I’ve
been reading several blog posts in several blogs about how Steven Moffat has a
sexist approach to female characters in Doctor Who and Sherlock. However, after
watching most of Doctor Who (well, haven’t seen season 7 and am only about
halfway through season 4, but have seen everything else, including the
Christmas specials right up to The Snowmen), and the first two seasons
Sherlock, I find myself wondering about those posts.
A
very recent blog
post about Doctor Who pointed out Moffat uses cardboard cut outs for his
female characters that seem to be based on Whedon’s Buffy. I’m not sure about
that, to be honest. A lot of Moffat’s female characters actually hold themselves
well, whether you look at the companions (Rose, Martha, Donna, or Amy), at the
recurring female mystery (River Song, at least until the end of Season 6), or
at female characters that only appear once or twice. Here in Germany, though,
Doctor Who has never caught on well (for whatever reason, probably because the
first airing of the original series was completely mixed up). It’s not
considered a children’s program, either, you’ll usually find it filed under
science fiction. And Sherlock definitely isn’t a children’s program, even in
England.
Moffat
got into a lot of trouble over Irene Adler in the second season and the Chinese
refugee in the first season (in “The Blind Banker”). While I have to admit the
story of the Blind Banker could have done with a bit of polishing, here a few
thoughts on Irene Adler.
I
can’t help thinking people are putting too much into ‘The Woman.’ I’d like to
point out first that Irene Adler only features in one story Doyle wrote, “A
Scandal in Bohemia.” I’d also like to point out I am annoyed myself with always
putting her in the ‘villain’ category in the movies, usually roping her up with
Moriarty at some point (even in the newest movies). But I have to point out, it
seems, something else about her: she’s neither nice, nor innocent, nor
helpless. Miss Adler is an opera singer in the story. At Doyle’s time,
performing artists were not part of the ‘good’ society, no matter whether they
performed in seedy bars or opera houses. In addition, she has had a
relationship with a man, without being married to him. She’s quitting it,
because she is about to be married and will leave England behind. She has
pictures that could provoke a scandal (although I don’t have the impression the
original Irene would have used them). Holmes is trying to steal them from her,
but has to admit defeat (which puts her above most of the people he comes
across, admittedly). If you work it from this, making the ‘new’ Irene a
Dominatrix isn’t too far off. Just as a performer isn’t a prostitute, but was
seen very much like one in the Victorian era, a Dominatrix is very much seen as
a prostitute, but she doesn’t have sex with her customers (which means,
depending on your definition, she might not be a prostitute at all). This Irene
keeps pictures as a safety measure, just in case she might need them. This
Irene makes Sherlock sweat ‒ and not only because of the tension between them.
There is nothing obviously sexual between them, Sherlock seems pretty asexual
to me, Irene admits to Watson she’s a Lesbian. Just like the original Sherlock
Holmes was attracted to Irene’s intelligence and cunning, so is the new one.
Brains is the new sexy, as it is put in the movie.
Now
a step back into the TARDIS. I wonder if it might be possible for the Doctor to
one day regenerate into a female form, but I very much doubt it (though it
might be fun). From the beginning (from what I have read and can remember from
the ragtag episodes they aired over here), the Doctor has had female
companions. Not a surprise, therefore, that the new doctors, from No. 9
onwards, also have had female companions (although the 11th Doctor also has a
male companion in Rory). Let’s take a look at what a companion has to be like,
obviously. She can’t be too tied to her time and place, because a woman with a
huge family and a time-consuming job could not just leave it all behind and
travel through time and space. She has to be adventurous. She has to be brave
and capable of making her own decisions (since as often as not, the companions
find themselves alone in a foreign place in the series). She has to be able to
understand strange things and people (since most places will be alien in every
meaning of the word). Rose, Martha, Donna (as far as I can tell, after only
part of season 4), and Amy all can claim to be like that.
Does
it make them Buffy cut outs? Not any more than being the brave, strong,
powerful hero makes Buffy herself a cut out. Whedon’s new take was to make his
vampire hunter hero a heroine. To take the blonde cheerleader that would
normally be the first victim and make her the person to slay the monsters and
save the day. Saying the companions are Buffy cut outs is the same as to say
every strong female character created since Buffy (including characters Whedon
himself created since Buffy) is only a Buffy cardboard cut out.
When
it comes to other female characters, I can’t see that much of a problem with
them, either. Most act like you might expect a woman to act in their time. Some
are scheming, some are timid, some are strong. Just like some men in the
stories are scheming, timid, strong. Compared to some of the women in daily
soaps, most of the women in Doctor Who are glowing examples of womanhood, if
you want my view. And, as some people pointed out in the comments of the blog
post mentioned above, the male characters (including the Doctor in some aspects)
are just as much of cardboard cut outs, because that is how series and movies
work, by presenting us with characters we can understand, because we have, to a
certain degree, seen them before. There’s just one hero, but, as Joseph
Campbell wrote, he has a thousand faces. Villains might have a few thousand,
as it were.
If
we go back to Sherlock now, to take a look at the series as a such, there are
few women, indeed. But if we take a look at the original, there aren’t many
women there, either, apart from clients. Yes, a new approach might have changed
gender for some characters (as Elementary does with a female Watson ... or the
Doctor Who Christmas Special 2012 with Madame Vastra, who is supposed to be the
base for Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, who changed the lizard-woman to a human male).
The most drastic change would have been to make Holmes, Watson, and Lestrade
female and Irene Adler and Mrs. Hudson male. But such a drastic change is
highly unlikely to occur any time soon.
What
do we know about recurring females? The female sergeant can’t stand Sherlock (but
so do several of her male colleagues). Mrs. Hudson is taking care of her
lodgers, even though she is not their housekeeper (and says so on occasion).
Mycroft’s female aide is an aide and does what aides do. End of story. Where is
the sexist view in that? Admittedly, the coroner having a fling with a man
might have spiced things up, but not every series can have a Jack Harkness. A
male landlord might be caring less his for lodgers. A male aide wouldn’t make
the slightest change to Mycroft’s behaviour. Sexist? I don’t think so. Mrs.
Hudson has a dept to Sherlock for helping her out. She’s a nice person, so she
does care about the people who share the house with her. A man her age might
feel the same about them. And most people who meet Sherlock despise him, so the
female sergeant (I think she is) isn’t an exception, she’s the rule. A lot of
personal assistants are male, so the female aide Mycroft employs is actually a
nice change. Then there is the nice woman at the lab who obviously has it for
Holmes. Given the fact that he isn’t interested in people ‘that way,’ no matter
the genre, it's obvious she’s not going to get close to him and he’s not
going to understand her any time soon.
I can’t help it, I can’t
see the terrible sexist tendencies in those series, no matter how hard I try.
Maybe I’m too old, too stupid, or just too Feminist for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment