Responding to this, because its actually a somewhat more reasonable or at least more specific and less obviously bigoted argument, even though I disagree with, and I appreciate it.
GandALF wrote:The Romulan Republic wrote:
I still haven't seen that episode, so can you give me specifics as to how you feel that the representation of the Romans was politically sanitized?
I already have, the scene involves Bill mentioning that she's gay followed the Romans then explaining their views on sexuality leading to Bill commenting on how "modern" they are.
Apologies. And thank you for the clarification.
I haven't seen the scene, so I can't comment on specifics, but I would say that while that does sound somewhat a-historical, and silly, and misleading... well, its far from the silliest thing Doctor Who has done. I do find it somewhat problematic that people will accept history being rewritten constantly as part of the canon, but not if it involves anything that smacks of social justice.
Moreover, as I said before, one example does not a pattern make, especially if its under different writers.
I would have a problem with ham-fisted political preaching or "pandering" too. I just find the seeming assumption that that is how a female Doctor will inevitably be portrayed deeply problematic.
The Romans were not "modern" about this stuff. In a male homosexual pairing the one man would be considered manly and acceptable while the other would be considered shamefully effeminate. Not a very pleasant situation.
They were also absolutely, positively not modern about women and would've seen Bill as disgustingly manly. So the best thing to do would've been to not bring up the subject.
Or bring it up, and use it as an opportunity to examine how past prejudices have changed over time. But then that too would be accused of preaching a social justice message, no matter how intelligently written.
It seems like some people just want to sweep these things under the rug, and pretend the issues don't exist. I don't want that. Neither do I want them to become the sole focus of the show. My preference, and I hope you'll agree, is for them to be addressed when its relevant, and in an honest manner. No more, no less.
So the writers were aware that Romans didn't have a homosexuality taboo and either:
A) Didn't bother to fully understand the concept. (in which case hooray for apolitcal idiocy?)
or
B) deliberately twisted a historical fact in order to appear more progressive or LGBT friendly (despite already having a gay main character)
Now, NuWho has ALWAYS been a bit left of centre going back to series 1 with Jack Harkness and such, but for me this goddamn scene went overboard and actively harmed the show's quality which is why a female Doctor at this point in time is a bit worrying.
But why is that, really?
One dumb scene does not a pattern make, especially when you've got a new head writer coming in. And as your example shows, they can do that sort of thing with or without a female Doctor. Nor does a female Doctor have to be badly written.
There is, as I have explained again and again, nothing wrong or inconsistent in the idea itself. Its a question of how its executed. That is a question that can only be answered with time.
Until then, I think Whittaker and Chibnall deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I don't feel they're getting that, simply because Whittaker is a woman. That's all.
Edit: And on that note, since certain people evidently object to "politicizing" the subject (at least when its politics they disagree with), again, let's talk about the strengths and weaknesses of
this particular decision and
this particular casting choice. Not speculation about what they
might do. Not sweeping generalizations about feminist agendas.
Why do people feel that a female Doctor, in and of itself is a good or bad idea? How would you like to see it presented? What do you think of the choice of Jodie Whittaker,
as an individual, rather than just as a representative of her gender?
