If nuance and subtlety were rain, the internet would be a desert. This has never been clearer than in the recent Johnny Depp v. Amber heard court case.
The reality of the case seems to matter much less than what it appears to symbolize—although what, exactly, that is depends on who you support. Somehow this case is both a victory for abuse victims and a blow, a step towards recognizing men can be victims of abuse but actually a step backwards because it shows how misogyny will always win. At different times throughout the soap opera of Heard and Depp, we’ve been told it’s a moral duty to condemn an abuser and also that we can never know what goes on behind closed doors, depending on who happens to look bad at that moment.
Let me break down the trial as simply as I can. Most people who watched it found Heard’s testimony strange and inconsistent and were shocked by the evidence of her violence. While Depp’s team may not have proven without a doubt he never hit her, I do think they showed she was the primary aggressor and most of his actions were probably reactive or in self-defense. Depp did lose his UK libel suit, but the situation was very different, and I personally agree with that verdict. You can’t punish a newspaper for publishing what they believe to be true.
If Heard had claimed Depp hit her a few times over the course of their marriage and stopped there, she might have won. She has some evidence of that. But she talked about incidents of abuse so horrific that it’s impossible they left only a few bruises that could be covered by makeup. Heard’s problem is not that no one believed her evidence. Her problem is that her evidence does not match her own version of what happened.
Mainstream media still portrays Amber Heard as a victim, and supporters of Depp are confused that standing up for an abused man is not only not part of the Me Too movement, but apparently makes them politically right-wing instead. It’s almost like each side watched a completely different trial. It doesn’t seem to make any sense. But it is logical if you understand what’s going on.
Me Too, and all social movements really, are not simply about correcting injustice. They are about fighting against widespread, unjust power dynamics. Me Too is less about supporting all victims of abuse and more about taking power away from abusive men, which may seem like a subtle difference, but it’s not. We live in a post-modernist world that is obsessed with privilege and hierarchies of power, which are both very real things, but sometimes the result is that the group you belong to matters more than who you actually are, an ironic effect of efforts to reduce racism and sexism. Amber Heard has been supported not because she is fighting against Johnny Depp the person, but because she is fighting against Johnny Depp the symbol of white male power. Depp is not supported by the liberal media because there is no social change in the triumph of a man maintaining his privilege and power at the expense of a woman.
Celebrities as a whole are not cancelled because they’re bad people, but because they’re perpetuating whatever ideas are currently deemed harmful to the disempowered. This is why Amber Heard potentially lying about abuse claims means she’s an “imperfect victim,” whereas Depp’s misogynistic text messages mean he can’t be a victim at all.
If Heard were a man and Depp were a woman, the interpretation of this trial would be completely different. And that alone tells you people are not looking primarily at the facts of what happened.
It also shows we don’t want to talk about why we don’t take women’s violence seriously. It seems inconsistent, but it’s not totally unfair. Violence by a man against a woman is not the same as violence by a woman against a man because, in most cases, the man is much stronger. That doesn’t make it fine for a woman to be violent—it just means that the situation is not equivalent. Worst case scenario, a man willing to hurt a woman to get his way, will get his way, and at a high cost. A woman willing to hurt a man is relying on him being too moral to hit her back, but still knows that if he does, she’s not coming out ahead. We should not, in a misguided attempt to bring about equality between men and women, insist that women are just as strong as men, because that ignores one of the main reasons there is such a power imbalance between the sexes in the first place.
This doesn’t mean violence is acceptable in a relationship from either party, or that the reaction to the trial is fair, but it’s worth noting that Depp seemed less concerned by Heard’s violence than by her slander, probably because that’s what traumatized him more. Even Depp’s supporters focus more on Heard’s hypocrisy than her physical brutality.
If you want to support Amber Heard because you don’t think women’s violence is very damaging to men, at least acknowledge it so that an honest debate can take place. No one wants to say it out loud because it sounds bad, but there’s no way Heard would be defended like this if a double standard didn’t exist. And while I understand why it exists, you don’t need to be able to kill someone in a physical fight to emotionally damage them. No one physically abuses without emotional abuse. Male victims still matter even if the specific aspects of the abuse that damage them the most are different from what would traumatize a woman.
So is this a victory for male victims? Perhaps. But really, Depp supporters are celebrating because now men can be believed, not because now they can’t be abused. It’s not exactly the same thing. Me Too was a reaction to centuries of tolerance of the sexual misconduct of men in power, and the pendulum swung to the other extreme when it was asserted that we must “believe all women.” And that’s what always happens, because what’s needed to cancel one extreme is a movement towards the opposite extreme. It’s not based on pure truth (I mean, try telling Emmett Till women never lie) but because we can’t fight against something horribly bad with moderation. But now the support of Depp and the distasteful, misogynist glee in the fall of Amber Heard is not solely about them. It’s a reaction to the fact that we were asked to suspend critical thinking skills when dealing with a woman’s story or else be labeled bad people. That’s not a rational or sustainable point of view. It only works as long as women have no power and only face negative consequences for speaking out, the very situation it’s trying to change. Once it succeeds, it stops making sense.
Regarding the trial, as much as we want to make it a symbol of something more, it may not end up being that. It’s not like the O.J. Simpson trial did anything to change the justice system’s treatment of black men. If anything, it showed us the error of making a case concerning individuals about the groups they belong to. True justice is not going to consider the implications of the verdict on others as a factor. It will look at the situation at hand only and the people involved as they are. It will not be swayed by ideologies, stereotypes, or agendas.
Is it true that the verdict will make it harder for victims of abuse to speak out, for fear that they can be sued for defamation? This depends on whether victims see themselves reflected more in Depp or in Heard. If they relate to Depp, they will see the trial as proof that everyone can be against you in the court of public opinion, but that it’s still possible to be vindicated. If they resonate with Heard, they probably will be less likely to speak out. But just because the majority of abuse victims are women does not mean they feel represented by Heard, especially if they actually watch the trial.
To be honest, it’s hard to feel represented by either person in this case. If I am ever physically abused, I won’t have the millions to pay for a powerful legal team. I won’t have the testimony of an entourage of bodyguards and personal assistants, and no one’s going to ask me to write an op-ed for the Washington Post. If I speak out about it, I won’t get sued for defamation because most people don’t pay any attention to what I say anyway. The whole situation is so far removed from my reality and the reality of the average person that I wonder if it will actually change anything at all. The main effect it’s had on me is that now I sometimes narrate my thoughts to an invisible jury and tell my husband I’m going to blackmail him whenever I get a bruise.
What is the real takeaway from the trial, then? Everyone will see something different in it, but I was struck by how times have changed in the sense that we crucify people for different things, but we still delight just as much as always in a public execution, and we’re still just as convinced we’re right, every time. Maybe we should consider instead that our opinions and values aren’t universal truths even if they feel that way. Maybe we should be aware that mainstream views are always overly simplified. And maybe, most importantly, we should recognize the harm in any ideology that shames others into thinking less in order to make them believe more.
Half-Blood Kuwaiti 