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

Sexism in Unemployment

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 12:27 pm Sun 3rd December 2017

It is not unusual to see debates raging over female employment, especially when it comes to the higher-end income packages and any perception of a barrier to these being available on demand to at least the minimum 50% gender quota, which without justification excludes, those candidates hoping to qualify by self-entitlement to positions, that don’t actually exist – income redistribution by the demands of gender. Is that sexism or just warped commerce?

But let’s state the obvious, that this is an argument inspired by the self-interest of those who complain loudest, lawyers, politicians, media personalities, would-be board members, and socialite freeloaders, not to unfairly highlight those because I haven’t made mention of others.

Then there is the bottom rung of the ladder, down where the mandatory 5% unemployed must exist, in perpetuity, the merry-go-round occasionally changing riders, with seasonal variations, restructures and closures, and the occasional startups that don’t require a narrow range of specific talent accompanied by expectations of youthful exuberance and naive motivation in the belief of if.

Could there be sexism in this arena?

It’s a timely question with the change of administration and the new broom of ministerial motivation pushed as they often are to change the attitudes of failure and lazyness that seemingly inspire people to exist in this manner, sit on the couch, unable to muster the strength to pull their personal throttle, and change their misfortune.

Last time I checked and it seems to have been the odd occurrence that there are about equal numbers of male and female on the dole; I’ve never been one to believe the figures as actual, but a convenient presentation with a truth hidden in behind – the manipulations occasionally slip out and I am sure some will recall previous disclosure along these lines. I do recall the one such scheme in the early days of the Clark Administration giving woman only, a $20,000 work from home start up package coveniently supplied through other agencies on the quiet.

That wasn’t sexism of course it was justified redress for the apprent oppression suffered by woman in the confines of the Patriarchal-West.

But in recent years something more insidious has quietly invaded WINZ under the cover of these motivational packages for men.

The concept of a stepping stone, Work For The Dole or perhaps a hand up not a hand out part time work might lead to full time work, that sort of thing to the casual observer could be seen as inspirational, and helpful to beneficiary recipients who have been allowed to earn an additional $80.00 supossedly without fear of any affect to their existing benefit.

Unfortunately the IRD, by my understanding of the current legal definition being the same entity as WINZ, has used the motivational principle to obtain child support payments on the basis of earnings potential.

So, to put that in straight forward language, our men are allowed to earn up to $80.00 a week, from part time work, so IRD can deduct up to $80.00 a week, depending on a payers circumstances from their benefit, and if the unfortunate bastard can’t find part time work, that is not that the problem of that division of the agency, he simply suffers the indignity of trying to do what others do, under harsher conditions.

I don’t think I need to dwell on the potential negative effects that these deductions would have on various beneficiaries, recently released from jail, recently made redundant, or with limited employment potential. You can easily estimate the likelyhood of such ruthless administration driving suicides or motivating men who perhaps have blamed WINZ for their misfortune, to threats or violence.

It’s a bigger subject than this of course when it comes to the country’s financial dependance on the child support formula, but I have no doubt we are a long way from having feminist journalists give up their ingratiaging aspirations in support of the man on the street, be he homeless or not.


  1. Calculating child tax based on ‘earning potential’ is a disaster.
    Apart from being manifestly unfair, by not reflecting reality it simply creates hardship and debts. It is not in the interests of children, to treat their parents that way.
    The new system is supposed to be based on the ideology that a married parent earning X would spend Y on their children. That ideology is deeply flawed but if IRD is now moving away from even that ideology into ‘earning potential’, then the entire system is doomed.

    The whole thing is based on failed ideology. The ruling ideology is that once a parent becomes separated from his children then it is the government’s job to make all parenting decisions relating to money. This is not only fundamentally wrong but it is a very harmful attitude to parenting and this to children.

    Comment by Vman — Mon 8th January 2018 @ 3:57 pm

  2. Published by Whimn. With “her” In mind.

    Worried about unemployment?
    At least we can say we have found a job that men are factually banned from doing.
    Finally 1 step closer to feminism goal of equality.
    Just do to his presence he was an OSH risk to the parents.

    Also a good indication of how women vs men experience being a victim and behave as a result.
    Or have to behave.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 15th January 2018 @ 7:15 pm


    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 15th January 2018 @ 7:15 pm

  4. @1 calculations based on potential earnings and also lump sum payments of child support are not new.

    You will find previous discussions dating back over a decade, however they generally relate to high income earners. One in particular I recall was about the potential of a website to generate income.

    This is a new low IMO to be attacking male beneficiaries on the basis that they are separated fathers.

    Sadly, I wrote some years ago, that this is where we would end up and it would be reflected in our suicide rate, but that is only a reminder of the nature and reality of our determined and ruthless feminist administration

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 16th January 2018 @ 7:12 am

  5. If the IRD has worked from the top down which would obviously follow the money then they will have established legal cases (probably hidden in the Family Court) along with surveillance and collection protocols.

    One can only imagine how damaging and debilitating that will be for male economic development in the current and following generation.

    Another way of viewing that given the IRD retain as much child support as they can is that they are irresponsibly allowing the political economy to survive on future taxation.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 16th January 2018 @ 12:47 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