With reports of Lindsay Lohan’s fiancé Egor Tarabasov moving out of her home following leaked footage in which LiLo claims he ‘strangles (her) constantly’, comes the return of an age old rhetoric used whenever a woman cries foul play. This is one of distrust and skepticism, an unwillingness to take a woman at her word and a need to instantly defend a man. We see it every time a particularly nasty rape case makes the news, we saw it with Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, and now we’re seeing it again with Lindsay.
One of the ways a woman’s claims are discredited is through the idea of a ‘perfect victim’. The general public decide what is appropriate behaviour of a woman dealing with trauma and if she isn’t seen to be the whimpering pious victim they expect, she can’t be a victim at all. This was evident in a piece published on Sick Chirpse, the journalistic equivalent of a grunt. After declaring that ‘Lindsay Lohan’s life has more or less been one car crash after another, aside from ‘Parent Trap’ because that film was the best’ (*ahem* hello, Mean Girls?) reach the decision that ‘obviously a man should never touch a woman – that much is obvious’ but that it all sounds a little ‘high school’ and should LiLo really be posting ‘all the social media bullshit? If you’re really going through a shit time with your partner, you don’t have the time or energy to scribble their face out on Microsoft Paint and then make some dumb post about it’.
Sick Chirpse being the authority on post traumatic behaviour now.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just neanderthal press that use a woman’s behaviour as evidence of a lie. Recently it was learnt that the judge in charge of the Stanford rapist case had allowed compromising photos of a young woman in a previous case, as evidence that she can’t have been that psychologically damaged if she was able to be so promiscuous following the event. This was in spite of behavioural specialists stating it’s actually very common for women to become over sexualised following sexual trauma.
Amber Heard was immediately relegated to ‘gold digger’ status after is was revealed she had left the house and been seen *actually* smiling with a friend, in the days following a Judge granting her a restraining order after it was revealed Depp threw a phone at her face. Despite there being photographic evidence of damage and a judge giving weight to claims by allowing legal action, still Amber has been met with criticism, assuming she’s made the whole thing up to score a bigger settlement and to trash Depp’s good name.
Who is this woman, so consumed by revenge and the suffering of men? She has all the makings of a Greek mythological character, luring men to their death and their costly law suits. Harpies in high heels. I do not believe this to be the true character of a single woman. However, as long as the myth is believed, women will not be.
I understand the need for men to cling to this mythical creature, as long as she exists the potential for them to be the bad guy does not. If they were to end up on the wrong side of the tale, it would never be by their own doing. They were tricked, led to this behaviour by her intoxicating ways, and cannot be held accountable. A literal get out of jail free card.
In conclusion, innocent until proven guilty only ever seems to work one way.