So the fact that every prominent female character is killed off by the end of the series, two of whom are subjected to gross violations of their bodily autonomy (with Cordy experiencing it 3 times actually - 'Expecting', 'Epiphany' and Jasdelia) - is not at all problematic to you in light of Joss' self-identification as a feminist writer?
No, not really. Of course I never really called Joss a feminist writer. He's a good storyteller and was telling good stories. The last Cordy thing had less to do with his treatment of the character and more to do with hissy-fit about the actor. But that's a different question.
It's not about whether we consider him a feminist, but about the incongruity - hypocrisy, even - of him proclaiming himself a feminist writer while helming a show in which female characters are repeatedly deprived of control over their own bodies and ultimately killed off. It doesn't matter what motivated the plot decisions - what matters is what ended up on our screens. The point is that given how invested he was in making Buffy a feminist icon and how much he has advocated strong female characters who subvert sexist storytelling tropes, he should have recognised that his work on AtS was going against that. The topic comes up a lot in fandom and in Whedon academia but I don't recall ever seeing or hearing the issue put to him directly.
Oh I have harped on that time and time again. I just thought you meant that the female characters on Angel were treated horribly or something, and that I didn't see. Now that I understand your question, yes, there have been a few people that have brought it up and they have been silenced by the throng of Whedon fans that feel he walks on water and can do no wrong.
Of course they aren't treated horribly throughout their run - on an episode-by-episode basis at least, but in terms of the end result, then yes I'd say they are.
But has he himself ever been challenged about it directly - in an interview or Comic-Con panel, or something?
I don't know about a comic-con but I do remember him being asked something about things of that nature in an interview and he made one of his little funnies about the question and they moved on.
The violation to Fred's body is the infection of Illyria. Similarly to both Darla and Cordy, Fred is infected/impregnated without her consent and forced to carry and "birth" the infection. Her body is literally hollowed out in order for Illyria to be "born", her organs liquified, her skin hardened, dying a slow and painful death from a foreign being which is taking over her body, all without her consent. It's definitely a gross violation and, in light of what happened to Cordy and Darla, it's even grosser. All three women die from unwanted "pregnancies" which they cannot rid themselves of and never asked for. It's pretty horrifying.
While it's not a literal pregnancy, like Cordy or Darla, it's essentially the same concept. A foreign being infected/impregnated Fred, against her will, and used her body as a vessel. It was a complete violation of Fred's autonomy, agency and body, as Illyria used Fred's body in order to come back into existence or "birth" itself (similarly to Cordy with Jasmine).
... Not really the same thing, I mean, you become a vampire by drinking their blood not by the vampire taking over your entire being, which is literally what Illyria does to Fred. The vampire doesn't hollow out your insides, liquify your organs and turn you into a shell for them to possess. I mean, I can kinda see what you're going for but it doesn't really hold up.
