Extra Note on Supernatural: Sexism and the Fandom

I know that I wrote a lot about the sexism of the show itself, but I didn't touch on the fandom. TV shows are heavily reliant on returning viewers and so the writers watch how the fandom reacts to the introduction of new characters and then deal with the new characters accordingly. If the fans love a character, we're likely to see a lot more of him or her. If the fans hate a character, they will die or leave pretty quickly. This has definitely been a contributing factor to the lack of women on Supernatural. Remember Bela Talbot?

They introduced her and the fans hated her. So they killed her off. (I will admit that she annoyed me too, but I wouldn't necessarily have killed her off.)
And the uproar over the attraction between Meg and Castiel was mostly directed at the character of Meg. Rather than just saying that they felt the relationship was contrived and unimportant, a large part of the fanbase went after Meg. I personally felt that the later Megstiel interaction was a bit of a contrived "no homo" moment given the relative lack of continuous relationship development, but I do love Meg as a character.

He learned that from the Pizza man.

I think that a lot of this hate for female characters is derived from the worry that they will all become romantic interests for Sam, Dean, or Cas and separate one of them from the core storyline of man-pain. Perhaps this is why Charlie is so beloved; her sexual orientation makes her a non-threat to the Sam-Dean relationship or to Destiel.
So while it is true that the show does show some distinct sexism, they are utterly dependent on the support of their fanbase, and that fanbase treats the female characters like shit. Maybe if we treated the women they gave us better, we'd get more women... Let's try that, next time.

Non-exclusionary Casting: Why I love Merlin (so far) [EDITED]

I have started watching the BBC Television drama Merlin and while I am still in the first season I wanted to comment on the racial diversity of the cast. "Whitewashing" is a phenomenon in the entertainment industry in which a character written as a person of color (as in a book to movie adaptation) or previously played by a person of color is portrayed by a white actor. Two recent examples are the casting of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss in The Hunger Games and Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness. The character of Katniss is not described as black, but she is described as having darker coloring. While I think that Jennifer Lawrence was an excellent choice in terms of personality and acting ability, it is possible (although by no means guaranteed!) that her lighter skin was a factor in her casting because it better fits the image we expect from a hero.

The casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan is a trickier issue. The original character of Khan was supposed to originate in southeast Asia. He therefore would be a person of color. Khan was originally portrayed by Ricardo Montalban, who is Mexican and whose skin was artificially darkened with makeup to play the role. The racial question of casting of Benedict Cumberbatch is therefore more complicated. Khan was originally a character of color, but he was played by someone of an entirely different race heavily made up to be darker. (When white people do this, it's called "blackface" and is generally considered so offensive that even playing a part in a movie that requires blackface in historical context is taboo.) And to be clear, Cumberbatch was offered the role in Star Trek only after two other actors who were POC turned it down. The casting department finally made the decision to go for talent over race, which I think is hard to argue with when someone is hiring an actor.

Now, why do I love Merlin? Because it is a show which could easily have uses an all-white cast and had the (relatively) legitimate excuse that the few black people in Arthurian-era Europe would not likely have been found among the knights and servants in Camelot. And Merlin didn't. Instead, the creators of the show decided to make race a relative non-issue and just cast the actors they liked for the parts. I'm only in the first season, but I have seen a black knight of Camelot and of course the lovely Gwen.

That is, the lovely (future, as of season 1) Queen Guinevere Pendragon, wife to Arthur Pendragon. If you think this is no big deal, you're wrong. This is a very big deal precisely because the show treats it as no big deal. They made the Queen a woman of color. I think that counts as the exact opposite of whitewashing and gets the creators and casting directors of Merlin some major points for casually-inserted equality.

Aren't they cute? Hooray for non-exclusionary casting!

A Female Doctor?: No, but that's okay with me!

Peter Capaldi is the 12th Doctor! He's also a man. And I am actually very happy about that.

Welcome, 12!

Why, you may ask, wouldn't you want a woman to be the Doctor? It would be a great opportunity to have a woman as one of the most beloved and respected characters and role models on television. That's very true. A strong, female Doctor would be a fabulous thing. But there are two factors that make me very much okay with this decision: 1) It's okay for a network to not change the gender of a character after their genesis and 2) Moffat. There is no way in hell I want Steven Moffat anywhere a female character with as much importance as the first female Doctor. If he lacks the basic understanding of women necessary to write a companion without resorting to harmful stereotypes, I cringe at what he would make of the Doctor.
Would she suddenly need to be saved by her male companions? Would she be all sex all the time? Or a frigid bitch? How would the inevitable romantic dynamics work?
If Russell T Davies was still running the show, I would say HELL YEAH to a female doctor.

Hello, my name is God.

Unfortunately, we cannot have him back. But we miss his beautiful characters, even if Moffat's plots are better. See why Doctor Who was awesome when Moffat just wrote episodes and Davies got to have input on characters?

There are two things about Peter Capaldi especially that I want to discuss: his previous appearances in the Whoniverse and his age.
Capaldi appeared in "The Fires of Pompeii" in Doctor Who and the entire 3rd season of Torchwood, "Children of Earth." If RTD was in charge, we could count on a passable explanation such as those given for Freema Agyeman and Eve Myles. I don't trust Moffat nearly so much, especially since Capaldi had a major role in Torchwood, but I am willing to keep an open mind.
The other point about Capaldi is his age, which I see as a huge plus. He is 55, the same age as William Hartnell was when he became the very first man to play the Doctor. He is grey-haired and distinguished. Hopefully, this means an end to the weirdly child-like behavior accurately described by River as that of "an ageless god who insists on the face of a twelve-year-old." Also, that means that Capaldi's Doctor will either need older companions or will have platonic relationships with his female companions. Clara Oswin Oswald currently has a very flirty relationship with the 11th Doctor, but Capaldi's age would make that dynamic seem very creepy. Rose may have been much younger than 9 or 10, but they looked younger and Rose was written as a much tougher character, compared to Clara's innocent little girl persona. I want another bromance like the Donna-Ten relationship. (They're my Doctor Who BrOTP.)
So, in summary, I am super excited for Peter Capaldi as the 12th Doctor. I just hope we don't have to wait as long as the Sherlock fandom to get a new season!

Sayonara, Sweeties!

Moffat vs. Kripke: Or why I love Supernatural and feel no shame

If you are on Tumblr, or alive, you have heard of Doctor Who, Sherlock, and Supernatural. The first is a show proclaimed as fun for the whole family and praised for its strong female characters. The second is a modern-day adaptation of Holmes praised for the emotion and relationship between the two main characters. The third is a TV show consistently derided for being a sexist, racist, and possibly homophobic piece of shit. Which one is my favorite?

We love us some (slightly incestuous) man pain, and damn that's some fine plaid!

Why? Because it wears what kind of show it is proudly on its sleeve. The writers may be plagued by recurring bouts of sexism (although a woman was show-runner for a couple of years) but no one starts this show with any illusions. Monster-hunting brothers traveling the country in a classic car. This is a show about manly men, and it will be populated by and pay homage to people with dicks. I got that from the first episode and you know what? As a queer woman, I still fucking loved it. Even thinking about it seriously from a feminist perspective, I don't feel guilty for enjoying it.
I can't say the same for Sherlock and Seasons 5-7 of Doctor Who. (For those unfamiliar with the details, Steven Moffat co-wrote Sherlock and became the show-runner for Doctor Who at the beginning of Season 5.) Let's take a look at these two pieces of work, and we'll come back to Supernatural.

What do you mean women can be interesting in their own right?

If you're a Whovian, you're going to say: But what about Amy? And River? Aren't they strong female characters? The short answer is no. If you want details, check out these two blog posts on the women of Steven Moffat's creations:

http://theidiotboxx.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/am-i-a-real-person-stephen-moffat-says-no/

http://mindingandmattering.blogspot.com/2011/05/doctor-who-and-its-discontents-part-i.html#more

The authors discuss both Sherlock and Doctor Who but we're going to focus on the latter first. A summary of why Moffat's Doctor Who is anti-feminist through a look at the characters:
Amy Pond is a woman who is unfaithful (probably sexually and definitely emotionally) to her hen-pecked and emasculated husband, and she rarely gets to be a figure of action. Things happen to Amy (often without her knowledge), including her bizarre pregnancy. She is responsible for restoring the Doctor to the universe, but only because he planted the idea in her head while she was unconscious. Verdict: failed female character due to perpetuation of negative stereotypes (slut, bitch) and passivity.
River Song is seemingly the ultimate powerful woman because she expresses free sexuality, she carries a gun, and she has sass. The principal problems with River Song are that 1) she is hyper-sexual and 2) she has no control over the progression of her own life. 1) River's character derives the vast majority of her perceived power from her sexuality and feminine "mystery" and her ability to emotionally manipulate the Doctor. 2)The main issue for River is that she actually has no control over the direction of her own life. She spends a great deal of time locked in the Storm Cage facility waiting for the Doctor to take her out on a date, and every time she meets him he knows less and less about her. Verdict: a combination of slut and damsel in distress, combined with a healthy dose of emasculating.
Clara is the newest companion and the least interesting woman seen on the show since Moffat took over. She is supposed to be interesting to the Doctor, and by extension to the fans, because of the mystery of her repeated deaths. The problem with this premise for an interesting character is that her mystery is completely unknown to her. She is an object of interest to the Doctor, but her actual actions are really irrelevant. He just keeps her around so he can find out who she is. Verdict: passive, she's nothing more than a plot-vessel with no real personality or agency.

If you want more than that (and a much more eloquent description) please read the two blog posts above.
Moving on to Sherlock...

Dicks before chicks!

The basic premise of Moffat's Sherlock is that a man is made more powerful with a minimal number of emotional entanglements. Sherlock is permitted to form an emotional connection with John and a minimal attachment to Mrs. Hudson as a kind of mother figure. Sherlock is not permitted, however, to express sexual attraction towards or romantic attachment to any women. The entire episode "A Scandal in Belgravia" plays off of the premise that sexuality will bring about your downfall (especially if you're a woman).
Irene Adler is also another expression of Moffat's "female mystery" card. Femininity and sexuality are her weapons against Sherlock and it is his ability to withstand her womanly wiles that make him the hero.
As for the other female characters, we have a sad mix. Mrs. Hudson: the prudish matron, too old to have sexual feelings. Molly Hooper: the nerdy and emotionally desperate girl who just needs a man to notice her to be a full person. Sally Donovan: the bitch, because a competent female police officer cannot possibly be a nice person.
Add this to the lack of women in visible positions of power within the show and you have quite a potent stereotype weapon wrapped in very pretty paper. Thanks a million, Moffat!

Team Cis-het White Dudes!

That caption basically says it all about the principal demographic makeup of Supernatural. But it does have a few fabulous people going on in the ladies department, the main problem is that most of them are evil or dead.
[NOTE: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR SUPERNATURAL SEASONS 0-INFINITY!]

Think this crowbar is gonna do shit to an angel?

Anna Milton: This chick was questionable, but she kicked ass for her brief run. Deceased.

Gotta love this face.

Ruby v2.0: Kickin' ass and taking names. Also, evil. But she got to make her own decisions and had choices in her life. Deceased.

My Queen!

Meg v2.0: Is she evil? Is she good? Doesn't really matter. She is powerful and awesome and takes shit from no one. Deceased.

Bradbury is back, bitch!

Charlie Bradbury: Is there anything about Charlie that is not perfect? She's nerdy, lesbian, and brave. She doesn't display any need for a man to keep her safe; she rescues the damsels in distress rather than being one. Miraculously not deceased! (And returning in Season 9.)

The other family in the same business, with fewer penises.

Ellen and Jo Harvelle: If you don't think Ellen and Jo are the most important female characters in Supernatural and also awesome, you are wrong. These two never needed any man to save them and they could handle a gun as well as the Winchester boys. Also, they gave their lives to save the Winchesters. Deceased.
Also, a casual reminder that Mary Campbell/Winchester was a hunter long before John.

Lookit! Manly love!

Perhaps one of Dean Winchester's most famous lines is: "No chick flick moments." This is a lie. Supernatural is an 8+ season chick flick about two brothers who love each other more than the world, literally. They experience emotions! And the miracle of the show is that their expressions of emotion and their tears are never emasculating or shown as a sign of weakness. Sam and Dean cry when they are sad and they hug when they need to. The exclusion of female characters is, to a large (although somewhat insulting, to a woman) degree a result of the fact that their relationship is "dangerously, erotically codependent" and they have extreme difficulty letting other people into their lives. Also, their love for each other literally saved the world. And then it may have fucked the world...
But this show has never pretended to be about anything other than two brothers who really love each other and fight monsters. I expected a little sexism and I wasn't disappointed. But I never felt that I had been lied to, that I had looked for role models and found stereotypes. The sexism may be stupid, but Supernatural wears that on its face.
Moffat is dangerous because he has wrapped his antiquated and repulsive views of women into characters we might want to emulate, until we look just a little bit closer. And I cannot stand that.

Bonus: Supernatural comes with 1000% more glitter and unicorns! And plaid! And man pain!

PCP crazed strippers!

Smell ya later, bitches! I'm off to enjoy my guilt-free Supernatural.

(I shit you not, unicorns.)

Attention Queer and Feminist Whovians: "Torchwood" is what you should be watching

Now, I know there are plenty of feminist and queer Whovians out there, but there may be fewer than there were a few years ago. Why? Because if you think too hard, and by that I mean at all, about Steven Moffat's female characters and sexual dynamics you would run screaming too. They range from the obviously boring little girl (Clara) to the hypersexual (River) to the promiscuous and controlling (Amy). I got a little fed up and missed Russell T Davies desperately, so I watched the first 2 seasons of "Torchwood." What is "Torchwood" you might ask. That's a show? If you have to ask this question please turn in your Whovian card and proceed to the exit. Or stay for a brief description.
"Torchwood" is a spin-off of "Doctor Who" set in Cardiff where Torchwood 3 investigates alien activity around the famous rift. It centers on RTD's baby, Captain Jack Harkness, and a team of pretty awesome people. I won't claim that "Torchwood" is a fabulously written show, so if you're looking for fancy plots and scary monsters you should go back to Moffat because those are his areas of expertise. But if you're in the market for female and queer characters to whom you can relate, come over to "Torchwood."

The Team

These 5 people are the core "Torchwood" cast. Note the presence of more than one woman. "Torchwood" passes the Bechdel test by having 2 female characters who talk to each other about something other than men. Neither one of them is treated as something fragile or as needing extra protection. The chicks and the dicks are equal on this team, because RTD is awesome. Whovians who watch the show will notice that Jack Harkness in command is less likable than he was as the dashing interloper in "Doctor Who," you will get over this. Now introductions. From left to right the team is: Ianto Jones, Gwen Cooper, Jack Harkness, Toshiko Sato, and Owen Harper. Let's talk about why you should like them, individually.

Tosh

Toshiko Sato, better known as Tosh, is the computer geek at Torchwood 3. She does fall within the stereotype of the Asian technology expert, but her character is well rounded. She is never really shy or 2-dimensional, and although she has romantic feelings, they are not allowed to dominate her storyline.

Owen

Owen Harper is Torchwood's medic. He is at first glance a tough-guy womanizer, but that assessment doesn't hold up after a few episodes. He is intelligent and resourceful and very dedicated to his job. Although he has difficulty expressing his emotions, this is never explained away as some kind of normal male thing the way that many shows would. The bottom line on Owen is that he is here to save lives, and he does.

Gwen

Gwen Cooper is Torchwood's resident badass. She is the newest member of the team, but she is effectively Jack's second-in-command and the most likely to stand up to him. And she never comes off as a controlling bitch when she confronts the male lead, what a radical notion! Gwen also manages a normal life on the side, with a fiancee and eventually a wedding. She is dedicated to her job without being consumed by it, and she can be both sensitive and someone you want on your side in a dark alley.

Jack

It's queer time! You should all be familiar with Jack Harkness by now. He is, as previously stated, not as likable as he was on "Doctor Who" and a lot of that derives from the fact that he is now directly responsible for four people and indirectly responsible for the lives of everyone in Cardiff. This Captain Jack cannot be as carefree and eternally running as the man introduced in Season 1 of "Doctor Who." But he is still a man worth watching. Why? Because he is queer. Although he is reputed to be "omnisexual," for the purposes of "Torchwood" he is essentially bisexual, given the lack of inter-species sexual activity. He is also a flirt and perhaps even a slut. The miracle is that not once is this promiscuity blamed on or even explicitly linked to his bisexuality. Jack Harkness likes people and he likes sex with people. He has tender, romantic moments mainly with men over the course of the show, but the gender of his partner is never remarked upon. But, you're probably saying, he is still all about his sexuality like most queer characters on television. Can't we have a character with a concrete personality, who just happens to be queer? Or a bisexual who doesn't sleep with everyone they see? I understand your sentiment and thanks to Russell T Davies, you can!

Ianto

 Queers of the world, may I present Ianto Jones? You will meet him and wonder if he's actually gay or just a little effeminate, and if he will ever do anything more important that making coffee. The answer to the first question is complicated but the answer to the second is yes. It takes a little while, but Ianto becomes quite the badass in a suit. Ianto is always nicely dressed and a little quiet, setting him up as one of several common gay stereotypes on television. But nobody comments on this or speculates on his sexuality, and then you meet his girlfriend, and nobody comments on how surprising it is that he's dating a woman. Or declares him straight. Now you're probably wondering why I am so obsessed with him as a queer icon since he seems to be straight, right? Wrong.

 Ianto starts sleeping with a man. Expressing sexual interest in both men and women, that makes you bisexual, right? And everyone on TV knows that bisexuals are sluts, right? Or they are just human beings interested in more than one gender... When Jack and Ianto start their relationship, no fuss is made over Ianto's "sudden" gayness. His bisexuality is just a fact and a normal part of life, moving on.

A summary of the awesome nature of Ianto's character: He is a bisexual man whose sexuality is neither derided as slutty nor made a central focus of his character. He is a member of the team and a badass first, his identity as a queer man is secondary. That is what makes him so important, he just happens to be queer. No fanfare. No fuss. Just adorable vests and suits.

So watch "Torchwood" for the strong women and the understated queer man. And fly free my queer and lady friends.