When I first looked at this article it made me kind of nervous. Something about the small font made me think that it was going to be another article that I hardly understood, but I was wrong! Thank goodness. In Levine's article, she looks at the difference between feminism and femininity. I found in interesting, (especially since I read this after the "Girls Gone Anti-Feminist,") that one of her main arguments was whether or not femininity has to be sacrificed in order to be feministic. Levine defines femininity as women's "caring and nurturing qualities, their conventionally attractive appearances."
Levine starts out by talking about the different "types" of feminism and how Buffy the Vampire Slayer "has contributed to the debates over the meanings of feminism and femininity in a post feminist and third wave context as much as it has borrowed from them." Levine also talks about how BTVS correlates with the multiply positioned identity. I feel like I can directly relate to this as I am one of those people who says, "I am a feminist, but.../I'm not a feminist, but..." Toward the end of this section Levine said, "This way of thinking is post-feminist because it 'defines feminism as no longer necessary because it already has successfully secured access to equality and choice for the middle-class white professional and/or family women.'" Maybe this is why I feel like I can relate?
So to me, I feel like even though this article was an easy read, I'm still stuck. I guess my discussion question would be (if we are open to these tomorrow) "Is BTVS feminist, or not feminist at all? If so, what kind of feminist do you consider it to be?" With that said, I think that feminism is almost like religion; and in the far future there is going to be feminism denominations. You know!? haha