I think I get where you're coming from -- you're working from within the confines of the story. Yes, Dean and Sam are the only main characters (although John gets a healthy chunk of time). Yes, their both being male and having no female peers marks them out as damaged weirdoes. Yes, in that sense, the intentional exclusion of female subjectivity may serve a thematic purpose, although I'm not sure it's entirely intentional.

But it feels wrong, as a cultural document. I hunt and hunt through that text and I see no female subjectivity and I think, "Who does that?"

In the days of the Iliad, maybe that was normal, although I'm sure little girls of that era were clinging to every Nausicaa and Clytaemnestra they could get their paws on. But we're a bit late-on in the history of culture for that to be normal, don't you think? It just feels unconscious, exclusionary, accidental, clumsy, weird. It feels like a mistake, like the writers didn't even realize what they were doing and have now written themselves into a corner.

I think that's the reason I hook the question of female subjectivity into the question of the show's future growth. I want to ask the writers, "What is your plan??" and kick them in the patoot until they have a plan that is sustainable.