another con, another weekend, another upsetting video
i am of course, referring to what Misha said about Destiel:
It’s a funny thing because we really don’t talk about it—the producers and the actors don’t really talk about it that much. It does come up occasionally — but I think we all do pay lip service to it. For instance, this I should not be saying, there was a line in the last episode that I shot where Jensen’s character says, I love you to Castiel. And I’m like 98% sure that was in there for that reason — you know who would really love this? The internet. That line didn’t make the final cut, so for all you know I’m lying.
Okay. Okay, okay, okay. I am trying really hard not to get upset about this. It’s just that so many times shit like this happens and people get offended and up in arms and I can’t adequately express why it pisses me off and this time I actually can.
So. I’ve seen this clip a couple times and at first I was like ‘ha! humor!’ it didn’t bother me at all. Then I read this post and a few more like it and they made sense to me and I was about to get angry and then I stopped and looked at the clip again. I’m back to not seeing the problem.
Here’s the show description: A witch’s familiar asks the Winchesters for help when the witch, a cop who helped Sam and Dean on a case, has nightmares of murder that come true.
and more in depth: A police officer named Kevin (guest star Christian Campbell), who turned to witchcraft after working a case with Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles), is plagued by nightmares in which he murders innocent people. However, when the murders actually happen, Sam and Dean are called in by Kevin’s “familiar” (guest star Mishael Morgan) to help — but the brothers aren’t sure they want to save a witch.
And here’s what a familiar is: In European folklore and folk-belief of the Medieval and Early Modern periods, familiar spirits(sometimes referred to simply as “familiars”) were supernatural entities believed to assistwitches and cunning folk in their practice of magic. According to the records of the time, they would appear in numerous guises, often as an animal, but also at times as a human or humanoid figure, and were described as “clearly defined, three-dimensional… forms, vivid with colour and animated with movement and sound” by those alleging to have come into contact with them, unlike later descriptions of ghosts with their “smoky, undefined form[s]”.
When they served witches, they were often thought to be malevolent, while when working for cunning-folk they were often thought of as benevolent (although there was some ambiguity in both cases). The former were often categorised as demons, while the latter were more commonly thought of and described as fairies. The main purpose of familiars is to serve the witch or young witch, providing protection for him/her as they come into their new powers.
If all that holds up, then the woman in this clip is NOT a poor helpless little black girl in love with her master and being controlled. Nor is she a normal dog that got turned into a human and has no idea what the fuck is going on.If you have problems with her being dressed sexily in her first appearance on the show, fine. You go right ahead and have a problem with that. But on the subject of possible racist/rapey/beastiality undertones for this episode, could you please stop? You haven’t even seen the show! You’ve seen a just under two minute clip of an hour long episode and you’re making serious judgement calls.
I am not here to deny that women, particularly women of color, quite often get the short end of the stick on this show and in real life. It is completely possible that the writers will go in a really gross, disgusting, awful direction with this. But I am begging you to please stop looking at EVERY FUCKING WOMAN OF COLOR AND THINKING ‘Oh that poor dear, someone needs to be her champion, someone needs to speak up for her, she’s obviously being treated unfairly.’ That shit is just as demeaning. Watch the episode, then have your opinions. Give it a chance. I don’t see any point in being preemptively righteously angry.
Supernatural regularly changes folklore to suit its plots (which can be a good thing - the angels and demons are both awesome, for example), so I don’t know how much the historical idea of a familiar will be relevant to the plot. (And I think that it would be possible for the animal-turned-human familiar to be done in a non-gross way, but this show is terrible at consent issues so I have low hopes.)
But I’m white so it’s not my place to talk over you or anything so I’ll stop talking about it.
crowleyshouseparty said: oh no fuck this shit
I know. I keep thinking this episode can’t get grosser but then it does.
narusasufangirling said: Yeah…like it was kinda funny, but it was horrendously awful at the same time and I just
I know, and it was only about two minutes. Imagine a whole episode full of that, it’s going to be disgusting.
It’s by Brad Buckner and Eugenie Ross-Leming, who wrote Route 666, Shut Up, Dr. Phil, The Splice Girls, Of Grave Importance, Heartache and A Little Slice Of Kevin. So yeah, this episode is going to be awful.
crowleyshouseparty said: i hate everything about this.
So do I! It’s like the writers had a terrible idea then said “I KNOW HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS SO MUCH WORSE!” It’s going to be awful.
So, what is the problem with this? Well, aside from the problem of fetishisation, appropriation and homophobia that are unfortunate issues within slash, there’s a huge problem with ambiguity encouraging erasure.
For too long, writers have been using character ambiguity as an excuse to avoid including GBLT chaarcters. Rather than overtly say a character is GBLT, they can imply it - and get praise for inclusion from people desperate for inclusion (or desperate to see hot guys get it on) when they haven’t actually included anyone, or only made the slightest gestures of inclusion.
The actual GLBT character (when there is one) does not appear unless he can serve some sort of purpose for the straight protagonist but in the meantime we get lots and lots of suggestive commentary and appropriation of actual GLBT experiences. We deserve actual inclusion, we need actual, realistic, fully formed portrayals - and implicit suggestions and ambiguous hints do not cut it. I wish I could say that no-one would fall for that, but a simple tour around a search engine will show you how much this bromance-fodder is accepted and praised as a replacement for actual gay characters."
This article is about Teen Wolf, but a lot of it is applicable to Supernatural too, especially after last week’s episode where Dean thought Aaron was flirting with him and that was interpreted by many fans as evidence that Dean was canonically bisexual.
OK, not saying that there isn’t a point here, but I’d just like to remind everyone of characters like Charlie and Crowley from Supernatural, Min and Miranda from Jekyll, Captain Jack Harkness (both of them) from Doctor Who and Torchwood. This is, of course, not including chat show hosts like Graham Norton, Ellen Degeneres, and Alan Carr.
Just because a show isn’t explicitly and exclusively about the main character being gay or bi does not mean that the writers are ignoring the LGBT world, nor does it mean that they’re trying to get LGBT positive brownie points by having same-sex sexual tension between characters who aren’t explicitly canonically attracted to the same sex. And no, people shipping those characters outside of canon does not mean that they are accepting those characters in place of gay characters. In my experience, the vast majority of shippers not only accept that their ships aren’t canon, but they are active proponents of having more canonically LGBT characters. They recognize that the closest many of their ships will come to tension is the sexual tension that our sex-obsessed society cannot live without in TV shows, because obviously no person can live a life and have friends without including longing looks, lingering touches and suggestive conversations. I say this as an asexual person, you understand.
Crowley isn’t confirmed to be gay though - he kissed Bobby to make a deal. Charlie appeared in season 7 and has been in two episodes. I’m not talking about the other shows (although Jack Harkness hasn’t been in Doctor Who since season 4). Having queer characters on other shows doesn’t make Supernatural more progressive, nor does it turn queerbaiting into representation.
No, Supernatural isn’t ignoring LGBT people. It uses them as punchlines frequently (e.g. Aaron pretending to flirt with Dean last week) while having one recurring queer character. Since last week’s episode (and long before that - I remember a similar reaction to the season 7 finale) a lot of people have been claiming that Dean is canonically bisexual, which is wrong. People are giving the show brownie points and treating this like actual representation. Many of them do want their ships to become canon and believe that their ship is shipped by the actors or writers (mostly Misha Collins and Ben Edlund, but I’ve seen similar things said about Jensen Ackles and Jeremy Carver).
You’re right that people overanalyse characters looking at each other/touching each other, but many shippers go beyond that and see their slash ships as a form of activism (which it isn’t) and praise Supernatural for being a progressive show for its queerbaiting (which it definitely isn’t).