The Trouble with Feminism in Buffy

[Noitartst]

Please forgive me, as I've tried to post the following for days, but the forum was down; I hope you're still here.

Here's the problem. Yes, society and evolution are both two things that will constantly seek stability. However, stability (as with everything else) comes at the cost of something. Usually equality. (which, yes, is a luxury but that does not make it insignificant)

I never thought it was! Even so, I appreciate what you just said.

Societal stability will always been in a slow transitional phase for this reason. One elements stability rests on the shoulders of something else. But as an unequally treated element will resist it's place, stability is no more than a fleeting period

True. I'm not against change, but rather against bad change, and which doesnt inflict negative damage, and I fear feminism does so.

Why? Well, you seem to be a liberal, and one of their ideas is that we should accept society, change, the natural order. Feminism, basically, embraces defiance of the natural order, and that's why I oppose it, and also take Buffy with a heavy dose of salt. I'm no liberal, but the primeval definition of it, in a nutshell, is open mindedness, and even if I'm not a liberal, I still adhere to its primordial essence. Feminism, as I've experienced on this thread, alas, doesn't seem to fit.

You (I'm now saying this to all observing feminists) talk of gender role reversals, and the like, but I think it carries over to the natural order. I think when you're talking about patriarchy, you really mean gender discrimination, which I'm against, but you instead instist on gender warfare, and expect me to act like a gentleman as you punch me in the face, but I wont, and that's because you ain't not gentlewoman. If it's a fight you want, it's a fight you'll get.

When you talk about kicking that old-middle-aged man behind the desk down and beating him up, you're nothing but a bunch of bullies. It's right to hate oppression, but not to hate hierarchy; with you, there's no talk of distinction (you're the first exception to this, Taake), no constructive action, not even (how I dread to say it) lawsuits. I would be willing to be your allies, basically if it weren't so blame ideologically hateful, because when you bash patriarchy, you're actually bashing the guardian avatar of masculinity. I wouldn't, and you shouldn't.

Masculinity hates gender conflict not the least because he doesn't see the need for it, but mostly because he doesn't care. He likes women, but at the end of the day, Captain Caveman will club anything in his path--man, woman, or animal.

That's our psychology, but you dames, for all your purported sensitivities, don't seem to get it. Please don't play our games, because they're akin to war.

Hostility breeds hostility; even so, I hope you all understand the situation better.

Well I wouldn't call myself a feminist (other than being female myself) because I can't say I've never been active in the fight for a feminine agenda and I agree about your point about the "Loveable loser"

Well, thank you.

Also yes, I do a lot of the time find feminist agenda lacking in equality itself but y'know to me that basically just says that it took more than one day to build Rome. Big changes or topics come first, fine tuning comes later...

Exactly! Society, for better or worse, changes, and will change in the future. Problem is, feminism is too narrow lens to steer from, plus it's ever in tune to the waves, and the storm winds, and before too long, that's all you'll ever see, and that's a pity.

She trusted him with the most important thing in her life - Dawn. But I certainly agree that to me that line was said far too prematurely as well and first time around I was very annoyed to hear it.

Couldn't agree with ya more.

I get the gestures behind it but I have to say it felt rushed.

I agree; in the right context, it would have been dynamite appropriate, but it was rushed, as you said, that beyond that, the feminism in Buffy loves to undermine masculinity any way possible, and I think Spike's character, the one with the most testosterone in the entire show, bar none, garnered the lion's share of abuse. It largely fueled his character, but that doesn't excuse his dressing up as a British fop to elude a literal loan shark, does it? That writing was silly, unprofessional, and most importantly, not according to character.

Okay "where feminist thinking resides" that's kind of putting us all in one boat. All females or feminists will thinking differently and just like within any area there will be contradictions.

Alright, Taake, I'll say this to you: I am impressed with your intellectual flexibility, and think that you, at least, seem open-minded. You've got reservations about feminism's attitudes, and so do I.

Too many feminists spew ideology at me straight out of college tests, and it revolts. You, though, seem to have taken some time to process, and that's what makes you limber.

I for example snort at chivarly. I have a best friend whom I would describe incredibly chivalrous (a proper southern gentleman ;P) and I constantly tease him for it because to me the whole concept is dated.

In pickup artist terms, you seem to be describing what they'd call, "Your average frustrated chump." I'm not a fan of chivalry, and while its goal is to coalesce with the instinctual, doesn't it inevitably end, if you know not instinct, unfortunately? Chivalry, as social norms, are superficial, and dated. Sounds like if your friend knew what it was about, though, you may have a renewed appreciation for chivalry, but that's by association, at the least.

Perhaps it isn't to someone else. Perhaps chivarly to some just translates to "manners" and "being polite" - we all have different definitions. To you chivarly clearly has negative connotations and I can certainly see why because to me it does as well. Explained by others (such as my friend) I see what he means by it and it's far from the negative interpreations that instantly springs to my mind.

Actually, I try to embrace both perspectives, even if I accept one. In the end, a neutral, common defintion would go along way to ending these conflicts.

 

[Taake]

I'm going to respond to this but I rather feel that the subtext has become the text here 😉 i.e. feminism has taken over and feminism in Buffy has been pushed to the side.

Therefore I'm going to respond to your answers in a pm instead, Noitarst 🙂

 

[Taake]

also take Buffy with a heavy dose of salt.

Now as for Buffy and gender reversals I do too take Buffy with a pinch of salt because it's making a point through hyperbole. Over-emphasising a females physical strength belied by her tiny exterior is nothing more than a powerful imagery meant to give women a role model in the likes of Superman (whose superness was imaginary hyperbole as well evidently) or any other fantastical fictional male character (there's an abundance to choose from). She was just one more woman following in the lines of Wonder Woman and Xena but serving to take female empowerment to a new generation.

(sorry Noitarst I believe this was in my response pm too, didn't mean to repeat myself)

the feminism in Buffy loves to undermine masculinity any way possible, and I think Spike's character, the one with the most testosterone in the entire show, bar none, garnered the lion's share of abuse. It largely fueled his character, but that doesn't excuse his dressing up as a British fop to elude a literal loan shark, does it? That writing was silly, unprofessional, and most importantly, not according to character.

Though I agree with you to me this rings so very hollow. I mean look at a female character in a show like Magnum P.I for example (randomly chosen, I apologise to the Tom Selleck enthusiasts) and you'll see examples of the same but in the reverse. Femininity undermined.

Basically this'll turn out to be a mud throwing contests. Undermined female characters vs undermined male characters... I'm sure you have more examples and I'm even more sure that I could think of plenty more (some more considered than the aforementioned one of my own as well) but what purpose would it serve?

My point is, the complaint about the undermining of a male character carries a hint of hypocrisy.

It doesn't mean that this undermining of any gender is correct of course but there will be faults on both sides and in the interest of fiction and its creations I am willing to give some leeway because frankly, it wouldn't be anything new, its somewhat unavoidable and it I think most examples of these kinds of portrayals are obvious and laughable to most viewers.

 

[Icarium]

I agree; in the right context, it would have been dynamite appropriate, but it was rushed, as you said, that beyond that, the feminism in Buffy loves to undermine masculinity any way possible, and I think Spike's character, the one with the most testosterone in the entire show, bar none, garnered the lion's share of abuse. It largely fueled his character, but that doesn't excuse his dressing up as a British fop to elude a literal loan shark, does it? That writing was silly, unprofessional, and most importantly, not according to character.

Watch S7 and come tell me with a straight face that Spike was abused, rather than shoved in viewers face as the best thing since sliced bread. And really, the idea that Spike got rougher treatment from the writers than Buttmonkey!Xander or "wouldn't it be fun if we kill or turn into traitors everyone she has ever liked"!Buffy is a very radical interpretation of the text.