![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
la_belle_laideFirst let me say that I can, and sometimes do, enjoy things that are sort of problematic when it comes to equality and things like that. In some ways, it's hard to escape these things and if you went around hating everything that was written by some clueless privileged person, there wouldn't be a hell of a lot left to enjoy. Because honestly, white men write, produce, and sell just about every damn thing.
With that said, I've watched Dr. Who, and Torchwood, and now Sherlock, and I've enjoyed them all immensely – even though the background noise to this enjoyment is often the fact that Steven Moffat, one of the main writers, is so hopelessly mired in sexism that SOMETIMES I JUST CAN'T EVEN, OKAY.
And when you call him on it, he gets butthurt. Dear Steven Moffat: When someone tells you you're acting like an oppressive twat, the correct response is not to sulk about how other people are just wrong. The correct response is to put yourself into a time-out and really think about why.
Dr. Who quickly became one of my show obsessions, because there were awesome stories and some very endearing characters, especially The Doctor. For me to fall in love with a story, I have to fall in love with and/or strongly identify with the characters. Sometimes both! Dr. Who gave me The Doctor, who is in some ways my perfect character: the tormented genius, the Lonely God, angry and righteous and peaceful and powerful and vulnerableand David Tennant.
(I loved Eccleston—still do—Matt Smith has yet to grow on me. He doesn't appear to have the authority to pull off the really badass moments yet.)
Dr. Who also gave me Jack Harkness, the omnisexual Han Solo of the Dr. Who world. Which led to Torchwood, another show with characters who are brilliant and beautiful and flawed, and has some really excellent acting, and some surprisingly well-handled female leads.
In Dr. Who, I enjoyed the female characters for their strengths and their flaws, but I couldn't help noticing that the flaws sometimes weren't those of the characters, but those of the writer. Moffat just simply does not know how to write women.
This could be, of course, because he has a poor view of anyone with a vagina/anyone female.
There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands. The world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.”
See, Moffat seems to think that we don't live in a patriarchy. He believes that men are oppressed. That in a world where women have to fight for reproductive rights, statistically get less raises and less pay in general for the same amount of work, comprise less than a quarter of big corporations and control of the media, have to constantly protect ourselves from a system that protects (and encourages, in some cases) rapists and blames us for "being victims..." That in such a "civilized" world, men are oppressed. Men are oppressed, can live without women, and women are needy for men.
So when you come from that kind of mindset, you're going to screw up writing female characters. I don't think he's got any hardcore, obvious hate-on for women, but his world-view is so toxic that it's like he just can't help it.
So, when he writes women on Dr. Who, it's from the filter of "women are needy" and "men are oppressed and we'll just never understand females."
He's also said as much on his Twitter, and has been called out by fans of the female characters on his show.
So, he starts to get an idea that maybe women want some kind of fair representation, right? Maybe they want to see an awesome representation of a woman in a position of power, of equality.
What better opportunity than to use Irene Adler, the canonical female in the actual, canon Sherlock Holmes universe? In the original story, she was the only person who ever outwitted Sherlock Holmes. Holmes thought at first, "Ahh, a female, this'll be easy," but, "the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman’s wit. He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the woman.”
Irene Adler outsmarted him, escaped without his help, and earned his respect. This was Victorian times, okay. You just didn't really get a hell of a lot of stories like that back then. There were no sexual implications between Holmes and Irene Adler. He mentioned that she was beautiful, but ACD went to great lengths to explain that Holmes was not a sexual creature; he just didn't really think that way.
So what does Moffat do? He takes this fascinating character and he makes her into a sex worker, a professional dominatrix. Okay, COOL, that's all right, no problem. It is telling, of course, that Moffat's idea of "woman in power" must mean "sexual power," though. It's like, well obviously a woman can't be his intellectual equal and she definitely would not be his intellectual rival! But, uhh, she could be sexier than him, I guess.
I totally sort of get it, because I'm halfway between
and
Actually, it tells me more about Steven Moffat than anyone else. He gives her a riding crop and has her beat the hell out of Sherlock in a sexualized way. Still, okay, whatever! It was written and filmed really well, the acting was fantastic, although I feel a little bit like I'm looking at the writer's schoolboy fantasy or something. Still. I am a fangirl and I can get on board with the fantasy etc.
But then? SPOILERS. Remember how in the book, Irene Adler did all the outsmarting and outwitting and escaping? Does she get to do that here? Nope. She ends up having feewings for Sherlock. They are her downfall. She doesn't escape: he rescues her. She is soooooo thankful that the man came to rescue her OMG! She would be dead without him! He is such a strong, clever man, how thankful she is that he untied her from the metaphorical railroad tracks. Typical damsel in distress that she is!
Not only that, but he made her gay – awesome! She says so herself. Watson keeps telling her (everyone) "OMG we're not a couple, NO HOMO!" (ffs getting really tired of that too,) and "I'M NOT GAY," and she flat out tells him, "Well, I am." So we have a female character, and gay! And what does he do? He makes her fatally attracted to Sherlock Holmes. Am I the only one getting eye-rolly?
It really effing sucks when the Victorian version of this was more deeply forward-thinking than the modern version.
I get that he tried, you know. Female sexual agency. Bisexual, breaks the rules, does what she wants, who she wants. Riding crop. Ass kicking. You precious thing, you tried, didn't you? No wonder you were so shocked when people caught you out and yelled at you about sexism.
And this is one of the ways in which I can be totally enjoying something at hating it at the same time. Because it really is a great show, and I have to keep reminding myself that the writer is coming from a totally different (and completely stupid) headspace. I have to remind myself that it's not his fault. Or at least, it wasn't, up until recently. As of now, he's been told. Is he going to continue to sulk in the corner because women are so m33333444n to him? Or is he going to really think about his views, and do some work to change them?
Okay, but now let's talk about the enjoyment for a bit, because lately I've gotten three whole new shiny fandoms (well, Dr. Who since the summer, Torchwood since fall, and Sherlock since last week,) and I love a new fandom. I can legitimately hate the way a writer writes women, and still love his male characters (and Moffat doesn't write all of them – really just a fraction of the scripts.)
Torchwood has some great female characters. You have Gwen: brave, caring, loyal, disloyal, deeply flawed. Tosh: the computer genius who maybe has the biggest character arc of the whole cast. And Torchwood also has an awesomely canonical homosexual couple in Jack and Ianto – in fact, sexuality throughout this series is very fluid. Torchwood, I think, handles sexuality really well, without judgment or fetishization, or at least I think so (though correct me if I'm wrong, my own views may be skewed here since I really like the gay couple in question.)
I've already talked about why I loved The Doctor, so since we're on Sherlock and Watson, let's give them a go, too.
Sherlock and Watson are basically House and Wilson. No, I mean really, like so much. Sometimes in my head, I'm replacing Holmes and Watson with House and Wilson, because the dialogue between them is so similar, and sometimes even the acting is similar. Which, that's fine, because House and Wilson are basically supposed to be Holmes and Watson, except that House (the show) was interpreting that character dynamic in this particular way since, what, 2004? So it's not entirely original in that regard, but again, hey. I'm cool with that.
What it comes down to for me is another lonely genius, isolated by his intellect and out of touch with the rest of the world, and his more in-touch companion acting as a bridge between him and the other characters. I really like the Lonesome Genius, the Badass Bookworm, and, god, especially if he has these moments of vulnerability and humanity, and he wears a long coat while having them. In this way, I am way too easy to please.
And of course, I apparently am really into boys with blue eyes and high cheekbones and curly hair,
who wear clothes that fit really well.
No seriously, the wardrobe in this show is SO FLY, half of my enjoyment comes from the (male) characters, and the other half is genuinely from the clothes – and I am so not a clothes person. Seriously, for a character who is supposed to be so completely out of touch with everything but his work, they really make a point of dressing him beautifully.
Anyway, so that's my thoughts on why Steven Moffat needs a time-out, to think about the crappy things he's said and done, and also why I can still be a fan of something while disliking one particular writer.
With all that off my chest, now I'm heading to bed to read the actual Sherlock Holmes (which I've read before, but only just realized that the original Kindle version of "The Complete Works" was fairly incomplete, and finally downloaded the missing pieces.)
With that said, I've watched Dr. Who, and Torchwood, and now Sherlock, and I've enjoyed them all immensely – even though the background noise to this enjoyment is often the fact that Steven Moffat, one of the main writers, is so hopelessly mired in sexism that SOMETIMES I JUST CAN'T EVEN, OKAY.
And when you call him on it, he gets butthurt. Dear Steven Moffat: When someone tells you you're acting like an oppressive twat, the correct response is not to sulk about how other people are just wrong. The correct response is to put yourself into a time-out and really think about why.
Dr. Who quickly became one of my show obsessions, because there were awesome stories and some very endearing characters, especially The Doctor. For me to fall in love with a story, I have to fall in love with and/or strongly identify with the characters. Sometimes both! Dr. Who gave me The Doctor, who is in some ways my perfect character: the tormented genius, the Lonely God, angry and righteous and peaceful and powerful and vulnerable
(I loved Eccleston—still do—Matt Smith has yet to grow on me. He doesn't appear to have the authority to pull off the really badass moments yet.)
Dr. Who also gave me Jack Harkness, the omnisexual Han Solo of the Dr. Who world. Which led to Torchwood, another show with characters who are brilliant and beautiful and flawed, and has some really excellent acting, and some surprisingly well-handled female leads.
In Dr. Who, I enjoyed the female characters for their strengths and their flaws, but I couldn't help noticing that the flaws sometimes weren't those of the characters, but those of the writer. Moffat just simply does not know how to write women.
This could be, of course, because he has a poor view of anyone with a vagina/anyone female.
There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands. The world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.”
See, Moffat seems to think that we don't live in a patriarchy. He believes that men are oppressed. That in a world where women have to fight for reproductive rights, statistically get less raises and less pay in general for the same amount of work, comprise less than a quarter of big corporations and control of the media, have to constantly protect ourselves from a system that protects (and encourages, in some cases) rapists and blames us for "being victims..." That in such a "civilized" world, men are oppressed. Men are oppressed, can live without women, and women are needy for men.
So when you come from that kind of mindset, you're going to screw up writing female characters. I don't think he's got any hardcore, obvious hate-on for women, but his world-view is so toxic that it's like he just can't help it.
So, when he writes women on Dr. Who, it's from the filter of "women are needy" and "men are oppressed and we'll just never understand females."
He's also said as much on his Twitter, and has been called out by fans of the female characters on his show.
So, he starts to get an idea that maybe women want some kind of fair representation, right? Maybe they want to see an awesome representation of a woman in a position of power, of equality.
What better opportunity than to use Irene Adler, the canonical female in the actual, canon Sherlock Holmes universe? In the original story, she was the only person who ever outwitted Sherlock Holmes. Holmes thought at first, "Ahh, a female, this'll be easy," but, "the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman’s wit. He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the woman.”
Irene Adler outsmarted him, escaped without his help, and earned his respect. This was Victorian times, okay. You just didn't really get a hell of a lot of stories like that back then. There were no sexual implications between Holmes and Irene Adler. He mentioned that she was beautiful, but ACD went to great lengths to explain that Holmes was not a sexual creature; he just didn't really think that way.
So what does Moffat do? He takes this fascinating character and he makes her into a sex worker, a professional dominatrix. Okay, COOL, that's all right, no problem. It is telling, of course, that Moffat's idea of "woman in power" must mean "sexual power," though. It's like, well obviously a woman can't be his intellectual equal and she definitely would not be his intellectual rival! But, uhh, she could be sexier than him, I guess.
I totally sort of get it, because I'm halfway between
and
Actually, it tells me more about Steven Moffat than anyone else. He gives her a riding crop and has her beat the hell out of Sherlock in a sexualized way. Still, okay, whatever! It was written and filmed really well, the acting was fantastic, although I feel a little bit like I'm looking at the writer's schoolboy fantasy or something. Still. I am a fangirl and I can get on board with the fantasy etc.
But then? SPOILERS. Remember how in the book, Irene Adler did all the outsmarting and outwitting and escaping? Does she get to do that here? Nope. She ends up having feewings for Sherlock. They are her downfall. She doesn't escape: he rescues her. She is soooooo thankful that the man came to rescue her OMG! She would be dead without him! He is such a strong, clever man, how thankful she is that he untied her from the metaphorical railroad tracks. Typical damsel in distress that she is!
Not only that, but he made her gay – awesome! She says so herself. Watson keeps telling her (everyone) "OMG we're not a couple, NO HOMO!" (ffs getting really tired of that too,) and "I'M NOT GAY," and she flat out tells him, "Well, I am." So we have a female character, and gay! And what does he do? He makes her fatally attracted to Sherlock Holmes. Am I the only one getting eye-rolly?
It really effing sucks when the Victorian version of this was more deeply forward-thinking than the modern version.
I get that he tried, you know. Female sexual agency. Bisexual, breaks the rules, does what she wants, who she wants. Riding crop. Ass kicking. You precious thing, you tried, didn't you? No wonder you were so shocked when people caught you out and yelled at you about sexism.
And this is one of the ways in which I can be totally enjoying something at hating it at the same time. Because it really is a great show, and I have to keep reminding myself that the writer is coming from a totally different (and completely stupid) headspace. I have to remind myself that it's not his fault. Or at least, it wasn't, up until recently. As of now, he's been told. Is he going to continue to sulk in the corner because women are so m33333444n to him? Or is he going to really think about his views, and do some work to change them?
Okay, but now let's talk about the enjoyment for a bit, because lately I've gotten three whole new shiny fandoms (well, Dr. Who since the summer, Torchwood since fall, and Sherlock since last week,) and I love a new fandom. I can legitimately hate the way a writer writes women, and still love his male characters (and Moffat doesn't write all of them – really just a fraction of the scripts.)
Torchwood has some great female characters. You have Gwen: brave, caring, loyal, disloyal, deeply flawed. Tosh: the computer genius who maybe has the biggest character arc of the whole cast. And Torchwood also has an awesomely canonical homosexual couple in Jack and Ianto – in fact, sexuality throughout this series is very fluid. Torchwood, I think, handles sexuality really well, without judgment or fetishization, or at least I think so (though correct me if I'm wrong, my own views may be skewed here since I really like the gay couple in question.)
I've already talked about why I loved The Doctor, so since we're on Sherlock and Watson, let's give them a go, too.
Sherlock and Watson are basically House and Wilson. No, I mean really, like so much. Sometimes in my head, I'm replacing Holmes and Watson with House and Wilson, because the dialogue between them is so similar, and sometimes even the acting is similar. Which, that's fine, because House and Wilson are basically supposed to be Holmes and Watson, except that House (the show) was interpreting that character dynamic in this particular way since, what, 2004? So it's not entirely original in that regard, but again, hey. I'm cool with that.
What it comes down to for me is another lonely genius, isolated by his intellect and out of touch with the rest of the world, and his more in-touch companion acting as a bridge between him and the other characters. I really like the Lonesome Genius, the Badass Bookworm, and, god, especially if he has these moments of vulnerability and humanity, and he wears a long coat while having them. In this way, I am way too easy to please.
And of course, I apparently am really into boys with blue eyes and high cheekbones and curly hair,
who wear clothes that fit really well.
No seriously, the wardrobe in this show is SO FLY, half of my enjoyment comes from the (male) characters, and the other half is genuinely from the clothes – and I am so not a clothes person. Seriously, for a character who is supposed to be so completely out of touch with everything but his work, they really make a point of dressing him beautifully.
Anyway, so that's my thoughts on why Steven Moffat needs a time-out, to think about the crappy things he's said and done, and also why I can still be a fan of something while disliking one particular writer.
With all that off my chest, now I'm heading to bed to read the actual Sherlock Holmes (which I've read before, but only just realized that the original Kindle version of "The Complete Works" was fairly incomplete, and finally downloaded the missing pieces.)
