Dean's language can be irritating but it's his behaviour I focus on.
*nods* Of course, there are two questions at play. "Is Dean sexist?" and "Is the show sexist?" I care more about the latter, but even with the former, there's shit like what I mentioned above with the women whom Dean sleeps with always being bystanders rather than rescued innocents. I hate it when a male character rescues a female character and the subtext is that it's the male character right to sleep with the female character and/or the female character is obliged to fall in love with the male character. It's the owing that's damn skeevey.
I'm not so much bothered by the female characters who exist to die tragically to provide motivation (for Sam, especially--Dean has motivation covered, and his girlfriends don't die, even though his mother did) because the boys are straight, and if I were a demon who wanted to turn Sam evil, I'd kill his girlfriends, too. (There are after all factors other than politics that go into stories, like plot, and I think some of the people who criticise SPN do forget that...)
I don't think "Character introduced solely to be slaughtered to motivate main character" is in itself bad, but I dislike how constantly gendered it is, on a macro level. So it goes beyond Supernatural. I will say, though, that it appears that Mary - and, I'm guessing, Jessica - do in fact have more to their stories than their deaths. They still fit the trope, but it's at least something different.
The handling of Ellen even more so--apparently Samantha Ferris is not 'shaggable' enough so she had to be replaced.
I hadn't heard that. I was under the impression that while Ellen was still a part of the story, abiet offscreen at the moment, and was going to show up later in season three. (Kripke said in an interview that they kept trying to work in some exposition about Ellen but that it never felt natural, which is why nothing had been mentioned.)
Ruby I love, Bela not so much, but I can never decide whether the Bela thing is because of TPTB, the writers or just the fact that the character is meant to be irritating. Tell me your thoughts on it, I'm interested.
Well, to start, it seems like Bela was a one-shot character the networks pushed to make series regular. And while I like that the show has two new series regular female characters instead of one, it seems like the writers strugged with fitting Bela into the story as a result.
The biggest problem is that they wrote Bela as a antagonist and then didn't have Dean & Sam react in an organic manner to that, the biggest problems being in "Red Sky at Dawn" and "Dream a Little Dream of Me". However, now that Bela has STOLEN THE COLT, it appears that she's in full-fledged antagonist manner. Personally, I'm pulling for Bela to be in league with Lilith. It fits with the idea that the new demonic female character is an ally (no matter how ambiguous) and the new human female character is an antagonist.
no subject
*nods* Of course, there are two questions at play. "Is Dean sexist?" and "Is the show sexist?" I care more about the latter, but even with the former, there's shit like what I mentioned above with the women whom Dean sleeps with always being bystanders rather than rescued innocents. I hate it when a male character rescues a female character and the subtext is that it's the male character right to sleep with the female character and/or the female character is obliged to fall in love with the male character. It's the owing that's damn skeevey.
I'm not so much bothered by the female characters who exist to die tragically to provide motivation (for Sam, especially--Dean has motivation covered, and his girlfriends don't die, even though his mother did) because the boys are straight, and if I were a demon who wanted to turn Sam evil, I'd kill his girlfriends, too. (There are after all factors other than politics that go into stories, like plot, and I think some of the people who criticise SPN do forget that...)
I don't think "Character introduced solely to be slaughtered to motivate main character" is in itself bad, but I dislike how constantly gendered it is, on a macro level. So it goes beyond Supernatural. I will say, though, that it appears that Mary - and, I'm guessing, Jessica - do in fact have more to their stories than their deaths. They still fit the trope, but it's at least something different.
The handling of Ellen even more so--apparently Samantha Ferris is not 'shaggable' enough so she had to be replaced.
I hadn't heard that. I was under the impression that while Ellen was still a part of the story, abiet offscreen at the moment, and was going to show up later in season three. (Kripke said in an interview that they kept trying to work in some exposition about Ellen but that it never felt natural, which is why nothing had been mentioned.)
Ruby I love, Bela not so much, but I can never decide whether the Bela thing is because of TPTB, the writers or just the fact that the character is meant to be irritating. Tell me your thoughts on it, I'm interested.
Well, to start, it seems like Bela was a one-shot character the networks pushed to make series regular. And while I like that the show has two new series regular female characters instead of one, it seems like the writers strugged with fitting Bela into the story as a result.
The biggest problem is that they wrote Bela as a antagonist and then didn't have Dean & Sam react in an organic manner to that, the biggest problems being in "Red Sky at Dawn" and "Dream a Little Dream of Me". However, now that Bela has STOLEN THE COLT, it appears that she's in full-fledged antagonist manner. Personally, I'm pulling for Bela to be in league with Lilith. It fits with the idea that the new demonic female character is an ally (no matter how ambiguous) and the new human female character is an antagonist.