psa
edit: ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
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 subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
Hear hear!
And I'm glad to hear that Moffat listened to that critique.