There were parts of this article I agreed with and others I disagreed. One of the parts I connected to was about Gellar's hate for the word Feminism and what Feminism actually means. I think a lot of people hear the word and think of radical Feminists burning bras and stuff. But really, being a Feminist is believing that men and women should be equal. I think more time needs to be spent on discussing the actual meaning. I think a lot of people would soon realize, like me, that they're feminist and won't be opposed to that label. Once there's more of a shift in the culture's perceived meaning of the word I think, it will become a more widely accepted idea.
One thing I didn't really like about this article is the critique of Buffy as being too girly. I think it actually helped that she still possessed some traits that the audience could better connect with. By doing this, you're making her more accessible to mainstream media while still delivering the Feminist message. Also, it shows that Feminists aren't just the "hairy legs" that was described in the article and I think more people would be receptive to someone who they can identify with. Otherwise the "hairy legs" idea make it seem more of a foreign idea and scarier (which sounds absurd) for a lot of Americans.
This kind of has to do with what we've talked about the last couple of weeks in class. Like Sex and the City and Buffy, do you think women can be portrayed as "sexy" without compromising Feminism and building into the Male Gaze?