Amber Heard: A Crash Course in Toxic Femininity
Written by Miranda Vidak
6/22/202221 min read
In all honesty, I didn’t want to add to the Depp vs. Heard conversation. I resisted as much as I could—you could tell by how many times you asked me about it, and yet you’re only reading it now. My thoughts were; what could I possibly add to it? Everyone and their mother, dog, and parrot has already shared their two cents. These days, I stay silent on many things. There are so many opinions about everything that we can’t even get to the truly valuable ones in this oversaturated market of ideas.
I was determined to pass on this, but the aftermath of this trial is even more troublesome than the actual event we witnessed for six weeks. It’s been two weeks and a change since the verdict, and this thing grew troubling legs. Amber's interview on Friday. Instead of just being their story, it became an agenda for vultures on each side. The right-wing now claims Johnny as its hero, claiming he single-handedly ended (well, we saw plenty of hands-on that stand) the #MeToo movement, and he’s now a poster boy for white male oppression.
I totally get it, it was about time someone started a conversation about all the struggles plaguing white males around the world.
The left is equally laughable: hysterics disguised as concern that Amber is now ruining it for all actual victims of domestic abuse, as if it’s difficult to distinguish between the victim and an antagonist.
Why are we creating agendas? Why are we appropriating this unfortunate relationship?
Amber’s first mistake was not understanding who she was dealing with. Like many Millennials, she was unbelievably confident about nothing. Her attempt at instant notoriety was lazy and poorly thought out. Don’t get me wrong—there was obviously mutual harm in that relationship. But she’s not solely a victim; they are both perpetrators and victims in their way. I strongly believe she saw a convenient opportunity to raise her profile in the media, banking on the current #MeToo climate and presenting herself as a champion of women overcoming, well, something. I did it. I’m notorious. I’m a survivor.
As I said, she didn’t do a well enough research on Johnny. Far are the days when we were all struck by his face on 21 Jump Street, Johnny Depp carries much more darkness behind his one of a kind exterior. Well-recorded jealousy and suspicious involvement in River Phoenix’s death. I’m a 90’s child, and if you aren’t, catch up on The Curious Death of River Phoenix, a legendary article by Jessica Dune where she clocked in 8 months' worth of research into all the details that led to his death. How does your friend, surrounded by family, die in front of the Viper Room, your club, and why did you tell your bouncer to take him outside while he was starting to convulse on the floor—as reported by the witnesses, instead of calling 911 immediately?
Then there’s another curious case of Anthony Fox, Johnny’s partner in the Viper. It all started when Anthony slapped Johnny with a lawsuit alleging Johnny had conspired to divert millions in profits from The Viper Room. Per the Radar Online “In a preliminary ruling early in 2003, a judge indicated Fox would prevail in the case. But Fox went missing shortly before he was scheduled to testify against Depp. Also missing were his pickup truck and .38-caliber revolver. His body has never been found.”
Disclosure: If I disappear after this article is published, please go look for me in the California desert.
Why am I going here? After all, it’s all in the past.
To show you I dislike many things about Johnny Depp and what he gets involved in. I loved River Phoenix, I could easily hate Johnny for something personal that means to me and be biased in his trial with Amber. I can say, he probably abused her, look what he has a history of maybe, possibly doing.
When I first heard about this whole mess between Amber and Johnny, I thought — finally, karma’s arrived; but as much as I wanted him to get confronted about something, looking at more and more facts, I could not in my right mind conclude he is a villain in their story. At best, they both are.
This world is on its way to becoming seriously dubious if we continue inserting our opinions into every situation we hear about, basing them on emotions, feelings, and often our subjective experiences, rather than on research or logic.
It’s easy for me to wish Johnny were a woman-basher, just so someone could take him down for all the grievances I’ve constructed about him—whether based on rumors or witness-based facts. But I’ve worked on myself incredibly hard, much like Johnny’s mega cup of wine, and the facts cannot be twisted just because I or anyone else have strong emotions about them.
Whether you or I like it or not, Johnny Depp is an icon. Even with all the things I said he might have done; he is an icon. Although born on the cusp, he is a Gen X icon, the generation that actually knows how to get shit done.
Generation X doesn’t do things halfway.
We didn’t have the treatments or medications for mental health you have now, we had to raw-dog mental health, and learn how to cope with it ourselves. We had Boomers for parents for crying out loud, and if that alone is not enough; we were left to our own devices which makes us fucking animals, and survivors.
The reason why we just watched 6 years of a shitshow and 6 weeks of a trial is because Amber Heard thought she could take Johnny Depp. This has nothing to do with him being in. Power position over her, she could actually be in a power position over him, she’s young and beautiful, and he, or so we thought—appeared to be a rather washed up, slurry mess, before he got himself together knowing he must win this case or his entire legacy is over.
As I said, like him or not, Johnny Depp is an icon. And he dated all the icons. I truly think Amber Heard married him because she wanted to be an icon too. This woman could have anyone. Any famous, young, hot, rich guy. Actor, singer, athlete. But the icons of the 90s are no more today, it’s the status that is over nowadays. A small drop of that iconry (I know it’s not a word, humor me here, I like the sound) can only be seen today in the likes of Harry Styles, possibly Zendaya, and mostly Timothee Chalamet. Amber wanted to be associated with something she’s not, of another more icon-like time.
She wanted to be put in the same sentence with Kate Moss and Winona Ryder.
When you can’t reach a level of icon-like existence, by talent or charm or both, a good way is to try to be notorious because of something. Insert a lazy, mediocre Millennial, and a half-assed attempt at it.
Remember Jussie Smollett, a gay and black actor on Empire that paid his two black friends to pretend beat him and put a noose around his neck, so he could claim sexual and racial violence, after which he got on stage at Troubadour and said to the audience, and I quote — “I’m like gay Tupac!”
These light-weights cannot even properly organize a hoax! If you’re trying to scam your way to notoriousness, a good thing would be trying to put some effort into it. Plan it right. Invest some time and actual brain power into it. Spend real money. Do not hire your black friends for the racial hoax and pay them a measly $3500 each. Of course they ratted you out.
This clown thought he could just walk around his hood a few laps, buy a sandwich in Subway (the sandwich survived the “assault” in hands, mind you), pay his friends some pocket change to rough him up a bit and sail his way into Tupac level of legend?
Insulting, how lazy these people are.
The first sign of Amber not really being a victim here but a seeker of icon status was her op-ed, where she didn’t call herself a victim of abuse, but a “public figure representing abuse”.
Like another case of a lazy Millennial, she thought she could send a few pics in, rough herself a bit, file a restraining order, call TMZ, publish an op-ed, hop on the #MeToo train, and voila — the icon is born. A public figure representing abuse, and also a Mother Theresa who gave all her divorce settlement money to charity, and made sure you know about it.
Johnny was asleep for a long time. Boozing and doing drugs at 28 years old, bar-hopping on Sunset while looking like a god, is a bit different than doing it at 55. The stuff you put in your body catches up with you. People who do loads of drugs and drink heavily think it all just leaves their system once ingested. It doesn’t—it stays and piles up.
He was boozing and sleeping, both figuratively and literally. I was surprised he let her get away with it for as long as he did, considering who he is. She was running around claiming abuse while collecting icon points, and he just sat there, half-asleep, taking it. His self-loathing and apathy brought him to this point.
But he eventually remembered what he’s capable of. He transformed from a boozy, messed-up drunk into the charming, sharp-tongued motherfucker you watched on the stand for 6 weeks.
That was pure artistry, what he did there.
He understood, in order to get his truth across, he needs to tell THE WHOLE truth, for once in his entire fucking life. The ugliest parts of it. And in some strange way, I didn’t hate it. After decades of bullshitting, presenting to the public something much lighter than his actual dark persona, this fucker finally told some truths.
I dislike drunks and people who are incoherent, loopy, messy; but this was somehow groundbreaking for me, the fact he just owned all his issues and problems. I’m messy but I’m also charming — I think it’s the only time in his life he actually showed ALL of what he is.
“Yes I did assault a couple of cabinets” — was a poignant but powerful breaking point for me. I was a mess, yes, but I did not assault her, I did, though, some cabinets.
Which usually is a sign he’s trying to slam everything around, and express his frustration on objects, not the person. If he was a domestic abuser, there is no way he would be slamming cabinets for 15 minutes, and not strike her.
I grew up with it, trust me, I know.
#MeToo.
A big part of this saga lies in the #MeToo movement. I’ll tell you right away, I have many issues with #MeToo. I’m sure they helped some women along the way, but I strongly think that movement was formed to take out Harvey Weinstein, by his competitors.
When I say — I think, I never just think something. When I say think it’s probably 60 + hours of research involved in my thinking. And I put in many, many hours in the mystery of #MeToo.
Never in the history of planet Earth has a movement rallied so powerfully to take down an abuser. Harvey Weinstein was immensely powerful—so much so that it might take another lifetime for another producer to achieve his level of success. He controlled everything. Everyone. And this was the only way to bring him down.
Don’t think for a moment that the primary goal was justice for these women. The real purpose was to take Harvey Weinstein out of business, with helping some women being a secondary outcome. Harvey monopolized Hollywood—this was never truly about the women. It was about removing him so others could claim a piece of the pie.
After they took him down, many people, myself included, tweeted daily to #MeToo, urging them to take on Bryan Singer next. After all, they had promised to address all the abusers in Hollywood. Yet no one ever received a reply from #MeToo. I sent messages repeatedly—tweets, emails—but there was no response. I saw hundreds of others tweet to #MeToo about Bryan Singer, but there wasn’t even a retweet, let alone an acknowledgment.
Bryan Singer is the director of a few of the best movies ever made: Apt Pupil, The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie, X-Men, Star Trek, Bohemian Rhapsody, and so on. He’s also a pedophile and a sexual predator that held a mansion in Encino, CA, with his predator friends where a plethora of teenage boys accused him of drugging them, plying them with alcohol at 13, threatening them with weapons, then raping them, while passing them around to their friends, on a daily basis.
It’s the most gruesome abuse story I have ever heard. These were children.
Bryan Singer’s assaults date from 1997 to 2019. No one ever stopped him. The boys reported these experiences left them psychologically damaged, with substance abuse problems, depression, and PTSP.
Brad Renfro, the star of Apt Pupil, a beautiful kid from The Client and a superstar of the 90s, also raped by Bryan — overdosed, and died as a result of his constant abuse. Another boy died. Another boy is paralyzed from the neck down for life after being plied with drugs and alcohol since 13 years old. All of them are on drugs, destroyed for life, trying to get justice, but are unable because of the statute of limitations, as well as being financially unable to take Bryan Singer.
The Atlantic took Bryan on by publishing an article about his abuse; nothing happened as a result. A documentary has been made about Bryan Singer’s abuse, An Open Secret; nothing happened as a result.
If the abuse wasn’t enough, Bryan Singer and his team are torturing these boys even today, preventing them from filing lawsuits by finding stuff like their bankruptcies, their immigration issues, and so on to blackmail and prevent them from suing him today and getting justice.
Bryan Singer left Chornobyl in his wake, in these boys’ lives.
Why doesn’t #MeToo financially support these boys, now grown men, to sue? Why doesn’t #MeToo expose him, at the very least? After Harvey, the world would certainly listen.
#MeToo is well aware of Bryan Singer. So why doesn’t it rally against him as it did with Harvey Weinstein, taking down a pedophile who has been destroying the lives of boys—children—for over two decades? This is why I question the integrity of the movement. Why doesn’t it give a voice to these boys?
The women abused by Harvey Weinstein were grown adults who made a choice to go to those hotel rooms. How is it acceptable to protect grown women who had agency while ignoring children who had none? These boys were CHILDREN. Doesn’t that matter even more? How can we prioritize protecting women who had a choice over boys who didn’t, and who were too young to defend themselves?
It’s how you know this whole movement is a fluke.
Amber Heard didn’t ruin anything for actual victims of domestic abuse.
If anything, I believe she did the complete opposite. Watching her on that stand reveals the stark contrast between someone who has actually been abused and someone who is genuinely shocked he took her on and wants to clear his name. The audacity on him.
What she did show, however, is how toxic femininity looks, in action. Taunting, provoking, making fun of your abuser? Belittling him? Taking pictures of him being a mess?
This is not me expecting a perfect victim. It’s not about being perfect, what is perfect victim?
What I do know is that many women, including one I grew up with, have one mission: being believed. The hardest part for every victim is trying to prove she was abused. A victim’s sole mission is finding anything to present to the court that can confirm her abuse. The actual victim is pleading for you to look at everything she can offer that PROVES she was abused.
Amber Heard was on that stand doing the opposite. She played word games and mental games with Johnny Depp’s lawyers. She wasn’t pleading for anyone to see the proof she might have. Instead, she spent 6 weeks avoiding straightforward answers about her own photos or the dates of abuse she had submitted to the court. She did a half-hearted job collecting “evidence,” assuming she would be tried in the court of TMZ, not the real court of LAW.
This woman clearly did not expect real lawyers—great ones at that—to scrutinize what she had to show.
I’m struggling to understand why she would do all this. She could have walked out of this marriage with a better career, a more well-known name, and increased fame by association, which could have propelled her into a much better career. She could have had the world at her feet. I think she genuinely did not expect he would take her to court, and, as I already mentioned, expected this trial to only take place in the court of TMZ, and the rest of the media.
The only genuine sentence that came of out Amber Heard’s mouth this whole trial, was when Camille Vasquez, Johnny’s lawyer asked her: “You didn’t think he would tell the world he’s a victim of domestic violence, did you?”
And Amber responded: “I found it hard to believe that he could or that he would do that considering the relationship he and I had, I though it would be crazy for him to do so, knowing what I know we lived through.”
Her part of the trial was just painful to watch.
Rings:
CAMILLE: “So Mr. Depp hit you in the face multiple times while he was wearing rings on this occasion, correct?”
AMBER: “Which occasion in March are you referencing?
CAMILLE: ”The testimony that you gave, on day 15 of this trial, March of 2013, you weren’t specific as of the day.”
AMBER: “There were several incidents.”
CAMILLE: “The one where he hit you several times in the face.”
AMBER: “Uhm, there were….there were….sorry…so I just understand better…there were several incidents in March, which one are you asking me about?”
CAMILLE: “The time where he hit you several times in the face wearing rings.”
AMBER: “Well, he pretty much always…”
CAMILLE: “The March of 2013.”
AMBER: “Right, what’re you asking me, I’m sorry?”
CAMILLE: “He was wearing rings on that occasion?”
AMBER: “I pretty much always knew him to wear rings.”
Summary: So you said he hit you in the face many times while wearing rings, and on this occasion, which occasion, on the 15th day of the trial you said he hit you, there were many times, which is the one you talked about in your testimony, uhm sorry, just so I understand better, which one you are asking me about, that time you said he hit you several times, right, what are you asking me sorry?
Lip:
Note — This is my favorite one. There are absolutely no words to explain what this is and that someone is actually capable of using this rhetoric while being considered to have a sound mind.
CAMILLE: “You testified to another incident, march 2013 where Mr. Depp hit you while wearing a lots of rings. You remember that testimony?”
AMBER: “Yes ma’am.”
CAMILLE: “You testified you felt like your lip went through your teeth and it got a little blood on the wall.”
AMBER: “Yes, I remember that.”
CAMILLE: “There isn’t a picture of you with injuries after that alleged incident, is there?”
AMBER: “I don’t know if I’ve seen one, uhmm, I have… I can’t recall, there are lots of pictures.”
CAMILLE:”You didn’t produce any photographs after that alleged incident, did you Miss Heard?”
AMBER: “I don’t know if I took one or if its included, I’m not quite sure which ones.”
CAMILLE: “You didn’t show any pictures to this jury after describing that alleged incident that your teeth, your lip went into your teeth, you don’t remember that?
AMBER: “I don’t believe I’ve seen that picture admitted.”
CAMILLE: ”That picture doesn’t exist.”
AMBER: “I don’t know which one you are talking about, there were, we have pictured from March 2013, yes.”
CAMILLE: “The only picture that you’ve produced and shown to this jury is the one that was just put up on the screen where you said he hit you multiple times in the face, and you appeared to have what is a bruise on your arm, correct?”
AMBER: “I believe this is the only picture that’s in evidence right now.”
CAMILLE: ”Your nose doesn’t appear to be injured in any of these pictures, does it Miss Heard?”
AMBER: ”That’s why I’m wearing make-up.”
CAMILLE: “And make up covers up swelling, right?”
AMBER: ”Make up will not cover swelling, ice will though.”
CAMILLE: ”Ice will cover up swelling?”
AMBER: “Ice reduces swelling, normally the swelling after that kind of injury is not as bad as you might imagine and for me it wasn’t that bad. I have a picture of it underneath the make up, thats how I know how to reference it.”
CAMILLE: “A picture that you haven’t produced or showed to this jury.”
AMBER: “I did. I absolutely, I produced everything.”
CAMILLE: “But you haven’t shown it to this jury.”
AMBER: “I would very much like to. It’s not my job.”
Summary: Can someone with a sound mind really hear this testimony and have doubts about Amber Heard not being punched in the face? A woman who documented everything, and has a picture of a bruise on her arm on the same day her teeth went through her lip but she did not take a picture of teeth through the lips, just the bruise?
Doctor:
CAMILLE: “This medical record doesn’t document any physical injuries on you, does it?”
AMBER: “Uhm, I have to read it in full, but I, I don’t know.”
CAMILLE: “Well, lets do that. Under skin — it reads intact.”
AMBER: “I think this medical record is missing a lots of things.”
CAMILLE: “Yeah, it doesn’t document any physical injuries.”
AMBER: “Doesn’t seem to be documented anything.”
CAMILLE: “Probably because there is nothing to document, right Miss Heard?”
AMBER: “I disagree with you on that.”
Summary: There is a medical record from that day that doesn’t document any physical injuries on you. I disagree with you on that.
I think I’ll go to my bank tomorrow and claim I have a million dollars on my account and when the teller tells me I’m so sorry you don’t have a million on your account, I will tell her — I don’t agree with you on that, and just walk out with the money.
Pledge:
CAMILLE: “Sitting here today you still haven’t donated the 7 million divorce settlement to charity. Isn’t that right?”
AMBER: “Incorrect. I pledged the entirety of the settlement of 7 million to charity and I intend to fulfill those obligations.”
CAMILLE: “Thats not my question.”
AMBER: “What was your question?”
CAMILLE: “Try to answer my question. Sitting here today you have not donated the 7 million dollars, donated, not pledged, donated the 7 mill divorce settlement to charity.”
AMBER: “I use pledge and donation synonymously with one another. They are the same thing. Thats how donations are paid.”
CAMILLE: “Thats not my question.”
AMBER: “I have not yet, Johnny sued me. I have not been able to fulfill those obligations, yes.”
CAMILLE: “You had all of the 7 million for 13 months before mr Depp sued you and you chose not to pay it to the charities you pledged it too. Is that correct?”
AMBER: “I disagree with your characterization of that.”
Summary: You said you’ll pay this money yet you did not still pay this money, and you disagree with the characterization of that?
On Friday, I’ll hit the Hermes store and give them 100 bucks for a bag, and when they say that’s not enough money for a Hermes bag, I’ll tell them: “I don’t agree with your characterization of that”, and walk out with the bag.
Cabinets:
CAMILLE: “You heard former TMZ employee Morgan Tremaine say the TMZ owns the copyright to the cabinet video, correct?”
AMBER: “That’s news to me.”
CAMILLE: “The cabinet video you filmed of your then husband, yes?”
AMBER: “The copyright ownership of that is news to me, I learned that yesterday.”
CAMILLE: “It’s a cabinet video YOU captured, of your then husband.”
AMBER: “That’s correct, I did capture that video.”
CAMILLE: “The same cabinet video that was released the night before you were deposed in your divorce.”
AMBER: “The video did not come from me.”
CAMILLE: “You edited out the portions that made you look bad before sending it to TMZ.”
AMBER: “You are very wrong about that. If I wanted to leak information I could have done it in a more effective way, a lot sooner, and a lot more, I was living with a mountain of this evidence, if I wanted to leak it I could have done a lot more with it.
CAMILLE: “I thought you testified earlier in this courtroom you did not know how to leak things?”
AMBER: “I dont.”
CAMILLE: “Right.”
AMBER: “You are very wrong.”
Summary: How does a video tapped by YOU get anywhere unless YOU give it to someone? “You are very wrong.”
Wine on the floor:
CAMILLE: “Ms Heard I’d like to show you defendants exhibit 512, which is already in evidence. You’ve seen this photograph before, right?”
AMBER: “I have.”
CAMILLE: “On the second day of your direct testimony, you testified that this was taken in the downstairs of the main apartment on Dec 15th, 2015, do you recall that testimony?”
AMBER: “Yes, I believe so.”
CAMILLE: “So its your testimony that the defendants exhibit 512 reflects damage to Penthouse 5 that occurred on during the December 15th, 2015 indecent, yes?”
AMBER: “I’m not quite sure from what incident this is when I see this photo in a vacuum without context.”
CAMILLE: “Let’s give you that context. Can we please have day 16 trial testimony? Could you please first turn to page 4585? And do you see that you testified that the defendants exhibit 512, which is on the screen is a picture of the downstairs of the main apartment?”
AMBER: “That’s correct.”
CAMILLE: “And the main apartment is the Penthouse 5 in the Eastern Columbia building, right?”
AMBER: “No the, well, depends what the….the main apartment is Penthouse 3.”
CAMILLE: “All right, so its your testimony that the exhibit 512 reflects damage to the Penthouse 5 that occurred during the Dec 15th, 2015 incident?”
AMBER: “I’m just not sure from which incident this picture is a picture of since I’m only looking at a partial floor.”
CAMILLE: “Even though YOUR council was asking YOU questions abut Dec 15th, 2015 and admitted this picture into evidence in relation to that incident?”
AMBER: “Sorry, go ahead what was that?”
CAMILLE: “This exhibit, defendants exhibit, YOU ARE THE DEFENDANT, number 512, was admitted into evidence in this court, you testified that this was the result of the damage that occurred on Dec 15th, 2015, yes or no?
AMBER: “I just need to orient myself. Because I’m just looking at the picture of a partial floor.”
CAMILLE: “No, you did not just look at the picture, you looked at your testimony.”
AMBER: “I…you, you pointed me to a page and then asked me a question, I haven’t actually reviewed it. I don’t know if that was submitted in relation to that incident.
CAMILLE: “Let’s pull out defendants exhibit 725, which is already In evidence.
On the third day of your direct testimony you testified that this photograph reflected spilled vine on Penthouse 5 on May 21st 2016, didn’t you?”
AMBER: “Again, I don’t know, because I’m just looking at a partial picture of a floor, so unless you remove the metadata you’ve covered up then we can tell.”
CAMILLE: “Lets look at your direct testimony from a third day, turn to page 4750.”
AMBER: “Sorry can you repeat that?”
CAMILLE: “4750.”
AMBER: (turning and turning pages for a whole century)
CAMILLE: “Do you see your testimony is reflecting May 21st, 2016? You see that you testified that the exhibit 715 which is on the right side reflects spilled wine on the in Penthouse 5, and 512 and 725 seem to be a different versions or the same picture, don’t they?”
AMBER: “That’s correct.”
CAMILLE: “So which is it? Which one was taken on Dec 15th, 2015 or May 21st 2016?”
AMBER: “If you remove redacted metadata you can find out, its right there.”
CAMILLE : “Or if you’re telling the truth, you would know.”
AMBER: “Recognize the spilled vine on the floor and I’m supposed to know on the top of my head, I don’t think so, that’s not how that works.”
Summary: I submitted the same image claiming it’s two different incidents and when asked to clarify which image belongs to which date/incident I really can not remember just looking at a partial floor pic I mean how would I know what’s what only looking at the floor of a pic I TOOK to submit to the court? I don’t think so, that’s not how it works!
The brazenness.
The cockiness with which you’re speaking to a lawyer who just proved to the world how full of shit you are, the way you’re trying to avoid questions about the evidence you yourself submitted to the court, and blatantly and aggressively repeating that you’re not supposed to know these incidents off the top of your head—I keep trying to find the adequate words to explain the phenomenon of what Amber Heard is, and I can’t quite find the right ones. But Elliot Lee said it perfectly: “Perhaps nothing is as striking as the brazenness with which Heard lies. It is truly astonishing."
To abuse language and logic so flagrantly while still believing one will get away with it requires something pretty special: it requires that assumption to have been proven accurate many, many times. And it’s not hard to imagine that, in Amber Heard’s life, it has been. She played on her femininity and perceived fragility to manipulate her public image, garner sympathy, and ultimately ruin him. That is toxic femininity at its most pure and destructive form.
I posted a few stories on my Instagram about being puzzled with Amber’s attitude and statements after the verdict and I got a message from one woman telling me my views on Amber “aren’t very feminist”.
I disagree with you, unnamed follower.
Methinks the most feminist thing in the world is being able to treat people equally, without taking sides based on your own sex, feelings, or opinions about someone. Taking a woman's side simply because you are one, regardless of the facts staring you in the face, is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of feminism.
Getting to the bottom of the truth should be a common goal.
What Amber Heard showed in this trial and in her life is that women are not morally superior simply because they are women.
Amber found someone who fell for her and then antagonized him for reasons unknown—perhaps out of jealousy for his status, career, or publicity. Instead of recognizing the toxicity of the relationship and leaving, she repeatedly pulled him back into it. There are numerous accounts and evidence of him trying to distance himself from the situation—whether by moving from the room, house, or her proximity—yet she continually sought to pull him back in, insulting, belittling, and putting him down.
Why constantly tell someone he’s old and washed up? Couldn’t you just leave him if you felt that way?
The sad part is that, in a smaller form than Amber, I see it weekly around me—so many people in this world refuse to confront their own issues and instead choose to abuse and belittle others as a way to avoid themselves.
Fun fact: Amber Heard will likely be dating someone cool and famous again before long.
It’s disheartening how many men choose problematic women, only to complain about their behavior, while continually bypassing stable, grounded women. Instead, they repeatedly opt for relationships that create chaos in their lives.
You can recognize these men by their reactions when Johnny won in court. While it's fine to show support, some men posted victory pictures of Johnny with the same enthusiasm they reserve for their sports team winning medals.
These men have just revealed something about themselves. Allow me to translate: I don’t view women as individuals to protect and nurture; I see them as bitches trying to ruin my life while I deliberately and exclusively pick the ones that do.
It’s a vicious cycle with these men. Avoid them, and thank me in 5-6 years.
A girlfriend told me a few days ago, “Her pussy must be fucking unbelievably good” for all this trouble and all these men.
I have no smart ending here, I just wanted to end with pussy unbelievably good, since I feel Amber literally owes me, not pussy but maybe something since I just wrote 5,662 words on her fuckery.

