Options
Did those silly old feminists achieve anything?
sovietusername
Posts: 1,169 Forum Member
✭✭✭
In Dr Who's history we've had all sorts of "strong" female characters, from Sarah Jane to Martha Jones but I've been wondering if anything's ever actually changed since the sexy screaming damsals in distress in the 60's? The female companions in particular are, even now seeming to be seen as sex symbols. They all seem to quite sexualised, from Katy Manning posing nude with a Dalek, to Louise Jameson in her leather bikini, to Nicola Bryant, well, just Nicola Bryant. The best example from NuWho is probs the ever attractive Karen Gillan who, in playing a kissogram is seen to wear the shortest skirts showing the longest legs in christendom. But is this a problem? After all while their all very attractive their also all very strong characters and, as I'm sure the gay or female posters will agree, the male actors arent exactly ugly. And hey, I'm not complaining, it's a big reason I'll miss Karen when she goes (I'm really sorry, I keep making horrid pervy comments like that on posts about series 5 or 6, soz Karen, I just go a bit head over heels for read heads), but THERE we go! Do I pay less attention to her acting skills? I dont think so, she a bloody supreb actress (another reason I'll miss you) and I'm not that much of a ****. But it is a bit of a worry isnt it? Bearing in mind this is as much a kids show as much as anything. I mean you cant blame me, the character of Amy Pond has been sexualised fom day 1 with being a kissogram and going around in a nightie etc. Is that good if kids are watching. Or would kids just not even think about stuff like that? I've waffled a bit, here's my problem. Is it all still sexist? Is such sexism inevitable. Or does it treat blokes in just the same way and I just havent really noticed? Do companions need to be attractive, what even is attractive? Am I sounding insanely sexist in a post intended to address sexism? As I read this back it does sound a bit that way. But what does everyone think?
0
Comments
Donna went against the grain slightly!
No its not sexist,I've never watched DW for the women, but recent companions have been very pleasing on the eye!
The male companions haven't exactly been trogs either have they...speaking as a raving hetro btw!:D
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16700000/Amy-in-The-Beast-Below-amy-pond-16741963-2000-1334.jpg
Looked like it needed a good iron though.
I think Catherine Tate is pretty also.
Particularly when soaked in sick.
As I recall the costume people wanted to put Amy in trousers but Karen wanted a short skirt!
I still think though that by the nature of the show where you have a strong male lead and a necessary companion who is 9 times out of 10 a female to ask questions( where are we Doctor? etc) for the audience then the show becomes sexist because the companion is always a subordinate to the Doctor.
As has been noted the female companions are dressed to look attractive showing their legs ( Amy) or cleavage ( Peri , Leela) whereas with a male character they can be dressed down ( Rory or Harry).
The only exception recently female on an equal footing to the Doctor has been River or earlier the Rani but they don't really count as companions in the true sense.
I agree with you dear lady. However, you failed to mention "Liz Shaw". A ground breaking woman that rarely screamed and was a great scientific mind(for the period)
And wouldn't have been nearly so attractive if she had been stupid.
I have to love a smart woman
Martha could have been great, she was perhaps braver, more capable and selfless than Rose, but her weakness being her love for the Doctor sort of brought her down. Donna was great as a feisty equal who transformd from a self absored irritant into someone who could really hold her own; "Turn Left" encapsulates this growth in forty minutes.
Amy has her moments; but I can't help feel that she is defined by her physiology; not only in her sexualisation but in her biggest storyline contributions so far being her marriage and procreation. It sort of sums it up that we're not supposed to care that she was replaced by a physical avatar for six episodes of series six. In terms of 2005+, she definitely has been a step back.
Granted Bruce Liz Shaw is the exception to the rule and I have liked Liz to be fair.I do wonder whether she would have lasted more than one season though.
There was a line in Terror of the Autons which kind of sums up the position of the scriptwriters then where she reportedly told the Brigadier that all the Doctor really needed was someone to pass him his test tubes and tell him how brilliant he was. They then reverted to a more tradational companion with Jo for three years.
Even in the 1980’s with Tegan (the airstewardess) and Nyssa (another scientist) they were sexualised with shorter costumes in season 20. I don’t think it has changed that much.
I do agree here. Amy is probably the best example of a tradational companion in the new series. She enshrines old fashioned values with getting married and having a child. Being a strippergram ( why couldnt she have actually been a policewoman ?) , a poster girl for perfume & a model could be seen as empowering but in my opinion just fulfills a male orientated fantasy.
On reflection, I think you have a point!
Amy, imo, is a strong character and holds her own. While she is no Jo Grant who (I'm really really sorry folks!) really irritated me in terms of her screaming/what happening now Doctor approach, she does still seem to have a bit of a specific purpose to be the damsel in distress.
You know, I remember seeing some promo pics before Matt Smith started and thought, great, she a police officer, strong and resourceful. I was really disappointed when she turned out to be, basically, a young girl with a mental illness (according to the story) who never moved on, grew up or was able to hold down a job whose only escape was to marry and bully Rory!:(
Whilst Amy has been sexualised in DW, she's also been a strong willed companion, not the following order type. She proves you can be both sexy and strong.
Also you do have River who is basically on an equal footing with the Doctor.
Liz was indeed quite different; the only companion before her on a similar level was probably Barbara.
The only time I can think of Liz screaming was when the silurian punched her in the face.
So she's a poor character for being apparently promiscuous, but also a poor character for settling down and starting a family? No wonder modern women have such a hard time of it! There is nothing wrong or subjugated about being a flirt, being married or having children.
We've seen Amy from being a little girl, scared of nothing, being turned into a defiant young woman who's afraid to trust anyone, into a committed wife, adventurer, and a mother willing to kill for her child.
I think that's what one calls a euphemism.
I remember thinking that there's no way a young modern girl like Amy would choose to wear such a hideous thing, even for nightwear!
I am so glad that Amy's story is finally coming to an end. We need Matt to create a new dynamic with someone else
Yep, I agree! As disappointed as I was about Amy's concept, I have grown attached to the character and will be sad when she moves on, she is undoubtedly very funny and KG does have a very good sense of comedy timing imo. Also, her and MS have amazing chemistry!
But, as has been the staple of Doctor Who through the years, I look forward to change.:)
It's not about having a family. Exploring these issues is fine, advisable and good as they affect women, and exploring women's issues is good. I prefer female centric drama to male centric drama in general.
With Amy it isn't the fact that she has gotten married or had a child, it's that these are used as plot points, her femaleness makes her special, not ehr bravery. Her as wife and mother are her story contributions, not something which builds onher character. It would be fine is she got pregnant and they explored the issue of pregnancy/abortion/child rearing but Amy conveniently fails to notice her own kidnapping/pregnancy and conjveniently forgets she has a child between episodes 9 and 11 to continue travelling.
And yes, when her legs are thrust down your throats, she is referred to diegetically as "The legs" and gets back into a kissogram outfit for a gag sequence in a christmas special, I'd say that is demeaning somewhat. I don't think this increases the quality of her characterisation; it only serves people to take more notice of her for reasons of "phwoar" and "squee". Oh look at the mini-episodes "Space-Time".
Myabe it isn't sexism, but just a lack of adequate/consistent characterisation in general. She's no Jane Tennyson.
For example at her wedding The Doctor refers to Rory as "Mr Rory Pond" and whilst he initially tries to say it doesn't work that was he glances at Amy before giving in.
I think, as I said before, you're missing the change in the character as she becomes a mother, and fixating on her sex alone.
And yes, it's convenient that she's not aware of being pregnant - because it wouldn't be possible for her to partake of any of the adventures in the series if she knew - not because it says anything about her character.
Davies did a decent job in the third series of Torchwood. Shows like Prime Suspect, Scott and Bailey, etc do this routinely. Even period shows like Downton and Upstairs Downstairs give their heroines characteristics that transcend sterteotypical views of their sex, whilst positing them in a very sexist environment where marriage and childbirth are their "duties".
With Amy, her womb is used as a plot device. Her child is a plot reveal that ties up loose ends. Her initial wedding was used as this too.
How does being a mother affect her character? It doesn't even come into the equation in Night Terrors, The Girl Who Waited, or God Complex. (I like the episodes, and I like Amy in WoRS it's just her experiences aren't reflected in consistent growth.)
The examples you've given are very much about the character's femininity being challenged and stereotyped. You can't compare Prime Suspect, a crime drama, to a program about people running about alien planets and having their lives threatened every episode. Can you imagine the letters in the Daily Mail?
Sorry I've been following this debate, but I don't think IMO you explained this in detail or you provided a good enough argument.
I think it is clear that as Shevk and others have pointed out, Amy is a very traditional character, who at the beginning doesn't seem to have a really independent job (god knows how she supports herself with being a kissogram), gets married at a relatively young age (age at the time of marriage has gone up in the UK, see UK stats, people don't get married in their early twenties anymore, they actually live with their partners for years), and series 6 mainly defines her by her pregnacy and the search for her baby. The Doctor then gives them a house as a present (very traditional) and in the future, Amy is a model or maybe she has a perfume line (again a very feminine job). Hardly a good role model for young girls (again in my opinion).
In fact Amy is written as an ideal woman by an oldfashioned man's standard, and I think this shows. Liz Shaw in the early 70's was more independent and interesting than Amy (an intelligent scientist, now that is a role model).