MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Thanks Lukenz, statisticians would be amazed.
Every statistic in the video, was just a wrong or a tragedy.
If this was done to women, they would march in the streets.
Is it victim rates for men, or offender rates for women.
Violent alienators using the system, look at men tapping out.
Sick and depressed, suicidal on pills and not working.
If you do harm and learn your wrong, what are you if you do it again.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 20th December 2024 @ 9:02 am
Two thirds are on low incomes, that means less child support.
By harming men to get money, you get less money.
If things were good for the man, do they not earn more.
If a man try’s to earn more, that means more child support.
The perfect slave would comply, working as hard as possible.
You could argue about choice, who women have kids with.
Are they intentionally picking men, that are not high functioning.
Women do lose in court, so why not make the odds better.
But why is the choice not for money, high functioning is more money.
If the choice was high functioning, look at the harm done to men.
After my first child I was minimum wage, or in education.
So for the most part, I was the low income child support payer.
I can say yes to many things in the video, like I’m the bad statistics.
My illness poisoning my results, dealing with CS was a nightmare.
The only hope you have, is that it eventually ends.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 21st December 2024 @ 9:39 am
One third of paying parents, don’t see there children.
Nine in ten of paying parents, experience parental alienation.
Nine in ten of paying parents, experienced physical abuse.
While I live with my kids now, my first child was as above.
I got to experience Christmas, without seeing my son.
From nine on I got a better deal, but the beginning was not good.
Clearly countless children, had that Christmas this year.
On one hand men must be better, we are not blameless.
I should have been better, not putting up with nonsense.
The statistics point out a reality, violent women is a normal.
Does that mean relationships that last, are violence free.
The statistics are skewed, only a third of women will be violent.
But if the relationship with kids ends, there was women’s violence.
Are a third of women violent, a third end in broken homes.
How do nine in ten children, spend Christmas with a violent parent.
Stereotyping is bad, men are stereotyped as the bad gender.
Like a broken record, violent controlling men are the problem.
I appreciate my Christmas, is so easy to be taken away.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 26th December 2024 @ 11:06 pm
I wonder if the revenue minister would benefit from a study quantifying the economic drag resulting from the disincentivising of promotion, overtime or working to one’s full potential from the intersecting web of tax, welfare and child support laws that converge to render non custodial parents economic surfs devoid of the minimal economic means to live a semi – dignified quality of life?
Comment by Jim — Sun 29th December 2024 @ 11:43 am
I heard a good economic argument, about GDP figures.
Every politician loves the figure, if it rises it is good news.
Imagine then your economy, it is worth one billion dollars.
But your economy is bad, it is causing pollution.
To fix the problem ten million is spent, the economy grew.
The politicians report the great news, everything is 1% better.
That incentivises pollution, the more bad the better it is.
Imagine then the earnings of men, it is part of GDP figures.
They then get all there money, then give it to someone else.
Taxes then child support, there’s little left for rent and food.
While the man made real GDP, what of the money given away.
That’s considered there earnings, so it’s part of GDP figures.
Good news for politicians, they magically doubled GDP figures.
But in reality, the money was really only made once.
GDP is a very rough guide, it ignores quality of life.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 1st January 2025 @ 10:28 am
I think it’s now fair to say, low economic status men are now effectively competing with the state to be fathers. In practice if your earning an average or below average income with dependent children, their is very little economic incentive for mothers to remain in stable nuclear family units , a sole parent income, coupled with “working” for families tax credits, a KO home ( charged at a max of 25% of base benefit) and child support to boot, equates to a handsome total income relative to the total income available if a non working mother will enjoy if she stays with the natural father of her children. ( in many cases ) it is not an unreasonable conclusion to infer this may perhaps be by design by the far left policy makers who are architects of our tax, welfare and child support laws. Secular Marxist who prefer a nanny state to parent the children over natural parents. This will be the undoing of our society long term. Show the incentives and you will foresee the results, NZ has itself to blame for declining social outcomes, I consider the welfare state to be largely responsible for the breakdown of the family, it’s not to say we ought not to have one but the current settings in aggregate seam to be creating perverse outcomes. The MAGA movement in the US get this, but little old NZ has a long way to go in putting the breaks on the decline on the fundamental foundation of our society ( The nuclear family ). Two natural parents raising their children should not be economically disadvantaged for doing so together, this is an optimal format after all. If you vote left you are voting against this in practice, the Greens and Labour are in my opinion anti family, they desire mass dependency on the state, they desire primary loyalty to the state not ones spouse or parents, That is the most fundamental choice we have as voters. Men who vote left ( and aprox 1/3rd do in NZ ) are voting for the dissolution of the nuclear family as an institution, shame on you if you are one !
Comment by Jim — Fri 3rd January 2025 @ 8:58 pm
Your argument is good about money, why have a man.
If you don’t want to work, what are the options.
The state can be the husband, the taxpayer funds it.
Multiple kids and fathers is even better, you get more money.
From cradle to grave, like a permanent holiday.
The government desperate, the birth rate is bad.
If men say no to having children, that will solve things.
They will give women more and more, without results.
It may be near an eternity, but eventually they will look at men.
I think it’s started already, men are opting out.
Maybe men reject the stay at home mum, wanting them to work.
Financially it’s unavoidable, unless it’s a high income male.
The conflict is easily solved, replace the husband.
Back to slaving away at work soon, apparently it’s a man’s world.
If you asked a working mother, I’ve probably got it easy.
I certainly admire my partner, she would say that.
The working father is a normal, it’s not seen as difficult.
See the dilemma women have, an easy and a hard option.
Do you make the easy harder, or the hard easier.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 11th January 2025 @ 12:38 am
DJ Ward , I think the challenge for men is who we select to be with , more so than ever in history I would caution my sons to undertake a very stringent values inventory of any woman they choose to enter a relationship with. It’s easy enough to see a woman’s character from the legacy of her previous actions, avoid woman who are antagonistic or negative about former partners, avoid woman who use sick leave as ‘ extra holiday leave , avoid women who view the world through Marxist lens ( oppressor / oppressed ) because guess who’s inevitable going to be cast in the ‘’oppressor “ role ?! Choose woman who are respectful to others , take responsibility for their own actions and choices and value higher values and ideals. Basically don’t date lefties is a good broad rule of thumb. Other than that the human race depends upon positive relations between men an woman , there are some amazingly sound woman out there , and it’s incumbent on us men to be worthy partners , they too struggle to find sound make partners after all . There are a lot of inadequate men out there to be fair to the ladies.
Comment by Jim — Sat 11th January 2025 @ 5:28 pm
It is hard to predict the future, let alone another’s future.
She or yourself seem all fine now, but it’s dating crazy.
Everything’s fine and you have kids, then everything goes wrong.
Whatever personality they were hiding, is now in full view.
On one hand there’s a dating extreme, like the full on interviews.
Background checks and audits, can they tick all the boxes.
Then the other extreme, falling in love at first sight.
Is life the buisness transaction, or is it something special.
If half of women will be single, half of men will be single.
The men can’t pass the interview, or burnt have given up.
The women are no different, with the same reasons.
If only we were less judgmental, and more accepting.
Is it a list of things that exclude partners, it may exclude everyone.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 15th January 2025 @ 8:29 pm