I love RTD, I really do, because he got the whole DW-reboot started and every fan should feel like they owe him a debt of gratitude for that, no matter what their opinions are of him. But as great a producer as he may be, and as much as his ideas came from the heart and were earnestly done with good intentions toward the integrity of the series and out of a love for the characters, the man COULD NOT WRITE. He simply didn't have the ability to handle intricate plots and character developments the way that Moffat currently does.
So true. I will always be grateful to RTD for bringing Doctor Who back, and I think he was actually a pretty good show-runner, but the episodes that he wrote were always the weakest (to me anyway
( ... )
But as great a producer as he may be, and as much as his ideas came from the heart and were earnestly done with good intentions toward the integrity of the series and out of a love for the characters, the man COULD NOT WRITE. He simply didn't have the ability to handle intricate plots and character developments the way that Moffat currently does.I strongly disagree, but that is a whole other essay
( ... )
wow apparently this needs a second part? lol tl;dr alert_thirty2flavorsMay 9 2011, 15:03:01 UTC
With River, I don't take issue with her awnting to be with the Doctor. She loves him, presumably, so that's fine. I don't understand why she doesn't travel with the Doctor, if that's what she wants, and I do have issue with the fact that presumably in his future/her past, he meets bbRiver and essentially manipulates her into falling in love with him, knowing that the end result will be her sacrifice for him in the Library. Having said that, I don't mind her sacrifice in the Library; it's not a "WELL I guess I'll just die now" thing, it's also that she's protecting him and preserving her happiest memories (the ones with him, which would never haev happened if she let him kill himself). Companions die for the Doctor all the time, so I can't hold it against River. However, I do think her "heaven" with random fake computer children and her archaeology students is seriously messed up
( ... )
Re: wow apparently this needs a second part? lol tl;dr alertk_puffMay 10 2011, 03:21:46 UTC
Ehhh sorry I'm so late in replying... it's finals week so I put a moratorium on LJ until I did my readings! -_-;;
" I don't think he's sexist in a "I hate women, literally" way, I think he is sexist in a "I bleed privilege and have no awareness of it" way. "
I completely agree with you, and I would add that ignorant sexism is not at all more excusable than purposeful sexism, but I see you've already made that point below, so we are totes on the same page about this. ^_^ That's why I try to make the distinction that Moffat doesn't just, like you say, sit around and think about how to write weak women. He just doesn't understand how feminism works.From that point, I'd like to further clarify that, I agree, part of feminism is giving women the right to choose a domestic, husband-and-child life if they want it. I'm not saying that he's 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
( ... )
Re: wow apparently this needs a second part? lol tl;dr alert_thirty2flavorsMay 10 2011, 03:30:52 UTC
I think an important fact to consider when it comes to the Pond marriage is that when they get married in TBB, neither of them remember the events of s5. Amy isn't marrying Rory because she feels duty-bound due to him being the boy who waited -- she doesn't remember any of that. And when Amy wakes up in TBB and sees her wedding dress hanging on her closet door, she smiles. She quips "love you" to Rory on the phone, whereas before she had apparently never said that. I think we're supposed to believe that the Amy at the end of s5 is more well-adjusted, because she had her family, and has more faith in people/the universe, and that is an Amy Pond who will get married.
That sort of dovetails into my point. While she was travelling with the Doctor, her wish for romance and the domestic life was put on the backburner, more so than with any other consistently-appearing female on the show. Out of all the companions, she was the only one who I wouldn't count romance as being one of her primary topics of dialogue, plot, or character
( ... )
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
( ... )
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
( ... )
This is what I wanted! Discussion! I even put that at the end of my original post, since it's such a heated issue for so many people, that if people disagree, I'd like them to talk to me instead of just defriending. And you actually friended me even though you disagree
( ... )
Ehhh sorry I'm so late in replying... it's finals week so I put a moratorium on LJ until I did my readings! -_-;; And thanks for returning my friending! ♥
Regarding the feminist/sexism issue, I'd like to further clarify the point that I made in my original essay: 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 I find to be 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.
I'm horrible at putting my thoughts into words about stuff like this (which is the main reason why I just flail on my journal... it's so much easier! lol) but I just wanted to say I agree with every word you said here. It's just what I've been trying to say myself, only much better worded. :)
Comments 15
So true. I will always be grateful to RTD for bringing Doctor Who back, and I think he was actually a pretty good show-runner, but the episodes that he wrote were always the weakest (to me anyway ( ... )
Reply
But as great a producer as he may be, and as much as his ideas came from the heart and were earnestly done with good intentions toward the integrity of the series and out of a love for the characters, the man COULD NOT WRITE. He simply didn't have the ability to handle intricate plots and character developments the way that Moffat currently does.I strongly disagree, but that is a whole other essay ( ... )
Reply
With River, I don't take issue with her awnting to be with the Doctor. She loves him, presumably, so that's fine. I don't understand why she doesn't travel with the Doctor, if that's what she wants, and I do have issue with the fact that presumably in his future/her past, he meets bbRiver and essentially manipulates her into falling in love with him, knowing that the end result will be her sacrifice for him in the Library. Having said that, I don't mind her sacrifice in the Library; it's not a "WELL I guess I'll just die now" thing, it's also that she's protecting him and preserving her happiest memories (the ones with him, which would never haev happened if she let him kill himself). Companions die for the Doctor all the time, so I can't hold it against River. However, I do think her "heaven" with random fake computer children and her archaeology students is seriously messed up ( ... )
Reply
" I don't think he's sexist in a "I hate women, literally" way, I think he is sexist in a "I bleed privilege and have no awareness of it" way. "
I completely agree with you, and I would add that ignorant sexism is not at all more excusable than purposeful sexism, but I see you've already made that point below, so we are totes on the same page about this. ^_^ That's why I try to make the distinction that Moffat doesn't just, like you say, sit around and think about how to write weak women. He just doesn't understand how feminism works.From that point, I'd like to further clarify that, I agree, part of feminism is giving women the right to choose a domestic, husband-and-child life if they want it. I'm not saying that he's 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 ( ... )
Reply
That sort of dovetails into my point. While she was travelling with the Doctor, her wish for romance and the domestic life was put on the backburner, more so than with any other consistently-appearing female on the show. Out of all the companions, she was the only one who I wouldn't count romance as being one of her primary topics of dialogue, plot, or character ( ... )
Reply
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 ( ... )
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 ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Regarding the feminist/sexism issue, I'd like to further clarify the point that I made in my original essay: 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 I find to be 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
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment