9
SpoilerNew Doctor Who
Sooo... I've just watched the Doctor Who Christmas Special yesterday, and I'm not sure whether I like where the show is going or rather, where RTD is taking it.
That first special for the 60th anniversary? Downright terrible. Gender ideology plus a boring, rather predictable story, and don't get me started on the new take on the theme đ The second special felt like a run-off-the-mill space adventure but at least it was a bit of fun while I thought the third special was actually really good - Neil Patrick Harris was amazing and stole the show, hands down. Plus, I love UNIT and Kate Stewart.
BUT: I still don't see the point of bringing Tennant back. He's still one of my favourite Doctors, and I was very excited when Jodie Whittaker's Doctor regenerated into him. But after the three specials I just don't see the point, and my excitement wore off when I realised that 14 was really just 10 - not that I expected him to be that different, but still... it was kinda disappointing and seemed like such a waste.
I doubt that those three specials with their blatant fan service helped keep the rates from plummeting further like they were probably expected to. Mind you, I don't mind fan service, but in this case, it felt as if RTD was just checking boxes. Bring back 10? Check. Bring back his coolest companion? Check. Bring back her grandfather for ten seconds? Check. Solve the problem of her being killed by her memories? Check. And so on...
While I thought the idea of bi-generation was kinda funny, it immediately made me suspect that RTD did that in case they needed Tennant again to save the show. You know, like a backup. And I couldn't stand the ending he gave 10/14. Let him retire on Earth with his best friend while keeping a copy of the Tardis? I mean... really? đ That, too, felt like fan service for all those who still think that "I don't wanna go" is a heartbreaking last line for the Doctor to say before he regenerates (I still think it's terribly cheesy).
Now, the new Doctor... I'm not sure about him. He's so... cheerful. Like, over-the-top cheerful, and seeing the Doctor dance while wearing a kilt and an undershirt was very, very weird, not to mention the singing later on. That felt completely off, it was like watching a brand-new show. As if RTD was saying "Now we're doing a proper reboot and leave the rest behind us. Let the Doctor laugh and be merry for most of the episode, let him dance and sing, and while we're at it, give him tons of jewelry, nails with weird symbols on them and a new sonic screwdriver that looks like the thing you use on a Oujia board".
I'm not sure I like where he's taking the show. I have struggled with it in the past but have stuck with it nevertheless, even when things got bumpy. But this time I'm not sure. Maybe it will take a while to get used to the new Doctor - with Matt Smith, it took me two or three episodes until I warmed up to him.
Definitely feminist. Its whole premise is entirely sex-based, no gender woo whatsoever.
In fact, it provided an early mini-peak for me. I read it shortly after it came out, loved it, sought out the authorâs Twitter, and was absolutely baffled to see her getting attacked for ânot being trans-inclusive.â It made zero sense to me, as up until then, I was still under the impression that everyone acknowledged sex is fixed and gender is a nebulous feeling. That was also my first-ever exposure to the term âTERF.â
Feminist. Lots of great info on the oppression/erasure of women, referring to adult human female women. Biology is a major component.
Yes, indeed. Sex, not just gender, is at the heart of much of what she documents--such as the lack of female crash test dummies. She takes women's lives--including their embodied lives--seriously. That having been said, I have no idea where she stands on trans issues.
She couldnât possibly have researched and written a whole book on female erasure and exclusion and not think âgenderâ is total bullshit. The misogyny of males claiming womanhood when they have faced none of the hurdles females have cannot be lost on her.
She opens up a chapter with gender neutral bathrooms and how they just create 2 spaces for men. That section alone reveals what she really thinks imo. Itâs probably also a big reason people suspect sheâs a terf.
Yeah all that logic, research and the audacity to talk about female anatomy....she must be a terf đ
I agree. Perhaps the fact she never talks about trans reveals her feelngs.
Definitely feminist! I quote it when I need to demonstrate to people (mostly men) what women are facing, in terms of what is just built into the system. The part about ploughing roads really stuck with me, regarding the unpaid labor of women taking children and elderly relatives to the dr (whereas snow ploughs prioritized the working house husbandâs route)
Yes! That and the public transportation routes are things I never even thought of! Also, the part about piano keyboards being designed for men and their larger handspans made me feel so validated about not being able to play certain chords!
Absolutely! Recognizing that sex differences exist and how women have been harmed and even killed because these differences have been ignored is definitely feminist.
I think it's also a great book to help open others' eyes to the misogyny embedded in our societies. Depressing and angering, but absolutely worth the read.
I hope everyone has seen this thread:
Sort of answers the question, really.
I like the book. Some of the chapters are laboured but you kind of expect that in a popular researched book. She centres sex differences and it's a powerful book for highlighting the invisible biases that favour men in the world.
Have you a link for the controversy surrounding the author? I'm a bit nosey.
Oh, the controversy I was referring to was regarding Rebecca Solnit, not Caroline Criado PĂ©rez. As for controversy surrounding Solnit, I believe this thread does a good job at showing that off.
Phew! Thanks. PĂ©rez struck me as a decent sort who discovered the value of a feminist perspective through actual research. I enjoy her newsletters.
I read it a while ago so I can't recall, but if there was any gender nonsense, it was a quick acknowledgement at best before moving on. Definitely feminist, modern classic imo.
Definitely feminist! I love the book.