5 People Who Killed Doctor Who

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.

The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

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 living in different bodies, which when you think about it would happen.

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. 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.

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, simply in a renewed body.

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 they are just the same guy whose body has simply changed its shape and that’s it.

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?

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. And 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. Also it does feel a bit stupid to make a big fuss about turning an iconic male character into a woman and then have him be upset at being a woman. She’ll hardly go down as an icon of female empowerment like Buffy or Ripley.

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.

So why the fuck would this guy decide to regenerate into a woman? How on earth would he even develop 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 didn’t use violence and 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 SJW’s 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 want to be seen as a big, liberal icon who challenged the sexism and racism around them like Hampson and Roddenberry. Gaiman I feel saw a female Doctor as being his opportunity to make himself that.

Obviously he couldn’t just create a female hero or a black hero to do that, as again no one would even notice in a post Xena/Blade world.

With a female Doctor however it was different as here he 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.

Neil Gaiman On A Female Doctor

Neil Gaiman On Buffy

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. But the people who REALLY pushed for it were the SJW’s who simply saw it as a victory without really knowing why.)

So yes the SJW where the ones who wanted it the most, and 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 SJW’s 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.

You can argue that the SJW’s would have put pressure on Moffat to give us a female Doctor anyway regardless, and yes that’s true. They ALWAYS have to get their own way. Still Gaiman was the one that kick started all of this shit from Missy to Jodie Whitaker as the Doctor off.

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.

Though these arguments were poor. They were more the type that are used to bully people into silence, rather than actually give a proper reason as to why a female Doctor is a brilliant idea, as they often just attacked and smeared people who were against the idea of a female Doctor.

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.”

As you can see here Paul is trying to slander everyone who doesn’t want a female Doctor as a disgusting sexist. Of course this isn’t the only time he has done this. 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.”

Its disgusting to be honest that Paul would try and equate someone not liking the decision to turn the Master from the Doctors Moriarty to his sex kitten to someone actually rejecting their own son for changing into a woman.

Sadly however 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.”

Paul often used false comparisons such as “Philip Hinchcliff changed things in the past, so those who complain about Steven Moffat’s changes now are the same whiners who complained about The Deadly Assassin”. I must admit even I bought into that crap for a while.

Its nonsense. For one thing the changes that were brought about during the first 4 Doctors eras were different.

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.

Also though Doctor Who has a very flexible format that can allow it to change if need be, that doesn’t mean it should just change for the hell of it.

All of the previous writers were able to justify their previous changes. Not once did one of them just say “Well this changed in the past so I can do whatever the hell I want now and fuck everybody else.”

For instance many accused Robert Holmes of rewriting the Time Lords society by showing them to be more corrupt than before, but Holmes explain in a letter to the fans with proper reasons 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.

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 their is their rank hypocrisy in exiling the Doctor for interfering in the affairs of other planets and then 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?

Personally I don’t object to any change as long as there is a proper justification for it.

Sadly however as we have been over there is no reason at all for a female Doctor and plenty against it.

Paul Cornell knows that however, but he still wants to push it for his own agenda. Much like Gaiman I suspect he 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 any interview he gives about feminism or a female Doctor, or representation its all 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”

See what I mean its not about equality, or wanting to give women roles? Its all about him looking better than the rest of us.

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.)

Now I do think that the 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.

Whovian Feminism Interviews Rachel Talalay

Whovian Feminism Interviews Sarah Dollard

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.

Look at the Master. Here we have a character who was a power mad megalomaniac desperate to rule the universe, who despised the Doctor and was a rampant misogynist who beat his wife!

Yet thanks to people like Whovian Feminism not only is that character now in love with the Doctor, a woman, and also happy to give up a Cyberarmy to be with him, but anyone who says that its ridiculous to basically toss out everything that made the character what they were is dismissed as a sexist!

Hell look at the female Doctor, people who don’t want to watch her are dismissed as sexists too.

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.

Introducing Damsels In Distress Vs Doctor Who

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.

Steven Moffat Tweets Against Accusation of Sexism

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault in Doctor Who

Problematic Posters For Doctor Who

Doctor Who is Racist New Book Claims

2014 on we get a new Master who is a woman, as well as more examples of feminist pandering.

Steven Moffat We Need More Female Writers

Stop Assuming I’m A Sexist Demon

Steven Moffat “Doctor Who needs to do better on diversity”

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.

Why Do Geeks and Nerds Hate Feminists?

In the last couple of years the sci fi and fantasy fan community as well as the gaming community in particular have developed a very hostile attitude towards third wave feminism.

Whilst many high profile geeks in the industry itself such as Will Wheaton have welcomed what they feel are progressive changes to the industry brought about by feminists. Most fans I think its fair to say feel that the current brand of identity politics has had a poisonous influence on many large franchises.

In this article I am going to run through the reasons feminists are the most hated group in any fandom. Note: Obviously I am not saying all feminists are this bad. I am sure that there are many feminists who bring a lot to their fandoms, and obviously I am not condoning any abuse feminists have received online, though its worth mentioning that many anti feminists have received similar abuse.

There are psychos in any group and its a poor argument if they are the only people you can use to discredit the other side.

Also when I say feminists I really mean third wave feminists as the first and second wave feminists were by and large genuinely worthwhile movements. However in the modern western world, sadly third wave feminists represent the majority of feminists and so I won’t bother with the distinction here.

Feminists Have To Make Everything About Them

Again nobody has a problem with female led, or even feminist themed shows like Buffy, but the problem is that feminists have to make everything about their movement.

Often feminists will find a way to criticise something that is completely benign as being sexist and demand that it be changed. They will accuse anyone who disagrees of sexism, and rather than talk about the show, film, comic book, or game that we would normally have just talked about and enjoyed. Everyone instead has to talk about the feminists ridiculous accusations of sexism.

A classic example of this was the recent animated adaptation of Alan Moore’s classic comic The Killing Joke. Now fans had been clamouring for an animated adaptation of this story for many years starring Mark Hamill, long regarded as the greatest Joker.

Finally in 2015 it was announced that Mark Hamill would be reprising his role as the Clown Prince of Crime in an animated adaptation of the story after all.

Sadly however feminists complained that the story was sexist and even demanded that it not be adapted.

See here.

Batman The Killing Joke And Its Edgy Rape Storyline Is Not A Comeback I Want To See

Its Time To Kill The Killing Joke

Now the accusations of sexism against The Killing Joke are in my opinion contradictory and hollow.

Feminists have argued that it normalizes violence against women due to what happens to Batgirl. That is complete nonsense of course as the Jokers actions against Batgirl are meant to be him finally crossing the line (which given how evil the Joker normally is, is really saying something!)

Feminists main beef with The Killing Joke however is that it is part of a supposed sexist trend in comic books where a female character is crippled, tortured or killed just to further a male characters story. This trend is referred to as “Women in Refrigerators” and personally I find it to be hypocritical.

There are plenty of instances of supporting male characters being tortured, crippled or killed in order to further a female heroes story. In Xena her son Solon is killed by her adversary Hope, Gabrielle’s husband Perdicus is sliced open by arch enemy Callisto. In Once Upon A Time meanwhile, the three main female characters Emma and Regina and Snow all lose their male loved ones, whilst in Charmed two of the sisters Prue and Phoebe’s main male love interests are killed off. In Buffy and Nikita male supporting characters are crippled horribly. Xander has his eye poked out by the evil Caleb, whilst Birkhoff is brutally tortured by Nikita’s nemesis Amanda who smashes his thumbs.

How is this scene any different to what the Joker does to Batgirl? Both involve the villain brutalizing someone close to the hero, but when its a male villain doing it to a female supporting character its sexist? At the end of the day I don’t think that either this torture scene or the crippling of Batgirl are sexist. Both are just examples of the writer trying to up the ante between the hero and villain.

Sadly however feminists slandered The Killing Joke as sexist and so that was all anyone ended up talking about when the film was released. Even reviews on non feminist sites had to mention how sexist the story was and put a heavier focus on Batgirl’s treatment than was necessary.

Even the film itself was compromised by a need to pander to feminists. The opening 30 minutes of the film revolve entirely around Batgirl. The producers did this in order to counteract the claims that the story was sexist by expanding on Batgirls role.

Now personally whilst I enjoyed the film overall I think this was a mistake. The Killing Joke is NOT Batgirls story. Its about the Joker and Batman. It makes 0 sense to focus on Batgirl as we ultimately have to abandon her when the story actually starts. Thus the first 30 minutes is completely detatched from the rest of the movie.

Of course the great irony is that feminists found the opening 30 minutes even more sexist. Still the point is the fact that it was Mark’s last proper performance as the Joker (he has since voiced the character in Justice League Action, but since that is a short series, aimed at a younger audience, then its really his last performance in a serious, feature length production.) And just simply the fact that it was an adaptation of a much loved, and highly influential comic book was completely overshadowed by the feminists complaints.

Another example of feminists completely overshadowing a product is of course Doctor Who, the worlds longest running and along with Star Trek most successful sci fi series. From about 2011 on feminists began to sink their claws into the Doctor Who franchise.

They targeted its showrunner Steven Moffat in particular and slandered him as a vile sexist, homophobic,  racist, abelist etc. Sadly it became received wisdom that Steven Moffat was incapable of writing women, that he hated minorities and the man’s reputation was harmed greatly.

Of course once again all of these complaints were hollow or downright ridiculous. They included things like “Steven Moffat hates the mentally ill because he did a story where the Doctor blows up an insane asylum of Daleks”, or “he is a sexist because he had Karen Gillan were a short skirt”, or “Oh my god his female characters lives revolve around the Doctors life!” No shit, a supporting character’s life revolves around the main hero. Say it ain’t so.

Sadly however again just like with The Killing Joke it got to the point where all anyone could ever talk about in regards to Doctor Who was whether or not it was sexist, should the next Doctor be a woman, are male Doctor Who fans entitled etc. Practically all Steven Moffat talks about in interviews nowadays is that he is not sexist.

Steven Moffat much like the makers of The Killing Joke also began to pander to feminists in many ways, throughout both Doctor Who and its short lived spin off Class. He cast a woman as the Master, the Doctors archenemy, and rewrote him to be in love with the Doctor. He also beefed up the role of the Doctors companion, Clara to be far more important than she should be (to the point where she was even billed first instead of Capaldi the actor playing the Doctor). Finally he also included many anti male, and even anti white remarks throughout the show and its spin off too such as the following.

TANYA: White people. 
APRIL: White people what? 
TANYA: Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well, because they usually do. 
APRIL: My dad tried to kill me when I was eight. 
TANYA: But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white-person happy ending.

And finally throughout his 3 years on the show Moffat has also been laying the groundwork for a female Doctor Who, and it has recently been announced that the next Doctor will be a woman after all (though more on that later).

Marvel Comic books are yet another example of feminists having to make something all about them. Marvel comics just like Doctor Who have begun to pander to feminist audiences recently to the point where they have replaced longstanding male characters with female counterparts just like the Doctor (including Iron Man, Thor and Wolverine) and have begun to fill their comics themselves with more divisive SJW propaganda.

These videos cover the SJW propaganda in Marvels and to a lesser extent DC’s latest comics brilliantly.

Now again you can see the problem here. People who just want to read a fun story about monsters and superheroes have to have all of this crap shoved down their throats constantly.

I’m not saying you can’t ever make a story that features a political allegory. Sometimes a writer of a long running series like say Doctor Who might write a story with a particular political slant its true, but again that’s different as it won’t be featured all the time. Also if a character was previously politically neutral then I don’t think its a good idea to change them to being a political metaphor.

For instance Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Wonder-Woman are all characters that everyone can enjoy, liberals, conservatives, socialists, capitalists. They are just escapism.

Take a look at these scenes from CW’s adaptation of Supergirl to see how a previously politically neutral character can be hijacked by feminists and SJWs.

Supergirl has NOTHING to do with feminism. Just because she is a female hero doesn’t mean she has to be a feminist. By that logic then does Batman have to be reinterpreted as an MRA and complain about things like unfair custody battles, and the high rate of male suicide in the next Batman movie?

No other political or social group has to inflict their ideology on a work of entertainment that’s supposed to be for everybody like feminists do.

Take for instance a well known right wing sci fi geek and Doctor Who fan in particular like Dave Cullen. Dave is better known under his youtube moniker “Computing Forever”, and probably most famous for his youtube series “The Regressive News”. Dave thinks Socialism and Marxism are among the most destructive and dangerous ideologies ever devised, and he also voted against gay marriage in Ireland.

Now does Dave insist that Doctor Who be a conservative show and revolve around his political opinions and that the Doctor become a conservative character with the same political opinions as him? No Dave and others conservative Whovians just accept the Doctor for what he is and enjoy the show.

I on the other hand, though I agree with Dave on a number of things like Islam, and third wave feminism and I enjoy a lot of his work. Politically I am on the opposite end of the spectrum to Dave in a number of ways. I am a socialist, and I also support gay marriage very strongly.

However again do I insist that Doctor Who follow my political beliefs and have the Doctor rant about how Socialism is the only way forward for humanity, or do I just take it as a sci fi show?

Feminists like the blogger Whovian Feminism however HAVE to make Doctor Who completely revolve around their political movement. Her slogan is actually “My fandom will be feminist.

Thus not surprisingly as a result of this feminists earn the hatred of nerds more than any other political or social group because they are the only ones who have to take over the entire product they become “fans” of.

To be fair this is not just specific to the sci fi and fantasy genres. Feminists have a habit of taking over everything they latch onto. Take a look at the New Atheist movement. Now I was never that interested in the New Atheist Movement, but it was at one point a healthy, thriving movement filled with diverse opinion, but once again feminists complained that it was sexist (over the most trivial reasons) and ultimately took it over, creating Atheism +

This video by Chris Ray Gun sums up how they took over the New Atheist Movement superbly, but really he could be talking about Doctor Who, Marvel Comics or just about any fandom that feminists have taken over just as well.

They Claim To Speak For All Women

Tumblr inline np3i5eWuFg1s7lmou 500.jpg

Courtesy of Drunken Peasants Wiki.

Ironically among the people who despise feminists and their influence on fandoms the most are women.

The reason for this is because feminists often act as though they represent women in general. Any criticism of feminism by nerds is seen as an attack against ALL women by evil white men. Similarly anything the feminists want is apparently what ALL women who are sci fi fans want to happen.

Examples of this include Will Wheaton’s fawning article about Anita Sarkeesian where he says about her critics.

“She also talks about her life as a target in the online culture war known as Gamergate, waged by entitled male gamers who fear change in an industry that is evolving while they seem determined to remain 15 forever.”

The irony is that many of the things feminists like Anita Sarkeesian champion, most female nerds despise.

Again take for instance a female Doctor. The likes of Whovian Feminism would have you believe that all women who watch Doctor Who desperately want a female Doctor. Truth be told most people against a female Doctor are women!

See here

Women Do Not Want To See A Female Time Lord

Similarly whilst Will Wheaton might be quick to tar Anita’s critics as being all entitled male gamers, many of her harshest critics are women!

See for yourself.

Ironically Will Wheaton is doing a better job of ignoring what women have to say, as he isn’t even acknowledging certain women’s existence because they don’t fit into his “evil men attacking poor little damsel Anita Sarkeesian” narrative.

Indeed feminism has done more to silence women in the sci fi and fantasy fandoms than anything else as female fans like Ciarra McCord’s opinions are NEVER represented in the mainstream media. They’d have you believe that every woman automatically agrees with Anita Sarkeesian. Furthermore feminists often have a condescending attitude towards any women that disagrees with their narrative of “you don’t know what’s good for you”, “trust me in the long run you’ll thank us” or the classic “you’re suffering from internalised misogyny by disagreeing with us”.

Fact is many women despise the influence the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and Whovian Feminism are having on certain franchises just as much as any male fan. However they end up being more pissed than male fans because they end up being lumped in with toxic people like Sarkeesian simply for being women by feminists and the mainstream media.

They Limit Female Characters

SJW’s and feminists are really more desperate to be offended than they are to enjoy something. Thus it doesn’t matter how interesting or well written, or well acted a female character is, they’ll still find one way to call her portrayal “problematic” to say the least.

Ironically however this just prevents writers from being able to do as many interesting things with female characters as they are with their male counterparts.

Lets take a look at one of the all time greatest female characters, Xena the Warrior Princess.

Now for those of you might be unfamiliar with her, Xena played by Lucy Lawless began as a supporting villain on Hercules the Legendary Journey’s. She was a cruel warlord who eventually learned the error of her ways thanks to Hercules. Such was her popularity that she eventually gained her own series which ended up being not only the most successful genre series of the 90’s (in terms of overseas sales it was the most popular show in the world at the height of its success.) But also ran longer than its parent show Hercules.

Xena would travel the world in her own show alongside her sidekick Gabrielle. The two fought evil warlords,  Gods, and figures from history like Julius Cesaer. Though some critics have dismissed Xena as just a camp 90’s show its impact on the entertainment industry was immeasurable. It led to a massive craze of female led shows which included Buffy, and it influenced the likes of Quentin Tarrantino who based his movies Kill Bill on the feud between Xena and her archfoe Callisto. It also was even one of the key influences on the revived Doctor Who and Torchwood.

The character of Xena meanwhile has remained an icon around the world ever since and recently it was announced that there were plans for a remake over 20 years after the original series.

Sadly however if it were up to feminists and SJW’s then Xena may very well have never been made as when you think about it Xena based on what they have said in the past would offend them too much.

To start with Xena is obviously too sexy for feminist fans. Feminist fans always complain about the male gaze and have also argued that the heroines like Wonder Woman set a bad example for little girls by not being more realistic, or even overweight.

When Will Wonder Woman Be A Fat, Femme, Woman of Colour

Wonder Woman Fired From Job At UN

So again it goes without saying that Xena, the stunningly beautiful amazon that men like Ares are desperately in love with would NOT be popular with modern day feminists.

Furthermore feminists would NOT be happy with extreme levels of violence directed towards women in Xena the Warrior Princess.

Recently a poster for X-Men Appocalypse was banned after complaints from feminists because it featured the titular villain grabbing Jennifer Lawrence’s character Mystique by the throat.

Feminists complained that it was promoting violence against women so Fox actually had to pull the poster.

Fox Apologises For Offensive X-Men Poster

Similarly a recent poster of the Joker threatening Batgirl also had to be pulled for the same reason.

DC Pull Cover Of Joker Menacing Batgirl After Complaints

Also Whovian Feminism, among others have also complained any time a female or LGBT character is killed or harmed in the revived Doctor Who.

An Open Letter To Steven Moffat

With this in mind how the hell would these people cope when Xena is strung from the ceiling, beaten with clubs, crucified, shot with dozens of arrows, has her back broken, her legs smashed with a hammer, decapitated, drowned, whacked with a log etc.

All of these scenes would clearly have to be cut, which would make Xena’s adventures a little more boring to say the least.

Finally far too many of Xena’s storylines revolve around men too. There is her longstanding romantic relationship with Ares, there is the death of her brother which turns her evil, the death of her son which drives a huge wedge between her and Gabrielle, her ongoing feud with Cesar, her redemption at the hands of Hercules. Undoubtedly many episodes of Xena where she battles Ares, Cesar and other male adversaries won’t pass the Bechdel test.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Bechdel test it is where feminists judge something in terms of how sexist it is by looking at how many times women talk about men, obviously the fewer times they talk about men the better.

The Bechdel Test has often been used as proof of authors like Steven Moffat being sexist because his work apparently fails the Bechdel test.

If you ever wanted proof that the Bechdel test is nonsense take a look at the scene where Xena finds Solon’s dead body.  Its easily the most powerful scene in the series.

Earlier Gabrielle had given birth to a half human, half Demon child that she named Hope. Sadly Hopes evil side was too great and she began to murder innocent people (including those who had risked their life for her.) Xena wanted to kill her for the greater good, but Gabrielle lied to Xena that she had already killed her, when in truth she managed to get Hope to safety.

Hope later returns and murders Xena’s only son Solon after tricking Gabrielle again. Its an amazing twist in the series to have Xena’s son die not at the hands of archenemy Callisto, but because of her best friend. Its also probably the best performance of Lucy Lawless’ career as we see Xena cradle her lifeless teenage son in her arms.

However technically it doesn’t pass the Bechdel test as hey, Xena and Gabrielle are talking about a male character.

Now obviously its not good if the only thing women talk about is men, but at the same time the Bechdel test is too flawed a way to measure it clearly.

Naturally as a result of all this many writers find it more difficult to write for women nowadays. They don’t have to worry about having a male character whose life revolves around a female character like say the Doctor and his grand daughter Susan, or the Doctor and Rose, or Spider-Man and his many love interests.

They don’t have to worry about making male heroes big, strapping, sexy muscle bound heroes. Nobody is pushing for a fat, bald, ugly James Bond are they?

Furthermore nobody cares whenever anything violent happens to male heroes. There have been plenty of posters of male heroes being attacked and beaten that nobody has ever complained about, as well they shouldn’t.

Oh my god Batman is being tortured by Bane on the cover, quick pull it, pull it, this is promoting the most heinous violence against men.

Ironically writers nowadays will be more inclined to write for male characters instead as they are given more artistic freedom, and their characters aren’t looked at by crazed MRA’s desperate to find everything about Batman’s portrayal problematic for vulnerable young men.

Their Complaints Are Often Hypocritical

Many of the things that feminist fans feel are problematic about portrayals of female characters in the genre apply to men too.

Personally I don’t want them to complain as much about portrayals of male characters either. If that happens there will be no stories left to tell anymore.

Still if the feminists are after true equality then they should be just as angry about “problematic” portrayals of men in the genre.

For instance they only ever get upset when female characters are killed off, even though far more men are killed off than women in sci fi and fantasy.

A poster of a woman being strangled by a male villain is enough to provoke extreme outrage yet a scene from that same film of Wolverine slicing and dicing hundreds of guys goes unnoticed.

Men make up a far larger amount of victims of the weeks, mooks the hero slaughters, and far, far more male villains are killed in gruesome ways too.

Look at this scene from Buffy season 6. Now imagine a male hero killing a female villain in this way.

Think people would cheer him on? Granted Willow is meant to have crossed a line here, but even then most fans in my experience tend to support Willow, and indeed the show often makes out that she was right anyway. Xander in the next episode says that Warren had it coming and Buffy doesn’t entirely disagree.

Feminists also complain about oversexualised images of female characters and also how fanboys drool over them being sexist and examples of “male gaze”.

Now I am not going to deny that female heroes like Wonder Woman, Xena, Buffy and the Charmed ones obviously have a lot of sex appeal.

However what’s wrong with that? Its perfectly natural and furthermore there are just as many examples of over sexualised male characters for the female fans too.

Feminists however never complain about this at all which ironically creates a double standard against men and women. Men are shamed for their natural sexual urges in a way women are not, whilst at the same time female performers like Lucy Lawless and Gal Gadot are shamed for looking gorgeous, and using their sex appeal in a way that hunky male leads are not.

At the same time ironically it could be argued that actually there is a greater market for the “female gaze”.

Put it this way do male fans of Charmed go online and write pornographic stories about Shannen Doherty and Alyssa Milano the way that fan girls do about the male lead characters in Supernatural, the Winchester brothers?

Its not just Supernatural of course. Slash fiction is a phenomenon in many major fandoms and its almost always female dominated. Now again I have no problem with it, but imagine the scorn feminists would have for a male fan who constantly wrote lesbian porn stories about two sexy female characters that he spent all of his time drooling over on fan forums.

Furthermore non sexualized male characters like the Doctor have been completely sexualized in order to appeal to female viewers.

For 26 years the Doctor was a completely asexual character and was often played by older men like Jon Pertwee and William Hartnell.

However for the revival Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat both said they wanted women to like Doctor Who so they decided to make the character more appealing to women. As a result of this they not only for many years cast younger actors in the role, but they completely rewrote the character of the Doctor to be more romantic and sensitive to make him appealing to the fangirls.

Again imagine the absolute outrage there would be from feminists if there was a major, completely sexless female character like say Miss Marple who had to be reimagined to be sexy for male viewers and they not only cast an actress like Maggie Q in the role, but also deliberately rewrote her to act like what they think a young man’s idea of the perfect woman is.

The Doctor in the 1970’s. A completely sexless character in every respect.

The Doctor of the 21st Century who was tailor made for a female audience.

You can see how this is just sheer and utter hypocrisy. Apparently a character who was always sexualized like Wonder Woman needs to be rewritten to be completely non sexualized or else its sexist. Meanwhile a completely sexless character has to be rewritten to be a love struck emo hero snogging every woman he comes into contact with to win round female audiences?

Another example of feminists hypocrisy is the way that they complain whenever a female characters story revolves around a man. Again poor old Steven Moffat is often slated as being unable to write for women because he makes their lives revolve around the Doctor in Doctor Who.

However once again these feminists NEVER comment on examples of male characters lives having to revolve around women (not that I think they should but again either comment on both or none at all.)

Spider-Man’s existence revolves entirely around his love interests, the Doctor from 2005 onward’s life usually revolved around a woman, Rose, Donna, River Song etc, Dave Lister the lead protagonist from Red Dwarf’s life revolves around his love for Kristine Kochanski. Many of Angel’s story arcs revolve around his love interest on both Buffy and his own show.

Similarly supporting male characters in female led shows like Riley in Buffy, Ares in Xena, and Cole in Charmed’s lives revolve around the female leads, yet feminists don’t condemn those series as anti men the same way they did the 11th Doctors era, because Rivers life revolved around the Doctors.

Feminists basically look at things one way with male characters and another with female ones.

Worst of all however is the way that feminists on the one hand can’t stand there being any franchise that’s aimed more towards men, yet on the other they want men kept away from any that is aimed towards women.

Again take a look at Doctor Who. Doctor Who despite having always had a large female following, was generally seen as a guys thing.

Sci fi in general is seen as a guys thing, the Doctor is a male character, whilst his sidekicks are women, and the show was always somewhat action packed, even in the Hartnell era, so its not hard to see why people would assume that it was more for men.

As a result of this feminists initially despised Doctor Who in the 80’s and through the 90’s. They always slandered it as inherently anti women and contributed to its reputation falling.

By the 2010’s however when Doctor Who was popular again then the feminists latched onto it, but this time they demanded that it all be changed to suit them. They argued that Doctor Who was a horrible little boys only club and needed to be more inclusive to the point where the Master had to become a woman, UNIT a longstanding military organisation has to be occupied entirely by women, and finally the Doctor himself has to be a woman.

We are constantly told that Doctor Who now becoming completely female dominated is a good thing as its more inclusive to female fans.

A Female Doctor Who Is The Feminist Hero We Need Now

The Time Lady Project: Whovian Feminism

Meanwhile for the Wonder Woman movie there were actually all female screenings held for it.

Of course its not like this is a one off. Whovian Feminism has hypocritically demanded that white men be limited from writing or directing series starring female or minority leads whilst always pushing for more women to both write and direct Doctor Who. She has argued that female characters written by women are always superior.

Of course the great irony is that the two most famous genre characters of the past at least 50 years, Xena and Buffy were both created by men. I’m not saying that this means men write better female characters, but you can see how it doesn’t matter? (Incidentally this is another reason Xena would struggle in the SJW/feminist dominated environment of today ironically.)

Basically feminists want sci fi and fantasy to be something where men are killed in the most horrible and gruesome ways regularly on screen, but if a woman even gets threatened in something then it has to be pulled and the makers apologize for promoting violence against women.

Also at the same time there are to be no pin ups for men, and men who fancy Buffy are to be shamed as perverts, whilst female fans can spend all their time drooling over the likes of James Marsters, Jensen Ackles and David Tennant and even write gay fan fic stories about the male leads they are attracted too.

Similarly we are allowed to have countless male characters like Rory Williams and Spike follow a strong female character around and have his life utterly revolve around her, but as soon as we have a strong male character like the Doctor with a female sidekick, then that is sexist, and we have to focus more on her, have her be the real hero of the story to the point where she takes his place in the opening credits, and gains his powers and use them much better than he ever did.

I wonder if Jodie will get a male companion that takes her place in the opening credits and gets her powers and uses them better than she does and tells her she has been useless compared to him?

And finally now all male led things like Doctor Who have to be feminized from top to bottom to not be a little boys only club, whilst anything starring a female hero has to be seen by women first, and can only be written and directed by women.

Yeah not hard to see why feminists are viewed as a bunch of anti men hypocrites with this in mind.

They Never Create Their Own Characters

Feminists and SJW’s can never create their own characters. They always instead demand that other people’s characters be changed to their liking. Examples of this include Wolverine, Thor, The Doctor, The Master and Iron Man who have all been replaced with or been turned into women.

SJW’s always claim that representation is important, but the thing is there is nothing to stop them from going out there and coming up with their own characters. However there are two reasons they don’t.

One is that they want to push their agenda to as many people as possible. Thus they want to use an already established and iconic character like say the Doctor, rather than create a new character and take the time and effort to make them an icon.

Take a look at Frank Hampson the creator of Dan Dare in contrast. Hampson felt at that time that comic books weren’t teaching children proper values. Hampson was a devout Christian and a socialist. As a result of this he decided to create Dan Dare (who went on to be arguably the most influential British comic book character of all time) that espoused those values.

If he had been like the feminist fans of today however he would have simply attacked other people’s work as sexist, racist etc until they did it the way he wanted.

Also there is a certain level of spite involved if the product stars white men and its fans are white men. Feminists always LOVE to go on about how they have made sexist male fans heads explode by taking away their characters. Thing is you are not a sexist if you don’t want your favourite character to be replaced which has essentially happened in all of these cases. Fans have similarly not liked it when beloved characters have been replaced by other men such as Damian Wayne taking over as Batman.

However the difference was you didn’t have to get other fans relishing in the fact you were upset or telling you you were a bigot for not liking Damian Wayne.

They Never Bring Attention To Original Female Characters

Continuing on from my last point, feminist fans are often the last people who actually ever like, never mind talk about female led series.

Take a look at Claudia Boleyn. Now I certainly don’t hate Claudia Boleyn personally. She is a really nice, intelligent girl, and any time I have spoken to her on twitter she has always been nice. She just seems a little bit misguided to me.

Still however Claudia sadly I feel cares more about turning male heroes into women to get back at the perceived “entitled male fans” than she does about actual female heroes.

The reason I think that is because Claudia virtually never comments on female led shows. Look at her blog or her youtube account. Almost all of the shows she reviews or is most passionate about star men. Doctor Who, Class, Torchwood, Merlin, Supernatural.

Where are her videos about Charmed? About Xena? About Buffy? About Earth 2? About Ghost Whisperer? About Once Upon A Time? She goes on and on about desperately wanting to see women and LGBT people like her on tv, yet Xena, a series about two bisexual women who are the worlds greatest heroes has never interested her?

Clearly Claudia actually doesn’t need to see someone who is like her on tv to enjoy a show. She has 0 interest in the massive franchises that already feature them. In fact ironically there are female counterparts to all of her favorite shows.

Supernatural and Charmed are two very similar shows. Both revolve around siblings who battle Demons. In both cases one of the siblings develops a close relationship with an Angel, whilst the youngest develops a romantic relationship with a Demon who wavers between good and evil and is eventually killed by the siblings. Both shows also feature a finale called All Hell Breaks Loose where one of the siblings is killed and the other is forced to make a deal with a Demon to save them which results in bad consequences for the eldest sibling.

Charmed however stars women and was created by a woman, whilst Supernatural stars men and was created by a guy.

Which one is Claudia a devoted fan of? Yep the masculine version.

Similarly look at Merlin and Xena. Both very similar shows in terms of style. Pseudo historicals, which mix fantasy, surrealism and humour. Take a look at two of the main villains in Merlin, Cenred and Morgause, a cocky egotistical guy with all the power, and a psycho blonde who eventually turns the tables on him.

Where have I seen that before?

Yet again between these two similar series which is the one Claudia loves? The one starring the two bisexual women or the one starring two white dudes?

Torchwood and Class also both have a similar premise to Buffy another female led series. All three revolve around portals to other universes below modern cities which attract monsters to them. Class is even set in a school!

However again which is the only one ironically out of those three Claudia isn’t a devoted fan of? That would be Buffy, the one starring a female lead.

I’m not saying this makes Claudia a liar. I think like a lot of these young fangirls she’s been worked up by a lot of the crap around her into thinking that representation is important (as indeed I was at one point) without even realizing that most of the shows she likes star men, so clearly she actually doesn’t need to see someone like her to enjoy something.

She also has no doubt been convinced that anyone who doesn’t say want a female Doctor is trying to limit what women can do in the genre.

However if she stopped and thought about it then she would probably realize that actually she clearly doesn’t care about representation at all.

The same applies for Whovian Feminism. This woman claims that she is desperate to see things starring women, yet she always reviews Doctor Who? I put this question to her on twitter that she cared more about taking the role of the Doctor away from men than in female heroes, which fair enough was probably a little too confrontational a way to phrase it.

Still all Whovian Feminism could say (aside from calling me a random white dude, like skin colour has anything to do with it) was that she liked the Wonder Woman movie.

That hardly shows an extensive knowledge of female heroes Whovian Feminism that you like the one currently in the cinemas. I doubt she has even heard of Callisto or Alti.

Paul Cornell is another male example who claims to care about female representation yet I have never seen him even once mention any of the classic female led series. Almost everything he reviews or indeed has written for is male led apart from a very few exceptions.

Doctor Who, Wolverine, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Dan Dare. Where are Paul’s extensive reviews of every episode of Xena? Where are his Buffy comics, his novel showing us what happened to the Charmed sisters, his character who is a love letter to 90’s female heroes?

He doesn’t give a shit about any female heroes. Same applies to Will Wheaton. The only things I have ever seen Will Wheaton talk about are male led shows like Doctor Who, Star Trek (obviously) or films like Star Wars.

The same also applies to all of these women and men who keep going on about “now that the Doctor is a woman my daughters will finally have someone to look up to”.

If they didn’t before then that’s your fault! You were the one who chose to show them nothing but male led things like Doctor Who or Star Trek.

You could have maybe, just maybe shown them one of the following, Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Once Upon A Time, Relic Hunter, Nikita, Charlies Angels, Terminator 1 and 2, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Alien film series, Star Trek Voyager, Resident Evil film series, Underworld film series, Day of the Dead, Wonder Woman tv series, The Bionic Woman, Jessica Jones, Penny Dreadful, Stranger Things, Kill Bill 1 and 2, Sleepy Hollow tv series, Alias, Ghost Whisperer, Dark Angel?

Of course feminists earn the hatred of nerds not only because they go around telling the rest of us we need to get used to female heroes (despite never watching anything with female heroes) but they also ironically do down the contributions of many iconic female led series too.

The way feminists act now  you’d think that the likes of Xena and Buffy never existed!

As a devoted, life long fan of Xena I am fucking fed up of it constantly being overlooked, but the reason for that is that it doesn’t fit into the “women are never allowed to be the heroes narrative” which is fuelled by feminist fans.

If feminist fans really cared about female representation in the genre, they’d either go out and create new characters or try and bring attention to female led classics like Xena and Charmed that are perhaps a bit overlooked. Instead however they are obsessed with making as many male characters into women as they possibly can, showing that its more about taking it away from men than a true desire for equality.

They ALWAYS Get Their Own Way

Sheldon’s a better representation for feminist fans in this scene than any female hero like Wonder Woman.

No group in any fandom gets their own way quite like feminists. Just take a look at the Doctor Who series.

As soon as they started complaining, EVERYTHING in the show was tailored to suit their needs. The Master was made into a woman, there were constant references to the Doctor changing gender, another timelord gender flipped, and finally the Doctor got turned into a woman even though the majority of fans were against it.

Most Fans Against A Female Doctor

Similarly Marvel has also killed off and dropped many of their greatest and most popular heroes like Iron Man and Wolverine just because feminists wanted more diversity.

The reason they have so much more power is because they slander the makers of series personally, calling them names such as sexist, homophobic, racist etc. Also as ShoeOnHead has pointed out many times, people are more sympathetic to women’s problems, and as people associate feminism with all women sadly, then people are more likely to listen to and feel they have to try and fix a feminists complaint.

Also the mainstream media is on their side too and thus will often skewer things like Gamergate are Nazis, all people who don’t want a female Doctor are evil sexists etc, whilst not presenting the other side of the argument at all.

Now all of this is understandably annoying, but what makes it even worse is the way that feminists always go on about white male fans being privileged and that they need to get used to things not going their way!

In her review for Death in Heaven Claudia Boleyn comments on how the death of Osgood represented accurately how the fangirls had been treated by the writers of the show all season.

Are you fucking kidding me! For those of you unfamiliar with Doctor Who the season Claudia was referring to was one where the Doctors archenemy, the Master was turned into a bisexual, trans woman who wanted to shag the Doctor, where the groundwork was laid for a female Doctor, where Clara not only completely took over the show but also even took Capaldi’s place in the opening credits and was billed first. All to satisfy the feminist fan girls who complained throughout the 50th about the companion not being given enough to do, that another white man had been cast as the Doctor and that there weren’t enough LGBT characters.

The idea that Claudia could think that was a season that went out of its way to antagonise the fan girls is laughable. In fact it reminds me of a line from the Doctor Who story Resurrection of the Daleks “No matter how you react the Daleks see it as an act of provocation.”

They Only Bully Sci Fi Because It Is An Easy Target

Its funny the way feminists and SJW’s have singled out these two genres to attack more than any other.

Sci fi and fantasy have a long history of being among the most progressive and left wing genres (particularly when it comes to female lead series).

There aren’t nearly as many leading roles for women in other popular genres like westerns, crime thrillers, and spy and espionage stories.

So why don’t feminists go after these genres? Simple, because they are not as easy to bully. Sci fi and fantasy are sadly looked down on. Even with the recent geek fad, they are still often seen as sad and childish interests. Thus not only are the papers often going to be on the side of the feminists against the sad gits who like silly childish interests, but many nerds are also at the same time not going to want to defend their interest so vigorously out of fear of looking like sad gits.

Thus they will often only be too happy to let the feminists tread all over their franchise. Also to be fair again as the genres have always historically been progressive and forward thinking places then its fans will initially be more open minded.

Thus for all their talk of fighting for equality, feminists pick the easiest prey so to speak.

They Sink Every Franchise They Latch Onto

Not Cast On Merit

Every time a franchise panders to feminists (which as we have seen is often) its viewers, readers, audience in general will sink dramatically.

Doctor Who has shed two million viewers every single year since it started pandering to feminists. In fact the last series scored the two lowest rated episodes in the shows entire 50 plus year history, with viewers dropping to barely above 2 million at one point.

Marvel have of course begun to suffer record losses too since their SJW pandering began.

Doctor Who Viewers Down At 2 Million

Marvel Executive Diversity To Blame For Low Sales

The reason they drive away viewers is because ironically for all their talk of diversity they make things like Doctor Who that could previously be enjoyed by anyone into things that only they can like.

Another reason they sink each franchise they influence is because they don’t actually care about what is the best thing for the franchise. Only in pushing an agenda. Thus stories take a back seat to virtue signalling, actors and actresses aren’t cast on merit, writers aren’t hired on merit either. They are all just there to tick boxs.

Take a look at Whovian Feminism, a woman who undoubtedly had an influence to some extent on the direction of Doctor Who (as she has interviewed several writers and directors from the show so they are at least aware of her blog.)

She has regularly said she wants a female Doctor and Master, just because. Thus neither Jodie Whitaker or Michelle Gomez were cast on merit. On top of that Whovian Feminism is demanding that there be an equal amount of female and male writers for the next season. I obviously have no problem with female writers, but nobody should be hired solely for their gender.

When you do that you are obviously not going to end up with the best person, and I a fan want the best people hired for Doctor Who. Whovian Feminism however doesn’t and again as she is the type of fan they listen too, because she slanders the makers as sexists the show doesn’t always have the best people working on it and thus its quality falls.


Feminists are the most hated group in any fandom they become a part of and for good reason. They ultimately are the only group who can never just simply be a part of any franchise they claim to be fans of. We all have our own expectations and ways we want franchises to go. Difference is we don’t all bully anyone who doesn’t want it to go the way we want to as sexists, or racist, or homophobic.

I mean hey I wanted Osgood to be 12’s companion. When Bill was announced I didn’t try and bully Moff into still making Osgood the new companion. I just accepted it. Feminists however sadly have to make everything go their way, and they always get it, whilst at the same time claiming that they are the victims.

Until feminists take a long hard look at how they have been acting and step back from making absolutely everything about them and their movement, then they will always remain the most hated members of any fandom.


Why I Hate Rational Wiki


A website devoted to debunking bullshit claims, whilst at the same time praising Anita Sarkeesian as a feminist hero.

Rational Wiki is a popular website which as its name would suggest attempts to offer up a more logical and practical approach to political and social issues as well as debunk what it sees as pseudo scientific theories.

Sadly over the last few years it has developed a strong left wing bias to the point where I and many others feel it has actually become more of a propaganda piece for the regressive left than anything else.

In this article I am going to highlight what I feel are the main problems with Rational Wiki.

Its worth baring in mind that as it is a Wiki that anyone can edit, then its content may change over time. Who knows in 2 years time it could actually do what it says on the tin and offer up impartial, fair and even handed articles on subjects.

At the current time of writing however Rational Wiki is nothing more than an SJW propaganda piece. Again normally I wouldn’t mind if it was. After all everyone is entitled to their opinions. However its the fact that they present themselves as Rational Wiki that bugs me as that makes it look like it is an impartial and logical website when it is nothing more than an opinion piece.

Rational Wiki Has A Double Standard When It Comes To Islam

Rational Wiki in a nutshell.

Now to be fair to Rational Wiki it has provided some criticism of Islam and many notable Islamic preachers. However like many on the left I feel that it goes easier on Islam simply because its a religion practised by mostly dark skinned people.

Its a classic case of having a soft bigotry of low expectations. Basically its okay to attack people for their beliefs and ideologies as long as they are white.

An example of this can be found on their Webshites and Websites pages. The Webshites page as its name would suggest is a list of sites and bloggers that Rational Wiki considers to be biased, untrustworthy and even harmful. The description on the page warns that citing any of the people in this list will cause you to automatically lose the argument.

Now in their Webshites page they have a youtuber called Syeten. Syeten does cartoons parodying religion, but he places a greater emphasis on Islam than other faiths.

Rational Wiki says to avoid his channel because it isn’t even handed when attacking religions as it focuses too much on Islam.

At the same time however Rational Wiki has Non Stamp Collector on its Websites page which are sites that it not only recommends but uses as reliable sources for its articles.

Non Stamp Collector is a youtuber who does cartoons parodying the Judeo Christian faith and only the Judeo Christian faith (as that is the one he grew up with, and thus has the most experience of.)

Now personally I am a fan of both youtubers. I’m not always keen on Syeten’s videos mind you. I’ve never really been a fan of jokes about other people’s appearances which Syeten sometimes does like his Jaclyn Glen video. Still that’s just my personal taste, and overall I have immense respect for them both as their cartoons really bring to light just how twisted the Old Testament and the Quran are.

Here are some examples of both men’s work.

There is really no difference in either men’s work as you can see, but about Syeten Rational Wiki says “Prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws, and broken keyboards.”

About Non Stamp Collector however they say “Warning this video may cause excessive hilarity“.

The funny thing is, Syeten has actually done videos parodying Christianity too, whilst Non Stamp Collector has only ever stuck to one religion. Again I don’t think that makes Non Stamp Collector a bigot either, as he only goes after Christianity because he has extensive knowledge of it.

Still the great irony is that by Rational Wiki’s standards then Non Stamp Collector is the bigot not Syeten as his channel is devoted completely to one religion.

In this respect I find it hard to take Rational Wiki seriously as critics of religious dogma when they clearly are more oversensitive to criticism of the fastest growing and currently the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Obviously as you can see from both men’s videos the Old Testament and the Quran are among the most disgusting books ever written. However Islam is currently more dangerous than Judaism or Christianity for the following reasons.

The Jewish religion has been reformed many times over the years, and is a more loose, tribal religion that’s laws and traditions are not as strict. Also the Jewish faith is much more vague about its concept of the afterlife and tends to focus on the here and now. Thus radical Jews are not as likely to blow themselves up because they think they will get 72 virgins in the afterlife.

Christianity meanwhile is a more benign religion overall. There are some dodgy parts in the New Testament sure, but overall Jesus’ message is to love your enemies, grant unto others as you would unto yourself, and he is presented as someone who genuinely loves everyone around him and even begs god to forgive his murderers. Added to that Christianity has had a reformation too.

Islam meanwhile has had no such reformation. It is presented as the definitive word of god, and so therefore there isn’t really room for interpretation. It tells its followers to slay all nonbelievers, to kill all homosexuals, and that all black people and women are inferior to white men. It also promises its believers an afterlife if they wage war on non believers and martyr themselves in conflict with them!

Now this does not mean that all Muslims are violent bigots. Many Muslims in western society have never even read the Quran, just as many Jewish people have never read the Old Testament. Other meanwhile undoubtedly cherry pick the good bits of their faith too.

However those who are raised on genuine Islamic beliefs do at least hold prejudiced views against women, LGBT people and Jews, even in the most civil western societies. In the United Kingdom for instance over 50 percent of Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal.

50 Percent Of All British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Criminalized

Rational Wiki however apart from a few exceptions will shout down almost any reasonable critic of Islam like David Wood, Pat Condell, and Tommy Robinson as racists and people you should ignore, but they’ll praise an equally harsh critic of the Judeo Christian faith.

Again the reason for this is because basically Muslims are mostly brown and in Rational Wiki’s condescending mindset, all brown people are oppressed and victims of evil white men.

Ultimately Rational Wiki are the brave type of skeptics who will go after people who believe in heaven or spirits or the afterlife for comfort and ridicule them in order to look smart and superior, but they will slander people such as Tommy Robinson, Thunderf00t and Kraut and Tea who call out religiously motivated hatred of LGBT people, and misogyny as bigots and tell you not to listen to them

Videos that Rational Wiki, who care so much about tackling misogyny, homophobia and religious dogma absolutely do not want you to see according to their Webshites page.

Rational Wiki can only be viewed in my opinion as shameless hypocrites and cowards.

White Knighting For Antia Sarkeesian

Apparently the only reason anyone could hate this liar, charlatan, and fraud who went to the UN to try and shut down her critics is because they are sexist according to Rational Wiki.

Now I dislike Anita Sarkeesian in general. The woman has done more to harm genuine feminism than any actual misogynist. She is a cynical, lying opportunist who wants to bask in the feminist glory but doesn’t actually combat any genuine sexism.

Thus she picks perfectly benign targets like video games, sci fi, comic books and lego and calls them sexist for the most petty reasons in order to make herself look like a feminist champion.

Clearly she just hates Anita Sarkeesian because she hates women. Seriously. Rational Wiki has written under a picture of Anita “Oh My God A Woman On The Internet!” A very nuanced and rational rebuttal to her detractors of course.

However simply liking Anita Sarkeesian wouldn’t bother me to the point where I’d bother writing an article attacking someone for it. In Rational Wiki’s case however I dislike the way that they defend Anita for various reasons.

To start with ironically they turn her into a damsel in distress. Look at their article about her. Its mostly just about how she has suffered horrendous online abuse.

Now I don’t doubt that Anita Sarkeesian has had a lot of genuine online abuse, but still so what? Everybody gets abuse online. There are psychos and trolls on every side.

However Rational Wiki not only tries to make it look as though she gets it worse for being a woman, but they also at one point actively say that because of the harsh online treatment Anita Sarkeesian has received we can’t criticize her.

Take a look at this quote from Jim Sterling that they have on her Rational Wiki page

There are some solid criticisms you can level at Sarkeesians work. I’m not 100 percent on her side, you know. She’s not perfect by a long shot and her video series is a little off base, with some of the examples she’s named as targets. But we can’t talk about that anymore, because the debates not about whether she’s right or wrong. The debate was invalidated as soon as people tried to ruin her life en masse. The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her

What a ridiculous assertion, and whilst Rational Wiki may not have written it originally they still quoted it, showing that they agree with it.

Apparently because some of Sarkeesian’s critics are assholes then that means no one is allowed to say anything bad about her?

By that logic then Rational Wiki can’t criticize half of the people they do.

Take a look at Thunderf00t whom they despise. He too has received death threats, rape threats, has had people mock his father dying of cancer and has even had people try and get him fired from his job!

See here

So then going by Sterling and Rational Wiki’s logic the chance to debate Thunderf00t was gone as soon as people started to try and ruin his life and told him he deserved to be raped for all eternity!

Lauren Southern is another notable youtuber who they attack, and again by their own logic they shouldn’t. Lauren has not only had death threats and rape threats but has been physically assaulted many times and even had urine thrown over her!

That’s worse than anything that’s happened to Anita Sarkeesian. Mean tweets can’t actually hurt you. Getting punched in the face, and having urine thrown over you however?

Rational Wiki likes to go on about Anita’s law or Anita’s irony which is where a woman who complains about sexism is then forced to endure sexist abuse by men telling her there is no sexism. (Of course in Rational Wiki’s mind, telling her she is wrong probably counts as “sexist abuse”. On top of that what about the women like Mercedes Carrera’s criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian too?)

Still I’ve decided to coin a new term here (assuming it hasn’t been coined already. If it has apologies) Lauren’s Law which means when feminists and white knights complain about sexism but then don’t care when women who don’t share their opinions are treated in sexist ways up to and including physical assault. Example: Rational Wiki white knighting over poor little Anita’s mean tweets whilst ignoring the abuse the likes of Lauren Southern and other conservative women receive.

Finally Blaire White is another person that Rational Wiki despises and she not only regularly receives death threats but was actually attacked and nearly stabbed by her crazed feminist roommate.

Slightly worse than being called a mean name on Twitter (which Blaire is anyway, every fucking day!)

The abuse the likes of Blaire, Lauren or Thunderf00t have received is either mentioned fleetingly or not all on their Rational Wiki pages.

To be fair they do call the person who threw urine over Lauren a douche on her page, but still that’s it. They don’t try and present Lauren as a victim that we should all feel sorry for, have entire sections devoted to the abuse she has gotten from people online, and have quotes about “As soon as people started hitting Lauren then the chance to debate her on merit was gone”.

Again however the reason for that is because ironically they want everyone to feel sorry for Anita because they know that her arguments don’t actually hold up under any fair, rational analysis.

Also finally I feel that they deliberately misrepresent her critics. For instance they claim that the majority of her critics think she wants to ban video games. Whilst I am sure that some of her online trolls have said this, its ridiculous to act as though that’s what the majority of her critics such as Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad have accused her of.

Also at the same time they don’t address other more frequently cited and valid criticisms of her such as the fact that she complains about sexualized female characters, whilst never commenting on sexualized images of male characters.

According to Anita and Rational Wiki only one of these images is sexist. Why do I think there is a double standard? I don’t think either image is sexist by the way. Let viewers both oggle Xena and drool over Spike. Its natural. Still to only focus on one as a bad thing creates a gross double standard against both genders as men are shamed for their natural sexual urges, whilst women are ironically shamed and even made to feel guilty for cashing in on their sex appeal as performers whilst men are not.

Then there is of course the fact that Anita complains about female characters being killed in video games such as Hitman, despite the fact that far more male characters are killed regularly in video games (and indeed all forms of media.)

And then there is her rampant hypocrisy for slating video games for being too violent overall and for featuring heroes who solve their problems through violence whilst constantly praising Buffy a show about a female character who regularly stakes, decapitates, and burns her enemies to death!

The great irony is that Buffy is actually among the very few heroes who always kills her enemies. Most heroes like Sherlock Holmes, Batman (in some versions), Superman and Spider-Man have a moral code where they will never kill. Others meanwhile like the Doctor, Xena, Captain Kirk, even Wolverine will only kill if they need too. Buffy however? Due to the nature of her enemies she always kills them. She is actually the most violent popular hero of all time. Yet Anita who can’t stand video games that teach kids that violence solves problems loves Buffy and holds it as the pinnacle of genre series.

Rather than address these types of criticisms on her page however (or bring up her endorsement of gender and racial segregation.) Rational Wiki instead will bring up things like Mundane Matt’s silly comment (that he later regretted) about her smiling like a white person or claim that a picture of her playing a game when she was ten proves that she always liked video games (despite the fact that plenty of people play games as children and then grow out of them later.) Or they claim that people said she chased Joss Whedon off of twitter (which again people by and large didn’t say. They did however point out that Jonathan McIntosh her producer did join in the hate mob against Whedon which eventually drove him off Twitter.)

Their attempts to refute Thunderf00t’s criticisms of Anita are also mostly hollow.

They claim for instance that there is a problem with representation of women in video games, that there aren’t enough female heroes, that women have a hard time from gamers etc, whilst offering no sources to back these claims up, and never commenting on the various sources that contradict Anita’s statements such as.

Interview with Liz Finnegan

On top of that they also say that Sarkeesian disables the comments on her videos because of the abuse she gets. They completely leave out the fact that again all youtubers get abuse in their comments sections, but also that in the various re-upload’s of and responses to her videos, comments about raping her and vicious abuse in general are in the extreme minority.

They also fail to mention in their “debunking” of Thunderf00t’s claims about Hitman that he criticises Anita first of all for her double standard in only complaining about female characters being killed, when far more male characters are gruesomely killed in video games, and also that the game does punish players for murdering female characters (and only female characters) and furthermore that it is ridiculous to say having strippers in a strip club is somehow sexist. Rational Wiki even says “why have the strippers there at all”. How about because its a strip club!

Also they claim that the damsel in distress trope should be phased out once games stories become more complex and involved, completely ignoring the fact that they have been phased out as video games have become more complex and developed more involved stories.

Basically Rational Wiki does its best to misrepresent Anita’s critics and ironically turn her into a damsel in distress to make casual readers feel immense sympathy with her. They jump through the most ridiculous hoops to defend this utter disgrace to feminism.

Bare Faced Lies And Slander

OMG a woman I’m scared (using Rational Wiki’s “logic” against them.)

Rational Wiki regularly slanders those whose opinions it disagrees with. For instance on its Webshites page it says that the youtuber Some Black Guy thinks Donald Trump is a great guy. This is a total distortion of his opinion. Having now watched many of his videos all Some Black Guy has ever said is that he thinks Donald Trump was less dangerous than Hillary Clinton as Clinton was a war monger who openly antagonized Russia and China.

However he made it clear that he did not actually like Trump several times. Some Black Guy’s opinion of Trump was no different to John Pilgers who also said that he hoped Trump would win instead of Hillary Clinton due to Hillary’s track record in countries such as Iraq, Libya and Honduras.

By Rational Wiki’s logic then John Pilger of all people is a Trump fanboy as his opinions on him are pretty much exactly the same as Some Black Guy’s.

Furthermore they also claim that Blaire White advocates bullying fat people and that she may not have been joking about having refugees gassed. Whilst I don’t think it was one of Blaire’s best jokes, again it was clearly a joke. When you look at the context its obvious that Blaire is just trying to get a rise. Again you might think it was an inappropriate joke, but that’s Blaire’s style.

The fact that Rational Wiki would even try and suggest that it wasn’t a joke however shows how desperate they are to discredit her. Blaire also has explicitly said that she does not want to see people be bullied for their weight, but at the same time she doesn’t think being obese is a healthy lifestyle choice and therefore should not be promoted as such by things like “the body positivity movement.

This is a perfectly fair view to hold. Most people don’t think smoking is a healthy lifestyle choice, but that doesn’t mean they want to publicly humiliate and shame smokers or even stop them from smoking. But at the same time they are going to call out someone who says that smoking is a healthy lifestyle.

Furthermore they claim that Blaire White has attacked Riley O’Dennis simply for claiming to be trans and still having a penis. Again this is a gross misinterpretation of Blaire’s views. Blaire criticized Riley because she believed he had not undergone any form of transitioning (though she later apologized when she found out that he had.)

Still Blaire’s criticisms against Riley are more to do with his political leanings such as his ridiculous claims that straight men and gay women who don’t find him attractive are transphobic.

Rational Wiki again however doesn’t address these criticisms that Blaire has for Riley and simply lies that her issue with him is that he still has a penis. Blaire has said many times that most trans women keep their male genitals, so she certainly would not mock Riley Dennis for it.

Rational Wiki has also been very deceptive on the feud between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Linda Sarsour too.

Rational Wiki thinks very highly of Linda Sarsour. It includes her among the websites it recommends and uses as a valuable source. Ayaan Hirsi Ali meanwhile, though it acknowledges that some of her claims are valid, it generally tends to dismiss her as an Islamophobe.

Rational Wiki actually tries to make Hirsi Ali the bad guy as best it can.

All it mentions about her feud with Linda Sarsour is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali said Linda Sarsour could not be a feminist because she was a Muslim. Now personally I don’t see anything wrong with this statement anyway, as Islam says that women are inferior to men, so if you are actually a devout Muslim then you obviously can’t be a champion for women’s rights.

Still Rational Wiki completely leaves out the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says Linda Sarsour can’t be a feminist because she supports Sharia Law (a law that deprives women of basic human rights.) And also that Linda Sarsour said she wanted to beat the shit out of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and take away her vagina (Ali is a survivor of female genital mutilation.) This is actually what began their feud, but again you wouldn’t know it going by Rational Wiki.

Furthermore Rational Wiki is often quick to dismiss people like Chris Ray Gun, Mundane Matt and Some Black Guy as sexists and members of the alt right, simply because they are critics of feminism. All 3 of them are fairly left leaning, liberals (Ray Gun supported Bernie Sanders and refused to vote for either Trump or Clinton in the 2016 election.)

Finally they also failed to mention the abuse Laci Green has received from feminists (including being called a slut, getting death threats, and being doxxed) simply for dating Chris Ray Gun!

Once again we can see Lauren’s Law in full effect here. When Anita is subject to harassment, Rational Wiki devote practically an entire page to it. Whilst Laci Green, not only another woman, but a feminist is subject to doxxing, death threats and sexist abuse Rational Wiki doesn’t comment on it as it doesn’t fit their narrative now that she is simply associating with an anti feminist Chris Ray Gun in her private life.

All they say is that her fans aren’t happy with her dating Chris to say the least, which doesn’t even begin to cover the abuse Laci has received.


As you can see Rational Wiki is really nothing more than a propaganda piece for SJWs which tries to present itself as an impartial and well rational source.

For this reason I think its very important to call them out on their bullshit and show that at the end of the day whilst they claim to be impartial and level headed, they regularly lie and misinterpret things to suit their own agenda.

Thanks for reading.

Characteristics Of 90’s/00’s Genre Series

The 90’s/00’s was a golden age for sci fi and fantasy series in my opinion. Then again I am a 90’s baby so having growing up with the genre series from this time I am naturally going to hold a special affection for them.

Still looking at it from a more impartial point of view I think those two decades marked many significant and positive changes in the sci fi and fantasy genres, and also produced some of their most enduring and iconic series and characters, such as Xena the Warrior Princess, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, Babylon 5, The X-Files and the various Star Trek sequels.

In this article I am going to run through the common tropes and characteristics of series from these decades as well the influence they have had on the current generation of genre series such as Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead.

1/ American Genre Series vs British Series

During the 90’s America completely dominated the sci fi and fantasy market. In the United Kingdom meanwhile the genre was for all intents and purposes dead on television.

Doctor Who had finally come to an end in 1989 whilst Blake’s 7 had ended many years prior. Though Red Dwarf still endured throughout the decade it was often messed about by the BBC with there being several years between series 6 and 7 and later 7 and 8. for instance

The reason for this was because many high profile figures who ran British television during the 90’s hated sci fi. The most notable example of this was of course Michael Grade who launched a calculated campaign against Doctor Who in the late 80’s which eventually succeeded in finishing the show for close to 20 years.

It wouldn’t be until the 00’s before sci fi and fantasy series were capable of becoming mainstream successful television again in the United Kingdom, thanks largely to the massively successful revival of Doctor Who.

However even then almost all of the British genre series in the 00’s, including the revived Doctor Who followed all of the same tropes that the the American genre series of the 90’s and 00’s such as Buffy, Babylon 5, Xena and Smalllville had laid down.

Of course at the same time the irony is that many of things that 90’s American genre series pioneered from story arcs, to anti heroes, to characters dying regularly, to downer endings all originated in a British sci fi series from the late 70’s, early 80’s. Blake’s 7.

Now I am not saying that Blake’s 7 inspired all of these American genre series (though it did directly inspire some with the creators of Lexx and Babylon 5 being huge fans of Blake’s 7.)

Still ironically I think that Blake’s 7 really represents the start of the 90’s and 00’s style despite coming over a decade earlier. Though often dismissed by modern critics as a dated, cheesy, low budget series, Blake’s 7 ironically was decades ahead of its time in terms of its story telling and whilst I am not going to deny that its production values are shoddy, ultimately if you can get past that, then there really is little to no difference between Blake’s 7 and indeed any classic genre series for the next 30 years.

British and American Sci Fi and fantasy have obviously always had a habit of copying each other. At various points one will dominate the market, and so naturally the other will then try and emulate their style. There’s nothing wrong with it, but normally I feel that whenever the Americans or the British try and copy each other then there are still some notable differences as obviously the American and British entertainment industries and markets are very different.

For instance Blake’s 7 obviously borrowed a lot from Star Trek, right down to the teleporters, yet its really is the anti Star Trek.

Similarly Red Dwarf took a lot from Lost in Space yet the two shows sense of humour is as different as day and night. Lost in Space is upbeat, whimsical and family friendly, whilst Red Dwarf is more dry, cynical and certainly much darker all around.

In the case of the 90’s and 00’s series however there really is very little difference between say Merlin and Xena, or Doctor Who and Buffy and Angel. Thus for whatever reason I feel that the 90’s/00’s style was able to perhaps translate better over seas than many others.

2/ Leading Roles For Women

A key feature of fantasy and sci fi series in the 90’s and 00’s is that they have much stronger roles for women compared to previous decades.

Now I am not saying that previous decades sci fi and fantasy were sexist.

I think shows like Star Trek TOS and Classic Who get a hard time from many contemporary critics, as though there are certainly some examples of vintage sexism in them, by and large both shows were actually very progressive for their time. Martin Luther King himself even said that Star Trek played a key role in the Civil Rights Movement!

Sci Fi and Fantasy were actually often the most progressive genres during the 50’s, 60’s, but still even with that its true that there weren’t as many roles for women in them as after all the entertainment industry in general was more male dominated back then.

However times change and I think that really throughout the 70’s we start to see more and more leading roles for women emerge in some of the most iconic and successful genre series, from Wonder Woman, to the Alien film series, to The Bionic Woman, to The Survivors.

By the time of the 90’s I don’t think anyone had any issues with a leading character being a woman, but what changed during this decade was that for the first time female led shows actually became dominant. Indeed the three longest running and most successful genre series through the 90’s, Buffy, Xena and Charmed all starred female heroes.

It wasn’t just simply a case of women started to take on leading roles however. Throughout the 90’s we started to see shows where the majority of the supporting characters were women, and the most dangerous and evil villains were women too.

There were of course still plenty of male led series during this decade such as Hercules, Angel and Babylon 5. Still even in these series there were plenty of strong roles for women. In Angel for instance the most powerful character is a woman, Illyria.

The 90’s was really a golden age for female heroes, not just in the sci fi and fantasy genres. Many non sci fi and fantasy female led shows such as Alias also enjoyed huge success during this time too. Still undeniably the most famous original genre characters from this time, both heroic and villainous were all women.

3/ A Character Suddenly Becomes LGBT

Again as a sign of the times becoming more progressive, 90’s shows not only featured a greater representation for LGBT characters, but would often part way through their run turn a character that had previously been assumed to be straight; gay or bisexual.

Examples of this include Willow from Buffy, who became a lesbian in its fourth season when she entered into a relationship with Tara Maclay. Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5, who was in a relationship with telepath Talia Winters, and later Marcus. And finally Xena and Gabrielle themselves who were in many heterosexual and homosexual relationships throughout the shows 6 year run.

In the case of Xena and Willow their gay relationships ended up becoming more popular with the fans, prominent in the show itself, and iconic and long lasting in general.

All of these characters remain LGBT icons to this day with Xena in particular having a huge following.

At the same time however there was some criticism directed towards the likes of Xena and Gabrielle, Willow and Tara and Ivanova and Talia’s relationships as they all ended in tragedy. Indeed this gave rise to the phrase “bury your gays” that refers to the apparent habit genre series have of never giving their LGBT characters happy endings.

Personally however I think that the “bury your gays” criticism is bogus. In actual fact the vast majority of relationships, heterosexual, or LGBT end in tragedy in genre series.

Take a look at Angel and Cordelia, she dies. Wash and Zoe? He gets impaled. Cole and Phoebe? He goes evil and she kills him and shows no remorse whatsoever. Anya and Xander? She is killed in battle after a very bitter break up where he dumped her at the altar and she tried to curse him! You could argue that Tara and Xena were less tragic as at least they were still in loving relationships with their spouses.

Even all of Buffy, (a leading heterosexual characters) relationships go sour. Angel and Riley both leave her (after Riley goes to see Vampire prostitutes) whilst Spike burns up in the Hellmouth.

Wesley and Fred is another heterosexual relationship that ends with both of them dying horrible, slow, lingering, pointless deaths.

So much for it always being a happy ending for straight characters.

People love a tragedy more than a happy ending and thus when we started to see LGBT relationships they too by and large would be portrayed as tragic. Though even then it was not always the case that LGBT relationships didn’t have happy endings either. Willow and Kennedy for instance is in fact the only romantic relationship from Buffy that ends on a positive note.

The 90’s really broke new ground with its depiction of LGBT characters. Again it wasn’t the first time we had seen same sex relationships in popular television series. The first ever gay kiss occurred on British television in the 70’s, whilst there had been prominent drama’s that tackled the subject of homosexuality before such as The Naked Civil Servant.

Still again much as with leading female characters then the 90’s I feel saw LGBT characters become much more frequent and popular than before.

At the height of its success Xena was the most popular show in the world in terms of overseas sales. Its hard to imagine a television series starring an LGBT woman being so popular in the 60’s.

Of course the success of these 90’s show would lead to more shows featuring LGBT characters into the 00’s, with Torchwood having an entire cast of LGBT characters.

4/ Story Arcs

Prior to the 90’s most cult series did not have ongoing story arcs. The likes of Doctor Who, Lost in Space, the original Star Trek, The Avengers, Doomwatch all had self contained episodes. The reason for this was because when selling these shows abroad the makers had to take into account the fact that the entire series might not be brought, and thus they decided to make each story one that could effectively introduce a new audience to the series.

There were some exceptions, such as the already mentioned Blake’s 7 and the Key to Time story arc in Classic Who.

However it would really be during the 90’s that story arcs not only became practically mandatory for sci fi and fantasy series, but where many new types of story arcs were pioneered too.

Babylon 5 marked the first time a story arc spread out across an entire series from start to finish. Most of the show was written by the one man, Joseph Michael Straczynski who had mapped out the entire series before he had even written it. Though he had to make a few adjustments along the way, including replacing certain characters when their actors left.

Still the show was praised for how well it was able to develop its story across 5 years, and indeed many series since have attempted to similarly tell a story spanning several years.

Examples of this can be found in the revived Doctor Who. The story arc surrounding Tennant’s Doctors severed hand for instance began in series 2 and though initially it seems like nothing more than a throwaway scene, it later ends up playing key roles in Torchwood series 1, and Doctor Who series 3 and 4’s story arcs.

Similarly the entire Matt Smith era follows one story arc, the war on Trenzalore, fall of the 11th prophecy, and the threat of the Silence.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer meanwhile would pioneer a new type of story arc, the Big Bad formula.

Now the Big Bad formula is where a major villain or sometimes a few villains will emerge, usually at the start of a series, though sometimes it might be as late as half way through.

The Big Bad will be the head of many of the lesser villains who appear in each episode. Their master plan may be slowly revealed over the course of the series. Their end game will obviously be a bigger threat than any other villain that year, and as a result they will be defeated in the season finale in a spectacular battle where they will usually be killed.

The next year a new villain will emerge to take their place and the pattern will repeat once more.

The Big Bad formula has been copied by almost every major cult series since. Being Human, Doctor Who, Smallville, Once Upon A Time, Supernatural, Charmed, Arrow, The Flash etc.

Whilst it would be wrong to say that story arcs in genre series began in the 90’s, it was certainly during this decade that through the likes of Buffy and Babylon 5 they became more prominent than ever before.

5/ Characters Seeking Redemption

There had been anti heroes before the 90’s, with both Doctor Zachary Smith from Lost in Space and Kerr Avon from Blake’s 7 being two classic examples.

However in the 90’s they not only became a lot more common, but I feel were taken to a whole new level.

Where as Avon was merely ruthless and self serving, 90’s anti heroes such as Xena, Angel, and G’kar had all been murderers of women and children in the past!

It was quite a risky thing to make characters we were meant to root for be guilty of such deplorable things, from advocating genocide, to rape, to cold blooded torture. But that was often the point of 90’s shows that people can change.

These characters will often have to face someone they wronged at some point and try find a way to earn their forgiveness. Sometimes it doesn’t work, like Angel and Holtz, whilst in others such as G’Kar and Londo, Angel and Giles and even Xena and Callisto the atoner is able to earn forgiveness from the person they wronged more than anyone else.

At the same time however these series would often play around with the idea of the former villains never being able to truly make up for what they have done, and thus characters like Xena, Angel, G’Kar and Londo are often denied their happy endings.

A fairly large amount of 90’s/00’s genre series have a character like this. In Xena there is obviously Xena herself. Xena was once an evil warlord who slaughtered countless villages before being redeemed by Hercules and Gabrielle.

Charmed meanwhile has Cole who was once one of the worst Demons but later finds redemption (eventually) through his love for Phoebe.

In Smallville there is Lionel Luthor who starts out as the shows main villain, but ends up becoming a father figure to Clark Kent.

In Babylon 5, G’Kar and Londo both qualify. G’Kar starts out as a vicious racist would be conquerer. Though his people the Narn were genuinely wronged by the Centauri, the Narn still went on to conquer other worlds, and bully other races they way they had once been. They also sought to not just simply get back at the Centauri, but to exterminate their entire race from the universe.

As time goes on however G’Kar after all he endures, sees the error of his ways and ironically ends up becoming an almost messiah like figure preaching love between all races of the universe.

Londo his rival/friend (though only in the later series) starts out desperate to reclaim his species former glory at any cost. This of course leads him into a very dodgy deal with the Shadows that almost destroys two worlds (including his own) and costs millions of innocent people their lives.

However as time goes on he too sees the error of his ways and does all he can to rectify the wrongs he caused and later ends up sacrificing himself to save his world.

Doctor Who has also played around with this idea too with both Captain Jack and the Doctor during the Russell T Davies era having been guilty of terrible things in their past, such as the time war (before it was retconned).

Finally Buffy and Angel have a seemingly never ending supply of these types of characters. From Angel and Spike, two of the worst Vampires in recorded history, to Anya a former vengeance Demon, to Doyle a coward who left his people to be butchered, to Illyria a former Demon who killed Fred, to Willow who flayed a guy alive and nearly destroyed the world, to even Giles whose reckless actions in his youth let loose a Demon that killed several innocent people.

These characters helped the 90’s/00’s genre series be somewhat more morally grey than many of their predecessors such as the original Star Trek series.

6/ Lovable Lovestruck Rogue

A popular character in 90’s shows, this character was always a man.

He will start out as a villain, maybe the major enemy of the female hero. However as time goes on it will be revealed that he is in love with her. This will of course horrify him at first, not only because he has fallen in love with his enemy, but being in love will be contradictory to his nature, as he will be a creature of evil.

After realising his love for the female hero he will then try and become good. His love for her will motivate him to do some good things, but it may also motivate him to do some horrifying things too.

Eventually however his good side will win out, and he will even become more human and vulnerable, requiring the female hero to protect him. Throughout the story the female hero will struggle with feelings for him, which she will give into frequently. Ultimately however they will never get together, though usually by the end the female hero and male villain have a more respectful and caring relationship.

Cole from Charmed, Spike from Buffy and Ares from Xena all fit this template perfectly. All start out as major enemies of the main female heroes, Buffy, Xena, and the Charmed ones, all are creatures of evil who are not supposed to feel love. A Vampire, a God, and a Demon respectfully. All try and do good to win round the heroine they are in love with and all do manage to do great things. Ares gives up his Godhood to save Xena’s daughter, Spike is almost tortured to death by Glory to save Dawn, whilst Cole saves the Charmed ones lives many times.

However all 3 do horrible things as a result of their infatuation. Spike almost rapes Buffy, Ares tries to blackmail Xena into giving him a child by threatening to go to the Gods, whilst Cole rewrites time itself, murdering Paige in the process to win Phoebe back.

All 3 lose their powers or become more human. Ares and Cole literally become human, whilst Spike gets a human soul.

Finally all 3 do not get the girl in the end, but still they all develop a more respectful relationship with her, with Ares telling Xena that he wouldn’t ever want her to go evil again as he loves her for who she is now, Cole helping Phoebe find love again, and Spike sacrificing himself to save Buffy and her friends.

A further similarity between Spike and Ares can be found in their relationship with the main male heroes of their respective franchises too, Hercules and Angel.

Spike and Ares initially start out as darker characters on the series starring a male hero. They both have nothing but hatred for the hero and thus get a chance to be more genuinely evil characters.

As time goes on however Ares and Spike both become more comical characters as we discover their hatred of Hercules and Angel is actually more shallow and petty. The two villain are both just jealous of Herclues and Angel and at times seem more like a squabbling brother than a true archenemy.

Naturally these characters were always very popular. Both James Marsters and Julian McMahon who played Spike and Cole went on to have fantastic careers afterwards. Sadly Kevin Smith who played Ares was tragically killed in an accident not long after Xena finished.

In many ways I think this character represented how the 90’s and the 00’s became more female dominated.

Normally in the past the role of the more romantic, lovestruck villain desperate for the heroes attention was taken by a woman. Catwoman in Batman,  Maxima in Superman, Black Cat in Spider-Man and in some versions Irene Adler in Sherlock Holmes. The role of the more vicious, unsympathetic, evil villain who wanted to kill the hero meanwhile was obviously taken by a man. The Joker in Batman, Lex Luthor in Superman, Professor Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes.

In 90’s series however this classic set up was completely reversed. The hero and the evil, psychotic, villain who was a rival to the hero were occupied by women, Xena and Callisto, Buffy and Faith, whilst the lovestruck villain is now a man, Ares, Spike etc.

It was good to give both women and men a chance to play different types of characters.

7/ Crossovers

Many 90’s series were part of a larger franchise. Again this was something that we didn’t really see that often before or indeed since (apart from the Arrowverse which is already based on a shared universe, DC comics)

The various Star Trek series, Voyager, Next Generation Deep Space 9, all obviously took place in the same universe and had crossovers with one another.

The revived Doctor Who franchise during the 00’s also had two spin off series, Torchwood and the Sarah Jane Adventures, both of which had crossovers with the parent show.

Xena and Hercules also obviously took place in the same universe, as did Buffy and Angel. Finally even Babylon 5 had its own short lived spin off series too.

Personally I always liked the fact that these series took place in a shared universe for many reasons. To start with it obviously allowed the writers to expand the fictional universe to a much greater extent. Also it was interesting watching what were similar ideas but from both a female and a male perspective as was the case with Xena and Hercules and Buffy and Angel.

Hercules and Xena were both fantasy series set in ancient Greece, whilst Buffy and Angel were both Vampire series set in modern day. However the fact that Angel and Hercules featured male heroes meant they were more straight forward action series, whilst Buffy and Xena the two female led series had more of a soap opera element too them.

Also the fact that many characters would cross over between both series was interesting as we got to see how they interacted with the heroes of different series. As already mentioned on Buffy and Xena, Spike and Ares were more complicated, romantic, conflicted, sexy, even sympathetic characters, whilst on the show starring a male hero they were comical, jealous, petty, and humorous characters. Faith meanwhile is almost the reverse. On the show starring a female hero, Buffy, she is her archenemy, whilst on Angel he takes on the role of a mentor to the troubled Slayer.

Then of course there is the debate about which characters worked better on each show. Worf for instance many would agree was far more badass on Deep Space 9 than on Next Generation, whilst similarly there are many fans who preferred Captain Jack as the lovable, cheery sidekick to the Doctor on Doctor Who as opposed to the depressed, angst ridden anti hero on Torchwood.

And finally many fans are split on whether Spike was better on as the hilarious, sarcastic, badass rival to Angel, or the more complex, but wimpy, weepy love interest of Buffy.

8/ Ancient Villain Who Returns 

Many 90’s and 00’s shows feature an overarching villain who was once one of the most powerful and dangerous creatures in all of existence, but who was banished eons ago in a great war. Their followers however remain, and seek to try and find a way to bring them back. The heroes are always terrified of what will happen if they come back, and have to do everything they can to try and stop that from happening.

Examples of this trope in action include the Old Ones from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dahak from Xena and Hercules, The Shadows from Babylon 5, and the Daleks from the Russell T Davies era of Doctor Who.

The Old Ones were once the masters of the earth. They were god like Demons whose power was beyond mortal comprehension. However they were banished from the earth through a portal to hell. Many lesser Demons however throughout the course of Buffy seek to open the Hellmouth and bring them back. Buffy knows that if the monsters were to return there is nothing she could do to stop them and thus has to prevent the Hellmouth from being opened above all else.

The Daleks in the Davies era of Doctor Who had similarly been the most powerful and evil creatures in the entire universe. They however were seemingly destroyed centuries ago in the Time War, but a few of them have survived and are trying to rebuild their race.

The Doctor throughout the Davies era is desperate to prevent that from happening to the extent that he even considers killing everyone on earth in the season 1 finale, The Parting of the Ways to stop the Daleks from regaining their power.

The Shadows meanwhile were similarly once one of the most powerful creatures in the entire universe who were driven away in a war, but much like the Old Ones, traces of them as well as followers survived throughout the Galaxy and they now plan to return which serves as the main threat throughout the first 4 seasons of Babylon 5.

Finally Dahak in Xena and Hercules was also said to have once been the most evil and powerful creature of all, even the Gods were terrified of him. However he too was banished from our reality before the rise of man. Just like with the Old Ones and the Shadows and the Daleks, traces of his evil remain, and years later his followers attempt to bring him back from the nothingness the Gods banished him too.

All of these characters were inspired to some extent by the old ones from the Cthulu mythos created by H.P Lovecraft, ancient Demons who were sealed beneath the earth, yearning for a chance to return.

Indeed even the designs for monsters like the Shadows and Dahak were somewhat Lovecraftian.

9/ Best Friend Who Is In Love With The Hero

This character is also popular in 90’s/00’s shows. They are the heroes rock. They would do anything for them, are there when the hero needs them the most, often help the hero through their darkest days, will take any secrets the hero has to the grave. Yet sadly the hero barely notices them. Certainly not in the way they would like.

Eventually this character will tell the hero how they feel and even perhaps try and make the hero feel guilty for not seeing them the same way they do. Things will be awkward for a while after until eventually the friend gets over their crush and gets a new love interest, whilst still remaining the heroes greatest friend.

Examples of this character include Martha Jones from the New Doctor Who, Chloe Sullivan from Smallville, Xander from Buffy and Joxer from Xena.

Romance never had as big a role in Sci Fi and fantasy series before the 90’s. The likes of Doctor Who, the Avengers, and Lost in Space feature no romance at all (other than an implied attraction between Peel and Steed). In Star Trek meanwhile Kirk obviously had many love interests, but they were all one offs, whilst Nurse Chapel’s infatuation with Spock didn’t play as large a role which leads me to my next point.

10/ More Soap Opera Elements

Perhaps as a result of the genre series of these decades becoming more female dominated, many of them tended to make a move towards being more of a soap opera.

Charmed, Buffy, the new Doctor Who, Torchwood all at times focused more on the characters relationships and personal drama rather than any supernatural threat.

One episode of Buffy called The Body, featured just one Vampire that appears at the end. The rest of the episode revolves around the death of Buffy’s mother from natural causes.

The decision to take the fantasy genre into more of a soap opera territory was somewhat controversial. On the one hand it did at certain points allow the writers to flesh their characters out more, but at the same time its true that it was at other points at the expense of the Fantasy and Science Fiction.

11/ Annoying Child of One Of The Main Heroes

Another character type that emerged in 90’s shows. This character often starts out as a baby who is born through some special, mystical means. The baby stays a baby for a short while until the writers realise that its difficult to have an action hero constantly look after a baby.

So the baby gets aged and later resurfaces as an adolescent. The adolescent will be evil and want to make their parent pay, and do heinous things, worse things than even the heroes worst enemies.

However they will be forgiven at the last minute and redeemed.

Naturally these characters were never too popular among the fans. Eve from Xena and Connor from Angel follow this pattern completely whilst Chris and Wyat Halliwell together also fit this pattern loosely.

12/ Mixture Of Camp And Darker Material

Whilst its true that previous decades series could sometimes get a bit silly (not always on purpose) I don’t think there was ever quite as extreme a variation between darker and lighter material as there was in series such as Xena and Buffy.

Some episodes of Xena and Hercules can only be described as outright parodies such as the musical and modern day episodes.

Yet at the same time other episodes actually pushed the boundaries as to what was acceptable on television. For instance in the first episode to feature Callisto, Xena’s archenemy, the villain makes her entrance by casually slicing the throat of a 3 year old boy open.

Buffy similarly could waver between extreme camp and some of the darkest television ever made.

See for yourself.

I must admit that I didn’t think merging such extreme humour with such dark content always worked as sometimes it could feel quite jarring and off putting.

However that said it was true that it did give the 90’s and 00’s shows a somewhat wider range of stories they could draw on.

13/ Self Pitying Archenemy

Many 90’s/00’s series will often have a nemesis who tries to paint themselves as a poor, misunderstood victim. To be fair they will have been genuinely wronged. Maybe even by the hero. At first the audience will have sympathy for them, but eventually it will reach a point where it doesn’t matter what a shitty life they’ve had their crimes will be so great. Often it will be a supporting character who will point this out to them in a defining moment and the villain will not be able to take it.

Eventually however this villain may be able to find redemption, but if not then they will at least finally take responsibility for the monster they became.

Callisto from Xena, Holtz from Angel, Faith from Buffy and the Master from the new Doctor Who all follow this pattern.

Callisto was originally just a nice young girl from a small village called Cira. Unfortunately however when Xena raided the village she accidentally caused a fire which burned it to the ground. All of Callisto’s family including her little sister were burned to death and Callisto was driven completely insane. Though obsessed with getting revenge on Xena above all else, Callisto doesn’t care who she has to hurt in order to make the Warrior Princess pay. In her first appearances she begins slaughtering hordes of men, women and children simply so she can frame Xena for their deaths. In her second appearance she murders scores of innocent people (including Gabrielle’s husband) because she knows Xena will feel guilt for their deaths as she ultimately made Callisto.

Eventually however Callisto pushes Xena too far when she plays a key role in the murder of her only son, Solon. To be fair Xena had been shown to be willing to murder Callisto before, but it was only from a practical point of view of she couldn’t let Callisto go around killing people, and she knew no prison would ever hold the lunatic (think on Batman!)

After Solon’s death Xena genuinely despises Callisto and even refuses to kill her at one point because she knows that will ease her pain. Incredibly enough however the two are able to forgive one another after Xena (who has become an Angel at this point) finally takes responsibility for making Callisto and uses her Angelic power to purge her soul of darkness.

Holtz in Angel meanwhile was once a noble Vampire hunter and rival of Angelus, the most twisted and evil Vampire of them all. Angelus later rapes and murders Holtz’ wife, snaps the neck of his infant son, and turns his child daughter into a Vampire, forcing Holtz to kill her himself by throwing her into the sunlight.

Holtz naturally wants to make the Vampire pay, even when Angelus is cursed with a soul and becomes a hero in his own right, Angel.

Angel much like Xena obviously feels guilt over the role he played in Holtz turn to the darkside. Holtz much like Callisto doesn’t care who he hurts in order make Angel pay. At one point he is even prepared to snap Angel’s infant son Connor’s neck!

Just like Callisto, Holtz finally pushes his archenemy too far when he goes after his son. Interestingly in both cases, Holtz and Callisto are only able to hurt Xena and Angel’s children thanks to one of their closest friends, Gabrielle and Wesley, betraying them. Xena and Angel subsequently try and kill Wesley and Gabrielle as a result in what are two of the most shocking moments in either series.

Holtz never achieves any kind of redemption however (though his sins were never as great as Callisto’s to be fair.) Still at the very least he does show some self awareness, telling his closest companion Justine that he knows he is headed for hell. Also rather interestingly he calls Angel, Angel rather than Angelus. Before he had always seen his vendetta against the Vampire as righteous and made no distinction between Angelus and his souled counterpart, but his last moments show that at the very least he now knows that Angel is not evil, and that he is motivated solely by vengeance.

Faith in Buffy also follows this template to some extent. Throughout her entire life Faith was completely rejected by everyone close to her, except for her Watcher who was brutally tortured to death by the Vampire Kakistos right in front of her. All of this makes her a somewhat unstable, unpredictable character, but its only when she accidentally kills an innocent man who she mistakes for a Vampire that she is finally pushed over the edge.

Its quite a nice twist on the idea as unlike Callisto and Holtz who had horrible things happen to them, in Faith’s case she did something heinous by mistake and simply couldn’t own up to it.

Much like Callisto and Holtz she goes around blaming everyone else for her turn to the dark side. At first Buffy actually feels bad for Faith, even at one point saying that it could have been her in Faith’s shoes. Of course just like Holtz and Callisto, Faith eventually pushes Buffy too far when she poisons Angel and Buffy tries to murder her. Prior to this Faith is also brilliantly called out by Willow, in much the same way as Callisto often was by Gabrielle.

Faith however later manages to achieve redemption and though she and Buffy never become great friends, they do end the series fighting against the First evil side by side.

Finally the Master during the Russell T Davies era of Doctor Who fits this template too. In the Davies’ era it was revealed that the Master had been driven insane by a constant drumming in his head that he gained when he first stared into the untempered schism as a boy.

Just like Callisto, one incident as a child twisted the Master’s personality and turned him into a monster. As a result of this the Doctor during the Davies’ era is more sympathetic towards the Master than he had ever been before.

In the classic era the Master was not insane. He was a megalomaniac who sought power, and though he and the Doctor had been friends, the Doctor had no quams about killing him. Indeed in The Mind of Evil he goes out of his way to try and murder him, whilst in The Deadly Assassin the Doctor says the Master is the one person in the universe he would wish death on.

The dynamic was completely changed however in Tennant’s time as the Doctor now wanted to help the Master and believed that deep down he wasn’t really evil. The Master also later redeems himself (though it doesn’t stick) in his last appearance in the Davies era where he seemingly sacrifices himself to save the Doctor by blasting Rassilon, the evil timelord who implanted the drumming in his head and thus made him a monster.

Of course all 4 of these villains in some respects were inspired by the Joker. Not only are many of them portrayed as cackling, hysterical psychopath’s, but they all (with the exception of Holtz and Angel) have a gay subtext with the hero too. Also finally the idea of the villain not only being driven completely insane by one bad day, but being created by the hero too is reminiscent of Batman and the Joker.

The Joker was originally a small time crook named the Red Hood who tried to rob a chemical plant, but when Batman intervened he inadvertently knocked the Hood into a vat of chemicals which horribly disfigured him and drove him insane.

The Joker is often quick to point out how Batman made him and thus is really responsible for the evil he causes.

It makes sense that villains in the 90’s and 00’s would draw on the Joker for inspiration. Though he had always been a cultural icon, the Joker’s popularity really skyrocketed during this decade thanks to Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill’s performances. Obviously this would continue into the 00’s when Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning performance really cemented the clown prince of crime’s place as the most iconic comic book villain of all time.

14/ Killing Major Characters

This was less common in genre series pre the 90’s (again apart from Blake’s 7 which was a trailblazer in this respect.)

There were a few instances of characters being killed off in genre series from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s such as Adric in Classic Who.

However generally speaking in series such as the original Star Trek, Lost in Space and Doctor Who main characters were never killed off.

Again however in a post Blake’s 7 world the reverse was certainly not true. It wasn’t even just that 90’s series killed main characters. They would often do it suddenly, without warning. Fan favourites wouldn’t die in some big glorious battle. It would just be a sudden horrible accident, like Warren shooting Tara as he ran off, or Wash getting impaled, etc.

Of course this has only increased to the point where now shows like The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones regularly kill main characters off. Still its important to mention that it was during the 90’s that this darker and bolder style really came into fashion.

15/ Downer Endings

Yet another thing that Blake’s 7 pioneered, but really became the norm in the 90’s. To be fair not all 90’s and 00’s shows had downer endings. Some such as Charmed and Buffy had reasonably happy endings.

Still many of the series from this time often featured quite bleak endings. Xena ends with the main character being decapitated, whilst Angel similarly ends with all of the main characters facing certain death. Even in Buffy though she and Willow succeed in making the world a better place, Anya and Spike two of the shows main characters both die. Similarly in Babylon 5 the lead character Sheridan dies before his time too.

In previous decades many genre series such as Star Trek and Lost in Space actually didn’t even have endings. They were often sadly cancelled before their time. Still even then it would have been unlikely for a series like Lost in Space or say Doctor Who to end with any of the main characters dying horribly.



As you can see the 90’s/00’s pioneered a new style that managed to spread out across both fantasy and sci fi, and arguably travel better overseas than any other before.

However it would eventually be replaced by a darker, grittier style that was pioneered in 10’s genre series like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead.

In some respects however modern genre series just pick off where the 90’s/00’s style left off. Like 90’s/00’s genre series they still feature ongoing story arcs, the big bad formula, and more soap opera elements, and they obviously kill characters off more often.

However what has been dumped from the 90’s/00’s style is the overt camp and humour. Most modern genre series tend to take themselves very seriously and indeed the likes of Xena and Hercules are sadly often looked down on by contemporary critics as being too camp.

Still the 90’s/00’s style does still persist in some genre series such as The Flash, Once Upon A Time and of course the revived Doctor Who.

Whilst mass audiences generally may prefer sci fi and fantasy (and indeed most forms of entertainment) to be dark and gritty nowadays, its nice to see 90’s classics like Buffy and Babylon 5 not only still maintain a devoted following, but also their influence and style still continuing to influence series to this day.

Thanks for reading.


Doctor Who/ Tommy Robinson Comparisons

From one British hero to another.

I’m probably the first person to ever draw a comparison between the Doctor, a two hearted, time travelling alien from Gallifrey, and Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the EDL, and a media hate figure.

However recently when watching the classic story The Power of the Daleks; I noticed some rather striking similarities between the situation in that adventure, and the current crisis Britain and the west in general faces as a result of Islamic extremism.

Now obviously this was not intentional on the part of the writer of The Power of the Daleks, the late David Whitaker. Power was broadcast in 1966 about 20 years before Tommy was even born!

Still ultimately I find the story to be the best metaphor, unintentionally for the current Islamic crisis we are facing in the west and the Doctor similarly in that story, unintentionally represents Tommy Robinson’s role in the ongoing struggle against Islam.

Hopefully as I explore the similarities you might come to agree with me, though as always let me know what you think in the comments below.

I will also be looking at how certain other Dalek stories can be seen as unintentional metaphors for the current Islamic crisis too, and finally how the Cybermen can be seen as a metaphor for the regressive left in some ways too.

Who is Tommy Robinson?

Before we start I thought it would be best to give a brief introduction to Tommy Robinson for those who might not be familiar with him.

If you had asked me just a year ago what I thought of Tommy I would have sadly like many others derided him as nothing more than a racist thug, and a trouble maker.

The mainstream media always portrayed him that way and I bought into it. However when I saw him being interviewed by Paul Joseph Watson last year I found myself, to my immense surprise agreeing with every single thing he said. After that I tracked down many other videos of Tommy and now I not only think the man doesn’t have a single racist bone in his body, but I would actually consider him a true British hero.

Tommy has never attacked anyone for their race. Indeed you’d be hard pushed to find someone from a more multi cultural and multi racial background than Tommy Robinson.

All he has ever done is criticise the religion of Islam. Islam is not a race. It is an ideology. Criticising it is no different to criticising say Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, or Scientology.

Ironically I find people who call criticism of Islam racist, to be the actual racists themselves. After all what they are saying is that we can’t criticise Islam because most of its followers have brown skin. Basically they think its okay for a dark skinned person to follow a violent, dangerous ideology like Islam because, hey brown people aren’t quite on white people’s level yet. We shouldn’t ever hold dark skinned people to the same high moral standards that we would white people.

Meanwhile a non racist person like Tommy doesn’t care about what skin colour someone has. He criticises any ideology that he finds abhorrent regardless of the race of its followers as he ultimately holds every person on earth to the same moral standard.

Now at the same time obviously not all Muslims are violent, and Tommy Robinson has NEVER said that they were.

He always makes it clear that whilst many Muslims who live in the west are good people, the ideology of Islam at its core is violent and dangerous and its influence in our society needs to be curbed.

Tommy has argued that the many peaceful Muslims in the west either abandon the violent parts of their religion, and embrace its spiritual side, or they simply haven’t read their own holy book. I completely agree with him on this point. In fact I think that most religious people including even Christians in secular societies probably haven’t read their own holy book to be honest.

However Muslims who do actually follow the Quran word for word and are raised on genuine Islamic beliefs, at the very least hold prejudiced views against women, gays, black people, and atheists, whilst in the most extreme cases they will end up becoming terrorists.

The reason for this is because Islam’s holy book, the Quran, says very clearly that Muslims have to murder all non believers, that all gay people are to be killed, that women are inferior to men, that black people are inferior to white people, and that if a Muslim sins (which includes things like eating pork, drinking, listening to music) then a way they can redeem themselves and get into heaven is if they kill more infidels.

This is why over 50 percent of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal, why in any country where Islam is allowed to call the shots, women have fewer rights than men, LGBT people are either imprisoned or killed, and all other religions are banned. This is also why Muslim extremists kill themselves in terror attacks, whilst slaughtering “infidels” as they do genuinely believe that they will go to heaven if they kill non believers.

Here are some sources to back up these claims.

Half of All British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Banned

England Grooming Statistics

There is obviously a problem with Islam, even in Western secular societies and it needs to be dealt with. That obviously does not mean that we should round up all the Muslims and get rid of them. That would be utterly inhuman and Tommy Robinson has NEVER argued for that.

However at the same time we need to stop pandering to the religion and try and limit its influence in the west.

All Tommy Robinson has ever tried to do is bring problems caused by Islam to people’s attention, whilst at the same time always making sure not to tar innocent Muslims with the same brush. He has always presented his points in a fair and reasonable way, and has been open to debating anyone, even people who have sent him death threats. See here.

Sadly however the mainstream media have from the start attempted to sabotage Tommy Robinson, simply because they are complete cowards when it comes to Islam. They don’t dare criticise the religion because they are not only terrified of being killed by Muslim extremists, but also they are also scared of being called racists too.

Tommy Robinson meanwhile exposes the media for the cowards they are simply because he does their job for them.

Its Tommy Robinson who brings widespread attention to Muslim extremists that could potentially be a danger to the country. He did a video on the killer of Lee Rigby, 5 years before he brutally murdered the British soldier in cold blood on the streets of London.

He also warned about the Muslim grooming gangs before they became public knowledge in towns such as Rochdale, and even to this day Tommy offers far more support for the victims of Muslim grooming gangs that are all but ignored by the mainstream media and sadly at times even the police too.

See here.

Of course that’s not to say that Tommy hasn’t made mistakes. By his own admission in his youth he was a bit of a thug. Also the EDL an organisation he founded didn’t go quite the way he planned either. He even ended up leaving it in 2013 as he felt it had been taken over by extremists.

Still overall I think Tommy is a good man who has done a lot for this country and whilst the media may have succeeded in turning many people against him, ultimately I think in years to come Tommy will be seen as someone who above all else cared about the people of Britain and did all he could to help them.

Here are some videos you should check out if you have the time.

The Power of the Daleks

Tommy Robinson, Caolan Robertson and Faith Goldy stumble upon some Jihadis. Note; Faith Goldy is obviously way cooler than Polly, but still you get my general point.

The Power of the Daleks was a 1966 story and the first to feature the second Doctor played by Patrick Troughton.

Its premise sees the newly regenerated Doctor arrive on the planet Vulcan in the future. There he and his companions, Ben and Polly discover a far flung earth colony, cut off from the rest of humanity.

The colony is suffering from many problems, chief among them are a group of rebels who plan to take it over. The rebels are secretly in league with a man named Bragen, who holds great influence and power. Bragen however does not actually care about the rebels planned utopia. He sees them as a mere means to an end, and actually intends to dispose of them once he is in charge.

Things become even more complicated when the colony’s leading scientist Lesterson discovers a space capsule containing three deactivated Daleks.

The Daleks are the Doctors greatest adversaries. They are a race of hideous mutants, housed within a near indestructable, tank like armour. They seek to exterminate all other life forms in the universe as they believe them to be inferior.

Lesterson revives one of the Daleks who instantly exterminates his assistant. A woman named Janley however (who is secretly a rebel), covers up the killing as she hopes to use the Daleks to help the rebels take over.

Lesterson carries on with his experiments and revives the Daleks. The Daleks pretend to be peaceful, harmless, friendly creatures. They even chant “I AM YOUR SERVANT!”. All of the colonists who know nothing about the Daleks are fooled by their deception.

Naturally the Doctor tries to warn everyone about what the Daleks are really like, but no one listens to him. They think he is crazy, and at one point they even lock him up in prison.

The Daleks meanwhile are given materials and supplies willingly by the colonists and the rebels which they use to build an army. The army then goes on to exterminate almost everyone on the colony before the Doctor finally manages to defeat the monsters by giving them a power overload.

The Power of the Daleks has long been regarded as one of the greatest Doctor Who stories ever made. Sadly however all 6 episodes are currently missing from the archives. Only a few scant clips remain.

In 2016 however an animated version of the story, featuring the original soundtrack which fortunately still survives was released on DVD to great acclaim.

Prior to this there had been numerous reconstructions of the story made by fans on youtube, using pictures and the original soundtrack. Personally I preferred the animated adaptation, but a lot of the Recons were very well done too.

Who’s Who In This Story?

Tommy Robinson/ The Doctor 


The Doctor in this story, much like Tommy Robinson is now, tries desperately to warn a society that has been duped by the followers of a dangerous and hateful ideology what it is really like and that they are greatly underestimating their enemy from within, whose power and numbers are slowly growing.

Of course just as the mainstream media slanders Tommy and most of the population sadly view him as nothing but a racist and a bigot, then the Doctor is similarly ignored by everyone around him like Lesterson, the colonists and even the rebels. In fact Lesterson even states that the Doctor has an irrational phobia of the Daleks.

Just like Tommy, the Doctor is even thrown in prison at one point!

Both Tommy and the Doctor know more than the others around them from experience, but sadly they are not listened to. It ended up being too late for the colonists on Vulcan lets hope its not too late for us!

Another area where I feel the Doctor and Tommy are similar is that neither are taken seriously because of their appearance.

The Second Doctor was often referred to as a cosmic hobo. He dressed in clothes that were too big for him, he acted in a somewhat hysterical and childish manner and naturally people often thought he was a fool.

Of course underneath the bumbling facade he was anything but. In fact he was one of the craftiest Doctors.

Now Tommy I obviously don’t think acts the fool or dresses in a ridiculous way like the Second Doctor, but at the same time I don’t think people take Tommy seriously for superficial reasons to do with his appearance.

In Tommy’s case I feel that its to do with class snobbery. A lot of the middle class regressives in the mainstream media take one look at Tommy and think that he is an idiot because of his accent, his style, his background etc.

Take a look at this interview between Tommy and George Galloway. Galloway just completely dismisses all of Tommy’s claims and calls him a knuckle scraping moron.

Of course ironically in this video here George Galloway debates Nigel Farage on the same issue, but he is completely respectful to the former leader of UKIP in contrast.

Why do you think that is? Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farge make exactly the same points on Islam. In fact you could argue that Farage is more extreme than Robinson, only because Farage wants to ban the Hijab which Tommy has explicitly said he has no problem with.

Yet Galloway refers to Farage as a “truly worthy adversary” and shows him the utmost respect, he even wishes him well, whilst Tommy is dismissed as a “knuckle scraping” moron.

Its because Nigel Farage has a posh accent, is erudite, dresses in sharp suits etc, whilst Tommy in George’s eyes is the little commoner. Ironically George Galloway, the supposed man of the people, and great socialist is actually a class snob.

This video here however is my favourite as this interviewer on Aljazeera clearly thinks Tommy is a moron too and tries to catch him out by reading a line from the old testament claiming its from the Quran.

Tommy Robinson much like the Second Doctor has to deal with people that he is much smarter than, but who treat him like a moron based on the most shallow reasons whilst trying to warn everybody else about the danger they are in.

Finally another area where I feel that Tommy Robinson is similar to the Doctor is that both of them are motivated solely by their desire to help people.

That’s always been a large part of the Doctors appeal, that he was really just a straight, forward good guy.

Most heroes when you think about it are heroes because of some big tragic event in their lives. Batman for instance, its the murder of his parents in front of him, Spider-Man its at least partially the murder of his Uncle Ben. Others like Xena and Angel meanwhile are trying to make up for their past mistakes. Some might even be caught in an accident that gives them powers too.

With the Doctor however its just because he is a good man. The Doctor isn’t on a quest to rid the universe of evil, nor is he trying to make up for past sins (in the classic series at least.) He just simply wants to explore the universe, but whenever he stumbles upon injustice (which is most of the time), he can’t let it go. He has to do something about it

Now Tommy I feel is the same in that I don’t think he was ever really a political person, not because he wasn’t intelligent of course. Based on what I have heard Tommy Robinson say about his early life, he seemed to have other ambitions and plans. I think he was someone who just simply couldn’t turn a blind eye to the people in his local community around him suffering as a result of Islamic extremism and became involved.

It would have been much easier for Tommy if he had just turned a blind eye, same way it would more often than not be easier for the Doctor just to nip in the TARDIS and leave whatever problem he is facing behind.

Ultimately however neither can do that as they both care about the people around them too much.

The Daleks/Islam

” We are men who love death just as you love your life. We’re the soldiers who fight in the day and the night.”

Now again obviously I am not saying that all Muslims are evil here, but sadly it cannot be denied that the ideology of Islam is not only evil at its core, but its ideals are not too dis-similar from the Daleks beliefs.

The Daleks were created by the deranged scientist Davros to despise all other life forms in the entire universe. He felt the only way they could survive was if they came to dominate all other life forms.

Now the Quran as we know says that all non believers, all non Muslims basically are to be killed. It also says that all homosexuals are to be killed regardless, that all black people are inferior to white people and that men are superior to women in every way.

Thus Islam much like the Daleks has an idea of the perfect being, and anyone who doesn’t fit in with that idea in both the Daleks and Islam’s view is to be exterminated!

The Daleks are also prepared to kill themselves in order to destroy their enemies. Examples of this include in Asylum of the Daleks when an unarmed Dalek tries to blow itself up to take out the Doctor, and Destiny of the Daleks when a group of Daleks strap bombs to themselves and try to blow up a Movellan spaceship.

Dalek suicide bombers!

The Daleks and Islam are also created in the image of a twisted, inadequate man. Originally the Daleks were a humanoid race called the Kaleds but it was Davros that mutated them into the Daleks and tampered with their minds.

Everything Davros is the Daleks are. Davros is pitiless, Davros craves power, Davros despises people he considers to be weak, etc.

Similarly everything that Muhammed was we can see replicated in his most vile followers. For instance Muhammed was a pedophile, who kept women as sex slaves, beat women, and regarded them as inferior to men in every way, and sadly we see his followers in many Islamic countries follow his example, and deny women the same rights as men,  make child marriage completely legal, and inflict the most horrific violence on their female spouses and relatives.

Of course the great irony with both Davros and Muhammed is that whilst they managed to ensure that millions more people throughout history would be shaped in their own vile image. Both were also among the most pathetic, inadequate excuses for men you could imagine.

Muhammed was an illiterate, violent, degenerate who used to boast about how many semen stains he made his child bride scrub out. He also suffered an undignified death because he was so stupid he didn’t realise that his food was poisoned; after it was served to him by someone whose family he had killed! He didn’t even realise it was poison after he had bitten into it and could actually taste the poison!

Davros meanwhile is a weak, pathetic man who never faces his death with dignity, despite his constant talk of strength and power.

The parallels between the Daleks and Islam become arguably even stronger in The Power of the Daleks due to the tactics the Daleks use against their enemies.

The Daleks lie to the colonists, claiming that they are peaceful, friendly robots, who love humanity.

Now Islam advocates that its followers, when they are low in number and vulnerable, lie through a process called Taqqiya that Islam is peaceful in order to deceive non believers. The prophet Muhammed himself used this tactic when his forces were weak.

Of course once non believers are no longer of any use then they are to be killed just like any other non Muslim.

The Daleks in this story effectively practice Taqqiya to lure in the unsuspecting colonists, not only into not disposing of them when they are weak and few in number, but also into actually giving them what they need in order to become powerful, and eventually overthrow the Vulcan colony.

Now again when dealing with Taqqiya it is important not to simply dismiss every Muslim who doesn’t support barbarians like ISIS as practising Taqqiya.

However at the same time many Imans and celebrity Muslim speakers have been known to practice Taqqiya.

An example of this is Linda Sarsour, a supposed Muslim feminist (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.)

Whilst Sarsour presents herself as a progressive ally to marginalised groups, in truth she is a supporter of Sharia Law, a law which states that women are inferior to men, and thus deserve less rights than they do, and worse treats homosexuality as illegal.

Sarsour also has made disgusting comments about Ayaan Hirsi Ali an outspoken feminist critic of Islam.

She said that she hopes Ali gets beaten up and has her vagina taken away from her. Ali is a victim of genital mutilation ( a practice advocated by Muhammed himself). Sarsour knows this and thus is basically saying she would love to mutilate Hirsi Ali’s genitals again!

Radical Muslims like Sarsour are able to use people’s general ignorance of Islam to further their twisted beliefs whilst at the same time presenting themselves as champions of social justice, just as the Daleks used the Colonists ignorance of their true nature to their advantage.

Lesterson/ Owen Jones/ Angela Merkel/ Other Apologists For Islam

Owen Jones and others like him who shout down any criticism of Islam as racist are represented in this story by the hapless scientist Lesterson who ends up bringing about the end of the colony.

Lesterson revives the Daleks because he thinks that they are harmless and can be used for the good of the people of Vulcan.

He is given repeated warnings by the Doctor and his companions, but he doesn’t listen to any of them of course.

He not only revives the Daleks but gives them the various supplies they need to build a machine that creates more Dalek casings, and an incubation chamber that clones more mutants.

Even as it is becoming apparent that the Daleks are dangerous, Lesterson still doesn’t listen, and he only realises when its too late the horror he has unleashed upon his own people.

Lesterson decisions are motivated by a genuine desire to help the people of Vulcan, but at the same time it is also hinted that he is desperate to use the Daleks to further his own career. He is aware to some extent that there is a risk with the Daleks from the start, but he is so arrogant he thinks that the can use them.

People like Owen Jones are exactly like Lesterson in my opinion. Owen Jones for those of you who are unfamiliar with him is a journalist for the Guardian. He is a socialist and also a rank Islam apologist.

He has in fact shut people down who criticise Islam such as Douglas Murray who he deplatformed by refusing to appear on a show as long as he did.

Now whilst I dislike Jones immensely I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his desire to protect Muslims from apparent Islamophobia does stem from a genuine desire to help people.

However Jones is ultimately completely misguided. He equates perfectly reasonable criticism of the ideology of Islam from people like Tommy Robinson with violent attacks against innocent Muslims.

He also knows nothing about Islam (unlike Tommy Robinson) and thus actually champions it as a progressive religion. He has swallowed all of the Taqqiya around him.

Also again I feel that Owen Jones just sticks up for Islam because most of its followers are brown skinned, and so he instantly assumes that they have to be the poor victims of the evil white people (which is ironic as Islam is a white supremacist religion at its core.)

Still Owen Jones like a lot of so called “liberals” has a racist double standard against dark skinned people ironically. No matter what happens he can’t view them as being in the wrong. He treats them like children “aww that’s okay that you throw gay people off of a roof top, you’re dark skinned, its not like you’re civilised like white people.”

As time goes on however and there are more Islamic atrocities, and even just as more people become aware of what is actually in the Quran thanks to people like David Wood, Paul Joseph Watson and of course Tommy Robinson. Then even the likes of Owen Jones begin to worry that maybe they have actually backed the wrong horse when it comes to Islam.

Like Lesterson in Power they have a mental breakdown. When Owen Jones stormed off the Sky News interview after the Orlando massacre I think Douglas Murray was right that it may have in part been motivated by guilt over the fact that Owen deep down must have realised that he spent a large part of his career covering for an ideology that had just killed 50 LGBT people that night.

Owen Jones’ sense of guilt is not misplaced at all of course.

He should feel guilty for creating an atmosphere where Islamic extremism is able to flourish more easily as people like him spread dangerous lies to the general public that Islam is a religion of peace, have prevented Islamic reformers, the only people who have a shot at actually making the religion peaceful from being given as big a platform as they should (as even they are often deemed “Islamophobic”), and he has actively shut down the people brave enough to criticise Islam in public and bring attention to the problems it is causing like Tommy Robinson, by ruining their reputations through smearing them as racists, and actively preventing them from being able to speak in public like Douglas Murray.

Thus Owen Jones in my opinion is in some respects complicit in the problems Islam is causing in the UK getting worse just like Lesterson was in the rise of the Daleks on Vulcan.

At the same time however just like Lesterson a lot of these high profile Islamic apologists are perhaps somewhat more cynical in their support for this twisted ideology.

Angela Merkel for instance I feel wanted more refugees into Germany so that she could use them as a cheap labour force. Of course once again just like Lesterson she greatly underestimated just what it was she was truly letting in.

The Vulcan Rebels/ Antifa

Antifa are perfectly represented by the rebels on Vulcan such as Janley.

Antifa for those of you who are unfamiliar with them are an extreme far left organisation who have carried out violent protests against figures such as Milo Yiannopolous.

Now the rebels I feel not only represent Antifa, but also many other far left organisations who show support for Islam.

These leftists show their support for Islam because they despise western society so much they actually view Islam as their ally in destroying it.

Now I personally would regard myself as a socialist. I have some problems with Western society too but ultimately it is foolish to ally with radical Islamists. The society they would build would be far worse for everyone, atheists, Jews, LGBT people, women, even peaceful Muslims.

However these leftists are so blinded by their hatred of the west they fail to see that they have not only jumped into bed with someone much worse, but that their new “ally” will dispose of them as soon as they are of no further use.

The Vulcan rebels meanwhile similarly are so obsessed with overthrowing what they believe to be an unfair and oppressive society that they end up working with the Daleks, the most evil creatures in the entire universe. The Daleks of course plan to dispose of the rebels once they are of no further use too. In fact Janley, the rebel who covers up the Daleks first killing and thus makes their entire deception possible is gunned down by the monsters at the end of the story during their rampage.

Bragen/ George Soros

The main villain of the piece. Bragen is a greedy, self serving, backstabbing liar who plays both the rebels and the regular colonists against one another.

Bragen is already in a high position of authority and influence on the colony but he is so greedy he wants more. The naive rebels think that he cares about their vision of a perfect utopia, but to him they are a mere means to an end.

Now George Soros I don’t think wants to take over the world, but at the same time he and others like him in high positions in society love identity politics (which is of course embraced by the likes of Antifa) because it keeps the poorest and most marginalised people in society squabbling among themselves rather than actually working together to bring about a genuine positive change.

Identity politics is really the greatest weapon against genuine left wing politics there has ever been. It divides people by race, gender, and sexuality. Rather than working together, men and women for instance as a result of identity politics influence end up at loggerheads over stupid, trivial bullshit like white male privilege, manspreading, and mansplaining,

Thus George Soros uses radical leftists as a tool, much like how Bragen did with the Vulcan rebels. In both cases the anarchists foolishly believe one of the richest and most powerful men in society genuinely cares about their left wing beliefs!

Bragen’s use of the Daleks also somewhat mirrors Soros and others like him’s attempts to use Islam too. Bragen once again believes that he can use the Daleks to help dispose of his enemies and divide the colonists for his own ends.

Soros meanwhile I feel wants to use the problems caused by Islam to further divide the working class, hence why he personally supports radical Muslims like Linda Sarsour who openly supports Sharia Law.

Of course just like Antifa and the apologists like Owen Jones, Soros and Bragen greatly underestimate the damage both Islam and the Daleks will cause. They are not so easily manipulated or controlled.

Other Dalek Stories That Draw Parallels To The Current Islamic Crisis

There are other Dalek stories which could be interpreted as unintentional metaphors for the current Islamic crisis in the west.

The first Dalek story The Daleks sees the Daleks attempt to utterly exterminate the Thal race from Skaro.

Now the Thals many years ago were a brutal war like race. This is explicitly shown in Genesis of the Daleks in 1975 where the Thals killed off the Daleks humanoid ancestors, the Kaleds (with a little help from Davros). However by the time of the first Dalek story they have renounced their ways and are so deeply ashamed of their war like past that they refuse to fight the Daleks, even though the Daleks wish to exterminate them.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the Thals attitudes and those of many in the west. Both are facing an enemy that wants to destroy them, the Daleks and Islam. Now the Daleks don’t hate the Thals because of what they did to their ancestors. They despise them simply because of who they are. Similarly ISIS have said that it is not because of the West’s various blunders in the middle east that they despise them. Its simply because we do not follow the Islamic faith.

See here.

ALYDON: If only I knew why the Daleks hated us. If I knew that, I, I could alter our approach to them, perhaps. 
IAN: Your leader, Temmosus. 
IAN: Well, he appealed very sensibly to them. Any reasonable human beings would have responded to him. The Daleks didn’t. They obviously think and act and feel in an entirely different way. They just aren’t human. 

GANATUS: Yes, but why destroy without any apparent thought or reason? That’s what I don’t understand. 
IAN: Oh, there’s a reason. Explanation might be better. It’s stupid and ridiculous, but it’s the only one that fits. 
ALYDON: What? 
IAN: A dislike for the unlike. 
ALYDON: I don’t follow you. 
IAN: They’re afraid of you because you’re different from them. So whatever you do, it doesn’t matter. 
DYONI: What would you have us do? Fight against them? 
IAN: I didn’t say that. But you must teach them to respect you. Show them some strength.

ISIS Says We Hate You Because You Are Not Muslim

Now again obviously not all Muslims follow everything in the Quran, but still sadly the majority of them do, which is why over half of British Muslims think homosexuality should be criminalised.

The Doctor and his companions are ultimately able to convince the Thals that they owe it themselves and their ancestors to not just let their culture be destroyed simply because they aren’t prepared to fight for it.

“There is no indignity in being afraid to die. But there is a terrible shame in being afraid to live.”

Now obviously I am not saying that this means we should go and fight Muslims on the streets or anything heinous like that. What we should do however is criticise Islam as much as we do other religions, highlight the problems it is causing in the West, shut down every single Islamic faith school and Madrass, aid Muslim reformers, such as Imam Tawhidi, and limit mass immigration from Muslim majority countries until the problems with extremism are dealt with. All of this will deal with the problems caused by Islam in a peaceful way and not tar innocent Muslims with the same brush as the extremists.

Thus the situation in the Daleks where the Thals have to go and fight the Daleks is not a completely perfect analogy, but ultimately at its core it involves a civilisation (the Thals, the West) who are so ashamed of the horrors they did in the past, that they refuse to defend themselves when a genuinely evil civilisation wants to destroy them for who they are. Both the Thals and the West are willing to roll back and let everything their ancestors spent centuries building up, all the art, history, all of the great things about their culture just be destroyed because they weren’t prepared to defend it.

Once again the Doctor and his companions can be seen to represent Tommy Robinson who desperately tries to convince them that they need to defend their culture, history and people.

(Ian is talking to Alydon and the Thals) 
IAN: to have self- respect. At this moment, anyone could come in here. They could rob, they could steal. 
IAN: They could even kill you. And you wouldn’t lift a finger to help yourselves. 
ALYDON: We will not fight. There will be no more wars. Look at our planet. This was once a great world, full of ideas and art and invention. In one day it was destroyed. And you will never find one good reason why we should ever begin destroying everything again. I’m sorry. 
IAN: You’re not sorry. You stand here, mumbling a lot of words out of your history. But it means nothing, nothing at all. You carry this around with you. Your history records. Well, it must be valuable to you. Supposing I take it down to the city and try and trade with the Daleks? Perhaps they’d think it valuable enough to exchange for our fluid link. 
ALYDON: I don’t believe you’d do it. 
IAN: I would. 
ALYDON: None of us would stop you. 
IAN: If I don’t get the fluid link back, the four of us will die. Perhaps the Daleks are more interested in people? Maybe they were holding us to experiment on us? I could take them an alternative. 
(Ian grabs Dyoni by the arm and starts to lead her off. Alydon grabs Ian then punches him) 
IAN: So there is something you’ll fight for.

In the New Series Dalek story Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks one Dalek named Dalek Sec merges with a human and comes to realise how evil the Daleks creator Davros was, and decides to change the Daleks by teaching them to feel compassion and no longer wage war on the rest of the universe.

The Doctor though skeptical that the other Daleks will allow Sec to do this, nevertheless agrees to help him, but sadly the Doctors suspicions are proved right when the Daleks ultimately turn on and exterminate Sec.

Dalek Sec can be seen to represent Muslim reformers like Imam Tawhidi and Maajid Nawaz. For all the talk of people like Tommy Robinson stirring up hatred against Muslims, the likes of Tawhidi are actually in more danger from radical Muslims who want to kill them, just as the Daleks killed Sec, because in both cases they see them as the ultimate traitor.

Those who try and change a violent system within are obviously always at the most risk, and that’s why this idea of “don’t say Islam does anything bad so that innocent Muslims won’t get tarred” is ironically the worst thing you could do for innocent Muslims.

By denying there are any problems with Islam and worse shouting down all critics of Islam like Tommy Robinson. You just end up leaving the genuinely innocent, secular Muslims who want to reform their religion like Imam Tawhidi out in the cold without any support, and thus in danger of being killed!

As a result of this the likes of Iman Tahwidi will go to people like Tommy Robinson for support before Owen Jones.

Imam Tawhidi Retweets Tommy Robinson

Once again the Doctor can be seen to represent Tommy Robinson in this story. The Doctor tries to help the Dalek reformer, Dalek Sec, even though he has doubts about his plan working (much as Tommy has said he doubts that Islam can be reformed.)

Of course again none of these Dalek stories were meant to represent the current struggle with Islamic extremism, but still I think the fact that they can be seen that way shows what brilliant monsters the Daleks are.

I’ve always said that the Daleks were the greatest monsters in Sci Fi because they ironically in spite of how alien they are represent man’s inhumanity to man in general.

Terry Nation their creator originally intended them to be allegory’s for the Nazis and you can see this very clearly in many Dalek stories by Nation and other writers.

However at the same time the Daleks actions can be seen to mirror those of many of the most evil men throughout all human history.

General Chivington for instance, one of the most evil men in US history who carried out the Sand Creek Massacre openly declared that he wanted to exterminate all Native Americans.

“Following the massacre, some members of Congress had confronted Chivington and the Governor, before members of the public at the DenverOpera House. At one point it was asked whether it would be better to civilize or exterminate the Indians. In a letter from one of the senators to a friend, he wrote that “there suddenly arose such a shout as is never heard unless upon some battlefield—a shout almost loud enough to raise the roof of the opera house—’EXTERMINATE THEM! EXTERMINATE THEM! EXTERMINATE THEM!”‘

As you can see the Daleks could be interpreted to be a metaphor for Chivington as much as they could for either the Nazis or Islam, and again I think this is why the monsters resonate so much with audiences more than anything else.

The Predator might be really badass, the Klingons are fun rivals for humanity, but the Daleks tap into the dark qualities of human nature, despising people simply for being different better than any other monsters.

Why The Cybermen Are The Regressive Left

The Cybermen are the Doctors second most recurring enemies after the Daleks. First appearing in 1966, the Cybermen were originally a race of human like aliens from the planet Mondas. When their planet began to drift away from the sun however in order to survive the Mondasians removed pieces of their bodies and replaced them with metallic components, eventually turning themselves into emotionless machine creatures.

The Cybermen would then seek to convert all other humanoid life forms in the universe into members of their own kind through Cyber conversion.

Now social justice warriors, or the regressive left, whatever you want to call them I feel resemble the Cybermen in certain key ways.

To start with the regressive left desperately want to make everyone like them. Third wave feminists in particular can never just be a part of something like a political movement, or even just the fandom of a tv show. They have to take it over and make it all about them.

Examples of this include the New Atheist Movement, the comic book industry, and even Doctor Who itself.

In all cases feminists came to these things much later than everybody else and then demanded that everything be done their way. Anyone who objected to their changes made to other people’s characters and works was derided as a sexist, a racist, homophobic, etc.

Thus as a result of their bullying tactics (which in some cases included completely destroying someone’s reputation like Steven Moffat who was smeared as a sexist in the mainstream media as a result of their actions.) They always get their own way in the end and succeed in taking over what they joined later than the rest of us.

How Doctor Who Delivered A Righteously Feminist Finale

Even just take a look at the slogan Whovian Feminism (a blogger who has actually spoken to writers and directors of the series) has on her profile picture “My Fandom Will Be Feminist.”


This scene could be interpreted as an unintentional metaphor for what feminists have done to Doctor Who nowadays. The feminists are the Cybermen who are led by their controller (Whovian Feminism) who has captured the Doctor and all of his friends, and want to make them like them, whilst the villainous Cleeg who released the Cybermen in the hopes of bargaining with them is Steven Moffat who tried to make the show super feminist to pander to them, but is still called a sexist for not using the correct pronouns.

The regressive left also are desperate much like the Cybermen to make everybody identical. Not only are absolutely no contrary opinions allowed, but they also want to eliminate the differences between men and women and all borders and the very concept of nationality and patriotism too, all in a misguided attempt to make everybody equal.

In my opinion true equality is obviously giving everyone the same chance, but also recognising that we are all different and still respecting people every bit as much regardless.

The SJW’s however act as though that in order to be equal we need to destroy all differences between people which reminds me of the Cybermen.

“Cybermen now occupy every land mass on this planet, but you need not fear. Cybermen will remove fear. Cybermen will remove sex and class and colour and creed. You will become identical. You will become like us.”

Whilst the Daleks may have been based on the Nazis, and the Cybermen may have been inspired by techno fear. In the modern world I feel that the Daleks really represent Islam, and the Cybermen represent third wave feminism, and the regressive left overall.

Fanatical psychopaths who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. They despise everyone who does not conform to their idea of a perfect being (non Muslim, non Dalek basically). They were both created by and in the image of a violent, sadistic, power mad psychopath who was a deeply pathetic and inadequate man overall (Davros and Muhammed.)

Mindless drones who are all identical, who want to make absolutely everything like them, and who think that by eliminating individuality and differences between people they will be creating true equality.

Two feminists attempt to greet a Syrian “refugee”.

The under dog of a British hero who battles the evil fanatical psychopaths and mindless drones at every opportunity. He does what he does because its the right thing to do. He knows that all the odds are against him, but he simply can’t turn a blind eye to all of the suffering around him.


Now again this obviously does not mean that all Muslims are comparable to the Daleks. As I pointed out before most Muslims in the UK practice a reformed version of Islam already, either intentionally or unintentionally.

However the core beliefs are still evil and thus still inspire great evil around the world which is why the religions influence needs curbed in the west.

Sadly however a combination of fear of persecution of innocent Muslims arising as a result of this (which does NOT need to happen) and a lack of knowledge in what Islam actually represents are preventing this from happening.

This is why we need people like Tommy Robinson. Tommy does not tar all Muslims as evil, but at the same time he calls out the problem for what it is unlike Owen Jones and offers peaceful solutions. If he is not listened to however then things will get worse and eventually support for real right wing extremists will grow leading to an all out blood bath on both sides.

Lets not end up like Vulcan.

Problems With Feminism

In the last few decades feminism has broken into mainstream popular culture like never before.

Whilst initially this was a good thing as it helped to bring a greater focus to women’s issues, sadly it has also led to various other problems which I will explore in this article.

I don’t identify as a feminist. I don’t have anything against the concept of feminism itself, as it is simply equality between the sexes.

At the same time however feminism is more than just a concept. It is a full blown political and social movement and whilst it has done many great things in the past, in its current form its not something I would wish to associate myself with.

Sadly however I feel that many people in the mainstream media are too scared to ever criticise the feminist movement, as any criticism of feminism is almost always seen as an attack against all women.

A recent example of this can be seen when Piers Morgan simply voiced a criticism of the Women’s March in January and Ewan McGregor and Patrick Stewart both boycotted This Morning, a programme which Piers Morgan co-hosts (with McGregor cancelling a scheduled appearance and Stewart vowing to never appear on the show again as long as Morgan is host.)

Now regardless of whether or not you agree with Morgan, its quite frankly pathetic of both Stewart and McGregor to boycott the man simply for expressing a negative opinion about anything even remotely feminist related.

If you disagree with Piers Morgan wouldn’t it be better to go on his show and actually you know, argue with him, explain why he is wrong, maybe listen to his arguments in a fair and decent way before decrying him as a sexist bigot who should be boycotted?

Sadly however because Morgan was criticising feminism, then neither Stewart or McGregor (along with many others) were willing to give him a fair shake.

Ironically however by reacting this way, people like McGregor and Stewart just end up hurting feminism in the long run. As feminism can’t look in on itself and recognise where its going wrong because any and all critics of feminism are shouted down as sexists. Then as a movement, feminism is becoming stagnated and static.

Every single movement must be able to look inwards and acknowledge its own faults, and even just change with the times. If it can’t then it will cease to be of any relevance and become an old archaic, puritanical group of people clinging on to outdated concerns and silencing anyone who dares to disagree with it.

In this article  I am going to highlight the problems modern feminism has, the different types of feminists there are, and why true feminism is still needed in the world today despite the problems it has.

As always let me know what you think in the comments below.

Why Feminism Is Still Needed, But Why Its Also Standing In The Way

There is no denying that on a global scale women have it worse than men. That’s not to do down men’s issues or try and turn misery and suffering into some kind of competition of course.

Still in certain countries around the world such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Somalia, women live lives of unbearable suffering and inequality. Though again that’s not to say that things are rosey for the men in these countries either, particularly if you are gay. In fact its worse for LGBT people as they will be killed in Islamic majority countries, regardless.

Still all women in these countries are deprived of basic rights and privileges such as being allowed to drive, marry whoever they want, an education, and even just being allowed to dress however they wish. They are the property of their husbands, fathers, and brothers, they have to do everything they say, and are regularly traded like pieces of meat. They also have to endure such horrific forms of abuse as genital mutilation, acid attacks and regular violent sexual assaults.

These countries are in desperate need of first wave feminism, and we here in the west should do all we can to help the women suffering in these countries to overthrow the genuine and disgusting patriarchy they live under.

First we need to supply any feminists groups and even just individual women brave enough to fight back against the misogynistic Islamic culture they are cursed to live under with financial aid.

Second we must also boycott any country that treats women as less than fully human the same way that we boycotted South Africa during the Apartheid regime. Finally we must always make sure that everyone knows how women are treated in these countries.

I am sorry to say that I did not know about the case of Dina Ali until just a day or two ago. Sadly it appears that it may be too late to help this poor woman, but at the very least she should serve as a further reminder that we need to focus on the plight of the women (and other people) in Islamic countries more than we do now.

Every activist worth their salt should be doing all they can to bring tragic cases like Dina Ali to as many people’s attention as possible; rather than taking part in marches organised by self promoting, Sharia Law supporters to attack Donald Trump for saying pussy 12 years ago.

Feminism far from being obsolete is in some places needed now more than ever.

In the west meanwhile I think its more complicated. I do not believe that we live in a Patriarchy in the west.  I believe that western society is by and large an egalitarian society where everyone is treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.

Ultimately we do not live in a society where anyone is told that they cannot go for a job, or any position based on who they are. I also do not believe that we live in a rape culture either. Its true that our justice system is far from perfect and there have been many great miscarriages of justice (not just for rape but many other crimes too). But at the same it is also true that rape is rightfully viewed as one of the most reprehensible crimes in our society. An accusation of rape is enough to completely ruin someone’s reputation forever.

Christina Hoff Sommers: Rape Culture Is A Panic Like 1980’s

RAINN, Nations Largest Anti Sexual Violence Organisation Rejects Rape Culture Idea

Similarly other claims of an institutionalised patriarchy such as the gender wage gap have been debunked time and time again too. See here.

Don’t Buy Into The Gender Wage Gap Myth

Yes The Gender Wage Gap Is Still A Myth

Thus I don’t believe we live in a patriarchy. However that said I do think there are certain areas where women are disadvantaged compared to men in the west, but at the same time there are areas where men are disadvantaged compared to women too.

The reason for this is because ironically I think that western society does not take into account the key differences between men and women. Men and women are obviously equal, but they are different, not just physically, but in terms of personality in some respects too.

Sadly modern western society I feel is probably too egalitarian for its own good in that it does view everyone as exactly the same and doesn’t consider that some situations might benefit one gender more.

For instance the way the education system is set up currently favours women more, hence why fewer boys are going to University than girls and generally do well overall. See here.

At the same time the way the medical profession is set up favours men as it doesn’t take into account the fact that women will naturally need to take long periods off in order to have children. Young women in the medical profession sadly often have to make a choice between having children and having a career.

Females in Medicine. Having Children

Similarly there are many other double standards against men and women in our society. On the issue of sex, I would agree that there is a slut/stud double standard in some respects, but at the same time there is ironically a double standard when it comes to female on male rape as people tend to view men as always wanting sex, and being lucky if some hot girl pays them any attention.

Current British laws on rape are very misandiristic as according to the law a woman cannot be charged with raping a man unless she is an accomplice to it.

Is The Law On Rape Sexist

I feel that in order to counteract these double standards we need to accept the differences between the genders and try and find a way to accommodate them in every situation that requires it.

Create an education system that can benefit both genders, take into account that women in certain professions may need to take a certain amount of time off in order to start families, and work around that etc.

Modern, third wave feminism however I feel stands in the way of recognising the true cause of gender inequalities in western society for various reasons.

To start with many feminists argue that gender is a social construct created by the patriarchy. Now its true that certain stereotypical male and female behaviours are as a result of indoctrination, but ultimately most of them do stem from biological differences.

I feel that feminists often say that gender is a social construct in a misguided attempt to help trans people. They probably think that by tearing down so called gender norms they are making people who blur the lines between genders behaviour more socially acceptable.

The thing is by saying that there are differences between men and women you are not saying that trans people are either amoral, or don’t exist.

Obviously there is a spectrum and therefore we do get some men who are more feminine, and some women who are more masculine, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However the point is that most people do tend to behave according to their gender. I am not saying that gender decides every aspect of your personality, but it certainly does have a noticable impact on 99 percent of men and women.

Even with trans people it does too. If there were no true differences between the genders why do trans people feel that they were born in the wrong gender? Why do they change their gender if there are no true differences between the sexes? Ironically by saying that gender doesn’t exist you are actually saying trans people don’t exist and ignoring what they go through.

People have actually had their careers threatened for daring to question the received feminist wisdom that there aren’t only two genders such as Jordan Peterson.

Furthermore by insisting that we live in a patriarchy despite the many disadvantages faced by men such as the following.

Feminists tend to gloss over men’s issues (apart from obviously a few positive exceptions such as Hoff Sommers), as ALL men are seen as privileged in some way over all women.

Though some feminists may occasionally comment on things such as the high rate of young men committing suicide, even then I find its often in a way that is anti men.

It says that its men’s fault that things are so bad for them because of their own “toxic masculinity” which apparently drives other men who can’t compete to suicide. Feminists “sympathy” for men suffering in the west therefore, is often just a tool they can use to further attack masculinity which again diverts our attention away from the real causes of inequality. A lack of understanding of the differences between men and women.

Finally the fact that feminists view western society as being completely anti women also leads I feel to feminists always trying to view a situation in a way where women are hard done to rather than in any kind of objective way.

An example of this was Hillary Clinton’s outrageous comments that women are the real victims of war as they lose their husbands and sons! Even when men are being sent off to die in pointless conflicts in their thousands, sometimes millions, its still somehow women who are suffering more?

On the one hand its true that we need feminism to tackle the very real inequalities that women still face all over the globe, but on the other hand its kind of standing in the way in combating real gender inequalities in the west caused by natural differences between men and women, as it leads us down a mistaken path where we believe that we still live in a patriarchy, whilst also somewhat paradoxically telling us that there are no true differences between men and women.

Feminism therefore needs a top to bottom reformation, but in order to do that I feel we need to know the different types of feminists there are in the world today in order to see where the movement is going right, and where it is going wrong.

Whilst there are many different feminist groups I feel they can all be grouped into the following five categories by and large.

1/ True Feminists

These feminists include the likes of Christina Hoff Sommers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maryam Namazie and Camile Pagilia.

Now I don’t always agree with every individual thing these feminists say. For instance Ayaan Hirsi Ali politically is probably more to the right than I am.

Still these women at the end of the day do actually follow the true definition of feminism, “the belief in equality between genders”, and combat the very worst forms of misogyny in the world today.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been a vocal critic of Islam’s treatment of women for her entire life. She has helped to bring the suffering of women in countries like Somalia to a far wider attention in the west. She has given countless lectures on the subject of women in Islam, made tv appearances, written best selling books (many of which draw on her own traumatic childhood in Somalia where she was forced to endure among other things, her genitals being mutilated.)

She later founded the AHA foundation which is the worlds leading organisation working to end things such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and arranged marriages.

As a result of this Ali has faced genuine attempts on her life by Islamic extremists. In fact she has to walk around with bodyguards everywhere she goes, and has even had to cancel several public appearances.

Maryam Namazie, another outspoken feminist critic of Islam similarly has had to endure regular threats against her life, and recently even had to deal with Muslim men trying to interrupt a lecture she was giving on what women endure in Islamic countries.

See here

Feminists like Ali and Namazie are true champions for female empowerment. They help the women who are suffering from the ugliest forms of misogyny at a risk to their own safety.

They also at the same time however do not have any anti male feelings either. In fact they fight just as hard for men’s rights. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has devoted her life to helping marginalised groups of men in Islamic countries such as gay men (who again in some ways have it even worse than women in Muslim countries.)

You’d actually be hard pushed to find a greater champion of men’s rights in the west than Christina Hoff Sommers herself meanwhile.

These feminists care about inequalities against both genders and battle for many worthwhile causes across the entire world.

Sadly however whilst they have done a lot of good work for many marginalised groups, they are not only a minority within modern feminism, but their influence on mainstream popular culture is also limited.

The reason for this is because these brave ladies expose the mainstream media for the cowards they are in dealing with radical Islam.

Now I am not trying to tar all Muslims as evil, and I am certainly not advocating for persecution of innocent Muslims.

However at the same time the religion is in desperate need of a reformation (more so than feminism!)

Islam at its core is a violent, bigoted, and dangerous religion. It says very explicitly that all other religions are to be abolished, that all LGBT people are to be executed, that all black people are inferior to white people (Islam also advocates slavery too.) That all women are inferior to men, and finally that all non believers be killed or converted.

Now not all Muslims follow the bigoted beliefs that are in the Quran. Many Muslims who live in the west abandon the negative aspects of their faith in order to fit in with western society.

However those who do not and actually follow what their holy book says word for word, at the very least hold prejudiced beliefs against gays and women. Sadly its a higher percentage than you’d think.

A recent poll showed that over 50 percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom believed that homosexuality should be criminalised.

Poll Shows That Half of British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Illegal

52 Percent of British Muslims Want Homosexuality To Be Criminalised

Of course in the most extreme cases Muslims born and raised even in western countries on Islamic beliefs can become suicide bombers and carry out violent crimes against those who insult their prophet Muhammed and even just non believers.

Sadly these violent crimes have only increased the more influence Islam has gained in the west. Rather than make more concessions to Islam, we should be insisting that it change its values to fit in with our own. We should be aiding Muslim reformers (including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz.)

However the mainstream media is simply too terrified to take Islam on. Nobody wants to end up like Charlie Hebdo. The only reason things like Charlie Hebdo happen however is because the mainstream media leaves small, low key critics of Islam out in the cold.

Its easy to pick off critics of Islam like Charlie Hebdo, a tiny little magazine. If the entire mainstream media however starts criticising Islam as much as it does other religions then things have changed. We have shown the extremists a sign of strength, as images of their prophet are everywhere, on tv, in the newspapers etc, and its not like they can destroy the entire mainstream media is it?

However the mainstream media are a pack of shameless cowards and so they refuse to comment on the problem with Islam, but at the same time they also slander those who are brave enough to speak out against the religion which sadly includes the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in order to cover their tracks.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is either slandered as an Islamophobe and racist (despite Islam not being a race.) Or just ignored completely (much as many Islamic crimes are too) by the mainstream media.

Sadly as a result of this Ali and others like hers influence is sadly not all that it could be, and worse still the mainstream media in an effort to look progressive starts to prop up a very different type of feminist as their safe champions of women’s rights, which leads to my next point.

2/ Career Feminists

The most contemptible and dangerous type of feminist. These feminists include the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, Gloria Steinam, Rebecca Watson, Hillary Clinton and Amani Al Khatabeh.

These feminists emerged when feminism started to become popular and trendy. They saw that there was money to be had in the movement, however they didn’t want to actually take the risks that would come with speaking out against the worst form of sexism in the world today. Risks that again true feminists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie have to deal with on a daily basis.

So they instead invent mythical bogeymen like the patriarchy, and the gender wage gap to rally against. They pick perfectly benign targets such as video games, sci fi tv shows, and comic books and slander them as sexist in order to make themselves look like feminist champions.

They also somewhat ironically present themselves as damsels in distress by trying to make out that they are constantly harassed and victimised in western society. Now I am not saying that western society is perfect, but again a lot of these so called hostile environments for women that career feminists complain about are blown out of proportion or just flat out made up.

Take for instance the harassment women endure online. Feminists would have you believe that its only women endure online harassment.

Truth is men ironically endure far more abuse online than women do according to studies.

Higher Proportion of Men Report Abuse In Online Survery

Now this does not mean I condone any of the sick and twisted abuse that women get online, but the point is, its not a gendered issue is it? These sicko’s clearly go after everyone for every reason, which is why the best thing to do is just ignore them.

Similarly feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian will often try and paint video games, the sci fi and fantasy genres and comic books as being hostile, unwelcoming places for women, and indeed minorities such as black people. They will also tar their fans as being openly misogynistic and racist.

Once again nothing could actually be further from the truth. To start with many studies have shown that there is no link between violent forms of entertainment and people committing actual acts of violence.

Also whilst its true that many video games do allow the players to murder female characters, far more male characters are killed in video games.

Furthermore sci fi and fantasy, and video game fandom’s are usually welcoming to women and minorities. There have been many, many sci fi and fantasy films, television series, video games, comic books etc that star non white, non male, non straight characters and audiences have embraced them just as much.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena the Warrior Princess and Charmed. All 3 series were among the longest running fantasy series (until it was surpassed recently by Supernatural, Charmed was the longest running fantasy series in American history.) All three also became global icons and had an immense influence on popular culture and other television series.

In fact the sci fi and fantasy genres have often been ahead of the curve in terms of representation for women and minorities, with the original Star Trek series having the first ever interracial kiss in an American drama. None other than Martin Luther King himself praised Star Trek for its progressive values and actually said it was important to the civil rights movement!

Yet feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian seem to go out of their way to target these genres more than others because they are the most progressive genres and Sarkeesian therefore won’t have to actually deal with a genuine misogynistic backlash.

Also things like sci fi and video games are looked down on by the mainstream media. Even with the recent geek fad, nerds are generally still looked down upon, with things like comic books and video games being seen as childish interests.

The mainstream media will naturally be on the side of the feminists against the supposed, smelly, sad, basement dwelling nerds and even some nerds themselves will be on the side of the feminists. They won’t want to be seen as sad gits whose whole lives revolve around things like video games and Doctor Who so they will happily join the feminists in slandering their own interests.

Now I don’t doubt that the likes of Sarkeesian have received death threats from some psychotic nerds and gamers, but there are psycho’s in every group. Many anti feminists have had to endure death threats, and even physical assaults and attempts to get them fired from their jobs.

See here

All of this ironically is worse than anything any feminist critic of video games or sci fi has ever had to endure. No nerd or gamer has ever thrown their own urine over Anita Sarkeesian. No one has ever actually punched Rebecca Watson in the face, and no one has ever tried to get say Whovian Feminism fired from her job and ruin her life. Mean tweets? Yes okay, but again those aren’t quite the same thing, and as we have been over anti feminists, indeed EVERYBODY gets mean tweets.

So no I don’t think that Anita Sarkeesian is in the same kind of danger as Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking out against video games. I don’t even think that Anita is in as much danger as Lauren Southern is for criticising feminism or saying that there are only two genders.

So that’s why Anita goes after video games. Its a brilliant way through a little media manipulation of making herself look like a feminist champion without actually having to do a sodding thing to help women in genuine need of feminism.

Anita Sarkeesian and others like her are total opportunistic cowards.

Other career feminists might have a second agenda of their own, beyond simply becoming famous, and use feminism to make themselves untouchable.

I feel that Muslim feminists fall under this category. I am sorry but its impossible to actually follow the teachings of the Quran and be a feminist. The Quran openly says that women are inferior to men. Any movement that advocates the equality of both genders has to be at odds with the teachings of the Quran (that is until the Islamic faith has a reformation.)

Now many of these Muslim feminists claim to be practising Muslims who know their own holy book. So going by their own words we can’t just accuse them of being ignorant of the true nature of their faith.

Even then though if they were merely ignorant then that doesn’t say much about the type of feminists they are. They claim to care about women’s rights, yet they don’t know what the religion they follow actually says about women?

Or indeed the suffering it has inflicted on women throughout history and still continues to do so throughout the world today?

Nevertheless I feel lot of these Muslim “feminists” such as Amani Al Khatahbeh actually lie about how sexist Islam is in order to dupe people for a variety of reasons.

First of all it can allow them to gain more oppression points. The modern SJW consensus is that Muslim women have to endure double what western women do. Not because of the religion of Islam of course, but because of evil western Islamophobia.

Also as devout Muslims the likes of Amani are following a process called Taqiyya. Taqiyya is the name given to deception in Islam.

Muhammed encouraged his followers to lie to non believers about the true nature of his religion through Taqiyya when Islamic forces were weak.

Once Muslim forces were strong enough then the non believers they had lied to were to be disposed of or forcibly converted like all infidels.

Here are some interesting videos on Taqiyya.

By far and away the most disgusting example of a Muslim Feminist duping unsuspecting liberals through Taqqiya however is the case of Linda Sarsour.

Linda Sarsour is a vile human being. She advocates Sharia Law, a law that says that women are inferior to men, and that homosexuality should be criminalised and she has also said that she wants to take away Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s vagina because of her remarks about Islam.

The fact that Ali is a survivor of female genital mutilation is something that Sarsour must surely be aware of. With this in mind it doesn’t seem likely that this was just a random threat does it? It seems to me as though Sarsour was saying that she actually wanted to cut out Ali’s vagina, but was hiding it under the mask of feminism of all things by saying it was because Ali didn’t deserve to be a woman.

To the mainstream media however, Sarsour is a champion for women’s rights and the underdog as that’s how she presents herself through clever deceptions such as the Woman’s March.

Linda Sarsour exposes herself as a lying, homophobic, racist, hateful, poisonous scumbag, traitor to her own gender and wannabe hood bitch every time she opens that cancerous asshole she calls a mouth.

Of course sadly other career feminists will often support these Muslim feminists because they benefit their narrative. If people wake up to how big a danger Islam is, then Anita Sarkeesian will be seen as the joke for going after video games and appearing at the UN to try and censor people saying she sucked!

Same with all the career feminists who focus on things like manspreading, women being called bossy, etc. They support the Muslim feminist deception of Islam being a feminist religion to cover up their shameful cowardice compared to true feminists.

Finally male career feminists not only use their position to further their careers but also for sex too. I know that’s a cliche, and I certainly would not decry every single man who identifies as a feminist as simply wanting to get laid. That’s as lazy a way of arguing as when Social Justice Warriors just call someone who disagrees with them a Nazi.

However at the same time it cannot be denied that many militant male feminists who slander other people as sexists and even perverts have been exposed as using their status for sex.

See here.

Of course they are the perfect feminist champions for the mainstream media to prop up as they are safe. They won’t have to run the risk of actually worrying about taking on genuine misogynists like the Islamic extremists who try and murder Ayaan Hirsi Ali or even just the Islamic thugs who tried to silence Maryam Namazie. Instead they can just slander nerds, or video gamers.

Sadly however as these feminists and the mainstream media work together (as they both benefit each other) these feminists have a far greater influence and reach than the true feminists do. This in turn leads me to my next point.

3/ Misguided Feminists

These feminists are often young feminists who I feel have been taken in by the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, and Rebecca Watson. These feminists include the likes of Claudia Boleyn, Laci Green and Emma Watson.

I don’t see these feminists as being malicious. I do think their hearts are in the right place, but the problem is all the media they have been exposed to has filled their heads full of lies that they live in a society that despises women and so they actually believe bullshit like the gender wage gap, sexism in video games, etc.

Furthermore they also buy into other dangerous lies such as Islam is a religion of peace, or even that Islam is a feminist religion and will ironically end up defending a religion that says they are inferior for their very gender!

Claudia a bisexual, feminist really needs to watch these two videos

To see how duped she was by the toxic alliance of feminism and Islam.

I think its important to try and reach out to and debate with these feminists. In the case of people like Anita Sarkeesian they don’t want to reach out and debate with people as they know their beliefs are a lot of bullshit, but they don’t want their arguments to be disproven because then their cash cow will end. Anita Sarkeesian has openly refused to debate Milo Yiannopolous several times for instance. Even when he has offered to donate money to feminist charities if she did.

Then there was her recent hilarious outburst when Sargon of Akkad merely sat in the audience of a talk she was giving. Aside from calling him a garbage human she also outright refused to debate him when he offered too.

Misguided feminists however I feel are not the kind who always shout down any opposing opinions.  I’m sure some of them will, but ultimately I think a lot of these feminists are kind, decent, intelligent people. They have just been given the wrong idea which is why its important to talk to them.

Claudia Boleyn, though I strongly disagree with many of her opinions I find to be a nice person all around. I’ve had a few disagreements with her on twitter about various things, but she has always been very polite and courteous to me. She’s never derided me as a sexist, a bigot or anything like that. She has also done a few response videos to people who disagree with her and again has always been very polite and respectful in them too.

ShoeOnHead did a video challenging her views on women being funnier than men, and Claudia once again was very polite and respectful in her response to Shoe. See here.

“Claudia Boleyn The Feminist I Responded To In My Video Is A Sweetheart”

Laci Green similarly had a very civil debate with Blaire White, and has also recently expressed an interest in debating more anti feminists too.

As you can see its vital to have an open debate with these kinds of feminists. I think that sadly however because of the likes of Sarkeesian who try and shut down anyone else having a discussion, all feminists are tarred with that brush and as a result many people assume the likes of Laci and Claudia are unwilling to have a discussion and so they don’t reach out to them.

I’m not saying that these feminists are less intelligent than I am for believing things like the gender wage gap.

Until just a few years ago I used to believe in feminist lies like that too. Its understandable as that was all people from my generation in particular ever heard all around them, from television, to the papers, to the education system.

However the rise of the alternative media in the last few years has helped to shed a light on many of the main feminist myths and really I think its just a matter of time before most of these types of feminists like Claudia Boleyn will see the truth about the state of their movement.

I’m not saying that they will stop being feminists. They might do, but I think it would be more beneficial if they instead tried to reform their movement, as again sadly feminism is still needed in some ways now more than ever, but its just people like Sarkeesian that are making it a negative force.

Of course not all of these misguided feminists are nice, reasonable people like Claudia Boleyn. I feel that some of these women are sadly deeply unhappy people who have issues which third wave feminism exploits to lure them in.

Indeed many ideologies and cults try and lure in the most vulnerable and unhappy people by telling them what they want to hear, IE its not your fault, its everyone else’s fault, we have all the answers, get back at the people who did this to you etc.

An example of this is Cora Segal. Segal for those of you who don’t know is a feminist who famously heckled Milo Yiannopolous and Christina Hoff Sommers. She threw a child like tantrum shouting “KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS, KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS” over Sommers every time she tried to speak.

The footage of Segals outburst was uploaded onto youtube and Segal was subsequently mocked by people all over the world. She even became a meme, and earned the unflattering nickname of “Triggly Puff”.

I feel sorry for Cora. I think she is probably very unhappy with her weight. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being fat of course. However from a practical point of view if you are obese then you will be more likely to have serious health issues.

The same thing applies for someone who is far too thin as well. No extreme size is healthy.

Someone like Cora Segal if she is unhappy with being overweight should do one of the following things. 1/ Try and lose weight which is obviously hard. 2/ Come to terms with the fact that she is overweight. There is nothing wrong with being overweight morally, but again from a practical point of view it is unhealthy as are lots of other popular habits such as smoking. I would never dream of bullying smokers, or decrying smoking as amoral, but at the same time I would also never lie and say smoking is a perfectly healthy habit either.

However feminism will lure young, unhappy overweight women in. First it will make them feel better about being overweight by spreading lies like “healthy at any size”. Then it will make them angrier by telling them that everybody hates them because they are overweight, that no one will ever find them attractive if they are overweight etc, because of the patriarchy.

As a result of this women like Segal will never do anything about losing weight, and they will never come to terms with being overweight either, which will make them unhappier in the long run as they ultimately believe they live in a society that despises them.

Its a shame and I would never mock someone like Cora Segal. I would much rather talk with her, but with feminists like her I admit it is somewhat harder as they have invested in their beliefs emotionally more than people like Laci Green and Claudia Boleyn.

Finally once again misguided male feminists I feel can differ from their female counterparts somewhat. Misguided male feminists I feel are men who are guilted into being feminists, simply because they are men.

They buy into all of the myths about toxic masculinity, all men being privileged, all men being potential rapists etc, and grow to despise themselves as a result.

Steve Shives I feel not only falls into this type of male feminist but epitomises it!

See here.

In spite of how loathsome he can act such as when he tries to shut down anyone who disagrees with him from Sargon of Akkad to Laci Green, I do feel sorry for Steve Shives to some extent. Ultimately Shives is someone who has been made to feel guilty just for being a man!

However it is difficult to have a conversation with a feminist like Shives as he has invested so much emotionally in feminism he can’t stand any kind of criticism or skepticism (ironically) on the subject.

4/ Bully Feminists

These feminists are people who know that feminism can make someone utterly untouchable and use that to bully others. There are always people like this who emerge when a movement gains power and prestige and abuse it.

They are not by any means exclusive to feminism, but sadly again as feminism has gained power and influence in our society then these bullies have emerged too.

Here are some examples of people using feminism to push others around and in extreme cases even try and ruin their lives just because they can.

5/ Men Hating Feminists

I know its a cliche, but there is no denying that its true. A lot of modern day feminism seems to be more focused on kicking men down, taking away things they like, and generally treating them like crap than it does in helping women.

I am not including psychopaths like Valerie Solanas here. Solanas was a feminist who wrote the SCUM manifesto (which argued for the extinction of men) and tried to shoot Andy Warhol. She was an obvious lunatic and is not representative of any modern day feminist (apart from other lunatics of course which as I said earlier are found in every movement.)

You don’t need to be a raving looney to be bigoted towards a group of people like Solanas. Indeed sadly I think many misguided feminists can also fall under this category to some extent, as their heads have been filled with such anti men nonsense.

That doesn’t mean that they will despise every single man they come into contact with. I’m sure that personally they will have lots of male friends, and still be decent people all around, but sadly their general attitudes towards men will be negative.

Anti men feminists in fact can fall under all of the previous categories (except for the true feminists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers.) Some career feminists can often use their platform to simply vent any frustrations they have against men too.

The general feminist consensus is that all men are privileged compared to women, that all men have sexist attitudes towards women ingrained into them by society, that all men are potential rapists, and that all men have had it too good for too long.

All of these points are completely false of course. Privilege is no longer defined by gender. Does a homeless man have privilege over Beyonce who is the worlds highest earning singer.

Men ironically make up the majority of the homeless in western society.

84 percent of Hidden Homeless Are Male

9 out of 10 sleeping rough are male

Also far from having sexist attitudes towards women, most men are hardwired to actually be sympathetic towards women.

People Are More Likely To Protect Women Than Men

Also as far as the “men have had it too good for too long argument” goes, well there is an element of truth to that.

For years women were not given as many opportunities and rights as men, and were viewed as genuinely lesser, which was obviously terrible. Still it wasn’t a picnic for men years ago as well.

Men were viewed as being more expendable than women, hence why they were the ones sent off to die in pointless wars, and forced to do the hardest jobs.

As Christina Hoff Sommers said there are and have always been disadvantages and advantages to both sexes, and that’s why men and women who are in this together need to recognise that, rather than simply compete for who had it the hardest decades, even centuries ago.

Sadly however as feminists for whatever reason, feel that men are responsible for ALL the problems of society and have all the breaks, then they will attack them in every way they can.

Feminists have recently begun to force boys as young as 11 to be taught that they are potential rapists. Children have reportedly come home in tears at being made to feel that they are potentially evil, simply for who they are.

We Must Stop Indoctrinating Young Boys

Then of course there is the fact that feminists have shut down shelters for abused men.

Domestic Abuse Shelter Shut Down

Need Knows No Gender

Its not like this is an isolated incident. There are 33 spaces dedicated to male victims of domestic abuse in safe houses and refuge’s in the United Kingdom, whilst there are 4,000 spaces reserved for women.

Feminists have outright attempted to shut down Men’s Rights Groups and ban them from being able to speak and have even laughed at men’s issues being raised in public.

See here.

Feminist Protesters Shut Down MRA Event

Row After University Cancels MRA Event

Why Are Our Universities Blocking Men’s Socieities

You can see what I mean here. This isn’t feminists being fed up with men’s issues being brought up every time someone want’s to talk about women’s issues (as they often paint it.)

Instead this is ironically feminists not being able to stand it whenever men’s issues are brought up at ANY point.

Look at the entertainment industry as well. Any form of entertainment that men might enjoy more or might even just feature more male characters has to be feminised from top to bottom.

Feminists will complain about something starring a male hero, and featuring other male supporting characters as somehow being sexist, until all of the male roles are replaced with women, more women are hired behind the scenes than men, and there even anti men jokes and remarks inserted into them.

Take a look Doctor Who, and video games. Now Doctor Who is a male dominated series. Its lead the Doctor is obviously a male character, his archenemy the Master is a male character, as are many supporting characters like The Brigadier and Davros.

Feminists however for years have been calling Doctor Who sexist simply for having male leads and have demanded that all of the male cast be replaced with women, which has already happened. The Master is now a woman, and UNIT a military organisation, previously staffed by men are now all women. (EDIT update, after laying the groundwork for it for many years, it was announced in July 2017 that the next Doctor will be a woman too.)

See here.

The Depressing Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

How Doctor Who delivered A Righteously Feminist Finale

No one is having that attitude towards female heroes. I’m not going on about how “its so disgusting that in Xena and Buffy and Charmed, and Once Upon A Time, and Ghost Whipserer, and Resident Evil the men never save the day. Instead its always the women, we need to change that set up pronto.”

When it comes to a male led show like Doctor Who however, then because of the feminist audience the makers have to, while the character is a male undermine him constantly for his female sidekick, like this.

That is until they turn him into a woman. I wonder if Jodie’s male companion will threaten to hit her across the face so hard she’ll basically die?

PS the whole “its canon that the Doctor can turn into a woman” argument feminists trot out is utter bullshit. It wasn’t for 50 years until the feminists bullied the showrunner into including it. I won’t go into why a female Doctor is a terrible idea as this isn’t the place, but if you want to know why and also how the feminists slowly took over (and sunk) Doctor Who by bullying its makers and its fans, take a look at this article I wrote about it here.

5 People Who Killed Doctor Who

Of course at the same time whilst Doctor Who a male led series has to be completely feminised from top to bottom, then when it comes to female heroes like Wonder Woman, not only do feminists like Whovian Feminism not want men to write and direct for them, but they also don’t even want men to be allowed to go and see them until women have.

Of course banning men from public events is something that feminists like to do whenever they can.

Swedish Female Only Music Festivals Until Men Learn To Behave Themselves

Video games meanwhile have always been a form of entertainment that men have enjoyed more. I’m not saying that no women enjoy them, but they are mostly a male dominated interest.

Naturally as a result of this, feminists want to absolutely destroy the video game industry. And no I am not saying that they want to destroy them by getting more women to like them, or by demanding that more female characters be included (there have been popular female video game characters from the start.)

Feminists are ruining the industry by slandering it. Smearing its fans as anti women bigots, and making ludicrous claims that it encourages not only bigoted attitudes but even violence towards women.

As Christina Hoff Sommers puts it in this video here, they basically just want the video game culture to die, simply because its one that men prefer.

Feminists essentially want to take any form of entertainment that men might enjoy more away from them, silence issues that affect men more and finally teach you boys that they are potentially evil simply because of how they are born.

This is really the main reason that not just most men, but most women hate modern day feminism and refuse to identify as feminists.

See here.

Poll Few Identify as Feminists. Most Believe in Equality.

Feminism is now seen as a hateful, bigoted movement and with good reason. Its nonsense to claim that its just because people hate women’s rights. As the poll shows most people in modern society support equal rights for everyone, and that’s why they hate feminists.

Quite frankly the fact that anybody still supports a movement, never mind men, which uses phrases like toxic masculinity, shuts down any attempt to talk about men’s issues, bans men from public places, attacks any masculine interests as evil and sexist, whilst trying to ironically exclude all men from any feminine interest, I think shows how people are more sympathetic to women’s issues over all.

Even when the movement is so blatantly sexist, people still don’t want to junk it completely as they still think if its for women, then it has to have some merit, surely? Imagine if there was a movement that cared about genuinely marginalised men’s rights, but at the same time constantly attacked women at every corner. People would not bother with it for one second.


The governor Pat Condell sums it up brilliantly as always.

As you can see there are still many great feminists who are true champions for equality around the world such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers.

Sadly however their influence on the next generation of feminists, though not completely insignificant, is ultimately dwarfed by the safer, career feminists who have filled an entire generation of young men and women’s heads with irrational and ultimately unimportant bullshit like manspreading. These career feminists have also whipped extreme bigotry towards men, whilst ironically making it hard for people to talk about the biggest danger to women in the world today, Islam, simply to cover up their own cowardice.

At the same time the fact that feminism has become utterly untouchable in the modern western world then it has also become something that bullies and frauds like Linda Sarsour can use to make themselves untouchable and further their own ends.

Its important therefore that the next generation looks up to women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers instead of people like Anita Sarkeesian in order to learn what true inequalities against women need to be fought. If not then feminism which has almost lost all credibility among people will be an almost completely dead movement within then next generation.

Thanks for reading.

Top 10 Dinosaur Video Games

Dinosaurs have always been a good subject for video games, whether that’s playing as a Dinosaur tearing innocent people apart, or unloading rounds of machine gun fire into their scaly faces, or beating them to death with clubs, or fighting them as a giant ape on Skull Island. I think most people enjoy a good Dinosaur game. In many ways they have had just as much success in the video game medium as they have had in any other, and in this article I am going to run down my 10 favourite Dinosaur games from all platforms.

10/ Turok Dinosaur Hunter

For the Nintendo 64, this game didn’t have the largest variety of Dinosaur species. Just Velociraptors and one Tyrannosaurus Rex with the odd Pterosaur tossed in.

Still it more than made up for it with its engaging and somewhat unusual premise. The game took place in a bizarre fantasy land called simply The Lost Land, that mixed various time periods together. For instance the penultimate boss is a Tyrannosaurus Rex who has been cybernetically enhanced.

He has a robot laser eye and can breath fire!

The game spawned an entire franchise beyond even just video games with the character of Turok even gaining his own short lived comic book series too. In some ways Turok works better as a fantasy game rather than a Dinosaur one. Still it was a very engaging and exciting game all around.

9/ Dino D-Day

As crazy as its title would suggest, this 2011 game is set in an alternate universe where Hitler cloned Dinosaurs during World War 2.

Its true that its graphics are somewhat sub par for the time it was released, but I think it more than makes up for it with its wild premise as well as the large variety of Dinosaur species too. Everything from the classics like Tyrannosaurus to obscure creatures like Protoceratops.

I always like it when people merge two genre’s that you’d never think of putting together. Dinosaur and World War 2 games? Yet it worked and managed to bring something new to both genres.

In this respect the game kind of reminded me of the Ray Harryhausen classic Gwangi which similarly managed to blend the unlikely duo of Dinosaur movies and Westerns to great effect too.

8/ Jurassic Park: The Game

Released for several platforms in 2011, this Telltale game would prove to be somewhat polarising in a number of ways.

Still I must admit whilst it wasn’t perfect I did think it was still probably one of the better Jurassic Park games.

It had an original story, that actually served as a direct sequel to the original game (though it would later be contradicted by Jurassic World). The Dinosaurs are also every bit as scary as their film counterparts and the deaths are really quite gory and explicit.

In fact to be honest I’d say that was the best thing about the game was how creative the ways both the supporting characters as well as the main character were killed by the Dinosaurs.

This was actually an advantage that the games had over the films, as often the deaths in the movies were a little bit more straight forward. I feel the makers of the game had a little more fun with their dinosaurs.

7/ Peter Jackson’s King Kong The Official Game of the Movie

An all around excellent game. It follows the same basic plot as Jackson’s equally brilliant film version, but it obviously expands on the story too.

You get to play as both Kong and the main human protagonist, Jack Driscoll at different points throughout the game. As Kong its brilliant to fight head on often with multiple Vastatosaurus Rex’s (fearsome descendants of the Tyrannosaurus Rex) but my two favourite parts of the game are as Driscoll.

One is when a V-Rex knocks Kong off the edge of a cliff and you have to rescue Ann from it as Jack. Its one of the most intense moments in any game trying to hold off a V-Rex inside tiny little ruins with only a piece of bone!

The other is when the V-Rex again corners you and you have to summon Kong himself. You really feel all 4 of the main characters terror as the Rex relentlessly smashes down the walls of the rotten fortress they are trapped in.

I found the setting of this game effective too. Skull Island is a truly horrifying place, filled with rotting bodies, crumbling ruins of a once great civilisation and hideous monsters lurking round every corner.

Its a fitting setting for Kong as it just adds to the tragedy of his character that in many respects he has never fit in anywhere as the place he is taken from is so heinous.

Overall a very effective and exciting game.

6/ Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis

One of the best Jurassic Park games, this was not an adventure game, rather a platform building one. The player’s task was to create a version of Jurassic Park that would gain a 5 star approval rating.

Of course there are many obstacles to your goal, with the flesh eating Dinosaurs ironically in some ways being the least of your troubles. Tornado’s strike the island, your dinosaurs get sick, you run out of money and go bankrupt etc.

The game probably has the largest collection of different species of Dinosaurs of any Jurassic Park title, though sadly you can’t use them all. Still overall this was a brilliant game as it treated the Dinosaurs like real animals rather than as unstoppable monsters.

In this respect it really captured the spirit of the original Jurassic Park movie better than any other game in the series.

5/ The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Based on the film and book of the same name, this game however doesn’t really have a story. You just play as 5 different characters through a series of levels.

The reason I rank it so highly is because you get to play as both a Velociraptor and a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

I loved the T-Rex levels so much. Though they could get a bit samey, it was still brilliant being able to kill hundreds of Raptors and human soldiers. It was quite explicit when you killed people as either the Rex or the Raptor. Your human victims would scream for mercy as you tore into them with your claws as the Raptor, whilst as the Rex you’d hear both your Raptor and human victims scream in agony and their bones snap as you crushed them to a pulp in your jaws.

The levels as the other characters, a Compsognathus, a human soldier, and Sarah Harding are still enjoyable, but nothing can quite match playing as the T-Rex. Still it is brilliant the way the game allows you to explore this vastly different world from so many different perspectives, from the Compy that’s no bigger than a Chicken, to the humans who don’t belong in the Lost World, to the absolute king of all the Dinosaurs, the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

4/ Yoshi’s Island

Again in some respects more of a fantasy game, still as Yoshi is technically a Dinosaur then I’m going to list it.

Yoshi’s island is a prequel to the Mario series. It sees the evil Kamek attempt to kidnap two babies Mario and Luigi (both of whom are foretold to stop King Koopa, AKA Bowser in the future)

Though he is successful in capturing Luigi, Kamek ultimately fails to capture Mario who falls lands on Yoshi’s island, where all the Yoshi’s decide to band together to protect baby Mario from Kamek and his minions, rescue Luigi, and finally bring the boys to their parents.

Yoshi’s island is an absolute classic. Visually its absolutely stunning with all the levels being unique and beautiful in their own way. There is also a wide variety of monsters too, made up of plenty of old classic Mario foes, and plenty of new ones.

Its always fun to play as Yoshi and this game really helped to establish a lot of his most iconic traits such as his ability to turn his enemies into eggs and his crazy flutter jump.

When you think about it, Yoshi really is an unstoppable killing machine! He kills his enemies by eating them alive, and he can eat just about anything, but on top of that he can also turn the people he kills into weapons too!

Don’t be fooled by his cute appearance, Yoshi is one of the most dangerous Dinosaurs in any work of fiction and that’s what makes him so fun to play.

3/ Dino Crisis

One of the ultimate horror survival games. Dino Crisis was made by the creators of Resident Evil. Indeed at the time many critics dismissed it as being just a rehash of Resident Evil, with the Raptors standing in for the Zombies and the T-Rex standing in for the Tyrant.

The premise was also somewhat similar in that both revolve around a team going to investigate a remote area where an experiment has gone wrong, leading to monsters overrunning the place. In Resident Evil’s case it is because of an outbreak of the T-Virus that turns people and animals in Zombie like mutants, in Dino Crisis’ it is because of Doctor Kirk’s third energy experiment which creates a rip in the time vortex and allows Dinosaurs to emerge into modern day.  The main characters in both games is also the only female member of the team, Jill Valentine in Resident Evil, Regina in Dino Crisis.

Finally both sequels see the government get hold of the secrets of the experiment (Kirk’s third energy program, the T-Virus sample) which later thanks to their recklessness results in it getting loose in a big city. Raccoon City in Resident Evil’s case which is overrun with Zombies and eventually nuked, and Edward City in Dino Crisis which is eventually destroyed by Velociraptors.

Still whilst it can’t be denied that it did reuse a lot of the same game mechanics and tropes as its more famous predecessor, overall Dino Crisis managed to stamp out its own identity.

The Raptors were different to the Zombies in that they were a lot faster, more intelligent and could leap out of seemingly nowhere at the player without warning. Also the Tyrannosaurus was far bigger and much more terrifying than anything in the Resident Evil series too.

Also I personally though Regina was a lot better than Jill Valentine. Jill was always a bit too wet and mopey for me. Regina however was far more badass, and snarky. No scene demonstrates that better for me than when the Tyrannosaurus first smashes its way through a window and corners Regina in a tiny little room and she just responds with “you’ve got to be kidding me!”

I think its a shame that Regina is not more famous. The dry, fearless T-Rex and Raptor slayer definitely desevres more respect in my opinion.

I’d love to see a Dino Crisis film with Famke Janssen as Regina.

She’d be so perfect for the role its not true!

Dino Crisis is not without its faults. Like some of the Resident Evil games its a bit slow and it also doesn’t have the greatest variety of Dinosaurs. Still overall its a brilliant game that still holds up thanks to its atmospheric and engaging story.

2/ ARK Survival Evolved

One of the most recent Dinosaur games for the PS4 and X Box One. This game doesn’t have a story. Instead you simply have to train Dinosaurs in order to survive. The game has probably the largest selection of Dinosaurs of any game. Everybody’s favourites are here, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus Allosaurus etc.

I do miss the lack of a story like the Dino Crisis games, but ultimately I can’t rate it as anything but a classic due to the sheer amount of Dinosaurs you get to train as well as the detailed lost world the player can inhabit.

1/ Dino Crisis 2

An oldie but a goodie, Dino Crisis 2 may look a bit primitive by today’s standards but for me its still the best Dinosaur game for a number of reasons.

To start with it has a great selection of Dinosaurs, also its fast paced (rectifying the problems of the first game.) However its story and setting is really what elevate it.

I love running through the crumbling ruins of old cities and military bases (always littered with mutilated bodies) that the Dinosaurs have overrun, finding out how the humans were eventually overcome. And then there is the twist that it was not by Dinosaurs, but a mysterious group of Helmet wearing women from the future.

Trust me it actually makes sense. One of the Helmet women, Paul I always found to be quite unnerving. It was the way she was so child like, yet still somewhat intelligent in other ways. She couldn’t speak and would act like a helpless child, yet was smart enough to use a gun, work a computer etc. You were left to wonder how much of the young woman she once was is left in there.

Dino Crisis 2 much like the first game would make a great movie. Hopefully one day it will get the recognition it deserves.

Thanks for reading.