Mmm, Meta...

[blubird_pie]

Swapping Spit and Satin Panties: Sexual Objectification of the Male Characters in Supernatural

Summary: Despite plausible allegations of sexism, women still like Supernatural. Also, Dean gets kissed by demons a lot. Maybe these things are related? And no, I’m not saying we just watch for the h/c and the pretty.
Word count: 2,000 yes I know

Comments

[tabaqui]

I like what you said up there in innie_darling's quote. I think Dean's joke about peanut butter was just another in a long line of Dean's various ways that he copes with violence/assault/coercion on his part. Somebody says 'you're gonna do what i tell you' and Dean says 'cram it with walnuts'. He doesn't like being seen or perceived as weak so he has to come back with a line or a joke that screams 'that didn't bother me

[blubird_pie]

Yeah, one of the things I like about the use of sexualized violence in Show is that the boys' being so physically competent doesn't automatically save them; sometimes I feel like people assume that if you just were strong enough or fought hard enough, sexual assault couldn't happen to you, and that's problematic in so many ways

[tabaqui]

...if you just were strong enough or fought hard enough, sexual assault couldn't happen to you...Exactly. I don't know if it 'does' anything or helps anyone, but i think it's good that Show doesn't shy away from the fact that yeah, the boys *can* lose, they can be beaten down or outsmarted or tricked, they *aren't* uber-perfect super-guys, they're just...guys

[blubird_pie]

It's actually kind of interesting to think about how much the sex while Gary was possessing him counts as assault in light of the soul/body dichotomy they've got going. To me it seems like rape, but that's because I attribute a certain "selfness" to a body. Obviously in real life we can't separate our minds from our bodies, but in SPN they can. Does that change anything? Your point about Gary vs. Meg has me thinking about physical vs mental violation. l I mean, without Dean to tell him, would Sam ever even know about the dominatrix? Does that mean it's less of a violation, at least in Show's view of things? Though I guess it's implied that Sam doesn't remember much about Meg's possession, I think you're right about the guilt considering both Bobby and Dad were able to suppress possession to protect Dean

[tabaqui]

It seems to me that the body *has* to be totally separate from the soul, otherwise death would be rather nasty, but that's just my two cents on it. I can go with either/or for the sake of Show, but they seem a little conflicted on it, too, otherwise...if Sam's body could be taken over by Lucifer getting consent from Gary, than why would Sam's 'anger' be important, since it's a 'Sam' thing, not a 'body' thing? So, we shall see

[blubird_pie]

Yeah, shows that try to be deep mostly annoy me. If I'm watching/reading something that's going to baldly state a point of view or analysis of life, it better darn well be GOOD, and I don't think much network TV is up to the challenge of offering thoughtful insights on philosophy. It's nicer to have something like Show that just gives us tons of provocative materiel and lets the fans interpret it.

I agree that god shouldn't make an appearance. I just can't see it adding anything good to the plot. Such a large part of SPN, for me, is the lack of knowledge, the process of figuring out, doing your best and having faith in things you dont have proof for. Having god pop up all "oh hai" would spoil that uncertainty. Luckily, all fathers in SPN are absentee, so even if he does show up, I cant see him having much of a role ;)

[tabaqui]

HA, yes. Most of the entertainment out there isn't up to the challenge, including a big handful of books, which is just sad.

Heeee, yes. Absentee fathers are a big part of Show, and i hope they remember that. I'm thinking they won't go that route, or if they do, they'll *defy* god, or trick him, or....something. I dunno!! It would be cool if they decided that god *was* dead, and everybody had to find new things to hate/love/obey/care about.

That would be a trip. :)

[esorlehcar]

It's funny how nobody is screaming 'rape' over what Gary did while in Sam's body. Because, let's face it, it pretty much was rape. Sam would *never* have agreed to sex with that woman, and Gary used his body as thoughtlessly as the angels and demons use their own vessels.

I realize this is a tangent, but while I don't think that I've seen anyone "screaming rape," whatever the hell that means, damned near every review on my flist mentioned exactly the point you just made. It hasn't turned into a huge fandom-wide thing because there's no way anyone can read it as an accusation against Sam or Dean, but all the same people who were talking about rape in the context of Sam and Ruby are talking about rape here, too.

[tabaqui]

Huh, that's funny. I remember when we all knew that Ruby and Sam were gonna get it on, all anyone was talking about was Ruby's vessel and how could Sam sleep with her when the body she was in didn't consent, etc.

But i haven't seen one single post on my flist that even mentioned it.

So, i dunno. Weird.

[esorlehcar]

I can't speak for your flist, obviously, but everyone on my flist who talked about Sam and Ruby also talked about the rape aspect when Gary was in Sam's body. The thing with mentions about misogyny or rape that in any way focus on any of Dean's actions (or, to much a lesser extent, Sam's actions) is that for every post anyone makes talking about the problem, there are literally dozens of outraged posts about anyone talking about the problem, how they should get the fuck out of fandom, how they are whiny feminazis who are looking to be offended, etc. That's what makes it a huge fannish thing, not the original posts themselves. It's why people don't remember that all the same people also talked about the rape joke in Simon Said or the problems in Wishful Thinking--those weren't focused on Dean or Sam, so there was no fandom-wide outrage about it, even though there were as many people talking about it as there were people talking about the problems with Ruby and Sam having sex, Dean's misogynistic language, etc

[blubird_pie]

I like your point in the first paragraph there, that the things that do and don't become "issues" have a lot to do with how much they set off backlash defending the boys. I'm new(ish) to this fandom and participate selectively, so I think I have this skewed perspective of the fandom as full of really smart feminists who know better than to do the whole "whiney feminazi GTFO" song and dance. It's too bad to know it's out there, but it's good to remember how the perception of fandom's responses to various icky implications can be influenced by that sort of tit-for-tat escalation.

Also, I am now even more relieved that I didn't get anything but nice, thoughtful comments =)

[esorlehcar]

I think I have this skewed perspective of the fandom as full of really smart feminists who know better than to do the whole "whiney feminazi GTFO" song and danceDear god, I can't tell you how much I envy you your skewed perspective! SPN fandom as a whole is much more prone to breaking out pitchforks and torches and chanting "Burn the witch" at any mention of sexism in any context related to the show

[blubird_pie]

The idea that people would reject even the possibility of sexism in a show that gives a male character two thumbs up for slapping a waitress twice, calling her "Flo" and chucking a wad of cash at her* is...odd, to say the least.

also, "There was actually far less outcry over people noting that the Sam and Ruby situation was problematic than there was over people commenting on Dean's misogynistic language" very strange to me. I mean, I think of myself as a huge Dean-girl, but I have to admit that he's a bit of a chauvinist and generally leads an unexamined life when it comes to issues of social justice. In fact, I actually like that parts of him are unpleasant! (though I wish that Show as a whole was a bit more self-aware