![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sevendeadlyfunInspired by many conversations with kidcyclone, who wanted to see me write a meta and a fragment of thatotherperv's meta on the rebellious nature of Aurelius vampires.
Summary: Buffy The Vampire Slayer has always been presented as a feminist triumph, a show where female strength is given prominance and value. But, equally, the show was also a vehicle for the disparagement of men and masculinity. This essay focuses on Rupert Giles. Later essays will explore how possible misandry affected all the main male characters of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Word Count: 1234 (Microsoft Word)
Spoilers: All Seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Season Five of Angel the Series
Time and again, we as fans are told about how revolutionary “Buffy” was in both concept and character. A feminist hero, a powerful female role model who stands up and fights back. I maintain that Buffy as a character is neither very heroic nor revolutionary. The Hero’s Journey, as illustrated by Joseph Campbell, has been done in literature with other female characters and done better. However, the main thread of this essay is to point out the strong thread of misandry that exists in “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”.
It is not necessary to denigrate the masculine in order to exalt the feminine. That is, sadly, precisely what Joss Whedon does to accomplish his goal of making Buffy the hero. This is not to say that Buffy the character does not have heroic moments. Simply, in order for Buffy to seem heroic, Joss Whedon (or at the very least, the writers) disparages the male characters.
Taking the characters in the order we are introduced to them, I’ll start with Giles. In “Welcome the Hellmouth”, Rupert Giles is the slightly fussy, pedantic librarian who is Buffy’s Watcher. Giles is the guide figure in The Hero’s Journey and he does not bear it well. He is presented as authoritarian rather than authoritative, lecturing a teen-age girl he has just met about her duty in strident tones. The famous “One girl in all the world” speech is followed by Mr. Giles chasing Buffy down the hall to trap her against a wall. Hardly the stuff of noble deeds, even though we the viewer know that Buffy is much stronger than her Watcher. He is, in this first episode, almost dismissive of her, seeing her as a tool rather than his charge.
Later, their relationship changes. Giles becomes more sympathetic to the burdens of the role Buffy has been cast into. That does not make him any more of a positive male figure however, In fact, later in the first season, he admits that he himself was lectured by his own father on his duties to the Watcher’s Council. That does not stop him from consistently lecturing Buffy, nor does it stop him from finding her lacking in her role as Slayer. The main theme of the Buffy/Giles relationship is one of disappointment. Giles is often disappointed in Buffy as a Slayer, if not as a person and Buffy often finds Giles a weak reed to lean on.
Giles as a character is given to fits and starts of moral ambiguity. In “The Harvest”, he emphatically tells Xander that Jesse is dead, no possibility of saving him. In “Angel”, he states quite baldly that vampires are not people. That does not stop him from being at least tacitly supportive of Buffy’s relationship with Angel. To the viewer, this is presented as evidence of Giles’ open-mindedness, but all it accomplishes is to make him seem wishy-washy. Either he believes what he says or he’s spouting propaganda without any conviction of his own. In both cases, he is guilty of at least a bit of hypocrisy.
In later seasons, the character of Giles suffers even more from the current of misandry that runs through the show. He fraternizes with evil (Ethan Rayne in the episode “A New Man”) then watches with pleasure as The Initiative takes Ethan away. In the very same episode that Giles hands Ethan over to The Initiative, he expresses his concern that The Initiative might be dangerous (A New Man, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, Season Four, Episode 12). Presumably, by this time Giles understands what The Initiative is and that they are the ones who have chipped Spike. Ergo, he must know that The Initiative is not likely to treat Ethan Rayne kindly, yet this doesn’t appear to bother him. An awfully callous way to respond to the possible torture of a human being, particularly when Giles himself has touted the human soul as the pinnacle of goodness.
In “The Gift” and beyond, Giles becomes an almost evil character. He advocates that they kill Dawn in order to prevent Glory from using her to open dimensional portals. When Giles kills Ben, he explicitly states that he can take a human life with no regret because he is not a hero. Indeed, the only two people to even consider killing Ben to stop Glory are Giles and Xander (The Gift, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, Season 5, Episode 22). Buffy stops fighting as soon as Ben emerges ostensibly because she is too noble to take a human life, even to save the world or her own sister.
After Buffy dies, Giles abandons Sunnydale and The Scoobies. This is because, we are lead to believe, he is overwrought with grief at losing Buffy. However, scenes within “Bargaining, Part I” seem to show that it is more because he believes he has no reason to stay. The Hellmouth and The Scoobies, it seems are not enough incentive to fight the good fight. Anya’s words that Giles shouldn’t be leaving, and Giles conversation with the Buffybot later in that episode, where the robot questions why Giles is still in Sunnydale now that Buffy is dead, bring this into sharp focus (Bargaining, Part I, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season Six, Episode 1). It is the facsimile of Buffy that gives Giles permission to leave, while the real people who he has said he cares about are left to fend for themselves in an incredibly dangerous environment.
Giles returns after Buffy’s resurrection, only to leave again because he believes he is holding her back (Tabula Rasa, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 8). His reasoning for leaving Sunnydale in the first place was Buffy’s death. Now she is alive and arguably in need of support from her one remaining parental figure. She in fact begs him not to abandon her, and he rebuffs her pleas by telling her she must be strong. Rather than comfort her, he forces her to stand alone.
When Giles returns again, it is to attempt to deal with Willow going out of control. Again, his moral ambiguity stands out in stark relief. Those who do evil must be punished, as for example Ethan Rayne. Except once again, Willow is not punished. Rather, Giles takes her to England for a form of “magical rehab”. There seems to be a pattern for Giles in his ambiguity. His response to evil seems to depend on the gender of the one who is engaging in evil. Angel, Spike, and Ethan are evil and never to be forgiven. Giles either allows or aids in their destruction (c.f. BtVS “A New Man”, BtVS “Amends”, BtVS “Lies My Parents Told Me”, AtS “Shells”).
However, in the case of Buffy, Faith, and Willow, their actions are excused or forgiven. Buffy, as the purported hero, is never permitted to fail. Giles makes excuses for her actions time and again, as in “When She Was Bad” where Giles brushes aside Xander and Willow’s concerns regarding Buffy’s treatment of them by saying “She may simply have what you Americans refer to as issues”. Willow receives help for her problems, rather than swift trip to an undisclosed military base. Faith, who spends four years contemplating her sins, is given a place in the fold while Giles continues to believe that Angel and Spike are irredeemable, no matter how much their actions indicate they have changed or how remorseful they seem.
To Be Continued in Misandry and The Buffyverse: Xander
kidcyclone, who wanted to see me write a meta and a fragment of thatotherperv's meta on the rebellious nature of Aurelius vampires. Summary: Buffy The Vampire Slayer has always been presented as a feminist triumph, a show where female strength is given prominance and value. But, equally, the show was also a vehicle for the disparagement of men and masculinity. This essay focuses on Rupert Giles. Later essays will explore how possible misandry affected all the main male characters of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Word Count: 1234 (Microsoft Word)
Spoilers: All Seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Season Five of Angel the Series
Time and again, we as fans are told about how revolutionary “Buffy” was in both concept and character. A feminist hero, a powerful female role model who stands up and fights back. I maintain that Buffy as a character is neither very heroic nor revolutionary. The Hero’s Journey, as illustrated by Joseph Campbell, has been done in literature with other female characters and done better. However, the main thread of this essay is to point out the strong thread of misandry that exists in “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”.
It is not necessary to denigrate the masculine in order to exalt the feminine. That is, sadly, precisely what Joss Whedon does to accomplish his goal of making Buffy the hero. This is not to say that Buffy the character does not have heroic moments. Simply, in order for Buffy to seem heroic, Joss Whedon (or at the very least, the writers) disparages the male characters.
Taking the characters in the order we are introduced to them, I’ll start with Giles. In “Welcome the Hellmouth”, Rupert Giles is the slightly fussy, pedantic librarian who is Buffy’s Watcher. Giles is the guide figure in The Hero’s Journey and he does not bear it well. He is presented as authoritarian rather than authoritative, lecturing a teen-age girl he has just met about her duty in strident tones. The famous “One girl in all the world” speech is followed by Mr. Giles chasing Buffy down the hall to trap her against a wall. Hardly the stuff of noble deeds, even though we the viewer know that Buffy is much stronger than her Watcher. He is, in this first episode, almost dismissive of her, seeing her as a tool rather than his charge.
Later, their relationship changes. Giles becomes more sympathetic to the burdens of the role Buffy has been cast into. That does not make him any more of a positive male figure however, In fact, later in the first season, he admits that he himself was lectured by his own father on his duties to the Watcher’s Council. That does not stop him from consistently lecturing Buffy, nor does it stop him from finding her lacking in her role as Slayer. The main theme of the Buffy/Giles relationship is one of disappointment. Giles is often disappointed in Buffy as a Slayer, if not as a person and Buffy often finds Giles a weak reed to lean on.
Giles as a character is given to fits and starts of moral ambiguity. In “The Harvest”, he emphatically tells Xander that Jesse is dead, no possibility of saving him. In “Angel”, he states quite baldly that vampires are not people. That does not stop him from being at least tacitly supportive of Buffy’s relationship with Angel. To the viewer, this is presented as evidence of Giles’ open-mindedness, but all it accomplishes is to make him seem wishy-washy. Either he believes what he says or he’s spouting propaganda without any conviction of his own. In both cases, he is guilty of at least a bit of hypocrisy.
In later seasons, the character of Giles suffers even more from the current of misandry that runs through the show. He fraternizes with evil (Ethan Rayne in the episode “A New Man”) then watches with pleasure as The Initiative takes Ethan away. In the very same episode that Giles hands Ethan over to The Initiative, he expresses his concern that The Initiative might be dangerous (A New Man, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, Season Four, Episode 12). Presumably, by this time Giles understands what The Initiative is and that they are the ones who have chipped Spike. Ergo, he must know that The Initiative is not likely to treat Ethan Rayne kindly, yet this doesn’t appear to bother him. An awfully callous way to respond to the possible torture of a human being, particularly when Giles himself has touted the human soul as the pinnacle of goodness.
In “The Gift” and beyond, Giles becomes an almost evil character. He advocates that they kill Dawn in order to prevent Glory from using her to open dimensional portals. When Giles kills Ben, he explicitly states that he can take a human life with no regret because he is not a hero. Indeed, the only two people to even consider killing Ben to stop Glory are Giles and Xander (The Gift, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, Season 5, Episode 22). Buffy stops fighting as soon as Ben emerges ostensibly because she is too noble to take a human life, even to save the world or her own sister.
After Buffy dies, Giles abandons Sunnydale and The Scoobies. This is because, we are lead to believe, he is overwrought with grief at losing Buffy. However, scenes within “Bargaining, Part I” seem to show that it is more because he believes he has no reason to stay. The Hellmouth and The Scoobies, it seems are not enough incentive to fight the good fight. Anya’s words that Giles shouldn’t be leaving, and Giles conversation with the Buffybot later in that episode, where the robot questions why Giles is still in Sunnydale now that Buffy is dead, bring this into sharp focus (Bargaining, Part I, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season Six, Episode 1). It is the facsimile of Buffy that gives Giles permission to leave, while the real people who he has said he cares about are left to fend for themselves in an incredibly dangerous environment.
Giles returns after Buffy’s resurrection, only to leave again because he believes he is holding her back (Tabula Rasa, “Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 8). His reasoning for leaving Sunnydale in the first place was Buffy’s death. Now she is alive and arguably in need of support from her one remaining parental figure. She in fact begs him not to abandon her, and he rebuffs her pleas by telling her she must be strong. Rather than comfort her, he forces her to stand alone.
When Giles returns again, it is to attempt to deal with Willow going out of control. Again, his moral ambiguity stands out in stark relief. Those who do evil must be punished, as for example Ethan Rayne. Except once again, Willow is not punished. Rather, Giles takes her to England for a form of “magical rehab”. There seems to be a pattern for Giles in his ambiguity. His response to evil seems to depend on the gender of the one who is engaging in evil. Angel, Spike, and Ethan are evil and never to be forgiven. Giles either allows or aids in their destruction (c.f. BtVS “A New Man”, BtVS “Amends”, BtVS “Lies My Parents Told Me”, AtS “Shells”).
However, in the case of Buffy, Faith, and Willow, their actions are excused or forgiven. Buffy, as the purported hero, is never permitted to fail. Giles makes excuses for her actions time and again, as in “When She Was Bad” where Giles brushes aside Xander and Willow’s concerns regarding Buffy’s treatment of them by saying “She may simply have what you Americans refer to as issues”. Willow receives help for her problems, rather than swift trip to an undisclosed military base. Faith, who spends four years contemplating her sins, is given a place in the fold while Giles continues to believe that Angel and Spike are irredeemable, no matter how much their actions indicate they have changed or how remorseful they seem.
To Be Continued in Misandry and The Buffyverse: Xander
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2007-08-30 06:44 pm (UTC)Very well thought out.
no subject
on 2007-08-31 02:17 am (UTC)no subject
on 2007-08-31 03:13 am (UTC)An awfully callous way to respond to the possible torture of a human being, particularly when Giles himself has touted the human soul as the pinnacle of goodness.
Holding the absence of a 'soul' as clearly evil does not equate to holding the human soul as the pinnacle of goodness. Giles never made such a claim. To do so would imply a faith in humanity he's never really expressed. Faith in one or two people, yes, but not in a broader sense. (Much like Whedon)
In “The Gift” and beyond, Giles becomes an almost evil character... Buffy stops fighting as soon as Ben emerges ostensibly because she is too noble to take a human life, even to save the world or her own sister.
This is a very complicated argument, which depends heavily on how much of a Utilitarian is. Bentham would look on Buffy's decision as prideful and evil - placing her self-image as "good" above the interests of billions. Consciously choosing to consign the million Dawns (who are not your sister) to a life of hell would very well be more evil than killing the one Dawn who is your sister.
I think Whedon pretty much rejects utilitarianism out of hand, but I think it's a useful paradigm to consider.
no subject
on 2007-08-31 04:37 am (UTC)As for your point about the souls, I'll have to concede to it. I will say that the running theme throughout the show was of the soul as a free pass. Much is made of having a soul, as if it were the only thing that decided between someone being good or evil.
As for your points on Utilitarianism, I'll admit that I didn't write this with a specific philosophical school in mind. It seems to me that Joss Whedon (like so many of the rest of us) cherry-picks his way through different philosophies, taking what he likes and abandoning the rest. However, the treatment of Willow after the murder of Warren Meers would indicate that Whedon does not subscribe to the Utilitarian belief that the one's actions should be judged on the outcome. On the other hand, the narrative of needing redemption and achieving redemption through good acts seems to suggest otherwise. Frankly, I'd be hard put to consign the show's (or Joss Whedon's) views to one philosopical camp or another.
no subject
on 2007-08-31 04:59 am (UTC)Oddly, the Mayor of Sunnydale's masculinity - his urge to be a father-figure for Faith - is portrayed as humanizing and sympathetic trait, and one that is taken positively by most viewers. His negative traits, of wanting to eat people, is perceived more as general evil than as 'masculinized'.
Perhaps, as a male viewer, I should be particularly attuned to misandry in writing but I don't usually feel it. Riley Finn, though not loved much by fans, is given complex and not unsympathetic treatment in terms of his masculinity. And clearly was held in higher esteem by the writing staff than the viewership. Although, here, we're dipping into the meta on gaps between the message the writers aimed to put across, and their level of effectiveness in actually doing so.
I will say that the running theme throughout the show was of the soul as a free pass. Much is made of having a soul, as if it were the only thing that decided between someone being good or evil.
Again, something I don't particularly agree with. This would be like me saying that because I am not tall, I am therefore short. It is possible to be neither short nor tall.
Absence of a soul was portrayed as precluding one from being good. But possession of a soul was not portrayed as a guarantor that one was good. There are too many instances of souled beings committing evil acts.
However, the treatment of Willow after the murder of Warren Meers would indicate that Whedon does not subscribe to the Utilitarian belief that the one's actions should be judged on the outcome. On the other hand, the narrative of needing redemption and achieving redemption through good acts seems to suggest otherwise.
How so? Redemption isn't really a Utilitarian concept. Mostly, you're just supposed to refine the calculus.
no subject
on 2007-08-31 07:36 pm (UTC)I remember reading fans' complaints that Joss is a sadist and women-hater because he tortures his heroines. But misandry?
Anyway, I'm looking forward for your Xander analysis.