Did I mention my linkspam travels in time?

From Are Women Human?, a list of race-swapped Doctor Who characters that is absolutely fucking awesome. SO MUCH I want Richard Ayoade to play Rory.

From The Murverse, a post telling the author’s daughter that they are hated for being female:

There is nothing worse than being a girl. I’m not saying this as a former girl- I quite liked being a girl. I’m saying this from the POV of the entire rest of the world. There was a lovely feminist TED talk – A Call To Men – where a man discussed his conversation with a twelve year old boy, and the boy said he would rather die than be called a girl. And the man thought, Good Lord, how do these boys view girls, if being compared to them is the worst thing in the world?

An old post from The Border House explains why the super-muscular male hero is not as sexist as the sexualized and objectified female character in video games.

Via Graphjam (a website I am continually irritated by), an adorable picture illustrating the TARDIS if it was from IKEA:


The IKEA instructions for putting together a TARDIS.

And finally, the Feminist Whoniverse points out that Moffat has a real problem when it comes to addressing critiques of his female characters: he is usually dismissive and fails to meaningfully engage with feminist critiques.


  1. James says:

    Some random thoughta – Eamonn Walker as The Master, please. Oh, and Morgan Freeman as the 1st Doctor.
    The Border House post. Yes. Currently one of my guilty pleasures is the PS3 Batman Arkham Asylum/City games. Very, very enjoyable, well-designed, insanelt playable games. But – the female characters. Yeesh. All of them based on the same body model. And the costumes. Well, you can probably imagine. Anyway, this says it all far better than me.
    Some of the comments in the are scary examples of people really missing the point. Part 2 of the article, linked to in part 1, is also very much worth reading.

    And as for Moffat’s responses to criticism. Well, on the one hand, he’s said that he’s had death threats over some episodes he’s written, so I guess that makes it a little more understandable that his default setting is just to reject any criticism. Which is a shame. Conan Doyle’s version of Irene Adler is a woman who beat Holmes by playing a totally different game and having entirely different priorities to Holmes and his employer. Moffat’s Adler fails to outwit Holmes and finally needs him to save her life. I’d argues that when a depiction of a character from 1891 is less male-dependant than one from 2012, we have a problem. Moffat disagrees. To quote him:

    In the original, Irene Adler’s victory over Sherlock Holmes was to move house and run away with her husband. That’s not a feminist victory… Irene wins. When Sherlock turns up to save her at the end it’s like Eliza Dolittle coming back to Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady: ‘OK, I like you, now let me hack up these terrorists with a big sword.’

    The quote comes from this interview.

    I find that quote quite astonishing. Deciding that you’re going to bugger off, spend time with who you want to and not play these silly games is apparently less feminist than getting yourself into a position where you need a man with a sword to rescue you from evil fundamentalist terrorists who are going to behead you BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY DO. (Sorry – racefail a topic for another time.)

    Meanwhile we have River Song. A character who, by dint of having her life presented in reverse, manages something quite interesting. She starts off by sacrificing herself so the male hero can live becase he’s more important than her. And then becomes more male-subordinated as we find that the reason she’s done everything is so the Doctor will notice her. I really love River. She’s clever, strong, funny, can scare the living crap out of a Dalek and reduce it to begging for mercy and is generally brilliant. Finding that she’s only like this because she wants the Doctor to like her is depressing, to put it mildly. Not perhaps as bad as the whole “Doctor giveth and Doctor taketh away” business with Donna, but still…

    Some people have argued that “The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe” is a reaction to criticism of Amy’s motherhood being sidelined during series 6. Unlikely given that this was filmed while the back half of series 6 was still being transmitted. There’s a quote of Moffat’s from that interview above which bears repeating.

    I was called a misogynist because I was reducing women to mothers. ‘Reducing women to mothers’ – now there is possibly the most anti-women statement I’ve heard.

    He just doesn’t quite get it, does he?

    Anyway, sorry this has turned into a bit of a rant.

  2. Nightsky says:

    @James: Yes, exactly. Moffat’s a brilliant writer, and capable of some truly awesome insight, and when he speaks in public he’s quite self-deprecatingly witty, but when it comes to his own criticism it’s a parade of not really getting why people are disagreeing with him. He won’t engage; he assumes that his good intent overrides any questionable interpretations; he brushes off his critics as self-evidently wrong-headed.

    I see this behavior pattern sometimes with very bright people: because they’re used to being right, they’re also used to everyone who disagrees with them being wrong.

  3. James says:

    That’s very true. It reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ reactions to anyone who holds a different opinion to him.

    • Haha, true story. Have you seen some of the shit he’s written about feminism? “You can’t be oppressed by objectification and as a sex class because BROWN WOMEN.” Way to be gross, Dawkins.

  4. James says:

    Jennie and I came to the conclusion a while ago that he’s not racist or sexist so much as Dawkinsist – we think he’s biased against anyone who’s not Richard Dawkins.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *