Women, Sex, and Power - A Rant

[hells_half_acre]

More Sherlock reaction...well, basically, this is my Reaction to Sherlock Reactions.


As I talked about a little bit previously, there are people who took issue with the way Irene Adler was handled in Sherlock. And SOME of the issues are valid - like for instance "How and why is she involved with Moriarty?" Yes, it ties the plot together nicely - but what does it mean about her motivations? Or, for instance, the debate about whether the very end of the episode made her a the victor or the loser in her game with Sherlock....(personally, I see her as being the victor, but again, I just like liking things.)

We get people who miss the point entirely and are mad that she seemed to have feelings for Sherlock even though she was a Lesbian...which I just roll my eyes at, because obviously they miss the entire point of her conversation with John.

And then we get people who are mad that she was a professional dominatrix. Ryan North of dinosaur comics, thinks it's an overused trope - uh okay, he's obviously watching different programs than me. Though, honestly, what would you have her be? An opera singer like she was in the ACD book who just HAPPENED to have a past affair with a member of a royal house? That plot wouldn't go very far - she wouldn't have the information needed to involve the Americans, or terrorists, or Moriarty. She wouldn't have enough clout to garner the interest of anyone, let alone Sherlock Holmes. There would be absolutely no intrigue - I mean honestly...go back and read the original story, it's fun, but there is NO INTRIGUE. "I have this photo, but I'm not going to give it to you and I'm never going to show it to anyone anyway, and you can't fool me with your disguises! Now I'm off to live happily ever after with my beloved husband and I'll never cause trouble again! Bye!" Oh, thrilling television, that.

And we get people who say stuff like this:

 I did side-eye the idea that a woman can only be powerful by being sexual

First off, she is not ONLY powerful by being sexual. She is powerful by being SMART and she just so happens to be sexual. Sexual arousal is her PROFESSION, it is not the source of her power. Her BRAIN is the source of her power, the sex is just a visual sign post - and I'll tell you why...

Completely ignoring Irene for a second... It pisses me off that when powerful women are overtly sexual, they are anti-feminist. That, for instance, Irene showing up naked to battle Sherlock is somehow a BLOW to womankind. Horseshit.

You know what women are supposed to be? Do you know what Victorian women are supposed to be? Do you know why so many of the worlds misogynist religions ask women to cover up? (My apologies to any of you who believe in misogynist religions and take offense that I just called them misogynistic twice). Do you know what the 19th and 20th century women were believed to be? Here's the answer: Women don't want sex. Men are the horndogs who defile them. You have to coerce your pretty girlfriend into letting you fuck her...pry those legs apart. Mini-skirts are scandalous. Bikini's even more so. My goodness, check out that whore in the low-cut top! God, did you see Stephanie the other day - she was dressed like a total slut. If a man has a one night stand, he gets high-fives - if a woman does, she's a slut. More than two boyfriends in your life? - whore. Enjoy threesomes? - whore. And let's not forget what it said in the sex book I found from the 1950s "Women on top is perverse and unnatural" so there you go girls - lie back and think of England. Sex is something done to you, not by you.

So, what is a sign of a woman in a position of power? What's a sign of a woman who is not only in control of herself, but also DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK? Maybe it's that she's HONEST. Maybe it's that if she wants to have you right here, on this desk, until you beg for mercy twice, she is going to fucking do JUST THAT. Maybe she is going to walk into a room completely naked just to freak you out - because she knows how you work already, Sherlock Holmes, and she knows a thing or two about disguises.

Have you ever walked into a room completely naked in a society that is constantly judging how you look when completely naked? If you can pull it off - climb up into a strangers lap - and not bat an eyelash, then you are a pretty goddamn confident girl, I'll tell you that much...but your ability to strut around naked does not make you confident and powerful. It doesn't work like that. Just because A causes B, doesn't mean B causes A.

So fuck anyone who complains about sexually confident women being a DETRIMENT to feminism. If I want to be sexy, I'm going to. If I want to whip people until they orgasm, I'm going to. If I want to sleep with someone, I'm going to. If I want to pick a fight with someone and then battle them with every single tool at my disposal, including my naked body and the fact that sex might alarm them, then I'm going to - because I can, because I'm confident and powerful and I can do whatever the fuck I want and be whoever the fuck I want.

It's one of those Madonna/Whore things...damned if you do, damned if you don't. You're either anti-feminist for being too demure, or your anti-feminist for being too sexual. Why don't we just let people be themselves? How about we stop making every single female on television the representative for all women? Is Sherlock the representative for all men? No? Why not? Oh, because he's a possible asexual sociopath and most men aren't. Well, most women aren't dominatrixes that want to blackmail the British government, so how about we stop forcing Irene to represent our ideal of the perfect woman. Why aren't we talking the same way about Mrs. Hudson? She's pretty badass - I mean, she was attacked by Americans and still managed to stuff that phone into her bra...she once got Sherlock to ensure that her husband was executed for murder... she's a woman who has managed to garner Sherlock's affections without being sexual at all. Maybe SHE can be your ideal of the perfect woman - or is she too old? Not intriguing enough? It's because she hasn't nicknamed herself "The Woman" right? You understand that that title was just a nod to ACD canon, which, quite frankly was WAY more misogynistic than what you just saw, right? Sherlock is not the perfect representation of all men, and Irene is not the perfect representation of all women...there, they really are perfect for each other - if only Irene weren't gay and Sherlock weren't Sherlock. Hamish is a very fine baby name. It's what I picture whenever I say "Jesus H. Christ!"...which is something I say, for some reason.

Anyway, now I'm just rambling. I'm just sick of it. You know what the day will look like when we're finally equal? No one will give a shit about crap like this - a character will just be a character, and not be an ambassador for every single person with the same genitalia, skin-colour, sexual-orientation, or pocket watch.

Comments

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, believe me, if you had spoken to me in person, there would have been a lot of waving my hands and saying WHY??? I'm just lucky that if you put a keyboard in front of me, my fingers remember that letters form words. ;)

I am SO TIRED of the association between feminism and a lack of sexual desire or overt sexuality.

I'm just really glad that I'm not the only one!!

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

It sounds really intriguing. I haven't watched Sherlock yet at all (one more show for me to wiggle into!) but I'll be looking forward to this.

Moffat is a really great writer from time to time, so if he does a good job with Irene in this I'll take your word for it. :D

"we should stop making female characters the spokesmen for the entire gender. " AND we should never stop holding writers accountable for how they generate their characters. If I see simplistic and/or sexist patterns in a writer, I'll be holding his or her feet to the fire!

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

It sounds really intriguing. I haven't watched Sherlock yet at all (one more show for me to wiggle into!) but I'll be looking forward to this.

As I mentioned to someone else: When you do watch it, please keep in mind that the second episode 1x02 is not very good (in my opinion, of course). You need to push through it to get to the awesome that is 1x03, though. I feel it's important to lower people's expectations on 1x02 before they watch it. :P

And yes, we should always hold writers accountable for how they generate their characters - but we should also be careful not to put their feet in the fire before we even see what they've done. I feel that for a lot of people, Moffat was deemed guilty before the trial began, and the "evidence" was interpreted to suit that preemptive judgement.

[verdande-mi.livejournal.com]

Couldn't have said it better myself. It saddens me the most that WOMEN are often the ones judging and holding up other women to a specific standard. The worst thing you can do to someone is not allow them to be human - and that includes wanting to turn them into some sort of Ideal. Irene should be allowed to have faults, (just as I have faults and you have faults, and Sherlock has faults,) without being accused of representing her entire gender poorly.

This is true, and I just don’t understand why women keep this behaviour up, and often in discussions it just turns into a screaming match because everyone is blind to even trying to understand the other’s views. The world has moved forward and many things have changed for the better regarding women, but truly being of the female gender doesn’t make all of the people under that banner the same. I just wish it was more room for people to express different roles than what society upholds as the norm without being judged up and down the madonna/whore scale. When there is something one doesn’t understand, the smart thing is to make an effort to learn and understand before going off on a rant.

Very true. I also think the Christmas scene made a point of this. Sherlock chooses his few, and as soon as Molly arrives, we see that she ISN'T one of his chosen few... and I think that's why Sherlock can't see that Molly has chosen HIM. But, that's sort of tangential and beside the point...or maybe it's not? I'm not sure where I was going with this thought.

Yes, the Christmas scene; what a terrific scene and so telling! What you said is very accurate, and in that vein I think it is telling that John’s girlfriend is there, even if Sherlock clearly has no interest in her or even remember her name or face. It says something about his fondness for John. It’s true that Molly has chosen him yes, and I agree that Sherlock doesn’t understand that, or more accurately he isn’t able to perceive it because he doesn’t seem to have any references to anything like it and no interest. And he doesn’t know how to handle it when he does clue in, he tries to, but really he has no references to being nice either, and everyone in the room knows and accepts that. Except Molly.

Regarding Moffatt, which I’ve seen others have mentioned. I wonder if isn’t something of the same as when we remember the times our toast falls and lands with the spread faced to the floor more often than we remember the opposite; like negativity just latches on more easily or something.

I’ve seen a lot of negativity regarding him, him as a person and not based upon any stories or characters he has written. I personally really enjoy his stories from Doctor Who and Sherlock and don’t have complains about how he writes women; but for an outsider looking in it just seems like negativity piled upon negativity without taking the time to check if quotes are accurate or keeping in mind that, as you’ve said one or more mistake doesn’t mean a person is this or that. A person is made up of so much more and yes even brilliant and kind people say the post idiotic and fail-worthy things at times. Also things get misquoted or things sound better before the same thought tumbles out in spoken word a total mess and not resembling what you thought at all. Sorry to go off tangent.

Indeed. I often wonder how society would be different if we never moved north and put on clothes. :P>/i>

An apt question I have no answer to; there’s a great fun Norwegian short story that asks the question, if it was destined that we were to wander, why we didn’t wander south to grow orchards instead of following the ice and reindeer north? One can wonder!

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything!

And he doesn’t know how to handle it when he does clue in, he tries to, but really he has no references to being nice either, and everyone in the room knows and accepts that. Except Molly.

Hmm, very interesting point. I've seen a lot of comments elsewhere about how John lets Sherlock be Sherlock and accepts him for who he is - and that's why Sherlock loves John so much. I wonder if part of the reason Sherlock is so annoyed by Molly all the time is because part of him knows that she wants something ELSE from him - that she has this ideal picture of him that he doesn't, and won't ever fit into, but that she refuses to let go of.

I’ve seen a lot of negativity regarding him, him as a person and not based upon any stories or characters he has written. I personally really enjoy his stories from Doctor Who and Sherlock and don’t have complains about how he writes women; but for an outsider looking in it just seems like negativity piled upon negativity without taking the time to check if quotes are accurate or keeping in mind that, as you’ve said one or more mistake doesn’t mean a person is this or that.

I've noticed this too. I've wondered if perhaps it's because Moffat has a very flippant sense of humour - sarcastic, and sly...and maybe people just don't understand that it's humour and that he's not serious? I mean, he's often quoted as having this "fuck you" attitude (which I love), but maybe people are interpreting that as him not caring about the characters, rather than him just not caring if people don't like the way he wrote *insert character name here*?

I don't know...I've been trying to put my finger on this weird phenomenon as well. Interestingly enough, Mark Gatiss doesn't seem to have this problem - people adore him - yet, when people don't like Irene, it's Moffat's fault (and it's true Moffat is credited with the writing on the episode) but I don't doubt that Gatiss approved of Moffat's work wholeheartedly, yet no one is coming after him with a pitchfork (that I've seen.)

[verdande-mi.livejournal.com]

I’ve been thinking the same as you; it’s at least part of the answer I think. I’m fast on my feet to get away from it when I stumble upon it, so perhaps I’ve missed something. Fandom is my happy place so if it isn’t squee or a good discussion I tend to stay clear of it.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Haha, yes, that is the case with me as well. I'd rather not understand the negativity than accidentally drown in it. :P

[msninacat.livejournal.com]

Man I'm glad I stay out of other fandom stuff for the most part. I can not handle the femnazis who miss the point of everything. It's bad enough with SPN.

I thought it was brilliant the way Irene was written on the show. Like you said, it's much less misogynistic than the original so deal people. It's retarded to get your panties in a bunch because her nudity wasn't even sexual. It was to throw the great Sherlock, observer of details, off with NO details. These complainers should be forced to watch Jersey Shore or something. There's a show degrading women.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

I agree! :P I try to stay away from it all - but it filters through somehow, and then I get ENRAGED :P

[msninacat.livejournal.com]

I don't blame you. It's why I'm glad I'm too lazy to mess with my tumblr much. lol

[gigglingkat]

Followed missyjack here - LOL You used one of my icons to post this!

I'm loving Sherlock but haven't gone looking for fandom because Sherlock/John just does not interest me half as much as SherlockJohn onscreen does.

It does not surprise me that Fandom had a HOW DARE YOU BE A SEXUAL THING, YOU HARLOT. STEP OFF MY OTP! reaction - but it does sadden me.

In addition to what's been said via post or comments - I find it interesting that people are harping on her using sex as power when we don't ever actually see her having sex - except for the implied fade to black at the beginning.

I truly didn't see her using sex with Sherlock. She used emotion - which is really why she's a threat to a fangirl's OTP. She got under his skin the exact same way John did and from there it doesn't go anywhere for the exact same reason it doesn't with John.

Sherlock engages with her - by ignoring her which just makes me laugh and pet him - for similar reasons. She's not boring and she isn't put off by him. There's a large dose of hubris there - she can dominate any man, but it's HIM she's intrigued by.

She uses it and he doesn't blame her - but it's all emotional, not sexual to me.

As for dominatrix rather than schoolteacher - really? I would actually only see the character modernized as dominatrix (which they picked and made me squee), con woman/art thief (a la a female version of the White Collar lead) or some sort of criminal profiler which would put her on the same side of the law as Sherlock. Now THAT would have threatened the OTP.

As for the more delicious point of what/why she's tied to Moriarty. I think she originally intended to play them off each other.

She gets tangled with Mycroft by her stunt with the royal. She then turns to the "consultant" to get a read on Mycroft. Now she's tangled with Moriarty so she offers information - but it's encrypted - so Moriarty sends her to Sherlock to play one Holmes against the other.

I can squint and wonder if Moriarty didn't set the whole thing up to see if Sherlock was as big a weakness for Mycroft as John is for Sherlock. That it's actually Mycroft that Jim's started a war with and is startled that Sherlock became such a large threat so quickly.

Mostly because when he shows at the pool, he's equally condescending (Daddy's tired of playing) and impressed. If it's Mycroft he's playing Byzantine chess with, then turning/breaking/killing Sherlock are all a major play. He shows up in person because he genuinely can't decide which move to make - so he's making them in order - starting with breaking.

To that end, he sends in Irene. If she's smart enough to hurt Sherlock, atta girl, I've got a place for you in my organization. If she can't or is duped into falling for him, then killing her will hurt Sherlock and ultimately Mycroft. Moriarty still wins the hand.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

LOL You used one of my icons to post this!

Awesome! Did you make it?! I should credit you properly. I love that icon.

I'm loving Sherlock but haven't gone looking for fandom because Sherlock/John just does not interest me half as much as SherlockJohn onscreen does.

I'm the same with Sam/Dean, Dean/Cas and Whoever/Whoever, so I understand completely.

I find it interesting that people are harping on her using sex as power when we don't ever actually see her having sex - except for the implied fade to black at the beginning.

And even then, if it's obvious that the people complaining know very little about professional dominatrix business, because there's a good chance that Irene doesn't actually have "sex" with any of her clients.

She uses it and he doesn't blame her - but it's all emotional, not sexual to me.

I agree. I think part of the problem is that the some members of the fandom can't separate nakedness and sentiment from sex. They don't understand that you can be naked without it being sexual, or that you can flirt without being sexually interested in someone.

As for dominatrix rather than schoolteacher - really? I would actually only see the character modernized as dominatrix (which they picked and made me squee), con woman/art thief (a la a female version of the White Collar lead) or some sort of criminal profiler which would put her on the same side of the law as Sherlock. Now THAT would have threatened the OTP.

Agreed. It's why most people put her in the role of a career criminal, because it's the easiest way to have her be an adversary/opponent to Sherlock (as in the RDJ version)...I don't like that option as a rule - so I was thrilled when they turned her into a dominatrix who was just blackmailing this ONE time.

I can squint and wonder if Moriarty didn't set the whole thing up to see if Sherlock was as big a weakness for Mycroft as John is for Sherlock. That it's actually Mycroft that Jim's started a war with and is startled that Sherlock became such a large threat so quickly.

Oooo, this is a very interesting idea. I like it. Mind you, since The Great Game clues were ALL aimed towards Sherlock, I think that Moriarty knew he was starting the war with Sherlock, but that could have just been his first move in a greater war against Mycroft. Like - if you wanted to attack Switzerland, you'd have to go through one of its neighbours first, so your first act of war could actually be an attack on Italy.

Anyway, basically, I'm saying that yes - I think you are brilliant.

[gigglingkat]

Yep - Puppy is MAD is one of mine - credit is optional but use tv_boyfriends if you'd like.

It's why most people put her in the role of a career criminal, because it's the easiest way to have her be an adversary/opponent to Sherlock (as in the RDJ version)
See the RDJ verse fans hate Irene there - and yet not a clue has been had...

As for the Moriarty is really mindfucking Mycroft -

Moriarty has been doing this for years. He's run across hints of Mycroft but as both are shadow players - neither can quite pindown the other. I think this is a game that has been going on for years.

Moriarty is definitely interested in Sherlock on his own. But Mycroft exposes himself by constantly putting men on 221B and summoning John. I think as a side effect of being interested in Sherlock, Moriarty hit the jackpot and found Mycroft.

The Great Game is most definitely directly aimed at Sherlock - as stated Moriarty gets bored too. But so much of 201 is Moriarty attacking Mycroft that it makes me see it earlier. The Great Game may have been about Sherlock, but being able to also hurt Mycroft would have been delicious.

Plus the look on Sherlock's face when he realizes that his big brother has "stolen" his arch-villain? He'll kill Moriarty for that alone!

And to loop back into shallow fandom after bashing it - the Mycroft/Moriarty hate!sex fic might actually be worth joining the fandom for...

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

See the RDJ verse fans hate Irene there - and yet not a clue has been had...

Haha, yeah, I actually don't like Irene in the RDJ verse either, but at least I know why they wrote her like that :P

I love your Moriarty-Mycroft theory...seems the end scene of the latest episode would have use believe otherwise, then again, Mycroft is there as well. The plot thickens.

Okay I had issues with the way sexuality was portrayed in this episode

[indusnm.livejournal.com]

Not with the dominatrix part- I'm not a major stickler for canon, and I am fascinated with re-imaginings, especially when you're bringing a story like Doyle's into the 21st century. I did not like or dislike anything about her being a dominatrix. I did not appreciate the way they changed her character- I thought Irene Adler was, in many ways, a very admirable character in the book whereas this one consorts with terrorists, particularly Moriarty, and has no issues giving away a secret that will, apparently, set back anti-terrorism efforts decades. There was a fundamental change in her character that bothered me and had nothing to do with her dominatrix-ness. Like you, I felt that they made her a very powerful woman and I appreciated that, even if I didn't appreciate a lot of other things about her.

But there were problems with the portrayal of sexuality. I felt that there was a constant shaming of Sherlock in this. Sexual freedom, in my opinion, includes the choice not to indulge, and if we aren't shaming people for indulging then we shouldn't shame people for choosing not to. Asexuality is a valid choice, and it fits on the spectrum of sexuality that should be respected and appreciated, IMHO.

I also became annoyed with the sort of cop-out that they did with Irene Adler's alleged homosexuality. I say alleged because we never really saw any evidence of it (yes, women were her clients but so were men), and it's possible it was the smoke-screen that Sherlock talked about, the lie she told that gave him a clue to the truth. It's the same sort of thing that annoyed me about Torchwood. Jack Harkness was supposed to defy all stereotypes and be out and proud, and yay he's in same-sex relationship, but the show kept trying to force down my throat this idea that there is a very cliche, predictable pairing between him and Gwen that defines who he is in the show, and that was such a cop-out. This felt a little similar, but about her and not him. I would have respected the writers much more if she had just been ironic in her password choice.

So yes, I had issues with sexuality as discussed in this episode, but different ones from those you discuss. I completely agree with you about your points! And yes, I am stalking you, but I am kind of on my third re-read of random chapters of your demented verse and always feel the need to pop-in and tell writers that ;)

Re: Okay I had issues with the way sexuality was portrayed in this episode

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

I thought Irene Adler was, in many ways, a very admirable character in the book whereas this one consorts with terrorists, particularly Moriarty, and has no issues giving away a secret that will, apparently, set back anti-terrorism efforts decades. There was a fundamental change in her character that bothered me and had nothing to do with her dominatrix-ness.

I agree, and in my opinion, this is really the only valid criticism of BBC's Irene. That being said, I do understand why they did it. It's a modern retelling, and in today's world a singer who just so happens to not want to part with a photograph isn't a very compelling story. They needed to make Irene a mirror for Sherlock - and they did, in looks, dress, carriage - and they needed to put her in Sherlock's world...and Sherlock only consorts with A)people that fight crime, and B)people that commit crime.

It's why Ritchie!verse Irene is a career criminal (which I loathe)...so, I was happy that they left it fairly vague as to how much she knew about Moriarty's game plan.

But, all that aside - yes, I agree with you. I'd have preferred it if they had thought of a way to keep her separate from Moriarty and terrorism, even though I understand why they didn't.

But there were problems with the portrayal of sexuality. I felt that there was a constant shaming of Sherlock in this...Asexuality is a valid choice, and it fits on the spectrum of sexuality that should be respected and appreciated, IMHO.

I can totally see your point on this, but I actually disagree. Not that they didn't bring up Sherlock's asexuality - because they OBVIOUSLY did...but I didn't see it as "shaming." YES, the CHARACTERS shamed Sherlock (Mycroft and Irene especially), but each time they did, there was a clear message of "it is not okay for them to do this to Sherlock." IMHO

So, yeah, I actually think that the message of the episode was that there was nothing wrong with Sherlock for being a virgin - that it didn't make him lesser or weak. Even his line at the end, "I'm sure John Watson believes love's a mystery to me..." Is an indication that Sherlock understands that highly sexual people (like John) equate love with sex...or equate having sexual experience with having experience with love...but that's not the case. Sherlock can understand emotions perfectly well, and still not have any desire to sleep with someone - and it doesn't make him deficient in anyway.

I also became annoyed with the sort of cop-out that they did with Irene Adler's alleged homosexuality. I say alleged because we never really saw any evidence of it...

I think we saw a little bit of it with her assistant, for two seconds at the beginning...but yeah, I agree...I also agree about Torchwood, the whole Jack/Gwen thing always annoyed me.

I would have respected the writers much more if she had just been ironic in her password choice.

I didn't have any issue with Irene "falling for" Sherlock though - because she quiet clearly states that it's not about sex. It's one of my favourite moments of the episode, where her and John talk between the lines about how much they both love Sherlock, even though they don't want to sleep with him. Irene, I think, wants to possess him - and John wants to marry him...but neither of them want to have sex with him.

But would I have liked to see Irene make out with some chicks? yes, sure, that sounds nice!

So yes, I had issues with sexuality as discussed in this episode, but different ones from those you discuss. I completely agree with you about your points! And yes, I am stalking you, but I am kind of on my third re-read of random chapters of your demented verse and always feel the need to pop-in and tell writers that ;)

Stalking me is alright! (as long as it's on my journal, and not in real life - my mother worries sometimes ;) While I don't agree with all your points, I totally understand why you have them - and thanks for jumping into the discussion. :) Also, I'm glad you are liking my demented'verse so much!! I love that thing too. :)

[frozen_delight]

You're either anti-feminist for being too demure, or your anti-feminist for being too sexual.
The madness of feminism...

You're so, so right! Thanks for the rant!

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Glad you enjoyed it! :)