Guest Submission: Clara in “The Name of the Doctor”

whovianfeminism:

I had some thoughts on tonight’s episode, prompted by a post on my dashboard referring to the Doctor as Clara’s “best friend”:

“can we just appreciate for a second how people were saying Clara was “too special” and they were sick of “special” companions when really she was just an ordinary girl who was brave and decided to save her best friend”

Reading that made me realize how hugely I disagreed. This is my main problem with Clara’s character arc. (Well, it would have been nice if she got some character, other than being generically “cute” and “feisty” when the plot demands it, but that’s a different issue.)

My problem with Clara was never that she was “special”. I like ordinary (hello, shop girl Rose!) but I like special too (hello, space and time bleeding into Amy’s head!). They offer different options when telling the story of a companion, and I like that. I don’t believe one is inherently worse than the other. But what you need, in order to make both work, is a sense of emotional attachment. You need Rose ; angry to the point of tears in a chip shop because “the Doctor showed me a better way of living my life” and she can’t - she won’t - leave him to a lonely death. You need the Doctor ; returning to Amelia as the cracks in the universe start to close, choked with emotion as he rewrites their future, erasing the time they spent together in order to save her. If Amy, or Rose, or Donna, or River, sacrificed themselves for the Doctor the way Clara just did, I’d buy it. Because I’ve seen that connection. I know how deep it runs. I know they’d do anything for the Doctor, and the Doctor would do anything for them.

And here, unfortunately, is where reality sneaks into the middle of an enjoyable dramatic moment and kicks me in the teeth, because, uh … the Doctor is not Clara’s best friend. He’s a funny, strange alien guy who dropped into her world one day and saved her life. Sometimes he flat-out intimidates her. They travel together and she thinks he’s cute (a feeling he apparently reciprocates) but they haven’t really bonded. Let’s be honest, they haven’t. Most of season seven consists of Clara running and screaming (and swooning) while the Doctor saves her. It would take me more than two hands to count the occasions on which Clara has been reduced to this role in the plot. When she’s not doing this, she exists just as a “thing” in the abstract, a mystery the Doctor must solve. “What are you?” he demands repeatedly, and it’s a telling choice of words. In storytelling terms, who Clara is matters much less than what she is. Well, fine. If you want Clara to be a blank cipher around which the plot is built, I can deal with that. But you can’t then turn around and ask me to feel for her. You can’t then hinge the denouement of this huge, epic mystery around her emotional connection to the Doctor. Not if you haven’t bothered to build one.

I like Jenna-Louise Coleman and I want to like Clara, but I can’t. Her character has not been afforded the respect it deserves, and if anything, this revelation of Clara as the brave, self-sacrificing best friend only serves to highlight that. If Clara was always going to give up her life, then we deserved to know more about it before she did so. We deserved to know what she was giving up. On the show, it amounts to little more than babysitting two kids and failing at making soufflés. She offers no last words for the Maitland kids, who she supposedly built her life around. She doesn’t even seem to think of them in her final moments. She sacrificed her dreams of travel for these kids, she’s been a mother to them, and yet we’re supposed to believe that what matters more to her is the Doctor. A guy she knew for a few weeks (a few months at best), and has a vague romantic interest in. A guy who she was horrified to learn - just minutes earlier - had been lying to her all that time. Even earlier than that, her illusions about being the only one in the universe the Doctor trusts were debunked when Vastra asked her what his name was. When she discovered he had a wife he’d never cared to mention. And for this man she gave up her whole life. Would you? Probably not. So why should she? The only real reason is that the plot demands it, and there’s a word for that. Poor writing. (Okay, two words. One idea though.)

I know - Matt and Jenna-Louise are great actors, and have an undeniable chemistry. They’re cute together, and it makes the idea a much easier sell. But you don’t kill yourself for someone you’re “cute with”. You need a much deeper emotional connection for that, and the show just hasn’t given us one. They haven’t shared anything with each other. Actually, a major component of their relationship is the Doctor’s decision to withhold information about Clara from Clara herself. Which is somehow okay because, well, he’s the Doctor. He’s never held accountable for that kind of head-fuckery because everyone knows “The Doctor lies”, and it’s not like a 900 year old Time Lord has any capacity for change. Even though he’s the Doctor, and his constant capacity for change is sort of the point. (It’s probably best if we don’t examine that one too closely.)

The Doctor and Clara aren’t best friends. Their connection is about as deep as the Doctor’s connection with Vastra or Strax. Actually, those two have a far deeper connection with him, as he saved them both from angry, destructive life paths. (Vastra was fixated on revenge, Strax on mindless warfare. Both are shown to be much happier in their current lives.) The Doctor doesn’t have that connection with Clara. He hasn’t touched her life in that way. He just picks her up every Wednesday for a fun day out with a side of flirting. Which is fine. What’s not fine is the message that if you’re a pretty young woman and encounter a man like this, you should be willing to die for him. Because he’s a really special man, and your life is only special if you give it up for him. That’s the only thing that matters about you. In fact, it’s not enough to say your only legacy after you’re gone will be saving this man. Why not make it the entire point of your life? You were born to save the Doctor. Like a robot programmed with only one function. Whatever else you wanted, whoever else you cared about … they don’t matter. That’s what Steven Moffat is saying with this storyline. That was the point of Clara’s character.

And I’m sorry, but that’s not a message I can get on board with. It’s actually a message that makes me deeply uncomfortable, because it’s really, really wrong. Clara the character deserved better. Jenna-Louise the actress deserved better. Doctor Who, the show I love, deserved better. And I deserved better. I’m a viewer and a fan and a woman, and I deserved better than such a poorly written, toxic plot.

acousticrivers: Where have all the women gone in movies? Despite the success of ‘Bridesmaids’ and other female-driven movies, female representation in films is at its lowest level in five years, a USC report says. There’s one mountain in Hollywood that even “The Hunger Games’” scrappy heroine Katniss Everdeen hasn’t been able to move: the number of roles for women. Despite the success of recent female-driven movies such as “Bridesmaids” and the “Hunger Games” and “Twilight” series, female representation in popular movies is at its lowest level in five years, according to a study being released Monday by the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Among the 100 highest-grossing movies at the U.S. box office in 2012, the study reported, 28.4% of speaking characters were female. That’s a drop from 32.8% three years ago, and a number that has stayed relatively stagnant despite increased research attention to the topic and several high-profile box-office successes starring women. “There is notable consistency in the number of females on-screen from year to year,” said USC researcher Marc Choueiti. “The slate of films developed and produced each year is almost formulaic — in the aggregate, female representation hardly changed at all.” When they are on-screen, 31.6% of women are shown wearing sexually revealing clothing, the highest percentage in the five years the USC researchers have been studying the issue. For teen girls, the number who are provocatively dressed is even higher: 56.6% of teen girl characters in 2012 movies wore sexy clothes, an increase of 20% since 2009. The USC researchers said these trends persist because those working in Hollywood believe attracting a male audience is the key ingredient to box office success. “Industry perceptions of the audience drive much of what we see on-screen,” said study author Stacy L. Smith. “There is a perception that movies that pull male sell. Given that females go to the movies as much as males, the lack of change is likely due to entrenched ways of thinking and doing business that perpetuate the status quo.” Female characters are more prevalent — and less likely to be sexualized — in movies written and directed by women, according to Smith. A study USC released in January in conjunction with the Sundance Institute and Women in Film Los Angeles found that women have made more inroads in those kinds of behind-the-camera jobs in independent film and documentaries than they have in big-budget studio movies. But it’s typically the studio movies that drive the box office — and shape audiences. “Some depictions of females on-screen can have unintended and negative consequences for viewers,” Smith said. “Every voice deserves a chance to be heard and every story a chance to be told. At the moment … that does not seem to be the case in popular film.” — Rebecca Keegan, Los Angeles Times
Pop-upView Separately

acousticrivers:

Where have all the women gone in movies?

Despite the success of ‘Bridesmaids’ and other female-driven movies, female representation in films is at its lowest level in five years, a USC report says.

There’s one mountain in Hollywood that even “The Hunger Games’” scrappy heroine Katniss Everdeen hasn’t been able to move: the number of roles for women.

Despite the success of recent female-driven movies such as “Bridesmaids” and the “Hunger Games” and “Twilight” series, female representation in popular movies is at its lowest level in five years, according to a study being released Monday by the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Among the 100 highest-grossing movies at the U.S. box office in 2012, the study reported, 28.4% of speaking characters were female. That’s a drop from 32.8% three years ago, and a number that has stayed relatively stagnant despite increased research attention to the topic and several high-profile box-office successes starring women.

“There is notable consistency in the number of females on-screen from year to year,” said USC researcher Marc Choueiti. “The slate of films developed and produced each year is almost formulaic — in the aggregate, female representation hardly changed at all.”

When they are on-screen, 31.6% of women are shown wearing sexually revealing clothing, the highest percentage in the five years the USC researchers have been studying the issue.

For teen girls, the number who are provocatively dressed is even higher: 56.6% of teen girl characters in 2012 movies wore sexy clothes, an increase of 20% since 2009.

The USC researchers said these trends persist because those working in Hollywood believe attracting a male audience is the key ingredient to box office success.

“Industry perceptions of the audience drive much of what we see on-screen,” said study author Stacy L. Smith. “There is a perception that movies that pull male sell. Given that females go to the movies as much as males, the lack of change is likely due to entrenched ways of thinking and doing business that perpetuate the status quo.”

Female characters are more prevalent — and less likely to be sexualized — in movies written and directed by women, according to Smith.

A study USC released in January in conjunction with the Sundance Institute and Women in Film Los Angeles found that women have made more inroads in those kinds of behind-the-camera jobs in independent film and documentaries than they have in big-budget studio movies.

But it’s typically the studio movies that drive the box office — and shape audiences.

“Some depictions of females on-screen can have unintended and negative consequences for viewers,” Smith said. “Every voice deserves a chance to be heard and every story a chance to be told. At the moment … that does not seem to be the case in popular film.”

— Rebecca Keegan, Los Angeles Times

burntlikethesun:

faceoutofplace:

I just found this quote from Steven Moffat about how Commander Strax died in A Good Man Goes to War and was suddenly alive again in The Snowmen:

“I did kill off Strax, and I’ve barely explained how he comes back to life - that will be a DVD extra, for those who are being pedantic - but Dan Starkey is just so bloody hilarious, you’ve got to have more of him.”

It’s as if he doesn’t even care about good story-telling

Wondering how a character dies and comes back to life is “pedantic”? God damn it Moffat.

strax is the absolute worst he’s not funny, why did he not just stay dead

i actually liked him in his first ep, and i thought his death was well done. but then he was brought back (the extra scene was literally him waking up and jenny and vastra being like ‘LOL YOU’VE BEEN ASLEEP FOR 2 DAYS NBD’, and in the snowmen eleven said a friend ‘brought him back to life’??? what is continuity.

Source: faceoutofplace

lettersfromthemargins:

Dear Steven Moffat,

Mr. Moffat, I would like to know, has any one ever called you boring? Having seen your Doctor Who and Sherlock episodes, I would doubt that. You don’t seem to like boring very much Mr. Moffat. You do everything in your power to make sure that your shows aren’t “boring” You fill them with explosions, action, and even dinosaurs. And you make sure that none of your characters are asexual. Because, as far as you’re concerned, Sherlock Holmes cannot possibly be asexual. Because that would make him boring.

You see, Mr Moffat, it is not very fun to be called boring. To be called too boring to be on TV. Many people have called me many things. They have joked that I am a plant, they have told me that I cannot call myself queer, they have told me that my orientation is not real, that I just want attention, they have said many awful things to me. And so have you.

Perhaps to you it may seem inconsequential, but it matters to me. And it matters to a lot of asexuals too. Because where TV is concerned, we do not exist. So many people have never even learned that my sexuality even exists. The Doctor cannot be asexual because he has to be in love with Rose and River and Clara. And that love has to be sexual. Sherlock cannot be asexual because…because it would be boring. Boring.

Well, Mr. Moffat, I am not boring. I live the same kind of exciting life as anyone else. And if it’s ~relationship tension~ you want, I have that in spades. I have relationship troubles. I spend hours worrying about the dissonance in my romantic and sexual orientation. I waste my nights worrying about whether the person I love, loves me back. I fret about my family and friends. I have just as much relationship tension as any detective.

There are many things about you, Mr. Moffat, that annoy me. Your sexism, your poor writing, your queerbaiting, your homophobia. But what finally made me stop watching your shows was when you told me I was boring. Doctor Who has meant a lot to me, but I cannot enjoy the show until I know the Doctor is no longer in your hands.

Mr. Moffat, you are a well known man. Your words carry weight and you can hurt people. You have hurt me Mr. Moffat. And you have hurt many other people with many of your words.

I am sorry that you are as ignorant as you are. And I eagerly await your departure from Doctor Who.

With much animosity,

-Mattie.

From: http://aceadventurer.tumblr.com/

targaryenviserys:

i really, really dislike the trope in fiction that only the assholes, the bullies, and the “villains” can be homophobic.  (this goes for any hateful -ism, really, but given that it was prompted by homophobia i’m going to run with that.)

homophobia would be much easier to dismiss if it only came from the douchebags of the population; if everyone ~good~ looked down on it, defended against it; if the line was clear between good person (accepting) and bad person (hateful).  that’s not to say it wouldn’t still be hurtful, but there would be that support there of it’s only the assholes, it’s only the assholes.

unfortunately, what makes those comments hurt is that they more often come from people you love, people you’re friends with, people whose opinions you generally respect - your mom, your friend, your coworker, your teacher…  hearing a kid in the hallway call someone a dyke might make me flinch, but it was hearing my grandma say it that made me cry. 

it’s that discordance - that people who are otherwise very nice, caring, and intelligent can still have ignorant, hateful opinions - that is lost in a lot of fiction.  it’s lazy writing, and - it feels to me - defensive.  by designating prejudice only to the villains of the piece, the writers both distance themselves (only assholes! not us!) and erase actual experience.  you’re not doing a service to us by creating a world where homophobia is only ever wielded by villains; all you’re doing is reducing an experience you’ve likely never had to flat, simplified flaw.

A Valediction Forbidding Moffat

uncleoakenshield:

In response and elaboration to this post which critiqued Moffat and his handling of Doctor Who - for all of you who disagree with it, and continue to idolise Moffat, here is a much more general overview of why you really shouldn’t, with illustrative evidence from Doctor Who and Sherlock.

Read More

lauraxtennant:

grrr what really pisses me off is that people think that just because we criticise Moffat’s writing, we must idolise RTD. No. NO. There was lots wrong with RTD! I found certain things he has said/written repulsive. But he is not the showrunner any more. Yes, we have to still be aware of the things he did that were problematic, but it makes far more sense to put effort into critiquing the guy in charge currently, in the hopes that things can change. And for all the shitty things RTD did or said, Moffat is actually far worse, ok. He is. And the problems in his writing have been around since the beginning, not just recently, so people who say that he was such a good writer s1-5 and that it’s only recently that he’s been crap can stfu.

man I know I’m preaching to the choir here but it just really bugs me 

Warning: maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaajor geekery ahead!! A slightly closer look at Doctor Who ratings

kilodalton:

OK so I like math. Although I’m not a statistician, I am pretty good with math (which is lucky for anyone in the USA haha bc in a few short months I will be using said math to prepare intravenous drug compounds for hospitalized patients… tl;dr if I sucked at this, it would suck WAAAY worse to be you bwahahah XD)


ANYWAY! It should not have escaped anyone’s attention that Doctor Who ratings appear to be teetering a bit. Some people think “eh, it’s not a big deal” while some think that this is dangerous. I’m one of the latter group. And because I have a huge-ass assignment due tomorrow that I don’t feel like doing right now, I thought I’d explain why. (For simplicity’s sake, there are no Xmas specials or 2009 specials included in this data - just final BARB ratings from 2005-present).


OK first off, if you compare the OVERALL numbers from s1-s7, although s7 (in red) looks like it’s a bit low, there doesn’t seem to be much difference … right? Right???? And, truth be told, the only ~statistically significant~ differences (eg, where s7 really comparatively sucks balls) are when it’s directly compared to s1. But … this chart is a colorful mess. A colorful MEANINGLESS mess, because all I’m showing you is a bunch of lines without analysis. Six would probably proudly wear this chart as a coat it’s so fugly. Anyway, this is usually the data people are looking at when they glance at the ratings and shrug it off as being “not all that different.” This is not accurate.

image

So let’s clean it up a bit!!! To simplify things, I’m gonna compare apples to apples. All RTD-era episodes are accounted for by the blue line (“You said BLUE!!” … “I said NOT blue!!!”), the beginning of the Moffat era (s5-6) is the green line, and s7 is the red line. NOW things start to look interesting!!

OK this is not a calculus class but I hope this shows why math is kind of cool if you’re a total fandom nerd and you want to prove other fandom nerds wrong XD. Look at the pretty lines and numbers!!! Here’s what they mean: see the dotted lines with the equations? Those are ~trendlines~ for the graph. Basically what that means is it tells you, on average, where the hell your data is going. See the equations? Those tell you how fast viewers are flocking to your show (or, alternatively, turning it off bc it sucks and going to read fanfic or something lol idk). And see the (sorrysorry tiny font I knowww) “R^2” value? That tells you if you can trust your trends or not (lol @ those evil, untrustworthy trend bitches). The closer to “1” the better, and these are all pretty freaking close to one which means the trends are pretty strong. (So anyone who tries to respond and say it’s meaningless - look at the R^2 value and hush lol).

So what does this mean? Again this isn’t a calculus class so I’ll skip the lecture on how to calculate derivatives and try not to make this too boring (BUT CALCULUS IS SUPER COOL AND YOU SHOULD LOVE IT GUYZ), but essentially the first number (x^2) is saying “this is how fast viewers are coming/going”.

And this is where the RTD era is strong, s5-6 are a bit weaker, and s7 is in trouble. For the RTD era, the first number shows that yeah viewers were coming and going - but that there was a general trend back up. For s5-6, there are fewer people coming and going. And for s7, the number is negative —- that means there is a trend of people leaving. How reliable is this? Well back to the R-squared thingy I was telling you about - it’s pretty freaking close to 1, so the trend is pretty tight.

image

One of the big weaknesses here is that premieres and season finales tend to have more viewers, so in this next graph, I simply removed the premieres and finales (which meant I had to remove mainly s6-7 episodes from the data pool bc of the split season). Taking away those premiere/finale bumps in viewership looks even worse for s7 - the number of viewers leaving is even MORE negative now!!!! And s5-6 has a much flatter line too … viewers were pretty stagnant. Again, the RTD era had some swings, but at the end of the day, viewers were coming home. That’s not happening for the past few years, especially this year.

image

So what can we make out of all of this? Tl;dr, the numbers aren’t good. And they’re getting not-gooder by the season.

(AND CALCULUS ROCKS AND YOU SHOULD TOTALLY LOVE IT!!)

Why the word “stupid” is considered ableist

queeroctopus:

neoptolemos:

Will someone explain to me why the word “stupid” is considered ableist? Because this seriously baffles me.

“Stupid” has been used by the medical community and the community at large to describe people with developmental disorders. My boyfriend was mocked by teachers and called “stupid” because he’s dyslexic. My doctor told my mother I was “stupid” because of various aspects of my autism. “Stupid” has been used to justify locking people like me in asylums, in basements. “Stupid” has been used to disavow testimony given by people like me. My grandmother is what is still medically classified in some places as “retarded” and as a child, was abused by various people in various ways, and when she spoke about it, nobody believed her because she was “stupid”. The eugenics movement is against us “stupid” people even existing, and I consider anyone who believes in always aborting Down Syndrome fetuses as part of this, by the way.

Intelligence is not a measure of character. Intelligence, in many ways, is also subjective. I cannot remember names or act in the usual social way. I cannot hold a pen My boyfriend cannot spell or pronounce things well. My autistic cousin Joe has been taught most of his life how to tie his shoes and he still cannot. Yet, we are all smart in various ways. My partner has a wide array of knowledge, as do I. And Joe is bloody smart for his age.

Insult someone by calling them ignorant, deliberately ill-informed, pig-headed, stubborn. Do not insult intelligence levels. Ignorance is a choice, intelligence… well, it just isn’t. Your capacity to learn, and your access to learning materials, aren’t always under your control, and have nothing to do with your character.

(via callingoutbigotry)