221b misogyny street

Now that more people than ever are talking about it, some hints and tips for the Elementary tag:

If you are concern-trolling about Joan Watson having lost her medical license: STOP. If Watson here was being played by a mildly attractive probably-white actor, you would be eating up the ‘one tragic mistake leads brilliant but haunted ex-surgeon on an angsty struggle for redemption/the truth about That Fateful Day’ backstory with a spoon. P.S. it’s pretty obviously a plot hook that will become relevant as the story unfolds. Take your sexist double-standard and shove it.

If you are concern-trolling about Joan Watson not having an army background: STOP. Not being ex-military does not make her weak; characteristics such as loyalty, steadfastness, being a good shot, etc., are not exclusive to people with military backgrounds; traditionally 'masculine’ rubrics are not the be-all and end-all of strength. Take your disingenuous fauxminism and shove it.

If you are concern-trolling about Joan Watson being a woman so that prudish American audiences don’t have to deal with homoerotic subtext, or about her somehow detracting from the queerness of the ACD canon: STOP. In case you haven’t noticed, the plethora of hugely popular white dude bromantic shows already on the airwaves have pretty much cornered the market on intense same-sex eyefucking, haha-so-gay(-but-not-really) jokes, and emotional relationships that prioritise the two straight white dudes at the centre at the expense of any and all women in the narrative. This type of 'no homo’ fanservice-y bullshit is not in any way the same thing as actual queer representation on television. Take your fetish for empty queer-baiting media and shove it.

If you are concern-trolling because you think a female Watson cannot possibly have the same kind of relationship with Sherlock Holmes as a male Watson: STOP. Just… stop.

If you are concern-trolling because the idea of a romantic relationship between Holmes and Watson is the ultimate betrayal of the spirit of canon or whatever: STOP. Romance is not cheap; romance is not lowbrow; romance is not somehow less pure or meaningful or intellectual or intelligent or interesting than any other type of relationship. It’s simply dismissed as such because it has become pigeonholed as something girly and stupid and inconsequential, for and about women and their silly ~emotions~, and all through history great swathes of culture and literature have taught us that the only stories really worth the telling are MAN STORIES. Take your misogynistic notion of what constitutes Real Art and shove it.

If you are concern-trolling because the idea of a het romantic relationship between Holmes and Watson is the ultimate betrayal of the spirit of canon, and yet you know damn well you would be all over a white dude/white dude gay retelling of Sherlock Holmes: WOW YOU ESPECIALLY NEED TO STOP. Take your visceral horror of the idea of your favourite cis male character’s majestic penis getting anywhere near an icky cis vagina and really, truly, from the bottom of my heart, SHOVE IT.

(ETA: Edited for some careless as shit trans-erasing language. Apologies.)

Hey, Freeman stans who think the haters are just pissed because they don’t understand sarcasm, let’s try a little thought experiment.

First, here’s a transcript of what he actually said (minus various um’s and ah’s):

Interviewer: Have you seen Elementary? The, uh -

Martin Freeman: I’ve seen bits of it. I met Lucy Liu at the Emmys, who was charming, but very ugly, and -

[interviewer laughs]

MF: She’s a dog, come on! She’s a very unattractive woman. But she was really really charming, and I wish them all the best.

Interviewer: So your take is [?], you’re the prettier Watson.

MF: Yes, of course, of course I am. I’m the original glamour of Watson. And then they get Lucy Liu, of all people, to try and bring some [censored] glamour in. Scraping the barrel.

Interviewer: Scraping the barrel.

Now, let’s translate his remarks from Sarcasm into English. See if you can spot why they’re still offensive.

Interviewer: Have you seen Elementary? The, uh -

Martin Freeman: I’ve seen bits of it. I met Lucy Liu at the Emmys, who was charming, and really hot -

Interviewer: Right?

MF: She’s a looker, isn’t she? She’s a very attractive woman. And she was really really charming, and I wish them all the best.

Interviewer: So your take is [?], you’re not the prettier Watson.

MF: Haha, no, not me. I’m definitely not a glamorous Watson. But they’ve gone and gotten Lucy Liu to try and bring some glamour in. No settling, there - they definitely hired the most attractive person they could get.

Interviewer: Definitely.

If you guessed that his comments are gross because the main thing he had to say about Elementary was a joke about the lead actress’ looks, you are correct! If you guessed that they are double-gross because this objectification is being done to a Chinese-American* woman, a member of a group routinely exotified, objectified, and sexualised in racist ways by white society, you are also correct! If you guessed that they are triple-gross because he also managed to insinuate that Lucy Liu was in fact hired for her looks, YOU ARE ALSO CORRECT.

P.S. if you are white, don’t compare POC to animals. Just - sshh - no. Not even if you’re joking. Just… don’t. We don’t get to do that.

*I don’t know whether Lucy Liu considers herself Chinese-American or Taiwanese-American (or both, or neither). If you’re aware of her ID-ing as something other than Chinese-American, let me know and I’ll edit.

There's Something About Sherlock

I’m paused halfway through my Sherlock rewatch for a type-irritatedly-into-Notepad break, and the screen is frozen on Jeannette, the ‘boring teacher’, buttoning up her coat and preparing to swan down the stairs and out of John Watson’s life. The power station scene hasn’t happened yet, but Jeannette’s appearances are pretty clearly setting it up, at least inasmuch as they reinforce one of the recurring themes in the series, and one that is explicitly stated in the conversation between Irene and John.

The whole point of the scenes with Jeannette is to demonstrate that John and Sherlock are ~4 lyf~, that despite his protestations, nobody is more important to John than Sherlock, that John would do anything for him and etc. etc., but they’re totally not gay, though. This eternally non-sexual bromance is central to the series; it is deep enough and obvious enough that characters feel compelled to comment upon it, and even mistake its nature (though of course, they are always corrected). John and Sherlock’s relationship is never considered to be somehow less valid or less powerful, either meta-textually or by other characters, simply because there is no sexual component to it.

My question is: why can’t Irene Adler have the same platonic obsession with Sherlock? Why does her sexuality have to be the one that Sherlock is the ~ultra-magnetic~ exception to? Why is her relationship with Sherlock only allowable if, ultimately, she is undone by her romantic/sexual attraction to him? Why is her explicitly stated gayness less textually valid than John’s stated straightness?

Or, alternatively: why can’t the show inhabit a world where sexualities are allowed and acknowledged to be fluid? Where it is okay for lesbian Irene Adler to be into Sherlock and also for straight John Watson to be into him? Either Sherlock is the magic sexuality subversion fairy, or he isn’t.

tl;dr Sherlock, commit to your queer characters, stop with this NO HOMO bullshit, and for fuck’s sake give us a woman who isn’t unsexed, useless, and/or head over heels for Sherlock fucking Holmes.

REAL TALK, I think if you watch Joan Watson in the preview/trailer for Elementary and what you see is:

  • someone who’s weak and incompetent
  • someone who’s just there to coo at Sherlock Holmes’ deductions
  • someone who cannot have a strong, loyal relationship with Sherlock Holmes
  • someone whose lack of military service means they are not brave or steady
  • someone whose lost medical license makes them a failure and a disgrace
  • someone who, instead of being a ‘strong, well-developed character’ like John
  • is instead just a 'petite Asian woman who allows herself to be pushed around’
  • just Sherlock Holmes’ sidekick
  • just Sherlock Holmes’ love interest
  • just Sherlock Holmes’ paid nanny
  • just a nag
  • just eye-candy
  • just audience appeasement
  • etc. etc. et fucking cetera
then I’m pretty sure that says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about the show.

I’m just gonna go ahead and repost an LJ comment I left on a friend’s reaction post, BECAUSE APPARENTLY I WILL NEVER GET OVER THIS.


The ‘rescuing Irene’ scene honestly isn’t even my biggest problem with her fate, absurd racism aside - that part’s really just the cherry on top of the awfulness that was her preceding scene. I said it elsewhere: there literally wasn’t anything they didn’t take from her in the negotiation scene.

The camera-phone is her only protection? Gone, neatly taken away from her like a slipper from a dog. She says she’s a lesbian? Gone - she’s romantically and sexually in love with Sherlock. She’s an artist who lives and breathes performativity, who is never less than in full and freeing control of her own image and presentation, and who understands that her own naked body can be her best disguise? Sorry, her own body now betrays her to the genius Sherlock Holmes; she may be saying 'no’, but her physiognomy is saying 'yes, yes, yes!’. She’s brilliant and ballsy and has outwitted Sherlock, Mycroft, the secret services of two countries, and anyone she’s ever come across in her line of work? No; without her camera-phone, she now weeps, she won’t last six months. She is a consummate professional in more than one line of work where the central tenet is that you never become emotionally involved, and she is a master at playing the game and walking away on top? Not any more - this time, she is undone by silly sentiment. She’s a dominatrix, always self-possessed and confident and composed? She must weep in front of the man she dared affect, and beg for mercy.

It’s not enough that she lost; they couldn’t let her do that and still walk away with her head held high, full of brass and class and fuck-you-I’m-Irene-Adler. They had to break her down - they had to humiliate her. And they had to let Sherlock Holmes have the last word.

The notion(/fact?) that everything that happened to Irene Adler in the end wasn’t even about her, but ultimately about illustrating how Sherlock, wonderful Sherlock, is a genius and better than her but also ~growing as a person~, doesn’t make it better for me; it makes it much, much worse.

dearartemis  asked:

I just want to say that yes, a lot of horrible shit has been said about the show and the cast and it's fucked up, but it's never come from me. I just wanted to say that because I'm starting to get hate for it. I saw the pilot and enjoyed it and hope the show does well, but I feel really unwelcome now in the fandom. I just don't like being thought of as a racist misogynist. It sucks. I wish y'all well though.

Here’s the thing. You, personally, have not participated in the internet-wide pile-on of this show. That’s great! I’m genuinely thankful, and I’m sorry you’re getting hate (if anyone following me is doing this, knock it the fuck off).

And you’re not the only Sherlockian who hasn’t actively hated on Elementary; I’m sure many Sherlock fans have simply kept their heads down and said nothing at all about it. Hell, a good number of Elementary stans would in fact describe themselves as fans of Sherlock.

But ever since Elementary was announced and the set photos started appearing back in, what, February? beginning of March?, this has been Elementary fans’ primary experience with regard to Sherlock fandom as a collective entity:

  1. Hate. Unrelenting, vile, spiteful, misogynistic, racist, queer-fetishising, loud, gleeful hate. Hate every goddamn day. Hate for Lucy Liu. Hate for JLM. Hate for CBS for ‘stealing’ the idea. Hate for the creators making it too much like Sherlock. Hate for the creators making it not enough like Sherlock. Hate for the writers for ~just not getting~ the truest most perfectest platonic bond between Holmes and Watson. Hate for the writers for not making Holmes and Watson gay. Hate for America because AMERICA RUINS EVERYTHING!!! BBC IS GOD!!! Hate for New York. Hate for 'Mexican Lestrade’ (jfc). Hate for copying Lestrade. Hate for not having a Lestrade and 'making Gregson up’. Hate for addressing Holmes’ drug use in a realistic manner. Hate for doing away with Watson’s 'war hero’ backstory and giving her a past filled with different struggles instead. Hate - violent, boiling hate - for the theoretical possibility of a heterosexual romance. Hate for not being Cumberbatch and Freeman. Hate for 'betraying’ Cumberbatch. Hate because Moffat/Vertue/Brealey couldn’t be goddamn professionals about it and instead chose to egg their fandom on. Hate because people saw the casting of a woman of colour in a traditionally white male role as 'gimmicky’. Hate because ACD would be 'rolling in his grave’. Hate for coats and scarves. Hate for tartan. Hate for tattoos. Hate in the ’#elementary#’ tag. Hate all over the tag, again and again and again and again, for months, to the extent that it became all but unusable for fans of the show. Hate for fighting back against the hate. Hate enough that people had to start using ’#elementasquee’ just to get away from it.
  2. Other Sherlockians coming into the tag to complain about how Elementary fans are being so RUDE and DIVISIVE, omg. Other Sherlockians coming into the tag to demand that we all shut the hell up and stop being so meeeaaaaan to poor Sherlockians. Other Sherlockians coming into the tag and declaring that ~we should all just hug it out and be friends because aren’t we all part of the same fandom really~, while doing jack shit to collect their people or call out the torrent of disgusting *ist hate from their own side.

So you can see why, when you tromped into the ’#elementary’ tag to scold us all for laughing in the haters’ faces, and to make those same old, 'omg just shut up and let’s all be friends’ demands, people might not exactly have been falling all over themselves to welcome you with open arms.

We have been putting up with a tsunami of the most awful shit for months, and in the wake of SDCC, all the exhortations to 'just get along’ have a very strong whiff of, 'come on, can’t you just forget all the horrible misogynist crap that was said? over and over and over again? can’t you just let us join the fun, no hard feelings? can’t you just let it go?’.

No, dude. Not really.

You - and all Sherlockians - are welcome to change your minds about Elementary. You are welcome to enjoy it (or not), and you are welcome to hang out in the tag(s) and squee about it. But you don’t get to tell us not to be angry.

Here are some more examples to illustrate how reimagining male characters as women ruins everything OH WAIT I MEAN THE OPPOSITE OF THAT

Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica): male in original series, female in reboot

Boomer (Battlestar Galactica): male in original series, female in reboot

Cain (Battlestar Galactica): male in original series, female in reboot

Toph (Avatar: the Last Airbender): male character concept, female character

Azula (Avatar: the Last Airbender): male character concept, female character

Evelyn Salt (Salt): written for Tom Cruise (as Edwin Salt), played by Angelina Jolie

Prospera (The Tempest, 2010): male in the original Shakespeare, played by Helen Mirren

Ripley (Alien series): written as gender-neutral, played by Sigourney Weaver

anonymous asked:

but you dislike it because it's about white men? (just tryna work out your viewpoint)

No, I dislike it because it is frequently racist, misogynistic, and homophobic, and because in the service of and for the purpose of glorifying those straight white cis dudes (and their straight dudely ~bromance with each other), the narrative repeatedly and consistently takes huge, steaming, smelly dumps all over everyone else, particularly women and POC.

Also all of this.

anonymous asked:

so do you actually hate bbc sherlock? it's an impression i get from your blog

just an impression, eh?

More seriously, though, I acknowledge that there are many things to like about Sherlock! Cumberbatch and Freeman are good at their craft and have an enjoyable chemistry as leads; the production values are drool-worthy; the cinematography and music are just so fucking stylish it kills me; the ways in which they have chosen to modernise and adapt the various ACD adventures are, for the most part, reasonably clever and apt; the writers, whatever else their faults (and there are many), are sufficiently talented at spinning a cracking 90-minute yarn with zingy dialogue and cool set-pieces, such that I am usually persuaded to turn my brain off and have a good time while I am actually watching. I marathoned the first season during a long bus journey about a year after the rest of the world, and liked it a lot!

It’s just that, you know, once I actually turn my brain back on and think about what the fuck I just watched, I get really goddamn mad.

tl;dr I would probably hate it a lot less if it weren’t almost something I could love. NOW IT’S PERSONAL, GODDAMMIT.

(Also the fandom. The fandom is really, really terrible, dude.)

keppps replied to your post: “But Sherlock Holmes never hates it when he’s…

have i mentioned how much i love/appreciate that you’re here to take the sherlock stans to task on all their bull shit? Coz it’s a looooooooot.

If I could have one superpower right now, it would be the power to reach through the internet and slap all the people who are like, “Omg the Elementary stans won’t LET me hate Elementary, I’M SO OPPRESSED, JUST LET ME HATE WHAT I WANNA HATE, GOD.”

I really and truly give a negative amount of fucks about anyone who just plain doesn’t want to watch Elementary. You are entitled to your personal preferences! It is 100% your right to like BBC’s Sherlock better, or to, idk, not like JLM’s acting, or find Lucy Liu too well-known a face to connect with her as an everywoman character, or to want to lobotomize yourself rather than watch YET ANOTHER procedural-ish show, or any one of a million and one other reasons why Elementary just might not be to your taste. LITERALLY NO1 CURR.

But if you start coming up with transparently bullshit reasons to justify your buttmadness that Elementary has the temerity to even exist, and shitting all over it on grounds that are just flat-out wrong, then, SURPRISE, you should be prepared for the fact that someone might actually call you on said bullshit.

thepointofthat-deactivated20120  asked:

I can't wait to give Elementary a looksee, but it doesn't bother me that Watson's a woman. It bothers me more that she's not a veteran or a doctor. This isn't meant to be some loosely-based show like House, it's meant to be a modern-day New York adaptation. He wouldn't be Sherlock if he wasn't a consulting detective, so why change Watson's resume? It actually feels like a slight towards women that they were unwilling to portray a female version of Watson & keep the backstory always given to men.

Because Watson’s resumé is not intrinsic to the plot in the same way as Holmes’? If Holmes were not a consulting detective, there would be no stories; Watson’s military background is only functionally relevant inasmuch as it provides them with an assemblage of traits that are necessary to the plot/characterisation. But being a medical professional, being a crack shot, being calm under pressure, being used to operating (hah) in high-intensity environments, being drawn to those types of circumstances, etc. etc. are… not tied to being in the military - Watson’s military background is simply a sort of shorthand for these things.

It’s not as though the character is unrecognisable; as far as I’m concerned, they’ve kept the relevant parallels. Watson had A Career, was making their way in the world; Watson suffered a misfortune beyond their control, and found their life path changed as a result; while trying to adapt to their new circumstances, Sherlock Holmes steamrolls into their life, and hijinks ensue.

But, to be perfectly honest, the biggest reason I have very few issues with the reimagined Watson backstory is this: it’s pretty damn obvious that it’s a set-up for a redemption arc (discovering the truth about what happened to her patient, clearing her name, etc. etc.) - thereby giving Joan Watson an overarching plot and motivations of her very own, instead of having her exist purely as Sherlock Holmes’ accessory. That’s more than many adaptations of Holmes canon have done, Sherlock included.

I think it’d be cool to see army veteran Joan Watson, sure… but I’d trade it in a second for a Joan Watson who is at the centre of her own damn story.

anonymous asked:

Re: Joan and Irene: do you really think these cries of misogyny are completely parallel? I think you're 100% right about the 'disgraced surgeon' crap, but I understand the early trepidation about Irene being a sex worker. Because while that per se is NOT anti-feminist, in a show entirely about men, the idea 'woman-comes-on-the-scene-it-must-be-about-sex' (ala the femme fatale) IS a tired sexist trope. If they subverted that trope, great, but many were (rightfully??) worried they wouldn't.

I wasn’t actually referring to the early trepidation over Irene’s occupation. I was referring to the fact that many people watched Sherlock 2x01 and, rather than getting angry about the giant, steaming shit the narrative took all over Irene’s agency, instead chose to concern-troll over all the ~oh noes vaginas~ stuff.

For the record, I loved about 90% of what the BBC did with Irene. I loved that she was a sex worker, I loved that she was a lesbian, I loved that she was a dominatrix, I loved that she gave zero fucks about other people’s discomfort with her sexuality and her confidence. I loved that she was in control of every last inch of her presentation and performance, and that anything superficially male-gaze-y that happened to her was in fact entirely on terms dictated, controlled, and manipulated by her.

I was literally kicky with delight during the scene where Sherlock looking at screenshots from Irene’s website is juxtaposed with Irene looking at photos of Sherlock being chivvied around in a bedsheet. What Sherlock sees is what Irene wants him to see; those photos are risqué, but they are staged by Irene, for Irene’s website, for Irene’s purposes, and are showing what Irene wants to show. By contrast, the photos of Sherlock have been taken without his knowledge or consent, during a moment when he is being bustled around by others. Irene may have substantially less fabric covering her modesty than Sherlock does, but in those two sets of pictures, Sherlock is far more exposed and vulnerable than she is.

What they did with Irene could have been - was almost - fantastically, fiercely subversive. She was not a plot object, for the camera to pan sultrily over before sending the hero off on his quest. She was in control, she was active in shaping her own destiny, she was not a pawn in some game between the hero and the real (male) threat, she was not someone that needed rescuing. Except, in the end, that’s exactly what the writers turned her into. THAT’S the tired, sexist trope, here. And that’s not at all what the concern-trolls were angry about.

So, yes, I do think the respective backlashes against Joan and Irene are very much parallel. Both are couched in fauxminist concern about the place of women in the narrative; both are in reality just poorly-disguised raeg over the prospect of ladies getting their icky girl cooties anywhere near Sherlock Holmes.