#Depp V Heard

[anthroxlove]

[originalleftist]

Over half of anti-Heard tweets were bots or paid trolls, many linked to Saudi government bots.

"According to an investigation by Tortoise Media, which examined more than one million tweets, more than 50 per cent of anti-Heard messages in the run-up to the 2022 defamation case were "inauthentic' - either from automated "bot" accounts or people hired to attack the actress."

"Bradley Hope, author of a book on Bin Salman, told the podcast that the pro-Depp tweets emanating from Saudi Arabia appear to be produced by "flies", a name for Saudi bot accounts."

"An intelligence professional who tracks online disinformation campaigns, said there was only a "0.1 per cent chance" that the hate directed at Heard was from genuine Depp fans.

The investigation also claims that bot networks in Thailand and Spain tweeted large numbers of pro-Depp messages."

"...more than 100 Twitter accounts sent 1,000 identical messages at exactly the same time to any company that had worked with Heard, reading: "This brand supports domestic violence against men."'

"The makers of the podcast argue that the criticism of Heard could have affected the jury in the 2022 US defamation trial which found in favour of Depp."

"So, if you couldn't tell the difference between a real-life Johnny Depp fan and a bot in 2022, then you probably won't be able to tell a Russian troll from a US election official in 2024. And that represents a serious problem for the security of our democracies."-Alexi Mostrous, presenter of the podcast.

"Johnny Depp and the Saudi Embassy did not respond to Tortoise's request for comment."

[feministfang]

[transfaguette]

I hated about the way people within my own circles treated the Depp v Heard trial(s). People turned it into this "men can be abused too!" thing and latched onto Depp as a victim (as did Much of the Public because of violent misogyny and Depp's popularity) and literally just refused to believe anything else because it did not fit this agenda. It was extremely sickening and disappointing. It wasn't even a domestic abuse trial, Depp was suing Heard for defamation for writing about her experiences, in an article that didn't even NAME him. The highly publicized nature of the trial, almost certainly a bid to help Depp via his reputation and status. I did not watch a single bit of the trial. I frankly, do not really care what went on in their relationship, I don't "stan" either one. They are complete strangers to me!!! My opinion on their relationship or character means nothing!! But joining in on the gross, misogynistic pile-on on women who speak out because it suits an agenda, no matter if that woman was lying or not, no matter if that agenda is righteous, is gross. You turned your eyes from misogyny because it helped you. It doesn't help ANY victim of abuse when you do this.

[pansexual-lilychen]

everyone excited for vision quest after the agatha all along finale meanwhile i don’t think paul bettany should be employed ever again

[warningsine]

Just over a year ago, a woman told a crowded room that her ex-husband had kicked and slapped her. She described him throwing a phone at her face. She described him penetrating her with a wine bottle. “I remember not wanting to move because I didn’t know if it was broken,” she said. “I didn’t know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken.” While she said all these things, people laughed. People called her a whore and a liar. People cheered for her ex-husband, and made posters and T-shirts emblazoned with his face.

Only about 14 months have passed since Amber Heard was mocked and shamed on a global stage. But, apparently, that means it’s now high time to relive it. This week, a new three-part series from director Emma Cooper drops on Netflix (UK viewers can also watch via Channel 4 on demand). That’s right folks, we’re back in the hellscape that is Depp v Heard.

There are certain legal cases that transcend courtroom drama to become full-blown ‘where were you when’ cultural moments. Usually, these ‘trials of the century’ are criminal trials. Charles Manson in 1970; OJ Simpson in 1995. But, occasionally, a different calibre of case will grip the public consciousness – one that spins around sex and humiliation; one that strikes to the heart of how contemporary culture understands gender and power. In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked as an adviser to him. The Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas’ nomination, while Hill received death threats. Just a few years later, as the new millennium swam into view, another sex scandal rocked American society. This time, the main characters were President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Despite Clinton eventually admitting to having had an affair with Lewinsky, for many years the court of public opinion was clear in its verdict: Monica Lewinsky was either a whore, or a liar, or both.

In a sense, the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, which took place from April 11 to June 1 2022, in Fairfax County, Virginia, combined elements of all of these previous ‘trials of the century’. As with Clinton and Lewinsky, a relationship between a younger woman and an older, more famous and more powerful man was under the microscope. In an echo of Hill v Thomas, during which lawmakers accused Anita Hill of suffering from a ‘delusional disorder’, a psychologist hired by Depp’s legal team ‘diagnosed’ Heard with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Like Charles Manson, the man at the centre of proceedings was also the figurehead of an obsessive fan club. And if that fan club grew to resemble a cult, in its slavish devotion to Depp against all reason, it’s largely because, like Simpson’s trial, the whole thing was televised.

However, one key difference between Depp v Heard and these other previous high-profile trials, is the influence of social media on public opinion. The trial was not only ‘televised’ but also TikToked, live-streamed and memed. The tagline for Cooper’s three-parter Depp v Heard even bills the trial as ‘the first trial by TikTok’.

The show opens with the Hollywood sign flickering into Amber Heard’s face on a red carpet. There’s old footage of Depp and Heard on the Hollywood walk of fame, at a dinner, and stepping off a boat in Venice glitch and distort into shots of Los Angeles freeways. News anchors read headlines about the couple, and about the trial. The screen glitches again, into a tree lined highway in Virginia. More clipped footage, more contextualising news clips. Then one anchor raises an important issue – a crucial factor in the trial proceedings that, a year on, often gets lost in the heady internet fog of misinformation, conspiracy, clout-chasing and PR campaigns. Why was the whole sorry spectacle staged in Virginia, when neither Heard nor Depp live or work there?

Well, the ‘official’ reason Depp was allowed to sue in the state is because the news outlet that ran Heard’s article, The Washington Post, “houses its printing press and online server in Fairfax County.” Yet, it’s also because, under Virginia law, the trial judge can decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

Heard’s team tried to exclude the cameras from the trial. At a pre-trial hearing in February, attorney Elaine Bredehoft noted there was already a huge amount of media attention on the trial, as well as scrutiny from what she described as “fearful anti-Amber networks”. “What they’ll do is take anything that’s unfavourable,” Bredehoft said, “they’ll take out of context a statement, and play it over and over and over and over again.” Depp’s team, on the other hand, wanted the trial televised. “Mr. Depp believes in transparency,” his lawyer, Ben Chew declared. It should have been a sign of what was to come that the judge sided with Depp. “I don’t see any good cause not to do it,” Penney Azcarate, the chief judge of Fairfax County, announced. Others saw it differently. “Allowing this trial to be televised is the single worst decision I can think of in the context of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in recent history,” Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School said in May 2022. “It has ramifications way beyond this case.”

One of the ramifications of Judge Azcarate’s decision is that Depp v Heard is now on our screens. But, none of those quotes from various legal professionals are taken from the series. Indeed, there are no expert voices at all. There is no narration. No one who was involved in the trial is involved in this directly. There is no ‘broad view’, or ‘behind the scenes’, or ‘recontextualising with the benefit of hindsight’. This is a documentary in the loosest of senses. Early takes from the other side of the pond have been split – some critics have suggested it “casts the trial of the decade in a new light”, while others have deemed it “nothing more than a tactless win for pro-Johnny fans”. Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that the trial itself was so notoriously divisive. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Audra Heinrichs of Jezebel, who described the docuseries as playing “like a highlight reel from hell”. 

If Depp v Heard suggests anything, it’s that people consuming the trial were biased. Well, that’s hardly a scoop, and to my mind, it’s certainly not worth the full, three-hour docuseries treatment. The series doesn’t dig into the motivations of the anti-Amber content creators or their backgrounds. For example, one prolific poster and top Depp stan who is featured extensively but anonymously in Cooper’s three-parter is Andy Signore. Not long before the Depp v Heard trial began, Signore had been fired from Screen Junkies, the YouTube-focused company he founded, for a variety of sexual misconduct allegations. Having set up his channel Popcorned Planet after being dismissed, Signore now posts livestreams about ‘daily news’ and ‘pop culture justice.’ Mainly, he covers what he characterises as the injustice of the #MeToo movement. Signore more than doubled the following of his YouTube channel during Depp v Heard. He made more than 300 videos about the trial, ratcheting up millions of views as he built a new reputation as a crusader for ‘justice’ and, crucially, making money in the process.

All the content creators immortalised in this series, and many more besides, were making money – but this also isn’t discussed or made explicit in Depp v Heard. Cooper presumably believes this allows the content to speak for itself, and lets the viewer weigh up their own thoughts, becoming another member of the public jury. But the true effect is just blur – an endless stream of stuff. Just how much money were all these #JusticeForJohnny content creators making? Was there a coordinated and well funded online PR campaign for Depp throughout the trial, fuelled by bots, as many alleged post-trial? Depp v Heard has no answers, just more clips. He said, she said. No thoughts, just vibes.

I wrote about Depp v Heard last year as the trial was ongoing. Then, I felt like I had to maintain some semblance of neutrality in my discussion of the ‘facts’ of the case itself. The piece wasn’t about who was ‘right’, or who was telling ‘the truth’ – it was about how strange the spectacle of the case had become, and how dangerous a precedent it seemed to set, if trials about intimate partner violence could be spun into comic TikTok clips. I didn’t want to come down on one ‘side’. I wrote that “treating an ongoing defamation trial, featuring graphic and distressing testimony about physical violence, coercive control, and sexual assault, like […] Netflix’s latest true crime documentary series is, at best, distasteful and, at worst, actively dangerous.” Now, as Netflix’s latest documentary series opens up the can of worms again, the only true takeaway is how little we’ve learnt since then.

[geographerdose]

Kevin Weeks (Black Mass, 2015):

“… they’ll let you take a shit in the middle of the floor, if that’s what you want to do.”

This is a Johnny Depp movie— life imitates art amirite? Amber Heard and the infamous 💩

[astrangerinthestreet]

A complete timeline of the relationship between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp

[anthroxlove]

What comes to mind when you think of Amber Heard? Liar? Survivor? Narcissist? Millions of us watched the celebrity trial of the century, Depp v Heard, in 2022. Amber Heard lost and Johnny Depp was vindicated. But what if Amber was actually the victim of an organised trolling campaign? What if the online hate against her was manufactured? Alexi Mostrous, the reporter who brought you Sweet Bobby and Hoaxed, investigates what happened to Amber and who might have been responsible. It’s a story about how our own thoughts and opinions can be moulded without us even realising.

[originalleftist]

Something I dearly wish more people, especially those who identify with progressivism and the Left, understood is Intersectionality.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject myself, and I have my own biases and privilege, so take my position for whatever its worth, and feel free to dissect it. But very basically, "Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, and weight. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empower and oppressing. However little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the practical uses of intersectionality." (Wikpedia)

Put very simply, its about how different aspects of someone's identity affect how they are privileged and disadvantaged/discriminated against- and, crucially, how one can be both privileged in certain ways, and discriminated against in others.

I had heard the term previously, and probably had a vague sense of what it meant, but I believe that, as with so many things, I first started to really realize its importance, and the deficiency of awareness of intersectionality, while following the Depp v Heard trial (full disclosure: I actually used Depp v Heard as an example of intersectionality on a college anthropology exam, and I will undoubtably repeat some things from that here, though I do not have the exam on-hand to refer to).

One of the recurring arguments raised by certain Depp supporters (presumably those sympathetic to the Left, or perhaps more astute at manipulating the Left) was basically that Amber Heard did not deserve support because she was wealthy/famous/privileged. A recurring line (and example of how, despite being deeply rooted in Right-wing MRA/Incel ideology, "the Justice for Johnny Depp" crowd coopted Left-wing and social justice rhetoric) was to mock and dismiss Heard's obvious distress as "white woman tears".

Of course, this term is typically used to call out white fragility/defensiveness around race, and white women who play the victim against Black people- not a white woman who is in actual distress because she's being forced to publicly relive r*pe trauma in court before a jeering mob of her r*pist's fans. And the entire narrative ignores that Depp enjoyed far more power and privilege than Heard did (those who claim otherwise are generally adopting the misogynist "Men's Rights Activist" narrative that women are actually the privileged gender in society and are always believed, while constantly making false accusations against men- which was probably their whole point). It also means ignoring that Heard was repeatedly and viciously targeted based on her gender, her sexual orientation as an openly queer woman, and her mental health. Depp was subject to some ableist attacks as well, for example, in that he was stigmatized for the illness of addiction, but Heard, as with most things, got by far the worst of it.

One could and should also point out that much of what was directed at Heard and her supporters-the censoring of her freedom of expression, harassment and death threats against her and her child, abuse of the legal system, etc, as well as the horrific and life-threatening abuse inflicted against her by Depp and previously found to be true by a UK court-would be unjustified against anyone, regardless of their relative privilege, at least assuming one believes in universal rights or the rule of law. But the argument of privilege on Heard's part is itself selective, and misleading.

Now, flash forward to October 2023, for case study number 2. Among the arguments of the anti-semitic Left since October 7th have been that Israelis (primarily Jewish citizens of the world's only Jewish state) do not deserve sympathy or consideration, and that anything that is done to them is justified as "resistance", because they are the oppressors- they hold the power and privilege. Often, this has manifested as attacks not only on Israel and Israelis, but one anyone who supports them- and anyone who is Jewish. Again, one could and should reject outright that atrocities such as murder, r*pe, slavery, and torture are justified against anyone, for any reason. But the premise of the argument, that Israel holds the power and privilege, is again over-simplistic. Certainly, Israel has more economic and military power than Hamas, Gaza, or Palestine. But on a world-wide scale, the Jewish people are still a very small, marginalized, and vulnerable group- and would likely be far more so without a nation capable of defending itself. Jews amount to less than half a percent of the world's population, and the vast majority live in one of two countries- Israel and the United States. Further, regardless of the power disparity that exists between Israel and Gaza or Palestine, it should be self-evidently preposterous to argue that a random Israeli civilian, confronted by a Hamas gunman and facing imminent murder, r*pe, abduction, or all of the above, is in a position of power. But all of this is frequently ignored to try to justify bigotry, terrorism, and collective punishment of Israelis- and, very often, Diaspora Jews as well.

One should also consider how many Leftists have reacted to the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is unquestionably the smaller, less powerful party in a war with Russia, and it is unquestionably the victim of aggression. So, how did the Putinist/Tankie wing of the Left justify supporting Russia over Ukraine? Easy- they just treat Ukraine as an extension of NATO/the US, rather than as a sovereign nation, and argue that NATO aggression and imperialism caused the war, which Russia is then the underdog resisting (this of course is basically a Kremlin propaganda narrative).

Now, let's jump forward to the present, where Joe Biden's political future is being imperilled by relentless attacks asserting, on little to no solid evidence, that he is both mentally and physically unfit to run for or serve as President. One would assume that if any person on Earth is immune to systemic discrimination, it's Joe Biden. He is a fairly wealthy, heterosexual, cisgendered, white, Christian, American man. He basically won Privilege Bingo. And he currently holds the single most powerful position on the planet- one which just became frighteningly more powerful with the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling (albeit a ruling they obviously only made for Trump's benefit, confident that Biden would not abuse the immense and utterly unprecedented power that they have bestowed upon him).

And yet, as we saw with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama before him, even climbing to the heights of political power does not shield a marginalized identity from attack. Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and was a major party's nominee for President. But she was subjected to relentless attacks, some obviously misogynist, and it certainly played a role in her defeat and the election of Donald Trump- a serial r*pist who was taped boasting about being able to get away with grabbing women "by the pussy". Barrack Obama won the Presidency twice- but not without a widespread movement denying that he was even a real American, allegations that he was a "secret Muslim" (which would not be disqualifying for the Presidency in any case), and a backlash that also likely contributed to the election of Trump, a virulent racist.

Biden, as a white man, has advantages that Obama and Clinton never did. But Biden too can still be attacked and treated unfairly based on his association with various marginalized identities. As soon as he showed signs of age and frailty, he was subject to the relentless contempt of our society for the geriatric and the disabled. Add to that his life-long stutter. Granted, Biden has far more power than most to resist such attacks, so it would probably be a big stretch to say that he is a victim of systemic oppression. But these attacks, using ableism and ageism to declare someone unfit for the Presidency, are ultimately also attacks on the dignity of all older and disabled people (there's also a good bit of racism and misogyny underlying it, as at least some of the hyperbole and fear-mongering over Biden's age and fitness is clearly driven by fear that a Black woman might succeed him- see in particular the recent piece in The Washington Post calling for Biden to stay in but replace VP Harris).

So what is my point in all of this? It is that peoples' identities are complex, and that just because someone is privileged-even immensely privileged-in certain ways does not mean that they cannot be underprivileged, marginalized, or oppressed and discriminated against in others. And that if the Left/progressives as a whole had as solid a grasp of intersectionality, and its importance, as they do of privilege, they would be far less likely to fall so easily for fascist psy-ops trying to convince Leftists that no, this whole class of people are okay to persecute because they're actually Oppressors, in order to divide and conquer us all.

Because the thing is: privilege is real. So is systemic discrimination. Certain people and groups of people do have unfair advantages over others based on their identities and how they are perceived, which contribute to bias and must be accounted for and rectified. But this is also true: everybody has multiple different identities. Everybody has ways in which they are advantaged over someone else, and ways in which they are disadvantaged. Some people have far more things that fall on one side of the scale than the other. But you can find something about just about anyone that gives them an unfair advantage over someone else. So if you focus only on that, and define someone's worthiness to receive sympathy accordingly, then you can reframe anyone as the Oppressor, and therefore unworthy of sympathy, and deserving of anything that is done to them.

Of course, one might also cynically argue that many people WANT to fall for that ploy, because it gives them an excuse to engage in harassment, bullying, and abuse; to join in the mob, while pretending to be righteous. I might also observe that the Left's fixation on determining who is worthy of sympathy based on who holds the most power essentially commits them ideologically to always being on the losing side- should any Leftist ever actually succeed in achieving major political success, they will become part of "the establishment", and immediately suspect. And I wonder how large a role this sort of thinking plays in Leftist third party "purity politics", and the infamous "circular firing squad".

[futurewriter2000]

I know this has happened a long time ago- like a really long time ago but I had just watched The Depp v Amber trial on Netflix and- well, I had always been Johnny's fan, no doubt about that. I also knew he had a drug and alcohol addiction. I was aware of that but I always believed in his goodness.

After I just watched this trial, I just realised that Johnny Depp isn't who I thought he was despite his addiction. I firmly believe that both were abusive in the whole marriage and I do admit Amber did a lot of faulty things but as I continued to see the trial go on- I just realised that people rooted for Johnny Depp, based on their love for the actor playing in their favorite movies. I think not a lot of people who grew up in an abusive household would understand how traumatising just the yelling is. When the person who is supposed to love you raises their voice at you- when you see them drunk or drugged. And the way people just disregarded Amber's claims by saying "I don't know." like you don't know. You drank champagne with him and then you don't know whether he was passed out when they landed on the airplane. "I don't know-" what the upmost bullshit.

Just the concept of having your trial televised is another form of abuse coming from Johnny Depp. Now, you don't have to be beaten shitless to be abused. Mental abuse, for somebody who had grown up in an abusive family home like Amber did, is just as triggering and traumatising. The only story that really did prove that Johnny Depp was abusive was the witness stand of her sister and that was when I knew it was true. He was physical with Amber. And the further you look into the trial, the more you realise how set up it is. The texts from Amber's side weren't allowed to be put in as evidence. Okay,... why because they were going to prove that Johnny is guilty? And the texts with Paul Bettany- like I grew up with an alcoholic. Those weren't texts of dark humor. That's the fucking start of abuse.

So yes, I do believe Johnny is guilty. I do believe Amber isn't innocent either... the thing that pissed me off was how quickly people turned like fucking sheep- mocked the sole concept of domestical abuse- choosing sides, and not for once thought- oh Johnny Depp, the great actor of our favorite movies, isn't the abusive alcoholic. No, the woman HE married and put on television for a world-wide humiliation (which no other celebrity ever did), tempered with witnessess (because damn sure I know that's true)... no he is as innocent as a flower.

Fuck this pissed me off. He isn't innocent and people had no right to be so fucking excited for a domestic violance trial. When it is a big deal. I would know because my dad sure made false acusations and persuaded half of the family to lie against my mother. And my mother, who was beaten and belitteled on the trial, lost the trial. She was innocent, he was not. Because people lie... people act.

[bloembedgum1]

Can't believe people are back on this

[tachyonblu]

Shots fired! @silverwolfcc argues that Brianna Wu is lying about GamerGate and the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial.

Tac: "Would you say that someone like Brianna Wu has lied about GamerGate?"

CC: "Yes. I was in the thread on Steam where she tried to create her own harassment."🙀

[clementinecoastline]

tumblr has mostly forgotten abt depp v heard but. so many people i meet in person haven't and it's so fucking annoying to hear people talk shit just because they like johnny depp. like oh i'm sure you weren't biased, that picture of johnny depp you have on your desk is just for show. fucking mauling and killing and biting and maiming

[licorice-and-rum]

please write your rant about male domestic abuse victims

Okay, I'll do this but fair warning, I might include some kind of parallels to the Depp vs Heard trial(s) because my mind functions better if I have some kind of real-life or fictional literature to support me through the development of my thoughts, so if you believe Amber Heard for some reason, you might not like what I have to say. Also, please if you're gonna comment, be gentle and polite, I'm always open to new (well-based) points of view and I promise I'm open to an honest conversation with anyone who is kind <3

Observation: I will use Domestic Violence (DV) as a broad term throughout this but know that I refer mostly to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) here. The difference between the two is that DV can happen between members of the same nuclear family (between brothers, partners, or child and parents) while IPV happens only between romantic partners.

The reason I don't use DV especially is because abuse against boys (by parents, sisters, etc.) also falls under this category and then it's a whole other discussion about the socialization of children and teenagers, the social minority they represent and how that's a whole new discussion (that I'd be happy to extend in another post actually if there are any other people interested).

To begin with, we have to understand some things: we don't have exact data about male victims of domestic abuse, not only because it's severely under-reported but also because many reports are not even filed because the lines for escaping domestic violence (police, shelters, phone lines, etcetera.) attend only women and girls, or demonstrate a clear bias towards those victims. Plus, as it happens with women as well, abuse doesn't present just physically, but also emotionally and psychologically.

However, just to give you all an idea, in the UK, for example, it's estimated that almost 20% of domestic violence reports were from men in the last two years (2022-23), according to ManKind Initiative. In the US, according to The Tech Report, almost 45% of men believe they were victims of abusive relationships in their lives. In Australia, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 38% of victims of violence in the country were men, 64% being DV-related.

Now, there is a reason for this, and this is called patriarchy. Patriarchy is the concept of one of the pillars of how our society is built, and it means the subjugation of one binary gender (female) by another binary gender (male) - although this definition is more for this essay's purpose than accurate for an academic study for example. It's important to note that gender violence presents itself against women institutionally (through proper institutions, such as the legal system, for example, or a company's hierarchy) and structurally (it's in the roots of our society culturally and thus, infecting everything else).

According to The Patriarchs, journalist Angela Saini's latest book, the Patriarchy is something tricky to explore even for our earlier academics, such as Engels, for example, because it presents itself in many different ways. For example, it changes its characterization according to culture, environmental needs, History, and other factors. Still, the important thing is that it has various different aspects in the areas it's present.

What I want to explore goes a little bit further: I want to understand how the oppression of women affects men because, unlike many other kinds of oppression, gender-related violence affects their enforcers (men) as well as their victims (women). Now, I am not saying this violence is equal to each other: violence against women permeates our societies' very core, it's ingrained in our institutions, in our culture. But on an interpersonal level, gender violence affects men and women both.

Men are pressured into "being a man" (a white person doesn't have to prove they're white in the same sense or with the same intensity as a man has to prove his man-ness), they're molded to become people in disconnection to their own emotions, they're encouraged to be violent or at least not to be "emotional", to the point of not even noticing when they're suffering some kind of violence or from a mental disorder, for example.

This plays a significant role in how we view abuse when perpetrated by women against men but it's not all we need to observe when talking about male DV victims.

Another matter I'd like to point out is the way we view feminine violence: in the Introduction of her best-seller, Lady Killers, Tori Telfer talks about how violence committed by women is often put under one of three categories: the mysticism, the sexualization, or the banalization. That is, socially, we have a habit of thinking about violence perpetrated by women as either mythological, sexy, or just plain silly, and therefore dumb and/or laughable.

Telfer's examples throughout the book are great and I recommend the book for more insight, but to me, three cases stick out to follow as examples:

How the first woman serial killer we have Historical records of, Elizabeth Ridgeway, was killed for being a witch (mysticism);

How Nannie Doss, an old lady who fit all the 50s housewife stereotypes and killed men with poison in her cakes, had her intelligence belittled by people trying to paint her as insane despite many psychiatrical reports of her being exceptionally clever, how she was labeled by the media as "Arsenic Nannie" (banalization)

And finally, how women who perpetrate violence are often sexualized, such as Raya and Sakina, from the beginning of 20th-century Egypt, who were tied closely to the criminal underworld of their neighborhood and who actually developed a method of killing four people with little blood and avoiding messes; or Lizzie Halliday, who was labeled "the worst woman on earth" with clear implications of her ugliness; or at last, Erzsébet Báthory, known more popularly as Countess Dracula despite having been a lot crueler than the name leads you to believe; they were all sexualized one way or another, their crimes fitting their appearances rather than their acts.

What I mean to point out by that is that feminine violence is something we as a society have a tendency to downplay to a dangerous level. Part of that is a result of downplaying violence as a whole, doesn't matter the perpetrator, but a big part of it is because we see violence as a men's trait. Culturally, violence is a characteristic we attribute to men while women are "even-tempered", motherly, nurturing, and delicate.

Those are the traits of femininity. Violence is not something we easily attribute to women, while men can be only violent, domineering, "warriors".

Now, intimate partner violence (IPV) against males and perpetrated by women is significantly overlooked and under-researched. Hell, there was a real and huge doubt whether men could be r*ped at the beginning of the 2000s, and even now there are people who still don't see how men can be sexually abused.

What we do know about IPV is that, according to this article, women and men have roughly the same rate of occurrences of physical abuse against their partners, and in most of the non-reciprocal violent relationships, women were mostly the perpetrators, although it is true that the more violent abuse occurrences are mostly perpetrated by men:

"Archer Reference Archer5 attempted to resolve two competing hypotheses about partner violence, either that it involves a considerable degree of mutual combat or that it generally involves male perpetrators and female victims. His meta-analysis of 82 studies of gender differences in physical aggression between heterosexual partners showed that men were more likely to inflict an injury; 62% of those injured by a partner were women, but men still accounted for a substantial minority of those injured. However, women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Younger aged couples showed more female-perpetrated aggression."

Again, that's not to say that violence committed against women in our patriarchal society is in any way equivalent to what men suffer as victims of IPV because that's not true. Violence against women is in every corner of our culture, it's in the roots of our society, and violence against men is not as institutional or structural as acts of violence perpetrated against men.

But I have to criticize how we view (or maybe it's best to say how little we view, or even consider) male victims of DV when we're talking about the matter because not only we are then perpetrating patriarchal beliefs that continue to harm us, we're also portraying women as being inherently and perpetually victims of violence, always in a place of perceived inferiority (although I need to point out there is nothing inferior about suffering violence) while men fall under the category of always the perpetrators of that violence.

That's undeniably harmful because it generates a dangerous generalization in individual cases, such as Johnny Depp, for example. Many of the people I saw defending Heard seemed to not comprehend that only because Johnny Depp was in a place of societal power in relation to AH (because he was, as an older, richer man) that wasn't enough of a reason to believe he was guilty of what she accused him of. Just because generally we might rightly point out a systemic oppression of women by men, it doesn't mean that we should apply those principles to individual cases, especially when we don't have access to concrete evidence and in high-profile cases such as Depp v Heard.

Now, after all of that, I need to point out a personal opinion of mine and bear in mind I don't have anything to base myself here so feel free to criticize it if you disagree (just remember to be nice, please): all of these facts make me ask myself how many of those cases of IPV were labeled as "mutual" (because there's actually a pretty fierce discussion on the matter of whether or not mutual abuse exists from what I could find, and mostly of academic research seem to understand that mutual abuse does exist) are actually mutual and not - in case of heterosexual relationships - emotional manipulation on the perpetrator's side.

And that leads me to ask myself how many of the false reports made by women against their male partners (which are the minority of reported DV cases, let's be clear here) were labeled as mutual because the men "fought back"? How many men who were victims of emotional manipulation didn't stay in those relationships or settle cases because of the threat of their female partners reporting them back from abuse as well?

And amongst those people, how many men did actually something that could be considered violent against their partner (talking now about emotional and psychological abuse, excluding the physical aspect for now) in an act of self-defense or instinctual nastiness as a defense mechanism against something that hurt them?

Having been a reactive victim in an emotionally abusive relationship myself, I can say with some ease that I said things that I know for sure truly hurt my abuser, I know I said things in the last days of our relationship that I would never say to other people if I wasn't so defensive right out the beginning of our latest interactions. But I refuse to fall into the trap of believing myself to be an equally abusive part of that relationship because I also know I did the work to try and better our relationship, I know because my other relationships are healthy and close and emotionally vulnerable and the whole circus.

So what I do have to ask myself is that in those IPV cases in heterosexual relationships where our first reaction is to classify them as mutual abuse or something like that... what do we expect from our male victims of IPV? What does the perfect male victim of IPV look like? Is it reasonable for us to expect men not to defend themselves at all because they're generally stronger than women?

Of course, I'm not advocating here that any kind of violence against your partner is okay because they're abusing you to any gender - self-defense has explicit rules to be applied for that exact reason. I'm simply pointing out that maybe we're diving into dangerous territory, or being overly zealous, considering mutual abuse at the maximum, or not believing men at all on the other side of the spectrum, when we're presented with a heterosexual case of IPV where the female was clearly or almost undoubtedly violent throughout the relationship.

That's the many reasons I can think to question people when they are presented with a case of DV of a woman committing abuse against their male partner. Because as much as women are socially oppressed, our biases in regard to gender affect our views of both men and women and can be really dangerous when generally applied to individual cases.

So yeah, I'm not thrilled with our critical skills when it comes to male victims of abuse, loves.

Not at all.

(if you're gonna answer, remember to be nice!)