psa

[lettered]

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.

Comments

[lettered]

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.

[minim_calibre]

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.

[lettered]

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.