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).
That's what I said earlier. Thanks for your agreement Lach
That's what I said earlier. Thanks for your agreement Lach
No problems. I always liked Liz Shaw (I also liked all the other very intelligent companions, e.g. Barbara, Zoe, not all of them were screaming drama queens or just there for the sex factor - this is not a description of Amy by the way).
Amy is fine, but she is not revolutionary and she is actually an oldfashioned character. IMO not very interesting, very pretty, but that's it. I don't really care about her costume, but Doctor Qui was right, how interesting had it been if she had been a feisty police woman instead of a kissogram? (linking her to the first person ever seen in Doctor Who:D).
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).
And yet, one of the chief criticisms of Amy is that she's not 'likeable', or people can't see why Rory would put up with her. It can't be both.
And you say that Amy is only defined by her pregnancy in Series 6, despite the fact that it was only covered in a single episode, with only foreshadowing at the beginning of the series.
Again, you can't have it both ways. It's impossible for the writers to win if you say that Amy is only defined by what's going on in her uterus, but that she's handled badly because they don't spend enough time going on about what's happening in her uterus.
Similarly, why are you focussed on Amy's motherhood being a problem, when you don't similarly focus on Rory only becoming a confident badass because he's a father? That's a little, shall I say, sexist?
The theme of Amy losing her faith and become more independent from the Doctor (rather than just 'feisty' - hate that word!) is an ongoing one. Why let her body parts overshadow what's really going on with her character?
And yet, one of the chief criticisms of Amy is that she's not 'likeable', or people can't see why Rory would put up with her. It can't be both.
Of course it can be both, or are you equating likeability with old-fashioned values? Do you think that all ideal women with old-fashioned values are lovely? They are not. You can get married, and live a traditional 1950's live and still be cold like a fish and therefore not likeable.
And you say that Amy is only defined by her pregnancy in Series 6, despite the fact that it was only covered in a single episode, with only foreshadowing at the beginning of the series.
You might want to rewatch series 6 part one again. Amy's pregnacy is alluded to in the first two episodes (Amy telling the Doctor she is pregnant and feeling sick, also her interaction with Madame K throughout the whole first part of series 6), what about the rebel flesh and the almost people, and then A good man goes to war?
Let's kill Hitler was basically just about River and how Amy and Rory supposedly brought her up. River as Amy's daughter and how they made up lost time is very much part of series 6.
Again, you can't have it both ways. It's impossible for the writers to win if you say that Amy is only defined by what's going on in her uterus, but that she's handled badly because they don't spend enough time going on about what's happening in her uterus.
You can have it both way, because what we ended up with is half cooked. If you decide that the story line makes her loose her child, then follow through with it, or don't include such a story line that you cannot follow through (and add that ridiculous speech by Amy about being rescued by someone for stupid effect - last centurion speech and Amy needing to be rescued).
Similarly, why are you focussed on Amy's motherhood being a problem, when you don't similarly focus on Rory only becoming a confident badass because he's a father? That's a little, shall I say, sexist?
It's funny that you are accusing me of sexism, but that you don't have a problem with the actual thread title. Have you actually looked at the title of this thread. Last time I looked this thread was about the silly feminist and female companions. Please start a thread on male companions and how the silly mysoginistic men got it wrong and I start talking about male companions.
However, I will actually agree with you. That's just as unbelievable. Happy?
The theme of Amy losing her faith and become more independent from the Doctor (rather than just 'feisty' - hate that word!) is an ongoing one. Why let her body parts overshadow what's really going on with her character?
Because her body parts, and her looks are what have defined her according to the writers (kissogram, sexy assistant, the legs, being a model, and the traditional role of a woman). Amy should not have to become independent from the Doctor. That was a ridiculous storyline in itself. Children have imaginary friends, it's part of a healthy upbringing. They don't normally need to go to the psychiatrist if someone promised they would come back and they don't. Amy's traumatic experience with the Doctor as a child was ridiculous (however the loss of her parents would have been traumatic if she had properly rememberd it).
There was no need for her to get independent from him, and compared to Martha, she did not make the decision to leave him either.
Edit: You might be able to explain everything about Amy and her storyline and see sense in it, but not everyone will agree with you. Accusing people of sexism with no real evidence is definitely not the best way forward.
Amy does have 3 main relationships in her life. She is the doctors best freind, Rorys wife and mum to her daughterMelody aka River. Of course it is going to play a big part in her storylines.
Seh has been through a lot I just hope she leaves happy with her family. Doctor would never forgive himself if anything happenedto them or they found out the truth about River and what happened to her in the library.
Of course it can be both, or are you equating likeability with old-fashioned values? Do you think that all ideal women with old-fashioned values are lovely? They are not. You can get married, and live a traditional 1950's live and still be cold like a fish and therefore not likeable.
What you said was, "Amy is written as an ideal woman by an oldfashioned man's standard, and I think this shows" - by 1950s standards, to use your example, Amy would not be considered ideal. If written by sexist, pre-liberation standards, the pushy uppity broad would have realised the folly of her ways, and be taught the value of staying at home, raising kids, and letting the man make the decisions.
And that isn't Amy. She's almost obtusely bossy, and the better for it.
You might want to rewatch series 6 part one again. Amy's pregnacy is alluded to in the first two episodes (Amy telling the Doctor she is pregnant and feeling sick, also her interaction with Madame K throughout the whole first part of series 6), what about the rebel flesh and the almost people, and then A good man goes to war?
Yes, those are the episodes I was referring to. Amy mentions she thought she was pregnant, and then it's dropped. Madame K's little interludes don't tell us anything at all, and they certainly don't mean anything to Amy. It's not until the very last minute before A Good Man that Amy is revealed to be pregnant at all.
You can have it both way, because what we ended up with is half cooked.
Yes, it's half cooked, and clumsily handled. But not sexist.
It's funny that you are accusing me of sexism, but that you don't have a problem with the actual thread title.
Why would I have a problem with the thread title? I can see a joke when I read it.
Because her body parts, and her looks are what have defined her according to the writers (kissogram, sexy assistant, the legs, being a model, and the traditional role of a woman).
Really? Those are the things that you think define Amy? Is the Doctor defined by his love of bowties and hats? Is Rory defined by his nose, or being a macho Roman - they've mentioned both often enough?
Being sexy is not sexist. What's sexist is assuming that that's all there is to her, when that's clearly not the case.
Children have imaginary friends, it's part of a healthy upbringing. They don't normally need to go to the psychiatrist if someone promised they would come back and they don't.
It depends very much on whether they accept that the friend is imaginary. Most kids eventually do, and don't bite people who disagree.
Accusing people of sexism with no real evidence is definitely not the best way forward.
I didn't accuse you of being sexist. I said that applying different standards to the writing of men and women would be in itself sexist. I realise it could have been read the other way, apologies.
What you said was, "Amy is written as an ideal woman by an oldfashioned man's standard, and I think this shows" - by 1950s standards, to use your example, Amy would not be considered ideal. If written by sexist, pre-liberation standards, the pushy uppity broad would have realised the folly of her ways, and be taught the value of staying at home, raising kids, and letting the man make the decisions.
And that isn't Amy. She's almost obtusely bossy, and the better for it.
But this isn't a reply to the original point. Amy's story is traditional (getting married, having children, not really pursuing a career - until the end with the modelling, but we don't have enough evidence of this). You then mentioned I could not have it both way, Amy having a traditional story and not being liked. However, not all women in the fifties were pushed around either, they were married, they stayed at home, they had the kids, but quite a few of them would have been bossy as well. To get back to my point though, Amy's background story is traditional (regardless of being bossy) and that surely does not mean that people can't dislike her.
Yes, those are the episodes I was referring to. Amy mentions she thought she was pregnant, and then it's dropped. Madame K's little interludes don't tell us anything at all, and they certainly don't mean anything to Amy. It's not until the very last minute before A Good Man that Amy is revealed to be pregnant at all.
Yes, she has not a big bump throughout the whole series, I agree. However, the premise of the whole first part of series 6 is her supposed pregnancy. It's important, she has to tell the Doctor and it was intriguing. I think most people would agree that part 1 of series 6 was more or less an intrigue about Amy, Madame K and the mystery of the pregnancy. I'm sure Moffat would agree that this was his intention.
Really? Those are the things that you think define Amy? Is the Doctor defined by his love of bowties and hats? Is Rory defined by his nose, or being a macho Roman - they've mentioned both often enough?
To a certain degree they probably are (there are enough mentionings of bowties etc.) Again, this is a thread that discusses the female companions and their sexiness, not the male companions or the Doctor. However, I actually don't think that Amy is just definied by these attributes, but I have not often heard Amy being described as witty, smart, clever, outstanding, but very often just by her physical attributes (legs etc.).
Being sexy is not sexist. What's sexist is assuming that that's all there is to her, when that's clearly not the case.
Why are you going on about being sexist? Are you actually answering to my post? I can well say that there is not much to Amy apart from her beauty IMO without thinking that this is sexist. I think she is badly written, I think she is written in a traditional style, focusing on a lot of traditional values. This is not my cup of tea, but might agree with other people.
It depends very much on whether they accept that the friend is imaginary. Most kids eventually do, and don't bite people who disagree..
It also depends on the adults around them. However, it's not a traumatic experience that should have halted her life. If it did, then it's due to her personality. I don't believe in blaming your childhood for your adult flaws or problems. Personally, I think Moffat got her introduction here wrong, but that's my opinion.
I didn't accuse you of being sexist. I said that applying different standards to the writing of men and women would be in itself sexist. I realise it could have been read the other way, apologies.
No problems.
I actually don't dislike Amy, but I don't think she is a role model for modern women. Very traditional (bossiness is not a modern phenomenon, my gran bossed my granddad around). IMO the writers concentrated too much on these values, Amy's looks and not enough on her positive attributes. The two series were concerned with her looming wedding (should she, should she not) and her pregnancy and relationship with River. She wasn't really independent, she stayed her whole life in Leadworth with Rory, getting engaged to Rory, then exploring the Universe with the Doctor, flirting with the Doctor, getting married, getting pregnant on her wedding night, then having an extended honeymoon with her husband, loosing the child, then searching for the child, finding the child, realising that she had brought up the child etc. The same goes for Rory (not very interesting either). The series ends with her sitting in her traditional garden waiting for her husband to come home (probably from work). Lots of women and men might find this exciting, to me it's a bit meh (and I don't think it's sexist).
Martha is my least favourite companion, but her life was really turned around, and she actually had a career and other things. She joined unit, got herself different boyfriends, became a freelancer (yes maybe people didn't like that), but she did something exciting without the Doctor and wasn't always depending on a man.
It also depends on the adults around them. However, it's not a traumatic experience that should have halted her life. If it did, then it's due to her personality. I don't believe in blaming your childhood for your adult flaws or problems. Personally, I think Moffat got her introduction here wrong, but that's my opinion.
I don't want to get involved too heavily in the debate, but I thought I might touch on something you said, Lach. You might not believe it, but there is overwhelming psychological evidence to suggest that childhood has more than a little impact on your adult life. While it's not conclusive (and there are other factors, of course, as not everybody reacts the same way to the same stimulae), it's only not conclusive in the same way that evolution is only a theory - it is the best reason until something disproves it (not that I'm saying anything will disprove evolution).
Abandonment, whilst having vague recollections of things done by people who no longer exist - who knows what psychological mess-ups that might have caused (abandonment in itself causes serious repercussions later in life with people less able to make meaningful relationships with even the closest of friends - have that happen by a few people in your life, at an early age, and by those closest to you...). In my opinion, Moff underplayed that drastically, to keep the show family-friendly. Things like that could seriously rewire someone over time, and not in a healthy way.
I don't want to get involved too heavily in the debate, but I thought I might touch on something you said, Lach. You might not believe it, but there is overwhelming psychological evidence to suggest that childhood has more than a little impact on your adult life. While it's not conclusive (and there are other factors, of course, as not everybody reacts the same way to the same stimulae), it's only not conclusive in the same way that evolution is only a theory - it is the best reason until something disproves it (not that I'm saying anything will disprove evolution).
Abandonment, whilst having vague recollections of things done by people who no longer exist - who knows what psychological mess-ups that might have caused (abandonment in itself causes serious repercussions later in life with people less able to make meaningful relationships with even the closest of friends - have that happen by a few people in your life, at an early age, and by those closest to you...). In my opinion, Moff underplayed that drastically, to keep the show family-friendly. Things like that could seriously rewire someone over time, and not in a healthy way.
Believe it or not, I'm a chartered psychologist and I know about the detrimental effects of abondonment. However, Amy's experience was really nothing to write home about. People in general are too quick to blame any event in their childhood for their behaviour during adulthood instead of taking responsibility for their own action (I blame Freud for this:p). I know that strong traumatic events influence people, however, the way we deal with it later on is down to our personality (explains why two people that might have gone through similar types of childhood abuse, can deal with it in an entirely different way, even if they had the same subsequent care). I don't even doubt that the loss of her parents would have a profound effect on her (but she doesn't seem to remember that much). Losing the Doctor on the other hand, should really not be taken as a profound traumatic childhood event that shaped her.
This is all my opinion of course. I believe in free will rather than a deterministic approach to our life (which might explain where I'm coming from here).
Instead of Amy lets look at River her daughter and the doctors "wife". Amy might have had a few issues but Rivers are a lot worse. Brainwashed into being a psychopathic killer by Kavarian and the silence. No wonder she had a break down in LKH. Didn't Amy,Rory or anyoneelse ask where she came from or who her "parents" were ?. Then after the childhood from hell she spends years studying to become an archeologist just so she can find a "good man" not because she actully liked the subject or was interested in it for its own sake. Attacked at her graduation by her tormentor forced to commit a terrible "crime". Killing the man she loves. Marries him but has to spend most of her marriage in prison. Breaking out for occasional "dates" or universe saving with hubby.Her whole life revolved around the doctor right up untill she dies in the library. Even then her "reward" is to spend eternity trapped in a computor. After everything that happend and was done to her feel she was abandonded and neglected by both her husband and her parents. She deserves a better fate.
Been following this thrread, funny I've caused some quite long debates hehe, fun!
I do agree women are extremely sexualised but dont hink it's that much of a problem as there's much mlre equality now. Also, another thing extreme feminists seem to forget when they get on their high horse and go on about how women are portrayed is that men suffer the same stuff to. Men like women, are also told how they should, what they should look like to be attractive, that they've got to be all macho or muscles. Cant you see things are just as bad for men as they are women. This is what irritates me about modern feminists, they forget men are just as bad off
Yes because that's the main feminist issue, nothing about equal pay or the glass ceiling, you know the whole equality thing.
I suggest you get off your high horse and get a clue.
Sorry but, what are you talking about? What glass ceiling? And surely equality must mean equal pay? And besides, equality should be the main issue, men arent superior but neither are women, there should just be equality. I dont want any thing to do with anyone eho says diiferent, we're all equal and should be treated as such. I recognoze that women have been treated as inferior for most of history, but nowadays men can get as much of a raw deal as women do and be treated just as unfairly and that's what a few feminists tend to forget.
P.S. I dont want to get off my horse, I love him.
He's called Arthur
Sorry but, what are you talking about? What glass ceiling? And surely equality must mean equal pay? And besides, equality should be the main issue, men arent superior but neither are women, there should just be equality. I dont want any thing to do with anyone eho says diiferent, we're all equal and should be treated as such. I recognoze that women have been treated as inferior for most of history, but nowadays men can get as much of a raw deal as women do and be treated just as unfairly and that's what a few feminists tend to forget.
P.S. I dont want to get off my horse, I love him.
He's called Arthur
Anyway, Gslam has a point. This thread seems to reduce equality to physical attributes (yes men are sexualised as well in today's society; but the right to vote and wage equality are fare more important matters).
However, feminism was never about looks, and if you want to start a debate about feminism, you better read up on it (e.g., you really should have known what glass ceiling is if you are interested in these issues).
Anyway, Gslam has a point. This thread seems to reduce equality to physical attributes (yes men are sexualised as well in today's society; but the right to vote and wage equality are fare more important matters).
However, feminism was never about looks, and if you want to start a debate about feminism, you better read up on it (e.g., you really should have known what glass ceiling is if you are interested in these issues).
Except this thread was originally about whether or not female companions in dr who are as sexualised nowadays as they were in the 60's and 70's e.g. with Leela. Obviously I am concerned about how women and treated unfairly and I do think it's bad they still have unequal pay, but that's not what I was talking about in this thread, simply cos this sites about Dr Who & Torchwood, not poiltics and sociology (unless it's alien sociology!:)) That's why I'm going on about how men and women are seen and feminism in the context of how their seen rather than actual equality in terms of pay (which I dont think is so bad nowadays though obviously it should be totally equal, I'm NOT some big sexist idiot person).
Been following this thrread, funny I've caused some quite long debates hehe, fun!
I do agree women are extremely sexualised but dont hink it's that much of a problem as there's much mlre equality now. Also, another thing extreme feminists seem to forget when they get on their high horse and go on about how women are portrayed is that men suffer the same stuff to. Men like women, are also told how they should, what they should look like to be attractive, that they've got to be all macho or muscles. Cant you see things are just as bad for men as they are women. This is what irritates me about modern feminists, they forget men are just as bad off
Nonsense.
We still live in a world with institutionalised misogyny. Culture and media teach women to hate how they look and put down how other women look. Woman are sexualised and then berated if they choose to express their sexual side (look at the general opinion about a woman who has slept with many men vs a man who sleeps with many women...). The top of all industries, including the media, is dominated by white, straight, middle class males and, unsurprisingly, their gaze affects how everyone else is portrayed.
Men do have issues about society expectations but not to the same extent.
The problem with saying that a companion has to be 'sexy' is the fact that it enforces this idea in everyone who watches, including children. The notion that you can be a heroine but only if you conform to certain physical characteristics and notions. It's concerning. Modern feminism should be about choice and there isn't much shown here.
Men do have issues about society expectations but not to the same extent.
The problem with saying that a companion has to be 'sexy' is the fact that it enforces this idea in everyone who watches, including children. The notion that you can be a heroine but only if you conform to certain physical characteristics and notions. It's concerning. Modern feminism should be about choice and there isn't much shown here.
I'm sorry but I disagree. How many really properly successfull musicians or actors are obese? Men, just like women, have to fit a certain idea of attractiveness i.e. tall, strong, muscles, to be really successfull. There are exceptions to this rule and I wont deny that society is patriarchal with men being in most positions of power, however in terms of being sexualised etc which was what this thread was about, I'd say mean are nearly as bad off. After all, none of the male companions are exactly trolls. And how long has it been since we've had an elderly Doctor?
Except this thread was originally about whether or not female companions in dr who are as sexualised nowadays as they were in the 60's and 70's e.g. with Leela. Obviously I am concerned about how women and treated unfairly and I do think it's bad they still have unequal pay, but that's not what I was talking about in this thread, simply cos this sites about Dr Who & Torchwood, not poiltics and sociology (unless it's alien sociology!:)) That's why I'm going on about how men and women are seen and feminism in the context of how their seen rather than actual equality in terms of pay (which I dont think is so bad nowadays though obviously it should be totally equal, I'm NOT some big sexist idiot person).
That might have been the original intention of the thread, but if you use words like feminists and extreme feminists then you have to include other discussions on the feminist issues (particularly as you stated that feminists should come off their high horses, they are on their high horses, because there is no equality with regards to real issues). I think it's best to avoid words like feminism if the original intention of the thread is concerned with something else.
That might have been the original intention of the thread, but if you use words like feminists and extreme feminists then you have to include other discussions on the feminist issues (particularly as you stated that feminists should come off their high horses, they are on their high horses, because there is no equality with regards to real issues). I think it's best to avoid words like feminism if the original intention of the thread is concerned with something else.
I only mentioned feminists cos I was commenting on how their complaints with the classic series companions being screamy damsals in distress hadnt really been adressred i.e. are they that strong since their seen as sex smybols? I mentioned exterme feminists cos I think it is true men are in the same position.
I only mentioned feminists cos I was commenting on how their complaints with the classic series companions being screamy damsals in distress hadnt really been adressred i.e. are they that strong since their seen as sex smybols? I mentioned exterme feminists cos I think it is true men are in the same position.
I know why you mentioned it, I'm just explaining to you why people are responding to you in the way they do.
You keep saying men are as badly off, but there is actually no real evidence. For instance in Doctor Who, Rory is hardly an Adonis and his physical attributes are actually used to show that he is not that good looking (e.g. long nose). I can't say that he has been sexualised.
I don't think Matt was supposed to be a sex symbol either. It's just the female companions, who have to be pretty.
Generally, I would avoid using pretty established terms to describe something if you are not sure about the real issues involved.
I know, what if Clara turns out to be Emily Pankhurst? I hate mysogonism (did I spell that right) but as the Doctor is the star of the show, no character female or otherwise will get equal billing. The closest we came was Donna Noble, and to me the programme was all the better for it.
As for sexism, there is nothing wrong with appreciating beauty as long as an actress's other talents are appreciated as well. Karen has appeared to be a much better actor in series 6 (though I still hate every time she speaks in an interview) Kylie Minogue was pretty in the Christmas special a few years ago but acted really well too.
At the end of the day people can wacth the programme for the acting, or for Karen's legs, whatever floats their boat. But if you want a strong female character and a brilliant actress who is full of charisma to play her, look no further that Alex Kingston. THAT kind of performance is what is good about "Let's Kill Hitler"
Comments
That's what I said earlier. Thanks for your agreement Lach
No problems. I always liked Liz Shaw (I also liked all the other very intelligent companions, e.g. Barbara, Zoe, not all of them were screaming drama queens or just there for the sex factor - this is not a description of Amy by the way).
Amy is fine, but she is not revolutionary and she is actually an oldfashioned character. IMO not very interesting, very pretty, but that's it. I don't really care about her costume, but Doctor Qui was right, how interesting had it been if she had been a feisty police woman instead of a kissogram? (linking her to the first person ever seen in Doctor Who:D).
And yet, one of the chief criticisms of Amy is that she's not 'likeable', or people can't see why Rory would put up with her. It can't be both.
And you say that Amy is only defined by her pregnancy in Series 6, despite the fact that it was only covered in a single episode, with only foreshadowing at the beginning of the series.
Again, you can't have it both ways. It's impossible for the writers to win if you say that Amy is only defined by what's going on in her uterus, but that she's handled badly because they don't spend enough time going on about what's happening in her uterus.
Similarly, why are you focussed on Amy's motherhood being a problem, when you don't similarly focus on Rory only becoming a confident badass because he's a father? That's a little, shall I say, sexist?
The theme of Amy losing her faith and become more independent from the Doctor (rather than just 'feisty' - hate that word!) is an ongoing one. Why let her body parts overshadow what's really going on with her character?
Of course it can be both, or are you equating likeability with old-fashioned values? Do you think that all ideal women with old-fashioned values are lovely? They are not. You can get married, and live a traditional 1950's live and still be cold like a fish and therefore not likeable.
You might want to rewatch series 6 part one again. Amy's pregnacy is alluded to in the first two episodes (Amy telling the Doctor she is pregnant and feeling sick, also her interaction with Madame K throughout the whole first part of series 6), what about the rebel flesh and the almost people, and then A good man goes to war?
Let's kill Hitler was basically just about River and how Amy and Rory supposedly brought her up. River as Amy's daughter and how they made up lost time is very much part of series 6.
You can have it both way, because what we ended up with is half cooked. If you decide that the story line makes her loose her child, then follow through with it, or don't include such a story line that you cannot follow through (and add that ridiculous speech by Amy about being rescued by someone for stupid effect - last centurion speech and Amy needing to be rescued).
It's funny that you are accusing me of sexism, but that you don't have a problem with the actual thread title. Have you actually looked at the title of this thread. Last time I looked this thread was about the silly feminist and female companions. Please start a thread on male companions and how the silly mysoginistic men got it wrong and I start talking about male companions.
However, I will actually agree with you. That's just as unbelievable. Happy?
Because her body parts, and her looks are what have defined her according to the writers (kissogram, sexy assistant, the legs, being a model, and the traditional role of a woman). Amy should not have to become independent from the Doctor. That was a ridiculous storyline in itself. Children have imaginary friends, it's part of a healthy upbringing. They don't normally need to go to the psychiatrist if someone promised they would come back and they don't. Amy's traumatic experience with the Doctor as a child was ridiculous (however the loss of her parents would have been traumatic if she had properly rememberd it).
There was no need for her to get independent from him, and compared to Martha, she did not make the decision to leave him either.
Edit: You might be able to explain everything about Amy and her storyline and see sense in it, but not everyone will agree with you. Accusing people of sexism with no real evidence is definitely not the best way forward.
Seh has been through a lot I just hope she leaves happy with her family. Doctor would never forgive himself if anything happenedto them or they found out the truth about River and what happened to her in the library.
And that isn't Amy. She's almost obtusely bossy, and the better for it.
Yes, those are the episodes I was referring to. Amy mentions she thought she was pregnant, and then it's dropped. Madame K's little interludes don't tell us anything at all, and they certainly don't mean anything to Amy. It's not until the very last minute before A Good Man that Amy is revealed to be pregnant at all.
Yes, it's half cooked, and clumsily handled. But not sexist.
Why would I have a problem with the thread title? I can see a joke when I read it.
Really? Those are the things that you think define Amy? Is the Doctor defined by his love of bowties and hats? Is Rory defined by his nose, or being a macho Roman - they've mentioned both often enough?
Being sexy is not sexist. What's sexist is assuming that that's all there is to her, when that's clearly not the case.
It depends very much on whether they accept that the friend is imaginary. Most kids eventually do, and don't bite people who disagree.
I didn't accuse you of being sexist. I said that applying different standards to the writing of men and women would be in itself sexist. I realise it could have been read the other way, apologies.
But this isn't a reply to the original point. Amy's story is traditional (getting married, having children, not really pursuing a career - until the end with the modelling, but we don't have enough evidence of this). You then mentioned I could not have it both way, Amy having a traditional story and not being liked. However, not all women in the fifties were pushed around either, they were married, they stayed at home, they had the kids, but quite a few of them would have been bossy as well. To get back to my point though, Amy's background story is traditional (regardless of being bossy) and that surely does not mean that people can't dislike her.
Yes, she has not a big bump throughout the whole series, I agree. However, the premise of the whole first part of series 6 is her supposed pregnancy. It's important, she has to tell the Doctor and it was intriguing. I think most people would agree that part 1 of series 6 was more or less an intrigue about Amy, Madame K and the mystery of the pregnancy. I'm sure Moffat would agree that this was his intention.
Where did I state that it was sexist? I said Amy's story is written by an oldfashioned man about his ideal woman. I didn't state that it was sexist.
Thread title refers to women not to men, so why would you want me to discuss Rory? That was the point of my last post.
To a certain degree they probably are (there are enough mentionings of bowties etc.) Again, this is a thread that discusses the female companions and their sexiness, not the male companions or the Doctor. However, I actually don't think that Amy is just definied by these attributes, but I have not often heard Amy being described as witty, smart, clever, outstanding, but very often just by her physical attributes (legs etc.).
Why are you going on about being sexist? Are you actually answering to my post? I can well say that there is not much to Amy apart from her beauty IMO without thinking that this is sexist. I think she is badly written, I think she is written in a traditional style, focusing on a lot of traditional values. This is not my cup of tea, but might agree with other people.
It also depends on the adults around them. However, it's not a traumatic experience that should have halted her life. If it did, then it's due to her personality. I don't believe in blaming your childhood for your adult flaws or problems. Personally, I think Moffat got her introduction here wrong, but that's my opinion.
No problems.
I actually don't dislike Amy, but I don't think she is a role model for modern women. Very traditional (bossiness is not a modern phenomenon, my gran bossed my granddad around). IMO the writers concentrated too much on these values, Amy's looks and not enough on her positive attributes. The two series were concerned with her looming wedding (should she, should she not) and her pregnancy and relationship with River. She wasn't really independent, she stayed her whole life in Leadworth with Rory, getting engaged to Rory, then exploring the Universe with the Doctor, flirting with the Doctor, getting married, getting pregnant on her wedding night, then having an extended honeymoon with her husband, loosing the child, then searching for the child, finding the child, realising that she had brought up the child etc. The same goes for Rory (not very interesting either). The series ends with her sitting in her traditional garden waiting for her husband to come home (probably from work). Lots of women and men might find this exciting, to me it's a bit meh (and I don't think it's sexist).
Martha is my least favourite companion, but her life was really turned around, and she actually had a career and other things. She joined unit, got herself different boyfriends, became a freelancer (yes maybe people didn't like that), but she did something exciting without the Doctor and wasn't always depending on a man.
I don't want to get involved too heavily in the debate, but I thought I might touch on something you said, Lach. You might not believe it, but there is overwhelming psychological evidence to suggest that childhood has more than a little impact on your adult life. While it's not conclusive (and there are other factors, of course, as not everybody reacts the same way to the same stimulae), it's only not conclusive in the same way that evolution is only a theory - it is the best reason until something disproves it (not that I'm saying anything will disprove evolution).
Abandonment, whilst having vague recollections of things done by people who no longer exist - who knows what psychological mess-ups that might have caused (abandonment in itself causes serious repercussions later in life with people less able to make meaningful relationships with even the closest of friends - have that happen by a few people in your life, at an early age, and by those closest to you...). In my opinion, Moff underplayed that drastically, to keep the show family-friendly. Things like that could seriously rewire someone over time, and not in a healthy way.
Believe it or not, I'm a chartered psychologist and I know about the detrimental effects of abondonment. However, Amy's experience was really nothing to write home about. People in general are too quick to blame any event in their childhood for their behaviour during adulthood instead of taking responsibility for their own action (I blame Freud for this:p). I know that strong traumatic events influence people, however, the way we deal with it later on is down to our personality (explains why two people that might have gone through similar types of childhood abuse, can deal with it in an entirely different way, even if they had the same subsequent care). I don't even doubt that the loss of her parents would have a profound effect on her (but she doesn't seem to remember that much). Losing the Doctor on the other hand, should really not be taken as a profound traumatic childhood event that shaped her.
This is all my opinion of course. I believe in free will rather than a deterministic approach to our life (which might explain where I'm coming from here).
I do agree women are extremely sexualised but dont hink it's that much of a problem as there's much mlre equality now. Also, another thing extreme feminists seem to forget when they get on their high horse and go on about how women are portrayed is that men suffer the same stuff to. Men like women, are also told how they should, what they should look like to be attractive, that they've got to be all macho or muscles. Cant you see things are just as bad for men as they are women. This is what irritates me about modern feminists, they forget men are just as bad off
I suggest you get off your high horse and get a clue.
Sorry but, what are you talking about? What glass ceiling? And surely equality must mean equal pay? And besides, equality should be the main issue, men arent superior but neither are women, there should just be equality. I dont want any thing to do with anyone eho says diiferent, we're all equal and should be treated as such. I recognoze that women have been treated as inferior for most of history, but nowadays men can get as much of a raw deal as women do and be treated just as unfairly and that's what a few feminists tend to forget.
P.S. I dont want to get off my horse, I love him.
He's called Arthur
Why does nobody use their google button:p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling
Anyway, Gslam has a point. This thread seems to reduce equality to physical attributes (yes men are sexualised as well in today's society; but the right to vote and wage equality are fare more important matters).
However, feminism was never about looks, and if you want to start a debate about feminism, you better read up on it (e.g., you really should have known what glass ceiling is if you are interested in these issues).
Except this thread was originally about whether or not female companions in dr who are as sexualised nowadays as they were in the 60's and 70's e.g. with Leela. Obviously I am concerned about how women and treated unfairly and I do think it's bad they still have unequal pay, but that's not what I was talking about in this thread, simply cos this sites about Dr Who & Torchwood, not poiltics and sociology (unless it's alien sociology!:)) That's why I'm going on about how men and women are seen and feminism in the context of how their seen rather than actual equality in terms of pay (which I dont think is so bad nowadays though obviously it should be totally equal, I'm NOT some big sexist idiot person).
Nonsense.
We still live in a world with institutionalised misogyny. Culture and media teach women to hate how they look and put down how other women look. Woman are sexualised and then berated if they choose to express their sexual side (look at the general opinion about a woman who has slept with many men vs a man who sleeps with many women...). The top of all industries, including the media, is dominated by white, straight, middle class males and, unsurprisingly, their gaze affects how everyone else is portrayed.
Men do have issues about society expectations but not to the same extent.
The problem with saying that a companion has to be 'sexy' is the fact that it enforces this idea in everyone who watches, including children. The notion that you can be a heroine but only if you conform to certain physical characteristics and notions. It's concerning. Modern feminism should be about choice and there isn't much shown here.
I'm sorry but I disagree. How many really properly successfull musicians or actors are obese? Men, just like women, have to fit a certain idea of attractiveness i.e. tall, strong, muscles, to be really successfull. There are exceptions to this rule and I wont deny that society is patriarchal with men being in most positions of power, however in terms of being sexualised etc which was what this thread was about, I'd say mean are nearly as bad off. After all, none of the male companions are exactly trolls. And how long has it been since we've had an elderly Doctor?
That might have been the original intention of the thread, but if you use words like feminists and extreme feminists then you have to include other discussions on the feminist issues (particularly as you stated that feminists should come off their high horses, they are on their high horses, because there is no equality with regards to real issues). I think it's best to avoid words like feminism if the original intention of the thread is concerned with something else.
I only mentioned feminists cos I was commenting on how their complaints with the classic series companions being screamy damsals in distress hadnt really been adressred i.e. are they that strong since their seen as sex smybols? I mentioned exterme feminists cos I think it is true men are in the same position.
I know why you mentioned it, I'm just explaining to you why people are responding to you in the way they do.
You keep saying men are as badly off, but there is actually no real evidence. For instance in Doctor Who, Rory is hardly an Adonis and his physical attributes are actually used to show that he is not that good looking (e.g. long nose). I can't say that he has been sexualised.
I don't think Matt was supposed to be a sex symbol either. It's just the female companions, who have to be pretty.
Generally, I would avoid using pretty established terms to describe something if you are not sure about the real issues involved.
As for sexism, there is nothing wrong with appreciating beauty as long as an actress's other talents are appreciated as well. Karen has appeared to be a much better actor in series 6 (though I still hate every time she speaks in an interview) Kylie Minogue was pretty in the Christmas special a few years ago but acted really well too.
At the end of the day people can wacth the programme for the acting, or for Karen's legs, whatever floats their boat. But if you want a strong female character and a brilliant actress who is full of charisma to play her, look no further that Alex Kingston. THAT kind of performance is what is good about "Let's Kill Hitler"