MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Man’s status now that of slaves

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:49 am Fri 21st August 2009

This story jumped out at me yesterday. An older man takes exercise in the Rotorua Redwoods Forest, a huge public reserve. He’s a bit unusual in his manner. He dares to say “a good day for it” to a woman also exercising who passes by him on the track and this “made her nervous”. He walked along the same track behind her, allegedly rambling or talking to himself. There is nothing to suggest she asked him to stop talking to her or to move further away, and there is nothing to suggest he harmed her or showed any indication of wanting to do so. On the basis of his heinous crime (Imagine, he actually had the audacity to talk to a woman! Who does he think he is?) a local policeman issued him with a trespass order banning him from that huge public area for two years. He thought the order only referred to the particular area he had been exercising in. The policeman’s wife later saw the man on a couple of occasions in another part of the Redwoods Forest, muttering to himself and this was really really scary to her. How dare a lowly man think he is allowed to mutter to himself in a public area where women might be? Another woman (we don’t know if she knew either of the other two “victims”) also suffered the deep trauma of seeing this man on the track and having to share the track with him as he continued his walk. All three women testified against this man on charges of intimidating behaviour. This particular man was lucky because the judge did not agree it had been proven that the man intended to be intimidating, but it seems the man was still convicted for breaching the trespass order.

The case seems to be an example of “Protection Order” ideology creeeping into criminal law. A woman’s claim to “feel frightened” is enough to see a man stripped of his normal rights and dragged into Court, regardless of whether he actually did anything illegal. The police happily collude to put state power behind the female class. This is very similar to the relationship that existed between white gentry and black slaves in old America and elsewhere. If someone from the white gentry felt inconvenienced or annoyed by the behaviour of a black slave, for example if he dared to speak without being invited to or to venture into places where the white gentry preferred not to see him, he was likely to be be tried and punished on some cooked-up charge on the basis of the white gentry’s preference. In the case of our Rotorua man, the cooked-up charge of “intimidation” was an offence category designed to deal with gangs and the like threatening people through aggressive behaivour, not some old, slightly eccentric man trying to be friendly. Even if he was hoping for some romantic opportunity, can we not expect from women the decency of saying “no thanks, please leave me alone now” before rushing off to the police? When the police were involved by the first woman, could we not at least expect a reasonable response from them in the first instance, making him aware that she was uncomfortable and giving him suggestions about his on-track behaviour rather than issuing an order stripping him of normal civil rights? His main crime, it seems, was to be unattractive to the women he spoke to. Off with his head!


  1. Just look at the “sexual harrasment” laws. Its been enshrined for years. In fact all “moral” law passed by the previous regime uphold the same principles that a person is guilty until they are able to prove themselves innocent. Sad, sad society. Sick, sick law.

    Comment by Scott — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 12:42 pm

  2. I used to work in a psychiatric institution before they released most of the harmless patients to the public domain. TV is plastered with advertisements telling us not to discriminate against people with mental health issues. After all it’s illegal to do so.

    It seems a certain Judge, a Policeman and feminism missed those advertisements.

    UPDATE: It is illegal to discriminate against men and women with mental health issues.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 2:20 pm

  3. These minor problems could be readily solved, by passing Regulations that women who elect that they need this degree of protection, must have a man with a red flag walking 100 metres in front and a man with a blue flag 100 metres behind. The Regulations would also prevent them from ever changing direction.
    If they venture outside of mental institutions without these warnings being displayed, then they would be outlaws, outside the protection of any laws.
    They would be tatooed with warnings that their consent was intractable and retractable.
    They would have to prove themselves innocent of any crime they might be accused of. This is a little similar to what men have to do?
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 9:26 pm

  4. I see a growth opportunity for the anger management people to start moving into fear management. It’s a market at least as large as what they already make comfortable livings out of, and a chance for some gender balance in the area of court-ordered emotional excess under professional management. Just the thing for some extra government revenue in these stretched times.

    Comment by rc — Fri 21st August 2009 @ 11:03 pm

  5. Fear is definitely an interesting tack when considering gender issues, and in particular in the modern situation of bias and inequality. There is so much talk of a females fear of physical attack from males but little talk of a males deep seated fear of emotional and legal attack from rampant females who organize themselves into packs called feminists. Yes, the limbic system does exist in every human brain and yes it does contain amygdala and yes these amygdala do grow throughout childhood in direct response to actual experience, both physical and emotional. And yes, all experience of fear arises in the very same amygdala. What is being overlooked is that fear has many flavors, some of which have been legislated against whilst others are ignored as being normal or good and acceptable, especially those modes and flavors perpetrated by females.

    Comment by Vince — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 8:16 am

  6. I have always understood that a trespas notice could be applied to a named piece of privately owned property, not public or crown land.

    Comment by alastair — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 3:32 pm

  7. Perhaps if women were not historically, repeatedly, and perpetually harassed and sexually assaulted by men (in parks, especially), then they wouldn’t feel so diffident about men following them and muttering unintelligibly?

    Also, just remember who it was (land owning men) who traded in slaves 🙂

    Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 1:33 pm

  8. The need for psychological counseling is no excuse for discriminating against a minority.

    Land owning men would have made up the minority of men. How many wives had slaves and/or benefited from them?

    Are you on P?

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 2:20 pm

  9. You’ve confused yourself.

    Argument One:
    p1. Men have and do sexually assault women in parks (and elsewhere)
    p2. Women have reason to be wary of sexual assault in parks (and elsewhere)
    c. Women have a reason to be wary of men in parks.

    Argument Two:
    p1. Men feel as though they have the status of ‘slaves’
    p2. Men created the sub-human status of ‘slaves’
    c. Men created the sub-human status to which they now feel is attributed to them

    A2 c = hypocrisy.

    Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 3:01 pm

  10. nd men haven’t been??
    just cos it hasn’t been reported that often doesn’t mean women don’t harass.. in fact every hiusband has been harrassed in some form or the ither by their wives.. case closed..

    Comment by karan jiharr — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 4:22 pm

  11. Boo hoo, you didn’t get your way with your wife. She was probably just miffed at you for being an ignoramus.

    Did she then proceed to rape you in a park?

    Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 4:26 pm

  12. boo hoo??!!!.. lol u r an ignoramus..
    i don’t have a wife”genius”…

    dso how was your so called false rape in the park…

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Thu 27th August 2009 @ 5:07 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar