Reeva Steenkamp: just a chapter in a scary story? Not on her life!

On the 14th September 2014, Joan Smith published this article in The Independent newspaper, which she opened by saying [Oscar]

‘Pistorius is already on his way to rehabilitation in a country where three women a day are killed by a husband or boyfriend.’

Smith’s article, reeking as it does with shameless feminist bigotry in this most tragic of human experiences, is reprehensible. Any reading of it reveals her agenda, which is standard feminist-speak, straight out of the manual as written by the likes of Women’s Aid, Refuge, and a host of others in the domestic violence industry – both here in Britain and in North America.

Claiming (falsely, as anyone who has followed the case knows) that the world’s media reported the case uncritically because Pistorius is a personality (for which read ‘man’ personality, there is no doubt the narrative would have been different had the accused been a woman), she purports to place the case in the context of domestic violence, posing the rhetorical question, ‘…why did no fewer than 1,024 South African men kill their current or former partners in 2009? This is not a country, in other words, where such events are rare. A woman is killed by a husband or boyfriend every eight hours.’

Reeva Steenkamp was not the victim of domestic violence. She was the tragic victim of an appalling set of circumstances – period. Her mother and father have shown enormous dignity throughout. Their loss must be incomprehensible to them. Yet they show no malice toward Pistorius.

In this scurrilous piece, Smith is irresponsibly seeking to promulgate the standard feminist lies that seek to whip up a false narrative about domestic violence and place it firmly in the context of men as violent, wife-beating/murdering, short-fused creatures. She is perpetrating the grievous argument-by-assertion that intimate partner violence is all one-way – men to women.

The subtext, Smith’s back story if you like, is that men are a kind of untermensch who (by clear false association with Africa) are little better than savages in need of draconian treatment under the law in order to civilise them. This amounts to a pathologising of maleness, which is wholly wrong. It is also an insult to a decent nation.

The truth, of course, is that women worldwide are as physically aggressive towards intimate partners as men, or more aggressive: there is a now wealth of unimpeachable international research that proves this.1Fiebert M S (2013) References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated Bibliography. Published online: 19 June 2013. Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

For Smith to have twisted this terrible tragedy into a feminist issue is a terrible faux pas, and it just goes to show how shameless feminists can be in the pursuit of their angry creed.

There is a sweet irony in this, however, as far as Ms. Smith and her feminist fellow travellers are concerned. The judge in the Oscar Pistorius case is a woman. It doesn’t take much of a stretch of imagination to conjure up the shriek of self-righteous sophistry that would have flowed from Smith’s scribblings had it been a man making the same decisions.

What is more, Thokozile Masipa, the judge in question, is a woman from Soweto: that black African township whose name resonates everywhere in the world as a the scene of one of the worst excesses of apartheid. For this woman to have been appointed judge in this case was a brave and wise judicial decision, and it was almost certainly made by a man (and, probably, a white man).

I am sure this woman judge will hand down an appropriate, measured, just sentence to Oscar Pistorius: one that properly fits the crime of which he was fairly judged to be guilty after the fullest exploration of the evidence (at the hands of two eminent lawyers – men – neither of whom pulled any punches when trying the evidence, despite the fact that the defendant was a man).

The appointment of Thokozile Masipa was an act of supreme judgement in itself, worthy of anything Nelson Mandela would have done.

In a country like South Africa this was a masterstroke of deep wisdom. I am sure Mandela would have entirely approved, it was worthy of everything he (a man, naturally) stood for. Under his deeply human – male – leadership, and that of three other men, FW deKlerk, Desmond Tutu and before them Albert Lutuli – all Nobel Peace Prize winners – the men and women of South Africa were able to transition from totalitarian fascism to democracy peacefully, with themselves, their homes, their jobs, their children, their lives, and their nation, intact.

Those men not only preached peace, they practised it. Those men, using their male authority based on charisma not power, steered that nation through to peaceful democracy in the most astonishing transition of political power ever seen in history. Those men’s actions stood in start contrast to, for example, Winnie Mandela, who was well up for a bloodbath. (This is a matter of historical record.)

Without Mandela, a  national patriarch – deKlerk, a political patriarch – Tutu, a church patriarch – and Lutuli, a tribal chieftain and quintessential patriarch, South Africa would have been destroyed in a sea of blood. Those men’s leadership, not women’s, was crucial.

They, and many other men in that predominantly male-run society at the time, took a nation from the brink of the abyss to where it is now: from fascism to democracy under the rule of just law, and able to have a black woman try a young white man, a severely disabled national hero who had triumphed over his infirmity to become an Olympic champion, even competing on level terms with able-bodied athletes, and had made his nation proud.

Thokozile Masipa is an able and eminent lawyer, a township woman, yet she was able to achieve her fullest potential as a woman in an allegedly male-dominated society, and she was appropriately appointed to judge perhaps the most high profile case, and potentially the most socially contentious one, since her new nation was formed. Then she, in her turn, displaying the most magnificent calm integrity, balance, intelligence and dedication to her task dispensed her proud nation’s justice, in a way that perhaps only a woman could.

In a deeply complex trial of a white man accused of killing a white woman, charged with enormous potential for racial and social tension, and under the forensic attention of the world’s press, this black woman showed not the slightest racial or personal prejudice, no emotional angst, no impatience – no feminism – just diligent, honourable authority, and total dedication to duty.

Now, that is what I call a real woman.

What unfolded in that courtroom in Johannesburg showed the entire world just how far South Africa has come since the fall of apartheid. I believe it will be seen as a pivotal moment in that nation’s long walk to freedom. It was South Africa finally coming of age and a South African woman rose to the occasion in a nation that still maintains that men are as important to its future, as they were to its past.

The entire exercise was nothing short of a triumph for civilised people, which showed up the women of South Africa in their true light, and which showed up British women bigots such as Smith for what they are: snide, narrow, prejudiced child-women, with no vision, no generosity of spirit, no balance, no dignity, and full of raging bigotry against men.

Joan Smith not only demeans herself, her newspaper, and the memory of Reeva Steenkamp, she presumptuously demeans a proud nation in which young woman like Masipa are growing up with all the opportunities available to them, even if it is a so-called ‘man’s world’. What is just as bad is that she demeans the women of Britain.

Feminists talk about the need for role models for girls in Britain today. They should look south, to real women, South African women, not to their own cardboard cut-out feminist caricatures.

Joan Smith can snipe at South Africa all she likes. She can disagree with judge Masipa’s verdict all she likes – that is her right – as is her right to free speech, but she needs to check her prejudices. Her article is a work of malicious feminist bitchiness. Nobody who watched the unfolding of justice under that woman judge last week could be in any doubt that justice was not only done but seen to be done in the Pistorius case.

I know something of South Africa: I have been there. South Africa is rightly proud, because it has achieved so much. It is a world of equality of opportunity, based on merit to succeed, not the false equality based on so-called diversity (true diversity is not equality, it means people finding their place in society based on their talents, opportunities and proclivities; neither is it parity of numbers of men and women in everything). Yet South African men and women still know who they are, and both sexes carry themselves with the dignity of their gender. It is a normal world compared to Britain today – a more balanced world (at least as far as gender is concerned) – still relatively untouched by the pernicious poison of feminism that has so distorted and perverted men’s and women’s relationships here in Britain. Men there actually do respect women, and women respect men. It is all a far cry from Britain today, where respect for men is virtually non-existent.

When you compare South Africa with Britain, you see the contrast. You see the inestimable damage feminism has done to us. You see men and boys who are being vilified, their maleness pathologised in our schools and mocked in our media. You see narrow, vindictive, bigoted women, like Joan Smith, who write with signal lack of generosity of spirit, let alone journalistic integrity or intellectual honesty, sitting in judgement on men: even men in other nations; measuring them through their own narrow social and ideological constructs, as though those constructs are superior when they are not.

Frankly, I think South Africa shows Britain up. Certainly Thokozile Masipa shows up the likes of Joan Smith who so nakedly promulgates her own form of apartheid: that of women separate from men – one group seeking privilege over another without respect or regard for their basic humanity. It is called feminism. Britain has a lot further to go in sorting out its own brand of cultural apartheid than does South Africa with the original version.

   [ + ]

1. Fiebert M S (2013) References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated Bibliography. Published online: 19 June 2013. Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

  • onlyonepinman

    You wanna try reading Glosswitch’s assessment of it on her blog. To summarise her opinion: He got away with because he’s a man.