An argument against victim feminism in the history of NZ democracy
Feminism is a vague term and can at times be driven by a heinous concept called, Victim Feminism. This concept claims that any misfortune, lack of opportunity or discrimination of the “female” is the fault of the “male” of the species. One of the many examples I will use to support this claim is the exposure that the feminist movement give to their lack of democratic rights in NZ before being given the vote in 1893. A lack of information is supplied in their argument that they, females, were specifically singled out as unworthy to vote and thereby oppressed by males.
The facts are that the first elections in NZ were held in 1853 and every 5 yrs thereafter. The criterion to vote was:
“¢ Males over 21 years of age
“¢ British Subjects
“¢ Owners of land worth Ã‚Â£50 or more
“¢ Not serving a prison sentence
This deprived the majority of working males of a vote with only about 6% of the population having political power. By 1879 the property ownership clause was repealed and, by only a small margin a vote in parliament failed to extend the vote to women at that time. However, only 2 elections or 14yrs later they gained the vote in 1893. In contrast, working class males were denied the vote for 26 years or 5 votes later. To further appreciate the injustice, we should understand that these same men were forced to put their life on the line in the army whilst not having a vote in the process. Working class men have not focused on this “injustice’, having accepted it as a part of progress and not as a conspiracy against them. Feminists on the other hand have made it a major point in their claim of male oppression, developing it so well that it has become a part of our world view, as a search on Google will help to illustrate:
“¢ “Political history of female voting in NZ”, will bring up 64,400 hits
“¢ “Political history of voting in NZ”, will bring up 14,100 hits
“¢ “Political history of working class male voting in NZ”, will bring up 2,560 hits
The evolution of democracy in society is correcting many injustices across a large cross section of peoples. I therefore conclude that feminist’s credibility is damaged by the distortion of their case regarding repression and with the blaming of all men as the cause.
There is no need of Feminism in N.Z as female are well protracted and socially very active.
Thank you Triassic for spelling out the truth so clearly and logically.
You could also add that the 1951 New Zealand Defence Act (which still hasn’t been repealed!) states that in time of War or other national emergency MALES ONLY between the age of 18 and 45 years of age will be eligible at the Governor General’s discretion for being called up (Forced to self sacrifice or go to prison!) for national ‘duty’. That means that whilst women get the ‘democratic’ benefits of protection AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE, they are NOT REQUIRED by law to defend the state.
This has long been a sore point with me, and I’ve argued successfully AND shut down feminist victimology with THESE FACTS.
Imagine for a moment the law saying –
in time of War or other national emergency PACIFIC ISLANDERS ONLY between the age of 18 and 45 years of age will be eligible at the Governor General’s discretion for being called up (Forced to self sacrifice or go to prison!) for national ‘duty’
In my mind NZ MEN are the one’s who are thus oppressed as NZ women, even when challenged about this and who constitute the majority of NZ voters will still not do anything to overturn this blatant misandry.
And when you think about it, whether they’re aware of it or not (and so many women these days seem to be addicted to themselves and low brow mainstream media that I guess most aren’t aware) they’re sending a disgusting message to their menfolk which basically says –
“I’m a woman. I’m worth more than you mere males. I EXPECT you to sacrifice yourself for my well-being with the most precious thing you could ever own – your life!
You are my slaves”.
When I discovered these facts my respect for NZ womanhood plummeted and all remaining traces of chivalry, already by that stage severely dampened by witnessing the grotesque self serving behavior of countless NZ women who proudly declared themselves to be feminists ebbed away quickly.
Nowadays, more cognizant of where the real power lies in the relationship between the sexes in NZ I’m inclined to be polite but VERY detached from NZ women.
I certainly won’t mentor them professionally for starters, or help in any but the most trivial ways.
I’m simply not interested in further advancing the privileged sexes power.
This presses allot of women’s buttons as they obviously expect me to play by their rules.
I’m MGTOW in that respect.
Of course to be fair I should also point out a lot of NZ men appear to buy into this disempowering bullshit ignorantly peacocking their willingness to sacrifice themselves in myriad ways to women as though it’s somehow a sign of nobility instead of the self appointed serfdom it is.
For an excellent overview of this dynamic readers can go here and see this excellent series of videos here.
Readers can also go here to see an excellent article which gives more Men’s Rights Activist views on such matters.
I think the facts are getting a bit twisted here. The voting franchise that you are referring to required that a voter was collectively
A. Male over 21
B. A British Citizen (which included Maori but not Chinese)
C. A land owner, or occupier as specified.
The threshold for occupation was low which allowed many British labourers the opportunity to vote, but restrictive in that Maori did not have freehold ownership, but communal ownership, which disenfranchised them.
Male suffrage is not a long standing historic icon, and historically was achieved a short time before female suffrage. The battle – if you want to call it that – for female suffrage was fought in England and Europe, and it just happened that New Zealand would afford the time and place for that change, but NZ doesn’t deserve any glorification for being the first, that battle was already won, and history was simply progressing.
What is not recognised is that if men had not fought the war for suffrage, women’s petite little battle for the vote would not have happened.
Having said that I do agree with you that feminism has denigrated that moment of self glorification into victimhood. I think some women realised it was easier to get what you want bitching at a government than living in a state of equality.
Women got the vote around about the same time men got a choice – Gallipolli, The Somme, Passchendaele or prison.
Feminism and the idea of women’s oppression?
Another Tui Billboard moment.
Now, NOW, Skeptic. You know as well as I that women who lose their meal tickets are the real victims of war.
NOW NOW indeed, if you were referring to the National Organization of Women (USA’s largest feminist lobby group)?
Hillary Clinton would agree with the bizarre idea that women are the biggest victims of war.
She said so to the United Nations Assemble no less recently.
Her demented gynocentric nonsense kind of reminds me of how my own mother is collecting my Dad’s pension after he died from a lifetime of stress being family protector and provider.
Here’s a crash course to bring you up to speed.