(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. And the FB debate on Carol's page continues...the poster who is cisgender, heterosexual, is offended because he sees it as a forced gender reassignment done by the writer. And refuses to ever watch the television show again because the Doctor is now being played by a woman.

C: You argue that opposing a female Doctor does not show misogyny in you; I argue that it may. And to support this, I pointed to your remark about "confusion of menstruation and cycles."[Yes, we went on a tangent about menstruation. Apparently Jeff thinks all women get confused and have a painful time with their periods. And of course a female Doctor Who being female and looking humanoid would go through the same thing, even though there's no clear indication one way or the other. Carol got offended, because honestly this would be like a woman discussing male wet dreams and premature ejaculations applying to all men...that's the gist. So he got offended and accused Carol of being a hypocrite. Fandom. I think C's mistake was in applying "misogyny". We got to be careful not to label people who say things that upset us.]

The reason I see this as a misogynistic statement is that it draws conclusions about another's subjective experience based on there gender alone.

It would be like referring "confusion that men experience due to unwanted erections." Now, maybe there are men who feel this way, but it would be extremely misandristic to make such a claim about men in general.

To believe that one's experience of puberty is a de facto determinant of one's essential nature would be wrongheaded and prejudicial.

Now you may be right that a lot of people think gender is important to identity. And there are people who think race, class, skin color, etc are just as important.

But isn't the very point of science fiction to expand our notions of the world and self? Star Trek was the first TV show to feature an interracial kiss at a time when "miscegenation" was viewed with no small degree of revulsion and horror by many.

And now we've learned, guess what, race is not so essential to identity and cannot dictate whom we love.

J:Gender re-assignment in our world is something that is the decision of the individual and is serious want or need because they feel as though they are trapped in the wrong body. It is their choice. Don't tell me you don't remember the times when after a regeneration the Doctor checked himself out because he was afraid he might have been a woman and breathed a sigh of relief when he found out he was still a man. I don't see that as a misogynistic attitude, it's simply that he has a very secure gender identity and didn't want that changed.
Gender re-assignment is a very serious and painful process and to use this as a support for it trivializes it and also says that the person doesn't have to decide. Imposed gender re-assignments have happened in our real world. One such story involved a child born with both male and female genitalia and it was decided by the parents and the doctors to remove the penis and raise the child as a girl. At the time of puberty, the child felt masculine and actually began trying to dress as a boy. He was never told about what happened when he was born. As a result of that it has been decided that ethically the medical profession will wait until the individual decides for themselves how they want to live. As a man, a woman or a hermaphrodite. It's always about choice.


A: After reading the discussion . I honestly think that both sides have a valid point. I wish both sides could come to that understanding and just be able to enjoy the random because unless those that have an issue with the casting choice are planning on storming the network in protest, it's not going to change.

C:it's very nice that you see both sides. But you do realize that one of the sides here is distinctly saying that he does not want to just enjoy the fandom? He has clearly said repeatedly that he will no longer watch the show because the doctor is now being played by a female actor.


J: Of course they won't touch on that. I don't think Chris Chibnail gave it any thought. He just wants to shake things up. I only mentioned it because I was trying to explain how the "new" Doctor isn't really a woman. He is somebody that has been a man for thousands of years and suddenly wakes up with breasts and a vagina. Is that all it takes to be a woman? I say NO! He/she has not grown up as a little girl, gone through puberty and evolved as a woman These are experiences that every woman has and is a part of their development that makes them "women." Suddenly I am called offensive because I mentioned a woman's menstrual cycle and accused of shaming women. How is that? Men go through similar confusions at the time of puberty. Cracking voices, body hair and uncontrollable erections that make boys have to stand up doubled over when they're around girls. It's part of growing up


Me: You do realize the Doctor is an alien right? So puberty and all these things most likely don't apply in the same way to an alien man or woman? From what I've seen of the series and read about it, they don't. But,. interestingly enough I had a discussion about this same topic with a female British friend on a separate social media site. She came to the following conclusion regarding it -- that her show, Doctor Who, as she viewed it, had ended. That she couldn't explain why it bothered her that the character who had been male was now being played by a female, just that it ended the series that she loved as she viewed it. But, a brand new show with new ideas was popping up, and she could embrace that new series. Because that's network television programming. Also to be fair ...isn't this true with each new writer? I know fans were traumatized when Davisson took over from Baker. And when we had a whole new regime after RT Davies. Then there were those of us who didn't like certain bits, and came back for others. I skipped most of Rose's run, but loved Martha and Donna's (shrugs). In a way, Doctor Who has always rebooted itself. The character changes with each new actor and each new reboot. Why can't you look at it like that?


Anyhow...I don't think you can prove it applies in the story...for a couple of reasons: 1) you are treating the Doctor as a human being, he's NOT. So you are looking at this from a human male perspective or how you personally would react to it as a cisgender , heterosexual male. Not from the perspective of a transgender bisexual alien, who doesn't think the way you do. Assuming the canon that has been related above and in the series is true? 2) the Doctor dies then is reborn in a new and separate body from his own. Alll Time Lords are. Including River Song. The show did sort of retcon one bit, though, surprised this didn't bother you? Where the Doctor was only supposed to have 12 reincarnations, about appears to have had far more? Perhaps that's the reason for the change, because the first 12 are one gender...? At any rate, I'd see your point if this was say another series where the lead character isn't reborn into a brand new body and we're told for 12 regenerations, with the 13 being different. Or if we hadn't had the Master regenerate into Missy. (Did that bother you? Because if the Doctor does, that should have too...Or how about the Corsair? Or the other Time Lords? Why didn't you stop then?)

I'm sorry I'm asking so many questions here, but I am honestly trying to understand. See, I stopped watching for a bit when Capadali became the Doctor because I thought...this is offensive, the only actors who can play a regenerating alien are white male guys? That makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't fit. When I pointed it out to people on a social media site, they said -- "it's just a kid's show, it's not supposed to make sense" or "that's just the way it always happened". I remember stating, I'll start to take this series seriously when they stop making the regeneration an obvious gimmick. So your perspective is difficult for me to wrap my mind around.

This is fascinating to me, because I honestly do not understand the backlash. Although I have seen it before in fandom. It's why, I've swung clear of fandom over the years. There's...to put it kindly, a kind of craziness that occurs in people when they get obsessed with something. And if they are shipping a character not the story, a specific character as they perceive and identify with that character in their heads...it can get heated.

That's the danger in shipping characters or relationships hard. Or being a devoted fan of a character, not a story or the world or all the characters within the narrative or the narrative itself, but a specific iconic character and/or relationship often at the expense of the canon or all logic.

I saw it in the Buffy fandom. A lot. A telling sign? I just want my television boyfriend to be happy.
(Ahem, the story ends when he is happy. There is no story. It's boring. We need conflict. This is not real life. This is a fictional story.)

2. On a funnier note... DALEKS ATTACK BRITISH TABLOIDS AFTER THEY POST NUDE PHOTOS OF NEW DOCTOR WHO...although I couldn't quite tell if the nude photo bit was fictional, if not, for shame you nasty people you.

3.

Scean Spicer is out, because he doesn't like the new communications director, who hails from Wall Street. Pribus is to follow soon...with the Wall Street Guy set up to take his place.

I find all this rather amusing, considering the Doofus nominates someone, everyone with half a brain freaks out and thinks this is a horrible idea, the person gets confirmed, then three-six months later resigns in disgrace, with zero credibility. (I'm thinking we should stop wasting our energy, these people are going to implode on their own without any assistance from us.)

Lando: Spicer won't be able to get a job anywhere...no credibility. CNN won't hire him. No agency will.
Me: Fox News
(Silence)
Lando: Okay, I forgot about them. You're right they would.

Right now we're taking bets at work on who will be out next.

Lando: Who do you want to bet will be out next, Melania or Sessions?
Me: Wait who is Melania...oh his wife? Sessions. Trump isn't getting rid of his wife, and she's not leaving..hello, money. And he's 70. She can wait him out.
Lando: They have a prenup.
Me: After he dies, they don't. But Sessions..

I mention this to my mother, who religiously watches and consumes news sources such as the PBS News Hour, and the credible news agencies.

Mother: He already tried to fire Sessions. Sessions ignored him and refused to quit. But he's killed his credibility. No, Prebus is out next. Or Mueller, who is investigating his financial records, which he told him would contain the corruption. The theory is that he'll start pardoning his family members and fire Mueller.
ME: He can't fire Mueller, can he?
Mother: yes, he can. (Mueller is the Special Investigator hired to investigate the Russian collusion). But it will hurt him if he does. He already has no credibility.

Sigh. My country the train wreck. I honestly think if you supported Trump you should have your voting privileges revoked and be sentenced to 150 hours of civics courses. Also, forced to watch Michael Moore documentaries on the weekends.

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

(I'm thinking we should stop wasting our energy, these people are going to implode on their own without any assistance from us.)

Don't make that mistake. We thought Corbyn and his evil gang were so obviously vile and incompetent that they would implode on their own. Their popularity keeps rising. People are not rational about this stuff, they are almost purely emotional, and once a populist has tapped into a vein of emotion they seem to be able to survive anything. Countering their poison takes time and effort and repeated conversations, often with people you would really rather not be talking to, but there are no shortcuts and if decent people don't bother to have those conversations then the populists will win. The alternative is to wait until the populists have done so much harm even the most emotional followers can see it and turn against them, but that requires the country to be destroyed first, which is hardly desirable.

Also, forced to watch Michael Moore documentaries on the weekends.

Haidt would say that was wrong :) You need to have conversations with the elephant, not the rider. People who follow populists are not irrational and not ill informed, they are simply following a different set of priorities to non-extremists. Most of Haidt's work is about how to cross those divides and find common ground so our elephants can learn to get along. And much as I loathe everything Jeremy Corbyn says, does, and stands for, that may mean I have to learn to accept he has some valid points, and that the people who follow him are not entirely deluded or evil, just...narrower in their focus. You may have to do the same with Trump.

[shadowkat]

Right now, I can't do anything about what's happening. Except poke fun at it in order to stay sane. ;-)

It's akin to watching a slow motion train wreck, except you are on the train and you can't convince the nitwits in charge to get a conductor who can drive it, and is sane.

[ex_peasant441]

refuses to ever watch the television show again because the Doctor is now being played by a woman

Silly boy. Bet you anything you like he tries it.

I think most of the people who are upset will get over it, they'll just take different lengths of time and find different ways through. A RL friend laughed out loud when she heard my way through and said it was typical of me, but it works for me and I am now in much happier place.

I honestly do not understand the backlash

I've been trying to think of a way to explain it to you. The best I have come up with so far is if you run through your mind and find what you consider an essential non-negotiable characteristic of the Doctor. Something beyond race, gender, age. Perhaps intelligence? Now imagine the Doctor has been recast as severely learning disabled. And you were being told it was ableist to say you felt that undermined a fundamental characteristic that made the Doctor the Doctor.

[shadowkat]

he best I have come up with so far is if you run through your mind and find what you consider an essential non-negotiable characteristic of the Doctor. Something beyond race, gender, age. Perhaps intelligence? Now imagine the Doctor has been recast as severely learning disabled. And you were being told it was ableist to say you felt that undermined a fundamental characteristic that made the Doctor the Doctor.

Eh...

To clarify? You're not saying that the Doctor becoming female is similar to the Doctor becoming disabled? I don't think that's your intent. (Or at least I hope that's not your intent. ;-) ) Just want to make certain. What needs to be clarified here, and I've been trying to do it without being blunt...is do you see being female as less than or subservient to male in some respect?

The reason, I'm asking is what I'm picking up from the backlash...both from Jeff and others, is that the Doctor being cast female is somehow seen as a punishment? That as a "he" - the Doctor is a cool, great character, but somehow diminished as a "she". Or "disabled" in some way. I mean, considering that it doesn't appear to bother anyone that any of the other Time Lords regenerated to another gender, just that their beloved, British icon, the Doctor did. Ex: It's okay if the Master became Missy, because he committed horrific crimes, and that's a sort of punishment in the mindset. Or the Corsair become a female. But for your beloved Doctor to be cast female...

In fact Jeff, on FB, states later in our debate (I didn't put it above) that he would have been fine if this Doctor had died, and they revamped the series with a female "Rogue Time Lord", that concept he could accept. This screams gender bias to me. (Actually he said that's what my female friend stated, to which, I said, uh, no. She didn't. That's a story he came up with on his own.)

So, it sounds like the big problem here is some fans think the Doctor is being punished or disabled by becoming a woman?

I understand being upset with a casting change. I remember being irritated when Tennant took over from Eccleston, mainly because I was only watching it for Eccleston. And I gave up for a bit. Also, I was jarred a little when we went from a young Matt Smith to a much older Capadli, just as I was jarred when we went from a POC River, who was younger, to a white older female River. That I get. And I can see being jarred a little here on this as well.

But it does work within the story. And if you didn't go nuts over those...why this change?

[ex_peasant441]

You're not saying that the Doctor becoming female is similar to the Doctor becoming disabled?

No. I am trying to find a way for you to understand the concept of a fundamental change that is so severe it upsets your whole notion of who the character is in a way that they can no longer be the same character. (And incidentally nor do I see disability as something that should be used as a metaphor for punishment in stories in this day and age.)

I don't see women as being disabled in the sense of lacking abilities. I see them as being in a different coloured blob of watercolour to men. A different fundamental category. The results of that categorisation have real world and meaningful consequences for women and men that often result in the women lacking opportunity, but that is not the same as the woman lacking ability simply because she is female.

Let me give you an example - I just posted a ramble about the issues that will face the new Doctor as regards her perceived status and authority. When a female walks into a room, because of the gender biases in our society, that woman's status and authority is perceived in a different way to when a man of similar age, class, attractiveness, relative height etc walks into the same room. I think that in our society if all other things are equal, a male will have more status and authority than a female simply because he is male. I don't approve of that, I simply observe it. It may not be true in every sphere but at this period in the spheres I move in, it is observable - and therefore it affects our stories. The female Doctor, for me, cannot have the same automatic authority as a male Doctor for that reason. She will have to struggle for that authority in every single episode in a way a male Doctor never needed to do. So to me she will not be the same person in a meaningful way, because the differences are too great.

And if you didn't go nuts over those...why this change?

Well I never like any regeneration. But the reason I hated this one so much, as far as I can tell (and don't forget this is my rider talking, who knows what my elephant really thinks), is because it is so much bigger. The Doctor's personality always changes a bit when regenerated, but this time it will change hugely. This is a much bigger and more significant change. You do know that or you wouldn't be so happy about it, so I'm not sure why you can't understand that a change this big is bound to upset some people while pleasing others.

This screams gender bias to me.

And this is part of why I hate gender politics. It is so hard to talk about this stuff without being accused of bias. Jeff will have to speak for himself, I have no idea what he is thinking. But my thinking is not that I approve of women being different to men, or being treated as less than men, I simply observe that in many situations they are different and they are treated as lesser.

Hopefully that clarifies.

[shadowkat]

Thank you. I was trying to determine what you were meaning to say. It's not always clear. Which is why it's good to ask. ;-)

That's one of the difficulties with communication -- perception. It's also why it's not always a good idea to comment on "sentences" taken out of the context of a paragraph. Because meaning is often lost.

Like, I wasn't saying that one particular thing screamed "gender bias" but taken in tandem it does. To put it another way?

If you had a problem with say Dean Winchester and Sam suddenly becoming women on Supernatural because that changes literally everything about their characters and creates a brand new series? I would sympathize. Because you are right it does. And it changes the show. And it is an obvious gimmick. You'd be right to be upset. Just as you would be right to be upset if Ross Poldark suddenly became a woman.

But Doctor Who...is a series in which it is made clear within the story narrative that Time Lords regenerate in new bodies, that gender, race, height, age, looks, nationality, even sexuality are not essential traits and can change completely upon regeneration. I mean you sort of know that going into the series. I'm a new viewer -- who started with the RT Davies reign and even I know that. In fact, the original writers tried to have the Doctor regenerate as a woman in the 1980s but the network was scared to risk it even though the world-building and the story narrative lead to it. And not doing it -- goes against that narrative and world-building structure.

This is similar to turning Ross Poldark into a woman or Dean and Sam into women. Or say suddenly having a male vampire slayer on Buffy. When the series states you can't.

Not to mention, several Time Lords are shown as regenerating into women or people of color. Would you have had this problem if the Doctor was cast with a POC? Or is it just female?

The reason I'm happy about it -- is simply this, you have a series about a character that regenerates into a new body each round and is from an alien race. Having that character be white male and British, and in a position of Authority, while other characters regenerate and can be black, female, or another nationality, and aren't the hero or in a position of authority is...illogical and kills my suspension of disbelief. It is deliberately going against the narrative structure that the writers set up.

That is what screams gender bias to me. And that's gender politics -- when you make a decision against the story narrative to uphold a biased view that men are more acceptable as an Authority than women.

[ex_peasant441]

Doctor Who...is a series in which it is made clear within the story narrative that Time Lords regenerate in new bodies, that gender, race, height, age, looks, nationality, even sexuality are not essential traits and can change completely upon regeneration.

Actually that isn't a big and clear part of the show at all for me. Regenerations happen very rarely, and nearly all the ones we have seen in big focus and happening to characters we know well have involved staying the same gender. There was some random redshirt timelord who changed gender, but the only significant gender swap was the Master, and that happened late enough in the series (and off-screen, incidentally) that it felt like an anomaly to me rather than something that was part of the normal pattern. If memory serves I assumed it was a one off so they could pull a rabbit out of the hat. And no, I didn't like it, and yes I felt very cheated and as if a favourite character had been stolen for the wrong reasons. We have had twelve regenerations of the Doctor going from male to male, and several regenerations of the master going from male to male - that feels like the default. The Doctor and those around him use gender specific terms for TimeLords and for people like their parents - so that feels like the default is to stay the same. The gender-switching has only ever occurred in the Moffatt era, which bear in mind I haven't paid close attention to because I don't like his writing, and it feels like something bolted on to achieve PC points or plot rabbits, rather than something integral to the show.

And bear in mind I have been watching this show since my childhood. My feelings about how the show works and what it means have been set long ago. If they had indeed done a gender-swap back in the 80s then those impressions might have been forged differently, but they didn't. As far as my child self was concerned a regeneration meant the appearance changed but the character, including gender, stayed the same. My adult self could begin to see slight differences in how the character behaved, but I never saw those character changes as fundamental. I didn't see a big difference in character between Eccleston and Tennant or Tennant and Smith, and what I did see I mostly put down to the different abilities of the actors, not that we were supposed to understand the Doctor himself had changed much. The differences between Smith and Capaldi could be put down to retconning the Time War. That is how I see the show. You see it differently so you have a different sense of what is and is not an unacceptable change.

Would you have had this problem if the Doctor was cast with a POC? Or is it just female?

I wouldn't have a problem with a BME male actor, provided he had the other characteristics of the Doctor. I don't see those characteristics as being exclusive to white men. But if and when they do cast him as BME I expect them to deal with the issues that would cause when he is on Earth and not ignore them, and I would certainly see it as a bigger change than all previous regenerations. But for me it wouldn't be a deal breaking change - he would still be the Doctor.

I would have a big problem if they cast a foreign actor who played the Doctor as other than British - I would feel an essentially British role had been stolen. I wouldn't care about all the lecturing we would doubtless receive about how we must be open to change and tolerant of other nationalities, my elephant would be outraged. I would probably stop watching the show.

I would have a problem if they cast or wrote him as other than intelligent, or authoritative, or energetic, or peace loving, or hard, or kind, or asexual, or lonely, or incapable of entirely relating to humans, or with ridiculous dress sense, or in love with the Tardis and the wonders of the universe. Because that is how I see the Doctor. It may not be how you see the Doctor, it is how I see the Doctor.

I have a problem that they have recast him as female because I see gender as having huge unavoidable implications for a person and the extent of the change is greater than I can accept it as being the same character. It no longer feels like the Doctor to me. There is a small chance that when I watch the show she will in fact feel sufficiently Doctorish that I change my mind, but I think it is a very small chance. Until they can prove me wrong, I am unhappy because my show has essentially been cancelled - and it feels like a rather mean minded cancellation that has been done for PC reasons not the right reasons. Since I am already angry with the BBC for various other crimes and absolutely disgusted by the pay revelations this does not incline me to think well of them. I will give the new show a chance, but I am not happy about it.

[shadowkat]

Thank you for the explanation.

[ex_peasant441]

Just as you would be right to be upset if Ross Poldark suddenly became a woman.

Actually I was just imagining a feminised version of him and went to a surprisingly happy place... ;)

[cactuswatcher]

A multiple choice question popped into my head as soon as I heard about Spicer:
What's Spicer going to do now?
A. Dance the night away.
B. Follow in George Stephanopolis' foot steps and get a job ABC News. (Maybe sweeping floors there.)
C. Host Saturday Night Live.
D. Take a vow of silence.

[shadowkat]

Or a job with Fox News?

Although, poor Melissa McCarthy is out of a job at Saturday Night Live.
They could however hire Spicer.

I keep waiting for Alec Baldwin to be out of a job at SNL, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be happening any time soon.

[yourlibrarian]

I couldn't quite tell if the nude photo bit was fictional, if not, for shame you nasty people you.

Sadly no, though I believe another site ran photos of most of the doctors in some state of undress as a response.

I'm with you regarding Melania. I'd say I'd be happy if Sessions resigned but who knows what nutcake could be installed in the position as replacement. Also at least Priebus knows something about government and is a tie to the Republicans in Congress, which I'm not sure can be said for anyone else in the White House staff. And given that a vast number of positions are still unfilled I'm not sure he can be spared. But then, it's not like Trump operates from a place of logic.

[shadowkat]

Hmm...I'm rather curious about the other site, with the other Doctors. ;-)

Agree on Sessions and Trump. There's no logic involved. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck...and unfortunately you know you are on the train, but can't do a thing to stop it.

[yourlibrarian]

I'd link you to it but unfortunately I saw it in a Tumblr gif and have no idea which site it was. Tumblr is SUCH a frustrating site. Not only can you not easily bookmark and organize posts but half the time I can't even reblog something because there's no link showing up. And forget trying to add to a discussion, since you'd have to keep going back to constantly check for replies which there may never be. If it had nothing but photos and artwork I'd say great, but people try to use it for all sorts of things that are a terrible fit.

[shadowkat]

Yeah, I gave up on Tumblr some time ago. It works better for posting art or GIF's than for discussion. Can't navigate it at all. Sort of a step down from FB in that respect.

I'm not really a fan of most social media sites, FB, Tumblr, Reddit (hate it), Twitter, Instagram, Pininterest...the list is endless, and most of it is mainly for promotional and marketing purposes anyhow.

I kind of miss LJ, which provided me the ability to post polls, but I've left it far behind. That journal is gone.
Dreamwidth will have to do for my purposes.

[mefisto]

Jodi Whittaker had nude scenes in the movie Venus. I suspect the photos came from that movie. If they're hacked from somewhere, that's disgraceful.

[rahirah]

You can post polls on DW. You may need a paid account to do so.

[shadowkat]

I require a paid account. And I've an aversion to paying for social media in any way. ;-)