![[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 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 01:16 pm (UTC)- hg
no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 01:17 pm (UTC)- hg
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 02:00 pm (UTC)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: 2008-02-13 04:35 pm (UTC)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.
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 06:29 pm (UTC)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.
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 07:32 pm (UTC)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 07:42 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 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 08:01 pm (UTC)Thank you
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 08:07 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 08:16 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 08:17 pm (UTC)It's apparently also marked by drooling. I'm sure that wasn't meant as an insult either.