From Ask Ausiello ...

[apocalypsos]

The italics are mine.

Question: As much as the female fans of Supernatural seem to hate the idea, I think that Bella and Ruby added a nice dynamic last season. Will the show's writers ever stand up to the fans and give at least one of the brothers and ongoing love interest? -- Jeff
Ausiello: Not if they value their life. And based on Eric Kripke's response to this question, I'm guessing they do. "The most dangerous job in Hollywood is to be the recurring female lead on Supernatural," Kripke laughs. "No, the formula in terms of romance that really has proven to work best for us is a girl in every port. Not that there’s not ongoing characters. But there are going to be recurring female characters threaded in and out of the story, and they will affect the storylines. But just to have them in sort of passive love interest roles is something that hasn’t really worked."

Oh, faaaaaabulous. I'm part of THAT fandom.

*headdesk*

(Not that I didn't know, but ... you know, past Kripke's lips, it sounds even worse.)

Comments

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Just poppin' in - word to everything! I like my shows as gen as possible. If I want to see romance, I read a Harlequin. I want to see the Winchesters kick butts and solve cases, not pine after some glorified chick!

And I felt the same about Xena and Gabrielle. Male love interests totally screwed up the whole chemistry. No, just no.

Woo for Kripke for finally not showing another "I'm definitely not love interest" female down our throats!

[telaryn.livejournal.com]

I want to see the Winchesters kick butts and solve cases, not pine after some glorified chick!

Would you agree that it's possible to land somewhere between the two, though? After her introduction - which I think was a brilliant tweak on the fans - I never got the impression that Ruby was considered any sort of potential love interest (or *non* interest, as the case may be).

She did serve the plot, however. As did Ellen in previous seasons.

Bela? Bela was a bit more problematical. I think she *was* intended as an eventual hate!sex partner for Dean, but poor planning and the writer's strike screwed her character.

Personally I think it's far more unrealistic to think that these boys have *nothing* but Barbie-like damsels in distress in their lives. We're veering dangerously close to "bitches and whores" territory now and I really don't see that the show has benefited from the change.

YMMV, natch.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. I don't want them to bring in a love interest either -- I want them to bring in a female character whose primary service is to the plot, not the boys' sex lives.

The writers might have problems writing women, but they succeed more often than not when they don't intend the character in question as a potential love interest.

[katikat.livejournal.com]

The problem is that they don't know how to write a strong female without turning their main characters into blabbing idiots. And rather than to see Sam and Dean reduced to a gorilla IQ once more, I would prefer no girls.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Ellen but she, on the other hand, was not young enough for the network's liking. So yeah.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

See, I'm the total opposite. I would rather they have girls, even if they're going to screw them up at first, because it's either they write them and learn how to fix their mistakes or they don't write them and it's this sexist masculine landscape that gets harder to tolerate over time.

And it especially squicks me because if they don't bring in recurring female characters who are on the boys' side, we're currently saddled with Lilith as the only female character (as long as she comes back). Meaning that it's a bunch of men fighting one big bitch.

[katikat.livejournal.com]

The thing is that I don't find the show sexist at all. I love it exactly that way. And I don't understand that gabble about misogyny at all. Dean is very respectful to women - who deserve it like Ellen or Missouri or his mom or Carmen etc. Why should he pull back just because his adversary is a woman? Would he pull back if she was a man? When equality, then in everything and not only where it suits the women.

And about the writers learning to write females - sure, they should learn but not on a show that they ruin with their failed attempts. For me, only a half of S3 was watchable because of the introduction of Bela. Ruby I could take. She was a demon and for me basically genderless even if her meat suit was female. Demon is a demon is a demon.

[allthelivesofme.livejournal.com]

Dean is very respectful to women - who deserve it

But that's the thing. It's not a matter of, "If you're one of thewomen I like I won't use sexist insults against you."

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Let's turn it - "If you are one of the women I don't like I will insult you?"

[allthelivesofme.livejournal.com]

Insult is one thing. *Sexist* insult is another.

Equality would be a man committing a deathworthy offense and being greeted with, "I'm going to kill you, you asshole." Woman doing the same thing, also greeted with, "I'm going to kill you, you asshole."

Sexism would be telling the woman, "I'm going to kill you, you slut."

[bunnymcfoo.livejournal.com]

See, this comment makes me happy. Thank you.

[allthelivesofme.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! Just checked out your LJ since you seem pretty cool, and apparently you're a fellow JDM fan. Hee. Mind if I add you?

[bunnymcfoo.livejournal.com]

I've been sitting here for like, fuck, half an hour or so just staring at your comment, debating on whether or not I should respond to you.

Do you really not see anything at all wrong with the idea that some women deserve respect (and that the ones you list are essentially the ones in nurturing roles, but that's a whole OTHER disuccsion), and some women don't deserve respect? You don't see anything problematic with the fact that although Ruby was "basically genderless even if her meat suit was female. Demon is a demon is a demon" a significant percentage of the insults that Dean slung at her were gender-based?

[katikat.livejournal.com]

No, I have no problem with it at all. There are women who deserve respect and women who don't. There are men who deserve respect and men who don't. Does it make me a sexist? Probably. Is it sexist from a man to call a woman a skank but not from a woman to call a man a dick?

[bunnymcfoo.livejournal.com]

Yes. Yes it is, in my opinion. Sexism, like racism, implies privilege + power. You can be bigoted or biased or what have you, but you cannot be sexist towards men if you're a woman, and you cannot be racist towards white people if you're a minority.


All that aside, you admitted that Ruby wasn't a woman, rather zie is genderless demon in a female body. If that's the case, why is it appropriate EVER to call zir a gender related insult?

[allthelivesofme.livejournal.com]

*hugs you*

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Would you agree that it's possible to land somewhere between the two, though?

It's very very rare. On SPN, the only female character slash love interest that I liked was Sarah from S1. And S1 was also the best season. No Jo, no Ruby, no Bela and Meg in only a handful of episodes. I watch the show for Sam and Dean. If I want to see females, I will go and watch Ghost Whisperer.

And it's not just SPN. I think the same of Stargate Atlantis or NCIS and those are ensemble shows with female characters and I still dislike any lovey-dovey ships there.

I have yet to see a young recurring female character that isn't a bitch on SPN. Jo was a little miss know it all. Bela... okay, I won't even start about that *shudders* And Ruby was a demon and demon is a demon regardless of their sex.

I want to see a strong female character that can banter and bicker with the Winchesters on equal terms - Ruby came closest to it. She called Dean a dick, he called her a skank and didn't become all tongue-tied like when Bela kept insulting him.

That's the difference between Bela on SPN and Larrin on SGA - Bela always, always, always one-upped the Winchesters, there was no balance whereas Larrin pushed and Sheppard shoved back and she pushed again and he shoved again. They were on equal terms and that's always important if you don't want to turn your main character into an idiot on regular basis.

No, I would prefer no love interests at all than another ruined season of half-hearted attempts like Jo or Bela.

[tinylegacies.livejournal.com]

I watch the show for Sam and Dean. If I want to see females, I will go and watch Ghost Whisperer.

That's a rather sexist and demeaning statement, IMO.

I've caught maybe a half an episode of Ghost Whisperer once and I don't think that the show compares in ANY way to Supernatural.

I want to see a strong female character that can banter and bicker with the Winchesters on equal terms

Really? Cause about two paragraphs before that you said you didn't want females at all. So which is it?

[katikat.livejournal.com]

That's a rather sexist and demeaning statement, IMO.

Then I'm sexist and proud of it.

It's not about men or women, it's about the characters I want and want not see. On SPN, I want to see Sam and Dean. On Xena, I wanted to see Xena and Gabrielle. On X Files, I wanted to see Mulder and Scully. SPN has a bad history of young Barbie characters disrupting the whole chemistry of the show and that's why I don't care about them and I would prefer for the writers to hone their writing skills in the female department somewhere else.

So which is it?

I don't mind girls per se. I mind them when they are badly written and the SPN writers didn't convince me that they can write a competent young female character yet. As I said, I liked Sarah but of course, that one was buried in S1. I liked Ellen but she was too old for the CW. Give me the SPN version of Starbuck and I will cheer. But I do not want another Jo or Bela and obviously that's the level of writing skills the writers have where recurring characters are concerned and I don't want a repeat of S3.

[tinylegacies.livejournal.com]

There is a HUGE difference between saying "I want to see Sam and Dean" and "If I wanted to see girls, I'd watch Ghost Whisperer".

I like the Sam & Dean dynamic. I definitely preferred S1 and S2 when the focus was on the "monster-of-the-week" stories and not an over-arching storyline.

But all shows need a good supporting cast and I think that cast should include females and males.

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Yes, they do need a supporting cast, the accent being on supporting, popping up three times a season, not every other episode. But why do all shows need to be a carbon copy of each other, having men and women in everything? This is a show about two men so what? Xena was a show about two women.

[tinylegacies.livejournal.com]

I've never been into Xena, but from what I've gathered from fannish osmosis, there were several male recurring characters.

In life, people tend to meet folks of all genders/sexual persuasions/races/etc. I, personally, would like to see that reflected in my entertainment.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

But why do all shows need to be a carbon copy of each other, having men and women in everything?

Because that's the way the world is? If Sam and Dean interacted with men all the time and women only in passing, it's unrealistic. Citing Xena doesn't help. Joxer, Ares, Iolaus, Salmoneus ... I didn't even watch that show on a regular basis and I can name more than one recurring male character who interacted with Xena and Gabrielle on a regular basis, not just one or two episodes a season.

[katikat.livejournal.com]

more than one recurring male character who interacted with Xena and Gabrielle on a regular basis

Yes, and good a half of them was portrayed as idiots? Brave idiots but still idiots?

[bunnymcfoo.livejournal.com]

That's a total straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument), just so you know.


How they were portrayed really doesn't matter. They were there, they were there on a regular basis, and even if we DO look at your argument seriously, that means that half of them were portrayed as NOT being brave idiots. That's balance. I wouldn't mind so much if half the women on SPN were portrayed in ways that weren't flattering or were downright problematic, because that would mean that (a)there would be women on the show and (b)there were women on the show who WERE portrayed in non-problematic ways. Which would be better than they're being portrayed now, and would therefore be a win.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Also realism. Not everybody's smart, and not everybody's a coward.