Steven Moffat on Female Characters. (x)
Think about this next time you decide to praise his “not sexist” writing.
(via nochancesatall) Jesus, Moffat, did you even take a second to ask WHY girls play at being married, being a mother, and keeping house? Maybe because everything they see on TV or in magazines or from their own parents is that those are the only things that garner women a semblance of respect from society? (via thehappyfangirl)
I geNUINELY HATE THIS MAN
You cannot BACKWARDS RATIONALIZE THIS BULLSHIT. You cannot inundate women with the idea that their sole reason for existence is a male and then shame them and say all that they want to do is hunt for men, that they are dependent upon them. You can’t say that it’s okay that you write utterly dependent, sexualized females because that’s what women are like. I just— that’s not what women are like.
I’ve never watched Doctor Who, but I’ve noticed the article this quote is sourced to is talking about a 17th century courtesan the Doctor is in love with. Is Amy Pond a stripper? Coupled with Irene Adler, how many of Moffat’s supposedly “strong” female characters are also sex workers? There’s nothing wrong with this, per se, except for the fact that it’s a fixation, it sexualizes his women and makes their jobs and bodies performative (sex work does not necessarily do this, but after seeing his work in Scandal I’m really not interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt anymore), and it pulls into broad daylight this perverse association that to be worth your narrative while, women have to be flirty and sexy on top of intelligent and clever.
Sexuality can be used in positive, interesting, feminist ways: because women can never actually escape patriarchy, some of fiction’s most interesting characters have resigned themselves to it and learned to harness it to their advantage. This is cool. This is almost done with Irene, except when it’s not, when Irene “falls in love” with Sherlock (as women do) and it serves as her downfall. When her entire character dissolves from cleverness and surprise into blatant, simple seduction. When that becomes her only strength.
What disgusts me most about the implication of the quote - other than the visceral obvious - is that it all but outright says that men are happier without women, and women are happier with them. Men strive to achieve their goals independently, and a woman’s only goal is to obtain a man. Jesus christ it makes me want to riP MY SCALP OFF. THIS MAN IS A HUGELY INFLUENTIAL HAND IN BRITISH TV
Here’s a snippet of something else he said in the same goddamn interview:
“Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.”
(⊙‿⊙✿) (via joolabee)
I ran into a similar issue with Christopher Moore concerning his apparent right to compliment women on their looks (because we all know that your dick has a right to notice a woman, especially a professional who is not out there to be sexually available to you) and actually got into him with it personally. The truth is, particularly for women who want to be writers, or who are writers, that it’s incredibly fucking disheartening to hear this from male writers that we truly want to admire. It’s like having a great friend whose racism you just have to put aside in order to enjoy being with them, but it’s still there- it’s always there.
Is it so much to ask that a person with artistic influence, something that’s hard enough in itself to achieve, actually behave like a decent person with a reasonably honed sense of human dynamics? Or is that just a fucking fantasy?