Kindred
Permanent state of confusion...
When I posted in the thread concerning Surprise and Innocence I made a point about Innocence containing a great "female empowerment" moment, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought about feminism in Buffy in general and the more unsure I became.
The scene that got me started is the close to the end of Innocence. In this scene Buffy gets her revenge on Angel, who greatly devalued her as both a person and a woman, by kicking him in his naughty parts, his MAN defining parts. Way to go! Right? right? Well, that's what I thought at first, but the more I thought, the more it occurred to me that this suggested that the only way for Buffy to re-establish herself as a powerful force and a powerful WOMAN was to attack Angel as not merely a foe, but as a MAN, a MALE, the opposite sex. Does this not suggest that the only way for a woman to best a man is not simply as a person defeating an equally equipped foe, but has to be as a WOMAN, a FEMALE attacking a MALE, and by attacking the most noticeable physical difference between a man and a woman, that this is the only way to really win, to gain a true victory?
Of coarse one has to take into account the fact that this was a personal vendetta for Buffy, against the person who had so devalued and abused her, but so often Joss Whedon says that the show was designed to be a noticeable feminist icon.... Too many thoughts.
Anywho, this all then got me started on the fact that yes, Buffy is perceived as such a powerful feminist icon; She kicks serious butt and so often gets her own by overpowering and defeating quite often male opponents with an ironically phallic weapon, the weapon that symbolizes her power. Yay, again? Right? Maybe not. To me, this suggested that Buffy is only at her most efficient, her most powerful when using this symbolic weapon, this phallic instrument. And what does that say? Does this mean that really a woman has to have some phallic, "man imitating" tool to be powerful? Does it mean that I'm insane? Maybe. Probably. But think about it and let me know what you think.
~kindred
The scene that got me started is the close to the end of Innocence. In this scene Buffy gets her revenge on Angel, who greatly devalued her as both a person and a woman, by kicking him in his naughty parts, his MAN defining parts. Way to go! Right? right? Well, that's what I thought at first, but the more I thought, the more it occurred to me that this suggested that the only way for Buffy to re-establish herself as a powerful force and a powerful WOMAN was to attack Angel as not merely a foe, but as a MAN, a MALE, the opposite sex. Does this not suggest that the only way for a woman to best a man is not simply as a person defeating an equally equipped foe, but has to be as a WOMAN, a FEMALE attacking a MALE, and by attacking the most noticeable physical difference between a man and a woman, that this is the only way to really win, to gain a true victory?
Of coarse one has to take into account the fact that this was a personal vendetta for Buffy, against the person who had so devalued and abused her, but so often Joss Whedon says that the show was designed to be a noticeable feminist icon.... Too many thoughts.
Anywho, this all then got me started on the fact that yes, Buffy is perceived as such a powerful feminist icon; She kicks serious butt and so often gets her own by overpowering and defeating quite often male opponents with an ironically phallic weapon, the weapon that symbolizes her power. Yay, again? Right? Maybe not. To me, this suggested that Buffy is only at her most efficient, her most powerful when using this symbolic weapon, this phallic instrument. And what does that say? Does this mean that really a woman has to have some phallic, "man imitating" tool to be powerful? Does it mean that I'm insane? Maybe. Probably. But think about it and let me know what you think.
~kindred
