I'm not too experienced in these types of discussions but I wanted to say how interesting I found it that Tom is representing the type of rapist who represents himself as a 'gentleman', even old-fashioned in that he says "may" when he asks Buffy to dance and admonishes Richard over his overt misogyny. It's the nice guy behavior designed to get the girl to trust him - and makes his later evil even more impactive in that it turns out HE'S the leader of these assholes. Kind of would blind-side a girl in real word actions.

I hate Xander's continued need to inject himself and his opinions into Buffy's choices of dates and whatnot but the slut-shaming HE is subjected to is, to me, very disturbing in an episode full of distrubing messages and ideas. It's difficult for me to watch.

And one last thing - was it me or was Buffy made up to be sort of 'doll-like' in this episode? The softly curling hair and huge eyes and little dress? It seems that she's made even MORE vulnerable by her appearance. Not what I'm used to seeing in Buffy - especially when that drunk football player came hurtling at her. The wide-eyed panicked expression was NOT like her.

This episode made me uneasy the first time I watched it, and now I have a harder time.

The misogyny feels like a physical blow, both from the frat boys and the paternalism that Xander and Giles display. The show tries to call attention to the evils of Frat-boy behavior, but by "punishing" Buffy's and Cordelia's nascent attempts to make adult choices, at sends the message that it's women's responsibility to stay out of dangerous situations.

At first glance the episode "ends well" - Buffy saves the day, the bad guys are punished. But it's disheartening that super-powers are necessary to escape from groups of powerful entitled men who view women's bodies as a means to an end. Even Machida was unnecessary in a sense. If the frat boys were sacrificing the women to an unseen being, the setup would have been just as plausible.

Yeah, this one's kind of tough to sort out because some of the overt misogyny is obviously intentional, but Giles and Xander's comments are seemingly supposed to be taken at face value. And the actual messages about exploitation and objectification of women lose their meaning somewhat when the "good guys" are just as sexist as the dudes sacrificing women to a demon, albeit much more subtly sexist.

Then again, we see that the "nice one," Tom, is actually the most dangerous frat boy of all, so maybe it IS intentional that the good guys are also sexist? I don't know, I'm all for the subversive read, but BtVS also has a tendency to be pretty ignorant when it comes to rape culture.

I do think it can be taken as explicit criticism of the Buffy/Angel relationship, with Angel as the dangerous older man. I go back and forth on the "taking advantage" issue. I mean, yes, it is paternalistic, but it also depends on the judgment of the girl in question - is she mature enough to make those decisions for herself? I mean, if it were truly a young girl (say, 14 or younger), we'd absolutely say she's being taken advantage of, because she's too young to consent. But a teenager is a real grey area, especially when the "older" guy is probably only five years older, max, as the frat boys are.

You ask hard questions. *pouts*

I really appreciate how the episode contextualizes Xander's and Cordelia's benevolent sexism with the explicit rape culture of the frat house. It'd be tough for even a minimally critical viewer to miss the connection.

In a twist, Tom rescues her, but he does so by also asking her to dance, albeit more politely: "Can I have this dance?"

I like this point. I think Tom's gentlemanly villainy was an excellent choice on a socially critical level as well as a story level. Sometimes playing on masculine roles and expectations can be the most effective thing men can do to alleviate a threatening situation, which makes exploitation of it all the more insidious.

Oh, what a rich episode!

Sometimes a have this feeling that the early episodes are very, very radical (politically speaking) - but also very careful to disguise that fact (as if the authors don't want to get caught by their bosses).

Like this episode: The easy surface reading lends itself to what you all discussed above, Buffy is being "punished" for overstepping her "female boundaries".

There are several motives and themes in this episode:

Cordelia's reasons for going to the party, Buffy's reasons for going to the party, Xander's reasons for going to the party, Giles's and Angel's reasons for the rescue mission, Willow's narration of the rescue...

They all have complicated motivations for their actions/words but at the end of the day, Buffy does something, gets in a tight spot, gets out of the tight spot and in doing so helps Cordelia, unnamed girl and future unnamed girls while also destroying a creepy capitalist circle of misogynist men (and slaughtering the fetish Marx speaks of when describing the inner psychological workings of the capitals mind).

I think the "one lie, one drink" - "let that be a lesson" lines are really funny: Obviously one lie and one drink are not the problem, obviously Buffy don't need to be rescued (nor was she actually rescued).

>b>Obviously</b> Xander, Angel and Giles are also followers of patriarchal ideology, albeit the difference between the "bad sexists" and the "good sexists" is twofold: a) intent and b) capitalist ideology.

The bad guys openly link capitalist ideology with misogyny - and that's what i always say: Capitalism needs oppression of women to function, while patriarchy can obviously work without capitalism (Angel, Giles, Xander).

There is so much more here: Cordelia and here motives for going to that party (and her "lessons" afterwards): Cordelia has a patriarchal and capitalist ideology, too. Under that premise she will always be the victim she is in this episode, she will always be exploited, her narrative usurped by men: She plays into the hands of men destroying women but is unable to see why because she buys into the premise in the first place. In a way, she's an enabler (but of course also a victim!), a mens' rights activist offering herself (unwittingly) for the slaughter.

While Buffy gets drugged and kidnapped, Cordelia willingly goes with the (her) executioner of her narrative, the rich man she is willing to give herself up for. (Of course, Cordelia doesn't think of it this way: She thinks that's her own narrative, her own agency when it is anything but). In the end, Cordelia gets drugged, too and is threatened to get fed to the capitalist fetish (Machida - see also Golden Calf of the Old Testament).

Even women willing to support patriarchy and capitalism get devoured (and not rewarded!) by it's agents and mechanisms.

While Buffy is totally oblivious to these mechanisms and thinks their agents are nice guys, too - once she's in a "situation" she intuitively knows what to do and what is going on. And she fights: She could have escaped without destroying Machida, without freeing her gender comrades, without laying open the circle of agents.

But that's what Buffy does: She destroys capitalist, misogynist constructs and fights against their agents (see also: "Anne").

It is unfortunate for Buffy (and Cordelia, and Willow, and...) that her circle of male friends/father/lovers are MPCs, too. Their redeeming quality comes from the fact that they "fight the system", too and their sexism is unconscious (Willow comments on this with her swooning over Angel being all monsterly manly). But, these men don't exploit Buffy for economic gains/reasons.

Many more thoughts but - i have to work now. :-(

Another thought on Buffy's so-called foolishness: it occurs to me that if Buffy hadn't been there to save the day, Callie and two other innocent girls would've been sacrificed, and the demon would still be around for future rituals. So, really, it's BETTER that Buffy lied, but Giles is focused on how Buffy's behavior almost got her killed (but how is this different from every other time she fights a demon?) rather than how fortunate it was that Buffy was there to foil the frat's evil plans.

Just popping by to say that you and your commentors are super-smart and provocateurs of the thinky thoughts! I especially appreciate Norwie's take-down of capitalism, and Eowyn's "rash" comment. Hee!

I'm still not finished with my report - but i'll sneak in a word or two. ;-)

Is it paternalistic to criticize older men for "taking advantage of" young girls? At what point is highlighting predatory behavior on the part of older men legitimate and when does it tip over to the point of infantilizing women?

This is certainly difficult ground to walk (write), ultimately, i think "taking advantage of" is a term that's not totally fitting. What we see in play in this episode is the actual power structure, the real hierarchy, the imbalance in the relationships between men and women. those men/boys do have actual power over women - they murder women since ever and are rich enough to get away with it (plus, demon worship. Always a plus when trying to evade the consequences ;-). That's real power. These men use that power - i wouldn't call that "taking advantage" (though i see how the term fits in).

Likewise, there is a power imbalance between Buffy and Angel - this time on the knowledge front (the economic imbalance is not that important here - but it is certainly in play, too: Angel owns his own flat, has money at his free disposal, etc and is the "buyer of coffee" = "buyer of Buffy").

The men in this episode (frat boys and Angel) use their power to further their goals - for the frat boys, other human beings (and especially women) don't even register as "true humans", while Angel certainly sees Buffy as a human being (albeit a child) - while he himself isn't one.

So I'd say that the frat boys (and the metaphor) are not infantilizing women - they don't acknowledge them as human beings.

Angel, on the other hand, does infantilize Buffy quite a lot - but in this episode, Buffy gets one over him by a) being the hero of the situation and b) turning the tables on the "date front". Of course, the latter "victory" is rather short lived, since the fundamental power imbalance doesn't go away.

We get another instance of attempted sexual assault against Buffy in this episode, this time after she is roofied. Given the later "punishment" aspect of what happens, what can we take away from this assault? How is it portrayed? What about the fact that Tom, who is later revealed to be the true evil, is the one who rescues her?

With Tom, the first thought that comes to mind is that hierarchical misogyny that's veiled as ~right~ is "the dangerous one." I say hierarchical because Tom is the organized one controlling the dudes who probably aren't ambitious or disciplined enough to pull off mass-sacrificing women in return for riches. It takes a guy with a vision.

It's easy to note the monsters. Less easy to note the ones masking themselves as protectors. Which is what Tom does when he asks Buffy to dance, but then yanks her into dancing with him. Is Buffy gonna say no? I don't think so. The only times Tom approaches Buffy are when she's feeling harried or attacked -- both give him the opportunity to assume the role of protector, masking his darker intentions. Just like Angel.

And notably, this is what Xander wants to do successfully, be the protector who lands the girls -- we might consider this to be subversion that Xander does frequently rescue Buffy (at times when he's beyond calculating for his own interest, imo, but primarily concerned with her safety), but he never lands the girl. Compare this to Innocence when Angel helps Buffy and him escape from the Judge (he gets to play hero while she plays damsel), and when she's vulnerable, to borrow a phrase from Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock, "you take your reward."

Edited at 2011-09-05 03:51 pm (UTC)