The fallout from this is so strange. It's featuring prominently in TV news broadcasts, as to be expected, yet online media (Sun aside) seem so muted in their coverage of this verdict. Weirdest thing of all is seeing respected women's rights charities celebrating this as some sort of grand victory given that Heard appears at the very least to have been an abuser herself:
It is surprising that these women have made such careless comments in spite of being 'representatives' of organisations that would take issue with exclusionary language or practices.
"No survivor should ever have
her voice silenced." A seemingly small error but with modern progressive thought and an ever increasing array of genders, "their voice silenced" would be a more appropriate statement.
Further more, the case decided today was not an attempt to silence Amber Heard, It was in fact an attempt to silence a dubious media outlet that quite frankly couldn't give a shite about Amber Heard and simply wanted to run salacious stories about celebrity folk.
"This is a really helpful judgment and will serve as a warning to
men who think they can silence those who speak out about their abuse"
Is it only helpful as a warning to men? Would it not be more suitable to replace the 'men' with 'anyone'? Do women not also experience domestic abuse at the hands of other women? Men at the hands of women? It all seems a bit 20th century.
"Everyone who has experienced domestic abuse deserves to be listened to and believed." A frankly inane comment. Of course everyone that has experienced abuse should be listened to and believed. The very fact we say they 'experienced' is a defacto recognition that they are believed and how can we believe that which we have not heard.
Everyone that claims to have been abused should be listened to as well but we should not be looking to believe people simply because they make a claim. That is the very reason we have judicial systems, to test the believability/credibility of such claims.
If I were to be unkind I would assume this individual was attempting to convey that all claims should be listened to and also believed. This is a dangerous approach in to any scenario.
"There is no excuse for domestic abuse.” but we'll have no mention nor condemnation of the woman that admitted to multiple instances of it in the very same trial.
I'm sure it seems finickity of me to focus on these things but you would hope that a domestic violence charity might have something to say about the violence Amber confessed to in the process of all this or would at least have the tact to recognise and acknowledge that victims of domestic violence can and do come from both/either side of a relationship.
It seems very strange that in such a 'woke' age these representatives cannot take the care to express their views in a more considered and appropriate fashion.
Would these same people have made a statement in support of Depp if he won this case?
I would suspect not and assume that in fact they would have simply decried the lack of things that they applauded in this instance. The trial, however it concluded was always going to be an irresistible soapbox for them The cynic in me thinks they have about as much genuine interest in the welfare of Amber Heard as the Sun do.
Both parties (Depp and Heard) come out of this looking awful, I have never held any particular sentiment for either and hope they both disappear in to obscurity.
PS: The whole "survivor" tag is something that irks me no end as well.
PPS: 'Wife beater' is a well known term, do we yet have an equivalent? 'Husband beater' doesn't have the right ring to it and can definitely be improved upon.
