Oh, I think you and I are in disagreement here. I'm upset that they decide to include characters based on whether or not they're 'a threat to the boys' relationship' instead of what works for the story/is interesting.
So I wouldn't really care if every episode had Castiel and Amelia (and Jody, Charlie, hell, even Garth) smack 'in the middle' of the relationship, as long as it was interesting, insightful, relevant to the plot and characters.
The way tptb view female (and poc, but that's a tangent I don't really need to go on) characters is just really frustrating to me, and that's what I was round about getting at in my comment. It's just - it's such a cheap, cynical way to go about business, and then to implicitly blame it on a mostly female fandom just grates my cheese even more.
So yeah, I hope he doesn't give a flying fuck about it. I hope the fucks he gives are about telling an interesting story, and not viewing women in terms of threat/love interest vs nonthreat.
Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers
Oh, I think you and I are in disagreement here. I'm upset that they decide to include characters based on whether or not they're 'a threat to the boys' relationship' instead of what works for the story/is interesting.
So I wouldn't really care if every episode had Castiel and Amelia (and Jody, Charlie, hell, even Garth) smack 'in the middle' of the relationship, as long as it was interesting, insightful, relevant to the plot and characters.
The way tptb view female (and poc, but that's a tangent I don't really need to go on) characters is just really frustrating to me, and that's what I was round about getting at in my comment. It's just - it's such a cheap, cynical way to go about business, and then to implicitly blame it on a mostly female fandom just grates my cheese even more.
So yeah, I hope he doesn't give a flying fuck about it. I hope the fucks he gives are about telling an interesting story, and not viewing women in terms of threat/love interest vs nonthreat.