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

Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill (90-2) report released

Filed under: Child Support,Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — MurrayBacon @ 2:35 pm Wed 5th June 2013

Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill (90-2) (4 June 2013)

(as reported by the Justice and Electoral Committee)

You can get this document in PDF format from the ‘Downloads’ panel.


  1. The Family Court Review was addressed at the quality of outputs and the cost of operation of the Family court.

    Although in essence this would mainly involve social issues, the Committee’s focus has been on detailed legislative changes. They have avoided looking at the social issues that are the foundation for having a Family Court at all. Their report does not address the issue of how well Family Court operation parallels the legislation on which it should be based. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given the background and training of most of the members of the Committee and the extreme difficulty for them to get a window on what happens in Family Court.

    The detailed changes to legislation can be expected to be very constructive, if the Family Court follows them?

    To fully address the social issues would be a huge undertaking. Given the huge financial and social costs of social policy, this is long overdue. Many of the submissions addressed issues ranging from quality of children’s upbringing, parenting skills, training and parental suicide to the technical legal issues. The report has ignored the wider social issues, despite these being where the largest costs and opportunities lie.

    Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) will be helpful and cost saving, for the people who generally can solve their own disputes anyway. The parties who slug it out in Family Court are those like Kay Skelton, who take advantage of the perverse opportunities that the Family Court secretly makes available. This does not serve children, in any way. She was only brought into line, when her long duration abduction of Jayden made it impossible to hide from the public. Hundreds of thousands of children suffer a little each day as a result of parents responding to the perverse incentives of the Family Court.

    Public policy is about giving positive incentives to parents and to Family Court workers to behave constructively. The Government has not actively managed incentives within Family Court. These people make more money by winding up disputes and prolonging them. This does not serve children and is a dangerous perverse incentive. When a judge does not order costs or other penalty against a parent breaking court orders or who provides dishonest information, then the incentive is against the interests of the children and the parties too. Any parent of a toddler understands this principle.

    It is only by encouraging good faith negotiation that all parties will receive proper protection. The ADR providers will do this, as their incentives encourage this. However, the available recourse to the existing Family Court will hamper the ability of the ADR providers to deliver good outcomes, especially in cases where one or both parents have poor mental health or anti social behaviours. These people need strong positive incentives, an area in which this legislation offers only minor improvements.

    Providing constructive incentives for good behaviour and good faith negotiation is the single most critical aspect of Family Court success or failure.

    Murray Bacon.

    My own statement of conflict of interest:

    I have children who might one day be forced to deal with Family Court, so I have a vested interest in family disputes being solved competently and cost effectively. I have more hope that ADR can serve the public than Family Court, by allowing the public to manage ADR employment. I do not earn any income related to Family Court. I sometimes give my time to help people forced to deal with Family Court, usually fathers, but some mothers too. This costs me time and a little money.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 5th June 2013 @ 2:39 pm

  2. Its been one year since i have parenting order 35/65 split of time. I want to increase time to 50/50. Should I wait for the new regime to fall in place or proceed through the family caught. Am confused. My ex will never agree to 50/50 so will have to fight it out.

    Comment by Kumar — Wed 5th June 2013 @ 5:02 pm

  3. It might take a year to get back into a hearing anyway so apply now. Your children deserve to be able to spend more time with you.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 5th June 2013 @ 9:27 pm

  4. A year to get a hearing! Jeese that’s beyond pathetic performance. That’s outrageous inefficiency and socially irresponsible. Shame on NZ.

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 2:26 am

  5. That may be the case Skeptic but it isn’t always tha case. One of Judge Boshier’s reforms the EIP process does allow matters to be at a hearing within as short of 4 weeks. However a major game for legal workers is to use delay as a tactic as it benefits their client and waiting a year for hearing is comon and I suppose on average it takes 4-7 months to get through the various steps for “early” resolution of matters.
    In defense of the system I would say that it is almost always better when parents can come to an agreement before hearing and with the time it takes to get to a hearing there is plenty of opportunity for that.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 8:48 am

  6. You’re right, it isn’t always the case, it took me over 1 and a half years just to get a mediation date!

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 9:03 am

  7. Thanks Allan, Skeptic,Scott…this is the custody of “protected children”. Would you recommend self representation of hire a lawyer (as i did last time). Any suggestions, recommendations please?

    Comment by Kumar — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 10:33 am

  8. I would suggest giving up. Don’t waste your time, money and emotional energy. Doubt that is what you want to hear, but it’s my honest answer. Oh and never think, well it can’t get any worse, cause it can and usually does.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 11:17 am

  9. So would it be a big challenge to increase days from 5/14 to 7/14 and 50/50 split of holidays? I hope I dont have get me kids to pass through another trauma of psychologist report etc…!!

    Comment by Kumar — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 11:40 am

  10. If your ex isn’t willing then yes it will be.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 11:42 am

  11. yep I agree with Scott B
    Cynical I know but when the new thresholds for child tax come in I bet guys just below the existing threshold of 40% will immediatley find their access restricted to just under 28%. Mummies arn’t about to give up their slice of the pie. Strange that all the so called experts in the industry can’t see that one about to happen, or are they just turning a blind eye?
    I have heard of some successful cases through the femily caught where guys have got access increased but at what cost, not just financially but also to their physical and emotional wellbeing. I would say the cost is too high. If you can work it out with the ex outside of femily caught go for it but the option of the legal begals actually assisting in my mind is a myth perpetuated to feed the industry that has grown up around marriage/relationship break ups. Occasionally throw out a winner to keep everyone else hopeful of success. I imagine its just like lotto, We all want to win and we see of people winning but a successful legal challenge through femily caught, I’d say the odds are even higher than lotto
    But all the best to you

    Comment by Mits — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 1:31 pm

  12. Hey Kumar-i agree with the other contributors. It will rark up a whole lot of ill feeling and you will spend a fortune to end up with the status quo. The courts would want to see an absolutely compelling reason for change and you will wait a year plus to get there. I used to read advice like that given above and it used to infuriate me but alas, they are right.

    Comment by shafted — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 1:59 pm

  13. I’m still an advocate for self representation as long as you can be well supported through the process. That helps retain sanity and bank balance at same time.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 7:25 pm

  14. Yes, Allan’s advice is wise. Self-representation can work well especially if you can write ok. Get advice from Union of Fathers or McKenzie Friends, and/or another good option is to buy 30 minutes of a lawyer’s time as a separate consultant every now and then to help guide your responses. If the other party is on legal aid their lawyer may start with a gusto but will often become a whole lot more reasonable and compromizing as the time required to respond to your affidavits, letters etc exceeds what legal aid provided for.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 9:44 pm

  15. I disagree Alan, all you will be doing in my opinion is giving false hope. To go through the system is to say that you have faith in it. Which no-one should.

    Comment by Scott B — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 7:32 am

  16. Scott and others, I accept that many get hurt by the process. I wonder how large your case history is upon which you draw your conclusions. It isn’t reasonable to make comments such as “no-one should” based on a few cases.
    I totally accept that we deal with some cases that have poor or even disastrous results. However most cases, although lengthy and almost always frustrating, do reach a result which was planned and known to members as they started the process.

    That is what good guidance and support from someone with experience offers you. To allow you to have information at the beginning of the process so you have a realistic appraisal of what will be involved, how long it can take, what the outcomes might be.
    With that as a starting point there is usually no false hope and quite a few do decide that the process isn’t for them and they back off early. That’s fine their choice but I often feel that their children miss out on what might have been.

    Unfortunately many enter the Court process gun ho and believing self-representation is easy and can be done alone and with the emotional baggage dealing with our own cases brings. It isn’t easy and you need support that is prepared to tell you when you are damaging your own case and how to present yourself in a better light to the system. Just like the admin review process it is hard once people have fired off angry letters or affidavits and revealed matters that have damaged their own case. Getting the right support early is essential to survive the process intact.

    I’m more than happy to speak to people by phone or e-mail if they wish more information.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 8:47 am

  17. Nope I disagree again. The family court is corrupt and violent towards families and worst of all children. To enter into the court is to say, you are ok with that. Why do you think this site exists?

    Comment by Scott B — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 9:03 am

  18. You can have all the advice and experience in the world and it won’t matter in the corrupt family court.

    Comment by Scott B — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 9:10 am

  19. Hi Scott,
    This site exists to provide men and others a voice. It evolved from a newsletter and UoF and North Shore Men’s Centre being involved in supporting separated fathers involved with the Family Court. A major reason for this site’s existence is to allow people to contact supportive and non-judgemental groups for help when in crisis.

    Some chaps who used to be active on this site took your view and choose to not acknowledge the Court and to not have any contact with their children. It may be a sensible strategy for them but in my personal view the cost to their children is huge. I’m a firm believer that the best parent after separation is BOTH parents and that is why I’m active in supporting parents maintain contact with their children.

    There have been other online groups with closed membership that are exclusively involved with supporting McKenzie Friends and others supporting individuals with active cases but these chat groups have been fairly quiet of late.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 11:26 am

  20. ” I’m a firm believer that the best parent after separation is BOTH parents and that is why I’m active in supporting parents maintain contact with their children”.

    I have a more nuanced and pro-active view than that.
    – I’m a firm believer that the best parent after separation is BOTH parents too. But I also believe it should be BOTH parents in a healthy condition. However far too often I see that’s not the case. Most often I see TWO UNHEALTHY parents – one hateful(usually the Mom)parent who is abusing the child and father by issuing false accusations against the father which clog the ‘court’ and willfully create paternal alienation. And another parent who’s stressed out and unhealthy because he’s being bled dry emotionally and financially by the system.
    That’s why I’m active in supporting men to AVOID becoming fathers in the first place in New Zealand.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 3:16 pm

  21. Um thanks for the history lesson, which wasn’t needed. I get angry, yes angry at people like you who seem to suggest that I could have done more or should have spent more or kept trying to deal with people who were corrupt.

    Comment by Scott B — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 5:00 pm

  22. Maybe all of you are right!
    Taking on the FC, no matter how corrupt, is a brave, bold, and often expensive move.
    Self-representation is definitely cheaper, but takes a rational and non-angry approach.
    And strong personal support networks, be they McKenzie friends of otherwise.
    To take it on does not mean you accept or buy into the obvious gender biasedness of the FC.
    If I followed the ‘advice’ to not go the FC route, coz it means I am somehow buying in to the ‘corruption’, I would not be enjoying the company of my children today. Maybe not till they are adult; maybe never.
    I took on the FC, and achieved my aims (mostly).
    I learned in my walk, that I was not going to get anywhere against FC until I could put my anger aside.
    No matter how many prevarications and excuses my ex raised, I just set about eliminating them until one day, there was none left.
    It wasn’t cheap. It was emotionally draining, but I weathered the storm and got through.

    Conversely, to ignore it and walk away, may for some people be the right answer.Maybe they didn’t want or couldn’t cope, financially or emotionally. That’s their business.
    Maybe they spent 2-3-4 or even more years fighting.
    Maybe they endured months of supervised contact.
    Maybe they had to endure a psychologist or 2, emotionally raping your history and psychiatry.
    Maybe they had all of the above and worse!

    Maybe this site offers most help to newbies in that they can see both sides of the battles here – the successes and the failures the perseverance’s and the give-ups.
    Maybe the newbies can learn some of the shortcuts that we were never aware of.
    And then, they can make up their own minds which way to go, without being scorned or slated for their choices.

    When men turn on other men on this site, then the femmies have won!

    Comment by IWMOW — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 5:51 pm

  23. IWMOW speaks my mind.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 6:39 pm

  24. This brilliant young man speaks my mind

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 9:56 pm

  25. Fathers who continue to try to be fathers after they have been discarded by the women they had children with simply promote the fashion of family wrecking. It’s time fathers who are thrown to the wolves of child support enslavement simply leave the parental role that was treated with such contempt. Women who seek to throw their partners out and wreck their children’s family need to know that means their children will have no father from then on, full stop. This may discourage many such women from their selfish decisions. Why are we encouraging men to be doormats and matyrs to cover up the effects of feminist irresponsibility?

    Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 11:03 pm

  26. 25. your statement makes some sense but are you for real? most men that have kids do so in order to be good dads, they dont stop being your blood after divorce!. And if you decided to stop being thier dad you’d still be paying child support, you’d regret all you missed out on later in life and you’d most likely lose all your family’s support and respect form friends etc:.
    I pay because i’m forced too by bad politics but I look at it as my ex has no choice but to let me have great access to my kids or I stop paying!

    Comment by Too Tired — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 11:23 pm

  27. “Fathers who continue to try to be fathers after they have been discarded by the women (and gynocentric system) they had children with simply promote the fashion of family wrecking.”

    ” And if you decided to stop being thier dad you’d still be paying child support, you’d regret all you missed out on later in life and you’d most likely lose all your family’s support and respect form friends etc”
    As an abused and alienated father I deliberately paid as little child tax as possible.
    I have no regrets at at all about that. I refuse to model male servitude by being indentured to a model of fatherhood that is slavish to my alienated child.
    I also continue to have support from the more intelligent and compassionate members of my family. People who don’t respect my principled attitude to the matter aren’t friends, they’re ignorant and prejudiced fools in my view.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 6:27 am

  28. Great. So I am guilty of promoting the fashion of family wrecking. To prove I’m not, I should have walked away from my children.
    By paying my assessed child support, I am guilty of modelling male servitude, and being indentured to a model of fatherhood that is slavish to my children. To prove otherwise, I guess I should have given up, and punished my children by not being there for them at all.
    Yes, I can see it now. ‘children, your mother wants me out of your lives; so f***-it. I’m out of here. You can no longer see me, because your mother doesn’t want you to’

    Some men appear to have never dealt with their anger and consequently come across as extremely bitter.
    Your ex’s won! Not only did they cut you off from fatherhood, they also turned you into bitter angry men!
    I may be ignorant and prejudiced; but at least I have my children in my home; and an ex who never succeeded in wiping me out of her and her children’s lives.

    Comment by IWMOW — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 7:18 am

  29. Why wouldn’t you be angry that you can’t see your children? Why wouldn’t you be angry with false allegations? Why wouldn’t you be angry at corruption? Why wouldn’t you be angry at fighting for over a decade? Why wouldn’t you be angry at being made bankrupt? etc etc etc etc etc…

    Too right I am angry. But guess what? I have never shown that in court/mediation or even raised my voice to my ex. I have never done anything wrong and yet my children remain fatherless. Too right I am angry. Who the hell wouldn’t be? Should I just roll over and smile and say “Yes please sir, I’ll have another whipping!”? No way when my kids are involved. You hurt my kids and I am angry. The FC/lawyers/judges/police/cyfs/government have A LOT to answer for and yes I am angry at all of them more than the ex, because they allow and encourage it.

    Grow up and realise that we have a RIGHT to be angry.

    Comment by Scott B — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 10:59 am

  30. Scott and others,
    Anger can be a very necessary emotion and we all have it to varying extents. It is however twisted to be labelled as a male problem and it’s excesses can be destructive and unhelpful.
    Another emotion that some men suffer through this process is shame. That in my mind is an even more destructive emotion and many in the system seek to label us with that. Unfortunately their labeling, or our response to their actions, can cause reaction and angry responses and that sets a destructive downward spiral.

    What I don’t see your posts addressing is the message I and others are trying to share that having support and comradeship and planning has in facing all this stuff. No one is saying you should not have some righteous anger and the response that each individual takes to his situation needs to be their own choice. What I’m saying is that there are other options to the choices you made and I know that some (many) who choose to take that pathway feel OK about that. IWMOW, Murray and myself have taken a different path to you, things have been different for us and we have maintained contact with our kids. For that we are thankful. All I’m trying to say is that if guys want assistance and to self-represent than that may be possible and might produce results they are comfortable with.

    Why do you say we need to grow up? I don’t see that how this helps your argument.
    I (and I’m sure others) hear the pain in what you write. I can totally understand your anger. I’m not trying to label you. I would like to offer support if I was able to. Yes the system can be absolute crap for many.

    You have made a call for your situation and that sits well with you. All I’m trying to say is that there are options and for some others that may be what they choose. It does no-one any good for men to be attacking each other.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 11:36 am

  31. IWMOW,
    I’m sitting here looking at the screen reading the words in your last posting.
    I’m not punching the keyboard with clenched fists. My heart isn’t racing. I’m not even remotely tempted to shout at the screen or utter profanities.
    In brief I’m calm, nothing like the angry bitter man you proclaim.
    Outside a window close to the computer I’m using is a flower garden which I occasionally glance at and appreciate, as I do the marvelous piece of technology I’m currently using to convey this message with a smile rather than some bitter twisted scowl.
    Your insistence in characterizing men who have moved beyond anger, men who have grown by letting go, men who love life despite being alienated fathers is frankly sad and patronizing.
    It’s also old stale thinking these days.
    I’m glad you get to see your kids, even though I’m sure in a somewhat diminished state having experienced the kinds of emotional and financial stresses of going through the femily caught you mention previously.
    I think you simplify matters terribly with your statement –
    “Yes, I can see it now. ‘children, your mother wants me out of your lives; so f***-it. I’m out of here. You can no longer see me, because your mother doesn’t want you to’ ”
    For I share the view that it’s never just the mother who may want you out of your childrens’ lives. As many another here can attest to there is a massive industry devoted to that objective situated in a general culture of demeaning masculinity and fatherhood which has gone on for decades now. It’ the same culture which valorizes female hypergamy whilst endorsing male disposability.
    In view of these matters my attitude these days is to advocate stepping outside of that rigged culture.
    MGTOW or going Galt as some put it.
    I have absolutely no intention of being in a de facto relationship/marriage within the kind of culture whereby I’m only one phone call with a false accusation away from being fed back into the machine again.
    I also encourage other men to boycott too so they don’t end up feeding the system which I think wrecks so many families.
    And there’s another thing. I’m not exactly accusing you of promoting wrecking families as in my view the family as an institution has already been wrecked for several decades now with incentives to divorce.
    But that’s another topic, already well covered on threads at MENZ too.
    Good luck in retaining contact with your kids in New Zealand. Please pass on my best wishes to them.
    Now I’m off to play some music and look at more flowers.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 2:03 pm

  32. You keep believing that, Skeptic. You keep believing that.
    But you (and not only you) come across to me on this site as angry and bitter.

    Comment by IWMOW — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 4:48 pm

  33. Family Court Reforms “rightly side-line the role of Incompetent Lawyers & Incompetent Counsellors” says Social Services Outcomes Researcher

    “Given the 84% of respondents to a New Zealand Family Court Consumer survey who felt that Counselling was not helpful to them in their dispute, the 47% of consumer respondents who felt that their Lawyers were not helpful to them in their dispute, and the 54% of consumer respondents who rated their Lawyer for Child as “not competent” in their Family Court case, the outcome of the Justice and Select Committee report into the Family Court Reforms is to be largely applauded” says Steve Taylor, Director of 24-7 Ltd, and Social Services Outcomes Researcher.

    “Despite a vociferous effort by the legal profession and domestic violence industry to obfuscate, scare-monger, and intimidate the Select Committee into submission on desperately needed reform, the Select Committee has sided with the evidence as opposed to ideology, and has recognised that giving Family Court consumers increased sovereignty, ownership and decision-making via alternative dispute resolution, and keeping Lawyers at a distance from the process, gives the families involved the most likely chance of a more positive outcome”.

    “The best interests of a child are best served when parents in dispute are able to more civilly collaborate towards reaching an agreement, and such a process is impossible to achieve in an adversarial process when Lawyers are involved.

    While the 964 Family Court Lawyers in New Zealand will be taking a big hit in the pocket once these reforms come into Law, these reforms simply can’t come soon enough for families in crisis.

    “The familial ignorance of legal commentators such as Otago University Law School Dean Mark Henaghan, and Law Society Family Law Chairman, Gary Collin on the prospects of the Family Court Reforms are simply retrospective attempts to preserve a fractured and broken status quo for the legal industry, and may be dismissed as ideological opinion, as opposed to evidentially informed commentary

    There has been a “law of the jungle” in the Family Court for 32 years: the lions have been the Lawyers, Psychologists, & Judges, and the lambs have been the families submitted to the Family Court process, and the children who lose an average of 5 years life expectancy as a result of undergoing such a dreadful process Friedman, H., Martin, L. (2011). The Longevity Project. USA: Hudson St Press) – under these new reforms, the lions have been largely neutered and de-clawed, the lambs are lambs no more, and children’s interests are better served as a result”.

    “When any system provides an incentive to abuse process, and then couples that incentive with “useful idiots” to support such a cause, then the victims of such a process are the end users of service.

    As a result of the new reforms, couples in dispute are being handed two invitations: one, to carefully consider the wisdom of their care position via Mediation without Lawyers agitating and spoiling the alternative dispute resolution process, and one to financially contribute to their cause, which will assist to test the validity of same”.

    “While there is no mention in the Reforms of introducing formal outcome service measures for providers of Family Court services, I am hopeful that we do not have to wait another 32 years before such measures are introduced, as those being used by the Department of Internal Affairs Confidential Listening & Assistance Service for service providers” said Mr Taylor.

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 8:09 pm

  34. IWMOW,
    “you (and not only you) come across to me on this site as angry and bitter”.

    Hoist in your own petard with such a condescending display of prejudice right there for all to see. For the fact is you have never met me yet choose to mis-characterize me and other guys like me righting us off as “angry and bitter” rather than debating the issues we espouse.
    Such ad-hominem attacks are intellectually lazy and disrespectful.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 9:02 pm

  35. “When men turn on other men on this site, then the femmies have won!”

    Comment by IWMOW — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 9:40 pm

  36. I think we all get mad and angry, and I would never change if I was forced out of my kids lives without any access etc:

    I am angry about certain things reguarding child support and my limited car of the kids but!

    I was commenting on giving up on being a dad when you don’t have to just because you pay child support. I was only stating things about that situation.

    I have thought about giving up as well, but unlike some people I am lucky enough to be able to have a great time with my kids when I have time. I’d still like things to be different but I wont let my ex win!.

    Still think she should be able to afford her faimly with her new husband without my money! And that makes me angry and I get over it.

    Comment by Too Tired — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 10:10 pm

  37. ‘When men turn on other men on this site, then the femmies have won!’
    That’s rich coming from someone who mischaracterizes other men he’s never met as “angry and bitter”.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 11:17 pm

  38. “I think we all get mad and angry, and I would never change if I was forced out of my kids lives without any access”.

    Again speak for yourself. You don’t speak for me.
    I accept I was foolish enough to get into a marriage and father a child unwittingly in a draconian gynocentric anti-father environment. I’m at peace with that now and it’s hugely empowering. never again will I be one of those guys who is a phone call away from suffering parental alienation. I offer other guys the choice of opting out of a rigged game also. If they don’t take that option and end up getting crushed by western ‘no fault divorce laws, femily caughts and the anti-male femocentric abuse and divorce industries despite my warnings then that’s their own doing.

    I think I’m turning Japanese……

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 8th June 2013 @ 11:32 pm

  39. Actually Skeptic, I said you come across as bitter and angry. I stand by that.
    I also said ‘Conversely, to ignore it and walk away, may for some people be the right answer.Maybe they didn’t want or couldn’t cope, financially or emotionally. That’s their business.’

    I’ve never met you? Want to meet up and share stories?
    I don’t know you? Please, tell me your story. Could you oblige me in my ignorance and keep it simple and to the point. No verbosity and obfuscation.

    Now, if you don’t want to meet up, or share your story in simple terms (with out me having to troll back through years of various postings, in order to glean vague and verbose snippets), then please don’t repeatedly tell me I’ve never met you and don’t know you.
    Just wanting to take offence (feigned or real) and pick tear shreds into me and my stated opinions, to somehow prove your point? then, well
    ‘When men turn on other men on this site, then the femmies have won!’

    Comment by IWMOW — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 8:28 am

  40. IWMOW, thank you for your ideas and suggestions. You point out that while people aren’t sharing stories, they aren’t making any forward progress. I support your ideas. If we might meet and start this rolling, please give me a call ph 6387275. Thanks, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 9:05 am

  41. There are differences of opinion between men about feminism and this should not be surprising.

    Modern Feminism has been evolving for the better part of two centuries. The battle – if you want to call it that – was won before New Zealand was settled as the last frontier country.

    Feminism tends to be viewed as a more recent event and even older feminist come out with ideas like second and third wave feminist being different and responsible for the negative outcomes it has brought western societies.

    This was always going to happen and they don’t like the idea of accepting responsibility for the outcomes we see today.

    The biggest setback for the these politically inspired women was world wars and depressions otherwise we would have seen the current effects much sooner.

    To understand Feminism you can parallel it with European and Māori. If you look at the negative effects of the attempted integration of Māori by European, (it destroyed their culture and almost wiped the race out) and then look at the point at which Feminism gained a foothold in terms of political power and a hold on the purse strings in Government.

    The rate of change rapidly increased and the cultural clashes erupted.

    The thinking of these people and the society they want and expect is so radically different that we are losing our culture and it is wiping out what was our way of life.

    Words that we are familiar with, like family, have been redefined – it has even changed our language.

    The effects of feminism have been largely felt in the last generation. This is a culture shock being enforced on society by the state.

    Any point of view about feminism is going to depend on where you encounter the phenomenon.

    At the hands of some institution which has been feminized, the police, the courts, the education system or simply another person’s thinking which is not reasonable or rational.

    A point of view is also going to be reinforced by the degree of trauma – significantly different when you look at the effects of a family court to say a man walking away from a violent relationship.

    A point of view will also be determined by the whether a person deals only in their personal experience or whether they examine the context in which their experience happens.

    How can men not different opinions in such uncertain times?

    Coming to the realisation that you don’t own a house, that you merely pay to be a tenant at the whim of a woman, that the court system has become so corrupted, it has as someone famously said “will bastardise the law” and the concept that you will be bound to work under the fear of debt.

    The differences of opinion are not unhealthy; they simply represent different experiences of life and different ways of looking at this issue.

    If we do make a mistake it is that we look at each other and wonder why we are different and don’t understand how this came about and the way in which these people think.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 10:32 am

  42. IWMOW,
    Read the comment #38 directly above your last comment #39. My comment @@38 explains………gasp……..wait for it……….part of……… story……Baaaaaadaaaaah!

    I think you’re just playing with words now – ‘come across as’ indeed.

    Aside from the practical difficulties of meeting you I’ve no interest these days in meeting someone who deems others to be coming across as angry and bitter without ever having met them.
    To casually ascribe such emotions to folks based soley on their written words, unless they actually describe themselves as angry and bitter is condescending folly I’m used to hearing mainly from feminists. I’m surprised to hear such here especially from someone who goes on to state that ‘When men turn on other men on this site, then the femmies have won!’ too. Irony +++.

    I don’t buy into the guilt trip idea that when men disagree feminism has won either.
    It makes no sense to me as I reckon Feminism won decades ago anyway when a lot of chivalrous fools gave them everything they wanted and in the process sold their brothers down the river.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 12:11 pm

  43. I should clarify that my earlier comment relating to men’s willingness to go on providing services as fathers after being thrown out of their familes was not intended to criticize particular fathers. Clearly the reality is that most fathers have strong bonds with their children and ongoing concern to be there for children. My challenge was intended to be more at a general political level. I would not criticize a father for attempting to remain involved with his children, but as a group men do need to realize that the goodwill of fathers is being taken for granted, fathers being denigrated, rejected and financially exploited yet still expected to serve as fathers, and then only exactly to the extent preferred by the women who threw them out.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 12:50 pm

  44. Skeptic. All that tells me is that you were once married. Doesn’t tell me diddly-squat.
    So you choose to keep hiding and not reveal the real you. That is your choice.
    So please don’t tell me I don’t know you. You’re right. I don’t. That’s why I draw conclusions, one of which is that you come across to me as angry and bitter.
    You’ll no-doubt reply to this. Have the last say. Slate me again. Go for it.
    Good luck and happy living.

    Comment by IWMOW — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 1:10 pm

  45. Peace brothers

    Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 1:27 pm

  46. IWMOW,
    I’ll gladly take up the offer of the last word. Not to slate you, but to educate you.
    As readers can see by simply viewing my comments on this thread you were told much more than the fact I was married.
    For instance you were told the kind of system I believe I went through – gynocentric, anti-father.
    You were also told my views on the zeitgeist I believe NZ to embody – a toxic mix of chivalry and feminism.
    You were also told my views on men going their own way, avoiding that kind of system thereby starving it.
    What you weren’t told, but condescendingly inferred however, was whether or not I feel angry and bitter about such matters.
    That’s where you made the mistake of jumping to a conclusion and prejudging me and other men who have let go and moved on.
    I also told you that I am at peace with past mistakes I made (marrying and having a child in a gynocentric, anti-father environment, and simply out of concern for other men offer hard won advice – don’t play in a rigged game – go your own way.
    But you chose to ignore all of that in order to try and make out that I seem angry and even bitter.

    No sense in opening up further to someone who prejudges me to seem angry and bitter.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 1:44 pm

  47. I think men generally fall into two camps. Either they walk away and often go overseas have little or nothing to do with their children or they fight day in and day out to keep contact with their children – either way some go on to have other children, some don’t.

    There are good and bad outcomes either way. I do not blame individual men for making the best decision in their circumstances.

    Either way you are damned by the media and the administration as either a deadbeat dad running away from child tax or a controlling abusive man who drags his ex through the family court.

    It is the treatment of men in general, that determines what capacity they can operate as fathers.

    Men have had their parental authority usurped by the law and the state. There is absolute contempt for fatherhood. (as we saw the other day when a one-woman protest stopped a father and son day at a school)

    It is extremely difficult to operate as a father when the requirements of men are to obey women to stay in his home or pay child tax when forced out of his home or operate in a society that has a warped social conscience.

    To say that men are responsible for this is more than a step too far for me.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 2:20 pm

  48. And your std, Murray?

    Comment by IWMOW — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 7:37 pm

  49. I suppose this is addressed to Skeptic. I think men who deliberately pay as little child tax as possible, are despicable. To not contribute to the upkeep of your children (whether or not they get to stay / live with you) is despicable. Men who deliberately don’t pay (or pay as little as possible, or leave the country to avoid paying) child support simply don’t deserve the label ‘father’. To leave other taxpayers (which based on average wages, are more likely to be male) to pick up the tab is despicable.

    Comment by Anita — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 8:43 pm

  50. @Anita…What do you call the “fathers” that are made to pay so much they cant support the children they live with and the “fathers” who pay for their children and the exs refuse them any contact…just coz they can….do you call those mothers….despicable???…No wonder men want to pay the minimum and are angry when the exs keep them from their children but are more than willing to take their money aye???

    Comment by Nickstar — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 9:35 pm

  51. Anita,
    How do you describe the situation where custody is shared 50:50 and yet Dad pays $1900 a month to mum? When the children (2) is with him he gets nothing from mum and for the 2 weeks a month they spend with mum she gets about $800 a week from Dad. She doesn’t work because she has not worked since they married. Her new husband earns more than Dad does but that doesn’t count. She travels the world several times a year, she drives the latest BMW, her home is like a palace.
    Dad struggles paying the mortgage on the family home, he hasn’t been outside NZ since the children were born.
    Child Support produces some unusual and unfair situations and Mr Dunne’s new changes won’t change that much.

    Comment by allan harvey — Sun 9th June 2013 @ 9:47 pm

  52. Anita,
    I think you are incredibly naive and insult my intelligence with the attempts to guilt trip with the “despicable” label.
    Basically I couldn’t give a damn what you think of me, as to me your view is nonsensical.

    When you can put a price on experiencing years of paternal alienation, false accusations and seeing the tax you pay getting used to support rafts of programs for women only (including those that are routinely used to abuse and demean all men) you’ll realize you paid. Oh, you paid a huge cost.
    But I guess having the name Anita means you are female so you’ll never have to experience such misandric horrors to know the cost which is what is truly despicable.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 1:36 am

  53. 42 says it all for me really.

    Comment by Scott B — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 7:09 am

  54. No Skeptic; all you actually said about yourself was that you were married; and had a child. (and that you now live overseas). The rest was just a re-statement of your views regarding FC / feminism in NZ (and presumably beyond). It reinforces to me that you appear to have a deep bitterness about your experiences.

    Comment by IWMOW — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 6:12 pm

  55. IWMOW,
    I come to this website recently to warn other men away from getting enmeshed in gynocentric anti-father systems in NZ, by avoiding relationships and fatherhood. I then get told I seem angry and bitter – straight out of the tired old feminist playbook.
    Well, I’m going to say to you what I said to Anita earlier in this thread.
    I don’t care what you think of me. I think you’re view of me is nonsensical. This woman makes much more sense to me.
    I imagine I will keep appearing here from time to time continuing to suggest to men that the best way to not get crushed in a rigged game is to opt out of the game. If I get called names for doing so, then so be it. I love NZ men enough to wear the criticism from people who have never met me yet choose to be armchair keyboard judge and jury.

    Enjoy the videos folks.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 7:01 pm

  56. recently? you want to get a new nick then, coz someone with the same name’s been posting here as long as 5 years back!!

    Comment by IWMOW — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 7:34 pm

  57. IWMOW,
    to clarify for you – I was simply referring to the comments I made in this thread.

    Enjoy the video folks.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 8:40 pm

  58. I have to say that if you do go through the family court then you are saying you are ok with its bias and corruption. If you go along with an illegal activity, then you are saying you are ok with it. Not much difference there.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 7:40 am

  59. Sorry Scott what you say above is rubbish.
    The Family Court is what it is and it exists. If one side, or the other, chose that for the venue to resolve disputes then a respondent has 2 choices. Not defend, withdraw and accept what decisions the Court and applicant reach without them. You are advocating that option and that is your choice.
    The other option is to engage, use a variety of options inside the system to express yourself and your wishes. By definition the Court is not an “illegal activity”. There are multiple options for expressing unease and disagreement with the Court process and decisions. Unfortunately it is an area that needs help understanding the rules and options that are available to work within. Once you get some support then you can be much better placed to express the reservations you feel.
    I agree with you that unsupported the Family Court is a hostile place and chews up men. Union of Fathers has been supporting guys in that environment for over 10 years now and most of our members would say they don’t have the same feelings as you do and hence maybe we are having some impact.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 8:47 am

  60. Scott,
    Here’s my rewrite of Allan’s statement.
    What you say above is not rubbish, but very sensible.
    The femily caught is what it is -a rort, a taxpayer ripoff and a haven for chivalrists and misandric feminists.
    If one side or the other (in this system which it’s adversarial by nature – notice it’s called a family COURT, not a family RECONCILIATION CENTER so conflict is even embedded in it’s very name!)chose that for a venue to resolve disputes, they will often find the femily caught drags out and exacerbates those disputes (and makes a killing financially doing so).
    The other option is to not engage and the affiliated services (which you might call the femily caughts’ para-miltary, economic and propaganda wings) Police, IRD and Domestic Violence Services, will come after you anyway.
    There are multiple options for being ignored and humiliated which include being routinely vilified without solid evidence but merely on the basis of vindictive hearsay and ideologically driven ‘experts’ reports.
    You can get support to deal with this and accompany you into the femily caught.
    But even that will cost you dearly in terms of time, emotional stress AND you’ll still have to abide by the caughts’ incredibly inefficient time schedules which chews up many men who are unfairly denied access to their children for months, years and sometimes forever as the caughts look the other way as mother abduct the children and go overseas.
    Union of Fathers still haven’t managed to change the femily caught system into a family reconciliation system and so in effect by engaging instead of advocating in a pro-active rather than doing reactive work that men avoid marriage. Despite their good intentions and maybe having some impact they therefore contribute to keeping the system going.

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 2:07 pm

  61. Allan, please stop being so patronising.

    Skeptic has once again said everything I would say, except for the following…

    The family court is corrupt and should be boycotted by all men/non-custodial parents and some custodial parents too. People talk of a marriage strike but I think that is sad. What really needs to be boycotted is the entire system. After so many years of the mens movement the family court is still corrupt and biased. Why? Cause we keep going there and in essence that is us saying that we are ok with that. We are not. You might be ok with bias and corruption but I will never be ok with it. The only way for the movement to have any effect is to completely avoid the family court. Let’s not give them the money. Only when they are struggling will we see any positive changes. If we keep turning up it is like we are in those old armies where we all stand in rows and basically wait to get shot. That is no way to face an enemy. It’s like Einstein said (and I probably quote him badly) the definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

    Comment by Scott B — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 5:23 pm

  62. Scott I am not being patronising and I have significant empathy for the feelings you (and many others have).
    However could you not make global statements based on your own and possibly a small number of other cases.
    I go to Family Court most weeks often several times a week. I think I have a pretty good persepective on what is and is not possible.
    The Court charges minimal fees and if you paid significantly to a lawyer that is not how I assist people. Normally costs are modest. I’m in Court tomorrow with a guy who has paid $40 only and we hope for a formal proof hearing to decide his case fully tomorrow.
    What I propose to people I work with is far from doing the same thing again and again.
    If you wish to contact me off list and discuss that further my contact details are easily found on this site and others.
    What I find disappointing about your posts is that you assume all need to see matters as you do. I am perfectly comfortable with your position and skeptics and all others who wish to walk away. I have no problems with that option. Why do you have problems with the alternative option I offer?

    Comment by allan harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 6:51 pm

  63. Allan,
    I’m in agreement with Scott Bs #61 comments, but in addition I also think you are grossly simplifying and minimizing matters.
    The femily caught you turn up at to try and work with guys on it’s hooks is paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer to the tune of goodness knows how many millions of dollars annually.
    To go on about supporting a guy who only pays $40 is therefore an aberration of myopic proportions, which frankly insults my intelligence as I view the bigger picture.
    The fact is before you even step foot into it’s corrupt star chambers, let alone pay the $40 it has already cost the New Zealand taxpayer including yourself MANY millions of dollars. When you also factor in it’s associated institutions which buttress and collude with it to prevent LONG OVERDUE change – feminist academia, police, domestic violence services, psychologists, social workers, IRD etc, etc (in brief what you may call the divorce industry) the cost to you and all other New Zealand taxpayers is astronomical. That cost taken over the decades the femily caught has existed becomes mind boggling.

    MGTOW. Starve the beast.

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 7:28 pm

  64. No disagreement from me about the huge costs of these services. I agree with you skeptic. However they are what we pay and we pay it if we turn up there or not. Ms Collins is attempting to make it cheaper for us long suffering taxpayers but her old mates in the profession are not happy that their gravy train is being challenged.
    Do you think Ms Collin’s Family Dispute Resolution proposals might indicate to you that you are wrong about your post #60? Frankly I’m not sure UoF can take credit for much of the changes that Ms Collins is suggesting.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 7:40 pm

  65. Skeptic you may be interested in the FC’s own critique of themselves.

    The Family Court:
    “¢ is adversarial, placing additional stress on already strained relationships
    “¢ is negative for children and is not focussed enough on their needs
    “¢ is not focussed enough on the most serious cases (eg, domestic violence)
    “¢ spends too much time on simple private matters that are better resolved outside court
    “¢ is too complex to use and too slow to resolve disputes, and
    “¢ in recent years, has had huge growth in costs despite the same overall number of applications.

    Hence even they are being dragged towards accepting reform is essential.

    The above is from Judge Ryan’s FC website.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 8:32 pm

  66. Allan,
    Good to see you are able to accept and acknowledge some of the bigger picture. We are after all talking about a multi-million dollar industry where many folks have a vested interest in the corrupt status quo, not a diddly squat $40 incident.
    However i think you still simplify matters by raising the question of whether or not Ms Collins proposals will effect beneficial change.
    In the larger view of things I think not. Why because as I’ve said repeatedly before you are still left with that huge ridiculous neon Elephant in the room very few people in NZ seem prepared to discuss yet – I speak of the dreadfully destructive no fault divorce aided and abetted by a raft of supports which make it attractive as a means to throw good fathers out of families.
    When you get to that level of the discussion then you’ll realize that without overturning no fault divorce and other incentives to divorce some form of ‘court’ or institute for dispute resolutions necessarily arising from institutionally produced divorce will be a necessary evil and a massive taxpayer burden.
    Until then I’m afraid you’re simply fiddling whilst Rome burns.
    Myself I prefer to advocate men opt out of marriage and reproduction until a humane set of marriage and relationship laws and conventions is put in place. That seems the much saner path to me than trying to tinker with something that is fundamentally built on the wrong model in the first place. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 9:53 pm

  67. I work from the position that no fault divorce exists. It came in with the Family Proceedings Act 1980 so it has been with us for nearly 35 years. There has been a huge social since but I’m not sure how much can be attributed to that one event.
    Even before that divorce rates had risen by 100% from 1970 to 1980 so change in perceptions of family was already happening. Since the passing of the new law there was a big blip in 1981 taking advantage of the new law which shows that there were many separated couples already in the community. They then choose to take advantage of the pen and paper exercise rather than messy court proceedings and publication in the Truth newspaper.
    Since the passing of the legislation divorce rates have been fairly static.

    My own view is that a relationship ends when one person wants it to end. It takes 2 to make a relationship and only one to end it. That is a fact of life. If we had different divorce laws I doubt that it would slow in any way the rate of relationship breakups.

    Comment by allan harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 10:41 pm

  68. No fault divorce in 1980 or other and earlier causative factors?
    In 1972 equal pay legislation came in and in 1973 the DPB was made available.
    If you look at the graph of divorce rates there is a big correlation with these 2 events.
    Divorce rates are measured as number of divorces per 1000 marriages
    1965 3.2
    1966 3.5
    1967 3.5
    1968 3.6
    1969 4.9
    1970 5.0
    1971 5.1
    1972 5.3
    1973 5.4
    1974 6.6
    1975 6.9
    1976 7.4
    1977 7.4
    1978 8.0
    1979 8.5
    1980 9.0
    1981 11.9
    1982 17.1
    1983 13.3
    1984 12.5
    1985 11.7
    1986 11.9
    1987 11.8
    1988 11.8
    1989 11.7
    1990 12.3
    1991 12.0
    1992 11.9
    1993 11.9
    1994 11.9
    1995 12.3
    1996 12.7
    1997 12.3
    1998 12.6
    1999 12.5
    2000 12.2
    2001 12.1
    2002 12.7
    2003 12.8
    2004 12.8
    2005 11.9
    2006 11.9
    2007 11.3
    2008 11.3

    Comment by allan harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 10:55 pm

  69. The influence of social welfare for “solo” parents will also be a significant feature to consider. There is quite a good paper by Kay Goodger that you can find on the internet called MAINTAINING SOLE PARENT FAMILIES IN NEW ZEALAND: AN HISTORICAL REVIEW
    I am interested to read that NZ was the very first country in the world to have a legislated system of garnishing income for child support and maintenance purposes arising from the Destitue Persons Act 1910.

    Comment by allan harvey — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 11:17 pm

  70. Allan,
    I’m glad to see someone at least starting to discuss no fault divorce.
    I’m not sure of the research methods used to show such results, so I won’t endorse the stats veracity. Even so, thanks for proving my point.
    From 1965 – 2004, aside from spike you point out when no fault divorce came in mere 40 years divorce basically increased a staggering 400% and has since then pretty much plateaued around 11 – 12. Of course it must also be acknowledged that during that time more and more couples chose to forgo marriage and simply co-habit together.
    It must also be acknowledged that the statistics hide something very significant and which should ring alarm bells with those who say they value marriage. It’s simply this, you may look at the stats and say, well what’s the problem, it’s only 12 couples per 1000 couples get a divorce every year. Yet think of it like compound interest in reverse every year and it ads up to staggering numbers.
    Grim reading then.

    Comment by Skeptic — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 1:32 am

  71. Men, math and marriage.

    Comment by Skeptic — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 1:34 am

  72. Yes good to see some debate. As I understand it about 50% of first marriages end in divorce and about 70% of second marriages end in divorce.
    Your message 70 Skeptic uses the phrase; “those who say they value marriage” are you saying this is you and by implication many here? Marriage in my view is an institution designed by the church in various forms. In the past the wealthy married and the poor handfasted or other traditions (presumably some of pagan origin).

    Do people here value marriage? If so why?

    Are there other ways to describe stable relationships within which children can be nurtured raised?

    Comment by allan harvey — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 8:40 am

  73. No-fault divorce? If the man doesn’t accept fault at separation he’s automatically found to be at fault in the family court. By the time you get to divorce it really doesn’t matter whose fault it was.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 9:24 am

  74. Marriage is only associated with the church in that the Church (Catholic and then Protestant) ran the Western World until relatively recently. Societies ruled by other religions also ENFORCE marriage before sex.
    Marriage is essentially an institution to make sure some man was responsible for upkeep of the children that ensue after sex. This is why there is a register, this is why there are witnesses, why the ‘Bans” are read. In most societies other relatives also share the burden.
    Most higher animals naturally have some similar functional system-
    If we postulate a society where everybody looks after everyone elses’ children we don’t need marriage for economic reasons, but we know that doesn’t work- just look around.
    If men are refusing to marry, then that society is doomed to slow extinction, and replacement by a different society with different practices that make marriage an attractive option- (again- look around)

    Comment by John Brett — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 9:27 am

  75. Church was meant as a label for all formal religious observance.
    In Islam women who are unmarried come under the protection of their fathers until married.
    In African society all people are part of a family and when a woman marries she marries into another family. Children are cared for by the paternal family and take on that totem (identification).
    In modern day southern African society few men would consider an offer of marriage unless his partner was pregnant. Yes sex before marriage is frown upon but it can be rectified by payment of damages. Children conceived still inherit the fathers totem and thus become part of his family.
    I’m not sure about your last sentence John. Are you meaning if men refuse to conceive children by the word “marry”.
    Care of children in Pacific and Maori communities has always been fairly extended. It seems Western society has this nuclear family concept.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 10:52 am

  76. Marriage, as in the socially sanctioned joining together of men and women to produce children in a stable family has been the normal way for humans to function for countless milenia. The modern day practice which American Men’s Rights Activists are calling “choice moms” (who who deliberately get pregnant and have children by artificial insemination or marry a guy then dump him to go solo parenting)is on the evolutionary historical clock has occurred at 11.59.45 secs, in other words 15 seconds before midnight. Any society wanting to advance has recognized that for the vast majority of recorded history that raising a human from infancy to adulthood takes enormous resources and the best as in most effective way to do that is to have intimate father involvement. However feminists and their socialist sympathizers have systematically set about throwing that baby out with their ideological bathwater. Their credo has been (to quote Hillary Clinton amongst others) “It takes a village to raise a child”. In other words “We can and will substitute fathers with the taxpayers of the country”. A classic case of treating men as disposable.
    As more and more men cotton on to how they are treated in such a disposable fashion many are making the sensible choice to avoid marriage and reproduction all together, hence some of the videos from young guys stating so which I’ve posted on this thread above. Visit Youtube and do a little searching and you’ll find more where they came from, including videos describing how millions of young Japanese men are opting out, stepping out of harness and choosing alternative paths than the traditional male breadwinner, disposable provider-protector role. Good on them all I say.
    Allan raises the question of what will happen to societies in which men stage a marriage and reproductive strike – they will die off. To which I say “good” “Those societies which treat men as disposable success objects don’t deserve to exist, they will be supplanted by societies where manhood is valued or cease to exist”.
    This is I believe the second part of the sexual revolution. The first part was where women too control of their own fertility by using the female birth control pill. At the same time they collectively ramped up their sexuality (overt sexual signalling) to incite generations of men in a heightened state of sexual arousal, whilst at the same time advocating for more and more chivalrous provision of resources from men.
    The second (and gradually quickening)part of the sexual revolution is now happening. Whereas women questioned their roles, enabled to do so with new technology – the birth control pill and labor saving domestic devices. Now it is men’s turn. More and more men are going their own way – MGTOW or to put it another way “Going John Galt”. They understand Briffault’s law and have come to realize that in the modern age the benefits of intimate association and reproduction isn’t worth the costs. The soon to be released male birth control pill will only speed this process further.

    Comment by Skeptic — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 1:55 pm

  77. Hi Allen- what I meant was marriage as I understand it- raising a family, providing housing, food, goods, etc, given that the woman (wife) could not easily do those things whilst being pregnant, having babies, raising young children, etc. I think that this concept is pretty universal. In Malaysia (as an example) the older generations get no pension, so will live with their children, helping raise their grandchildren, giving the parents more opportunity to do things away from the home(work at a job, run a business,grow crops, etc.) I imagine European culture was once like this.
    What I see happening is e.g. neither of my sons are considering a family, (my oldest son is now over 40), one daughter is solely focussed on her career and having fun (she is 30), one daughter has a number of children to different fathers. The common theme is that despite having a good father themselves, but perhaps seeing what happened to me, none of the boys see fatherhood as any sort of desirable option, neither of the girls imagine any male wanting to step into that role. I think this typifies a large part of the 20-40 yr age group now- try google “Man Draught” Regards John

    Comment by John Brett — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 6:48 pm

  78. Hi John Brett,
    I agree and suggest Allen also try googling “The ghost nation”

    Comment by Skeptic — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 7:16 pm

  79. Sorry Scott; I totally disagree with you. Not the bit that family court is corrupt and or biased. I agree with that. But the bit that states:

    I have to say that if you do go through the family court then you are saying you are ok with its bias and corruption.

    and again

    The family court is corrupt and should be boycotted by all men/non-custodial parents and some custodial parents too

    There is no doubt that many (mostly women) parents use the children as pawns in family court. But if I had boycotted it, I would not have free and easy care of my children if only part time. To effectively say to my children, sorry kids, I’m not going to fight for your rights – to have a on-going parental relationship with them – to give up, because of the failings of the family court, that too makes me guilty of using them as pawns.
    The family court needs changing. We must fight it. But I cannot and would not give up on seeking as normal a relationship as possible with my children, simply because of the family court, or, in other words, it is totally unacceptable in my view, to punish my kids for the sins of feminism (by not only being forced out of fatherhood, but so too, walking away from it). That I will not do.
    There must be another way to bring down the family court …

    Comment by IWMOW — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 8:04 pm

  80. I am enjoying the debate here and I am learning some new ideas and perspectives.
    My apologies is my question asking for a definition of marriage was a problem but the formal notion of marriage in terms of church and bits of paper is a dying institution. That makes statistics for coupling, separating, households etc difficult.

    I am not sure that our nuclear family concept of marriage is useful in many parts of the world and it is of limited use in Pacific or Maori communities as well. In these societies often intimate father involvement may be supplemented by wider family and community involvement. My own oldest child was born in Africa and the concept of a village raising a child was true of much of his first 2 years of life. We lived in an extended household and that was pretty normal there.

    Beyond a couple of generations ago in NZ unmarried pregnancies were “accommodated” within families and by adoption. I doubt these were “choice mums” as Skeptic describes above but this might show a parallel that older than 15 seconds to midnight.

    What John describes above may have been similar to pre-industrial revolution Europe. The impact of the industrial revolution has really turned fatherhood on it’s head and driven the nuclear family concept. Unfortunately I suspect the changes to family life it encourages is spreading and will become the norm.

    I am

    Comment by allan harvey — Wed 12th June 2013 @ 8:52 pm

  81. I am bemused by this term ‘nuclear family’. It implies a disconnect between a family and the surrounding society. It describes only of some pretty anti-social or new immigrant sort of family. I don’t think it is a generalization to apply to the ‘typical’ NZ or western family.
    Re Industrial Revolution- probably the dominant change was father being at the mill for 8-10 hrs a day, rather than on the farm, perhaps with his family working alongside. I hear recollections of WW2 Britian, and probably the US where mothers also worked (dad in the forces of course) and child care was provided as part of the war effort.
    Re the future- I personally believe that the age of ‘jobs for all’ is long gone. I believe the coming model will trend towards self-employment, contracting, telecommuting, which is what I have been doing for 25 yrs. I take my little dog with me, if was younger I might be taking a child /apprentice. At our local takeaway, I am served by a very efficient chinese girl who appears to be under 10. A new model?

    Comment by John Brett — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 9:32 am

  82. @ 81.. Nuclear family is a concept born of the western culture.. other cultures promote the “village” model but recognise fathers as important as the mothers. Village being the whole extended family.. grndparents, uncles aunties, in laws, third , fourth cousins removed etc.

    The obnly immigrants that would have adopted the nuclear family would be when british came to NZ or by western immigrants

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 12:06 pm

  83. I also think the village model is positive for children and not in any way anti-father as Skeptic implies in post #76. I also agree with John that the concept of family as just a parent(s) and children group is not what offers the best environment for children (and parents).

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 12:57 pm

  84. Well you’re all welcome to your opinions but as far as I am concerned it is corrupt and biased and I will do everything I can to stop and discourage people from being part of the family court.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 3:25 pm

  85. What I am saying is that the ‘Nuclear family’ idea is just someone’e idea, it does not accurately describe ‘western’ culture.
    Scott- we all agree with you about the FC- best avoided. It’s hard for fathers to avoid if your ex goes running to the Court- unless you want to abandon your children. I accept this as an option some men have had to take. Fathers on this group have made the FC less attractive for mothers- by winning, by influencing politicians and judges. Best wishes to you and your family.

    Comment by John Brett — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 4:51 pm

  86. “What I am saying is that the ‘Nuclear family’ idea is just someone’e idea, it does not accurately describe ‘western’ culture.”.. Hmm.. the idea came from western culture, it is part of western lifestyle practice currently being adopted by other cultures when they are in a western country..

    So if not from western culture then where does it come from??..

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 6:07 pm

  87. So what is this ‘Nuclear family’ then? It sounds like dad, mum and some children, no relations, no friends, no neighbours? Who lives like that?

    Comment by John Brett — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 6:54 pm

  88. So what is this ‘Nuclear family’ then? It sounds like solo mum and some children, no dad, no relations, no friends, no neighbours? Who lives like that? Most of us here.

    Comment by OMG you're &(*^% — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 7:01 pm

  89. @ 87..

    In social studies thats the definition of a nuclear family… father, mother , children…

    in western countries majority of the people do not even know know their neighbours regardless of if they stay in an apartment block or suburb..

    compare to eastern and polynesian cultures, everyone on the street knows everyone. everyone in the village knows each other.. etc etc

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 7:15 pm

  90. Yeah well it was like that here once too. this western nuclear family crap is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to know your neighbours, your street etc, get out and meet them!

    Comment by PrettyInPink — Thu 13th June 2013 @ 7:50 pm

  91. “compare to eastern and polynesian cultures, everyone on the street knows everyone. everyone in the village knows each other.. etc etc”

    Not so from what I’ve seen in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and Taiwan.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 1:36 am

  92. For those of us who are not social studies students- ‘Nuclear Family’ means nothing. As Pretty in Pink says ” If you want to know your neighbours, your street etc, get out and meet them!” The family Court does break families- one half of mine doesn’t speak to the other half even 20 yrs on. The next generation of my family however are linking up around the the back of the bitter ones. no nuclear family here!

    Comment by John Brett — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 8:24 am

  93. The term ‘nuclear family’ has some use in highlighting the degree to which people, especially primary caregivers, mainly mothers, can become isolated in their homes. It is usually their own responsibility when this happens; there are opportunities for them to network with social groups, but various factors seem to provide barriers to a more communal existence. Those factors include the concept of separate families mainly competing with each other economically, a high rate of moving to new places, and the motor car that allows people to move around their community with minimal interaction. In my view government resources would be better spent on establishing and nurturing participatory community groups than on setting up new services of specialists who are supposed to rescue ‘at risk’ children. And of course making the DPB less easily available would quickly reduce the number of ‘at risk’ children.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 11:25 am

  94. @ 91.. sorry to say this but I have been to those places, singapore, and india to boot.. I would tend to disagree with you. I have seen extended family units living under one roof. I have seen the interaction that happenes during the day and at the end of the day. I have seen kids return from school to their friends house(neighbour usually) if the parents are working late hours. weekend the whole neighbourhood lights up in communal interaction. you won’t see this being in touristy kinda spots.

    @ 92.. thats a description i came across during my high school studies. that was along time ago. Agree with pretty in Pink comment 100%

    @ 93.. primary caregivers.. isolated ??.. think they are the ones doing the isolating and breaking up family units.. extended or nuclear. They tend to provide more of a barrier than anyone else to a cummunal existence after separation.. agree with the DPB comment but should add that shared care should be the status quo after separation instead of who grabs the kid controls scenario as is promoted by the family courts and IRD.

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 12:17 pm

  95. I’ve been involved in the Family Court for ten years in Hawkes Bay. I agree with many of the comments the system is flawed, biased, unjust,… I totally understand when guys walk away unable to continue the fight……. BUT it is the only system there is and unless your ex is going to give you the care time you want with your kids it is the only way to get any change.
    The main message I work under when supporting a Dad through the process is that he ‘uses the system’ he doesn’t let ‘the system use him.’ He uses the system to progress as quickly as possible to get the changes that he wants.
    To use the system takes education, motivation, information and a focus on achieving the outcome you want in the shortest possible time. It doesn’t work all of the time, but it does work most of the time. As Allan has said it’s best done with the support of a mckenzie friend who can keep focus and calm.

    Comment by Ken — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 12:23 pm

  96. Will lodge application probably next week in the caught(have engaged a laywer) to make changes in existing parenting order (in place for around a year now) to allow me to have 50/50 time (up from 35/65). Not sure if this is right decision and on what grounds I can ask the court to give me more time with my kids. Primary reason I am going back to the caught because “kids 8 1/2 & 5 1/2 want to be with me”.

    Comment by kumar — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 12:34 pm

  97. I tend to word things – ‘it’s about giving our children the opportunity for a full and complete life with both parents.’

    Comment by Ken — Fri 14th June 2013 @ 1:14 pm

  98. Awesome comment over at The Spearhead today which I’m reproducing hear as I think it’s entirely germane to the discussion here and raises serious largely overlooked questions.

    “Poiuyt June 14, 2013 at 13:50

    The human relationships is always doomed, anywhere they are constructed into meaning unilateral obligations by one group to another group.

    Wherever reciprocity of respect, value, duty, forbearance, constancy, tolerance, forgiveness and patience are determined to be oppressions to the one side but not to the other side, relationships are doomed.

    To be sure enough, it is not only in America that the human relationship has been plundered, misconstrued, defaced, maligned and rendered obsolete “¦ Socialist Europe and Australasia come a very close second place in destroying friendships, marriages, peaceful associations, communities and existing harmonious order.

    The questions the keep coming back again and again and again however are these:

    To what extent will relationship-destroying structures continue being built, for its staff to continue drawing state borrowed salaries and wages, before only an empty husk of normal society remains ?

    Can a society that constructively devoids itself of a peoples that trust each other and consider each-other worthy citizens last long or resist external shocks ?

    Do the negative social costs and the menacing social effects of a ballooning mass of bastardized, orphaned, disaffected, alienated rudderless and troubled youths of genderism ever come to outweigh the benefits if any ?

    It’s an interesting social experiment, this genderist culture that only sustains itself to the extent it can obligate others, enslave others, forfeit the rights of others, injure others, misrepresent others, abuse others, tax, borrow or steal from others etc. You just can’t help but wonder if it can go on indefinitely”.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 15th June 2013 @ 12:59 pm

  99. Picture a world of no-fault on-demand abortion.
    Picture a world where the gender of babies is determined prior to birth, and ‘weaker’ gender babies are aborted in favour of ‘desired’ gender babies. (kind of like the common practice in one-child China; and also in girls-are-worthless-chattels India.

    Picture a world where men serve but two purposes:
    (1) Forced Manual labour; and
    (2) Sperm manufacture (semi-forced extraction [i.e. donate, or be sent back to the forced labour work camps]).
    Then you’ll begin to imagine a world where 90% of men are simply not required; and will never be born.
    Then, you have the we-don’t-need-men feminist utopia that awaits the western world.
    Wait for it. I give it forty years.

    Comment by Steve — Sat 15th June 2013 @ 9:04 pm

  100. Steve,
    Such a dystopian future seems unlikely given that the reversable, hormonal, no side effects male birth control pill will be with us by then. It’s already being use in Indonesia. Watch out for hordes of women with ‘baby rabies’ struggling to get some of the then very rare commodity – sperm for impregnation.
    You think the marriage strike is starting to bite? Wait until the sperm strike happens.
    One other thing – we may get to see men who agree impregnate a woman/women, taking out legal contracts that says if you abort this pregnancy there will be a penalty AND no paternal support – call it a pre-nuptual pregnancy contract.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 15th June 2013 @ 10:42 pm

  101. if you abort this pregnancy there will be a penalty AND no paternal support

    Um … if they abort a pregnancy now, there is no paternal support (i.e. child support) …

    Comment by steve — Sun 16th June 2013 @ 10:08 am

  102. Steve,
    Thanks for spotting the error. I meant to say –

    if you abort this pregnancy there will be a penalty – damages to the wronged man called Paternal Support.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 16th June 2013 @ 3:37 pm

  103. Hey it’s funny how some of you guys can’t afford to pay Child Support of just $16 a week but can afford to pay prostitutes $200 a fuck. I’m not saying it’s all of you, just one or two of you I hope

    Comment by Winston — Thu 27th June 2013 @ 7:03 pm

  104. I only pay $12 a (*&^^&.

    Comment by Steve — Thu 27th June 2013 @ 8:55 pm

  105. Hey Winston- someone did an analysis of the way Paul Mc’Cartney was shafted, and how much really top-shelf prostitute services he could have afforded for a fraction of that money. The real question is “how can any man afford possible child support, when he can get his ‘girl-friend experience’ for $200 or possibly far less.”

    Comment by John Brett — Fri 28th June 2013 @ 8:07 am

  106. Winston,
    I’ve scoured this thread and see no basis for your accusation. It seems absurd.
    If you can prove anything at all of the accusation why not buzz off and whistle-blow instead of trolling to fling mud here. I’m sure IRD would be delighted to hear from you being the great mathematicians they are when it comes to child tax.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 28th June 2013 @ 8:08 am

  107. Is it possible that Winston charges $200, and thinks she recognizes someone here?

    Comment by John Brett — Fri 28th June 2013 @ 10:13 am

  108. Perhaps Winston has a valid point.
    How can any man possible afford to pay a woman for sexual services when he is taxed heavily via IRD CS in order to pay the mother of his children (who more often than not, chooses to go her own way) to raise the children she ultimately had the full choice to have?
    That surely means any man with children no longer in his care, whom IRD choose to deduct as much as 30% of his income, should be barred from entering into a new relationship, as that relationship invariably involves exchanging of money with the woman whom he is co-habiting, and almost certainly having sex with.
    (and if there is no exchange of money, then that man is guilty of being violent towards the woman, as he is withholding his income from her – just ask Woman’s Refuge).
    Now, should that woman have her own children, then that man is also invariably contributing money towards them, that should instead be paid to his ex for his won children’s benefit. He might only be shouting fish and chips or macca’s, but all these things add up. They ride in his car? he’s supporting them. They live under his roof? he’s supporting them. they eat out of his fridge? he’s supporting them. He doesn’t really have a choice. Can you imagine the failure rates of budding relationships if he didn’t cough-up regularly for her kids? This is (from his ex’s position) the ‘you can afford to buy her children presents, but you don’t pay me a cent towards raising your own children’ syndrome. So unjust!
    This man, who can’t afford to pay me all I want, to raise his children, whom I chose to have, under circumstances I chose (when I left him), has the audacity to spend any of his money on anything he sees fit, be it paying a prostitute, supporting another woman (and OMG! her kids!), when I don’t have enough for everything I want! (no, this isn’t ‘control’ from beyond the graveyard of divorce! Of course not! how dare you think that!)
    There is a solution to all this of course. And not just illegalising men entering new relationships, or spending any of their residual cash on woman in exchange for sex. Rape (not paying her) is of course illegal, and not recommended. Becoming a eunuch is a little extreme, although ardent feminists might approve (except then we men would be scarily akin to them – broad, butch and ball-less).
    No, I think a law is long overdue that all men who have children, whether still cohabiting with the children’s mother or not, should simply forfeit their entire income to the mother, for her to expend as she sees fit. Herself first; then her kids; then on any new man of her choosing; and then finally, if anything is left (and there won’t be), on the poor hapless and destitute father.
    We have, or course, back-stop welfare in this country for those of us left with absolutely nothing to live on. Town-belts to sleep in, soup kitchens, jail cells, and of course, knives (to do yourself in).

    Comment by OMG you're *)(&%^& — Sat 29th June 2013 @ 8:50 am

  109. Just make sure the knife is sharp otherwise there won’t be a clean break.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 29th June 2013 @ 9:33 am

  110. Thinking about this, perhaps we can head off men spending their money on other women and children (other than their own children and their mother).
    As mentioned above, taking their own income off them is a starter, but we’ve got to be careful to keep them generating this income. Keep them productive, and yet away from any chance of being diverted into satisfying their whims and fancies with other women.
    Taking their own income off them is a start, but of course, they will need somewhere to live (really, only to eat and sleep, since any other activities are diversions that risk draining their money on frivolities).
    We hear so much about the housing crisis here in Auckland, that it seems there is a really easy answer.
    We need a new green-field town for failed dads. In fact, lets call this new town ‘Greenfields’. It will not need any shops, as its inhabitants will not have any money to spend. It will not need any parks. Any spare time its inhabitants have, should be time-spent-working (earning more money for their ex’s). It will not need any schools, because there will be no children.
    All it will need is ten or twenty thousand bachelor-pad-bedsits. And public transport in and out. No garages – these men will not be able to afford a car. No roads; just paths. No pubs and clubs – there will be no women to meet, wine and dine.
    Greenfields will of course be amongst the safest towns in the country. Without women or children, there will be no domestic violence. With minimal possessions and no money, there will be little crime (nothing to steal). Without spare time (and without children), there is no need for gardens. Maybe little patios for the odd bbq and a pot-plant-lemon-tree. These homes might as well therefore be high-rise – 10-story tenements. 20 bedsits per floor, 200 per block. 50 blocks per street (=1000 men). Just 20 streets = 20,000 men.
    All working solely to generate income for IRD to take – which of course would be 100% less a basic living allowance of maybe $60/week for food, and everything else (accommodation, travel and TV) provided. All solely for the discretionary spend by their ex’s. No spare cash for prostitutes, new partners, or their children.
    Think of worker-drones in a bee-hive, and you’ll start to get the picture.
    And then, maybe Winston will be happy.

    Comment by OMG you're *)(&%^& — Sat 29th June 2013 @ 9:50 am

  111. My maths skipped a beat. 200 bedsits per block, x 50 blocks per street = 10,000 bedsits. x 20 streets, caters for 200,000 deadbeat dads, which probably ties up with IRD statistics.
    So lets simply pass a law that any dad assessed for CS by IRD at (100% of his income less $60/week), is automatically designated his bedsit in Greenfields, and everyone is happy.
    btw, lets ensure there are no sharp implements in Greenfields, i.e. knives.

    Comment by OMG you're *)(&%^& — Sat 29th June 2013 @ 9:55 am

  112. OMG you’re *)(&%^&
    That is pretty much wot they already have just spread out so that most dads who have been vilified and ostracized by their women and society due to false complaints are alone and unable to communicate with others. That is wot they want and wot the govt has largely achieved.

    Only an idiot pays child support as the govt says we have a “no fault divorce system”. The Child Support system proves the government to be liars.

    Skeptic, you are the reason i have the nickname i do. Ur one of the few who makes sense on this site. Those who try and get jusice in the injustice system are feeding the monster.
    The best thing we can do is public protest to educate the general public about how they are all just slaves to the 1%. I would have thought that when the govt decided to tax savings and even kids savings that people would have woke up. But we are a nation of sheep all right.
    If anyone wishes to try and get rid of Protection orders which take away all human rights of our children to even talk to us dads without any crime being committed the please call/tx me on 027 949 7505.

    Protection Orders and the Family Court are evil and anyone who thinks different is an idiot. No offence but u lack logic.

    My kids are being held hostage by their crazy mother who actually admitted in court to telling me to kill myself and to lying to the pigs and the court about me ever hitting her. She helped spend more of your taxes by getting me arrested for taking my own possessions from my own home when she fraudulently (and with the NZ pigs cops-gestapo as her accessories), obtained a permanent ‘Protection’ Order to deprive my lovely kids of the father they love and want to live with. They also arrested me a second time for calling the cops when my daughter said she didn’t like or trust the Lawyer-for-himself I mean L4C and she didn’t like having strange men stay at her home (formerly my home too) and going for sleepovers at strange men’s houses. U can imagine how that concerned me and the supervision lady…. Just 2 of the many injustices and flouting of the law that women and the authorities are able to do with impunity as they have no truly independant (voted) watchdog with powers of arrest keeping tabs on them. The NZ authorities are scum. Check out NZ Corruption websites – ask Cameron Slator about NZ Justice. Wake up NZ and stop the corruption and secret Femily Courts and Judge only courts with no burden of proof required.

    Comment by Sane in an insane world — Fri 14th March 2014 @ 7:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar