The Obligatory 13th Doctor Post

Well, somebody had to do it, right?

I have to admit I'm not sold on the idea for a number of reasons; not least of which they have to not mess up the cross-gender regeneration episode and come up with a convincing reason why it's taken 2000 years and 13 bodies for one of them to be female.

But my biggest worry is that the BBC are ticking PC boxes just for the sake of it, and in the process have taken the most progressive, (mainly) pacifist male role model off of prime time TV. As the father of girls I should be happy about this, of course; but my 11-year-old's response was a resounding 'meh', so I'm really not sure...

Oddly enough, this make me want to check out the show.

I'm not a feminist (at least depending on definition) and I hate PC box checking. But something about the vibe of this tease struck me as cool.

Maybe because it felt serious and my glimpses of the show have tended toward the silly? Maybe because a female doctor could lend itself toward more interesting emotions from a character that in my (SUUUUUPER LIMITED) experience has felt dry and detached? I don't know. But they've got my attention!

I am cautiously optimistic. It's been hinted at in the past that this could happen. After some regenerations take place, The Doctor checks his body and sometimes comments are made about not being female.

If this iteration of The Doctor ends up being anti-male, I won't continue to watch it. The Doctor is compassionate and understanding of all and doesn't discriminate or harbor ill-will towards any particular race or gender.

I'm not familiar with Jodie Whittaker's filmography, but I have a hard time believing the BBC would give the role to someone they did not believe would grow the fan base. So much of what goes into the Doctor depends on the showrunner. Moffat and Davies both had very different takes on what makes a Doctor Who story and character. Here again, I just really don't know what to expect from the new showrunner. Time will tell.

As to gender-driven selection or rejection, when it comes to fictional characters, the choice is implicit in the character design. Superman must be a man or he is a different character. Batman must be a man or he is a different character. The showrunner appears to be challenging the character design statement that says that the Doctor must be a man in order to remain the same character. I don't know if it's going to work.

Male and female roles in literature are not interchangeable, they are complementary. Comic book literature provides a reasonable benchmark for comparison, as hero titles have occasionally been gender-swapped. In the cases where this has been positively received, I believe it's because the role of the hero has been separated from the role of the character. As an example: Eric Masterson assumed the power of Thor and readers accepted him as the hero's new identity; Jane Foster assumed the power of Thor and readers demanded she establish herself as a hero separate from the Thor identity; Pepper Potts assumed the Iron Man armor and was accepted by the readers as that hero's identity. I believe the difference is that the role of Iron Man is separate from the role of the character, where the role of Thor is tied intrinsically to the character concept.

I think that for viewers to accept Whittaker as the Doctor, the showrunner is going to have to establish "the Doctor" as a character concept that exists apart from the different incarnations. For my part, I have always viewed the Doctor as a parental figure (one reason I did not enjoy the River Song storyline.... creepy). The Doctor is a father figure to the human race, protecting and teaching. The Doctor as a mother figure can also protect and teach in a parental role but it will be a very different product from any previous Doctor.

Fantasy markets tend to break down into two overwhelming demographics: viewers who desire to become the hero and viewers who desire to have the attention of the hero. Male heroes tend to appeal to both markets, but female heroes tend only to appeal to the first market. And market power is overwhelmingly not composed of the fan base. Will viewers with only a passing knowledge of Doctor Who be able to identify Whittaker as the Doctor and desire the resultant product as entertainment? I think that's going to be the acid test.

As before, time will tell.

I have mixed feelings. Jodie Whittaker is a fantastic actor. She was very good in Broadchurch, so I have no doubt she'll do an amazing job.

I think I've come to the conclusion that (1) I have no issue with a female Doctor, however, (2) I have some issue with a sex-changing Doctor.
This may seem a very subtle distinction.
I really like sci-fi with female protagonists, but the whole gender-change fluid thing, it just doesn't sit well with my moral sensibilities. (But Doctor Who is full of stuff that doesn't fit with my worldview, so nothing new there) It will be interesting what they do with this. I suspect Chris Chinball may wield a slightly less blunt political sledgehammer than Steven Moffat did.
My 10-year -old son kinda nailed it when he said "But Dad, the Doctor had a wife, so if he turns into a woman, it doesn't make sense."

My 12-year-old daughter on the other hand, just got excited and "Yes, finally." She just really appreciates powerful, positive female role models. So in that regard, it's a positive.

I'll certainly keep watching. I'm keen to see where it goes.

Paeter, in terms of tone, Doctor Who is a strange beast. It certainly can tend toward the silly. But it can also get quite dark, and often tackles some weighty issues. I think over the years it has moved toward the more serious side of the scale.
Take the character of The Master played by John Simm. When his iteration of the character first appeared during the Russel T. Davis era, he was over-to-top and extremely cheesy. Kinda groan-worthy at times. His character returned a few weeks ago, and this time around, he was chilling. Yes, there was still some humour, but at the same time, it was exploring quite a powerful story about repentance.
I suspect you'd like the show more than you expect, but may end up having a love/hate relationship with it.

But, this is definitely the perfect time to give it a go. In many ways, Chris Chinball (new showrunner) is going to be re-defining the show. New Doctor, new Companion. Everything will be new. It's about as close as Doctor Who ever gets to a reboot.

Perhaps predictably, the noises from the BBC are that Jodie put in an amazing audition and they simply couldn't not give her the job, and I certainly hope she does prove to be an awesome Doctor - I think she'll have to be, and the writing will have to be top quality too, or accusations of it being a purely PC choice won't be long in coming, irrespective of whether that's the case.

mindspike wrote:The Doctor is a father figure to the human race, protecting and teaching... Male heroes tend to appeal to both markets.

It's this, and not the Doctor being female, that is my complaint. Feminists will argue that boys can look up to women - and yes, of course they should learn that women are to be respected and can do any job a man can do. But from my knowledge of boys (which is, admittedly, limited to having once been one) they don't want to emulate the women they see on TV. When the men they can pretend to be are armed with guns and not screwdrivers, you've lost something important, I think.

jorowi wrote: It's been hinted at in the past that this could happen.

Yes, it was no surprise - the biggest hint being Missy, of course, and some fairly obvious lines in the last episode.

Having said that...

Paeter wrote:Oddly enough, this make me want to check out the show.

that's almost enough for me to cheer for the idea! On the one hand I want to know what Paeter thinks of DW, and the new Doctor might get my girls to watch it again; on the other hand, social media is full of 'I don't watch Doctor Who, but this is a great idea!' - opinions which are, by their progressive nature, more valid than those of any lifelong fan who might disagree.

I don't know, maybe I'm more sexist than I like to think, but it seems to me that the fact that men and women are fundamentally different is being missed here - but that's probably an entirely different discussion!

UKSteve wrote: But from my knowledge of boys (which is, admittedly, limited to having once been one) they don't want to emulate the women they see on TV.

That might be true, but they may still want to emulate the powers and deeds of the female hero. For example, I didn't care Wonder Woman was a girl. I spun around and transformed in our house with the best of them.

(Ahem!) When I was a kid, y'know. Not like I would wear a tiara after watching the recent movie or anything stupid like that...

mindspike wrote:

Fantasy markets tend to break down into two overwhelming demographics: viewers who desire to become the hero and viewers who desire to have the attention of the hero.

Is this anecdotal observation or did you pick this up from somewhere? It sounds really interesting! Maybe the springboard for another topic!

Here's a feminist's view on why The Doctor should remain male:

https://geekdad.com/2017/07/i-do-not-want-female-doctor-who/

jorowi wrote:Here's a feminist's view on why The Doctor should remain male:

https://geekdad.com/2017/07/i-do-not-want-female-doctor-who/

Thank you!

That is exactly how I feel, right down to not being bothered about the colour of the Doctor's skin, but am not allowed to say because I'm just a middle class white dude.

So I guess I'm not a misogynist, just a crap feminist. I can live with that.

Some very accessible (and ongoing) research is being done by authur Tina Dubinsky. Her findings so far state that sci-fi/fantasy audiences prefer male heroes 57% to 40% and that the least popular themes are romance, politics, small town prejudice, and sexuality. There's a ton of other information on her site as well as a link to help contribute to the research.

Tina Dubinsky - http://tinadubinsky.com/fantasy-readers/

Contribute to the research - https://goo.gl/forms/9rzonVDPZNmRAoIx2

About markets: I don't have the hard data, but I do have tons of articles written by people who do have the hard data. Anna Gough-Yates writes in an article about Charlie's Angels that they appealed to men because they were desirable and to women because they were glamorous. The collection of essays is fascinating reading; the full text used to be available on Google books, I don't know if it still is.

Osgerby, Bill, Anna Gough-Yates, and Marianne Wells. Action TV : Tough-Guys, Smooth Operators and Foxy Chicks. London: Routledge, 2001.


For more information:

DePauw University has a whole series of papers online devoted to sci-fi demographic studies.

http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/index.htm

Locus Magazine conducts an annual poll, but I don't have a link to it handy. I believe they are made available through the public library system.

SFWA has tons of articles about marketing to sci-fi fans, some of it statistical but most of it anecdotal.

The Cushing Library at Texas A&M has a whole section devoted to sci-fi and fantasy research.
http://sffrd.library.tamu.edu

Sweet! Thanks, Mindspike! Sounds like you've done a lot of reading in this! Have you thought about writing anything on the topic?

Most of my reading has been for market research so I can write reports for clients. I don't think I have anything really for general publication that has been properly researched and substantiated.

And now The Sun has posted nude pics of Jodie Whitaker from some of her previous roles.

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/jodie-whittaker-doctor-who-the-sun/

No nudes at the link above.

So this brings up a few topics of discussion:

1.) When the last 4 Doctors were cast there were no nudes released. Why? Because they were men. The level of sexism this rises to is enough to drown a giraffe. Granted, this is a tabloid but we see this double-standard with many news organizations.

2.) Should the BBC have cast an actress that has appeared nude in film and tv? From various articles I can find about the show, its target audience is tweens and teens. I watched a vlog where the kids didn't know Jodie Whitaker. That's a good thing. But their parents might know and curious kids are only a few Google searches away from nude pics of her.

3.) How should Christians respond to "slut-shaming"? 99% of nudity in tv and film is inappropriate. I think there are some cases to be made for nudity in art. But even if someone has put their body on display inappropriately it's not up to us to shame them.

Just some thoughts. I'm thinking about recording them and I'd be happy to hear your input too.

jorowi wrote:And now The Sun has posted nude pics of Jodie Whitaker from some of her previous roles.

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/jodie-whittaker-doctor-who-the-sun/

No nudes at the link above.

I laughed out loud in nervous relief at that last bit in bold, as I thought for one crazy, irrational second that you'd just posted a link to naked lady pictures!!! LOL!

As for the topic, that seems like a dead-on observation to me. What baffles me even more is the inconsistency we get from "hollywood". Okay, that's really broad and so maybe even a straw man. But how can so many in the same collective say that nudity in their movies is fine, nudity is a part of art, etc, and then get all "women's rightsy" about women being objectified?

The reality is that, while a woman might even tell herself she is powerful and "using her sexuality" as she takes her clothes off or dresses in a suggestive way, numerous men are looking at her without a single thought about how powerful she is, how much they respect her, or even that she's a person with real feelings and intrinsic value. To their mind (and I'll go ahead and include myself in the nebulous "they"), she's just a means of mental gratification, in which the MAN is in control and extracting what he wants from the woman. It's the polar opposite of respect.

I so wish this would be brought to light by some brave, influential voices in the hollywood machine. This is ultimately an issue that both believers and unbelievers can get behind when understood for what it is.

I think Mayim Bialik makes some really great albeit secular points on this topic
The TL;DW Jump to min 4:35, but suggest watching it all

Paeter wrote:

jorowi wrote:And now The Sun has posted nude pics of Jodie Whitaker from some of her previous roles.

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/jodie-whittaker-doctor-who-the-sun/

No nudes at the link above.

I laughed out loud in nervous relief at that last bit in bold, as I thought for one crazy, irrational second that you'd just posted a link to naked lady pictures!!! LOL!

As for the topic, that seems like a dead-on observation to me. What baffles me even more is the inconsistency we get from "hollywood". Okay, that's really broad and so maybe even a straw man. But how can so many in the same collective say that nudity in their movies is fine, nudity is a part of art, etc, and then get all "women's rightsy" about women being objectified?

The reality is that, while a woman might even tell herself she is powerful and "using her sexuality" as she takes her clothes off or dresses in a suggestive way, numerous men are looking at her without a single thought about how powerful she is, how much they respect her, or even that she's a person with real feelings and intrinsic value. To their mind (and I'll go ahead and include myself in the nebulous "they"), she's just a means of mental gratification, in which the MAN is in control and extracting what he wants from the woman. It's the polar opposite of respect.

I so wish this would be brought to light by some brave, influential voices in the hollywood machine. This is ultimately an issue that both believers and unbelievers can get behind when understood for what it is.

Right on!

UKSteve wrote:When the men (boys) can pretend to be are armed with guns and not screwdrivers, you've lost something important, I think.

Why is this important?

Clearly the Doctor is not a pacifist; he objects to using guns as a first solution but is perfectly willing to kill his opponent when they will not repent. But like Superman, he does not often have to do so. The Doctor possesses other means of forcing others to comply with his wishes; he's smarter than his opponents and leverages them in other ways but is no less insistent on having his own way. Like Superman, he just happens to have a moral code that values life, specifically our lives, and so he is a hero.

Evil must be opposed or endured if it is going to end. The Doctor is able to purge evil by allowing it to run its full course (enduring) and then act to make things right. In this he is much like Christ. Humanity does not have that option, as we have no ability to undo evil actions, only to alleviate the consequences. We must violently oppose evil if we are to end it.