(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

So, someone just posted the usual rant about how SPN isn't sexist, even if it is it's just a tee vee show, it's a show about BROTHERS not about WOMEN, what does it matter if Dean is disrespectful to women, it's totally in character, blah blah. Anyway, I saw RED (but I'm not defriending, person who wrote this post, if you're reading) and worked this up as a comment to that post, but thought better of it. I am going to replicate it here, though, because it's kind of like SPN Feminism 101. (ETA: I wanted to add some clarification just in case. Although the original post did make me angry, nothing in it was material that was new to me, and I intended that this post be read more broadly than as a specific response to that post - more as a specific response to these criticisms, which I have heard over and over and over.)

The show is about brothers, not women!

Uh-huh. So, how come Bobby is alive (I assume: I did indeed stop watching the show after it pissed me off so much.) and recurringly present, while Ellen (&Jo) vanished into the ether, Bela was killed, and - OK, I still don't know Ruby's fate so I can't go for a trifecta. It's pointless to say that Bobby is a "good" character and Bela is "pointless and annoying" because these things are subjective - Bobby drives me crazy with his fake dadliness. How come in the witch episode, the only surviving guest character was the asshole cheater who started the whole thing? How come 9 times out of 10, the vic of the week is a woman, a hot woman, whose violent death is then portrayed in as sexy a manner possible? Don't say to get male viewers. You, me, and everyone in the world know Supernatural's main audience is women and that's probably not going to change - if dead women was really going to bring them in it would have brought them in after the second season.

In other words: if you want to defend the viewpoint that the show's just about Sam & Dean, you also have to defend the contradictions between the way the show treats guest and recurring characters of either gender.

Why does it matter if Dean's disrespectful to women? Mostly they're demons anyway. And anyway, Dean's like the lowest common denominator, he's not going to be all polite. Plus, bitch isn't offensive, lots of women I know use it all the time.

When most people use the word bitch that's true. When Dean uses the word (especially when he talks to Sam) he means bitch like "my bitch": someone submissive & sexually available to him. It's sexually degrading. Pretending that it's just like calling someone a dick when Dean says it is, well, pretending: there are no words like this for a woman to use to describe a man. (There is an increasing gender neutrality of the use of bitch in this context, but chiefly to describe feminised men like Sam.)

Frankly, as tired as you are of reading feminist posts, I'm three times that tired of reading about, hearing about, and experiencing anti-feminism - not only in posts like the one I'm writing about, but when women insist to me that they aren't feminists because feminists are all dykes and "feminism isn't important anymore"; when men tell me all feminists hate men; when my boss tells me I should shave my legs "so I can get a man" and when I say that that's sexual harassment and I really don't like it, as well as pointing out that he wouldn't shave his legs for his girlfriend, he tells me "not to get my knickers in a knot." It's shows like this - shows with ordinary guys saying rude and disrespectful things to and about women, actively and consciouly objectifying them, and perpetuating through itss portrayal of almost every woman that women are useless objects - that made this guy so surprised when he was a dick to me and I bit back. It's seeing guys talk to this like women all over the goddamn television: he thinks it's OK, and why wouldn't he? But it's not OK. It's not OK IRL and it's not OK on the show - not because it isn't appropriate for Dean's character to say these things, but it is inappropriate for the show to commend Dean (or at the very worst, not condemn him) for them.

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

it isn't appropriate for Dean's character to say these things, but it is inappropriate for the show to commend Dean (or at the very worst, not condemn him) for them.

One defense I've heard for this kind of thing - in fact, the main defense - and one you haven't addressed is what I call the 'neutral camera' idea, that is, that the reality of the world is that sexism is not always condemned, that men like Dean do get to be disrespectful to women and aren't punished for it, and that for the show to depict this in a frank manner is commendable. To show Dean being punished would be to show the world as (presuming a feminist perspective) it should be, not as it is. To draw a somewhat strained parallel, Picasso's Massacre in Korea doesn't show the Americans being punished for what they're doing, but it couldn't be said to be pro-American.

After all, many of the people who say that feminism was useful once but is obsolete now say so because they feel that essentially everything's fine, or that nothing's so bad that it's not within the power of individual women to deal with. To show blatant sexism in action is a powerful challenge to this hypothesis.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

To draw a somewhat strained parallel, Picasso's Massacre in Korea doesn't show the Americans being punished for what they're doing, but it couldn't be said to be pro-American.

I don't know the painting, but if I may assume it's in the vague vein of Guernica - and I just checked Wikipedia and they made an explicit comparison. OK. If Picasso's painting is a good example of this "neutral camera", I think neutral camera is a bit of a misnomer. The painting is highly critical of the Americans, by portraying through art the horror of what they're doing. The camera may be neutral, but the work of art is not. However, in the case of Supernatural, I thik the camera is neutral and the work is too. Picasso is performing a specific criticism of americans. SPN is not performing any kind of criticism of Dean (except occasionally that he's a bit uncouth and/or nobly suicidal.)

Additionally, shows that are called "gritty" or "realistic" can get away with this kind of criticism - often it's the raison d'etre of that kind of show. SPN is not a realistic show: it's not realistic about relationships, portrayal of women, portrayal of men.... I don't buy that SPN, as it is now, is capable of performing these criticisms. (Maybe in Season 1 it might have.) It's like a sitcom portraying yet another gorgeous woman ending up with yet another average or downright unattractive man. Yup, that kind of thing can and does happen in real life regularly, but portraying it doesn't help to criticise it: it helps to perpetuate it.

After all, many of the people who say that feminism was useful once but is obsolete now say so because they feel that essentially everything's fine, or that nothing's so bad that it's not within the power of individual women to deal with. To show blatant sexism in action is a powerful challenge to this hypothesis.

I agree and think that that can be very fine work (but tricky work, too, especially if you're putting it in the mouths of your heroes.) However, I don't think it's work that SPN is doing.

Disclaimer: I've never watched SPN

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

OK. If Picasso's painting is a good example of this "neutral camera", I think neutral camera is a bit of a misnomer. The painting is highly critical of the Americans, by portraying through art the horror of what they're doing. The camera may be neutral, but the work of art is not. However, in the case of Supernatural, I think the camera is neutral and the work is too. Picasso is performing a specific criticism of americans. SPN is not performing any kind of criticism of Dean (except occasionally that he's a bit uncouth and/or nobly suicidal.)

Actually, I think you'll find Picasso is criticising the American military-industrial complex rather than Americans as a people, but point taken. So if Dean's sexism were shown in a more harsh light, perhaps with more attention to how unpleasant it is to be on the recieving end of it, it wouldn't be so bad? I can agree with that, but your initial criticism focused on whether he was condemned or praised after the act, not on the way the act itself is portrayed. I felt that was simplistic.

Additionally, shows that are called "gritty" or "realistic" can get away with this kind of criticism - often it's the raison d'etre of that kind of show. SPN is not a realistic show: it's not realistic about relationships, portrayal of women, portrayal of men....

Maybe not for you, but what is and isn't realistic is something on which there isn't much consensus, particularly when it comes to gender relations. Some people (on both sides of the feminist/non-feminist divide) feel that it's realistic to show women as innately more nurturing and less violent, other people don't.

It's like a sitcom portraying yet another gorgeous woman ending up with yet another average or downright unattractive man. Yup, that kind of thing can and does happen in real life regularly, but portraying it doesn't help to criticise it: it helps to perpetuate it.

You say that like you think a gorgeous woman getting together with an unattractive man is a bad thing.

I agree and think that that can be very fine work (but tricky work, too, especially if you're putting it in the mouths of your heroes.) However, I don't think it's work that SPN is doing.

It can be, but unfortunately for every film/book/play/whatever that does unflinchingly portray sexism (or anything else unpleasant, for that matter) in an attempt to confront it and shatter complacency, there's multiple that actually glorify and glamourise the unpleasantness, and tack on a bit of token tut-tutting at the end to look conscientious. Admittedly it may be that the line between glamourisation and neutral depiction isn't as clear to others as it seems to me, or might lie somewhere different to where I see it.

Re: Disclaimer: I've never watched SPN

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think you'll find Picasso is criticising the American military-industrial complex rather than Americans as a people, but point taken. So if Dean's sexism were shown in a more harsh light, perhaps with more attention to how unpleasant it is to be on the recieving end of it, it wouldn't be so bad? I can agree with that, but your initial criticism focused on whether he was condemned or praised after the act, not on the way the act itself is portrayed. I felt that was simplistic.

Er... how else would the show condemn or praise Dean, other than portraying his actions with greater depth and sensitivity? I'm not suggesting that the show feature a Feminism Fairy who beats up on Dean for being a jackass!? Sorry, not to be all up in your face, but what the hell did you think I meant?

Maybe not for you, but what is and isn't realistic is something on which there isn't much consensus, particularly when it comes to gender relations. Some people (on both sides of the feminist/non-feminist divide) feel that it's realistic to show women as innately more nurturing and less violent, other people don't.

Sorry. In that I wasn't clear: I was trying to distinguish between the rare "realist" show, like, I dunno, Carnivale, with the thousand-times-more-common fantasy show like Supernatural. Or Friends. Or, you know... whatever.

You say that like you think a gorgeous woman getting together with an unattractive man is a bad thing.

It's a symptom of the Hollywood Double Standard: men come in all flavours, women only come in one (http://thehathorlegacy.com/if-male-actors-had-to-be-as-blandly-perfect-as-female-ones/).

It can be, but unfortunately for every film/book/play/whatever that does unflinchingly portray sexism (or anything else unpleasant, for that matter) in an attempt to confront it and shatter complacency, there's multiple that actually glorify and glamourise the unpleasantness, and tack on a bit of token tut-tutting at the end to look conscientious.

I'm not sure if you're making a statement of sympathy here or if you're trying to make the "it's everywhere so shut up about this unimportant case" argument, so I won't respond until you clarify ;)

Re: Disclaimer: I've never watched SPN

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Er... how else would the show condemn or praise Dean, other than portraying his actions with greater depth and sensitivity? I'm not suggesting that the show feature a Feminism Fairy who beats up on Dean for being a jackass!? Sorry, not to be all up in your face, but what the hell did you think I meant?

Well, off the top of my head, one could condemn Dean by showing him being rude or dismissive to a woman, only to find he later needs her help, thus condemning him by 1) showing that his denigration of her was inaccurate and 2) showing its negative consequences. Similarly, one could praise him by having his put downs of a woman result in her changing her ways for the better. Although a magical feminism fairy is an interesting idea.

It's a symptom of the Hollywood Double Standard: men come in all flavours, women only come in one.

Ah yes, the notable lack of a female equivalent of Bill Murray or Willem Defoe. I presumed when you said 'gorgeous' you meant 'gorgeous as defined by Hollywood'. What threw me was that, by mentioning relationships, you made it sound like the issue was not the relative diversity of male or female looks, but the relationships between look-havers (to coin a phrase).

I'm not sure if you're making a statement of sympathy here or if you're trying to make the "it's everywhere so shut up about this unimportant case" argument, so I won't respond until you clarify ;)

Neither really, I'm just bitching about self-satisfied directors who like telling people they're depicting tough issues unflinchingly when they're actually just indulging people's desire for vicarious thrills. Quentin Tarantino is a good example. Still, it is to some degree a personal thing. I consider Seven Samurai to be a pretty realistic look at violence and its consequences, but other people see it as katana-porn.

[kitsunerei88]

I can't really comment on SPN, because I've only watched the first four episodes (show freaking terrifies me . . . I am such a coward. And I'm more of a crime-drama nerd anyway), but I have this to say.

I fully commend you for not breaking your boss' nose when he said you should shave your legs. Because if it were me, I'm pretty sure I would have done my very best to break his face, assault charges or not. I'm not too great when I lose my temper.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I am a model of self control! Also, he was bigger than me. And signed my paychecks.

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR FINAL

[blademistress.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I've been trying to put into words my dislike for the treatment of females in Supernatural, and mostly all I manage is headbanging in frustration.

My greatest problem is how completely unnecessary the killing and removal of all female characters is. The relationship between Sam and Dean is completely, utterly and irrevocably fucked up. They die for each other, kill and all morality is secondary where it comes to each other and in portraying such a relationship you don't need to kill Bella or write out Jo (did you read the post where they discussed her exit and how it boiled down to her learning to accept her place in the healing of men and accepting them as the active ones? I've forgotten who posted it.) or do anything to Ruby because it's completely obvious to the audience that their worlds are central around each other even if they have long-term girlfriends.

The beginning of the final episode opens with yet another montage of "the story so far" which has Dean and Sam killing things. Without context it's fascinating. Shooting of black man, shooting of woman, Dean with demon, Sam killing demon, female demon talking about Lilith, Lilith killing something, Bella's moments before death, Ruby looking evil, random black man they tortured in last episode being demonic, Ruby killing things, death of hell hound stalked woman, beating and fighting of 4 people including 1 black man and 1 female vampire, and angst Dean shot.

And then of course in the final Bobby survives while Ruby doesn't. Either her 'demonic soul' is sent back to hell when Lilith forces her out of the body, or she's completely killed by it. But I think the greatest moment was when they were outside the house with Lilith in it, and Dean had a brief argument with Sam and Bobby about the murder of the 10 year old girl the demon inhabited. Dean put up a token protest which was quickly silenced and he went along with it. Sam then goes into the bedroom where the demon is lying with the mother on the bed, and the mother lies their terrified as Sam pulls back the curtain. She encourages Sam with ever increasing "do it!" until the girl begins to wake. Sam has a moment of conscience which he suppresses as she wakes and he goes to stab her, only to be interrupted by Dean who declares the demon not to be in her anymore.

I was discussing this scene with a friend, and how abhorant it is that we as the viewer are meant to cheer Sam on to save Dean and kill this girl. Not just that, but Sam doesn't offer up any sort of disgust at his actions, really. He hesitates but this seems more because she is passive, not that she's a 10-year-old girl. When she moves his objects are gone. He doesn't pray, or do anything of the kind. It's similar to the scene in the Omen, only without any of the methods being used to make Sam sympathetic. But while discussing this my friend pointed out that not only is the girl passive, but the mother. The mother has already witnessed the death of the cat, the babysitter and her own father at the hands of the child and yet she lies in bed terrified to do anything for herself but cheer Sam on.

If people want to like Supernatural, fine. Many shows are problematic in their politics (ala 24) but they should be treated and accepted as such and don't need to be excused and have their sexism and racism written off.

Re: WARNING: SPOILERS FOR FINAL

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

If people want to like Supernatural, fine. Many shows are problematic in their politics (ala 24) but they should be treated and accepted as such and don't need to be excused and have their sexism and racism written off.

Exactly. Although I did in fact stop watching Supernatural, I don't think that you should have to either love a show, or criticise it. You can, should even, do both: loving a show definitely should not preclude you from an awareness of basic sexual and racial politics. And I did love this show for a long time - I hated it when people tried to tell me a true fan would just shut up about its zillions of gender and race issues.

I really just agree with your whole comment so much that I have nothing to add (and haven't seen the finale so can't really respond to that but - ugh, Sammy.)

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

when my boss tells me I should shave my legs "so I can get a man"

I'm sorry, he said what? GDIAF, moron.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'd tell him that if I still worked from him - this was Ian, the first in my long line of useless Caltex managers!