I can see how some viewers could be annoyed though as the three main female characters in Eleven's era all revolve around him. They literally exist for him and are defined by that.
That's my entire issue with how River's arc went to be honest - I hated how her going all obsessive over him diminished her character and much preferred her when she was spending her time flirting with him to make him uncomfortable and doing her own thing! She was brilliant in the likes of Pandorica and I couldn't stand the character she became by the Wedding. They went from being near equals to her being portrayed as an almost desperate woman whose whole life revolved around him. I am rather glad in the end that she walked away after the Ponds went and declined his offer to stay with him. It was a selfish offer on his part - he made it because he needed someone there - and I saw it as her claiming some of her own life back.
Clara I think is the best of the bunch in that although she obviously plays a massive role in the Doctor's life, he's not impacted negatively on hers (yet!). As Jenna says, she doesn't need him and he had to be the one chasing her. The Doctor needs Clara though - she's saved him from the Great Intelligence, given him the nudge he needed to find a way to save Gallifrey and convinced the Time Lords to give up their quest to get back and save him instead. He owes her a lot and I think that's what equalises their relationship.
Really if anyone should be angry with the doctor it should have been Rory. Amy loved him as a best freind and River loved him as her husband. Rory liked him too but was smart enough and brave enough to occasionally question or even argue with him. Rory never wanted or needed all the space /time stuff. He did it because he loved Amy. He even said in AC all he wanted was to marry Amy and have a family in Ledworth. He did get his wish kind of. Amy stayed in New York wirh him and they did get another chance of a family by adopting Anthony. They still went through and had to give up a lot. Never seeing their family River and Brian or freinds in the present day again having to start over. Clara might one day lose something precious or have to make a hard choice too.
Really if anyone should be angry with the doctor it should have been Rory. Amy loved him as a best freind and River loved him as her husband. Rory liked him too but was smart enough and brave enough to occasionally question or even argue with him. Rory never wanted or needed all the space /time stuff. He did it because he loved Amy. He even said in AC all he wanted was to marry Amy and have a family in Ledworth. He did get his wish kind of. Amy stayed in New York wirh him and they did get another chance of a family by adopting Anthony. They still went through and had to give up a lot. Never seeing their family River and Brian or freinds in the present day again having to start over. Clara might one day lose something precious or have to make a hard choice too.
Clara I think is the best of the bunch in that although she obviously plays a massive role in the Doctor's life, he's not impacted negatively on hers (yet!). As Jenna says, she doesn't need him and he had to be the one chasing her. The Doctor needs Clara though - she's saved him from the Great Intelligence, given him the nudge he needed to find a way to save Gallifrey and convinced the Time Lords to give up their quest to get back and save him instead. He owes her a lot and I think that's what equalises their relationship.
Does Clara therefore have any choice in saving the Doctor? I thought she was 'born to save him'. There is a very strong emphasis on women who exist solely for the Doctor, whether it's emotional or literal, whereas men haven't had that same importance. Would River, Amy or Clara still have worked if they were male?
True, the show has historically been sexist; it's a product of each era, and those attitudes towards women still ran into the eighties. For all its flaws, the TVM isn't sexist. Grace is in no way defined by the Doctor and whilst she fancies him, she is not obsessed by him.
There was a scene cut from Angels Take Manhattan that was storyboarded but not shot. It was included in the DVD extras. A man knocks on Brian's door and hands him a letter. In it Rory explains what happened to him and Amy. The last line of the letter or maybe the PS explains that the man delivering the letter is their adopted son, Anthony.
Does Clara therefore have any choice in saving the Doctor? I thought she was 'born to save him'.
Tbh I always thought that line from Clara made no sense! Yes, of course she was sort of stuck in a loop (because if she hadn't saved him she never would've met him) but she had a choice - she was told what the consequences of her actions would be and she made the positive choice to do it.
It was a nice sound bite but frankly illogical.
Grace is in no way defined by the Doctor and whilst she fancies him, she is not obsessed by him.
I'd say the same about Clara and Amy tbh. They clearly both love the Doctor but he's not their everything. River, imo, was the weak link when he came to female characters in that particular arc.
I'd say the same about Clara and Amy tbh. They clearly both love the Doctor but he's not their everything. River, imo, was the weak link when he came to female characters in that particular arc.
But they have a 'special' relationship with the Doctor: "the girl who waited", "the impossible girl". Though they have other interests (well, Rory), they are defined by their relationship to the Doctor. In fact, it is celebrated. Obviously you could say that the Doctor is equally reliant on them but he doesn't get a catchy summary phrase. Could any of those roles have been male roles or do you think that it is inherently female and fetishistic? That is a genuine question. I don't know if any male characters have had 'special' relationships with the Doctor.
I didn't mind so much with River because she's the Doctor's partner so you'd expect her to be intimately connected with him. The concept of soulmates is not new and it's fine when it's just that one character- but three female soulmates starts to sound like a male fantasy. I don't think Moffat sits down at his computer thinking about how he can put women in their proper place, and every writer betrays their own desires in their writing. But there is quite a definite male gaze, which I find interesting but female fans perhaps find it harder to identify.
Tbh I always thought that line from Clara made no sense! Yes, of course she was sort of stuck in a loop (because if she hadn't saved him she never would've met him) but she had a choice - she was told what the consequences of her actions would be and she made the positive choice to do it.
It was a nice sound bite but frankly illogical.
I'd say the same about Clara and Amy tbh. They clearly both love the Doctor but he's not their everything. River, imo, was the weak link when he came to female characters in that particular arc.
River evolved though from this weak link were just not looking at it in the right order. She evolved in reverse order to how we viewed her. She was this silly woman gushingly in love near the end (or her beginning with Matt) because she fell in love with the man, she gave him all her love when she realised what he was and who he was. She was this gooey eyed mess around Matt. But eventually (or in the past as we saw it) she became the stronger woman. She teased him affectionately, she was the one in control not him. Until finally her heart broke when she finally meet a Doctor who just didn't know who she was, an empty doctor who felt nothing when he looked at her, almost like he looked through her (silence in the library). In hindsight now can we really appreciate how that must have felt for her character.
Its actually quite clever by Moffat, even if River did irritate me some times !
River evolved though from this weak link were just not looking at it in the right order. She evolved in reverse order to how we viewed her.
Problem is I really didn't like that woman and basically that's my lasting memory of her now! It's a massive pity (and a problem of the storyline) that they took this
But they have a 'special' relationship with the Doctor: "the girl who waited", "the impossible girl". Though they have other interests (well, Rory), they are defined by their relationship to the Doctor. In fact, it is celebrated. Obviously you could say that the Doctor is equally reliant on them but he doesn't get a catchy summary phrase.
I think that is one of Moffat's own tropes - he loves his little 'titles'. Rory the Roman or The Last Centurion was the same thing. The Doctor has several such names although the nature of his character (particularly as the constant lead) means they don't 'stick' as well.
Could any of those roles have been male roles or do you think that it is inherently female and fetishistic? That is a genuine question. I don't know if any male characters have had 'special' relationships with the Doctor.
I don't see it as particularly fetishistic, no. For me a strong female character is one with agency. Amy and Clara both had it AND showed significant development in their characters - they made the Doctor 'better' (particularly Clara) and he helped them grow. Fair enough. River is too thinly drawn for me and the least well written of Moffat's females.
Tbh I actually had the most issue with Rory. He was the ultimate Nice Guy trope and that is more problematic for me than anything Clara or Amy have ever done.
There was a scene cut from Angels Take Manhattan that was storyboarded but not shot. It was included in the DVD extras. A man knocks on Brian's door and hands him a letter. In it Rory explains what happened to him and Amy. The last line of the letter or maybe the PS explains that the man delivering the letter is their adopted son, Anthony.
But Amy chose to leave the Doctor. She chose Rory. She had a choice. She wasn't defined by the doctor and she was certainly more his equal than Rose or Martha. Yes 'the girl who waited' was a dominating theme but of course it would be. She didn't wait for 'a man'. She waited for a time travelling alien who crash landed in her garden. Put gender politics to one side and wouldn't this be the same whatever the gender of the characters? If a female alien had landed in my back garden when I was five you can be damn sure it wouldve impacted on me. Why view it as any kind of subservience or male gaze? You can apply that reading if you wish but the opposite argument is just as valid.
As I said before in the thread you could turn this criticism on RTDs companions. Can anyone explain what's empowering about having a centuries old timelord blow apart the life of a teenage girl, break up her relationship with her boyfriend and mother, cause her to vanish for a year devastating her mothers life in the process, force her to sacrifice her life in this reality then inspire her to strive to come back only to be basically told 'thanks but..no thanks. I don't actually want you. But hey! I'm so great that im sure you'll be happy with a poor copy of me so off you pop to your own reality'. And Rose just takes it.
I utterly refuse to believe that such a character arc is any more empowering or lacking in male gaze as Amy Ponds.
With Rose and Donna you could argue that not only were they defined by their relationship to the doctor but that there was also a big element of the doctor making them 'better'. Poor Rose and Donna. Just two hapless females with no direction or prospects and it took the doctor to make them who they became. And once they had served their purpose they became collateral damage as the doctor just moves on.
I don't see it as particularly fetishistic, no. For me a strong female character is one with agency. Amy and Clara both had it AND showed significant development in their characters - they made the Doctor 'better' (particularly Clara) and he helped them grow.
Whatever agency they have though, that 'special relationship' is always there as the fundamental part of their character. For one female character to have that bond, fine, but for three to have it strikes me as a little silly. I suppose you could say that it gives them an importance and that Moffat is trying to make them more than just pretty damsels in distress but it goes excessively the other way. It may be honorable intentions alongside wish fulfilment- like I said, I don't see it as being calculated- but it needs to be reigned in.
The three special relationships: girl who waited, girl who pops up throughout Doctor's timeline to save him and woman who is the love of his life but travels on a reverse timeline to him. I don't really expect the third one to be a male role, unless it was more of a very strong frienship. But could the other two be male? A woman waiting for the same man ever since she was a little girl is a standard female cliche/supposed romantic fantasy. Would it mean the same thing if it was a man who'd waited ever since he was a boy? And a man who is recurrently saved by a woman is a very appealing idea to some men. Would Moffat have written it as a male role?
For me, a strong female character is one who isn't defined by another person, even if they do do other things alongside that. That's why I think Grace works; she has absolutely no ties to the Doctor, or indeed anyone. Yes, she fancies him but it's not the burning love affair of the century. Though Rose obviously has the romance with the Doctor, initially their relationship is more casual and the bond grows naturally.
Tbh I actually had the most issue with Rory. He was the ultimate Nice Guy trope and that is more problematic for me than anything Clara or Amy have ever done.
Rory clearly isn't that interesting to Moffat. . I think the companions' boyfriends have always been a bit dull because the Doctor is a more exciting prospect than a life of domesticity. It's hard therefore to make the partner seem worth sticking with and seeing as the show relies on time travel being something appealing and different from reality, Moffat probably sides with the Doctor.
One could make the argument that Moffat's lack of interest in Rory is related to the male gaze. As a writer, you have control over your characters. You can write yourself the ideal mother, the ideal friend, the ideal man, the ideal woman; you can basically live out your dreams. A male writer can write himself the ideal woman, whether the character is plausible or not. Assuming that the male is heterosexual, he'd be less interested in writing about the ideal man if his purpose for writing is to live out his dreams. Therefore arguments that Rory is a flat character don't contradict the criticism of sexism.
Whatever agency they have though, that 'special relationship' is always there as the fundamental part of their character. For one female character to have that bond, fine, but for three to have it strikes me as a little silly. I suppose you could say that it gives them an importance and that Moffat is trying to make them more than just pretty damsels in distress but it goes excessively the other way. It may be honorable intentions alongside wish fulfilment- like I said, I don't see it as being calculated- but it needs to be reigned in.
The three special relationships: girl who waited, girl who pops up throughout Doctor's timeline to save him and woman who is the love of his life but travels on a reverse timeline to him. I don't really expect the third one to be a male role, unless it was more of a very strong frienship. But could the other two be male? A woman waiting for the same man ever since she was a little girl is a standard female cliche/supposed romantic fantasy. Would it mean the same thing if it was a man who'd waited ever since he was a boy? And a man who is recurrently saved by a woman is a very appealing idea to some men. Would Moffat have written it as a male role?
For me, a strong female character is one who isn't defined by another person, even if they do do other things alongside that. That's why I think Grace works; she has absolutely no ties to the Doctor, or indeed anyone. Yes, she fancies him but it's not the burning love affair of the century. Though Rose obviously has the romance with the Doctor, initially their relationship is more casual and the bond grows naturally.
Rory clearly isn't that interesting to Moffat. . I think the companions' boyfriends have always been a bit dull because the Doctor is a more exciting prospect than a life of domesticity. It's hard therefore to make the partner seem worth sticking with and seeing as the show relies on time travel being something appealing and different from reality, Moffat probably sides with the Doctor.
One could make the argument that Moffat's lack of interest in Rory is related to the male gaze. As a writer, you have control over your characters. You can write yourself the ideal mother, the ideal friend, the ideal man, the ideal woman; you can basically live out your dreams. A male writer can write himself the ideal woman, whether the character is plausible or not. Assuming that the male is heterosexual, he'd be less interested in writing about the ideal man if his purpose for writing is to live out his dreams. Therefore arguments that Rory is a flat character don't contradict the criticism of sexism.
Your comments about Rory make much more sense when applied to Mickey. He had far less development than Rory and more importantly Rose abandoned him. Amy chose Rory. Throughout their time in the Tardis it was suggested more and more that Rory was in fact a brave and honourable man who was in his own way the equal of the doctor. Hence that speech in A Good Man...which subverts the audience expectation that it MUST be the doctor shes talking about when of course its Rory. It was always him.
For me, a strong female character is one who isn't defined by another person, even if they do do other things alongside that.
Which is my biggest issue with Amy and River (although personally I think Amy is a more rounded character than people give her credit for) and I do see Clara as a definite improvement. She's more independent and - unlike River and Amy - made her choice rather than have him mess around with her life and just accepting it gladly. As it stands, Clara is more equal to him than even River was in terms of how much they have relied on each other. The nature of the show of course means we're going to see her in his world but so far I feel that her arc has ironed out some of the things I found problematic with Eleven's earlier stories.
Therefore arguments that Rory is a flat character don't contradict the criticism of sexism.
Actually it's nothing to do with Rory being flat and more with him being a cypher for The Nice Guy TM. He is that trope down to a tee. He's the 'she always goes for the horrible men but never notices me even though I really deserve her' guy. I don't like to see that because it comes with a massive sense of male entitlement - the girl should like him because he's nice. He deserves her because he's 'nice'. That's all kinds of problematic. No where was this worse displayed in the whole mess with Amy leaving him. Her pain at being unable to have children wasn't about her, it was all about him. It was the 'I love you more because I'm so nice and put upon' nonsense which she just blithely accepts. I think Rory is more harmful to Amy as a character than her relationship with the Doctor ever was and, tbh, I think Rory exhibits more of the problematic elements of male gaze than the title character does as well.
Its funny how you never hear an equivalent term for 'the male gaze' when it comes to female writers. Could it be *shock horror* that rather than something sinister or patrichal its actually just writers of a different gender writing from personal experience and their view point? Which is surely totally fine and natural. The whole use of this term male gaze is problematic.
How is Rorys reaction to his treatment by Amy at all evidence of this vague 'male gaze'? Its a human response. And its got a very real truth about it. Same with Mickey. Why shouldn't they be angry or frustrated to find that despite being kind and faithful and decent they then get sidelined and treated like crap by the one they love because suddenly some fancy man turns up that they cant begin to compete with? Its like criticising a female writer for tackling that age old trope about 'Hmmmm. Why is it when I'm funny and intelligent and kind do the men always seem to go for tits and arse and teeth? Cant they see the person underneath?'. Hoe many times have we seen that trotted out in TV and film? The reason being because it has a ring of truth about it.
But Amy chose to leave the Doctor. She chose Rory. She had a choice.
But wasn't that ultimately just choosing between two men
Yes 'the girl who waited' was a dominating theme but of course it would be. She didn't wait for 'a man'. She waited for a time travelling alien who crash landed in her garden. Put gender politics to one side and wouldn't this be the same whatever the gender of the characters? If a female alien had landed in my back garden when I was five you can be damn sure it wouldve impacted on me. Why view it as any kind of subservience or male gaze? You can apply that reading if you wish but the opposite argument is just as valid.
I get your point. The questions of sexism depend on how strongly you see the Doctor as being 'a man' rather than 'an alien'. But I suppose culturally it's seen as a male role; some people are quite adamant that it shouldn't be a female role. Whether Moffat views the role as being 'a male time traveller' or 'a time travelling alien', who knows? But if you subscribe to the idea that the Doctor must be played by a man, then gender is surely of some importance. The introduction of sexuality also pushes it more towards 'male time traveller', which is one of the reasons why people object to the Doctor having a sexuality. So your argument is valid if gender is unimportant to the show- and there is a debate.
As I said before in the thread you could turn this criticism on RTDs companions. Can anyone explain what's empowering about having a centuries old timelord blow apart the life of a teenage girl, break up her relationship with her boyfriend and mother, cause her to vanish for a year devastating her mothers life in the process, force her to sacrifice her life in this reality then inspire her to strive to come back only to be basically told 'thanks but..no thanks. I don't actually want you. But hey! I'm so great that im sure you'll be happy with a poor copy of me so off you pop to your own reality'. And Rose just takes it.
I utterly refuse to believe that such a character arc is any more empowering or lacking in male gaze as Amy Ponds.
I think all the talk of 'empowerment' is the problem. Women don't need some special thing to 'empower' them. There is the added complexity to the argument of people thinking that Rory isn't 'empowered' so maybe people do think that men need to be 'empowered' but the idea is most strongly linked with women. To suggest that someone needs to be 'empowered' implies that they have no power.
There's no attempt in the Rose arc to empower her at all, you're right, but that's how it should be. Characters should be people; no need to make them special or empowered. They can even be unlikeable and morally weak. Women can get completely screwed over by men- it happens. Of course that would also gain some complaints but as long as the character is well-written, it doesn't matter.
To be fair, there's a clear spin on how you present Rose's arc whereas some people could view Amy's arc as problematic from the basic premise of a girl waiting for a culturally male figure and needing to choose between him and another man. There may be other things around that but isn't that the central premise? I didn't particularly get the impression that she could choose to chuck the pair and go off and do her own thing. I haven't watched it since the broadcast so maybe this was a possibility but if it was just a case of choosing between two men, you can see how some people might view that as sexist.
Technically as a gay man, RTD doesn't have the 'male gaze'. The 'male gaze' is overtly sexual. There is such a thing as a 'female gaze', evident in Mills and Boon-type novels, so I don't think that it's a male problem. I think that the male gaze can add a certain tenderness and romantic quality in some cases so I don't mind an element of 'male gaze'. Indeed it's littered throughout Doctor Who in some crass ways so I don't think that the argument that Moffat suddenly brought all this sexism that wasn't there before is valid. It's a different type of male gaze.
You can acknowledge that something appears sexist or uses sexist tropes but argue that the writing and characterisation makes the whole question of gender irrelevant. But there's this silly idea that any discussion of gender must inherently be something political rather than a cultural debate about perception and the media.
Its funny how you never hear an equivalent term for 'the male gaze' when it comes to female writers. Could it be *shock horror* that rather than something sinister or patrichal its actually just writers of a different gender writing from personal experience and their view point? Which is surely totally fine and natural. The whole use of this term male gaze is problematic.
There's a natural touchiness because women have historically been oppressed. It's like racism; it's not only a problem when white people are abusive to black people. It is still racism whatever race is abusing the other race. But to argue that the two are exactly the same is to ignore the fact that black people have historically been oppressed by white people. I believe that a 'female gaze' does exist but it doesn't have the same resonances that a 'male gaze' does.
The 'male gaze' is as you say problematic, as your mileage may vary. To completely avoid any suggestion of the 'male gaze', the writer would have to avoid discussion of sexuality or any suggestion that the female characters might be sexy. That would be silly because as another poster said, what's wrong with women being sexy? It's when you get a recurrent type or dynamic that the question of the male gaze arises, as people start to wonder whether the writer isn't writing female characters as the type of woman that he thinks women should be. Even then, the male gaze is not necessarily the death knoll. Thomas Hardy used the 'male gaze' and it worked brilliantly because you knew throughout that it was a male gaze and Hardy saw why the male gaze might affect women.
But wasn't that ultimately just choosing between two men
I get your point. The questions of sexism depend on how strongly you see the Doctor as being 'a man' rather than 'an alien'. But I suppose culturally it's seen as a male role; some people are quite adamant that it shouldn't be a female role. Whether Moffat views the role as being 'a male time traveller' or 'a time travelling alien', who knows? But if you subscribe to the idea that the Doctor must be played by a man, then gender is surely of some importance. The introduction of sexuality also pushes it more towards 'male time traveller', which is one of the reasons why people object to the Doctor having a sexuality. So your argument is valid if gender is unimportant to the show- and there is a debate.
I think all the talk of 'empowerment' is the problem. Women don't need some special thing to 'empower' them. There is the added complexity to the argument of people thinking that Rory isn't 'empowered' so maybe people do think that men need to be 'empowered' but the idea is most strongly linked with women. To suggest that someone needs to be 'empowered' implies that they have no power.
There's no attempt in the Rose arc to empower her at all, you're right, but that's how it should be. Characters should be people; no need to make them special or empowered. They can even be unlikeable and morally weak. Women can get completely screwed over by men- it happens. Of course that would also gain some complaints but as long as the character is well-written, it doesn't matter.
To be fair, there's a clear spin on how you present Rose's arc whereas some people could view Amy's arc as problematic from the basic premise of a girl waiting for a culturally male figure and needing to choose between him and another man. There may be other things around that but isn't that the central premise? I didn't particularly get the impression that she could choose to chuck the pair and go off and do her own thing. I haven't watched it since the broadcast so maybe this was a possibility but if it was just a case of choosing between two men, you can see how some people might view that as sexist.
Technically as a gay man, RTD doesn't have the 'male gaze'. The 'male gaze' is overtly sexual. There is such a thing as a 'female gaze', evident in Mills and Boon-type novels, so I don't think that it's a male problem. I think that the male gaze can add a certain tenderness and romantic quality in some cases so I don't mind an element of 'male gaze'. Indeed it's littered throughout Doctor Who in some crass ways so I don't think that the argument that Moffat suddenly brought all this sexism that wasn't there before is valid. It's a different type of male gaze.
You can acknowledge that something appears sexist or uses sexist tropes but argue that the writing and characterisation makes the whole question of gender irrelevant. But there's this silly idea that any discussion of gender must inherently be something political rather than a cultural debate about perception and the media.
I agree with alot of what you say. With regards to Rose I don't necessarily subscribe to the views I posted. I was using it as an example that if you wanted to perceive it as such then you could.
I think there is a debate to be had not only about Doctor Who but genre fiction in general. My real point is that I don't think its fair to use it as a stick to bash Moffat as for me its present across the board. That's my problem with the debate. Its not a Moffat thing. Its just a thing.
And while you might consider the classic interpretation of the male gaze to be sexuality based I'm not so sure. I don't think a writer would be excluded from falling into lazy tropes or cliches in the way they present female characters just because they are a gay male. It will of course mean there is a difference in perspective but they could just as easily slip into cliche or stereotype. I think RTD has done. And I think many female writers are guilty of the same. And gay writers. Where for instance does one even start with a show like Sex and the City?
I think there is a debate to be had and always will be about gender and sexuality and race and class when it comes to drama and how its written.
I just find it baffling that Moffat seems to have become the poster boy for sexist writing among some sections of fandom.
There's a natural touchiness because women have historically been oppressed. It's like racism; it's not only a problem when white people are abusive to black people. It is still racism whatever race is abusing the other race. But to argue that the two are exactly the same is to ignore the fact that black people have historically been oppressed by white people. I believe that a 'female gaze' does exist but it doesn't have the same resonances that a 'male gaze' does.
The 'male gaze' is as you say problematic, as your mileage may vary. To completely avoid any suggestion of the 'male gaze', the writer would have to avoid discussion of sexuality or any suggestion that the female characters might be sexy. That would be silly because as another poster said, what's wrong with women being sexy? It's when you get a recurrent type or dynamic that the question of the male gaze arises, as people start to wonder whether the writer isn't writing female characters as the type of woman that he thinks women should be. Even then, the male gaze is not necessarily the death knoll. Thomas Hardy used the 'male gaze' and it worked brilliantly because you knew throughout that it was a male gaze and Hardy saw why the male gaze might affect women.
With regards to your point about the strength of the male gaze vs a female gaze this is of course true. Because drama and history has classically been told from a male perspective. So it is more problematic. But hopefully if we are moving towards a more equal playing field then its right to pose such questions.
My issue with alot of the criticism of Moffat is that it falls into hyperbole and sillyness. It seems to have an agenda of its own hence my assertion that many criticisms of Moffat are equally true of RTD but then hes a gay male so how does this fit?
i suppose while I find the debate interesting I tune out when it gets to the point where Moffat is portrayed as some evil genius seeking to belittle women and sneak sexist plots into his show. This is nonsense. As is all the stuff about Eleven being some creepy child grooming, sexist monster who assaults other characters etc. Its ridiculous and does a disservice to the real and serious debate to be had.
Don't get me wrong. We all love to analyse and pick these things apart. I've done film studies and gender studies and love to examine all that stuff. But sometimes I think some people are either looking too deeply into things that aren't there or twisting the evidence to fit their own anti Moffat agenda.
How is Rorys reaction to his treatment by Amy at all evidence of this vague 'male gaze'? Its a human response. And its got a very real truth about it.
It isn't evidence of the male gaze. The male gaze is sexual; the writer writes female characters as his sexual fantasies. Obviously with TV and film, there are other people involved in the male gaze. The male gaze is about perception and presentation rather than plot points.
I don't think a writer would be excluded from falling into lazy tropes or cliches in the way they present female characters just because they are a gay male. It will of course mean there is a difference in perspective but they could just as easily slip into cliche or stereotype. I think RTD has done. And I think many female writers are guilty of the same. And gay writers. Where for instance does one even start with a show like Sex and the City?
I think there is a debate to be had and always will be about gender and sexuality and race and class when it comes to drama and how its written.
I just find it baffling that Moffat seems to have become the poster boy for sexist writing among some sections of fandom.
Gay male writers wouldn't at all be excluded from lazy tropes or cliches but it would be a question of bad or lazy writing rather than the 'male gaze'. The 'male gaze' is that element of sexual fantasy that outweighs the writer's critical judgement. The idea of being able to write their perfect woman and their ideas of what a woman should be outweighs the desire to create a complex flawed character.
I don't think it's baffling that people have raised the issue of sexism in Moffat's writing but I do find it baffling that it has become some sort of political thing.
Comments
That's my entire issue with how River's arc went to be honest - I hated how her going all obsessive over him diminished her character and much preferred her when she was spending her time flirting with him to make him uncomfortable and doing her own thing! She was brilliant in the likes of Pandorica and I couldn't stand the character she became by the Wedding. They went from being near equals to her being portrayed as an almost desperate woman whose whole life revolved around him. I am rather glad in the end that she walked away after the Ponds went and declined his offer to stay with him. It was a selfish offer on his part - he made it because he needed someone there - and I saw it as her claiming some of her own life back.
Clara I think is the best of the bunch in that although she obviously plays a massive role in the Doctor's life, he's not impacted negatively on hers (yet!). As Jenna says, she doesn't need him and he had to be the one chasing her. The Doctor needs Clara though - she's saved him from the Great Intelligence, given him the nudge he needed to find a way to save Gallifrey and convinced the Time Lords to give up their quest to get back and save him instead. He owes her a lot and I think that's what equalises their relationship.
This.
BTW - Who is Anthony?
Does Clara therefore have any choice in saving the Doctor? I thought she was 'born to save him'. There is a very strong emphasis on women who exist solely for the Doctor, whether it's emotional or literal, whereas men haven't had that same importance. Would River, Amy or Clara still have worked if they were male?
True, the show has historically been sexist; it's a product of each era, and those attitudes towards women still ran into the eighties. For all its flaws, the TVM isn't sexist. Grace is in no way defined by the Doctor and whilst she fancies him, she is not obsessed by him.
There was a scene cut from Angels Take Manhattan that was storyboarded but not shot. It was included in the DVD extras. A man knocks on Brian's door and hands him a letter. In it Rory explains what happened to him and Amy. The last line of the letter or maybe the PS explains that the man delivering the letter is their adopted son, Anthony.
Tbh I always thought that line from Clara made no sense! Yes, of course she was sort of stuck in a loop (because if she hadn't saved him she never would've met him) but she had a choice - she was told what the consequences of her actions would be and she made the positive choice to do it.
It was a nice sound bite but frankly illogical.
I'd say the same about Clara and Amy tbh. They clearly both love the Doctor but he's not their everything. River, imo, was the weak link when he came to female characters in that particular arc.
But they have a 'special' relationship with the Doctor: "the girl who waited", "the impossible girl". Though they have other interests (well, Rory), they are defined by their relationship to the Doctor. In fact, it is celebrated. Obviously you could say that the Doctor is equally reliant on them but he doesn't get a catchy summary phrase. Could any of those roles have been male roles or do you think that it is inherently female and fetishistic? That is a genuine question. I don't know if any male characters have had 'special' relationships with the Doctor.
I didn't mind so much with River because she's the Doctor's partner so you'd expect her to be intimately connected with him. The concept of soulmates is not new and it's fine when it's just that one character- but three female soulmates starts to sound like a male fantasy. I don't think Moffat sits down at his computer thinking about how he can put women in their proper place, and every writer betrays their own desires in their writing. But there is quite a definite male gaze, which I find interesting but female fans perhaps find it harder to identify.
River evolved though from this weak link were just not looking at it in the right order. She evolved in reverse order to how we viewed her. She was this silly woman gushingly in love near the end (or her beginning with Matt) because she fell in love with the man, she gave him all her love when she realised what he was and who he was. She was this gooey eyed mess around Matt. But eventually (or in the past as we saw it) she became the stronger woman. She teased him affectionately, she was the one in control not him. Until finally her heart broke when she finally meet a Doctor who just didn't know who she was, an empty doctor who felt nothing when he looked at her, almost like he looked through her (silence in the library). In hindsight now can we really appreciate how that must have felt for her character.
Its actually quite clever by Moffat, even if River did irritate me some times !
Problem is I really didn't like that woman and basically that's my lasting memory of her now! It's a massive pity (and a problem of the storyline) that they took this
I think that is one of Moffat's own tropes - he loves his little 'titles'. Rory the Roman or The Last Centurion was the same thing. The Doctor has several such names although the nature of his character (particularly as the constant lead) means they don't 'stick' as well.
I don't see it as particularly fetishistic, no. For me a strong female character is one with agency. Amy and Clara both had it AND showed significant development in their characters - they made the Doctor 'better' (particularly Clara) and he helped them grow. Fair enough. River is too thinly drawn for me and the least well written of Moffat's females.
Tbh I actually had the most issue with Rory. He was the ultimate Nice Guy trope and that is more problematic for me than anything Clara or Amy have ever done.
http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/is-steven-moffat-a-feminist-writer-61206.htm
Is this scene on youtube?
As I said before in the thread you could turn this criticism on RTDs companions. Can anyone explain what's empowering about having a centuries old timelord blow apart the life of a teenage girl, break up her relationship with her boyfriend and mother, cause her to vanish for a year devastating her mothers life in the process, force her to sacrifice her life in this reality then inspire her to strive to come back only to be basically told 'thanks but..no thanks. I don't actually want you. But hey! I'm so great that im sure you'll be happy with a poor copy of me so off you pop to your own reality'. And Rose just takes it.
I utterly refuse to believe that such a character arc is any more empowering or lacking in male gaze as Amy Ponds.
With Rose and Donna you could argue that not only were they defined by their relationship to the doctor but that there was also a big element of the doctor making them 'better'. Poor Rose and Donna. Just two hapless females with no direction or prospects and it took the doctor to make them who they became. And once they had served their purpose they became collateral damage as the doctor just moves on.
Whatever agency they have though, that 'special relationship' is always there as the fundamental part of their character. For one female character to have that bond, fine, but for three to have it strikes me as a little silly. I suppose you could say that it gives them an importance and that Moffat is trying to make them more than just pretty damsels in distress but it goes excessively the other way. It may be honorable intentions alongside wish fulfilment- like I said, I don't see it as being calculated- but it needs to be reigned in.
The three special relationships: girl who waited, girl who pops up throughout Doctor's timeline to save him and woman who is the love of his life but travels on a reverse timeline to him. I don't really expect the third one to be a male role, unless it was more of a very strong frienship. But could the other two be male? A woman waiting for the same man ever since she was a little girl is a standard female cliche/supposed romantic fantasy. Would it mean the same thing if it was a man who'd waited ever since he was a boy? And a man who is recurrently saved by a woman is a very appealing idea to some men. Would Moffat have written it as a male role?
For me, a strong female character is one who isn't defined by another person, even if they do do other things alongside that. That's why I think Grace works; she has absolutely no ties to the Doctor, or indeed anyone. Yes, she fancies him but it's not the burning love affair of the century. Though Rose obviously has the romance with the Doctor, initially their relationship is more casual and the bond grows naturally.
Rory clearly isn't that interesting to Moffat. . I think the companions' boyfriends have always been a bit dull because the Doctor is a more exciting prospect than a life of domesticity. It's hard therefore to make the partner seem worth sticking with and seeing as the show relies on time travel being something appealing and different from reality, Moffat probably sides with the Doctor.
One could make the argument that Moffat's lack of interest in Rory is related to the male gaze. As a writer, you have control over your characters. You can write yourself the ideal mother, the ideal friend, the ideal man, the ideal woman; you can basically live out your dreams. A male writer can write himself the ideal woman, whether the character is plausible or not. Assuming that the male is heterosexual, he'd be less interested in writing about the ideal man if his purpose for writing is to live out his dreams. Therefore arguments that Rory is a flat character don't contradict the criticism of sexism.
Your comments about Rory make much more sense when applied to Mickey. He had far less development than Rory and more importantly Rose abandoned him. Amy chose Rory. Throughout their time in the Tardis it was suggested more and more that Rory was in fact a brave and honourable man who was in his own way the equal of the doctor. Hence that speech in A Good Man...which subverts the audience expectation that it MUST be the doctor shes talking about when of course its Rory. It was always him.
Which is my biggest issue with Amy and River (although personally I think Amy is a more rounded character than people give her credit for) and I do see Clara as a definite improvement. She's more independent and - unlike River and Amy - made her choice rather than have him mess around with her life and just accepting it gladly. As it stands, Clara is more equal to him than even River was in terms of how much they have relied on each other. The nature of the show of course means we're going to see her in his world but so far I feel that her arc has ironed out some of the things I found problematic with Eleven's earlier stories.
Actually it's nothing to do with Rory being flat and more with him being a cypher for The Nice Guy TM. He is that trope down to a tee. He's the 'she always goes for the horrible men but never notices me even though I really deserve her' guy. I don't like to see that because it comes with a massive sense of male entitlement - the girl should like him because he's nice. He deserves her because he's 'nice'. That's all kinds of problematic. No where was this worse displayed in the whole mess with Amy leaving him. Her pain at being unable to have children wasn't about her, it was all about him. It was the 'I love you more because I'm so nice and put upon' nonsense which she just blithely accepts. I think Rory is more harmful to Amy as a character than her relationship with the Doctor ever was and, tbh, I think Rory exhibits more of the problematic elements of male gaze than the title character does as well.
Sorry. Silly mood. Not constructive. Shall leave the thread forthwith.
But wasn't that ultimately just choosing between two men
I get your point. The questions of sexism depend on how strongly you see the Doctor as being 'a man' rather than 'an alien'. But I suppose culturally it's seen as a male role; some people are quite adamant that it shouldn't be a female role. Whether Moffat views the role as being 'a male time traveller' or 'a time travelling alien', who knows? But if you subscribe to the idea that the Doctor must be played by a man, then gender is surely of some importance. The introduction of sexuality also pushes it more towards 'male time traveller', which is one of the reasons why people object to the Doctor having a sexuality. So your argument is valid if gender is unimportant to the show- and there is a debate.
I think all the talk of 'empowerment' is the problem. Women don't need some special thing to 'empower' them. There is the added complexity to the argument of people thinking that Rory isn't 'empowered' so maybe people do think that men need to be 'empowered' but the idea is most strongly linked with women. To suggest that someone needs to be 'empowered' implies that they have no power.
There's no attempt in the Rose arc to empower her at all, you're right, but that's how it should be. Characters should be people; no need to make them special or empowered. They can even be unlikeable and morally weak. Women can get completely screwed over by men- it happens. Of course that would also gain some complaints but as long as the character is well-written, it doesn't matter.
To be fair, there's a clear spin on how you present Rose's arc whereas some people could view Amy's arc as problematic from the basic premise of a girl waiting for a culturally male figure and needing to choose between him and another man. There may be other things around that but isn't that the central premise? I didn't particularly get the impression that she could choose to chuck the pair and go off and do her own thing. I haven't watched it since the broadcast so maybe this was a possibility but if it was just a case of choosing between two men, you can see how some people might view that as sexist.
Technically as a gay man, RTD doesn't have the 'male gaze'. The 'male gaze' is overtly sexual. There is such a thing as a 'female gaze', evident in Mills and Boon-type novels, so I don't think that it's a male problem. I think that the male gaze can add a certain tenderness and romantic quality in some cases so I don't mind an element of 'male gaze'. Indeed it's littered throughout Doctor Who in some crass ways so I don't think that the argument that Moffat suddenly brought all this sexism that wasn't there before is valid. It's a different type of male gaze.
You can acknowledge that something appears sexist or uses sexist tropes but argue that the writing and characterisation makes the whole question of gender irrelevant. But there's this silly idea that any discussion of gender must inherently be something political rather than a cultural debate about perception and the media.
There's a natural touchiness because women have historically been oppressed. It's like racism; it's not only a problem when white people are abusive to black people. It is still racism whatever race is abusing the other race. But to argue that the two are exactly the same is to ignore the fact that black people have historically been oppressed by white people. I believe that a 'female gaze' does exist but it doesn't have the same resonances that a 'male gaze' does.
The 'male gaze' is as you say problematic, as your mileage may vary. To completely avoid any suggestion of the 'male gaze', the writer would have to avoid discussion of sexuality or any suggestion that the female characters might be sexy. That would be silly because as another poster said, what's wrong with women being sexy? It's when you get a recurrent type or dynamic that the question of the male gaze arises, as people start to wonder whether the writer isn't writing female characters as the type of woman that he thinks women should be. Even then, the male gaze is not necessarily the death knoll. Thomas Hardy used the 'male gaze' and it worked brilliantly because you knew throughout that it was a male gaze and Hardy saw why the male gaze might affect women.
I agree with alot of what you say. With regards to Rose I don't necessarily subscribe to the views I posted. I was using it as an example that if you wanted to perceive it as such then you could.
I think there is a debate to be had not only about Doctor Who but genre fiction in general. My real point is that I don't think its fair to use it as a stick to bash Moffat as for me its present across the board. That's my problem with the debate. Its not a Moffat thing. Its just a thing.
And while you might consider the classic interpretation of the male gaze to be sexuality based I'm not so sure. I don't think a writer would be excluded from falling into lazy tropes or cliches in the way they present female characters just because they are a gay male. It will of course mean there is a difference in perspective but they could just as easily slip into cliche or stereotype. I think RTD has done. And I think many female writers are guilty of the same. And gay writers. Where for instance does one even start with a show like Sex and the City?
I think there is a debate to be had and always will be about gender and sexuality and race and class when it comes to drama and how its written.
I just find it baffling that Moffat seems to have become the poster boy for sexist writing among some sections of fandom.
With regards to your point about the strength of the male gaze vs a female gaze this is of course true. Because drama and history has classically been told from a male perspective. So it is more problematic. But hopefully if we are moving towards a more equal playing field then its right to pose such questions.
My issue with alot of the criticism of Moffat is that it falls into hyperbole and sillyness. It seems to have an agenda of its own hence my assertion that many criticisms of Moffat are equally true of RTD but then hes a gay male so how does this fit?
i suppose while I find the debate interesting I tune out when it gets to the point where Moffat is portrayed as some evil genius seeking to belittle women and sneak sexist plots into his show. This is nonsense. As is all the stuff about Eleven being some creepy child grooming, sexist monster who assaults other characters etc. Its ridiculous and does a disservice to the real and serious debate to be had.
Don't get me wrong. We all love to analyse and pick these things apart. I've done film studies and gender studies and love to examine all that stuff. But sometimes I think some people are either looking too deeply into things that aren't there or twisting the evidence to fit their own anti Moffat agenda.
It isn't evidence of the male gaze. The male gaze is sexual; the writer writes female characters as his sexual fantasies. Obviously with TV and film, there are other people involved in the male gaze. The male gaze is about perception and presentation rather than plot points.
Gay male writers wouldn't at all be excluded from lazy tropes or cliches but it would be a question of bad or lazy writing rather than the 'male gaze'. The 'male gaze' is that element of sexual fantasy that outweighs the writer's critical judgement. The idea of being able to write their perfect woman and their ideas of what a woman should be outweighs the desire to create a complex flawed character.
I don't think it's baffling that people have raised the issue of sexism in Moffat's writing but I do find it baffling that it has become some sort of political thing.