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}
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)