It’s that time of year again! For the past couple of years, Doctor Who has created a mini-episode for Red Nose Day in the U.K., which raises money for Comic Relief, a charity that gives aid to disadvantaged people both in the U.K. and in Africa. This year, Steven Moffat wrote a two-part minisode for the cause, both parts of which can be viewed below the cut.
I’ve been regularly discussing Moffat’s Women here at Tor.com, because for the most part Steven Moffat has excelled in creating complex female characters. From Nancy in “The Doctor Dances” to Amy Pond he’s done a wonderful job of creating women that are positive feminist additions to the television landscape.
Which is why it pains me to have to write a negative Moffat’s Women column for the first time.
Part 1 – “Space”:
Part 2 – “Time”:
In “Space” and “Time,” The Doctor is allowing Rory to help fly/fix the TARDIS (it’s not really clear which, but knowing the TARDIS it could easily be both). Rory gets distracted by the sight of Amy walking above him on a glass floor in a short skirt, and drops a thermal coupling, which The Doctor “specifically mentioned not dropping.” This causes the TARDIS to end up inside itself, and a cute, wacky bit of time paradoxery ensues.
There’s a wonderful bit in the middle where Amy, upon seeing herself outside herself for the first time can’t stop flirting with herself. It reminded me of Mirror Universe Major Kira on DS9 or Doppleganger Willow on Buffy. Except, there’s no “evil” Amy. It’s just Amy, which makes this moment all the more amazing. There’s no good/evil judgement there. Of course Amy would flirt with herself! She’s gorgeous and awesome! What makes it even funnier is The Doctor calling Amy on her slight tendency toward self-centeredness by saying that Amy flirting with herself is “true love at last.”
Rory being distracted by Amy in a short skirt (not to mention the idea of two of her) is understandable. After all, he knows what she looks like under the skirt, making it even more understandable in his case. This isn’t my problem with the minisodes. My problem is with the too-easy, dated, sexist humor they employ, especially in the second part. First, there’s the issue of Amy being a bad driver and Rory being allowed to “have a go” at driving the TARDIS. Bad woman driver, ha ha. Now, one of the things I love about Amy is the fact that she’s flawed. She’s a complex woman, so if being a bad driver is one of the many things that make her who she is, I can forgive that.
Less forgivable, however, is the final message at the end. Once the crisis is resolved, The Doctor says that they should be safe, but to prevent it from happening again, he says “Pond, put some trousers on.” So, let me get this straight: Rory gets distracted, Rory drops the coupling…and it’s Amy’s job to put some pants on? Yes, it’s just a joke. Yes, she rolls her eyes at The Doctor and gives Rory a glare…but the fact that Moffat chose to have The Doctor reprimand Amy at the end instead of, oh I don’t know, slapping Rory upside the head for not paying attention, soured the experience for me.
It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a lot about recently, under more serious circumstances. You can check out how I feel about the matter here. Long story short, it bothers me that it’s always a woman’s responsibility to cover up, because “men will be men. What else can we expect from them?” I’m tired of it always being a woman’s job to curb her behavior or style of dress in accordance with what men want and need.
First, when discussing Amy’s “bad driving” she brings up the fact that she got her license on the first try—unlike Rory—Rory says that Amy “cheated” her way into a driver’s license by wearing a skirt. Ha, ha? Later, The Doctor does reprimand Rory when the problems first arise with an “Oh, Rory!” to which Rory replies, “Sorry.” So, how hard would it have been for The Doctor to say something to Rory at the end like “I’m getting you a pair of blinders or something?” Or, so as not to place blame on Rory for his desire for his wife, or blame on Amy for wearing what she wears, say something like “I’ve really got to figure out how to tint that floor?” There were any number of ways to write a funny ending for the minisode. It bothered me that Moffat went with humor that dates back to a time when people laughed at bosses chasing their secretaries around a desk, and it was totally okay. I’m willing to give Moffat the benefit of the doubt and assume that, since this was a small job for a charity, that he wasn’t really thinking that hard about it. I hope he’ll come to realize that “punishing” Amy for what she wears, even in jest, sends the message that men and boys don’t ever have to be responsible for their actions. That women cause trouble, or that women are “asking for it.” That it’s better if women aren’t around when men are doing manly things, because they’ll just be a distraction. Do you see where this way of thinking can lead?
Not to mention the fact that Amy had what seemed like an urgent question for The Doctor that she wanted to talk to him about in private at the beginning of the minisode; a question we never heard. Perhaps this will be addressed in “The Impossible Astronaut?” We’ll have to wait until Saturday, April 23rd for the Series 6 premiere of Doctor Who on BBC One/BBC America to find out!
Teresa Jusino is two years older than Buffy Summers. Her “feminist brown person” take on pop culture has been featured on websites like ChinaShopMag.com, PinkRaygun.com, Newsarama, and PopMatters.com. Her fiction has appeared in the sci-fi literary magazine, Crossed Genres; she is the editor of Beginning of Line, the Caprica fan fiction site; and her essay “Why Joss is More Important Than His ‘Verse” is included in Whedonistas: A Celebration of the Worlds of Joss Whedon By the Women Who Love Them, which is on sale now wherever books are sold! Get Twitterpated with Teresa, or visit her at The Teresa Jusino Experience.
I think is this over-reacting, to be honest. The whole sketch was tongue-in-cheek British naughtiness (including Rory ogling the “twin” Amys) and completely inoffensive in my book.
s t srprsng tht th Dctr wld mplctly ndrs rp cltr? ftr ll, h’s vry ld mn wh gs rnd tmptng yng grls nt hs vn, mn, TRDS. Smtms h mks thm cll hm “grndfthr”. t’s dsgstng, rlly, nd th whl thng shld b bnnd.
I’m with you on this, Teresa. I’ve had too many times in real life where I’ve been told that I had to control my behavior, because men can’t be expected to control theirs, to find it “funny” when it gets pulled out in fiction.
If this wasn’t something that happened in real life, it might be funny, for the surprise value (why pick on Amy for Rory’s mistake?)
It’s part of the larger problem of rape culture, the idea that men can’t be expected to control themselves around women, and that the solution to this problem is for women to cover up, be quiet, and somehow manage by behavior to reach inside the minds of men and control what they’re thinking and how they’re acting.
@Misa (female!) – It’s the fact that this is standard “tongue-in-cheek naughtiness” that made it a problem for me. The fact that this is acceptable go-to humor, that it is typical. That’s part of the problem. The fact that people rarely question that laughing at this sort of thing is OK, because it’s so ingrained. I was just hoping to shine a light on that.
@dripgrind and Ursula – the thing is, I think that Doctor Who tries, and tries really hard to advance the cause of women. From the “hit you over the head feminism” of the Sarah Jane days, to Moffat and his creation of all these fabulous female characters. The thing is, even someone like Moffat, who I don’t think does stuff like this intentionally, needs to be called on it during those times where he slips. Perhaps especially when it’s unwitting and seemingly innocent, because it’s those very unwitting, innocent instances of sexism that allow it to continue, even as more overt sexism is successfully quashed.
Teresa, I agree with “calling him on it.”
It isn’t that he’s a horrible person for making this mistake, and for not seeing a less-than-nice part of culture because he, like the rest of us, is swimming in it.
I know many people who, if called on this type of thing, will get upset. I also know many people who get upset when others are called on this type of thing – as if pointing out racism, misogyny, homophobia or other bias is a worse thing than actions that are misogynistic, racist, homophobic or otherwised biased.
But I also know many people who can call out such behavior in a straightforward and clear way (as you have) and I know people who, if called on this kind of thing, will say “I’m sorry, my mistake, I won’t do it again”, and then make a consicious effort to pay attention in the future. Which is really all the response needed.
It’s like stepping on someone’s toes – you don’t do it on purpose, but when they yell, you apologisze, and make a point of watching out for toes in the future.
And if you see someone yell because their toes were stepped on, you don’t turn around and scold that person for yelling when their toes are stepped on. You offer them a hand if needed, and think about what happened so you don’t step on toes yourself in the future.
I disagree with your statement that it is always the woman who has to change. It is usually the woman, but lately I have seen more and more topless men distracting the heroine. The Doctor would have told him to put on a shirt.
I wonder how The Doctor would have reacted if it had been Jamie McCrimmon instead of Amy.
I have stumbled upon the alternate universe where people believe Steven Moffat creates strong female characters. Amy Pond is a strong female character? Really? I’d rather not live in THAT world, thanks very much.
To wit, here’s Moffat:
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.
and:
Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level –
except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated
and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your
relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your
preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of
respect for anything male.
Q.E.D.
@m.d. – While you might be right about what would happen if the roles were reversed, you actually stated what the real issue was: “It is usually the woman.” Teresa’s exact point is that this is a STEREOTYPE. A lame one. It’s insulting because “it is usually the woman.”
Agreed with you, Teresa. Thank you for calling him out on it.
The entire point of these segments was to poke fun at the prudes who complained about Amy’s skirts.
What an over reaction…
…the whole
5th season had Rory being treated quite poorly and Amy tried to cheat on
him more than once with the Doctor….and that’s acceptable to you
apparently as humour?…just don’t mention her skirt. Sigh.
Moffat is a perfectionist when it comes to his scripts. It’s not
unwitting. It is intentional. He just INTENDED for you to see it as a
joke and not analyze it. He knew it would be deemed as funny, and that’s
how he wrote it. I watched it with my girlfriend and her sister, and
both thought it was pretty funny, and didn’t find such a comment
offensive at all.
Russel T Davies when he relaunched the show infused it with humour about BOTH sexes.
I have two words for you. JACK HARKNESS. Throught all the Tennant seasons Harkness was the butt of similar jokes from the Doctor when the ladies oggled HIM the way that Rory was oggling Amy….and Harkness was always the one that was rebuffed for being too sexy, or too flirty…That’s okay apparently, but gods forbid a comment of a very similar nature be made to Amy Pond? It’s the same thing, and you know why it doesn’t tee people off? Cause they know it’s a joke!
You want to talk about sexism…let’s talk about how the Twilight
series portrays women and their men, written BY a woman. That series is a
treasure trove of sexism and mistakes in writing and portayal of youth
and love, the likes of which are so blatant it galls me that so many
people think it’s okay for teens to read, let alone watch.
Meh. I think you’re looking for an injustice where none exists.
It’s like “What do you mean, ‘you people’?” or something similar.
If you expect a gender bias, or an orientation bias, or a racial bias, or whatever kind of bias you prefer to stalwartly defend against, then you can usually find it.
Rory liked Amy’s skirt, and she knew he liked it. If I wore a t-shirt of a pit bull ripping a child apart to a youth soccer game, would I be completely without blame if some of the soccer moms there took offense?
Sex is much more primal than any modern concept of political correctness can realistically hope to contain. Men and women know this instinctively, and while “self control” can go a long way toward keeping those impulses in check, it is often noted that the most restrained among us tend to be the ones most likely to be hiding extra “special” quirks/fetishes. A woman doesn’t wear a short skirt because she likes how it looks. She wears it because she likes how it makes her feel. That “makes her feel” comes from a lot of things, but one of the most fundamental is “do they think I’m sexy?” Even if you don’t WANT anything sexual from someone, you want them to find you sexy, regardless. Because if they DON’T then WHY NOT? Can you explain why else women would wear high heels? Corsets? Uncomfortable bras?
I agree with BenPatient.
My girlfriend sometimes dresses up quite sexily to go out with her friends (when I am not accompanying her) and I ask her why she’s getting all sexy and she usually replies that she likes to look sexy and feel sexy and hopes that she gets looked at. Yeah, guys are going to oggle her, but who am I to begrudge her that sexy skirt or dress? I’m quite comfortable in our relationship and understand her desire to “be desired” even if it’s not me. As she is wont to say, she “looks” and I “look” (and that’s healthy) and anyone who says they don’t look even when involved is bloody lying. Who doesn’t like getting looked at when they look nice? I know if I am dressed up and a girl looks me up and down on the subway that it flatters me. It’s normal and completely natural to behave in such ways. We are human. Sex is primal and instinctive. It’s how we are built.
Taylor Lautner could put on a shirt too. Will he? Probably not.
How about Mark Wahlberg in DATE NIGHT? No? They make a joke of it though….is that wrong?
What about the Old Spice guy? Should he put on a shirt?
Can you explain why else women would wear high heels? Corsets? Uncomfortable bras?
Well, I was fired from a job because the shoes I wore didn’t meet the dress code – I was wearing plain black leather lace up shoes, which fit, and my boss wanted me to wear high heels, which they don’t make in sizes/shapes that fit my feet. I knew several women at that job who would be limping by the end of the day because they wore the shoes that were expected, even though those shoes were neither comfortable or practical for the job (sales in a furnature store, with a lot of walking through a large showroom.)
Sometimes you where those things because you need a job, and know that if you don’t, you’ll suffer, and that you don’t have the time, money or energy to fight it out in court, even if you might win eventually.
The same reason you listen to people who tell you to cover up or you’ll get raped, because men just can’t control themselves – and you know that some men won’t conrol themselves, despite the fact then men can do so, as proven by the many men you know who do control their behavior.
I didn’t have as strong of a reaction as you, Teresa, but I had the same one. It was all tongue in check, but I think the point that Moffat might need to take a deeper look at his own subconscious biases is a good one. Maybe he’ll read this and see what he did here, and realize he didn’t need to do it. Many of us would benefit from pushing ourselves to challenge our biases, as we live now in a culture where so many of the -isms are far less overt than segregated water fountains and the expectation of make-up and heels for housework, though all the while still there and still destructive.
In keeping with the Doctor’s relationship with Amy and Rory, it seems like the best joke, most in character would have either been a jab at Rory for being less than conscientious or a jab at Amy for distracting even herself with her skirt. I think Teresa’s point was that the joke was too easy, and reinforced a stereotype we’d all be better off without, including Moffat who may not even know he hadn’t evolved beyond yet.
To reiterate — I don’t think Teresa had an issue with Amy wearing a cute short mini, nor that any guy (or alternate Amy) would be distracted by the mini. It was that Amy should change out of the mini so as not to distract rather than slapping Rory upside the head and expecting him to be capable of concentrating on fixing complex machinery without getting distracted by said mini. I’m a cleavage woman myself, and when I wear certain shirts, I expect a lingering eye here and there; but if we’ve entered into a long conversation about Proust or Palestine I expect your eyes to be looking at my eyes, not my tits. I would hope you would expect the same of yourself.
And the Twilight comment, c’mon… we’re intelligent people here, so why the hell would we EVER be talking about Twilight??
To make a big deal out of nothing. This is how it’s done.
I might as well write an article that Steven Moffat is in favor of women who molest their husbands and condones violent behavior in relationships, because Amy slaps Rory.
But that would be silly……as well.
cn’t blv th plgsm fr Mfft’s prpgtn f rp cltr n ths thrd. W’r sppsd t blv t ws “nntntnl” nd “nwttng” tht h vctm-blms my Pnd nd ffctvly frcs hr nt brq lst sh nflm hr hsbnd’s pssns nd dsrpt th twdy clbhs tmsphr f th Trds.
t ws msndrstndng… mscmmnctn… Ths s xctly th rhtrc tht’s sd t jstfy rp (lng wth “mxd mssgs”).
Dctr Wh s nt prgrssv shw.
Thr s lng ln f Dctrs – ll, by n stndng cncdnc, mn, bcs wmn cn’t b dctr, rght? – wh pss thr pwr dwn ptrrchl ln.
Th shw rnnrs – th ppl wh ltrlly rn th shw – r ll mn.
Th Dctr ss wmn nd thn csts thm sd whn thy gt t ld!
Thr’s n wy nythng prgrssv r fmnst cn rs frm sch pr-rp, ptrrchl strctr.
@WhitneyS:
I mentioned Twilight because it is a VERY widely accepted popular novel series and movie series….and you don’t really hear alot about the mysogynism going on there do you? I was just pointing it out.
@dripgrind:
Yes, they can actually. There have been more than one female Time Lord from Gallifrey. Do your research.
Actually, Beth Willis is one of the THREE showrunners is not in fact a man, and is in fact a woman. Do your research.
Actually how it works is: The Doctor asks if they want to travel with him, and they do….and when the actors or actresses want to leave the show to pursue other acting…they find the Doctor a new companion. Oh, and just FYI a number of the companions over the years have been MEN. MANY in fact. Do your research.
Who gets to decide whether it is “nothing” that the Doctor expects Amy to change her clothing due to Rory’s lack of self-control, rather than expecting Rory to learn some self control?
It’s only “making a big deal of nothing” if you assume that the problem is “nothing” to begin with.
And Amy is being harmed by this situation. First, because Rory’s lack of self control puts her and the rest of the TARDIS crew in danger. And second, because she’s being told that she can’t be fully Amy, wearing the clothes she’s comfortable in, because it is unreasonable to expect her husband to focus on a simple task, or for the Doctor to redecorate the TARDIS in a sensible way (opaque floors.)
But it isn’t “nothing.” Policing women to control men is a serious problem, that hurts women. It hurts me, when I’m told to change because men can’t control themselves. It hurts me when I’m told not to wear a skirt, when a skirt is comfortable, because doing so “invites” men to hurt me. It hurts me when I’m told not to walk outside alone at night, because then men might attack me, when my job lets me out of work at 11 pm (what should I do, work an unpaid overnight shift so I can leave in daylight?)
The ways in which I’m hurt by the expectation that I, as a woman, control myself so that men don’t have to be expected to exersise self-control are real. They aren’t “nothing.”
And when Teresa makes a big deal about yet another case of a woman being expected to control herself because a man lacks self-control, she isn’t making a big deal of “nothing”, she’s pointing out a way in which women like me (and her) are harmed in real life.
There is a lot of evidence that, whatever they are wearing, women dress with what other women will think in mind, not so much to make men fancy them.
And any grown-up male or female can get on with their work whatever their co-workers are wearing, you can’t do that you need to do a little maturing. Nothing wrong with sex, but most of us don’t want it in our workplaces.
@Ursula
What are the odds that Rory, seeing up his wife’s skirt, will do anything but gawk? Slim methinks.
Men are sexual creatures.
So are women.
Sex & The City (where men are treated like meat)
Paranormal romance books (where men are treated like meat)
Regular romance books (men are treated like meat)
Jack Harkness in DW: (Always treated like meat…by both men AND women)
…there’s nothing wrong with that…it’s human nature.
Basically what no one wants to own up to is that ALL HUMANS are sexual creatures. It’s how we are. The mistake is in the fact that a number of them aren’t taught proper values as youths. It’s quite okay and natural to “look” and admire, but it is quite another to touch or be creepy.
I once had an argument with a so-called feminist friend of mine who claimed that she wanted a huge engagement ring and a man SHOULD be wealthy enough to “look after her”… and yet she would tell men not to hold doors for her, or pull out chairs because she could “do it herself”. I told her she can’t have it both ways. You can’t pick and choose chivalry, that’s not how it works. I had a friend who’s fiance broke up with him because the ring he could afford, was too small. Seriously. There is a HUGE world of things to get upset over when it comes to the battle of the sexes, but a line on Doctor Who is NOT one of them.
As to what Moffat feels about BOTH sexes. Do yourselves a favour and find the 4 seasons of COUPLING that he wrote with his wife, as they illustrate ALL the stuff that BOTH men and women do wrong in propogating steroetypes about each other. It’s a two-way street that often I find women don’t want to look down their own side at. As is evidenced by my above-mentioned friend who has never forgiven me for showing her logic.
Some of you seem to be missing my point entirely. My problem is NOT that Rory was checking out his wife in a short skirt – I even said as much in my piece. It’s understandable, as she’s hot, and they clearly, from what we’ve seen on the show, have an active and fun sex life.
My problem is that, when a problem arises in which Rory allowed himself to be distracted at the wrong time instead of focusing on his work, Amy and what she’s wearing is blamed. That is the issue. Not whether or not people should be allowed to be sexual. Not even people being objectified. It’s the fact that, when something happens because a man is looking at a woman, it isn’t the man who is made to be responsible for his mistake, but the woman for daring to wear what she wears. It’s THAT double standard I’m taking issue with in this piece, not anything else. I can’t be any clearer than that. And if you want to take issue with THAT point, feel free. But bringing in Jack Harkness, or talking about Coupling? A propos of nothing.
@Teresa
and I’m telling you that it’s a bleeding joke.
Just like it was a joke when Amy watched the doctor undress in the first episode and doesn’t turn away bashful like Rory does.
Just like it was a joke when Jack Harkness is reprimanded for the Rose oggling him in THE EMPTY CHILD/THE DOCTOR DANCES and screwing up in the process. You get that right Teresa?…Rose was gaping at him and caused a problem…and Harkness faced the flack from the doctor for being too flirty and sexy.
It’s all meant to be jokes.
So tell me, howcome it was okay when Harkness was reprimanded when he wasn’t the one who caused the problem and Rose was? That’s a Moffat-penned episode.
Why was that okay?
because it is meant in jest.
Sigh.
@Jessie1977 – you also seemed to miss the part in my piece where, RATHER than blame Rory for his desire, OR blame Amy for what she’s wearing, The Doctor could’ve made a joke about tinting the glass floor to prevent accidents. Because human beings ARE sexual creatures. Hopelessly sexual. And he’s not human, so he might find that aspect of our natures a bit insufferable at times. So clearly, I have no problem with either party being sexual. Perhaps you should read an entire post before you comment on it. Also, perhaps it shouldn’t be assumed that a woman being blamed when things go wrong (or it being assumed that she was given things like, oh, a driver’s license) for wearing a distracting shirt is merely “being sexual” and instead call it what it is, Being Sexist.
@Jessie1977 – That is OK while this is not, because that was turning a joke on its head, while this is the same old sexism that’s been around forever.
Do you see the difference?
The joke with Rose and Harkness was funny BECAUSE it was the opposite of what you’d expect. It was a purposeful turning of that trope on its head. One that Moffat was responsible for, and that I would praise him for!
While it would be wonderful if we lived in a world where those jokes could be made equally on both sides without inferring anything bad from them, we’re not at that point yet. It’s sad, but true.
Is the Tardis a workplace where proper standards must always be followed or a group of friends who get to tease each other about things that happen during their day ?
This has to be one of the silliest arguments about one of the most innocuous jokes on the interwebs. The way I viewed the whole episode, The Doctor was pretty much deriding Rory for his lack of self-control. Amy is one of the most self-determined female characters on television, having pulled the Doctor’s fat out of the fire on more than one occasion, and I’m sure she can handle a little bit of chiding about not wearing underwear.
Good Lord, people, Doctor Who is one of the most progressive shows on television. Let’s loosen up a bit. And as someone who works with domestic violence shelters and rape victims, I find these accusations of DW being part of a ‘rape culture’ highly offensive. Making those kinds of accusations about a show like this put the credibility of the accusers in question. But that’s just my opinion.
@dripgrind – actually, Joanna Lumley played The Doctor in a Red Nose Day special years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_and_the_Curse_of_Fatal_Death
And it was actually the first televised Doctor Who script written by Steven Moffat.
I think you’re being a little harder on Doctor Who than it deserves. It has its problems, and we should definitely call it on them. But it has also done a lot for women, and should be rewarded when it does.
@GeekToMe – As I said above, it’s just as important to call out the innocuous sexism as it is to call out the overt cases of it. Was this a big deal in the grand scheme of things? No. But it’s a small, innocuous “joke” that lots of people will watch. And accept. As OK. Without even thinking about it.
And right away you get upset because how dare we equate something like this with rape culture, because rape culture sounds SO BAD. And this isn’t THAT bad. No it isn’t. But it contributes. Get enough of these little, innocuous jokes together and they all add up to rape culture. That’s just a fact. And what upsets me is that, rather than people just taking note of that, there are people who are upset when the conversation is brought up because it “spoils their good time” when they were “just having a laugh.” The thing is, “just having a laugh” at whose expense?
Thank you, Morgana.
This reminds me of the problem I had with “The Vampires of Venice” — not exactly the same trigger, but a similar dynamic of the Doctor reprimanding Amy because Rory is somehow lacking control.
Its a pseudo strength, a fake “power over men” being given to the female character, and is undermined by the interaction between the men, which is one of being sorry for themselves. Not fair to a pretty cool female character OR to pretty cool male characters; not worthy of them. Moffat does seem to reiterate this fear of being “oppressed by women’s pillows” a little too often for me to be comfortable with it, in Who and elsewhere.
Jessie you are not hanging out in the right forums! :-D I hear virtually nothing else about the Twilight series other than its sexism.
It may be intended as a joke.
But intent is not a magic wand that takes away harm.
When something that you intended as a joke actually harms people, then you’ve failed at “joke”, even if some other people found it funny. If something you’ve intended as a joke leads to eye-rolling and “oh, not that again” reactions, rather than laughter, you’ve failed at “joke.”
Plenty of people, men and women, are both able to appriciate how others look and able to focus on necessary work even when they find someone else sexually attractive and sexily dressed.
One of the nice things about Rory is that he has generally been written as having that focus. Rory is clearly attracted to Amy, and loves Amy. Yet he’s been able to focus on the task at hand.
In “The Eleventh Hour”, when Amy is lying unconscious after Prisoner Zero used her mind to create a new form, Rory easily focuses on her medical care rather than the fact that she’s passed out in a short skirt.
When the young woman selling flowers is attacked at the beginning of “Vampires of Venice”, Rory stops to help her, and is quite able to do so without staring at Amy’s backside as she runs off after the attacker. Later, when Amy kisses him after they’ve fought and killed the vampire-fish, he’s able to focus on the fight, then focus on her kiss, and then jump back into focusing on the threat and going to help the Doctor save the city.
It’s how reasonable adults behave, when they both love each other and work together. Moving smoothly from one mode to another, without the relationship interfering with work, or work harm the relationship.
Taking that quality away from Rory hurts his character. It’s seriously hot for a guy to get that balance right. And it does so in a way that perpetuates a troublesome stereotype, that men don’t have self-control, and that women need to be controled to make up for men’s lack of self-control.
***
Amy is someone who likes wearing short skirts. She’s also someone who is tall enough that any store-bought skirt that’s designed to be above-the-knee will wind up quite short on her, because that is the way women’s clothing is cut and sold that way. Shaming her for wearing short skirts is like shaming me for wearing “unattractive” shoes – they don’t make many fashionable shoes that fit me, and they don’t make many shorter skirts that won’t be very short on Amy.
Amy should be allowed to dress as she finds comfortable, even when that is short skirts. And she should be able to expect the men she works and lives with to be able to react to her as adults, working with each other and her as needed, enjoying if she dresses sexy for her fun and Rory’s without letting it hurt their work.
Amy, the Doctor and Rory have had that dynamic down to a lovely dance,, much of the time, one that is even more sexy for keeping sex in its place and treating all the dancers with respect. This “joke” is a stumble in that dance.
@Teresa I guess if you wish to support the ‘supporting rape culture’ argument — which I was calling commenters out on, not you — then I guess I have to point to the fact that by posting the vids you are helping propegate said culture. I find a bit of irony in that.
Again, this is the silliest. Argument. Ever.
I thought the whole charity short thing was a reaction to the British media about Amy’s skirt. This special was meant for a wider audience than just Doctor Who fans and in the pop culture context the talk all along last season was how evil Amy’s skirts were. Like it would bring on the end of the universe, corrupt children, etc despite that not happening last season. Last season was lovely, actually. So here we get a small one off about her skirt doing just that. Hey look, media, you were right all along. Her skirts are evil. *cough* But let’s forget about context I guess.
In some circles you have people thrilled that Amy can wear whatever she wants and critics be damned. All the talk about her clothing has been ridiculous for over a year now–but here we are again. People will always complain when a girl wears a short skirt. Shouldn’t be that way, but it is. I’ve had perfect strangers make comments to me before. For women appearance is always on topic. It is the number one topic for Amy haters (plot, characterization, who cares) and has been since the first photos popped up. I remain unshocked.
>And I checked Wikipedia, and there hasn’t been a single female Doctor. So don’t try to lie.
Well, Romana isn’t “The Doctor” but she is very awesome. When I was a little girl I liked her more than the Doctor. In many wasy she is better come to think of it. But I don’t need to run to wiki for facts. I’ve watched all of the show and grew up enjoying the female characters. Tegan was my favorite companion. I think it went Tegan, Sarah, and then Leela. I wanted to be Leela when I was eight. I was all about the knife when I was that age.
@cranscape – yours is an interesting argument! One I wouldn’t have any knowledge about, because I live in the US, so thank you for bringing it up! It’s interesting to think that this might be a reaction to the British reaction to Amy’s skirts.
Hmm…now I want to talk to Moffat about it.
@GeekToMe – um, substantiating my argument by posting the very thing I’m criticizing so that readers can see it for themselves as opposed to relying on my telling of it is not the same thing as helping to perpetuate rape culture.
And if I DIDN’T post the videos, someone would’ve called me out for not substantiating my argument. Seems I couldn’t win in this case no matter what I did.
But most importantly, I posted the videos because I’m a Doctor Who fan and I was excited about watching them! And I actually thought they were fun for the most part! Just because I’m criticizing something about it, doesn’t make me love it any less. I criticize my family for things all the time, and I love them to pieces!
@dripgrind I NEVER said female Doctor. I said female Time Lord from Gallifrey. Next time READ my comment properly first. But you had to wiki the 10 previous doctors, so my guess is you don’t even watch the show and wanted to simply be nasty about a show you don’tlike. I don’t lie and I’ve been watching this show since I was little. If you want to take issue with the doctor being a man…then your argument is with the people who invented him in 1963….but then why on earth would you argue that it’s a man. He’s a fictional character made up and it just so happens he’s a man, man or woman is irrelevant. That’s tantamount to saying “Ripley from Aliens when she is cloned doesn’t NEED to be a woman, she could be a man…why isn’t she? Oh, evil female producers!”…but then that would be ridiculous wouldn’t it dripgrip? How about why doesn’t Pride and Prejudice focus on Mr. Darcy? It doesn’t because it bloody well doesn’t and her creator, Jane Austen deemed it that way. Don’t be so obtuse.
Teresa. Wowzers. How very condescending of you. Don’t you realize that your comment about tropes is entirely hypocritical? So you are basically saying that in the instance where the identical thing happened with Jack Harkness…it was OKAY cause it was a “trope on its head” (a statement which I would argue completely, but clearly you don’t read much chick-lit so there’s no point)…but that it was unacceptable in Amy’s case…..now who’s being sexist (by your definition)?
Look, It’s REALLY easy. If this scene had been reversed and Rory was ripped and muscled and took his shirt off distracting Amy…what do you think the Doctor would have done/said? Better yet what would ANYONE have done or said? Would he have said “Amy, get your crap together and stop oggling Rory, look what you did to the TARDIS”? Gods no, that’s not even remotely realistic. What he’d say is:
“Rory, put your shirt back on, you’re distractingPond”
There’s no point in trying to argue that…it’s what he would have said. So I fail to see how you think poorly of the line when Amy bears that brunt, when if it happened to Rory I’m sure it would be fine with you…at least according to your Harkness/Trope on head idea…haha!
But for some bizarre reason I am sure the feminist inside of you would find some other way to take issue with even that. So it seems you are bound and determined to label Moffat sexist or at least thathe made sexist comments. I hope he reads this and sees how very backwards you see the world.
@dripgrip – How DARE you say someone is guilty of “false conciousness” when they are identifying with a character. Who the hell are you to say that? I’ll tell you, you are a sad person who has nothing better to do than troll a comments section of a show you DON’T EVEN WATCH!
Teresa,
Do you also believe that by letting Amy slap Rory, Moffat is propagating violence against men? There’s nothing in the episode that says it’s not right to slap men. This is an ongoing problem in tv-shows and movies, where women often get to slap men in the faces.
Is this part of the “molesting/abusing culture”?
I consider it to be part of a joke, just like I consider the joke about Amy putting on some pant(ie?)s a joke. I and I believe most other men (at least in Holland), do not believe that women should cover themselves up. Nor do I believe that any woman can be blamed for being sexually abused. At the same time I believe that no woman should ever hit a man, or the other way around.
However seeing a slap in a TV-show or a joke about putting on pants (it’s not like he was having a serious conversation with Amy about her being at fault because of her way of dressing) is just a little joke on tv.
@Ursula, of course it hurts you when you are told not to wear a skirt or when you’re not able to go into the night. However, this is not the question. People who tell you that are indeed wrong and if anybody bothers you on the street that really is a problem. But a joke from a friend saying “please take those sexy legs out of my sight they’re really distracting ;)” is not the same.
I don’t consider myself sad. I’m must being doing it wrong. Not doing feminist right is what I’ve been up to since 1982. Is is by no means a unified front these days after all, but women usually give women the hardest time. Generational gap maybe?
Here’s the facts: I know about tv in the 60s-80s. It all around stank in those areas everywhere from all appearance. How about that last season of Remington Steele? Oi. So much promise. You took what you could get though and once it was out in the public realm the politics couldn’t dictate it to you anymore and it could become something better than intended. An eight year old seeing the good aspects of Leela, for example, even if that now makes me a sad person. When I watch it as an adult I do see the ugly parts obviously but mostly in how their effort to make it that way failed to ruin the characters underneath it all.
Actually, based on comment #2 I think dripgrip is just making fun of the discussion by taking an extreme ridiculous standpoint.
I sure hope he/she is :).
@Tesse,
My point is, the endless for-real telling of what I should and shouldn’t wear, where I should and shouldn’t go, how I’m responsible for the self-control of others makes such a “joke” when it comes up, not funny, because it’s just too close to unpleasant reality.
“Look, It’s REALLY easy. If this scene had been reversed and Rory was
ripped and muscled and took his shirt off distracting Amy…what do you
think the Doctor would have done/said? Better yet what would ANYONE have
done or said? Would he have said “Amy, get your crap together and stop
oggling Rory, look what you did to the TARDIS”? Gods no, that’s not even
remotely realistic. What he’d say is:
“Rory, put your shirt back on, you’re distractingPond””
@Jessie1977 – you’re right. I am employing a double standard. And if it’s hypocrisy, then it’s necessarily so at least for right now. Much like there’s a need for affirmative action, because the playing field was so unbalanced for so long that it takes unbalancing it in the other direction for a while until its equal, so it goes for representations of women on screen.
Secondly, “The Doctor” isn’t a real person. There’s no telling what “he would say” or what “he wouldn’t say,” because he’s the product of writers. Different writers who make him say whatever they like. He is the product of the time in which he is written and created. And the writers who write him have a responsibility to the audience who watch him.
Lastly, I think you’re assuming that “everyone” would tell Rory to put his shirt back on, maybe because that’s what YOU would say. If so, that’s great. But I also think you’re underestimating the problem I’m talking about. Based on my personal experience, and that of others based on some of the comments here, I would say that most people would either let the situation go on (ie: not say anything to anyone) OR blame Amy for being incompetant in that instance, because it is more likely for a woman to be held to a higher standard than men at any job, and more likely for her to be called on her mistakes than it is for a man. That’s how it goes in many, many instances.
I didn’t write this article just to push buttons, or because I want to label everything sexist (and btw – I do read a lot of chick-lit, but as we’re talking about representation on television, I thought it best to stick to the subject). I wrote this article because I thought it important to point out this one slip. I wrote it because this is a genuine concern. I find it interesting that, rather than be upset at there possibly being sexism, you’re upset at me for even bringing it up. Also, I was talking about one tiny instance of sexism that happened. What I find interesting is that so many of you are talking about everything BUT the instance I brought up. Or saying things like “well if the situation were reversed, then what?” What, so I can’t say something is wrong without acknowledging what you think I might say in the opposite situation? I’m not talking about the roles being reversed. I’m talking about the roles the way they are. And I find it very interesting that you can’t disagree with what I’m saying based on the example I’ve given in and of itself. You have to bring other stuff into it that I’m not talking about.
Oh, criticising rape apologism gets you silenced by the patriarchy now? I see how it is.
I just have to say, I’m disheartened by the fact that there are people who would call this discussion “silly” or “ridiculous.” (or making wannabe Stephen Colbert-esque comments) Agree or disagree with my point, by all means, but being so reductive about the conversation being brought up at all or saying that it’s nitpicky make this conversation all the more important. If every time sexism is brought up, your instinct is to treat it like a joke, or unnecessary, or call it ridiculous, that’s part of the problem.
Dripgrind, your take on Teresa Jusino’s nuanced, sympathetic article would be extreme — bizarre, even — if you’d replied politely. You weren’t polite.
You’re welcome to have another try at actually engaging with this discussion, but only if you can do so without the hectoring tone and the completely unwarranted hot-button jargon.
Jessie1977, breathe slowly and deeply. Consider making yourself a nice cup of tea. Would I be correct in guessing that this is the first time you’ve dealt with this sort of thing?
Whoops, forgot:
Hello there. I’m the moderator. Please feel free — encouraged, even — to flag stuff like this in future.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Okay, I’m curious now. One of the arguments against Teresa seems to be that (straight) men just can’t help themselves or be expected to maintain self-control when confronted with a sexy and sexily dressed woman, such as Rory in the situation of looking up through the clear floor, and seeing under Amy’s skirt, and that this is a funny situation. It’s funny because it’s real.
In my experience, I know many straight men who have quite good self control, and who can maintain an attractive balance between appriciating women as being attractive and working with and around attractive women without becoming incompetent or unprofessional. So the “joke” comes across as reflecting, not reality, but excuses made for the subset of (straight) men who are lacking in professionalism and manners.
So, who here (male or female) knows a man or men who are adept at this? And how does thinking about those men effect your reaction to the videos?
I’m confused on why, “Pond…put some trousers on,” is not okay but flipping that with Jack is okay. Seems like a double standard to me. Sexism is sexism, is it not? Misogyny and misandry are the specifics, are they not? Or is it okay that the joke is “turned on its head” with Jack because men should have a little taste of what they’ve been dishing to women?
What if the Doctor had chastised Rory further along with telling Amy to put on some pants? Would that have sufficed? Personally, “I really should tint that glass,” isn’t anywhere near funny, mostly because this is not a common occurance.
And if we’re gonna get upset at this, why are we not upset at the Curse of Fatal Death for making jokes about breasts and making light of apparent transgender issues (ie- the Master being mocked for his “Dalek Bumps” placed strategically on his chest)?
Also, this was done for comedy sake and charity sake. In the general populace, that is, the majority, this is the common “funny”. (Hell, I thought it was amusing.) And for charity sake, the majority is needed more than the minority.
Furthermore, and correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t recall anything being said about River’s “hallucigenic lipstick.” Ya know, where she uses kissing to incapacitate? That’s a pretty sexist thing, isn’t it? Women using their feminine wiles to get the better of their foes?
And being a heterosexual man, I’d just like to say that I find “men will be men” pretty offensive in itself so I’m in agreement with that. I control myself when I want to as far as looking goes. I would never touch a woman sexually unless the relationship with that person was of a sexual and romantic nature as well.
This will be a better discussion if we talk about the show, the writing, and the ideas. Dripgrind detoured us into an all-smoke-no-light discussion of gender relations in general.
The point is that Steven Moffat, usually an excellent writer, made some dumb jokes. I doubt he intended them to say anything universal about human relations, as opposed to relations between these particular characters; but he fell into thoughtless stereotypes, and was thereby undone.
How and why things like that happen in narrative fiction is a potentially interesting subject. But if you’ll excuse me for saying so, turning it into a purely reactive argument about whether men have any self-control, or other subjects of similar ilk, is unlikely to be very interesting at all.
I thought that’s what I was doing but if I wasn’t, then I apologize. Hell, I didn’t even read any of dripgrind’s responses what with the lack of vowels.
I have 2 distinct points to make:
1. Calling out something that does reinforce the stereotype that women are somehow the cause of men’s bad behavior, isn’t a bad thing. For a few reason, including the fact that casual misogyny is the basis for institutional misogyny. These are the things that lead to victim-blaming in rape cases, the idea that everybody knows what’s right for a woman EXCEPT a woman, and the double-standard.
Do I think the skit was funny? Yes. That doesn’t mean that I can’t see the casual misogyny in telling Amy to put on a pair of trousers. However, and here’s where I’m going to flip my opinion on its head – 2. Given the response to Amy wearing short skirts, the response to Amy being a very obviously sexual person, and the media kerfuffle in the UK, as a result, I can also see this skit from the perspective of sticking its tongue out at all of that, and basically meant to say, “Oh please grow up, she’s entitled to dress however she likes and if you can’t cope with it, there’s something off about you.” By having the Doctor sort of verbalize the criticism, (and I’m certain Amy will be wearing whatever she pleases in S6, too,) perhaps Moffat actually intended to highlight the absurdity of that sort of misogyny himself.. Yet, because we in the US don’t have quite the same experience as those in the UK, with the criticism of Amy’s costume, we’ve missed it?
I’m not certain, but I do know this – we’re better off discussing it, than just accepting it.
Sorry if this winds up a double post, dunno what I did wrong earlier.
I think you have some really good points & make a clear & valid argument. Thanks for making us all think further into it.
@cranscape got it in post #33, that it was in response to all the uproar over Amy’s clothes since the start of (before, really) series 5. I took the “put your trousers on” comment as a sarcastic jab at that “controversy” and at the very idea her skirt was the problem. Maybe I read more into the eyeroll & facial expressions at the end. It’s interesting, though, looking at it that way: isn’t Moffat making the same point in that view?
I took the whole “it’s Amy’s fault” part as she was intentionally making use of the glass floor, what with them being horny newlyweds and all. :)
But I think your point about it being sad that these are such easy go-to jokes because of our overall society is really valid. And I’m glad I’ve now discovered your posts; really interested to read back!
tnh @50 – Thank you! :)
It should be clear from my entire series on Moffat’s female characters that I usually see him as a champion of nuanced female characters on television. Which is why this one particular instance stood out to me. And in the post, I also cited the many things I liked about the minisodes.
@Ashe Armstrong – check out my comment up at #44. That pretty much my take on the double-standard of Amy/Jack that you bring up. Also, I think there is a difference when a woman uses her feminine wiles to take advantage of sexism to her own benefit, as you mention River does, than when a man assumes that’s what a woman’s doing (as Rory does re: Amy’s driving test) rather than assume she’s capable, or when a man isn’t asked to curb his behavior, but the woman is for wearing certain clothes.
No, tinting a glass floor isn’t a common occurrance. Neither is having a TARDIS. :) That was just an example though – it could’ve been anything: “I should put a curtain up.” Or “Get a room, you two – it’s not as if there isn’t room…” All I meant was that the funny could’ve come from a million places OTHER than “Amy, put pants on.” And yes, if he would’ve continued to hold Rory responsible, that would’ve been better.
And again, while I really do appreciate your commenting, as well as your disagreeing with me, asking why I’m not complaining about other things if I’m complaining about this isn’t particularly helpful. I’m not talking about River or Jack or anyone else, because that’s not the topic of this post. This post wasn’t about “The Many Ways In Which Doctor Who Is Bad For Women.” This post is about these short episodes and one line. You found it funny. So did I at first. It wasn’t until a minute after watching it that it began to not sit well with me, and I decided to explore why.
@michellew16 – I hope you enjoy the other Moffat articles! :) I really do love his female characters.
I didn’t get that she was wearing the skirt to appeal to Rory on that floor on purpose – mostly because of her reaction when Rory says she was wearing a skirt when she passed her driver’s test. It was totally not even an issue for her, and then when she remembered it, she was like “Oh, yeah! I did wear a skirt! It was this one!” She didn’t even put any thought into what she wore, she just wore skirts, and wasn’t thinking about eliciting any reaction.
And it’s this moment and this line that helps me see how this could have been Moffat taking a shot at everyone who was all in an uproar about her clothes in the first place, making these shorts that much better. Taken in that context, I have much less of a problem with The Doctor’s reaction. I wasn’t as aware of folks in the UK being in that much of an uproar about it, so it didn’t even dawn on me. But I see it now. And I’m glad to have been wrong about the thought Moffat probably put into these. But am I sorry to have started a discussion about this? No. :) And I’d hope that Moffat, even being misunderstood at first, would appreciate the fact that I was trying to draw attention to something seemingly innocuous, but ultimately important.
@TeresaJusino: And I’m just playin a bit of devil’s advocate here as well. Although, I do maintain that with things like sexism and racism, there shouldn’t be a “turn” (not that I’m saying that’s what you’re saying necessarily), equality should just be. But I’m an idealist.
And I meant Rory helping fix things not so much the glass floor. I love the glass floor. I get to see more of the TARDIS. I love her. She’s a sexy thang. Anywho, carry on.
I’m not sure why men are the bad guys here. If any, the idea that men cannot control themselves is the gravest offence possible.
Apart from that, the minisode is hilarious.
I do believe that this article brings up some valid points, certainly on the subject as a whole.
However
I am British and aware of all the media concerning *gasp* the wearing of a skirt by Amy, and indeed it seems quite clear that these shorts (ahem) are a poke at all that fuss. Personally i think the ‘joke’ at the end is supposed to be representitive of this articles point-and so underlying the medias hypocrasy.
Unfortunately that isnt clear, the irony in the end is some what lost by the ‘joke’ rather than reinforced, which i believe was the intention.
(Also note that she wasnt deemed a bad driver, in fact the opposite, she passed first time, and was critising his bad driving. In britain its a common joke that if you wear a skirt you will pass your driving test, a point in favour of underlyng hypocrasy in the media’s view of Amy’s skirt)
AsheSaoirse @51: Oh, dear. I hadn’t realized that the way I phrased my comment (#50) came off sounding like it was aimed at you. I didn’t mean it that way, but you’re right; that is how it reads. My fault. I
was just reaching for a quick example of a generic gender issue.
And one more clarification: Dripgrind’s comments had vowels when he
posted them. Their current form reflects our disapproval of them.
How it works: There are few things as useless as telling people to “just ignore” nasty comments. We automatically read whatever falls under our eyes. By the time we realize we’re reading something genuinely nasty, we’ve already absorbed a dose of ill-will.
Disemvowelling text keeps that from happening. It can be read with some effort, if people want to see what the fuss was about; but almost no one can read it automatically.
A Fox @57: That’s interesting. Say on? How did it go astray?
Dripgrind @45:
I regard that comment with reverent awe. It’s such a perfect specimen of its kind that if I had time for embroidery these days, I’d work it as a sampler and hang it on my wall.
A general note: Does everyone realize that if you click on the user
name in a comment header, it takes you to that person’s user profile?
In Dripgrind’s case, what that gets you is his non-gender-ambiguous real name. I wouldn’t mention that if he hadn’t put it in his public user profile; but there it is.
How DARE you assume that I fit into your simplistic binary constructions of gender?
Oh yeah, and this whole “disemvowelling” thing to disempower and humiliate people. What other historically oppressed group of people don’t use vowels in their language, huh? It’s just another way to silence Jewish voices. FOR SHAME.
I watched this with my wife and daughters. They all found it very funny.
I think the parody and satire was lost on Teresa. It was brilliant satire.
It feels odd reading this conversation because not only I didn’t think that the Doctor’s phrase was sexist, I actually saw the whole thing as reaffirming Amy’s right to wear whatever she wants.
Maybe it’s because I knew of the original uproar about the skirt, and so it was easy to see the minisode as a jab at those who said it would bring about the (literal) end of the world. Knowing the characters, you also know that Amy will not change clothes after the ending, and you know the Doctor knows too.
I frankly think it’s far more sexist when men (and there’s quite a few of them) say that Amy should wear nothing but short skirts, and possibly less, patting their hands on each other’s backs while they say so. Because objectifying is manly, rawr.
Also, as a believer in equality, I still don’t see how a joke can be oppressive and sexist when applied to women yet funny and provocative when applied to men. If we really are equal, it should be funny or offensive either way. Turning an offence on its head can be an effective provocation, but it’s still offensive.
“Shaming her for wearing short skirts is like shaming me for wearing “unattractive” shoes – they don’t make many fashionable shoes that fit me, and they don’t make many shorter skirts that won’t be very short on Amy.”
Right, because when a man is wearing unattractive shoes, women think about what their penis might look like.
@tnh: I’m pretty sure dripgrind is nothing but a troll at this point what with the extremes and the how dare yous. I’ve met some folks that dont’ claim gender binary and upon stating so, they’re never so vitriolic.
“I think the parody and satire was lost on Teresa. It was brilliant satire.”
– I think just possibly that dripgrind could say the same of tnh!
Alas, the growing scourge of irony-deficiency…
There’s a MUCH larger issue at hand than Amy’s skirts. I suppose that people who think Steven Moffat creates awesome female characters WOULD focus on the skirts but really, people, are you completely missing the obvious fact that Amy Pond is a lousy character? Who is she? Who was she before she met the Doctor? Who has she become? What does she want? What is her fallacy about the way the world and the universe work? How is that fallacy changing, or being confirmed? What is she learning? What does she contribute? What human quality does she bring as the Doctor’s companion that keeps him in check? That helps him? I can answer all of these questions about Rose, Martha and Donna. But Amy remains a cipher and it’s mystifying to me that people don’t see it.
The only female character Moffat didn’t wreck at some point (because he DID wreck River Song) is Claire Jackman.
Alas, satire is sometimes a thankless business. Poor Dripgrind got disemvowelled, but what must have stung even more is that after his first post ranting about how DoctorWho endorses “rape culture”, another poster leapt in asserting the same thing in all apparent seriousness…
Applekey @61 – I’m sure plenty of women and girls found it funny. My concern, and the reason I wrote this post in the first place, was that women and girls were finding it funny without even thinking about it. Humor like this so often goes unchecked, and we laugh, because the values therein are so ingrained that we don’t ever question them, even if we should. I was just trying to question the ideas behind a joke like that, because this is what I saw after I laughed at it myself.
Atrus @62 – I have your point of view deep down inside. But I also know that we live in a world that’s still horribly unbalanced. Often “sexist” jokes are made toward men to offset the MANY sexist jokes that have been aimed at women all the time. The thing is, for example, whenever I’ll say something to a guy friend like “You really want this comic book/remote/whatever? You should be showing me a little more skin.” as a joke, neither he, nor any other guy in the vicinity is insulted. They laugh it off. For the simple reason that they don’t feel threatened. It CAN be a joke, because the idea behind it is SO preposterous (a woman victimizing a man? HA!) that it’s not as bad. You’re talking about being a believer in equality – but equality doesn’t exist, and making those jokes at a man’s expense highlights that. And men can laugh them off in a way that women might not be able to yet.
Martyyn @65 & Gerry_Quinn @67 – I acknowledged above @54 that I might have missed the satire and what has made me rethink the possibilities on that. Still, has Moffat come out and said as much? And my question to both of you is, is satire “brilliant” if there are people who don’t get it? Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is brilliant satire, because eating babies is SO ridiculous that you can see the satire for what it is. But if the “humor” is so close to reality that you can’t tell if they’re kidding or not? Is that brilliant?
Also, I just came across this interview with Moffat at SFX, where he talks about the upcoming minisodes. He sure seemed excited about Amy Pond flirting with herself, and calls that bit “Everybody’s personal fantasy!” But other than that, he says of the rest of the minisodes “It’s not a spoof. It’s in the style of the ones that we’ve done for Children In Need, so it’s taken seriously as a proper bit of Doctor Who – funny, but not a sketch.” I’m just not entirely convinced that this was all one big satire. I think that’s what you might like it to be.
It was Dripgrind who I said was attempting to be satirical, and for the record I don’t think it was brilliant. The point I was making was that it was probably redundant.
I also doubt whether Moffat was concerned with satirising some alleged media kerfuffle relating to Amy’s skirt. I presume his intention was simply to write a clever and humorous mini-episode, and in this I think he suceeded very well.
As for satire or other humour – whether it’s brilliant or abysmal, someone *always* won’t get it. That goes with the territory.
lol, of course this skit was an answer to all the media hype concerning Amy’s skirt! Do you really think that Moff and the whole Doctor Who crew are oblivious to it all? Or that they just ‘happened’ to choose the same subject?
This is an amusiing little quatuum ditty with the trio doing what they do, but also raising the subject of the skirt, “yes, it was THIS very skirt!”, bringing out some old jokes (driving test) and essentialy taking out the ‘funny’ assumption (he cant drive well, she can). You could also compare the humour;which was funnier, the skirt gags or the looping of characters and that interaction? When things get leery the fact that she has a skirt is irrelevent, her bare legs dont stop them fixing things. The Docs admonishment i believe is intended to be for the fuss of all the media/fan hype, rather than the minor calamity that takes place in the skit. Though i still maintain the ending was poor, almost felt rushed, the Doc looking deadpan into camera would have heightened it, or something similar (still wish he wore her skirt)
I agree with you Teresa, your post and its subsequent debate has been a really interesting read. It’s a shame that some people believe that nothing that makes them laugh can possibly offend others and can’t reinforce bad stereotypes. Yeah, we get it, humans are sexual beings blah blah yawn, but that has nothing to do with the simple fact that people (women, men, whoever) should be allowed to be themselves without being reprimanded for other peoples mistakes.
TBH, although I kinda don’t want to add more fuel to the fire, I actually found it more disappointing that Amy was trying and failing to get the Doctor’s attention while having to defend herself against Rory’s irritating jibes. Was that meant to be funny? I genuinely don’t see why they didn’t talk to her like a human being, rather than a pathetic annoyance getting in the way, and I really hate it when people do that IRL. It really lowered my opinion of both 11 and Rory (esp. Rory) for leaving their friend out of the loop and acting as if she wasn’t worth anything beyond her sexy skirt. But maybe that’s all because I avidly hate Amy.
Morgana @66 really hit the nail on the head. The trouble is that Amy Pond is hands down the blandest companion of the new series. I wish Moffat give us something to talk about other than her costume, but he doesn’t seem to. Compared to Rose, Martha and Donna, who each have something to be truly admired in their personality, and who all became incredible people through their journey with the Doctor, Amy is a really, really bad female character, and the fact that all this episode managed to do was say “isn’t Amy hot?” just emphasizes that.
A Fox @70, IMO the idea of the TARDIS materializing inside itself was pure and utter genius, but there were a million and one funnier ways to do it than have Rory drop something on account of Amy’s attire, and a million and one funnier ways to run with it than having Amy flirt with herself. The fact they fixed the problem is irrelevant, because it’s Doctor Who. The fact it was full of shallow jokes meant a genius concept was lamentably overshadowed by the immature sexual tone of the episode.
Morgana @66 & lolalot @71 – I totally disagree with Amy not being a great female character! She and Donna have equal footing in my book (for different reasons) followed by Martha, and Rose dead last. You can read what I had to say about Amy in my Moffat’s Women post about her HERE.
But basically, my thing is that when I’m looking for a “strong” female character, what I mean is a complex female character. I don’t mean one who has all the answers, or is always perfect in every situation, but I do mean a character who’s multi-faceted, and I think that Amy comes the closest to that of all the new companions. I think the show’s complex approach to her sexuality is a part of that. The fact that she’s hot and knows it isn’t a bad thing. The fact that when she wanted The Doctor, rather than pine like a teenage girl the way Rose or Martha did, she freakin’ went for it; her flirting with herself during these minisodes (would she be attracted to a girl in other circumstances?); her role-playing with Rory in the Christmas episode; her flirting with (and I think falling a bit in love with) Vincent Van Gogh; shows us someone who is a sexually open person who acknowledges and pursues her desires like a grown up. Again, this isn’t to say she’s always perfect. As I mention in my column about her, I think one of the things that’s interesting about her journey is that we’ve gotten to watch her navigate her sexuality and watch her grow up over the course of the fifth series.
@Teresa, My problem with Amy is that I don’t see where her story is going, I don’t see what she is meant to be learning with the Doctor except that she’s fine just the way she is (yet she thinks she’s fine already!). It might be boring to some, but the NewWho Doctor and his companion storyline doesn’t work IMO unless the companion (who is an audience stand-in) takes the journey with him and learns something about themselves in the process, like Rose’s letting go of the Doctor, Martha’s choosing to stop pining away after someone and stand on her own feet and Donna’s learning to be truly confident in herself. Like, that’s the whole point of Doctor Who for me.
But it seems Amy doesn’t need to learn anything because Amy is already perfect. Where Donna was confident and brash and loud-mouthed and a failure because of it, Amy is confident and brash and loud-mouthed but still manages to get what she wants, everything turns out the best for her and nothing goes wrong because she’s the one with the answers. She has none of the wide-eyed amazement of the other companions, I never feel like she finds her time with the Doctor anything more than a distraction from every day life. I was disappointed when she saved the day (esp. Space Whale and Bracewell) because it was so early on in the series that I didn’t feel she had earned that yet as a companion. Of course it’s probably just me, but I find stories more fulfilling when the Doctor teaches the companions how to save the day, to think on their feet and do the right thing and in the end they can, but they stumble along the way. With Amy it’s like she doesn’t even need the Doctor, her adventure is just a convenient holiday away with her husband (who dies occasionally, but it’s ok because he comes back again).
lolalot @73: THAT. When the fifth series started with young Amy and the Doctor, I was thoroughly onboard. Young Amy was a spunky, inquisitive little girl who, although isolated when we meet her, doesn’t seem like other little girls. There’s something different about her, and the Doctor groks that right away. What happened to that splendid little girl? Now, maybe Moffat intended Amy’s isolation and while that’s not a bad way to go, he didn’t do it in a very interesting way. He has not yet been able to show us who Amy actually IS. Part of the way we’ve learned about the other companions is in their relationship with their world. I.e., the people in their lives, where they live, their economic situation, their jobs. I absolutely LOVE the concept that Amy’s life skidded to a halt when the Doctor didn’t come back. LOVE THAT. But Moffat hasn’t so far been able to DO anything with it. I have never seen Amy react to her life. And I haven’t seen her react to being the Doctor’s companion, either.
There has been ZERO realization from Amy about her life. NONE. She’s SUCH a Mary Sue it’s painful. She’s the Doctor Who version of Bella from Twilight. She is, of course, the bestest companion EVER, right from the get-go. She knows how to do EVERYTHING. Everybody thinks she’s wonderful. Well, they SAY she’s wonderful, over and over. It’s not like that’s ever been SHOWN. And there’s never ANY reaction from her about it! That’s the most amazing thing.
Compare that with Donna’s heartbreaking compassion in the Pompeii episode. Or to Rose’s wonder when she travels with the Doctor. Rose and Donna needed him. Amy needs him, too, but Moffat has proven thoroughly inept at showing us why. He has also failed to show us how she’s changed, and how she’s changed the Doctor. Rose had the Doctor’s adventurous spirit, which wound up almost destroying them both. Martha was a more intellectual equal for the Doctor but at the end of the day, she didn’t need him. Donna was his human heart and having to give her up nearly turned him into a monster. What is Amy to him? What is he to her?
So far, there’s been no character arc at work here.
Teresa, I appreciate your reading of Amy Pond and I wish the Amy in your article was the Amy I was seeing onscreen. I would love that!
I have to weigh in with Morgana and Lolalot here. Amy Pond is, for me, NOT an interesting character. I was on board with her at first — who wouldn’t be? Karen Gillan is ADORABLE. She really is. But Amy Pond is an entitled, self-centered brat who completely lost me for good in the episode with the Silurians, when she was just SO SO SO BORED at having to negotiate for the fate of the entire earth, because “BORING! We’re not talking about ME! Let me lay my head on the table to indicate my great level of ennui at this whole process!” Even in the Christmas special, her main emotion towards her possible impending death was irritation.
And yeah, I still have no idea who she is other than someone who’s comfortable with her own sexuality. That’s great. We need more characters like that. But Amy is nothing else. And she makes me want to stop watching DOCTOR WHO because she, frankly, is spoiling the show for me. And that would have nothing to do with her short skirt except for the fact that she IS nothing but a girl in a short skirt.
God, I miss Donna.
Applekey @61, Martyyn @65, however did you come by the idea that “criticizing some aspect of comedy” and “getting the joke” are mutually exclusive? It’s a simplistic view of the matter; and, it seems to me, a demonstrably inaccurate one. More times than I can count, I’ve seen people laugh their heads off at some piece of humor, then afterward discuss what it did wrong, or could have done better, or the ways in which it fell into common fallacies or stereotypes.
I feel I have more personal credibility than most on this issue because I’m afflicted by a neurological syndrome called cataplexy. When it’s triggered by some specific emotional stimulus, it causes a sudden temporary loss of muscular strength. In my case, what that means is that if I run into something that’s both funny and surprising, I fall over like a puppet whose strings have been cut. Honest, pinky swear, this really happens.
No matter how politically incorrect or otherwise offensive a joke may be, it’s impossible for me to claim that I didn’t find it funny when I’m lying flat on the floor, paralyzed and giggling. But fifteen or twenty seconds later, when I recover and stand up again, I have no qualms about criticizing that funny thing, if I think there’s something to criticize about it.
I think you do exactly the same thing (aside from the “falling flat on the floor” part), and I think you’ve seen others do it as often as I have. That’s because it’s a very common human reaction. People vary in their tolerance for offensiveness in humor, but it’s a basic fact that they’ll temporarily tolerate stuff that’s dumb or offensive or disagreeable if it’s funny.
So: want to tell me why I shouldn’t think that the real reason you’re saying Teresa Jusino and I didn’t get the joke is because something in TJ’s critique or the ensuing discussion made you uncomfortable?
Continuing the theme of not fibbing about what you find funny:
Dripgrind, when I tell you that your recent comments awe and delight me, don’t assume that I’m only saying so for rhetorical purposes. Have you ever seen a rockhound appreciate an outstandingly perfect coprolite? It’s a lot like that.
@59:
Answers:
1. How dare you assume that my constructions of gender are simplistic and binary?
2. Because it’s BS for someone who both goes by a strongly gendered first name, and claims to be into the analysis of simple binary gender as a social construct, to pull this how-dare-you-assume routine. Since your only engagement so far with that body of analysis has been to invoke it in the apparent expectation that doing so uniquely privileges your opinions, I’m going to assume that that’s its real function in your conversation. Also, you get the jargon wrong.
3. Because I don’t think you’re actually interested in discussing these issues, or engaging with the opinions of the other participants here. I think you like yelling at people while posing as someone who has the moral high ground. In pursuit of this emotional drug of choice, you’ve been using a collection of inappropriate, ill-assorted, damn near random feminist/gender theory jargon as a club to bash others.
In short, I think that you’re a recognizable internet type. “Troll” is not a gender, binary or otherwise.
Nope. As I explained in an earlier comment, it’s to keep other people from reading your comments unintentionally, and make it clear (if they’re interested enough to puzzle it out) that what you were doing is a kind of behavior we disapprove of. You’re just trying to camouflage what really happened: you were rude, and you got called on it.
For starters, every literate user of a Semitic language except the Maltese. (Not that the Maltese haven’t been oppressed; it’s just that they use the Roman alphabet.)
Does your conscience never pain you when you implicitly cheapen and trivialize the real silencing of Jewish voices, for no worthier purpose than to valorize your own bad manners?
Also, you’re factually wrong for the following reasons:
1. Not using vowels is characteristic of the Hebrew language, not the Jewish religion.
2. As noted above, not using vowels is characteristic of Semitic orthography, not just Hebrew. (Which is still a language, not a religion.)
3. The absence of vowels doesn’t silence Jewish voices, and never has.
4. My moderation policies and practices have nothing to do with the religious or ethnic status of anyone whose behavior I’ve reined in
For shame on you, for making such selfish, narcissistic, trivializing, and truthless use of language coined to describe the sufferings of others.
Get this straight: I’ve been letting a few of your recent comments stand because I personally find them funny, but any moment now my conscience is going to catch up with me. I suggest you amend your behavior before that happens.
Jessie1977 @77, not currently visible: Jessie, do you want to try rephrasing that in terms of the fiction, rather than the character of the author of the entry, or do you want me to let the first version stand but disemvowel those bits? It’s your choice.
Several posters have referred to media kerfuffles., hype etc. relating to Amy’s skirt.
Out of curiosity I searched in Google News for ‘Amy Pond skirt’, ‘Amy Pond sex’, ‘Amy Pond sexual’, ‘Amy Pond controversy’, and even ‘Amy Pond phwoar’. Not a thing, essentially. As far as the print media are concerned, Amy Pond seems generally to confine herself to the TV review section.
There’s a lot of stuff on the interwebz, of course – but then there’s a lot of stuff about everything. How much of this supposed media frenzy consists of a bunch of bloggers referencing each other?
For me, the issue of sexism arises at the point that Amy says, “No, it was my fault.” I can get around the other stylized-or-stereotypical (your choice) dialogue as banter between the characters. But when she internalizes the “boys will be boys” attitude, then it hurts, even more than the flippant “Put on some trousers” line by the Doctor.
tnh @58 – For me, disemvoweling, despite its fabulous name, has the reverse effect of drawing and holding my attention, as my poor brain tries to crack the code. I’ve come to fear disemvoweled text as a mind trap akin to moth-and-flame. Not saying you are wrong to do it, just sayin’.
@tnh Do whatever you feel you want to. Swing your mod powers about.
I said nothing offensive or off topic. If the author chose to make her comments then shouldn’t she (and You who is moderating) stand by them and face the feelings those thoughts endgendered from me (and others) about what she was saying? If you want to “disemvowel” my thoughts, then by all reason you ought to snip Teresa’s thoughts to not include her sexist comments about the subject too.
Sorry, but as a TOR.com reader I am annoyed that Teresa is allowed to say such offensive, counter-productive things (like levelling playing fields, and men deserve a little of the same) in her blog posts’ comments and those have to stand with no one questioning her saying of them. She backpeddaled and didn’t have a real reason to give me why this offended her and the Jack part didn’t. She made a bnhdd comment that didn’t go down well and actually stands to nearly derail the whole idea behind the initial the post she began this about basically by doing what I would deem as “bashing men” and saying we desevre a little of the same. Srry, bt tht’s crp t m nd m cllng hr n t. As a TOR.com mod I would expect the discussiion to be “moderated” and not simply snipped of all the bits that offend Teresa, and leave her stuff intact when it is clearly not only counter-productive but a caustic view of the entire situation.
However, I don’t expect this post to see the light of day for long, nor do I expect you to modify her comments either. So do what you like and snip mine. I really don’t care. I thought this was discussion, but apparently that doesn’t include calling the author out on poor comments. I got my point across, and in future I’ll go elsewhere for my Doctor Who info as frankly I don’t think Teresa has done herself proud at all in this commenting section, and I wanted her to know.
Jessie @82, I didn’t delete your comment, just unpublished it. Since that means the text is still available, you may want to rethink this tactic of claiming there was nothing offensive in it. I’m also not impressed by your “Look what she’s forcing me to say!” line of reasoning. There’s nothing in this thread or these circumstances that obliges you to be rude.
Your thoughts aren’t being suppressed. Your language and behavior are, a little. If you find that intolerable, I’ll just have to live with it.
Sorry, but nothing I said is offensive. If Teresa doesn’t like said heat then she shouln’t have said it. Be a grown up and stand by your claims. If others find those claims to be poor, or sexist or whatever then she should back them up however she sees fit.
Look don’t put words in my mouth. I never came across as “Look what she’s forcing me to say” as a tactic at all. I stand by everything I said as my own thoughts and opinion. I’m not rehtinking anything. I am not stupid enough to think you don’t have access to that post (as unpublished as it is) and can re-read it anytime. My “language” you will notice is actually fairly even and balanced. There is a difference between being nasty, trolling and calling names and being lucid and setting out reasoning for disagreement with what I can only deem is a decidedly backwards way of thinking. No one is forcing me to say anything. What I would like is for you as a moderator to actually MODERATE and notice that her statements within the comments section are (at the very least) derogatory towards men. Does TOR endorse the type of thinking that says men deserve to have the tables turned on them for a while as a revenge tactic.
Rudeness to me is NOT telling a post author who has made their OPINION part of her post, cause let’s face facts the post may be about DW and Amy and Rory…but the reason it exists was so Teresa could voice her upset over a line of dialogue…therefore her OPINION about it is front and center and free for discussion. I don’t feel calling her to task on the subject of her later comments is rude at all. to me, her comments like the folowing:
“you’re right. I am employing a double standard. And if it’s hypocrisy,
then it’s necessarily so at least for right now. Much like there’s a
need for affirmative action, because the playing field was so unbalanced
for so long that it takes unbalancing it in the other direction for a
while until its equal, so it goes for representations of women on
screen.”
are not only terribly sexist, but to me it sounds like straight up revenge for what some men have “done wrong”. well who the hell is she to say that? Better yet, does she have statistics to back up such statements? Like what is the ratio of sexist men to men who don’t have a sexist bone in their body…why do they then get lumped into this tipping of the scales?
what I truly don’t understand is why Teresa isn’t called to task on this by you…
I don’t think I was being rude. I was telling someone that are on a high horse and are behaving in the exact OPPOSITE way of someone who was claiming her upset was over sexism to begin with…only to back up her statement with…bloody sexism in return. What the hell is that about? No, sorry I’m not buying that.
Gods. I’m not asking for a lot here. If you temper my comments, do me a favour and temper hers as well.
Do me a solid and explain to me what “language” and behaviour” you refer to. I made sure to be as even-handed in my language as I could. Behaviour doesn’t enter into it as I haven’t started swearing or name calling, and to be honest I kept things on a fairly lucid level. If you don’t LIKE that I was calling her out on her rhetoric…that’s fine…but spare me the behaviour spiel…it doesn’t fly with me as I haven’t crossed any lines.
Jessie, have you noticed that other people have stopped commenting? Between you and Dripgrind, you’ve managed to pretty much kill this conversation. Until you learn not to do that, you are not in the right and never will be.
Actually I stopped commenting because I felt that nothing I would say would make a difference to Teresa. When I compared the line with other things that would then be just as bad/good I was told that I was not allowed to compare.
When I said that I thought the comment was just a joke and that people take it too serious I was told it was not allowed to not take it serious. When I said that making a joke about wearing a skirt (no problem to me) and people actually forcing women to wear different clothes or apologizing for rape (of course a problem) are completely different things to me I was ignored.
To me this discussion was too onesided, with an author and a moderator clearly siding with the author, to continue.
And I actually appreciate Jessie’s posts as I think (s)he makes a valid point.
And which of her points would that be, Tesse?
Just so you know: The “side” I’m on is civility and good conversation. I’m sorry you and Jessie think I was siding with the author; but then, I’m sorry to see anyone fall into error on any subject.
I’ve had things to say but felt they would be dismissed. So I’ve just been watching.
“Jessie, have you noticed that other people have stopped commenting?
Between you and Dripgrind, you’ve managed to pretty much kill this
conversation. Until you learn not to do that, you are not in the right
and never will be.”
No no tnh, what you fail to realize is that it was Teresa, with her contrary comments, that derailed the thread. She nullified her own post by contradicting it, and the commenters realized that.
I continued on with you because you seem so certain you are in the right….when you would have ceased talking to me long ago if you were right. In fact you lapsed in judgement allowing the bad comments on her part to pass…
I didn’t kill the convo at all, as clearly people are still watching, and don’t want to get smacked down by the mighty moderator.
“I’m on is civility and good conversation. I’m sorry you and Jessie think I was siding with the author”
Do you endorse Teresa’s counter-productive sexist comment then? If not then shouldn’t it be “moderated”?
Civlity and good coversation? Point me at what I said that was not civil. The truth sucks sometimes…but that didn’t make me uncivil for pointing it out. Just makes me blunt.
I’m not looking to be RIGHT tnh. That’s silly. This is the internet. I was just voicing my opinion.
Since in the last few replies to me you’ve not said you disagree with Teresa’s comments, then I have to assume you agree with her…as the last few replies from me have dealt directly with her comments and you convieniently side-step that issue entirely (dealing only with my behaviour and civility or the lack of ensuing conversation). How very deft of you. That’s not moderation. That is a superiority complex.
I think Moffatt’s a brilliant writer, and I’m prepared to cut him a lot of slack–but I am disquieted by the implications of this sketch, as laid out in this thread, and especially as it comes right after the frankly apalling characterization of Abigail in the Christmas special. (n.b. It’s not my intent to derail this thread into a discussion of the Christmas special.)
Individually, I could chalk either of them up to this being an imperfect world and not every script having to live up to my personal Issues, but taken together… well. I am troubled, is all. I await the next series.
WRT Amy as a character: I don’t think Amy is a bad character. She is, certainly, very very damaged, and at the Doctor’s hands. I think her attempt to jump his bones at the end of “Flesh & Stone” was yet another expression of that damage: not because she’s a horrible person or doesn’t love Rory, but because she’s spent most of her life obsessed with him (or, rather, her idea of him), this magical man who promised to show her the universe and then vanished. Her very job is an expression of her hurt: she promises romance, but it’s all staged, all pretend, and you’re a sucker if you fell for it. The Doctor’s job in series 5 was to try to fix some of that hurt. We’ll know in series 6 if he succeeded.
Her point about Teresa using double standards. Which is kind of what I was saying in earlier posts as well.
Also I think you were a bit unfair in saying she was employing a “Look what she’s making me say” tactic and were even more unfair in blaming her for this discussion not carrying on.
Those last two things and some sentences of Jessie being disemboweled (f.e. Srry, bt tht’s crp t m nd m cllng hr n t). I guess it’s the word crp in this last sentence….still I think that’s nothing compared to saying that this joke is part of rape culture (#3).
I find it quite sad when an interesting disscussion spirals down into ‘he said/she said’, ‘i disagree, therefore everything you have said means nothing’. Yawn.
Personaly i find the oft quoted ‘double standards’ post, well, interesting (oh and there have been many social studies made on it, go do some research, its quite a good read). For me its quite a grey area, i believe men and women are/should be equal. BUT. I have a 3 year old, he went through a phrase of pulling hair, nothing would deter him from it. So i pulled his back. It hurt, he cried, i comforted him. He didnt do it again. At best this is an ambiguous parenting technique, as is turning the tables re sexism, but it did get results.
Oh and i think we’re all adult enough to stand by what we say, regardless of who employs us, without trying to imply that Tor.com supports sexism towards men….really.
@79 lmao & Huzzah!
On media hype- I remember in being a hot topic of discussion in all circles, even those that dont really watch Doctor Who (oddly brits are quite possessive of it even if they arent fans :) ) and on talk shows as well, we have a lot of comedy based talk shows where they discuss whats going on (Its very diff here, Letterman is very mainstream, ours are very…independant, even when catering to the mainstream). So the buzz was definately there, even if not in print. (which papers did you search? Redtops vs braodsheets and all that jazz)
“Jessie, have you noticed that other people have stopped commenting?Between you and Dripgrind, you’ve managed to pretty much kill this conversation. Until you learn not to do that, you are not in the right and never will be.”
Actually, Jessie has MADE this conversation, for my money. Dead on the money in all points, IMO. You and TJ, by contrast, are coming over as rather defensive and (I have to say it), yes, superior. Sorry but there it is! Jessie is correct to point out that between you you have effectively supported payback as a feminist ideal. That’s anathematic to me, but then I’m a product of the rape culture, aren’t I? Probably a heteronormative (gasp!) mansplainer to boot. ;p
tnh, your post at 79. Was it satirical itself? Are you giving dripgrind a dose of his/her own medicine? I’d love to think it’s that, but it’s so in line with your earlier posts that I’m more than half convinced you’re not joking.
Oh, Gerry has already said it, but in my first post, yes, I was pointing out only that Dripgrind was satirising THIS BLOG.
I’m the sort of person who doesn’t pass on those supposedly funny emails listing ten negative/cliched gags about women…or men. Ever notice how interchangeable they are? We’re all just hairy flea-ridden hominids when you get right down to it. But that said…a bit of a sense of proportion goes a long way.
“Jessie, have you noticed that other people have stopped commenting?”
Little wonder, with such clearly partisan moderation. You have clearly misunderstood every post by Dripgrind, which is so obviously ironic that your responses seem bafflingly inappropriate, and persist in threatening those who disagree with your viewpoint, however politely they express that disagreement (although I am wondering if we’ve reached the point of meta-meta-satire now, and it’s *me* who hasn’t noticed *your* irony. That would be delicious, and I apologise if it’s the case).
Regardless, there’s very little point in having a discussion with a person who can say this:
“I am employing a double standard. And if it’s hypocrisy, then it’s necessarily so at least for right now. Much like there’s a need for affirmative action, because the playing field was so unbalanced for so long that it takes unbalancing it in the other direction for a while until its equal, so it goes for representations of women on screen.”
That statement is so utterly offensive that if I heard somebody say it in real life I’d immediately stop talking to them and leave the room. There’s just no point in associating with the kind of person who could consider that kind of behaviour *defensible*, let alone acceptable.
Nye @96 – Yes, sexism is wrong. I think it’s the one thing the commenters here can all agree on – at least in theory. However, when I said what you quoted, I was talking about it in terms of art and media. I do not see any place for that in real life. There’s a difference, in that highlighting how wrong sexism is by showing it in the reverse way it usually happens, on something like television, which goes into millions of homes, is a tool in fighting it. I’m really surprised that you don’t seem to see that. The reason why I would excuse something like Jack being told to cover up as opposed to Amy is that one instance of male objectification does not cause the same level of harm as does the countless instances of sexism against women that permeate television and go unchecked. It is precisely because something like that instance with Jack is so jarring that those instances are necessary. They’re necessary to shake people up out of their complacency, because apparently, seeing it happen to a woman over and over – as in this case with Amy – doesn’t seem to strike very many people as wrong. If I didn’t explain myself properly several comments above, I’m sorry. But I assure you that don’t see any room for sexism in real life at all. Merely balance.
To those of you who felt I shut you down by disagreeing with you, I’m sorry you feel that way. But if you ask me why I think it’s OK for something like that to happen to Jack when I’m talking about this instance with Amy, I will question why as well explain why I’m OK with it. I WANT the discussion, but I want it to progress. If I counter your argument, I expect that you’ll say something else to try and convince me. If you don’t, and only have the one point, well then we just disagree. But my intention is not to shut down discussion.
Lastly, I have to question something, and it’s a question I asked above that my detractors don’t seem to want to address: why is it that when I bring up this one instance of sexism against Amy, some people’s first instinct is to question why I’d complain about that when I wouldn’t complain about it happening to Jack. Do I have to complain about it happening to Jack in order to also be allowed to complain about it happening to Amy? Does it happening to Jack make the fact that it happened to Amy any less wrong? What, then, is the endgame of asking me about Jack at all? Is it to point out some perceived hypocrisy in me? Well, I hope you had fun with that. The fact remains that I didn’t like how Amy was handled in this piece, and the only ones who brought something new and interesting to the table in these comments that forced me to rethink my position were the people who mentioned that this might be a response to the strong reaction to Amy’s skirts in the UK. That gave me food for thought. It also stayed on topic.
This is all starting to feel very, well, THIS (click on the image to enlarge it):
And no, this didn’t start with anyone mentioning my body parts or anything, and I don’t even know the genders of my detractors (and think some of them are women) but the gist is basically the same.
It’s really interesting to me, that in the last week, I’ve seen this post, (which raised a good point, albeit one that may be seen very differently depending on which side of the pond you’re on,) where there have been endless comments that refuse to address the point, (and some very good ones that address the point, disagree, and and raise additional points,) and the proscriptive feminist reaction to Sucker Punch (without even seeing it, I might add,) which has contained both the OMG NO, AN EMPOWERED WOMAN CAN’T BE SEXY, and the STOP USING RAPE YOU LAZY BASTARDS, WOMEN CAN BECOME BAMF FOR LOTS OF REASONS, (which is true, but of course, no examples are ever given of what realistic circumstance might exist,) and I keep thinking that we’re at a tipping point, particularly with the real-world undermining of women’s agency and bodily integrity, where it’s no longer possible to ignore the overlap between our fantasies (in media,) and reality. So I’m really glad this post exists, even if I can see two ways of viewing the material – one that agrees with Teresa, and one that has a different, grey-area context of satire, because it means we’re TALKING ABOUT IT. It’s important.
“Nye @96 – Yes, sexism is wrong. I think it’s the one thing the
commenters here can all agree on – at least in theory. However, when I
said what you quoted, I was talking about it in terms of art and media. I
do not see any place for that in real life.”
Teresa. She waits till nearly everyone has forgotten about the thread and then responds with this and digs and even deeper hole.
Teresa. Let’s be smart here. In your above response you are attmepting to separate media and real life in a form of media that is meant to reflect life and is written and produced by real people.
…Are you serious?!
LOL
Your post, unless I am really thick, is about how a fictional show presented a line of dialogue that you found at the very least “sexist” (or in your bizarre and twisted approximation thereof). Your reaction to it being sexist at all bases it in real life. Your real live mind was what was offended right? You were offended by Moffat, a real live guy who wrote it (which means it came from his mind) right? You sought to make a post in which you were attempting to make people think about that line of dialogue and how that portrays women in media and therefore a supposed reflection of real life…right? Doesn’t Amy Pond come from our earth? It is wholly LAUGHABLE that your response says that you are only talking about sexism in art and media. This particular media is a refelctive surface of real life (the life of one Amy Pond not to mention Rory).
I’m not even going to get into the ludicrous aspect that you feel this “leveling of playing fields” is needed in art and media and never in real life. That is probably THE WORST defense I have ever heard from someone backed into a corner when she made poorly chosen comments. Either you’re wrong and you spoke before thinking (which can obviously be forgiven) or you ACTUALLY think you are separating the two, which is silly…and your comments therefore make you a sexist. So…which is it?
You also keep going on about how I shouldn’t have brought Jack up to begin with because you were talking about Amy. Have you ever had a debate before Teresa? It’s called citing precedence. The precedent here (in case you were wondering) is the fact that this isn’t the first time a joke like this was made on DW, and it likely won’t be the last. The point I was making is that no one is safe and that Amy wasn’t the first to have something tongue-in-cheek said to her. I was also pointing out that it was a joke, but you didn’t like that.
In my eyes (for a while now actually) I just think you are a feminist trying to get a point across without actually knowing what you are talking about. Your viewpoints are tilted in a way that makes you less able to opine about “sexism” and more inclined to male-bash from a feminist standpoint. A truly balanced idea about sexism wouldn’t condone it in any way shape or form and would see an equality across the board. “Levelling the playing field” in art and media would actually have the opposite affect of what you profess it would. It would not “balance” things out at all. It is a petty revenge tactic plain and simple. The fact that you don’t see that makes me feel sad that you were even given the quarter in which to express such a clearly lopsided opinion.
I actually can’t believe this is taken seriously at all. This is PC madness gone to extremes.
I once took a film course in college being taught by a rabid feminist. Needless to say, my intro to film became very much an intro to delusional thinking. The “delusion” I am referring to is that in reality woman are much more visual in their display of sexuality than men. Its how we have evolved. The conclusion I’m taking from the overall “women in film and TV” conversation seems to be “this is wrong.” Well, that’s your choice. However, your version of reality isn’t actually fact, so let’s move on.
It kind of seems obvious to me that this is what might happen if you translate male and females into fictional characters in a movie or on TV. I’m not saying woman are less than men, they are different. What I’m saying is that instinctively writers “write what they know.” The fact that people respond to it probably indicates they are on to something. If they were totally wrong, then they wouldn’t be very successful, would they? This is why there definitely is a gay agenda (for want of a better term) during RTD’s era. Captain Jack in REAL DOCTOR WHO (see the reactor scene in “Utopia”) spends time talking about his sexuality in the midst of great danger and, arguably, the most important sequence of the episode. It didn’t belong there at all. Personally, I never complained and regard that episode as the best of the New DW.
Secondly, what is the problem? It’s a sketch for comic relief that is playing off the brew-ha-ha Amy’s skirt length caused among certain circles during the last season. The humor is about the viewer’s varied ideas about right and wrong … about Amy as a sexual being. It played off of us. It’s called meta-textual. You really should know this.
Is Amy someone’s fantasy? Maybe, but some women are like Amy in real life (I dated one for a long time) and that makes her a “real character” … which is, let’s face it, so much more interesting than a drab, politically correct character.
P.S. Her reprimand might have been inspired because the first thing the Doctor is exposed to is Amy standing over him … Perhaps he felt that was inappropriate behavior for a married woman, a crew member, or any number of really uncomfortable social reasons … or even, as this is about an alien, Doctor-ish reasons … Thus, the point is that sex and the Doctor are strange and funny and have been since “The Aztecs” in 1964.
Hence … the joke. Get it?
…and she contradicted herself in her twitter feed while discussing it with someone else who disagreed with her talking about media “informing real life people”, thus negating her last statement trying to separate the two as a defense. Sigh. LOL
twitter feed, scroll down to Mar 21.
I’m just going to add that in response to Teresa for why any of us have gotten upset is the lack of consistency, which Jessie has been speaking about quite thoroughly.
Sexism is sexism. Period. Just like racism is racism, period. Consistency. If you want to be mad about apparent misogyny, then do it up and say so. Misandry, same deal. But sexism effects both sexes, that’s why it’s sexism. True, that if the Jack thing hadn’t been a thing and we were just talking about Amy, it’d still be sexism but you’re saying the thing with Jack is okay because men need to get some too. Basically this means that we can keep doing what men all do with jokes and whatnot.
Anywho, point is, be upset over the skirt comment, but be upset over comments about Jack too. Be consistent with your outrage over sexism.
oh my goodness, if i wasnt quite so tired i would write a longer response.
Please, people, look up what feminism actually means, stop bandying around like an insult or something that roughly translates to ‘big fat man hater muhaha’. Rabid feminist? Do you not realise that by misusing these words you are falling victem to the very issues raised in these posts?!
Also its rather hypocrtical or the last few posters to call Teresa a hypocrite for questioning possible sexism in the skit, when you deny all possibility, then claim the comment about jack was sexist. This is illogical and a circular argument.
AsheSaoirse @102 –
“Anywho, point is, be upset over the skirt comment, but be upset over
comments about Jack too. Be consistent with your outrage over sexism.”
First of all, I appreciate that, despite disagreeing with me, you’ve always been respectful and logical. Thank you.
The thing is, saying something like that seems like a product of privilege. It’s a very easy thing to say when the sexism in question isn’t affecting you. While yes, in theory and by definition, sexism applies to both genders, in actual practice is very one sided. I’m actually really pleased that you used the word “misandry”, because not many people even know it exists. I remember having a conversation at work years ago, where I asked my friends if they knew the word for someone who hates men. No one could think of it. I asked what the word is for someone who hates women, and they all said “misogynist.” The fact that the average person can’t even come up with the word for hating men without looking it up, but the word for hating women is at the tip of everyone’s tongue shows that sexism, right now, doesn’t affect men at all, except when they’re bothered that women “complain about it too much.” And I don’t mean you, I mean in general. But seriously, how sad is it that sexism against women is so prevalent and so ingrained that it’s even affected our language in that way.
I stand by my belief that showing something like that happening to Jack is important to show on a television program because it is so jarring, and the more we see stuff like that, the more people will be made uncomfortable and question it.
However, I would also like to point out that Captain Jack very actively flirts at inappropriate times, which is why he gets reprimanded. Amy wasn’t flirting. She was wearing a skirt. She was just standing there existing. The original point of my post was that she got called out by The Doctor unfairly (yes, as a joke), and that it wouldn’t have happened if she were a man and Rory were a woman.
@Teresa: No reason not to be polite and logical. It’s a discussion and it’s a topic I do enjoy, if not a little frustrating at times due to being a man and wondering if my view is going to be considered valid for it. Not that you’re doing that, it’s just a paranoia. And you’re completely right about the language thing. Then again, I love words and (like most of us) I’m a writer so I find that the general lack of vocabularly is rather appalling. I tend to speak rather, I suppose, blue collar, but my vocabularly is quite large and I can wield language effectively. Huzzah for me.
Now, while I still hold to my consistency view, here’s where I’m gonna unload something a bit different (finally) and get off that horse. I think more jokes need to be made across the board and especially on the flip. Jack being a big flirt was a factor, yes and as cute and funny as I thought the mini-sodes were, I was more annoyed that Amy had something important to talk about and we don’t know what that is. It will abso-fucking-lutely drive me crazy because I wonder about things like that. I mean, yeah the whole skirt thing is annoying cause she was just there and Rory could’ve behaved himself better he also gets slapped and made fun of too so there’s a bit of balance but the question. Argh.
I think I rabbit-trailed…oh, yes, jokes. More jokes for everything flipped on their heads. Although, that does kind of happen with gay bashing because if you call an insecure male a homosexual, he either wants to kill you or find a girl to have sex with ASAP to prove you wrong. Mostly the killing part.
Anywho, I’m a big fan of black/dark humor because it pushes the things you want to avoid in your face. Although, with Jack, honestly, I don’t think it does that because a) Jack’s an alien and b) Jack is an omnisexual and wants to tap everything ever all the time. That’s why we love him (long time…I couldn’t resist). Make sexist jokes when the opportunity presents itself. If a woman is made the butt of a joke, she can turn it around. It’s fun and easier than most people think. Racism? Sure, I think it’d be pretty hilarious for a black man to call a white man “the word that shall not be said.” Kinda like the Richard Pryor/Chevy Chase skit where they just go back and forth with the racist terms. PLUS, a LOT of racist terms are so goddamn silly that it’s amazing more people don’t laugh at them. Seriously, “apple”? “Dago”? “Spook”? “Gook”? Who came up with these?
I’m wandering a bit again. My ultimate point here is that if you make light of something, it tends to lose its power. And true, that doesn’t completely help with eradicating oppression or repression, it does have the ability to get people thinking. Honestly, I have trouble imagining people NOT being equal, especially with gender, after having been raised by my mother. But it’s there and it’s always frustrating.
And to finish out, I’m going to paraphrase Carlin and say that in the right context, anything is funny. Yes, even rape.
Rape is never funny. Ever. I find it disgusting that you have said that.
And I’m okay with that.
“I stand by my belief that showing something like that happening to Jack
is important to show on a television program because it is so jarring,
and the more we see stuff like that, the more people will be made
uncomfortable and question it.”
Why the hell do we need to question it?
Ashe is right. The more we make light of all these things the more it will fall to the wayside as ridiculous.
History teaches us the following: If you make something taboo it then becomes irresitable to people. So by taking something like this sort of joke and saying “Booo, this is so bad!” you are in fact doing the opposite of what you intend.
Let’s also get something very straight and something Teresa that you just can’t seem to understand….
Men. All men. Forever. Will ALWAYS look up her skirt. It is built into us. I quote Steve from COUPLING: “I like naked women!” This is not something that will EVER change. Got that. Ever. I don’t care how PC a guy is trying to be…if the opportunity arises to see up the skirt and not get busted…he will. End of story. That is solid fact. If you think otherwise you are utterly fooling yourself and I feel very sad that you don’t realize this about human being’s sexual nature.
Ok…now let’s apply this to the scene in question (Teresa, are you paying attention?)….
…Rory looks up Amy’s skirt from below the glass floor. The Doctor tells “Pond” to put on some trousers. Why? Because it will solve the problem of Rory’s “looking” up at his wifes business. If, as you opine in your post, that the Doctor should instead reprimand Rory for looking instead…what would happen? Would Rory stop looking? NO. He’s a dude. Up-skirt=look. So the problem persists. No matter how many time the Doctor tells Rory not to look…his gut just won’t let him NOT look. Will Amy put on trousers? NO. She’ll be damned if she’s going to let anyone tell her what to wear….but at the very least the option of doing so WOULD solve the issue of Rory not paying attention…telling Rory to not look is tantamount to telling a wall of stone not to be a stone. It’s not goin to change. No matter how many people like you Teresa try to challenge that notion….Men are men. We look. It’s so very simple. I will guarantee you that this will be for eternity of human life. Men will look at nudity of women.
So the joke then lies in the comment to the one outcome that MIGHT have a shot at solving the problem which is for Amy to wear trousers so her pervy male hubby won’t look. It won’t work naturally, but the THEORY of it working is a lot more sound than telling a stone not to be a stone.
I find it funny that you continue to go on and on about this Teresa when this comments thread categorically puts your initial post in its place (as useless and ridiculous) and that this thread combined with your twitter feed shows your contradictions in clear daylight.
Give it up. You already lost darlin’.
@TeresaJusino
The scene with Jack isn’t an all-encapsulating “one instance” any more than these minisodes are. There is a standard pattern of men as being acceptable targets in modern media – the man will be a buffoon, a target of mockery, etc.. And because men-as-acceptable-targets is (1) the minority, and (2) a drastic reversal of the traditional pattern, most people don’t have a problem with it. I understand that – but I don’t accept it.
I absolutely agree with your original post. It’s a good point, reasonably and clearly presented. It’s that pattern of men-as-targets – that (I realise) new, subversive pattern – that has people up in arms about cases that you didn’t bring up, such as the Jack scene. Rightly or wrongly, I at least have a sense that if I were to make a post calling *that* scene out exactly the way you called these minisodes out, I’d be shouted down.
If you’re going to give me new rules to live by, they have to be fair, regardless of the history. If you point out a thousand instances of sexism against women, and I point out one against men, I’m absolutely willing to back you on calling out that thousand – but not if I feel like I’m going to be attacked or invalidated when I point out the one.
Stepping aside from my points, yes, Jack flirts at inappopriate times. The Jack scene is not the Amy minisode, and any time you justify giving the Jack scene a by on *those* grounds, I will likely agree.
@Jessie: I do have to back up your claim a LITTLE here. I mean, I can be a raging perv but I try to do it in a charming, fun way, not in a “you’re meat” way. I CAN control myself but even when controlling myself, if in Rory’s situation, all it would take is a second of distraction and tada, TARDIS in a TARDIS.
So, yeah, Teresa, Jessie’s kinda right. We will usually look but in Rory’s case, he looked up without realizing probably and tada…
Jesse1977 @109 & AsheSaoirse @111:
You both seem to have missed something from my original post, so I’ll repost it here…
“Rory being distracted by Amy in a short skirt (not to mention the idea
of two of her) is understandable. After all, he knows what she looks
like under the skirt, making it even more understandable in his case.
This isn’t my problem with the minisodes.”
I’m not interested in punishing men or women for acknowleging their sexual interests, for crying out loud. Men and women look at what they find attractive. As a woman who sometimes gawks at men she finds attractive, I get it. Looking at the opposite sex is not exclusive to straight men, though. So the “men will be men” stuff can stop right now. Because women will be women, too. And women look. And sometimes get distracted. And talk to each other about what they see. In detail. So, men aren’t special in that regard, nor deserving of special treatment for it. This was not my problem. The thing is, women are often held to a higher standard than men are in this respect. You’re saying Rory should get a “men will be men” free pass. I’m saying, no he shouldn’t. And his distraction would’ve been funnier to me if it were the thing that were focused on, rather than Amy’s choice of clothing. It’s not as if she decided to wander around the TARDIS in a bathing suit, either. She was wearing regular clothes – a skirt that she’s worn many times before, in fact.
Yes, I expect that if Rory is dealing with something as important as the TARDIS, he should be able to deal with it even as he’s looking at his hot wife. And if he can’t/doesn’t, I expect him to be called on it. Just because certain behavior is understandable doesn’t mean it should be allowed to slide without reproach. And yes, if I were in a situation where a woman was too busy staring at a hot guy to do her job properly, I’d call her on it, too. And The Doctor did call Rory on it, which was great. If he hadn’t said anything about Amy putting pants on, these minisodes would’ve been perfect. Alas, he did.
cythraul @110 –
“There is a standard pattern of men as being acceptable targets in modern media – the man will be a buffoon, a target of mockery, etc..”
While I appreciate your point about the Jack example, I think this point above is something else entirely. Yes, there are plenty of examples of men being buffoons, mocked, etc, but generally this is done at their own expense, and usually with the result that those “loser” guys are actually the heroes of the stories they’re in. I’m thinking every Judd Apatow movie, or something like The King of Queens (or any sitcom dating back to The Honeymooners) where chubby blue-collar worker manages to have a hot wife and keep her despite his crazy schemes, or Eastbound and Down where the protagonist is a loser and a douche, yet every guy I talk to who watches the show loves it and identifies with him. Man As Buffoon or as subject of mockery is one thing. Man Being Depicted As Problematic Because of His Gender is something else, and something that we see far less, if at all.
@Teresa: While I wasn’t giving him the get out of jail free card, I DID forget that women can be just as pervy. So, my bad. Odd that I’d forget that in this discussion though as every girl I know is a total perv just about.
Teresa…stop saying I MISSED STUFF IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST! Gods you’re like a broken record. I read the bloody post. It’s just as useless the tenth time I read it as it was the first. I realize what you’re issue is…and I’m addressing it by saying that it would have been ludicrous for the Doctor to say anything else…get that? Anything else would not have rung true at all. Using the points from my post (which you again conveniently avoid answering, charming) the statement about her putting pants on rings true because that’s what the Doctor would have said. He wouldn’t have said anything else. We could pretend he did, or (in your oh so humble opinion) that he should have…but then that would not have been realistic. At all. So what you’re asking for is a phantom idea in a fantasy zone where men won’t look at an upskirt, the resolution to which is that she’s told to put some pants on is never said, and Rory is chastised for his staring and lack of concentration, or even that the Doctor makes no mention of skirts maybe….
That phantom fantasy zone doesn’t exist Teresa.
It never will, and you need to accept that, otherwise it looks like you will spend your life seeing little stupid lines like this in fiction and have a (clearly) uphill battle attempting to change the status-quo that comes from a a very humanistic form of base sexual tendency. Like I said above…Rory will look. No if ands of buts…therefore the way the convo will ALWAYS go is…Amy put on some trousers, cause telling Rory to not look is the stone not to be a stone comment. It’s dead simple really, and for some odd reason you are making a huge deal out of it and making it some kind of goal…like a place we as a society need to get to where men and woman won’t have these sexual foibles about one another, misconceptions, pitfalls and sterotypes. It will never happen.
Human nature is human nature. So as far as I am concerned, Moffat was writing from a standpoint of truth. This is how it went, and how it will always go. For some this will seem unfair, but I can’t fathom why it’s any less unfair than anything else in society that comes as a result of such base impulses.
By your complaint: The Doctor should not have told Amy to put trousers on. The other options are for him to stay quiet (which as a character he would never do, not in any of his 11 incarnations) or for him to chastise the flip side of the equation, Rory. Think hard about what this second option would accomplish. Did you come to the same conclusion of nothing? The next time the upkirt happens what will Rory do? Look? Probably. Thereofre what would that accomplish? nada. Oh wait…there’s a 3rd option put forward earlier right?….make the glass of the TARDIS floor tint or become opaque right? Ah yes, because writers always make a joke that needs a construction team after the punchline. Be serious, that’s the most ridiculous 3rd option ever, and the farthest from realistic.
Mountain > molehill.
The minisodes were awesome and there is nothing wrong with the writing. What’s wrong is that one Teresa Jusino saw fit to take a tiny little line meant as a joke, disect it, PC-ify it, make it an issue, turn it into a statement on sexism and then run with it so she had a post to write. Am I close? As someone mentioned well upthread, anything can be converted these days into a statement on some current topic. In the States, everything is too sensitive to talk about, let alone make jokes about right?
Well that’s funny, cause I don’t see any British websites with this complaint. Honestly, other than this post and the some of the supported comments I haven’t seen hide nor hair of anyone else who has an issue with it. Must be something in the water where you live. Relax, take it down a peg or two…and hand in your Doctor Who fan badge, cause no one who takes something like this so seriously should be watching a show like DW.
wow. I am going to have to completely overhaul my life long assumption. That men, well……that men, like women, have a higher consciousness. With which they can monitor their primal instincts.
Now i understand why there was such a fuss over women in the military. Men with guns x presence of breasts = DISASTER. Male politicians x Status and power / vicinity of bums = DISASTER. Firemen x house on fire / unfortunate woman trapped in house = CONFLAGRATION OF DISASTER.
Now if men were in possession of a higher consciousness they would be able to recognise that a woman is a person, the counterpart to their gender, not merely be possessed by the need to breed, and pass on their genetic material; and so be able to get on with their jobs.
So, ahem, Dr. Who. IRONY. During all this tooing and froing, you seem to have lost sight of this.
‘Put some trousers on, Pond’ This phrase, especially the added ‘Pond’ not Amy, is very 50’s esque, no? Alluding to the 50’s stereotype of the little lady, the perfect housewife, epitome of mild mannered woman. A stereotype that is held in esteem by, say, the sort of folk who criticise a woman for wearing a short skirt. The sort of folk who indeed created a who-ha about Amy’s Skirt. The who-ha that quite possibly inspired the satirical qualities of this short. mmmmm.
Tell me; whats worse, somebody who fails to know about the who-ha, miss the irony, and raise concerns about the seeming sexism, or someone who misses the irony and finds the seeming sexism both funny and acceptable?
Oh and i rather think that whatever it was Amy wanted to talk to the Dr about will come up in the next season. Its a plug.
For those advocating joking about such subjects, with the idea that it will make the existence of sexism/ racism etc fall by the wayside, do you not think that all it will do is desensitise people to the very real concern? Increasing the acceptability.
Check this out, a book signing with Chuck Palahniuk, in ref to this, the story he reads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZWfx7VG5nw
Guys seriously, its a sketch and by the way if i may add this was aired past 8pm so if you dont want your children getting the sexual remarks made, make them go to bed. this whole thing is blown out of controll!!! Amys character in the show always wore clothes that was reveling it was who she was so why dont we forget it and enjoy doctor who and if they make a mistake dont be getting all offened by it!!!!!!!