General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

pixelburp

Silver Lynel wrote: »

[...]
I think in the current environment it seems like the decision is there for some kind of ideological reason and so many people are treating it like some kind of political victory. That's strange and I would totally see it as something that could rub people the wrong way.[...]

I think on that though, those snippets you quote go beyond Dr. Who and seem like something endemic in western culture overall at the moment. Ideologically we've become far more entrenched than ever before, and the internet has been a HUGE catalyst for that, be it through Facebook groups, Twitter or whatever.

Discussion has become reductionist in the extreme, diminished into the form of bite-size stances (arguably now personified by a US President communicating through brain-fart tweet), while the term 'echo chamber' depressingly apt to describe the factionisation of everything from pop-culture, societal issues, science, to politics; the end result usually being the overlap of all these. [*] There's no such thing as the middleground anymore, because everything is either 'pro' or 'anti'. It's quite sad but not particularly isolated to Dr. Who.


[*] Full disclosure mind you would be to admit that on all those sorts of issues I'd definitely lean Left / liberal, and take a generally impatient view towards those kicking against. That said, aggression from the Left is equally unhelpful & then some.

Sleepy

pixelburp wrote: »

I think there's a danger of over-emphasising the (male) Doctor's importance as a role model to boys/men. As mentioned previously in the thread, the impact of the Doctor just isn't as strong as it used to be compared with others such as Harry Potter, and pop culture in general has changed a lot since what was arguably Dr. Who's heyday of the 1970s.

While the influence of The Doctor as a role model has no doubt waned since the 70's, that doesn't in any way justify removing him as a role model for boys in order to provide a "better" one for girls. Let's not forget, the young boys who watch this series already live in a world where their female counterparts have better educational outcomes, longer life expectancies and, in general, more opportunities than they do.

Switching The Doctor's gender may have validly been considered progressive in the 70's or even the 80's. The pendulum has swung however and I'd argue that young boys in 2017 are more in need of positive male role models (particularly ones that demonstrate education and learning as a virtue) than young girls are in need of positive female ones.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

So maybe for one series they don't get to dress up as the current Doctor, there are still 12 other options there to choose from, and Netflix and DVDs and hours of repeats to tide them over.

That's exactly the bitchy, condescending tone that makes Feminism so toxic imo. Rich White Men held the reigns of power for centuries (I'll grant, feminists tend to conveniently forget the "rich" part of that sentence), so their male grandchildren should suffer now in order to even the score?

Silver Lynel

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There have been generations of girls, of black children, of Asian children, that grew up without ever seeing themselves reflected on screen or seeing themselves reflected positively on screen.

Where does this idea come from?

I have rarely seen myself reflected on screen and yet can't ever think of a time growing up when I wasn't excited and inspired by one character or another.

I don't actually know if this is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who isn't represented in media. Like we are so dumb that we need to see the right skin color on a character before we can say "oh, I like this guy and what he stands for"?

Since I was quite young I always had a kind of obsession with kung fu movies but I'm not Chinese. I've never even been to China and I definitely can't do kung fu! Is it possible that I just flat out ignored race because I thought the lads in those films were awesome and cool?

Or am I bit dim for being inspired by those movies without realizing that I was not being represented?

I was obsessed with Hulk Hogan too but even as a little prayer saying, vitamin taking, Hulkamaniac I couldn't have been more different from my idol... brother!

Maybe I was just a stupid kid?

Goodshape

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Where does this idea come from?

Well..

Silver Lynel wrote:

Since I was quite young I always had a kind of obsession with kung fu movies but I'm not Chinese.

Can you name three other exciting professions for an asian character on TV, with examples of prominent role models?


You're right that it shouldn't need to be a 1-to-1 match on personality, race, gender, etc., in order for people to appreciate or be inspired by a character – and yet, white males are so massively over represented.

So it either really doesn't matter and we should diversify more just for the variety, or it really does matter and we must diversify more to redress the balance.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Where does this idea come from?

I have rarely seen myself reflected on screen and yet can't ever think of a time growing up when I wasn't excited and inspired by one character or another.

I don't actually know if this is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who isn't represented in media. Like we are so dumb that we need to see the right skin color on a character before we can say "oh, I like this guy and what he stands for"?

Since I was quite young I always had a kind of obsession with kung fu movies but I'm not Chinese. I've never even been to China and I definitely can't do kung fu! Is it possible that I just flat out ignored race because I thought the lads in those films were awesome and cool?

Or am I bit dim for being inspired by those movies without realizing that I was not being represented?

I was obsessed with Hulk Hogan too but even as a little prayer saying, vitamin taking, Hulkamaniac I couldn't have been more different from my idol... brother!

Maybe I was just a stupid kid?

You make this argument and yet you also complain that one male role model is being taken away from boys? What does it matter if boys are looking at a female Doctor Who if representation doesn't matter?

Silver Lynel

Goodshape wrote: »

Well..

Can you name three other exciting professions for an asian character on TV, with examples of prominent role models?

You're right that it shouldn't need to be a 1-to-1 match on personality, race, gender, etc., in order for people to appreciate or be inspired by a character – and yet, white males are so massively over represented.

So it either really doesn't matter and we should diversify more just for the variety, or it really does matter and we must diversify more to redress the balance.

What do you mean "Asian"?

You know that Japanese, Chinese and Korean cultures (to mention only 3 out of MANY distinct Asian cultures) are different in so many ways, right?

Seems a bit ignorant to just file them all under "Asian" and be done with it.

That's one of your problems right there I'd say. The willingness to just file people into a box based on their race or gender and then think that you are "representing" them by having an actor who looks like them appear on screen.

You would be giving "representation" to their appearance and nothing more.

"Asian". Screw you.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sleepy wrote: »

That's exactly the bitchy, condescending tone that makes Feminism so toxic imo. Rich White Men held the reigns of power for centuries (I'll grant, feminists tend to conveniently forget the "rich" part of that sentence), so their male grandchildren should suffer now in order to even the score?

Having a female Doctor Who is suffering is it? It's the same as being treated as property, not being allowed to vote, or work, or get an education, or aspire to anything other than being a wife and mother?

Yes rich white men held the reins of power but in most societies even within poorer classes the men still held power over the women.

Feminism is the idea that women should be treated as equals. Nothing more. Some people are so afraid of that idea that they will look only for the extreme opinions and brand everyone as man hating bra burners. As already acknowledged multiple times on this thread there are extremes on both sides of every argument.

Silver Lynel

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You make this argument and yet you also complain that one male role model is being taken away from boys? What does it matter if boys are looking at a female Doctor Who if representation doesn't matter?

I wasn't complaining at all.

My first post on this thread was to try to understand why there was outrage in the first place.

I've even said I don't think a female doctor is a bad idea at all. Like, only a few posts ago.

How much clearer can I be?

1. I think a female doctor is fine. No problem.
2. I think people have some rather odd arguments when when it comes to representation.
3. I have no opinion AT ALL on "male role models being taken away from boys".
4. I was trying to explain where I think the outrage comes from.
5. I do not agree with the outrage. It's just a TV show.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Silver Lynel wrote: »

What are you talking about? I wasn't complaining at all.

My first post on this thread was to try to understand why there was outrage in the first place.

I've even said I don't think a female doctor is a bad idea at all. Like, only a few posts ago.

I apologise. I was confusing you with another poster on that one. My mistake.

Silver Lynel

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I apologise. I was confusing you with another poster on that one. My mistake.

An argument for better representation/more diversity maybe?

When everyone looks the same it's hard to tell the characters apart.

Goodshape

Silver Lynel wrote: »

What do you mean "Asian"?

I mean it as opposed to "European" or caucasian.

Silver Lynel wrote:

You know that Japanese, Chinese and Korean cultures (to mention only 3 out of MANY distinct Asian cultures) are different in so many ways, right?

Absolutely. As are Irish, English, French, German. But we're all also European.

Silver Lynel wrote:

Seems a bit ignorant to just file them all under "Asian" and be done with it.

That's one of your problems right there I'd say. The willingness to just file people into a box based on their race or gender and then think that you are "representing" them by having an actor who looks like them appear on screen.


You would be giving "representation" to their appearance and nothing more.

No, you're reading things I didn't write.

If you can name three exciting professions for a Chinese character in western media, with the promonate role models, then please do.

I only said "asian" to make it a bit easier :-/

Silver Lynel wrote:

"Asian". Screw you.

Sorry if I offended.

Sleepy

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Feminism is the idea that women should be treated as equals. Nothing more.

Ah, that explains it. You've drunk the koolaid. Feminism hasn't been about equality for a very long time.

If you can choose to ignore all the evidence showing that two young fans of the show who differ in only their gender have very different expectations of outcome in 2017, you're as blind to sexism as those the feminist movement fought against in 1967.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Where does this idea come from?

I'm referring to UK/US TV and film here. Obviously Chinese people in China, for example, see themselves on TV all the time.

I've seen/heard/read plenty of people discuss their experiences growing up in the US or the UK as children/grandchildren of immigrants and how despite living in a very multi cultural society they never saw that reflected on TV or in films. If there were black/latino/Asian characters on TV they were stereotypes, gang members, drug dealers, living on council estates etc. etc.

There is more diversity on TV these days but a lot of people would still be of the opinion that oh there's that one Blackish show on E4 so why are they complaining? Ignoring the fact that for every Blackish there's at least 10-15 sitcoms about a white family.

As a child I never thought about what or who I was seeing on TV either but the reality of it was the vast majority of what I was seeing was people who were white like me. Not everyone can say that.

Silver Lynel

Goodshape wrote: »

I only said "asian" to make it a bit easier :-/

I know you did but it just seems to weird to have an attitude that would say something like "well, we need to have an Asian guy in this role just to placate and win over the Asian audience".

Feels like they're throwing you a bone or something just to keep you happy.

That's kind of sad and makes me feel like people honestly believe that if there are only white people on screen then non-white people are too thick to identify with any of them.

Guys, we need some different skin tones here cos these dummies need someone to "identify with".

What the hell? I can identify with other people and fictional characters just fine by understanding character and personality.

Also there are loads of Chinese actors in Western media playing loads of different roles.

Right, your main protagonist tends to be a white guy probably 99% of the time but it's only a problem if you genuinely think that non-whites and non-guys feel left out because the actor doesn't look a bit like them.

I'd honestly rather see actors playing characters who can make me feel something than to just see some wooden performance from someone who looks like me and maybe shares my political views or something.

Why not both, I suppose, right?

Goodshape

Sleepy wrote: »

Ah, that explains it. You've drunk the koolaid. Feminism hasn't been about equality for a very long time.

Nonsense. Feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

Anything else, and I'm not saying 'else' doesn't exist, is abusing the term.

Doctor DooM

Sleepy wrote: »

While the influence of The Doctor as a role model has no doubt waned since the 70's, that doesn't in any way justify removing him as a role model for boys in order to provide a "better" one for girls. Let's not forget, the young boys who watch this series already live in a world where their female counterparts have better educational outcomes, longer life expectancies and, in general, more opportunities than they do.

Switching The Doctor's gender may have validly been considered progressive in the 70's or even the 80's. The pendulum has swung however and I'd argue that young boys in 2017 are more in need of positive male role models (particularly ones that demonstrate education and learning as a virtue) than young girls are in need of positive female ones.


That's exactly the bitchy, condescending tone that makes Feminism so toxic imo. Rich White Men held the reigns of power for centuries (I'll grant, feminists tend to conveniently forget the "rich" part of that sentence), so their male grandchildren should suffer now in order to even the score?

There's something about this flavour of argument that, no offence, is annoying me and I can't quite put my finger on.

Do boys need more arguments against toxic masculinity (which is a term many of the people upset with a female Doctor would no doubt hate despite it being the crux of the point)? Probably. However last week, I saw a film in which a male genius told a clever boy he should be staying in school and going to college instead of solving problems with his fists like him ( Iron Man in Spider-Man. The film clearly shows he'd be happier, too, if he listens to him).

As an aside, when asked why there were so many people of colour in this film, the usually highly annoying producer of this film stated "I was trying to look to reality for inspiration", which I found funny.

Last year I saw another film, Big Hero Six, where the entire point was "science and education is cool and what creates real heroes." I noted the tone of this film being positive for boys too.

So it's rare that this happens it's true. But why these lashing, angry paroxysms of barely concealed rage when a character, that lest we forget isn't actually a man or woman at all, has, for a maximum of probably 3 years, made a tiny change that is timely, as they have done over and over again? When it happens... once? when like everything else in the series, it is a temporary and ephemeral change?

Why are people suddenly so hugely upset with potential contradictions of continuity when the new series has broken them over and over again for a decade yet no one has cared about that... why is this so different?

I don't for example, remember seeing an army of fury in here complaining how Tennant regenerating into himself was a problem. I mean, I think I was, I thought it was a bit crappy but in any form of serialised sci fi the rules change over time so you accept it (Klingons don't just look like racial stereotypes any more because of either a disease or because of different bloodlines, depending who you ask).

When I first saw Matt Smith, I didn't really like the look of him, but I shrugged my shoulders because I knew I was going to wait and see what he was like, and it actually, in that case, turned out great. I did this because I am a fan of Doctor Who and it happens over. And over. And over. In different ways. I roll my eyes every time people get upset at new casting, because I know there's a 50% chance those people will be saying the same for the next Doctor.

Is the casting of a woman because of changing times and public opinions? OF COURSE. You know what else was?

The casting of Jon Pertwee as a kind of super spy in a James Bond role.

The casting of Tom Baker because he'd become famous playing Rasputin, almost a historical Doctor.

The casting of Peter Davison, as a young man for the Doctor- how dare he not be old!

The idea that the Doctor could kiss someone.

The Doctor assuming a christ like role.

The Doctor always represents the time. I find the arguments that he can't be a woman because of precedent or because it's something people want but is new to at best be misinformed.

At the end of the day, this is an argument that I can't really lose, as I set my stall out at the start: I don't care it's a woman, if the programme is good I will watch it, if it's not I won't. We're literally at the same point as the Tennant/ Smith regeneration where the whole team is changing so there's a whole new show incoming.

Because I have no other agenda, I actually don't see this regeneration to be anything other than the new, potentially exciting restart that the last 11 have been.

FunLover18

There's a very good episode of Master Of None on Netflix (Aziz Ansari's show, so written from an Indian perspective) about representation of Indian people in TV and film in America.

In fact, everyone should just watch the entire series cause it's excellent.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sleepy wrote: »

Ah, that explains it. You've drunk the koolaid. Feminism hasn't been about equality for a very long time.

If you can choose to ignore all the evidence showing that two young fans of the show who differ in only their gender have very different expectations of outcome in 2017, you're as blind to sexism as those the feminist movement fought against in 1967.

You really think 7 year old boys are living in fear of their female counterparts? Or think they're never going to be as successful as them? The majority of people in positions of power are still men. Women still face more obstacles on their way up.

Feminism is still about equality but as with every cause mouthy f**kers with their own agendas are given too big a platform and those who want to see the movement fail are happy to make them the spokespeople for it all.

Goodshape

Silver Lynel wrote: »

it just seems to weird to have an attitude that would say something like "well, we need to have an Asian guy in this role just to placate and win over the Asian audience".

Feels like they're throwing you a bone or something just to keep you happy.

But is it preferable that there are no (or very few) women or people of colour in lead roles, just so we don't get accused of placating anyone? That doesn't sound right.

The fact that a female or a person of colour in a lead role can cause such unrest and be accused of pandering and gimmickry only highlights the fact that it's so necessary.

When this sort of thing can happen ten times and be met each time with a shrug of "oh, another new Doctor.. what time's the cricket?" – then we can stop pushing for more diversity.

Sonics2k

Silver Lynel wrote: »

I think that constant whining about female representation from certain interest groups has made people react negatively when it seems like those groups are actually getting their way.

And, of course, it's never enough.

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/886653343493312512

Fem Freq are basically the alt-right of the Left, take everything they say with a pinch of salt and know they are never ever happy.

Silver Lynel

Doctor DooM wrote: »

There's something about this flavour of argument that, no offence, is annoying me and I can't quite put my finger on.

So it's rare that this happens it's true. But why these lashing, angry paroxysms of barely concealed rage when a character, that lest we forget isn't actually a man or woman at all, has, for a maximum of probably 3 years, made a tiny change that is timely, as they have done over and over again? When it happens... once? when like everything else in the series, it is a temporary and ephemeral change?

Why are people suddenly so hugely upset with potential contradictions of continuity when the new series has broken them over and over again for a decade yet no one has cared about that... why is this so different?

I feel it's down to the perception that this change has been made to appease some kind of political agenda rather than to tell a good story.

I think people celebrating this as a "win" for their politics or (really bizarrely, I think) their gender are sort of adding to that perception.

Please, I do not think this reaction is justified I just think that it may partially explain the reaction.

I certainly don't believe that people complaining are somehow irrational woman haters who just can't bear to see a woman as the main character in a story. So, for me, the answer has to lie elsewhere.

I think people don't want to give outlets like The Guardian the "win" that they will obviously see this as.

I think that's demonstrated when you have an article like this within a day of the announcement of the new Doctor...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/17/female-doctor-revolutionary-feminist-ideal-we-need-doctor-who

It's still petty, of course. Kind of like being mad that the little rich kid down the street got a new bike AND a games console for Xmas while you only managed a He-Man figure and a pair of socks. You hate it because you know that little a-hole will be lording it over the whole neighbourhood and slagging you off for being poor.

In this instance The Guardian is that rich brat getting it all their own way and gloating about it. People generally do not respond well to that and in this case they would know it was coming as soon as the announcement was made.

It's really petty and basically irrelevant stuff but I can see why it gets people wound up.

Silver Lynel

Goodshape wrote: »

But is it preferable that there are no (or very few) women or people of colour in lead roles, just so we don't get accused of placating anyone? That doesn't sound right.

The fact that a female or a person of colour in a lead role can cause such unrest and be accused of pandering and gimmickry only highlights the fact that it's so necessary.

When this sort of thing can happen ten times and be met each time with a shrug of "oh, another new Doctor.. what time's the cricket?" – then we can stop pushing for more diversity.

Maybe you are right.

I think representation is a good thing but also believe that there must be some kind of allowance for people to just make the stories that they want to make.

There is a difference between good, enlightening and even educational storytelling and storytelling that is just pandering to certain ideologies.

I don't honestly believe that people are against women or people of color in lead roles.

I think they are against pandering and I think that empty gloating from various borderline trolls (like The Guardian) gets people wound up.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Silver Lynel wrote: »

I feel it's down to the perception that this change has been made to appease some kind of political agenda rather than to tell a good story.

I have seen people make this point before but it seems like something that can't really be judged until after the story is actually told. Which of course requires the "wait and see" mindset.

I think people don't want to give outlets like The Guardian the "win" that they will obviously see this as.

Side note but I find it hilarious how The Guardian is used these days almost like a swear word, or like the polar opposite to the Daily Mail. There are some hilariously ridiculous people writing for The Guardian, it's almost parody at times, and yet it's so often portrayed as being a left wing bible.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Maybe you are right.

I think representation is a good thing but also believe that there must be some kind of allowance for people to just make the stories that they want to make.

There is a difference between good, enlightening and even educational storytelling and storytelling that is just pandering to certain ideologies.

I don't honestly believe that people are against women or people of color in lead roles.

I think they are against pandering and I think that empty gloating from various borderline trolls (like The Guardian) gets people wound up.

For me this comes back to the necessity for more diversity behind the scenes, writers, directors, cinematographers etc. etc. The majority of these positions are still filled by men. Leaving aside political issues it is a fact that men will experience the world differently from women. Even a man growing up in one part of Dublin will have a different life experience than a man growing up in Belfast. So, for me, it makes sense that the more diversity you have telling and making the stories the more natural and realistic the diversity on screen becomes.

neonsofa

Silver Lynel wrote: »

What do you mean "Asian"?

You know that Japanese, Chinese and Korean cultures (to mention only 3 out of MANY distinct Asian cultures) are different in so many ways, right?

Seems a bit ignorant to just file them all under "Asian" and be done with it.

That's one of your problems right there I'd say. The willingness to just file people into a box based on their race or gender and then think that you are "representing" them by having an actor who looks like them appear on screen.

You would be giving "representation" to their appearance and nothing more.

"Asian". Screw you.

While I agree with your sentiment regarding the term "asian", the same can be applied to discussing the representation of "black people" or "women", you're not going to be representing every black person- African, American, Irish, etc. by having a black man on screen. And same goes for women, one does not represent all.

super_furry

Sonics2k wrote: »

Fem Freq are basically the alt-right of the Left, take everything they say with a pinch of salt and know they are never ever happy.

Not really. They do spout some awful nonsense at times but mostly they were just targeted by the alt-right and those Gamergate idiots because they started talking about sexism in videogames. They're a bit over the top and can be prone to exageration along with beating a single point into the ground, but there's none of the blatant hostility, aggressive or targeted harassment as the alt-right.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

neonsofa wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment regarding the term "asian", the same can be applied to discussing the representation of "black people" or "women", you're not going to be representing every black person- African, American, Irish, etc. by having a black man on screen. And same goes for women, one does not represent all.

Off topic here but.....An interesting one of late is the casting of Naomi Scott as Jasmine in the new live action Aladdin film. She is British but of Indian heritage. Jasmine is, of course, a middle eastern character. Some people are really annoyed that they didn't cast a middle Eastern actress, some people are thinking "at least they didn't cast a white actress" and others are thinking "they're all brown, what's the problem?".

Doctor DooM

Silver Lynel wrote: »

I feel it's down to the perception that this change has been made to appease some kind of political agenda rather than to tell a good story.
.

Ok, but I'm going to boil down my post into one sentence because you're missing it.

Every new Doctor is a result of the time they are cast in, and are upsetting to some people who cannot accept that.

Is the new Doctor a woman because people would like to see a female Doctor?

Yes. And?

EDIT:

I understand you're approaching this from a middle like me. But I think I've a different view, where I tune out extremists on either side, because they're always going to be there. Using them to make a point in this debate is pointless.

I could literally spend all day finding nasty racist comments, and super trendy liberal "it's not enough comments". Nothing will ever be achieved. Neither of them change the simple fact of the above. Times have changed. TV changes with them. This programme above all is about change. If it's good change we go yay. If it's bad change we go boo. We're at a point now where we don't know if it's either, so it's hard to see statements in either direction as anything other that a further agenda.

Sleepy

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You really think 7 year old boys are living in fear of their female counterparts? Or think they're never going to be as successful as them? The majority of people in positions of power are still men. Women still face more obstacles on their way up.

How do you figure that? Women make up the majority of entrants to third level education. Childless women in their 20's and 30's out-earn their male counter-parts. Women dominate new entries to the traditional professions, have better healthcare, live longer and make up a tiny proportion of those injured in work-place accidents. So yes, I believe that small boys in 2017 will be less successful than their female counterparts in their adult lives.

Feminism is still about equality but as with every cause mouthy f**kers with their own agendas are given too big a platform and those who want to see the movement fail are happy to make them the spokespeople for it all.

Those "mouthy f**kers" are the spokespeople for the feminist movement. They have columns in mainstream publications (The Guardian, The Irish Times, The Independent). They're appointed to positions of power despite the electorate repeatedly rejecting them (Sen. Bacik). If they make up such a small minority of feminists, or are so unrepresentative of the movement where are the prominant feminists that decry their sexism? Why is there no mouthpiece for the alleged majority of feminists that match the definition of the movement in the dictionary? "Feminist" was a label I gladly applied to myself in my teens. The nuts took over the asylum and the rest have either stopped proclaiming their membership of that group / quietly fallen by the wayside or have given tacit approval to the misandrist movement Feminism has become.

Feminism as per the dictionary definition of advocacy of equality is dead. It's kicked the bucket, joined the choir invisible. It's an ex-egalitarian movement and I hate to see a show that has such a long history of being a positive role model for children fall victim to it's machinations.

Look, maybe Jodie Whittaker will make a great Doctor. I'm not writing her off and will be tuning in for her first episode. I genuinely hope she and the new production team help to improve the qualtiy and ratings of the show. I'm not in the camp that thinks the Doctor can't possibly be a woman. It doesn't make any sense to gender swap the characters after 50 years and the arguments like "The Doctor has always been a genderless Alien" or "Time Lord is a genderless term" require some major leaps of logic but, hey, like many have pointed out in this thread, the show has always been about change and complaining about nonsenical logic in the show that gave us "Wibbly Wobbly, Timey Wimey Stuff" as exposition doesn't really hold much weight as an argument...

I just hate the reasons the BBC are doing it. It's not being done in the interest of "shaking things up" or for any narrative purpose. It's kowtowing to a movement of hatred and that's something The Doctor would never do.

Doctor DooM

super_furry wrote: »

Not really. They do spout some awful nonsense at times but mostly they were just targeted by the alt-right and those Gamergate idiots because they started talking about sexism in videogames. They're a bit over the top and can be prone to exageration along with beating a single point into the ground, but there's none of the blatant hostility, aggressive or targeted harassment as the alt-right.

Jaysis, Fem freq spout some crap, but I'm pretty sure they've never sent death threats to people