FELIX

I am also writing from the kitchen, with a christmas-gift recipe book next to me. I am a feminist. Are you a feminist? The way that you talk about "them", suggests you don't identify as one. Do you believe in gender equality?

As you say, "the point is to obtain the same rights and opportunities for women as those available to men"; perhaps these rights and opportunities involve being JUST as likely to be introduced nude and by their intimate measurements as men. Perhaps it involves wanting characters of both binary genders to retain the victories that they gained (against more extreme social sexism of Victorian times) when they were written.

Perhaps those feminists would like their health concerns to be taken as seriously and be pre-provided for as the less life-threatening bodily concerns of men? Is that such a small point?

Perhaps you do not know everything about media/entertainment theory. Perhaps you are so uncouth as to introduce lesbian sterotypes out of nowhere for no use.

Who chose the headline and thought it was even slightly acceptable. please

The point about changing the ending is this: would the episode have been any less entertaining if Sherlock had lost? Absolutely not. We would have been excited by it. It would have shown 'a human side' blah blah blah.

Irene Adler begins as an independent woman, she ends the episode in a hijab! Her dignity is destroyed. That's the imagery that shocks us feminists.

Admittedly, you could choose not to see this. It is quite subliminal, so I don't think one needs to accuse anyone of chauvinism over it.

Your article, however, is deeply arrogant. The job of feminism is not to persuade men to begrudingly accept that women are equals because they're not annoying. It is to persuade them to recognize that women have equal worth! It is an argument based on humanity not on whether or not women "moan"!

They say a woman's work is never done...probably why they get paid less.

Hey if you actually want to understand the viewpoint of a feminist and why the issues go deeper than "gaining a better place within the patriarchy" I know some people who'd be only too happy to explain why they're feminists and what it means

Also why accepting nonsense patriarchal stereotypes is really damaging. There's some really nasty stuff here that's just used to dehumanise women and make them seem unable to think "rationally", allowing their views to be ignored

A. You're thick.
B. It's polite to link. http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/irene-adler-how-to-butcher-a-brilliant-woman-character/ http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2012/01/moffat-sherlock-women

Clair, to answer your question, yes I am a feminist. I believe in gender equality. I believe that physical gender separation needs to evolve to simply “human being”. I believe that if a woman wants to wear short skirts, she should not be called a slut. In the same way, if a woman wants to wear a hijab as part of her beliefs, this right should be respected. Feminism however has many branches and I do not agree with all of them (hence the “them” that you pointed out).

Sherlock is an example of this and an example for the point I was trying to make. I understand that some people have interpreted the show as being sexist, but I do not share this interpretation (as explained in the article). I still perceived Irene Adler as a strong witty woman. Concerning Siri, yes women should not be put in that situation. The glitch in the system should be reported. However I do not believe that making a big fuss out of it was necessary. The negative image some feminists are given for taking some issues out of proportion is

Though I may have had much to say prior to reading the comments, most of it dissolved when I read this so-called "feminist's" response.

Guess what, chauvinist!? I am an independent, dignified, hijab-wearing feminist. We exist too *gassp.* Get your head out of first-wave feminisms bullsh*t racism or don't claim to speak on behalf of feminists at all. An integral part of the feminist project is to address all forms of hierarchy (racism, ageism, classism, etc) that work together towards oppressing women AROUND THE WORLD. Sexism does not work independently from those forces. Your clumsy comment perpetuates a dangerous stereotype that demeans a very large population of women!

Also, feminism's job is not to 'convince' or 'persuade men' of anything. If you frame it as such, you, in fact, perpetuate male power and also end up denouncing men as a singular, monolithic category. The feminist project has plenty of male allies, though we could always use more: male, female or anywhere in between!

A woman can be strong and witty and *still exploited*, kiddo.

Do you think that in real life, being emotionally hardy, being funny, bring clever or self-expressively sexy means that no-one can commit sexism against you? Being a rounded person, or an enjoyably written character, does not make you immune to misogyny. That's the problem. We, all women and others, are rounded people who live real lives. AND YET: sexism exists. Sherlock's version of Irrne Adler was enjoyed by many - but done a disservice by the plot, her re-wired motivations (from a meta pov rather than an in-universe one), and her loss of last-word victory. These can both be true. That Moffat treated her character like a person does not mean he created an episode devoid of sexism.

If one does not make a fuss, yet must speak up to be heard, one remains effectively silent.

@Re: Chauvinist: Fair point on the "convincing" or "persuading". I meant in the sense of winning the argument for feminism but you're right I did bundle 'men' into a group that doesn't recognise there are many male feminists.

In fact i'd argue that almost everyone is a feminist, to lesser or greater degrees (are many people campaigning against female equality in the workplace etc?)

On the hijab, however, I completely disagree with you. The hijab, and its more extreme variants, is a tool of oppression borne out of ignorance and hatred for the female body. It is vile and misogynistic and simply because you're an "independent, dignified, hijab-wearing feminist" doesn't change any of that.

Dear Stavvers,

If that is your real name, which I believe it not to be.

Here is a quote from your post: "You're thick".

Now here is a quote from your "commenting policy" on your blog: "While I like reasoned debate and all of that, this is my blog. Try not to act like arseholes. There are a few ways not to act like an arsehole:

1. Do not, under any circumstances, personally attack anyone in the comment threads."

Notice anything?

The answer is that your font is different.

The point is, Adler beating Holmes at his own game made her story what it was. Our favourite fictional detective thinks women intellectually inferior, until the glamorous mistress of royalty, proves more than his match. She doesn't need to be objectified to be sexy, and by changing the result she becomes yet another thwarted villain easily forgotten.

There are plenty of helpless women on TV, plenty whose primary role is to take advice from men or defer to them, plenty whose primary role is to get her tits out - would it really have killed the writers to not revert to the usual tropes about women for this one character and actually have her true to her original? Is it REALLY too much to ask that once in a while a female character is actually kickass? Actually beats the main guy at his own game? Men get to win all the time in action series, yet even the odd woman is expecting too much?

Also, perhaps we take abortions and their legality here for granted, but in the US (where the furore over Siri happened)

In the US where the furore over Siri happened, abortion rights are a big issue; religious extremists protest outside centres to intimidate women, centres get blown up, abortion doctors are sometimes murdered. Just because we have those choices here doesn't mean women there don't have to fight tooth and nail to keep those services available. Denying access to information or the tools to organise a legal service both enforces stigma and can make it harder for women to find a clinic and access its services within the legal time frame. Even if it doesn't stop them, It matters and it shouldn't happen.

Siri is a service that doesn't censor searches for legal activities, so abortions should not be an exception. The uproar, which was about not providing a full service, and censorship (always a big theme) as well as the politics of abortion. The only way to get things changed, especially in our media-savvy age, is to make a deal about it. This wasn't even a big deal - much less than when blackberry messaging w

You say you're a feminist, (and as a feminist I have to allow you that choice, even if you might be misidentifying entirely or trolling) but in my experience anyone who owns the label doesn't denigrate others who have the same core interests at heart: equality for everyone. There are big issues and smaller issues, and they can all be improved if we give them attention. What makes you assume feminists aren’t spending any time on big issues just because some of them tackle other ones? Do you think you’ve the emotional energy to talk about nothing but rape, abuse, etc all day every day and never about anything a bit less horrifying?

Your 'I get to tell you what is important enough to address’ argument is played when people would rather the arguments weren’t brought up so they could continue as before. And you can’t win, because people who are uncomfortable with feminism will always shift the goalposts – whatever issue you raise, it will always be ‘too much’ and you will always be accused of being too hormona

And really, a feminist who believes those ridiculous stereotypes or uses them as justification for silencing others? Have you even read any of these other feminists? Whether they actually are too emotional? Whether they might have something to be emotional about? What the context is? Derogatory stereotypes exist because it’s easier to ridicule people than to address their points, and you fell for it. Stereotypes and criticism won’t go away if we shut up: they were around even when the topic at hand was voting rights, abortion, etc.

You’re parroting the fallacy that if only we just shut up and smiled at men, we’d achieve something. That if we ignore the little ways we are treated as unequal they will go away – when in fact it’s the little injustices that desensitise us to the big ones. Even the most peaceful of resistance is greeted with scorn (just look at history): those with power object not to how you raise your point as much as the fact that you raise said point at all. There’s no way you can phrase

In with this article you're doing exactly what you disrespect those stereotypical strawman feminists for doing: making a big deal about relatively inconsequential things. So some people didn't love the changes to the plot in a programme you like? Big deal, there are 13-year old child- brides being raped in Afghanistan. Someone complained about Apple censoring abortion rights? Shouldn't you be writing about the appalling lack of support for victims of intimate partner violence, instead? Isn't your very article clouded by your emotions* because these feminists evidently irritate you? Why aren't you writing about these bigger issues, then, if that's your take on how feminism should be approached?

Either all of us get to fight injustices as we call them, whatever issues we feel we can discuss, and support each other, or none of us do, sister. If you're in earnest, read around the feminist blogosphere: there are many eloquent people out there who make rational, articulate points, nothing like the stereotypes yo

And Chauvinist, a hijab is a headscarf, something almost every muslim woman wears, and not the niqab (full face-covering, body-covering item of clothing). You'd better pick your words VERY carefully when you step into analysing other women’s religions, their entire ways of life if you want to avoid merely coming across as imperialist and ignorant of all context. After all, if you’re a feminist, you’re interested in intersectionality - race, sexuality, class, culture, religion, West vs everyone else, how all the different power imbalances and how they play with each other. You would know that to avoid oppressing others you have to really listen to their experiences, how the current structure is affecting them. Except you’re not, your simplistic argument is oppressive to muslim women because you’re completely ignoring their opinions and lecturing them on how to live their lives. You may have some theoretical high ground, but not much. I mean, are short skirts tools of oppression? Long skirts? Fitted jeans? I’d

I’d argue all clothes are in some respect, because we are judged by them, using them to either try and avoid male gaze as if we’re responsible for men’s actions, or attract men’s attention, as if that’s all we’re there for. In an ideal world, we’d all be able to walk around naked without feeling sexualised or pressured to dress a certain way. Really, the world is so screwed up you have to be rather nuanced in how you approach it, because most things contribute to oppression in small, very nuanced It’s really not the kind of conversation one has like a bull in a china shop, and certainly not one where you end up taking on the role of Totally Enlightened Westerner Here To Tell All Oppressed Women Everywhere Else How To Live Their Lives. As if women around the world aren’t working out feminism for themselves, and need your twitter-able West-centric summary.

TinTin - I agree