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.

Sorry, Laurie, x-post again!

I agree that it was interesting that IA, in many ways Sherlock's female alter ego or at least mirror image, also didn't seem to go in much for actual sex. I think I'd agree with that statement about sexual proclivities not necessarily being anything to do with feminism/misogyny.

Is the book the one by Lucy Worseley? I've been meaning to read that.

That's twice you've called what I've said presumptuous LadyClarice. Do you feel there are limits on what I should say.

I asked because I don't have the energy for that kind of discussion and there were signs it was heading in that direction, given that you singled out my mention of the S&M.

I don't think that S&M could exist without misogyny - the idea that sexuality is about pain and harm and that one person has to be dominant and the other submissive is straight from the misogynist's handbook.

No, it was the one by Katie Hickman - it wasn't that good, have a read of the Amazon reviews before you buy it

this one

this is for another thread but I can't agree at all that sexual proclivities have nothing to do with feminism. To say that is to say that sex is outside politics, which really isn't true.

So does that mean that women who engage in S&M where they are dominant and have a (male or female) submissive partner are also misogynists??

I don't have the energy for a discussion where people are defending S&M TeamDamon.

There is not one person 'defending' S&M - we are just discussing it.

No, I don't feel there are 'limits' to what you say. I was referring to two statements you have made that don't seem to have substantiating evidence to support them; that the Sherlock writers spend time watching internet porn, and that I was defending S&M.

I didn't single out your mention of the S&M; the post you made that mentioned it mentioned nothing else e.g. was a post specifically and exclusively about S&M. Therefore in replying to it, I was almost bound to talk about only the S&M point, unless I'd also replied to points made earlier.

I don't disagree that some instances of S&M might be done out of misogyny (sorry, really clumsy wording, can't think of how better to put that), but would suggest that misogyny is not present when either the woman is in the dominant position or both participants are of the same gender; two men cannot by definition be taking part in a misogynistic practice, and I would think it was impossible too for two women to do so. I am open to being corrected on this last point though.

How am I defending it? I asked a question because your syllogism is unconvincing but, as others have said, it seems that this is not the place for debate or discussion.

If anyone other than the exhausted thunderbolts wants to engage in discussion, that would be great.

That was my point. I'm absolutely willing to be educated about S&M and its relationship to misogyny, but don't at this point understand how an S&M scenario where the man is submissive or both parties women can be misogynistic.

Laurie, thanks! I'll check it out, but will also seek out Lucy W's courtesans book.

I wonder if it comes from the view that the 'kink' of S&M only exists because patriarchy 'rules' - so therefore men want a sexual release where they are dominated to counterbalance the power they already have.

IMO so much of sex or pornography depicted is phallo-centric that I'm interested when people choose abnormal ways of expression - and I wonder is S&M is one of those.

Good theory! I'm sure that's at least partially true. But I'd be interested to know if S&M in the real world happens between two women (as in A Scandal in Belgravia), between two men, or between a dominant woman and submissive man.

While I agree with the Guardian article, I don't actually think the main point of the character was to illustrate either real women or a sexist notion of women to appeal to men's idea of women.

The problem was that in the first series two interesting male characters were created, but the two characters were lacking stereotypical masculinity. Somebody, somewhere found this to be a problem. The writer saying he developed the latest episode because of gay speculation is shorthand for this, and also ridiculous because he wrote it and the characters themselves speculated about each other's sexuality. But the gay issue is lazy; it is a wider issue of the men lacking masculinity. They have then brought in Irene Adler in this bizarre way and written the saviour storyline as a way of making the men appear more masculine.

In the process of doing so, they feminised Holmes further, by having a sheet half pulled off his naked body in a formal environment, by having him almost beaten by Adler and by having him mope about her. They have then showing him have some kind of complete change to masculinity at the end, which doesn't bode well for the future development of his character.

So it is cowardly really, to make two human characters who happened to be male into fledgling masculine stereotypes. And as the programme is about them, that is more problematic for feminism, because it is reinforcing boring and damaging male stereotypes where masculinity is based on being better than women and being restricted as a man to a certain set of dull, mean-spirited behaviours.

I agree with a lot of what's been said but the bit in Sherlock I found most jarring was early on when there was a quick flick through showing the people coming to see him to ask for help. A large-ish woman said her husband was having an affair and was dismissed with a 'yes' implying, I thought, that it was obvious he would have been, given how she looked. I found it cruel, and less than intelligent.

MillyR - "In the process of doing so, they feminised Holmes further, by having a sheet half pulled off his naked body in a formal environment"

that's an incredibly interesting point as I thought it was to show that holmes and adler were equally relaxed about their nudity, equally comfortable with who they are. You think it 'feminised' him (thinking < there not raising eyebrows).

Do you mean feminised in a derogatory way? (genuinely asking, not being sarky )

I think that was an interesting scene. I couldn't quite fathom why he refused at first to get dressed; was he being childishly stubborn, or making a point about power e.g. they might work for the Palace but they can't order him about? I still don't know the answer. I'm not sure that I agree about it showing him being relaxed about nudity; he made a very quick grab for the sheet as it first came off, threatening to expose his whole body, and only seemed relaxed once he'd managed to hold the sheet up to his waist so he was only bare-chested.

Did he not threaten to walk out of there naked or am I misremembering it?

Oh yes, you're right, had forgotten. Guess he held the sheet up to his waist for the sake of the delicate sensibilities of the viewer then . In that case, yes, I'd probably agree with you that it was meant to align him with IA in that they both knew how to use nudity for power.

Irene Adler is going to be the pin up girl for the Neo-Feminists.She's intelligent,attractive and thoroughly ruthless in her ambitions.She doesn't need to burn her bra - she doesn't even have to wear one! A modern girl for the modern world.Well done the BBC!

I fetl really uncomfortable (and dissapointed!) watching the new Sherlock and couldn;t quite put my finger on it.

I agree so much with much of the above but I';m also giutted that they showed Sherlock as being all doed up in love too - boring!!! The SHERlocked was apalling, the large lady whose hubby was having an affair was appalling and the portrayal of violence toward Mrs H and the whole ...oh... I'm not really hurt even though there is obvious injury cos it was all a joke was horrid. The ending was a cop out as I bet their desperate to bring her back.

It just didnlt feel as clever as the last series. And the whole idea of an atractive woman having power becasue of it (contrast with larger lady in previous) makes me cross.

That pathologidt - sigh..... swooning is such dull TV.....

He was MUCH sexier when he wasn't being distracted from work by tits and ass.... really Sherlock, grow up.

I honestly don;t believe it was weritten well to convince me it was huge interllect he was into....

No Sorry. A woman who uses her bosy and nasty information about other people is no role model to girls.

I don't think she will become a pin up for new feminists though I grant she is more interesting than most prime time tv females.

But then again, I'm a much older feminist

I think we need to watch it again.If it was homophobic and mysoginistic it was probably racist as well.We could complain on that to the beeb.