Joss Whedon deletes twitter account following mass of feminist criticism

[BytByte]

As per usual, a lot of these conspiracies treat feminism/-ists like one big blob of evil. You are not opening up the curtain to the world showing that yes, some feminists are extremely radical, irrational and all around unpleasant. People exist like that in every group,

So a bit like the exact thing Joss did with gamergate?

Sure, I'd like to see where he did that of course, but just because he has similar viewpoints of things that I do, it doesn't mean that he or I or you is perfect. Generalizations are the reason everyone gets mad because they feel that the generalization is a personal attack.

You're doing it right now with the kinda "Gotcha" reply that didn't engage my quote at all, but instead snipped out the bit that you use to make your point seem right. You are trying to portray Joss in a more negative light to make him seem like a worse person. A worse person would usually lie, and you'd wrap around to the conspiracy of "Feminism did it". Instead of discussing how Joss has/hasn't been treated unfairly in this thread (my post), you just treated Joss unfairly.

 

[Tilly]

Here's the good old KKK comparison:
https://archive.is/6BdSH#selection-733.4-743.20

I already said, at the top of this page, that I agree it's fair to say we should take people at their word for the sake of avoiding false positives and getting into mindreading.
As for portraying him in a negative light, the above tweet is what did that. No extra assumptions needed. And again, I'm not saying "feminism did it". I'm saying that if there's enough evidence to support the claim that gamergate is a hate group, there's equal evidence that feminism is a hate group. You can't have it both ways.

I agree on the generalisation point although I also do think that leaderless groups have collective responsibility to deal with the worst among them otherwise you get a situation where extremists get to constant hide amongst moderates and benefit from their privileges (if any exist) and their protection.

 

[happyninja42]

I think the big stink was back Black Widow was sterilized and the movie beats everyone over the head why..

What? It was mentioned twice, in the vague dream sequence and in detail to Banner. And that was it.

The complaint I've heard about that part, is that she equates not being able to have a child with "being a monster". She even says that to Bruce. "Who's the monster now". Which I think (rightly) annoys people, since it seems to imply that if you can't have children you are inhuman/monstrous. Which is kind of insulting to all the women who are infertile for one reason or another.

Though I've heard others say that they felt that scene was HEAVILY edited, and that the context of the "who's the monster now" line might've been lost in editing. And I hope this is the case, because I remember being in the theater when she said that and thinking "what the hell? That makes no sense to equate those two things." I mean if she wants to think she's a monster, ok fine, but make it be for a reason that makes sense, like, you know, all the people she murdered as a trained assassin. Not simply because you can't squeeze a little bundle out of your own womb. I mean come on, she could adopt just fine, and still be a mommy that way. Nothing wrong with adoption.

That's what I don't get, she talked about her creation into what she was as a of trying to not let Banner feel so alone.
And remember she was forced to confront a deep trauma around the time being around Hawkeye's Family, it's a typical case of self hatred. Something most people should relate to.
I don't know maybe I put more stock in intent than the actual words used.

It was the order in which she said it that through everyone off I think, myself included. You mention self hatred, and that's where it doesn't make sense. In the way she said it, she made it sound like the more monstrous thing between the options of:

1. Murdered a whole bunch of people in cold blood because she was an assassin
and
2. Couldn't have babies.
she made it sound like number 2 was the more monstrous thing. Which is just fucking silly. It just felt disjointed and strange, and didn't make sense.

 

[asinann]

The out cry about black widow is absolutely unfounded.

On the other hand making a transphobic statement like he did is pretty much patently not cool, and not acceptable.

People need to stop being oversensitive: that wasn't a transphobic statement, it was someone who made a statement without even considering the trans community even exists. That's not phobia, it's either not caring or not thinking that people would call it phobia because reasonable people wouldn't.

Would trans-ignorant work? That popped into my head when I read this Post.

Honestly it's probably a better word for it, but ignorance of does not make it ok to attack people. You inform the ignorant, you don't attack them. People also need to stop pretending that every time someone says something insensitive it's meant as an attack on a group of people. In many cases it was a joke (and you aren't truly equal until you are free to be joked about) or someone said one thing and other (oversensitive) people took it to mean something completely different.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

I think the big stink was back Black Widow was sterilized and the movie beats everyone over the head why..

What? It was mentioned twice, in the vague dream sequence and in detail to Banner. And that was it.

The complaint I've heard about that part, is that she equates not being able to have a child with "being a monster". She even says that to Bruce. "Who's the monster now". Which I think (rightly) annoys people, since it seems to imply that if you can't have children you are inhuman/monstrous. Which is kind of insulting to all the women who are infertile for one reason or another.

Though I've heard others say that they felt that scene was HEAVILY edited, and that the context of the "who's the monster now" line might've been lost in editing. And I hope this is the case, because I remember being in the theater when she said that and thinking "what the hell? That makes no sense to equate those two things." I mean if she wants to think she's a monster, ok fine, but make it be for a reason that makes sense, like, you know, all the people she murdered as a trained assassin. Not simply because you can't squeeze a little bundle out of your own womb. I mean come on, she could adopt just fine, and still be a mommy that way. Nothing wrong with adoption.

That's what I don't get, she talked about her creation into what she was as a of trying to not let Banner feel so alone.
And remember she was forced to confront a deep trauma around the time being around Hawkeye's Family, it's a typical case of self hatred. Something most people should relate to.
I don't know maybe I put more stock in intent than the actual words used.

It was the order in which she said it that through everyone off I think, myself included. You mention self hatred, and that's where it doesn't make sense. In the way she said it, she made it sound like the more monstrous thing between the options of:

1. Murdered a whole bunch of people in cold blood because she was an assassin
and
2. Couldn't have babies.
she made it sound like number 2 was the more monstrous thing. Which is just fucking silly. It just felt disjointed and strange, and didn't make sense.

Aha!
Now we come to apex. What does her character value more, creating life or taking it?
You are right that it probably was a jarring ranking, but no one person is the same, I mean there are people who treat animals better than they treat people. In that sense, that was something she couldn't come to terms with more, more than killing people.

I'll admit, it's a stretch but no woman represents all women.
And I have to be honest I've known plenty of girls (women now, i guess) who used to do that, make a bigger problem not as bad as a smaller one. Or is that just me?

 

[BytByte]

Here's the good old KKK comparison:
https://archive.is/6BdSH#selection-733.4-743.20

I already said, at the top of this page, that I agree it's fair to say we should take people at their word for the sake of avoiding false positives and getting into mindreading.
As for portraying him in a negative light, the above tweet is what did that. No extra assumptions needed. And again, I'm not saying "feminism did it". I'm saying that if there's enough evidence to support the claim that gamergate is a hate group, there's equal evidence that feminism is a hate group. You can't have it both ways.

I agree on the generalisation point although I also do think that leaderless groups have collective responsibility to deal with the worst among them otherwise you get a situation where extremists get to constant hide amongst moderates and benefit from their privileges (if any exist) and their protection.

I ain't gonna get into defining hate groups as that seems like it would be an exercise in self-loathing. But I will say that feminism is in a different position than GamerGate, and if I were a layman with a passing interest, I would see GamerGate as more hateful than feminism.

So this is an interesting discussion on leadership and perception and stuff, but doesn't pertain to the thread, so PM if you wanna keep talking about it. What does pertain to the thread is how was your quoting me has anything to do with what I posted? What was you're reasoning behind that quote in relation to why Joss left Twitter?

 

[Tilly]

I ain't gonna get into defining hate groups as that seems like it would be an exercise in self-loathing. But I will say that feminism is in a different position than GamerGate, and if I were a layman with a passing interest, I would see GamerGate as more hateful than feminism.

So this is an interesting discussion on leadership and perception and stuff, but doesn't pertain to the thread, so PM if you wanna keep talking about it. What does pertain to the thread is how was your quoting me has anything to do with what I posted? What was you're reasoning behind that quote in relation to why Joss left Twitter?

The quote wasn't trying to say why Joss left twitter. The quote was trying to say why people were eager in the "gotcha" response to the whole situation and not wanting to take his words at face value because they seem like a bit of a double standard.
I agree to the layman it would seem gamergate is more hateful. The main reason being that so many in the gaming media all echoed that narrative to try and cover up their own mess. Whereas nearly all of liberal media beats the feminist drum. Those are differences in political power, not actual character. If all you had to work with was the last year of twitter data, I think you'd probably struggle to see which was the better movement.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Here's the good old KKK comparison:
https://archive.is/6BdSH#selection-733.4-743.20

I already said, at the top of this page, that I agree it's fair to say we should take people at their word for the sake of avoiding false positives and getting into mindreading.
As for portraying him in a negative light, the above tweet is what did that. No extra assumptions needed. And again, I'm not saying "feminism did it". I'm saying that if there's enough evidence to support the claim that gamergate is a hate group, there's equal evidence that feminism is a hate group. You can't have it both ways.

I agree on the generalisation point although I also do think that leaderless groups have collective responsibility to deal with the worst among them otherwise you get a situation where extremists get to constant hide amongst moderates and benefit from their privileges (if any exist) and their protection.

See, i don't think putting feminism, being an entire ideology and well grounded political movement, as the opposition to GG works in this regard. Now SJWs, being a loose group of very different people operating purely through the internet, that tend to blow problems outta proportions hits much closer.

 

[sumanoskae]

"If Whedon can't write strong female characters with interesting arcs, he won't be missed"... Wow.

As if that was the only fucking thing he could possibly do that would be worth a damn. Forget about all the quality work he's done, forget about the talent he's displayed, forget about all the care he has devoted to the MCU, hell, forget about ALL THE GOOD FEMALE CHARACTERS HE HAS WRITTEN BEFORE.

If suddenly everyone in Hollywood started writing "Strong female characters", what would change? Would executive greed stop ruining artistic projects? Would women stop being raped? Would global warming go away? "Strong female characters" are not the Holy Grail of cinema.

And I quite like Black Widow, as it happens. I think she's one of the more complex members of the team. And she is nothing if not capable. But, of course, she has flaws. As all good characters do. Because people have flaws.

These people don't want good characters, they want idols.

 

[Karadalis]

I think the big stink was back Black Widow was sterilized and the movie beats everyone over the head why..

What? It was mentioned twice, in the vague dream sequence and in detail to Banner. And that was it.

The complaint I've heard about that part, is that she equates not being able to have a child with "being a monster". She even says that to Bruce. "Who's the monster now". Which I think (rightly) annoys people, since it seems to imply that if you can't have children you are inhuman/monstrous. Which is kind of insulting to all the women who are infertile for one reason or another.

Sorry but i strongly disagree, seeing how black widow was raised, dehumanized, having to kill an innocent being and then her ability to give live taken away from her so she would be a perfect killing machine only capable of bringing death... and aparantly not having overcome this psychological traumam, makes it completly believable that she would think of herselfe as some kind of monster.

You will find that alot of people who suffer forms of PTSD (REAL PTSD) think of themselves as monsters or doubt themselves. I have a friend who was in the marines and had to kill enemy combatants in iraq and he has similiar issues, asking me stuff like if i think less of him cause he had to kill people.

That is the characters view of herselfe and is rather believable for her, seeing that she aparantly never talks about her past with anyone or sought out professional help and that banner was the first person she opened up because she sees similiarities between them, wich all in all makes sense in the context of her character. (unlike her anakin/padme like painfull to look at romance with bruce)

HOWEVER: That does NOT mean that the movie tries to hammer home that sterile women are monsters.. that is utter batshit insane to think.

Just like that joke about reestablishing first night from tony... it was completly within tony starks character to make such a joke amongst friends. But it doesnt make the entire movie sexist somehow.

These characters where believable and flawed, just like they SHOULD be... they are humans, they are suposed to have flaws. Not everyone can be silver age superman.

On a side note:

Im laughing my ass off about how eager these SJWs are to canibalize one of their own.. especially feminist frequency... nice to see that they didnt even waste a minute to backstab whedon after all he had done for femfreq.

 

[Banana Cannon]

I think everyone's really jumping the gun on this goddamn matter. Btw, the link in the 1st post has been taken down & leads to nowhere, I hope someone screencapped what it's supposed to link to.

What I think about this matter is that she spoke of her conditioning, which is in & of itself monstrous, culminating in becoming sterile. Its reinforced into her head that she has but one purpose of murder, & this was done in a highly matriarchal setting. Psychologically speaking, someone would be predisposed towards hating a father much faster than a mother, who we'd always want to give the benefit of the doubt. (Believe me on that, its certainly true subjectively speaking) And her name's Black Widow, so she more than lived up to that purpose outlined for her. THAT is the point of calling herself monstrous. Not that she had sterility enforced on her, but that she accepted it & used it as the fuel to become the kind of human who could stand toe-to-toe with those Enhanced, out of sheer, ruthless killing ability.

But this is SJWs we're talking about here, this current generation of swine. They can't recognise their own conditioning, so I doubt they understand the slighter nuances of its aspects as depicted in fiction.

 

[Fiairflair]

Obviously the way these people have expressed themselves on twitter reflects poorly on them and I do not condone their conduct. But what truly astounds me is how narrow an interpretation of Whedon's Romanoff is required to reach the conclusion that they obviously have.

Strong characters are nuanced. Strong characters have flaws. Strong characters can be unfair to themselves. In Romanoff's case, she has been assaulted in a very personal way at a young age by cruel people. While childbearing is not a part of what makes a person worthwhile, it may well be part of their identity and females that can or do have children are entirely justified in valuing that aspect of themselves. If nothing else, Romanoff has had choice stolen from her and it makes sense for her to experience feelings of powerlessness.

In Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron we see Romanoff has conquered that sense of powerlessness. Her sterilisation and indoctrination are difficult for her to talk about, but if they weren't her character would lack depth. Romanoff clearly still deals with self-hatred, but that self-hatred is much more to do with conflict between her past actions and her present ideals.

Once again Whedon has written a profoundly interesting, flawed and strong female character.

 

[Fiairflair]

Im laughing my ass off about how eager these SJWs are to canibalize one of their own.. especially feminist frequency... nice to see that they didnt even waste a minute to backstab whedon after all he had done for femfreq.

For what it's worth, Joss Whedon has said that he didn't leave because of the comments. He also said that Anita Sarkeesian was the second person to contact him to check that he was okay.

https://www.polygon.com/2015/5/6/8560901/joss-whedon-quits-twitter-feminists

 

[barbzilla]

snip

I'm confused, what aspect of her character is being criticized?

Does it even matter? Any movie or character can be run through the Problem-Matic? in order to manufacture something to be outraged by. And this was a guy who went out of his way to suck up to the "progressive" crowd, and got shit on by them anyways:

Spoiler

The out cry about black widow is absolutely unfounded.

On the other hand making a transphobic statement like he did is pretty much patently not cool, and not acceptable.

It wasn't transphobic though, he said female, as in (Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.). He wasn't talking about not having a trans character, he never ruled that out (though I doubt we will see it in the Avengers movies, it is in the marvel universe).

 

[Do4600]

'Political Correctness' has no meaning when there are so many variations of political views.

That's what I'm saying, pluralism has reached a critical mass. The political correctness of a statement could now be said to be inversely proportional to the size of it's audience.

 

[steve2392]

I hope it's not a dick move personal linking but i wrote an article about this exact thing. http://mouldywriting.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron-exploring.html

No film or any art should be immune to criticm but the point of contention here is that these weren't criticisms, these were straight out insults, attacks and threats, which is completely out of line.

I personally enjoyed Black Widow's character in AoU, i think it may be her best portrayal yet as a real human complex character. Which a movie about mind lasers, thunder gods and insane robots sorely needs as a relatable anchoring point.

 

[Schadrach]

No film or any art should be immune to criticm but the point of contention here is that these weren't criticisms, these were straight out insults, attacks and threats, which is completely out of line.

You don't get how it works, whether behavior is criticism or harassment depends on what political views it expresses. That's why this is "criticism" despite seeming an awful lot like insults, attacks, and threats while what Alison Tieman did in that panel at Calgary was "harassment", despite seeming an awful lot like politely requesting an opportunity to speak and not being asked to cede the floor at any point. One of them involves the glorious paragons of righteousness and the other was space lepers pretending to be people.

 

[Zhukov]

The good thing about being fully committed to the SJW lifestyle is that you can take an incident like this, ignore the blindingly obvious facts of the matter, and just dig in you heels by inventing a narrative that reflects much more favorably.

What about the harassing wave of comments and the fact that Whedon left Twitter just after they happened, you ask? Nah, the guy suddenly developed a social media addiction after many years of exposure, and he needed to step away. Much more logical.

As opposed to the people ignoring the statement of the actual person involved [http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-leaving-twitter#.soeLKqNX8] because it doesn't fit their narrative?

I'm reminded of that Critical Miss strip. "Your work isn't the battlefield, it's just ammunition." A lot of people clearly don't give a shit about Mr Whedon, they just see this as an opportunity to attack The Enemy On The Internet.