18 thoughts on “Questions on Karas, Fudge, and Callot”
Oliver Sutro
“By definition the part of the victim was passive since it required no initiative or industry; it simply happened to the character.” It is often perceived that all sexual abuse and rape is should be blamed upon the male side (in a heterosexual situation). In this quote from Karras’ essay, we can see how horror cinema has depicted the victim: a helpless woman who does not fight back – someone who was, unfortunately, caught up in an unfortunate situation. Has this projection of the woman as a passive victim in horror films shaped our judgements and even laws? Can women abuse men in the same way? Could the roles ever be reversed?
“No one else seems to be much concerned about the large number of bizarre, unexplained killings in Sunnydale—Buffy’s career-focused single mom doesn’t wise up to her daughter’s vocation until the end of the show’s second season, the teachers are all but oblivious, and the mayor himself is in league with the undead.” (Fudge) Agreeably, that is a long quote but take a closer look. Is Buffy’s significance as an ass kicking, stereotype fighting, vampire slayer undermined by the seemingly impossible surroundings? Are Buffy’s unlikely situations perhaps a mockery of feminism and girl power?
“Why would someone pretend to be a feminist, when it isolates you from the mainstream and reduces your market opportunities? For the “cred?” That might make sense if you’re an college student trying to get laid at a party” (Callot) When and how did feminism get its bad wrap? Why do I support women and their rights but reject the ideas of feminism? Are feminists trying to start a civil revolution or a cult?
The Third Wave’s Final Girl: Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
“By embracing the feminine – make-up, clothing, and even Barbies – third wave feminists are sending the message to society that women are powerful on their own terms.” Are women who masculinize their image succumbing to the pressures of a patriarchal society and sending the message that in order to be powerful they must reject femininity?
The Buffy Effect:
Is Buffy’s girlishness and femininity a way to avoid too much cultural forwardness? Is the media saying that there can be a strong female, but belittling her by insisting she must maintain the stereotypical traits of a girl her age and turning those traits into a cultural satire? On the other hand, is it saying that any girl (boyish or not) has the ability to be powerful?
The Expired Feminism of Joss Whedon:
One view of Dollhouse that Callot describes stresses the “rape” of women by changing their identities week to week. On the show this is done through the use of high-tech technology. Is this a message about technology and it’s increasing influence on society and gender roles? But, the show also deals with men receiving the same treatment. Why does the article only address women as victims?
Karas:
“People in their teens and twenties, the daughters and sons of the second wave, have grown up taking equality for granted.”
Would the second wave rather the third wave treat equality like a courtesy? If the third wave women acted like equality was a gift, wouldn’t that make society think equality was a gift, and thus, prompt men to treat women like they don’t deserve equality and it’s something the men gave and is something they can take away whenever.
Fudge:
“Whedon wanted to make a movie where the blonde “wanders into a dark alley, takes care of herself, and deploys her powers” to kill the monster.” So, what does the fact that Buffy didn’t want the position of slayer do to the series, and what effect does the hero not wanting to be a hero have on the spectator?
Callot:
“Strange, then, that the most persistent issue in regards to Whedon’s feminism is its authenticity.” Even if Whedon is not a ‘genuine feminist,’ would it really be that bad if he was just acting the part? Real or not, wouldn’t he, in some ways, be helping the feminist world? Both by having a public figure claiming to be a feminist and by having a powerful man creating shows that bring such issues to light.
Naomi Wolf states how there was an “abrupt shift in the balance of power between US women and men… … something critical to the sustenance of patriarchy died in the confrontation and something new was born. (xxv; 5)” Karras also argues that Buffy represents the 3rd wave of feminism. Can it be possible that this “abrupt shift in the balance of power between US women and men” that Wolf talks about is represented in the episode we watched were Buffy distributes and gives her power to the other girls and they together kill all the bad vampires (which were all men) to end with their regime and start a new era where every new generations will have a slayer girl? Can this battle represent the shifting of powers and this radical political and social change? The monsters representing the “something critical to the sustenance of patriarchy” that died. This final battle being “the confrontation” and the outcome, representing the “something new” that was born?
Fudge points out that Buffy is able to fight and defeat evil wearing heels and stylish clothes and still having her hair and make up intact after she is done. She does not have to sacrifice her femininity in order to be strong and successful. In fact she uses this to have power, she can be both aggressive and feminine. This idea of being able to fight in heels and still looking good after is unrealistic. Doesn’t this undermine the feminist point of the show? Could we understand that while Buffy can do this on screen, real women would not be able to do what she does? Making the option of being both feminine and strong unrealistic for real women?
Dollhouse means to brake gender differences and identities. Callot states how in the show, in the post apocalyptic hell, “we get no hint of what sexual desire might look like in a world where “man” and “woman” become meaningless”. What would this deconstruction of identities do to the anxiety men feel towards the body and sexuality of women? Would it eliminate this anxiety or increase it? Would the anxiety be eliminated because there is no longer a difference between the sexes, therefore the women does not represent a different sexuality anymore? Or would it be heightened because men’s biggest fear came true, they became like women, they were castrated?
Karras→ Does the fact that Buffy dates Vampires, or as Karras puts it “castrated males,” have anything to do with the lesbian fan-base that Amelia brought up in class?
Fudge→ Fudge talks about Buffy’s sharp tongue and confident voice as a weapon against attackers. How does this relate to the “threat of female laughter” present in “Gossip Girl” and “Rebecca?”
Callot→ Did Whedon’s failure to make clear his feminist intentions in “Dollhouse” have anything to do with the failure/cancellation of the show? Did he lose “Buffy” fans by allowing female characters to simultaneously flirt and be “raped” every episode?
Karras
Why is it bad that Buffy embraces both typically masculine physical power and typically feminine beauty? Isn’t a break down in social constructions which is what feminism fights for–equality between the two sexes?
The Buffy Effect
Why is Willow automatically assumed to be the better feminist role model? Do brains and geekiness provide some sort of break in social constructions?
Dollhouse
I don’t understand the notion of a post structuralist world. In the face of death, but more importantly, in the face of the inescapable meaninglessness of sexual difference, they flirt. What does this mean? Is the author saying that even in a life and death situation humans are sexually driven?
On Karras:
Karras says that while Buffy doesn’t have a political agenda, it does have an agenda because Buffy kicks butt while remaining beautiful and perfectly styled. While I agree that Buffy does have an affective agenda, what happens when no “third wave” feminist shows have any political agenda outside of girl power? What will happen then to all the progress from second wave feminism? Should Buffy, and other shows like it, try better to combine a political agenda with a more “third wave” masquerade of femininity as empowerment idea?
On Fudge:
Fudge says that Buffy “treads the fine line between girl-power schlock and feminist wish-fulfillment, never giving satisfaction to either one,” yet isn’t the point of her article that it satisfies both of these genres? Buffy is both kick-ass and powerful and unafraid while being a beautiful and sexually confident woman. Buffy manages to be a feminist show while at the same time being geared toward a girl-power, “third wave” generation. Doesn’t Buffy actually satisfy both with its representation of gender, not fall short?
By Callot:
Why is something not feminist just because it isn’t post-structuralist? Granted, I don’t really know what that means, but couldn’t showing that sex doesn’t change be more feminist, because it is showing these problems that are so structurally rooted in our society that we have to change them before it becomes forever ingrained in our culture?
Though I agree with the author that it is a bit unnecessary for women to criticize Whedon so much for how he portrays women on his shows, as he is one of few males to openly admit to being a feminist in the first place, after seeing the pilot for ‘Dollhouse’ I’ll admit that it was difficult for me to understand how a self-proclaimed feminist would create a TV series about women who essentially lack autonomy. Is it possible to separate the producer’s point of view from his work, or is he obligated to create shows that show empowered women because of his feminist standpoint?
In using “pop culture as both their terrain and weapon of choice,” how effective is that in speaking to women of all ages about the goals of third wave feminists?
Fudge quotes Joss Whedon, “If I can make teenage boys comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a situation without their knowing that’s what’s happening, it’s better than sitting down and selling them on feminism.” Whedon points out the difference between his method of portraying feminism rather than selling it. What are the most effective ways in trying to convey feminist ideas in media? In general?
Callot’s article describes controversy over Joss Whedon being misogynist or feminist. Why does it matter if he is either? In presenting the viewers with a television series that points to the extremes of either perspective, does it not expose both?
Karas: This article speaks about the power of flaunting femininity, claiming that by refusing to masculinize themselves when they hold power, women who embrace femininity “send the message to society that women are powerful on their own.” This clearly has some similarities to Doane’s theory of masquerade, but do they mean the same thing? Does Buffy represent a masquerade of femininity? Also, is there any way to resist masculinization without flaunting femininity, or is it always one of the two?
Also, Buffy isn’t the final girl, because her friends and family survive. How does this effect how she is characterized?
Fudge: Fudge comments that “evil in Sunnydale often takes a nicely metaphoric slant.” Does this metaphor add to the feminism of the show? What if Buffy were combating instead more overt representatives of sexism? What are the advantages and pitfalls of a non-contestable feminist show?
Callot: If Dollhouse (and other Joss Whedon shows) had been created by a woman, would people still be asking the same questions about the writer’s feminism?
In “The Buffy Effect,” the author talks a lot about Buffy’s style of dress, and even states that “her ever-present tank tops showcase her rack quite efficiently.” It is indubitable that for many male and surely even female spectators, Gellar was (and still is) a fetishized female actress, even though she played the role of a female hero and not a victim like in typical popular culture shows. Is this sexualization to be seen as empowering or disempowering if the fetishized gaze is often noted as a way of establishing superiority in relation to the subject being viewed?
· On “The Third Wave’s Final Girl: Buffy”:
The article tackles the ambiguities of the waves of feminism, but makes the point that second wave feminism was the theory of changing the women’s social role, and third wave feminism put these changes into practice. However, Karras suggests that the females of the media and popular culture can either be “a babe or a bitch” suggesting the limitations of the female protagonist. With these stereotypes in mind, what is an appropriate alternative? A geek? A goth? An introvert? Is the answer to have an ugly yet powerful girl? More often than not good-looking actors/actresses are going to be cast- Angel and Spike are good looking as well as Buffy, so is it really a problem that she is a ‘babe’?
· The article “The Buffy Effect” makes an interesting point that Buffy’s feminist performance is crushed because of her OTT girliness, and that Willow is the more likely “feminist role model”. However, I find this an unusual response to Buffy, as Willow is portrayed a submissive girl, bullied from day one, and ultimately becomes a lesbian. In what way can the article qualify a certain female performance as being appropriate, for ultimately the fact cannot be that Buffy is an empowered female protagonist? Why has a feminine role got to display certain characteristics in order to reach the ‘feminist potential’?
· In “The Expired Feminism of Joss Whedon” what strikes me as most remarkable is the consistent ‘need’ of the media and society to brand him “feminist” or “misogynist” that is addressed within the text. As Callot points out, there are over 50,000 results when you type “Joss Whedon feminist” into Google. It seems interesting that he is being so heavily criticized for having portrayed women in strong positions. Why is this so? Perhaps as he is a self-described feminist and is also male, that people feel the need to criticize him for this, however, shouldn’t he be praised?
On Irene Karras’s article.
« By embracing the feminine – make-up, clothing, and even Barbies – third wave feminists are sending the message to society that women are powerful on their own terms ». « Even Barbies »?! Aren’t third-wave feminists embracing the consumerist society in representing women that stick to the traditional definitions of feminine beauty? Doesn’t this actually perpetuate an ambiguous representation of women in TV series? And, as a result, undermine the original feminists’ fight for the representation of a self-fulfilled woman?
“Just as the girl- power phenomenon created a market for the show, the show’s viability and commercial success depend upon this narrow definition of femininity and sex appeal.” What do feminists expect from TV series like Buffy? Can their expectations even be compatible with the demands of marketting? Can feminity be reduced to girlness and still be satisfying and empowering for female viewers?
Indeed, Buffy’s « over-the-top » girliness might tend to reduce feminism to what Rachel Fudge calls a « narrow definition of feminity and sex appeal », if so, can we still believe that Buffy is « revolutionary » when she is at the same time such a good market product?
« Strange, then, that the most persistent issue in regards to Whedon’s feminism is its authenticity. » What does the debate on Whedon’s feminism reveal about how we feel towards gender identities the way they are portrayed in popular culture? Why do we still feel some reluctance to acknowledge the « feminist aspect » of some modern TV series when they seem to be so full of contradictions? Shouldn’t we, instead, recognize that these contradictions at the heart of the TV series allow to stir up discussions among viewers and, by doing so, successfully provide an awareness of gender issues?
Karas claims “second wave tactics do not speak to the media-savvy, culturally driven generation” of the third wave. Is she suggesting that the second wave of feminists weren’t culturally driven? What tactics are being employed today by third wave feminists to bring about change that the second wave did not use?
Many see Buffy as a feminine character overall, however there are some masculine qualities about her. She wields phallic-like weapons, exerts her gaze without fear, and (as the text points out) saves men as well as women from violence. Fudge states that “Buffy’s unreconstructed, over-the-top girliness in the end compromises her feminist potential”. If anything, it is not her “over-the-top-girliness” that compromises her feminism, but the masculine traits she embodies. How can we consider Buffy overly feminine without adknowledging her masculine qualities as well?
Callot asserts “Echo is, as some have pointed out, perpetually raped. Making a show in which the main character is a woman who’s raped every week, but doesn’t mind, might seem a tad regressive.” How is Echo perpetually raped? Are we using the term “rape” too loosely here?
“Girlie feminists claim their femininity as a source of power, rather than trying to make it masculine, arguing that by doing the latter, women are in fact giving the masculine preferred status while devaluing the feminine”. Buffy’s “girlie” feminist stance allows her to assert her own power by “slaying stereotypes about what women can and cannot do” to advocate feminism. Even though Second Wave feminist discourse of, “anti family and anti sexual” can be seen within Joyce, Buffy’s Mum, Buffy’s assertions of Girlie Feminism, and her avoidance of becoming the Final Girl assert that Third Wave Feminism is in stark contrast to the second. So does Buffy’s actions alienate Second Wave feminists or realign them with the feminists of the 3rd?
If “the show’s viability and commercial success depends upon this narrow definition of femininity and sex appeal” why does it still manage to portray the 3rd wave in a positive light? As Fudge suggests Willow’s portrayal of the feminist would be more stereotypical, but is it not Buffy’s stark differences to the stereotypical feminist that allow feminism to resonate for a larger audience that shows Buffy as a revolutionary show? Although Fudge is critical of the ‘girlie’, using examples of how only through Buffy’s poking fun at itself does it absolve the ‘girlie’, is the ‘girlie’ not the most important characteristic in promoting that 3rd wave feminism is available for all?
If perpetual rape is seen as such a inherent flaw within Dollhouse, can we suggest that its failure, as it only lasted 3 seasons, was that it made a mockery of the Third Wave of feminism (women in jobs dictated by men) so alienating its audience, or that the audience was itself sick of Whedon’s raping of characters to formulate his feminist stance. Whedon’s critics whom call his portrayals rape, suggest that women whose identities are morphed by others are identity raped, is this not an over radical suggestion, i.e. likening identity to something as violent as rape?
Irene describes how Buffy is the Final Girl of the Third Wave, as the show integrates many feminist elements such as empowered women and challenges traditional beliefs about women. However, I still find that she displays excessive femininity though she can also kill vampires and demons. Can she still be seen as a feminist even with the over the top femininity, in her mini skirts and skimpy tank tops? And though the show is named after her, why does so much attention in popular culture revolve around Buffy when it comes to feminism , while Willow, who certainly seems to be more representative of feminism and the Final Girl, is marginalized? Is it based on Buffy’s level of physical attractiveness (i.e. her petite frame and blond hair)- and if so have we as women truly progressed or are we still basing femininity on conventional beauty standards?
“By definition the part of the victim was passive since it required no initiative or industry; it simply happened to the character.” It is often perceived that all sexual abuse and rape is should be blamed upon the male side (in a heterosexual situation). In this quote from Karras’ essay, we can see how horror cinema has depicted the victim: a helpless woman who does not fight back – someone who was, unfortunately, caught up in an unfortunate situation. Has this projection of the woman as a passive victim in horror films shaped our judgements and even laws? Can women abuse men in the same way? Could the roles ever be reversed?
“No one else seems to be much concerned about the large number of bizarre, unexplained killings in Sunnydale—Buffy’s career-focused single mom doesn’t wise up to her daughter’s vocation until the end of the show’s second season, the teachers are all but oblivious, and the mayor himself is in league with the undead.” (Fudge) Agreeably, that is a long quote but take a closer look. Is Buffy’s significance as an ass kicking, stereotype fighting, vampire slayer undermined by the seemingly impossible surroundings? Are Buffy’s unlikely situations perhaps a mockery of feminism and girl power?
“Why would someone pretend to be a feminist, when it isolates you from the mainstream and reduces your market opportunities? For the “cred?” That might make sense if you’re an college student trying to get laid at a party” (Callot) When and how did feminism get its bad wrap? Why do I support women and their rights but reject the ideas of feminism? Are feminists trying to start a civil revolution or a cult?
The Third Wave’s Final Girl: Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
“By embracing the feminine – make-up, clothing, and even Barbies – third wave feminists are sending the message to society that women are powerful on their own terms.” Are women who masculinize their image succumbing to the pressures of a patriarchal society and sending the message that in order to be powerful they must reject femininity?
The Buffy Effect:
Is Buffy’s girlishness and femininity a way to avoid too much cultural forwardness? Is the media saying that there can be a strong female, but belittling her by insisting she must maintain the stereotypical traits of a girl her age and turning those traits into a cultural satire? On the other hand, is it saying that any girl (boyish or not) has the ability to be powerful?
The Expired Feminism of Joss Whedon:
One view of Dollhouse that Callot describes stresses the “rape” of women by changing their identities week to week. On the show this is done through the use of high-tech technology. Is this a message about technology and it’s increasing influence on society and gender roles? But, the show also deals with men receiving the same treatment. Why does the article only address women as victims?
Karas:
“People in their teens and twenties, the daughters and sons of the second wave, have grown up taking equality for granted.”
Would the second wave rather the third wave treat equality like a courtesy? If the third wave women acted like equality was a gift, wouldn’t that make society think equality was a gift, and thus, prompt men to treat women like they don’t deserve equality and it’s something the men gave and is something they can take away whenever.
Fudge:
“Whedon wanted to make a movie where the blonde “wanders into a dark alley, takes care of herself, and deploys her powers” to kill the monster.” So, what does the fact that Buffy didn’t want the position of slayer do to the series, and what effect does the hero not wanting to be a hero have on the spectator?
Callot:
“Strange, then, that the most persistent issue in regards to Whedon’s feminism is its authenticity.” Even if Whedon is not a ‘genuine feminist,’ would it really be that bad if he was just acting the part? Real or not, wouldn’t he, in some ways, be helping the feminist world? Both by having a public figure claiming to be a feminist and by having a powerful man creating shows that bring such issues to light.
Naomi Wolf states how there was an “abrupt shift in the balance of power between US women and men… … something critical to the sustenance of patriarchy died in the confrontation and something new was born. (xxv; 5)” Karras also argues that Buffy represents the 3rd wave of feminism. Can it be possible that this “abrupt shift in the balance of power between US women and men” that Wolf talks about is represented in the episode we watched were Buffy distributes and gives her power to the other girls and they together kill all the bad vampires (which were all men) to end with their regime and start a new era where every new generations will have a slayer girl? Can this battle represent the shifting of powers and this radical political and social change? The monsters representing the “something critical to the sustenance of patriarchy” that died. This final battle being “the confrontation” and the outcome, representing the “something new” that was born?
Fudge points out that Buffy is able to fight and defeat evil wearing heels and stylish clothes and still having her hair and make up intact after she is done. She does not have to sacrifice her femininity in order to be strong and successful. In fact she uses this to have power, she can be both aggressive and feminine. This idea of being able to fight in heels and still looking good after is unrealistic. Doesn’t this undermine the feminist point of the show? Could we understand that while Buffy can do this on screen, real women would not be able to do what she does? Making the option of being both feminine and strong unrealistic for real women?
Dollhouse means to brake gender differences and identities. Callot states how in the show, in the post apocalyptic hell, “we get no hint of what sexual desire might look like in a world where “man” and “woman” become meaningless”. What would this deconstruction of identities do to the anxiety men feel towards the body and sexuality of women? Would it eliminate this anxiety or increase it? Would the anxiety be eliminated because there is no longer a difference between the sexes, therefore the women does not represent a different sexuality anymore? Or would it be heightened because men’s biggest fear came true, they became like women, they were castrated?
Karras→ Does the fact that Buffy dates Vampires, or as Karras puts it “castrated males,” have anything to do with the lesbian fan-base that Amelia brought up in class?
Fudge→ Fudge talks about Buffy’s sharp tongue and confident voice as a weapon against attackers. How does this relate to the “threat of female laughter” present in “Gossip Girl” and “Rebecca?”
Callot→ Did Whedon’s failure to make clear his feminist intentions in “Dollhouse” have anything to do with the failure/cancellation of the show? Did he lose “Buffy” fans by allowing female characters to simultaneously flirt and be “raped” every episode?
Karras
Why is it bad that Buffy embraces both typically masculine physical power and typically feminine beauty? Isn’t a break down in social constructions which is what feminism fights for–equality between the two sexes?
The Buffy Effect
Why is Willow automatically assumed to be the better feminist role model? Do brains and geekiness provide some sort of break in social constructions?
Dollhouse
I don’t understand the notion of a post structuralist world. In the face of death, but more importantly, in the face of the inescapable meaninglessness of sexual difference, they flirt. What does this mean? Is the author saying that even in a life and death situation humans are sexually driven?
On Karras:
Karras says that while Buffy doesn’t have a political agenda, it does have an agenda because Buffy kicks butt while remaining beautiful and perfectly styled. While I agree that Buffy does have an affective agenda, what happens when no “third wave” feminist shows have any political agenda outside of girl power? What will happen then to all the progress from second wave feminism? Should Buffy, and other shows like it, try better to combine a political agenda with a more “third wave” masquerade of femininity as empowerment idea?
On Fudge:
Fudge says that Buffy “treads the fine line between girl-power schlock and feminist wish-fulfillment, never giving satisfaction to either one,” yet isn’t the point of her article that it satisfies both of these genres? Buffy is both kick-ass and powerful and unafraid while being a beautiful and sexually confident woman. Buffy manages to be a feminist show while at the same time being geared toward a girl-power, “third wave” generation. Doesn’t Buffy actually satisfy both with its representation of gender, not fall short?
By Callot:
Why is something not feminist just because it isn’t post-structuralist? Granted, I don’t really know what that means, but couldn’t showing that sex doesn’t change be more feminist, because it is showing these problems that are so structurally rooted in our society that we have to change them before it becomes forever ingrained in our culture?
er…on Callot. Sorry.
Though I agree with the author that it is a bit unnecessary for women to criticize Whedon so much for how he portrays women on his shows, as he is one of few males to openly admit to being a feminist in the first place, after seeing the pilot for ‘Dollhouse’ I’ll admit that it was difficult for me to understand how a self-proclaimed feminist would create a TV series about women who essentially lack autonomy. Is it possible to separate the producer’s point of view from his work, or is he obligated to create shows that show empowered women because of his feminist standpoint?
In using “pop culture as both their terrain and weapon of choice,” how effective is that in speaking to women of all ages about the goals of third wave feminists?
Fudge quotes Joss Whedon, “If I can make teenage boys comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a situation without their knowing that’s what’s happening, it’s better than sitting down and selling them on feminism.” Whedon points out the difference between his method of portraying feminism rather than selling it. What are the most effective ways in trying to convey feminist ideas in media? In general?
Callot’s article describes controversy over Joss Whedon being misogynist or feminist. Why does it matter if he is either? In presenting the viewers with a television series that points to the extremes of either perspective, does it not expose both?
Karas: This article speaks about the power of flaunting femininity, claiming that by refusing to masculinize themselves when they hold power, women who embrace femininity “send the message to society that women are powerful on their own.” This clearly has some similarities to Doane’s theory of masquerade, but do they mean the same thing? Does Buffy represent a masquerade of femininity? Also, is there any way to resist masculinization without flaunting femininity, or is it always one of the two?
Also, Buffy isn’t the final girl, because her friends and family survive. How does this effect how she is characterized?
Fudge: Fudge comments that “evil in Sunnydale often takes a nicely metaphoric slant.” Does this metaphor add to the feminism of the show? What if Buffy were combating instead more overt representatives of sexism? What are the advantages and pitfalls of a non-contestable feminist show?
Callot: If Dollhouse (and other Joss Whedon shows) had been created by a woman, would people still be asking the same questions about the writer’s feminism?
In “The Buffy Effect,” the author talks a lot about Buffy’s style of dress, and even states that “her ever-present tank tops showcase her rack quite efficiently.” It is indubitable that for many male and surely even female spectators, Gellar was (and still is) a fetishized female actress, even though she played the role of a female hero and not a victim like in typical popular culture shows. Is this sexualization to be seen as empowering or disempowering if the fetishized gaze is often noted as a way of establishing superiority in relation to the subject being viewed?
· On “The Third Wave’s Final Girl: Buffy”:
The article tackles the ambiguities of the waves of feminism, but makes the point that second wave feminism was the theory of changing the women’s social role, and third wave feminism put these changes into practice. However, Karras suggests that the females of the media and popular culture can either be “a babe or a bitch” suggesting the limitations of the female protagonist. With these stereotypes in mind, what is an appropriate alternative? A geek? A goth? An introvert? Is the answer to have an ugly yet powerful girl? More often than not good-looking actors/actresses are going to be cast- Angel and Spike are good looking as well as Buffy, so is it really a problem that she is a ‘babe’?
· The article “The Buffy Effect” makes an interesting point that Buffy’s feminist performance is crushed because of her OTT girliness, and that Willow is the more likely “feminist role model”. However, I find this an unusual response to Buffy, as Willow is portrayed a submissive girl, bullied from day one, and ultimately becomes a lesbian. In what way can the article qualify a certain female performance as being appropriate, for ultimately the fact cannot be that Buffy is an empowered female protagonist? Why has a feminine role got to display certain characteristics in order to reach the ‘feminist potential’?
· In “The Expired Feminism of Joss Whedon” what strikes me as most remarkable is the consistent ‘need’ of the media and society to brand him “feminist” or “misogynist” that is addressed within the text. As Callot points out, there are over 50,000 results when you type “Joss Whedon feminist” into Google. It seems interesting that he is being so heavily criticized for having portrayed women in strong positions. Why is this so? Perhaps as he is a self-described feminist and is also male, that people feel the need to criticize him for this, however, shouldn’t he be praised?
On Irene Karras’s article.
« By embracing the feminine – make-up, clothing, and even Barbies – third wave feminists are sending the message to society that women are powerful on their own terms ». « Even Barbies »?! Aren’t third-wave feminists embracing the consumerist society in representing women that stick to the traditional definitions of feminine beauty? Doesn’t this actually perpetuate an ambiguous representation of women in TV series? And, as a result, undermine the original feminists’ fight for the representation of a self-fulfilled woman?
“Just as the girl- power phenomenon created a market for the show, the show’s viability and commercial success depend upon this narrow definition of femininity and sex appeal.” What do feminists expect from TV series like Buffy? Can their expectations even be compatible with the demands of marketting? Can feminity be reduced to girlness and still be satisfying and empowering for female viewers?
Indeed, Buffy’s « over-the-top » girliness might tend to reduce feminism to what Rachel Fudge calls a « narrow definition of feminity and sex appeal », if so, can we still believe that Buffy is « revolutionary » when she is at the same time such a good market product?
« Strange, then, that the most persistent issue in regards to Whedon’s feminism is its authenticity. » What does the debate on Whedon’s feminism reveal about how we feel towards gender identities the way they are portrayed in popular culture? Why do we still feel some reluctance to acknowledge the « feminist aspect » of some modern TV series when they seem to be so full of contradictions? Shouldn’t we, instead, recognize that these contradictions at the heart of the TV series allow to stir up discussions among viewers and, by doing so, successfully provide an awareness of gender issues?
Karas claims “second wave tactics do not speak to the media-savvy, culturally driven generation” of the third wave. Is she suggesting that the second wave of feminists weren’t culturally driven? What tactics are being employed today by third wave feminists to bring about change that the second wave did not use?
Many see Buffy as a feminine character overall, however there are some masculine qualities about her. She wields phallic-like weapons, exerts her gaze without fear, and (as the text points out) saves men as well as women from violence. Fudge states that “Buffy’s unreconstructed, over-the-top girliness in the end compromises her feminist potential”. If anything, it is not her “over-the-top-girliness” that compromises her feminism, but the masculine traits she embodies. How can we consider Buffy overly feminine without adknowledging her masculine qualities as well?
Callot asserts “Echo is, as some have pointed out, perpetually raped. Making a show in which the main character is a woman who’s raped every week, but doesn’t mind, might seem a tad regressive.” How is Echo perpetually raped? Are we using the term “rape” too loosely here?
“Girlie feminists claim their femininity as a source of power, rather than trying to make it masculine, arguing that by doing the latter, women are in fact giving the masculine preferred status while devaluing the feminine”. Buffy’s “girlie” feminist stance allows her to assert her own power by “slaying stereotypes about what women can and cannot do” to advocate feminism. Even though Second Wave feminist discourse of, “anti family and anti sexual” can be seen within Joyce, Buffy’s Mum, Buffy’s assertions of Girlie Feminism, and her avoidance of becoming the Final Girl assert that Third Wave Feminism is in stark contrast to the second. So does Buffy’s actions alienate Second Wave feminists or realign them with the feminists of the 3rd?
If “the show’s viability and commercial success depends upon this narrow definition of femininity and sex appeal” why does it still manage to portray the 3rd wave in a positive light? As Fudge suggests Willow’s portrayal of the feminist would be more stereotypical, but is it not Buffy’s stark differences to the stereotypical feminist that allow feminism to resonate for a larger audience that shows Buffy as a revolutionary show? Although Fudge is critical of the ‘girlie’, using examples of how only through Buffy’s poking fun at itself does it absolve the ‘girlie’, is the ‘girlie’ not the most important characteristic in promoting that 3rd wave feminism is available for all?
If perpetual rape is seen as such a inherent flaw within Dollhouse, can we suggest that its failure, as it only lasted 3 seasons, was that it made a mockery of the Third Wave of feminism (women in jobs dictated by men) so alienating its audience, or that the audience was itself sick of Whedon’s raping of characters to formulate his feminist stance. Whedon’s critics whom call his portrayals rape, suggest that women whose identities are morphed by others are identity raped, is this not an over radical suggestion, i.e. likening identity to something as violent as rape?
Irene describes how Buffy is the Final Girl of the Third Wave, as the show integrates many feminist elements such as empowered women and challenges traditional beliefs about women. However, I still find that she displays excessive femininity though she can also kill vampires and demons. Can she still be seen as a feminist even with the over the top femininity, in her mini skirts and skimpy tank tops? And though the show is named after her, why does so much attention in popular culture revolve around Buffy when it comes to feminism , while Willow, who certainly seems to be more representative of feminism and the Final Girl, is marginalized? Is it based on Buffy’s level of physical attractiveness (i.e. her petite frame and blond hair)- and if so have we as women truly progressed or are we still basing femininity on conventional beauty standards?