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

Cricketer Fined $10,000 for Offending Feminism

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:33 pm Tue 5th January 2016

The confused ideology of feminism and its creeping expansion are demonstrated in this story that has seen feminists, their white knights and sycophants objecting to a humourous flirtation by a great sportsman, Chris Gayle, towards a female who interviewed him for live broadcast after he had been dismissed for 41 runs from only 15 balls.

According to, almost immediately in response to the interviewer’s first question:

“I wanted to have an interview with you as well, that’s why I’m here,” Gayle said live on national television. “I get to see your eyes for the first time, it’s nice. Hopefully we can win and go for a drink after…Don’t blush baby.”

Apparently, social media immediately lit up, labelling Gayle’s comments as sexist, ‘chauvinist’ and an affront to women.

The event sparked an apology three overs later from the broadcaster who said Gayle’s comments were not endorsed and that measures would be taken to avoid future such occurrences.

Gayle’s spineless employers failed to stand up for him, instead accusing him of being disrespectful and fining him $10G.

Again from

Prominent Sydney-based veteran sports reporter Debbie Spillane lamented the episode and commented on social media: “You think progress is being made when you see a highly competent and professional sports reporter like Mel McLaughlin in action. And then Chris Gayle treats his post match interview like a pick up opportunity. And blokes all around Australia say how amusing it is. I give up.”

Well, it’s fair enough to describe Gayle’s behaviour as cheeky, unusual in its context, even ‘inappropriate’ for the situation, but really, most of the criticisms were just silly. How can compliments and expressing a hope to share a drink later be ‘an affront to women’? What is ‘sexist’ about such positive, friendly comments? How is it disrespectful to express attraction towards someone? Definitions of ‘male chauvinist’ make it clear that the term applies to males who believe men are superior to women, e.g. more important, more intelligent, more capable etc. Nothing in Gayle’s comments remotely implied any such belief. Perhaps the feminist interpretation of his behaviour arose out of their own sense of inferiority.

One might show a little respect and understanding towards Chris Gayle who had just completed an astounding innings, felt in high spirits as a result and had to face an interviewer and her tv channel who were interested only in profiting from his celebrity appeal and who were certain to ask him the usual inane questions. It’s no wonder that he might have decided to make it more interesting for himself by saying some things out of left field that were nevertheless honest.

Interestingly, on the same day Venus Williams was playing tennis at a tournament in Auckland (what a coup, oh, on second thoughts that comment might through some feminist mental gymnastics be labelled as a sexist affront to women). Several All Blacks including Julian Savea had been roped in as ballboys for an exhibition match by the female tennis players, during which Ms Williams did some dance moves whilst pointing at Mr Savea, then invited him to join her in a ‘dance-off’. This behaviour was reported as harmless fun and appeared to attract no criticism at all. even though Julian Savea could reasonably be expected to feel uncomfortable having that flirtation foisted on him unexpectedly in public with news media recording it and Venus Williams could be accused just as readily as Chris Gayle was of behaving inappropriately. Hey, but when a woman does it it’s ok, men should be able to handle it, etc etc.

The Chris Gayle story might easily be dismissed as celebrity stuff and nonsense, but actually it represents something much more sinister that men would do well to understand. What’s actually happening is that rules and boundaries around men’s behaviour are becoming increasingly unreasonable, restrictive, vague and defined after the fact. Feminist ideology is increasingly elevating women into a position of royalty towards whom males are treated as a lower class who should never be so presumptuous as to behave as if they are equals. Men’s behaviour is increasingly being censored and punished even though it’s completely lawful. Feminism is creating a more and more dangerous minefield for men who can suffer great harm for behaivour that was done in good faith and completely without malice, and this minefield has spread across many spheres including workplaces where all manner of innocent male behaviour is readily defined as harassment; courtship where the lead expected from males is readily treated as harassment, exploitation or sexual offending; and households where men are readily treated as domestic abusers for simply being non-violently assertive.

Make no mistake, the rules are increasingly unclear and unfair and by kowtowing to those rules men are allowing themselves to be relegated to a class akin to that of slaves.

Fortunately, although the public has yet to recognize the full extent of what’s happening they are increasingly recognizing the ideological corruption and excesses of feminism. Many of the social media responses to the Chris Gayle story challenged the feminist response.


  1. But apparently it’s not sexist or worthy of a fine if you’re a woman ….

    Comment by golfa — Wed 6th January 2016 @ 4:34 pm

  2. The astounding, yet predictable, thing is that the fear-men-ists are totally disregarding her wishes! They are treating her like a child, incapable of, at worst, taking a little ribbing. I heard some Australian ‘journalist’ interviewed on Radio Sport on the way to work this morning, contradicting herself every second sentence. “She doesn’t want a big deal made about it”, ‘Just wants to move on”, “Doesn’t want a media frenzy”, all the while trying to create a media frenzy! The disgusting thing is that the ‘interviewer’ did not challenge her once on her hypocrisy.
    Somehow we have got to start challenging the media’s biased anti-male reporting. We need to get on their ‘comments’ sections a point out their hypocrisy and challenge their misandrist narrative!

    Comment by bjrodger — Wed 6th January 2016 @ 5:19 pm

  3. bjrodger (#2): Good comment, and I especially liked the term ‘fear-men-ists’!

    Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 6th January 2016 @ 11:26 pm

  4. Again I think we have realized it too late and are doing too little about it.
    Worst of all are the creep’s in men who are actually decrying Gayle for simple/fun/Fully unoffensive comments .

    Comment by Maybetoolate — Thu 7th January 2016 @ 3:50 pm

  5. As follow-up events show, for example see this news story today, women’s allegations against sportsmen are now welcomed by sports officials, publicized and treated as if they must be true, but no honest considerations in response are allowed. Sports bodies must not be seen to offend the sacred cow of feminism.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 8th January 2016 @ 8:44 am

  6. Lots of other interesting sequelae after the Gayle story:

    Professor of cultural research David Rowe advised Gayle to “get with the programme” of women entering the ‘sports arena’ that includes interviewers. However, his article mainly seems to call for special treatment of women because they are women. It’s unclear why men should feel honour bound to help women into the ‘sports arena’ and to ensure those women never feel uncomfortable or offended, but Prof Rowe seemed to assume they should.

    The NZ Herald published another article bemoaning sport’s ‘bloke problem’, alleging that Gayle’s behaviour was ‘sexist’ and ‘offensive’ (but not explaining how) and that a ‘bloke culture’ objectifies women. It claimed more and more women were coming forward describing ‘horror encounters’ with Gayle. Yeah right, what a terrible horror it is to be complimented.

    The article quoted a Guardian Australia ‘deputy sport editor’ who claimed some unnamed sports journalist at an MCG cricket match was on and off watching hard-core pornography on his laptop that was clearly visible to the other journalists in the room. Apparently this went on for the whole first day of the match, then on the second day an official asked him to stop. Well, it’s all very well to make allegations about an unnamed person and without corroborating accounts by any of the other people allegedly involved, but how seriously should we take such allegations or assume they are correct in detail? The deputy sport editor claimed this scene of ‘male entitlement and arrested development’ played out in any number of workplaces in which men outnumber women, and that women are ‘made to feel uncomfortable’ every day.

    Well, we don’t agree that anyone generally is ‘made to feel uncomfortable’. People’s feelings of discomfort are subjective and their own responsibility, based on their own beliefs and thoughts. It’s fair enough to say that most people are likely to feel uncomfortable in response to certain behaviour but whether that should rule out that behaviour is a matter for lawmakers. Politicians might feel uncomfortable being interviewed about their pre-election promises so shall we rule that out? Sweaty male athletes may well feel uncomfortable being interviewed by females so shall we rule that out? The principles underlying these feminist demands are duplicitous.

    Further, why is it ‘harassment’ for a male to compliment a woman in her work role, but ok to label men as being ‘entitled’ and as suffering from ‘arrested development’? Who is godly enough to judge men’s interests in such derogatory terms? Are men obliged to conform to women’s preferred interests?

    Next, Herald writer Kris Shannon published her ‘Dos and Don’ts of Women in Sport’, a list of women’s supposed preferences for how men should behave. It was unclear why men should be expected to conform to women’s preferences but you can be sure that feminists would be incensed to be expected to conform to any list of men’s preferences.

    Then there was an article concerning Australian Craig Foster who was in a seniors’ football team each member of which stood with arms around a child ‘mascot’ during the pre-match playing of the national anthem. Mr Foster’s mascot was his 8-year-old daughter and during what was clearly an extremely proud and special moment for him she stood directly in front of him while he had his arm around her shoulder with his hand covering her right breast area, in a manner similar to a man covering his own breast area with his hand during a patriotic rendition of his national anthem. This concerned many pedophobes deeply and Mr Foster was seriously criticized and accused in appalling ways. His daughter appeared to have no breast development and it seemed unlikely that Mr Foster had any notion of impropriety. Such a shame that a man’s innocent, special moments with his own daughter would be sullied in this way, but nowadays it’s open slather for demonization of any and all male behaviour.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 8th January 2016 @ 6:45 pm

  7. Just more double standard feminist insanity,

    Comment by mantrol — Sat 9th January 2016 @ 12:32 pm

  8. I’m inspired by “maybetoolate”. It is too late and I do not see any way any of us can escape. For example, in New Zealand women go on vilifying us locals over a “rape-culture”. But look at Germany, England, Europe, and indeed in Sweden where info I found yesterday reveals a 1400% increase in rape coincident with the influx od immigrants from North Africa and the middle East. Germany where a group of around 100 women were surrounded groped and sexually assaulted and where females are warned not to dress so as to offend Islam. This info says there is direction in the Quran for Muslims to spread out and breed with the women. This has been recently promoted in some prominent mosques including the Al Aqsa mosque. Western countries are into profit, cheap labour and community division resulting in a birth-rate insufficient to maintain the populations without immigration. But Muslims are typically breeding at five per family. Its just a matter of time until Islam can be democratically installed as state religion, and Sharia law can democratically replace our secular protections.
    What then for Women’s rights? for homosexuality; for human rights; dressing how one likes; or freedom of belief?
    I fear the overly precious niche campaigns have doomed us all.
    I lament that my daughters will see this oppression come over the land, and are powerless to stop it.
    I recall in history classes so long ago how the people of Rome became corrupted and soft, and thus Rome fell. We have learned nothing from history.

    Comment by Joining the dots — Sun 10th January 2016 @ 5:58 am

  9. Yes Joining the dots it is too late, the damage is done now just a matter of time.

    Comment by mantrol — Sun 10th January 2016 @ 11:09 am

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