Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

???? 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."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...