I would agree with you, if the article didn’t take such a ‘name and shame’ approach. It overlooked any critique of Marti Noxon, who was an exec producer after season 3 and in a position of higher authority than any of the male actors listed. That isn’t to say this can all be squarely laid at her feet – but it suggests that certain aspects of the power dynamic on this set have been overlooked in favour of just berating the men. If Noxon didn’t feel comfortable stopping the atmosphere on set, then none of her subordinates would’ve done either.

Since this article was written James Marsters has come out in support of Charisma Carpenter and his female co-stars. Alyson Hannibal who is arguably a bigger charaxter and who would’ve been better paid hasn’t done so. So now what? Do we have to retract the implication that Marster’s is a pederast? Do we start looking at Hannigan’s sexual pursuit of a much lower paid co-star, who didn’t want to have an on set relationship but who she later went onto marry.

I have no doubt that the atmosphere on the set was toxic, I have no doubt that it was problematic, and I have no reason to doubt anything that is being said about Joss Whedon.

But the ‘all for one, one for all’ approach to men who were adjacent to, oblivious of, or have chosen to not speak out should not be used as a call to action or dog whistle for implied guilt. That is especially true in somewhere as complicated in the TV industry where the power structures are incredibly convoluted..

A discussion of Charisma Carpenter’s allegation, and a balanced account of who has/has not come out in support of her statement is balanced journalism. When the author has selected particular men to heavily denigrate and goes beyond the scope of the story to speculate additional motivations and infers guilt by proxy…. That’s misandry.