{ May 28th }
Addressing Complaints on the “Sexist” Steven Moffat

song-of-the-oods:

This post infuriates me: http://gallifreyfieldsforever.tumblr.com/post/16416278911/why-i-have-a-problem-with-moffats-portrayal-of-women… along with many other opinions of the sort.  My points following are rebuttals to the points made in the linked post.

Throughout your analysis of Steven Moffat’s “sexist” portrayal of women, you seemed to be straying away from the point.  You described the misfortunes of their lives and then said it was sexist of Moffat to give them those story lines.
1. This quotation, to which I sadly only add simple dialogue tags, is shared by Amy and the Doctor and it represents what happens in most depressing Doctor Who plots:
“Was it worth it,” asked the Doctor.
“Shut up.  Of course it was,” responded Amy.

2. It seems like you do not comprehend “sexism.”  The dictionary definition is as follows: “discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, as unrestricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.”
 

Amelia “Amy” Pond
1. Amy did know about her pregnancy.  The Doctor did not know the child would be part Time-Lord.
2. As a female, she is the only sex that can give birth!  I had to reread your paragraph because I could not understand how in hell it was sexist.  Amy is more than a “baby factory.”  The fact that you think she was painted that way means you are the one with narrow, sexist points of view, because most people see Amy as an overwhelming stupendous woman.
3.  Guess what; Rory had his child taken away from his as well.  You say it is sexist that Amy had her baby stolen?  No.  Amy and Rory, female and male, both lost their child.
4. The Doctor was not just “letting this happen.”  He went to war.

5. We do see a traumatized Amy, and I think it became a part of her personality.  We do not see her lash out frequently because her life has become enigmatic and frustrating, so I believe that shaped her personality.  Whenever we see a “normal” Amy, we are seeing the enraged Amy.  When you see her angry, it is when she cannot hold it any longer.  Besides, Amy has had these shenanigans intertwined in her life since she was seven-years-old.  Another possible reason as to why we do not see her the way you expect to see her is because she has still not made sense of the situations.  I can definitely say that these things made her stronger.  They had made an effect, oh yes, but it is not just her lashing out, it is her being strong.

River Song/Melody Pond
1. If a female character falls in love, you cannot necessarily deem the author as misogynist.  Take Mickey Smith for instance.  He was not created by Steven Moffat, but he still remained as a male character emotionally attached to a woman for whom he traveled through Universes to find and help; along with saving the rest of the world.  He does so much more— and what do you know—  he is a male consumed with love!
2. “River Song overcame fucking military brainwashing and you never see her angst about it even a little.”  First of all, she was brainwashed.  She was unable to angst, she had no idea what was happening.  Secondly, it made her psychotic, which is far more than releasing angst.
3. River does have control over her life.  You are not fathoming the way time works.  You say that she has to fall in love with the Doctor because it already happened, but no, she fell in love with the Doctor within her own personal timeline.  When the Doctor first met her, he was not in love but she was, so where are you even getting your idea?
4. You essentially described how River suffers.  So do other women in Doctor Who.  So do males.  I do not see where sexism enters the situation.
5. How many times did the male Doctor also have no choice?  There are plenty of women and men in the show who have no choice!

Madge Arwell/”The Doctor, The Widow, and the Wardrobe”
1. How do you not remember the name?  It was a reference to Narnia.  The whole setting was Narnia.Narnia.
2. Again, you are perceiving charisma incorrectly!  Madge’s sole power is not only present because she is a mother; that is a factor.  Also, do not dismiss the fact that she used her love, determination, and mental and physical strength to drive two vessels back to her home.

3. The whole episode was a salute to the female population!  It showed that women have power!  Women have potential, just as men!  Our human biology prevents the potential from always being in the same area, but that is just a physical thing that we cannot change.  As I said in my previous point, Madge showed a range of her female capabilities; whether they were spiritual or physical.  A female can measure to be as strong as a male and vice versa; so thank you, Steven Moffat, for saying that in the Christmas special.

Madame de Pompadour
1. Madame de Pompadour is clearly a tremendous historical figure.  Why else do you think Steven Moffat used her in Doctor Who?  Right there he voices that there is a woman who affected the world so deeply.
2. As I understand things, you did your research on her after watching the episode.  Interesting.  It seems like Steven Moffat did introduce to you quite a meaningful, powerful female.
3. He did not turn her into a lusting woman.  He added emotional depth.  He thought of all her achievements and decided to represent her as a human in this episode— capable of love, sorrow, fear, and longing.  If anything, it represents that the historical records we read in textbooks are those of actual people, and that they had lives just as we do.
4. If you sat with the Doctor for ten minutes, how would you feel?  I expect that would not even be able to contain yourself enough to sit.  I know that you would feel ecstatic, to say the least.  It is not said that she fell in love with him, albeit she may have.  It does not take long to become fascinated by the Doctor.  What Steven Moffat did was realistic: someone would want to travel with the madman after only knowing him for mere hours!


If anyone would care to express to me their opinions against Steven Moffat concerning his misogynous personality, whether it be an accurate trait or not, I will reply as lief.
  • The issue isn’t that shitty things happen to women. I only listed all these shitty things in detail to highlight the fact that we see barely any emotional reaction to them from Amy or River. Amy is treated as a device to forward the plot, nothing else. Her thoughts and emotional reactions were completely ignored for the vast majority of the series. River’s life completely revolves around the Doctor, she’s had so much shit to deal with and all we ever hear about is the Doctor. You don’t just fix that with one line from Amy saying she thought it was worth it. The problematic thing here is that Amy only exists to further the emotional development of the Doctor, a man, and the same with River. 
  • It seems like you do not comprehend “sexism” Lol. Tell me that Amy wasn’t devalued because of her sex when she was being used as nothing more than a baby factory throughout the whole of the series. Dictionary definitions are so narrow, and guess who they were written by. White men. Sexism isn’t just in real life, it happens in fiction as well, and considering Doctor Who is watched by probably the majority of kids in the country, this is a problem. 
1. Amy
  • Okay, even if she did know she was pregnant, and I have no idea where you are getting that from, the Doctor knew as well, and he still didn’t tell her. He didn’t know that she knew she was pregnant, but he still took that choice away from her and didn’t give her any warning about the very possible shitstorm that could about to unfold. That lack of choice is problematic as fuck, especially considering reproduction rights are under threat in the real world right now. 
  • firstly, let’s sort out that bit of cissexism, because men can also give birth, and Amy is not a “female”, she is a woman. Secondly, I don’t see Amy as just a baby factory, but that’s certainly how she was written and portrayed in series six. So if you think that’s a “narrow, sexist point of view”, that’s all down to Moffat, not me. I’m just pointing it out. I like Amy, I just don’t like how all her agency was taken away so she can give birth so The Love of The Doctor’s Life (TM). 
  • It’s not sexist because she has shitty things happen to her, it’s sexist because we see barely any emotional reaction to it! Hence she’s only there to further the plot, she’s not important, her feelings don’t matter, all that matters is that she creates this baby! And that is seriously fucked up! Women as characters shouldn’t solely exist as plot devices! 
  • Yes, Rory was fucked over as well, but come on, not nearly to the same extent. Amy was kidnapped and then forced to give birth in a seriously traumatic way, and she didn’t even know she was pregnant!
  • But he did just let it happen! He didn’t tell Amy what was going on for nine months! And he didn’t go to war, that episode was not a fucking war. 
River
  • I never said that because River Song falls in love, Steven Moffat is misogynist. The problem is that the only part of River Song we ever see is her love for the Doctor. There is a difference between being in love with someone, and having your entire life revolve around them. We see nothing of River Song except the Doctor. Literally everything she does is because of him. So again, a women character existing solely to further the plot of a man. 
  • Yeah, but after her brainwashing we see barely any reaction to it. It must be a really terrible experience but all that is ignored because of the plot surrounding the Doctor.
  • Oh ho ho I’m not fathoming how time works? And I guess you are the ultimate expert on time travel and the nature of time itself now are you? Well Einstein, tell me more, because shit it’s not like I’m devoting my life to physics or anything. 
  • The issue with the backwards relationship is the massive imbalance of power. Think of River’s line in the Impossible Astronaut “When I first met the Doctor, a long, long time ago… he knew all about me. Think about that. Impressionable young girl, and suddenly this man just drops out of the sky, he’s clever and mad and wonderful and knows every last thing about her. Imagine what that does to a girl.” Imagine what that does do to someone. You’d be completely overwhelmed and it sounds very creepy if I’m honest. 
  • SHITTY THINGS HAPPENING TO WOMEN IS NOT SEXIST. SHITTY THINGS HAPPENING TO WOMEN WITH NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT OR EMOTIONAL REACTION IS SEXIST, BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING USED AS PLOT DEVICES AND NOT TREATED AS PEOPLE OF IMPORTANCE. 
  • And this lack of choice IS A PROBLEM. Taking away a character’s agency of their lives and their bodies is a problem! Especially seeing as it’s happening to women, today, in the real world! 
Madge
  • Maybe because I never read Narnia books…?
  • No, it’s showing women are strong because they can have children. Nothing else. That is the shouting-in-your-face message of that episode. Women are strong because they are mothers. Which is problematic because 1) it implies women only matter when want to have babies 2) not all women can give birth/men can also give birth and 3) it’s reduced us down to baby factories AGAIN. Women are more than just vessels to create babies in!
  • I’m not dismissing her love, determination, and mental and physical strength, but Moffat certainly is, because apparently all that matters here is her womb. 
  • This episode really just felt like Moffat was trying to prove he wasn’t sexist, and in doing so proved he has some really fucked up viewpoints on women. 
 Madame de Pompadour
  • He gave all this brilliance that is Madame de Pompadour one fucking line. She deserves more than one fucking line. 
  • Yeah, he did introduce me to a brilliant historical figure, but I was 12 when I first watched this episode, and this was a really terrible introduction. Everything that was brilliant about her was taken away. I really doubt his desire was to highlight the achievements of a powerful woman in history, because if it was he’d give her achievements more than ONE FUCKING LINE. 
  • The character doesn’t have any depth though. All he gave her was that longing for the Doctor. He took away all her other personality traits, her intelligence, her determination, all that, and replaced them with Reinette spending her ENTIRE LIFE waiting for a man she’s had contact with for a couple of hours at most. 
  • If I sat with the Doctor for 10 minutes I would not spend the rest of my life waiting for him. I would move on because I knew him for 10 fucking minutes. The Doctor is not a god. He is not perfect. He can do wrong. 
101 notes
{ January 30th }

As a budding physicist, I have three main reasons why I think the Doctor is definitely real

  • If the universe is infinite, or there are infinite parallel universes, then that means that everything that possible could happen, does happen. With infinity every possible outcome must happen at least once, because infinite is a really fucking huge number. I mean like, you can imagine massive numbers with endless zeros after it, but even after your imagination stops it just keeps on going. Infinity never stops. Ever. So the Doctor must exist somewhere because there’s infinite chances of him existing. 
  • The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics says that each time a decision is made another universe buds off. Which is the canon in Doctor Who as well. So in there must be at least one universe which creates a time lord society develops. 
  • We really don’t know much about the universe at all. We’ve studied barely any of it. Option one and two may be wrong but there’s probably a load of even weirder shit out there we don’t even know about yet. Ergo, the Doctor. 
76 notes
{ January 24th }
Why I have a problem with Moffat’s portrayal of Women in Doctor Who

I put it out there fairly often that I’m not Steven Moffat’s biggest fan, especially when it comes to his portrayal of women on Doctor Who. And this topic usually comes up on my blog every couple of weeks, so instead of having to repeat myself over and over explaining why, I’e decided to write down all the reasons why I’m not his biggest fan into a sort of big, essay-ish thing. Bearing in mind that I’ve always been a maths nerd and not a writer, here we go. 

Read More

379 notes
{ January 1st }
{ December 15th }
Why no love for The Girl in the Fireplace?
◥
idleking ASKED

Quite a few reasons, the main ones being

  1. It’s incredibly out of character for the Doctor. The Doctor, not only abandons Rose and Mickey on a spaceship with no way of getting home, but also the TARDIS. For “the slow path”. The Doctor’s always been about running away and exploring the universe, but in one episode he changes his mind for a women he’s spent like an hour with? No. 
  2. I find the love story thing very squicky. One moment she’s 7, a couple of seconds later and the Doctor’s snogging her and he has no problems with that. And then she looks into his mind without permission, which is a) squicky and b) cheating at developing a realationship
  3. Madame de Pompadour in history was a very accomplished and clever woman, but I don’t think this episode did her justice. The episode portrayed her life as revolving around a man, not being the strong woman she really was. 
There’s a few other reasons but those are the main ones. 
(publishing in case anyone else wonders :)
29 notes
{ November 7th }
Essay: Why Rose Tyler is not a chav

I’ve been wanting to write something like this for a while now, because character bashing annoys me, particularly referring to Rose as a chav. So here is my essay (1582 words long, blimey). Also, English has never been my strength (I’ve always been better at maths) so sorry for any errors :)

Why Rose Tyler is not a chav

Whenever someone decides to hate on Rose Tyler, the word “chav” is usually thrown around a lot, among other words like “annoying” and also inexplicably “blonde”. And the use of the word “chav” specifically has always really annoyed me, so I am going to try and explain why this is not only insulting, but also completely incorrect. 

Read More

196 notes