Sherlock and Endeavour.

[Wamster]

I watched both of these shows and although obviously just TV, I was struck how one of them was really sexist and the other one sympathetic to women.
Ironically, it was the modern-day Sherlock that fell short and not Endeavour, it irritated that the character of Irene Adler -who outwits Sherlock in the Conan Doyle books- is shown here as being simpering and, although clever and resourceful, turns into jelly because of Sherlock's charms.
Also, why couldn't she just outwit him?! He beats her intellectually and saves her life at the end.
By contrast, Endeavour showed the (sad) reality of how women are used and abused by men (the young girls used at orgies; the young girl used as a toy between the two Oxford academics; the betrayed wife) but presented a more sympathetic view of women on the whole.
Women presented as being rounded characters with feelings and emotions.
It is strange of how a character such as Sherlock (as portrayed here by Benedict Cumberbatch) is shown to be pretty vile to women -yet is fancied by a lot of women so it seems-and it is somehow OK when set in the modern day with modern day audiences.

OK, it is just TV, I know but just an observation.

I agree about Molly. She quietly stands up for herself and is, I think, a realistic character.

I think Sherlock probably noticed all of IA's measurements ? and that he immediately clocks the same about everyone he meets ? but recognised that as she is in the business of using her sexuality for work, she was more likely to choose those particular ones than her foot size or whatever.

I don't think I'm going through contortions; just looking and thinking from my own point of view. It is rather simplistic to talk about her 'swooning after' Sherlock; they were both portrayed as fascinated and seduced by the other, without anything as straightforward as 'swooning' (which is a decent description of what Molly does, and very different from IA's behaviour and bearing).

thunderbolts, as I'm sure you recognise, I meant that I seemed to be the 'dissenting voice' on this thread.

I think the Molly thing was brilliant writing (not a wank fantasy) as all sympathy went to Molly and it showed his Aspergic traits.

BC said in an interview that he is playing Holmes with Aspergic traits which is why I think he realised what he had said was inappropriate and he apologised (stiffly and maybe because he didn't 'feel' the apology but knew it was expected)

I thought this version of Irene Adler was the epitome of the happy hooker - because according to this show the way for women to be powerful is to be paid to sexually service men and their fantasies.

I'm just going to say it again, it was such a wank fantasy. The writer, director etc obviously wanted to see the actress being used like that.

Notice also the royal involved with the photos was female, because again it's much more sexy thinking about young female royals doing S&M, than it would be Prince Harry or whoever.

It really was - misogyny, shall we count the ways?

I do think it's misogynistic writing and a wasted opportunity to do something interesting with the idea of setting these stories and characters in the present day. Tbh I find the contempt for women so annoying I won't bother watching it again.

Yes but LadyClarrisse, why do you want to be the dissenting voice, when it means standing up for the sexist status quo?

Why do men get license fee money to put their wank fantasies on our TV screens? It's pretty sickening really.

I didn't see Molly standing up for herself. The only female character who stood up for herself was the one who dumped Watson when he oh so hilariously got her mixed up with one of his other girlfriends. The appropriate way for any woman to deal with SH, JW and all the other woman-hating male characters in this programme is to tell them to take a fucking hike, not continue to simper at them a la Molly and Mrs Hudson.

thunderbolts, I don't believe I was standing up for 'the sexist status quo'; I was giving my own reading of the episode, which happens to dissent from a lot of the readings given on this thread.

Mrs Hudson doesn't simper. And in this episode she showed herself to be a very sharp operator.

I feel I must've been watching a different programme then. How is Mrs Hudson shown as being a sharp operator?

I think that both Mrs Hudson and IA can be seen to be cleverly manipulative within the constraints of this mysoginistic society - Mrs Hudson pretends to play the terrified, sobbing, simpering, batty, old woman card as that's what the thugs expect of an elderly woman. I was cheered to see her turn that on its head.

Ditto, IA has found her own way to turn situations to her own ends (again, within the constraints of this society), playing up to her femme fatale image and using other people's sexual desires against them by stealing secrets.

She seems to sob and be in a mess, but later reveals that she hid the phone from the Secret Service guy while he thought she was 'having a cry'. That's why she's able to 'recover' and laugh with Sherlock about it straight afterwards.

Laurie, x-post but also you expressed the Mrs Hudson thing much better than I could have!

There are other ways a woman can make her way in the world now though without having to use her body and sexuality to get ahead. And the truth is women who do use their bodies to service men never get ahead. S&M prostitute is not a path to power for women. They might inspire a few erections though.

S&M prostitute is however a very titillating idea for male writers who are spending too much of their time watching internet pornography or whatever and have lost their moral and creative bearings.

I'm don't think the writers of the Sherlock TV show should be given a pat on the back for making the female characters "cleverly manipulative".

Deceit and manipulation are not positive character traits, are they? Couldn't the female characters have been clever in a more honourable way?

How does IA make her money in the books?

I agree that prostituted women don't 'get ahead' which is why I was glad that there was at least a slight chance that she didn't have sex for money and instead was 'only' a dominatrix (and I was glad that she was a lesbian). They could easily have made her a prostitute.

There was another line I thought was interesting when she said she wanted to put Sherlock over a desk until he begged for mercy. I thought she meant: "I believe you're just like other men and you want to be beaten for sexual gratification".

Sherlock also employs deceit and manipulation, so even if you feel that female characters aren't 'honourable' at least they're only as 'dishonourable' as he is.

It's quite a presumption to say that the writers spend any time (let alone 'too much') watching internet porn.

vesuvia - I think deceit and manipulation are understandable devices when used against men in this episode. Mrs Hudson is a perfect example of this - she deceived the thugs and manipulates them into believing that she is harmless and not lying.

I think that's perfectly 'honourable'

Somewhere along the line they thought it was OK to have some quite explicit S&M on TV (IA whipping Holmes with her switch).

thunderbolts, is your criticism here still about the misogyny/sexism you see in the episode, or about explicit S&M per se? Would you have found it more acceptable if a man was whipping a woman, or both parties were of the same gender?

Slight detour for a second - does anyone watch Hustle?

I've seen a few of the episodes and even though it fails the Bechdel test as there is only one woman in most of them it's certainly more feminist or 'equal' than many tv programmes. And I notice that even though the female character uses traditionally 'feminine' traits to her advantage (her attractiveness, crying etc) she is still an entirely equal part of the con group.

You don't see her servicing the men making coffee or preparing meals or anything. Or doing the 'admin' tasks of the group.

Well clearly it's about both LadyClarisse.

Laurie, she was an opera singer. Possibly a slightly disreputable one, as in the edition I read there was an explanatory note saying that the character may have been inspired by Lola Montez.

Good point about her profession in the TV show ? dominatrix is quite different from prostitute.

On the 'until you beg for mercy' line, I thought she was just saying that, much to her surprise and against her usual sexual preferences, she would like to 'have' (her word) Sherlock. But presumably she wouldn't countenance having anyone, even for pleasure rather than work, without there being an element of S&M .

Not sure how, thunderbolts. Aren't they two separate issues?

Sadism is part of the misogynist's mindset, so no they aren't two separate issues.

Are we getting on to a defense of S&M here.

Thanks LadyClarrise - had no idea she was an opera singer. I've just read a book 'Courtesan' which describes actresses and opera singers as being prostituted women or 'mistresses'.

I wouldn't defend S&M but I've just seen someone say on another feminist thread that sexual proclivities are nothing to do with feminism unless abuse is involved.

I do think the dominatrix was deliberately chosen over prostitution as a plot device to allow the possibility that she didn't have sex - much like Sherlock.

That's a pretty presumptuous thing to say, thunderbolts. I'm finding your tone a little chippy too; I'd like to think that we could have a debate about something that we clearly have differing views on while still maintaining a courteous tone.

And the answer is no; I am not 'getting on to a defence of S&M'. I was asking, because I needed clarification, what your point was. I know almost nothing about S&M, and I'm happy to accept your statement that 'Sadism is part of the misogynist's mindset', but I would hazard a guess that S&M can and does also exist without misogyny. I'd tend to think that in this episode the S&M didn't imply or demonstrate misogyny.