John Winchester's parenting: A manifesto
(Posted to Tumblr, but no one reads my Tumblr so I'm posting it here too. Nothing new, really, just got a bug up my ass about it.)
Every once in a while something comes across my Tumblr feed claiming that (a) John was a good parent who obviously loved his boys and did everything he could to protect them, (b) John may not have been the best parent but he absolutely wasn't abusive, or (c) John was abusive to Dean but he coddled, cherished, and protected Sam and put him on a pedestal.
Allow me to explain why this is utter bullshit.
A is pretty obviously untrue. I'm sure John loved his boys, but he didn't do anything to protect them. Sure, he taught them how to fight. But he also put them in the situation where they needed those skills. He threw them into an extremely dangerous life, not because they needed to be saved from the YED (which would have been easier to do had he stayed in one place and set up some defenses), but because he was on a quest for revenge. And some people say he did this because he felt they were safer with him. (I suspect those people also think Dean was being protective when he left Sam unconscious next to the Impala when he went to fight Metatron.) John had a habit (well documented in canon) of not only leaving his sons alone when they weren't under attack, but leaving them alone when they were very likely to come under attack (shtriga, anyone?) and expecting pre-teen Dean to provide not only the basic care his young brother needed, but to actually protect him from monsters. Yeah. Awesome. If he really wanted to protect them, he could have taught them all those skills and then left them with Bobby or Caleb or Jim instead of dragging them around the country and throwing them in harm's way.
Now B, the idea that John wasn't abusive. Okay, let's accept that he didn't beat his kids. I think we're supposed to accept this because Dean says it's so, even though we know Dean is an unreliable narrator on this subject. But maybe I've forgotten some point where Sam says it too. So let's just say it's true that John didn't physically abuse his children. What about the emotional abuse?
Take "Bad Boys," for example, where 10-year-old Sam is told that his brother, the only stable presence in his life, went missing on a hunt. At that point Sam knew that missing = most likely dead. And John let him think that for two months. How is it not abusive to let your ten-year-old think his beloved brother is dead (or, if you're being charitable, probably dead) for two months, when you know it's not the case? (And of course the fact that Dean was at the boys' home because he'd been caught stealing basic food items is just the cherry on that sundae.)
And of course there's the fact that when Sam was not only accepted to Stanford, but got a free-ride scholarship, his father told him not to come back. Yes, I know they "explained" that away, saying that John was only concerned for his safety, and that he checked on him while he was in Palo Alto. But he didn't let Sam know any of that. He let Sam think he'd been disowned for daring to want a life that didn't put him in danger on a regular basis. And if the supernatural world in general, and the YED in particular, were such a danger to Sam that he had to be kept with John rather than living a normal (safe) life, why was it okay to just occasionally check on him at Stanford? Why was John and Dean's constant oversight no longer required?
I know this seems like it's all about Sam, because the emotional abuse of Dean was more insidious and systemic. It was more the daily requirement that Dean raise his brother and be a good little soldier. We'll probably never know what happened when John found out Sam had run away in the Flagstaff story, but judging by Dean's expression, we know it was bad. It haunted him years later. Not his guilt or fear, but John's reaction.
And finally, Sam being put on a pedestal, cherished and protected by John, and poor Dean being reduced to the role of Sam's expendable bodyguard. PUH-LEEZE. We know that as early as age 8, Sam was being left for multiple days in the care of his 12-year-old brother. (I think we can easily deduce that it happened earlier than that, but I can't pull any canon off the top of my head involving multiple days, so I'm just going to go with age 8.) You know what? That's not coddling. That's not cherished and protected. That's not what you do when you put someone on a pedestal.
The worst example of this, to me, is always going to be "In My Time of Dying." John knows this is the last time he's going to see his boys. He apologizes to Dean and tells him he's proud of him. He tells Sam he "doesn't know why they fight" (implying it's Sam's fault as much as his, or possibly Sam's fault altogether, because when you know you're partially at fault you don't say that kind of shit) and then he dismisses him. Sam doesn't get a goodbye or an apology. Sam doesn't get "I'm proud of you." Sam gets the eventual threat that he might need to be killed, but his father doesn't bother to tell him in person. (Also, who thinks that whole thing wasn't emotionally abusive for Dean? Handing that weight off to him?)
Yes, there is a pattern of John telling Dean to watch Sam, protect Sam. That's not because Sam was precious and Dean was expendable. It's because John was making Dean the other parent. Which is abusive to both boys.
So, in conclusion... Did John Winchester love his sons? Yes. Was he the best parent he could have been? Possibly. The guy was pretty fucked up by what happened to him. Was he super concerned with their safety, non-abusive, and lavishing care and protection on Sam? Fuck no.
Every once in a while something comes across my Tumblr feed claiming that (a) John was a good parent who obviously loved his boys and did everything he could to protect them, (b) John may not have been the best parent but he absolutely wasn't abusive, or (c) John was abusive to Dean but he coddled, cherished, and protected Sam and put him on a pedestal.
Allow me to explain why this is utter bullshit.
A is pretty obviously untrue. I'm sure John loved his boys, but he didn't do anything to protect them. Sure, he taught them how to fight. But he also put them in the situation where they needed those skills. He threw them into an extremely dangerous life, not because they needed to be saved from the YED (which would have been easier to do had he stayed in one place and set up some defenses), but because he was on a quest for revenge. And some people say he did this because he felt they were safer with him. (I suspect those people also think Dean was being protective when he left Sam unconscious next to the Impala when he went to fight Metatron.) John had a habit (well documented in canon) of not only leaving his sons alone when they weren't under attack, but leaving them alone when they were very likely to come under attack (shtriga, anyone?) and expecting pre-teen Dean to provide not only the basic care his young brother needed, but to actually protect him from monsters. Yeah. Awesome. If he really wanted to protect them, he could have taught them all those skills and then left them with Bobby or Caleb or Jim instead of dragging them around the country and throwing them in harm's way.
Now B, the idea that John wasn't abusive. Okay, let's accept that he didn't beat his kids. I think we're supposed to accept this because Dean says it's so, even though we know Dean is an unreliable narrator on this subject. But maybe I've forgotten some point where Sam says it too. So let's just say it's true that John didn't physically abuse his children. What about the emotional abuse?
Take "Bad Boys," for example, where 10-year-old Sam is told that his brother, the only stable presence in his life, went missing on a hunt. At that point Sam knew that missing = most likely dead. And John let him think that for two months. How is it not abusive to let your ten-year-old think his beloved brother is dead (or, if you're being charitable, probably dead) for two months, when you know it's not the case? (And of course the fact that Dean was at the boys' home because he'd been caught stealing basic food items is just the cherry on that sundae.)
And of course there's the fact that when Sam was not only accepted to Stanford, but got a free-ride scholarship, his father told him not to come back. Yes, I know they "explained" that away, saying that John was only concerned for his safety, and that he checked on him while he was in Palo Alto. But he didn't let Sam know any of that. He let Sam think he'd been disowned for daring to want a life that didn't put him in danger on a regular basis. And if the supernatural world in general, and the YED in particular, were such a danger to Sam that he had to be kept with John rather than living a normal (safe) life, why was it okay to just occasionally check on him at Stanford? Why was John and Dean's constant oversight no longer required?
I know this seems like it's all about Sam, because the emotional abuse of Dean was more insidious and systemic. It was more the daily requirement that Dean raise his brother and be a good little soldier. We'll probably never know what happened when John found out Sam had run away in the Flagstaff story, but judging by Dean's expression, we know it was bad. It haunted him years later. Not his guilt or fear, but John's reaction.
And finally, Sam being put on a pedestal, cherished and protected by John, and poor Dean being reduced to the role of Sam's expendable bodyguard. PUH-LEEZE. We know that as early as age 8, Sam was being left for multiple days in the care of his 12-year-old brother. (I think we can easily deduce that it happened earlier than that, but I can't pull any canon off the top of my head involving multiple days, so I'm just going to go with age 8.) You know what? That's not coddling. That's not cherished and protected. That's not what you do when you put someone on a pedestal.
The worst example of this, to me, is always going to be "In My Time of Dying." John knows this is the last time he's going to see his boys. He apologizes to Dean and tells him he's proud of him. He tells Sam he "doesn't know why they fight" (implying it's Sam's fault as much as his, or possibly Sam's fault altogether, because when you know you're partially at fault you don't say that kind of shit) and then he dismisses him. Sam doesn't get a goodbye or an apology. Sam doesn't get "I'm proud of you." Sam gets the eventual threat that he might need to be killed, but his father doesn't bother to tell him in person. (Also, who thinks that whole thing wasn't emotionally abusive for Dean? Handing that weight off to him?)
Yes, there is a pattern of John telling Dean to watch Sam, protect Sam. That's not because Sam was precious and Dean was expendable. It's because John was making Dean the other parent. Which is abusive to both boys.
So, in conclusion... Did John Winchester love his sons? Yes. Was he the best parent he could have been? Possibly. The guy was pretty fucked up by what happened to him. Was he super concerned with their safety, non-abusive, and lavishing care and protection on Sam? Fuck no.