(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chasingtides Sep. 20th, 2008 12:38 am)
chasingtides Sep. 20th, 2008 12:38 am)I am going to open this meta with the statement that I am, probably, likely to be considered a violent person. I hit things. And people. Usually with my cane, Niccolo Machiavelli. I also throw things. And like shooting my compound bow. And hitting things.
I like Dean a lot. Probably, partially, because he also hits things.
Now, I've seen around the internet that it seems that a lot of people don't like Dean hitting things. They say that he likes to pick on women. That's he's mean to women. That he's written as a misogynist.
Well, thinks I, I am not so sure about that. I hit women, but I don't think of myself as a misogynist for a variety of reasons, but partially because I also hit men.
So, I decided to analyze exactly who Dean hits in Lazarus Rising.
If we set aside the opening montage of season three as irrelevant to this meta and focus upon Dean's acts of personal violence against others, we can look at four separate incidents of such personal violence in Lazarus Rising. The first is Dean's fist/knife fight with Bobby; the second, his fist/knife fight with Sam; the third, his slapping of the possessed waitress; and the fourth, his attack upon the angel Castiel.
Bobby, as Dean expresses in this self-same episode, is the closest thing Dean has to a father. Presumably, this works the other way (and I am taking a cue from Bobby's new drinking habit as well) and Bobby feels that Sam and Dean are the closest things he has to sons. As he said so eloquently in the finale of the third season, "Family don't end with blood, boy." And yet despite this - or perhaps because of it, for who would not be startled and afraid to see a loved one arise from the grave - the first thing he does when he sees Dean is attack him with a knife. Dean responds in kind, returning the fight with his fists. This continues until Dean has wrested the knife from Bobby and purposefully cuts himself.
This same scene magically repeats itself when Dean sees Sam for the first time. Sam, too, does not know what to do upon seeing Dean alive and thus attacks him with a knife. This time Bobby helps Dean with the fisticuffs, but it is still an act of personal violence upon the person whom, I can say with little reservation, Dean loves most in the world. In fact, Dean is not rejoicing at being out of hell because he is fearing for the state of his brother's soul. And the first thing they do when they see one another is get into a fist/knife fight.
Then comes the fight with the demonically possessed waitress. However, Dean does not slap her because she gave him bad service. In fact, before he visits personal violence upon her person she says, "I'll drag you back to Hell myself," and, "I'm going to reach down your throat and rip out your lungs." And then Dean slaps her twice.
Lastly, Dean does personal violence upon the angel Castiel. He and Bobby both shoot him, but it has been suggested to me that this is not personal violence and shouldn't be dissected here. But he also stabs Castiel with Ruby's demon killing knife. Dean doesn't just want to kill Castiel's body or insult him or bruise him; Dean wants to kill Castiel's soul. Even in the Supernatural world, that's big. Dean's not playing with Castiel. He wants him dead and forgotten.
Now I've written before that I don't like treating demons (or, now, angels) as though they are gendered by their meatsuits/vessels. The demon possessing that waitress could well be male gendered even though his body is currently female sexed. But as most of the people who inspired this meta are treating it one way, I am willing to treat this situation as one of Dean doing personal violence upon male and female bodies.
In this episode, 25% of the personal violence Dean does is upon female bodies and 75% of the violence Dean does is upon male bodies. 50% of the personal violence Dean does is upon loved ones. 25% is done upon angels, 25% is done upon demons, and 50% is done upon humans (for the purposes of my current knowledge, both Sam and Bobby are human). The only unprovoked personal violence Dean does is upon the angel Castiel who is currently inhabited a meatsuit/vessel which appears to be male sexed. Castiel, from what research I have been able to do, is also male gendered. The most frantic of the personal violence which Dean does is upon Castiel who is, to my knowledge, both male sexed and gendered.
Now I will examine the situation with the possessed waitress, which has distressed many. The waitress threatens Dean with two very real threats, "I'll drag you back to Hell myself," and, "I'm going to reach down your throat and rip out your lungs." Dean has just now returned from Hell, a place where, presumably, no one goes willingly. Even Sam, who is sociopathically calm in a later scene with the same demon, is ready to attack the waitress when she threatens to return Dean to hell.
Wondering if perhaps I was reacting violently myself to these threats, which are both gruesome and no doubt frightening to Dean, I consulted an outside source. Our conversation went as follows:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chasingtides: "If you were threatened with actually being dragged to hell and then having your lungs pulled out of your mouth, is hitting the person threatening you reasonable?"
una__sola: "No.
It's not nearly extreme enough."
To be quite frank, I realised I agreed with this. Really, the demon wearing this women isn't just threatening Dean's life, though she is with the second threat; she is threatening his soul. By returning to life, Dean has received a second chance. He doesn't have to go to hell and he doesn't have to become a demon. He no longer has to become what he hates and pray that someone kills him quickly. Well. Damn. That's a good deal. But this demon is threatening to take all of that away. That warrants more than a few slaps.
Also, I have slapped people (okay one guy) like that in a fight. It is one of the most ineffective maneuvers out there. This is why I only used it once. It is very wimpy and pointless. Mostly, your hand stings and maybe their cheek turns pink. This is not a drastic level of violence.
Finally, I will close with a few thoughts on violence against female bodies in media. If I am going to an action movie where the hero has a big ole machine gun and is shooting everyone, I expect women to be shot. If the hero - or villain - purposefully only kills men, then that is sexism in media. If the hero - or villain - only kills women, this too is sexism in media. If the hero - or villain - kills both men and women, that is equality.
There is real violence against women in the world. I do not doubt this. I know and love women who have survived it. I myself have survived it. But when someone hates or hurts or hits people of any and all gender, class, race, or other subdivision of humanity, it doesn't mean that they are being sexist, classist, racist, or subscribing to any other "ism" of the world. It means that they are hateful or hurtful or violent. Period. End of story.
Now, if you don't want to watch a show about a violent person, I'm not sure why you're watching TV. But that's an issue for another day.
I like Dean a lot. Probably, partially, because he also hits things.
Now, I've seen around the internet that it seems that a lot of people don't like Dean hitting things. They say that he likes to pick on women. That's he's mean to women. That he's written as a misogynist.
Well, thinks I, I am not so sure about that. I hit women, but I don't think of myself as a misogynist for a variety of reasons, but partially because I also hit men.
So, I decided to analyze exactly who Dean hits in Lazarus Rising.
If we set aside the opening montage of season three as irrelevant to this meta and focus upon Dean's acts of personal violence against others, we can look at four separate incidents of such personal violence in Lazarus Rising. The first is Dean's fist/knife fight with Bobby; the second, his fist/knife fight with Sam; the third, his slapping of the possessed waitress; and the fourth, his attack upon the angel Castiel.
Bobby, as Dean expresses in this self-same episode, is the closest thing Dean has to a father. Presumably, this works the other way (and I am taking a cue from Bobby's new drinking habit as well) and Bobby feels that Sam and Dean are the closest things he has to sons. As he said so eloquently in the finale of the third season, "Family don't end with blood, boy." And yet despite this - or perhaps because of it, for who would not be startled and afraid to see a loved one arise from the grave - the first thing he does when he sees Dean is attack him with a knife. Dean responds in kind, returning the fight with his fists. This continues until Dean has wrested the knife from Bobby and purposefully cuts himself.
This same scene magically repeats itself when Dean sees Sam for the first time. Sam, too, does not know what to do upon seeing Dean alive and thus attacks him with a knife. This time Bobby helps Dean with the fisticuffs, but it is still an act of personal violence upon the person whom, I can say with little reservation, Dean loves most in the world. In fact, Dean is not rejoicing at being out of hell because he is fearing for the state of his brother's soul. And the first thing they do when they see one another is get into a fist/knife fight.
Then comes the fight with the demonically possessed waitress. However, Dean does not slap her because she gave him bad service. In fact, before he visits personal violence upon her person she says, "I'll drag you back to Hell myself," and, "I'm going to reach down your throat and rip out your lungs." And then Dean slaps her twice.
Lastly, Dean does personal violence upon the angel Castiel. He and Bobby both shoot him, but it has been suggested to me that this is not personal violence and shouldn't be dissected here. But he also stabs Castiel with Ruby's demon killing knife. Dean doesn't just want to kill Castiel's body or insult him or bruise him; Dean wants to kill Castiel's soul. Even in the Supernatural world, that's big. Dean's not playing with Castiel. He wants him dead and forgotten.
Now I've written before that I don't like treating demons (or, now, angels) as though they are gendered by their meatsuits/vessels. The demon possessing that waitress could well be male gendered even though his body is currently female sexed. But as most of the people who inspired this meta are treating it one way, I am willing to treat this situation as one of Dean doing personal violence upon male and female bodies.
In this episode, 25% of the personal violence Dean does is upon female bodies and 75% of the violence Dean does is upon male bodies. 50% of the personal violence Dean does is upon loved ones. 25% is done upon angels, 25% is done upon demons, and 50% is done upon humans (for the purposes of my current knowledge, both Sam and Bobby are human). The only unprovoked personal violence Dean does is upon the angel Castiel who is currently inhabited a meatsuit/vessel which appears to be male sexed. Castiel, from what research I have been able to do, is also male gendered. The most frantic of the personal violence which Dean does is upon Castiel who is, to my knowledge, both male sexed and gendered.
Now I will examine the situation with the possessed waitress, which has distressed many. The waitress threatens Dean with two very real threats, "I'll drag you back to Hell myself," and, "I'm going to reach down your throat and rip out your lungs." Dean has just now returned from Hell, a place where, presumably, no one goes willingly. Even Sam, who is sociopathically calm in a later scene with the same demon, is ready to attack the waitress when she threatens to return Dean to hell.
Wondering if perhaps I was reacting violently myself to these threats, which are both gruesome and no doubt frightening to Dean, I consulted an outside source. Our conversation went as follows:
chasingtides: "If you were threatened with actually being dragged to hell and then having your lungs pulled out of your mouth, is hitting the person threatening you reasonable?"una__sola: "No.It's not nearly extreme enough."
To be quite frank, I realised I agreed with this. Really, the demon wearing this women isn't just threatening Dean's life, though she is with the second threat; she is threatening his soul. By returning to life, Dean has received a second chance. He doesn't have to go to hell and he doesn't have to become a demon. He no longer has to become what he hates and pray that someone kills him quickly. Well. Damn. That's a good deal. But this demon is threatening to take all of that away. That warrants more than a few slaps.
Also, I have slapped people (okay one guy) like that in a fight. It is one of the most ineffective maneuvers out there. This is why I only used it once. It is very wimpy and pointless. Mostly, your hand stings and maybe their cheek turns pink. This is not a drastic level of violence.
Finally, I will close with a few thoughts on violence against female bodies in media. If I am going to an action movie where the hero has a big ole machine gun and is shooting everyone, I expect women to be shot. If the hero - or villain - purposefully only kills men, then that is sexism in media. If the hero - or villain - only kills women, this too is sexism in media. If the hero - or villain - kills both men and women, that is equality.
There is real violence against women in the world. I do not doubt this. I know and love women who have survived it. I myself have survived it. But when someone hates or hurts or hits people of any and all gender, class, race, or other subdivision of humanity, it doesn't mean that they are being sexist, classist, racist, or subscribing to any other "ism" of the world. It means that they are hateful or hurtful or violent. Period. End of story.
Now, if you don't want to watch a show about a violent person, I'm not sure why you're watching TV. But that's an issue for another day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Actually, when they are male, I usually do. When I don't call them dick.
or are you just pointing the finger at a television show because they can't point it back?
Naa, I'm doing it because Joss Whedon did it first (http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271) and I have to blindly follow somebody else's standards.
And I think I should leave now before
From:
no subject
However, Actually, when they are male, I usually do.
So you wouldn't have had an issue with me, a woman, calling my former roommates "skanky bitch whores who deserve to burn in hell"? (I think those were my exact words, but I was a little upset at the time so I can't quite remember). But if I were a man, you'd call me a misogynist?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Pretty much. But if you'd been a bleached blonde slut with a low GPA (who spent all her time in high school bullying the shy geeky girls to deal better with her own inferiority complex) instead of a liberal women's college graduate I might have just said, "look who's talking, bitch".
From:
no subject
That is... so beyond hypocritical. Because when I called my roommates "skanky bitch whores who deserved to burn in hell with their gonorrhea" I was being worse than Dean is when he calls Ruby a "black-eyed skank", even if I am a violent, intelligent, queer, proud, liberal member of a women's college. I meant every word that I said in the worst way possible and was digging through my brain to find the worst insults I could find. I insulted their gender, the sexual activities, their health, their attitudes... everything. And I find it absolutely appalling that it would be considered okay for me to do that, but that if my brother did, you would insult him.
Double standards are never okay.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I simply don't believe one can be misogynist or misandric towards one's own gender (well, unless one is very bitter and has huge self-esteem issues). The way I understand these words, they imply one thinks the gender in question is inferior, morally questionable, and whatnot, based on nothing but genetics - and that way of thinking is something one usually doesn't apply to oneself and conclusively, as we happen to have one, one's very own gender. When a girl calls another girl a slut, that usually means she has issues with her behavior. When a guy calls a girl a slut, it's often fair to assume his belief system isn't based on male/female equality and he is, in fact, exercising double standards. Of course, that's true vice versa for misandric behavior and name-calling.
Phew. Man, this is intellectually stimulating but kind of exhausting... OTOH, it's almost 9pm over here.
From:
no subject
Okay. I'm trying to come up with a polite, rational response to your comment and I'm having a lot of trouble with that. I am also not seeing anything ironic about your previous comment. Please, do let me know what I'm missing.
One can, indeed, think that one's own gender is faulty, inferior, morally questionable, etc. Just as a homosexual can be homophobic, a man can be misandric and a woman can be a misogynist. You yourself told me that you would have treat me differently if I were "a bleached blonde slut with a low GPA." Well, I am naturally blonde and have bleached it; I have slept with a small variety of people; my GPA is not exactly what it could be. None of those nullify anything else about me.
I do think it is a horrible double standard that I am allowed to call women "skanky whore bitches who deserve to burn in hell with their gonorrhea" and you're allowed to make broad statements about women with certain sexual and hair preferences and yet men (and other women) aren't allowed to make the same statements because, as you said, we're "liberal women's college graduate[s]" so we're allowed to do as we want and not as we say.
Uh uh. That shit doesn't fly. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. When I was having problems with my roommates, you can be damn sure that my father and brother called my roommates the same names that I did when I called them in frightened tears. That doesn't mean they think that all women are inferior or morally questionable. It means that they thought those women are inferior or morally questionable at the time. When I call a man a dick or an asshole or a son of a bitch or fucking fuck fucker, I am not thinking, "All men are inferior to women," I am thinking, "Shit, that guy is a dick/asshole/son of a bitch/fucking fuck fucker."
I've seen women who enact the sexist gender stereotypes. Case in point, a women last week told me that ads that include mountain bikes and hiking are geared for men because no woman likes sports like that. That would be a woman being sexist against women. Hell, men can be, similarly, sexist against men, as when later that evening a man told me that pink was for girls because no men like the colour. I know men who like pink.
From:
no subject
*cries* No, I was being ironic. That's the first thing I said in the above comment-- that I would not treat you differently. I thought that statement was so drastic that it couldn't possibly be taken as serious. Clearly, my way of talking is getting lost in the online translation. Bleh.
One can, indeed, think that one's own gender is faulty, inferior, morally questionable, etc. Just as a homosexual can be homophobic, a man can be misandric and a woman can be a misogynist.
Well, I disagree. I also don't think people are generally racist towards their own heritage (unless they've reached a pathological level of bitterness or self-esteem issues which I don't believe to be the norm)-- if somebody says, "you're not funny" and I reply, "well, my parents are German", that's self-deprecating humor to me. If I say, "I'm not funny" and somebody from the UK replies, "well, your parents are German", I'd be offended.
as you said, we're "liberal women's college graduate[s]"
Except where I said that I'm not a women's college graduate.
From:
no subject
As for your ethnic heritage bit... When I went to an inner city Catholic school, we all mocked each other's heritages. I would call someone a dumb Polack and he'd call me a drunk Mic and it was all okay. We knew that we were playing with stereotypes and sometimes we meant it, sometimes we were mad, but it was a playing field. Now, when I got to college, people told me that obviously I drank a lot and had to watch out for the "paddywagon" on the basis of my name. I got furious. Sure, when I see my Polish friends at home (or French or Italian), I'll still tease them. But when the people told at college used ethnic slurs at me, I wasn't allowed to do the same to them - then I'd be insulting their entire ethnic heritage and they'd been persecuted, didn't I know? But it was okay for them do that to me. Some of them were (partially) Irish. But I wasn't allowed to touch on the other parts of their heritage.
I think that sex is a lot like heritage. Sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's not, but it's better when it's an even playing field. And yeah, plenty of people in this world honestly hate themselves.
From:
no subject
No, it merely means I'm aware that this particular type of response exists and is very common. The rest is an assumption on your part.
And yeah, plenty of people in this world honestly hate themselves.
True. Yet, I'm optimistic-- I don't believe self-hate to be the norm.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
We're just trying to help you see the light, BB! GO TOWARDS THE LIGHT!