[ SECRET POST #3792 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3792 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #543.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What if someone wanted to tell a story or wanted to cast a specific person who was a woman

Like, why is "DIVERSITY POINTS" the only framework we apparently have access to when we're evaluating this? Why should it be impossible for us to wait for them to make a decision and then evaluate said decision on the merits? Doesn't make any dang sense.

[(Anonymous)]

Then they should create a new character for that actress and go nuts.

[(Anonymous)]

Why, though

That particular argument ("Make new female characters") doesn't really make sense to me, because it's not actually an argument against casting a female Doctor. The position of someone developing a new series for the BBC is different from the position of someone making a new series of Doctor Who. Making new female characters and shows is good - it's great, it's fantastic, it's wonderful - but nothing about it really precludes you from casting women as the Doctor. They're just sort of... separate. Unless you have some other reason for not wanting a woman Doctor. Which people seem to have but don't usually elaborate on.

[(Anonymous)]

Because it suggests that the creative staff don't have the confidence in their original character to let her stand on her own two feet.

Little girls need heroines but little boys need positive roll models now more than ever and the Doctor has stood in that role for generations.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

"Little boys need positive role models now more than ever"

Where the fuck do you live because those are all over the place lmao quit fucking reaching

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. Not reaching. Why shouldn't a little boy be able to lionise the same character his dad, heck, even his grandad did? The character has history, and that is part of it.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like there's two very different arguments here that you're conflating.

The first one is "Little boys need role models now more than ever".

The second one is "Little boys deserve to be able to idolize the same characters that their fathers and grandparents idolized in mostly the same way."

Neither of those seems particularly true, and they also don't seem to have any relationship to each other

[(Anonymous)]

That isn't what you said

Stop moving the fucking goal posts because you got caught in a lie

Re: DA

[philstar22]

And Little Boys can't lionise a female character? Girls are expected to be able to relate to male characters because they are much less often given characters like them to relate too. Why can't boys deal with the same thing?

Re: DA

[thewakokid]

I actually disagree there. I don't think anyone need role models, boys or girls, and I certainly don't think they need to have role models the same as themselves. When I was a kid spiderman was probably the closest thing to a role model I had, but I'd read his comics and sit there thinking "what an idiot, I wouldn't have done that" or "I'd have said this instead". When I played, I wasn't being peter parker, I was being me with Spiderman's powers.

So I don't think kids need role models. They need only the freedom to imagine.

[(Anonymous)]

Again, what is this necessary linkage, where making a female Doctor prevents you from making new female characters? Why is it a zero-sum game all of a sudden?

also:

Little girls need heroines but little boys need positive roll models now more than ever and the Doctor has stood in that role for generations.

I am *incredibly* skeptical about this.

[(Anonymous)]

Because the BBC seems to have a finite number of Doctor Who verse programming slots. If they cast a female Doctor then the probability of the Romana show goes to likelihood zero.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

WHAT NO I WANT A ROMANA SHOW GIVE IT TO ME GIVE IT TO ME NOW! *SQUEAKY HANDS*

[(Anonymous)]

Romana was never getting a show tho

We would have had one by now

[(Anonymous)]

Do they have any concrete plans to do a Romana spinoff show?

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I'll bite... Why do little boys need positive role models now more than ever? And also, what's wrong with the literally hundreds of male characters currently available to them that we need to keep piling more on?

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Young boys need a positive role model like The Doctor right now because most other male leads are toxic bastards who teach young boys to grow into men who prioritize violence and murder as a lifestyle trait. Say what you like about Doctor Who, but even its most action orientated days it has never made a virtue of toxic masculinity.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I don't say anything about Doctor Who because I don't watch the show. But it has been around for 50+ years, and it seems like maybe they have enough role models within the franchise for young boys to look up. But, it's okay. Let's continue to care more about whether boy's needs are being met than whether girls needs are being met.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe the constant assault on everything even vaguely masculine? If it's traditionally boyish then it's toxic.

[(Anonymous)]

little girls need role models too, stop prioritising the patriarchy....

DA

[(Anonymous)]

The BBC have far greater freedom in creating new characters and shows than the usual corporate creator does. They don't need to crossgendercast established characters to hit their diversity points. Their charter technically encourages them not to, but to go ahead and develop new characters in new shows to achieve representation.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

But, again, that's not really my point. Going out and making new characters in new shows is all well and good. It doesn't stop them from making the Doctor a woman.

The only way that argument makes sense is if you assume that the *only* reason they would make the Doctor a woman is Diversity Points, rather than casting her on the merits. That's basically the necessary assumption there. And it seems like a really weird assumption to make, especially when they haven't actually done it yet and we're not actually able to look at their decision and judge it on the merits.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody was ever cast in any role just on their merits as an actor. Never in the history of acting has that happened.

There is always the projection of an image or a message on the casting director's politics as an integral part of it.

Claiming based on merits is a strawman argument.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

What would making the Doctor a woman bring t o the table?

Re: DA

[thewakokid]

Too be fair, I'm a marvel fan, I am super aware and weary that, yes, sometimes these changes are just for Diversity Points.

Like I can see the argument being made that "Its 2017, its time for a female doctor" and not "Hey, I have a neat idea for a story" or "This actress gave the best performance, let's take this in a new direction". I too am worried about it being the former rather than one of the latter.