What is a feminist character?

[bespangeled]

Is Joss a bad feminist or a good feminist or not a feminist?

To me that starts with what the h*ll is a feminist character - male and female? I don't see this as a plot issue because the best plots come out of characters - but scenes show us who the characters are. So before we decide on Joss, let's see how much we agree about what we want to even see. Use Buffy as an example, or Angel, since those are the shows we all share - and point out what you see as feminist or non.

 

[Taake]

Well, Joss may very well be a feminist, the spectrum is quite large for what a feminist might be like. Do I think he is a flawless feminist, no, but then who is? So good or bad... *shoulder shrug*

I think that Joss is a public figure and in the business where public attention is a good thing, and I think that when it suits his purposes he is savvy enough to "play up" the feminist angle for positive attention. Basically I think that he knows how to use the term to get people to listen to him, then whether it reflects in his work or his self-awareness is another matter entirely.

As for feminist characters...

I don't know, to me that's like saying - what's a good character?
The responses will depend entirely on what you're looking for in a good character. To some Buffy is the epitome of a feminist characters, to others she's flawed and subject to tropes like any other.

I can see feminism in Buffy, she does stand strongly against the one trope of the girl dying in an alley and carries the torch of being kick-ass more or less throughout the series.

But she's also punished for having a sex-life almost whenever she tries to have one, and we don't really see her deal with that, like we don't get Buffy celebrating sex in the way that say Faith does (if only shallowly). Imagine the speech Faith in Buffy's body gives to Spike... would Buffy herself ever be so blatantly sexual and openly relishing in it? No, they keep her nice and bottled up. In season six she let's loose but then it's cause she's "depressed", she "can't feel anything" and oh "it's killing her" and she's deathly ashamed of it... she clearly enjoys it, but no no, that can't be said out loud, she must be kept from crossing over that madonna/whore line by us knowing there's a reason why she's having kinky sex with Spike and it's not simply out of enjoyment... to me that's a very anti-feminist/female part of the Buffy character.

In short, I don't really think there is such a thing as a "feminist" character. There are just characters. Whatever you see in them and whatever label you put on them is ultimately going to be very subjective and open to debate.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I don't really think there is such a good thing as a "feminist" character. There are just characters.

But do you think some of that is not a by-product of the fluidity of the word? There is no 'real' definition of feminist/feminism as each person, or group, tends to have a different definition or area in which they focus. Therefor defining a 'feminist' character becomes that much harder. Feminist to whom? Which subsect?

Tara could be a feminist character, Maggie Walsh could be a feminist character.

 

[Taake]

Therefor defining a 'feminist' character becomes that much harder. Feminist to whom? Which subsect?
.

Yeah, that's what I said. It's pretty much subjective what's a feminist character or not.

 

[thetopher]

It might be a bit simplistic but I always thought of a feminist character as simply being a female character who was a good role model. Who had positive attibutes but was also relatable- you see their problems and how the struggle and how they eventually triumph.

Judging by the comic-cons out there, there are lots of teenage girls who thought of Buffy as a strong female character that they take inspiration from. Doesn't that make her feminist?

Buffy does dismantle some tropes but unfortunatly adheres to others. The sex=bad thing is the biggie.
Willow, Xander et all all get to enjoy great, crazy sex with whomever they want. Werewolves? Sure? Former vengeance demon? Why the hell not. Tricksy snake sorceress? Go Willow, let your freak flag fly.

But what about this sensitive college guy (Parker) or this goofy army fella (Riley)? NO! For shame Buffy. She must be punished! (like @Evill UU said in another thread its bizarrely puritan)

I chiefly blame the terrible 'WTWTA' episode for this, since other than that Buffy and Riley sexual relationship seemed okay but it was never focused on like in that episode. (Also in 'Into The Woods' the sex is depicted as negative from Riley's pov since he isn't 'connecting' with Buffy emotionally or something)

Buffy/Angel was a metaphor, fine. Buffy/Spike was degrading and depressing, okay I guess. The whole Twilght thing? Oh, come on!
But barring Satsu I can't think of one sexual encounter that goes well for either Buffy or her partner. That's just sad, why doesn't Buffy get any happy time?

As I side note you could apply the same standards to Cordelia. In S1 she has a one-night stand that ends with 'pregnancy' (sex=more bad), and then she can't have sex because she would be 'stripped' of her gift by Groo (yeah, I never got that) and then there's the whole thing with Angel that ended badly for her and she didn't even get to smooch him...
Amazingly I think Cordy had it worse than Buffy.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Anything that ends in "ism" is a distorting lens on the world. Think of fundamentalism, communism and feminism as having similar properties. Fundamentalism says to follow the formula to get into heaven, not paying any attention to the fact that the formula changes radically from the Old to New Testaments. The practitioners don't care, it's a checklist mentality. Communism starts with a world view based on mediaeval society and looks at how to take control away from one set of people, not noticing that control does not vanish or go to "the people", it goes to whatever strongman can play the political system to the maximum advantage.

Feminism is another distorting lens - it has no real definition. Some feminists want equality in jobs opportunities, others want reverse bias/affirmative action to "correct" past wrongs, some want women to be completely free about sex, some want women to be free to adhere to their standards, some want to burn their bras, others want to go topless and still others don't give a damn about what anyone thinks, they will live and dress as they please. Some of the views are contradictory, some feminists hate men, some think their bodies are temples and should be kept fit, others think fat is a feminist issue. In short, I would generally see Joss Whedon as being feminist in that he shows strength and independence in women but in other areas, he thinks women do not have what is needed to succeed without causing a lot of misery on the way.

In answer to the OP's question, a feminist character should be an independent one that doesn't knuckle under to men or institutions generated by men or believe that women should be kept in a subservient position. Buffy is a feminist character. Anya is not (she is always beholden to a husband, d'Hoffryn, Giles as an employer or Xander as a suitor and in spite of wreaking vengeance on men, she never leaves their control). Willow is a feminist story as is Tara and Cordelia. Harmony is not a feminist character. Joyce is not a feminist character (as shown by Ted and other relationships where she is subservient and her dependence on what the child-raising books say). Drusilla is a nut job - no reason to put her anywhere on the feminist/non-feminist spectrum. Lilah is a difficult one to classify - she has made it in a man's world but she is forever subservient, a state that will last for eternity.

Add to this the fact that characters serve the drama - bad results from sex are more part of a specific storytelling plot issue than the writer's views in real life. No problems = no drama and that gets pretty stale if you are writing drama.

 

[gite63]

would Buffy herself ever be so blatantly sexual and openly relishing in it? No, they keep her nice and bottled up. In season six she let's loose but then it's cause she's "depressed", she "can't feel anything" and oh "it's killing her" and she's deathly ashamed of it... she clearly enjoys it, but no no, that can't be said out loud, she must be kept from crossing over that madonna/whore line by us knowing there's a reason why she's having kinky sex with Spike and it's not simply out of enjoyment...

Ditto.

 

[Kana]

I think the reason I find this question so difficult is because feminism, in its entirety, is not a monolith, so it's virtually impossible for any character to fit every criteria depicted in all feminist ideology. Personally, I find it's enough for characters, especially protagonists, to challenge common sexist schemata that plagues us at almost every turn in the media. By doing this, it challenges us to rethink some of the dogma we've been fed, in film, television etc and sets the path for other writers and directors to create characters that subvert common gender stereotypical tropes.

However, I don't want a walking feminist textbook. That would not only be impractical, but also pretty boring. As others have said, the beauty arises from the conflict and not everything is going to fit in neat little boxes.

If some are to say Buffy is not an adequate feminist television character, I'd say it's at least a damn good start. I'm not going to say she is a quintessential feminist role model, nor is she even the first (by a long shot), but she certainly brought the concept of feminism to many, including myself. So the fact that we are having the conversation in the context of something fun and often relatable like Btvs should be recognised as a triumph in it's own right.

 

[VisionBoy]

I honestly don't know. As has been said, I think feminism can mean different things to different people. If a strong, independent woman is feminist, then yeah, I'd say Buffy is a feminist character. But I don't think every single tiny tiny detail about her, or action she makes would be considered 100% feminist and that's okay. Basically, you can't please everybody.

As for Joss. If he identifies as a feminist, more power to him. But I do think when you wave that flag and point to your own work as an example of it, you're giving yourself a lot to live up to and whether Joss always managed that is very debatable. I do like that he champions female heroes and spotlights them in his work... but I also think there's more to so called "feminist writing" than having a female lead. That having been said, I do think he means well and 90% of the time I think he does a fine job.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

Socially and politically there is a lot to gain from feminism. I've said before that defining what it is is problematic, but there is a lot to gain socially and politically in learning feminism, critical race theory, etc. But let's talk about art (I hope I don't sound pretentious saying that, and I know many television shows do not aim to accomplish art but entertainment). But Joss seemed to me to have that conceit when he was making Buffy. Some words about that.

I don't believe in making "feminist" characters. I believe in making interesting characters, in making art. If you judge things primarily from a feminist perspective, then you will be debating and so preoccupied with issues of whether or not a character e.g. Buffy conforms to your expectations for a feminist character (like one example mentioned above about how Buffy is being punished for her sex life, etc.) that you (no one here specifically, I mean some hypothetical person) fail to notice and draw attention to the potential human lessons that art can furnish. It's just the right way to make art; if you try to consciously make and conform a character for a certain definite purpose like feminism, the character will always in some sense become caricature and not real or human and artistic. Just be an artistically, emotionally sensitive person with a habit of paying attention to people in the real world and then just make good characters. This is true for the visual arts, for writing, for film, everything. It always comes out wrong when you try to conform a character or situation for a purpose like feminism or race theory etc. That's not an organic approach. Just make real people, and trust that your 'real characters' will help communicate the messages you were hoping for as you construct situations for them to experience.

Real people in the real world are not caricature and do not conform to some cookie-cutter, generic "ism". Real people are not "feminists" or "romantics" when they act in the real world, they are inexhaustibly complex human beings who might have passionate feelings about those things, but they are much more malleable, exciting and filled with possible potential in action than a fictional character strictly defined for the purpose of satisfying an "ism". A proper artist never makes characters that way.

I don't like judging art purely in those terms either. Is it feminist? That reduces the art to something very parochial. Is Kierkegaard existential? He's christian...is Sartre the proper existentialist? Is Nietzsche proto-existentialism? Questions like this reduce the philosophy into a conceptual straight jacket. There are many existentialists and none are the same. It may be helpful to classify them afterwards to help understand the evolution of intellectual development, but to analyze their thought in those terms is not productive. You only accomplish projecting your own subjective understanding of the "ism" into what you are reading.

 

[bespangeled]

But do you think some of that is not a by-product of the fluidity of the word? There is no 'real' definition of feminist/feminism as each person, or group, tends to have a different definition or area in which they focus. Therefor defining a 'feminist' character becomes that much harder. Feminist to whom? Which subsect?

Tara could be a feminist character, Maggie Walsh could be a feminist character.

I would posit that they are all feminist characters. One of the things I like about Joss is that his women tend to not compete for men, not get catty with each other, and are never really defined by any man they are with (except Anya). They are powerful in their own right.

I agree there is no easy answer, but that just encourages discussion. 😉 

Well, Joss may very well be a feminist, the spectrum is quite large for what a feminist might be like. Do I think he is a flawless feminist, no, but then who is? So good or bad... *shoulder shrug*

I think that Joss is a public figure and in the business where public attention is a good thing, and I think that when it suits his purposes he is savvy enough to "play up" the feminist angle for positive attention. Basically I think that he knows how to use the term to get people to listen to him, then whether it reflects in his work or his self-awareness is another matter entirely.

As for feminist characters...

I don't know, to me that's like saying - what's a good character?
The responses will depend entirely on what you're looking for in a good character. To some Buffy is the epitome of a feminist characters, to others she's flawed and subject to tropes like any other.

I can see feminism in Buffy, she does stand strongly against the one trope of the girl dying in an alley and carries the torch of being kick-ass more or less throughout the series.

But she's also punished for having a sex-life almost whenever she tries to have one, and we don't really see her deal with that, like we don't get Buffy celebrating sex in the way that say Faith does (if only shallowly). Imagine the speech Faith in Buffy's body gives to Spike... would Buffy herself ever be so blatantly sexual and openly relishing in it? No, they keep her nice and bottled up. In season six she let's loose but then it's cause she's "depressed", she "can't feel anything" and oh "it's killing her" and she's deathly ashamed of it... she clearly enjoys it, but no no, that can't be said out loud, she must be kept from crossing over that madonna/whore line by us knowing there's a reason why she's having kinky sex with Spike and it's not simply out of enjoyment... to me that's a very anti-feminist/female part of the Buffy character.

In short, I don't really think there is such a thing as a "feminist" character. There are just characters. Whatever you see in them and whatever label you put on them is ultimately going to be very subjective and open to debate.

I really can't see the punished for sex thing. I mean, she's 16 plus 1 day when she has sex with Angel, and that consequence is definitely awful. But how was she punished by sex with Riley. That's a normal college relationship - starts strong, then dies. The particulars are mostly Riley not being able to handle Buffy's strength, but again, not all that uncommon. Spike is the bad boy that she decides to take for a ride, and even though it's kinda disastrous, it's also kinda excellent sex. My point is that, taking away the over the top hellmouth realities, is Buffy all that different from a normal 21 year old at the end of the show? She has had relationships that are not forever, and it hurt but who hasn't? Is Willow being punished - Oz did turn into a werewolf and leave her. Tara did die. Is a successful relationship a trouble free forever love that has no issues, because that seems way less common than anything in the show. 

It might be a bit simplistic but I always thought of a feminist character as simply being a female character who was a good role model. Who had positive attibutes but was also relatable- you see their problems and how the struggle and how they eventually triumph.

Judging by the comic-cons out there, there are lots of teenage girls who thought of Buffy as a strong female character that they take inspiration from. Doesn't that make her feminist?

Buffy does dismantle some tropes but unfortunatly adheres to others. The sex=bad thing is the biggie.
Willow, Xander et all all get to enjoy great, crazy sex with whomever they want. Werewolves? Sure? Former vengeance demon? Why the hell not. Tricksy snake sorceress? Go Willow, let your freak flag fly.

But what about this sensitive college guy (Parker) or this goofy army fella (Riley)? NO! For shame Buffy. She must be punished! (like @Evill UU said in another thread its bizarrely puritan)

I chiefly blame the terrible 'WTWTA' episode for this, since other than that Buffy and Riley sexual relationship seemed okay but it was never focused on like in that episode. (Also in 'Into The Woods' the sex is depicted as negative from Riley's pov since he isn't 'connecting' with Buffy emotionally or something)

Buffy/Angel was a metaphor, fine. Buffy/Spike was degrading and depressing, okay I guess. The whole Twilght thing? Oh, come on!
But barring Satsu I can't think of one sexual encounter that goes well for either Buffy or her partner. That's just sad, why doesn't Buffy get any happy time?

As I side note you could apply the same standards to Cordelia. In S1 she has a one-night stand that ends with 'pregnancy' (sex=more bad), and then she can't have sex because she would be 'stripped' of her gift by Groo (yeah, I never got that) and then there's the whole thing with Angel that ended badly for her and she didn't even get to smooch him...
Amazingly I think Cordy had it worse than Buffy.

I really agree with most of this. I do question the idea that Buffy is punished for sex. What punishment was there for being with Riley? They developed different needs and broke up. Better yet - what is a good relationship in reality? Most teens don't find the one they will love forever so there are break ups, and those tend to be painful. So, is Buffy punished more than her partners? Angel had to deal with hell, and the pain he caused others. Riley was just as pained as Buffy - more so I would say. Spike learned that he could not be with Buffy in the dark and he wasn't capable of being in the light. There were lessons all around there.

But Buffy is about lessons - there are problems with friendships but we still count them as a positive force. Is Buffy being punished for being friends with Willow when Willow goes dark? When Willow almost kills Dawn? No - in fact the storyline says that Buffy wasn't a good enough friend to see her falling apart. But there is never any implication that Buffy could have prevented it, and no idea that Buffy started something by being friends.

 

[Silverspike]

Is Whedon a feminist? Well I believe he is, but imo it's not as much as he thinks he is . 🙂

 

[The Bronze]

A feminist character would be one that believes people should be treated equally as individuals. Buffy seems to go along that line of thinking. You don't hear an awful lot of you're a man so you can't do that or you're a woman so you should be doing this. She doesn't seem to think one gender should be treated any differently to the other so that's seems to fit the bill to me.

Does she act as a billboard for every feminist notion and theory that's ever been thrown out into the world? I would certainly hope not. She's supposed to be a character, a person, we can get behind and relate to. It would be pretty awful just to have her as an ideological mouthpiece.

As for is Whedon a feminist, who knows. He says he is. He's capable of writing good female and good male characters. So I'd assume he is.

 

[Taake]

I really can't see the punished for sex thing. I mean, she's 16 plus 1 day when she has sex with Angel, and that consequence is definitely awful. But how was she punished by sex with Riley. That's a normal college relationship - starts strong, then dies. The particulars are mostly Riley not being able to handle Buffy's strength, but again, not all that uncommon. Spike is the bad boy that she decides to take for a ride, and even though it's kinda disastrous, it's also kinda excellent sex. My point is that, taking away the over the top hellmouth realities, is Buffy all that different from a normal 21 year old at the end of the show? She has had relationships that are not forever, and it hurt but who hasn't? Is Willow being punished - Oz did turn into a werewolf and leave her. Tara did die. Is a successful relationship a trouble free forever love that has no issues, because that seems way less common than anything in the show.

For me it's like this;

Buffy/Angel sex - metaphor blah blah, disastrous end de luxe. I get that part. But it also leads to them never having sex again. Wear your chastity belt ladies less your man turns evil! And at this point we also have Buffy polarized with Faith, as the sweet vanilla girl who maybe craves a "non-fat yoghurt" after a slay-fest (madonna), compared to the voracious in all appetites Faith (whore) Faith who by the way at this point is like a walking talking billboard for "sex is bad kids" look at this poor attitude! Don't you want to be more like nice, clean Buffy?

Buffy/Riley sex - the time we get to see them superhot for each other they're feeding the magical energy of a frat house which leads to death and mayhem. Not even human/human sex is safe when your Buffy. Sex has bad consequences not just for you but for the people around you. Then not much is said about their sexlife until oh - now Buffy's more in touch with her Slayer side so sex is not satisfying for her, it now turns her into a hunter who has to sex it up - then hunt and kill something. While not necessarily a sex = badness message I'm just like... wtf, is even the message of that? That when a girl starts to come into her sexual self she is what exactly...?

Buffy/Spike - already wrote above my problems with this. It's excellent sex. But Buffy's not allowed to enjoy it just on her own. She can't go - yeah so what, I want some excellent sex! There need to be excuses why this sweet, lovely girl would enjoy that...

Buffy/Spike - season seven. Again. We're nice and bottled up. Handholding and cuddling is really where it's at ladies, am I right?
(Obviously I'm not a Spuffy fan so it's not like I wanted them to be carnal then but it would have been nice to see Buffy have some kind of functional sex life that she openly got to enjoy at some point throughout the series. Riley comes kind of close, I'll admit, they could have skipped a few things and that wouldn't have been so bad.)


In the end this to me is just Joss telling the same story over and over again (and again and again... space-frak anyone?). Bangel at 16 ends badly, that's fine, we get it, we saw that coming. But the continuation of this theme is tiresome. And it's not just Buffy, for me it's the combination of the treatment of her and other female characters in terms of their sexuality that makes me feel like Joss is certainly not as progressive in his mindset as he likes to think he is.

Say Cordelia - we get the few hints that she's been in "cars" with boys and dates college guys and is "the slayer of dating", but NOTHING is said outright about her as a sexual being. In fact, when she and Xander are alone to steal the rocket launcher she's suddenly innocent and girly and coquettishly wrinkles her nose going "oh does looking at guns really make boys wanna have sex?" Seriously? Why? Why does she suddenly need to be so virginal unless it's because it's more palatable to the storyteller/audience? Then there's some more kissing and handholding, until Angel where she gets to have sex ONCE and gets knocked up by a demon... It takes forever before she gets together with Groo. Then there's her and Angel, close but not cigar and then we get her sleeping with Connor... (for a reason but I mean... c'mon Joss! Just, c'mon! That was unpleasant for everyone involved!)

The only females who don't get to wear the yoke of their sexuality like something shameful is Willow (because Joss loves and adores Willow) and Anya because Anya is a crazy insensitive demon-lady who only cares about money so who cares if she's super-sexual, that's just another aspect of her wacky Anya ways.

So yeah, for me, any feminist aspect of Buffy The Vampire Slayer is diminshed by the fact that there's not one instance of "sex is bad" but it lingers around pretty much throughout the whole series. It may make for dramatic television, but I also think it's kind of lazy writing.

 

[bespangeled]

Taake - just started a thread on Buffy and sex - can you shift this post there?

 

[Taake]

Taake - just started a thread on Buffy and sex - can you shift this post there?

I still think it belongs in this thread as it's about how these aspects makes Buffy less feminist to me, it's not about how she's punished for it more than any other character.

 

[bespangeled]

Is feminism really about having a fulfilling sexual relationship with a man?

Buffy reflects a time before there was much ownership of sexuality by women. There weren't hook-ups and friends-with-benefits. So I agree, she in inflicted by the madonna/whore divide. Parker is probably a better reflection of that time - his ideas of women being objects to be used and discarded were internalized more by women. At least she's allowed to have sex. When I was young tv couples - married couples - slept in separate beds.

But is that really the central issue of feminism now - whether a teen has great sex into her early twenties? My memory of my teen years was being single too often in a culture that catered to couples, and I don't think I am alone in that. Most relationships that I had, or my friends had, ended with drama and tears - regardless if there was sex involved. Yes, Buffy is far more dramatic because of the hellmouth, as well as being a tv show - but I never thought that bad relationships and break-ups were about being punished for having sex.

Feminism also includes - IMO - breaking the stereotype that women are catty and bitchy, and always compete with each other. Buffy allows for real friendships, trust, love and respect between female characters, and I still find this kind of unusual in tv today. Buffy broke the stereotype that women are supporting roles, one or two in a group of men. It has a cast of women, strong women, who each had dramatic stories of their own. Buffy broke the stereotype that a woman is an apendage in a relationship - we don't see Buffy through the eyes of Angel and his friends. Angel is the appendage here. Buffy broke the stereotype that a woman had to be the apex of a triangle - yes, there is a competition between Spike and Angel in theory but it is never shown. Buffy is not a trophy, she is not just decorative - she is functional and capable of slamming men into walls when they piss her off. Buffy broke the stereotype that strong women are not unattractive men with breasts who dress in dowdy clothes and wear sensible shoes. Buffy broke the stereotype that there are some things only men can do. These are huge parts of feminism, IMO.

There are a few other shows like this in one or two ways - and a very few shows that contain most of these elements but Buffy showed the way. I think that the idea of feminism has changed radically if what it mostly includes is sexuality without punishment. It's not that I disagree with what you wrote, though there are parts I would debate. But sex involves both partners and I'd say the misery was spread fairly. That degree of fairness is also what I would see as breaking a stereotype. The only guy who actually uses Buffy is Parker.