June 2002 posts
Warren wasn't a Misogynist. -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:24:04 06/13/02 Thu
Why do people assume that Warren hated women?
First off, the April bot cannot be viewed as misogynistic. Neither can mind controlling Katrina. These sprang more out of a)his desire for control, and b)the fact that he was extremely horny.
As for hating Buffy, what villain HASN'T hated Buffy? Plus, she's a superhero, so hating her fits into the whole Lex Luthor persona he's developing. Plus, after she took away his powers, he did have a reason to hate her.
There is the fact that the two people he killed were women, but he killed Katrina out of neccessity and Tara by accident.
Frankly, I think the only reason Warren is called a misogynist is because he called women "bitch".
[> Misogyny: Warren and Weakness -- Exegy, 00:13:21 06/14/02 Fri
Warren sees powerful women as a threat to his own masculinity. He fears them more than anything else. Since this fear is an unacceptable emotion, indicative of his weakness, he translates it into something more acceptable: hate. His hatred of women gives him that feeling of power he's lacked as an ostracized geek. He's hardened, invulnerable (as he literally becomes invulnerable with his bolstered magick ... orbs). But then the strongest woman (the Super-bitch extraordinaire) comes to take away that feeling from him, leaving him emasculated once again. She must pay for what she's done!
These women deserve what they get. Katrina, that bitch, she deserves what she got ... because to admit otherwise would be to admit his own weakness, his wrongness. Warren suppresses any feelings of guilt he might have concerning his former girlfriend's death ... until we see this guilt manifested in Katrina's shade. Warren, trying to be the villain to the end, denies her presence, but we see that she haunts him still. She's most likely haunted the deep recesses of his mind ever since her demise, lingering until some future event should "unearth" her. What she says to Warren ... reflects what he's been thinking of himself all along (kudos to Mal, who's said this all before far more eloquently).
Warren's misogyny is an overblown reaction to his perceived weakness. As you say, it's part of his efforts to control the world. He wants to be dominant over others (he's the one who first mentions taking over Sunnydale, he's the one who builds a robot who will be subject to his every command, he's the one who makes Katrina into a "robot" slave). But the world cannot be controlled. For all Warren's efforts, he's still the little geek who cried in response to bullying; he's not a super-villain. The villainous posturing is just that ... posturing. A costume to hide the geek, like Willow's. Which is why when Willow stares at Warren in Villains, there is such a strong parallel. Willow is like Warren. And she proves it, by stripping him of his costume and his skin, choosing the path of hatred, trying to control her world out of weakness.
Misogyny is all about weakness, a hatred of that which is feared to some degree. So I don't get how Warren is not misogynistic ... unless one defines misogynists as being fully in control of their hatred ... but who is?
[> [> Exactly... -- Rob, 08:36:04 06/14/02 Fri
Warren's misogynistic feelings sprung from the fact that women were something he could not control--
Couldn't control Katrina, so he made an April-bot of her, which he couldn't control either...Later, tried to control her with the spell, and still couldn't.
Out of that lack of control comes the hatred.
And it wasn't just the fact that he called Buffy and Katrina "bitches"...it was the way he said it. He tells the image of Katrina, "You deserved it"...and that's worse than the "bitch" part.
Rob
[> [> [> Agrees agrees agrees. And thanks. -- Tillow, 09:54:43 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> You're missing the point. -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:51:59 06/14/02 Fri
I think Warren said "You deserved it, bitch!" because he isn't a demon. As was hinted by Giles in the Season 2 episode, "Surprise", no human is completely evil. When confronted with the image of someone he killed, it started to evoke the last shreds of conscience he had. So Warren then tries his very best to bury these feelings of guilt: first by ignoring them, and then by trying to justify them by making Katrina seem like the villain.
While Warren sought to control women, he sought to control everybody. He showed dominance over a guy who bullied him in high school. He used peer pressure and promises of greatness to control Jonathan and Andrew. Plus, taking over Sunnydale would mean ruling over both men and women.
The reason Warren's control issues and violent acts were more focused on women was because of two things:
1st, one of these women is Buffy. Any Big Bad (or wanna be Big Bad) has a reason to want Buffy gone since she'll eventually try to stop them. Also, if a guy had smashed Warren's orbs, he would have been just as gun-ho to kill him.
2nd, Warren tried to control women more because it had a benefit controlling men wouldn't: female slaves could provide him with sex.
Spike is more of a misogynist than Warren ever was, often making broad generalizations about "bloody women!" However, Warren is always the one that gets the misogynist label.
[> [> [> [> Re: You're missing the point. -- Rob, 11:24:27 06/14/02 Fri
What Spike has isn't misogyny. He loves women. He can at times be frustrated with them, but his "bloody women" statements are more comical. He didn't hate Buffy because she's a woman, but because she's the Slayer.
On the other hand, Warren, on numerous occasions made it clear that it was not the fact that Buffy was a Slayer that angered him so much, but because she is a strong woman.
And about the "smashing his orbs" thing...I think that speaks for itself. He doesn't want to allow a woman to bust his...orbs. Buffy literally grabbed his...um...power center and smashed it to bits.
Yeah, Warren wants to dominate everybody, but women in particular. To put it crassly, he wants to make everybody his "bitches." Katrina, Buffy...and Andrew.
I don't exactly get how you can classify somebody trying to turn a woman into a sex slave, and then killing her when she rebels not misogynistic. Or the fact that when he is confronted by her "ghost," he does not become sad or apologize, but lashes out at her! From the first time we met Warren, he was into making mindless robotic women who would serve him, without question.
Sure, he likes women, as long as they worship him as The Man. If they get out of line, he wants to train them. And that is misogynistic. And that's it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Agree... -- LittleBit, 11:46:33 06/14/02 Fri
Being a misogynist doesn't preclude having other issues: all the control, insecurity, self esteem issues are certainly there. But the only time in the series when we saw him have a decent conversation with a female was during his first meeting with Buffy when he was explaining April. And even though she was being understanding and sympathetic, his ultimate action was to focus April's attack onto Buffy; an action not connected to his big bad wannabe status. No other interaction with females in the series has had Warren in any mode other than controlling and/or predatory. That is mysogynism. It just doesn't exist in a vacuum with Warren.
[> [> [> [> [> Thank you -- verdantheart, 11:51:22 06/14/02 Fri
Thanks! No offense to those who think otherwise, but the idea that Spike is a misogynist because he occasionally says "bloody women!" is laughable IMHO.
This is a guy who often stands back and lets Buffy do her fighting without interference, simply watching her back. He doesn't feel that it's necessary for him to protect her the way that Angel did. He's expressed understanding of and support for Willow. He expresses an appreciation of women who are forthright. He's related to Dawn as an equal when everyone else was treating her like a child. He's behaved as the "perfect boyfriend" toward Drusilla and would have behaved similarly toward Buffy had she allowed him to.
It's interesting that anyone would read his character as misogynistic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> "It's interesting that anyone would read his character as misogynistic." -- Q, 20:14:01 06/14/02 Fri
Although some EXCELLENT statements have been made by Rob, Ex, and verdanheart concerning Warrens misogeny, I feel that the statements lose at least a little punch with their defending of the OBVIOUSLY misogynistic Spike.
Sure Spike has shown some noble action and behavior towards women, as verdantheart points out in this post. Spike is a complex character--not a cardboard cut out, across the board misogynist. But he does exhibit some SERIOUS misogynistic tendancies, very similar to Warrens. It has been argued in this thread that Warren's misogeny stems from his inability to "control" women. It seems to me that when Spike loses control over his women, he dips into misogeny as well. I can not see any other rationale for the attempted rape scene. Rape is probably the pinnacle of misogynist action. It is NOT about being horny, or wanting sex, or "hormones"-- it is about control. When Spike felt he no longer had the sexual control over Buffy he once had had this season, he tried to reclaim that control by FORCE. A VERY misogynist action. You can also see the violence he exhibited to Harmony as blatently misogynistic, and the "torture Dru till she has me back" quip as blatently misogynistic. Sure Spike shows respect to women in general-- but women he is in a relationship with seem to get less respect-- and treated worse because of his fear of losing control. He may not be a blanket misogynist, but you can not discount the misogeny he HAS displayed!
I also think that ME has a pattern of developing themes across the season, and NOT just in certain characters. I think Warren's OBVIOUS misogeny NEEDS to be compared to Spikes, because misogeny became a MAJOR theme of season 6, and it is bound to pop up in more than one character. I honestly believe that the pounding Spike took at the hands of Buffy in the alley-way was a comment on misogeny. Though Buffy was a female, she was the "dominant partner" physically in the relationship, and in the symbolism represented the male-- who is MUCH more likely to be the abuser in a relationship. Since domestic abuse is a major form of misogeny-- I think this was yet another nugget for us to chew on on this years obvious misogeny theme.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hello! Vampire! I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side. -- SPIKE, 18:08:07 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO! My thoughts exactly...And in words of buffy and xander -- shadowkat, 19:58:48 06/15/02 Sat
"evil soulless thing" ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I agree with Q -- Malandanza, 11:49:33 06/16/02 Sun
"It has been argued in this thread that Warren's misogyny stems from his inability to "control" women. It seems to me that when Spike loses control over his women, he dips into misogyny as well. I cannot see any other rationale for the attempted rape scene. Rape is probably the pinnacle of misogynist action. It is NOT about being horny, or wanting sex, or "hormones"-- it is about control. When Spike felt he no longer had the sexual control over Buffy he once had had this season, he tried to reclaim that control by FORCE. A VERY misogynist action."
The Spike/Dru relationship went along perfectly while Dru was helpless and Spike was dominant, but it started to collapse even before Angelus returned. With Dru dominant and Spike in a wheelchair, the magic was gone. Of course when Angelus did return and Dru gravitated towards the new Alpha Male, Spike was livid with impotent rage. Dru belongs to him, right? She has no choice in the matter. Thus the alliance with Buffy to recover his girlfriend.
Warren has taken a lot of heat for creating a sexbot (remember Spike had one, too) but what was Harmony? Spike treated her like Warren treated April -- except that Harmony had actual feelings, not subroutines emulating emotions.
The smashing of the orbs. How much castration/impotence imagery have we seen with Spike? Violence and sex are inextricably linked for Spike -- he "got his stones back" after the beating/rough sex with Buffy.
The Bronze scene was all about control. Throughout the season he has manipulated Buffy, cajoling and threatening her to get what he wants, which culminated in the attempted rape scene.
As for Rob's comment (re: Warren's use of the word "bitch"):
"And it wasn't just the fact that he called Buffy and Katrina "bitches"...it was the way he said it."
I'm not sure there is a nice way to call the woman you "love" a "bitch," but I've found each use of that word by Spike to be indicative of his junior-high school style of misogyny.
So I think that Q makes a valid point -- defending Spike as some sort of Romantic figure aspiring to and ideal love while condemning Warren for what are essentially the same actions weakens the argument. Either they are both misogynists who need their orbs smashed on a regular basis or they are both devoted but misunderstood young lovers with insensitive and uncaring objects of devotion. But you can't have it both ways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The other side of the coin -- Sophist, 13:38:10 06/16/02 Sun
I think the difference between Warren and Spike comes down to this: with Warren, pretty much the only actions we saw him have with women were misogynistic. With Spike, in contrast, there may be scenes which could be characterized that way (the ones with Harmony, for example), but there are also many others (Entropy, all scenes with Dawn, Afterlife, etc.) which suggest a more complex view of Spike is required. Even the scenes with Harmony might be seen not as misogynist so much as treating Harm as the twit she is (not very nice, but not misogynist either; compare the way Xander and Buffy treat her). Warren's behavior with women was one-sided, Spike's is not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Earl Allison, 18:04:46 06/16/02 Sun
"Even the scenes with Harmony might be seen not as misogynist so much as treating Harm as the twit she is (not very nice, but not misogynist either; compare the way Xander and Buffy treat her)."
Firstly, no offense intended towards anyone, just the argument, which I strenuously disagree with.
Twit or not, and regardless of what Xander and Buffy might have done, Spike slept with Harmony, manipulated her to take care of him when he was chipped, and had her go along with him when he attempted to have said chip removed.
Xander and Buffy might have treated Harmony as something less than a serious foe, but they didn't even work under the pretense of being friends or allies -- Spike was allegedly her lover. Big difference, IMHO.
Spike had a RELATIONSHIP with Harmony -- maybe not a good one, but a relationship nonetheless.
He tried to stake her, he threatened her with violence MORE than once, and treated her rather poorly when it was clear that she loved him. Sure, she came back, but did that make his treatment of her acceptable? Sure, it was played for laughs -- funny how it wasn't so funny with Spike on the receiving end from Buffy, when it WASN'T played for laughs ...
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- maybe Buffy's treatment of Spike in S6 was some kind of karmic revenge for his treatment of Harmony in S4 and S5.
I just don't think it can be glossed over or chalked up to "Harmony's a twit." Because even if she is, Spike supposedly cared about her; Xander and Buffy didn't.
Take it and run.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> By no means was I defending Spike's treatment of Harmony. -- Sophist, 19:57:57 06/16/02 Sun
I was merely saying that his treatment of her couldn't be considered in isolation as evidence of misogyny. This means that we have to consider both his treatment of other women, and the treatment others gave Harmony. Sorry for not making that clear.
Just as an aside, I found many of the S/H scenes hilarious. The point of them -- that Spike was a jerk -- was not lost among the laughs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *snatching and running* -- Off-kilter, 01:56:13 06/17/02 Mon
Harmony and Spike. Relationship yes, but so what? I have a "relationship" with everyone that I come into contact with every day. Spike did NOT care about Harmony. He clearly defines what he wants from her when she first comes to his crypt. He tells her "I love syphilis more than you."
She didn't care about him as a person either. He was a protector, then a posession "my blondie-bear". It wasn't a declaration of true love, but like Willow states, "she always lied about stuff like that.'Oh, he goes to another school, you wouldn't know him.'"
I won't chalk it up to her being a twit. She is, but that has nothing to do with it. Buffy and Xander didn't care about her, that is true. But shouldn't they have? After all, she died during their graduation day along with many of their classmates. They knew her as a human. They have a guiding star towards good. To Spike, she's just some vampire that has some good points, but is generally annoying. He offered to kill his bookworm guy too, and they had a "relationship" of a sort. To the SG, she was a person who died and they make fun of her.
OZ: Devon dated her for a while, but she was too flaky for him. Which, stop and marvel at the concept.
BUFFY: Guy dating Harmony -- dead? Must be like the most tolerant guy in the world.
Which is sadder?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *snatching and running* -- Arethusa, 07:34:06 06/17/02 Mon
Harmony was a "vapid whore" (Willow) who seldom missed a chance to torment anyone weaker than she. She and her like undoubtedly made a lot of poorer, less attractive kids miserable for years. As a vampire she tried to kill Buffy, and she got Anya hurt. Her ineptitude made her ridiculous, but her spite made her dangerous. Since the Scoobies have staked others that they knew (the banker Joyce recognized, the gymnastics team member Xander recognized, etc.), Harmony was very lucky that they, and later AI, didn't stake her on sight. A weak, stupid mean person became a weak, stupid evil vampire. She was lucky eveyone was too busy laughing at her to kill her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, Harm is a twit. Not my point. -- Off-kilter, 02:58:43 06/19/02 Wed
In most spiritual belief systems, no matter how shallow, stupid or weak, a person has instrinsic value because of their soul. I'm not saying that the SG didn't have motivation to dislike or laugh at Harm when she was human; nor did they have a good reason not to stake her once she was a vampire. My problem is that that they didn't pause to mourn the one aspect of Harmony that was supposed to be pure and good. The passing of her soul. Instead, they mock her from the grave. Theoretically, if being a vampire is the same as damnation, she wasn't lucky to avoid being dusted.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nor is it mine. -- Arethusa, 07:14:13 06/19/02 Wed
To be melodramatic about it, Harmony had already "stained" her soul by not living up to it. She, like everyone else, had free will to choose to do good or evil. She choose to be cruel and petty, even to one of her best friends (Cordelia) when Cordy overstepped the bounds of what their clique considered acceptable behavior.
From "Graduation Part 1":
>> Harmony leaves as Buffy walks down the stairs.
Willow: Oh, I'm gonna miss her.
Buffy: Don't you hate her?
Willow: (still smiling) Yes, with a fiery vengeance. She picked on me for ten years, the vacuous tramp.
It doesn't bother me at all that there was no moment of acknowledgement for the passing of Harmony's soul, but I still remember very clearly what it was like to be thirteen, 5'9", and dressed by my mother, who evidently had me confused with Mary Tyler Moore.
quote by psyche
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Ete, 07:44:35 06/19/02 Wed
God, and I though I was traumatized by my school years !
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Arethusa, 08:24:58 06/19/02 Wed
Not what I said. I just said I don't have any sympathy for Harmony-not that she, or anyone else, including any school bullies,'deserves to die, for any reason, under any circumstances.
Did you read about the school shootings in the USA during the 90s? Some very messed up kids shot their teachers and classmates, killing quite a few, and school bullying was a major contributing factor. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE KIDS AND TEACHERS DESERVED TO DIE.
THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT REFER TO KIDS WHO KILL. When a kid is unhappy at home at gets even more abuse at school, the kid can actually lose his sense of humor at the teasing and get upset-maybe even feel little regret when that bully is dead, or vamped (in the Buffyverse). NOT THAT THE BULLY DESERVED TO BE DEAD, OR VAMPED.
I do not now, and have never in the past, felt that school bullies deserved to die, for any reason. I didn't even think so when they were cutting off my hair in choir, shoving me into muddy ditches, calling me bitch on a daily basis, tripping me, hitting me, or making a hellish life even worse. When some of the bullies were killed in a car crash while they were joyriding and speeding I was very upset-I had a great deal of sympathy for them all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Ete, 08:41:52 06/19/02 Wed
I know how terrible those kind of children / teenage bully can be, believe me, been there too. And ofcourse, it's something that just scarr you, and hurts your self-estime in a deep way that is very hard to over come.
I never meant to imply that you though they deserved to die, sorry, I wanted to say that the scoobies not regretting than Harmony died, and never got the chance to become more than the mean and shallow pretentious high-school girl she was, was like saying she deserved to die.
I'm glad you were able to feel sympathy for those who hurted you when they die.
I've always though that hating those kind of kids was more than they were worth, and less than I owed to myself. I don't want to be as contemptuous of them as they were of me, not to them not to anyone. No one deserves it, to be treated like they're not a human being, like they are not worth anything.
So you know, even if i could never really overcome this hurt, at least I can learn a valuable lesson from it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Arethusa, 08:58:30 06/19/02 Wed
>> I wanted to say that the scoobies not regretting than Harmony died, and never got the chance to become more than the mean and shallow pretentious high-school girl she was, was like saying she deserved to die.
Maybe it's just a case of ME using Harmony for comic effect. The audience is less likely to laugh at poor shallow undead Harmony if the Scooby gang treats her death like an unfortunate occurance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So all school bullies deserve to die for their sins ? -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:39:47 06/19/02 Wed
Well, it's not like they were close to Harmony. Do you get upset everytime there is a car crash or accidental death in the news? Fact is: people die, and if you weep for everyone of them, you won't do anything but weep.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Out of Mind Out of Sight - regarding bullies -- shadowkat, 18:08:51 06/19/02 Wed
I actually identify with you on this one Aeruthsa. I too
experienced countless pains and torments at the hands of Harmony and Cordy clones - hence my inability to care what ME or anyone else does to these two characters and my dislike of the Cordy character arc.
Then I rewatched Out of Mind Out of Sight - you remember the old Marcy Ross episode, later referenced in Gone? Marcy is ignored, ridiculed and treated as a nonentity by Cordy and everyone else to the extent that she disappears. No one remembers her. This causes her to become enraged and the pain builds until MArcy goes insane, becoming the worst bully imaginable. Marcy becomes worse than her tormentors.
In the episode Cordy tells Buffy that she feels alone, that most of the time when she's talking everyone agreeing with her doesn't hear a word she says. They aren't really her friends. So why do you try so hard to be popular, Buffy asks. Because, Cordy answers, it's better than being alone all alone.
The truth is the bullies don't remember us. We don't exist.
Why? Because as they are being bullied too. By parents.
By friends. I remember one of my best friends treating me like crap in front of the popular kids then being friends with me in private because of her fear of being bullied. The friendship did not last long. It helps to understand this.
Harmony/Spike is a great example. Buffy hits Spike. Spike hits Harmony. HArmony hits her minions. Vicious cycle.
Angelus kills Dru, Dru kills william...violence breeds violence, hate breeds hate....we create our own monsters and our own destruction unless we can stop the cycle.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Drusilla's choice -- auroramama, 22:07:38 06/17/02 Mon
I think Drusilla "gravitated" to the fun of having both her men paying court to her, with no Darla around to distract her Daddy. She enjoys watching Angelus make Spike jealous (we saw this back in What's My Line with Angel, too.) She likes having Angelus exert himself to outdo Spike. Barring pangs of conscience, what's not to like?
I don't think she had any intention of dismissing Spike in favor of Angelus when she could have both. (And she was certainly still having Spike, even if Angelus called it "pity access".) Spike isn't her Daddy, and Angelus couldn't give her love. Angelus couldn't *handle* love. Remember her "poor Angel" when Angelus is feeling all violated at the end of IOHEFY? Her expression is almost pitying.
From what we're told later, Drusilla doesn't object to Spike's strong-arm tactics against herself at the end of Becoming, though she sprang to Angelus' defense with great indignation. She objects to his making a truce with the Slayer, his ruining her end-of-the-world dreams, and (in retcon) his obsession with the Slayer. And she leaves him. His plan to torture her until she loves him again isn't an expression of misogyny; Drusilla's happy dreams of branding irons show that he knows what she likes. In fact, he's no longer vicious enough to suit her.
Drusilla is not a victim -- not in her current incarnation as a powerful, gifted, insane vampire. Nobody messes with her except in direst emergency. Not Spike, not Angelus. In BBB, when she pulls him off Xander, Angelus retreats, muttering in disgust, until the house shuts Drusilla out and he can lead her away. Mr. Alpha Male, who is also her sire, doesn't even try to tell her what to do, much less use force on her.
I can be swayed either way on many aspects of Spike's behavior. But one of the things I love about BtVS is that it gave us Drusilla. The ultimate innocent victim, right? Only being victimized transformed her into a vampire so powerful, fierce, gifted, and unpredictable that even her sire treats her with respect and her lover worships her. Lover's quarrels notwithstanding.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Drusilla's choice -- Rob, 10:49:04 06/18/02 Tue
I never thought the "Spike-obsessed-with-the-Slayer" thing was a total case of retcon, since we were not privy to other post-"Becoming" Spike & Dru scenes. Remember, in "Becoming," Spike made a temporary alliance with Buffy, and betrayed Drusilla and Angelus...which later led her to think that he loved Buffy. And, also remember, that Dru had visions and could see things others couldn't. Perhaps she sensed Spike's obsession with Buffy either before it ever truly occurred, or before he was aware of it. This scene here was probably building up from months and months of tension between the two of them, after Spike's betrayal of her.
Here's the scene from "Fool for Love":
SPIKE
So, Sunnyhell was not our finest
hour. And yes, I made a deal with
the Slayer. But you were shagging
Angel and bringing about an Apocalypse
to end all life as we know it. So?
Every couple's got their ups and
downs, Love. Point being, we got
through all that, it's behind us now.
Isn't it?
SUBTITLE: SOUTH AMERICA, 1998
DRUSILLA
I hate it here. Furry little
animals peering at us from
out of the trees, and the
people all taste funny.
SPIKE
Right. We'll pick up and move
again, and we'll keep moving
'til we've found the perfect spot,
and there I'll make you my queen.
He holds her hand and looks in her eyes, sincerely. She pulls away.
SPIKE
Just tell me what you want.
DRUSILLA
I want the Slayer dead, Spike.
He loses it.
SPIKE
You're the one who keeps bringing
her up! I haven't said a word about
the bloody Slayer since we left
California! She's on the other side
of the planet, Dru! Gone from our
lives forever!
DRUSILLA
But you're lying, I can still see
her. Floating all around you.
Laughing. Why don't you push
her away?
SPIKE
But I did, Pet. I did if for you!
And you're still punishing me,
you think I don't know what's
going on with you?
Nothing in that scene confirms that Spike truly was obsessed with Buffy then. Only that Dru suspects it, and he denies it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When was Dru seeing? -- auroramama, 15:56:14 06/18/02 Tue
I've never been sure -- and Dru's comment in Crush is ambiguous too; she doesn't say, "See? You *have been* in love with her for years", only that she foresaw the feelings he has currently -- whether Dru in South America was seeing Spike's present state of mind or the future. Certainly we're led to believe that Spike was ("sincerely") unaware of any such obsession at the time. And since the evitability of prophesied futures varies widely in the Buffyverse, this one may have been self-fulfilling.
I used to be annoyed at Drusilla about that, but it occurs to me that if I could see visions of my partner's future obsession with someone else, it wouldn't be so easy to ignore in the present. Really, as vampire behavior goes, she's practically Tara-like in these scenes, not angry but saddened.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I always liked Dru for that reason, actually... -- Rob, 21:35:36 06/18/02 Tue
...she had a mixture of sadness, sweetness...and then of course ferocity. She seems to be the most harmless, sweet person...but at the same time, is one of the scariest looking vamps when in vamp-face.
I agree. There was a real sadness in her voice. Not vampiric anger. But genuine, almost-human sadness.
re: when Dru's referring to...I always figured, as I said, that it was her seeing the future, but that's just what I gathered from it...As you said, Spike was almost definitely not aware (at least consciously) of it at the time.
Maybe Dru was just very perceptive and could sense when her boyfriend had a crush on another girl, even when he couldn't...
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Thank you Rob ! Agree! -- shadowkat, 20:42:57 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> You're welcome! ;o) -- Rob, 13:23:06 06/16/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> So ... misogynists aren't humans who have other control problems? -- Exegy, 11:49:09 06/14/02 Fri
I'm not saying that Warren's totally evil. If he were totally evil, then he'd be a flat character who could hold no interest for me. Instead I see a layered character who reacts out of his very human weakness (as Spike reacts out of the remnants of his human weakness). Warren's misogyny is just one symptom stemming from a denial of his weakness. He needs to act like the "big bad" villain, but we see that he's no Big Bad. He's a pathetic boy who seeks comfort in gadgetry, the only field he's ever felt secure in. He's easily stripped of his villainous costume by Willow, who's dealing with the same sort of issues (hiding the geek within).
I agree that Warren's not this uber-villain. No one is saying that he ever was. And no one's saying that misogynists are these uber-villains, either. A misogynist is someone who hates the things that he (or she!) fears, those objects that are deemed threatening to the self's constructed image (in Warren's case, the hypermasculine Big Bad ideal). Those objects need not be limited to women. Misogyny can be one negative symptom among many arising out of one's perceived weakness. So we have the fear (read as hatred) of women, the need to control others, and the dominance issues, all reactions to weakness. I think I already touched upon all these in my original reply.
Warren hates Buffy because she is that which he fears--a woman who can emasculate him (smashing his orbs). His attack of her involves more than just an attack of the Slayer--he's asserting his masculinity against the most powerful woman in the world, proving to her what a "real man" is. One can't just ignore all the phallic imagery here. The stake-mobiles (chasing after the vampires). The magick "orbs." And the gun when everything else has failed. This is definitely a "man versus woman" issue; Warren's made it out as such. He's the one who goes after the Slayer at her personal residence, seeking the destruction of more than a Slayer ... rather the powerful woman who has taken away his manhood. The embodiment of that which most threatens him.
If Warren directed his hatred against only Buffy, then I might qualify the situation as you have. But he doesn't end with her. I see his misogyny leaking out in all other areas of his life (along with his other issues). Look at his treatment of women. If handling them as objects intended for his sexual use were not enough, then we have the way he refers to himself around them. "Daddy." A "real man." Then trying to buy them with money. Removing their independence, raping them. Uh huh. Not misogynistic at all.
The fact that Warren extends his hatred to some men doesn't negate the fact that he views women as a misogynist. If this is the crux of your argument, that Warren displays so many other negative symptoms that one cannot stand out above the rest ... then I cannot agree with you. Warren's a human. He acts out of his weakness. He has control issues. He needs to be dominant over others (taking over Sunnydale). And he's a misogynist. Period.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So ... misogynists aren't humans who have other control problems? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:19:21 06/14/02 Fri
Let me try to get my point across more clearly:
With the smashing his orbs thing, what makes you think Warren feared SPECIFICALLY a woman castrating him? Really it seems to be a fear of anybody doing that.
While Warren does have control issues, he also has lust issues. People keep seeing his desire to make women into sex slaves as misogynistic, when really it's because Warren wouldn't want a MALE sex slave. A lot of his actions stem out of hormones.
Calling himself "Daddy" and "a real man" was actually a way of boosting his self esteem after all those years of being a nothing.
Warren can only be a called a misogynist if hating everyone, including women, makes you a misogynist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Exegy, 15:27:55 06/14/02 Fri
This seems to be the question you have posed me. And I say that Warren is more of a misogynist than a misanthrope (although the two terms need not be incompatible). The writers have clearly stressed his misogyny; they've repeatedly emphasized his specific mistreatment of women. Not men, but women and the effeminate. Those things which most threaten his own hypermasculine ideal.
Warren targets Buffy not as a Slayer, but as a powerful woman. The most powerful woman ... the woman he must defeat in order to prove his supreme manhood. The goal of defeating the Slayer ... may quite possibly be his unconscious motivation in taking over Sunnydale. We see that Warren isn't content to just thwart the law and prove himself a criminal mastermind. He's out to destroy Buffy, not as a respected adversary but as a woman. To degrade her and cut her down so that he stands high in comparison. To specifically degrade her as a woman. Buffy even calls him on this complex. It's so obvious. Not a general attack on mankind, but a specific assault on the feared female.
The writers would not emphasize this point if they did not want the viewer to recognize Warren's misogyny ... and the weakness that drives such fear and hatred. Warren can't stand to be seen as less than a man, and strong women threaten him the most. He can't be a man if there is a woman stronger than him. Contrast this attitude to Spike's; the vampire is perfectly content to have a woman who is far stronger than him. Indeed, he likes dominant women. Warren doesn't--he wants to destroy the stronger female (perfectly represented by Buffy). This is his goal, the end he clings to after everything else has fallen away.
It's a pathetic desire, driven by human weakness. The vampires in the bar laugh at Warren when he brags about killing Buffy. The approach has been inverted by the vamps; Warren went out to kill the woman, when he should have been worried about the Slayer. He used a gun, a weapon for mortal combat (as opposed to supernatural conquest). His dreams of being the macho villain are falling away, stripped as his magick orbs were stripped.
Stripped by a woman. Warren's greatest fear, the one he specifically reacts against with his misogyny. What poetic justice. Don't you see ... it's so appropriate that this should happen. It's specifically a woman (not the "warrior of the people") that Warren reacts against ... and it's specifically a woman who tears him down. If the writers had wanted to illustrate anything else, then they would not have devoted all the pointed (pun intended) symbolism to convey this great fear made hatred.
And, interestingly enough, it's yet another woman (this one charting a parallel course) who exposes the root cause of Warren's misogyny. It's his human weakness (stripping his villainous costume and showing him for the helpless human he is, laid bare and vulnerable). The same weakness Willow struggles against. With Willow you get the self-hatred and the control issues; with Warren you get the misogyny and the control issues. Different reactions come to the fore with different characters.
The writers stress misogyny with Warren's character. If they wanted to stress a general hatred of mankind, then they would not have focused on the specific targeting of women. There would not have been all the obvious associated symbolism. How can I explain any better?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, Ex, great post! (very nicely worded!) -- Rob, 16:05:27 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Rob. I try! -- Exegy, 19:19:32 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well you seem to do it with such ease! Bravo, both Exegy and Rob for persisting so deftly. -- yuri, 17:04:30 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree...Bravo!! Was going to reply but you do it better. -- shadowkat, 20:02:58 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aww, thanks. *blushes* -- Rob, 07:55:08 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:22:54 06/14/02 Fri
What do you mean by going after Buffy "as a woman"? I'm just not seeing the sense in that comment. Sure he doesn't seem to respect Buffy much, but take a look at some of the previous Big Bads:
Angelus, in Becoming II, says that without her friends and family Buffy is nothing.
The Mayor says he intends to kill Buffy like a dog.
Glory calls Buffy a bug.
It's in the nature of many villains to disrespect the hero. Sure Warren doesn't treat Buffy as the "warrior of the people" that he must thwart. But many other villains who haven't been called misogynists have done the same.
Plus, about the orb thing, Warren was in revenge mode right then. It didn't matter that Buffy was a woman. It mattered about what she did to him. A man could have done the same thing, and Warren would have tried to kill him too.
Also, using a gun isn't misogynistic, it's SMART. After all, Buffy came the closest to death she's gotten since "The Gift" because of his initiative to use a gun on the Slayer. While it wasn't the weapon of the supernatural world, Warren isn't a supernatural guy. He's got no powers, and his super science have been of no use against Buffy. A gun was his best shot at killing Buffy.
I just find it hard to call it misogyny when Warren was motivated by revenge, or, in the case of Katrina, lust and fear.
P.S. Spike does have a misogynist streak, stemming from his horrible relationship problems ever since Drusilla left him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Rob, 21:59:43 06/14/02 Fri
Guns are a classical phallic symbol...thus the misogyny inherent in whipping that out to off the Slayer.
Buffy took away his manhood. Called him a "little boy"...and that is what had him reaching for the gun.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Difference: Warren is defined by his misogyny... -- Exegy, 14:33:13 06/15/02 Sat
Misogyny is Warren's foremost defining trait. It's the primary reaction to his human weakness. It marks the first introduction of the character and then it follows him to his very end. It's his staple.
Spike exhibits some misogynous tendencies (I never said that he didn't), but he's not defined by them to the extent Warren is. Contrast Spike's respectful treatment of Drusilla and Buffy (as his dark and light ideals) to the disrespect Warren shows to all women. And I know your obvious rebuttal: what respect has Spike shown Buffy this season (after she fell off her pedestal)? Well, I think Spike's problems have more to do with his "love's bitch" syndrome (following the ideal of all-consuming passion) than misogyny. Spike doesn't try to destroy the powerful woman; he likes his position as a "sub." This lowered stature fits his romantic ideal perfectly (the lady elevated and dominant, the "knight" her dedicated servant). He seeks his end in physical union with the lady; this is his highest goal. When she freely bestows this gift to him ... then he becomes possessive. Once the end has been achieved, it must be kept. Here enters in the emotional manipulation--Spike needs to keep his lover in the shadows with him, because that's the only way she will have him. Note, Spike's problems arise along with Buffy's, so it's hard to judge his attitude apart from hers, and the mutually abusive relationship that develops between them does not define Spike's attitude to women in general. The vampire remains respectful of other females, giving them far more credit than men. He gets along well with all the lady Scoobs: he likes Dawn, stands up for Willow (OAFA), banters with Tara (playing cards with her), and commiserates with Anya (showing great sympathy for her, respectfully nodding to her at the end of their tryst). No, I don't think Spike has a problem with women; I think his problems (and any misogynist comments he might make) are a direct result of his limited notions of love (his arrested development as a vampire). Spike's driven by passion, and when he's frustrated in his love ... then the difficulties arise.
Warren's also frustrated, but misogyny plays a much greater role with him. He views women as the enemy; Buffy, the paragon of female power, must be defeated. Because otherwise he cannot prove his manhood (Spike proves his "manhood" by serving his exalted love, not trying to demolish her). It's very important that Warren focuses so intently on Buffy--she's the source of all his fears (not his desires). He doesn't really care about taking over Sunnydale so much as getting rid of Buffy, destroying the powerful woman. This is his driving motivation--to become a man by killing the woman (what he's tried to do in all his interactions, limiting the female to an object and not a person). This is his end, not libido but destrudo.
As for the other major villains, they all have different motivations for tackling Buffy. The only other "Big Bad" who focuses on her womanhood is Angelus (denying his love for her by destroying her, becoming the pure monster). Glory? She views Buffy as an annoying mortal, an obstacle in her path to true godhood. The Mayor? He actually tries to get Buffy on his side, but then he latches onto Faith as his surrogate daughter, and Buffy is Faith's rival (as well as an obstacle to demonhood). Uh ... not a misogynist ... more like Glory, a being who desires to cast off mortality (the Mayor remembering his wife's death with sadness). Adam? He's a hybrid who wants to create through destruction ... he definitely doesn't target women alone. He actually wants to use Buffy in his master plan. He obviously underestimates her.
Warren's motivations? He wants to take over Sunnydale so that he can prove himself dominant to Buffy. He's so clearly defined by his misogyny. All the symbolism supports this reading.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Difference: Warren is defined by his misogyny... -- Rahael, 15:10:40 06/15/02 Sat
Couldn't agree more with Exegy, Rob and Littlebit's posts on this.
I also don't understand why 'sex' is separate from the charge of misogyny? surely the fact that Warren can only view women as providers of one thing - his sexual pleasure - actually adds to the evidence against him?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for thinking my thoughts and saying it better -- Off-kilter, 02:47:32 06/17/02 Mon
Was going to point out Spike's respectful interactions with women further up in the thread, but decided to make sure someone else didn't beat me to the punch. Glad I did.
*honoring your point like a good bird dog*
Don't forget about his talks with Joyce and bringing flowers to honor her. He was mean to Harmony, but so was everyone else. If making fun of her and physically harming her are bad things for Spike to do, it is twice as bad that the SG does the same to Harmony and Spike.
Also, could someone explain to me what the general popular definition of misogyny is?
Off of dictionary.com I got "a hatred of women". Why does an exclamation of "Women!" and "bitch" mean Spike hates women? Does that mean that Faith has the opposite of misogyny (could not for the life of me find the male-hating word)? She seems to hold men in contempt with her "all men are beasts" comment. She seems to think men are to be used and discarded too, e.i. Xander's seduction, dumping, attempted murder.
Spike might be trying to control Buffy's behavior by persuading her that she is dark, but control does not equal hate. Not healthy, but misogynistic? Don't know about that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks!! Appreciative of the support! -- Exegy, 06:33:32 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Misogyny defined -- shadowkat, 06:51:44 06/17/02 Mon
"Also, could someone explain to me what the general popular definition of misogyny is?"
"Off of dictionary.com I got "a hatred of women". Why does an exclamation of "Women!" and "bitch" mean Spike hates women? Does that mean that Faith has the opposite of misogyny (could not for the life of me find the male-hating word)? She seems to hold men in contempt with her "all men are beasts" comment. She seems to think men are to be used and discarded too, e.i. Xander's seduction, dumping, attempted murder."
You hit exactly what has been bugging me about these discussions. How narrowly or broadly have we decided to define this term? Do we know what it really means?
Under any definition - Spike is not misogynist. He doesn't hate women. Obsesses about them, loves them, adores them, is frustrated with them, can't stop thinking about them, they make him nuts - but most definitely does not in any way shape or form hate them. He may be a jerk and unrepentent killer, but this does not make him a misogynist. A Misogynist would not have been able to tolerate or love Drusilla for 100 years, without leaving or killing her. Not sure you can put Spike under this category in any way...he's manipulative, yes - but that's not misogyny. He curses the women he's with - not misogyny. If I curse men - does that make me a misanthrope?
No.
Now Warren - not sure he fits the true definition either.
He doesn't really hate women so much as see them as objects
for his entertainment. Under a broad definition of the term, yeah, he fits. He certainly fits it better than any of the other characters did this year. And he definitely fits it better than Spike.
The only character that I thought was consistently misogynist and fit it - was Forrest, Riley's friend in
The Initiative.
As for rape - while it can be considered a misogynistic act, it wasn't in the case of Buffy/Spike this year.
Spike wanted to make her love him and recreate the events in Smashed through Wrecked. HE didn't intend to hurt her. If he did, do you honestly think he would have left the bathroom in tears and not tried to finish the job or kill her? Warren wanted to turn Katrina into his love slave - he also didn't intend to hurt her - so sorry not misogyny.
Xander's attack on Buffy in the PAck was actually much closer - he did intend harm. But that was the hyena, so not misogyny. Or Faith's in Consequences who wanted to really hurt Xander - but that does not qualify as misanthropy or whatever man-hating is.
A misogynist rape is the demon group that wanted to rape the women in Bargaining PArt II - that's closer. Outside of that haven't seen one on BTVS. Angel or Ats - gave us a clear example of a misogynist in Billy. Billy is a misogynist.
The beatings and rapes that took place in that episode is what it is. Billy hated women and passed his hatred onto men, so that they beat women to a pulp. Wesely's attack on Fred was a perfect example of this. I haven't seen anything close to that on Btvs.
So while I despise Warren and see definite misogynistic tendencies, Finn may be correct, he is not a true misogynist. Spike - well stating he is one is just ludricrous. That's where you kill you're argument Finn, you should have left Spike out of it.
Angelus was more misogynistic than Spike. My favorite argument, not Finn's someone else's, which had me laughing, was that Spike was jealous of Dru and Angel, and this made him a misogynist. Please. How would you feel if someone was boinking your girlfriend while you were in wheelchair every night?
And if I remember correctly, Spike's deal with Buffy in Becoming, was that she NOT kill Dru. He was particularly definite on that score. He also complimented Dru on her ability to kill a slayer. A misogynist wouldn't have cared.
Spike may be a jerk at times, and he may be controlling but he is no more a misogynist than Xander, Riley, Giles, Angel, Gunn, Wesely, or Jonathan are. Ok feel better now...end of rant.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> the word for man-hating... -- anom, 12:09:38 06/17/02 Mon
...is "misandry." It comes from the Greek root andr-, meaning man, which is also seen in words like "androgen." Makes sense--it's the other half of "androgynous," which contains the roots of both "misandry" & "misogyny." And just to round out the picture, "misanthropy" comes from the Greek anthropos, meaning human being, as in "anthropology."
It looks to me like what we're trying to do w/all this defining is distinguish misogyny from sexism. Of course, people's personal definitions differ, & we won't all draw the line in the same place. Is it necessary to hate women to believe they're inferior, or should be subordinate to men? I suppose not, although one certainly doesn't rule out the other--I'd say there's some overlap. I can easily imagine a sexist man believing he loves women--ever read any Promise Keepers literature? One thing I wouldn't expect from a misogynist is patronizing behavior--sincerely patronizing, that is; he might well say something patronizing in a sarcastic way.
So where does Warren fall? I'm still not sure. He certainly believes women should keep their place (listen to the attitudes he programmed into April), but whether he actively hates them is another question, & I don't know the answer. However, I disagree w/shadowkat's statement, "Warren wanted to turn Katrina into his love slave - he also didn't intend to hurt her - so sorry not misogyny." Not so much the misogyny part--as said, I'm still not sure on that--but I don't see how turning her into his sex slave isn't hurting her. It may not be physical injury, but it's an injury to her all the same. He probably didn't think of it as hurting her, but that's because he doesn't consider her feelings, autonomy, & integrity as having any importance.
As for the demon gang's threatened rape of Buffy & the other women, I'm not sure that was misogyny either so much as it would have been a crime of opportunity. They'd come into a new town, they were raising hell (though not as literally as other villains on the show have), wreaking destruction, & here were these women right out in the open, don't even have to go find them, & trying to tell them what to do! This was more like humiliating an unworthy enemy, & a chance to get their rocks off at the same time. Did the gang hate women, or humans generally? Hard to tell w/demons. On the other hand, Billy--bingo. Perfect example.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! Not knowing a word drives me nuts. -- Off-kilter, 20:10:07 06/17/02 Mon
And as you can tell by my name, I'm not all that stable to begin with. Promise Keepers are kind of scary in the whole "road to Hell . . . best intentions" kind of way. I have strong feelings -not all negative- about that group. I get nervous whenever someone comes up to me and says, "I know what the problem is, just let me take over everything."
Haven't watched AtS, so haven't seen Billy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> glad to help...but i was hoping for more discussion of the misogyny/sexism distinction! -- anom, 09:33:55 06/18/02 Tue
Maybe I should've mentioned it in the subject line...OK, now I have!
"Promise Keepers are kind of scary in the whole 'road to Hell . . . best intentions' kind of way. I have strong feelings -not all negative- about that group."
Me too. For a while I worked w/a member of the Promise Keepers, & he didn't act according to stereotype. He never tried to tell the women on the job they shouldn't be working, & in fact he seemed to respect the women he worked with & the work they did, incl. the ones who outranked him. Maybe he just applied the PK stuff to his home life.
BTW, I like your name!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: glad to help...but i was hoping for more discussion of the misogyny/sexism distinction! -- leslie, 12:20:52 06/18/02 Tue
I find it extremely hard to follow any argument that Warren is not a misogynist. I also think that there is a very blurry line between "misogyny" and "sexism," and trying to make a distinction between them is doomed to fail. I suppose you could say that sexism (against women--because it's perfectly possible to be sexist against men, too!) is a simple belief that women are inferior to men, with accompanying actions taken to keep them so. This can be done in many ways--some people (men and women) are sexist in the belief that their actions are in the best interests of women--as when it was believed that women's brains couldn't handle complex ideas and too much study would cause their wombs to atrophy and cause all kinds of illness. So preventing women from getting an education was comparable to keeping a child away from friends who have chicken pox. Misogyny is based in sexism, but it develops into hatred because of an unacknowledged understanding that women are not, in fact, inferior to men. To get it out of the realm of Slayer powers, misogyny is often born out of a male's envy/resentment of women's power to give birth, a resentment of the power of the Mother. To me, it seems very related to the Oedipus complex, and while I wouldn't get all Freudian and say that the Oedipus complex underlies all male psychological functioning, there certainly are men for whom it is operative. The desire for the Mother is threatening (it will lead to punishment by the Father), it is overwhelming, and most importantly, it is all HER fault--he's just the baby, she's the one with the power, she's the one with the breast.
In this light, the fact that Warren is constantly trying to dominate women, and is drawn to yet hates strong women (he first is attracted to Katrina because she's smart; she's obviously a very self-confident woman; she must have been attracted to Warren to begin with or she wouldn't have come home with him over spring break, yet she is very definite about leaving when the truth outs), and sees women not only as sex objects, but as objects whose sexuality he wishes to control, fits him right into that Oedipally conflicted misogynist role. (And if we're going to go on about Warren's "orbs," it seems significant that he shoots not only Buffy but Tara in the chest-->breast.)
Warren may want to dominate the world (or at least Sunnydale), but he also wants to do it a) as the head of a band of other males, whom b) he consistently turns into "women" in order to keep them subordinate to him. His influence upon Andrew and his latent homosexuality has already been much-commented upon, but it's worth remembering how Andrew's response to Warren's abandonment of him is specifically couched in the words of a girl wondering where her boyfriend's gone--there are many kinds of homosexuals, but Andrew very specifically takes on the "girlfriend" role in relation to Warren. Then, when Katrina is killed and Buffy must be framed, Warren forces Jonathan--the one who is trying to rebel, pull away, question--to "be the girl" and take on Katrina's shape to delude Buffy. Warren's actions even with men show that he regards "female" as inferior, and the way he tries to bolster his masculinity is to dominate women by reducing them to sex toys, and men by turning them literally or metaphorically into women. (Which makes it unbelievably appropriate that he is finally killed by a lesbian.) I really don't see how you could describe this as anything *except* misogyny.
Final note--Spike may sometimes refer to women as "bitches", but that "love's bitch" remark was after all in reference to himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Warren as emasculator -- auroramama, 16:06:58 06/18/02 Tue
Eeee. Hadn't thought about the way in which Andrew's post-abandonment dialogue resembles the April-bot's. He's not just taking on a "girlfriend" role, he's taking on a *Warren's* girlfriend role. Okay, now I do feel sorry for him. It's a role I wouldn't wish on anyone, or anything, for that matter.
Re: bitch. Spike is using the term in the sense I grew up with umpty-ump years ago: "female person who is being mean to me." Warren is using it in the more modern sense: "person I can treat like a worthless whore." To me, that's a *huge* difference.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This was an amazing post leslie.. -- shadowkat, 19:13:40 06/18/02 Tue
If exegy and redcat hadn't already convinced me that Warren clearly fit the definition of misgynist below, you surely did.
You also do a wonderful job of pointing out the distinctions and overlap of sexism and misogyny. Below Ete makes clear that we need to be precise on how we define misogyny which I was also concerned about. Is it about epithets? Or actions? You clearly show the actions, which I'd argue are for more important.
In rewatching Flooded tonight, I was struck with how clearly Warren directed his partners soon to become minions in crime to misogynist tendicies. The interest in "chicks"
and how they want to hypnotize Buffy to be their sex slave.
Warren is deceptive here - he doesn't appear interested in hypnotizing Buffy, he doesn't want sex with her, he wants her dead and sends the Ms'Fashknik demon after her. Even here, you get the impression that Warren is treating the others in a subservient way.
You also go somewhere redcat and Exegy avoided, and I sort of wish they had since it is so blatantly obvious - the Oedipal complex. As redcat mentions below - Spike gets into Warren's house way back in IWMTY by the invitation of Warren's mother. He gets in again in Smashed by that same invitation. He clearly has an odd relationship here. And I am beginning to wonder about these writers - in I Robot You Jane - the robot Malcom mentions a Chinese Banker taking out a contract on his mother - and states good for him. If this was an isolated incident in the series, I'd shrug it off as I did when I first saw the episode, but the mother seems to be a heavy and dark influence on so many characters - from big bad mommy Walsh, to Drusilla and Darla, to William's mother (which you indicated may have been on the controlling side) to single parent Joyce, to Willow's busy, inattentive mother Sheila, to good old Catherine Madison. Did Joss Whedon take Freud? We know he read Oedipus - he literally does a portion of the play at the end of puppet show. All of this leads me to believe, that your thesis is in line with what is going on in the writers heads.
One final pt: I love how you show the emasculation of Jonathan and Andrew and how Warren literally has one of them pose as his old girlfriend, while leading the other one on in that area. Warren seemed to wince a bit when Andrew mentioned how cool Spike was. I'm wondering if Spike may not be the BB Warren wanted to emulate, wanted to be?
That too would be ironic. (This should not suggest in any way that I think Spike is misogynistic or like Warren, quite the contrary. I actually agree with what Exegy and redcat and Sophist say regarding Spike...)I just think Warren's desire to be demonlike would be an interesting theory to pursue. Just as his statement to Buffy in SR - this is the first time you've had to fight a real man.
How's it feel to be beaten by one? Oh one final note on Warren vs. Buffy - rewatching the Willow vs. Buffy battle I was struck by how similar the dialogue was. Both Warren and Willow call Buffy - super-bitch and both empower themselves in the lower regions with magic before fighting her.
Thanks again - great post!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "I have a problem with mothers. I'm aware of that." -- Off-kilter, 21:02:46 06/18/02 Tue
Don't forget Kralik! Makes you wonder if Joss has a few issues. LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> David Greenwalt on Joss -- Rahael, 01:53:58 06/19/02 Wed
In a DVD commentary, David Greenwalt said that Joss was fascinated by 'the sick mother'.
(I don't think it was Greenwalt first hand - one of the other writers quoted him. I'll dig it out!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent additions, leslie!! More ... -- Exegy, 20:39:36 06/18/02 Tue
Thanks for mentioning the Oedipus complex, because I know I avoided that aspect in my previous posts. But I agree--the symbolism supports such a Freudian analysis. Warren resents and fears the powerful female, to the extent that he shoots two women through the chest ... the initial source of woman's power over him (as you say, the babe sucking at his mother's breast).
Freud argues that the mother is our first connection to this world; as such, she is the first object of our love ... and the first object of our hate. For the baby takes comfort and nourishment in the mother ... but when the mother absents herself, the baby frets aggressively. Flashforward about twenty years, and you see these same principles at work in Warren. He desires the powerful woman he sees in Katrina, but when she rejects him ... then comes the aggression, heightened after so many years away from the breast. This aggression eventually feeds into a vicious, inescapable downward spiral. Warren cannot break free, because he is fixated on the image of the powerful woman as something to be diminished or destroyed, thus made acceptable to him. This is an impossible goal, for the "mother" will always be above him in his thoughts, the source of his very life. She will dominate him, literally coming before and above him (Warren exists in the basement of his mother's house). She will super-impose herself upon his existence ... and so it's Willow, the vessel of very female aggression, who destroys him, exposing him as what he is to the world. And turning the tables on him, boring into his chest with the phallic bullet.
Here we have a further bit of Warren's complex unearthed. As you so brilliantly put it, he must assert his masculine superiority by converting his followers into "women" (nice catch on Jonathan taking the shape of the dead girlfriend!). So Andrew takes on the feminine role in their interactions (also appropriate because Andrew is so submissive, exactly what Warren wants in a girl). And there is a lot of "latent homosexuality" (Warren patting Andrew's arm reassuringly, comforting him and playing him all at once). Quite interesting!
Thanks for the brain candy, leslie!! This post was particularly insightful!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent additions, leslie!! More ... -- leslie, 09:03:38 06/19/02 Wed
To expand this line a little further, the apparently random shooting of Tara now makes a lot more psychological sense, since she has been the "maternal" figure throughout the season. And Willow's retaliation for Tara's death is a sexual inversion of everything that the Oedipal child fears--that the desired Mother's partner will murder him once (s)he knows of the child's forbidden desire. Still, I also like the fact that such an Oedipal misogynist should be killed by a lesbian--the one kind of woman whose sexuality is beyond his reach.
I am currently at work, proofreading an enyclopedia of psychology. I find it really interesting that the kinds of psychology that show up in BtVS--and in most other television shows that have psychological themes and subplots--tends to be Freudian--a school of psychological thought that is really out of fashion these days. There's also a lot of less overt Jungianism, of course--also fairly discredited in the academic field. Then, there's Maggie Walsh, a hardcore behaviorist--SO passe, so post-World War II, when science could do anything. Nonetheless, these are the psychological theories that lend themselves best to narrative, it seems.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tara/Willow -- Rahael, 09:25:12 06/19/02 Wed
There was a discussion about the idea of a mother-daughter dynamic in Tara and Willow's relationship in November last year, in a thread started by Tillow, called 'Willow's addiction'. It was of course Age, Tillow, among many others brought up some great points. The link to the archive page is here - though the thread is quite a way down.
http://www.ivyweb.net/btvs/board/archives/nov01_p2.html#84
Anyway, here was my response to Age then:
"Hard to add anything to such a well thought out and complex post...............
Just a little note on Tara - Tara has already shown before that she can 'separate' herself from the destructive parent.
Also, she has lost her 'mother' before. We know from the Body that her mother died when she was young.
And to echo Tillow, your examination of the parent/child dynamic in the T/W relationship crystallised for me the emotional reaction I had to Willow's caring attitude to the brain-sucked Tara. "I'll always find you". I found that very moving, but at the same time, the disturbing conflicts were already erupting between them. Tara is brain sucked partly because of the fight she has with Willow. And mark the hostility that the brain sucked Tara has toward Willow - "Bitch! I'm supposed to work out the fractions!".
David Fury, writer of Helpless commented that Joss was fascinated by the 'bad mother'. If Joyce is the 'best mother in the world' (David Greenwalt), could Glory be the ultimate depiction of the 'bad' parent'? Her main role is to 'harm' the baby, the daughter, Dawn. Buffy has to chose between being a 'child killer' like Glory, or taking the self sacrificial route, which the parent always has to chose. The much maligned but interesting episode WOTW explored the ideas of sibling rivalry, family tension, and the idea of infanticide.
The harmful parent idea has previously been explored in 'Helpless' when Giles betrays his child, Buffy, under orders of his employers. "
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Specifically misogynous or generally misanthropic? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:06:33 06/15/02 Sat
Well, my opinion may change in the next couple weeks, because I have not seen Flooded or Life Serial yet, which are the first two epsiodes with Warren. It's possible that misogyny is made clear there. However, I have never seen Warren direct hatred towards all women, but only against Buffy and Katrina.
Also, saying that Warren wants submissive women isn't entirely true. In "I Was Made to Love You", he says that he thought he would love April, the robot/woman who he forced to love him, but got bored with her.
Lastly, why is a gun a phallic symbol for Warren but not for Darla?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> One more response ... -- Exegy, 08:36:30 06/16/02 Sun
Warren hates Buffy and Katrina so much because they represent that which he fears most: emasculation. A point that is illustrated (somewhat in hindsight, mind) in IWMTLY. Warren creates a submissive woman who will respond to his every desire. This is his ideal female figure. A perfect "girlfriend." Except he finds the ideal rather lacking. He's attracted to Katrina, a woman who challenges him. And a woman who ultimately emasculates him. Here we have the source of Warren's highblown misogyny laid bare before us. The challenging woman is unacceptable; she must be diminished, effectively destroyed as a person.
Warren retreats into his fantasy world, returning again and again to that ideal which is so lacking when realized. He's stuck in a truly pathetic loop. I feel sorry for him, because he's making the wrong choice every time, entrapping himself further and further in his obsessiveness. Stuck in the basement with the lower inclinations of his mind.
He has the ability to do better for himself. His first interactions with Katrina in DT are sincere. He wants to get back together with her. But then she emasculates him again, and we see him return to a heightened version of his earlier misogyny. He takes Katrina, removing her autonomy and remaking her into the image of the dutiful robot. This is the ideal he once found lacking, and yet he returns to it again and again. Instead of moving from the Aprilbot to Katrina, he moves from Katrina to the Aprilbot. It's downward growth.
And when the powerful woman cannot be diminished, she must be destroyed. Warren can't let Katrina move out of the basement, because then he'd have to admit how stulted and pathetic he's become. How utterly emasculated. No, he can bash the woman's head in and assert his male superiority, proving everything fine. Warren's caught now, even if he doesn't know it. He'll never escape his misogyny. Stuck in the basement.
His desire to degrade and destroy Buffy represents the height of his obsession. This woman is the object of his fear, the reflection of his own weakness. If she is obliterated, then he proves his masculinity. This goal ties in directly with all Warren's previous issues with women, everything we have seen about the character in the show.
The only women who have become acceptable to him are those who will do his bidding. Those whom he can prove his superiority over (as he tries to do with the ladies in the bar). Any powerful woman does not fit into this category. These threats must be destroyed for Warren to become a "real man."
There is not the same singleminded obsession involving powerful men. He doesn't actively search for men to degrade and humiliate. Because he does not associate men with his most obvious emasculation.
On Darla--I did not mention her among the villains because she is not a major adversary (in BtVS). That said, she too uses the phallic symbol to attack Buffy as a woman--as the woman who has stolen Angel(us) from her. Once again, there is the inversion of stereotypes (begun on BtVS when Darla emerges as the thing to be feared ... when she plunges her teeth into a boy's neck, her unwelcome bite a figurative rape). Darla hates Buffy's womanhood; she fears that which represents a threat to her hold on Angel(us). So she tries to destroy the woman ... not the Slayer. She uses guns, natural means to kill the girl, not supernatural means to kill the Slayer. She's driven by fear and jealousy, very human weaknesses. Just as Warren is driven by weakness, reacting with misogyny.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pistol-packin' Darla -- Arethusa, 13:37:37 06/19/02 Wed
I'm still trying to write that paper on noir, which brings up women and guns....
Darla is the Bad Girl, the Femme Fatale, who rejects the socially acceptable of wife and mother as boring and confining. She tries to control the man she wants by seducing and emasculating him, and takes on masculine traits herself-sexual agressiveness, masculine clothing, and the use of phallic objects such as cigarettes, guns and knives. Darla tries to drag Angel down to her deviant level, literally-underground in the Master's lair-away from the stability of life with the only other type of woman in noir-the Madonna.
Buffy is the Good Girl, the Madonna, who offers a "normal" life to the noir hero, which he can never have due to his inherent flaw-he's a vampire. Wedon and Greenwalt said Angel's bloodlust was a metaphor for alcoholism, and many noir heroes are alcoholics. Because of his nature Angel will never fit in with the rest of society-he is doomed to isolation and lonliness, and never will have the stable, normal life he craves even more than blood.
(Of course, there are many, many aspects of the B/A dynamic that aren't noir, because "Buffy" is such a mish-mash of styles.)
So Darla is both an inversion of stereotypes and the poster child for the most stereotypical of females-the femme fatale.
[> [> [> Why did he abandon April? -- Malandanza, 10:36:45 06/16/02 Sun
"Couldn't control Katrina, so he made an April-bot of her, which he couldn't control either...Later, tried to control her with the spell, and still couldn't."
The sexbot predated Warren's relationship with Katrina -- in fact, he gave up the 'bot because he found her to be less than satisfactory when compared to a real girl. I think that Warren was made some significant progress in his attitude towards women when he abandoned his sex toy. Unfortunately, he backslid considerably after Katrina dumped him and he joined up with two boys who reinforced his adolescent notions of women.
There's also a weak parallel between Warren rejecting April and Spike rejecting the Buffybot after Buffy's death -- and I say weak because Warren apparently rejected his sexbot without requiring outside impetus -- for Spike, it took Buffy's death to make him realize that the 'bot was unsatisfactory.
Anyway, I think Warren's behavior toward women is less about misogyny and more about growing up. He talks about women the way high school boys in a lockerroom talk about them.
[> [> [> [> The Buffybot -- Sophist, 13:43:30 06/16/02 Sun
Didn't Spike give up on the Buffybot after Intervention? Seemed to me that he did; I don't think Buffy's death affected that one way or the other.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Buffybot -- shadowkat, 14:24:15 06/16/02 Sun
"Didn't Spike give up on the Buffybot after Intervention? Seemed to me that he did; I don't think Buffy's death affected that one way or the other."
True Buffy's death had zip to do with it. That happened in Intervention. Spike lost possession of it after he got tortured by Glory. The gang took it back to the magic box where Willow attempted to fix it but wasn't able to in time to find out whether he told. So Buffy posed as the Buffybot.
They did not give it back to him. (Can you imagine Buffy letting him have that again? She scolded him for it, remember?
Spike: "and my robot?"
Buffy:"That was gross and obscene."
Spike:"It wasn't meant to.."
Buffy:"That wasn't real...but what you did for me and Dawn, that was real."
The Buffybot then sat in the basement of the magic box until the Gift where Xander and anya bumped into it. They pulled it out to fight Glory.
The next time we see it - it is posing as Buffy in Bargaining and Spike winces everytime he sees it. Clearly regretting having created it and feeling shame - he can barely stand to see it.
In the comics - Spike has it hidden from everyone as if he wants to forget it and the SG threaten him into unearthing it. But since this is a comic and not the show - I'm hesistant to believe it. I think it makes more sense that
Willow took it over and fixed it over the summer.
As far as outside impetus? I think Spike would have given it up on his own anyway. Sort of moot pt. Since he literally put himself on the line to save Buffy.
[> [> [> [> Re: Why did he abandon April? -- shadowkat, 14:10:58 06/16/02 Sun
"Anyway, I think Warren's behavior toward women is less about misogyny and more about growing up. He talks about women the way high school boys in a lockerroom talk about them."
Have to disagree with you here. This may be a good description of Andrew and Jonathan but not Warren. Warren doesn't consider women real, he talks about them in the same way that Forrest did
way back in The Initiative - as objects. Objects for his fun and games. They weren't worth the time of day. Forrest is in my view the classic misogynist. Threatened by strong women -which makes sense since he's had to deal with Professor Walsh. Talks about them as if they are things. And can't understand Riley's relationship with one. Warren is starting to echoe this.
You are right - Warren's not a true misogynist yet. He doesn't hate women. He just doesn't see them as worth thinking about beyond his own pleasure. And if they threaten him, they deserve to be put down. That isn't the definition of a misogynist. A misogynist is someone who hates women, gets no pleasure from them, and would like to just hurt them. Sees them as demons or things. Warren is coming awfully close to that, but he isn't there yet. If he survived? Who knows...
Warren can only relate to women as objects for his own pleasure. When we first met him - I agree, he wasn't that bad, just a creep with the Aprilbot and if Katrina had forgiven him, perhaps he would have had a chance I don't know. At that stage he didn't see women as objects - he was just lonely. April wasn't a sexbot, she was girlfriend, someone to love him. He was lonely. Then Katrinia took an interest in him - and he realized he didn't need the bot. So yes he had outside impetus - Katrina. If Katrina hadn't found him interesting - he probably would have stuck with the bot. (I think you are giving Warren way too much credit, here.) By the time he shoots Buffy - he is coming very close to the definition of misogynist. He wants so desperately to be evil but he doesn't want to pay for it. He sees the world in two dimensions not three, it's just a comic book, it's not real. 'I can go get a demon gang and kill people, aren't I cool'. That's Warren. Of the villians I've seen on Btvs - Warren is the scariest because he is the most real, a true sociopath - he sees people as play things for his amusement. He is a potential serial killer or rapist in the making. No amount of "growing up" will ever change that. I've met these people - they aren't like boys discussing women in the locker room, I only wish they were. They are the boys who start out drugging girls drinks so they can have sex with them. They are the PArker's who tell you how great you are and once they score treat you like a toilet seat. And don't realize they've done anything wrong. They are the poor pathetic creeps that I've met at bars and been lucky to get away from. ME made an interesting point this year with the Trioka - that sometimes those nerdy little boys you don't take seriously, consider harmless, can cause for more destruction then a demon from the gates of hell. From a female perspective - the nerds scared me far more than any of the other villains, because they were too real.
[> [> [> [> Chances to Grow Up -- Exegy, 17:46:04 06/16/02 Sun
Both Warren and Spike operate as adolescents. Neither has a "grown-up" attitude on relationships. Each pursues a limited end--with Warren, the end is defined by destrudo; with Spike, the end is defined by libido. So Warren's goal is to diminish or destroy the female in order to assert his own power; Spike's goal is one of all-consuming passion ... passion which can only find its fulfillment in the bedchamber. Both goals are eventually self-destructive, far more dangerous than idle "locker room chat." But Spike's goal at least entertains some type of reciprocal attraction. Warren limits himself to his own needs ... he always has.
Let's look at his treatment of the Aprilbot. He uses her, and then he discards her when a more challenging conquest appears. He doesn't even have the respect to shut her off; he lets her run down, her program set to always await him ... to be hurt at displeasing him. Regardless of his "human superiority," Warren has the obligation to care for his created "girlfriend." He made her to feel for him ... but when she no longer satisfies him, he could care less for her feelings. He tells Buffy that she was more than a robot, but he certainly doesn't treat her as a person. She's an object for his pleasure. She's an object that can be tossed away at his convenience. But his brush-off of her eventually comes back to haunt him. Katrina sees how he's objectified the female, and she is properly horrified (this is not an exaggerated reaction, especially as it seems that there have been previous problems in their relationship). She stalks off, leaving Warren at a crossroads.
Warren has the chance to grow up. He's made some progress with Katrina; there's no reason to assume that he couldn't work at a relationship with another girl. He could learn from the debacle of the Aprilbot.
But Warren doesn't. He retreats into his fantasy world, viewing the emasculating female with more and more aversion. She's the enemy, the source of his weakness ... if he conquers or destroys her, then he can prove his manhood. He grows downward into an obsession. Warren eventually fixates on Buffy as the end of this obsession. His goal becomes her destruction. Taking over Sunnydale is really all about supplanting Buffy.
And now we have the strong parallel between Warren and Spike in SR. In each case, the male threatens the powerful female, nearly beating her down until the momentum switches and the female seizes her strength back. But look at the different ends. Spike does not want to destroy Buffy--he wants her to feel for him the way he feels for her (the reciprocal attraction). So he reaches out for her ... however misguided the attempt, he reaches out for her. He can't understand why she doesn't love him when she obviously feels something for him. He doesn't get that she needs to be able to trust him before she can love him, and she can never trust him as he is (an amoral, opportunistic demon). He doesn't get that--he thinks that passion should be enough. Physical union is his highest end. This end is ultimately self-destructive, as the imagery of AYW implies (Spike making his bed beside the dark seeds of passion, unconcerned that he may be destroyed himself, and then remaining in the wreckage of the ruined affair afterwards). As for Warren, his highest end is the destruction of the powerful female, the symbol of his emasculation. He needs to prove his supremacy over her. He needs to show her what a "real man" is like. By ending her life. "Good night, bitch."
Buffy recovers her strength in both cases. She seizes back her power from two different threats (libido and destrudo). And now we see the reactions of Spike and Warren to what they have done. And these very different reactions tell us a lot about the characters. And a lot about the separate paths that they take.
Spike's immediate reaction is one of horror. He cannot believe what he has just done. He's betrayed every ideal he's ever believed in ... and the highest ideal of all, his love for the lady. His identity as "love's bitch" has been destroyed. Leading him to seek a new identity ... not as a Big Bad who would destroy Buffy, but as a souled being who would give her what she deserves. Spike thinks not just of himself ... he thinks about himself and the other. His quest for a soul means something.
Contrast Spike's painful transformation for Buffy's sake to the empty words behind Warren's soul talk (SR). Warren doesn't care about the girl he's talking to. He cares only about himself. Women are objects for his pleasure, devices that can be made or bought (by waving money at them, by impressing them with brutal physicality). Warren doesn't grow up when he's had the chance; he grows downward. He doesn't progress from the Aprilbot to Katrina; he moves from Katrina back to the robot girl. He destroys all that woman's independent vitality--he remakes her into a "dead thing." A thing that can be dressed to suit his fancy. A thing that can serve its master. A thing that can be shut down with a blow, made literally dead. And then removed, because it is easier to deny the action than to accept its utter wrongness. Better to say that Katrina deserved this than to admit weakness. Better to stay hidden in the basement than face the consequences as an adult.
By continually making all the wrong (and easy) choices, Warren has gotten himself into a bind. He cannot escape from what he's become even if he wanted to. His obsession has consumed him. For we see that Warren, unlike Spike, follows his goal to its ultimate end: his destruction. He shoots Buffy in her backyard; he accidentally shoots Tara. Once again he reaps what he's sown. Willow comes after him, and Warren falls right into the trap of his own making. He doesn't leave Sunnydale when he has the chance; he remains tangled in the dark woods of his soul (all that he's become). Literally ensnared, seeking the destruction of the woman to his very last. Except this end leads to his own. Willow comes, yes she does, and she meets Warren in the heart of the woods. He does his best to maintain the illusion of power, but she exposes him for what he is: a pathetic human acting out of his own weakness, his misogyny a product of fear.
A human who never risks growing up ... a human who makes all the wrong choices, turning inward upon himself until there is nothing but the selfish obsession ... a human who thus dies in the hell of his own making.
So I believe that Warren's misogyny is inextricably linked to his inability to grow up. It's his signature reaction to his own weakness, just as Spike's possessiveness is a reaction to his weakness. Both characters operate as adolescents arrested in their growth; but Spike has chosen a path that may lead to adulthood, if he can only follow it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chances to Grow Up -- Malandanza, 06:34:59 06/17/02 Mon
I loved your post! I have a few quibbles (of course) but in general, I agree with what you've said. But I want to address a couple of points by Sophist and Shadowkat first (and I don't want to make three or four separate threads).
Sophist: I think the difference between Warren and Spike comes down to this: with Warren, pretty much the only actions we saw him have with women were misogynistic. ...Warren's behavior with women was one-sided, Spike's is not.
Warren's actions were more one-dimensional this season, but in IWMtLY his actions were not quite so monolithic:
WARREN: Then something happened. Katrina was in my engineering seminar, and she was really funny and cool -- she was always giving me a hard time, real unpredictable. She builds these little model monorails that run with magnets. Anyway, I fell in love with Katrina.
and at the end of the episode:
Warren is in the living room, packed duffle-bag at his feet. He's talking miserable into a phone.
WARREN: (into phone) Trina? No, wait... I'm so sorry... Yes, I am so... just give me a chance to explain... yes... no... yes, but... Really, I'll do anything. No! Don't hang up!
He sighs and hangs up. He turns to find himself face-to-face with Spike, who is holding the cardboard box of Buffy-shrine stuff (the sweater sticks out the top a little). Warren jumps.
WARREN: How'd you get in here?
SPIKE: Your mum let me in. I'm placing an order.
WARREN: I'm not making any more girls.
So Warren demonstrated that he can relate to women in other than an overtly sexual way and showed that he understood that the sexbot was wrong. Taken out of context, the "monorails and magnets" speech is even cute and romantic (but it's hard to ignore the rampaging sexbot). It's not that I don't think Warren is a misogynist, I just don't believe that misogyny is his defining characteristic. I don't think it's necessary that a person be misogynistic in all his relationships with women in order to be branded a misogynist. Think of it like racism -- how many times do you have to hear a person use racial epithets before you decide they are a racist? (Once is enough for me). So I think there is still good reason to call Warren a misogynist and better reason for calling Spike the same.
Sophist: Didn't Spike give up on the Buffybot after Intervention? Seemed to me that he did; I don't think Buffy's death affected that one way or the other.
ShadowkatTrue Buffy's death had zip to do with it. That happened in Intervention. Spike lost possession of it after he got tortured by Glory.
Spike had the Buffybot taken away from him (not quite the same thing as giving it up) in Intervention -- the first time we saw him express disgust with the 'bot was in Bargaining. By contrast, Warren chose to give up April.
Shadowkat: Warren doesn't consider women real, he talks about them in the same way that Forrest did way back in The Initiative - as objects. Objects for his fun and games.
Exegy: Both goals are eventually self-destructive, far more dangerous than idle "locker room chat."
I think you both are giving the boys in the locker rooms far too much credit. It's been a while since High School, but from what I recall from my PE class, the conversations were all about women as sex objects (and strategies for seducing them) in terms that would make Parker blush. I don't think times have changed that much -- I can recall working with a group of High School boys a couple of years ago where the boys (from good families and private schools -- High School Seniors) talked about the incoming Freshman girls, which ones they would "initiate." These were not "idle" remarks, or even mere braggadocio -- there is a reason that date rape is so common. Saying that Warren has the mentality of a High School boy with regard to women is no compliment.
Exegy: Let's look at his treatment of the Aprilbot. He uses her, and then he discards her when a more challenging conquest appears.
He treated her like an object -- but, remember, she was an object. Okay, from a metaphorical standpoint, if we treat Katrina as if she were a real girl, his behavior is inexcusable -- but then why didn't ME just make her a real girl? Also, I wouldn't say that Katrina was a "challenging conquest" -- he doesn't seem like much of a conquistador to me. Compare his treatment of April with Spike's treatment harmony -- Harmony has actual feelings.
Well, I'm not finished, but I have to go to work. Sorry if this ends abruptly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Chances to Grow Up -- Ete, 08:05:50 06/17/02 Mon
You're racist metaphore made me understand exactly why I don't agree with the way you used the misogynist epithete, thanks :)
Things as I see it : we all have sometimes some impulse of racism or, for men, misogynie (and for women, probably of misandry too). We all, everyone of us, at some time gets disgusted by something Other we don't understand, or angry, or afraid etc. How many people here after 11/9 felt that muslims and arabs were just bad, inhuman, uncivilised, and felt, maybe only for an instant, that they were all the same in that. Ofcourse this is racism. Does that make all this people moved by a rightous anger some racists ?
I don't think so, most of the time (I hope), they realise nothing is that simple, they feel ashamed of this feeling, or they just don't act upon it...
I would only describe as a racist someone who believes is the ideology of racism, which is something quite specific, and not made of (if built upon) mere racism impulses.
So if it is the same with mysogynie, as you say, I wouldn't describe Spike as a mysogynist because I don't believe one second that he has a whole ideological vision of women and men's role that could be described as misogynist. Yes, sometimes he acted in a misogynist way, but that's not enough to say he's a misgynist.
For Warren, it's more complicate, because as you said, he didn't seem to be really a misogynist by the time of IWMTLY. His actions by the time of Seeing Red were more like it, but i'm not quite sure it's enough to say he was one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with Ete on this one -- shadowkat, 19:26:29 06/17/02 Mon
"Think of it like racism -- how many times do you have to hear a person use racial epithets before you decide they are a racist? (Once is enough for me). So I think there is still good reason to call Warren a misogynist and better reason for calling Spike the same."
I agree with Ete - if that's the case then everyone i know
is a racist and every man I've ever met is a misogynist.
We all use epithets we shouldn't. Must be careful not to generalize. Although I think Ete may have put this better than I did.
Exegy actually came closest to showing how Warren would be identified as misogynist - by his actions more than his words actually. Spike comes across more in Exegy's words as the adolescent entirely controlled by libidio. I don't see the misogynistic tendencies in him - not even in School Hard. Sexual predatory tendencies yes - but those aren't the same. As anom states above, we need to be careful about defining misogyny as the same as sexism. Don't misunderstand me - I do think Spike does some creepy things. Just as Angelus creeped me out. But for the same reason I wouldn't define Angelus as misogynist, I can't put Spike in this category. Sexist? maybe. Predator? definitely.
I also agree with you about the high school boy chatter - that isn't misogyny. Yes it is offensive. But it is more male bravado. Women actually do the same with men believe or not. Yes, we can be crude too. ;-) Faith was an excellent example of this. But I would not define Faith as necessarily misangy (word anom used for man-hating I think, thanks anom). Though she came pretty close in Season 3, except for her love of the Mayor.
The people who come the closest to misogyny on Btvs are Warren by Villains - his is a gradual arc, yes Exegy you convinced me. And Forrest who just was from the get-go. His conversation with Riley and Graham is a perfect example of your point about misogynistic language. But it's more than that with Forrest. Forrest avoids women like the plague. He worships a masculine non-female mother figure. And gets off on the ability to destroy the slayer. Billy in Atvs is an even better example of a misogynist. If you want to see how one should be defined compare each character to Billy.
In fact Angel more or less indicates to Cordy that vampires are immune to the misogyny Billy passes around. It's something the vampire doesn't really care much about. Or at least that was my reading of what he said.
Oh finally on the Buffbot, didn't mean to suggest that Spike gave up on his own, he didn't. But - I agree with exegy and redcat when it appeared that he grew bored of it and showed definite shame when she commented on his use of it. Shame was something I never really saw from Warren. Maybe if he had shown it - he might have had a chance? Don't know. Maybe he did and I missed it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Undecided -- Rahael, 02:15:05 06/18/02 Tue
I have a slight problem here. Are we denying that the outward signs of behaviour are no way to judge what a person really thinks? Are we confining it to simple name calling? What about someone who only commits one beating while shouting at racial slurs? Can we adequately judge whether he's a racist?
But I could be leaning toward Mal's argument simply because I don't have regular contact with people who do use racial slurs unthinkingly. Even my right wing friends who have views very different to mine about race and immigration and so on would never dream of doing it. Also, I went to an all girls school, and the boys that I did hang around with didn't refer to women in derogotary terms. When I lived in halls of residence at University, I had a huge shock. It was very much part of the reason I didn't spend very much time in my individual college, and spent more time in the University community at large.
Actually, I don't think it's misogyny that I encountered, rather more a public (private in England) school bravado, from men who also had been at single sex establishments all their lives and didn't know what to make of all these girls all at once. And I think I would equate casual racism, with casual sexism. It's part of our culture. There are many forms which don't have to be part of a rigoruous ideology that has to be signed up to. There are severe and dangerous forms of racism that only a few sign up to. But prejudice? that's pretty common. And it seems pretty obvious to me that it exists.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Undecided -- shadowkat, 05:38:04 06/18/02 Tue
I agree with your take, but it is very different from what I think Mal was saying. The epithets you clearly describe as sexism - yes! That's it. Not misogyny. Very different.
Although they can definitely led to misogyny!
I think racial statements can lead to prejudice, just as sexism can led misogyny. Living in NYC and working in the Bronx I am surrounded by this on a daily basis. Most of the words are meaningless.
New Yorkers just like to use crude language for shock value more than anything else. And I went to public schools...
and worked in areas where language wasn't necessarily a good indicator of the beliefs and values of the person.
Unfortunately movies and television usually does use words for a reason, they aren't throw-away lines. So they hold a different weight than the words we might use on a daily basis. Do I think ME was going for misogyny with Warren?
Actually Exegy has just about convinced they were. Spike?
Sorry, no. I think Spike remains a far more complex entity with a tendency to want to place women on a pedestal or to love them in a possessive manner - that's a far cry from misogyny or sexism. It's not healthy. And it is just as obsessive as Warren but it also quite different. None of the vampires we've known hit me as remotely misogynistic.
Remember they tend to use their demons as metaphors for human weakness on the show, and I think vamps are being used more for the dark sexual impulses metaphorically - ie. lust, incest, S & M, obsessive love, narcissim, well but
not wisely?. I think the demon they used as a metaphor for misogyny was Billy in Ats.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Undecided -- Malandanza, 10:19:23 06/19/02 Wed
"I have a slight problem here. Are we denying that the outward signs of behaviour are no way to judge what a person really thinks? Are we confining it to simple name calling? What about someone who only commits one beating while shouting at racial slurs? Can we adequately judge whether he's a racist?"
One of the problems I have with the "Spike is not a misogynist" line of reasoning is that the justification seems to be that since he usually behaves better towards women, his misogynistic outbursts are mere aberrations of behavior. In fact, I think the opposite is true both in the real world and in Buffy -- people should be judged by what they say in unguarded moments rather than by the often hypocritical facade they show the world.
An example: when I left Arizona to attend college in Missouri, I had the view that AZ was a benighted, backwater state and was thrilled to finally be somewhere else, among people of culture and intelligence. One of my earliest recollections of the disillusionment I found at college was when a group of us (boys) were hanging out together and a rather attractive black girl stopped to talk to one of our number. They chatted amiably for a time, then left together. No one had expressed any prejudiced remarks during that time -- but as soon as they were out of earshot, the other boys started in on the most hateful, racist speeches that I had ever heard -- reinforcing every Southern stereotype I had ever seen. Should these boys have been judged by their impeccable initial behavior or their subsequent racist remarks? For me, the decision was easy. They may not burn crosses on the weekends, but they're still racists. (And I'm happy to be permanently back in progressive Arizona.)
So when Spike makes remarks like this:
SPIKE: You're a tease, Slayer. Know that? Get a fella's motor revvin', let the tension marinate a couple of days, then -bam! Crown yourself the Ice Queen.
my feeling is that we're seeing the real Spike. All his romantic talk about never hurting Buffy (oddly enough, at the same time he inflicts some rather brutal emotional torture on her -- but, hey, you always hurt the one you love, so that's okay) is just that -- talk. Maybe he'd like to believe that he's a Courtly Lover, but the truth is that he's Warren.
Which brings me to other problem I have in this debate -- Warren and Spike can perform the same actions but Warren is (rightly) condemned as a misogynist while Spike is excused as a Romantic.
Warren builds a sexbot to be the perfect girlfriend (but not a copy of an actual girl): submissive, obedient, and ultimately unsatifying. He gives her up for a real girl. Conclusion: Misogynist
Spike has Harmony for the same purposes -- she has "many exciting labor saving attachments." He dresses Harmony up in Buffy's stolen clothes for some role-play. He stakes her because she won't shut up when he tells her to. After she leaves him, he also gets himself a sexbot. Conclusion: Romantic
Warren obtains orbs of power and uses them to challenge the woman who's thwarted his every evil scheme. Conclusion: Misogynist
Spike obtains the Gem of Amara and uses it to challenge the woman who's thwarted his every evil scheme. Conclusion: Romantic
After being rejected by Katrina, Warren kidnaps her and tries to rape her. Conclusion: Misogynist
Spike knocks Buffy out, chains her up and threatens to kill her if she doesn't admit she loves him. He offers to stake the great love of his life to prove his devotion -- but only if she gives him a few assurances up front. In Season Six, he tries to rape Buffy when she rejects him. Conclusion: Romantic
Warren calls dead Katrina a "bitch" -- this was the woman he loved? Misogynist
Spike calls Buffy a "bitch" (repeatedly), "Ice Queen," "Tease," etc. But he "knows what kind of girl she really is" so these are just terms of endearment. Romantic.
I have no problem calling Warren a misogynist (or a sexist if anyone wants to play the semantics game), but I do think that the reasoning should be applied equally. No double standard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Undecided -- shadowkat, 12:42:48 06/19/02 Wed
Quick answer because no time. But my feeling with Spike
is the crude talk and BB behavior is all posturing. Not
real. While with Angelus everything he said was intentional
and real - no posturing. And with Warren? All real no
posturing.
Just my take.
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent posts exegy -- shadowkat, 07:35:24 06/17/02 Mon
Your posts are always very insightful and I completely agree.
My only problem is the use of the word misogyny, but it is actually a problem I have with every post on this thread.
Perhaps I'm defining it too narrowly? But the only time I've truly seen misogyny in Btvs or ATs is in the episode of Ats with Billy, where he passes on misogyny to every man who touches him. While Warren may have severe problems with women and show misogynistic tendcies, he is not misogynistic. Stating Spike is, well that just doesn't work with the definition. Hatred of women. Again I may be defining it too narrowly. But a true misogynist wouldn't have had the relationships these guys did. Forrest in The Initiative seemed to be a better example of misogynist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I actually agree. But I define misogyny in slightly broader terms ... (Long) -- Exegy, 09:04:49 06/17/02 Mon
Warren isn't as clearly misogynous as Forrest, but he's still defining himself more and more as a misogynist with every action, until he is so ensnared in his own behavior that he cannot escape from such a definition even if he tries. He's grown to hate what he fears; he seeks the destruction of the powerful women who emasculate him. He limits women to objects, destroying them as individuals (note--he hasn't regressed this far in IWMTLY, but the seeds have been laid nonetheless). I see this end of destroying the powerful woman as misogyny, the fear of women made hatred. The only women who are acceptable are those who have been made completely submissive. Warren hasn't always been so limited in thought (as Forrest always appears to be limited)--he was open to a relationship with Katrina. But she beat him down, reinforcing his negative image of women. And then he spins into a downward spiral, limiting himself until only he is left, alone with his hatred in the depths of his soul (the dark of the woods).
Warren knows how far he has fallen. The recriminations of the Katrina shade tell us what he has been thinking of himself all along. That he is a worthless human being, one who should have been killed when he still had some decency in him (before he destroyed that which he could have loved). He's buried such thoughts, but they're present, tangled in his psyche. And now he's alone with them, because he's turned inward, closed to any type of equal relationship with a woman.
His final act is one of desperate destruction. He seeks once again to kill the most powerful woman (now Willow). He's caught in his obsession. He can't escape from the dark woods of his soul; he can only send the simulacrum of himself out (the hollow image of the Warren who would do the right thing). It's actually funny that both Warrens are killed ... telling the audience that no matter what he should do now, he's a condemned man. Condemned by all the wrong paths he has taken to get to this point. Alone with himself and his weakness. Now the only words he can offer to Willow is that she should not be like him. She should not go down those paths she might not be able to escape. But Willow is like Warren. She reacts out of her weakness, and she chooses the path of no escape ("I'm not coming back"). She looks into Warren's eyes, and she follows him right into the darkness of the soul (like following him into the woods in the first place). Fortunately, Willow doesn't go all the way down her path of self-destruction. Something in her is reached before she can destroy herself and her world. Some depth of human caring. The caring Warren has continually denied and buried throughout the season (as Willow later tries to bury the pain under a Big Bad visage).
Warren's closed himself off. I think Spike's been far more open, but he's also caught in a self-destructive cycle. He also cannot achieve an equal relationship with a woman. It all comes down to his "love's bitch" complex. He's a slave to all-consuming passion. He follows the ideal of the courtly romances, in which the knight is the passionate servant of his lady. Here there is a different objectification of the woman; she is not set below but above, some exalted ideal that can never quite be reached. Until she falls of her own accord, giving her love to the highest romantic end: physical union. Once she has been possessed, she cannot be let go. She must be consumed again and again ... until there is nothing left (something Spike cannot realize--note his horrified surprise when Buffy says the relationship is killing her ... he also doesn't realize that the relationship is destroying him). No, he doesn't understand this ... he only sees Buffy leaving him. Because she is better than him. She is the exalted ideal, and the only way he can continue to have her is by bringing her down to his level. Emotionally manipulating her to remain in the shadows with him, because he cannot come into the light with her ... he is by his nature and his adolescent ideals limited.
This type of relationship is not acceptable to Buffy. She breaks free of her passion (notice the bondage imagery in the twisted collar of DT and the heart necklace of OAFA). She rises above her weakness. She conveniently "forgets" about it. Perhaps not realizing the lasting damage that has occurred. For we see that Spike has not gotten over it. He's still stuck with his limited fancies, and he cannot have it any other way. He once again reaches out to Buffy, attempting to relive their past unity. But his definition of love is not her definition of love. Buffy defines her love by trust; she's been burned too many times before to have it any other way. She can't trust Spike, and his near-rape of her only cements this opinion of his untrustworthiness. This is where that romantic ideal gets you. Not to sustained heights of glory ... but to eventual self-destruction ("I'm nothing").
Unless you can change. And Spike does change. He breaks out of the cycle ... something Warren cannot do. I think the main difference is that Spike is open to some type of reciprocity in the relationship. He is not only concerned for himself ... he is concerned for Buffy. And hence he seeks what she deserves. Warren, OTOH, limits his concerns to himself. He comes to care less about the needs of Katrina or any other woman. The female must be limited to an object. If she cannot be thus diminished ... she must be destroyed.
Spike could have taken that path ... the path that would have led to his total destruction. At first he seems to go that way. His comments have definite misogynous overtones (meant to parallel Warren's) ... he seems to desire Buffy's destruction. But he doesn't. He still seeks her love, but this time he desires to obtain her definition of love (his definition has led him to the point of nothing). He wants to become a being worthy of her trust. And for that he needs a soul.
A soul means something to Spike. It means nothing to Warren. Witness his empty talk of souls to the girls in the bar (SR). Warren has neglected his soul for so long. It's grown dark and tangled, treacherous even for him. And now his driving goal of destruction has trapped him to his own end. He sees the horror his soul's become (think Kurtz in Heart of Darkness). He's alone with his darkness. Shades of his buried guilt rise up to reproach him. He cannot escape. He's made this place for himself--he's chosen it as his last stand. This is where his path has led him, this is where he ultimately defines himself.
And here is where we see his misogyny ... as a cover. What he has shown to the world by remaking himself into a villain ... is nothing but a costume. A reaction to the weakness that lies at his very heart. The weakness that eventually is all that is left of him (when Willow strips him of his costume and skin). Misogyny is the last face he chose to show to the world, however, and that is how I shall judge him ... as he has judged himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Addendum (and keeping great thread alive) -- Exegy, 09:32:45 06/17/02 Mon
We see that misogyny is Warren's last defense. It's his last resort in protecting himself against exposure--the last face he presents to his female attacker(s). It's the last mask he shows to Katrina, the object of his greatest guilt. "You deserved it, bitch!" he desperately cries--his pitiful defense against what he knows to be the truth about himself. Misogyny is the mask he maintains as long as possible with Willow ... but she can see into him, better than Buffy ever could, because she suffers from the same weakness. It's the fear of having your costume stripped away, leaving you bare and vulnerable before the world. She makes this fear come true for Warren. He's not a Big Bad ... he's just a boy who has assimilated the trappings of misogyny in order to protect himself from the feared female. He's made himself a monster in order to escape the weak man underneath.
ME has just proven that not all "monsters" are demons ... they can be humans who react out of suffering, trying to deny their weakness. Humans who define themselves as monsters because it is easier to present that face to the world than to present personal weakness. And if you define yourself as the monster long enough, that becomes the only face you can show, your only identity aside from the weakness you try to hide. Which is what I think happens with Warren.
*Thanks to Finn for starting such a great thread. I disagree with the original post, but I have to write what I believe about the characters. I can only hope that I've expressed myself well without offending anyone.
Thanks for reading!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exegy, you truly rock! Great posts in a great thread. -- ponygirl, 10:22:05 06/17/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> great post -- Rahael, 10:31:16 06/17/02 Mon
I like the point you make that connects Spike and Warren's view of women - Spike 'idealises' and Warren degrades.
Just a further point. Isn't Spike's conflicting view of Buffy and Harmony connected? If a woman isn't Buffy, isn't some kind of out of reach ideal, she's Harmony. Not worth paying attention to. Not worth writing poetry about. Simply someone standing on the fringes of his life. The crucial thing is that's she's out of reach, so the ideal can always look that perfect, because when you come closer, you can see all the little faults.
What happens when Spike get's closer to Buffy? When he sees her faults? he wants to drag her into the dirt and the darkness with him. He revels in her 'wrongness', he urges her to be cruel, to beat him up.
I have to say that I disagree with a point you made in another post, that the wrongness of Buffy and Spike's relationship was necessary to put Buffy on the right path. I fervently believe that suffering does not ennoble human beings. Most often, it deadens, and causes severe emotional problems. Buffy's suffering was as unfair as Tara's death. Was it necessary for her to be severely unhappy so that she could deal with her 'inner evils'? No, the best conditions to deal with your emotional problems would have been security and happiness. People do not make great decisions when they are desperate and panicking.
I do, however, think that people show us what kind of character they have by how they deal with the
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Rahael and ponygirl. On Harmony ... (S6 Spoilers) -- Exegy, 11:17:54 06/17/02 Mon
I do agree in part about Harmony ... she is neither the light nor the dark ideal that Spike possessed in Buffy and Drusilla, respectively. And so she is not worthy of his adoration. He could care less about her. In fact, he uses her, dumping all his frustrations (left over from the Dru break-up) onto her. "Ain't love grand," he snarls, disillusioned in his love for Drusilla (this disillusionment is echoed perfectly in SR, now with the light ideal). Drusilla was his, and she's spurned him; Buffy was his, and she's spurned him. Because he couldn't be dark enough. Because he couldn't be light enough. He's caught in the middle, unable to reach either ideal he has set for himself. Hence the ultimate failure, the ultimate disillusionment.
With Harmony, Spike is able to vent all his frustrations. She's not the ideal, so he can dump all his misery on her (like Buffy dumps all her misery on Spike). The relationship with Harm has misogynous implications, but it doesn't make Spike a misogynist. Rather, it reinforces his "love's bitch" complex; the only good woman for him is the ideal, that perfectly elevated standard. Harm is not that standard; she's the stand-in, the hollow replacement for Dru and/or Buffy. Spike can pretend with her, but she's not what he wants. So she gets all his anger.
Still, as cruel as Spike is in his relationship with Harmony, he never descends into a hatred of women. Harm is just unlucky enough to be his scapegoat, the woman he specifically targets his relationship frustrations upon (Buffy's another story....).
Um, in my other post ... I didn't mean to imply that the wrongness of S/B was necessary for them to save each other. However, Spike and Buffy were suffering anyway, and they latched onto each other, depending on the other for salvation. And to some extent, each was saved. Buffy's old spark is ignited by the torch Spike bears for her; she gets just enough of that feeling back to keep on living ... although eventually the fire threatens to consume her. Which is not a good thing, by any means. Buffy is perfectly right in getting out of the relationship when she does.
As for Spike, he is saved as soon as he realizes that his notions of all-consuming passion are not enough to sustain his love. That such notions will eventually destroy him and all he holds dear. They were destroying him, bringing him to the point of nothing. Only such a drastic betrayal (SR) could have told Spike that he was reaching for the wrong ideal all along. Which is why I think that the dysfunctional S/B relationship helped him to see how dangerous the pursuit of limited ideals can be. How ultimately unsatisfying and destructive. Showing him that he needs to change (where before he was perfectly satisfied with his lot).
I think that strength can be born of suffering, even when the suffering is cruelly unnecessary. It's all in the response of both parties, because both parties cause the suffering (revealing the depths of character, then growing out of the knowledge of such depths). No, such suffering is not right, which is precisely what Buffy and Spike should realize. Then they can work toward a true reparation, overcoming the limitations they have been operating under (and not just with each other). I think that both can become better individuals because of this (not that it had to happen, but you have to work with what you make, and the big moments are going to come ... it's all in what you make of it afterwards). Hope this makes sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you, Rahael and ponygirl. On Harmony ... (S6 Spoilers) -- Rahael, 14:53:13 06/17/02 Mon
I do see what you mean Exegy - I picked up on your comment, because I am having a lot of misgivings, about Spuffy, and about Season 6. As someone who has been an enthusiastic supporter of Season 6 all the way throughout, I have to say that my misgivings are almost totally based on reading the board. It could simply, be, of course, the sheer volume of posts about Spike. But I do appreciate your posts, not only because they are well written, but because they do not attempt to white wash the complexities of the Spike Buffy relationship.
Let me quote your comment because I don't want to misrepresent you or paraphrase you as I did earlier:
"As horrible as Buffy's relationship with Spike became ... it's what was needed to save her. By nearly destroying each other, Buffy and Spike came to the point where they could rebuild.
Buffy casts off her delusions of being a "normal girl." She's saved from her path of destruction"
My question is, was Buffy so weak in Season 5? Was she so completely lost when she made her decision in The Gift that when she came back she had to be rescued by a dysfunctional and dark relationship?
I'm still trying to trust ME. I'm trying to trust the decision to have Spike do what he did in SR (which I thought was a great episode, actually) but it is becoming very hard to do so, especially in having people try and integrate this event into a story of Redemption.
I accept that Spike had to be razed to the ground, so he could rebuild. I'm having difficulty accepting the same for Buffy, because she's the one character I have such an emotional attachment to, that I can't bear to see her put through that ultimate hoop for our viewing pleasure.
It seems to me