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

[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.

Your last point about fandom response to Sam's possession made me think too- some parts of fandom get pretty techy about the use of bodies that demons posess (Ruby, say) but Sam's possessions, this time and with Meg, get less attention that way (I think?) Partially I think it's Show playing Gary's hookup for laughs, but maybe it's also an issue of people being less attuned to male bodies being misused, since the cultural stereotype for men is that they always want more sex, in whatever circumstance?

Re: the misogyny- You're probably right that it's not the right word to use for SPN. Personally, I don't think that anybody involved with Show actually dislikes women; I do, however, feel that they don't give much thought to how often they might be playing into problematic assumptions. Partially it's because everybody but the leads winds up either evil or dead, but I sort of wish they would make an effort to have more rounded women characters that don't end up falling into those categories. It can get tiresome to always be on the lookout for inequality, and jumping all over things that might be harmless to prove some kind of point is no good either. It certainly makes watching TV less fun! And, as you point out, the show unabashedly comes from a pretty good-old-boys perspective.

Haa, looks like I got into the sexism discussion after all! I hope that I'm not harshing your squee with my dour indictments of "playing into problematic assumptions," because I love SPN too, even if I sometimes think it's a tad misguided. Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment, it means a lot to me that you felt my post was worth responding to with this amount of depth!

[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.

I think, too, part of the deal with Gary-in-Sam and his sex was that they showed *Gary*, rather than Sam. It kind of distanced you from the fact that it was actually happening to *Sam's body* without his consent, because all we saw was a geeky 17 year old losing his cherry. And yes - men are supposed to want sex all the time, so why would Sam have a problem with it? Except for the fact that he *wasn't there*, and that he didn't consent or even know about it. I dunno if it's worse that it happened when Sam was totally out of his body or if it was worse when Meg was possessing him, because at least when it was Meg, he had the barest, slimmest chance of fighting her off (like John and Bobby did). Though that's probably guilt!fodder enough to last a lifetime that he *didn't* beat her.

Yeah, i do find it incredibly tiresome, especially when i don't see hatred or disgust of women, just the same tv cliches and assumptions. Which, don't get me wrong, would be nice to say goodbye to, but i just don't see the deep-down *hatred* some people ascribe to Show and every person involved. I think we've been given some amazing, tough, and fun female characters. No, they're not in every episode, but the only people that *are* are Sam and Dean - it's a show about two brothers, not two brothers and their girlfriends, or whatever. Eh. I do *get* the flaws that people point out, i just don't think the flaws are quite as epic as some people seem to want to make them.

And no no, you're not harshing my squee at all! I love Show, will never *not* love Show - i love discussing it, picking at it, theorizing about it. I just don't like it when people do *nothing* but point out flaws and what they perceive to be 'wrongs' in *every* episode, week after week, as if that' all there is to the show.

I think a lot of the 'deep' things on Show are arrived at accidentally or serendipitously, rather than things that have been planned and plotted out, but that doesn't lessen the interest i have, or the sheer joy i get from watching it.
:)

[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.

I'm glad that I'm not harshing any squee- like you, it makes me sad when I see smart fans just tearing down Show. I understand the anger when something you love lets you down, but I also feel like you have to take SPN for what it is- network TV that's produced as a collaboration between lots of different people with limited resources and time. Which also leads me to agree that the "deep" things some of us see are probably accidental. Crazily enough, though, I think that the holes in the writing and the lack of a really strong ideological thread are what makes show awesome; fans get to fill in the holes, and pick up on a ton of different ways to interpret what's going on. Unlike something that's trying to be "deep," SPN doesn't have one "correct" reading that organizes everything. It has a kind of polyglossia that I find super satisfying to theorize about.

[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....

I remember how squicked people were by the whole Ruby/Sam thing and talking about rape and i just expected it to pop up again with Gary but it hasn't. I dunno if i'm relived or appalled, heh.

I totally agree - a show that tries really, really hard to be 'deep' generally ends up failing in a lot of ways. Supernatural gives us bare bones, gives us things that not even the *show* totally understands, and runs with it. I mean - even the angels have no real clue about god, and i think that makes things so much more interesting than a big white light and a voice telling us all we need to know, you know?

I hope that god never does show up - it seems like that would almost be too trite. I *do* wish Castiel would give Dean his damn necklace back, though! Heh.

[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. :)