Hilary Duff and Amber Heard are not making it "easy" for cynics to see them as "victims"

The other day, there appeared a story about actress Hilary Duff posting on her Instagram account something about a “creepy” guy who was taking pictures of the kids playing football at a park. Along with a phone video grab of the “creep” was her estimation of the situation:" “Paparazzi shooting KIDS. Go 'practice' your photography on ADULTS! Creep! Laws need to change! This is stalking minors! Disgusting!" In the video, Duff is heard asking the man "Who are you here with? Do you know any people on the team? Can you stop taking pictures of the kids please?" The man tells her it is “legal” for him to take pictures, but she insists it makes her “uncomfortable.” He tells her she shouldn’t feel uncomfortable, and offers to show his ID. Duff says “I'm not asking for your ID. I'm asking you to stop taking pictures of our 7-year-old children if you don't know anyone that's here.” She goes on "I'm asking you human to human, as a mother, if you don't know anyone here, can you please stop taking pictures of our children playing football this morning." The man tells her he is “practicing photography” and she shouldn’t feel “uncomfortable.” Duff reiterates her desire to “protect” the children, and says she will post the video for 15 million people to see what a “creep” looks like.

Why would Duff have assumed that the man didn’t know anyone there? Maybe because he is black and everyone else is white? The man is wearing glasses and appears to be around 60. He doesn’t look like a “creep,” just a regular person with an expensive-looking camera. Now, I don’t know why he would choose to take pictures of white kids when he should know that there might be paranoid white women about, although that Duff seems to be the only one present to respond to him in that manner. There was a link to her Instagram account; I expected to see a few people questioning her paranoia, but those immediately responding seemed to share her view of the situation. I did not. I decided to throw in my immediate response: “Racist.” I figured an explanatory response was necessary, so I added the observation that the man didn’t look “perverted” to me, and it seemed to me that it was “perverted” minds that were informing this episode. I didn’t hang around waiting for the legion of apologists to rain down on me; my point was made. A check on the Internet a day after seems to suggest that other people are questioning Duff's mindset as well.

You would think that Duff would have learned a lesson when she was accused of racial insensitivity wearing a Native American outfit on a Halloween outing with her partner wearing a “Pilgrim” outfit.  If this black man was taking pictures of black children playing football, I suspect the parents of the kids would have not taken him for a "creep" or a “pervert.” Duff’s knee-jerk reactions seems racist, no matter how she tries to justify it with what Trump pardonee Dinesh D’Souza called “rational discrimination.” If the man was Hispanic, she probably would have made the same accusation; but if he was Asian, she probably would have thought that was just what they do. She can call the man what she wants to; other people can call her what they want to, too. 

The problem is that we have seen the racism behind such incidents so many times before. I recall an incident in 2004, when  a black man, Ian Spiers, was taking photographs for a photography course at the Ballard Locks in Seattle. Yeah, that “progressive” Seattle. Apparently a white female thought it was “suspicious” and called the police; a half-dozen black-clad officers arrived, one of them who identified himself as “DHS.” After some “discussion,” Spier was allowed to leave; it was observed that there were many tourists who were there taking photographs. The “problem,” it seemed, was that they were white and Asian; Spier was the only black person taking photographs, which of course was “suspicious.” There have been more recent cases, involving white women and “suspicious” black folk, like the Mississippi woman who threatened a black couple with a gun because they wanted to have a picnic in a campground, and the Arkansas woman who held four black teenagers at gunpoint after they knocked on her door while out for an annual fundraising drive for the school athletic department. 

Duff isn’t the only woman who thinks she can make sordid accusations without being annoyed by resistance. The UK’s Daily Mail somehow got a hold of audio from a "therapy" session between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Now we remember that Heard had written an op-ed that was printed in the Washington Post about being a domestic violence “survivor.” I don’t know if the paper now “regrets” its publication any more than TIME regrets putting California Assemblywoman Christina Garcia on it “silence breakers” cover after she was accused of sexual harassment and “groping” behavior by four men, but it should be a hit on its credibility and on any media that thinks that everyone who posts an accusation in the “MeToo” pages is actually telling the truth—or at least the “whole” truth. There is usually two sides to every story, even if only one is allowed to be heard. Those who heard the “other side” loud and clear on those tapes are now calling for the cosmetics company L'Oréal to dump Heard in her lucrative role as a spokesperson. In one of two such online campaigns, it is stated that "Amber Heard for years now has been claiming to be the victim of abuse from her husband Johnny Depp. In light of recently leaked recorded sessions between Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp, it has come to the attention of many that it was in fact the other way around."

Although both Depp and Heard are for the most part speaking in “reasonable” tones, it is clear that he is frustrated by her inability to take responsibility for her own abusive behavior, particularly since it is implied that she is the principle instigator, while she admonishes him for acting like a “baby” for wanting to just walk out when one of their rows occur. She insists that her hitting him or throwing objects at him has no “equivalency” in him knocking on her door, something she repeatedly accuses him of doing (do they sleep in separate bedrooms?). 

For example, Depp says “I left last night. Honestly, I swear to you because I just couldn't take the idea of more physicality, more physical abuse on each other. Because had we continued it, it would have gotten f**king bad. And baby, I told you this once. I'm scared to death we are a f**king crime scene right now.” How does Heard respond? “I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I f**king sometimes get so mad I lose it.” In his $50 million lawsuit for defamation of character following her Post op-ed, Depp claims that he is the victim and Heard is the perpetrator; it seems that here she is admitting as much. In his lawsuit, he claims that “She hit, punched and kicked me. She also repeatedly and frequently threw objects into my body and head, including heavy bottles, soda cans, burning candles, television remote controls and paint thinner cans, which severely injured me.” Heard claims that she was the abused party, although Depp claims that her selfies indicating bruising were “painted on.”

We can all be cynical about a man claiming domestic violence against him, but what can it be like living with a person like Heard who sees nothing wrong with inflicting abuse? The illogic of a female domestic abuser is evident in the following from the Daily Mail transcript:

Depp complains he's forced to leave when she becomes 'manic and angry', telling Heard: 'I'm not going be in a physical f**king altercation with you... you f**king hit me last night.' He goes on to add: 'I'm not the one who throws pots and whatever the f**k else at me.'

 

Heard responds: 'That's different. That's different. One does not negate the other. That's irrelevant, that's a complete non sequitur. Just because I've thrown pots and pans does not mean you cannot come and knock on my door.' When Depp cuts in to suggest he's also had vases hurled at him, she replies: 'Just because there are vases does not mean that you come and knock on the door.'

'Really, I should just let you throw?' Depp replies, tailing off as they carry on sniping.'The only time I ever threw anything at you was when you f**king threw the cans at me in Australia,' he admits.

Heard asks: 'Why are you trying to justify who throws things based on whether or not you come knocking on the door? I don't get why one informs the other.'

Depp says, raising his voice: 'Because that is a f**king irrational and violent f**king maneuver. So a man would want to get out of that area so that he doesn't get so f**king angry that he actually does pop the f**king wife.'

Throughout, Heard appears to believe that engaging in physical violence is “normal” for her, and should not be taken at all “seriously.” For example, Depp mentions a previous incident where he contacted the building manager to “intervene” before their fight “escalated”:

'I said to you, ''hey tell Travis what just happened'... And that you that you punched me in the f**king thing... In the face''. And you said, ''no I f**king didn't. What the f**k are you talking about?''' And I watched you lie,' he says.

Heard replies: 'I didn't punch you. I didn't punch you, by the way. . . I'm sorry that I didn't, uh, uh, hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched. '

Depp cuts in to protest: 'Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched.'

Heard sarcastically replies: 'I know, you've been in a lot of fights, been around a long time. I know, I know. Yeah.'

Getting audibly upset, Depp fires back: 'No! When you have a f**king closed fist.'

Heard responds: 'You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not f**king deck you. I f**king was hitting you... I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine, I did not hurt you, I did not punch you, I was hitting you.'

At another point, Heard tries to justify her violence even when Depp tries to leave the area: “I'm not going to get into the details of that fight. You and I both know that you split when there is no physical violence involved and that you do it... like at the very beginning of fights these days. And if you split and you go into a different room and you don't actually leave that house, it does nothing but perpetuate the fight and you don't actually do it respectfully.”

At another point, Depp tells her: “If the fight escalates to the point of where it's just insulting for both of us, uh, or if it gets to that physical f**king s**t, the violence, that's when we just said, look, let's go to our corners, man, you hang wherever you want, baby. I'm going in the office and I'm just gonna f**king sit there and try and de-jellify my f**king brain,” to which Heard replies unhelpfully “I can't promise that it will all be perfect. I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I f**king sometimes I get so mad I lose it.”

Here we are. This is very likely a typical scenario of a dysfunctional relationship where there are two sides to the story, where the female is as much or more guilty in the perpetration of domestic violence. Yet the media, domestic violence promoters and the MeToo movement would have us believe that this either does not occur, or doesn’t matter. Just ask Amber Heard—she seems to know that the score is in her favor.