Joss Whedon the feminist

[Silverspike]

"but seriously, while the show's focus in seasons 1-3 was about the scoobies and growing up, xander, willow and buffy with some angel romancing which wasn't the main point, it is not so in seasons 6-7. again, i am not saying it's a bad thing, but you cannot deny the change."

The seasons all had different story arcs. Six was heavily sexual for obvious reasons. Nothing stays the same when you grow up, and that was reflected in the show.

 

[EVIL UU]

Sadly the show is a lot about male objectification

Sadly

The way I see it, there's nothing sad about it. The beauty of a human body, of both male and female variety, should be celebrated! The athletic ideal is something we should all strive to achieve. Insecure people hate what they call objectification but it's themselves they truly hate for the sculpted bodies remind them of what they're not and what they could be. Have you seen how the people who bitch the loudest about objectification usually look? Yeah, not a coincidence.

Personally, I want to watch shirtless Spike! And I mean, yeah, OK, his pecks aren't exactly legendary but come on why does he even wear a shirt?! I want to watch Willow's midriff, it's ridiculous! I want to watch Buffy's everything! Her feet are really beautiful. It's in human nature to admire beauty.

 

[Wildfly]

"but seriously, while the show's focus in seasons 1-3 was about the scoobies and growing up, xander, willow and buffy with some angel romancing which wasn't the main point, it is not so in seasons 6-7. again, i am not saying it's a bad thing, but you cannot deny the change."

The seasons all had different story arcs. Six was heavily sexual for obvious reasons. Nothing stays the same when you grow up, and that was reflected in the show.

exactly, very different and graphic vibe in our case, that was my point.

 

[thetopher]

The way I see it, there's nothing sad about it. The beauty of a human body, of both male and female variety, should be celebrated!

I more mean the double standard is sad. I don't like the 'well the other way is all over television so this isn't so bad.' argument because its dumb and hypocritical.

To me objectification/exploitation doesn't really exist if say, the character is doing something interesting/is a complete character. By all means have the handsome male character shirtless, or have a beauiful girl in a low cut top, as long as there's story there as well.
To me that's where Buffy usually fits in- except in a lot of Season 6 (even JM complained about it)- the characters are compelling so what if their showing some skin.

Example from pop culture about the objectification thing- loads of people complain about Red Sonya in fiction- that little chainmail bikini thing she wears- whilst ignoring that fact that Conan, her fictional male equivelent- usually wears just a little loin cloth to show off his physique.
Both characters (in books and comics) are deadly warrior killing machines with interesting backstory, so I don't much care for the 'explotation' arguement, because there is none.

 

[Wildfly]

The way I see it, there's nothing sad about it. The beauty of a human body, of both male and female variety, should be celebrated! The athletic ideal is something we should all strive to achieve. Insecure people hate what they call objectification but it's themselves they truly hate for the sculpted bodies remind them of what they're not and what they could be. Have you seen how the people who bitch the loudest about objectification usually look? Yeah, not a coincidence.

Personally, I want to watch shirtless Spike! And I mean, yeah, OK, his pecks aren't exactly legendary but come on why does he even wear a shirt?! I want to watch Willow's midriff, it's ridiculous! I want to watch Buffy's everything! Her feet are really beautiful. It's in human nature to admire beauty.

whoops

i am all about yoga and gym, just because it's the most cheap and effective way to maintain a healthy lifestyle,
admire classic goodlike statues in general and i never denied that i love shirtless spike and that it can be an inspiration to others to work out, so you have a point there.
but to present objectification in our culture like it's the continuation of the ideas of 5 centrury B.C athens would be wrong.
it goes way beyond that, what with the anorexic barbie ideal and selling products and shows presenting females not as individuals but as empty sex toys who are treated accordingly.
i may be wrong, but i think hence the 'sadly' and 'objectification - bad'
i think there is nothing wrong with objectifying a complex character as it was done with Spike, but there are too many films and games (just to mention the very popular GTA among teenagers) where
women mostly featured as whores whose only purpose is to serve basic needs without any substance. and yes, these things affect how kids see themselves and their roles in society. don't even get me started on the subject, it'd be very boring.
 

I more mean the double standard is sad. I don't like the 'well the other way is all over television so this isn't so bad.' argument because its dumb and hypocritical.

To me objectification/exploitation doesn't really exist if say, the character is doing something interesting/is a complete character. By all means have the handsome male character shirtless, or have a beauiful girl in a low cut top, as long as there's story there as well.
To me that's where Buffy usually fits in- except in a lot of Season 6 (even JM complained about it)- the characters are compelling so what if their showing some skin.

Example from pop culture about the objectification thing- loads of people complain about Red Sonya in fiction- that little chainmail bikini thing she wears- whilst ignoring that fact that Conan, her fictional male equivelent- usually wears just a little loin cloth to show off his physique.
Both characters (in books and comics) are deadly warrior killing machines with interesting backstory, so I don't much care for the 'explotation' arguement, because there is none.

haha, you're right, except chainmail bikini became the official female armor and as an RPG player i object to that. it chafes and really not practical. 🙂

 

[thetopher]

haha, you're right, except chainmail bikini became the official female armor and as an RPG player i object to that. it chafes and really not practical.

That's a fair point I guess. But to me a female warrior is different from a female barbarian (which is what RS is supposed to be).
Agreed that female warriors should wear armor just like their male counterparts. No ridiculous midriff bearing plate armor or they get stabbed there! 🙂

 

[Slay me]

I guess from a personal standpoint, I don't view strong women as an anomaly. That's what I was born into. I think that we view things through the prism of our own experience. I think that's why Buffy's excessive emotional neediness that came through in her relationships with Angel and Riley was bothersome. She reminded me of so many girls looking for validation in a relationship. While understandable given the abandonment by her father, it would have been nice to see growth over time. I see Spike as a better match because there's more of a parity and less of the little girl neediness. Joss seemed to enjoy torpedoing every relationship on the show, but relationships are what most people (even super human types) seek to in a sense complement them. Season 6 was painful because nearly every character was savaged (figuratively) or killed. This was when I started to mistrust the writers with the characters.

 

[Mr Trick]

Her emotional

There's flawed, and then there's bordering on emotionally crippled. I actually think Joyce and Tara were stronger in ways that matter.

But then thats interesting in itself to have characters who are maybe more emotionally stronger than the lead.

 

[EVIL UU]

to present objectification in our culture like it's the continuation of the ideas of 5 centrury B.C athens would be wrong

Why? The only thing that's different is the medium but that's just technological development. They had Venus de Milo and Doryphoros and we have Willow and Spike. Compared to the ancients our mainstream culture is actually much more clothed.

 

[Slay me]

But then thats interesting in itself to have characters who are maybe more emotionally stronger than the lead.

A perfect character would be really boring. On balance, Buffy did represent a girl who was powerful and courageous. That in and of itself is an empowering role model. Maybe the emotional piece catches up as she matures.

 

[Dr Q]

I've only watched through the middle of season 6, so this may change, but . . . I don't see any feminism here. I see a lot of female stereotypes -- the whole joke of Buffy is that she's a brainless bimbo who suddenly gets superpowers. She's not stupid, but not particularly intelligent, so no threat there. She has no career goals, no aspirations, no self-direction. She's under male control and has to have a man in her life to make her complete. Nothing particularly feminist at all in this.

Willow -- she's smart, so she must be socially awkward and sexless. She even tutors the football player. And once she gets a little power, as a witch -- she also becomes a lesbian, is driven made by her power (Dark Phoenix, indeed) and . . . apparently something more happens later this season. In any case, right now, she's in rehab.

Cordelia? The prom queen. Anya? Every man's worst nightmare -- the psycho ex-girlfriend. Joyce? Could she be more 1950s idealized mother? And then she dies.

Sure, Xander is inept and socially awkward -- except that somehow he becomes the foreman of a construction company and a master carpenter. Notice that none of the women have jobs, except Anya? Certainly no career aspirations.

The authority figures are all male. Any female authority figure who shows up is bound to be killed -- and usually turns out to be evil first. I knew that female watcher was going to turn out to be evil simply because she was female. Faith -- the Slayer who rejects male authority? Evil. In prison. Dr. What's-her-name from the Initiative? Psychobitch -- and dead.

How many of the Council are female? I don't recall any. And certainly not half. So far, we haven't seen any of the coven in England. Just Giles, speaking for them.

Sorry, but this is not in any way feminist.

 

[Mr Trick]

I've only watched through the middle of season 6, so this may change, but . . . I don't see any feminism here. I see a lot of female stereotypes -- the whole joke of Buffy is that she's a brainless bimbo who suddenly gets superpowers. She's not stupid, but not particularly intelligent, so no threat there. She has no career goals, no aspirations, no self-direction. She's under male control and has to have a man in her life to make her complete. Nothing particularly feminist at all in this.

Willow -- she's smart, so she must be socially awkward and sexless. She even tutors the football player. And once she gets a little power, as a witch -- she also becomes a lesbian, is driven made by her power (Dark Phoenix, indeed) and . . . apparently something more happens later this season. In any case, right now, she's in rehab.

Cordelia? The prom queen. Anya? Every man's worst nightmare -- the psycho ex-girlfriend. Joyce? Could she be more 1950s idealized mother? And then she dies.

Sure, Xander is inept and socially awkward -- except that somehow he becomes the foreman of a construction company and a master carpenter. Notice that none of the women have jobs, except Anya? Certainly no career aspirations.

The authority figures are all male. Any female authority figure who shows up is bound to be killed -- and usually turns out to be evil first. I knew that female watcher was going to turn out to be evil simply because she was female. Faith -- the Slayer who rejects male authority? Evil. In prison. Dr. What's-her-name from the Initiative? Psychobitch -- and dead.

How many of the Council are female? I don't recall any. And certainly not half. So far, we haven't seen any of the coven in England. Just Giles, speaking for them.

Sorry, but this is not in any way feminist.

Well to be fair men are just as much under Buffy's control as they she is under theirs, perhaps more. But the point is that the show uses the stereotypes to then subvert them. If they were already fully rounded characters from the start then there would be no show.

As for the whole having no career goals etc... Well chances are neither would you if you were trapped in such a role as being the Slayer. That's one of the big messages of the show than ultimatley Buffy doesn't have much choice but to follow her calling, and has very little room to move from that path. At least the idea of her having a normal life, education, career etc.. is discussed, and don't forget other characters such as Willow make up for that.

Don't you think in reality that most of those authority figures would be male? Besides the one thing you can't throw at the show is a lack of central female characters.

 

[thetopher]

This is a little unfair.

I've only watched through the middle of season 6, so this may change, but . . . I don't see any feminism here. I see a lot of female stereotypes -- the whole joke of Buffy is that she's a brainless bimbo who suddenly gets superpowers. She's not stupid, but not particularly intelligent, so no threat there.

Buffy isn't a bimbo, she's actually pretty bright. She succeeds in high school (when she applies herself) and is in the top of her psyche class in college until she drops out.
She is sterotype subverted. She is bright, witty (the quipping) and mostly strong-willed. She does have some emotional neediness (when she's a teen S1-3), but just as often (say with Riley) she doesn't need him at all (emotionally). It's partly why they break up.
In S4 and 5 I don't see evidence of dependance on a man. In S6 its more complicated. In S7 *sigh* its even more complicated.

Willow -- she's smart, so she must be socially awkward and sexless.

Willow is super-cute! Honestly she's shy and awkward but no, I wouldn't call her in any way sex-less. Some on these boards dig the whole redhead/freckles/fuzzy jumpers/knee socks combo.

Cordelia? The prom queen.

Who goes on to become a champion on Angel. Sterotype subverted. Yeah so Joss fridges her character but at least she gets a swansong.

Anya? Every man's worst nightmare -- the psycho ex-girlfriend.

Eh, I agree here.

Joyce? Could she be more 1950s idealized mother?

Who owns her own business?

Sure, Xander is inept and socially awkward -- except that somehow he becomes the foreman of a construction company and a master carpenter. Notice that none of the women have jobs, except Anya? Certainly no career aspirations.

Xander is the one who didn't go to college. He also happens to be a guy. Almost all the girls get a higher education because it is seen as aspirational. Outside circumstances force Buffy to take a different path- it doesn't last forever. (s7)

The authority figures are all male.

And mostly evil/unsympathetic. They are there to be fought against and rejected. The Watcher's Council (specifically their way of doing things), the high school principal (complicit in evil. abuses power/is a bully), Mayor (evil), military (misguided/hihgminded), etc.

Faith -- the Slayer who rejects male authority? Evil. In prison.

Or, she follows the wrong authority figure. Most of the evil Faith commits is at the behest of said authority figure. When she startsd to think for herself, only then does she accept resonsibility for her actions.
Faith isn't about rejected authority, she's about rejected responsibility.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Willow doesn't start out as sexless, but she does become a bit of a stereotype by university...

 

[Dr Q]

Willow doesn't start out as sexless, but she does become a bit of a stereotype by university...

I mean in the sense of "not being seen as a sexual being. " She wears shapeless jumpers and heavy tights -- the sort of thing that is more appropriate in elementary school -- and moons after Xander, who considers her just another guy. It's not until Oz that anyone looks at her as an interesting and attractive person.

Which by itself is fine. It's pairing it with the "smart girl" that makes it a stereotype -- smart women are not sexy and sexy women are not smart (or deny it, ala Cordelia).
 

Well to be fair men are just as much under Buffy's control as they she is under theirs, perhaps more. But the point is that the show uses the stereotypes to then subvert them. If they were already fully rounded characters from the start then there would be no show.

As for the whole having no career goals etc... Well chances are neither would you if you were trapped in such a role as being the Slayer. That's one of the big messages of the show than ultimatley Buffy doesn't have much choice but to follow her calling, and has very little room to move from that path. At least the idea of her having a normal life, education, career etc.. is discussed, and don't forget other characters such as Willow make up for that.

Don't you think in reality that most of those authority figures would be male? Besides the one thing you can't throw at the show is a lack of central female characters.

Which men are under Buffy's control? For whom is she an authority figure? Beating up on people does not make you an authority figure.

None of the female characters in the show have career goals. Only Xander actually has a job. And I didn't say she didn't have a career - I said she had no goals. She never says anything to the effect of, "Being a Slayer is preventing me from achieving my goal of . . . whatever." What is her major?

Willow does not "make up for that." Willow not only has no job and no career -- Willow is the object lesson about what happens when weak women get too much power. Their emotions just overwhelm them. Why doesn't the Coven send their most powerful witch, imbued with their power? Why do they send a man?

Either the show is subverting stereotypes or it is not. You cannot say that it is -- and then argue that it is merely reflecting reality. In reality, most librarians are women. In reality -- there is no Council of Watchers. There are no vampires. There are no Slayers. Oh, and why are all of the high school principals male?

Central female characters who are merely reinforcing every sexist stereotype in our culture.
 

This is a little unfair.

Buffy isn't a bimbo, she's actually pretty bright. She succeeds in high school (when she applies herself) and is in the top of her psyche class in college until she drops out.
She is sterotype subverted. She is bright, witty (the quipping) and mostly strong-willed. She does have some emotional neediness (when she's a teen S1-3), but just as often (say with Riley) she doesn't need him at all (emotionally). It's partly why they break up.
In S4 and 5 I don't see evidence of dependance on a man. In S6 its more complicated. In S7 *sigh* its even more complicated.

How is that subversive? Subversive takes the stereotype and stands it on its head. Granted, in terms of physical prowess, she does that. But how else? How, through the series, is she subversive? how does she undermine the stereotype of the white, middle-class suburban high school cheerleader?

You must have forgotten about her chasing after the helicopter and her moping around for several episodes about Riley. Just the fact of Riley . . . Angel -- then the one-night stand guy who dumps her -- then Riley -- then Spike. When is there not a man in her life? And when are those relationships not heteronormative?

Willow is super-cute! Honestly she's shy and awkward but no, I wouldn't call her in any way sex-less. Some on these boards dig the whole redhead/freckles/fuzzy jumpers/knee socks combo.

How many dates does Willow get in high school? How does the jock describe her?

I haven't seen Angel, so I can't comment -- but Cordelia is a stereotype in this show. She is the shallow, materialistic prom queen. And it isn't subversive for a character to learn a lesson and change for the better.

You need to set the bar higher. When do we see Joyce at work? What role does her business play in her life? What were her qualifications for that business? The business only comes into it when it suits the plot. We see Joyce at home and at school. She is not remembered for her business. She is remembered for being "Mom." For a supposed business owner, she has an incredible amount of free time. The small business owners I know put in long hours at work, and bring it home with them. She bakes cookies.

She's a great mom -- really! Just nothing subversive about her at all.

Xander is the one who didn't go to college. He also happens to be a guy. Almost all the girls get a higher education because it is seen as aspirational. Outside circumstances force Buffy to take a different path- it doesn't last forever. (s7)

Not sure how that in any way contradicts what I said. Yes -- he doesn't go to college -- and he's a guy -- so within an incredibly short period of time, with very little experience, he becomes a construction foreman and master carpenter. How is this subversive?

What are the girls majoring in? And why are they all at UC Sunnydale, rather than the truly quality schools that accepted them? As I recall, they just couldn't bear to be separated from their friends.

And mostly evil/unsympathetic. They are there to be fought against and rejected. The Watcher's Council (specifically their way of doing things), the high school principal (complicit in evil. abuses power/is a bully), Mayor (evil), military (misguided/hihgminded), etc.

And your point is . . . what? That women can't be evil/unsympathetic authority figures? That they cannot be fought against and rejected?

And then there's Giles. Father-figure par exellence.

Or, she follows the wrong authority figure. Most of the evil Faith commits is at the behest of said authority figure. When she startsd to think for herself, only then does she accept resonsibility for her actions. Faith isn't about rejected authority, she's about rejected responsibility.

Faith rejects Wesley as her Watcher. She also has lied about her Watcher being dead because she does not want another watcher. Faith chooses to ally herself with the Mayor. She was thinking for herself. the real question is why she felt the need for an authority figure in the first place.
 
And then there's that male gaze. We know that there are male gay characters, but the only gay characters shown kissing or otherwise physically intimate are female.

 

[thetopher]

How is that subversive? Subversive takes the stereotype and stands it on its head. Granted, in terms of physical prowess, she does that. But how else? How, through the series, is she subversive? how does she undermine the stereotype of the white, middle-class suburban high school cheerleader?

I dunno, its supposed to be subversive of the horror movie cliche- the dumb superficial blonde who gets killed by the monster. Buffy is smart, mocks the monsters that try and kill her and then kills them right back. I'm not sure what more you could ask for.

You must have forgotten about her chasing after the helicopter and her moping around for several episodes about Riley. Just the fact of Riley . . . Angel -- then the one-night stand guy who dumps her -- then Riley -- then Spike. When is there not a man in her life?

I didn't. Buffy spends maybe one episode comedy crying and beating up a troll and one later on lamenting the loss of Riley. She spends more time worrying about her Mom and sister than she ever did about Riley. She didn't need him and that's a lot of the reason their relationship failed.

I'll admit that she was needy with Angel- she's a teenager its he's her first love. Does Buffy need to be self-reliant right out of the gate or can she learn, change and grow.
The fact is that Buffy needed her friends/father figure a lot more than she ever needed a boyfriend.

I mean teenagers/young people like to date, and they like romance. That's part of what the show depicts. What you're complaining about could be applied just as easily to Xander. He's constantly involved with some 'bad' romantic option (its a running joke)- Mantis Lady, Mummy Girl, Cordelia, then Anya. He's never really single for very long, unlike Buffy, and is defined as a 'demon magnet' more than Buffy is defined by her various romantic options.

How many dates does Willow get in high school? How does the jock describe her?

So Buffy dates too much and is 'defined by the men she dates' and Willow doesn't date enough. Is there a girl on the show who dates 'just the right amount' to satify your criteria?

I haven't seen Angel, so I can't comment -- but Cordelia is a stereotype in this show. She is the shallow, materialistic prom queen.

Then, with all due respect, you don't have the full picture of her character. I don't consider Cordelia a feminist character until she goes onto AtS. Until that time Cordelia is a foil for Buffy's character- the road not taken. A shadow of Buffy's former, non-slaying life.

You need to set the bar higher. When do we see Joyce at work? What role does her business play in her life? What were her qualifications for that business? The business only comes into it when it suits the plot.

Joyce was an ancilery character to Buffy so her character shows up only when it matters to Buffy. She's Buffy's Mom and so that's always her focus. If she was a 50's house wife then they could've simply stated that Buffy had both a Mom and a Dad and Joyce didn't even need a job.
But she isn't- Joyce is a working Mom.

Not sure how that in any way contradicts what I said. Yes -- he doesn't go to college -- and he's a guy -- so within an incredibly short period of time, with very little experience, he becomes a construction foreman and master carpenter. How is this subversive?

You were saying how Xander is the only one with a job whilst ignoring the fact that young people going to college is usually aspirational towards some sort of decent career later on.
Really I'm not sure what more you're looking for in show about teenagers growing up. You want them to get dynamic, high flying careers? Really I want them to fight monsters.

And your point is . . . what?

That its a girl defying an authority that happens to always be a patriarchy. That's strongly feminist to a degree, and its not an accident. Buffy doesn't do what she is told by any of the crusty men-types who would try and control her.

That women can't be evil/unsympathetic authority figures?

Gwen Post and Walsh. Two unsympathetic authority figures.

Faith rejects Wesley as her Watcher. She also has lied about her Watcher being dead because she does not want another watcher. Faith chooses to ally herself with the Mayor. She was thinking for herself. the real question is why she felt the need for an authority figure in the first place.

But Faith still doesn't reject authority the way you stated. That isn't the moral of her tale. She rejects the consequences of her actions.

I guess maybe Faith wants an authority figure more than needs it. She wanted Gwendolyn Post and Giles to an extent. Later she chooses the Mayor because she wants to belong/appreiciated so she chooses not to think for herself. Unlike Buffy who decides her own course and 'graduates'.

And then there's that male gaze. We know that there are male gay characters, but the only gay characters shown kissing or otherwise physically intimate are female.

The male gaze...Angel, Riley and Spike are shirtless an awful lot for no reason at all. I think the male and female gaze is catered too just fine.

 

[Icarium]

How is that subversive? Subversive takes the stereotype and stands it on its head. Granted, in terms of physical prowess, she does that. But how else? How, through the series, is she subversive? how does she undermine the stereotype of the white, middle-class suburban high school cheerleader?

I take it all the white, middle-class suburban high school cheerleaders that you know save the world on a regular basis then? Or at least show the resourcefulness and mental resilience that Buffy showed time and again? There are many enemies that Buffy defeated with good planning or improvisation, not because she could punch harder than them. The stereotypical high school cheerleader can barely tie her own shoes without help. I like Xander more than I like Buffy but still "he has a good job and she doesn't" is a very simplistic way of looking at things. She has sacrificed so much in protecting Sunnydale and the world that's downright miraculous she is still a functioning human being. Mind you, they took it too far with the whole "Buffy is only good for flipping burgers" in S6.

She's under male control

No, she isn't. Virtually every time Giles and Buffy have a disagreement it's Buffy who prevails eventually. She put a pretense on obeying the Council for a handful episode but that's it. Every important male character being under Buffy's control would be much closer to the truth. Most authority figures are men - most of whom are hilariously incompetent and/or evil and/or betray Buffy who triumphs in the end.

Willow does not "make up for that." Willow not only has no job and no career -- Willow is the object lesson about what happens when weak women get too much power. Their emotions just overwhelm them. Why doesn't the Coven send their most powerful witch, imbued with their power? Why do they send a man?

Gotta agree here - they had a smart, driven female character... who then became all about magic and couldn't control even that supposedly all-important aspect of her life. The whole real life aspect of the became an afterthought after S4, IMO (except as a source of more angst for Buffy). Willow's major and lack of any explicitly mentioned career goals were a symptom of that.

Willow -- she's smart, so she must be socially awkward and sexless. She even tutors the football player.

Willow isn't really socially awkward. Tara is (at first) socially awkward. Willow merely has some quirks.

It's pairing it with the "smart girl" that makes it a stereotype -- smart women are not sexy and sexy women are not smart (or deny it, ala Cordelia).

Except that quite a few characters do find Willow sexy. Xander even helpfully spells out at some point that "Smart girls are so hot." Cordelia faking stupidity is an annoying stereotype, agreed.

How many dates does Willow get in high school?

Quite a bit more than Buffy does. 🙂

As I recall, they just couldn't bear to be separated from their friends.

As I recall they had hundreds of innocent lives to save too...

And then there's that male gaze. We know that there are male gay characters, but the only gay characters shown kissing or otherwise physically intimate are female.

There might be gay male characters in the Buffyverse but none of any particular importance. You make it sound like we got random lesbian kisses for fanservice only, rather than just Tara and Willow being sometimes shown kissing (much less often than any major hetero-couple). In fact, I can hardly think of making Willow and Tara less about the infamous male gaze. Of course, one can say this was more due to the network which didn't want to allow even the occasional kiss than Joss not wanting to objectify the couple in question but still... If anything, the show went out of its way to portray Willow and Tara in unflattering outfits and there are way more random shirtless scenes for the male characters than contrived skimpy outfits for the female ones, so you have to really be grasping for straws to claim pandering for the male gaze was so important.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Willow isn't really socially awkward. Tara is (at first) socially awkward. Willow merely has some quirks.

Season 1, Willow is definitely socially awkward.

 

[Mr Trick]

Socially awkward, but then it is quite common for people how age to be that way, in fact people much older can be, Dont see why this is a flaw.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I was just sayin', but I think the OP meant it as saying she was a stereotype - the smart girl can't just be smart she must also be socially awkward.