Women on the Ceiling

TRIGGER WARNINGS: misogyny, sexual violence, victim blaming, swearing/obscenities, religious violence, objectification, physical violence (including bladed weapons and fire)


The CW is probably the most feminist television network in the US—or if not, it's certainly the network that puts the most effort into attracting female viewership. The CW's incoming president recently told TV Guide Magazine that "our sweet spot is women 18–34", and of the network's ten shows, nine have as regulars, if not as stars, strong female characters. Nikita in particular has two female leads and two more female regulars and makes an effort to pass the Bechdel test[1] every week; too many shows on other networks have only one female lead, or female leads who don't talk to each other, or who talk exclusively about the male leads.





Check out this 2008 promo pic for Gossip Girl, and this 2009 promo pic for 90210. The female characters actually take center stage, and outnumber the men!

So why does the CW air Supernatural when Supernatural has no female leads? Probably because it's popular with the ladies, consistently pulling in two million viewers, even with its lead-in Smallville and ahead of everything else the CW airs bar The Vampire Diaries and America's Next Top Model. Judging by the demographics of convention attendees and fanwork creators (who are almost entirely women, predominantly queer women), Supernatural has great appeal for women.

Women watch Supernatural for a variety of reasons. There's the premise of the show. It's all about two brothers, Sam and Dean Winchester, and the 1967 Chevrolet Impala they call home, in a different town every week saving people and hunting things (the family business)—things ranging from the vengeful spirits of the restless dead to Lucifer himself. Supernatural deals with American folklore and legends, from the wendigo (an Algonquin legend) to the Ancient Indian Burial Ground trope, from the vanishing hitchhiker to Bloody Mary, and that's just early season one. In later seasons, the focus shifts to Christian mythology, specifically demons, hell, angels, heaven, and the Book of Revelation apocalypse complete with the horseman War riding, er, driving a red Mustang. Play Goes Strong describes the show as "one of the three or four smartest shows on TV", and I believe it. Most people don't grapple with the question of free will versus destiny, never mind most television shows, but Supernatural does.

There's the complexity of the characters and their relationships with one another. For one example, the hypermasculine Dean is the maternal figure in the Winchester family.

There's the completely shallow reasons to watch: the regulars, Sam (Jared Padalecki, center), Dean (Jensen Ackles, left), and the angel Castiel (Misha Collins, right), are smoking hot.



So, for that matter, are the female recurring characters. (The CW does love its pretty people.) These ladies, to name a few who jump immediately to mind.



The occasional sex dream or one-night stand or alternate universe aside, of those eight, only Mary and Ruby are in romantic relationships with other characters on the show. Not a one of these female recurring characters is defined by her romantic entanglements. This is far too rare a thing in visual media.

So Supernatural is a feminist show. There's no arguing that. Right?

Unfortunately, there's what Supernatural does to its recurring female characters. Of all the recurring female characters on the show, only two survive, Meg (our longest-surviving antagonist) and Lisa (Dean's girlfriend). Nearly every one of the recurring female characters got fridged.

Most people I know have heard of fridging, at least in passing. The trope namer is from Green Lantern vol. 3, in which the title character discovers his girlfriend's corpse in a refrigerator.



Fridging a woman, by analogy with the trope namer, is killing her off, usually in a particularly violent manner, solely for the angst of the male character with whom she is most closely associated. Opinions differ, I've discovered, on whether the concept is inherently gendered or simply applied in a highly gendered way. TV Tropes mentions "For a gender flip, Mystique killed Ms. Marvel's boyfriend while disguised as her", but whether Ms. Marvel's boyfriend was fridged or simply killed in a manner paralleling a fridging I leave to the reader.

Supernatural has a bit of a problem with fridging.

Meg has not, of course, been fridged; she isn't dead. Bela wasn't either, though she was killed off due to unpopularity with the fans: her character and her character arc were always solely about her own goals. (Not coincidentally, Bela is one of my favorite characters.) Anna's character arc was always about who she is, independent of any other concerns. Pamela died because she made a decision she knew was risky but right, in keeping with her own character; the emotional impact on Sam and Dean is secondary. Ruby's character arc was more centered on the men in her life than Bela's and Anna's, but in the end her death was the natural result of her successfully attaining her ambition, one contrary to the objectives of Sam and Dean.

But let's start where Supernatural begins, with "Pilot" and the first two female recurring characters, Mary Winchester and Jess Moore.

Until the season four episode "In the Beginning", all we knew about Mary was that she was the mother of Sam and Dean and the love of their father John's life, that she believed in angels, that she died bloody and screaming in a fire in Sam's nursery, and that she knew the demon who killed her. Drop the 'mother' bit and substitute 'Sam' for 'John', 'apartment' for 'nursery', and 'crucifix and Our Lady of Guadalupe candle at her grave' for 'believed in angels', and that's all we know about Jess. Almost: she baked and she attended Stanford. We know more about Mary now and we can extrapolate more about Jess, but really, that's it. For three seasons for Mary, six and counting for Jess, everything relevant about Mary and Jess could be summed up in these two images, linked instead of displayed with a trigger warning for violent death: Mary and Jess.

The entire relevance of these two characters was to die, stabbed in the gut and burning on the ceiling. It was Mary's death, after all, in an obviously unnatural way, that sent John Winchester on the road with his sons searching for answers and revenge, and Jess's identical death twenty-two years later to the day that sent Sam Winchester on the road with his brother searching for the exact same thing.

Mary wasn't fridged, I think. 'Killed by demon' strikes me as a fitting conclusion to the arc that begins ten years earlier in "In the Beginning" with 'sells an unspecified something to demon in exchange for a life, payment due in ten years'. So looking at Mary's character arc chronologically instead of in episode airing order, Mary wasn't fridged. Opinions do differ, however. The key factor on the 'yes Mary was fridged' side of the debate is that, for three seasons, we were allowed to believe that Mary's character was, as Jess's character is, a placeholder, living but to die and thereby create the emotional distress that drives the preseries and first-season plot.

Jess, though? Jess was fridged. Vividly so. Explicitly so. The demon who killed Jess said so in as many words. "You [Sam] were becoming a mild-mannered, worthless sack of piss. So I hooked you up with a pure, sweet, innocent piece of tail. And then I toasted her on the ceiling." Being gutted and burned while her boyfriend watched was and remains the entire purpose of Jess's character.

Lisa Braeden, significant other to Sam's brother Dean Winchester, isn't fridged because she doesn't die, but we get this lovely image in "Exile on Main St." nonetheless, again linked instead of displayed with a trigger warning for violent death: Lisa.

There's one more parallel between Mary, Jess, and Lisa. Until the moment of the woman in question burning on the ceiling, or in Lisa's case appearing to, the Winchester in question is living what Supernatural repeatedly refers to as a "normal, apple-pie" or "white picket fence" life: Sam and Dean's father John a mechanic, part owner of a garage, happily married to Mary and raising their sons; Sam a pre-law student at Stanford living with Jess, whom he intends to marry; Dean a construction worker living with Lisa, who saved his life, and helping her raise her preteen son. Then the woman burns on the ceiling, and that's it, that's the end of normalcy for the Winchester family: the man packs the car trunk full of weaponry and hits the road. The women's life is that of safety and civilization; it's the men's lives we're interested in.

And then there's Ellen and Jo Harvelle, hunter friends of the Winchesters. Ellen's fridging by fire comes via an explosion, moments after the death by gut wound (there it is again) of her daughter Jo. (Who is, incidentally, a young pretty blonde woman, just like Mary and Jess.) Ellen and Jo are less obviously fridged than the others, because both have character arcs that involve hunting the supernatural, but we knew the moment they and the effectively-immortal Winchesters set off on a suicide mission that the Harvelle women were done for. Their deaths served no purpose but to ramp up the drama; they're name-checked in three later episodes, but that's it for over a season until, just for fun, Ellen and Jo get fridged again.

You heard me. A recent episode, "My Heart Will Go On", has an alternative timeline in which Ellen and Jo don't go on that suicide mission. But because Fate Cannot Be Contravened (except when she can be), by the end of the episode they're dead again. This time, we get told how awful it would be for Ellen to be dead. How awful, that is, for Ellen's husband. Never mind what it would be like for Ellen herself.

Ellen's husband in "My Heart Will Go On" is Bobby Singer, friend and substitute father to Sam and Dean, as Ellen is their friend and substitute mother. Bobby's first wife, Karen, is another excellent example of fridging: her preseries death by demon, like Mary's, is what propels Bobby, like John, into hunting. Karen is brought back in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" for a second fridging, again at Bobby's hand, again because Karen is a monster: the first time, she was possessed by a demon, and the second, well, it's only the male characters on this show who get the luxury of coming back from the dead without consequence.

There is a long list of male characters on Supernatural who are resurrected without ill effect. Sam and Dean Winchester, for starters, several times apiece. Their father John; that's the life Mary sold her own for. Bobby Singer and the Winchesters' angel friend Castiel. For female characters resurrected, there's Ellen and Jo Harvelle in "My Heart Will Go On" and, in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid", Karen Singer and a handful more people; only one of Karen's fellow zombies has lines (this one is, of course, a man), and all of them including Karen have, as a result of their resurrection, an intense desire to eat people's faces off.

At least there are fewer female zombies than male in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid". In some episodes, no women die at all, such as "Wendigo" and "It's a Terrible Life". But in "Wendigo", of the fourteen speaking characters, only two are female, and of those two, only one has more than a single line; in "It's a Terrible Life", we see one female tech-support worker and hear of one "GMILF" ("grandmother I'd like to..."), neither of whom speaks, and that is the sum total of the female presence in the episode. (To hell with the Bechdel test, Supernatural's writers have apparently said.)

Sexist language is also a significant part of the show. Hardly an episode goes by, at least since seasons one and two, without somebody calling a woman a bitch or saying "son of a bitch" or such phrases as "witches are whores" or "first [we killed] John's cop friend, and then his slut, and then his son". The worst part about the latter two is, in both cases, the speaker is female, expressing self-loathing as well as loathing of her gender. Ruby, who says "witches are whores", is a witch herself, and the unnamed woman who calls Kate a slut is disguised as Kate at the time.

Consider also the episode title "99 Problems". I got ninety-nine problems but a bitch ain't one, is the title's origin. The title was evidently chosen because the episode is the series' ninety-ninth, but seriously, couldn't they have named the episode "99 Luftballons"? The lyrics of that song are even thematically appropriate to the mytharc, what with the plot of season five being the war of heaven vs hell vs earth. Of course, the lyrics of "99 Problems" are thematically appropriate to the episode "99 Problems"; this is the episode where the monster of the week is the Whore of Babylon (in an RTC-like definition of 'literal'), and one of our supposed heroes says "On a good day, you get to kill a whore".

Don't let me get started on the number of female characters who, as either the monster of the week or monster-bait, exist only to be killed, usually in a sexualized manner. I'll let sisabet and sockkpuppett of Livejournal take care of that, in their marvelous vid Women's Work. Trigger warnings. So many trigger warnings for death and violence and sexual violence. sisabet says, "we love our goddamn show. Just so it's clear and all - the vid could have been made using *anything* - seriously. Look around, this shit is *everywhere*", and she's right. It is everywhere.

That's the problem. It is everywhere.

Supernatural is a misogynist show. It is not possible to look at the patterns of how it treats its female characters and deny that it is a misogynist show. But the problem is less with the show and more with the way it's a feminist show in a very misogynist world.

Look back at those promo pics for Gossip Girl and 90210. The women outnumber the men. Y'know, just like women outnumber men on the planet. The women are the prominent ones in the Gossip Girl pic, almost like they're the important characters. Everybody's the same size in the 90210 pic, almost like everybody's the same importance. Contrast this promo pic for Criminal Minds:



The important characters in Criminal Minds, according to that picture, are the three at the center, three of the four men in a cast of seven. The fourth man is, of course, the character whom the actor describes as the show's "damsel in distress".

Look at this collection of promo pics from various American visual media. Front and center of every single pic and larger than everyone else, the leading white guy, even for shows such as Fringe where the lead is female, or Detroit 1-8-7 where the cast is majority minority. As giandujakiss points out, it's obvious who the most important person in the room is, in every one of the shows. As tablesaw points out, every one of those promo pics is photoshopped, somebody "very carefully deciding who will be in front of whom and in what scale."

Supernatural might not have female leads, but it has female characters whose lives don't revolve around men. Supernatural's characters might use sexist slurs all the time, but they also say in so many words that women can do the same job the male leads do. How sad is it that that's all it takes to make Supernatural a feminist show?

_______________
[1] A movie passes the test if: It has to have at least two women in it, who talk to each other, about something other than a man.

-- MercuryBlue
____________________________________________________________________________

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Chuchundra]

Eh, I think you need to bang pretty hard to crowbar Supernatural into anything resembling a misogynist narrative.

Yes, most of the recurring women characters have got killed off over the course of the show, but Supernatural is often violent and disturbing. Almost every character, man or woman, that has hung around the Winchesters long enough has eventually gotten ganked.

Ellen and Jo most certainly did not get "fridged". They were hunters and they went down fighting, heroically blowing themselves up in hopes of giving Sam and Dean the opportunity to kill Satan. That's a pretty good death for any character.

Anyway, series finale tonight. Gonna watch it with the missus when she gets home.

[Laiima]

Chuchundra: They were hunters and they went down fighting, heroically blowing themselves up in hopes of giving Sam and Dean the opportunity to kill Satan.

Do male characters ever sacrifice themselves for female characters?

From the descriptions here, I couldn't watch 5 minutes of this show. It sounds utterly repellant. YMMV.

[Mmy]

@MercuryBlue: My "problem" with the show is that I find it relentlessly resistant to a negotiated reading. I am used to inserting my own POV into that of shows by finding the cracks and crevices the show's "bible" or "created universe" and yet I find that difficult to do with Supernatural. It is by no means the only show for which that is true but I find it passing strange that a show that ticks so many of my "should like" boxes so eludes my embrace.

[Deird, who dislikes Supernatural]

So, Chuchundra, are you saying that the only way a show can be misogynistic is if the female characters are randomly dropping dead in the street for no reason at all?

I'd say the female:male death ratio can be an indication of misogyny, even if the female characters are getting killed for a "reason".

[Froborr]

The "man who, through no fault of his own, brings disaster to every woman he loves" archetype is rooted, I believe, in a romantic fantasy some men have, in which they get laid frequently by many different beautiful women, but also get to be Tragic and Dramatic by constantly having to mourn them, and never have to get into an actual relationship. There is, of course, no consideration of what this means for the women involved, because they are flat characters in a fantasy, not people. That's where it becomes misogynistic, of course.

What I think some people in both this thread and the other is that misogyny/feminism is a binary. Feminism is the belief that women are people, nothing more, nothing less. You either believe that, or you don't; thus, you are either a feminist, or a misogynist. There are many different ways to be either of those, and many people are one or the other without embracing the term, but they are ultimately the only options.

[MercuryBlue]

Season one, total female speaking characters thirty-seven percent of total speaking characters, total female speaking characters who die in the ep thirty-two percent of total speaking etc. So the deaths skew slightly more male than the cast. Haven't run the stats on the other seasons yet, but I have the impression that more men die than women overall even accounting for there being more men than women to start with. And commercial break's over.

[CZEdwards (who was CSHolocene)]

Who are the writers?

I don't have a television. (We do have a big monitor hooked to various devices, but it doesn't receive, ya, know, signals from carriers not named Netflix.) I do have a thing for certain writers and will follow them around to other shows; I also have a hit-list of those I avoid like flu. Yet Supernatural never pinged my radar though it should be something I'd like. Which makes me wonder why I never bothered.

[MercuryBlue]

Eric Kripke, Sera Gamble, Ben Edlund, are the major names off the top of my head. I don't know what else Kripke and Gamble have been involved with (except Kripke did Boogyman which is universally agreed to suck), but Edlund did Firefly.

Here. Not been updated for half the season, but I don't think there are any names in the back half of this season that weren't in earlier places. See if anybody looks familiar. To quote the section about names most likely to be familiar:

Some regular writers who have moved on from Supernatural include:

John Shiban - writer and producer on Legend of the Seeker Breaking Bad.
Raelle Tucker - writer and producer on True Blood
Cathryn Humphris - writer and executive story editor on Mad Men
Jeremy Carver - writer and executive producer on the US version of Being Human

[Chuchundra]

One of the head writers of the show is Ben Edlund, same guy who created The Tick. He joined the show in season two, which is when it really started to come on strong storywise, IMHO.

The creator of the show is Eric Kripke, who is now working on a possible Sandman series with Neil Gaiman.

Shows on the CW are easy to miss. Supernatural is a hit on that network with ratings that would have gotten it canned early on one of the big networks.

[MercuryBlue]

Okay, updated the Superwiki writer-director guide for the back half of season six.

[MercuryBlue]

To answer Laiima's question, one could argue that Sam and Dean's entire life is a sacrifice for a large number of people half of whom are female, since they fight monsters so ordinary people don't have to, but that isn't the answer you're looking for. I can't think of a single example of a male character sacrificing himself for a female character.

Supernatural has lots to recommend it, but its treatment of women is not on that list. Or its treatment of characters of color, for that matter, which is very much on my mind now that the finale has given us two more data points on its treatment of black male characters to go with the four more data points on its treatment of women.

[Chuchundra]

Castiel's host sacrifices himself for his daughter. I think that should probably count.

I haven't seen the finale yet, but I think it's fair to say that just about everyone except the Winchesters eventually comes to a bad end.

[Asha ( EHHH??)]

What I have heard/been told/read about the Supernatural fanbase is that often they dislike female characters. I have not delved too deeply to know personally, but tvtropes tends to mention that frequently. Is this an example of internalized misogyny, or girls who really dislike getting het in their incestuous boy love? If Castiel had taken a female host, would that host have garnered the same dislike?

[MadGastronomer, the big meanie]

WARNING: CUSSING AT THE DENIER, AND TWILIGHT BASHING

I watch and ... about half the time I even like? ... Supernatural. But yes, this, every bit of it.

However, and I must point this out, despite all of the misogyny in the show, Dean, of all people, says of the universe's Twilight-analogue, "Isn't that kind of ... rape-y?" I LMAO'd.

Chuchundra: Congratulations, you have joined the ranks of jackasses who turn up out of nowhere to deny misogyny on spurious grounds. How about you go educate yourself on this shit before you open your mouth?

[MercuryBlue]

Chuchundra: True, he does. I'd forgotten. I should rewatch that ep. Appropriate for the day, even, considering it's May 21 and the ep title is "The Rapture".

Asha: I hear Ellen and Jo were offscreen for two seasons and Bela was killed due to unpopularity with the fanbase. Clearly I hang out with the wrong part of the fanbase to have any idea what general trends regarding female characters are, because my corner of fandom, there's nothing but love for the ladies.

MG: And then Dean does the exact same thing to Lisa. And the shit he pulls on her in the front half of the finale... I still love my show but it's hard to like it sometimes.

[MadGastronomer, the big meanie]

Yes, I did just go from zero to nuke in nought-point-two. No, I do not care if you don't like it. This is two threads this week. I have no patience left. I'm going to start nuking tone arguers, too.

[MadGastronomer, the big meanie]

And then Dean does the exact same thing to Lisa. And the shit he pulls on her in the front half of the finale... I still love my show but it's hard to like it sometimes.

Yes. On both counts.

[MadGastronomer, the big meanie]

Good piece, btw, MercuryBlue. Very nice analysis.

[MercuryBlue]

:)

[Asha ( EHHH??)]

@MercuryBlue

Er, right. I'm sorry. *shrugs* Not really part of the fandom. I had gotten the impression, second hand (and third hand from comments at Fandom Wank) that a lot of the fandom hated most of the female characters. Though I did acknowledge that I really didn't know? I'm very leery of joining in this particular fandom for that reason. The whole women getting burned thing is why I didn't stay with the show when it started and only recently got back into it.

Any hope for the seventh season, you reckon?

[mercredigirl]

Aaah, wonderful piece! I gave up on SPN ages ago, couldn't stand it after Season 1 :(

[DoltBoy]

I haven't watched the show (though I have about ten female friends who adore it), but saying that it is "not possible to look at the patterns of how it treats its female characters and deny that it is a misogynist show" is extremely narrow minded, and all it does is dare me to watch the show and do just what you say is impossible to do. Especially given what fierce feminists some of my Supernatural fan friends are, I'm inclined to disbelieve such a generalized statement.

Also, MadGastronomer, you need to take a chill pill. I mean, I get that you don't care and you'll probably attack me next, but seriously think about it. Chuchundra said nothing that warranted such bile, but simply expressed a contrary opinion in a reasonably respectful manner.

[JE]

DoltBoy: A) Nuking coming for you, duck and cover. B) Expressing a countrary opinion to MG warrants every bit of bile she can find, which is the reason for A.

[Mmy]

@JE: Expressing a countrary opinion to MG warrants every bit of bile she can find, which is the reason for

That came across as a dismissive putdown aimed at MadG -- and if you genuinely think that MadG has in the past nuked everyone and everyone who expresses a contrary opinion then you are either willfully mis-stating her history on the board or you are generalizing from ignorance.

@DoltBoy: I haven't watched the show (though I have about ten female friends who adore it),

I bet you also have African-American friends you pull out to justify your enjoyment of racially questionable texts and gay friends you haul out to justify your enjoyment of material that may demean the people who are QUILTBAGS.

More importantly (for me that is) I have had it up to here and over the hill with people who start out their response to a discussion of a book/movie/tv show with a proud statement of ignorance. Writing "I haven't watched the show" means that you don't get to wave your "but feminist friends of mine have" banner high. As someone who has watched many a movie/tv show and read many a book just so I could make an informed judgment on it I know just how different something can appear from the inside.

[JE]

mmy: I didn't say she nuked everyone for disagreeing with her, I said she nuked people for nothing more than disagreeing with her

[JE]

Well I guess the "hence A" part kind of implied that. There are other factors why I expect her to nuke DoltBoy too

[Kit Whitfield]

I'm sadly not surprised to see people leaping to deny sexism, but I have to say I'm a little surprised at how fast they show up, especially since they seem to be newcomers. Do you guys just Google 'misogynist' all day looking for articles to dismiss or what?

[Mmy]

@JE: mmy: I didn't say she nuked everyone for disagreeing with her, I said she nuked people for nothing more than disagreeing with her

Nonsense. Plain and simple. MadG doesn't nuke people for nothing more than disagreeing with her -- she nukes them when they make statements that are triggering, angering, hurtful, misleading, anti-gay, anti-feminist, misogynist -- not when they disagree with her about how best to make key lime pie.

By stating it as you did you implied that it is due to the fact that they disagree with her that MadG nukes people rather than acknowledging the fact that she nukes people who she perceives as seriously damaging/hurting others.

[Ruby]

Wow. Look, I don't know Chuchundra from Adam. Maybe other people do. He disagrees with MercuryBlue about the show. He listed reasons. He says he has watched the show, and I see no reason not to believe that. Does that really justify namecalling and a charge of "leaping to deny sexism"? So fast?

[JE]

"she nukes them when they make statements that are triggering, angering, hurtful, misleading, anti-gay, anti-feminist, misogynist"

And she has a with us or against us view that sees any disagreement on these topics as bigoted or misogynist.

[Mike Timonin]

So, when I look at the promo pictures, what immediately came to mind was "yes, you can be a powerful woman in charge of stuff ... if you conform to a particular model of feminine beauty and are willing to use your sexuality to get ahead." Which may be unfair.

[Mmy]

@JE: And she has a with us or against us view that sees any disagreement on these topics as bigoted or misogynist.

And you are demonstrating an age-old debating technique. You are assailing the person (MadG) rather than the argument that she may be responding to. If it is good -- support it. If it bad -- attack it. Don't run around crying about how mean MadG is.

[Asha ( EHHH??)]

Random aside is random:

I wish I had enjoyed rhetoric enough to try to write a paper on the arguments used in this place.

But, honestly, the arguments turned into ad hominem pretty quickly. What is usually fairly polite conversation with people agreeing to disagree has been pretty personal lately. Is it the topic? Sexism?

The show IS sexist- pretty women are killed to make the monster look scary. Pretty men aren't shown getting killed as often. I still enjoy a lot of the themes as well, but gaaaaaahh... The racism and sexism both are terrible!

[Samantha C]

Kit - I'm actually not too surprised to see posts like this showing up at the beginnings of posts rather than stuffed in the middle. I see it on Livejournal not uncommonly that the first dozen or so comments set the tone about what is and isn't the prevailing opinion. If I disagree with something that has been said, I'm a lot more likely to bring it up if there are two opinions that agree than if there are 50. In most cases on Slacktiverse, it's a good thing when the first comments are so united against a bad position that people who hold it decide not to try to start. This time and the other time, I think it's more that a lurker happened to read the post early enough to feel they were getting the opportunity to chime in before being drowned out.

[Mmy]

Back to the original post which is in MNSHO well worth discussing.

I thought that the bullying/Geisel/Supernatural posts made a wonderful triptych: The Geisel piece brings "the soft misogyny" of invisibility to the forefront; Thalia's piece underlines the powerful (and long lasting) impact of power dynamics; and MercuryBlue's piece brings up right back to the heart/core of the argument within the academic literature devoted to the images of minorities/others in the media. As Cedric Clark brought up in his ground-breaking article (1969 no less) Television and Social Controls the trajectory for other groups (the Irish, Catholics, etc.) on American media has been from invisibility, through ridicule, through "working for the MAN" (visible but good only when agents of the social structure) to a full range of portrayal.

There are definitely groups that have undergone that trajectory and there are a number of theorists who make the argument that ridicule is the price that groups must pay to progress from invisibility to full acceptance in the human race.

Which is, as I read it, a central question in MercuryBlue's piece.

[hapax]

I haven't watched an episode of Supernatural (although I've read some fanfic), so I can't really comment on the specifics of the piece.

It did make me think of an objection I've read about the current huge explosion in urban fantasy / paranormal romance television, movies, and books.

(This may also tie into Mmy's thesis about ridicule / working to reinforce society paradigm)

Basically, the male heroes are pretty much what you'd expect against powerful supernatural menaces: tough, strong, well-equipped in smarts, lore and weaponry.

The female heroes (and this person [I'm sorry, I can't find the cite, it came up in a discussion about Joss Whedon] traces it back to Buffy) however, tend to be ... petite. Sometimes airheaded. Almost always poorly informed, relying on male mentors to supply them with the necessary background. Their successes tend to come from magical powers that they did not earn, nor do they work to hone them.

In short, this person argued that female monster slayers are fetishized. Rather than providing good female role models, they serve to fulfill male fantasies about "little girls kicking ass."

I immediately thought up a half-dozen counter-examples, of course. Unfortunately, I also thought of several dozen more examples that fit that paradigm.

[Kit Whitfield]

In short, this person argued that female monster slayers are fetishized. Rather than providing good female role models, they serve to fulfill male fantasies about "little girls kicking ass."

I don't think that's limited to fantasy. I think 'deadly little Miho' pops up in many pulp genres; the cute-but-violent girl is all over the place. A woman who was physically strapping, as she'd probably have to be to be effectively violent against men, would not be attractive to many men, which may be a reason (though the Amazon doubtless has her admirers), but I think there's also the childlike element: if she's physically childlike, it adds to the sense that she's somehow Other. Her violence is an exotic oddity; her exaggerated femininity is the setting for the violent jewel.

And yeah, there's nothing feminist about that. Women may have to take what they can, but if it's there to serve men's sexual fantasies it's no more feminist than Ursula Andress in a bikini.

[Kit Whitfield]

Trigger warning: rape

there are a number of theorists who make the argument that ridicule is the price that groups must pay to progress from invisibility to full acceptance in the human race.

Symbolic destruction too, I'd argue. I'm thinking of the rape-and-revenge drama. Whatever effect it has for the male audience, for women, it means that the price of watching a woman assert herself is that you have to sit through a reminder of what can happen to you before you get to the assertion. Men, on the other hand, generally lose their women before they go on a rampage. We get it both ways.

[MercuryBlue]

I haven't watched the show (though I have about ten female friends who adore it)

I'm female. For the record.

all it does is dare me to watch the show and do just what you say is impossible to do

I double dare you.

So, when I look at the promo pictures, what immediately came to mind was "yes, you can be a powerful woman in charge of stuff ... if you conform to a particular model of feminine beauty and are willing to use your sexuality to get ahead." Which may be unfair.

I've seen one ep of 90210 (the promo promised me girlkissing, then I had to wait through the entire ep to see the two seconds of girlkissing), and said ep supports your conclusion. Never seen Gossip Girl but the promos give me the impression that you're right.

The female heroes (and this person [I'm sorry, I can't find the cite, it came up in a discussion about Joss Whedon] traces it back to Buffy) however, tend to be ... petite. Sometimes airheaded. Almost always poorly informed, relying on male mentors to supply them with the necessary background. Their successes tend to come from magical powers that they did not earn, nor do they work to hone them.

The trend's older than Buffy. The trend in Western media may start with Buffy, but Buffy hit the air in 1997 which is the same year Sailormoon ended, and the title character, petite, airheaded, unearned magical powers, male mentor (and female mentor, to be fair) supplying most of the information, string of checkmarks.

Rather than providing good female role models, they serve to fulfill male fantasies about "little girls kicking ass."

They can't do both?

Who's Ursula Andress?

[Amaryllis]

Asha: But, honestly, the arguments turned into ad hominem pretty quickly. What is usually fairly polite conversation with people agreeing to disagree has been pretty personal lately. Is it the topic? Sexism?
Yes. Yes it is.

Ruby: He disagrees with MercuryBlue about the show. He listed reasons. He says he has watched the show, and I see no reason not to believe that. Does that really justify namecalling and a charge of "leaping to deny sexism"? So fast?
MercuryBlue posted a long, detailed argument, with supporting examples for point 1 through N, as to why the show can be misogynistic in effect in not in intention. Chuchumdra didn't actually rebut any of them except for one subpoint, which MercuryBlue had already described as lying outside the usual pattern; he merely dismissed her entire post as unreasonable ("have to bang with a crowbar"), and besides, what about the men?

So yeah, it has the effect of "leaping to deny."

As for DoltBoy, he is well-named.

I can't comment on the actual show, which I haven't seen, or much of the urban fanstasy/paranormal romance genre, which I'm not familiar enough to come up with examples. Just as a side note to the discussion of the promo materials, I'll add that my pet peeve is the kind of poster which shows the male lead gazing sternly out into the world, and the female lead turned sideways and gazing at him. Sigh.

And now I have to decide whether to spend the weekend in Tilling, where nobody kicks ass, or in Andrilankha, where ass is kicked regularly as a mere matter of business and death is not necessarily irreversible. It's a terrible thing to be caught between two equally valued recommendations!

Of course, what I should be doing is cleaning the refrigerator and mopping the kitchen floor, but that's another issue entirely.

[Amaryllis]

Who's Ursula Andress?

Gah, I'm old.

Ursula Andress in Dr. No.

[Kit Whitfield]

Who's Ursula Andress?

An actress who starred in Dr No; there's a famous scene with her coming up out of the sea in a white bikini which often features in lists of 'sexiest moments' and the like. The iconic 'Bond girl'.

[Mmy]

@Amaryllis: And now I have to decide whether to spend the weekend in Tilling, where nobody kicks ass, or in Andrilankha, where ass is kicked regularly as a mere matter of business and death is not necessarily irreversible. It's a terrible thing to be caught between two equally valued recommendations!

At the risk of a total derail -- have you read Tiassa yet? Have you read The Female Impersonator

Rather than providing good female role models, they serve to fulfill male fantasies about "little girls kicking ass."

They can't do both?

It is interesting that Whedon himself started to address the issue of "kick ass woman in the end serving the needs of the men around her not herself" as Buffy went along.

Cedric Clark referred to this type of representation as "regulation"-- as in the minority figures are allowed power but only as long/because they use that power in order to uphold the kyriarchy. Think of Lt. Van Buren on Law & Order. Buffy is allowed to kick ass because she is upholding the worldview/power of a group of (overwhelmingly) men.

[Kit Whitfield]

Cedric Clark referred to this type of representation as "regulation"-- as in the minority figures are allowed power but only as long/because they use that power in order to uphold the kyriarchy.

Like the black guy whose price of admission is dying to protect his white friends in the last reel?

[Mmy]

@Kit Whitfield: Like the black guy whose price of admission is dying to protect his white friends in the last reel?

Yup. I think Kant (had movies existed in his day) would have used that as an example of "people being used/treated instrumentally."

[Nicknameless Ian]

"Opinions differ, I've discovered, on whether the concept is inherently gendered or simply applied in a highly gendered way."

Men are just as vulnerable to fridging as women in Booster Gold's 25th century society, where gender equality has been the norm for countless generations.

Only men are ovened in Bizarro World.

[P J Evans]

Amaryllis, I'm thinking of Dragaera City, then Adrilankha. (And I wouldn't be going there without this place!)

[Mmy]

@P J Evans: I'm thinking of Dragaera City, then Adrilankha

Presumably you would be planning your visit somewhat before Adron's Disaster

[MercuryBlue]

Amaryllis, Kit: Thanks. *clicks Amaryllis's link* That's a sexiest moment ever? Huh. People have weird ideas of what's sexy.

Amaryllis, PJ, mmy: What are you talking about?

Like the black guy whose price of admission is dying to protect his white friends in the last reel?

Or, spoilers for the Supernatural S6 finale, the black individual who's one of the main antagonists of the season (the other antagonists are white men) and jub trgf nfcybqrlrq va gur pyvznpgvp fprar bs gur svanyr ol n juvgr zna. I say 'individual' because Raphael's been in six episodes and was played by a man in three, a woman in two, and a big bright light in one. This is also the character who was completely sidelined for a whole season even though it made no sense whatsoever to do so. (Well. One of the characters. But Ellen and Jo are irrelevant to my point here.) If the grand finale of season five is supposed to be archangel v archangel, and one of those archangels has a buddy Raphael who's also an archangel, wouldn't it make strategic sense to bring Raphael along? Or at least mention zir once or twice after zir introduction? But no, can't have that, because Raphael is the only archangel not played by a white man (or two).

[Ruby]

Amaryllis: MercuryBlue posted a long, detailed argument, with supporting examples for point 1 through N, as to why the show can be misogynistic in effect in not in intention. Chuchumdra didn't actually rebut any of them except for one subpoint, which MercuryBlue had already described as lying outside the usual pattern; he merely dismissed her entire post as unreasonable ("have to bang with a crowbar"), and besides, what about the men?

So yeah, it has the effect of "leaping to deny."

Of course MercuryBlue wrote a long, detailed argument. It's an entire post. I've never watched Supernatural, but I found it a fascinating and informative read. Chuchundra disagreed with the thesis. Like MercuryBlue, he has watched the show. He cited examples. His comment wasn't as long and detailed as MercuryBlue's because, well, it was a comment and not a post. That doesn't make his take on the show less valid. And if there is disagreement with his argument, why not disagree instead of reaching for the big red button?

I love it when we discuss books and movies around here, and I love it when different people have different viewpoints. Seems to me there was more than one person around here who took great exception to insulting Twilight fans, even if some of the Twilight saga can be seen as more than a little problematic. So why, now, do we jump right to the namecalling when someone disagrees about a show? Hell, the entire reason I started watching Big Love was the discussion here--a discussion in which not everyone agreed. If people are going to be nuked the moment they disagree on whether they see something as sexist or not, then why even bother discussing the subject in the first place?

[P J Evans]

MercuryBlue: Steven Brust's books.

[MercuryBlue]

Ah. *Googles* Mobster and assassin main character, huh? I think I'll pass.

[Lonespark]

I never had any interest in Supernatural. I move in fannish circles where a lot of people love it and love to have it, and my former housemate was a huge fan and would watch it in marathons, so I guess maybe I've seen an episode or two?

I'm mostly familiar with it as "yet another show dealing with Christian-ish mythology and full of fail as regards non-Christian deities," and "that show that several writers I respect decry as really racist." Of course, the reason those folks bother caring so much is because they loved it and wanted to keep loving it but couldn't deal with the degree the degree of Othering they had to put up with as WOC viewers.

[Lonespark]

Er, that should be "love to hate it." Preview is my friend.

[Amaryllis]

Ruby: His comment wasn't as long and detailed as MercuryBlue's because, well, it was a comment and not a post. That doesn't make his take on the show less valid.
Perhaps it was the "crowbar" comment that got to me. Not just, "I disagree," but "I don't see how any reasonable person could take that viewpoint." Which is annoying to people who've been hearing "women are always claiming sexism where it doesn't exist," for years.

Not that I'm fond of name-calling or nuking, myself; it's not my style at all. But I can understand how someone could lose patience.

Mmy: have you read Tiassa yet? Have you read The Female Impersonator

No, and no.

I was advised to read the Taltos books in publication order, and I've only gotten as far as Jhereg.

MercuryBlue: Mobster and assassin main character, huh? I think I'll pass.
Yes, I was a little dubious, too, I'm generally not fond of Mafia-style stories. But Jhereg, what with the totally alien culture and the sword-and sorcery trappings, was actually fun. I may also note that, when you consider "revivification" and reincarnation, death is not quite as serious a matter in Adrilankha(Vlad himself has been assassinated at least once, I gather).

As for the "Tilling" comment, that was a reference to E.F. Benson's "Mapp and Lucia" books, which I found through reviews on Mmy's blog

[Mmy]

@MercuryBlue: Ah. *Googles* Mobster and assassin main character, huh? I think I'll pass

Mobster and assassin main character who runs into that world's version of anarchism/marxism/trotskism and whose personal relationships are tested (and sometimes break) over the issue of morality.

I normally really dislike mobster/assassin stories and I love me my Brust,.

[Fitcher's Bird]

I'd like to add as a data point that even the show's main actors has admitted that Supernatural has an issue with its female characters. (Unfortunately I don't have a link for this.) That's the extent to which Supernatural's gender issues have become widely acknowledged.

The unfortunate thing is that Misha Collins (the actor in question, although Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki were present and agreed) blamed the issue entirely on female fans' dislike of female characters. It's a little late for me to unpack this entirely right now but I wonder if a sort of misogyny once removed is one of the factors causing this situation of interesting female characters abruptly removed - in that the creators have a stereotypical and contemptuous image of the female fan (see the in-show fandom references) to which they pander or use an excuse.

[Ruby]

Amaryllis: Perhaps it was the "crowbar" comment that got to me. Not just, "I disagree," but "I don't see how any reasonable person could take that viewpoint." Which is annoying to people who've been hearing "women are always claiming sexism where it doesn't exist," for years.

That's fair. However, just because someone thinks something is not sexist, doesn't mean they're wrong simply because there is that history.

Not that I'm fond of name-calling or nuking, myself; it's not my style at all. But I can understand how someone could lose patience.

It was one post. Was the offense truly so great that it called for immediate nuking of a newcomer?

[MercuryBlue]

Know what I would like? I would like to find some actual fan reactions from S2 regarding Ellen and Jo, and from S3 regarding Bela and, to a lesser extent (because she stuck around longer than one season), Ruby. A few minutes Googling gives me lots of description of said reactions but nobody cites their sources, and it would take me a week to go through the archives of ontd_spnparty on LJ to find the ep reactions for the eps they were in, assuming the comm's been around that long. This obviously-scientifically-valid poll is the nearest I can find, and it isn't quite a majority saying "Jo was all right", and "Hated her and glad she's gone" comes several percentage points behind "Loved her".

Okay, here. So there was a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of Bela and Ruby, or to the idea of love interests for the boys interfering with the boys' relationship with each other. I've also seen no shortage of negative reaction to Lisa, who is almost nothing but love interest, though I'm also curious about reactions to her S3 introduction; I've only seen reactions to her in S5 and S6.

Female fans hating female characters on Supernatural is not an excuse the creators thought up to remove the female characters, at any rate.

[Mark Temporis]

From the pics posted, the show seems...unimaginative. Probably not the case as I've heard good things about it (won't watch, too much backstory by now to get into it), but certainly Hell. Do demons only have one way to kill folks or what?

[MercuryBlue]

The demon who killed Jess was mimicking the modus operandi of the demon who killed Mary, and Lisa's death is a hallucination of Dean's that was modeled on the deaths of Mary and Jess.

[P J Evans]

@ MercuryBlue, he's also a foodie of sorts, and for a while owned a restaurant.

[Andrew Glasgow]

@PJ Evans: The demon who killed Jess is a foodie and owned a restaurant?

[Ruby]

Andrew: The demon who killed Jess is a foodie and owned a restaurant?

You know, I've heard good things about Supernatural, but not enough to make me feel like it's worth it for me to start from the beginning. But if it's about a murderous demon who owns a restaurant...

:D

[Jenny Islander]

Speaking of which, we rented Shakespeare Retold the other day and had to stop watching the Macbeth reboot because it was just too creepy for that late at night. The "out, damned spot" scene is completely silent, gore-free, highly effective psychological horror.

It's set in a lucrative restaurant and the dramatis personae all work there. I never thought of the work areas of a restaurant as atmospheric before.

[Mojo]

I've been watching Supernatural since the start. I love it. Unabashedly. As does my wife. People calling it misogynistic rings really hollow in my ears. Yes, the women on the show by and large die. So too do the men. The only person on the show who has not died is Bobby Singer.

The men get killed, sent to hell, tortured for 100 years. Their flesh is flayed, and whatever. The show chews up and spits out everyone. It's a horror narrative. That's sort of the point.

yes, it features strong male leads. Does that make it misogynist? Does the lack of a female lead make it misogynist? That's a pretty low bar to set for such an accusation. I wouldn't call it feminist, but not being feminist doesn't make it misogynistic, right?

If there was a show that had strong female leads but no male leads or poorly-drawn male supporting cast, you wouldn't call it mysandrist would you?

[MercuryBlue]

Bobby has so died. S5 finale. Didn't I mention that in the article?

If there was a show that had strong female leads but no male leads or poorly-drawn male supporting cast, you wouldn't call it mysandrist would you?

If the male supporting cast was as caricatured as the female supporting cast in many shows is, yes, I'd call it misandrist.

[Lonespark]

a murderous demon who owns a restaurant...

There definitely does need to be a show about that. Maybe people would know the food would kill them and damn them, but they couldn't stop eating it because it's just that good

[Lonespark]

When a lot of characters die, it still matters how they die, and how they live, and who is a minor figure in whose story. I'm pretty sure nobody could make that Women's Work vid with the male characters...probably not the male characters in anything even slightly mainstream, though I guess there could be some queerish vampire something something I can't think of right now.

The problem I have run into in other fandoms is that POC characters and women are badly written, underwritten, stereotypical, weak characters. So fans don't like them. So then instead of making them better characters or swapping them with better characters the creators and/or other Powers That Be decide it's a good excuse just to diminish the roles of any women or people of color, (or QUILTBAG folk, or disabled people, or, or...) or write them out all together, in an endless cycle of Missing The Point.

[Ruby]

Lonespark: There definitely does need to be a show about that. Maybe people would know the food would kill them and damn them, but they couldn't stop eating it because it's just that good

Of course, in Angel, there was the demon who owed a nightclub...

[P J Evans]

I think that got a bit cross-threaded there. The foodie is the mobster-assassin in Adrilankha, actually. (I've never seen 'Supernatural', and I don't think it would be high on my list. The bits of BtVS I saw didn't make me a fan.)

[Ripheus]

I like Supernatural, but I unfortunately have to agree with most of these criticisms, in particular the fridging. The only fridging example I'm not entirely on-board with is Ellen and Jo (at least the first time); They were hunters who died heroically, and as far as I can tell the tragedy of their deaths had nothing to do with the Winchester's reactions. I haven't seen any of the new season, but yeah, "My Heart Will Go On" sounds pretty despicable.

When it comes to the language, I mostly agree, but with one dissension; I don't see a problem with evil characters doing or saying evil things. For Ruby (who is never presented as especially admirable even at her most morally ambiguous) to use sexist language isn't exactly an endorsement of it, and even less so for the demon who killed Jess. Still, I don't dispute any of the other examples, so the point about sexist language still stands IMO.

Sexism isn't the only way the show falls short of decency. The season 5 episode "Hammer of the Gods" has Dean deliver a homage of Bruce Campbell's "Primitive Screw-heads" speech to a bunch of (mostly) non-western pagan gods. It might well be the best example of Unfortunate Implications I've ever heard. I can't find a video of it, which is just as well because it's pretty bad. So yeah, why do I like Supernatural again?

[Asha ( EHHH??)]

Ah, thank you Lonespark and MercuryBlue, I've been trying to negotiate the whole 'pandering to fanbase' with 'weak female characters' especially because so much of the fanbase is female. That they hold the fanbase in contempt does make sense. Especially given "Monster at the End of the Book." Ugh. >_<

[Mime Paradox]

Mercury Blue:

Know what I would like? I would like to find some actual fan reactions from S2 regarding Ellen and Jo, and from S3 regarding Bela and, to a lesser extent (because she stuck around longer than one season), Ruby.

Well, there's the various character-specific threads at the Television Without Pity Supernatural sub-board; I've never seen the show so I'm not really in a position to know, but would those do?

Ellen: http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3146931&st=0
Jo (Alona Tal! Woot!): http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3146924
Bela: http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3158632
Ruby (Katie Cassidy!): http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3160082
Ruby (Not Katie Cassidy!):http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=317732

On the topic of promotional pics and their positioning of a show's female stars vis-a-vis the men, I in the end wonder who they're designed for, and what it's meant to say. Ads for shows like Gossip Girl and Melrose Place don't make me think "say, this is a show that features women in general as people", but "hey, here are some attractive women for my viewing pleasure". While these are hardly the only ways to interpret them--there is also, I think, the converse "hey, here are some attractive men for your viewing pleasure" message implicit in these pics--it doesn't strike me as very feminist, in the end--particularly since those CW ads can also be guilty of marginalizing people of color. The counter-argument, I would guess, is that "hey, men: hot women!" doesn't require them to be placed front and center so promotional material that does is still more progressive than something like the promo for Criminal Minds, and in the end I'm not entirely sure what to think. Perhaps its just me, though: I never felt that Melrose Place (and I mention that show specifically because it's the only one I watched regularly, in both incarnations) was particularly coded as "this is a show for women"--or perhaps I did, and that's why I considered it a guilty pleasure.

Actually, now I'm wondering what the promos for something like Friends were like throughout its lifespan. The show had gender parity among its stars and a cast that was supposed to be equal in prominence, but that didn't always come through in the actual show--Ross and Rachel usually felt like the protagonists, and I'm wondering the promotional material backed that idea up.

[MercuryBlue]

I'm pretty sure nobody could make that Women's Work vid with the male characters

Somebody did, but they used about fifteen sources, and I have the impression that they needed all those sources in order to get enough material.

MP: Thanks! I keep forgetting fandom exists outside LJ/DW and fic archives. Skimming the first few pages of those threads tells me the initial reaction to Ellen was "Dean/Ellen mrow", to Jo was "meh" or profound annoyance, to Bela was--okay, distracted by this bit:

For some reason, you want a guy to look bad-ass, you write them a neato little scene for it and fine, however with women I find writers often overshoot. So she needs to be bester, bigger and badder than any men, including lead characters.

Has this person not noticed that in this bedamned world, women need to be better at everything in order to be recognized as equal at anything?

Back to Bela and Ruby, since the Bela thread started out as the Bela-and-Ruby thread. "*sulks off to the corner and pouts about chicks invading our show*" "A slow painful death for Rubella will make me such a happy girl. But, since Ruby was Eric's baby and Bela was Edlund's baby, the ones who will probably be killed off will be Dean and Sam. :/ Oh wait, that's right, Sam is the boy king, ok, Sam will stay but Dean the lamp has to go. Man I'm almost wishing this so I can stop watching this parody that was once Supernatural." Oy. Okay, I'm stopping now, I've had enough of the vitriol.

particularly since those CW ads can also be guilty of marginalizing people of color.

Nikita. Title character's East Asian. She is sexualized all to hell in the promos and on the DVD cover seen below, though not in the series except in the pilot, but in no way is the Nikita marketing department guilty of marginalizing people of color.

Counterexample does not invalidate point. Though the only other CW show I've watched enough to know demographics on is the Vampire Diaries, and the first several pages of Google Image results for "vampire diaries promo pics" doesn't so much marginalize characters of color as completely ignore the presence of anyone who isn't Elena, Stefan, or Damon. None of whom are of color, true, but I'm not sure it's fair to accuse TVD marketing of marginalizing Bonnie (who's the most prominent character of color) when Caroline (who's white and whose role is about as large as Bonnie's) gets no space in the promo pics either.

[Lonespark]

Somebody did, but they used about fifteen sources, and I have the impression that they needed all those sources in order to get enough material.

Do you have a link?

[MercuryBlue]

Nope. I'll go crowdsource it at my DW.

[MercuryBlue]

TRIGGER WARNINGS:
Sexual Violence, Objectification, violence and eroticized violence

That was fast. Self Portrait by sisabet and sweetestdrain. Apparently sisabet does this sort of analysis a lot, because she did Women's Work too.

[Tonio]

Now I'm curious as to why a show that treats its female characters so badly has a strong female following. The idea that it's simply a matter of swooning over the male leads sounds belittling to women.

Also, I would be interested in a feminist critique of the recently concluded Smallville. Looking at the last three seasons, I'm inclined to say that Lois and Tess were empowered while Chloe was relegated to helpmeet status. Lois wasn't in awe of the Blur - she expected him to treat her with respect.

I wasn't too surprised to learn that many female fans long for Tom Welling. But for me, one very strange aspect of the show is that virtually all the eligible female characters long for Clark. That's like trying to understand what women might see in one's brother or male cousin, who one remembers as being geeky or immature. True, this Clark was never as nerdy as his Silver Age comic counterpart. But making Kal-El a reluctant stud seems like an adolescent male fantasy, like simply a variation of the Silver Age revenge fantasy that John Bryne refuted.

[Lonespark]

Holy...wow.

Yeah, Self Portrait is a fantastic vid, but there are not enough squick warnings in the world for that. And trigger warnings too, I'm sure. Objectification and violence and eroticized violence...I have a lot of fannish thinky thoughts about it but I'm going to be late for church if I type them right now.

It's a much longer vid...but it took 62 sources...well maybe it didn't take that many, but the fact that Women's Work came out of one says a lot.

[cjmr]

Tonio said, "Now I'm curious as to why a show that treats its female characters so badly has a strong female following. The idea that it's simply a matter of swooning over the male leads sounds belittling to women."

Not having watched this particular show, but having watched other shows with similar treatment of women, my guess is twofold: Some (perhaps most?) women just don't notice/recognize the misogyny, other women are (often without realizing it) closet misogynists.

I'll openly admit that I greatly dislike women who have power and appear to have gotten it by using looks and/or alpha-female wiles rather than brains or actual talent. Not enough to want to see them brutally murdered week after week to advance a story line, though.

----

Having recently gotten addicted to Numb3rs--I've watched almost all of the first two seasons over the last week of albuterol-induced insomnia--it hadn't occurred to me until last night to evaluate the treatment of women there. My jury is still out.

[Kish]

Counterexample does not invalidate point. Though the only other CW show I've watched enough to know demographics on is the Vampire Diaries, and the first several pages of Google Image results for "vampire diaries promo pics" doesn't so much marginalize characters of color as completely ignore the presence of anyone who isn't Elena, Stefan, or Damon. None of whom are of color, true, but I'm not sure it's fair to accuse TVD marketing of marginalizing Bonnie (who's the most prominent character of color) when Caroline (who's white and whose role is about as large as Bonnie's) gets no space in the promo pics either.

In the books the show is based on, Elena has another (Asian) friend named Meredith Sulez, who isn't on the show despite being a fairly major character in the books.

Whether that plus "in the books Bonnie is white" totals out at the show doing something good or bad...well, from what you just said, Elena's human friends have a much smaller role on the show than they do in the books, so I'm inclined to think "bad," but this may be unfair, since I read the books and haven't seen the show.

[Lila]

I have never watched the show, but I do have a comment about why women might be fans of a misogynist series:

What is the alternative?

If every book, TV show and movie you've ever experienced is soaking in a broth of generalized misogyny, you can either watch/read them anyway, or do without. (Note: this is NOT my current experience, but it's pretty much my experience of growing up in the '70s). I still love Tolkien and Lewis, but they're both misogynists. W.S. Gilbert had a terrible down on middle-aged women, yet I still enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan.

I have a completely different kind of enjoyment when I read Lois McMaster Bujold, or experience an exchange like "I did!"/"Well, yes, but I supported you!" in Thor. It's like taking off an uncomfortable pair of shoes. You may not be aware of the discomfort all day long, but boy do you notice when it stops.

[MercuryBlue]

Lonespark: Shit. Sorry. I didn't even think about trigger warnings. TBAT, help?

Trigger warning added.

[Laiima]

MB: didn't TBAT say they all had social commitments this weekend? so it may be a while.

I clicked on the link, but the still shot looked alarming enough that I didn't watch it. Looks like I made the right call.

[Mmy]

@Laiima: Yeah, we are all rather busy/distracted this weekend but we do check occasionally -- a direct call-out such as you and MB posted has the best chance of catching our eyes.

[MercuryBlue]

Thanks.

[kbeth]

I've been watching Supernatural for a few years now, and while it is not the Most Feminist Show Ever, I do think you're being kind of unfair to it. I totally agree that Jess gets fridged, but I don't think Ellen and Jo's deaths are fridging; you've already mentioned that the other recurring women who die weren't fridged, and the random women of the week almost never die. Jess is really the only inarguably stereotypical female-character-in-a-boys'-show. Lisa did end up being a lot less interesting when she became a recurring character; I haven't seen the past few episodes of season 6 yet, so I don't have all the information on what happens to her.

(Side note: I was introduced to Supernatural by my sister, who was 13 at the time, and let me tell you, she and her friends absolutely hated any girl who looked like they might possibly be a threat to their own imaginary relationships with Sam and Dean. I don't think people who bring this argument up are trying to belittle women, I think it's just that a substantial portion of the fanbase consists of kids who, like most kids, are not hugely rational and are not very societally aware.)

One thing I actually really like about Supernatural is that they very rarely engage in slut-shaming (with the exception of characters who are explicitly evil, which I think ends up showing that only evil people engage in that kind of behavior, which is awesome). In general, even the random women of the week are depicted more as actual people than one might expect. Most of them, though not all, are fairly useless when it comes to fighting demons and whatnot -- but, to be fair, everyone who isn't already a hunter is generally depicted as being pretty useless for that, including any random men who happen to show up.

I do agree with your general assessment that Supernatural is a relatively feminist show when you're working off the very low bar of a misogynist world. I guess I just prefer to give it more credit for the relatively feminist part than the misogynist world part.

[Mike Timonin]

Actually, now I'm wondering what the promos for something like Friends were like throughout its lifespan. The show had gender parity among its stars and a cast that was supposed to be equal in prominence, but that didn't always come through in the actual show--Ross and Rachel usually felt like the protagonists, and I'm wondering the promotional material backed that idea up.

I'm not sure that was my experience. Yes, Ross and Rachel took center stage sometimes, but it was clearly an ensemble cast - sometimes the other couples were more prominent, sometimes the individuals were more prominent. Now, I didn't see the last season - maybe the last two seasons? - so I don't know; that might have changed.

[Lonespark]

I have never watched the show, but I do have a comment about why women might be fans of a misogynist series:

What is the alternative?

This, this, this, and this.
It's also one of the factors behind a love of slash for some, including me. We want romances among strong, dynamic characters we love (played by pretty people, generally, but that's the norm). And those characters, just like all characters, are predominantly white dudes.

[Lila]

Off topic but encouraging: It's OK to be Takei. (George Takei offers a solution to the proposed Tennessee law prohibiting mention of homosexuality in the classroom.)

[MercuryBlue]

the random women of the week almost never die

Constance in 1x01. The mom of the survivor from last round of the wendigo attacks in 1x02. Whatsherface the swimmer in 1x03. Bloody Mary and whatsherface the "it's just a story! See? Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary!" girl in 1x05. The girlfriend in 1x06, possibly other victims, I can't remember. Taylor in 1x07. The sales manager in 1x08. The aunt in 1x11. Layla in 1x12 didn't die onscreen but she didn't live very long after the ep either, barring a miracle. The bartender in 1x16. Etc etc there is no shortage of random dead women in this series. I'll grant you that the prominent one-ep female characters have excellent survival rates (bar Layla), though.

They're trying to be feminist. They're trying really hard. They're just not succeeding all that well. And if I wasn't giving the show credit for being relatively feminist, I wouldn't still be watching.

It's also one of the factors behind a love of slash for some, including me.

Another factor, as described by a slasher friend of mine, is she has to deal with sexism every damn day (along with ableism and disability and a bunch more fun things). She writes het and the occasional femslash (or she did when she was in Stargate--I don't think she's still in Stargate, and I don't know jack squat about FF7, where she's currently having a grand old time, so I have no idea what she writes nowadays), but mostly it's slash, because het and femslash mean dealing with sexism and she doesn't want to deal with sexism during her pretendy fun times.

[MercuryBlue]

Heard about that, Lila. Love it.

[Lonespark]

O...k...

To me, though, unless you don't involve any female characters at all, you have to deal with sexism, and even if you don't you may well have to deal with other aspects of kyriarchy. With the exception of PWP, I don't see how m/m slash helps with this particularly. Not that PWPs and kinkmeme minifills and such aren't super-tasty. To me PWP means you can pretty much leave -isms at the door if you feel like it, maybe with a brief note about how "this in my AU headcanon where SIF was always accepted as a warrior of equal value" or something. I feel like it depends more on the fandom than on gen/het/slash/femslash/etc., but maybe that's my bias toward stuff like DS9?

I don't mean to be arguing against your friend's opinion through you; I'm just thinking out loud.

[MercuryBlue]

*shrugs* I didn't say it made sense. I haven't thought about it enough to know whether it makes sense.

[Amaryllis]

Lila: It's like taking off an uncomfortable pair of shoes. You may not be aware of the discomfort all day long, but boy do you notice when it stops.
Well, true, but I still think there's a difference between the kind of shoe that doesn't fit quite right, and the kind of shoe that you'd have to cut your toes off, like Cinderella's poor stepsisters, to fit into.

That is, even before the 1970's there were authors who didn't question the accepted gender roles, but who were perfectly capable of writing women who were people.

I've mentioned before, I think (skip it if you've heard this one) that my usual comparison for this is Dickens and Trollope. I love Dickens' books of the stories and the language, but there's no denying that most of his women are stereotypes who exist only to further the story of the male characters. Trollope knows that women have their own stories, that they think and act as real people, that it matters what happens to them.

---
Mmy: Mobster and assassin main character who runs into that world's version of anarchism/marxism/trotskism and whose personal relationships are tested (and sometimes break) over the issue of morality.
So I went with Yendi as the weekend reading choice. And after Jhereg which was concerned, among other things, with stopping a war, I was a little bit concerned about the opening chapters, which seemed to be about a standard and sordid little mob tussle. I should have known that it would quickly get More Complicated, and that Vlad himself is more complicated than he appears at first introduction.

And talk about your female agency! It's true that Vlad is the one who eventually figures out what's going on, but most of what's actually done, is done by women. The swords, the sorcery, the schemes, the politics, even the romantic assertiveness, are all women, front and center.

[hapax]

I just got back from seeing Thor, and I second the love for it -- this is a film that passed the Bechdel test in the very first scene.

It was very satisfying from a comic geekgirl perspective to see how they managed to work in some of the sillier concepts from the comic books (e.g. The Warriors Three, the Destroyer, heckopete Loki's *headgear*) and make them look AWESOME.

And ooh, as my daughter noted: "I'll bet that Teh Interwebs were filled with Loki / Thor slash two hours after opening night."

Yes, daughter. Yes they were. (Contemplates writing some)

[Lonespark]

"I'll bet that Teh Interwebs were filled with Loki / Thor slash two hours after opening night."

And how.
Although my sleeper fav is turning out to be Loki/Sif.

Also, my favorite concept to see explored in awesome fic:
Heimdall is so awesome it took nine women to give birth to him.

Also also, Darcy/Loki mpreg.

Not to mention...no, wait, I'll stop now.

[Tonio]

What is the alternative?

Excellent point. My question was really about degrees of misogyny. I suspect that readers of both genders who are aware of the issue might agree that some stories have merit apart from the misogyny, whereas with others the misogyny is too noxious. (Where one draws such a line may be a matter of personal perspective.) To rephrase my question, in a world where there is sadly too much misogynistic storytelling, where does Supernatural rank?

[KMS]

Supernatural is one of my favorite TV shows. I admit I don't watch the show to see other women fight the supernatural or do anything really. I watch the show because I enjoy supernatural/mythological themes and because of the relationship of the brothers (Sam and Dean). I actually did not watch the show until it was in it's 5th season because I thought it was just a 'guy show' and would be more about fighting and stuff I wouldn't be interested in-but I was very wrong.

I am a woman, and I am not offended by the portrayal of women in the show. There are some scenes I could have done without (a couple pretty much naked woman torture scenes). Yet there are just as much men killed as women. There are villain men and women. Sam and Dean are objectified probably more often than the women guest stars. There are implications that Dean was sexually abused (in Hell) and there are times when other men make comments of gestures that suggest wanting to use Dean sexually (such as the vampire that turns Dean into one in season 6).

I think Supernatural is actually a pretty accurate depiction of life (of course using metaphors with monsters etc) along with having the prejudices that exist in the real world. But the focus is on Sam and Dean and everything else is periphery. I just don't know what else to say. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.