but really, Irene Adler in Steven Moffat's Sherlock episode, "A Scandal in Belgravia," encompasses everything grotesque in patriarchal societies.
I'm serious.
At the beginning of the episode, Moriarty threatens Adler, "If you have what you say you have, I'll make you rich. If not, I'll make you into shoes."
When Moriarty threatens Holmes at the end of the previous episode, he says, "If you don't stop prying, I'll burn you. I will burn the heart out of you."
What do we have here? Objectification. Man = burned. Woman = turned into an object- shoes. What an appropriate way to introduce Irene Adler.
If one more person says she's a complex, independent, realistic character, heads will roll. And Sherlock won't be there with a scimitar to save them.
Beyond the stereotypical bad-ass-tamed-into-damsel-in-distress, there's something deeper, and far more dangerous, communicated through Adler's character. I can forgive stereotypes, they're created from an element of truth. But Adler's character expresses an absolute fallacy about women, a fallacy that has blinded so many men and women in our culture with devastating results.
The liberated woman, right? Women are free to use sex as a power play, and Adler certainly does. She uses her sexuality to gain the upper hand over men, and the world believes this empowers her.
No woman can/does actually use sex as a power tool. Real women get burned. No woman can use her body as a tool like that and not be extremely hurt, jaded, and violated to the core of her being- physically and emotionally. It makes no real difference if she's being violated by someone else or if she's violating herself. It's all a facade. Women objectify themselves as sex symbols because it gives them a false sense of control. Either violate yourself or be violated. It really isn't much of a choice.
Moffat portrays Adler as the ultimate woman, "The Woman," literally. She's man's ideal: a sex symbol with a brain, "brainy is the new sexy," who knows "what men like," and appears to like giving it to them. It's not enough for her to be sexually powerful (that can be too intimidating), she also has to want Sherlock emotionally. He's her weakness. And in the end, she becomes the tame damsel in distress who is literally saved by her mighty, sword-wielding knight.
Sure we live in a gender equal society where men no longer objectify women. They don't need to, we've taught women to objectify themselves.
Here's another fabulous article from The Guardian on this subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat
I'm serious.
At the beginning of the episode, Moriarty threatens Adler, "If you have what you say you have, I'll make you rich. If not, I'll make you into shoes."
When Moriarty threatens Holmes at the end of the previous episode, he says, "If you don't stop prying, I'll burn you. I will burn the heart out of you."
What do we have here? Objectification. Man = burned. Woman = turned into an object- shoes. What an appropriate way to introduce Irene Adler.
If one more person says she's a complex, independent, realistic character, heads will roll. And Sherlock won't be there with a scimitar to save them.
Beyond the stereotypical bad-ass-tamed-into-damsel-in-distress, there's something deeper, and far more dangerous, communicated through Adler's character. I can forgive stereotypes, they're created from an element of truth. But Adler's character expresses an absolute fallacy about women, a fallacy that has blinded so many men and women in our culture with devastating results.
Women gain agency through their sexuality.
The liberated woman, right? Women are free to use sex as a power play, and Adler certainly does. She uses her sexuality to gain the upper hand over men, and the world believes this empowers her.
No woman can/does actually use sex as a power tool. Real women get burned. No woman can use her body as a tool like that and not be extremely hurt, jaded, and violated to the core of her being- physically and emotionally. It makes no real difference if she's being violated by someone else or if she's violating herself. It's all a facade. Women objectify themselves as sex symbols because it gives them a false sense of control. Either violate yourself or be violated. It really isn't much of a choice.
Moffat portrays Adler as the ultimate woman, "The Woman," literally. She's man's ideal: a sex symbol with a brain, "brainy is the new sexy," who knows "what men like," and appears to like giving it to them. It's not enough for her to be sexually powerful (that can be too intimidating), she also has to want Sherlock emotionally. He's her weakness. And in the end, she becomes the tame damsel in distress who is literally saved by her mighty, sword-wielding knight.
Sure we live in a gender equal society where men no longer objectify women. They don't need to, we've taught women to objectify themselves.
Here's another fabulous article from The Guardian on this subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat
