Showing posts tagged sexism.
x

Yarrr, Métis!

Ask me stuff   My knee is wounded so badly that I limp constantly
Anger is my crutch
I hold myself upright with it
My knee is wounded
see
How I Am Still Walking

Social conditioning at its finest/worst.

Social conditioning at its finest/worst.

(Source: hereticarts, via stfuconservatives)

— 1 year ago with 36871 notes
#social conditioning  #patriarchy  #gender  #sexism 
"I mean, look, when the NDP came into power, I was a white male, I paid a very severe price because it had nothing to do with ability any more, it had to do with male versus female,” he said. “There’s no point when the oppressed become the oppressors. It makes no sense at all. Either you get rid of oppression from everybody or we don’t. But you can’t then say, ‘Okay, now it’s my turn to beat up on you.’"

Mike Del Grande, Toronto’s stupid fucking Budget Chief  (via nowaitninjas)

(Source: hahahanooope, via macguffin)

— 2 years ago with 17 notes
#privilege  #white male rage  #mike del grande  #ignorance  #sexism  #privilege denying  #shithead 

sydust:

superjellycake:

fernacular:

Welcome to: If Male Superhero Costumes were Designed Like Female Superhero Costumes!

Aaaaa I dunno. I got tired of guys having no idea why girls find female superhero’s costumes kinda sexist, so I, um, made this?

My main goals were: 1) Make it so the first thing you think of when you look at them is sex, whether you want to or not. 2) make it so that any male human who looks at this feels really uncomfortable. 3) make it funny, because, well, it’s kinda hilarious really.

Not trying to start a war here, just wanted to poke a bit of fun.

So, here you go menfolk, welcome to being a girl who likes comics.

(via hpandthegobletofblowjobs)

— 2 years ago with 96201 notes
#sexism  #feminism  #comics  #superhero  #double standards  #lol 
Anonymous asked: Moffat is notoriously kind of a dick about female characters- his Doctor Who female characters are, so far, ALL in loooooove/lust with the Doctor. At least Russell T Davies had 1) an omnisexual man and 2) Donna, who was not at all in love with him and 3) Martha, who had the vagina to tell the Doctro she wasn't going to pine for him forever, and just left. Yeah, Rose was all fangirly over him, but River's ENTIRE LIFE is revolving around the Doctor.


Answer:

Thanks for the information! I’ve never seen Doctor Who so I’m really only familiar with Moffat through Sherlock, but yeah, I’ve heard that he has a pretty bad track record with female characters. Thanks for confirming it. :)

— 2 years ago with 3 notes
#sherlock  #steven moffat  #sexism  #misogyny 
505: I have a correction to make. →

I honestly don’t want to seem like a close-minded fangirl who can’t accept others opinions because, sure, if this is what you think then okay, but i mean i completely disagree so hear me out

It’s totally okay to disagree with me on these points. I didn’t mean to come across like I hated anyone who liked the episode and character. That original post was ranty obviously, and I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what you enjoyed about it. I wrote a clearer, more balanced appraisal of why I think that episode was problematic, and I suggest you read that if you want to understand my views on the show. I will respond to your reblog as well though, as you were tempered and considerate enough to write at what you think. :)

It’s so difficult to have total uniformity between characters when the two protagonists are male, i mean, of course it’s going to be a male-dominated show. It’s not just the women who bounce off these characters, i mean look at Lestrade in the latest episode, he threw himself into the case unnecessarily just because he liked the thrill of it, okay well Mycroft told him to be there but i mean he was clearly overly enthused about being there with Sherlock and John, he almost begged to be taken along in future. 
Imagine for a second that Lestrade is a female character, would the above be construed as her weakness, or as the male characters manipulation over her? 
It’s not because the writers don’t know how to write female characters- they proved they’re more than capable of that with the 10ft fireball that is Amy Pond- I genuinely just think it’s the air of the show to have every single character- not just the females- totally incapacitated by Sherlocks frosty demeanour. For me, that’s the entire charm of the show haha.

I get that Sherlock’s frostiness is charming. I actually really like it as well. The point I am making though is that there are TONS of male characters in the show. Villains, good guys, neutral guys… and therefore we see a variety of reactions to Sherlock from them that don’t rely on their gender. For a show with so few female characters, obviously the way in which they relate to Sherlock is more substantial.
 Most importantly, however, is that the way in which these women respond to Sherlock is almost always in a gendered way: they are either in love with him, or they resent him for his misogyny. They are trapped in stereotypical roles. If they were allowed to esteem him in any other way, this would be a non-issue. But Molly and Irene are both relegated to infatuated fangirl, and other characters, like John’s gf in this episode, are angry with him for other ‘feminine reasons” - like the stealing of a boyfriend. I’m saying that there are many layered, complex reactions to someone like Sherlock, but none of the girls ever really get to express anything beyond a simple desire to have sex with him, or throw shade at him. It’s limiting, and frankly, a bit stereotypical and sexist. I know this show has capable writers who can create much more dynamic, complex, and realistic female characters. I think their reliance on stereotypes for female interactions with Sherlock is just pure laziness.


But, i mean, sure, but where would they fit into the story?
Without having strong feelings towards the central character(s), they wouldn’t really have a role at all, and would they then be pinned as being dismissed or brushed to one side, perhaps because of their gender?
All the characters that enter the show- again, male or female, are going to have to revolve around Sherlock as the lead, I mean the show’s called Sherlock for a reason haha.

Again, I get what you’re saying here, but I still insist that it is lazy and stereotypical to assume every female character who esteems Sherlock also wants to fuck him. There are many ways to admire someone, but to the writers, it seems that if you are female and you admire Sherlock, you also want to bone. Lazy lazy lazy.

TL;DR: The whole male-partner-in-crime-duo just makes it kinda hard to give the females a more assertive role, in my needlessly excessive honest opinion.

It isn’t though. If they were good writers they could do it. For example, Irene could have easily been assertive without trying to manipulate Sherlock through sex. This femme fatale role has basically been decried as sexist since its incarnation, and for good reason. The idea that women can only be assertive and intelligent through their sexuality is sexist. Yes, it was nice to see a dominatrix portrayed as intelligent in a mainstream television show, but they completely undermined Irene’s sexual autonomy by making it reliant on her feelings for Sherlock. It was like the writers had some good ideas of making her sexually autonomous — making her a proud, shame-free dominatrix, making her a lesbian — and then they chickened out and made her sexuality less threatening by having it all unhinge over her crush on Sherlock. The fact that she identifies as gay, only to be ‘undone’ by Sherlock is insulting. Sexual fluidity is great, but this episode did not show that. We didn’t even get to see her being a lesbian — we only see her falling fast and hard for Sherlock. That is a Straw Lesbian if I ever saw one. Similarly, we are told she is smart, clever, etc., but all of her talents again rest of her ability to manipulate men sexually. She could have just of easily been smarter than the men, more observant than the men, perhaps more wily, more resourceful than the men; but instead the writers chose to exploit the most predictable aspect of her character: her gender. Sherlock is not flustered by her intellect — the first scene with them together demonstrates that his reaction is to her naked form. His inability to read her is not because she outwitted him, it is because she manipulated his sexuality; whether his character is gay, straight, asexual or something else, she knew he would be flustered by blatant sexuality. Yes, it is clever that she new that, but it is also a tired old trope. These writers have proven themselves to be good, and I expect better. I want them to surprise me with a fresh new way in which a female character asserts her intellect and takes care of herself. I don’t need to see another femme fatale fall victim to her own ‘weakness’ of sentiment, thank you very much.

Oh also i liked the whole ‘Sherlocked’ thing, a little bit too easy and harder to place into the episode as the other clues had been, but was still a clever little twist that you can enjoy if you don’t read too much into it,

I understand that people liked it, but I just didn’t. I thought it was desperate, childish and totally uninspired. I joked like twenty minutes into the episode that her passcode was probably “I AM SHERLOCKED” because the idea was totally ridiculous to me. Someone who is supposed to be that smart, that clever, and that resourceful, would never has a passcode so easy to break. And again, that plot device only seemed to work to further humiliate her character. It was like the adult equivalent of having someone discover your binder covered in “I love [insert crush’s name here]”. It was totally juvenile and not even slightly nuanced. It is obviously fine if you liked it, and I’m not trying to change your mind, but yeah, I just didn’t like it at all.

Anyhow, that’s my two cents. Of course, there are some good things about Irene Adler’s character, but I was just too disappointed in all the sexist things I didn’t bother to mention them. I wish she had been written more creatively, more dynamically, and more realistically. Hopefully, if she returns in future episodes, she will be written in a way that is more to both of our tastes. :)

(Source: yarr-metis, via rachohl)

— 2 years ago with 22 notes
#sherlock  #a scandal in belgravia  #bbc  #irene adler  #sherlock holmes  #sexism  #response 
Yarrr, Métis!: I have a correction to make. →

secretsforthelost:

First of all, you say that Sherlock was both “embarrassing” and “out of character” throughout the episode, mostly due to his “adolescent” feelings for Irene. Personally, I felt that while he was ruffled on occasion in the episode, it was more due to Irene’s ability to keep up with him mentally, rather than from his physical desire for her. After all, it’s not often that Sherlock interacts with someone who can keep up with him, and more so, pose a threat.

I would agree with you if it wasn’t for that embarassing (yes, embarassing) scene when Sherlock first sees Irene naked and can’t read her. I mentioned in another post how that is absolutely ludicrous as there is so much you can tell about someone from their naked body: age, weight, height, scars, tan lines, birthmarks, musculatre, irregular development, confidence, insecurity, posture, injuries, etc. etc. He wasn’t shocked into numbness by how smart she was in that scene - he was shocked and flustered by her naked boy. And I, for one, am tired of characterizations wherein the only way where a woman can successfully get an upperhand on someone else is through her sexuality and her body. Yes, Irene is smart, but more importantly, she is scandalous and sexy - a tired trope used for female characters, and frankly, a bit sexist. Check out readings on femme fatales and false dichotomies of masculinity and feminity if you are bored and want to know more.

In fact, his feelings play a very small role in his dealings with Miss Adler, as the audience is shown at the end of the episode - the scene in which one might have thought Sherlock was falling for Irene was actually a carefully calculated moment wherein he was able to unfeelingly analyze his opponent. 

Another problem here which is prevalent in this whole episode: Sherlock’s characteristics are contrasted against Irene’s. He is seen as unfeeling, aloof, ‘objective, and she is seen as clever, but still susceptible to traditionally ‘feminine’ weaknesses such as sentiment, affection, love. This lauding of detachment and condemning of sentiment is again, hardly new. The prescribing of these traits as masculine and feminine respectively is also nothing new. By continuing to rely on antiquated understandings of feminity and masculinity as being diametrically opposed, these writers prove that they do not know how to write a female character without repeating potential damaging stereotypes that have been prevalent in Western societies since… oh, 5000 years ago.

Second, while you may be right in saying that sexual fluidity in the media is more prominently lesbian or bisexual women falling for men, you seem to be missing the other sexual subtext within the episode - that is, John’s close to romantic bond with Sherlock.

Imma stop you right there. Yes, there is loads of homoerotic subtext between Watson and Holmes. It is one of my favourite aspects of the show. But subtext does not text make. If it was explicit in the text that John loves Sherlock, this issue would not be so bad. It would, however, still play on a tired representation of lesbians as “just waiting for the right man”, but if there was some good boy-on-boy action to balance it out, it might have been more critical and less stereotypical. But as it stands, we have assume all we want and look for connections we think are there, but until someone happens as explicitly between John and Sherlock as it did between Irene and Sherlock, those two storyline are not even slightly comparable.

While you may think that he was being intentionally cruel, he was in fact portraying the very realistic situation of a unrequited love, and while Sherlock may have been cruel, it was because he didn’t know any better; he was only stating what he observed. Not to mention the fact that he APOLOGIZED.

Yeah, I did attack Moffat directly, and it wasn’t based on his writing. I should have clarified. I think this episode is evidence of his misogyny, but I actually KNOW he is sexist because of some incredibly stupid, fake apology tweets he wrote about how sexist his characterization of Irene was. So yeah, I know the guy has some problems with women, and I let my previous knowledge of that inform how I read his writing. Even still, I stand with my claim that the tearing down of Molly was excessive and unnecessary, in that it didn’t really show us anything new about Sherlock and it only served to make Molly look alternately humiliated and then pathetic. Did the writers really have no other way to show us that Sherlock can sometimes regret the things he says than to make him tear down a female character in one of the most misogynist rants I’ve ever heard on TV? If so, then they are bad writers. I know for a fact that they are not bad writers, so really, this example just shows that they are sometimes lazy writers.

And as to your argument that there are only two types of female characters, last time I checked, Mrs. Hudson neither wanted to “fuck” nor “kill” Sherlock. The females portrayed on the show are just as, if not more finely nuanced then the men (if you would care to look). Both men AND women on the show love/hate Sherlock - it’s an essential aspect of the character that he is able to bring out such strong emotions in others, and one that I believe is completely in keeping with Sir Conan Doyle’s original character. 

We are almost saying the same thing here, but there is obviously some confusion. Obviously, Sherlock is a polarizing character, and people he interacts with either love him or hate him. The thing that makes these female characters sexist is that they either want to fuck him or they hate him. They don’t admire his genius in a non-sexual or platonic way — he makes them horny. They are manipulated sexually rather than forming their opinions and feelings about him based on non-sexual admiration. Having a woman fall in love with a man is the laziest way to show that she esteems him.

And as for the “I AM SHERLOCKED” being, as you put, the “most embarrassing and contrived plot point ever.” I will have to respectfully disagree. As I said before - Irene Adler is the one woman who can truly keep up with Sherlock Holmes. To meet one’s intellectual match, especially at their level of intelligence, would seem to be a profoundly moving experience that could easily evoke the kind of emotions and reactions that occurred throughout their interactions. I felt that it was a beautiful denouement to a stunning return for Sherlock. 

I respectually disagree with you. Meaning no offense, I thought it has ham-handed and cheesy. Especially since I jokingly guessed early in the episode that it would say “Sherlocked” because I thought it was ridiculous. I was disappointed that my joke prediction came true.

I just want you to know: I completely understand that you are entitled to your own opinion, and if you maintain your view of Sherlock as a misogynistic piece of garbage on par with Glee, that’s your prerogative. I, however, will continue to enjoy the masterful work of Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss and all of the actors and crew who are able to create an amazing interpretation of a classic work that has garnered both critical praise and received the love of audiences all over the world.  

Juding by this conclusion, you seemed to have willfully misinterpreted my entire post. I thought that major elements of this episode were misogynistic and the characterization of Irene Adler woefully sexist and misguided. Do I hate the show? No. It’s still one of the best written, acted and produced shows on TV. I still like the characters and am still interested in the plot. I just didn’t like this episode. You are allowed to be critical of things you like. In fact, I would encourage it. It pushes already excellent shows to improve. Frankly, I don’t know why you think enjoying a show and being critical of its problematic elements are somehow mutually exclusive, but hey, that is your prerogative.

Also, I do apologize, in all sincerity for real if I implied that Sherlock was as bad as Glee. I just meant that the subtley of “I AM SHERLOCKED” was about on apar with Glee writing. The rest of the episode, even the parts I didn’t like, were clearly of a much higher calibre than the shit writing that show produces.

— 2 years ago with 22 notes
#sherlock  #sexism  #steven moffat  #irene adler  #sherlock holmes  #straw lesbian  #response 
I have a correction to make.

When I said “I love all things Sherlock”, I had not yet seen the first episode of the second series.

What the fuck was that shit?

Sorry, but I am not interested in the adolescent sexual stirrings of an embarassing out of character Sherlock and a disgustingly sexist rendering of Irene Adler. The episode was seriously misogynist from beginning to end, in an apparent attempt to, I don’t know, point out that Sherlock is awkward around girls? That was an hour and a half of watching an annoying little brother have an annoying online relationship with an annoying girl.

Also, homophobic and dismissive much? LOL silly lesbians. You thought that this character might be an dynamic representation of your sexual identity? YOU THOUGHT WRONG. Like all lesbians, she just hadn’t met the right man yet. I’m all for sexual fluidity, but wouldn’t it be nice if once, JUST ONCE, it was a straight man falling for another man, or a gay man falling for a girl? It’s really not showing ‘fluidity’ when it’s just gay girls getting straightened by the peen.

What was Steven Moffat thinking? It is obvious that he enjoyed being incredibly cruel to all his female characters. Sherlock ripping apart Molly was disgusting. The shaming, humiliating, and then ‘saving’ of Irene was appalling. Steven Moffat clearly loves to humiliate and punish female characters. Even John Watson’s nearly insignificant girlfriend who got to tell him off still was shoe-horned into one of the two character types reserved for women on this show: a) Sherlock fangirl or b) random angry lady. You might want to consider, Steven, that some women have characteristics and personality traits that do not depend on whether or not they want to fuck or kill Sherlock Holmes.

Also, I AM SHERLOCKED?!?! Fuck with me a chainsaw. That was the most embarrassing and contrived plot point ever. Their ‘relationship’ was handled with all the nuance of a Glee script. Seriously. Worst episode ever.

— 2 years ago with 22 notes
#sherlock  #steven moffat  #sexism  #irene adler  #bbc  #british television  #anti-woman  #bad writing  #lol what the fuck was that even?  #irene adler 
Sinead O’Rebellion: I will not support any member of Anonymous, who are at best a group of... →

youarenotyou:

leraje:

exvee:

I will not support any member of Anonymous, who are at best a group of angry middle class whiteboys. Anonymous openly defended rapist Julian Assange and their members use sexist slurs ALL. THE. FUCKING. TIME. Let’s not forget Anonymous started on 4chan, a board that pretty much relies on the comedy of exploiting other people’s appearances and looking at loli-hentai. I understand that Anonymous is supposed to be anyone who agrees, but I am one of those people who believes that social revolution is important. A perfect economy will not make a perfect world. Although capitalism fucks everyone over, it goes deeper than that. If you’re not fighting all forms of hierarchy (i.e. racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and more) you’re not doing it right. It is okay to focus on single issues as part of your struggle, so long as you do not deny the existence of others.

my thoughts EXACTLY

can we make our own anonymous

(via scooterpiebanana)

— 2 years ago with 73 notes
#anarchist soapbox time  #anonymous  #4chan  #sexism  #internet