by Catriona Mills

When Outraged Feminism Meets Doctor Who

Posted 6 April 2010 in by Catriona

(What follows contains what you might call mild spoilers, if you’ve seen no photographs of the new companion. It contains no discussion whatsoever of the plot of the forthcoming episode, but does briefly discuss the character’s back story—which has already been discussed extensively online.)

Nick—as those of you who follow him on Twitter will already know—found this brief article in MX Brisbane, a free street newspaper, a copy of which he picked up off the bus seat next to him:

It’s all right: you take the time to wipe whatever you were just drinking off the computer screen. I can wait.

The “slut” in question is Amy Pond, the new companion. She’s played, as you can see from the photograph, by a beautiful redhead, whose Scottish accent, I’m reliably informed by people of my acquaintance, makes her even sexier.

Amy Pond is, by profession, a kissogram, which led to the following discussion with Nick.

ME: So she’s a tall, gorgeous woman who works on—no, you wouldn’t even call that the fringes of the sex industry.
NICK: Affection industry at best, I’d have thought.

Yes, she spends part of the first episode in a policewoman’s outfit. Yes, that policewoman’s outfit has a mini-skirt. Wearing a mini-skirt somehow qualifies you for the pejorative term “slut,” now, does it? What is this, Derby Day at Flemington race course in 1965?

Or maybe it’s the fact that she’s a kissogram that qualifies her for this, let’s face it, grotesquely exaggerated and offensive insult. I don’t see why, but then I didn’t decide to write an article called “Who is the slut?”

According to this article, there’ve been a “flood of complaints”. Too much to expect that they cite any? Oh, yes. But it seems the real complaint is from The Daily Mail‘s Allison Pearson, who in an article here, says

Since when was Doctor Who’s assistant supposed to be sexy? They’re meant to be one of the boys, running around saving distant worlds. Is it too much to ask that family TV remains the one universe yet to be invaded by nuts magazine?

As the commenters on this article astutely point out, not only have there been plenty of sexy companions in the past (if Jo wasn’t sexy, why did Terry Walsh spend so much time climbing ladders in mini skirts? And what about Nyssa? Peri and her low-cut tops? Mary Tamm as Romana? Leela? Liz Shaw, whom Nick still idolises?), but if the companions were meant to be “one of the boys,” then why did they scream so much and sprain their ankles?

As Nick says, MX Brisbane has taken an article from The Daily Mail and made it nastier. That itself is an achievement, I suppose.

Oh, and the “critic” whom they cite as saying “They’ve completely demeaned Doctor Who by replacing good stories with slutty girls”? You can find the whole ugly comment, edited for the piece above, quoted here, in a forum discussion that rightly questions how the Daily Mail managed to make an entire news story out of a couple of anonymous comments on an online forum.

Anonymous comments do not a critic make, MX.

But it doesn’t matter where the “flood of complaints” vaguely referenced in the article come from. It doesn’t matter if some viewers think wearing a mini-skirt (with, I might add, an enormous jumper) is analogous to the type of outfits normally adopted while posing for a lad’s mag. It really doesn’t.

What matters is that the writer of this article thought “Who is the slut?” is an appropriate way of introducing the fact that the new companion has pretty legs and wears short skirts.

I would suggest what I think is an appropriate rebuttal to that attitude, but I’m sure you’ve all reached the same conclusion.

And to think some people say we don’t need feminism any more, because women have already gained equality. I would weep, but I think I’ll just have another drink instead.

Share your thoughts [16]

1

2paw wrote at Apr 6, 10:45 am

Young women have never really experienced the way of life that led to the Women’s Lib movement. I remember when I first started teaching, married women still had to resign if they were pregnant, and we could only were trousers if they were part of a ‘pant suit’ and this was not in the dark ages. It was the early 80s.
I do despair of the slow frittering away of the gains made by women, there’s nothing wrong or confrontational about being a feminist. Don’t get me started on Boys’ Have there been similar headlines about The Doctor willy-nilly taking his cloths off?? I think not.

2

Catriona wrote at Apr 6, 11:09 am

Welcome to the blog, 2paw! You’re quite right: there’ve been no comments about the Doctor taking his kit off, nor about his promiscuous hugging of his companions, nor about the fact that every woman he meets falls in love with him.

That just makes him manly. (I would argue that it also made him heternormative, but then Doctor Who led to Captain Jack and Torchwood, so such an argument might be a little mean-spirited.)

But let a woman put on a short skirt, and she’s a slut.

As Nick says, it’s coming to something when an article manages to re-write (without attribution) an article from The Daily Mail and somehow make it more sexist.

3

Heather wrote at Apr 7, 02:38 am

Let’s write to the Daily Mail and ask “Who’s the sexist dumbass?” In fact…doing that now.

4

Catriona wrote at Apr 7, 02:50 am

The Daily Mail‘s headline was much more moderate, and I don’t believe they used the term “slut” at all: their article was still a mis-step, I think, but it wasn’t anywhere near as offensive as this one.

I am seriously thinking of contacting MX to point out the offensiveness of this headline. But, honestly, I shouldn’t have to. I can’t believe an editor or sub-editor didn’t re-write this themselves.

5

Melissa wrote at Apr 7, 04:19 pm

Feh. What nonsense!

Strange that she is deemed “slutty” for wearing a short skirt, but if the Doctor wants to get naked that’s perfectly OK. In fact, that just makes HER more of a “slut”, somehow. But, wait…how could I forget? She’s female; of course it’s all her fault! Sheesh.

At least now I remember why I avoid picking up mX. Their content is rather questionable at best.

6

Catriona wrote at Apr 7, 09:32 pm

They seem to be basing it on her “revealing policewoman’s outfit,” but, if you haven’t seen any photographs of her in it, it’s really not what I would call revealing. From the waist up, it’s a normal policewoman’s outfit: long-sleeved, high-necked blouse; a vest; and, for goodness’ sake, a cravat. It reveals nothing.

And below the waist she has, in addition to the mini-skirt, black tights and extremely sensible lace-up brogues.

See?

Not that any of this matters. She could be running around saving the universe in her knickers, and it still wouldn’t warrant them calling her a slut. But it does reinforce that ultra-conservatism that, as you say, Melissa, makes her slutty if he takes his kit off. Her knees might be, quite literally, the only exposed body part, but women are just all wicked, aren’t they?

7

Catriona wrote at Apr 7, 09:35 pm

Plus, the photograph with which they’ve chosen to illustrate this piece makes me giggle (after I’ve finished sighing in envy over that lovely hair): the only exposed skin is from the neck up (and her fingers). Based on what we can see here, this wouldn’t even be considered a revealing outfit in the height of the Victorian era.

8

Deb wrote at Apr 12, 12:44 am

Lets not overlook the fact that she spends the second episode in her NIGHTY!! and it gets WET!!! [and is completely covering her and non-see through at all times]
Seriously I wish MS would take away his borderline acromegalic face and almost intellectually challenged expressions and put them ummmmmmm shall we just say – somewhere else? Not a Doctor at all IMHO.

9

Catriona wrote at Apr 12, 01:17 am

Spoilers, Deb! Spoilers!

Only little ones, but still spoilers!

I only hope the writer of the article never watches Return of the Jedi (or, you know, meets a real woman), or their head might explode.

I’m not touching the Matt Smith comment! We can debate that at leisure once the live-blogging starts.

(Just quietly, I rather like him. I didn’t think I was going to, but I do.)

10

Deb wrote at Apr 12, 02:19 am

Arrrghhhh my bad Sorry all! I am just so disgruntled about MS.

11

Quintus Sertorius wrote at Apr 13, 02:15 pm

Nyssa went through an entire 4-part story sans skirt (her final appearance in Terminus) which was “a present to the fans” (in Sarah Sutton’s own words). The companions have always been sexy. So what? A lot of them have also been strong, independent, intellectual, ethical and otherwise generally admirable characters. One is allowed to simultaneously be feminine and feminist!

Matt Smith FTW – I think he’ll be just great. He seems to be a very smooth transition from David Tennant, and in some respects a nice contrast.

12

Catriona wrote at Apr 13, 09:03 pm

You’re absolutely right, Quintus Sertorius.

Even the ones who I didn’t find to be particularly strong characters (Peri and Mel are the first two who spring to mind) were still out there travelling the universe and facing terrifying monsters.

13

brett wrote at May 2, 12:31 pm

I don’t care about her clothes. It’s her behaviour that makes her a slut. She leers at a naked man despite the protests of her [boyfriend], then later [Brett, I've removed this section of the post, because the policy of this site is not to discuss episodes that haven't yet aired on Australian television, though I realise that you might not be aware of that policy.]

Hmm, yes, that’s not slutty at all? [Another spoiler alert] is just part of being a strong woman?

Umm, no. As for being independent, or ethical, give me a break, she’s eye-candy. She’s there to be rescued, to look good, to be lusted after.

I can think of a lot of the female companions who were independent, smart and strong. Leelah tossed a dagger into a Sontaran feeding tube. Romana was better at Temporal Engineering than the Doctor was. Sarah Jane, originally at least, didn’t take any crap from him.

But Amy Pond just represents the worst. There’s a theory that a rip in spacetime follows her about, and only by killing her can it be closed and the universe saved.

I think even the Whoniverse would rather die than suffer her continued existence.

14

Catriona wrote at May 2, 01:11 pm

Brett, welcome to the site. You’ve come in on a controversial topic, as you can see.

(I have, as you can see, edited your comments, but only to remove those sections that discussed episodes that haven’t yet aired in Australia. Many of this site’s readers watch Doctor Who on the ABC’s schedule, and I’ve long decided to make sure they don’t stumble across any spoilers.)

You’ll notice, too, that when Quintus Sertorius talks above about the companions being ethical and intelligent, he is not speaking specifically of Amy. (Quintus, I’ve attributed masculinity to you based on your pseudonym. Apologies if that’s incorrect.)

The problem I have with this is largely with the terminology. “Slut” is pejorative and highly offensive. If the journalist were really attempting to critique the shift in the status or behaviour of the companions, why choose such an aggressive label?

As The Drunken Housewife discussed at length today, we’re in the middle of an anti-feminist backlash that claims feminism has won its battles. We seem to be arguing that since women now have equality (or so it’s claimed), we can get back to experiencing the power of our sexuality and reducing men to quivering wrecks.

Problematic in itself as this situation is, the other side of it is that perceptions of sexuality can be used as a weapon. That, I think, is what’s happening here. So Amy doesn’t fit the norm, either as a companion or as a woman? Then she deserves vicious insults. She’s even earned them. That seems to be how this article is positioned.

And I can’t support that.

15

Catriona wrote at May 2, 01:13 pm

Tim, thank you for pointing that out. I haven’t moderated your comment, because it would have contained the exact same spoiler (and didn’t include other material).

16

Tim wrote at May 2, 01:27 pm

> Umm, no. As for being independent, or ethical, give me a break, she’s eye-candy. She’s there to be rescued, to look good, to be lusted after.

None of those things are exclusive. Leela, Romana and Sarah Jane were all there to be rescued and to look good, but at the same time were (at times) strong, independent characters offering alternative points of view.

> I can think of a lot of the female companions who were independent, smart and strong. Leelah tossed a dagger into a Sontaran feeding tube. Romana was better at Temporal Engineering than the Doctor was. Sarah Jane, originally at least, didn’t take any crap from him.

Amy has been similarly capable in episodes aired so far. In both ‘The Beast Below’ and ‘Victory of the Daleks’, she reaches a conclusion that the Doctor had missed and acts on her deductions. She hardly represents ‘the worst’.

Besides, even if she was a weak companion, that wouldn’t justify the cheap piece of sensationalism published by The Daily Mail or the ludicrous headline attached to it by MX.

> Tim, thank you for pointing that out. I haven’t moderated your comment, because it would have contained the exact same spoiler (and didn’t include other material).

Cheers, that was my expectation.

Comment Form

All comments are moderated and moderation includes a non-spoiler policy based on Australian television scheduling.

Textile help (Advice on using Textile to format your comments)
(if you do not want your details filled in when you return)

Categories

Blogroll

Monthly Archive

2012
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
2011
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
August
October
November
December
2010
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
October
December
2009
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2008
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December