Seven Ways of Loving SPN and It's Variety of Tough Gals

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

This is going to be moderately spoilerly for all of S1 & S2.

If you've paid any attention to Fandom over the last couple of years, you may have come across the idea that SPN is a misogynistic show where the only purpose of the women characters is fanboy eyecandy.

I don't share this pov. I wouldn't watch the show if I thought all it did with female characters was degrade them.

If you're sold on the negative pov of the show (or sitting firmly in the "I like/love the show despite its ugly treatment of women" camp) then I don't think I'm going to convince you - and that's fine. (People still haven't brought me around to seeing Buffy the Vampire Slayer as all that inspiring, either. Different strokes, you know?)

But if you're still on the edge...let me share with you Seven Ways SPN gets it right.

1. Women are essential in this universe. The central premise of SPN is this: John Winchester's wife was killed, in the heart of his home, in a manner than he was helpless to prevent, and that loss destroyed the life he had known, forever. I do not recall a show that so clearly, through the use of negative space, made it obvious that without women in their lives, the male characters were badly fucked up. The regret and frustration and in-fighting between the Winchesters originates from the lives they lived without Mary. It is baldly stated, over and over again in canon, that all three of the Winchester men would have been better off, if Mary had lived. Her death served to entrap them, not liberate them. Jess's death only underlines the need for female presence.

2. Women can be a threat in this universe. This is apparent in so many ways: physically (through supernatural agency and without it), legally, acting as part of a group (Scarecrow) and alone, as well as emotionally. The boys treat the women they meet with respect - but it's not chivalry, I think - it's an acknowledgment of the potential damage that the women can inflict. Let me say this again - women are not helpless, harmless, nor defenseless in this universe. Both of the boys do operate from a pov where "Winchester" = "baddest mofo in the house" - but this applies to the men they interact with, as well as the women.

IMO, it is a mistake to compare the relative roles of the Winchesters with that of the 'civilian' women they encounter - or with the female demons they fight. The true peers of the Winchesters (in so much as there are any real peers in a show with such a tight focus on two characters) are their fellow hunters. In this aspect as well, there is not as great a difference in relative competence and deadliness as one would expect.

Much is made of the positions of peril that supporting characters find themselves in. Less notice is made of the very effectual danger that female characters can represent. If Sam & Dean ever ran into Buffy in a dark alley, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss her with "But you're just a girl."

3. Women are leaders and protectors in this universe. Very nearly from the start, SPN developed a habit of positioning women in "reverse gender roles" - it is Halley, in Windego, who initiates the search for her lost brother. In Dead in the Water, the first victim is a teenage varsity athlete - a swimmer who, fearlessly, goes out into the lake alone. Her bother, on the other hand, is in the house, in the midst of preparing supper when he is attacked. In Asylum, it is Kat, not her boyfriend, who takes the firearm, uses it competently, and prepares to assist the Winchesters in their defense. This continues throughout the majority of S1 & S2, and in those eps of S3 that I have seen.

Thematically, SPN positions family as extremely important - and the episodes re-emphasize, over and over again, the central role of women as leaders and protectors of that essential social structure.

4. We're talking women here, too, not just girls. SPN is a CW show, and it has the expected number of bare arms and heaving bosoms. (And yes, the boys are frequently in layers, but its not like that's stopped the drooling of fangirls.) But. As often as not, the key women in each ep are adults, not teenagers. This expectation of maturity and adult motivations is a refreshing change from the hormone-laden atmosphere of teenie-bopper shows such as Buffy. Even in larger ensemble shows (like Firefly) the guest stars were more likely to be younger rather than older.

Furthermore - these older women are as much a threat as the sweet young things - if not more so. (See Faith, among several others.) Which brings me to:

5. SPN has women who use their brains and their hearts more than their tits. In SPN, casual use of sexuality is shown in a negative fashion - it is an indulgence of Dean, and a sign of his (on-going) immaturity, it is one of the preferred tools of demons, and repeatedly, the show shows lust as a means of distraction and/or abuse, rather than as a meaningless whim. While I know that this is frequently used as a sign of the show's negative portrayal of women, I see it differently. When women succeed in rescuing themselves and defeating the supernatural threat, it is through their intelligence, courage, and stubbornness, more than their ability to bat their eyes and shake their tits at the boys. This is particularly true of the older women, but also of the younger ones - important female characters are attractive as a side issue, while it is trivial (or evil) characters who use their sexuality.

As a woman who wants attention for her intelligence and moral character, rather than her looks, this is important to me.

6. SPN's male characters respect women. I touched on this before, but it bears repeating. Dean (and to a lesser extent Sam) try to con nearly everyone they meet. Dean tries to sleep with nearly any woman who would have him (unless he thought that would entail an emotional commitment.) But when Dean, under a spell, imagines a perfect life for himself, he pictures not a stay-at-home girl to fix him supper, but a professional (a nurse) who (politely but firmly) rejects his sexual advances in order to go to work. In the same way, the one woman whom Dean attempted to settle down with was the one to break off the relationship. When faced with either Missouri Mosley or Ellen Harvelle, both boys "play second fiddle" and obey the older women's direction. Dean is far from a gentleman, but he does not internalize a world where women are at his beck and call.

7. The heroic women of SPN aren't supernatural. This is one where not everyone is going to agree with me: I prefer Batman to Superman - the self-re-made mortal over the invincible uber-man. In the same way, I tend to prefer ordinary people who do extra-ordinary things, over "elite" types who have an innate advantage.

The tough women and girls of SPN aren't "chosen ones", they don't have superpowers, they aren't armed with mystic swords. They're nearly all drop-dead beautiful (at least the twenty-somethings are, according to my brother) but look at the male leads! The world is not full of men as handsome as Jensen Ackles. (Trust me, I would have noticed this.)

But despite the looks, the women of SPN are ordinary. They do amazing things on their own.

Finally - before I close: don't take me as saying that SPN is perfect, or that the issues other fans have brought up are completely without merit. The show's writing is clunky, they never drop an anvil when they can throw five, and this *is* a CW show, where cleavage and legs are expected. And while every fandom in the history of squeeing fangirls has had its share of sketchy fixations and blatant misogynistic attitudes amongst the fans, SPN fandom (to my eyes) has more than its share. And I am enough of an advocate of writer's responsibility that I can't dismiss the idea that there is something in the show canon that encourages that attitude amongst fans.

But I think that meta on the show frequently overstates the degree of "female oppression", and I am saddened every time I see a response to such meta along the lines of "I've never seen the show but I know I would hate it from what you said."

SPN has hot boys who love women, and tough, complex gals who take up a lot of space in this universe. Don't let the bad press stop you from giving it a try.

Comments

[cryptoxin.livejournal.com]

Thanks for an awesome, thoughtful post with lots of great points that I tend to overlook!

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'm glad you found it interesting.

- hg

[rosehiptea.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I kind of already wanted to try the show, because people kicking demon butt is generally a plus for me, but this makes me want to try it even more. Thanks very much for your opinions on this.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

It might not be what you like - but give it a try! Thanks for reading.

- hg

[gelliaclodiana]

Thanks for making this post. I'm not sure I agree with all your points, but I agree that whenever I see someone dismiss the show, sight unseen, it saddens me a little.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree with all your points

It's true enough that people can have very different responses to the same text - I'm not about to demand that everyone agree entirely. I would, however, be interested in where you disagreed most on these.

whenever I see someone dismiss the show, sight unseen, it saddens me a little.

I'm turning into my mother - "Eat your vegtables! How do you know you don't like it if you don't try it!"

- hg

[sasha-davidovna.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much for this post. I have some serious problems with some aspects of the show's portrayal of women, but have never felt that its problems are unique so much as symptomatic of the problems with the portrayal of women throughout the media. And for every "Women's Work" moment, there are an equal number of moments such as you describe, of women in positions of power, authority, and respect, of women using their brains and skill, rather than their boobs or tears, for good or evil or something in between. The show's not perfect but it deserves better than to be dismissed out of hand as misogynistic crap.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

The show's not perfect but it deserves better than to be dismissed out of hand as misogynistic crap.

To be fair, not everyone who has issues with the show seems to be dismissing it - but that's how it comes across. And I absolutely agree that its inaccurate to call SPN out for stuff that is endemic in a variety of shows - including several that have been held up as "women-empowering".

Me, I think SPN could cut the amount of cleavage by like, 75%, and I'd be much happier. But there are people who'd call me a prude for that. *shrugs*

- hg

[cofax7]

I think a good part of the issue with the show's presentation of women is that the very structure of the show results in keeping women at a distance. It's hard to get a complete three-dimensional picture of someone who's either a victim or a monster (very occasionally a witness), and then gone again the next week -- if they survive the episode at all.

I loved Hailey and Det. Kathleen, and Ellen, and I liked Jo, too. But like V. above, I'm more concerned about what's going on this season, where even though we have two recurring female characters they're not particularly multi-dimensional. While they do have their own agendas, I don't get a strong sense of them as people, not the way Ellen and Jo were. I don't know that that can be blamed on misogyny (institutional or otherwise) so much as poor writing and reliance on cliche'd characterization. I would have happily traded a few minutes of Conversations In the Car for a bit more depth in Bela and Ruby.

Frankly, it may not take much to turn someone off a show if they're not emotionally hooked on it. I wasn't emotionally engaged by Heroes, and after about three episodes of S2, I just stopped watching because there were a few elements of the storytelling that simply turned me off. So even if there are strong women in SPN, for some viewers, all it might take is a few minutes of, say, "Red Sky" or "Malleus Maleficarum" to make them say, "Not for me." And given my response to those episodes, I can't say I would really blame them.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Okay, I think I might see more of where you're coming from.

I think a good part of the issue with the show's presentation of women is that the very structure of the show results in keeping women at a distance.

Which...I can understand, but totally not get the issue. Me, I don't have a problem with gender-isolated storylines - depending on how the isolation happens. Gender isolation can be included with gender-bigotry, but I don't think they have to be.

(I'd also argue that male guest stars are more likely to end up dead than female ones, but to do that properly, I'd have to go back and take notes. So I'll wait on that one.)

As I said to V, my viewing of this season is incomplete. And whose law is it..."Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"?

Frankly, it may not take much to turn someone off a show if they're not emotionally hooked on it.

Oh, dude, you're so right. After the anti-science assholeness and mockery of rape in Tall Tales, I was about to drop the show. (If Bobby hadn't been so awesome...)

And I'd have less issue with "not for me" if the show-rejection wasn't coupled with "if you don't see this, you're a fool or a sexist sob". Which not everyone who has women-centric issues with the show has said - but enough have. *shrugs*

Thanks for commenting.

- hg

[douxquemiel.livejournal.com]

The Gospel, According to Supernatural:

Hear this now: For far too long, fandom was besought with Madness and Fangirls, mired in Drooling and Objectifying both Dean and Sam, though with the same breath ridiculing Bela and Ruby. And lo, there was hossgal in the fandom; and hossgal brought Rationality, Reason, and True Feminism, shedding the Light of Awesome unto the fandom. And Kripke saw it was good.

I was linked here by bzzinglikeneon, and I just wanted to give a hearty A-FUCING-MEN to this, if you'll excuse my French. You're definitely, totally right, and fandom needs to chill out. But then, it's fandom. When does it ever chill?

Two thumbs way, way up.

*uses sexy Sam icon to prove that we objectify the guys, too*

[vee-fic.livejournal.com]

This comment is obnoxious, and I wish you'd found a way to express your agreement with the post without kicking sand in the face of people who might not agree with it. I don't actually agree with the post, but you'll notice I'm not being obnoxious about my opinions.

halfamoon is a comm dedicated to celebrating women; your comment is very much out of line with the spirit of the comm.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Hey there -

I'm glad to find another fan who appreciates the gals on SPN. However, I think that you're going a little over the top here, and as I said in the post itself - different strokes, okay? I know of several thinking fangirls who love the show to irrational lengths (as do I, three out of four Thursdays) and still have opinions re: the boys and SPN women that I disagree with. It's okay, really.

- hg

[liptonrm.livejournal.com]

Thank you for putting this together. It's nice to know I'm not betraying the sisterhood because I don't think SPN is as problematic as other smart women do. Not to say that it's free of problems, but, yeah, what you said. ;-)

One of the difficulties may stem from the fact that the show is told from a male POV. There is only so much predominance any female character can have in a male driven and dominated story. However, one of the things I've always appreciated is that all of the female characters are completely drawn and quite obviously the heroes of their own stories. It's just that those aren't the precise stories the show was created to tell.

I also appreciate that you highlighted how the female characters on SPN are strong in and of themselves, not because of any special status that might have been conferred on them. That is an aspect of Whedon's feminism, in particular, that has always bothered me.

A show that gives us Mary, Jess, Ellen, Jo, Officer Kathleen, Kat, Haley, and Ava, to name a few, has to be doing something right.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I agree that SPN is not written as I would have done it (see: no Ellen (so far) in S3). But I agree with you in that the male POV is not a problem for me.

I also appreciate that you highlighted how the female characters on SPN are strong in and of themselves, not because of any special status that might have been conferred on them.

Yes. Me? Not ever going to be Chosen. Never going to be a robot from the future. Never going to wear the Witchblade, or be a mutant with special powers.

I'd much rather characters like Zoe, or Ellen Ripley, or Ellen Harvelle.

- hg

[spacemonkymafia.livejournal.com]

(here via bzzinglikeneon

Thank you

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

You are welcome!

- hg

[douxquemiel.livejournal.com]

To hossgal:

First, I apologize for the mess. It certainly wasn't my intention.

Second, let me rephrase, since you (and the point of this post) seem to have been left in the dust: Thank you for your very eloquently worded opinion, which I, personally, happen to agree with.

All the best,
-douxquemiel

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Accepted. I wish things had not gotten as contentious, and I'm glad they appear to be sorting themselves out.

- hg

[smilla02.livejournal.com]

This is a very interesting post.

These are the exact reasons why I too am sad when I hear people saying that Supernatural is a misogynist fest. It's not that I don't get the objections to the name calling or to some expressions that are absolutely inappropriate. I do. And I share the same uncomfortable feeling. I wish the writers were less blasé about it (Malleus Maleficarum was the worst, in my opinion.) I'm not dismissing issues that have been brought up, not at all. But if I look at the show at the episodes aired so far, I see a positive portrayal of women in a lot of istances.

When I think of Missouri, Kat, Cassie, Layla even, or Sarah and Haley, or Officer Hudack, Ellen, Jo, Tamara, Ruby and Bela. They have strong personality that are not defined only by their sexuality or good looks.

They stand on their own, have their own agenda, their life, they are not resigned to the role of victims or simply defined by the relationship they have with the boys.

They make me want to know more about them because they are interesting on their own and I think it is a good thing.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

*nods*

Yes, what you've said. (Not that my brother has any problem with the gals being tough *and* hot. *g*)

It's not that I don't get the objections to the name calling or to some expressions that are absolutely inappropriate.

Eh. And yet, in fandom, there is Sweet Charity, and the common use of 'ho' associated with participating in that com. I don't know that I've seen a consistent response - either from specific fangirls, or fandom in general - to the use of phrases that, to me, are obviously uncalled for. (And I know I've used 'pimp' as a verb in the recent past.

- hg

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

One of the things that has consistently impressed me about SPN is how often it creates female guest characters that appear only in one episode, yet are strong enough and interesting enough and make enough of an impression to have fic written about them months and even years after their appearance. Haley, Andrea, Kat, Missouri, Kathleen, Sarah, Ava (okay, she was in two episodes, but there was a long stretch of time between her appearances when she was getting lots of fic love), Tamara, Lisa... I don't think I've ever been in a fandom where so many one-shot characters got so much love.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've ever been in a fandom where so many one-shot characters got so much love.

*nods* I also haven't been in a fandom that took so well (on the het and gen sides, at least) to OFCs.

I would have loved to have seen several of those characters come back again - I think Missouri & Kathleen, esp, could have been written in without much trouble. But I'm also pleased that they were so well received when they appeared.

- hg

[yourlibrarian]

I agree with much of your discussion and this makes for a good read. I've also noticed that what actually bothers people tends to vary a lot, which makes it difficult to pin down where the problem (for there certainly seems to be one given all the talk) lies. For example, most of the things in your list wouldn't really be an issue for me.

For starters, point #1. I do think that the absence of women as a counterbalance in the SPN verse seems to lead to male dysfunction. For example, Jo and Ellen seem to be better off than the Winchesters even though they suffered a similar loss. However Bobby seems to have suffered something pretty horrific and even he views the Winchesters as a mess (one of the thing that really irks me about the last episode is that I wish we could have found out a bit more about why Bobby happens to have such a soft spot for them). The problem with the family seems to have a lot more to do with John's reaction to Mary's loss and bad decision making thereafter than because an absence of women in general is a statement in the SPNverse. Perhaps if we'd seen more female hunters besides Tamara and Ellen (who I'm not sure really qualifies) it would be easier to parse lifestyle versus female influence. But I do think your point that family fragmentation is the real crisis issue is well taken.

If Sam & Dean ever ran into Buffy in a dark alley, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss her with "But you're just a girl." Nicely said, and I wouldn't argue with points 2, 4, or 5. Nearly everyone on TV is unrealistically young and good looking and given their lifestyle and upbringing neither Sam nor Dean should look anything like the way they do.

I have more to quibble with in points 3 and 7 (which I'll tie together) and 6. One thing I gathered from your post is that you see no difference in approach among the 3 seasons. I came in during S2, went back and watched S1 and have been caught up since the S2 finale. So S3 is the first I'm watching with the full back story behind me. And I'm finding a rather startling difference in various things in S3.

For example, I just rewatched "Wendigo" today and was really struck my a number of elements. I'll stick to the issue of Haley though who, given how little we knew about her, still had some clear characteristics. She was intelligent and open-minded, family oriented, decisive, and brave. And, of course, perfectly ordinary. Even though she was protected by Sam and Dean, this was due to her being untrained in what they knew, not for any lack on her part. And she could handle Dean just fine, with some humor and a light touch. I also agree that there were quite a few other women in S1 who needed help but weren't any the less admirable for it, most responding with quite remarkable resilience.

[yourlibrarian]

I think it's stretching it though, to call them leaders and protectors, and this somewhat contradicts point #7. Let's just call them adaptable and competent. My problem, starting to some degree in S2 and definitely in S3 is that in order to make anyone (Bobby for example) have an equivalent role to play in the hunting world, the Winchesters seem to have to lose competence and intelligence (this is one of the other things I noticed in Wendigo -- Sam and Dean's planning and knowledge there is startlingly different than the haphazard work they've been doing lately). And it's not just Sam and Dean. I found the legendary John Winchester's planning in Salvation to be a major disappointment. Also, Bobby had Bela's number before Sam and Dean ever met her, so how did he let her get one by him in the last episode? To me, the answer is simply a meta one. The writers are not inventive enough to make their characters highly clever, so in order to make a nemesis best Sam and Dean (or John or Bobby) the heroes have to make foolish (and often unlikely) mistakes. And I think this leads to resentment of those characters, because that's not how we want to see our protagonists. Of course, this problem is not limited to SPN but that's the topic at hand.

Lastly, there's point #6, and to me this is the heart of the problem. I think the question here is the difference between women (individuals) and the feminine. Because Sam and Dean certainly do respect various women and dislike and disrespect others. However I think there's been a growing and consistently negative view of all things female from the show, whether that's been expressed in derision, trivialization, or a one-sidedness in how things are presented. And it may simply be bad timing, but the fact that our two female regulars (who are replacing the more positive ones we had last season) are both rather lacking in redeeming characteristics is not helping.