2014

Abigail L. Worden

Capital University

2/13/2014

“The Most Important Woman in the Universe” and “The Girl Who Waited”

Problematic Portrayals of Recurring Female Characters in Doctor Who

Worden 1

“I was born to save the Doctor,” says Clara Oswald, companion to the time-traveling alien and

titular character of the BBC’s Doctor Who. Even though she was shown as a witty schoolteacher, a

capable pilot, a loving babysitter, and more throughout her arc in the series, this pre-finale episode

trivialized Clara’s entire existence to nothing more than a semi-romantic plot device. The episode

establishes that the entirety of her life was predestined and manipulated to exist entirely for the sake of

a man. By the conclusion, Clara is upset that she no longer has a purpose, rather than angry that her

entire life has been a lie. However, this sort of storyline, one that objectifies women in terms of emptily

serving the plot or the male lead, has become a trademark of current Doctor Who showrunner Steven

Moffat. Hopes were high for the sci-fi program when it was revived in 2005 by Russel T. Davies, but

controversy surrounding his successor’s writing has risen to such an extent that the show has entered

into an 8-month hiatus, the longest since its return. The two showrunners took very different

approaches to spearheading Doctor Who, with Davies taking the direction of writing complex characters

into simple storylines (simple for sci-fi, anyway), and Moffat prioritizing intricate and complex plots.

Here, I aim to examine the impact that the different writing styles of Davies and Moffat have on their

portrayal of female characters by viewing the show through feminist perspectives. In doing so, I argue

that when compared to the developed and complex women created by Davies, Moffat’s female

characters are exposed as hardly more than plot devices to move his story forward. Formally-written

studies into Doctor Who in a feminist context are largely non-existent, as a majority of research is

conducted by a passionate, but casual fanbase. In this paper, I hope to find connections between

published feminist studies and the findings of the Doctor Who fans in order to further validate their

negative stance on Moffat and his problematic portrayals of women. I will start by presenting and briefly

reviewing the sources that I have researched, then explain the methodology I have used to approach the

Worden 2

show. Finally, I will delve into my analysis of Moffat and Davies’ writings, discuss my own findings, and

suggest future research into similar themes.

Literature Review While studies into Doctor Who’s treatment of female characters are relatively young, research

into feminist perspectives and the portrayal of women in television have been around since long before

the show’s inception, and continue to grow and evolve. “Postfeminism,” a branch of third-wave

feminism, is a critical focus that according to Amanda D. Lotz’s article, “Postfeminist Television Criticism:

Rehabilitating Critical Terms and Identifying Postfeminist Attributes,” revolves around “a broad-based,

pluralistic conception of the application of feminism” (Lotz 113). In the article, Lotz presents attributes

that indicate a postfeminist and progressive television program, including narratives that explore

diversities in female power and gender binaries. In order to be truly postfeminist, a text must portray

different elements of strength in a variety of women, rather than simply producing a stereotypically

feminist character that binds viewers to a single perspective.

Similarly, Mary Beth Haralovich and Andrea L. Press’ article, “New Feminist Television Studies:

Queries Into Postfeminist Television,” shows how modern media culture challenges postfeminism,

particularly in the necessity of the male love interest in many programs. Specifically honing in on the

series Gilmore Girls, the article exposes modern television’s dependence on heteronormative romance

to draw in viewers. In Doctor Who, Moffat and Davies both present heterosexual love storylines.

However, the article particularly points fingers at the reliance on love triangle dynamics making it

“difficult for feminists in media to gain substantial representational ground” (Haralovich and Press, 174).

The love triangle trope is one that Moffat alone relies on to generate conflict in his first few seasons as

showrunner.

Worden 3

Perhaps the only other science fiction show with history and fame equatable to England’s

Doctor Who is America’s Star Trek. Similarly, Star Trek has also faced controversy over its portrayal of

female characters. Mary Henderson’s article, “Professional Women in Star Trek, 1964 to 1969,” shows

how despite inviting women into science fiction careers, Star Trek manages to parallel the reality of its

time, and the mindsets of the predominately male writers. The article shows how women are

pigeonholed into the science fiction counterparts of their real-world expected career paths, and blocked

from paths that are seen as powerful or commanding and thus oriented to males. The claims made in

the article resemble the restrictions that Moffat places on female characters in his storylines which, like

Star Trek, act in spite of bringing them into a fantasy world where anything should be possible.

This failure of the idea of endless possibilities in fantasy carries into Ryan McGee’s article,

"'Doctor Who': Peter Capaldi Can Stay but Steven Moffat Needs to Go," which addresses the

showrunner’s insistence that the Doctor cannot regenerate into a woman, despite canon evidence

existing that other members of the titular character’s race have changed gender in past regenerations.

While McGee challenges Moffat’s decision, Christopher Stevens defends it in, "Who Should Be the Next

Doctor? ANYONE but a Woman!” However, much like Moffat’s argument, Stevens’ lacks canonical

support and serves to deconstruct itself rather than make a substantial point. When examined through

the perspective of liberal feminism, both of these articles seem to imply that the writer and some

members of the viewing audience are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman fulfilling traditional

men’s roles, acting as a protector and provider.

Primarily, Stevens’ insistence of the necessity of a male role model in television destroys his

argument, especially when viewed alongside Colin Stokes’ TED Talks lecture, “How Movies Teach

Manhood,” which explains the prevalence and problematic nature of a culture that prioritizes male

action-hero role models. Stokes explains that this style of writing teaches boys to be go-getters and girls

Worden 4

to wait patiently for an invitation to join. These impulses are learned from storylines that prioritize the

male as the doer and use the women around him to motivate his story rather than create their own,

becoming more plot devices than people. In his lecture, Stokes also explains the importance of a text,

especially an action-adventure, passing the Bechdel Test. The test, which I will explain in greater detail

later, is essentially conducted to judge if female characters have valuable interactions with other female

characters. An action-adventure text that fails not only teaches boys that succeeding in adversity not

only earns them the “prize” of an attractive woman, but one “who has no friends and doesn’t speak”

(Stokes). Therefore, a writer who fails to produce female characters that interact on screen is not only

portraying an improbable situation, but creating a dangerous message for young viewers.

In order to argue the weakness of Steven Moffat’s characters, evidence is necessary to

determine what it is that makes a female character or female-driven scene “strong.” The Mississippi

University study conducted by Bonnie Oppenheimer et al., “Audience Perceptions of Strong Female

Characters on Television,” provides characteristics of scenes representing women with agency and

assertiveness, and includes judging of attire, profession, camera angles, and the character’s ability to

behave independently. These guidelines can be applied to various scenes in Moffat’s episodes to show

how they fail to present his female characters as strong and capable, and conversely applied to Davies’

episodes to show how they succeed.

Even with Doctor Who’s now fifty years of history, specific studies into the show’s gender

constructions and representations have only been conducted en masse by the passionate fanbase.

These individuals largely choose to focus on the most recent seasons, directing their anger in particular

at current showrunner Moffat, whose characters face accusations of poor development and lack of

agency. Madeleine Nesbitt’s SPARK article, "The Objectification of Amy Pond," reviews these failures in

Moffat’s primary female character. She specifically cites Amy’s “superficial fierceness,” describing

Worden 5

Moffat’s flimsy attempts at imitating strength with sass, while he continues to put Amy in situations

where her assertiveness leads her into danger that the Doctor must rescue her from. Helen Lewis-

Hasteley’s article, “Sherlock’s Sexy, But Not Sexist,” attempts to justify Amy Pond as a strong female

character and role model, but even reluctantly confesses that much of the character’s storyline is

tethered to her sex, specifically, “having a working uterus.”

Similarly, Dave Hoskin’s article, “The New Man: The Regeneration of Doctor Who,” addresses

how different Amy is from companions past, citing her abundant sexuality ironically alongside her

persistent childishness. However, Hoskins’ article as a whole deals with the differences between Moffat

and his predecessor, Davies. Hoskins writes positively of both writers, but does take note of the

differences in narrative between the two. Specifically, he states that Moffat’s episodes are more plot-

based, whereas Davies’ were deeper and character driven. In this way he begins to show that Davies

was more capable of producing more developed, relatable female characters by placing the importance

of deep characterization over abstract plots.

Further displeasure with Moffat’s leading lady in the latter seasons, Clara, is expressed in Gavia

Baker-Whitelaw’s Daily Dot article, “Doctor Who Christmas Special Was Everything Fans Dislike About

the Moffat Era.” Baker-Whitelaw’s article highlights the sexist nature of the show’s most recent season

finale, including Clara’s miniscule role, inability to take care of herself, and dependency on a male

romantic lead for her primary motivation.

In contrast, the article “Revenge of the Geeks” by Myke Bartlett faults Russel T. Davies with

turning the Doctor into an overtly heterosexual romantic lead, and argues that a vital part of the show

was removed in the process. Contesting that notion, another article by Dave Hoskins titled “Roses

Doctors Lovers and Gods,” presents Davies as a powerful romantic writer, building slow relationships

over the length of entire series in a positive, model way. Rather than a negative, Hoskins’ article shows

Worden 6

how the Doctor’s evolution into a romantic lead can be seen as an encouraging guide in the midst of

television programs that glorify purely sexual relationships.

A final source displaying a substantial statistic disparity between the quality of Moffat’s

representation of female characters and Davies’ is A. Alyssa’s “The Bechdel Test and Doctor Who: So

What’s the Big Deal?” Alyssa’s examination of Doctor Who through the context of the Bechdel Test, a

critique of media through feminism in the most basic terms, shows how considerably more of Moffat’s

episodes fail the test than Davies’. Alyssa explains the three criteria of the test: that two named female

characters are present in a text, that they interact, and that they talk about anything other than a man.

Alyssa’s results show how while Davies’ episodes on average succeeded in all three criteria, Moffat’s

episodes often only pass the first two. Alyssa raises speculation that a great deal of significance can be

placed on the lack of female writers under Moffat’s command as showrunner, and addresses criticism

that she judged Moffat’s episodes too harshly by citing that she discounted trivial data to present a

more realistic result. This is simply a further example of Moffat’s failure to produce a program with a

progressive feminist outlook on women, especially women in sci-fi television, where boundaries should

not exist. Moffat’s sexism becomes all the more apparent when the quality of his episodes and leading

females are compared with those of Davies’ era as showrunner.

Methodology To best examine the differences in female characters and representation portrayed in Doctor

Who, I will examine the works of the two showrunners through a combination of feminist perspectives.

When applied to popular culture, the feminist perspective is designed to examine how texts exhibit

ideals of patriarchy or masculine hegemony. The idea of patriarchy refers to the structure of society in

which males are seen as the sole authority figures, and masculine hegemony is defined as the ideology

that empowers the elite and disempowers all others, specifically through gender, or socio-constructed

Worden 7

traits of masculinity and femininity (Sellnow 90). A feminist perspective views a text as a site of struggle

proposing a preferred or oppositional reading to these concepts of male dominance. These preferred

readings reinforce ideas of typically accepted gender constructions, and can be blatant or occluded; in

other words, obvious or hidden in subtext (Sellnow 91). On the other hand, oppositional readings

challenge traditional roles and social structures, and are revealed through an infected or a subverted

reading. An infected text bends the patriarchy or masculine hegemony to suit its own needs, such as

positively representing working women, but with only white heterosexuals. Subverted texts reject

patriarchy and masculine hegemony outright by positively representing women of a variety of races,

ages, sexual orientations, and more (Sellnow 91). In my comparison of Davies and Moffat, I aim to reveal

Davies’ ability to propose an oppositional, if not subverted reading, and Moffat’s production of a

preferred reading that shows women as incapable, childish, and trapped in specific gender roles.

To compare the two writers, I aim to view their works through a combination of liberal and

radical feminist perspectives. A liberal feminist perspective examines “the inclusion of women in

traditionally male-dominated areas” (Sellnow 92). Even in the realm of a sci-fi television program, this

perspective is extremely relevant. For instance, the Doctor has only ever been male, making the

exclusion of women in the role of the hero and authority figure evident from the get-go. However, the

manner in which the writers portray women in cooperation with the Doctor, including the duties and

attitudes that they assume, are more complex, and are greatly varied between the two showrunners. At

the same time, a radical feminist perspective works to deconstruct the characters themselves, analyzing

their personalities and attitudes and the resulting encouragement or punishment they receive for

maintaining or challenging traditional gender roles and behaviors. Specifically, a radical feminist

perspective exposes men as the subject and women as perceived objects in their world (Sellnow 94).

Again, the premise of the show itself—an always male, time-traveling superhero with a consistently

female sidekick—promotes the man as the obvious subject. However, the manner in which the writers

Worden 8

portray women as either uniquely strong and capable in a variety of ways, or in only traditional and

expected ways speaks volumes on the ideals they portray in their separate seasons.

Making use of the feminist perspective, the goal of my analysis is to expose the ways in which

writer Russel T. Davies challenges patriarchy and masculine hegemony with strong female characters

with a variety of ages, races, personalities and abilities. In contrast, I aim to reveal Steven Moffat’s

portrayal of women as objects and sidekicks, incapable of fulfilling themselves apart from a male,

primarily his subject, the Doctor.

Analysis When William Hartnell, the first actor to portray the Doctor, began to fall ill in the early 60s, the

writers of the show at the time introduced the idea that his alien race of Time Lords could regenerate

into different bodies if they die. This allowed the producers to write Hartnell’s Doctor out, and usher in

Patrick Troughton as his regeneration, a process that has continued ever since. Yet after fifty years and

thirteen regenerations, the infamous Doctor has kept two things static and unchanged—he has never

been anything other than a white male. While the Doctor’s companions, the human partners he brings

along on his adventures, alternate between male and female, they are predominantly women. Already a

problematic idea is presented: women may go on fantastic journeys through space and time, but they

may not lead them. In “Professional Women in Star Trek, 1964 to 1969,” Mary Henserson uses America’s

Star Trek to show how even in futuristic science fiction, present-day sexism has a reigning presence. In

describing the jobs and duties given to women on the spaceship Enterprise, Henderson explains that the

positions women were granted resembled the roles of stewardesses, while men alone were granted the

position of pilots: “female professionals were still in the crew, although their roles were limited much in

the way of the real world. In commercial aviation, there were certainly no women pilots in the major

airlines any more than there were female astronauts; a limited number of professional female pilots

Worden 9

worked at small airports, local flight schools, and light plane dealerships. The most visible presence for

women in commercial aviation was through careers as flight attendants” (Henderson 50). Liberal

feminism would describe Star Trek and Doctor Who as occluded preferred readings, as they portray

women happily working but underneath a male authority figure.

Star Trek, however, flourished in the 60s—an vastly different era when looking at the

prevalence of modern feminism today. Sadly, this is what makes Steven Moffat’s comments that the

Doctor should never be a woman so disappointing. Following the casting of Peter Capaldi as the

thirteenth regeneration, Moffat said in an interview, “You know, I heard all of those suggestions for a

female Doctor… But instead of change for change sake, I went with an actor who filled my idea of the

next Doctor.” When the interviewer pressed the possibility, Moffat responded with: “I’d like to see a

man play the Queen.” Ryan McGee, a television blog critic, states the problems with Moffat’s ‘joke’ in

the interview best: “The issue is not that Moffat didn’t cast a woman (or a non-Caucasian of either

gender). It’s that the thought of casting one never seemed to enter into the equation. It’s as ludicrous to

him that a woman would be the Doctor as a man would portray The Queen” (McGee). The idea that

changing the gender or race of the Doctor would be nothing more than “change for change’s sake” is a

serious issue. Elevating the role of women in Doctor Who to its story’s ultimate leader and protector

would send a positive message to young viewers, providing a commanding and intelligent role model for

young boys and girls alike. However, Moffat’s comments imply that such a change is good for nothing

more than shock value, and is unable to comprehend a reason to justify it. In a science fiction program

where an alien is able to die and be reborn in a new body, what reasoning is necessary for this new body

to be female, or anything other than a white male?

In defending Steven Moffat’s decision to keep the Doctor male, Christopher Stevens explains

that there is no canonical evidence supporting the idea that Time Lords—the alien race of which the

Worden 10

Doctor is a part of—can change gender, making the very suggestion impossible (Stevens). Moffat said

something along those same lines when controversy surrounding his latest casting choice reached public

ears, but interestingly enough, both of them are wrong. Throughout the show’s fifty years, evidence of

Time Lords of various races and genders have been shown. One character, known as the Corsair, was

explicitly mentioned as a Time Lord that often changed genders. Upon finding an arm with a snake

tattoo in the episode “The Doctor’s Wife,” the Doctor remarked, “[This is] the mark of The Corsair.

Fantastic bloke. He had that snake as a tattoo in every regeneration. Didn't feel like himself unless he

had that tattoo. Or herself, a couple of times.” Ironically enough, this episode, written by Neil Gaiman,

premiered in 2011 under Steven Moffat’s approval as the season showrunner.

Knowledge of this evidence notwithstanding, Stevens protests that the Doctor must remain

male so as not to “fall victim to a politically correct trend for ‘gender neutral’ childhoods…it would

betray a British tradition. The character has been a role model for generations of boys” (Stevens). James

Chapman explains Stevens (and Moffat’s) thought processes in their insistence that the Doctor must be

male by saying, “writers work on the assumption that girl viewers will identify with either a male or

female hero but boys will only identify with a male” (Chapman). Radical feminism would view this as

society deeming it more appropriate for girls to imitate the actions and attitudes of men than for men to

imitate the actions and attitudes of women for anything other than comedy purposes. In his TED Talk,

Colin Stokes addresses the problems with this prioritization of male characters. He uses the example of

Princess Leia in Star Wars, explaining that while she is an independent and capable woman, she only

provides one example of female power. Meanwhile, boys are given numerous role models and

perceptions of male power in the films (Stokes). However, according to Amanda Lotz, a program

representative of feminism must contain “depictions of varied feminist solutions,” showing a variety of

women solving problems facing them with different expressions of strength, rather than just one (Lotz

15). Stokes explains that boys are being told to be like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and solve their

Worden 11

problems with wit and violence, while girls are encouraged to emulate Princess Leia, or, as Chapman

implies, simply be more like the male characters. In this regard, Moffat’s seasons of Doctor Who seem to

provide only two character archetypes: the lonely, adoring, whimsical assistant with a mysterious

backstory, and the sexual, adventurous older woman. While these characters provide for Moffat’s

trademark flash-and-bang theatrics, their over-the-top and unbelievable personalities prevent Moffat

from bringing them any deeper. Many of his leading female characters are written with no family or

friends apart from the Doctor, further showing that Moffat is incapable of portraying developed,

believable relationships and dedicates his female characters to delivering exposition and making the

Doctor look good. Not only are Moffat’s women failures as independent characters, they are failures as

role models.

Despite the potentially racist and sexist insistence that the titular character must be male, the

Doctor’s companions are an integral piece of the show’s story and history, and have the capacity to

positively portray women of a variety of personalities and capabilities. While Moffat fails in this regard,

showing only women with certain appearances and certain attitudes, Russel T. Davies succeeds in the

development and variety of his female characters. An excellent example of this is Davies’ season 3 finale

episode, “Journey’s End,” in which the entire story revolves around the countless women the Doctor has

encountered teaming up to rescue him. The Doctor is rendered practically helpless, and the women are

the focus of the episode. Not only that, but these women are a variety of ages, races, and attitudes. One

is a single mother, another is an African American medical student, yet another is an older member of

British Parliament, and all contribute in different and exciting ways. In another season finale, “The Last

of the Time Lords,” the Doctor’s companion Martha Jones spends a year walking across a post-

apocalyptic earth to rally the world to save the Doctor and turn back time. In both of these episodes, the

women are the primary focus, and it is through their varied human abilities—strength, intelligence,

charisma, and sheer force of will—that they are able to save the Doctor and the world. At the conclusion

Worden 12

of “Journey’s End,” temp agency worker Donna Noble stops the collapse of all reality and the Doctor

calls her “the most important woman in the whole universe.” Moments like this are viewed positively

through radical feminism as portraying a variety of developed female characters who are strong in

different ways.

To help gauge the representation of female power in shows like Doctor Who, The Mississippi

State University Study, “Audience Perceptions of Strong Female Characters on Television,” provides a

series of guidelines for scenes that portray elements of female agency and authority. Some of them are:

“The action in the scene and point of view revolve around the female character…the actions of the

female character motivated the action of other characters in the scene…the female character acted

independently in the scene selected” (Oppenheimer et. al. 164). In Davies’ episodes, most clearly in

these season finales, these attributes appear in numerous scenes. Davies’ women are independent

thinkers and leaders. The Doctor is shown to be learning as much from them as they from him. In the

end, it is the inner strength and humanity of his female companions that save him. Another attribute

listed in the Mississippi State study is that the female character “wears attire indicative of power”

(Oppenheimer et.al. 165). To understand the difference between Moffat’s and Davies’ manners of

representing women, one only needs to examine the introductions of their main female characters that

set the tone for their development throughout the series. In “Smith and Jones,” the Doctor’s latest

companion, Martha, is first shown running through a hospital in scrubs, helping patients and other

workers through the crisis of the episode. In “The Eleventh Hour,” Amy Pond is introduced to viewers in

a “sexy policeman” costume, and explains to the Doctor that she is not a real police officer, but a “kiss-o-

gram” sent to kiss people at parties. Martha’s introduction establishes her as intelligent, commanding,

and brave. Amy’s sets her up to be an object of desire. Unsurprisingly, Martha’s presence commands

and guides her introductory episode, while Amy does little besides tagging along.

Worden 13

In contrast to Davies’ dramatic and female-driven episodes, Steven Moffat’s most recent finale

has the Doctor’s companion Clara spend the episode being easily tricked by the Doctor, bemoaning his

lack of romantic interest in her, and crying over how she ran off with him because she “fancied him”

(“The Time of the Doctor”). Clara was only the focus and point of view of a scarce few moments in the

episode, and in these moments she was either thinking or speaking about the Doctor. Her actions failed

to produce any significant results throughout the episode, and only the Doctor himself made any

headway in the resolution of the episode’s conflict. Clara also, arguably, doesn’t commit to a single

independent action in the entire episode. As the girl who was only “born to save the Doctor,” this is a

disappointment, but not a surprise. Interestingly enough, however, this Christmas special finale directly

parallels an episode of Russel T. Davies’ in season one. In both episodes, the Doctor’s companion is

tricked into his time and space traveling TARDIS and sent to their home to avoid certain death. However,

the way Davies’ companion Rose and Moffat’s companion Clara respond to being tricked and leaving the

Doctor in danger is drastically different, and very characteristic of the differences between the two

writers. As Gavia Baker-Whitelaw explains in “Doctor Who Christmas special was everything fans dislike

about the Moffat era,” “the primary difference was that while Rose did everything in her power to

return in the TARDIS, save the Ninth Doctor and ultimately save the world, Clara’s main purpose in this

episode was to provide emotional support to the Doctor while he did whatever he wanted, and to

participate in comedy scenes.” In Davies’ finale, Rose not only saves the Doctor, but discovers herself to

be the powerful time-and-space-manipulating figure that she and the Doctor have been trying to find

throughout the series arc. In other words, not only does Rose save the Doctor and the world, but the

plot is turned on its head to make Rose not only the focus of the episode, but of the overarching

storyline of the entire season. In direct contrast, Clara sees no character development and hardly any

screen time. Unless there is opportunity in the story for her to be funny or tell the Doctor how

wonderful he is, the episode has no use for her.

Worden 14

Davies’ companions, women like Martha and Donna, outsmart and work apart from the Doctor

on a number of occasions, moving the main story and their own personal stories forward in the process.

As previously explained, Davies’ companions are women who grow into their power, and by the

conclusions of the seasons they are present in, they save the Doctor, the world, and even the universe.

Moffat’s companions on the other hand are, in a way, punished for daring to act independently.

Moffat’s Amy Pond, in particular, embodies the idea that Moffat’s women are unable to act, or even be

interesting, on their own:

“When Doctor Who plotlines are examined, Amy is only superficially fierce. Amy wants

adventure and enjoys it, but she is portrayed as needing the Doctor to find it for her and

to save her from any difficulties. She seems to need the Doctor to awaken her ‘fierce’

qualities, reinforcing the idea that a woman must depend on a man to bring out the

interesting parts of her character. Amy is, in reality, a damsel-in-distress rather than a

‘fierce’ heroine” (Nesbitt).

Radical feminism would judge this as an occluded preferred reading, as Amy Pond’s artificial

fierceness renders her a sort of “sassy damsel.” While she is portrayed on the surface as snappy and

witty, a closer look reveals that she only reveals this life in her otherwise bland personality when pushed

by the Doctor. Not only that, but her determination to do things of her own accord only leads her into

trouble, implying that she is foolish for wanting to make her own decisions. While Helen Lewis-Hasteley

attempts to defend Amy in her article, “Sherlock’s Sexy, But Not Sexist,” by saying that it is refreshing

that Amy, who gets married in a later season, still goes on adventures. However, she begrudgingly

admits that Amy’s connection to the plot—as well as the role of many of Moffat’s female characters—is

dependent on her ability to reproduce, as if “having a working uterus makes [them] stronger than

anyone else” (Hasteley). Meanwhile, Davies’ companion Martha Jones spends the episodes “Human

Worden 15

Nature” and “Family of Blood” acting entirely on her own, protecting a helpless Doctor who has lost his

memories. She is shown to be under increasingly heavy pressure and greater danger, yet perseveres and

is thanked, congratulated, and apologized to by the Doctor at the conclusion of the dilemma. Especially

considering that Martha is an African American character, these episodes by Davies provide a subverted

oppositional reading, showing Martha confidently and successfully navigating a challenging role, and

being rewarded for doing so.

The evidence previously presented begins to show how Davies’ style of prioritizing character

over plot has allowed him to portray deeper, more interesting, and more powerful female characters,

compared to Moffat’s cardboard cutouts of tropes. In “The New Man: The Regeneration of Doctor

Who,” Dave Hoskin explains some of the differences between Moffat and Davies. Davies’ episodes were

persistently complex and bittersweet, presenting a multitude of sophisticated emotions and thought-

provoking dialogues. He would focus on “the bleakness of the human condition” and “unrequited love,”

but hope and positivity would always prevail in the end, even if it was painful (Hoskin 133). Compared to

that, Moffat’s episodes are more blatantly “creepier and complex,” with his priority being to bring fear

back into Doctor Who, which was known for being a scary program for kids in its early history (Hoskin

132). The result is a heavier focus on plot over character, which prioritizes the male hero as the absolute

center of the story. The resulting consequences are poor character development, and little opportunity

for significant interactions between characters that don’t directly relate to the male hero or the

exposition of the plot. While Davies’ episodes included dialogue for the simple sake of building a story

within the characters, Moffat writes characters for the purpose of building a story.

Moffat’s prioritization of plot over character creates a significant disparity between his episodes

and those written by Russel T. Davies that pass the Bechdel Test. The test, named after cartoonist Alison

Bechdel, requires that a text feature at least two named female characters who talk to each other about

Worden 16

something that isn’t a man. While the test has received criticism in recent years, there is some truth to

its validity. A substantial number of episodes of any show that do not feature two women—who make

up more than 50% of the real population—with names talking about anything other than a man is

distinctly problematic. According to A. Alyssa, a woman’s studies scholar and administrator of the blog

“Whovian Feminism,” the number of episodes passing the Bechdel Test plummeted after the switch

from Davies as showrunner to Moffat. Of the “Russel T. Davies Era,” Alyssa says: “Over 70% of the

episodes between 2005 and 2009 pass the Bechdel Test outright, and every single episode has at least

two named female characters.” However, these numbers immediately plummeted in the 5th season,

Moffat’s first, and continued to decline in the 6th.

A prime example of the problem presented here is the relationship between the main

companion, Amy Pond, and the adult version of her daughter that she and the Doctor encounter, River

Song. Despite the two being “strong, willful, independent-minded characters,” the two women “rarely

(if ever) have an engaged conversation, and most of the conversations that they do have revolve entirely

around the Doctor” (Alyssa). The two women are presented as having attitude and character, yet after

being present for two and a half seasons, “hardly anything is known about their relationship with each

other” (Alyssa). The overarching problem that these failures present, especially when taking into

account the number of people who perceive this program as a role model for young boys, is that they

portray a flawed perception of female relationships. In his TED Talk, Colin Stokes explains that action-

adventure tales with a male hero that fail the Bechdel Test teach boys and girls that the most desirable

women are the damsels to be rescued “who don’t speak and have no friends” (Stokes). Viewers are

presented with female characters that are not shown to have fulfilling relationships outside of the one

they have with the male hero. Liberal feminism would judge this reading as portraying the man with

having infinitely more power over the woman, as he is only one who is expected to have multiple and

Worden 17

valued relationships. Meanwhile, his significant other is expected to only be interested in and entirely

devoted to him.

Despite more of his episodes passing the Bechdel Test than Moffat’s, there exist numerous

complaints regarding Davies’ decision upon rebooting the show to make the first female companion a

love interest for the Doctor. According to John Richards in Myke Bartlett’s article, “Revenge of the

GEEKS,” Doctor Who “didn't have any sexual tension between male and female lead…that's a reason

Russell T Davies' era disappoints me slightly, because the Doctor is now an avertly heterosexual,

romantic lead. Something that was quite vital in the show to me has been removed.” It is true that

Davies wrote and casted the youngest Doctor to reboot the series as well as the youngest companion,

played by Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper respectively. Feminism would encounter this as a

problem in modern television, that a show can no longer be expected to gain viewers without “sexuality

outside heterosexual, procreative acts” (Haralovich).

However, there are a number of positives regarding Davies’ decision, including his development

and portrayal of Rose Tyler as a romantic interest, as well as significant differences between his and

Moffat’s handling of companions with romantic intent towards the male hero. First and foremost is that

Rose Tyler is a deeply developed and valuable character to the story, with and without the presence of

the Doctor. A central focus of Davies’ two seasons with Rose as the companion is not her relationship

with the Doctor, but her relationship with her mother, another main character. While Amy Pond is a

kisso-gram and then a model and then an artist with no explanation presented, and Clara cycles through

various stereotypically feminine careers in a similar fashion, Rose is first introduced at her job as a shop

worker, explaining how she ended up where she is because she dropped out of school and feels lost and

directionless, but wants to afford to live by herself (“The Eleventh Hour,” “The Lodger,” “The Day of the

Worden 18

Doctor,” “Rose”). Rose’s youth is played up not for sexuality, but to connect to a younger audience on a

deeper level with feelings of confusion and a desire for something greater.

On top of that, as Rose’s relationship develops with the Doctor (first with Eccleston and then

with his regeneration portrayed by David Tennant) it is an entirely emotional and mental attraction.

Dave Hoskin writes in “Lovers, Doctors, Roses and Gods” that “it’s not a physical relationship: when

accused of having an affair with the Doctor, Rose snaps, ‘It’s not love, it’s better than that!’” The two

engage in a slowly building relationship that deeply affects them both in ways that do not verge into the

physical. In the entire season, the characters only kiss once—after Rose saves the Doctor’s life by

absorbing an energy her body is unable to safely contain, and the Doctor kisses her to draw the energy

out and sacrifice himself. Not only that, but the Doctor’s subsequent regeneration is shown to have a

significant effect on Rose. She does not immediately warm up to the person she perceives to be entirely

different from the man she loved, and they start over from square one. Rather than a loss, the

relationship between the Doctor and Rose is a significant gain to the show. Their romance is not the

focus of the story, but it is the heart—their “tit for tat” relationship is balanced, utilizing both of their

weaknesses and strengths to portray a desexualized ideal of love. Rose defies classic damsel convention

and saves the day, but is also emotional and naïve. However, these potential negatives are presented as

some of her strongest attributes, giving her freedom to make and correct her own mistakes and

humanize the Doctor when she feels he’s gone too far.

Conclusion As a person, Steven Moffat’s views regarding women are unfortunate. As the showrunner of

one of the most historically popular shows in Great Britain, his views are problematic, and even

dangerous. His inability to recognize the potential value of a female lead, or even the value of a lead

who is anything other than a white male, is just one representation of his failure under a feminist

Worden 19

reading. Besides that, the women he does write are presented as flimsy characters who do not have

fulfilling relationships outside the Doctor. Discouraged from making their own decisions, they dish out

attitude and snarky remarks but find themselves being whisked out of danger caused by their apparent

stupidity. When presented as love interests, Moffat’s companions are empty and obsessive, with no

motivation outside their love of the Doctor to drive their actions. They have no family, no friends, and

no substantial passions or careers.

In direct contrast, Russel T. Davies names and develops the mothers and other family members

of every one of his Doctor’s companions. While Amy Ponds’ was sucked into a time vortex before they

were introduced and Clara’s are likewise explained away as deceased, not one of Davies’ companions

lacks an intriguing and complex relationship with their mothers, sisters, and female friends. Even the

female aliens encountered in the show are written with distinct personality, motivations, and goals. As a

romantic lead, Davies’ Doctor is desexualized and gains as much from his relationship with Rose as she

from him. At Rose’s departure and the introduction of Martha Jones and her love for the Doctor, she

comes to realize her unhealthy adoration for a man who is still hung up on someone else and sacrifices

adventures through all of time and space to live a life for herself on Earth. While Rose has the strength

to love the Doctor, Martha is shown having the strength to leave him and recognize her value apart from

him. Even when Amy Pond finally finds the courage to leave the Doctor, it is not out of realization of her

own importance, but the importance of another man.

Then comes Davies’ finale companion, Donna Noble, the oldest the three, featuring stinging wit,

deep insecurities, and absolutely no romantic interest in the Doctor, nor he for her. The lack of romance

has no impact on the fascinating and exciting developments of the story, making all the more null and

void the argument that Davies’ romantic Doctor sacrificed any part of the show’s quality. Davies’ women

are fascinating, developed people, while Moffat’s are something akin to fairytales. Davies made Doctor

Worden 20

Who, a show about aliens and time travel, still a show about humanity, even outside the human race. In

the end, it is Davies’ focus on human love and relationships that enables him to write significantly better

female characters than Steven Moffat. While Steven Moffat writes woman he believes to be strong, a

feminist reading reveals them to be part of an occluded preferred text, as their stock archetypes prevent

them from deep relationships with anyone apart from the male lead. Meanwhile, Davies’ woman of a

variety of ages, races, and personalities created a Doctor Who with a subverted oppositional reading,

showing the capability, intelligence, and strength that women can possess in grand adventures.

Future Research In terms of continuing my research, I would like to take a deeper look into Steven Moffat’s

failure to produce feminist-positive writing by examining what many consider to be his magnum opus,

Sherlock. A modern adaptation of the classis Arthur Conan Doyle saga, Moffat’s Sherlock is almost more

blatantly sexist than Doctor Who, featuring an openly misogynistic Holmes who is never proven wrong

or punished for his harmful opinions. The show is particularly offensive when brought under the

consideration of third wave feminism, as it consistently pokes fun at the token comedy of a gay

relationship. Moving on from there, I would take great interest in comparing Moffat’s BBC work to

America’s own modern adaptation, Elementary, which portrays John Watson as a woman played by a

person of color, and replaces another significant character with a transgender actor. Continuing from

there, I would be interested in examining fan response to non-traditional casting to determine if the

idea expressed by Moffat and some of the articles I researched that a male viewing audience can only

identify with a male lead while women can identify with a male or female. I think that finding positive

reception to changes in such a classic text could be an example of what other role reversals could be

possible in the coming years.

Worden 21

Works Cited

Artifacts: “A Good Man Goes to War.” Writ. Steven Moffat. Doctor Who. BBC. 4 June 2011. Television.

“Family of Blood.” Writ. Russel T. Davies. Doctor Who. BBC. 2 June 2007. Television.

“Human Nature.” Writ. Russel T. Davies. Doctor Who. BBC. 26 May 2007. Television.

“Journey’s End.” Writ. Russel T. Davies. Doctor Who. BBC. 5 June 2008. Television.

“Rose.” Writ. Russel T. Davies. Doctor Who. BBC. 17 March 2006. Television.

“Smith and Jones.” Writ. Russel T. Davies. Doctor Who. BBC. 6 July 2007. Television.

“The Eleventh Hour.” Writ. Steven Moffat. Doctor Who. BBC. 17 April 2010. Television.

“The Lodger.” Writ. Steven Moffat. Doctor Who. BBC. 10 July 2010. Television.

“The Parting of the Ways.” Writ. Russel T. Davies. Doctor Who. BBC. 9 June 2006. Television.

“The Time of the Doctor.” Writ. Steven Moffat. Doctor Who. BBC. 25 December 2013. Television.

Resources: Alyssa, A. "The Bechdel Test and Doctor Who: So What’s the Big Deal?" Whovian Feminism. N.p., 10 Feb.

2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia. "'Doctor Who' Christmas Special Was Everything Fans Dislike about the Moffat

Era." The Daily Dot. Daily Dot LLC, 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Bartlett, Myke. "Revenge Of The GEEKS Fifty Years Of Doctor Who." Screen Education 71 (2013): 74-

81. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Worden 22

Chapman, James. "That's 'Miss Who' to You." Leicester Exchanges. University of Leicester, 1 July 2014.

Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

Haralovich, Mary Beth, and Andrea L. Press. "New Feminist Television Studies: Queries Into

Postfeminist Television." Communication Review 15.3 (2012): 163-166. Communication & Mass

Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Henderson, Mary. "Professional Women In Star Trek, 1964 To 1969." Film & History (03603695) 24.1/2

(1994): 47-59. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Hoskin, Dave. "Roses Doctors Lovers And Gods." Metro 148 (2006): 84-90. Communication & Mass

Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Hoskin, Dave. "The New Man: The Regeneration Of Doctor Who." Metro 169 (2011): 130-

133. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Lewis-Hasteley, Helen. "Sherlock's Sexy, But Not Sexist." New Statesman 141.5088 (2012): 14.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Lotz, Amanda D. "Postfeminist Television Criticism: Rehabilitating Critical Terms And Identifying

Postfeminist Attributes." Feminist Media Studies 1.1 (2001): 105-121. Communication & Mass

Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

McGee, Ryan. "'Doctor Who': Peter Capaldi Can Stay but Steven Moffat Needs to Go."Zap2It. Tribune

Media Services, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Worden 23

Nesbitt, Madeleine. "The Objectification of Amy Pond." SPARKSummit. SPARK Movement, 26 Dec.

2012. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Oppenheimer, Bonnie, et al. "Audience Perceptions Of Strong Female Characters On

Television." Communication Research Reports 20.2 (2003): 161-172. Communication & Mass

Media Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Sellnow, D. “Chapter 6: Feminist Perspectives.” The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE. 2010.

Stevens, Christopher. "Who Should Be the next Doctor? ANYONE but a Woman! With the next Time Lord

Tipped to Be a Time Lady, Our TV Critic Explains Why It Can't Happen." Daily Mail Online.

Associated Newspapers, 03 June 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.

Stokes, Colin. “TED Talks: How movies teach manhood.” TEDx. November 2012. Web. 31 January

2014.