This is pretty much the one thing I really want to comment on:
But what I’m saying is that every single woman Moffat writes, no matter how badass or independent he makes them out to be, secretly, ultimately, just wants a husband and child. And that assumption, as a blanket assumption, is inherently sexist and, yes, anti-feminist.
I will concede that you make a very good point with this argument. However, I do wish to point out that Nancy -- while, yes, a mother with a healthy child again -- doesn't entirely fit this mold. She's still an unwed mother in a time when that was extremely looked down upon, which I think was a pretty interesting end for her. Arguably Reinette doesn't fit that "only happy with a husband and child" mold, either; while she is an official mistress to the King of France, she seems much more interested in the companionship of the Doctor and the adventures she could have with him rather than looking at him as a husband; and historically she was a mistress who pursued the position because it was basically a paying job with benefits in the 17th century (so that aspect of her character can't be attributed to Moffat). Reinette was an empowered, talented, intelligent woman who was obviously very comfortable in her sexuality and yet doesn't fit into a contemporary mindset of what is laudable or honorable for a woman to do/be.
And while there is a lot of truth in saying that this husband-and-a-child agenda is sexist of Moffat (knowing how he personally feels about women in general), I feel I should say that it isn't actually anti-feminist as a concept. Being a feminist shouldn't mean that you completely eschew the traditional or stereotypical roles or desires of womanhood -- that you reject motherhood and being a wife as if it's bad. I consider myself a feminist because I strongly believe there should be absolute equality between the sexes, legally and in terms of job opportunities and social treatment. This does not mean that I think becoming a wife or mother would undermine that goal. Feminists can and should get married and have children if that's what they desire -- the point is that it's their choice to make. You can be the badass, fabulous and fierce lady on the block AND STILL want to get married -- and be a feminist.
So that's my two (well, more like ten) cents on this.
Yeah, I tend to be wary of any argument that portends that love automatically makes a female character weak, or that she's weak for wanting to be with the person she loves, or for wanting to marry them or sacrifice something to be with them. That's not really what feminism is about to me; feminism, to me, is about the freedom to choose what you want to do, and if what you want to do is be with someone, get married and have babies, more power to you.
In Moffat's case this is complicated by his "hunting for husbands" quote, definitely.
Ehhh sorry I'm so late in replying... it's finals week so I put a moratorium on LJ until I did my readings! -_-;;
Regarding Reinette, I do agree that yes, historically she was pretty ahead of her time. But none of that was actually brought up in the episode. Perhaps expositionally in passing, but certainly not demonstrated in the episode itself. All that was demonstrated in the episode was how she kept flinging herself at the Doctor, and what it was REALLY about was setting her up as a foil for Rose, being calm, cool, collected, accomplished, and sexy where Rose was relatively helpless and lost, wandering around a derelict ship with her ex-boyfriend.
Regarding the feminist/sexism issue, I'd like to further clarify the point that I made in the excerpt you already quoted: that I'm not saying Moffat is anti-feminist because he had one or two women be motivated by the need for a husband and child -- it's the blanket assumption that is anti-feminist (or, rather, sexist). It's how every single woman he writes has one or both of those things for their ending resolution that sets of my alarm bells and makes me put on this face --> o_0 Because, like you, I agree, part of feminism is giving women the right to choose a domestic, husband-and-child life if they want it. They have that right, and that's totally cool. But making a blanket assumption that ALL woman secretly want that is sexist.
But what I’m saying is that every single woman Moffat writes, no matter how badass or independent he makes them out to be, secretly, ultimately, just wants a husband and child. And that assumption, as a blanket assumption, is inherently sexist and, yes, anti-feminist.
I will concede that you make a very good point with this argument. However, I do wish to point out that Nancy -- while, yes, a mother with a healthy child again -- doesn't entirely fit this mold. She's still an unwed mother in a time when that was extremely looked down upon, which I think was a pretty interesting end for her. Arguably Reinette doesn't fit that "only happy with a husband and child" mold, either; while she is an official mistress to the King of France, she seems much more interested in the companionship of the Doctor and the adventures she could have with him rather than looking at him as a husband; and historically she was a mistress who pursued the position because it was basically a paying job with benefits in the 17th century (so that aspect of her character can't be attributed to Moffat). Reinette was an empowered, talented, intelligent woman who was obviously very comfortable in her sexuality and yet doesn't fit into a contemporary mindset of what is laudable or honorable for a woman to do/be.
And while there is a lot of truth in saying that this husband-and-a-child agenda is sexist of Moffat (knowing how he personally feels about women in general), I feel I should say that it isn't actually anti-feminist as a concept. Being a feminist shouldn't mean that you completely eschew the traditional or stereotypical roles or desires of womanhood -- that you reject motherhood and being a wife as if it's bad. I consider myself a feminist because I strongly believe there should be absolute equality between the sexes, legally and in terms of job opportunities and social treatment. This does not mean that I think becoming a wife or mother would undermine that goal. Feminists can and should get married and have children if that's what they desire -- the point is that it's their choice to make. You can be the badass, fabulous and fierce lady on the block AND STILL want to get married -- and be a feminist.
So that's my two (well, more like ten) cents on this.
Reply
In Moffat's case this is complicated by his "hunting for husbands" quote, definitely.
Reply
Regarding Reinette, I do agree that yes, historically she was pretty ahead of her time. But none of that was actually brought up in the episode. Perhaps expositionally in passing, but certainly not demonstrated in the episode itself. All that was demonstrated in the episode was how she kept flinging herself at the Doctor, and what it was REALLY about was setting her up as a foil for Rose, being calm, cool, collected, accomplished, and sexy where Rose was relatively helpless and lost, wandering around a derelict ship with her ex-boyfriend.
Regarding the feminist/sexism issue, I'd like to further clarify the point that I made in the excerpt you already quoted: that I'm not saying Moffat is anti-feminist because he had one or two women be motivated by the need for a husband and child -- it's the blanket assumption that is anti-feminist (or, rather, sexist). It's how every single woman he writes has one or both of those things for their ending resolution that sets of my alarm bells and makes me put on this face --> o_0 Because, like you, I agree, part of feminism is giving women the right to choose a domestic, husband-and-child life if they want it. They have that right, and that's totally cool. But making a blanket assumption that ALL woman secretly want that is sexist.
Reply
Leave a comment