Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

**Strawberries** · 2012-12-27, 07:46 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

I believe it was Curly who criticised Digby, not me. Nobody’s quoted my review yet, sorry.

But they will quote this: 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.

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.

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.

Let’s go through all the important women in New Who:

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.

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).

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.

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. Its one line though. And one line isn’t going to come back and haunt us.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 reachin consequences…oh wait. Back to normal in 45 mins and never mentioned again. Unrealistic much?

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.

But surely Amy and River aren’t the only female characters Moffat made under his run? Let’s look at some more

Liz 10
From the Beast Below. Because of Curlers, I’m not going to say much. But this character does not define herself by a man and has other interests. Plus she doesn’t settle down with a family (not really any way).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll quote you so you don't end up being at the end of the page, is that a deal?

Anyway, no, sorry. I read your points, but I still can't see the sexism. Abigail and Madge, maybe (the second completely forgiveable due to the time the story is set in, and then again, there is a reason why Christmas Carol is one of my less favourite Who episode), but for the rest... no, I don't see it at all... and, if it makes any difference, I'm speaking from a girl's perspective, here.

It would be perhaps interesting to do an analysis of MALE characters as well, and see if you consider them stereotyped or not. If so, then your problem isn't with sexism at all, it's with characterization.

Also, I could turn the argument on its head and say that for every woman's story in Who that ends with marriage and kids there's a MAN's story that ends with marriage and kids as well... it usually takes two people to have a marriage.

Spoiler

Show

Hell, this last Christmas special has a dad having to deal with fatherhood as well, if you want to see it that way.

**Avaris** · 2012-12-27, 08:38 AM (ISO 8601)

Ok, first off, I think this was the best christmas episode yet, by some way. A little weak on resolution, but other than that easily one of my favorite episodes of new who. Interestingly, I feel part of this is down to the fact that the 'christmas companion' is not confined to this story: other episodes have been limited by having to have full resolution of the guest star in the christmas episode, and for me they were very much cookie cutter characters.

HOWEVER. There is a point I wanted to raise, and as it sort of follows on from Sunken I will address his points first, as I disagree on some of them. Spoilered for length.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

I believe it was Curly who criticised Digby, not me. Nobody’s quoted my review yet, sorry.

But they will quote this: 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.

Probably worth pointing out at this stage that I'm mostly in the 'don't notice' category.

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.

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.

I would agree that this is a problematic attitude to have. However, I don't think it is fair to use an interview from 2004 as a basis for interpreting Moffat now. Experience as a showrunner on a high profile programme may have changed his views, or given him more experience of different portrayals. If you're going to argue that Moffat has this attitude NOW, I would like to see more recent interview evidence. Of course, this may come out from portrayals in the show, which I'll get to in a moment.

I'd be interested however to see an analysis of other Moffat shows from before 2004 though. Most notably Coupling, which I believe was his first major success. I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to see if his sexist attitudes quoted in 2004 were apparant in the show (especially as it's foccussed on relationships)

Let’s go through all the important women in New Who:

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.

I'd say her existance solely to swoon over the doctor was because it was a parody of the trope of the woman solely there to swoon over the hero. Cos, y'know, the entire thing was a parody.

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).

This is true for series 1 Rose. After series 2 she was derailed somewhat, and was even given her 'perfect man' in her final sendoff. Based on your later arguements, a woman whose 'perfect life' revolves around getting her perfect man is sexist.

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.

No comment. Nancy is a strong character.

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. Its one line though. And one line isn’t going to come back and haunt us.

I think being a historical figure known as the mistress of the french king sort of excuses her being defined by one of the men in her life given the context. However, having her fawning over the doctor her whole life is troublesome, given how little contact they had. This was described as a 'love story' for the doctor by RTD, which wouldn't matter so much if it weren't in the wider context of Rose, who was also in love with the doctor. I personally dislike this episode.

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.

Except for in her final appearance, in an episode written by RTD, where she was married to a character she had never previously met... again, if you argue a woman's story being finished off by meeting a man is sexist, this is sexist (and I'd say far more blatant than later examples).

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.

In this case (and this will be a theme for me carrying on below) this is not only tieing up her story, it is Larry's (aforementioned man) as well. From wikipedia:

A year later, Sally and Larry have opened a DVD and book store together, though Sally's insistence on keeping a folder of the events for the Doctor worries Larry. Larry longs for a romantic relationship, but Sally insists their relationship is defined as "just a shop." ...The Doctor and Sally say their goodbyes as Larry returns, surprised to see the man from the Easter egg. Sally and Larry return to the shop hand in hand, hinting that she is now ready for a romantic relationship.

1) they've had a year off screen, working closely together after quite a traumatic experience. I can see that feelings might develop in that time which won't have appeared on screen
2) Larry wanted a relationship and was turned down. I'd argue this was due to Sally still wanting closure from the events of the previous year, as she needs to hand on the info to the Doctor (as she does in the finale).
3) After handing on the info, the only indicator of a relationship is going to the shop hand in hand. We don't know how things pan out in the future: this simply shows where the TWO characters are going next.

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

Like it or not, family is a significant event in anyone's life. If you want to let a friend who you haven't seen for decades that you've had a happy life, of course you'll tell them about it. I'd argue a male character would have said something similar, and that most characters, male of female, would have eventually settled down if put in Kathy's situation. It would take time to adjust to your new era (we don't know how long it took Kathy to get used to it), but eventually you'd want friends and family there with you.

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.

I seem to recall Donna being fairly troubled by her 'perfect life'. It didn't make sense to her, and she rebelled against it.

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.

I don't recall kids beyond the one the simulation was made for. I recall River being left with her friends around her.

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.

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.

I agree it would be nice to have seen some of the other acquintances, but remember we have limited space in the show, and Rory becomes a companion in his own right. In fact, early Rory is basically a tag along for Amy: what do we know about him and hs life? Early Amy is a stronger and more developed character than early Rory. Much of the arc is about her having second thoughts about her wedding... she doesn't just go for her 'perfect man' blindly.

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.

A pity her family weren't developed further, but I can sort of understand why. All three previous companions had fleshed out family we met regularly, whereas for her first serious Amy was in part defined by their absence. Introducing and developing a family would be problematic, especially if you're wanting to develop her husband as a character and don't want to spend too many episodes on present day Earth (I seem to recall a desire to depart from regular threaten London plots).

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.

Agreed on this. The modelling career never made sense, and the travel writing doesn't exactly fit her character.

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.

The point I made earlier: there are two main characters here, and I would say that the marriage is used far more as part of Rory's character than as part of Amy's.

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.

Agreed. They should have made more of this.

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.

Again, I see this as more closure for Rory than Amy. There are two characters here who have been defined throughout the series as being in a relationship. Why is it unreasonable for their (temporary) ending to involve living together?

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 reachin consequences…oh wait. Back to normal in 45 mins and never mentioned again. Unrealistic much?

Yeah, this is a problem. The divorce made no sense, and neither character acted as I would expect them to. For me, this (or possibly the Girl who Waited) is the start of the derail of Amy's character, and I would certainly agree that having her being barren as the problem in the relationship is sexist.

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.

Agreed.

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.

As I repeatadly said earlier, this makes sense given the established relationship and the fact that there are two main characters involved. Would you prefer they split up? I don't think the resolution of the Amy/Rory arc was the best it could have been, but I don't believe it was sexist. If Rory existed solely for this purpose or if Amy hooked up with a random 1930s guy yes (we know enough about her that she would take travelling back very differently than Kathy did in Blink) but this is not the case.

But surely Amy and River aren’t the only female characters Moffat made under his run? Let’s look at some more

Liz 10
From the Beast Below. Because of Curlers, I’m not going to say much. But this character does not define herself by a man and has other interests. Plus she doesn’t settle down with a family (not really any way).

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.

Abigail is certainly a weak character. I would attribute this to the need to force in the guest star for a single episode at christmas (where relationships are all too often the focus of any show) more than sexism though.

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.

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.

Again, a weak character forced into a christmas special, cos all christmas specials have to be about family or relationships. Agreed on her being one of the most sesist characters.

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.

For once I actually agree with your 'Because a woman’s story must end with a man and/or a family' complaint. This is the one time it makes no sense in the context of the characters.

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.

This took me an hour or so to respond to... slightly wishing I had ignored it!

And now the bit I wanted to add about the Christmas special.

Spoiler

Show

As said, I normally don't notice the sexism that is there (though I sometimes agree when it is pointed out), and feel that in a lot of cases people are reading too much into things to try and find more. Despite this, the christmas special had the first point where I felt uncomfortable with goings on due to perceiving sexism... one of the first things Clara says on entering the tardis is 'Is there a kitchen?'. Sort of makes sense due to the souffle link, but still feels inappropriate to me.

Edit:

Also, I could turn the argument on its head and say that for every woman's story in Who that ends with marriage and kids there's a MAN's story that ends with marriage and kids as well... it usually takes two people to have a marriage.

Strawberries basically sums up a large part of what I say above.

**Aotrs Commander** · 2012-12-27, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

You're like Strax? I would very much like to meet you then, perhaps you could attend the next UK meetup?

In the sense of psychotically violent, though in my case with xenocially megalomanical tendancies... (As a cursory examination of ponythread would probably tell you...!) Lawful Evil Lich, after all...

I might one day, but the meetups keep coming along at the same time as wargames conventions.

**Mercenary Pen** · 2012-12-27, 10:20 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander

In the sense of psychotically violent, though in my case with xenocially megalomanical tendancies... (As a cursory examination of ponythread would probably tell you...!) Lawful Evil Lich, after all...

I might one day, but the meetups keep coming along at the same time as wargames conventions.

If it matters at all, the next meet may happen in Derby (unless people decide on London again)- which would be right up your street (possibly literally)

**Friv** · 2012-12-27, 10:32 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Spoiler

Show

I believe it was Curly who criticised Digby, not me. Nobody’s quoted my review yet, sorry.

But they will quote this: 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.

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.

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.

Let’s go through all the important women in New Who:

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.

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).

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.

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. Its one line though. And one line isn’t going to come back and haunt us.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 reachin consequences…oh wait. Back to normal in 45 mins and never mentioned again. Unrealistic much?

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.

But surely Amy and River aren’t the only female characters Moffat made under his run? Let’s look at some more

Liz 10
From the Beast Below. Because of Curlers, I’m not going to say much. But this character does not define herself by a man and has other interests. Plus she doesn’t settle down with a family (not really any way).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spoiler tags added by me!

The term you're looking for, Sunken, is gender essentialism, which is the belief that the two genders have strongly defined roles that are innate parts of their natures and which individuals may vary from. It is the "men are aggressive", "women love babies", "women are more empathic than men" sort of thing, and it's extremely pervasive in society as a whole.

It's also a particularly sneaky form of sexism, because (a) it works in both directions and (b) it doesn't require you to think less of one gender or the other inherently. It is still sexism, because it causes you to think less of people who don't fit your pre-conceived notion of how genders should behave (women are "less womanly" if they don't want a family, men are "less manly" if they don't want to punch out guys who look at their girlfriends the wrong way).

My argument is that Moffat is a skilled writer with an unfortunate tendency towards strong gender essentialism. Because of this, a lot of his women are, in fact, quite good characters. Others are not, because if he doesn't have good ideas he falls back on his concept of the baseline. I can put up with it because I do think that he's a good writer, but it is definitely aggravating sometimes.

It's a different set of problems from the Davies era, which were almost always based around excessive melodrama and way too much Lonely God.

*EDIT* Unrelated random fact, which is probably a coincidence but is too funny for me not to suggest.

The boy in this Christmas special was named Digby.

The man who owned the country house in The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe was the widow's Uncle Digby. Uncle Digy was a relative of the mother's, and thus had a different last name from her, which was never revealed, but he was a rich British man who wasn't peerage. He also never actually appeared on-screen; the Doctor was somehow able to take up residence in his house without any problems.

DWW took place fifty years after The Snowmen, at which point Digby would be in his early sixties and thus about the right age to be the uncle to a mother of two.

Therefore my headcanon is now and forever that young Digby and Uncle Digby are the same person.

**CurlyKitGirl** · 2012-12-27, 05:39 PM (ISO 8601)

Look out, massive quotestorm incoming:

Originally Posted by Thufir

Which, it should be noted, is exactly how the Doctor did react. It was a stupid idea on River's part. Though perhaps an understandable one. She knows how badly he can take things which remind him of the fragility and mortality of his friends; she's mentioned previously that she greatly dreads the day she will meet him and he won't know who she is, because that to her will be like losing him; and she may well assume he feels similarly badly about the prospect of when he will lose her - not knowing, of course, that he has already seen her death. I think someone shortly after the episode made a point basically to that effect - that her level of hurt on realising that for the entirety of their relationship he knew how she died could be easily linked to the efforts she had futilely put into trying not to remind him that it would happen.

I can see her reasoning, but I don't agree with it. It's a personal thing because here it really just doesn't work.
In contrast, something very similar happens in Shaun of the Dead (minor spoilers)

Spoiler

Show

Shaun's mum gets bitten by a zombie, so she's going to die. She too concealed her injury and Shaun eventually only found out what happened to her a few minutes before she died.
Now.
Here it works because there's a zombie apocalypse happening, and there were many shots that showed her checking/looking at/concealing her injury with a guilty look on her face. She knew what she was doing wasn't 'right', but they were in a dangerous situation and felt it was best not to tell. To quote her specifically: "I didn't want to be a bother." Mostly because by this point her second husband had been bitten by a zombie, died (mostly from blood loss I think) and came back a zombie. She knew she was going to die, and didn't want to distract anyone from the important job of getting to the pub.
Plus: when Shaun finds out he is hurt and a little betrayed and crying because of it. If he'd known his mother was dying, yes he'd have been a mess, but he'd have known and maybe been able to say things to her he didn't get the chance to.
I like this. A lot. It was a serious sub-plot that took place over about an hour of film time, was played for drama with serious emotional content and it developed everyone's character wonderfully.
In 'Muppets Take Manhattan' it took less than five minutes start to finish. While it served the purpose of highlighting that they can't change the eventual fate, only how it happens. This is all well and true, it basically says it will happen, but it feels a little cheap because the injury wasn't all that serious, so I personally can't see myself liking it. If there was a bit more time between the Doctor ordering her not to break her wrist, and the reveal of it being broken, and then having something more made out of it rather than almost sweeping the issue under the rug, then yes, I would like it.
But it wasn't, and it didn't, and I'm left feeling dissatisfied with the intended purpose of the scene because it felt wrong to me.
Hell, I could even agree it fits into Sunken Valley's reasoning for calling Moffat sexist by having a woman conceal her hurt from husband husband because a wife's duty is to keep her husband happy.
But I won't because I just think the scene could have been handled, or at least addressed better than it was.

Originally Posted by BRC

So I just watched ['The Snowman']

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by BRC

I'm still not entirely sure why Clara chased after The Doctor in the first place, or why she was living a double life as a barmaid/Governess. Especially since she made it sound like she randomly took a few days off from governessing in order to work as a Barmaid.

I have a theory about that actually.
Souffle!Clara was a masquerade. She thought she was something she wasn't and acted it out fully: she was a Dalek who believed with complete certainty she was still human.
Here she knowingly leads a double life (I think her barmaid stint in the episode was to help out family or a close friend who lost staff on short notice) where she pretends to be from a higher social class than she is in order to get a better paid job.
If this doubling continues throughout every iteration of Clara that we meet it would tie in with what seems to be her overall arc - being 'copies' of the same person scattered throughout time and space. Same person, but different lives.

Originally Posted by BRC

My only thought is that all the "Claras" are actually one Clara, jumping around in time and acting out a script. She was a barmaid/governess who chased after The Doctor's carriage because she already knew The Doctor, and he said "Go hang out in Victorian London, get a job as a barmaid,and one as a governess, then chase after my carriage" Then he faked her death. Though that may be a little TOO moffatian, even for Moffat.
Second (less Likely) theory: Clara never actually joins to Tardis. Each episode the Doctor shows up somewhere, encounters a Clara and an Alien Threat. Clara dies stopping the Alien Threat. Doctor moves on to the next Clara.

The first theory sounds a little too River Song to me, but I would actually very much enjoy the second theory; even as I worry about what seeing (sort-of) the same person die over and over again would do to his sanity.

Originally Posted by BRC

Also, for a while there it looked like they were going to do a non-modern companion. Her death caught me off guard.

I have been begging for a long-term non-contemporary (or even completely non-human) Companion since I started my reviews.
But apparently the showrunners seem to think the viewers can only empathise with a Companion if said Companion is from modern day Earth.
Victorian wouldn't even be much of a stretch! She wouldn't have understood the technology (but so do few Companions), and some of the cultural and ethical things now commonly accepted would have been difficult for her to grasp, but that would have been interesting. Imagine Governess!Clara being confused, upset, or even disliking non-heteronormative relationships and how they're mostly accepted two hundred and fifty years after her birth! If Doctor Who wants messages and whatnot this is a way to do it. Give us a character who's outside of early C21^st Western culture and then have them learn what is good and bad about it and why.
It used to be fine to beat children, now it's not; write an episode based around something hurting children by masquerading as an authority figure. Clara doesn't get it, after all, it's fine to give a dozen strikes to the palm if a child helps themselves to a few biscuits, so it's fine to do [whatever]. Yeah, that's an extreme case I outlined, it'd be controversial as all Hell and probably I'd complain about the Anvil 'Child Abuse Is Bad', but at least I'd understand, and perhaps even commend why it had to be explained blunt force.
The Companion literally sees nothing wrong with caning someone as punishment, and needs to know that, not only is this abusive and a crime, but why.
Sorry for the rant, I get enthusiastic when talking about why we need non-contemporary Companions on Doctor Who.

Originally Posted by BRC

Also, Moonites and Grenades. Strax is awesome.

I believe this is a universal opinion.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

I believe it was Curly who criticised Digby, not me. Nobody’s quoted my review yet, sorry.

Yes, it was. It's more me not liking children in general again, and thinking that Digby was rather flat as well as having the least lines. At least Franny had lines and a character.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

But they will quote this:

After they spoilered it for length.

Spoiler

Show

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 ofDoctor 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Cen

a little inconsistency that just occured to me:

Spoiler

Show

at the end of 'Snowman' Doctor says that he remember Clara's voice from Asylum, right? but she was a Dalek then so her voice was Dalekish so he couldn't have heared her voice

Souffle Girl is a leet hacker and probably did voice modulation on the microphones or something.

Originally Posted by Strawberries

Anyway, no, sorry. I read your points, but I still can't see the sexism. Abigail and Madge, maybe (the second completely forgiveable due to the time the story is set in, and then again, there is a reason why Christmas Carol is one of my less favourite Who episode), but for the rest... no, I don't see it at all... and, if it makes any difference, I'm speaking from a girl's perspective, here.

For those of you who were scared by my very long response to Sunken Valley, I more or less agree with Strawberries, but as Sunken Valley opened his analysis I gave my opinion of the characters and their neediness so there are a few characters who are definitely needy. One of the chief being THE DOCTOR.
And this is also from a female perspective.

Originally Posted by Strawberries

It would be perhaps interesting to do an analysis of MALE characters as well, and see if you consider them stereotyped or not. If so, then your problem isn't with sexism at all, it's with characterization.

I think the same too.
Then again, I also think it'd be a good idea to do the same analysis of the major characters/Companions from Classic Who and then seeing which eras were more sexist than others, and perhaps think on why it was so.

Originally Posted by Strawberries

Also, I could turn the argument on its head and say that for every woman's story in Who that ends with marriage and kids there's a MAN's story that ends with marriage and kids as well... it usually takes two people to have a marriage.

Spoiler

Show

Hell, this last Christmas special has a dad having to deal with fatherhood as well, if you want to see it that way.

One of my main points. And I found it a bit insulting too.
As for what's in your spoiler: one of my favourite episodes of season six (and terrifying) was 'Night Terrors' which was all about a father's relationship with his son.

Originally Posted by Avaris

I would agree that this is a problematic attitude to have. However, I don't think it is fair to use an interview from 2004 as a basis for interpreting Moffat now. Experience as a showrunner on a high profile programme may have changed his views, or given him more experience of different portrayals. If you're going to argue that Moffat has this attitude NOW, I would like to see more recent interview evidence. Of course, this may come out from portrayals in the show, which I'll get to in a moment.

I'd be interested however to see an analysis of other Moffat shows from before 2004 though. Most notably Coupling, which I believe was his first major success. I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to see if his sexist attitudes quoted in 2004 were apparant in the show (especially as it's foccussed on relationships).

That's more or less what I thought, and I did a very brief one, concluding that there's some evidence for women being 'needy' or possible sexist writing. BUT these attitudes are shown to be bad ones, and the healthiest relationship seems to be rather fulfilling and on an equal basis.

Originally Posted by Avaris

As I repeatadly said earlier, this makes sense given the established relationship and the fact that there are two main characters involved. Would you prefer they split up? I don't think the resolution of the Amy/Rory arc was the best it could have been, but I don't believe it was sexist. If Rory existed solely for this purpose or if Amy hooked up with a random 1930s guy yes (we know enough about her that she would take travelling back very differently than Kathy did in Blink) but this is not the case.

This view is even enforced narratively. The main way this came across was in 'P.S.' which was from Rory to his father, and delivered by his son. Rory was a family man through and through which is why it makes so much more sense for their eventual fate to be relayed via Rory in order to unite grandfather and grandson.
[/spoiler]

Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander

I might one day, but the meetups keep coming along at the same time as wargames conventions.

You doing anything end of July?
I think that's when we pegged the next meetup. You'll have to check out the thread.

Originally Posted by Friv

The term you're looking for, Sunken, is gender essentialism, which is the belief that the two genders have strongly defined roles that are innate parts of their natures and which individuals may vary from. It is the "men are aggressive", "women love babies", "women are more empathic than men" sort of thing, and it's extremely pervasive in society as a whole.

It's also a particularly sneaky form of sexism, because (a) it works in both directions and (b) it doesn't require you to think less of one gender or the other inherently. It is still sexism, because it causes you to think less of people who don't fit your pre-conceived notion of how genders should behave (women are "less womanly" if they don't want a family, men are "less manly" if they don't want to punch out guys who look at their girlfriends the wrong way).

My argument is that Moffat is a skilled writer with an unfortunate tendency towards strong gender essentialism. Because of this, a lot of his women are, in fact, quite good characters. Others are not, because if he doesn't have good ideas he falls back on his concept of the baseline. I can put up with it because I do think that he's a good writer, but it is definitely aggravating sometimes.

It's a different set of problems from the Davies era, which were almost always based around excessive melodrama and way too much Lonely God.

I think this is more what I think is going on with some of Moffat's writing choices (and under his direction as Showrunner), mixed with a bit of positive gender stereotyping. Certainly I think it solves one of my issues with 'A Town Called Mercy' where, if you remember (not that I expect anyone to) I took issue with a few sentences above much of the episode because it implied that a woman's connection to her children was stronger than a man's, and a few other things along those lines.
While I admit that it is an extremely good thing for a mother to love her children, not all mothers do. I forget where I was going with this, I was replying to this because I got a bit fed up writing replies to Sunken Valley, mostly because I needed time to organise some thoughts and started replying to other things.
Ehm. Stereotypes are stereotypes even if they're positive. And mixed with a bit of less good character development/writing.
Still think it's a better than endless melodrama and Lonely God though. Mostly.

Originally Posted by Friv

*EDIT* Unrelated random fact, which is probably a coincidence but is too funny for me not to suggest.

The boy in this Christmas special was named Digby.

The man who owned the country house in The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe was the widow's Uncle Digby. Uncle Digy was a relative of the mother's, and thus had a different last name from her, which was never revealed, but he was a rich British man who wasn't peerage. He also never actually appeared on-screen; the Doctor was somehow able to take up residence in his house without any problems.

DWW took place fifty years after The Snowmen, at which point Digby would be in his early sixties and thus about the right age to be the uncle to a mother of two.

Therefore my headcanon is now and forever that young Digby and Uncle Digby are the same person.

Awesome. This is now my headcanon too. As I think I mentioned in my review of 'The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe', Uncle Digby is probably just a cute reference to Diggory Kirke (one of the main characters from The Magician's Nephew, but I choose this too.

No joke: this post took a little over three hours to reply too. This did include a break for making dinner, dessert and doing the dishes. And a few videos.

**Flickerdart** · 2012-12-27, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)

I follow the new Who here and there, but I've seen all of Torchlight, and so in light of the Christmas episode, I wonder...

Spoiler

Show

Could "souffle girl" be a fixed point in time or whatever like Harkness is? I mean, obviously not exactly the same, since Harkness comes back in his own body rather quickly, and has a continued consciousness, whereas she is more like a reincarnation, but the repeated words and how the last one was drawn to the gravestone both imply that there's more than that going on.

**Androgeus** · 2012-12-27, 06:54 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

I follow the new Who here and there, but I've seen all of Torchlight, and so in light of the Christmas episode, I wonder...

Spoiler

Show

Could "souffle girl" be a fixed point in time or whatever like Harkness is? I mean, obviously not exactly the same, since Harkness comes back in his own body rather quickly, and has a continued consciousness, whereas she is more like a reincarnation, but the repeated words and how the last one was drawn to the gravestone both imply that there's more than that going on.

Spoiler

Show

I'm going with she's fractured through time much like Scarlioni in City of Death

**BRC** · 2012-12-27, 07:59 PM (ISO 8601)

Concerning Sexism.

Spoiler

Show

I don't think you can say it's automatically sexist anytime a character is shown to want, or be rewarded with, a family/marriage.

As for characters being obsessed with The Doctor, the show is basically "Look How Awesome the Doctor is!". As a result, writers have a habit of making characters become obsessed with/overwhelmed by The Doctor. You have that one woman in "A good man goes to war". who, despite being part of the anti-doctor clergy/army, remains pro-Doctor because he showed up on her planet once when she was young.
The writers have a habit of making The Doctor not just as a brilliant, manic adventurer, but as having a sort of hypnotic field that causes people (Especially, it seems Young Women) to become obsessed with him.

I kind of strayed from my point there.

The point is, it's not sexist when a Woman wants/is rewarded with a Family. It might be a little bit sexist if a woman is only defined by being part of a couple/a member of a family, but that depends on the context (As in, was there time/reason to define her otherwise. Like how in The Snowman, we never really had a reason to define whatshisface as anything beyond "The Father of the Children Clara is Governessing").

The Helpless Damsel who gets rescued by, and serves as a reward for, the Heroic Male is Sexist not because they end up together, but because she is defined only as a goal/reward for the Male character.

It's not sexist to say that do feminine things, it's sexist to say that Women MUST and CAN ONLY do feminine things.

Also, I've noticed that The Grand Moff likes giving "Titles" to the Companions, kind of as part of his whole "Dark Fairy Tale" thing.
Amy was "The Girl Who Waited", Rory was "The Lone Centurion", and now Clara is "The Woman Twice Dead"

**Morph Bark** · 2012-12-27, 09:03 PM (ISO 8601)

I only got around to watch the Christmas Special today. Praise the maker of recording devices! I thought it was a very nice special, probably my favourite amongst them. I like how it portrays the Doctor kind of differently, though it turns it slowly back as he warms up to the other characters (obviously primarily Clara). I liked Clara's lines a lot too, especially the "It's smaller on the outside." exchange.

**Thufir** · 2012-12-27, 09:37 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

In 'Muppets Take Manhattan' it took less than five minutes start to finish. While it served the purpose of highlighting that they can't change the eventual fate, only how it happens. This is all well and true, it basically says it will happen, but it feels a little cheap because the injury wasn't all that serious, so I personally can't see myself liking it. If there was a bit more time between the Doctor ordering her not to break her wrist, and the reveal of it being broken, and then having something more made out of it rather than almost sweeping the issue under the rug, then yes, I would like it.
But it wasn't, and it didn't, and I'm left feeling dissatisfied with the intended purpose of the scene because it felt wrong to me.

This is a point which I will definitely accept as a general criticism of current Doctor Who - things aren't given enough time to sink in/be properly developed/whatever.

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

Constantly denigrating marriage isn't helping your case.

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

In conclusion, I'm actually rather appalled that you constantly denigrate marriage, relationships and having a family as evidence of sexism and sexist writing.

This pretty much expresses my feelings on Sunken Valley's whole thing. Regardless of the content, the tone and the way he expressed it makes it very difficult for me to reasonably and dispassionately approach it, and so I'm not going to say any more on the subject, especially since much has already been said in counter to it.

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

Also the whole woman selling herself into slavery thing.

...you tried to sell yourself into slavery that one time in the Star Wars game in Peterborough...

**Dienekes** · 2012-12-27, 09:46 PM (ISO 8601)

On the special: I liked it. I thought it was fun, Clara seems interesting, and Strax is basically the best companion of all time. I hope they don't overuse him, but I hope even further that they have him show up a couple more times.

On sexism. I don't think I'm qualified to make a good defense for or rebuttal against the howlings of "sexism" I will just say I don't see it myself. I also find it ironic on the point of defining a character through males/marriage when the longest standing male character of Moffat's run has been almost completely defined by his dedication to one girl and their marriage, it just also leads him into being a badass.

I just think the man likes marriage/romance.

**thorgrim29** · 2012-12-27, 11:29 PM (ISO 8601)

Strax is awesome, that is undeniable. I liked the special a lot, but while I reserve my final judgment until I know where they're going with it, the Doctor's actions at the end seem off to me :

Spoiler

Show

Well, I've met this girl twice, and both times she ended up dying, I guess I'll go look for her again then! I have a sneaking suspicion the season is going to be the doctor finding multiple versions of Oswin for them to die after one or two episodes. That would be sad, and probably turn the doctor completely insane.

**dehro** · 2012-12-27, 11:48 PM (ISO 8601)

my two cents on the christmas special..

Spoiler

Show

the new girl
I like her.. she's got all the right lines to make her memorable and somewhat different (the smaller on the outside is a clever bit of writing.. with a single line she makes her mark right there).
Also, I like a pretty face, and she's definitely pretty, plus she comes with already the outline of a plot and the sensation that there's more to her than meets the eye even as a Victorian age character, besides the "other incarnations" possibility..what with being able to mingle in different classes and climb up a running coach).
I very much liked the idea of a Companion that isn't from our day and age, for a change. In fact I was hoping that she'd survive just for the value of having a character who isn't up to date with 21st century stuff, adding a new perspective to all the occurrences set in our time.
It's a shame that this couldn't be done, but then, I have learned not to expect female characters introduced in the Christmas specials to survive the episode.

What I don't like about her is part of what made her such a lively character... She's too clever by half.
She immediately grasps the significance of the pond still being frozen, the dreams of her charge having a deeper meaning, the umbrella thing.. and more importantly, the single word Pond as a key to "unlock" the Doctor.
That one in particular is just too meta. Under the same circumstances, not a single person on earth who wasn't familiar with the Doctor's story would think that the word pond would mean anything to him, much less that it would explain the matter of the freezing pond, the snowmen, the dreams, the need for help and whatever else. It just doesn't make any sense if not for entertainment value, which doesn't make for good writing or plot-driving.
It reeks of prophecy, except none such was stated or anticipated or otherwise expected, so "meta" is all it can be identified as.
On top of this, the complete reversal those few lines on her part cause in the Doctor who goes from surly cloud-hermit to his odd self (not a typo) crossed with a besotted teenager in the space of 20 minutes doesn't make much sense.. it's just too rushed and she must be the character who's gotten the key to the Tardis and, by the looks of it, the affection of the Doctor, in the shortest time ever.

That said, from a purely entertainment perspective, I was entertained and the overal plot and other characters/sidekicks were funny and a good watch, all considered. The only negative aspect of the episode is this rushed feeling the introduction and handling of this new companion came with.

As for sexism.. meh.. I don't see it.

Spoiler

Show

It just so happens that some of his female Companions have fallen for him and that a few times he's reciprocated. So? it's by no means something that all his companions do, and it doesn't define his approach or relationship towards those that don't. Just because "needy" is a word that to some extent applies to a woman in love and/or in need for reciprocation to her love/pining after the Doctor and it happens to have a somewhat negative connotation, it doesn't help defining all of the female characters as somehow discriminated against.
The companions, irrespective of their gender, have a need for the Doctor.. they need adventure, change in their life, direction, saving, teaching and growing up. Those are things the Doctor provides to all his Companions, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, probably because he sees them as creatures with potential and this rouses his interest, and since he's got a thing for humans, he helps them reach that potential or at least a direction from which to start looking for fullfillment.
The Doctor needs Companionship.. which is why, surprise surprise, he has Companions.
He needs people to care about and who care about him because he's alone, and because they keep him in check and from jumping into the abyss he stares at on a daily basis. they keep him from becoming sole arbiter of time and destiny.. something which is brought home strongly by whatshername commanding the mission to Mars who tops herself to remind him he doesn't have the right to play god.
Need is a driving force of the entire show and the main vector that regulates the relationships of the main characters in it. As is true of any decent show I know, one way or another.
It has sod all to do with sexism.

Can there be an argument made for instances of sexism appearing in the show? I don't know and am not that interested in delving too deeply looking for it. Dig deep enough and you'll find anything, from sexism to marshmallows or dancing hippos. If it isn't immediately apparent to me, I am ready to shelve it under "if it's there at all it's probably debatable, and most likely involuntary", dependent on the fact that he is a male character and most likely romantically inclined only towards women.
Specism on the other hand.. could be argued for. he's obviously fond of humans to the point of defending them over another race, when push comes to shove. He's also got definite ideas about Cybermen, Daleks, Araknos (or whatever the name of the spider-queen race was)...and so on, for which his first reaction is a combo of run-away/exterminate-on-sight... so, speciesm, yes.. sexism, not so much

On a sidenote.. Curly.. your avatar, nickname and gender indication confuse the crap out of me (and I have a strong feeling of deja vù as I say so.. I must have had this confusion cleared up once before already)

**Calemyr** · 2012-12-28, 01:13 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

I follow the new Who here and there, but I've seen all of Torchlight, and so in light of the Christmas episode, I wonder...

Spoiler

Show

Could "souffle girl" be a fixed point in time or whatever like Harkness is? I mean, obviously not exactly the same, since Harkness comes back in his own body rather quickly, and has a continued consciousness, whereas she is more like a reincarnation, but the repeated words and how the last one was drawn to the gravestone both imply that there's more than that going on.

Spoiler

Show

I doubt it. Both the Doctor and the TARDIS react strongly to Captain Jack's presence after he gets "fixed". He might have missed it when dealing with the Dalek version, but it would have hit him like a hammer this time. Besides, they don't seem to have the contiguous memories.

If I were a betting man, the clues available now would suggest that it's possibly another side effect with Oswin's screwing with the Dalek Path Web. A trans-temporal psychic hive mind, in the hands of a girl smart enough to hack it and willful enough to resist conversion? There's no telling what the full consequences of that might be.

**Thufir** · 2012-12-28, 09:10 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by dehro

On a sidenote.. Curly.. your avatar, nickname and gender indication confuse the crap out of me (and I have a strong feeling of deja vù as I say so.. I must have had this confusion cleared up once before already)

She's female. Her gender symbol is currently male because her avatar is currently her as Freddie Mercury, who was male. Possibly also because she likes to confuse people.

**Calemyr** · 2012-12-28, 12:38 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Thufir

She's female. Her gender symbol is currently male because her avatar is currently her as Freddie Mercury, who was male. Possibly also because she likes to confuse people.

I thought she changed it while going through a second Doctor serial (the one with the cybermen and the lady she called "Miss Legs"), because the women in it were so useless she felt disillusioned with her own gender.

In fact, if anyone's upset about Moffat's 'sexism', you should see the documentary on the old series. One of the original writers just outright states that, for him, the role of women in Doctor Who was to look pretty, scream for help, and get rescued.

Compare that to Madge's "solves her own problems but tries to hide her husband's death until after Christmas" presentation, where just about every constructive step forward in the story is the result of Madge taking action, and I just don't find that much sexism beyond what is proper for the period (she wouldn't have been properly taught how to drive, for example).

**Friv** · 2012-12-28, 01:11 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Calemyr

I thought she changed it while going through a second Doctor serial (the one with the cybermen and the lady she called "Miss Legs"), because the women in it were so useless she felt disillusioned with her own gender.

In fact, if anyone's upset about Moffat's 'sexism', you should see the documentary on the old series. One of the original writers just outright states that, for him, the role of women in Doctor Who was to look pretty, scream for help, and get rescued.

Compare that to Madge's "solves her own problems but tries to hide her husband's death until after Christmas" presentation, where just about every constructive step forward in the story is the result of Madge taking action, and I just don't find that much sexism beyond what is proper for the period (she wouldn't have been properly taught how to drive, for example).

As a rule, I expect more sexism and racism from fifty-year-old television than I do from modern television. A lot has happened in the last fifty years.

**Sunken Valley** · 2012-12-28, 01:14 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Friv

Spoiler tags added by me!

The term you're looking for, Sunken, is gender essentialism, which is the belief that the two genders have strongly defined roles that are innate parts of their natures and which individuals may vary from. It is the "men are aggressive", "women love babies", "women are more empathic than men" sort of thing, and it's extremely pervasive in society as a whole.

It's also a particularly sneaky form of sexism, because (a) it works in both directions and (b) it doesn't require you to think less of one gender or the other inherently. It is still sexism, because it causes you to think less of people who don't fit your pre-conceived notion of how genders should behave (women are "less womanly" if they don't want a family, men are "less manly" if they don't want to punch out guys who look at their girlfriends the wrong way).

My argument is that Moffat is a skilled writer with an unfortunate tendency towards strong gender essentialism. Because of this, a lot of his women are, in fact, quite good characters. Others are not, because if he doesn't have good ideas he falls back on his concept of the baseline. I can put up with it because I do think that he's a good writer, but it is definitely aggravating sometimes.

It's a different set of problems from the Davies era, which were almost always based around excessive melodrama and way too much Lonely God.

*EDIT* Unrelated random fact, which is probably a coincidence but is too funny for me not to suggest.

The boy in this Christmas special was named Digby.

The man who owned the country house in The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe was the widow's Uncle Digby. Uncle Digy was a relative of the mother's, and thus had a different last name from her, which was never revealed, but he was a rich British man who wasn't peerage. He also never actually appeared on-screen; the Doctor was somehow able to take up residence in his house without any problems.

DWW took place fifty years after The Snowmen, at which point Digby would be in his early sixties and thus about the right age to be the uncle to a mother of two.

Therefore my headcanon is now and forever that young Digby and Uncle Digby are the same person.

Friv is right. When I did that copy paste quote, I meant it to say not that marriage was bad, but that it's happening every single time.

I repeat SUNKEN VALLEY HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT AND PRACTICE OF MARRIAGE. If there were one or two cases of this, that would be fine. A large proportion of the characters (with the exception of Madge) are fine ON THEIR OWN. Even early Amy and River were good before everything went creepy in season 6. However, together all the characters make a pattern. As much as you may imply sexism from the RTD characters, they DO NOT IN ANY WAY FORM A PATTERN
. That is the problem. It is the same story being told again and again with almost every character. No "real" variation at all. As a prime time show, Doctor Who has the responsibility to show lots of different types of women (and men) and not to use stereotyping. We all know some women like the characters portrayed by Stephen Moffat but the problem is they're all the same "type". Most people do fall in love, do want babies, do want marriage. But Moffat's women virtually all define themselves by the men in their life and/or their reproductive system. They never display anything else. We don't a Stephen Moffat written women who doesn't fall in love/want babies, (Except Korvarian, the 0.5 dimensional villainess). Furthermore, we rarely get to see these peoples interests beyond love and babies (the proportion of women who only want love and babies is rare). In the early Moffat stories, it is not as visible, but every story he writes it becomes more and more visible. The problem comes from repitition. His plots may be intricate, but Moffat is not a good character writer. All his characters, male and female are underdeveloped. But there is more variety in the male ones. Stereotypes are regularly used instead, these stereotypes being sexist ones.

Happy?

Also Found the article.. Enjoy.

I'll be back soon with more tidbits and stuff.

**Androgeus** · 2012-12-28, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

(Except Korvarian, the 0.5 dimensional villainess)

She wanted someone else's baby, surely that counts?

**CarpeGuitarrem** · 2012-12-28, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Avaris

And now the bit I wanted to add about the Christmas special.

Spoiler

Show

As said, I normally don't notice the sexism that is there (though I sometimes agree when it is pointed out), and feel that in a lot of cases people are reading too much into things to try and find more. Despite this, the christmas special had the first point where I felt uncomfortable with goings on due to perceiving sexism... one of the first things Clara says on entering the tardis is 'Is there a kitchen?'. Sort of makes sense due to the souffle link, but still feels inappropriate to me.

Spoiler

Show

My own personal reaction to that mirrored what the Doctor soon said--that nobody had ever asked that before. The TARDIS is woefully bereft of cooks. Well, save the Doctor, but he doesn't seem to exercise his cookery on any regular basis outside of The Lodger. So it made for an interesting character development. Clara is something new.

Now I wanna write a Clara/Doctor cook-off.

Anyhow, I figure there's nothing wrong with a woman taking an interest in cooking, is there?

Sure, it would've been nice and subversive to have it be a guy, but it doesn't automatically make it sexist for her to like cooking and have an interest in it. It's not as if the Doctor was relegating her to the role of food-maker housewife.

**Kato** · 2012-12-28, 06:43 PM (ISO 8601)

Oh Doctor, finally saw the christmas special and at least skimmed the last pages. But I'm too lazy to quote everything, so I'll try to keep the few things I have left to say short.

But first, last few notes directed at Curly

Spoiler

Show

Cole was Phoebe's half-demon long-term love interest in Charmed. But let's say he wanted to keep the relationship up longer than her. And it turned kind of creepy.

Regarding Pratchett. While all his books are at least good I still feel the last three or so have been noticably less awesome than previous books. (And while I like Nightwatch there are other books I like more. Though maybe I just need to give it another read. But I got Long Earth and other books to read, so it won't be too soon, I'm afraid) While I prefer the "normal" books over the Tiffany series there is the passage in Wintersmith where Tiffany explains her dad how she, a 12-ish year old girl, has to take care of dying/dead people on a regular basis that just affects me much more than I expect everytime. Wait, Who thread, right!

Uhm... now I forgot whether there was anything WHO related I forgot to say... probably not then.

And now on to Snowmen.

Spoiler

Show

First of, I quite liked the episode but I think I liked Christmas Carol slightly more. I think I'll need to watch it again these days to judge that properly, though. It was fun but somehow the ending with the families sadness was a bit too much "Doctor, Widow & Wardrobe" for me.

Strax was entertaining but in his first scene with the memory worm I found his stupidity a bit grating. I prefer the sassy "human scum" and "Mr Holmes" variety over "duuuh, forgot the gauntlets AGAIN". He had some of the best lines, though.

Our married couple was quite... underwhelming. Apart from the interrogation with Clara which was much more her moment to shine they only had the scene with Walter at the beginning. But "A WOMAN!" was pretty funny for me.

Before I say a few words on Clara (ha, who am I kidding?) just a short note on "MOFFAT!" (imagine Shatner-level hammy screaming here) moments. First was like five minutes in, in front of the estate when Grant and Walter talk about the dead Governess and KEEP SAYING POND! Okay, yeah, she drowned in a pond but Moffat, do you think us imbeciles?! Do you think we wouldn't pick up on you poking your cute, little, burning needles probing our fresh wounds? Tsk. Of course it would have to serve some purpose later. (Either Moffat plans quite a bit ahead or we can be glad Amy's last name wasn't Sink or something even less fitting) I didn't expect it as Clara's response, though. I guess it was somehow Dalek!Clara's memory? Did she know the Ponds' not-last name? Probably, Eleven likes to say it.
And the Sherlock moment... for goodness sake, Moffat, first poking our wounds, then teasing us like this. I'm not that adapt, was it the theme or a variation on it?

Anyway, he knew what we were thinking.
Oh, and while we are talking about Sherlock... What have Sherlock Holmes, the Ponds and Clara Oswin Oswald in common?

(Well, Clara didn't want to, I guess that counts for something)

Clara... was entertaining. A bit sassy. I also was a bit upset at the kiss but... hmpf. I don't want to be prudent. He is married but it's not like he is wearing a ring or something. I really can't blame her but I'm always wary for Doctor/X ships. Even Doctor/River. But I guess romance is part of a story... But I'd lie if I said I wouldn't agree with Curly on the changing scene

Okay, there have been made enough comparisons to Marry Poppins but there is something else that kind of crept up to me... Maybe it's just the christmas season and my overactive imagination or mere coinidence but there is another governess who can do another voice. But I assume it's just me or someone would have said something.

As I said, the finale wasn't quite to my liking. Even the "I have to go find her part" or the parasite reveal. But the parasite worked. I was just expecting the parasites further existence being the Doctor's fault because he was still sad inside. Maybe me being wrong made me like it less. (~~Sometimes~~ Often I don't understand what I am thinking myself.)
But I still had fun. Just felt a bit less like a Christmas special rather than the seup for the nexz half-season which is not entirely bad but spoils it a little as well.

(More) On Clara.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Calemyr

On the other hand, if you've ever seen the anime Steins;Gate, I could see her following a similar path to Mayuri Shiina.

That would be pretty weird... I can see it possibly happening along the lines but... very different from Mayuri nonetheless.

I really can't see much hints to give for a proper reasoning on what she is but I'd wager every Clara is a seperate entity but they are linked somehow. Maybe some kind of eincarnation but I'd assume something else. Shattered entity might be. I thought about clones or something like that... Thing is, with River and her around the amount of normal people in Who drops again. Which is a bit sad. But I like her character so far well enough to stay curious.

I think most that needs to be said about the latest sexism post has been said...
Just one more short note:
Everyone's (or most's) favourite companion Donna also was pretty eager to get... a man. It was not her sole purpose but many bits of her story have made it quite clear that she was looking for a man to marry. (Heck, she is introduced at her wedding) So I really can't see the "Moffat marries of his women" as a valid thing. Marriage/relationship just is something most people strive for at some point in their life.

**Soras Teva Gee** · 2012-12-28, 09:08 PM (ISO 8601)

Wait so Doctor Who is sexist because it marries off the female Companions. That would be interesting if our male ones (Mickey, Rory, Jack) hadn't also been put in serious relationships. Or was Jack not serious with Ianto, I never followed Torchwood. Wilfred and Brian aren't around long, but are entirely motivate by their role as a father. Craig Owens doesn't go Tardis hopping but is also married off yes. Then there's the FBI guy who couldn't get married and was all hurt about that.

I think the most important character thus far in NuWho without any romance/family role is Harriet Jones. You know who she is.

Relationships always have been, and likely always will be a big part of entertainment. There's really nothing more to it then that.

**Flickerdart** · 2012-12-28, 09:15 PM (ISO 8601)

It might just be me, but governess + umbrella = Mary Poppins. Intentional? Significant?

**Soras Teva Gee** · 2012-12-28, 09:25 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

It might just be me, but governess + umbrella = Mary Poppins. Intentional? Significant?

Wouldn't surprise me a bit, though there are other cases of that basic mold around I believe.

Have to see what's up in general I think before significance can be established.

**Thufir** · 2012-12-28, 10:08 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

It might just be me, but governess + umbrella = Mary Poppins. Intentional? Significant?

Doesn't even need the umbrella, just the attitude. Clara is Mary Poppins but better (Personal opinion and admittedly it's been years and years since I last saw Mary Poppins).
Intentional, maybe. Significant, almost certainly not, just an interesting comparison. although I suppose the other point is that really Mary Poppins is kind of just the archetype of a good governess, so it's hard to avoid.

**Dr. Simon** · 2012-12-29, 05:32 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

I resorted to the TVTropes recap page for Doctor Who in order to find this information out: only one episode from each of those serials remains.
This is a shame because I'd love to see a 1960s Yeti.

There are fan edits available of both The Abominable Snowmen and Web of Fear, but they are very sketchy, with very poor quality stills used for the reconstruction. Both, however, are excellent serials and well worth hunting for. Tardismedia used to have them, I'm not sure if he's still going since he had a stalker who kept sabotaging his sites. Alternatively, try bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic

The yeti design changes, BTW, between the first and second serials. Those in Web of Fear are marginally less cute and cuddly looking, but do have some silly glowing eyes.

Originally Posted by CurlyKitGirl

So, revised Review Timeline:
'Remembrance of the Daleks' parts 2 - 4 (because I'd thought I'd done part 2, but my archive says I haven't. Unless I have and forgot to link it?
'Genesis of the Daleks' - because it turns out when Dad purloined Hot Fuzz he also slipped 'Genesis' into the case behind the second disc of Hot Fuzz.

And then: for Christmas I got 'Colony in Space' and 'Day of the Daleks'. Thematically, I should continue with 'Day of the Daleks', and it has a special edition version of the serial with "specially shot sequences, brand-new effects and new Dalek voices" which colours me intrigued.
BUT. 'Colony in Space' clearly shows Delgado!Master on the front cover, and the synopsis tells me who stole a doomsday weapon called Doomsday Weapon and plans to bring about Doomsday with it.

Both have Jon Pertwee and Jo Grant in, 'Daleks' has UNIT, but 'Colony' hints at Time Lords being involved, but probably no UNIT.
Opinions?

I'm pretty sure you have done part 2 of Remembrance. As for the others...
hrm... neither are great classics. Day of... has quite a fun time paradox element to it, and the Doctor using a gun. Colony has some fun conniving by the Master and a young Helen Worth (Gail from Coronation Street), but on balance I think Day of the Daleks is the better story. You might be getting fed up with Daleks by then, though.... I don't recall Time Lords in Colony and, to be honest, pretty much any classic story involving the Time Lords tends to be disappointing, with the expection of The War Masters and The Deadly Assassin.

**Timeras** · 2012-12-29, 08:12 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Dr. Simon

I don't recall Time Lords in Colony and, to be honest, pretty much any classic story involving the Time Lords tends to be disappointing, with the expection of The War Masters and The Deadly Assassin.

Their involvement in Colony merely consists of moving the TARDIS (with the Doctor an Jo in it) to the colony.

**Friv** · 2012-12-29, 11:42 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Dr. Simon

I'm pretty sure you have done part 2 of Remembrance. As for the others...
hrm... neither are great classics. Day of... has quite a fun time paradox element to it, and the Doctor using a gun. Colony has some fun conniving by the Master and a young Helen Worth (Gail from Coronation Street), but on balance I think Day of the Daleks is the better story. You might be getting fed up with Daleks by then, though.... I don't recall Time Lords in Colony and, to be honest, pretty much any classic story involving the Time Lords tends to be disappointing, with the expection of The War Masters and The Deadly Assassin.

I'm watching Colony in Space right now, and it is awful. Idiot balls, nonsensical plots, and some very dubious pacing.

I mean, a good review of a terrible serial is always fun to read, but this is seriously the worst Pertwee-era Who that I've seen thus far.

**Sunken Valley** · 2012-12-29, 12:02 PM (ISO 8601)

Okay playground, I have a story I want to tell you.

I'm often the one whose cynical and does the negative reviews around here and maybe in a few other threads. But very rarely does something in an episode make me angry. Disappointed yes. Disgust yes. Sad yes. Frustrated yes. Hate yes. Upset yes. Actually LIVID WITH RAGE? No. But something happened to me today to make me ANGRY at one particular teeny-tiny aspect of the latest Christmas special, the Snowmen. It is not bad enough to demote my review score to 7 but it's pretty close.

I was walking back home from work today when I saw two children arguing, both boys. They were in the 7-10 range (couldn't tell) and one of them pushed the other and shouted "Shut up! You're stupid and have tiny little legs!". The pushed boy ran away crying. Why is this doubly bad? The pushed boy had some sort of physical disabillity meaning he had short, malformed legs.

Now when I went back home I checked my recording of the special. The actual line is "You are not clever or funny and have tiny little legs" but the important part is there, meaning that the phrase is very likely to have been taken from the episode. Now I'm not really one of those moral guardians who throw the banhammer at cartoon violence. I trust our ratings system to do that for us, because you can't really imitate cartoon violence. The only reason you would imitate any "action" seen on TV is if you were a combination of brave and stupid which just is not found very often. What can be imitated is dialogue and aesop. When the Doctor insults Strax on the grounds of his short legs, that is ableist behaviour. The Doctor is being ableist. Lots of children idolise the Doctor and look up to him and it is the responsibility of the BBC to have him behave in the manner of a positive role model (except when he doesn't and gets called out). This is not happening. What's worse is that this was a throw-away scene with the Doctor saying the line reflexively: as if it is normal for people to be insulted on the grounds of having short legs. The Doctor did not need to say that line. It could have been taken out or changed and no problem. Instead, it went through every corner of the BBC and went out to the public. IT SHOULD NEVER BE NORMAL TO INSULT PEOPLE ON THE GROUNDS OF SHORT LEGS!

In my review of the Snowmen I made a small mention of it, but with the exception of my review, I found that nobody else anywhere has spotted this. I tell you this hoping you can spot it. I for one will be writing to the BBC about this. I sincerely suggest that somebody else out there does so to.

Thread: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Re: Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

Posting Permissions