But that's not what's happening here. If you looked at those ten autistic actors/characters and observed that they were universally presented as either magical geniuses or objects of pity, then you could safely conclude that something was a bit off. This isn't about quantity, it's about representation.

But it is mostly quantity they are talking about though. They used speaking times and if there was an occasion two females talked with each other that was not about men. The BBC would not be allowed to get away with portraying females in a negative way.

And that provided flavour, but not a lot else. Any such dialogue was (in most cases, not all), either background banter or relating to the Doctor and the situation he's got them into. That's not a criticism (of any era) but a consequence of the kind of show it is. Even Rose and Mickey hardly spent any time talking about their own relationship, it was done with glances and conversations with the Doctor (which are no less effective). To a certain extent, having Amy and Rory aboard offered more options for developing the relationship between them.

In the context of the Bechdel test, how much of Rose and her mother's relationship was established outside the medium of talking about the Doctor, or talking about Rose's Dad?


Does that stuff really change how we identify with the character? Even when Rory gets his Crowning Moment of Badass, do we see him as something alien and unrecognisable?


And yet, the same thing can be levelled at female companions in any era. The Doctor was as dominant in Rose's life as Martha's, or Sarah-Jane's or Amy's. I don't think this is a sexist thing in and of itself, it affects Rory and Jack as much as Amy or Rose.

There's nothing wrong with being sexy, but nowadays anyone who looks at someone who is sexy and acknowledges their sexiness is being sexist, whether said acknowledgement is in the form of a Sir Humphrey-like "by and large, at the end of the day, in comparison with others, that person could be said to possess certain attributes in sufficient quality to be considered by some to appeal sexually to a larger than average number of persons of the opposite gender, or indeed the same gender if thus inclined" or in the form of a Sid James "Cooooorrr!" or in any other discernible manner.

There's even been a write-up on The Guardian website.

Doesn't take long, does it?

You appear to have missed the Spinal Tap in Michael_Eves post

What this sort of study is trying to get at, though, is not where a demographic is obviously excluded or presented negatively, but where a group are lazily stereotyped, or cliched - are women always damsels in distress? Does the black dude always die first? Are child characters unrealistically annoying? Do Native Americans all have mystical powers and spirit guides?

Not all of these cliches are inherently negative, but they can still be unfairly pigeon-holing. Also, some of these stereotypes are more overt than others, which is why it's interesting to observe how female characters talk to each other and what they talk about - it turns out it's very different to how the male characters interact and not at all obvious. I absolutely think that too many companions in Who get pigeon-holed as either girlfriends or mothers - in Amy's case, both.

Of course, we don't want to get to the point that we're keeping a mental scorecard, but it's worth the writers giving it a bit of thought...

So why produce the statistics if it has nothing to do with their point? The guardian article seems to think it is about quantity as well because they are talking about the figures and test used.

Yes, because it, more often than not, makes the other person feel uncomfortable. Telling someone that they look very nice is a different thing from making them feel like an object.

The figures are there, and they measure what they're supposed to measure, but the danger is in reading more into them than they say. Even the Guardian headline satisfies Betteridge's Law, written in order to avoid drawing conclusions.

The identity of any person conducting a study is a vital bit of information in placing said study in a wider context.

I am not seeking to draw any conclusions based on the gender or nationality of the person- just noting what it is.

Fact is though that Moffat or at least Moffats writing seems to be a subject of particular concern to Americsn females 18-30 who identify themselves as 'Intersectional feminists'. Alot of the most vehement online hatred and in particular the accusations that Moffats writing is sexist (and to a lesser extent misogynist) come from this section of fandom and in particular those involved in the blogging/social media/tumblr communities. I feel it is relevant and worth noting that the author of this 'study' at very least seems associated with these communities if nit active within them. As such I would suggest this 'study' was nothing of the sort and was not conducted independently. The author believes Moffat is sexist. They then seek to prove this however they can. That's not a good starting point. In fact its terrible. Therefore its totally pointless and proof of nothing. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.

load of bollacks !

The Doctor doesn't just go up to Eleven.

Indeed, this is why the Bechdel test shouldn't really be applied to Doctor Who. It isn't a show with an 'ensemble' cast or multiple character and plot threads akin to many dramas. It revolves around a leading male character who habitually travels with (mostly) young women in time and space. That's the formula.

I pointed out where, in my eyes, the two most recent visions of Doctor Who differed greatly and how it factors into the findings of this research. Russell T Davies consciously tried to give the companion role an extensive background from which he / she could escape. If this meant another female character (a mother) then that automatically gives room for non-man related banter. The episode 'Turn Left' alone probably boosted the average for Series 4.

Steven Moffat reduced this emphasis on the domestic greatly, choosing the series to become more plot driven. Not only that, the centre of the plot was often the Doctor himself (a male) and the only other recurring female companion - River - only really ever turned up for those. These conditions combined with the limited running time never really allowed female characters to have such conversations.

It isn't sexism, it's just a side effect of Moffat's vision.

I think this does reflect why Donna remains my favourite New Who companion.

She wasn't in love with the Doctor and she didn't have a boyfriend/husband at home either. And although there was a hint of romance in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, it never defined her role in the show or her reason for travelling in the TARDIS.

There was no hint of jealousy when she met Martha, or even when the Doctor was reunited with Rose - because that simply wasn't her relationship with him.

Donna was the Doctor's equal (I think) more so than Rose, Martha, Amy or (so far) Clara. She travelled for the same reason the Doctor did - for the sheer excitement of the adventure. And she was happy to talk to anyone (male of female) about pretty much anything.

I am really hoping Clara and Doctor #12 have a similar rapport.

It shouldn't be. It should stand or fall on its method and conclusions.


But you have made it obvious that you have. By defining the author as 'another angry American female' - you make it clear that you have a pre-selected view of what that means.


This is argumentum ad hominem. Just because someone identifies themselves as an 'intersectional feminist', it does not follow that their conclusion is false, or that their method is inherently wrong. Perhaps Moffat's stories are slightly more sexist than Davies'. Perhaps not. At least someone is having a go at trying to quantify it.

Sorry. We will just have to agree that each of us is speaking utter Tosh because I'm not getting into an argument with someone who doesn't see the relevance of knowing who or what body commissioned a study. Its totally relevant.

Grrrrrr. Feminists bad. Must not pay any attention to feminists. Bad feminists. On your rug.

It would be nice and easy to dismiss the author as another angry American woman - of which, it must be said, there are several - but the study does not come off as the work of such. She admits the limitations of the Bechdel test, but as the study is only looking within those limits, it is hard to criticise it. It does not look to make sweeping "Doctor Who is sexist, burn Moffat at the stake" statements, it merely looks at the statistics and says "oh, there we go".

It would be pointless for writers to start trying to ensure their work passes the Bechdel test; nobody wants to see a throwaway scene every episode where Clara sits down with a random female character and says "oh, isn't the weather nice today". I also don't think you can claim that either Amy or River are examples of weak female writing - Amy, River and Clara, just like Rose, Martha and Donna are all female characters that anyone should aspire to be like. The important thing is that we have had a series of strong female characters in Doctor Who, a show long criticised (often wrongly) for screaming women with nothing to do.

None of which should take anything away from the study which is not the product of an angry feminist who hates men, nor entirely pointless. It is the sort of thing one does when in university; heaven knows it's a lot more thoughtful and impressive than the crap I regularly churned out for my degree.

As I recall from watching the C21 run of the show, females always seemed to be represented in a great light. It always seemed that if there was a good guy in charge (Prime Minister, Head of Unit, amazing hero/companion), it always seemed to be a woman.

For example, one of my favorite C21 episodes had one super companion (Rose, a female) helping another super companion (Donna, a female) with the assistance of the Head of Unit (another female). I sometimes watch the show, especially in the Moffat era and wonder if there are any men left in charge of anything.

It seems that the writers are trying to balance out The Doctor being male by making everybody else of reasonable importance being female in some twisted gender quota system.


P.S. Haven't we had this same basic discussion before on another thread? It seems very familiar.

Very cute and smart opening there which incidentally is totally uncalled for as noone on this thread said anything of the sort. Try reading it again.

Well given the first thing you did on this thread was call the author of the study an angry american female and then dismiss her opinion based on nothing at all I don't think he was that wide of the mark.

Seriously it's a pretty straight forward if limited piece of research - it doesn't make any claim about being the only perspective on the issue and it certainly doesn't read as being some kind of angry attack on anyone unlike your own responses to it.

I agree with this. The research is limited. It is interesting for what it is, even if it is not incredibly applicable to much. Why did they do it? We don't know and it doesn't really matter. Trying to ascribe motives to another person is a risky proposition at best.

Facts are facts, regardless of the source. If you question the source, then double-check the facts through a source which you trust or double-check them yourself. However, attacking the source rather than debating the facts on their merit is the equivalent of surrendering the battlefield; the last move of those who have already lost.

The entire study is based on an already highly flawed premise in itself and one which is designed to be applied to films not serialized television. Its utterly without merit. Ita so obviously flawed its laughable. You cannot reduce this sort of thing down to numbers and statistics thereby removing all context and meaning from it.

For instance myself and many others would argue that Rose is far weaker and more subservient character (not to mention exercise in male wish fulfillment) than Amy ever was. This view is based on what actually happened in the episodes. Not sitting there with a stop watch timing amount of dialogue per character.

Would it be empowering say for a female character to spend seven minutes in an episode talking about how much they love pink and fluffy kittens and shopping to another female? This would seemingly pass the test mentioned in the study. It would just be numbers.

I am happy to give any study or opinion my full attention. I did this one. My conclusion is that it falls towards the more zealous end of the professionally offended sub section of fandom. The kind of people who sit scanning every single piece of media that crosses there path and crying racism! Sexism! Homophobia! At the earliest opportunity. I hate those guys.

I think the Davies era, and indeed the entire methodology behind this study, is sexist because everyone knows it's a traditional negative stereotype that women talk too bloody much.

Things to note about the study:

A. Amy is the companion for all of the Steven Moffat stories counted, but rarely the solo companion in the same way Rose, Martha and Donna usually were. She was one companion of three, four, or occasionally five, in a show that's increasingly led by and about its main cast. An episode like Amy's Choice fails the Bechdel test, but I think it's a story that takes more interest in its female lead than something like The Impossible Planet, that passes. The missing element isn't necessarily a woman's perspective as a guest cast of any kind! As, indeed, they concede for The Girl Who Waited.

B. While a second male lead and an increased focus on the lead cast at the expense of the guest cast do seem to have reduced the rate of Bechdel passes, I think it's also important to note that Amy often gets to play roles that are more traditionally male, and Rory gets to play the roles that are more traditionally female. Rory is more defined by Amy than Amy is defined by Rory - and Rory also spends more time being the "princess." The idea that he dies a lot is exaggerated, but it comes from a true place.

I do think the infographic's interesting, and agree that it shows a way that the show has moved backwards in documenting the "female experience," as much as such a thing exists. But the statistics don't really give a full story, although I suspect they probably do give weight to the story the student wanted to tell.

(Also, I'd argue that it disregards the question "Is Doctor Who sexist," and instead asks "Which producer's era is more sexist?" Because to work out whether Doctor Who is sexist in itself, you'd have to compare it to a control sample - and I suspect both eras would fare better than the movies of their time!)