SFP wrote:Eddie1968: Firstly, I don't think I've dismissed any of your ideas or your anxieties and, in one respect, you're absolutely correct, a change of gender will, potentially, turn some of the Doctor Who universe on it's head. As to why it hasn't been done before? I suspect that, historically, either a huge body of BBC opinion sided with your own viewpoint or, simply didn't consider it as an option. Putting all questions of 'political correctness' to one side, the BBC, as well as society in general may have simply lacked the vision or courage to consider the issue until now. On the other hand, it might, as some suggest, be a case of self-indulgent 'political correctness gone mad. Personally, I don't believe that motive always matters in the long run.
I wouldn't define 'vision and courage' to mean take a TV program and make a change that will obviously ruin it. My point is that I thought the change was an extremely misjudged and potentially fatal one, regardless of any terms applied to the decision by anyone else. As you say, motives don't matter, at least not as far as the results go, and we are talking about the ruination of a popular (to a minority of TV viewers, and a larger demographic of science fiction fans) TV program.
Look at it this way: say you lived in England, and loved football. Now imagine that the FA (who control football in the UK) announce that they're going to randomly choose half of the football teams and make them use only female players, and that your football team is one of them. Now, would you be happy or upset?
It could be said that that was a good idea, with respect to womens' rights (and certainly we do need to improve women's rights in many, many areas), and it no doubt would be. But what would it do to the success and quality of the teams that were now made up of women?
Women can play football, maybe not as well as men overall, but they can play football much better than a female Doctor Who would work. And changing half of the players in the football leagues would be courageous (no sure about visionary, though), but most football supporters (even women) would oppose it because the changed teams wouldn't be as good.
Yet it would still be football. Whereas Doctor Who with a female lead is not Doctor Who. It couldn't be, and it isn't.
And when the fans of those changed teams, or anyone else, complained about the declining standards of the football in those teams, and how those teams were no longer enjoying successes, then people like loonyboyx would label them all as women-hating sexists (even, er, the female fans who complain), and post insulting drivel like that image:
instead of actually considering that maybe, just maybe, the reasons for someone having an opinion isn't, perhaps, down to personal malice.
The truly important questions (I would suggest) are:
(i) do you, personally, find that thought that everything will change (in this case with a woman taking over an established, historically 'male' role), exciting or does the idea fill you with dread, disappointment and anger?
(ii) does everyone involved in creating the programme have the will, skill, capacity and strength of character needed to embrace those changes and make them work?
(iii) provided the answer to (ii) is "yes", will you embrace those changes or reject them?
Surely the important question is would the change of gender work in Doctor Who. And it's been proven not to, I (*monumentally* regretfully) say. What else matters?
But to answer your questions:
(i) I find it extremely disappointing that a program I love so much has been ruined, even if the intentions were good. It wasn't even like it was slightly possible for it to work, so it's not like the BBC can truthfully say "Well we were wrong, but it sounded like a good idea". Not that the BBC exactly has a history of apologising for it's mistakes, but still...
(ii) No. Firstly because the change obviously could never work, and secondly because the writing, ideas, even the make up on the 'aliens' has been rubbish and very often utterly childish. Even if both the Doctor's gender change, story-wise, and Jodi Whittaker as the actress, had worked in the role, it would have been at best Doctor Who with a good Doctor but mostly terrible storylines/ideas/enemies/etc. Though in that case, none of the bad would have been down to the change in the Doctor's gender, and with a change of writers and better ideas, etc, then it would have been a great program again. But the change of the Doctor's gender was fatal to the program anyway. The program has been through very bad periods of stories/lack of mature themes and ideas/terrible villains/etc before (such as the Sixth Doctor's seasons, or most of the Seventh Doctor's seasons) but even at it's worst, then it was still Doctor Who. This last series was not Doctor Who.
(iii) If it had worked then I'd have been overjoyed. I really, really wanted it to work, since the only alternative was that it wouldn't work, and I didn't want to loose the program at all. But it hasn't worked. And nor could it, I honestly believe.
I'm saying this as a 'man' but, personally, I find the thought exciting. Seeing the universe through a woman's eyes, mind, body and spirit could profoundly alter the Doctor's perspective on the past, present and future her/his internally and externally and, if that is your concern, then you might be right to worry. Even if it was a triumph, It could still change the programme in a way you find personally distasteful. Equally, it could be a disaster by anybody's standards in which case, the BBC will have lost a major opportunity and lost another generation of viewers. And, just to clarify, I'm sixty years of age and remember watching the first doctor on a black and white television as a child so, I would suggest, I've got as much, if not more reason to feel as disappointed as anyone.
But by your own words you think the change might be for the better. So at least you had reason to be optimistic. From the start, I was convinced it would ruin the program, and it's not like they HAD to make the change. You yourself admit that it might have been "a disaster by anybody's standards in which case, the BBC will have lost a major opportunity and lost another generation of viewers" (and in fact it has been an utter disaster), so why should the BBC have been allowed to take a risk that even people who didn't oppose the change (such as you) admit might well kill off the program? If they wanted to do something to put a female actress in a lead part, they could have made a new TV program, with a female lead. Why not a new series set in the Doctor Who universe, with a female time lord? Instead, they were happy to risk ruining the program, just to look all PC to the world. And **** the fans.
I'm not going to comment on the arguments littering this forum except to say that I find some of the notions expressed distasteful and, to my mind, somewhat immature, not just with regard to the subject of whether or not the Doctor might or might not be played successfully by a woman, but with regard to the topic of Brexit and political correctness that has crept in on the sidelines. Just to be clear: I personally feel (as a son, brother, widow who loved and lost his best friend and partner of twenty years, as a proud father and grandfather of both girls and boys) that the biggest problem women face is the fact that a significant percentage of the population (regardless of age, creed, colour, religion or race) lack the maturity, intellectual and emotional desire or capacity, personal integrity, empathy and sensitivity to cope with the fact that they were born with a penis. I do not have to walk through the world fearing rape or murder by a person that I know, don't know or am related to and, even in the unlikely event that that were to occur, I would most likely be raped by another man. Some men of my father's generation, for instance, also believed that (and I heard this expressed so, it's real, not made up), on the basis that 'when a woman says "no" she really means "yes" and that a woman who was truly raped will have resisted her attacker and been beaten black and blue in the meantime, it was reasonable to divorce, separate of throw out a wife or partner who had been raped. After all, what "self-respecting male in his right mind" would want to remain with another man's soiled, second-hand cast-off! Physical rape is, perhaps, one of the most obvious of the many indignities suffered by women and, while there is no doubt that it is not just women who suffer abuse in today's world and, while it is also true that women are just as capable of abusing their own status and power as men are, it remains an issue that needs to be addressed whether you or I happen to like it or not.
I agree with everything you said here, except your remark about PC creeping in. PC has, in the main, done a *lot* of good, almost immeasurably more good than bad, and is a very, very good thing. Nonetheless, it has done some bad (and mind-bogglingly stupid) things, and we should point the bad things out when they occur. And freedom of speech is a real casualty even in this forum. My opinions and reasons have been dismissed as purely driven by sexism and a fear of women, instead of being considered (and argued against, in wrong) by people in this thread, and they're allowed to do so simply because I was giving an opinion that didn't blindly follow the PC extremist viewpoint.
Look how offensive that image is. Imagination if it were making fun of Doctor Who fans who wanted the Doctor to change gender. Then this thread would have been filled with people criticising the poster of the image for daring to ridicule the belief of someone who agreed with a politically correct decision. And (the same people would cry) what about freedom of speech?
If someone wants the Doctor to change to a female, then By God they should be allowed to say so. Free speech is the bedrock on which this nation is founded.
But I oppose the change of gender. And since my decision is incidentally against the extreme PC viewpoint, then I can be ridiculed freely by anyone, and my right to free speech suddenly becomes my right to be mocked and to have my views assigned to bigotry and sexism, so that the ultra-PC hypocrites don't have to consider that I might be right.
Seriously, look through this forum and read the drivel and insults I've had to endure, simply because I posted my opinion and it wasn't PC. And then tell me that I'd have received the same **** if say I posted something equally true but this time PC.
Finally, try to dismiss my opinions as 'soft', 'wishy-washy', 'liberal' or 'lefty' and be aware that, in doing so, you will have lost any moral high ground regardless of whether or not you type a response. Personally, while I find some of the statements (on both sides) made in this forum to date disagreeable, dismissive and distasteful, I'm glad that they have been made if only because, if I have to stand up for something or argue my case, I'd rather argue with a person who's prepared to disagree and punch me on the nose, than someone who will say little or nothing, sneak up behind and stab me in the back! At least you've had the courage to speak your mind, regardless of whether or not I personally agree with you. After all, the question, for all sides of a truly 'democratic' debate (apart from the moral courage and integrity to differentiate between a 'slight preference' and a 'mandate') is not whether or not we believe that we are right, but whether or not we're prepared to believe that there might be more than one answer, more than one way to go, or that we might not be completely right at all?
Yes, but freedom of speech is currently under attack in so many areas. It's better than it was centuries back, of course, at least in many countries. But it's something that needs to be constantly upheld, and so many groups want to only class freedom of speech as being freedom to say whatever they themselves believe, or want to believe, to be true.
That doesn't mean that one should not act decisively, incidentally. Adults have to make a lot of decisions because some kind of decision has to be made 'now', regardless of whether or not we really understand the problem or regardless of whether or not we have all the information we need. What's important, is that you maintain the ability to recognise that, while decisions have to be made or beliefs held, they are held on the basis that they are the best decisions that could be made, or beliefs that can be held 'at the moment' and should be reconsidered, amended or dropped in the face of new information. True ignorance is not based on the belief that you should not state your position believing that you are right; but on the inability to state your position knowing that you might be only partially right, or completely wrong and have, therefore, to admit to being (partially or completely) wrong and revise it.
With that in mind, and returning to the pertinent question of whether or not the doctor might be successfully played by a woman, have a look at questions (i) to (iii) again and, ask, what might I/we do (as individuals or as a group) to ensure that, having made the decision to give the Doctor's role to Jodi Whittacker (whether I/we happen to like it or not), the BBC ensures that she (Jodi), the rest of the cast, writers, directors, producers and contributors to the programme at every level do what they need to do in order to maintain the programme's high production and moral values and make the decision work!
Think you/we can do that?
Steph_P
Well, first of all we can do nothing. The BBC doesn't listen to it's fans. We get no say in anything. And the BBC have already decided that there will be no new series of Doctor Who in 2019, which is taken by many people to mean that the BBC wants to end the program totally (as they did for seventeen years in 1989), and which might provide part of the reason as to why the BBC made such a stupid decision to change the Doctor's gender in the first place; perhaps the BBC realised that the gender change would ruin the program and drive viewers away, and so they could then kill of the program due to the drop in viewer-ship. The BBC has always seemed to be almost ashamed of the program, and this does seem like a convenient way to end it.