To think Amber Heard becoming a scapegoat for female violence proves that it isn’t really a societal issue?

[spicyicechilli]

MRA’s and men in general are obsessed with her. How exciting, to have a woman in the public figure as the bad guy. They are having an absolute field day. I’ve literally not seen one man take the opportunity share support and resources for male domestic violence victims. It’s all just “Amber Heard is a horrible fucking witch.”, bla bla bla. Men generally (yes I know there are exceptions and charities) don’t really care about male DV victims, male sexual assault victims or male mental health. In the case of male domestic violence, it’s a case of “Women do it too, this is feminism’s fault!”. Male sexual assault “Women rape too!” (Even though the vast majority of male sexual assault victims are assaulted by other males), male mental health where they state how damaging it is to be told to “man up”, but is it women telling them this? No. Men bottle up their mental health generally because they don’t want their mates to laugh at them, they don’t want to be seen as unmanly. I’ve seen it time again with male family members and exes.

Men just are not systematically victimised by women like how women are by men. MRA’s will break their back trying to show you that they are but they aren’t. They just aren’t. There are lone cases but it’s not a systematic thing. Me and all of my friends have experienced some kind of abuse at the hands of a man before, whether it be in relationships or on nights out. I just don’t think men have that same universal experience.

I was speaking to my partner about it and I said to him “The fact that people have become obsessed with Amber Heard says it all, she is a novelty. I could literally name you dozens of women I know personally who have experienced abuse at male hands, I don’t need a celebrity scapegoat to use as an example to prove that male violence exists.” As it stands now, when people think of female violence, they think of Amber Heard. When I think of male violence, I don’t just think of one man, and I certainly don’t think of a celebrity. Because I’ve experienced it so many times and know so many women who’ve also experienced it, male violence doesn’t just have one ‘face’ to me.

MRA’s have become obsessed with Amber Heard because they need a highly publicised celebrity scapegoat, because the statistics are just not on their side and don’t support their agenda.

@BonnesVacances

I don’t think she specifically accuses him in the article. It’s an opinion piece.

“Like many women, I had been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age. But I kept quiet — I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice. And I didn’t see myself as a victim.
Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”

Is she really wrong to say that, particularly as it was after the UK trial that ruled in her favour??

I don’t think Amber Heard proves anything about societal issues in general, one way or the other. I think she has a personality disorder, and as a consequence she provides no proof whatsoever of what “normal” female behaviour is like. Likewise, Johnny Depp proves nothing about the behaviour of normal men. There is nothing normal about that couple.

It has been testified that the person who wrote the article was referencing her marriage with JD. The first draft explicitly mentioned it but then it was removed. Everyone in Hollywood and the world knew it did too because she had got the temporary restraining order against him two years earlier.

The legal question is did it need to specifically mention JD or was the insinuation enough? That's what they are arguing. There are 3 points to the case. That is one of them.

AH was recommended to check it with her lawyer before it was published to see if the article broke the NDA or put her in hot water. Presumably they thought it didn't or she didn't get advice.

JD's legal team are arguing that it did because she shared it herself with the quote "look what I wrote" (or similar) and there is previous case that ruled as such.

@Walkaround but it would be wrong to say only ‘normal’ people can speak out about domestic abuse. Whatever ‘normal’ may be. Anyone should be able to speak out about it.

Equally if Depp had written an opinion piece about domestic violence (in a similar tone to Heard’s ie without direct accusations) in the Washington Post - I think she should have a right to do that. Not censored by deformation.

I've actually only seen women so far side with JD. I posted about it on my social media and had women talk about women's abuse of men.

@BonnesVacances

Ok - but it was removed/not published. So no law broken there?

I mean it is just my opinion, but I think she/any woman should be allowed to write the article she did after a trial where a) he admitted to head butting her b) the trial ruled that her version of events was likely to be true.

And say for Depp - if he wants to write an opinion piece, he should be censored.

I think you mean defamation. And if it is obvious who you are really talking about, it can be defamation. I don’t think it is remotely helpful to the cause to stretch the truth about something, tbh, so whilst manipulative, unstable, publicity-seeking people can write articles, that doesn’t mean they won’t ultimately harm the cause they claim to be supporting.

The judge's ruling after the defence called for the case to be dismissed was that the prosecution had presented enough evidence that there was a legal case for the jury to consider as to whether the article referred to JD by insinuation and whether it made false claims as to the abuse.

She said "In this matter, there is evidence in the case that a jury could weigh that the statements were made by the defendant, that the statements were about the plaintiff, that the statement was published, that the statement is false and the defendant made the statement knowing it to be false or the defendant made it so recklessly as to a willful disregard for the truth.”

Sorry! Yes defamation! I don’t know - that would get very grey for me to say - yes this person is allowed, this person isn’t. Plus they are just opinions about her character.

Well, of course it isn’t for you to say. If a manipulative, lying, publicity-seeking person publishes an article, though, as they are allowed to do, then the law allows the person defamed to sue them. Why would you restrain the latter but not the former in this case?

Whether or not she is abusive is irrelevant to the OP’s question.

What is relevant is the fervour with which the public have demonised her, as if they were eagerly awaiting the moment where they could cry “See! Women do it too!”

@BonnesVacances

Thanks. I only know ‘bits’ that I read so it’s useful to hear.

So just your own opinion about the article - do you think it’s defamatory?

Interesting point OP.

The biggest roadblock for men in speaking out against domestic abuse by their female partners is the toxic masculinity attitudes perpetuated by men.

Its about stepping out of that narrow “man box”. Admitting that a girl hit you etc.

It shouldn’t carry so much shame. That’s a problem that men have to tackle for themselves.

But I agree. It’s so much easier to point at the witch.

They both look like complete loonies to me! I’ve seen vicious horrible videos of him smashing the kitchen up, and passed out from drugs. He’s not a nice man. She’s not a nice lady. They are trying to prove who’s the worse - it’s a lost cause and not in the public interest. Just divorce privately, and move on.

Dear OP, but I find the same thing about Elizabeth Holmes. How many men running scams? But the vitriol around Elizabeth... I don't get it.

I'm a DV survivor.

Hospitalised many times. I never hit back.
It was totally one sided.

But the texts I shared with my (online) best friend were very much along the same lines as JD sent to PB.

It was my frustration and hopelessness laid bare. I couldn't retaliate in real life so I told my mate I was going to 'cut his penis off and feed it to the dog'

I said I was going to wait till he was asleep and cut his throat.

All sorts of disgusting things that would look awful in court. Non of it reflected the REALITY of the situation that in real life I wouldn't dare say such things to him.

:(

She isn't a novelty. Men massively under report female assault. I was assaulted by a woman often in public and nobody gave a shit unless I shoved back then all hell would break loose with people stepping in. Protecting the poor woman which they didn't do when I was the target. Likewise at home there is the assumption men never hit women (amongst my friends and family) no matter what they do and the police wouldn't believe me if I reported it. So I don't buy this women aren't violent, I accept they are running a big risk escalating against me as I could easily resolve the situation through my own strength but any retaliation from me also ran the risk with police involved.

Yes let's not blame the poor men. Analyse and focus on how it's all womens fault, because anecdote. 🙄🙄🙄

@Walkaround

I think the trial should be allowed - I don’t think the article was defamation.

I don’t think he’ll succeed, and it’ll be wrong IMO if he does. Much like the UK case.

Men massively under report female assault.

Do you have some stats and a source on this? I hear it a lot but have never managed to find a report and would be genuinely interested to know.

I would love to see the Amber defenders respond to the following two points, which seem to be largely ignored:

First, for the people referring to the UK trial, why are you refusing to touch upon the fact that it has been proven that AMBER LIED UNDER OATH in that trial? Lying under oath is a big deal (especially horrific to lie about having given funds to a children’s hospital). She perjured herself on at least this account, and she has been shown to have lied in the past when not in trial, about some pretty big things. People keep referring to the UK trial as if justice was served, but during the trial, it was not known that she was lying about a detail that certainly did shift some public opinion about her (ie, poor Amber Heard, such a pure soul who did not want to keep the dirty money awarded to her for her divorce, so she gave it all to a hospital for cancer-stricken children and another foundation that champions justice for DV victims).

And everybody is still ignoring the horrible thing Amber did to Kate James, “stealing” the story of the brutal gang rape Kate James suffered and confided to Amber, passing it off as her own story. Amber metaphorically raped Kate James all over again. But since Kate J is not a movie star or an important person, nobody cares very much. I want to hear an Amber supporter explain away Kate James.

And let’s be clear. She didn’t write the op-ed and had very little input into the process at all. Another thing that emerged in the US trial is extensive documentation showing that ACLU staffer Robin Shulman wrote the op-ed, and did so with a great deal of back-and-forth (all documented) with Amber’s lawyers, trying to strike a fine line between directly implicating Johnny Depp and squeaking it by with just enough wiggle room to evade the terms of Amber’s NDA. For those of you who don’t know, ACLU is ALSO one of the two organisations about whom Amber lied in UK court when she made the false claim she had donated all of her divorce settlement to ACLU and the children’s hospital.

It isn’t possible to analyse and parse the words in the op-ed as if it is Amber’s truth somehow. It’s a publicity stunt for which she was happy to give her name (and they made her their “ambassador on women’s rights”, a role from which she benefitted professionally and in public opinion.

Even if you argue that many public figures have someone else write their op-eds for them, the fact that ACLU awarded her a role that substantially enhanced her image in the public eye and they ALSO wrote the article for her is very, very suspicious. She had a lot to gain in choosing to allow them to put her name on the op-ed they wrote.

@blackcatnight

Sorry I’m typing very badly.

I meant to write Depp shouldn’t be censored if he decides to put his name to an opinion piece.

I don’t know. I’d rather just go on what has been decided by a court. Or my view on what was written in the article.

There is so much out there which is conjecture - or someone’s opinion v’s someone else’s opinion.

Of course the behaviours you are describing from her are abhorrent - but I’m not sure what is proven there/not proven. And equally IF the bottle thing happened that is abhorrent. But it’s conjecture. There is no definitive proof.

And I’d rather just go on what I see which the judgement in the UK courts and reading the article.

Amber’s a liar with personality disorders. That’s the lone fact we have to work with on her side.

Johnny D’s a waster, but that doesn’t make you violent, and his exes all confirmed he wasn’t a violent man.

Like most women in this position, I loathe being forced to admit Amber’s trying it on.

Maybe she thought Feisty yet Fragile Survivor was a hot image. Maybe they’re both dreadful. Anyhow, she thought she’d get away with it. Certainly she doesn’t give a shit for real victims of DV.