Even if on the surface all of that looked really futile, I did get some satisfaction out of it
Lots of people commented saying that they’re going to give it a shot now that they’ve seen the trailer, and I’ve seen quite a bit of basic human decency
And even though the “dislike” bar is still gigantic and people are commenting about “no we don’t want an asian woman where is our johnlock???” it is no longer eating the “like” bar
1,848 likes to 3,017 dislikes, not bad
i guess
Internet, can we have a talk? A long, angry talk.
So it sounds like the rumors of a female doctor, much to my disappointment, are probably untrue. Ah well. A girl can dream. What really bothers me though are the reactions I’ve been seeing. There are some legitimate reactions, like the fact that Moffat seems to… occasionally struggle with handling female characters. Most of what I see, however, has been this.
1. It’s always been that way!
One of the best things about Doctor Who is that is changes. It used to be a black and white educational show about a crabby old dude, his granddaughter, and his granddaughter’s captured teachers. Heck, the new show killed the Doctor’s entire race and planet. Giving him boobs is hardly the largest change, and it’s certainly an interesting one. Not changing because things haven’t changed yet is hardly compelling, especially since the show was started in a time when women had a lot less respect than they do today. It has already been canonically mentioned that timelord can change genders, and plenty of spin-offs have already played with the idea.
2. Male Doctor and Female Companion: Time tested and true.
What about Jamie? What about Turlough? What about Adric? They all managed to fantastic characters with no chance of romantic tension. Heck, so did pretty much every female character in old who before the romantic element was introduced. Looking at the new show, look at Donna. She was a fantastic companion, and the relationship wouldn’t have changed at all if the doctor had been female. They would have remained awesome friends. In fact, that was one of my favorite companion dynamics.
3. Would totally change the character!
HOW?! The Doctor is a quirky, wonderful, badass alien who is filled with understanding and the weight of a thousand galaxies. His/her body is not the most important part of his character. The addition of a vagina would not suddenly change who s/he was.
4. OMG LESBIANS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
A) Okay, I have to admit this is the one I find the most offensive. What’s the big deal? Lesbians aren’t inherently inappropriate. The children would be okay, I swear.
B) On a show that stars Jack Harkness, you’re really worried that the Doctor, who is fairly mundane in flirtation, is going to make the show too gay? Or is it just ladies that freak you out?
5. But the doctor is sexy and mine!
Honestly, this is where a lot of the female backlash is seems to be coming from. It’s disappointing. I like to think, as fans, we watch this show because we love it for the complex plot, the interesting ideas, and the huge explosions. It’s okay to be a bit disappointed to lose your eye-candy, but if you’d stop watching a show just because of that, I have trouble believing you’re much of a fan.
Wow yeah I knew this was going to happen when those rumors started
Doesn’t stop it from being really sad
I don’t even care if I lose followers for this. I’d like to know exactly why we are being ‘sexist’ by being annoyed that America is replacing John with ‘Joan Watson’. Because, if anybody should be mad with anyone, it really should be the producers of that show.
For people claiming that this is for ‘feminism’ - to me it isn’t. To me, it’s the producers discarding the ‘bromance’ and general relationship of two bachelors living in a flat because it’s just that. Two men. If it swings a certain way, and they want John (or ‘Joan) and Sherlock to have a relationship, then clearly the two of them being men is just too much for them.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I have heard the following: “It’s going to be one of those “shippers
torturingfriendly” American series with an “official couple” Trope already set up.”Therefore, what I’ve already stated is completely correct.
But to stop myself getting too caught up and p*ssed off, I’m going to stick with the following - It’s not happened yet and we don’t know what it’s going to be like. Therefore, we cannot judge. Also, it may be so bad that they cannot continue. *she prays*
Hi! This is just to answer your question coming from someone who’s spent quite a bit of time since the “Joan” announcement being disproportionally angry at people from all sides.
Dear CBS
[tw: sexism, racism]
Remember that post about a month ago where I said putting Sherlock Holmes in New York was like making Huckleberry Finn paddle up the Thames? Remember how not okay that was?
I have no words for how disgusted I am with you for casting Lucy Liu as Watson. I know exactly what you’re going to try to do with that and it just shows how ignorant you are of the original stories.
I’ve not seen very much of Lucy Liu’s work, but I’m sure she is a wonderful actress. This said, by casting her as Watson you are completely and ignorantly disregarding the cannon and everything that is wonderful about it.
I was planning on giving the show a chance, but in light of this new development I will not be watching this show
ifwhen it premieres.
You know, I have a friend who considers himself incapable of completely enjoying BBC Sherlock because he doesn’t use a pipe. To him, this aspect of the character is so completely essential that any iteration of Holmes without a pipe, trying to quit smoking no less, is completely invalid. I thought this was pretty silly.
lifeonvega ha contestado a tu publicación: wow it is really weird and not a little stressful…
I don’t have much Sherlock on my dash - what are the reasons for hating? Are they fans of BBC? Love Martin Freeman’s Watson? Dislike Lucy Liu? Dislike casting Watson as a woman? All of these? Conversely, why are you excited for Lady Watson?
In which I hopefully sum up this debacle
(tw: discussion of sexism, racism, and heteronormativity)
Well, Kelsey, there’s quite a bit of variance. Going down the tag, there are certainly people hating for a variety of either unfounded or uncomfortably sexist or racist reasons. Sometimes they’re die-hard BBC Sherlock fans who have been railing against the U.S. version from the beginning (and for some reason hate it even more now that they’re making it more clearly different from Sherlock), or they just post something along the lines of, I shit you not, “NO NO NO THIS IS DISRESPECTFUL TO JOHN” which I - what? I’ve seen a few decrying the way the show is deviating from Doyle’s canon, which is frankly ridiculous, given that Sherlock itself changes so much from the books that being upset about changing the sex and race of a character comes across as really damn suspicious. The frequency with which each of these arguments has popped up today is quite distressing.
But those are the arguments that I don’t respect very much, so moving on. :)
The much more sympathetic argument, in my opinion, is that now that Watson is a lady, the leading duo are pretty much guaranteed to get together, reinforcing both the impression that the Holmes/Watson relationship is only allowed in media if it’s not an icky queer one, and that women really only exist in media to be the love interest for the fascinating, brilliant male lead. If they don’t get together officially, they’ll still be read as being romantically involved or at least smothered in UST because that’s the way our society views such strong heterosocial bonds on TV. And if they just get rid of all the touching moments between them in order to avoid that, then the relationship won’t be at all the same dynamic. So there’s lots of potential for problems there, especially since Watson is usually fawning over Holmes’ genius in any iteration and that’s kind of annoying to watch a supportive, somewhat less intelligent lady do to a ~deep, complex~ male lead.
HOWEVER, I am still excited. This is because a lot of our media is saturated with the “bromance” of two male leads that have intriguing, complicated relationships with one another at the expense of more background female characters. Unfortunately I’m kind of a hypocrite in that I really like that kind of dynamic between these types of dudes; it just sucks that lady leads aren’t as frequently allowed the same kind of emotional complexity. Lucy Liu is not only a woman playing one of the most iconic roles in history, she’s also a woman of color, and that has the potential to be super duper great in terms of representation and something else I greatly enjoy: ladies kicking ass. Plus she’s SUPER GORGEOUS omg. Genderbent Sherlock has been something passed around my corner of fandom in wistful discussion for years now, but never contemplated as a reality, since most of TV is not very good at ladies.
So yeah, I’m going to continue to be giddy about this for awhile, but I’m prepared to retract any and all such statements if the treatment is too gross.
I’ve seen some thoughts passed around about the possibility of “Joan” still falling in love with Mary or Sarah? That would be nice.
yes still angry about moffat
Also he goes on to defend the way he writes women because essentially “I WROTE RIVER SONG HOW COULD I BE SEXIST??”
okay first of all buddy
you chose to phrase it as having a “fetish for powerful women”
think very carefully about why that might have been a bad idea
secondly, river’s entire life is centered around the doctor’s? The disconnect here is, of course, that moffat doesn’t realize that having a female character with superficially “strong” characteristics is not an inherently feminist portrayal of women if their lives revolve entirely around men. You don’t just write the character, you write the entire world they reside in and the way the moral order of that world treats their decisions and allegiances. making her a capable fighter or time traveler or what have you doesn’t make her free of sexist influences?
I know this is probably a rehash for a lot of people. i probably wouldn’t be this annoyed about it if moffat wasn’t so smug about absolutely everything. There are plenty of shows and movies with terrible or insufficient portrayals of women/queer characters/POCs/etc, and I am entirely capable of enjoying the shit out of them, or loving the women/queer characters/POCs they do create. (River Song is a beast, for the most part!!) But when you as a creator start proclaiming how progressive and non-sexist you are you need to back your shit up instead of telling everybody else that they are the sexist ones for telling you what you’re doing badly!
Because that is an actual thing that moffat did
it was gross
bunny-leech:dangerous-ladies:iamgrey:
Taken from the Honest Girl Scouts campaign. For a campaign trying to get people /not/ to buy cookies and /not/ support the GSUSA, this is doing an awful lot to suddenly make me want /to/ support the GSUSA. (and I’m saying this a a former Girl Scout of about 6 years who hasn’t bought cookies in years because they’re too expensive).
I see so much acceptance here, and especially in a time in children’s lives where acceptance is so important, taking that away from them is just cruel.
I find it ironic that a conservative movement’s poster is having the exact opposite effect of what they intended. This year, I’m buying cookies BECAUSE GSUSA has such inclusive policies, and wishing the BSA would take some time to seriously examine its discriminatory policies towards queer people.
We live in a world where “good” and “information-based” are descriptions for sex education that are supposed to be shocking or retracted. Sad, isn’t it? This “Honest Girl Scouts” thing is straight up hateful.
Unfortunately, us Non-US/International folk can’t buy cookies (even online), but we can certainly signal-boost :) American followers, please consider buying a box if you have the opportunity.
I was gonna not buy any because they’re so bad for you but
feminism has never tasted so dericious
Literally all of my favorite things.
Girl Scouts!
(via darkleerx)
Okay that moffat tweet about the woman, the hounds, and the fall is making me really uncomfortable
The first time Lili read it to me my emotions went haywire just based on the “ALL THAT’S LEFT IS THE FALL” doom and gloom bit, but then I got to thinking about “the woman has been saved and lost”
saved saved saved
Okay I’ve been mostly ignoring the way Sherlock swoops in and rescues her at the end, because for the rest of the episode she gets agency and a character and sex-positivity and she wins, she completely and utterly wins because that’s what Irene Adler does, she beats Sherlock at his own game
So you could totally choose to read the end as her using the fact that she “knows what he likes” to save herself. It definitely made me a lot happier with her role in the story! But this tweet is just…it makes it pretty obvious to me that Moffat isn’t thinking of it that way. He couldn’t just end it with her winning, now could he? Her entire role, the entire episode, has to be encompassed in The Woman being “saved.”
aaaahh maybe I am overreacting but. Ugh.
