Feminism in the Buffyverse

[Nina]

The idea is that Buffy is the feministic show and Angel is more the macho men show. I don't know if I agree with this statement. I agree tht Angel is a testoserone show, but I don't know if I want to call Buffy a feministic show.

The idea of feminism is that men and woman deserve the same rights. But it's also about the power of a woman, she doesn't have to be like a man to be just as good. A woman can be a housewife and be just as good as a man. A woman can acting feminine and be a a good CEO.

In BtVS, they switch the roles, the small blond cheerleader isn't the damsel in distress. Which is a great idea and it's feministic. So until there it's fine, but then ... Buffy changes in a female version of the old male heroes. Buffy started as a female hero who was feminine, but she ended like the male! heroes with too much testosterone. Season 7 was about power, only the people with power were important. Buffy was the second part of the season making herself more important and didn't want to hear any critic. And she was correct, she was never wrong. People who disagree with her were wrong. Her plan in Chosen was all about; Buffy is the slayer, Buffy is the strongest, Buffy wins! No discussion, it's how it works. The same thinking as the heroes like Rambo, the Terminator, The Hulk, Heracles, Achilles etc. Clearly a hero who acts feminine isn't working. The woman who didn't was the stereotype female had to become a stereotype man. And I think there isn't something less feministic as this idea.

(I know this is a little black & white thinking, but it's the idea what happened. I know there are male heroes who were feminine and women who were like a man, but I tried to show the general idea because Buffy was once about the cheerleader who was strong. It's also about a stereotype.)

The cheerleader who became a ass-kicking hero wasn't the only switch. The men became cheerleaders. Compare BtVS!Angel to Ats!Angel, there are big changes. Ats!Angel is a strong man who has an own opinion, isn't scared easily and well ... he is the alpha-male, the classical male role. But Angel had the role of the woman in BtVS. He supported her, he stayed at home, he helped her ... but in the end he was always the weak one. Their relation was a lot about Buffy (with the obvious reason that Angel's life wasn't a nice subject to talk about.), but still ... it was all about supporting Buffy. The roles about the woman supporting her husband were switched. The same happened with Spike in season 7. Buffy helped Spike with his problems, Spike was the one who needed help. After she helped him, Spike supported Buffy no matter what. Again the old roles, only switched.

(Now I'm bringing an argument in the mix I don't agree with but I know there are many people who see it this way.)

Buffy had the classical role of the abuser in season 6. The role of the stronger man who abuses the less stronger woman where nobody cares about. The man who doesn't listen to the 'no' and only gets away with it because the woman can't say no the it because of the crush she has. The stronger man doesn't need the 'yes' of the woman to have sex, he can forse it. When the woman wants to have sex and the man says no, she has no power. If she tries anyway, the man can kick her away.

(Like I said, I disagree with this because Spike is not helpless, and I believe that Spike is also an abuser ... but the fact that there are people who see it this way is enough to say that they switched the roles again I guess.)

And then, we have Willow. Willow was always a smart, feminine, helpfull girl. After she started magic, she became more helpfull. But in season 7 when she doesn't do magic anymore, she is nothing. Willow without superpowers is nothing anymore. How feministic, a woman needs to be stronger as a man to be something? Why can't Willow be helpfull with her computer, why can't she do research? In the first seasons her skills and brains helped Buffy so many times. But in the end, it doesn't matter anymore.

Xander, another role switch. Xander is the 'weakest', the cheerleader and the stay at home person. Again, the male is pushed away in the female role, and again with the label 'less as the women'. There is nothing wrong with a man who has the female role, but Xander has also the 'loser' label. He is the unimportant one, the one you shouldn't take serious. He is the classical woman.

Giles is a difficult one, for a long time he was really important but in the last two seasons he became the classical 'evil stereotype male'. The one who left his 'childeren', the one who doesn't agree with our hero and works behind her back.

Dawn is maybe in season 7 the only character I want to call a feminist.
She is smart, funny, sweet and strong. Too bad that she was a whining little sister in season 5 & 6. But she was a light point in season 7.

Anya and Faith are difficult for me. I don't know them well enough and they switch a lot. They are strong women who are proud to be a woman. But somewhere it feels off for me. Like they fake their personality a bit.


I don't believe that a show who makes women the stereotype males and the men evil or the classical woman, is a feministic show. They started very well in the first seasons, but the last seasons had lessons about being a woman ...which destroyed the first seasons.

Ats isn't a feministic show either, but they never wanted to show that. Although there is something I wanted to say about feminism in Ats.

The woman in Ats are also strong, but feminine.

Lilah Morgan is maybe the most feniminstic woman in the verse. She uses the fact that she is female, she doesn't have superpowers but is a succesful, strong and dangerous woman. She knows how to get what she wants, but she never became a classical male. Lilah had casual sex with Wesley, but it wasn't downgrading, forced or painful. It was maybe a little unhealthy because of the love-hate relation and the fact that they weren't on the same side ... but she had fun, and she didn't abuse Wesley.

Another woman I want to call a great femininst is Darla. The 400 year old Darla. She was a prostitute, but not because somebody forced her to that, not because she needed to do that. No, she did that because she wanted to be independant and she had the men at her feet. Darla likes to look and act feminine, she uses her role as the favourite of the Master to have power. Darla sired Angelus, Liam was already a man who wasn't interested in women who acted like they were less as men. Darla does have the power over the most men, but she never became like a man.

We have Cordelia who does have the classical female role, she stays at home, takes care of the team. But she is never the 'loser'. The team respects her. Her role in the team is the classical female role, but Cordelia isn't the classical woman. She isn't afraid, she is honest, strong and she can take care of herself.

Those three women are the most feministic characters in the 'verse I guess. And maybe it's better that they are in Ats and not in BtVS. They have a nice place between the testosterone of Angel, Wesley, Connor and Gunn.

All IMO.

And for the poll, who is the greatest feministic character in the 'verse.

[redrevo]

Sorry if this ends up a little too confrontational, 's just my thought process.

The idea of feminism is that men and woman deserve the same rights. But it's also about the power of a woman, she doesn't have to be like a man to be just as good. A woman can be a housewife and be just as good as a man. A woman can acting feminine and be a a good CEO.

And it's also, secondarily, about destroying the stereotypes that make one think Person X is acting "like a man" or "like a woman." A woman can be a housewife, have a career, do whatever she likes. A man can stay at home, have a career, and do whatever he likes too.

Please, can you define "acting like a man" and "acting feminine" for the purposes of this discussion? I'm having a tad bit of trouble understanding what you mean.

Buffy changes in a female version of the old male heroes. Buffy started as a female hero who was feminine, but she ended like the male! heroes with too much testosterone. Season 7 was about power, only the people with power were important. Buffy was the second part of the season making herself more important and didn't want to hear any critic.

So... testosterone gives power, if you think about power a lot you must be acting like a man. Can't bring myself to agree with that.

The autocracy thing? Became Buffy's downfall.

People who disagree with her were wrong. Her plan in Chosen was all about; Buffy is the slayer, Buffy is the strongest, Buffy wins! No discussion, it's how it works.

And Empty Places was about...?

Also, there was one cool shot in Chosen of all the potentials bleeding with their arms over the seal. If that isn't "proud of being a woman" I don't know what is.

The cheerleader who became a ass-kicking hero wasn't the only switch. The men became cheerleaders. Compare BtVS!Angel to Ats!Angel, there are big changes. Ats!Angel is a strong man who has an own opinion, isn't scared easily and well ... he is the alpha-male, the classical male role. But Angel had the role of the woman in BtVS. He supported her, he stayed at home, he helped her ... but in the end he was always the weak one. Their relation was a lot about Buffy (with the obvious reason that Angel's life wasn't a nice subject to talk about.), but still ... it was all about supporting Buffy. The roles about the woman supporting her husband were switched.

Anyone can be anything. Angel wasn't "less strong" because he was supporting Buffy.

Boring!Angel wasn't unfeminist. It was bad writing.

the same happened with Spike in season 7. Buffy helped Spike with his problems, Spike was the one who needed help. After she helped him, Spike supported Buffy no matter what. Again the old roles, only switched.

Still bad writing. I'd've liked to see both of them staked.

Buffy had the classical role of the abuser in season 6. The role of the stronger man who abuses the less stronger woman where nobody cares about. The man who doesn't listen to the 'no' and only gets away with it because the woman can't say no the it because of the crush she has. The stronger man doesn't need the 'yes' of the woman to have sex, he can forse it. When the woman wants to have sex and the man says no, she has no power. If she tries anyway, the man can kick her away.

(Like I said, I disagree with this because Spike is not helpless, and I believe that Spike is also an abuser ... but the fact that there are people who see it this way is enough to say that they switched the roles again I guess.)

I disagree too. Spike was the primary abuser, Buffy was the depressed, mentally unbalanced one.

And then, we have Willow. Willow was always a smart, feminine, helpfull girl. After she started magic, she became more helpfull. But in season 7 when she doesn't do magic anymore, she is nothing. Willow without superpowers is nothing anymore. How feministic, a woman needs to be stronger as a man to be something? Why can't Willow be helpfull with her computer, why can't she do research? In the first seasons her skills and brains helped Buffy so many times. But in the end, it doesn't matter anymore.

That turned her evil.

In s7, she helped with the computer, she didn't use magic much for that very reason. She was overwhelmingly the sidekick, and that was okay. Anyone can be anything.

Giles is a difficult one, for a long time he was really important but in the last two seasons he became the classical 'evil stereotype male'. The one who left his 'childeren', the one who doesn't agree with our hero and works behind her back.

Growing-up metaphor. I'd like to just say that we had our fair share of female villains too.

Xander, another role switch. Xander is the 'weakest', the cheerleader and the stay at home person. Again, the male is pushed away in the female role, and again with the label 'less as the women'. There is nothing wrong with a man who has the female role, but Xander has also the 'loser' label. He is the unimportant one, the one you shouldn't take serious. He is the classical woman.

Xander saved the Scoobies' lives several times. Period.

It's perfectly okay to have a female sidekick to a male hero. It's just that sometimes it's written badly, and if it's repeated it gets old.

Dawn is maybe in season 7 the only character I want to call a feminist.
She is smart, funny, sweet and strong. Too bad that she was a whining little sister in season 5 & 6. But she was a light point in season 7.

No disagreements here (except for "whining little sister," but let's ignore that).

Remember the "they'll never know how tough it is, Dawnie, to be the one that isn't chosen" speech? Pure gold.

Anya and Faith are difficult for me. I don't know them well enough and they switch a lot. They are strong women who are proud to be a woman. But somewhere it feels off for me. Like they fake their personality a bit.

I like them. They had problems, it was realistic. Dunno about the "fake personality thing," but they were good.

I don't believe that a show who makes women the stereotype males and the men evil or the classical woman, is a feministic show. They started very well in the first seasons, but the last seasons had lessons about being a woman ...which destroyed the first seasons.

Like what?

And for the poll, who is the greatest feministic character in the 'verse.

Compelled to say Buffy. Or Xander.

[kana]

Ewwww, not sure if I'd like to say. Each have shown different traites and aspects of feminism, I suppose, so it's difficult for me to say "This one is the most..."

Also don't think the 'degradation' of some of the characters necessarily negates feminism as concept in the show. These characters are supposed to be people, not text books. No one is going to be a pefect paradigm if indeed such a thing can exist on paper (by everyone's standards don't forget).

I also find the idea of making a a bunch of girls preternaturally strong isn't necessarily a great feminist statement (I found it more of a personal movement in Buffy's character dance, free spinning between the pillars of lonliness and superiority) mainly because strength and liberation shouldn't be limited to physical strength in my eyes. At best it sends a message of sorority even if it is forced among those who have the potential.

I look at Fred's strength of mind. In Pylea, she ran sure, but hey that strikes me as smart, not being a product of male subjugation and in Holtz' words, she is the tiny girl who can survive because she is willing to risk her life. To me Fred was both warm strong, smart, even the muscle when she had to be and of course a hero. Even though it was in vain, she earned the title of hero when she tried to save her own life.

Beauty and the Beast was another fave as we have our women taking on maternal roles, taking care of their beasts. What is interesting though is the 'Beasts' themselves. Pete became a monster more or less because he chose to be, but Angel and Oz can control themselves or at the very least use methods to control themselves (Angel's thin line and Oz's chains) I prefer this message rather the idea that all men are beasts. Angel and Oz aren't beasts because they don't let the monster win. Powerful metaphor for women making excuses for their man's behaviour. If he wants to he can control himself.

Tara is someone else whom I love. She is this perfect balance of what is 'typically feminine" (oooh I almost gagged as I wrote that) and someone liberated. She doesn't need to punch or be aggressive either physically or otherwise to prove it. It gives us all the colours, all the ways in which a woman can be powerful and free without resorting to "typically masculine" traits (oooh another gag moment).

Anyway, Angel on Btvs? Well it wasn't the first time a woman had a hold over him although Darla's was more deliberate. Angel didn't mind deferring to Buffy but he played power games in his desoulled period. His humiliation and torment of Buffy was the ultimate display of dominance. Her triumph over him (and indeed Faith's) was about mental strength. Angel actually seemed to dictate how fast the relationship went (using his elusiveness and enigma as a tool) and actually broke up with her and made decisions subsequently for her because he knew what was best. Subtle but it's there.

Faith and Darla? Slutty or strong women who know what they want? Or both?

[Nina]

Let see if I can answer ...

And it's also, secondarily, about destroying the stereotypes that make one think Person X is acting "like a man" or "like a woman." A woman can be a housewife, have a career, do whatever she likes. A man can stay at home, have a career, and do whatever he likes too.

Please, can you define "acting like a man" and "acting feminine" for the purposes of this discussion? I'm having a tad bit of trouble understanding what you mean.

Like I said, it's never black or white, this or that.
But to make it simple and short:
Acting like a man; Acting like the classical male. The boss, the unquestionable one.

Acting femine; I realise that this is a really difficult one. I couldn't find the right words. But what I tried to explain was that the difference between the women and the men is somewhere in their behavior. Especially in the classical stereotypes, the women are different as the men. The women are more the caring and emphatic persons. They are less macho. Or something like that.

So... testosterone gives power, if you think about power a lot you must be acting like a man. Can't bring myself to agree with that.

No, not at all. What I tried to say was that Buffy start sharing the view of the classical male heroes. The view that you win everything as long you're strong. That the strongest is the best, that the one with the most power is the leader.

The autocracy thing? Became Buffy's downfall.

You think? I believe that the downfall came when she shuts her friends out. Whe she made herself the leader and didn't want to have advice of her people.

And Empty Places was about...?

two sides who were both not right or wrong. But in the episode after that we learned that Buffy was right and the other weren't. Buffy came back, and when she came with a stupid plan ... nobody told her off, nobody disagreed with her. Buffy is always right in season 7.

Also, there was one cool shot in Chosen of all the potentials bleeding with their arms over the seal. If that isn't "proud of being a woman" I don't know what is.

I always thought that was about 'we are the potentials/slayers, we are better as others who aren't chosen'. These girls are chosen, better, they would become powerful and strong, And now they are important.

Anyone can be anything. Angel wasn't "less strong" because he was supporting Buffy.

Boring!Angel wasn't unfeminist. It was bad writing.

Maybe it was bad writing, but that doesn't change the fact that Angel was a stereotype housewife waiting for Buffy the whole day. And he was less strong physical and psychological as in his show.

Still bad writing. I'd've liked to see both of them staked.

And again, more bad writing. But that doesn't change what I saw.

That turned her evil.

In s7, she helped with the computer, she didn't use magic much for that very reason. She was overwhelmingly the sidekick, and that was okay. Anyone can be anything.

She wasn't very helpfull in season 7, not until her big empowerment spell. She googled but didn't found whatever they were looking for. Willow lost all her skills and her brains were melted somewhere by the magic I guess. Again bad writing, but still ... it's canon.

Growing-up metaphor. I'd like to just say that we had our fair share of female villains too.

A metaphor doesn't change the Giles character. I know that ASH wanted to leave the show for a while, that Buffy's life had to be a hell. But it broke Giles character. He became the stereotype evil man.

Xander saved the Scoobies' lives several times. Period.

It's perfectly okay to have a female sidekick to a male hero. It's just that sometimes it's written badly, and if it's repeated it gets old.

Yes, but he never gets the respect. Not really, we know how important Xander is. But Xander is the one who gets the silly, easy and stupid jobs. In The Zeppo he can't stay ... why? Because he isn't strong enough.

I agree that a male side-kick isn't downgrading or something like that. But Xander isn't really the side-kick anymore in the end. Spike became Buffy's side-kick. Xander walks around because he has no real story ... why ... because he isn't 'important' or 'strong'.

Remember the "they'll never know how tough it is, Dawnie, to be the one that isn't chosen" speech? Pure gold.

Love the speech, but it was like a weird island in the 'superpowers is important' sea which is season 7.

Like what?

Like Buffy who was a fresh, feminine character, Willow who was helpfull without superpowers, Jenny who is funny, independant and strong, the seasons where men and women are just as important to the season where Buffy believes in the 'How stronger somebody is, how better.' To Willow who became useless in the fight until she is strong again. To Xander and Giles who became non-existing (Xander) and untrustable (Giles).

edit:

I didn't put Tara in the poll, I knew that I was forgetting somebody.

[Ojuice5001]

Faith and Darla? Slutty or strong women who know what they want? Or both?

Definitely both. That's why I voted for both of them.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

Buffy does some very interesting things in terms of gender roles - not just feminism for the benefit of women, but also for the benefit of men, allowing them identities that aren't always offered to men. Giles is a "patriarch" (in Pangs, he gets the tag), but one who sometimes plays a more nurturing role, not an authoritarian one ("It's like having mom back", says Buffy). Xander is both emotional rock for Buffy and someone who challenges her - which to me makes him neither stereotypically male nor stereotypically female.

The show often treats gender with a flexibility that allows men to be "cute and weak and kittenish" or women to be "strong like an amazon", but also for men and women to be strong and weak in all kinds of different, human ways. Xander is the provider for Anya sometimes ("make money, buy pretty things") but she can also more than adequately provide for herself (cf the conversation she was with Tara in, I think it's I was made to love you, about playing the stock market ). Anya turns into a "real girl", that is, a stereotypical girl, in terms of her neediness for a relationship, but she's got more to her than that. She's not exactly a role model I'd offer to girls (erm...vengence demon! Not to mention not being very good at making friends with other women) but she's a layered character who's got her own strong voice and stronger opinions. Even if they're evil capitalist ones. Interesting sidebar that when she's human, she's a capitalist, but when she's a demon, she's a bolshie Though you could say that's just the era she was in.

Buffy, to me, is a humanist show rather than a feminist one. With my feminist hat on, i've got my criticisms - but those are criticisms I'd apply to almost all TV shows in terms of their portrayal of women. The biggest criticism is the Naomi Wolfy criticism, the fact that all the women are beautiful in that particularly Hollywood way (skinny, white, highly coiffed and polished) and always decked out in the latest fashions. But then, pace Xander's dress sense...so are the men. Spike's frequently half-naked body in season 6 serves him up as far more of an object than Buffy's stylish yet affordably clothed one does. Also, while I think that the way the characters look hampers my full thumbs up for it as empowering (because it still focuses on women from the outside, not just about what they can do or who they are as people), I do think it discusses ideas like fashion in ways that emphasise what women want rather than what women should be like. So...Buffy's into fashion, that's part of her, and her clothing choices reflect her freedom (in a limited, media-driven capitalist way of course ). She patrols in her halter top rather than combats because she wants to, and she's not going to conform to someone else's image of what an action hero should be like.

Though, I would lke to give more kudos to some shows for going outside the normative approach to beauty - such as Spooks, which has meaty roles for older women, who aren't expected to look "hot" to have a role, or who don't look like the 18-year-old cookie-cutter model of womanhood. Doctor Who has women on it who aren't in the show because they're eye candy....Catherine Tate, for example, is an attractive woman, but she's not an airbrushed, girl image of what a woman should look like. Also praying she doesn't fall in love with the Doctor, but that's a separate topic...

[redrevo]

No, not at all. What I tried to say was that Buffy start sharing the view of the classical male heroes. The view that you win everything as long you're strong. That the strongest is the best, that the one with the most power is the leader.

And she was wrong. That was the point of the season - you have to share the power.

You think? I believe that the downfall came when she shuts her friends out. Whe she made herself the leader and didn't want to have advice of her people.

That's what autocracy means: making yourself the leader.

two sides who were both not right or wrong. But in the episode after that we learned that Buffy was right and the other weren't. Buffy came back, and when she came with a stupid plan ... nobody told her off, nobody disagreed with her. Buffy is always right in season 7.

What, the "Chosen" plan? That stupid plan where Buffy was no longer the only one with the power?

I always thought that was about 'we are the potentials/slayers, we are better as others who aren't chosen'. These girls are chosen, better, they would become powerful and strong, And now they are important.

That was a woman-power metaphor. Notice how we didn't see the people who weren't chosen, making it look like it was everyone who got the power.

Maybe it was bad writing, but that doesn't change the fact that Angel was a stereotype housewife waiting for Buffy the whole day. And he was less strong physical and psychological as in his show.

I see no proof that Angel wasn't as strong. He just stayed back at the mansion because Buffy wanted him to.

She wasn't very helpfull in season 7, not until her big empowerment spell. She googled but didn't found whatever they were looking for. Willow lost all her skills and her brains were melted somewhere by the magic I guess. Again bad writing, but still ... it's canon.

What, she was supposed to Google "ultimate evil" and actually find something? She helped when she had to, even when she knew it might end up with her dead.

A metaphor doesn't change the Giles character. I know that ASH wanted to leave the show for a while, that Buffy's life had to be a hell. But it broke Giles character. He became the stereotype evil man.

We're talking about s6?

He came back as a complete badass who still cared for Buffy. Not as a villain.

Yes, but he never gets the respect. Not really, we know how important Xander is. But Xander is the one who gets the silly, easy and stupid jobs. In The Zeppo he can't stay ... why? Because he isn't strong enough.

I agree that a male side-kick isn't downgrading or something like that. But Xander isn't really the side-kick anymore in the end. Spike became Buffy's side-kick. Xander walks around because he has no real story ... why ... because he isn't 'important' or 'strong'.

"You're my strength, Xander. You're the reason I made it this far."

He manages to make up for his lack of physical strength in other ways, the way you think Willow should be.

Love the speech, but it was like a weird island in the 'superpowers is important' sea which is season 7.

A season in which Buffy denies the original Watchers' demon power (Get It Done).
In which the superpowered "hero" alienates herself from the people she tries to protect, slowly destroying the whole operation (Empty Places).
In which a childish comic book geek has more sense than aforementioned superpowered hero (Storyteller).
In which heroism is more important than fighting (Potential).
In which the enemy is an immortal evil that can't be physically fought (the whole season).
In which trustworthiness is more important than physical strength (Empty Places).
In which everyone can be a hero (Chosen).

Like Buffy who was a fresh, feminine character, Willow who was helpfull without superpowers, Jenny who is funny, independant and strong, the seasons where men and women are just as important to the season where Buffy believes in the 'How stronger somebody is, how better.' To Willow who became useless in the fight until she is strong again. To Xander and Giles who became non-existing (Xander) and untrustable (Giles).

Buffy: had to learn a few life lessons, which were not fun to watch but were necessary for the big finale.
Willow: became "useless" in s7 mostly because she had no screen time, which was given up to Spike and the Potentials. Had major power issues (apparently Joss thinks power is not always good...).
Xander: saved the world and made a few inspirational speeches. Could've used more screen time but that's not unfeminist.
Giles: left for Buffy's own good. Came back and things were fine. Helped Willow come back to Sunnyhell. Rode a horse. Was generally trustworthy until Buffy&co decided to lobotomize themselves and thought he was the First. Last serious screen time was in LMPTM - growing-up metaphor, even though he was right and Buffy was in her "machinery" phase.


Tara was also great. "Older and Far Away" comes to mind.

Buffy, to me, is a humanist show rather than a feminist one.

Ooo. Good one. I think Buffy was intended to be a feminist show, but the humanism of it (esp. season 5, maybe 4 and 6) is the more powerful theme.

[kana]

Oooh yes, I liked idea of Buffy as a humanist show. But these shows do not stay in boxes. Yes the stars are all gorgeous and thin but at least the guys are objects of male gaze. The good thing about Buffy is that sometimes it take a little license with it's affectiveness: fine. We see the pretty people but we're not imprisoned by it, it doesn't define it so it doesn't bog me down. Funnily enough in real life, I'm surrounded by pretty thin people with great clothes in real life. Go figure.

[Enisy]

two sides who were both not right or wrong. But in the episode after that we learned that Buffy was right and the other weren't. Buffy came back, and when she came with a stupid plan ... nobody told her off, nobody disagreed with her. Buffy is always right in season 7.

Touched validated her plan, certainly, but it didn't validate her attitude -- quite the contrary. From the shooting script:

Buffy: That's my problem. I say the word, some girl dies. Every time.
Spike: There's always casualties in a war.
Buffy: Casualties... it sounds so casual. These are girls. That I got killed.
She looks at him.
Buffy: I've been thinking a lot.
Spike: Okay, first mistake --
Buffy: And I can't fault them for kicking me out. I've been... I've just cut myself off from them, all of them. 'Cause I knew I was gonna lose some of them, and I didn't want to...
She stands, upset.
Buffy: You know what? I'm still making excuses. I've always cut myself off, I've always... Being the slayer made me different, but it's my fault I stayed that way.

What I tried to say was that Buffy start sharing the view of the classical male heroes. The view that you win everything as long you're strong. That the strongest is the best, that the one with the most power is the leader.

Interviewer: Buffy started out seven years ago as a new kind of hero, one that broke the traditional masculine mold. Instead of deciding that her destiny sets her apart from regular people even though she devotes herself to protecting them, she was always determined to have a life. But lately, she's been acting a lot more like an old-fashioned male hero.
Joss Whedon: This last season has been about that, taking the idea of how the Slayer is different from other people and really exploring it. The last episode is in fact about that very issue. Part of that has to do with where we want to go with the message of the season, which is really contained in the last episode, deal with the idea of separateness. And honestly, some of that comes from the actors. Ultimately there always had been some separation between the star and the ensemble. You find that bleeds into your storytelling. The way that Giles got hipper and Willow got sexier. Because that's who [the actors] were. You live with these people and interact with them for the past seven years and that starts to creep in. The whole "I'm a stalwart hero who does the job" sort of came from Sarah [Michelle Gellar] a bit.
It also came from "I've come back from the dead!" This is no small thing, no coming out of the shower. You don't buy that back cheaply. Whereas last year Buffy went to a place of dark questioning, which is very much not Sarah, this year was about "OK, I have this power that sort of separates me from the rest of the world," which in a weird way is the life of a star.
Interviewer: She's also dealing with authority, too, how hard it is to be in charge.
Joss Whedon: That's just me. Everybody has been in a similar position in one way or another, but a lot of that [groaning] "Hey, being in charge is really hard!" is me, whingeing.

the same happened with Spike in season 7. Buffy helped Spike with his problems, Spike was the one who needed help. After she helped him, Spike supported Buffy no matter what. Again the old roles, only switched.

That's only a half-truth. Switch the names around and you get the other half.

"Spike helped Buffy with her problems ... Buffy needed help ... Buffy supported Spike no matter what ..."

Willow: became "useless" in s7 mostly because she had no screen time, which was given up to Spike and the Potentials.

Two points I want to make here:

1) Joss Whedon: You know, you do want to deal with your core characters. The other thing is, you've been dealing with your core characters for seven years. It's kind of hard. You know their tricks, you know their strengths and weaknesses, and you're trying to drum up a new thing for them to go through, you know, a new thing for them to express, and it's harder. It's just harder.

2) James Marsters: I usually got about 3 pages of script. Scripts average 43-48 pages and I averaged between 1 and 3 pages an episode. So, I didn't "take oxygen" away from anybody!!!

[Nina]

And she was wrong. That was the point of the season - you have to share the power.

But again the power, people need superpowers to be important. Yes she shared her powers. But I'm not a complete fan of the reasons and intentions of the big power sharing.

That's what autocracy means: making yourself the leader.

Sorry, I confused it with 'aristocracy'.

What, the "Chosen" plan? That stupid plan where Buffy was no longer the only one with the power?

Yes that one, there was no logic. Without the amulet they would all have died and there would be lots of young women who had no idea why they where so much stronger. Hello Chaos!

That was a woman-power metaphor. Notice how we didn't see the people who weren't chosen, making it look like it was everyone who got the power.

But they didn't. Fred didn't became stronger ... or Nina or anyone except the chosen girls. It was about a special group.

I see no proof that Angel wasn't as strong. He just stayed back at the mansion because Buffy wanted him to.

If I compare Angel fighting Spike in 'Destiny' to the Angel who fights in BtVS. I see a big difference.

What, she was supposed to Google "ultimate evil" and actually find something? She helped when she had to, even when she knew it might end up with her dead.

Then didn't google it, find other resources. I know she tried to help, but she couldn't help ... until she was super powerful again.

We're talking about s6?

Yes, I see that season as the begin of the terrible Giles in season 7.

He came back as a complete badass who still cared for Buffy. Not as a villain.

He wasn't a villian, but he was the guy who planned with Wood to kill Spike. He was the man who didn't help Buffy anymore the way he did. Bad writing to show the greatness of superpowered persons Buffy and Spike.

"You're my strength, Xander. You're the reason I made it this far."

He manages to make up for his lack of physical strength in other ways, the way you think Willow should be.

I don't think that Willow should be powerless, but I didn;t like the way how Willow wasn't able to do anything useful without magic. And I think that Xander is the strongest and greatest one of the whole team. But the lack of Xander in the last seasons is because the writers think that superpowers and being a bad-ass is good, and the loyal cheerleader isn't.

A season in which Buffy denies the original Watchers' demon power (Get It Done).

What's the different between this and the spell in Chosen? I thought this was the biggest problem of the empowerment spell, the same spell was called 'rape' earlier in the season.

In which a childish comic book geek has more sense than aforementioned superpowered hero (Storyteller).

I don't remember this episode anymore that well, but Andrew is not stupid. And I'm happy he said one good thing in the whole season.

In which heroism is more important than fighting (Potential).

Xander told that to Dawn. If Buffy would have told Dawn the Xander-speech, I would have loved it.

In which the enemy is an immortal evil that can't be physically fought (the whole season).

Doesn't change the fact that Buffy only cared about power. It made it more stupid, Buffy wanted much power, when they should fight against the first with faith in eachother. Everybody should help eachother, because the first can't harm you when you're not alone.

In which trustworthiness is more important than physical strength (Empty Places).

True, but the girl with the most strength was the one who was right all the way.

In which everyone can be a hero (Chosen).

Only the chosen girls, Spike and Willow. The normal people weren't important. Of course did Dawn, Xander etc. fight, but it was because they needed to be there. Their role was not big. Anya died in the war, we saw her fight, we saw her die ... but it didn't made a difference. Doesn't make her less a hero ... but I don't think that the message of chosen in that everybody can be a hero. We already had that message in Graduation Day part 2. This was about the chosen girls, the important girls.

Ooo. Good one. I think Buffy was intended to be a feminist show, but the humanism of it (esp. season 5, maybe 4 and 6) is the more powerful theme.

I like the idea that BtVS has a humanism theme too. But I'm also believing that Angel is the most human character in the 'verse. I don't know if my idea of 'human' is the good one.

[redrevo]

Two points I want to make here:

1) Joss Whedon: You know, you do want to deal with your core characters. The other thing is, you've been dealing with your core characters for seven years. It's kind of hard. You know their tricks, you know their strengths and weaknesses, and you're trying to drum up a new thing for them to go through, you know, a new thing for them to express, and it's harder. It's just harder.

That's the job of a TV writer. Make a great story, no matter how hard it may be. He could've even reused a few issues from the early seasons - "go back to the beginning."

It seemed possible when we saw Selfless, Same Time Same Place, Lessons, and CWDP.

2) James Marsters: I usually got about 3 pages of script. Scripts average 43-48 pages and I averaged between 1 and 3 pages an episode. So, I didn't "take oxygen" away from anybody!!!

He may say so, but that's not what I saw. I'm not just talking Spike's scenes, I'm talking scenes about Spike, lines about him, people arguing over him...

Also, Potentials.

But again the power, people need superpowers to be important. Yes she shared her powers. But I'm not a complete fan of the reasons and intentions of the big power sharing.

That wasn't the focus of it. The superpowers, the mythology, everything is a metaphor for something else. The power isn't just super strength, it's confidence.

Yes that one, there was no logic. Without the amulet they would all have died and there would be lots of young women who had no idea why they where so much stronger. Hello Chaos!

Was there a better plan?

But they didn't. Fred didn't became stronger ... or Nina or anyone except the chosen girls. It was about a special group.

Because they were on a different show? If the writers wanted to emphasize the whole "special group" thing, it would have shown people who didn't become powerful.

Then didn't google it, find other resources. I know she tried to help, but she couldn't help ... until she was super powerful again.

Books about evil? Radio stations about evil? Demons who know this FE guy personally?

Even with the superpowers, she was very vulnerable. see: Bring On the Night, Get It Done.

He wasn't a villian, but he was the guy who planned with Wood to kill Spike. He was the man who didn't help Buffy anymore the way he did. Bad writing to show the greatness of superpowered persons Buffy and Spike.

Again with the one episode, in which he was right and Buffy was wrong.

I don't think that Willow should be powerless, but I didn;t like the way how Willow wasn't able to do anything useful without magic. And I think that Xander is the strongest and greatest one of the whole team. But the lack of Xander in the last seasons is because the writers think that superpowers and being a bad-ass is good, and the loyal cheerleader isn't.

What superpower enables you to read the writers' minds?

What's the different between this and the spell in Chosen? I thought this was the biggest problem of the empowerment spell, the same spell was called 'rape' earlier in the season.

The demon.

Even so, I think we'll be getting some discussion of this in the comics.

Xander told that to Dawn. If Buffy would have told Dawn the Xander-speech, I would have loved it.

But then Xander wouldn't have been able to give it...

We should have both! Seriously. Or have Buffy apologize to Dawn for her words in the graveyard in LMPTM.

Doesn't change the fact that Buffy only cared about power. It made it more stupid, Buffy wanted much power, when they should fight against the first with faith in eachother. Everybody should help eachother, because the first can't harm you when you're not alone.

That was another of her failures. She did stupid things that whole season, which was kind of the point.

True, but the girl with the most strength was the one who was right all the way.

Again, no one ever said she was right all along after Empty Places, I don't think.

Only the chosen girls, Spike and Willow. The normal people weren't important. Of course did Dawn, Xander etc. fight, but it was because they needed to be there. Their role was not big. Anya died in the war, we saw her fight, we saw her die ... but it didn't made a difference. Doesn't make her less a hero ... but I don't think that the message of chosen in that everybody can be a hero. We already had that message in Graduation Day part 2. This was about the chosen girls, the important girls.

Anya died. It was stupid, and pointless, because that's what she thought about death. If she was not intended to be a hero, or Xander was not, or Dawn was not, why did we get to see Dawn kick Buffy in the shins, or Xander and Dawn fighting in the school, or Xander looking for Anya? Why did we get to see Andrew and Xander talk about her? There was the hallway scene with the Core Four, Robin and Faith, what was left of the gang talking at the end.

[KingofCretins]

Feminism is a pretty elusive concept to begin with, having so many divergent (and contradictory) schools of thought that the word itself becomes trite a lot of the time. On Buffy, though, I've always felt that it meant nothing more or less than self-reliance and strength. Buffy, as the Slayer, doesn't need problems solved for her just because she's a woman. She occasionally needs problems solved for her because she's a person, but not *just* because she's a woman. The show actually plays this out brilliantly in "Helpless" -- the one time Buffy is shown needing help because she's just a 'meek little girly girl', opening a jar, the show demonstrates that even then, gender alone doesn't control. Xander can't open the jar any better than Buffy, and hands it off to Willow.

One definition I'd dispute, though, is the elimination of the idea of 'meaning' to being a man or being a woman. In the case of men, the blurring and removing of the acceptability of there being something that it *means* to be a man has been nothing but socially harmful, I think. Rather than stoicism and chivalry, popular culture only accepts 'being a man' as meaning acting like blithering fools in beer commercials. A more classical sense of what being a man is largely gets erased, and men, left without definition, cast about -- they become violent, they become petty.

On Buffy, I think Xander and Riley both stand as examples that there can still be something inherently valuable about what being a man means. Xander is 'feminized', but not emasculated, in the show. He embodies the things that men ought to be -- strong, decisive, protective -- without losing sight of the things that make him a more 'feminine' character in the Buffyverse. Riley, for his part, is called teutonic, and his little if any 'feminized' traits in the ordinary sense, but is still positive simply because they don't make fun of who he is. While fans, inexplicably, often hold the more masculine qualities of these characters agaisnt them and frequently try to remove them in fanfic and discussions, the show itself never insults these things.

And the show treats the idea that being a woman means something substantial as paramount as well. It's so pervasive examples are moot, but I think the most handy one is what Andrew was saying in "Potential" about the Slayer history.

[Pandora's_Box]

I voted for someone else because for me, it's Kate Lockley.

[Nina]

I guess that we don't figure this out. But there are still some points I want to explain about my thinking.

That wasn't the focus of it. The superpowers, the mythology, everything is a metaphor for something else. The power isn't just super strength, it's confidence.

I don't understand this. Does people who doesn't have superpowers no confidence?

Was there a better plan?

No, but there was no reason to not think of a better one. Because this one was incredible stupid. I would've already been happy if they would have thought about it. If the girls would've have been slayers already when they started, if they would've figured out what the amulet could do. etc.

Because they were on a different show? If the writers wanted to emphasize the whole "special group" thing, it would have shown people who didn't become powerful.

Why? It's not about the not special people. It's about the special ones.

Again with the one episode, in which he was right and Buffy was wrong.

I don't think that was the message of the season, Buffy was right ... Spike was a good guy. Giles was the one who did the stupid thing. I agree that Giles was right in his thinking, but the show never showed that.

What superpower enables you to read the writers' minds?

I haven't any power. I wish I had because I can't figure out anything they wrote in the last season, but to return to the case. It's the mesaage they gave me, Xander saves the world because he is important to Willow. But in the big picture, Xander, Anya, Andrew and Dawn are not important. They have tiny roles in the big story.

That was another of her failures. She did stupid things that whole season, which was kind of the point.

Was it the point, because I had the feeling that Buffy still believed that she was right.

But it's getting off-topic I guess.

My biggest problem with season 7 is the old-fashioned 'the strongest is the most important' view Buffy and BtVS had, and the view is shared with the stereotype male heroes. And the writers didn't destroy that view. Buffy ended with empowering lots of girls. Sharing ... maybe, but it was also again about superpowers and their importance.

[sueworld]

My major gripe with season 7 (amongst other things) is that the writers seemed to be making out that for Buffy to successfully wage a 'war' that she had to become like a man, in that you need to become emotionally 'hard' in some way. That was once of the reasons I began to dislike her character somewhat during that time.

And don't get me on the whole 'Potential power sharing gag' at the end. *sigh*

[kana]

I never thought that GeneralBuffy was portrayed positively. The fact that it was a war made it murky in itself. Buffy didn't actually know what to do. She was 22 year old plumetted into a sort of hell, those older than her were relying on her. It's understandable that Buffy reacted this way. She was under pressure but I never got the impression that it was 'the thing to do'.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

Feminism is a pretty elusive concept to begin with, having so many divergent (and contradictory) schools of thought that the word itself becomes trite a lot of the time. On Buffy, though, I've always felt that it meant nothing more or less than self-reliance and strength.

Though, you could say it meant the opposite, too! As in, Buffy is at her most feminist hero-y when she's not going for the whole martyrish high and lonely destiny thing - when she's working as part of a community, and collaborating with others. I think the spell in Primeval is a good example of this. It's a radical reinterpretation of what a slayer is, and a denial of the old ways of solitude. When she says to the hyper-masculine, military industrial complex-y Adam, "you can never hope to grasp the source of our power", that's her (or them) taking a stance for the power of community, of collaboration, of social networks.

But self-reliance also important of course - Buffy's able to use her own resources and improvise. When Angelus asks what's left when all the externals are stripped away....well, the answer's "me". And having faith in yourself as a powerful agent is important too - from any feminist perspective that I can think of at least. Unless we're talking about feminist literary theory, in which case...actually, let's not talk about that

In the case of men, the blurring and removing of the acceptability of there being something that it *means* to be a man has been nothing but socially harmful, I think. Rather than stoicism and chivalry, popular culture only accepts 'being a man' as meaning acting like blithering fools in beer commercials.

The problem here I think isn't disgregarding the importance of chivalry, but of society's need to put people in boxes...so when one box ceases to be relevant, they just invent a new and, in this case, worse one.

I think BtVS is good at playing with preconceptions, while also exploring the things that men and women need/want/are. It's got a light touch where those things are concerned, and I think the use of humour is one of the most productive feminist tool for anyone. Because humour always offers common ground, and when we can laugh at the absurdities of being human, we can think about what we have in common and what we don't (whether that's we as men and women, or young and old, or American and English...)

He embodies the things that men ought to be -- strong, decisive, protective -- without losing sight of the things that make him a more 'feminine' character in the Buffyverse.

Not sure about the "what men ought to be" angle, but I agree that he combines things that men are traditionally expected to be and things that they haven't been expected to be in the past, but that add to their lives and characters.

Riley, for his part, is called teutonic, and his little if any 'feminized' traits in the ordinary sense, but is still positive simply because they don't make fun of who he is.

I guess he's "feminised" to the degree that he's the one in the relationship with Buffy who wants to talk about feelings, and who does the "work" in the relationship in terms of wanting to make things go right (trying to get her to open up etc). But in terms of his traditionally male qualities, yes, he's not in any way mocked for those (except in the self-mocking of "boys like toys", which I think is meant in a nice way).

[redrevo]

I don't understand this. Does people who doesn't have superpowers no confidence?

During that season, as it relates to the Potentials... yes! They all started out with less confidence than they ended up with.

No, but there was no reason to not think of a better one. Because this one was incredible stupid. I would've already been happy if they would have thought about it. If the girls would've have been slayers already when they started, if they would've figured out what the amulet could do. etc.

Those probably would've happened if there had been more time for "Chosen" - say, two hours - which a lot of people think should have happened.

Why? It's not about the not special people. It's about the special ones.

Well, we can't tell if the spell is all-inclusive unless there are people who aren't affected by it. By showing girls all over the world becoming slayers, it makes the Slayer spell seem like it's giving power to all women.

I don't think that was the message of the season, Buffy was right ... Spike was a good guy. Giles was the one who did the stupid thing. I agree that Giles was right in his thinking, but the show never showed that.

The show never really said that Buffy was right in everything she did that episode. Obviously, threatening to kill Wood was a stupid thing. Spike was supposed to be a good guy. The message of that episode is up for grabs, besides "The mission is what matters." It's never said who was right.

Buffy is portrayed as being at least half-right during the episode, which is a reason I really hate it.

Was it the point, because I had the feeling that Buffy still believed that she was right.

I think so. Buffy thought she was superior, but did increasingly stupid things because of this.

[vampmogs]

Buffy wasn't always portrayed as being always right in season seven. The vineyard plan in 'Dirty Girls' was one big example of everyone telling her one thing, Buffy ignoring them, and it ending horribly for some characters. She wasn't right then. But you also have to look at her character history, she's always been pretty smart at coming up with the plans and figuring these things out. It makes sense she'd figure it out about the vineyard which is why she was right in 'Empty Places.' But at the same time everyone refused to believe her because she'd closed herself off prior to that, she hadn't listened to any of them, she had became 'hardened' and they didn't know if they could trust her anymore. Buffy's attitude that season could have cost her a great deal, it did during 'Empty Places' even when she was right.

[Nina]

Well firstly, I'm giving up at the 'The writers made Buffy always look like she was right' point, I'm still bitter about the bad writing and the many times Buffy getted away with stupid moves ... but she was sometimes proved wrong. I really should see this season again.

During that season, as it relates to the Potentials... yes! They all started out with less confidence than they ended up with.

I thought that was pretty cheesy, but you're right. The potentials ended with confidence in Chosen. Which is again a weird message Buffy gave them. You only are important when you have power. You can't be helpfull without it, some of her speeches had that message.

Those probably would've happened if there had been more time for "Chosen" - say, two hours - which a lot of people think should have happened.

I hope so, because everytime I see chosen en I hear Giles say the words 'brilliant', I stop watching the episode.

Well, we can't tell if the spell is all-inclusive unless there are people who aren't affected by it. By showing girls all over the world becoming slayers, it makes the Slayer spell seem like it's giving power to all women.

But we know it didn't gave power to all the women. It only gave power to the chosen girls. It wasn't about empowering the women, it was about empowering the chosen girls.

The show never really said that Buffy was right in everything she did that episode. Obviously, threatening to kill Wood was a stupid thing. Spike was supposed to be a good guy. The message of that episode is up for grabs, besides "The mission is what matters." It's never said who was right.

LMPTM is maybe the worst episode in the 'verse. Just because of the character who were all mistaken and wrong at some point. But Buffy failed as a leader, protector and as a person that episode. And the only thing what happened was that she was fired. Nobody told her off, she told the others off. And the writers didn't bother to bring it up. After that episode I had the feeling that Robin and Giles were wrong and Buffy wasn't. The scene in which she wants more money, is really painful BTW. I don't know what the writers tried to say ith that scene, if they wanted to show how wrong Buffy was, or that is was some kind of joke.

Buffy is portrayed as being at least half-right during the episode, which is a reason I really hate it.

Agree, only that I had the feeling afterwards that she was proved right ... which made it worse.

I think so. Buffy thought she was superior, but did increasingly stupid things because of this.

Yes, but she isn't blamed for it, not enough. And the spell on the end told me that Buffy didn't understood how wrong she was. And I don't know if that was the intention of the writers ... or that they wanted us to believe that Buffy was right for the most of the things. That Buffy was justified for everything she did.