Okay, I know there's some brouhaha about the S8 comics and objectification right now. As most know, I don't read the comics, so I don't feel qualified to weigh in at all. I have a guess of an opinion, but it's devoid of context and, therefore, not really presentable as any sort of serious argument.

But from seeing some of the fringes of it, it made me start to think of objectification. What it means. What sort of presence it has in the show. The TV show. This post...not about the comics. Don't bring them up. Really. I will spank you if you do.

I've seen people (in other debates) argue about what "objectification" means. And I'm not sure I have a quick and dirty answer. So let me ramble about the topic and see if I hit on anything.

My immediate starting point is the male gaze. The Wiki link has a pretty decent summary of it, but let me try my own words.

There is a default assumption that women in media are there for men. To appeal to men. As such, women will be portrayed in the media in ways that visually please men. This involves awkward poses, camera angles that highlight "assets", such as the classic "tits and ass" shots, skimpy costumes, make-up, etc.

This is so ingrained in our media that women have to appeal to men, that we're unaccustomed to seeing something where a woman is not presented with a male gaze.



Let me give you a personal example:

I watched the Yeah Yeah Yeahs' video Gold Lion a while ago. It's a spiffy video. But in it, Karen O, the lead singer, is not shown in a typically "glamorous" way. She's dirty, her hair is unflattering, her costume is shapeless, and she comes off as rather...unattractive.

And this threw me. Really. I didn't know how to react to it. Because it was a video that was presenting a women in a completely unsexualized and unappealing way. Instead she was presented like...a male rocker might be presented.

When I realized what the disconnect was there, that I had learned to subconsciously expect the male gaze, I felt a bit of shame. And then a lot of love for Karen O (Really. Go watch the vid. It's awesome).

The male gaze is an inherently objectifying presentation. It portrays women as objects for men's visual pleasure. At its most extreme, the women will have no other purpose but to be eye-candy for the menfolk. But even in more moderate amounts, with a female character who has her own personality and purpose, that male gaze is still present. It still insists in showing her as desirable. As appealing to men. As fuckable.

Because no matter how smart a woman is, or strong, or capable, she must still be appealing to men.

The saturation of this has to be recognized. This is not something I can pull out examples and go, "See. Male gaze!" Because it's literally everywhere. It's always been everywhere. It's how we know to depict women. It's most noticeable when a woman is not shown through the male gaze, as Karen O was in that video. Because it's strange. Because it goes against what we expect.

Now, objectification, on its own, devoid of social context, isn't inherently problematic. What is problematic is the cultural norms by which women are supposed to be objectified and men are not. Where women's characters are of secondary importance to their sex appeal.

So that makes examples of female objectification more troublesome because they come in the context of the larger sexist media.

Does BtVS, the TV show, utilize the male gaze? Of course it does. Does it do so to an outrageous extent? No. One of the appealing things about the show is that its male gaze and objectification is not as over-the-top as most of the media. Because, while Buffy may have worn skimpy clothes the first two seasons, the camera didn't feel the need to take slow, lingering shots of her legs/ass/boobs. Because it didn't often have gratuitous female nudity. And because Joss allowed the female characters' personality to be of primary importance over their sex appeal.

Indeed, BtVS tends to take the opposite approach. It bucks cultural norms and often objectifies the male form. Naked or shirtless Angel, naked or shirtless Riley, Xander in his underwear, naked or shirtless Spike. Hold the abs in the frame. Appeal to the fangirls.

The fangirls.

It's a show giving us something for the girls.

What a concept.

What does it mean to objectify? I rambled quite a bit about the male gaze, but objectification, while connected, is slightly different.

At its most basic, it's presenting a person as an object.

Sounds simple, but what, exactly, does it entail? Does any nudity equal objectification? How about tight clothes? Or sex scenes? Or cleavage shots?

I think it's most helpful to think of a spectrum of objectification. A range. Some instances are not as major as others.

Let's try to simple this down:

1. Objectification is when a character is portrayed in a way that is meant to sexually appeal to the male/female viewers. This is usually done by utilizing the male gaze (and, to a much lesser extent, the female gaze).

2. This may be present in one brief moment, such as a camera shot that focuses on an actress' boobs.

3. This may be the entire point of the character.

Obviously, the main issue with objectification is that there is a vast history in our media, past and present, of women only being shown as #3. Objectified. Their entire character is there to provide sex appeal. This is the most offensive end of the objectification spectrum.

But given this history, even minor examples that fit more into #2 can be problematic because they're representative of a much larger problem.

Buffy's tiny, tiny skirts of the early seasons are a problem in this context.

Faith's pushed-up boobage are a problem.

Harmony's lingerie.

Buffy dancing. Faith dancing. Problem.

Context doesn't matter.

We're looking at this from a societal context, not from a context of the show, itself. What matters is that these very few, minor examples from BtVS fit into a much larger pattern. And it's important to be aware of that.

It's also important to be aware that BtVS often subverts this. It's aware of this. S7's Dirty Girls plays a lot with the male gaze. And, as mentioned, it uses the female gaze to objectify its male characters much, much more than it does the opposite.

In some ways, this is similar to the Bechdel Test. The Bechdel Test is a measure to see if movies allow its female characters to have lives and conversations independent of men.

Breaking away from the male gaze, avoiding objectification of women, is also a way of asserting women's independence from men. By the visual act of showing that women can have an appearance that has nothing to do with appealing to men. That women can be displayed and shown in ways that are not meant to please men.

This is important. It's very important because it has real-life repercussions. Because women believe that they have to dress up and wear make-up just to take the trash out. Or work out. Or see the doctor. Because women are not allowed to appear in an unappealing fashion. Because we have to make sure that we look good for any man that may see us. And we absorb those subconscious beliefs because we are almost to never shown women in the media not done up to appeal to men. Because while it's perfectly acceptable in our TV shows and movies to show non-attractive, overweight, and dressed down men in a positive, sympathetic light, women do not have that luxury. They have to look fit. They have to look good. They have to look presentable. And if they don't, then they are open to ridicule by other characters and the audience.

It's important because on Halloween, women are expected to dress up. To look sexy. To look appealing. While men are open to looking anything from goofy, to dumb, to cool, to hot. Guys can wear a foam M&M and be okay. Women are not expected to do so, because they're supposed to dress in a way that highlights their sex appeal for men. Indeed, Halloween is often seen as an "excuse" for women to dress "slutty".

It's important because most people know what I mean when I refer to a "tits and ass" movie. And they shouldn't. Because a movie that depicts women as only body parts for men's perusal should not be so common that that phrase enters our lexicon.

It's important because there is no equivalent of "tits and ass" for objectified men in movies. Because it's not the norm. Because men are allowed to retain their individual personalities and be presented in ways independent of female sexual approval.

Part of the reason I love BtVS is because it doesn't fall into the objectification of women trope very often. I love it, also, because it turns the tables and objectifies men. This pleases me on all sorts of levels (some of the fangirlish variety).

Oh, I think I've rambled enough.

Again, don't bring up the comics. At all. I don't know a thing about them. I can't discuss them without knowing the context. And this post is not about them. Spanking, remember?

The TV show and the overall concepts of the male gaze and objectification are, of course, open for discussion. I'm fuzzy on a lot of my thoughts here, and I welcome other thoughts and opinions.