asker

alumpofcoal asked: The attractive and Intelligent man was making fun of a Female who was trying to be worthy of himmmm but could not because she was prone to Feeeeelings. They encounter Extreme drama that makes no sense and the ending leaves the Woman extremely disturbed and the readers even more SO as it still makes no SENSE. The ending credits read 'there's more where this came from if you don't watch those really great friendship episodes i was RIGHT ABOUT AYA'

GOD

pipistrellus:

Steven Moffat Explains Women To An Alien

ok lmao not only is that post gross in every way possible

he straight-up dismisses the possibility of sherlock developing as a character

like, out of hand, nothing will melt him, he will not progress emotionally ever. EVER. and he’s incredibly condescending to these ~poor, stupid girls~ who might think that maybe this is not the most dynamic way to write television??? at all???????

It’s interesting. Also, it’s got such a huge female following. The original [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] stories had a huge female following, which I’d never forgotten, and that’s because the Victorian ladies liked the way Sherlock looked. (Laughs.) So I thought, use this massively exciting, rather handsome man who could see right through your heart and have no interest … of course, he’s going to be a sex god! I think we pitched that character right. I think our female fanbase all believe that they’ll be the one to melt that glacier. They’re all wrong, nothing will melt that glacier.

The Hollywood Reporter Interviews Steven Moffat, 1/1/2014

I’m sorry, the answer you have provided does not compute. Could you mean:

"young women love a thrilling detective show as much as men do"
or
"young women enjoy the (explicitly homoerotic and) incredibly dynamic friendship of a person and his best friend, and how it grows over time"
or
"young women appreciate the visual and mental stimulation of good television programming"

You can also try “young women are not limited exclusively to liking things because they find someone physically appealing,” “young women as a whole do not want to be the one to ‘fix’ an emotionally unavailable sociopathic man, and it is damaging to assume that having those qualities makes someone a ‘sex god’,” or “young women do not imagine themselves with Sherlock, moron, do you even know your fanbase, every square inch of it is covered in Johnlock because women appreciate the interplay between those two characters, not everyone is a goddamned Mary Sue like you, god damn it.

Please try again.

(via thewolf3)

what the entire fuck you have got to be kidding me this dude is on a regular diet of misogynist fuckshit

(via theinevitableblastwave)

because the Victorian ladies liked the way Sherlock looked”

(via youngnoblewoman)

Does he realize the original stories were written down? I think Sherlock looked however his readers wanted him to look!

(via casskets)

im stunned. i am stunned. like, by the fact that i have seen so many with steven moffat where he is like “AND I REALISED, OF COURSE!! THAT THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS LADY’S ACTIONS IS THAT SHE WAS INTO A DUDE!” like is this guy completely incapable of wrapping his weird square head around the idea that a woman could have any motivation for anything that is not being attracted to a dude

(via tigerhazard)

(via catrectangle)

you know even the episodes moffat wrote during the rtd era, some of which i loved (blink, silence in the library/forest of the dead) show his tendency to ramp up emotional tension by implying a high body-count and then revealing that no one we cared about was ever in mortal peril anyway

still bewildered by his reputation as a harbinger of death and feels

asker

alumpofcoal asked: So Drosselmeyer is the symbolic representation of the Moffat writers in the world? This explains a lot. Someone needs to write a Doctor Who fic where the characters fight against their fate a la Princess Tutu, only with a little less ballerina fighting.

aw;lrkawjrk;j

wait why would you say

less ballerina fighting

(i think there is one difference between drosselmeyer and moffat, and that is that moffat only talks the talk and then doesn’t actually create ~tragedy~ while dross is actually in it to win it. they are both highly emotionally unsatisfying writers, though, for VERY SIMILAR REASONS)

Sherlock meta, take two. In which I ramble about queerness, the canon, and what that means for Sherlock.

ayries:

And again, it relates back to the original canon and interpretations thereof. In my last one I ended up talking over the original issue of asexuality to talk about gay/etc. interpretations, so: here we go again!

(A note before I start: contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, asexual and gay/bi/etc are not mutually exclusive. Some asexual people are heteroromantic, biromantic, homoromantic, etc. So these posts being separate is not supposed to suggest that they’re fundamentally exclusive interpretations. Nor is this supposed to argue he ‘should’ be this or that. It’s to argue he could be queer and that arguments that it’s ‘impossible’ are by and large badly thought out.)

The biggest obstacle a lot of people seem to stumble over when it comes to the idea of Sherlock, as a show, making one or both of its leads queer is that it’s an unfaithful thing to do with regards to the original stories. (This is true, let’s be fair, when discussing any Holmes adaptation in which the issue arises, as it almost always does.) The argument tends to go that he wasn’t gay (and it’s always gay. For the record, I’m using ‘queer’ as a catch-all here) in the original stories, and therefore it’s just wrong to ‘make him gay’ in an adaptation.

Can we please break down the fallacies in this argument when it’s applied to Sherlock?

Read More

WHAT A GOOD POST

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