The Motto "Believe women"​ IS Demoralizing

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.

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

David Spiegel's Testimony Was a Real Failure

Arya Younesi 

Note: this post is for non-experts, accordingly it is in a clear style without needed academic details.

It would be helpful to say I do not write to have Johnny Depp, the actor the celebrity, my concern has two dimensions: one, a human, father, and husband, is being sacrificed by activists who labeled Amber Heard as a "survivor" now they do not accept their advertised, branded face be abuser, not a survivor; two, what is going on could happen to any of us, when we seek justice in the court, the abuser find a couple of unethical, negligent experts to accuse us. 

Dr. David Spiegel's Testimony as a psychiatrist was a failure in its literal meaning; he passed many rules and boundaries that should not have been passed by scientists. Meanwhile, it is interesting that no one from the psychiatry field denounces such scientific testimony as "abuse". As he is an expert on abuse, I suggest we see what is "science abuse"? 

First of all, he testified in a way that understands by a large number of listeners that johnny Depp's drug and alcohol abuse caused domestic violence. However, now and then, he mentioned percentages or pronounce words to imply the likelihood of his sayings, but it is clear that he take the stand to accuse Johnny Depp of abuse. But I believe he knows that most of what he said was in vain. 

I say that David Spiegel has abused science because science is not about certainty. Science gives us insights into a big number of cases. That is the first notion in social sciences; For example, suppose a psychiatrist conducted research on sexual abuse, and turned out that 70% of abusers suffer from drug abuse. To this point, if the research was a good one, the example was big enough to represent all human beings, the method was right and valid and interpretations make sense, then we can say for any given group of abusers with 100 members there is a chance to find 70 of them being also drug abusers. No more than. 

But 70% is a big number, thus can we conclude that drug abuse is the cause of sexual abuse? Based on the research it just "could" be the case; why? Because we have 30%, 30 cases in every 100, that are sexual abusers but they are not drug abusers. If something would be a cause it should every time and always create the effect, except for rare conditions that prevent effects. So if bipolar disorder is the cause of periodic manic, it should cause periodic manic in more than, let's say, 95%. 5% would be for rare cases for example. 

In the case of the abusers' example, no one could say drug abuse cause sexual abuse. first, it is just about probabilities and likelihood; second, when given drug abusers that at the same time also committed intimidating partner violations, be under study a psychiatrist could relate those two based on previous studies. But if we just know, that a certain person was a drug abuser, that is not possible to deduce that she or he was a sexual abuser too, a simple fact that undergraduate a student knows. I'm going to the next point which is the absence of distinguishing causation from correlation.

In the second place, Spiegel's Testimony was an obvious failure in science due to his negligence of "correlation". Causation and correlation have many similarities which could confuse observers. I will explain it in an easy-to-understand way. By definition, causation is the relationship between a cause and an effect in which the cause created (produced/ bring about) another thing called the effect. Correlation is a mutual connection between two things that usually appeared side by side; such as flu and runny nose, as well as, between fever and runny nose. Generally speaking, although causation is a kind of correlation because cause and effect always appeared at a time, every correlation is not causation, too. For instance, fever and runny nose correlate, perhaps more than 90%, but neither fever cause runny nose nor runny nose causes fever; the virus which is responsible for Flu (influenza) causes both fever and runny nose. Another example, is always thunderbolt and thunder are seen together, first thunderbolt then thunder, but they are not causing and effect, they are in correlation. The cause for both is something else: electric discharge between the atmosphere and ground which causes both thunderbolt (lightning) and thunder (loud sound). 

Now let's see what is the problem in Spiegel's mind. He related sexual abuse, precisely IPV, to abusing substances, drugs, opiates, and alcohol, on the ground that they have unstable moods, impair judgment, cause forgetting, etc. He added that a big number of his clients have these problems, seemingly he was making the point that he knows what he says. Suppose always drug and alcohol misuse and abuse could be seen together, even let's say in 80% of cases. In such a supposition no one could say drug abuse cause IPV; because it should be studied if one is the cause of another one, namely, the correlation possibility would be rejected with great certainty. It is necessary because maybe there is a hidden psychological disorder in the person that pushes them into abusing drugs, and that very disorder makes an inclination in the person to commit IPV. 

Furthermore, if drug abuse is always with the sexual abuser, how could Dr. Spiegel know that sexual abuse is not the cause of drug abuse? He said drug mixing and abusing impair judgment and cause sexual abuse, or help the person to commit IPV. But let's suppose, as a layman, that when someone committed sexual abuse against a partner, that crime bothers the abuser when the person thinks about it, got judgemental about her/his personality, and so on; thus, to forgot about it gradually takes drugs, alcohol, mixing them. It could be a possibility. 

To conclude, the most powerful reason for refuting Spiegel's testimony is that what he said was even from a psychiatric viewpoint very hard to believe. Spiegel stated that mixing opiate with alcohol, which should not be mixed impairs judgment, then the person could not judge between good and bad, as in normal time can; so far is good. But the problem is that mixing opiate with alcohol not only impairs judgment but also weakens strength in the person. When one takes drugs and opiates or opioids and alcohol together, judgment impairment is accompanied by sedation, hard breathing, respiratory failure, or even death (In the end a few scientific materials are linked). Question to Dr. Spiegel: if Depp's co-use of alcohol and opioids and other drugs was at a level that impaired his judgment, how much is it possible for him to tear up a phone, injured his hand, despite that committing domestic violence in which he penetrated a bottle to the vagina of a young, sober, healthy woman? Doest possible that mixing those did not cause sedation, breathing problems, and respiratory problems? Just should it be judgment impairment and necessary end up in IPV? Please give it another try. 

Here I just explained the core reasoning of the testimony, in another one I should give some time to violating the psychological code of ethics.

For effects of mixing opioids with alcohol any simple search in scientific databases bring on much research, but for naming two reliable sources see:

First 

Second

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

How and Why Depp vs. Heard Trial Stimulated Public Sphere: An Outline

Arya Younesi

 

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.

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More