Meta on Culpability or Accountability
Jan. 17th, 2022 08:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI've read through the NY Magazine aka Vulture Whedon article now, and ..I find I don't come to the same conclusions as the author does.
At Whedon’s house, his wife, Horton, would occasionally come into the living room bearing tea and dark chocolates. When I asked where they’d met, she said, “Right here.” A mutual friend introduced them in the winter of 2019, after learning Whedon had bought several of Horton’s paintings, including a self-portrait. She was greeted by an image of herself when she walked into his home.
By then, Whedon had begun seeking treatment for sex and love addiction, along with other addictive tendencies. James Franco, Kevin Spacey, and Harvey Weinstein have all taken similar paths. Was he using a page out of some crisis-management playbook? Whedon says he’s genuinely committed to the work. “I decided to take control of my life — or try,” he told me. “The first thing I did with Heather was tell her my patterns, which was not my M.O. I couldn’t shut up because I finally found somebody I found more important than me.”
Life was good and also bad. Having overcome the isolation and ridicule of his childhood, he found himself in the role of social outcast once more. He still had an agent, but it seemed like no one wanted to work with him. At Fisher’s urging, Warner had conducted a series of investigations into the Justice League production. The studio won’t disclose its findings, but in late 2020, it announced “remedial action” had been taken. A few weeks earlier, HBO had revealed Whedon would no longer serve as showrunner of The Nevers, his science-fiction series about women with supernatural powers. The network scrubbed his name from the show’s marketing materials.
Over the last year, some of his fans have tried to scrub him out too, erasing him from their narratives about what made Buffy great. In posts and essays, they have downplayed his role in the show’s development, pointing out that many people, including many women, were critically important to its success. It may be hard to accept that Whedon could have understood the pain of a character like Buffy, a woman who endures infidelity, attempted rape, and endless violence. But the belief that her story was something other than a projection of his psyche is ultimately just another fantasy. Whedon did understand pain — his own. Some of that pain, as he once put it to me, “spilled over” into the people around him. And some of it was channeled into his art.
Whedon once wrote a line that could have served as a warning to all of us. In Firefly, one of the crew members, Jayne, accidentally tosses the spoils of a botched robbery into the hands of the town’s poor. Jayne is not a good man, but when he returns to the town years later, he sees its residents have erected a statue in his honor. When he confides to the crew’s captain that he’s unsettled by this development, the captain just stares into the distance. “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of ’em was one kinda sombitch or another,” he says. “Ain’t about you, Jayne. It’s about what they need.”
“Nobody ever fell from a pedestal into anything but a pit,” Whedon told me on a call one day. A few months had passed since our conversations at his house. In that time, he’d finally made peace with himself, he said. “Could I have done marriage better?” he asked. “Don’t get me started. Could I have been a better showrunner? Absolutely. Should I have been nicer?” He considered the question. Perhaps he could have been calmer, more direct. But would that not have compromised the work? Maybe the problem was he’d been too nice, he said. He’d wanted people to love him, which meant when he was direct, people thought he was harsh. In any case, he’d decided he was done worrying about all that. People had been using “every weaponizable word of the modern era to make it seem like I was an abusive monster,” he said. “I think I’m one of the nicer showrunners that’s ever been.”
Perhaps because I've met people like Whedon in my life time, too many to count, across industries. Narcissists are very charming, and more than one thing. But I don't see Whedon as a victim here - but as someone who is well-off and invested in playing the victim.
He reminds me a great deal of Steve Carroll's character in The Morning Show. Is he mentally ill? Yes, most likely. And as Claudia Black previously stated - I do hope he gets help for it. But the mental illness doesn't excuse his behavior, it doesn't remove culpability or accountability.
Also, I watched Snyder and Whedon's Justice League's back to back, and well, you know there's a problem when the least offensive version and most entertaining was Snyder's. I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Snyder (actually I'm rather ambivalent and I don't tend to seek out his work for the most part, it's very stylistic, with not much emphasis on script, he has a painting background and is into video games), but Snyder's Justice League was not only the better film it was the least offensive.
There's changes Whedon made that underscore an offensive frat boy sexist humor, that I kind of handwaved in the Buffy and Angel series, but was blatantly obvious here.
I also read the Wonder Woman script, and the original Buffy script. So...there you go.
The writer of the article spends more time critiquing Whedon's fandom or the fans of his work - as if they are somehow complicit in his downfall or worse in enabling his actions. I don't agree with that assessment. They were and are fans of the art, they don't know him. They fell in love with their perceptions of his work and the performance he provided. My friend embers_log certainly did not endorse any of these actions, she didn't know about them. She loved the performance or what she perceived.
**
Why does this intrigue me, right now?
I'm discussing this because it fits with a theme of works that I gravitated to this weekend for reasons I'm not quite certain I understand. Except that I've always been fascinated by why we do what we do, the dark underbelly of humanity or those dark impulses.
From Frankenstein to Dexter. In each, the individuals involved are putting on delicate performances. They are brilliant men, some may say genius. And yet, they are also incredibly good liars. I told a friend once, that humans are good liars, particularly at lying to ourselves.
Victor Von Frankenstein is a genius, who sits alone in his study and creates a man of cadavers and gives him life - when asked by his creation, why he did it. He said, because he wanted to see if he could. He lies to himself and his family about his intentions. It's his wife who points it out to him - if he wanted to create "life" he'd have given her a child, but no, he wanted to show how brilliant he was, how great he was, he wanted to be GOD.
Yet, when he sees his creation - he's petrified, appalled, and rejects it immediately. He doesn't destroy it though or kill it, after giving it life. Nor does he name it. Instead he abandons it, with no concern of what harm it may inflict on the world around him. And when it comes back to him, raging for a companion and acceptance, he betrays it. This results in more harm and more pain, and the death of his wife, who he claims to love - yet it is clear by the end of the play that Frankenstein only loves himself and his pride. And hates the creation that mars both.
Then we have Dexter Morgan, who also gets off in his brilliant and clever stratagems. A killer of serial killers, he becomes the most prolific serial killer of all time in his limited universe. Cocky, he lies to himself constantly about why he is doing it - that he's saving people, that this a way to contain his dark urges, that he is living by a code, and look how clever he is - not getting caught, and how dumb the police truly are. Until they outsmart him - and he has to kill them too, and his lies become exposed. In this series, along comes his son, a teenager, abandoned by his father - who much like Frankenstein's creation rails at his father for abandoning him because he feels his father feared him, the creation. Dexter unlike Frankenstein - stops lying, and tells both his son and himself that it was never his son he feared but his own dark tendencies tainting his son. And Audrey, the son's girlfriend states at one point, "But we all have them, those dark thoughts, where we want to hurt those who hurt us or that we are raging at, it's normal." The divide between Audrey and Dexter is great though - because Dexter chooses to act on those impulses, and claims that he has no choice but to do so. That he has no moral compass, nothing holding him back, that they are an addiction, a compulsion.
Yet, Dexter is able to refrain from violence and killing for two years.
Then there's the Yellow Jackets, teen girls, who seemingly have no real power or agency, and yet in the wilderness the social hierarchy is skewed.
Outcasts have the power now, and what they do with it, is monstrous. Does being an outcast or free in the wild struggling to survive grant them that agency - to do what they will? Are they compelled? Have they gone insane or do they have a choice?
Whedon's interview makes me ask similar questions. Do we have free will? I was debating this with my mother tonight. How much agency do we have? I mean narcissists don't ask to become narcissists. No one asks to become a sociopath. No one asks for PTSD. Or ADHD. We all want love, companionship, shelter, food, pleasure, kindness, warmth, friendship, etc. So why do some get it and others don't?
I think about the Christian mythos, about the man who was brutally crucified for leading a Jewish Cult or as some feared a social revolution, and who in death caused more transformation and revolution than he ever did in life.
Jesus didn't choose the parents he had, or his path, or did he? It's hard to know from the tales spun and respun over the ages.
Back to Whedon, who claims that all this happened because of a poor childhood and mental health issues. But what about all the PTSD and mental health issues he inflicted on others. Do they get blame him for their misdeeds and infractions, or if they rise above it, can they claim that they are better equipped? How accountable are we for the choices we make?
And shouldn't we be held accountable for them?
I think so. There's no redemption or evolution without being held accountable. I think about Whedon's own stories...most of which I've seen, and they all ask the same questions about accountability.
Should Angel and Spike be held accountable for the deeds they did without a soul? Buffy doesn't think so, yet they, who remember them, do.
Spike/Angel: What about all the people I killed..
Buffy: That wasn't you.
Spike/Angel: It was me.
Whedon's own stories require accountability, taking responsibility for one's actions and atoning to redeem oneself. Saying I'm sorry, isn't always enough, but it's a start.
Dexter looks at his son - who tells him that the only way out is to turn himself in, to atone. But Dexter refuses - he'd get the death penalty, instead he forces his son to shoot him point blank in the chest. And when his son does it, Dexter feels true love for the first time and pride. His son shoots him with the rifle Dexter gave him for Christmas. (Sins of the Father: Dexter- New Blood). And Angela comes and as the boy lowers his rifle, raises his hands and holds them out for handcuffs, Chief of Police, Angela, lets him go, and takes responsibility for the shooting herself. Telling the boy to leave town and never come back, to just disappear. And we ask ourselves if she made the right choice.
I thought the same thing in Yellow Jackets, when the traumatized survivors, refuse to tell anyone what happened, never seek counseling, and don't take accountability for what they've done - as a result they are caught in their trauma, stuck with it, unable to let go.
Much like Victor Frankenstein at the end of Frankenstein is tethered to his creature, journeying ever northward to kill it, little doubt he'll kill himself as well...trapped in the trauma, yet at the same time - he's taken accountability for it. That's the difference. He is taking that dark part of himself, the monstrous portion away where it can no longer do no harm. Although it's far too late for those who have already been harmed by it.
Can we outrun our sins? Depends on the sins, I guess. Or our miserable choices? Are we owed a second chance? Depends on the victims, I suppose. Whether they are alive or willing to grant them. Although forgiveness is a weird thing. It doesn't work in half-measures. We have to forgive ourselves first and then those who trespass against us. And to forgive ourselves, we need to take accountability and not play the victim, that's the letting go part. I think. Then forgive the others - and the ones we need to forgive are the ones we want to the least. And I don't think we can tell anyone who that ought to be, and we can't force or order anyone to do it. It's such a personal thing.
Also how do you begin to forgive someone who refuses to take any accountability or responsibility for what they've done? It's hard. I've done it. It's easier when you know you'll never see them again and they are out of your life, and you've no clue what happened to them. Harder, almost impossible when you see them every day.
Also depends on the action, I suspect. Definitely on that. Murder is not something one can just forgive. Rape, neither. Violation of spirit, mind or body, almost impossible. Small infractions are forgiven every day, but not major ones.
Frankenstein's monster yearns for his master's acceptance and forgiveness, but how, after he's raped and murdered his master and creator's wife, not to mention the murder of his brother.
Dexter asks his son's forgiveness, yet doesn't at the same time, seemingly knowing it's not possible, and not quite aware he wants it.
Whedon, sigh, is too afraid to ask for forgiveness, yet alone admit he's hurt anyone, instead he justifies it, and lies to himself and any who will listen that he's done nothing wrong. Nothing major. And it's all false allegations and made up lies.
**
On Twitter, Michael E Knight's comment at fan event was posted, and I thought it telling in a way...
Last night on the JPS/MEK zoom, MEK said about these times we’re in:
“I don’t know anyone who’s thriving right now. In 10 yrs, we’re gonna look back at now & be like ‘that was really some shit’. You don’t know you’re living through something biblical until it’s over.”
I think this is true. Trauma can take many forms. And affects people differently. But, there's a caveat here, it does not excuse or justify hurting others to benefit one's self. The actor who I quoted, to my knowledge, has always been kind and never hurt a soul.
At Whedon’s house, his wife, Horton, would occasionally come into the living room bearing tea and dark chocolates. When I asked where they’d met, she said, “Right here.” A mutual friend introduced them in the winter of 2019, after learning Whedon had bought several of Horton’s paintings, including a self-portrait. She was greeted by an image of herself when she walked into his home.
By then, Whedon had begun seeking treatment for sex and love addiction, along with other addictive tendencies. James Franco, Kevin Spacey, and Harvey Weinstein have all taken similar paths. Was he using a page out of some crisis-management playbook? Whedon says he’s genuinely committed to the work. “I decided to take control of my life — or try,” he told me. “The first thing I did with Heather was tell her my patterns, which was not my M.O. I couldn’t shut up because I finally found somebody I found more important than me.”
Life was good and also bad. Having overcome the isolation and ridicule of his childhood, he found himself in the role of social outcast once more. He still had an agent, but it seemed like no one wanted to work with him. At Fisher’s urging, Warner had conducted a series of investigations into the Justice League production. The studio won’t disclose its findings, but in late 2020, it announced “remedial action” had been taken. A few weeks earlier, HBO had revealed Whedon would no longer serve as showrunner of The Nevers, his science-fiction series about women with supernatural powers. The network scrubbed his name from the show’s marketing materials.
Over the last year, some of his fans have tried to scrub him out too, erasing him from their narratives about what made Buffy great. In posts and essays, they have downplayed his role in the show’s development, pointing out that many people, including many women, were critically important to its success. It may be hard to accept that Whedon could have understood the pain of a character like Buffy, a woman who endures infidelity, attempted rape, and endless violence. But the belief that her story was something other than a projection of his psyche is ultimately just another fantasy. Whedon did understand pain — his own. Some of that pain, as he once put it to me, “spilled over” into the people around him. And some of it was channeled into his art.
Whedon once wrote a line that could have served as a warning to all of us. In Firefly, one of the crew members, Jayne, accidentally tosses the spoils of a botched robbery into the hands of the town’s poor. Jayne is not a good man, but when he returns to the town years later, he sees its residents have erected a statue in his honor. When he confides to the crew’s captain that he’s unsettled by this development, the captain just stares into the distance. “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of ’em was one kinda sombitch or another,” he says. “Ain’t about you, Jayne. It’s about what they need.”
“Nobody ever fell from a pedestal into anything but a pit,” Whedon told me on a call one day. A few months had passed since our conversations at his house. In that time, he’d finally made peace with himself, he said. “Could I have done marriage better?” he asked. “Don’t get me started. Could I have been a better showrunner? Absolutely. Should I have been nicer?” He considered the question. Perhaps he could have been calmer, more direct. But would that not have compromised the work? Maybe the problem was he’d been too nice, he said. He’d wanted people to love him, which meant when he was direct, people thought he was harsh. In any case, he’d decided he was done worrying about all that. People had been using “every weaponizable word of the modern era to make it seem like I was an abusive monster,” he said. “I think I’m one of the nicer showrunners that’s ever been.”
Perhaps because I've met people like Whedon in my life time, too many to count, across industries. Narcissists are very charming, and more than one thing. But I don't see Whedon as a victim here - but as someone who is well-off and invested in playing the victim.
He reminds me a great deal of Steve Carroll's character in The Morning Show. Is he mentally ill? Yes, most likely. And as Claudia Black previously stated - I do hope he gets help for it. But the mental illness doesn't excuse his behavior, it doesn't remove culpability or accountability.
Also, I watched Snyder and Whedon's Justice League's back to back, and well, you know there's a problem when the least offensive version and most entertaining was Snyder's. I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Snyder (actually I'm rather ambivalent and I don't tend to seek out his work for the most part, it's very stylistic, with not much emphasis on script, he has a painting background and is into video games), but Snyder's Justice League was not only the better film it was the least offensive.
There's changes Whedon made that underscore an offensive frat boy sexist humor, that I kind of handwaved in the Buffy and Angel series, but was blatantly obvious here.
I also read the Wonder Woman script, and the original Buffy script. So...there you go.
The writer of the article spends more time critiquing Whedon's fandom or the fans of his work - as if they are somehow complicit in his downfall or worse in enabling his actions. I don't agree with that assessment. They were and are fans of the art, they don't know him. They fell in love with their perceptions of his work and the performance he provided. My friend embers_log certainly did not endorse any of these actions, she didn't know about them. She loved the performance or what she perceived.
**
Why does this intrigue me, right now?
I'm discussing this because it fits with a theme of works that I gravitated to this weekend for reasons I'm not quite certain I understand. Except that I've always been fascinated by why we do what we do, the dark underbelly of humanity or those dark impulses.
From Frankenstein to Dexter. In each, the individuals involved are putting on delicate performances. They are brilliant men, some may say genius. And yet, they are also incredibly good liars. I told a friend once, that humans are good liars, particularly at lying to ourselves.
Victor Von Frankenstein is a genius, who sits alone in his study and creates a man of cadavers and gives him life - when asked by his creation, why he did it. He said, because he wanted to see if he could. He lies to himself and his family about his intentions. It's his wife who points it out to him - if he wanted to create "life" he'd have given her a child, but no, he wanted to show how brilliant he was, how great he was, he wanted to be GOD.
Yet, when he sees his creation - he's petrified, appalled, and rejects it immediately. He doesn't destroy it though or kill it, after giving it life. Nor does he name it. Instead he abandons it, with no concern of what harm it may inflict on the world around him. And when it comes back to him, raging for a companion and acceptance, he betrays it. This results in more harm and more pain, and the death of his wife, who he claims to love - yet it is clear by the end of the play that Frankenstein only loves himself and his pride. And hates the creation that mars both.
Then we have Dexter Morgan, who also gets off in his brilliant and clever stratagems. A killer of serial killers, he becomes the most prolific serial killer of all time in his limited universe. Cocky, he lies to himself constantly about why he is doing it - that he's saving people, that this a way to contain his dark urges, that he is living by a code, and look how clever he is - not getting caught, and how dumb the police truly are. Until they outsmart him - and he has to kill them too, and his lies become exposed. In this series, along comes his son, a teenager, abandoned by his father - who much like Frankenstein's creation rails at his father for abandoning him because he feels his father feared him, the creation. Dexter unlike Frankenstein - stops lying, and tells both his son and himself that it was never his son he feared but his own dark tendencies tainting his son. And Audrey, the son's girlfriend states at one point, "But we all have them, those dark thoughts, where we want to hurt those who hurt us or that we are raging at, it's normal." The divide between Audrey and Dexter is great though - because Dexter chooses to act on those impulses, and claims that he has no choice but to do so. That he has no moral compass, nothing holding him back, that they are an addiction, a compulsion.
Yet, Dexter is able to refrain from violence and killing for two years.
Then there's the Yellow Jackets, teen girls, who seemingly have no real power or agency, and yet in the wilderness the social hierarchy is skewed.
Outcasts have the power now, and what they do with it, is monstrous. Does being an outcast or free in the wild struggling to survive grant them that agency - to do what they will? Are they compelled? Have they gone insane or do they have a choice?
Whedon's interview makes me ask similar questions. Do we have free will? I was debating this with my mother tonight. How much agency do we have? I mean narcissists don't ask to become narcissists. No one asks to become a sociopath. No one asks for PTSD. Or ADHD. We all want love, companionship, shelter, food, pleasure, kindness, warmth, friendship, etc. So why do some get it and others don't?
I think about the Christian mythos, about the man who was brutally crucified for leading a Jewish Cult or as some feared a social revolution, and who in death caused more transformation and revolution than he ever did in life.
Jesus didn't choose the parents he had, or his path, or did he? It's hard to know from the tales spun and respun over the ages.
Back to Whedon, who claims that all this happened because of a poor childhood and mental health issues. But what about all the PTSD and mental health issues he inflicted on others. Do they get blame him for their misdeeds and infractions, or if they rise above it, can they claim that they are better equipped? How accountable are we for the choices we make?
And shouldn't we be held accountable for them?
I think so. There's no redemption or evolution without being held accountable. I think about Whedon's own stories...most of which I've seen, and they all ask the same questions about accountability.
Should Angel and Spike be held accountable for the deeds they did without a soul? Buffy doesn't think so, yet they, who remember them, do.
Spike/Angel: What about all the people I killed..
Buffy: That wasn't you.
Spike/Angel: It was me.
Whedon's own stories require accountability, taking responsibility for one's actions and atoning to redeem oneself. Saying I'm sorry, isn't always enough, but it's a start.
Dexter looks at his son - who tells him that the only way out is to turn himself in, to atone. But Dexter refuses - he'd get the death penalty, instead he forces his son to shoot him point blank in the chest. And when his son does it, Dexter feels true love for the first time and pride. His son shoots him with the rifle Dexter gave him for Christmas. (Sins of the Father: Dexter- New Blood). And Angela comes and as the boy lowers his rifle, raises his hands and holds them out for handcuffs, Chief of Police, Angela, lets him go, and takes responsibility for the shooting herself. Telling the boy to leave town and never come back, to just disappear. And we ask ourselves if she made the right choice.
I thought the same thing in Yellow Jackets, when the traumatized survivors, refuse to tell anyone what happened, never seek counseling, and don't take accountability for what they've done - as a result they are caught in their trauma, stuck with it, unable to let go.
Much like Victor Frankenstein at the end of Frankenstein is tethered to his creature, journeying ever northward to kill it, little doubt he'll kill himself as well...trapped in the trauma, yet at the same time - he's taken accountability for it. That's the difference. He is taking that dark part of himself, the monstrous portion away where it can no longer do no harm. Although it's far too late for those who have already been harmed by it.
Can we outrun our sins? Depends on the sins, I guess. Or our miserable choices? Are we owed a second chance? Depends on the victims, I suppose. Whether they are alive or willing to grant them. Although forgiveness is a weird thing. It doesn't work in half-measures. We have to forgive ourselves first and then those who trespass against us. And to forgive ourselves, we need to take accountability and not play the victim, that's the letting go part. I think. Then forgive the others - and the ones we need to forgive are the ones we want to the least. And I don't think we can tell anyone who that ought to be, and we can't force or order anyone to do it. It's such a personal thing.
Also how do you begin to forgive someone who refuses to take any accountability or responsibility for what they've done? It's hard. I've done it. It's easier when you know you'll never see them again and they are out of your life, and you've no clue what happened to them. Harder, almost impossible when you see them every day.
Also depends on the action, I suspect. Definitely on that. Murder is not something one can just forgive. Rape, neither. Violation of spirit, mind or body, almost impossible. Small infractions are forgiven every day, but not major ones.
Frankenstein's monster yearns for his master's acceptance and forgiveness, but how, after he's raped and murdered his master and creator's wife, not to mention the murder of his brother.
Dexter asks his son's forgiveness, yet doesn't at the same time, seemingly knowing it's not possible, and not quite aware he wants it.
Whedon, sigh, is too afraid to ask for forgiveness, yet alone admit he's hurt anyone, instead he justifies it, and lies to himself and any who will listen that he's done nothing wrong. Nothing major. And it's all false allegations and made up lies.
**
On Twitter, Michael E Knight's comment at fan event was posted, and I thought it telling in a way...
Last night on the JPS/MEK zoom, MEK said about these times we’re in:
“I don’t know anyone who’s thriving right now. In 10 yrs, we’re gonna look back at now & be like ‘that was really some shit’. You don’t know you’re living through something biblical until it’s over.”
I think this is true. Trauma can take many forms. And affects people differently. But, there's a caveat here, it does not excuse or justify hurting others to benefit one's self. The actor who I quoted, to my knowledge, has always been kind and never hurt a soul.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-18 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-18 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-18 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-18 11:44 pm (UTC)(Text, in case you don't want to click: Protip: Do not give an interview about how maybe you're not so terrible after all unless you have a basic level of self-awareness about how terrible you are.)
no subject
Date: 2022-01-19 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-19 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-19 01:02 am (UTC)Their interview is a weird power play, and as a friend on twitter pointed out - a masterclass on how to trap an interview subject. And I honestly think if he read the article - he wouldn't see any of it. He really doesn't think he did anything wrong.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-20 12:14 am (UTC)but now, I laugh at the way this interview turned out to confirm everything people were saying about Joss, in his own words now. Did he really think he was absolving himself by saying all this shit?
By design or not, this interview did a great job showing us its subject.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-20 02:18 pm (UTC)I'm not sure why the article was done. Whedon was apparently interviewed for it late last Spring in 2021. He had time to change things, if he wanted to. Maybe he did? If so, how can he be this unself-aware?
The things he says are far more damning than anything anyone else has said. If anything his words instead of absolving him - verify and confirm the allegations, many of which were understandably anonymous.
And the author frames it oddly - which makes it all the more unsettling, because she begins and ends it with the Whedon fandom, pretty much stating that "the cult of personality" cultivated by Whedon and the marketing/promotional arm of the studios that he worked with, in part enabled his behavior and added to the situation. Although, I'm not sure you can hold Whedon's fandom accountable for Whedon's private actions that said fandom was mostly oblivious to until recently.