The Radical Notion That Women Are People Too: Sexism Among SPN Fans

[chasingtides]

Sexism in Supernatural, and its ensuing debate, is old news. I wrote my own meta, drawing on my experiences as a hardened horror fan, about it in September, Why Supernatural Is Like The Evil Dead. However, today, in light of what has happened with Misha Collins and his character, Castiel, I might revise that original opinion, I regret to say. More on that later.

Despite the talk about the show itself being sexist, I've never seen anyone look specifically at the sexism and misogyny present among the primarily female fans. Taking a number of things into consideration, from what has happened with Misha Collins and Castiel to the recent wank about an actor's girlfriend daring to exist, I think it's high time that someone did.

If you watched the embedded video above, you watched three actors from the show (Misha Collins, Jensen Ackles, and Jared Padalecki) and their interviewer discuss the blatant sexism in the fandom. I, for one, am embarrassed that I fall, broadly, into the same category as these misogynists.

A quick perusal of Fandom Wank (a source, which, while wanky, is a great place to find an overview of the worst of any fandom) shows us people in this fandom getting upset over (and at) women for years. We get gems like (2007-2-19) fans going after women (ex girlfriends) associated with the actors, (2007-7-12) fans getting angry that two women (Bela and Ruby) would appear in season three, (2007-11-16) people getting angry that an underage actress dares to drink and put the show into disrepute, (2008-1-21) someone is called out for bashing (literally) women in her fanfiction, and (2009-3-31) people getting angry that an actor's girlfriend exists.

Television Without Pity and its associated forums also carry their own anti-female baggage. Ruby is known as Gluby (a name smush, I have been told, of Glinda - of good witch fame - and Ruby). Of Ruby, people write things like, "I'm not going to cheer just because the character wore an expression, for once," "She tries to tell us that she is into the method acting. I wish she wasn't. You really need a talent to transfer it from your mind to outside, in her case she only stuffs her head with wild ideas," "That scene gave off way too many Ruby is too speshul to kill vibes for me," and, "What I saw was that they know about her and are waiting for her to have enough rope to hang herself." It continues with the other women. Anna gets, "It's the casting and the acting that makes Anna into such a wasted opportunity," and Jo gets, "I think if she'd been played by someone who actually looked like an adult, the character would have been far less irritating." although one fan adds, "if she were to come back as a hunter, an ally and possibly kill Gluby once and for all, I'd throw her a parade."

I debated naming names, but why should I hesitate? If you think I have interpreted your posts/language/fanfiction/meta wrongly, feel free to let me know. I am only human. If we have a discussion and you show me that I am wrong, I will change this.

The fans on LiveJournal aren't any better than the TWoP fans.

huntress69 bashes, sometimes literally, the female characters in her fiction. I remember, quite vividly, being new to fandom and reading the fic in which Sam drugs Cassie and buries her alive to keep her away from Dean. Cassie appeared in one episode in season one and was never mentioned again. I don't mean to suggest that huntress69 is unique by naming her. She is not, by any means. She is merely someone I remember clearly. Consider her an example of a genre, rather than a unique outlier.

dean_sam gets more than its share of misogyny, one of the reasons I took it off my flist. spnstoryfinders periodically gets requests for fics bashing female characters. There's the impression, in many communities, and even in personal journals, that one must clarify why or how one likes a female character. "I like Jo, but not as a love interest." "I like Ruby, but not when she was snarky."

In addition, Misha Collins threw a monkey wrench into our sexist habits. He, in my mind, takes away our excuses, negates our ability to turn a blind eye to our own internalised hatred. Before, we were able to say, "Oh, they hate anyone who takes away from Sam and Dean." If Misha is to be believed in his interviews, the Powers that Be said the same thing. They warned him that, as a guest star, he would be reviled. Instead, he has become beloved. I know. I co-mod mishaland, a rapidly growing caplock community devoted to him. And yet, we continue to revile the female characters and actresses. TPTB listened to our hatred and to our outcries. Misha Collins will be returning next season as Castiel, something that no female guest star has done. Yes, this is sexism on the part of TPTB who shouldn't do this. But the blame falls to us - we are the ones who raised the hue and cry. We are the ones who demanded to be heard.

Do I blame Misha Collins for this? No. No more than I blame Alona Tal for the fact that Jo, my personal hero, has not returned to the show. No more than I blame Kate Cassidy for being replaced by Genevieve Cortese. This blame falls to us.

This also creates a problematic binary in the fandom. Either you are for the women or you are against the women. It becomes difficult to dislike a character or an actress and not be painted with the same brush as those who have Cassie buried alive. I, for one, am not a fan of Genevieve Cortese and her Ruby. However, I greatly hesitate to say that, though I love many other female characters who have graced the screen, for saying that I find Cortese's acting to be flat is tantamount to misogyny.

This false binary is just as unfair as the great misogyny. We are, contrary to popular belief, allowed to dislike characters based on what their characters do and don't do. (I, for one, find the whole demon blood drinking bit to be more stomach turning than anything else in the show, probably for cultural signifiers.)

It also grows difficult to separate the characters from the fandom. Is Castiel, and his actor by extension, a part of the clamor of fans who love him and slam the women, presumably on the value of what's between their legs? Is Ruby, and her actress by extension, a part of the crowd that labels you sexist if you suggest that you don't like her acting? Or can we accept the characters as separate from that? Are we able to separate the actors from their characters? Does it all blend into a giant ball of hatred, anger, and wank?

I don't know the answer to this. I know that I am becoming more and more selective in the communities I read and erring ever closer to going exclusively capslock, though it seems almost irrational to go to capslock communities to avoid hatred and irrationality to an outsider. I become hesitant in friending people. I also hesitated to write this meta. I know that it will cause problems. I've been planning this for months, but it was seeing the YouTube video that spurred me on.

Whatever the answers are, whatever reasons we have or don't have, this has got to have an ending point. We are women tearing down women. We are calling women whores and sluts and worse, for what? Daring to grace our television screens? Most of these women kick ass and take names. For the most part, they're awesome (Bela's backstory and Ruby's current apparent subservience aside). Why can't we, as presumably awesome women ourselves, appreciate that?

Comments

[mresundance.livejournal.com]

I have little to add except: yes, this.

The show itself is pretty sexist at points. But the way the fans contribute to it is appalling. They never seem happy with any female character, regardless of how smart and competent she is. Jo interferes too much with the boys so she has to go. Nevermind that she's smart, sassy, and has a natural talent for hunting. Bella outfoxes them and makes them look like chumps (and rightly so), so she's a "bitch" and has to go. Nevermind that she's savvy, self-motivated and independent and no damsel in distress.

Ruby is too "mean" when Cassidy played her (ie, a bitch, again), and has to go. Nevermind that she is a seriously badass women and seriously awesome in her moral ambiguities. Cortese's Ruby is too "flat" so she has to go. Never mind that she is still pretty awesome and her ambiguities are now all over the place.

Nothing that the writers can do will ever please some members of fandom. I am not always happy with the women characters - particularly if Sera Gamble writes them. She seems to write some of the weirdest, most contradictory and unrealistic women of the series (women who attempt to come off as "empowered" but then just end up being relegated to "Winchester sex conquest" kind of status, or "damsel in distress"; blargh). But, yes. Fandom is a big ol' chunk of it. It is not just Mr. Kripke or Sera or the producers or whatnot.

[pandarus.livejournal.com]

Aw, your ICON. I don't think Joss is quite as Feminist as he thinks he is, but I still think he fucking rocks.

[mresundance.livejournal.com]

. . .

Feminists are only human, and, having been raised in a sexist society, are prone to the same pitfalls as anyone. I don't know why we have to prove any more than a sincere desire for change, even if, in the process, we have a lot to learn about how that change can and should take place.

I try not to judge other feminists or try to measure them (more or less feminist), seeing as how people seem to think it's alright for them to determine what makes other people more or less feminist.

It's OT, but I'm actually annoyed by how willingly people question Joss' feminist creds since Dollhouse started. They can't seem to get the notion that creative work which discusses the human experience (and humans are flawed) doesn't necessarily lend itself automatically to a "feminist agenda". I'm a feminist but in my own work it would be an error to kowtow to a strictly feminist agenda, if only because the limitations of feminism create issues, namely, that I'd be lying to my audience about how people can and are sexist jerks, that women and men do buy into sexist ways of thinking and perpetuate sexism, and that sexism is a part of the culture many experience in this world.

Additionally, I wonder if people feel like nitpicking Joss' feminism cuz he's a guy, in a way they rarely nitpick the feminism of someone like Gloria Steinem. (Unless, you sit around with radical feminists all day and let them sermonize until your brain turns to putty. I like radical feminists and sometimes am one, but they can be too intense for prolonged exposure.)

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

As a self-avowed feminist, I have plenty of issues with Joss' feminism that didn't start with the Dollhouse, though Dollhouse is a *huge* stumbling block for me. (I wrote a meta, This Isn't My Feminist Hat, about my issues with Dollhouse if you want an in-depth look at them.)

I think it's good thing for people to look strongly at Joss's supposed feminism. I've seen plenty of feminist discussion in the SPN fandom regarding Sera Gamble, so I don't think it's a gender thing. I think there are a lot of flaws in Joss's feminism and I've seen those flaws since I watched Buffy and I hesitate to simply write them off as, "Oh, well, the world has sexist jerks."

[mresundance.livejournal.com]

I agree with you to an extent. I would never call Sera Gamble a feminist though. I don't care if she thinks she is, either.

But I'm not saying one should write it off as "the world has sexist jerks" at all, thanks. I'm saying that people are expecting Joss will have a certain outlook or provide certain representations of women and sexism just becuase he's a feminist. And I'm saying: uh, no. He's a writer and a creative person. His work does not owe feminism or feminist ideology ANYTHING, if it means he has to sacrifice some measure of being more or less honest about what he sees in the human experience or is trying to get a certain point across which may be explicitly anti feminist in many people's eyes, but uh, that was the point.

I tire of feminists thinking that a story must be XYZ qualifications to prove either the author or the text sufficiently "feminist", while ignoring the huge narrative, thematic and character-driven reasons an author made certain choices which may be seen as questionable. It's putting blinders on to a process and picking and choosing things on the basis of a very limited point of view and thus, allowing feminism to set limits rather than challenge limits. Which, to my mind, is counterproductive.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I also think that claiming a word doesn't mean that you have, though.

I know I'm in the unpopular minority, but there are a lot (a LOT) of feminist issues with most of Joss' works. Dollhouse has more, from the few episodes I watched, female and consent issues than Supernatural. There were similar issues in Buffy and Firefly. I have issues with Dr Horrible.

I wouldn't say that Joss is not a feminist. But I do think that saying we can't analyse his work and find it wanting is a problematic stance. If anything, I grow to have progressively more issues with his work as time goes on and I find that to be problematic as well. My opinion derives partially, I admit, from how loudly fan laud him, but also from how many issues I have with his work.

I have no way of knowing Joss Whedon the man. I cannot speak to him as a person. I can speak to his works, however, and I find them wanting. I don't think this makes me a bad feminist. I think this makes me a person capable of analysis.

This is not to say that I hold it against friends who like his works more than I do. Hardly. My best friend - also a feminist - loves Dollhouse. We've discussed why we hold two opposite stances on the subject. She doesn't hold it against me that I would like the show to be cancelled and I don't hold it against her that she loves it. We're totally capable of agreeing to disagree.

[mresundance.livejournal.com]

I also think that claiming a word doesn't mean that you have, though.

A part of me says yes to this and a part of me says no.

The part of me that says yes remembers all these assholes who said they were feminist or progressive, but really just went on to perpetuate sexism all the time. I know plenty of women and men who have done this, or, claimed to be feminists but never examined their homophobia or racism or whatever.

But then the part of me which says no also reminds me that I was like that once: ignorant. And if we split hairs too much about who is what, we risk excluding people who can and will learn new things and become powerful allies. (I am still ignorant, really. It's a process.)

I'm all for laying the smack down on people and critical awareness. I am probably amongst the hyper critically aware. I can see how is work can be problematic on many levels. But I find a lot of arguments about his work and the feminist nature of it incomplete, in fact. As I said, I think that a lot of the arguments ignore other areas of his narratives for the sake of making an argument that may not necessarily hold up if they did take the whole into account. It's picking and choosing rather than looking at the narrative structure and how things fit together as a complete whole.

But yeah, differences of opinion don't make one less or more feminist or whatever. It happens with anything. I have some friends who much more conservative than I, but they are good friends and I respect them greatly even if we disagree on things. We essentially believe in the same things, even if how we believe in accomplishing these things is different.

[pandarus.livejournal.com]

It's not Dollhouse that influences my statement (as I've not seen any of it yet - but I did pick up DVDs yesterday, and am going to give it a crack). Mind you, if we're talking about his body of work I'll admit that I'm slightly troubled by the recurrent theme of the damaged-crazy-hot-(and painfully skinny/fragile)-lethal-brunette in his work. I love the hell out of each incarnation of this theme, but taken as a whole the pattern does squick me a little. (I don't know whether Dollhouse continues to explore this trope, but my impression is that it kinda does). So there's that.

But generally speaking, I think Joss is certainly far and away one of the best bloke writers out there when it comes to gender (and certainly when it comes to writing in general - damn, the guy's witty and creative and has FABULOUS instincts and timing). Race I'd like to see him keep getting better with, but, hey, who isn't that true of in TVland?

No, mostly I'm simply not comfortable generally with men calling themselves feminist. Much as I'm not comfortable with white people calling themselves an 'anti-racist' or 'white ally'. I know other people have a different sense of the words, and are fine with it, but I feel PROFOUNDLY uncomfortable with labelling myself an anti-racist, or a white ally, because I pretty much think the best you can do is keep on trying, and questioning yourself, and trying not to be a dickhead about your areas of privilege, and not assuming that you're magically fixed and bigotry-free, even if you've been cluesticked, and are generally doing well. And if you start awarding yourself badges like 'anti-racist' (or 'feminist', or whatever), then I think right there you're making it easier to rest on your laurels and NOT keep on questioning your assumptions and your privileges.

Clearly YMMV on this one, but that's where I'm coming from. I like the quotation in your icon a lot, and I remember watching him give that speech on Youtube or wherever at the time and being all choked up and "Go Joss! Yeah!" and I still think it's good, but it DOES have a bit of a self-congratulatory note that makes me wince.

(er - it may be relevant that I'm British? Almost painfully so? In an over-the-top Gilesish kind of way? Because culturally I'm very uncomfortable about that whole pat-yourself-on-the-back thing, even when it's for something you DEFINITELY, absolutely, positively do deserve. So if it's for being a good white anti-racist or a nice male feminist, then it makes me squirm. Obviously I'm not saying that all Brits have this perspective, because that's clearly not the case, but I do think my wince-response is tied in with the whole cultural thing about being awkward and embarrassed by the whole "Go me!" mindset.)

[mresundance.livejournal.com]

No, that makes sense and some people are pretty obnoxiously self-congratulatory about their progressiveness. It's like, well, good on you, but that's not why you ought to be into it and all.

Interestingly, I was worried Joss' Equality Now speech would be self indulgent, but I didn't think it was self congratulatory or self indulgent. I thought he quite intelligently noted that what he was doing shouldn't be remarked upon. But that it should be remarked upon and questioned why other men didn't try harder with writing complex (or strong) women characters instead of being complacent. And why people should even ask him why, at all.

Yes. The crazycakes brunette girl trope he has going is maybe troubling. But I think a lot of creative people have their fixations - tropes or ideas which they identify with and explore repeatedly. But maybe he's just a little too into this one . . . ?

Yes on the race thing. Firefly had some issues, particularly with representation of Asian folk, but then, I wonder if that would have remained true had the series continued? Would there have been more Asian folk? Major characters? Etc? It's hard to say since the series was cut short.

Hehehe re: your Giles-esque Britishness. I lived in the UK for a couple years and really liked how reserved people were. As in, not rude and not asking me dumb questions when they didn't even *know* me. Americans can be so blunt and straightforward it's actually irritating to me at times, though, I would have to say I am pretty classic American in my own bluntness.

But back to your first point on men calling themselves feminists or white people calling themselves allies . . . for the longest time I hesistated to call myself feminist as a guy, but I guess I realized my beliefs were feminist and I shouldn't hesistate to say I am a feminist, if it helps to challenge the idea that men can't be a feminist or can't be for gender equality.

Plus, I think owning that reminds me I have to work harder to make sure I'm not trying to pat myself in the back or co-opt discussions or whatnot. That what I do is in the best interest of a whole and not because I want to be told "yay you" today. Not that I succeed all the time. But it's a work in progress thing.