Oh, Mister.

No.

Molly Hooper is smart and shy and caring and, basically, amazing. She is like a real person to me - once, I was like Molly in a way (now I’m more like Sherlock, which is a transformation I don’t wish to get in depth on). I understand where she’s coming from.

She is treated horribly by the male characters, true - and that is problematic. But the character in and of itself (herself?) is not “bad for feminism”. She feels like she could be real - a real woman working at Bart’s.

This is utterly unlike Irene Adler’s portrayal as a stereotype and sex object, and whose story was intensely sexist and homophobic, as I’ve detailed in a previous essay (link not at hand due to being on my netbook, which hates me, lol…  but it’s in here). Molly’s story is one of growth and of being that girl in the background who is suddenly taken out of it and turns out to be stronger than anyone knew.

There is a huge difference there. But no, Molly Hooper does not have a worse portrayal in terms of sexism than Irene Adler, by any means.

(Though I would point out, briefly, that “bad for feminism” is horrible phrasing. Neither of them is “bad for feminism.” “Bad to feminists” or “bad wrt sexism” would have been better.)

And my girlfriend is going to yell at me if I don’t go help make dinner now so, laters!

(Source: bakerstreetconfessions)