UN concern over Kiwi kids rights.
Read this and note the focus on poverty rather than on fatherless children. yet we know fatherless upbringing in the main indicator for poor outcomes for children.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
33 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.
Perhaps the comment you refer to was yours? If so, sorry to see it missing.
With due respect, I don’t think fatherlessness is the reason we have poverty or even a main reason. You can have a father in the home and still be poor.
It’s just a money grabber tactic, IMO. If you make a commission, you have to give it power and money.
Comment by Julie — Thu 20th January 2011 @ 10:40 pm
Hi Julie and Vman,
There are very clear correlations with fatherlessness and poverty for children. Separation lowers both families assets and income. I disagree Julie and I think most economists and commentators would agree child poverty is closely tied to separation. I don’t have the evidence with me but I think it probably is the main factor unless you want to suggest being on a benefit (but a huge amount of these families are on the DPB so it is largely a circular argument).
The interesting thing about this article is the total dismissal of the Children’s commissioner and his team.
Comment by Allan — Thu 20th January 2011 @ 11:01 pm
Julie you have misunderstood what I am saying and sent this thread off on what is at best a tangential course.
Poor outcomes for children are things such as; child abuse, teenage pregnancy, under achievement in education, suicide, self harm, low self esteem, personality disorders, drug use, criminal activities, violence towards others and so on.
We know that the risks of these poor outcomes for children are magnified by several orders of magnitude if they are fatherless. Poverty is a much lower risk factor in comparison to a fatherless upbringing.
My point is that this simple fact continues to be ignored. This is why the poor outcomes for children have not improved.
Comment by Vman — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 3:15 pm
Hi Vman, I understand that we can look at situations and say, “What’s common is that the fathers aren’t in the home” and consider if we want to, that if the father was there, none of these things would be happening.
Problem is, when you visit these families, you see something else going on.
However,…. I would agree that if we empower fathers [like we are women] and there’s 2 incomes in the home, because that’s today’s only chance for most families, we can stop the poverty.
Comment by Julie — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 3:49 pm
No Julie, longtitudinal studies have shown that fatherless children are at much much higher risk regardless of socio-economics.
For example most teenage girls who self harm, many eating disorders, several personality disorders and those with low self esteem are from middle class back grounds. Same with boys who suicide.
It amazes me that I still have to repeat that information even on this web site.
Clearly NZ has no hope of improving outcomes for children in the foresable future.
I can remember the days when NZ was the best place in the world to raise a child. Now it must be around the bottom of the OECD and clearly there is little if any hope for improvements in the short term.
We haven’t even acknowledged the primary risk factor.
Comment by Dave — Sun 23rd January 2011 @ 6:12 pm
Does POVERTY simply mean not much money?
If children had the love and support of two parents, bed-time stories, fun and games with their familes, learnt how to make this, do that, learnt how to think and how to love-
Even if they had to make do with very little money (as I did as a child, as my children did)
Would you not say that these children are rich?
If children had none of these things, but were simply showered with money, so they could have all the toys, all the holidays, but not the life, love and learning- would you say that you say that there was NO POVERTY?
In any group, the number of relationships is N X (N -1),
so in a family of 5, that is 5 x 4 = 20 relationships
If 30 in extended family, that is 30 x 29 = 870 relationships.
If you kick daddy out, this changes to-
immediate family 4 x 3 = 12, and
extended family say 15 x 14 = 210 relationships
Think of all the love lost, think of the real poverty of relationships
To me child poverty is all the broken family connections,
Comment by John Brett — Sun 23rd January 2011 @ 6:31 pm
I’m in agreement,
the defathering processes which lead to fatherlessness and child poverty aren’t a new issue as folks can see from –
this link
this link.
Despite Julie’s suprising denial (she runs a singles organization right?) there’s a wide consensus supporting the view too.
Link
Link
Link
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 5:53 am
No, no, no Julie.
That’s implying the fathers are deadbeat useless types.
It’s MUCH MUCH more than an extra income that’s missing in too many homes these days.
Fact is there are many many thousands of really good dads throughout the Anglosphere who’ve been alienated from their kids by misandric feminist systems.
Hells bells. If that weren’t so there would hardly be so much need for a Men’s Rights Movement.
Why do you think so many men are relationship shy these days and forming a marriage strike?
I think you’ve hit another wall of denail there.
Let’s face it, the welfare state has been latched onto by millions of women as a lifestyle choice, as a substitute husband, as an alternative source of income.
And it used to be a case of women promising ‘in sickness and health, through good times and bad, until death us do part’.
Now I would EXPECT most modern ’empowered’ women to dump their menfolk at the first significant bump in the relationship road.
Why? Because they can.
Jesus, some even celebrate doing so with divorce parties these days!
And off they toddle to social services for a hand out having dumped the guy.
I’ve seen it time and time again.
I reckon you need to wake up and smell the coffee on this issue.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 6:08 am
NZ still has a good reputation for raising children. I was talking with doctors at Nth Shore hospital because there’s many who have come here to raise their children. They tell of stories in their countries and how they’d prefer to earn less money than endanger their children. These are fathers I’m talking about.
I’ve heard the same from neighbors from India, UK and so on. As expensive as living here is, I too preferred to raise my children here. We’ve also brought it up in a single parent meeting and they it’s the same reason why many of them are here.
I did some research of my own on ‘the man drought’. Men just said they wished it was true. [I think many are going for a small group of women, i.e age] Some men have told me how they shy away from women in their 30’s because they know many are wanting babies. I saw the same thing on a UK documentary. It’s expensive to have children and many women, from what I’ve heard both here and overseas, are asking the men as soon as they meet them if they want children. Some even ask men online for their sperm.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 7:53 am
.
Thank God we make our own vows up these days.
My adopted nephew’s father could do with some help. He’s basically paralysed from the waist down now, and you can imagine how messy that is. There’s a court order to institutionalise him for good once he goes back into hospital, but in the meantime, guess who’s stuck taking care of him. I’m visiting the nurse again today and saying the system isn’t working. No-one’s doing anything they’re supposed to and I have his son and 2 of my own to raise plus I am not responsible.
His wife moved out a loooong time ago when his alcoholism got the better of him. I don’t blame her.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 8:02 am
We are doomed to have poverty.
One definition of poverty derived from social research in New Zealand is
I appreciate this is 18 years out of date; however I can find no evidence that benchmark has changed.
Therefore being based on a median income, indeed, 60% of the median means that there will ALWAYS be a number of families and children living below this mark.
UNLESS the income range across society is incredibly flat.
If everyone earns $40000 per annum, the median income is $40000.
If 10% earn $39000, and 10% earn $41000, the median is still $40000; however 10% earn less than the median. They earn 97.5% of the median.
Stretch the income range out further, and eventually, some people will earn less than 60% of the median. My bet is they are mostly beneficiaries. (60% of $40000 = $24000, which is about the miniumum wage; everybody on the minumum wage would be in poverty).
In short, the very act of seperation where children are involved, and living on DPB, would pretty well guarantee that children in sole parent households are reduced to living in poverty.
(Perhaps the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits should lie comfortably closer to the Median, maybe 75% of thge median? There certainly are lefties who would probably endorse that, starting with Phil Goff and his cronies?)
Comment by One Man's Perspective — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 9:06 am
I suspect if we tried to live on a benefit we would find it was close to poverty. Food banks exist because there are families in crisis. Yes some could stop smoking (great idea but hard if you are adicted) or grow their own veges etc but that is not the society we live in.
Comment by Allan — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 12:35 pm
There appears to be considerable denial about the big government as substitute father and husband model of running society.
Especially amongst those who are part of that very lucrative gravy train.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 12:58 pm
Julie,
it’s easy to mention the odd case here and there to stay in denial about men, but take a look at this page.
Scroll down a little and observe the graph.
Face it, marriage 2.0 isn’t attractive to more and more modern men (go here, read the column then the men’s tip of the iceberg responding comments), whilst more and more modern women seem to be opting for having government as substitute husband/father.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 1:20 pm
Allan thinks that living on a benefit is poverty. In that case raising a family on one wage is poverty (in money terms) I raised a family of four children, on one wage- and by calculation I had to earn about 1.5 times the average wage for my wife to be better off with me than without me.
Most of the marriage, she would have been better off financially as a solo mother than married to a wage earner.
A better description of povert or affluence would be the number of people per income.
Allan, save your pity for the hard working breadwinner trying to hold his family together.
Comment by John Brett — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 2:38 pm
Skeptic, I don’t think marriage, as it was, will ever be again. [either]
Society just has to adapt to what modern men and women want and it will.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 4:30 pm
which might mean that relatively short-term relationships (say up to 7-years) are the norm. Relationships governeed by the law of COntract. Heres what you and i each bring into ‘marriage’, what you and I both expect to contribute and receive, and terms and conditions under which either of us ‘terminate’ the contract.
Is this what men and woman really want?
Comment by One Man's Perspective — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 4:59 pm
One Man’s Perspective speculates on what might be- it is possible to look at what is now-
I have relatives who have married-
I also know many men (including my sons I think) who would never consider it.
I think that in economic terms we have a ‘Market Failure’http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
where women want a deal, which men are not willing to agree to.
Consequently we have plumetting birth rates, causing the need for immigration, and a world full of unattached males and females.
Comment by John Brett — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 6:40 pm
My baby turns 20 in a couple of days – My nephew last week. I’m hoping they stay bachelors till at least 30 (unlike their parents who were parents by their age now).
I’ve decided on the name, “Nanna Julie”. Gosh that sounds cool.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 11:17 pm
Hi John,
If you read what I said, and do not twist what I say, then I agree single wage families may also be close to poverty. You can define how you like. I spent 5 years living in Africa as part of my anti-apharteid research and I know what poverty looks like. What it feels like is a whole different experience and I, nor my kids, do not know about that.
I do think many NZ kids would have easier and healthier lives if their families had greater incomes. That partly defines my own political position and I’m not going to critise benifit levels just because my own income is modest.
Comment by Allan — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 9:34 am
Julie,
You say –
Do you really think society wants 50% divorce rates and the massive fragmentation that comes with that, huge rates of fatherlessness and solo motherhood?
Do you really think the current model whereby 50% of kids find their parents divorcing within 7 years is good for kids?
Is that what you want?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 10:57 am
Hi Allen
I am sorry for twisting what you said
You said that some people living on a benefit “may find it close to poverty”.
My comment was to point out out that people living on a benefit are as well off as many living on a wage, whether they “find it close to povery” or whether they are resourceful people who can live well on little.
Men paying Child Tax may feel even closer to poverty, having to contribute the Government Consolidated fund, as well as living, and supporting their children.
Comment by John Brett — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 11:03 am
I agree some may earn over $70,000 yet they pay 35% tax and ACC, 30% Child Support, 10% Student Loan and so they get 25% of each dollar they earn in the hand then they loose 15% of that in GST. For every extra dollar 80% flys away before they get any benefit and just 20% is theirs to use as they please.
Never mind, Ms IRD would tell us that is all they need cos by coincidence 20% of $70,000 is $14,000 and we all know that is more than enough for a living allowance for a single bloke as far as IRD Child Support are concerned.
Comment by Allan — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 11:18 am
Clearly it is what we have.
Does it matter what we want?
Unfortunately Society does not think, we individuals need to do that.
I wonder how do we change this phenomina?
In the UK the tories are suggesting reconciliation counselling and imposing a small financial penalty on those who can’t agree and need the Courts input.
Over here we even have Richlister Libby Goodfellow rocking up for legal aid to support her matrimonial property claims. Rumour has it her daddy stopped paying her lawyers bills after they exceeded $125,000. Her former husband is National Party President who was lucky not to become part of the Order of Protection but he has lost use of ther family home and extensive vintage wine cellar which is rummoured to being slowly sold off to fund Libby’s power bill which topped $1,000 a month last winter.
Comment by Kiwisfirst — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 11:37 am
Julie,
Here’s a story.
Right on cue it arrived SMS today.
These are the ideas increasing numbers of men are sharing.
It seems at least some of the society you talk of, that is some of the modern men you talk of aren’t keen to adapt.
Allan,
after 5 years of ‘apartheid study’ in South Africa I see you choose to be part of the defathering process and the subjugation of men.
I know we’ve argued long and hard about that as you take another view, and some folks find that tedious, but so be it.
Now, I’ll accept that your choice of the role of supervisor may be better for dads than some knuckle dragging man hating lesbian (harm minimization I think you call it).
However, it still bothers me, because I don’t see you explaining to anyone here what exactly you’re doing to make yourself redundant
(The ultimate goal of all good effective social work in my view).
Please explain exactly what you’re doing to change things for the better whereby New Zealand men ONLY get supervised access to their kids as a result of due process of law which means on the basis of corroborated forensic evidence rather than vindictive hearsay taken as gospel.
Are you for instance petitioning the courts and parliament, speaking to legal workers, writing letters to Newspaper Editors and the human Right Commission, driving a car with a bumper sticker demanding human rights for fathers, using a human rights for fathers letterhead stamp, at least raising the topic at barbecues?
I’m sure many men (and some concerned women) reading here would be interested to know.
After all they are subject to this system you are so much a part of.
A comment for everyone,
I see comment from some that fatherlessness is a cause of poverty as it means reduced incomes for families. I agree with that, but also as I’ve tried to explain fathers bring more than income to bear upon the lives of their kids.
You can summarize my view as –
Fatherlessness IS a form of child poverty.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 11:41 am
Cleary that is the situation Skeptic.
Does not matter what we want, tis what we got!!
Another what we got is richlister Libby Goodfellow getting legal aid cos her daddy stopped paying her legal bills once they topped $125,000 for her matrimonial property proceedings.
That brute of a hubby of hers and National Party Chairman Peter Goodfellow narowly avoided the Order of Protection. Poor libby left alone in Peter’s multi million dollar house and having to flog his vintage wine cellar just to pay the power bill. Rumour has it that last winter the power bill alone cost $1,000 a month. Needed almost half a dozen of the best champers to pay that bill.
The tories in UK have the idea. Give em some counselling and that way we will stop separations happening at least until after the kids have grown up. As a little incentive they will even charge a fee to people who need to apply for Child Support just to encourage them that isn’t the british way.
Comment by Kiwisfirst — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 11:46 am
Skeptic, I guess as part of society I should have a say. Hmmm, I’ll think about it. The only thing is that this is about men and most NZ MRAs are in a 2nd or more marriage – I don’t see them wanting to go back to their ex wives and I don’t think they want to do life like I have. [not even divorced from my first]
When I ask men who have been married 30 odd years if they’re happy, they say things like, “Nah, but you get to a stage there’s nothing else you can do”. Y’see, their retirement is dependent on that marriage, their security. They don’t have it in them to change their circumstances but if they could, well, their generation would have done things differently.
Comment by julie — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:03 pm
Skeptic do you really not know who I am.
I am currently National president of UoF. We have made more submissions to parliament than any other mens group I know. I write most of them. I am in Family Court most weeks speaking to judges, Court staff, legal workers. If you know of a more active McKenzie Friend than me I would be surprised. I don’t write to the paper much but get two or three a year published in the Dom. I have distributed over 1000 bumper stickers that say “the Best parent is BOTH parents”. If you want one send me your address to [email protected]. I use the letterhead of Union of Fathers and Kidz need Dadz often.
In the past year I have attended BBQ’s (or hosted them) with at least 8 politicians in the house (4 Nats, 3 Labour, 1 other). I will leave you to wonder at what topics I might speak about. In the past year I have had TV appearances, newspaper articles, been quoted in many places.
Are you for real or were you really ignorant of my work? Hans, Julie, Alastair, Murray and many others here know of my work.
With regards my work providing supervision. I inherited one supervision case where Dad had spent 5 years in another supervised contact centre. He left me for unsupervised contact after about a year ago and is now even enjoying overnights unsupervised. My record to unsupervised is one contact and it has happened several times. I am certainly not out to prolong supervision as frankly I like my weekends to myself and for my own kids. I certainly don’t do supervision for the money it earns me.
Comment by Allan — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:12 pm
Actually Skeptik, I introduced the term “harm minimization” with respect to Allan’s work.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:47 pm
Skeptic,
I could not agree more that fatherlessness is a form of Child Poverty. That is certainly UoF policy. I am attending a workshop on Prison reform next month and that is a key message I bring to it. At that gathering I will be speaking alongside a Families Commisioner who will also be sharing that message. Not everyone in the system is our enemy skeptic.
You also misquote me as being involved in “aparthied studies” in “South Africa”. I lived and worked in Southern African but I never entered South Africa under the former regieme as a point of principle. I was involved in anti-apartheid activities in independent Africa. I have since visited South Africa and several of the exiled activist I worked with in Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland and Zambia who have returned there after independence.
These days I’m more than happy to be a father activist inside any system. I can assure you I am an independent voice in those forums as well but I also strive hard to be polite as I work for change. I believe I am more effective inside the system than I am outside.
Comment by Allan — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:50 pm
Allan,
No, I really don’t know who you are yet you seem to expect me to. Duh!
So your title alone doesn’t impress.
You give a list of things you do, yet still appear evasive.
It’s all well and good to go on about families need fathers, letterheads etc (no argument there) but you still haven’t answered the question I asked.
I didn’t ask about your ‘inheriting’ a case of supervised access, nor for the list you gave (which would be useful if you actually answered the question).
So I’ll ask again –
You weren’t misquoted either.
Don’t make me out to be so dumb.
The phrase used ‘apartheid studies’ was placed in inverted comas.
I said nothing about about you having visited South Africa or anywhere else for that matter.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 1:15 pm
Hi Skeptic,
For your record.
Normally when I take on a supervision client it precludes me from being an advocate in the same family. So normally the answer to your question is no.
Much I have written talks about the abrogation of principles of natural justice in DV matters. That does not mean I do not think in the short term kids having contact with their parents is not a good thing. Almost all cases are never heard fully, time moves on supervision becomes unneccesary way before “due process of law” can occur. I think kids having contacts with their parents is much much more important and minimises harm to all. I like that progmatic term from Hans.
You specifically asked skeptic it I was involved in lobbying, in speaking about mens issues, in showing off bumper stickers and in spreading the word at BBQ’a.
If you have been about mens work and Fathers work in New Zealand for more than a short time I am sure you will know of my work. The other alternative is you do nothing in this area yourself.
Comment by Allan — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 3:53 pm
Allan,
Thanks.
Finally some kind of answer.
It’s like pulling teeth.
So it’s clear enough now when you take on the position of supervising a guy you agree to being precluded from advocating for principles of justice for the father.
Whoa!
That’s not what I call men’s or father’s rights advocacy!
I say that because it’s clear to me that in such instances you aide and abet the subjugation of such fathers subjected to supervised access WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
I think you thus play directly into the hands of feminists who thrive on the narrative of ‘men are bad’ – however minimally compared to others.
And for God’s sake get down off your high horse man with this kind of statement –
I’ve been about men’s work in NZ for decades, much longer than you in fact both online and off.
What a doozie!
Jesus wept.
In fact I’m doing men’s work right now calling you to account.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 5:44 pm