Replying to Onebyone
Jan. 8th, 2003 03:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
triskellianBateleur II was me:
Nope; it was Bateleur's comment about Buffy not being qualified to be a feminist icon that I was disagreeing with, not your comment about feminism representing women doing the things they've been complaining about men doing for centuries ;-)
In fact, from my practically non-existent knowledge of feminism - or, more accurately, public perceptions of feminism - that aspect is something I don't like either. The word itself is too much associated with female power (at the expense of men, or as some sort of payback to men), and not enough with equality.
Yes it is. But if the traditional hero-type things of men wandering around, trampling the bad guys beneath your boot, and picking up the under-clad girl are sexist, then it is because of unreasonably one-sided interactions based on domination. In this case, by the hero.
Yeah, but Buffy doesn't pick up a pretty-boy in his boxers after she's done kicking the ass of the bad guys, does she? Or, for that matter, slope off for some hot lovin' with Willow, because men are redundant? She likes men, and has reasonably equal relationships with them. She's powerful, and so are they. In fact, in all three cases, she's fought alongside them, with no particular inequality.
Which feels to me much more like the kind of female-empowerment I'd like.
That's what I mean by that which is bad within feminism - the understandable tendency of the abused to instinctively want to reverse the situation, rather than wanting to end it.
Yup, and I'm entirely in agreement with you on this.
explaining to him that some people are supposed to be successful and happy, whereas other people just don't deserve to be and shouldn't try to achieve that by cheating.
You should just get the teasing over with now, cos I've looked up the lines, and I'm going to quote them at you. Yes, I'm a sad Buffyholic. So sue me.
Buffy: Jonathan you get why everyone is angry though, right? It's not just the monster. People didn't like being the little actors in your sock puppet theater
Jonathan: "You weren't! You weren't socks! We were friends."
Buffy: "Jonathan you can't keep trying to make everything work out with some big gesture all at once. Things are complicated. They take time and work."
Jonathan: "Yeah, right."
Which makes more sense than your version ;-)
For me, this does not particularly recommend Buffy as a role model. It's bourne out throughout all the series, as much as I've seen them, by how upset Buffy tends to get with anyone who challenges her position as the best at killing vampires.
Whereas I've always interpreted that as her trying to wring something good (being special) out of the otherwise fairly sucky situation she's in.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
*applauds*
Re: *applauds*
The word itself is too much associated with female power (at the expense of men, or as some sort of payback to men), and not enough with equality.
Only I forgot to c&p...
no subject
Date: 2003-01-08 08:47 am (UTC)Triskellian: Yeah, but Buffy doesn't pick up a pretty-boy in his boxers after she's done kicking the ass of the bad guys, does she? Or, for that matter, slope off for some hot lovin' with Willow, because men are redundant? She likes men, and has reasonably equal relationships with them. She's powerful, and so are they. In fact, in all three cases, she's fought alongside them, with no particular inequality.
Buffy does not cover the idea of "equality" being different from "the same". In order to defeat the big bad's Buffy becomes more masculine. Now this is part is because fighting tends to be seen as a masculine way to solve things. It is also because Buffy often suffers from an assumption which is difficult to shake. The idea that individuals are equal is not the same as considering individuls to be "the same". Averages are a very important thing to consider. Women are on average not as strong as men. This does not mean you cannot find women capable of being as strong and it does mean that you should not expect the ratio of men to women in that kind of ability to be 50/50 in a fair world.
Buffy is not an exceptionally strong stocky, sculptured woman. Because they want her to have feminine sex appeal. Instead she has 'mystic' strength. She almost reinforces that idea that in order for women to be equal they need a magical ability to join the ranks and keep up in the list of feminine advantages as well. If she was really a feminist icon she would not have to emulate men in order to succeed, she would not have to remain conventionally pretty to be a high ratings heroine.
Personally I think claiming that using masculine traits to be a successful woman is wrong is overdone. The woman in question might just be good at that trait anyway, regardless of where it is traditionally/on average found.
I think that if Buffy is a physical fighting character then they should get themselves a different actress but that it is a valid way for her to be considered equal.
Oh and in general Buffy lost the 'all men are equal' line along time ago and in general is not a good show for equality of rights. They try some times.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 01:21 am (UTC)Yeah - it's a TV programme. Visual appeal counts for a lot. Most of the main characters in Buffy are attractive (OK, I personally only fancy two of them, but I'm told other people fancy some of the others, and certainly none of them are ugly).
no subject
Date: 2003-01-08 09:37 am (UTC)...that I much prefer Angel to Buffy, and have done so for 3 seasons now, mainly because it has much more interesting/prominent male characters in it?
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 01:30 am (UTC)If you were a girl, d'you think you'd like Lord of the Rings? I have loads of criticisms of it, but lack of strong (or any) female characters is fairly irrelevant.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 08:44 am (UTC)I used to like Xander in Buffy, but he has been almost literally emasculated by being stuck under Anya's thumb for so long.
Likewise, Spike has spent entire seasons just running around like a lovesick fool after Buffy.
If the genders of every Buffy regular were reversed, you'd have a show which would the feminists would be *rioting* over. I don't see why, as a man, I should be happy about a show where men are so cruelly marginalised.
Actually, having seen the first 6 episodes of Season 7 now, I'm tempted to say that Angel has more interesting female characters than Buffy too... I hope to god the new season gets better!
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 08:47 am (UTC)(I'm willing to believe that the books are interesting for their reconstruction of the saga form and style... I think the plot and characterisation is frankly limited by that ambition of Tolkien's.)
no subject
Date: 2003-01-08 09:56 am (UTC)Yeah, but Buffy doesn't pick up a pretty-boy in his boxers after she's done kicking the ass of the bad guys, does she?
No she doesn't. It isn't a complete reversal of roles. But am I right in thinking that Buffy has beaten up all three blokes she's slept with, generally on first meeting them? To be fair, though, she's probably beaten up almost everyone on the show, so that doesn't prove much. However, "Good Angel" and Riley are both utter wets next to her, and Spike was basically left grovelling at her knees by the combination of his chip and his barely-requited love for her. So maybe she's more Bond than Conan.
You should just get the teasing over with now
Sorry, I've obviously misremembered what happened. I've only seen it once, and it's not that scene that I liked it for anyway. I did however think it was funny that the gist of the episode is that Buffy has the right/responsibility/burden of being all-round-great, but that if anyone else tries it, there will be Terrible Cosmic Consequences (TM).
In general, Buffy is your worst high school nightmare. She has a divine mandate to be the coolest, best and most worthy person in town, and she has no qualms about exerting it. But then my views are prejudiced by the fact that if she were real, I would strongly dislike her. She's been known to be wilfully cruel (see the Angel episode where she turns up to tell him she's shagging Riley now), she's generally unpleasant, and has very little empathy. She aims to dominate in all her relationships, possibly excepting her mother. Her killing of bad guys is usually portrayed as a duty and a hatred of those she's fighting against, rather than as stemming from genuine compassion for those she's protecting, which is another hallmark of your macho warrior type. Maybe I'm lacking in sympathy myself, and my criticisms aren't fair. I've seen a lot less of it than you.
Which feels to me much more like the kind of female-empowerment I'd like.
That's fair enough within its limits. She's a female superthing on a par with (indeed, exceeding) the male superthings in her world, which I guess lines her up with Rogue or Catwoman in that regard. But I've never seen Buffy (the series) try to step away from the cliche of uber-/untermensch, and I don't think that cliche is consistent with politics that advocate equal rights and equal respect.
Basically, in its context I don't think that Buffy's empowerment is harmful or anti-feminist. But I don't think her world can be held up as a paragon of right living, because it is only a TV show, and it doesn't try to be clever or thoughtful about any of these issues. Most soap operas have strong female characters who are equally convincing in their empowerment, without it being at the cost of other people's.
but it's ALL ABOUT the uberfrau.
Date: 2003-01-08 12:38 pm (UTC)Surprising if this were the case, given that the show is a reaction to that cliche. The show's creator has explicitly stated that he conceived of Buffy as a contrast to the helpless blonde girl in the horror movies who either gets killed or rescued.
I will take the unpopular position: Buffy is a feminist icon (and I don't think that "feminist" is a bad word, either) Why? Because the underlying theme of the show, season after season is no one's going to rescue you. You have to rescue yourself.
There is no (human) stronger than her, faster than her, no one to protect her. In fact, she's the protector. Historically, a central theme in media portrayals of women is passivity and helplessness. Sister Fay Wray is finally doin' it for herself.
Thus endeth the lesson. Buffy is about learning to be human in a world where there is no protection, no certainty; it's a coming-of-age story about becoming an adult and realizing that no parent and no man can or will look after you.
"The hardest thing in this world is to live in it."
Re: but it's ALL ABOUT the uberfrau.
Date: 2003-01-08 02:15 pm (UTC)The show's creator has explicitly stated that he conceived of Buffy as a contrast to the helpless blonde girl in the horror movies who either gets killed or rescued.
But she's only a contrast in the most superficial possible way - she's a woman performing what is usually a man's role in horror, and the opposite of the usual woman's role. If you want to work against stereotyping of "men's roles" and "women's roles", then IMO the effective way to go about it is not to shout and point about how a girl is doing something that a man ought to do. The effective approach would be to portray characters who don't fall into this kind of stereotypical behaviour at all. Buffy isn't *trying* to do this, which is why it will never succeed when viewed as a piece of feminist politics.
In any case, I'm not sure that the series can use "I'm a spoof" as an explanation in quite the same way that the original film did.
it's a coming-of-age story about becoming an adult and realizing that no parent and no man can or will look after you.
I guess I just don't identify with the Buffy role at all, then. I don't see her as being myself struggling against the problems of the world. I see her as a manifestation of one of those problems, fighting against a bunch of monsters who are, admittedly, far worse than her, but who don't actually exist in the real world and therefore don't justify any real analogues to her behaviour.
I can't argue that Buffy isn't a feminist icon, because anyone that feminists say is an icon is, by definition, an icon. But as an example of equality of the sexes, I'd rather hold up Scully and Mulder than Buffy and Angel, despite the fact that Scully gets scared of the gribblies more easily than Mulder. But then the character writing in X-Files is so sketchy that (for seasons 1-3, which is as much as I've seen), Scully is only a woman because it says so in the casting directions. Whether that makes her a better or a worse role model, I'm not sure...
Re: but it's ALL ABOUT the uberfrau.
Date: 2003-01-08 02:27 pm (UTC)I guess I just don't identify with the Buffy role at all, then.
It suddenly occurs to me that maybe I'm not supposed to be able to identify with Buffy, because I'm a man. But if only women can identify with female icons, then surely the equality-of-the-sexes aspect of feminism isn't getting very far?
Re: but it's ALL ABOUT the uberfrau.
Date: 2003-01-09 01:07 am (UTC)I'd rather hold up Scully and Mulder than Buffy and Angel, despite the fact that Scully gets scared of the gribblies more easily than Mulder. But then the character writing in X-Files is so sketchy that (for seasons 1-3, which is as much as I've seen), Scully is only a woman because it says so in the casting directions.
I've not seen much X Files, but the last episode I saw, which must have been one of the last few, featured a heavily pregnant Scully being confused but docile while various men pushed her around in the interests of her safety, because some other man was trying to harm her in some way. Not great role model material.
Re: but it's ALL ABOUT the uberfrau.
Date: 2003-01-09 03:07 am (UTC)Not great role model material.
Haven't seen any of the "Scully pregnant" stuff at all, so maybe it's got worse. But Mulder has been in similar positions any number of times (when injured. I don't think he's ever been pregnant.) Sometimes it's men pushing him around, sometimes it's Scully.
I really don't think that single incidents are what makes a gender-politics manifesto. If Buffy has *never* been helpless and docile at the hands of men, then IMO that's a much less positive message than someone who almost always isn't but occasionally, you know, things happen. The difference, by the looks of it, is that when Scully gets scared and confused she reacts in a human way. That is certainly not unique to women in the show. When Buffy gets scared and confused, she beats the hell out of everything in sight and wins. Hurrah! But not much use in real life.
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 04:17 am (UTC)"and realizing that no parent and no man can or will look after you"
OK, that idea works, certainly.
I guess it's just that I set high standards for feminism. Most of the girls I know are quite clearly independent and self-sufficient in this kind of way and I find it hard to imagine a girl growing up in this part of the world not feeling the same sense of independence as a male child in the same situation.
So maybe this is my mistake - in looking for feminism to take the next step and actually encourage the redressing of inequalities I perceive, I am failing to classify important feminist ideals as being such. Doubtless in less enlightened parts of the world than... erm... Feltham (?!), these ideas are still important aspects of feminism.
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 04:34 am (UTC)I agree with you entirely*, but still, a large amount of our cultural material (for lack of a better phrase immediately springing to mind) pre-dates this state of affairs. We still read books and watch films (like Rififi last night, in fact) where there is no sort of equality between men and women, so a TV programme emphasising female power to add to the vast back catalogue emphasising male power is a Good Thing.
*to switch TV programmes, I have a fair amount of sympathy with Ainsley in The West Wing when she says something like 'I'm a woman, I'm not a minority. My fight is won. Bugger off and support an actually oppresed actual minority.'
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 07:44 am (UTC)Also, I don't at all think that the "struggle for survival" theme is ONLY a female theme. Even if a woman does feel "the same sense of independence as a male" then that might still mean that s/he is frequently scared, overwhelmed, trying to do the best that s/he can in a big cold world. It's a theme that's particularly meaningful to many women, for historical reasons (re: media). However, it's not exclusively a feminine theme. I mean, Joss Whedon's a guy and I think it's fair to assume that the show is primarily about his issues.
So -- is Buffy 100% and only about feminism? No, don't think so. Does it deal with issues that are important to feminists, and that resonate with many women? Yeah.
Also, to speak to both
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 08:31 am (UTC)because there are usually relatively few appealing female characters.
That isn't the reason in this case - I fail to identify with Buffy precisely because I fail to find her, specifically, appealing. There are plenty of female characters in drama with whom I feel I have more in common.
Does it deal with issues that are important to feminists, and that resonate with many women? Yeah.
That wasn't the original question, though. The original question was whether it dealt with them in a way which feminists (specifically, early feminists) would/should condone.
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 08:50 am (UTC)Thus there's some value in tossing an ass-kickin' femme onto the pile.
I suppose so. But I don't think Buffy is a particularly important example of the type other than for the fact that the show is within the mainstream. Any number of Michelle Yeoh characters have been kicking equal quantities of butt for 20 years.
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 08:55 am (UTC)Yeah, but that's the point. There aren't many such characters in the mainstream, so we're glad to have another.
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 08:59 am (UTC)But if all she is is a famous example of an ass-kicking alphathing who happens to be female, then for the reasons I was banging on about earlier, I don't think she's doing anything very important for feminism.
Re: Independence
Date: 2003-01-09 09:05 am (UTC)'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-08 01:06 pm (UTC)Actually, she's made out to be superior to Riley (no shock there), and she's treated Spike pretty badly in the last series I've seen. (Not the latest.)
Re: 'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-09 01:15 am (UTC)Yeah, but he has lots of advantages she doesn't, like equipment and tech and stuff, which narrows the gap.
she's treated Spike pretty badly in the last series I've seen
This is true, but in series 6, he treats her pretty appallingly, too - it's a rocky kinda relationship. I still think it's a fairly equal one.
In any case, what I meant in the original comment was that in all of her romantic relationships, no one needs rescuing. Her men are all fighters in their own right. If she were to go out with Xander, it would be different - he's 'sidekick' through and through.
Re: 'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-09 03:14 am (UTC)But if you're suggesting that she treats Spike as "fairly equal", then that doesn't match my impression at all. Every time I've seen them, she goes well out of her way to make it clear that she is top dog, and that he is scum. Has that changed in the latest series? On a personal level, it's Dawn who treats Spike as an equal. Buffy admitting that Spike can hit quite hard does not constitute equal respect :-)
Put it another way: if Buffy were a man and Spike a woman, would you say that their relationship advocates gender equality?
Re: 'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-09 04:14 am (UTC)I don't know. I guess I see it as different sorts of equality. In a rather vague and ill-defined way.
In series 6, there's a fair amount of Buffy and Spike being friends - she confides in him when she can't confide in any of the others. In series 7 - what I've seen so far - he's gone mad, and probably possessed by the big bad, or something similar, and she looks out for him. She brings him out of a dangerous environment and arranges somewhere safe for him to stay. She doesn't believe stories told of his wrong-doing. Which kinda buggers my earlier point about no rescuing being needed ;-)
But the 'treating him like scum' parts of the relationship always seemed to me more like her being pissed off with herself, and taking it out on him. She's a vampire slayer, and with Angel, she had an excuse for the relationship; with Spike, she didn't. She was just shagging a vampire, something entirely at odds with her life's work. And he did behave like an arse. A lot. All of the 'you're bad like me, you know you are, you like it dirty, oh yeah' stuff was a bit much ;-)
So I do think there's equality there in some fundamental way. He loves her more than she loves him, and he's more comfortable with dark aspects of personalities and relationships that freak her out, and she reacts badly to that, but I don't think those things affect the equality of the relationship, in a male-female-power-balance kinda way.
I'm not entirely sure how I got into this whole argument, y'know ;-) I've not said I think the whole show is a great example of feminist and/or equality-promoting TV. I *do* think it's balance-redressing to an extent, and has paved the way for the various other cute-chick-kicking-ass shows that are around, but if I were to pick my favourite political-ish message from Buffy, it would be more to do with geek/outcast/weirdo recognition.
Re: 'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-09 04:28 am (UTC)At which point i'd be almost forced to say that they didn't even do that properly. They just got their own version of the popular clique and treat outsiders badly. Hardly the thing to encourage ;-)
What did those three Geek bad guy kids (sorry don't watch enought Buffy to remember their names, plot relevence) do for the geek kid image?
Or I could just not say anything....unlikely though ;-)
Re: 'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-09 05:38 am (UTC)But I don't think they do particularly treat outsiders badly. And... oh shit. This is going to be the whole argument all over again from the point of view of a different opressed section of society, isn't it?
I'm a girl, and I guess I'm a geek, too (in fact, I just got called an anorak over lunch by one of my colleagues). I like Buffy. There are girls and geeks in Buffy, and they are portrayed broadly positively. This is a good thing.
Re: 'Equality'?
The 'Geek Chic' trend over the last decade or so has been remarked upon in innumerable places by many commentators (I first saw the phrase on Slashdot).
Basically, we now live in such a tech-oriented culture that a certain kind of geekiness (in the style of, for example, Willow) is an entirely acceptable mainstream archetype.
Buffy's take on this is really not terribly progressive or adventurous. At least Neo (in 'The Matrix') is seen alone in his room doing geek things and looks thoroughly out of place in a nightclub.
Misfits
I meant the people who aren't in the popular group at school. The ones who wear black, or roleplay or who are too clever for popularity, or whatever. Y'know, the people that most of us were to some extent.
I'm much happier that there's a cool TV show about high school social outcasts doing cool and exciting stuff than I am that there's a cool TV show with a girl kicking butt.
Re: Misfits
Yes, exactly.
This is my point: Buffy is not about people like me. The characters start out as high school kids and during this time they do things like dating, being pants in lessons, being well dressed, hanging out at The Bronze, etc. In short, they behave exactly like the kinds of people I seldom exchanged two words with at school but with notional 'subculture' status tacked on rather unconvincingly.
Of course I expect there is an element of wish fulfillment to the whole thing in that the majority of kids marginalized at school would love to look cool, come out with snappy dialogue and generally beat the in-crowd at their own game (cf. Cordelia and Harmony's eventual fates).
But still, if I designed the characters for a show like Buffy the feel would be more than a little different.
Joss can play at artistic integrity all he likes - the fact is that his "strong female character" could've been designed by FHM and his idea of subculture is so mainstream that it's the speculative fiction equivalent of 'Classical FM'. Yes, I watch Buffy - but then I also listen to the Radio 1 breakfast show and really the quality difference between the two isn't all that great.
And there's nothing funnier than spotting the episodes that stick out like a sore thumb as the Buffy crew desperately try to win a Grammy. <snigger>
Re: 'Equality'?
Date: 2003-01-09 10:24 am (UTC)Oh god, why am I even saying this......