Help me explain this to my 15 year old son please

[HardRockOwl]

He's sent me some messages ( we do talk! I'm just out the house right now!) and I'd like to explain it all to him as a wider picture but I'm struggling. I'll copy and paste his messages ...

'Mum, i've been looking into the johnny depp thing where did you get that they were both abusive?

i'm genuinely curious as there is no evidence that he did anything other than send a text message about her and that he spilt ice cream on there bed

that's what he was "charged with" there was evidence of abusive to him but nothing to her

all i can find is some feminist sites saying it's a bad thing for other womens cases on this, but i don't think so usually victims that are men are not taken seriously and blamed for being abused so if anything it's good for men'

He clearly wants to understand more about the deeper picture and I don't want to get it wrong as he's at a very impressionable age and I'd like to use this as a lighthearted way to explain the misogyny towards AH whilst acknowledging that in this case they were probably as bad as each other

Has to be easy for him to understand. Any ideas? Thanks

i'm genuinely curious as there is no evidence that he did anything other than send a text message about her and that he spilt ice cream on there bed

that's what he was "charged with" there was evidence of abusive to him but nothing to her

Tell him that the things he was charged with simply didn’t stand up in court. According to the letter of the law, the things he did were not seen as significantly physically abusive by the jury.
He was therefore found not guilty of abuse.

HOWEVER, if you look at the bigger picture: The type of behaviour he displays towards her as a result of his his alcoholism & drug addiction, his aggression (towards inanimate objects), shouting and rages are seen by many as abusive.

"Mum, i've been looking into the johnny depp thing where did you get that they were both abusive?"

Explain to him where you got your information to come to that conclusion when you made the statement to him.

You hardly just made that claim without any basis did you?

Your son sounds evidence based in his thought processes which is great. You should really praise him for that. He's right, there was no evidence of abuse. And he's right that boards with a bias/interest/clearly stated subjectivity have some emotive beliefs that can become removed from those black and white facts and depart into other conversations. The sad fact is we found out during the court case that AH was abusive and that makes the whole picture complicated and hard to unpick.

I'd tell him to stick with his great evidence based approach, that recognising subjectivity in the medium is a skill that he clearly has, and that yes there was no evidence. That's why JD 'won'. But that in general if we try to remove the conversation away from JD and AH trial, but consider well what is abuse? - that is can often be hidden or hard to see, and that JD being drunk, on drugs, and speaking a certain way or with certain body language can certainly feel intimidating to some, can be abusive, etc. And that not seeing evidence of abuse, as he hasn't, doesn't make him anti feminist at all.

Since the conclusion of the latest trial, there have been some brilliant articles on the Guardian about how damaging this whole thing has been to women. I'd start by sending him some of those.

I also believe (but haven't followed it that closely) that he had admitted to being physically abusive towards her.

I'd point out that the UK courts generally require a higher burden of proof than US courts and evidence is prohibited from being presented without good reason.

I'd draw his attention to the texts (use screenshots) between him and Paul Bettany where he talks of drowning, burning and f*cking her corpse to make sure she's dead. His determination to see her publically and globally humiliated and ruined. Statitistics have proven time and time again that in the case of male violence against women that such language, such statements indicate dangerous men and frequently go hand in hand with abuse.

Here are some links to the articles I was referring to.

Caveats:
I know they're all from one source but that doesn't necessarily mean they're biased. For all its faults, the Guardian remains one of the few independent newspapers and frequently provides a counterbalance to the main narrative run with by other media sources. In this instance, that's very important.

I know, too, that these don't all relate to who was most guilty. But that's because there was a lot more at stake in this trial than.

Even if you accept that Heard lied throughout, the whole trial has been a display of rampant misogyny. It was as much as anything a trial by media, which is not subject to the same controls as a jury to prevent manipulation. The outcome the jury reached and the outcome of popular opinion are two different things.

Losing the court case was one thing, but Depp set out to ensure that Heard was completely destroyed (his goal - in vicious language is a recorded as a matter of fact and he insisted on a public trial with media coverage). Her reputation has been as soundly obliterated as Weinsteinn's. Tell me, who committed the worse crimes?

Whatever you believe, Depp's body language and attitude throughout this whole trial has carried many red flags of abusive male behaviour. Perhaps he's not guilty of physical abuse. Doesn't mean he's not guilty of abuse.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/01/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-metoo-backlash

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/the-depp-defamation-suit-should-outrage-and-appall-you

www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/02/depp-heard-trial-verdict-me-too-sexual-violence-women

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/04/depp-heard-trial-domestic-violence-experts

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/03/metoo-amber-heard-johnny-depp

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/amber-heard-johnny-depp

www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk

I think that the whole “abuse “ thing is heavily weighted against men. I fully acknowledge that abuse in whatever form is wrong and generally associated with male behaviour. But as we have seen from this case abuse by females towards men is often veiled and not acknowledged because of male pride.
My DS17 came out of a very (verbally & emotionally ) abusive relationship recently. But was labelled as the abuser. He accepted it because she convinced him he was the abuser, her friends agreed.

After opening up to me he admitted he had tried his best to help her stop her spiralling drug habit. When she took drugs and needed his care and she yelled and screamed at him apparently him getting snood with her was abusive. He showed me some of the text messages, I was witness to a couple of her tirades while he was on FaceTime with her. She finished with him for 24 hrs so she could sleep with someone else. He wasn’t allowed to talk to any other girls.
He eventually realised it wasn’t normal and finished with her, only to have her threaten suicide and beg him to take her back. Guess what a week later she very publicly dumped him.
Women are just as capable as men of abusing there partners.

I think you have to tread very carefully with this one OP. Men have just as much right to be acknowledged in an abusive relationship. It is not ok to assume that a man, who has been pushed to his limits, is automatically the abusive one in a relationship.
I am sort of relieved that DS can now recognise controlling behaviour for what it is. He does have a temper but a very long fuse to go with it. He put up with a great deal, his ex pretty much isolated him from his friendship group but then refused to allow him to socialise with her group. He is so much happier and wiser now.

You just need to explain that he was verbally abusive but she was verbal and physically abusive they both were on drugs and drinking alot

So so helpful thank you very much

@Knittingchamp yes he is very evidence based in his thinking which I'd not considered before

@Basilbrushgotfat thank you for those links

I would take it out of the specific and into the realm of the general.
This is a good resource (imo) coercivecontrolcollective.org/news/2018/3/12/the-power-and-control-wheel-1

For me it is a perfectly plausible and reasonable thing for a man to simultaneously be an incredibly entertaining lead actor, charming and compelling to watch. AND be absolute hell to live with. Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence, and as can be seen in the wheel above a man threatening to hurt or kill himself can be understood as an element of coercive control if him hurting himself is a punishment for her doing or saying the wrong thing or failing to please him in some way.

Coercive control is a pattern of abuse that can also be done by women to men but it tends to require a power imbalance in the abusers favour and for the abuser to have significantly more social capital and perhaps for these reasons alone is much more commonly done by men to women. It is often very difficult for the victim to prove, as it tends towards damaging mental health rather than physical health. Women particularly often find themselves in a catch 22 situation. If there is no impact on their mental health, they haven't been harmed so what are they complaining about. But if their mental health has suffered they are 'crazy' and unreliable. The abuser is often extremely skilled in manipulating their reality and twisting their words and as they are in control of when and where the abuse happens they have power over who witnesses what.

It is worth noting that some of the 'worst' abusers are also often the most charming and charismatic people, and often have the most additional resources such as great job/ rich/ family/ fame.

"as there is no evidence that he did anything" consider the difference between evidence and proof, there is tons of evidence but as the evidence of this is her word or it is open to interpretation as to whether it should be characterised as 'him abusing her' such as the time he cut his fingertip off whilst high on drugs. It has been decided by this court that this isn't sufficient to justify her public statements. Other courts have decided otherwise. Consider the ruling that it was NOT libellous (in the UK) to refer to JD as a wifebeater, therefore the headline here could read "Wifebeater successfully sues ex-wife for the damage to his career for her not keeping the abuse secret." Certainly some people who campaign on behalf of victims of domestic violence feel that they recognise a pattern of abuse in JD's behaviour and that AH's testimony and behaviour is in general perfectly consistent with the narrative she advanced. Other women have noted a pattern in the past where abusive men sought to continue to punish and control "their" woman through the court system after the relationship had ended, and they fear that this might have been what was happening here. They also fear that men who are abusive will be able to more effectively scare their partners and ex partners with threats of suing them and that victims will be terrified that the public will be as harsh in judging them as some were in judging AH.

Ultimately to some extent this is a question of whether you consider this kind of abuse a perfectly plausible allegation which requires only a minimum of corroborating evidence in order to decide that it was probably true. Or a completely shocking claim that requires an extraordinary amount of airtight evidence to even consider. Of course your son will be able to find ample evidence online of people who feel differently but if he's looking to understand "the other side" that's by best effort to explain it.

All people are to some extent biased by our own experiences, but whilst he was never convicted (or even publicly accused ) This style of coercive control domestic abuse is what I grew up with as my father abused my mother and to a lesser extent me. My brother lived with us throughout and would swear to this day my Dad was the best guy on earth and we're making it up for reasons he doesn't understand. Abusive guys can be absolutely and invariably charming to the people they aren't abusing. They can be delightful in company and change when they get home. The need to be the centre of attention and the way their partners get smaller quieter and less confident the longer they're with them are often the only signs someone else has a chance of spotting.

The more traumatised the victim the less reliable their memory might be, so those who've lived through such things don't tend to be much swayed by 'gotcha' style trick questions which 'prove' a victim is lying.

Is your son not aware that JD was convicted in the UK? The trials were about different things - DV here (judge found proof of 12 of 14 incidents) and the US one was about slander.

At the very least it's educational to think about the type of evidence, standard of proof and who was making the decisions.

Libel I think I mean. Slander's UK isn't it?

Libel and slander are two different things

Yes indeed. That wasn't really my point though.

Generally libel = written; slander = spoken. Broadcasting IMHO however is libel

Why would you not just tell him where your information came from?

The courts really were not making decisions about criminality. It's pretty unclear whether one of them was dominant and manipulating the situation, or whether they were both equally implicated, and likely always will be.

My understanding is that the judge in Depp's lawsuit against The Sun, which he lost, ruled that 14 or the 16 instances of abuse were (this is a civil case) more likely than not true. Also in that ruling, the claim that Heard defecated in their bed was more likely than not false, as they were known to have a dog who was known to do the same thing.

It's a helpful ruling

It seems to me that suing Heard was done to punish her. The whole process is the punishment.

Depp forum shopped. Neither live in that state.

Yes, I think that much of the focus on AH perhaps stems from the fact that women aren't typically seen as the default abuser, and maybe also the fact that she seemingly tried to play the victim.

This may also be an unpopular opinion, but I probs wouldn't push the 'feminism' aspect for fear of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The vast majority of women even don't identify as feminists but many seem to still expound similar views. I'd focus on the ideas not the 'isms' personally so he doesn't go googling feminists and come across some of the bonkers 'all sex is rape' stuff.

I probs could've out that more tactfully. What I find though is that young blokes are put off by the word feminism as it sounds like it's for women only, but they seem fairly open to the ideas themselves.

I'd point out that the US and UK cases were both about libel and are different from a criminal case of abuse or coercive control where the level of proof is higher.

I'd also talk about the risks of making generalisations about men and women in abusive relationships on the basis of one atypical couple. For instance, the 'men too' hashtag used by Johnny Depp supporters during the trial is true in the sense that men can be abused in relationships with women and in relationships with other men but there is a risk that people will then assume it is equally common for men to be abused as women. Karen Ingala Smith deals with this very well.

kareningalasmith.com/what-about-the-men-special-mens-section/

For a start
ask to speak to him IN PERSON rather than virtually via watsapp

This.
And to explain why it’s bad for women. It’s the context of the case. AH merely stated in article that she was ‘a victim of domestic abuse’ without naming JD. As JD has now won a case saying such a statement defamed him personally, this means that any woman in future cannot even state “I am a victim of domestic abuse” without ALL her family members and ALL her current and former partners being able to identify that reference as pertaining specifically to them (even though they are not named) and then launching a defamation case against said woman. It’s gags women from talking about their experience of domestic abuse because IRL no woman is doomed to be a victim of domestic abuse by every family member or every partner.

If I understand correctly, the one point that Amber won in the trial wasn't even directly related to Johnny or abuse. It was something to do with what Johnny's lawyers said?