Things We Saw Today: Steven Moffat Deleted His Twitter Account

I don’t understand why grown people go on Facebook and twitter and are surprised when they run into idiots.

I’m sorry to see Moffat’s twitter page gone.

BTW: Please check out my DW Fanfic “The Aresian Saga”

…

Somebody else noticed the horrible misogyny in Sherlock? O.o I didn’t think that was EVER going to happen.

Thank you!

I was disappointed to hear about the Avengers box set delay. But I appreciate Marvel adding more to the set to make up for it.

Blessing in the long run.

I’m getting tired to see so many ridiculous criticism to Moffat’s portrait of woman. I like this site, but is getting annoying, specially because there are almost no real points being made other than “A woman wasn’t the focus and since a guy wrote it, sexism”. You know, never mind how many times Amy or River saved everyone, how Irene Adler outsmarted Sherlock, or all the other female characters he wrote. This last link was the worst; does that woman even watch the shows? Any credibility she had was lost when she claimed Amy was in love with the Doctor.

I always found the focus on sexism in Moffat’s works interesting. I’m not saying his female characters are perfect, but it seems like an unusual focus gets put on them. Martha Jones, for example, rarely seems to get this sort of analysis, yet it would be fairly easy to argue that she did little on the show besides pine for the Doctor and be Not-Rose. I wonder if part of the problem isn’t that Moffat’s female characters are a little closer to the kind of female characters we want, which makes it more frustrating when they fall short.

Regardless of that though, I think the article makes the attacks a little more personal than they need to be. It’s fair to say that the female characters in a show come off in a sexist way. To accuse the writer himself of being sexist is over the line.

I don’t know about his writing for Doctor Who, but Irene Adler is a really bad example of good representation. Yes, she outsmarted Sherlock, but by the end of the episode she was reduced to begging him to save her life. It’s a perfect example of how you take a smart, self-sufficient woman and strip her down to just a damsel in distress. Which is what she really was in the end. The real fun part was how she let her “feelings” get in the way of actually winning. Such a woman. For a smart show, that was terribly unoriginal.

You do realize that Martha walked across the planet, living in a hostile shell of what the world was, lacking any safety, any consistent shelter, anyone else helping her, all alone for an entire year right? She saw people killed, did what she had to to survive and protect herself, and convinced a terrified populace to have hope in someone they didn’t know, and after all that, even when she is victorious the people that she loves are left scarred by something that didn’t actually happen? Oh yeah and let’s not forget how because of the Doctor she gets to live as a maid in 1913, must have been fun for a woman who is almost a doctor to get to be a maid who gets racist insults hurled at her all the time. Also why does she get so much shit for falling for the Doctor, he is the Doctor after all (some might say that a genius man with the ability to show you time and space is a bit attractive). She handles it like an adult, accepting that he won’t fall in love with her. So yeah, she just sat around and pined.

The problem here is you are being sexist as well in your assumption that a woman is somehow “reduced” if she chooses to ask a man or anybody for help. I’m getting tired of being told by feminists if I’m not a feminist I’m somehow “less” of a woman because I don’t cry “Sexism” at everything men do. Some women choose traditional roles. We need to represent those on television too. Pretending we don’t exist is the epitome of sexism. If I choose to stay home and raise my children, ask a man for help, and paint my house pink, you need to respect my choices. If you don’t you are as sexist as anybody you criticize. Feminists want women to be empowered by making their own choices as long as it’s choices feminists approve of. The lot of you need to look at why that’s completely backward thinking and do some soul searching as to if you love the “feminism cause” more than you love feminism.

I’m sad that we live in a world where the posts I saw aimed at Steven Moffat and others exist. I understand how some people need to last out, but will never condone it. I can only pray for them to get the help they need.

Apparently Steven Moffat can’t handle the justified criticism he’s received for his treatment of women in his works and the overall poor quality of his writing after no longer having anyone hold editing or veto power over his works.

Most of what he did on that account was toot his own horn anyway, calling his own work “brilliant”.

Those are my feelings exactly.

Farah said Irene was not a good point to Mr Blu’s point. And she’s right, she absolutely wasn’t. Moffat kept the bare minimum of the original Adler (that she was the only woman to outsmart Holmes) but then quickly reduced everything else about her to cliches and sex appeal. Read up about the original Irene and compare. The original version was much, much more feminist, for some reason.

There’s nothing wrong with traditional roles, and there’s nothing wrong with embracing them. But let’s be honest here. If the same roles is repeatedly forced upon female characters over and over and over again … If a strong woman must ALWAYS be sexualized in order to exist … It doesn’t seem much of a good thing. Moffat didn’t start these particular tropes, but he certainly didn’t deviate. That’s worth criticism. You don’t have to turn in your feminist or woman card, just take a listen to what we’re saying.

I’ve read ACD. Don’t presume I haven’t. A strong woman mustn’t always be sexualized in order to exist but if she is it doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. Lots of women are extremely sexual creatures. Again there is this rejection if women don’t act in the way that feminists approve of in their little box of what makes an acceptable woman. I can’t listen to what you are saying if what you are saying is sexist in and of itself. Why don’t you guys listen to what you are saying first and analyze if it’s offensive to women who don’t follow whatever feminism thinks is acceptable this week? Lots of women, respectable women, successful women, I know are sexual, traditional, and or not feminists. Throwing out women like Irene because she is written by a man is frankly insulting to me and all women and think you guys should seriously reconsider your opinions because they are extremely offensive to women. The irony of it could crush a building under it’s weight.

Sounds like you have an ax to grind and that doesn’t make for a good conversation, so I’ll just say: calling out misogyny isn’t and never will be sexist. Any claim otherwise is a silencing tactic.

Sounds like you can’t take criticism of your attitudes or beliefs. And saying something isn’t sexist is just as much of a silencing tactic. Don’t be childish to dismiss my opinions and then tell me I have no right to have them because they are a “silencing tactic.” Further irony. You think you have every right to criticize Steven Moffat publicly but people can’t criticize your criticisms without being labeled a “silencer” and that your opinions could never ever be sexist? Well then I guess that’s all I need to know about you lot then isn’t it? Can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. Since you guys seem to take offense to being in it any way and any woman who is in it much be less of a woman than you and a victim of men. Puhlease.

“Can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.”

LOLZ! Are you going to tell me to go make a sandwich now?

I think we’ve incurred the wrath of a troll here. Actually, I agree with you that there’s nothing sexist or weak about women choosing traditional roles. Most, if not all, feminists would tell you the same thing. The definitive word here is “choose”. The woman’s right to choose rather than have that role forced upon her. That’s basic feminist ideology, really.

Your opinions seem to be based on the ever popular Straw Feminist Trope that the media likes to bandy around.

Think about it, how many male villains have ever been reduced to tears and had to rely on the hero to save them? More than anything else I’m just disappointed because Irene Adler had the potential to be a great villain.

“Think about it, how many male villains have ever been reduced to tears and had to rely on the hero to save them?” I could think of a lot off the top of my head but don’t let it stop you from your sarcastic ideas based on emotion rather than facts. Sexism does exist but claiming there is sexism everywhere rather than where it is and claiming every man is a sexist and every woman that doesn’t believe it is a fool is just being a scoundrel for scoundrel’s sake. There are many women writers who write females as weak, suffering, and so feisty they just need the right man to break them in. Most of female romance novelists live on this trope and 99% of them are women. They aren’t appealing to men’s tastes but women’s as 99% of people buying romance novels are women. The idea that a woman is forced into doing something because a man wrote it rather than a women is just foolish and makes your comment seem like you just feel off a turnip truck somewhere. Again, please have an adult at the table before you earn respect. This refrain of “because it’s from a man it’s sexist” is ridiculous because many women choose this trope and many women enjoy it. Are you saying that one of the most popular genres of fiction of all time is written by weak women and liked by weak women? All those millions of women are weak and somehow you people crying sexism are so much more enlightened and free than we are? If so, then tell me why do I come to the show with happiness in my heart and the ability to have a good time and you lot come in chains of your own making?

Yes, but Martha also lived completely FOR the Doctor. You’ll notice in both stories you mentioned there, she was working under the Doctor’s orders and never thought of questioning him in the slightest. Once can hardly make the claim that she’s some bold feminist character, just because she put up with a lot of bad stuff. The only thing she did that was impressive and showed any real backbone and agency was actually choosing to leave the Doctor at the end. Does this mean RTD was a misogynist for writing her like that? And for the matter, if anything RTD’s female characters were far blander than Moffat’s ever are. I can’t think of a conclusion to draw, I just wanted to say my piece here.

*sigh*

I’m not saying any of the things you think I’m saying. And that’s the last thing I have to say about that.

Go back to your bridge, buddy.

I should clarify, one could make the argument. Not, necessarily, that one should. I picked Martha mostly because of her shorter time on the show than Rose, making it easier to remember what she did or did not do. I actually prefer her to Rose. No offense to the Rose supporters, nothing against her, I just like Martha better.

Frankly, Martha is a good character. The reason I wasn’t entirely happy with her falling for the Doctor was mostly because that’s the same thing we had with the companion. She was clever and resourceful, and, with a few exceptions, the show very rarely gave her anything to actually do. Or, when it did give her something to do, what she was doing didn’t matter. All of her hard work and dedication in the Family of Blood serial didn’t actually have very much impact on the main plot.

The best example, I think, is The Doctor’s Daughter. There is an episode where Martha struggles against impossible odds, walks the surface of a hostile world a second time, successfully performs a medical procedure on a species she’s never even seen before, and even loses a friend. None of which, of course, had any impact on the main storyline, meaning all of her struggles were basically just filler to pad out a short episode.

Also, her rather inexplicable marriage to Mickey, in spite of being engaged to someone completely different just a season or so before is rife with unfortunate implications. What happened to that guy anyway? Time crack?

Moffat is a person with a job and a family and, you know, a life that doesn’t revolve around what perfect strangers think of him. If he’s being harassed on Twitter, he has every right– and it makes sense- for him to quit it for awhile. It’s not being Afraid to Face Criticism or whatever, it’s sense– most people I know who’ve been harassed on social media have either quit their accounts entirely or made a new close-friends-only account under an assumed name. Why should it be different for someone in the public eye? He’s a person, and even if you don’t agree with everything he’s said, he has no RESPONSIBILITY to spend his time reading people spew hate at him. Would you? A Twitter account isn’t a life necessity, and if it’s interfering with your real life, certainly you’d want to shut it out for awhile.

Steven Moffat deleted his twitter account thanks to the militant social bloggers who run STFU-Moffat Tumblr. Someone linked there verbal diarrhea to him.

And… what else do you prescribe someone use their personal twitter account for?

She wasn’t, by far, my favorite companion but the girl knew how to act and get shit done. I’m personally a fan of her from The Master episodes on because she DOES get a grip and really comes to terms with the fact that nothing’s going to happen between them.

Also she gets her hands on a super hot doctor who I am so sad we never got to see more of his sexy scruffy face, rawr.

OH. My god. THANK YOU. I’m so glad I’m not the only one feeling this.

Agreed.

And since I couldn’t see anywhere else to add this (the thread above about Martha Jones kicking ass is brilliant), I hasten to point that the show has always been called Doctor Who and not Doctor Who and Rose or Doctor Who and Amy, and that everyone that meets the doctor has their life suddenly spun around his and that everyone is comparably helpless in the face of the dangers he seems to stride through. The Doctor has always been a certain sort of power fantasy character and the only complaint that has ever made sense to me is that he isn’t a she and therefore all things are not equal…and I agree, but if The Doctor was a she (and I hope he is someday) then things will be just as not equal as they are now.
Aside from Donna, it seems like most of his companions come out better for knowing him and live very eventful lives post-doctor, lives they wouldn’t have chosen previously. Or they die.

I’m not shocked that Moffat RAGEQUIT Twitter. I agree with other commenters here that the reason for the sudden evacuation is that Moffat has been increasingly incensed over documentation of sexism in his work on both Sherlock and Doctor Who.

Instead of responding like an adult after people criticized the way in which he rewrote Irene Adler, a character whose defining characteristic is her defeat of Sherlock Holmes, and not only had her lose to him but had her lose to him because of tingly feelings in her girl parts. (After having Sherlock “fix” her lesbianism, to boot, apparently.) He complained that critique of his work amounted to defamation of character. ( http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/showbiz/2012/01/04/sherlock-writer-steven-moffat-furious-with-sexist-claim-91466-30062866/ )

As much as he wished for it to, the criticism did not die down with the launch of the new series of Doctor Who. Fans were quick to point out the continuiation of unpleasant themes in the new episodes: “There was an almost sinister acceptance of the premise that Amy can’t be a mother, and no discussion at all of whether she even wants to be one. Her main relationship to motherhood here was in the context of not being able to meet Rory’s wishes, while hers remained obscured.” ( http://globalcomment.com/2012/oedipal-dalek-asylum-doctor-who-and-steven-moffats-mother-issues/ )

His long, generous use of sexist language has been well documented in posts like: http://feministwhoniverse.tumblr.com/post/25598314408/steven-moffat-is-a-douchebag-the-masterlist

Moffat’s broken record response was that he was not a misogynist. It seems he finally realized that 90% of his critics had never called him a misogynist and were protesting his women are not written as full, three-dimensional feeling people with the same rights, same strengths and same flaws as men (with strengths and flaws variously dealt out across the same spectrum as men).

Few people are saying the fellow hates women. However, Moffat’s “strong” women go through hell, are violated bodily and soldier through it, who make huge sacrifices for their man and their children and are stronger and braver and cleverer and stand around and endure while the men get all the action and character development aren’t sterling examples of anything. (Or those like Irene who are “strong” until they have an emotional collapse to further Sherlock’s development.)

Amy, Reinette, River, Abigail, Madge and Molly Hooper’s defining characteristic is that they do it all for their man and don’t care how long they have to wait or how much they have to endure because they will be there when he needs them. They have no character development, but instead are the goodie bags the male characters get for coming to the party.

What’s the problem? It allows the men to be the heart of the story, the men to get the majority of the dialog and the action, and the men to get the character development while giving the women a polite nod. The writers’ (Moffat and others) often shunt the female characters to the side to passively endure peril and wait it out while the male characters do everything else.,

Concluding remarks: Moffat’s RAGEQUIT was over the fact that we were not sufficiently grateful the women are all so terribly “strong.” As people raised their hands to ask what the heck that was with Nefertiti’s treatment in “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship” Moffat decided the best answer was to delete his Twitter account, plug his ears up and set his fans at each other’s throats to distract from his continual abuse of his artistic license.

Well, in fairness, she seemed to have a bit of a crush on him at first – though I think it was more out of curiosity than anything else (“that’s very sweet; but I’m not looking for anything nearly so… long term”). She did try to boink him in her bedroom the night before her wedding, but I’ve always thought of that as kind of like a one-woman bachelorette party. Which felt weird, but then, that’s part of why it was so funny…

She definitely is over that though. The series has since made it very clear that Amy is in love with Rory, and only Rory, and her relationship with the Doctor has matured to the point where instead of looking up to him like a godlike figure (with him looking at her as a kid to protect), she sees him as pretty much human, and is all mother-hen over whether her now-son-in-law is all mopey somewhere or spending enough time socializing. It’s kind of hilarious, actually, how much it’s reversed.

Seriously though, if people are going to complain about Stephen Moffat because of Amy briefly flirting with boinking the Doctor, then they really have to explain why they think Moffat is worse than RDJ, because literally the first three seasons of New Who were ALL about Companions that had some sort of crush on the Doctor (Christmas specials notwithstanding, of course). So it’s not like human-women-characters-crushing-on-the-Doctor is anything new with Moffat. >.>

You seem to be neglecting what happened to the character during series 4. Remember when she was seconds away from committing genocide by blowing up the Earth and every species on the planet? That whole plot point pretty much contradicts the character of Martha.

The Toclafane begins to decimate the world’s population but she never gives up or loses her faith in fighting for humanity. Fast forward to the Dalek invasion which is on the same scale as the Toclafane one and she loses her faith in the Doctor and thinks that deciding suicide for everyone is the right thing to do. For her to think that she has the right to decide that for everyone is just so morally corrupt. You may say she was just following orders but isn’t that the excuse of the soldier who burns a village to the ground?

Contrast the Martha we knew in Smith & Jones (or Turn Left) who would willingly give up her life for others. To the Martha who believed she had the right to take life as an act of mercy. I loved series 3 Martha but I despised the way RTD turned her into a common mercenary. Whatever happened to her talent and ambition to be a Doctor? I think she displayed her medical talents once in her entire tenure and as soon as she joins UNIT she is used as their conduit for the Doctor and nothing more. Then you have the hooking up of Martha with Rose’s ex just because RTD thought it would be a funny joke to reference the Smith & Jones title.

You may criticise Moffat for whatever he did with Amy or River. But you must apply the same criticism to what went before. RTD set up such a perfect companion in Martha but destroyed her with contradictions and neglected what made her great. It’s a pattern with RTD that normal women just aren’t exciting enough that he has to turn them into action heroes. Either make them join the military to wield guns or give them mystical time energy powers but apparently never let them just be ordinary women. It gives the impression that a woman is only worthy when they are at the centre of events.

Characterisation aside I think RTD had too much fun playing the unrequited love angle with Martha. Why did he have to always bring up the shadow of Rose with Martha, couldn’t he have just wrote her as the Doctor’s equal or a friend like he would write Donna? I hated during the Shakespeare Code that the Doctor thinks out loud “what would Rose do?”, it’s that sort of dialogue that just undercuts Martha.

Honestly I don’t see what Moffat has done with River or Amy that RTD hasn’t done with Rose, Martha or Donna. I think RTD gets labeled feminist in the same way Joss Whedon does by churning out “Buffy” types which are hyperrealistic comic book women. River at least makes sense because she is a Time Lord. As for Amy, she is rather refreshing because she isn’t perfect and she possesses a lot of flaws. But who says a feminist portrayal needs to show women at their best 24/7? I personally love the attention that Moffat has given to Amy’s story, I love how he has explored the highs and lows of hero worship, and that Amy has suffered from mental illness and her experiences of being violated. I have no problems with her being a model or a kissogram either, delegitimising people who do go through those professions makes you go on the way to slut shaming. Hey I’m even married to a model who suffers from low self-esteem because people belittle him on his career choice. You can explore all of this and still be feminist. To sweep everything unsavoury under the rug for an idealistic portrayal is disingenuous and not feminist.

The only part where the criticisms are truly valid is towards Moffat’s documented history towards women’s issues. He has said some horrible things but that’s where you have to draw a line between what goes off screen and what actually happens onscreen. As a fan of the show, I’d rather criticise the show, I didn’t start watching Doctor Who for Moffat.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m595da89c71qek4da.gif

Have you read through that tumblr account? what they post isn’t by any means verbal diarrhea. They do a good job of providing an incisive look at the show and providing good, relatively level headed analysis of the issues in the writing.

None of these things are exclusively specific to Moffat’s works compared to almost any other male writer on television. In fact Moffat writes women about 10 times better than most other television writers. His women aren’t perfect but the lopsided criticism where he is being singled out is ridiculous. I’m a part of a lot of fandoms from movies, books, and television. I’m very active in all of them and not a single other fandom has went to the lengths the SJB have gone to in order to single out a writer like they have with Moffat. There are lots of other writers who write women so much worse than Moffat writes his women. You have done nothing for your so called feminist cause but turn a lot of people off to it. Good job. You win nothing.

…’SJB’?

Also: I can’t agree that ‘Moffat writes women about 10
times better than most other television writers’, but I’d say that he’s
not really any worse than most. Then again, that doesn’t make criticisms
of him any less valid. What I’m saying is, *most* female characters in
television shows tend to be written badly, and he’s no exception. I
suspect the reason he’s ‘singled out’ as you put it isn’t due to any
particular grudge against him, but simply because Doctor Who is such a
high-profile show, particularly among the geek community. It means when
people like it, it gets a *lot* of praise, but when people dislike it
the anger can be pretty deafening as well.

Can I just make the point that nobody here actually knows why Moffat quit Twitter? It’s not necessarily because he ‘RAGEQUIT’ or got ‘hounded out’ by criticism for whatever reason. Maybe he just found it was taking up too much of his time that he’d rather spend doing other things…

It does make criticisms less valid when they are being disproportionately viscous personal and not addressing the shows that are far more popular than Doctor Who who have sexism 10 times worse than Steven Moffat whether you personally agree with it or not is irrelevant it’s a fact at least in here in America. A lot of the critics are from the USA and the show is barely known over here. I’m sorry but nothing you are saying holds water but I know defending extremists is popular with people who believe in their views. It doesn’t make it any less fringe or and certainly doesn’t mean normal average people who don’t get all whackadoo about their personal values have to have respect for it. A lot of people need to go crawl back under the rocks they came from and stop peeing in everybody’s cornflakes. Steven Moffat, Amanda Abbington, Caitlin Blackwood, and I’m sure somebody else will be next. For people who claim that Steven couldn’t take criticism I notice every person who is posting anything on these blogs criticizing the extremists is getting crap for it and votes down. So much for being able to take what they can dish out. Hypocrites. I don’t blame Steven if he was nasty in response to any of them. The death threats to Amanda clearly prove it was probably more than hearsay that Steven was getting them as well. If there is any karma in the world then I assume these are the people that come in to work because their tire went flat out of the blue or all of a sudden the pipe burst in their basement. They might be left wondering why but the rest of the world won’t be.

Because women holding their tongues has ever resulted in anything but them being trampled all over.

Let’s try a quick rundown of better female character’s in current sci-fi. Black Widow in the Avengers, who was equal turns wounded, brilliant, terrified and victorious. The Marvel films have also recently given us Sif, Jane, Darcy, Peggy and Pepper Potts. All are painted in nuance.
Although I’ve only seen the first two seasons, The Vampire Diaries. That definitely doesn’t have Dr. Who’s budget. From women standing up to controlling men to examining the fears and insecurities of classic “popular girls” to showing women kicking butt, it’s all round well handled.
I have been assured by several people that should I find the time to write it Grimm avoids all the pitfalls of making women one-dimensional accessories to the male characters that grinds my gears about Doctor Who.
The Hunger Games. Hello, Katniss Everdeen a strong female character who’s not an action hero so much as relies on grit and intellect to pull through a horrible situation despite her vulnerabilities. Irene Adler in the Guy Ritchie films was whip smart, independent, not flawless and ultimately defeated but not by Holmes.
Do I have room, cause and motivation to complain about Moffat slathering sexism all over Doctor Who and Sherlock? Yes, I do. He’s taken two properties I love and defaced them with tacky, sexist writing. Just because a few people on the internet have been rude to him doesn’t excuse his spoilt-acting behavior or his monotone, sex-object women.
Just because, say, the actively misogynist script of X-men: First Class is, yes, worse than Moffat’s sexism doesn’t diminish the fact that he needs to get his house in order.

The Original Irene was the main character of a very brief story. Her victory was in dropping her career & becoming a proper Victorian wifie…

Just replying to say – I wrote that earlier comment before I’d heard anything about any death threats. That’s horrible, and absolutely unjustified. I hadn’t realised how nasty some of this ‘criticism’ was. I still think there are things that Moffat’s work can be legitimately criticised for, but criticism that takes the form of vicious personal attacks is never acceptable.

Sounds alot better than being murdered, hyper-sexualized, reduced to a messy emotional damsel in distress by Sherlock’s infalliability. There’s nothing wrong with being a wife. Her spinoff series is quite enjoyable.

You sound like your criticism are arbitrary and personal. First of all The Avengers isn’t science fiction. Your first mistake and thus you lost my attention. It’s a superhero action movie. And what is with your “I” “I” “I” in your entire post? Yes, you, you, you. Cause that’s what it’s all about. Never mind plenty of women watch Doctor Who, don’t think it’s sexist and frankly think extreme feminists derail real women values and the movement of women’s rights but don’t let putting yourself and your need to be right above how women actually feel about these subjects. Your small group will eventually get what you want. Loads of women on television being written to please just you in whatever arbitrary ways you think is right. Never mind that superhero movies are extremely sexualized as are comics in general. To both male and females. Please let’s see more Black Widows in skin tight costumes and Thor’s running around half naked, because that sends the right message. Your problem is you are trying to define what is sexism and what isn’t for every one and you aren’t going to get people to agree. Demanding Steven Moffat agree to your views or else! Or whatever other demands you are making is ridiculous, entitled, and reeks of a spoiled child. Either your parents didn’t hug you guys enough or the hugged you too much. Either way, stop making it every one else’s problem.

What a pity that all that rage against Moffat can’t be directed against those who, in the real world. hurt women, gays & other races or ethnic groups. No, it’s far easier to go through those notes from Feminist Studies 101 & rage anonymously against a successful artist. Sitting comfortably at your PC while Mom cooks dinner….

You don’t like what he writes? Or what any men write? Write something yourself. Yes, it will take years to become good. Even longer to become successful. But if you never start you will never succeed.

I see nothing wrong with “extreme” feminists who actually go out in the world & accomplish something.

Young girls who are upset about TV shows are boring. Do they hope that, if Moffat goes away, “their” Doctor will return? Do they reject sex because their contemporaries are pimple-faced boys who are trying to pressure them into activities they are not ready for?

Someday they will grow up & realize that sex is not going away. It can actually be quite pleasant–with the correct partner. Male or female…

It’s funny because Steven Moffat can’t write for shit.

“First of all the Avengers isn’t Science Fiction.”

………………….I’ve got nothing, bro. Avengers films are solidly science fiction. You may want to scope Asgard and its elegant flying buildings and Thor explaining to Jane that what Jane calls magic they call science.

It’s all gamma radiation, super serums, there’s, I don’t know, an alien invasion….

I think it’s obvious, though, that I take full responsibility for my opinions and am speaking for no one but myself. Who in the world would I be talking about if I said “we”? I’m not even beginning to speak for you! I can see you have some anger in this area and notice you’re the one who introduced feminism into the conversation. I can’t speak for whoever you’re angry at but since I had no formal ties to feminist organizations.

I think what’s happening is you’re imagining an army of people who’ve pissed you off in the past and see it arrayed before you. There’s just me, though, and you barely addressed anything I actually said.

Errrrrr, I’m a 29 year old. You I’m not so sure about. If your nick is a 4-chan or otherwise Bridget reference best evidence would suggest that you’re frequently mistaken for the other thirteen year old boy mistaken as a thirteen year old girl?

I’m older than 29 and have never been to 4chan nor would know any references about it I could ever recognize elsewhere nor would anybody else my age. The lady doth protest too much methinks.

No, it just means you missed my clever jab. Years back when I used to work in a grocery store a lady of about eighty complete with cane chimed in on internet meme related banter. What horizons you leave unexplored are, of course, entirely your business.

“He’s taken two properties I love and defaced them with tacky, sexist
writing. Just because a few people on the internet have been rude to him
doesn’t excuse his spoilt-acting behavior or his monotone, sex-object
women.”

I don’t see his women as being “monotone, sex-object women”. And I’m a woman, who is often in search of strong female characters. Yes, I realize “strong” is subjective, and I realize there’s more than one way to write it – folks have brought up Katniss Everdeen from Hunger Games for instance, who is a different kind of Strong, and which I also like. But we’re talking Who, here, right?

“Tacky, sexist” writing? Really? A woman being confident in herself, including her sexuality on occasion, is automatically “tacky, sexist… monotone, sex-object”? Because I see a lot of stuff leveled at River Song and Amy Pond along those lines, even Oswin and Nefertiti, and frankly, I just don’t see it.

Amy Pond is a ferocious spitfire of a woman who, nonetheless, has an empathetic streak; she’s caring, but she’s not weak, and she can have a hell of a temper if roused. She’s adventurous. She also started out a bit nutty, but has mostly mellowed out of the slight derangement she first had (in fairness though, you’d probably be a bit deranged as well, if people kept trying to convince you your “imaginary” friend wasn’t real when you knew he was!).

River Song – whose life, I might add, we were seeing in reverse – starts out as someone who was literally brainwashed into being a psychopathic brat, but as we see from her earlier episodes, she’s snapped out of it just enough to question her brainwashing, and eventually defeated the most central part of it. She’s whip-smart, curious, and adventurous. Yes, she’s largely defined by her love for and relationship with the Doctor – but Rory was always largely if not predominantly defined by his love for Amy, and the Doctor himself is largely defined nowadays by his need to not be alone, so I hardly see how it’s uniquely women who are defined by social or romantic needs in Moffat’s writing!

I also LOVED Nefertiti in “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship”. She didn’t take guff… nor did she take to being kidnapped. Instead of sitting back to be fanned by servants – fitting into not just an easy life, but one predetermined by her gender and family line – she wants to go on adventures. And does, damnit.

And Oswin? Oswin was perkily brilliant, cheeky, confident, and it turns out, mentally strong enough to override Dalek programming – seemingly the first to do so! – through sheer force of will, through absolute refusal to let herself be overridden as a person. She also was brilliant enough to completely rewrite the memories of the Daleks while doing so! I LOVED Oswin. I was disappointed when she apparently went down with the ship as it were, but… she made her choice. Live as a Dalek, or die as a human, and she chose to die as herself rather than give in. Which is beautiful, to my mind.

One thing you have to take into account is, aside from Rory (who’s only there because of Amy, for the most part!), the Companions ALWAYS have an adventurous, battle-ready side, and a curiosity to them, and unless you want to go back to the earliest days of the female companions shrieking at ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, yes, the women are a bit fierce and occasionally snarky. Even the ladies of the RDJ era were – all three of ‘em (or four, five, etc., if we’re counting Lady Christina and the history-influencing character of “Waters of Mars”, as well). Rose, Martha, and Donna each could be a bit of a spitfire and more than a little snarky.

And you know what? I’d rather have an Ace-type or an Amy-type or a Donna (especially a Donna!), who is not submissive and is a bit snarky, than the Shrieking Ladies. Granted, Ace wasn’t as flirty… but Ace was also a much younger girl, which would have made it “improper” (we are, after all, also talking about the days when they made her talk with an educated middle-class accent despite the lower-class origins of the character!).

Now, do I agree that it would be nice for a companion not to be attracted to the Doctor for a change (though Amy at least long since seems over it, in fairness) – sort of like what they did for that one season with Donna – but seriously, I don’t dislike the characters he’s done so far.

I guess it comes down to what you want from the series; to me, it’s FUN. First and foremost, it’s about FUN. You have a bit of heart, and a bit of danger, but it’s mostly about FUN. And personally, few things are more Fun – again, I emphasize “personally” here, so please don’t “correct” me on my personal feelings – than seeing an attractive, confident woman flirting, shooting, clevering and exploding her way across the screen.

I mean seriously, men have had those characters – James Bond, anyone? – for countless years, if not centuries. It’s about damn time we got more of them too.

I like this commentary. The only problem I have with it, is the way it seemingly dismisses Joss Whedon’s women as “hyperrealistic comic book women”.

First of all – that makes it sound like “comic book” is a bad thing, or like they’re always shallow; as someone who READS comics, this is not the case, and using it in what is implied to be an insult about shallow characterization, is somewhat insulting to the genre, which is no worse than any other nowadays and often has the room to really examine characterization in a way other, non-serial media doesn’t… yes, even in superhero comics.

Second: Assuming you mean what it sounds like you mean by “comic book women”, I have to wonder how much experience you have with Whedon’s stories. Buffy Summers herself is a surprisingly complex character who is far more than her superpowers, as are Willow, Tara, Faith, Melaka Fray, even the much-maligned Kennedy has gotten some depth recently. Faith in particular, in the “Angel & Faith” comics, has been really well-explored, and is arguably one of the strongest and best-developed women in comics or any other medium, with neither of those two descriptors being a euphemism for anything. Yes, his women tend to kick ass in a physical or mystical way… but they’re also very much still women, still human and still finding their way in life like anybody else.

In fact, you might do well to watch all of his Dollhouse TV series . Why? For the character of Priya Tsetsang, aka Sierra. Spoilers follow in the next (admittedly massive) paragraph, in case anyone reading this wants to avoid it:

She starts out as a victim: an attractive woman of Asian descent who we later find out was exoticized and fetished by a wealthy (and of course, white) male, who became angry when she failed to be all that impressed by his wealth and power, and refused his advances for another guy. He’s the reason she’s in the Dollhouse – see, he’s a doctor, and he knows that if you feed anti-psychotics to non-psychotic person, you will make them psychotic; he literally pumps her full of meds against her will, has her institutionalized, and manipulates events to make her look like a paranoid schizophrenic (so that nobody believes her that she’s there literally against her will and isn’t crazy) who “doesn’t get better with medication” (because it would just make the induced psychoses worse) – and he approaches his employers about trying to, you know, “fix” her “schizophrenia” by, you guessed it, wiping her memories and giving her Active Architecture, i..e. making her a “doll” for the Dollhouse. Oh, and of course, he then requests her as a doll… for his own sexual purposes. Frequently. But then, miracle of miracles, they actually address this in the series, instead of just using it for cheap drama – they have her face him, and fight him, in her real self, during which a physical altercation occurs and, while fighting for her life, she manages to kill him instead. And is this the end? Of course not. They still have her dealing with the semi-buried, sometimes not-buried memories of her having been sexually abused, made to look crazy, etc., and of course, the trauma of having had to kill a man. And yet, by the end of the series, she has survived that trauma. By the end of the series, she has found a way to cope, an inner strength, and she’s moved on, had a relationship and a child with the man she actually loved; a kid she’s she’s raising as responsibly as she can in what is by then a post-apocalyptic wasteland (where, it should be noted, she does not allow his father to stop by too often – because his choice of how to fight back in set apocalyptic wasteland is something she morally disagrees with and doesn’t want her kid exposed to). In the end, she’s one of the few to not only survive to the end of the series, but to find a mostly-happy ending. She starts out being victimized, quite horrifically in fact, and largely because of sexist and racist fetishization, but in facing her abuses and her abusers, she finds ways to fight back and emotionally recover, while still (surprisingly!) staying true to her morals. While, you know, helping save the world. All of this without any unnatural abilities whatsoever.

Can you tell who my favorite Dollhouse character is? or my favorite Whedon character? Yeah, it’s Priya.

Otherwise, and in regards to Moffat and RTD, I agree with your assesment. :)

…sooo it’s “thorough, level-headed critique” and they “are CONSTANTLY trying to make it very clear that they are not trying to be mean,
belittling or abusive. They don’t HATE Moffat or the shows he’s written” ?

Why on Earth did they call it “STFU-Moffat” then!?

“Lots of women are extremely sexual creatures. Again there is this
rejection if women don’t act in the way that feminists approve of in
their little box of what makes an acceptable woman”

While I agree that the Guest in question was being overly general, it IS true that one of the main “feminist” criticisms of characters like Amy and River and Oswin as written by Moffat, is “ooh, they’re too sexual! And flirty! And dirty-minded!” Which… bothers me.

It bothers me for two reasons:

1.) I see nothing wrong with a woman being confidant in her sexuality, the way many men are, and it seems weirdly sexist to me to say that James Bond for instance, is okay as a male character, but a female character who’s just as sexually active or just as flirty, somehow isn’t just because… just because, damnit. Supposedly it’s because it’s supposedly designed to be appealing to men, I guess? Except it’s appealing to ME, and I’m female.

Because she’s a “sex object”? Except they have a lot more agency and impact than just “the sex object” every would.

Amy for instance – though she’s still flirty, she hasn’t been getting by just on sex appeal, never has, more on her smarts (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, anyone? Figured out alien technology on her own! “Girl Who Waited” anyone? Got sick of waiting, and again, figured out alien technology on her own, to the point where she invented her own sonic screwdriver!), and her spunk. She’s feisty, but that’s more often than not connected to her having been “the Scottish girl in an English village who refused to give up her accent”. And while she certainly, at first, wanted to have a fling with the Doctor (oh dear, she knows what she wants sexually, and tries to pursue it! How… unfeminist?), she seems to pretty much have long moved past that. Nowadays she’s more concerned that the Doctor is going a bit dark from spending too much time alone – but you’ll note, she’s not talking about him “needing the love of a good woman”, just having friends to remind him who who is. That’s right: she considers herself just a “friend”! Imagine that! how unfeminist, right? A woman having wanted a fling, not got it, and getting over it? Scandalous!

River – River is a bit problematic in that she was written as having been practically predestined to fall for the Doctor after being brainwashed to kill him(!), but I still like her. She’s also unusual (from my very American standpoint), because her body is that of an “older” woman, but she’s still by no means asexual just because of her apparent age; she’s sexy, and she knows it. This is unusual in most media, which is generally oriented towards portraying anyone over thirty having or thinking about sex as “icky”. She’s an adventurous, whip-smart woman who is perfectly willing to poke a few holes in her lover’s arrogance – and despite the problematic origins of the character, I love that about her. Despite her life pretty much revolving around the Doctor in the story… somehow, when they’re actually just interacting on an adventure together, it doesn’t come across as such. They come across, in those scenes, more as equals. Especially when we learn she can fly the Tardis better than he can!

Oswin, from “Asylum of the Daleks”… I will never agree with anyone who says she was nothing more than a shallow sex-object. Yes, she flirted and told a couple of dirty jokes. So what? I don’t get to enjoy flirting and tell dirty jokes just because I’m female? It appeals only to men just because it’s a woman doing it? Bull. I’m a woman, and I thought she was fun! And Oswin was not just (as repeatedly mentioned) a literal genius at things like programming – which already subverts stereotypes about women, I might add! – she was also strong-willed. She literally overcame Dalek conversion – something no one else has apparently ever done! – through sheer force of will and refusal to be overwritten as a person. Not because she had superpowers or timey-wimey whatsits, but because of her very HUMAN desire to be herself, and her refusal to be changed into something inhuman. And in the end, she not only resisted being changed into a Dalek, she also rewrote every single Dalek’s memories! Again, through her genius and through her force of will. Oswin was awesome IMO, and I will have to “agree to disagree” with anyone who says otherwise.

And Nefertiti! Nefertiti, famed beauty of the Nile, sees a vision of life beyond boring royal courts, and she seizes it. She’s curious, adventurous, and takes guff from nobody. When others’ lives are at stake, she risks her own; when captured and basically told by the baddie that he’s going to do… um, things I don’t want to put too much thought into, she doesn’t take it sitting down – she kicks his ass! Breaks free, and kicks his ass. And instead of going straight home, at the end, she goes off to have a few more adventures first. She was great! I loved her.

I don’t think that any of those women being confident in her sexuality makes them any less of a woman, nor do I think that alone makes her a “sex object”, because there’s clearly more to them than just sex. Yes, some have problematic elements, but I’ve never felt that “being a sexual being” was one of them. And frankly, when other women sling that out as a “feminist” critique? To this woman, to this FEMINIST woman, who enjoys their feisty, self-confident female characters, it does come dangerously close to sounding like slut-shaming. And that bugs me. Especially when it starts to sound – or at least, when some start to make it sound – like “being overly sexual” is their main complaint about the characters.

Especially when – hey, guess what? I didn’t forget about my numbering! – 2.) where were these people when Jack Harkness was a thing?

Seriously. Jack Harkness was every bit as “sexual”, even flirted directly with the Doctor at times, and in fact, was arguably MORE defined by his “sexuality” than any of the female characters people have been complaining about. And frankly, for the longest time, he wasn’t terribly deep, either. So why is it that Jack Harkness is a beloved character, while the complaints get so lobbed at the women Moffat writes? I mean, if you are bugged that River is an “overly sexual” character, where were you when Jack Harkness was making sexual comments every five minutes? If you think it’s offensive to portray a woman as both sexual and sexy, why didn’t you think it was offensive that a queer man was portrayed as even MORE sexual, to the extent where he sometimes seemed sex-obsessed?

I mean, “self-confident even when it comes to sex” is a character archetype, one that can apply to either sex… but “sex-crazed bisexual” – particularly “sex-crazed bisexual male who’s willing to hump anything” is typically considered an offensive stereotype!

How come Jack Harkness gets a free pass despite being a blatant queer stereotype, but River Song and Amy Pond get lambasted for being “too sexual”, basically because they’re female an attractive?

I think that’s what bugs me the most: it’s like a complete disconnect in the fandom, where Jack Harkness supposedly isn’t offensive, but all Moffat’s women supposedly are.

It makes me wonder if the people complaining about Moffat’s women have watched, or remember, much of anything before Series 5.

And I just realized I have been consistently writing “RDJ” instead of “RTD”.

I don’t know why I have been doing this, but apologies to anyone who got confused and started to wonder what the hell Iron Man has to do with Doctor Who.

Oh, so you definitely haven’t bothered trying to read through the blog, huh?

“His deletion was, according to his wife, in order to spend more time with his family and to focus on work. It was not a result of hate or harassment
More to that point, we have NEVER sent him hate, nor do we condone doing so! We’ve never even told him about the existence of this blog, although others have linked him articles – not surprising, considering one post has upwards of 7500 notes.
We may dislike his writing, we may find a lot of flaws in his writing, we may find some of what he’s written to be offensive and harmful. But he is a human being and deserves to be treated with respect.
That does not leave him free from critique or being questioned, but this blog does not stand for baseless accusations or hatred. Just criticism based on what he’s written and we’ve observed – with the content generated both by the main admins and other contributors.
-Si”
and
“3) Just because our title is ‘STFU Moffat’ does not mean we spew hatred left and right. We do not abuse him. We never contacted him since this blog started and we only initially contacted him to see if he could clarify where River was ever portrayed as bisexual in the show. Even then, we said our pleases and thank yous and he cried out against perceived slights and insulted spelling. We are not interested in bashing Moffat (this is in our FAQ), we’re interested in pointing out why we’re disappointed in his writing and get other people to see our logic. Our URL is simply the best and easiest way to state our mission and we’re following popular blog naming convention for calling out people in power (stfuconservatives, stfuhomophobes, stfusexists, etc). ”

So yeah. Go and read the blog instead of making a blinded assumption on it.

Callie, you are awesome. Thank you for posting so many thoughts I had trouble articulating myself!!

I feel like you’ve written a very long reply to someone who isn’t me who didn’t make any of the points that I made. The central thesis of my argument was that Moffat primarily writes endlessly “strong” women who are introduced as strong women and exit as strong women and undergo no character development and therefore fail to be characters remotely resembling real human beings.

As I previously said, Amy and River are often literally shunted off to the side to wait around and be “strong” at various perils while the male characters get the bulk of the action and dialog.

This is not just when Moffat’s writing, although he’s a constant offender. This is an overarching trend of marginalization throughout the present series — take when Amy was turned into a doll for an entire episode but of course, being a strong woman who could take it, nothing was examined about that after it was resolved. How about “The Girl Who Waited” where Amy is again absent from the episode entirely — yes, an older version of her goes about being “strong” but the entire emotional arc is Rory deciding what to do with two Amys. Amy is literally set aside from that process. In “The Hungry Earth” Amy is again set aside for the entire adventure. In “The Pandorica Opens” she’s trapped in the TARDIS. In “The Time of Angels” Amy again stands in a room the entire episode. And so on.

And it’s certainly not just Amy. During “Closing Time” Sophie is vanished to focus on Craig and the Doctor and Alfie. Or take the Christmas special where the entire thing revolves around Madge’s son but she comes in and is “strong” at the end. Or the other one one, which is entirely about the Doctor and Kurzan, where Abigail is Kurzan’s object of desire who, at the end, is wonderfully strong for everyone and sings and saves the day but is locked up for the bulk of the episode. “The Girl in the Fireplace” has Reinette waiting around while the Doctor does things.

I’m literally repeating myself here because you don’t seem to have bothered to have read things I’ve actually written.

Yes, Moffat writes “strong” women whose only character trait is that they’re strong. (How in the world did Oswin manage to do any of the things she was scripted to do? Because she was “strong.” Not because there was the remotest explanation for how much super better she was than anyone else.) Even Sally Sparrow’s entire episode, “Blink” is a very well done episode in terms of plotting and pacing and direction, but she simply soldiers through the events from beginning to end and that’s that.

And, yes, it seems that’s the best Moffat can do. The worst Moffat can do is have his “strong” women throw away everything for their men. Which they do. Repeatedly. Although in the most nauseating way in the case of Irene Adler.

Anyone who

Well, you can certainly layout a bologna, yet you never really seem to go anywhere with it. You whine about portrayals of women. You fling out opinions that are patently ridiculous, seemingly with amazing ease. I’m guessing you’re well read, but with the kind of emotional nonsense you use as reasoning, I’m guessing either you are in therapy, or you need to be.

Oh, yes. Comics never have been and never will be SCIENCE fiction. They are in another group. Its called FANTASY. That is what Doctor Who is. It never follows any real scientific rules.

Oh, Callie, please give us more bullshit to read.

??? This thread is nearly two months old, friend. Take a deep breath. There now. Is this really all that important? Sometimes it’s just better to let go…

he needs to just stick with Sherlock homes and quit stealing villain idea from games and cartoons to put on doctor who. the angels where taken from mario the skeleton was taken from scooby doo and the snowman were taken from courage the cowardly dog. he has no imagination for doctor who he needs to leave it alone. sorry but he does every episode was a stolen idea from something and its rather tiring and it makes it hard to love the new doctor, matt smith. he can go somewhere else and write but leave doctor who alone hes done enough damage.