fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2351 ]

[ SECRET POST #2351 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2350 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 113 secrets from Secret Submission Post #336.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Which reasons tho?

Personally, I'm always weirded out when people say "She was so awesome and independent in the library and then her character devolved into just obsessing about the Doctor and having her whole life revolve around him!" Like... did we even watch the same episodes? It was pretty obvious to me that her life revolved around him from the word go. She has a freaking TARDIS-shaped notebook, where she's written down EVERY TIME THEY MET. That's way more indication of obsession than any other companion has shown (and when it comes down to it pretty much all their lives revolve around the Doctor too, so I don't get why they single out River for that in the first place). And the way she talks about and to him and... yeah, to me she started out unhealthily attached and got way less so as the series went on, I'm baffled whenever people claim it went the opposite way.

People actually say "She was so awesome and independent in the library and then her character devolved into just obsessing about the Doctor and having her whole life revolve around him"

That's hilarious, didn't they get the memo of reversed timelines? Of course she was more independent in the freaking library.

That's an internal explanation. Her story line didn't have to go that way - someone chose to write it that way.

Yes, storylines do get written in the way the story creator wants. She could have spontaneously turned into a giant carrot instead. And that would be the way her storyline had to go if that is what her creator wanted.

Her storyline could go any way, but it has to go the way it is written.

Exactly. When people complain about River Song, they're mostly complaining about Moffat's writing choices, not hating on the character because they dislike her. SOME people do dislike her, but that's a completely separate matter from the whole misogyny thing.

Exactly they are complaining that someone wrote something that wasn't they way they would write it and obviously their way was better. How dare other people do things differently, the bastards.

Since when are people not allowed to criticize the stories that writers create? People have been laying into writers for writing badly from the dawn of time. In ancient Greece, playwrights would write comedies with entire scenes devoted to mocking the shit out of other playwrights whose work they disliked. Criticism has always been one of the most omnipresent and valuable elements of fictional writing.

No, that doesn't excuse it. In-universe, it makes perfect sense, yes. There's nothing wrong with it from an in-universe perspective. But that does not excuse the fact that Moffat CHOSE to write her backstory that way.

River Song is not a real person. Nor is she a classic character who was created by someone before Moffat. She exists only due to Moffat decisions. Moffat wasn't forced to write her that way because he was being faithful to the biography of a real life person or to the continuity of a pre-existing character. HE chose to write that awful backstory that caused River's life to completely revolve around the Doctor and removed every trace of personally-motivated goals and desires and control from her life. He decided that was a good idea, and a good story, and a good thing to subject the viewers to. And that is what is misogynistic.

River Song, as a person, is just an unfortunate woman who was dealt an incredibly shitty hand in life and managed to mature and become pretty damn awesome in some ways. But Moffat is the one who, as her creator and writer, had complete control over who she was as a person, and a lot of people aren't pleased with what he did with her.

It was an enjoyable character that had an interesting story and since it isn't her name in the show title

Well, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion if you found her enjoyable - good for you (seriously, I mean that). But on the flipside, other people are entitled to their own opinions, including the opinion that trying to justify a story choice they found distasteful with "but it makes sense in-universe" is not a sufficient excuse for that story.

Better than a character that does things without an in-universe explanation. If you have characters that do stuff without in-universe explanations but according to the whims of what is believed right at the time of writing then you get the first two seasons of Star Trek Enterprise.

True. Although, at the same time, it's also a lot easier to fix and improve characters that do things randomly with no proper explanation, 'cause the writers don't have to try to undo anything. They can just decide to start given them proper explanations for their actions, and then everyone can say "ignore season 1 and 2, it's sort of crap" and a lot less damage is done.

But yeah, IA: when all is said and done, I'd still prefer characters that make sense but have some problematic storylines to characters that persistently make no sense and who I can't get a handle on. I just bitch about the former more because I care more ;) (I've never seen more than a few episodes of Star Trek Enterprise. Figures.)

so...having an obsessive character is inherently misogynistic?

yeah, fuck that. people come in all shades of personality, and hers wasn't extremely unrealistic just to pander to some societal ideal (which is the only way I can see a personality type being "misogynistic")

You are totally correct, but that, again, is from an in-universe perspective.

Female characters being obsessed with a man, and having their entire lives and storylines revolve around a man, and having all their onscreen actions being reactive to a man, and having no personal agency of their own because everything about their life is influenced by a man, has definite hints of misogynistic stereotypes that have been present in fiction for a long time and that tie into legitimate real-world problems, and it was a choice by the writer to give her those traits.

Maybe in the distant future, an obsessive character who happens to be female can be just that, no baggage attached. But today, stereotypes and popular consciousness about how female characters should be written is unfortunately so pervasive that choosing to write a character that was does smell of misogyny -- unless the writer is legitimately completely clueless about the world and culture he lives in, which is just as bad.

Maybe he is reflecting the world in order that it should raise the issue, and by attacking him you are enabling those that genuinely act out that issue by focusing on the messenger instead of perpetuators. Have you considered that, huh? You campaign against Moffat because he is portraying the issue, and by wanting it off the air you are attempting to erase it and thus allow it to go unchallenged. Erasure is bad (but the Pet Shop Boys are brilliant).

But he isn't portraying or trying to raise the issue! Not once does the show's narrative portray that stuff as sexist and bad and awful, nor do any of the characters describe it as such, nor do the events of the show challenge the issue, nor are any discussions of misogyny raised in the show. You can't raise an issue without actually portraying it as an issue that needs to be addressed.

Unless of course, Moffat had a master plan to make people hate him for the sexist crap he does and start a dialogue within fandom without realizing he planned the whole thing, a la The Producers.

Which is totally unrealistic even by Moffat's trollface standards, but now the image of Moffat as Max Bialystock is entertaining the fuck out of me :)

It is not for a show to endorse an issue as good or bad, but simply to display it so the audience can choose to fight the issue or fight the show creator.

So, are you going to keep complaining about Moffat for showcasing an issue that exists, or are you going to take up the torch and fight the issue itself? If the former, you're part of the problem and part of the system of oppression, if the latter then say thank you to Moffat for showing the way and get out on the street and actually fight sexism in the real world.

Spandau Ballet was pretty good too now I think about it.

It is not for a show to endorse an issue as good or bad, but simply to display it so the audience can choose to fight the issue or fight the show creator.

You cannot fucking be serious.

No, really. You. Cannot. Fucking. Be. Serious.

You're almost certainly trolling me, but just in case this is Poe's Law in effect:

Excuse me? Endorse an issue as good or bad? An "issue"? You are talking about SEXISM. Sexism is not an issue that it is okay to be moderate about. This is not about war or drug policy or whether high taxes or low taxes are better. Sexism is BAD. There is no such thing as an acceptable pro-sexism argument. It is bad. Period. End of discussion. Show creators have an obligation to fucking portray sexism as bad, because IT IS BAD.

Showing misogynistic stuff in a show and portraying it as totally fine and romantic and not presenting any argument against it is NOT okay. If you do that, it is a tacit endorsement. And by the way? It is the 21st fucking century. If you portray the issue of sexism as neutral -- implying that people who are pro-sexism have as valid an argument as anti-sexism people -- that is even worse than accidentally portraying sexism as an okay thing.

Moffat is not "showing the way". He doesn't think his show is sexist. He is not some master planner secretly conspiring to motivate people to be anti-sexist. If you honestly believe that...well...there are people who totally believe that those two actors on Supernatural are totally in love and that one of them named his newborn baby after the other. So...you're not completely alone?

Re: tl;dr ahoy

(Anonymous) - 2013-06-11 19:41 (UTC) - Expand

Re: tl;dr ahoy

elephantinegrace - 2013-06-11 02:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: tl;dr ahoy

intrigueing - 2013-06-11 02:29 (UTC) - Expand

Re: tl;dr ahoy

(Anonymous) - 2013-06-11 12:01 (UTC) - Expand

Yes, how dare people write stories about people getting dealt really shitty hands in life. Don't they know the universe is all sunshine, puppies, and rainbows?

I can't say I like everything Moffat ever wrote, or even everything that he did with River. But I will say that claiming her mere existence/backstory is misogynistic is ridiculous, as is claiming Moffat is a misogynist because of the backstory he gave her. Yes, her life revolves heavily around the Doctor - she was literally raised to kill him. Because he's done enough shit and made a big enough name for himself that an entire organization dedicated itself to getting rid of him. Are we no longer allowed to give characters shitty lives or something? Or is anyone going to complain about how Rory's life revolves around Amy the same way they complain about River's life revolving around the Doctor?

Because quite frankly, River is someone who get dealt a shitty hand in life. And she was eventually able to overcome that shitty hand and become an awesome person. How is that supposed to be a bad thing?

And honestly, I also have to ask - just how much does River's life revolve around the Doctor? The show is about the Doctor, so the only times we ever see other characters is when it's something to do with the Doctor. From the looks of it, River's got other things going on in her life besides the Doctor and things to do with him. For the first major parts of her life/timeline, it was only things related to the Doctor because of what she'd been raised for, but after that it seems like she does plenty without him and unrelated to him - we just happen to see her only when her life intersects with his.

Here's the thing, though: All of Moffat's women are like that. Every. Single. One.

The entire storyline of the girl from The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances revolved around her son (a boy). To boot, Rose was turned from a competent, intelligent human being into a ridiculous caricature who suddenly stopped caring about things like situation and danger to swoon around a hot dude and dance, taking her vastly out of character in a way that is sexist.

Reinette fell for the Doctor and apparently lived her entire life hoping and waiting for the Doctor to come back to her~. The Girl in the Fireplace also featured Moffat taking the Doctor vastly out of character in order to have him suddenly ready to dump everything - traveling the universe, Rose (whom he cared about), etc. - for Reinette, whom he'd only just met. Also featured Moffat putting Rose in the damsel in distress role.. again, and basically having her helplessly wait for the Doctor to stumble in and save her. Really sexist.

Let's take the time here to mention that Moffat has repeatedly expressed his dislike for Rose, including calling her a "needy girlfriend" and talking about how he applauded the Doctor for "dumping her" on a copy of himself because "sticking her in another universe didn't work"... basically insinuating that the Doctor purposely stuck Rose in the alternate universe because she was too needy and girly for him. This is not the first misogynistic comment Moffat has made about Rose, let alone anything else, and it puts a "fun" disgusting context on his treatment of Rose in the episodes where he wrote her.

Sally Sparrow inexplicably hooks up with a dude she spends a whole episode saying she wanted nothing to do with. Her friend is stalked by a dude in olden days and somehow ends up marrying him. And again, in this episode, the ones who know things are all men.. Sally Sparrow just follows directions.

Rory's life didn't revolve around Amy, though, as you asserted. Rory had an actual life with a context (something Amy lacked, actually). He was a nurse! He had family! He had a life! He had things he did and friends he had outside of Amy. His life did not revolve around her, and this is made abundantly clear over the course of the show. Further, in several instances his "devotion" to Amy comes across much more as possessive than as loving.

Amy, on the other hand.. literally her entire life revolves around the Doctor and Rory, both men. She has no family due to a crack in her wall, but even after that's fixed and her family is restored, we don't see or meet her family, and she is never shown to care or want to go back to them. She has no apparent friends or anything of the sort. Instead, she has the Doctor - whom she's been obsessing about since she was eight years old, who has literally ruled her life since then. She kept a bag packed in case he came back. She played make-believe games about him. She thought about him constantly. He was portrayed as virtually all she thought of. And then, when the Doctor shows back up, she runs off with him to adventure with him and be a damsel in distress more times than I care to count.

At several points, important knowledge about Amy's body and wellness are withheld from her for no good reason by the men in her life. She is forced into a misogynistic storyline - the forced pregnancy and childbirth, which the Doctor knew was going to happen and just never told her, robbing her of her agency and knowledge of her own body and life. She was further robbed by the narrative of the ability to choose and subjected to a very, very sex-specific form of torture (forced childbirth). This is kind of a big deal. And Amy's story doesn't stop revolving around men and men making decisions for her and how she affects men and etc. etc.

Oh, and it's worth mentioning that Moffat has said some pretty grossly sexist stuff about Amy, too. Like thinking that Karen Gillan wouldn't cut it, even though she was fantastic, because she was "wee and dumpy" until he saw that she was actually a supermodel.

Then we have River, whose life from birth to death revolves around... the Doctor! She is raised to kill him, she ends up falling in love with him, she sits around in a prison cell for a crime she didn't commit waiting for him to need her, she goes into archeology not because it's cool but because she'll have a better chance of meeting the Doctor that way.

When is a good chance to mention the sexist bits of her dialogue, like when she regenerates in Let's Kill Hitler and all she can think about is how much she weighs and what her hair looks like?

When is a good point to bring up that Moffat has made many, many other sexist remarks, such as that women are "needy" and obsessed with marriage, the lot of us, and that there's a lack of respect for men in society? Or how he didn't care about his wife or child when she was pregnant, he cared openly about how quickly her vagina would be back to normal after pregnancy and how soon she'd lose the weight?

Oh, and then there's Clara, the Doctor's walking puzzle box, whose ultimate purpose in all of her apparently many lives is to sacrifice her life for the Doctor.

All of these things have one thing in common, and it isn't that they're all ~shitty hands~. It's sexism.

Exactly. If it was ONLY River Song who had a story like that, it wouldn't have been a big deal. But no, Moffat chose to write all his women like that, and out of all the ways he could have written a shitty life for River Song, he chose that.

There's also the fact of the stuff she actually says, not just the things that happen to her. Like "when one is in love with an ageless god with the face of a twelve-year-old, one learns to hide the damage" and "never let him see you age". That is fucked up.

Responding to you just to say thank you for using "sexism" instead of "misogyny" because that word gets so tiresome and is used improperly 99% of the time.

It's not a bad thing -- IN-UNIVERSE.

I'm just pissed that Moffat felt he just had to choose that backstory for her. Why not another story about a different shitty life that wasn't loaded with all the sexist crap that the anon above me details so well? Or at least, why not a story that involves subverting and critiquing the sexist overtones present in the shitty life he chose. Or at the very, very least, why not at least write some other female characters to provide a strong contrast to River's story?

At some point, a writer is responsible for the choices of character he makes, especially when he's writing a show that is filled with morals and messages and is aimed at kids. People know he's not writing a history of real life events, and they're going to wonder why he just had to choose to write stories that have those things in it.

That's really the crux of it -- Moffat chose to write her story that way, when he could have written something else. No one was forcing him to write those particular plot points. That's the main thing that really bothers me.

And yeah, I'm sure River has other things in her life besides the Doctor. Once again, from an in-universe perspective, that's not so bad. But we never see those things affect her personality or see her deciding to do those things (even if they do happen offscreen, like you say) for herself. We do, however, see her explicitly deciding to go into archeology to look for the Doctor, and we see her saying stuff like "I live for the days I see him" without having other major goals in her life discussed, and going to jail for him even though she didn't kill him, and making every aspect of her character that is seen onscreen into something caused by the Doctor.

None of these things are ~omg terrible~ all by themselves, but the pattern when they're all put together in the absence of anything to balance them out...yeah.

She was badly written and sexist from the getgo. I think that people were just hoping her character would improve and saw promise in her base personality (badass archaeologist lady).

I actually just feel sorry for her, to be honest. I can't even dislike Moffat's women. It almost feels mean considering how badly the narrative treats them.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only