All New Who

if sexism were a subjective trait, what data would be necessary to support an objective debate about it?- David

{{{I think a list and summary of character traits and actions as above in fact would do it- as say the list contained overwhelmingly negative traits about females, or if the female characters have no independence outside of service to male characters, or if all the female characters were underdeveloped, never given positions of authority or dismissed as irrelevant or unimportant, if they were always secondary characters to males or if they were all defined solely by their sexuality, if they only cast hot young actresses whilst casting a range and age of males- then those would not only show up on such a list and be obvious, they would be subjective proof of sexism in the writing.}}}}}

Amarië wrote:Religious Muslim but (list of good traits).

Meaning: Muslim is bad, but luckily she has good qualities too.

Amarie's right, the use of 'but' is problematic here. Remove it and solve the problem.

{{{Fine I changed it! Everyone happy now? Its not even like we are discussing religion in Who in Moffat era, though thats an interesting topic for a later time in itself.  The point about Rita is I see nothing sexist in her character actions, words, or portrayal. In fact here is the episode in which Rita appears to judge for yourself if you prefer-}}}

{{Not a look that suits Tennant!}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:if sexism were a subjective trait, what data would be necessary to support an objective debate about it?- David

{{{I think a list and summary of character traits and actions as above in fact would do it- as  say the list contained overwhelmingly negative traits about females, or if the female characters have no independence outside of service to male characters, or if all the female characters  were underdeveloped, never given positions of authority or dismissed as irrelevant or unimportant, if they were always secondary characters to males or if they were all defined solely by their sexuality, if they only cast hot young actresses whilst casting a range and age of males- then those would not only show up on such a list and be obvious, they would be subjective proof of sexism in the writing.}}}}}

I'm not sure it would at all.

I agree that the examples you give there would be strong indicators of sexism, but those few examples only represent a few discrete points on the sexism spectrum of grey tones. The biggest problem I see is that there's no objective scale for comparison.

Now if you were do a comparable list for male characters, carefully removing gender markers like actress/actor and him/her, then show them to a random sample of people and ask them to rate each of them, while at the same time asking general survey questions that would allow you to establish a "sexist score" of each participant, THEN you'd have some data that would make for an interesting discussion!

{{{You want a list of male characters for comparison, go fucking write one yourself, took me over three hours to compile and write the female one.

And each character on it is only a starting point for discussion.
Take Rita for example as she has been highlighted so far, we can discuss her, the merits of her character and see who thinks she is sexist and why- if no one does then she can put her on the 'not sexist' side of the ledger and move on to the next character- by the end we will have a clear list of where folk feel characters should be, and there should be a clear majority fall on the sexist side or not side by the end}}}

I'm not asking for any lists. I'm just musing on how a hypothetical objective standard could be arrived at for weighing sexism, which is where I thought you were going with this.  Isn't this the discussion you wanted?

For me, sexism is absolutely meaningless out of context. It's a grey-horse question.  Is the Sea blue or green, both or neither? It's going to depend on both what's sitting next to it for comparison and the perspective of the viewer. That's my subjective opinion anyway.....

Definitely blue!

but of course you would see it that way, wouldn't you?

sexism is absolutely meaningless out of context- David

{{But its not out of context, the list provides the context- its every female character in Moffat era Who compared against every other- their jobs, age, ethnicity, and purpose in the plot. It should be clear from that if the character is written to be sexist, or by someone who has an agenda to put women down, and even to refuse to employ them (just some of the things Moffat has been accused of on here regards sexism) It should not be difficult for those who have a problem with female characters in Who to pick out the ones they have an issue with from the list and then proper discussion on those characters can be done- and in between where there are characters everyone agrees are not sexist, they can be eliminated from the list and the debate. This will at the end give us a very clear list of non-sexist and sexist characters as seen by the folks on here. And then we have the nub of the discussion.}}}}

{{{Nice Clara/12 vid}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:sexism is absolutely meaningless out of context- David

{{But its not out of context, the list provides the context- its every female character in Moffat era Who compared against every other-  their jobs, age, ethnicity, and purpose in the plot. It should be clear from that if the character is written to be sexist, }}}}

I'm afraid that's not clear to me at all. For starters, it seems obvious to me that any standard definition of sexism would at least in part involve comparing women and men. I'm  not sure I see the purpose of comparing women against women as you're proposing.

I know I've shared my general opinion here before that from my perspective both Moffat and RTD  Who is noticeably more sexualized than classic Who, and under Moffat it appears to me that there has been a conscious effort to explore gender roles.  Either one of those characteristics I believe could reasonably be seen as sexist (or not) when compared to other specific shows or characters.  

In the same way, early Sarah Jane can appear either sexist when compared to modern TV or quite liberated when compared to earlier TV for example. (And in both cases it's her interactions with male characters that frame the sexism/liberation. To describe Sarah Jane without discussing her relationships with the Dr or Brigadier or the Bad Guys would leave nothing to discuss, one way or the other, in my opinion.)

David H wrote:but of course you would see it that way, wouldn't you?

Mais, vraiment, bien sur.

To describe Sarah Jane without discussing her relationships with the Dr or Brigadier or the Bad Guys would leave nothing to discuss, one way or the other, in my opinion.)- David

{{{That is why along with the basic characteristics I included a section on their effect on the plot and its characters- thats where we see if the character actually does anything or is just there- its also where any discussion, once someone is selected for discussion, can be expanded from regards their interaction with other characters- there are also fewer male characters to choose from to make comparisons, as Moffat has written more female characters than male in his time on the show. I do agree however that Moffat has set out to deliberately explore and push the gender roles in the show, both in front of and behind camera (female directors in RTD era tend to get mid-series episodes to do, Moffat trusts his own writing and series premiers and finales to his female directors, the big audience, big expectations episodes- this does not indicate to me any issue with women in the workplace for example, which he is accused of here}}}

David H wrote:It's a grey-horse question.

This deserves to be a more common idiom.

Eldorion wrote:

David H wrote:It's a grey-horse question.

This deserves to be a more common idiom.

That's on par with A three-pipe problem

My post got lost in an accidental navigate-away-from-page mishap. Hate when that happens...

Here's where I stand.
I don't think I have anything to contribute with here. It's been repeated again and again what we find problematic with the characters, I sorry to say I don't see what repeating it again will achieve.
I've never said Moff is a caveman who doesn't hire women, so that won't be a topic.

Ringdrotten wrote:

Eldorion wrote:

David H wrote:It's a grey-horse question.

This deserves to be a more common idiom.

That's on par with A three-pipe problem

-I say, Sherlock, three pipes; has this case brought on a silver-ruby dilemma?

-Do be less of a fool, my dear and possibly gay lover or not Watson. This is a grey-horse question.

*stunned silence*
-I shall ask mrs Hudson to fetch the Old Toby.

-Quite.

It's been repeated again and again what we find problematic with the characters, I sorry to say I don't see what repeating it again will achieve.
I've never said Moff is a caveman who doesn't hire women, so that won't be a topic. - Amarie

{{{In the past all we have done is discuss a very narrow selection of female characters. We have never taken the Moffat era as a whole and taken an overview of all the female characters in his time in charge.
This way of doing it is to get down to the nub of it, another thing we have never done before which is why we keep going in circles- I actually think there are probably more characters on the list we will agree about than wont and a few that will be somewhere in between, and a smaller few that will be contentious.
But by narrowing down the list we will at least get an overview of what percentage of his characters are 'problematic' to some, and which all can agree on are not. And we will have an overview of the entire period and all the female characters in it, which we have ever done before in discussion.

As to his policy on hiring women it has been said before on here, and that he deliberately doesn't hire female writers, or creates excuses not to, so is worth addressing. I don't see anything to show there is an issue in this area he has increased women in prominent roles behind the scenes almost 50% over the RTD era, as there are more female characters than male over the run in secondary roles he has also employed a greater ratio of female actors to male, and that seems like progress in the right direction to me- I would still like to see more female writers on the show but I have no reason to believe that is anything other than as Moffat has said, timing and getting writers of the required calibre who want to do it}}}

{{{Just had to share this as it was so sweet. I was talking to my two little nieces about the last series of Who, they are big Clara fans and were devastated when she died but bouncing about with giddy joy when she got sort of saved and got her own TARDIS, according to the oldest of my nieces because 'she deserved it after saving the Doctor so many times'. When I asked them what they thought of the Doctor forgetting her the youngest said, "It's really sad but its ok, he doesn't have to remember her, because I'll remember her for him." }}}}}

Amarië wrote:-I say, Sherlock, three pipes; has this case brought on a silver-ruby dilemma?

-Do be less of a fool, my dear and possibly gay lover or not Watson. This is a grey-horse question.

*stunned silence*
-I shall ask mrs Hudson to fetch the Old Toby.

-Quite.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: When I asked them what they thought of the Doctor forgetting her the youngest said, "It's really sad but its ok, he doesn't have to remember her, because I'll remember her for him."

And this is exactly what has given Dr Who it's (his) immortality.

{{{ }}}