The Feminist Filter: Halloween

[gabrielleabelle]

Alright! Let's do Halloween! This one is particularly rich in the feminist text, so make yourself some tea. :)

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

Comments

[alexeia_drae]

I think, being the history buff that I am, I have some issues with how Noblewoman!Buffy was presented...or the idea that all women back then were empty headed idiots. Certainly the media and literature of the time portrayed them that way and their options were limited, still some managed to be very successful at things that didn't involve having a good marriage.

But then Lady!Buffy I wonder if I should take so much issue with it because what if it was more of Buffy projecting her assumptions of what a noblewoman was like on her?

I think the other thing I have an issue with is the assumption that the hyper feminine is useless. The hyper masculine (Xander) is portrayed as useful and non-problematic. Hyper-feminine not so much. I don't think either extreme is good, and I don't think anyone embodies either extreme, yet there are good things about both. The hyper-feminine is seen as selfish, petty and useless though.

[gabrielleabelle]

Certainly the media and literature of the time portrayed them that way and their options were limited, still some managed to be very successful at things that didn't involve having a good marriage.

Le gasp! Women doing things???

But then Lady!Buffy I wonder if I should take so much issue with it because what if it was more of Buffy projecting her assumptions of what a noblewoman was like on her?

Good point. That would add a different perspective to it.

Also, good point about the hyper-masculinity vs hyper-femininity. Xander is portrayed as being competent, cool-headed, sensible, an all-around awesome. Buffy? Generally useless and oft-mocked by her friends.

[debetesse]

The only way I can make it work is if the costume-self is based on the wearer's ideas and understanding, rather than any reality.

Which, of course, then says quite a lot about Buffy's view of femininity. Our standard exemplar of femininity in the show at this point is Cordelia, and she's certainly much more competent than costume!Buffy. Given that, I do think that at least a certain degree of subversive reading is completely justified.

[eowyn_315]

The only way I can make it work is if the costume-self is based on the wearer's ideas and understanding, rather than any reality.

Hmmm, but then you have the problem that Xander picks up real military knowledge - the fact that he can break into a military base and know protocols and how to operate weapons suggests that it was more reality than the wearer's ideas.

Of course, that also ties into the issue of Xander's masculine costume being useful, while Buffy's feminine one is utterly useless.

[gabrielleabelle]

*nods at the Willow of it*

Def a big episode for her character. I feel like I'm missing how it plays into the feminist text, though. I'm kinda expecting local_max to drop in and enlighten me in that respect.

I think this statement is so over the top that it sort of undermines the performance of gender roles. Xander recognizes that he's performing a role, yet he does it anyway.

Good point.

[doublemeat]

Willow tries to play the game, but she doesn't really get its silly rules. She compares the illustration unfavorably to Buffy (social comparison/body image) by saying its waist is too small (oops). She denigrates Cordelia's costume (slut-shaming) on Halloween (which is a get-out-of-slut-shaming-free card). She's always being gently or not-so-gently "corrected" by the other female characters.

Willow doesn't internalize as easily or automatically as most people do. She's an oddball. It's why we love her.

[local_max]

Well -- Willow does internalize a lot. But I think she's more conscious of the fact that she internalizes. I guess "Willow tries to play the game" is a good place to start -- she's internalized how important the game is, but it's more affected than it is for others.

[ever_neutral]

2. Man, I am really irritated and uncomfortable with the portrayal of 18th-century!Buffy. So, in answer to your question/s, yes, I think it does. Don't get me started on Angel's "simpering morons" line.

3. Yeah, this is... not great. I can't see how it's NOT indulging in Nice Guy-ish fantasies there. I think it would have made good satire, but it's... played completely straight? The scene exists more to validate Xander's masculinity (his comment about feeling a weird sense of closure) than anything else, basically. Considering the pattern of how sexual assault is treated on this show, it's troubling.

4. I think soldier!Xander was okay following Willow's orders because she took on the most "authoritative" role at the time. So... once again, it's like the show validating the importance of ~masculine traits? IDK.

[gabrielleabelle]

2. *nods* It's played primarily for laughs. Femininity as comedic. Meh.

3. Agreed. I think this is one of the more problematic depictions of sexual assault in the show because it's so incidental. I mean, Reptile Boy and Go Fish at least made it relevant to the main plot. This seemed to purely exist to a) make the danger-factor more salient, as well as victimize feminine!Buffy more; and b) to give Xander a big Hero Moment. DO NOT WANT.

4. Good thought.

[angearia]

OH. And it's like by reducing Buffy to a feminine stereotype, that's the only way for Xander to find closure. See, if Buffy was around and able to defend herself, then Xander could never be THE DUDE WHO SAVES HER. And instead, she becomes the one who saves him.

This says some not-so-nice things about Xander's insecurities. That he finds closure from being able to save the little lady from the pirate intent on sexually assaulting the woman -- it casts a light on his past motivations for needing to save Buffy from vampires.

[local_max]

4. IDK. Is authoritative really automatically "masculine"? Hm....

[luna_del_cielo]

Haven't had a chance to read through everything but I just wanted to mention that this discussion idea (BTVS + feminism) is BRILLIANT and I can't wait to read more. Thanks for doing this!

[gabrielleabelle]

Enjoy! Feel free to dive into the discussion if you feel so inclined. :)

[boot_the_grime]

In having Buffy turn into a eighteenth century lady, this episode proceeds to play it for humor and then uses it to damselize Buffy. Within the larger metaphor of the episode, this is a commentary on femininity, which Buffy is shown to be concerned about at the beginning. Does this episode end up denigrating femininity?It is very problematic. On one hand, they are mocking the stereotype - Buffy is not necessarily acting like real women acted in 18th century, she is wearing the costume and becoming the costume. The women in those days had to do the same, to fit into a certain gender role. But then Angel seems to reinforce the idea that women (or at least noblewomen) were really all like that

[doublemeat]

Buffy is not necessarily acting like real women acted in 18th century, she is wearing the costume and becoming the costume.

The writers seemed to go back and forth on this. At first it's obviously intended as caricature, especially Buffy's and Xander's in-costume dialogue; later on, though, we have Angel essentially confirming that Buffy's costume persona was historically accurate, and Xander getting genuine military expertise.

[samsom]

Angel essentially confirming that Buffy's costume persona was historically accurate,

yeah, but the way Lady!Buffy spotlights the so-called beliefs of the day with her very self-aware observations like "you would take orders from a woman, are you feeble in some way?" make me think the writers HAD to be satirizing it. I'm not sure a lot of ladies of that era (for the most part) were that consciously aware of their own second-classery.

[doublemeat]

Yep. The dialogue is so over-the-top, completely satirical. But later that perception is directly contradicted by Angel. It's just sort of sloppy writing IMO. Unless they were trying to show Angel as really stupid and misogynistic.