- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Dunne: Bill to improve Child Support introduced
This is it folks. Read Dunnes spin, there is a link to the bill and supporting documents at the bottom.
Then lets analyze it.
Focus is on analysing the bill and the policy that drives the taxman : increasing the Child Tax take.
Regards
Scrap
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
‘pathological chivalry’ is the term that comes to mind.
It is that sense that women are blameless and men should always sacrifice and suffer (suffering is so manly).
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 7th October 2011 @ 12:57 am
Abolish Child Support And Free Men !
Comment by Snib1 — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 2:21 am
Hi Snib1 and others,
If we abolish Child Support how are children to be supported?
I can accept that we say the state has responsibility for all children but is that what you propose that raising children is a collective responsibility? What controls will the state wish for such responsibility, do we wish to give away the privelidge of supporting our own children?
If we are to engage with debate on this bill before our parliment we need to be clear what alternatives we propose.
Allan
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 12:17 pm
Actually Allan,
As I’ve stated at MENZ before I think the problem goes much deeper than how to fix ‘child support’.
I think the elephant in the room which all the powers that be are ignoring is no fault divorce.
I advocate doing away with no fault divorce and reverting to a sensible system whereby a spouse who wants a divorce must furnish real proof of wrongdoing on the part of the other spouse in a real court of law.
That would be a far cry from our current star chambers – the family destruction courts which basically rubber stamp unilateral decisions to divorce, then in the vast majority of cases side with the mother too often leaving men alienated from their children, financially crippled and emotionally scarred in the process.
I’m in agreement with Steven Baskerville when he states the following –
I also think that ending no fault divorce would see divorce rates plummet.
I imagine there may be some resistance in doing away with no fault divorce from within the cohort of court staff, psychologists, counselors, visitation supervisors, judges, lawyers etc – all of who currently have a vested interest financially in maintaining the status quo.
However I imagine that if no fault divorce gets done away with marriage will become a much more solid and stable institution again which will provide security for children that they currently lack. The services that family destruction courts currently provide could morph itself into a really worthwhile service with the aim of KEEPING FAMILIES INTACT!
Imagine what a revolution that would be!
Spouse could approach the court to initiate ‘family strengthening’. Then the couple go to the family court to get counseling and mediation.
It’s a far, far cry from allowing women’s hypergamy to continue being institutionalized and encouraged by naive white knights and packs of vengeful feminist ‘court’ staff leading to yet another generation of relatively feral youth and further social and cultural decline.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 3:19 pm
Nothing has changed that will ease my payments, I have shared care 50/50 of my son, I have a parenting order stating that all costs are to be shared equally. I pay 90 aweek in child support (to the government)and get 17 back from the government. The ex has a child to another guy who hasnt had anything to do with the child and pays the minimum amount. I pay more in 2 months that he does in a year. The courts wouldnt award me full care but are willing to make me pay for the full amount!
Comment by Worried — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 3:23 pm
How about awarding custody to those parents most able and willing to support their children financially, without assistance from the other parent, the courts or the tax-payer?
Won’t work in all cases of course, but would easily carve a chunk off current family court work-load, prevent divorcing women from using the children as hostages in a court-enforced extortion racket, ensure more kids grow up in a conflict-free environment, and gives the less well-off parent the freedom to get back into the work-force without the financial burden of supporting a family.
Comment by rc — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 4:32 pm
rc
Do you think that the financially better off parent will be able to maintain their income once they have full custody?
Comment by PCville — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 4:51 pm
PCVille,
A lot of parents could pay for full time child care with the ammount they will pay in Child Tax.
regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 6:15 pm
Hi Skeptic,
I totally accept that no-fault divorce changed things a lot. However what is to stop people living together seperating. I suspect that less than 50% of our children will ever marry and most will have several “long term” relationships (at least as long term as the Property Relationships Act considers marriage to be).
For me the issue of divorce is almost irrelevant as divorce aplies to marriage and most relationships never involve marriage (although I’m on my second).
Personally I think people choosing to end a relationship is totally reasonable. Indeed the ability to end a relationship is something that I feel gives me control and makes a realationship good. To view all relationships as permanent and requiring “Fault” takes us back to private detectives proving adultery, or suggesting marriages were never consumated, or violence or addiction etc makes continuation unsafe.
Is it reasonable to find “fault” when a person is an alcoholic or a workoholic, is their “fault” when someone becomes redundant, or paralised?
If we wound back the clock to no-fault divorce we go back to when couples threw dice to decide whose affair would be cited as the grounds for divorce or false violence affidavits were written just so a couple could end a relationship mutually.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 8:48 pm
RC and others,
Is it not better for children to have positiver continuing relationships with both parents. Should money and income be the only basis for deciding custody arrangements?
I agree with Scrap child care costs are often less than Child Support payments.
I totally support that in shared care situations that parents should be encouraged to reach their own arrangements and the default position should be zero Child Support in either direction. Personally I think that is the healthiest situation for shared care but what do we propose for situations where children are with one parent and there are significant health issues which mean child care isn’t a possibility or not what both parents wish for their child.
The best parent after separation is BOTH parents.
That has to be our mantra and I reject that she or he who has the higher income becomes the default parent and the other is relegated to a memory.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 8:55 pm
Allan,
in response to your post – nothing is to stop people who live together from separating. But as you point out those that do choose to live together without marrying fall under the Property Relationships Act anyway which treats those who’ve lived together for a couple of years as though they were married in any case.
I too think people choosing to separate is reasonable, but add the caveat that provided there are real grounds for it – otherwise the marriage is legally not binding and in effect legally meaningless.
My point is it’s currently far too easy to obtain a divorce.
Under current no fault divorce laws it is a right folks have that is all too often irresponsibly used (mostly by women who initiate something like 70% of family disintegration) and as you may be aware far too many people are getting hurt as a result.
That’s what you get with no fault divorce.
It simply isn’t working to create social cohesion.
far from it.
I agree with you many in future will not marry.
I think many men will look at the odds of being divorced and decide it isn’t worth the risk of massive damage.
You can already see that happening in Japan where thousands of men have been polled by marketing companies who to their shock have discovered 70% of men between 18 and 30 years of age have absolutely no intention of forming a relationship with a woman, let alone marrying and having kids with them.
That’s BIG!
That’s the death knell for that population.
Talk about a lack of vitality!
And that’s before the non hormonal male birth control pill and an understanding of female hypergamy comes on stream too – 2 other Elephants in the room many folks are ignoring.
You say
But that misses the point I was making and in answer to the question you pose – Yes, I think it’s entirely reasonable to find fault (no inverted commas needed)when a person is alcoholic or a workaholic. But you see, even in such instances where one or both of the spouses have such issues as alcoholism the family court could be a place charged with the responsibility to offer counseling and mediation to help resolve the problem and keep the family INTACT benefiting countless children.
Instead it’s as I described a star chamber which rubber stamps no fault divorce and currently aides and abets massive massive family destruction and child abduction and all the social ills that go along with that.
Thinking longer term and wide angle big picture the whole phenomena seems like it will become a non issue however – as Sharia and other forms of governance which exist in other cultures around the world and shun non fault divorce will lead to those populations inexorably becoming the majority.
The most sensible solution I’ve come across so far is to reinstitute fault divorce and only grant divorces AFTER interventions to try and keep the family together have failed. That alongside having marriage contracts which are renewable say after the kids have left home.
Anything less is, I fear just putting a sticking plaster on the gaping social wound of institutionalized fatherlessness and create further social fragmentation.
Comment by Skeptic — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 9:40 pm
Hi Skeptic,
I am delighted to be in an exchange of ideas with you.
It may what you propose would have some impact. I suspect it would not. I also know that it is poitically unacceptable at this time in New Zealand and as such won’t happen.
Based on that assumption I’m out to find ways we can reform the Family Court, make Family Law more child friendly recognising that the best parent after separation is BOTH parents.
I’m also prepared to offer suggestions for Child Support reform and domestic violence interventions. That is work men and fathers need to be involved in otherwise our voice will be absent and changes will happen without our consultation and input.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 9:52 pm
I’ll ask another question then. What is child support supposed to pay for? If, by a parenting order, you have to pay for half of everything anyway then surely the child support is spousal maintenance? If that is what it is, then re-brand it!
I never let my kids go without and to be asked for >$500 per month is ridiculous, especially when we’re in a shared parenting arrangement and I pay half of all their costs.
So Mr Dunne nothing; I can’t say I support your bid for re-election. In fact I shall be doing EVERYTHING I can to ensure you don’t come back…
Comment by NoConfidenceInNZFamilyCourt — Mon 10th October 2011 @ 9:58 pm
@Snib – “Abolish Child Support And Free Men!” Absolutely! Child support is CHILD TRAFFICKING and ABUSE and SLAVERY for fathers and INSTITUTIONALIZED ADULTERY.
@Allan – “If we abolish Child Support how are children to be supported?” Children were supported just fine by their fathers before the advent of child support and government intervention. Child support has accomplished nothing but expose children and their fathers to more poverty and abuse. It is an incentive for divorce and forcible separation of fathers from their children and an incentive for mothers to alienate children from their fathers, which is child abuse. References for these facts may be found at the US Dept of the Census, US Dept of Public Health and Human Services, the Heritage Foundation, among many others. Child support is just one of many mechanisms for transferring vast wealth from women to men, responsible people to irresponsible people, and the poor to the rich. The Divorce Industry is the only beneficiary of child support.
@Skeptik – “As I’ve stated at MENZ before I think the problem goes much deeper than how to fix ‘child support’.” Child support cannot be “fixed”. The only solution is its elimination. I agree that there should be no such thing as no-fault divorce and that it amounts to unilateral divorce. If a mother wants to divorce unilaterally, she should be allowed to. But she should not be rewarded for it as she currently is, but be penalized for defaulting on the contract and for adultery and for paternity fraud. Shared parenting should be presumed and there should be no child support. False allegations of domestic violence and child abuse by her should be punished with extreme prejudice. While she shares parenting, the mother should be punished to the fullest extent of the law if she attempts to alienate their children from the father. Then she should be forced to turn over custody to the father and pay child support.
@rc – “How about awarding custody to those parents most able and willing to support their children financially, without assistance from the other parent, the courts or the tax-payer?” I agree with this solution and have thought a lot about it, except it may deny children access to both their parents, which is why shared parenting, independent of income, should be presumed. I agree that your solution as stated is better than the current system. I think that your solution is in the right direction but falls short of the ideal of shared parenting. However, as short as your solution may fall from the ideal in that it doesn’t achieve completely the goals that any solution should, it’s not nearly as bas as the current system, which is the opposite of the right direction. The current solution is wrong and actively destructive and has contributed dramatically to the disintegration of our economy and civilization on so many levels, it could only be achieved by design with those goals in mind. Your solution just may not be the best one but at least it isn’t actively destructive and solves some of the problem.
@Allan – “I totally support that in shared care situations that parents should be encouraged to reach their own arrangements and the default position should be zero Child Support in either direction… The best parent after separation is BOTH parents.” I totally agree! All parents are imperfect. Almost none are a threat to their children. Trying to identify the better parent when there never is one is an impossible goal that will always yield bad results.
@Skeptik – “Under current no fault divorce laws it is a right folks have that is all too often irresponsibly used (mostly by women who initiate something like 70% of family disintegration) and as you may be aware far too many people are getting hurt as a result.” In the US, as I’m sure most other places, I think the number of divorces filed by women is 70% (or I think the more common number I’ve used is 67%). BUT the number of divorces actually initiated by women, which is the number I prefer to report in my discussions, is much higher because in many instances women may not file for divorce and go live with their boyfriends for years and the husbands are left to actually file for her. Also, most instances of mutual initiation really are the woman and the man just goes along with it because he knows he has no choice. When you consider family disintegration, I believe the number for which women are responsible is much greater than 70%. That number is already big enough but it’s probably in excess of 80% of divorces from what I understand.
“The most sensible solution I’ve come across so far is to reinstitute fault divorce and only grant divorces AFTER interventions to try and keep the family together have failed.” I like this idea, Skeptik, except I’d be concerned that fault divorce would encourage women to make false allegations more than they already are. It would work if laws discouraging perjury and falsifying police reports were actually enforced, but they aren’t. There would have to be some progress on that end first. It’s one thing to make laws, it’s another to enforce them, and the problem we’ve had all along is that the laws that exist to make things like even child support work is that the laws aren’t enforced. It’s law in the US for a father to pay child support but it is also law for the mother to comply with orders for visitation. But only laws concerning child support are enforced. Laws for visitation are ignored.
@NoCo – “If, by a parenting order, you have to pay for half of everything anyway then surely the child support is spousal maintenance?” Yup. Sanford Braver and others have done many excellent studies demonstrating in no uncertain terms that at least half of almost all child support orders are alimony and do not benefit children and more likely hurt the children.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 2:05 am
Hi DarrylX and others,
I am delighted to see some debate on MENZ about issues and not about personalities. That is wonderful!
My first job on leaving University was to work for a social service provider and one of the tasks I did was some historical work about their children’s work. The years were about 1880 through to 1960 (before Child Support). I read a lot of minutes about decision making regarding the entry of children into “orphanages” and their residential child care as well as community social work. What I read would certainly not agree with your statement
Can you point me to more specific evidence? I accept my evidence is on a small population but it does cover about 3-4,000 children who needed to come into residential care over a significant period of time. For these children and their families they needed charity and often suffered from paternalism (and some maternalism) and in a few cases from physical and sexual abuse and while many thrived the emotional environment was variable especially given they often came into care after trauma in their own families.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 7:37 am
Its always down to the money
They want to be seperated from the person but not the wallet
where is the option in all this rhetoric to allow your child tax to be paid in directly supporting your child?
Remember this is the state enforced child tax for benefit recovery.
Couples with their own private plans in place will not be affected by this rearranging of the deckchairs.
A tinkering around shared care will in my opinion lead to less shared care as they hang onto the dollars.
But in my case thats not an option as she moved far enough away to stop that being practical.
Only people in receipt of child tax find it such a good parenting tool.
There is not one thing in all that Ive read to ensure that any of this money is spent on the children. Where are the options to pay school fees, clothes, sports, medical, savings accounts or any of the things children need which would take the other parent out of being the gatekeeper for the support you are supposed to pay.
Why do we have to take their word that they will spend the dollars on the children and the children only? And when I see the children doing without even though I pay exorbitant child tax why them should I listen to the mealy mouthed platitudes that this system is about children and support.
As Ive said before I pay the child tax, I also pay money to support my children they are not the same thing
Mits
Comment by Mits — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 7:44 am
It is in a private arrangement. Our submissions to Dunne and his review for years has been to encourage private arrangements. That should be the default and CS via IRD a fallback only when that does not work.
That is so true and the point needs to be made by as many as possible to the Select Committe considering this bill that that is the crux of the inequity. Yes, I’m prepared to pay my taxes to pay for WINZ and then why am I double taxed to pay for my ex’s alimony payments. It that is your situation then you need to be making a submission and speaking to it before the Select Committee.
That may be so but graduating the steps lesens this threat somwhat. Again if you don’t like what is proposed submit to the Select Committee. If you do like it make a submission. No submission and your views are unheard. Whining on MENZ does little, tis the submissions that count.
I mantained at significant cost 145 nights for a short while and lived 500kms away from my kids. Expensive, tiring but hey they are my kids and they deserved the contact with me.
It is called a Ground 7 application under Admin Review. It needs to be well crafted but I have seen it done. Alternatively there is the Rolls Royce solution of a private agreement. That is really the key to most CS issues. We even suggested that IRD should pay for the mediator to help parties agree which will be cheaper than umpteen admin reviews at the other end.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 1:05 pm
Allan #12, you say –
Millions of men worldwide are now making changes ALREADY ARE UNDERWAY without anyone’s consultation LOL! – The wheels of social change are rolling!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html
Remember Thomas Ball, He died to save our children.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 1:32 pm
How do you get a private agreement where the ex doesnt get the money but you spend it on the children
Wouldnt she have to agree? And if she loves being the gatekeeper for the childrens support how can the other parent change this.
It seems to me Allan that you again are lumping all recipents of child tax into the paragons of virtue bracket who would never, not once, spend a penny of the child tax on anything other than the children.
Where is this IRD mediator you speak about
Dunn nothing’s been working on this for how long and nothing has changed. Im not asking for a miracle Im asking that child tax be focused on children.
I once signed a petition that I would even agree to pay more in child tax if I could see it go to the children and not the ex, so its not about the dollars.
So Allan forgive me if I say that I find your answers given somewhat trite and generalising
You dont even know me or my ex but can only suggest a private agreement as the rolls royce I should strive for. I state in almost every one of my posts that you dont find to many complaints from parents with private agreements. For years you have submitted to Dunn nothing that private agreements should be encouraged, can you tell me what progress has been made in this as my ex wont give up the reins and I seem to have no recourse but to pay the state mandated system
And to suggest an Admin review, seriously, I will work on my posts to make them more interesting as I would suggest you havent read much of my posting (or whining as you so quaintly put it) to see what I think of IRD and that complete invasion of privacy.
I have another 6 years to go on my sentence of paying child tax and will serve out my time Remember thats child tax not support.
Fair play to you if you actually get any politician to do anything about this and its not just another cynical election ploy.
I will go as far to say that there will be no advances in child tax that I will benefit from in the next 6 years or two election cycles.
I believe any changes will be to my detriment. If Im wrong you can bring up this post and I will gladly admit it.
But please dont tell me of all the advances we have made in select committee’s and submissions its been over a decade and Ive seen nothing but talk talk and more talk.
Comment by Mits — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 4:35 pm
Why the construction “the other [parent] relegated to memory”? That’s no more likely to happen than with the current system of default custody based on possession of vagina.
Awarding custody to the parent who is most able to provide for their children is just common sense in those cases where it can be applied. Failing to be a perfect solution for all cases is not a weakness – simply recognition that different people find themselves in different situations. It would help if judges were equipped to recognize this and dismiss child support cases as quickly as possible when the only obstacle is a gatekeeper securing a lifestyle.
Comment by rc — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 5:46 pm
There are less than 35 Child Support cases ever reach Court a year. It is an orphan area of legal work. Judges don’t need to dismiss them as very few ever happen.
Most people never file in Court as the cost of being represented in a Child Support matter is likely to be much more than any result the Couyrt might reach in your favour.
The situation is that the old sole custody model often saw one parent loose all contact with the other parent. Unless their is some positive contact happening in 5 years the non-custodial parent is not likely to have any contact with the child at all.
That is why the construction “relegated to a memory”.
The best parent after separation is BOTH parents.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 6:19 pm
How do you mean “the old sole custody model”
have their been changes Im unaware of?
Is the femily caught now using 50/50 shared care as the starting point and awarding no payment of child tax to either parent?
I do agree that the best parents would be both parents but would see the femily caught as a hinderance to this not a help.
Their mediation is a joke and the adversarial nature of the caught would simple accelerate the process of losing contact.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 8:25 pm
Bingo Mits @ #22
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 8:27 pm
Alan, Sketic,
Interesting posts on no-fault divorce. Are you aware of the following at:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0053/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act_domestic_resel&p=1#dlm434468
Do you think these measures should have been abolished? Would they help if still in place?
Domestic Actions Act 1975
Part 1
Abolition of right to claim damages for adultery
Abolition of action for enticement of a spouse
Abolition of actions for enticement, seduction, and harbouring
Action for breach of promise of marriage abolished
Comment by bruce.tichbon — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 9:48 pm
Hi Bruce,Skeptic and others
Things would be different if these changes had not occurred. That is all I can say. The changes have happened, they will never be changed back, time has moved on from 1975. I was 17 at the time and I do remeber the pages and pages in NZ Truth with details of fault to support divorce. Even a 17 year old thought it was odd and needed to change. What was unleashed on society, on taxpayers and on children was largely unknown and now we live with it. That does not make turning the clock back any more possible.
As Skeptic rightly says in another thread. I don’t get it and I agree I don’t. I see a situation and I seek change. I am prepared to work wihin a system and seek change. Small gains are at least gains, individual families benefit from such work.
I also remember the quote from Izzy Stone; that we have to be happy in our defeats and be prepared to lose and lose and lose because someday somwhere someone may win and they do that on the back of all those who have lost. I’m sure I have butucherd the quote but that is its esence.
Sorry Skeptic I don’t have time to share your popcorn.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 10:37 pm
Allan,
You’re still not getting it.
If you talk to guys internationally like I do you’ll hear them saying that trying to gain rights for men in marriage and reproduction is no longer worth the effort.
You really need to get your head around what Zed is saying to appreciate that the end of marriage because it’s an unsafe institution for men fraught with too much risk isn’t a case of loosing.
On the contrary with millions of men taking the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) meme on board they feel hugely liberated.
I talk to young guys regularly from across the world – USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, UK, Germany etc – their attitude is “Meh, marriage and kids under current feminist law, not for me, I’m not a sucker. And even if the law was rolled back I wouldn’t want the role my Dad had in any case”.
Just google search marriage strike Germany for instance.
Why you persist in trying to flog a dead horse called marriage is beyond me.
I, like millions of other men am over it.
And as I keep saying the non hormonal birth control pill is on it’s way soon too.
Crikey, marriage strike plus reproductive strike spreading like wild fire.
There’s a revolution happening and I reckon you’re wasting your time trying to gain a few scraps from a rigged game.
Better to just join other men and let go.
Walk away from it and let it collapse further.
But there it is.
At least in this discussion I’m not being called septic by you.
That’s refreshing too.
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 11th October 2011 @ 11:23 pm
@Allan – I’ll have a response to your request for reference re post #15 shortly. I’m at a different computer right now.
@Skeptik – Great article about MGTOW or Ramblin’ Men. Very inspirational. Makes me rethink my concerns about a passport. As long as I have my feet and my will (which has still not been broken even if everything else has been), I am free. Feminists can impose upon me all they want, but truth is the final arbiter of my fate and that of everyone else.
I agree that there is a revolution happening. Marriage is an important element in the foundation of civilization but it no longer exists. Marriage now is simply a mechanism with which feminists may try to satisfy their addiction to power and control and defraud men and children. However, that addiction can never be satisfied because more is always needed and there is never enough power and control. Also, power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ultimately, these feminists will be living with the consequences of their actions.
In the US, incidence of marriage has declined from 67-70% of the adult population in the forty years prior to 1970 to less than 40% of the adult population in the forty years after (US Dept of the Census, US Dept of Public Health and Human Services, the Heritage Foundation). Prior to 1970, marriages lasted approximately forty-five years. For half the Baby-boomers after 1970, marriages lasted approximately seventeen to twenty years (women at least waited till children were grown). for the other half, marriages lasted approximately ten years. For my generation, Gen-X, marriages last an average of seven years. There definitely is a marriage strike and its impact is spectacular with regards to number of children growing up without their fathers and/or born out of wedlock and/or victims of paternity fraud – growing up directionless with the only male role models in their lives being their mothers and the gov’t.
These developments will not sustain civilization. We are or have already devolved to social organizing as a caste in which a few “alpha” males and most women conspire to enslave, kill or imprison most men (consult data concerning incidence of incarceration for fathers who owe child support, the incidence of poverty among fathers, the incidence of suicide among fathers and the incidence of fathers who have died because they could no longer afford health care). Yes, I hope everyone will remember Thomas Ball who died for us, despite the lack of media coverage for this critical milestone in the continuing apocalypse and relentless disintegration of civilization. Do you think anyone is listening? And if they are, do you think they understand or even care? Save the Turnips!
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 4:38 am
@Allan – “Children were supported just fine by their fathers before the advent of child support and government intervention.”
My evidence is from the US but I’m sure it’s applicable to NZ too to a great degree. The sources are the US Dept of the Census, the US Dept of Public Health and Human Services and its Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA – headed by the notorious Cynthia Brown, whose antics spawned the Save The Turnips! Facebook campaign), Center for Disease Control, and the Heritage Foundation (among others). At the CSEA (on the web), tables are available which show how many are paying broken down by sex and race and age and income (needless to say, income is the greatest variable influencing compliance with orders for child support). Another great resource is The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments by William Comanor (with some great chapters written, in part, by Sanford Braver) which identifies the incidence of compliance and variable influencing it. A good but not the best reference on the web is at http://fathersforlife.org/famlaw/usbankruptcy.htm#Access. Oft cited references on this website are by Braver and O’Connell. Like I’ve written before, Sanford Braver has done the most work concerning compliance with child support.
But before even consulting any articles by Braver, contrast marriage and support of children before and after 1970. For forty years prior to the advent of child support and no-fault divorce and other feminist laws, around 1970, almost no children were born out of wedlock, children with unknown paternity were almost unheard of (except for rare instances of paternity fraud), approximately 67-70% of the adult population was married (once), the incidence of divorce was less than seven percent of the married population, and in rare instances of divorce, most were only after the children graduated to adulthood. You can consult the Dept of the Census for these data and the Heritage Foundation. Google them.
So almost no children grew up without both parents (except during the wars where some fathers were away for five years or so or died) prior to 1970 – almost all fathers supported their children the best they could without interference by the gov’t, assuming that most children in intact families were supported by their fathers, and I think that is a good assumption. Even the poorest fathers did the best they could and being poor was not a reason for jailing a father then or punishing him for inability to support his children at expectations of the gov’t. Poverty among intact families was low – less than ten percent. It’s hard to compare families today and then concerning poverty but not impossible.
During the past few years (2007-2011), incidence of children with unknown paternity approximates 25%. Yes, that’s twenty-five – unbelievable, but that is based upon a survey of hospital records if I recall correctly by the Dept of Public Health and Human Services in their effort to identify excuses for increasing their budget for more child support enforcement. They found that approximately 15% of mothers didn’t even know who the fathers of their children were. A reference to that development is here http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=26&paged=2, but there is a better reference for this claim and I only found it a few months ago and I want to find it again because it’s an important development that has been reported in many places (Fathers and Families for instance). I will get and report the reference as soon as I find it (I’ve been looking). But this claim did not surprise me because it is consistent with my own observations and research of mothers who do not know who the fathers of their children are. Many studies concerning DNA analysis show that the incidence of paternity fraud during the past twenty years or so is around 10% of children. Some report as little as 6% (which is still awfully high) and some report as much as 14%, so I use an average of 10% in discussions. I have not relied upon reports of blood typing, which is a negative test and only shows conclusively when a child and father do not match. It does not consider instances when the child and a man do match but he is still not the father.
For forty years after 1970, approximately 60% of the adult population was married (once) (again, consult the Dept of the Census or the Heritage Foundation, among others). It’s important to understand that demographics of the adult population change dramatically after 1985, as my generation (1965-1985) comprises only about fifty-million adults now and the Baby-boomers comprise about 150-million give or take, so dynamics of my generation and its impact on overall statistics is eclipsed by the Baby-boomers, but the trend is still there and frightening. When comparing generations and then combining them, you need absolute numbers and not percent.
After 1970, the incidence of divorce is more than fifty percent of the married population, in most instances of divorce the children were less than ten years of age, and the average marriage is about seven years. Approximately one-third of children born between 1970 and 2008 are out of wedlock and between 2008 and 2010 two-thirds were (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty).
Concerning actual child support and fathers, which is about half of fathers after 1970, approximately 25% of fathers are unable to comply with orders (or only about one-eighth of all fathers). a reference for this number is here http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/execsum.htm but it has to be taken in context of many other reports at the US Dept of Public Health and Human Services. Fathers and Families has reported the number of 25% frequently, citing reports by the Dept, so I’ve used that figure myself. BUT the orders on average exceed cost of raising a child by two to three. So when a father is not totally in compliance, he is usually in partial compliance and enough to support the actual cost of raising a child. So the 25% only refers to the total order. When considering number not in compliance to a degree to which a child is not supported is much smaller than 25% (or one-eighth of fathers) – let’s say less than half of that or less than one-sixteenth of fathers (and even that is probably a great overestimate). But even most of them are supporting their children to some degree as best they can with the incomes they have. Almost all fathers support their children the best they can without interference by the government.Understand that most of these fathers are in poverty and/or prison if they are alive. During the past forty years, approximately 250,000 have suicided according to a link above and many other sources.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 9:01 am
Guys,
Re marriage strike and no fault divorce etc
You guys depress me, I think I will stop reading this site. You are like defeated people, you are confused, you have all but given up. If I was a rad fem I would love reading this site (its public).
The problem is the feminists learned to lobby to control government policy 40 years ago. They now effectively control the benefit system, the Police, Family Court, IRD, the UN etc. In most counties men have not learned to do this, except Lone Fathers lot in Aus had a lot of success 5 years ago but are now fighting to defend shared parenting.
Part of the problem is you are totally subjugated by big government. Whatever big sister says you actually accept, though you ineffectually moan a lot (your moans are totally justified, but not effective). 100 years ago a man was responsible for his family, but a century of rapidly rising state power has changed all that.
The way ahead is to learn from others, get effective, lobby well and move forward (one correct comment made, there is no going back to the old systems).
Comment by bruce.tichbon — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 10:45 am
Daryll X,
I’m glad the links I gave you provide some reasons for you to feel hopefull and inspired.
Keep up the good work of educating others as you do admirably in your last posting.
Bruce,
I, nor others depress you.
It’s time for you to take responsibility for your own self generated feelings!
Far from feeling depressed myself, I have found reason to feel buoyed. I’m inspired by the fact that increasing numbers of men and some women are feeling similarly inspired and happy.
They recognize that feminist society is unsustainable.
The paradox I think those like you and Allan need to grasp is that it’s better to let the whole thing collapse under it’s own weight. Then rebuild.
You’ll either get that or waste more time trying to claw back crumbs from the corrupt table. Me, I’ve moved on.
I take the red pill every day.
Now I’ll ghost out of here and go my own way for a while more.
Have a good day brother.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 10:58 am
Hi Skeptic, DarrylX and others.
Yes I get what you say and advocate but it just does not work for me. I’m happy married, I’m a delighted father, I wish to be a grandfather (not too soon), I have hope for our society. Call it my paradigm if you wish. I see what you advocate Skeptic and I reject it in a similar way that Bruce does.
I have guys come to me every day who have kids and want to have more contact with them. For them they don’t have the luxury of MGTOW (which is a paradigm I understand but can’t relate to). They have genes running about and want to nurture, provide, care. Call it old fashioned if you like but that is their reality (and mine) and with comes obligations and social expectations we embrace.
It is Ok for you to have an alternative position but please leave me (Bruce and others who so choose) to live in our world as we find ourselves. I don’t wish to live in Thailand and not have contact with my kids. I believe in New Zealand, I believe in my kids, I love my wife. No matter how old fashioned that may appear it is my reality (call it a delusion if you wish) and I’m busy swimming in my pond and I give swimming leasons to others who I encounter in the same pond.
Personally I think your opinion Skeptic is a tiny minority and frankly I would be surprised if there were even half a million men MGTOW. Sounds as odd to me as the radical fems. I have had to learn to understand their paradigm and I reject it’s excesses. MGTOW seems to me to be very similar, a bourgeois friviality that few parents can afford time to even dalliance with.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 12:05 pm
Couldn’t agree with you more Bruce.
.
Unfortuntely most MRAs seem to think that moaning, complaining, playing the victum and other INEFFECTIVE stratergies (such as writing letters) are actually going to make a difference.
.
These methods while making a man feel like he is actually contributing to men gaining more rights have been proven to be singularly ineffective. Most men are unwilling to admit that it is MEN who allowed the feminist BS to gain power in the first place, and it is MEN who have to get their act together to change the situation for their fellow man. Most modern men however lets face it, are gutless wimps and actually contribute to the problem by behaving like…women.
.
The first thing we need to address in getting our rights back is the fact that it was MEN that gave them up in the first place. We handed our rights over to feminist orientated government without even a fight.
.
We keep hearing about a supposed “gender war” but as to date this is a war that men have not even bothered to show up for. I’m a firm believer that when (or if) they do it will be game over for the feminists. Men (when actually behaving like men) don’t sit around gasbagging and navel gazing, it is not in our nature. Men by nature are creatures of action, which is exactly why we need to be looking at working on masculinity (and reclaim the ability to take action on a large scale) before we will have any hope of taking on feminist BS.
.
Then again it is entirely possible that MEN will continue to be lazy, inactive and ineffective and continue the pathetic and non-results producing actions that currently predominate. If so it is reasonable to postulate (as Skeptic points out) that society will deteriorate to the point of societal collapse.
.
Of course if society does collapse it will be MEN who rebuild it (just like they have done every other time) and men’s rights will be unlikely to be an issue (and would probably be vigourously safeguarded). There is really not much cause for long term concern about men regaining their rights because it is simply a matter of time either way (though it could take several hundred years for a complete collapse and rebuild of society and there is the risk of invasion of the West by foreign powers).
.
Women’s rights however, after a societal collapse caused by feminism are likely to be another story entirely and they are likely to find that the patriarchy of the 1950s (the nature of which was totally distorted by feminists) was a cakewalk compared to what they could face in the future.
Comment by Phoenix — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 12:20 pm
60-70% of young Japanese men self-identify as MGTOW (they are trying to shame them back into their rigid male role by calling them ‘grass-eaters’) – so that would be many millions in one country alone.
MGTOW is not a radical political ideology like feminism. It is what inevitably happens when a culture marginalizes and alienates men. Worldwide the numbers are huge – in Britain some years ago it was estimated between 1 and 3 million men had simply disappeared, ie were no longer engaged in British society. MGTOW is not an fad trying to recruit – it is simply a name being applied to a social phenomenon 30 or more years in the making. It is acquiring a name now for the same reason the Arab Spring has seen the end of the old tyrannies – technology has finally got men talking to each other when before they were isolated from each other.
Comment by rc — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 12:23 pm
Allan,
you say –
I’ll repeat what I said earlier in response – Good luck with that.
I think you’re banging your head against a brick wall, but that’s your choice.
I’ll continue to spread the word about MGTOW, Game, Ghosting, the Non Hormonal Male pill and female Hypergamy.
You’re completely free to ignore all of it of course – and take the consequences.
I think you seriously underestimate the breadth and depth of this new form of Men’s Movement.
Half a million men you say.
Right. Tui moment. Go visit Japan and USA for starters.
I’ve happy having embraced the new paradigm.
The old way of trying to take on a system so cruelly and monumentally stacked against males that is unsustainable having the seeds of it’s own destruction within it anyway and so inexorably in decline(your way) doesn’t work for me.
Jeese paying all those taxes to support feminist governance just for starters!
Ouch!
Now I’m off ghosting again to enjoy some more time going my own way. I think I’ll have some more popcorn and watch the misandry bubble inflate a bit more before it’s inevitable bursting.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 2:26 pm
rc,
Glad to see you have such a clear understanding of the paradigm shift too.
Great posting @ #32 !
I couldn’t agree more.
It’s great to have another informed man on board.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 3:28 pm
Allan,
Keep tinkering with the old bomb if you like. You might even get it out of first gear with some extra effort. Too bad the clutch slips so much and a couple of the tires are well down to the canvas. Hell of a noise from that gearbox too.
Did you say 50% divorce rate in NZ? and 70% for second marriages? And how many men complain about not seeing their kids after divorce and being fleeced in the process?
I’d give you a push to jump start her, but you see I’m too busy with what you call my frivolous bourjois life to be bothered trying to resuscitate such a clapped out old banger.
I know that sounds as odd to you as listening to a rad fem.
But I’m comfortable in my skin alongside millions of other men who see things the same way.
By the way if you and other NZ parents weren’t working till lunchtime to pay taxes that fund bloated gobmint with feminist governance you too would have as much free time as I.
Hey, by the way great work on getting rid of misandric laws like male assaults female but no equivalent in reverse for women.
Well done getting AIr NZ to ditch their policy of letting stranger women, but not stranger men sit next to kids. Nicely done getting parity in cancer research and treatment funding for men.
Outstanding.
Good luck with getting the rest of the job done within the next 40 years whilst I’m living a life.
It’s such a great thing to unshackle oneself from the feminist state and go your own way. It does wonders for reducing stress levels.
Ironic to hear you talk of rejecting excesses then LOL!
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 6:09 pm
On the Road Again “¦ Free-Range Men
by Zed on October 10, 2011
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 6:17 pm
Men have been on the back foot for decades and some are just beginning to realise that feminism is a well funded movement with the purpose of destroying families in the West.
Comment by Doug — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 6:58 pm
Phoenix (#31): There you go again criticizing those who are communicating and raising awareness, and you vaguely suggest they should be doing something more effective. As I asked previously, what would you have others do? Are you suggesting armed revolution? If not, what? Come on man, if you are so keen to rubbish others, at least be clear in what you claim would be a better approach.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 8:30 pm
Doug,
I think your correct.
The bit that you could include illustrates where I’m now at having made a paradigm shift alongside millions of other men.
So I present a slightly different take to yours
It goes like this –
What do I mean?
Well, go read John the other.
He explains it well IMO.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 10:06 pm
@Hans – Yeah!! Armed revolution!! I promised I would never bring it up again so I’m glad you did. Let me know if you guys need any help.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Sorry, Allan. I posted my response to your inquiry but it didn’t appear and when I posted it again the system gave me a message that what I wrote had already been posted before. I’m looking into the problem. In the mean time, articles by Sanford Braver are a good start for information about support of children by fathers. Also, compare data concerning marriage and divorce before and after 1970 from the US, Dept of the Census, the Heritage Foundation, and reports at the US Dept of Public Health and Human Services. Remember that even when a father is not in complete compliance with a support order, that support order exceeds the cost of raising a child by two or three, so it is misleading. If the support order is twice the cost and the father has complied with half the order, then he has contributed the entire cost of raising his child. The mother has contributed nothing.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 11:04 pm
To quote you Hans….
And there you go again criticising someone for trying to get men to face up and take some responsibility for the reality of the consequences of their inaction.
.
Armed revolution? No, not necessary.
10,000 men marching on parliament in protest action might be more like it.
.
One letter written to the human rights commission? Forget it.
20,000 letters written at the same time. A bit more like it.
.
Writing and complaing about child support on a web site? Well we know that doesn’t work.
A nation wide strike of every man who pay’s child support and doesn’t agree with the system. Well that’s probably more like it.
.
The problem is a simple lack of action from a large number of men (who in simple terms are too busy playing blame games and getting involved in pissing contests). It is going to take MASSIVE co-ordinated action in order to solve this problem, not just a few efforts from a small number of individuals.
.
I mean come on, there must be thousands of men out there who have been shafted by feminist policies in New Zealand alone and tens of millions worldwide, but if they choose to do nothing about it than they deserve everything they get.
.
Have a think about it. They change the laws so that marriage no longer has any substance to it and we do nothing. They force our families apart and separate us from our kids with false DV orders and a rigged court and we do nothing, they institute laws that are gender biased against us and we do nothing, they strip mine us of our finances with unfair child support orders and we do nothing. If a foreign power came into the West and did these things there would be violent, co-ordinated and sustained resistance until the actions were stopped. But instead the modern man will respond to his children being taken and being strip mined for money by writing a letter. I’m sure it is possible to see how out of proportion and pathetic a response that is given what is taking place. Violent response, no, not necessary. Large scale response, essential.
.
Most men are very willing to place blame on feminism, but are very unwilling to take any responsibility for their own actions (or lack of). Placing blame doesn’t give you the power to change the situation.
.
Responsibility is a bitter pill to swallow but only when men (as a group) face the fact that it is us who are responsible for our situation will we have the ability to fix it. If we got ourselves into this situation we can get ourselves out of it.
.
No responsibility, no power to change. It’s as simple as that.
Comment by Phoenix — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 11:13 pm
@Allan – So reports that 25% of fathers, on average since 1970, have failed to support their children is grossly overstated, as most of them, even though not in full compliance with orders, have completely supported their children. Then percent of men not in full compliance and who have completely defaulted since 1970, based upon a review of all those reports, is likely less than five, which is no different than the percent before 1970. The only difference now is that these fathers are condemned to prison or destitution or even death. Many who have completely defaulted (paid less than 5% of the entire order) do so because they have been alienated from their children and the mothers refuse to obey the visitation order and the visitation order is not enforced by courts, so the fathers have a very good reason.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 11:22 pm
@Phoenix –
“Armed revolution? No, not necessary.
10,000 men marching on parliament in protest action might be more like it.”
Actually, I like it.
“One letter written to the human rights commission? Forget it.
20,000 letters written at the same time. A bit more like it.”
This won’t work because our feminist leaders are malignant narcissists and malignant narcissists interpret complaint as success in their abuse and oppression and it encourages escalation of their abuse and oppression. Complaint is their narcissistic supply to which they are addicted. The more we complain about their abuse and oppression, the more they will abuse and oppress us to get more complaint (narcissistic supply). Our complaint is evidence of their power and control to which they are addicted and they will always need more because their is never enough.
“Writing and complaing about child support on a web site? Well we know that doesn’t work.”
I’ve learned a lot about the problems of other men on this site, so to some degree it is helpful in consolidating support for our cause.
“A nation wide strike of every man who pay’s child support and doesn’t agree with the system. Well that’s probably more like it.”
I agree. I already boycott, to a great degree, family court and child support. I encourage all men and fathers to do the same.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 12th October 2011 @ 11:30 pm
I think an important point about the effect of MGTOW needs to be made.
Men who disengage from society and refuse to marry/have kids are depriving the state of tax revenue. Regardless of what politicians publicly say, and how the media spins things, the amount of tax revenue foregone because men aren’t being squeezed for all they’re worth is something someone in power, somewhere will be well aware of.
If those men who have been trapped by the Child Tax racket simply stated that they had made a terrible mistake, and that they urged all men to not marry and have no kids, the obvious sincerity, selflessness and humility of such a statement would not be lost on all young men who might hear them. Obviously, the more often such men said such things and said it publicly, the more single, untrapped men will hear them.
It must already be apparent that for every dollar Child Tax raises for the government, a certain sum is correspondingly lost because other men are saying “blow this – I’m staying single, working 15 hours a week to cover my costs, and going fishing with all that spare time” (I did, and the amount of difference in tax I pay now compared to what I paid back when I was a blue-pill taking, full-time career minded, believer in marriage is many times the average child support order).
Once it becomes clear that every dollar earned by the Child Tax is actually costing several dollars elsewhere, Dunne or his successor will actually do something, because grabbing revenue is all he cares about and is answerable for. I would expect that once that small step is taken, other serious infringements on men’s fundamental right to exist will also be addressed, but I’m not holding my breath.
As with any local rugby club, church or chapter of Rotary, if I was told that as a member my views no longer mattered, I was no longer entitled to benefit from the association, that my membership fees were to be raised higher than more deserving members and that I would be expected to do more voluntary work, I would just let my membership lapse and stop showing up. Some might like the romance of a battle, but I don’t believe in stopping falling pianos by standing under them.
Comment by rc — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 8:30 am
Pheonix @ #31 says –
I have a different view.
People don’t hear what men don’t say. Period.
Therefore complaining is good.
The alternative is to be staunch silent and invisible.
Voicing one’s victimhood is also good for the same reasons plus in doing so other men listening can decide whether they are in the same circumstances. There’s a term for this – consciousness raising – a vital step before political action.
At the moment I see a mix of both consciousness raising and political action taking place. Of course both need not be seen as mutually exclusive of each other either.
Here’s my favorite quote of the day from the website The Spearhead which I read regularly and you may have guessed is one of my favorites –
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 2:02 pm
“I don’t believe in stopping falling pianos by standing under them.”
“When women scream, most men run to the rescue, and when men succeed in activism, women scream.”
I don’t know which one of these quotes is a better description of our circumstances. They’re both pretty accurate.
Problem with being in the US is that it’s hard to go expat or MGTOW because it is illegal. Passport and driver license suspended and no way to get an income. And it’s going to get harder. I was homeless in my 20’s. I could do it back then. At forty-three it’s much harder. I don’t know which is worse: falling pianos or women screaming.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 2:31 pm
.
Wow Skeptic, now you really DO sound like a feminist. All you need to do is put “wo” in front of every mention of “men” in your post and you could put it on a feminist website.
.
Then again, MRAs, like the feminists, seem to be just as attached to their sense of victimhood.
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 3:49 pm
To quote your own quote Skeptik.
.
Yep. So how about doing what DOES work?
.
Hang on, that would mean taking responsibility and huge action. Two things that are unlikely to happen. Odd isn’t it that men will die in traditional wars by the tens of millions, but can’t seem to “fight” against something as airheaded as feminism.
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 3:55 pm
Pheonix,
So you reckon I sound like a feminist.
OK I have no problem with that.
The difference between my claims and feminist claims are vast and clear though – the claims the feminists make are far too often false.
Besides which I sound like someone using logic – a distinctly male trait.
For as I said in my last post the opposite of not speaking out, naming oppression and victimhood is silence and being invisible. In hindsight I’ll add further victimhood.
It’s that simple.
I don’t think you or anyone else can really refute these facts.
I don’t think you’ve quite yet fully grasped the concepts of ghosting and Men going their own way.
If you had you’d already recognize that millions of men world wide are already taking action as MRAs.
They may not identify with the name Men’s Rights Activist but they are all the same.
Just listen to this show which is reflective of what’s happening in just three countries – Japan, USA and Germany and you may get a clearer sense of what is going on.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 5:48 pm
Phoenix,
Fighting the system in any traditional way – organising, lobbying, protesting etc. – will not work. The system was captured by our enemies long ago. However the laws may be written, they will be ignored, misinterpreted or stretched in any contest that pits a man’s interest against women’s. As a man, you are now in the same position as a black in apartheid South Africa or pre-Civil Rights America. If your woman kills you and mutters the magic words ‘he made me afraid’ in court, she will walk free – just like the Afrikaner farmer who beat his black labourer to death, of the respectable menfolk of the South who dragged uppity black men down the highway, tied to the back of their pick-up trucks. When you can be murdered so easily with no popular outcry for justice, you can be sure that you will be easily taken care of if you start to make any trouble. Men’s biggest problem at the moment is that they do not know how thoroughly they have been marginalised, and even when told the plain facts – which they can easily verify for themselves – they will prefer not to believe, or dismiss as irrelevant. Hans Laven has posted article after article categorising the full extent of how you as a man do not count.
Ultimately, the only way to win is to survive. This too shall pass. Eventually, the system of tomorrow will have chosen a new ‘in’ group and a new ‘out’ group, same as it always has. The most you can do effectively is to face facts and apply subtle pressure so that whatever you do has a chance of shaping the future without fertilising the soil with your youthful bones.
Comment by rc — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 5:57 pm
Pheonix,
after you’ve done listening to the show, here’s something else that may lift your spirits and help you recognize that there’s a lot of MRA activity happening.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 5:59 pm
So what you are saying is that endless complaining is actually something that will stop you from being a victim?
.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the world at large doesn’t care how much you complain, it really doesn’t care. The only way you will cease to be a victim is by taking action. Action of course that produces a result, because, bottom line, all the world cares about is the results you produce. ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE A RESULT IS A WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT. The course of action is simple, take action, see if what you are doing is working (and giving you the result you want), if it is keep doing it, if it isn’t try something else. It’s not exactly complicated.
.
Perhaps you should actually try taking a RED PILL and wake up to how the world really works.
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 7:32 pm
Pheonix,
you say –
I don’t think it’s that simple.
It’s a case of complaining (which raises awareness in other men (and those women who care about them) AND taking action – game to devalue female sexuality to a more appropriate level and MGTOW.
Did you actually listen to the Voice for men radio show to discover what’s happening in USA, Japan and Germany? All of it including those who called into the show?
If you did then I can’t understand why you are so morose about what you call lack of action on the part of MRAs.
No sense in popping off at me as though I don’t take the red pill either.
I understand you feel frustrated.
I’m simply trying to steer you towards some BIG news about MRAs in action which I personally find very encouraging. I therefore don’t share your morose feeling of powerlessness. Far from it.
Hell, even Daryll X found it encouraging and I think he’ll forgive me for saying so, he’s in USA, the biggest cesspool of feminism on the planet!
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 13th October 2011 @ 11:32 pm
Skeptic..
You seem to be of the illusion that MGTOW being done on a large scale is a result of the action of the MRAs. It isn’t.
.
You also seem to be of the illusion that I am not in support of it. In fact I am.
.
MGTOW is a natural reaction on the part of men worldwide, but it is not a strategy instituted by MRAs. It may be supported by them and promoted by them, but it has happened largely independent and in spite of them.
.
Which is exactly the point I have been getting at. The MRAs are too bogged down with victimhood to be empowered to make a difference.
.
The MRAs have been singularly ineffective in instituting any changes whatsoever (in New Zealand). In America they have achieved small amounts of progress in the way of law changes, but he process has been very slow (but at least they are actually doing something that achieves results, unlike here).
.
MGTOW on the other hand, is largely happening in spite of the inaction of the MRAs. I think it’s fair to say that most of the 60-70% of males in Japan have probably never even heard of the Men’s Rights Movement (most people haven’t). But they responded anyway. MGTOW was an inevitable response to the way men have been treated. In essence it is simply a decision made by men to stop enabling the dysfunctional behaviour of women and government.
.
As for feeling powerless. Unlike yourself I am not a victim, nor will I allow myself to descend into the same delusional territory as the feminists who wallow in their perpetual victimhood. Yes we face attacks on our rights, but that has happened constantly throughout history. Those who fight to defend their rights as a group get to keep them. Those who don’t have them taken away. So given this, if men don’t have their rights anymore, what does this say about their willingness to fight for them?
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 12:31 am
Bruce T. Stop being so cynical. The purpose of Government is to maintain society by creating law. It is the type of law that has been and is being created such as this child support act that has brought about this site. While the site’s contents might amuse some people it helps many others understand. Lobbying as you put it isn’t the only way to create change; in fact it is wasted words on deaf ears in this country. You only need to look at the younger generation of men in New Zealand around us to know that they are well aware that both government and women in this country are a dysfunctional waste of time and absorbed in their own self importance. They have got it sorted, if they are not leaving the country they are not bothering with women. Yes that is a bit sad, but it will take the same age of women to come to the realisation that they have nothing but a perceived sense of security which is rapidly crumbling around them. The fact that women succeeded by continual bitching – lobbying doesn’t mean men can or should do the same thing. A new generation has new ideas and they have better things to do with their time than doing things the way we did. It will take a social understanding that this law is the catalyst for social deterioration, and that is more likely to come from people reading this site than lobbying.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 7:34 am
Ok Phoenix (#42), let me get this clear. You are suggesting that it would be more effective for 10,000 men to march on parliament, or 20,000 letters written to the Human Rights Commission, or a nationwide strike against so-called ‘child support’ by all men currently paying it. I wouldn’t disagree with you and when large numbers of men combine to take such actions I may well join them. But your position goes on to claim that unless such large-scale mass actions occur, individual actions such as letter-writing, clarifying philosophical positions and raising public awareness are a total waste of time. In fact, you deride and insult those who are putting in their time and effort currently. A little honest thought and you must acknowledge the irrationality of your position: if you want to see 10,000 people writing letters you’re not going to get any closer to that by criticising and discouraging the first few such letter writers.
The fact is that we currently do not have thousands of men aware enough or ready to take mass protest action. I participated in a men’s protest outside parliament where we set up a ‘Ministry of Men’s Affairs’ and marched through Wellington streets calling for action regarding male suicide. Quite a few supporters indicated they would attend, but on the day we had a turnout of perhaps 20 people, unable to make much impact or to attract media attention. So what? We did it. Were you there?
The men’s movement is at an early stage, and activities appropriate to that stage are still required. Most movements operate that way. Suffragettes achieved the vote in many democratic countries but it took many more decades before feminists were able to raise enough awareness, voices and political pressure to achieve change to most other sexist laws and attitudes. Those objecting to dictatorships in Middle Eastern countries have spent decades participating in discussion among small numbers, writing letters and attempting to use available avenues of complaint and appeal, before their cause eventually picked up pace and spread to enough people to get mass protests. Even then, such protests won’t always achieve much because some governments are happy to shoot the protesters into submission. The few brave souls currently working in our early men’s movement have been doing so at signficant risk to their safety and freedoms, and at cost to their careers, because the feminist regime will target them and work against them. The NZ government may not be so quick to shoot us (though will eventually you can be sure), but are already using skullduggery against us such as breaking into our homes to install secret cameras to invade our privacy and record us having sex.
It seems that you, Phoenix, have decided to vent your frustration about men’s situation and slow progress of the men’s movement by attacking and disrespecting your fellow fighters. This is not uncommon in movements but it is very destructive to any movement. The feminists laugh and rejoice when they see this happening in the men’s movement. You blame, insult and ridicule those few who are prepared to donate their time and energy to activities that are currently realistic simply because thousands of others have not yet joined them. How about working together with those who generally share your views of men’s issues? How about offering appreciation and encouragement to others’ efforts albeit imperfect? How about suggesting/organising further activities yourself rather than complaining that others are not doing it the way you prefer? Those actions would be useful and appreciated.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 8:35 am
Hans’s if men are not aware of the situation, whose responsibility is that? There are in fact TENS OF MILLIONS of shafted men out there, most of them have never even HEARD of the men’s rights movement. This gets back to men and the MRAs being singularly ineffective due to a total lack of action.
.
You want to raise public awareness? Then go do it.
.
As I have stated over and over. Men need to grow some balls and relearn how to take action, they also seriously need to take responsibility for the part they played in society getting to where it is now.
.
As for the few people who actually ARE active. I congratulate them. But the fact that they don’t get any backing from the rest of the “male” population should speak for itself.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 10:07 am
Hans,
Thanks for your comments to Pheonix.
Pheonix,
I appreciate your frustration with men’s situation in NZ.
However I disagree with the idea that Mens Rights Activists have been ineffective.
I think you need to understand a few things in order to grasp that.
First off I’ve visited Japan and met young Japanese men several times in the last decade.
I’ve also met young Japanese guys in other parts of the world.
We’ve had some pretty in depth conversations whereby we reviewed the current situation of men vis a vis our countries respective misandric laws and vis a vis the women in our respective countries.
Several times the ‘lights have come on’ for those Japanese guys.
To give one example – a rich young guy expected to return from studying in Australia (where I met him) to run the family hotel back in Japan realized doing so would just mean propping up more misandric corruption. He dropped out and went ‘off the grid’ – what could be called MGTOW.
Now multiply that process many times over as Japanese men don’t live in a social vacuum – many have contact with guys from USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, UK, Germany etc. Many are mutilingual and read the internet in English.
It’s not difficult for me to see therefore that an international discussion is taking place.
That many of these men haven’t heard the term Men’s Rights Activism is a moot point as far as I’m concerned too.
Like I said previously the fact is they get it.
It’s like many women wouldn’t identify as feminists but their attitudes are feminist.
Trying to shame men by telling them to ‘grow some balls’ won’t work IMO.
It’s ironic to see such exhortations being issued too – as Japanese men are being admired for their courage in taking their stand of rejecting being in harness.
Likewise can be said of German men who I understand are currently instituting a massive marriage strike – many are quietly or not so quietly swearing off women altogether whilst others look eastward to find women who aren’t full of feminist entitlement attitude like their German sisters.
Did you actually listen to the MGTOW A Voice for Men radio show podcast I keep linking to?
If you had you too would have been the recipient of some Men’s Rights Activism – mine.
We’re in a new place.
Thousands hitting the streets in protest is only one way to go.
There are other options available today though – namely the internet and other forms of digital transfer of information.
Please get back to us with your ideas for further activism.
I’m all ears for that.
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 10:55 am
Skeptic
I’ve already said everything I am going too. It is clear to me that the MRAs are just as unable to listen, and take responsibility as women are out there. But even worse than women they are completely incapacitated in taking action.
.
There is little point continuing discourse that falls on deaf ears and to do so would be a waste of time and effort.
.
It is probably a complete blessing that the future of men, manhood and men’s rights does not lay in the hands of the MRAs, if it did, nothing would ever change. There is an old saying: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.” The MRAs are clearly NOT part of the solution, that makes them part of the problem, simply because they are perpetuating the same myths of feminism, with an altered emphasis on gender.
.
Can we seriously expect the public not to see straight through this? If we are going to turn around and say that women are not victims, then the public reaction is going to be that men are not either. Both in fact are true, neither gender is a victim. Women gained their “rights” because they fought for them, men lost them because they didn’t. Simply cause and consequence, and the same principle that is evident repeatedly via a study of history. If men want their rights back, they will have to fight for them. Some of them already are, most of those are NOT MRAs.
.
I will end by saying good luck to all those MRAs who continue to wallow in self-pity and victimhood (in an identical manner to their feminist sisters), the world is changing, and you are not the ones responsible for it.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Pheonix,
Clearly you hadn’t said everything you were going to.
Indeed I see you going at at considerable length trying to defend your position of shaming men into action.
I think your reaction is full of irony – given the fact that globally increasing Men’s Rights Activism is taking place.
I see nothing in your reply that indicates the tremendously exciting news about the effectiveness of international Men’s Rights Activism which I’ve linked repeatedly to has sunken in.
Nor that you want it to sink in!
Most ironic of all is you say –
Too bad that the idea that increasing numbers of folks ARE Men’s Rights Activists and that whether they recognize it and identify as such or not is a moot point.
But there it is.
I’d prefer you rethink and desist from slagging off the tremendous efforts of so many good people.
But if you persist then I have enough faith in folks to see through it and recognize your spoiling efforts for what they are.
I leave the link again for those who are interested and open-minded to the message.
A voice for men radio.
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 14th October 2011 @ 9:56 pm
I think Phoenix misunderstands the basis of some areas of MRA reasoning. It’s not a victim mentality but indignation and exposure concerning feminist hypocrisy. For example, I am not saying “Poor men, look how they are victims of serious injury and death in their work roles, something must be done”. No, I am saying “Men are proud to do the most dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable, body-wrecking jobs in their society, but I resent the fact that their contribution is taken for granted and instead of gratitude they hear only complaints and jealousy for earning a bit more in their roles”. I am not saying “Men are hard done by because they get punished much more harshly than women do for the same offences”, but I am saying “Feminists have called for harsher punishments and men now insist that women are subject to the same rules and consequences”. And I am not saying “Men are being attacked in domestic violence and need the state to protect and compensate them as victims”, but I am saying “Feminists have turned anti-violence into an absolutist religion that puts partners into boxes either as abusers or victims regardless of the true circumstances and allows for no understanding to be shown to those defined as abusers, so now men will insist that women live by those same rules too”. And I am saying “Men actually don’t feel particularly threatened or victimized by jokes about the male gender, but since feminists have defined gender jokes as evil sexism, men will insist that women live by the same rules they have called for”. We can predict that as women find themselves subject to their own rules they will start to complain at the unfairness of those rules, and sensible change will eventually result.
However, I will admit that concerning so-called ‘child support’ men ARE victims, exploited and impoverished, having their provision as fathers hidden from their children because it is channeled through mothers, and forced to pay ongoing towards the lifestyle of women who have betrayed them yet are relieved of any reciprocal obligation. Equally, the children are also victims because their concepts, appreciation and bonding regarding their fathers are degraded.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 15th October 2011 @ 12:16 am
Pheonix,
One other thing.
I have never said I am a victim – far from it.
If I was a victim I wouldn’t be putting in thousands of hours empathizing, educating and encouraging men to either move beyond victimhood or advise them on how to prevent themselves falling into such a state.
Instead I’d be silenced, marginalized and invisible.
That’s obviously not what is happening.
I have moved beyond that a long time ago since I first began denouncing feminism and it’s enablers many years ago now.
I didn’t have a name for it all those years ago, but looking back now I see that I started to become a MGTOW and MRA about ten years ago as I looked for ways to remove myself from feminist spheres of influence for example avoid paying taxes which ultimately fund feminist governance – starving the beast we call it these days.
So I can easily identify with those millions of men who do likewise without having a convenient label for who they are and what Men’s Rights action they are taking just like the Japanese ‘grasseaters’.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 15th October 2011 @ 3:50 am
The way we portray things is important. In respect of child support I often see a statement along the lines that child support impoverishes men. If you look at this from a money point of view poverty is not the issue that is a social problem. The way this should be expressed is that growing numbers of men are unable to retain capital or create wealth. Capital is in the hands of a decreasing number of women (they haven’t woken up to this yet – every man only bleeds for so long), increasingly larger businesses and less and less small business, and government. Coming back to the legislation mentioned above, have a look at the one of the subtle changes. The reduction of the age for financial liability for a child has been reduced to from 19 years to the age of 18 years, legally an adult – however look how this links to the education act and the definition of a school. This actually lifts the age of financial liability to 24 years. A student is financially an adult at age 24 when they are no longer means tested on parents’ income.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 15th October 2011 @ 10:03 am
I think you all miss the point of this post, and have [yet again] all got caught up in slagging each other off, and promoting youselves shamelessly, each in your all-consuming self belief that each of you are right, to the complete preclusion and exclusion of anyone else with whom you might have a beef.
This thead is meant to be about What my nemisis Mr Dunne has dunne, or not dunne, or undunne. A regular who-dunne-it.
The biggest issue with the entire MRA is that men bicker amongst themselves, and fail to galvanise into a concerted force. That is where WRA succeded.
Look at the whole pink-bibbon stuff yesterday. Coordinated effort. Advertaiseing, fund raising, pink-saturation.
MRA, on the other hand, can’t organise themselves out of a wet-paper-bag.
Oh sure, Skeptic, you’re right. No one else is.
So are you Phoenix. You alone.
And you Han (and no one else)
And you, Allan Harvey.
And every one else.
Only no one is listening.
Sorry, flag the ‘successes’ you each cite, from far off countries and situations. They all count for diddly-squat.
Down on the street, I meet men going down the same road as each of us walked before, and not one of them has any idea of MRA; not one of then has the resourcing that WR’s provide to their own. Each one of them believes they’re facing their battles … alone.
So each of you push your barrows to your heart’s content, coz no-one’s listening!
As for Mr Dunne?
Well he’s been a glorious fence-sitter for Gos knows how many terms in politics, so IU guess I really don’t believe he’s going to suddenly discover the one thing that will gavanlise most men through out this country, in the next few weeks. It’s well established that politicians will say whatever it takes to get them re-elected.
Comment by Peter UnDunne — Sat 15th October 2011 @ 11:17 am
Peter UnDunne,
Oh the irony of you writing this! –
Crikey! Ever heard of the psychological term projection?
The irony is reading this you are actually looking at precisely the result of organized effort – this website!
One of the great things I like about about MENZ is that a wide variety of uncensored views are expressed.
There is vigorous debate about men’s issues. Hat off to John Potter for that – he doesn’t ‘moderate’ the site to death!
Posters obviously don’t always agree, and then occasionally someone comes along like you with the shaming attitude of “The biggest issue with the entire MRM is that men bicker amongst themselves”.
I think you miss an important point here – The process of creating consensus and concerted group effort is going to be one of argument and counter argument, distilling, refining, synthesizing, reaching out, testing new ideas – but, and here’s the nub – the goals I see many of having are the same – Men getting Human Rights.
As much as I disagree with the actions some guys here advocate I get that they are aiming for the same target and that gives me hope and encouragement.
As for no-one listening – that’s a totally daft idea.
I’ll believe that idea when I accept as fact that you have X ray vision and instant eavesdropping access to the many folks who read posts put up here at MENZ – LMAO!
For the record I agree with your comments about Dunne being a fence sitting.
I think he’s simply a vote whore.
I expect he’s dunne the numbers and for him to be batting for his largest demographic voting block – women.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 15th October 2011 @ 2:57 pm
And how long is that meant to take?
As far as i can determine, this website, in all it’s forms, (i.e COSA) has been around for up to 17 years!
Comment by Peter UnDunne — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 7:30 am
Peter UnDunne (#66): I really don’t understand why people come to a political discussion site to slag off other contributors, unless they are trolls intent on discouraging and wrecking the movement. You sir/madam are slagging other people off. Your post includes individual attacks on named contributors, and the claims you make about those contributors make little sense. Why would you allege that those various posters think they alone are right? People debate and put their own views forward, and those views often change to some degree through the process.
If you or anyone else launches attacks that deserve to be challenged, then I may well challenge those attacks. If you or anyone else indulges in movement-wrecking behaviour through discouraging, demeaning and criticizing others, then I may well expose their wrecking behaviour for what it is. I realise that this all becomes a distraction from the post’s topic, but I see that as primarily the responsibility of those who first saw fit to depart from the topic in order to attack others.
If you are not a feminist troll, then I might understand your frustration at the slow traction of the men’s movement, but I don’t think it’s useful to direct your frustration against others who are doing what they feel able to do. What do you hope to achieve by it? Instead of criticizing others for not doing things you think would be better to do, why don’t you just go and do those things yourself? Others may well follow your lead.
I am getting tired of all this waste of time responding to those who run down other posters. But someone has to challenge stupid attacks and point out the destructiveness of such behaviour.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 9:08 am
3yrs of CS to go and then its all over for me..no more being held to ransom all in the name of my kids..funny that..tell men to be rsponsible for their offspring then make it so damn hard its impossible for some..f#@k IRD and all the family court systems..
Comment by Ford — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 9:28 am
i dont have any debt with the IRD..all up to date yet when i diagree with a FEMALE case worker i get a letter in the mail telling me im $1000 in debt..i took that to the parliamentary office in town and they sorted it..there was no debt..just some bitch playing games
Comment by Ford — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 10:31 am
Hans @ #69.
Bingo brother.
Ford @70 & 71,
Hang in there mate.
Well done standing up to the IRD.
Did you make an official complaint against the case worker?
Three years is quite a long time to be paying child ransom money.
But I’m glad you can see light at the end of the tunnel.
Trust me, as someone who has dunne the whole femily caught – Insane Revenue Destruction system you will feel free like never before to put the extra energy and funds you then have into advocating for Men’s Rights even more potently, and into treating yourself for having come through a form of hell.
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 2:10 pm
Comments being made about grass eating men. The idea was invented by Maki Fukasawa, a female columnist in Japan.
Beware of women who try to define the male condition. It could be like Celia Lashlie in NZ, who seems to have established herself as an oracle on men. Lashlie is in fact a radical feminist. I’m not sure about Maki Fukasawa.
Comment by bruce.tichbon — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 3:13 pm
Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that a female journalist would come up with such a disparaging, one-dimensional term to describe men. It’s what they do.
“Men Going Their Own Way”, on the other hand, was coined by a man, and tells it like it is without the wagging finger.
Comment by rc — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 4:48 pm
Bruce T and rc,
Points well made.
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but what you’re saying makes sense.
See Pheonix,
That’s how it’s done.
No drama. Just a well reasoned/reasonable discussion.
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 6:44 pm
Yup, always beware of women who define men. I wouldn’t presume to define women, just describe or understand them. Wanting to or believing you can define (or redefine) something that is independent of you and over which you have (or should have) no control is malignant narcsissism. That being written, there are some great women who have defined women and their relationship to men for the better. There aren’t many. Phyllis Schlafly is one.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 11:56 pm
@Allan – “Children were supported just fine by their fathers before the advent of child support and government intervention.” I’ve had to alter this post a number of times to finally get it on here. Sorry, don’t now what happened.
My evidence is from the US but I’m sure it’s applicable to NZ too to a great degree. The sources are the US Dept of the Census, the US Dept of Public Health and Human Services and its Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA – headed by the notorious Cynthia Brown, whose antics spawned the Save The Turnips! Facebook campaign), Center for Disease Control, and the Heritage Foundation (among others). At the CSEA (on the web), tables are available which show how many are paying broken down by sex and race and age and income (needless to say, income is the greatest variable influencing compliance with orders for child support). Another great resource is The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments by William Comanor (with some great chapters written, in part, by Sanford Braver) which identifies the incidence of compliance and variable influencing it. A good but not the best reference on the web is at http://fathersforlife.org/famlaw/usbankruptcy.htm#Access. Oft cited references on this website are by Braver and O’Connell. Like I’ve written before, Sanford Braver has done the most work concerning compliance with child support.
But before even consulting any articles by Braver, contrast marriage and support of children before and after 1970. For forty years prior to the advent of child support and no-fault divorce and other feminist laws, around 1970, almost no children were born out of wedlock, children with unknown paternity were almost unheard of (except for rare instances of paternity fraud), approximately 67-70% of the adult population was married (once), the incidence of divorce was less than seven percent of the married population, and in rare instances of divorce, most were only after the children graduated to adulthood. You can consult the Dept of the Census for these data and the Heritage Foundation. Google them.
So almost no children grew up without both parents (except during the wars where some fathers were away for five years or so or died) prior to 1970 – almost all fathers supported their children the best they could without interference by the gov’t, assuming that most children in intact families were supported by their fathers, and I think that is a good assumption. Even the poorest fathers did the best they could and being poor was not a reason for jailing a father then or punishing him for inability to support his children at expectations of the gov’t. Poverty among intact families was low – less than ten percent. It’s hard to compare families today and then concerning poverty but not impossible.
During the past few years (2007-2011), incidence of children with unknown paternity approximates 25%. Yes, that’s twenty-five – unbelievable, but that is based upon a survey of hospital records if I recall correctly by the Dept of Public Health and Human Services in their effort to identify excuses for increasing their budget for more child support enforcement. They found that approximately 15% of mothers didn’t even know who the fathers of their children were. A reference to that development is here http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=26&paged=2, but there is a better reference for this claim and I only found it a few months ago and I want to find it again because it’s an important development that has been reported in many places (Fathers and Families for instance). I will get and report the reference as soon as I find it (I’ve been looking). But this claim did not surprise me because it is consistent with my own observations and research of mothers who do not know who the fathers of their children are. Many studies concerning DNA analysis show that the incidence of paternity fraud during the past twenty years or so is around 10% of children. Some report as little as 6% (which is still awfully high) and some report as much as 14%, so I use an average of 10% in discussions. I have not relied upon reports of blood typing, which is a negative test and only shows conclusively when a child and father do not match. It does not consider instances when the child and a man do match but he is still not the father.
For forty years after 1970, approximately 60% of the adult population was married (once) (again, consult the Dept of the Census or the Heritage Foundation, among others). It’s important to understand that demographics of the adult population change dramatically after 1985, as my generation (1965-1985) comprises only about fifty-million adults now and the Baby-boomers comprise about 150-million give or take, so dynamics of my generation and its impact on overall statistics is eclipsed by the Baby-boomers, but the trend is still there and frightening. When comparing generations and then combining them, you need absolute numbers and not percent.
After 1970, the incidence of divorce is more than fifty percent of the married population, in most instances of divorce the children were less than ten years of age, and the average marriage is about seven years. Approximately one-third of children born between 1970 and 2008 are out of wedlock and between 2008 and 2010 two-thirds were (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty).
Concerning actual child support and fathers, which is about half of fathers after 1970, approximately 25% of fathers are unable to comply with orders (or only about one-eighth of all fathers). a reference for this number is here http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/execsum.htm but it has to be taken in context of many other reports at the US Dept of Public Health and Human Services. Fathers and Families has reported the number of 25% frequently, citing reports by the Dept, so I’ve used that figure myself. BUT the orders on average exceed cost of raising a child by two to three. So when a father is not totally in compliance, he is usually in partial compliance and enough to support the actual cost of raising a child. So the 25% only refers to the total order. When considering number not in compliance to a degree to which a child is not supported is much smaller than 25% (or one-eighth of fathers) – let’s say less than half of that or less than one-sixteenth of fathers (and even that is probably a great overestimate). But even most of them are supporting their children to some degree as best they can with the incomes they have. Almost all fathers support their children the best they can without interference by the government.Understand that most of these fathers are in poverty and/or prison if they are alive. During the past forty years, approximately 250,000 have suicided according to a link above and many other sources.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 17th October 2011 @ 12:00 am
Just realized in a reread of post #71 my numbers were out a bit!
Sorry about any confusion arising from that.
Speaking of numbers – Thank you Daryll X for your scholarly last posting.
I don’t need convincing with numbers personally as I’ve seen in my own lifetime the great rise in divorce and fatherlessness from about the 1970s onwards.
I moved a lot as a kid living in different provinces and countries so encountered many thousands of kids, none of them without a father in the house.
Then came government interference into the family in the form of ‘no fault’ divorce and child tax.
The rest as we may say in the Men’s Rights Movement is his story.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 19th October 2011 @ 12:51 am
interesting reading as this is a very emotive issue that is 9 months in the making for me and another 13 years to look forward to. I have a ex wife who lives on a 4000 acre farm, fully found for power, food and fuel yet has contacted IRD who now decree that I pay $1000/month where the “lover” is also co-habitating and in effect I am feeding him also LOL. Correct me if I am wrong….but the proposed changes announced by the fork tongued lizard Dunne “seems” to at least provide a balanced assessment that is an improvement of the poor souls who have been well and truly shafted? I am looking to get better access to allow me to have 50-50 access, interested to hear the best manner to approach that – I want to use a graduated response before going to the FC. So going back to the original thread posted, some informed comment on Dunne Deal in laymans would be appreaciated too.
Comment by Enuf is Enuf — Mon 31st October 2011 @ 10:54 pm
I pay child support to an ex partner and im about to have another but my payments only drop by $30. Can I get my new partner to claim childsupport of me even tho we are living together so that we get half of whats payed to the ex?
Comment by huh — Wed 2nd November 2011 @ 10:55 am
#80..what you need to have is shared care..40% of the time which equals 3 nights per week..but watch the tossers..being male they will count your time down to the minute as with females they count it by the night.and its not based on anything but where the children sleep..i.e..nights where they sleep not what or where they are during the day..and when you drop them off at school they are deemed to be in your care till they get to the other parent after school…but being male you may find they have differing rules for that as well
Comment by Ford — Wed 2nd November 2011 @ 11:37 am
#80..p.s..shared care will should drop your payments to the minimum..but very important when you get shared care..make sure you apply for child support off her as well
Comment by Ford — Wed 2nd November 2011 @ 11:39 am
#72.ive been around my kids and have had various custody arrangements and have had more custody and the bigger portions than the x has ever had and will never have yet ive paid c/s since day 1 so that tells me its about the govt making money..ive always paid regardless of the majortiy of care ive had..including full custody ive still paid
Comment by Ford — Wed 2nd November 2011 @ 11:49 am
i have shared care but my payments are still 100, was thinking if my new partner could claim child support as well and the rd would have to half the amount equal between the 2
Comment by huh — Wed 2nd November 2011 @ 2:23 pm
have you applied for child support yourself?
Comment by Ford — Wed 2nd November 2011 @ 3:02 pm
yip i have applied for child support. $17 is all i get
Comment by huh — Thu 3rd November 2011 @ 7:04 am
i dont know why you paying 100 a week for then.i only ever paid the minimum..mind you the wankers wanted me to pay $60 a week once out of my unemployment benefit at that time was about half of the dole..its prob cos females process your paperwork and make personal decisions as to want men should pay/recieve..try your local parliament member/politican..i do when i want things done and not getting any joy
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd November 2011 @ 7:10 am
I reckon Ford.
One thing I learnt is that if you need to get information from IRD or Femily caught, cypfs (shudder)or the police etc get a sister, cousin, your mum, girl friend, hell anyone really even a complete stranger so long as they’re female, to go in your stead. Then the minions on the front desk or counter (predominantly female) cant bend over far enough to be helpful.
My personal opinion is that some of the people I came into contact here were deliberately obstructive. If Im generous I would allow that some were just incompetant.
Get a female to go in and put up the story, have her couch it in terms that the minion dealing with her thinks she is the accused and wait for them to provide the correct forms, give her the advice you need on what to file and when, tips to assist her. Sympathy at the poor dear being subjected to such brutality, its all there.
Go in yourself and lay out the same scenario and behold the vacant stare, the terse communication, condesending attitude, and the only advice, “get a lawyer”
Dont take these fools seriously.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Thu 3rd November 2011 @ 9:42 am
3 yrs ago i got custody by consent of 1 of my daughters as she laid an official complaint against her stepfather..i went to apply for the dpb with all the right paperwork and was constantly pushed to go on the single unemployment even tho i was legally entitled to the dpb.winz didnt want a bar of it so off to the local politican..i got what i wanted..also was told i didnt pay enough in rent to qualify for accomodation allowance..3 yes later i found out i was entitled and got $3500 back pay..women run these places and make the decisions.arseholes they are
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd November 2011 @ 1:38 pm
I read this article at Fathers and Families by Robert Franklin about roll back of laws concerning rights of children to their fathers in Australia and thought everyone here would appreciate it. http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=21427
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 26th November 2011 @ 4:34 am
all things female its like a game of russian roulette only with 3-4 bullets in the chamber
Comment by Ford — Sat 26th November 2011 @ 7:35 am
Here is another great article at Fathers and Families about roll back of laws concerning rights of children to their fathers in Australia. This and the last article I shared on this thread shows how steep the hill is we have to climb, why any improvement in our circumstances can quickly reverse, how strong the opposition is to fatherhood, how quickly circumstances can degenerate (even in NZ – I’ve identified my primary reason for posing on this site is to show how bad things are in the US and how bad they can get in NZ, even though many think that it can’t), and why we must remain forever vigilant and not take any progress for granted. The wolf is always at the door. Freedom is something we must always fight for. Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. The only thing necessary for evil to proliferate is for a few good men to do nothing. Onward. http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=21439
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 27th November 2011 @ 3:28 am
I provide above in this thread links to a couple articles at Fathers and Families which concern denial of fathers and children access to one another in Australia. As bad as Australia is, it is nothing compared to the United States. Australia neither jails nor suspends the passports or driver licenses of fathers. My colleagues in Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere should be gravely concerned that measures implemented in the United States under its oppressive feminist regime will make their way to other countries too.
During the past forty years in the United States, tens of millions of children have been forcibly separated from tens of millions of fathers in the because states receive a dollar in federal subsidies for every dollar of excessive child support they transfer from fathers to mothers. The more child support a court orders, the more federal subsidies a state receives. Approximately half of these children never see their fathers again and the other half only see them during limited opportunities of visitation.
Orders for child support usually exceed cost of raising a child by a multiple of between two and four and what fathers should be paying, if a reasonable contribution by the mother is considered, by a multiple of between four and eight. Almost all fathers have and continue to support their children the best they can without interference by governments or mothers.
If fathers can or do pay, they are reduced to slaves and condemned to poverty often for life. When they can’t pay, innocent fathers are routinely jailed and their passports and driver licenses are suspended. Legal recourse is prohibitively expensive and seldom achieved in sexist courts.
Measures such as jailing fathers are counterproductive because they actively interfere with employment and compliance with orders and seldom result in recovery of child support. Cost to taxpayers of jailing innocent fathers wastes state and federal budgets which are already strained. Most importantly, they interfere with access of children and their fathers to one another. Denying access of children to their fathers is parental alienation, which is child abuse, and is institutionalized in family law.
False allegations of domestic violence and child abuse is one mechanism of many by which sexist courts rationalize award of custody to mothers in ninety-percent of cases. Custody is awarded to mothers in most cases not only despite evidence of a father’s innocence but often despite evidence of the mother’s guilt. Women are responsible for most false allegations but are seldom punished and fathers are usually reluctant to implicate mothers despite evidence of her guilt. Most allegations against fathers are by mothers, but most allegations against mothers are by someone other than fathers.
An overwhelming volume of scientific literature shows that women are responsible for most domestic violence and child abuse. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) encourages women to make false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse but protects them from punishment.
Furthermore, evidenced by the growing ratio between young women and men in college, excessive cost of divorce and child support discourages young men from pursuing an education or even employment, since child support is often imputed as a function of education and potential income. If the additional income that results from education and subsequent employment is going to be used to calculate excessive child support and result in poverty and/or imprisonment after divorce, which is the fate of more than fifty-percent of marriages, why pursue an education or even employment?
Many scholars estimate two-million men have been imprisoned for child support during the past forty years (approximately fifty-thousand men are imprisoned at any given time). Almost all these men are innocent of any wrong-doing. It’s not that they refuse to pay child support and are in willful contempt of an order but that they are unable to comply with it.
Even most of the small number of fathers who deliberately refuse to pay have good reason: the mothers and courts have alienated them from their children and refuse to allow them access to one another. Not that fathers should have to pay for access to their children but that is the arrangement promoted by family courts today and visitation is never enforced as aggressively and irrationally the way child support is. So, our country breaks fathers and then punishes them for being broken.
Approximately 250,000 fathers have suicided in response to loss of their families and children during the past forty years. Another 900,000 have suicided mostly for unknown reasons, but I’ll bet a significant number of those are in response to loss of their children and families too. Thomas Ball committed self-immolation on the steps of a court house in New Hampshire in 2011 because he lost access to his children. These fathers may be distraught and anxious and frantic, but they usually suffer from no chronic mental illness and are not emotionally unstable. To believe they are would be to believe that more than half of fathers in the Unites States, to whom children are denied access, are mentally ill.
They are certainly not criminals. Instead, everything they have ever had and ever will have, including their own children, have been taken away from them without sense or reason and they are denied legal recourse and the most fundamental necessities for survival and decide that their death is the only and best choice they have left for themselves and others. Their education, employment, scholar, achievements, fatherhood and manhood have been outlawed. These circumstances would challenge anyone’s sanity.
Millions more fathers have been condemned to poverty and the street. These data are not included in demographics reported by the gov’t for reasons of political expedience. However, investigation and review of available data shows that usually homeless men are ignored in gov’t data concerning poverty and gross incomes are used to calculate poverty instead of incomes after child support. Complete data and their objective analysis show that most of the population below the threshold for poverty are men and not women and children.
The Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act prevents any order for child support from ever being adjusted downward but it can be adjusted upward if a father’s income increases. Furthermore, many states charge interest on arrears. Many fathers have had to resort to criminal behavior to comply with orders, selling everything from contraband drugs to derivatives. Is it any wonder our economy is the mess it is?
Child support is CHILD TRAFFICKING and ABUSE and SLAVERY of FATHERS. When will mothers and the courts stop snatching children and holding them hostage for ransom? When will mothers and the courts stop abusing children by denying them access to their fathers? A more systemic and institutional mechanism of oppression and terror on such a vast scale as that which exists in the United States is unimaginable.
Family courts, the divorce industry, legislators, feminists and others, who profit from the forcible separation of children and their fathers, are scrambling and clawing their way over everyone else and each another to the aft of the Titanic. Even if they get there, it is still going to sink and they sunk it. The only solution to the dilemma of family law and the fascism it promotes is shared parenting combined with aggressive measures to discourage false allegations, particularly by mothers, and the Bradley Amendment and the VAWA must be repealed.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 27th November 2011 @ 6:44 am
Good piece Darryl X (#93). It seems that the US history of exploiting African-American slaves has been re-invented into enslavement of men generally. Violent enforcement of such slavery, as well as deafness to any statistics, reasoning or morality are necessary for the current system of female gender aristocracy to be paid for. We are seeing the strain on economies of countries attempting to fund female aristocracy and we will see those countries use ever-increasing violence in attempting to beat the required wealth out of productive men. However, it will be a losing battle of ever-expanding feminist entitlements and developing resistance from the male slaves.
The feminists have been carefully manipulating their societies to adopt a moral code and legal framework intended to weaken and contain men if they dare to object to their enslavement. ‘Violence’ by males as a concept has been steadily shaped into an absolute sin and the definition of this sin has been expanded to cover pretty well any way that a male might object to poor treatment. At the same time the State has progressively removed rights from the civilian population and steadily increased the intrusion, control and violence that agents of the State are allowed to use against civilian males. The State has also invented ever more convenient ways that its agents can imprison men or otherwise demoralize and disempower them, for example through making men homeless at the whim of a woman’s allegations. A propaganda war continues to influence upcoming generations to see maleness as bad, while ever-increasing numbers of children are prevented from being directly influenced by men in their upbringing or having the opportunity to experience men in any positive light. The feminist-manipulated State has been steadily preparing to quash the uprising that men will inevitably mount as they are exploited and abused to ever more intolerable levels. Unfortunately, democracy is unlikely to improve matters because women live longer than men and make up a higher proportion of the population.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 27th November 2011 @ 9:51 am
Thank you Daryl X and Hans for cogent commentary.
I think the passive resistance of MGTOW whereby men consciously decide NOT to invest their effort in supporting the feminist-chivalrist complex misandric state is starting to have a profound effect.
The smarter amongst us know that oppressing men isn’t sustainable in the long run.
Short of putting men en masse into Gulag style labor camps (certain countries have already become softer versions of these being in effect male exploitative prison states) I see no way for men’s re/productivity to be further exploited once they decide to withdraw as is starting to happen and quicken.
I agree that unfortunately, democracy is unlikely to improve matters because women live longer than men and make up a higher proportion of the population – to which politicians hungry for election will pander.
I think societies with increasing numbers of disengaged, unmotivated males are ultimately doomed.
If you haven’t done so already start formulating your escape/survival plan for the great unraveling that will inevitably occur.
Comment by The original SKEPTIC — Sun 27th November 2011 @ 4:13 pm