Replying to Onebyone

[triskellian]

Bateleur 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.

Comments

[leathellin.livejournal.com]

OneByOne: 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.
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.

[triskellian]

Buffy is not an exceptionally strong stocky, sculptured woman. Because they want her to have feminine sex appeal.
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).