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.

I personally think River Song could be construed as a bit of sexual wishful thinking on the part of the writer. I don't think this is the case with Amy Pond. At all.

i mean I find it odd that its just Moffat who seems to get this tag. It seems unfair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWU6XL9xI4k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I think because women are much more prominent in his era so if you found his portrayal of women sexist, it would have a big impact on your enjoyment of the show.

I don't think that's entirely fair. When me meet Amy and Rory for the first time they are together, and then for most of Series 5 they are about to get married, and after that they are a married couple, and we discover they might have got together earlier, but Amy assumed he was gay because he never showed an interest in any other girl. That's not really the same thing as a male friend pining over a female friend while she goes for other guys and thinking she should get together with him when she isn't interested. You might not like Rory as a character, but considering they are, as long as we've known them, a long-term couple, I don't him being devoted to Amy and sometimes being upset she doesn't give much back is such a terrible thing, I think as saladfingers81 put it it's a human thing, a woman in the same situation would probably react similarly. I didn't like that scene in Asylum Of The Daleks either, I think it was a contrived and not very well written. It's like they wanted an excuse to break them up, but not permanently, so they had to have one of them keep a secret rather than discuss it, which is what most people would do.

But I don't think the fact that a fictional relationship is the work of a straight make writer means such relationships don't exist outside of fiction. I've met a lot of couples a bit like Amy and Rory, where the guy is very nice and devoted, while the girl is abrasive and outgoing, and all of them were long-term relationships, two of them are now married. I've also met couples like Mickey and Rose which, like on the show, didn't work out.

I agree - I'd go so far as to say that Rory was just fine being himself. It was Amy who was obsessed with what she saw as a romantic ideal. She spent her life trying to get him to live up to her perfect man. And then that perfect man turns up and whisks her away on her wedding night.

I see it less as Rory having a male entitlement as Amy living a stereotypical female fantasy.

I think all that needs to be said on this matter is FFS.

Thanks Maggie.

Phew, that was really touching!

I endorse this post.

Which is where the cries of sexism come in I suppose, depending on how much you pity Rory or not and whether you feel he's naturally just a bit wet or emasculated by Amy.

The thing is... Rory was very popular with the female audience in exactly the way he was intended to be: as a cliche of a female fantasy. Clearly, this 'deserving guy' trope gets as much sympathy from the female audience as it does from the male audience, because it has been proven to play very well to them. Of course, all people, women and men, would like to have someone adore them and be devoted to them and they want to be that special 'one'. Of course, everyone would like the self esteem boost of the fantasy that they are so wonderful that in themselves they are the 'reward' for such a dedicated person. Many women like that idea, and so do men, although culturally they're more excluded from confessing to it. Wouldn't it be great to be so wonderful that you didn't need to do anything more to reward kindness or affection from people than simply existing? The power it gives you... It's almost... arousing.

Personally, I'm male, and I found Rory's 'deserving' attributes one of the unappealing traits of the character. I'm sure lots of other men felt similarly. So we shouldn't be giving these blanket 'men like this', 'women like that' statements anyway.

You can say Moffat is sexist, or you can say he's observant, in the same way innumerable female authors of so-called 'chick-lit' romantic fiction are, who fill the books with unrealistic male portrayals designed to be sexually / romantically appealing to women (successfully, as their sales show). And of course, populist male authors do the same with female characters. You have to be very naive to think that a female author would do anything more than push the 'sexism' back the other way. Or be one-eyed and selective enough to not acknowledge that.

I think the point here is that if you want to have an agenda, there will always be fuel as long as you are selective enough. If Doctor Who is 'sexist', and no doubt by some definitions it is, then it is no more so than the rest of our general culture. What many are baffled by is why Moffat is singled out for it by some people. I'm not baffled by it because I understand the reason: said people don't like him, and so will selectively choose whatever justifications they can find for it.

Amy Pond is a sexist sterotype, to some degree. Rory Pond is a sexist stereotype, to some degree. This is the world, not the specific world of Doctor Who or Steven Moffat.

This is what I had been bumbling around trying to say in this thread. Thanks Tom Tit.

The way i see it, sexism has nothing to do with fantasy men/women, the male gaze or the female gaze.

Sexism is about discrimination based on gender or promoting the stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

If you consider a woman to be less capable, less deserving or her opinion less worthy of respect than a male simply because she's a woman then you're being sexist. If you promote the idea that women should not aspire to roles traditionally considered to be the province of males (or vice-versa) then you're being sexist.

Portraying female companions as smart, sexy, capable and independent (or even fiesty) does not qualify for that definition in any way. Maybe if Moffat were to make all his female companions meek, subservient types who spent all their time in the kitchen doing the Doctor's housework and welcoming him back from his adventures with a hot cup of tea and a backrub, people might have a point, but I've yet to see it!

Both RTD and Moffat are not perfect writers.

Neither of them are sexist though.

I think the accusation is that Moffat writes all women as being pushy, screechy, sex objects, which is a whole different set of stereotypes.

I think if people look at Clara and Amy and see pushy, screechy sex objects then maybe they're the ones with the problem

Not to mention Molly and Mary in Sherlock. Basically if Moffat writes a female character that doesn't fit the impossibly narrow template of what these complainers consider acceptable (and it is very narrow) then he will get criticised.

Can't believe nobody's made a 'male gaze'/'male gays' joke yet.

Perhaps screechy isn't the best word. Mouthy, perhaps. You can't deny, there is a certain theme. Women who boss the Doctor around while flirting outrageously with him and having mysterious pasts.

That's not a discriminatory theme though. Sexism is defined as relating to discrimination due to gender, it's not about characterization of specific individuals. Unless the programme implies that all women are like that and that they are incapable of being anything else then, as far as my dictionary is concerned, it isn't sexist!

Besides, that sort of companion is my favourite sort of companion, so if people insist on calling it sexist then I say lets have more sexism because it's all good to me

That'd be almost as bad as ripping off Spinal Tap's sexy/sexist confusion line!

Ah.

I would say it's because it's engrained into our culture rather than because it's an accurate representation of how things are. Because Doctor Who is mainstream and successful it will get attacked more, even if it is no more sexist than other shows.

Yes, although stereotypes are much vaguer and open to debate. From the evidence of the programme (I don't know Moffat's personal politics), the first part of the definition doesn't really stand-up, unless it's an inverse sexism in that the women occupy all the big roles. However, you can't really win either way on that point, unless it was a mix of male and female, which personally I'd find more interesting but then the show isn't being written personally for me, or indeed any of the fanatics.

Fiction is built on stereotypes, or more specifically, tropes. It thrives off them. But with well-written characters, you don't notice, or if you do notice, you don't care.



It comes under female stereotypes, particularly the idea that a woman must either be a wet blanket or a sassy wench. The latter will always find some man to take pity on them but really his eye will be wandering after the wench, who's too much for men to handle. Women, as people, are a mix of strengths and flaws. Flaws are what makes people people. Without flaws, you're an object, a fantasy. That is why some women object to the 'sassy wench' stereotype and it's even more objectionable when men imply that they should be grateful that they're not being portrayed as some mousy little wifey. That's not a snidey insult at you- lots of men do it, perhaps without realising. It's like if a woman watched Rory's character and said "Well, at least he isn't playing a hairy wifebeater". It's an exchange of stereotypes.

Also, over-sexualising female characters and emasculating the male ones is a bit sexist. People have said that Moffat's supposed 'type of woman' is obvious from the three central women supposedly having the same qualities. It doesn't help that on the surface the men emphatically don't have these qualities or at least not to the strength of the females.

Why can't everyone be sexy?

I love Molly. Find Mary a little irritating but not a sexist stereotype. I even don't find the landlady a sexist portrayal. I think the key difference is that these three women are different, two notably intelligent but not ridiculously intelligent, not a particular sexual type (Irene Adler was but that was part of the character). They're just characters, whether you like them or not.