hells_half_acre (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hells_half_acre) wrote2012-01-04 06:36 pm
hells_half_acre) wrote2012-01-04 06:36 pm
Entry tags:
Women, Sex, and Power - A Rant
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.
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.
Okay I had issues with the way sexuality was portrayed in this episode
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
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. :)