Some ideas
I have been giving this Child Support and Family Law question a bit of thought lately. Rather than prattle on about the inequities of our Family and Child Support Laws, which in this forum we all know so much about, I thought I would offer up some ideas about where I think it should go. I believe that we, in little ol’ NZ are probably in an ideal situation to pioneer the reforms that need to occur, to begin to rectify many of the fundamental ills of every western society, (yeah ok, we were the first to give wimmin the vote — look where that has got us.) because we are  small enough to gather the ears, and large enough to have some credibility, as a nation.
So this is what I think:-
It is absolutely essential the Western Society is restored to a place where the family is the cornerstone of social development, (which is in direct opposition to feminist doctrine, so this is probably doomed before it starts.) However, didn’t that recent survey say women valued family above all else. Yes, but Legal Systems need to reflect that.
Every bit of NZ (for a start) Legislation that deals with Family, Children, Marriage, Parenthood etc. should be repealed and replaced with a single piece of Legislation that serves them all; one which engenders and fosters the establishment and maintenance of family values, social awareness and personal responsibility. At present the opposite is true.
Rather than being prefixed with the (implied) premise that :-
“The Government will ensure that the no-fault Divorce principles and all ancillary laws will prevail, and those that suffer from the effects of the implementation of those principles and laws will be hunted almost to the ends of the Earth, and every ounce of their self-esteem, self-worth, self respect, sanity, honesty and integrity, not to mention any available cash, will be extracted, and they will be condemned to a life of poverty, depression, desperation, cynicism, bitterness and emotional wilderness, thus exponentially elevating the likelihood of family violence, abuse, homicide, infanticide and suicide, as well as fostering the wholesale displacement of children who will grow up to repeat their parents failures.”
– the new Legislation would be (expressly) premised with the rather radical and perhaps extreme statement that:-
“Every person is responsible for the consequences of their own decisions and actions.”
The new Legislation would approach family considerations from a completely fresh direction and would provide consequences, for varying personal decisions which relate to family matters, founded on principles such as:-
Children, Marriage and Families.
- Where there is a ‘union’ which is not in the nature of a marriage, i.e. a fling, brief encounter, one night stand, or where there is no commitment to a ‘relationship’ by at least one party, and which results in a pregnancy, the contributors to the pregnancy are both liable to make an equal contribution to actual costs of raising the child. NOTE: This may appear a bit ‘band-aid’ with a cursory look, but in fact, it will encourage individuals, male and female, to each take responsibility for the prevention of any pregnancy which is not deliberately anticipated. ‘Actual costs’ can be researched ONCE, and ascribed a weekly value, adjusted annually, upwards or downwards by movements in Consumer Price Index, and half of that cost is payable by the non-custodial parent, where applicable, to the custodial parent, until the child is 18, or married etc. See ‘actual costs’ later.
- Where a couple enter into any other ‘union,’ whether it is a marriage, a civil union, de facto or other relationship in the nature of a marriage, or cohabit, and there is a proven resultant child or children, whether by natural means, or by adoption, the couple is automatically bound by a standard contract which includes the promises and vows included in a traditional marriage ceremony, whether the ceremony has taken place or not, and also includes responsibilities with respect to the child(ren) of that union, and the taking on of responsibilities for the children of any previous union, which may be in the custody of either partner. For these purposes the relationship is a ‘Marriage’ and the unit is a ‘Family.’ The children of any previous union, in the custody of either of the parties, are included in the ‘family’ as if they were living with both natural parents, whether or not a legal adoption takes place.
- Where a family, comprising mum, dad and the kids stays together, they are rewarded while that family unit is maintained, by Government incentives (diverted from the present Domestic Purposes Benefit setup, but may be as simple as being in the form of tax concessions). Further benefits are available where it is proven that the children in such families are succeeding (by meeting high academic thresholds) in school activities, are productively involved in extra curricular activities such as sport, cultural activity, music and theatre etc, and are actively supported in these activities by both resident parent figures. This elevates the likelihood of parents taking a real interest in the education and social adjustment of the children in their care. These incentives are not available to sole parent situations, but second or subsequent ‘marriages’ do qualify, and expressly include children in that family, who are from a previous union.
- Where a party to a ‘marriage’ elects to end the marriage, retains custody of the child(ren), (by whatever means, agreement, custody order etc), and excludes the other party from contact with the child(ren), they accept that they release the other party from all of the responsibilities of the (assumed) marriage contract, including imposed financial liability for maintenance of the children. The exception is where such an annulment is as a direct result of proven violence or other quantitative abuse on the part of the other party, which is considered to be a good and valid reason to quit the marriage, and renders that other party responsible for the breakup and so liable for maintenance of any children in that family.
- Where a party to a ‘marriage’ elects to end the marriage, and abandons custody and care of the children, they assume responsibility for the continued care of those children in a financial sense, and would be liable to half the actual costs. Again, the exception is where the initiator of the breakup is the victim of domestic violence, in which case the perpetrator retains that burden.
- Where such violence is cited, it must be current, subject to criminal or other retributive proceedings, attracting the same standard of proof as any criminal matter, and the breaking of the marriage should be immediate and final. In such cases, where the perpetrator does not become the custodian of the child(ren), they will be liable to pay half the actual costs of raising the children as in para 1. If they do have custody, they become a sole parent. If a victim of such violence subsequently elects to return to the same marriage, the history of violence cannot be used as a reason for another subsequent election to quit.
NOTE: The above paragraphs are intended to reflect the maxim —‘You are responsible for your own decisions”
i.e if you have a drunken night out, without protecting yourself, you pay. If you enter into a relationship for the long haul, you accept the responsibility it brings, even down to your partners existing children. If you choose to leave that situation, take the children with you, because you can no longer be bothered, you accept the responsibility that brings as well, including bringing up the children yourself, until you can provide another safe family haven for them. If you choose to bash, rape or otherwise abuse your partner or the family children, you get removed and you pay. If you are bashed etc, and choose to keep going back to the relationship, it’s back to square one each time. If you maintain your family until the children grow into secure responsible adults, you are rewarded. It is all pretty simple really.
Sole Parents.
- Subject to paras 1 and 5 above, where a parent chooses to ‘go it alone,’ that is exactly what they do — go it alone. There would be no Domestic Purposes Benefit to support them, and they will need to rely heavily on support from their own extended family. They may still qualify for the Unemployment Benefit, perhaps with a nominal allowance for each pre-school aged child, with the proviso when applying for such a benefit, that it will not be renewable when the youngest child at Application time, reaches school age. Further children while on this benefit will not qualify or extend the time.
- If circumstance dictates that a sole parent has to give up their child(ren) to someone other than the other natural parent, they then become liable, upon Application, to the full cost of rearing the child(ren), payable to the guardian. If custody is given up to the other natural parent, the liability is for half the cost.
NOTE: This is not as draconian as it seems. If we accept the statistics that show that the bulk of domestic violence occurs in single parent homes, and we accept that children are much more likely to flourish in a home where there is both a mother and father figure, then it follows that any Family oriented Legislation should vigorously and actively discourage the setting up of home situations where those adverse conditions exist, and where they do exist, should deliberately withhold any form of endorsement. Again, at the moment, the opposite is true.
Children.
Questions will be asked. What about the welfare of the children who do not have the choice, and who may be in a Sole Parent situation, but who would have no real Govt support, or support from the absent parent? The answer is contained within what happens presently. Single parents get the DPB free of accountability for its use, The children do not get it. Single parents get the liable parent Child Support contributions, if there is any left after the Government has had its bite, likewise with no accountability. Again, the children don’t. So, is there any real difference?
Absent Parents.
Except where a valid existing Protection or Restraining Order etc. provides, nothing in the new Legislation would prevent any parent from maintaining contact, having a parent/child relationship, privately making financial contributions or undertaking any of the many things parents take for granted, where they have children that reside elsewhere. The Legislation would allow as few expectations on the part of either parent as possible, so that absent parents can feel worthy and appreciated for voluntary involvement of any kind, and in fact would be more likely to do so, and custodial parents can do the same. Goodwill between separated parents of children is almost as essential for the children’s sense of ‘place’ as having a resident parent figure representing both genders is for social adjustment. Legislation needs to reflect that, and needs to provide frameworks for that to be engendered and fostered.
Second Marriages with existing children.
I am not sure of the statistics relating to numbers of divorcees with children, who remarry or enter another committed relationship, but I am sure that the percentage is significant, and may even be overwhelming, and probably, it doesn’t matter. Whereas new Legislation should be designed to promote the maintenance of a ‘first’ family; in my experience, Â the new partners of those custodial parents that take a second or subsequent plunge, inherently absorb by osmosis, many of the parenting roles left vacant by the absent parent. This should be commended and recognised, which is why I elevate such family situations to the same status as first families, in terms of the rewards suggested.
In any case, as often as not, in current ‘blended families’, the family receives child support contributions from an absent parent, and then pays child support contributions to another family, because there is a resident absent parent as well. The Government gets involved in this money-go-round, at a cost to the tax-payer, and with benefit in tax-take but there seems little point, outside the Govt tax benefit. If a person says, “I want to be with this person and we will marry (or not) and live together”, I believe they are declaring that if that other person has resident children, then they accept them also. If this was legally recognised, it would be embraced.
Actual Costs of raising child.
This needs some detailed work, which I have not done. The main thing is, you need to compare Apples with Apples. And it depends who you talk to.
If one digests this- http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3673318/Undervalued-mums-toil-hardest-at-home
(Thanks Skeptik) – we are asked to believe that the ‘value’ of running a household is $47500. This figure is arrived at by stay-at-home women who believe their work is undervalued, and is a real value. Note the word ‘value’ is expressed. Ok, so if running a household is ‘valued’ at $47.5K p.a. by women who don’t actually get paid to do it, and so don’t have to pay any of the ‘real and actual costs’ of running a household, what is the ‘value’ of running a new household when it is run by a man who is booted out of his original household and has to set up another one and run it, whilst also working for a living, and paying the real ‘costs’ of his new household, and probably much of the ‘costs’ of the old one? Remember, if there are children, he has to provide space for them as well, even if he only sees them infrequently. If one household’s work is worth $47.5K, why not the other? Anyway, these figures are arbitrary and the point is moot— no one gets paid for this work. But, it does illustrate some inequity, because, even though ‘value’ is expressed, ‘cost’ is implied. And you can bet yer boots, women do it better, so there is no need for equity value.
Last time I looked, my Living allowance for the purposes of calculating C.S. liability was $19,379. Everything else is up for grabs. I get taxed on my gross income, and after deducting the living allowance from the gross income, child support for two children is taken. That’s 24% of gross income less $19,379. That money has already been taxed. I could be wrong, but then, the childrens’ mother, who receives that tax paid contribution, has it taxed again as part of her income. I thought it was a contribution for the children. Isn’t that what they tell us. Multiply that little tax double dip by the number of NCP’s out there — staggering. Pretty good racket for the coffers. Is it any wonder why it is so difficult to get the powers to listen and take notice?
New legislation should begin at a default position, in the event of a relationship break down, of 50-50 shared care, where child costs lay where they fall — neither parent pays the other child support. School fees and extra-household costs are shared by negotiation. It moves pro rata in one direction to where a parent insists on 100% custody and 100% care, and assumes 100% responsibility, including financial, and in the other direction to where a parent abandons 100% custody and 100% care, and therefore assumes 50% financial responsibility. Child Support obligations cease when the custodial parent enters into another relationship, whether there is a working party in that relationship or not.
Can the Government afford a change of this Nature?
I believe we cannot afford NOT to make a change. The current Legislation has systematically dismantled the sanctity of the family, and shredded the fabric of nurture for the children who are our future. I won’t go on about it. We all know this. What Western Governments do not seem to understand is that this is already showing signs of destroying western civilisation, and it may already be too late. For today, while Governments are raking this in from the divorce industry, everything is ok for them. But what about tomorrow? While Governments insist on planning only as far as the next election, looking for as many dollars as they can get in the interim, society as we know it is doomed. – But maybe not.
The DPB budget is not entirely funded by recoveries of Child Support: making child support liability equitable and reasonable will reduce the levels of absconder: and making people responsible for their own decisions will enable the Government to concentrate more on Governance and less on Policing. There will be much more stability in families, in workforces, less dependence on welfare handouts, and more capacity for Government to positively deal with problems when it faces more contented communities.
The first problem is to identify, beyond any doubt, that there is a need to change, point out the consequences of failing to change, and have the Government recognise, accept and buy-in to it. Good luck with that – I hear you scream in fits of laughter — or maybe disdain.
Footnote.
These notes are not intended to be exhaustive or comprehensive, or provide any definitive or absolute solution. These ideas will throw up some fish-hooks, perhaps many, but I have yet to see any alternative to the current Legislation presented or proposed anywhere, for ordinary people to look at, analyse and consider. I have no idea what has been banging around in Peter Dunne’s head regarding changes to Child Support, but I have been rather hoping that it is because his ideas are so at-odds with current thinking that the delays we are experiencing are inevitable. I wanted to offer some ‘bones’ as a starting point to present somewhere, as an alternative to existing policy, something positive rather than another treatise on how crap things are at the moment.
I acknowledge that it is very much ‘in your face’ stuff, and pretty much turns everything over, and I AM looking for reaction – considered reaction. But what then? – I don’t know what to do with it. I have deliberately refrained from huge volumes of explanation, preferring instead to see whether readers can make sense of it and formulate their own opinions of what something like this would mean. I am sure there are many other ideas out there and I am sure you will add yours.
Hi Glen,
This is a long read which is why you haven’t had many responses so far.
When I say a long read I mean that there is a great deal to think about.
I think you are definitely on to something here. I certainly want to congratulate you on taking a constructive approach.
The principles you laid out are all sound in my view. You have also explained how they would be implemented in practice. I would think most people on this site will be in broad agreement. That just leaves nit picking over the details.
One observation is that changes need to be implemented in their entirety – not a watered down version. This is true no matter what gets proposed.
Some phrases you have used are key to successful implementation e.g. “actual costs”, “proven child”, etc.
I agree that we do need a fundamentally different paradigm as you have outlined here.
Comment by Dave — Wed 14th July 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Hi Dave,
Yes, sorry about the long read.
The thing is, most of the tax-take is from the waged and salaried, and most of those are men. We have two options.
The first is to change nothing fundamentally, and continue to attack and plunder the very people that provide most of the tax-take, and drive them further to the fringes, to crime, unemployability, seeking gang involvement in lieu of family security, and watch the Government’s band-aid reaction to the consequences of the problem, whilst listening to them describing each issue as the problem itself. It isn’t.
The other is to provide a viable alternative which will address the real problem.
Consider this…
Suppose in New Zealand, we devised, developed and adopted policies and attendant laws which protected ALL people from the stranglehold of Feminist influence.
Suppose at the same time we took a hardline on all forms of violence.
Suppose these laws regarded its primary taxpayers as Tradesmen, professionals, academics, teachers, pilots, labourers and what-have-you etc, instead of criminals, fugitives, deadbeat dads and tax-dodgers.
Suppose we rewarded families who could demonstrate that their ongoing input was teaching our children how to think, how to learn, and how to respect each other, as well as all of the other ‘balances’ we crave.
Suppose these policies were introduced in New Zealand, out of step with the rest of the West. (We have been out of step already, with our stance on the nuclear issue, and what happened – nothing bad.)
Where, do you suppose, tradespeople, professional people, teachers etc, who are regarded as disposable crooks where-ever else they may reside in the west, would prefer to reside if these policies existed here?
What power would NZ be able to invoke, in determining what skills we want, what population levels are optimum for our plans, what future we could create, in terms of an appropriate and sympathetic immigration policy?
Do you think it is possible we could control the capacity to tap into whatever skills we wanted to provide infrastructure, housing, jobs for perhaps a couple of million carefully vetted and selected new people? Maybe more.
What would happen? More waged and salaried people. Greater primary tax take. Economy boom. More content families. Less crime due to more control of our citizenship.
I am just wondering.
Comment by glenn — Wed 14th July 2010 @ 2:39 pm
It’s already happening. It is no accident there is a man drought.
Comment by Dave — Wed 14th July 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Although I like your suggestions and they are certainly well thought out, they are impractical because they assumes that a government bureaucracy administering child support is capable of restraint and it isn’t. Child support is nothing but a mechanism for the government to interfere where it doesn’t belong – in this case families. Governments are always looking for excuses to exist and to grow. A family is one of four pillars of civilization, the others being the market, the church, and the government. The family should always be separate from these other three. If a woman wants a child with a man, that’s her choice, and she is solely responsible for it just as if she were to get an abortion without consulting the father or even getting pregnant without consulting the potential father. The father is as exempt from responsibility for a child, if he chooses, as he is exempt from a woman’s decision to abort or to get pregnant. If the man leaves her for another woman, that’s her problem. If she doesn’t like the way he is supporting her and the children, that’s her problem – she can leave him, if she thinks she can do better hersef without assistance from the government. The government has presented itself as a competitor of men for women and their families. I do not believe that any degree of government involvement in a family is possible because it can never be limited. Bureaucracies like ones concerning child support are always looking for excuses to grow and they cannot be stopped. Once they exist, they grow like cancers, looking for ever more reasons to interfere. There are many things a government can do to promote the well-being of children, but interfering with families and giving mothers incentive to divorce isn’t one of them. There should be NO child support. Your suggestions are great for rehabilitating a corrupt and dysfunctional government agency that is necessary, but agencies for child support are not necessary. Better economic policies are.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 12:06 am
To expand further on my last post, consider domestic violence and child abuse. In the US, there are social services and child protective services, government bureaucracies designed and funded to protect women and children from the alleged epidemic abuse by men. Our government already had mechanisms for investigating and dealing with violent crimes, including those by husbands and fathers, so they didn’t need anything like social services or protective services. They were created anyway. Once the government discovered that there were not enough cases of “real” child abuse and domestic violence to justify continued funding of social services and child protective services, they changed the definitions such that the number of cases rose dramatically. Now, domestic violence is defined as a husband’s disagreement with his wife, a restraining order can be taken out against someone who isn’t even a family member residing with you, and child abuse is any reasonable measure of discipline a father applies to his children. In the US, child support originally began with getting poor black fathers to support their children and to get the black mothers off welfare. And when there weren’t enough of them to justify existence of agencies for child support enforcement (as the black population was less than 10% of the entire population and only a small percent of them were on welfare, with most black fathers supporting their children the best they could), they started going after white fathers. And when there still weren’t enough child support recipients in the system to support the ever expanding bureaucracy, they began targeting middle class families with decent incomes to benerate more revenue. Then they started going after middle class families with decent incomes where the mother worked and then ones where the mother worked and had a college education and so on. See how it works. The government bureaucracy is constantly growing independent of need, so it creates the need as it goes even when it doesn’t really exist. Almost all mothers in the US don’t need child support. The cost of transferring child support from fathers to mothers is more than the child support transferred. If you want to preserve the economy, get rid of the agency and get the women out working. Then they are producing something and all this money isn’t going to the bureaucracy. If you don’t think the women should be working, then let them stay with their families and the fathers of their children. Stop paying them to abandon the fathers of their children in support of a huge bureaucracy that is sapping the economy. Although I applaud your tremendous investment of time and effort designing a bureaucracy for child support enforcement that may or may not work in and of itself, it still requires huge amounts of funding and support, funding and support that is better directed to making jobs for fathers and mothers who want to be productive at something other than transferring money from fathers to mothers. There shouldn’t even be an agency for child support enforcement because it is completely unnecessary, except in very rare instances, and those are not enough to justify such a huge and expensive bureaucracy. But nice try.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 12:36 am
Also, I am from the US and do not presume to know anything about NZ or its culture, so my comments may be completely unapplicable. But I do believe that child support should not be part of any government.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 1:08 am
Prior to 1960 or 1970 in the US, the number of out of wedlock births and instances of husbands and fathers abandoning their families was negligible. So, that a father failed to support his children was very rare, and an agency for child support enforcement was unnecessary from a practical perspective. It is only beneficial to feminists for political expedience – grabbing absolute power and absoute control. An agency for child support, no matter how it is structured or organized, serves no purpose. I hope my argument against child support makes sense. You can make one that works better but it will never solve more problems than it causes.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 3:44 am
Darryl X
Thanks for taking the time here. Essentially we are on the same page.
I too, believe that there should be no need for a Government controlled child support scheme, which funds mothers to destroy family relationships.
At the same time, that is what we have, and to change things, you need to start somewhere, providing something which is more universally palatable than nothing at all.
I am constantly staggered at the complacency of men. They have the capacity to coordinate huge campaigns against other countries in the name of freedom, but they cannot rally together to address much more pressing domestic concerns. I have trawled through these pages for some 18 months I suppose, and it is difficult to do so without becoming more bitter at the situation. And yet, it seems, when Feminism came along and states its aim of destroying men, it is men that have reacted by tacitly complying and responding with ‘Ok lets do that, we will help you, and although we will whinge and moan, we won’t do anything about it. We know it will end civilisation, but c’est la vie, (or perhaps c’est le mort.)’
I wanted to throw out some germs, to see if they would grow into something that can be taken, developed and presented down the track as something that might actually benefit ALL people, not just men.
There is actually a lot of extremely good piecemeal work being done in the real world, by people who visit this site, but my observation is that this site is full of people painting pictures about how shit everything is for men. I am one of them. We need an alternative and a place to start. So we will see what happens, we need to do it ourselves, but I am not holding my breath.
Governments will respond to pressure. So far there has been precious little in this area.
Comment by glenn — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 10:02 am
Thanks for your response. Good to know we ARE on the same page. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I’m amazed that any progress here in the US has been in the wrong direction. Child support laws actually get worse. In Missouri, for instance, legislation put in front of their Senate hasn’t been voted on yet (I don’t think), but it threatens any man for failure to make a monthly payment more than twelve times in the duration of his obligation for child support (like twenty-one years) with automatic prison. At least half of all men who owe child support have missed at least twelve payments, and many times it is the State’s own fault because of mismanagement or administration of the system. So, basically the law threatens one-sixth of the male population of Missouri with simultaneous and automatic prison sentences. The only objection to the legislation had nothing to do with Constitutional issues, but prison space. Crazy. In New York, the cap on child support was raised this year from $80,000 to $130,000 dollars, meaning that a woman with one child can receive up to $26,400 per year plus health care, college, medical insurance and costs, etc… You won’t see the government holding the custodial parent responsible for those kinds of costs.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 10:55 am
Exactly.
I don’t think NZ has criminalised fathers to the same degree as the U.S. – yet. We used to be leaders in the realm of political reform, but as the world gets smaller, our outlook gets smaller too and we are definitely followers now.
But, getting back on track, it is, as you suggest, completely screwed up. If we are to accept that it is a womans choice whether or not to become pregnant, and whether or not to have the child, or whether to keep it, for goodness sake, we even allow their claimed right to murder millions of unborn kids every year, as if unborns don’t have fathers, then we should also accept that fathers have no rights regarding children at all, and so should mothers. It is absolutely unbelievable that we accept financial responsibility for something we we have no say in.
I believe, if we are to effect any change, then Child Support and Family Law is the place to start.
But it is only the prelude.
Comment by glenn — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Child support and family law ARE the right place to start. I believe family law and child support will not be changed through peaceful means, given disposition of those in power. But it’s worth one more try. If and when things don’t work out, we’re prepared to be the sharp end of the spear for you.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 16th July 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Family Court is driving people to suicide, therefore the system is seriously flawed.
It is the “no fault” dissolution of marriages that is the flawed piece of legislation.
Suicide happens for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes “helplessness” is the reason — the person can see no way out, or has no sense of life enjoyment anymore… How did the very first union of the two people that created the baby/child/children go so very wrong? It is too simple to get married, or create a baby, and here-in is where the problem is.
There was a time when it was simply a public shame to have a child out of wed-lock, and then obviously the legislation got changed along the way, and you could leave a marriage at ‘will’.
If children out of wed-lock was made illegal, and marriage contracts were drawn up like business contracts, there would be an initial public out-cry…. But then family values would kick in, and families would enjoy their family barbeques despite the bumps in the road, and the bumps would happen frequently, and families would still enjoy their family barbeques,
and now and again fathers and mothers would smile….. and children would become adults, and be shocked when Mum and Dad split up…. However, on the whole, there would be an INCREASE IN HAPPY families, and an increase in happy children that grew into happy adults, and a decrease in suicides in the years to come.
Good Ideas aboce, but too costly: Go back to the traditional name and shame, and marriage contracts that are entered into forever, or at least until the kids are grown and have left home.
Comment by Celibate 3 years — Sun 25th July 2010 @ 3:51 pm
I could never understand exactly why this state of affairs that we have all been through, has been allowed to happen, why would men give away their power and wealth to women who are ineffective, weak both physically and mentally ? I have had no idea why until last week, when i read “Patriarchy for dummies” by Paul Elam
His idea is that the Alpha males “bosses, top MPs, generals” have collaborated with feminists to give power to women over Beta and down males, this is in all levels of society EXCEPT at the Alpha male level. The number of female MPs at alpha male level, generals, captains of industry is tiny. Most of the population is then dependent on government, big business, and it is easier to control women and there are more women who are attracted to the alpha males. Women are incapable of achieving much themselves since year dot, they just marry the highest level male they can to obtain his power and wealth. Of course this is all because of sex, without sex, women would be no more than slaves , or maybe even food. (But these are my ideas, not Paul Elam’s).
So to sum it up there are 2 types of males the Alpha males and the rest, the alpha males are still under the same laws. He says that the only way forward is if the majority of males stop caring for women , giving them out hard earned cash, to keep them in luxuries.
Just a few thoughts for debate, but the penny dropped for me, it seemed to fit in with what i have experienced. Of course you have to believe that the Alpha males are sociopathic, egocentric men, which is what i believe too !
Comment by kiwi in thailand — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 2:55 am
Hm, the link did not work correctly
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/07/24/patriarchy-for-dummies/
Paul Elam’s article
Comment by kiwi in thailand — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 2:58 am
Yes, KIT, I agree with your interpretation. There are two kinds of males that existed when humans were organized as a caste system instead of as a civilization. 20% of the males mated with 80% of the females and the remaining 80% of males who did not mate lived on the margins of society. They did not contribute much if anything to society, and the 20% of males that mated and had an incentive to contribute did not represent a critical mass to advance a civilization. Enslaving the other 80% of men (like we are doing now) didn’t work to advance civilization either. Then marriage was invented to encourage the contribution of those 80% of men, and they were conpensated with marriage, intimacy, affection, children and a higher standard of living. As long as the marriage contract was upheld by the law, civilization advanced. Now that marriage is no longer supported, and women use the “contract” as nothing but a mechanism to defraud men and their children, civilization is disintegrating. Not only is there no marriage contract, but now men are being enslaved, their educations and intellect are being used to impute incomes for calculating child support orders, young men are discouraged from attending university or even getting jobs, etc… Not only is there no incentive for approximately 80% of men to contribute, but there is an active disincentive for them to contribute. But if they don’t contribute, they are rendered destitute and sent to prison. Talk about screwed up – a worse system of oppression and tyranny could not be invented or imagined – one that trafficks children and promotes adultery and paternity fraud, and then enslaves the man if he does not (or even if he does) cooperate.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 3:53 am
And that means approximately 20% of men out there (mostly psychopaths) enable feminists by manipulating them and supporting their insanity and using them, and approximately 80% of women (mostly psychopaths) are fine with that as long as they continue to get what they want and can play the men against each other. That is why any campaign of war (and I do mean real war and not just legal or political or social action, but real bloody violent war) will have to be waged against those men and the women they enable. They can’t just be stopped – they must be eliminated. They have to be taken out of the gene pool without mercy and without deliberation. The problem is that serious. This is a real war and these people must be stopped through violent means. There is no legal or political or social solution. Unless you are willing to pick up a weapon and kill those who oppress you and your children, things will not change. So, do something or quit whining. Our children are being snatched and trafficked and fathers are being enslaved and the women and their male enablers who live excessive life-styles at our expense are directly responsible. Stop them. There’s only one way. This is war. REAL war. I am disgusted that this nonsense has been ongoing for forty years and men have just sat by passively. What will it take to inspire men to fight if not for themselves then for their children? Fight damn you men. Fight!!! What the hell is wrong with you?
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 4:15 am
I’ll help. Lots of guys here will. We don’t want anything except the satisfaction of VICTORY. New Zealand is the perfect place for a campaign like the one I propose. It’s small, isolated, and the ruling population of women and their male enablers is remarkably stupid. But you have to do something. Law, politics and social engineering will not work. These thugs must be stopped dead in their tracks as an example for the rest of the world about the consequences of feminism and child trafficking. Come on you guys. What are you afraid of. So many of you, like me, have lost your childre, your financil security, and any purpose for living. Get it back. Have we forgotten what it is like to be men? The enemy must be destroyed with extreme prejudice.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 3rd August 2010 @ 4:37 am