was expected to pay for my studies and daycare AND everything myself and my child needed on $150 a week? It WASNT POSSIBLE!
Thus, I did not CHOOSE this life.
I am still studing. Funded by the taxpayer? NO. I have a scholarship. I have a scholarship because I hold an A average in University. So no, I’m not sitting on my butt in a cafe, sipping coffee, reading a magazine, having my mortgage paid etc etc etc. I’m studying my arse off.
What am I studying? Social Work. So I can get out in the work force and get paid PEANUTS to help people in our society get back on track, people that most of you on here are trashing. So lets not label everything with the same tag ok.
Maybe rather than moaning about usless women, you should start some kind of a forum where you’re encouraging usless, irresponsible fathers to actually suppport their children? Good idea?
If some men took responsibility for their children A LOT of women wouldn’t have to be on the DPB.
Comment by Kya — Sat 5th March 2011 @ 9:24 pm
Kya,
whether you feel displeasure or not, I think it’s a fact that far too many women have chosen DPB as a lifestyle choice.
I’m mighty glad that’s a realization others have had too.
I once dated a woman who was (by today’s monetary terms) buying a $500,000 house and swanning around at the beach and cafes whilst her TWELVE year old daughter was at school all day.
I knew two lesbian women in Thames who were shacked up together with their kids from previous heterosexual relations and BOTH receiving the DPB.
With Child support, accomodation allowances etc they wer pulling in over $800 a week and living the life of Riley doing a lot of stuff wage earning folks couldn’t afford to do.
I knew another woman on Waiheke Island who spent over 15 years on DPB (spaced the births out deliberately). The same woman had 5 taxpayer funded abortions!
I could go on, and no doubt other men posting here can add to the list, but I guess you get the point.
I’m sick and tired of paying for slack arsed bludging women who do these things whilst a lot of men work themselves into an early grave paying taxes because they’ve been trained to see that as ‘manly’.
One final point I think worth mentioning.
You CHOSE the guy who you go on to describe as changing from being a good man. Then you CHOSE to stay with him for many years.
So in a sense you did CHOOSE your circumstances leading up to DPB.
Good luck with your studies.
I hope you find the Social Sciences has moved on from much of the feminist junk I discovered last time I studied in NZ.
I also hope your NOT going to project your victim identity onto clients in future as some in the social services I’ve known in NZ have.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 5th March 2011 @ 9:45 pm
No, I did not CHOOSE my circumstances. Who in their right mind would chose to be beaten? So you know some lesbians, so you know a few other women who have had babies to “live off”…so that makes you know the other hundreds of women who are on the DPB too? Get over yourself. Have you been on a benefit? Have you had to care for your children on your own? Sweety, all you think you know are anecdotal points that hold little relativity to anything. I actually know a number of single women, with useless exs on the DPB who like me are two years away from completing a doctorate. Our children will not follow our previous “life choices” as you ignorantly refer to them. Maybe you should put your head in some textbooks, namely a few to teach you about stereotyping? Regardless of what idiots like you believe honey, there are a lot of people trying to get away from our “life choices”.
Comment by Kya — Sat 5th March 2011 @ 10:31 pm
One last thing, the reason I and many other women are still single is because of men like you. Have a fabulous life sweety.
Comment by Kya — Sat 5th March 2011 @ 10:39 pm
Kya,
Don’t be ridiculous.
Nobody is claiming anyone chose a beating.
You chose the guy.
Then you chose to stay with him for many years (your words not mine).
So you PUT YOURSELF in harm’s way is all.
I’ve known hundreds of women on DPB who were perfectly capable of NOT sponging off the taxpayer by getting off their arses and getting a job like the rest of us.
FYI to answer your questions I was once on a benefit for a few weeks until I found a job.
I’ve also looked after kids on my own.
And it isn’t hundreds of other women on DPB as you claim, it’s
At the end of June 2009, out of the 310,296 registered working age welfare beneficiaries 104,400 were receiving the DPB.
Thank goodness the Nats are putting the breaks on that costly scam.
I suppose then they and their many hundreds of thousands of supporters must all be idiots too in your view.
All I can say is thank goodness I’m an ‘idiot’.
I am having a sweet life already.
Finally NZ is waking up and I find myself in the majority.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 5th March 2011 @ 10:48 pm
Kya:
I guess your ex-husband might tell a different side of the story, both leading up to you breaking up your child’s family and after you did so.
If indeed your husband beat you and was abusing the kind of drugs that might change him into someone violent, then I for one would support the provision of a DPB to help you and your son. I bet that most contributors here would too. But I think it reasonable to expect some good evidence of such justification, at least a conviction beyond reasonable doubt for recent and significant domestic violence.
The problem is that the DPB is most often provided without good justification. For low-income families, the DPB pays a mother more than the income brought in by her husband and therefore often does become a lifestyle choice for her. For parents who become ‘unhappy’ with their partner, the DPB offers a ready alternative to the hard work of improving their relationship. Female teenagers can afford to be careless or deliberate concerning pregnancy without any concern firstly to establish a partnership or viable economic basis to provide for children.
A number of things you wrote deserve challenge. Firstly, you admit that you appointed yourself to the godly position of defining ‘what it meant to be a man’ and decided that your husband no longer qualified. This attitude will be familiar to many men and probably contributed to the relationship conflict both before and after you broke your wedding vows.
Next you claim that you had to cater for yourself and your son on $150 per week so you had no choice but to go on the DPB. Well, with accommodation and other allowances, the DPB typically pays $500 or more per week. Are you implying that if your husband had paid for a half share of your child’s needs (possibly amounting to $50 per week) then you would not have applied for the DPB? Yeah right. More likely, after you kicked your husband out of his child’s family unit you still expected him to fund your lifestyle and when he would not match what the government offered you went to the government.
Next you claim that you are not funded by the taxpayer, but if you are receiving the DPB this is paid for by taxpayers and so are most university scholarships.
Next you tell MENZ contributors what they should do, another self-appointed godly dictate.
Next you talk about ‘useless, irresponsible fathers’, again setting yourself in the position of judging and defining how men should be. In my experience most fathers even after separation yearn to help their children through life but many are restricted from doing so by attitudes such as yours and associated behaviour. Some fathers do abandon their role completely but usually this is because they are not being treated reasonably by controlling ex-wives who have made it too difficult for them to keep trying.
Finally, you make the illogical statement that if ‘some men took responsibility for their children A LOT of women wouldn’t have to be on the DPB’. Even if a lot of women did go on the DPB because their husbands/partners don’t take responsibility for their children (which I don’t believe is true), it would take A LOT of such men to change for A LOT of women not to ‘have to be’ on the DPB. Further, in this statement you are putting forward another justification for kicking fathers out of their children’s family unit; not that they need to be violent but that they don’t ‘take responsibility’ for their children (whatever that means). In fact, most husbands/partners take responsibility in various ways for their children and family unit but could not afford to provide enough for a second household should their children’s mother break up the family as you did. The decision to trash the family is encouraged from the outset by the availability of the DPB.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 5th March 2011 @ 11:48 pm
I have my right to express my opinion. But what was I thinking it expressing myself in a forum full of unintelligent pigs who aren’t worth my time. In fact, I’ll stay on the DPB longer, and ask for MORE just to raise your taxes. Thanks. In fact I’ll make sure other women do the same!! Leave their husbands, but only if they’re arrogant pigs like you, and BLUDGE!!!! how’s that for feminism? Make you all work 14 hour shifts like you should be doing! That’s the mans job isn’t it? So get off the net and get back to work!!! Pig. But, you have made me laugh though so thanks. Don’t bother replying jerk off, ive got better things to do than read your ignorant crap… Like spending your money hahaha!
Comment by Kya — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 12:11 am
I have a PhD in Psychology emphasizing psychopathology. I have another in Ecology emphasizing communication systems. Before I pursued graduate studies of psychology and ecology, I was premed. My studies reflect my interest in correlating brain activity with behavior, quantitation of which the behavioral sciences has been lacking. I cannot conclude anything about your mental health without a comprehensive evaluation, but your posts suggest that something is wrong. Among the elements of your posts that concern me are a disproportionate density of pronouns, the sense of entitlement, martyrdon, lack of personal responsibility and lack of analytical skills they express, and their use in manipulating others. Please get help.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 1:32 am
You have a right to an opinion. However, an opinion is based upon facts and data and their objective analyses. Facts and data are quantifiable, and people can disagree about facts and data and their measurement and their interpretation. An opinion based solely upon the subjective perceptions of an individual or group of individuals and in the absence of facts and data and their objective analyses is delusion. You suffer from delusions, which have been adopted by all feminists and institutionalized in law, politics and society. Feminist delusions are an important reason (if not the most important reason) the economy of the entire developed world is collapsing. In addition to my other concerns about your posts, your abrupt and disproportionate hostility and anger without any real provocation is symptomatic of major psychopathology and if you are genuinely concerned about the welfare of your children, you need to get help. Given your behavior on this website, the statistical improbability of your claims and the context on which claims about your husband are predicated, that your husband “beat” you without considerable provocation is unlikely. If anything, it sounds like your husband was desparately trying to protect himself and his children from you and a huge political and legal machine designed to actively and deliberately profit from the destruction of his family. Your posts in the context of many reports published in refereed scientific journals about domestic violence further suggest that any physical altercation between you and him was likely instigated by you.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 3:09 am
If these posts reflect what is to be expected from someone with a A average in Social work 2 years off obtaining a doctorate then nothing much has changed in NZ. On the other hand an entilement princess having a troll and a wind-up could be expected to post pretty much the same thing.
Reading her tirade was, for me, further justification for stopping the DPB as a lifestyle choice for these princesses.I found it hilarious that someone could start a post with
“I have my right to express my opinion.”
But then pack such a hissy fit that anyone else would have an opinion. priceless.
Comment by Mits — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 8:37 am
Oh dear, I HAVE pressed Kya’s buttons haven’t I. I am flattered that my humble comments have been so powerful. After all, I simply made reasoned arguments, sticking to the topic with no name-calling or personal attacks on Kya. I even offered support for her decisions should her claims about her marital circumstances be true. But truth tends to elicit defensiveness from those who are not being honest.
I would acknowledge that my language was strong in describing parental separation in terms such as “family trashing”, but I make no apology for that. In my opinion the terms we usually hear amount to euphemisms that hide the true impact of family break-up on children. Such sanitization was a deliberate strategy of feminism. I emphasized that depriving children of their family unit is sometimes justified, although in reality the levels of harm or danger existing rarely outweigh the harm done to children by doing so.
Thanks Kya for your well-considered, scholarly arguments in response! You have been helpful here for showing up feminism for what it really is. You will no doubt be highly sought after as a social worker in some circles; your inability to participate in rational dialogue and to tolerate any disagreement with what you spout, and your nasty, violent misandry are just what they need to carry on their unethical missions.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 9:42 am
haw, haw. I’ll believe that about a woman when I hear it directly from Santa Claus.
Comment by yeah right — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 10:05 am
Statistically, almost all men support their children the best they can until the mothers of those children and the government interfere. Approximately one-quarter to one-half of all fathers in the US are unable to comply totally with orders for child-support. It’s not a choice. The orders are simply excessive (and much of that “support” is not going to the children, but to the mothers and their excessive life-style). For men with an average annual income or less, approximately one-half to two-thirds are not in compliance. The problem is that the fathers could and often do support their children completely when they are allowed to volunteer a reasonable level of support for their children consistent with their incomes and needs of the children. When mothers pursue excessive child-support from fathers through the government, they often forfeit the amount of support fathers were volunteering and because agencies for child-support enforcment pursue the fathers with such a heavy hand and with such lack of sense or reason, the fathers often end up losing their jobs, passports, and driver licenses. Also, they frequently go to prison, which costs tax-payers more and makes getting a job and paying the excessive child-support for fathers even harder. The entire concept of child-support, especially in the context of mothers and their probability of snatching children, is child trafficking – holding children hostage for ransom, often while the mother is pursuing an adulterous relationship and other life-style choices not in the best interest of children. There are many biological and evolutionary reasons based upon physiology and behavior why mothers do not make good parents in a civilized society. Just look at the fate of one-half of children in the US during the past forty years. They seldom if ever see their fathers ever again after the mother has snatched them. Depriving a child of its parents is real child abuse, and not the nonsense that these mothers contrive against the fathers. The crossroads we are at in civilization demands that mothers acknowledge and respect the value of fathers in the lives of their children. These children are suffering and it’s because the mothers refuse to provide them with one of the most (if not the most) important resource in their lives – their fathers.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 11:29 am
Hans – those are really BIG buttons.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 11:36 am
And I know kids [yes, kids] who are either still at school, or have only just left, who openly tell me that having a kid and living on DPB is a life-style choice they know some of their peers are either making, or contemplating making.
I know friends kids [yes, kids, even at 18], who have bailed from school or varsity, gotten pregnant, and are now on DPB. One of them is expecting any day now, to the same father, her second child. That is massive and absolute, undeniable benefit abuse.
KYA; I can only assume that your ex only got violent after you became pregnant to him; else I must ask a really basic question, as to why you chose [yes, chose] to get pregnant to a violent man.
Comment by One man's Perspective — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 3:31 pm
My ex-wife beat me. Being the sort of person I am I didn’t hit her back. I also did not go on the DPB. For a male it has always been clear that the DPB is a life style choice. One that is almost always not available to them anyway. It is really quite amazing how so many women and feminists see the DPB as an entitlement.
Comment by Vman — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 7:54 pm
Here is a good article about the reality of domestic violence – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 1:55 am
Good article – liked this:
I wonder how much of this is because violent women attract visits by police, leading to men getting arrested?
Comment by yeah right — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 9:02 am
Yeah, no surprise there? – LOL My past claim that all women are psychopaths is hyperbole. Approximately 20% of women are not psychopathic, as supported by data concerning assortive mating systems of humans prior to invention of marriage and civilization. So there is a small chance that if a man leaves or is left by one partner that his next one will not be psychopathic. But it is a small chance, so you don’t encounter many men who find their next relationship better. That is one reason it is always assumed that it is the man that is violent – not because he is violent but because his partner is – it’s a broad phenomenon called “hostile partner veto” (in the case of parents, it’s called “hostile parent veto”). That your partner is abusive but you are guilty by association and her abusive disposition is projected upon you and distracts from her own abuse. It’s normal female behavior, since they haven’t the faculties to regulate their own behavior, they depend upon external cues. That’s typical of malignant narcissism. Also supported by data concerning assortive mating systems in humans is that only approximately 20% of males are psychopathic. When I write “psychopathic”, I mean that the person ranks high on a continuum of psychopathy (only a small percent of men are actually considered by the psychiatric community to be psychopathic and a smaller percent of women, and the only way I can explain why the psychiatric community recognizes so few is that so many psychopaths are subclinical or, like women, escape blame and being associated with behaviors with which psychopathy is typically associated). It’s usually men who are associated with psychopathy, which is strange because the criteria associated with psychopathy are very typically female and not male – and there are behavioral, biological, physiological and evolutionary reasons for this distinction. That’s 50% of the human population basically has no conscience, but mostly women. That’s why there is no such thing as a civilized matriarchy. That’s why the greatly feminized country of Iceland and it’s economy fell apart so quickly. And that’s why a country like New Zealand is so fragile. It is a matriarchy. It’s institutionalized psychopathy courtesy of the feminists. They can’t possibly expect the economy to survive under the weight of their malignant narcissism. But that is part of the pathology of psychopathy – there are no analytical skills for those in power to use to ascertain the state of their circumstances and predict a reasonable outcome for them. It could be completely disintegrating and the feminists would not even know it. Hope I didn’t offend anyone in New Zealand with my assessment.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 10:16 am
Oh, one other point. If the economy of New Zealand is not suffering from its senseless matriarchy, it’s because the feminists have enslaved enough men and women to do their bidding. But even slave-driven economies collapse – it just may take a little longer than if there are no slaves.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 10:22 am
parents on the dpb are raising new zealanders.
In some counties, the government pay to have thier population incresaed.
Comment by rex — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 12:33 pm
dude, the lesbian point reflects a loophole is regarding relations across the bosrd as de facto. You sound a bit jealous….
Comment by rex — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 12:36 pm
I want to date Kya, or at least have coffee
Comment by rex — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 12:39 pm
Hi Kya- your story is so similar to mine. I stayed with my wife for 20 years despite the fact that she used to beat me, verbally abuse me, and emotionally abuse me. Boy was I gullible when I married her!
When I finally decided to leave her, it was because I was a wreck. I did not abandon my four children, (two had been thrown out by her by then) but because I realised that I couldn’t help anyone until I helped myself- put on your own Oxygen mask first.
I did finish raising my children, did rehabilitate myself, even though it took some years, and did build a new life, upgrade my qualifications (at my expense) etc etc
The annoying thing was that I had to fight pitched battles with almost every Govt Department to achieve this. My ex was helped in every way possible, I was attacked in every way possible.
I have come out of it with a huge confidence in my abilities, and utter contempt for Social Workers (those working for CYPS at least), Police, and the Court System (laughingly called the Justice system).
Some VERY GOOD women helped me, starting with my mother, and my sisters, one or two lovers along the way. I think however that I am entitled to moan about useless, irresponsible women who are trashing our society. This arguement is not MEN vs WOMEN, rather about Governments choosing to take sides on the basis of sex.
Comment by John Brett — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 3:36 pm
“parents on the dpb are raising new zealanders.”
(a) tax payers are paying for this. (b) working, tax paying parents are raising new zealanders and do a far better job of it.
Children raised by solo mothers on the BPB are at much high risk of negative outcomes than children raised by working parents.
Comment by Vman — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 7:16 pm
Hi there,
I’d like to comment on all the negativity on this page-that has been directed towards solo Mum’s.
My mum is a solo Mum.
My father was basically a real piece of work.
He left us before I was born.
I’ve since met him on a number of occasions-and having met the man, I’m even more proud of how strong and compassionate my mum was in bringing me up.
She never once bad mouthed him or blamed him, but at the same time was always completely honest about the situation.
I take great offence to people insinuating that solo Mum’s are a bunch of lazy bludger s**ts.
Which let’s be honest guys, a lot of the comments here are pretty much saying this.
Yes, my mum received money from the Government when her circumstances changed.
She was unable to keep her job, having to focus on raising me.
But, she didn’t go out and sleep around in order to have more kids and get more money.
She didn’t sit in cafes all day smoking cigerettes, while the tax payer paid her morgadge.
We didn’t have a house, we rented.
My mum went with-out a lot for me, and you’ll find most solo parents are the same.
From my personal experiance, it’s only the few that are taking advantage of the system.
So to make gross generalisations about a person, based on them being in circumstances beyond their control-is not only immoral but incredibly ignorant!
When I was a year old my mum started doing her teaching degree.
When I started school my mum was an entry level teacher, at a primary school near to my new school.
She is now a very successful teacher.
My mum worked and paid tax before she had me.
She (since I started school at the age of 5) has worked and paid tax.
In my formitive years my mum did get financial help from the Government.
But in no way is she a bludger.
Or has she ruined my chances of being a valuable member of sociaty, for having done this.
I personally believed because she focussed on me, she’s enhanced them.
So,instead of making general comments about solo parents on the DPB-why don’t you go out and talk to them.
I think you’ll find that most of them are very similar to my mum.
Comment by Sam — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 1:00 pm
No one said that all solo mums are lazy and worthless. But statistically, most are. Almost all fathers don’t abandon their children and families – the mothers snatch the children from the fathers. Also, every time I hear an adult explain that their mom is great and their father is “a piece of work”, I learn that the father is great and the mom is “a piece of work” who alienated her children from their father and the children just don’t understand what happened and they grew up to be adults who don’t understand. I’m not saying that all mothers are awful and all fathers are great, but statistically, that’s the way it is. Look at the divorce numbers. Look at the statistics on child abuse. Your personal experience is not an appropriate or accurate description of the world and reality. An analysis of everyone’s experience is.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 1:18 pm
You’ve obviously swallowed hook line and sinker your mother’s narrative about your ‘dad’ who you insultingly demonize as ‘a piece of work’. Please invite him to this thread to give his version of events and a chance to defend himself from your character assassination.
Fact is your mother like many many others DID get massive state assistance – DPB, housing subsidy, study assistance etc and apparently got to successfully alienate you from your dad in the process.
The ‘facts’ she told you about the man are merely her subjective view, so I think your argument is very weak.
As Daryl X points out there is also the bigger picture of most solo Moms NOT being victims of circumstance but conscious choosers of a lifestyle. A lifestyle which starts with the first of many decisions – to get pregnant by a certain man and not abort.
All the rhetoric about poor solo Moms doing without to raise their kids doesn’t mesh with my many years ob knowing solo Moms either. I’ve known several who whilst on DPB bout houses, cars, traveled overseas, gained degrees (without incurring huge student loans) and yes others who sat in cafes sipping lattes during the day and partied it up drinking and drugging at night.
In a way I’m therefore glad of the recent recession and a swing rightwards in NZ politics. Time for women to be RESPONSIBLE for THEIR choices instead of dumping THEIR responsibilities on the general public.
Incidentally, (and this is a matter of gross irony given your claims about your ‘dad’) have you and your ‘dad’ had DNA testing done to prove he’s actually your Dad?
Oh! sorry I forgot!
Under NZ’s corrupt feminist white knight mangina legal system that’s illegal!!!
Yes, that’s correct. You read that right.
Don’t believe me? Check it out for yourself.
Be prepared for a shock though!
Men in NZ don’t have the HUMAN RIGHT to prove paternity.
Amazing in this day and age of so called modernity and human rights eh?
Apparently we men are the new niggas don’t you know?
You could get the test done in Australia.
However, sadly it won’t be recognized in any NZ court.
Men aren’t recognized as humans to that extent there.
It would also entail you having to get a hair or skin sample from you ‘dad’.
Gosh you’d actually have to close to the man for that!
Wow! Mind-blowing!
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 3:07 pm
Skeptik brings up an important point. In the US, approximately 10% of children are examples of paternity fraud. That number is verified by many objective DNA and similar studies. Laws differ from state to state, but getting a DNA test after “separation” and then applying it to a divorce or child-support decision is an uphill battle. All that said, in addition to paternity fraud, between 2007 and 2010, mothers of 15% of children did not even list the name of a father on a birth certificate. Combine that with 10% paternity fraud (in which the mother misidentified the father) and you’ve got 25% of all children born between 2007 and 2010 who don’t even know who their fathers are. Twenty-five percent – that is absolutely ridiculous.
Another point is this: my ex left me for another man but snatched our son first and brainwashed him. She lied in court about domestic violence and child abuse, falsified police reports about violating a restraining order, and refused to let our son see me. Every time I got near him for court-ordered visitation, she would lose her mind and become abusive toward our son. I didn’t do anything wrong – it was all her. And she didn’t behave that way toward our son when she was with her boyfriend. Our son came to associated her abusive behavior with me. It’s called hostile partner veto. A mechanism of parental alienation. My son hated me even though I didn’t do anything wrong. Finally, I just walked away from him. I got tired of going to jail every time my wife lied to police. I got tired of my son’s hatred.
An imperfect parent is still a parent. Even one who is a piece of work. It’s not the mother’s decision about whether or not the father and son have a relationship. It’s the choice of the father and son. Unfortunately, that choice is no longer available to either anymore. If you are five or six years old, you can’t know the truth. You don’t know what’s happening. That’s why data concerning domestic violence and child abuse and paternity fraud and parental alienation and abuses of professionals associated with the divorce industry are important in educating our children so they realize the truth and children can have relationships with both their parents even if the mother doesn’t want that.
I don’t know what the story is with your father, but statistically, it is more likely the way I described.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 9:26 pm
Sam and Kya – I hope you ignore these people’s comments.
They seem bitter for whatever reason, and they think that anything out of a woman’s mouth is false/man-hating (basically insert any negative word here you like). This Skeptik especially is such a bitter twisted man, he claims that every woman he knows is a “slack arsed bludging woman” who only learns “feminist junk”, and though he says “Nobody is claiming anyone chose a beating” he then goes to contradict himself with “you PUT YOURSELF in harm’s way”. What a lovely guy. Forget these people.
Kya when you finish your studies I hope you rub these guys noses in it and perhaps Skeptik should take his own advice –
“be RESPONSIBLE for THEIR choices instead of dumping THEIR responsibilities on the general public (though in Skeptiks case general public shall be replaced with women” or should that be feminists, slack arse woman, slut or perhaps the term life-sucker would be appropriate for you – another words basically anything insulting to an entire gender?
And for Sam – Skeptik, you don’t know the situation, not every person (man or woman) is a saint until you have had the chance to sit down and chat with them.
Also Skeptik – for someone that claims to not know many women, you sure know how to assume stereotype behaviour from the few bad ones you’ve encountered – so you dated one woman that was a bludger – did you dob her in? And you knew of a couple of lesbians (probably your uncle told your cousin, that told your friend that told your neighbour that sent around a mass email which you received), so by your way of thinking did you should have got their side of the story, or does that work the other way around?
At least these two women don’t come to the assumption that every man is like the one they are describing in their own personal situation.
Comment by Leonie — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 1:24 pm
What are you hoping to achieve by posting on this forum Leonie?
Have you read the rules of this site, particularly the rules under the subheading “Be Respectful“?
Comment by Wayne — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 2:55 pm
Well see Wayne, I check in time to time to see if attitudes have changed – sadly no.
In regards to the “Be Respectful” my post weren’t any of the following:
inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, sexually oriented, threatening, rude, mean, nasty, or invasive of a person’s privacy are not permitted.
I merely pointed out how they swarmed in like seagulls to some scraps that were thrown out.
Though the responses to those two in particular most definitely were. Skeptiks and Hans Laven’s responses were
a) inaccurate – you can’t dictate something you don’t know, b) abusive – name calling is abuse, c)vulgar – referring to anyone as a slack arse bludger is rather vulgar, d) hateful – pretty much all the names/words used to describe women on here, e) harassing this comment for example “Gosh you’d actually have to close to the man for that! Wow! Mind-blowing! f)obscene – there is a comment referring to DPB sluts (nice) g) sexually oriented – N/A unless you take into account all their negativity is aimed towards a single sex, h) rude – where do I start, j) mean – with intent to be so, k) nasty – very.
There’s nothing wrong with voicing an opinion – but it’s more so the way that it is done. Now there was a name called to the men on here – pig, but not by me as I think pigs are cute.
Happy lives men.
Comment by Leonie — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 4:22 pm
‘Leonie’: I reject totally that my responses to ‘Kya’ (I made no response to ‘Sam’) were any of the things you claim they were. I challenge you to point to anything in my two replies that were in any way (a) inaccurate (b) abusive or name-calling (c) vulgar (d) hateful (e) harassing (f) obscene (g) sexually oriented (h) rude (i) mean or (j) nasty. I note your mastery of the alphabet was lacking in allocating letters to each of your adjectives.
The last reply from ‘Kya’ could validly be described by most of your adjectives, as indeed could your own contributions.
Anyone can read my responses above. Why would you make such blatantly false allegations about them? Let me guess, oh yes that’s it, you didn’t like the opinions I expressed, and perhaps I expressed them too well. So, instead of debating any of those opinions you chose the lazy approach, making false allegations and ad hominem attacks.
Please quote from my replies to show how they could be reasonably described in all or any of the ways you allege. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw your allegation concerning what I wrote. Dr Peter Jansen from ACC has shown us one way to deal with people who will not remove defamatory comments.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 4:57 pm
Hans Laven – you are right I’ll eat my words. No you didn’t make those comments. So I’ll take back my suggestion that those quotes were from you – as they weren’t.
Comment by Leonie — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 5:08 pm
yawn.
Pardon me, but … yawn.
A reasoned argument would be an interesting change.
Comment by yeah right — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 5:43 pm
Leonie, I
thoughthoped you might be interested in playing catch-up.There was an informative article written by Mitchell Lang from the “A Voice For Men” website that reveals feminism for the elitist tool that it is. I am hoping that you might read it, check Mitchell’s quoted sources, and join the fight against the destruction of families. I hope you might better understand the attitudes expressed here once you have read the following article:
Feminism is Merely a Tool
We could do with your help 🙂
Comment by Wayne — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 5:57 pm
Leonie,
I stand by every word I’ve used in prior postings.
To call some women who abuse the welfare system slack arse bludgers is purely factual. Not only were they terribly out of shape physically from being so lazy and indolent; they were also sponging off the taxpayer.
Likewise I think it’s factual to state that a guy who has swallowed his mother’s story hook line and sinker of his Dad being ‘a piece of work’ without meeting the man will have a mind blowing expereience if he meets the man in person. Not only that but he has no actual evidence the guy in question actually is his Dad.
I think you need to off your high horse and get over imagining abuse and disrespect where it doesn’t exist. In any ca
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 6:11 pm
Leonie,
I stand by every word I previously posted. I think it’s purely factual to describe indolent and therefore physically out of shape women who abuse the welfare system and sponge off the tax payer as lazy slack arsed bludgers.
I also think it’s common sense that some guy who’s swallowed his mother’s story – about who and what his Dad is hook line and sinker, is going to have a mind blowing experience if he ever meets the guy AND if he can actually prove the guy IS his Dad.
I think you need to get over imagining abuse where none exists – and I note you’re in the company of feminists there.
The last thing needed here is some interfering sheila who sets herself up as moral arbiter of a site specifically for
.
Oh Gosh! I did it again.
Straight UNASHAMED guy talk!
Relax, life is short.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 6:24 pm
Yes Hans,
I think women who muscle into men’s space then start throwing around false allegations simply because they disagree with men’s opinions aren’t to be trusted. They also do themselves a grave disservice.
Sad really, because when women do this guys naturally stop trusting such women and those guys very often shut down. I’ve seen this dynamic countless times played out both online and off.
The chances of such women then learning about men and masculinity by having men around who feel safe enough to open up and share their deeper thoughts and feelings with them sink to zero.
What’s worse is when some women then get even more offensive claiming that ‘men are shallow’ without being aware of their part in the process.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 6:34 pm
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for the link to the Mitchel Lange article.
He’s writing some very powerful and well referenced essays which I look forward to reading from time to time.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 6:44 pm
Thanks yeah right.
Totally hypocritical to be told I’m ‘bitter and twisted’, yet complain when I describe lazy, out of shape indolent taxpayer abusing women as ‘lazy slack arsed bludgers’.
It seems that Leonie wants to set herself up as moral Guru whilst not even holding herself to the same standards.
For the record, I notice that being told I’m ‘bitter and twisted’ is often standard fare coming from feminist women who are losing an argument.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 6:50 pm
Leonie, if you weren’t affected by some remarks here, I would worry. 😉 I wouldn’t say, ‘Get off your high horse” but instead “Try to be tough skinned”.
There’s many top people here who you can have give and take conversations with. You’ll work it out as long as you give it a go. 🙂
Comment by julie — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 7:18 pm
Thanks Julie – you’re probably right.
Comment by Leonie — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 8:12 pm
Wayne – I have saved that link to read it later.
I probably did take comments here rather personally, so I will open my mind and read this and perhaps refrain from commenting about those that push all my wrong buttons!. I personally want to be the best all rounded person I can, but in saying that taking a lot of what people have to say here on board is incredibly hard to swallow. Hope that’s easy enough to understand.
Thanks for directing me to this.
Comment by Leonie — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 8:18 pm
Thank you
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 15th April 2011 @ 10:14 pm
Leonie,
If you’d only bothered to ask, or had read through some of the many threads I’ve posted on over the years here at MENZ you’d see there are some women who I do indeed praise highly.
I’ve never said every woman was a slack arsed bludger.
You cheapen yourself by lying there. Plus it’s a silly thing to say.
Do you expect anyone to believe I’ve met EVERY woman – there are about 2 billion women worldwide!
I maintain it’s entirely fair to say you put yourself in harms way.
I take responsibility for having allowed myself to stay so long in a feminist culture, which thankfully I have been smart and courageous enough to move away from.
I live overseas these days as an ex pat NZer. One of the best decisions I’ve made in my entire life. My life being so distant from NZ misandry is much more relaxed and enjoyable as a result. From here I support the struggle for Men’s Rights to enhance the country though.
Don’t kid yourself that my comments about women on the DPB were about only one woman I dated either. I’ve lived in parts of NZ where a large percentage of the adult female population were on DPB, so my observations needn’t be minimized. I remind you several of the WOMEN on DPB I knew bought houses, cars, went on overseas holidays and ate out frequently in restaurants. They were perfectly capable of being employed, but chose a life of indolence and sponging off the taxpayer. They were physically flabby and self centered to a tee. Hell, I’ve even known career DPBers. One example is the woman who had three kids by three different men AND five abortions to boot! She spent 15 years on DPB hanging out on beaches and in restaurants on Waiheke Island in summer and wintertime went skiing in the South Island!
I could easily rub your nose in it further and tell you other parts of my life where I’ve witnessed a lot of women on DPB, and not just in NZ either, that’s another story. But I’ll leave it at that for now.
So you see, fact is Leonie, you are the one trying to twist my story.
Ironic then you call me bitter and twisted! Try looking up the psychological term projection if you don’t already know it.
All these false allegations of yours serve to remind me so very strongly of why I’m safer not living in NZ.
For reading you is to me like seeing a microcosm of certain aspects of NZ life.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 16th April 2011 @ 4:38 am
I have a problem with CYF {no child} social workers who have a similar/same attitude as this comment. Some people think raising children is a walk in the park and some parents think the one with more care has it easier than working.
IMO, people are often judging others negatively because they don’t know what it’s like to walk in their shoes. That’s the only reason I consider a need for men and women to have their own interest groups.
I also think having 1 child is far different from 2 and 3 and more far different again.
Comment by Julie — Sat 16th April 2011 @ 9:41 am
Julie,
I’ve done both full-time breadwinner and full-time stay at home Dad too.
I’ll take being paid to stay at home with kids
– without a supervisor looking over my shoulder
– without performance reviews
– performance targets
– without the constant on the job competition and politics
– without commuting to and from a job sometimes up to an hour or more each way in dense traffic
any day. Where do I sign up?
Speaking as a MAN on this site designed for
– promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience –
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 16th April 2011 @ 4:33 pm
H..y Sh.t.The men blogging on this site are generally very bitter.They generally seem to hate women.
In my experience a person does not break up a family lightly.They have to have a very compelling reason.
As for Child Support :-It is very expensive to bring up a family.Most couples bringing up children are hard up.Why should an absent father or mother be let off lightly just because they are absent from the family home?The cost of bringing up children includes accommadation not just food as some people writing here seem to figure.If you want a forum like this to be taken seriously please loose some of the vitriol and hate in your blogs boys.
Comment by Theresa — Sat 6th August 2011 @ 6:16 pm
Theresa,
When you get off the shaming let us know.
The men blogging on this site are generally better.
They generally seem to love women.
You’re making that a titchy bit more difficult tho’.
Our wise tough love often gets misconstrued by entitlement fems as hate – wise up woman!
Stop stressing about the cost of raising kids too.
You only need make one (falsely accusing) phone call and the femstate (funded mostly with male EARNT taxmoney too) will fund it for you!
If you want to be taken seriously on a forum please loose some of the vitriol and hate in your postings.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 6th August 2011 @ 8:51 pm
I hope all the men that contribute to this site are not like you sick man.Get some help quick you are a danger…….
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 12:46 am
Seriously get some help and take this above posting with you…SERIOUSLY!!
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 12:48 am
Another in a long line of feminist trolls.
Next please.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 3:28 am
Im a troll am I?So you only want people who agree with your sick,angry diatribe to contribute?
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 8:18 am
Dear Skeptik, you try to write off Theresa’s suggestions. Maybe she puts it bluntly – so do many men! This helps avoid beating around the bush.
If men wish to resolve “the problems”, then I do suggest that they listen critically to women’s complaints too.
It is only through posing suggestions, that women will vote for as much as men, that any forward progress will be made. So, I do suggest reading what Theresa says, with empathy, tolerance, critical analysis, to see what useful solutions she proposes?
It is difficult for readers to take seriously, complaints made from behind pseudonyms. I am aware of the issues, which can threaten families with present and future possible issues that might go before my clown fiends, in familycaught. So, people who use pseudonyms may have to show a little more patience, with readers who are left unable to check on people’s claims on this website, or to contact them privately to ask for verification.
I am trying to listen a bit more and to not cut people down so quickly, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 8:27 am
Thank you Murray for the support.Can I be promoted from being a Troll?And a feminist?Please?
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 8:48 am
Theresa wrote “If you want a forum like this to be taken seriously please loose some of the vitriol and hate in your blogs boys.”
Theresa, all of us unfortunately have been influenced by the feminist views put out by the few people who own the news media in Western countries. After decades of hearing that ‘ALL MEN are rapists’, that one on four females are sexually abused by their fathers, feminist lies of male abandonment, downright lies and false statistics about domestic violence by feminist bigots, that ‘men’ hold women back from achieving etc etc, men are fighting back. Quite a few women are waking up too (e.g. see Suzanne Venker below).
Feminism is the worst thing to happen to women”, says Suzanne Venker in her best-selling book “The Flipside of Feminism”.
MAIN POINTS:
1) Feminism did not liberate women. It has actually harmed women by placing them in a prison of negative thinking about men and promoted dead-end promiscuity.
2) Studies show that women today are LESS happy under modern Feminist assumptions and cultural practices.
3) Women today do not owe feminists for everything. Feminism did NOT give women the right to vote or go to college. Those rights existed BEFORE the “Second Wave Feminist” of the 60’s.
4) The Women’s Suffrage Movement was NOT a “feminist” movement: the “Suffragettes” were actually Pro-Life, Pro-Family and Conservative women. (Today’s Feminists would reject them, ironically.)
5) Feminism has robbed women of placing family and marriage at the center of their lives, as the most meaningful part of their existence. Instead, it shames women into believing that career materialism should be placed at the center.
6) Women should ignore the institutionalized, Feminist cultural prescriptions that demean motherhood and marriage. They should sequence their lives in a way that place family as the center of their lives.
7) Feminism is a finished movement in America
Comment by Doug — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 9:23 am
Hiya Murray, and Theresa if your still with us.
While I agree with you Murray that engaging with people like Theresa may garner a deeper insight into her motivation, I to like skeptic would consign her to the “troll” title from her posting above. Try as i might and I have read her post several times and I found no solutions posed or insights offered other than some posters to this site are bitter.
No surprises there if you take the time to read what they have gone through
In Theresa’s experience families arent broken up lightly and therefore, as I understand her post, her experience should be understood to be universal and cover all break up situations.
And surprisingly Theresa notes that raising children incurs expenses and that said expenses arent constrained merely to food items, I would have thought this was stating the obvious and as the title of this particular post is “Scare tactics to prevent DPB reform” also slightly of topic. The DPB and scaremongering from its recipients when ever there is the merest hint of a suggestion that some are guilty of using it for less than truly honourable purposes and there might actually be a better way than just financing family break ups was the topic I thought. But I may be mistaken.
I do take onboard her suggestion to lose the hate and vitriol as with that I agree. I hope that Thersa can differential strong feeling and emotion from hate and vitriol though.
As for pseudonyms of that to I am guilty, JP has my email address and can censure me for any breaches of the sites protocols if I transgress other than that Im periodically dragged into femily caught by the ex always as a respondent never as an applicant so I see no need to become too public
Mits
Comment by Mits — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 10:28 am
Entitled feminist venting spleen.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along, Thank you.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 12:06 pm
Hey Murray,
your statement would make sense if Theresa had come to this site in order to promote compassionate answers to vexing issues men face.
She doesn’t.
She comes here to bleat, scorn and shame. Pathetic.
What’s as bad in my book is as she tries the worn out victim entitled feminist stance you rush in as Captain Chivalry to emotionally save the ‘damsel in distress’ encouraging her with claptrap about using a pseudonym.
I think you both chose the wrong fight.
Now I wonder Sir Murray if you can listen as deeply as you say?
I’m not sure so I’ll try yet AGAIN for the umpteenth time.
With a bit of luck you’ll move beyond trying to shame your pseudonym using brothers and embrace a more compassionate attitude.
This time I’ll shout it really loud for you –
Here goes……..
Ready?
Focus now……
MANY OF US HERE HAVE BEEN SO HORRENDOUSLY ABUSED BY FEMINISTS (MOST USUALLY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY WOMEN) AND FEMINIST CULTURE FOR SEVERAL DECADES THAT WE CHOOSE TO USE PSEUDONYMS FOR PERSONAL SAFETY!!!!!
MUCH OF THAT GETS ENCOURAGED BY NAIVE TOADYING MEN SYCOPHANTS WHO BOTH PUT WOMEN ON A PEDESTAL AND SACRIFICE OTHER MEN IN THEIR ‘GALLANT’ RUSH TO SEEM ‘HEROIC’.
Now please take the red pill.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/06/15/interview-with-george-christensen
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Truely Skeptic
You need serious help .you have lost it.Venting via the internet is never going to help you.You know nothing about me but seem to have formed a picture that suits you.
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 1:14 pm
Skeptic
Have just taken the time to read some of your more previous comments and see you have left NZ.Also I can now confirm that you are really bitter & twisted.Thank goodness we have lost you.Dont come back please.I am sure a lot of people are releived.
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 1:21 pm
Theresa,
It’s not fair.
As with other naive feminist trolls, it’s like being a cat toying with a mouse.
For all you know I may very well be back in NZ or given that wonderful invention of MEN we are privileged to have ~ the internet – I may indeed be anywhere on earth. Duh!
I could even be right next door to you right now!
Shudder!
I fully EXPECT you to see me as being “bitter and twisted”.
That’s a standard copybook feminist attempt at shaming.
As for a lot of folks being relieved I hear but one lonely voice.
I’ve had a great idea.
Why don’t you continue to troll here and try shaming me some more to see if you can close down my viewpoint? I’d love the free advertising!
I’ve lived in parts of NZ where a large percentage of the adult female population were on DPB, so my observations needn’t be minimized. I remind you several of the WOMEN on DPB I knew bought houses, cars, went on overseas holidays and ate out frequently in restaurants. They were perfectly capable of being employed, but chose a life of indolence and sponging off the taxpayer. They were physically flabby and self centered to a tee. Hell, I’ve even known career DPBers. One example is the woman who had three kids by three different men AND five abortions to boot! She spent 15 years on DPB hanging out on beaches and in restaurants on Waiheke Island in summer and wintertime went skiing in the South Island!
I’ve done both full-time breadwinner and full-time stay at home Dad too.
I’ll take being paid to stay at home with kids
– without a supervisor looking over my shoulder
– without performance reviews
– performance targets
– without the constant on the job competition and politics
– without commuting to and from a job sometimes up to an hour or more each way in dense traffic
any day. Where do I sign up?
Speaking as a MAN on this site designed for
– promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience –
I say being a breadwinner is much harder, AND the more kids mouths you have to feed as breadwinner the harder it gets.
Keep taking the red pill – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg3musM_Bo&feature=related
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 3:53 pm
Skeptic
You are a worry.If some woman in your past had a problem with you I can see why.Dont worry I am not going to comment again.
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 4:31 pm
Theresa,
You’re right.
I AM a worry.
Not just to A woman though as you suggest.
I’m pleased to see LOTS of women have had a problem with me.
Many still do.
They hate me when I call them out for being entitlement feminist control freaks.
Stand up to them and and their superiority complexes and they soon back down though.
Worry about you coming back – haha! Yeah right.
Come back by all means if you got something constructive and male friendly to say – otherwise adios troll.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 5:32 pm
After the brief distraction of being attacked by Theresa femitroll it’s back on message –
quote of the day : greyghost August 5, 2011 at 07:33
Feminism is a political philosophy of affluence. The money has run out.
Well-loved. Thumbs up 43 Thumb downs 1
from The Spearhead
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 5:42 pm
Sorry I will make another comment.Skeptic you are just plain sad sad sad….also abusive.Get a life.
Comment by Theresa — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 5:56 pm
MurrayBacon @Sun 7th August 2011, 8:27 am
Not good negotiating tactics on either’s behalf perhaps.
Skeptic certainly was bidding quite low but consider the offer on the table. Theresa, at a very fundamental level, is telling us what her price is. Note that it includes lodgings for at least two decades.
Comment by gwallan — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 6:42 pm
Theresa,
You are perfectly entitled to report any ‘abuse’ on this thread to the site moderator John Potter.
I doubt you’ll get far though.
i think all he’ll see is me challenging a typical ‘victim’ feminist, and you being told you have an entitled feminist perspective and you’re trolling a site designed purely for the purpose of –– promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience – in order to try and shame men into silence with hackneyed old feminist “you’re bitter and twisted type comments” just because you disagree with their views.
I don’t think you’ve offered one single logical argument against the views expressed on this thread.
You simply ignored MEN’S experience entirely and attacked the messengers instead which gives the distinct impression that you have come here just to shit stir.
Now that’s behavior I call downright sad.
Back on message
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 6:46 pm
I notice skeptik you love to name call – rather childish don’t you think.
The posts made by Theresa were about comments that you stand pretty strongly by – if you are entitled to your opinion then surely everyone else is too. Then you categorise her how you wish and go on your merry way ranting about large numbers of females being on the DPB etc (you probably just copy and paste that as you need to state it over and over), the fact is there are huge numbers of DPB bludgers, doesn’t give you the right to call anyone that doesn’t agree with your viewpoint on a topic as a troll or whatever other term you choose to use.
Comment by Fair treatment — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 9:50 pm
Sure,
I do love to name call and I entirely have a right to call anyone whatever I deem when I think it’s appropriate.
I’m not some wussed-out PC shithead these days.
I think we’d be in even more crapolla if people didn’t name folks for their behavior.Now there’s a horrific scenario.
I know that in screwed up feminist NZ circles that’s an unfashionable view.
Especially when stated by a man (must keep those awfully outspoken Men’s Rights Activists silent!)
So, as much as it offends your overly delicate sensibilities, feminist troll it is.
That’s how I describe folks who arrive on threads with the sole purpose of shaming folks and closing down discussion.
I think pulling that kind of shit is really abusive.
Oh golly! by implication I just called Theresa an abuser, as called me by implication childish.
Jeepers is there no end to these heinous crimes of naming things?
Whatever are we to do?
Take another red pill.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th August 2011 @ 11:22 pm
Being so defensive of yourself just shows your insecurity. The only way you can build yourself up is by bashing your opinions and views on here, and if someone disagrees – well off goes the ranting again. And by posting a link to a youtube video entitling it – take another red pill? You are not in the Matrix. Already you have assumed you know what I’m about by putting that there, well you don’t know everything about everyone. I haven’t “attacked” or “abused” – as you like to put it – anyone, merely stating an opinion, shall I run it by you to ponder or prevent it from being posted here in future – or would that give you nothing to whinge about? Feel free to talk about what you wish I don’t really care, but have respect.
Comment by Fair treatment — Mon 8th August 2011 @ 9:50 pm
Dear Skeptik, when I suggested listening critically, I wasn’t supporting Theresa or putting her down, just saying listen carefully! The same as I would say for your postings.
My comments about pseudonyms were not intended as a putdown, simply to remind people that when writers duck accountability, most readers give a bit less trust (and quite properly so). I want writers to have as much influence as possible, so I challenge them to stand tall and punch hard, by talking the issues straight. I know that there are lots of threats around. A lady friend of mine accidentally was very public about her case and the threateners backed off and showed themselves to be secret-caught cowards! I thought that this was a very important lesson.
I was not taking a swipe at you in particular, remember that “Theresa” is just as likely a pseudonym as Skeptik! If you need a swipe, just for the sake of elevated aggression and wasted energy, then I could suggest that there are those who do and those who talk and run away. Do you fall into one of those groups?This isn’t a jibe, more a challenge about loving and caring for children.
I don’t see typing as being the best medium for compassion, I prefer personal contact ie voice conversation with body language, or at the least just voice communication. I hope people will judge my compassion, from personal contact with me! Is putting down part of compassion?
Sure, I know what parental abuse can be, from my own life, my brothers and from listening to many men (and quite a few women too) speaking about their experiences. I have done my fair share of it too… For all the crap in the world, why not try to gain some understanding and then move on to enjoy a better life. I think that “Theresa” is validly challenging you on that point.
For all of the complaining on this website, much of it misattributes the causes…. I can’t see that solutions will flow on from misunderstood problems?
I do twist what people say, to try to get the best understanding. If I took one of Skeptik’s putdowns, how accurate would it be, if I applied it to Skeptik himself? (Same of course for “Theresa”‘s comments.
If “Theresa” hasn’t really disclosed herself and her life, does she have a life at all? By comparison, Skeptik has disclosed quite a bit of his own life, so I know he does.
If Skeptik speaks of women abusing men, does it ever happen the other way around?
Anyway, I must get back to carving meat off the bones and crying into my stew, to salt it,
MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 8th August 2011 @ 10:17 pm
@Theresa and Fair – Skeptik and other gentlemen on this site are not presenting opinions. Instead they are presenting conclusions from objective analyses of facts and data in compliance with the scientific method. Almost all these conclusions have been reported in peer reviewed scientific journals. Reviewed by peers, including men and women. We can disagree with interpretation of the facts but we cannot disagree about the facts as their measurement my be repeated reliably and within certain tolerances. Unfortunately, your positions are not conclusions based upon the facts but are truly opinions based upon your feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs, which is solipsism. Solipsism is a manipulative strategy to hold others hostage with your feelings and is fundamental to feminism’s political compaign of hate. The emphasis of feminism (characterized in part by entitlement and victimhood) on manipulating others with feelings rather than facts is an important reason responsible decisions about our economy and culture cannot be made anymore, and an important reason our economy is in rapid decline around the world. Unless you abandon this destructive campaign, it will destroy all of civilization (as it mostly has) and although women have been mostly protected from its consequences, it will get them too eventually. You can ignore reality but not its consequences.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 12:52 am
MurrayBacon,
Whoever you are – might be another pseudonym.
Thanks for owning up to having difficulty with empathizing with the written word.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
In response to your challenge I think sometimes putting down IS the BEST act of compassion.
I don’t think Theresa is challenging in any rational way just lashing out with spiteful stupid comments in order to attention whore and sideline serious debate dragging it sideways into something about women instead.
Hello!!!!
Wakey! Wakey people! feminism 101 right there.
Her argument amounts to “generally you guys hate women and are bitter”.
Well thanks Theresa for that spellbinding analysis.
Gosh the insight-fulness leaves me breathless.
Like we should care to take on board that kind of shallow claptrap?
Seriously?
And you seem to want me to go easy on her.
Jeese Wayne!
This is so predictable.
1. guys express opinions and share experiences of women.
2. Woman takes offense and starts fight.
3. white knight steps in to ‘defend ‘ladies’ honor’.
Do you think you could avoid the feminist sideshow for a moment and simply return to the topic – scare tactics to prevent dpb reform?
Here – take another red pill.
This one relates to the topic as it hints at how to get rid of a lot of dpb entirely.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 3:23 am
Dear Skeptik,
you observe:
This is the essence of what I am trying to challenge about. To be able to separate what I have actually said and what happens in the minds of readers, when they read my or your words. Maybe I implied don’t go overboard on putdowns. I could just as easily make the same suggestion to “Theresa” and would.
My main point, in black and white, was listen critically.
I don’t believe that I have belittled men’s experiences, by suggesting that they look also at their own behaviour toward others (women included).
Our world is chaotic, it is suggested that the beating of a butterfly’s wings might influence the path of a hurricane, a continent away. MIGHT is the word, not likely, but still possible. In tiny physics, it is jokingly suggested that everything not forbidden, is compulsory. It took me a while to realise that the joke is that it is practically true, in a large universe. People’s behaviour is such a large universe.
Even so, some degree of self responsibility may offer a stronger path, as it leads to more careful examination of my own decisions. These are under my own control and in the future, I can make these differently.
I have spent a large number of hours listening to many men talking. One of the strongest (but not loudest!) themes was, the men I admired the most, protected themselves in transacting their life and got on with enjoying their lives. Equally of the women. Resilience and street wisdom, these are what I want to teach my children.
For me personally, the hiss and the roar, the moaning and the bleating, sounds like a child crying to mummy. Lets communicate clearly the potholes in the road and help each other to stay clear of them. This takes open sharing of experiences, rather than bleated half stories, working to support each other, rather than “I am the leading bleater and moaner, because I moan loudest”.
I know that this interchange does not do justice to the “Skeptik” that I admire. I can’t even comment on the same for “Theresa”.
I am still in the telephone book for Auckland, so I hope that I still exist? This is so that peoples can easily talk to me! Sometimes I do feel like I am just a psychotic memory of myself.
Best regards, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 6:45 am
Hi Skeptic, Theresa, Murray and others,
I observe in post 90 above that Skeptic says;
Firstly JohnP as site owner and webslave is most explicit that trolls, pollies, feminist sympathisers, lawyers, civil and uncivil servants are all welcome here. Openess and open posting is a central feature of MENZ. John offers MENZ as a place for views of whatever colour on the broad theme of men’s issues. As I understand it he delights when ‘others’ observe their own views are dissimilar to those of posters here. MENZ raises awareness about men’s issues.
Secondly I think there is no such thing as “a clear understanding of men’s experience”. Our experience is all different, how we understand that experience is even more diverse and clarity is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Drawing together threads is an interesting exercise but even strong ropes are made of individual and discrete fibres. Often I worry, perhaps like Theresa, that the only unifying threads is past hurts and fear.
I think an interesting thread might be on what the purpose(s) of MENZ. The academic and old hands among us might like to consider how that has changed over the years. If Skeptic wishes to start a thread on that topic I would be interested to contribute my tuppence worth.
Allan (who also exists in a NZ Telephone book)
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 9:56 am
Allan,
Despite what you say I still think Theresa’s input unconstructive trolling.
Trashing men’s views isn’t a way towards a clearer understanding of men’s experience now is it? Nor does it add directly to the topic of discussion scare tactics used to prevent dpb reform (except to show in microcosmic form some feminist shame tactics used to close down discussion amongst men)
Also notice the site isn’t as you say to promote a CLEAR understanding of men’s experience but a CLEARER understanding. There’s a gulf of a difference there between the two words, and toying with words needlessly muddies the purpose.
So I think your point is moot, in fact plain daft.
I think the idea that ‘unifying threads’ (discussions) are often only ‘past hurts and fears’ is nothing short of creepy. In one short sentence the complete gamut of present day misandry gets airbrushed and swept under the carpet with that kind of statement.
You completely miss the point that often times past misandric hurts are discussed because some of us see that misandric feminist systems and attitudes STILL exist to cause such suffering.
In brief feminism hasn’t gone away Allan.
You of all people should know that.
Misandry didn’t die yesterday.
Misandrists didn’t all simply see the light and turn over a new leaf becoming Men’s Rights Advocates.
They still lurk amongst us perpetuating their manhate like Theresa who comes here to stir up shit thus blocking MALE expression.
Apparently the enablers of Misandrists haven’t gone away either.
Those who let women off the hook.
Jeepers you guys still use Telephone books!
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 3:02 pm
Addendum.
“Those who let women off the hook” should read – Those who let women and feminists off the hook.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 3:03 pm
Back on topic of the thread “Scare tactics used to prevent dpb reform” –
A catalog of shaming tactics used by feminists to close down discussion amongst men.
I notice Theresa uses Code Orange and Code Purple simultaneously in one short sentence. that’s impressive. Obviously a experienced emotional manipulator.
When challenged about this she turned to using Code White.
Theresa unwittingly does us a service as I think these are good examples which people can look out for as they discuss with others scare tactics that are used used to prevent dpb reform.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 3:17 pm
Whoops! link not working.
try again….
A catalog of shaming tactics used by feminists to close down discussion amongst men.
In case the link doesn’t work again go here –
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th August 2011 @ 3:22 pm
I agree with Skeptik. Portraying sentiment expressed by men on this site as “bitter” and evidence of “hating women” is inaccurate. I do not hate women and I don’t think any man here does. What I do hate (and I won’t write for anyone else) is the unnecessary mistreatment of most men and some women by most women. I don’t despise most women but their behavior. It’s atrocious. Anyone who condones it has something wrong with them.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 10th August 2011 @ 2:43 am