Is Supernatural Sexist?
Since Supernatural has just begun its fifteenth and final season, I’m gonna take the opportunity to write about a question that has long bothered me.
Is Supernatural sexist?
People are often surprised to hear I like Supernatural. After all, I identify as a feminist, if an unorthodox one, and Supernatural is supposedly the most sexist show ever.
But I don’t think Supernatural IS sexist. Even though I’m pretty sensitive to stuff like that, I really don’t find it at all sexist. I have literally never been offended by anything that has happened on Supernatural, except for Charlie Bradbury, an insufferable Mary Sue who was ironically written to serve as some sort of female representation. That’s right, the only thing I’ve ever found sexist on Supernatural was the magical talisman that was supposed to prevent me from thinking Supernatural is sexist. Don’t do me any favors, yo. Don’t give me a crappy character you put 10 seconds of thought into and pretend it’s for me when it’s just so you can shut people like me up.
I simply think Supernatural, rather than being a sexist extravaganza, is just a show that is mostly about men, and not as much about women. And that is perfectly ok with me. IMVHO, it’s not at all feminist to demand that shows about men actually be about women. Women don’t need special treatment, we just need an equal shot. Right? If we need special treatment to succeed, if we need to force people against their will to watch shows that feature female characters, then we really AREN’T equal, are we? We’re just LARPing equality. I want the real deal.
I enjoy a good estrogenfest now and then just as much as the next gal, but I also like watching shows that are about dudes doing dude things too. There are an infinite number of stories out there in the world to be told and as such it’s only natural that some stories are mostly about guys. So? I believe with every fiber of my being as both a feminist and a fiction writer that there is room in the world for stories that are mostly about men, stories that are mostly about women, and stories about both men and women interacting together in all sorts of different ways. A world that features ONLY tales that involve a set number of boys and a set number of girls every single time would drastically limit the number of stories that could be told. As a writer, I will never approve of limiting the number of stories that can be told! We can call for and hope for AND PERSONALLY CREATE more stories that are centered around female characters and include lots of female characters without demanding that stories that are about men be altered to include female characters when it doesn’t serve the story.
In the case of Supernatural, a show that is mostly about men, a lack of a main female character is not extreme, sexist or unusual. It is realistic. Fun fact, there are vast, huge swaths of the world in when men do things together without the presence of women. (Trust me, I have 4 sons and my husband is a truck driver.) There are men – and not a few – who go days, weeks, even months without having a single meaningful interaction with people of the female persuasion at all. It is not because they think females have cooties and they think men are superior so they don’t let stinky ol’ girls join the He Man Woman Haters Club. It is because they’re completely cut off from women. Men LIKE WOMEN. They seek them out whenever and however they can. They want to have women in their life, would love to, they just don’t.
Seriously, Supernatural fans, after watching this show for 15 years, do you think Dean, Sam, Bobby, and even Castiel aren’t SUFFERING from not having women in their life? They are, it’s obvious that they are. It causes them great pain to not have love, to not have female companionship, and it’s a pain that a lot of men actually kind of relate to. It is not sexist to portray men who are isolated and suffering because of their isolation. That isolation is, in fact a huge part of why Dean, Sam, and Bobby are so miserable all the time. They don’t have love in their lives. (Castiel, of course, doesn’t need that in the same way that humans do, but he still might wish to have a female friend, which he is unable to have due to circumstances out of his control.) These guys can’t have love in their lives. Every time the Winchesters start to pursue a relationship (even just friendship) their loved ones die or they have to leave to protect them.
This matters. This dynamic is critical to the plot of Supernatural, it’s critical to the characters as they’ve been written, it’s critical to the greater subtext (because it’s a story that is ABOUT MEN). If the writers stick a girl into this masculine melee to tick off a SJW box on a PC checklist, it changes that dynamic irrevocably just like it would change the dynamic of Steel Magnolias if one of the Magnolias was Chris Hemsworth. It undermines the fundamental premise of the show, which involves men, who through no fault of their own, just a terribly unlucky twist of fate, are cast into a battle they never wanted to fight, and as a result are completely cut off from the things that most of us take for granted, like family and love and happiness.
You know, the way billions of men have lived and died throughout history. Alone. Of all the men who have ever lived, only 40% of them have passed down Y chromosomes that endure to this day. This means that huge, huge numbers of men have lived their entire lives and died without being married, without even getting close, without ever having children. They went out on pirate ships and into monasteries and joined armies where they were surrounded by men all day every day. Except for their mothers – and a good many men, like the Winchesters, lost their mothers at young ages – and the occasional encounter with a prostitute, the existence of a whole lot of men throughout history has been one of being surrounded by all dudes, all the time. Even to this day tons of men are single, have exclusively male friends (or no friends), may be employed someplace with primarily male coworkers, and just don’t see many women from day to day.
Again, this is not because they’re big fat mean sexist pigs, it’s because fate has put them into a position where they have no access to women, not even in the friend zone. It’s not by choice, it’s by necessity. It doesn’t make them happy to be alone, and Dean and Sam Winchester, in their female-less misery and isolation, exemplify this. Sam and Dean, as silly as it sounds, are the fictional embodiment of millions, if not billions of dudes who went out and fought the good fight and saved the world in some small way and died, forgotten, without anyone there to mourn them but their brothers. Dean and Sam are the modern day avatars of men who died at sea and on battlefields and in jungles and forests thousands of miles from home doing heroic ass feats to bring we ladies cinnamon and safety and never even got laid as thanks for their sacrifice.
Given all this, it’s really rather asinine to demand there be a consistent “female voice” in Supernatural because Supernatural is about the male experience – particularly the male experience feeling sexually and emotionally isolated from women and having to save a world you never even get to partake in. Shoehorning a “female voice” in there could very easily drown out a good part of what the show is even about – male pain. And not, you wiseacre you, because women never shut up either, but because men act differently when women are present. Men, particularly tough men like the Winchesters, rarely talk about their feelings in front of women. Men try to impress women, when women are present, by being brave and strong and stoic. All those scenes where Dean and Sam sit in the Impala and hash out the terrible things they’ve been through would not happen if there was a girl or two in the car with them (well, they might, but they’d be a lot harder for me to buy as a viewer.)
Men being open to discussing feelings is really important. Men seeing other men, even fictional men, doing so is really important. I know some feminists think it’s fun to belittle male tears but I think every human being’s pain matters and for men to talk about their emotional baggage with somebody now and then is critical. Even if you really don’t give two figs about men and their feelz, it is important ~for women~ to allow men to explore male vulnerability through fiction even out of our own self-preservation. We all know the trope of that strong, silent man who lashes out at his wife and his kids, we all know the story of that quiet guy who kept to himself right up till the day he snapped. Don’t stifle yourselves, my dudes.
Supernatural is exquisitely rare in that it shows men being vulnerable with each other sometimes. We as feminists should be encouraging that and not sitting around whining that we didn’t get enough representation. Because normalizing male vulnerability is the cure for toxic masculinity.
But Supernatural is about more than just male pain. It’s about male fear.
What is the thing that men fear the most? It’s not spiders, it’s not dental work, it’s not snakes like Indiana Jones, it’s not demons, it’s not even killer clowns.
Men’s greatest fear, programmed into them from a kajillion years of evolution, is that they cannot protect their loved ones. Whether or not you believe gender is mostly a social construct, the fact is, biologically, right down to their very DNA, male animals are hard wired to protect their flock or their tribe or their family and desperately fear failing at that task. And Sam and Dean, again and again and again, are unable to protect the people closest to them. They fail in their primary mission, protecting the defenseless people who rely on them, and they fail at it repeatedly. As the song says, it’s almost like they were born to lose and destined to fail. The amount the Winchesters spectacularly fail at their fundamental role as men is downright emasculating. But then they have to regroup and do it all over again. And they do, no matter how hard it is, no matter how much it costs them. Supernatural is a story of men who cannot accomplish the one thing men want the most – to keep their loved ones safe from harm – again, as a great many men throughout history have been unable to keep their loved ones safe from harm. But it’s also a story of men who don’t give up trying.
When you watch Supernatural through that lens, it’s incredibly moving. Dean and Sam try and fail and try and fail and fail and fail some more. No wonder they push women away – they don’t want to let them down. They don’t want to get them killed. Their lives are a train wreck, their saga is tragedy-in-progress. The “women in fridges” trope has come under fire recently and rightfully so, but Supernatural should be held fully exempt from that criticism because women dying on Supernatural serves the greater subtext of the show – men being chronically unable to protect those they love. The greatest fear that men have.
If the writers decide to now cram some adorable female version of Cousin Oliver into the show and have her survive??? and become a regular character????? that would undermine what the show is even about. A show about men’s isolation and men’s pain and men’s deepest darkest fear that they can’t protect the people who rely upon them would be rendered meaningless by the introduction of a character who directly undermines that subtext. Supernatural with a recurring female character who survives indefinitely invalidates the whole entire freaking point of Supernatural. It’s not sexism not to have a “consistent female voice”, it’s simply staying true to what Supernatural is about!
But even if you look at Supernatural from a fully female-centric perspective, it’s still not sexist.
So you don’t like men? You don’t care about their fear and their pain? Ok. Let’s talk the women on Supernatural.
One of my biggest, hugest, personal pet peeves is how we are told that cramming spectacularly beautiful, always flawless, nearly always young women into a movie or show is supposedly feminist or something. Are you seriously telling me that putting forth women whose physical attractiveness is so far beyond that of mere mortals as to be unattainable, that are OBVIOUSLY put into a program not for me to relate to but for men to ogle (no doubt whilst comparing gals like me unfavorably) is somehow more feminist than a show that doesn’t have a “consistent male voice”?
Are you kidding me?
Shoving a gorgeous chick at me telling me it’s for my benefit when really it’s for the benefit of thirsty dudes does not feel even remotely feminist, mmmkay??
And Supernatural never, ever, ever does that. The women in Supernatural are average and get dirty and look gross sometimes and don’t wear that much makeup and aren’t perfectly coiffed and most of them don’t ever dress slutty unless it’s important to the character (rare). Watching the women on Supernatural feels like a breath of fresh air to me. They look like me. They’re put together like women who are working hard and fighting for their life would be and aren’t running from demons wearing 3 inch heels.
Let’s take a look at some of the awesome gals who have shown up on Supernatural the most.
Sheriff Jody Mills:
Ellen and Jo:
Meg:
Ruby in both incarnations:
While all these women are beautiful, their beauty is attainable. It’s not Hollywood level insane off-the-charts-Megan-Fox-Margot-Robbie beauty. They wear real clothes suitable to the job they’re doing. They get dirty and bloody and their hair gets messed up. Kudos to whoever does the casting and the costuming/makeup, because I for one really appreciate it. The women on Supernatural seem like real people doing real things in a messed up world and not chicks who are prancing around on a screen for dudes to jerk it to. The women in Supernatural feel like they are there for me to relate to and they are there to tell a story and not there for men.
And that, cats and kittens, is entirely feminist.
Beyond all that, Supernatural does something extraordinary with its female characters, something that I believe to be entirely unique. It lets them have sex in a way that is normal, that approximates to a reasonable extent the type of sexual activity women have in the real world. The female characters on Supernatural are sexually active without it being a gimmick. The women of Supernatural have sex just as an ordinary part of their lives and it is not a huge deal. No slutshaming, no virgin-celebrating, no Madonna/whore complexes. They screw sometimes because people screw sometimes.
Examples? But of course.
Lisa Braeden, Dean’s on again, off again girlfriend, had a one-night-stand with Dean, then shortly after got pregnant from another one-night-stand, had a baby on her own, raised it, we assume she had sex many times along the way with various people, and then Dean got back together with her and they lived together for a while. Her sexual choices were not presented as disgusting or indeed in any way remarkable. Dean had absolutely no qualms about picking it up again with Lisa right where they left off despite the fact that she’d had sex with other dudes. Lisa Braeden was not a soiled dove; Dean wasn’t doing her a favor by going out with her, in fact he felt lucky to have her.
Amelia Richardson was a woman who Sam had an intense fairly long term relationship with. Dean and Sam had had a falling out and he was on his own. She thought at the time her husband was dead, killed in Afghanistan, but later it turned out he was actually alive. Neither her husband nor Sam were consumed with jealousy, neither punished Amelia for the terrible situation she found herself in. Her husband let Amelia decide for herself what she wanted to do and didn’t pressure her in any way. Her body, her choice.
One of my personal fave Supernatural women is Jo Harvelle (and one of the reasons I hate the Charlie Bradbury character so much is that Sam and Dean actually HAD an adorable little sister character that they never gushed about anywhere near how they gushed about Charlie, FFS). Jo, as many younger women do when it comes to older guys they’ve known for a long time, had a bit of a crush on Dean, which Dean being Dean, reciprocated in a sexual way. But Jo knew (please note, it was NOT that Dean was sooo wise and mature that HE knew, Jo herself was the one who knew better) he would have never been the guy that Jo needed him to be, so she never acted on it. This went on till the night before they were going into a situation where they’d likely both die. Dean played the “it’s our last night on earth, why not?” card. And Jo thought about it, thought about it very seriously, and turned him down. Because sexual freedom also includes the right to say no.
But the one that takes the cake for me is Annie Hawkins. Annie was a Hunter, like Dean and Sam are Hunters, who went missing. In the process of looking for her, it is revealed that she had slept with Bobby, Dean, and Sam at various points over the years. It was funny, but it wasn’t painted as funny in a “ha-ha slut” way, it was funny because life is funny and people are funny. It wasn’t a laugh at Annie’s expense at all. And Annie wasn’t a throwaway disposable character. Even though she’d died, she wasn’t a woman in a fridge, she was an important part of the plot. Even though she was only in one single episode, she was a fully-fleshed out 3 dimensional character, not a punchline. She was neither punished nor celebrated for her sexual choices. All three of our heroes cared about her and valued the time they’d spent together, but it was just that nobody needed to marry nobody or nothing. It was a really nice way to illustrate that women have sexual histories just like men, we have sex for all sorts of reasons including that we’re in the mood to. I wracked my brain and I couldn’t think of a single other show that had ever featured a non-slut woman having sex with three different guys at various stages in her life as a non-joke plot point aside from Supernatural. Totally a feminist moment for me.
Final analysis – Supernatural is not sexist. Far from it. In many ways, it’s downright feminist.
We live in a world full of oodles of people who think they get to have everything JUST the way they want it all the time. If they aren’t the absolute center of the universe in everything all the time they pitch a fit and moan and complain and make demands until someone gives them fan service. But fan service sucks and intersectionality is impossible. It just isn’t possible to produce a book or a movie or a show that is fundamentally about men and male pain and male fear and then decide to flush that away to make a show about a random and extraneous woman designed by a focus group instead because some people have loud mouths. It would be an entirely different show if the writers did that, and I suspect a very much inferior one. Plus, despite being a show about men, Supernatural does a pretty fantastic job of bringing us strong and relatable female characters anyway! Don’t fix what ain’t broke!
Long story short, I think it’s flipping ridiculous – and antifeminist – to pretend that a show is anti-women just because it happens to be pro-men.
Supernatural is NOT SEXIST. The atomic feminist has spoken.
If you want to see my take on adding a female character to the Supernatural universe please check out my (long) short story Supernatural: Manic Pixie God Girl.
Photo by Chesi – Fotos CC
This piece was originally published on the atomic feminist.
I mean, isn’t “Supernatural Only With A Feminine Perspective” just Buffy The Vampire Slayer?Report
Is XX sexist? can really only be answered in the affirmative. It’s rhetorical. I like how this write up goes into the more thoughtful question of Is it sexist ‘enough’ that I should think about the answer to this question?
Thanks Kristin for the dive into a show I never engaged with but probably would have been a huge fan of.Report
Thanks for reading!Report
Except close to half the full time regular cast on Buffy were men.
If Buffy was a show with an almost exclusively female regular cast, where a vast majority of the men that appeared on it were beefcake of the week, and ended up either dead or some kind of victim, that’d be about equal. I say that as somebody who actually enjoys Supernatural.Report
Wait, 50-50 casting? Even nature isn’t that stupid. 😉
“Like most sexual species, the sex ratio in humans is approximately 1:1. In humans, the natural ratio between males and females at birth is slightly biased towards the male sex, being estimated to be about 1.05[2] or 1.06[3] males/per female born.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratioReport
Except close to half the full time regular cast on Buffy were men.
Counting ‘full time regular cast’ is _extremely_ misleading, considering that fricking Emma Caulfiend wasn’t ever counted as a full-time cast member.
Who a ‘regular cast member’ is is almost entirely defined by Hollywood nonsense based on the work history of the actor, and has nothing to do with the importance of a character or how much screen time they get, and Joss Whedon specifically complained about how he had to deal with stupid rules about this. If it had been up to him he would have put all the ‘in basically every episode’ cast in the credit, but he couldn’t.
And it’s worth pointing out that because Hollywood is generally sexist and writes stories for men, men get more important roles, which means they have better ‘work history’, which means they often get regular credit and women don’t, even for basically the same thing. For example, Seth Green vs. Amber Benson, they both played the role of ‘love interest of Willow with some small level of supernatural power that eventually joined the gang’.
And Benson had more episodes, yet Green got the ‘regular cast member’ credit and not her…because of Hollywood rules.
—
In reality, if I had to guess, the show was about 66/33 tilted towards female characters. Even in the early seasons, when there were hypothetically four main characters, equally gendered…in reality, Giles was barely there, and Cordelia was also there. (And she, at least, was officially regular cast.)
When men got added, like Angel, and Oz, and Riley, they got added as love interests of the women. (Which didn’t help the ratio when Willow was revealed to be gay so her love interest from that point on were women.) Oh, and they added a sister.
A lot of people seemed to think Buffy was called ‘feminist’ because it was about a female superhero. But…that’s not really the reason. Or…it shouldn’t have been. The reason it was feminist was that the entire show was extremely female-focused, women drove basically every plot.
Even in places where the story was, in theory, about men, it tended to be about women in some manner…for example, Xander’s big plot in season six was his marriage to Anya and lack thereof, but we also got plenty of Anya in there, in fact, the aftermath was mostly about her.
It’s very easy to think of stories in Buffy that don’t involve any men…the story of Buffy and Dawn and Joyce, the story of Buffy and Faith, etc, etc. It’s really hard to think of stories that don’t involve any women. The only ones I can really think of are the various male jealousy _over_ Buffy! (I guess Andew’s story doesn’t really involve women?)
That’s not to say that Buffy is the same as Supernatural. For one thing, Supernatural seemed to have close to a 90/10 ratio towards men for most of its run, even if it toned that down coming up on the end. And on Buffy, men were a reasonable important part of the show, and actually existed, and didn’t just get killed randomly. It’s just the stories were about the women.
The show that is the male version of Buffy is, of course, Angel. Not Supernatural. Angel, despite being about men, also had women, who also were not disposable and forever shoved off to the side. It’s just the stories were mostly about the men. (This, of course, was much less groundbreaking.)Report
I wouldn’t say that, they’re about two different things.
The supernatural stuff is just the scaffolding upon which the subtext is hung for both shows. The subtext differs.Report
What I’ve noticed is that many people are very inconsistent when it comes to men portraying their emotions. They like to talk about toxic masculinity and how the Patriarchy (TM) teachers men to hide their emotions. But when you get a generally masculine looking and acting man show some pain and vulnerability, it’s all “male tears. ha ha ha.” This is especially true when the vulnerability has to do with a lack of female romantic and sexual companionship.
As somebody who really is suffering from a lack of female romantic/sexual companionship, I’ve noticed that this is a very tricky subject to deal with in the age of #MeToo. Since the current emphasis is on consent and getting rid of sexual attraction and assault, having a class of decent heterosexual men that can’t get a woman is troublesome. People have a sense of fairness and admitting that there can be thoroughly awful men who have no problems attracted women and that there are plenty of decent men that can’t, it is a lot easier for people to believe that men with horrible lovelies are all misogynists rather than deal with reality. It’s the just world fallacy applied to romance and sex.
What I’ve also notice, from my hobby scene and real life, is that there are a few women that love to be mean towards men that they find beneath them. In my partner dance scene, there are about dozen or so women that refuse to dance with me on general principle. This isn’t because we’ve danced before and went horribly. It’s because they think they can use me to establish their high social status by treating me with contempt. This is another thing behind “male tears”, it is a way to show you are of higher social status because you get to make fun of them.Report
I completely agree with you on every point.Report
On a less personal level, heterosexual male romantic loneliness and sexual frustration doesn’t set well in certain ideological spaces because they don’t want love or sex being presented as something men are entitled to. So they don’t like shows that deal with heterosexual male romantic frustration.Report
Good point.Report
The troublesome question is something like “Is it possible for a proposition to both be true *AND* sexist?” (or both true and racist, true and whateveric/ist).
If it isn’t possible for such a proposition to be both, then the question of whether Supernatural is sexist has an answer of “probably” with an implied “and it shouldn’t be”.
If it is possible for such a proposition to be both, then I’d wonder if Supernatural’s sexism is among the kind that accurately depict the world and then ask why the fantasy show chooses verisimilitude here, of all places?
Now, I don’t watch the show and haven’t seen a single episode but, without having to watch it, I can conclude that it needs to change and be less sexist. Get new characters. Get rid of some of the old ones. Change storylines. I won’t watch the new one either but I’ll be happier knowing that it’d appeal to me if I did.Report
I think they should just cancel it and make a new show in that case. I don’t get the point of demanding that a show be changed for some purpose when it’s communicating something else. There is plenty of room in the world for all sorts of stories from all different perspectives. If it’s time for the show to die (and it obviously is) then let it die, make something else instead.Report
But the new show might not have an audience…Report
I guess that’s the chance they take.
Change what works about the show and lose their audience.
Make a new show and have to build an audience.Report
Eh, I think there’s a vast difference between Supernatural being the most sexist show on TV and acting like there’s no issues with it at all because it’s pro men. Again, I’ve watched lots of seasons of Supernatural and generally like the show, but there is also a big difference between early seasons when it was very mid-2000’s TV in all circumstances and more recent seasons. However, I do have a couple of bones to pick –
1.) The idea there is anything close to a meritocracy when it comes to representation on TV. There’s almost no such thing as forced diversity – by 2019 standards, Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu were all forced ‘diversity’, but yet, millions of people, including MLK Jr. were incredibly happy that such diversity was on TV. When whiteness is the default, anything more diverse than what’s been on TV for decades (and largely continues to be) seems like ‘forced’ if you’re not used to it. But yeah, there’s no meritocratic ‘fair’ way for women to get an equal shot on TV, so acting like women wanting more representation on TV don’t want actual equality is silliness.
2.) I’d buy more into the ‘it’s OK there are no long term permanent female characters on Supernatural because Sam & Dean are like soldiers or hunters or whatever’ if ya’ know, they were actually in a situation like WW2, etc. where there were no women around. In reality, there’s women every week on Supernatural. Hell, their have been multiple episodes with female hunters. They’re just not deemed important enough to hang around and yeah, I really don’t think a lot of people who want more representation are going to buy the argument, “it’s OK, because these men are really unhappy the women around them are dying all the time.”
In a world with vampires, demons, and angels, the idea that it wouldn’t be realistic to have a woman around is kind of silly.
3.) Again, I like Supernatural, and lot of the women on the show are good actresses, but the idea they’re “normal” is kind of insane. You showed basically, two of the few women over thirty that are the main female characters of the week in general, and aside from that, most of the other normal characters are in some cases, actual literal models that they put some dirt on or dressed down. Now, their characterizations may be less fabulous (I mean fabulous in the actual how they’re dressed/made up sense) than say, Gossip Girl or Riverdale, but the women themselves could easy fit in on those shows if they were going through those shows costuming and makeup process.
Now, that’s totally fair, since actual supernatural hunters would likely not look like Jensen Ackles or Jared Paladicki either, but it’s better to admit that 95% of the people on Supernatural are very pretty people and that’s OK, as opposed to being upset that some people still like Wonder Woman more than you do and thinking that’s a trump card.
4.) At the end of the day, when it comes to representation, I actually don’t blame the producers or creators as being sexist, when in reality, the biggest backlash to women regularly being on the show has come from the disproportionately female fanbase who’d rather ship Sam or Dean with themselves, with each other, or with Castiel depending on the woman.
In a lot of ways, Sam & Dean not having a long-term relationship is as much wish fulfillment for much of the women who watch the program than anything else.Report
Thanks for reading and commenting!Report
One thing that probably should be brought out is that it’s a story about brothers, and brothers have their own dynamic that is different from male friends. Sibling relationships can be rivalrous and full of deep conflict, some of which is due to personal identity emerging through young relationships. Siblings know each other from the long timeframe, sometimes knowing each other better, sometimes not seeing who each has become. The show plays with these dynamics by having the brothers blow-up at each other, go their separate ways and return, not entirely resolved, to each other’s company. There is a certain elasticity that is tested, that doesn’t exist with friends. At some points friends just leave, and friends of brothers amidst such continual conflict, have to keep their distance, or get spat out.
I kind of think the show can be charged with some of women in the fridge because their origin is built on the deaths of their mom and girlfriend. The redeeming thing though is that everybody they love dies, man or woman, sometimes more than once.Report
Exactly. It’s not just the women in the show who are killed, not by a longshot.
Great point about the sibling relationship.Report
I guess you aren’t aware that Sam and Dean’s mother was resurrected at the end of season 11 and has been a series regular the three last seasons? She was right there with Sam and Dean and Cas, as a hunter, in every episode.
She’s kinda a big thing to leave out if you’re listing women of show. I get why you didn’t, you stopped watching back in season 9, but…that’s a huge ommission.
You also aren’t aware of the Wayward Sisters spinoff attempt, I guess. Like, Jody has an actual team of hunters now working with her.Report
Yep, I’m aware of it all, and the spinoff. View what I wrote as a defense of the old-school all boy Supernatural if you’d like.Report
Ah, okay.
Old school Supernatural, original first five seasons Supernatural, was…sometimes a bit sexist. Not because of the fact women got killed off (Everyone gets killed off.) but because it sometimes had problematic attitudes toward women, or at least Dean had the attitude and the show often failed to push back on that. (Mostly just by Sam grumbling under his breath.)
And, yes, that attitude includes slut shaming. (Which Dean reverts back to under the influence of the Mark of the Beast.)
The thing is: Dean matured. I’m not really sure when, but it was definitely by the start of season 6, when he’d spent a year offscreen living with Lisa and raising their kid.
Or, to put another way: See, the thing about these societies that men are in without women…they tend to reinforce sexist thought. When men have ‘no access to women’ they start think of women as things to ‘access’, and only that.
Which is why Dean thinks that way at the start of the series, and not Sam. Sam is living a normal life, he has been for years, where there are people who happen to women around him. Dean…is not. He’s never lived a normal life since he was a kid. He had no female friends, because he really had no friends at all. Give Dean a normal life, and he…starts treating women better. Even after he goes back to hunting.
At least, that’s Watsonian explanation. The Doylist one is: The writers took a lot of criticism for the perceived sexism at the start of the show, and started fixing things.Report
I always ask this and have yet to get an actual answer;
What has Dean done EXACTLY to “have a sexist” attitude? Sexual is not sexist.
Everybody is saying Dean is being sexist all the time, but I’m rewatching the entire show, looking out for it, nearing the end of season 5 now and have yet to see one single sexist remark from Dean. He’s actually pretty much being a gentleman?
Obviously Dean with the mark doesn’t count as he’s supposed to be evil.Report
and, as was recently brought up on Twitter, a 100%-female focused cast with a female main character can still be 100% sexist.Report
I really enjoyed this essay DD, thanks for posting.Report