The Depp-Heard Trial Perpetuates the Myth of the Perfect Victim - TIME
cross post from the Editorial Forum
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016324761
Victim advocates hoped that, five years after #MeToo went viral, our culture would have developed a nuanced understanding of harassment and assault. But social media strips away nuance. We’re left instead with myths. One such myth is the “perfect victim.” The perfect victim is an innocent. She doesn’t drink or do drugs. As a result, she has a clear memory of her assault. She has corroborating evidence—but not too much evidence because that would indicate she’s vindictive and planned to speak out. In fact, when she comes forward, she does so reluctantly. She cuts off contact with her abuser as soon as the abuse takes place. She does no wrong—at the office, in relationships, as a mother or daughter. She’s never lied about anything, ever, in her entire life. She dresses “appropriately.” She’s ideally virginal. She’s simplistic. She does not exist.
Johnny Depp accused his ex-wife Amber Heard of defaming him by publishing a 2018 Washington Post op-ed in which she called herself a “public figure representing domestic abuse,” without ever naming her abuser. Ever since the trial began in April, users on TikTok have compared Heard to this mythical perfect victim and found that she did not live up to that impossible standard. For weeks the public (and, possibly, the jury, which curiously was not sequestered) was bombarded with videos of Heard testifying about her alleged abuse at the hands of her famous ex-husband. The videos were cut and memed and paired with disinformation to paint Heard as a harlot, a drunk, a liar. They accused her of faking evidence of bruises, of persuading witnesses to lie over the course of years. (There’s no evidence to support these claims.) They called her Amber Turd and mocked the #MePoo movement. Audio of her crying on the stand trended on TikTok.
(snip)
According to Deborah Tuerkheimer, author of Credible: Why We Doubt Accusers and Protect Abusers, the verdict was “a case study in how women who fall short of our expectations are disadvantaged in the court of public opinion and the court of law.” It is unusual for a court case dealing with domestic abuse to be televised, even one involving famous actors. It’s also unusual that a jury would not be instructed to sequester in such a case. (The jury was notably made up of five men and two women. Studies show that men are more likely to accept rape myths and attribute higher levels of blame to victims than women do.) Depp’s supporters took full advantage of the ability to screen grab, meme, and manipulate images. Social media attacked Heard on many fronts. They blamed her for not leaving Depp after the first instance of alleged abuse. But studies show that victims of intimate partner violence often do stay in relationships out of fear or love, among other reasons. “It continues to be a real misconception for many people that the first time there’s abuse the person ends the relationship,” says Tuerkheimer. Heard admitted to fighting back, emotionally and physically, again defying expectations of the meek woman under the sway of a powerful man.
(snip)
Social media accounts were particularly vicious when attacking how Heard behaved on the stand. “Victims are expected to represent the right amount of emotionality,” says Tuerkheimer. “Women have to thread the needle very carefully.” In her book, she calls it the “Perverse Goldilocks” scenario. “If they’re too emotional, they’re perceived as hysterical and untrustworthy and suspect. If she’s too calm and her affect is flat, that too is held against her.”
(snip)
And yet the main sentiment on TikTok seemed to be that Depp was justified in speaking about his wife this way. A viral post with more than 222,000 likes writes over Heard’s bruised face, “He could have killed you….He had every right.” “A lot of people just didn’t like her,” says Brodsky. “They thought that she seemed irresponsible or too wild, and that meant that in their eyes she was literally incapable of being abused—either Depp never laid a hand on her, or if he did, she deserved it.”
(snip)
No woman under scrutiny can ever live up to the “perfect victim” standard. Even those who come close find themselves under fire when they testify about assault. Brodsky says the Depp-Heard case sends a clear message to accusers that they ought not speak out or else they’ll suffer public humiliation. Legal experts say suing for defamation has become the new playbook for alleged abusers looking to avoid consequences. “It’s a public education for abusers. I’ve already started hearing, ‘If you speak out, I’m going to Johnny Depp you,'” she says. “A defamation suit doesn’t have to be meritorious to work. Even before the verdict, the trial served its purpose in punishing Heard in the court of public opinion.”
https://time.com/6183505/amber-heard-perfect-victim-myth-johnny-depp/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Unless I am drastically misinterpreting, it appears we may have Depp defenders in here. I think it might be a good idea to remind people of the Statement of Purpose for this group:
Statement of Purpose
This group is a place for members to discuss all issues affecting women in the U.S. and globally. Our goal is to keep this forum friendly, polite and respectful. If you agree with the necessity of women's rights advocacy and believe in furthering the legal & cultural rights of women then this is the place for you.
To this I would suggest that if one's chief interest is in defending Johnny Depp, this may not be the most appropriate place for you to do so. I'm just stating my personal opinion (I'm not a mod and I neither make the rules nor have any power to enforce them), and my personal opinion is that comments that appear to disparage an accuser in a case concerning domestic abuse feel very out of place to me here in this group. And after reading the article linked in the OP, these comments are striking an especially sour note.
Please note: I am NOT arguing for a particular point of view in the Depp-Heard case. (I haven't followed it closely enough to have a well thought out opinion, and I'm not inclined to argue with anyone based on my personal gut feelings alone.)
To the mods: if you think this post is out of line, please let me know and I'll delete it. 
I did not follow any of this. First heard it when Bill Maher squandered his interview with Fran Lebowitz talking about the trial that, I think, just started while poor Lebowitz just sat politely listening.
I also have not seen any of the pirates movies.
And then the verdict made it to national news. But when we got TIME magazine in the mail and I read the whole story I decided to post here.
What really riled me is the apparent weight given to posts on Tik Tok. Of course, we know that Social Media tilts opinions and actions. But jury verdicts?
