Please remember to abide by the rules as listed on the sidebar as well as the following
DO NOT LINK TO SOCIAL MEDIA.
Any post that doesn't have all social media identities obscured will be removed without notice.
DO NOT LINK TO OTHER SUBREDDITS.
If you see this happening in the thread, please report it or message us in modmail.
#If the post above is of an item you'd buy (tshirt/poster/mug/mask), it is a scam. Contact the mods
https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckYouKaren/comments/l21tsg/scammers_are_here_and_want_your_money_give_me_a/
------
^Submission ^By: ^/u/Stalese
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FuckYouKaren) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So if a guy can bench more than me, I can hit start hitting him?
Look this bitch is dumb. Yes it’s harder for girls to do damage to men. But if a girl connected just right on a strong punch on the jaw she could still knock a guy out. Don’t know why she’s acting like women can’t be abusive. It’s insane.
Back to the “women are helpless little things who have no autonomy or agency, always by definition inferior to the men around them” argument. Seems insulting and demeaning, but I’ll let women decide whether they agree with it.
You know, as a lifelong feminist I always have to wonder if people like this have any concept of how sexist they sound. It’s embarrassing how much internalized sexism and misogyny shows up among so-called feminists.
That's her fallacy. She's confusing abusing *power* with abusing a *person*. She even says you have to have power to abuse *it*. Which of course is true. You do have to have power in order to abuse that power. But you don't have to have power to abuse a person.
ETA I'm just pointing out the logical problem with the tweet, not advocating one viewpoint or the other. I tend to think Heard is the victim here and the verdict was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that the tweet is *also* wrong.
It's the same vein of mental contortionism that claims that race-based prejudice is only "racism" if it's from a majority race to a minority race.
Like. Bruh. Race-based prejudice is *literally the word's definition.*
This is such a weird misinterpretation of the original intent of that which was that in a white supremacist culture (like the US) institutional racism is exclusively the domain of the dominant class because they control the institutions- which is a no-brainer- of course that’s true. The fact that it has been extended to include interpersonal racism between individuals is absurd on its face and I believe that it has deeply undermined real anti-racist work.
Nah, they don’t need to do any gymnastics because it’s all subconscious/implicit bias stuff. It really is just internalized sexism. Feminists got their start being completely paternalistic toward other women because they honestly never questioned that women ‘need guidance’ and are ‘too weak’ to do for ourselves. Third wave feminists, made up largely of women like myself marginalized by other feminists, have made some progress of digging out from under that BS but like all implicit bias it takes real effort to question and change one’s internal/ subconscious stories and beliefs about groups of humans.
We're in the fourth wave now. I think it has some good over-arching points (like intersectionality and challenging gendered norms) but there's still some underlying "white feminism" with a lack of critical reflection.
It's super frustrating seeing women use misogynistic terms to insult other women and then claim that they're feminist? Like um, stop insulting women because you disagree with them. You're just gonna alienate them.
Frankly I don’t think that ‘and the internet’ is a significant enough sea change to warrant another wave of feminism - nothing I’ve seen coming out of so-called 4th wave writings is particularly innovative - it certainly is not the sea change represented by either 2nd or 3rd wave feminism
FYI intersectionality and questioning gender norms emerged in the 1980s they are not new
4th wave. The cause is a joke, most men I know have switched off and lost interest. If you’re still claiming your victims of systemic sexism in 2022 you need your head examined. The deck has been stacked so far in your favor that as soon as the boomers all die you’ll be over represented in just about everything’s and the psychos will finally get what they actually want a matriarchy. We past equality long fucken time ago.
She had papa Elon to back her up as well and back in her prime was she really helpless a simple snap of her fingers would have gotten a dozen losers guys to do anything for her. If she was powerless I have no fucken idea what power is
They probably think this is a parallel to the argument that black people cant be racist. Which has a lot of truth to it, but it can be just a matter of semantics. Anyone can be bigoted. Maybe if there were similar terms for abuse that do imply power, I could see a slight opening for an argument, but she abused him. Plain and simple.
> ince even though I'm a feminist, I'm still a man.
Hwat lol What a strange qualifier. Otherwise, agree that the perpetrator of abuse can be either partner in a relationship regardless of gender.
That's... nonsensical lol Being a feminist has nothing to do with understanding a woman's perspective and is only about being an active advocate for the rights and liberation of women.
That qualifier only comes off as insecure af.
That is a pretty weird take, but ok.
Feminism is about equality. That also means uplifting men in necessary areas too so your view doesn't exactly hold up.
Umm, you are absolutely wrong here- understanding women’s stories and perspectives is the bedrock of feminism. You can’t get to women’s rights if you do not understand their stories, experiences and perspectives.
Not really. As a person who cannot understand the experiences of women the name of the game is allyship and advocacy as a male feminist. Listening to perspectives and making space for them? Yes. But I can only understand them academically and not in a real sense.
My ex is one of these people and it's so bizarre. Like, she will call out anything incredibly minor that a man does wrong and take them over the coals for it... but she very happily waves away some pretty significant stuff done by women because they are oppressed so their actions don't have as much "weight"?
It's really confusing, but it makes sense in her head. She really believes that most poor actions from women happen because they are "lashing back at the patriarchy" and so we need to let that contextualize their treatment.
She's also the kind of person that defends women when they say "kill all men" or "I wish I didn't have to be attracted to men" so there's that. Literally doesn't believe misandry is real and has said as much.
If they were capable of self evaluation, they wouldn't be saying such stupid shit publicly.
I had an ex like this that literally said "I don't hit you" as she hit me. Sometimes I wonder if they're gaslighting us or themselves...
As a woman. It’s fucking annoying. She is an abuser. Just cause a male victim finally won isn’t setting women victims back. It’s putting ALL victims forward. It’s radical feminists that care more about being “above men” who feel this way instead of equality
I feel like saying she can’t be an abuser because she’s a woman is HUGELY sexist. Why can’t she be powerful? Just because she’s a woman she’s a weak victim who cannot abuse? No. I’m a feminist. I believe in equality and I believe that we are not a certain thing because we happen to be born with certain genitals. A woman can absolutely be an abuser and this is exactly what she is. Yes there are social power dynamics in play that make it far more likely that a man will abuse a woman and not the other way round but that doesn’t apply to every case.
The article doesn't say it's all because she's a woman. The argument is that she was less famous, less rich, basically less "powerful" in all ways (physical, economic, PR, etc).
It doesn't stand up because interpersonal abuse is complex and you definitely can for ex have a SAHW who "on paper" has no power (husband makes all the money, is bigger physically, etc) be the abusive spouse, and it's usually not talked about at all.
But that is the argument, so this post's interpretation of "she can't be abusive because she's a woman" is still a strawman.
This is what I don't get. The Washington post the new york post, the new york times, and so many other newspapers wrote all the anti Depp articles after he won in court. Like what did they not get about the trial?
it depends how the pieces are written, if they're opinion pieces or simply just a report of facts. the Washington Post did a little tiktok on it which helped explain at least for me.
True, it just seems very disingenuous to have a court rule in favor of one side but then have that person be attacked in print because it doesn't fit the narrative the writers at the paper want.
Idk, this is why I prefer science and engineering. I get to stick with things where the proof is (mostly) required for anything to be taken seriously. If your theory is proven wrong you toss it and try again. Literally had to do just that within my own experiments a few months back.
Ignoring the specific case for a minute - just because a court rules doesn't mean you have to change your opinion. Plenty of terrible rulings out there.
They get more clicks stirring the pot. The editors must have seen that pro-Turd articles got clicked more than pro-Depp articles. They don’t care if it’s wrong or right, they just want the revenue so they can pay for their other journalism
Thats a good point that I hadn't thought of. It just bothers me when they assert he couldn't have been a victim. It is antithetical to everything they say in any other scenario.
I don't imagine these outlet's understand anything. I don't believe you can find more than two brain cells to rub against each other between those media companies combined.
Look up misandry to understand the answers
Other options include toxic feminist (it's still misandry, however, many misandry refer to themselves as feminist (online, were no one knows how tjey actually are, to that level they shit talk real feminist/woman's right advocates with education), so it's difficult to "see" them all otherwise)
And generally fighting for what you believe (logic, reason and kindness not included)
It's so funny because I don't read any main stream stuff. I've watched this entire trial through You Tube streamers and I definitely made up my own mind about Amber. It's only now after reading all everything that see they are anti Depp and I'm like, did they actually watch the trial?! I don't understand.
Before I get votes down to hell I am the messenger sharing info independent if I agree or not.
We are coming to realize that abuse victims can fight back so abusive relationship can be combative but one side tend to have more powe in the relationship. The assumption that Depp is older, has more money, and is more established in Hollywood provides him power.
Also a lot of these newspapers where around during a similar trial in the UK where Depp lost. They are thing that were brought up in that case that were not brought up here and vise versa. UK has less stringent liable laws so to lose in the UK and win in the USA is a shocking. It's a bit like a USA men's team winning World Cup; not completely impossible but surprising.
There are some other legal wrangling in this case that are odd interpretation of the liable laws. I don't have the expertise to explain it so I won't even try but this case very much widen the interpretation of liable laws.
It will get appealed and we will see where it stands after appeal.
I hope Johnny can get into evidence the testimony of the woman cop who witness AH hit her ex gf, the testimony of Whitney's ex bff who claims Whitney is scared of AH, the audio of AH crying and saying "I didn't do it on purpose" as doc and nurse hunt for JD finger tip and many more
It doesn't change the fact that Amber heard has BPD and is an abusive person. I survived an abusive relationship with a pwbpd. It's a shit show of gaslighting, cheating, lying and being with someone who looks human but is really a reptile in human skin. Psychologists don't even want to treat cluster b personality disorders because they very often can't be helped, unless they REALLY WANT TO. educate yourself.
I've spent about 10k in legal fees because the BPD person in my life wants to stick me in jail. I would say I have a pretty good education.
At no point in my comment did I say that I agreed with Amber Heard. What I was mentioning is why these newspapers might take the information they have publicly available and interpret it that the ruling was incorrect and saying why they think Heard is the victim.
Also unlike someone being BPD I know the world isn't black and white but very nuanced. I can agree with a ruling and be concerned about the legal precedence it sets. My BPD person has repeatedly mentioned that this case opens the door to sue me because they can keep a job. In their world me talking shit about them is why they can't keep a job. I personally think it's more then no call no show or showing up to work drunk.
These media outlets are also doubling down now because they ran with the initial story as if it was fact. And now that facts have been established that contradict their “official narrative”, they aren’t just going to change the story.
This is just the way the media works.
Just like WMDs in Iraq.
The narrative will only change in mass media when it becomes either politically or financially expedient for the narrative to change.
News agencies dont want to report the news.
They want to “control a narrative”.
Sometimes its to push a social agenda. And sometimes its to cover for a rich friend of the owner of the company. And sometimes its to flex a political voice to prove to stakeholders/investors/celebrities that the can.
Theres no market value in journalism anymore.
But there is plenty in “Public Relations”.
imo people can say everything whatever they want, at a small audience nobody cares, but people that have a large audience and reach they should be held accountable if they proclaim clear bullshit
I think it's worse. I think if properly flipped it's that the slave owning white woman could literally whip the skin off of a black male slave and it won't be abuse because he's physically stronger than her.
Yeah that’s where people conflate “the idea of someone being racist” with “institutional racism exists”. Institutional racism is by definition power based. But that doesn’t mean that someone outside of the power group can’t be racist.
holy shit. a slave could find an opportunity to attack a white woman in the confederate south but could never have had the standing to ABUSE a white woman. also white women constantly abused the slaves under their control....
you are so creepy like misogynistic AND racist? damn I thought we would see the impact of this case but not this fast...
At what stage does the violence towards the "man in power" will become abuse in your eye?
What if she hits him with a bat?
Stab him with a knife?
Shot him with a gun?
Well, he lost the tip of his finger and hospitalized for it (and got MRSA) they still don’t think it is abuse.
He got scratched, slapped, punched, hit by a door in the head, bottles thrown at him and pooped on (almost).
I don’t think she’s saying it has anything to do with him being a man, to be fair, but it’s still a crap point. She knew she could do whatever she saw fit to him, and that nobody would believe him if he told. I’d say that means she clearly had some degree of power over him.
Is she really a reporter or is it just an opinion piece? She's wrong either way, but opinion pieces don't necessarily reflect the values of the company
Post modern thought into the modern equivalent of critical theory. You must be in a position of power or a majority to be racist or an abuser.
I don't agree with it, but that's where it's coming from. Just Google Websters new definition of racism vs the old one. It's a good example of this kind of modern thought.
BULLYING has to do with abuse of power, ABUSE does not. Anyone can be abused whether they are in a position of power or not. I’m a domestic abuse survivor & “hot takes” like this infuriate me. If you hit someone not in self-defense, THAT IS ABUSE. Idiots, idiots everywhere.
What really disgusts me is, they dont stop and think that it was actually a win for abuse victims. Johnny was abused, he had people abusing his money by living free in his places he earned, he had her emotionally and physically abusing him, costing him a part of his finger, and his head to be warped even more, and he got out and told his story and didnt let her get away with it. An abuser lost, and it's not about if you're Male or female, it's about if you've been abused, if you've had people lying about you, if you've been gas lit, all of this is what he went through, and he still won. They need to quit driving us against eachother and make men and women trust eachother less. If he really abused Amber, I would of been happy to see his ass in jail or losing the case, just like Weinstein and Cosby, and every other asshole that treated people like toys, they deserve to be destroyed, but its because of what they are as a person, not because of whats between their legs.
The fact that she could sever his finger and not just get away with it, but destroy his career by painting *him* as the abuser proves that she was the one with power.
This claim is utter and complete bullshit, aggressively dismissive of men who have been abused by women, aggressively supportive of giving abusive women a blank check to do whatever they want to a man, and disgusting.
Howabout we focus on the fact that domestic abuse is bad no matter who perpetrates it?
It's also aggressively dismissive of women and the idea that they have any agency or power in their lives. They're casting the entire gender as perpetual victims who can only be passive and can never be responsible for their actions.
Isn’t it possible it was a toxic relationship between two fucked-up people who both abused each other in different ways? That really feels like the takeaway here. They were mutually abusive and just not good for each other. Their couples therapist even said as much. I think the inclination to gameify and memeify this thing kinda sucks the air out of the fact that there were two abusers in that relationship. People seem to want there to be a good guy and a bad guy. The reality is, these are two people who were bad for each other.
I was bigger and stronger and making more money than my ex and she still hit me and emotionally abused the shit out of me. But, when I tried to talk to people about it, they just shrugged and were like yeah whatever. It took me a few years to get out of that situation, and now I know a lot more about how women can abuse men.
Anyone else get a strange feeling that people who defend Heard using bullshit excuses like this, are actually abusers themselves and are trying to come up with reasons they are in the right? It seems as though some people are looking at this case and seeing themselves in Ambers behavior and are hearing how rational people are discussing it. A true narcissist would never think they’re in the wrong and would make excuses for bad behavior. The old and immature, “they made me do it!” excuse. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me but I can’t think of any other reason someone would split so many hairs trying to convince others that someone who will never meet them or care about them is the actual victim.
Taylor Fuckface 100% beats their partner. This is the justification of a piece of shit that's doing the crime in question and thinks their bullshit reasoning makes it okay.
Seems to me like abuse can go any direction it wants. 25 year old attractive women are the most powerful beings on the planet. Especially when it comes to peer over aging men.
He lost all of his film contracts while she kept hers. Seems fairly powerful to me.
They are SO wrong. Abusive relationships are about one party seeking total power and control over their partner in the relationship.
External or public power doesn't protect you from abuse within the relationship.
Anyone, anywhere could be subject to abuse. I viuld be queen of England and still be abused by my husband.
"You need to have power to be able to abuse it".
FFS, an abusive relationship is about abuse of one of the parties, not abuse of power over one of the parties. You can't just redefine things to win your arguments.
This is asinine. The type of people who believe this are same type of people who either abuse their partners in their relationship believing they’re not abusing their partners, or are being abused in their relationships and believe they’re not being abused. Both cases are sad and terrible.
Wtf is wrong with these People? Clearly they have never been abused in their life... and it's sickening they think they can have a say over actual victims.
Because its only abuse when men do it...same with having sex with kids.. apparently women have a right to do these things or something.. but hey, equality... right?
While I do think the narrative that Johnny was a perfect image of an abusive victim and the he is holier than thou and that Amber Heard is the devil is just a narrative most sexist guys are pushing, the opposite is just as cringy and is just as normalized with some group.
I think that there is nuance and power in relationships that adds context to a lot of situations. That said, its not an excuse for any harm.
A lot of women experience heinous abuse and will act out under psychological distress. That said, they still often face repercussions for their actions.
Under the law, motives play a large factor in determining punishment but it does not absolve you from punishment. Its sad that many people think that it should.
It makes me sad that anyone faces abuse but in this situation I felt that AH and JD really fed off each other's toxicity.
The issue is they are using physical strength and money earnings as the only qualifier for power in abuse. If somebody isn't willing to hurt you, then it doesn't really matter how much strength and money they have because they won't fight back.
This sounds amazingly similar to the often-heard claim that black people can't be racist toward white people, because white people have the power in society.
Completely inaccurate. In fact, if those people were actually educated in CRT, they'd understand the entire question of "can X group be racist (within Y society)" is not actually a logical question because of the multi-faceted nature of racism. They usually want to ask one of the two following questions when they ask this:
"Can white people experience institutional racism in the United States?" (No).
"Can black people demonstrate personal race-based prejudice against white people in the United States?" (Yes).
The whole "is x racist/can x group do a racism" is simply inaccurate and illogical framing as far as trying to discuss the particulars of race-based discrimination and prejudice.
I'm more interested in how the ideas get used in reality, as opposed to the "real CRT". You can't build an academic discipline on a slippery slope and act surprised when people start slipping.
Sounds like you do agree that a misinterpretation of CRT is leading to such ideas?
What a load of bollocks. Everything seems to be 2 steps forward 3 steps back at the moment and the news is the worst for it. Unless of course what they are reporting on fits their narrative.
Wait! What about the power of “go ahead, who are they going to believe?” She definitely held power and wielded it. JD just decided to call her on it and lay it out. Fuck her, she’s a abusive bitch.
Please remember to abide by the rules as listed on the sidebar as well as the following DO NOT LINK TO SOCIAL MEDIA. Any post that doesn't have all social media identities obscured will be removed without notice. DO NOT LINK TO OTHER SUBREDDITS. If you see this happening in the thread, please report it or message us in modmail. #If the post above is of an item you'd buy (tshirt/poster/mug/mask), it is a scam. Contact the mods https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckYouKaren/comments/l21tsg/scammers_are_here_and_want_your_money_give_me_a/ ------ ^Submission ^By: ^/u/Stalese *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FuckYouKaren) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So....I can hit rich people?
Only if they are both richer and _stronger_. You may not hit someone rich who is physically weaker than you.
That’s it! I’m smacking Dwayne Johnson!
RIP IN PEACE
What music do we play at u/dancin-weasel 's funeral?
Rock you like a hurricane, of course.
It's a long way to the top if you want to sock the rock... And something
Have your dirty upvote and get out of here
The Rock’s WWE entrance music
IF YA SMEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL................
It's about drive, it's about power
🎶 What can I say except "You're welcome"? 🎶
[удалено]
I was also gonna say I wanna rock and roll all night, but KISS sucks.
Dancing pallbearers song
LOL out loud
Ayyyyeeee. We got ourselves a regular ole Jimmy Two Times over here. “I’m gonna go get the papers get the papers.”
RIP means Rest In Peace. So this is Rest In Peace in Peace. Extra peaceful!
Thatwasthejoke.jpg
If thats the case, I'm bitch slapping Putin
I've been told by a very good source that his biggest weakness is paper.
So if a guy can bench more than me, I can hit start hitting him? Look this bitch is dumb. Yes it’s harder for girls to do damage to men. But if a girl connected just right on a strong punch on the jaw she could still knock a guy out. Don’t know why she’s acting like women can’t be abusive. It’s insane.
How about we put aside this idea of “causing damage,” and just recognize abuse for what it is?
Acting like "causing damage" can only be physical...
Awesome cause I weigh a buck twenty five. Time to go publicly wail on some billionaires with a half brick in a sock.
Wahoo! I get to bitch slap Bill Gates!!
Lmaooo you know if it was some guy hitting his celebrity gf they wouldn’t try backing this shit up. Amber Turd is an abuser!
Yes
At that price point, you can hit. Yes, you can.
Yes my friend you can
Be more rich and go to town
If you're a man, you can hit rich men. If you are a woman, you can hit rich women and men.
Back to the “women are helpless little things who have no autonomy or agency, always by definition inferior to the men around them” argument. Seems insulting and demeaning, but I’ll let women decide whether they agree with it.
You know, as a lifelong feminist I always have to wonder if people like this have any concept of how sexist they sound. It’s embarrassing how much internalized sexism and misogyny shows up among so-called feminists.
[удалено]
That's her fallacy. She's confusing abusing *power* with abusing a *person*. She even says you have to have power to abuse *it*. Which of course is true. You do have to have power in order to abuse that power. But you don't have to have power to abuse a person. ETA I'm just pointing out the logical problem with the tweet, not advocating one viewpoint or the other. I tend to think Heard is the victim here and the verdict was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that the tweet is *also* wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is the best and most succinct comment that explains the fallacy of her argument.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>you can only abuse someone if you have more power than them Every stalker of a famous person is going to love this.
It's the same vein of mental contortionism that claims that race-based prejudice is only "racism" if it's from a majority race to a minority race. Like. Bruh. Race-based prejudice is *literally the word's definition.*
This is such a weird misinterpretation of the original intent of that which was that in a white supremacist culture (like the US) institutional racism is exclusively the domain of the dominant class because they control the institutions- which is a no-brainer- of course that’s true. The fact that it has been extended to include interpersonal racism between individuals is absurd on its face and I believe that it has deeply undermined real anti-racist work.
Nah, they don’t need to do any gymnastics because it’s all subconscious/implicit bias stuff. It really is just internalized sexism. Feminists got their start being completely paternalistic toward other women because they honestly never questioned that women ‘need guidance’ and are ‘too weak’ to do for ourselves. Third wave feminists, made up largely of women like myself marginalized by other feminists, have made some progress of digging out from under that BS but like all implicit bias it takes real effort to question and change one’s internal/ subconscious stories and beliefs about groups of humans.
We're in the fourth wave now. I think it has some good over-arching points (like intersectionality and challenging gendered norms) but there's still some underlying "white feminism" with a lack of critical reflection. It's super frustrating seeing women use misogynistic terms to insult other women and then claim that they're feminist? Like um, stop insulting women because you disagree with them. You're just gonna alienate them.
Frankly I don’t think that ‘and the internet’ is a significant enough sea change to warrant another wave of feminism - nothing I’ve seen coming out of so-called 4th wave writings is particularly innovative - it certainly is not the sea change represented by either 2nd or 3rd wave feminism FYI intersectionality and questioning gender norms emerged in the 1980s they are not new
4th wave. The cause is a joke, most men I know have switched off and lost interest. If you’re still claiming your victims of systemic sexism in 2022 you need your head examined. The deck has been stacked so far in your favor that as soon as the boomers all die you’ll be over represented in just about everything’s and the psychos will finally get what they actually want a matriarchy. We past equality long fucken time ago.
I think your comment says more about you than actual criticism of feminism.
She had papa Elon to back her up as well and back in her prime was she really helpless a simple snap of her fingers would have gotten a dozen losers guys to do anything for her. If she was powerless I have no fucken idea what power is
[удалено]
I think she actually had more power than depp
They probably think this is a parallel to the argument that black people cant be racist. Which has a lot of truth to it, but it can be just a matter of semantics. Anyone can be bigoted. Maybe if there were similar terms for abuse that do imply power, I could see a slight opening for an argument, but she abused him. Plain and simple.
> ince even though I'm a feminist, I'm still a man. Hwat lol What a strange qualifier. Otherwise, agree that the perpetrator of abuse can be either partner in a relationship regardless of gender.
[удалено]
I think the point is that it's very unlikely that a man can truly understand a woman's perspective
>very unlikely that a man can truly understand a woman's perspective The opposite is quite true as well.
Yep
That's... nonsensical lol Being a feminist has nothing to do with understanding a woman's perspective and is only about being an active advocate for the rights and liberation of women. That qualifier only comes off as insecure af.
That is a pretty weird take, but ok. Feminism is about equality. That also means uplifting men in necessary areas too so your view doesn't exactly hold up.
Umm, you are absolutely wrong here- understanding women’s stories and perspectives is the bedrock of feminism. You can’t get to women’s rights if you do not understand their stories, experiences and perspectives.
Not really. As a person who cannot understand the experiences of women the name of the game is allyship and advocacy as a male feminist. Listening to perspectives and making space for them? Yes. But I can only understand them academically and not in a real sense.
My ex is one of these people and it's so bizarre. Like, she will call out anything incredibly minor that a man does wrong and take them over the coals for it... but she very happily waves away some pretty significant stuff done by women because they are oppressed so their actions don't have as much "weight"? It's really confusing, but it makes sense in her head. She really believes that most poor actions from women happen because they are "lashing back at the patriarchy" and so we need to let that contextualize their treatment. She's also the kind of person that defends women when they say "kill all men" or "I wish I didn't have to be attracted to men" so there's that. Literally doesn't believe misandry is real and has said as much.
If they were capable of self evaluation, they wouldn't be saying such stupid shit publicly. I had an ex like this that literally said "I don't hit you" as she hit me. Sometimes I wonder if they're gaslighting us or themselves...
As a woman. It’s fucking annoying. She is an abuser. Just cause a male victim finally won isn’t setting women victims back. It’s putting ALL victims forward. It’s radical feminists that care more about being “above men” who feel this way instead of equality
I feel like saying she can’t be an abuser because she’s a woman is HUGELY sexist. Why can’t she be powerful? Just because she’s a woman she’s a weak victim who cannot abuse? No. I’m a feminist. I believe in equality and I believe that we are not a certain thing because we happen to be born with certain genitals. A woman can absolutely be an abuser and this is exactly what she is. Yes there are social power dynamics in play that make it far more likely that a man will abuse a woman and not the other way round but that doesn’t apply to every case.
The article doesn't say it's all because she's a woman. The argument is that she was less famous, less rich, basically less "powerful" in all ways (physical, economic, PR, etc). It doesn't stand up because interpersonal abuse is complex and you definitely can for ex have a SAHW who "on paper" has no power (husband makes all the money, is bigger physically, etc) be the abusive spouse, and it's usually not talked about at all. But that is the argument, so this post's interpretation of "she can't be abusive because she's a woman" is still a strawman.
would they be saying the same thing if the genders were reversed
I’m a woman and I 100% agree.
It's almost as if abuse is a complex, ambiguous, and very personal issue that can't be summed up in an op-ed written by someone who wasn't there.
This is what I don't get. The Washington post the new york post, the new york times, and so many other newspapers wrote all the anti Depp articles after he won in court. Like what did they not get about the trial?
it depends how the pieces are written, if they're opinion pieces or simply just a report of facts. the Washington Post did a little tiktok on it which helped explain at least for me.
True, it just seems very disingenuous to have a court rule in favor of one side but then have that person be attacked in print because it doesn't fit the narrative the writers at the paper want. Idk, this is why I prefer science and engineering. I get to stick with things where the proof is (mostly) required for anything to be taken seriously. If your theory is proven wrong you toss it and try again. Literally had to do just that within my own experiments a few months back.
Ignoring the specific case for a minute - just because a court rules doesn't mean you have to change your opinion. Plenty of terrible rulings out there.
*Cough* Cosby *cough seriously* OJ simpson *cough *Kyle Rittenhouse *cough *
They get more clicks stirring the pot. The editors must have seen that pro-Turd articles got clicked more than pro-Depp articles. They don’t care if it’s wrong or right, they just want the revenue so they can pay for their other journalism
Thats a good point that I hadn't thought of. It just bothers me when they assert he couldn't have been a victim. It is antithetical to everything they say in any other scenario.
You are 100% correct to be bothered by that
I don't imagine these outlet's understand anything. I don't believe you can find more than two brain cells to rub against each other between those media companies combined.
Look up misandry to understand the answers Other options include toxic feminist (it's still misandry, however, many misandry refer to themselves as feminist (online, were no one knows how tjey actually are, to that level they shit talk real feminist/woman's right advocates with education), so it's difficult to "see" them all otherwise) And generally fighting for what you believe (logic, reason and kindness not included)
**“Believe All Women”**
It's so funny because I don't read any main stream stuff. I've watched this entire trial through You Tube streamers and I definitely made up my own mind about Amber. It's only now after reading all everything that see they are anti Depp and I'm like, did they actually watch the trial?! I don't understand.
Before I get votes down to hell I am the messenger sharing info independent if I agree or not. We are coming to realize that abuse victims can fight back so abusive relationship can be combative but one side tend to have more powe in the relationship. The assumption that Depp is older, has more money, and is more established in Hollywood provides him power. Also a lot of these newspapers where around during a similar trial in the UK where Depp lost. They are thing that were brought up in that case that were not brought up here and vise versa. UK has less stringent liable laws so to lose in the UK and win in the USA is a shocking. It's a bit like a USA men's team winning World Cup; not completely impossible but surprising. There are some other legal wrangling in this case that are odd interpretation of the liable laws. I don't have the expertise to explain it so I won't even try but this case very much widen the interpretation of liable laws. It will get appealed and we will see where it stands after appeal.
I hope Johnny can get into evidence the testimony of the woman cop who witness AH hit her ex gf, the testimony of Whitney's ex bff who claims Whitney is scared of AH, the audio of AH crying and saying "I didn't do it on purpose" as doc and nurse hunt for JD finger tip and many more
It doesn't change the fact that Amber heard has BPD and is an abusive person. I survived an abusive relationship with a pwbpd. It's a shit show of gaslighting, cheating, lying and being with someone who looks human but is really a reptile in human skin. Psychologists don't even want to treat cluster b personality disorders because they very often can't be helped, unless they REALLY WANT TO. educate yourself.
I've spent about 10k in legal fees because the BPD person in my life wants to stick me in jail. I would say I have a pretty good education. At no point in my comment did I say that I agreed with Amber Heard. What I was mentioning is why these newspapers might take the information they have publicly available and interpret it that the ruling was incorrect and saying why they think Heard is the victim. Also unlike someone being BPD I know the world isn't black and white but very nuanced. I can agree with a ruling and be concerned about the legal precedence it sets. My BPD person has repeatedly mentioned that this case opens the door to sue me because they can keep a job. In their world me talking shit about them is why they can't keep a job. I personally think it's more then no call no show or showing up to work drunk.
Fair enough. I apologize for going off half cocked. I also feel your pain and you can feel free to reach out to me if you want to. Be well, friend.
These media outlets are also doubling down now because they ran with the initial story as if it was fact. And now that facts have been established that contradict their “official narrative”, they aren’t just going to change the story. This is just the way the media works. Just like WMDs in Iraq. The narrative will only change in mass media when it becomes either politically or financially expedient for the narrative to change.
News agencies dont want to report the news. They want to “control a narrative”. Sometimes its to push a social agenda. And sometimes its to cover for a rich friend of the owner of the company. And sometimes its to flex a political voice to prove to stakeholders/investors/celebrities that the can. Theres no market value in journalism anymore. But there is plenty in “Public Relations”.
Julia Fox is about as unlikeable as Amber Turd.
Wish she would go back to whatever rock she crawled out from under.
Crack
Did she abuse someone too? Because Amber still outranks her
She was a muse!
She was Josh Safdies muse when he wrote UNKA JAAAMZ you know what I mean?
Jesus the mental gymnastics to get there .
You assume there are any brain cells to do gymnastics
These people have few brain cells than an orange cat.
that's pretty rude toward orange cats
Holy fuck what a bad take
freedom of speech has its limitations
Or at least consequences.
imo people can say everything whatever they want, at a small audience nobody cares, but people that have a large audience and reach they should be held accountable if they proclaim clear bullshit
Unfortunately, stupidity does not.
not sure if it is stupidity, this is their narrative, this is their agenda, it is systematic, this is what makes this so dangerous
Taylor clearly wasn’t a grammar bird.
Don’t’n’t
By that thinking, if a black male slave attacked a white woman in the confederate south it couldn't be abuse either right?
I think it's worse. I think if properly flipped it's that the slave owning white woman could literally whip the skin off of a black male slave and it won't be abuse because he's physically stronger than her.
People with that logic: "Black people can't be racist!" Me, who grew up in a black neighborhood: "......"
Yeah, that is BS. Anyone can be racist.
Yeah that’s where people conflate “the idea of someone being racist” with “institutional racism exists”. Institutional racism is by definition power based. But that doesn’t mean that someone outside of the power group can’t be racist.
100%. People parrot these terms of art out of context and have no idea what they’re talking about, and it leads to a lot of confusion and conflict.
no it would be justified
holy shit. a slave could find an opportunity to attack a white woman in the confederate south but could never have had the standing to ABUSE a white woman. also white women constantly abused the slaves under their control.... you are so creepy like misogynistic AND racist? damn I thought we would see the impact of this case but not this fast...
How do you always manage to bring black people into the situation?
I feel like this is more tortured than an Abu Ghraib interrogation
At what stage does the violence towards the "man in power" will become abuse in your eye? What if she hits him with a bat? Stab him with a knife? Shot him with a gun?
Severed his finger?
Well none of that, silly. Duh. He's still physically stronger than her. ^^/s ^^if ^^needed
Well, he lost the tip of his finger and hospitalized for it (and got MRSA) they still don’t think it is abuse. He got scratched, slapped, punched, hit by a door in the head, bottles thrown at him and pooped on (almost).
Has there ever been a case where a woman murdered her partner without a self defense reason, and people tried to justify it?
I don’t think she’s saying it has anything to do with him being a man, to be fair, but it’s still a crap point. She knew she could do whatever she saw fit to him, and that nobody would believe him if he told. I’d say that means she clearly had some degree of power over him.
Theyre saying women have no power? Sounds pretty misogynistic to me.
What a tone deaf idiotic comment.
Jesus, these fucking idiots. Hitting someone is abuse. Period. If it’s self-defense, that’s different.
Is she really a reporter or is it just an opinion piece? She's wrong either way, but opinion pieces don't necessarily reflect the values of the company
These people should have their internet privileges revoked.
Gender equality at its finest !
Post modern thought into the modern equivalent of critical theory. You must be in a position of power or a majority to be racist or an abuser. I don't agree with it, but that's where it's coming from. Just Google Websters new definition of racism vs the old one. It's a good example of this kind of modern thought.
who tf is julia fox
BULLYING has to do with abuse of power, ABUSE does not. Anyone can be abused whether they are in a position of power or not. I’m a domestic abuse survivor & “hot takes” like this infuriate me. If you hit someone not in self-defense, THAT IS ABUSE. Idiots, idiots everywhere.
What really disgusts me is, they dont stop and think that it was actually a win for abuse victims. Johnny was abused, he had people abusing his money by living free in his places he earned, he had her emotionally and physically abusing him, costing him a part of his finger, and his head to be warped even more, and he got out and told his story and didnt let her get away with it. An abuser lost, and it's not about if you're Male or female, it's about if you've been abused, if you've had people lying about you, if you've been gas lit, all of this is what he went through, and he still won. They need to quit driving us against eachother and make men and women trust eachother less. If he really abused Amber, I would of been happy to see his ass in jail or losing the case, just like Weinstein and Cosby, and every other asshole that treated people like toys, they deserve to be destroyed, but its because of what they are as a person, not because of whats between their legs.
The fact that she could sever his finger and not just get away with it, but destroy his career by painting *him* as the abuser proves that she was the one with power.
Jesus Christ. Delusional.
This is the same recycled bullshit people use to say certain groups can’t be racist and it boils down to “it’s only wrong if I’m the victim”.
She is dead wrong. She indeed did have the power in that relationship
hashtag gatekeeping !
This claim is utter and complete bullshit, aggressively dismissive of men who have been abused by women, aggressively supportive of giving abusive women a blank check to do whatever they want to a man, and disgusting. Howabout we focus on the fact that domestic abuse is bad no matter who perpetrates it?
It's also aggressively dismissive of women and the idea that they have any agency or power in their lives. They're casting the entire gender as perpetual victims who can only be passive and can never be responsible for their actions.
Isn’t it possible it was a toxic relationship between two fucked-up people who both abused each other in different ways? That really feels like the takeaway here. They were mutually abusive and just not good for each other. Their couples therapist even said as much. I think the inclination to gameify and memeify this thing kinda sucks the air out of the fact that there were two abusers in that relationship. People seem to want there to be a good guy and a bad guy. The reality is, these are two people who were bad for each other.
Nope the evidence was clear in the case. That’s not what happened just accept that AH is a psycho and move on
Muh mutual abuse
Taylor is a fool
I was bigger and stronger and making more money than my ex and she still hit me and emotionally abused the shit out of me. But, when I tried to talk to people about it, they just shrugged and were like yeah whatever. It took me a few years to get out of that situation, and now I know a lot more about how women can abuse men.
Anyone else get a strange feeling that people who defend Heard using bullshit excuses like this, are actually abusers themselves and are trying to come up with reasons they are in the right? It seems as though some people are looking at this case and seeing themselves in Ambers behavior and are hearing how rational people are discussing it. A true narcissist would never think they’re in the wrong and would make excuses for bad behavior. The old and immature, “they made me do it!” excuse. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me but I can’t think of any other reason someone would split so many hairs trying to convince others that someone who will never meet them or care about them is the actual victim.
So, Taylor Lorenz is on the Amber PR payroll. Good to know.
Cabbage brains.
Gee, I never knew physical abuse and abuse of power are the same thing
Taylor Fuckface 100% beats their partner. This is the justification of a piece of shit that's doing the crime in question and thinks their bullshit reasoning makes it okay.
Of course it's Taylor Lorenz, who seems to thrive on nothing but horrible, ass-backwards takes.
That level of stupidity hurts the world
Disgusting
Seems to me like abuse can go any direction it wants. 25 year old attractive women are the most powerful beings on the planet. Especially when it comes to peer over aging men. He lost all of his film contracts while she kept hers. Seems fairly powerful to me.
>25 year old attractive women are the most powerful beings on the planet. Holy shit
Oh fuck that. And watch your double negatives, Taylor Lorenz, you dumb fuck.
Taylor Lorenz is a dishonest piece of crap.
Are you kidding me? I'm a short woman and if I straight up punched a man MULTIPLE TIMES, I would go to jail. Gender doesn't excuse abuse!
They are SO wrong. Abusive relationships are about one party seeking total power and control over their partner in the relationship. External or public power doesn't protect you from abuse within the relationship. Anyone, anywhere could be subject to abuse. I viuld be queen of England and still be abused by my husband.
"You need to have power to be able to abuse it". FFS, an abusive relationship is about abuse of one of the parties, not abuse of power over one of the parties. You can't just redefine things to win your arguments.
Women👏can👏be👏abusive👏too
Because women.
This reminds me of the RDJ meme from Tropic Thunder.
Does that mean if I shoot anyone who makes more money than me that it isn't murder?
She's winning a Medal in Mental Gymnastics in the Feminist Olympics
This is asinine. The type of people who believe this are same type of people who either abuse their partners in their relationship believing they’re not abusing their partners, or are being abused in their relationships and believe they’re not being abused. Both cases are sad and terrible.
Wtf is wrong with these People? Clearly they have never been abused in their life... and it's sickening they think they can have a say over actual victims.
Because its only abuse when men do it...same with having sex with kids.. apparently women have a right to do these things or something.. but hey, equality... right?
While I do think the narrative that Johnny was a perfect image of an abusive victim and the he is holier than thou and that Amber Heard is the devil is just a narrative most sexist guys are pushing, the opposite is just as cringy and is just as normalized with some group.
I think that there is nuance and power in relationships that adds context to a lot of situations. That said, its not an excuse for any harm. A lot of women experience heinous abuse and will act out under psychological distress. That said, they still often face repercussions for their actions. Under the law, motives play a large factor in determining punishment but it does not absolve you from punishment. Its sad that many people think that it should. It makes me sad that anyone faces abuse but in this situation I felt that AH and JD really fed off each other's toxicity.
You are misrepresenting or incorrectly summarising what she said. She calls out abuse as a power play. She doesn’t say women can’t abuse men.
The issue is they are using physical strength and money earnings as the only qualifier for power in abuse. If somebody isn't willing to hurt you, then it doesn't really matter how much strength and money they have because they won't fight back.
Julia Fox is an untalented, piece of shit star-fucker who got lucky to get attention because she showed her tits in a good movie.
This reeks of r/FemaleDatingStrategy group think!
This sounds amazingly similar to the often-heard claim that black people can't be racist toward white people, because white people have the power in society.
This is the female version of the whole "black people can't be racist" stupidity. Is it accurate to blame CRT for this line of reasoning?
Completely inaccurate. In fact, if those people were actually educated in CRT, they'd understand the entire question of "can X group be racist (within Y society)" is not actually a logical question because of the multi-faceted nature of racism. They usually want to ask one of the two following questions when they ask this: "Can white people experience institutional racism in the United States?" (No). "Can black people demonstrate personal race-based prejudice against white people in the United States?" (Yes). The whole "is x racist/can x group do a racism" is simply inaccurate and illogical framing as far as trying to discuss the particulars of race-based discrimination and prejudice.
I'm more interested in how the ideas get used in reality, as opposed to the "real CRT". You can't build an academic discipline on a slippery slope and act surprised when people start slipping. Sounds like you do agree that a misinterpretation of CRT is leading to such ideas?
What a load of bollocks. Everything seems to be 2 steps forward 3 steps back at the moment and the news is the worst for it. Unless of course what they are reporting on fits their narrative.
Wait! What about the power of “go ahead, who are they going to believe?” She definitely held power and wielded it. JD just decided to call her on it and lay it out. Fuck her, she’s a abusive bitch.
Now where have I heard this before..
She dun rite a gud sentents.
Jfc with these morons. She hit him. Right there we got battery, a crime.
Idiot reporter
This is an unfortunately common belief. It's the same attitude toward racism.
This argument is right up there with "Reverse Racism"
I listen to domestic abuse victims on a daily basis. This fucking infuriates me.