[ SECRET POST #2033 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2033 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Mortal Kombat]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Young and the Restless]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Firefly, Joss Whedon; Sherlock BBC, Steven Moffat]


__________________________________________________



08. http://i.imgur.com/Je2qV.png
[not really porny but implied underage sexual stuff; photomanip; snape/hermione]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________













[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]












13. [SPOILER WARNING for Pokemon Black/White]



__________________________________________________



14. [SPOILER WARNING for Kurau: Phantom Memory]



__________________________________________________














[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]













15. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



16. [WARNING for suicide]



__________________________________________________



17. [WARNING for incest]

[Kono Naka ni Hikari, Imouto ga Iru!]


__________________________________________________



18. [WARNING for animal death/abuse?]

[Eden Lake]


__________________________________________________











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #290.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

As others have said, Moffat's Adler was an incredibly sexist portrayal. He took a character who was an independent woman, who wasn't a villain but was just trying to get on with her life, who had her own love interest outside the story, who was incredibly intelligent and who beat Sherlock Holmes and earned the title of "The Woman" for being the only woman thus far in his life to have done so... and turned her into a dominatrix whose title of "The Woman" was purely sexual (and thus it went from Sherlock's calling her by it to be respectful to Sherlock's calling her by it to be disrespectful), who was a villain but not a smart enough one not to need a man to tell her what to do and how to be a good enough villain, who doesn't beat Sherlock Holmes, who despite being a lesbian falls in love with Sherlock Holmes, who needs saving by Sherlock Holmes, and so on.

Inara's portrayal had some issues, but she was presented as a competent, confident woman, a protagonist of the story with her own life, her own thoughts, her own priorities, and so on. She sometimes saved the main male protagonist's ass. She was often instrumental in bringing off plans. She didn't let men tell her what to do or boss her around. She was a three-dimensional character who was just as complex as everyone else on the show.

Moffat wouldn't be able to write Inara. He's a sexist jerk, and I know without seeing him try that any version of Inara he wrote would be a pale substitute for Whedon's original. And while Whedon is far from perfect or incredibly feminist, I feel his version of Irene Adler would have been a more complex, more independent character with less sexism in her portrayal.

I mean, you know, Whedon isn't perfect, but at least he tries. Moffat is just sexist through and through, and it shows transparently in everything he writes.

[(Anonymous)]

Irene was still an independent woman who was very capable on her own. Just because she teamed up with Moriarty doesn't mean she wasn't. She wanted protection/security/insurance and she knew Moriarty was for hire, simple. She didn't need him to tell her what to do. She worked with him, yes, but she wasn't a lackey, otherwise he would have just had her killed when she got the email code cracked. She wasn't a villain either. The only villain was Moriarty. Also, Sherlock never used the name "The Woman" disrespectfully. When did that happen? Oh, right, it didn't. Irene loving Sherlock was to actually to highlight how similar she was to JOHN in that regard- that is, they both loved him in spite of themselves, and possibly to their own detriment. She didn't need saving either. Sherlock CHOSE to save her of his own volition because she was The Woman, the woman who beat him (because she did), and the last thing he wanted was to see her dead.

Just saying.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Point 1: Irene was not independent. It was explicitly stated in the episode that she didn't even know what to do with her blackmail material until Moriarty told her. She needs saving by Sherlock several times. She gets in over her head many times during the episode.

Point 2: She was absolutely a villain. Of the show and especially of the episode. She was portrayed as a person who extorts others, who manipulates them, etc. Contrast this to the original story, where she was just trying to live her life, not harming others or extorting them -- it was out of fear that she MIGHT do so that the king hired Holmes in the first place.

Point 3: He did use it disrespectfully. If "The Woman" is her working title as a sex worker, and he knows her name, and he isn't in an environment where using her name would be unusual or a bad idea, then using her working title is not a show of respect -- rather, it shows that he doesn't care about her enough to use her real name, that she is only a person insofar as she is a sex worker, and so on. It is not a mark of respect but rather the denial of her personhood and relegation of her to her work.

Point 4: That doesn't make it not sexist and rather gross. Also, arguably, homophobic. Just because Moffat supposedly had a "point" in doing it and it was "part of the plot" doesn't make it okay. Having a lesbian fall in love with a man and portraying it as her only actually meaningful relationship in the entire episode is sexist.

Point 5: She did need saving. She was about to have her head cut off. Moffat chose that our last view of her should be Sherlock saving her life because she apparently couldn't save herself.

"Just saying."

[fenm]

Point 4: Just because [...] it was "part of the plot"

But it wasn't part of the plot. It was one line that that ultimately had no impact on anything. Not a damn thing would have been different if she had been straight. Even her denial of being in love with him in the blackmailing scene had nothing to do with her being lesbian, and everything to do with what Sherlock was able to do with that information.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm always so torn with the whole "I'm not gay"/"I am" scene because John's half is amazing and progressive and really thought-provoking, and Irene's is embarrassingly full of unfortunate implications. Which, yeah, points back to Moffat not understanding or being able to write women for shit. I usually cut him slack because I love the concept of that scene so much: that love doesn't need to have ANYTHING to do with physical or sexual attraction.
There's just a LOT of crap you have to wade through before you get to that concept.

[biohazardgirl]

UGH THIS. That scene is WONDERFUL if it's put in a vaccum, but has very unfortunate implications when put into the context of the episode.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

lol okay, whatever you need to tell yourself, bb.

[(Anonymous)]

da

this is such a dumb reply, why did you bother?

[(Anonymous)]

Because they don't have any kind of thought out response and don't have enough nous to keep quiet about it.

[(Anonymous)]

You're wrong (as the person who replied to you comprehensively demonstrated), and putting "just saying" at the end in that smug *well, that's told you" way makes you look like an ass.

[(Anonymous)]

who beat Sherlock Holmes and earned the title of "The Woman" for being the only woman thus far in his life to have done so... and turned her into a dominatrix whose title of "The Woman" was purely sexual

Or arguably, she was given a generic name/title by a man that derived solely from her gender, emphasizing her rarity not as a person but as a ~woman~ who, ooh, managed to beat Holmes... and she was turned into a dominatrix who chose that appellation herself irrespective of anyone "bestowing" it upon her and willfully embracing (and choosing) any sexual focus it suggests.

I mean, if it's so rude that BBC!Sherlock can't call her by her real name even when he knows it, why is it MORE respectful (as you suggest) when original!Sherlock does it? At least this iteration of Irene chose it and wanted such a name.

(and thus it went from Sherlock's calling her by it to be respectful to Sherlock's calling her by it to be disrespectful)

He seemed to me pretty clearly...well, if not affectionate when he said, then at least kinda charmed. He also had not referred to her as that before, and when he repeats it, he places emphasis on the "The" of "The Woman," attaching some kind of sentiment to what was her chosen working name. (And, again, self-chosen title versus an external male perspective reducing her to her gender.)

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I feel it is sexist to, as a (male) writer, decide that a title borne of respect in the original story should be replaced by one that defines the character solely by their sexuality. While I initially felt that having Irene choose "The Woman" as her title was arguably more positive than the original portrayal, with all else considered and the way other characters refer to her, I feel it is very sexist.

When taken with the fact that Moffat has written her such that everything about her is about sexuality and being sexual and how sexy she is (including the gratuitous, "let's put some t&a in this thing even if it means taking Sherlock grossly out of character" naked scene), "The Woman" being not a badge of honor for having been the first woman to beat Sherlock Holmes but a title she takes while doing sex work is.. well, pretty sexist. It reduces Irene to her sexuality and her job, where her original title elevated her, her singularity.

I'm not saying both aren't sexist. But the original was less sexist than Moffat's version, especially considering everything else about the portrayal. Sherlock didn't really seem to respect Irene -- he certainly didn't in the beginning, and when he referred to her as "The Woman" (her working title, her sexual title) it didn't feel respectful to me. It, well, reduced her to her work, to her sex. It made her faceless, essentially. In the Victorian time, referring to a woman as "The Woman" was more acceptable and made a positive example of her, while in the modern time, using a sex worker's title in a situation where you should be using her name is disrespectful, rude, and sexist.

It irks me to see a modern man write a modern woman referred to like that, when the man calling her it knows her name and chooses instead to use her code name for sex work. It irks me much more than seeing a Victorian man who lived in Victorian times write a Victorian man also living in Victorian times refer to a woman as "The Woman" out of respect, even if it does obviously have some sexist connotations.

But I suppose it would have presented a problem for Moffat, to try to have her called "The Woman" for being the one to beat Sherlock Holmes, when he didn't write her beating Sherlock Holmes, but instead being rescued by him, because according to an interview with him, being a damsel in distress who needs saving by a man is far more feminist than that evil anti-feminist sin, getting married.

[htebazytook]

Basically there was some quote where Moffat described a sexist male character, and now everybody has decided that means everything he writes is sexist, and actively goes looking for it. If he hadn't said that, this discussion wouldn't even exist

[(Anonymous)]

This discussion probably wouldn't exist it wasn't for your poorly formed "secret" and willful attempts at ignoring very salient points in order to defend Moffat by creating a flawed corollary and basically failing debate 101.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Actually, no.

Moffat has said sexist things in interviews several times, not just once and not just "out of context." (Where's the context where it's okay to trash Karen Gillian for being "dumpy"? Where's the context where it's okay to say women just want marriage and need saving, that men hate commitment, that there's a "lack of respect" for men in society? Where's the context where it's okay to imply that getting married is anti-feminist?)

Further, his writing is incredibly sexist. All of it. Actually all of it. His writing in Doctor Who? INCREDIBLY SEXIST. His writing on Sherlock? INCREDIBLY SEXIST. You can't tell me it's ~just one interview quote~ when given an hour I could write a ten-page sourced academic paper on the sexism in Moffat's writing and portrayal of female characters. Give me four hours and I'll have a fifteen-page sourced academic paper on what the sexism in his works implies he thinks about women, what women should be like, and how it negatively impacts women in the world. I'm not joking -- I've already DONE the former, and the latter would take relatively little effort considering the consistency of the gross, blatant sexism in his work.

So please don't pretend that all this is about is "one quote taken out of context baaaaaw." If you want to be a blind sheep crying about how omgaaawwwwd people don't like your savior Moffat, whatever, but quit trying to discredit people who acknowledge his severe and deep flaws and the flaws of his writing and quit bawing about how dare people hate him.

Oh, and quit acting like his disgusting sexism is the same as a relatively pro-woman and feminist portrayal of a woman whose only similarity to Moffat's character is that they are both sex workers.

P.S. As someone else already pointed out, this discussion "wouldn't even exist" if you hadn't made a ridiculous, incredibly stupid secret pretending that Moffat's Irene Adler and Whedon's Inara were in any way, shape or form equivalent.