Bio not provided
@ilyootha @Sabrina PYeah, like I said, I don't mind the author of the article nitpicking about whatever they like. Sometimes raising those kind of questions can start fun discussions, although if an article is attempting to delineate what is or isn't a plot hole, that's not going to work if the examples it provides don't hold up. The sentence I quoted is what I criticise, the whole 'don't accuse Moffat of writing plot holes, because according to my article RTD did worse'. Erm, there are a lot more examples of plot holes that the author has not included in their article, and some of their examples aren't accurate, so that argument doesn't hold any water.
10 months, 4 weeks ago on The Actual Plot Holes in Doctor Who
"I count 6 of the plot holes coming from Russell T Davies’ scripts and only 3 from Steven Moffat."
...Do you really think you have just elaborated a complete and unbiased
list of plot holes in the new series? I don't mind you taking issue with the ones you've brought up, although I would argue several of them.
(For example, re: Meta-crisis Doctor, Rose did make the Doctor better, but events in his life can still push him to the wrong path without further guidance, as we saw happen to him in The Waters of Mars - that's what the Doctor thought Meta-crisis might be in danger of - a lot of projection going on there, if you ask me. Also, re: reality bomb, the Turn Left universe was a special case where it was generated artificially from the main universe the show takes place in and was destroyed in the end, more an alternate timeline than a parallel universe, I would say, in a similar vein to the universe without stars in The Big Bang - the implication is that the Doctor doesn't exist in other universes.)
While I agree that people often use terms like 'plot holes' and 'deus ex machina' wrongly, I disagree completely that Moffat fares better than RTD when it comes to logic or internal consistency. This article does not scratch the surface of the reams of nonsense Moffat has subjected us to.
@DavidBlyth Haha, those two bits were awesome, thanks for reminding me of the times when DW was good :)
11 months ago on Series 8: Episode 4 & 5 Writers Confirmed
@Amy the Consulting Commentator How come whenever someone criticises something Moffat's written, someone always responds with "BUT RTD DID IT TOO!" as if that justifies anything? RTD's era had problematic elements as well, which were critiqued in their time, but he left the show years ago. Whereas the future of the show is still in Moffat's hands so when people point out the flaws in the current writing of the show it's in the hope these things will stop.
f you're interested in my opinion on those examples anyway, despite their irrelevance to the discussion at hand, here goes:
I didn't like the trend of people kissing the Doctor against his will that began in the RTD era. Cassandra was an example of this. In that particular case I was not personally offended, but I would never deny anyone their right to criticise it. I believe the forced kiss trend has become worse in the Moffat years, where it's not merely one-off characters (a villain, in Cassandra's case) kissing the Doctor (the recent equivalent being Queen Nefertiti), but the main characters doing it, again and again after a lack of consent has been expressed (Amy in Flesh and Stone) or outright mocking consent (Clara in The Snowmen: "you blushed, so you liked it!", the Doctor to Jenny: "that felt good!" and whatever the hell the exchange with Tasha meant). When the Doctor does it to a woman there's added power/privilege issues at play which makes it especially wrong.
As for Jackie and Elton, Jackie did apologise to him in case you don't remember, and her and Rose's anger at him was justified since it was because Elton was using Jackie to try to get to the Doctor. Again, if that scene of Jackie hitting on Elton did make someone else uncomfortable, I would not argue with that. More or less the same scenario with Minnie.
As for Owen, that was totally scummy and I hated it, but I guess Owen was supposed to be a slimeball, and this was an adult show, which doesn't have the added factor of an impressionable audience.
Here's a checklist for when something problematic happens. The more it hits, the worse it is:
1. It happens more than once
2. Text treats as funny or no big deal
3. Character experiences no consequences for doing it.
4. There are power/privilege issues at play.
Eleven kissing women against their will: hits all four. Cassandra kissing Ten? Hits number 2 and maybe number 3 (I say maybe because that's the episode in which Cassandra dies, so).
11 months, 1 week ago on Is Steven Moffat a Feminist Writer?
@ilyootha Moffat is the showrunner and therefore the ultimate arbiter of what goes on screen. He watches all the rushes and the edits and he should have realised how inappropriate it was and used a different take. But he clearly doesn't see it as inappropriate behaviour, since he had the Doctor do it to Tasha as well. Kissing someone against their will is a form of sexual assault and normalising that kind of behaviour colludes in rape culture. Not finding it offensive personally doesn't make that okay. And yes, straight males should not be telling queer females what they should be offended by or not.
In none of the Doctor's previous incarnations has he ever exhibited the disregard for the personal boundaries of people the way Eleven does, it's supremely out of character for the Doctor. His alien nature could have been shown in ways that don't collude in rape culture. Perhaps he could enjoy doing strange forms of fistbumps that won't become popular until 100 years' time, but no. Inappropriate kissing it is.
@supermoff @Me and Stuff Since you've chosen to read an article about feminism in Doctor Who and respond its comments, I'm going to to assume you're interested in feminist theory. Here's a link to a scholarly article about men's role in feminism, and maybe you'll see where the author of Is Moffat a Feminist Writer failed in that regard: http://www.nomas.org/node/122
Hmm, maybe links don't work. You can google Roles of Men with Feminism and Feminist Theory by Brian Klocke. Note that the author is a man, but he's clearly aware of the existence of the issue. The article should elucidate the conditions for a man to write about feminist theory, which I agree with.
@BJAMESI'm going to quote you, this what I meant by an attack: "I'm catching a drift here that what you might actually need to talk
about, and be engaged by a listening ear in regards to, might have
nothing to do with Doctor Who."
The idea that showing a lesbian woman being kissed against her will in a humorous light is problematic is not merely my opinion, it's a legitimate example of sexism and homophobia in the show. Much feminist critique was written about it. But you clearly don't care about that. So you're right that I'm not going to find much satisfaction in your comments.
@BJAMES @Sabrina P@TheOncomingFishIf you're in the mood to engage with me, how about starting with the point I made about Jenny and Vastra? I see no proof you're willing to do anything but blindly attack my person rather than treat the the topic being discussed with respect.
@Amy the Consulting Commentator @BJAMESDismissing through blanket generalisations is silencing, yes. I don't approve of death threats either. That kind of fringe unfortunate fan behaviour crops up in all quarters. It's not the people writing thoughtful feminist critiques who are making them.
@TheOncomingFish Right, 'cause this website has no editorial control at all. Let's see if they're just as equitative about publishing the fourteen articles criticising Moffat's sexism that this existence of this article may spark.
@BJAMES You are talking a lot about nonsense scenarios that have nothing to do with my point. Women are the victims of sexism, which is why they are more qualified to talk about sexism in the media. Men should definitely support feminism, and can start by supporting women's voices. Attempting to silence feminist critique (I repeat: "A certain blogging platform that most online Doctor Who communities tend to ignore") is DOING IT WRONG.
@TheOncomingFish @Sabrina P Not in the mood to cover point by point the logical and factual fallacies in this article. I'll go for one example: author claims there were no homosexual relationships in the RTD era when in fact there were. Off the top of my head: Ianto and Jack, old ladies in Gridlock, the couple in The Unicorn and the Wasp. He also says there were no gay kisses, forgetting Jack kissing the Doctor. He then praises Jenny and Vastra, whom I like, but have also been problematically written. One example of this, they're a couple who've never been shown to kiss, but the Doctor kisses Jenny against her will and it's treated like it's a joke, rather than disturbing behaviour.
The fact that the website could have chosen to have a woman's voice weigh in on the debate about the sexism in Moffat's writing and had a man write the article instead is something that deserves to be criticised.
@Me and Stuff @Sabrina P@Notsosmartguy Feminist critiques written by women can indeed have problematic elements that can then be argued against, or indeed be plain rubbish and dismissed for it on its own terms. But having a man write this and be dismissive of feminist critique is definitely a strike against this article.
@NotsosmartguyNo. It means I think women's voices are the most important in a debate about feminism. Are you going to argue with that?
@Me and Stuff And I think women's voices are the most important in a debate about feminism.
@Me and Stuff It also means that that your opinion is less legitimate. And the article itself did nothing to ease my scepticism of the author being unfit to comment on this subject.
@NotsosmartguyThe author is fairly dismissive of feminist critique in the first paragraph. "A certain blogging platform that most online Doctor Who communities tend to ignore" ? Please. The author does not consider the points raised by the critique or acknowledge they may have validity that he, as a man, is unfit to dismiss. Instead he suggests that we "turn the tide" of the debate to fit his point of view, and then provides weak arguments for it.
...If you wanted an article on your site defending Moffat from
feminist critique, couldn't you at least have found a woman to write it? Just what I need, some dude telling me I'm doing feminism wrong. This article reeks of desperate apologism.