The Hidden Heroines of Sherlock
There has been a great deal of noise made about the blatant sexism of BBC Sherlock and I often wonder have I been watching the same show?
Moffat and Gatiss have (intentionally or otherwise) given us great examples of strong, independent professional women. We just have to look at beyond the obvious.
This isn't a discussion about sexism in Sherlock. ( Read more... )
Moffat and Gatiss have (intentionally or otherwise) given us great examples of strong, independent professional women. We just have to look at beyond the obvious.
This isn't a discussion about sexism in Sherlock. ( Read more... )
I think that you're missing the point when people talk about the fact that we say these characters are defined by their relationships by the men on this show. Saying that they are defined by their relationships by individuals who happen to be men is the same as saying that the majority of violence against women is perpetuated by... people who happen to be men. You're missing the point.
Like I've said numerous times in your other post. Making a woman a detective or a doctor isn't good enough when you consistently abuse her. Please, consider the following.
Sally Donovan is treated differently than her male colleagues.
No one else on the show is insulted for their sexuality or their sexual proclivities or indiscretions. John, for example, has a string of girlfriends who he can't even keep straight (thinking his current one has a dog when she doesn't) and that's played off like it's funny and like it's normal. It'd demeaning towards women.
But nothing, nothing is worse than the fact that Sherlock Holmes, a white male (if you don't understand that men, and especially white men, are on a higher rung of the social hierarchy than women and people of colour, I can't stess enough how important it is for you to look at why people talk about male privilege. Because the fact is that while men and women are equal, socially we aren't) insults Sally Donovan on the job by mentioning the state of her knees. In fact, considering this is in the pilot episode, I wouldn't dismiss an argument that half of the reason Sally is a women at all is so they could get this joke off -- after all, it isn't as though she does much else until series 2, which they didn't know they'd have the chance to make until series 1 was well in the bag.
What you are telling me is that I should be satisfied by the fact that she's a detective. That the abuse that she sustains in that episode and the fact that she is depicted not as a character with strong beliefs or morals but is more or less there for the bad end of s sex joke should be less important than the fact she's on the police force.
And let's talk about her morals. Nothing, absolutely nothing about TRF suggests that Sally is acting for the greater good or bringing in Sherlock Holmes because she really thinks he's responsible. All of it reads like revenge. It reads that it's personal -- which paints Sally (and not Anderson, who is mostly just silent) as the perpetrator of vindictiveness and makes her into a manipulative villain working against the beloved hero of the show.
Reply
I remember just before the little girl scream accident, she actually pay respect and heartly praise to Sherlock, the first time in the whole series,why,She has seen Sherlock cracked so many other cases ,does she say kind words to him before why now,because she is glad that he could save the children,for the first time,She could see how brilliant Sherlock is , and the benefit of it. If she really hates Sherlock guts, she would say bitter words or say nothing,Sher just falls into Moritarity's trap,She really think Sherlock is respinsible, also as a plice woman she must feel the child kidnapping case more deeeply than other case.She was angry,but is it for herself? I don't think so.
If there is a ture manipulative villain, that's Moritarity, He has played the weakness of human nature, that's the main point of Moritarity's plan. I can see your points that the writer do not write Sally as a shining woman detective or even as a positive role, but makes her into a manipulative villain without morals? Well,that's a bit far stretched for me.
Ps: sorry about my anon stauts, and my English skills, as English is not my first language.
Reply
I read that as sarcasm, to be honest. (Sarcasm on Sally's part in the episode, not on your part with the comment)
If there is a ture manipulative villain, that's Moritarity, He has played the weakness of human nature, that's the main point of Moritarity's plan.
No, absolutely, Moriarty is the villain of the show and it all leads back to him. I just felt that there was a lot of emphasis on Sally going after Sherlock which painted her as the aggressor -- as the ungrateful bitch who is ignoring all the good that Sherlock has done -- whereas Anderson is all but entirely silent on the issue, and it's clear that Lestrade disagrees.
But I will be the first to admit that this is definitely something open to interpretation and if you get something different from how Sally acts in TRF than I do, that's perfectly valid. I still think that overall, the show treats it's women very poorly.
Reply
I didn't like Sally based on this episode and she will never be a favorite of mine, but...she is a fully developed character with all the flaws of a real human being.
Reply
About the 2:30 mark, He shouts the comment about her knees from the top of the stairs, someone is walking behind Anderson at the time who could more than easily hear it, and to Anderson he quietly states the deodorant bit. The 'knees' comment is quite directly and clearly aimed at Sally.
And you're forgetting the fact that Sally isn't a person she's a character so it was a writer's choice to have her say what she said and to have those things said about her.
Reply
And, yes, I am fully aware that these are characters. I am not unable to tell fiction from reality, unlike some. The point, I thought, was to look at the characters and their possible backgrounds, motives, etc.
Perhaps I was wrong to respond to your comment. I think there is plenty of room for differing opinions. We all have our own prejudices, backgrounds, experiences, cultural bias and the like that add in to our view. This is mine. That is yours. And then there was the writer's own.
Reply
Leave a comment