Marketing sexism! I should have known you were holding merchandising’s leash. I recognized your foul stench when I walked into Toys R' Us.

Many of you may have stumbled upon the fabulous work of SPARK and Powered by Girl through my frequent shout outs. If so, you might know that they've started a great Toy Store Action that focuses the conversation sparked by the LEGO Friends line towards larger issues of gendered marketing. Basically, the action consists of going into toy stores, taking pictures of Post-Its that question some of the limiting gender roles being promoted by toys, sharing the pictures online, and then removing the notes to make sure no hard working employees have a crap day. The first crop of pictures has been popping up, and this one caught my eye.

It’s something called a “Battle Pack.” It features three action figures labeled “Rebel Heroes.” It’s been awhile since I ventured into the world of Star Wars action figures, although I still have the box containing my relatively small childhood set under my bed.[1] So maybe my memory is fuzzy, and the packaging logic on these toys has always made little to no sense. There is no logical reason why Darth Maul is all over this design, for example. But can someone please explain to me why C3PO is a “Rebel Hero” and not Leia? C fucking 3PO?!

I’m not sure if Hasbro is aware of the fact that Leia was one of the three founders of the Rebel Alliance.[2] I think that qualifies her as a “Rebel Hero.” She is also always packing heat, good action figure selling point there. And, as a human, she should probably get hero priority over an appliance.[3] I went on Hasbro’s website to do some back up research and found that while Leia is fully represented in action figure form, she is pretty difficult to search, (I only found two action figure incarnations.) Meanwhile, I discovered a side bar that allowed me to narrow down my Star Wars product choices by “Gender.”

The options:

Boys (693)

Both (92)

Products listed under “both” were decidedly less awesome than those under “boys.” Examples; a very weird, Barbie-esque Aunt Beru doll, (who designs these things?) vs. LEGO Millennium Falcon.


Look, I can’t say for sure what is going on here. I wasn’t at the store when this photo was taken.[5] For all I know, there was a whole shelf of badass Leia action figures right around the corner. But I have a baaad feeling about this. Something here screams sexism. Why else would marketers assume a kid would prefer this in a “Battle Pack”:

The best 3PO could do in a battle was pull a "Merry and Pippin." And his rendition was more awkward. 

As opposed to this:

Seriously, who looks more battle-ready to you?

---

[1] Most of the main characters, three incarnations of Leia. Mostly my sister and I just mooched off of our cousin’s massive collection.

[2] Along with her dad, and Mon Mothma. Another lady. Han and Chewie were pretty late in getting on board with that particular insurrection.

[3] All my love to the droids, but let’s be honest.

[5] I will be hitting Target this weekend, camera in hand. Stay tuned.

"Wow, You Feminists Need to Get a Life!"

Ironically, the above phrase, which I hear often, tends to be directed at my concern with gender inequality in the media, as opposed to, say, my ability to hum every Star Wars leitmotif on cue. The suggestion that because I am concerned about gender inequality must mean I have way too much time has been especially popular in the wake of this LEGO controversy. I have also been asked "What do you have against pink?" and been assured that LEGO does practice gender neutral marketing and has "plenty" of female minifigs in it's non-Friends lines. I suppose these people assume me and the other women concerned about gendered marketing are just crazy PMS harpies who jump into attacks on innocent little toys without any evidence or facts to back us up. Many also seem to assume we all suddenly jumped out of the woodwork to protest LEGO, when in fact, we've been here a while, and we are simply focusing on LEGO Friends as a perfect example of a much wider issue. I know that you, my fantastic feminist fangirls and fanboys, do not think this way, because you are awesome-o.  But in case you would like some more background on this whole LEGO hoopla, Feminist Frequency  breaks it down like a blizzard.

On top of this fantastic contribution, my SPARKteam partner in crime Bailey just wrote a blog so packed with facts that the mansplainers won't know what  to do with it! Only 4% non-Friends female minifigs? Really LEGO? Really?!

A Sexist in Belgravia

Yes, I know this is not an accurate portrayal of the smart, competent, and non-sexualized Hermione Granger. J.K. Rowling writes Hermione as a nuanced character, an equal to her male counterparts. Likewise, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle approached Irene Adler as a proto-feminist equal to his male heroes. In fact, she bested them. Her aloof victory was the whole point of A Scandal in Bohemia. 


The original Sherlock Holmes stories have had their true nature consistently overshadowed by a century or so of uneven adaptions. Therefore, to a lot of viewers relatively unfamiliar with the original, A Scandal in Belgravia may not seem an obvious travesty. By doing what was done to Irene with a better known character, artist BeFine perfectly illustrates why we should all be very upset. I really liked Steven Moffat's take on Sherlock, based on season one. As I am one picky Sherlock Holmes super fan, that's saying something. I was NOT pleased with the season two premiere. BeFine hit the nail on the head with this one. Stay tuned, as I have so much more to say on the character assassination Moffat brought upon the wonderful Miss Adler.

I Love My Body! It's Not Even Love Your Body Week!

I know, I know. I was tired of the Sh*t People Say meme about ten minutes into it. And needless to say, I had a huge set of problems with original Sh*t Girls Say. BUT this loving tribute to the the shit I say on a regular basis is dead on accurate. While I'm sure it's not Moho exclusive, for me it is Sh*t White Mount Holyoke Feminists Say, it makes me MoHomesick, and it was made by some of my fellow classmates! Enjoy.

"Joker Hideout"

So, do y'all remember my LEGO blog back in December? Well, with the help of the amazing Bailey Shoemaker Richards and the rest of the SPARKteam, we are making waves! We've gotten international press, and we have a new video starring the ever insightful Riley! (The four-year-old continues to prove her awesome by telling us her favorite thing to build with LEGO is "the Joker hideout.")

Also, there's this:

Let's make that 20,000+ grow! Sign the petition! 

The Feminist Three

Mary Morstan, Irene Adler, and Violet Hunter

Last week, I tried my best to argue that the Sherlock Holmes stories are fabulously feminist. But, as I didn’t offer many reasons, I basically asked that you, dear readers, take my word for it. This week, I am giving you three good reasons. Their names are Irene Adler, Mary Morstan, and Violet Hunter.

Since I tend to approach this chronologically, I will start with Mary. Miss Mary Morstan is the first significant female character to appear in the Sherlock Holmes stories, being the client who brings her case to Holmes in The Sign of Four. She tends to be listed as a “minor character,” but she gets more page time then Professor Moriarty.[1]  She goes to Holmes with inquiries regarding the unsolved disappearance of her father and mysterious letters she has been receiving in the mail. It all sets off what I consider the ultimate Sherlock Holmes adventure.[2] It has everything! Cocaine, The Baker Street Irregulars, colonial commentary, a mega-creepy locked room murder, incompetent police, lost Indian treasure, romance, and a boat chase on the Thames! Mary is not an obtusely feminist character, but she is a confident, brave young woman. As a witness to the “Tragedy of Pondicherry Lodge,” she accompanies Holmes and Watson during the first, and creepiest, leg of the adventure. She ends up the future Mrs. Watson by the end of the story, which means we get an adorable, swoony Watson and an endearingly jealous Sherlock.[3]

Beyond her significance to the story, Mary is relatively unremarkable.[4] She is just a pleasant and idealized version of the self sufficient New Woman. Conan Doyle does a lot with themes regarding the new, urban middle class, a phenomenon that was just coming to fruition in the late 19^th century. Holmes and Watson are middle class heroes, and the women who play parts in their adventures are usually unmarried and self-sufficient.[5] Mary is the ultimate example of the character type, and that, in it itself, lends her significance.

After Mary and Watson have settled down, Holmes gets his chance at romance, or rather, his approximation of romance, with the entirely remarkable Irene Adler. Before Irene’s debut in A Scandal in Bohemia, Sherlock is a sexist.[6] His primary reasons are that he has trouble reading women,[7] combined with a little jealousy over Watson’s new lady friend. A choice gem from The Sign of Four; "Women are never to be entirely trusted,--not the best of them."[8] He is also apt to make light of women’s intellectual capacities, which means that, as much as I love Holmes, before Scandal, he’s a bit of an asshole. I say before Scandal because an incredible individual by the name of Irene Alder shows him what’s what.

While dressed as a man. 

Irene Adler is an American by way of New Jersey, a “well-known adventuress,” famed opera singer, and expert blackmailer of rich jerks. She is not so much a New Woman as a Super Woman, almost a sort of artistic Nelly Bly. Irene is also bright enough to outsmart Holmes, which is saying something. She, as the arguable antagonist of the case, wins in the end. Without revealing too much on the plot, I will also commend her for some resourceful cross-dressing, explaining “Male costume is nothing new to me. I often take advantage of the freedom which it gives me.” By the end of it all, Holmes, ever humble, has fallen for the female version of himself, enshrining her as “the woman.” She never reappears, but Irene single handily cures Holmes of his sexism with her awesome.[9]  By constructing a character with prejudices, then dismantling those prejudices with an amazing female character, Doyle was being pretty darn feminist.

Violet, doing some detective work of her own.

                                                                                                                                              

The last of the three female characters I will be looking at this week is Violet Hunter, another self-employed New Woman, and heroine of The Copper Beeches, a deliciously creepy little mystery about twisted goings on in the English countryside. When Violet first comes to Baker Street with concerns over a sketchy governess position she has been offered, Watson remarks “she seems to be a young lady who is very well able to take care of herself." Holmes agrees. In fact, her intelligence causes him to become emotionally invested in Violet’s situation, prompting Watson to actively ship the pair. Violet doesn’t end up with Holmes, but she does end up facing the majority of the mystery’s frightening details, and uncovering clues, on her own. Violet Hunter appears in only one story, but like Miss Adler, Violet is a true one hit wonder, reminding us that the best, most self-assured and confident supporting characters in the Sherlock Holmes stories are always women.

---

[1] On the basis of page time, ALL characters other than Holmes and Watson are “minor.”

[2] The Hound of the Baskervilles just isn’t quintessentially Holmes. It’s how unexpected it is that makes it so amazing.

[3] Not nearly as immaturely jealous as RDJ Holmes though. His reaction was way too boy’s club. One of my many problems with the film.

[4] Although, once married, she is wonderfully understanding regarding Watson’s continued attachment to his weird friend. That in itself is pretty remarkable.

[5] If they are not, there is always some very conscience thematic commentary on the fact. But we’ll discuss that next week.  

[6] This does not mean that Doyle is a sexist. I assume that I don’t have to explain to you, dear reader, that an author doesn’t often share the worldview of their characters. But I have had to do this before.

[7] Most likely a byproduct of his Aspergers syndrome.  Yes, I know that is the diagnosis de jour, but yes, he has it.

[8] “I did not pause to argue over this atrocious sentiment.” You know something, Watson? Kinda wish you had.

[9] “He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late.”

A Study in Feminism

In all his ginger glory.

Sherlock Holmes

It’s time to embark on our second adventure in feminist, narrative over-analysis! We had good fun last month with my favorite New Hollywood space opera. But let’s jump back exactly 90 years from the release of Star Wars and look at something completely different. In the winter of 1887, the first Sherlock Holmes adventure, A Study in Scarlet, was published in Beeton’s Christmas Annual. And so began the adventures of one of the greatest characters in western literature, and one of my top fandoms.

If one is a huge fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective adventures, one has to be primarily in it for the character of Sherlock. He IS the stories, although the mysteries themselves are some of the best of the genre.[1] As a feminist Sherlockian, I am still in this primarily because I adore a wholly original, but still male character. That’s okay! Because, unlike what many people apparently still believe, we feminists don’t hate men.[2] 

But, just because the SH adventures focus on two male protagonists and were written by a man in the 19^th century, does not mean they do not have a lot for my feminist self to love. This includes a plethora of great female characters and some seriously interesting feminist themes. In fact, the plots of a majority of the Holmes mysteries are driven by the actions of women; serving either as the mysterious architects of violent revenge, or the intelligent New Women facing baffling problems with impressive resourcefulness.

The first SH novel, A Study in Scarlet, does not give a feminist reading much to work with. Without trying to spoil the mystery, I can say that the marital rape of a woman is the catalyst for a revenge based crime at the center of the story. But it is a man having his vengeance, so, while it is a very good mystery, it’s not super feminist. But by the second novel, 1891’s The Sign of Four, Doyle began to establish his female focused tone. In our next entry, we’ll dive into a thorough look at the central Sherlock sisterhood; the incredible Irene Adler, the awesome Miss Mary Morstan, and the smart, resourceful Violet Hunter.

---

[1] They should be.  Doyle was in the process of inventing the genre.

[2] Watson is pretty cool too.