Joss Whedon Allegations: The Undoing of the "Buffy" Creator

[Deset Gled]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but it bothers me a little that the Ray Fisher case was (seemingly) the one that really blew it up for Whedon. The stuff with Trachtenburg and Carpenter was definitely covered up for years, and even the conflict with Gadot was (IMO) minimized a lot until Fisher came out and pushed his story so hard. It bothers me because when I read Fisher's side of his story, he really comes off as a whiny, egotistical actor. He didn't deserve the consequences he got from Whedon, but I can see a lot of other directors freaking out at Fisher for his behavior. IMNSHO, he might have been on track to be the next Katherine Heigl. I also can't help but think about the fact that he had no acting credits (this was his first movie), and that Whedon wasn't even director for the entire project.

So my mind keeps coming back to the question: Why did the industry listen to this one no-name prima donna who only worked with Whedon for half a movie, when people were willing to ignore his systematic, years long abuse of other respected actors? The painfully obvious answer is that they cared more because he was a man. Maybe because he was also a minority? In any case, it doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe Fisher deserves more credit than I'm giving him. Please, don't take this to mean I think Fisher was lying or Whedon's actions with him were excusable. And feel free to set me straight about how it happened. Maybe his refusal to step down was stronger, maybe it's because of modern social media, maybe it was just the right time. But something doesn't feel good about the fact that the whistleblower against Whedon's reign of misogyny was a male jerk who worked with him for a few months, rather that the otherwise (AFAIK) very nice people who were abused by him for years.

It's a good thing that people listened to Fisher. But looking at the way it went down makes me think we're still going after the squeaky wheels rather than the root causes. And that doesn't feel like a good coda to the Me Too movement.

 

[S'mon]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but it bothers me a little that the Ray Fisher case was (seemingly) the one that really blew it up for Whedon. The stuff with Trachtenburg and Carpenter was definitely covered up for years, and even the conflict with Gadot was (IMO) minimized a lot until Fisher came out and pushed his story so hard. It bothers me because when I read Fisher's side of his story, he really comes off as a whiny, egotistical actor. He didn't deserve the consequences he got from Whedon, but I can see a lot of other directors freaking out at Fisher for his behavior. IMNSHO, he might have been on track to be the next Katherine Heigl. I also can't help but think about the fact that he had no acting credits (this was his first movie), and that Whedon wasn't even director for the entire project.

So my mind keeps coming back to the question: Why did the industry listen to this one no-name prima donna who only worked with Whedon for half a movie, when people were willing to ignore his systematic, years long abuse of other respected actors? The painfully obvious answer is that they cared more because he was a man. Maybe because he was also a minority? In any case, it doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe Fisher deserves more credit than I'm giving him. Please, don't take this to mean I think Fisher was lying or Whedon's actions with him were excusable. And feel free to set me straight about how it happened. Maybe his refusal to step down was stronger, maybe it's because of modern social media, maybe it was just the right time. But something doesn't feel good about the fact that the whistleblower against Whedon's reign of misogyny was a male jerk who worked with him for a few months, rather that the otherwise (AFAIK) very nice people who were abused by him for years.

It's a good thing that people listened to Fisher. But looking at the way it went down makes me think we're still going after the squeaky wheels rather than the root causes. And that doesn't feel like a good coda to the Me Too movement.

Well, from an outside perspective it seems to me that American culture takes racism a lot more seriously than misogyny*, and usually takes an allegation of racism a lot more seriously than an allegation of misogyny. In terms of Hollywood specifically, abuse of women seems to have been routine, and I'm guessing is not extinct despite #MeToo. Abuse of young male actors has not been unknown either, of course. Either way, Hollywood has a sex problem - it normalises abuse.

*I nearly wrote 'sexism', but Whedon's issues with women seem to go well beyond sexist attitudes, into actually wanting to hurt women.

 

[Mad_Jack]

The one thing I took away from the article is that I think Whedon has absolutely no real understanding of himself at all.
He's convinced he does, but he really doesn't.

 

[S'mon]

I was wondering, in judging immorality do you guys differentiate people's opinions from their actions, or are they equivalent? It seems to me Whedon espouses the 'right opinions' and does bad things. Is that worse than JK Rowling espousing 'bad opinions'? Or do you think expressed views do more harm (since lots of people see them) whereas bad actors only harm their direct victims?

(if this query isn't allowed please delete of course)

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, from an outside perspective it seems to me that American culture takes racism a lot more seriously than misogyny*, and usually takes an allegation of racism a lot more seriously than an allegation of misogyny. In terms of Hollywood specifically, abuse of women seems to have been routine, and I'm guessing is not extinct despite #MeToo. Abuse of young male actors has not been unknown either, of course. Either way, Hollywood has a sex problem - it normalises abuse.

*I nearly wrote 'sexism', but Whedon's issues with women seem to go well beyond sexist attitudes, into actually wanting to hurt women.

That part about the writer being shamed in a meeting, in front of her colleagues, with a mock slideshow? complete with sound effects and funny voices? That really got to me. That was someone using their position of power to humiliate and torture someone for their own amusement.

 

[payn]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but it bothers me a little that the Ray Fisher case was (seemingly) the one that really blew it up for Whedon. The stuff with Trachtenburg and Carpenter was definitely covered up for years, and even the conflict with Gadot was (IMO) minimized a lot until Fisher came out and pushed his story so hard. It bothers me because when I read Fisher's side of his story, he really comes off as a whiny, egotistical actor. He didn't deserve the consequences he got from Whedon, but I can see a lot of other directors freaking out at Fisher for his behavior. IMNSHO, he might have been on track to be the next Katherine Heigl. I also can't help but think about the fact that he had no acting credits (this was his first movie), and that Whedon wasn't even director for the entire project.

So my mind keeps coming back to the question: Why did the industry listen to this one no-name prima donna who only worked with Whedon for half a movie, when people were willing to ignore his systematic, years long abuse of other respected actors? The painfully obvious answer is that they cared more because he was a man. Maybe because he was also a minority? In any case, it doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe Fisher deserves more credit than I'm giving him. Please, don't take this to mean I think Fisher was lying or Whedon's actions with him were excusable. And feel free to set me straight about how it happened. Maybe his refusal to step down was stronger, maybe it's because of modern social media, maybe it was just the right time. But something doesn't feel good about the fact that the whistleblower against Whedon's reign of misogyny was a male jerk who worked with him for a few months, rather that the otherwise (AFAIK) very nice people who were abused by him for years.

It's a good thing that people listened to Fisher. But looking at the way it went down makes me think we're still going after the squeaky wheels rather than the root causes. And that doesn't feel like a good coda to the Me Too movement.

I can think of a couple of things. First, sadly folks in power never paid for things like this back in Buffy days. Second, sometimes they did if they out lived their usefulness. Piss off too many people, not have any powerful friends, and its time up for you. However it added up, they were done putting up with JW.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just goes to show the danger in deifying anyone (Whedon, JK Rowling, MJ, Gygax, etc).

(Slight tangent, but others have posted similar things.)

This is probably my least favorite part of any fandom/nerd-community.

I love D&D. I love a ton of fantasy and sci-fi books, shows/movies, and video games. I love consuming sci-fi and fantasy media. I love listening to music, too. There are some celebrities that I think are genuinely funny and seem nice.

I just don't get why some people feel the need to idolize them and put them on a pedestal. They're human. They make mistakes just like the rest of us. A lot of them make worse mistakes than we do. There are some creators that were absolutely garbage people, but created good things.

The "creator worship" that a lot of nerd communities and fandoms participate in is . . . baffling to me, to say the least. It's legitimately harmful to treat creators this way, even the "good ones". The ones that are legimitately decent/good people don't deserve that kind of worship, and it cannot be good for their mental health to feel that they need to live up to their fans' unrealistic expectations/viewpoint of them. It's extremely harmful when this happens with awful creators, especially those that are still alive. Celebrity worship of dead people isn't good, but doing it to alive people that are garbage people is one of the worst common practices in the modern world, IMO.

Whether it be Joss Whedon, JK Rowling, Michael Jackson, Gary Gygax, David Bowie on the bad side of things, or others that seem to be good people . . . they should not be idolized. It's bad for everyone.

Side Note: I was raised in a church where I was taught to basically worship certain alive individuals as if they weren't human people, but instead as if they were better than all of the rest of us, and to do exactly as they told us 100% of the time, even if they were wrong. Most of my family and I have since left this church (cult), but my family and I are still dealing with the fallout of this type of indoctrination, and it's extremely harmful in many ways.

No one should idolize anyone. We're all humans, none of us are gods, and it's extremely harmful to treat people as if they are "above humans". (I actually think that a major part of maturity is learning to treat others as people and not as perfect. We see our parents as perfect growing up, and a large part of the teenage years is learning that this isn't true. Those that can't learn this are a major part of what makes certain adults immature.)

 

[CleverNickName]

I was wondering, in judging immorality do you guys differentiate people's opinions from their actions, or are they equivalent? It seems to me Whedon espouses the 'right opinions' and does bad things. Is that worse than JK Rowling espousing 'bad opinions'? Or do you think expressed views do more harm (since lots of people see them) whereas bad actors only harm their direct victims?

(if this query isn't allowed please delete of course)

It gets sticky when you try to define a person's ideals by their words and not their actions. I'm not a philosopher, but I feel that a person's opinions are defined by their actions. I don't think a person espouses an ideal just by talking about it.

It's easy for me to go around saying that "pineapple on pizza is bad." Lots of people will agree with me, applaud my efforts, voice their support for me in my crusade against pineapple. But it's gonna be really embarrassing for me when the pizzeria owner comes forward and tells everyone that I always order my pizza with pineapple, and have done it for years. And then all the pizza delivery drivers come forward and say "oh yeah, he orders pineapple all the time, it's kind of an open secret." And all those people who looked up to me as a champion of anti-pineapple ideals are going to (rightly) feel hurt, angry, and betrayed.

Tangent:
At that point, is it really everyone else's fault for putting me on an anti-pineapple pedestal, knowing full well that I am just a fallible human like any other? Or am I just a liar that got caught?

 

[trappedslider]

As an aside, I'd like to point that in the past, Hollywood had "fixers" who would deal with issues like sexism and other "unpleasantness" Joseph Edgar Allen John "Eddie" Mannix for example, but now the only thing holding back any actual stories/allegations isn't much.

 

[Deset Gled]

I was wondering, in judging immorality do you guys differentiate people's opinions from their actions, or are they equivalent? It seems to me Whedon espouses the 'right opinions' and does bad things. Is that worse than JK Rowling espousing 'bad opinions'? Or do you think expressed views do more harm (since lots of people see them) whereas bad actors only harm their direct victims?

(if this query isn't allowed please delete of course)

To me, "differentiate" is probably the right word here. Yes, actions are different that thoughts. I analyze them them separately. They are not equivalent. But I also wouldn't say that one is more or less important than the other. I think Whedon is probably worse that Rowling at the end of the day, but that's a matter of severity and amount, not actions vs. thoughts. Such comparisons of who is "worse" are rarely useful, IMNSHO (though they can be entertaining).

If it matters, I'm also the type of person who has little problem separating the artist from the art. I still like reading Lovecraft. I can still enjoy watching BtVS.