Log in

No account? Create an account
15 June 2010 @ 07:21 pm
random Doctor Who thoughts, because my brain is good for little else today  
1. I have spent entirely too much time wondering what they double-filmed "The Lodger" with (I'm assuming this is part of why the episode is set up the way it is): was it "Amy's Choice," or "The Hungry Earth," or does it mean there are a bunch of Amy-centric scenes coming up in the last two episodes?

2. Can anyone explain to me how the memes of "Moffat is sooooo much more sexist than RTD" and "Moffat is sooooo much worse at character development than RTD" got started? Because they both have their issues, and they have both made failtastic media statements, but I feel like there are all of these people freaking out about how we haven't been told why Amy does what she does for a living and how her skills are pasted-on (which proves that Moffat just makes his women blank but "feisty"), or about how Amy's whole arc (which is unfinished, so maybe it's a bit premature to make this assessment?) is to be The Girlfriend or The Sidekick (which...it's Doctor Who, not Amy Pond; the adventures she's having right now are pretty much guaranteed to be *his* adventures too). And I just feel like you could have this exact same conversation, if you wanted to, about how we were never told why Rose wanted to travel with the Doctor, or why she decided to drop out of school for some dude, and hey, that bit where she saves the day through gymnastics is totally pasted-on, and you could totally cast her as The Girlfriend or The Sidekick. If you were inclined to look at her that way. (Which is, and I'm hoping this is obvious, totally reductive. Funnily enough, someone can be a girlfriend and her own person, especially when she's had way more screentime than the boyfriend! I know, it's shocking, but true.)

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't call Moffat out on stuff he does wrong, but so much of the discussion seems to be premised on the fact that we already somehow collectively know Moffat is sexist, so clearly all the stuff he writes is sexist, too.

Also, for the love of all that's holy, girls in short skirts are not, in fact, automatically sexist. (I feel as though, with a lot of the Amy-hate, there's this oddly retrograde notion that a woman's sexuality is always and automatically for other people, either to approve of or to police, not for herself--so Amy's daring to wear short skirts is offensive because she must be doing it to "use" her sexuality in some way or "get by on her looks," as opposed to the possibility that she's thinking, "Hey, that skirt looks good on me; I'm going to wear it now.")

3. Rory thoughts:

--I was thinking about his remarks to the Doctor in "Vampires of Venice": that the Doctor makes people take risks, to want to impress him, to become dangerous to themselves. He was talking about Amy, but I feel like the end of "Cold Blood" shows how much that was true of him, too.

--I like Rory quite a lot: he's awkward and a little reserved, but not afraid to be sarcastic and call it like it is. (This is a type I like.) He's caring and he does research. And I like that he and Eleven actually seem to get on, even without Amy there (as in "The Hungry Earth"). Plus I have the same personal canon that many people seem to have about Amy and Rory growing up together in Leadworth, and how he's pretty much the only stable, supportive person in her life--which is also a type that I usually like. (Also, I think Arthur Darvill is darling. Why is everyone in this season so darling?)

But I don't know what the show is going to do with him, and I can't settle on a possibility that would seem satisfying to me. Amy and Rory simply breaking up seems anticlimactic after the events of "Amy's Choice" (to say nothing of "Cold Blood," because it's not clear yet what's going to happen with that): Amy may not want Rory's life, but she does seem to love and want Rory, so I'm not sure how they'd get around that without being all "just kidding!" On the other hand, Rory definitely wants Amy but seems to be going along with the adventuring because it's what she wants, not because he does. I suppose the easiest way out of the conundrum would have been to get Rory wholeheartedly in on the adventuring action--and there are hints of that in "Vampires," though in "Amy's Choice" he's the representative for "growing up"--but getting killed may put a damper on that.

They could mutually choose to reevaluate their relationship, which would be mature and potentially interesting, but harder to pull off, possibly. Or they could just get married, which would be really unsatisfying at this juncture because they're *so* not there yet, and the show is still in a place, with their story, where their marriage has been presented as "growing up" and therefore the opposite of traveling with the Doctor, which is...not great.

This show is reducing me to thinking things like, "Oh, I hope those two crazy kids can work it out!" This is what I have become, Doctor Who. I BLAME YOU. Though really, in my heart of hearts, I just want all three of them to go around being Team TARDIS for a couple more seasons, but I don't know how likely that is. :(

(Hey, did I ever mention that I had a dream about Gilmore Girls once in which I invented an episode in my sleep where Rory ran away to a convent/Catholic school? It's the only dream I've ever had that came with its own title: "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Rory." It was weird.)
pink for pterodactylsignificantowl on June 15th, 2010 11:58 pm (UTC)
I've skipped pretty much all the antiMoff stuff, so this is a massive, probably offensive generalization, and I'm sure some folks have actual reasons and etc, but I keep wondering if at heart it's a combo of "I miss Ten and/or Rose" + "Coupling somehow offended my soul."

Darling is so the perfect word for Arthur Darvill!
tempestsarekind: a sort of fairytaletempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 12:05 am (UTC)
Yeah, I've only been seeing the stuff around the fringes--basically, stuff pointed out by my flist and/or stuff linked on who_daily. But I feel like that is a pretty accurate assessment of some of it. There are people who've had their faces set against Amy since the trailers came out, because she didn't look "interesting" enough. Whatever that means. And maybe if I'd watched more than two episodes of Coupling a billion years ago, I would be seeing more of that in Moffat's DW stuff, but I just don't. He's not perfect, but he writes women I like.

(Also, I feel like some of the "bad characterization" meme springs from the way he writes Rose and Mickey in "Girl in the Fireplace"? Which amuses me because at the time, I was *so* put out by the way she'd treated him in "School Reunion," and was so relieved to see them acting like friends, and Rose not getting all weirdly jealous of Reinette... anyway.)

As for Arthur Darvill--it is already a part of his name!
La Reine Noire: Cate with lacelareinenoire on June 16th, 2010 12:47 am (UTC)
As I've told you a bunch of times before, I actually like Moffat's women. At least so far I have. And I love Amy to bits (possibly in part because of how much she reminds me of Reinette, who I adore) and River is just generally awesome. I know he's made stupid, sexist comments before, but I honestly don't think it comes through that much in the writing. Occasional moments of fail, but for the most part, he seems to be doing a pretty even-handed job. I still haven't forgiven RTD for Martha and Donna, so...
tempestsarekind: martha londontempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 02:41 pm (UTC)
Yeah--I feel like Moffat's mouth does one thing and his characters do another. That's not to say that he doesn't have his "types" that he likes to stick to, but so does RTD, who was very fond of telling a story about women who don't think they're special and don't think that anything has ever happened to them in their whole lives, and then meeting the Doctor and changing that. (Er, sort of. S3 was basically watching someone who seemed to be okay with herself get torn down and afflicted with self-doubt, perhaps so that Russell could tell that same story of "discovering oneself through the Doctor." And I'm still frustrated by the fact that S1 Rose and S4 Donna are apparently stories about becoming special explicitly through Time Lord power, the Doctor Who equivalent of apotheosis.)

Moffat tends to write women who seem to be pretty confident about themselves from the beginning. And yes, there's also some "we don't want your silly commitment" mixed in there as well--but that also means that they have their own lives and interests and are cool with that.

I don't know. The thing about this discussion that makes no sense to me is how Moffat is sexist for writing women who don't want commitment, but the flip side, where RTD felt compelled to pair off all his companions, to the extent that they wound up marrying/staying with guys the audience barely knew or they barely knew*, is not addressed at all.

*Because, okay, Ten II is not the Doctor. There's that whole scene where it's clear that he's got part of Donna's personality, too. He's not just an exact copy of Ten but with one heart. And our knowledge of Mickey is not a free pass to marry him off to Martha when we've never even seen them talk.
La Reine Noire: Wimminz!lareinenoire on June 16th, 2010 03:54 pm (UTC)
That's not to say that he doesn't have his "types" that he likes to stick to, but so does RTD, who was very fond of telling a story about women who don't think they're special and don't think that anything has ever happened to them in their whole lives, and then meeting the Doctor and changing that.

YES. I have been rewatching Who from Nine onward, and it's actually kind of painful to watch how much Rose dismisses and takes for granted everyone on earth (especially Mickey and Jackie, but, really, earth in general). Martha and Donna were both such a nice break from that; yes, Donna is made extraordinary by her encounters with the Doctor, but she doesn't seem to have the same level of virulent distaste that Rose has for the idea of going back. And Martha, of course, willingly gives it all up to do her job, which is brilliant.

The thing about this discussion that makes no sense to me is how Moffat is sexist for writing women who don't want commitment, but the flip side, where RTD felt compelled to pair off all his companions, to the extent that they wound up marrying/staying with guys the audience barely knew or they barely knew*, is not addressed at all.

Yes, that bothers me a lot. Especially the Martha/Mickey thing, which comes out of absolutely nowhere and makes no sense whatsoever. It literally does feel like RTD has some compulsion about pairing off characters. (It's part of what I miss about Nine, actually; that there wasn't that compulsion. Or possibly it's a weird extension of Ten's insistence on categorizing things despite the fact that he knows full well some things can't be categorized.)
tempestsarekind: bananas are goodtempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 04:25 pm (UTC)
it's actually kind of painful to watch how much Rose dismisses and takes for granted everyone on earth

Oh, yes. "There's nothing for me here"; "Mum, I used to work in a shop." That distressing way in which, without the Doctor, Rose says she has no more stories left to tell. That's one thing I liked about "Amy's Choice" (well, I like a lot of things about it): Amy does the whole "Why would we give this up? Why would anyone?" thing about life in the TARDIS, but even she defends her "boring" life and points out that it takes bravery, too. Donna seems to do just fine wherever one plants her, and Martha chooses to stay on earth--because she's got people to look after, and because, once she's with UNIT, the Doctor isn't always there.

(The whole Martha/Mickey thing is just--ARGH. It doesn't make sense that she's carrying a gun after so much gets made of her NOT using them, it doesn't make sense that she spent her whole life wanting to be a doctor and now she's willing to just shoot at Sontarans, and it doesn't make sense that she's somehow married Mickey after being engaged to a totally different guy. Why???)

I really think RTD thinks "happy ending = marriage or some equivalent," or at least his stories suggest this. Rose, Donna, Martha, Jackie and Pete, Francine and Clive. Even Jack gets paired off with Alonzo (really???). Like he's sitting there thinking, "let's see, what can I do to justify bringing these characters back?" and all he can come up with is that.
La Reine Noire: Wimminz!lareinenoire on June 16th, 2010 04:33 pm (UTC)
Amy does the whole "Why would we give this up? Why would anyone?" thing about life in the TARDIS, but even she defends her "boring" life and points out that it takes bravery, too. Donna seems to do just fine wherever one plants her, and Martha chooses to stay on earth--because she's got people to look after, and because, once she's with UNIT, the Doctor isn't always there.

I think this is one of the reasons I like River as much as I do; because she is a complete break from that pattern. She is constantly giving up the Doctor and the TARDIS to go off and be an archeologist or a thief or a superspy or whatever on earth she wants to do.

(And I just had a weird thought about Amy -- possibly her attachment to the Doctor has something to do with being the one abandoning other people instead of being abandoned herself?)
tempestsarekind: martha + ten + TARDIStempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 05:04 pm (UTC)
This is true: River has her own adventures, and the Doctor is sometimes a part of them, but not the instigator of them.

Hmm--that would make sense of Amy's running off on the night before her wedding: it's her turn to leave, even if just for a little while and even if no one will (necessarily) know.
katesutton on June 16th, 2010 12:47 am (UTC)
I think there are unbelievable amounts of fan-wars that have gone over RTD vs Moff and a lot of the discussion is informed by people who have taken sides in that conflict. That said...while I know plenty of fans have argued that RTD's Who is very sexist, I do not see it at all and while plenty of other fans have argued that Moffat's Who is the same...well, I don't agree with that either, but from my POV it is sexist to a certain degree. I usually roll my eyes with vigor at Jacob's Doctor Who recaps on TWoP, but I find myself agreeing with what he says about Moffat and the way he writes women.

As to Amy and her skirts, I think it IS for other people, in the sense that she's a character on a TV show and from the very first, we get a pan up her long legs, up to the policewoman's outfit with a tiny skirt. I find it impossible to ignore the import of that.
Constant Readerskirmish_of_wit on June 16th, 2010 01:30 am (UTC)
I don't think either RTD or Moffat are perfect in their depictions of women. But I have to say, I was far more offended by the treatment of the mother in "The Hungry Earth" and its sequel (sorry, I'm blanking out on names tonight) than by Amy and her skirts. I mean, panning up her long legs to a sexy policewoman's outfit does so much more than just say "look, sexy lady," especially since the shot starts at the Doctor's eye level (Amy's knees). It also:
  1. visually cues the audience in to the fact that she's in charge (see: hero shot);
  2. as the flip side of that, diminishes the Doctor to make him vulnerable;
  3. likewise cues the audience in to the fact that Amy is probably not REALLY a policewoman, since police don't have miniskirt uniforms, and thus that
  4. she is conning him because she doesn't know what is going on but can take care of herself;
  5. by the same token, reminds us that the Doctor isn't as much of an expert as he thinks he is, since he believes her; and
  6. shows us that little Amelia Pond is all grown up, as in is now both mature and very tall.
And on some level her grown-up-ness is coded as sexual availability (hence the kiss), but here she's not presenting herself as sexually available to the Doctor.
katesutton on June 16th, 2010 03:22 am (UTC)
Honestly, while I respect that view, I do think it's reading a lot into it. The shot is the essence of the male gaze. I like Amy well enough, but I don't think that Moffat takes her seriously enough as a character to show us why she is who she is. Barring, of course, a finale that finishes everything off with a major twist and explains everything retroactively(which actually, I expect).

I look at her as a character, and I think Moffat has created a really muddled story, where Amy is crazy, sexy and cool because she is not like all those other girls; she's not interested in being tied down and her guy trails along in her wake and she always wears short skirts even in the dead of winter and is okay with casual sex the night before her wedding. Yet, he turns around and lets an episode pass by where it's 'Amy's Choice,' yet Amy's choice is between a)life in a teeny village, bored and pregnant and b) life with the Doctor. And then it's not even her choice at all. I'm mostly confused by the writing and yes, I do think it's influenced by his dated views. Don't ask me what I think about the way the Doctor reacts to River unless you want more tl;dr. :)

Edited at 2010-06-16 03:47 am (UTC)
tempestsarekind: a sort of fairytaletempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 02:19 pm (UTC)
Speaking of tl;dr--I'm basically answering all your comments at once, sort of. Sorry about the essay!

Well, but it's not just the essence of the male gaze: I went back and looked, and it's pretty much coded as the Doctor's gaze, too: the camera starts out fuzzy (because the Doctor's just waking from being whacked in the head), which allies the Doctor's POV with the camera's. Which is not to say that the audience isn't capable of looking at that shot and thinking, "well hello there, Amy's legs," that it doesn't do double duty. But it's also the Doctor's first view of Amy, which complicates the image. (There is possibly a related discussion to be had about the concept of the male gaze, which--while a perfectly reasonable and true thing, I think--does tend to suggest that only males can do the looking. But, time and place.) And while that first panning shot is fairly straight-on, the rest of the scene *does* actually tend to look at Amy either straight-on or shot slightly from below (the hero shot), while the Doctor tends to be shot from slightly above, which makes him small.

Which is the long-winded version of "what skirmish_of_wit said." :)

Then, too--I'm still waiting on the outrage about how Amy actively objectifies the Doctor at the end of this episode, or about the blatant fanservice of "The Lodger." I would ask why it is that a two-second shot of Amy's tights means that Amy is nothing but an object in these discussions (not that you're saying this), but several minutes of Eleven running around in a towel (or less!) doesn't provoke the same reaction. Is it because he's *not* being objectified? Or because we assume that the Doctor is never the object, because he's the story? Because Amy's the story too. You say that Amy's sexuality--or her skirts--must be for other people, because she's a character in a TV show. Okay--but then, again, why doesn't the Doctor fall under the same rules? Why isn't it a problem that he's wearing an awful lot less than Amy for a good portion of that episode?

(Also, I feel like the fixation on Amy's skirts as evidence of Moffat's sexism is just weird, given that Karen Gillan has said several times that she also had a hand in choosing Amy's style, and no one can say that Karen doesn't like a little skirt herself. Yes, Moffat signs off on all decisions because it's his show, but it doesn't particularly sound like he was sitting around thinking, "ah, how can we get Karen to wear more miniskirts?")

Or, the short (heh) version: what exactly is the import of Amy's wearing a short skirt? I'm being deliberately provocative here, because there's been a lot of vagueness around this particular issue. Amy is wearing a short skirt. And we are looking at her wearing a short skirt. So what? What exactly is the problem with this? Because nice girls don't wear short skirts? Because wearing a short skirt automatically means that you're "sexed-up"? Because we feel like we need to police "acceptable" versions of femininity on TV? (Which begs the question: why would a short skirt be unacceptable?)

Edited at 2010-06-16 02:28 pm (UTC)
katesutton on June 16th, 2010 08:43 pm (UTC)
I actually haven't seen the Lodger yet, so I can't comment on that. Except to say, I think that fandom gets less exercised about that part because a)men being objectified for their bodies is a lot newer and a lot less fraught then the reverse and b)a lot of us are straight women. The second part is the only problem, I think.

I think the 'problem' with Amy wearing a short skirt is entirely because she's a female character, created by a male writer who has said some sexist things in the past and written *this* character(and others), in arguably sexist ways. I don't really take issue with anyone disagreeing about that, but I do get a little resentful when parts of fandom keep insisting that it's because of internalized misogyny.

As far as the *character* wearing short skirts? Inside the show, I don't care, except I think it's silly, because it's a lot harder to do some things in skirts than it is in trousers. Like run for your life. And not freeze to death. Speaking as someone who's done at least the second bit, if not anything quite so dramatic as the first. :)
tempestsarekind: martha + ten + TARDIStempestsarekind on June 17th, 2010 04:29 pm (UTC)
I may take this to another post, because my response is not really about your comment and more about why the "short skirts are sexist" line of argument continues to bother me, regardless of who's writing the character and what he may have written in the past. That's why I think that should probably just be taken off the table in discussions of Moffat's writing, because the issue of policing other women's clothing for "appropriateness" is so fraught. But I did want to make sure to say thank you for commenting!
tempestsarekind: amelia pond (ready for adventure)tempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 02:20 pm (UTC)
(I actually had to split this comment into two--I've never done that before! *facepalm*)

As far as Amy's character is concerned: *shrug* I think it's a preference thing, because I feel like I know a fair bit about why Amy is the way she is. No, I don't know exactly why she chose to become a kissogram, but I'm convinced by those who point out that she basically plays make-believe for a living, despite her repeated claims that she's grown-up. That aside, I know that she's an orphan with an aunt who leaves her to fend for herself a lot: when we first meet Amelia, she's in that house all by herself in the middle of the night, and by her attitude ("I'm not scared," she says scornfully), it's not the first time. She has no problems cooking several different dishes for the Doctor, which suggests that she has to do that a lot, too: even as a child, she has no one to depend on. She's been abandoned; when the Doctor says he'll be back in five minutes, she says sadly, "They always say that."

And then comes the Doctor: this mad, brilliant man who takes her seriously, who believes her when her aunt dismisses her story about the crack as nonsense, who takes care of it when no one in her life does that. He promises to come back for her...and then he doesn't. So she's angry, she's got a chip on her shoulder--but she's still stubborn enough to believe in him despite years of people telling her she made him up, just like she's stubborn enough to hang on to her Scottish accent. That seems like a strong setup, to me: she's not going to be good at commitment, because that requires trust, and she's not going to want to let anyone in--she's going to want to be fiercely independent--because all people ever do is disappoint you. Is it possible that Moffat constructed her that way just so he could tell a story about a footloose girl? Sure. But her attitudes seem like perfectly valid and reasonable ones to me, given the way she grew up.(The one thing I genuinely wonder about is Amy/Rory: how did that happen? I can imagine a possible scenario, especially given the things I've just mentioned, but I'd be curious to actually see it.)

Amy's choice is between a)life in a teeny village, bored and pregnant and b) life with the Doctor.

And the point is that *both* of those choices are illusory ones. Neither one is a real reflection of life or the world. Like I said in the post, it's early days to make judgments about Amy's eventual arc, but I just don't see how one can say that Amy's being written as though her only choices are A and B when neither is actually a real choice.
katesutton on June 16th, 2010 09:01 pm (UTC)
And the point is that *both* of those choices are illusory ones. Neither one is a real reflection of life or the world.

Is that the point? The episode confused me, like a lot of this season does. It's Amy's Choice. Except it's not, because it's the Doctor's subconscious putting her through the entire thing. And Amy makes a choice of sorts, but it isn't because she really knows that it's a false dichotomy she's presented with. It's because she's suicidal at the thought of Rory's death.

Moff vs RTD is probably a preference issue, yes. I see as many people claiming that RTD is obviously sexist as there are saying the same about Moffat. I know what I think-that RTD did a fantastic job for the most part with his female characters. The only exception was with Martha; I thought he did a poor job with her arc, but Martha grew to be a strong character despite that. I don't begrudge anyone a differing opinion on it, however.
tempestsarekind: bananas are goodtempestsarekind on June 17th, 2010 04:49 pm (UTC)
Hmm. I think that even if the Doctor's subconscious sets up the game (which Amy doesn't know at the time), she still has to make choices within that setup, especially toward the end of the episode. That is, I don't think it's *not* "Amy's choice" just because the Doctor's subconscious is involved. That said, I do think that the episode continues one of the themes of the season, of being presented with two choices, both of which turn out to be wrong (as in "The Beast Below"). So in that sense, Amy's choice turns out not to be a choice. That's not a problem for me, but I can see why it could be for others.

I also don't think Amy is suicidal in this episode; I think she's doing the only thing she can think of to get Rory back. She doesn't know it's a false dichotomy, but she knows that Upper Leadworth is potentially a dream. The "Dream Lord" tells them the rules of the game, which are that if they die in the dream world, they'll come back in the real world, and they have to work out which is which. So she takes a huge gamble in saying that Upper Leadworth is the dream world and she can save Rory by dying in the dream, absolutely, but I don't think that's suicide--and it's the same risk the Doctor takes at the end of the episode, in blowing up the TARDIS. He's taking the same gamble that the cold star is a dream, on what is also slender proof (the Dream Lord was too "helpful" as he exited).
viomisehuntviomisehunt on June 16th, 2010 03:52 pm (UTC)
This show is reducing me to thinking things like, "Oh, I hope those two crazy kids can work it out!" This is what I have become, Doctor Who. I BLAME YOU. Isn't that okay though? Does it help to look too closely at something that is intended as entertainment?

Did anyone else see all the critical comments prior the new season? Bloggers, critics, Doctor Who production insiders sited Amy, the kissagram and her short skirt as something for the Dads Amy dresses like young women Amy's age dress, she should not have to defend it.

The Doctor doesn't have crew, he has companions. His ship, his adventure. Companions are hitchhikers.

Amy accepted the Doctor's invitation when she was a neglected seven year old child. It makes perfect sense that Amy's feelings about the Doctor would transform from Father Christmas to Teen idol, and maybe back again. Still the way he behaves, the Doctor still perceives Amy as the little girl with the scary crack in her wall, just with longer legs.

Both Moffat and Davies are long term fans of the Doctors and their stories resemble male fan fiction. He's solitary. He's deprived of his heritage, sad and lonely, an alien among we predatory humans. Fans feel sympathy and instantly forgive his bad behavior. He's sexy and irresistible and desired, even with the bow tie. All those women who ignored the geeks in school, unless they were geeks want the most Geeky character of all times.

First is the perky, pouting little blonde shop girl, with streets smarts and a black boy friend(intended or not, a standing, racist, sexist hint that she's likes sex, because day one she tells him thanks for "nothing".) The "cool" black boy friend is not cool at all, but cowardly and clingy, with nothing to offer her but a belly full of babies and and a lifetime fighting debt.

The interesting bit is Davies allows the Black Boy friend to grow, recognize the woman as she really is, love her but realized she's not really want he needs or wants in his life. Black Boy becomes courageous, Black Man he discover his intelligence and later merits the partnership and love of an accomplished, gorgeous woman. Could have shown us the courtship!!

Meanwhile the young woman becomes totally devoted and dependent on the Doctor. Ratings slip while they're having fun and making corny, geeky jokes, so perky blonde is pulled just out of his reach to bring back the drama. At least she's not run over by a truck to save mankind's future.

The Doctor meets a handsome, omni-sexual man, who is just too scary a prospect. He runs.

Next, the Doctor encounters a bright, beautiful, brunette, sexy enough to inspire lust, but apparently exotic enough that fans are reassured, --rather than, shocked as David thought they should be-- that the Doctor is brutally clear that HE, a proper English Alien, would NEVER cross those ethnic/class lines.

Davies almost makes up for that:the the sexy brunette realize remaining with the amazing, but insensitive, benignly prejudiced git has almost destroyed her self-worth and she walks out. She resumes her life's path, with a better idea of whom and what she wants to be, as well as whom she wants to share her life with. That part of Martha's story gets lost in the lament that she didn't shag the king -- I mean win the Doctor's heart.

The proper mate, or companion according Davis is Donna, who doesn't entertain inappropriate fantasies about her friend, gets in his face when he needs it, but stays devoted. Moffat agrees.

On the other hand the ideal woman for the Doctor to Moffat --and he has said this -- is Reinette, the French equivalent of a Geisha. I guess the closest we will get to a Time Lady is River, who I would think would be the "idea" woman for the Doctor. However, consider Moffat and Davies language when it comes to the female companions. Should we expect men who write female characters according to what they feel is the ideal mate, companion, or lover for the lead male character to create layered female characters?
tempestsarekind: eleven and amytempestsarekind on June 16th, 2010 05:01 pm (UTC)
Amy dresses like young women Amy's age dress, she should not have to defend it.

Basically, this. It drives me crazy that everyone is even talking about this: that Karen's had to address it in interviews, that they're making these awful comments about how Amy must be clad in short skirts to give dudes something to ogle. If we were talking about real people--well, some people would still assume this to be the case, I guess, which is what bothers me the most. This is the same logic that says that women want and invite male attention just by putting on the clothes that they happen to enjoy wearing. And it's all, "oh come on, she knows what she's doing." Yeah, well, maybe what she's doing is liking the way she looks in a particular outfit. Anything else is NOT anyone else's call to make. End of story.
viomisehuntviomisehunt on June 16th, 2010 06:32 pm (UTC)
I think when we look it the mirror and like what we see, we are pleasing ourselves. Women most women like the look of their bare legs, and who knows, perhpas that is because our legs are the most masculine thing about us--especially those of us with strong muscled or long legs. I wonder how many women have more appreciation those layered and sculpted hair cuts and styles on women than men do. I love the tailored suit, and the basic white shirt on women but hate padded shoulders on anyone. But long hair: why is it that one of the first gestures of independece a female child makes is cutting her hair? The long hair tends to generate need to nuture or be nutured (Women have Mothers TOO!)and I think soft slovwing hair, or soft natural, curly hair stirs that part of our nature. Personally I tend to let my hair grow if my "father" or "son" makes comments, but let my mom mention long hair or straightening it, and I diving for scissors! (Lets see what Brother Jung says about that!) I have to check but I wonder if it is male of female designers tend to design long dresses that enhanced the female shape and both reveal and conceal and tease.
tempestsarekind: austen bonnetstempestsarekind on June 17th, 2010 04:59 pm (UTC)
"Woman is fine for her own satisfaction alone," as Jane Austen wrote. :) Of course everyone sometimes dresses in order to be attractive to people, but much of the satisfaction is derived from getting to wear one's favorite color, or a fabric that feels really nice, or looking at oneself in the mirror and being pleased by what one sees (as you point out).

Heh--my mom is convinced that I should have bangs, so I finally grew mine out and refuse to cut them, even though she mentions it quite often. They're such a hassle, especially when it's hot!
mysterypoet66 on July 5th, 2010 02:35 am (UTC)
This is an aspect I don't see much
Sort of stumbled upon you in a keyword search. I knew there were anti-Moff, anti-Eleven, anti-Amy contingents. I didn't know there were people crying that Moffat is MISOGYNISTIC? FFS, seriously!?!
Amy and River are two female characters who have fairly complete agency, (screwed-up or not, even if they don't know all the reasons why, they're still dealing with their baggage,) and Moffat is a mysogynist? ROFLMAO You hit the nail on the head, of course any woman who wears a mini-skirt or is sexually teasing or desirous must be as fan-service for the men.
I chalk up 80 percent of the anti-___ to being the equivalent of Team Jacob or Team Edward. Then I ignore it. Team Tardis, FTW.
I love that there is a mostly equal dynamic among them, and the Doctor is often surprised, especially by Rory. (Arthur Darvill is Darling and Delightful and Delicious and other words beginning with D.)
tempestsarekind: amy and her boystempestsarekind on July 5th, 2010 06:49 pm (UTC)
Re: This is an aspect I don't see much
Well, hello!

I've never been quite able to tease out how the "Moffat is a misogynist" things started, but it's been around since well before S5. It may have something to do with Coupling (which I've seen about two episodes of), and some admittedly idiotic comments Moffat made in an interview about how women need men and want marriage. The thing is, though, he doesn't--at least on Doctor Who--seem to write characters who mesh with those comments. So maybe he's writing his ideal fantasy women, ones who don't want commitment--and I can see that view to some degree (although the end of "The Big Bang" undercuts that)--but it also means that he's writing women who get on with their lives and have other interests, who are confident and don't require commitment as the end point of their stories. I happen to like that sort of thing.

the Doctor is often surprised

Oh yes! That's one of the things I've really enjoyed about this season: Eleven isn't infallible, and while he's always the cleverest person in the room, he makes mistakes and he needs his companions to put him back on track sometimes. I love the scene in "Vampires of Venice" where Rory totally deflates the Doctor's lofty "I know the TARDIS must be totally overwhelming to you" speech by saying he's done research and assumes there's another dimension inside the TARDIS. <3