Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
As Curly and a few others have said, something is going on with Doctor Who and portrayals of women. Some think it’s uncomfortable, some don’t see it and some deny it. But all in this forum (unless I’m missing someone, probably am) are missing the big picture. The sexism is a) not so much about sexism as it is about variety and stereotyping and b) originates much further back than merely season 7. I postulate that the recent bout of sexism of Doctor Who originates from Stephen Moffat and has existed since 2005.
Having read your argument, I will agree with the lack of variety; I have been outright demanding variety in Companions, at least in their origins if nothing else.
I also agree with your second point, the reason it's popping up more often
now is probably due,
in part, to my liveblogging/reviewing of
Doctor Who episodes - most especially when I was able to review episodes within a day or so of them being aired. These reviews being a record of what I think
as I watch, and then having a follow-up where I think over things (in the case of my live reviews) and discuss bits and pieces at length.
Because the material was recent, people were able to think over some things I said and discuss it. I'm of an analytical bent, so sometimes I find my opinion of the episode differs from start to finishing writing the episode. I point out 'A Town Called Mercy' where I went back in and edited a rant because of something that I thought of mere seconds after posting it.
I am not saying it's all because of me, the Magically Resolved Divorce subplot in 'Asylum' certainly pushed more than a few people's buttons, and then episode after episode featured moment, lines, scenes or behaviour that . . . felt wrong. Or seemed wrong. Because people are becoming aware of these Awkward Moments and discussing them at length they are made aware of, and begin to look out for, similar things even when they don't do it consciously.
This season has so far been unfortunate in that the first three
at least have all had a sizeable number of people
in this thread (as I haven't really read elsewhere) who agree that there are points where female characters are treated . . . oddly. Possibly in a sexist way, possibly in others. One has a very debatable moment (the broken wrist) where even I admit it's more of a personal thing and may just be me overreacting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Obviously Doctor Who is always going to be kind of sexist. It’s this alien man of advanced intellect travelling around with a mortal(s) (usually female) assistant(s). That sort of sexist as it is. But the way I see it, both the Doctor and Companion have equal heroic merit. It’s kind of like Tolkien. Who is the hero of Tolkien’s books? Obviously Gandalf, the wizard and thus most powerful character. False, it is the Hobbit, the little man who although far away from the perfection of the wizard, is able to persevere and become just as great. Therefore, the Hobbit and Gandalf are equals. Sometimes one saves the day with the other doing little, often Gandalf must pull the Hobbit out of the fire, but together they are unstoppable. In recent times, media has pulled off this relationship by giving (regardless of gender) the Hobbit a character arc to become the equal of Gandalf. And make Gandalf flawed. That’s important because see later.
Well, the Doctor
is smarter than most people he meets regardless of gender, sex and species. He likes showing off, canon, it just so happens that many of his long-term Companions are females (I'm assuming mostly for fanservice) so that could be read as the Doctor being condescending towards females in particular.
However, yes, I do agree that
Doctor Who has, at times been sexist. And misogynistic. And misandrist. And racist. And ableist. And imperialistic. And heteronormative. And condoning/condemning various forms of politics, religions, cultures, ideologies, lifestyle choices, governments, media, literature and so on and so forth. Give me an hour and access to plot summaries (because I like being unspoiled) and I could probably conduct a reasonable argument stating that
Doctor Who is racist. It just depends on what episodes/themes you look at
and what you choose to exclude from your argument.
But yes,
Doctor Who has been sexist, and sometimes still is.
Some of that though is due to filters. It's very easy to look back on a serial from the 1960s and cry "Sexism!" because, to us 'modern, enlightened people' things from that era are. Even that which may have been progressive for that era is just dated now. We certainly can't use that excuse for everything, and I don't believe we should, but moderation in all things.
That said, I will be ripping the Screaming Companion cliche a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Bad analogy time over. In 2004 Moffat said in an interview which I cannot find that “women are needy”. This is because young girls play at marriages whereas men try and avoid it. Therefore, according to Moffat, all women desire marriage and/or the setting up of a family. Thus, a woman is solely defined by her status as a wife and/or mother.
Citation needed. But I will assume he did for the sake of the argument. That was eight years ago, one year before
Doctor Who started and five years before he became showrunner. His opinions may very well have changed.
Furthermore, just because it's a personal opinion doesn't mean it made it into his work. In order to prove this you would have to go through all his work prior to 2004:
Press Gang (1989 - 1993),
Joking Apart (1993 - 1995),
Coupling (2000 - 2004) and
Chalk (1997) to see if this 'needy woman' slipped into his work with regularity.
Spoiler
Show
Reading only the main Wikipedia page for each of those I can conclude that elements from each of those series (notably Joking Apart and Chalk) are based on events from Moffat's wife, but they seem to be treated fine. And, to be honest, while some of the female characters are described as being 'a little emotional' at times, most of the characters seem like gits regardless of sex/gender. There are cling unintelligent females, and unintelligent, clingy males; Jeff from Coupling is a misogynistic, objectifying sod, and this in part is hinted to be Oepidal in nature, and Patrick is the same with more sex. Yes, this is all shown to be naughty. Some of the girls are body conscious, and Sally and Jane appear to be the clingy, needy woman you say Moffat typifies as all women.
Coupling then seems to be the most 'sexist' of his pre-2004 shows, with two of the three main female characters being stereotypically 'girly', and yet similarly, many of the main male characters also suffer to stereotyping. But overall Moffat seems to run on the usual Britcom opinion of: everyone's a git, with Coupling being more centred than the rest on the sexual side of relationships.
So I can see where the 'needy' woman thing comes in.
However, and this is where I think your arguments falls to pieces 'needy
does not mean needs a man/marriage and/or family. Neediness is defined as '[w]anting or needing affection, attention, or reassurance, especially to an excessive degree' and 'a generalized, undifferentiated dependence on others and feelings of helplessness and fears of desertion and abandonment' (that's from a psychology blog by the way).
By this definition THE DOCTOR IS EXTREMELY NEEDY. As is Rose. Neediness does not equal marriage/families. It means using someone - or multiple people - for emotional reassurance. Romantic relationships can involve neediness, but are themselves not symptomatic of neediness. As romantic relationships are often key to any form of media, they exist. All of the shows listed above (with the possible exception of
Chalk) revolve around the dissolution, development and resolution of relationships, or feature them as an ongoing subplot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Emma
From Curse of Fatal Death: the first Moffat story. A woman who existed solely to swoon over the Doctor. Fortunately, this is a parody and thus bears no relation to canon. Moving on.
Spoiler
Show
Actually I would say that a parody would be one of the first things to look at when attempting to identify ongoing themes and problems in something because it's a parody. It would pick those elements of the piece for which it is most well-known for and amplify them to absurd levels. In this case: female Companions in love/or ambiguously so with the Doctor, regenerations, Daleks, the absurdity of Dalek plots, and plots in general, time travel and bizarre alien biology.
That Emma was in love with Atkinson!Doctor (but found Grant!Doctor sexually appealing) lends believability to possible sexist tones in Doctor Who and Doctor/Companion relationships (no matter the sex, species or gender). Equally so, it shows that such a relationship could be destroyed quite easily because a) the Doctor's personality changes and the new Doctor might not love [Companion]/be able love [Companion], b) the Companion might not love the Doctor/be able to love the Doctor because key elements they found very appealing are gone. I will say that Emma was rather fickle in some of her reactions to the new incarnation of the Doctor, and possibly homophobia could be read in her not being attracted to Lumley!Doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Rose Tyler
Now come on Sunken, Rose has to be sexist. Always pining over the Doctor, damned annoying that Rose. Yes and no. Whilst Rose did eventually get annoying, she was not solely defined by the Doctor. She travelled with him not to “get in” but instead for a “better life” she not only had interests beyond the Doctor but also had others she cared about: Jackie, Mickey and Pete (in Father’s Day).
Spoiler
Show
Yes, she cared so much about Mickey that she ditched him the instant the Doctor asked if she wanted to come with him, leaving him to eventually be arrested for suspected murder. And she cared so much about her mother she hung up on her when Jackie tried to find out if she was okay after a massive alien invasion. And then left her mother to think she was dead for over a year with very little thought or empathy upon discovering such a thing.
Rose is a hateful human being regardless of the fact that she is female. Her obsession with her father could lead me to say she has a bit of an Elecktra Complex (or that she wants to know the father she never had).
However, I would class her as a needy woman. She says "[t]his is the day I died" when talking about how she was in another dimension cut off from the man she (claimed to) love! HOW IS THAT NOT NEEDY?! AND SEXIST! Oh, and worst of all, as of nearly halfway into season four she seems to be trying to break back into the universe (risking total destruction of both universes) to do something with the Doctor. Plus she was jealous of Sarah Jane Smith.
Please note that Rose is RTD's creation and thus much of the blame for this needy female character lies with him, not Moffat. In fact, in the three episodes Moffat wrote during Rose's tenure as Companion she is seldom in them. Because she's an annoying, contemptible, needy nag.
But she shows no demonstrably strong need or want for a family or marriage, merely 'her' Doctor.
Agreed.
I will add though, that for the most part, her neediness is mostly unsexist, and she is a rounded character. Rounded is spite, jealousy and hate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Nancy
From Empty Child. A rounded character with interests beyond romance and babies. Her arc involved her accepting her role as a mother and healing her son with her motherhood, thus she defines herself by it. Good, makes sense. What a lovely story. Let’s see what Moffat has next.
So it's sexist to have/want marriage/family, but it's okay for Nancy's whole arc to be defined to her son and the other children she looks after in a pseudo-mother role?
From this I conclude you agree that being womanly/having traditionally female wants, needs and values then is not needy or sexist. Good, because I do really like Nancy. She
was a well-rounded character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Reinette Du Pompadour
From Girl in the Fireplace. Does not define herself by motherhood on account of not having kids. Instead she defines herself by the men in her life, the king of France and the Doctor. She waits for the Doctor her whole life, but still she accomplishes things. Rose and Reinette have a brief conversation where she says that a life filled with monsters and nightmares is worth it “for the sake of an angel”. Rose never produces a rebuttal to her even though she does not consider life with the Doctor to be such. It also sort of encourages women to put up with horrible things in their relationships for the sake of a man. I'ts one line though. And one line isn’t going to come back and haunt us.
Spoiler
Show
Well, Mme. de Pompadour was a
historical character. Her salon was populated by many philosophers (including Voltaire), was a notable power behind-the-scenes for both the French court and the actions of the king himself, established factories and was a well-known architect. Oh, and she had a child by her first husband and suffered two miscarriages. She lived a very full, varied and happy life outside of the Doctor.
As a child she met the Doctor and was entranced by him and his actions, and he
proved that childhood monsters and fears were real. It's no wonder she remembered him. She was
not needy, but she did seem fixated in some small part on the Doctor, she also seemed to have psychic powers which is my personal headcanon reason for why she had her childhood bedroom at Versailles - she knew she would need him again, so she made it possible for him to come through.
I will agree that that line
could imply that it's worth being in a bad relationship for the sake of a man. In short; needy: no; fixated in the Doctor: yes, but not overly much.
Oh, and although she had a husband, long time partner and a child, I wouldn't say these typically female things meant that her character was portrayed in a sexist manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Martha Jones
The infamous bunnyface seems annoying in that she tries to romance the Doctor. However, when she sees that the relationship is ruining her life she leaves. In season 4 she does something with her life, she works for UNIT. Also, she was a developed character in that she had even more interests other than the Doctor than Rose and never defined herself by a man.
She's needy. She spent a whole season seeking validation from the Doctor, however, I will give her credit and say this desperate neediness lessened as season three went on, but it was still present, and sometimes I can't help but think that she left him because she was tired of him not noticing her. Something you agree with. And yes, I do like Martha better in season four, as far as I know.
Oh, and you missed an important woman:
Joan Redford
The Doctor's love interest! Granted he was John Smith, but he was still the Doctor and he loved her very much. So much that he very nearly refused to become the Doctor again because the prospect of living his life as a normal human with her was too tempting.
Joan on the other hand? She was interested in him romantically, they'd just gone on their first date and I think she had hopes for the future. And when she finds out that John Smith is also the Doctor she tells him she will respect his decision no matter what. I would call the Doctor the needy one in this relationship, and I am glad that she stuck to her guns about John Smith and the Doctor being different people. While I don't know if Joan/Doctor could ever have worked out, she had made her decision and stuck to it even though she was once romantically interested in him.
I like to think that after mourning John Smith she fell in love and married someone else. And I don't think that's needy or sexist, we know that she eventually wanted marriage and a family,
most people do, so I hope she got what she wanted.
Was her appearance mostly defined by their future romantic potential? Yes. But from body language and dialogue hints we can also conclude that Joan and John were also good friends who were only just beginning to explore that possible romance, and she was just as easily defined as her role as a nurse looking after her charges.
Feminine yes, but not needy or necessarily sexist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Sally Sparrow
From everyone’s favourite episode. She has goals and interests outside of men. She never defines herself by a man. But wait, right at the end we need to tie up Sally’s story. Let’s have her date proto-Rory who she never showed any interest in. We need to tack it on because just like the last two. Why? Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family.
Spoiler
Show
Because it was Larry from the start who had the obvious crush on her, and the end only implied there was potential romance. Unless you think handholding automatically means a couple is in a deep, committed relationship. 'Cause if so, let me tell you I hold hands with friends sometimes, and link arms a la Victorian couples, I am not in a romantic relationship with them or anyone else. It's platonic on both parts.
And again, as Strawberries comments below, a relationship takes two to tango. Note I'm not calling you out on the constant use of 'man' in relationships (well, I am now), but all parts of a romantic relationship must want to be in the relationship in order to make it work. Therefore, by definition, wanting romance/marriage and/or a family is applicable to both a males and females. Larry clearly wanted a relationship with her, Sally at the end said 'yes, I would like to try'. That's all.
Because all female characters are needy/portrayed in a sexist manner if they mention romance and/or a family as part of their wishes, wants, dreams or character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Kathy Nightingale
Also from Blink. After transportation, marries and starts a family. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family. Also, her future husband followed her around asking for marriage. That has stalker written all over it. We need some context for this to make sense. But Blink is one of the best Who episodes, such contrivances are minor nitpicks
And we have no idea how long it was post-transportation that she married and started a family. Because she never said. And also it's totally wrong to want companionship, familiarity and a family when stuck in a different time with no way of being able to return to your own time and family. She substituted her own family with a new one.
As for her eventual husband, in his defence a strangely attired woman appeared out of thin air right in front of him. And we also have no idea how long it was between the first meeting and their first date let alone marriage proposal. Or how often he did it. It
could just have been a joke. I also don't think it's that odd he stuck around. He's the first person she met there, it's only human for her to want to keep him around for a sense of familirity in a new world.
I also see no reason why she can't marry and have a family if it makes her happy.
I will also add that most happily ever afters involve marriage. It's almost an automatic cliche nowadays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Donna Noble
Ten’s best friend. Strong female with interests blah never defines herself blah. Good. However, in Silence in the Library, Donna is sent to a dream world where she lives a perfect life. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family. Although wanting marriage was a trait of Donna, she also wanted more in life, not just this ending.
Spoiler
Show
Can't comment on anything post Agatha Cristie episode, but I know she was still the Doctor's Companion until the end of season four. Thus her story didn't end with a man/woman/romance and/or a family. It started with one. It didn't work out.
Oh, and Donna was needy. She sought validation from her fiance, and still sought it from the Doctor to a much lesser extent. And she did get much more from life once she sorted herself out; she investigated mysteries, travelled with the Doctor, shared his guilt with him, verbally owned multiple people and is just generally amazing.
Needy, yes, but not overly so, and it's a part of her character, and one that is rapidly lessening as she grows more confident in herself and her abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
River Song
In her debut, she seems like a cool independent adventurer but whilst having “history” with the Doctor is not defined by him. However we see her end inside the computer where she looks after kids. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family. But it gets worse. Her messed up relationship with the Doctor is revealed more and more with each appearance until we see how much she defines herself by the man. River, the archaeologist, isn’t even passionate about that, only taking it for the chance to see the Doctor. More later.
Constantly denigrating marriage isn't helping your case. For a successful relationship both couples must want it to work out.
As for everything else, I have repeatedly said River Song is mentally unstable, and one of the reasons for that is that she was quite literally raised so that the Doctor was the centre of her world. And she was raised that way in order to
kill him.
Is she needy? Somewhat. Is she obsessed with the Doctor?
Yes, but justifiably so, she is mentally unstable and very messed up, and I wish the show would address that a little bit more. Does she define herself by him? They're in a relationship, and he's a time traveller, I think it's a good idea to keep track of their encounters to reduce spoilers, paradoxes and so on.
And I don't know about the archaeology aspect. She's a
professor. She has a
life. While it probably played a large part in choice to study archaeology to reach, she is a
professor of archaeology. That means she not only did a BSc, but a Masters, a PhD and then spent years, even decades, of scholarly work and practice to attain that title. A Professor is one of the
best in their field. To reach such a high rank you need to love your subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Amy Pond
Starts out with sort of interests from the Doctor. She has a whole bunch of neighbours and acquaintances who we meet in “The Eleventh Hour”, such as Rory and Jeff (the guy who looks at porn) and the old woman and um…er. That’s right, everyone except Rory, the fiancé, is never mentioned again, leaving Amy with no interests outside the Doctor and Rory. The origin story, how she had to wait for the Doctor, is a rip-off of Reinette without the productivity.
But wait, she does have family, she has that sub-plot about her parents disappearing. She helped make them come back. And they were mentioned tons of times afterwards. No, sorry. They are never mentioned again.
But wait, she does have interests, that modelling career. Because the only thing a women is good for is her body. Regardless, she no longer has that job. Well what about her travel writing. Now that’s just nonsensical. A travel journalist is someone who is interested in travelling and exploring “this” world and keeping up to date with “current” events. The Power of Three is all about how boring life at home is and how travel through space and time is so much better. Furthermore, we never see her writing, travelling (outside of TARDIS) or previously expressing a desire. Show, not tell.
It gets worse. In season 6, a big deal is made of Amy and Rory’s relationship. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family. Then the pregnancy sub-plot. Amy has a baby (without anyone telling her). Then it’s snatched from her, she never gets the chance to raise it. What a harrowing experience. The implications alone would make a good story. Surely Amy is eternally affected by this shocking turn…oh wait. She’s back to normal next week. None of the events that happen to her have any effect on her at all. That’s just poor writing. Eventually she had to be forced to settle down with Rory and the big house. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family.
It gets worse. There’s the divorce sub-plot. But we never see how it came to be. We just get it forced in our faces right in the premiere. Not only is it out of what little character Amy had, but she didn’t tell her husband, her fellow companion, the last centurion, A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION about the reason behind her divorce. That speaks massive communication problems. It also implies that a barren woman is worthless. That’s not true. This action will surely have long reaching consequences…oh wait. Back to normal in 45 mins and never mentioned again. Unrealistic much?
This is the one I most agree with. The baby and divorce subplots should have been explored more fully. ON BOTH RORY'S AND AMY'S BEHALVES. It takes two (or more) to make a baby, and it takes two (or more) to divorce. Relationships are complicated, messy and involve
people.
But yes, Amy is needy, she is unhealthily needy regarding the Doctor; but eventually she switches that with the interdependence she has with Rory. They love each other very much, and that marriage has been a defining part of
both of them for as long as I've known them.
If it's needy to want romance/marriage and/or a family, Rory is equally as needy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Angels Take Manhattan
Whilst the wrist breaking scene is bad, Amy and River’s conversation is worse. In it, River tells Amy “When one’s in love with an ageless god who insists on the face of a twelve-year-old, one does one’s best to hide the damage. Never ever let him see you age. He doesn’t like endings.”. So therefore, like Reinette, not only must you put up with misery for an angel, you have to look good. That is a terrible, terrible message for the kids to receive, especially when it’s so spelt out. Plus River is proved right. Which is a problem. Nobody is ever called out on the consequences of their actions on Doctor Who anymore. Not the Doctor killing the Silents or Solomon, not on breaking the wrist, not on the divorce subplot, not on anything. Characters need to be called out on their actions. Finally, Amy has a life in 1930s New York with Rory. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family.
That conversation is one of the reasons I am uneasy with the wrist breaking as I've explained. I agree with you about certain actions being ignored as far as consequences go, but another of my very favourite shows (
Star Trek, especially
TOS) is even
more guilty about it, so while I can complain, I can't complain too much or I'd become a hypocrite. but I am anyway so:
Doctor Who, we want consequences!
Finally: Rory has a life in 1930s New York with Amy. Because a man's story must end with a woman and/or a family. And because he's not a manly man. Rory is awesome because
many of the 'manly' things he does are on behalf of his family: Brian, Amy, the Doctor and River as well as other people. This is good because it shows he's a family man! But isn't that sexist? If a man can do such things for his family and be praised for it, then so must a woman. To claim otherwise is sexist; women can defend themselves and their families without it being 'just' womanly need.
Rory. Loves. Amy. It is quite literally his defining characteristic. Followed by: he is a badass who is often badass to help his family. Followed by: he dies a lot. Followed by: he is an excellent nurse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
But surely Amy and River aren’t the only female characters Moffat made under his run? Let’s look at some more
Well no, there was also: Donna Noble, Sally Sparrow, Kathy Nightingale, that woman from 'Vincent and the Doctor', Idris -
the Doctor's Wife/TARDIS etc. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Abigail
From Christmas Carol. Only acts as a love interest to Kazran and is frozen when not needed. She only really wants to spend time with Kazran.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Vastra and Jenny
Not going to talk about them until “Crimson Horror” their next Mark Gattiss scripted debut. We haven’t seen the last of them.
You can't comment on them, but you can on Kathy? Bull.
Ahem. They're both needy. And a woman's story can't begin or end with a (wo)man/romance/marriage and/or a family because it's sexist and indicative of a needy woman.
These two were
literally defined by being in a relationship! And then it's revealed they're married too! However, they're not needy, and they were established as being competent investigators and fighters prior to their relationship being revealed. They are neither needy, nor sexist. However, I could raise a few flags by saying their relationship could be objectified because they're an interspecies lesbian couple and lesbian couples are often used as objectification and cheap titillation. Plus one of their jokes on 'A Good Man Goes to War' could be read negatively as it
could imply Jenny was only in a relationship with Mme Vastra because of her sexual talents.
They're obviously
not because those two are sappily in love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Madge
From The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe. One of the most sexist characters in Who history. She has absolutely no personality traits other than being a mother and a bad driver (which is sexist in itself). She never develops as a character, she never grows. She doesn’t even have to tell the kids about their father’s death. Plus you have that contextless stalker relationship thing again.
I wouldn't necessarily say her bad driving was sexist, more a case of suddenly piloting technology five hundred years ahead of your time. And I can say with certainty that Madge isn't one of the most sexist characters in
Doctor Who. While it's debatable that she never grows, I will say she is rather flat.
And again, Nancy too was primarily defined as a mother/mother-figure, this isn't a bad thing.
Needy? Perhaps. Sexist? Probably. Flat? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
Nefertiti
A strong woman with other interests. But eventually she settles with sexist Riddell. Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family.
Yes. I also think this interest was primarily sexual.
I'm also worried about the colonial implications. A woman from Egypt (as her Empire is declining) shacking up with a man from Britain. And Britain owned Egypt in the 1880s and 1890s. I think.
Also the whole woman selling herself into slavery thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sunken Valley
In conclusion, Stephen Moffat mostly uses stereotypes to do his character writing. There are many different types of women, but Moffat only appears to be showing us one or two types. Mostly, the characters seem underdeveloped. Say what you will about RTD's plots, at least he had better developed characters. I don’t what else to say so make your own conclusions.
And yes I know I'm at the end of a page again. So people are just gonna ignore this. But at least I did it before Curly had a chance.
In conclusion, I'm actually rather appalled that you constantly denigrate marriage, relationships and having a family as evidence of sexism and sexist writing. It could be a sign of lazy writing or poor characterisation, but it's not necessarily sexist or indicative of neediness.
And for the rest: see
Friv's post below. Plus, you didn't conduct a full survey of
all female characters from
Nu Who. And to fill it out, you need to do a similar survey of the male characters to show the depiction of
both genders/sexes in
Nu Who. And those characters that fall into Other.
And what did you do before I had a chance?