An interesting piece of research looking at two criteria:

1/ companion speaking time per episode
2/ the Bechdel Test

The Bechdel test was developed for films. To pass, a movie must have at least two women in it who talk to each other, about something besides a man.

So take a look and have a think - is Doctor Who Sexist?

Link?

Its in the original post:


But here's the long version if it helps:

http://rebeccaamoore.com/2014/05/29/...o-infographic/

Thanks so much. I simply didn't see the link in the first post.

Interesting. I don't agree with the Bechdel test in and of itself per se, but that is neither here nor there. My own reservations notwithstanding, it is an interesting comparison chart.

Hmm... A very interesting read!

I wonder if there's an equivalent study relating to the incidental female characters, too?

Did you really have to soil this forum with a link to yet more theoretical garbage (that has no connection to the reality of REAL WORLD sexism and misogyny) that is basically just another excuse for a 'See! Moffat is a sexist bastard!' attack from people with a pathological and irrational hatred of the man? You don't need to answer. This is my only post here on a subject that has been discussed to death...and probably altered the views of no one.

It's really not sexist. The show that is.

I'm sorry but I've gotten increasingly tired of reading these so called feminist blogs and stuff.

It just seems like it's people looking for reasons to complain rather than there being reasons to.

What's wrong with being sexy?

I'd not heard of the Bechdel test before. It is interesting that Donna passed with 100% which I think reflects the simplicity of her relationship with the Doctor (they were just mates) and her personal life back on earth too.

Could it be that Donna did so well, Rose and Martha as well simply because she had a Mum?

Where's as Amy and Clara do not. Most of the time on the show anyway.

If the object of the test is simply to talk to another woman, that's a big advantage.

The Bechdel test is a useful tool for thinking about how we consider the interaction of female characters. It's not designed as a sexism detector, and it's certainly not useful as a statistical measure of anything.

Doctor Who is always going to rate low, because some episodes have relatively few characters anyway (but yes, perhaps more of them should be female), and almost all the characters, of any sex, spend their time talking about the Doctor (a man).

I think Clara might score a bit better than Amy - not only did we never really see Amy's mum, but a lot of her story was about her relationship with either the Doctor or Rory. I think Clara might be free from a lot of that 'man baggage'.

Sigh. Don't people study proper stuff at college anymore?

Another angry American female with an an axe to grind against Moffat. What is their problem? Tired of this stuff now. Seeking out offence and prejudice where none is to be found. If you tried hard enough you could apply this sort of flimsy faux-academic study to anything and find what you wanted.

She doesn't sound angry - she even makes it clear there are limitations to it and that's it's only there as a point of discussion. I don't understand why that is a problem for you.

But that in itself could be a sign of a writer wanting to write a bigger variety of female characters and for them to have conversations that don't revolve around men.

Psychology and cultural influences have always been hot college topics.


I imagine being pre-judged as 'another angry American female' would probably do it.

(RTD vs Moffat alert...)

Although I've enjoyed (and been dismayed by) both writing styles, I've long thought that Russell's character writing was more realistic than the Moff's in Doctor Who. Structurally and in essence. I don't think sexism is really the problem but a side effect - one that is highlighted if you focus absolutely on female-only interaction.

I think critics of RTD would dub it the 'soap' element but I would call it social realism. Rose, Jackie, Mickey, Martha (to an extent), Donna, [her mum], Wilf: all had frequently been given dialogue which demonstrated their ties to the everyday, which neatly contrasted with the Doctor's life.

If a companion (the 'anchor' for the audience) is given an improbable fairytale-like background (the Girl Who Waited; the Impossible Girl; the Woman who Kills the Doctor; the Last Centurion) and has his / her timeline routinely erased and rewritten to the point of nausea from the smell of Tipex, the Doctor suddenly becomes the more accessible character...which isn't really how it should be.

How does this relate to sexism? The Doctor is written as a prominent figure in each of the Moffat companions' existence (quite literally from conception in River's case). There's no quarrel there: in fact, it is rather interesting to explore how much of an effect the Doctor can have on individuals. Regardless, those characters (with the exception of Clara) are psychologically predisposed to talk about a dominant presence in their lives and that dominant presence happens to be a 'man'. The Doctor is a legend, a warrior, a problem, the pointiest of plot points...and he's a man. If you make the show as well as its central characters gravitate around this figure continuously, then the side effect is going to be an overload of the word 'he'.

If this were to be considered a problem, there are several solutions:

1. More two-parters or an extended running time for episodes so characters can be given more Doctor-free dialogue to provide depth.

2. More women writers: chances are the female characters would be written more realistically, though I realise this presumption is probably sexist in itself. The irony!

3. Have the companion(s) or secondary characters take centre stage more frequently, relegating the Doctor to the sidelines. Some would say this goes against the premise of the show but it has been done many times, at least in part.

While I wouldn't have worded it like that, I'm inclined to agree.

not pre-judged. The writer is a college age American female and a Mormon to boot. Its relevant.

What is the point of this research? Universities are meant to benefit society with their research. How is this useful? If it was sexist it wouldn't be shown.

Having looked at the link I think the title is misleading. It suggests academics are involved. It was a student (I feel sorry for that person studying a degree which is pointless for over 50% of students who take that subject (at least in the UK, about 33% of media graduates end up in retail))

Apropos nothing, is 'Enlightenment' (probably my favourite C20 story when push comes to shove, hence I try to crowbar it into threads as often as possible!) the only Doctor Who story written AND directed by a woman?

Don't think it makes a blind bit of difference to the quality, mind, people are either good or bad or okay writers/directors regardless of gendre....just curious. I think it is.

Students have to demonstrate they can take the different tools/research techniques they have been taught and then implement them in a field they are interested in.

I imagine this is part of her course work towards her degree (of whatever the US equivalent is) and I think she's done a good job in terms of showing her understanding of the techniques and how they can be used to reflect on one part of popular culture.

My brother recently did a project about face recognition for his degree.

The research is completely pointless though. What possible value does watching TV programmes and noting how many times a female says something give to a person? And if it involved techniques such as statistical modelling that are used in other fields then it would be worthwhile but it seems to be figures and tests that have no use unless you want to talk about "diversity" in media. I suppose the only benefit is that it involves writing.

I can come along and say they have had less than 10 actors who are on the autistic spectrum in Doctor Who therefore Doctor Who is against autistic people. And that can change that to blind people and deaf people and various other disabilities. And I can talk about ages of actor and do a similar thing.

Firstly - how is being American, female or Mormon relevant to the subject matter? You're making a huge generalisation. This article couldn't be written by a Christian male? It's somehow irrelevant or wrong because it's written by an American, or by a woman?

Secondly, how does being American, female and Mormon make you angry, let alone 'another' of a crowd of people that apparently all think the same way and have the same agenda?

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a use for the research at the end of the project. It's just an opportunity for the student to demonstrate they have understood the theories and been able to effectively implement the different techniques on a particular topic. Most students will pick a topic they will enjoy/are interested in. If I did a degree, I'd certainly do something around Doctor Who if I could.