1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.


Doctor Who Showrunner Steven Moffat Tweets Against Accusations of Misogyny

Current Doctor Who show runner and writer/creator of several other hit U.K. productions, Steven Moffat, has jumped on Twitter to defend himself today. He did an interview in 2004 just before the classic sci-fi series was about to be rebooted and some of his comments hit a nerve. They’ve cropped up here and there since then but this seems to be the first time Moffat has become of aware of what many are calling his misogynistic tendencies from those particular comments and chosen to respond and make clarifications on the social networking website. 

Here’s the quote that was circulating online that caused the uproar:

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. 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.

Earlier today, Moffat gave an, “Eh, what?” tweet to someone calling him a “sexist bastard.” When someone else asked him why he was being called sexist he replied, “Cos of an old interview I gave where I was talking about Patrick in Coupling, but it sounded like I was talking about me.” He further clarified to another user, “quoted out of context in the original. I was talking about Patrick in Coupling, not ME!”

The creator seemed to have had enough after a few more tweets and stopped responding to them. The original interview, with, is editorialized, in other words, quotes have been taken from their interview with Moffat and placed how they chose would work best for the story. The quote used on tumblr and other sites is also cobbled together from two parts of the original piece. As far as we can tell, no direct transcript is available. Just before part of this quote in the article, they do have Moffat talking about the women in Coupling and inbetween talking about how he used to be just like the character of Patrick. Since there is no transcript, for now we’ll have to take the article for what it’s worth and either believe Moffat is telling the truth or lying.

Usually with this sort of thing the next step is to look at the artist’s body of work for evidence for or against. What do you guys think? Sherlock might have been particularly bereft of female characters, but Moffat’s Who certainly features some pretty strong female characters.

(Naked and Articulate via


  • jarrod_b

    I hate to nag… but don’t you mean he defended himself “today” and not “toady”? I mean, if the shoe fits…

  • ishie

    The Moffat era of Doctor Who also features a female companion who’s had almost all power and bodily autonomy stripped from her over the course of two seasons, with little narrative condemnation or consequence, and he’s responsible for the new female character whose entire life is literally defined by her interactions with the Doctor (finally making blatantly textual the criticisms that have been lodged against all seasons of the reboot). Moffat may have been referring to a former character’s mindset in that interview but IMO there’s more than a grain of his own philosophy shining through.

  • T.A.Bryan

     Moffat’s a mixed bag. On one hand, I love Amy and River and Sally Sparrow. But on the other hand, all his plots for women seem to revolve around babies and marriage. Even in Blink, which for the most part didn’t involve romance, the “Happily ever after” moment was Sally holding her guy friend’s hand despite refusing his advances just a couple minutes earlier. I’d like to see more variety in his plots.

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t this dovetail nicely into the increasingly frustrating nonsense surrounding Ms. Amy Pond?  The notion (broken down so eloquently in this article that Pond existed first as “The Girl Who Waited Around For A Man To Rescue Her” then as “A Bride” then as “A Uterus In A Box”?  Highly sexualized (more, I’d argue, than even Rose Tyler), petulant, and even manipulative, Pond has been rubbing some of the more feminist Who fans the wrong way for awhile now.  (I transferred my affections to the magnificent River Song long ago. . .who. . .Christ. . .at the end of this season was upbraided, called an embarrassment and then promptly married the man who just shamed her.)

    I think my favorite bit from the Tiger Beatdown article regarding Amy Pond was the following: 

    “She does occasionally save the universe, as all the Doctor’s companions are contractually obligated to do at least once per season.  Her biggest universe-saving moment, however, came about in the most passive way possible—she just had to remember the Doctor really hard. And she had to do it by focusing on the words “something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.” At her wedding reception.  Because if you want a lady to remember something, you need to make it relevant to her wedding. Am I right?”

  • StreetSpirit Photo

    My complaints about Moffat tend to go the other way, since my problem with recent Doctor Who was that it seemed to be almost entirely centred on River Song and Amy.

  • Julianne McCartney

    And now I’m worried about how Irene Adler will be written in “Sherlock”….

  • Anonymous

    …but Moffat’s Who certainly features some pretty strong female characters.

    I really don’t understand this comment.  Do women characters simply need to exist and use a gun or be sexually liberated to be “strong” to you (the author)????   …Not to mention I’d argue that Amy Pond is sexualised more than sexually liberated, though I think both apply.  Glad someone linked the Tigerbeatdown post on Moffat’s Doctor Who.  It’s dead on, and explains well the reasons why I stopped watching.  I do believe there is another past quote by Moffat that is also fairly sexist, though it may be from the same article.  These quotes came to light when it was announced he was taking over for Davies and my heart just sank.  I was hoping that other folks in charge of the scripts and such would be able to counter his misogyny, but apparently not.  I don’t think it’s some weird coincidence that Moffatt has unhealthy ideas about relationships and marriage and the relationship between Rory and Amy Pond appear completely damaging to me.  He’s a real disappointment.  He really brought down the quality of Doctor Who and I can’t wait for him to leave the show.

  • Julianne McCartney

    Also, the comment he made is really fucking sucks. You’re a jerk Moffat. Girls don’t DREAM about being MARRIED, not all of them, hell I’m super psyched I just got out of a relationship so I can focus on myself and be my own person for a while. 

  • Mary Sue

    What do you guys think? Sherlock might have been particularly bereft of female characters, but Moffat’s Who certainly features some pretty strong female characters.

    Who almost all are consumed with the desperate need of a boyfriend/husband in their life.

    For the record, I never played ‘wedding’ as a child. I tended to play “Blow up invading aliens!”

  • Alex Jahans

    I’ve come to the conclusion that fans are just a little bit obsessed and missing the point. Some complain that Doctor Who is now the River and Amy show, some complain that River and Amy are entirely dependant on the Doctor. I’d personally like to see an article complaining about how pants most of the Doctor’s male companions are

  • Nichole Filbert

    “He’s a real disappointment.  He really brought down the quality of Doctor Who and I can’t wait for him to leave the show.”

    THIS. I find it hard to believe that he’s just talking about another show…when his ideas are pretty obvious in the new Doctor Who.

  • Sonja W

    I’m conflicted about Moffat and not just because of his presentation of female characters on Who (*cough* gaping plot holes). For the longest time I wasn’t really bothered by the whole Amy/Rory/Doctor dynamic because I had lovely badass River Song to focus on. But “The Wedding of River Song” really rubbed me in the wrong way for some parts. I felt really uncomfortable about the whole the Doctor calling her an embarrassment scene and then marrying her. And all the passing comments (mainly by the doctor) how women are just “crazy” (remember “Let’s kill Hitler”?). I really like Matt Smith as the doctor, but I hope next season will be the end of the Moffat/Smith era. And let’s not talk about Sherlock. I swear if he’ll mess up that show I’ll be really pissed off!

  • Anonymous

    I think the most frustrating moment for me on the most recent season, that kind of encapsulates this, was when Amy was stranded at the Two Streams medical facility. She turned into a total badass, capable of reprogramming the entire computer system, fighting off dozens of robots, and even building her own sonic screwdriver – in other words, she becomes completely independent of the Doctor, and angry at him for leaving her. And for the sin of losing faith in him and Rory and making her own way, she gets killed. There was never any question that the show (Moffat) would privilege young, pretty Amy over competent, angry Amy. Which, by the way, Amy and Rory don’t seem to have a problem with?

    And then in the next episode, after being told that losing faith in the Doctor is a capital crime, we learn that Amy’s faith in the him is actually what’s endangering them, which is just thematically inconsistent.

  • Rebecca Eisenberg

    My biggest gripe against Moffat is his treatment of River Song. He expects us to believe that she was tortured and conditioned and trained to kill the doctor her whole life but because she’s a good person and we’re supposed to like her she managed to turn that anger and rage into what Moffat calls “love”. I nearly had an apoplectic fit when River looked at the Doctor and said “well who else was I going to fall in love with?” because NO. River is not in LOVE. River is mentally unstable, completely obsessed, and the whole romantic mystery of how River Song became the River Song who we met in Silence in the Library was completely ruined. River Song was badass when she was portrayed as the Doctor’s equal, but it turns out she’s perhaps the most emotionally volatile, crazy, obsessed woman in the world — so much so that she’s willing to sacrifice the ENTIRE WORLD just so that the doctor doesn’t have to die. And all the other characters act like she’s being totally rational except for the Doctor who treats her a bit like a naughty child. River was great because she was the only person who could keep the doctor on his toes. But she doesn’t love him. She thinks she loves him because her mind has been so warped that literally “who else was [she] going to fall in love with?” According to River, she didn’t have a choice but to fall in love with the doctor. That’s not love, that’s stockholm syndrome.

    And Amy, I mean, I could deal with the fact that all her stories revolved around babies, pregnancy, marriage, etc because sometimes those things can be character specific and don’t have to be representative of “All Women”. But what really irked me was that Moffat didn’t seem to have an understanding of how absolutely traumatic some of the things he put her through would be to a person. Losing her baby? And she was fine about it? Right before Amy killed Kovarian, she says something along the lines of “That is my daughter and she is FINE” …and it was infuriating because I cannot imagine a mother having her baby taken from her, only being upset about it for oh, maybe five minutes, then going on adventures and forgiving the person who lost her baby in the first place, and then, upon seeing the batshit insane, unstable, obsessed, stalker that River turned out to be and thinking, “this is exactly the way I hoped my daughter would turn out.”

     I think that Moffat is fantastic at writing great stories with male characters. I think he writes great stories between platonic male and female characters. His understanding of the female mind, however, leaves me baffled at almost every step.

  • Craig Forshaw

    Moffat made a generalisation, and a bunch of people who don’t like the fact that ‘Doctor Who’ is different (not better, or worse, just different) from Russell Davies heyday projected onto the statement that it must be because he hates women in some way, which validates their trolling every thread about Moffat’s version of ‘Who’. The reality, more than likely, is that he was making a general statement of the kind we all do everyday, but we have the advantage that no-one is writing it down without context or inflection. If I say, “Footballers! Overpaid, thick scum!” it would sound like I was claiming all footballers are overpaid, thick and scum. But in the context of a conversation, most people would know I was only referring to a specific group of footballers, although they are the most prominent group in the media. Moffat wasn’t saying, “All women want to get married and have babies and nothing else!” He was saying, a certain section of women behave in a certain way… and there are women like that. If you are looking for sexism, there are easier targets in Britain, like David “Calm down, love,” Cameron.

  • Anonymous

    Awwww!  A Moffat apologist.  Cute.  AND!  A derailing, mansplaining comment about how us wimmins should concentrate our ire on this *other* sexist bloke instead.  Thanks man!  I do *so* need a big smart man to tell me what I should care about!

  • Craig Forshaw

    Oh, and Amy had months between ‘A Good Man Goes To War’ and ‘Let’s Kill Hitler’. The reason why Moffat didn’t have her bawling on screen is because ‘Doctor Who’ is a light-hearted kids romp through time and space, and we had already seen how devistated Amy was at the end of ‘A Good Man Goes To War’. You couldn’t have had a full episode of Amy going on about losing her child, because, well, it’s a bit of a heavy subject for a show that has to be accessible to five year-olds. You can tell them Daleks aren’t real, but people who lose their kids? Then, after that, they found out they had known River all their life. How can you be torn up about not getting to see River grow up, when they clearly did see River grow up? They did, it happened, we saw it.

  • Sonja W

    I don’t agree on your “but it’s a kids show” argument. Let’s face it: all major themes that came up in the last two seasons weren’t really kids material anymore. I think it’s fair to say that Doctor Who is no longer the family programm it used to be. And even if it were, it is no reason to handle the “losing a baby” storyline like Moffat has done. Why is the subject of losing a baby more difficult for little kids to handle than seeing the Master enslaving and murdering the whole of mankind for example??

  • Anonymous

    I actually had a bigger problem with RTD and women. The default always seemed to be either the screeching shrew or the love sick ingenue.

    I can see the criticisms of Moffat’s work, but I guess it just doesn’t rasp against my soul quite as badly. 

  • Phoebe North

    Yes, this.

    Or how about the ultimate expression of Amy’s independence as an adult being represented by the Doctor calling her by her married name–a name she’s never before stated a preference for herself.

  • T.A.Bryan

     I want to frame this comment and put it on my wall. It is a perfect explanation of why this last season has bothered me so much.

  • Sophie Ann

     Hi, sorry, just got to say, I don’t think either of you are making particularly good points here. Whilst I disagree with what Mr Forshaw was saying, I don’t think an ad hominem attack is a particularly good way to prove him wrong. It would be more correct to say that he is using a bad analogy to prove his point. Saying that footballers are ‘overpaid, thick scum’ in the context of a conversation is quite different to writing a script in which footballer are portrayed as ‘overpaid, thick scum’. One cannot compare the two mediums.

  • Sophie Ann

    I think that saying Sherlock did not have a strong female presence is quite wrong. It’s true that the two leads were male, but one should look at all the women in the show before assuming there is no strong female presence in the show:

    -Ella Thompson- Second character one sees is female. Went to graduate school, now spends her days dealing with characters like John Watson.

    -Molly Hooper- Runs the morgue. Got a crush on Sherlock, but spends her days rooting around inside dead bodies. Remember the body Sherlock was flogging? She knew him. He was nice. And she still handed him over to Sherlock for him to essentially go to town on. Forensic pathology means a graduate degree.

    -Detective Sergeant Sally Donovan- A black female police officer. She made it into the police, through CID and all the way to sergeant. In a workplace where she is a minority twice. That’s pretty good going.

    -”Anthea”- PA to the most powerful man in the British government. Nothing fazes her, and you get the feeling that texting is not all she’s doing on that Blackberry of hers. Also, she rejects John in the coolest, slicked back way ever.

    -Mrs Hudson- Reduces Sherlock to a twelve year old boy. (“That’s coming out of your rent young man!”) A possible survivor of domestic abuse (Always runs out when Sherlock raises his voice, jumps a mile when John shouts.) Got her own husband executed. In the pilot, she ran the cafe next to 221B. As it is, she’s still a landlady, and pretty active despite her hip.

    -Soo Lin- Smuggled drugs to survive for years, before escaping from the tong and the country to work her way up to a job that one would usually need a graduate degree for. Completely independent- does not want a relationship with anyone.

    -Sarah Sawyer- Apparently runs her own surgery. When kidnapped by Chinese smugglers, weighs into the ensuing melee and knocks one of them the fuck out. Then hangs round and helps Sherlock solve the crime. And goes on a second date with John.

    -Shan- Runs a whole criminal cartel, successfully enough that she can leave China to pick up one hair pin.

    -Professor Cairns- A female astrophysics professor who is trying to solve a crime in a very Miss Marple way. That’s pretty kickass.

    -Miss Wenceslas- Runs her own successful art gallery, and almost pulled off a major forgery.

    How can you possibly say that none of these female characters don’t kick ass, and aren’t strong characters? I would be happy for any of my daughters to grow up as smart, as strong and as dedicated as any of these women. To say that Sherlock is “bereft of female characters” I think is quite untrue. You could make the argument that none of these women are shown in the best light, but you only have to think about their situations for a moment to realise that frankly, Sherlock brings out the worst in quite a few people, but that doesn’t mean their worst is all you have to see.

  • Odette Mohammed

    You hit the nail on the head. I could scream with frustration about the way Amy’s pregnancy and River’s abduction was handled.

  • Lettice Peyton

    Wait. What? When did the Doctor refer to Amy as Amy Williams? I remember him calling her Ponds several times, but not Williams.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing says “I’m not sexist” like the use of a term that was specifically created to be sexist. Oh, and also good job on using it correctly (i.e. using it to completely ignore the meat of the perceived man’s argument in favor of being dismissive). 

  • Anonymous

    Sophie, I do not believe Forshaw was talking about people who fault the script. This original article was about the comments he made in the interview, and it’s those comments Forshaw was analogizing.

  • Edcedc8

    but the writing is better.

  • Edcedc8

    you’re right. society pressure doesn’t place a strong urge in little girls to have babies and get marri-oh wait.

  • Edcedc8

    and men who have a desperate need of a woman in their life.
    boo! Moffat is a manhater!

  • Edcedc8

    true, though rory has changed that imo.

  • Julianne McCartney

    what does that have to do with not portraying every girl like that. Just because a demographic of people are pressured into doing something doesn’t mean they DO it and it doesn’t mean EVERYONE is like that. It’s a stereotype and just like every other stereotype that exists it’s offensive.

  • Julianne McCartney

    Dude, nearly every reply in this thread you make doesn’t make sense

  • Anonymous

    Just popping in to say I was one of those girls who didn’t fantasize about weddings, too. (I was one of the few young females I knew who didn’t dream of horses, either.) We’re talking early 1960s, folks, and I suppose the societal pressure was there, but I was too busy dreaming about Marie Curie and walking in space to worry about it. 52 years old, adore men, never married, no kids, and just fine with it, thanks.

  • Anonymous

    No, that’s not the case in my mind at all. I see more to those characters than what you described but it’s certainly fine to have differing opinions. 

    And let me play devil’s advocate for a moment, if you (and others) only see his female characters in those terms you mentioned then could it perhaps just be a case of bad character development on his part and not misogyny? A case could be made for Rory’s lack of depth I think as well. Just a thought.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, I’ll grant that he’s bad at character development.  I just think a large part of his developing character relationships is based on his harmful views of them.  And his understanding of women in regards to developing their characters, is based much too much on a disgust, and yet insistence, that marriage and baybeez! are the thing women care most about.  Rory’s passive-aggressiveness toward Amy Pond, who is quite neglectful of him, just strikes me as Moffat projecting his own issues with sexism and bad past or current relationships with women onto his characters.  I think he tries to develop characters far too much relying on his own worldview and experiences, and that’s entirely the problem. 
    I stopped watching when I saw that TimeLord kid with a bad cold regenerating, so anything after that regarding River Song I know nothing about, though from what I gather here, it’s equally insulting to women and men and relationships between them.

    If you haven’t yet, I’d recommend reading the Tigerbeatdown article.  It’s really well done.  I can’t come close to explaining how problematic Moffat is, the way Sady Doyle can.

    I’ll also grant that Davies has his own slip-ups with minorities on the show, but there was a definite sense that he was trying to be inclusive and egalitarian, whereas Moffat shows no inclination to be so.

  • mildred louis

    I just wanted to say that for someone who apparently doesn’t believe this, he surely spent a great deal of time emphasizing the fact that Amy waited decades for the Doctor to return, and started planting seeds of a very uncomfortably manipulation based relationship between the Doctor and River. It’s like the Time Traveler’s Wife all over again except way more unsettling and a weirdly almost incestuous addition to the mix (because, really? she just HAD to be the daughter of the woman who waited her entire life for the same man?). Over all, I’m really not crazy about the hand he’s had in Doctor Who so far. I don’t think I’ve been anything short of disappointed.

  • Shannøn Latimer

    At the end of The God Complex, when Amy and Rory leave him, he called Amy “Williams”.

  • Julianne McCartney

    It’s really not that hard to write a female character: You write a human character, and then make it female. 

  • Life Lessons

    Yes, Moffat has sexist tendencies. Which sucks. But I still am enjoying Dr. Who.

  • Danielle Stanard

    Julianne, don’t waste your time, if you see his earlier comment, you can quickly deduce that Edcedc8 is the TROLL of this thread.  I almost got sucked in myself.

  • Danielle Stanard

    I disagree, I think this sort of comment on a thread like this is entirely worth getting bent out of shape and aggressive about.  Postherds is pointing out exactly what that comment is, which is the subversive equivalent of, “calm down, ladies,”  when no one on this thread, and certainly not the original poster, have shown any signs of over-reacting.  He hasn’t defended anything but the comment that the post quotes, and did so by basically mis-quoting the words that are up there in black and white for everyone to see.  I find that sort of diminishing response to a legitimate concern like this elitist AND sexist, personally, and I respect postherds for calling him out on it.

  • Edcedc8

    I’m making fun of kneejerk reactions.
    sarcasm is impossible for americans.

  • Edcedc8

    I’m making fun of dumb people.
    apparently you live in a world were girl’s toys at toyrus don’t include homemaker and mother toys.
    welcome to reality.

  • Edcedc8

    its not a stereotype, it is an average estimation based on observable data. nice try.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t see the ending to “Blink” as “Happily ever after” because she’s with a guy. I saw it as “Happily ever after” because she was finally able to move on with her life.

  • Anonymous

    The link doesn’t work, but the comment about the wedding comes off as a stretch. A wedding would be the most important thing in anybody’s life–man or woman, and the writers just thought it would be clever to tie in the Doctor’s phone booth with the old saying of “something old…”

  • Anonymous

    You know, it’s hard to take your comment seriously when you use words like mansplaning. Just a heads up.


  • Sophie Ann

     I agree that what he said was wrong, I just think that in this case, it’d be better to refute his argument, which yeah, I probably didn’t do either. I just think that a purely ad hominem attack doesn’t get you anywhere, and I would be more inclined to take potsherds seriously if they used an argument that showed why Forshaw was wrong, and it’s not because he’s ‘mansplaining’ or a ‘Moffat apologist’. It’s because he completely ignored the point of the article, which was that Moffat was talking about a character, not his personal view, and instead of making a decent argument about how Moffat was not sexist, he set up a strawman in the form of Cameron. Idk. Just my opinion I guess.

  • Wulfy

    As a Moffat-fan who has seen pretty much everything he’s worked on, I’d have to say he probably is a bit sexist, even if unconsciously so. I’m basing that mostly off Coupling in that whilst he ridiculed men and women quite expertly, the female characters always seemed rather lacking and a bit cliched compared to the more rounded men.

    That said, look at the deadly strong characters of Claire and Katherine in Jekyll; Suzy Travis as the voice of sanity in Chalk, or the awesomeness of Madame de Pompadour as an equal to the Doctor (as a forerunner to River really), and a smattering of cool, albeit secondary, female characters in Sherlock. Moffat definitely seems to have a desire to write strong, complex female characters. I think his problem is that he suffers from gender-blindness and occasionally makes gaffes that make a feminist cringe. This doesn’t excuse the mistake of course, but I would feel uncomfortable about labeling him an out-and-out sexist.

  • Wulfy

    Actually I think there is a big difference and I agree with Craig. I’m normally the one scoffing at the ‘kids show’ argument, because I don’t see why a child shouldn’t be exposed to fantasy violence or serious drama.

    However, a child can tell the difference between fantasy issues and real-life ones. Although of course the images may stick in their imagination, they can distinguish between something like the Master killing someone with a laser and reality. However a mother losing a baby is a serious issue they can relate to in real life, not to mention one that may hit very close to home given they rely so much on parents themselves. Quite frankly that’s a bit much for, say, a seven year old.

  • Jasmine Zerbe-Moore

    I don’t mind the marriage bit because River’s a Time Traveler.  Sure, he yelled at her, and sure, he’s probably only marrying her to shut her up somehow.  But because she’s a time traveler, River knows that whether or not the Doctor loves her NOW doesn’t matter.  She knows he’ll love her eventually, so you get married when you get the opportunity and go from there.  I do really hope that in the coming season we see him relying on her more.  For both Amy and River, they encountered the Doctor very young and because of that, a lot of their choices were sort of made for them.  but now that we’ve seen River’s development, I really want to see the Doctor’s.  I hope that in the next season, we come to see him falling in love with her, and see his life revolving around her a little more.  If we don’t see that sort of thing, then I will start to have an issue with River’s marriage.

  • JaneE

    Why does Moffat act like that’s the only interview fans have a problem with? I mean, this is a man who decided to announce on national television that when he saw Karen Gillan’s first audition for Amy (on tape, he didn’t attend the first round of auditions in person), he didn’t even want to allow her to attend the recall auditions purely because he thought her body looked “dumpy” in the video. Regardless of what her actual acting performance was like. The casting director talked him into allowing her to audition again, and when he met her and realised what a great body she had, he decided to cast her. She obviously gave a great performance in her first audition or Andy Prior wouldn’t have fought so hard for her, so it really does seem that Moffat can’t see past whether an actress has a hot body or not. And is happy to admit this on TV.

  • JaneE

    No one’s asking for an episode titled, “Amy’s Visit to the Grief Councillor” though. We don’t need to see her breaking down in tears, just some passing acknowledgement that her newborn child was just ripped out of her arms and that she knows her baby will be/is being horrifically tortured and will grow up to be a brainwashed psycho killer and get convicted for murder. No mother would blithely accept that without a second thought and go off on adventures like it’d never happened. The Ninth Doctor had an entire episode (Father’s Day) about the desire to exploit time travel to avert the bad events in one’s own past and why that can’t happen, and dealt with those themes with remarkable maturity and genuine emotion. Moffat can’t even write one 30 second scene of Amy suggesting/demanding they use the TARDIS to rescue Melody before all these horrific things happen and the Doctor explaining they can’t?

    Or if that’s too mature for a children’s show audience to handle then why not just, you know, not have the entire main storyline of your children’s show be about a baby being kidnapped and raised to be a living weapon?
    It’s appropriate to show a pregnant women kept prisoner in a box so her newborn baby can be stolen and horrifically abused and end up living in solitary confinement for a crime she wasn’t responsible for on kids TV, but not appropriate to show a mother being a little upset about it?

  • Nichole Filbert

    It’s even harder to take a comment seriously when there’s gaslighting and derailing going on (which is at the heart of “mansplaining”) Otherwise, duly noted.

  • Nichole Filbert

    Which doesn’t surprise me, since the first thing we see of her is a close up of her butt and thighs. Ah, the male gaze at work. Plus, this isn’t helping Moffat’s case of not being a sexist, and I find it hilarious :)

  • Anonymous

    In the show’s defence, he has frequently called Rory “Mr. Pond.”

  • Anonymous

    I wholeheartedly agree with everything he says. His whole creative vision for the Doctor as a character from The Doctor Dances onwards has been about portraying him as the ultimate outsider, someone who outwardly appears to be human only almost/not quite… Most tellingly in so much as in the fact that he doesn’t have a sexuality, at least not one that relates to anything we might recognise and the alienation and loneliness he experiences because of it purely by virtue of the mortality of those he takes with him, making him aware of it’s absence yet unable to feel it’s loss… Compare that to the superficial extraversion of the Russell T Davis’ vision (his Doctor reads Heat and watches Big Brother, for goodness sake… Thats beyond normal and way into ordinary territory, somewhere The Doctor should never be).

    What he means you can summarise by the gender split over the word “brood” – men brood by furrowing their brow, scowling and sculking off to their cave/shed/vast inter-dimensional space/time craft to be alone and experience ennui whilst enjoying their own company. Women get broody.

    (not all women, don’t misunderstand me – many, most even, but not all)

    Women are more accutely aware of the passage of time, the slow unravelling of their own mortality due to their continually ticking biological clock. Men are capable of fathering children into their 90s, should they choose to (although, obviously not recommended).

    My favourite Smiths song is one called William, it was Really Nothing; aside from obvious yet ambiguous rural gay life overtones of the lyrics, Morrissey has stated his motivation for writing it was the surfeit of songs by female pop singers warning of the dangers of an unwise marriage from a female perspective, usually employing the standard line of “He’s not right for you/no good for you/doesn’t show you enough respect/treat you right/wait around a little longer for a handsome prince” (undertone/implication “You HAVE to get married ASAP or no one will want you / you’ll die alone and childless /By the way, What have you done for me lately”), but no-one has ever written a warning song about marriage from a male perspective.

    That is to say, what’s the *point* of getting married? Why do it just to fulfil other people’s expectations? Doesn’t it represent a failure in imagination, drawing a big, fat line under your life so far and surrendering your dreams by devoting all your efforts to making someone else happy, putting a glass ceiling on what you can do and where you can go, when and with who?

    That was always the dream The Doctor presents all of us. We can go anywhere and everywhere in that old Police Box. That strange old/young man in his ridiculous blue box, his days like crazy-paving. He can’t ever stop travelling, slow down, stop moving… The universe just might grind to a halt around him if he ever did.

    Now, when I say run, run…..

    Right, now run!!!

  • Anonymous

    We all know who wears the trousers in the Pond household. And amen for that.

    British TV needs more fem submissive Tops. Or male assertive bottoms. Whatever way that shakes out.

    It needs to be said that as a man, you can play the junior partner in your relationship while she hogs all the limelight and courts dynamism, be a “real” man, a loving and supportive partner and a good dad without being a doormat.

    I’m all for seeing more of that on screen.

    Rory’s a real man. And he takes no shit for being “only” a nurse.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, no – can’t agree… Douglas Adams always used to rib himself that he was incapable of writing believable female characters and I used to think he was joking.

    Then I read the fourth Hitchikers and second Dirk Gently books and realised he *really* wasn’t kidding…. They came across flatter and more scewed than Jeffrey Archer characters.

    Mind you, other than just writing exactly the same as male characters, he did insert the adverb “rather” quite liberally into every chunk of supposedly female inner monologue.

    Which I felt was rather pointless, to be honest.

  • Anonymous

    I find it interesting that has been Moffat now who has finally allowed Neil Gaimen to shoehorn a definitive statement into the cannon finally to the effect that Time Lord gender is not fixed between regenerations, further distancing The Doctor’s gender away from any consideration of sexuality… Whilst he might admittedly *have* a gender, at least in human terms, the meaning of it is purely perceptual and doesn’t actually mean very much except (certainly not in reproductive terms) to give a consistent and familiar frame of reference.

    We know now that at least one Time Lady / Lord swapped genders fairly regularly and it’s been pretty much confirmed via implication in the question of River’s conception that no Time Lord (or anyone) has ever had sex (or at least conceived) inside the TARDIS, or any TARDIS for that matter, at least not while it’s been in flight in the Vortex.

    All of which supports the traditional caconical view that while The Doctor appears to be a man, he’s not one; not in the sense that we recognise it, despite appearances to the contrary. We have to conclude that while he could gender-swap via a regeneration, he somehow just consciously prefers not to, presumably either through a lack of interest, personal preference or due to the fact that none of his clothes would fit any more.

    River’s a different kettle of fish of course, a human with infused Time Lord traits… She *does* have human traits and biology (mostly) and biological urges that will find their own way despite her unconventional upbringing and absence of role models, but nevertheless… She means it, even if he’s just playing a part for her benefit. But she knows the score, wherein lies part of the bitter irony.

    Then again, they do have the ultimate dysfunctional relationship, so all rules are null and void and all bets are off.

  • Anonymous

    As opposed to all of Russell T Davis’ female leads who were defined solely by their Smash Hits Boyzone teen crush on The Doctor and their relationship with their mother?

    Look at the first 30 seconds of Martha – okay, she’s female, she’s black, she has a brother…

    Oh look, there’s her mother! Look, they have a “strained” relationship…. I bet they hug before the end of this series…

    Okay, her Dad has a trophy blond girlfriend we’ll never see again… It’s her Mum’s birthday tonight…

    Oh, a cute guy just stood in my way, took off his tie and say “See?” to me… That was weird. Mind you, he was very a cute and not at all mace-able in spite of the inappropriate intrution into my personal space. I might just daydream about snogging him later

    (by the way, I’m also a medical student)

    And that’s my entire character.

  • Anonymous

    And he is a doofus but he loves her and is dependable.

    “Don’t patronise me; I’m listening and I’m *clever*” is quite possibly the best line given to any character, male or female, anywhere, ever.

  • Kimberly

    That’s what I thought too, dragonking. I figured that it worked very nicely with that old phrase, and heck, she’s AT her wedding which was occurring AT THAT MOMENT, so it makes sense that something relating to what is going on around her would pop into her mind over something that is not.

  • Kimberly

    People will complain no matter what is done.

    I see Rory and Amy as that couple that you spend half your time wondering why they’re together, then they have to deal with something tough in their life and there is no doubt at all why they stay together in those times. There are real relationships that are stormy like theirs, and are still healthy in their own way. But everyone has an opinion, and as the saying goes “You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.”

  • Noni Doll

    No reference to Donna? She certainly wasn’t crushing on the Doctor.

  • Noni Doll

    I would just like to raise the point that at the time Amy was married and knocked up, she was only 21. Unlike Rose, Martha or Donna, she barely got the chance to explore herself, have a career etc. before she was Mrs Williams and Mama Song.

    Rose got to have Mickey as her boyfriend and travel with the Doctor for a significant amount of time, and after he left, she had to sort her own life before settling down.

    Martha was a medical student, then went on to stand on her own two feet as part of UNIT, again, choosing to marry later on down the line. (Again, WHY she had to marry Mickey, I’ll never know. What’s wrong with them just being mates? CHRIST.)

    Donna… Well, I refuse to hear a single word said against that lady. Sure, her life wasn’t crash hot before the Doctor, but she had the balls to turn him down, and then give him a piece of her mind whenever he deserved it. Seems such a MASSIVE shame that she was written out in such a despicable way – “She’s got balls? She stands up to the Time Lord? ERASE HER MEMORY SO SHE GOES BACK TO HAVING THE MOST BORING LIFE WE CAN CONJURE FOR HER AND ALL THAT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT NEVER HAPPENED.”

    As a 22 year old, THIS concerns me significantly. When young girls who idolise Amy work this out, what are they going to think? I mean, the only job we know she had was as a KISSOGRAM?!

    Okay, I’m going to stop now before I end up hating my favourite program.

    Can we have Ace back please?

  • Julianne McCartney

    Sarcasm is impossible over the internet, buddy, since, ya know, sarcasm is 99% voice inflection.

  • Julianne McCartney

    I haven’t read any of Douglas Adams’ stuff, so i don’t know what your referencing in terms of that female character being written, but still, your argument is anecdotal and is based on one writers inability to write a female character. But I dunno maybe you’re right, it seems like people handle female characters like they’re unicorns or something… :(  

    I still think that if you write from the uniting aspect that we all go through the human experience you can write a good female character. We all know what it’s like to be aware of our mortality, to experience emotions from that, what it is to lose someone or something important, to have our beliefs challenged and so on, so why is it so hard to just have a girl go through that?

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m not *entirely* sure why it’s not hard, but it clearly IS hard, otherwise more people would be able to do it well…

  • Anonymous

    I can only speak from a male perspective, but Amy and more especially Sally Sparrow felt and seemed (to me) as more authentically “real” female characters (whatever that means…) than 99% of the characters out there. I believed them, they seemed like actual people, rather than say, Rose Tyler or worse still, Martha Jones, the weepy, blubbing Mills and Boon cyphers that they were.

  • Anonymous

    Men and women are different, behave differently, act differently and respond emotionally differently to situations they are placed in. I have proof of this, I’ve witnessed it first-hand under control conditions. One of my oldest friends from school used to have an older brother. Now he has an older sister. And the two people on either side of the transition, before and after the hormonal switch could NOT be more different and react to stress and stressful situations more differently, even though it’s the same brain in the same body.

    You can’t just write a character and then “make her female”, that has absolutely no depth or emotional truth to it. A woman would not do the same things as a man would in a a great many situations.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone who has been perscribed a course of it, either via certain formulations of The Pill, HRT or Gender Reassignment therapy will tell you – oestrogen is a mind altering drug. It is. Any change in the levels of it in your body will change your entire personality. I’ve had two ex-girlfriends change their Pill prescription (risk of DVT – they were both smokers) and it just made them go INSANE…. Both got it so bad with the mood swings, thet had to come off it.

    Oestrogen affects the way you think. So does testosterone. Women do not think the same way as men, to a lesser or greater extent. Thats a clinical reality.

  • Anonymous

    No, but then Donna was a special case, not least because we later learnt that she actually WAS The Doctor on some level and had been since before Partners in Crime.

    For the whole of the fourth series, she doesn’t actually have a personality of her own and prior to that, when she did :- Fishwife.

    Wilf actually *cries* at the prospect of getting Donna’s real personality back in place of the one with the Doctor’s personality mixed in! Oh no, not that!

  • Julianne McCartney

    You’re right about the whole hormone difference thing and how men and women react differently, I do agree with you there. I don’t know if any story would go as deep to differentiate the difference between how a man and woman would react to situations though.

    I keep trying to think of situations where a guy would act very differently from a girl. 

    Someone dies: both genders would cry, be upset. 

    Being hurt: Realistically if either gender was hurt in a situation where they were being threatened, fight or flight instinct would kick in and then whatever happened would really dependent on an individual. 

    I guess romantically men and women are kind of different? Maybe women are more emotional, but then that’s discounting that men could POSSIBLY be more emotional than women and there ARE men that are more emotional than women out there. 

    I really just can’t think of any solid situation where a man would act completely different from a woman in a reaction that isn’t just some stereotype that’s been used over and over again and has become a social norm because it’s been so used…

    I’m totally not trying to be cheeky, i really cant think of one situation.

  • Julianne McCartney

    Also, hormone therapy, the intense replacement kind, is kind of a bad example since that’s just pure hormones going into you and anyone would react differently to stress under that situation. That’s like a complete biological change going on there. Most women don’t go through that with that intensity (unless its like… some crazy extreme changes during menstrual cycle and menopause)

    I just think writer-dudes don’t want to get into writing women because they’re afraid to offend someone? Or they just depend on stereotypes like “Oh well women are emotional, they cry a lot, I’ll just have my female character cry to show shes really sensitive and has emotions, like a lady”.

  • Anonymous

    Well, there’s a very simple way to test that, simply take a transcript of any piece of documentary fly-on-the-wall footage or (god help us) “reality” TV, turn it into script/screenplay format, swap the gender roles, get a group of actors to perform it back, as scripted and see whether or not the result comes across as totally absurd or not.

    To make ir a fair test of the principle, take something like Jersey Shore for example… You could argue all day about how “real” reality TV trash like that is, but it doesn’t make the men and women in it not “real” men and women… The women in Jersey Shore ARE women… They really are. So are the men appearing in it, they really are men, it’s not a trick.

    The problem with not having characters conforming to stereotypes is that real people often DO conform to gender stereotypes, for good or ill… So if you consciously set out to purposefully write characters every time that conform to absolutlely NO gender stereotypes, that’s what you’ll end up with; characters that don’t come across as real.

    And then the Daily Mail accuses the BBC and everyone else of political correctness gone mad, pandering to militant feminism, pushing the “gay agenda” and all sorts of other bollocks that just makes everyone involved look foolish. Whereas in reality, it’s not pushing an agenda, it’s just bad writing.

    Every girl of my generation who runs and hides when the word “feminism” is mentioned does so because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that to declare that you have feminist beliefs is incompatible with a desire to “be girly

  • Anonymous

    Show me this scene with a female Nixon and I won’t believe it:-

  • Julianne McCartney

    I like the way you form arguments Spike and the way you don’t get defensive and explain things very well. I totally agree with everything you say. I wish I could reply to the comment…the comment that started with:
    “Well, there’s a very simple way to test that…”

     I guess message chains are limited or I am dumb.  

    “Well, there’s a very simple way to test that, simply take a transcript of any piece of documentary fly-on-the-wall footage or (god help us) “reality” TV, turn it into script/screenplay format, swap the gender roles, get a group of actors to perform it back, as scripted and see whether or not the result comes across as totally absurd or not.”

    I would TOTALLY like to see that. That would be really interesting!

    I’m in no way against being girly, hell, on tumblr i track the tags “cute dresses” and “nail polish” , but yeah, I think sometimes feminists or people who claim to be feminists get the wrong idea and start to come down on any girl that does FIGHT THE POWER or non-conform. 

    And all tears always count, always!

    Thanks for an actual conversation over the internet that didn’t end with someone calling someone else a nazi.

  • Anonymous

    Well, thank you, I appreciate that – I try really hard to be clear about how I reached my conclusions and formed my opinions rather than just stating them as facts… Like they say on exam papers, “Show your working”.

    Incidentally, it’s a skill I’ve become very good at of late… since I watched a documentary film called “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, around the time Whoopi Goldberg made her now infamous comment about that incident that the incident relating to Roman’s 1977 arrest for having sex with a girl-not-his-wife that “It wasn’t ‘Rape’, rape…” (which is actually a very poorly/unfortunately worded and yet factually correct statement.).

    You want to see ugliness and hatred on the Internet, you try defending a guy who most people think drug-raped and sodomised a child (which isn’t actually an accurate representation of what took place) from death threats on YouTube comments pages… You should see some of the things you get called when you go online and do THAT… yikes…

    Call me an over-sensitive bleeding heart liberal, but even if it had gone the way the Internet elves have been lead to believe it went (which it didn’t) and even if he hadn’t served time behind bars for it, the guy survived the holocaust, which claimed both of his parents, survived the deserted streets of Krakow as a boy after escaping deportation to Auschwitz, then had his heavily pregnant young wife, his unborn son and four of his close friends butchered by the Manson family, been publicly blamed for committing the murders himself in the press… And then the whole world is lead to believe he drugged and raped a child?

    Is slagging the guy off on the Internet not even slightly… Unseemly? Honestly, you see the worst aspects of people’s characters online sometimes.

    I’m currently in the process of running a YouTube campaign suggesting that perhaps even though people like Julian Assange and Herman Cain have recently been publicly accused of committing acts of rape and sexual misconduct, unless the charges are proved in court and evidence submitted for the record, they might NOT actually be guilty of rape.

    I’ve just finished a great YouTube clip illustrating the point via Blakes 7

    Here, take a look and pass it on:-

  • Anonymous

    Once again, you can’t complain about sexism while being sexist yourself. It is hypocritical. 

  • Matthew Tanous

    Because men and women act totally, completely identical to each other, and to insinuate there might even be differences in the statistical decision making between the two genders is absolutely sexist rubbish, right?

    It couldn’t possibly be that women, in general, are more emotional and men tend to be more logical in their decision making, could it?  Or that women have different priorities in life for whatever reason – which statistically are more likely to include marriage/relationships (but obviously don’t always)?

    Seriously, this whole thing – at least to me – is a complete fabrication.  ”That woman character doesn’t act like ME, and thus is totally not realistic.”  I hate to tell you, but I have known women that act like Amy Pond.  I have known women that act nothing like her.  But people like the character of Amy Pond do exist.

    And really, if Moffat was a sexist, he could have cut out a female companion entirely.  There have been male companions alone before – and we have had a female companion since the Ninth Doctor and Rose at least.  He didn’t.  So it isn’t likely that he is sexist.  Maybe he doesn’t write characters you LIKE, but that is a totally different issue, and one that isn’t so serious.

  • Matthew Tanous

    Decision making processes are completely different.  Statistically, men are more geared towards solving one problem at a time in a logical fashion.  Women tend to be more emotionally connected (thus better with “people problems”) and more prone to multi-tasking. This isn’t true for everyone, but it does hold statistically (as in MOST people fit this categorization to some degree). There are various studies that have been done to document this.

  • Pamela Jones

    River is an embarrassment of a character. And shamefully, I used to say very unkind things about Alex, only to come to realize that even IF Charlize Theron played this role, She would still be the grossest, most vile most nasty repulsive, manipulative, sociopathic character to ever disgrace Dr Who. She is pathetic! She didn’t just hold ONE planet hostage, that psycho witch held the ENTIRE UNIVERSE hostage and demanded as RANSOM marriage to the Doctor. So no! I don’t buy the Doctor falling in love with such a creepy worthless laughable puke of a character. They have nothing in common. Don’t even get me started on the whole “she’s a time lord” BS! She isn’t!
    She stinks up every scene she is in. She is obnoxious. She drains the fun out of every scene she is in. The whole 6th season has practically revolved around this dreadful character. And next season isn’t looking any better.
    I’m just going to avoid any more headaches by skipping Dr Who until a new writer who knows how to write for women and how to not create these massive build-ups followed by these equally massive let-downs. 

  • Jaslyn Cantu

    I think it’s a very dangerous thing to try and figure out a person’s personal opinions, especially then going on to decide them to have an extremely negative quality through only the fiction they write. Whenever someone tries and paints Moffat as sexist or similar, with every argument they point out, I feel like they’re more commenting on his writing rather than his actually feelings towards woman. I’ll go on record as saying that even though I love Doctor Who, it’s never been particularly well written. It’s cheesy, corny, and silly. But that’s part of the fun. Lots and lots of things don’t make any sense, things end in a completely implausible way. But we still love it. Just as I think it’s rather silly to decide whether or not Doctor Who is good show based entirely on the realism of the science in it, so do I believe that deciding whether or not someone is Misogynist through trying to pick apart the believability of the story lines is extremely harsh. Does Amy Pond have a strong story arc? I could agree that she might not. But I think that could very much equally be said about Rory. Does River Song have a not so great “ending” to her story line? Sure, I could agree with you. But so have a lot of characters, males included, have had rather weak endings to their stories. I would point to it being an example of bad writing, not Misogyny. I find it hard to say that Amy Pond is not a round character. People may say that she is “defined by babies and marriage” but I would say that Moffat wanted to write the life of a couple that were also companions. What troubles do Couples, who are going to get married, have? Well a lot of it does revolve around their relationship and their marriage. It seems pretty straight forward to me. The marriage and babies also define Rory’s storyline, not just Amy’s. But I don’t believe Sexism in writing is defined by someone given a full character and than having disappointing moments within a story (or rather, story lines that certain audience members disapprove of). No, I would characterize Sexism, in Television shows specifically, to be more if a writer chooses to make all their Female characters basically the same person in different, sexy, skins. For instance, you’ll see a lot in comedies the “Girlfriend” character. The girl that is just there to hold the guy back and to tell them not to do this or that. A rather boring archetype. Now while I’m also not saying the appearance of this archetype is automatically Sexist (for instance I am not saying Sarah Silverman’s character in School of Rock is an instance of Sexism, but it is an example of boring ploys), but if a writer has each and every Woman character be the “girlfriend” character, that maybe that is a function of some Sexist undertones. But even saying that much, I think can be on the side of unfair, since I do not personally know the writer nor know their motivations when writing characters. But I will easily say it’s bad writing or at the very least Boring writing. I don’t believe Steven Moffat to be a Misogynist. I do believe, however, that Doctor Who has a multitude of boring or bad writing moments. Also, Doctor Who has more than one writer, and more than one person working on a show. Dozens and Dozens of people work on Doctor Who who have a significant say in the end product, not just Steven Moffat. So judging him based on the show that many people have effected a change in seems to me to be jumping the gun on the name calling. Worse even than judging someone’s personal views based on a novel, say. It is a fact that journalists can fit quotes wherever they like when writing up an interview. They can shape things however they like. There are even those journalists that write their whole interview before the actual interview and then just pull quotes after speaking to such and such person and inserting them where they may fit. It’s quite easily done.

  • scifi42

    Donna’s personality was strong long before she became The Doctor-Donna. And it wasn’t the loss of the Doctor’s personality Wilf cried over, it was the loss of everything Donna had seen and done. She saved planets and grew in ways she never imagined. And what exactly was Donna’s “real personality”? Yes, she changed while she was with the Doctor, but it was seeing so much of the world that changed her, not just being with him.

  • Anonymous

    That is explicitly stated not to be the case – Dalek Caan is aware of the trans-temporal nature of the Meta-crisis Doctor and the DoctorDonna and the Ood can sense it in her – the influence extends backwards in time as well as forwards, which is why the Ood (who are telepathic but not precognitive) can sense it in her and see it clear as day.

    That’s why she seeks out the Doctor and actively seeks to travel with him (without knowing why) when previously she had zero interest whatsoever – it isn’t her choice to go.

    It appears also to be part of the reason she is able to sense the temporal distortions when time is placed out-of-joint in Turn Left; if those events never happened to her, she should have reverted back to Runnaway Bride Donna with less sense than a breezeblock.

    She slept through the Sycorrax incursion with a hangover.

    Wilf is (in part) crying precisely because he just *doesn’t Know* how much of what he sees in the new and changed Donna is that is now lost was really her, how much is the result of her broadening of mind and experience, how much is the paradox guiding and over-riding of her free will and how much is the MetaCrisis seeping backwards into her past.

    But it influences her decision making back to a point prior to Partners in Crime; she was behaving according to a script other than her own for a couple of years, based on dialogue in that episode.

  • Hannah

    I find Moffat’s writing of Doctor Who to be poor, at best! It annoys me that the female characters all seem to be based around the exact same archetype; flirty, beautiful and confident (sometimes coming across as quite arrogant). Whilst none of these are bad characteristics (I actively encourage the empowerment of women in this sort of snow), they get a bit boring when there is no deviation or introduction of other traits. River Song, Amy Pond and, it appears, Clara Oswin Oswald all fit this model and it would be nice to see a bit of a change. Furthermore, his handling of Amy’s inability to have children was appalling! This is something which would have torn her world apart, yet she seemed to get over it in the space of an episode. Similarly, her and Rory’s break up underwent the same shoddy overview. These are characters we are meant to care about, yet much of this particular story line appeared off screen.

    Moffat also seems to think he can disguise his poor writing with explosions and pretty colors, which is just an insult to his viewers. His complex plots quite often don’t make sense when you really think about it (how is River Song part Timelord just because she was conceived in the Time Vortex? HELLO, Rose absorbed it and we’re meant to believe that she’s still human) but he thinks that if he quickly throws in a big fireball, all will be forgotten.

    It really upsets me that a show I have watched religiously and loved since it’s return in 2005 has gone the way it has. Now I watch from loyalty, fueled by the good memories, than for the plots or characters.

  • Anonymous

    I have always found Moffet’s writing misogynistic, how are so many people just starting to realize this now? On a whole I think his writing is completely overrated – sure it can be complex and a mind fuck – but at the end of the days sometimes it is so convoluted that you just sit back and don’t even try to figure it out. Is that good writing…? Not in my book. I want Gatiss to take the helm of Who next – he is FAR more competent in the writing arena, in my opinion.

  • Kevin Burnard

    Are we just pretending that Vastra and Jenny don’t exist, then? Okay.

  • Anonymous

    “o much so that she’s willing to sacrifice the ENTIRE WORLD just so that the doctor doesn’t have to die”

    at one point in her life. You may notice that she then goes on to tell Amy that messing with time lines is a BAD THING. She learns from her mistakes.

  • Anonymous

    I love it when people who think they have the authority to comment on someone else’s sexism reveal their own internalized sexism in their commentary.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think misogynists say stuff like this, quite honestly:

    “Because I’ve never been a 17 year old girl, it’s rather interesting to
    think like one, or rather to force yourself to consider the world from
    that perspective. And it actually started to make me angry. I’d never
    really thought about it before, but you know, when I’d consider the
    world from the viewpoint of this dynamic, highly intelligent, highly
    talented 17 year old girl, and think what’s going to happen to her,
    think about how much harder it’s going to be for her than it would be if
    she’d been a boy, it made me SO angry.”

    And he actually said this, I have the interview on dvd.

  • Doron Grossman-Naples

    You mean those characters whose first appearance fetishes their sexuality with an oral sex joke (though not actually confirming that they’re lesbian) and whose second is a short where they use their sexuality to make a man uncomfortable, then walk out giggling?

    Writing gay characters doesn’t automatically vindicate a person, especially when they sensationalize homosexuality as much as Moffat has.

  • Doron Grossman-Naples

    That’s perfectly fine, but making one non-sexist statement doesn’t invalidate the rest of his misogyny. Moffat, like many misogynists, doesn’t hate women, or even dislike them. But the fact that his misogyny is unconscious (and not present in absolutely everything he says) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  • Kevin Bernard

    Moffat didn’t sensationalize it… they’re lesbian, and they have sex. Sexuality is a normal part of life, and this is no different among LBGT individuals. Would you rather they didn’t have sex?

    Also, are you implying that Moffat has a fetish for lesbian lizards?

  • Doron Grossman-Naples

    1. Moffat makes their sexuality a big deal. He makes jokes out of it, such as the disturbed police guy in “Vastra Investigates” and the “Thin/Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines” in “A Good Man Goes to War. Would it have been funny if they were just the “Thin Fat Married Anglican Marines”? Moffat uses their sexuality for shock value. Compare this to RTD. Now, he’s not perfect, but one thing he did well was portray homosexuality and homosexual relationships the way they should be portrayed: pretty much the same as normal ones.

    And I highly doubt Moffat has a lesbian lizard fetish, although you can never know.

  • Kevin Bernard

    I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t think Captain Jack was a very good representation of homosexuality… nor was Ianto’s magical transformation from being straight (I’m a bi man, by the way, so I do have *some* experience with the thinking process).

    As for making jokes about it, the first one you mentioned has more to do with “oh ha ha, isn’t it funny how uptight they were back then” than “oh ha ha gay is bad”. As for the second one, he made them gay because he was shocked to find he had not included very many LBGT characters (yeah, he actually said this), so he specifically slipped them in to add more. He genuinely seemed disappointed in himself for having not put more in the show. The characters existed for diversity, not for mockery (plus they were accepted in the church, so plus points for tolerance!).

  • Doron Grossman-Naples

    I’m not saying that Moffat is making it look bad to be gay, but he’s making it look weird to be gay. The fact that Vastra and Jenny took such joy in making the guy uncomfortable was really disturbing, because it had the hidden implication that gay people use their sexuality to get attention.

  • Kevin Bernard

    They live in Victorian times. They probably get reactions like that a lot. I think it would very likely become amusing after a time.

  • Doron Grossman-Naples

    Possibly, or it might become frustrating. However realistic or unrealistic it is for the characters, however, my issue is that Moffat makes homosexuality the punchline of jokes. In Sherlock, he queerbaits an insane amount (“I’m not gay”, haha, so funny Moffat). In Doctor Who, the few gay characters that he’s actually included have been mainly for jokey purposes: Oswin’s “phase”, the Fat Thin Gay Married Anglican Marines, and possibly the Doctor, based on the fact that he *sexually assaults* Rory in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (yes, I know the last one was Matt Smith’s idea, but Moffat is still at least partially responsible because he’s in charge of everything that goes on).

  • Doron Grossman-Naples

    Possibly, or it might become frustrating. However realistic or unrealistic it is for the characters, however, my issue is that Moffat makes homosexuality the punchline of jokes. In Sherlock, he queerbaits an insane amount (“I’m not gay”, haha, so funny Moffat). In Doctor Who, the few gay characters that he’s actually included have been mainly for jokey purposes: Oswin’s “phase”, the Fat Thin Gay Married Anglican Marines, and possibly the Doctor, based on the fact that he *sexually assaults* Rory in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (yes, I know the last one was Matt Smith’s idea, but Moffat is still at least partially responsible because he’s in charge of everything that goes on).

  • Anonymous

    Clearly the doctor has a type and that type is crazy people

  • Anonymous

    The Doctor did that on purpose “The mean lady was mean to me and I didn’t like her anyway! Women have cooties and their always doing something dumb like getting pregnant or running off into danger!”

  • Anonymous

    And that makes it ok? She nearly sacrificed everyone to save one guy who was part of a race of one but it’s ok because she learned a lesson. Hey I’ll go ask every criminal ever if they feel bad about what they did, it’s ok if they know what they did was bad right?

    Not to get at you or anything but that doesn’t make it any better.

  • Anonymous

    The Runaway bride was due to stress mostly and Donna’s ignorance of previous events was a joke on how most of The Doctor’s companions seem to know nothing about events they should have been aware of as in a series of unlikely events would have had to occur for Donna to not be aware of everything that happened leading up to Runaway Bride.

  • Anonymous

    Well he knows a lot about it so I imagine he is