As a first impression, we may say: "fine! That's a celebrity thing; none of our business" heading back to something supposedly more important. It could be a good strategy, nonetheless, the reason is not valid. As a matter of fact, celebrities needed to be chased very passionately by fans and public opinions; it is the logic of fame that is the core of being a celebrity. From time to time when a celebrity feels that public opinion forgets her/him, intuited the necessity of immediate resolution; when there is no good ground to lay a relatively attractive topic they often insanely bring on a catchy, insane subject to capture news titles. Even when other ways failed, they anonymously leaked private, sexual, meaningless videotape to invade yellow media and social media contents. Such a boiling serves well to fame, although it will be forgotten soon. The public sphere, particularly more serious opinions, usually would not participate in, and should not. Having in mind this particular type, some situations appear similar to what I just mentioned while in reality, they are not shallow, but rather of great priorities. Distinguishing between these two kind is difficult but important. Since these cases affect society, We should know when to back off and when to step in. It is noteworthy that in the political realm similar events occurred which need to be dealt with likewise.
One interesting case of an event that, at first not seen as serious, was the Dreyfus Affair in France, which started in 1894 and lasted for nearly 12 years of intense controversies among the French, from common citizens to writers and politicians. Once upon a time in 1894, a case of allegedly selling military information to Germans was revealed to French military counterintelligence. First, in 1894 captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused and then convicted. He was a Jew, which make him very delicious for active anti-Semitic groups, employed La Libre Parole newspaper as the principal organ, back then; not only being Jew expose him to hasty allegations, but the anti-Semitic groups saw him as a convincing basis to accuse all French Jews, profiling them as disloyal, finally take them down. At first, except for Dreyfus's relatives and close people, no one showed suspicion, doubt, or query on the validity of their conviction; perhaps the only side which took his Jewish background of him into serious account was anti-Semitics. On the opposite side, no one said that he was accused just because of his Judaism. After almost three years things have been changed; a counterintelligence officer recognized the handwriting of another suspect, who was in a line of suspicion with Dreyfus, on sold documents to Germans. He had been on the list from the very beginning but the French army alleged Dreyfus, evidently on cognitive bias. To make a long story short, new information along with case bases from the start, inflamed the public sphere in France dividing it into two campaigns, Dreyfus on the face of it anti-Semitism laid beneath. The tension got all social units onto the battlefield, to the extent that well-known novelist, Emile Zola wrote an open letter titled "I accuse", whose consequences were encouraging citizens largely to take a side as well as one year in prison for Zola himself due to "libel". Dreyfus Affair revives basic rights, weaken religious, and racial discrimination, sharpen trial and improve judgment accuracy.
A case like Dreyfus Affair proves the importance of certain ostensibly trivial instances that bear a significant, blurred value underneath. One could say Johnny Depp's case against ex-wife Amber Heard in one way or another represent similarities to Dreyfus Affair; not only based on vast, intense debates around it but rather according on value fight between different adherents and parties which see their future in it.
So to speak, by now almost all forgot about who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant, one sees herself/himself on one side as if it is their own trial. What strongly drew attention to the case is the exchange of severe arguments between a handful of parties. On one side fourth-wave feminists, or as some prefer revolutionary feminism, are positioned. Those who mostly seek to overthrow allegedly masculine way of thinking and values, harshly looking for remaining "misogyny" under skins of society; by the advent of the MeToo movement, mostly known with speak out publicly, bringing sexual discriminations, assaults and harassments to the eyes, followed by narratives and hashtags on social media, organize a powerful social; on a different position is a group of conservatives who are old enemies to all four waves of feminism, regarding the facts they're not mainly involved due to engagement of other powerful groups who are in the field; a large numerous group is fans of either side of two celebrities who are strongly confronting opposite side, sometimes extend the debate to non-fan parties; and finally, a small number of people who do not belong to any of mentioned parties, calling for justice, accuracy, reducing any kind of discrimination. For transparency and fairness to readers, I'd like to locate myself as the last party that defines itself by seeking justice, objectivity, and evidence-oriented decision. From now on I am going to give up neutral style writing; because I want to put myself on the same level as those I am going to criticize.
As it was said, practically conservatives could be left out; the fans army to both sides mostly employ terms, reason, and arguments prepared by the first unit, 4th wave feminists on one side, and the last unit, who call for justice and accuracy for all.
The argument between these two is based on some values with which they are not in agreement. On the feminist side, values centered on the "believe women" motto which encapsulates most of their doctrines. By "believe women" they want to convey the fact that "usually" or "mostly" judiciary systems and routines favor men, pushing women back; for instance, they say, in the female winner trial, which they claim is rare, male side bring the case on, again and again, until he makes the female defendant penniless, exhausting her money support. Another thing they point to is male misuse of "masculine" laws and procedures, in which there is a lot of emphases are on pieces of evidence, as they say, due to the nature of violence happening, prepare convincing pieces of evidence for the courts, judges, and jury is very difficult, if not near impossible. A few figures of the thinkers' wing go farther than saying truth-telling is masculine, not benefit women overall. Briefly, they think of a kind of revolution in culture, laws, jurisprudence regulations, and values.
In domestic violence cases, their strategy is to believe women; meaning in case of lacking pieces of evidence, or not able to convince judges or juries this fact should not result in rejecting the case or letting the man take advantage.
I, for one, find these denials not fruitful, even rather dangerous venture into new different unjust situations as unacceptable as those they deny. These measures, if implemented, would have made male victims exposed to any false allegation, in an indefensible trial in which the man has the least, or no chance to serve justly. On the other hand, this problem did not leave us with only one option, namely revolution; why do not we have a reform option? A practical, efficient way in which benefits would be maximized while producing no major new problem; if a few problems popped out we can suppose a good resolution since we are dealing with a familiar system.
Deception, often in terms of lies, is a human ability; it is a powerful, fatal weapon in a society in which truthfulness is a value and rule for the majority of its members. We are committed to truth and veracity; prima facie is a canonical way by which we conduct our judgment and acts. In such a society overlooking deception, possibility makes the whole judiciary a certain failure.
Afterward, it is not clear if these walks of reasoning did not replace misogyny with misandry.
So far I explained the outline related to points they put on the table. To this point, it could make us worry about the future. But there is more, in a different kind with what has been said. To this point we lay out reflective topics, while a couple of 4th waves, revolutionary, feminists day by day get more radical, take strategies which if not reckless, are not in full awareness of consequences.
In recent days, a lot of short or long articles published in media and newspapers are to an extent worrying; at the same time, following up and downs in the trial the views and opinions posted on cyberspace, not worrying, but frightening, as it became a little harsh and has been tried to misinterpreted pieces of evidence or overlook or ignore then.
a simple resolution to money exhaustion. That would be solved, for example by founding a financial institute to pay for female victims who are in need; if one found it difficult to do, then a revolution, that is overthrowing the whole system is more difficult. For such a problem no need to be revolutionary, which seems reckless.
This issue will be addressed in the next opinion.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License