#though fandom these days has largely conflated the latter with the former

[theshipscloset]

have we considered the possibility (read as truth) that Shatner was simply in love with Nimoy and Kirk being in love with Spock was an accidental byproduct of that 🤨

I don't guess or presume character bleed unless it's specifically described by the actor or someone relaying what the actor told them, partially because it can get out of hand really fast but mainly because performing is a job. 95% of the time they're just doing their job well and honestly there's no telling which from the outside because on screen chemistry or performance is not a reliable indicator of real life chemistry. Real enemies play fake lovers, real lovers play fake enemies, real spouses turn out to have zero fake chemistry all the time, and one guess is as good as another. It's much safer (and keeps fandom much more sane tbh) to make 'they're good at their job' the default until you're specifically told otherwise by the source.

[ettadunham]

A Buffy rewatch 2x15 Phases

aka male aggression and the Buffy feminism

Welcome to this dailyish text post series where I will rewatch an episode of Buffy and point out / hyperfocus on one detail in it in 10-3k words. Or maybe go through each and every random scene I choose. Rules are fake.

And today’s episode is one that I enjoy and love immensely, but it’s also the perfect opportunity to talk about the dreaded subject:

Why does Buffy’s feminism feel dated?

But before that, it’s time for everyone’s* (*my) favorite segment - Buffy/Willow out of context.

Buffy:  Meow! Willow:  Really? Thanks. I've never gotten a 'meow' before.

Even Larry’s being gross about wanting ‘some of that Buffy/Willow action’... And like... I know that you’re going through stuff my dude, but still., don’t ruin this for the rest of us.

Willow is also complaining about guys and dudes in general at least three different times in this episode. (Sometimes to Buffy, but sometimes to Cordelia??? I’m definitely sleeping on that ship.) And I’m just sitting here being like... aw, honey... you really don’t need them... trust me.

Anyhow, we could be sitting here dissecting all that, but I set out with a different goal today, and I’m trying to cut it short, so let’s talk.

Buffy feminism.

At this point anyone in and out of the fandom is familiar with the debate of how Buffy’s - and in turn, Whedon’s - feminism has aged, and that while it had a huge impact on its time and laid the groundwork for today’s popculture scene, we’ve evolved since then.

And I don’t think many would negate a lot of that. The Buffy feminism certainly lacks intersectionality and works with a lot of tropes and archetypes that has its fair share of negative elements and implications. And Whedon’s later work have memorably been taken to court by fandom for such cases.

So the question that I ended up on some time ago was a natural result of that trail of thought.

Was Buffy ever intended to be feminist?

Spoiler alert: the answer is both yes and no. It’s Schroedinger’s feminism.

But first, I want to make it clear that I don’t intend to argue that Buffy isn’t feminist, or didn’t influence our culture massively in that direction. In the 90s, a show with a female lead was still the outlier, and the fact that it gained such a universal following is somewhat mind-blowing. Especially if you consider the grudge our culture holds against teenage girls, even today.

On top of that, Buffy’s character concept goes against the idea of the Strong Female Character (often known as Female Side Character With Some Masculine Traits To Show That She’s Not Like Other Girls Who Can Kind Of Hold Her Own Next To Our Male Lead But He’s Still Better At Things Of Course), by being both immensely powerful and unabashedly teen girly. And then only becoming more complex and memorable as the seasons went on.

Not to mention the fact that the show also had an even ratio of female:male co-stars for most of its run. Meaning that there were plenty of other female characters to develop beside the titular lead, making it a largely female-driven series in general.

As a result of all that, it’s no wonder that Whedon gained a reputation as a staunch feminist - and again, he was a trailblazer when it came to female-led television shows... But I think conflating his ideals with the show’s themes is where we fell into a pitfall.

People complaining about diversity in media often cite ‘agendas’ or ‘pandering’. Which is an immensely simplified (and stupid) way to look at things that is meant to paint going against the norms in a negative way. See, if the creators decide to include characters of different backgrounds because it’s important to them, or because they want to talk about their own experiences, then they have an ‘agenda’. The agenda being using art to talk about things they find important, I guess...

And then there’s this idea that studios / companies / creators just want to please an under-served audience, and profit out of their enthusiasm when they make such media. In contrast to pleasing the audience of the status quo 90% of the time otherwise. I guess.

I’m bringing this all up because the argument that a lot of these people bring up is that representation and diversity is okay if there’s a “reason” for it. Which... yeah, we already covered why I think this line of thinking is so incredibly flawed, but on the other hand... I think Buffy actually satisfies that criteria.

Ideas such as gender roles are baked into show’s concept. Buffy is literally fighting the patriarchy and rape culture (among other things), so it only makes sense that she’s a girl. Meanwhile the character who will end up being gay is the one who struggles the most with their identity. These things are literally building into the bigger picture that the show’s attempting to make.

Now, I will say this though - differentiating and drawing the lines between these things (sincere desire for representation vs. financial strategy vs. exploring themes) is impossible. Everything can be a little bit of each or something else entirely. That’s also why debating intent to undermine representation is such a cheap transparent move.

Nevertheless, I have decided to approach Buffy’s feminism and many of its other themes from the angle of thematic intent. And this episode is a prime example of how the heightened reality of toxic masculinity and its deconstruction look like on the show.

Phases is very unsubtle when stating its thesis. All men are beasts (a reoccurring theme for sure). And for that we have three male characters to examine: Oz, Larry and Cain. (And to a lesser extent Xander and Giles)

Cain is pretty much the least complex of all. He’s a misogynistic douchebag who constantly berates Buffy for “being a girl”, while also hunting essentially human beings for money. He’s completely one-dimensional and irredeemable, and the only thing he’s good for is so Buffy could destroy his gun and tell him to get the hell out of town.

I suppose he’s also there to contrast Giles, but there’s not much there to talk about. Giles respects and supports Buffy, I guess.

Now, Larry and Oz - that’s a more interesting contrast.

Larry was previously introduced as Xander’s bully, but this episode goes above and beyond establishing him as an all around creep. He makes gross comments at all the girls and literally gropes Buffy, and it all culminates in the Scoobies deducting that he must be the werewolf for being so aggressive and douchey.

And then it turns out that... no, he’s just gay. Which, like... the Gay Bully is certainly a trope that’s probably died out at this point, but this does make sense in the context of this episode and the show’s tendency to deconstruct. The idea that performative aggression like Larry’s can actually be a sign of an unresolved conflict with ourselves. And once that’s resolved, we can find a way to live without that facade and be our more authentic self.

Which is an interesting way to contrast him with Oz, as he appears to be the sweetest, chillest guy in the whole Sunnydale area. He literally tucks the tag on Willow’s shirt back like??? Too good for this world.

But then it turns out that he’ll now also become a werewolf 3 days out of a month, a creature of pure instinct and aggression. And given how reserved Oz is in his day-to-day life, that’s an interesting dichotomy. Is that supposed to represent him getting his rage on and finally letting loose of his emotions, or does it suggest a more aggressive inner layer of his character in general?

(Future knowledge mostly points towards the former, but I feel like it’d be interesting to talk about Oz from the latter perspective.)

It’s also an interesting tidbit how the episode mentions that the werewolf could be female, but then continues to refer to them as a ‘he’ anyway. It’s as if the episode is self-aware of its own theme.

...But then we get a lycanthropy- period cycle parallel made in the end anyway, when Willow’s like ‘well, I’m not much fun to be around 3 days-a-month either’. So there’s that.

Then there’s Xander. I’ve recently heard about an alleged quote where Whedon apparently said that they considered writing either Willow or Xander as gay at some point. And that was certainly in my head during Larry’s coming out scene, which makes Xander’s intense no-homo reaction much more layered. He’s essentially Larry in that scenario, aggressively trying to ignore his own inner conflict.

...Which also made me think of another coming out scene on the show and Buffy’s initial, if brief reaction to it.

Looking at Xander’s character from this angle also puts his obsession with his masculinity into perspective. Although his character arc, especially given the show’s themes about gender roles, remains interesting either way.

Oh yeah, and he’s super jealous about Willow and Oz. We’ll definitely get back to that in S3.

Buffy’s comment about Oz being the loyal type meanwhile is S4 material.

Onwards!