Is Doctor Who sexist?

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

This old chestnut has come up in discussion again lately, what with recent events, so I thought it might be nice to have the discussion here. Please throw your tuppence in.

First of all, I want to say that we have to remember that our perspective as fans is not the only perspective on the show. This show is not exclusively written for, or watched by fans. Why is this relevant? Because in the past I've found myself saying that "Rose is defined by her relationship to the Doctor." That's not really the case. What I probably should have said is "Rose is more defined by her relationship to the Doctor than some previous companions." See the subtle difference? Because we have to remember that in 2005, Russell T Davies didn't create Rose in order to follow in the footsteps of previous companions. In a way, I feel she was designed to be the archetypal companion - clever, adventurous, gutsy, etc - only updated a little to reflect the fact that viewers in 2005 probably expect more of a relationship between two lead characters.

Second of all, I hope this isn't too controversial, but I just feel the need to say this: the idea of a "companion" is in itself slightly sexist. The Doctor will always be the lead character in this show, which means that any female characters are pushed slightly into the background by necessity. There's no getting around that. The only time the Doctor comes close to having an "equal" is the Master. So the companions are always forced into a slightly subservient position, and most of them are women and most of those women are pretty and a fair few of them have been under-dressed at some point or other.

I think there will always be a slight whiff of sexism about Doctor Who, because it's a format handed down from the 1960s and centred around one man who often manipulates those around him. That doesn't excuse some of the more hideous sexism we've seen in classic Who seen on occasion (thinking of the Black Guardian trilogy in particular here - Tegan in her boobtube throughout, Nyssa taking her clothes off for no reason, Tegan told to stay behind whilst the Doctor and Turlough head out to investigate), but it doesn't mean the show can't provide more positive role models for women. Sarah Jane, Romana and Ace were all at times more audacious, more outspoken, more proactive and more-on-the-ball than their respective leading men.

So once that's out of the way, what about Moffat era "Doctor Who" - is there any sexism there? We can't really have this discussion without dragging out that old Steven Moffat quote, can we?

"There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands."

There are several things to say about this quote. First of all, if Moffat generally believes this is true of women as a species (rather than a few select examples), then it's a bit worrying. Some women undoubtedly do fit this description - you can roll your eyes all you like, but we've all met them, but the fact that Moffat would casually generalise about an entire gender like that is not a good thing. Second of all, the attitudes highlighted in this quote do not, fortunately, appear to be reflected in how he writes female characters is Doctor Who. Thirdly, this quote is from a newspaper article from 2004 and we have no idea as to how accurate it may or may not be. Fourthly, however much this is a negative thing to say about women, I've heard far far worse from much more respected sources. So let's keep it in perspective, yeah? We can argue it's sexist, but not misogynist.

Does the attitude suggested by the above quote seep into Moffat era Who? I have to say, I really don't think it does. Think about the Amy and Rory relationship - Rory is the needy one who constantly craves reassurance. Amy is perfectly happy to go off and do her own thing. It's true that Amy is hugely defined by her childhood encounter with the Doctor, but I don't find this particularly problematic. The Doctor is an alien who drops out of the sky, eats fish finger custard, opens a crack in the wall then promptly disappears again. I'm not sure the fact that he happens to be male has anything to do with it - Amy would have reacted in exactly the same way to a female Doctor, a talking puppy or even a friendly monster.

Let's look at Amy in a bit more detail. She's a kissagram - something that younger viewers and overseas viewers have confused with being a stripper. It's not the same thing in any respect. A kissagram is basically someone who delivers a message accompanied by a kiss. They were popular in the 1980s, but it's a far more innocent and sexless thing than stripping. That's not to say I think young girls should aim to be kissagrams - but showing Amy Pond as a kissagram isn't meant to be a ringing endorsement of That Kind of Thing. It's saying "look, Amy's life is a bit of a mess. She doesn't have a stable job, she has a slightly embarrassing job she wouldn't want her elderly neighbours to know about." When Amy makes a move on the Doctor in "Flesh and Stone," some fans angrily surmised she was some kind of "slut" and, more importantly, that the programme was showing women in general to be "sluts".

I don't know about you, but this isn't what I got into feminism for. The single most powerful idea in feminism is that women should be in control of their own destinies and that they shouldn't have obstacles put in the way of making their own choices. For me, calling another woman a "slut" is the most anti-feminist thing you can do. It isn't for me to judge other women's sexual choices (especially if the woman in question has nearly just been killed by moving statues) - I certainly don't judge their morals by those choices. Personally, I can sympathise with Amy wanting to be close to someone after a traumatic experience, but even if I didn't feel that way - it's just one choice made on one particular day. Does it really make any sense for us to focus on these kind of things and ignore all of the other things Amy does in every single episode - all the times she figures out what's going on before the Doctor does, all the times she puts others first, all the times she tries to protect others?

The single biggest thing I get from these debates is the idea that fandom really wants "Doctor Who" to confirm to their own specific idea of what a companion should be - attractive but sexless, smart but not as smart as the Doctor, spunky but ultimately subservient, caring and feminine but also willing to abandon their normal lives at a moment's notice when the Doctor comes calling. It seems like a very narrow idea of what a heroine should be. Isn't that a pretty anti-feminist demand to make?

Comments

[ladyyuna07.livejournal.com]

Complete honesty from a woman who has studied feminism in popular culture:

The awful, awful thing about science fiction fandom? It's long been the Boy's Club. Us girls? We have to fit in. And for a long time, there's been a lot of men bashing the female characters. So, how do the women feel we need to fit in? We bash female characters too. I'm working really hard to not do that. I disliked any of the female companions I washed just before I got to Amy.

And then Amy came. And I identified with her so fast. She was confused. She was lost in life. Then something came and changed her for the better.

A lot of female character bashing comes from not being able to identify. And I think the fandom is mostly able to identify with the current perception of a female companion, what you described, because it's the Perfect Harmless Woman. The 1950s housewife. Harmless. Does what she should, no more, no less.

And I hate that perception more than anything.

Science fiction fandom? Sucks. Sucks so hard. Because no one understands what the hell feminism actually means. It means a woman has the right to do what she wants and not be judged for it.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

"Science fiction fandom? Sucks. Sucks so hard."

Amen. I love the passion and the enthusiasm, but the nit picking and the complaining and especially the bloody meta-analysis by people who don't know what they're talking about is part of why I started this community - because I want a place to discuss this show without having to wade through that crap.

[loolaa.livejournal.com]

Tell me about it. I made the mistake of glancing through another comm and the amount of negativity and whinging about Almost People got to me a bit. I mean, are they fans or not?

[ladyyuna07.livejournal.com]

There's someone that writes critiques for the episodes every week, and I'm pretty sure they just hate Moffat and decide to hate every episode from the last two series on principle. And I hate that. For God's sake, just stop watching the show then. =(

[anachronisma.livejournal.com]

Hm. This post interested me, especially the part about what companions should be.

My favorite companion is Donna. Part of the reason Donna was my favorite companion was because she was older -- older, unsatisfied with her life, aware that life contained more for her than a shitty job and another no-good boyfriend. She knew she wanted to travel. She knew she wanted to do big things in a big universe. To me, the most sexist thing of all is what happened to Donna -- her ending was basically "don't get your hopes up, it never gets better, you will be stuck right back where you were before you dared to dream of a more fulfilling, non-status-quo life for yourself". Why did this happen to Donna? Why does the Doctor (and his team of writers) choose to take her memories away and keep a shell of the woman alive? Is that even really Donna?

Donna's treatment is what I come back to, when I ask myself if Doctor Who is sexist. I want to say no -- I love Donna, and I like Amy and River Song, I feel the Doctor interacts with strong, empowered women, and holds them up as admirable people very often (even one-offs like Reinette and Sally Sparrow come across as admirable and strong and brave and with heroic qualities) but then there's the end of Series 4, and Donna's fate, and I get a sour taste in my mouth. Forget your adventures, shut up, and just find a nice man? She deserved better. Death saving the universe would have been better.

[goldvermilion87.livejournal.com]

While I really hated Donna's ultimate fate in Doctor Who, I don't have a problem with the "settling down and getting married" bit. (It's the memory wipe that makes me grind my teeth.)

See, in a recent ep (at least a Moffat ep... I just rewatched Series 5, so I could be confusing myself) the doctor talked about companions having to grow up, and leave. I think, whether we're thinking of a male or a female, we as a society use getting married as a big indicator of an individual having grown up. The example that comes to mind for me is Sam Gamgee. He ends his adventuring by getting married and starting a family, and thus he has grown up. I suppose you could complain about that being an idicator of reaching adulthood (I wouldn't, but you could) but it's one applied to men and women.

So I guess I would just say the Donna situation was handled VERY poorly (as was an awful lot in ten's final year) but that it wasn't sexist. It was just bad writing.

[anachronisma.livejournal.com]

I recently wrote & presented a paper about Samwise's development as a character and how his marriage tied into that. It's true we tend to see marriage as a litmus test of maturity (which I, as an asexual, have problems with -- people aren't fully developed unless they're in a monogamous romantic relationship with legal papers?) but I think Donna's case is different from Sam's, for a lot of reasons.

I would have felt differently if Donna had chosen to leave the TARDIS and said, "you know, I just want a family, after all". Instead this choice is foisted on her after the show makes it clear that for Donna, growing up is travelling with the Doctor and she wants to do it for the foreseeable future. Martha chooses to leave, and her engagement (and later marriage) are handled as something she chooses for herself in full knowledge that she wants and needs those things to be happy. Martha getting married isn't sexist -- but saying that the Most Important Woman in the Universe is NOT allowed to continue travelling, is NOT allowed to retain her growth and knowledge, and that she must sit down and forget what she is, that she's not even allowed the agency of being able to choose to die in full possession of her life experiences, that's the anti-feminist and hateful part.

It's hard for me to think how anything they've done to Amy or River Song can top what they did to Donna.

[goldvermilion87.livejournal.com]

I guess I still just see that as really poor writing, and a poor philosophy--one that says better to forget and be happy than to remember, along with the pain that memory must carry along with it. It's something plenty of people hold to, and that I think is horrible. But I guess I think it's a mistake to call that anti-Feminist. I see the fact that Donna is a woman as incidental, in that case, to the fact that she is not-the-doctor, who is, apparently, the only person allowed to suffer (and angst, and emo...) with memories of horror (at least in Davies era Who). It's not pro-Feminist either, but I think it's just not concerned about that at all.

I am happy with the treatment of Amy and River Song thus far. Amy in particular is feisty and can stand up for herself, but she is growing and learning a lot, too. (as is Rory :-) )

Contains spoilers for Torchwood->CoE as well as DW

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

Disagreed, it was sexist. Would they have done the same thing if Donna had been a guy?

Rose gets the TARDIS's power and it has to be taken away from her to survive. Donna gets the Doctor's mind and *everything* has to be taken away from her to survive. Idris gets the TARDIS's soul and it kills her.

Every single supernaturally empowered woman in the new series has had those powers taken away because she's a defective vessel for them.

Jack became immortal. Owen gets successfully reanimated long term and dies for unrelated reasons. Suzie Costello, on the other hand, had to be killed permanently. GRANTED, killing Suzie was a GOOD THING in context, and if it weren't part of a larger pattern I wouldn't've objected at all.

You can't evaluate instances on their own, only in how they fit into a larger whole, the pattern that builds up across multiple episodes into shows and multiple shows into genres. There are plot reasons all those instances happened the way they did, they're not the same circumstances, but why were the circumstances that way, it's fiction it could go any way the writers like? And who even cares given that there's a certain pattern going on here and it communicates a message regardless of intent.

I'm not trying to say that DW is OMG THE WORST--so far in my fannish history that goes to Supernatural, which turns Women In Refrigerators into an art form and is so male-gaze-y it rivals BattleStar Galactica: Gaius Baltar's Wet Dream (which has other redeeming qualities but still)-- but it's got its problems. Also, much of the stuff I just listed is RTD stuff, (which isn't really a distinction I'm caring about so much but other people do!) but there's moffat-era stuff too. (e.g. I felt like the Doctor shamed Amy about coming on to him in a way that Rose was never shamed (by the show) for having a thing with Mickey, Jack, and the Doctor (and even that smartypants from the museum), and the Doctor shamed Rory for Amy kissing him in a way that felt really gross and sexist as well.)

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

It's not so much the memory loss with Donna that bugs me - I saw that as more of a way to give her a big dramatic ending without changing the Doctor's status as the one remaining Timelord (which is not to say I enjoyed it, but I didn't have a problem with it). The insulting thing to me is that she's brought back for in "The End of Time" for no real reason. She isn't important to the plot in any way - she's just THERE.

Then at the end of it, she gets married off and handed a winning lottery ticket as if to say, "see, it's alright she lost all those memories and has that sense of emptiness Wilf referred to, because now she's going to be married and rich." As if these are things women should aspire to for their own sake. Perhaps if we'd actually seen anything of the husband-to-be, I might feel different about it, but because we don't really see anything of him, it's more about the fact she's getting married than who she's getting married to.

[ladyyuna07.livejournal.com]

There's a book, (well, several, but one in particular that I can't remember the title of), an academic discussion on Donna's fate, and I think you would find it interesting (or you could have written it! Haha!). It basically says that Donna became the equal to the Doctor, just as Romana once was, but because Doctor Who is, in the end, a man saving the day, we can't have that. And though Romana got to stick around for a while before being booted out, Donna got the treatment much quicker. "Sorry, no room for two Amazing People on this TARDIS."

I HATE what happened to Donna. I loved her. Not at first (sour taste left from the Christmas special) but she grew on me, and then I loved her. And she, the most loyal, got the worst fate.

[mmgage.livejournal.com]

I have zero problem with Donna getting married. I have a HUGE problem with the Doctor erasing her memories. It isn't her memories even which upsets me, but all the growth we see from Donna over the course of meeting the Doctor. The Donna we meet in "Runaway Bride" is vapid, shallow, and not particularly likeable. Meeting the Doctor changes her (as it changes everyone who meets him) and by the time "Partners in Crime" roles around, she's done a lot of maturing. It continues through series 4, and then we get to "Journey's End." I have numerous problems with this episode, chief amongst them being the way Davies trashes ALL the characters, but none offends me so much as what is done to Donna. First, the only way she can become truly self-confident is to become half-Time-Lord. What kind of comment on humanity is THAT? And then she has to lose all her memories to survive and revert to the vapid woman we first met? Ooh - infuriating! And to think he can just "fix it" in "End of Time" by showing us Donna getting married? No. Not to knock marriage (I quite like it) but THAT is sexist. But then I think Davies was/is sexist at many times.

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

Why did this happen to Donna? Why does the Doctor (and his team of writers) choose to take her memories away and keep a shell of the woman alive? Is that even really Donna?....Forget your adventures, shut up, and just find a nice man? She deserved better. Death saving the universe would have been better.

Ugh, this. What makes it even worse is that that was chosen in order to add tragedy for the Doctor--that *he* had to take all that away, remove her connection to him and be left the only one to regret, to destroy this wonderful competent woman who had sprung to life independently, only because of him as a catalyst--it was all about the women in refrigerators, killing a woman off to propel a man's plotline/character development. And, I mean, it does add tragedy for the Doctor, it feels awful and horrible and tragic to even remember right now, but her (non)death should've been about her in a way it wasn't, and she deserved a better end. It was especially grating in how Donna was the one to truly hold her own against the Doctor in a way no one but River Song has in the new series--I love Amy and Rose and Marsha, but the age difference was much more pronounced there (Rory & CED3 also don't hold their own vs the Doctor either, but that's much less loaded).

[heintz57.livejournal.com]

I find this very interesting and a relief because as I have been reading the different reviews on season 6 and I keep hearing the same thing Moffet is sexiest he has downgraded the idea of a companion to be just a sex object. I think that people forget that he wrote many other DW episodes and critics and fans alike didn't even mention any aspect of sexiest attitude.

I have found that the ladies that have been the companion of the Doctor are brilliant and smart and beautiful and I think that it has continued in Amy. She is young but she knows what she wants and as she travels I have seen her mature to a wonderful woman. With her marriage I have seen even more changes her concern for her husband as well as her concern for Doctor she has become the caretaker which is a role that many woman have taken on and let me tell you it is not an easy role to handle.

Do I think DW is sexiest, no I don't, I think it mimics reality very well and that sets people off because they don't want to remember reality when watching television they want to escape from it.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

I have actually seen some stuff where people are going back through previous Moffat episodes (generally, people go and do this AFTER they've read the quote, trying to find content that backs it up).

One of the most frequent comments I've seen is about "Girl in the Fireplace." One "feminist" writer said that it's insulting that the Doctor falls in love with a historical "sex buddy." For me, that was the most misguided thing I've ever seen a feminist say. It would be far more sexist if the Doctor rejected Reinette because of her sexual history, or if she was portrayed negatively because of it.

[welshgirl15.livejournal.com]

Personally, I have never found Doctor Who sexist. I've never even seen something in it and thought there was a possibility that someone would take it as sexist. Honestly, I didn't even realise people did think it was sexist until discussions after Time and Space was aired.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

That made me roll my eyes. A man fancying his wife is sexist, is it? Or is it the fact that Amy is sexual to begin with that offends so many people.

[welshgirl15.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly!

[loolaa.livejournal.com]

Nah Doctor Who isn't sexist. It's no more sexist than any other TV program and a lot less so than most.

I do find that Moffatt quote offensive because it doesn't apply to me in the slightest what with reaching the age of 35 and still having no desire to find a man/get married/have kids. I actually find the concept quite alien.

That said, what he said doesn't come over in his writing. Sure the main female characters are all married. I find it a little odd, since in these kinds of shows they're generally single. But I guess it makes a change. And being married isn't sexist.

But I agree with everything you say. The people being sexist are actually the ones complaining about sexism.

[mmgage.livejournal.com]

Is Doctor Who sexist? Yes and no. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a historian and the first thing you have to remember when studying history is that you CANNOT judge an earlier time by modern terms of morality. At least, not JUST by modern terms. You have to put yourself into their mindset if you want to gain a real understanding. So, we look at say the uniforms on Classic Star Trek and go oh how sexist - mini-skirts and go-go boots - and loose sight of the fact that for women of the time, that was a bold costuming choice (Nichelle Nichols was thrilled - it was a powerful, sexy outfit). The same holds for classic Who. Teegan in a boob-tube was less about sexism and more about reflecting the style of the time period (the '80s) just as Amy's short skirts and skinny jeans reflect the fashions of now (oh look, it's the 80s all over again).
As for Moffat being sexist - while his statement isn't a nice commentary on women and I certainly HOPE it wasn't a reflection of his actual attitudes - I don't think his writing has been sexist at all. (And now I'm going into history-paper-writing-mode and marshalling my examples.)
Let's look at series 1 - "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances." Rose is at her sassiest in this episode, giving the Doctor a heavy dose of (well-deserved) sarcasm. Nancy is a teenaged single mother in the 1940s struggling to find a way to keep her child without being completely ostracized. She shows incredible strength and determination, not only doing her best to protect Jamie and eventually rescue him from his plight, but also looking after a group of kids. Yes, it was a nurturing motherly role which was acceptable for the time period but that does not mean it took less strength or courage on her part. (I hate it when writers of historic fiction have to make all their heroines modern instead of letting them show their strength in the roles they would have had during the time period in question.)
We move to "The Girl in the Fireplace" in series 2. Madame Du Pompadour was again fulfilling an acceptable (if not a morally-correct) role for a woman of the time period, but once again she shows great strength and courage. Becoming mistress to a king would have been no easy feat but she did it. She sore to the top of her chosen profession, even if it is a profession which modern feminists would consider demeaning. She faces down the clockwork monsters, even stepping up to protect the rest of the guests at the ball. And when the Doctor returns, the king is no where to be found. She seems to have a great deal more force of personality than her monarch-lover.
I'm afraid my memory of the characters in "Blink" is too fuzzy to make a case for that episode (it's been a while since I watches series 3).
We get to series 4 and we have River Song. Now she is a thoroughly modern woman - sexy, confident, and most definitely strong. Meeting a Doctor who doesn't know her at all is her worst nightmare and yet she keeps on, trying to find a way to save her team (and it's definitely HER team, regardless of what Mr. Lux says) and ultimately saving the Doctor too. She's nurturing, certainly, but in a more modern way and coupled with a good deal of butt-kicking.
Finally we come to Amy Pond. I think Amy is a modern mixture of strength and courage with a lot of vulnerabilities (her fear of marriage and attachment, stemmed from losing her parents and then the Doctor too). She runs away to avoid facing her fears about marriage but in the process she winds up facing a lot of other dangers and she comes through them bravely. (And I have to laugh at the outrage over her skirts - have none of these people seen Leela's get-up?)
In short, I think Moffat's heroines are as well-realized as his heroes and all of them are THOROUGHLY human, which means a mix of strengths and failings, courage and cowardice.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

"Teegan in a boob-tube was less about sexism and more about reflecting the style of the time period (the '80s)"

The thing that bugs me about the women in Davison-era Who is not what they're wearing, but the reasons why. It's all over DVD commentaries and documentaries that John Nathan Turner wanted the companions covered up for Peter Davison's first series because he wanted no suggestion of hanky panky aboard the TARDIS. Then people complained and he completely reversed the policy. It strikes me that the dress policy at the time was less about what these characters might realistically wear and more about "giving people what they want."

Regarding "Blink," I think it's one of the most striking examples of Moffat's heroines being positive role models because Sally Sparrow doesn't have the option of hiding behind a Doctor. Yes, she has a male friend who backs her up (and it is HIM backing HER up) and she has that little DVD extra to go on, but this is more or less Sally's show.

Absurdly, some fans disapprove of the other female character in "Blink" (Sally's friend, whose name I've forgotten). When she gets sent back in time, this guy starts following her around and then later we learned she got married. Some people have complained about this because they think it gives a "no means yes" message, but the fact is we don't know exactly what happened between that meeting and the marriage. There's certainly no suggestion that Sally's friend gave in to him simply because he was so persistent and she was too weak and female to argue. People read these things into Moffat's episodes because they read the quote he gave to the newspaper and then go looking for evidence to back it up.

[mmgage.livejournal.com]

I felt like Davison's TARDIS started out very much a family dynamic - the Doctor was dad, Teegan was mom, and Adric & Nyssa were the children. That shifted once Adric left. I could go on about John Nathan Turner's faults (oh look - it's the Master AGAIN) but I haven't seen the dvd commentaries (we have the eps on VHS, taped from PBS in the 90s).
I think my number one complaint with classic Who's treatment of women is the old I'm-going-to-marry-this-guy-I-just-met and leave write-out. I know it happened with Susan, Leela (AND she took the dog), and at least one other (Victoria?). It's not the marriage but the notion she's shared 5 lines of dialogue with this guy and poof! they're in love and getting married.

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of baffled by the "it's not sexist!" Comments. OF COURSE IT'S SEXIST, IT'S ON TELEVISION, WE LIVE IN SEXIST SOCIETIES. Also it's pretty fundamentally centered around a powerful special Aw3s0mE dude and his trusty sidekicks--there's no way to make that not sexist. The questions of relevance are:

1)In what way is it sexist? What messages is it sending, how do we recognize and counteract them? How do we as viewers avoid letting the bad seep into our heads and those of other fans/viewers? How does it confirm sexist tropes in the genre/on TV?

2)Where does it succeed in challenging prevailing sexist attitudes without reinscribing others? For the most part (one exception marked in another comment), I've felt like the 2005+ series is really affirming of female sexuality and of queerness, without getting far into objectification/fetishization OR slutshaming. Women have desire and own it and this doesn't make them villians.

3)Is 1) redeemable? Is it redeemed by 2)? The good *does not negate* the bad, and sometimes conflicting messages come from the same show. Season 1 deliberately subverted the "black/queer characters first to die" trope with both Mickey and Jack--but by Season 4, queer, female, fat, working class, and/or of-color characters were disproportionately likely to die. Hell, *all* the survivors of Torchwood were white and the only non-straight one was the one who couldn't die (compared to pretty much everyone who died being some degree of bi). Ultimately: is it watchable? Obviously, we all think yes.

Shutting down discussions about sexism by getting all defensive and either/or --where it's about the worth of the show as opposed to 'what message is this sending'--means that we lose the opportunity to challenge the stuff in 1. I compare this to The Vampire Diaries fandom--my other currently-on-air-fandom--where the existence of racism and SRS BSNS RAPE CULTURE in the show gets called out, making an opportunity for education, and lessening its impact. That doesn't make *the show* less sexist--it is and it isn't, I don't evaluate in those terms unless it's unwatchably misogynistic and/or Bechdel-test-faily--but I think it's a more helpful response.

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

"There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands."

ARGH. The worst part about this quote is how victim-blaming it is. Like,uh, men who are independent like that aren't independent because of personal virtue any more than women who are dependent like that are so because of personal fault--our society TELLS men and women to act this way. Bah. I mean, it'd be bad enough if women earned 100% what men do, but we don't, so it's not just sexist social conditioning but real world economics causing that to happen. UGH. And, of course, men avoiding commitment and responsibility is so awesome? Huh? Both of these are behaviors entrenched under Patriarchy, and little does Moffat realize it, but they're *both* behaviors set up to benefit men!

Grumble grumble grumble.

[oboetheres.livejournal.com]

"There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands."

There are several things to say about this quote. First of all, if Moffat generally believes this is true of women as a species (rather than a few select examples), then it's a bit worrying.

No one here follows him on twitter? Here are a couple of tweets on the subject: Oh, That's where it's all coming from, been wondering. I remember that interview - never said any of that, nor do I think it. (http://twitter.com/#!/steven_moffat/status/73013478759211009) & he clarifies Probably a Coupling interview. They always took the characters views and gave them to ME. Which is why I only talk in jokes now. (http://twitter.com/#!/steven_moffat/status/73014880478838784)

I found those two tweets made a lot of sense, since I never though his writing seemed consistent with the (misconstrued) quote.

[craftermoon.livejournal.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgVV_8rItOQ