… Anon, there was a lot of potential to develop Amy as a real character with depth before Moffat decided to: define her by the doctor, label her by a feature (legs), generally take away her choices. So, no. Honestly, I don’t believe it takes away from the amazing things she’s done such as saved the Doctor, a Starwhale, and survived 36 years by herself. As the writers of this blog mentioned, it’s just that it’s a stock female character Moffat seems to pull out of a hat for most of his writing.
Yup! Exactly. Amy did a lot of very awesome individual things and had good individual moments. However, the lack of character development and growth over the past two seasons is what makes her lacking as a character. It doesn’t even have anything to do with her being a woman (though it is frustrating because there is a serious lack of development of women in media in general), but as a character, the lack of any development is what makes her a template for Moffat.
The example that I always pull out for this is The God Complex: Amy lost her faith in the Doctor because of the Doctor, but in the end, she still trusted the Doctor despite everything that happened. As for the sexism, Rory never had faith in the Doctor because of past events and that made him stronger than any of the other characters. It shows a serious lack of characterisation and consistency in terms of writing good characters.