The Feminist Filter: Inca Mummy Girl

[gabrielleabelle]

Y'all know what this is! Let's do it!

Mission Statement:This series is intended to outline the feminist text of each episode so as to provoke and encourage open discussion. It's not so much about making value judgments about events and/or characters but about analyzing the series from a feminist framework so as to see what patterns and themes

Comments

[boot_the_grime]

While there are likely character-specific reasons for Xander's line, it also falls along traditional gender roles that a girl/woman should defer to the man as an inferior. By presenting the appearance of having a low self-esteem relative to her appraisal of Xander, the mummy strokes his ego. Xander, for his part, doesn't contradict her assertion.

I don't think she was stroking his ego at all. I think she really meant it, she didn't deserve him because she was a murderer, selfishly killing people so she could get a chance to live, but at the time he had no idea what she meant. Xander was flabbergasted that a beautiful girl would say that she doesn't deserve him - he would assume it was the other way round, since he was very insecure at this point and he thought a girl like 'Ampata' was out of his league. And a beautiful girl that laughed at his jokes and liked him and thought he was a great guy, that was like a dream come true. That's why she bursts into tears, because he has no idea what she is and she can't tell him.

It's, perhaps

[gabrielleabelle]

I don't think she was stroking his ego at all.

I was speaking to the effect of her words, not her intentions.

I doubt that a girl born in her time would ever get a chance to learn or make discoveries or invent stuff. She wasn't born in 20th century.

Well, plays into the point, doesn't it?

Furthermore, I don't think that comments like this in early seasons of BtVS are related to girls specifically, as to the idea that teenagers are far more interested in sex and romance than studying. I think it's valuable a) to look at how the show differs in its portrayal of this desire by gender (the boys, Xander, think about sex; the girls think about romance); and b) to remember that men and women's different positions in society mean that these types of portrayals have differential effects. While, yes, the show depicts boys as wanting sex, larger culture gives boys far more leeway as far as activities they can do or be interested in. Girls are often confined to romantic activities. Confirmation bias that springs from the preexisting

[boot_the_grime]

I think it's valuable a) to look at how the show differs in its portrayal of this desire by gender (the boys, Xander, think about sex; the girls think about romance); and b) to remember that men and women's different positions in society mean that these types of portrayals have differential effects. While, yes, the show depicts boys as wanting sex, larger culture gives boys far more leeway as far as activities they can do or be interested in. Girls are often confined to romantic activities. Confirmation bias that springs from the preexisting stereotype means that every instance of the girl = romance connection will reinforce said stereotype.Yes, the show does that early on, especially with Xander in "Teacher's Pet" (and episode full of gender stereotypes) and Willow in "I Robot, You Jane", and a couple of other instances when Xander is ogling a hot teacher, for instance. Though in general, Xander's interests are really mostly confined to the few girls he has an established relationship with, and he tends to go for women who are strong

[local_max]

Agreed 100% on the last two paragraphs -- this episode makes the main cast look pretty bad. What's interesting is that the criticism is more overt with Cordelia, but all the cast fall prey to it (particularly Giles' "she is from South America, so obviously she can translate this ancient relic!" notion, which everyone goes along with).

[boot_the_grime]

The self-sacrificial nature of the Inca Princess is highlighted through conversations between the mummy and Buffy. This ties into traditional gender stereotypes of women putting others' needs ahead of their own.

The episode makes an obvious parallel between the roles of 'Ampata' and, in a way, Buffy, as sacrificial virgins, "chosen" to die for their people (in Buffy's case, all of humanity). "Prophecy Girl" played with the sacrificial virgin archetype, with the prophecy and in her first confrontation with the Master (in a long white dress - although with the leather jacket representing her role as the strong woman, the Slayer), when he told her she was 'the lamb' rather than the hunter. Only Buffy, of course, beats destiny and refused to be the victim. The storyline was the first time that the darker and not so female-empowering connotations of the Slayer calling were brought to light (with the Master as the embodiment of the monster father figure, representing the oppressive tradition).

What do we make of the fact that the mummy

[gabrielleabelle]

Did she? I remembered it that way from the first time I watched the episode, but in my recent rewatch I thought it was the opposite, that she first wasn't able to go through with it, but finally decided that living was more important than her love for Xander. When he asked her if she was able to do it, she hesitated but said "Yes!" I'm still not sure about it - she seemed torn, but would she have sucked his life from him if Buffy hadn't killed her?

Ah, good point.

[gryfndor_godess]

In the final scene between Buffy and Xander, Buffy invokes the "just a girl" phrase in reference to the mummy:

I'm a little confused about why this is a point, as I think she's just referring to Ampata's youth, in which case, Ampata literally is just a girl. I.e. it's tragic because she was so young, like they'd say "just a boy" if Ampata had been male.

(not trying to be argumentative; I'm honestly confused)

[gabrielleabelle]

Did you read the linked post? It might help clarify. "Just a girl" is a phrase that gets repeated a lot in the show, usually referring to Buffy, herself (most notably in the teaser for The Gift). Over the course of the show, the phrase is used to challenge and subvert the notion of "just a girl" being a negative thing. "You're just a girl." "That's what I keep saying."

The point in the notes isn't a criticism, just a notation.

[gryfndor_godess]

I did read the link. I just found it a little strange since the ones in the linked post are pointedly about girls being weaker/silly, while this one seemed pointedly about her age. To be fair, I suppose they could have said "just a child" in IMG.

[gabrielleabelle]

Well, this is a feminist perspective on the show. Gender is the primary lens we're viewing it through, so the use of gendered language - "girl" in this case - cannot be dismissed too easily, especially when it resonates with the wider use that the series puts it to.

[local_max]

I have surprisingly little to say here, but I just wanted to add that there is something interesting/disturbing about the way Ampata the virginal chosen one has the power to kill, and kill predominantly men, in a sexualized manner (the kiss of death). I think that plays into a bunch of tropes about dangerous women and sexuality; of course, this is also a mirror of the way vampires (who are predominantly male, in this series) kill in a sexualized manner (the neck bite/"kiss"/penetration). We're a few episodes after When She Was Bad where Buffy's "dangerous" sexuality was highlighted. The question is whether the show is presenting female sexuality as inherently dangerous or all sexuality, and if it's the latter, for what reason? It's all very complicated, because I think the intended message is that sexuality is a powerful emotional trigger/motivator, and that is why so much trauma can surround it, even if when dealt with properly it's natural/pleasurable/all of the good etc. But it's a little obscured. In the long run, I do think

[gabrielleabelle]

From what I've gleaned, the portrayal of sexuality, in general, is very negative. Even back in S1, we see that what makes Angel vamp out is kissing Buffy. Sex is very often linked to the demonic and aggressive. Masculinity, especially, is depicted as being dangerous (though Phases will be an interesting episode in that regard).

So, yeah. Good point on Ampata's sexualized mode of attack.

[vamp_mogs]

It's, perhaps, disheartening that the first thing she brings up is that the Inca Princess missed out on love. This falls right along gender stereotypes that girls and women prioritize romance above all else. The idea that a young girl sacrifices her life apparently isn't notable because she might miss out on learning new things, making discoveries, inventing stuff, or anything like that. It's because she missed her chance at romance.I think with this particular case, the only reason this was emphasised was because Impata was falling for Xander and thinking of him when she said that. If it had been Buffy, Cordelia or Willow speaking I don’t think romance would have been prioritized the same way

[gabrielleabelle]

I think with this particular case, the only reason this was emphasised was because Impata was falling for Xander and thinking of him when she said that. If it had been Buffy, Cordelia or Willow speaking I don’t think romance would have been prioritized the same way.

Yes, but that doesn't negate that it was prioritized. These are feminist meta posts. In the end, everything comes down to gender here. These points don't need to be explained away to excuse or defend the show.

I too thought that Impata tried to kill Xander in the end. It seemed like she was growing weaker by the minute and that she was trying to pull Xander in for the kiss but couldn't, and then Buffy breaks her off him. You could say that her initial hesitance to kill him was her ultimate downfall, though.

Yeah, this was actually something I meant to check while doing my final revisions, but I forgot. She did end up deciding to kill him at the last minute. My mistake.

I guess I’m just happy that even though Impata was clearly created as The Love Interest/Villain of