ugh. that article bugged me. i think buffy (and the bride in kill bill) are two of the MOST feminist characters on film in a long time.

orphea | July 12, 09:23 CET

Yes, while the article bugged me a bit when it mentioned Buffy along side the likes of Charlie's Angels, it was thought-provoking. In the very least, the author didn't make an outright negative example of Buffy like they did with some of the other shows. However, I have to wonder, when an author makes examples of Buffy, if they've ever really watched more than two minutes of the show...? Enough to look beyond the hair and see a story unfold? I mean, yes, Buffy's very attractive of course (as is every member of that cast) but we've seen her get roughed up, with hair tousled at times, too (in response to one of the author's arguments) - at least, much more than any of the Charlie's Angels (and not just cuts & bruises-wise either). If anything (and in my opinion), Buffy's one of the most human characters I've ever encoutered on T.V. I don't know much about the other examples mentioned like Lara Croft, but what I'm essentially trying to say is that Buffy's not that shiney, happy girl!power figure the author may (or may not) be making her out to be. However, perhaps I'm not a very good judge. I was never really looking to relate to BtVS on a feminist level as I was on a more personal/human level... but nonetheless, I stand by what I say :)

Natashia | July 12, 09:58 CET

The whole time I was reading that article I wondered how much the writer enjoyed seeing Buffy slit Caleb in half starting with his groin.

Eh.

eddy | July 12, 10:05 CET

NatashaLea: "we've seen her get roughed up"

Roughed up, hell: "Hey, I've died twice"!

Agree totally about Buffy (and the others) being the most fully realized human beings on TV...on a show about monsters and demons...I must admit, I was skeptical about the show for years...a good friend (highly intelligent, professionally accomplished) tried to get me interested...I rebuffed him, saying, "Dan, you only watch that because it's a hot chick in tight pants kicking butt." He allowed as how that wasn't a negative, but insisted there was much more.

So very, very much more.

Chris in Virginia | July 12, 17:27 CET

This is a somewhat silly article that is built around an unsupportable premise -- that feminism, by any feminist's definition, is about or aspires to be about ass-kicking. (As I understand it, ass-kicking as a concept has origins in male locker-room talk, and it is no more an aspect of a feminist ideal woman than WWF wrestlers are role-models for men.) Thus, to set up the straw premise that ass-kicking women, "babes" or otherwise, are something that feminists might desire as a (fantasy) reflection of themselves in film, only to say "ah-ha, you're wrong if you think that," is completely silly.

Charlie's Angels was the hallmark of jiggle TV when it aired, and that has not changed with the two films. And I think most would agree that Lara Croft falls into the same category, even if she derives from print. So this author is saying absolutely nothing new here.

I completely agree with other posters that Buffy is in a completely different category. I think there are mixed feelings about Buffy among self-avowed feminists, and I don't think the criticisms of her as a role model are always off the mark. However, where there is clear difference between the fantasy that is the Buffyverse and the fantasy of CA or LC is that the Buffyverse women characters, despite super-human physical or witchcraft skills, are shown as conflicted, sometimes indecisive, able both to use and to evolve from an inherently paternalistic system to fulfill their "destinies" (if not always self-fulfillment), etc. They can shop and they can worry about whether the boyfriend du jour will call, because they are more rounded characters. They are not flattened out to become the 1950s-early 1960s stereotype exemplified by Ann-Margret in Bye Bye Birdie. Buffy's "ass-kicking" is shown both as a super-human ability she inherited (although not an infallible one), but also as a skill she must develop with constant training. If her slayer gifts are not "earned," her applications of them come from training and intelligence. Did the series rely upon the eye-candy appeal of its stars. Of course. But this is a far cry from the cartoonish characters of CA, intended to appeal almost exclusively to adolescent males, the target audience of most Hollywood films.

I think most feminists want diversity in the representations of women in culture and real life, with different ways of being "powerful," from the quiet but determined power of a Rosa Parks to the impressive presence that the thoughtful and unflappable Barbara Jordan had -- and everything in between. The strength of BtVS (apart from its compelling story arcs and their underlying messages) was in its demonstration of this diversity. Anybody who wants to reduce the show and title character to "ass-kicking" to make it fit a specious argument about girl-power does a disservice to the series and to the intelligence of its viewers.

palehorse | July 12, 20:38 CET