58 thoughts on “Xander Harris: Hyena Boy”

1. I definitely agree with all of this…I’d maybe also add that the show’s discomfort with strong women characters goes beyond just Xander, I think. Willow and Faith are both punished for having and enjoying various kinds of power. I guess you could argue Riley is too, though? Still, for a show that is often cited as being specifically about female empowerment, it’s got a lot of nervousness around that issue.

2. I think a certain amount of discomfort was meant to show the real world and thus didn’t bother me. Of course, Riley, as I think I mentioned above, does struggle with his macho attitude while also lusting for the person that “threatens” his masculinity and strength.

   But Xander.. It isn’t what he does so much as how he’s championed.

3. I hadn’t heard that Whedon was raised by a radical feminist before. Interesting. Despite not having rewatched this series since it aired, one might also take an opposite, ideologically tinged reading of the males in the series, as they fit Judith Levine’s list of misandrous stereotypes:

   Infants: the Mama’s Boy, the Babbler, the Bumbler and the Invalid = e.g., Xander, Wesley, Oz
   Betrayers: the Seducer, the Slave, the Abandoner and the Abductor = e.g., Riley, Giles
   Beasts: the Brute, the Pet, the Pervert, the Prick and the Killer = e.g., Angel, Spike and just about every other male on the show

   Just a passing thought.

4. And kudos for a well-researched and -defended essay.

5. Charles-
   Xander might be an infant, but is it misandrous when he’s described as the heart of the group, the strength of Buffy, and becomes the Watcher of the Slayers? He might be a ridiculous boy, but he’s gifted with power for being that way. Perhaps that’s questionable on its own, but there’s something particularly eerie about this gift of power.

   And thanks – It was challenging to absorb myself in Xander for a few months. :)

6. Unfortunately, I can’t cite chapter and verse, but I found all the main characters complex enough at my time of viewing that they’re not reducible to the gender war profiles. So, while not thinking your reading is wrong, I also don’t think it sounds like the complete picture from what I remember. The writers wanted to remain true to the characters, not just provide us with agitprop. Xander never seemed to me like the moral center of the group. In fact, I never took any of the characters for that. All of them proved to be fairly wrong, to disastrous effect, throughout the series. But I’d have to go back to the show to really go toe-to-toe with you on it. Anyway, you give a lot of food for thought.

7. I guess my point was that, while Xander is a key part of Buffy’s anti-feminist vision, he’s not the only part. The show stands behind his misogynist moments — but it also stands behind the idea that women who have power can’t be both happy and good,and behind Riley’s anger at Buffy for essentially just being stronger than him…and in a lot of ways behind Oz’s decision to go off and find his inner wolf…and so forth. There are just a lot of problematic moments — enough so that I think it actually does make sense to talk about it in terms of an anti-feminist and anti-women vision.

   That’s not to say that there isn’t also a pro-feminist vision, because there is. The storyline where the three nerd losers are shown to be both misogynist and dangerous is a fine case in point — a perfect skewering of the “I’m socially ostracized therefore I should be allowed to hate women” which is quite, quite prevalent, then and now. And of course Buffy is the hero and does the saving, and Willow is eventually allowed to use her powers for good, and so forth. But I think the praise for the ways the show stands behind its female characters often swamps the extent to which the same show could be really vile (way moreso than either Twilight or the Hunger Games, neither of which ever allow the main character to be loathed for their strength or for being women, I don’t think.)

8. Maybe it’s my opinion coming through my viewing and overriding the show’s perspective, but a great majority of the events/actions/etc you mention in regards to Xander are shown as negative… I mean, most of these, were times, in watching the show, that I was not feeling like I should sympathize with Xander. Almost everything he did felt like it was a mistake.

   Admittedly, it’s often hard to see why any of the other kids were friends with him.

9. This is a real indictment, utterly persuasive; what a passive-aggressive douche. It’s doubly weird that he gets a pass all the time when the actor is so uncharismatic. But does this mean I can’t enjoy that Zeppo episode any more? It’s a long, long time since I saw it, but I remember enjoying it a lot…

10. Derik – I think some is your own opinion. It was surely the case for me (something that dwindled as his words became harsher, like Dead Man’s Party). Sometimes his commentary and actions are framed as negative, or neutral, but there’s never a backlash or criticism of him like he dishes out to his friends. And then he gets named the heart and strength, the person who sees what the others are too busy to, which suggests that what we once found questionable is actually ok.

    Jones – I almost included Zeppo. It’s probably the best Xander episode. Save the (reward) sex with Faith, it has no ties to his usual actions and storylines. Then again, it IS an episode where he gets to be powerful on his own and not in the shadows of the powerful girls, which continues subverting the feminist message.

11. I wonder if the writers wrote Buffy saying he was the heart of the group because he’s the only one who isn’t a witch or a half-demon or a former demon or a magic key or a former villain or a werewolf or whatever. He’s the closes thing to a normal human in the show?

    I guess Giles is also a normal human but he’s a funny foreigner who was on the outs with Buffy.

12. I think it’s important to remember that Xander often gets a pass because he’s so weak.

    That’s (at least partially) why he gets to call Cordelia a “hooker” and Buffy can’t call Cordelia a “moron.” Xander attacking Cordelia is the weak sniping at the strong. Buffy attacking Cordelia is the strong bullying the weak.

    I don’t think, for my own part, that this makes much of a difference — your indictment here is still very convincing to me. Xander remains an unlikeable douche for most of the show; his treatment of Anya in particular is very hard to stomach.

    But I think that Whedon may very well have a soft spot for Xander as the “normal,” the “underdog,” the David to everyone else’s Goliath. He may by into the idea that bad behavior is only really bad when the powerful do it to the powerless. I don’t buy that — it’s less important, less effectual, but not less bad.

    Certainly Xander’s egregious behavior has limited consequences because of his limited ability to affect events around him.

13. ——————————–
    Jones, one of the Jones boys says:

    This is a real indictment, utterly persuasive; what a passive-aggressive douche. It’s doubly weird that he gets a pass all the time when the actor is so uncharismatic.
    ——————————–

    Indeed, whatta creep! Glad we could never get into that show. It’d have been maddening to watch that noxious behavior not only “get a pass on,” but be rewarded.

    ——————————–
    John says:

    …But I think that Whedon may very well have a soft spot for Xander as the “normal,” the “underdog,” the David to everyone else’s Goliath…
    ———————————

    How about as an embodiment of Whedon’s “dark side”? That Whedon was “raised by a radical feminist” really explains it all. (Imagine a Caucasian kid being raised by Black militants. “We still love you, even though the White Man is the devil!”) Even when consciously believing in and ostentatiously preaching the feminist thing, buried resentments, non-PC attitudes, skepticism about at least some aspects of the Gospel of Feminism can be yearning to be vented.

    (Interview with Whedon at http://movies.ign.com/articles/425/425492p2.html )

    An excerpt of The existential Joss Whedon: evil and human freedom in Buffy the vampire slayer ( http://tinyurl.com/7kdswgm ) mentions, re Rhonda Wilcox’s Why Buffy Matters, “…She also notes that Josh Whedon has admitted that Xander is the character who most closely represents him as well as the rest of us.”

    Ecch!

14. For pity’s sake; there is no gospel of feminism, and the vast majority of feminists, even radical feminists, don’t hate men. The idea that kids always rebel against their parents is also poppycock, incidentally — the best way to predict a kid’s politics and general belief structure is to look at their parents.

    In any case, your ability to blame any and all evil in the world on feminists is nothing short of startling.

15. It’s my understanding that feminism is not monolithic. Maybe Whedon’s particular brand left him feeling that need needed a bitter, powerful-women-make-me-feel-castrated guy in picture. I dunno — I’m not an expert on this stuff.

    Whatever the case may be, it’s clear that Xander’s inferiority complex drives him to both petty and at times monstrous actions and that he’s basically never called out on it — or when he is it doesn’t stick.

16. ——————————–
    Noah Berlatsky says:

    For pity’s sake; there is no gospel of feminism…
    ———————————

    There are no universally agreed-upon tenets, no points on which all areas of the feminist spectrum (indeed, hardly monolithic) agree?

    OK…

    ———————————-
    …and the vast majority of feminists, even radical feminists, don’t hate men.
    ———————————-

    Did I say they did? And it’s not necessary to “hate” a group to have a negative view of then en masse. For instance, I truly don’t think Dave Sim *hates* women; he just views them as a destructive, pernicious influence, an irrational and emotion-driven group, not to be trusted in high offices or with sharp objects.

    From the earliest beginnings of feminism, there is a recurrent strain that “women are men’s equals, and should have equal rights” going along with the attitude that “men are violent and destructive, while women are nurturing and life-affirming.”

    In other words, that — to paraphrase Animal Farm — “all humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than others.”

    From a 1776 Abigail Adams letter to her husband:
    ————————————
    Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could..

    That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute…
    ————————————
    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/abigail.htm

    And no, I’m not denying there’s a horrendous amount of oppression of women going on throughout the world, whether of the personal or societal level. Merely arguing against attitudes such as “ALL men are would-be tyrants,” which unfortunately did not die out with the 18th century.

    (And which would be considered outrageously sexist, were it aimed at women.)

    ————————————–
    The idea that kids always rebel against their parents is also poppycock, incidentally — the best way to predict a kid’s politics and general belief structure is to look at their parents.
    —————————————

    Where did I say “kids always rebel against their parents”? I was pointing to a specific example; a character Joss Whedon created, gave a primal role to, and finally raised to an exalted position. Someone “destroying any so-called feminism in Sunnydale.”

    Which sure is a thought-provoking situation. Imagine if a son of Martin Luther King’s were to write a novel where a significant character was a white racist, continuously making cracks about “coons,” ridiculing blacks’ attempts at achieving equality. That the author maintained was based on himself, represented reg’lr folks, and had his caustic comments tolerated, the novel “uphold[ing his] skewed viewpoint, never forcing him to repent and never allowing him to change,” and was considered “the group’s moral compass.”

    Wouldn’t that tend to, um, give one pause?

    —————————————-
    In any case, your ability to blame any and all evil in the world on feminists is nothing short of startling.
    —————————————-

    It would be startling if I did do that. Which I didn’t. For that matter, I don’t think even the most extreme feminists are guilty of anything remotely bad as “evil.” Arrogance, sexism, intellectual inconsistency, hypocrisy, sure. But that’s pretty puny stuff compared to the massive injustices and cruelties that are indeed being committed against women, from getting far less pay for the same work, to being unpaid servants and chattel of males, to female genital mutilation (mostly done by older women upon your girls).

    As usual, we have again in your response several examples of the “accuse someone of making some outrageous assertion which in fact they did not do, then criticize them for their outrageousness” tactic.

17. Oy, Mike.

    No, there’s no list of agreed upon tenets for feminists. “Women should be treated like human beings” is maybe it, but beyond that, there’s really a very wide range of thought. I mean, it’s not a club, you know?

    Abigail Adams had a certain amount of evidence to support the idea that all men would be tyrants if they could, it seems to me. (And it’s not clear that she’s referring to men as men there either; those folks believed that tyranny was like a virus; you had to hem it round whether it was practiced by kings or, Abigail suggests, in houses.) You should look up her husband’s response; he didn’t exactly prove her wrong. And, in any case, women have a lot of reason to distrust men as a class. That’s not prejudice — that’s the history of the human race.

    And I was indulging in a mild bit of hyperbole, Mike. But the truth is that you are eager to find the feminist to blame in many, many cases.

18. Mike – I’m not convinced on that this is a dark side. If that was the case, are we to believe that the other writers challenged it and he forced it to be this way? There are a ton of pens in the pot, all of whom should’ve noticed the Xander slant. The only thing I can figure is that he didn’t critically look at his own work and how he perpetuated some anti-feminist sentiments, and no one else noticed/commented on it.

    btw: the idea that men are destructive and women are nurturing might be a recurrent strain that pops up now and then, but it’s very far from all-encompassing, and I’d argue that it’s increasingly antiquated. I, for one, didn’t even believe such dichotomies as a child, let alone an educated adult.

19. Has anyone ever asked Whedon why his self-insert character is such a dick? I mean, this isn’t fan judgment. Xander attempts to murder Angel — in one of the most emotionally central episodes of the show. This’d be a fair question by any measure.

20. Pingback: Open Thread And Link Farm, I’ll Dig Out Your Eye Edition | Alas, a Blog

21. ——————————
    Noah Berlatsky says:

    No, there’s no list of agreed upon tenets for feminists. “Women should be treated like human beings” is maybe it, but beyond that, there’s really a very wide range of thought…
    ——————————-

    Well, people have no trouble enslaving or slaughtering other “human beings.” Or considering many of them of limited intelligence and maturity — such as is the case with children — and not to be trusted with “adult” responsibilities. There are plenty of “agreed upon tenets for feminists,” far more legally/morally complex than that. Off the top of my head:

    – Women should be legally equal to men, have equal rights under the law

    – Women should have the right to own property

    – Women should have the right to an equal education

    – Women should have control over their reproductive functions

    Lemme go Google to see what I might’ve missed:

    ——————————-
    Issues commonly associated with notions of women’s rights include, though are not limited to, the right: to bodily integrity and autonomy; to vote (suffrage); to hold public office; to work; to fair wages or equal pay; to own property; to education; to serve in the military or be conscripted; to enter into legal contracts; and to have marital, parental and religious rights…
    ———————————

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights

    ——————————–
    …in any case, women have a lot of reason to distrust men as a class. That’s not prejudice — that’s the history of the human race.
    ———————————

    Sure; see my comments to Monika, below.

    ———————————-
    …the truth is that you are eager to find the feminist to blame in many, many cases.
    ———————————

    I am ready to find fault with feminism whenever it embraces stupid, self-destructive attitudes. I can remember the heady heyday of modern feminism decades ago, and it’s sad to see how a righteous and thoroughly sensible cause has marginalized itself. With extremists (“You can’t be a real feminist if you’re not a lesbian!” “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are!”) the loudest voices (it doesn’t help that the mass media routinely focuses attention on the extremes; you’d think from watching TV that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell embody mainstream Christianity), driving away potential allies. The better to make the pond smaller, that the separatist extremists would be bigger, more powerful frogs in proportion.

    If feminists are heard loudly arguing that men are all a bunch of violent oppressors, and even sympathetic males who support women’s rights are to sit in the back of the bus and just shut up (if they say anything, it’s “mansplaining”), doesn’t that lead to half the human race (a half which overwhelmingly dominates politics) being driven away from supporting the cause?

    Look at what happened with civil rights, where we see a giant like Martin Luther King supplanted by a showboating clown like Al Sharpton, anti-Semitism embraced, white activists who once played such a vital part, hardly welcome any more.

    ———————————
    Monika says:

    Mike – I’m not convinced on that this is a dark side. If that was the case, are we to believe that the other writers challenged it and he forced it to be this way? There are a ton of pens in the pot, all of whom should’ve noticed the Xander slant. The only thing I can figure is that he didn’t critically look at his own work and how he perpetuated some anti-feminist sentiments, and no one else noticed/commented on it.
    ———————————–

    Other TV writers (hardly a particularly feminist bunch), desperately vying to get their scripts purchased and used, are going to “challenge” the creator/producer/lead writer of a series about the anti-feminist slant of the Xander character?

    Not very likely; any more than some writers trying to sell a script to The A-Team confronting the producers/story editor with, “Hey, guys, it’s really racist to have the one black member be a musclebound thug with a ‘bad attitude,’ and the ‘brains’ be a white guy; just like it was sexist to have the one female member of the original Mission: Impossible team be a hottie whose main contributing skill is for seduction.” And somehow, I don’t think anyone around George Lucas said, “Gee, George, isn’t this Jar Jar Binks character an embarrassingly obvious racist caricature? Why isn’t he saying, ‘Yassuh, Massa’?”

    But sure, it is indeed probable that Whedon “didn’t critically look at his own work and how he perpetuated some anti-feminist sentiments, and [for the reasons noted above] no one else noticed/commented on it.”

    ————————————–
    btw: the idea that men are destructive and women are nurturing might be a recurrent strain that pops up now and then, but it’s very far from all-encompassing, and I’d argue that it’s increasingly antiquated. I, for one, didn’t even believe such dichotomies as a child, let alone an educated adult.
    ————————————-

    What about history, statistics? While I’ll forever argue against the sweeping attitude that ALL men are violent, ALL women are caring Madonnas,a substantial portion of that behavior gets disproportionately divvied up between the genders. With societies pushing each sex into more “extremist” behavior: men to neglect their “softer,” caring side, emphasize aggressiveness; women to suppress ambition, assertiveness, and encouraged to be self-sacrificing caregivers. (As one example of the latter, the Harper’s Magazine article “The tyranny of breast-feeding: New mothers vs. La Leche League”detailed how the pro-breast-feeding organization broadcasts a “catering to the baby 24/7 must come first, or else you’re a terrible mother” message. The original article is only available online for subscribers; but many of its comments are echoed at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/singletons/201203/stand-mothers-who-can-t-or-don-t-breast-feed-1 .)

    (Some related reading: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97882&page=1 , http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/02_whymalesaremoreviolent.html , http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/why-men-more-violent )

22. John- I’ve wondered that myself, but haven’t found anything. This is probably because BUFFY was regarded as revolutionary and highly feminist back when media had interviews w/ him about the series.

    Mike-
    “If feminists are heard loudly arguing that men are all a bunch of violent oppressors, … driven away from supporting the cause?”

    You’re missing a big part of this dynamic – that many who don’t support feminist causes, both men and women, take any feminist commentary as something as extreme as men being violent oppressors. There’s an attitude of denial far more prevalent than any outspoken radicals tainting a cause, a denial mixed with a comfort with the status quo and fear of change.

    As for television, that’s not at all how it works. Writers don’t write scripts and fight to get a show to purchase and use them. Shows pull together a team of writers who work collaboratively. In the case of Joss, he had some particular plans in mind, and then worked with his team, who were increasingly in charge of the series. (His attention was split by S3 when he began work on Angel and brought Marti Noxon to take over the reigns, who took a lot of criticism for where the series went.)

    From Jane Espenson herself: http://www.fireflyfans.net/firefly/espenson.htm As she explains, each episode is discussed and constructed by the team. So of course there would be challenges and discussions about the trajectory of characters, to not only address concerns but make sure a writer understands where a character is coming from.

    Not to mention that this WAS a “particularly feminist bunch.” This was a relatively indie show that publicly embraced its feminist label, not a mainstream fluff series that relished in macho stereotypes, or big studio films — none of which ever boasted feminist leanings.

    As for the rest, it’s getting wildly off-topic and tinged with more assumptions than I care to dig into. But thanks for the debate!

23. Why write about Xander, and not the other characters? Everyone in the Buffyverse is messed up, messes up, and tries to clean up everyones’ mess. That’s life in Whedon’s Worlds.

24. Can’t write about everything all the time. And the point is that the selfish, assholish behavior Xander displays is not seen as being a mess up by the show. Rather, Xander’s assholism is validated and presented as normative and reasonable.

25. Pingback: Joss Whedon’s Yardstick: Feminism, Humanism, and Xander « Gobbledygeek™

26. I agree with you a 100%. In fact, before I read this article I never thought of him that way. I think the fact that Buffy and Willow were written by Joss to overlook all this is because he was ultimately their friend and we can all admit that when it comes to friends we overlook their flaws sometimes. This could be Joss way of making the show more realistic but the fact that Xander constantly leers over his best friend makes me really pissed off. Sorry, I don’t even know what I’m talking about anymore. Great articule.

27. *article

28. Hi all, I don’t know what blog this is, but I randomly found it and being a Buffy fan I wanted to comment. In any case, I find this article and some of the comments really problematic.

    Xander being the avatar of Joss Whedon is overstated. There’s a quote provided where Whedon says that Xander is the kind of nerdy loser that he used to be in high school. Nevertheless, that’s just the original conception of the character, but the way he develops throughout the show doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Joss Whedon’s development. Whedon’s background as being raised by a radical feminist might be influential, but he still went to high school and he was still immersed in popular culture. He will have had his own struggles in relating to women, as adopting a more healthy attitude towards such matters takes experience and reflection. So maybe in some ways Whedon can relate to Xander’s perspective without endorsing or even condoning some of his heinous actions.

    My second point is the idea of Xander being rewarded for bad behavior. I think it’s an example of reducing a complex character to a puppet that can either harm or advance progression towards gender equality. Yes, Xander is a boy in high school; his attitude towards women is often downright toxic, but he is also courageous, funny, honest etc. The fact the show doesn’t hold him in complete disdain by trying to punish him as often as possible does not mean the show wants to reward misogynist tendencies. I think it’s oversensitivity to zoom in on his exaggerated macho behavior and denounce the show as anti-feminist just because he occasionally finds some degree of happiness.

    I do think that the show eventually became unable to really depict believable and complex characters. In the later seasons the cast starts to live in a bubble, completely separate from any contact with the outside world and characters start to mostly relate to each other based on romance, personal vendettas etc. (and although the themes became more adult, I think the writing got more immature) This means that Xander’s behavior can’t really be criticized internally anymore, because it would remind the audience that there’s an outside world. And Marti Noxon took over and she’s hardly the poster girl of feminism. But for the first three seasons of Buffy I think that Xander is both likeable and flawed and I’m okay with that.

29. I don’t think that the Monika was arguing that Xander should have been constantly insulted or presented as beyond the pale or anything. Rather, the point is that there’s no real recognition, ever, by anyone in the show, that a lot of Xander’s behavior is misogynist, bullying, manipulative, and cruel. So it isn’t that he has both good qualities and bad qualities — it’s that the bad qualities are never recognized or identified as bad within the show — he’s never made to own them, or confront them, or think about them. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the writers and the show in general did not recognize that there was anything wrong with his misogyny, his bullying, his manipulation, or his cruelty. That makes the show, at least in part, misogynist, bullying, manipulative, and cruel. Which is a big part of why, while I like many things about Buffy, I ultimately can’t say that I’m a fan of the show.

30. While I do generally think this site can be a wee bit sensitive on such issues, the points made here about Xander are compelling. I think that while watching the show it is very easy to lapse into the pro-fab narrative of Xander-the-disappointed-nice-guy and miss that he’s, you know, not nice.

    Not every unpopular, dweeby high school guy is “nice.” Those of us who were unpopular, dweeby high school guys need this lesson more than most.

31. And Buffy did absolutely make the point that dweeby, unpopular guys can and often are creepy misogynists. And I really appreciate that it did that…but at the same time, there’s Xander.

32. Ceres,

    Thanks for your comments. Perhaps it seems excessive to you that I question the series’ feminism because of how it treats Xander, but how can I not?

    This is a show that very openly and publicly embraced a feminist label, made to show women to be powerful and to question antiquated sexist attitudes. As Noah notes above, it even shows the misogyny in the seemingly dweeby nice guy.

    How, then, can it allow Xander to continually be “downright toxic” to the women around him, and reward him with high status? How can it never try to help him evolve and call him on it? Sure, some of the latter work is shoddy compared to the early moments, but Joss still had a hand in it, and ultimately a hand in crafting the comics that followed.

    It’s astonishing to me that the “heart” of the group is a man who repeatedly acts in a sexist manner, and only rarely acts with any real heart towards the people he holds dear.

33. Heh, this is all coming back up…

    I repeat my contention that Xander is just too weak to seriously disturb the women on the show. Buffy is at virtually all times aware that she can snap her fingers and have Xander at her heel. In later seasons, so is Willow.

    He is not the celebrated “heart” of the group so much as he is the tolerated annoying mascot.

34. Hi all, thanks for the replies.

    BtVS sometimes has problems showing consequences to behavior. An example is Giles betraying Buffy on the council’s orders in the third season. There is momentary fallout, but it’s quickly forgotten. Another is Anya being a villain, ordering Willow’s death and being retooled to become a love interest without anyone really remembering her past outside of when she jokes about it and even then nobody responds to her past as psychopathic mass murderer.

    Xander setting Angel up to die is somewhat similar. Buffy is never outright confronted with the fact that Xander lied to her (I don’t believe it’s brought up in the show again), but she could have pieced it together fairly easily. However, at the start of season 3 there’s the story thread of Buffy coping with Angel’s ‘death’ and her alienation from the group and those issues get resolved fairly quickly to get us back to the status quo. I’m not sure if that was a good idea, but it’s the way the show often deals with certain dramatic events: there is a transition episode to resolve tension and then there’s a new status quo, usually mostly similar to the previous.

    So I think it’s a fair criticism that Xander never got his comeuppance, where he he explicitly gets confronted with his sexist wise-cracking and behavior towards women. Xander became irrelevant to the show by the fourth season though and most of his character growth was in him mellowing out and trying to get a healthy relationship with Anya (who is a joke character).

    And in general, the show really was quite complex in the first few seasons and never bothered to outright telegraph what behavior we should be okay with. (it’s not an episode of Scrubs with the montage at the end) Yes, Xander’s behavior is annoying and it is shown that people react to it or are bothered by it. It leads him to horrible actions such as betraying Angel. (something you can fairly say the show didn’t deal with) But still, we’re free to make up our own minds if he’s good or bad and I don’t see how that means that the show is anti-feminist. (which is quite a strong criticism, mind you)

35. But Monika’s point is that at the end we’re told that he’s Buffy’s heart, right? So that seems it’s pretty enthusiastically telling us that he’s good, not leaving it up in the air.

    The fact that the show doesn’t really deal with the moral issues it raises is a good point…but not exactly a defense to the points Monika’s making, I don’t think. Misogyny is as often laziness as malevolence. Indeed, the two are often practically inseparable, in the sense that acquiescing unthinkingly to a misogynist status quo has much the same effect as embracing it wholeheartedly.

36. Well, I would say the issue of authorship is really quite relevant. Joss Whedon was responsible for most of the first three seasons, but later on had gotten bored with the show and only returned to it for ‘very special episodes’, while he focused on other projects. Furthermore, just going through the list of points that Monika makes, a lot of them are from episodes written by Marti Noxon (her writing is a pet annoyance to me), the same writer that’s really responsible for most of the show past the third season. I haven’t actually watched past the fifth season, since I read the sixth one was worse and the fifth already bored me. (I really love the first two though) So I can’t say anything too constructive about it, except that it’s not really about Buffy as she was originally imagined anymore. I honestly think that an analysis stretching all seven seasons is maybe not a good idea, because it almost becomes a different show when there is so much, say, writer turn-over.

    And a lot of Monika’s points are still about issues in the first few season that indeed do show Xander as sexist. But a lot of those are silly. Xander distrusts Angel, but he turned out to have been right about the danger that Angel represented, in any case, and although his concern was partly fueled by jealousy I really don’t think that was his only motivation. And Xander lies to Buffy in order to have her kill Angel, but that goes quite far beyond mere jealousy. I think (and this is one of the reasons the show is imo quite brilliant) you can make a good case that Xander is not the villain there. Not a conclusive case, but there’s room for debate.

    There are some other examples such as reading things into the hyena episode that I don’t think are fair. Xander had no need to apologize for anything as he was possessed by evil hyena spirits. His comment to Cordelia about looking like a hooker are banter between people that dislike each other at high school. Cordelia insults Xander plenty as well, drawing attention to his social status and his family’s poverty. So in a sense they deserved each other, I really don’t think that Xander ending up in a dysfunctional relationship with Cordelia is the show ‘rewarding him’ for sexist behavior.

    So yeah, using the Xander character (still a fairly typical depiction of a male high school student whose constant annoying remarks are hardly approved of by the show) as a reason to call one of the most outwardly feminist shows at that point in time anti-feminist makes me think there would be no show that could pass such a test. You could say the same thing about e.g. Breaking Bad where you have a main character that’s problematic from a gender equality perspective, who is also sympathetic at times and is the hero of the show. Yet, although the show doesn’t always spell it out, he is not a good guy and just because he acts a certain way does not mean the show approves of such behavior.

37. I mean, if your argument is, “this is better than most things on tv in its treatment of gender,” that’s probably true. That’s an incredibly and even offensively low bar, is the problem.

    If you’re not grading on a curve, Buffy’s gender politics are occasionally good and occasionally not very good; it has moments of feminism and moments of anti-feminism. It rarely gets called on the later, because the competition is lousy…but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t get called on them, I don’t think.

38. Well, I won’t repeat my points (it’s fun to discuss Buffy again though ^^) so a few more things:

    Xander is a teenage boy that has difficulties with women. He’s not particularly exceptional in that regard – of course he’s meant to be the every man character in some ways. How he relates to women won’t be informed by anything like critical feminist thought, but rather by the rules of (tv’s version of) high school where there are a lot of cliques and there’s a general divide between the sexes. He turns women into “others” as Monika says, even going so far as to pretend that Willow is one of the guys because he’s friends with her.

    In high school, slut-shaming a popular rich girl that’s constantly belittling you is fair game. Lusting after women you can’t have is hardly a groundbreaking development either. Xander’s behavior is not a conscious choice after browsing through all available options, but simply the natural response to his environment. A lot of boys in his position would act the same, frankly, and I don’t think you can label such things as really serious cases of misogyny. Or well, maybe you can, but most people do kind of grow out of it, so it should really be Xander’s later development when he is in his first serious relationship, possibly starting a career etc. that really determine what his attitude towards women will end up being.

    That’s not to say his behavior was harmless and that we should all laugh about it, but I don’t think that’s what the show did. At the same time, it’s easy to judge him as some vile misogynist from our comfy view on the couch, watching Xander on television. There’s really a big difference between, say, some guy that goes about mistreating women and enjoying it and someone like Xander who blunders into mistreating women by mistake due to self-loathing and lack of reflection. (i.e. more the case of a normal teenage boy)

    And I really can’t think of an instance where his wise-cracking at Cordelia’s expense or so was really glorified. I think Monika maybe just wanted his behavior to be addressed as part of his character arc, but I just don’t think it’s necessary for a show like Buffy which does leave viewers free to make up their own minds and does have flawed characters that are still likable. Of course, if you really can’t like someone like Xander because, say, you’ve been on the receiving end of sexism too many times and he triggers too many buttons I could see how it can make the show hard to watch.

    I hope it makes sense, just trying to have amusing discussion, not trying to argue really. :o

    (also, the captcha code gives errors)

39. I’m not sure what you mean about the captcha code? Could you explain? (I’ve had troubles with the damn thing before…)

    In re your points:

    “There’s really a big difference between, say, some guy that goes about mistreating women and enjoying it and someone like Xander who blunders into mistreating women by mistake due to self-loathing and lack of reflection. (i.e. more the case of a normal teenage boy)”

    I think this is maybe a crux of the disagreement. I don’t think there’s a big difference, and often there isn’t really any difference. Misogyny is very often actuated by self-loathing and lack of reflection. Moreover, why would you assume that Xander doesn’t get enjoyment out of, say, self-righteously lying to Buffy, or telling her that her boyfriend visiting a prostitute is her fault?

    Sexism isn’t something that other people do; it’s not the provenance of monsters. It’s about how people — normal people — treat each other. Yes, normal high school boys engage in sexism. But that doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t matter. On the contrary.

    Again, Buffy actually had some great moments on this; the whole arc with Warren and his geeky friends, for example, which basically was about how geeky, average, sympathetic guys could be, and often are, misogynists and even rapists. That was really a moment where the parallels with Xander could have been made…but never were.

40. Yeah, it gives some error like “captcha code doesn’t match please click the back button on your browser and try again” and it directs me to an error page.

    And well, I disagree. BtVS is about surviving high school and Xander’s behavior is just his way of coping. He’s a product of his environment at an age where he hasn’t really had the chance for self-reflection (mind you that he’s supposed to be 15 at the start of the show, despite the actor being 10 years older) and that’s different from, say, an older person sexually harassing female co-workers. That’s not to excuse Xander’s behavior, but at least for me he can still be a sympathetic character (or an interesting one at least) despite his flaws. And that’s what the show is going for, I suppose, to make Xander appear interesting and somehow relevant as a commentary on growing up as an outcast. Xander’s aggression towards strong women is certainly intended by the writers to be a character flaw, for instance, it seems quite deliberate.

    I guess that “everyone ‘does’ and perpetuates gender practices” and is in a way participating in problematic systems, but that doesn’t mean that everyone is pure evil. :) I mean, that’s kind of my core problem with the original blog post, that Xander’s behavior is apparently so ‘wrong’ that it becomes a problematic part of the show when personally I don’t see it as beyond the pale. It’s annoying, but an understandable part of his character. Though, I’m not a woman, so I would more easily sympathize with Xander’s struggles maybe. (I really don’t want to imply that anyone who’s offended by him should just be quiet and don’t whine so much or so, it’s a fair criticism I guess)

41. Argh…but you eventually are able to post, right? Stupid captcha….

42. I use google chrome if that helps. It says “Error: You did not enter a CAPTCHA phrase. Press your browser’s back button and try again.” as it should when I do not enter a captcha, but what would usually happen is that I would enter it, click “add comment”, it would give the error message, then the same thing would happen until I would refresh the captcha. (however, one time it didn’t work even then and also one time it worked right away)

43. The major flaw with this article is that it projects real-world values on a fantasy show – but only when it’s convenient to the argument the author is making. For example, Angel and Spike have tried to murder Xander – repeatedly. Spike has tried to kill Buffy and kidnapped her – AFTER falling in love with her. No one in their right mind would want to even interact with these people, let alone encourage their friends to date them. Yet in this article disliking those guys is clearly presented as The Ultimate Sin. And Buffy has never let Xander or any of her other friends dictate her actions – if she did, she would have obviously never dated Angel and Spike to begin with. So what’s the problem exactly? That someone dared express a different opinion?
    Equally disconcerting is the way Cordelia and Anya are made out to be victims. If one actually goes through the episodes, they would notice that Cordelia and Anya insult Xander much more often than he does. Which I’m not complaining about – the relationships were, like the article describes, combative. But depicting Cordelia and Anya as weak wallflowers who can’t stand up for themselves is a huge misnomer. Anya even spends an entire episode trying to kill Xander. But hey, being (supposedly) sexist is so much more worse than murder, right?
    And this article misrepresents many facts. Xander does not disapprove of every relationship Buffy and Willow have. He is good friends with Oz, even though Willow chose him over Xander. He doesn’t show any hostility towards Buffy’s relationship with Scott, Parker, Riley, etc. There are several episodes where Xander helps Buffy on the subject of Angel or Spike despite his hatred of these guys, like ‘Phases’, ‘Amends’ and ‘Him’. Things were more nuanced on the actual show.

44. Parcheesy,

    The show distinctly framed itself as a fantasy series that uses otherworldly creatures to discuss real-life situations and values, so it’s certainly appropriate to discuss how they play out within the show.

    Most of the people in the show shouldn’t date the people they are from any realistic point of view. It’s not a sin for him to be wary or hate Angel and Spike, but it’s highly problematic how he morphs his opinions to suit himself. Having a soul is irrelevant to Xander, but he’ll get into a serious relationship with an ex-vengeance demon who killed people for over a millennia (much longer and more than either vampire killed), and condemn those that try to kill her when she starts killing again. It’s one piece in a larger part of Xander’s hypocrisy.

    Cordelia and Anya are certainly not victims. But does that mean we cannot critique the sexism lobbed at them? If Anya was ultimately framed as the heart of the slayer, and her word was heralded, then this article would be about her.

    What it boils down to is the simple fact that Xander does a lot of crappy things, and unlike everyone else on the show, he is never really taken to task for them. Instead, he’s rewarded; he’s made the “heart” while continually passing out hypocritical and self-serving judgments.

    Ceres-
    Sorry for the wild delay, but here goes: If Xander’s crap was ever outwardly acknowledged/questioned, then I probably wouldn’t have ever felt the need to write this. He presented a wonderful opportunity to question some questionable (and sadly normal) opinions and actions. “Selfless” presented a wonderful opportunity to be a two-parter and not only give Anya a wonderful story arc, but also give Xander a chance to empathize with Buffy and evolve, and for the two to connect and relate on a deeper level.

    An entire other piece could be written just to question the absolute lack of evolution given to Xander’s character. Buffy, Willow, Cordy, Anya.. everyone gets to evolve in some really spectacular ways. Xander, on the other hand, becomes a bit more mature, but never gets to change beyond his professional endeavours. The most he gets is an episode that teaches him that there are parts of him that aren’t goofy and inept.

45. I thought it made it clear in my previous post that NO ONE on this show is taken to task for what they do. Anya tries to murder Xander – and the show plays this for comedy. She is portrayed as justified in her vengeance – even though the wedding was ruined by one of HER former victims, something she never stops to think about for a second. In fact, ALL of her murders, her insults and her other cruel behavior are depicted as funny and amusing. Spike is REWARDED for his stalking tactics since Buffy not only hooks up with him, but falls madly in love with him, and he is given carte blanche to do whatever he wants – kidnap Buffy, try to rape her, etc., with no one so much as lifting a finger to stop him. So no, I don’t think Xander is even remotely the biggest culprit in that regard. Your article is framed in such a way that this seems to be the case (by leaving out and misrepresenting many facts, and sometimes outright rewriting them), but it’s not.

    As for ‘morphing his opinion to suit himself’, how exactly is that different from Buffy (or any other character on the show)? This is someone who tried to kill Faith (a human) and Anya (also a human), while refusing to stake the vampires she was romantically involved in (Angel and Spike), both of which were threats that according to the mythos of the show should be killed immediately. Why aren’t you bothered by her hypocrisy, one that the show never calls her on? Wouldn’t it be more accurate (and honest) to say that you’re PERSONALLY bothered by Xander’s presence on the show?

46. Parcheesy, what are you even talking about? Of course Monika’s talking about her personal reaction…but she’s also connecting it to other issues, because personal reactions are built in part on how you interact with and think about political and social issues.

    Anya’s return to being a vengeance demon is presented as a terrible and evil choice, as far as I remember. Spike’s stalking behavior is seen as pitiful and creepy, and Buffy’s relationship with him as a mess (in no small part because S&M is *wrong*.) The show and characters within the show criticize these actions (which is not the same as *only* criticizing them or punishing them.) Similarly, Buffy gets tons of flack for her inconsistencies.

    Xander’s manipulative bullshit is simply never criticized in that way. His passive-aggressive nonsense towards Buffy, or his decision to leave Anya *at the altar* are never presented as moral failings. Instead, as Monika says, he’s presented as especially loving and good.

    I mean, do you agree that the behavior Xander exhibits is problematic or wrong? It’s not clear to me that you actually see it as such, which would explain why you’re not bothered that the show declares him uniquely good and right.

47. Parcheesy, many of the people on this show suffer for their actions, or are continually critiqued for them. Anya is verbally criticized, ostracized from her friends, feels deep remorse that can be seen in how she continually fails to kill ppl in her second stab at being demon, is almost killed by Buffy, offers to give up her life for her actions, watches her best friend murdered.. If they were portraying vengeance as justified, none of her last-season story arc would’ve happened. Nothing about her actual manifestations of vengeance as shown as funny — the alternative world, the boyfriend stabbed, the frat house..

    Yes, Spike is rewarded, and chastised/criticized/punished/etc by both himself and others. He is kind of labelled a champion in the end, but even that is questioned.

    What facts are rewritten? What I think you’re missing is that Xander’s existence in this world doesn’t mean that other people don’t do crappy things or are crappy people. The point is, if you make a character who continually acts in sexist and condescending ways the “heart” of the female power, without ever taking him to task for his actions, it’s highly problematic to call the show feminist.

    That last paragraph..oy. Anya was a demon who just murdered a slew of people when Buffy fought her… Buffy sent Angel to hell.. Buffy was continually called on her shit, rightly or wrongly. Just take romance – Xander was embraced by Willow and Buffy and supported without judgment for leaving Anya at the altar. Xander told Buffy she was stupid when she didn’t chase after a blood-cheating Riley.

48. @ Noah Berlatsky
    I think plenty of Xander’s actions are problematic, but that’s not really the point. What I disagree with, is the premise of this article, namely that Xander is somehow the reincarnation of Hitler and that he should receive the excessive amount of punishment you demand for his mostly human failings. You don’t seem to think mass murderers like Anya and Spike should be punished for their crimes, but somehow Xander should? How does that make sense? The article dedicates an entire essay about how Xander cheating on Cordelia makes him a horrible human being, nevermind that Willow does the same and Oz cheats in an even worse fashion than Xander by not only sleeping (not just making out) with Veruca whom he barely knows, but endangering innocent lives by not informing Buffy that Veruca refuses to lock herself in during full moon. But here’s the difference: Xander is punished – Cordelia never takes a second look at him after the cheating. Willow isn’t punished – she gets Oz back almost instantly. Oz also isn’t punished – when he comes back in ‘New Moon Rising’ Willow is still romantically interested in him and would have likely taken him back, had she not fallen for Tara at that point. Yet somehow these events are twisted into ‘Xander is The Worst and he should have been punished’. The same goes for the wedding – Xander apologizes for leaving Anya at the altar repeatedly – as he should. But the show never acknowledges that:
    a) Xander was attacked and got the fake visions from one of Anya’s former victims. Not only does Anya show no concern about Xander’s mental state and lie about her involvement, but she tricks the Scoobies into killing that person. THE SHOW NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES ANY OF THIS THIS.
    b) Anya tries to murder Xander. Dozens of times. Not only that, but she tries to trick his friends into wishing for his gruesome murder. Not only does the show never acknowledge this, but THE WRITERS ENDORSES ANYA’S BEHAVIOR AND PRESENT HER BEHAVIOR AS JUSTIFIED AND HER ATTEMPTS TO MURDER XANDER AS AMUSING.

49. @Monika

    What facts are rewritten?
    Most of the ‘facts’ mentioned in your article. However, since I have neither the time nor the energy to list them all, I will only call out a few:
    -Your claim that Xander slut-shames Cordelia without provocation is blatantly false. Xander slut-shames Cordelia almost always in response to her insulting Xander, or Willow, or someone else. Which doesn’t justify the slut-shaming, but this is an important distinction. Cordelia isn’t attacked simply for her sexuality, she’s attacked because she goes around telling people they suck for not being attractive or for being too studious.
    -Your claim that Xander not only expressed no remorse about cheating on Cordelia, but that he went out of his way to make Cordelia feel worse. Again, this is a flat-out lie. We not only hear Xander apologizing repeatedly (seventy apologetic voice-mails), but we get a stretch of episodes where Xander doesn’t respond to Cordelia’s insults (presumably because he still feels guilty for cheating on her), even though these insults are much more venomous than usual and she even insults him using stuff he told her in confidence.
    -Taking sarcastic or self-depracating remarks and presenting them as Xander being the voice of reason. Sarcasm usually involves saying the exact opposite of what you mean, so I can’t possibly understand the logic behind this.

    And why do you say that Angel/Spike/Anya were called out for their bad behavior when your article is all about how Xander behaved badly towards Angel/Spike/Anya? You are contradicting your own argument.

    And you’re actually praising Anya for – after a millenium of murder – realizing that killing people is not cool? Seriously? If you’re setting the bar that low, then your arguments re: Xander baffle me even more.

50. While I won’t try and jump into the argument Parcheesy has laid out on the table, I do think he is making some valid points. My own point lies in this:

    Sure, some things Xander did in the show were very misogynistic, and he was an ass and should be punished… etc. But to say that you should no longer link BtVS to feminism because of Xander is absurd. Do you realize how drama works?

    You can’t have a television show where every single character is a feminist. That isn’t drama, that isn’t storytelling. Drama is defined by conflict, and thus no matter how douche-y, there must be an opposing view. A fanfic where everyone in Sunnydale is a perfect feminist? Sure, that may work for you, but it wouldn’t work for primetime television.

    Again, I’m not discounting this article entirely, I just think you can’t call a show not feminist because of a non-feminist character. The values of the show are still feminist, don’t be so narrow minded.

    To add a little defense in Parcheesy’s corner, Xander was punished many times for his actions (not as much as Willow or Buffy, maybe). Can you honestly say that losing an eye isn’t punishment? Or finally being accepted back into Anya’s life only to have her die isn’t terrible for him? I think you’re being harsh for the sake of being harsh; There’s good and bad to Xander, just like there’s good and bad to every single character on the show. Spike is just as (if not more) misogynistic than Xander is.

    And a little p.s.: it’s been quoted that Xander’s ” compassion and love” was the only thing that brought Dark Willow back from the brink.

    I do applaud this article for many things: structure, research, dedication. I do also think however, that you’re being close minded.

51. It’s fine to have non-feminist characters. The problem is that there’s little recognition that Xander is non-feminist in the show. No one ever calls him out for being a misogynist twit (for instance, no one ever suggests that leaving Anya at the altar was incredibly cruel and utterly unnecessary. You’ve got doubts? Okay; get married and then get a divorce later. You don’t need to publicly humiliate her in front of all her friends and family.) No one ever tells him he’s being an incredible jerk for taking Riley’s side when *he* cheated on Buffy. And so forth. He does have bad things happen to him (everybody does; it’s a drama) but he never has his viewpoint contested. Instead, he’s presented as some sort of font of love and compassion, even though throughout the series he acts like an ass.

52. First, I will say that I agree that Xander should be held accountable for his behavior and should be called out for it. All characters should. It can often be a catalyst for growth (or conflict) when pushed. That Xander was oft put upon a lofty ‘heart of gold’ and ‘good’ pedestal by his friends, particularly Buffy, can be problematic from our viewership perspective. Was it problematic for Buffy, the character? Maybe not. Out of all the murderous and/or problematic men in her romantic and personal life, Xander may very well look like a sterling beacon of good in HER eyes. And by her sample size of men. It’s pretty bottom of the barrel already, no?

    It does not mean that we, as viewers, must accept this view that he is the bee’s knees, however. But should behaviors and ‘free pass’ tickets be allowed without anyone really pushing to take the character to task on them? No, of course not. I agree with those parts. He did get a lot of free passes for less than thrilling behaviors.

    Slightly related with no intention of derailing, I will say that other characters suffer from not being taken to take for grievous and heinous behaviors and acts as well. Willow’s magic abuse plotline may have shown consequences and Tara may have been a main force in causing the conflict for Willow to change and stop abusing magic, but no (except Tara as catalyst) took Willow to task for *raping* their minds over a period of time. With the forget me spells. Willow only felt bad when Tara became upset and walked out on her. Willow felt bad because she was caught, not because of what she was doing.

    Likewise, in Angel’s deal with Wolfram & Hart, Connor would forget his life and his memories and the person he was. There was no consent. It was taken. And Angel is shown in a positive light for this, because it’s his son and he’s doing what he ‘thinks is right.’ Doesn’t matter. There’s no real conflict or resolution of it. It’s just there and shrugged off until a convenient plot point later when Connor comes guest starring back. Thing is, this deal also involved removing Connor from everyone’s minds — all their memories manipulated and changed. Again, no consent, no real conflict for it from others for having their minds raped. He also removes choice from others and how it affects them in ‘I Will Remember You,’ where he causes Buffy to forget their day spent together. It is out of selfishness and his perception of the need for power (even if it’s to protect others, to not be a liability) that he makes this decision. I have no qualms over characters utilizing their own agency and making their own choices, selfish or not, but it takes Buffy’s choice in the matter away. It takes her memories away. It erases character growth and only Angel is the only one left remembering.

    The examples can grow at length, I’m certain, but I just wanted to add in that the show in general isn’t too great about showing that kind of response. Taking people to task for things that are actually pretty heinous, and solved/never spoken of again after one episode. If Xander was the only character ever on the show to get such treatment, then I’d be more upset in conjunction with his rather sexist high school behaviors*.

    *But again, I do think he should have been prompted and confronted. I think all these characters in these scenarios should have been. More than they were, anyway.

53. Thanks for the comment, Deviija.

    I do think it was problematic for Buffy because he repeatedly made her feel (or tried to) crazy and worthless when she made rational decisions. (Big examples: his chastising her about Riley, his chastising her about Anya)

    Willow is certainly questioned for her actions. She is an addict and they treat her as such. Tara might have led the complaints, but there is much talk about her addiction, keeping her from magic, etc. Maybe not as much as they should, but Willow certainly knows they aren’t happy with her actions. And they certainly get more vocal, although still forgiving, when she moves back from the UK, although they struggle with it.

    My issue isn’t with one act, but the acts, big and small, on a whole. I cannot think of one other character who isn’t take to task for at least a good portion of their bad deeds… maybe not enough, but some.

54. I disagree with most of the cancer hate that exists these days, and just want to point out a couple of things that seem ignored in this type of analysis:

    1) xanders background with his divorced parents, and how that affects his fear of commitment combined with his low self esteem from being a social outcast for his entire life. This is especially why he sabotaged his relationship with anya.

    2) his white knight status, angels words, and matches with most of his instinctual acts like shepherding kids to safety, or even as army guy cancer. He sees his role as that of protector on a subconscious level. Now, there’s an argument that wanting to protect his ‘women folk’ is misogynist, but only if you force it to be about the fact that they are women, rather than just y’know his friends and only functioning family. He is as protective over Giles when the need arises.

    3) early 17 year old xander as high school outcast. He’s not even a nerd. Also. He’s 17. Being stupid and hormonal is what they all day. This particularly effects his relationship with Cordelia…she has bullied him and his friends for the whole time. Granted, some of his comments are….seriously off. But they are presented as things he just says out of habit by this point…he doesn’t agree with them and it probably feeds right back into his own sabotage and self hate that people like Cordelia are in part responsible for. (Cordelia is basically the villain in high school terms for season one) (also I hated Angel the series in part for its treatment of Cordelia) Ask yourself how much of his comments are anti woman, or just anti the stereotype Cordelia was meant to be, from the viewpoint of the stereotype he was meant to be.

    3) allowing personal bias as viewers to not allow the character growth and to therefore conflate xanders jokey season one jealousy with motivated Angel hate and later support of Riley. The two aren’t related. Some his sick moves are motivated by anger or jealousy, but that’s ok, because he’s written as human and fallible. As are the other characters.

    4) (losing feeling in hand typing on tablet so giving up now) willow. He loves willow. As a friend for his whole life. Deep love. He doesn’t want to destroy that with romance and particularly with sex. That he then almost does so when in a moment of extreme pressure for both of them, and that it destroys so much, just highliahts his fallibility and in his head probably cements how that kind of relationship for him is always doomed. His relationship with willow is complex. He doesn’t ignore her out of callousness or hate, as he even states when talking to buffy, and he no more takes advantage of her than she does of him….that its him that talks dark willow down tells you about their relationship as people. Take the gender politics out of it. And just to touch on the same thing with oz…he white knights as much as xander, and is berated for much the same reason, his abandonment of willow is seen as self serving rather than about him making a hard choice to remove the possibility of him causing her any more hurt. Apply the same standards to all the female characters and you will see joss is rightly applyidg equality, guy’s and gals can both be dicks when teenagers. True feminism is about equality, and that should be applied in reading texts.

    Oh one last thing…if the way xander lost his virginfty had happened to one of the female characters, with xander as faith, he’d be hung for it. Also, take into account how that may affect him, and his psychology as a character.

    It actually makes buffy even more interesting and impressive as a show to look at it as an equalitarian text as well as a feminint one.

    Anyway, yeah, fingers numb now, and I don’t totally disagree with everything, I just wanted to so some things in that are totally overloaked quite often, as quickly as possible.

55. Pingback: Let's Talk About: Teen Wolf | R.S. Hunter

56. Well, I really liked Xander’s character myself.
    Exactly because of his faults and contradictions.
    Here is an article formulating my opinion much better than I could:

    http://www.btchflcks.com/2012/08/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-week-xander-harris-has-masculinity-issues.html#.UtVspbTDthc

57. “Xander is relatively normal for the next year, until his wedding to Anya. He disappears when he’s presented with an obviously fake ‘50s version of his so-called marital future; he flees just like Buffy did, but for much less. (And of course, Buffy and Willow don’t ever condemn him for fleeing, they only support him.”

    They did condemn him. Buffy very clearly says that what he did was wrong.

58. “Xander is relatively normal for the next year, until his wedding to Anya. He disappears when he’s presented with an obviously fake ‘50s version of his so-called marital future; he flees just like Buffy did, but for much less. (And of course, Buffy and Willow don’t ever condemn him for fleeing, they only support him.”

    Did we watch two different shows?

    First of all why do you downplay the horror Xander had to live through when he was in those visions? He was an abused child. He already had fears that he was going to turn out like his abusive father. That ought to shake him up and it’s difficult to get him back on track in a matter of 20 minutes before the wedding.

    Not to mention that it was ANYA’S VICTIM who violated Xander’s mind like that.

    And Buffy and Willow did state that Xander’s actions were wrong, Willow even thought of hating him. Dawn even compared his actions here with Spike’s attempted rape in S7. Believe me they are not thrilled with what he did.

Comments are closed.