Fannishness, Gender, Selfishness, and Depression

[shipperx]

:

(NOTE:  This is not in response to any one person's post. There's no point by point correlation between this post and another). 

I've read a few posts regarding Buffyverse 'selfishness' and whether or not Buffy is 'selfish' .  Sometimes this question is bundled with the question of whether an assessment/accusation of 'selfish Buffy' has to do with gender.   One thing I find myself wondering is whether we're talking within the 'verse or within the fandom.

Within the 'verse, I think Buffy has a fair amount of slack.  It comes from being the protagonist and thus the writer room mantra that 'everything is about Buffy.'  That mantra has a way of highlighting and featuring Buffy's problems while mostly using other characters' problems as reflections or shadows.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it does seem to weight issues such that Buffy's woes are most important and at times other characters problems aren't given as much attention. That's not the character of Buffy's fault, and more often than not, the other characters don't see this part of the narrative.  So, on the rare occasion that one character or another has an issue with their problems/angst/woes being sidelined, I cut that character some slack.   It comes with the package of "It's about Buffy" and sometimes you've gotta give other characters the right to chafe about it.

On the other hand, are we talking about fandom assessment of character?  That's a slightly different issue. 

As a rule, I'm quite reluctant to dismiss accusations of fandom gender bias.  It exists and it can be hellaciously ugly.  On occasion, when I have dumb moments and visit Televisionwithoutpity.com's "Mad Men" threads or "The Big Bang Theory" threads, it  is virtually impossible to ignore the underlying gender bias fandom can display (often in ugly ways).  TBBT's thread constantly denigrates Penny to a truly astonishing degree (Seriously, what has the character or the actress ever done to be hated this much?  I don't get it.)  And it's often astounding just how easily some fans turn on characters such as Peggy (and then there's Betty who, granted, Betty is a basket case, but come on! Horrible parenting aside, she isn't actually Cruella DeVille.  No cute spotted puppies were destroyed to make her impeccable clothing).  Then there's the viper pit of Supernatural fandom which, though I've never been a part of it and have only casually watched the show, I've witnessed some epic misogynistic smackdowns chronicled on fandom_wank that drip with so much gender bias and gender self-loathing that you can only shake your head in dismay.

But, um... (WARNING: Potentially controversial statement ahead),  I think there are times where gender bias cuts both ways. There are times when I think fandom cuts Buffy more slack because she's a girl (as well as there being times when she's cut less.  Both things happen regularly). 

I've been thinking about this for a while, mostly when watching this season's Mad Men and primarily because of the MM depression plot.  This season, Don Draper was a depressed mess.  He was in a downward self-destructive spiral, illustrated by boughts of rough sex, self-loathing, bad choices, and other examples of self-destructive behavior. There was actually enough overlap that it made me think of the plot arc of Season 6 BtVS, where some of the same things were featured in Buffy's character arc.  However, fandom reacted to these arcs quite differently.  

There have been many times when Buffy's choices in Season 6 are either said to simply be because someone else was exploiting her or there's Marti Noxon's oft-repeated blanket excuse whenever fandom pointed to something Buffy did that was less than laudable:   "She's in a bad place!"    Well, yes, she was.  But she still made choices of her own free will.   Sometimes for some people it boils down to one thing: "Buffy was depressed."   And you can't hold that against her...   Right?

It's been striking, though, how fandom has reacted quite differently to Don Draper's depression.  Everyone recognized Don Draper's depression (frankly, it was impossible to miss).  Most fans wanted him to pull himself out of it and became frustrated as it went on so long (just as happened with Buffy in Season 6, only Mad Men has only half as many episodes as BtVS did for Season 6).  What was different in Don's case, however, was that in the man's story there was both the recognition of his depression as well as fans continuing to consider him to be fully accountable for his choices and actions.  He wasn't given "he's in a bad place" as an excuse for bad choices.  It was the context, but not a reason to dismiss his personal responsibility for the things he does and does not do.  Reactions tended to be "Shesh.  I get it.  He's depressed, but SHEESH!  That was a jackass move!"    Depressed or no, Don was still seen as making his own choices, taking his own actions, and, while depression was motivation, it was never viewed as justification.  We weren't encouraged to view him as a victim of circumstance or to think of his choices as being out of his control.  Yes.  Don was depressed.  And yes, he often behaved like a jackass.  Sometimes the answer is that both things are true. With Buffy it's sometimes addressed as "she was depressed."  Full stop.  And I don't know that this is the most empowering route to go... and, I think the reason that it is sometimes treated as explanation enough is partly because she's female.  It's more acceptable to view a woman as passive, as not in control, as more easily undone by her emotions, and as victim of circumstance than it is to see a male protagonist as victim.  It's easier to say that the woman is subject to what's going on around her.  And... I don't like thinking of female characters in just that way.  Context matters.  Oh yes, it does.  But it's not the whole story, nor does it negate free will.   I don't think it's awesome for fandom to consider females as being inately more passive and more subject to their emotions and circumstances.  In fact, when female characters just float along passively, it annoys me.  (See: just about every female character on Supernatural who isn't evil or dead.)  Yes.  Buffy was depressed.  Yes. Don was depressed.  Yes, depression influenced their choices.  But, they're still their choices and actions, whatever the fog they make them through.  If we can allow both those concepts with male characters, are we truly serving a female character by thinking she's less capable of owning her actions and impulses?    Are we cutting extra slack because 'she's a girl' if we decide that she's 'just' a victim of her own emotions and her difficult circumstances, when it's probably somewhat more complicated than that?  I don't think I've ever seen anyone in fandom excuse Don for the less savory things he's done(forgetting his kids, blameshifting, being a dog to girlfriends, being overly curt with friends like Peggy)  because he was depressed.  It's still him.   It's still her.  It still choices and actions they made.  It's part of them, even if it's not the whole picture.

Sometimes, I think we need to be careful in the ways in which we exhibit gender bias.  Sometimes it's cutting a guy extra slack for being 'the man!'  Sometimes it's in our being overly willing to see the woman as passive, lacking control, or as helpless and thus less responsible for the that choices she makes.  (It can actually occasionally become a tad infantalizing.) Sometimes, in terrible cases, there is slut shaming (Look, out of all the things Buffy may be, a slut is not one of them. And, yes, that's taking into account space frakking and ill-timed sex fantasies. We may wish she made different choices sometimes, but none of those things make her a slut.  Not even a little. Not at all.)  And sometimes fandom goes in to full bore yuk because some 'girl' is standing between them and their fictional character fantasy (see Supernatural  and its fanfic pairings or even some of the -- miraculously even more odd -- Sheldon-fans on TWOP's TBBT [seriously, Sheldon/Penny are friends. I honestly don't get the Penny hate!])  Anyway, long way around to saying, I think it's okay to allow female characters to own some less admirable traits.   Even if it's occasional selfishness or selective passivity (which isn't a good thing).  I don't think of that as disempowering.  I think it's granting the character their own power of self-determination.  A truly empowered character is allowed to screw-up, to not always be a model of good behavior, to not be 'just' a victim, and to own up to making their choices-- good, bad, or indeterminate. That's what gives opportunity for growth and change and (psst!) character arc.   

Sometimes characters screw up.  Sometimes they can't see beyond their own POV.  And, yeah, sometimes they're selfish. The laudable character -- male, female, robot, Sebacean, demon, Slayer, Tribute, or Klingon-- is the one that tries to grow, learn, and overcome their flaws.  That, to me, is the best critieria by which to judge them.  JMHO.

Comments

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

This is an amazingly good post!

It puts a finger on several issues I had, but never could get quite a hold of.

Brain is dried out from paper writing, but if it decides to fire up again, I'll write a longer response to this.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Thanks. It was something that was rooting around my head ever since the Thanksgiving scene on Mad Men where Don was getting smacked around. I don't know why.

[shapinglight]

I haven't read any of the 'selfishness' posts (seen them floating around but haven't looked closer, so I don't know exactly what sparked them off) but well said. I agree entirely.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I haven't read much beyond the titles of some of them. Like I said, it's not really a response to any particular post, just a mix-match of thoughts that have been bopping around my head for a while.

[next_to_normal]

Hmmm. It's possible that gender bias is a factor, but I don't think you can ignore the fact that Buffy and Don aren't the same. At all.

One of gabrielleabelle's posts got at this, but the fact is, Buffy spends most of her time being unbelievably selfless. She is constantly sacrificing her own happiness, making difficult choices, and bearing the burden of being the slayer, so that other people can live their lives in blissful ignorance, and most of the time she does it without thanks. Even her own support system holds her to a higher standard, and refuses to allow her to be selfish or self-indulgent (I mean, what is more selfish than pulling Buffy out of heaven so she can keep fighting for them?). She saves the freakin' world time and time again. In fact, part of the reason she's depressed is because she DIED saving the world.

Don... is selfish pretty much all the time. He's always been kind of a jackass, and depression has only made him more so. That's not to say he's never a good person, but he's hardly a paragon of selflessness. At best, he's ordinary.

So I don't think it's shocking that Buffy gets a hell of a lot more slack and understanding than Don does when she has trouble coping with depression. Buffy's earned the right to be selfish occasionally, because she's so selfless most of the time. Don hasn't.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

(I mean, what is more selfish than pulling Buffy out of heaven so she can keep fighting for them?)

They didn't pull Buffy out of heaven because they wanted her to fight for them, they thought she had been caught in some hell dimension in the process of the portal closing.

The way I read the post I thought it was more the point that even during depression we are responsible for what we do and that selfish is not some grave insult.

It might not be the best of traits but it makes a person human. Buffy is at times extremely self involved, she often barely gets that anything is not ok with her friends. She even says herself that before her calling she was a lot like Cordelia during her high school years. It's highly understandable that she's not Miss Empathic, actually I'd think it silly if she was. She's saving the world, she has little for herself, so she has to guard that.
I love it that she has that flaw. I think it only makes her human that she's not the open ear for everyone. I agree with you that she's earned it, but I don't think that absolves her of it's consequences.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not an either/or thing. Nor is it a competition.

It's possible to be generous and heroic in some circumstances and be less so in others (Buffy has done many self-sacrificial things... and some far less so. For instance, the situation with Satsu. One would think that being aware that Satsu was in love with her and having learned that sleeping with someone who is far more emotionally involved that you are is --by Buffy's own words in Season 6-- selfish, that it's not a good decision for her to do that again. I understand why Buffy did it. I can even sympathize with her loneliness for doing it. I understand her motivation. But we often conflate motivation with justification, and they aren't always the exact same thing.)

Same with depression. Depression is a powerful motivator. It's something that leads to muddled choices. It's real, it's confusing, and it inspires my sympathy... but the choices one makes are still choices one makes. If a character takes a certain action, it is still that character taking that action. And I'm not sure that saying that a female character is so overwhelmed by her emotions that they are not responsible for the choices is a very empowering argument. Depression is the context for the choices, but actions are still choices and they inform the character every bit as much if not more than the context.

Is Buffy a brave soldier who makes incredible sacrifices? Absolutely! Has she gone through a great deal? Hell yes. But she's not some cartoon (except, well, in the cartoon) where every choice she makes is wonderful, heartfelt and generous. Even great people have flaws and moments of weakness... and that's them too. And it's okay. It's okay to own mistakes in judgement and bad decisions. It's even more okay and more heroic to examine them and to learn from them. I'm more impressed by character growth than explaining why something wasn't problematic in the first place.

No, Don Draper isn't laudable. But what makes him not laudable is his inability to look at his choices, deal with his mistakes, and grow from them. It's his wanting to paint a happy media image over a far more fallible reality that keeps him trapped in a series of false identities that work for him less and less as time goes by.

Inability to look at and accept mistakes, flaws, and achilles' heels exacerbates those issues and traps characters.

And more generally, on a gender bias level, I don't think it's great to say that a woman isn't responsible for her choices because she's over-emotional. It bears a bit too much resemblance to Victorian 'angel of the household' sexism. Poor dear, she's not responsbile because she's just a slave to her emotions. As an argument it tends to make me cringe a little.

Buffy was in a bad place. Buffy was depressed. And Buffy made choices and took actions. All of these things are equally true.

And I never require that a character be wonderful in all respects. I really like Faith and god knows, she did horrible, horrible things. What makes her admirable to me is that, unlike Don Draper, she looked at what she did and fought against it. That is heroic. I loved Cordy and Anya, who could both be incredibly selfish, but they also grew and changed.

I don't see much point in a selfish/selfless Buffy debate. As far as I'm concerned examples could be pulled to illustrate either facet of her personality. That's not a problem. I'm more concerned with "Does she learn from past mistakes? Does she grow?" A heroic Buffy for me, isn't one who doesn't have issues, makes mistakes, has misjudgements, or has instances of selfishness. A heroic Buffy is one who strives, who learns, who grows. I can take feet of clay. I just think it takes owning them. Don doesn't. That's his problem (and why he's not a hero).

And as long as he keeps running from reflection and owning his mistakes and his past, he's going to stay the same.

[quinara]

I think this is a very good post.

And I don't know that this is the most empowering route to go... and, I think the reason that it is sometimes treated as explanation enough is partly because she's female. It's more acceptable to view a woman as passive, as not in control, as more easily undone by her emotions, and as victim than it is to see a male protagonist as victim.

Especially this point, which has me nodding very emphatically.

I can't help but add, also (though I haven't read the discussion so I don't know where I'm slotting in), that I'm not entirely sure I want to believe in/see a Buffy who's entirely selfless, because again that's quite a gendered virtue and possibly not totally beneficial in the long run.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Part of it was something I had read about men and depression many many months ago that said that men are far less likely to admit to depression. Also in a few books on writing that I've read (specifically as it pertains to Hollywood) I became aware of how touchy H-wood is about not having their heroes perceived as being victimized... which also reminded me of some of the things Marti used to say that used to bug me so much.

Plus, I have to say I was struck by how Don's depression plot actually shared some common ground with Buffy's, even though they looked quite different (what with Don's in the 1960s and Buffy's featuring vampires.)

[fenderlove.livejournal.com]

Big fat beautiful WORD to all of this. I really don't understand the concept of Buffy being regarded as a pinnacle of selfless virtue who lives under the umbrella excuse of being in a "bad place" for anything untoward she does. That would make her quite boring and quite unrelatable, in my opinion, and I think there's a strange unintentional hypocrisy of those who will not allow Buffy to own her (human, understandable) flaws accusing those that point out said flaws as the ones not allowing her to be flawed.

*many many lovely hugs to you*

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I mean, Buffy isn't Mother Theresa (thank God!) When I think of her virtues, I think of determination, resolution, and bravery. I don't need or want her to be everything. Sometimes characters need their flaws to be interesting.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

Oh man! This is exactly what's been going through my mind for the last month or so! Well, minus the Mad Men stuff (too stressful for me to watch) and my lack of knowledge of TBBT and avoidance of Supernatural fandom (though not the show). Enough caveats? Yes, I think so.

I keep reading things about Buffy and Spike as being victims of each other in S6 and I can't see it. Yes, she was depressed, but she wasn't incapable. She made choices and engaged in behaviors that troubled her, but she at no point gave her agency over to anybody else. Not that I could see. She may not have consciously understood her motivations, but the motivations were her own.

Yes, she beat up Spike in Dead Things, but he was perfectly capable of stopping her or removing himself from the situation. The same was true of Buffy for the AR of Seeing Red. People have tried to explain to me why the public sex in Dead Things was one of the worst examples of Spike's exploitation, and all I can think is, it takes two to tango, and she's the freaking Slayer! Why shouldn't she be allowed to make her own choice in the matter of whether to participate in balcony sex? Because she's not thinking "clearly"? Um, who the heck can say that they've always done that? Even when not depressed? Jeez, let the girl make her own mistakes (or not), already!

P.S. I was just rewatching Doomed and there, big as life, is Riley telling Buffy she's "self-absorbed". Because she won't go out with him. Huh. It makes me wonder if, within the text, it's usually people who can't make time with the Buffster that throw around the "selfish" and "self-absorbed" labels. It would make all kinds of sense to me.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I tend to think of Season 6 BtVS as co-depency more than mutual victimization. Clearly dysfuntion was going on all over the place, but -- short a couple of very specific incidents -- I didn't think it was about victimization so much as drowning people grabbing and pulling each other under when they're both trying to sweim.

And, yes, the balcony scene. It always bugged the crap out of me when you would read things like "Spike lured her away from her friends." Up, what? Buffy wandered away all on her own, before she even knew that Spike was there. She did that. And in balcony scene no one was stopping her from walking away.

And really, Buffy is already heroic warrior, she doesn't have to be a saint too.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

There have been many times when Buffy's choices in Season 6 are either said to simply be because someone else was exploiting her or there's Marti Noxon's oft-repeated blanket excuse whenever fandom pointed to something Buffy did that was less than laudable: "She's in a bad place!" Well, yes, she was. But she still made choices of her own free will. Sometimes for some people it boils down to one thing: "Buffy was depressed." And you can't hold that against her... Right?

Are you speaking of fandom as a whole or one particular segment? Because my perception is that fandom as a whole is very tough and unforgiving towards Buffy during S6. My little corner of LJ tends to be biased to give more sympathy and leeway towards her, but I'm not under any illusion that it's representative of the larger fandom.

For my part, I fully recognize when Buffy's fucked up. Since my sympathy's with her, though, I tend not to dwell on it and instead attempt to understand the whys of her actions. Which is just what everybody does with characters they like, from what I can see.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for fandom as a whole. I know the parts I used to visit back when the show was going on, and I know the LJ part that I visit. I stopped going to message boards ages ago, so most of that knowledge is second hand. It would be fair to say that in the Buffyverse I'm speaking with limited POV, some meaning just 'some'. However, other bits where I refer to "fandom" by a wider moniker refers to fannishness in general as gleaned from places like TWOP and Fandom_Wank.

ETA: (And I think Boardwalk Empire and True Blood stuff is also influencing my thoughts. On the first, I find I'm having real issues with the way that female characters are written (very madonna/whore with women lacking agency). If it continues, I may have a post about that soon. On the second show, for all that Sookie can be quite myopic and egocentric, I'm not sure it's simple selfishness either despite the wailing on TWOP. I think people get OTT and locked into positions where they only use a certain lens for a character. On the other hand, TB's Tara is written as passive victim entirely too much, to the point it's becoming self-parody. It's not any singular thing that brought on this post). Then there's the fact that I've been reading "The Hunger Games" trilogy where that heroine has a huge grudge against her mother for having fallen into depression when she was young (only to later -- though understandably -- fall into depression herself.) As well as the heroine's own struggles with viewing her actions as selfish alongside her role as iconic heroine in her post-apocalyptic world. No one thing went into generating the post.)

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

Hey Gabs! I haven't got to your 2nd "self-ish-less" post yet, so I'm really not referring to it, but I think I can shed a little light on one aspect of what's being discussed above.

I have, within the past month or so, seen people post about how generally horrible Spike was in Season 6, which I wasn't quite understanding. Asking for clarification, I was given examples of times that he had consensual sex with Buffy. He's evil for that? Really? Well, he would be if Buffy was considered to be unable to give consent. Which might be the heart of what shipperx is talking about. Does Buffy's depression incapacitate her to the point that she is unable to freely give consent? I think there are people in "our corner" of the fandom that unconsciously are working with that assumption. I say unconsciously, because I think that if they were asked who then is eligible to make decisions on her behalf, they would admit that she retains her agency even while depressed.

In a way, it is attacks on Spike that point to people not giving credit to Buffy. Blaming him is not empowering to her, but some people seem to think that it is. It's normal to want to provide comfort to Buffy, as she is in a bad place. But the Spike attacks undercut her, and making her his victim ends up being anti-feminist when you think it through.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

This is a great post, not only regarding fandom.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Great post.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[wildrider.livejournal.com]

I never frequent these boards, but I just cannot figure out what in the world could make TBBT fans dislike Penny? Quite apart from her up-and-down problems with Leonard, their recent breakup was HIS fault! (And yeah, I "ship" them as much as I do any other on-screen couple!)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It's really crazy. Every time I've popped in there, I've backed away going "this was a mistake!" They've said things about being glad she's missing episodes because the actress broke her leg. (o.O!) They start "she's not all that hot" posts as though that's even important. And, really, what the hell has Penny done that's even offensive?! She's becoming den-mother and best friend to a group of nerds. Enjoy endearing show being endearing, people. Don't verbally beat up on the only girl in the cast! (Albeit I read the other day that they've upped Wolowitz's girlfriend to contract. I'm glad. I like her too.)

[peroxidepirate.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post. I'm in complete agreement about the way free choice operates even in cases where someone is depressed or overburdened or whatever. The depression, the extenuating circumstance, might be an explanation for a bad decision someone otherwise might not have made -- but a bad decision is still bad, and still a decision. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

(Not taking a dig at any segment of fandom, at all -- I don't watch Madmen, and I've barely been following Buffy fandom lately -- but this coincides weirdly with some RL wank.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, it's a thread that runs through all fandoms. But, yeah, I almost always want to see indications that characters understand their own part in things.

[binsoup.livejournal.com]

i've only really ever been "involved" in two fandoms (Buffy and House) and only in certain corners where people are not known to ride the female lead character to unreasonable ends. aside from my time issues, i am wary of the misogynist currents that seem to run all over the many fandoms. my daughter (who's been active in various online fandoms since she I thought her to write HTML in '98) and I have interesting discussions about the craziness of the fandoms of Supernatural (which she avoids like the plague) and squueing horde of the various KPop and JPop idols (which she calls participates in even though she calls the fandom sociopathic).

i always enjoy your exposition on this issue. maybe i am jaded, but i'm not exactly surprised that fandoms or large parts of it can be virulently misogynistic. with online fandoms, i suspect the anonymity allowed its participants contribute to both bad thinking and bad behavior.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

True. But sometimes it's really depressing to read all the undercurrents that make people hate innocuous characters.

[tnmisery.livejournal.com]

Anytime I see someone type Supernatural in their lj, I immediately think about the movie Life of Brian and saying Jehovah.

Nobody stone anybody until I blow this whistle.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Heh.

It must be a chore to the SPN fandom just how much fame infamy they've garnered from the lunatics linked on fandom_wank.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Depression is a tricky thing to depict as part of a character's seasonal arc but if what we were shown was truly depression (as opposed to just feeling sad) then it's a mental illness and I need to cut both of them a lot of slack regarding how accountable they were for their actions -- particularly Buffy, who was clearly traumatized by her experience.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

My issue was that if it was clinical depression, then they actually needed to address that (and allow the character the agency to actually choose to address it) and not simply have a miracle epiphany in the finale simply because it was the finale (not that it stuck anyway).

Don's situation is slightly different in that I don't even think we're supposed to think that it's resolved, just that he thinks that it is. That somehow he can plaster over the cracks one more time and 'be happy'... and I think we know that that's not really going to work.

[thedeadlyhook.livejournal.com]

Terrifically well-put. Great post.

The "she was in a bad place" thing in BtVS really bothered me at the time, and still does, because it didn't map it all to previous seasons of the show - in earlier years, it had always been a given that of course Buffy was strong, and anyone who didn't get that was being stupid to underestimate her because she was "just" a girl. Seasons 6 and 7 were very much a tone shift toward viewing Buffy as someone to be pitied above all; admired for being strong, sure, but now even that admiration was condescending. That poor girl.

And whaddya know, given how often Whedon has revisited that theme in his post-Buffy career (e.g., Dollhouse, where poor-girl pity is woven into the show's very DNA), it would seem this wasn't so much an accident, which had been my guess at the time, and I imagine the assumption of a lot of the viewership. (Which is I guess my roundabout way of saying that I can see why many people would be slow to view this situation through a sexism lens, although it now seems to completely merit.)

Still haven't seen Mad Men, so can't really comment on that. Somehow I suspect the built-in sexism of the era, even if it's highlighted in the story as a bad thing, would make my teeth grind too much.

[jack-shaftoe21.livejournal.com]

"The "she was in a bad place" thing in BtVS really bothered me at the time, and still does, because it didn't map it all to previous seasons of the show - in earlier years, it had always been a given that of course Buffy was strong, and anyone who didn't get that was being stupid to underestimate her because she was "just" a girl. Seasons 6 and 7 were very much a tone shift toward viewing Buffy as someone to be pitied above all; admired for being strong, sure, but now even that admiration was condescending. That poor girl."

I agree. To put it another way - in seasons 1-4 and most of 5 (until The Body) BtVS was a story where quite often bad things happened to good people. Still, this was only an aspect of the whole experience. After that it became a story *about* bad things happening to good people. The heaping of tragedy was so excessive that for me it was total overkill. It was as if they were saying "You have to like Buffy (or Dawn, or Willow) because she has such a hard life, poor dear" and not because of what kind of person she was.

Getting back to the original LJ post, I dropped Mad Men before finishing its first season but if I am to guess, I would venture that at least some of the difference in attitude towards Don compared to Buffy is because Don starts the series as a sort of anti-hero, a very flawed character. In Buffy's case there is a need to rationalize, to explain why this isn't "our" Buffy anymore. Of course, often this works in reverse and the bad boy (it's usually a male character for some reason) is never much blamed for anything while if a character like Xander does the same things there is an outrage. But I am not sure if there is that much of a gender bias since Angel's arc in season 2 of his own show is very similar to that of Buffy in season 6 and I have seen fans defend his actions citing his depression in much the same way some do it for Buffy.

"I have, within the past month or so, seen people post about how generally horrible Spike was in Season 6, which I wasn't quite understanding. Asking for clarification, I was given examples of times that he had consensual sex with Buffy. He's evil for that? Really?"

Evil is a bit of a strong word to use in this case, but trying to keep Buffy depressed with his speeches about how she belonged in the dark and how her friends would hate her if they knew about him wasn't exactly a proof of Spike's love, to put it mildly. Of course, Buffy should never have listened to that nonsense but still Spike isn't exactly blameless.

" A truly empowered character is allowed to screw-up, to not always be a model of good behavior, to not be 'just' a victim, and to own up to making their choices-- good, bad, or indeterminate. That's what gives opportunity for growth and change and (psst!) character arc. "

I very much agree.

[ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com]

Very much late, but...

I think there are times where gender bias cuts both ways. There are times when I think fandom cuts Buffy more slack because she's a girl

Um, yeah.

God, that annoys the crap out of me...