I agree about those themes and ideas not having been explored before Johnny, for me it is what makes those early Moffat episodes great, and I mean GREAT, they sat perfectly within the RTD era because they were different yet complimented that era perfectly. But now for this viewer it's been explored to death, especially over the last 3 series as either a main arc or within individual episodes, nothing new is being added to it, it no longer wows like it used, in fact to it bores me to tears now. I would be happy if I never heard the words Timey Wimey ever again, I would be happy if I never saw another Timey Wimey episode again. It's been done, far better in Girl in the Fireplace, far better in Blink. There is only so many times something can be recycled, hence the reason why I agree with a lot in the blog that was linked.

Much like the end of the RTD era, the joins were beginning to show, the tricks up the sleeve so to speak,but for this viewer Moffat's joins and tricks had been done before his own turn as showrunner,

Time for a back to basics.

But if there's one thing about the basics, it's that they've been done to death.

But isn't it presented as something fetishistic- they are 'feisty' and 'sexy' rather than subtantially strong, thus removing any potential threat they might pose and confining them to a fantasy. The 'strong female character' is an irritating trope that I've seen in many programmes.

Well not really, there is far more scope in Doctor Who with a blank canvas ..A -B. so to speak than is left with using Timey Wimey as a hook, IMO. What new fresh ideas can be added to timey wimey, it's still exactly the same as it was in Girl in the Fireplace. The format of timey wimey to tell a story has become stale! it's more a gimmick now rather than the intriguing thing as it once was. There is only so much that can be done with it compared to a blank canvas.

Personally I'm bored with it and have been for a long time.

I agree, particularly with the introduction of a new Doctor. You want it relatively uncluttered so you can create new lore and new characters.

They are what they are. Jenna and Karen are sexy, are we going to discriminate against their casting because of that?

The word feisty means spirited, energetic, courageous and self-reliant. I don't see any reason why a woman would feel these are negative qualities or why they would "remove any potential threat"

However, the word feisty, of course, has never been used on screen so really we should just judge from their actions which, as far as I can tell, is substantially strong and a substantial threat, particularly in Clara's case, to any of the Doctor's foes (she saves the day more often than the Doctor does!)

Really, any companion of the Doctor needs to be strong. You can't face life-threatening situations on a continuous basis without being strong.

They've all been capable of taking charge and doing what has to be done when needed. Amy was more rebellious and less likely to respect the Doctor's instructions than Clara but neither of those qualities indicates a lack of strength.

Of course they're a fantasy construction. The way I see it, anyone who wants to give up their everyday lives and travel around with an alien combatting alien threats while putting their lives in danger on a daily basis is not a normal person!

Their casting isn't necessarily anything to do with Moffat; for all I know, they might have been written as perfectly plain looking. But of course if they were cast on the basis of their sexiness, that would be a certain double-standard- certainly with Rory! And it could be coincidental that the actresses were good-looking. But even River is cast for looks, as an attractive older woman. I don't remember this being much of a feature of the RTD era, which is maybe why people have been raising the 'male gaze' question.

Anyway, as a professed ignorant, I'm just discussing the potential arguments. There's a difference between knowing the arguments but believing they're falsely applied and not even seeing that the arguments even exist.


'Feisty' in a way that overtly appeals to men. These characters (I'm talking about the trope- you can debate whether the Moffat characters belong or not) usually have their feistiness acknowledged by a male character: "Oooh, feisty!", "I like a woman who knows her own mind". The implication is that this feistiness is rare in a woman and provides a pleasing alternative to the sappy women more frequently encountered. It also subtly undermines the female character, by trivialising her strength as something amusing or sexy. They become a novelty. In contrast, if a man displays these things (men never get called feisty, do they?) it isn't seen as amusing but as strength of character.

In S and M, the vast majority of the time it is a female dominatrix and a submissive male. This is because it is a reversal of the perceived gender balance. By treating the situation of a woman having power over a man as something sexual, the man is able to write it off as a fantasy.



It is not strength that feminists object to; it is how the female's strength is presented as perceived by others. Of course, someone could reasonably be surprised at many of the strong things the characters do, whether that character is male or female, so it would be up to individual viewers' interpretation as to whether it is sexist or not.


There's many women who'd like to be shacked up with Matt Smith travelling around in space I'm sure. Not to my taste though.

Fantasy as in the suggestion that "Women like this can never really exist/don't exist". Of course some feminists view every female character as this.

Agree with this - I find writing of female characters as "sassy" and "kick-ass" but with no emotional depth annoying. Before someone says it, yes, so were the screaming-but-pretty-drip assistants of yesteryear - but both versions are still stereotypes and it's still mainly about sex appeal. There's nothing wrong with sexy but it's not the ONLY value of being female and it kind of is in Moffland. Oh - unless you're a mother, of course. Heh - classic.

So I can fully understand why he gets picked up on it - characterisation is not his writing strong point in general. (And no, I wouldn't have wanted to be Amy Pond when I was a little girl - I don't think "being a model" is a particularly empowering aspiration, really)

Mind you, "smug" is probably the most salient feature of Moff characters, and have thought this since the days of Coupling, so it's def not just Who. Notable exception, though was Rory, who I loved. And Amy was so horrible to him

All good points, well argued

To be fair, I think it's just the nature of the show. There isn't time to get into too much emotional depth of character with the kind of pace they have today. Plus it's not what the kids are into so you could annoy a fair amount of the audience if you took too much time out on that stuff.

I would prefer a slower pace myself to leave time for character development but, even in the old days, when the pace was much slower I wouldn't call many of the companions particularly fleshed out. Feisty/Sassy was pretty much standard for quite a few companions: including Zoe, Joe, Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, Tegan, Peri, Mel, Ace...

I think it's pretty much a prerequisite for the TARDIS!

Still I much prefer Sassy with no emotional depth to Drippy with no emotional depth

As far as the insinuation that it was any different in the RTD era I don't really see it.
For some bizarre reason it seems to have become a 'thing' among some sections of fandom that Moffat is sexist. But I think its more a case of 'I don't like Moffat. I think he's sexist. So lets seek out sexism of even the most tenuous and debateable kind because it fits our view point'.

if you were that way inclined you could easily find such things in the RTD era. If you're determined and bloody minded enough. Rose, despite her slightly shabby shop girl chav cliche, was just as sexualized as Amy Pond. If anything more so. Big doe eyes and decent pout. Martha spent far too much of her only season behaving like a jealous rebound whose obvious intelligence and independence (she was a doctor in her own right for gods sake!) was sacrificed so she could get all angsty because this wonderful superhero Doctor just wouldn't notice her. And is everyone forgetting Lady Christina (a talking leather catsuit) and Cassandra (a fairly grotesque representation of narcissistic femininity)? The anti Moffat brigade would have torn him to pieces if he had written either of those characters.

Shall we talk about RTDs fondness for the screeching, oppressive Matriach figure which was embodied in Jackie Tyler and Sylvia? Not exactly well rounded. Pure soap opera.

What about Marthas potential mother in law? Not even a character. Just an excuse to smirk and condemn a barely sketched comic version of a 'bimbo'.

And what of his own admission that he cast Tovey because he lusted after him? Can you imagine the meltdown on Tumblr if Moffat wrote an article saying he cast Jenna because he wanted to sleep with her? It would be biblical.

For the record I don't have a problem with any of the above. I think both RTD and Moffat generally write brilliant characters. Not always. But neither had any agenda beyond making the best show they could. My point is that if you want to look for an agenda you can 'find' one however spurious if you pick things apart enough. Its all nonsense.

So fans who subscribe to this 'Moffat is a sexist beast' tear him apart for Lara Pulvers use of her sexuality and 'feminine wiles' in Sherlock while at the same time celebrating Molly and Mary for being great female role models and characters. Moffat wrote all those things!
Its noticeable how many brilliant and strong female actors Moffat works with. Louise Brearley, Amanda Abbington, Neve Mcintosh, Alex Kingston, Karen Gillan. They all seem to have no problem working with him and portraying characters written by him.

Quite why some whiny people on Twitter and Tumblr seem intent on pushing this myth all the time is frankly inexplicable.

I honestly didn't notice they were sexy (!)

Oh and its also noticeable that those that accuse Moffat of sexism often have no problem indulging their own sexual fantasies about Sherlock and Watson having a relationship in the guise of JohnLock. So they write and draw gay porn about it. Which I guess is an intelligent and liberating way of expressing appreciation for the show and the actors and not objectifying anyone. Yep. That's all cool. Thumbs up. But woe betide any man who fancies a female character on Moffats shows. That's NOT ALLOWED.

Deary me. That same blogger has also accused Marvel of being racist because they only cast one 'person of colour' in the new Fantastic Four movie. Despite the fact they cast a black American actor in one of the roles (a role that has been Caucasian for decades) its still not good enough. Oh no. I mean really? I know its probably well intentioned but its so laughably misguided. Its patronising nonsense.

Could coupling be considered sexist? ?

We need a superhero who's power is to be every race, gender, faith etc anytime and all the time!

as in the sitcom? I've heard it described as such yes. Is it? No of course not.

well quite. Because as soon as any character is defined as anything then some people will consider that a slur against what they aren't. Its just. I don't even know where to start.

I don't believe anyone on this thread said Coupling was sexist. i did, however, say it had very smug characters...Which, in my opinion, it does.

I don't believe I said anyone on this thread said Coupling was sexist. And yes it was smug. Insufferably so.

I don't find Moffat writing sexist. I just find it awful most of the time.
Plus I don't see why Karen Gillan should be defending him anyway. Can't he speak for himself.

Besides, her time in Doctor Who wasn't the best. In one poll she was voted the worst companion. Many others ripped her apart for her terrible acting skills. Then there was the continuous bulging eye moments.
Also there were the rumours of her being let go, because viewers didn't like Amy.
Whether there is any truth in them is anyone's guess, but she certainly wasn't as popular as other companions.
In fact, I don't think I have seen such a rift between those that like her and those that didn't since the days of Adric.

I was never aware of any such rift, nor any such rumors. Plus, she wasn't a bad actor at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always found that fans in general liked Amy. She wasn't really loved to pieces like some companions have been, but she was fine.

Well, she's partly defending herself as the implication is that she was chosen for being pretty and long-legged and that there was no acting. So this isn't simply chivalry.

As for Rose being sexualised for having 'doe eyes' and a 'pout'...that's just how Billie Piper looks. Personally I wouldn't describe her as having doe eyes and her lips are more big rather than alluringly pouty. She looked sort of normal (well, very chavvy).

It's the question of the male gaze.

I think half the people on the likes of Tumblr who accuse Moffat of misogyny/sexism really don't have any idea what they're on about.

I feel you've said this already but just wanted to repeat in case anyone missed your earlier post. Karen has long legs, she didn't buy them off ebay just for Doctor Who. But as we've discussed on other threads, Troughton had his fair share of companions who can still be considered as 'hot'. Was there the same fuss about the writers being sexist in that era?