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.