Post by burrunjor on Nov 4, 2024 19:45:36 GMT
"This leads the maths geek in me to proclaim sensationally: "Proof! Women directors make better Doctor Who episodes than men!" Or, perhaps: "Women are better directors!" Or even: "Women are better than men – full stop. Wow, that was fun; that was cathartic, just writing those words."
I don't find her work impressive. I really like Hettie Macdonald (The Blink) and Chanya Button (The Giggle). I'm surprised the latter wasn't brought back to direct anything in Season 1.
That said whilst she certainly deserves to be blamed as part of the group that f*cked up the show, I don't think you can hold her to blame more than Moff. He is the head honcho at the end of the day, it's in his script that Hartnell is a sexual braggard, that the Master gives the Doctor a Frenchie etc. No one is allowed to touch his or RTD's precious writing. Remember RTD stating that contrary opinions don't get a look in? Or Moff famously "erasing" that other woman from Doctor Who that couldn't put up with his bullshit?
No way could Rachel alter their scripts to that extent. Also Donna's story arc always had a touch of misandry to it. If anything I think RTD's bullshit speech from Donna was an attempt to try and troll the critics of that aspect of Donna's arc, which thankfully backfired on him and finally made people realise what I've been saying about Donna being overrated bullshit for years now.
I do agree though that Rachel is misandristic. That's probably why they get her for these scripts. She's also ridiculously immature. I mean writing women are better than men makes her feel cathartic? What age is she? That's what always makes me laugh when people like her say that and they think our response will be "bitch how dare she say that!" Instead it's just "Yeah that kind of talk is adorable and funny when it's a silly 8 year old winding up her little brother and they get into a silly fight, but a grown woman?"
Much like Janet Fielding, Rachel strikes me as someone who is bitter at not having the career she thinks she should have had, rather than being grateful for what she did have, which is still 100s of times more than most directors out there get.
PS am I the only person who thinks that we don't need to have more women making DW? Obviously if there is a great woman writer or director, by all means. I'd much rather have had Rona Munro and Tanith Lee as DW's producer and script editor, head writers in the 90s than ANY of the male Fitzroy Crowd.
However I don't see why it's a crime if more men happened to have made it? DW is a guys show for the most part, with a male hero so is it really surprising if more of them are drawn to it? Now unlike others like Critical Drinker I am NOT saying that sci fi or fantasy are things that only men like. That is a dated concept and ignores the hugely important women who have helped shape the genre as writers and even as fans. (It was women fans who created Star Trek fandom, got it another series and made DW catch on in America for instance.)
However fact is that DW will always lean more to a male audience, again simply because its protagonist is a man. Obviously yes women can enjoy something with a male hero, and boys can enjoy something with a female hero. However for the most part, most young boys will identify with a male hero more, and young girls will identify with a female hero more. When something is current and on tv, I don't think the gender divide is as strong, but long term certainly, something with a male lead will gather more male fans, something with a female lead will gather more female fans. (Hence why DW had a pretty 50/50 split male/female audience when it was on tv, but in the long run guys were the ones who made up its fandom when it was niche in the 90s, and similarly Xena had plenty of guy fans in the 90s, but in the long run its fandom is like 95 percent female these days.)
There are some exceptions, like Supernatural that obviously drew in a larger female following, but that's the way it is, girls like female led shows, guys like male led shows for the most part. Now for the record I think that way of viewing things is wrong. I think little boys should embrace female led things, and little girls should embrace male led things as well. No matter what else, I've always lived by that. Hence why I embraced all of those female led singers music and was in certain groups the only guy who did. (A lot of people thought I was gay as a result LOL.)
No one is saying don't still like things that you feel represent you of course, but I think you get can get a lot of something because it represents the other side and a different perspective.
Female created sci fi is fascinating because it's different. I'm obviously generalizing here, but guys tend to prefer adventure and world building, like Lord of the Rings and Edgar Rice Burroughs, whilst women prefer character driven with a bit more of a surrealist edge, like say Sarcophagus from B7 or even Frankenstein that in contrast to LOTR that's all about the journey and weird creatures, is about the monsters personality and how it reacts to being broken down. People should embrace all of these sides, and not just think "can I imagine I am the hero in this story."
However people like Rachel Talalay aren't encouraging that. By insisting that we get women to watch DW by making it a female led thing, or we demand that women make it, she's pushing the stereotype that you can only like something if it represents you by your gender. However again rather than create new things for little girls that way, she is just wanting to tear down one that guys like. She's a toxic influence.
(PS remember when she used to promote whovian feminism too LOL. Whovian Feminism hasn't tweeted about Doctor Who in 6 years now. After all that "I need a female Doctor because I love this show more than anyone and I deserve to be seen." Turns out she was a fake, hipster sci fi fan who liked it when it was trendy for a few years in the 2010s. Who would have guessed it?)
