I'm watching "NURSE Who"
Before the episode began, lisping Will Weaton said "We need this Doctor now more than ever." LOL!
shareSo, are you trying to be funny? Or do you think that women can't be doctors and men can't be nurses? Or are you just opposed to a female playing this time lord?
I'm sure I really don't want to have this conversation but I am just really sick and tired of misogyny right now.
Just a joke in reaction to Will Weaton's over the top comment. I AM a bit tired of all the gender swapping in sci fi, though.
shareI'm tired of women not getting their own cool roles and just getting leftovers from men as well. But I just wasn't sure what you were trying to say with the nurse comment. Thank you for clarifying.
shareI'm all for women getting their own cool roles. But why do they have to take the male roles. Just write a cool female role for a female. Female 007. NO! Female Ghostbusters. NO! Female Doctor. NO!
Captain Marvel. YES! I totally support that.
Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner are two of the most iconic women in all of cinematic history. Why are they not considered cool roles?
shareKick ass/ cool roles for women are few and far in between. We have had some awesome female characters, and I certainly appreciate them when the come up. Thank you for reminding me of those, two as they also didn't show a lot of T&A as well. I think that Saoirse Ronan as Hanna was fantastic as well.
shareThem being too far in between doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means there isn't enough demand for them. And replacing male characters with female ones isn't the right approach in "empowering women". Women can be powerful with their own characters instead of piggybacking on male ones.
shareI disagree that there isn't a demand for them. Wonder Woman did pretty well. I do agree that I do not feel empowered by an Ocean's 8 or new Ghostbusters.
I liked Jody Whittaker as the Doctor. If you guys hate it, that's your right. To me, it's not like a static character like James Bond. Each regeneration the Doctor is someone new. There are arguments for and against the hows and whys the doctor may or may not be able to be female. I'm not even here to debate this. I was just simply commenting on the OP's comment about nurses.
Oddly enough, Wonder Woman did well thanks to a male majority demographic. Kind of puts thingss into perspective about how sexist they all are in regards to female protagonist roles. I just think everyone is sick to death of the female washing and race swapping. It only serves to alienate one audience, in hopes of pandering to another. No one wins.
shareI'm not convinced the majority cares about the lead being a woman or a man. If the movie works it will do well.
shareThere is plenty of demand for great female roles and studios are finding that they sell better than male roles. It's just that the male roles are more of a tradition.
See, virus, you literally just don't get it, that's why you're a misogynist as well as a racist. You want things to just be white and male and stay that way because it's what makes your insecure little mind comfortable.
Come again? Both ghost busters and oceans 8 tanked at the box office. Tell me again how females leads do better than male leads. The best example that comes to mind is 2onder woman, and guess what, the majority of the people that made that successful were men.
share[deleted]
There was no reference or allusion made to any gender by Will Weaton.
Clearly "this doctor" was referring to The Doctor.
How is it gender swapping? It's a different doctor... not like they went and changed a characters gender... I'm so sorry they're not all males???
shareMisogyny? Hardly... Simply someone tired of the gender bending BS that the media seems hell bent on continuing. I find the change to a female lead just as wrong as I would find it wrong to have a man playing the part of Gloria Steinem, a white man to play Kunta Kinte or a black man to play George Bush... If they wanted a female lead in a sci-fi series then create one but don't screw around with existing shows just to meet your self imposed diversity quota.
shareThe misogyny was in the comment "Nurse Who"
shareMisogyny,sexism and racism are labels sjw's like to fling at people who disagree with their extreme PC culture make over of existing shows and characters.If they wanted a time lord show with a female lead then they should have made a spin off.That i would have watched.A wonderful missed opportunity to bring back fan favorite Romana.Or even the Doctors grand daughter Susan.That would have been interesting.But this #feminism gender swapping pc crap.No thank you.As far as i'm concerned the show ended for me when Capaldi regenerated.
shareThat's fine that you don't like the show. I really am beyond caring if anyone likes the show any more. But when someone implies that men are doctors and women can just be nurses, that is misogyny. It doesn't even really have anything to do with the show at this point. If the OP wished to say that they didn't want to watch the show anymore, fine. To each their own. I don't think that it is an extreme PC view to state that in 2018 women can be doctors.
shareYour absolutely right.I can see how that post would come off as sexist.I wasn't commenting on you specifically i was just commenting on thomas998's comments about all the pc gender and race swapping stuff.I'm all for more content for women.But I'd like to see some originality instead of just continually rebranding fan favorite characters.
shareRebranding of Doctor Who the character and the show has occurred, on average, every three and a half years since it was created. It's part of the show.
shareI contend that there is a huge difference between giving a character a facelift once in a while and changing a characters gender.I can suspend my disbelief everytime a new actor steps into James Bonds shoes.It would be a lot harder to do if they suddenly went with Jane Bond.Like i said before this was a huge missed opportunity to expand the Who universe and do something original.Instead they went with the bland played out gender swap gimmick entirely meant to pander to feminists and pc nuts.
shareThey've made a big deal about successive doctors having different personalities and demeanors, not just facelifts while at the same time emphasizing the consistency in character. It's never been just about a facelift.
I fail to see how gender swap is as inherently or uniformly bland, as you are implying or that its featuring in popular culture is played out by any stretch of the imagination. Although after reading the boilerplate "pc" "feminist" remarks I being to see why you would imply such unsubstantiated, prejudiced generalisations.
"I fail to see how gender swap is as inherently or uniformly bland, as you are implying or that its featuring in popular culture is played out by any stretch of the imagination."
Ghostbusters remake,Magnum pi reboot,Macgyver reboot,Elemenatry (both Watson and Moriarty),Lost in space reboot,Battlestar galactica reboot,Hawaii 5-0 reboot,Overboard remake,upcoming Splash remake.Not to mention speculation of a female Indiana Jones or James Bond in the future.Gender swapping popular characters is a gimmick that's been going on for quite a while.Not sure what you mean by boilerplate.I have nothing against feminism or pc in general.I just don't happen to agree with the gender swapping gimmick they are employing.
Oh Jesus. So you're not bothered but the only time you're moved to invoke PC and feminism it's as a negative.
And the things you mentioned may have been popular at one time, but the idea that's implied here is that they had some uniform perception of quality by a certain audience. And that this audience is being perversely defied resulting in a unanimously perceived drop in quality. That's just a basic assumption that's not true.
I'm sure plenty of people who liked Magnum couldn't stand Hawaii 5-0 and vice versa. And that there's a potential audience cross section that may have been more agreeable if the detective wasn't defined by their gender and had in fact involved one of a different gender. Since we're speculating.
"Not to mention speculation.."
But you do mention it.
Nobody forces you to watch these things, you know. And they're not telling you "We've fixed the thing that justifies you watching a reboot or remake of something you've seen before."
Finally. Nobody considers it PC to change gender of a known character. It's just considered un PC to insist that the perceived gender of a character must be consistent in order to convey an idea such as a detective solving crimes in Hawaii, for instance. There will be examples where it's germane or necessary to stick to an original idea. But not all the time. If you don't agree with that then you could just object to all revivals or reboots without reference to gender. At least a different gender is something.
Sorry if i came off as abrasive.Just correcting your observation that it isn't a played out overused gimmick.Just to clarify i'm not bashing the show or Whittaker.Haven't watched so i couldn't say if she or the new season are any good or not.The gender swap gimmick has turned me off even caring one way or the other.
"Nobody considers it PC to change gender of a known character."
I disagree in this instance.At one point i was begrudgingly willing to put my misgivings aside and accept the gender swap and try to go with it.Then all i kept hearing was #feminism,its about time or breaking the glass ceiling.In this instance they made it very much about pc agendas.
Feminism comes up because people assume that there's no reason not to keep re-casting the role with a male actor.
The idea that there isn't any resistance to a female Doctor and that the concept of feminism is gratuitously invoked by those that would advocate one is, frankly absurd.
So far we've seen Whittaker's Doctor reconfigure a smartphone, smelt metal, repurpose technology to design an electronic device and build some kind of matter teleportation device - not really the stuff of medical work at core. Really the discussion of abilities and roles is mute as the Doctor is "some kind of technical wiz" as witnessed by the companions and thus perhaps a Doctor in science/technology. As to the analogy of medical authority, the Doctor could easily be both nurse and doctor as she seeks to help others and offer a caring ear.
The core issue is whether we can believe that the character as portrayed is really a super-sophisticated intelligent being or just someone who "mucks around" and is accident prone. Are the writers capable of writing a genuinely intriguing and deep character?
The appearance of being someone who mucks about comes from the fact that the Doctor is alien. She's comfortable with pottering about with technology that's far in advance of what we're used to on earth because she's from a culture far more advanced than earth's. Thus it appears that she's as hapless as we are when in fact she's light years ahead.
shareYes, indeed. I remember watching Jon Pertwee's Doctor working on the Tardis and pottering was kind of the idea too, I think. Also, Tom Baker's Doctor was keen to make adjustments "under the hood" when needed. That being said, I think the difference with them is that we could see that they were adept with technology - it felt like they were dealing with "real" appliances and computer systems and they were quite earnest about what they were doing. You may say "wait a minute...Whittaker's Doctor is doing all of that, there is no difference" but the scenes where she is building her sonic screwdriver make it seem as if expertise in engineering is miraculous - it's more fantasy than scifi. Like being clever is a gimmick rather than a skill or attribute. Whilst Pertwee and Baker were certainly goofy at times or clownish, when they had someone to do or say of a technical nature you felt they definitely understood it (even if it was technobabble or showing off) and most important the audience felt involved in the process and it was tangible and we could relate to it by analogy with our perception of science and technology.
shareAnd other doctors never spent 15 minutes using a sledge hammer to make a sonic screwdriver.
Lots of give aways for free, to sell this, so far.
time will tell, literally.
Those are historical and dramatic figures whose gender and race are known to people and/or are integral to what the story is and why it's being told.
The time travelling alien in Dr Who's gender is not. If they made the doctor a human being all of a sudden, that would be screwing around with the show.
There's no reason at all why the Doctor can't regenerate into a female form and why a new character/show needs to be created just to ensure only male actors are considered for the role.
Having the roll of the doctor played by a male for over a dozen different actor in the roll is pretty darned solidified as a male roll. This is just pandering to PC diversity nuts and I'm tired of it.
shareNah. That's you just being worried about being our of your comfort zone. The Doctor's been lots of different things. Take it or leave it.
shareThat's the very definition of a brainless, spineless, whiny snowflake conservative who complains about everything non-white and/or non-male.
shareI enjoyed the first episode (watching it again now as I type this). While I am not against the gender change in this instance (based on the doctor being a regenerating alien) what concerns me is that the show will go overboard with other peoples' reactions to her being woman.
There is one clip in a promo where a male asks "who said you were in charge" and the companions in unison reply "us". If the person asking the question is written to be a sexist a-hole that will be a strike against the show for me. The best way , in my opinion, to encourage acceptance is to show the best way to normally accept things instead of having someone show the worst way to handle it then get put down.
"the best way to normally accept things"? What does that even mean?
I see absolutely no reason why the show can't show a sexist ahole being a sexist ahole. It's not obligated to mollycoddle viewers by pretending such reactions don't happen. They definitely do.
What does normally accept things mean?
When I go anywhere and I see a woman giving instructions I never hear anyone say "Who put HER in charge?" as if a woman could not be in a position of leadership. They listen and follow the instructions.
I work in a big engineering (I am a software engineer) company and have had female bosses. Never did I doubt their position because of their gender. Why, because that what normal people do.
Instead of having the cliche a-hole character, write a character who notices The Doctor has an air of leadership and the others are following her lead. The person would think "This person must be in charge" and follow or at least ask why but not in a condesending way like an ahole would be written.
Young women would see a woman being treated with respect and young boys would be shown how to treat a woman with respect.
Sorry but that not happening in your experience in an engineering firm isn't necessarily the "normally accepted way" and even if it is it doesn't proscribe it within the context of a drama. Maybe you could ask the women in your firm if they ever encountered any prejudice or had to work to have themselves taken seriously because of their gender.
As it happens, the line is simply about this rather eccentric stranger and "She" happens to be the appropriate pronoun. You can infer anything into it that you choose to and be upset by it I suppose.
I find the change to a female lead just as wrong as I would find it wrong to have a man playing the part of Gloria Steinem, a white man to play Kunta Kinte or a black man to play George Bush
Doctor Who IS NOT A REAL PERSON, YOU INSANE NEANDERTHAL. share
Equality means that sometimes you get criticized same as men. All around the net people are screaming misogyny at anyone that doesnt like Whittaker but that makes her look weak, unable to withstand fair scrutiny.
shareMy comment about being sick of misogyny had nothing to do with Whittaker or even Doctor Who really. It had to do with someone making a wiseass crack that because it was a woman, the role is now nurse. That is misogyny. The OP and anyone is free to dislike the character and the person playing said character. They are free to debate whether the doctor can regenerate to a different sex. That's not misogyny. Making a comment that women cannot be doctors (also stating that men aren't be nurses) is sexist and that is something that I will call out.
shareLet's be honest, the mysogonist label is being thrown around scattershot at everyone who doesn't like the new Doctor. Feminists are trying to attach a social stigma to criticizing a tv show. When people didn't like Smith it was okay, when they didn't like Capaldi it was okay, but not liking Whitaker makes you a woman hater. Pfft. Even if that wasn't your intention, you are participating in the labeling.
shareNo, I'm calling out actual misogyny. Just because that label is being used incorrectly doesn't mean that I can't call out when I actually see it and specifically said what I was calling out, the OP clarified, and I thanked them. You are the one that is reading something into my comments that weren't there. I have stated repeatedly that I don't care if you like a female doctor or not. My intention is calling out sexism, intentional or not, so if that's me participating in something else, frankly, I don't see it.
share