28th March, 2008
I'm Not A Real Girl Either
Friday, 9:30 am in Movies & TV
I know this will come as a shock and all that, but yesterday, I got involved in a fight about Buffy.
Okay, it wasn’t so much a fight as a measured discussion of opinions but it started with a fight. Namely, this charming post by someone who really, really doesn’t like Firefly. My response is buried on the second page (I got past the comment screening; hoorah!), but in a nutshell it was me agreeing in principle to the notion that Whedon isn’t this great bastion of feminism, but disliking the tone of the way the argument was presented. I lamented elsewhere that the whole post essentially suffers from Lex Luthor Ranting Syndrome; a legitimate idea presented in a way that makes it seem outrageous or distasteful.
Now, I don’t know much about Firefly; I got about two thirds of the way through the pilot before realising that I loathed the series and everything it stood for (also: it was tremendously boring). But I am a disaffected ex-Buffyverse fan,1 so I can talk with some conviction about that. And I don’t think the narrative is particularly feminist. I got some good, mouth-foamingly pro-Joss replies to my post above (ironically, most of the responses to my other few posts in the meta comments were positive). They didn’t get past the screening, so you’re just going to have to take my word for it that I’m not making these counter-arguments up.
My first point about the non-feminism of Buffy is that the logline of the show (“cheerleader fights demons”) is essentially focused on the inherent ridiculousness of female empowerment. “Ha ha,” we say. “A blonde valleygirl with strength and cunning? Yeah right!” I get told that this argument misses the point of the show, which is to parody horror conventions by having the blonde, cheerleader type do all of the monster-destroying
. And don’t get me wrong, I get that’s the point but… to be honest, I don’t think it’s something that’s in such desperate need to be deconstructed that we should start pulling out the back-patting just for an attempt. I mean, seriously, have the people who make this argument ever actually watched a monster/slasher film? Apparently not, because if they did they’d know that it is, in fact, usually the woman who defeats the evil in the end. So this is my problem; sure, it’s a deconstructed trope but I think that nowadays the trope exists more through its deconstruction than anything else; it’s solving a problem that’s not there, and by saying the problem is there when it’s not, it’s… not misogynistic, exactly, but… problematic. And really, do people defend Wes Craven as a feminist icon with the same blind devotion as they do Whedon? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way; do they? Because he’s done the same thing as Whedon twice now; and earlier. I mean, you people who make this argument do know that, right?
Right.
My second point is related to the first, and that’s the idea that the show tends to project that having great power makes a woman less sexually and romantically desirable. Buffy expends a lot of energy wanting to be a ‘real girl’, and while it’s never quite explained what a ‘real girl’ is, it certainly doesn’t include great physical strength and personal responsibility. Is this is a reasonable response? Well, realistically I think yeah, it is but I think it also needs to be looked at in comparison with male heroes in similar situations. It’s certainly true that male heroes occasionally go through bouts of “But I just want to be normal!” as well, but I think that there’s two thing here. The first one is that they don’t do it as often (and, I mean, I haven’t done an empirical study or anything, so feel free to prove me wrong with numbers), and it’s their reluctance to embrace their power that is seen as the ‘obstacle’ rather than the power itself, as is the case with women. The second this is that, with men, their power ultimately is supposed to make them more sexually attractive to women rather than less. So why isn’t the reverse true? Why do male heroes have to embrace their strength to be attractive (Clark Jerome Kent I am looking at you), while female heroes are expected to divest it? Buffy is very, very guilty of this; her partners are either equally powerful (Angel, Spike) or disaffected by their weakness in relation to her (Riley). Why doesn’t Buffy get her Louis Lane?
Finally, my third problem with Buffyverse Feminism is that it has a tendency to portray women as more likely to use power in a way that is corrupt and irresponsible, especially when unconstrained by men. Buffy herself is actually fairly immune to this, but Willow, Anya, Faith and Illyria all embody it. This is an old saw that’s been around forever (q.v. Eve), and okay I’ll admit it’s probably the weakest argument of the three because you could probably mount an argument that it applies to the men, too. Still, I think it bears mentioning and at least giving a cursory examination to. Because it’s an issue.
I should probably point out that it’s not like I think that all this is some conscious, Patriarchal plot on behalf of the writers. Only that these issues exist, and therefore interfere with the reading of the show as a pure feminist text. I’m a textual postmodernist, of course, so it’s all very subjective. I guess I’m not saying that the Buffyverse (and, by extension, Joss Whedon) is inherently non-feminist, only that I personally don’t think that it is, and these are my reasons. I mean, you can totally disagree with them if you like – that’s the wonder of academia (or acafen, as it were) – and then I can disagree with you and so on, ad infinitum. And I’m really not saying that Whedon’s shows aren’t enjoyable; ‘enjoyable’ has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘feminist’. And, seriously people, it’s okay to just like something for what it is without trying to hide your enjoyment behind some smokescreen of moral superiority. I mean, I like professional wrestling for godssakes.
Of course, there’s one other strawman in the room here, and that’s, You overanalyze things too much. And when you overanalyze things, anyone can make anything mean anything.
Well, duh. I know that the idea is dreadfully threatening to anyone who’s been brought up intellectually in the nice, safe pool of modernist, objective textual interpretation but that ain’t me, sistah. I do subjective analysis, and under subjective analysis the whole point is grasping at straws to support your pre-conceived notions
. Because there’s no right answer to anything. Like I said, it’s not that Buffy is inherently feminist or misogynistic; it’s that there are a bunch of arguments on each side (and some in the middle), and that it’s up to the individual to come along and pick which one they find the most compelling. You can’t be wrong, per se, but you can mount a weak or offensive argument. Which is my problem with 
-allecto-; the presentation of her argument is offensive and thus diminishes its impact. It’s just plain bad academics.
But – like Luthor ranting about the dangers of self-appointed vigilantes wielding god-like powers – that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
- For the record, my ex-fen status has nothing to do with any perceived feminism and/or misogyny. The last season or so of Buffy and Angel just pissed me off with their self-righteous, whiny, ego-stroking. I mean, Lorne with a gun? Just… no. ^
- « Previous
- Next »
Related Posts
Comments
-
Quite a read you’ve got there.
But somehow, the most intriguing part was the link to the Wikipedia article. >> -
What a tremendously flattering thing for you to point out to me, cheers.
-
I just skimmed Allecto’s post, without reading the comments, but two things that might put Firefly in a different perspective to you:
1. Mal is a jerk to everyone, whether they be white, black, men or women.
2. Inara is a prostitute technically, but it’s never even been hinted that she ever got raped by men. In fact they’re more like highly sought after escorts, who get to pick and choose who their customers are. I don’t see what Allecto’s problem is with prostitutes, especially one who is in control of the situation and enjoys doing what she does.
I don’t know too much about Joss Whedon, and I think his feministic ideals are still developing, and it’s possible that if he got to travel back in time, he wouldn’t have made Buffy the way the show is, or somehow would give a more serious and sincere attempt at making it less trite. I was personally impressed by his speech at Equality Now (especially around the 6:10 mark and onwards). His ideas might be a little pedestrian and simplistic in how he regards “strong women” but I think he’s on the right track.
-
The definition of ‘rape’ that the OP is using here is a radical feminist one. In a nutshell, radical feminism argues that all heterosexual sex is rape because it is all coercive; women are not in a social, economic or physical position to truly be able to say ‘no’ to men. It’s… a pretty extreme idea, and I’m not explaining it particularly compellingly because I don’t believe that it’s true; but it’s probably worth digging out some radfem literature on the subject.
The problem most school of feminism (not just radfem in this case) have with prostitution is that it’s not possible for a woman to be ‘in control’ of the situation because of the inherent gender imbalances between men and women. The other, meta, argument against the trope of the ‘happy hooker’ is that it’s designed by men to make themselves feel better about the objectification of prostitution. (“Oh but she wants it.”) All kinds of people will argue over this issue until they’re blue in the face, and there’ve been literally hundreds of thousands of words written on it, so I’m not going to try and summarise extensively… only to say that’s it not as cut and dried as just, “Oh but she enjoys it.” (Or maybe it is, who knows.)
The other problem I have with Whedon being labelled a ‘feminist’ is that, well, he’s a man. There’s something hugely ironic about that; at the end of the day, no matter the rest of it, Buffy is still a woman who is at the complete mercy of a patriarch. It’s not that I don’t think men can’t be feminists, or whatever, only that, well, kinda the whole point of feminism is for women to make up their own minds about what they want to be, without the usual male interference; well-meaning or not. If Whedon wants to be a feminist, that’s great, but ultimately he’s playing in a borrowed sandbox to do that.
And the thing is, people make a lot more fuss over it than it necessary. The thing that struck me about that speech was this weird notion as if like Whedon is the only person who writes strong female characters. Um, hello? Did no one watch, yanno, The X-Files, or The West Wing, or hell, Law & Order? There are scads of TV shows that have really strong, competent female role models. But they don’t get harped on as much because they don’t draw attention to it in the way Buffy does. The difference between Buffy and, say, Agent Scully is that Agent Scully is a strong, competent character who happens to be a woman. Buffy, meanwhile, is a strong, competent woman who just happens to be a character. The emphasis is different, and it makes me… uneasy in my feminist, somehow…
-
What really bugs me is how non-falsifiable the whole sex = force argument is. If a woman says she enjoys sex, whether it be for pleasure and/or profit, and you’ll have radical feminists coming in and saying, that she don’t actually enjoy it, it’s just the system brainwashing her! WTF. Apparently it’s wrong for men to tell women how they should feel and think, but it’s okay when radical feminists do it. Ugh. I am all for questioning social demands and arbitraries, there are so many that are harmful and nonsensical, but I hate when information get twisted and coloured and become mere rhetoric.
I don’t have a problem with men labelling themselves as feminists, though if you define feminism as being FOR women to make up their own minds, then I guess it might seem kind of moot. However, I view feminism as just concepts and ideas that highlight the gender inequalities that women face, and the attempts at eliminating that inequality.
It’ll be great if one day people wouldn’t need to define themselves as feminists because systemic gender imbalances and ingrained sexist thoughts and behaviours are a thing of yesteryear and that everyone is default a feminist, or a gender equalist (note: I’m making up words now).
-
Haha, yeah. Welcome to Feminism 101.
I remember we spent a couple of tutorials in various classes discussing whether a feminist telling a woman what she should want was better than a man. The general agreement was that it was on a relative scale – because a feminist was at least probably another woman – but… and then it would dissolve into a discussion of the Patriarchy Boogeyman and whether a woman who rejects a feminist discourse is a tool thereof or is simply making her own conscious decision. Ultimately it was decided that the question was way too hard, and that if some of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century hadn’t solved it, then neither would we.
I don’t have a problem with men labelling themselves as feminists
I don’t either, but I dunno… I think maybe there’s an element of “look don’t touch” going on there. Like, men are allowed to participate so long as they don’t take control of the discourse. Because ultimately it’s a bout women.
Think of it another way: I support civil rights, but I wouldn’t assume to tell racial or sexual minority groups what they should think about their status in society, or how they should ‘fix’ it, because I don’t have that personal experience. So I can be a supporter, but not a direct driver. If that makes sense?
-
you’ve way over complicated it. Buffy has boobs and girly friends that kiss each other. *bow chicka bow wow!*
-
Buffy kisses girls now too.
-
link or it didn’t happen
-