When the Sherlock writers came to the Union, I asked them why the female characters on their show were always either spoken down to or killed. Moffat responded by explaining to me that “if I didn’t like shows where people were spoken down to or killed, then maybe Sherlock is not the show for me.”

He spoke down to a woman, as a response to an accusation that he speaks down to women. Surely it’s time to challenge the archaic attitudes of this show and its writers. Are we not owed some female characters that are not totally one-dimensional?

“For a supposedly forward-thinking show, as viewers we deserve something more thoughtful”

The latest season finale presented a particularly troubling view of women. Euros has to be locked away in a mental institution because, being clever like her brothers but also being a woman, she is, of course, evil and insane. Typical bloody woman! The writers then align her story with that of a helpless child on a plane, but don’t worry, all of her mental issues are resolved when Sherlock figures it out and gives her a big hug!

‘Men get put to test by inconvenient woman but still end up saving the day’ is hardly an original plotline. For a supposedly forward-thinking show, as viewers we deserve something more thoughtful. Oh, and by the way, since the previous episode set just days before, Sherlock has made a full physical recovery from a serious heroin addiction before prancing around in this all action, James-Bond-meets-the-Saw-Films farce. Because if you are clever enough you can’t get addicted to drugs, right?

As part of his defence against my questions in the Union, Moffat claimed Irene Adler as a strong female role on the show. Irene Adler, a dominatrix, naked in her first scene for the Baker Street boys to ogle at, is Moffat’s idea of a richly drawn female character. In fact, one of the only times I can think of two female characters conversing about something other than a man on Sherlock is when Irene Adler and her assistant discuss what she will wear for when Sherlock arrives. And even that conversation is really about impressing men. Tut, tut, Moffat, ever heard of the Bechdel test? And yet the show is still acclaimed for its ‘original’ writing.

“Tut, tut, Moffat, ever heard of the Bechdel test? And yet the show is still acclaimed for its ‘original’ writing”

Though Irene Adler makes her own way in the world in a potentially feminist sense, she really only does so by using sex as a weapon – because she knows “what people like”. She is only a point of interest for the boys because she has a compromising tape of her and a female member of the royal family. How unimaginably controversial! Oh, and the weakness by which Sherlock defeats this apparent criminal genius? Sentiment. Adler just gets too emotional about Sherlock to cut it, or so he suggests he unlocks her phone with his own name while she cries because it’s just, you know, all too much.

It even turns out that Moriaty, another man, is behind her criminal scheming. She’s merely a bit of eye-candy, soon to be brushed aside to make way for the real battle between two superior men. It is actually hard to imagine a more reductive female character, especially in contrast to Sherlock the saviour and Moriarty, the ultimate villain. Patronised yet? Don’t worry, the episode concludes when Sherlock saves Irene Adler from certain death, confirming her status as just another damsel in distress, an ending that was never suggested even by the original detective stories. When the writers claim her as a powerful female voice, you really do start to wonder.

“Again and again in Sherlock, and across the board of the male-dominated film and TV industry, women are disempowered, killed or humiliated, at best as a plot device, and at worst, as a cheap gag”

Mary was a refreshing change, particularly in the wedding episode where she played Sherlock and Watson off against each other, having them both give her a thumbs up from either side of the wall. It’s a genuinely hilarious moment, and one of the only times where the woman has the upper hand due to her intellect. Yet in the same episode, gags as cheap as Sherlock requesting that Mrs Hudson’s wine glass be moved out of her reach are thoughtlessly thrown in. Sherlock even ‘deduces’ and that Mary is pregnant and announces it on her behalf to the oblivious couple. Talk about stealing the thunder.

Mary clearly had more potential, and many will mourn how she relieved the gender imbalance of the show. It is testament to Gatiss and Moffat’s lack of creativity that they killed her off in order to restore the old ‘bromance’ of the Baker Street boys, which they are so used to writing. 

TV Round-Up: Sherlock

It hardly takes a detective to spot the sexist overtones in this show. Again and again in Sherlock, and across the board of the male-dominated film and TV industry, women are disempowered, killed or humiliated, at best as a plot device, and at worst, as a cheap gag. It’s growing tedious after four series to watch how Moffat and Gatiss assume that little ‘twists’ like Moriarty being gay, or Mrs Hudson having a sports car, are somehow new and controversial, even laughable, until the writers kindly (patronisingly) step in to teach us that they’re not.

As a consequence, this ‘modern version’ of Sherlock often feels more outdated than the original 1891 Conan Doyle material. If Gatiss and Moffat don’t want to be held responsible for the way they present groups of people who have a long history of being marginalised and misrepresented in the media, then perhaps they shouldn’t be working as writers for mainstream TV.

If they continue to write Sherlock while avoiding addressing the issues that the show throws up, then they do so in bad taste. It is lazy writing, and it means the work will remain offensive and patronising, however popular it may be