The Guardian/Deborah Orr

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/pistorius-case-empty-vessel-prejudices



It was inevitable, of course, from the moment the news first broke, that the world would be fascinated by the killing of Reeva Steenkamp. This is not least because the man who ended her life is the hugely admired, world-famous athlete Oscar Pistorius. But that's not all there is to it.

A crucial attraction of the story is its intense vulnerability to speculation. It offers an irresistible invitation for all kinds of people to project or act out their prejudices, ventilate their societal critiques and animate their passionately held theories about the world, safe in the knowledge that the motivation for events in Pistorius's Pretoria home in the early hours of 14 February are never likely to be independently and irrefutably established by a third party. The media, of course, is only too happy to whip such excitement up yet further. Such stories, when they happen along, attract readers in droves.

The most egregious of such "opportunities", in recent years, have been the Madeleine McCann abduction in Portugal and the Meredith Kercher murder in Italy. In both of those cases, the truth – that it was a crime of opportunity committed by a stranger – was rejected by many in favour of the idea of intimate, domestic horror, carried out by people so psychopathic, so quick-thinking and so coolly brilliant that they could commit an outrageous crime, behave in a flamboyantly self-publicising manner in its wake and yet, through sheer nerve, still expect to escape justice. The fact that both crimes were being investigated under criminal justice systems unfamiliar in detail to British audiences, and beyond the reach of straightforward considerations about contempt of court, made the manner in which they could be reported all the more "creative".

In the case of the McCanns, victim-blame was writ large. It was quickly decided that Kate and Gerry McCann weren't behaving in a manner befitting people whose child had been snatched from her bed to disappear without trace, as if reaction to something so appalling and strange could ever be "just right". In a widespread act of collective counter-prejudice, it was decided that it was precisely because the couple were middle-class, educated, respectable, and in vocational careers that one had to be careful not to be influenced by such thumpingly giant signs of their previous good character.

Even among people who refrained from the wildest speculations there was a feeling that "ordinary" people would have been charged with neglect. The McCanns and their friends had managed to persuade themselves that dining in the grounds of a holiday complex was like dining in their own garden. For this delusion of complete safety, this complacent ease with, and security about, their place in the world, they ought to be held to account.

In the Kercher case, similar prejudices were brought to bear. There was a reluctance to "fall for" the idea that middle-class US college students just didn't tend to be involved in acts of group sexual torture and murder. Further, Amanda Knox was a beautiful young woman. Contrary to evidence across the globe, and in virtually all walks of life, there is a perception that beautiful young women are to be feared and despised, because they are used to getting everything their own way.

Both the McCanns and Knox were accused of behaving oddly in the aftermath of the crimes, part of their "bizarre behaviour" being the exercise of their bodies, which was rejected as an understandable resort these people undertook in an attempt to still the manic, runaway exercise that had taken over their minds, and viewed instead as solipsism. Actually, their inability to comport themselves in a manner that would seem appropriate to the eyes they knew were watching them was far more likely to be an expression of guileless innocence than of calculated bluff. But the ability of humans to interpret matters to fit their prejudicial worldview is quite impressively well developed.

These sorts of lurid media frenzy illuminate the motives and thought processes of the media-consuming world far more than they do those of the suspects in the spotlight. In a crucial sense, the Pistorius case is even more perfect as an empty vessel into which constructed motivation can be poured, because the perpetrator of the act is not in question. Pistorius doesn't claim a third party entered his home, only that he became overwhelmed by a fear that this had happened, a fear that had unspeakably tragic results. Reluctance to take his story at face value is driven not by dispassionate examination of the evidence, but by more general views about the vulnerability of women to violence from their partners. If, like Pistorius, those partners are middle class, successful, heroic, disabled, there's a strong feeling that societal prejudice in their favour is something to be scrupulously countermanded.

The fact that Steenkamp died on the day designated by campaign group One Billion Rising for "the biggest mass global action to end violence against girls and women in the history of humankind" offers a powerful reminder that suspicion of individual men does not happen in a vacuum. Certainly, whether people were consciously aware of it or not, the news was presented in a context of socio-cultural prejudice right away, which in turn inspired immediate efforts to counter it. The dead woman was not just the glamour girl she was being described as in the media, people were at pains to point out. She was a law graduate and campaigner against domestic violence as well. She was a fully realised person in her own right, not just a trophy, a sporting WAG.

Yet, legitimate and understandable as the focus on Steenkamp's intellectual achievements was, the subtext was abject. If Steenkamp had been entirely without accomplishment, just a pretty, empty blonde head on a beautiful, vainly pampered body, she would have deserved not one iota more to be shot dead at the age of 29. The people most keen to rescue Steenkamp from posthumous objectification were inadvertently legitimising the objectification of women who more accurately fitted the description "model and girlfriend of … "

That's why objectification is so pernicious. Valuing any women only or primarily for the way they look risks implying that at least some aspects of all women are not unique and irreplaceable, but archetypal and expendable. That's why the Sun's front-page story showing Steenkamp modeling a bikini horrified so many people. It presented her not as a woman who had been violently robbed of her life, but as a "model and girlfriend of … ", a fantasy image, a glorious yet merely physical being whose personal reality, dead or alive, wasn't the important thing.

Whatever the outcome for Pistorius, individual views about his guilt or innocence will depend on whether the holder believes him to be a man who understands the absolute integrity of women as fully realised people, equal in the value of their life to men, or whether they believe him to be a man who absorbed the age-old cultural message that women should be passive, like objects. The ongoing tragedy, however, is that as long as that latter propaganda continues to be perpetrated, men will be distrusted by women and women will be in mortal danger from men.

What a complete load of crap! This author even interjects the words "abducted" and "snatched" into the story. She claims that people are making assumptions based on feelings, but ignores that many have read the police files and certainly know much more than she does.

Just as my feelings toward the McCanns, my feelings toward Pistorious are based upon the unlikihood of his story and have nothing to do with how his girlfriend looked or what she did.

It is the media, not the people, who have hyped these two cases. My views about the McCanns and Pistorious are absolutely not based upon anything other than the facts of the case. Just as the McCanns allegedly leaving the apartment unlocked sets off alarm bells, so does the bathroom door of Pisorious' apartment being locked. People who are intimite just don't lock bathroom doors especially in the middle of the night.

Here we go with the open window again. Open window proves adduction/intruder/(insert fantasy here).

Actually, their inability to comport themselves in a manner that would seem appropriate to the eyes they knew were watching them was far more likely to be an expression of guileless innocence than of calculated bluff.


Hmmmm....this is a couple who had the savvy to scribble a timeline on the torn page of a sticker book belonging to their apparently abducted child

had the presence of mind to erase text messages

told Mrs. Fenn the police had been called when they hadn't.................etc.

Forgive me - I'm going to borrow from a notorious saying from yesteryear.

Whenever I hear even the mere mention of any female newspaper columnist, and were I living in a place that permitted personal ownership of weaponry as of right, I'd be sorely tempted to 'reach for my gun'.
As I do not live in such a place, and being one who thinks more than twice in order to curb her own natural impulsiveness, I would be more likely to reach for a couple of paracetamols instead, whilst uttering a bunch of expletives.
No matter what their name is, no matter which publication they write for, they all come off the same conveyor belt and end up in the big skip labelled 'McCann Worship'.
Were there ever to be a McCann Continuum, they would be at the Unctuous and Unenlightened end whereas we would inhabit the other extreme - the Informed and Highly Sceptical department.
Such is the dichotomy that never the twain shall meet. We may as well be on different planets.
No more to be said, except:

NEXT!!!