Think about the state of the NZ male.
Consider the state of the NZ male when you read this quote.
Tell me if you think this describes the state of NZ men today and why. Afterwards I’ll tell you who wrote it and when.
A wise ancient declared that the most perfect popular government was that ‘where an injury done to the meanest subject is an insult upon the whole constitution’. What, therefore, can be said for a Government that deliberately inflicts injury upon a great mass of its intelligent and respectable subjects; that virtually ignores their existence in all that can contribute to their happiness as subjects; that takes a special care to strike at the root of their love of country by teaching them that they have no part in forming or maintaining its glory, while it rigidly exerts from them all penalties; even unto death? What can be said, what urged, in extenuation of this crying evil, this monstrous injustice? ‘Custom; use; it has always been so’. This may be enough to say of the past — ‘let the dead past bury its dead’; but is it to be remedied for the future?
A very relevant quote. It’s interesting how truth endures, and something said over 2000 years ago by the ancient equivalent of a political activist is still completely relevant today.
Even in todays society, if this was made public there would be a great debate on who this author was referring to. However when we look at it carefully taking in to account the male gender times have remained the same, only to probably have escalated in regards to men being totally extinguished from the justice systems where they only look at them as perpetrators who can do no good. Great read Julie and it really gets you thinking critically about the great debate of men in the justice systems.
It sounds to me like something one of the American Revolutionaries would have said, in reference to British rule of the American colonies. Does it sound like the state of the NZ male? It sounds the the state of men everywhere in the West.
Probably poorly translated greek lol
Please don’t call me Julie. It’s not at all insulting but I still prefer my own name. Thanks. 🙂
It is the start of a pamphlet written by Mary Ann Muller in 1869 titled “An Appeal to the Men of New Zealand”.
She was imploring men to give women the vote.
A noble and just cause.
Move forward in time, reverse the genders and look at the comments above.
Makes you think doesn’t it?
Reply to Dave
‘Tongue in cheek’ and ‘just stirring the Pot’….Yep…And what a F
Reply to Dave..bugger hit the wrong key…Again
‘Tongue in cheek’ and ‘just stirring the Pot’….Yep…And what a total ‘F@#k up’ that was for Manhood and Fatherhood in today’s society here in Nazi Feminism New Zealand ….!!!..As in giving Kiwi Woman …The right to Vote….
If only I could get my ‘Time machine’ to work….Things could be so easily changed …!!!!!
Kind regards John Dutchie
Even though you meant this as a joke it completely misses the points I was making. It detracts the readers away from several important points I thought I had illustrated. And of course I disagree most strongly with those sentiments – made “tongue in cheek” or not.
Dave, I’m not so sure that John’s joke and your wider point are that inseparable. I’m assuming you meant to point out that the nature of oppression in the form of bad law is timeless. Mary Ann Muller’s essay could just as easily have been penned by a black American slave, a French revolutionary or Nelson Mandela. The consequences of bad law are just as timeless: civil unrest or war.
What disturbs me is that our whole history bas been shaped by this same recurring pattern of those in power favoring one particular group and codifying in law the denial of justice to another. If we have had so much history to instruct us, why have we not yet learned the lesson? Can ‘progress’ only be revealed by the continued conflict between legally distinct identity groups? If so, then access to justice is really only available to whoever holds the reins of power.
I would like this to be not true, but the best I can settle for is that there are longish stretches of time where power transfers from one group to another and a resemblance to good governance is perceived – though in reality the formerly powerful are unaware of their demise, and the soon-to-be powerful are made optimistic by the knowledge of their ascendancy.
BUT it wasn’t. It was written by a feminist. An actual original feminist in NZ. One still celebrated in feminist circles today.
This illustrates the hypocrisy of contemporary feminism and our society today.
The difference is that then people acknowledged females were disadvantaged by the system. Today very few acknowledge it is males who are disadvantaged by the system.
The same applies to 3 other examples you made. It was never in doubt who was disadvantaged by the system. It was simply justified in one way or another for a time.
However with NZ men the constant allegation and assumption is that the system favours men when it is clear this is simply untrue.
Well yes that is the whole point of studying history in the first place and having free speech. Probably the struggle for a fair government will never end. However as I pointed out the way injustice against males is maintained in modern NZ is different.
One of my main points is that modern feminism is not about equality. In 1869 it was. Now the opposite is true.
Another point is that fathers groups are fundamentally asking for no more than the same things feminists were asking for in 1869.
That’s a strong point. I can’t think right off of a precedent situation where the disadvantaged were falsely represented as privileged, but it’s something I’ll be thinking about.