I was just wondering everyone thinks Doctor Who is sexist against women. You always see these articles going on about how Steven Moffat is a misogynist.

There's even that famous STFU Moffat site.

Personally I don't think that's fair. I don't think either who or Moffat are sexist. Moffaat has had some problems writing certain female characters as flirty dominatrix's, Missy, River, Irene Adler, but that's it.

I wouldn't say he is incapable of writing any female characters I mean there are plenty who aren't like that and all of this he promotes sexual assault that you see people like Claudia Boleyn and the folks on Tumblr always go on about is wrong IMO.

I did this article that is a spoof of all the numerous ones we see calling Moffat sexist. It accuses the show of being sexist against men the same way the likes of Claudia Boleyn accuse it of being sexist against women.

This article hopefully will show you that you can dredge up any accusation of prejudice against something if you look hard enough http://t.co/1p9lJi2zBR

Doctor Who hasn't changed since it returned in 2005, it's always had that misogynistic streak, Moffat has just worsened the matter trying to "sex up" the programme and it's quite creepy considering he's 53, not far off Capaldi himself, and he's obsessed with all this women in Doctor Who.

I think his female characters have been pretty thread bare in terms of being believable people above being an idea to help an even bigger idea at the expense of character. (The Clara/Pink relationship or the Impossible Girl arc for example) I understand why some might deem them sexist but for me they are just poorly written regardless of sex.
Was Danny Pink sexist towards men?

Ahh, Jamie Mathieson

No.
I don't think Moffat is the best at writing female characters... but he's definitely not a myogynist and the show itself is definitely not sexist.

That STFU Moffat is the biggest load of shite to be honest.

I don't think the show is sexist. It's not perfect with female characters but it's better than most shows and no worse than others.

Moffat's writing for female characters is no worse or better than RTD Who or even Classic Who at times.

I think the supposed 'sexism' in his era is largely imagined/overexaggerated by Tumblr/Twitter SJWs for effect at times.

I don't for one minute think that Moffat sets out to be deliberately sexist or anything, and for the record I'm more often his defender than accuser but at the same time there are issues with his writing that sometimes suggest an underlying problem of sexism...and even homophobia on one or two accounts. As I said, it's likely not intended, but it's tactless all the same. I included a few examples, though feel free to dismiss them as it is all down to personal interpretation...

Girl vs Woman: I hate these at any rate, but the companions have often been labelled with throwaway titles and these highlight a slight problem with Moffat. It's a bit awkward that he clearly sexualises his companions - all those short skirts for Amy in particular - but at the same time he infantises the character which seems very odd. By that I mean look at the difference in titles...

Martha- the woman who walked the Earth
Donna - the most important woman in the whole of creation

Amy - the girl who waited
Clara - the impossible girl

I've absolutely no problem with female (or male) characters taking pride in their sexuality and appearance...wear short skirts if you want, but don't make a big deal out of it...certainly don't have The Doctor deliver a line about Clara being "A mystery wrapped in an enigma, squeezed into a skirt that's just a little bit too tight". It's just plain peculiar, especially if you're going to refer to the same characters as 'girls' as opposed to 'women'. I can't imagine Rose, Martha or Donna being referred to as girls instead of women, and their gender wasn't even really referred to in-show, and yet they were seldom sexualised either. In fact the only reference to 'girl' I can think of for a woman in the RTD era was The Master speaking about Chantho - and that was clearly meant to be a sexist comment we were supposed to frown upon, to help identify this character as a bad guy.

Women's focus on Men: In some ways I can just put this down to a lack of imagination rather than anything particularly sexist, but at the same time it's frustrating how the women in the past few series have constantly come and gone according to the will or fate of the men around them. Amy had all of time and space at her disposal and yet the bigger focus with her character seemed to be the fact she was caught between her husband and the madman with a box - the men in her life. When it came to leaving the show, it was for the sake of being with her husband. It was a nicely worked plot and I personally have no problem with Amy's exit but at the same time it's been so worn out now as an idea by Moffat-women.

Clara's exit-of-sorts in Death in Heaven was entirely based around Danny - a dead character by this point as well! But the problem was highlighted in Dark Water where Clara is basically saying she cannot be without Danny, even if it means killing herself to get to The Nethersphere. This of course allows big-soldier-man Danny to give her up, but the problem is that it all went beyond a loving sentiment into a worrying focus on a woman who needs her man.
Then there's River as well. All that interesting mystery surrounding her, all those big events she was a part of, and it eventually came down to the man she loved and killed.

On their own none of these are sexist. But collectively they raise an issue that Moffat struggles to write effective or convincing women. They're all caught up in a man's world a little too much and not allowed to shine as individuals...compensating by being sassy, or by occasionally slapping or threatening the Doctor to exert some kind of power facade.

Issues with sexuality: There are similar issues with sexuality, often leaking into gender as well. A Good Man Goes to War caused some small controversy with its line "We're the fat-thin gay married anglican marine couple, why would we need names?". As light-hearted a line as it was, and non-offensive as I found it, it can be interpreted that weight, sexuality and faith are more significant to someone's identity than their actual identity. It was meant to be slightly funny but it simply wasn't, and comes across as very tactless.

Sherlock is even worse. The character of Irene Adler deviated from the source material in that Moffat made her a lesbian dominatrix. Aside from sexualising the character, Moffat continues to display a lack of tact by having the character's sudden attraction to Sherlock being her ultimate undoing. In fact, Moffat deviates from the text further by having Sherlock save her from death. It turns all the attention to the leading man and completely undermines and insults the characters sexual identity. It's one thing to apply your own creative ideas and deliver your own take on a character, but this was was the one example I could not deny I felt was outright wrong...at least to me.

As I said, all of this is down to personal opinion. People take offence, they don't give it...so it's all subjective what is truly insulting and what isn't. The show is still hugely enjoyable to me, and Series 8 went a long way towards writing better characters (without discriminating by gender either, although I'd say that Danny Pink drew the short straw).

Doctor Who has never had a misogynistic streak IMO. People just say it is because its a male hero and a female companion, but funny how by that logic a show like say Xena the Warrior Princess wouldn't be called sexist when it has a female hero and a male sidekick Joxer. Might add Joxer unlike the female companions of Who is a useless fool who frequently suffers physical abuse at the hands of the female heroes. Yet Doctor who which frequently has brave female heroes is still called sexist just because the main hero is a man.

Must resist Spinal Tap quote. Must resist Spinal Tap quote.

I don't consider Who to be inherently sexist. Right from the start we had a strong, intelligent woman in Barbara. Sure there were moments that reflected the times like Polly being expected to make the tea and Victoria was something of a damsel who seemed to be in an almost permanent state of distress. Then there was Liz being replaced by ditzy Jo because the production team thought she was too intelligent.

Of course there was the idea of the female companion being there "for the dads" but I think that by and large however, say, Jo or Leela were dressed, the actors tended to overcome that and portray interesting characters and not be passive sex objects. Athough possiby Peri went that way a bit in Season 22.

Could Who be sexist on occasion? Yep. Misogynistc, though? Personally don't buy that at all.

But the phrase 'the girl who waited' specifically related to a girl, the eight-year-old Amelia that waited twelve years for the Doctor to return. And not only that:

Is it problematic to call Amy a girl but not to call Rory a boy?


As another counterexample, Matt has spent a surprising amount on time on that show with no clothes at all:

I absolutely get the point about the female characters being defined by their romantic relationships - while I welcome Clara's more mature friendship with the Doctor, I feel that should have been done earlier, so that Clara's story didn't seem so much like a retread of Amy or Rose's infatuation.


Alternatively, it could be seen as the characters rejoicing in those elements that they see as significant parts of their identities. "The Thin One" is no more a disparagement of identity than "The Doctor" is, or "The Master".

As I said up thread, don't get that at all in any Who. And he's creating characters whatever their or indeed his age is. Creepy? Oh dear.

It's as sexist as any other mainstream TV programme. Actually, probably less than most, as its writers are generally pretty aware of gender issues and representation. Sexism is everywhere and if you want to find it you can, in anything.

To decide that Doctor Who is particularly rife with it though is an opinion that I give no credibility to. Most of the people who try and claim it generally have to pretty emphatically over-state their case to magnify whatever is there.

As long as the human race has two genders and sexual reproduction (which according to a lot of theories actually won't be for as long as most people assume) there will always be gender politics. To me, it doesn't even begin to be an issue in Doctor Who, unless you are someone to whom it is the major issue you are passionate about in life generally.


'Misogynistic streak' - Oh dear. Sexism, chauvenism, yes; I'll grant, at various points in its history but outright misogyny? Like I said, severe over-statement.

Dear God, a man of 53 thinking about sex? How disgusting. How dare he? I mean, it's just for the young, isn't it. After all, they invented it...or so they think.

Better yet, why don't you cull all of us over 40 and be done with it?

I would argue that the show is incredibly misandristic, but that is a topic for another thread.

How so? I'm curious if that's okay to ask.

It's not even problematic to call Amy a girl - there's no problem in that at all. The problem is that you use these infantising terms in regards to characters you also try and sex up. You call her a girl, suggesting an innocent and rather friendly and platonic relationship, but this is conflicting with the short skirts she wears - the very first shot of adult Amy in The Eleventh Hour rides up her legs, we're meant to notice them! It's just a bit...well, as I said, conflicting.


As I said, there's no problem in taking pride in appearance and sexuality. There's scenes where we've seen characters partially naked - male and female - these aren't a problem. The problem is when you have a character you're trying to give a childlike, fairytale persona to and then awkwardly working in references to their physical appearance (i.e. only really concerning Amy and Clara). They're incredibly jarring and stick out like a sore thumb, there's no need for these references to be there.



The difference is that Doctor, Master...they're titles. In and of themselves they are widely open to interpretation and could have been chosen for a number of reasons - they're not an indication of what those characters are like. But 'The Thin One', how open to interpretation is that? It just isn't.
It was likely written as a means to light-heartedly show pride being taken in being fat, thin, gay, anglican and so on - but I think it is understandably wrong and disrespectful for anyone to identify someone else as "the gay one" amongst a group of people, you don't do it. Knowing that the line came from the heterosexual Steven Moffat, I understand why many people would have taken offence to that, even if I didn't myself.

Of course it is all open to interpretation, and that's why I whole heartedly believe that no offence was ever intended. I also know how easily some people become offended these days over the most trivial of things, but occasionally the show stumbles a little and delivers tactless moments like this - moments that are meant to be funny, but just can't be funny to some people. Another example was when the Eleventh Doctor joked to Amy at one point to start wearing trousers because the glass floor of the console room meant he was able to see up her skirt. On the one hand you can see the brief joke intended there, but some women would understandably fail to see the funny side of that as all they can see is a man making a problem out of what a woman is wearing because of his own predicament with it. Interpretation

Short version (like I said, it could be another thread): With the exception of The Doctor, generally speaking, men are shown as cowardly, incompetent or untrustworthy idiots while the women are shown as hyper-competent. Take the first episode of this century: Rose save The Doctor's life and saves the world while Mickey literally cowers in an corner doing nothing except fearing for his life. That trend is seen throughout the entire run this century. Women companions show up hyper-competent and amazing while male companions (with the exception of Jack) show up as bumbling idiots who only, if they are lucky, might someday become something decent through otherworldly transformation (Mickey becomes decent eventually and Rory becomes decent only thanks to the Centurion).

To be fair, this trend permeates television. Just look at The Simpsons, Family Guy or nearly any other sitcom. The men are generally shown to be idiots whilst the women are generally the competent and intelligent ones. I think that is why The Big Bang Theory is so popular; it is the single show bucking the trend of the men being absolute idiots. The men still have problems, but all of the characters do and the men are intelligent and competent.

Not at all - I think the people who accuse it of ritual and systematic sexism are usually taking incredibly selective readings then applying a load of spin; torturing logic until it screams.

I do think the show's imperfect, and I think there's certainly things worth discussing and improving and learning from, but on balance it spends far, far more its time being stone cold brilliant. There are very few shows that would portray the real Holmes and Watson as interspecies female lovers, and even fewer that would pitch them as more than just a punchline. Vastra and Jenny are real characters, the show takes a genuine interest in them. Indeed, it's one of the few sci-fi properties - on TV, certainly - that makes an effort to reach out to women and men alike and say, "This is yours." Accusations of sexism tend to miss the headline.

"Moffat is sexist" is the "gay agenda" of the latest era. There's a sliver of truth in there somewhere, inasmuch as Davies was genuinely interested in portraying gay and lesbian characters (just as Moffat is) and Moffat has written some scenes that could have iffy implications (just as Davies has), but the character assassinations that they're really trying to sell are rubbish, and colour-coded to their genders and sexual identities: RTD the depraved homosexual, and SM the meatheaded straight white man. Generally best to laugh and move on.

That's definitely not true, or at least is selective.

Doctor Who has a specific skew on this subject, in that the Doctor's companions are conventionally female, and so they automatically must be competent in order to earn their place on the crew. The male characters are secondary, so they generally get the role of comic relief or doubter.

So, you really have to exclude those primary characters in order to get the whole picture, and I think you'll find that picture is a little more evenly-balanced.

Exactly. Plus there's the glaring oversight of Danny, who - as much as I disliked the character - was doing anything but cowering in a corner whilst Clara saved the day.

I don't think Doctor Who is sexist. In either direction. But I think you can easily pick examples of storylines, characters or events which (out of context) seemingly "prove" that it is.

I can't speak regarding Danny Pink since I have not seen the current series (I don't have cable and I live in Texas, so I have to wait for everything to be released on DVD/Blu-Ray). Thus, I am working with the 1-7 Series. If it is as you say with Danny, I will gladly welcome it as a nice change of pace.

Nope, it'snot.
If you look hard enough at anything, you can find whatever you want.

I'd also take Rory as an example - yes, his character was no real hero to begin with. But he developed. And he was never a coward, it was more that he didn't want to be put into danger needlessly. He was more than able to defend himself - and did quite often. And he became quite the hero toward the end.

Adam, so far, has been the real true coward male. But I don't feel he is worthy of companion status. Even Mickey became the leader or a resistance movement - ending up a merc... Definitely not a coward though!

^^^^^^

Pretty much this. Especially the bolded bit.