Arguing with DH over the pistorious documentary

[youdidask]

So my husband has been watching the BBC documentary on Oscar Pistorious

The whole tone of it sickens me, his family are interviewed repeatedly saying they believe him, it show the evidence presented by his legal team - totally biased in his favour.

Now DH and I often disagree on what he sees as my feminist bias against men and I see as his 'but he's a sportsman so women are out to get him excuses'

For example we have had arguments in the past about certain footballers who have been convicted of crimes against women still being in the public eye playing for big name clubs etc.

The Oscar documentary has pissed me off because the man was convicted and then had his crime and sentence upgraded on appeal. There is no doubt he killed her and was a nasty man.
He's watching it with and 'open mind' and apparently 'I'm so closed minded because I've changed and all men are always wrong'.

My daughter came in during the part about him trying to get approval to race with able bodied men and his description of the events were his word against hers? And she was shot- at this point I get cross and we have a row.

He's diggin in on this, and I know I'm not wrong because the man was convicted.

Not sure what my aibu is reallly

Honestly I really wish people would watch the whole four episodes before making assumptions. Reeva is featured heavily, her family are interviewed, her loss to them is heart wrenching, her death is described in horrific detail, he was annihilated in court, the narrative that she is barely mentioned is untrue, it is his life story over 4 episodes that leads up to his relationship with her, that’s why it takes time to get to the period in his life where they were in a relationship. It’s the whole picture from the day he was born to the day of his incarceration, that’s why it takes time for that period in his life to be shown. Saying Reeva is barely mentioned is false.

It sounds so ludicrous doesnt it. How did he present this "defence"

Well I don't suppose he phrased it quite as he thought the burglar was going for a wee as opposed to the burglar hiding in the loo when he realised someone had heard him.

Your husband needs to take up his disagreement with the judge who found Pistorius guilty of Reeva's murder.

Is his mind open enough to recogise that television documentaries are a form of storytelling and can be very biased, rather than being a form of dry, unbiased judicial evaluation (very dull, as entertainment goes)? That is, that being open-minded requires one to think critically, not just about what being presented but how and why it is being presented?

It's just that I've found the expression 'I'm looking at it with an open mind' is often synonymous with 'I'll be the judge of that, based on the evidence presented to me'. Yet anyone so intellectually lazy as to consider only the material presented to them, from one creative source, lacks the curiosity and critical ability necessary to form an informed view on anything.

At the end of the day, if he had been in England and shot her thinking she was a murderer then it would still have been murder, so whether you believe him or not, by this countries standards he is a murderer either way.

She was a burglar*

@ZaraCarmichaelshighheels

Honestly I really wish people would watch the whole four episodes before making assumptions. Reeva is featured heavily, her family are interviewed, her loss to them is heart wrenching, her death is described in horrific detail, he was annihilated in court, the narrative that she is barely mentioned is untrue, it is his life story over 4 episodes that leads up to his relationship with her, that’s why it takes time to get to the period in his life where they were in a relationship. It’s the whole picture from the day he was born to the day of his incarceration, that’s why it takes time for that period in his life to be shown. Saying Reeva is barely mentioned is false.

OK, I am prepared to accept that a judgement on the documentary cannot be made until it has reached its conclusion.... we know what happened when it was reported that JKK had written a transphobic thriller, after all!

However: this from the Guardian, quoting the BBC Press Release and trailers for the programme
a series telling the “extraordinary story” of “an international hero who inspired millions” until “he suddenly found himself at the centre of a murder investigation

He didn't 'find himself in the middle of a murder investigation' in the way that I might find myself in the middle of a shower of rain on an afternoon walk.
He killed someone and it was duly investigated.
The BBC text makes it sound as if something was done to him, and all this trouble somehow descended on him.

As tends to happen when you murder someone.

But hey, murderers of women...these things just happen, don't they?

From Julie Bindel's Twitter a couple of days ago:
"Thought for the day comes from feminist writer Andrea Dworkin: “Many women, I think, resist feminism because it is an agony to be fully conscious of the brutal misogyny which permeates culture, society, and all personal relationships.”
And stop ribbing the OP about her DH. It's not her fault and she's clearly expressed her disappointment.

That is true. i"m so torn between becoming more aware and trying to actually disconnect from the realities I'm already aware of. It makes me furious and I have only one life. It is a conundrum.

Rainingbatsandfrogs I agree with you, the BBC press release is appalling and crass in the extreme, the documentary is not in my opinion. All episodes need to be seen. I was also pleased how the documentary highlighted the appalling level of murder and domestic abuse in South Africa.

It was a shocking fall from grace.

We got tickets specifically to watch him in 2012.

But as soon as the evidence was heard it was obvious he was guilty.

It is interesting to find out the path to someone committing an atrocity.

And such an enquiry is not per se being apologist for his actions.

But whoever wrote and approved that BBC PR needs a serious talking to.

I haven't seen it so I can't comment on the documentary but I'd be disappointed in your dh attitude, he seems like he has some misogynist sexist views

Pistorius displays many of the symptoms of the Dark Triad - basically psychopathy and seemed set on a path almost guaranteed to end in infamy. He's very Machiavellian. I picked up that he thinks normal rules of society don't apply to him, that he should always be excused because he is "special". That he thought he would get away with this outburst of extreme violence if he reminded people how siecial he is.

I know so many sportsmen who have problems and who love the limelight and the constant adulation too much (rather than the sport itself).

Next time your DH goes to the toilet in the night time, follow him and shout out 'is that you?' and then see if he thinks you should recognise him, or, do what Oscar did (hypothetically of course).

I don't get why you are arguing about a possible murder in a different country. Brexit I understand, even the USA election but this? It hardly impacts our lives

So I shouldn't discuss the MM case because it didn't happen in my country? Or Brexit because I am not personally affected. What a naive comment.

I’ll admit to thinking it was an accident for a long time, and part of me still doesn’t want to believe that it’s true. My brother is a double amputee following an injury in the army and I’m not exaggerating when I say Oscar stopped him from ending his life. He got into parasport because he saw him run and he seemed like a genuinely decent guy.
It’s hard when someone you admire greatly turns out to be not who you thought they were.

It was a programme that was advertised as being about him, I don’t think you can complain when it turns out that the programme is about him and his life with interviews of his family.

The man was convicted and justice was served, and all you’re doing is watching a programme, really doesn’t matter if your DH had a different opinion to you about it.

NailsNeedDoing
These discussions and disagreements often run deep because they expose a difference or perceived in values. Relationships can survive all sorts but shared values is the bedrock of a strong marriage. But anything that includes morality and identity (race, sex etc) can pick at the fault lines.

There is no doubt he killed her and was a nasty man
Pity millions will probably have been spent to ascertain guilt or not when there had never been any doubts.

Surely your oh is entitled to watch a programme with an open mind and decide for himself what he thinks at the end. To be honest, your attitude would have got in my nerves too.

Has he considered the impact of his known and repeatedly expressed misogyny on his daughter? Does he care? Heaven forbid she is ever the victim of male violence, she'll already know her own dad won't believe her just because she's female.

Even if he can't empathise with women he doesn't know, I'd be so upset at his inability to empathise with or listen to the women he does know.

Has he ever given a woman so much as the benefit of the doubt?

@Mrsjayy

Yes masculinity and violence is a way of life for many South Africans, his fascination for and collection of guns was massive he was a violent man before he murdered her.

This is the extra dimension that fascinates me.

EITHER he arrogantly murdered his girlfriend and expected to get away with it, OR he dealt with a suspected burglary by thinking he could kill the (imaginary, but probably poor & black) burglar with impunity and as a first resort, OR both (it’s both). You have to conclude on of those three things, though.

Yet STILL the apologism flows. From white men of course.

@AdultHumanFemale

Dick, I think the OP's AIBU is something like "AIBU to feel really frustrated that my DH doesn't share my clarity of vision on this issue, and feel shocked that he isn't prepared to condemn a convicted murderer as resolutely as I would have hoped?" I feel for you, OP, so disappointing.

Exactly this. It’s about endemic misogyny. My DH can be like this too. It’s hugely uncomfortable for him when misogyny and male privilege is pointed out to him and he’ll tie himself in knots trying to come up with some kind of alternative view or othersideism.

#hernamewasreevasteenkamp

I've been watching this, and I totally agree with you that it's shockingly biased. I've been constantly expecting them to shift the focus and they haven't. I raised an eyebrow at the first episode but thought hmm, maybe in later episodes they will start looking at it from the opposite point of view. They haven't. So much airtime given to his family. Although I thought the interviews with their mutual friend (the guy with the long hair) were very interesting.

What alarms me the most is that I think if you were reasonably unaware of the case, you could easily watch this doc and think he was innocent of murder given the bias.

Your DH is totally wrong about this. It's absolutely not his word against hers- she's been forever silenced, tragically. Does it not strike him as jarring that a woman was killed and the tone of the documentary is sympathetic towards her killer? It's not balanced at all!

Btw OP, I don't understand what your DH means by saying that women are 'out to get sportsmen', or rather, what that could have to do with this case. Does he mean that some women are keen to become romantically involved with footballers and other sportsmen? More than would be the case if the man was not a sportsman? But what could romantic interest possibly have to do with a man murdering a woman? I don't understand at all. Could he explain?

What I really came back to say was more on the subject of 'watching with an open mind'.

A person can only watch with their own mind. A mind formed by their own particular genetics, socialisation, learning and life experiences. No-one is able to watch with a blank slate for a mind, because we are people, not blank, inexperienced, unbiased automata.

It seems to me that in stating his mind is 'open', your DH is actually seeking to make a false claim that his mind is unbiased.

This is not and cannot be the case, because he is a human being.

What I think he is in fact telling you, is that he does not recognise his own biases, prejudices, influences, or the lenses he chooses to look at some things through. He cannot name them.

He can name one of your influences, or lenses; feminism. The thing about knowingly learning about a perspective like feminism, is that you know you are using it as a lens to view things through. You may be able to put on and take off that lens, to use a feminist analysis and to look at things without one.

You can name some of your DH's lenses and influences; patriarchy, societally normalised misogyny and, from what he seems to be saying, an overt masculinism he has freely chosen to adopt, that causes him to hear, believe and favour men over women.

Why not point that out to him?

Further, when a masculinist viewer watches something made from a masculinist perspective (I can't comment on this documentary, haven't seen it), what is happening is that a very narrow, masculinist 'conversation' is taking place, between film-maker and viewer. One saying 'the way I see it, it was like this'. The other saying 'of course mate, see your point completely'.

That is the very opposite of looking at the available evidence with an unbiased mind.

Rather, it is listening to a story, that has been written to comfort, reassure and please you.