lettered | psa

Crossposts: http://lettered.livejournal.com/140227.html

psa

edit:

elisi pointed out that Moffat denies this on Twitter here. As far as I can tell, Moffat says he was talking about a character he wrote that he once identified with. An original transcript of the interview doesn't exist. Shouldn't have posted without all the info, but I looked and the editorial seemed legit enough. I'll try to do more research and not get SHAKY WITH ANGER again.

There's a lot of debate about whether the new Sherlock is sexist. The work seems complex enough that perhaps the majority (of the world, of fandom, of my flist, who knows) will never agree on how they feel about it. And because it is art, you can't really put a label on it, since people can interpret it differently. I'm all for these debates and discussions.

However, if we're going to argue about whether Moffat the man is sexist, let's just remember this article, in which he said, as morgan leigh on tumblr quoted:

“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.”

Defend Sherlock all you want, defend the works of Moffat all you want; love and enjoy his works as I have. ~~Just don't defend this guy. He is not your hero.~~ Please see above as regards to veracity of quote.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ewwwwwwww. I'd never encountered that gem before; I think my mouth just dropped open from the shock.

He said it in 2004, so maybe he feels differently now. I can't say I'm shocked he feels this way, considering the things he's created, but I'm rather impressed we have something so blatant on actual record. I hadn't heard it before and hadn't seen it circled around much, and felt it was rather important to some of the discussions at hand. Which, again, I'm all for--I was actually rather pleased with most aspects of Irene in the first ep of the new series, and can argue until the cows come home about a few of the great messages about women in it. Just, I did not think they were the intention of the creators necessarily; I did not think that while watching it, and really I don't care a fig for intention, but I care about people trying to make definitive statements about his stuff not being sexist. I find it acutely painful that some people don't want there to be criticism of the work or find criticism invalid because they liked it, or that because they liked it, the work must've treated women just fine. Ugh.

I suppose the shock is from - I mean, I know there are people who think this way; I even have the misfortune to run into them every so often, though the great good fortune (and privilege) not to do it frequently - but I still have this moment when my eyes get really big and my head jerks a little bit back from the screen, and I think, "Really? You think that really?"

I haven't seen any of the new Sherlock; all of my Moffat encounters are in Dr. Who, and, I admit, I liked them more when they were the fresh air in a wash of Annoying-Tropes-of-Mr.-Davies, and not the entire atmosphere.

*SIGH* Yeah. It really really sucks that a dude who can sometimes write really brilliant stuff is himself the sort of person who would say that.

Yeah, dude, Sherlock is great and awesome and amazing (well, some of it ;o). But having read this, Moffat seems icky.

I come at Moffat mostly from the context of DW fandom, where before he became showrunner everyone was just like DUDE MOFFAT IS THE BRILLIANTEST, and I was one of them. But once he took over from Davies -- well, as I got the opportunity to see more and more of his work I saw more and more problems. There are some things he writes extremely well. But he is also icky, and that icky shows.

Davies was so, so icky that I'm sure everyone was pleased, but I guess I get uncomfortable whenever I hear the SO-AND-SO IS GOD mantra about anyone who writes on a show I have a problem with. I thought the eps Moffat did on DW before he took over were great, but my problems with the show were such that I really had no idea what he was going to do. But uh, I've seen it now, and I am . . . not well pleased. The icky shows on Sherlock, too--and some of the icky is exactly the same as on DW, and I'm not just talking about misogyny. But I really do like Sherlock and think many aspects are brilliant and shiny, so I'm all for fangirling the show. Just, sometimes the adulation of the creators makes me feel gross.

Davies definitely had his icky too, yeah. And...I do remember being afraid of what we'd learn about Moffat when he took over, because writing the occasional ep and doing the whole show are two very different things, and I did know we'd be introduced to ways in which Moffat isn't perfect. I don't like the PERSON IS GOD mantra either, about anyone, because, well, people are people, and everyone has their problems (I certainly do!).

(I feel the same way only more, seeing all the adoration of Fassbender going on on Tumblr, because that is a dude who beat up his girlfriend. That adoration is REALLY GROSS.)

Doctor Who is still the tv show of my heart -- I've been loving it for so long, and the things about it that I love I really really love. But. Problems. *sigh*

Yeah. It's weird, because I feel like many would argue my arguments are semantic. I'm totally alright with thinking Fassbender is the hottest thing since fire, I'm alright with thinking he's the best actor since I dunno who, Laurence Olivier, I'm even fine with you adoring all his little quirks and the things he says and the interviews he does, and I'm fine with you saying all that. I'm not fine with, "Fassbender can do no wrong!" because oh look, he did. I also hate the, "I feel so wrong, but I don't even care what he did because unf!" The meaning is, "Despite the things this person has done I still feel physically attracted" which is fine, more than fine, perfectly natural, okay to express. But not if you're also accidentally expressing the fact that you don't care about abused women.

Anywho my flist isn't even that into Fassbender so I don't even see that stuff, but I've seen it so much with so many different actors and artists that it makes me twitchy. It's okay to love something you find prolematic, dude! It's not okay to say the problems aren't there just because you love it!

That is an interesting argument you make, and I can definitely see the validity of where you're coming from.

I think mostly what frustrates me with what I see about him on Tumblr is a thing that doesn't quite fall into any of the categories you talk about. It's just this -- this complete ignoring of his issues. If I hadn't been paying attention back when it first came out that Fassbender did something that awful, I would have no idea, because it's just not talked about, AT ALL. And it worries me because it probably means there are plenty of fans who don't know about it, because they happened to not be paying attention at the right time.

Because yes, it is okay to love problematic things and people but you have to ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE PROBLEMS, and ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE PROBLEMS. It's the thing I love most about fandom when fandom's doing it right: we're really good at working critically with awesome-but-problematic things out of a place of love. But not all of fandom's there.

Huh. Thanks for letting me know! I hope that is true and not just him trying to backpedal or something.

But either way, the icky we've noticed in DW and Sherlock is still a thing. *sigh*

It still is. And people are still going to say, "Moffat can do no wrong." Just--oy! Everyone can do wrong! Everyone has!

Gah, seriously? I have been enjoying both Sherlock and Dr. Who, but...BRB, setting Moffat's house on fire. >:/

I really, really enjoy Sherlock. And I really enjoy Irene, even though I was really unhappy with the women in series one. And I think it's okay to enjoy works created by someone with an opinion or viewpoint you hate. But I do think those opinions are important in some of the discussions going around (and not others).

Moffat is legend for saying seriously stupid shit and having no idea of filters. After years of it, I have come to some sort of peace with the realization that what he *writes* now that he's out of Coupling and has grown up a bit doesn't match up with what comes out of his mouth.

He's like a reverse Joss.

I wanted to let you know that Moffat claims the quote was taken out of context, and that he was talking about a character, not himself. No transcript of the actually interview exists. I tried to look into this before I posted, but apparently not well enough--I'm very sorry!

Now I'm really interested in this, because I see some people saying, "Yeah, Moffat's always saying stuff like that," and other people saying, "No! He's been misquoted!" etc. From his work, I'd guess that the former is true, but my whole point was that you can't tell a man by his works, so I'm not going to guess.

Hahahaha it's so funny because Whedon came up in the comments over on LJ, too--and Whedon is part of the reason I wrote this post. I don't know Whedon personally, obviously, but I think the man is a mensch. He's a feminist and his heart is in the right place, seriously. But some of the stuff he creates, I'm just like, " . . . Srsly? Are you for serious? You see what's wrong with this, don't you?" I love a lot of it--okay namely BtVS and Firefly--but he's still got work to do.

My problem comes in where people keep saying things like, "Joss is god!" and "Joss can do no wrong!" and "Only women and Joss should write women!" Er . . . no. People who write good female characters should write women, full stop. And Whedon can do wrong, and isn't a god. And the same is true of Moffat. I feel like sometimes people get so blinded by fanning the shows that they forget the people who made it are . . . people.

I don't know Whedon personally, obviously, but I think the man is a mensch. He's a feminist and his heart is in the right place, seriously. But some of the stuff he creates, I'm just like, " . . . Srsly? Are you for serious? You see what's wrong with this, don't you?" I love a lot of it--okay namely BtVS and Firefly--but he's still got work to do.

He really does. I've still got Doctor Horrible issues, though, which I'm sure are influencing my opinion here. Ahem. There are all sorts of tropes that he loves but fails to examine that make my head explode. (See also: Moffat, Gatiss, and their unreconstructed Orientalism.)

I feel like sometimes people get so blinded by fanning the shows that they forget the people who made it are . . . people.

Heck, I'd cut out the blinded by fanning, and and go straight to "extreme emotion about the work" before the "forget the people who made it are . . . people." part.

There are people who still can't see Marti's name without making all sorts of leaps about what she wrote based solely on their opinions about BtVS S6. But she wrote the screenplay for the entirely awesome remake of Fright Night, which had some seriously kick-ass females. I'm seeing the same reaction around Moffat, which makes me roll my eyes, because while there are moments of Coupling (and some in Who) where I want to smack him with a rolled up copy of Feminism 101 and say "BAD MOFF! BAD!" (if I didn't think he'd probably enjoy that), he can write complex, enjoyable female characters, too, and some of the interpretations seem . . . overly coloured by a personal dislike of the man based largely on stupid crap he's said in his many years online.

The combination of DW and Sherlock make me deeply uncomfortable where feminism is concerned, and I knew nothing about what Moffat said online before I first started looking into the particular quote.

I don't actually have as much of a problem with Irene as some people do. I feel like someone was actively trying there, though failing. But Sally and Molly, and the general dearth seem to represent not only no effort but active shirking.

Maybe the reason it pisses me off so much is all the people saying that it's a reboot and limited by the time period it's based on. Maybe they haven't noticed that it's not set in the time period it's based on. Make Sherlock or Watson or both or Lestrade or Mycroft or Moriarity a woman, for chrissake. Would it be so hard?

Could you IMAGINE the uproar if they'd made Moriarty a woman? I shudder! Also, I shudder to think how badly they'd have done it. A female Lestrade, much as I love Rupert Graves, would have been awesome, however.

I came into his run on Who with my own Moffat issues, due to my love/hate relationship with Coupling (it feels almost WRONG to be partially defending the man, I have vented about Coupling so much in the past), so my loins were pre-girded by the time I was out of Who and decided to watch Sherlock. (Jekyll, Moffat's other reboot project, is... interesting, but pre-gird if you ever decide to watch it, assuming you haven't.)

I do feel that they did a better job of the women in S2 than they did in S1. Mrs Hudson, Molly, and Sally all had some really good moments, and I like BBC Irene better than ACD Irene for various reasons. Of course, they'd set a pretty low bar to start with. They need to start working with female writers. Same could be said of almost every show out there.

Do you watch Community at all? I read all of the AVClub Dan Harmon interviews about the series, and what he said about the importance (which he hadn't realized before) of having a large number of women in the writer's room was very enlightening. You get a critical mass, and suddenly, you have better portrayals of things other than straight white men. I mean, it makes sense for any sort of representation: Psych did better than most shows on race, and I think it's because they had a critical mass of non-white writers and producers involved.

No, I watched Jekyll a couple years ago--because I think Moffat is clever and does great things and basically, I'll probably be watching for a while anyone who wrote the ep "Blink." I was really unhappy with the treatment of the main character's wife. I didn't think the lesbian detectives were the best on the feminism front too, but I loved them and forgave them because they seemed to be true evidence that someone was really really trying. Plus I just liked them. I did fall in love with Nesbitt, though.

I actually like S2 for women better than S1, mostly because of Irene. I understand all the claims that the treatment was sexist, but I read different things into it. However, I think that some of the things I read into it both regarding her as a woman and the general issue of sexuality that the show is trying to deal with, that I don't think the creators intended. There's room for my interpretation, which is nice. There's also room for my interpretation of things in Nolan's Batman series. But it's not what a lot of people are taking from it.

Hudson, Molly, and Sally got better moments than in S1, but . . . there are five men in the story you could generally label badass, though they have flaws. Meanwhile Molly and Sally are there for their weaknesses--one for her love of Sherlock and the other for her hatred. Hudson, I think, could be called a badass, which is one redeeming thing. And Irene.

I do shudder to think what they would've done with a female Moriarty, but at least they would've been trying.

I love Graves as well!

I don't watch Community. And I think it's important to have women and minority writers. But I also think white men are perfectly capable of writing great women characters of color--just as women are perfectly capable of writing great white men. The Wire was written by pretty much all white men, and it's mostly about black men; I'm white myself so I can't really say whether it speaks to real experience one way or another, but critics, scholars, and plenty of people of color alike say it's one of the best television shows ever made--and I believe them. That's because they were thinking about it. You get a critical mass, and you start thinking about it. You don't have one and if you're not careful, you go about doing the same things you've always done.

Community is awesome. Some missteps at first, but once it hit its stride, fantastic.

A few years ago, I started thinking about the issue of representation from the, "Fine. Right. What can be done to make it better?" and the one core thing I hit on was, well, the critical mass thing. It might have been when I was in comics fandom, because there was more visibility into who was writing what.

That's because they were thinking about it. You get a critical mass, and you start thinking about it. You don't have one and if you're not careful, you go about doing the same things you've always done.

Exactly. Bringing it back to Moffat, between S5 and S6 of Who, he got called on the "this is a curiously heterosexual Who--where'd all the queer characters go?" thing. And, to his credit, basically went, "Well, fuck. You're right. Didn't even notice, and that was crap of me. MOAR GAY!" and Bob's your uncle, more representation. I mean, it can be done without prompting. The Wire and Homicide are proof of that, but only if the creators are proactive about it and actively think about it, and if you're in a bubble of People Just Like You and it's not something you're already passionate about, chances are, you're not thinking about it.

only if the creators are proactive about it and actively think about it, and if you're in a bubble of People Just Like You and it's not something you're already passionate about, chances are, you're not thinking about it.

Hear hear!

And I'm glad to hear that Moffat listened to that critique.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

psa

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject