![[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 06:10 pm (UTC)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
I was linked here by
Two thumbs way, way up.
*uses sexy Sam icon to prove that we objectify the guys, too*
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 07:08 pm (UTC)Hatred of women by women is just as bad, if not worse, than men hating women. Equality isn't about "woman power" or hyper-feminism. That's man-hating, and is just as bad as women-hating. I was agreeing with the original author that I believe that Supernatural does a damn fine job of portraying women in an honest and equal light.
If this is a community dedicated to celebrating women, then I'm sure I'm very much in line. I think that women in the Supernatural fandom have been ridiculed and degraded by the fans of the show itself, and it's time to realize that women can be sexual or intelligent, tough or weak, and it's all part of being a woman.
Again, I apologize if I've offended you; that was certainly not my intention.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 07:40 pm (UTC)Surely you can rephrase your thoughts in a way that does not cast aspersions on your fellow fans. Trash-talking other fans is not the point of this comm, as I think I have already pointed out.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 07:56 pm (UTC)The point is that I the way I see women portrayed on Supernatural makes me proud to be a woman, and proud to be a fan of the show. I don't think it's wrong to suggest that sometimes women need help, or that sometimes women can kick a little ass.
As you said, this community is "dedicated to celebrating women"; let all women's voices be heard, including mine.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:06 pm (UTC)Tact is not passive-aggressive. Manners are not passive-aggressive. Stating your positive opinion, without saying negative things about other people, is not passive-aggressive.
"I'm just telling it like it is, you are oppressing me by not letting me tell it like it is" not only is passive-aggressive, it is a classic fallacy of the internet, and unworthy of use in a serious discussion.
The point is that I the way I see women portrayed on Supernatural makes me proud to be a woman, and proud to be a fan of the show.
Now see? This is a perfectly cromulent way to say what you think, that casts no aspersions. Why didn't you say this the first time?
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:22 pm (UTC)I never said anyone was "oppressing me", by any stretch of the imagination. I was merely suggesting that attacking me because I have a differing opinion and a different style of writing was a bit harsh, and quite hypocritical.
Why didn't you say this the first time?
A number of reasons, mainly because it had already been said, quite eloquently, by the original poster. It also lacks the emphasis I desired, and I didn't realize that giving enthusiastic support to the original author would draw quite so much controversy.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:32 pm (UTC)Hi. We are in
I was merely suggesting that attacking me because I have a differing opinion and a different style of writing was a bit harsh, and quite hypocritical.
So... you can dish out rudeness, but you can't take a polite correction to your rudeness? Even if
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 09:16 pm (UTC)Calling me stupid isn't trash-talking?
I can take a difference in opinion; attacks because of the casual tone of my comment is an overreaction. I'm sorry you found my post to be a little odd or unusual, but it's just my way of expressing myself. I wasn't intentionally hurtful, and yet that is the reaction I got in return.
Somehow, this community doesn't feel particularly warm and fuzzy toward women to me.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:14 pm (UTC)Fangirl isn't necessarily an insult; it's a type of internet personality, typically marked by a compulsive or obsessive nature toward the object of its fanaticism. At times, I find that compulsion clouds their rational judgment.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:17 pm (UTC)It's apparently also marked by drooling. I'm sure that wasn't meant as an insult either.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:27 pm (UTC)1. a strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act, esp. one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.
The suggestion here is that fangirls are, by the very nature of the term, somewhat obsessed with something. This does not generally lend oneself to rational and objective thought. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; everyone has the things that get them excited and obsessed. I merely expressed a wish for a little more rationality.
If you intend to take it as an insult, there is very little I can do to make it anything but that.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 07:42 pm (UTC)To restate: I fail to see how she was kicking sand in anyone's face by stating her opinion, however rudely she might have chosen to do so.
There are many ways to state an opinion that are not rude. She did not choose one of those ways. I am calling her on that because rudeness has no place in this comm.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 07:53 pm (UTC)You say she was "trash-talking other fans," but that's not how I read it. I don't even have to be involved in SPN fandom to know that it's a rampant and quite popular opinion to believe the show is misogynist. There are crazy fangirls or boys in every fandom, and one of the issues I've always had with SPN fandom -- And consequently, the reason I generally stay away from it -- is because it is seemingly okay to objectify the men, and to rip to shreds any female character who might be a love interest. It's a legitimate issue within that fandom, whether you agree with that position or not. My impression of all of your replies thusfar is that you may be taking the comment far too personally, when it wasn't intended for you, or anyone specifically, but to -- Yes, via a rather enthusiastic parody -- point out what she feels is a chronic and often under-discussed issue within the SPN fandom.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:16 pm (UTC)Frankly, I'm disappointed that this essay was posted in the comm at all -- rather than linked in the comm to a personal journal -- because I knew exactly what was going to happen, and your comment is a perfect example. The whole idea of the comm is to celebrate women, and here we all are arguing about "what's wrong with fangirls." This is not celebration. And now you want to turn the conversation to the objectification of men??
Please go have this discussion in some other comm, at some other time. In the meantime, I will ask your friend to be responsible for the content of her words in public, and I'll ask you to do the same about your own words.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:27 pm (UTC)I never said any such thing. Also, please lay off the passive-aggressive insinuations. I was under the impression that we were having a discussion, a debate. The tag above labels this as "meta and discussion", so I assumed that would be welcome, provided it was rational. Not once have I tried to claim your opinion was wrong -- But rather that it wasn't right for everyone.
Actually, the purpose of this community, as I read it in the userinfo, is to celebrate female characters in fandom. This post was about celebrating the women of SPN, which my friend agreed with. She also believes that SPN fandom is hyper-critical of said women. To me, "celebrating women" does not equate with ignoring the issues. I think the fan reaction to the women of SPN in contrast with the way it objectifies men is an issue that merits discussion -- Why do we, as fans, believe this is acceptable? What is it that prohibits us from appreciating the female characters in this canon more?
Also, I find it incredibly distasteful that I've been extremely reasonable and diplomatic throughout this discussion, and yet because I don't agree with you, you're telling me to take my discussion somewhere else.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:40 pm (UTC)Actually, it was sarcasm. And I daresay that the response to "I'm offended" is not generally, nor is it reasonably, "That's too bad, cause I'm not."
This post was about celebrating the women of SPN, which my friend agreed with. She also believes that SPN fandom is hyper-critical of said women.
The former is a celebration. The latter is not a celebration. How is this so difficult? If you feel strongly about talking about fans' problems, it is your right to take that topic and speak about it, at length, in a venue designed for that topic.
I have many thoughts about female characters in Supernatural, and might at times find that I agree with you on some issues. I will be happy to have that discussion with you. Elsewhere.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:19 pm (UTC)The problem isn't her enthusiasm. The problem is indicating that anyone who disagrees with her or your opinion of Supernatural, its male characters, its female characters, or your characterization of its fandom isn't rational, reasonable, or a true feminist.
You say she was "trash-talking other fans," but that's not how I read it. I don't even have to be involved in SPN fandom to know that it's a rampant and quite popular opinion to believe the show is misogynist. There are crazy fangirls or boys in every fandom, and one of the issues I've always had with SPN fandom -- And consequently, the reason I generally stay away from it -- is because it is seemingly okay to objectify the men, and to rip to shreds any female character who might be a love interest. It's a legitimate issue within that fandom, whether you agree with that position or not. My impression of all of your replies thusfar is that you may be taking the comment far too personally, when it wasn't intended for you, or anyone specifically, but to -- Yes, via a rather enthusiastic parody -- point out what she feels is a chronic and often under-discussed issue within the SPN fandom.
You and
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-14 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-14 02:42 am (UTC)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