Buffy's Anger

Scary Bunny

Anyas Greatest Fear
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
9
Location
Sweden, Stockholm
I've read an article about Buffy (by Elyce Rae Helford) and her display of anger throughout the show wich I found intresting. It said that Buffy by containing her anger made it clear for girls that it is not okay to show your anger. The author wrote that, since anger is an emotion not usually thougt of as "feminine", Buffy could not be a feministic role model for young girls since she was always repressing her anger and instead delivering punns and whitty remarks. She thought that Buffy trivialized girl's anger. what do you think?

I've thougt about it, and I don't really agree to Buffy repressing her anger. Also I think Buffys humouristic remarks was a sign of her power, when she kept silent you really could tell something was wrong. =)

Your opinions? :balloon2:
 
I agree with you. Look at her "I Quit" rant in "Prophecy Girl" and tell me she is controlling her anger. There are dozens of times she does not control her anger. Usually she channels it into her slaying; in "The Prom" she says that the good thing about being a Slayer is that kicking ass is comfort food. Buffy takes out her anger at the things she can't hit on the things she can.
 
T
TheChosenOne
I totally agree, this woman sounds like someone whos hasn't properly watched Buffy
I think Buffy's wit and puns were just part of her, a characterstic not related to her emotions. I can't think of any examples where she represses her anger unless its a situation in which we all would (eg Checkpoint). She does let out her anger at times, once or twice she pounded a vampire to hell before staking it, also the scene after Buffy is refuses a loan I think she was quite angry.

I don't see Buffy as being a repressed female, but rather a person who doesn't let anger control herself.
 
I agree, I don't think she repressed anger really. And even if she did, a bit, that doesn't mean she can't be a feministic role model. I mean she can't be perfect, in any way, not the "feministic way" either, that wouldn't look good at all. She needs to be a realistic character, which I think she is. She can't only be a role model, that wouldn't make a very interesting character. She still represends so many things, to me she could definitely still be a feministic role model.
 
Ah yeah something I forgot. People see a strong feminist as almost a parody of itself, strong, determined, intelligent etc. However I see Buffy as a strong feminist because she is strong, determined, intelligent etc but also because she is human, she has flaws, silly desires and thats what makes her so interesting.
 
E
eponinethen
[No message]
Buffy was a master of the sarcastic quip. She kicked vampire ass on a weekly basis, mocking the vamps as they were dusted. Buffy reminds me of Spidey, constantly mocking the bad guys to their face as he fought them.

I've always preferred mockery to a shouting match myself. Am I just a repressed, wussified loser? (don't answer that!) I know it's not good to repress feelings, but I think anger and feminism have been equated in the culture to a degree. I think that turns people off, in terms of the public perception of feminism.

I get the sense young girls are doing pretty well lately. "girl power" has been around in pop culture for quite awhile now. Honestly, at this point, I'm slightly more concerned about boys in America....



72 Percentage of children 12-to-17 years old who are academically on track for their age. The rate is higher for girls than for boys (79% versus 69%).

56 Percentage of college students who are women. Women have held the majority status in college enrollment since 1979.

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/schoolfacts1.html



"”Plus, the record amounts of medicated, prozac popping kids, school shootings"”mostly boy related.

Feminism was a good and important development in America. I just get worried that the encouragement pendulum swings from boys, now to girls. I feel like we need a balance in the culture if that's possible.

That being said, I think Buffy is an important heroic addition to the pop culture landscape for girls. There was definitely an absence on TV at the time.
 
Hm, goldenboy, you almost sound like a feministic role model isn't as much needed today because girls/women aren't as opressed today as they used to be? I mean I'm all for treating everyone equally and encourage everyone and all but do you think we've reached the point where girls/boys are so equal that we should worry about encouraging girls "too much" compared to boys..?

(I'm really tired and all so I might have read your post wrong, in that case, sorry...)
 
I'm suggesting maybe the boys have actually been getting screwed over in the educational system lately. I'm not even exactly sure how it all works. Just sense that boys natural aggression, figity-ness is seen as an "evil" today, maybe more than ever before.

I just can't quite explain the modern epidemic of attention disorders today. Did human evlolution suddenly take a giant step backwards in the 90's? Why this epidemic of medication?

I don't want feminism, girl power to go away by any means. That needs to stay. And I wouldn't want some weird quota system, that's just dumb I think. Just trying to figure this all out...
 
Yea okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say. But it's dangerous when you compare those two things. I mean there's no reason to "cut back" on feminism 'cause there are troubles with boys in school or whatever. I mean, I know you just said you're more worried about the boys at the moment. I just mean that it's dangerous to compare or in any way say that "maybe we should focus more on the boys right now", 'cause seriously, that's what "we" do anyway.

(And well, the boys "natural" agression can be debated... I guess this is OT but I don't really consider boys to have more "natural agression" than girls do.. But yeah, shouldn't get into that discussion again...)
With the medication and stuff though.. I don't know much about that, I guess there's also a lot different in different countries and so on... But I agree with you but still wonder what could be done about it... hm, I know too little about this...
 
I'm warping this thread into something else, sorry 'bout that. And I don't want to piss off anyone around here, really. Just genuinely worried about boys in the American educational system. Here's one perspective....



Boys Falling Behind: A Critique of American Education

"During the 1990's, while girls were thriving in American schools like never before, the academic media buzzed with stories about how they were in "crisis"-disenfranchised by a culture whose school system historically favored boys. In 1997, the same year the auspicious declarer of this crisis, Harvard professor Carol Gilligan, received the $250,000 Heinz Award for "transform[ing] the paradigm for what it means to be human," 4,483 American young people between the ages of five and twenty-four killed themselves: 701 females and 3,782 males.

Girls in crisis? "A myth," Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute asserts, perpetuated by pro-female "partisans" whose research is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. Just look at the facts, she says. Boys "dominate dropout lists, failure lists, and learning-disabilities lists."

All right, let's look at the statistics. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education reports that 34% of boys are in grades below their age, compared with 26% of girls. In 12th grade, only 28% of boys rate as proficient readers on federal tests, with girls pulling in at 44%. In addition, boys are three times more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder.

A whopping 73% of learning disabled students, in fact, are boys. "Instead of pushing sound solutions," reports USA Today in an October 2003 editorial on these trends, "many educators merely advocate prescribing more attention-focusing Ritalin for the boys, who receive the drug at four to eight times the rate of girls." In a dyslexia study focusing on Connecticut schools, Yale neuroscientist Sally Shaywitz found that the mostly female teaching staff was quick to identify rambunctious boys over quiet girls as potentially learning disabled-an action with serious consequences for all students regardless of gender...."

http://kevincassell.com/PERSON/CONVERSA/boys.htm
 
Yeah, you don't piss me off at all, I just think it's interesting (just so you know).

Hm yea, that is scary and I sorta want to explain it all by saying "girls are smarter" but I wont, ehh.. Seriously though...

goldenboy said:
In a dyslexia study focusing on Connecticut schools, Yale neuroscientist Sally Shaywitz found that the mostly female teaching staff was quick to identify rambunctious boys over quiet girls as potentially learning disabled-an action with serious consequences for all students regardless of gender...."
Yea.. and I can't say I'm surprised... I mean I would be one of those who'd say that "quiet girls" is a sexism-problem rather than a "learning-problem"...
 
I've always thought it was great how Buffy had all this strength but she put it into her slaying. She didn't walk around and everybody she saw she'd be like "Wanna box?" or "You look at me like you can take me! Wanna go?"

But, like everybody in every universe, she couldn't control her anger all the time. That's normal even for the slayer.
 
Back
Top Bottom