By now, most of us have probably seen this:

http://ew.com/tv/2017/08/21/joss-whedon-whedonesque/

Have you? If so, what are your thoughts? Angry, feeling betrayed by a feminist icon (hopefully not ready to throw all your BTVS media out the window!)?

Just plain upset that an artist of high caliber is being dragged through the mud?

Upset that his fans are being dragged through the mud but sorrowful for those in his family that have had to deal with his non-stellar ways?

Don't care one way or the other about politics, personal drama or inter-relational matter, gender equity or anything - just want more Joss writing All the Things? (yes I know I'm taking a light tone with this, bear with me.)

Whatever your opinion or take, let's discuss. Let's dish.

  • Do we look at the media and not the man or do we look at the man's actions and reflect on what that really means for the media he's been a proponent of?
  • Besides all that, what's your opinion on his main media-contact output shutting down - should they even be running off into the sunset, taking a leaf from Angel's playbook?
  • Do you think Whedonesque should have stuck out the P.R. nightmare, stuck to their "no comment" guns and just hunkered it out?

WWBD?

(lets keep it civil, please)

Views: 139

Replies to This Discussion

Fair enough. You make good points as far as privacy goes. Im not privy to any more of their lives than what they've already shared publicly, but I will comment on it, as it does affect my meta-view of the fandom, and in large part has already affected the fandom base in many ways. I dont think somethign like this is possible to not have an effect on the media it reflects.

*shrug*

But my two cents are worth..well. About two cents. ;)

Thanks for yours. :)

Miss Kitty said:

I wasn't going on Whedonesque that often lately, because like DD said, recently, discussions weren't so much about Buffyverse related stuff, so I had less interest in the content of the website. But it felt weird to see it close. I understand why they did it if they were considering doing it way before the Whedon thing happened, but closing it the day it happened left a bad taste.

Regarding the Whedon/Kai thing, I kind of don't care? To me, the message becomes independant of the messenger, and I liked most of his work, that's what I took from it that matters.

As for the cheating, I think it doesn't concern anyone but Kai and Joss, and I don't like it when such personal matters are being publicaly commented, the way it is for Joss, but this is maybe a cultural thing. I don't know the guy personally, so I certainly won't judge him on something that I'm sure most of both men and women from the Hollywood world (and from the rest of the world, in fact) have done or have been temptated to do. He didn't murder or assaulted anyone. Is it wrong to lie to your significant other? Of course. But the only person that is legitimate to be angry is Kai, and that's what I took from her letter. She's angry.

As for the fact that Joss is not practicing the things he preaches, again, I don't know the man personally. As long as he's been respectful of the consent of the women he got to be with, I'd say that it was him being a jerk to his wife. Defending feminist ideals doesn't make you magically perfect and nobody should be idealized this way.

Yeah, I mostly agree with what you say, Miss Kitty. I suspect there may also be cultural differences at play in how we see things. My impression is that Europeans are more likely see stuff like cheating as a personal matter that's basically none of our business, and that only becomes an issue if it affects how well someone is doing his job. Of that last thing we have no evidence in Joss Whedon's case, but one of the reasons why many people are upset seems to be that they suspect there was an abuse of power at play in his extramarital affairs. So far we have no evidence of that though. What does leave a bad taste in my mouth is that in this letter his wife published, JW seems to put the blame of his infidelity on the "needy young women" that surrounded him. I understand it (I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing in his place) but it's such a contrast with the feminist message he's been so vocal about. Sure, let's blame the women!

Holdt - I understand where you're coming from :) I wasn't being critical of any of you, it was more a reaction to the way people reacted in general, from what I saw.

Double Dutchess - I agree about the cultural difference, I do believe Europeans care a lot less about this kind of stuff when it is about public personalities. Our previous french president cheated on his girlfriend during his presidency, but the only thing french people focused on was how he did it (he was visiting her on a scooter in the morning, with croissants). People have made fun of it, there were parodies, but never did he have to apologize for it, except to her of course, I guess (she wrote a book about his affair few months later, in which she was telling every detail about their story, it looked like a personal vengeance). But as for people, they just moved on. There is a strong distinction between what's personal and public.

Regarding the comment about the needy young women, I see what is disturbing about it, if he puts a blame on them, that's a disgusting move... I'll admit that when I first read it, I wasn't even sure about what he meant by that. I'm bothered by the lack of context about the way he said it, and knowing how easy misinterpretation can be, I don't want to have a definitive opinion about it. The whole letter comes from an angry person, and there is always two sides of perception when it comes to that kind of matters.

Good point that we are seeing his words out of context. If I was his ex-wife trying to hurt him back, I would also select only those passages that would put him in the worst possible light.

You make some very salient points. I appreciate you sharing your point of view. :)



Miss Kitty said:

Holdt - I understand where you're coming from :) I wasn't being critical of any of you, it was more a reaction to the way people reacted in general, from what I saw.

Double Dutchess - I agree about the cultural difference, I do believe Europeans care a lot less about this kind of stuff when it is about public personalities. Our previous french president cheated on his girlfriend during his presidency, but the only thing french people focused on was how he did it (he was visiting her on a scooter in the morning, with croissants). People have made fun of it, there were parodies, but never did he have to apologize for it, except to her of course, I guess (she wrote a book about his affair few months later, in which she was telling every detail about their story, it looked like a personal vengeance). But as for people, they just moved on. There is a strong distinction between what's personal and public.

Regarding the comment about the needy young women, I see what is disturbing about it, if he puts a blame on them, that's a disgusting move... I'll admit that when I first read it, I wasn't even sure about what he meant by that. I'm bothered by the lack of context about the way he said it, and knowing how easy misinterpretation can be, I don't want to have a definitive opinion about it. The whole letter comes from an angry person, and there is always two sides of perception when it comes to that kind of matters.

Also doubly true, DD.

Double Dutchess said:

Good point that we are seeing his words out of context. If I was his ex-wife trying to hurt him back, I would also select only those passages that would put him in the worst possible light.

Um, how does it "become different" when the genders are switched??? It's OK for a woman to try to rape a man??

You're actually defending the double standard regarding rape - in the name of feminism?

Of Course it is NOT OK for a woman to attempt a rape – same as for a man and I don’t think that I implied that it is – but I do stand by my personal opinion that from our USA more established cultural roles and norms – having a male as the represented attacker is viewed more generally with rape and attempted rape.  Right or Wrong, it is usually the “male” that most people think of when a rape or attempted rape is presented.  The first impression and I bet that more viewers would feel this way, is that the “woman source” would be seen more as “pathetic or emotionally sad trauma” than the more usual “male attacker” who is committing a brutal attack.  It’s wrong to see it this way, but I suspect this is how most people would first think of the event.

As for the morality and real world reflections of the young Slayers as a victim of powerful forces – totally agree.  But the series metaphor/symbolism was applied on the adolescence and High School is Hell premise.  Was it a shit premise as metaphor – for some it’s a big yes for others it was a powerful emotional connection as it was directly linked to their own real life experiences. 

Regarding sending our young to be killed or kill for the friggin Powers That Be – It SO FUCKING WRONG and even in all this moral wrongness how do we approach the complexity of WW2?  All the armies involved used their young men and women as warriors.  Thousands upon thousands went into these wars thinking it was “the right thing to do and their duty to fight.” And thousands upon thousands were caught up, against their inclinations.  Viet Nam was a great example of those young people who were dragged out to wars they did not want to fight in.  Here is the US, as I am sure you know, the protests against this war eventually had a great impact on the US Government and Military. 

Not that being killed is any better at any age but at least our young people, who had no voice were allowed to have their say with changes to our constitution – both the US and UK changed voting rights.

USA  Voting age lowered to 18.  On July 5,  1971, President Richard Nixon, under popular pressure, formally certified the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

UK Voting Age - 1969. The voting age for both men and women is lowered to 18. This takes effect from 1970.

As my husband states – War is the ultimate failure of humanity.



TimeTravellingBunny said:

Um, how does it "become different" when the genders are switched??? It's OK for a woman to try to rape a man?? 
You're actually defending the double standard regarding rape - in the name of feminism?

As for Buffy and Angel getting involved - if you're going to judge it by the real world standards of what is OK for a 17 year old girl to do... yes, it's wrong for a much older man to get involved with a teenage girl. But you know what else is very wrong? Underage kids having to risk their lives, to go war and fight. By real world standards, Buffy and every (or almost every) other Slayer is a child soldier. So, you should be having a problem with the very premise of the show.
If you aren't old enough to have sex with anyone you choose, you sure aren't old enough to be sent to war. If you aren't considered mature enough to consent to sex, you sure as hell aren't mature enough to make decisions that affect the fate of the entire world.

So, take your pick. You can't just be outraged selectively about things that happen to line up with your ship preference.

Oh, as for Whedon sleeping around and having affairs on sets... My feeling is not giving a damn. I never worshipped the guy as a person, I never gave any thought to whether or not he has had affairs, I'm sure he can be a dick (the Charisma Carpenter situation) and say gross things (I've seen some of his recent tweets). I'm also pretty sure that Hollywood isn't exactly full of flawless people, and that if you stopped watching anything created by people who cheat on their significant others and/or have affairs at work place, including with their employees, and/or say gross things occasionally, you'd probably be left with very little you could watch (especially as details come out about Hollywood affairs, sometimes years or decades later, as it's happened in some cases).

Regarding Whedonesque closing, I'd understand if Whedon had been convicted of murder or rape, or had just come out as a Nazi. (And even so - it's not like people have stopped watching the films of Roman Polanski or reading the novels of Knut Hamsun or Ezra Pound's poetry.) But because of this? Really? 

Miss Kitty:

Regarding the Whedon/Kai thing, I kind of don't care? To me, the message becomes independant of the messenger, and I liked most of his work, that's what I took from it that matters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still love his work - it might make it a bit more interesting from a "personal Joss" perspective but really none of the fans or former and current viewers really know all the circumstances of their relationship and lives.  And it's their personal business - my only negative response is that for Joss as a spokes person for the empowerment of women, this does take away some of his highlighted voice for the advancement of women in our societies. 

One of the big disappointments with the series is how the "are you ready to be strong" fell away, as I see it, once the TV Era Buffy ended.  

I still Love Buffy, Firefly, and the other works of Joss Whedon - and Spike is still my best loved character of all the Whedonverse. 

Agree - 

Holdt said:

Also doubly true, DD.

Double Dutchess said:

Good point that we are seeing his words out of context. If I was his ex-wife trying to hurt him back, I would also select only those passages that would put him in the worst possible light.

RSS

Buffytube -fan site for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Whedonverse. Vids, Photos, Fanart, Forums, Individual Members Page and Gallery.

Latest Activity

cil domney commented on spuffylover2's group James Marsters Fans
18 hours ago
cil domney left a comment for Ms Miz
yesterday
Nyxella is now a member of BuffyTube - Slayerise Yourself.
yesterday
cil domney's photo was featured
yesterday

Groups

© 2017   Created by Chris Davis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service