Supernatural Gender and Race breakdown for S3

[black_samvara]

Gender Breakdown of Alignment of Supernatural S3 Characters Alignment F
M

No % No % Difference Evil 5 9% 8 10% -1% Good 7 12% 8 10% 3% Neutral 35 61% 44 53% 8% Not Known 3 5% 12 14% -9% Possessed 7 12% 11 13% -1% Total

Comments

[overstreets]

Ooh, thanks for doing all this! People have always been telling me that women died more than men on this show, but I never saw it. This must have taken a lot of time, so thanks again. It's nice to see some facts.

[jamesinboots]

People have always been telling me that women died more than men on this show, but I never saw it. This must have taken a lot of time, so thanks again. It's nice to see some facts.

Seconded!!! :D!!!

[black_samvara]

Thank you!

I've responded to misty-writes below if you're interested.

[jamesinboots]

Oh man, I've just been interested in the numbers for a while. Statistics and such make my numbers-focused brain very very happy. <3 But w/r/t your comment to misty, I'll have to step away, 'cause my interpretation and perception of the show is entirely different, and it's probably best I avoid. Thanks again for taking the time to compile this. :)

[zillah975]

Thank you for all the work you put into this! I started one of these, but when I saw you were doing them, I gratefully stopped. It's kind of a dull slog through the shows, marking down deaths and evilnesses.

The problem with raw numbers, though, is that they don't get to the heart of the "skeevy race and gender issues" problem, at all.

HTH said it better quite some time ago, so I'mma quote her awesome post for any who are interested in why that is:There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless

[black_samvara]

Thank you for the feedback! You've made good points all, I've added the following notes.

1. Not enough numbers for significant statistical analysis; certainly enough for case by case discussion.
2. Totals do not always add to 100% - this is due to rounding.
3. The numbers in red are highlighting any variation over 5%, this is for convenience and has no deep, mysterious statistical significance.

I'm providing numbers solely that there's a 'fact' point to come back to, people can make of them what they will. They give a basis to have more sophisticated conversation - which is what I'm hoping for

[zillah975]

*nodsnods* I agree with all of this.

As for the last comment, I don't know that they do do that for gender, but it's a justification I've heard as regards characters of color. In trying to be "color blind", they wind up casting characters of color in roles that are problematic, because the roles wouldn't be problematic if a caucasian actor were cast in the role.

[black_samvara]

Thanks for bringing these things up. I had forgotten how long it was since I first put it out for discussion and while they were sort of implicit back then, I didn't lay it out here.

angriest, who writes scripts had the gender problem recently and addressed it as a matter of course. I'm disappointed but not terribly surprised that there are script writers who do not.

[quirkies]

that's the perfect icon for this post!
thanks for putting these numbers together. i often wonder whether there's anyone on staff that pays attention to these things. the evidence points to no.
you've given me lots of food for thought. thanks again!