When many speak of The Buffy Effect, like many topics within feminism, people split and for the most part have a very definite reason for siding with one perspective over another. Mine, like always, is complicated.
The question is raised,
"But is Buffy really an exhilarating post-third-wave heroine, or is she merely a caricature of '90's pseudo-girl power, a cleverly crafted marketing scheme to hook the ever-important youth demographic?" This of course is the question I try so hard to dart from. As I am, and am honestly trying hard to embrace, a 5'7, more slenderly built, blonde hair, blue-eyed woman (the woman that is often portrayed as superficial by appearance and containing nothing of substance), my heart tends to want to believe that Buffy is a positive. I identify with Buffy. As critics slam her appearance as the non-ideal and the very problem that plagues society merely masked, I would like to believe the morals and ideals being shared within the plot and storyline overpower Buffy's physical appearance. In my opinion, to completely attract attention to physical appearance, and to claim that Buffy is not the "typical" woman by appearance, is actually to further complicate the issue, as a "normal" should not be defined.
Although I would hope to believe I am correct, and could probably talk about this until I am blue in the face (and of course never back down), I have began to really put my guard down and have realized that I could be wrong. I do realize that when young girls and women watch Buffy, they see her capable of achieving anything she desires and going into tasks typically prohibited of women, and then her physical appearance being one that has already been engrained into women as the ideal to attain creates the correlation of physical appearance and ultimate success.
I have to believe that we still have not touched on the root of the evil. Ultimately, I think an overemphasis on female body image contributes to much of the division within the feminist movement.
Am i hearing you say that when feminists (not sure which kind) focus so hard on the portrayal of the "ideal" female form they are, in effect, perpetuating the problem by not focusing on the positives of, to use your example, Buffy's character?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it a kind of both/and? The focus being not on either part (physical appearance/internal character) but on the whole person?
I think the question of Buffy's ambivalent value as a female role model is just that: a question. The critics who are more negative about Buffy (and similar figures) are often reacting to the overwhelmingly celebratory reception that these "positive role models" often get, as if the existence of Buffy on afternoon TV is a sign that men and women have achieved full equality at last.
ReplyDeleteI think that critics who are either 100% celebratory or 100% condemnatory about Buffy and other third-wave icons are missing the fact that audience members have the ability to pick and choose media role models, and even the ability to pick and choose among the attributes of a single media role model. Perhaps some viewers swallow Buffy's impossible beauty along with her strength and independence, feeling an impossible pressure to be all three all the time (even though Buffy herself is DEFINITELY not all three all the time over the course of the series!). But, I think it's probably more common that we see something about her that we like, and we take that, leaving behind the stuff that doesn't appeal to us. A viewer could just as easily see Buffy and appreciate her only for her wardrobe choices as s/he could see Buffy and sneer at her looks while admiring her confidence. Right?
In any event, Buffy is absolutely not the "root of it"!! :-)
ReplyDelete