bananapeppers:

stuffertystuffstuff:

abrokenfishbowl:

But seriously

Steven Moffat is a sexist asshole

did we not forget about the whole magical pregnancy storyline

or the fact that he made a canon lesbian fall in love with a man

seriously

you can like his work, but don’t be coming at me and telling me he is a feminist writer

because I will just laugh at you

edit: I am just so mad that he magically suggests that River is bisexual and the gets so fucking surprised that no one knew that

Oh my god, maybe it is you and not them

Err… if by “Canon lesbian fall in love with a man” you are refering to Irene Adler then you are sadly mistaken. Irene Adler was never a Lesbian in a Scandal in Bohemia. She was, in truth, the lover of the King of Bohemia and by the end of the story gets married to a guy called Godfrey Norton. While she and Holmes never had anything going on, in Doyle’s original stories she was never assumed to be anything BUT straight. Not to put a finer point on it but Canon!Irene liked the menfolk. It’s only Sherlock!Irene who is into the sweet ladychicks.

And why is having a lesbian fall in love with a man nessisarily a negative thing? Russel T. Davis before doing Doctor Who wrote a series about a out-of-the-closet-for-years gay man falling in love with a woman, called Bob and Rose, which was based on real events. Are we to suggest Davis is homophobic (and therefore hypocritical).

That scene where Irene is talking to Watson, wasn’t all about how she’s gay. It was about how love and attraction isn’t straight forward. How messy and complex it is. For all of Watson’s “I am not gay” he does love Sherlock in a very deep sense (whether platonically or romantically is up for debate) and probably more than anyone in his life. Irene being gay just high-lights this. She is, in that scene a foil for Watson. Sherlock didn’t cure her of Lesbianism. Irene still identifies as gay. Sherlock is just a freak exception for her. And that’s what Belgravia was all about. How weird and confusing and nonsensical and treacherous and devastating attraction and/or love can be. But going with the whole simplistic Glee view of you’re-either-straight-or-your-gay is, as a standpoint, just as detrimental and harmful to people confused about there sexuality as saying that all lesbians need is a good man to sort her out. I believe that Irene was an example of the first, not the second.

I would argue with you on some of the other points but I have a feeling those are really just points of interpretation. I had another three paragraphs here but unless you want to read them, I think I’ll keep this short. The adler bit was the main part of what I wanted to say anyway.

Do I think Moffat is a feminist writer. No. I think he is mainly thinking about time travel and fighting crime. Do I think he’s a misogynist? No. No I don’t. While you may not agree with the way Moffat portrays women, I believe that he always makes these women more than “just the chick”. These are deep, complex characters within their own right, with their own aspirations, fears and foibles. I believe he likes the women he creates and does admire them. Do I think he needs to be more aware of female issues? Yes. Just as more white writers need to be aware of non-white issues and how straight writers need to be aware of gay issues and cis-writers need to be more aware of trans-issues and writers without disabilities need to be more aware of disability-issues. No one’s perfect, but I do believe Moffat gets an unfair amount of flack for never being PC enough. There is only so much he can do while not becoming a preacher about every single issue on the face of the earth.

To sum up I would like to put foward the following comic by Erika Moen who married her freak exception to her gay rule.

Because lesbian characters of film and TV are often put in straight relationships. It is rare that lesbian characters are allowed to be with women exclusively. If The Powers That Be of these productions wanted a queer-female character to end up with a male character, why didn’t they make her bisexual outright? Turns out there are reasons why “lesbian with an exception” characters are created over and over again.

“Lesbian with an exception” is a fantasy that many people have about lesbians. When a lesbian’s parents, for example, have this fantasy, it goes like this: If a lesbian is patient and open (that means “ever-so-reluctantly willing to have straight sex and put off finding fulfillment with another woman just to make her parents happy”) enough, she can meet a guy, enter a relationship with him, and be cured of her lesbianism, and the family can finally put this embarrassing “lesbian” business behind; then they can say, “I told you this would be a phase that you would grow out of!” This fantasy allows the parents (or other family members or friends—whoever) to never come to terms with simultaneously holding homophobic beliefs and having a gay loved one. She’s not really a dyke. It’s a phase.

For men, the fantasy goes a little differently: You meet a lesbian. The only sexual experiences she’s ever had or enjoyed have been with women, or maybe she hasn’t had any at all, but she already knows that she doesn’t want to have sex with men. She swears up and down that she’s not into men. But after she spends a little while with you, you prove her wrong about herself, you magical hunky stud thing, you! Dumb bitches don’t know anything, not even about their own wants and desires. Through your charms, male intellect, and/or sexual prowess, now she’s into you. Congrats! You have converted a lesbian. Your bros high-five you.

The latter fantasy is annoying as hell and its meaning is really important, for instance in explaining why your commentary is awful. I’m sure some guys somewhere maybe don’t think too hard about their lesbian-conversion thoughts: they “just like it” because it’s a common fantasy. (Do they wonder why it’s a common fantasy?) I’m not gonna pat them on the back for not thinking.

What it comes down to is this: A man’s fantasy that he has the ability to convert a lesbian is a personally reassuring and patriarchy-reassuring fantasy. The idea that some women really aren’t interested in men (if you are a guy reading this: that means you, bud) threatens the male individual and the whole patriarchal culture because the comfort, security, and benefits of male privilege rely on women to recognize men as inherently more capable and intelligent, their lords and saviors; men’s individual and collective privilege depends on women worshiping at men’s feet and making personal sacrifices for them. Female devotion and subservience keep a patriarchy running smoothly. Boys learn that they’re owed women. Lesbianism, through its incidental apathy toward men, represents a bug in patriarchy. The “lesbian with an exception” fantasy quells patriarchy’s fear of losing followers.

It’s actually a big deal whenever the fantasy appears in popular media because it means something bigger than the film or TV series in which it appears, something that’s at the intersection of homophobia and sexism.

In the comic, Erika’s husband refers to lesbians in a Pride parade as “dykes” while he is taking part in the same parade with her AS A STRAIGHT COUPLE. In another panel, the couple street-harasses a woman; this is supposed to be subversive and lighthearted fun. Are you sure that you want to defend your stance using this comic?