The Trouble with Feminism in Buffy

[Noitartst]

Make no mistake, I have great respect for Buffy as a show, and Wheddon in particular, and have seen up to the first handful of season 7 episodes (please, no spoilers), but what drives me to distraction is the ideological feminist arrogance that keeps cropping up at the most obnoxious of times.

When we say that Buffy is "strong," do we mean it in the sense that she is physically strong, personally strong, a strong character in the literary sense, or simply the embodiment of a strong, pro-feminist archetype? These ain't all the same things, but in people's heads, they tend to run together.

Frankly, I mostly respect Buffy, the literary creation, and largely what I dislike I chalk up to the ideological dictates to the series. She's an absolute icon, but in terms of how deeply you can analyze a character, I think the consensus is that she simply doesn't stack up to Spike(who's simply great), or even Angel (lousy series aside), and that's not a knock on her in the least.

To me, what makes her relatable is her struggles, and to me, she never struggled more than in that wonderful sixth season. Some found her weak that year, but I disagree, not the least because like her, I've battled immense depression, and I want to tell you, there's a lot of emotional resonance there if you look, and just leave it to someone who's been through immense depression to tell you just what strength in dealing with it is like. (Just ask someone, and not necessarily myself.)

Wheddon knew well when he said that her struggling was better for the show, and for me that was good, because when she wasn't, all that arrogance, coupled, and oft-personified by the one-liners would start getting incessantly annoying.

I don't mind strong women, you see, but I do mind when it comes at the expense of good characterization, and making somebody look good at the price of making somebody look weak is too often the pitfall the writing fell into as a result.

Recall nigh the end of season of season 5, and Buffy slumps into that catatonic breakdown, during which Willow, essentially for the first time and without precedent, takes charge? The writing amy have handled it well, but all the same, it's merely cleverness to mask the fact they were summarily changing the way that certain characters would act within certain situations, and no matter how you slice it, that's inherently weak.

To make it work, they had to make Spike panic (Spike led a gang on his own, not the least, so I don't see it) and make Giles, the elder statesman, completely silent, though they used his being hurt to help justify it. Wheddon did a lot of this kind of stuff, unilaterally stirring the pot, and he was good at it. Willow's (and I really do like her) taking charge like that made good thematic sense for the show along feminist terms, what with Buffy as she was, but forcing it's forcing it, in my book, and I hate it, not the least, because it's less-than-good story-telling, amidst other things.

Congruence with feminism, in a lot of cases, weakened the show, not the least because they would at times embrace the cheap statement, and come of tinny, how Buffy casually beats the Master after she's resurrected, and likewise where she lamely, predictably, encounters the head of that biker gang at the start of the sixth season. Keep in mind, I have a lot of respect for the series to say the least, but it could have been better, and not the least less shrill.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Frankly, I mostly respect Buffy, the literary creation, and largely what I dislike I chalk up to the ideological dictates to the series. She's an absolute icon, but in terms of how deeply you can analyze a character, I think the consensus is that she simply doesn't stack up to Spike(who's simply great), or even Angel (lousy series aside), and that's not a knock on her in the least.

I don't mind strong women, you see, but I do mind when it comes at the expense of good characterization, and making somebody look good at the price of making somebody look weak is too often the pitfall the writing fell into as a result.

What about Buffy being strong did you find unbelievable or forced for the sake of ideology? Emotionally and personally, I mean. Wouldn't you agree that simply being the Slayer requires a great deal of personal strength? Consider that and everything Buffy went through with her first love, the numerous apocalypses she deals with, her mother dying, her own death, raising her sister, her clinical depression in Season 6, etc., it makes perfect sense to me that Buffy is strong. She's incredible because she has to be. Sometimes she struggles, and sometimes she fails. But that's also part of being strong, isn't it?

IMO, I very strongly disagree with the idea that her characterization doesn't stack up to Spike or Angel. Personally, she's my favorite character exactly because she's so complex. (And AtS is awesome, lol. 😉)

I'd also add that having strong female characters (however you interpret 'strong') doesn't necessarily mean a show is feminist.

Congruence with feminism, in a lot of cases, weakened the show, not the least because they would at times embrace the cheap statement, and come of tinny, how Buffy casually beats the Master after she's resurrected, and likewise where she lamely, predictably, encounters the head of that biker gang at the start of the sixth season. Keep in mind, I have a lot of respect for the series to say the least, but it could have been better, and not the least less shrill.

See, I'd argue the exact opposite. I thought BtVS (and AtS, for that matter) had a lot of anti-feminist issues, and that's what weakened the show. Bring on the congruence with feminism, I'd love some! Lol. 😀

You bring up examples of Buffy's physical strength, and I ask again- what about that is unbelievable? Buffy's shown throughout the series that she is more than capable of taking on all kinds of demons. Her greatest challenges are when she's not facing demons, really.

 

[Abby27]

When we say that Buffy is "strong," do we mean it in the sense that she is physically strong, personally strong, a strong character in the literary sense, or simply the embodiment of a strong, pro-feminist archetype? These ain't all the same things, but in people's heads, they tend to run together.

I think Buffy shows immense strength, both physically and emotionally. Obviously, she is the slayer. She has serious strength and can take out almost anything. But she is a young girl who at the age of 16 make a choice to give her own life for the sake of the world's safety. That shows some amazing emotional strength and responsibility. She even killed Angel to protect the world. Instead of depicting the typical 17y/o girl who can't do anything besides identify herself through her boyfriend, she sent him to hell for the greater good. That's strength. 🙂

To make it work, they had to make Spike panic (Spike led a gang on his own, not the least, so I don't see it) and make Giles, the elder statesman, completely silent, though they used his being hurt to help justify it. Wheddon did a lot of this kind of stuff, unilaterally stirring the pot, and he was good at it. Willow's (and I really do like her) taking charge like that made good thematic sense for the show along feminist terms, what with Buffy as she was, but forcing it's forcing it, in my book, and I hate it, not the least, because it's less-than-good story-telling, amidst other things.

And I gotta disagree with you about it feeling forced. Buffy herself is the symbol of feminism in the show: Joss was sick of the blonde girl dying in the alleyway of movies, now she's the one that's gonna save you. And the thing is, she is till just a girl. The scene at the very beginning of The Gift shows this theme perfectly. You have this young woman who honestly, used to be a shallow, self-absorbed brat, and because of her destiny, she was transformed into this amazingly strong woman. Instead of running away, she held her ground.

Also, a big theme of the show is the importance of free will and choice - which is a big theme of feminism, that a woman should have the same rights as men whether that means pursuing a business career or being a full-time mother. And throughout the series Buffy demonstrates her ability to make a choice and be proud of it, case and point: she quit the watcher's council. She didn't like the way the watchers were running it and treating her like a tool, so she took her power back and quit, but still kept fighting the good fight. Which is pretty cool. 😎

 

[Tome]

See, I'd argue the exact opposite. I thought BtVS (and AtS, for that matter) had a lot of anti-feminist issues, and that's what weakened the show.

I'm curious now! What were those issues? I've had people tell me that before, but they rarely went on to explain exactly what it was.

 

[Blondie Bear]

You might be interested in Sherrilyn Kenyon's essay "The Search for Spike's Balls," which showed up in Seven Seasons of Buffy: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Discuss Their Favorite Show. She essentially complains that every single person--male, female, whoever--around Buffy has to be completely weakened and emasculated in order for her to be strong. It's a fascinating essay.

 

[Icarium]

Frankly, I mostly respect Buffy, the literary creation, and largely what I dislike I chalk up to the ideological dictates to the series. She's an absolute icon, but in terms of how deeply you can analyze a character, I think the consensus is that she simply doesn't stack up to Spike(who's simply great), or even Angel (lousy series aside), and that's not a knock on her in the least.

Consensus? Where did you find such a consensus?

I don't mind strong women, you see, but I do mind when it comes at the expense of good characterization, and making somebody look good at the price of making somebody look weak is too often the pitfall the writing fell into as a result.

Recall nigh the end of season of season 5, and Buffy slumps into that catatonic breakdown, during which Willow, essentially for the first time and without precedent, takes charge? The writing amy have handled it well, but all the same, it's merely cleverness to mask the fact they were summarily changing the way that certain characters would act within certain situations, and no matter how you slice it, that's inherently weak.

Or, you know, they were showing the changes in the characters. In S5 Willow becomes vastly more powerful that she was before, it's to be expected that she gains new levels of confidence too. Also, Giles almost dying and Buffy going catatonic isn't any more contrived than Buffy being pulled out of heaven and finding out her friends don't give a fig about her in S6, so you might as well hate S6 too. 😉 In the situation it totally made sense for Willow to be in charge and not because she happened to be female. Not to mention that considering this was all a part of the (moronic) Dark Willow arc setup, it's not as if this new-found strength led to much happiness for Willow, so she kind of fails as a shiny feminist symbol, at least in the way you imagine the writers were going about creating such symbols.

Congruence with feminism, in a lot of cases, weakened the show, not the least because they would at times embrace the cheap statement, and come of tinny, how Buffy casually beats the Master after she's resurrected

Casually? Did we watch the same episode?

And the funny thing is you haven't gotten to the point where the terribly executed feminist preaching really becomes a problem, namely S7.

She essentially complains that every single person--male, female, whoever--around Buffy has to be completely weakened and emasculated in order for her to be strong. It's a fascinating essay.

That's a weird thing to say considering the title of the essay since Spike being Buffy's lapdog didn't really make Buffy look any stronger. That said, there was a lot of "let's make the rest look bad so that Buffy (and Spike) look better in the last seasons.

 

[faeriegrrl27]

I've said it before and I will say it again: the wonderful, most feminist aspect of the show, is that within the show, it is never acknowledged as feminism. Buffy is the leader because she is strong (in a variety of ways) and has good leadership qualities, not because she is a woman. Everyone on the show views each other (respect and capability-wise) in terms of who they are as people, not their gender.

That being said, at no time in the show did "feminist congruence" seem forced. I would certainly not say that Willow taking control in Weight of the World was without precedent. When Buffy has been out of the picture, we've seen her take control before. While Buffy was doing other stuff, Willow took charge in the library in "The Dark Age" when she broke up the fight between Cordy and Xander. She has shown much capability, and throughout seasons 4 and 5, we see her gain confidence and her own control skills (exemplified by her growing adeptness at the magicks). With Giles wounded, Willow becoming a powerful and confident person, it only makes sense that she be the one to take charge. Spike could not assign tasks to these people; no one respected or liked him enough to listen. Giles was in no position to be leading, and Xander, much more than Willow, had set to precedent for taking a leadership role. I have a hard time seeing Xander a) being able to articulate exactly what needed to be done and b) overlooking his Spike prejudice enough to see him as an important part of the gang that could be put to good work. It was not only *not* forced, but Willow's taking charge was the *only* natural thing that could have happened.

I think the sooner we can stop seeing the characters as strong women or men and see them as strong people, the sooner we will get to true equality, which I think was the goal of the show. Men have been heroic in the show, as have women. There are some clearly sexist villains, and it is even implied that part of their awfulness is their sexism, but the same could be said about a racist villain, and that would not make the show a forced commentary on whatever the feminism equivalent to racism is. We shouldn't even be noticing that the people who take control are female; their ability and right to do so (with that right being based on their skills, not gender) is the important part. As Joss said in his Equality Now speech, the reason for strong female characters is that people still have to ask that question.

 

[The Unspoken]

That being said, at no time in the show did "feminist congruence" seem forced. I would certainly not say that Willow taking control in Weight of the World was without precedent. When Buffy has been out of the picture, we've seen her take control before. While Buffy was doing other stuff, Willow took charge in the library in "The Dark Age" when she broke up the fight between Cordy and Xander. She has shown much capability, and throughout seasons 4 and 5, we see her gain confidence and her own control skills (exemplified by her growing adeptness at the magicks). With Giles wounded, Willow becoming a powerful and confident person, it only makes sense that she be the one to take charge. Spike could not assign tasks to these people; no one respected or liked him enough to listen. Giles was in no position to be leading, and Xander, much more than Willow, had set to precedent for taking a leadership role. I have a hard time seeing Xander a) being able to articulate exactly what needed to be done and b) overlooking his Spike prejudice enough to see him as an important part of the gang that could be put to good work. It was not only *not* forced, but Willow's taking charge was the *only* natural thing that could have happened.

No precedent? Xander led the Scooby Gang between 'Becoming' and 'Anne' (Nighthawk anyone?) and he also led the fight against the Mayor in 'Graduation Day', during which he set aside his prejudice of Angel and worked together with him.

I think (one of) the point(s) of the OP is that men should not be regressed or marginalized in order to make women look stronger. Apart from Xander, I can't really come up of any instances where this is the case, though season 7 might contain a few.

One thing that sticks out is that Buffy and Willow, who have powers, are the 'big stars' of the later seasons, whereas Giles and Xander, the ones lacking powers, are pushed to the background (though Giles' knowledge is arguably a power). Make of that what you will.

 

[prophecygrrl]

I think (one of) the point(s) of the OP is that men should not be regressed or marginalized in order to make women look stronger. Apart from Xander, I can't really come up of any instances where this is the case, though season 7 might contain a few.

One thing that sticks out is that Buffy and Willow, who have powers, are the 'big stars' of the later seasons, whereas Giles and Xander, the ones lacking powers, are pushed to the background (though Giles' knowledge is arguably a power). Make of that what you will.

I'd agree that when it comes to quality of writing, inorganically manipulating your characters like that would be wrong. But all in all, I don't think BtVS had that problem when it comes to gender. Giles got pushed to the background, yes, but I'd say that's more out of deference to the "aging, surpassed mentor" archetype in traditional heroic narratives than it is to his gender. And as for Xander, he's always been the "normal" one of the group. In the final season, where they're gearing up for the big showdown, I don't think he had a place in that fight the same way Willow or Buffy did. He's important, but important in a different way? And ultimately, I think each of the Scoobies has proved their importance to the mission (and to Buffy) already anyway. They have different uses, different strengths, and different weaknesses. I don't think that any one of them are meant to be superior, per se. Maybe Buffy, but then again, she's the title character.

I think we have to remember that empowerment of one group (in this case, a traditionally marginalized one) does not necessarily mean the disenfranchisement of the other. Like I said, I don't see this done in BtVS. By character, of course there have been moments of OOC writing when the writers are trying to make a point or drive a storyline along or something. But by gender? For the sake of feminism? I don't buy that. In the example given by the OP, I see Xander's and Giles' respective issues at the end of Season 5 to be very fitting to character. At least in that context and at that point in time.

 

[The Unspoken]

I'd agree that when it comes to quality of writing, inorganically manipulating your characters like that would be wrong. But all in all, I don't think BtVS had that problem when it comes to gender. Giles got pushed to the background, yes, but I'd say that's more out of deference to the "aging, surpassed mentor" archetype in traditional heroic narratives than it is to his gender. And as for Xander, he's always been the "normal" one of the group. In the final season, where they're gearing up for the big showdown, I don't think he had a place in that fight the same way Willow or Buffy did. He's important, but important in a different way? And ultimately, I think each of the Scoobies has proved their importance to the mission (and to Buffy) already anyway. They have different uses, different strengths, and different weaknesses. I don't think that any one of them are meant to be superior, per se. Maybe Buffy, but then again, she's the title character.

I think we have to remember that empowerment of one group (in this case, a traditionally marginalized one) does not necessarily mean the disenfranchisement of the other. Like I said, I don't see this done in BtVS. By character, of course there have been moments of OOC writing when the writers are trying to make a point or drive a storyline along or something. But by gender? For the sake of feminism? I don't buy that. In the example given by the OP, I see Xander's and Giles' respective issues at the end of Season 5 to be very fitting to character. At least in that context and at that point in time.

Oh, I think Willow taking over after Buffy's catatonia makes perfect sense, and isn't inorganic at all. I was making more of a general statement. I consider Xander suddenly forgetting his soldier memories to be an example of inorganic writing, which happens in season 4 I think. Whether that was motivated by a feminist agenda or not, I don't know, but the sum total is that the women are relatively 'stronger', as a result of (what I consider to be) inorganic writing.

 

[Red Sox Nation]

You might be interested in Sherrilyn Kenyon's essay "The Search for Spike's Balls," which showed up in Seven Seasons of Buffy: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Discuss Their Favorite Show. She essentially complains that every single person--male, female, whoever--around Buffy has to be completely weakened and emasculated in order for her to be strong. It's a fascinating essay.

there's an essay on that? I've been saying the same thing for years to my friends & all around the internet, & a lot agree with me.

Spike was stronger in Angel, Angel himself was stronger in his own show, & Xander was pretty much girlish even though he has clocked 7 years of field time. & even Faith is stronger on Angel.

 

[Icarium]

One thing that sticks out is that Buffy and Willow, who have powers, are the 'big stars' of the later seasons, whereas Giles and Xander, the ones lacking powers, are pushed to the background (though Giles' knowledge is arguably a power). Make of that what you will.

That's more of a "superpowers rock" thing than "men suck". Just look at Spike who is very prominent in the final two seasons or Giles being important only when he borrowed magic from that coven to face Dark Willow. Dawn is just as marginalized as the men who lack superpowers, the Potentials are just a burden on Buffy

Spoiler

until they get their powers

, Willow is useless when she doesn't cast spells, etc. In any case, I believe that Willow and Buffy's complete inability to properly control their powers and use their brains in S6-8 totally undermines any feminist message that said powers might represent.

That being said, at no time in the show did "feminist congruence" seem forced.

Spoiler

Not even the Guardian woman who claimed to have been protecting Buffy from the evil male Watchers?

P.S. The spoilers are for S7, added because of the OP's request.

 

[Noitartst]

What about Buffy being strong did you find unbelievable or forced for the sake of ideology? Emotionally and personally, I mean. Wouldn't you agree that simply being the Slayer requires a great deal of personal strength? Consider that and everything Buffy went through with her first love, the numerous apocalypses she deals with, her mother dying, her own death, raising her sister, her clinical depression in Season 6, etc., it makes perfect sense to me that Buffy is strong. She's incredible because she has to be. Sometimes she struggles, and sometimes she fails. But that's also part of being strong, isn't it?

Buffy is physically strong, and as a fan of fantasy, I've no problem, but I do with some of the barbs in her attitude.

Buffy is anything but pseudo-tough, someone, like say Sakura, from Naruto, who's physically strong, but in pretty much every other way pathetic. WHen Buffy struggles, I mostly empathize, and I mean that as a sincere compliment.

I think that I'm a fan of the series as a whole says a lot about what I think concerning the overall quality of the series, and I never accused her of being weak. Mostly, I'm complaining about a needless obnoxiousness.

IMO, I very strongly disagree with the idea that her characterization doesn't stack up to Spike or Angel. Personally, she's my favorite character exactly because she's so complex. (And AtS is awesome, lol. 😉)

Well, I'm pretty confident the bulk of fans would disagree with her being as complex as SPike of ANgel, and that's simply for a myriad of reasons. Isay this not to diss her, but simply because, in the way the Slayerverse developed, Spike and Angel have simply traversed far longer, more complex journeys that are simply organic for them.

It's nothing against Buffy, because her character doesn't call for that, but I'm just saying that they have more to analyze, not that you should like them more, because when I call Spike, especially, "great," it's more an observation, recognition of the fact that his character both bears, and deserves, far more analysis than Buffy or Angel despite never having had his own show.

I'd also add that having strong female characters (however you interpret 'strong') doesn't necessarily mean a show is feminist.

I'll agree, but I think that Buffy is pretty clearly feminist.

See, I'd argue the exact opposite. I thought BtVS (and AtS, for that matter) had a lot of anti-feminist issues, and that's what weakened the show. Bring on the congruence with feminism, I'd love some! Lol. 😀

In my experience, feminism isn't about substance, anyway, but attitude. See, it's all about, per my understanding, acid takes on traditional masculinity, and little to do with how men and women actually interact. There are moments on the series which are very natural, and largely explain my interest on the shows, but like I said, feminism to me is an attitude problem, like a squeaky wheel, or a needlessly bumpy road.

You bring up examples of Buffy's physical strength, and I ask again- what about that is unbelievable? Buffy's shown throughout the series that she is more than capable of taking on all kinds of demons. Her greatest challenges are when she's not facing demons, really.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. What kind of points are there where you wish they were more feminist, and not less?

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

You might be interested in Sherrilyn Kenyon's essay "The Search for Spike's Balls," which showed up in Seven Seasons of Buffy: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Discuss Their Favorite Show. She essentially complains that every single person--male, female, whoever--around Buffy has to be completely weakened and emasculated in order for her to be strong. It's a fascinating essay.

Exactly--that's what I mean by bad writing, and I've worked a little at fantasy storytelling to know that this a real pitfall. Buffy as a show is themed around a certain type of empowerment, and as is too often the case, that means to make someone look better, you've got to make someone else worse, be it more immature, insecure, confused, whatever.

Feminism in particular is about making women look strong, so is it any wonder that a show attempting to portray it would find itself undermining male leads simply to make the series theme work?

A writer's psychology is to go from point A to point B,and sometimes, we choose to disregard all else to get there, because it's too much work to think about the bigger ramifications. Ergo, probably over 90% of all fan frustrations and criticisms stem simply from an author's sheer laziness to his own plotting.

In fiction, this is what you might call forcing a theme, and it's something writers do too often, and for any number of reasons. Themes can arise organically, mind you, but they take a lot more work to create, and often the time needed to form the right connections simply don't meet the deadlines that I show like Buffy had to run on.

For fans of Buffy, I simply ask you to take a hard look into what's going on. I think you overlook flaws in the series because when you like a theme from some part or other, you prefer to cheer, rather than look and see how it's running roughshod, and illogically, over something else.

PS: Where is Kenyon's essay online? I'd like to read it.

 

[Red Sox Nation]

Blondie Bear agrees: It's a fascinating article and put into words a lot of what was subconsciously bugging me about parts of the show.

its a book, do you know where can I read it online? it seems that the whole book is interesting not just this essay, so I'm interested to read the whole book, & I'm not sure it exists in bookstores anymore.

 

[Noitartst]

Consensus? Where did you find such a consensus?

Well, if we were to organize a group of fans, and asked them who, out of the three, was most interesting (as opposed to iconic), who would the pick? My definition of a Great character is someone that the more you analyze, the more you learn, and that is Spike above all. He changes far, far more than Buffy or Angel, and despite all that, remains compelling, which is extremely difficult.

I stopped routing for Angel after a while, and doing so for Buffy was a bit aggravating, but for Spike, I never have, and I think that says a lot. Easy, as a sheer character, he must be worth at least thrice the verbiage compared to either of them.

Or, you know, they were showing the changes in the characters.

Oh, I remember; I was following the interviews as well as the show during season five, and knew they were making changes, and that's what gets me. It was too big a leap, and much of the reason the fans accepted it, it would seem yourself included, was because you had accepted that attiude sufficiently to let them get away with that.

In S5 Willow becomes vastly more powerful that she was before, it's to be expected that she gains new levels of confidence too.

Oh, I agree, but that was dogmatic, shallow way to show it. I like Willow, and have created my own fictional sorceress, but in this case, I simply see no justifying precedents, and by what you said about season 7, I can't help but feel my instincts were vindicated.

Also, Giles almost dying and Buffy going catatonic isn't any more contrived than Buffy being pulled out of heaven and finding out her friends don't give a fig about her in S6, so you might as well hate S6 too. 😉

I've no problem with season 6 because for starters, it's brilliant, and her friends made a perfectly believable choice in bringing her back, which while partially selfish, wasn't wholly, so that's just gravy to me.

In the situation it totally made sense for Willow to be in charge and not because she happened to be female. Not to mention that considering this was all a part of the (moronic) Dark Willow arc setup, it's not as if this new-found strength led to much happiness for Willow, so she kind of fails as a shiny feminist symbol, at least in the way you imagine the writers were going about creating such symbols.

In Buffy, feminism is more like a crutch the writers turn back to when they're in a pinch, or something. The writers made Willow strong in that scene by way of making Spike and Giles weak, (Xander simply is weakness, so I don't include him) and liking or disliking feminism aside, as a writer, I find that truly cheap and offensive.

You don't (or at least try not to) make one character strong at the expense of somebody else. It's a very hard trick to pull off, but it can be done.

And the funny thing is you haven't gotten to the point where the terribly executed feminist preaching really becomes a problem, namely S7.

Well, that's because I had tuned out around "Conversations with Dead People," that's why and I did so mainly because of personal issues, and it had hardly anything to do with feminism.

That's a weird thing to say considering the title of the essay since Spike being Buffy's lapdog didn't really make Buffy look any stronger. That said, there was a lot of "let's make the rest look bad so that Buffy (and Spike) look better in the last seasons.

Funny how you agree with my gripe in general, but disagree with my biggest example. What, then, is a prime example of Buffy looking good at the expense of the others?

 

[Red Sox Nation]

the most obvious examples would be physical strength, nobody is his strong self unless he/she crosses to the evil side.

 

[Noitartst]

Consensus? Where did you find such a consensus?

Well, if we were to organize a group of fans, and asked them who, out of the three, was most interesting (as opposed to iconic), who would the pick? My definition of a Great character is someone that the more you analyze, the more you learn, and that is Spike above all. He changes far, far more than Buffy or Angel, and despite all that, remains compelling, which is extremely difficult.

I stopped routing for Angel after a while, and doing so for Buffy was a bit aggravating, but for Spike, I never have, and I think that says a lot. Easy, as a sheer character, he must be worth at least thrice the verbiage compared to either of them.

Or, you know, they were showing the changes in the characters.

Oh, I remember; I was following the interviews as well as the show during season five, and knew they were making changes, and that's what gets me. It was too big a leap, and much of the reason the fans accepted it, it would seem yourself included, was because you had accepted that attitude sufficiently to let them get away with that.

In S5 Willow becomes vastly more powerful that she was before, it's to be expected that she gains new levels of confidence too.

Oh, I agree, but that was dogmatic, shallow way to show it. I like Willow, and have created my own fictional sorceress, but in this case, I simply see no justifying precedents, and by what you said about season 7, I can't help but feel my instincts were vindicated.

Also, Giles almost dying and Buffy going catatonic isn't any more contrived than Buffy being pulled out of heaven and finding out her friends don't give a fig about her in S6, so you might as well hate S6 too. 😉

I've no problem with season 6 because for starters, it's brilliant, and her friends made a perfectly believable choice in bringing her back, which while partially selfish, wasn't wholly, so that's just gravy to me.

In the situation it totally made sense for Willow to be in charge and not because she happened to be female. Not to mention that considering this was all a part of the (moronic) Dark Willow arc setup, it's not as if this new-found strength led to much happiness for Willow, so she kind of fails as a shiny feminist symbol, at least in the way you imagine the writers were going about creating such symbols.

In Buffy, feminism is more like a crutch the writers turn back to when they're in a pinch, or something. The writers made Willow strong in that scene by way of making Spike and Giles weak, (Xander simply is weakness, so I don't include him) and liking or disliking feminism aside, as a writer, I find that truly cheap and offensive.

You don't (or at least try not to) make one character strong at the expense of somebody else. It's a very hard trick to pull off, but it can be done.

And the funny thing is you haven't gotten to the point where the terribly executed feminist preaching really becomes a problem, namely S7.

Well, that's because I had tuned out around "Conversations with Dead People," that's why and I did so mainly because of personal issues, and it had hardly anything to do with feminism.

That's a weird thing to say considering the title of the essay since Spike being Buffy's lapdog didn't really make Buffy look any stronger. That said, there was a lot of "let's make the rest look bad so that Buffy (and Spike) look better in the last seasons.

Funny how you agree with my gripe in general, but disagree with my biggest example. What, then, is a prime example of Buffy looking good at the expense of the others?

 

[Icarium]

In Buffy, feminism is more like a crutch the writers turn back to when they're in a pinch, or something. The writers made Willow strong in that scene by way of making Spike and Giles weak, (Xander simply is weakness, so I don't include him) and liking or disliking feminism aside, as a writer, I find that truly cheap and offensive.

You don't (or at least try not to) make one character strong at the expense of somebody else. It's a very hard trick to pull off, but it can be done.

I really don't see how they made Giles weak in that particular situation. He almost died, he was in no shape to lead anybody. If he had been unscathed and went catatonic for some reason, then you would have a point. When Buffy got sick in "Killed By Death" and had to be saved by Xander and Willow, did that make her look weak too? As for Spike, no one was going to follow him anyway. If anything, it's Xander who arguably could have been put in charge instead of Willow.

Funny how you agree with my gripe in general, but disagree with my biggest example. What, then, is a prime example of Buffy looking good at the expense of the others?

I can cite plenty of examples from S7 but they would mean nothing to you. 🙂 But there is the Dark Willow arc - "Buffy might be missing her rapist but at least she isn't trying to destroy the world like some people", The Gift where Buffy pulls the solution of the dilemma out of her ass, pretty much all of S6 where everyone else inexplicably doesn't give a fig about Buffy so Spike could swoop in and become her one and only confidant which makes Spike look better in comparison, Willwo not being able to control her powers because if she could Buffy would be rather irrelevant, Riley starting to behave like a total moron in the very same episode Spike has his wet dream of Buffy, etc.

Well, I'm pretty confident the bulk of fans would disagree with her being as complex as SPike of ANgel, and that's simply for a myriad of reasons. Isay this not to diss her, but simply because, in the way the Slayerverse developed, Spike and Angel have simply traversed far longer, more complex journeys that are simply organic for them.

Anya has lived longer than Spike, Angel and Buffy combined. Does that make her automatically the most complex and fascinating character? No, she is pretty much a one dimensional caricature. Amount of changes and years lived doesn't make a well developed character by default.

Oh, I agree, but that was dogmatic, shallow way to show it. I like Willow, and have created my own fictional sorceress, but in this case, I simply see no justifying precedents, and by what you said about season 7, I can't help but feel my instincts were vindicated.

Characterization can't rely on precedents only or else ever character would stagnate. I don't think making Willow all that powerful was a good idea but once this was done it made sense for her to be in charge when Buffy and Giles are not in shape to do so.

 

[Noitartst]

I really don't see how they made Giles weak in that particular situation. He almost died, he was in no shape to lead anybody. If he had been unscathed and went catatonic for some reason, then you would have a point. When Buffy got sick in "Killed By Death" and had to be saved by Xander and Willow, did that make her look weak too? As for Spike, no one was going to follow him anyway. If anything, it's Xander who arguably could have been put in charge instead of Willow.

More than anything, it's how they did it, that's the thing. Xander's pathetic, but they made Spike panicking, and that above all is what I have a problem with. Explain to me how it's not a case of making somebody looking strong at someone else's expencse, because that's poor writing, no matter how cleverly accomplished.

I can cite plenty of examples from S7 but they would mean nothing to you. 🙂 But there is the Dark Willow arc - "Buffy might be missing her rapist but at least she isn't trying to destroy the world like some people", The Gift where Buffy pulls the solution of the dilemma out of her ass, pretty much all of S6 where everyone else inexplicably doesn't give a fig about Buffy so Spike could swoop in and become her one and only confidant which makes Spike look better in comparison,

The group wasn't being mean to her in season six, they were just getting on (or not) with themselves, felt they had by resurrecting her helped her out, and when you're depressed, that's just the way things are: You stagnate. Alone Spike obviously had a vested interest to listen to her, and I don't think he was doing a thing at anyone else's expense.

Willwo not being able to control her powers because if she could Buffy would be rather irrelevant, Riley starting to behave like a total moron in the very same episode Spike has his wet dream of Buffy, etc.

WHat you're doing is basically cite a lot of shallow plot points which I happen to be more forgiving of. Riley was a reasonable character, but I had little attachment to him one way or the other, yet I don't recall him being a total moron, though; you'd need to jog my memory, but perhaps that is the point--forgettability.

Anya has lived longer than Spike, Angel and Buffy combined. Does that make her automatically the most complex and fascinating character? No, she is pretty much a one dimensional caricature. Amount of changes and years lived doesn't make a well developed character by default.

Exactly; Anya makes me smile, and I relate to her, and she changed some, but she's nowhere close to great, not the least because she' not very dynamic. "Liking" ANya doesn't mean she's compelling, and while I may like her company more than Angel's, that certain doesn't make her more interesting

Characterization can't rely on precedents only or else ever character would stagnate. I don't think making Willow all that powerful was a good idea but once this was done it made sense for her to be in charge when Buffy and Giles are not in shape to do so.

To a certain degree I agree, but the how is another matter, and as I said, it's largely about making one character better at another's expense. You seem to see this in general, though not in this instance.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Buffy is physically strong, and as a fan of fantasy, I've no problem, but I do with some of the barbs in her attitude.

Buffy is anything but pseudo-tough, someone, like say Sakura, from Naruto, who's physically strong, but in pretty much every other way pathetic. WHen Buffy struggles, I mostly empathize, and I mean that as a sincere compliment.

I think that I'm a fan of the series as a whole says a lot about what I think concerning the overall quality of the series, and I never accused her of being weak. Mostly, I'm complaining about a needless obnoxiousness.

I personally didn't find her obnoxious. But anyway, whether or not you found her attitude obnoxious is more about personal preferences, not fact.

But even if you disagree with me and you dislike parts of her personality (like the "obnoxiousness"), I don't see how that makes a statement about feminism. It just means you didn't care for that part of her character. Which, again, is a matter of personal preference.

Well, I'm pretty confident the bulk of fans would disagree with her being as complex as SPike of ANgel, and that's simply for a myriad of reasons. Isay this not to diss her, but simply because, in the way the Slayerverse developed, Spike and Angel have simply traversed far longer, more complex journeys that are simply organic for them.

It's nothing against Buffy, because her character doesn't call for that, but I'm just saying that they have more to analyze, not that you should like them more, because when I call Spike, especially, "great," it's more an observation, recognition of the fact that his character both bears, and deserves, far more analysis than Buffy or Angel despite never having had his own show.

I don't think the majority of fans believe that about Buffy, and even so, it doesn't make minority opinions any less valid.

Why is Spike's "greatness" simply an observation, and Buffy's must be inorganic, the fault of bad writing? When you say that it's an "observation" or "recognition", you imply that it's an undeniable fact. Can you give any support to Spike's "greatness" over Buffy's? Because IMO, they are both great characters who face unique challenges and trials.

If we are criticizing characterization/plot development on the basis of gender, I have to ask, why is it easier to believe that male characters are strong and female characters are not? That's what it feels like you are implying when you talk about Spike and Angel's "greatness", and discount Buffy's achievements to simply the emasculation/disenfranchisement of others. Isn't the reverse also true? Every damsel in distress Angel or Spike save, all the female characters who are killed off or dismissed to further their respective journeys (and oh, there are many...), etc. those women are also used unfairly to bolster the narratives of male characters.

Feminism in particular is about making women look strong, so is it any wonder that a show attempting to portray it would find itself undermining male leads simply to make the series theme work?

Feminism isn't about making women look strong. Feminism and strong female characters in pop culture is about showing another facet of reality, one in which women are strong. Buffy's characterization and how she is framed in the show, to me, is natural. She is not made to look strong, she is strong. I see nothing artificial in Buffy's characterization when it comes to feminism.

Agreed. What kind of points are there where you wish they were more feminist, and not less?

Points that I wish were more feminist? Oh boy. How long do you have? 😛 For one, I'm disappointed in how Joss & Co. treated matters of sexual assault and sexual consent issues (not only the attempted rape in Seeing Red, but the many sexual violations and dubious consent issues throughout the series that are ignored or glossed over). I have issues with how the show frames what "empowerment" really is, and I'm disappointed in the lack of representation of women from all different walks of life. The problems that are anti-feminist are generally arguable and open to interpretation, but I think it's safe to say that BtVS's feminism is still very limited in what it tries to show.

Honestly, I have more issues with feminism in AtS, which, while it doesn't set out to be the subversive feminist show BtVS tried to be, is still very problematic in its portrayal of women. Most of their female characters are awesome and are some of the most feminist characters of the 'verse, actually, so most of my issues are with story arcs and how those female characters are used.

For fans of Buffy, I simply ask you to take a hard look into what's going on. I think you overlook flaws in the series because when you like a theme from some part or other, you prefer to cheer, rather than look and see how it's running roughshod, and illogically, over something else.

Just because someone likes a character does not mean they ignore their flaws or inconsistencies. Very often, we do acknowledge those flaws and we may even like characters exactly because we take such a look at everything in the story.

And like I said, I do have problems with Joss's feminism. I have no illusions about the brand of feminism Joss subscribes to. I just disagree with you on what feminism means and how its framed in the show.