My feminist take on Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead
This began as a response to a post by shinyopals-- I said that in my opinion, SitL/FotD offered some positive representations of women, even though there are other aspects that are clearly problematic. shinyopals has made some very astute points about sexism in Moffat's episodes, and she asked me to elaborate on my differing views in the comments, but my response was too long for LJ, so I have to post it here instead. Given that it was originally intended as part of a comment thread, it's kind of rambly, but I think what I'm saying should be clear enough. :)
And please, remember that this is a discussion from a feminist perspective-- if you're just coming here to tell me that feminism is wrong because "God made us different" or "it's our Cave-man instincts" or "Women rule the world these days and men are downtrodden-- look, Hillary Clinton almost got the Democratic nomination", then I'll delete your comments. If you must say these things, use your own LJ.
Firstly, I will say that I agree many of the criticisms levelled at Moffat regarding the pretty=stupid/smart=ugly dichotomy, and I also agree that the conclusion, with River Song putting the kids to bed, is problematic-- as I've said elsewhere, my fanwank for that is that they all took turns in putting the kids to bed, and it was River's night to do so, but most people watching the show aren't going to be producing fanwank, so they'll just be "Aww, River's taking care of the kiddies, how sweet."
BUT, I do think that the implied relationship between River and the Doctor was very non-traditional and positive-- we didn't find out much, but implication was that she pretty much lived her own life, and they met up occasionally, went for an adventure, and then she got on with her career. I think that this is important, because so often the dynamic between the Doctor and his female companions echoes a sort of traditional marriage. If you read fundementalist Christian literature about the "correct" relationship between husband and wife, they'll say stuff like "the wife is allowed to offer her opinion, but ultimately her husband has the final say." Now, I'm not saying that the female companions, particularly in New Who, are submissive, but the fact is that because the Doctor controls the TARDIS, he's the one who gets the final say-- sometimes he may change his opinion based on the responses of his companions (and he often does), but that's because he decides to take their opinion into consideration-- he's the one who has the final choice in the matter.
Now, I think that this becomes doubly problematic if you have a companion who literally is in a "wife" role. Of course, we don't know that the Doctor and River were married, but I think we were all supposed to get the implication that it was a strong possibility, and that even if they weren't, there was some sort of romantic relationship there. I think that Moffat subverts a LOT of the problems that could arise out of this by suggesting that River basically continued to live her own life, even after travelling/forming a relationship with the Doctor. River was very much not a clingy woman. I'll also note that River herself appears to be both attractive and highly intelligent (although that doesn't meant that it was okay for Moffat to use the pretty=stupid/ugly=smart dichotomy in the case of Evangelina-- I'm just noting that he doesn't apply it across the board).
Also, in the case of Donna's little domestic interlude-- the thing that came across stronly to me in that was that it was fake: the computer gave Donna this idealistic life according to the time at which Donna grew up, but it wasn't real; it was literally a trap-- a benevolent trap, it's true, but a trap nonetheless, and she had to free herself from it. And isn't that often exactly how the whole domestic dream (or lie) is presented to women-- as something we should seek after for our own good, something we should trap ourselves in, because it will protect us from all the nasties in the world? Throughout the whole sequence, we're supposed to be aware that something is a little bit wrong-- it's a little bit off, and ultimately Donna has to abandon the false dream if she's to continue to act as a free agent. The only part of it that was real was her relationship with McAvoy (that was his name, wasn't it? :P), and the relationship itself did not seem unequal (even if the ultimate domestic situation was)-- I mean, the thing that attracted Donna to him was that he didn't talk over her all the time.
Of course, this is problematised by the River Song bit at the end, where it's represented as all fine and dandy, although I did read one commentary from someone who suggested that, as an audience, we're supposed to find that whole final part unsettling as well-- did the Doctor really do the right thing? (And I'm really sorry, I can't remember who it was, or I'd attribute the idea). But again, that's only something that more active viewers are likely to pick up on. Passive viewers (ie, the majority) are just going to see mummy putting the kids to bed, awww, how cute.
So, in short-- the episode is not without its problems, but I think it offers some good things too. And I will say that I think that some of Rusty's episodes have been equally problematic in terms of their representation of gender-- School Reunion, for instance, which suggests that Sarah Jane never found love because she spent her life pining for the Doctor, and were the Doctor responds to Mickey's scream by calling him a girl (in spite of the fact that neither of the women with him were screaming). Mind you, I love that episode, but those things really bother me.
And actually, it also really bothers me that while there are parallels between Jack and Sarah Jane in terms of them both feeling abandoned between the Doctor, Jack is off having lots of delicious sex with many people, while Sarah Jane is portrayed as never really forming any relationships, just living a lonely life, until OMG, she adopts a kid! (Although please note I haven't seen SJA yet, and I'm aware that there are probably nuances to this that I'm not aware of-- I'm not by any means trying to say that Sarah Jane is portrayed as weak, etc, or that there's anything wrong with adopting a kid-- I'm just saying that the overall schema that is invoked here is that men ease the pain through sex, and women ease the pain through kids. While the finer details may well not conform to traditional roles-- after all, men are supposed to have hetero sex, and women are supposed to give up their careers for their kiddies-- the broader picture that Rusty used in setting up the shows was very much based on gender stereotypes that have a lot of ick in them.)
And this isn't meant to be Rusty-hate either-- I do love LOTS of what he does, and he does do lots of stuff to undermine traditional gender roles-- but I don't think that Moffat does much better or worse than him, based on what we've seen of his episodes, particularly SitL/FotD.
And please, remember that this is a discussion from a feminist perspective-- if you're just coming here to tell me that feminism is wrong because "God made us different" or "it's our Cave-man instincts" or "Women rule the world these days and men are downtrodden-- look, Hillary Clinton almost got the Democratic nomination", then I'll delete your comments. If you must say these things, use your own LJ.
Firstly, I will say that I agree many of the criticisms levelled at Moffat regarding the pretty=stupid/smart=ugly dichotomy, and I also agree that the conclusion, with River Song putting the kids to bed, is problematic-- as I've said elsewhere, my fanwank for that is that they all took turns in putting the kids to bed, and it was River's night to do so, but most people watching the show aren't going to be producing fanwank, so they'll just be "Aww, River's taking care of the kiddies, how sweet."
BUT, I do think that the implied relationship between River and the Doctor was very non-traditional and positive-- we didn't find out much, but implication was that she pretty much lived her own life, and they met up occasionally, went for an adventure, and then she got on with her career. I think that this is important, because so often the dynamic between the Doctor and his female companions echoes a sort of traditional marriage. If you read fundementalist Christian literature about the "correct" relationship between husband and wife, they'll say stuff like "the wife is allowed to offer her opinion, but ultimately her husband has the final say." Now, I'm not saying that the female companions, particularly in New Who, are submissive, but the fact is that because the Doctor controls the TARDIS, he's the one who gets the final say-- sometimes he may change his opinion based on the responses of his companions (and he often does), but that's because he decides to take their opinion into consideration-- he's the one who has the final choice in the matter.
Now, I think that this becomes doubly problematic if you have a companion who literally is in a "wife" role. Of course, we don't know that the Doctor and River were married, but I think we were all supposed to get the implication that it was a strong possibility, and that even if they weren't, there was some sort of romantic relationship there. I think that Moffat subverts a LOT of the problems that could arise out of this by suggesting that River basically continued to live her own life, even after travelling/forming a relationship with the Doctor. River was very much not a clingy woman. I'll also note that River herself appears to be both attractive and highly intelligent (although that doesn't meant that it was okay for Moffat to use the pretty=stupid/ugly=smart dichotomy in the case of Evangelina-- I'm just noting that he doesn't apply it across the board).
Also, in the case of Donna's little domestic interlude-- the thing that came across stronly to me in that was that it was fake: the computer gave Donna this idealistic life according to the time at which Donna grew up, but it wasn't real; it was literally a trap-- a benevolent trap, it's true, but a trap nonetheless, and she had to free herself from it. And isn't that often exactly how the whole domestic dream (or lie) is presented to women-- as something we should seek after for our own good, something we should trap ourselves in, because it will protect us from all the nasties in the world? Throughout the whole sequence, we're supposed to be aware that something is a little bit wrong-- it's a little bit off, and ultimately Donna has to abandon the false dream if she's to continue to act as a free agent. The only part of it that was real was her relationship with McAvoy (that was his name, wasn't it? :P), and the relationship itself did not seem unequal (even if the ultimate domestic situation was)-- I mean, the thing that attracted Donna to him was that he didn't talk over her all the time.
Of course, this is problematised by the River Song bit at the end, where it's represented as all fine and dandy, although I did read one commentary from someone who suggested that, as an audience, we're supposed to find that whole final part unsettling as well-- did the Doctor really do the right thing? (And I'm really sorry, I can't remember who it was, or I'd attribute the idea). But again, that's only something that more active viewers are likely to pick up on. Passive viewers (ie, the majority) are just going to see mummy putting the kids to bed, awww, how cute.
So, in short-- the episode is not without its problems, but I think it offers some good things too. And I will say that I think that some of Rusty's episodes have been equally problematic in terms of their representation of gender-- School Reunion, for instance, which suggests that Sarah Jane never found love because she spent her life pining for the Doctor, and were the Doctor responds to Mickey's scream by calling him a girl (in spite of the fact that neither of the women with him were screaming). Mind you, I love that episode, but those things really bother me.
And actually, it also really bothers me that while there are parallels between Jack and Sarah Jane in terms of them both feeling abandoned between the Doctor, Jack is off having lots of delicious sex with many people, while Sarah Jane is portrayed as never really forming any relationships, just living a lonely life, until OMG, she adopts a kid! (Although please note I haven't seen SJA yet, and I'm aware that there are probably nuances to this that I'm not aware of-- I'm not by any means trying to say that Sarah Jane is portrayed as weak, etc, or that there's anything wrong with adopting a kid-- I'm just saying that the overall schema that is invoked here is that men ease the pain through sex, and women ease the pain through kids. While the finer details may well not conform to traditional roles-- after all, men are supposed to have hetero sex, and women are supposed to give up their careers for their kiddies-- the broader picture that Rusty used in setting up the shows was very much based on gender stereotypes that have a lot of ick in them.)
And this isn't meant to be Rusty-hate either-- I do love LOTS of what he does, and he does do lots of stuff to undermine traditional gender roles-- but I don't think that Moffat does much better or worse than him, based on what we've seen of his episodes, particularly SitL/FotD.