"Go back to work Uterus. I mean, Woman".

This welfare policy from John Key and Paula Bennett is the most disgusting policy in the history of welfare reforms. From the Herald:
50% of the population written off as nothing more than walking uteruses or uterii just like that.
The message inherent in this policy is that, if you’re a women (any woman) in certain situations, the state and the welfare department’s case managers can have an opinion and influence over what you do with your uterus.
I get quite grumpy over anyone who has an opinion over the number of kids I have. ¬†It’s a private matter for women and their partners. Moreover, this policy is an insult to my value as a female member of the human race. A message that is picked up by the violent and the crackpots. Watch the rates of domestic abuse, violent sexual offending and child abuse rise. This always happens when a government sticks the boot in to females.¬†
Yes, there are a few cases of women who have further children while on a benefit. For the most part these women have been taken advantage of, by a MALE. Or they may have a lower emotional or actual I.Q. This still doesn’t give the state to have a right to have an opinion over whether they or THEIR KIDS, (and that part is the bit that shocks me), should be on the pill. It must be reiterated here that most individuals on the DPB are on it because their situation changed dramatically and suddenly.
There are always a few bastards at any end of the scale; those who abuse benefits are at one end. The middle of the bell curve is where policy should be set and the piss-takers should be targeted by demographic or region with the birth control options being made available, subtly. This broadly announced policy indirectly and negatively effects 50% of the population, just as the 1991 welfare reforms did. It is not going to help National to walk to victory in 2014.
I have spent time defending John Key and Paula Bennett to friends and family, as a support party to the party I supported ūüôā ; I’m sure most M.P’s are good people just doing their often difficult jobs. ¬†
I met three of the four MP’s in my electorate, and felt they all wanted to do their best for the community and New Zealand including the lovely National M.P ¬†Katrina Shanks.¬†
But if the women don’t speak up, National now has a high chance of screwing up and losing the 2014 election.¬†¬†
I would like to see what the parties with Supply and Confidence with National have to say over this piece of junk. I also wonder where the Exclusive Brethren are and whose ears they are in.

More than likely we’re in for a long cold socialist winter in 2014. ¬†
This absolutely disgusting policy seeks to control the reproductive choices of all women.  
¬†I won’t rant at any particular individual but it’ll be a man driving this policy. And whoever he is:
I may have a uterus but it is ……….. who is the ..nt.
Discuss and share:
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11495995981682025219 nasska

    I can’t be reading from the same page as you as nowhere do I see stated or implied any reference as to how many children you & your spouse should have or wish to have.

    What I do read is a coded message to women of breeding age that if they wish to conceive that they might pause momentarily & consider exactly who is going to pay for the upbringing of the fruit of their loins. If they are in a stable relationship & financially prepared have one, have ten….it’s really all the same to us.

    If, however, you were sixteen, had dropped out of school, were too tired to get a job & saw breeding as a career option don’t you think that the people who are going to have to pay for this coming trainwreck deserve to have a little say in the matter? After all those same taxpayers might like to have another child themselves, maybe a bit of new furniture for the house, perhaps repair the car….all rather than pay for some lazy little bitch to breed for bucks. Most people get the hang of conceiving children pretty quickly…bringing them up & paying for them is a lesson less quickly learnt.

    Unfortunately I think you are taking umbrage at a message never intended for you.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06492497928441420400 Renee Urlich

    Well written Monique…for the first time I feel the need to comment here.

    Naaska, at the age of 16 you cannot get the DPB. Most women do not have more children on the DPB (70%), and the majority (85%) have 1 or 2 kids. Most women are not ‘breeding’ on the DPB. Since the DPB was created in the 70’s the numbers on this benefit have been declining.

    Again, the majority women on the DPB are of childbearing age 18-29 and this benefit is mostly used as a transitional support only. These women are raising families on their own….DPB is not much of a choice, it is a means to an end for a period of time.

    The key thing to support women on the DPB is to
    A) have a job available that works for a solo mum with young children
    B) have quality accessible childcare

    Both these things is what Government Policy should be focusing on…not the Women’s uterus or contraception.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11495995981682025219 nasska


    You can’t get the DPB at sixteen but you do qualify for a high level of assistance & of course without a change in circumstances will automatically move on to the DPB at eighteen.

    The DPB was intended to provide temporary assistance to women in violent or disfunctional relationships which it has always done & hopefully will continue to do. I was never meant to be a platform for indiscriminate breeding but for some that is what it has become.

    The former group are transitional & society is happy to provide for them. The latter group although not so numerous are long term(perhaps 30+ years) & churn out large families while squatting on a benefit which effectively endorses the behaviour with monetary reward. Their reliance on benefits provided via working taxpayers is parasitical. More than a few make a piss poor job of dragging up their meal tickets.

    It is this hard core my remarks were directed at.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06492497928441420400 Renee Urlich

    Naaska – these are by far the minority.

    Included in the DPB stats are usually the Widows Benefit, caregivers of someone sick or infirm, or a woman alone who is aged 50 years or older. Still with these numbers , the average time on the DPB is 3 years.

    You could save your hard-core remarks for the governments of the day that decide to judge women by the fact that they have a uterus.

    If you remain passionate on judging women, read up on the numbers and not just the headlines…you may start to make some rational comments based data and own your comments with your name attached to it….it is far too easy to speak vitriol when you don’t have to put your face to it.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11495995981682025219 nasska


    From a recent address by Paula Bennett:

    1)…”we have 220,000 children living in welfare dependent households. We have nearly 7,000 babies born to teen mums, most of who will be on a benefit for at least seven of the next 10 years and many for a lifetime.”….

    2)…”One third of women currently on the DPB started on the benefit as teen mums. That is more than 30,000 people. “….

    3)…”if a woman on benefit had another child when their youngest was 18 they would automatically get another 18 years on benefit. In some cases that clock has been ticking for over 35 years and counting. This is not happening in isolation. Around 29 per cent of those on DPB have had a subsequent child while on benefit.”….

    Why not have a look at these figures & maybe look at the implications for NZ society. The cost is not only measurable in dollar terms as the kids born into these “families” don’t seem to feature highly in lists of life’s success stories.

    You are falling into the trap of using uteri as a substitute for red herrings.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06492497928441420400 Renee Urlich

    So you do not look at statistics independently, you copy and paste a transcript of a politicians headline and own it yourself without independent thought.

    1) Statistics are good … not the term “most”. Using an average (in this case the median) women who enter the DPB as a teenager (18-19yrs) are on the DPB for….1 year. To get this Data it is correlated long term from 1999. National just made a policy about reproductive choices because of this??

    No-one denies child poverty in NZ…it is the correlation and comment on reproductive choices that I believe is absolutely wrong.

    2) This is because most women on the DPB are in the age-group 18-29…it is no surprise that when they turned 20 that they magically did not suddenly no longer need the support of the DPB. The average time on the DPB is currently 3 years….again showing that the DPB used as a transitional benefit.

    3) looking at the statistics of women who had children at age 36 whilst on DPB for the 10 years previous equates to just 3%…kind of insignificant and certainly not something to base a policy on (lets look at numbers not Paula Bennetts diatribe with “most” and “in some cases”)

    Numbers speak for themselves. Inter generational poverty is not going to go away by casting judgement on peoples reproductive choices, which is what this policy is about.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12538783137602201932 Monique Watson

    I have no issue with the availability of contraception. You’ll find that special grants are provided for abortions; you even get funded to travel to another town if your own G.P objects. I’d be surprised if you couldn’t get a special needs grant via winz for the implant already . It is the disgusting fashion in which a women’s health issue is being used as a political football that I object to. This policy could have been announced during the budget. It is some piddly little amount to fund these measures so it has obviously ben released to distract from Skycity and Banksie/Dotcom.
    This affects the manner in which any women is treated when they approach the DSW or it’s agencies for assistance. I would like to remind all the guys that are putting the boot in that most women know another woman who is or has been on a benefit. That is 50% of voters that National is possibly alienating.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/03879007924263117130 Maz

    I am a former teenage mum who did her time on the DPB so I have my own experience and opinions on the matter. Most of which I keep to myself as I sometimes come across as against the people who “rely” on the system -even though I was one of them once. Anyway this is the first time I am publicly airing my thoughts, I mean no harm by them.

    Looking back it was made too easy for me to stay on the DPB and do nothing. I was uneducated (in more areas than one) and living an easy life of what felt like being paid to hang with my child all day. I watched people like this one person very close to me pump out one child after another while on the DPB (which she has now been on for over 14 years and has 5 kids which aren’t exactly well looked after… Why was this possible? I ask myself this question every time I see them.)

    Anyway I used to sit there and wonder why when the first two children were taken off her that someone couldn’t force her to be on some form of contraception so that it wouldn’t happen again? I realise now that it was probably wrong to think that way, but it was only out of fear for the other kids and the possibility of more born into poverty and potential neglect and/or abuse.

    Going back to my own story, my son’s father who I met when I was just 14 and he was 18 came around to talk to me. He gave me a choice – he said if I get off my lazy behind instead of heading towards a sad life like the person mentioned above and find myself a job, he will try to reconcile our broken relationship.

    That choice did more for me than WINZ or the Government ever did, it gave me a reason to stop being lazy and do something for myself because the stakes were high.
    I have quietly thought to myself that it is similar to the Government’s new reforms of “get a job or lose your benefit”. Probably an offensive opinion to some – and I know it won’t work for all, but I have had first hand experience in it being a success story. I also call it a choice because it is, you can either chose to do nothing and face the consequences or get out there and do something for yourself – and your children.

    Now I was on the DPB approximately 10 years ago so it may have changed since then, but while I was on it I received ZERO help, information, offers or assistance of any kind for:

    A. Education or employment
    B. Family planning information (yes I think availability of cheap/free contraception, information, care etc is a great idea)
    C. Basic parenting skills

    It is just my opinion but I think these things are important to someone who was in the same position I was, I had nothing going for me at the time and no drive to change it – my highest education was one term of 3rd form!

    Nowadays, I am in my late 20’s with an 11 year old child, still happily married to his father. We moved overseas 4 years ago and built our first house together and are living a very happy life.
    On top of that I am still no more educated than I was back then, but I worked my way up from a part time job filing and answering phones to a management role 10 years later and earning amazing money.

    The point of my story is that from my own experience, I believe the Governments new changes will push some people to do great things with themselves, things that they may have never considered an option because it just looked too hard from where they were sitting.

Become enlightened.
Get the newsletter: