While the trial was about Heard, this writer decides for herself that all women are under attack by someone suing for defamation. Essentially, she is saying tha

While the trial was about Heard, this writer decides for herself that all women are under attack by someone suing for defamation. Essentially, she is saying that society must believe whatever a woman says but should not believe whatever a man says. If these people claim that gender equality is one of their goals, then how does a woman such as Heard (and others) immediately get the benefit of the doubt and a magical immunity cloak while any male is automatically guilty? Many who sought a moment of fame and fortune via the MeToo vehicle have been all too happy to ruin careers by mere accusations against men with the "evidence" being someone saying so. The same persons will tell you that women should be able to use the fullest extent of the legal system to seek recourse. However, after a trial that included all types of evidence, we are told it was misogyny and not the evidence or an entire jury. If there is to be real gender equality that so many seek, both men and women have to be able to seek redress when they are defamed in public.