Dr Who appeasement or divide and conquer?

[Ignoremeiaminvisible]

Tonight's episode, if Dr Who is a lesbian does that appease the male idea that 'real' women cannot be strong and independent or is it designed to split the the females in society into two groups believing, in their minds, that females have as little tolerance between gay and straight members of their sex as males do?

Why would a tv production team which includes many women believe that "females have as little tolerance between gay and straight members of their sex as males do"?

And why would they want to "split the females in society"? Surely if they do think that straight women can't tolerate seeing a lesbian on screen, that would mean lower viewing figures, which would be an unusual goal in tv.

I haven't seen it yet, so take this with a pinch of salt. But Dr Who is an alien who genuinely can change sex. I wouldn't be surpised to hear she's had sex with an Ood.

Dr Who is now a rather poor tract for modern secular Calvinists to impart their values to their audience. If only it at least it was still a good story.

Frankly I think Dr Who was better when there were no love interests at all.

I think if pansexual has any meaning at all then surely it’s Doctor Who?

Frankly I think Dr Who was better when there were no love interests at all.
I agree 100%! Changed it from sci-fi to same-storyline-as-everything-else-but set in space

Is the Doctor still played by that woman who prances about and overacts?

No chance of me watching it then.

Dr Who is now a rather poor tract for modern secular Calvinists to impart their values to their audience.

What do you mean? How is Dr Who Calvinist? And who are these modern secular Calvinists who are using it to impart their values?

@Ignoremeiaminvisible

Tonight's episode, if Dr Who is a lesbian does that appease the male idea that 'real' women cannot be strong and independent or is it designed to split the the females in society into two groups believing, in their minds, that females have as little tolerance between gay and straight members of their sex as males do?

Your question is predicated on the assumption that the male idea that 'real' women cannot be strong and independent is a given. Even if that were true (and it isn't) it's hardly going to be a trope the rightest of right Dr. Who script- writers are going to run with.

As for the second part of your question hangonamo's reply.

I haven't seen this episode. Jodie Whittaker's Dr. has been abysmal. Terrible, plodding, preachy scripts and wooden acting.

One point that struck me is that there were 2 side- kicks who weren't white and that in itself was enough to tick the diversity box. It didn't matter they were terrible actors and perhaps more importantly were landed with such weak scripts. There was none of the sparkling and witty dialogue that Amy, Rory, Missy, River Song, Donna and even Clara got.

Just watched this out of curiosity.

This is the first episode I've watched with John Bishop. Unbelievably he's even more wooden than Mandip Gill. It was watchable only by the efforts of Aisling Bea and Adjani Salmon.

I'm mystified by your questions.

I watched 10 minutes of it. I prefer Tom Baker and dodgy latex rubber monsters.

My DGS's stopped watching because 'There's just too much moralising'

I like it still . So far the lesbian interest is a crush on the Doctor, rather than by the Doctor but agree having an alien who changes sex and race does trump this (though I think they would have difficulty providing a male love interest).

I don't understand your OP, OP.

And I watched the episode last night.

Frankly I think Dr Who was better when there were no love interests at all.

That's a bit of a myth, caused by most of the audience being young enough to not get the subtext of 'interested looks' and 'the Doctor's taking Romana to some really romantic places, isn't he?'

Various producers were worried about the Really Bad Implications that could arise if the Doctor too obviously seemed to be collecting young girls he had a romantic interest in, then subjecting them to appalling dangers. That's why the first and second Doctors were usually travelling with either relatives or adopted relatives and later Doctors had an amazing ability to find attractive young women whose entire family/space station/planet had been destroyed.

@Anactor

Frankly I think Dr Who was better when there were no love interests at all.

That's a bit of a myth, caused by most of the audience being young enough to not get the subtext of 'interested looks' and 'the Doctor's taking Romana to some really romantic places, isn't he?'

Various producers were worried about the Really Bad Implications that could arise if the Doctor too obviously seemed to be collecting young girls he had a romantic interest in, then subjecting them to appalling dangers. That's why the first and second Doctors were usually travelling with either relatives or adopted relatives and later Doctors had an amazing ability to find attractive young women whose entire family/space station/planet had been destroyed.

For me the best recent Doctors were Matt Smith with Amy and Rory as companions and David Tennant with Donna. There's no romantic interest there and Amy, Rory and Donna got some great lines.

@Anactor

Frankly I think Dr Who was better when there were no love interests at all.

That's a bit of a myth, caused by most of the audience being young enough to not get the subtext of 'interested looks' and 'the Doctor's taking Romana to some really romantic places, isn't he?'

Various producers were worried about the Really Bad Implications that could arise if the Doctor too obviously seemed to be collecting young girls he had a romantic interest in, then subjecting them to appalling dangers. That's why the first and second Doctors were usually travelling with either relatives or adopted relatives and later Doctors had an amazing ability to find attractive young women whose entire family/space station/planet had been destroyed.

I think there is a huge difference between some frisson between the actors and roles, and what we see now where the doctors love life is not only part of the story, but worse another tool to lecture the audience about how a really non-discriminatory person would behave sexually.

One of the interesting things that struck me with the Tennant doctor and Rose was that the story would have worked just as well if it had been presented as a non-physical relationship, maybe even better given the way she ended up with the other doctor in the alternate dimension. The Riversong plot similarly, the sexual element was completely cringe.

For me the best recent Doctors were Matt Smith with Amy and Rory as companions and David Tennant with Donna. There's no romantic interest there and Amy, Rory and Donna got some great lines

Hear bloody hear

(Doesn’t hurt that my children think I’m exactly like Donna with her ‘giant wasp comment…I’ll take that)

Donna was, and remains, my favourite companion. I gave up watching this incarnation of the Doctor. Far too preachy for me. It stopped being fun and proper sci-fi.

Just wanted to add that I was so disappointed as I was really looking forward to a woman doctor.

Donna was, and remains, my favourite companion.
She was my favourite Doctor, even!

@BaronessWrongCrowdRex

Just wanted to add that I was so disappointed as I was really looking forward to a woman doctor.

I thought it was doomed from the start. They only started to signpost that Time Lords could switch sex after there started to be all kind of noise about gender in the general public - up until then all the evidence was that they didn't.

Now being pretend it could equally be the case either way, but it seemed to me like a pretty sure thing that it was being done in order to fit in with a progressive narrative about gender. Which didn't bode well for the writing generally, at least at this point in time when a very heavy handed didacticism seems to be evident in a lot of television.

I liked Donna too. Though they started right around then tying up the storylines into too many loops, trying to connect everything.

I don't really know what the thinking was behind this episode, but I think the BBC have become so woke in their thinking these days that they are more interested in ticking the right boxes with cast members, than with actually entertaining people. The episode was tiresome and dull, even the daleks didn't manage to liven it up.

Chances are the next doctor will be played by a black, disabled drag queen, complete with beard.

Chances are the next doctor will be played by a black, disabled drag queen, complete with beard.

It's the worst sort of tokenism, and I often wonder how actors feel about it. You could be the fabulously talented, the best for the role, and they pick you because you are a particular sex or race - I can't see how anyone would find that comfortable.

Although it was a bit funny when people were saying the black woman in that episode a few years ago was the first black Dr, and Peter Davidson said no, he was. Ha ha.

The preachiness / box ticking as far as I'm concerned reached a new low with the episode The Demons of the Punjab.

Not the subject matter itself (the partition of India and how that affected Naz's family- it was one of the better episodes) but because it was shown on Sunday, 11th November 2018. So 100 years from the end of WW1 and in a year when Remembrance Sunday fell on a Sunday.

Yes maybe the British should get over WWI and II and yes , loads of other things deal with WWI but Dr. Who is about the ability to time travel and given the coincidence of the dates couldn't the partition of India have waited a week?