![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
hossgal.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
halfamoonThis 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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 01:20 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 03:04 pm (UTC)I also have concerns about the way the show is heading this season -- IMHO a lot of the strengths you've pointed out here have not been as obvious this season. Part of it may be the resolution of the YED plotline, which, I agree, highlighted the unnaturalness of a world without women in it -- without that constant reminder, there's a risk, I think, that the absence of women will just start to appear natural in the show.
I'm turning into my mother - "Eat your vegtables! How do you know you don't like it if you don't try it!"
I fear that this fate awaits us all.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-14 02:23 am (UTC)Huh. Can you give examples of this? My immediate counter reaction is the airplane ep, and I can't think of specific examples that you might be pointing to. Help me out here?
I also have concerns about the way the show is heading this season
My viewing this season is incomplete, so I'll have to beg off until I sit down and watch the 3-4 that I have missed.
Thank you for expanding, and sharing your thoughts.
- hg
no subject
Date: 2008-02-14 06:10 pm (UTC)I think I should have said "more vulnerable to evil, or to supernatural evil," than men are, because it's not just about demonic possession -- obviously, we've had both men and women possessed on this show. I think it's also to do with something you identify as a strength, the way the show treats female sexuality. And it's not just one thing, or on incident, but a kind of pattern of images and behaviors in the show, that we see in the Pilot, but also in the Trickster episode, in Nighshifter, in the most recent two S3 episodes -- and that's just off the top of my head.
It starts with the pilot, and the woman in white. (The show has a preference for images of women in white dresses and nightgowns, and that visual repetition makes what they're doing here seem stronger to me.) She starts out looking like a victim -- alone by the side of the road, torn dress, etc -- but quickly starts to look like a threat. Her threateningness becomes obvious as she tries to seduce the guy who's picked her up. As the story progresses it becomes clear that she's actively dangerous -- that she's a monster, that she killed her children -- and she uses sexual desire as a weapon against men. It seems to me that where we see women as explicitly sexual beings, they're almost always dangerous -- as you say above, the show takes a dubious view of female sexual desire -- it makes women monsters. The repetition of the visual image (the girl in white, who is both vulnerable and dangerous, and who usually needs to be killed) makes it stronger to me than all the men and visually differentiated women in the show -- and honestly, it seems to me that most of the women in the show who are dangerous are also explicitly sexual. And I think it's no accident that the women the show does the best job with are women who are not sexually available to the Winchesters, either because of age or because of some pre-existing relationship. (There are exceptions, of course -- most obviously, Sarah Blake.)
So it ends up seeming to me as if some of the women in the show are just people, and some of them are scary/dangerous/feminine, and that the dividing line comes down to sexual desire, or to the desire to relate to men in a sexual rather than a non-sexual way. (Men who feel sexual desire often become vulnerable -- and particularly, vulnerable to women or female monsters; women become monsters.) And to my mind, that starts to color my understanding of what it means to be female in this universe, as opposed to just being "a person" -- to be a woman who feels sexual desire. Which, let's face it, most women do at some point in their lives. If women who are also sexual beings aren't people, this is a problem for me.
I should probably add that the fact that the show turns up a lot of really excellent female characters doesn't really affect my opinion (or rather suspicion) that there's a deep, low-level misogyny at work in the text -- perhaps specifically, the fear of female sexuality. Lots of literary traditions are full of misogynist presuppositions, but also have really wonderful female characters (hello, pretty much all of Greek and Roman literature!). It just seems to me that sometimes, the show sees women as people, and sometimes it sees them as these scary powerful/vulnerable, monstrous, sexual creatures. And although men are often also monsters in this show, I don't see the same kind of pattern in their monstrousness -- there's nothing inherent to maleness or masculinity that makes them likely to become monsters.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-16 01:50 am (UTC)Well done response. Lots of thinky thoughts, (and opportunities to go off on tangets, which I hope to avoid. *g*)
What you point out here:
And it's not just one thing, or on incident, but a kind of pattern of images and behaviors in the show...a preference for images of women in white dresses, and that visual repetition makes what they're doing here seem stronger to me.
To me, this seems to echo the 'different responses to the same text' - it's an issue of symbols and suggestion and grey area. Which makes it hard, I think, for me who is (evidently) not opperating with the same interpetative structure/use of symbolism to reach the conclusion you do. Can't you see that? Well...no. Not really. But. It's. Right. THERE! No, it's not! V. frustrating - for both sides.
On to more matters of substance:
And to my mind, that starts to color my understanding of what it means to be female in this universe, as opposed to just being "a person" -- to be a woman who feels sexual desire. Which, let's face it, most women do at some point in their lives. If women who are also sexual beings aren't people, this is a problem for me.
Huh. A full convo on this would take *pages*, I think. I'll try to be short. Let's say there are all sorts of expressions of sexual desire. Let's say we draw a line and label one end of the line 'bad/harmful/undesireable' and the other 'good/positive/helpful'. The middle is benign/neutral. (To be complete, the scale should also be graphed in a perpendicular manner, to indicate the degree of sexuality involved in the behavior - ie, smiling is not equal to touching hair is not equal to grabbing a handful of ass.)
You and I, I think, would agree that Sarah Connor/John Connor belongs on the bad end. And John Winchester leaning against the door and watching Mary, all round and pregnant with his baby - I think we'd both put that on the good end. However, I think that not only would you and I disagree on which specific expressions were more harmful than others, I also think that the amount of the scale that I would call 'harmful' would include a lot of stuff you might be more likely to call 'neutral' or even 'good'.
So. Perhaps one of the reasons this [pattern on the show] isn't making me cranky is because I agree more with the show on what is 'harmful' sexuality than you do. And the legitimacy (and rationality, and consistency) of where I draw the line vs where you do - wow. That convo's hours long.
Does this make sense to you?
It just seems to me that sometimes, the show sees women as people, and sometimes it sees them as these scary powerful/vulnerable, monstrous, sexual creatures. And although men are often also monsters in this show, I don't see the same kind of pattern in their monstrousness -- there's nothing inherent to maleness or masculinity that makes them likely to become monsters.
I don't entirely disagree with this reading. (I'm not sure I would use the label 'mysogyny', though...which is another huge convo.) I do think that there is not a *lack* of masculine monstrosity - "Roadkill", "No Exit", "Born Under A Bad Sign", "Usual Suspects", "Bloodlust" - but I will agree that the show is more likely to show negative female-on-male attention than it is to show negative male-on-female actions. (It's also (somewhat) more likely, I think, to treat the female-on-male stuff for laughs.)
And I don't really have an issue with that. I don't want more women being sexually threatened by men on the show. As a lot of the threatening women are threatening towards the boys, the obvious way to get a more equal balance would to be either have the boys be sexually threatening towards women or have the boys be sexually threatened by men. Both options are unappeally - and not just to me, I hope.
An obvious rejoiner to this could be: "Well, don't make any sexuality threatening! It's just sex, it's not *bad*!" To which I would refer again to our hypothetical scale, and say that yes, some expressions of sexuality *are* bad.
I'm hoping this makes sense. Please to be asking me to clarify, if anything seems particularly sketchy or confusing.
- hg
no subject
Date: 2008-02-16 10:15 pm (UTC)I like your notion of a sort of "scale" and I suspect that you're right to say that there are behaviors that we would categorize in very different ways. But what I like most about it is that it introduces a kind of comparability to the discussion. One of my concerns is that similar behavior may be treated very differently in male and female characters (in other words, that there's a kind of double standard at work). So, for example, I'm not sure that Madison's behavior, in Heart, is all that different from Dean's (implied) behavior in all kinds of episodes: both of them engage in consensual sex with good-looking strangers, and both of them seem to me to indicate very clearly that they're willing and interested in doing so. But Dean is a hero, and his behavior is presented as just a kind of charming personality quirk, whereas Madison is a monster, and it's very possible that her sexual confidence is linked to her werewolf nature (IIRC, someone says something about her personality changing -- that she became more confident -- after she was bitten). Irrespective of whether I think this kind of behavior ought to be represented as positive or as negative, I find the comparison a little disturbing. (It's possible that you don't see these two examples as comparable, which I think I would find interesting.)
As a lot of the threatening women are threatening towards the boys, the obvious way to get a more equal balance would to be either have the boys be sexually threatening towards women or have the boys be sexually threatened by men.
Actually, I think I would have said that the most obvious way, to me, would be to have cases of sexual behavior that are presented positively, or at least not punished. More happy marriages, where no one dies! More characters like Cassie, or Sarah Blake (although neither Sam nor Dean is in a position to have a relationship with anyone, right now -- but you know, people in committed relationships which are also obviously sexual, who don't suffer for it.) I mean, sure, some expressions of sexuality are problematic, but some aren't. I kind of feel like it's been a while since we've seen anything on that side of the scale. (And for the record, I'm not sure I put Dean's flirtations on the positive side of the scale: I mean, sure, there's no canonical evidence that he's left a trail of broken hearts, STDs, and even unplanned pregnancies behind him, but realistically, if he is in fact having all that casual sex, it's a dangerous behavior pattern.)
Although I said that there isn't a pattern of masculine monstrosity (despite there being plenty of male monsters on the show), I have started to wonder if there isn't a pattern of monsters as (bad) fathers, especially in S1 and S2. I think this doesn't look like a problem to me because it's so closely tied to the show's mythical narrative -- whereas I just can't see what the pattern of dangerous/vulnerable/monstrous females does, in terms of the larger story.
Does this make any sense? Let me know if it seems odd to you. What you said makes a great deal of sense to me.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-17 05:31 am (UTC)Heh. "You must believe me when I tell you these things!" (Phillip the Mouse)
But I do believe you - just as you get cranky at John Winchester for his faults and love him for his virtues. What you say makes sense, yes. (Except a couple places where you lost me, but I'll say when I get to those points.)
I'm not sure I put Dean's flirtations on the positive side of the scale
Good, because I'm pretty sure I would put it on the negative side. And I only say "pretty sure" instead of "definately" because we haven't been shown Dean as any sort of predator - he tends to not chase gals while he's on the job, and all the gals I've seen him actively pursue have been...letting him chase them until they catch him. In a way, I think this is as unrealistic as the lack of STDs and green-eyed babies.
In addition I (me) read canon as non-explictly using Dean's casual relationships to highlight Dean's faults - immature, posing as something he is not, etc. In comparision, John and Sam's faithfulness is (imo) shown in a more postive (if tragic) light.
It's possible that you don't see these two examples as comparable, which I think I would find interesting.
Heh. Um. This is where you lost me. (Let me 'span my confusion/alternate take, and you can tell me if I'm completely misunderstanding.) I don't get how the two are related, or, if they are, how they represent a double standard. Madson was killed because she ripped people's throats out. We mourned Madison (and not poor Gary or what ever the across the hall guy was) because of her romantic/sexual bonding with Our Hero Sam. Which makes me a little crazy, because (as I said) I'd rather gals be interesting for things other than the romance.
Now...did Madison have the bond with Sam *because* of her becoming a werewolf? I remember the same personality changing quote (I think it was Madison herself who said it) but iirc, it was more specifically referencing 'not being afraid of the dark' rather than 'wanting to pick up random strangers'. Me, myself - I associate "being afraid to go out alone in the dark" with "flinging oneself at men for protection", so *I* thought that she meant that she was *less* likely to be hanging on guys. (I know this might come across sketchily - I mean no insult to anyone who avoids both dark alleys *and* fleeing to guys for protection. I speak only from observation of certain gals around me.)
(next rock)
prt 2
Date: 2008-02-17 05:32 am (UTC)*nodsnods* Yes, this is a far more attractive option, and I should have thought of that. *Thinks* Two things, though...firstly, is this an SPN problem or a TV problem? Not that we can't hold SPN accountable for its own faults, but I think it's inaccurate to label an issue as being specific or excessive in SPN if it's media-wide (as I think is the case here.)
Secondly - part of what I love best about the show is that it prioritizes familial bonds (parent-child & sibling-sibling) over romantic ones. (Sometimes, I think the show can get pretty graphic about it - one of the most wretching eps was 'Nightmare', in which the wife sided with the husband rather than with the child.) While my first instinct is to say "YES! More happy married people!", my second is to say..."but only if you don't have to cut back on the familial bonds to do it."
(And, honestly - it's not that I'm down on the romance as much as I am delighted to have a genre show that hightlights families so much.)
Having said that, I think there were a couple places where HMP could have played a part, without seriously shifting the show. In "Bugs", the romantic bond between the father & mother could have been given more emphasis. (Not that this would be the *first* thing I would change about "Bugs".) In "Home", perhaps Sari's dad could have been alive. In S@, 'The Usual Suspects' - both cops could have been good guys, and solved the case together. (Although that was a clear case of masculine monstronsity, I thought.) And, of course, we could have had Isaac not die in 3x1. Did you have others in mind?
I have started to wonder if there isn't a pattern of monsters as (bad) fathers, ... I just can't see what the pattern of dangerous/vulnerable/monstrous females does, in terms of the larger story.
I didn't see that fathers connection before, but now it kinda leaps out at me. Interesting.
The second part...hmmm. I don't think I agree on the show having a pattern of female vulnerability. As for what I see the pattern of females doing in the larger story...*thinks* Except for (imo) establishing women as both strong and vital to a balanced life, I'm not sure what I think the larger role is, either. If you took out 'vulnerable' (as a thought exercise, not because I'm saying that's not there for you) do you get the same 'not related to larger story' result?
You do make sense - I'm just not entirely following you - which is not all your fault, I think.
- hg