Double standards on mn.

[thatwasme22]

This week so far:

1. I have seen various posters defend Caroline Flack for having issues. Maybe she did but then the same argument would not be made on Chris Browne.

1. A thread on the physical attractiveness on male politicians. Imagine a male forum did this on females.

1. A thread with a woman hiding her inheritance from her husband and encouraged to do so by many posters and him being called financially abusive for being sensible over money. When men do this on mn it's all ltb.

Am I missing something? I call myself a feminist so am pro equality and that's how I raised my kids but why is this not being called out on mn?

Depo

True, but he was between a rock and a hard place.

@RufustheSniggeringReindeer

Depo was sacked because he lost the libel case

Exactly. No one forced him to do this and he will have been well aware of the risk, but as a powerful Hollywood male was no doubt to arrogant to expect he'd receive any outcome other than the one he wanted.

The burden of proof wasn't on whether Heard was a domestic abuser. The court wasn't being asked to determine this; she was merely a witness. The question was whether the Sun committed libel in calling him a wife beater. The ruling was that it hadn't. The case judge and appeal judges - all highly versed in media and libel law - all agreed.

On Depp's head be it.

And there is the double standard.

If it was amber taking out the libel and lost she would be applauded.

On his head be it, despite evidence showing that he too is an abuse victim?

And re the Powerful Hollywood man...

Maybe, just maybe , he wanted to take any chance to have his name cleared? Imagine.

The court wasn't interested in whether Amber Heard was a husband-basher. That isn't what it was being asked to decide. The complete burden of proof was on the Sun, not Depp. They had to actively prove that their accusation of wife beating was substantially true.

Then Depp stood up in court and admitted to having head-butted her. Whoops.

Heard was accusing Depp of nothing. HE was the one accusing the Sun. And for his appeal to have been successful he'd have had to show that 12 findings of physical violence towards Heard were incorrect. No wonder he was laughed out of court.

Who can say what the public response to Heard would have been should she have brought the libel case? She didn't. He did. Wondering what would have happened in reverse is pure speculation. But check out media precedent: the visceral public condemnation of Oksana Grigorieva and Angelina Jolie: both of whose partners were volatile addicts.

Did the Court of Public Opinion side with them? No, did it hell.

I'm not familiar with Oksana but you are choosing complicated cases. Angelina Jolie is also documented to not be quite perfect herself.

So these are examples of how it's one rule for one and one for another.

Amber is still in films despite the fact we know she has also abused Johnny, purely because he took the sun to court and she didn't and played a clever game. That doesn't make it right.

This post from CandyLeBonBon I find very interesting:

You're being wholly disingenuous and you know it. None of those threads were commented on in the way you've suggested. There were a range of views and balanced comments, and were by no means a singular opinion.

Perhaps re-read them after you've relieved yourself of that heavy chip you've been carrying on your shoulder.

I hadn't seen any of the threads in question, but reading this from someone who has does not surprise me. Some people will go to any lengths to vindicate men at the expense of the vilification of women. And what Candy says above, of course, makes perfect sense and chimes with NiceGerbil's points that there is always nuance on threads such as this. A consensus of opinion is very rare, because women are individuals with differing views.

As to Caroline Flack, if she did hit her partner with a lamp she could have killed or seriously injured him. Mental health issues don't let someone off the hook for unconscionable behaviour. If she needed psychiatric help that's a separate issue. IMO the CPS made the correct decision to prosecute.

@Butwasitherdriveway

I'm not familiar with Oksana but you are choosing complicated cases. Angelina Jolie is also documented to not be quite perfect herself.

So these are examples of how it's one rule for one and one for another.

Amber is still in films despite the fact we know she has also abused Johnny, purely because he took the sun to court and she didn't and played a clever game. That doesn't make it right.

@Butwasitherdriveway so you think Amber Heard should lose her job because her ex-husband decided to Sue a newspaper yeah expectations aren't stacked against women at all!

@Butwasitherdriveway

I'm not familiar with Oksana but you are choosing complicated cases. Angelina Jolie is also documented to not be quite perfect herself.

So these are examples of how it's one rule for one and one for another.

Amber is still in films despite the fact we know she has also abused Johnny, purely because he took the sun to court and she didn't and played a clever game. That doesn't make it right.

@Butwasitherdriveway I must have missed it when Angelina Jolie violently attacked a partner

@Butwasitherdriveway

And there is the double standard.

If it was amber taking out the libel and lost she would be applauded.

On his head be it, despite evidence showing that he too is an abuse victim?

Let me assure you that if heard had taken the sun to court I’d think she was just as fucking stupid as depp

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows no James , I think she should lose her job because she abused her husband.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows and Brad did? According to?

Let me assure you that if heard had taken the sun to court I’d think she was just as fucking stupid as depp.

TBF, though, Depp's so addled he probably wouldn't know the difference between an ostrich and a mushroom, let alone weight up a rational course of action versus a stupid one.

Cut the poor darling a bit of slack, whydontchya? He is a man, after all ...

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

And you would speak about Amber like that if she was addicted to drugs would you? No of course you wouldn't. MN would claim it's awful to mock an addict and connect it to Depp.

[quote Butwasitherdriveway]@MarieIVanArkleStinks

And you would speak about Amber like that if she was addicted to drugs would you? No of course you wouldn't. MN would claim it's awful to mock an addict and connect it to Depp.[/quote]
Yes. It's pointless pretending an addict is capable of rational decisions. And if they're going to be so misguided as to take their whole sordid mess into a court of law, then they should expect to have that mess dragged into the spotlight and placed under public scrutiny. That's what courts do.

I've lived with an addict. I know the impact of their behaviour, and let me assure you it's no picnic. What this guy needs is to let go of his dogged determination to pursue this woman through the courts at any cost, to get himself into rehab, address his many (serious) problems and from there work to repair his damaged reputation. This he apparently won't do. Until he's accepted his part in his problems - and he's played the major one - his hope of recovery is zilch.

If a person hasn't truly gone too far, AKA the Weinsteins and Saviles of this world, it IS possible to move beyond past mistakes and redeem yourself. Gibson's managed it.

Glossing over addiction and making excuses on the basis of it is not doing addicts any favours. Quite the reverse.

[quote Butwasitherdriveway]@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows no James , I think she should lose her job because she abused her husband.[/quote]
But you don't think he should lose his job for abusing her?

[quote Butwasitherdriveway]@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows and Brad did? According to?[/quote]
His wife and kids

Patriarchy in action: men are automatically believed before women are. That is the default

No, I think they both should have.

And you're wrong on both counts James.

Il believe anyone when they're found guilty.

I don't believe a woman should automatically be believed in a case of domestic abuse. Sorry, controversial perhaps. I appreciate it's different with your own circle (and I speak as an ex abuse victim). But a random celebrity we know nothing about? Nah.

And if you truly believe that, look at the careers of men in the public eye ruined by false accusations. Andrew Lancel, for a start.

Fair point @MarieIVanArkleStinks

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

If she needed psychiatric help that's a separate issue. IMO the CPS made the correct decision to prosecute.

I agree. As did a fairly large proportion discussing on that thread. I think the problem arose around conflation between her mental health meaning she should not have been prosecuted and as far as I remember very few posters thought she'd done nothing wrong (there were one or two outliers).

The general consensus was that, as a hugely troubled individual, she clearly had undiagnosed and/or untreated mental health issues that led to a domestic incident in which she hurt her partner.

Very few people were actually suggesting she either a) did nothing wrong or b) should not have been prosecuted. Those who did were rounded on and served their arses on a plate.

The conversation very much settled around the middle ground of 'yes she committed an act of violence, and yes, it needs police intervention because that's absolutely not ok'. There was also a lot of discussion surrounding the root cause of this behaviour in women, because in the vast majority of cases it comes from a different place to when men commit acts of violence against women. It just simply is not a level playing field and you can't really compare like for like. It's just not that simple. When women behave like this, it is more often than not related to mental health issues (EUPD/bpd) and there were no doubt signs of her volatility that should and could have been dealt with earlier.

The media lynching she received should absolutely have been silenced so her case could have been dealt with in the fair and proper way.

The Jonny Depo/Amber Heard case was also similarly toxic. I think both of them have issues which need addressing.

I agree op.

Women being advised to keep quiet about money they've received happens a lot.

It's deliberate double standards by female supremicists.

As to Caroline Flack, if she did hit her partner with a lamp she could have killed or seriously injured him.

And while he was asleep. That's really low.

She's hailed as some kind of tragic Diana figure on here, or more generally in the media. It's always heartbreaking when someone takes their own life like that, but it was truly appalling what she was alleged to have done to her poor partner..

My problem is that if a man has done anything, at all, he is vilified on here, All sorts of assumptions made about him, usually linking back to abuse and rape and jf anyone dares question that then they have all sorts of accusations thrown at them.

Women? Always right, except when they're undeniably wrong at which point it because the fault of the nearest man.

Time and time again we see it on these threads.

@User133847 total derailing. And inaccurate.