i find the whole ‘lucifer represents femininity while michael represents masculinity’ thing so interesting because like from a non-white perspective it’s the exact opposite. michael’s the quintessential female/sister figure in any asian story— runs the proverbial house with an iron fist, filial piety to the power of a billion, raises the kids, overlooked by the dad figure, doesn’t rebel, doesn’t question anything, the likes. meanwhile lucifer’s the quintessential male figure— he’s allowed to argue and rebel (created for it, in fact), he’s the father’s (creator’s) favourite despite being the one to oppose and challenge him, and he has a level of free will and freedom that michael never has/gets. this isn’t even considering the whole ‘lucifer parallels chuck while michael parallels amara’ theory (which im unsurprisingly a fan of) and the whole ‘sam (lucifers vessel) is chuck’s favourite punching bag’ thing vs ‘chuck has a psychosexual obsession with dean (michael)’ thing which brings up plenty of opportunities for a jungian/freudian examination of all this
idk it’s so so so fascinating how individual cultural experiences revolving around race and gender can shape these kinds of things. also not discounting the conflicting imagery of all this (for example michael being associated with fire, classic yang symbolism, while lucifer’s associated with ice, which is yin. but at the same time lucifer’s a very active character and associated with light while michael’s incredibly passive, which are yang and yin traits respectively) and how multiple interpretations can be true at the same time i just think psychoanalysing angels through the lens of gender (and lack thereof) is neat :)
