Meta on Supernatural vs. Sexism

[fannishliss]

A few weeks ago  there was another, rather well-argued post on heavy meta  that I couldn't bring myself to really agree with about sexism on Show.   I've been dwelling on it, but this morning I tried to make a comment on a friend's journal about a related matter and my comment got way too long and here it is.  :)

Let me just say?  I have *credentials* in academic feminism.  I studied this stuff for years.  I wrote a feminist dissertation and published in academic journals.  I'm not an apologist.  I think these issues are really tricky, and I think it's always useful to point out where cultural assumptions are flying unchallenged.  BCCSherlock for example is a TERRIBLY SEXIST show across the board  (which is really sad for me because I adore Ben and Martin in those roles. whatevs, the fanfic rocks).

I think what critics miss is that SPN is actively engaged with sexist tropes.  All the way back in the freaking pilot: "We were raised as WARRIORS!" and "I could do it alone but I don't want to."  They went up against the freaking Woman in White, the patriarchy's own nightmare.

Okay. Now in a less self aware show the fridging of three women to spur two Men into motion would be sexism.  Yes.  It would.  But this is not that show.  And here's why.

Yes, the Show is about the Hero's Journey -- but one of the primary things Show is taking on is the cost of that journey to the Heroes' full humanity -- and, importantly, the cost to people around them.  Supernatural is a broad cultural critique about our gender assumptions regarding what it mens to be a Hero.  Supernatural, across eight seasons, has forced the Masculine Hero's Journey to the breaking point  -- exposing all its weaknesses, flaws, sutures, and outright lies. (Will there be peace when you are done?  What will that look like?)

Let's talk about the Hero through the lens of Romanticism for example.  The Romantic Hero has a couple of choices -- he can be the brooding, superior, dark and reckless hero who undergoes eternal torment -- or the brooding, superior revolutionary lightbringer who still suffers eternal torment due to his sacrifice.  *Either way,* the Romantic Hero is isolated from common humanity because of his genius.  Often he breaks the laws of men and gods that were put into place to protect him and everyone, but always, he suffers incredible isolation.  Women writers during the Romantic period, like Jane Austen and Mary Shelley, sought to point out the extremes of the Romantic Hero and to suggest that you know, it's good to have friends and a family and to work together to achieve stability (as per Austen) or social justice (as per Shelley).  The Romantic Hero, noble and torn, remains deeply attractive to our culture.

So now, we have Sam and Dean.  Right away, the trope of the Hero is put under tension -- because there are two brothers.  They are never as isolated in their heroic sacrifice as they would *overtly prefer* to be, because they have this bond of family or love or whatever you may call it tying them irrevocably together.  Secondly, they feel their freakishness acutely -- they see very clearly the society they've been excluded from, and yearn for it with every fiber of their being.

That society is called "civilian" -- but what it is, is the society where Women are the Norm.  This is key, this is really key, so let me repeat: in civilian society, on Supernatural, WOMEN ARE THE NORM.   In a sexist representation of society, Men are the norm.  Men's decisions, men's live, men's pastimes are seen as legitimate and as the only things that matter.  On Supernatural, Dean is practically as a parody of that idea:  fast car, loud rock, booze, sexy women -- but (except for the Impala, because she's their home), Dean's fascinations ring hollow.  Dean's core self is not sex, booze, rocknroll -- it's not even Hunting -- it's Saving People, and taking care of Sammy.  Sam, of course, is an excellent Hunter but he wants to survive the Journey and take Dean with him.  He refuses to deny like Dean does that the real world (the civilian world, the society of Women) matters. Sam's a SNAG and he won't let go of that dream even when Dean has feathered his nest in the batcave with memory foam and gun, still fairly suicidal when it comes to his picture of the future.

Main point -- Supernatural *is* the story of two Men Heroes -- but at the same time, it's the story of dozens and dozens of Women who are the everyday heroes that make life actually mean something.  And that's not sexist in my book, not at all.

Mary and Jess did die on the ceiling, their wombs slashed open, in their nightclothes. No one can deny that.  And that did set Sam and Dean off.  If the story were less complicated, critics would be right to complain.   Mary's backstory as a Hunter and the manipulation of the bloodlines by Angels is too complicated to go into here... but suffice it to say, she's not a passive victim, despite the generic image that's burned into our retinas. Jess's backstory may be a little less complicated I grant you! But eight years of SPN storytelling has given me confidence that Jessica Moore was more than a Hot Nurse and the baker of delicious cookies, even though we never got to know her.  The great majority women on Show have lives of their own, disrupted by an intrusion of the Supernatural that require Sam and Dean's specialized skillset to properly address.

So no, my final analysis has to be that with a few missteps (some of them quite serious, I'll allow!) Supernatural is not a sexist show.  To the contrary!  And that's one of the reasons I love it so much.

So -- YAY SPN!  EIGHT SEASONS AND COUNTING!!!

And really-- it's no accident that Felicia Day is in my icon, right?

All serious comments will be taken seriously.  I'm happy to engage!  :)

Comments

[elliemurasaki.livejournal.com]

I think you're right--about their intentions. The execution's sexist as hell in quite a few places--women being tortured are naked except for strategically placed leather straps, men being tortured are fully clothed, and while we hear of Meg and Lilith torturing and imagine the same of Bela, we only ever see men torturing; the fact that that's the first place my mind went probably says something disturbing about me.

Anyway, I'm fully willing to believe that they intend what you say. (Dean is, after all, Sam's mommy. Or at least was before Stanford.) It's just that they don't always live up to it.

(My S8 watch stalled out just before 8x11. I think I'm afraid that episode, which is the one that being spoiled for it got me to watch the ones in between there and my previous stall point, won't live up to the hype.)

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I do agree with you about certain visuals. That one especially of Ruby strapped down on Alistair's table is viscerally pornographic in a way that Alistair spread-eagled on Castiel's demon trap, under Dean's knife, doesn not manage, despite the fact that Edlund intentionally sexualized that scene as much as he could without paying Chris Heyerdahl to strip. (I think Alistair should have been naked, it would have been just that much more visceral -- but that's part of how SPN participates in an industry that is certainly sexist -- as well as their actors being universally Pretty, largely white, and sometimes far too skinny.)

I think that visuals, the graphic representation of horror, is where Supernatural participates in a set of generic expectations that are less than enlightened. For me, it's Jess on the ceiling even more so than Ruby on the table, because Ruby emphatically *wasn't* the victim she was playing -- even while strapped to that table she was outthinking and outperforming everyone around her. By itself, the visual is quite damning -- but I can't help but look at the whole picture, character arcs, plot lines, mythologies, and moreover, the way SPN handles the tropes it engages with. It's so complicated isn't it: Ruby on the table *looks* shockingly, terrorizingly victimized -- but in reality, she's fully in charge of her agency, not just surviving the "fate worse than death" but playing it to her advantage -- so in that way, SPN can eat and enjoy several cakes at once -- the pornographic display of Ruby's naked body at the same time as her mastery, her agency, her eventual unveiling as antagonist par excellence.... it's not simply one thing or the other.

I also have to acknowledge here the Stabbing Death - that certain sexualized thrust of the knife where Ruby or Tammy or Amy (or Zachariah) makes a face of shocked surprise -- that is sexualized violence and it's a visual pornography that Supernatural does make use of. In fact it was that exact stabbing that Dean tried to use on Alistair, and that Alistair almost certainly used on Dean in Hell. I'd argue that the storytelling doesn't support the Stabbing as sexualized *except* in the Dean/Alistair case where it most definitely is-- but the cinematography is a problematic trope and it's a fair criticism that Show lays itself open to.

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

I. Love. This.

I'm not the thinkiest person; I'm very intuitive when it comes to why and how I feel about things. I can't usually put my finger on it when something "feels" wrong or "feels" right. Every time I hear arguments about the show being misogynist, I chafe. And I've never been sure why.

THIS, though? What you've posted right here? Is exactly it. I don't agree with Show all the time but I agree with you here.

Well said!

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm also primarily intuitive, so I have to work really hard on this type of argument -- whereas the argument that "show is sexist" is comparative easily supported from a simple debate perspective. Show is very very complex and really rather subtle, and some of the things that look sexist are more blatant and out there on the topmost surface. Which, I guess, is a fair critique in itself... :P

I'm willing to call Show on outright sexism when it occurs, but I also want to argue in defense of a deeper, more nuanced engagement with the Show, because that's where I live. :)

Now let's look at Dean's pretty, pretty face!! :D

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

Sexism? Hells, yeah. But I don't think the overwhelmingly female fandom would still be here if that's all there was to the show.

Mmmm, Dean's face. Sam's mile-long legs and crazy shoulders. I'm done.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

Fascinating. I enjoyed reading this, and I agree with it—I think this is why I've enjoyed SPN (and the characters of Dean and Sam) for so long despite the many problems it does have on an episode-to-episode basis. This is a great description of the foundations of the show, and an excellent rebuttal of some of the most common complaints I've seen about sexism in Supernatural.

I think from week to week, Supernatural can be both sexist and not, both racist and not, and it could do so much better. But it also has storylines and themes and specific images that I find rewarding and affirming. I could still wish for a better track record in a lot of places.

Felicia Day does make everything a bit better, it's true.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

yeah, especially with the racist and not. Show gets so tangled between win and fail -- the Dog Familiar case being painfully in point. I loved Portia as a character -- she's a great example of a woman character who is really the Hero of the day -- but the fails were kind of embarrassing in terms of simply ignoring how Portia (presenting as a black woman) might not be best portrayed in a collar calling a white man Master. I also felt sorry that the portrayal of what seemed to be a healthy dom/sub type of relationship was somewhat derailed by questionable handling of race issues -- even though their story itself was set within a context where their partnership defied the conventions of their community. sigh. B+ for effort?

I love your "call me Jody" icon. Jody Mills is just an amazing character --and she's still alive (and despite my fic) has never slept with either of them!!! :D

Charlie is awesome. I want more with the Fairy Girlfriend. :)

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

*happily rolls around in this meta*

I could seriously read pages upon pages of this! If you ever get the urge to write more about SPN and sexism, dude, you have one part of your audience right here! :D

When it comes to the intentions of the writers, all I can go by is what I see on screen, and while I agree with elliemurasaki above that there have been sexist aspects to Show, I can't help but think those events are random little blindspots in an overall greater effort to be woman-positive and anti-sexist. I mean, seriously, I go through the list of women on this show--Bela, Ruby, Mary, Ellen, Jo, Charlie, Sheriff Mills, Meg, (and Lisa, Amelia, and Becky, and even Raphael and Naomi)--and all I see are people who are written as very nuanced, who have their own agendas and the ability to further those agendas (in ways that often defeat the Man Heroes), their own histories, and their own explicitly expressed wants and desires. None of these women are backdrop. None of these women exist merely to further Sam and Dean's story.

(Speaking of Bela, I am so glad that I wasn't around back in S3, because fandom's hatred of her and her subsequent removal from the show would have absolutely enraged me. I mean, seriously, we have this awesome female character who made a demon deal to get away from what is implied to be abuse--and we never see the end of her story? RAGE. I hope that one day she'll come back in some form, as I think the majority of fandom would be ready for her now. In any case, I place any blame for the lack of any main female character squarely on fandom's shoulders.)

And then there are the male stories in SPN, where Dean's story deconstructs the Masculine Hero, where Sam's story orbits around returning to the domestic, typically woman-identified, domestic life. Where as you say, the normal life--and even a better hunting life--is a world where women are the norm.

If all these events are truly a series of accidents, then we have been very lucky indeed.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comment!

I often think about two woman Heroes, Buffy and Xena. My women's studies compatriots didn't really like Xena because as they said, she duplicates the male model. Nothing wrong with that! She can play with the big boys .... but Buffy has been very well-respected. Joss started out by imagining the scenario that the monster is following the girl and suddenly the girl turns and defeats the monster! Buffy became a Hero on her own terms and without necessarily replicating the male model -- I think her Scooby Team is really important in that regard.

On Supernatural, there are great women characters in Hunting, in law enforcement, as psychics, as Demons, Angels, and Monsters -- but there are everyday women heroes in almost every episode -- and Charlie is a great example of that. It's a different model and we should pay attention, because it's important to learn how to tell women's stories without simply replicating a masculine model. Jody was a mom, and now she's a widow, but she's still Sheriff, and her story goes on behind the scenes. Moreover, we've come to a point in history when men and women don't necessarily have one roadmap for the Hero's journey -- so a Show that explores that for men and women both is important to watch, for those of that care about that sort of thing. :)

Calling Show out when it fails is important, but dismissing it as sexist across the board is neither accurate nor useful.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

I think it's awesome that Bela has become a loved character in fandom in her own right, and I am on board that train (I adore Lauren Cohan)—but I didn't think I'd like her at first, and that's because I was primed not to like her by the promotional materials and spoilers that came out before S3 aired. The first I ever heard of Bela and Ruby was the casting sides, which were leaked early on in the S2-3 hiatus. What we gathered from everything that was said was that Bela and Ruby were specifically being hired as hot chicks to try and get a male demographic, their looks being most important. Now, yeah, it was the WB, so not surprising, but everything that came out during that summer made it sound like these characters were specifically being introduced because the network was trying to fix the show so that it would suddenly, magically appeal to guys. You can see why that didn't win fans over. TPTB also made remarks that summer about how they were basically trying to trick fans into accepting them by making them adversaries instead of love interests.

Later on, with the entirety of Bela and Ruby's stories told, it's easy to love them in their own right. But that season, it was rough—and then the writer's strike right in the middle of it, and no one knowing whether the show would even come back. It's easy to look back and say, SPN fandom sucked for not embracing Bela and Ruby right off. But man, at the time, it was a different story.

Bela's story was definitely cut way short because of the writer's strike, and it's tough to fault them for that. At least we got a bit of it. But again, fans didn't know anything about that in early S3, when Bela was most disliked. By the end of S3, I think most fans had a different view of her. I don't deny that there was hate toward her character, but most of that was in the very early part of S3 when we were still choking down the "ha ha, we'll give you two hot chicks, and you'll like it because they're not love interests! Fans are so easy to manipulate!"

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I can't speak to that particular time, not having been around then, but the pattern of reading/listening to spoilers during season hiatus and then subsequently hating on the show--I've seen that every freakin' season.

For my own part, I've come to the conclusion that it's due to one half trolling by the writers/Jared, and one half the fandom's sense of entitlement over the storyline. I grant that the trolling must have been incredibly annoying back when people didn't have years worth of history with the writers' interviews being misleading, but even so, I can't help but think that hating the onscreen character before people had even seen her was a bit premature.

And I certainly don't understand hating her in early S3 after she actually came onscreen.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I really avoid spoilers like the plague, for exactly this reason. The same scenario played out again this past summer when Jared's comments led fans to believe he had peacefully abandoned his brother to move in with Amelia.

Amelia wasn't a shiny happy person and I liked that. (I loved Lisa Braeden for being so strong and together, but not everyone can be zen like Lisa!!) Amelia was a mess, and Sam loved her anyway, because he needed someone to love, and if it was someone as much of a mess, mourning and adrift, as himself -- all the better. It fell a little flat maybe? But it was a better storyline that most fans allowed.

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

I read a lot of the spoilers this past summer, and even then I couldn't really engage with the uproar. I felt like many people were taking the information and putting it in the worst light possible.

I really liked Amelia, and I think it's rare that a conventionally hot female character is allowed to be so messy in quite that manner. I also really liked that out of the two of them, Sam was arguably the messier one. And the storyline as a whole--it was a little clunky, but I thought it was necessary. One of the things that bothered me in previous seasons was the fact that Sam had gone a little static, that he had basically remained his late-s5 self all the way up to the end of s7. Given what he had gone through, it didn't make sense to me. The huge difference in him at the start of s8 felt, to me, like a necessary correction in his character arc.

Speaking of fandom reaction, I find it interesting that, well, as per Killa's post, TPTB did rather further manipulate fandom. They continued to get their hot women by way of making them non-love interests. Both incarnations of Meg the adversary, Mary the characters' mother, Charlie the lesbian, etc.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

As with most things in fandom, I agree that entitlement is almost always part of the problem. Also, watching a show after it's already aired is infinitely easier on the nerves.

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. Although I'm not sure if watching a show that has already aired is easier because we have the whole storyline at once, or because we get to watch the show in a vacuum without writer and/or fandom influence.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

I'd vote both, but especially that last part.

Of possible interest...

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

...So, I was curious to see what I'd said about the spoilers back in the summer of 2007, and I went back and found this entry:

http://killabeez.livejournal.com/240551.html

So, apparently I am misremembering how I felt about the spoilers, at least when I first heard them. Maybe it was later when I heard the crew interviews were they talked about the women being adversaries (specifically so that fans would accept them) that I got annoyed? Anyway. I no longer trust my memory. I don't seem to have actually posted about Bela or Ruby at all after that (life was crazy at the time). It was kind of interesting (to me) to see my original comments, though.

[bleodswean.livejournal.com]

Great meta! I refuse to read the linked...original assertion. I have so many feelings on this sort of outrage. First, and I know this stings, it's a tv show, people. Second, we don't need to find -isms in every goddamned thing. If you want a strong female lead...watch another show. Although, it is arguable, that tv is very objectifying and finding strong female characters that can be identified with - NOT Xena - is more difficult than it should be....and many of these shows ARE written by women so go figure.

And let's look at tropes once in a while from a Jungain pov - animus much????

I love your thinky thoughts!

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

Don't worry about the link -- it is to my friend themonkeytwin's journal and you would like her. Her recent post brought up my thoughts that I've been trying to set in order about the previous meta. :P

It is frustrating to look for strong women leads on Tv! That is why I watch so little! Also I only watch genre shows, because I'm just not interested in straight drama. Ugh, I have real life for that.

Supernatural has such interesting women whose stories really engage me; and that's why I get so worked up when people want to dismiss the Show as sexist. For sure it has not avoided every pitfall.... but overall it is a fantastic show. So I like to argue in favor every so often.

And it's also true that men's stories and women's stories don't have to be as different as they once were. Roles don't have to be set in stone. Whatever SPN may get wrong, it understand the Winchesters' struggle to be Heroes and it tells that story honestly, exploring gender tropes instead of just falling back on them -- and along the way it tells fascinating stories about other great characters too. So I stay hooked.

[bleodswean.livejournal.com]

That, m'dear, is one of the most vitally important differences between viewers like you and I and so many others. We are here for the STORY. The myth, the journey, the archetype all create an absolutely enjoyable, oftentimes thought-provoking, and always entertaining experience. The fact that the two leads are so easy on the eyes is just icing because these two characters, the writers, and the directors, add another layer in interpretation and that brings a kind of dimensional life to a tale we've otherwise had to enjoy on paper only. THAT is what SPN is about....not drama, not real life, not the dreaded -isms, it's a Women Who Run With the Wolves fairy tale and I, for one, need that desperately in my life and sing the praises of any Hollywood group that has the balls and ability to bring it to celluloid entertainment. It is exactly what it should be.

[centrumlumina.livejournal.com]

I've complained about sexist themes on the show before, but it was never especially the women-in-fridges side of things which bothered me, since on this show it's more like everybody-in-fridges.

While I do think that Supernatural has some truly excellent female characters, it's always bothered me how often they seem to fall into moral extremes. Ruby's S4 arc was all about moral ambiguity and mirrored Sam's ability to choose to fight the demonic influences in his life, but in the end she is revealed to have been irredeemable, even though her arc mirrored Castiel's with its far more ambiguous resolution. Some of the most powerful women on the show - Meg, Ruby, Lilith - have been quite literally demonised by the narrative, and the remainder - the Harvelles, Jody, and lately Linda Tran - have a tendency to vanish from the plot without warning or explanation.

I'm also perpetually irritated by the lack of agency given to the female villains. Lilith and Eve are white-clothed mockeries of the idealised women Mary and Jess represent, and they could have been a powerful challenge to the Winchesters' views of femininity. Instead, Eve is quickly dispatched to make room for the Crowley plotline, and Lilith is shown to have been subservient to Lucifer, who is canonically presented as male. Ruby and Meg suffer the same treatment, at least at first - it isn't until season 6 that Meg begins to work for her own goals.

I definitely wouldn't claim Supernatural as a show is always sexist, but I would say it has a bad habit of wasted potential among its female characters.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I appreciate your comment! You make a lot of good points. I do find it frustrating how incidental characters often disappear ... I'm not sure we can pin that all on the women characters though, because interesting male characters drop away as well... Chuck being the most central of those, and of course, all the various folks who die. I really wanted to see more of Missouri Moseley and I've been really surprised that the boys never tried to contact her again.

I agree too that Lilith and especially Eve were weak, and among the least well-developed female characters show has presented -- too bad, because Lilith and Eve were both supposed to be so powerful.

I'd like to hear more about "the Winchesters' views of femininity." I think Dean especially does have an idealized view of his mom, but I don't know that much about what they think of women otherwise, except that I find them to be on the whole, respectful, while not overly chivalric. What do you think?

As for Ruby, I think her arc was fantastic. I'm also very interested in Meg-- much more so now than at first when she was more of a straightforward adversary. I don't think it's necessarily bad for the demons to work for Lucifer, who is like a god to them -- except in the case of Lilith, who is not very well developed aside from being deranged. At one point I was rooting for Ruby's redemption, when it looked like she might become sort of an honorary Winchester.... but if she was going to be evil, then I like that she was a true believer and worked for the accomplishment of her own beliefs. I try to stay very neutral as a Supernatural viewer and view the monsters and demons on their own merits, not according to whether they fall on the side of "evil" or "good". Accordingly I like some of the demons and monsters a lot better than many of the Heaven types. :)

[centrumlumina.livejournal.com]

I'd say that the Winchesters - and yes, especially Dean - have an understandable habit of idealising and simplifying women into symbols rather than people. Jo was a great example of this, and she called Dean out of it in Defending Your Life. But the more typical example is the one Mary and Jess embody - the symbol of motherhood, family and innocence. Not sexual innocence, for once, but ignorance of the truth about the world, and the hunting life.

The show has done a pretty good job of showing that Mary and least wasn't all the boys imagined her to be, but I'd say that the arc with Lisa very much shows that Dean still has an idealised view of relationships which real women can't live up to. Strangely, the Amelia arc played out in a very similar way - even though Amelia was shown very clearly not to be perfect, she kept her innocence on the hunting front, which I didn't expect and honestly, found quite boring.

(It just occured to me that Dean has a far better track record of telling his girlfriends the truth than Sam does. I'm not sure there's a point to that, but it's interesting.)

Also, while I do think Ruby's arc was great, and I'm very much not one to dislike a character because they're on the "evil" side (especially on this show, where it's less good-v-evil as Winchesters-v-everyone), I suppose I'm just a little tired of my favourite characters getting portrayed as irredeemable. I have this running joke with my friends that all women on Supernatural are either a) evil b) dead or c) only important to the plot as love interests. While there are some brilliant characters in all three categories, it feels a little repetitive after a while.

A lot of female characters with interesting takes on morality - post-reveal Ruby, Anna Milton, Eve, Amy Pond, Emma Winchester - have been introduced, only to disappear or, more often, get killed off before the idea could really be expanded upon. While the same is true of a lot of male characters, the few recurring characters we have picked up - Castiel, Bobby, Crowley, Kevin, Benny - tend to be male.

(With the admitted exceptions of Meg and Charlie, both of whom are pretty amazing examples of doing it (mostly) right, although I will forever wish they would appear more often.)

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I agree with some of what you say but not all. :)

Jo I think Dean just didn't really pay that much attention to -- I think he found her to be very young and starry eyed originally in terms of her view of Hunting. He's always been discouraging to people who wanted to join the life, and Jo was no exception there. I kind of enjoyed how Jo was able to keep her dignity around Dean esp. since she did have a massive crush on him at first.

"ignorance of the truth" -- this is a key example of how the boys play out that trope of the Romantic Hero. They know things mere mortals don't, and thus they are set apart. At the same time, they acknowledge the terrible hardships of the life. There is a chivalric element-- but it's not confined to their treatment of women in particular but to civilians in general.

"Lisa vs Dean's idealised view of relationships which real women can't live up to" -- I disagree here. Dean was Dean's own worse enemy and he was unable to think his way out of the box of his own fatalism. Viewing himself as a monster, he betrayed Lisa by having her memories wiped to keep her "safe." That idea that she needed to be safe was paramount to him -- not necessarily that she couldn't live up to the Life with him, but that he saw himself turning into a control freak like John in response to his own terror that he'd get her killed. Tragedy!!! I love Lisa Braeden with the fire of a thousand suns. She's amazing.

Amelia vs boring -- yes. She was boring, especially because Sam kept her in the dark. There was no contest for Sam between choosing to Hunt with Dean and choosing civilian life with Amelia, because despite caring for her, Sam would have been a very partial version of himself if he'd stayed with her. Unlike Dean with Lisa, because Lisa was willing to see herself as a Hunter's partner, even though Dean couldn't wrap his head around it.

Dean's track record-- yes, Dean is actually much more forthcoming than Sam is usually. :)

Ruby vs irredeemable. I don't see Ruby as irredeemable, but I'm sure I'm in the minority. Ruby accomplished her goals. She won, in a lot of ways, and she was faithful to her Lord. So, I really respect her, even though she was on the side of the demons!

Women on Supernatural are either a) evil b) dead or c) love interests. -- no, I really disagree with you there! there are a lot of women who are dead or evil, but there are a lot who survive. And I take exception to the whole love interest thing, especially when people accuse Dean of sleeping with so many women -- he really does not. As far as we actually know, Dean has slept with Cassie, Anna, and Lisa for sure -- all women he really cared about; also (in the Deal year) the Doublemint Twins (I don't think 2014Dean counts.) I tried to find more references to women Dean has slept with and found Tara Benchley, the actress from 2.18 Hollywood Babylon, and Bartender Jamie from 4.05 Monster Movie -- both of whom seem to have had a fabulous time with him, which makes me smile.

interesting characters killed off -- so true! it's a tragic show for sure.

[centrumlumina.livejournal.com]

Mostly, you have good points and I can definitely see where you're coming from, but there are a couple of things I wanted to clarify.

Firstly, I wanted to make it clear that I love Ruby and the fact that she ultimately succeeded in her goals, even though they were not the goals I originally thought she had. However, I feel she is presented *in the narrative* as irredeemable - once she has betrayed the Winchesters, she deserves death, and every interaction with her becomes viewed as a mistake, even though she saved Sam and Dean's lives more than once.

Perhaps a clearer example of what I mean can be found in Anna, who is presented as a villain in her last episode in spite of the fact that she is still working to avert the Apocalypse and save the world. Anna and Ruby both had a morality which didn't align with the Winchesters, but I find it hard to view either as being as unforgivably evil as the show sometimes seemed to imply they were.

Secondly, when I said a lot of women were love interests, I definitely didn't just mean love interests for Sam and Dean. I've been applying the rule far more to one-shot characters - this season we've had Betsy, Andrea, Portia, and (for reasons I will never, ever understand) Artemis. While recurring characters on Supernatural do tend to accumulate into the other two categories, it's difficult for them to remain undeveloped past their romantic interests - although Amelia just about managed it.

[borgmama1of5.livejournal.com]

I pretty much watch the show, not analyze it, especially not in meta terms...so I always enjoy reading other folks' thinky-thoughts :)

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

cheers! thanks for reading!

[downjune.livejournal.com]

This is such a great post!

Honestly, I have such conflicted feelings about Show episode to episode because, really, if you go to a micro level with how they handle individual scenes and characters, a lot of the time I just want to go, "WTF are you doing?! Are you even paying attention at all?!" (Like a lot of the Sam/Amelia scenes. Sam/Amelia were GREAT, but scene-to-scene, there was a fair amount of o.0)

But, looking back at 8 seasons, I think you're absolutely right! The breadth and depth of female characters is wonderful. Jo, Ellen, Anna, Ruby, Meg, Bela, Jody, Lisa, Amelia -- they are all GREAT characters who grow and change and have meaningful parts to play in the story. And there are now dozens of one-off characters that I've enjoyed.

Also, Sam and Dean embody and subvert so many different gender roles and tropes, it's a joy to pick them apart.

But then you look at all the individual moments of fail, as well as what seem to be pretty toxic spoilers/information tidbits from the TPTB, and I can't help but wonder -- are they even cognizant of what they're doing?? Like, do they even know what they have here?

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your encouraging comment!

"do they even know what they have here?" I think yes and no.

I think they realized early on what an amazing Show they could build around Jensen and Jared as Dean and Sam, two Brothers. I think that gave them room to build a much greater amount of depth into the characters than Kripke originally dared to hope.

In terms of women characters, I'm really not sure they know what they are doing. I mean, I do argue that the boys' hypermasculine world of Hunting is opposed to a more Woman-normative word of civilians and regular life. I think that's deliberate, but I don't necessarily argue that they recognize it as such.

I do think they are committed to making their human women characters very three dimensional and interesting-- their monsters a little less so, but with monsters like "Amelia Pond" and Lenore, they did a fantastic job -- even though Lilith and Eve were a little more simply creepy horror tropish and flat. Their demons, like Meg and Ruby, are really fascinating to me -- and I really think they aren't defined simply as females within gendered tropes, but happen to be female within their rich story lines.

What I do think is that the people who make the show really care about it. When there is a lapse and they make a mistake it is so glaring. It really stands out more than on other shows where writing is shoddier. ... And, I think we have heard time and time again, that the atmosphere on Show is such that guest stars as well as regulars are treated so well that they want to give their all and do their very best for Show. I think that shows, even above the writing.

In terms of spoilers and their ill effects -- I really think that tptb can't wrap their heads around who we are. The image in their heads of who we are as their fans is blatantly wrong. They have no idea -- or, if asking Felicia Day to come on is any clue -- they are finally beginning to have some inkling. And since they are not sure who we are, they do not realize fully what will not amuse us or what we will find really obnoxious. There's often a sly or sophomoric quality to things that fall flat on Show, that I think is a misguided attempt to play to a different perceived audience -- but then again I could be projecting.

[bowtrunckle.livejournal.com]

I love this whole discussion. Over the years I've paid attention to all the sexist-or-not meta, but have stayed on the sidelines not bec. I didn't/don't have an opinion but bec. I felt my arguments weren't totally/fully gelling. But there are a couple of interesting things that you mentioned and the original poster brought up that somehow made some seemingly disparate ideas slide into place (finally). Thanks so much for your articulate and interesting take on this. I've already started puking out a rough draft response meta so I won't pollute here.

But I do want to say that I agree completely with the idea that SPN has repeatedly and deliberately created two largely separate worlds--a world of hunters and the hyper-male paradigm and a world of civilians and the traditional (and, in this case, untouchable) female ideal--and purposefully made them overlap with, not surprisingly, little success for Sam and Dean. I feel like it's not primarily an attempt to broaden the SPN universe or to balance the the two created world dichotomies, but mostly to highlight exactly what Sam and Dean don't have and/or don't allow themselves to have to underscore their Tragic Hero roles and bond them in the eyes of the viewer by excluding them from essentially all else.

Also I feel an issue with sexist-or-not debate depends on the scale of reference one is using to make their argument. I think looking at specific lines of dialogue vs. looking at 8 seasons worth of characterization/characters can support two contrary assertions.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

yay, I eagerly look forward to your developed response meta. :)

Yes-- in a lot of ways I have noticed that the previous meta and mine use the same evidence to different conclusions, and I do think it's a matter of scale to some extent. Dean's terribly stupid line about the Whore of Babylon, or the way Eve and Lilith were not fully developed, don't derail the whole Show for me over time.... and I really do read those types of failures as glitches in an overall very well-done Show.

After so many years of reading and watching as a feminist, what really kills me is the way that women characters generally are defined and confined by the roles prescribed to women. She is a daughter, a mom, a wife, a mistress -- in an extremely gendered way that predetermines every motivation. Or even worse: she is a female -- and therefore the whole conversation is about her body in terms of childbearing... or sometimes, in terms of being a sexual creature. What I love so much about SPN is how different it has been in that regard. Just to take one of my favorite characters off the top of my head -- Jody Mills -- look at how her characterization and plot arc actually function -- and it's almost miraculous to me. She is a real woman like someone I might actually know ... not defined as a widow or a mom (though she was both) NOT defined as the boys' surrogate mom or sister, NOT defined as their love interest, not pining for them, not represented as a pathetic cougar (hells, how I loathe that entire concept!!) Instead Jody is a good friend, an ally, a sheriff who kind of knows that she is risking a lot getting involved with them but she does it anyway because it's the right thing to do. She's a real, strong, believable woman character, and the inclusion of her story in Supernatural just makes me jump for joy, because it shows that we have developed the ability as cultural storytellers to ACTUALLY TELL STORIES ABOUT REAL WOMEN, without falling back onto the old, tired, gendered tropes.

And, and! despite that fact that Sam and Dean have been repeatedly required to square their manly shoulders and throw themselves into the breach, they aren't defined in stupid, narrow, gendered ways either -- which I think is why we feel their tragedy so deeply -- they know exactly that world they feel themselves to be excluded from, and they want it so much that their teeth are grinding -- represented by an easy shorthand of backyard barbeques and shared family meals: the plate of cookies Jess left out for Sam; the sandwich Mary made for Dean in the djinn verse; the omelet Dean made for Ben; the burger he makes for Sam in the batcave.

Anyway, my son's alarm clock just went off! :)