It’s not just about Dean’s childhood shaping Dean’s present, it’s also about how the show reinforces the status quo every other season. It’s about how Dean is pressured into playing his caretaker role, it’s about how the show has been set up. Putting all the blame on John or Dean’s messed-up childhood is not technically correct, because, it takes away the blame of the situation from other, equally responsible parties.
Every time Dean tries to break the mold, every time he tries to get away from Sam or from the thankless job he’s been assigned to–he’s forced back into the game –this is not a one time occurrence, its a pattern. There is always something that needs to be fixed, there is always another disaster that needs to be averted, another apocalypse just waiting to happen. And Dean is lectured, beaten, subdued back into continuing to work with Sam because “the world’s fate hangs on Dean’s shoulders”. And now, after Chuck’s made it official, after Chuck has declared Dean responsible for everything under the sun, it’s very unlikely that the pattern will break.
As much as Sam talked against Dean playing the Daddy’s little soldier to John, Sam did expect same kind of loyalty from Dean.
According to Sam, it was only bad when Dean listened to John, but it was perfectly alright when Dean listened to Sam.
Sam’s been pretty manipulative and devious plenty of times over the
course of last eleven seasons and I don’t really see all of those
actions as some kind of left-over projection from his childhood abuse. Also, let us not pretend that only John had the “Let us use Dean as a weapon/soldier/blunt instrument” mentality, because that is certifiably untrue. In fact, at this point of time, I’d have a hard time finding any character that genuinely cares for Dean as a person without any ulterior motives.
I found this pic and I thought I’d share it with you guys. Last year for my grandmother’s birthday I painted an egg (it’s paper) with a bluebird on it for her, because she likes birds a lot. I’m hoping I have time before Christmas to paint the next one - a chickadee. It’s either that or fanart, and I don’t think my conservative grandmother is up for K/S, unfortunately.
I kind of really wish I’d stop seeing the phrase “feminist movie” or “feminist book” applied to any piece of media that does a better than usual job of handling it’s female characters.
Feminism is not the absence of sexism, it’s a word for the movement dedicated to raising awareness of and eradicating institutionalized sexism. A feminist movie would be a movie ABOUT the feminist movement, or a movie that directly identifies and addresses issues of structural inquality between genders.
Just having a female character you don’t sexualize in a piece of media doesn’t make it a grand stand against the patriarchy. It literally just makes it a little less sexist than most everything else. It doesn’t make you a feminist film director for making it, it just makes you not a fucking asshole with his head so far up his ass he can’t see the way the world is actually built.
Is SW:TFA a feminist movie? No, not even close, not even a little tiny bit at all. The movie’s not ABOUT gender or related struggles, ideas and philosophies.
But is it a movie that respects its female characters, gives them usually-limited-to-men levels of agency and power over the plot, makes sure there are women in the background of shots, and doesn’t sexualize them? Yes, abso-fucking-lutely yes.
SW:TFA is a movie feminists will like (at least parts of it), it is a movie that demonstrates some of the basic, basic things Feminism wants from media, but it’s not a feminist movie.