As the Johnny Depp vs. Amber heard, Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial goes on it reveals many things; it's not just a celebrity fight, it's related to our justice system, our way of judgment, our
dealing with abuse issues, and to a few certain movements and hashtags.
things have changed since a month ago. new hashtags built up, e.g #mentoo, we've seen how science is vulnerable when it comes to gender-biased professional opinions, like Dawn Hughes's testimony
who used male pronouns for abusers & females for victims.
or neglecting pieces of evidence by attorneys, judicature & barristers, like the barrister Charlotte Proudman who denied or underestimated the role of pieces of evidence, saying frequently
that people defend Depp blindly due to him is a man.
I'm pursuing the trial, it's very helpful to understand our situation.
Johnny Depp's character made it easier to believe Heard's allegations; Depp is weird, somehow introverted & conservative, with a bizarre style of Putting rings, having tattoos all over the
body, a typical appearance for being accused. while Heard has a girlish, baby, beautiful face, a suitable portrait of an innocent woman who faced domestic violence. that was what happened.
the Sun called him a "wife-beater" and brought allegations to public opinion once again in 2018. Depp sued Sun for libel but the UK court rejected Depp's claim and said the allegations were
substantially true. unsurprisingly other media helped Heard strongly.
when Heard pledged whole her 7m$ divorce settlement to charity, gained lovely fame among people, and called herself an activist & outspoken about sexual assault and abuse. that amount hadn't
satisfied her greed for fame, thus she stepped into the fight against DV & sexual abuse to the extent that ACLU, who haven't even got Heard's pledged money except for 20% by proxy, made her
write an op-ed article published by Washington Post on domestic abuse calling herself a survivor. long story short, Depp's reputation was destroyed totally, again; but it's just the preface, I'm
going to another area: media & revolutionary feminists reactions.
when it was some leaked vague news that the case would make its way to the court the revolutionary feminists' army start large-scale reportage implicitly in favor of Heard. this point was a good
point to assess revolutionary feminists' conscience & morality in practice. as one could predict, they strongly deny any possibility of Heard's allegations being false. seemingly another
trial was on no ground except for "deeply entrenched misogyny is in our society", as Dr. Charlotte Proudman, a barrister, wrote in the attached opinion to Independent, calling people "blindly"
support Depp's defamation case, no more no less.
the reason for why she denied Depp: it proved by the Sun in a Uk court that those allegations were true. let's have this in mind, we assess the honesty of these claims.
Let's look at the first impressions & reception, then we'll see two psychologists' testimony briefly, one of which suffers from a gender-biased attitude. "revolutionary feminists" analysis
would be in the next post.
in the very beginning, due to the publicity of the trial, people could have watched it. a few important recording was played in which Amber Heard's innocent portrait was wiped out, appeared as a
woman who could fight back very well; in some recording, she was the attacker, either verbally or physically, particularly in one instance she admitted that had hit Depp, while Depp complaining
about a close finger, namely fist, it's punching, not just hitting; the argument left undecided in the recording. then there was early testimony that affirm recordings.
I'd like to confess that I was born to a patriarchal family, well understand masculinity & (asexual) male violence. accordingly, while I'm a man who doesn't deny his masculinity, in case of
allegations usually take the female side until there would be a good reason to abandon this primitive judgment. since there were new, important pieces of evidence, in this case, I had to change
my side as my personal view. frankly, I was neither the judge nor juror; as well as, I had not had all pieces of evidence.
At this crucial point, two forensic psychologists gave professional opinions to the court: Dr. Shannon Curry on Depp's side and Dr. Dawn Hughes for Heard. Curry, on Depp's side, testified that
Heard's account isn't fit the criteria she fabricated; Curry pointed out Heard exaggerates about symptoms and tests say fabricating is more likely.
after her, Dawn Hughes gave opinions in which something strange happened; she not only gave a gender-biased opinion but also deliberately misinterpreted pieces of evidence & information. for
instance, she implicitly denied female ability for abusing male victims, on the ground that men have bigger size, thus female hostility towards men couldn't be dangerous essentially, related to
physical features. additionally, she used female pronouns for victims and males for abusers. I have written a thread on my Twitter account about her violation of the psychological code of ethics.
continuing this way of thinking, Hughes even tried to underestimate and undermine important information, such as when a recording played in which Heard admitted that she had hit Depp; Hughes said
"several times" with a tone to convey it wasn't a big deal, just rarely it happened, added she couldn't have been real threatening to him. this was the first time that gender-biased opinion
stepped into the case.
4th post; following the previous post, I'm not inclined to give weight to Heard's attorney's comments on Curry, Depp's psychologist speaker, that she isn't board-certified, such comments aren't
for real, but rather to undermine another side.
from this point, things became interesting & frightening at the same time. revolutionary feminists started their campaign, spreading comments on social media, along with conventional media. a
flood of statements made their way into the public sphere, telling people this trial will jeopardize women's willingness to speak out, oppressed them to be silent, and prevent them from going to
courts; as they argued, because they would think even if they win the first court battle, men sue back, so on.
these reasons came from a few certain sources, who are Amber Heard's friends. their efforts don't have to be based on friendship, it's mostly on a kind of strict feminism, which Charlotte
Proudman calls revolutionary feminism; a kind of feminism that seeks a revolution in masculine male-made jurisdiction, society holding misogyny tight.
but after the trial began, defending such a position became very hard, and baseless, due to the facts that revealed Heard's ability to be hostile toward Depp, & more noteworthy, that turned
out that she hadn't donated her pledged divorce settlement money to charities, while she told under oath in the UK court that she donated; her trying to come up with something was in vain, said
she used "pledge" and "donate" synonymously. furthermore, it was shown that ACLU, to name one, encouraged & helped her in writing and publishing the op-ed article. these events weaken her con
vincibility severely. accordingly, the facts and pieces of evidence were in her favor.
revolutionary feminists from now on had to decide whether they continue their support or step aside for mentioned things; they decided on the first option. however, there was a vital need for a
new strategy. one important speaker was Dr. Charlotte Proudman who took the lead, outlined a new strategy to undermine evidence-based decisions, emphasized more underlying strong misogyny,
interpreted the trial as a scene orchestrated by Johnny Depp, pointing out social media content on Heard especially those which weren't so acceptable, etc.
in a tweet, she wrote "Depp is the definition of masculinity. Every man wanted to be him." as if overcoming Johnny Depp is to overcome the definition of masculinity, the archetype of men, someone
who all men want to be like, the personality of Depp as a human being, as a husband, as father didn't take into account. the priority should be defeating him decisively.
Proudman, who is a barrister holding doctorate in law, during an interview said: " evidence has nothing to do with this case" headed for old school misogyny conspiracy theory.
that saying from one who already serves justice in courts was unbelievable.
as it was explained, Dr. C. Proudman led the way, the revolutionary feminists, followed her very well. that wasn't well enough in dealing with the situation, so they flagged up a few harsh
social media created by fans which weren't acceptable since they made fun of cryings or showed rudery. the #Guardian and Independent always were waiting for a word to publish it hastily without
any concerns about consequences.
I will end narrate here to express a few points.
regarding Dr. Hughes's testimony, it not only denies any possibility for men to be victims of abuse, which is very dangerous but also undermine science neutrality guideline, making science a
tool to overcome for one's benefit, no matter of truth. no need to mention breaking the professional code of ethics.
besides, revolutionary feminists told us about the danger of jeopardizing future female victims of speaking out, but they weren't able to prove it. always have been false allegations there;
it's obvious. furthermore, any human being on earth understands lies and false statements; we know that having that ability. that's why humans try to lay judiciary systems down, strengthen them
for centuries; to make them efficient to the extent that they detect false allegations from true ones precisely. thus, unfolding one certain case after providing a large number of new
pieces of evidence, how could jeopardize women's dare to prosecute abuse?
in addition, while mentioned opinion is under serious doubt, it is clear that neglecting pieces of evidence, for the "believe women" rule, will assure male victims that they haven't any chance in
trials even if they have enough pieces of evidence for the defense.
one might think this kind of feminism, the revolutionary, is replacing misogyny with misandry, whose damage isn't lesser. such consideration is scary; it may weaken our integrity, reduce justice
enforcement, & demoralize people.
here, my goal was to take one side into account, more should be said about media coverage & interventions.
finally, unchangeable insistent on supporting one case and presenting her as the symbol of all women is incomprehensible, no need to indicate this could both fade women's rights away and even
demolish the revolutionary feminism essentially. adopting such a venture increases the likelihood of the supposition that they're acting by irrational attitude, not on common sense.
it was published first in My LinkedIn Newsletter.
Note: feminism in our time is not all about women's rights, what you read is not supposed to undermine, underestimate, or underrate women's rights, security,
wellbeing, or equality, but it aims to promote it along with the same for male victims without destroying justice.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License