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 is a terrible idea that 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.
First and foremost she doesn’t mesh. All of the different Doctors contrary to popular belief are not different people. Regeneration was always portrayed in Classic Who as an advanced form of healing or renewal.
Basically your body broke down, and so it repaired itself and in doing so it changed its appearance. It was like a catterpillar changing into a butterfly.
Differences in the Doctor and other Time Lords that we see regenerate’s personalities simply arose from a combination of living in a different body, and their outer personality being altered by the process itself.
If I suddenly changed in a flash and found myself in the body of a 90 year old man with a stick, I might be a bit grumpier like William Hartnell’s Doctor, and certainly less willing to take people head on in fights.
Similarly if I suddenly found myself in the body of a big ripped guy with a huge build like Jon Pertwee, then I probably would be more willing to fight someone and more commanding.
If I were in the body of a dashing, good looking young guy like David Tennant meanwhile, then I’d probably be a bit more confident and maybe even quite vain to say the least.
But the point is the Doctor is still the same guy underneath. Whilst his outer personality may change in a shallow way, his personality is the same underneath regardless.
That’s why actors and producers have always gone to great lengths to make sure that a number of traits and characteristics carry on from Doctor to Doctor to reinforce this.
All of the Doctors main personality traits can be found in every Doctor. For instance all the Doctors still retain a certain air of mystery around them where we never find out his name or much of his past. The Doctor is also always portrayed as an old soul. Even when played by a young actor, with Peter Davison, Matt Smith and David Tennant all young actors when they played the part, still going to great lengths to portray the Doctor as an old man in a young mans body. The Doctor is also always a more cerebral hero who uses his mind to solve his problems regardless of his incarnation. However at the same time he is willing to use violence if need be.
All of the Doctors are also motivated by a desire to explore the universe and find out new things.
Also all of the Doctors relationships with other characters carry on from Doctor to Doctor. 10 is in love with Rose just as 9 was. 12 still loves Susan as much as his first incarnation did, and the 5th Doctor can talk about old times with the Brig that the 3rd Doctor went through because he is the same man.
Finally even a number of little things like the Doctors love for jelly babies, having long and wild hair, similar dress styles (more over the top, old fashioned Edwardian/Victorian era clothing) or the Doctors habit of holding his lapels all run through different Doctors just to reinforce that its the same mind that’s been given a bit of a shake up, but the fundamentals haven’t changed.
Of course like any other character the Doctor has also changed simply as time has gone on. New experiences, the influence of other characters etc, have all shaped his personality arguably to a greater extent than regeneration.
The First Doctor for instance we saw change from a callous, selfish, even murderous character to a noble hero, thanks to the influence of Ian and Barbara as well as his battles against the Daleks. Three meanwhile was shaped by being exiled to earth which gave him a greater rebellous streak, whilst 9 and 10 were both more emotional, unstable and traumatised after enduring the horrors of the Time War.
But the point is that the different Doctors are NOT different people.
Now adding a gender change on top of this brings a whole new dimension to the Doctor’s character and its one that I feel doesn’t really fit in with what came before.
If the Doctor could morph into a woman then he would have to have been written as a genderless character before now as logically he could have become a woman in any previous regeneration.
The Doctor has never been portrayed as genderless. People have always written and acted him as a man by default, and all of his relationships have also always been from a male perspective too, husband, father, grandfather etc. For this simple reason alone a female Doctor sticks out like a sore thumb.
More importantly however, how is Chris Chibnall going to actually write this female Doctor?
Chibnall can’t actually write her as a female character like Buffy, Xena or the Charmed ones because she has been a man for 2000 years (actually thanks to Moff ridiculous crap, 4 and a half billion years!) You can’t just ignore all of the Doctors previous development as a man.
Chibnall of course could always write her as a man in a woman’s body to overcome this problem, but in that case what was actually the point of changing the Doctors sex in the first place if she’s just going to act like a man? Just cast a man and he will fit better than a woman pretending to be a man.
Chibnall also can’t write her as a trans character either. Real life trans people want to change gender and go through a long and costly operation to do so. The Doctor however has been happy being a man for 2000 years (sorry 4 and a half billion) and has been forced to become a woman against his will. Really he is the complete opposite of a trans character.
Also how how is Chibnall going to have the Doctor react to being a woman?
Is the Doctor going to be happy at being a woman? Chibnall can’t have it be because the Doctor feels he was born in the wrong body and finally has become the sex he wants to, because that has never been the case.
So are we just going to have the Doctor be happy because he thinks women are better like in this exchange.
MASTER: Do as she says. Is the future going to be all girl?
DOCTOR: We can only hope.
I think New Who has kicked its male viewers in the teeth for long enough don’t you? It also hasn’t exactly helped its viewers either all of this men bashing.
Of course if they have the Doctor be upset at suddenly being a woman then ironically it could come across as anti women, though I don’t think it necessarily would be anti women.
After all most people would be upset if their gender was suddenly changed against their will. That’s not transphobic, as again feeling you are in the wrong gender is why trans people themselves change. Why then would we expect someone else to be okay with being forced to live in a gender they are not comfortable in?
In fact forced gender reassignment surgery is implemented as a punishment to homosexual men in Iran.
Take a look here The Gay People Pushed To Change Their Gender
So yes it would actually be more realistic to have the Doctor be upset at having his sex changed against his will, but ultimately again this could be interpreted (certainly by the feminist audience a female Doctor is aimed at) as being anti women and anti trans.
Of course Chibnall could always crap out of it and have the Doctor not notice that he is no longer a man, but that is the bullshit. The Doctor is not a fucking Sontaran! He knows the differences between men and women. He’s not likely to call Mickey a girl, and think Amy Pond’s a guy is he?
Also within the lore of the show a female Doctor makes no sense either. Yes its true that Steven Moffat a few years ago after being bullied by feminists rewrote it into the canon of the show that Time Lords change gender, but it doesn’t matter.
Technically you can write anything you want into the shows lore as its not real. I could take over Doctor Who and write into it that Time Lords can turn into Dinosaurs when they regenerate and it would be canon. That doesn’t mean it would still make sense!
Look at it this way. The Doctor alone has been a man 13 times in a row. Now if Time Lords regularly change gender when they regenerate why didn’t he become a woman before now? Flip a coin up in the air 13 times there is no fucking way its going to land heads 13 times in a row.
The odds of that happening are literally 8192 to one. Also what about other Time Lords? If we go by all of Old Who, New Who (before 2014) and spin off material, then Rassilon, Morbius, The Master, Azmahel, all used up 13 lives (at least 16 in the Masters case) without changing gender, Borusa used up 4, River used up 3, and Romana used up 3, yet they all remained the same gender?
That’s 65 regenerations. Go on flip a coin 65 times in the air and see if they all come up heads.
So obviously gender bending with Time Lords can’t be random. Is it a choice?
Well it has actually been shown in several stories that Time Lords do control how they look when they change.
Romana and The Master both decided how their next bodies were going to look. Romana actually tried out several before settling on looking like Princess Astra, whilst the Master chose to be young and strong to match the Doctor.
Added to this it is said that the Doctor whilst not having mastered this ability quite as much as other Time Lords, still chooses his faces subconsciously at least.
This was used to explain why the 12th Doctor looked like a previous character who was also played by Peter Capaldi.
This is the only plausable way to have a Time Lord character change gender in the show, and I have no objection to there being a Time Lord character introduced who wants to change gender like a trans person and who therefore decides to regenerate from a man into a woman, or vice versa.
Sadly however this does not make sense if applied to the Doctor. At no point has he ever been written as a trans character who wants to change gender and also why wouldn’t he have done it by now?
When he was David Tennant about to regenerate wouldn’t, if he really wanted to be a woman, or didn’t care one way or the other have thought “hey I’ve only got ONE life left, and there’s no chance of me getting more as the Time Lords are gone (far as I know?) So why not try being a woman now. What can it hurt? Apparently I’m from a race who don’t care at all, don’t even notice gender differences, so I might as well see what its like to be a woman before I finally pop off for good?”
Yet even then he still changed into a man knowing it would be his last ever life!
So really why he would suddenly want to be a woman now? Also does this make him a sexist? Even the wife beating Master beat him out to being a woman first! PS the Master deciding to be a woman is just as, if not more moronic since the Master used to be a you know misogynist when he was man.
Here are some of the Masters thoughts on the fair sex.
YANA: Killed by an insect. A girl. How inappropriate.
The Master: (to Jack and Martha) And look, it’s the girlie and the freak. Although, I’m not sure which one’s which.
The Master: (to his wife and female masseuse) You two should get to know each other. That might be fun.
The Master: (After being shot.) Always the women.
Why the fuck would this guy decide to regenerate into a woman? How on earth would he have even developed that attitude in the first place if there had always been the possibility that he could turn into a woman, and apparently comes from a race who don’t even notice gender differences?
There’s no way you can have the Doctor or the Master (or Romana or Susan for that matter) change gender.
Really there are only 3 ways you can have a character change gender, or a woman occupy a role a man used too and it make sense.
1/ Write a character who is like an actual transexual, IE wants to change gender.
2/ Write a character who is genuinely genderless. Brainiac from Smallville for instance changed gender and nobody complained as Brainiac was written as a robot who had simply assumed the form of a man to trick Clark, but he never actually acted like a man when he was himself.
Thus when his old body was destroyed and he took over Chloe, played by Alison Mack it flowed brilliantly, and not only did nobody say “OH MY GOD BRAINIAC IS A WOMAN, ITS PANDERING! The majority of people actually liked that story and praised Alison Mack’s performance.
3/ Change a characters gender in a remake. Whilst it won’t always be guaranteed to work as certain characters do only work as one gender. (And that applies both ways.) Nevertheless as remakes are not connected to the original then you can technically change whatever you want. This was also why the changing the character of Starbuck’s sex in the Battlestar Gallactica remake worked.
Sadly however as we have been over none of these options works for the Doctor or indeed any established Time Lord character as none of them were written as either genderless or trans, and all of the different incarnations of any given Time Lord character are all meant to be the same person whose body has simply changed.
Don’t believe me that gender flipped incarnations of Time Lord characters look out of place compared to the gender flipped Brainiac? Here compare the female Brainiac and the male Brainiac side by side.
See how they flow perfectly into one another?
Now take a look at male incarnations of the Master and then compare them to Missy the female Master and honestly tell me in the comments below if you think she is even remotely believable as ANY of her male predecessors.
Many fans who are in support of a female Doctor will say “oh but Time Lords can change shape why not gender”, but that is not an argument.
Just because a character is a shapeshifter does not mean they have no gender. Does the Martian Manhunter have no gender? Does Mystique from the X-Men have no gender? They are both much more extreme shapeshifters than the Doctor I might add, yet no one has ever tried to make them genderless. In fact ironically you would be hard pushed to find a more feminine character than Mystique.
In my opinion a female Doctor and a female Master are just simply not a good fit, and I fail to see any reason why you would want to bother changing either characters sex. If you want to see a female Time Lord character then there are already a multitude of interesting female Time Lord characters like Romana, Susan, Jenny and The Rani just waiting to be used.
Of course those are my reasons as to why a female Doctor wouldn’t work, but other fans have different reasons.
Many fans have said that they feel that the Doctor was one of the few positive role models for young boys who was interested in science. Now personally I don’t think role models really matter. I’ve never had to identify with a character to enjoy them.
However it is a valid point to raise as ultimately the feminists who have been pushing for a female Doctor like Claudia Boleyn always say its a great thing because it will finally be someone that young girls can look up to. Leaving aside the dozens of female superheroes who feminist fans completely ignore, if you are talking about making the Doctor someone people can relate too, then a female Doctor is the worst thing you could do ironically.
She is not someone that little boys can relate too, but ironically neither can little girls as she is a man trapped in a woman’s body against his will. Also as we have been over trans people won’t be able to relate to her either, as again trans people want to change, and it takes them a long while.
So what we are left with is a Doctor that no one can relate too ironically, and one who seems more like a parody.
The sad thing is ironically everybody could have had a character to relate to in the Doctor Who universe.
You could have brought Romana back and given her her own show where she would have been the role model for little girls, whilst the Doctor would obviously still have been the role model for boys.
Finally you could have had a proper trans character in the show as the Doctors companion or Romana’s friend, or hell even as the president of Gallifrey after Rassilon.
But sadly they went down the minefield of the female Doctor and in doing so shot themselves in the foot.
Whilst I largely blame the SJWs and feminists who latched onto the shows fanbase and took it over circa 2010-12, the following 5 people in particular I feel had the biggest influence on bringing this crap into the show and therefore in my opinion are the people who killed Doctor Who.
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
Yes sadly I have to include him here.
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.