|
Diabolik900 posted:I agree that what you're saying is the intention, but the problem isn't an in-universe "The Doctor is too mean" problem, it's a real world "including dialogue about the main female character's appearance every episode" problem. I wonder if this is the kind of shitstorm that erupted whenever Ninth commented on Rose's ever-changing outfits.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
LividLiquid posted:That's what's happening in-universe, which would be fine, if we lived in that universe, but we don't. That is all true. But in this universe how could he bust her balls safely and provide a good example for the children? Attack her intelligence? No. Attack her physical prowess? No. Attack her ability to manage children? No. Attacking either qualities which sexists traditionally believe women to be inferior to men, or qualities where sexists traditionally feel women excel, both seem sexist. Is there any way for a powerful white man to rib his inferior female companion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
When you insult a male for his physical appearance, on television in front of millions of people, you aren't perpetuating hundreds of years of cultural assumptions. When you go after a woman and your go-to is about her looks, you are. The argument you're making is not dissimilar to "if Journey to the Center of the Tardis had white car thieves, it'd just be saying all white people are car thieves." Not to the same degree, at all, but it attacks things from the same viewpoint. That everything exists in a vacuum and has no context or consequences. The opposite is true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Frankly, at this point I'm less interested in hearing about whether Moffat is sexist/misogynistic (spoiler: he is) and more about what it is that compels the "I MUST DEFEND STEVEN MOFFAT AND ALL THE STUPID THINGS HE SAYS/WRITES AT ALL COSTS" brigade to pop up every time someone takes issue with one of his (by now all-too-common) duff scripts or lunkheaded statements. Is there some "sunk cost fallacy" thing where people figure that since he wrote a few good episodes back in RTD's era, they have too much invested in him now to even be able to countenance any opinion that isn't praising him to high heaven, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:That is all true. But in this universe how could he bust her balls safely and provide a good example for the children? Attack her intelligence? No. Attack her physical prowess? No. Attack her ability to manage children? No. Attacking either qualities which sexists traditionally believe women to be inferior to men, or qualities where sexists traditionally feel women excel, both seem sexist. Edit: I should also note that I think the three most damaging words in the English language are "be a man." Anything that tells anybody what their social category is all about, from manhood to womanhood all the way down to Captain Jack's jokes about "you're so Welsh" is ignorant, childish, and mean. LividLiquid fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:When you insult a male for his physical appearance, on television in front of millions of people, you aren't perpetuating hundreds of years of cultural assumptions. When you go after a woman and your go-to is about her looks, you are. No, what I'm saying is that there are very very few topics where a man can insult a woman and not evoke hundreds of years of cultural assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:No, what I'm saying is that there are very very few topics where a man can insult a woman and not evoke hundreds of years of cultural assumptions. We should all be constantly examining those assumptions, and questioning them. Especially before we write things millions of people will see that could further damaging narrative assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Frankly, at this point I'm less interested in hearing about whether Moffat is sexist/misogynistic (spoiler: he is) and more about what it is that compels the "I MUST DEFEND STEVEN MOFFAT AND ALL THE STUPID THINGS HE SAYS/WRITES AT ALL COSTS" brigade to pop up every time someone takes issue with one of his (by now all-too-common) duff scripts or lunkheaded statements. Is there some "sunk cost fallacy" thing where people figure that since he wrote a few good episodes back in RTD's era, they have too much invested in him now to even be able to countenance any opinion that isn't praising him to high heaven, or what? In Sandifer's case, what happened is that "The Big Bang" had such a huge impact on Phil that it inspired him to do this huge, sprawling analysis of all of Who. Trouble is, he went into the writing process with the premise that current-day Who must be the teleological triumph of television; as a result, he's been increasingly dishonest and defensive ever since he stepped into the Wilderness Years. To Phil, Moffat!Who MUST be the best era of Who, or his whole years-long argument could fall apart. If that premise goes undefended, he's "wasted" the past three-plus years. So Moffat!Who MUST be Feminist, and not-racist, and progressive and good. And any deviation from the Moffat model, any present-day vision of Doctor Who that isn't Moffat's, is therefore a diversion at best and a waste of effort at worst - hence his dismissal of Big Finish, post-revival BF especially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Maybe. I could probably come up with one given enough time, but when you run the risk/reward calculations and one of the risks is incredibly damaging to society, you should probably do something else if the best-case reward scenario is somebody laughs, and the worst-case risk scenario is "I tell women what they're supposed to be in any way whatsoever." And also makes for awkward and lovely TV. I'd rather get scenes where the Doctor makes a dumb comment and Clara shows her ability to be mature enough to take it in stride or clever enough to come up with a nice retort than whatever you're proposing. Pizdec fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Or they're idiots who don't like being implied to be sexist even if they're not actually being implied to be sexist. So they take super offense to the slights that aren't actually there just in case they are, or because they enjoyed the dumb joke and don't want to feel like they're part of the problem. You know. Simple answers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:Except then you get scipts where the main character the Doctor keeps being teased about his chin, or his lanky figure, or obsession with jumpers, or the fact that he looks old, whereas there are no negative comments about the main female character's appearance or, in fact, any trait at all because she has to be protected at all costs gets you an implication that is pretty loving sexist. Again, you seem to want these issues to be examined in a vacuum, and they can't be, shouldn't be, and won't be. If you call a man ugly, you're not saying as much as if you call a woman ugly, because even though they're literally the same act, even in the same words, one has a lifetime of additional baggage that the other doesn't. Neither is good, and neither should happen, but one carries a meaning the other doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:That is all true. But in this universe how could he bust her balls safely and provide a good example for the children? Attack her intelligence? No. Attack her physical prowess? No. Attack her ability to manage children? No. Attacking either qualities which sexists traditionally believe women to be inferior to men, or qualities where sexists traditionally feel women excel, both seem sexist. That's a good question and I think it reveals something about the quality of the character. Ideally you would pick on something she does (as opposed to something she is, although the English/Scottish dynamic might be level enough to work in a pinch). But what does she even do? How is she flawed? She was insensitive about Danny being a soldier a couple of times, but the Doctor wasn't there and he shares her prejudices on that topic anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:You also seem to be insisting that we should ignore that, in favor of jokes, rather than strive to not be assholes for no reason. So when I asked, "Is there any way for a powerful white man to rib his inferior female companion?" Your answer is, "No. No there is not." Couldn't you just say that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Angela, I'd like to thank you for actually elevating this discussion even though I disagree with you. We're actually getting to the core of the assumptions of which I spoke and what feminism is, rather than trading stump-speech barbs about tumblr/SJWs, and misogyny. I will gladly have this kind of conversation on this matter forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:ageist Anyway, you want Clara to not have any explicit negative character traits, be perfect in her appearance as far as characters in the show are concerned, be deprived of the ability to participate in banter or be criticised in any way, and essentially be decorum deprived of any character depth unique to male characters. I don't think I like this kind of feminism. Pizdec fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Tempo 119 posted:That's a good question and I think it reveals something about the quality of the character. Ideally you would pick on something she does (as opposed to something she is, although the English/Scottish dynamic might be level enough to work in a pinch). But what does she even do? How is she flawed? She was insensitive about Danny being a soldier a couple of times, but the Doctor wasn't there and he shares her prejudices on that topic anyway. She does stuff with kids. She is a teacher/nanny/babysitter, which frankly are pretty stereotypically feminine professions in recent history. Some of her incarnations are also very good with computers -- which isn't stereotypically feminine (though some of that was due to being uploaded or transformed into a dalak, not via hard work). And of course she's the girl who saves the Doctor. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:So when I asked, "Is there any way for a powerful white man to rib his inferior female companion?" Your answer is, "No. No there is not." Clara could insult 12 for being mean and shortsighted and having a lack of faith, because he is. And this is exactly what's happening. The Doctor, on the other hand, is just insulting Clara for not being pretty. That says a lot about what we think of women as a society. So if I wanted to have that relationship without walking down that path, I would have The Doctor's insults about Clara be directed at humans in general, instead of gender-specific. Last episode, the insult I loved was "have you seen the size of your brains? They're hilarious!" The barb is there. The relationship you want is maintained. But no social category is attacked specifically. Basically, Tom Baker did this better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:Uh oh. Next, to answer your assertions of my viewpoint, in order, no, no, no, no, no, and no. I want none of those things. Those sound boring and lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Why Uh-oh? Do you think ageism doesn't exist? How do you think the Doctor should have engaged in "healthy" banter with Clara in the context of this season's episodes? What is the proper way to refer to/criticize her appearance? What explicit negative character traits should she have? edit - also this LividLiquid posted:If I wanted The Doctor and Clara to trade barbs, and I were writing, I would ask myself, "how to men and women inslut one-another on television?", then do the opposite, striving to remain in character. Pizdec fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
LiquidLivid, you're pretty much ruining this thread. You're no better than Irish Joe in practice, even if you think your intentions are more pure. What you don't seem to understand is that the human condition has decided certain things are more desirable than the other. One of those is that youth is more desirable than seniority. Another is that that largest number of people agree is attractive is generally more desirable than something deviant from that, unless of course you're trying to attract someone with those deviant tastes. Doctor Who does sometimes challenge these concepts, but is it really the responsibility of the show to always and forever raise the banner for your own personal feelings on social issues? Somehow, your Very Important Matter became more important than my sci-fi escape hour to the degree that if it doesn't always jibe with your outlook on the human condition that the show, and not you, are the problematic element here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Right, slightly off the current topic of discussion, my current Big Finish collection that I've picked up is as follows: Davros Jubilee Spare Parts The Chimes of Midnight The Holy Terror The One Doctor I gave Davros a listen last night, and holy poo poo it was good. If this and Spare Parts are representative of the quality I can expect then I shall enjoy Big Finish releases very much indeed. I particularly liked how we were treated to flashbacks of Davros' past, and how despite his evil he was wracked with guilt over what he had done to Shan. I also thought it was neat how the story, and even Davros himself make you think for a time that maybe, just maybe he really can change for the better. Basically Colin Baker and Terry Molloy are pretty much brilliant and awesome and I might have to get more Davros stories just because of how brilliant Terry Molloy is. Any more particularly good ones? Preferably cheap? I haven't ignored people's other suggestions, but given the holiday I'm not in a position to drop £12 on an audioplay right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:She does stuff with kids. She is a teacher/nanny/babysitter, which frankly are pretty stereotypically feminine professions in recent history. Some of her incarnations are also very good with computers -- which isn't stereotypically feminine (though some of that was due to being uploaded or transformed into a dalak, not via hard work). And of course she's the girl who saves the Doctor. Yeah those are all good things, nothing I'd want to pick on. She doesn't have any flaws, is what I'm getting at. If she was actually a developed character you could easily rib her all day long without resorting to cheap/dishonest cracks about her appearance. Like, the Doctor could needle River Song for being an insufferable smuggo, or he could call out Vastra on being a leery murderer, and who cares what either of them looks like at that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Ludicro posted:Right, slightly off the current topic of discussion, my current Big Finish collection that I've picked up is as follows: THE MARION CONSPIRACY. Listen to it before Jubilee - it's Evelyn's introduction and a near-pure historical that's also at the lower pricepoint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:LiquidLivid, you're pretty much ruining this thread. I didn't start this discussion. I didn't turn this discussion into an argument. I even tried to change the subject several times. So why am I ruining this thread when Irish Joe started this, I tried to stop it literally one post after, and countless others continue to rage on the matter? What did I do, specifically, that caused this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Tempo 119 posted:Yeah those are all good things, nothing I'd want to pick on. She doesn't have any flaws, is what I'm getting at. If she was actually a developed character you could easily rib her all day long without resorting to cheap/dishonest cracks about her appearance. Like, the Doctor could needle River Song for being an insufferable smuggo, or he could call out Vastra on being a leery murderer, and who cares what either of them looks like at that point. Pizdec fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I want you to ask yourself one question: why are you blaming me? Because you're posting, sometimes double-posting, about matters of what society has conditioned itself to believe that are so philosophical that they exist outside the scope of the thread. And you offered to "talk about (this) forever" which is almost a threat to completely derail. Irish Joe was trolling, and that's why I said you're not equal to him in intent but the overall effect on discussion is equally straining. Anyhow, the only way I think this stepped on toes was whoever said that people who refute these critiques feel that MoffatWho is beyond critique. I can only speak for myself, I don't think the show is beyond critique but I'll probably also never seek out seriously educated critique about it. That's because when I look to the internet regarding a TV show I like very much, I kind of desire to be connected to an echo chamber of other people who also like it very much. Well-written critiques are interesting from an objective viewpoint, but as a fan I am hardly objective. Discussions about whether the show perpetuates myths of human society or whether or not it has a responsibility to challenge widely-held belief systems just is very wearying to a crowd that just wants to enjoy something together and not drag themselves down philosophizing on the human condition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
You know, there were a lot of things wrong with Colin and Peri's bickering phase, but the thought does occur that the dialogue given to them was of a completely different kind to the dialogue Capaldi gets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=910Rpcvu-jc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN3yizkdMKw Colin's spiky and he's rude at far greater length than Capaldi is, and you may well find that you have to to develop your own explanation of why she's even travelling with such an unpleasant person, but despite being rude and unpleasant to his companion for an entire series, he never that I can recall goes to "Hahaha you're ugly and unattractive" (apart from that one bit in Mindwarp where he's specifically trying to save her from a hideous fate by playing on the villain's prejudices) to demonstrate that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:never that I can recall goes to "Hahaha you're ugly and unattractive"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:In Sandifer's case, what happened is that "The Big Bang" had such a huge impact on Phil that it inspired him to do this huge, sprawling analysis of all of Who. Trouble is, he went into the writing process with the premise that current-day Who must be the teleological triumph of television; as a result, he's been increasingly dishonest and defensive ever since he stepped into the Wilderness Years. Whether or not you're accurate in saying that there's a teleological orientation towards liking the Moffat era in TARDIS Eruditorum, I don't think you can link that to why he dismisses Big Finish. It's a cultural theory project, and there's not really enough of culture in audio plays as a whole to write meaningfully about, let alone the (prolific for the form!) sub genre of Doctor Who audio plays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Maybe. I could probably come up with one given enough time, but when you run the risk/reward calculations and one of the risks is incredibly damaging to society, you should probably do something else if the best-case reward scenario is somebody laughs, and the worst-case risk scenario is "I tell women what they're supposed to be in any way whatsoever." I think one answer is to have the Doctor insult her intelligence/agility/whatever, but when you do it, make it clear that he's wrong and being an rear end in a top hat. And possibly have negative consequences to his actions. It's the same as having a story with a character who's a white cop who always beats up and harasses black dudes. It's all about the consequences. Like, compare these two stories: 1: the white cop always assumes the black dudes are criminals, and they are, and he ends up saving the day from the violent thugs, and everyone congratulates him and he leans back in his chair and lights his cigar 2: the white cop assumes the black dudes are criminals, and as a result the actual criminal gets away, and also it's made very clear how much of a total horrible jerk the white cop is and it's shown how he's hurting other people with his stupid ideas and behavior. at the end, a smarter, nicer black cop has to solve the case and save white cop's rear end, who then gets fired. It's fine to have as much racism/sexism/etc in a show as you want, but you just have to be deliberate about your portrayal. One thing I always ask myself when examining a story, and whether it's condoning a certain type of act, is "was that character rewarded or punished as a result of that act?" XboxPants fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:The problem is that things the Doctor berates companions for often include being dumb, reckless, irresponsible, overtly emotional, obtuse and other traits that are or have been attributed to women. So then you have to carefully a set of traits which were never stereotyped as feminine and end up with character choices that are limited and staggeringly boring. Being smug or a murderer would certainly count, as you said, but these are also traits that people don't really want to see in a main character of their long-running family escapist sci-fi TV show. You don't have to commit murder to be a flawed character (but it certainly helps!) There's pretty much no end to the mundane habits and problems you can assign to any given character, it is actually super easy to pick one or two that aren't exclusively coded "feminine". Like, just this season the Doctor has become a coffee drinker, in addition to all the other weird stuff he does. What if we just gave that one to Clara instead? Nice job running down that corridor Clara, must be all the caffeine you poison yourself with. Wow that's not right Clara, sounds like you haven't had your morning coffee. I mean whatever, I'm not paid to write this poo poo. It's just an example. Obviously it's not something you can hang a whole character off anyway, but single traits on their own rarely are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:LiquidLivid, you're pretty much ruining this thread. You're no better than Irish Joe in practice, even if you think your intentions are more pure. Disagree. Astroman posted:My original point was "well I just don't see it, sorry." What you're saying here (bolded) is "this argument would be over a lot earlier if people would just agree that I am objectively right." We're talking about cultural things, so anything being present in a work (or rather, be interpreted as being present in a work which is effectively the same thing from the audience's point of view) is determined by whether people see it in there or not. The result of one person saying "This is sexist" and one person saying "This isn't sexist" can never be "This isn't sexist", best case scenario is "Some people consider it to be sexist for these reasons:". "I don't see it" isn't a counterargument to anything. The only actual discussion you can have about it is along the lines of what LiquidLivid has been posting - going into the theory, societal effect and that kind of thing. The discussion shares a lot of similarities with Creationism vs Evolution; it's really really easy to argue for Creationism by saying "I just don't think that happens" and then leaving the other side to give an abridged version of the argument of a whole field of work. ProfessorLoomis posted:No, I'm starting to think alot of you guys are socially inept shuttins.. imagine that.. Ironicat.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
You know, it'd be trivially easy to have the Doctor criticise Clara's appearance and have it come across as an alien who doesn't understand humans by having him rib her about her lack of a third eye or superfluous appendix or undeveloped circulatory system. The fact that the things he ribs her for are things that humans rib each other for makes him feel less alien, not more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:"I don't see it" isn't a counterargument to anything. The only actual discussion you can have about it is along the lines of what LiquidLivid has been posting - going into the theory, societal effect and that kind of thing. The discussion shares a lot of similarities with Creationism vs Evolution; it's really really easy to argue for Creationism by saying "I just don't think that happens" and then leaving the other side to give an abridged version of the argument of a whole field of work. Is it any wonder why people don't take your opinions seriously when you have yet to address a single argument of the opposition? Every post you make literally dismisses everybody who disagrees with you as wrong, not for any reason, but because they can't possibly be right in your demented view of the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Can you all agree to disagree and move on, please? There were some 100 new posts overnight, and it's all the same back and forth bickering. Go and make yourself a new thread to do it in, and you can discuss it forever. gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Can you all agree to disagree and move on, please? There were some 100 new posts overnight, and it's all the same back and forth bickering. Go and make yourself a new thread to do it in, and you can discuss it forever. Alternatively, they can stay in this thread when we all move on to the new one this weekend. But yeah, enough of this, neither side is convincing the other. I'm sure when the next episode comes out and you all get new "data" to support your arguments, then you can tell everybody how right you were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
It basically comes down to the Doctor attacking her appearance because Clara as a character wasn't conceived with any substantial traits. She was a magical Moffat girl last season, but now that she's getting more screen time she uhh... teaches school and, um... is awkward on dates?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Gordon Shumway posted:Alternatively, they can stay in this thread when we all move on to the new one this weekend. But yeah, enough of this, neither side is convincing the other. I'm sure when the next episode comes out and you all get new "data" to support your arguments, then you can tell everybody how right you were. We're not doing weekly threads any more. We're all stuck in here for the rest of the season! <rattles the bars>
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
So who else is thinking that the 'Promised Land' is obviously going to end up somehow being Gallifrey?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Hey, 300 something new posts! Winder what hap...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:40
|
|
