hope | Everybody Loves A Homerotic Bond In The Trenches

Skip to Main Content

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Music: perhaps, perhaps, perhaps - doris day

Entry tags:

Everybody Loves A Homerotic Bond In The Trenches

There's been a lot of speculation around about John's relationship to Ellen and Jo; namely, a lot of people are thinking that Jo is John's illegitimate daughter. I have to admit I don't particularly agree with that interpretation, for a number of reasons.

- Timing. Jo is what, no younger than about 19? That would mean that about three, four years after Mary's death John would be sexing Ellen. I kind of have mixed views about how much sexing John would have done after Mary's death, even *that* long after, though I'm not ruling it out entirely. However, this would make Jo considerably younger than Dean, and... not sure if they'd do that. It depends on where the creators take that 'relationship'.

- My impression of the Winchester family is that it's a pretty self-contained bastion. Its integrity is based on its hermetic nature - it's All About Them. their vigilante logic is all based on the family, not the greater good, John is clearly still obsessed with his wife 20 years after her death, etc etc. In other words, I'm not sure that the show would undermine the construction of their family by introducing illegitimate children (be they demonspawn!Sam or Jo) etc - i.e. Winchesters who aren't entirely Winchesters. Because that's what the essence of the show is about. People who are Entirely Winchesters. (Then again, I wouldn't put it past Kripke & co to undermine it deliberately to fuck things up. But i think it's more likely that they'd introduce that *potential*, make the characters deal with it, the reveal that it isn't true (demons lie/manipulate/etc) - Think Veronica & Keith Mars and the paternity test, hey?)

- The construction of Ellen and Jo as parallell to John and Dean. Ellen and John are reflections of each other (whilst maintaining their own characterisation, OMG SHOW I LOVE YOU), they're not complementary components. Mary was John's complementary component, Dean is Sam's (Dean and Sam are not reflections of each other).

WHICH LEADS TO MY SUBJECT LINE. Ellen's complementary component. (and here's where my thoughts go all meandering...)

Jo is very fair. This is another thing that makes me think she's not John's child; Ellen isn't that fair herself. Sure, if Mary Winchester had impregnated Ellen I could see Jo being the result, but John? even with blonde!mary, his children are reasonably dark (you're dark) in colouring (though, jo does have awesome dark eyes).

So, that made me think that heh, Jo's father was probably blond. So, John and Ellen both had blond(e) spouses. Further complementary + reflection stuff, there. And, um, Jo's father was also a hunter, and is also dead.

Then my brain got all excited. When did John meet/know Ellen? was it before or after her husband died? Is it quite possible that - gasp - John hunted with Ellen's husband? aka the blond, male, Mary-reflection? Then I got all excited in my pants, so to speak. Ellen's family is a varied reflection of the Winchesters, with genders inverted. Maybe adultery isn't your thing, but the thought of John off hunting and fucking with a male version of Mary takes me to a very happy place. Brothers/lovers in arms (a la wincest, even).

Also, John angst, because of course Jo's father DIES at some point. And maybe, she speculated with further glee into the 'verse she's entirely creating out of thin air, MAYBE Mr.Ellen's death is in direct relation to John (hah, Caleb, Jim, etc...), maybe John feels responsible, maybe that's the source of his self-enforced alienation from Ellen. MAYBE it was one big love triangle thing. MAYBE.

And man, I want to write that whole damn fic, now. Epicly so. Only, we've had what - ONE episode with Ellen's family? No doubt I would be jossed before the end of the season. Still, see above comment about being happy in my pants.

As a kind of unrelated aside, all the talk and excitement over the Dean/Ellen pairing makes me cackle with glee, too. Because as I said, Ellen is John's counterpart. So to me, these people are getting all squeeful about John/Dean by proxy.

Also, on the flipside of that coin, how do people feel about Ellen/Jo?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oooer. I think that one kinda makes ME squish, too!!

Why do you think Ellen would be so much younger? What do you estimate John's age at? Sure, she doesn't *look* like she's in her late 50s or whatever, but neither does JDM, hah.

I'm just curious.. you think that heterosexual sex - John with another woman, invalidates his commitment to Mary (it's something you can't see him doing.) But that homosexual sex does not? (John/Mr. Ellen makes you happy in your pants.)

Nah, I agree, this is an interesting point. Derry and I get into this on occassion. Like, Derry is obviously a slobbering Johnslash freak, but strongly believes John would be celibate following Mary's death.

For me, it's not so much a difference between gay and het relationships, it's a difference between fantext and canon.

Like, I have reservations with regards to how much John would have been interested in romantic relationships post-Mary in the canon, but this doesn't stop me from reading and writing stories where John gets laid by people who are male or female.

I don't know, it's kind of touchy. But I guess somewhere in there is my division between canon and fanon, not so much where I think that fanfiction is WRONG because that would NEVER happen in canon, and i'm just titilated by the sex in it, but more that... fanfic is an extrapolation of canon. At the start of this post where I talk about the possibility of John sexing Ellen, I'm talking more about where I speculate the show will take that.

The extension of John's characterisation in fanon obviously posits it as much more likely. I really don't think that the show will give John a gay history with Ellen's deceased husband, but I'm already pseudo-ficcing away on that potential element.

Essentially, I love John, and love getting him laid, and don't see that as OOC, but I have doubts as to how much sex he'll ever get in canon.

Wow, that was all over the place!

What do you estimate John's age at?

old enough to go to Nam. I imagine him somewhere around thirty in the Pilot. So.. yeah, in his mid fifties or thereabouts.

And I was just going by looks for Ellen. Without any canon to place her age -- I figured somewhere between forty and forty-five. And Jo's like, 21?

Or, heck. It's just possible I like the thought of 35-ish-year-old John fucking a girl just this side of jailbait despite all of his Mary-angst and chivalric reservations very hot.

I wouldn't rule it out.

Because John will do what he thinks is right, but he's not a gentleman, you know? I really love that about him.

Hell yes! I keep on meaning to make a post about that, how there's a kind of anti-misogyny reading in there, somewhere... He's not about to treat anyone different just because they're a GIRL. Like his equal treatment of the vampires as all monsters in DMB.

'Anti-misogyny' being another way of saying, gee, I don't know...

fem·i·nism (fĕm'ə-nĭz'əm)
n.

1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. (emphasis mine)

yes, i know, we've had this discussion before. i used that term because not everyone has that in-built dictionary wherein feminism equates equality, as opposed to pro-women.

I know, and I knee-jerk in my response because I want to remind all the lovely folk who read your journal that the textbook definition of feminism isn't actually 'broiled testicles for breakfast every morning and a lampshade made of manskin'.

And that the textbook definition of meta is "self-referential; referring to itself or its characteristics"? Or, you know, a "dyke" is "an embankment for controlling or holding back the waters of the sea or a river"?

Or, you know, a "dyke" is "an embankment for controlling or holding back the waters of the sea or a river"?

You don't seriously think I'm going to engage in a discussion where you compare the fact that you don't want to use feminism as a synonym for anti-misogynist to the fact that dyke has come to have a slang meaning completely unconnected to its original definition, do you? Yes, the perception of what 'feminism' means has shifted due to various backlashes, splinterings and misunderstandings, but let's not throw the baby out with the damn bathwater.

or, yaknow, as you're fond of reminding me - texts don't exist in a vacuum. neither does terminology.

I think you've had a seriously different of experience of the word 'feminism' in your life than I have, based on discussions we've had about this, so I don't think there's much point in fighting over it again.

What I'm saying is that, as this person noted, language evolves. Popular reception of the term "feminism", in my experience, has come to represent aggressive pro-female ideals, as opposed to base-level equality. As we've discussed before, it's not that I'm against feminism at its textbook definition level, just that I believe it's unwise to potentially alienate people who agree with you by using terminology that has evolved to refer to something they don't necessarily agree with.

We've discussed this before, and I do understand your stance, but I do have to say that -- since this is a discussion about language and its nuances, intended or otherwise -- I'm quite troubled by the fact that this is the second time you've used 'pro-female' or a variation thereof when the context suggests you mean 'anti-man'. That, to me, feels like a very loaded way to articulate something I assume you mean as a neutral term. What I'm saying is: language, when intended as neutral, can come across as misogynist-by-default, so I don't feel at all bad about peppering my conversation with words which might make people pause and evaluate. Better they do that than perpetuate attitudes better questioned.

'pro-female' or a variation thereof when the context suggests you mean 'anti-man'. That, to me, feels like a very loaded way to articulate something I assume you mean as a neutral term.

not really. i don't mean it as a neutral term. but I don't mean it as anti-man, either. I think part of it comes back to kind of philosophical construction of ideas in language; even if pro-female isn't anti-man, it brings the baggage of a heirarchy with it. which, arguably, isn't the same thing as equality.

don't feel at all bad about peppering my conversation with words which might make people pause and evaluate. Better they do that than perpetuate attitudes better questioned.

That's with the assumption that people pause and evaluate instead of shutting off or digging their heels in as soon as you use those hot-button words.

This is me picking up the phone and CALLING BULLSHIT.

even if pro-female isn't anti-man, it brings the baggage of a heirarchy with it. which, arguably, isn't the same thing as equality.

'Even if'? Jesus christ hope, what crack are you smoking? Do you seriously have no concept of how offensive what you just said is?

I just.. I seriously don't even know how to begin debating with garbage like this. Are you seriously claiming that your language is completely netural and without implicit value judgement? That 'pro female' language is as destructive as misogyny? (And that feels a little strawmannish to say, to me, but I know you like debating styles which push the limits of a claim.) Because I'd like you to pretend, just for a moment, that the world is still very imperfect and that maybe affirmative action is still necessary.

And even that argument needs to take as given that you're correct with your 'pro female' stuff, which quite frankly I find too noxious to dissect right now.

So don't give me this 'I avoid hot button words because they stop people from listening' stuff, and think about how ugly the terms you're slinging around with impunity because you're into 'equalism' are.

I wasn't referring to people who are 'pro-female' and the language used, but the TERM 'PRO-FEMALE'. I was not attempting to make vast sweeping "us and them" judgements. I actually meant that term, pro-female. We were discussing topical language. that was my point, that my language is not neutral, that the term 'pro-female' comes with baggage of its own, arguably as I said, a heirarchical connotation. I'm trying to say that every term we're using is problematic, 'feminism', 'misogyny', whatever, but we clearly have different ways of using it.

uh.. i think i kinda meant like. he's kind of a bastard sometimes? *sheepish*

ahahahahah. Yeah. but he's equally a bastard to EVERYONE. I like both the bastard part and the everyone part :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only