Time, Space ... and Sexism

[caz963]

I feel like I’m taking my life in my hands by writing this, but it’s been on my mind since I began reading the various reactions to the Comic Relief DW special and I wanted to try to explain why I’m not as “up in arms” about it as some people are.



I am in NO WAY attempting to trivialize the concerns I’ve seen expressed or to say that those are not valid opinions. I hope that anyone reading this will know that’s something I would never do. I try to understand differing opinions, not slag them off.

Okay. So my first impressions, as I wrote here, were more to do with the fact that practically everything in Space and Time is stuff we’ve seen before – either in Moffat’s own Time Crash (where Ten saved the day because he remembered watching himself (as Ten) when he was Five) or in earlier DW stories (the TARDIS materializing within the TARDIS had been done in The Time Monster (Three) and Logopolis (Four)) – AND that it was a very tongue-in-cheek nod to all those moans about the fact that Amy spent most of the last series wearing skirts that were barely long enough to cover her – er – modesty ;-)

I admit I did wince a few times – the stuff about the driving test was in really bad taste, I thought - but mostly I was sniggering at the fact that Moff had let his inner 12 year-old run free and was trotting out some of the most clichéd schoolboy/seaside postcard humour I’ve seen on telly for a while.

I don’t know if it’s a cultural thing; it seems to me, on the whole, that us Brits tend to be a bit more laid back about political correctness and “isms” than some other cultures – and again - I’m not slagging anyone off, just wondering aloud! I mean – *hangs head in shame* - we gave the world Benny Hill after all. A fact for which I feel compelled to apologise profoundly. Oddly, there was an early Carry On film on on Saturday afternoon, in which the humour is very much in the same vein, and I found myself wondering how they could get away with showing it these days. Okay, so I know that it was made in the 1960s - we’ve moved on since then.

Anyway. what I’ve been wondering is whether I’m dim, insensitive or just a bad feminist, because I’m prepared to dismiss it as – admittedly poor - “schoolboy humour” rather than deliberate sexism.

When I first saw the various debates here on LJ which talked about how Moffat’s views on women – ones that he’s not been shy of expressing in a number of interviews – are informing his writing, I was surprised because, as I said, I don’t tend to see things like this unless it’s either a) incredibly, glaringly obvious or b) pointed out to me afterwards.

(As another example. At the risk of opening up another can of worms about another “ism” – I was surprised to discover that the fact that Martha’s family were dressed in servants’ uniform at the end of S3 was widely thought to be racist.

I never saw that at all. My brain doesn’t go – “oh, they’re black so they have to wear servants’ uniforms”. It goes – “oh, they’re servants so they have to wear servants’ uniforms.”

They’d have been wearing them had they been White, Indian, Chinese, Hispanic or whatever, because the point was that the Jones family had been enslaved by the Master. But that’s by the by.)

It was while reading one of those discussions about Moffat that I read an old interview in which he made some spectacularly sexist comments, and I admit I was shocked. Not just at the views expressed, but that fact that he actually SAID THEM OUT LOUD!

For anyone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, the comments are these ones (thanks to kilodalton for reminding me of them).

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

And this –

Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.

source.

Sounds like a manifesto for Mysogynists-R-Us. And my response to that last quote is – if you’re going to spout crap like that, then I’m not at all surprised.

I don’t think I’m stupid or insensitive – so perhaps it’s to do with the fact that I grew up in the 70s when humour of the type we’re talking about was rife; and while I didn’t particularly like it, I’m used to it? I know that’s not an argument that paints me in a particularly flattering light either, but I can’t think of another reason as to why I’m not more worked up about this.

So yes, I can definitely see what people are talking about when they talk about Moffat being sexist, and I admit his attitude makes me uncomfortable. I mean, sure he’s created a sexy, feisty, independent, clever, kick-arse female character in River Song, but what is she if not the manifestation of what I’ve referred to before as Moffat’s ultimate fantasy – a feisty, sexy, clever woman who is most definitely NOT needy or hunting for a husband? She doesn’t want to tie the hero down because she’s not interested in domesticity herself.

As anyone who’s read my other witterings about DW knows, I’m not Moffat’s greatest fan. I admire his skill and I like his sense of humour (mostly), but I can’t quite bring myself to believe that he’s so bloody stupid and/or insensitive as to allow his personal, unflattering views on women to be seeping into his work. And this was only a six-minute charity thing, after all, probably a bit hastily thrown together.

Perhaps the problem is that I’m too naïve.

I can certainly see why there are people out there who are incensed by what was supposed to be a bit of fun for a charity event. But I think I’m more disappointed by the fact that it wasn’t all that – you know, funny.

Out of interest – what are the more pro-Moffat-DW-than-I people saying about it?

This post is public because I'm interested in what others beyond my f-list have to say. But I know this is a contentious issue, and if I feel I have to, I'll lock it.

Comments

[hooloovoo_42]

I was surprised to discover that the fact that Martha’s family were dressed in servants’ uniform at the end of S3 was widely thought to be racist.

Widely by whom? In this country, servants uniforms went out with servants between the wars. And even then, they were predominantly white. I suspect the people who think this live in countries where people still expect their servants to wear uniforms and they are mostly non-white and usually badly paid and badly treated. People should look to their own cultures before making comments on others'.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I suspect mostly in the US. I get it's a more touchy subject there, but that view still seems to me to take it too far. I mean, I saw servants - people who were being badly treated. Not black people dressed in uniforms. Is that wrong? I don't look at the colour of a person's skin when I look at them - they're a person.

Or am I doing it wrong?

[goldy-dollar.livejournal.com]

I mean, sure he’s created a sexy, feisty, independent, clever, kick-arse female character in River Song, but what is she if not the manifestation of what I’ve referred to before as Moffat’s ultimate fantasy – a feisty, sexy, clever woman who is most definitely NOT needy or hunting for a husband? She doesn’t want to tie the hero down because she’s not interested in domesticity herself.

I worry about this a lot, and while I find Moffat's TV writing to be on the whole entertaining, I would... not exactly call him groundbreaking in how he portrays women. He's not the worst, but I don't think it's completely far off to raise a hand and question whether River and Amy are at least partly written out of a male fantasy - both of them are independent and sexy and cool with the idea of no-strings-attached sex. Does that make them progressive and at ease with their sexuality? Or does it make them fantasy fodder? I mean, obviously that's not their *only* characteristic, but once I have an idea of what Moffat's personal views are, it's pretty hard to divorce them entirely from his writing.

Re: the CIN Special, I wasn't offended by it on every level, but I have to admit that I sort of rolled my eyes at it. Plus, I have the problem of him opening his mouth and sharing his opinion again - in the lead-up, he described the two Amy's as being exciting to any hotblooded male, which in my mind means it was written specifically to be about satisfying the male gaze and not about critiquing fandom's take on Amy's skirt.

At the end of the day, though, we don't really 100 percent know what Moffat planned when he wrote these scenes, but I still think it's helpful to have discussions about misogyny and racism and to at least try and recognize it when we can. Whether that's in Moffat's work or something else. If I stopped watching TV because I didn't want to be offended, I would never watch anything again. :p

[caz963.livejournal.com]

It's taken me a while, but I've been thinking for a while now that River is a cleverly-disguised fantasy figure. Amy, too - for the reasons you say. Women are meant to think - "At last! Strong, independent, ballsy women who are comfotable with themselves, don't need a man and aren't afraid to give a man a metaphorical slap!" But I think they're really male fantasy figures - gorgeous and sexy, but not dangerous because they're not looking for commitment.

once I have an idea of what Moffat's personal views are, it's pretty hard to divorce them entirely from his writing

I think that's why I was bothered by the skit, even though I wasn't as outraged as some. Now that I know what his views are - it's hard to take some of the things that come out of his characters' mouths with a pinch of salt. I've been trying to come up with something from RTD's era that made me wince like that, and so far, I haven't thought of anything. I'm sure the skirt references were meant to be tongue-in-cheek and were definitely there to cock-a-snook at the complainers, but I can't see Nine or Ten ever telling a companion how to dress - even as a throwaway line.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

If I stopped watching TV because I didn't want to be offended, I would never watch anything again.

Yup. Nothing is perfect, is about the only thing I learned from all those history lessons.

[jhava.livejournal.com]

There's so much about your post that deserves to be commented upon, but frankly, I'm still stunned by Moffat's in print comments as you've set out above.

I was prepared to forgive the apparent sexism in the Comic Relief eps for many of the reasons you set out above, but, after reading the excerpts above, I'm reeling more than a bit. This is going to take some time to consider ...

[caz963.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm torn between "oh, it was a bit of fun for Comic Relief" and "sexist git", really.

I find it hard to believe that someone as (supposedly) canny as Moffat would carry views like that into his work. But then if they're so ngrained that he would publicly voice those opinions and see nothing wrong with them, pegrhaps it's something he does subsonsciously, which is possibly worse than his being "deliberately" sexist.

Please consider and let me know what you think :=)

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

We don’t, as little boys, play at being married – we try to avoid it for as long as possible.

I checked down my pants and I seem to be missing a cock.

Men can go for longer, more happily, without women.

Ahahahahah. I can't take shit like this seriously. Really. I just can't.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

*snigger* Clearly, you're like River Song, because she's missing one as well :-)

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

I can't really weigh in on the current debate because I haven't watched or downloaded the special, and I don't like talking about something I haven't seen myself. But what you're saying about Martha...

I never saw that at all. My brain doesn’t go – “oh, they’re black so they have to wear servants’ uniforms”. It goes – “oh, they’re servants so they have to wear servants’ uniforms.”

It was the same for me. I understood why people were angry once they explained it, but personally I didn't see/feel it. Until a while later I was watching the first series of Being Human, and I viscerally hated how they wrote Annie with her endless cups of tea and her invisibility and her abusive boyfriend who killed her. I just didn't want to see a dead, scared, abused, invisible, female character, regardless of the point they were trying to make with this story or the direction they might be taking it. And when I was discussing this with someone on my friendslist, I had one of those lightbulb moments where it suddenly struck me, That's (probably, I should perhaps add) how people feel about Martha as a maid, and her family in a servants' uniforms. It may not be intentionally, objectively racist, it may not be unintentionally racist, it can even be written to point out racism, but it's an image that can bring up bad associations and reactions regardless, strong enough to override context.

[hooloovoo_42]

Martha as a maid was about the only way she, as a female, could have been employed in a boys' school in the early 20th century. The exception being the matron and they already had one of those. There were white female servants, too.

We in the UK watch all kinds of US TV shows and have to live with the way things are portrayed as everyday occurrences. We have our own history with racism, but we don't need have to worry about being politically correct on behalf of somebody else's bad associations.

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

I'm now going to watch/catch-up on Ark Royal (Ep.4). And to think about sex 72 times.

Rule Britannia.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

I think you know my opinion on this. *g*

I don’t think I’m stupid or insensitive – so perhaps it’s to do with the fact that I grew up in the 70s when humour of the type we’re talking about was rife; and while I didn’t particularly like it, I’m used to it?

Well, yes, sexist thinking pervades our culture. We're used to it and that's the problem. We've internalized it. The only way to stop it is to become aware of it and speak up when it happens.

I can’t quite bring myself to believe that he’s so bloody stupid and/or insensitive as to allow his personal, unflattering views on women to be seeping into his work.

He's not doing it intentionally. But culture informs our thinking, so it's inevitable his work will take on those attitudes he's internalized. Moffat played it for laughs, but the sexist message in that episode has serious real-world consequences, i.e. blaming the woman because she dressed provocatively. Yes, it's only a TV show, but it's an influential one. There are ways Moffat could have handled it that would not have sent such disturbing messages.

[kathyh]

But I think I’m more disappointed by the fact that it wasn’t all that – you know, funny.

Yes, that was my main problem with it I'm afraid.

I suspect that those comments about Amy were supposed to be seen as amusing, but weren't. I'm afraid it must make me a very bad person but I was more upset by the humour fail than I was by the sexism.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid it must make me a very bad person but I was more upset by the humour fail than I was by the sexism.

Same here. We should start a club ;-)

For someone who clearly has a damn good sense of humour, Moffat's "funny" sometimes falls very far from the mark. There were a number of times throughout S5 where I'm sure Amy was meant to be amusing and endearing and instead came off as abrupt and annoying. Some of that can be laid at Gillan's door, but some of that's down to the writing.

[canterlevi.livejournal.com]

So, Britain gave the world Benny Hill, but the US gave the world Jerry Lewis. I think perhaps we owe the world the bigger apology. Heh!

[oolookitty.livejournal.com]

"I mean, sure he’s created a sexy, feisty, independent, clever, kick-arse female character in River Song, but what is she if not the manifestation of what I’ve referred to before as Moffat’s ultimate fantasy – a feisty, sexy, clever woman who is most definitely NOT needy or hunting for a husband? She doesn’t want to tie the hero down because she’s not interested in domesticity herself."

Yes, but where does River end up, finally? In a domestic situation, taking care of someone else's imaginary children, reading them bedtime stories FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY. That, to me, is every bit as horrifying as what happened to Donna, because there is no indication that this is something that River would have wanted to end up like that. But if SM thinks that all women are hunting for that domesticity, then that ending for this character makes sense to him.

Not to me, though. That looked like HELL to me.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

ITA. Moffat even says in the commentary for that episode that it's like the Doctor has given River a kind of heaven - but I'm with you. She showed no inclination towards that kind of life.

[oolookitty.livejournal.com]

Aargh. Last comment should have been something about River not wanting to end up like that. Sorry for the extraneous words which make it unclear.

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

I want to say lots of things about this post, but I don't have the time right now, however, I do question this statement you made...

When I first saw the various debates here on LJ which talked about how Moffat’s views on women – ones that he’s not been shy of expressing in a number of interviews

...since I don't think he has done so in a "number of interviews" - every time this discussion comes up, bloggers always link to that same article that you have extracted here.

Now, I can see where people have issues with what he says, HOWEVER, the first quote is in direct reaction to a question about Coupling (which doesn't excuse it, so much as explain those character choices) and I do wonder whether the second quote is about the men in that same series.

I know this comment of mine might come off as defensive (for Moffat the man and Moffat the writer), but I really haven't read these kind of comments in a "number of interviews". If Moffat was making a habit of it, I'd be more willing to agree - but as everyone points to one interview that is most likely about one show he wrote, I have a hard time with people using it as justification to write off everything he does as the work of a misogynist.

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

I've never seen anything of this nature before from him, so if he actually said it all, I'd be interested in the context - because I'm quite sure that we didn't really get it. I suspect it's about "Coupling", which is obviously a comedy I'm a fan of, and even if it isn't, I'm still not bothered by it until I see twenty quotes of this nature and a track record in his writing to indicate there are issues with women. (You and I have been down this path before...) Disliking Amy isn't an argument for Moffat=misogynist imho, and I'm quite certain that there are fans out there who will draw a very long line to make that case. If he said that stuff, then he's a plonker, but I still like his writing. Having a thing for policewomen in short skirts is no worse than me fessing up to having a thing for men in military uniforms. We all objectify at time, and I'll confess I've made some terribly crass jokes over the years. If it would have been a bloke doing that, it would have been labelled sexist and misogynist. I think that's why I can't really bring myself to take it seriously or care - a) I'm not sure I believe it was the full picture and b) neither having a moan about the opposite sex or making a suggestive comment is something that should doom you to accusations of sexism imho. Because I'm well and truly stuffed then.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

I mean – *hangs head in shame* - we gave the world Benny Hill after all.

As I kid I was really weirded out that I was meant to laugh as a man chased a half-naked unwilling woman about the place. I mean WTF?

Not just at the views expressed, but that fact that he actually SAID THEM OUT LOUD!

I am with the people that think he's saying what other male writers think but are smart enough to never actually say. Victim of his own stupidty.


but what is she if not the manifestation of what I’ve referred to before as Moffat’s ultimate fantasy – a feisty, sexy, clever woman who is most definitely NOT needy or hunting for a husband? She doesn’t want to tie the hero down because she’s not interested in domesticity herself.

Bingo! I've always thought Moff's Women are less self-inserts and more sexual fantasies. (That being why the cries of "MARY-SUE!" tend to confuse me somewhat. The only obvious Nu Who Sue-Companion is Rose and Rusty admitted as much so it's not really a secret there.)

I just don't think his writing is sexist. TBH I was more "OMGWTF" about certain things in Rusty's time on the show (women never leaving of their own volition, women defined by their relationships with men, women having their worth based on whether a man wants to shag them) and, well, fandom itself ain't as feminist as it likes to think.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

God - I loathed Benny Hill (and still do)!

[olsonm-raymond.livejournal.com]

Moffat's comments certainly are dripping with sexual dualism. I don't know that his writing on the show is the same. However, I do agree that some of his female characters come across as stereotypical feisty girls. It's the sense that the women are defined first by their femaleness rather then their traits as individuals. Hopefully, the more people are aware of it the more diveristy we'll see in female characters.

[skippity-doo.livejournal.com]

some of his female characters come across as stereotypical feisty girls. It's the sense that the women are defined first by their femaleness rather then their traits as individuals.
YES. Thank you, you've nailed my problem with Moff's ladies right on the head.

[pewter.livejournal.com]

Anyway. what I’ve been wondering is whether I’m dim, insensitive or just a bad feminist, because I’m prepared to dismiss it as – admittedly poor - “schoolboy humour” rather than deliberate sexism.

It certainly doesn't make you a bad feminist, but what I will say is that so much misogynistic (or homophobic/transphobic etc etc) stuff is DISMISSED as 'boys will be boys'. That's the problem - it's so pervasive that it just gets dismissed and ignored rather than challenged. It's one thing for an actual schoolboy to be making those jokes, it's another for an adult to be perpetuating those attitudes and 'jokes' via a much loved family sitcom watched by boys and girls, young and old, around the country.

I don't think, any more than you do, that it's intentional. It's not like game makers set out to alienate women deliberately by the way they treat their female characters either, but it's what happens because men=default audience and 'women fans' are perceived in a certain way.

[canterlevi.livejournal.com]

It certainly doesn't make you a bad feminist, but what I will say is that so much misogynistic (or homophobic/transphobic etc etc) stuff is DISMISSED as 'boys will be boys'. That's the problem - it's so pervasive that it just gets dismissed and ignored rather than challenged.

And it's a short step from that to "blaming the victim" whether it is sexual harassment or the outright violence of rape. "She was asking for it." "Did you see how she was dressed?" "The bitch just can't take a joke." etc.

[vervet-monkey.livejournal.com]

I was surprised to discover that the fact that Martha’s family were dressed in servants’ uniform at the end of S3 was widely thought to be racist.

Racism still exists, as long as the connection is made between them being black and in servants uniforms. If there was no racism you could put anyone in a servants uniform and no-one would bat an eye. I remember Joss Whedon saying when he killed Tara that he to not kill her because she was gay would be just as bad as to kill her because she was. She was killed because that's where the story needed to go.

As for the special. Sexism didn't really come into it for me. It was amusing in an obvious kind of way. I have no problem with Rory looking up his wife's skirt, any more than I do Cassandra admiring Tens body in S2. Are we meant to pretend that men never look at women (or women to men)?

Those quotes make me think less of Moff, but in all honesty, no less of his writing. (Which I like on an episode by episode basis, although miss RTD's character development).

[develish1]

as I said in my comment on the other post, I haven;t watched it yet, but from what I've read I suspect my reaction to it will be much the same as yours.

I'm a Brit too, and grew up with all the same type of stuff on TV as you did, and to me it's as you said, silly schoolboy humour, something to simply be ignored if you don;t find it funny.

As for the bit about Martha and her family, again I'm with you on that, I didn't see black people in servants uniforms, I just saw people in servants uniforms.

Until people on the whole stop making the distinction that skin colour matters and simply see people instead, I guess some will always react badly to such things though, even if we're not amongst them.

[jay-kateel.livejournal.com]

I hate to say it, but the Moff is right.

"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."

It's true. Has anyone seen a pre-2000 Disney film. I'm from the U.S., so my view is a bit biased, but women are socialized to be needy. We're told, when we're little. that we have to be ladies, that we can't have sex, and one day our prince will come on his white horse and we'll live happily ever after. I remember, as a kid, that all the girls played princess and princes, house, and married themselves to boys that were like, "wtfbbqkthxbai."

Also, marriage is seen as the death of freedom and sexual promiscuousness for men (while, for women, it's the freedom to have sex and the completion of a life goal we were told to have when we were little), so Moff is right when he says this. It's not the case for every. Person. In. The. World. But a vast majority do think that way.

And the second quote... yeah, that's not something I really want to get into, because that's a critical theory essay waiting to happen. I kind of agree with him there, too.

Anyway, Moffat portrays marriage in such a good light. He portrays relationships in a good light. Rory and Amy's marriage meant the start of great adventures (and great sex). And the Doctor and River's "marriage" (at least, in my opinion) is wonderful, too. They get to both be separate people, pursue their own goals and dreams, be free, without the "chains." And, when they come together, they're bad. Ass.

So kudos to the Moff for doing what he's doing. Now, if he could only learn to say it better... but that's the things with thoughts you don't really want to say out loud. You typically don't think through how to say them PC.

And two Amy Ponds is not just the hot-blooded males' fantasy. I was right there with Rory!

The second

[albion-princess.livejournal.com]

It's true. Has anyone seen a pre-2000 Disney film. I'm from the U.S., so my view is a bit biased, but women are socialized to be needy. We're told, when we're little. that we have to be ladies, that we can't have sex, and one day our prince will come on his white horse and we'll live happily ever after. I remember, as a kid, that all the girls played princess and princes, house, and married themselves to boys that were like, "wtfbbqkthxbai.

It's definitely not true in my case. I was never told to be needy or a lady and I honestly can't think of anyone who brought up that way. I was a tomboy and more interested in playing with toy guns (which my dad made from wood) and cars than marriage and babies. I would try to play more like girl and got bored very quickly.

I'm not going to get worked up over a fictional programme when women are really suffering in the world. I also don't want to judge Moffat as being sexist from just those two comments, which seem to be taken out of context.

[tasty-kate.livejournal.com]

Anyway. what I’ve been wondering is whether I’m dim, insensitive or just a bad feminist, because I’m prepared to dismiss it as – admittedly poor - “schoolboy humour” rather than deliberate sexism.

My struggle exactly. I think what it came down for me is that Amy is a woman in charge-- we see that time after time. She has had her jabs on others (perhaps too many on Rory, and even the Doctor with her constant badgering on his bow tie, or heck, the first Meanwhile in the TARDIS scene were she mocks his whole physical appearance), and I'm the type to believe in equality across the board, so really. It was only time. :) I think Amy can handle the teasings Rory and the Doctor give her because she can dish them right back. She has what is stereotypically a "man's sense of humor", meaning the put downs and the mocking & etc, which I think is only natural with her being written by a man who has such strong patriarchal views. That being said, I don't mean this to be a put-down of Amy's character. I'm pretty much in love with the ginger. :}

I also didn't take offense to these scenes when I first watched them because just about every aspect of my life is filled with some sort of feminism or feminism in action. Doctor Who is supposed to be my break from all that. I successfully turn the switch off when I watch Doctor Who and take in all of its cheesy-ness, it's political incorrect-ness, everything.

[unfeathered]

Heh, I haven't actually read anyone else's views on the Comic Relief special yet so I was surprised to learn people are up in arms in it. Like you I grew up in the 70s with a dad who quoted a lot of un-PC stuff a lot and I'm thoroughly used to it! I thought the special was fun (though I was did sigh a bit at Moffat using a temporal paradox again) and didn't have a problem with the humour. Amy does wear short skirts and it's fairly obvious she does it deliberately. Who cares? It's who she is.

I only came across the Jones family racist thing recently too and I too was completely taken aback. Like you, I'd just seen people, not black people, and it never occurred to me that I should be offended by it - beyond the fact that obviously the Master is evil.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

Although I grew up in the 70s and recognised the humour for what it was, I never really liked it in the first place, so yes, it did make me wince. But it didn't offend me. As others have said here, there are more important feminist issues to get worked up about.

I was more bothered by the recycling of yet another plot device and by the fact that it wasn't all that funny - which is odd because Moffat has a great sense of humour.

[promethia_tenk]

(This ended up longer than intended--my apologies. But obviously this issue drags up a lot of related stuff and seems to be a continual sticking point between different groups of DW fans. I find it a very interesting division myself, and have been avoiding a lot of the reaction posts and such out of a desire not to get into wank.) Anyway, you asked:

Out of interest – what are the more pro-Moffat-DW-than-I people saying about it?

Well, about the first thing I wrote in reaction to it was "It's like he read the fic! <3"

I found it to be an enormously self-aware, self-referential little confection of meta-ness (in most everything it did, including the skirt stuff). Because what fan hasn't noticed the short skirt/glass floor issue? Or the related Amy floating in outer space where the Doctor can see straight up her nightie issue? And it seems like everybody and their mother has commented on it. And then half of those people went on to write fic that touched on it in some way. Now either Moff can go on politely pretending like this would never happen, or he can make a joke about it himself.

And I actually found Moff's handling of it to be a lot more tasteful than most of what I've seen from fans. A guy had a moment of distraction because he caught a glimpse up his wife's skirt. That's half-sweet. And the Doctor's immediate reaction was to get on Rory's case about it, not Amy's.

I'll give you that the skirt/floor joke together with the driving joke and the two Amy's flirting with each other all in less than ten minutes is probably pushing the bounds a bit. And, no, I don't think it's really the best thing Moff's ever written. But take each component separately, and I do find everything that happened to be very much in character. And within the broader context of the season as a whole, the full scope of who these characters are, and the way their relationships have been developed, I don't find any of it to be particularly disempowering or demeaning.

So at any rate, I'll say that I (and as far as I've seen, most of the pro-Moff camp) took it as a bit of in-joking between Moff and the fans. It's not the first time Moff's taken the sexual subtext of the show and addressed it head-on (most especially in that second "Meanwhile in the TARDIS" scene). I rather appreciate that he's willing to bring this stuff up to light and make the Doctor address it and maybe shake people up a bit over it. I find it a far more honest way of dealing with sexuality than to have all the characters shuffle their feet around bashfully and pretend like these things don't go through people's heads.

(Not coincidentally, none of what I said above would be worth a damn if I didn't think that in the fundamentals of equality and empowerment in relationships, Moff gets it absolutely right in a way I've rarely seen anywhere else. The very way the Doctor/River relationship is structured and set up makes it, I think, an extremely poetic, concretely-realized, scifi reflection of how strong relationships should work, theoretically. I wrote once here about them: "A marriage composed entirely of “yes”: two equals, unbound by any recognizable force of society or social expectation or dependency, returning freely to each other again and again and again through simple, affirming choice." I find any niggles I might have over short skirts to be extremely inconsequential in comparison to an ability to imagine that sort of fundamental balance and equality and mutual support and choice in relationships.)

[caz963.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't mind long comments - it gives me plenty to think about :)

For me, the self-referential nature of the thing was the best thing about it - and it's partly why I think I'm not so het up about the sexism issue. It was written for a different audience, potentially a more adult one and I think it gave SM the chance to make some jokes he'd never normally be able to make on the show and, as you say, to share an in-joke with the fans.

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

I think maybe I stirred up the debate about the servants' uniforms. If so, it's being taken out of context by some. I didn't personally find it racist at all. However, I was interested that after LOTTL aired it was mentioned by some Americans as being offensive, and when I thought it over I could see that a country where slavery is still barely out of living memory could be a lot more triggered by that image than British people are.

And I think this debate is similar, in the sense that DW simply hasn't taken on board that in America things are different. (Correct me if I am wrong, Statesiders). It's true that in Britain we've learned to live with a lot of casual misogyny and homophobia (Whether that is a good thing is another argument, which I'll avoid here). And in the 70s that was a lot more pronounced than it is now, as anyone who has watched reruns of "The Goodies" with their teenage children and squirmed will have discovered.

On the Comic Relief special itself, I found it derivative and depressing, probably because it was thrown together in a hurry and that showed. Two points I will make, however:

First, it's interesting that a show that would never show a character smoking (not even Jackie Tyler who almost certainly would have done) in case it corrupts the kids, is quite relaxed about a casual reference to what is basically bad driving. That's not trivial or funny. It kills thousands of people, it also prices many young people off the road because their insurance is unaffordable.

And, at the risk of opening up a hornets nest, I feel saddened that because of the way Moffatt discusses sexuality there are probably a lot of Muslim kids whose parents will feel uncomfortable letting them watch DW. That is such a pity. I'm not saying we should have a Muslim companion pointedly praying in the TARDIS five times a day, but the UK is a multi-cultural society and I'd really like the Doctor to be a figure whose positive values everyone can get behind.

Okay, rant over.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

You make a lot of good points, especially this:

a casual reference to what is basically bad driving. That's not trivial or funny. It kills thousands of people

which is pretty much what was going through my mind as well. I think that aspect of it made me more uncomforable/annoyed than any sexism, intended or otherwise.

I don't think it was you re. the racism debate. I've seen it a couple of places, so I can absolve you on that score ;-)