I can't believe I'm doing this again
I am going to leave emotions out of this, and try to keep it only to facts.
This is why, objectively, John Winchester should not be forgiven.
In episode 1.18 (Something Wicked), Dean is about nine or ten years old. Sam and Dean are left in a hotel room with no adult supervision, inadequate food, and a shotgun. They are told not to leave the room while John is hunting.
In episode 4.13, (After School Special), Dean is about seventeen years old. Sam and Dean are left in a hotel room by themselves for a month, again without adult supervision. They attend school during that time.
This is child neglect/abandonment. This is not arguable. Please please read these links, not just because of Supernatural, but for real life situations as well.
Child neglect is a form of child abuse. Which means John was a child abuser. This is also not arguable.
I don’t personally agree with the theory that John physically assaulted his children, but the notion that only physical abuse is “true abuse” is problematic and wrong.
Here are also some signs of emotional abuse:
Ignoring. Either physically or psychologically, the parent or caregiver is not present to respond to the child. He or she may not look at the child and may not call the child by name.
Rejecting. This is an active refusal to respond to a child’s needs (e.g., refusing to touch a child, denying the needs of a child, ridiculing a child).
Isolating. The parent or caregiver consistently prevents the child from having normal social interactions with peers, family members and adults. This also may include confining the child or limiting the child’s freedom of movement.
Exploiting or corrupting. In this kind of abuse, a child is taught, encouraged or forced to develop inappropriate or illegal behaviors (HAHAHAHAHA). It may involve self-destructive or antisocial acts of the parent or caregiver, such as teaching a child how to steal or forcing a child into prostitution.
Verbally assaulting. This involves constantly belittling, shaming, ridiculing or verbally threatening the child.
Terrorizing. Here, the parent or caregiver threatens or bullies the child and creates a climate of fear for the child. Terrorizing can include placing the child or the child’s loved one (such as a sibling, pet or toy) in a dangerous or chaotic situation, or placing rigid or unrealistic expectations on the child with threats of harm if they are not met.
This is in no way a comprehensive view of the extent of John’s emotional abuse. I am not a specialist. But it’s difficult to deny that some of these hit scarily close to home.
Here are some of the most common arguments used to defend John:
Legally speaking, John’s children should definitely have been taken away from him. Making a tiny little boy raise his brother alone is not an acceptable definition of “doing his best”. Upon realizing that he was incapable of sticking around, he could have made the decision to find someone else to be their permanent guardian. He could also have made his kids’ upbringing his first priority, rather than hunting. He did neither of these things.
2. He had PTSD, was possibly an alcoholic, might have been depressed, and harboured abandonment issues of his own. It wasn’t his fault.
Abusive parents often have extenuating reasons for not being able to properly care for their child. Addiction is often cited as an example. This does not lessen John’s responsibility as a father, nor does it mean that he is not a child abuser.
3. He was a hero. He had to save people.
4. Sam and Dean needed to know how to defend themselves.
This does not explain the abandonment, the poor food supply, the uneven school attendance, and lack of a stable home. This also assumes that being able to “defend themselves” is more important than not being abused. I would argue otherwise, especially since John’s line of work puts his boys in more danger than normal.
5. He loved Sam and Dean. Sam and Dean loved him.
Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Love is meaningless. Of course abusers love their children. My dad loves me, probably. People who kick their toddlers while they're drunk and wake up all regretful in the morning love their children. People who drown their kids in their bathtub love their fucking children. Love is meaningless. Love is not a good thing. The idea that abusers don’t love their children is very very dangerous. Abusers aren’t monsters. They’re just people, and normal people are way scarier anyway. No matter how much a fraction of this fandom tries to demonize him, John wasn’t a monster. Dehumanizing him makes it easier to deal with his actions, but it also goes against canon.
Basically, John is a fascinating and well-written man. He makes good television. Liking him as a character is completely understandable, but please remember this is not a reason to excuse his actions.
baratheonpilled
jacobvanloon
theartofmadeline
janainaart
germansingergirl
