Negative consequence of Metoo on corporate and personal brands! Need for correction?
Johnny Depp has prevailed over Amber Heard in a court, where the jury unanimously found Heard of having engaged in defamatory statements against Depp. Heard had accused Depp of physical, psychological and sexual abuse during their tumultuous relationship. While the rancorous #Metoo movement was in full fervor, Heard made unsubstantiated allegations. As the Metoo movement is founded on woke radical belief of ‘Believe every women’, without any concrete evidence, Depp was ostracized socially and from Hollywood as a result. Still today, the mainstream media is spinning the verdict as being consequential in chilling the Metoo movement, when the verdict comes from an independent judicial system. This hypocrisy of selective ‘justice’ and partisan gendered reification has instead had a chilling effect on brands. In this article we will talk about the negative impact Metoo movement has had on brands and individuals and conclude with a need to put a much needed correction.
Origin of Metoo
#Metoo was coined in 2006 by Tarana Burke, a women activist based in New York. The purpose was to empower women who had suffered sexual violence with an objective to build a community of survivors; to let them know that they are not alone and other women suffered the same trauma. The term gained traction in 2017, when the New York Times published an article accusing Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment. Many women who had been sexually assaulted by Weinstein came forward embracing this term thereby building a community of survivors, which consequently, and rightly so, led to the downfall of a powerful sexual predator.
Positive impact of the movement
Sexual predators often silence victims of sexual abuse sheerly because of the unequal power dynamics these abusers typically hold. Threatened by defamation lawsuits and isolation, most victims often chose to suffer their trauma in silence fearing personal and professional repercussions from powerful sexual predators from different fields like sports, entertainment and politics. Thus, the most positive impact that #Metoo had was in building a community of survivors and finally allowing survivors to get justice against otherwise untouchable figures. Moreover, the movement has destigmatized public discussions about sexual abuse, especially in conservative societies like Nepal.
Now that we talked about some of the positive impact #Metoo had in the fight against sexual abuse, let us talk about the negative consequences. Here, we will focus on brands and individuals from a brand perspective.
Intervention on brand’s business strategies
Let’s talk about Disney. Captain Jack Sparrow was a money minting machine for Disney. The last sequel to the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which was said to have underperformed, still managed to earn around $800 million. Once Amber Heard made heinous sexual abuse allegations, Disney dropped Depp without even taking a breather to analyze the veracity of such extreme allegations.
Do you really think that Disney dropped Depp because they took Amber Heard seriously? Disney is a business. They took the decision only because they were afraid of the ‘woke’ pushback against the entire brand, if they did not. There were rumors that Margot Robbie could probably play the titular role. This need to placate a loud and extreme minority has had significant impact on entertainment business.
Case in point- The latest sequel to Ghostbusters was a box office debacle because it tried to play into the woke liberal politics. The studio lost money because they were unable to recognize that extremities on both the left and right ideological spectrum constitute a vocal but small number.
Impact on a personal brand
While calling out a predator like Weinstein is the only reason he is behind bars today, we should not forget the court found him guilty. We do not live in a dictatorship or medieval times. A basic right of every human being is right to self preservation. Judiciary around the world assumes an accused innocent before being found guilty. #Metoo, however, has devolved into a medieval witch-hunt with a biblical command ‘Believe all women’. As if ability to lie and defame is the only prerogative of the male gender! Depp’s career suffered immensely while Heard became the ambassador for gender violence and continued to work in movie projects. How is this fair?
We are not playing judge or jury here. However, a court with 7 independent juries found Heard guilty of defaming Depp. The court did not find a single iota of truth in Amber Heard’s testimony. Evidence pointed to photo tampering; malicious collaboration with a tabloid and recordings where Heard admits to physical abuse. Well, none of that matters. Amber Heard is a woman. She says she was sexually abused. What does it matter if the evidence and her own testimony proves otherwise? We all got to believe here simply because she has a vagina between her legs instead of a penis. After the evidence and the verdict came out, the woke liberals have now focused their ire on the general public for siding with Johnny Depp. They had no issues when the public/brands ostracized Depp for years. Now after the verdict and evidence has proved otherwise, somehow the court of public opinion is a toxic misogynistic orgy!
As a result, you strip the livelihood of one of Hollywood’s highest paid stars. Force brands to un-endorse him, when the only ‘evidence’ is one woman’s unsubstantiated allegations. From earning millions every year, Depp became ostracized by brands and his industry. Is this fair? Isn’t it unfair that the woke liberals have held everyone hostage, forcing brands, media and individuals to surrender to their whims?
Summing up
BrandGuff would like to stress that it is not in favor of demonizing Miss Heard now. Court of public opinion is a travesty to rule of law and due process whichever side it is about. Now that the court has ruled, respecting the verdict of the judiciary, however, we would like to stress that Heard was the abuser in the relationship as a matter of fact rather than out of opinion. This is not to say that the judiciary is perfect. In countries like Nepal, where the judge alone is assigned the job of ‘fact finder’, the propensity for judicial corruption and malpractice is higher. We can see this from the infamous UK trial as well. It has come to light that the UK judge had blaring conflict of interest with the defendant ( Robert Murdoch owned media enterprise). However, fact finders in the US are the jury who are selected from average population randomly and are thoroughly vetted by the judge and lawyers on both sides before they assume their role.
The woke media has spun this story by saying that the jury themselves are tainted by misogynic conditioning and barrage of pro-Depp social media. Isn’t it funny that they refuse to acknowledge that mainstream media was also blaring pro-Heard narrative throughout the trial? To suggest that the judge suppressed proper evidence and that the jury was tainted and did not follow through their oath without any credible evidence is an affront to American Judicial system. From their frustrations, it seems they want to go back to the time where the crowd decided the fate of people like during the medieval period. It is convenient to suggest the jury as being corrupt when the verdict after a free and fair trial doesn’t go against their favor. Would they suggest then that the jury was tainted during the Weinstein trial as well, when the jury found him guilty?
This selective amnesia of the woke left is a serious threat to rule of law and due process. Women don’t speak Gospel truth all the time just like men don’t. ‘Believe every women’ is a cultist commandment just like white supremacists’ commandment that they are the one and only superior race. Domestic and sexual violence does not have a gender. To suggest that the verdict will have a chilling effect on victims of domestic violence is a hyperbole.
All men/women should come forward if they are victims and are entitled to their day in court. What BrandGuff hopes, however, is that this verdict will put a much needed correction on #Metoo, which has besides its positives also become a tool to slander and defame men. Also, holding an opinion is a major right in most democratic countries. However, cancelling a male just because a woman( rightly or wrongly) accuses him is a return to a medieval period or the Wild Wild West period of the American history.
This ‘wokeness’ has not just caused irreparable harm to male celebrities who are a personal brand, but also seriously affected a brand’s ability to make sound business decisions. Moreover, while the movement has led to female victims become more comfortable in coming forward, it had negative implications on them too. Research suggests that in the aftermath of radical #Metoo, attractive females are less likely to be hired for jobs. Moreover, it suggests that men are less likely to professionally engage with women fearing it might be taken as a sign of sexist behavior.
It is true that most victims of sexual abuse tend to be women. However, to say believe every women without empathizing with a male who comes forward with the same accusation in court with evidence is unjust and a total logical fallacy when it comes to being a proponent of gender equality. Gendered reification of sexual/ domestic violence re-enforces the gender dichotomy. For example, 1 in every 6 males in the U.S. are victims of sexual abuse. Moreover, researchers say the number could be an underestimation because owing to socio-cultural norms, men are less likely to come forward with such claims.
BrandGuff hopes brands and general population are careful in not cancelling celebrities clearly out of unsubstantiated allegations. BrandGuff also hopes that this case brings awareness to the fact that women can lie just as much as men do, and males can be victims too. Last but not the least, we seriously hope that this brings us back to the time where one is innocent until proven guilty! While choosing to believe either side is one’s personal prerogative, we seriously need to stop choosing sides and cancelling either side. Let the law run its course! Unless of course, you have no faith in the judiciary system! In that case, be willing to add that disclaimer and face contempt charges before you gaslight someone!
