As many of you know, I’m a big Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. I’ve watched the series more than once. I have a Buffy T-shirt. I even own a replica scythe. So what I’m about to say may shock you.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not a feminist show. It is sometimes egregiously sexist, in fact. It showcases repeatedly negative portrayals of female sexuality and engages in blame-placing on female characters (Buffy is accused of leading Spike on, Buffy is blamed for Jenny Calendar’s death even though Angel is the one who did it, etc.) while excusing crazy behavior of male characters (Buffy should obviously instantly forgive Riley for cheating on her with vampire women). There’s the problematic treatment of dismissing rape in Season 7. And I could go on.
However, I strongly disagree with the idea that Buffy is not a strong female character. Indeed, I’ve begun to worry about our culture’s definition of what a strong female character actually is. Yes, we obviously want to get beyond the idea that a strong woman is simply a man with boobs–what a ridiculously simplified idea. But I’ve been seeing some commentary that suggests that strong female characters still have to be…well, perfect and together and always making the right decision. And heaven forbid they ever show emotion or, you know, CRY.
Is Buffy a strong female character?
I’m going to unpack a few of these ideas in relation to Buffy so you can see what I mean. First up is Mur Lafferty’s critique of Buffy the character. (I actually agree with much of this article, especially the part about The Princess Bride, which is an awesome movie if you ignore the horrible female characters and particularly the passive MacGuffin who is Princess Buttercup.) “Buffy failed this test [of emotional strength] when Spike attacked her in Season… 5? Since the attack was sexual in nature, Buffy lost all ability to fight, and just struggled on the floor and cried…we’d seen her kill so many monsters – including her lover – I can’t believe she’d cave under that attack. It didn’t fit with the character.”
Okay, so the attempted rape scene in Season 6 is definitely an emotional moment. But that’s all it is: a moment. Buffy struggles against Spike and cries for all of fifty seconds before she succeeds in pushing him off her. (Yes, I timed it, just to be sure I was remembering correctly.) Not only that, but she does this while already badly injured, after dealing with several months of deep depression, and while dealing with the shock of having a former lover try to rape her. But her reaction time of fifty seconds, no, it’s just not quite good enough for her to be considered emotionally strong? Um… Yeah, it must be because she committed the cardinal sin of crying. (Not to mention this assessment smacks of victim blaming.)
Or does crying automatically make her weak?
Here’s another great one, this time from The Mary Sue (again, this article makes many great points but I quibble about the strong/weak character identifications): “And Buffy is textually weak in all her relationships. She falls apart not only when Angel leaves her, but when Parker (yeah, you don’t remember him, either) doesn’t want to pursue more than a one-night stand with her, too.” It goes on to discuss the badness of Buffy chasing after Riley when he flies off in the helicopter.
So does this mean a strong woman isn’t allowed to have feelings or make mistakes, even out of inexperience (as was the case with Parker)? I mean, are we just supposed to shrug after a painful break-up and decide not to care? After all, Buffy sends the vampire she loves to hell in order to save the world–not an act I’d call particularly weak. Sure, I wasn’t a fan of Buffy running after Riley, but she received bad advice from a trusted friend and had a moment of weakness. But I guess in order to be a strong woman she would have to recognize the sexist parameters of her world at all times and never have a second of doubt, disappointment, or grief… Or maybe it’s the crying.
From the same article: “And inherently problematic is the idea of the Watcher, a predominantly male presence that is the male gaze made manifest – a source of constant looking that is an explicit form of control.”
Yes, the idea of the Watcher is sexist. The origins of the Slayer are deeply problematic. But Buffy fights against this time and time again: she fires her Watcher, she rebels against the Council, she orders them to give her the information she needs about Glory, and at the end of the series, she thwarts their original intent for the Slayer by giving the power to all the Potentials. She is constantly second-guessed and undermined by everyone in her world, friends as much as foes, and yet she continues to fight and to believe in herself. How exactly is this not strong behavior? I really have no idea.
Strong female characters can still be human. They can be flawed, they can have moments of bad judgment, and they can cry. They can feel overwhelmed, and they can have bad taste in men. What they can’t be is only existing because of and judged in relationship to male characters. What they must have is some kind of personal agency. Even, and this is my key point, the agency to make mistakes and be less than perfect.
Rose Lemberg wrote an excellent article on feminist characters, and I really hope you go read the whole thing. She says:“But what we often do in genre is allow men to be uncomfortable and difficult, but erase the women who are less than warm and fuzzy-making.”
Yes. Even to the point of having unnecessarily limited definitions of what makes a strong woman. Buffy is a flawed character, but she exists in her own right, not as some kind of set piece for the male characters on the show and not only as a girlfriend, or friend, or sister, or protegé. She ultimately calls the shots and makes most of the hard decisions. And if anything, the facts that she suffers, that she feels loss and fear, that she cries, these things show how strong she really is.
So what do you think? How do you define strong female characters? And what are examples of them that you think are done well?
The Practical Free Spirit 
From my own perspective, I love Buffy because it’s a show where all the main characters are strong but also full people with all the feelings that come with being human–particularly the female characters. The idea that being emotionless and perfect is equal to being strong is like saying that women can now be strong but only if they fulfill the antiquated notions of what men were (or maybe are) supposed to be like to be strong. There’s far more strength, I believe, in a real flawed person fighting despite or because of their real flaws, unashamed of their feelings, than in any such robotic conception of faux machismo.
Veronica Mars is a great character, as are Alicia Florrick on The Good Wife, Annie Sawyer on Being Human and Erica Strange on Being Erica. Some of these characters’ situations have been so heavily influenced by male characters’ actions that their background can almost seem to have been built by men for them, but I think it’s not an uncommon fact of modern life to appear to have one’s background built by others, and yet we still have and demonstrate agency as these characters all do.
There is the argument, which Barbara made me aware of over on G+, that shows can be judged as feminist based not on the worlds they portray but rather on the characters’ responses to the world…or as you put it, on whether the characters have agency.
But perhaps this is more a quibble of terms than anything else. I agree that one of the main reasons I love Buffy is because of the agency Buffy has in spite of the obstacles she faces.
Even though Bones has the worst science in the EVER, they have several strong female characters. Dr. Temperance Brennan wrestles with a serious case of Asperger’s, but does her job and maintains expanding relationships with the other characters. Her best friend Angela seems soft because she’s an artist who cares about feelings, but she stands up for her beliefs–including that it’s okay to have feelings. Dr. Camilla Whateverherlastnameis (look, I’m not the best fan, haha) is portrayed as a sensitive but firm manager who mediates conflict in all areas of her life, but has more trouble when it involves her family than her co-workers–she’s not perfect, but she tries. The depth of these people and their relationships is what keeps me watching this show, since everything else about it is horrifying, from the crap science to its appropriation of subcultures the writers looked up on Wikipedia and the amazing disappearing-and-reappearing feminism act.
That “act” sums up how I feel about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as well. The show is sometimes feminist, it’s just not a permanent condition. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a television show that managed to maintain a constant feminist environment for its characters. I’m confident we’ll get there! Hopefully before I die, so I can see it and make fun of the science 😉 hahaha
Firefly is another show that isn’t feminist, but I think Zoe and Kaylee are absolutely strong characters. One reason I like shows with action and danger is because the writers seem more willing to show how a human being, regardless of whether they have breasts or not, can cowboy up and do what needs to be done to survive. Even wilting flower characters often have to do something bad-ass if the circumstances are dire enough.
(Thanks for posting this, I had fun thinking about it, and I’m grateful for the links to other conversations on the subject.)
It is a fascinating subject, isn’t it?
I like your point about the show being sometimes feminist but that it’s difficult to maintain as a permanent condition. I’d agree that some of its messages are definitely feminist, and showcasing strong female characters is one way to send such a message. And others of its messages are just completely not feminist at all. It’s a muddle of both.
Too tired to think extensively right now, but a quick thought about Parker. What bothered me about Buffy and Parker was not that Buffy made a mistake, but that it took her so long to recognize and deal with the situation. That she was making a such a fool out of herself, and getting so broken-hearted over this random jerk. It didn’t feel like her, and it was painful watching the drawn-out recognition and recovery.
By contrast, while I didn’t really want Buffy to catch Riley, at least I understood Xander’s points about him and why Buffy would decide to run after Riley. I didn’t think the relationship was going to heal well after everything that had happened, and Riley’s permanent sense of inadequacy when he compared himself to Buffy, but I could see why she wanted to give it another chance.
Honestly, I thought it took Buffy so long to deal with the Parker situation because she was still getting over Angel and feeling off balance at college, so it hit her harder than it might otherwise have done. And while it sure felt drawn out while watching it, I’m pretty sure it was only dealt with in a couple of episodes? Beer Bad and which ever one he began ignoring her in. Remind me if I’m wrong though.
As for Buffy running after Riley, sure, it was understandable. It’s hard to know when it’s time to let go of a relationship instead of fighting for it. But as an outsider, there was a quality of Noooo, this is obviously bad about it. And while I don’t remember exactly what he said, I do remember that Xander’s advice in that instance made me cringe. Hmm…maybe I need a re-watch! 🙂
Good post — a lot of great points. I did want to mention that not all the Watchers were men — of course, the one we get to know is Gwendolyn Post, who turns evil. But there are others who are good. And female.
Ha! Yes, I thought of Gwendolyn Post when I was writing this.
I got the overall impression from the show, though, that the Watchers’ Council was akin to an old boys’ club, albeit a supernatural one. It always had a patriarchal sort of air about it (although my opinion may be colored by the first Council in ancient times, which I believe was explicitly all men).
But I do remember at least one female Watcher involved in the testing of Buffy’s skills in season 5.
[…] Strong Female Characters Can Still Screw Up, Get Upset, and Cry […]