SHE HAS A NAME

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh for goodness sake loz would you let it go. We

> all get that you think I'm a sexist.

Actually, as I've said before, I don't think you are sexist. I think you made one really dumb sexist post and I am trying to get you to see that.

> We all get that you don't believe my explanations.

And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

> However w> are trying to have an interesting debate, not a

> debate about how much you have taken a personal dislike to me or the views you mistakenly think I

> hold. I was not running a "gender angle" in my> original post, I was commenting on celebrity. That

> does not mean that we cannot comment on other> aspects of a story, or that it cannot evolve.

Well I'm terribly sorry I've interrupted your 'interesting debate' with an important principle.

Actually... no, I'm not.

> And incidentally, your comment on another thread:

>

> "Actually most serious feminists are hysterically* funny. They just don't mean to be. Or see the

> joke.

>

> (* 'offensive' use of the word entirely intended)"

>

> Is very sexist. Perhaps we should start hounding you? Perhaps your own suggestion that those with

> "dodgy" views shouldn't be allowed to get away with it applies just as well to you?

Go for it. Start with *why* you think it is sexist, but bear in mind that 'feminist' is not the same as 'women'. It was a post designed to be offensive to feminists. That's not sexist.

> Or perhaps you should just accept that you've made your point, and stop now.

I'll accept I've made my point when you've understood it.

[the-e-dealer]

Had ?

[legalbeagle]

And there you go. You make what appears to another person to be a sexist point and are called up on it. You go into a lengthy explanation of why, on your definition of something, it isn't sexist, and ask them to accept it.

And I do. I have no reason to assume that your following lengthy redefinition and explanation isn't sincerely meant, however self serving or otherwise it may now look. It has a ring of plausibility. It could also be pulled apart. I'll choose to believe you because we haven't met and I'm not in the habit of calling people I do not know a liar.

It'd be nice if you did the same for others.

Now if you don't mind, I'm not going to engage with you further. You've made your point. I've made mine. We'll agree to disagree or you can argue with yourself.

[maxxi]

I think the initial headline "Oscar Pistorius Shoots Girlfriend Dead" was akin to a newsboy yelling headlines to get passersby to stop him and buy one.

A shout like that would stop a lot of people in their tracks but "South African Woman Shot Dead" would be unlikely to merit even a head-turn (except perhaps to make the passerby wonder what makes this death so special that it is a headline), ditto "Reeva Steenkamp Shot Dead" - it would only be likely to have people wonder whether they've heard that name somewhere.

Headlines since have all named her prominently (some even calling it the Steencamp Killing rather then the Oscar P Shooting) and there have been countless articles delving into her past and seeking controversy and sensation to add fuel to the fire by, for example, questioning her family's motives for allowing a reality tv show to air after her death.

This muck-raking will probably increase now as the Pro-Pistorius press's yang to the anti's 'gun-obsessed-nutter' ying; with every aspect of her life being turned over and examined and/or criticised by the meeja and far from being 'Reeva who?' she'll become someone whose past and behaviour everyone has an opinion on.

I think woody is on the right lines - especialy as the SA police have had to admit they've already cocked things up...

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And there you go. You make what appears to be a sexist point and are called up on it. You go in to

> a lengthy explanation of why, on your definition of something, it isn't sexist, and ask me to

> accept that.

>

> And I do. Your original point was badly made. I have no reason to assume that your following

> lengthy redefinition and explanation isn't sincerely meant, however self serving or otherwise

> it may now look. It has a ring of plausibility. It could also be pulled apart. I'll choose to believe

> you because we haven't met and I'm not in the habit of calling people I do not know a liar.

>

> It'd be nice if you did the same for others.

>

> Now if you don't mind, I'm not going to engage with you further. You've made your point. I've

> made mine. We'll agree to disagree or you can argue with yourself.

Pull my explanation apart if you don't accept it. Because I'm not accepting your explanation for the hell of it or because I don't believe what you said, I don't accept it because you were happy to leave the original post unchanged in its entirety.

If I had said "Actually most women are hysterically funny. They just don't mean to be. Or see the joke." when I meant feminists then I would hastily type a explanation - AND I'd go back and fix the original, perhaps with an explanation to not make following posts look weird. I'd hate for the original erroneous post to be there for eternity showing my sexist faux pas. To me, it would mean to the world I really did mean it and intend for it to stay up.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

[legalbeagle]

Maxxi I'm sure you're right. It got headlines, hence being worded that way. Though I have noticed that since there was a backlash against The Sun, in particular, print media has been a little more respectful. This may also be in part to do with her past being raked over and thus her name becoming more "celeb" than before.

I just can't imagine how I'd feel if my daughter was killed and I had to keep reading that she was "killer's girlfriend". Must be just awful. I know that the families in this case seem at the moment to be fairly united, but in principle it must be a dreadful way to have a loved one remembered. By reference always to the person who caused their death. Inevitable, given our celeb culture, but pretty dreadful.

[Jah Lush]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well no need for a trial then Jah Lush! >

Save a lot of time and taxpayers money though. Take him down. You know I'm right.

[legalbeagle]

Interesting article in the Telegraph from Allison Pearson on this very point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/9344453/Oscar-Pistorius-case-The-Blonde-is-the-victim-here-Blade.html

Not sure I agree with her assumption that he is guilty - however bad this looks I'd prefer to wait for due process and a verdict, but on celebrity she is spot on.

I also noticed last night on the BBC news this story was referred to twice, and both times the "headline" statement was "Oscar Pistorius's Girlfriend" with no name given. At a time when it can no longer be valid to argue that had her name been used, no one would have known who we were talking about.

Her name was Reeva Steenkamp.

[El Pibe]

Is it intentional irony then that the headline you link to is

"Oscar Pistorius case: The Blonde is the victim here"

[legalbeagle]

It is. In the body of the article she refers to the headline she is arguing against: "Blade Kills Blonde" It's a play on that, to make her point.

[Chillaxed]

"Reeva?s irrelevance to the main event was confirmed by a tabloid headline. ?Blade Slays Blonde?"

So a tabloid headline is confirmation of fact these days is it? God help us.

[legalbeagle]

Well - we are back to the "we get the press we deserve" argument?

[Chillaxed]

Perhaps, but the tabloids are not represtative of the whole press, so they can't be used to confirm a position and it's lazy to say they reflect society's views. I resent it.

[jamster]

This thread has some valid issues being raised (domestic violence, cult of celebrity, gutter press etc.).

What is wrong for me is that the poorly articulated arguments of the OP appear to jump to conclusions that these issues ate all directly applicable here.

In particular I think it is insulting to the victim to conclude that this is a posterchild case of sexism or evidence of declining moral standards of society before we even have all of the facts.

To do so seems to suggest that (if found guilty) Pistorious' individual guilt is partially mitigated by collective guilt.

Why don't we give the legal system a chance to establish what happened. Then, in the fullness of time, we can have a proper criminological debate.

The tabloids will be tabloids. The alternative is a censored press.

[legalbeagle]

To be fair, in the context of the article Im not sure that's what she is saying.

[legalbeagle]

I'm not sure I understand your point Jamster. The only point made or conclusion drawn by me is that celebrity status leads to poor reporting and a lack of dignity for victims, of which this is a good example. I have very deliberately made no argument about his guilt or what happened the night Reeva Steenkamp died. And i have repeatedly said that i am not making a point about sexism or gender. Nor have I said this indicates a decline in moral standards (I don't think that, actually). Tabloids will of course do this all the time it sells newspapers.

[jamster]

Affording dignity to the dead == a moral standard.

I don't see the inverse correlation between her dignity and his celebrity, myself.

[LondonMix]

I think the problem that people have LB is that the point your making isn't that noteworthy. If someone is well known, their name will form part of any news headline (if they are the victim / the accused criminal / the hero etc) of the a story. It has nothing to do with dignity or celebrity culture as such.

For me at least, this is not any more controversial than a headline reading:"7 Year Old Girl Rescues Puppy!"

Also, not being named is not something that only happens to victims in headlines. Can anyone remember the name of the man who tried to kill Ronald Reagan? Does anyone remember the actress he was obssessed with that he claimed made him do it?

Some of the reporting has been tactless but not naming Reeva, especially initially, in my view is not at all a controversial issue.

[jamster]

I agree. LB's posts show an extreme amount of confirmation bias towards issues that are (very reasonably) important issues to her. The trouble is that this particular matter is a poor or unworthy example of those issues.

[legalbeagle]

Well you're both entitled to that view. I continue to think that be cult of celebrity makes for poor reporting and a lack of dignity in reporting and that Allison Pearsons article makes that point well.

[jamster]

Thanks. It feels like we should put it to a show of hands. "This house believes..." ;-)

[WorkingMummy]

OMG.

So now the officer who arrested Pistorius has been arrested for attempted murder.

Crazy. That is just, a different planet.

His alleged victim not named either.

[maxxi]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well you're both entitled to that view. I continue

> to think that be cult of celebrity makes for poor

> reporting and a lack of dignity in reporting and

> that Allison Pearsons article makes that point

> well.

Allison Pearson? Ohhh, the blonde who writes for the telegraph.

A cheap crack prompted by a quick visit to AP's Telegraph column... seriously - while we're talking about celeb culture etc. - when did it become compulsory for journos to have glam head-shots* at the top of their articles? Is it at all relevant to the piece I'm going to read? Nope.

*yes, yes, I now, this has probaby been debated on the forum before and yes its been going on for ages, and yes it's men as well as women all trying to look intellectual or wise or sensitive or some bollocks as though that will influence our views on the stuff they grind out, and yes I should probably just put this in the 'little things that cause rage' thread.

[????]

maxxi, it all went downhill when they took the adverts off the front page of The Thunderer in my opinion

[maxxi]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi, it all went downhill when they took the

> adverts off the front page of The Thunderer in my

> opinion

These days spies and Victorian crime bosses have to use Gumtree... "Used Ikea bookcase for sale. Available where the swans fly east at the call of the cockerel."