thoughts on truth & responsibility in art, or, why i dislike xander harris but think he's necessary

[lirazel]

So Mark, he of the Mark Watches blog, is now watching Buffy straight through and posting his thoughts as he goes. This has stirred up a lot of feelings in the remnants of BtVS fandom, and we’ve already talked at length about the depth of his analysis (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) and whether or not we think it’s weird that he’s making money off of basically just posting his emotional responses to a show (for the record, my thoughts are: yes, it’s weird, but I’d probably do the same thing if I had the option, so I can’t really blame him). But I wanted to talk about something I’ve seen mentioned a couple of times in passing in discussions about other aspects of his analysis, because it’s been on my mind a lot.

I can’t remember which post it was (please feel free to link me to it if you remember what I’m talking about), but someone mentioned that you almost have to watch the show in its historical context the way you would read a book written three centuries ago or something like that. Because social justice-y ways of watching the shows were not at all prominent ways of approaching these texts back then (15 years ago, more or less, which: crazy).

For instance. Someone mentioned that people nowadays have a much stronger reaction to Xander than most people did when watching the show originally. Specifically, this person mentioned the subject of slut-shaming and pointed out that the word "slut-shaming" was not in the common fan's lexicon at that point. Obviously the act of slut-shaming existed, has always existed, but the vocabulary for talking about it wasn't as accessible to most people in fandom as it is now. [Note: This doesn’t mean that people didn’t react to the shows the same way people do now—I know for a fact that the reactions to Tara’s death and to “Lies My Parents Told Me” were very profound and coming from the same place that they might now, and I imagine there were viewers who recoiled from Xander’s sexism in ways that are identical to the way someone watching today might. But the vocabulary to talk about them weren’t as prominent then, or at least not nearly as widespread. People have always approached texts with their own experiences and baggage in mind, but the idea of the average viewer as opposed to an academic approaching this show and watching it from a social justice point of view was not nearly as common as it is now. Now we kind of expect most people in fandom to at least know what we mean when we talk about these things--though we're often proven wrong, that assumption is made. People wouldn't have been as likely to assume that then.]

Now look. I will admit freely that I do not like Xander most of the time (he does have his moments). But. A great part of my fury at his character is the fact that I know guys just like him. It really is almost breathtaking the way that the writers created a character who so embodies this particular kind of guy, a kind I knew quite a lot of in high school. And I dislike Xander because he reminds me so, so much of these guys. That’s actually fantastic writing. The verisimilitude of this characterization actually blows my mind. And guess what? These guys are the kind to slut-shame. These guys are the kind of guys who hang around a girl they have a crush on hoping that he’ll be able to wear her down enough that she’ll settle for him. These guys are really, really judgmental towards women and our behavior. And I actually really appreciate that Joss and the other writers explore a character like this. The point of art is to tell the truth, and the truth is: these guys exist, and while they can be really great friends and people in some areas, they do a lot of terrible things that can feel like a punch in the gut or spitting in the face to those of us who they’ve judged or otherwise hurt. Having your own experience be recognized by art can be a powerful thing.

On the other hand, seeing that kind of behavior acted out again on a show we’re watching for entertainment when we already have to deal with in real life…that can be rough. And obviously the guys who act like this are products of a society that tells them that it’s okay to act like this. And part of that societal instruction comes from TV shows they watch to be entertained. So there’s sort of a cycle going on here.

So the question then becomes: how do you portray these facts of life and human behavior without that portrayal propagating that very behavior? We obviously can’t have our characters acting like paragons of virtue all the time (though it sometimes seems to me that some people do in fact want the characters to always behave in the correct way regarding *isms, even if they don’t care that the characters are going out and killing people or whatever. That…does not seem realistic to me personally. *isms are a huuuge part of life, and any art that is truthful has to recognize that). That would be boring, and worse, it would be untruthful. Even our heroes need to do and say things that are flat-out wrong.

But it’s easy to have Willow try to destroy the world or, more mundanely, have Willow and Xander cheat on Oz and Cordelia and have audiences know that this behavior is not at all okay. We know because it’s societally supported, because we see how much it hurts the victims (poor Oz and Cordy!), because most of us find it easy to imagine what it would be like to be the victims of this behavior (no, I do not want to do! No, I do not want to be cheated on! Obviously!). But the *isms we talk about are so, so much more insidious, aren’t they? Society at large slut-shames, so unless we’ve experienced this ourselves or have been aware of these things, mostly via education, we won’t necessarily see that behavior and immediately think, “Bad.” Moreover, most men and a lot of women aren’t used to identifying with a character who’s being slut-shamed (I know that before I got into the whole feminism thing, I certainly wasn’t. I have about as little sexual experience as it’s possible to have, and no one had ever slut-shamed me because no one has anything to slut-shame me about--not that they always need the excuse, because sometimes they don’t. So it was entirely outside the realm of my experience, and so I didn’t notice it as hurtful). So when we have someone like Warren, his misogyny is easily coded as bad because…he’s the bad guy and also because it’s extreme enough to be noticeable and repugnant to most people (he literally turns Katrina into his slave! Most decent people are going to realize how NOT OKAY that is). But how do you portray a “good” guy like Xander being incredibly sexist and not portray that as okay? Does the writer have to resort to heavy-handed preaching?

The line between these things is blurry. None of us like being preached at. But at the same time, sometimes just portraying the opposite behavior (for instance, Xander really doesn’t seem to have a problem most of the time with the idea that Buffy is in charge and is very much stronger than he is, which is a good thing) isn’t enough. It can be so, so hard, and I have sympathy for writers trying to accomplish it, because (HELLO READER RESPONSE THEORY I LOVE YOU) different members of the audience are going to react to things in completely different ways. I look at something like Dollhouse. Most people will admit that Joss was trying to critique rape culture. However, a lot of us think that he didn’t do a good job of it—that his personal squicky kinks and not-so-stellar writing (plus a lack of time to develop the stories) got in the way to the point where he mostly ended up actually perpetuating the rape culture he was initially trying to critique. Uh-oh. Not so good. But then I know other people (hello, Poco!) who think he did a great job critiquing it and find it really powerful and effective, and I think that’s an entirely legitimate response to the text.

And then, some members of your audience are just going to be horrible people. I mean, GRRM doesn’t hate on Cersei or Sansa, but goodness gracious fandom sure does (see also: Bennett, Bonnie; Summers, Dawn; et al. And writers cannot control their audiences’ reactions to their texts, as much as they may want to. When they try you end up having Samuel Richardson writing over a million words of Clarissa because people kept reading the text wrong. But no matter how many words he wrote, they kept reading it the way he didn’t want them to. Must have been frustrating, but that’s the nature of art—it doesn’t exist in any one form, it has as many forms as there are readers or viewers or listeners—a new and unique piece of art is created each time a person reads of watches or otherwise experiences that art. And that’s the joy of art, but it can also be frustrating for us as artists who want to communicate a certain thing.

[eta]: I actually forgot to say that I don't think that on the whole the BtVS writers did a good job showing Xander's behavior as problematic in the first half of the show. They do a better job later. But I still think he's a realistic and even necessary kind of character, even though they could have done a MUCH BETTER JOB in questioning a lot of his behavior within the context of the show.

So how do you do it? Well, it’s always good to have other characters call out the bad behavior. And to present the opposite behavior in a good light. It feels like a cop-out to just say “try really hard and do better next time,” but sometimes I think that’s the best advice. I think if you’re actively trying to not portray as acceptable behavior you know is wrong, most of the time you’ll pull it off. And if you don’t, you apologize and try again.

[eta:] eowyn_315 pointed out something else I forgot to say originally, which is that being aware of your own privilege is hugely important in this whole endeavor. A big part of my problem with Joss and his sexism comes, I believe, from his failure to examine his own privilege. We see this in Xander's depiction, in Dollhouse, etc. So you not only have to try really hard, but you also have to see yourself clearly. That's key, and I hate that I forgot to say it.

Does anyone else have any advice on this topic? It’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about the last couple of days, and sometimes it can feel like, “Oh, look, here’s another thing I have to worry about as a writer.” But I do think it’s important, so I appreciate any thoughts at all you might want to share.

And I am sure I’m leaving out something I meant to say, so don’t be surprised if this post is edited to add stuff in the future. My mind does not at all work in a linear fashion, so I usually end up leaving things out.

Comments

[diebirchen.livejournal.com]

Not only do I agree, but might I point out, there are many other reasons to dislike Xander and many of his behaviors.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

This is true. I was focusing specifically on social justice type issues in this essay, but yeah...he's never going to be my favorite character, even if he was a paragon of feminist virtue! I just don't have any way to connect to him.

[ceciliaj.livejournal.com]

This is such an interesting post, and such an interesting question. I'm not a fiction writer myself, so most of my responses are centered around reading practices -- one thing I love about gabs's feminist filter is that it can show me the cool things that are going on with gender and a character like Oz, who I just don't get into in the show itself. It helps me separate my personal apathy from something cool that might be going on -- specifically, someone who rarely resorts to being Xandery with the slut-shaming and the masculinity issues.

It's funny because I think it's good to make all your characters, even and maybe especially the villains, sympathetic, because I don't think that authors should let their readers feel completely superior to anyone. It's good to feel "oh, that was wrong," but I think it's usually, you know, problematic to think, "ugh! I would never say something that would hurt someone!" when of course the reality is that we all do, sometimes. (I mean, it is probably okay to think, "I would never kill someone so brutally," but it doesn't really help you explore new territories of human consciousness to say so.)

I think it is good to have characters call out behavior, but sometimes it can be unrealistic -- I get frustrated when characters always have the perfect zinger, and I don't know if it's because I'm just jealous of their wit, or because it stops sounding like human communication, or what. It can be really helpful to have an outside character call out an inner circle, revealing the ways in which they've remained insulated from social realities. But it has to be somewhat organic -- there has to be an emotional reason for them to state the painful truth, not just someone brilliant walks into the room, sets everyone straight, and then leaves. Zadie Smith is good at this, I think :).

In prose fiction, it's easier, because you can more easily incorporate the way people deal with their own isms -- I'm thinking about your awesome Buffy-gets-attracted-to-Spike fic :).

Whew, what am I talking about?

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

It helps me separate my personal apathy from something cool that might be going on

Yeah, this is something I really have to work at.

It's funny because I think it's good to make all your characters, even and maybe especially the villains, sympathetic, because I don't think that authors should let their readers feel completely superior to anyone. It's good to feel "oh, that was wrong," but I think it's usually, you know, problematic to think, "ugh! I would never say something that would hurt someone!" when of course the reality is that we all do, sometimes.

Absolutely!

think it is good to have characters call out behavior, but sometimes it can be unrealistic -- I get frustrated when characters always have the perfect zinger, and I don't know if it's because I'm just jealous of their wit, or because it stops sounding like human communication, or what. It can be really helpful to have an outside character call out an inner circle, revealing the ways in which they've remained insulated from social realities. But it has to be somewhat organic -- there has to be an emotional reason for them to state the painful truth, not just someone brilliant walks into the room, sets everyone straight, and then leaves.

See, this is what I was talking about when I said that about leaving stuff out. It absolutely has to be in character and make sense for the story/plot for someone to do the calling out, otherwise it comes across as preaching. And I agree about zingers, too--sometimes it's more realistic to have someone say, "I can't believe you said that, that was gross" than to have some witty comeback. Though that said, when you're watching BtVS or The West Wing or something, there's a certain degree of not-realism you have to expect re: witty dialogue. :D

You're talking good words!

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

I like this post. I don't feel like I have anything intelligent to add (partly because I have classes imminently and don't have time to actually think beyond "me likey"), but if you don't mind critique of the portrayal of Xander in the comments, I agree that it's really neat in some ways that the writers so accurately depicted a Nice Guy like Xander, but I think they largely failed in showing how his behaviors were wrong because (a) he's never "punished" for his behavior (the way you could argue that Willow is "punished" for her misuse of magic through Tara's death or how Buffy is "punished" for enjoying casual/violent sex through the AR- note, not at all condoning those "punishments," because they're abhorrent things for the writers to have purposefully done, but I do think "punishment" is a legit reading of those events and it's interesting that Xander is not similarly "punished" after "Hell's Bells"- no, he gets to be the freaking hero and stops the Evil Lesbian Witch!). I'm not saying he should have been punished because as I said above, that's a pretty awful thing to do, but his actions rarely have lasting consequences the way the female characters' actions do.

And (b) the other characters go out of their way to condone his actions or approve them or say what a good guy he is- frex, in Gabs' recent feminist filter review of BBB, she notes how Buffy praises Xander for not raping her. Praises! UGH. There are also tons of other examples, like no one taking him to task for "Hell's Bells" or his horrid slut-shaming in "Entropy" (noooo, instead we get Buffy telling him a few episodes later how much she loves him and needs him ~and by extension his approval? Ugh).

So...those are my thoughts on Xander. I don't think the writers did recognize how bad his behavior was, and they often used other characters, usually female characters, to affirm/assure the audience that he was, in fact, a good guy.

I might have thoughts on writing? Will have to ponder. But I completely understand where you're coming from on writing bad behavior, and I question the same thing myself.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

but I think they largely failed in showing how his behaviors were wrong

I absolutely agree with this (and come to think of it, I never actually said that in the post? Will edit!). I think he's a realistic character, completely, but I agree his behavior isn't shown as problematic enough.

I don't think the writers did recognize how bad his behavior was, and they often used other characters, usually female characters, to affirm/assure the audience that he was, in fact, a good guy.

Honestly, it's been forever since I've watched the earlier seasons, so I'd forgotten a lot of that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[ruuger]

I don't think the writers did recognize how bad his behavior was, and they often used other characters, usually female characters, to affirm/assure the audience that he was, in fact, a good guy.

What you said.

One of my main problems with Jossian feminism is that it's often Not My Nigel feminism. Misogyny is always perpretrated by "those other guys" - Warren, Caleb, the other watchers (not Giles) - whose actions are shown as pure evil. But not our Xander - he's a good guy!

What this fails to take into account is that in real life, women rarely have to deal with people like Caleb. Most of the time, it's the smaller actions of well-meaning people like Xander that hurt most. But because in Jossverse misogyny is definied by what "those other guys" do, the good guys never get called out for the things they do.

(this reminds me, I need to post that rant/essay I wrote about "Billy" when I rewatched AtS...)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Heck, he was the agreived party when Anya 'went evil' after he left her at the altar, left her to face the guests and to see to the end of the wedding, and then he arrived the next day thinking they were still boyfriend/girlfriend out of nothing but his assumptions.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's really neat in some ways that the writers so accurately depicted a Nice Guy like Xander, but I think they largely failed in showing how his behaviors were wrong because (a) he's never "punished" for his behavior (the way you could argue that Willow is "punished" for her misuse of magic through Tara's death or how Buffy is "punished" for enjoying casual/violent sex through the AR- note, not at all condoning those "punishments," because they're abhorrent things for the writers to have purposefully done, but I do think "punishment" is a legit reading of those events and it's interesting that Xander is not similarly "punished" after "Hell's Bells"- no, he gets to be the freaking hero and stops the Evil Lesbian Witch!)

Ugh, I hate the idea that Buffy was punished or needed to be punished for enjoying sex with Spike - you'd almost make me hate my favorite season if I believed that. There was a lot of wrong with the Buffy/Spike relationship in season 6 - all the mutual abuse, the fact that they were never even able to define and agree on their relationship, what they wanted out of it and if both of them even wanted to be in it, and the many dubious consent moments and lack of boundaries throughout, which finally lead to the AR. But there was nothing wrong with sex itself or with what kind of sex it was or with Buffy enjoying sex.

I also hate the idea of Willow being "punished" by having Tara killed - which doesn't even make sense, since the murder of Tara had nothing to do with Willow's abuse of magic, and Tara is not an inanimate object whose only purpose is to be used against Willow.

Also, one could say that Xander was punished for leaving Anya at the altar - by Anya sleeping with Spike and Xander watching it, by Anya becoming a demon again, and by Anya not wanting to get back with him. It makes more sense than saying that Willow was punished for abusing magic, since all those things - Anya becoming a demon, Anya sleeping with Spike, and Anya never actually getting back with Xander, were all direct consequences of Xander leaving Anya at the altar.

Xander didn't get to stop Willow because he was being such a great guy in season 6 - he's a jerk through most of it - but because he finally turned his jerkass behavior around and offered Willow something he wasn't able to offer Anya or Buffy or Willow herself or anyone through most of the season - unconditional love and understanding, which was a complete opposite of his judgmental and shaming behavior in Entropy and Seeing Red.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

I think we have to be careful with words, and images, and symbolism: The smallest, most subtle carelessness in expression will bring down 500 years of oppression on us, reinforce hurtful and sadist resentments and throw us back in unforeseeable ways.

Great essay you wrote! I think it is really difficult to avoid the re-enforcement of tropes when trying to depict believable characters, mainly because while fiction is constructed, it also comes from the "dark side of the moon", the non-rational, subconscious part of our psyche. Add to that the different blind spots a writer might have, and, in the case of commercial writing, the time pressure as well as the economical pressure to produce something sell-able.

You (as well as gryfndor_godess)articulate a lot of the things why i struggle with the character of Xander (and Angel) myself, but fortunately, i have a brain to think for myself and thus the ability to actually decipher Xander's behaviour as well as muse on the circumstances which led the writers to write the character in a certain way.

(And no-one in the world is able to force me to like a character or hate a character.)

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I think it is really difficult to avoid the re-enforcement of tropes when trying to depict believable characters, mainly because while fiction is constructed, it also comes from the "dark side of the moon", the non-rational, subconscious part of our psyche. Add to that the different blind spots a writer might have, and, in the case of commercial writing, the time pressure as well as the economical pressure to produce something sell-able

I completely agree with you.

articulate a lot of the things why i struggle with the character of Xander (and Angel) myself, but fortunately, i have a brain to think for myself and thus the ability to actually decipher Xander's behaviour as well as muse on the circumstances which led the writers to write the character in a certain way.

(And no-one in the world is able to force me to like a character or hate a character.)

Hahaha! So true! I'm in the same boat, and I wish more people were (not to sound all holier-than-thou, but I do think a lot of people don't watch TV with their thinking caps on when they really should). I also agree that Angel's hugely problematic as well.

[next_to_normal]

I think a lot of the problem with Xander is that he was set up from the beginning to be sort of the author/audience proxy character. We're supposed to identify with him as the "regular Joe" character in the midst of all the supernatural stuff, and in a lot of ways, he seems like a teenage version of Joss, as well.

That conveys a sort of authority within the narrative (whether intentionally or not) that justifies Xander's viewpoint to a certain extent. It's great to portray a character as flawed, but when it's a character we're supposed to identify with, and he's repeatedly not being called out for his sexism and slut-shaming, what do we take away from that? That it's not really a serious flaw, that it's acceptable behavior. Sure, Buffy and Willow occasionally call him on stuff, but SO MUCH of what he says and does goes by without comment, often because it's a joke. (Since Gabs just did BBB in the feminist filter, Xander's joke about "hahaha, Buffy, I almost took advantage of you while you were under a spell" comes to mind.)

In terms of advice... I guess all I can say is be aware of the way that privilege can affect your writing? I think a lot of Xander's sexism is Joss' privilege showing through, that he thinks repeatedly joking about this stuff is okay because he's never been on the receiving end of it. Likewise, if you've never had reason to identify with someone being slut-shamed, you're maybe not immediately going to see the scene from that perspective. But if you include that POV, even if it's just a reaction shot of a character being hurt by a joke, then at least you're exposing people to the other side and not tacitly condoning the slut-shaming.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I just went back to edit and say that I don't think the show did a good job of showing how problematic Xander's behavior was, because I realize I didn't say that. I guess I just thought everyone knew that I think that? Anyway, it's there now.

think a lot of the problem with Xander is that he was set up from the beginning to be sort of the author/audience proxy character. We're supposed to identify with him as the "regular Joe" character in the midst of all the supernatural stuff

See, that's interesting that you say that, because I never did. I can see what you're saying, and that probably was the intention and what a lot of people walked away with, but I never, ever related to him or felt like I was supposed to? Probably because we have zero in common. So I think my reading of the show is going to be different because of that.

In terms of advice... I guess all I can say is be aware of the way that privilege can affect your writing? I think a lot of Xander's sexism is Joss' privilege showing through, that he thinks repeatedly joking about this stuff is okay because he's never been on the receiving end of it. Likewise, if you've never had reason to identify with someone being slut-shamed, you're maybe not immediately going to see the scene from that perspective. But if you include that POV, even if it's just a reaction shot of a character being hurt by a joke, then at least you're exposing people to the other side and not tacitly condoning the slut-shaming.

This is fantastic and absolutely true.

[menomegirl.livejournal.com]

Hey sweetie. Do you have a twitter account?

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I do not!

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I like this post! I feel like I always approach Xander from the standpoint that he is going to get better, when I watch him in the early seasons; but it occurs to me (especially having just read Gabs' BB&B filter) that the bar for Xander is set very low by both Buffy and the show. Some of this is that he is just expected to be a jerk and a perpetual underachiever, which means that the 'show' seemingly lets him get away with things quite a bit. But then....

(TW: rape discussion)

So, I think one thing that I realized lately about Xander's evolution is how much it depends on him being forced to experience things from 'the other side.' This can be problematic, but I sort of like it: he is somewhat predatory and male gaze-y, and in BBB he is made into the object of desire by predatory women; he nearly rapes and kills Buffy in The Pack, and he is nearly raped and killed by Buffy's shadow Faith in Consequences; he tries to control the group dynamic in early season three, and he ends up The Zeppo by the end of the season; he criticizes Buffy and Willow for their choice of partner, and then they mostly regard his choice to date Anya with contempt; he is not there emotionally for Buffy and Willow at times, and when he's hugely depressed and feels his life is worthless in season four, they aren't there for him. It's not one-to-one, but I think in the grand arc of the series he gets back a lot of what he puts in, and that is the way the writers choose to deconstruct Xander: not by having people tell him explicitly how he makes them feel, but by having Xander be forced to experience much of what he's dished out.

[menomegirl.livejournal.com]

Ooooooh, interesting!!!!!!!!!

I will have to think on that.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

So, so much.

Neither Willow nor Xander are my favorite people, but I feel that they were fairly and accurately presented, warts and all. Rewatches always uncover more layers, usually of the unpleasant sort. I know some people feel this way about Buffy, Spike, or Giles, too, which makes all these characters a stunning accomplishment in subtlety and nuance by the writers.

The thing about calling Xander on his (youthful) crap, is that high school girls mostly don't confront guys about this stuff, and we're seeing it from their viewpoint. Maybe if Giles or Jenny had said something? IDEK. Having Oz as a contrast is kind of genius, but it came later. Pairing him with Cordelia "Not Gonna Take It" Chase was also a good artistic choice and could have been even stronger, although Cordelia's extreme gender norm enforcer role probably made it tricky.

My thing with Xander is that I like to think that his sexism was somewhat lessened as he got older, and I can see a possible less bigoted future for him. He's not irredeemable, even on social justice issues. He's very young and very typical. But he's not a lost cause. Maybe even some of those guys that he's a stand-in for will be able to change and grow. I know lots of people think he's a stand-in for Joss, et al, (I have my doubts) but if so, it's probably along the lines of "I used to be a young idiot, too." Even those guys should be capable of redemption.

I love your question about how to write socially transformative characters. I don't have an answer, except to say that it's understandable that authors interested in these issues are lured into SciFi. It's really hard to do it in the "real" world.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

which makes all these characters a stunning accomplishment in subtlety and nuance by the writers.

Yes. There are so many things I can pick on Joss about, things that matter and things that don't, but I will give him this: he knows how to create fantastically real characters.

that high school girls mostly don't confront guys about this stuff, and we're seeing it from their viewpoint.

This is a good point. I didn't figure out that I was a feminist until I was in college, and while a lot of what Xander says would have made me uncomfortable at that age, some of it it would have gone over my head. And I probably wouldn't have called him on anything but the most egregious statements.

I can see a possible less bigoted future for him. He's not irredeemable, even on social justice issues. He's very young and very typical. But he's not a lost cause.

I agree with this completely, and I certainly hope a lot of guys (and ladies!) grew in similar ways.

I don't have an answer, except to say that it's understandable that authors interested in these issues are lured into SciFi. It's really hard to do it in the "real" world.

Yup. I think of Star Trek TOS and how backwards it seems now, but it really was so forward-thinking for that time, and the writers used the fact that it was set in the "future" to envision a world that's a little more equal. I think that's really cool.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Specifically, this person mentioned the subject of slut-shaming and pointed out that that word didn’t even exist back then—or if it did, the average viewer definitely didn’t know about it.

What? I thought 'slut-shaming' was a second-wave term. Buffy aired in the late 90s/early 00s, not the 50s.

(Hasn't read the rest of the post cause I'm about to leave for babysitting. I'm just really confused at this point and can't move on)

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Ha! I finished before leaving!

I largely agree with what you're saying, though I disagree on this: Now we kind of expect most people in fandom to at least know what we mean when we talk about these things.

I think it's easy to get caught up in our particular corner of LJ fandom, but fandom, as a whole, is much wider. I wouldn't ever assume that people in fandom-whole would know the social justice lingo.

[diebirchen.livejournal.com]

One thing that constantly irritates me about Xander is that with all his myriad faults and terrible missteps, he is rarely, if ever, really brought to task. A perfect example is the attempted rape, and he lies and denies remembering. And yet he is soooo critical of others on countless scores. I hate bigotry!

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I know at least for me, my problem with fiction comes most into play when nasty things are dismissed somehow - either by by simply being disappeared without explanation for it, or by being constantly trivialized - or valorized some way or another. And by that rubric, Xander generally works fine as a construct - because the show doesn't falsely pretend he wouldn't have those issues, is called out for them with believable frequency (that is, it happens, but not often), and he does not get Macho Macho Man credit for them (and in fact his pursuit of that kind of masculinity is overtly critiqued, which so rarely happens). When a story falls into those traps, I do tend to have philosophical issues with the writing. I think you've put it very well that he's a necessary character.

So the question of liking him or not is less of an issue for me, I think. And generally, I care a lot less if I like characters than if I believe and understand them. But I do give the show a fair amount of credit for showing Xander as someone who eventually grows out of it, more or less. I acknowledge, though, that's a bit dicey, because not everyone is going to see the long-arc, most casual viewers are just going to pick up on the nasty attitudes which are in line with the nasty attitudes we're all conditioned to expect and accept. I really don't know.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

know at least for me, my problem with fiction comes most into play when nasty things are dismissed somehow - either by by simply being disappeared without explanation for it, or by being constantly trivialized - or valorized some way or another.

Very, very much so.

he does not get Macho Macho Man credit for them

I do love that about his characterization. Angel, on the other hand, seems to get that credit all the time, at least to my eyes.

I acknowledge, though, that's a bit dicey, because not everyone is going to see the long-arc, most casual viewers are just going to pick up on the nasty attitudes which are in line with the nasty attitudes we're all conditioned to expect and accept. I really don't know.

Yeah, this exactly. And it varies so much from person to person, too.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

No advice. Just that whenever you run across a guy in fandom who starts claiming that Xander is 'just like me'... it's a sign to run.

Xander is an interesting character for all the reasons you point out. But a few of his fanboiz are really just too much.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

Ha! Yes, this is very true. The guy in my life who reminds me most of Xander actually wants to be like Giles, which gives me hope for him. He doesn't want to be the Xander.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

I think the point that I agree with most (and that defines the issues I have with Joss) is he doesn't check his privilege at the door. He's so concerned with making this awesome female hero character and this nice dude that is totally fine with her being the leader that he doesn't realize the privilege he gives the nice dude and how the nice dude abuses it. After reading your post I did a search on the nice guy trope, and found this post from Feministing about nice guys that describes Xander perfectly. In reading Gabs' BBB post I got physically sick at the fact that Buffy thanks Xander for not raping her, showing what a good guy he is.

The "nice guy" in the Feministing article does the same thing - he thinks that just because he wouldn't take advantage of a drunk girl he should get a cookie, as if taking advantage of drunk girls was a default behavior in men and he's so wonderful to deviate from it. NO. NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF DRUNK GIRLS SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT BEHAVIOR. You do not get a cookie for doing something you should be doing anyways, and this is where Xander comes in. His reputation as the "nice guy" means he gets cookies of praise from the other characters (a pet peeve of mine is when he slut-shames Buffy for having sex with Spike and then in the next episode is thanked by her for being such a good friend while she apologizes for keeping her sex life a secret from him. HER SEX LIFE IS NONE OF HIS FUCKING BUSINESS!) when he's really just doing what should be the default behavior. It speaks of how prevalent rape culture is that not raping Buffy in BBB is seen as exemplary behavior.

To shift to another topic, Anya, Spike and Cordelia are brilliantly constructed characters because they do call the protagonists out on their privilege at some points, and it feels natural and in-character. In that Spike series thing I created a socially aware, bitterly sarcastic character just so any privilege Spike gets from being the white male protagonist in a multicultural city gets called into question. I think from a writing standpoint having an outside character who can see privilege in the protagonists is the way to go, but have it embedded in characterization instead of a trait thrust upon an existing character.

I may have other thoughts later, but I have to go to the financial aid office to get some money now.

Edited: Here's an interesting Slayage article on Xander that might interest you. From the first paragraph: "But beneath the show’s progressive exterior exist situations enforcing the patriarchal society that created it. What effect does this patriarchy have, and does its mere existence prevent a text such as Buffy from representing a genuine feminist ideology? This paper will show how difficult it is, even with the best of intentions, to escape the prevailing hegemony, and more importantly, will seek to prove how the show’s apparent failings make it a better feminist text."
And it's all about how Xander undermines the feminist reading while having Xander there makes a feminist reading more realistic.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

and that defines the issues I have with Joss) is he doesn't check his privilege at the door.

Yes, yes.

In reading Gabs' BBB post I got physically sick at the fact that Buffy thanks Xander for not raping her, showing what a good guy he is

It makes me feel sick just thinking about it, too.

(a pet peeve of mine is when he slut-shames Buffy for having sex with Spike and then in the next episode is thanked by her for being such a good friend while she apologizes for keeping her sex life a secret from him. HER SEX LIFE IS NONE OF HIS FUCKING BUSINESS!)

OH I KNOW. I can't handle that. I just...don't watch that scene.

Ooooh. That Slayage article does indeed look fascinating. Thank you.

Good luck with getting the money!

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Okay! Real comment now that I'm not halfway out the door!

Joss Whedon grew up with a feminist mother, so putting aside whether "slut-shaming" was common parlance at the time, Whedon was surely aware of the concept when he produced Buffy.

That being said, I'm very glad that he left it in because it makes the characters more realistic. I dislike morality plays. Whedon definitely had a feminist theme going for the show, on the whole, but he didn't weigh it down in after school special-esque didactics. Tell the story, not the message.

With the style of show Whedon was going for, it works.

I'm largely apathetic towards Xander, so his general boorishness in the first few seasons mainly leaves me with a shrug.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

Whedon was surely aware of the concept when he produced Buffy.

One would certainly hope. I don't know that we can make that leap, though; you'd think that if his feminist mother's influence had really made a difference, he wouldn't so often resort to issues of questionable consent in his writings? Or perhaps he's just so secure in his identity as a "feminist guy" that he thinks he's incapable of writing anything that isn't feminist? I don't know. It's really hard to talk about him because we of course don't know what he's thinking.

I'm very glad that he left it in because it makes the characters more realistic. I dislike morality plays. Whedon definitely had a feminist theme going for the show, on the whole, but he didn't weigh it down in after school special-esque didactics.

Yeah, this was one of the things I was trying to get at. I agree, for the most part, and I absolutely think those kinds of characters are necessary.

so his general boorishness in the first few seasons mainly leaves me with a shrug.

I get really angry on behalf of the women in his life. When he's not actively pissing me off, I mostly am apathetic, too.

[notemily.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think my big problem with Xander's early behavior is that we don't get to see the harm that it does, we don't get to see very many consequences for the way he behaves, etc. Everyone just rolls their eyes at his slut-shaming comments and goes on with the episode, which gives the message that his comments are harmless. I definitely think it would be unrealistic to have Xander never be sexist, but he's one of the "good guys" of the show, and I don't like when he does awful things and nothing in the show calls him out on it or makes him face any consequences.

[diebirchen.livejournal.com]

My point entirely, which to my way of thinking, doesn't qualify him as a "good guy."

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

I still think he's a realistic and even necessary kind of character, even though they could have done a MUCH BETTER JOB in questioning a lot of his behavior within the context of the show.

That was always my biggest issue with his character. Xander just personifies the "nice guy" that the show couldhave done an awesome job of deconstructing. Even before Caleb and Warren, the high school years gave us Larry learing "thank you thigh master" and looking up a girls skirt to give you the more extreme example of what a sexist creep some guys can be, yet the show never called Xander on his jokes to his friend Buffy about how he would love a lapdance from her (BBAB) or trying to peek at her changing (NKABOTFD). Instead it's practically presented as some cute guys will be guys moment, even though Xander was doing the exact same thing that the show happily called jocks like Larry out for doing, and if anything it was even worse coming from Xander when he knew Buffy as his friend and was still sneaking peeks in a mirror when she trusted him in her bedroom

Nor did the show call him on his insults to Cordelia, instead they were generally presented from Xander's POV as though he were delivering an Oh Snap moment to the girl that was mean to them, but there were plenty of other insults he could have brought up other than "marketing hooker wear", "locker-room talk" and so on. Not to mention in Phases when he's fretting over Willow/Oz and how guys in bands are only after one thing, Cordelia scoffs that she's dated plenty of guys in bands (with the implication that you're making too big a deal out of this/they're not like you see them at all), and Xander responds "thank you" in all seriousness as if she's proving his point that guys in bands are only after one thing and that's why many of them have have dated a girl like Cordelia. At least I don't know how else we were supposed to take that little exchange?!? It wasn't even one of Xander's planned zingers meant to hurt her, it just came across so casual like that's actually how he sees Cordelia and he has no respect for her at all. So gross

LOL Sorry, this turned into way too much of a rant, but yeah that was my issue when the show wanted to presented Xander as some kind of role model to the guys in the audience (or so Joss has apparently said?), and the writers seemed to seriously believe he was some great friend to Buffy. Yeah he might have had her back when it counted, but he constantly judged her personal life and and acted like a really crappy friend while the show seemed to think we would take the exact opposite impression away from moments like the Into The Woods speech or Seeing Red reconciliation scene, as if we were meant to take it as sweet that he took such a creepy and invasive interest in Buffy's personal life

[diebirchen.livejournal.com]

I'm no Xander fan, as I think I've made clear; however, I do see a difference between his insults to Cordelia and those to Anya. Cordelia pretty much gave as good as she got. She was no doormat and dished out no end of insults herself. Anya was a different story. She was constantly trod upon, hurt, and really didn't understand why, nor did she return his insults in kind. I think his lack of respect for women was an off-shoot of his lack of self-respect, and that I understand.

[ever-neutral.livejournal.com]

Ugh, so late to this post, can add nothing of substance. But, I LOVE EVERYTHING YOU SAY AND THE DISCUSSION HEREIN. Thanks for it.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post and discussion. Nothing really to add except to note that it was probably shadowkat's post and discussion you had in mind regarding the cultural context.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I thought of a real point as well. I agree that Xander doesn't get any moral credit here, any more than Spike got credit for not feeding off bleeding disaster victims.

That said, I'm not sure the show was wrong to have Buffy praise him. From a pedagogical view, her praise reinforced the fact that he did the correct thing. Now, I'd like to think that the correct path was so obvious that it didn't need reinforcement (like Spike's case), but sad to say that's not the real world. For this reason I wouldn't criticize the show for hanging a lantern on the point.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The commentary that I've been reading about Xander in regards to slut-shamming has felt ironic. Because I do remember the public non-character specific voy boards in 2002-2003, the Spike Wars - specifically between Xander and Spike fans, and Spike was considered the misogynistic character. Many of the derogatory comments that I've been reading about Xander? Xander fans applied to Spike. Xander - was considered the "beta" male, the true friend. Many people saw Xander as sort of a human version of Angel in some respects, with similar issues. So seeing the opposite...is a bit entertaining. I keep waiting for the Xander fans to come out of the woodwork and scream foul.

I think if you look at the whole series in context? Xander's sexism is realistically dealt with. Notably? Caleb, the biggest slut-shamer of them all (hello, his spiel about 'dirty girls')
plucks Xander's eye out. It's no accident that it is Caleb who plucks out Xander's eye and wounds him. Xander who has always leered...Nice metaphor that.

Also, various episodes leading up to that - show us why Xander is the way he is. We get Amends (Xander is sleeping outside to avoid his parents arguing), Restless (Xander's nightmare - where he becomes literally his father - a domestic abuser, who beat Xander's mother and verbally abused her), leading up to finally - Hell's Bells when he leaves Anya at the alter, and say's it's not you, it's me. In his nightmare - he saw himself as his father.
The abusive, slut-shaming, guy. And if you look at Xander's relationships with Buffy's beaux - you see the examination there as well, and in a way the writers own commentary on his own issues - Xander resents and is wildly jealous of Angel (who in some respects is very much like Xander - Pack Xander is a bit like Angelus in his cruelty), Xander doesn't take Spike all that seriously and they have an odd insulting relationship - Spike is the classic Momma's Boy in Xander's view which of course Xander is too - he's defended Mom against Dad his entire life, and Riley is of course the guy Xander wishes he was. (Is it really that surprising that Buffy's relationship with Riley is the only one Xander approves of? From Xander's perspective, Riley is Mr. Perfect, Mr. Right.) Xander is your typical "fanboy", the "comic book fan geek".

And he was very complex. He could boost Buffy up one moment, tear her down the next. But the slut-shaming? It made sense considering this is a guy who spent most of his life hiding outside or in the basement to avoide his father yelling at his mother and demeaning her. The show does an excellent job of showing the long-term affects of prolonged exposure to domestic violence and a culture that inadvertently condones it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh - the post you are referring to? I think it was a comment to my post on Being a Buffy Fan 1998-2012. I don't think I said it, but I think someone I was interacting with on one of the many comments threads did. Can't remember who.