SJWs Don’t Like Female Heroes

Related imageRelated image

Related image

They both probably think the woman below is Wonder Woman .

This is a point I’ve raised many times before, but its one that I feel needs emphasised and explored in greater detail.

For the last few years I have criticised the regressive left’s negative influence on the sci fi and fantasy genres.

I am not by any stretch of the imagination right wing. I have written articles trashing those on the right in the past, such as the following.

5 Worst Right Wingers On Youtube

In terms of liking female heroes and female created forms of entertainment meanwhile, I have written ten thousand word articles on characters from Xena and put forward ideas for tv shows starring female heroes and casting suggestions (that have been rewteeted by popular genre actresses.)  I have also tried to bring attention to more obscure female singers like V.V. Brown and written articles about Amy Winehouse, that her own mother enjoyed (and even started following me on twitter as a result!)

See here.

10 Reason To Admire Amy Winehouse

Ingrid Oliver: Best Tweet I Have Ever Received

Dana Delorenzo: Means More To Me Than You Know

Cult Villains 1: Callisto

In spite of this however I have been accused many times of not being able to stand female led shows, strong women, or female dominated forms of entertainment by SJWs on sites like Gallifrey Base and by people like Mr Tardis and Samuel Davis, simply because I am critical of the regressive left’s influence on the genre.

Interestingly enough however when you look at the SJWs who are so quick to hurl accusations of “not being able to stand female heroes” at others own history. You can see that they often don’t seem to care about female heroes.

In this article we are going to explore famous examples of SJWs not caring about female heroes and ultimately why both male and female SJWs don’t care about female heroes. I feel this is the most important point to raise against SJWs, as they always like to paint themselves as modern day Gene Roddenberry’s; fighting for representation against the evil bigots, when ironically nothing could be further from the truth.

Also from a personal point of view it is very annoying to get told constantly from people with 0 knowledge of female heroes that I need to get used to seeing strong women on tv. I did. Back in the fucking 90s when I was 3!

Famous Examples

Image result for claudia boleyn

Obviously I can’t accuse every SJW of being like this. I am sure there are some SJWs who do genuinely like female heroes, but for the majority I have come across that is not the case.

At the very least the most prominent, influential and high profile SJWs, (who have in some cases had an impact on franchises.) Have 0 interest in female led film and television series.

Mr Tardis Reviews is one such example. For those unfamiliar with him, Mr Tardis is a youtuber who as his name would suggest specialises in reviewing Doctor Who. At one point he also did work as a professional critic.

Mr Tardis is a staunch defender of Jodie Whittakers casting as the Doctor. Now normally this wouldn’t be enough to make me dislike someone, but Mr Tardis has resorted to slandering all of her critics as sexists, homophobes, racists, and bigots who just can’t stand women in leading roles.

A prime example of this was when he claimed that Jeremy Clarkson, a UK television presenter, was a holocaust denier simply because Clarkson was critical of series 11 of Doctor Who.

Clarkson in truth said that he doesn’t think holocaust denial is a serious issue as only a fringe group of nutters, who are never going to hold any sway actually think the holocaust never happened. He compared holocaust deniers to flat earthers and people who think the earth is only 1000 years old in this respect. Now you may not agree with Clarkson and feel that it is a more widespread issue, but that’s hardly the same as Clarkson being a holocaust denier himself.

Mr Tardis has also targeted smaller channels and twitter users and encouraged and sent his fans to attack them as sexists such as the following.


Finally Mr Tardis has also been accused of gatekeeping such as when he famously declared to critics of series 11. “I DON’T CARE IF YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOUR IN LEADING ROLES WATCH IT OR DON’T BUT GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS FANDOM.”

The great irony is that Mr Tardis himself has 0 interest in female led films or television series. I’ve brought this up to him many times on twitter (before he blocked me.) Each time he tried to come up with a different excuse for his apparent lack of interest in female heroes, all of which fell flat.

First of all he said that there have been no prominent female led films or television series since Buffy ended 16 years ago for him to review. He has continued to make this point against others.

See here. Buffy Ended 16 Years Ago

Ironically all Mr Tardis does with this kind of argument is not only show off his ignorance of female led series, but insult them too.

Since Buffy there have been dozens of female led series. Once Upon A Time which started in 2011 ran for 7 years and featured a woman, Emma Swan as its main protagonist for 6 years. Regina, the Evil Queen, played by Lana Parilla meanwhile was by far and away the most popular character in the series among the fans and the writers and served as both its main antagonist/anti hero.

See here.

In addition to this there has also been Charmed, which though starting just before Buffy finished, ran past it by several years (and ultimately had a longer run too.) I Zombie, Ghost Whisperer, Nikita, Sleepy Hollow, Legends of Tomorrow, Jessica Jones, Supergirl, Underworld film series, Resident Evil film series, Hunger Games film series, X-Men Prequel film series (where the main hero is arguably Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique) Promethius, Sabrina remake, Charmed remake, Scream tv series, Bionic Woman remake, Tru Calling, Battlestar Gallactica remake, Dark Angel, Dollhouse, The Sarah Jane Adventures, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Being Human etc, have all also emerged since Buffy finished.

Not all of these series have had a long run, but the same is true for most male led genre series too. Genre series in general sadly, apart from a few exceptions like Doctor Who, Buffy, Xena and the later Star Trek sequels often don’t get a long run on tv. Randall and Hopkirk Deceased, Ultra Violet, Torchwood, Lost in Space, Firefly, even the original Star Trek, are all iconic male led series that all only lasted 4 series at the most.

In addition to this there have been strong roles for women in every single male led series of the past several decades. From Killer Frost in The Flash, to Kelly Maxwell in Ash Vs Evil Dead, to Leela in Futurama, to the various companions in New Who. In fact ironically in various male led series like Red Dwarf and Futurama the strongest, bravest, and smartest role has been taken by a woman, Kochanski, Leela etc.

See here.

Dana Delorenzo Wins Artemis Action Next Wave Award Winner

So again for Mr Tardis to try and pretend that Buffy was a flash in the pan for women in the industry (just to cover his own lack of interest in female led series) is incredibly insulting to women like Lana Parrilla and Dana Delorenzo.

Mr Tardis has also said that he hasn’t reviewed these female led series such as Once Upon A Time because they are not the type of thing he normally reviews. This is a pretty lame argument. There is nothing to stop him devoting a section of his channel to looking at genre tv, or if he doesn’t have the time to do a video, setting up a wordpress site such as this.

Finally Mr Tardis, several months after I’d first accused him of not liking any female led series did try and claim to me that he has reviewed female led films and ran through various films that he has reviewed.

The only problem with this list was that the films to start with where recent films that he had been forced to review as a professional critic (or simply to stay relevant on youtube.) They weren’t even films he particularly liked. Even then such was his desperation to get together a decent list of female led films he’d reviewed, he was forced to include both Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey among them!

50 Shades of Grey is definitely more empowering for women than Xena Trilbee!

If only I’d watched 50 Shades of Grey instead of Xena. Then I’d have really learned to accept strong women like Mr Tardis. 

Ultimately Mr Tardis has not tracked down any female led tv series to review on his own. If a female led show is even remotely niche like Once Upon A Time then it will pass him by. He has never commented on the impact any female heroes have made on the genre. He has never looked at the careers of prominent women within the genre. He has never supported or at least given a shout out to more overlooked women in the genre. He doesn’t even follow any prominent women within the genre like Lucy Lawless, Dana Delorenzo, Lana Parrilla, etc on social media.

Now I am not saying Mr Tardis’ lack of interest in female led series means that he is a sexist. (Though that would be no more ridiculous than his accusations against people like Bowlestrek and Nerdrotic being sexist for not liking one female led show.)

Still in all fairness Trilbee just might not have an interest in modern day genre series? However it is ironic that Mr Tardis is willing to paint himself as being the only sane man in sci fi fandom, desperate to see strong women in the genre, such as here.

Women Are Allowed As Lead Roles In Genre Series

When in truth he is the one who is behind most of the rest of sci fi fandom. He’s the one who couldn’t tell a Lucy Lawless from a Gina Torres. He is the one who would draw a blank at a picture of Lana Parrilla and couldn’t tell you who Emma Swan, Prue Halliwell, Callisto, or Kelly Maxwell were.

Another prominent example of an SJW desperate for female heroes, yet bizarrely never watching them is Youtuber/musician Claudia Boleyn. Claudia Boleyn was a high profile critic of the Steven Moffat era of Doctor Who, accusing it of sexism and homophobia.

She became quite a prominent figure in Doctor Who fandom and later got a job working at Doctor Who magazine, as part of their new time team.

Now I don’t have anything against Claudia Boleyn personally, unlike Mr Tardis who has acted in a disgraceful way to critics of series 11.

I freely admit to having been greatly frustrated with some of Claudia’s opinions and statements in the past. Nevertheless in all fairness to her, Claudia has never attacked smaller channels, sent her fans to attack someone, slandered all fans who disagree with her as sexist, or lied about people the way Mr Tardis did about Jeremy Clarkson being a holocaust denier.

See here for an example of Claudia being more mature and respectful to her critics like ShoeOnHead than Mr “GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FANDOM”.

ShoeOnHead on Twitter: “Claudia Boleyn The Feminist I Responded To In My Video Is A Sweetheart”

I myself had a reasonably friendly and regular interaction with Claudia via twitter and youtube until 2018 when she blocked me on twitter.

Now I don’t hold any ill will towards Claudia for blocking me. I think she just got fed up of me constantly questioning her opinions on things, which is fair enough. You can be open minded, but also fed up of having to constantly defend your position on everything all the time.

Still whilst Claudia may have behaved in a much more respectful way than Mr Tardis. Ultimately I think Claudia sadly still falls under the same criticism, of not practising what she preaches in regards to accepting female heroes.

Claudia Boleyn likes fewer female heroes than Mr Tardis (if such a thing were possible!) I have never seen her even mention Xena, Buffy, Charmed, The Heroic Trio, The Bride with White Hair, Once Upon A Time, Nikita, Ghost Whisperer etc. She doesn’t follow any prominent women within the genre on social media. (Once again, if you were to ask her who Lucy Lawless, Gina Torres, Eliza Dushku, or Summer Glau were, she’d probably draw a blank.)

Furthermore a lot of the male led shows she has reviewed and is a fan of, ironically have female counterparts that she doesn’t bother with. Its not even like she can say “this show isn’t the type of thing I don’t watch.” (Which wouldn’t hold any water anyway considering Claudia claims the most important thing about a series is good representation.)

Merlin one of her favourite series is for all intents and purposes a British expy of Xena.

Xena and Merlin are both pseudo historical series that merge surreal, camp comedy with quite dark, gritty and violent content. Both merge different historical periods together and revel in the historical inaccuracies as a source of humour. Finally both also update old myths and legends in a modern way.

Take a look at the two main villains from Xena and compare them to two of the main villains of Merlin. One is a cocky, egotistical guy, dressed in black leather with long hair, who thinks he’s god’s gift and who initially holds all the power. The other is a much more evil, intense, psychotic, blonde, who plays on his vanity and later turns the tables on and absolutely humiliates him.

Image result for ares vs callisto

Image result for cenred morgause

So the question is, why does Claudia not prefer Xena? If what she says is true that she has to see bisexual women like her on tv, then shouldn’t Xena that stars two bisexual women interest her more than Merlin, which stars two white, straight men?

Similarly look at Supernatural and Charmed. Claudia loves Supernatural, but I have never seen her mention Charmed. Both revolve around siblings fighting Demons, who come from a long line of Demon killers. Both feature Angels, who are not entirely sympathetic and are portrayed more as petty civil servants, too hung up on maintaining traditions at the cost of human life. In both instances, an older sibling develops an intense relationship with one of the Angels, who goes rogue, whilst the youngest develops a romantic relationship with a Demon; who the siblings eventually end up having to kill. Both shows even feature Death who is played by a sinister, but charming and affable English man. Death in both series holds a special interest in the main siblings, simply because they keep escaping him. Both shows even feature a finale called All Hell Breaks Loose, where one of the siblings dies and a deal is made to revive them, which ends very badly for the older sibling.

Yet once again Claudia loves Supernatural, the one starring MALE siblings and has 0 interest in Charmed starring female siblings.

Finally Class another male led show Claudia loves is basically just a British expy of Buffy. Both revolve around a group of misfit teenagers who have to guard over a portal beneath a school where monsters from other universes and worlds emerge.

So again why does Claudia not care about any of these female led series?

Whovian Feminism (a blogger whose real name is Alyssa Franke) is another famous example of not caring about female heroes, despite promoting herself as fighting for representation for women against the evil, toxic, white male side of fandom.

I have never seen Whovian Feminism even mention any female led series or films, bar the 2017 Wonder Woman that was in the cinemas.

Once again just like Mr Tardis, Whovian Feminism has never tracked down female led series on her own and tried to bring them to other people’s attention. She’s never supported or given a shout out to overlooked women in the genre. All she has done is attack prominent men within the genre and demand that male led series be more feminised.

Similarly the youtuber Samuel Davis is quick to dismiss all critics of Jodie’s Doctor as sexist gammons (including yours truly.) A quick look at Davis’ channel however shows once again that he doesn’t practice what he preaches.

There are NO reviews of female led series, like Once Upon A Time, Nikita, Xena etc on his channel. He doesn’t even have any knowledge of female led shows in the slightest. Once again Samuel Davis wouldn’t know a Renee O’Connor from a Maggie Q. Samuel Davies ironically probably likes fewer female heroes or female led, or created forms of entertainment than Claudia Boleyn herself!

Paul Cornell, a comic book writer, who has also written for Doctor Who, is perhaps the poster boy for SJW sell outs meanwhile. He has regularly slammed all critics of Jodie era Doctor, Ghostbusters and Captain Marvel as sexist, homophobic, racist MRAs.

In fact Paul even tweeted this cartoon depicting critics of Whittaker as wife beaters.

I’m sure posting cartoons where people who represent you shag the wives of people not happy with Jodie Whittakers era will get them watching again Paul. There’s a reason Claudia Boleyn is the only one people don’t hate. It is sad though that Claudia, someone in her early 20s was able to make a much more mature and even handed response to a critic, than Paul Cornell, someone in his early 50s! Also nice for feminist Paul Cornell to trivialise domestic abuse by comparing it to a disagreement about Doctor Who.

Ironically once again Paul has very little interest in female heroes. He has written some stories for Vampirella, but other than that the overwhelming majority of Paul’s favourite series and his own fiction star men. Look at his blog and you won’t find reviews of Buffy, Xena, Once Upon A Time, Nikita etc. He doesn’t follow the likes of Lucy Lawless, Sarah Michelle Gellar, or Lana Parrilla on social media, or ever give them a shout out either.

Cornell much like Trillbee knows NOTHING about women in the genre, yet constantly lords it over people with legit criticisms of female led films like Ghostbusters as though he is the only one who has ever watched a female led film.

So the real question is? Why do these people who claim to care so much about female heroes and are so quick to slander others as everything from misogynists, to wife beaters, to holocaust deniers have such little interest in and knowledge of female led series? Well there are 4 main reasons in my opinion.

4/ They Only Care About Making Themselves Look Good

Image result for paul cornell

This more applies to male SJWs like Paul Cornell, Mr Tardis and Samuel Davis. Basically these guys want to lord it over other fans. They want to present themselves as more tolerant, forward thinking and on the right side of history, compared to the sad, smelly, basement dwelling Gammons.  Its all about their own ego rather than in actually building women up, so they have 0 actual interest in women in the genre.

In many cases they are also desperate to promote themselves professionally and so will pander to the dominant political ideology in the entertainment industry (which currently is leftist politics.)

Mr Tardis is an example of this. He mentioned in his video arguing that there is no political bias in Doctor Who, that he has worked freelance for the BBC before in an effort to claim that the BBC have no biases against hiring white men.

Jump to roughly 31 mins 30 secs in to see him admit he has frequently worked freelance for the BBC.

Trilbee’s claim that there is no bias against white men at the BBC is of course demonstrably not true. See here.

The Unspoken Bigotry of BBC’s Diversity Quotas

BBC Autumnwatch Presenter Sidelined For Being Too White

BBC Presenter Jon Homes Fired For Being Too White

BBC Chief Admits Monty Python Wouldn’t Be Hired For Being Too White And Male

Many have accused Mr Tardis of being a shill for the BBC as a result of lies like this. Whether he is actually being paid by them or not, I don’t think it can be denied that he is trying to get in with the BBC regardless.

In about 20 years time when right wing tribalism replaces left wing tribalism. (Generation Z are according to polls, the most right wing generation since world war 2.) These same people like Mr Tardis will most likely be sucking up to the right wingers who will take over the industry instead.

All they care about is making themselves look good or getting ahead. They currently think they can do that by making out that critics of controversial changes to characters like the Doctor hate all women, and that they are the modern day Gene Roddenberry’s standing up for the little people in fandom.

The great irony is that they end up using all of the tactics they accuse “toxic fandom” of using. Gaslighting, humiliation, dogpiling on people, misrepresentation of people’s opinions etc, but again they don’t care as they’d actually have to have principles for that.

3/ They Don’t Like Sci Fi or Fantasy

Related image

The sad fact is that many SJWs don’t actually like Sci Fi and Fantasy. The likes of Claudia Boleyn and Whovian Feminism for instance are not actual sci fi fans. (This is not about gender before people accuse me of going on about fake geek girls. There are just as many male fans that this also applies too, such as Claudia Boleyn’s brother.)

These people will like just a few sci fi or fantasy franchises that are popular, but will ultimately not have any real knowledge of the genre. They won’t seek out sci fi, horror or fantasy books, films, television series or comic books on their own. They won’t even bother with the franchises they like now in a few years time when the franchises popularity fades somewhat. Of the franchises they do like, they won’t even like them for their sci fi or fantastical elements. Instead they’ll only care about things like shipping, representation, costumes they can wear to comic con etc.

Claudia Boleyn is a prime example of this. Claudia Boleyn does not like sci fi or fantasy in general. Look at her twitter page and you will find constant tweets about Coronation Street and Emmerdale Farm, two soap operas. She won’t bother with any sci fi or fantasy series that is not current. She won’t track down the old classics like Xena, Buffy, Blake’s 7, Lost in Space, Charmed, Red Dwarf etc.

Similarly if a current series is even remotely niche like Once Upon A Time or Ash Vs Evil Dead it will completely pass these people by. They will only know about a franchise if its current and mainstream.

I’m not saying this makes these people stupid or shallow. They just don’t have a vested interest in sci fi as a whole, but as a result of this they genuinely won’t know the likes of Kelly Maxwell, Callisto, or Regina even exist, as most sci fi and fantasy, regardless of whether its male or female led is niche.

I’d also argue that a lot of SJWs actually look down on sci fi and fantasy.

There is absolutely an element of class snobbery in their disdain for the genre. Many SJWs come from upper middle class backgrounds, where sci fi and its fans are seen as stupid and childish. Take a look at this memorable quote from Whovian Feminism about the people who don’t want a female Doctor.

“Supposedly well meaning observers always like to come in and say that hardcore fans won’t accept a woman portraying the Doctor. This attitude does both the show and our fandom a disservice. While there’s always a smattering of assholes to prove this type of attitude does exist, they aren’t even close to the majority. And even if that 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, then he is 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.”

We definitely don’t want any riff raff or plebs watching Doctor Who right Alyssa?

The real question is why are people like Claudia Boleyn and Whovian Feminism being treated as experts of the genre? Why do people listen to them when they complain about how sexist the genre is? About how there aren’t enough women role models? How they fuck would they know?

Similarly why are they more or less being allowed to decide the future of the genre, with producers seeing people like Claudia and Whovian Feminism as their target audience and pandering to them above all else?

The answer is because anyone who disagrees with the ideology these people represent is seen as a woman hater. Still ultimately these are people with 0 interest in the genre, making sweeping statements about it and its fans because it suits their agenda.

2/ Misplaced Guilt and Projection

A lot of SJWs who claim to be desperate to see more female led films and tv series, yet have 0 interest in any existing female led properties, I feel are perhaps projecting when they accuse others of needing to get used to female heroes.

These people (particularly if they are men.) Actually feel guilty for not preferring Xena and Buffy to Doctor Who and Star Trek. Its stupid for them to feel that way of course.

They might just prefer Doctor Who or Star Trek because they prefer the writing, acting, and characters. Also even if they did prefer the Doctor, a male hero, because they are male, by the SJWs logic what’s wrong with that? Feminists such as Claudia Boleyn constantly go on about how they prefer female heroes because they are female. (Despite never actually watching female led series.) The Doctor had to actually be changed from male to female so that Claudia and others could enjoy the character more. With this in mind what’s wrong with a male viewer preferring a male hero because he relates to him more?

Still whatever the case because these people are so obsessed with gender politics they actually do feel guilty for preferring a male hero to female hero.

See here for a classic example. Steve Shives, a notorious feminist youtuber who actually is made to feel guilty by his wife for preferring Angel as a series, not even as a character, to Buffy!

You can see how with this in mind a lot of these men are actually projecting when they rant about fandoms not accepting female heroes. Deep down they worry that applies to them for the stupidest of reasons.

1/ Anti Men Bigotry

Image result for jodie whittaker

The regressive left have a very strong anti men bias. They essentially view all white men as being privileged shit lords who need taken down a peg or two.

See here for examples of the regressive left’s hatred of white men.

Man Free Festival Guilty of Discrimination

Why Sex Ed Classes Are Anti Men

Youtube Stops Hiring White Men As Part of Diversity

Cinemas Sued For Women Only Wonder Woman Screenings

NUS Gay Men Are Not Oppressed Enough

As a result of this, the regressive left naturally want to tear down forms of entertainment that men enjoy more, (which sci fi is perceived to be) and destroy any strong roles for men in entertainment that they can.

This is undoubtedly a large part of why the likes of Claudia Boleyn, Whovian Feminism, Christel Dee etc, are more interested in changing male characters into women, or replacing them with women, like the Doctor, Wolverine, Iron Man, Thor etc; than in original female heroes.

Xena, Buffy, Regina, Kelly Maxwell, Ripley, Nikita, do not take anything away from men. None of those characters ever make comments about men being inferior, nor have the actresses playing them even insulted their male viewers. Those characters are solely about building women up, which is why the likes of Claudia Boleyn and Whovian Feminism have 0 interest in them. Evidently building women up is less important to SJWs than tearing men down.

Feminists first of all want just about every sci fi or fantasy series to include digs against men. We can see this in SJW themed series such as the notorious CW version of Supergirl and later seasons of the 21st century version of Doctor Who.

See here.

In addition to this feminists want to turn as many male heroes into women, not because they want to see more female heroes, but because they want to take role models away from little boys.

Don’t give me the “but a female Doctor can still be a role model to little boys just as much.” If that’s the case, then why can’t a male Doctor not be a role model to little girls?

Ultimately you don’t have to take a role model away from either. You can create more female counterparts to male heroes, or more totally original female heroes. In Doctor Who’s case there already was a time lady character named Romana, who could have been brought back to the revival and then given her own show, allowing both little boys and little girls to have role models of their own.

The feminists and the SJWs don’t want that however. They want little boys to lose role models, because they perceive them as all being privileged and having had it too good for too long.

Peter Davison, who played the Fifth Doctor was slandered as a sexist and eventually chased off of social media by feminists, for daring to say that he was unhappy at boys losing a role model in the Doctor.

Peter Davison Quits Twitter Over Toxic Who Fandom

How dare Peter Davison say he’s sad for little boys to lose a hero. Fucking bastard Gammon!

If the SJWs can’t take a role away from male audiences then they will insist on the character being emasculated or weakened.

Examples of this include Luke Skywalker who was famously undermined in Star Wars The Last Jedi, or the original William Hartnell incarnation of the Doctor who was brought back in the first episode to feature Jodie Whittaker, and rewritten into a sexist, homophobic moron.

All of these petty little digs against white men are clearly far more important to the SJWs than actual female empowerment.

The irony is that their constant digs against men are why the majority of both men and women in fandoms HATE SJWs. Men don’t like seeing iconic characters like Luke and the Doctor be made into self loathing males, whilst the majority of women outside of the SJWs little elitist bubble don’t like seeing men get insulted. Most men and women actually like each other. I’d never watch a show where strong female characters like Xena and Buffy were constantly insulted or undermined the way the men are in Supergirl, or the 21st century version of Doctor Who.

Its got nothing to do with people not being able to accept female heroes. Ironically the SJWs are the people who want to systematically attack the representation of one gender, but like all bullies they present themselves as the victims and accuse people of what they are guilty of, IE attacking all postive and strong representations of one gender.

Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that the likes of Claudia Boleyn, Christel Dee, or even Whovian Feminism are psychopathic, man hating feminazis who would never be friends with a man.

I think that they are all young people who have fallen under the influence of a very toxic ideology. One which does at least foster bitterness and resentfulness against men.

This is not about women taking over franchises. Ironically about 95 percent of the people who have brought this SJW nonsense into sci fi and fantasy series are men! Either self loathing men like Steven Moffat or people who don’t really believe it, but think it can make them popular, like Paul Cornell. Many of the most outspoken critics of identity politics meanwhile have been women.

Ultimately this is about a corrosive ideology (that is pushed by just as many men as women.) Having too strong an influence on the entertainment industry.

Its an ideology that harms both men and women in the genre. Not only does it pit them against each other, but it also tears down or replaces all strong roles for men, like Luke Skywalker, the Doctor etc, whilst ironically ensuring that strong roles for women like Xena and Kelly Maxwell are ignored.

We need to therefore always challenge SJWs about what it is they really want. Make them question why if they actually care about representation, they don’t bother watching any female led shows that are out there? That question should always be asked of the likes of Whovian Feminism, Claudia Boleyn and Samuel Davis.

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. Furthermore the work itself will later begin to pander to feminists too, regardless of how it affects it.

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 normalises 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 brutalising 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.

See here.

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault In Doctor Who

Doctor Who Is Racist

Doctor Who Returns New Direction

Problematic Posters For Doctor Who

Steven Moffat Is A Classist

University Study On Sexism On Doctor Who

Steven Moffat And His Problem Representing Women Of Colour

Sadly 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 Tweets Against Accusations Of Sexism

Steven Moffat On Sexism

Stop Assuming I’m A Sexist Demon

Steven Moffat much like the makers of The Killing Joke began to pander to his feminists critics as a result in many ways.

He cast a woman as the Master, the Doctors archenemy, and rewrote him to be in love with the Doctor to pave the way for a female 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.

Finally it was 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 Doctor Who might write a story with a particular political slant its, 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 is 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

SJWs 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 SJWs 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.

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 MRAs 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 1970s. 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 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 80s and through the 90s. They always slandered it as inherently anti women and contributed to its reputation falling.

By the 2010s 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 apologise 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 feminised 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 SJWs 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.

SJWs 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 realise that actually she clearly doesn’t care about representation at all.

If Claudia’s going to call people who don’t like Missy sexist, then by her “logic”. We can call her a self loathing woman for not liking Xena, Buffy, and Charmed over Merlin, Torchwood and Supernatural.

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.

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.

Now again normally I wouldn’t give a shit about how many female heroes someone likes, but it does make me laugh that all of these people who go around telling everybody else “you need to get used to seeing women on the tv”, “its about time that we got to see more female heroes”, “I’m so fed up with seeing heroes be nothing but white men”, NEVER watch anything starring a female lead.

To be honest when they tell they rest of us that we need to get used to seeing female heroes I think they are projecting. They are terrified that actually that applies to them because they prefer male led shows like Doctor Who to any female led one.

Of course again I’m not saying that preferring Doctor Who to Xena or Buffy makes you a sexist, but considering that a lot of these people will accuse you of being a sexist if you don’t like Missy, Jodie Whitaker as the Doctor, then its not so hard to believe that they worry that applies to them too.

Whenever you see someone complain about representation then you can be pretty sure that they don’t actually like that many female led shows. 

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 SJWs 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 and representation for minorities.

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 things, but many nerds are also at the same time not going to want to defend their interests 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,  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.

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.

Why Representation Doesn’t Matter And Saying It Does Is Harmful

Now before I start, one thing I’d like to make clear in this article is that I am not saying that we shouldn’t bother making any new films with female heroes or non white heroes.

Make as many female or black heroes as you want. I don’t care. If they are great I’ll love them.

This article will instead be looking at people who artificially try and bring about representation and force it into everything more for the sake of their own ego than anything else. I will also be looking at how representation though once important in the ongoing struggle for equality, is really no longer an issue at all. I feel we do live in a genuine meritocracy.

I realise that is a controversial stance to take, but I hope you take the time to at least hear me out here and if you disagree? Well then that’s what the comments section is for. Never let it be said that this is an echo chamber for only my opinions

I used to think representation was still important I freely admit. I often talked about how we needed more female heroes and minority heroes in the entertainment industry both here and on other sites. In recent months however I have come to change my position and who knows by the end of this article you may too.

The great irony is that I’ve never actually seen Wil Wheaton talk about or try and bring any attention to any female led series such as Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Once Upon A Time, Resident Evil, Alien, Dark Angel, Dollhouse, Ghost Whisperer or The Bionic Woman. Then again in my experience the people who claim to care about diversity are often the people who actually have the least interest in female led series or films.

Why It Doesn’t Matter And When It Did Matter

That was then. This is now. A phrase the SJW’s seemingly don’t understand.

Representation is one of these third wave feminist complaints that I feel was once legitimate but no longer matters.

Back in the 50’s and the 60’s it was actually important as back then our society was genuinely racist, sexist and homophobic. It was perfectly legal to pay women less for the same work as a man in America until 1963 and in the UK until 1970.

Black people also throughout the 50’s and 60’s were treated as second class citizens in both the UK and the US.

They were segregated from white people in the US, deprived of many basic human rights and there was also widespread support for racist groups like the KKK.

Whilst things were better in the UK, racist attitudes still prevailed. There were signs saying “No Blacks Allowed” plastered everywhere and members of the Tory party such as Peter Griffiths tried to use racist feelings towards black people in order to get elected as late as 1964.

Now remember this was not some fringe group of nutters. This was one of the two main political parties in the UK relying on widespread racist feeling to win an election and promising to impose racist policies once it got in.

Finally homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom until 1967. Right up until it was legalised many of our most beloved entertainers who were secretly gay such as Frankie Howerd were terrified of being found out.

Any form of entertainment that featured women and minorities in strong roles back then was therefore important for a number of reasons.

To start with television series like Star Trek would often be among the few places a black actor or actress could actually get a role that wasn’t just as a maid or a bit part.

Also positive portrayals of women and minorities helped to counteract the genuine racist and sexist propaganda that was everywhere in our society.

A black child who saw a sign saying, “No Blacks Allowed” might feel better about themselves when they read a Dan Dare comic where the main white characters boss was a black man.

Of course that’s not to say these forms of entertainment won the civil rights movement, but they did have their place in the struggle for equality.

Dan Dare, Star Trek the Original Series and Classic Doctor Who, all of which gave strong roles to black characters and female characters were decades ahead of their time. They did break new ground in a lot of ways. Martin Luther King himself said that he felt Star Trek was important and encouraged Nichelle Nicholas not to quit the series.

Times change however. Homosexuality was legalised in 1967, the civil rights movement won, and second wave feminism managed to achieve many notable victories including equal pay for women.

Many third wave feminists still complain about the gender wage gap, but it has been debunked (including by many feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) time and time again. It does exist, but not for the reasons feminists claim.

Similarly there is no rape culture in western society either. Our justice system is far from perfect and sometimes there are horrendous miscarriages of justice (for all crimes, against both genders, not just rape.) Still to say that we live in a culture where rape and abuse of women is encouraged is ridiculous.

Most men in western societies are naturally predisposed towards wanting to help and protect women and rape is rightfully viewed as one of the worst crimes anyone can commit. The actual statistics and studies do not back up any claims of society normalising widespread sexual abuse of women.

Statistics Don’t Back Up Claims of Rape Culture

I’m not saying that our modern society is completely perfect, but the point is that most of the main battles for equality in the west were thankfully won in the later half of the 20th century. Quite frankly its an insult to anyone who did live in genuinely prejudiced times to try and pretend that things are anywhere near as bad today.

As a result of this we started to see more and more positive representation for women and other minorities to the point where by the 21st century I’d say that western audiences didn’t care at all what gender, race or sexuality a character on tv had.

Throughout the 60’s and the 70’s many strong roles for women on film and tv began to pop up such as The Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman 70’s series, Charlies Angels, and the Alien film series. Similarly more leading roles for black people began to emerge on film and tv such as Shaft.

For LGBT people meanwhile from the 70’s on there was more positive forms of representation, such as The Naked Civil Servant, a 1975 BAFTA winning drama which made a star of John Hurt and took us deep into how homophobic British society was. Many of the most popular entertainers and bands such as Queen and David Bowie’s acts had severe LGBT connotations as well.

By the end of the 90’s female heroes dominated the sci fi and fantasy market on television with Buffy, Xena and Charmed all being record breaking successes.

Until it was surpassed recently by Supernatural, Charmed was the longest running American fantasy series, whilst Buffy aside from being one of the longest running genre series was also one of the most influential too.

Xena meanwhile aside from being the most popular show in the world at the height of its success was so popular that they actually named a planet after her, albeit briefly.

On top of that most of theses series had strong roles for LGBT characters, such as Tara and Willow in Buffy, or Xena and Gabrielle themselves.

Other mainstream series such as Will and Grace also revolved around LGBT characters, whilst here in the UK many of our most popular mainstream entertainers such as Alan Carr, Graham Norton and John Barrowman are not only openly gay, but part of their entire act is being gay! On top of that all our most popular soap opera’s such as Coronation Street, Eastenders, etc (which are our most popular tv shows in general) have all had main LGBT characters.

Not exactly the same as the 60’s when Frankie Howerd, one of the most popular entertainers on British tv was scared at the prospect of his sexuality being discovered, as it would have meant the end of his career is it?

Now again I am not saying that this proves that racism, sexism and homophobia are gone completely from our modern society.

However at the same time I think it does go to show that at the very least in the entertainment industry people no longer care about a characters gender, race or sexuality.

Modern western audiences will accept anyone. Hence why Alan Carr in contrast to Frankie Howerd from the 60’s is able to make his sexuality part of his act. Hence why Beyonce is the most popular singer in all of Western society now.

Jay Z and Beyonce Are The Worlds Highest Paid Couple

In fact in both 2015 and 2014, out of the top 10 richest singers in the world, only two were heterosexual, white men, whilst in 2016 only 4 were white, heterosexual men.

See here Top 10 Richest Singers 2016/15/14

Now you might be thinking that there still aren’t as many black people on television as white people. You would be right about that, but that does not mean that it is because audiences or producers hate black people.

It is because there simply aren’t as many black people as there are white people in western society. Tell me how many white people are there in Bollywood films?

In the United Kingdom black people make up just 3 percent of the population. In the US they make up only 12 percent of the whole population, whilst in other western countries like France they make up 3-5 percent of the population and in Germany they are a mere 300,000 of a population which overall consists of 80.62 million people.

There are never going to be as many black people in western television series as white people. That does not mean that audiences will reject any black characters or performers that do appear as demonstrated with the record breaking success of Beyonce, or the enduring popularity of actors like Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and Idris Elba.

The recent Oscars controversy where the award ceremony was accused of racism because it didn’t give as many awards to black performers as white ones was debunked, when it was shown that in proportion to how many black actors there actually were in the entertainment industry: There was a near perfect representation at the Oscars.

See here No the Oscars are not racist

Furthermore I don’t think there is really any racist or sexist propaganda to combat in our society anymore. If a political party were to use a poster that said “if you don’t want a nigger for your neighbour then vote for us.” That would rightfully sink their chances. Similarly if anyone hung a sign that said no blacks allowed outside a pub, then they would be charged with a hate crime.

Representation is only really a useful tool in combating overt prejudice and propaganda. The more subtle kind that people aren’t even aware of needs fought in different ways.

Whenever anyone says “I need to be able to see someone like me on television” I’m sorry but I don’t think that matters anymore.

I myself am part of a minority. I am Scottish. There are barely 5 million Scots in the UK and hey we have a history of being persecuted too such as the Highland Clearances.

However ultimately I, nor any Scots person I have ever known has ever cared about Scottish representation. Growing up, it never bothered me that virtually none of the people I watched on television were like me. I am not trying to virtue signal here, as no one else I knew growing up in Scotland was bothered either. The most popular television series in Scotland have generally tended to be English or American.

Are people going to complain about a lack of Scots voices on television? Are people going to point to the fact that there aren’t nearly as many Scottish heroes or actors as proof that institutionalised racism against us exists?

No of course not because people accept rightfully with us that there aren’t as many Scottish actors because there aren’t as many Scots.

So why then do we not accept that is the case with other minorities such as black people? Well that leads me on to my next point.

Why Do People Still Pretend It Matters?

Frank Hampson, the creator of Dan Dare. 

One of the main reasons I think that people within the entertainment industry keep making out that representation does still matter is because they want to make themselves look better.

Gene Roddenberry, Frank Hampson and Terry Nation all gave strong roles for women and minorities in their work. Terry Nation produced possibly the first ever British genre series starring a woman, The Survivors, whilst both Gene Roddenberry and Frank Hampson presented a future in their most famous works (Dan Dare and Star Trek) where all the nations of the earth lived together. Roddenberry later broke new ground on American television by having the first ever interracial kiss on an American scripted television show.

All three writers and their works are still praised today for how progressive they were, and personally I think a lot of modern writers who harp on about representation just want to be seen in the same way. The only problem for them is, times have move on.

Nowadays audiences are completely accepting of black and female characters. Back in the 50’s, Frank Hampson could be controversial simply by having a black character, or a woman being a leading scientist. Even in the middle of the 60’s Gene Roddenberry could break new ground simply by having a black woman and a white man kiss.

Today would anyone even notice if there was a black character who was a scientist? Or if a black woman and a white man kissed each other on tv?

As a result these modern writers who want the kudos Gene Roddenberry got therefore have to lie that things are just as bad as they were in the 60’s, so that simply casting a black actor can be seen as a groundbreaking and brave thing.

Everybody wants to be Gene Roddenberry.

J.J. Abrams I feel is an example of someone like this. In this interview here, Abrams says he was disgusted by the fact that most of the actors at an award ceremony were white, and so he was going to rectify the “problem”.

See here J.J. Abrams On Diverse Star Wars Cast

The thing is the policy that Abrams has employed is to start with racist itself. He openly admitted to refusing to hire someone based on their skin colour.

Also I feel that its terrible to lump all whites together as privileged people who never suffer racism.

Ironically white skinned people have been the victims of some of the worst genocides and slave trades in the history of mankind, such as the 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust.

Image result for white slaves Islam

White Slaves of Barbary

On top of this even today white people are still victims of racism.

The victims of the recent grooming gang scandal in the United Kingdom, (which is the largest sexual abuse scandal the UK has ever seen,) were targeted specifically because they were white.

Here read this article were one of the perpetrators outright says that he considers white women to be nothing but trash.

White Women Are Only Good For One Thing

As A Grooming Gang Survivor I Was Called A White Slag

Ironically Frank Hampson and Gene Roddenberry didn’t simply write all white people off as being privileged. Roddenberry had among his crew a Russian, as at that point due to the cold war era paranoia there was plenty of hostile feeling towards Russians in America too. Checkov was designed to counteract this “Russophobia” as much as Uhura was meant to counteract the racism from organisations like the KKK.

In the UK meanwhile during the 50’s there was wide spread racism against the Irish, and Dan Dare counteracted this by having there be an Irish member of Dan’s team, Lex O’Mailey.

Roddenberry and Hampson cared about combating prejudices against all groups of people, white or not. The reason for this was because I feel that their desire for representation came from a genuine desire to help marginalised groups, rather than to simply virtue signal to their Hollywood friends like Abrams.

I might be doing Abrams a disservice, but his anger at the casting room being white just sounds so manufactured and for show. Also I don’t get what it is he thinks he is combating?

Does he really think that casting a black actor is going to be a big deal? If so he’s the one ironically living in the 50’s.

Was there any controversy over this movie where the two main heroes were black? Nope, so why would Abrams think he is breaking new ground by having a non white hero, 20 years later!

Sadly Abrams is not alone in this train of thought.

Emma Thompson recently after the famous no black actors at the Oscars controversy claimed that the Oscars are all decided by racist white men and even made a joke about how she would love to kill them all slowly.

Thing is it didn’t seem to bother her when she was winning an Oscar back in 1993.

Say what you will about Marlon Brando, but he stuck to his guns. He felt there was racism in Hollywood, so he outright refused to accept an Oscar.

Thompson on the other hand? She’s happy to accept one when it furthers her career, but then when its trendy to complain about the lack of diversity in Hollywood, she stabs the people helped boost her career in 1993 in the back.

Russell T Davies the producer of Doctor Who from 2005-10, I feel also falls under this category. He blasted a rival science fiction series called Primeval simply for having an all white cast.

Russell T Davies Blasts Primeval For All White Cast

Considering that Primeval is made and produced in the United Kingdom, its not so surprising that most or all of its cast would be white. Its not like there are no black people in it.

I very much doubt that the producers of Primeval turned down great black actors for their main characters because they were black. I believe that they cast all of the leads in Primeval because they thought they were the best actors for those characters.

Now I am sure Russell who never had a bad word to say about the cast (in fact he said the show all around was excellent) would agree. So what did he want the makers of Primeval to do then? Not to cast actors they thought were the best for those roles, simply because of the colour of their skin? That not a little… racist?

Some of the people who claim representation in the media matter may also do so out of fear too. Steven Moffat, Doctor Who’s current producer I think is an example of this. He has recently begun to go on about representation being important, but I think this is more to do with the severe feminist backlash he endured over his work being sexist.

I personally don’t think there was anything even remotely sexist about Steven Moffat’s work on Doctor Who or anything else. Sadly in this current “lets get offended by everything” climate he was tarred with that brush by the mainstream media, and since then he has by a bizarre coincidence become obsessed with representation.

Others meanwhile I think use representation not just to get kudos from their Hollywood elite pals, and the mainstream media, but to actively further their own careers. Nowadays a lot of people like to sell their product based on the fact that it has great representation for someone.

Take a look at the latest Ghostbusters movie. It was pretty much sold on being a film about female empowerment and representation. Even before the backlash began. Take a look at this publicity picture.

I have no objection clearly to an all female franchise. Look at Xena. The two leads are women, and most of her rogues and supporting cast are women too.

Xena however could stand on more than just being a “girl power” show. Sadly in the case of the Ghostbusters  the director Paul Feig was aware that being a remake of a much beloved 80’s classic, there was a danger that people would just dismiss it as yet another pointless reboot. So in order to counteract this inevitable criticism, Paul focused on the whole “its for representation” thing to sell it to audiences and also make it immune to criticism.

As we all know it backfired considerably. Even if the publicity team hadn’t gone to the effort of tarring all of their critics as sexist, then the simple fact that the movies main feature was that it offered representation wouldn’t have worked either..

Why would anyone think in this day and age that simply having female heroes was anything special? I grew up on nothing but female heroes.

Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Dark Angel, Heroic Trio,  Kill Bill, Nikita, Once Upon A Time, Charlie’s Angels, Alien film series, Wonder Woman tv series, Bionic Woman, Earth 2, Star Trek Voyager, The Dead and the Deadly, Tru Calling, Dollhouse, Underworld film series, Scream film series, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, 1,2, 5 and H20, Ghost Whisperer, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, Day of the Dead, The Bride with White Hair, Terminator 1 and 2, Jessica Jones,  Survivors (original and remake), and Resident Evil.

Added to that there are plenty of shows about a male and female hero such as The X-Files, and The Avengers. Even in certain male led series such as Red Dwarf and Futurama, the female character is still the strongest, most intelligent and capable, like Leela and Kochanski.

So really with this in mind why would Ghostbusters 2016 stand out as anything important just for having female heroes? Answer, it wouldn’t, but Paul Feig is still going to pretend that it does to flog his otherwise mediocre remake of a beloved film. Lets be honest it had absolutely nothing else going for it.

Paul Feig I think shot himself in the foot, head and various other places career wise with the way he tried to promote this film.

Other people meanwhile who are career feminists like Anita Sarkeesian still make out that representation matters for the same reason they still cling on to other outdated examples of sexism. They need naive young people to believe sexism is everywhere, not just simply to further their careers like Paul Feig, but because it is the basis for their entire career overall.

If she wasn’t complaining about things being sexist, what would Anita Sarkeesian do for a living? Frank Hampson and Gene Roddenberry would still be iconic sci fi writers, even J.J. Abrams and Paul Feig would still be big shot directors. Anita however?

She needs the patriarchy for cash.

The great irony to this is that sexism is still a problem in many countries around the world, but people like Sarkeesian won’t comment on it. There is no money involved in that and they are too scared.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking out against Islamic countries treatment of women has received death threats and is forced to walk around with body guards.

People like Sarkeesian and big shot film directors however for all their talk of being “social justice warriors” would much rather pick a battle that has already been won and white knight over that to bask in the feminist and progressive praise, and if possible make a little bit of money out of it, but when it comes to tackling actual sexism? They are to put it bluntly, too shit scared to say a thing.

The great irony is as well that these people wouldn’t be pushing representation like Gene Roddenberry, Frank Hampson and Terry Nation were in the 50s and 60s. They all risked their careers and reputations in the process. The likes of Feig and Sarkeesian who only care about forwarding their careers would never take that risk

Now you might think, even if that is true, what difference does it make? Well that leads to my next point.

The Harm Still Caring About Representation Causes

Its a distraction

Related image

Representation I feel is often used by actual right wingers as a way of presenting themselves as left wing. They can distract us from the fact that nothing about the status quo is going to change. (It may even get worse) by saying “Look we have a woman/black person/LGBT person in a prominent position now, so that proves we’re moving forward even though we’re not.)

A notable example of this includes Hillary Clinton’s recent disastrous campaign for President. Hillary Clinton was quite possibly the biggest war monger in US politics.

She voted in favour of the war in Iraq, a potential war with Iran in 2005, destablised Honduras, overthrew Gaddaffi in Libya (which plunged the country into Anarchy and led to a global refugee crisis and the rise of Isis.) Clinton also wanted to impose a no fly zone over Syria which could have led to a conflict between the US and Russia.

HIllary Clinton: The Hawk and the Honduran Coup

The very idea that anyone would consider her a viable option for President is laughable. Yet Hillary was presented as the progressive candidate simply because she was a woman, and therefore would have been the first ever female President.

Never mind that Hillary Clinton is a danger to the planet, the fact that she’s a middle aged woman, and I’m a middle aged woman means you have to vote for her so I’ll be represented. Not at all a narcissistic view to have.

Obama meanwhile was no different. Hailed as an incredibly progressive choice because he was the first black President. Obama continued all of the war mongering foreign policies of his white predecessors, but the fact that it was now a black man deporting people, killing civilians with drones and starting illegal wars meant that it was apparently still more progressive.

War Mongering Obama

This just goes to show why representation shouldn’t be made out to be a big deal in the modern world, as ultimately it can be used as a way to not only dupe us into thinking things are changing, when they haven’t, but also as a way of silencing people.

John Pilger a genuinely left leaning journalist was famously ostracised by many on the left for daring to criticise Obama’s hawkish policies, as they viewed it as harmful to black representation.

John Pilger brilliantly runs through many examples of war mongers and right wingers in politics using representation as a shield against criticism.

It causes people to define themselves by their sexuality, race and gender

Image result for Claudia Boleyn

Representation is always presented to minorites as something they need in order to enjoy a particular product. If a character is gay/black or a woman, then gay/black or female viewers will automatically have to enjoy that character the most.

Now fair enough there are differences between men and women. I’m not saying that one is superior to the other, but there are differences, and therefore there are times where casting a woman or a man will bring a completely different dynamic to a work.

Similarly if a work of fiction is set in the past, or a less enlightened culture like Saudi Arabia, then making a character gay or an ethnic minority might bring a different dynamic to it aswell.

However the way representation is pushed nowadays makes it appear that gay and black audiences can ONLY enjoy a character if they are gay or black. This in turn essentially encourages minorities to define themselves solely by their minority status and nothing else.

Maybe, just maybe a gay viewer might not care about a characters sexuality? Maybe a gay man’s favourite hero is someone like James T Kirk for different reasons other than who he wants to sleep with? Maybe a gay character might look up to Batman because he is brave, noble and resourceful rather than because of who he wants to sleep with.

One of my favourite heroes is Xena, a bisexual female hero. How can that be if we have to see ourselves in every character on screen?

Ultimately whilst there should be no taboos about having LGBT characters or black characters, constantly making out that you have to have them, or else minorities can’t enjoy something just leads to gay and black people being seen as nothing but gay and black people, by themselves and everyone around them.

Imagine if I were to decide that I couldn’t enjoy Batman because he wasn’t Scottish. That was the one part of my personality that defined me to the point where unless Batman was Scottish I would be unhappy? Imagine if I got to the point where what I needed from a character the most was being Scottish over having say an interesting backstory, a compelling rogues gallery, exciting love interests etc? People would view that in a negative way, but when it comes to sexuality and skin colour its suddenly seen as a positive?

Ultimately no audience should be defined by one characterstic. You can’t just be expected to satisfy gay audiences by crowbarring in a gay character, but sadly that is what those who push representation encourage. If you’re gay the first thing you should care about is who a character sleeps with in order to like them.

It has compromised many television series and films

I feel that many writers and producers nowadays often focus on representation above other important things like you know actually having a story.

The latest Ghostbusters film as a classic example of this. Its plot is paper thin. Its monsters are dull and uninspiring. The main focus of the film was simply that it was offering women representation. As a result of this not only were the monsters just tossed in as an after thought, but the films jokes and dialogue tended to focus on the fact that its leads were women more than anything else.

“I don’t know if this is a lady thing or a black thing but I’m mad as hell!”

Added to that when you care about filling diversity quota’s above all else then you don’t always end up hiring the best actors, actresses, or writers either.

Take a look at Doctor Who, the worlds longest running science fiction series.

Steven Moffat recently cast a woman as the Doctors archenemy the Master. The only reason Steven Moffat did this was for representation. Not only did he want to give women a strong role via the Master, but he also hoped that a female Master would pave the way for a female Doctor too.

Moffat however went one step further by having the female Master, Missy be actively in love with the Doctor, again for LGBT representation. This was a complete betrayal to what the character was meant to stand for.

Colin Baker who played the 6th Doctor sums up the appeal of the Master brilliantly in this quote.

“My favourite enemy is the Master, because Sherlock Holmes has his Moriarty, and while most monsters have no particular desire to destroy the Doctor, the good thing about the Master is that it’s a personal matter, so there’s great opportunity for confrontation.”

However now all of that has been tossed in the bin, as the female Master is in love with the Doctor and actually wants to win him back as her boyfriend more than anything else.

The Master in the 1970’s. A relentless and implacable foe of the Doctor that simply would not rest even as his world was crumbling apart around him until he had killed his archenemy. 

The Master in the 2010’s after feminists managed to get their claws into the Doctor Who franchise. Anyone who says she’s believable as the villain in the above video is A/ lying B/ an SJW or C/ has never seen Classic Who. 

Furthermore in addition to this the Masters other main motivation aside from killing the Doctor was to conquer the Universe. Missy however does not seek any kind of power as all she cares about is winning the Doctor, her “boyfriend” back. In fact in her first appearance, she gives up an army of unbeatable Cybermen just to win the Doctor back!

Its terrible to essentially throw out the Masters main motivation and development as a character as it basically makes it look like it didn’t matter.

Its like rewriting it that Magneto doesn’t care about Mutants rights and that his main motivation was to fuck Jean Grey instead.

Also I might add its a huge come down for the Master too. Before this used to be a villain that was desperate to reshape all of creation in his own image, where as now he is relegated to being basically the heroes jealous ex?

Finally on top of ruining the character Steven Moffat’s need for representation also led to him casting an actress who was not right for the Master.

Michelle Gomez who played the female Master, Missy is a good actress but she wasn’t right for the character of the Master, because, well he’s a man! It would be like casting Jack Nicholson as say Supergirl. Yeah Jack is great, but he wouldn’t exactly be right for that part.

Imagine that you are the casting director for Doctor Who series 8 and you are told that the Master will be returning to the show and you have to cast that character. Now leaving aside representation, political correctness etc, imagine you are casting this character based 100 percent on who the right actor for the role is.

Remember THIS is the character of the Master.

Okay that’s the character. Now who are you going to cast, based on who is the right person for the role out of these 6 actors. Charles Dance, Simon Templeman (voice of Doctor Doom), Robert Carlyle, David Warner (voice of Ra’s Al Ghul), Jason Watkins and Michelle Gomez.

I don’t think there is ANYONE who would cast her in the role over those 5 guys based solely on who was the best for the part.

The only reason that Michelle was miscast as the Master and that the Master was made into the Doctors lover instead of his archenemy was all for representation.

I might add that since Doctor Who started to pander to the need for representation, then its viewers have sunk.

See here. Doctor Who’s Ratings Fall To Record Low

Comic books have also suffered greatly for this desperate need for representation too. Marvel have begun to replace many of their male characters with female ones. Wolverine, Tony Stark and Thor have all been replaced with female counterparts as part of a move to bring greater diversity to the Marvel universe.

Now understandably many fans have been upset with this. Not because they can’t stand female heroes, but because they like these characters and therefore don’t want to see them be replaced with other people.

There have been examples of these characters being replaced by other men, and the fans not liking them, such as Damian Wayne taking over from Bruce Wayne or Doc Ock taking over from Peter Parker as Spider-Man.

Still just like with the Ghostbusters movie, anyone who doesn’t like this trend has been called a sexist. The female Thor was even given a strawman anti feminist to fight.

In a time when Marvels readers should be higher than ever due to the mainstream success of the movies, they are enduring record losses instead.

Comics You Have Your Diversity So Why Aren’t You Buying Them

Why Female Thor Is Selling So Poorly

Its got nothing to do with readers rejecting female heroes in general. If that were the case why did larger audiences lap up Xena and Buffy and Charmed and Once Upon A Time? Why does the Wonder Woman trailer have a near universal approval rating? Its because people don’t want their favourite heroes replaced for some bullshit diversity.

Marvel don’t care however. They simply want to get brownie points for diversity. Introducing a new character however takes time and effort to make them one of the all time popular characters.  Wolverine for instance was introduced much later than many of the rest of the X-Men, and he ended up becoming the most popular one, but only after, many, many years and writers.

It provides terrible representation for minorities

Ironically I feel that casting actors for diversity is a terrible way to represent people. Its essentially saying that the only way they can succeed is if the system is rigged for them rather than on their own merit.

Take a look at this example from the New Doctor Who. Here Steven Moffat has openly said he cast the new companion Pearl Mackie solely to have a black actress in the show.

Steven Moffat on Doctor Who Diversity: We Need To Do Better

Now I am not saying Pearl Mackie will be a bad companion. I haven’t seen her in action yet. For all I know she might be good, but sadly Steven Moffat has said before she even has a chance to start that she is only there to tick boxes.

I had this baffling idea that if we just threw open each part to everybody then it would all work out in the end. I put my faith inexplicably in the free market. It doesn’t work. You’ve got to gauge where you’re looking for the talent“.

-Steven Moffat on casting Pearl Mackie

How can anyone say that that is good for black people? Apparently black people can’t ever succeed when being forced into a fair competition with white people. So Moffat had to exclude all white people, or “gauge” where he got the talent from in order to cast a black person?

And what has been accomplished by doing that? A black actor is now in Doctor Who? Yeah its not like its ever had a black companion before is it?

I honestly don’t think that you have to give black actors any role for representation. Black actors in the modern world, can get any part (excluding certain historical figures) they want. Provided they are right for it.

Look at Red Dwarf, a classic British sci fi comedy where half the cast is black (and again no one noticed!)

Originally Alan Rickman was considered for the role of Dave Lister. Rickman was eager to play the role. He called the script one of the most original and intelligent scripts he had ever seen.

However Craig Charles a black man won the role, simply because he was the best man for the part.

Alan Rickman was one of the greatest British actors, but he would not have been good as Lister. His portrayal of Lister would have been a posh, somewhat uptight character, which would have been too similar to Arnold Rimmer, Lister’s bunk mate.

Craig Charles however brought a slobbish, blokish, every day quality to Lister which contrasted wonderfully with the prissy uptight Rimmer and created a perfect odd couple squabbling brothers dynamic.

So yes in the open market a black guy did beat a white guy because he was the best for the role. I might add the black guy Craig Charles wasn’t even really an actor. He was a poet! A fucking poet beat out one of the most acclaimed, and versatile actors for the role of a lead in a sitcom because he was the best person for the part, and race didn’t enter into it for either.

Now I don’t think Red Dwarf is such a special show. Don’t get me wrong I adore it, but what I mean is I don’t think that its makers are the only non racist people in the entertainment industry. In fact I think that its probably typical in terms of how things are cast. The best actor gets the gig. Who gives a fuck about skin colour? The best person for the job is the only fair way to do it.

Also more importantly I feel that when these characters are there to be “the black character” or “the female character” then they are often written as such which is terrible.

Look at Class the recent Doctor Who spin off whose creator Patrick Ness has often spoken about how important representation is.

Patrick Ness “The Only People Who Don’t Think Representation Matters Are The People Who Have Always Been Represented

Patrick Ness “Lack of LGBT Representation Bothers Me

Now Class’s black character Tanya Adeola, often complains about white people, and how lucky they are. Compare her to Lister from Red Dwarf, who has many fights with Rimmer, his white bunk mate, yet not once is either men’s race mentioned.

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.

LISTER: You never said much about your father.
LISTER: You must have been pretty close.
RIMMER: Close.
LISTER: Was it very close?
RIMMER: Close. (Pause) I hated him. I detested his fat stupid guts, the
pop-eyed, balding git.
RIMMER: He always wanted to join the Space Corps — be an officer. But
they wouldn’t take him because he was an inch below regulation height.
One inch. I had three brothers. When we were young he bought a
traction machine so that he could stretch us. By the time my brother
Frank was eleven he was six foot five. Every morning he’d measure us
and if we hadn’t grown, back on the rack.
LISTER: Sounds like he had a screw loose.
RIMMER: I don’t think he had one screw fully tightened, to be perfectly
honest with you. He had this fixation that we all had to get into the
Space Corps. At meal times he’d ask us questions on astronavigation.
If we got them wrong — no food.
LISTER: God, Rimmer, how did you cope with that?
RIMMER: I didn’t. I nearly died of malnutrition.
LISTER: I had no idea. I thought you adored your parents.
RIMMER: When I was fourteen I divorced them.
RIMMER: I took them to court. I got paid maintenance until employment
age and access every fourth weekend to the family dog.
LISTER: So why are you so completely blown away about him dying then?
RIMMER: Oh, it doesn’t mean to say I don’t respect him, didn’t look up to
him. It was only natural — he was my father.
LISTER: There’s nothing natural about your family, Rimmer.
RIMMER: It’s just I always wanted just once, just once, for him to say to
me, “well done.”
LISTER: For what?
RIMMER: For something, for anything. I wanted him to be proud of me,
just once.

See what I mean? Which black character comes off as more likable there?

The funny thing is Lister and Rimmer normally hate each other. Yet Lister still shows Rimmer more empathy and compassion than Tanya shows to someone who is meant to be her best friend!

Needless to say if I were black I’d not only despise Tanya. I’d actually find it offensive, that Patrick Ness thought how black people wanted to be represented on tv was as whiny, self obsessed racists who still see someone whose dad tried to kill them as being privileged, simply because they’re white!

I also find a phrase like “typical white person happy ending” to be without doubt the most racist phrase ever used in Doctor Who. I’m sure any of the grooming gang survivors would have really appreciated that episode Patrick Ness. Or do they not deserve representation?

Similarly compare these scenes from Xena a show by people who didn’t care about representation, only in making a fun, camp, adventure series, to the modern day version of Supergirl, a show by people who care a lot about representation.

Which one of these two series do you think has better female characters?

The great irony is that when you highlight how great it is that you have black or female leading characters in the actual work itself, it actually looks like it belongs in the 50’s more than something that doesn’t have that diverse a cast like Primeval.

When you look at something from the 50’s or 60’s like say Dan Dare you can see how its more aware that it has female or minority heroes than a later progressive work like Once Upon A Time is.

For instance Professor Peabody, Dan’s leading female scientist often has to deal with sexism from people who don’t take her seriously in her profession because of her gender. That was okay for the time it was released in 1950. Back then it was genuinely unusual for audiences to see a woman in that kind of role.

A woman would also genuinely struggle in the real world to be taken seriously in the type of profession Peabody was in back then too, so having her shut down Sir Hubert’s sexism was a good thing and represented real problems women would have endured.

However that was the point by the time of Red Dwarf and Xena as we have seen no one cared anymore about a woman being the hero, or a black guy being the main character. So Xena didn’t need to say “Hey look how amazing it is that there is a woman hero” and similarly Red Dwarf has never even mentioned Lister’s race or the fact that he and his main love interest, Kristine Kochanski are in an interracial relationship.

Now however things like Supergirl and Class have actually dragged us back to the 50’s where everybody has to act amazed at the prospect of a female hero and the female hero has to remind us that she is a woman all the time, and every black character has to tell us how hard it is being black, and how every white person is lucky to be white.

If you’ve set something in the 50’s or a less enlightened time then fair enough, you will most likely have to comment on the racism and the sexism of the time if you’re hero is a woman or minority. The likes of Supergirl and Class are set in modern day however, so they have no excuse.

It leads to people being fired

In an effort for greater diversity, certain companies have begun to fire white men from their jobs in order to give minorities more opportunities.

Here are some examples.

Now Presenter Fired For Diversity

Man Fired From Autumn Watch For Being Too White

I find it funny in a way that people like Gene Roddenberry and Terry Nation were able to give women and black people strong and heroic roles in genuinely racist and sexist times without having to fire people from their jobs. In the modern world meanwhile where there is a true meritocracy, the BBC still can’t give minorities jobs without employing racist policies towards white people.

No one is entitled to a job based on skin colour or gender. No one deserves to be excluded from one either whether they are white or black.


I have no problem with television series starring non whites. Some of my absolute all time favourite series star female characters. Still at the same time something that has a cast made up of one gender, such as Supernatural, or Xena, or Charmed, or Bottom, or Ab Fab, does not deserve to be called sexist, or changed to be artificially more diverse

Diversity and representation only matters if we are living in a time when people are being excluded and treated as inferiors because of who they are.

Ultimately however whilst I am not saying our society is perfect, thankfully we have moved on from the dark days of the 60’s and the 70’s. I feel that in the entertainment industry at least and in terms of what audiences are willing to accept, we do live in a society where any type of person can be accepted.

Representation has served its purpose in the fight for equality. Its time just to let the meritocracy judge everyone in a fair way and try and find other ways to tackle the still very real prejudice in the world today.

Let me know what you think in the comments below.

Why Third Wave Feminism and Social Justice Warriors Have Ruined Doctor Who

Doctor Who has sadly in the last 3 or so years begun to pander to third wave feminists, like many other forms of popular entertainment. This in my opinion has been to the detriment of not only the show’s quality overall, but its success too.

Now I have tried to be positive with Doctor Who as it is my favourite show. I do not hate Moffat era Who in general. I praised the 11th Doctors era. Even after series 8, I still tried to look at things in a fair and balanced way and wrote an article defending Moffat called “Has Steven Moffat Ruined Doctor Who” that looked at all the great things he has done for the show. Ultimately however I feel this problem of feminist pandering has gotten too big and so I have to comment on it.

Doctor Who’s History with Feminism

Feminism in general is not a problem for Doctor Who. I have no problems with First Wave or Second Wave feminism. They were genuinely worthy movements that did actually accomplish a lot for female suffrage.

Many people who would have identified with first and second wave feminism worked on Classic Who and even helped to create it.

Verity Lambert, the shows first producer was a feminist. She not only helped create the show itself, but she cast William Hartnell the first Doctor and championed the first ever Dalek story when the creator of the series Sydney Newman didn’t want to do it.

Terry Nation meanwhile who created the Daleks was also if not a feminist had very feminist leanings. He included strong roles for women in all of his Doctor Who stories, he planned to produce a Dalek spin off series that would have starred a woman, he did later produce the first ever British genre series to star a woman, Survivors in the 70’s. He later said that he was proud to have struck a blow for woman’s lib this way.

In his later series Blake’s 7 he created one of the most famous female characters of all time, the villainous Servalan.

Feminism in general is not bad for the show. Third wave feminism however has proven to be a cancer for it.

Third wave feminism has often been criticised for being too upper middle class, focusing on first world problems in the west, instead of the still rampant sexism in the middle east, victimizing women and promoting strong anti men feeling among young women too.

Many old school feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Ayan Hirsi Ali have criticised aspects of third wave feminism. If you have time you should look at Christina Hoff Sommers video series “the factual feminist” which provides some very interesting critiques of third wave feminism.

Sadly whilst many feminists consider third wave feminism a joke, I feel that it has had a very negative influence on many aspects of our culture, particularly the entertainment industry.

Doctor Who has been one of many forms of entertainment to fall victim to third wave feminism along with Comic Books and Video Games.

Doctor Who however I feel began to pander to third wave feminists to some extent from the start of its revival in 2005. It’s obviously gotten much worse in the Steven Moffat era, but sadly I think there was always a bit of a feminist agenda in the new series.

Russell T Davies who brought the show back and served as its producer from 2005-09, I feel was something of a social justice warrior. For those of you who don’t know what that term means; Social Justice Warrior or SJW is an ironic term for someone who sees sexism and racism all over the place but does nothing to combat genuine prejudice.

SJW’s in a nutshell.

Now I don’t think Russell T Davies is one of the worst examples of a social justice warrior, but he has had a history of saying ridiculous things. For instance, he once blasted rival ITV science fiction series Primeval for having an all white cast, stating that its lack of ethnicity was “shameful”.

Maybe the producers of Primeval didn’t care about the ethnicity of their actors and cast them solely because they thought they were the best actors for the role?  Remember that white people do still make up the overwhelming majority of people in the United Kingdom.

2 percent of the population are black so its not surprising that we are going to see more tv series with white people as the leads. Yes I am happy to see things like Blade that do give black people strong roles but at the same time I am not going to call the makers of a British series that has an all white cast racist either. Again I think that the fact that Russell T Davies did shows he is the type who is desperate to see racism everywhere.

The original Doctor Who series was often slated for being sexist, particularly during the wilderness years in the 90’s. Really I think this accusation stemmed simply from hack journalists who attacked Doctor Who because it was an easy target, an old, cheap, sci fi show, and the fact that it simply had a male lead.

I’m not saying that there wasn’t some sexism in Old Who, but by and large it was a show that was decades ahead of its time in its portrayal of women.

It had a string of incredibly strong, interesting and brave female characters throughout its entire run.

There was Barbara a middle aged, non sexualized strong woman who saved the day many times, Vicki a genius from the future, Sara Kingdom a Dalek resistance fighter, Zoe another genius and competent hand to hand combatant, and Liz yet another genius scientist.

Jo Grant has often been seen as a sexist character because she was less intelligent, but that was simply for practical reasons. The producers felt that a genius scientist like Liz would have no need to ask the Doctor what was going on, as she would have figured it out herself. Part of the role of the companion is to ask the Doctor questions so he can explain what is going on to the viewers.

Still Jo was depicted as brave and resourceful. Particularly in stories such as The Three Doctors, Frontier in Space and Planet of the Daleks.

Sarah meanwhile was a very strong character who later proved capable of holding her own series which lasted for 5 years, whist Leela who came after Sarah was a tough warrior woman who enjoyed killing things. Leela’s replacement Romana was actually shown to be the Doctors superior in terms of technical knowledge. She had less experience than him and the two balanced each other out quite well. At the end of her time in the series she leaves for adventures of her own in E-Space and K9 the Doctors pet joins her instead of him.

We also have Teegan, a gobby Australian and Nyssa another scientist and finally Ace a badass weapons expert who blows up Daleks, beats them up with baseball bats and kills Cybermen with sling shots!

Yes there were some damsels in distress in Classic Who, but there were plenty of cowardly, weak male characters too.

Adric wasn’t exactly Bruce Lee? Turlough similarly was at times a miserable coward who in Warriors of the Deep is happy to leave the Doctor to die, whilst Teegan is desperate to still try and save him.

Then there is Harry Sullivan who though brave is a total buffoon and the butt of many jokes throughout his brief time on the show.

If anything I think that Classic Who had the perfect balance of strong male and female characters. It wasn’t a case of the men were all perfect, dashing, men’s men and the women were all screaming damsels. At the same time however it wasn’t just a case of the men were all mangina’s and bumbling idiots compared to the always wise and wonderful women.

You have a healthy mix of strong and brave men and women, and plenty of normal men and women, and plenty of scared and weak men and women throughout the series. You also have plenty of non sexualized male and female characters with Barbara and the Brig being non sexualized and obviously Jamie and Leela being the sexualized examples.

I’ve noticed however that people only tend to pick out the negative female examples. They’ll bring up Leela as proof the show sexualized all of its female leads, but not Jamie. They’ll bring up Victoria a scared female character as proof that all women were weak in the show, whilst ignoring the likes of Barbara and again weak male characters like Adric and Turlough.

Personally I don’t think there was anything sexist about weaker female characters like Victoria anyway. After all how would you expect a pampered, teenage, rich Victorian girl to react when she is menaced by a monster from outer space?  It would be silly if she instantly Xena’d the monster. Similarly how would you expect a skinny, nerdy guy like Adric to react when being menaced by a monster?

Leela meanwhile who is a warrior does kick the monsters ass. She knifes Sontarans to death, Romana and the Rani meanwhile who are time lords are in some ways smarter than the Doctor and the Master. It’s not a question of men are always stronger and smarter than women in Classic Who. Men and women who are from backgrounds where they will naturally be stronger, like Leela who is a warrior, and the Brig who is a soldier are as strong as each other, whilst men and women who come from backgrounds where they won’t be great fighters like Victoria and Adric aren’t.

Sadly despite this the show was often attacked for being sexist simply because it had man as the leading character. Take a look at this article here which states that Doctor Who is structurally sexist simply for having a male hero and a female sidekick.

The Depressing Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

I find that television series with male leads can’t escape being called sexist by SJW’s. If its a male lead with a female sidekick then its sexist, but if its two male leads like Supernatural then its still sexist because there are no roles for women in it.

It is also true that third wave feminists not only have an anti men sentiment,  but they also actively want any sub culture or any form of entertainment that men might enjoy more than women to become feminized or die completely.

The fact is there are certain interests that men and women may be more drawn too more than the other sex. There are differences between men and women. It doesn’t mean we aren’t equal, but the differences do exist and certain activities may appeal to certain genders more. It doesn’t mean that either men or women are excluded from one, though over time the industries may cater more towards a certain demographic that they know is more likely to buy their product.

Video Games for example, whilst I am not saying there are no women who like them, there are definitely more male gamers. Meanwhile there are more women interested in fashion than men and the fashion industry is more female dominated as a result. Ironically there is a wage gap between male and female models but no-one ever wants to talk about that.

Women Models Make More Than Male Models.

Yet third wave feminists will often complain if there is anything that men might like more as being a horrible little boys club and do all they can to change it. Here’s Paul Cornell, an outspoken feminist’s attempt to try and get more women to be interested in comic books using his 50/50 policy wherein he will demand that every comic book panel be made up of half men and women.

Paul Cornell Panel Parity

The most famous example of third wave feminism’s attack on a male sub culture is the feminists like Anita Sarkeesian’s war on video games. You should watch this excellent video Christina Hoff Sommers did on the feminist war on games and how people like Anita Sarkeesian essentially just want video game culture to die and sadly are succeeding.

Now I actually don’t think sci fi is something that only men are interested in. Doctor Who in particular at one point in the mid 80’s even had a larger female fanbase in the USA (where its audience was bigger, 9 million viewers vs 7 million in the UK, plus the American Doctor Who fan club was seen as the largest in the world).

Still it was often seen by hack journalists (many of whom never watched it) as being something that only little boys would like simply again because it had a male hero. As a result it endured the same fate as video games of having feminists wanting it to be more female oriented. Like many prominent figures in the video game industry, the people behind Doctor Who started listening to them (or were already that way inclined like RTD) and the result in some ways was a disaster.

When Doctor Who came back Russell T Davies was adamant that the revival wasn’t going to be sexist like the original. He insisted that the female companion would be every bit as strong as the Doctor.

Take a look at this video with Christopher Eccelston where he talks about getting rid of the sexism from Old Doctor Who. Funny how he also admitted he never watched Doctor Who so again this is someone just going on received wisdom that Old Who must have been sexist because it starred a male hero.

The result of this was the Doctor being completely emasculated during the RTD era.

He saves the day in just two stories in Christopher Eccelston’s series and he saves the day in less than half of his stories in the David Tennant era. Most of the time its his companions or guest characters that save the day. In 4 season finale’s produced during the RTD era, the Doctor saves the day in just 1.

That’s bad for any work of fiction to have the main hero constantly get saved by their companion. Imagine if Robin solved every one of Batman’s cases. You’d not only start to think “why isn’t this thing called Robin” but you’d also think that the main character was incompetent and weak too.

Its not just that the Doctor fails to save the day however he is completely humiliated and even insulted by his female companions regularly. In the first episode, whilst the Doctor stands at the side completely helpless, Rose swings down and kicks the Auton into the Nestene Consciousness, which destroys the Auton invasion. She later tells the Doctor that he was useless compared to her and he meekly agrees.

In The Unquiet Dead the Doctor causes the problem which Rose warns him against. In the season 1 finale meanwhile, Rose turns herself into a goddess and blasts all the Daleks to dust.

Despite his big macho “I’M GONNA WIPE EVERY SINGLE DALEK OUT OF THE SKY!” the Doctor actually doesn’t kill a single Dalek in that episode. In fact the 9th Doctor is the only Doctor barring the 8th (who never met them on tv), never to kill a Dalek on screen.

In season 3 meanwhile they make out that that the Doctor without Rose there to help him is insane as seen when he drowns the Racnoss. It’s in series 4 however that the Doctor suffers the worst humiliation of his entire career.

Donna Noble his female companion gains his powers and abilities and uses them better than he does. Worse better than two versions of him. The whole point of the story is that the Doctor would not have been able to stop the Daleks and Davros, so Dalek Caan a renegade Dalek manipulates events in order for Donna to gain his powers and use them in a much better way than he could.

Donna outright tells the Doctor that he has been useless all of these years, and that she can do things he would never have done and she’s shown to be right! Two Doctors trail behind her like losers.

See what I mean. That’s the biggest insult you can make towards a hero that they are only a hero because of their powers.

Most people will do a story that shows us why they are a hero because of who they are instead.

Take a look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It has two characters who have the same powers and abilities as Buffy, Kendra and Faith but both misuse their power.

In Smallville we similarly see episodes where Clark Kent’s powers are transmitted into other people and they abuse them. One episode even sees them transferred into Lana Lang, a character that has been accused of being a creators pet by fans of the show, and even then she is still shown to abuse Clark’s powers to the point where she goes mad, and has to have them removed.

Thus Clark much like Buffy is shown to be a hero because of who he is. Powers don’t completely make a hero. Having the discipline and inner strength to use them properly does.

Sadly however in the Doctors case it turns out he is only a hero because of his powers, his time lord intelligence. Take a random woman off the street and stick his powers in her and she will do a better job. She’ll be able to thrash villains he’s struggled with like the Daleks for centuries in a heart beat, she’ll think of things he never could, he’ll stand there and take being told by her that he’s been useless. Remember when Hartnell and Pertwee and Baker, either of the Bakers would get pissed when anyone said anything bad about the TARDIS?

Look at Tennant and Eccelston in comparison meekly being told they are useless.

However even worse than the Doctor being told he was a pussy and acting like a pussy, was the way the show became more of a soap opera.

Russell T Davies said that his greatest goal was to get women to like Doctor Who. Of course again the great irony of this was that women did like Doctor Who, but still he decided to make it more like a soap opera, and so he cut down on some of the sci fi elements. Many episodes revolved more around Rose’s private life and were set on the Powell estate.

Watch the Doctor Who confidential episode for Love and Monsters, where Russell T Davies and other members of the production team boast about how now they have got women liking it by putting a greater focus on Rose instead of the Doctor.

Now suppose it was true that the only way women could like Doctor Who was if it were a soap opera, then why bother changing the show to be something its not just to win them round?

There are plenty of series and forms of entertainment that are aimed at one gender more; video games, fashion aimed tv series such as America’s Next Top Model and Sex and the City, heavy metal music, soap opera’s such as Coronations Street, and sports. All of these forms of entertainment are massively popular. Again is anyone going to say “we need to get young men who like sci fi interested in Sex and the City that will broaden our demographic. Lets have a story where Carrie is abducted by aliens!

If we need to change Doctor Who so much to the point where the show is unrecognisable just to win people who didn’t like it the first time round, what is ultimately the point of bringing it back?

The changes RTD made to the series weren’t so great that it didn’t seem like Doctor Who at all, but I don’t think it can be denied that the revival did feel like more a sequel to the original or even a reboot at times rather than actually the same show.

Like the romantic Doctor for instance. The character of the Doctor was much more sensitive and romantic than his classic era predecessor in an effort to make him more appealing to the female audience. One of the Doctors defining characteristics was his asexuality. That ran right the way through from Hartnell to McCoy.

Now you might be thinking well the RTD era was one of the most popular so feminism didn’t exactly kill Doctor Who.

Still I think that whilst it was successful initially the format it established ultimately had a bad long term affect on the show.

To start with making the Doctor romantic I feel made it harder for audiences to accept another actor who wasn’t romantic in the role.

Peter Capaldi has been nowhere near as successful as David Tennant or Matt Smith in the role. This is not based on my opinion. I think he is an excellent Doctor, and I am not saying that people hate him, but I think that he just hasn’t connected with audiences as well.

After all he has been the only actor from the revival not to be nominated for a National Television Award, an award that is decided by the British public. The other three actors all won at least one NTA.

I think its simply down to the fact that he is a much older, grumpier, old school type of Doctor that the young audience can’t really relate to him in the same way. Young fangirls view David Tennant and Matt Smith as boyfriend Doctors.

I’m not saying that Peter Capaldi is bad looking or anything, but his characterisation of the Doctor obviously isn’t romantic. Meanwhile young fanboys in some ways I think liked to imagine that they were the Doctor. After all the Doctor was a geeky, skinny, brainy guy who still got the girl in the RTD era. Despite being an alien he was a slightly more accessible hero than say Rocky or the Terminator.

I’m not blaming the modern fans for thinking that way. Its to be expected. For them the Doctor has always been a romantic, more human and relatable hero. But that’s the point RTD should have when he brought the Doctor back, actually tried to make him like the Doctor.

He should have written him as the crazy old Uncle, Doc Brown from Back to the Future type of character that he is supposed to be. Had he done that then people would be completely accepting of Capaldi now.

At the same time its not like you would have had to jettison Tennant or Smith. The Doctor can still be the crazy old uncle figure and be played by a young man, provided he can do an old man in a young man’s body. Both Tennant and Smith were despite their youth ironically among the best at capturing the Doctors great age, so they could both still be the asexual, older Doctor just fine.

One could argue that they were at their best when they were written more like the older Doctors anyway such as during series 4 when Tennant had a completely platonic relationship with his companion. Or in series 5 when Smith was a completely asexual, professorial Doctor. Ironically those were certainly the two actors most popular series in terms of ratings, and critical and fan acclaim. Series 2 when Tennant was in love with Rose and series 7 when Matt was lusting after Clara meanwhile are both generally regarded as weaker series by fans at least.

The classic era model of the Doctor does allow him to be old and young, where as sadly the RTD era model really only allows him to be young and romantic, which is why whilst Capaldi isn’t by any stretch reviled. I don’t think that he is quite as accepted as the two who came before him.

At the same time the companion is also limited by the format RTD established.

To start with as he went for the soap opera audience then the companion always has to be from modern day earth so that we can see their everyday life. The soap opera audience is not going to want a companion like Leela who comes from a jungle planet, or a companion like Jamie who comes from the Scottish Highlands over 300 years ago.

Take a look at this quote from Sue Perryman most famous for being part of the blog “An Adventure with the Wife in Space”. She is exactly the type of woman that RTD was aiming New Who at IE someone who didn’t like Science Fiction. Sue not surprisingly vastly prefers New Who to the Old and says its because

I think it appealed to me more than it did Neil because it was grounded in reality. Neil wanted more spaceships and alien planets, whereas I was happy with the stories set on council estates. I could relate to the characters and situations a lot more.

When you aim the show at people like her, not that there is anything wrong with people like her of course, but still when that is your target audience then you are naturally more limited in terms of companions. All you can have is just ordinary 21st century women. No Leela’s, Romana’s, Jamie’s, even the likes of Liz who are genius scientists that work for a secret organisation designed to track down aliens.

Sadly RTD evidently felt that most women viewers were like Sue, which is why he made the show the way he did.

Also as he did make the companion such a prominent figure in the show, to the point where each series was their story rather than the Doctors. Then it made it hard to have a companion who was just an ordinary person.

The modern audience has again come to expect the companion as the main character rather than just the Watson which they should be. Also when you have each companion be the most important person in the universe, then a normal companion is obviously going to seem rather unspectacular by comparison. As the Master himself points out in The Last of the Time Lords “Years ago Doctor you had companions who could absorb the time vortex

Thus each companion in New Who has essentially the same story arc.

There’s something odd about Rose, the way Bad Wolf keeps popping up everywhere and it turns out its because she will become a goddess, and blast a fleet of insane Daleks and save the universe.

Meanwhile there is something odd about Donna, the way she keeps meeting the Doctor, and the way everyone keeps telling her there is something on her back. It turns out its because she is the chosen one who saves every universe from Daleks after getting super powers.

Amy Pond meanwhile similarly there is something odd about her, with the crack in her bedroom wall, which later gives her powers which she uses to to save the entire universe at the end of the series.

Finally Clara similarly has a mystery about her, the way multiple versions of her keep popping up,  that is revealed to be, because she is the most important person in the universe who saves the Doctor from the Great Intelligence.

Each companion has to be the most important person in order to compete with the last companion who was the most important person and worse each one has to be more important. Rose just blasts a group of Daleks, Donna has to destroy a whole Dalek empire and save EVERY universe. Oh dear how can we top that? I know Amy remembers him into existence. How are we going to top that? Clara is retconned into being the hero of every story ever made!

The companions aren’t so much characters anymore just ways of being more important than the last.

On top of that because Davies felt that he would have to make the relationship between the Doctor and his companion romantic in order to win round the female audience, then every companion’s relationship with the Doctor has to be romantic in New Who.

All of the companions in New Who have at least kissed the Doctor and all the female companions bar Donna have had feelings for him, whilst at least 4 have been in love with him.

Also the Doctor has to be dependent on every female companion to the point where he will go insane without them too. RTD established this format with characters like Rose, Martha and Donna all of whom are said to have held the Doctor back from being a monster.

This coupled with the often romantic ties his companions have to him means that they can never just leave the Doctor normally like in Classic Who, where companions like Nyssa and Jo leave the Doctor because they simply move on with their lives.

In New Who they all have to be ripped screaming from him and the Doctor has to have a complete mental breakdown if they leave him, and thus all of the companion departures, bar Martha are somewhat similar.

Rose and the Ponds are sent somewhere where the Doctor will never be able to see them again by an old enemy. They both go on to live happy lives but the Doctor will never see them again and afterwards the Doctor falls into a deep depression.

Donna and Clara meanwhile either the Doctor or his companion, has to have their memory wiped of all their adventures together in order to save one of them’s life.

Finally on top of that both Clara and Donna end up becoming another version of the Doctor, who is better than the Doctor too.

The RTD format as you can see in hindsight wasn’t the best formula to reintroduce the show with.

It has restricted it greatly to the point where the Doctor can’t really be anything but a romantic hero and the companion can’t be anything but the chosen one who is more important than anyone else in every universe; until next year when another most important woman comes along. She also has to have some romantic attachment to the Doctor, even if that’s just her wanting to bang him.

She also has to be the only thing preventing him from going insane, she has to be feisty, sassy, from 21st century London, we have to see her home life, her family, place of work, her boyfriend often has to be a jealous, clingy guy who is upset that she likes the Doctor more (Mickey, Rory, Danny) and she often has to be better at everything than the Doctor.

Viewers won’t accept anything different to that formula RTD established as its too deeply rooted now. Hence why Capaldi’s Doctor became a cuddly hipster in series 9. In series 8 he was a much darker, harder, alien character but again viewers weren’t as keen because young women are used to the Doctor being a lovable, geeky cute character, whilst men view him almost as being like Leonard Hoffstatter, the geeky guy who gets the girl they can relate too. So Capaldi had to be more tailored to fit the RTD template in series 9.

Thus the show is in a bad place where on the one hand if it tries to break out of a deeply rooted pattern then viewers will be unhappy because it isn’t Doctor Who to them whilst on the other people are getting bored of the pattern. It is stagnated but can’t escape the stagnation.

I do honestly think if RTD had made the show more like Classic Who then it would be in a better place now. Classic Who’s formula endured for close to 30 years because it was more basic. The Doctor is just a weird, asexual scientist, his companion is just his friend. You can vary that a lot more easily, than if the companion has to be the most important person who ever lived, and the Doctor has to be in love with her etc.

All of these restrictions came about from RTD’s feminist and SJW tendencies. Making the companion the most important person in the universe, because having the Doctor be the most important person in his own show is apparently sexist. Placing a greater emphasis on the soap opera elements and making the Doctor into a romantic sap, because we can’t have Doctor Who be a little boys club.

People like to paint a picture that before RTD came along Doctor Who was completely dead and no one was interested in bringing it back. Its true that the show was certainly no longer as popular as it had once been as it was no longer on the air.

Still its wasn’t quite the uphill struggle that RTD made out.

In 2002 just a few years before the new series came along the British public was asked which old British series they want to return and Doctor Who topped the poll with an overwhelming majority. It beat out the likes of Blackadder, Fawlty Towers and Dad’s Army.

See here.

Pretty incredible when you consider that the last series of Doctor Who in 1989 at one point got a mere 3 million viewers, whilst the last series of Blackadder in 1989 got 15 million viewers.

Added to that all of the Doctor Who videos that were released in the 90’s were big sellers. Many of them were in the top 10 video charts. Even docu’s like the Pertwee years. Its worth noting that Doctor Who was also released in its entirety on video too. The same was not true for many other cult series. Lost in Space was never released on video, Blake’s 7 was given a limited release unlike Doctor Who which was constantly being released until the advent of DVD (where it continued to be released with again many DVD’s such as Remembrance of the Daleks being best sellers).

Also anything Doctor Who related was always a big ratings hit. The charity skit Dimensions in Time released in 1993 pulled in over 13 million viewers. The tv movie in 1996 also pulled in over 9 million in the UK. Its also worth mentioning that until the 2007 Christmas special the first episode of series 4, Rose the first episode of New Who was the one with the highest viewing figures.

Remember that the RTD era series that was the most popular among fans and critics was series 4, which was the most like the classic era. It had far more stories set on other worlds, and a completely platonic relationship between the Doctor and his companion. Its true the finale the Stolen Earth/ Journey’s End had the Doctor get undermined, and involves a big cheesy love story between Rose and the Doctor, and it was the most successful episode of that year in the viewers. However that was down more to a publicity stunt.

At the end of the first part of that story the Doctor is wounded and begins to regenerate. It cuts off before we see what happens next. There were no preview tapes and so therefore audiences were genuinely unsure if Tennant was going to leave the series. So it naturally pulled in higher viewers than normal. In hindsight whilst I in spite of those faults actually like the story, its not exactly highly thought of.

I think had they had a more asexual Doctors, and normal companions, and stories set on far away planets or in the past more, it would have been at least a very popular show, and it would be in a better place now as the younger generation would be able to accept a Doctor like Capaldi. There would also be a greater variation of companions too.

Having said all of that I don’t think that the Davies era’s mistakes killed the show. I think that yes he did make it difficult for the show to break free from his template, but I think it could have had Moffat his successor not gone even further down the feminist pandering route.

I don’t hate the Davies era at all. There is a lot I love about it  and the feminist pandering didn’t get quite as out of control like it would later in Moffat’s time.

Its more of a minor annoyance in RTD’s time but still its important to mention the feminist pandering in the Davies era, as it was during his time that the SJW’s first began to get their claws around the show. Some of the mistakes he made in pandering to them like the all important female companion, set a bad precedent for future seasons. Still ultimately it would be in his successors time when third wave feminism really began to harm the show.

Steven Moffat Era

Steven Moffat’s attitude to producing Doctor Who for the last 3 years.

When Steven Moffat first took over Doctor Who in 2010 things in my opinion initially improved.

I don’t think he was a social justice warrior like RTD. I think he was probably like most people a decent, tolerant person and his first couple of series were of a very high quality overall. Among the greatest in the shows history.

Sadly however the SJW’s and third wave feminists trashed Moffat. I am not saying that every one who disliked the Moffat era was like this. Hell I had many problems with him too, but still there was a definite wave of feminist attacks against Moffat’s work that got a little too personal. Its one thing to trash a guys work, but to slander him as someone who promotes rape in his scripts goes beyond that.

Moffat was called everything from a sexist to a racist to homophobic. He was even accused of promoting hatred against the mentally ill for the story Asylum of the Daleks, which had the Doctor blow up an insane asylum of Daleks.

Here are examples of the third wave feminist smear campaign against Steven Moffat. They include everything from harmless quotes taken out of context, to people saying that the posters for series 8 of Doctor Who were sexist, because Peter Capaldi looked forward and Jenna Coleman looked to the side.

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault in Doctor Who

Problematic Posters for Doctor Who Series 8

Steven Moffat is a Classist

Why Does the Man Behind Doctor Who and Sherlock Still Have a Job

Has Doctor Who Become Sexist

What You Don’t Realize About Sherlock

Steven Moffat and his problem with representing people of colour

Steven Moffat Explains Why He Is So Bad At Writing Women

Because You Are Not Autistic You Aren’t Complaining

Steven Moffat is Ableist

Asylum of the Daleks is Problematic

And there is plenty more where that came from. Some fans I’ve talked to will often just dismiss the STFU Moffat people as crazies online, but they aren’t. They are a large movement and they include many mainstream British papers. One of the sources above was from the Guardian one of the most popular British newspapers.

There was also a group of University students in 2013 who published a book that called Doctor Who “thunderingly racist and sexist”. See here.

Doctor Who is Racist New Book Claims

Now you might think that Steven Moffat didn’t care about all this but evidently he did. There are many interviews where he complains about being called sexist. At one point he even refers to the criticisms as slander.

Take a look at this quote.

I think its one thing to criticise a programme and another to invent motives out of amateur psychology for the writer and then accuse him of having those feelings. I think that was beyond the pale and strayed from criticism to a defamation. I’m certainly not a sexist, a misogynist. It was wrong.

Also if you have the time take a look at these various interviews where he mentions how much the sexist accusations upset him.

Steven Moffat Slams Sexist Claims

Steven Moffat Tweets Against Accusations of Sexism

“Stop Assuming I’m a Sexist Demon!”

Steven Moffat Doesn’t Understand why Sci Fi Show is Called Sexist

Added to that here are interviews from the cast of Moffat era Who and the BBC themselves trying to refute the claims, showing that the STFU Moffat type of fans are not just seen as internet trolls by the makers of the show. If anything I’d argue that their criticisms are listened to the most, probably because they are political in nature and because they are more personal.

Karen Gillan: “Steven Moffat is not sexist”

BBC Responds To Doctor Who Sexism

After all its one thing for an old school Doctor Who fan to say Moffat’s work is rubbish, or even to call him a hack, but accusations of sexism and racism can be more harmful to both Moffat and the show’s reputation. Particularly if they become received wisdom (like what happened with the original series)

Added to that the BBC prides itself on being very politically correct and progressive. Take a look at this article which states that the organisation plans to have at least 50 percent of its staff and stars be women by 2020

BBC Pledges Half of its Workforce Be Women By 2020

Thus Steven Moffat and the team behind the series in general began to pander to these critics. From about 2013 on we see the show begin to cater to the SJW’s more and more.

You might be asking well were the accusations of sexism against Moffat true. Well personally I don’t think they were. The only problem I have ever had with Moffat’s female characters is that I feel that sometimes he relies on the femme fatale trope. I don’t think that makes him a sexist by any stretch of the imagination, but I personally am not that keen on the femme fatale trope. Then again I am not that keen on in love villains in general to be honest, so I am a little biased. I just find them to be a bit boring as to me a villain should be more than just a clingy ex.

Anyway other than that no I found all of the Steven Moffat is sexist accusations to be hollow and contradictory.

I think they stemmed firstly from the fact that Steven Moffat initially did not specifically pander to the SJW’s like Russell T Davies did.

He did not make the show revolve entirely around the companion in the early Matt Smith stories. He put the Doctor at the focus of the series, he set more stories away on other planets, and other time periods rather than on council estates and in modern London all the damn time.

Matt Smith’s Doctor in contrast to Eccelston’s Doctor, only didn’t save the day in two episodes of his first season. He also saved the day in the season finale too.

That’s not to say Amy Pond and Rory Williams were pushed to the background. The show did have a soap opera element in the 11th Doctors era but it didn’t get in the way of the science fiction. Moff rather cleverly wove the sci fi into the soap opera elements such as in the season finale, when he had Rory have to stand outside the box to protect Amy for 1000 years. That’s obviously a love story, but its still also a fairy tale, fantasy story too.

Moff ironically initially managed to find the perfect balance for the series. Enough sci fi, enough romance between the companions, not the Doctor who was a completely asexual, professorial, crazy old uncle character in Matt Smith’s first series (which is why he is my favourite New Who Doctor in that series.)

The SJW’s however complained that not enough focus was put on the companions home life and that by travelling with the Doctor, the female companions entire life was revolving around the Doctor, unlike Davies’s female companions, which was sexist.

The thing is the sidekick’s life does usually tend to revolve around the hero. That’s why they are called you know sidekicks and not main protagonists. Davies’ version of Doctor Who was really not the norm in terms of the sidekicks relationship with the hero.

Many of Moffat’s critics also often used the Bechdel test against him, but personally I find it hard to take the Bechdel test seriously. The Bechdel Test measures how sexist something is by looking at how often women talk about something other than a male character, and obviously the more they talk about something other than men the better.

Now I am not saying that its okay to always have female characters talk about nothing but men, but the Bechdel test is just too flawed a way of measuring it. It fails to take so many other factors into account, such as the fact that the female characters may be the sidekicks in a show starring a male lead like Doctor Who, or that the female characters may be facing a male villain like Xena against Ares.

Alien does not pass the test as technically the monster in Alien is male (the female of the species is the Queen seen in the sequels) Lesbian porn meanwhile does as hey the women in lesbian porn probably most of the time won’t be talking about men. Granted they probably won’t be doing much talking anyway, but still according to the Bechdel test Hot Bitches 3 is very feminist, whilst Alien which features one of the greatest heroines of all time isn’t.  I don’t think Moffat need worry with this in mind.

A lot of the feminist hate against Moffat stemmed from the fact that he is a white heterosexual man. I’m only saying that because its often brought up in articles smearing him as proof of why he can’t write women and minorities, and also because I have found that a lot of their criticisms against him are just as applicable to RTD who was a homosexual, yet only was he never subject to the same kind of hate. He was often praised by the SJW’s for his progressive stories.

The thing is all of RTD’s female companions with the exception of Donna are in love with the Doctor too. Even then whilst Donna isn’t romantically attached to him, she does think that her entire life until she met him was worthless. Wilfred even says “she was better with you”.

One could argue that Amy Pond who only travels with the Doctor part time as opposed to Rose, who wants to give up ever seeing her mum again so she can be with him, is more independent of the Doctor.

Also the constant claims that Moffat promotes sexual assault are hypocritical too. They are based on two scenes where the 11th Doctor grabs another character and kisses them. One is Rory Williams, the other Jenny Flint. Both moments were simply meant as comedic scenes that highlight the Doctors lack of social skills. I’m not keen on them, but really its an old comedy trick to have someone kiss someone else when they have had an idea in a moment of excitement like this moment from Blackadder.

Baldrick you’ve got it!

(smooches Baldrick)

Well if I’ve got it you have too sir.

Still the SJW’s often claimed that those scenes promoted sexual assault against women, as they would encourage the young boys who watched the show, and looked up to the Doctor, to emulate his behaviour and force themselves on girls they liked.

The thing is that RTD had many scenes where characters forced a kiss on someone else.

Captain Jack to Rose and the 9th Doctor in The Parting of the Ways, Rose to the Doctor in New Earth, The Doctor to Mickey in Doomsday and in The End of Time a woman sticks her hand up the Doctors arse whilst coming on to him.

So yes I think there was a double standard against Moffat, pretty much based on the fact that he was a heterosexual white man who are always viewed by SJW’s and third wave feminists as privileged shit lords.

Sadly however as we have seen both he and the rest of the production team took their criticisms to heart, and began to tailor the show to fit the SJW’s needs in a number of ways.

The Clara Oswald Show

Now I do not dislike the character of Clara. I have always liked Jenna Coleman as an actress and I adored her and Matt’s chemistry in series 7. Even though I dislike the idea of a romance between the Doctor and his companion, Matt and Jenna were so good together that I actually did ship 11 and Clara for a bit.

Still sadly Clara came to undermine the Doctor to a much greater extent than even any of the RTD era companions. Again this was all an attempt on Moffat’s part to please his feminist critics from about 2013 onward, when the feminist smear campaign against him really got out of hand.

The character of Clara differs from Amy in that Amy was just an ordinary companion. Okay yes she did have the powers from the crack in her bedroom wall, but they were often just used as a plot device to get her and the Doctor out of a sticky situation, such as in the season 6 finale.

With Clara however it feels like Steven Moffat is desperate for her to be the most important person in the entire history of the show. Some have said this is because he loves the character of Clara, but to be honest I don’t think he likes her as much as he did Amy.

With Amy I felt he could relate to her a bit as she was a Scots person who was living in England and felt like she didn’t fit in. With Clara I feel he just saw her as another companion at least initially, but as the feminists complained that in comparison to the wonderful RTD, his companions were just sidekicks, he decided to beef up Clara’s role too much.

Its ridiculous how much Clara undermines the Doctor and it made Clara into a very unpopular companion which was a shame as I think Jenna could have been one of the greatest without the feminist baggage.

In her first series Clara is retconed into being the hero of every Doctor Who story ever made. In the story The Name of the Doctor, the Great Intelligence hurls himself into the Doctors timeline and rewrites every victory he has ever had to be a defeat. He says.

It will destroy you. I can rewrite your every living moment. I can turn every one of your victories into defeats. Poison every friendship. Deliver pain to your every breath.

Clara however then throws herself into the Doctors timeline and rewrites everything back to how it was. Thus she is now officially the hero of every Doctor Who story ever made.

Some fans have argued that Clara didn’t change anything, that all of the classic era stories are back the way they were, as she beat the Great Intelligence from behind the scenes.

Even if that were true then it doesn’t matter as Clara is still the hero of every story. In Pyramids of Mars whilst it may be happening off screen without the Doctors knowledge, the Great Intelligence is still trying to kill him, and if it were not for Clara then he would have succeeded.

On top of that it is revealed that it was also Clara that told the Doctor what TARDIS to steal. In the story The Doctors Wife it was said that the TARDIS, which is sentient often took the Doctor where he needed to be, rather than where he wanted. This explained why he always happens to land at the right moment.

Thus had it not been for Clara telling him which TARDIS to steal, then he may never have even gone on half the adventures he did in the first place.

In the 50th Anniversary meanwhile Clara managed to convince the Doctor to undo the ending of the time war where he killed his own people. Whilst again some might argue that he would never have done it anyway, in the latest Zygon two parter, the Doctor openly admitted that it was Clara who talked him out of it when he spoke with the Zygon Bonnie.

DOCTOR: Because I’ve been where you have. There was another box. I was going to press another button. I was going to wipe out all of my own kind, man, woman and child. I was so sure I was right.
Bonnie: What happened?
DOCTOR: The same thing that happened to you. I let Clara Oswald get inside my head. Trust me. She doesn’t leave.

In Matt Smith’s final story The Time of the Doctor meanwhile, Clara once again saves the day. The Doctor is on his last life and trapped on Trenzalore with the Daleks closing in on him. He is by a small portal to the universe where he teleported his own people the time lords to safety.

In 900 years by the portal he doesn’t think to ask them for help. Then when he is an old man and near death he goes to face the Daleks, and its Clara who has the bright idea to ask the time lords for some more regenerations. They instantly oblige which allows the Doctor to destroy the Daleks.

In series 8, Peter Capaldi’s first year as the Doctor, Clara continued to undermine the time lord.

To start with many of the stories that year focus on Clara, and are even set within her place of work too. Its back to how it was with Rose again except this time its even worse.

The Caretaker keeps the sci fi to its barest minimum. There is literally a Robot Wars style Robot tossed in at the end of the episode and that’s that. The rest of the story is more like a weird cross between Grange Hill and Mork and Mindy.

In the Forest of the Night meanwhile also revolves entirely around a group of children that she has to look after, whilst episodes like Listen, Into the Dalek and Deep Breath all have massive chunks of them set in her school.

On top of this there are more episodes that try and beef Clara’s role up in the series mythology to ridiculous proportions.

Kill the Moon, long regarded as one of the weakest Doctor Who stories ever made has Clara be responsible for the human race’s survival until the end of time.

It is revealed that the Moon is in fact an egg housing a giant Dragon like creature. As it is about to hatch, the Moon itself will be destroyed, and thus in order to save the Moon, a group of human astronauts decide to kill the Dragon before it can be born. They decide however at the last minute to vote on it and ask the population of earth to decide on the Dragons fate. The entire planet votes to kill it, but Clara at the last second decides to spare the Dragon and it turns out to be the right thing to do.

Not only does the Dragon hatching not destroy humanity as was feared, as the broken pieces of moon disintegrate, and the creature itself is harmless, but it lays a second moon (bigger than its entire body) in seconds. More importantly the sight of the space Dragon inspires humanity who were on the verge of giving up on space travel to continue to explore space, which ultimately leads to them surviving as a species until the end of the universe itself.

Thus Clara more than anyone else by saving the Dragon, when the entire population of earth wanted it dead, is responsible for humanity outlasting all the other species in the universe.

This was a long running story arc in Doctor Who’s history stretching back to the 4th Doctors era, that human beings always outlast other races. It also played a huge role in the 10th Doctors era in the three parter, Utopia, The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords. In the past it was always said to be because of the indomitable will of humanity that they persevered, but now it turns out to be because of this single action of Clara’s. Thus another part of the shows mythology can be traced to her.

Yep turns out it wasn’t our long history of great Art and Scientific achievement that inspired us to survive. It was all because Clara saved a Space Dragon.

In the episode Listen, it is revealed that it was Clara that inspired the Doctor to become the hero he was when she visited him as a boy. She gave him advice that helped him conquer his fear.

In the finale of the series Clara even took the Doctor’s place in the opening credits and was billed first instead of him.

On top of that throughout the 8th series Clara would regularly demean the Doctor and emasculate him. She slaps him across the face in two episodes and threatens to hit him so hard that he would regenerate in another.

The 9th series of Doctor Who was a bit better than the 8th, but the story arc of that series once again, not only had to have Clara undermine the Doctor, but also be inserted into the mythology of the series.

The story arc for series 9 revealed that the Doctor had fled Gallifrey because of a prophecy about a Hybrid said to be half Dalek and half Time Lord, that would destroy both races and eventually all of time and space itself.

Since the War Games in 1969, it had been thought that the reason the Doctor left Gallifrey was simply because he was bored. He wanted to see the universe, and time lords where forbidden to leave their home and interfere in the affairs of other planets. So the Doctor stole a TARDIS and went exploring.

It was a perfectly simple explanation and fitted the Doctors character perfectly. The Doctor is a scientist who is eager to discover new things and is also someone who doesn’t want tied down to one place. He’s really just an intergalactic drifter.

Changing it after 50 years that now he was fleeing from a prophecy just makes no sense. Not only does it change a fundamental part of his character, that he is the rebel who defied his own people (the most powerful race in the universe’s) rules and that he loves to explore. It doesn’t make sense that he left because he was scared of a prophecy that he didn’t even mention, never mind do anything about for 50 years?

It is later revealed in a twist that the Hybrid Prophecy referred to the Doctor and Clara. A time lord and a human being, who love each other so much that they would be willing to destroy all of reality for one another. We see this in the finale when the Doctor is willing to risk all of time and space itself to save Clara.

At the end of the season 9 finale Hellbent, Clara is made completely indestructible and she flies off in her own TARDIS. Once again we see the Doctor being undermined as now Clara can do anything he can. She can fly the TARDIS and she is unkillable. In a sticky situation who would you rather show up? The Doctor who can be killed or the completely unbeatable Clara? Added to that Clara’s companion Ashildir is an immortal who has lived to the end of the universe itself and has knowledge of everything, whilst the Doctors companions are just ordinary 21st century humans (most of the time).

I can’t honestly think of a supporting character who undermined the hero to the same extent. Scrappy Doo, Wesley Crusher. Clara is in a category of her own as just about every aspect of his life has been decided by her.

Naturally many Doctor Who fans hated these developments. We liked the character of the Doctor because he was adventurous, brave, and a hero that could look after himself. Now all of that has been reduced as had it not been for Clara, he would never have overcome his fear, he would never have picked the right TARDIS, he would never have even survived past “An Unearthly Child”!

At the same time mainstream viewers were put off, as in order to beef up Clara’s role, Moffat had to constantly revel in the shows mythology. One negative review of series 9 stated that you’d need a PHD in Doctor Who to watch the series. The only problem was the fans who got all of these continuity references, didn’t want to watch it because it kept changing the shows established lore and taking away everything that made the Doctor heroic and admirable, by saying that it now only happened because of Clara.

Also I personally think that the quality of the stories declined as the sci fi again became an after thought in favour of bigging Clara up.

Like look at Kill the Moon. The sci fi element is a poorly thought out idea that’s only real purpose is so that Clara can become the most important person in the history of mankind. In The Caretaker the Sci Fi element is a bland robot whose sole purpose is to get the Doctor into Clara’s school so that we can see a day in the life of Clara.

Worst of all though is in the season 9 finale. Here we have the return of Gallifrey which is a huge deal in the show’s mythology. Its been gone since the classic era and from the Doctors point of view he has not been home for over 1000 years.

Added to that there were so many unanswered questions about Gallifrey such as what happened after the Master faced Rassilon down in the climax of The End of Time when they both ended up there. Did Rassilon punish the Master? Why did the Master regenerate? How did he escape? How did Rassilon return from the dead in the first place and why did he go evil? Has Rassilon been deposed? Will the Doctor have to stop him from carrying out the final sanction again? How did Gallifrey escape from the pocket dimension the Doctor sent it too? Will he have to rescue it? The time lords said that they would be trapped and alone if the doctor sent them to another universe and they only barely agreed to it because they had no other choice. How did they struggle in that other universe? Did many of them die? Also how will the Daleks react when their greatest enemies return? Will the time war start a new? What about the Doctors loved ones like Susan? What became of them in the time war? Is Romana still on Gallifrey? What role did she play in the war?

Virtually none of these questions are answered and Rassilon, the most powerful of all time lords is dealt with in two minutes. The Doctor being home again for the first time in 1000 years is completely sidetracked, so that the Doctor can resurrect Clara, and the whole episode can then focus on how special Clara is again.

On top of that as the focus has been put on Clara’s school many boring and very unpopular characters have been introduced via Clara. These include the schoolgirl Courtney and Danny Pink, Clara’s boyfriend, who had very little character development and 0 chemistry with Jenna Coleman.

Its no surprise that the viewing figures have fallen every year since Clara was introduced to the point where they have reached record lows in season 9. I don’t think its entirely down to her to be fair. There are other factors, but certainly one of the biggest complaints about the show from fans and casual viewers alike is how much Clara is taking it over. Ultimately I think that has come about solely to appease the feminists who complained that it was sexist for the show to focus on the Doctor, the main character, simply because he was a man.

I think its interesting when you look at these reviews from fans of the most recent season finale Hellbent. Here are two from Mr Tardis and Who Addicts Reviews which are both absolutely scathing.

Meanwhile here is an overwhelmingly positive review from Whovian Feminism, who as her name would suggest wishes Doctor Who to be a more feminist friendly series. She LOVES Missy the female Master, has argued passionately for a female Doctor and has often criticised what she feels are entitled male Doctor Who fans.

The Most Feminist Episode of Doctor Who Ever Made

Here are her tweets about the episode.

This is the Most Explicitly Feminist Doctor Who Episode I Have Ever Seen

Another overwhelmingly positive review came from Vanity Fair which similarly praised the story for being a brilliant feminist episode.

How Doctor Who Delivered A Righteously Feminist Finale

I think that demonstrates the audience the new Who team are after better than anything else. I might add that Whovian Feminism’s review was posted on Rachel Talalay, the director of the series 8 and series 9 finale’s blog.

Mr Tardis and Who Addict Reviews are sci fi and fantasy fans. Mr Tardis is a Star Trek fan, loves comic book heroes (particularly Spider-Man) and is a devoted fan of the films of Sam Raimi and Tim Burton. He naturally thought Hellbent was shit. Whovian Feminism meanwhile is a third wave feminist, and like all third wave feminists she can’t like something unless its about feminism, so she thought it was great.

That’s the thing about third wave feminists they have to make everything about them. Doctor Who is not a feminist series. Its a fantasy series first and foremost that is supposed to tell imaginative and exciting sci fi stories.

Verity Lambert a feminist herself didn’t make the show about feminism. That’s not to say she didn’t include strong characters like Barbara, but still unlike third wave feminists she could enjoy the concept without having to change it to fit her own ideology.

Replacing Male Characters with Women

Missy the shows jump the shark, nay its jump the whale, jump the Megalodon, jump the Predator X moment.

Since the 1980’s one question has hung over the shows head like the sword of Damocles. Will the Doctor ever regenerate into a woman?

The idea was first proposed as a joke by Tom Baker during interview when he quipped (having already known that it was Peter Davison that would succeed him) good luck to the next Doctor whoever he or she may be.

Since then whenever any actor playing the role has left the series people have asked whether the next Doctor will be a woman or not?

Ultimately it was only from the early 2010’s on that feminists really began to push for a female Doctor. By 2013 it got so extreme that many people were angry that Peter Capaldi had been cast as the Doctor.

Here is a quote from Paul Cornell, a former Doctor Who writer and outspoken feminist on Peter Capaldi’s casting.

“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 shit”

I’ve often wondered why Paul Cornell if he is so desperate for female representation doesn’t give up his own job as a writer for DC comics and insist a woman take his place? Well he is the one that is going around saying that he would rather women take other people’s jobs like Peter Capaldi’s? Lets see him put his money where his mouth is and give up his own job so a woman. (Who in his eyes could never get that job through her own merits because of the patriarchy.) Can get a chance?

Naturally Moffat began to pander to these people once again. He turned the Master another time lord into a woman, he has included constant references to the Doctor possibly changing gender, and has had other time lords changing gender when they regenerate.

Now the idea of a female Doctor is a truly terrible concept in my opinion. So many people I feel are only in favour of it because they feel that women are somehow being deprived by not being allowed to play the Doctor, hence why so many people who have never even seen the show are desperate for a female Doctor. Kay Adams for instance, a Scottish television presenter who openly admitted that she had never seen a single episode of Doctor Who, said her blood was boiling at the thought of people saying they didn’t want a female Doctor.

Of course its ridiculous to act as though women are being deprived of something by not being allowed to play the Doctor. By that logic then men are being deprived of not being allowed to audition for the role of Xena in that upcoming remake of that series.

The other reasons I hear for it are always so weak. The most common reason in my experience is “because it will be something different and all change in Doctor Who is good, as the show is all about change”.

The show is not contrary to popular belief all about change. It has a very flexible format that can allow it to change if it needs too, but its also all about tradition too. Hence why the TARDIS is still a blue box, hence why the Daleks, Cybermen, UNIT, The Master, Davros, and the Sontarans all appear with every or at least multiple Doctors, hence why we also still don’t know the Doctors name!

Still yes things like regeneration do allow you to change the format somewhat but that doesn’t mean that any change is okay. By that logic then Colin Baker choking Nicola Bryant in the Twin Dilemma was marvellous. Hey it was a change, so was his awful costume and the 7th Doctor acting like a clown during his first series.

A change has to have some justification. If any change can happen in the show then why not have the Daleks all become peace loving hippies, the Doctor change the TARDIS to looking like a chair, the Doctor tell us his name is Bob and the Cybermen start crying at sad movies.

People often use the fact that a lot changed during the first 4 Doctors era’s, but they miss the point that during those 4 era’s the show was still establishing itself.

In the Hartnell era we don’t know anything about the Doctor. Where he came from, his people, why he left, even the name of his home planet.

Thus the first four Doctors era’s simply filled all of these details in. By the end of Tom’s time we know why he left Gallifrey, how many times he can regenerate. After that its really the next generation of writers jobs to try and build on what has come before rather than say “actually no it went like this instead”.

That’s not to say that there weren’t a few contradictions in the old series but its to expected in a show that lasted 26 years. Sometimes a complete change can be great like Genesis of the Daleks, but again I can justify why Genesis was great without just saying “its different”.

Ultimately however people who want a female Doctor I find just simply say that it would be great because its a change which is not enough.

The other reasons I hear are often either attacks against the people who don’t want it as sexist, such as Paul Cornell’s infamous statement on twitter “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“.

Or they are that it will finally give women a chance to play the hero which is complete bullshit. Okay there might not be quite as many female heroes as male heroes but come on here we are past the point where a female hero particularly in a sci fi and fantasy series is a big deal.

You know what Gabby (the blonde in the video) is right. Its annoying the way women always have to imagine themselves as the sidekick. It boils my blood to think of women always being the meek, frightened damsel in distress in cult series. Sci Fi and Fantasy are such a disgusting little boys only club. All of its male fans heads would explode if they ever saw something with a woman as the lead. Their tiny patriarchal minds couldn’t cope with a female character who was strong clearly based on the history of the genre.

Such a shame that women are always such shrinking violets in sci fi and fantasy.

That’s what’s hilarious about these supposed feminists who repeat this myth about no strong roles for women like that. All they do is show how little interest they actually have in both popular sci fi and fantasy (despite claiming to be just as big a fan if not more so of the genre’s than any “entitled fanboy”) and more importantly in female heroes in general.

I hate accusing anyone of being a false fan, but the simple fact of the matter is there are dozens of wonderful female led action film and tv series out there. Alien film series, Xena, Buffy, Wonder Woman tv series, The Bionic Woman,  The Bride with White Hair film series, The Dead and the Deadly, The Heroic Trio film series, A Chinese Ghost Story film and tv series series, Underworld film series, Terminator,Terminator 2, Terminator 3, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Earth 2, Star Trek Voyager, Once Upon A Time,  The Survivors (both the original and the remake) Charmed, Relic Hunter, Charlies Angels, film and television series, Cleopatra 2525, Tru Calling, Dollhouse, Ghost Whisperer, Nikita, Dark Angel, Alias, Jessica Jones, and many more.

Thus how can you honestly say (given that many of these series such as Xena, Charmed and Buffy are among the most famous and successful genre series ever made). That you have a real interest in female heroes, and sci fi and fantasy and then say there are virtually no heroic roles for women in the genre.

I might add as well that in many male led sci fi and fantasy series women still have the strongest roles.

Look at Red Dwarf. The main protagonist is a man Dave Lister, but the most intelligent, competent and able character is a woman, Kristine Kochanski. She regularly saves him and he spends the whole series chasing after her and being rejected, even punched in the face at one point!

In Futurama, Fry is the main character, but Leela is the one who is the strongest and most capable member of the crew.

In The Avengers series (not to be confused with the Marvel Comic Book series) the main character is John Steed but all of the female supporting characters from Cathy Gale to Mrs Emma Peel to Purdi, are all strong independent characters.

In Blake’s 7 another male led series the most intelligent and powerful character is a woman, Servalan. Servalan constantly outsmarts magnificent bastard Avon at every step of the way and consequently is the only character, despite being the most evil villain in the series, who definitely doesn’t die.

As we have explored there were also plenty of strong roles for women in Classic Doctor Who as well as Star Trek and Babylon 5, even Lost in Spce. Penny Robinson is every bit as brave and resourceful as Will. The only character in the show who is a complete pansy, that faints at the sight of a monster and runs away screaming and leaves his friends to die is a male character. Doctor Zachary Smith.

Thus with all of this in mind there is no reason to turn the Doctor into a woman just to simply give a woman a strong or leading role in science fiction. Really we have reached a point where female heroes are no longer a big ground breaking thing, and frankly anyone who still thinks they are is the one who is living in the 40’s.

Still I wonder what Gabby’s reaction would be if we had a female Doctor who was constantly saved by her male sidekick. Well that’s been the set up for the past few years in reverse and Gabby is unhappy with it.

So then lets have a female Doctor only save the day in 2 stories out of 13 like Eccelston, in 1 out of four series finale’s, lets do a story where she gets stuffed in a bird cage and then freed by Martin. Lets do a story where Donald gets the she Doctors powers and uses them better than her and tells her she is useless. Lets do one where Jamie Pond remembers him back into existence. Lets do one where Clarence is retconned into being the hero of every story of hers and takes her place in the opening credits.

Oh and on top of that lets have it that the she Doctors goes insane without a strong man like Rory,(who she never shuts up about), Martin and Clarence (who also slaps her across the face) to help her.

I used to think that you couldn’t have a female Doctor for this reason and Peter Davison who played the fifth Doctor expressed a similar opinion that a vulnerable dependent female Doctor wouldn’t work, but now I don’t think that is a reason against a female Doctor. I don’t like a male Doctor being so dependent on his companion, though I am still opposed to a female Doctor for other reasons.

Peter Davison is Against a Female Doctor

Now you might be asking even if there is no need for a female Doctor what’s the problem with having one? Just audition the role to men and women and cast whoever is the best for the part right?

Well sorry but it doesn’t work that way. A man is always going to be the best for the role not because men are better than women, but because the character of the Doctor is a man.

There are differences between men and women. Its a denial of reality to say that there is not. It does not make you a sexist to acknowledge those differences. Its sexist to say that one gender is better because of those differences, but that’s not what I am saying.

Here’s a rather interesting video on the differences between men and women by Blair White a trans woman. PS its not transphobic to acknowledge the differences between men and women either. Trans people believe they exist more than anyone else hence why they change.

Next time someone says “well time lords change hair colour, height and weight so why not gender” point out this video to them. Gender is clearly a much bigger thing to change than any of those. Technically we all change our weight, height, hair colour and age as time goes on but very few of us change our gender because you have to really want to. Its not just a casual thing. Trans people like Blair White don’t decide on a spur the moment to change sex.

Now you might argue that with time lords this doesn’t matter as they are after all aliens so why can’t they be gender fluid.

Well based on what we have seen that clearly isn’t the case. Yes okay Steven Moffat started to make it canon from 2011 on, by dropping hints that time lords could change gender when they regenerate to pander to people like Whovian Feminism, but prior to that it was never even mentioned for 48 years!

We had seen dozens of time lords regenerate over the years, and not once did they ever even talk about the possibility that they might gender flip.

The Doctor has regenerated 12 times, the Master if you include spin off material 15 times and he also stole the body of two men. If time lords are really gender neutral why did the Master go for Tremas’s body when his daughter Nyssa was there and Nyssa was A/ younger and B/ had a closer connection to the Doctor and C/ would have been a better disguise?

Also on top of that time lords like Rassilon, The Master, Morbius and Azmahel have all burned out regeneration cycles as the one gender.  If you includie spin off material we have also seen Romana regenerate 3 times, Borusa regenerate 3 times, River regenerate 2 times and K’Napo regenerate once too.

Are we really meant to believe that all of these regenerations were just flukes and that there was a 50/50 chance that they could have all been the opposite gender?

Also look at their attitudes to regeneration in the previous stories. In The War Games when the Time Lords offer the Doctor several options for his third face they are all men. If time lords are gender fluid then shouldn’t one of them have been a woman?

Also when the third Doctor was regenerating K’Napo says to Sarah “he will become a new man” again if there was a 50/50 chance he would become a woman wouldn’t it have been a new person?

Also when Romana was regenerating she chose several different faces before settling on one for her second face. Once again if she were gender fluid wouldn’t one of the faces she chose have been a man?

Also even little character traits like Susan calling the Doctor grandfather and the Masters rampant sexism don’t make sense if Time Lords have no gender. Wouldn’t Susan have called him grandparent? How could the Master possibly be a sexist in a society which had no gender identity? It would be pretty stupid of him to go on about how inferior women are to men when there was a 50/50 chance he could be a woman.

Just because Time Lords are shapeshifters does not mean they have no gender. Does the character of Mystique from the X-Men have no gender? Do the Martians in DC Comics have no gender?

Its unbelievable arrogance of Moffat to come along in 2011 after 48 years and add something this big to the lore that literally changes every time lord character and then say that its always been a part of it. Thanks to this change technically Susan could regenerate into Brian Blessed.

Aside from the fact that gender flipping time lords goes against time lord lore from Classic and even RTD era Who it also just doesn’t mesh with the Doctor’s character.

The Doctor contrary to popular belief can not turn into anyone. Again it baffles me that so many fans can say this. If you think the Doctor can be absolutely anyone then basically you have said that you don’t think the Doctor exists as a character. You think that he is a title that is passed on to 13 different characters who have nothing in common with each other at all except the name Doctor.

I don’t think that is the case at all and I hate to say this, but I think a lot of the time when fans say that there should be no similarity’s between the Doctor, they say it more out of fear of being labelled a crusty old Classic Who nerd who doesn’t like change.

Sadly there has always been something of a self loathing streak among Doctor Who fans. To be fair there has always been a self loathing streak among nerds in general, which is why SJW’s have been able to lock their talons around the sci fi genre.

When feminists call sci fi sexist, nerds are more likely to roll over and take it. They are afraid if they stand up for themselves and defend their geeky interests, they will look like sad gits whose whole life revolves around Star Trek or Doctor Who.

Added to that geeky interests such as sci fi tv programmes and video games are often seen as childish and sadly many nerds will often be embarrassed to say they like them. Even with the recent outbreak of trendy geeky culture, if you’re a hardcore nerd you are still seen as a sad manchild. Take a look at Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory who takes his passion for sci fi and fantasy the most seriously. He is portrayed as a crazy weirdo.

Thus sci fi fans will only be too happy to distance themselves from their love of the genre and never stick up for it if its under attack.

I think this is why third wave feminists go for Sci Fi and Fantasy above all else, because its an easy target. Notice how they don’t go after genre’s where women are genuinely under represented like Westerns or Crime thrillers or even Spy and Espionage stories. Sci Fi and Fantasy is the easiest one to to bully. Who is going to stand up for it? Not even its fans who will be guilted by third wave feminists and SJW’s into feeling that their genre is a little boys club, and so they are only too happy for feminists to walk all over it.

Many nerds are such self loathers that they will actively bully other nerds, labelling them sexists, racists, homophobes, virgins, perverts if they try and stick up for their genre against feminists. These nerds are comparable to the your friend at school who starts to bully you in order to keep in with the other bully’s.

The definition of a self loathing fanboy who strawmans his fellow nerds.

Sadly even among sci fi fans Whovians still manage to stand out as self loathers. I don’t know why this is, but go online and you will see whole articles from Doctor Who fans about other Doctor Who fans being idiots, sad gits and frightened of change.

Look at this quote from Jon Blum a writer of Doctor Who Novels about why we should have a female Doctor

“Sudden realization in the shower: the part of the War Doctor should have gone to Helen Mirren.

Advantages? Singlehandedly settles the “could he be a woman” debate — not only can he, he already has, so suck it. Plays completely against type for what people think a woman Doctor would be. And introduces it in possibly the safest way possible for the more risk-averse folks in the BBC — in a story which is guaranteed to be huge, with return appearances by Tennant and Piper already on the board, with a big star name, but without having to even run the risk of committing to several years of letting a lady lead the series. (Yet.)

Plus? Fanboy heads asplodey, left right and centre.”

Imagine actually listing that it would annoy fans as a reason to bring about such a huge change in the shows dynamic.

But then sadly that’s typical behaviour among Doctor Who fans to hate anyone who doesn’t think that every single change is automatically brilliant. Of course its silly to think that every change will be bad, but that’s the point you need to take each change on a case by case basis.

A Female Doctor based on its own merits doesn’t work, hence why the pro Female Doctor camp have to try and appeal to the self loathing aspect of Doctor Who and Sci Fi fans “if you turn against this you are a sad git who can’t stand change, you’re the type who would have hated Tom Baker because he was a young actor” or “you are a sexist who can’t stand a women as the leading hero“.

There is an obvious pattern to the Doctors. They all have certain similarities that help link the different versions of the Doctor together as merely different aspects of the same character rather than just 13 different characters who share the same name.

Its a hard balance to find. Trying to get an actor who will have a big enough personality that they will bring something new to the role, yet at the same time not be so different that they will be utterly unbelievable as the same man.

It requires time and effort rather than just lazily saying “oh he can be anyone lets get Sue Perkins.” There is nothing wrong with a character having limits. Limits help to define a character more anything else.

Sherlock Holmes is defined by his limits, the fact that he is an asexual, arrogant detective. Batman similarly is defined by his limits which are, that he is motivated by the murder of his parents, the fact that he has no powers, the fact that he lives in Gotham City, the fact that he fights certain villains and colourful criminals etc.

You can do many things within these limits. Adam West is a comedy character, Michael Keaton, was a Gothic, almost fairy tale style hero, Christian Bale was a more down to earth, gritty, crime fighter. The point is however as different as all of those versions are, they still follow all of those limits, and therefore still feel like Batman.

Thus the Doctor similarly is defined regardless of what incarnation he is in by a number of limitations and things that we know the Doctor would never do.

The character of the Doctor is always mysterious. We have never found out his name in 50 plus years. Okay we have found out a little be more about his past than when he first appeared as William Hartnell, but still we don’t really know that much about him. We know nothing of his upbringing, his education (other than that he went to school with the Master) we know nothing about his family. What about his children? If he has a grand daughter surely he had a child, what became of them? Are they dead? Is that why Susan was travelling with him? Did he have a wife?

None of these questions have been answered and they most likely never will be as the air of mystery that surrounds the Doctors character is as defining an aspect of his character as Batman’s lack of super powers or tragic origin is his.

Similarly the Doctor is always more of a Holmesian hero who uses his mind to solve his problems. He’s not like say James Bond who has a gun holster on him and whips out a pistol at the first option, or Angel who has a massive weapons cabinet in his hotel filled with knives, axes, stakes, swords and even later shotguns.

The Doctor will use guns and weapons if need be. He’s not like Batman who never kills (in most versions at least), but he’s not someone whose way out of every situation is just to zap the badguy. He does tend to fall into the Sherlock Holmes type of hero more, IE, more cerebral, analytical.

He also is always someone who wants to explore the universe too. He hates just settling down somewhere and wants to see everything. We see this in Hartnell’s Doctor who leaves Susan when he realises that she wants to settle down somewhere, Troughton’s and Pertwee’s Doctor’s who hate the thought of being exiled to earth, Tom’s Doctor who hates having to go on mission’s for the time lords or the Brigadier, even Matt’s Doctor who can’t stand hanging around Amy and Rory’s flat for a week.

Sometimes his curiosity will put himself and others around him in danger such as in the first Dalek story, The Caves of Androzani and even Utopia.

In all instances he lands in somewhere that is clearly dangerous, but his own desire to explore an unknown planet ends badly for him.

Even physically as I have pointed out before the Doctor usually has to be somewhat Byronesque and more old fashioned looking.

He normally has long or big hair, a clean shaven face and wears flamboyant, Edwardian/Victorian era clothing, usually frock coats, scarfs and big hats.

See here

Tom Baker himself even said in an interview collected in the 1976 docu Whose Doctor Who (which is included on the DVD release of The Talons of Weng Chiang) that the Doctor was the most limiting role he has ever played. He said there were so many things he couldn’t do as the character because if he did then he wouldn’t seem like the Doctor anymore.

Jon Pertwee also said that the Doctor must always remain asexual, as that was an important part of his character.

Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy all tried to keep their predecessors performances in mind and even watched them before starting to see what the Doctors overall personality was.

Robert Holmes, the shows most popular and prolific writer was also adamant about making sure all of the Doctors were still the same person, as was Terrance Dicks, the shows longest running scrip editor who said the single most important thing was not to change his character too much.

I wrote the Fifth Doctor in much the same way as I did his predecessors. After all the Doctor is always the same character. His body changes, his manners and idiosyncrasies alter, but at the bottom he remains the same person.

Bob Holmes

It must have been at a change over time for the Doctor, and he’d (Bob Holmes) been asked to do a story next season, but he wasn’t absolutely certain who the Doctor was going to be. And I said “isn’t that tough”, and Bob said. “Not really, the Doctors always the Doctor.” And that of course is perfectly true.

-Terrance Dicks

John Nathan Turner, the shows longest running producer was also adamant about keeping up key aspects of the Doctors character, such as his asexuality, and even his long hair! He even forced all three of his leading men to grow their hair out long.

With this in mind then its obvious that the Doctor can not be absolutely anyone. You couldn’t cast a big muscle bound actor like Sylvester Stallone who would play the character as a big gun toting action hero like Rambo. He would look out of place in every respect.

Now you might be thinking that a female Doctor could embody these characteristics that I have described, the Doctors love for travelling, the mystery around his origins and yes she could, but ultimately I think that another key part of the Doctors character that runs throughout all of his incarnations is his gender.

Really the Doctors gender has become a core part of his personality by default, simply because he has been a man for the past 50 years. To say the he is genderless is a lie.

All of his relationships have been from a male perspective. He was a grandfather to Susan, he was a grandfatherly, fatherly figure to most of his other female companions in Classic Who, he had a brotherly relationship with Jamie, a brothers in arms relationship with The Brigadier (though they also clashed as two alpha males at certain points). He has been a loving boyfriend to characters like Rose and a husband to River Song.

On top of that we identify with him as a man. Young boys look up to him as a role model, the image we have of the Doctor in our heads is of a British gentlemanly hero like Sherlock Holmes (which is probably why most people wouldn’t want an American Doctor either. Funny how you can say that you want him to remain British and not American without being shouted down as an anti American racist?)

To suddenly turn him into a woman would seem jarring after 50 years, feel forced and look out of place, as much as if we had him reveal his true name or decide to stop travelling.

Look at this scene from the Docu Drama An Adventure in Space and Time where William Hartnell the first actor to play the Doctor, who is played here by David Bradley looks across from the TARDIS console and sees Matt Smith’s Doctor. This was of course meant to show how he knew that his character would endure for 50 years.

Now imagine if it were a woman looking back at William Hartnell like Emma Watson who has been touted as a potential female Doctor. It wouldn’t seem like the same character at all. The change would just be too drastic. Physically it would be too extreme a change alone, but as we have been over any type of relationships she would have with other characters, would be different to the first 13 as they would now be from a female perspective. A female Doctor would actually be more drastic as it would mean that the Doctor was never male.

He was just a genderless being that could have either been a man or a woman and all of his male incarnations were just flukes. Apparently there was a 50/50 chance of the Second Doctor turning into either Patrick Troughton or Beyonce.

To me that wrecks the Doctor as a character as now he isn’t a character, he is just a title as, he can literally be anyone.

We can see this with Missy, the female version of the Master. To anyone who is being honest Missy was not even remotely believable as The Master.

Much like the Doctor, the Master’s character has a template that he must always follow or else he isn’t a character, he too is a title.

The Master’s template is as follows.

He must always want to conquer the universe. That is the Master’s basic motivation. He wants to take over planets like the earth as he believes that under his rule he can make them a better place. In some ways he sees his evil as being for a greater good, though at the same time he is a petty, hateful, bitter little man who is easily corruptable.

He is also a miserable pathetic coward who is willing to sacrifice billions of innocent lives to save his own too.

He is a highly manipulative character. He is always is able to twist people’s minds, prey on their weaknesses and strengths to his own advantage.

The Master in contrast to the Doctor will often be in a position of power as he will often have a forged alias and have lied, and greased and manipulated his way to the top of any society he is in. He will also often use this position to frame the Doctor or have him arrested.

He also despises the Doctor too. Initially he views the Doctor as a potential ally due to their friendship and also because the Doctor is another renegade time lord like him. The more the Doctor bests him the more he grows to despise him to the point where he is utterly consumed by his hatred for the Doctor. In the Deadly Assassin he remarks whilst in his burnt, emaciated body that his hatred of the Doctor is the only thing that keeps him alive in spite of the unimaginable agony he is in.

In fact there are only two things that can overcome the Masters overwhelming cowardice and fear of death, his burning hatred of the Doctor and his desire to rule the universe. In Survival the Master is happy to die in his final showdown with the Doctor if it means he can get him. . In the 96 movie when the Master is dangling over an abyss he refuses the Doctors offer of help and spits back in his face NEVER!

In Logopolis he gambles with the fate of the entire universe and thus his own life when he with holds the only thing that can save it unless its people bow down before him.In the Time Monster he tells the third Doctor that he is perfectly willing to risk his own life and all of time and space in order to rule the universe.

Finally the Master also physically generally tends to have shorter dark hair, dress in darker more toned down clothing and have thick facial hair.

The Master must always follow this template. If you don’t follow this template then you are not writing the character of the Master.

All of the original Masters followed this template as different as they were.

Roger Delgado the original Master followed this template, but he was more suave, and in control than those who came after. The Burned Master meanwhile followed this template as well, but he was bitter, hateful and vicious. Ainley followed it too, but he was more flamboyantly evil, dandyish and more of a lovable rogue. Roberts was more animalistic and savage, but he still followed the template.

John Simm’s Master has often been slated by classic era fans for being too wild and crazy but personally I didn’t mind that as he still followed the basic template for the character.

Simm’s Master sought to gain control of the entire universe like the others. His plan in Last of the Time Lords is to create a new time lord empire that in The Master’s twisted mind will create a new universal order, whilst in the End of Time he turns all of humanity into clones of himself in order to have an army that can sweep across the universe (he also later attempts to do the same to the time lords)

The Simm Master was manipulative too. He seduced Lucy Saxon, he tricked Martha’s family, he managed to get the entire United Kingdom to vote him in as Prime Minister, he tricked Joshua Naismith. He also established himself in a position of power as the Prime Minister and used this position to frame the Doctor as a terrorist.

He also hated the Doctor with a vengeance too. He held him prisoner and tortured him for an entire year.

Also much like the other Master’s whilst he was a miserable cringing coward who was afraid of death, he was still willing to die just to spite the Doctor as seen at the end of The Last of the Time Lords, when he willingly kills himself just to hurt the Doctor by making him the last of his kind once again. Also in The End of Time he risks freeing the Time Lords, the Daleks and all the other horrors of the time war in order to gain control of them.

Finally even physically he resembled the other Masters in that he too dressed in dark sharp suits and had a more normal, toned down appearance.

Thus I think Simm’s Master fit in perfectly with the other Masters. The fact that he was more of a hysterical maniac than Delgado or Ainley didn’t bother me at all. Simm and Davies managed to work that change to within the template of the character, and it made sense in a way as the Master at that point after everything that had happened to him would be more insane. Also it was always hinted that he was underneath his steely exterior a vicious psychopath.

Whilst he claimed that he never killed unless he had too and that once he ruled planets like the earth he would make them a better place there were many occasions in stories like The Sea Devils and The Deadly Assassin where he killed people for no reason other than seemingly his own sadistic cruelty. Thus to me the Simm Master was merely this side of the Master brought to the fore by a combination of the time war and possibly his own regeneration.

Missy meanwhile does not fit in with the template in any way. In fact she contradicts it.

To start with she is in love with the Doctor. So many fans deny that she was meant to be in love with him.  Fans will often say “she was just messing with him when she kissed him”.

Well even if that were true that would still be crap. Basically the Master and the Doctor are now like Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd when Bugs Bunny dresses up as a woman and seduces Elmer Fudd. Gee remember when they were more like Holmes and Moriarty in Pertwee’s time or even Batman and the Joker in Simm’s time.

Now they are literally this.

The Master’s way of messing with the Doctor used to be things like, framing him for the murder of the president of the time lords, stirring up a war between his two favourite races the Sea Devils and humanity, luring him to a dying planet of cheetah people, framing him as a terrorist. Now its regenerating into a woman and forcing a kiss on him to make him sexually confused!

I’d say that’s a come down for a once great villain.

Still its not true anyway, Missy was not simply messing with the Doctor. She was meant to have at least some romantic feelings for him, and you can tell this just by what she says and does.

To start with she calls him her boyfriend when he isn’t around to other characters like the Half face man who has no idea who they are. If she is just messing with him why would she say that when he isn’t around?

Also he later kisses her and she smiles as he does it, and kisses him back. If she was just kissing him to mess with him then why did she let him kiss her and enjoy it?

She tells the Doctor not long after French kissing him that her hearts are maintained by him. She even mentions being jealous of Clara and just about everything she says to him throughout Death in Heaven is a flirtation of some kind “its our Paris”, “show a bad girl how its done”.

On top of that her entire plan that covered all of season 8 was to win him back as a “Friend”.

Now its true that in her next appearance she denies having any romantic feelings for him, but its presented very much in a the lady does protest too much kind of a way and later she says that traps are her way flirting. Who is it she always lays traps for? Then there is the fact that she blushes when he plays Pretty woman in her direction, and the fact that she goes out of her way to save him from the Daleks.

Still not convinced? Michelle Gomez who played Missy says in this very interview that it was hell for Missy having to pull back from snogging the Doctor, as she wanted to fuck him there and then in front of Clara.

It Was Hell Kissing Peter Capaldi

Steven Moffat also refers to Missy as the Doctors Ex in this interview here

Osgood offed by the ex

So in the show Missy kisses the Doctor 5 times (more times on screen than Rose and as many as River), she almost outright says she loves him, her plan is to win him back and the actress who played her and the person who wrote the episodes she was in both say that she was in love with him. Yet some fans still deny that there was ANY romantic aspect to 12 and Missy’s relationship. I guess though that just goes to show that they view it as being crap like me, but where as I say that its shit, they literally deny reality.

Some fans have argued that there was always a gay aspect to the Doctor and the Master’s relationship but this is as big a denial of reality as saying that there was no romantic aspect to Missy and 12’s relationship.

Originally it was intended for the Master and the Doctor to be brothers. Jon Pertwee conforms as much on an interview included on the Planet of the Spiders DVD as does Barry Letts. Thus Pertwee and Delgado always played it as such and it was planned in Delgado’s last adventure as the Master, called The Final Game to reveal that the two time lords were brothers.

Sadly Roger Delgado was killed in a car accident before this could happen. Still whilst it was never canonized that they were brothers, its obvious that Delgado and Pertwee who still intended them to be brothers, didn’t play them as secret gay lovers. Unless you think they intended the main hero in a family show to want to shag his brother?

In the Burned Master’s time the character was depicted as a burned zombie so again unless you think they wanted the Doctor to be a necrophilliac, I think its safe to say that there wasn’t any sexual tension between the Doctor and the Master.

In Ainley’s time there was once again no sexual tension. In fact JNT the producer of the show during the time Anthony Ainley played the character said that he considered them to be brothers, and came close to revealing it in Planet of Fire but ultimately decided to leave it open.

During John Simm’s time Russell T Davies to be fair did add a gay subtext to the Doctor and the Master’s relationship but even then it was only a subtext. The Simm Master didn’t actually want to shag the Doctor. If he wanted to he could have done as he held him prisoner for a whole year.

Thus Missy being in love with him, no matter how hard you try and rewrite the past to add a gay subtext between Pertwee and Delgado, jars with the previous Doctor/Master dynamics.

Some fans have even tried to say that the Master’s sexuality changed when he regenerated into a woman. To me this is possibly the most ridiculous explanation. The idea that time lords sexualities change when they regenerate turns it into a parody.

So then the 9th Doctor was in love with Rose, but suppose he had regenerated into a woman instead of David Tennant and then had fallen in love with Mickey but then a few years down the line he had regenerated back into a man and fell in love with Rose again.

Its a silly idea, but even worse is the idea that the Master can go from hating the Doctor to the point where his hatred for him keeps him alive, when he has no skin, to wanting to jump his bones because he has now become a woman.

It is similar to an actual parody of the show written by Moffat in 1999 called The Curse of Fatal Death. In this story the Master first of all gets Dalek spheres grafted onto his chest which look like tits. There are subsequently many jokes about his breasts and new girly nature. At the end of the story the Doctor actually regenerates into a woman and the Master falls in love with her and the lady Doctor suddenly finds him a great deal more attractive than she remembered before.

Its funny that Moffat has now done both things in the actual show. Things that he himself viewed as a joke in the 90’s!

“They’re not breasts okay. They’re Dalek bumps. They are also incredibly firm.”

Doctor Who is now a parody of a parody of itself.

No matter what way you try and explain Missy’s interactions with the Doctor they are silly. Either she is Bugs Bunny, either the Master has now gone from a sociopath with a burning hatred for the Doctor, to his jealous ex lover, or the Master is now literally the Curse of Fatal Death Master made canon.

Also Missy’s motivation is at odds with the previous male Masters too.

As we have been over the Master’s entire motivation is to rule over the entire universe at any cost. Missy meanwhile in her first appearance actually gives up an army of nearly indestructible Cybermen in order to win back the Doctor, telling him that she doesn’t need an army.

Can you imagine ANY of the previous Masters giving up the perfect army to be with the Doctor? John Simm who risked bringing the full fury of the time lords AND the Daleks on his head in the hopes of gaining control of them both? The Burned Master who declared that he will become the master of all matter? Anthony Ainley who gambled with the fate of the entire universe itself in Logopolis by withholding the only thing that could save it? Roger Delgado who was perfectly willing to risk the destruction of all of time and space in the chance that he might rule it?

No, none of these characters would ever have done that and furthermore the fact that Missy does is not only literally the polar opposite of every Master from Delgado to Simm, but its also a huge come down for the character. He used to be someone who tried to change the entire history of the universe to his liking even in Simm’s time. Now his goal is to win his boyfriend back?

Furthermore as Missy literally hands over her Cyber army to the Doctor as a present, with no fail safe, she is beaten by a no thanks.

She has an army that could conquer billions of worlds, that the Doctor would have no way of beating. Think of what Delgado or Simm would have done with that army. Hell look at what Simm did with his army of Toclafane, and the struggle the Tenth Doctor had to go through, which included an entire year of physical and mental torture, to stop him.

With Missy it was literally “sorry I don’t want your Cyber army” and that was that. She was easier to beat than The Curse of Fatal Death Master.

How can anyone not view that as being a come down for the Master?  From a criminal mastermind to an oversexed Mary Poppins.

The whole romantic aspect of the Doctor and the Master’s relationship was only possible because of the Masters sex change. As the Doctor and the Master, have never really been established as homosexual or even bisexual, it would have looked more out of character to have had John Simm shove the Doctor against a wall and French kiss him.

Also Peter Capaldi and Michelle Gomez had a strong sexual chemistry with one another, which again wouldn’t have been there if it had been a man like John Simm as the Master.

To be fair Steven Moffat didn’t have to have Missy be in love with the Doctor because she was a woman, but it was far more likely to happen because of her gender change and that’s the thing, because gender is such a huge part of our personality, when you change gender there are all sorts of differences that can happen as a result, that you might not have taken into account.

Another example of this with Missy is the fact that the physical aspect of the Doctor and the Master’s relationship is gone. No not THAT physical aspect which never existed until Missy, but the Doctor and the Master would often fight with each other in brutal physical fights. It was kind of a Holmes/Moriarty type of relationship where you had two men who were normally very gentlemanly, calm and respectful towards each other, but who deep down despised each other so much that they would just explode with rage and try and kill each other.

See here

This has now gone from the Doctor and the Master’s relationship. Obviously the Doctor can’t beat the crap out of the Master, now that the Master is a woman.

Imagine if Peter Capaldi slugged Michelle Gomez across the jaw and sent her crashing down an entire flight of stairs. Imagine if Peter Capaldi kicked Michelle Gomez in the ribs and sent her crashing head first through some chairs.

There’s no way viewers would accept that. I am not saying that you can never have women villains fighting male heroes, but it needs to be in a more adult show like Angel or Buffy.

Doctor Who is not a children’s show, but it is a family show. It has to find the right balance of being mature and intelligent enough to be interesting to adults, but not too dark for the little kids watching.

Thus having the Doctor a hero to little boys and a role model, beat the absolute shit out of a woman is probably something that parents would object too.

The Doctor is therefore undermined since he can no longer fight his archenemy. There is a scene from Death in Heaven Missy’s first appearance, where she murders Osgood a cute young friend of the Doctor.

Missy kills Osgood just to hurt the Doctor (though it is also strongly hinted that she is jealous as the Doctor had just asked Osgood to join him). The Doctor later finds Osgood’s remains and Missy taunts him and laughs at him . The Doctor in response does? NOTHING!

If it were a male Master the Doctor could have at least shoved him against a wall by the throat and threatened to kill him. But because the Master is a woman the Doctor can’t lay a finger on her which makes him look like a pansy. A villain can literally murder his innocent, cute, defenceless, little friend in cold blood, right in front of him and he won’t even get a little bit angry at her.

In fact worse, he kisses her later in the episode!

Compare that to this scene from a Batman animated movie called Batman Beyond Return of the Joker. Here the Joker similarly captures Batman’s little friend Robin and tortures him. He then plays footage of his torture to Batman whilst taunting him and Batman explodes with rage, and beats the Joker almost to death declaring at one point “I’LL BREAK YOU IN TWO!”

Batman comes across a lot better I think its safe to say. You hurt his little friend he will at least knock your teeth out and smash you through a window. The Doctor will do bugger all and give you a big sloppy wet kiss later.

Of course once again this only happened because of the Master’s sex change. If the Joker had been a woman then Batman would not have been able to smash her across the jaw and send her crashing through a window, as that Batman film was aimed at a family audience.

Some have argued that the Doctor always spared the Master, but again when you watch Classic Who back you can see this isn’t the case.

To be fair in Delgado’s proposed last story it was going to be revealed that the two had trouble killing each other because they were brothers, but since this was never revealed in the finished show itself, then it doesn’t really matter.

In the actual show the Doctor tries to kill the Master in his second appearance The Mind of Evil. In fact he goes out of his way to kill the Master, even when The Master agrees to flee, as he thinks he doesn’t have the right to let him go into the universe and hurt other people.

In the Deadly Assassin the fourth Doctor kicks the Master into a bottomless pit and says that the Master is the one person in the entire universe that he would wish death on. In Castrovalva he leaves the Master to die in his own death trap and says he hopes he is gone for good. In The Five Doctors he leaves him to die on two separate occasions.

First Jon Pertwee leaves him in the Death Zone (even when Sarah pleads to help him) whilst Peter Davison steals his only method of escape from the Cybermen and jokes to the time lords “well if he survived I’ll say sorry”.

In Planet of Fire, the Doctor burns the Master to death! In Trial of a Time Lord the Doctor tells the time lords who are not only known to execute people, but actually erase them from existence, to do whatever they want with the Master and only makes a case for Glitz.

In Survival he comes close to smashing his head in with a rock and only relents because if he does then the Cheetah virus will take him over.

In the Tennant era it is true that the Doctor was more reluctant to kill the Master and personally I despised this take on their relationship as it did greatly undermine the Doctor as a hero. However even then there was more of a reason behind it, as the Doctor and the Master were the last two time lords left in existence. The Doctor does not want to be alone again, and therefore it is more understandable that he might not be so desperate to kill him.

With Missy however the Doctor knows that Gallifrey survived the war. This coupled with the fact that the 12th Doctor is supposed to be a more callous, kick up the arse, harder Doctor who wants to make up for the mistakes of the past, means that if anything he should be harder on the Master.

Instead 12 is the easiest on her. He actually borderline colludes in her crimes, such as keeping the knowledge of her survival a secret from Clara and UNIT.

The reason for that is  all to do with her gender change. He can’t attack her physically when she does horrible things in front of him, and he, it is strongly implied has romantic feelings for her too (why else would he kiss her, particularly when its said that the 12th Doctor doesn’t like physical contact with anyone). Thus he gives her a free pass for things like killing Osgood.

Thus the Doctor and the Master are completely undermined this way. The Master is undermined as before he always managed to escape the Doctor when the Doctor did genuinely try and kill him, whilst now? The Doctor lets him go because he likes him or rather her. At the end of Death in Heaven, though it appears he is going to shoot her, he later says he knows she would have survived to Clara, and he didn’t tell Clara!

The thing about the Master is that he needs to have some kind of victory over the Doctor. He obviously can’t succeed in ruling the universe, but he can succeed in escaping the Doctors plan to kill him. Whilst he may never win against the Doctor, the Doctor will never win against him either as he will always go free and kill more people.

Sadly that aspect has now been taken away by the Doctor becoming a complete pussy, who snogs the Master after she kills his friends, whilst the Doctors morality has been undermined as now he lets mass murderers go,  and he doesn’t even have the excuse of her being the last of his kind this time. Hell even then Tennant was prepared to kill Simm in the End of Time and wasn’t happy for him to go free at the end of The Last of the Time Lords.

With this in mind then can anyone say that Missy fits in perfectly with the other Masters? So many people actually say she channels Roger Delgado the first actor to play the Master, which is sheer insanity!

Missy as we have seen is the opposite to all of her male predecessors. They wanted supreme power, Missy gives it up to be with the Doctor who she is in love with, whilst the previous Masters despised him and wanted to kill him! On top of that even physically Missy dresses in bright red colours. She’s a sexy Mary Poppins!

Yeah she is really like Delgado. I have despite my dislike for Missy from the start tried to make her fit in with the previous male versions of the Master when I have written about the character but I can’t.

She just stands out like a sore thumb and in the worst way possible as she demeans him. She either rewrites it so that the Master has always been gay for the Doctor and in love with him which turns the character into a joke. When you watch the Deadly Assassin and see the Master go on about, how much he hates the Doctor, and its his hatred for the Doctor that gives him strength, you laugh. Now you think “yeah sure you HATE him”

Or she makes it that the Master could have at any point in Old Who have turned into a woman, who would have found her male archenemy a lot more attractive than she remembered before and tried to fuck him instead.

With this in mind, it doesn’t give me high hopes for a female Doctor. Missy was clearly a dummy run for a female Doctor, and it just conformed all my worst fears about how badly a female incarnation of a male time lord would stand out.

Michelle Gomez who played the female Master is a very good actress. Initially I thought her performance was terrible, but then I realised that actually it was the entire character that was terrible. The actress really didn’t matter.

Still Gomez is a really good actress normally and its a shame that she was cast as the Master as she would have been excellent as The Rani, a female time lord adversary of the Doctors from the classic era.

The Rani was played by Kate O’Mara who even looks a little bit like Gomez. The two also have a similar, dry, cutting, sarcastic sense of humour and delivery too, plus even the costume they gave Missy is more how the Rani would dress too.

Its sheer madness that they had an actress that would be as perfect for The Rani as Gomez and they cast her as the Master. It would have been like if Tim Burton had cast Michelle Pfieffer as the Joker instead of Catwoman.

Lets do a little role play here. Imagine you are the casting director for Doctor Who and you are told that you need to cast the Master and the Rani. Now you are sent the CV’s of two very talented actors. Charles Dance and Michelle Gomez.

Here’s the Master and the Rani.

Now try and match the right actor to the right role. It really isn’t hard.

Is there anyone out there who if they actually wanted to portray those characters properly would even for 5 seconds consider casting Gomez as the Master over Dance and instead of as the Rani?

There are plenty of other men who could have been great as the Master. Robert Carlyle would have been an excellent Master opposite Capaldi’s Doctor. Both older, known for playing mad, bad and dangerous to know characters, both are Scottish etc. Carlyle would have brought a darker edge to the character than any previous actor. Simon Templeman meanwhile would have been a perfect charming, arrogant, suave Master, whilst Jason Watkins would also have been a suitably creepy Master too.

I am sure at least one of those actors would have been available. Carlyle and Templeman are both Doctor Who fans, whilst Watkins has already been in Doctor Who.

Sadly none of them were considered because they were men

NO ONE can say why Michelle Gomez should have been cast as the Master other than “well its something new so that’s automatically better” or abuse of people who don”t like her casting like in this article here which actually breaks the privacy and anti bullying rules on Outpost Gallifrey.

16 Sexually Confusing Feelings Doctor Who Fans Have After Missy’s Change

Look at the comments below the article. I think that shows you how the Social Justice Warriors get their own way. They bully people with all the usual insults like virgin, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, they outright lie, they do things that are unacceptable but think that its justified because they have right on their side. Yet none of them can supply a reason as to why Michelle Gomez is a good choice for the Master.

I think this better than anything else how feminism has crippled the show. Nowadays in Doctor Who, people are not cast because they are right for the role, but just for Moff to virtue signal.

Michelle Gomez is cast as the Master rather than as the Rani a role she would have been perfect for so that Moffat can say “LOOK LOOK EVERYONE I CAST A WOMAN AS THE MASTER! SEE I AM NOT SEXIST!”

I might like to add that there have been plenty of examples of male characters turning into women in other sci fi shows that I,nor anyone else has had a problem with.

In Smallville, the Superman villain Brainiac technically goes from being played by a man to being played by a woman. In Smallville, Brainiac is an android created by the Kryptonians to serve them, but he goes rogue when the renegade Zod reprogrames him. When Brainiac shows up in series 5 and 7 he assumes the form of a man, played by James Marsters. However at the end of series 7 Clark Kent destroys Brainiac, but we later discover that he survived by implanting a tiny piece of his mind into Chloe Sullivan, Clark Kent’s childhood friend.

In Series 8 Brainiac completely takes control of Chloe and goes on the rampage across Metropolis. Thus for these episodes, Brainiac is played by Allison Mack.

The funny thing with this gender change is, no one even noticed!

You might think that’s a contradiction to my earlier points but its not. The reason that it works in Brainiac’s case is because it makes sense with his character.

Brainiac is established as being a genderless character unlike the Doctor or the Master. He is a machine creature with no true gender. His James Marsters form wasn’t his true form, he simply assumed it to blend in with humanity, and manipulate Clark and later Lex.

James never played him as a male character either. He always played Brainiac as a completely emotionless creature. Furthermore Brainiac was established as being capable of changing into any form, man or woman he wanted. He had already taken the form of Kara Kent in Season 7 to manipulate Lex. Finally he was also established as being a body snatcher too as he already tried to take over Kara Kent in season 7.

So with this in mind, yes there is no reason that Brainiac couldn’t have changed into a female form. Again there had to be a proper reason for it to happen in the show itself, and there was, as his original form had been destroyed and he needed a new body.

Thus with Brainiac the change over was completely smooth and worked fine. Granted the writers of Smallville didn’t do anything stupid, like have the female Brainiac suddenly notice what a big hunk Tom Welling was, but still even without that it worked better than it would with the Doctor and the Master as Brainiac was a genuinely gender neutral role.

So Paul Cornell you can drop the “anyone who doesn’t like a female Master or Doctor is transphobic”.  Nobody had any problems with the female Brainiac. Hell I actually really like that story arc and I think Allison Mack did an excellent job as Brainiac.

If it makes sense with that character, and if there is a good reason for it to happen within the story, then fine.

There are many other examples of characters changing gender in the sci fi and fantasy series such as the Demons and Angels in Supernatural who possess both male and female bodies, and even in Doctor Who itself, the ancient alien Eldrad which changes from a female to male form.

Again in both cases it makes sense within the story. The Demons are established as being gender neutral, as they are basically big black clouds of smoke who have forgotten who they were in life, and have no desire other than to maim and mangle. Granted some of them still do have gendered names, but ultimately they are at least more flexible than the time lords have been shown to be. In Eldrads case there was once again a proper reason within the story.

Ironically no one has any problems, even with a character changing from a man to a woman, never mind just with a strong female hero, or villain as people like Whovian Feminism claim.

As long as it doesn’t jar with what came before then its fine, but sadly in the case of the Doctor and the Master, as they are clearly NOT gender neutral characters like Brainiac then it does feel out of place and evidently a lot of people share that opinion, hence why the idea  of a female Doctor or Master has always been met with such resistance, whilst the female Brainiac passed unnoticed.

“We need to have a female Doctor and Master, and anyone who is opposed to it clearly hates transexuals (rather than you because they might think its a bad idea, and because Missy was terribly written) They clearly could never accept a male character turning into a woman, because of inbuilt conservatism and bigotry.”


Another example of Moffat replacing male roles with female characters is the new UNIT family who are all women. The two regulars Kate and Osgood are women and in the Zygon two parter all of the generals and commanders in UNIT are women.

UNIT is a military organisation designed to track down alien threats and throughout its history its naturally been more male dominated, as there are more men in the military than women.

Shocking New Marines Study Shows Men Are Better Soldiers Than Women

A military that is made up of 95 percent women like UNIT in Moffat era Who is completely unrealistic.

Now personally I don’t actually mind the new all female UNIT on its own. I LOVE Osgood. UNIT’s leading scientist. The actress who plays her, Ingrid Oliver is easily one of the UK’s best (and most underrated) actresses right now.

I also don’t care that its unrealistic to have so many women in the military. Doctor Who is unrealistic anyway and in these types of things men and women regularly perform feats that no one could anyway.

So no I don’t HATE the new female UNIT, its just the principle of the thing I hate. This idea that all of the male roles in the series have to be replaced with women.

The Brigadier and Benton roles are replaced by women, the Master has been replaced by a woman, and possibly by 2018 the Doctor could be a woman. And the companion will still be a woman and so there will be no male roles left in the show at all.

It will be feminized from top to bottom. Now tell me is that fair?

For this upcoming remake of Xena the Warrior Princess are we going to have to recast ALL the roles with men? Xena, Gabrielle, Callisto and the Amazons all played by big burly men?

Furthermore in Buffy the Vampire Slayer all of the Slayers, the one person gifted with the strength and skill to hunt the Vampires in every generation are always women. There is no reason why they have to all be women, as unlike the Doctor and the Master, the Slayer is not one character, but a title. Yet they are always women, and the reason they actually give on at least two occasions in Buffy are “cause girls are better”. Granted its total tongue in cheek (I don’t think there was anything sexist against men in Buffy at all.) But again why do I feel there is a bit of a double stand here from feminist fans? Its okay to have all the Slayers be women because? But its not okay to have all the different versions of a male character remain male?

I wouldn’t want any Slayers to be men by the way. I’d also HATE it if in the remake of Xena, Callisto was played by a man and rewritten as someone whose plan was to stick his head between Xena’s tits and jiggle it about a bit.

Somehow I don’t think the feminists would be bullying anyone who rightfully said that was a shit version of Callisto that made a mockery of her character. And that wouldn’t even be as bad as Missy. At least the sex crazed male Callisto with a thing for Xena’s breasts wouldn’t actually be connected to the original version played by Hudson Leick. Sadly Missy IS actually meant to be Roger Delgado!

Again no one can say why Doctor Who needs to be feminizsd? Simply because people like Whovian Feminism can’t stand a show that has male leads? Its funny how those of us who don’t want a female Doctor always have to say “I’m not a sexist but I don’t want a female Doctor because”. Actually the people who should explain why their point of view is not sexist, are the people like Whovian Feminism, who evidently have a problem with male  characters like The Doctor and The Master staying men.

I have no problems with Xena and Callisto staying women in the remake of Xena. I’m not going to write an article like “The disappointing femaleness of Xena the Warrior Princess” Think of how sexist that would look”if only Xena starred a man think of how much better it would be”.

These things like Doctor Who and Xena are what they are. Yes any new version of them can’t be completely the same, but they do still have to recognisable as the same character and trying to rewrite so many of the main characters in Doctor Who to be women after so long feels forced and out of place, and in the case of the Master and the Doctor in my opinion it would wreck their characters.

Anti Men Jokes

In addition to emasculating the central male character of the Doctor and replacing almost every male role in the show bar the Doctor with women (which will probably happen in 2018 if Capaldi decides to leave with Moffat.) Moff has also stuck in many anti men jokes throughout the series.

In the season 9 finale the time lord character known as The General regenerates from a white man into a black woman, and the first thing she says is.

“Back to normal am I? Only time I’ve been a man that last body. Dear lord how do you cope with all that ego”

Now this joke did not offend me. I find it tedious and boring, but what really annoyed me was Whovian Feminism’s response to this line.

She actually tried to justify it by saying that as the general had just seen two egotistical men Rassilon and the Doctor, then it wasn’t sexist for her to assume that all men are egotists.

Here is her post on it. Comments on The General’s Ego Line

What a load of bullshit. I’d love to see her defend a moment where a male character describes all women as stuck up bitches and refers to being a man as normal, simply because he had met two women who were a bit full of themselves? Her head would explode with manufactured offence if such a thing ever happened.

This is a woman who said she was personally offended when Steven Moffat made a joke about the Doctor only being played by a woman, when the Queen is played by a man.

Feminists get offended over literally NOTHING. Steven Moffat, saying the Doctor would fall in love with a beautiful, classy woman, and posters, yet men are just meant to suck it up when there are jokes about them being inferior within the show itself!

Whilst I am not offended at the joke unlike with the feminists complaints, I can understand someone else finding it a bit off putting to suggest that all men are egotists.

The leading cause of death for young men in Britain is suicide.

What Can We Do To Solve Britain’s Suicide Crisis

Male Suicide Now A National Public Health Emergency

Yeah men how do you cope with all that ego.

There are many other anti men jokes throughout series 9 such as Clara’s comments about toxic masculinity and Missy referring to her gender change as an upgrade.

The latest Doctor Who Spin off Class has similarly been full of nasty, spiteful SJW themed jokes against white men and white people in general, who SJW’s believe are the only people on earth it is still acceptable to be racist too.

The black female character in Class, named Tanya Adeola in a couple of episodes makes remarks about white privilege, and how she is fed up with everything always going right for white people, and how white people always get their happy endings. These are racist remarks, plain and simple. Replace white with black and the SJW’s would go insane at a white person coming out with something like that.

Personally I also don’t think having black characters always go on about white people in a spiteful way is exactly a positive representation of black people either. Again would we view a male character who always whined about how women have it so easy, women live off of men’s hard work as being a sympathetic or likable character?

That said I wouldn’t mind some of the jokes about men if it weren’t for the sentiment behind them and the brazen double standard from the Doctor Who production team.

On top of the lead character being emasculated because he is a man, male roles being replaced almost entirely with women (by 2018 Davros could very well be the only male role left in the series.) We also have to endure constant jokes about men all being pigs, egotists, and characters constantly saying its better to be a woman, all the while Rachel Talalay has to apologise to Whovian Feminism, on Steven Moffat’s behalf for his supposedly sexist remarks about the Queen? All of this has naturally created a very unpleasant anti men sentiment around the show which has driven away many young men from the series.

I am sure Whovian Feminism and her ilk will pat themselves on the back for driving away all of the supposedly sexist Doctor Who fans, Take a look at this video from a feminist and Doctor Who fan called Claudia Boleyn calling basically everyone who doesn’t like Missy a sexist.

Now Claudia is actually a very nice person. I know her very, very, very fleetingly through twitter, but she is dead wrong here.

I do think there is perhaps a certain sense of misplaced guilt among the feminist fans who want a female Doctor. I’m not saying this si definite, or that it reflects on any of these people personally. Claudia Boleyn really is one of the nicest and most intelligent people I have ever come across on the internet.

Still perhaps there may be a certain sense of guilt among these strident female Doctor advocates that they prefer Doctor Who, a show about a male character over any starring a female character.

It is quite odd the way almost all of the most hardcore female Doctor advocates have zero interest in any series starring a female hero. Claudia Boleyn tells people who don’t like Missy that they need to get used to shows starring women, yet the majority of shows Claudia talks about on her youtube series star men. Doctor Who, Supernatural, Torchwood, Class, Merlin, and Sherlock.

Look at STFU Moffat.Com, the two shows they review the most are Doctor Who and Sherlock. Whovian Feminism has devoted her blog to looking at feminist themes in Doctor Who, why? Why pick a show that isn’t about feminism if you want to look at feminist themes in a show? Doctor Who is not sexist, but at the same time it isn’t about feminism, and it stars a male hero? Why not look at a show like Xena or Buffy that focuses on a female empowerment instead? Even Gabby, the woman in the video arguing for a female Doctor. Her whole thing is that she is a cute nerd girl, but again its only male led series she watches by and large.

The simple reason is because these people do prefer Doctor Who as show to any of the classic female led series like Xena or Buffy. Now obviously that is fine, but again I don’t believe they think its fine that they prefer a male led series. In fact I’d argue that they actually feel guilty for that.

Thus they want Doctor Who to become a feminist series to ease their guilt. Furthermore they want the whole show to be rewritten so that the Doctor was never a male character, but a non binary character instead. That way they will never have been guilty of, in their minds, internalised misogyny.

You might think that’s an absurd thing to believe, but consider this video from Sargon of Akkad. Here he looks at the male feminist Steve Shives and his extreme feminist wife who calls him a sexist because he prefers Angel, a male led series, over Buffy, a female led series. She also says he is a sexist because he has more men in his music collection than women.

As you can see being considered a sexist because you prefer a show that stars a man is actually something that feminists think!

Thus with this in mind I think its fair to say that many, I’m not saying all, but many of the most strident female Doctor supporters feel the same way as Mrs Shives, and actually believed that they are being sexist by preferring a show about a cis, white, straight male character like the Doctor to any starring a woman.

The Effect This Has Had on Doctor Who’s Popularity

Doctor Who’s viewers have gone down every year since 2013. Now in all fairness I am sure some of this can be attributed to franchise fatigue, but still lets not forget than in 2013 Doctor Who was more popular than it had ever been before. There was a lot of good will towards the show from the general public, and the critics and the entertainment industry.

Its also worth noting that viewers for live tv are down in general nowadays due to things like I Player but still even with that Doctor Who’s viewers are down overall.

They have dropped by over 2 million between series 8 (the series the real feminist pandering began) and series 9.

Here are some articles on the shows declining viewers. Remember that one of the sources is from the BBC itself.

Doctor Who’s Ratings Are Awful

Doctor Who Sees Millions Desert Opening Episode

Doctor Who is shown in the United Kingdom after a show called Strictly Come Dancing. Now Strictly still pulls in over 11 million viewers, which is a brilliant lead in for Doctor Who. In spite of this Doctor Who’s viewers fell to 3 million at various points throughout series 9, meaning that close to 8 million people switched off after Strictly Come Dancing. Spin that any way you want, but that’s a show in decline. I might add that some of those 8 million who left returned for the show that was on afterwards, Casualty.

One episode featuring Missy, The Witch’s Familiar got the lowest viewing figures for any episode of New Who and among the lowest for any episode in the show’s 50 plus year history.

In addition to the falling ratings, the shows A I score is down. One episode of series 9 saw it drop to the lowest ever figure for the revival.

It also has been snubbed by almost every major award ceremony. As I already mentioned Peter Capaldi is so far the only Doctor to not even be nominated for a National Television Award.

Peter Capaldi Snubbed By National Television Awards

Rachel Talalay the director of many Peter Capaldi episodes expressed anger over the show being snubbed at so many awards ceremonies.

Rachel Talalay Calls on BAFTA’s and Emmy’s to consider Doctor Who

Here it is meanwhile winning a BAFTA in 2006 for best Drama.

Face facts Rachel its not, not getting awards because its sci fi, but because its shit.

Finally in 2016 it was announced that Doctor Who would be taken off the air for an entire year. The official reason was very weak. They don’t want it to compete with the Olympics and that they want two big events spread out over two years. Moffat’s last season next year, and the Olympics this year.

Thing is they don’t need to put it opposite the Olympics. Doctor Who has never been on at the same time as the Olympics anyway? Also Steven Moffat’s last series isn’t until next year anyway. So why can he not do one this year. It will still be a big event next year when he leaves?

Simple, because the BBC are scared that if he does do another series this year, that’s similar to series 8 and series 9, the shows viewers will be down at 1 million by the time he leaves in 2017.

Furthermore the new Doctor Who spin off Class has been a dismal failure in the ratings too.

Class A Ratings Flop

Clearly they are giving Doctor Who a rest in order to give people a chance to miss it. Then they will hype the 2017 series as being the end of an era, to see them through the end of Moff’s contract before Chibnall can take over. After which they clearly hope it can improve.

Thing is whilst I do think Moff has run completely out of ideas, the basic problem is that the show is pandering to PC culture. Its no coincidence that the two lowest rated episodes of series 9 were the two featuring Missy. The fans have also made it clear that they despised Clara too, and many of them stopped watching because of her. Now think why was Clara so universally reviled? Was it perhaps because she ended up taking over every inch of the shows history from Hartnell to the time war?

Unless the show stops trying to please the tiny, Whovian Feminism demographic its dead. To be honest I’d rather it was cancelled than ended up destroying itself anymore in a futile attempt to please people, who will always find a way to be offended. Its the same as SJW friendly 2016 version of Ghostbusters that was similarly a huge flop.

The comic book industry has also begun to pander to feminists and SJW’s. Thor, Wolverine and Iron Man have all been replaced by female versions (who have all battled strawman anti feminists too.)

Much like Doctor Who, the comic book industry has experienced record lows in popularity since it started pandering to this audience. See here

Retailers Complain About Collapsing Marvel and DC Sales

Why Isn’t The Female Thor Selling?

Comics You’ve Got Your Diversity. Why Aren’t You Buying Them?

Comic Sales Take A Plunge in April

Even more incredible when you consider the record breaking popularity of the Marvel films, both the X-Men film series and the MCU. Yet even with that, the SJW friendly version of Marvel is still chasing readers away!

Again though please don’t think that SJW friendly is the same as having non white, non male heroes as one of those articles seems to suggest.

Dozens of genre tv and film series starring now white’s and non males, again such as Xena, Alien and Buffy, were all massive global hits! Big difference between a female led story like Alien and and SJW movie like Ghostbusters 2016.

In my opinion Doctor Who needs to do the following things to survive.

1/ Delete the idea of a female Doctor from canon. Write the likes of The General and The Corsair off as time lords, who willingly changed gender through some kind of operation. The female Doctor debate is killing the show. The majority of viewers don’t want a female Doctor and truth be told they are scared at the prospect. Look at this article which shows that the majority of people against it ironically are women! Most People Against A Female Doctor Are Women

Thus it has no value. It polarises the fandom, turns away mainstream viewers and has overshadowed Peter Capaldi’s time in the role, as all anyone ever asks him in interviews is will his successor be a woman.

2/ No more Anti Men crap. Or if you still want to have anti men jokes then stick in as many anti women jokes. Either its all okay or none of its okay. Stop favouring one tiny section of the audience, the feminist fans by apologising to them for making a joke about the Doctor being played by a woman, when the Queen is played by a man, whilst insulting the male audience.

3/ Missy needs to be wiped from the Master’s chronology.

That’s easier said than done, but I have thought of a way to write her out that might work.

Sadly this way would have to write out the John Simm Master too. I liked the Simm Master, I felt he worked fine with the other Masters, but I am willing to wipe him from The Master’s time line in order to get rid of Missy.

My idea is this. During the Time War the time lords started to bring back many of their worst criminals to fight the Daleks. The only one they did not bring back was the Master, who died during the events of the 1996 movie. He was the most evil and twisted renegade and so even during the darkest days of the war he was off limits.

A group of insane, degenerate time lords however began to worship the Master during the war. They come to believe that he was right. If the time Lords had followed his way of life, and conquered all other races then they would not be in this position now.

These time lords come to refer to themselves as The Masters. They include the Simm Master and Missy. These time lords are dedicated to fulfilling his vision of bringing about a new universal time lord empire. Some even try and claim that they are the Master himself reborn (such as Simm’s Master)

This would actually explain some of the discrepancies between the Simm Master and the originals. The Simm Master is said to have been driven mad by a constant drum beat in his head, which he first heard as a child. Only problem is this makes no sense as The Master never mentioned the drumming in his head in the classic era. Also Tennant’s attitude towards the Simm Master is very different to the classic era Doctors attitude towards the Master.

Not only is he more merciful but at various points, he tells the Master that he doesn’t really want to do this. What could make him think that?

In this explanation however Simm was not really the Master. He was a friend of the Doctors who became a renegade and who later joined the Masters and was so insane he believed he was the Master (explaining why we heard Delgado’s voice in the fob watch as he was so insane he actually believed he was the Master).

Missy meanwhile can be the Doctors former lover from his youth who later went insane during the time war. This would also explain why the 12th Doctor similarly seems surprised when she kills Osgood and asks her “why are you doing this?” That makes no sense if Missy is the Master, since the Master has been doing things like that for thousands of years.

Thus Missy and Simm would be nothing but imitators. You would reveal this in an episode that would see the return of the REAL Master played by Charles Dance. We would discover that the Masters managed to find a way to bring the original Master back to life. The original Master would then have betrayed the time lords by giving the Daleks the secrets they needed to breach their defences (as seen in Day of the Doctor) Whilst the Daleks and the time lords were trying to destroy each other the Master tried to steal the moment in the hopes of using it to destroy both of them and rule the universe.

The Doctor however managed to swipe it before he could.

After the war the real Master who kept a low profile (with no one apart from the Daleks, not even the time lords or the Doctor being aware he was brought back whilst the Daleks meanwhile believed he died) The real Master searched for the Moment in the hopes of using its power to rule the universe.

Once he finds it the real Master summons all of the Masters, his followers who will be his army. He intends to use the Moment to destroy the Daleks, the time lords and rule the entire universe with his followers the Masters being his new order of time lords. The moment however is able to resist his control being sentient, and summons the Doctor for help.

Here we would see Missy and the Simm Master among those the original Master summons as his army. We could even have Simm return or someone else play the role if Simm were reluctant.

At the end of the story we could have Missy or the Simm Master sacrifice themselves to stop the real Master. Depending on who wants to leave the series at that point. If not Missy could become the original Masters partner in crime.

This story would be perfect in my opinion as it would remove Missy from the Master’s chronology, bring the original Master back who would be played by an actor who was right for the role and we wouldn’t even need to lose Gomez from the show if we didn’t want to.

Only if Doctor Who does these three things can it survive. As long as it still panders to the SJW’s then its slow and painful decline will continue.

This song by Chris Ray Gun demonstrates how feminism destroyed both the New Atheist Movement and the Video Game industry. Though Doctor Who is not mentioned, its pretty much exactly the same way they destroyed it too.

This is exactly what happened to Doctor Who. Feminist, puritanical bullies slated the show and its fans and makers as sexists, and sadly the people at the top, pandered to them and in doing so drove it into the ground.

Think on Chris Chibnall. Do you really want to make the same mistakes as Steven Moffat in pandering to these whiny cry babies who will never be satisfied?

Thanks for reading, here are some other videos by disgruntled fans that voice similar complaints about the show’s feminist pandering.