fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2499 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2499 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

(Questionable Content)

__________________________________________________

03.

[Transformers]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Sherlock Holmes/C. Auguste Dupin]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Pacific Rim]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Obscurus Lupa Presents]

__________________________________________________

07.

[k-pop]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Neil Gaiman, Doctor Who]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Teen Wolf]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #357.
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

this so misses the point. it would still be a woman on the telly for little girls to look up to. in a role that only little boys could for all these decades.

No, that would be saying that girl's role models still need a male background and male privilege to be successful. That is even more insulting than just not having any. Girls need their own role models grown, developed, and created for girls from the start. Just telling them to co-opt another group's because it is already successful is lazy and insulting to young women.

yeah, no. you're thinking like an adult. not like the next gen of little girls (and boys) who are seeing Dr. Who for the first time, having adventures, and Dr. Who just happens to be a woman. no context for them. history rolls forward from today. stop inventing excuses.

i don't understand why it's unacceptable to you to to create a new character who is a time lady to have adventures and inspire little girls. why it has to be doctor who (and why disagreeing that it has to be doctor who is sexist).

i mean, by your own argument here, the people it really matters to aren't aware of the context anyway, so why does it matter? and if it makes more sense from a broader storytelling and narrative place, why not do it that way?

(wups i mean 'the doctor' or w/e (i don't really give a shit))

sorry, I just realized I forgot to put NA. my comments started at "this so misses the point."

because Dr. Who is supposed to be just anyone, can be just anything. that's the power of Dr. Who that stirs the imagination. it's not Random Time Lady. that doesn't impart anything about endless possibility. it's the name that prompts the jokes and the ideas. it's Dr. *Who* who can be anyone, so why not let him be?

and why does it make more sense from a broader storytelling and narrative place? I see no argument for that. Who could be a woman just as easily as a man or an it or all three at once. they could pull it off easily with her just giving a momentary weird look down at her body, tilting her head and saying, "Well, that's rather refreshing. I think I'm going to enjoy this." And then moving on. they could even make the occasional joke about her having more energy and feeling smarter than she was before, if they want to be truly regressive.

I don't know what you mean by "disagreeing that is has to be doctor that is sexist". I haven't mentioned sexism. I am just saying: what's the big deal? why would it end the world? they did it with Elementary and a woman as Watson -- there was a big hoopferaw, and yet it turned out to be a *tremendously* popular success despite everyone screaming and screaming in the news. I laughed so hard, I can't tell you.

i think this is one of those cases where both of us are getting heated up about how heated up the other side is, when really we wouldn't be that much worked up for the thing in itself. because honestly it wouldn't bother me if the doctor was a woman - what bothers me is people who seem to be insisting that it MUST be a woman, and that not making the doctor a woman is an ongoing failure and an indictment of the sexist culture of the bbc and indeed western culture as a whole etc etc etc. i guess what i'm saying is that it wouldn't be the end of the world if the doctor was a woman, but neither would it be the end of the world if the doctor was still a man.

and i think that's where my points about sexism and about random time lady are coming from tbh - because those are the arguments that i disagree with about what i see as people saying the doctor must be a woman. i don't have a problem with the doctor being a woman - but i don't think it's sexist if the doctor is still a man, and i think making the doctor a woman is not the only way to accomplish the objective of 'giving girls an awesome time traveling hero to watch'.

>>>what bothers me is people who seem to be insisting that it MUST be a woman...i think making the doctor a woman is not the only way to accomplish the objective of 'giving girls an awesome time traveling hero to watch'.<<<

I'm not saying the Doctor must be a woman. I'm saying there's no such thing as "separate but equal." not that U.S. law is applicable in any way, but the concept applies. it's not possible to be separate and still be equal. by separating, you are creating an inequity. it was never truer than in this case, where the Doctor can be anyone, as its creator intended.

anyway, I am sorry to belabor the point. but I do think if it happened and they made the Doctor a woman? the future would roll on and the next generations would say, what was the big deal?

just like after there was a woman as Watson, history rolled on. or after there were women in combat people rolled with it. or after DADT was repealed in the U.S., it turned out to be almost an anti-climax compared to the sturm-und-drang. sometimes these decisions have to be made despite the panicked naysayers.

anyway, thank you for the thoughtful discussion. you have been a charming debate-mate.

Yeah, Watson was a woman when they rebooted the show. Now if Martin Freeman went out for a coffee and came back with a set of tits halfway through an episode of Sherlock, then perhaps it might not be so easily gotten over.

Not that Elementary is much of a Holmes show anyway. Everyone in it is pretty much an INO and its closer to Monk than it is to Holmes. So it is more like they recast Sharona as a woma... Oh, wait.

no, fair enough, i agree that people would move on and accept it pretty quickly if they did cast the doctor as a woman.

i don't know that i agree w the separate but equal comment in this case, tho. because i think if you want to make that analogy you have to make it on the level of the system - the point is that you can't have separate systems for different classes, and pretend that you're treating those classes as equals. but that doesn't mean that you can't have a separate character and have it be equal; it means that you can't have separate ways of treating male and female characters in general and have it be equal(and obviously, we do).

i think that, if we had a female character who was treated the same way the doctor is, it wouldn't much matter whether or not they called the character the doctor or not, or whether it had the history of the specific character. the problem arises if a new female character would be treated differently (as they would be). i really don't think the issue is with the specific character of The Doctor.

this has definitely been a very interesting discussion, thanks to you as well for being cool to talk about this with.

[ SECRET POST #2499 ]

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A

Re: S!A