Also, this. That show's been done. Called BtVS (although even there, it wasn't always true).

This statement pings me hard. I want not just One Show to love and cuddle for all time (though I will) but a wide variety of shows to love and cuddle. I want a dozen shows about women saving themselves and others*. True that all shows can't be all things, but I really appreciate when fans call out Skanky Gender (or Race) Issues, especially in such an artistic manner.

I get that. I didn't mean to be flip. But for me, that's not what this show is, and I just don't expect it to be. Would I like more shows like Buffy? You damn betcha. But Joss was so clear about that -- Buffy was, at least in its inception, the ultimate execution of girl saving not only herself but the world, I guess I expect other shows to be pale imitations.

I'm not arguing that sexualized violence toward women isn't far too prevalent, but I guess I'm jaded enough that I don't really expect anyone to work too hard to push past it. And honestly, my mind is usually far more focused on the boys and their journey, their issues, that the victims of the week are usually just background noise to me.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the real world (at least outside of prison), adult men are rarely the victims of violence with a sexual component, whereas women are victimized in that way far too often. I don't know that ignoring that to make things more equitable in a show that constantly deals with people targeted by violence would necessarily make it better. It certainly wouldn't be helpful with the suspension of disbelief that's already getting a pretty good workout from all the monsters running around.

However, I am all for hot guy victims-of-the-week getting ambushed while bathing or in swimwear if Sera Gamble wants to push things in that direction...

I think most people, including people who make television and people who watch it, are so inured to the trope of woman as victim that they (we) don't actually pay attention, even when we mean to. I think consciousness-raisers (oh please forgive me for rhetorical language) like the vid are necessary to give our perceptive vision an eighth of a turn, to sharpen it enough to be aware.

What bugs me is things like Haylee being the only person in the search group in Wendigo wearing shorts. Why? There's no practical reason why none of the guys weren't in shorts if she was.

Which brings me to the atmosphere in which shows live and die. Remember the network and its quest for ratings, and the type of shows it airs. Kripke has to please his network masters, while trying to deliver a show fans love. Practically, he can't stray too far from known tropes without incurring some inquiry from above.

Granted, his, and the production team's, awareness of the problem is key to change, but even then, change may come slower than we'd like because it has to filter through so many layers of prejudice and assumption.

Er. Did any of that make sense? Time for more coffee, I suspect.

However, I am all for hot guy victims-of-the-week getting ambushed while bathing or in swimwear if Sera Gamble wants to push things in that direction...

::loves madly on Matt, and not just for that last, lovely line::

::goes to stand with Matt and Bev::

It certainly wouldn't be helpful with the suspension of disbelief that's already getting a pretty good workout from all the monsters running around.

Playing devil's (demon's?) advocate for a second - I find it interesting that in some ways it's easier for us (cultural us) to suspend our disbelief about the existence of ghost and vampires then women not being victims. Wendigo hunting campers? SURE! Kickass chicks? Not so probable. (I'm being flip here)

There are two overlapping issues here (only two?) as has been pointed out above. The WHO and the HOW. I feel the vid addresses both of them, or at least brings out both of them. Here's a breakdown of tropes I see in the vid:

• Women as victims (frequency)

• The sexualization of violence through staging and filming (women scantily clad, dying in bedrooms, etc.)

• Evil women, with or without a sexual component to their evilness (Woman in White, Crossroads demon, Meg)

violence with a sexual component != sexualized violence in all cases. The violence does not have to be sexual to be filmed in a titillating fashion. Those are overlapping circles, not the same circle.

I get that. I didn't mean to be flip. But for me, that's not what this show is, and I just don't expect it to be. Would I like more shows like Buffy? You damn betcha. But Joss was so clear about that -- Buffy was, at least in its inception, the ultimate execution of girl saving not only herself but the world, I guess I expect other shows to be pale imitations.

I know. The ping was an echo of something other people say, not what you said. I don't expect SPN to be Buffy, and I love it for what it is, but I still see value in noting and calling out Skanky/Gender and Race Issues.

Or as my mom used to put it, "Sarah took this Gender and Communication class in college and she's never gotten over it." *g*

Bev, I hear you on the shorts and I'll raise you "what serious swimmer does their morning swim in a bikini?"

Gotta run to lunch. I am enjoying this conversation; I hope it's not harshing anyone's squee.

I don't expect SPN to be Buffy, and I love it for what it is, but I still see value in noting and calling out Skanky/Gender and Race Issues.

Yes, this.

I love it like nothing else. I mean, I'm moony about the damn show. We're talking, pink sparkle hearts on my Trapper Keeper inserts moony. Love it more than Buffy moony. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't contain problematic aspects, nor does the fact that I love it to itty bitty pieces mean that I'm blind to them.

Sisabet mentioned in her post about it that, really, it could have been almost any show, because the problems so very present in our culture and our media. And I think it's important, even when you love something, to point that out, and say, Hey, wait a minute here!

The whole conversation keeps sending my brain back to Mary's S1 essay [link] (I need to get the Cafe Press book for the S2 updated version).

So, here's my answer: more boy-shirtlessness!

And here's my question: So, how do we propose they fix it? I agree that there is skeevyness to the sexualization of the vicitimization of women. Laying aside that (which, in some, if not all, ways, is largely an issue of staging and costuming), is the fix to have men targeted in a similar way? Is there a way to do that that doesn't turn women into the second stereotype? There's no parallel construct to the dirty old man (and I could imagine that people might have an issue with what they might come up with if they tried), and I can also see why they'd not want to step into the potentially-fraught waters of a gay demon/ghost/thing. Is it to remove the sexuality?

On the female villains issue, I don't know that it's (numerically) unbalanced. I can believe that there aren't as many hot male villains. However, they have made a good number of the female ones NotHot.

"what serious swimmer does their morning swim in a bikini?"

Yeah, that one pinged the hell out of me. ESPECIALLY in a lake in WI, when everyone's wearing medium-weight clothes. That lake would not be comfy in a bikini.

I think consciousness-raisers (oh please forgive me for rhetorical language) like the vid are necessary to give our perceptive vision an eighth of a turn, to sharpen it enough to be aware.

This.

So, how do we propose they fix it?

As it's the culture as a whole that's broken, my only suggestion is to show even more women with agency who aren't actively evil. I think they did address some of those issues in S2. For me, it worked fairly well.

Heck, my suggestions for a less problematic S3 are fairly simple:

• A variety of recurring women of agency.
• More boys in peril from non-gendered entities.
• Agent Exceedingly Hot and Awesome back and not as pure antagonist this time. With Mulder jokes. Because those are never not funny to me.