The Female Doctor: Seeing the Wood for the Trees
Feature article by Connor Johnston.
It is 2013.
In an interview with The Independent, Sherlock star Lara Pulver has fuelled year-long rumours that she was in the running to be cast as the first female Doctor. Despite Pulver’s popularity there is a widespread distaste and confusion among viewers about the concept of Gallifrey’s gender fluidity. DoctorWhoTV runs a poll amongst its readers revealing that a whopping 87% of voters would prefer the Doctor to remain a man.
It is 2014.
A few weeks have past since the airing of Dark Water and Death in Heaven where Michelle Gomez’s ‘Gatekeeper of the Nethersphere’ is revealed as a new incarnation of The Master, a character who in 7 previous regenerations had only ever been portrayed by a male actor. For the first time in over half a century of Doctor Who the concept that Time Lords have the ability to change their genders through the regeneration is not simply alluded to in throwaway dialogue, but witnessed on screen. We have never been closer to the possibility of a female Doctor.
There is high acclaim for both Gomez’s performance and the casting choice from fans and critics alike, however there still remains a certain hesitance in regards to the notion of Gallifrey’s gender fluidity. “The Master is one thing, but there should never be a female Doctor” a freelance journalist would paraphrase three years on. Simultaneously, Gomez’s success has been responsible for encouraging the rise of an ever-growing group of viewers advocating openly for the casting of a woman in the show’s lead role. Another poll is held by DoctorWhoTV and despite not quite achieving the popular vote, support for a female Doctor has risen dramatically to 46.47% from the 13% it scored one year previous. Discussion is abundant, including a case for article written by yours truly, concluding with the extract:
The question shouldn’t be whether the Doctor should ever be female or not; rather: “Has society evolved to a level of acceptance where a female Doctor could be welcomed”. If no, “Should Doctor Who be used as a tool to promote a social maturity”, and if yes “Should Doctor Who be used as proof of society’s achievement.”
It is 2017, and after years of preparation Jodie Whittaker is cast as the Thirteenth Doctor becoming the first female actor to hold the titular role. The BBC report that the reception of the news has been overwhelmingly positive, supported by record breaking figures and a vast majority of positive fan reactions. DoctorWhoTV release the results of a third poll that despite a slim victory with 52.4% in favour of Jodie’s casting, is incredibly indicative of progress when compared to a more traditional conservative result. Regardless, there remains a group of people who are naturally uncertain or undecided about the casting of a new lead actor. Separate to these however there are also some whose reaction has not only been drenched in condemnation – but in many cases downright inappropriate. Last week, an article was published voicing a number of opinions on Whittaker’s casting, which in part I will be seeking to respond to today.
The internet will forever be filled with a paroxysm of hatred and aggression. Anonymity is a powerful force. Hiding behind a fake screen name makes many feel invincible, as well as invisible. Even when our real identities are revealed, (For example on Facebook or Twitter) there is still a sense of entitlement and freedom that removes the concept of respect from an individual’s vocabulary. Of course, this inappropriate behaviour is not limited to any one side of the debate, and is never excusable – however I do struggle with instances where the efforts of those who respond to bigotry and sexism applicably are misrepresented as abuse or disrespect in a bid to (intentionally or non intentionally) distract from the presence unacceptable and outdated rhetoric.
The labelling of this rhetoric is not being thrown around completely without cause: sexism and bigotry not only exists within the negative reactions to Whittaker’s casting, it thrives. There are two main types of comments that feed this vicious atmosphere. The first are the easiest to identify given they usually endorse some horrifically unoriginal and offensive sexist clichés, or some similarly desperate an uninspired plea for attention. The second group of people are subtler in their disappointment, vowing to never watch again, claiming that the character is ruined and that the show will collapse. These are viewers who have expressed their inability to give Whittaker and Chibnall a chance. Given there has been no substantial footage or concept of Thirteen released whatsoever, logic maintains that the only motivation behind this judgment is Whittaker’s gender. To reiterate, this is not an opinion based on her portrayal or capabilities – solely on the fact that she is a woman. This is inherently and unescapably sexist. This level of prejudice isn’t new, in fact we’ve seen elements of similarity in initial criticism regarding Davison, Smith and Capaldi’s ages when they were first cast. Familiarity does not justify or excuse, in fact it instils an expectation of reaction and defence.
No, uncertainty and apprehension is not sexist, it is a natural consequence of the drastic change the show endorses. No, voicing concerns over the show’s Doctor/companion dynamic and future based purely on the nature that change has the equal opportunity to fail as it does to succeed is not sexist. There is a clear difference between the type of criticism mentioned in the above paragraphs and the intentions of last week’s article. Without question, this divergence needs to be acknowledged and respected by those who are mistakenly awarding unwarranted retaliation. Civil discourse and debate is so important in all aspects of discussion but it cannot be sustained without mutual respect. The response to those who are being misrepresented as sexists and bigots should not be to undermine and cheapen the passion of those outraged by this rhetoric. It should be to engage in these conversations, working not only to distance themselves from the true offenders by reinforcing their willingness as well as their hesitance, but also to join in condemning the offensive and outdated behaviour they do not share. It is approaches like that endorsed in last week’s article that work to excuse and shift perception away from the bigotry, intentionally or not. This was also Peter Davison’s mistake.
Let me assert that in no way do I excuse, endorse or support the behaviour that led to Davison leaving Twitter. Just as I believe it is the responsibility of those uncertain of Whittaker to condemn actual bigotry, it is also the responsibility of those supporting the casting to oppose the similarly inexcusable. Peter’s comments did not warrant the response, but they were inherently problematic.
The notion that Whittaker’s casting is a loss of role model for boys is completely unfounded. Both the real world and that of fiction is full of examples that prove there is no correlation between a person’s gender and who they inspire. Assertions that Colin Baker’s response was hypocritical totally excludes the fact that Whittaker’s casting was not based on wanting to solely challenge conceptions about role models, but also to significantly tackle the imbalance of male to female representation and of course because Whittaker’s talent and portrayal was consistent with Chibnall’s plans for the role.
Doctor Who has consistently been a show that has subverted gender stereotypes, the lead actor doing so for over 36 seasons. The show’s strong female characters have too been pioneered as role models in the position of the companion, however there is a striking difference in what can be achieved socially by a character who follows and learns, and a character who leads and teaches.
Change is often met with chaos – and there are those that no doubt prescribe to a more traditional ideology that are struggling with this progress. It is very well and good to find and critic faults in each other’s approaches, but we need to not use this divergence in opinion as an opportunity for more hatred. I want to stress that being more in favour of the Doctor remaining male for reasons of familiarity or comfort is not quite equal to a vehement belief that Jodie is unworthy of a chance because of her gender. It is down to those favourable of the casting to use these discussions as a platform to guide and encourage these viewers to share in our openness and excitement.
This is an incredibly exciting time for Doctor Who, both due to the celebration of an inspired and ground-breaking outgoing Doctor and in anticipation of the untapped potential Whittaker’s era has unleashed. Change and progression have been at the forefront of the show’s longevity and success for over half a century, and however apprehensive or concerned we all feel at one point – every artistic decision, including that of a female Doctor, is entitled to an opportunity to justify itself without being undermined by allegations of tokenism or pandering. Akin to every actor before her, I have full confidence Whittaker’s casting is a direct product of her suitability and talent. The social and yes, political victories this marks are so important; but only a cynic would believe they are solely responsible. The Thirteenth Doctor’s era already speaks volumes of Chibnall and the BBC’s confidence that strength of the Doctor’s character comes from virtue – not from gender.
The passion exhibited by people with all types of opinions – be it concern or praise – is a testament to the dedication and support the show has earned over the last 53 years and will continue to earn over many more. In the coming months, it is time for viewers to take a step back and help each other see the wood for the trees.
