![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
SPN: the absence of women
The absence of female characters from the ongoing SPN narrative seems to be the subject du jour, so I thought I'd jump in, because I'm usually one of the first to cry "misogyny" in the shows I watch (I'm looking at you, XF) but I don't see that here.
I think my response to this issue is based on the way I read the text, and so I think (a) that there are satisfying textual reasons for the absence of women and (b) that the show itself can be read as making the absence of women a problem. As we see in pretty much every intro for the whole run of the show, the Winchester family is an all-male enterprise, and it's an all-male enterprise because all the women in it were killed off -- not just Mary, but also Jess, at least in part because she was close enough to Sam to be perceived as a threat by the Demon. They didn't decide to leave the womenfolk at home while they went out on the road to do manly things like hunt demons -- they were driven to that when their whole world was thrown into imbalance by an external force which removed (effective) women from the world. Sam and John, at least, would like to return to a world with significant women in it, but they're both particular about who those women are -- they're attached to the idea of women as people as well as women as symbols. Dean's a good deal less particular, but he has all those rejection and abandonment issues, most of which are rooted in the loss of his mother at such a young age; again, the absence of women is a bad thing here.
I guess the short version is -- there are no women in the Winchester family because the Demon killed them all. The Demon is the big Evil, therefore the show does not seem to be telling me that the absence of women is a good thing. The Winchesters cope fairly well with a world which lacks significant women, but that world is not (in my opinion) presented as complete.
I'd like to talk about the guest-stars here, but maybe later -- right now it seems to me that there are villains and victims who are female, and villains and victims who are male or ungendered, and that female guest stars seem about as able to cope with what the Winchesters do as male guest stars. And ultimately, my reading of the show is based on the mytharc, not the MOTWs. Mileage varies.
As for comparisons to Buffy or XF, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the producers used the fact that the main characters are male to sell the show -- it's something to differentiate it on a network which already has a fair number of shows with a strong female presence (I mean, Charmed is still running, isn't it? and every time I catch an episode of Smallville, it seems to be all about the romances). And I don't think that having lots of juicy roles for women necessarily is enough to clear a show. Alias, for example, had a female hero and included good roles for more mature female actresses. It also represented relationships between women as almost universally competitive rather than cooperative, and marriage as a locus for deception and (in extreme but prominent cases) a form of warfare in which the wife is an enemy agent inserted within the husband's territory to undermine and destroy him.
My apologies if this doesn't make sense; I was awake at an unreasonable hour this morning, and lay there thinking about this because I couldn't fall back to sleep.
I think my response to this issue is based on the way I read the text, and so I think (a) that there are satisfying textual reasons for the absence of women and (b) that the show itself can be read as making the absence of women a problem. As we see in pretty much every intro for the whole run of the show, the Winchester family is an all-male enterprise, and it's an all-male enterprise because all the women in it were killed off -- not just Mary, but also Jess, at least in part because she was close enough to Sam to be perceived as a threat by the Demon. They didn't decide to leave the womenfolk at home while they went out on the road to do manly things like hunt demons -- they were driven to that when their whole world was thrown into imbalance by an external force which removed (effective) women from the world. Sam and John, at least, would like to return to a world with significant women in it, but they're both particular about who those women are -- they're attached to the idea of women as people as well as women as symbols. Dean's a good deal less particular, but he has all those rejection and abandonment issues, most of which are rooted in the loss of his mother at such a young age; again, the absence of women is a bad thing here.
I guess the short version is -- there are no women in the Winchester family because the Demon killed them all. The Demon is the big Evil, therefore the show does not seem to be telling me that the absence of women is a good thing. The Winchesters cope fairly well with a world which lacks significant women, but that world is not (in my opinion) presented as complete.
I'd like to talk about the guest-stars here, but maybe later -- right now it seems to me that there are villains and victims who are female, and villains and victims who are male or ungendered, and that female guest stars seem about as able to cope with what the Winchesters do as male guest stars. And ultimately, my reading of the show is based on the mytharc, not the MOTWs. Mileage varies.
As for comparisons to Buffy or XF, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the producers used the fact that the main characters are male to sell the show -- it's something to differentiate it on a network which already has a fair number of shows with a strong female presence (I mean, Charmed is still running, isn't it? and every time I catch an episode of Smallville, it seems to be all about the romances). And I don't think that having lots of juicy roles for women necessarily is enough to clear a show. Alias, for example, had a female hero and included good roles for more mature female actresses. It also represented relationships between women as almost universally competitive rather than cooperative, and marriage as a locus for deception and (in extreme but prominent cases) a form of warfare in which the wife is an enemy agent inserted within the husband's territory to undermine and destroy him.
My apologies if this doesn't make sense; I was awake at an unreasonable hour this morning, and lay there thinking about this because I couldn't fall back to sleep.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-08-28 03:00 pm (UTC)(link)I saw Xander as the constant butt of jokes, of most typically being the one who did nothing that could not be done by some else, who was most constantly in shadow while the others - Buffy, Willow, Faith - were pushed into the spotlight. When he did get his spot, at the end of S6, it was in the same way that Dean opperates on SPN - I'm not going to let you go. And that was after 6 seasons. So I'm fairly satisfied that my read isn't incorrect.
Giles was also played for laughs more often than not, I thought. (Granted, a lot of BtVS was played for laughs. And me and comedy are not the best of buddies. So, put that in the balance, too.) He was also not cast as masculine (tweedy glasses wearing librarian?) although that, too, faded somewhat - in later seasons. Buffy's "need" of him was as a teacher/mother figure, not as man or, I would argue, particularly as father.
In response to what you say below re: the men of SPN taking on female roles, I saw the same thing in BtVS, only with girls taking on the male traits of violence, killing, and casual sex, but, at the same time, rejecting the "female" traits of emotional intimacy, nurturing, and community. I think the trade wasn't a particularly good one.
(And while I say all this, please, this is what *I* got out of Buffy. It didn't work for me, didn't talk to me. Other people, other gals, it told them that they could be the kick-ass heroes of the story, too, and that is *great.* It's like scowling at how Dumbledor is a scheming manipulator and not to be trusted and the HP books are overly simplistic and *ignoring* the fact that kids who never read were gobbling down the books. *waves hands* There are a variety of scales to measure success on.)
What if she had lived and gone on the road with the boys? It would have been a different show, but it would have been pretty interesting.
Yes, that would have been interesting (I'm going to respond to your comment in Mely's post about what sorts of gals I wouldn't mind seeing in the show) and there have been more than a couple brilliant fics running with this idea. But, as you say, it would shift the story from a clan-saga to yet another "found family" drama.
There are thoughts running around in my head about Ponderosa and Dallas, as well as about Everwood, which is another male-heavy family story.
*sigh* Dean pretty. Guns loud. Sam good.
- hg
no subject
1. Buffy has a mother. She doesn't go to Giles for hugs; she goes to him for guidance into her vocation. (How is teacher a gendered word? I don't get it.) His father-figuredom is made explicit in season 3, but earlier than that he is already very much involved in her life, and caring, and guiding.
2. Since Buffy season 1 was only 13 episodes long, I'm not sure I see the point in discussing only the 1st season. Considering the first 2 seasons, there is that great bit in "Passions" where Giles wields the flaming baseball bat (I love that part!!), as well as the introduction of his bad-boy backstory. He's pretty good with an axe, too.
3. I do think that being unable to respond to the comedy may hamper your ability to analyze the series in depth: Xander being the butt of jokes doesn't make him any less important; not least because he is the representative Joe Ordinary in the cast. Everybody else is magical: Giles's knowledge Willow's magic; Oz's wolfiness; Buffy's Slayerdom -- and Xander is our normal guy, who of course can't compete with all that, but he's wanted and needed anyway.
He's the butt of jokes -- especially his own -- but he also gets to say things like, "I told you so."