Women, Sex, and Power - A Rant
Jan. 4th, 2012 06:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hells_half_acreMore 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.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-08 08:42 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-08 09:18 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 01:38 am (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 02:47 am (UTC)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.