Johnny Depp, Male Victimization and IPV: An Ideological Quagmire
Since the conclusion of the Depp vs. Heard defamation trial in Fairfax, Virginia, there has been on-going conversation surrounding abuse, intimate partner violence, and male victimization. Many vehemently believe that Depp was a victim of Heard, whereas many others believe Heard was a victim of Depp. The polarization, though plagued with frequent vitriol and impassioned opinions, has also reignited the discussion surrounding not only female perpetrators of IPV, but their male victims. A somewhat “forbidden narrative”, research pertaining to male victimization at the hands of female intimate partners is extremely limited. However, we are starting to understand the ways in which men identify with their victimhood and why.
Intimate Partner Violence
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide epidemic that causes negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of victims, families, and communities (Hamberger, Larsen, & Lehrner, 2017; Bonomi et al., 2006; Coker et al., 2000; Cooper & Smith, 2011; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006; Sheridan & Nash, 2007; Whitaker et al., 2007) To date, there is a substantial amount of literature and empirical research that focuses on women’s experiences of IPV victimization, however what is less frequently explored, studied and analyzed are men’s experiences of IPV victimization. This is despite the repeated finding that men and women self-report perpetrating physical violence at similar rates (Mennicke & Kulkarni, 2016; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). As far back as 2007, over 100 studies found that men and women were equally likely to perpetrate violence (Robertson & Murachver, 2007; e.g., Archer, 2000; Magdol et al., 1997; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005; Straus, 2004).
These findings have prompted a surge in empirical research concerning the role of gender in IPV perpetration, the conceptualization of power and control as it relates to violence, and the ways in which men and women recognize and articulate their victimhood at the hands of an intimate partner (Hamberger, Larsen, & Lehrner, 2017).
“Men are less likely than women to claim the status of ‘victim,’ even though they are more likely to define their experiences as ‘violent’ (Durfee, 2011; Owen, 1995). When they do acknowledge their victimization, they attempt to balance the roles of ‘victim’ and ‘man’ to conform to the characteristics and ideals of hegemonic masculinity” (Durfee, 2011).”
Hegemonic Masculinity and Feminist Theory
In gender theory, hegemonic masculinity is “the [set of] qualities defined as manly that establish and legitimate a hierarchal and complementary relationship to femininity that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Durfee, 2011; Schippers 2007). Some characteristics of hegemonic masculinity include, but are not limited to, dominance over women, power, physical strength, aggression and control (Durfee, 2011). Feminist IPV conceptualizations view the perpetration of physical violence as a means of power and control within intimate relationships (Mennicke & Kulkarni, 2016; Dobash and Dobash, 1979).
Men are widely believed to be the primary perpetrators of IPV. This presumption was shaped and supported by feminist activists, who posed that IPV arises out of a patriarchal social system in which men feel entitled to gain and maintain control of women (Robertson & Murachver, 2007; Dobash and Dobash, 1979). Indeed, these feminist conceptualizations birthed the Duluth Model, which focuses on intervention and community responses (Bohall, Bautista, & Musson, 2016). The Duluth Model is a model for intervention, specifically “for men who batter women with no consideration for women who batter men or same-sex couples” (Bohall, Bautista, & Musson, 2016). It has received increasing amounts of criticism because it all but negates all other fields of the behavioral sciences and has not incorporated any research updates outside of feminist theory that have emerged in understanding IPV, such as theoretical explanations for family violence (Bohall, Bautista, & Musson, 2016).
Gender theory’s hegemonic masculine qualities and feminist theory have a synergistic relationship, where a man’s inherent drive to exert control over women and their physical strength and aggression create increased risk for the use of physical violence as a means for control over their female partners. However, given the inherently biased foundation of feminist theory as it pertains to IPV, negating women who perpetrate violence against men, and that it has “difficulty accounting for and explaining same-sex, same-gender, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) violence” (Coston, 2021), it would seem that more research is needed to understand IPV from varying sociocultural and gendered perspectives. If feminist theory was able to account for all instances of IPV, how do we reconcile male victimization and female perpetration?
“The finding that women can and do perpetrate IPV has stimulated further debate surrounding the comparability of male and female violence” (Robertson & Murachver, 2007)
Male Victimization and Female Perpetration
The differences in how men and women experience IPV cannot be understated. Gender stereotypes, such as hegemonic masculinity, create gender barriers for male victims of IPV (Brooks, Martin, Broda, & Poudrier, 2017). Men fear disclosing violence against them due to anticipated ridicule and feeling emasculated (Brooks et al., 2017). Similar to female victims, male victims experience depression, PTSD, and suicidal ideation as a result of IPV (Randle & Graham, 2011). Power and control are considered a centerpiece for IPV. Male victims often attempt to preserve their own power and control, whether that be in the form of denial of their own status as a victim or not expressing fear related to IPV victimization, even minimizing their injuries or belittling their abuser and her acts of violence (Brooks et al., 2017; Corbally, 2015; Durfee, 2011).
Male victims will often describe the violence they experienced, but focus on how they were still in control of the relationship (Durfee, 2011). By separating their identifies as “man” and “victim,” male victims are able to describe the assaults they endured, but never vocalize their identity as a victim of IPV. In fact, they seemingly carefully craft their narratives to ensure that they note active resistance to the abuse, but are careful to note that they were not the abuser (Durfee, 2011). When their female partners initiate assaults, many men attempt to temporarily leave their home, try to hide, try to calm themselves, and drink alcohol (Machado, Santos, Graham-Kevan, & Matos, 2017). Male victims also describe trying to resist self-defense, however if necessary, they will restrain their female assailant until the assault discontinues (Durfee, 2011).
“After an argument, I was attempting to leave our house to “cool down” when she attempted to restrain me from leaving by repeated blows and holding me from the door. I backed her into a wall. After checking to make sure she was not seriously hurt I left the premises. . . .” (Durfee, 2011)
In an effort to balance out the stereotypes related to hegemonic masculine traits of physical strength, dominance, and aggression, male victims position “themselves as having power and control in the relationship while simultaneously experiencing violence at the hands of their partners…[only] using physical force to repel their partners’ attacks” (Durfee, 2011). The need for control and a lack of fear, as well as being able to repel attacks, places men in precarious positions where they run the risk of not being believed by friends, family, and law enforcement because conventional images of victims “include powerlessness and helplessness, while stereotypical abusers have control over their victims” (Durfee, 2011).
Male Victimization and Johnny Depp
Cases of IPV are immensely complex and Depp vs. Heard is no exception. We heard from both parties about incidences of verbal, psychological, emotional, and physical abuse that seemed to ebb and flow throughout their short, but tumultuous relationship. As an alleged victim, Heard claims Depp’s abuse was due to his drug and alcohol use. Whereas, as an alleged victim, Depp claims Heard at times had uncontrollable rage, yet could be exceptionally caring. Both claimed the abuse, whomever the perpetrator, was seemingly cyclical, but escalated as their relationship continued.
“If things get physical, we have to separate. We have to be apart from one another, whether it’s for fuckin’ an hour or ten hours or fuckin’ a day, we must. There can be no physical violence” — Johnny Depp
What struck me was Depp’s consistent pleading for peace and attempts to separate when arguments seemingly escalated between he and Heard. On multiple audio recordings, we hear Depp emphasizing the need to separate, cool off, and regroup once they’ve calmed down to avoid unhealthy and volatile confrontation. Heard even accuses him, multiple times, of leaving the second things become escalated, running to one of his other houses. We hear Depp explaining how he would lock himself in rooms to avoid Heard’s alleged assaults. We also hear Heard taunting him, emasculating him for running away, for “splitting,” telling him sarcastically “that that’s what a real man does.”
“It’s not to get you mad, it’s not — it’s just to get out of a bad situation while it’s happening before it gets worse. In Australia, when we had the big fight where I lost the tip of my finger, at least five bathrooms and two bedrooms I went to — to — to — to escape the fight” — Johnny Depp
Depp testified to “bear hugging” Heard to discontinue an alleged assault and, accidentally, head-butting her. When she exclaimed he had hurt her, he testified to showing compassion and asking to examine her injury. Prior to the most violent incident in Australia in 2015, Depp testified to a barrage of demeaning insults by Heard, which drove him to break his sobriety and drink alcohol. At one point we even hear Heard calling Depp a “fucking baby,” for “bitching” about her allegedly punching him in the face. She also minimizes her admitted violence.
“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 fucking deck you. I fucking 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” — Amber Heard
“You are such a baby! Grow the fuck up, Johnny!” — Amber Heard
Conclusion
Having an understanding of IPV and the ways in which men and women experience victimization differently, and similarly, is critical when analyzing a case like Depp vs. Heard. Though there is acknowledgement of gender symmetry in the perpetration of IPV, more empirical research is needed to fully understand the role of gender in IPV perpetration, the conceptualization of power and control as it relates to violence, and the ways in which men and women recognize and articulate their victimhood at the hands of an intimate partner (Hamberger, Larsen, & Lehrner, 2017). For me, Depp vs. Heard has forced me to acknowledge my biases and ignorance pertaining to IPV and gender bias. Perhaps, despite the polarization, this will encourage us all to challenge our worldviews and examine such cases with new perspective.
*This article is not a comprehensive or empirical study of IPV, gender symmetry, male and female victimization, male and female perpetration, gender bias, hegemonic masculinity, coercive control, feminist theories, or family violence theories. I am not a professional psychologist, psychiatrist, scientist or researcher.
References
Bohall, G., Bautista, M.-J., & Musson, S. (2016). Intimate partner violence and the Duluth Model: An Examination of the model and recommendations for future research and Practice. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 1029–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9888-x
Brooks, C., Martin, S., Broda, L., & Poudrier, J. (2017). “how many silences are there?” men’s experience of victimization in intimate partner relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5390–5413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719905
Coston, B. M. (2017). Power and inequality: Intimate partner violence against bisexual and non-monosexual women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517726415
Durfee, A. (2011). “I’m not a victim, she’s an abuser.” Gender & Society, 25(3), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211404889
Hamberger, L. K., Larsen, S. E., & Lehrner, A. (2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003
Machado, A., Santos, A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Matos, M. (2016). Exploring help seeking experiences of male victims of female perpetrators of IPV. Journal of Family Violence, 32(5), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9853-8
Mennicke, A., & Kulkarni, S. (2016). Understanding gender symmetry within an expanded partner violence typology. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 1013–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9867-2
Randle, A. A., & Graham, C. A. (2011). A review of the evidence on the effects of intimate partner violence on men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021944
Robertson, K., & Murachver, T. (2007). It takes Two to tangle: Gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331247
