Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and casual sexism in courts

Johnny Depp-Amber Heard. Delhi HC's marital rape verdict. Rhea Chakraborty. And a whole lot of sexism.

On Wednesday, May 11, India was divided, as were the judgments of justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar, who as judges of the Delhi High Court, were tasked with deciding whether a husband 'compelling' his wife to have sex with him should be a crime or not. 'Biwi ho, karna hi padega, aisi kya baat hai' - was what half the men thought. The other half were like, 'nahi yaar'. The women in all this remained speechless, not by choice, but by compulsion, hoping that the men, once again, would make the right decision that would chalk their whole existence for them. Do we need to mention there were no women judges on the bench? No, right?

So, Supreme Court, the ball's now in your court, metaphorically and literally. But are we surprised? Isn't the courtroom where casual sexism goes to order a drink off the bar and chug? Heartily discussing and dissing women for what they have done, and sometimes not done. Like when resisting a man's sexual advances, was it an 'emphatic no' or a meek one, as The Anatomy Of A Scandal (on Netflix) recently taught yours truly. Sure, rapes are trickier, murkier, and have graver and far-reaching implications. How about looking at a simple defamation suit that's rocked the pirate's ship? The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial.

READ: Elon Musk. Johnny Depp-Amber Heard. How are they connected?

We know where it started - the Washington Post story. We know what happened next - Johnny Boy hurt his little toe - we mean his ego, BTW, and lost his role in the hit franchise, The Pirates Of The Caribbean. We know what's happened since - a $50 million lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard for ruining his reputation, defaming him, and whatnot. We don't see what's happening under et al - a celebration of sexism - one fist pump at a time. It, however, did not begin this way. When Amber's story broke, brands and franchises distanced themselves from Depp. He lost endorsements and movie deals like someone had pulled the carpet from under his feet. That's been Hollywood's stance on matters like these in the past, especially when it is particularly tough to separate the art from the artist. Many a House Of Cards has come crashing down as a result of this approach, but that's another story. This too began the same way, until they found a crack - that Amber isn't a very liked figure.

Now, the thing is, you may like or dislike Amber Heard, and more so, after watching Aquaman, but that doesn't mean Johnny Depp isn't capable of violence. And, it seems like the collective social media conscience of the public has failed to grasp that this is a defamation case - where, even if Depp wins, it would only prove that Heard's Washington Post piece caused a dent in his bank balance, not that he isn't or can't be a wife beater. So, why are we so invested in this trial, where cringy details are unearthed every day, some of which could cause more dent in Depp's already 'coke'-y image?

READ: Amber Heard breaks down, says Johnny Depp slapped her multiple times

So, could the real story be that there's one woman the powers that be have found who's dodgy? Who might now be burnt alive on pikes like a 16th-century witch hunt to make an example of? It took women centuries to reach a movement like #MeToo, and men, a pandemic-worth of time to pin all their collective angst - of defeat and humiliation - onto one woman? Armed with social media and news media, controlled by the men in power again, spinning narratives to project that Amber is no angel.