'Billy' and misogyny

[EarthLogic]

In their DVD commentary of the episode Tim Minear and Jeffrey Bell admit this episode had been both 'widely acclaimed' and 'much loathed'. Prompted by @RachM's criticism of the episode's handling of misogyny and violence, I wonder what other people's thoughts are on it?

Having not watched the episode in a while I can't remember it in detail, but from what I can recall I think that there are some good moments intermixed with heavy-handedness. Scenes like the Cordy/Angel training session introduce the idea of male gender biases quite succintly: Angel is happy to train Cordelia but is reluctant to give up his role as protector entirely. After that his chivalry is IMO a little overdone (suggesting Cordy - the woman with the graphic visions - shouldn't be looking at pictures of dead bodies😕) and doesn't really chime with his more cynical and wary attitude in previous seasons and with the fact that they've encountered gruesome things pretty much on a daily basis since they teamed up.

From there the action of the episode is less subtle with men being infected with insta-misogyny. Wesley's violent turn against Fred and the resulting Shining-esque stalk/chase is genuinely terrifying, but his dialogue is overdone and ridiculous at times (like when he starts spouting Biblical Eve/Eden nonsense). I do however think that there is a link to his background as a former member of the highly patriarchal Watcher's Council which tends to reinforce certain ideas about gender and power - the writers just failed to explore this in a more subtle way.

His final scene with Fred is wonderfully done though and I think Fred's line about the hate being something that 'was done to [him]' helps clarify the intent of the episode. 'Billy's' most problematic idea is that of ''primordial misogyny' which implies that violence towards women is an inherent and natural state of men, which is of course BS since hatred and notions of gender roles are a product of society and not something people are born with. But I think Fred's statement goes someway towards reasserting that, while Wesley's guilt reminds us that he recognises there are predefined conceptions of masculinity and femininity - taught by his patriarchal upbringing - which he is now forced to face.

@RachM I checked the dialogue between Cordy and Lilah and I don't think it is a straightforward case of victim-blaming:

"It's not the pain. It's the helplessness. The certainty that there is nothing you can do to stop it, that your life can be thrown away in an instant by someone else. He doesn't care. He'll beat you down until you stay down because he doesn't even *think* of you as alive. - No woman should ever have to go through that, and no woman strong enough to wear the mantel of 'vicious bitch' would ever put up with it. - *Where* is Billy going?"

She's not blaming Lilah for being attacked, but she is saying that Lilah needs to reclaim her strength - the mantle of 'vicious bitch' is somehing she wears proudly - to put a stop to it. I think it's more akin to the way domestic abuse victims have to sometimes be encouraged to take steps to reassert their sense of strength and control over their own lives.

Ultimately I think the episode is a case of good concept, dodgy execution. What about you guys?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I loved the episode. One of my favorites.

 

[EarthLogic]

I loved the episode. One of my favorites.

Care to elaborate?

 

[GwenRaiden]

I've always liked this episode. I think it plays on the character's fears really well, and the acting is really good. The heartbroken look on Wesley's face at the end of the episode is perfect, and as an episode it plays into lots of future arcs and is consistent in character development. And yeah, I agree with you on the Cordy/Lilah scene. I always seen that as a moment of shared strength rather than blaming.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

It has been a while since I watched this episode. Part of my AtS season 3 hate-a-thon but I’m up against a s3 rewatch and I’ll come back to talk generally about the episode more but two things come to mind.

Tim Minear has said before in the Redemption Cast Q&A that he believes men are always fighting masculine impulses and that Angel’s struggle with his demon is a metaphor for this. He acknoweldged the controversial element of taking this position but I believe this episode to be a statement on that very position. I don’t necessarily agree with it but I see where the writer is coming from.

I have a big problem with this line:

No woman should ever have to go through that, and no woman strong enough to wear the mantel of 'vicious bitch' would ever put up with it. - *Where* is Billy going?"

First, the implication is that if you are in an abusive relationship, domestic or emotional whatever the case maybe and you are not “strong enough” to end it then you are weak. When I think the truth is it’s much more complicated than that right? I mean just mosey I’m over to Buffy and see what an abusive relationship she got herself into. She is not in this relationship because she is weak, but she is lost, depressed, afraid of the consequences of ending the relationship - being alone or telling friends your secret. The implication to me is that people like Lilah (or I guess Cordelia) who are strong woman wouldn’t allow themselves to be in a relationship like that but meak woman would and shame on them for not finding their inner ‘bitch.’

And this brings me to my next point of contention. This is the second time that Cordelia uses the word ‘bitch’ as some type of badge of honor. I know I’m letting my personal biases color my opinions here but I have spent my whole life being told I’m a bitch because I am outspoken, sometimes aggressive, I stand up for what I think, I take an authoritative tone etc. If I was a man, these things would not be considered characteristics of an asshole but of a confident male leader. I hate that Cordelia (through the writers... not sure I blame her necessarily) has told us twice now (Rm w a Vu and Billy) that being strong and assertive = being a bitch. Or that we should be proud to call ourselves ‘bitches.’ I’m not on board with that.

Buffy is the strongest character in the verse, and even she loses her way and ends up in an abusive relationship but when she digs her way out of it she is once again a leader, assertive, driven - and decidedly not a bitch.

I’m usually not so bra burny, honestly, but this topic does strike a nerve for me though lol. And yesterday I was called “little lady” in court which got me heated. 🙂

 

[Grace]

No woman should ever have to go through that, and no woman strong enough to wear the mantel of 'vicious bitch' would ever put up with it.

Whether you think Cordelia was blaming Lilah in the scene or not, I still think this line is problematic. Because the implication is that no strong women could ever find themselves in a cycle of abuse, only weak women worthy of scorn.

 

[EarthLogic]

First, the implication is that if you are in an abusive relationship, domestic or emotional whatever the case maybe and you are not “strong enough” to end it then you are weak. When I think the truth is it’s much more complicated than that right? I mean just mosey I’m over to Buffy and see what an abusive relationship she got herself into. She is not in this relationship because she is weak, but she is lost, depressed, afraid of the consequences of ending the relationship - being alone or telling friends your secret. The implication to me is that people like Lilah (or I guess Cordelia) who are strong woman wouldn’t allow themselves to be in a relationship like that but meak woman would and shame on them for not finding their inner ‘bitch.’

I think the phrasing of the line isn't particularly nuanced and I agree that it is problematic because can be interpreted in the way you have. But I also think that Cordelia's comment is intended to speak specifically to Lilah. She's not saying that Lilah is weak if she doesn't end it, she's saying Lilah has for some reason forgotten the immense strength she does have. Remember Lilah is an arch manipulator working for an interdimensional - and fairly masculine - evil law firm. She prides herself on it and she has never taken crap from anyone. Cordelia is reminding her of that. But yes, the generalised phrasing of 'no woman...would ever put up with it' is problematic.

And this brings me to my next point of contention. This is the second time that Cordelia uses the word ‘bitch’ as some type of badge of honor. I know I’m letting my personal biases color my opinions here but I have spent my whole life being told I’m a bitch because I am outspoken, sometimes aggressive, I stand up for what I think, I take an authoritative tone etc. If I was a man, these things would not be considered characteristics of an asshole but of a confident male leader. I hate that Cordelia (through the writers... not sure I blame her necessarily) has told us twice now (Rm w a Vu and Billy) that being strong and assertive = being a bitch. Or that we should be proud to call ourselves ‘bitches.’ I’m not on board with that.

I hear you and I myself have huge problems with the idea that markers of misogyny/sexism can seen as 'empowering' simply if a woman uses them (nude selfies being a glaring case in point), and I think we still have a way to go when it comes to breaking out of the binaries that are so ingrained in society and culture - especially when it comes to language. However I think you can make a case for Cordelia's use of the term as a positive reappropriation of it from its misogynistic usage. In Rm w/ a Vu the ghost lady calls her bitch and she replies 'I'm a bitch.... I’m the nastiest girl in Sunnydale history. - I take crap from no one. ...Back off! Polygrip. - You think *you’re* bad? Being all mean and haunty? Picking on poor pathetic Cordy? Well, get ready to haul your wrinkly translucent ass out of this place, because lady, the bitch is back.” The reclamation of the word by women has been going on since the '90s so Cordy's use of it is nothing new. I don't think we're supposed to see it as assertive = 'bitch' so much as: 'bitch' => 'I take crap from no-one'. Of course the wider issue is much more complex because the root of the question when it comes to reclamation of language is whether it is really possible given the deepy entrenched negative connotations of a word. But I'm not sure we could hope for much more from the show on this point.

I haven't given this a huge amount of thought so perhaps I can be proved wrong, and I'd actually like to know if there's an essay/meta out that that explores this idea and Cordelia's character in greater depth...?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I always thought that Cordy was trying to deflect some of the guilt that she had to have felt over it. It was, more or less, because of Cordy that all of that happened.

 

[GwenRaiden]

But I also think that Cordelia's comment is intended to speak specifically to Lilah.

That is my interpretation too. And that is why it works for me.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

'Billy's' most problematic idea is that of ''primordial misogyny' which implies that violence towards women is an inherent and natural state of men, which is of course BS since hatred and notions of gender roles are a product of society and not something people are born with.

Weeeeeeell ... yes and no. I used to have very strong postmodern notions on gender, but I have found that I have had to moderate them somewhat. I outright reject gender essentialism, but I still think there are a certain "naturalness" to gender roles. That is not the same as saying they are good and that we should not endeavour to subvert and transcend them. We are moving further and further towards the posthuman 😛 Be whom you wanna be.

I think Freud explains aggresion best. We learn aggression early ... as infants. It is the pain and frustration that comes with being denied pleasure or having to endure discomfort. We all develop this little monster that wants stuff. Most men desire women, but can't always have them, which leads to frustration and sometimes even anger. Part of growing up is being able to deal with this.

Everybody learns anger, but not everybody learns violence. Violence is often first learned on the playground. It can be taught through experience, modelling, socialising, etc. Some people learn that violence, especially when done covertly towards an isolated victim, is an effective method for getting what you want.

Gunn has learned violence. He is a big man and he has had a violent upbringing. His body language when he is angry shows that he is very confident in his own physicality. Wesley is also a fairly large an muscular man, though, despite his martial arts and weapons training, and despite his public school background, he does not seem used to violence. After he comes to LA, this starts to change, and at the end of the show, Wesley has developed a frightening submissiveness towards causing harm to others.

In the human species, there is some sexual dimorphism. This dismorphism is much bigger in the AtS world as big men like Gunn and Wes are put next to tiny women like Fred. Fred would be extremely unlikely to develop a penchant for violence, because nobody would find her intimidating. Also, as a woman, she would have fewer violent role models to imitate and not the same pressure to be assertive, confident and domineering.

Society tends to heighten different, though I would not say it is the ultimate cause of it. Furthermore, society tends to promote non-destructive ways of interacting. Humanity could not survive without the family, the tribe, the polis, the country state or some other form of community.

In the Buffyverse, Billy's victims and soulless vampires alike are cut off from the moderating influence of society - their super ego - the little voice on the shoulder that tells you to be ashamed and to behave better. This sets the monstrous ID loose. For the reasons I listed above, men's ID are more likely to employ violence to achieve gratification. Maybe testosterone has something to do with it to. I don't know. I don't deal with biology.

The episode Billy foreshadows Gunn and Wesely as they are in S4. They are not quite as bad as they were under Billy's influence, but they are pretty darn close.

This was a ramble. I hope it was useful at all 🙂 Even if you violently disagree, I think this may have been what the writers were going for.

 

[Grace]

But I also think that Cordelia's comment is intended to speak specifically to Lilah. She's not saying that Lilah is weak if she doesn't end it, she's saying Lilah has for some reason forgotten the immense strength she does have.

But Lilah's reasons for not wanting to help Angel and Cordelia are pretty clear to me. As she says earlier in the episode, "Billy never touched me, and you can't touch him. Nobody can. Billy as in Blim? As in congressman Nathan Blim's nephew? That family is the closest thing this country has to royalty. They'd own half the eastern seaboard even if they weren't clients of ours." Billy is her client and he's protected by powerful people. And she tells Cordelia, "I'm not Lindsey McDonald. I don't switch sides whenever it gets tough."

So Lilah has to go against her employer and her own twisted moral code in order to take any action against Billy. Yes, it's the right thing to do, but Lilah doesn't do things just because they're right. And, from what I remember, she has always been willing to do whatever it takes to keep her job.

The fact that she's able to kill Billy with no repercussions that I remember (I'm guessing she blamed Angel & co.?) is another problematic aspect to me. Because it ignores all that Lilah really had to risk and just reduces it to the weak vs. strong victim thing.

I can see what everyone is saying about the episode being a commentary on the male characters. But I agree with those who argue that the episode felt like an exercise in heaping even more violence on the show's female characters, who are already not treated particularly well. Even the final scene with Fred doesn't sit well with me, because she's basically put into the role of having to manage Wesley's feelings about what happened.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

You know I'm a sucker for Tim Minear but this is an example of an episode that didn't speak to me. It felt like the message they were going for was completely lost on me.

I understand the appropriation of the word bitch and recognize that in the early 2000's this was a movement. I just don't like it and even back when it was going on I wasn't a big fan.

 

[PaulParmar1]

I love this episode. Very good thread and points.
Billy the character I can't stand. at first I hated this episode watching about 5 or 10 minutes in the first time because of all the misogny but then after watching the full episode this shows a very strong episode for the females of the show.
Fred proves how brave and quick witted she was to get away from Wesley on her own without the help of any men around and I was proud of her.
Cordelia was fantastic this episode. Her speech to Lilah was everything and showed how much Cordy has evolved. She went after Billy on her own which was so empowering because this is something the old Cordelia would never do, she stuck by Angel even when she thought he was under Billy's curse. Lilah was great this episode too.
Her badass attitude & finally shooting that misogynstic Billy was great.

Overall I really really enjoyed this episodes & it's one of my favs from S3 & the series no doubt

 

[EarthLogic]

And yesterday I was called “little lady” in court which got me heated.

Yeuch!

I think Freud explains aggresion best. We learn aggression early ... as infants. It is the pain and frustration that comes with being denied pleasure or having to endure discomfort. We all develop this little monster that wants stuff. Most men desire women, but can't always have them, which leads to frustration and sometimes even anger. Part of growing up is being able to deal with this.

But misgyny isn't simply about being angry about not getting something you want. It's about the denigration and 'othering' of women, casting them as inferior. There is an element of rage but that's not what it's about - it's about power.

But Lilah's reasons for not wanting to help Angel and Cordelia are pretty clear to me. As she says earlier in the episode, "Billy never touched me, and you can't touch him. Nobody can. Billy as in Blim? As in congressman Nathan Blim's nephew? That family is the closest thing this country has to royalty. They'd own half the eastern seaboard even if they weren't clients of ours." Billy is her client and he's protected by powerful people. And she tells Cordelia, "I'm not Lindsey McDonald. I don't switch sides whenever it gets tough."

So Lilah has to go against her employer and her own twisted moral code in order to take any action against Billy. Yes, it's the right thing to do, but Lilah doesn't do things just because they're right. And, from what I remember, she has always been willing to do whatever it takes to keep her job.

Ah. See, I'd forgotten about that. Haven't had a chance to read the entire transcript. I agree it doesn't make sense motivation-wise - like they realised they couldn't have a woman ultimately facilitate the male violence, even if it was perfectly in-character.

And I agree about the disservice to female characters. As a commentary on the male characters I thought it was clunky, but the commentary does come at the expense of the women. I feel like the Cordy/Lilah stuff was intended as a counterpoint to the male focus - the whole 'strong women' thing - but it's mishandled and insufficient.
 

You know I'm a sucker for Tim Minear but this is an example of an episode that didn't speak to me. It felt like the message they were going for was completely lost on me.

Yeah, I love most of his stuff - I think he understands Angel best and does dark stuff really well, but he should be kept away from anything regarding female sexuality/consent (as should Joss, IMO). The AtS writer's room definitely needed a greater female presence.

I understand the appropriation of the word bitch and recognize that in the early 2000's this was a movement. I just don't like it and even back when it was going on I wasn't a big fan.

I understand your discomfort and I think it's a perfectly valid opinion. I don't use the term in that sense but I understand why women do - and therefore I'm not too fazed by the context in which Cordy uses it.

 

[Grace]

Ah. See, I'd forgotten about that. Haven't had a chance to read the entire transcript. I agree it doesn't make sense motivation-wise - like they realised they couldn't have a woman ultimately facilitate the male violence, even if it was perfectly in-character.

And I agree about the disservice to female characters. As a commentary on the male characters I thought it was clunky, but the commentary does come at the expense of the women. I feel like the Cordy/Lilah stuff was intended as a counterpoint to the male focus - the whole 'strong women' thing - but it's mishandled and insufficient.

I can buy that Cordelia's speech (shamey as I might see it) convinced Lilah that she could draw a line somewhere. Lilah seemed to take it as a point of pride that she refused to see herself as a victim when it came to W&H -- that she knew what she was signing up for and accepted it -- but she was obviously upset about what happened with Billy/Gavin and wasn't able to take it in the same stride. So I'm not saying that she couldn't have found the motivation to kill Billy. But she had to have done it with the full knowledge that it could cost her everything that she had worked for, and we didn't see that (or how she avoided that). At least that I remember, anyway.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

Yeah, I love most of his stuff - I think he understands Angel best and does dark stuff really well, but he should be kept away from anything regarding female sexuality/consent (as should Joss, IMO). The AtS writer's room definitely needed a greater female presence.

Yes although BtVS had that and yet still we got some questionable stuff over there... but generally yes, they needed some female perspectives.

 

[RachM]

Okay, read through this entire thread and thank you to @EarthLogic for attempting to make sense of this mess of an episode. I think you do have a point when you say decent idea, poor execution. @dcai0830 mentioning Tim Minear's belief that all men are always fighting their misogynistic impulses puts the episode in new light, because now it's easy to see that was what he was trying to portray. I just don't agree with him. This is similar to the "all men are beasts" sentiment expressed in Beauty & The Beasts over on BtVS, another episode which deals very clumsily with violence against women and which again I do not agree with.

I think my biggest contention with this episode is the sheer violence portrayed onscreen. It's incredibly hard to watch and I think the point (however messed up it is) could have been made without showing such extreme onscreen violence. At the very least, this episode should have come with a warning.

Others have beautifully expressed why Cordy's line to Lilah was problematic, that while it may not have been a straight-forward case of victim blaming, it definitely had problematic shades to it.

At the end of the day I'll never like this episode, it was badly executed, entirely too comfortable with showing such gratuitous violence, and the message it tries to portray is kind of really insulting towards men in general. If I could erase one episode from AtS, it would be this one.

 

[EarthLogic]

I can buy that Cordelia's speech (shamey as I might see it) convinced Lilah that she could draw a line somewhere. Lilah seemed to take it as a point of pride that she refused to see herself as a victim when it came to W&H -- that she knew what she was signing up for and accepted it -- but she was obviously upset about what happened with Billy/Gavin and wasn't able to take it in the same stride. So I'm not saying that she couldn't have found the motivation to kill Billy. But she had to have done it with the full knowledge that it could cost her everything that she had worked for, and we didn't see that (or how she avoided that). At least that I remember, anyway.

Yes I don't recall seeing the W&H repercussions either. The next episode is 'Offspring' so it just gets forgotten as the main season arc takes over.

Yes although BtVS had that and yet still we got some questionable stuff over there... but generally yes, they needed some female perspectives.

Yes I still marvel at how BtVS managed to get things so wrong at times even with women on the writing team. Not that women can be expected to get feminism right all the time, but sometimes I wonder how no-one seemed to raise an objection to some ideas.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

But misgyny isn't simply about being angry about not getting something you want. It's about the denigration and 'othering' of women, casting them as inferior. There is an element of rage but that's not what it's about - it's about power.

I believe that is the root of it. Our brains love to rationalise and obscure. If a man is angry, because a woman has rejected him, he will find some way of explaining this anger, likely by blaming the woman somehow. If a husband beats his wife, he will find some way to justify this. Society reflects our best and worst traits back at us, making them stronger, and then it all bounces back and forth until you have a right mess.

It is impossible to separate nature and nurture, because they always work in unison. I don't think it is as easy as saying people are bad, because society is bad. You could just as easily say society is bad, because people are bad. Everything is bad and it is sad 🙁

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Everything is bad and it is sad 🙁

It makes me mad. The lessons we learn from dad when we're but a wee lad.