The Summer 2017 WHTM pledge drive is on! Donate generously to enable our continuing coverage of whiny baby-men! Thanks!
By David Futrelle
A tragic day for whiny baby-men — the BBC just announced that the next Doctor Who will be a lady. Naturally, these sensitive souls took at once to Twitter to make their displeasure known. And to make jokes about Doctor Who turning into Nurse Who amirite fellas high five!
Here are some of the best of the worst Tweets I’ve seen so far. I can’t decide which are my favorites — the ones lamenting the loss of a crucial male “role model” or those suggesting that a female Doctor Who makes as much sense as a male Mary Poppins (which would be perfectly fine to me, by the way).
https://twitter.com/thomasdeeacon/status/886723202168344576
I'm actually quite shocked at the decision to cast a woman the should call it Nurse who now lol 😂😂
— Rhys (@rhysjordanstew1) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/Gapehorner/status/886609824242438144
https://twitter.com/DelDiablo007/status/886613308639514624
https://twitter.com/DelDiablo007/status/886629727745826816
"Doctor Who" what's the deal? Pushing the "gender fluidity" narrative now? Remember when entertainment wasn't social engineering propaganda
— Dan (@NotoriousDano) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/Amen1924/status/886681803167236099
https://twitter.com/spcwriter/status/886664276877991936
https://twitter.com/Erin_Danielle77/status/886639647387942912
The BBC have literally just ruined all the heritage and history of Doctor Who making the new Doctor a woman
— Aydin Osman (@Aydin_Osman96) July 16, 2017
Doctor Who officially ruined. Time Lords being women not an issue, 50 years of tradition out the window is. What next 007 being Janette Bond pic.twitter.com/Hj3buVMx8s
— Ewan McColl (@TheMcColl) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/hucksworld/status/886682969833865217
https://twitter.com/williamparslow/status/886700469648842752
https://twitter.com/GreavesyX/status/886613123666513920
#DoctorWho So patronising to women to be chosen due to political correctness. No room for merit and talent if PC comes first.
— Holomatrix (@Holomatrices) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/BasedKielbasa/status/886647001885978625
https://twitter.com/MJDebio93/status/886691678647705600
https://twitter.com/racerdog45/status/886677551770476545
Women have their own heroes like RIpley, Buffy and Wonder Woman, there is no need to take away role models for men #notmydoctor
— P. J. Lowry (@PJ_Lowry) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/thomasoldham/status/886712069021683712
https://twitter.com/Keef44002574/status/886700034934362112
https://twitter.com/Electromoth/status/886674967106125824
I remember when Ripley, Leia, Buffy, Xena et al. trailblazed great women characters. But now, feminism seems pleased with mere pandering.
— Bradley Yellop (@bazz83) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/winklewilly89/status/886689221418856448
https://twitter.com/revjackashcraft/status/886693656647913473
https://twitter.com/__AlexN_/status/886631666915172352
https://twitter.com/Blackbirds1632/status/886655183224229890
#doctorwho The regressive left are going crazy over the choice, next they will want a transgender to take the role as the Doctor.
— Rust (@Rust_NoMask) July 16, 2017
https://twitter.com/amusedphysicist/status/886655148235161600
No, I don’t understand what that last one means either.
Fun fact: Leela was named for this woman (Leila Khaled) but Tom Baker wanted the scripts toned down to remove Leela’s somewhat kinetic approach to problem solving/removal.
Ironically, speaking of role models, Leela has always been my favourite Doctor Who character (who wasn’t a robot dog).
In other nice sci-fi TV news, the new Star Trek series is finally going to have a gay couple. For all you fellow 90’s teens, one will be played by Wilson Cruz who played Rickie on My So Called Life.
I’ve been going through all the Trek series on Netflix since I only watched TOS and TNG and that was a while back, and the absence of non-straight characters has been really bugging me. It’s just bizarre to me that a long running franchise that generally – though imperfectly – tries to be progressive would be so heterocentric.
@wwth
Yeah, and the few times it somewhat addresses homosexuality it’s a plot twist and I think that’s even worse.
@wwth and @kupo
I recall one of the producers of Star Trek responding to the lack of non-straight characters saying that there WERE LGBT crew members, but “What would you like us to do? Have them sashay up and down the corridor?”. As if having tired cliches about gay mannerisms like lisping, cross-dressing or butch women were the only way to show LGBT characters.
I wish I had a link to the source, but I don’t, so take this with a grain of dilithium crystal.
@Citizen Rat
They had no problem portraying dozens of heterosexual relationships, so I don’t accept their protests.
@kupo
Agreed! It’s a cop-out to go “They are there, but we just don’t show them because reasons!”. Heck, you’re actually admitting to erasure with that.
I think Star Trek (or any progressive show for that matter) would be improved a thousand percent in a single moment by, say, having two men sharing a brief kiss or touching hands in the background of a shot, or two women staring enraptured into one anothers’ eyes over a nice dinner in the lounge while Main Characters do Main Character things.
Honestly, just a couple seconds in the background would go so far in showing that LGBTQ relationships are normalized in those societies! Or heck, a Klingon pirate husband and husband with an amazing relationship as they go carve a bloody swathe through the galaxy, laughing and rampaging all the way? Who wouldn’t want to see that?
(I’m pretty sure there’s got to be a fanfic of that out there somewhere to be honest…)
Come on, you Hollywood dorks! Stop just re-hashing the past! Give us a future to inspire today!
Watching Trek now, it’s such an obvious, gaping omission. But it’s worth noting that 1987 was a very, very different time in terms of attitudes towards gay people. We really didn’t see virtually any serious gay characters until the very late 90s, so when we would expect them to show up in Trek was right when it was going through its own “dark night of the soul” (Enterprise and JJ Abrams).
It would have been really cool if Star Trek had been a pioneer in that area and we’d seen some gay characters in DS9 or Voyager, but I’m not inclined to judge them too harshly because they didn’t.
My So Called Life and Roseanne both had gay characters. Other shows did too. By the early to mid nineties it was becoming not too radical to show gay characters on TV. Although it wasn’t done all that well most of the time, they were either novelties or tragic figures as opposed to three dimensional people, but they were there. To me the absence is conspicuous. At least in later seasons of TNG or Voyager and DS9. Early TNG maybe gets a bit more of a pass.
I knew that when I said “virtually any” someone was going to jump in to say “I can name a gay character!”
Sometimes you guys remind me why I stopped hanging around here.
@Katz
*flicks between Katz and WWTH’s posts trying to figure out which part of that completely innocuous discussion pissed Katz off*
*fails*
???
Was there another post that’s already been deleted? Is Katz annoyed/upset about something unrelated and taking it out on WWTH? What?
Well gosh. I’m sorry that I remember TV shows I saw in the early nineties and applied that to a discussion of other nineties shows. I thought I was just sharing my own opinion based on the knowledge that I happen to have, but I see know that was a very mean and bad thing.
Well gosh. I’m sorry that I remember TV shows I saw in the early nineties and applied that to a discussion of other nineties shows. I thought I was just sharing my own opinion based on the knowledge that I happen to have, but I see now that was a very mean and bad thing.
We’re all on edge here; let’s not take it out on one another.
@Katz:
Star Trek was a pioneer in many forms of social inclusion, particularly the depiction of race and of multicultural groups. It didn’t have a depiction of a gay couple, but that doesn’t take away its laurels. The optimistic worldview which it portrays, and the tolerance which it teaches, are inspiring. Were it done today then it would be difficult to imagine that it wouldn’t have gay and trans crew members.
It is not bad, and you are not a bad person for enjoying it. I for one would feel bad if we didn’t have you around, and I’m sorry that we’ve created a space in which you don’t feel safe.
@WWTH:
Part of being a geek is identifying with one’s media to an often-intense degree, and part of being a progressive is learning to see the problems with them. The conflict between these two principles is hard enough, and we don’t need to make it harder for people by pointing those problems out to them more aggressively than is needed.
By the sound of it, Katz feels about her Trek the way you feel about your Buffy. Let’s be compassionate to one another when discussing each other’s favourite media. These are hard times, and in hard times the truest currency is cooperation.
^This x9999!
EJ,
I wasn’t criticizing anyone for liking Star Trek or saying it was a bad show. I like it too. I’m watching a DS9 episode as I type this, ffs. I was merely pointing out that it’s not true that TV was devoid of gay characters before the late nineties. And BTW, I don’t have a problem with people discussing various issues with Buffy. Only when someone makes blanket attacks on the fanbase on a personal level like that guy did the other day.
I didn’t think we needed to put the caveat that it’s okay to like a show before every post discussing the show in a very mildly critical way, but if people do want that done and find it necessary, that’s cool. We can have that conversation like grownups.
Sniping at me out of the blue for a post that wasn’t personally attacking any one individual or the fanbase as a whole and then implying that she’s going to flounce and it’ll be all my fault just feels manipulative to me. Like she wants everyone to walk on eggshells around her and touchy subjects for her and beg her to stay. If Katz had a problem with the way this discussion was going, she could have brought up precisely what the issue is like an adult rather than trying to lay a guilt trip.
I mean, the reason we were discussing this is because I brought up that the new series will have a gay couple and that it’s kind of strange that this is the first one. That’s pretty different than something like this
Trekkie1: “I love Star Trek”
Trekkie2: “Me too! Which series is your favorite? Who’s your favorite captain?”
Straw SJW “Ugh, why do you people like that? It’s so LGBT exclusionary!”
@Katz
May I ask what it was about that comment that reminded you of the reason you left? It seems to me like there’s a history there of interactions with this community that is still raw for you, and I want to understand it better so I can help make this a more welcoming place for you. You and wwth and Petal (who also just announced a break) are valued members of this community and I hope that if issues are discussed constructively we can work together to make this place stronger.
I can start, maybe? The reason for my several month absence wasn’t just the toxicity in the posts themselves as I implied when I came back. It was partially that, but it was that plus a pattern of Male Feminism (TM) of a) dudes feeling sorry for the dudes who want to rape and kill women, and b) dudes who perpetuate misogyny and get defensive when called out on it, rather than having a discussion.
I only bring this up now because I see the community is hurting and many people are taking breaks. I feel like it can help to air these issues. I do not intend to start an argument or trample on anyone’s feelings with this, and if I have, please let me know.
The issue of people feeling dog piled over using ableist language was almost entirely solved by putting it in the comments policy that it’s not all right to conflate asshole with mentally ill. Also the rule that if someone disagrees with the policy to take it up with David instead of arguing with commenters about it. And the rule that if someone does violate it, that only one person should just link to the comments policy and ask that person to stop.
This isn’t something to do immediately because David has health issues that are the bigger priority at the moment, but I wonder if he might be persuaded at some point in the future to add another little caveat to the comments policy.
Something along these lines
That’s probably not very well written. My ability to express myself clearly feels off today, but hopefully anyone reading this gets the gist.
I do think a lot of fights here could be avoided if we had a stock response someone could give to those who express pity, or worse tone police us on anger or mocking towards the subjects of this blog. It really did work well with the abelism thing.
As to other points of contention, I think the best thing for people to do is if they have an issue with either a particular commenter or the community in general to just bring it up in a polite but direct way. It really does no good to let things fester and then either snapping and sniping at someone for a minor offense. And I don’t think anyone wants people feeling like they can’t or don’t want to be here anymore. Just with any “real life” relationships, communication is the key. It’s not always easy, I get that, but I think all the regular and semi-regular commenters here are good people and if everyone is willing to both speak up and to actually listen to the people who are speaking up without getting too defensive, we can keep the peace for the most part.
@WWTH
” I was merely pointing out that it’s not true that TV was devoid of gay characters before the late nineties.”
That wasn’t the issue?
You’re straight, right? I don’t want to talk over katz, but maybe consider that you’re missing something here.
@mrex
Please don’t get involved in this. You know how much you upset people in here regularly. Walk away.
@ WWTH
I think it’s spot on. By not making such sentiments a breach of the comments policy it avoids giving any weight to allegations that Mammoth is just an ‘echo chamber’ or that dissenting views are forbidden; but the ability to point to something like your suggestion means threads don’t get embroiled in PRATTs and traumatised people don’t have to put up with the same old apologetics they’ve heard a gazillion times before.
At the risk of being a bloke asking a woman to do all the emotional labour, perhaps you might like to invite David to add your bit to the FAQ?
Then people can just link to it as and when the need arises.
I think that sort of a line shouldn’t be in a Comments Policy section; I think that should be reserved for actual rules that’ll get you the boot.
I do think that we desperately need a “Statements What We’ve Heard A Thousand Times Before” page, though, and that sort of a thing should be front and centre. That way when someone gives us a big ole what-about-the-menz we can just say “Common Argument #14. Your rebuttal is here.” and provide a hotlink to the relevant page.
As for our altercation here, I don’t think anyone was being wrong or hard-hearted. Just a collision. I understand your frustrations and feelings, both @katz and @wwth. No solution or glib words here, just some sympathy <3
@ scildfreja
Heh, this is so weird. I originally wrote a little bit in my post exactly on that; and more than that, I wrote ‘maybe ask Scildfreja to do it’. But then I thought that was a bit presumptuous so I deleted it. That’s what prompted the bit about emotional labour though. 🙂
Synchronicity!