It was announced just a few days ago that the next Doctor will be a woman played by Jodie Whitaker.
In my opinion this is the final nail in the coffin of Doctor Who. To me there is no way the show can recover now, but to be fair its not just been this single action that has sunk what was once the most wonderful of series.
Its been a long and slow process leading up to the death of Doctor Who, and in this article I am going to run through the 5 people who have contributed more to the demise of the Time Lord than anyone else.
Why A Female Doctor Kills The Show
Before we start I’d just like to establish why I feel a female Doctor isn’t a great idea, and could potentially sink Doctor Who. (If you are already that way inclined then I’d recommend just skipping this section.)
Of course feminists and virtue signallers will often just say that the reason I and others can’t stand a female Doctor is because we hate the idea of any women having leading roles on tv. This is of course nonsense and this blog alone which has 10 thousand word articles on shows like Xena prove that I have 0 problems with a female lead.
Personally I think its a double standard the way that those of us who don’t want a female Doctor are told we don’t like female heroes, but those who couldn’t bare the thought of the Doctor staying male aren’t treated as though they can’t stand male heroes on tv.
I’m not the one whinging on about how annoying it is that an iconic female character like Xena, Buffy or the Charmed Ones are female!
Anyway getting back on point, a female Doctor is a horrendous idea in my opinion for many reasons.
To start with contrary to what the media says, all of the Doctors are not meant to be different people.
All of the Doctors are meant to be the same person underneath their different persona’s and faces.
In Classic Who regeneration was always treated as essentially an advanced form of healing. A Time Lord’s body broke down, and then it repaired itself, but in doing so it took on a totally different appearance. Essentially it rebuilt itself from scratch. As a result of this process, the Time Lord’s outer persona would change too. For example the previous version might have been deadly serious, whilst the next might be more flippant and humorous.
However the core personality, consciousness, and of course memories of a Time Lord were all the same from incarnation to incarnation.
This isn’t just my interpretation. All of the most prominent people involved in Classic Who wrote/played/produced the character as being the same person.
Terrance Dicks, the shows longest running script editor said that the single most important thing was not to change the Doctors character too much.
Robert Holmes who wrote more episodes than anybody else and who is often regarded as the shows best script editor also said that he always wrote the Doctor as being the same character, and simply allowed the actor to reinterpret his lines however they wanted.
Terry Nation who wrote the most episodes after Bob Holmes said exactly the same thing too. Obviously they’d make a few small allowances for each actor. If it were Jon Pertwee they might write in a fight scene for him, and if it were William Hartnell then they obviously wouldn’t put in too many physical scenes. But the point is overall, Bob Holmes and Terry Nation treated the Doctor as being the same character from incarnation to incarnation.
John Nathan Turner, the shows longest running producer meanwhile also said that he always treated them as the same person, hence his strict policy about the Doctor never falling in love with his companions, and even little minor details, like making each of the three actors he cast as the Doctor grow their hair out, as short back and sides weren’t the Doctors style.
All of the actors who played the role from Jon Pertwee on meanwhile all voiced a similar sentiment. Jon Pertwee was always adamant about the Doctor being portrayed as an asexual, grandfatherly figure because that’s what the character had always been. Tom Baker says in a 1970s documentary called “Whose Doctor Who” which was recorded whilst he was at the height of his popularity in the role (which is collected on the Talons of Weng Chiang DVD.) That the Doctor is the most limited role he ever played, as there are so many things he can’t do as he wouldn’t seem like the Doctor anymore.
Peter Davison meanwhile also mentioned amalgating aspects of previous Doctors into his own persona, whilst bringing something new to it. Colin Baker also said he spent hours after being cast, watching old stories to get an idea of who the Doctor was under his different faces, and then stay within that.
Finally McCoy said that he also was inspired by the first two Doctors and wanted to essentially update their performances for a new generation.
Essentially the character of the Doctor always follows a template, and its both the job of the actor playing it, and the writer and producer to do something new within that template, not completely break it.
The same is true of just about any long running character. With Batman for instance, he has changed on the surface to an even greater extent than the Doctor over the decades. He has been a comedy character, a gritty, down to earth crime fighter, a more gothic, tragic, dark hero who murders his enemies etc. But underneath it all, he has always stayed within the same template that defines Batman. All versions of Batman live in Gotham, work with Commissioner Gordon, are called Bruce Wayne, are motivated to fight criminals by the death of their parents, fight the Joker, have a butler named Alfred, have no super powers, and use gadgets, have a batmobile etc.
Thus for the Doctor its the same. All versions of the Doctor in Classic Who are mysterious. We never find out his real name in ANY incarnation. They are written as older, more mature, fatherly characters to their companions, are motivated by a desire to explore the universe, and find out its secrets, and have a very strict moral code where they will kill an enemy if need be, but only in self defence.
Even little, more superficial aspects carry on from Doctor to Doctor. For instance all Doctors in Classic Who dress in frock coats, and tend to wear more elaborate, old fashioned, Edwardian, Victorian era clothing. Also John Nathan Turner is right, they do all have long hair in the classic era too.
Finally the TARDIS is always a police box on the outside, as all of the Doctors have either been unable to fix the chamelion circuit, or have grown fond of the police box shape.
Really you could argue that there is no point to regeneration if all of the Doctors are different people. Back in 1966 you could have easily had another character take over from William Hartnell.
Since we knew NOTHING about his history or people, it could have easily been introduced that the Doctor is a title passed on to various members of his kind whose job is to explore the universe, and after Hartnell’s character died, then the TARDIS would be recalled to Gallifrey, and handed over to a new member of his kind who would become the new Doctor, and so on and so on.
I honestly think that audiences would have accepted that explanation, and had they done that, then obviously no one would object to a female Doctor. Indeed it undoubtedly would have happened long before now.
However regeneration in many ways was the best of all options, as it allowed them to keep the original character, but change him slightly, so that the new actor could make it his own, whilst still staying within a template that ensured it was recognisably the same character as before.
Making it that all of a Time Lords incarnations are completely different people however, destroys the character of the Doctor. Now if nothing carries over from incarnation to incarnation, why not have one Doctor being evil? Why not have one Doctor be a James Bond style lothario shagging every companion he comes into contact with?
There has to be a template to ensure that the Doctor is a character overall, and not just a title passed on to different characters.
Now in all fairness New Who has broken the template of the character of the Doctor before and I have criticised it in the past. Tennant’s Doctor was written too much like a young man for instance (such as when he tells Wilfred Mott that he would be proud if her were his dad.)
Also there is the Doctors notorious romantic interest in various companions throughout New Who, such as Rose and Clara, which has been attacked by fans, both old and new who see them as out of character.
Still I’d argue that turning the Doctor into a woman is a bigger change. Obviously a woman could embody many aspects of the Doctors personality such as his intelligence, his curiosity.
However, the Doctors gender is part of the template of his persona, really by default at this stage. He has always been written and played as a man. His relationships were all from a male persona, grandfather, father, father figure, boyfriend, husband, etc. He always dresses in masculine clothes, even his look, of having the long hair, stood out because it was more unusual for a male hero to have long hair.
Added to that the character is inspired by, and really follows in the tradition of other British gentlemanly heroes, such as Bernard Quatermass, and Sherlock Holmes. It is for this reason that many fans would not be happy with a non British actor playing the role too.
No one is saying that you can’t have a female hero like the Doctor, but the Doctor is kind of set as a man, so trying to change him at this stage, would feel jarring, and it wouldn’t even feel like the Doctor anymore.
I think there are only 3 ways you can change a characters gender and make it work, none of which would work for the Doctor.
1/ Change their gender in a remake.
This isn’t always guaranteed to work (and that applies both ways of course. Try and change Buffy’s gender for instance in a remake and watch the very same people cheering for a female Doctor lose it!)
Still this can work as obviously the new female version isn’t connected to the original, so it isn’t jarring. Had Chris Chibnall decided to do a remake of Doctor Who, akin to the Peter Cushing movies with a female lead, then no one would have cared.
Even then though, whilst it wouldn’t have seemed jarring, I still say that if you want to give women their own hero then it is always better to create a new character. Even if say a female version of Batman in a remake is really good, then Batman is still always going to be seen as a male character, because he was introduced that way, and the most famous versions of him are men.
However a new character like Xena is a role solely for women that has gone on to become as iconic as any male character. I would have thought that’s what feminists would have wanted, rather than a hand me down of an existing male character.
2/ Write them like a transexual who wants to change gender: I obviously have 0 issues with either trans people, or with a trans character being introduced. However I don’t think you can suddenly make the Doctor suffer from gender dysphoria after 50 years (several thousand in the shows universe.) It wouldn’t make any sense that he has never had any problem being a man for all of his regenerations before, and would if anything be in danger of trivialising gender dysphoria, by making it look like just a phase people go through (as presumably the Doctor would turn back into a man at some point?)
3/ Create a character who is genuinely genderless and can switch between the genders at will: This worked with the character of Brainiac in Smallville who was written as a machine creature and regularly switched between male and female forms.
For the Doctor however, again this isn’t an option. Steven Moffat, after being bullied by SJWs, did recently rewrite it that all Time Lords are genderless, but still that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t jar with what came before.
Time Lords have never for 50 years been written as a genderless race. In terms of how they dress, their attitude to the opposite sex, their relationships with each other and other species. Trying to crowbar it in that Susan can morph into Brian Blessed after 50 years once again is in danger of turning the show into a parody.
Of course whilst those are my reasons for disliking a female Doctor, others have expressed anger at a role model being taken away from young boys. Personally I have never cared much about role models, but still considering that the feminists entire argument is “we need a role model by turning the Doctor into a woman”, then fair enough.
Why take a role model away from little boys, just to give it to little girls? Did Xena, take a role away from men? Nope, Xena existed happily alongside another male hero, Hercules. Why couldn’t we have done the same thing with Romana (an existing female character that is popular and could easily be brought back) and the Doctor?
Ultimately whilst these are the reasons that I an others think a female Doctor is a poor idea all around, the reason I and many others have grown to despise the change is because it has been forced on us by a pushy political group.
The feminists and the SJWs are essentially the modern day version of Mary Whitehouse. A tiny, but very vocal minority, who forced their own opinions on the show through slandering its makers, and in this article we will take a look at the 5 people who made it possible for them to do that.
5/ Neil Gaiman
This acclaimed comic book writer began the whole female Doctor idea in the 2011 story The Doctors Wife.
Prior to this as we have been over Time Lords changing gender had never been a part of the shows canon.
The idea of the Doctor becoming a woman to be fair was mentioned in the press before. It first started when Tom Baker said it as a joke when he was leaving. Apparently he did it to wind up then producer John Nathan Turner (who later openly said that a woman should NEVER play the Doctor.)
Sydney Newman one of the creators of Doctor Who also brought up the idea in the 80’s but again that doesn’t mean much. Sydney Newman was obviously a great producer, but he didn’t always know what was best for his show.
For instance Newman famously hated the Daleks and didn’t want them to appear in the series at all. He also didn’t want any monsters in it either, and furthermore he wanted to have the Doctor regenerate back into Patrick Troughton and then become a woman.
Thus unless you also think that the Daleks should never have been in the show, and the Doctor should turn back into a previous incarnation then its really quite a lame argument to use “but the creator wanted it in a desperate attempt to keep it afloat in the 80’s.”
I might add that Newman wasn’t even the sole creator of Doctor Who. It was really more of a team effort. Verity Lambert (who was against a female Doctor) had a lot of input and cast William Hartnell, whilst it was David Whitaker who suggested the TARDIS be bigger on the inside than the outside.
Ultimately apart from a few jokes in the media, and one suggestion from Newman that was immediately dismissed by John Nathan Turner right away, gender bending Time Lords was never established in the show for close to 50 years.
Neil Gaiman was the one who retroactively rewrote the shows actual lore to make Time Lords non binary. Personally I think he did it to make himself into a Gene Roddenberry, Frank Hampson type figure.
For those of you unfamiliar with those two men, they were iconic sci fi writers (with Hampson creating Dan Dare and Roddenberry creating Star Trek.) Dan Dare and Star Trek both gave strong roles for ethnic minorities and women at a time when such a thing was almost unheard of. As a result of this both Roddenberry and Hampson are celebrated as liberal icons within the entertainment industry to this day.
Times have moved on however. Back in the 50’s when Dan Dare was first released, you could break new ground simply having a black character be Dan’s boss. However now in the 2010’s would anyone give a shit if the main characters boss was black? Would anyone care if the main character was black?
Similarly Gene Roddenberry could break new ground in the 60’s by having a black woman and a white guy just snog, but now does anyone even notice if there is an interracial love story like say Lister and Kochanski, that practically drives whole seasons of Red Dwarf?
However people like Neil Gaiman clearly wanted to be seen as a liberal icon who challenged the sexism and racism around him like Hampson and Roddenberry and I feel he saw a female Doctor as being his opportunity to make himself that.
With a female Doctor, Gaiman would be creating a process that led to one of the most popular male heroes becoming female. Gaiman could then present himself as the progressive champion as it would be easy to tar those who didn’t want a female Doctor as sexists. After all to people who don’t know about Doctor Who and probably think that the Doctors are all different characters, then it can sadly appear sexist to not want a female Doctor.
I might be doing Gaiman a disservice here. Until recently I used to see him as being somewhat more misguided in his desire for representation than a poser, but it was after reading these interviews with him I started to see him as being more in it for his own ego.
You can see what I mean from those interviews its very much a “I’m going to teach you stupid little plebs about women” attitude from the way he tells us if we want to write great female characters to “go out and hang around with women” or when he says that the Doctor should be strong minded, and brave, but that women can have these qualities too. Thank you Mr Gaiman I never knew that until you told me!
Now you might be thinking “well it was only one line, and it was vague, so that didn’t solely lead to a female Doctor”. However the thing with the SJW’s, who are the people who pushed for this the most. (I know some fans probably thought it was an okay idea, and were up for it, and that’s fine.) Still the people who REALLY pushed for it were the SJWs who simply saw it as a victory without really knowing why.
These people should NEVER be pandered too. Give them an inch (in this case a throwaway line) and they will take a trillion miles!
For ages afterwards SJWs who wanted a female Doctor would always says “its canon that they change gender so it has to happen eventually.” Which they could only do thanks to Gaiman and this in turn just meant that the pressure for there to be a female Doctor became overwhelming when Peter Capaldi was cast.
It would be great poetic justice if some alt right writer came along and revived Gaimans most famous work, and completely rewrote its lore and all of its core characters to fit their divisive political agenda and then slandered anyone who didn’t like it.
4/ Paul Cornell
Now Paul Cornell’s role in sinking Doctor Who is more in relation to how he has behaved outside of the show.
I don’t like any of the episodes he wrote for the series, but they didn’t if I am being fair have any impact on the state of the show now.
Paul Cornell however was one of the most vocal supporters of a female Doctor. Now obviously Paul is entitled to his opinion (though I genuinely don’t understand how anyone who is actually a Doctor Who fan could say that they wanted a female Doctor?)
Still Paul was responsible for pioneering a lot of bad arguments for a female Doctor that ended up being picked up by the papers and a lot of the SJW’s.
First and foremost Paul called anyone who didn’t want a female Doctor a sexist.
Take a look at this quote.
“The absolute worst extreme of that trait is the sort of fan that thinks there shouldn’t be a female Doctor. They’re sure they’re good people, so there must, their reasoning goes, be a good reason why they feel that way. They’re not bigots, after all. They can’t be. So they find some very awkward ‘reason’ that can just about be made to sound okay. But it must be okay. Because they’re good people.
And they are good people. It’s just that good people sometimes express bigoted thoughts. I had a fanzine article published about why the Doctor should always be ‘a fair-skinned being’. I wasn’t a villain then, I was just infected by bigotry. Because we all are. It took many years, but I finally realised I didn’t have a good reason to think that. (I also needed to realise that admitting I didn’t have a good reason didn’t mean I was suddenly a horrible person, a fear that, I think, lies behind a lot of entrenched fan opinion about this sort of thing.) I was being a bigot when I said it, but I probably said something entirely sincere against bigotry a few minutes later. That’s how the vast majority of people are. These days the consensus is that it’s not okay to have any sort of reason why there shouldn’t be a Doctor Of Colour. That’s only become the case in the last two or three years. Though everyone is unconsciously pushing that date further and further back, to the point where soon nobody could ever have believed something as terrible as that. In a few years, it’ll be the same with the possibility of a female Doctor.”
After Dark Water aired and the overwhelming majority of people expressed anger at the Masters sex change, Paul Cornell took to twitter saying
“Anyone who doesn’t like their favourite character changing gender is exactly the type of person who would turn on their own family member for changing gender.”
Sadly many other female Doctor advocates began to use similar arguments and it became more difficult to say you were against it without being slandered as a sexist.
Whilst Paul obviously didn’t create this type of argument he did popularise it within the Doctor Who fan community as he was a major figure with a large influence (as well as a close personal friend of Steven Moffat too.)
Furthermore Paul Cornell also pioneered the disasterous argument that “Doctor Who is all about change and therefore all change in it is automatically great.”
“It still amazes me that there’s a kind of Doctor Who fan who like certainty above all things, who hate change, emotional conservatives whose first response to a development in Doctor Who that they like is to declare that there’s a precedent for it. Or worse, who can’t deal with any development in Doctor Whountil it’s a few years old. They have, almost masochistically, opted to follow a show that changes all the time. (I suspect they’re represented in the show itself by the creature Light in ‘Ghost Light’.) I think several creators of Doctor Who over the decades have instinctively realised that that particular fan gene is in opposition to creativity, and have therefore set their faces against it, sometimes too much. There are also those who’ve gone too far the other way. To be a good writer, you have to smash things up. To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step. Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy. Doctor Who lives because of that process boiling away in its cells.”
I must admit even I bought into that crap argument for a while, but its nonsense. No one is saying that NOTHING in Doctor Who can change, but its equally stupid to say that everything in it must change.
The smart thing to do is just take each change on a case by case basis.
Colin Baker’s coat was a change was that great? So was his strangling Peri? So was making the Doctor half human? So was the new Dalek Paradigm? Were all of this great for the future of the show?
Also I think its wrong to compare changes made now, after 50 years of established lore, to ones made during the first 4 Doctors eras.
At that point Doctor Who was really establishing itself. In Hartnell’s time for instance we didn’t know anything about the Doctors people and we knew very little about his own personal history.
Therefore there were many gaps to fill. You weren’t going back and saying “hey actually it went like this instead”.
Telling us his planet is named Gallifrey, his people are the Time Lords, that he left because he wanted to explore the universe, that he can regenerate and that he only has 12 regenerations doesn’t actually contradict anything that came before. It fills it in.
Of course that’s not to say there weren’t continuity errors as there would be in any show that lasts for so long. Still making a continuity mistake is not the same thing as completely changing an entire characters motivation, like in the case of the Master who went from wanting to kill the Doctor to wanting to shag him in Moffat’s time.
All of the previous writers that Cornell cites as being willing to change the show like Robert Holmes, were actually able to justify their changes on a case by case basis.
The concept of regeneration for instance can be justified because its the only way the show could go on as Hartnell was too ill. Also it had an added benefit of being able to extend the shows life for many years, beyond even the actor brought in to replace Hartnell. Similarly changing the Doctors outer personality meant that a new actor could play it the way he wanted.
Therefore it wasn’t just a change for the sake of it. It had a reason.
Similarly when Robert Holmes seemingly rewrote the Time Lords society by showing them to be more corrupt than before in The Deadly Assassin. Holmes was able to justify to fans why he felt it wasn’t a contradiction.
Holmes said that in his mind the Time Lords had always appeared corrupt, and when you think about it, he wasn’t entirely wrong.
In stories that were not written by Holmes and came long before he wrote the Deadly Assassin. We saw that the Time Lords still had the death penalty (as seen in The War Games). Even modern day British society has abolished the death penalty. Are they really so peaceful with this in mind?
Also why has their society produced so many renegades and psychopaths like the Master, the Meddling Monk, The War Chief, and Morbius?
Then there is their rank hypocrisy in exiling the Doctor for interfering in the affairs of other planets and later sending him on missions to interfere in the affairs of other planets like Peladon.
Finally even just the question of why would the Doctor want to leave Gallifrey if it was such a perfect society might lead you to think that it wasn’t so rosey after all?
Similarly Terry Nation justified his changes in Genesis of the Daleks by saying that before we had only heard a few scant historical records of the Daleks origins whilst Genesis gave us a first hand account. He also said that he felt Genesis explained why the Daleks had always behaved in exactly the same way, as they had been conditioned too by Davros.
Also its worth mentioning that Doctor Who is also actually a show with many traditions too. In fact one could argue that its its traditions that are the key to its success as they ultimately are what enables it to still feel like the same show in spite of its many changes.
The TARDIS is still a blue police box after 50 plus years.
Unlike Time Lord gender bending the Tardis’ ability to change shape has been established from the start. So why in a show that according to Paul Cornell is all about change is that thing still a police box?
Added to that the Daleks have still met every Doctor onscreen (bar the 8th) the Cybermen, the Master, and UNIT have met almost every Doctor, other characters like Sarah Jane, the Brig, the Sontarans, the Ice Warriors, have spanned many Doctors too.
The Daleks also have the same basic characterisation. Yes other writers have added to their characters over the years and that’s fine. However their basic characterisation of despising all other life forms and being pitiless conquerors has remained the same. As by the way has their basic design too.
The Cybermen also have always remained the same emotionless machine creatures who want to convert people into members of their own kind.
Even the Sontarans have the same design and personality of being extreme war mongers.
So why have we kept all of these traditions if in Paul’s mind there are no constants in the show?
Simple because Doctor Who has a very flexible format that can allow you to change something if need be, which is why changes like regeneration and say focusing on monster stories instead of historicals have happened in the past and worked.
Changes just for the sake of changes however, like permanently changing the TARDIS’ shape, or permanently changing the Daleks core characterisation have never happened, because there is NO reason for them to happen.
A female Doctor therefore should be viewed in the same light as changing the TARDIS’ shape. If someone could come up with a reason as to why a female Doctor worked on its merits then no one would mind one bit. However for over 30 years not one person has managed too.
Thus people like Paul Cornell instead push this ridiculous “ALL CHANGE IS GOOD BECAUSE WILLIAM HARTNELL CHANGED INTO PATRICK TROUGHTON” to try and justify a female Doctor.
Sadly self loathing fanboys who don’t want to be seen as sad anoraks will lap it up. Of course they often contradict themselves. I find fans who claim to be impartial, but come down hard on people like me for not accepting a female Doctor, as that apparently means I am against all change. Will later ironically bitch about a change that they didn’t like, like say the Doctor being half human in the 96 movie. Paul Cornell himself ironically even complains about the Doctor using a gun too often in 80s stories. Hey Paul isn’t that a change?
I think Paul Cornell much like Neil Gaiman wants to be seen as the Hampson, Roddenberry style, wise man who fought against the prejudices of his times and will be revered years from now. The reason I say that about Paul is because in any interview he gives about feminism or a female Doctor, or representation he basically goes on about how great he is compared to the disgusting sexists in the industry about him.
See this quote here
“I think he’s a great choice!” Cornell enthuses, “I would’ve preferred a woman though… I got really annoyed at lots of my friends in the Doctor Who fandom, I’d no idea they’d react so conservatively and negatively to [the idea of a female Doctor]. They seemed to think it was okay to say an awful lot of s***.” Does he think we’ll ever see a female doctor? “Maybe! Neil [Gaiman] changed the world by including that one line in his script about a woman having been a Timelord before, so that opened up the possibility”
Sadly however Paul’s opinion became dominant, and this not only helped to lead to a female Doctor, but it also led to what can only be described as pieces of Doctor Who lore being vandalised in the Moffat era, because the attitude became “all change was good lets do what we want”.
So we got things like it being rewritten that the Doctor left Gallifrey because of the silly Hybrid story line, the Daleks suddenly having a concept of pity, the Master being in love with the Doctor, and of course the notorious Cyber Brig.
You have to like this, because Doctor Who is all about change and so therefore every single change is automatically brilliant. If you don’t like a beloved Doctor Who characters rotting corpse being ripped up out of the ground and turned into a Cyberman you are just an emotional conservative who would have hated William Hartnell becoming Patrick Troughton. That makes sense.
3/ Whovian Feminism
A blogger, this woman is to Doctor Who fandom what Anita Sarkeesian is to video game fandom (and trust me I don’t mean that as a compliment.)
Feminists and SJW “fans” played a huge role in the downfall of Doctor Who in general, but of all of them Whovian Feminism holds a larger percentage of the blame for many reasons.
To start with she is the one who spoke to people involved in the show directly. People always go on about how Ian Levine had a negative impact on Doctor Who in the 80’s for the same reason. For those of you who don’t know who he is, Ian Levine was a high profile fan in the 80’s who became the show’s unofficial continuity adviser.
Many have blamed Levine for encouraging John Nathan Turner to include too many references to past stories which alienated new viewers. Many have also blasted JNT for giving too many interviews with the fans and caring about what they thought instead of mainstream audiences.
Yet somewhat hypocritically I haven’t seen anybody complaining about the writers and the directors from the new series meeting up with Whovian Feminism to give her interviews or even promote her blog?
I might add that whilst Ian Levine has done some outrageous things, at the very least he has also saved dozens and dozens of 60’s Doctor Who stories from destruction, including the first Dalek story. Also Levine only became a part of the show due to his genuine encyclopedic knowledge of the series.
Whovian Feminism however has done fuck all for the good of the show, and only gets to talk to the makers of the series because of her aggressive political agenda where she smears anyone who doesn’t agree with her as a sexist. In contrast to Levine who knew the show inside out, this is a woman who until 2015 hadn’t seen a single Colin Baker story.
She has clearly had more of an influence on the show than other fans. Obviously its makers have come to see her as representing what most people want and have therefore tailored it to please fans like her in general.
Whovian Feminism is desperate for a female Doctor. She has labelled just about everyone who is opposed to it a sexist.
Take a look at this gem of a quote.
“Supposedly well-meaning observers always like to come in and say that hardcore fans simply won’t accept a woman portraying the Doctor. This attitude does both the show and our fandom a disservice. While there is always a smattering of assholes to prove this type of attitude does exist, they aren’t even close to a majority. And even if it were true, we should not let the direction of the show be dictated by the worst of its fans. If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise, plenty of new fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”
The best thing about this quote is how Whovian Feminism for all her talk of equality clearly is a class snob the way she automatically equates having a low income to being a sad, lowlife sexist and bigot.
I guess we don’t want any riff raff, or commoners watching Doctor Who cause they’re all such disgusting sexists eh Whovian Feminism?
Sorry ladies you’re not welcome on the TARDIS anymore. You don’t have enough disposable income!
Still you can see that Whovian Feminism is your typical feminist fan, IE the most non inclusive type of fan there is. The type of fan who can never just watch something, but has to take it over completely (look at her tagline “My Fandom Will Be Feminist!“) The type of fan who will never compromise under any circumstance. It always has to go 100 percent her way or else you’re a disgusting sexist.
Even if what she and others like her want is not right for a certain character then it still doesn’t matter, it has to happen, and YOU have to like it as well or else you’re a sexist.
Whovian Feminism is also the type of viewer who is never going to be happy either. She wants to complain because its her bread and butter, so she’ll still find something to be unhappy about in the female Doctors portrayal.
Look at this article where she goes out of her way to find sexism in New Who stories.
Finally and perhaps worst of all someone like Whovian Feminism advocates that people are not hired on merit but simply for representation. She not only wants women cast in the role of the Master and the Doctor just simply for her agenda, but she also wants women hired behind the scenes just simply to fill diversity quota’s. She has even promoted a petition to make sure that there is an equal number of men and women writing for the series.
Now whilst this might sound like a decent idea in theory its actually a terrible way to run a series. Ultimately you are not hiring based on talent, but just to tick boxes. You could get a fantastic script like say Survival from a female writer like Rona Munro, but you couldn’t use that script because you’d already taken in your set amount of female writers that year.
Furthermore you could obviously have a great script like say Caves of Androzani from a male writer like Robert Holmes that you couldn’t use as you had your specific amount of male writers for that year.
At the end of the day people should only ever be hired based on their ideas and talent, NOT their gender and skin colour as Whovian Feminism advocates.
Yet sadly as seen from the interviews and promotion they have given her, the new who production team saw Whovian Feminism as someone who should be listened too, as well as the audience they were going for.
2/ Steven Moffat
The Quisling of Doctor Who fandom.
For what its worth I used to like his era during Matt Smith’s time, but the damage he wreaked on the series during Capaldi’s tenure was too great.
I don’t think that Steven Moffat was desperate to prove how progressive he was. Sadly however I think he was bullied into making it ultra feminist by the SJW’s who launched an absolutely vicious smear campaign against the man from 2012 on.
They accused him of being a sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, etc. All of their accusations were hollow. Indeed they were often over the most petty things like Karen Gillan is too sexy, his female companions lives revolve too much around the Doctor, the companion is just a sidekick and should be as important as the Doctor etc.
Sadly however Moff took their criticisms to heart and began to write the show for the feminist/SJW’s. This affected the quality of the show in so many ways.
To start with Clara came to dominate the series. Not only did many episodes revolve around her and her place of work too much such as The Caretaker, Kill the Moon, In The Forest of the Night (all very poorly received stories), but they also bigged up her role in the continuity to an absurd degree.
She was retconned into being the hero of every DW story ever made, the reason the Doctor conquered his fear as a boy, the reason he left Gallifrey, the reason he undid the time war, the reason the Time Lords gave him more lives etc. And she even ended the series gaining her own TARDIS and becoming completely unkillable, thus making her a better Doctor than the Doctor himself.
All of this understandably made Clara one of the most hated companions in Who history. Nobody likes a side character who comes in, thinks they are better than the hero, is proven to be better than the main hero, and on top of that regularly slaps the main hero.
Then of course there was the Masters controversial (to say the least) sex change and her sudden infatuation with the Doctor as well as the constant anti men and anti white jokes all helped to drive people away in spades.
The viewers for Matt Smith’s last episode were over 10 million. By the end of Peter Capaldi’s last season they were down at barely over 2 million. Now it is true that viewing figures are down for tv in general these days, but still even with that Doctor Who has still suffered a catastrophic fall in viewers. 5 times fewer people are watching it now.
To be fair not all of Moffat’s problems can be blamed on his pandering to feminists. The Cyber Brig for instance, one of the most hated ideas in the history of the show (and with good reason.) Has nothing to do with pandering.
Still for whatever reasons Moffat managed to completely destroy classic characters like the Brig (who he gave an atrocious ending to), and the Master who he turned into a literal parody of himself.
Even if Chris Chibnall hadn’t cast a woman it would have been difficult to carry the show on after the damage Moffat had done, but still in spite of things like Missy and the Cyber Brig, Moffat incredibly enough isn’t the worst thing to happen to Doctor Who.
Sources to back up what I was saying about Moffat pandering to feminists.
In this video Mundane Matt says that Moffat at a convention said that a female Doctor would never happen on his watch back in early 2011.
Feminists slander Moff from about 2011 on.
2014 on we get a new Master who is a woman, as well as more examples of feminist pandering.
This great scene from The Simpsons sums up Moff’s relationship with the feminist audience of Doctor Who, with Moff obviously representing Skinner (except rather than wear a dress, he forced the Master to wear one.)
“Just tell me how to write Doctor Who!!!!!”
1/ Chris Chibnall
It takes some going to be worse than your predecessor before you’ve even produced a single episode (even more so when your predecessor is Steven Moffat.)
Still Chris Chibnall has managed it with his first ever move in casting a woman as the Doctor.
Now as I have been over a female Doctor is to me a terrible idea that completely ruins the show, but its also opened up a can of worms for whoever comes after Chibnall.
What happens if someone wants to make the Doctor a male again? We are going to have to deal with the media and the Whovian Feminist types saying Doctor Who is transphobic and taking a role away from women (ironically).
So what will we have to have 13 women now? In that case the character is now completely different. Don’t even call it Doctor Who anymore because it has nothing to do with William Hartnell’s original character.
Also if we have cast a woman as the Doctor why stop there? Why not demand a black Doctor, an Asian Doctor, a French Doctor, an American Doctor etc. Not that I have any problems with those however, but the point I am trying to make is that we are now casting the role solely to tick boxes rather than because a particular actor is the best for the role.
All of these problems have emerged because of a single foolish decision on Chibnalls part. I don’t know why he did it. If it was pandering to feminists like Steven Moffat, virtue signalling, or maybe even just as a cheap gimmick, but whatever the case Chibnall has as Ian Levine said “put the final nail into Doctor Who”
In my opinion the show is not long for this world and if you want to blame anyone then blame these 5 people. Whilst the SJW’s wanted the show to be done their way, if it hadn’t been for the actions of these 5 individuals then Doctor Who would still be strong and healthy.
Thanks for reading.