Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Feminism and Joss Whedon

AngeliKat

Townie
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
6
Age
27
Location
Washington, DC
Hello all! I'd like your thoughts on the feminist reputation of Buffy. I think many of us have felt empowered by the show's multidimensional females, but some argue that BTVS isn't as feminist as we might like to think. Also, how does Joss Whedon figure into your observations? Do you hold him responsible for aspects of the show you see as less-than-feminist?
 
I see Joss as 90% opportunist and 10% feminist. His treatment of Charisma Carpenter on Angel, basically punishing her for getting pregnant by having her character go through a degrading season ending in death and forcing Sarah Michelle Gellar to go from a healthy 115 lb to an emaciated 94 lb just to satisfy what he thought of as the ideal TV star argues against it. He stopped at 94 lb because SMG's stunt double had to follow the weight loss and found she couldn't do it and still be able to do the stunts. I say opportunist because after generations of television (and his father and grandfather were both TV screenwriters), people were so used to certain tropes that they were no longer entertaining. His particular hatred was for the trope of the little blonde girl who faces the monster and gets killed, so he turned it around and made the little blonde girl the victor. Indeed, the first scene of Buffy shows the blonde girl being the vampire and killing the boy. This and Buffy's superiority to vampires played into certain feminist ideals, so he appropriated the mantle of feminist leader, but none of it was real.
 
I think his idea for the show in general is what gave SMG etc the ABILITY to be able to build a character that stood up for feminism and in a way became a pioneering figure in that genre to show that women CAN be the one slaying the demons and vampires etc. Was this Joss looking ahead at feminism in general when he was writing the script? Probably not. That's not to say that he doesn't support feminism, but as @Ethan Reigns said, it had to fit in with what he wanted first.
 
Ethan Reigns
Ethan Reigns
On this forum but I forget where. He had a nutritionist on the set to "help" her do this.
EarthLogic
EarthLogic
But was it really Joss' call? Or was did the nutritionist order come from higher up - say, execs who wanted a skinnier TV star?
I can't really decide, other than to say I think the "feminism of Joss Whedon" is greatly exaggerated by the general audience. I usually describe it as "feminism lite."

At the core level, that women are equal to men, I think it is (and feminism comes in many flavors, some schools of feminism incompatible with other schools, though they share the same goal using different methods and with a different understanding of society). But then so are many shows and movies that don't even try to be feminist. Given that feminism (certain types anyway) get used in marketing it's safe to say that writers are going to use such themes whether they actually internalize them or not as it's actually popular. When people go with what works rather than a clear philosophy then it can easily become muddled as I think Joss's shows become.

Throw in several writers who have almost no Series Bible to work with and that will add even more to the discordant and contradictory tones, themes, and both intentional and unintentional messages.

There are also some disturbing messages (such as conflating sex with violence, and even a disturbing idea that to kill without consequence is to feel like a god that one could easily get addicted to, as just an example) that come up time and again (by both male and female writers) that make me wonder if it's showing us aspects of the character or of the writers (including Joss) themselves (or if that's just considered good writing since it's natural for certain topics, including many taboo ones, to get thrown in to spice up a story, and may just be a technique they were trained to use).

Ultimately, I don't know the writers themselves. I've been given them crap here on BB lately which I kinda feel bad about (save for Buffy season 7 where I do think the writers were "screw the fans, we're sick of Buffy and just going through the motions as set by Joss who isn't that involved either, eager to move on to other projects"), but I know they have schedules to keep that limit the work and collaboration in their work that the writers can do They, including Joss, also have people to answer to if they want it to air so studio executives (who in turn have their own pressures, from bosses to even chasing government grant money by emphasizing some messages) to the lives of the actors who have lives beyond the show are all going to impact the writing. Of course ego is going to impact it, sometimes in terrible ways (though OTOH, a strong ego is typically needed to be able to aggressively promote a show so that it airs in the first place).

And even when all these don't interfere with higher ideals and intent, there's still the public to consider. It's one thing to tweak and prod people a certain way, another to walk all over what they believe in or take for granted so that it offends or aggravates them (or at least makes it so they can't relate to the story and characters) which can make it counterproductive, which they should avoid doing. Having Tillow on Buffy was actually helpful in tweaking society to become more accepting of gays, but had they gotten too radical then it would've done more harm than good and slowed progress down, for example. (And even when attempting to challenge a dominant world view, it can be hard to challenge it coherently as there are so many assumptions that get overlooked in doing so, and assumptions that would have to be explained somehow in the story.)

The above was my thinking it out. So I'll repeat that it was "feminism lite" that did manage to do some good for its time, and though it hasn't aged well in some ways, that's ironically because of the show itself stoking progress to happen that might not have happened so fast otherwise.
 
Buffy's feminism is totally overhyped and so is Joss as a feminist and talent.

I would never classify any of his shows as feminist if we are strictly talking about the 'portrayal of women'. There is the behind the scenes stuff and how he treated women. In that those that kissed his ass got whatever they wanted and Whedon loved them. Those that messed up his brilliant ideas (like CC) or argued with him on plots for their character (like SMG) were treated like crap.

When looking at the female characters in Buffy specifically, I can't understand why anyone would say feminist show beyond the basic premise of the show, little blond girl kicks ass. When looking at the female characters on both shows, it's kind of disturbing how anti-femist it really is. Why did all female characters die permanent deaths (except Buffy) while the men were allowed to leave or be resurrected? Angel, Riley, Oz, Giles were allowed to leave and drop by now and then again, Angel and Spike even came back from death/hell. Which female character can say that for themselves? None.

The punishment of expressing female sexuality or desire. Buffy was often punished (except for Riley) for expressing her desire. Cordelia's (I think) first time ended in demon pregnancy. Buffy's story ultimately became all about her not being able to go through life without a guy holding her up. Then there is the problem that women can't handle power, with Willow and Buffy being the prime examples. They go batshit crazy with it. Or become megalomaniacs thinking themselves to be better than other people. And expect to be treated as such.

I will give Whedon & Co. one thing, they weren't shy about showing women can be just as bad as men. Women on men violence, female rapists and attempted rapists, lack of female support for female victims, women can be just as power hungry and misuse said power, female murderers etc.. The only difference is that these things were rarely treated as 'bad' or examined in terms of meaning or given the weight that they should, because it was women it was just pushed under the rug and shrugged off. Or they blamed the men for it anyway.
 
Buffy's feminism is totally overhyped and so is Joss as a feminist and talent.

I would never classify any of his shows as feminist if we are strictly talking about the 'portrayal of women'. There is the behind the scenes stuff and how he treated women. In that those that kissed his ass got whatever they wanted and Whedon loved them. Those that messed up his brilliant ideas (like CC) or argued with him on plots for their character (like SMG) were treated like crap.

When looking at the female characters in Buffy specifically, I can't understand why anyone would say feminist show beyond the basic premise of the show, little blond girl kicks ass. When looking at the female characters on both shows, it's kind of disturbing how anti-femist it really is. Why did all female characters die permanent deaths (except Buffy) while the men were allowed to leave or be resurrected? Angel, Riley, Oz, Giles were allowed to leave and drop by now and then again, Angel and Spike even came back from death/hell. Which female character can say that for themselves? None.

The punishment of expressing female sexuality or desire. Buffy was often punished (except for Riley) for expressing her desire. Cordelia's (I think) first time ended in demon pregnancy. Buffy's story ultimately became all about her not being able to go through life without a guy holding her up. Then there is the problem that women can't handle power, with Willow and Buffy being the prime examples. They go batshit crazy with it. Or become megalomaniacs thinking themselves to be better than other people. And expect to be treated as such.

I will give Whedon & Co. one thing, they weren't shy about showing women can be just as bad as men. Women on men violence, female rapists and attempted rapists, lack of female support for female victims, women can be just as power hungry and misuse said power, female murderers etc.. The only difference is that these things were rarely treated as 'bad' or examined in terms of meaning or given the weight that they should, because it was women it was just pushed under the rug and shrugged off. Or they blamed the men for it anyway.


It's hard to tell what conception people get when they watch Buffy to be honest, in terms of what message it tries to send in terms of feminism.

I have found a few articles like this one - Buffy the Vampire Slayer's feminism is still subversive, 20 years later

To take a few things from it just to save everyone having to click on it lol...


Most action stories prioritize the male hero’s pain over everything else

Always, the male action hero must struggle with the responsibility of being the only person who can stop the spread of evil across the world. He’ll stand broodingly on a rooftop, dressed in billowing black, gazing out over the city he has sworn to protect. All of those lives, depending only on him — how could any one man bear such a burden?



On Buffy, Buffy’s pain is the most important thing in the world

But on Buffy, the action hero is a girl. It is her pain that is the most important, and her story that other characters support.



Buffy is a specifically feminine archetype at the center of masculine action hero storylines. That’s hugely significant.

Buffy’s manpain is subversive not only because she’s a female character, but because of the specific female archetype that she represents.


Buffy creator Joss Whedon has always said that Buffy is based on the archetypal blonde girl who gets killed first in every horror movie. In his DVD commentary for the first episode, he says, “The idea of Buffy was to subvert that idea, that image, and create someone who was a hero where she had always been a victim.”


As described by film scholar Carol J. Clover, the blonde girl of horror is a foil for the brunette Final Girl who will survive to the end of the movie. The blonde is feminine where the Final Girl is tomboyish, and sexual where the Final Girl is virginal. For those crimes — those specifically feminine crimes — she must be punished. When you see a cute blonde cheerleader having sex in a horror movie, you know the monster is about to kill her horribly.


As a character, Buffy fits horror’s blonde archetype perfectly. She’s unapologetically hyper feminine; she adores fashion and makeup and shopping; she longs to be a cheerleader. But not only does she not die first when Buffy’s monsters come calling, she kicks their ass and saves the day

Buffy Summers is a living embodiment of the kind of femininity that horror and action traditionally despise, that they erase or disregard or destroy on sight. But on Buffy, her particular archetype is combined with the brooding, manpain-riddled action hero. Buffy is blonde and high femme and sexual, and her pain is still the most important thing in the world.
 
There are also some disturbing messages (such as conflating sex with violence, and even a disturbing idea that to kill without consequence is to feel like a god that one could easily get addicted to, as just an example) that come up time and again
But those things were never condoned by the writers or the writing - they were shown to be problematic.
 
But those things were never condoned by the writers or the writing - they were shown to be problematic.

One, I don't think that killing makes people feel like a god. It would for certain people, but not in general, and yet it seems more than one has that. Again, I'm not sure if that's showing a specific character trait, or if it's how the writers see themselves (which they then project onto people in general). And I'm not one to pretend I don't have violent and even hateful tendencies so it's not just that I'm in denial. And I do see humanity as an exceedingly violent species which is practically demonic when it doesn't have a society meant to curb that trait. Murder is generally either impulse control or seen as good over evil (which the greater society may or may not agree with, and may or may not throw parades over). Sometimes I wonder if a writer (possibly Joss since he has a lot of input even when he's not in the credits) doesn't feel that way. I'm not saying he does, mind you, I just have to wonder when it comes up repeatedly in both Buffy and Angel (though even if any do then I figure there's a good chance they restrain that impulse).

Two, I don't think it's always shown as problematic. Maybe humorous at times, but it shows multiple characters engaged in violence as becoming horny. Buffy and Riley do it, Faith does it and keeps mixing the metaphors, Buffy saving Angel shows a common view of a vampire draining a woman as sexual (Angelus also talks about how close he feels to Xander as he's about to kill him) which shows up in the vampire genre over and over. I don't get the impression that Spike and Buffy tearing down the house (as they beat the crap out of each other) that they have sex in was to be seen as "problematic" (though some in the audience do). Those are off the top of my head. I'm not talking about Faith strangling Xander, domestic abuse, nor am I including the crass humor (such as found in Go Fish).
Post automatically merged:

(And how could I forget how often chipping vampires was called "neutering"?)
Post automatically merged:

Hmph, I was in a bit of a hurry as I was finishing something up and wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. I think what I posted can be figured out (like many who kill do so out of a LOSS of impulse control, or SEE it as good conquering evil regardless of whether society agrees with them and is more of a tribal instinct that can include the violence of bigotry), but I did want to clarify that by "tendencies" I actually meant I've struggled with feelings like that before, right along with all my other feelings and impulses. I don't have tendency to act on those that I deem morally and ethically wrong and/or would cause me (or possibly someone else I'm wanting to act on behalf of) more harm than good. 😉
 
Last edited:
I think it was feminist to a point . There was some things on there that were very feminist & other things that were not feminist . I think that Joss was trying to change things when he created it . And finding out how good it was went with it . If he had been a real feminist there a number of things he could have done & not done so he drooped the ball a lot . But for it time it was very feminist & it was because of the story lines & not because of what Joss did by himself since we see a number of times he wasn't .
 
On Buffy, Buffy’s pain is the most important thing in the world

giphy.gif

Sorry, whoever wrote this article is clearly not taking Season 7 into account, when the show shoves Buffy's pain and trauma aside in order for her to prop up her abuser. I mean, yikes.
 
In truth, I think Joss is an aging post-boomer feminist in good standing who has outlived his usefulness to the Millennial Cultural Revolutionary, who are using the opportunity of his recent scandals to purge him from the movement and promote female creators in his place. As I recall, his work was within mainstream feminist orthodoxy at the time and accepted as such.
 
That could be true but Joss still let hid fame go to his head. And now he paying for that.
 
One, I don't think that killing makes people feel like a god. It would certain people, but not in general, and yet it seems more than one has that. Again, I'm not sure if that's showing a specific character trait, or if it's how the writers see themselves.
I agree that you can't possibly apply it to people in general because people kill for different reasons, but we're dealing with specific characters here, and stories which are deliberately designed to explore similar themes in different ways. Plus remember we're in a world where there are beings without souls - without conscience or remorse - and they provide a model against which human killers like Faith or Warren are often examined. Angel provides a clear explanation of what it is like to kill without a soul and confirms it does (or at least can) make one feel like a God. It's not the death itself, but the power that comes with the act of killing - and I think that is true to certain extent for humans (which is why he tells this to Faith), even in the real world. Whatever someone's motivation for killing, there is an element of control. Those driven to desperation are trying to regain control over some part of their lives, those who do it out of malice are trying to exter control over others. So the writers' aren't trying to make a blanket statement on the psyche of all human beings, or all murderers; they're just trying to tell stories which explore human morality.

Sometimes I wonder if a writer (possibly Joss since he has a lot of input even when he's not in the credits) doesn't feel that way. I'm not saying he does, mind you, I just have to wonder when it comes up repeatedly in both Buffy and Angel (though even if any do then I figure there's a good chance they restrain that impulse).
I don't quite understand what you're suggesting about Joss. Are you saying that he might write these stories of violence because he may identify with that urge? If so again I'd disagree - he's just a writer who wants to examine themes of violence, morality and power because it's interesting to him; it doesn't mean he recognises those tendencies in himself.

Two, I don't think it's always shown as problematic. Maybe humorous at times, but it shows multiple characters engaged in violence as becoming horny. Buffy and Riley do it, Faith does it and keeps mixing the metaphors, Buffy saving Angel shows a common view of a vampire draining a woman as sexual (Angelus also talks about how close he feels to Xander as he's about to kill him) which shows up in the vampire genre over and over. I don't get the impression that Spike and Buffy tearing down the house (as they beat the crap out of each other) that they have sex in was to be seen as "problematic" (though some in the audience do). Those are off the top of my head. I'm not talking about Faith strangling Xander, domestic abuse, nor am I including the crass humor (such as found in Go Fish).
The conflation of sex and violence in literature and culture is as old as humanity itself. It's not something new being suggested by the writers and the show's supernatural elements naturally lends itself to the exploration of this. So of course the sexual element associated with the vampire myth is going to be explores; after all it is a show about fighting vampires and so Joss naturally engaging with those aspects of the mythology. Besides I don't see why portraying that eroticism should be cause for criticism?
The writers aren't saying that violence should make people horny or that it's good if it does; they're just exploring the themes that naturally emerge from the story.

I still don't think that makes any of these things 'disturbing messages' - because the writers aren't sending fixed messages with them. They're just exploring ideas. I think you might be oversimplifying the issue by reading the show at face value.
 
I still don't think that makes any of these things 'disturbing messages' - because the writers aren't sending fixed messages with them. They're just exploring ideas. I think you might be oversimplifying the issue by reading the show at face value.

I've been violent and in violent situations, and I've been around people far more violent than myself. Violence has never made me horny (either in wanting to inflict sexual violence with other violence or to feel power over them in other ways, or seeking out sex after either from victims or victimizers, nor from lovers after), nor does viewing violence make me horny--quite the opposite. Anger leaves me cold rather than ready to kiss or aggressively make out (or otherwise "get a room" as many would tell characters showing anger and even violence to each other). My own stories reflect that, so maybe their conflating rage and lust, sex and violence, is a reflection of their views and attitudes as well.

Furthermore, violence and sex are often interlinked directly (both metaphorically and literally) in the show and it's not usually shown as problematic, not by the writers and often not by the audience who can even find it hot. Given how ubiquitous it is, how it is shown as linked again and again and combined with conflating chipping with neutering and other things I mentioned (no matter how much I may be reading into it, combined with a godlike feeling of killing/slaying), it makes me wonder if the writers do conflate the two, and if so, then it makes other aspects of the writers (not just Joss) look more ominous. Perhaps sex is another way to dominate others, at least they wish it was (this may also be a wish to be dominated, similar to bestsellers like 50 SOG, which isn't to be confused with S&M despite its S&M trappings, which some believe are natural and innate to male and female psychology).

Of course I mentioned other possibilities as well, and recognize them as common tropes (but because it's common doesn't make it feminist, though they may have to balance marketability with idealism). I'm not trying passively aggressively accuse them of anything, I was just thinking out loud on the topic. I also want to repeat that I'm not making judgment calls here, trying to pretend some purity of character (when in actuality I don't romanticize or admire untested virtue which many call "innocence"), I'm just musing on it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom