Steven Moffat, Sex And Me
“Show me the man who says anything against women, as women, and I boldly declare he is not a man.” -Charles Dickens, The Pickwick Papers
Steven Moffat ain’t a feminist. He’s said some really rubbish things, like that thing about how difficult it is to be a straight white male when it is most certainly not. Okay, I know a lot of quotes from him were taken out of context, but enough of them weren’t. Like this one, which really got me:
“A young married couple without a kid? They’re just dating. You tell yourself you’re married, but really you’re dating.”
That one hurts because I know people who are trying desperately for a kid and I’m pretty sure they’re married, since I was at the wedding and all. Or what about the people who don’t want kids? Or, selfishly, what about me? There’s something wrong with me now and children may not be an option any more. Things are piling up and sex might not be an option anymore. Does that make my future marriage mean less? I wish he hadn’t said that; I wish he’d use his not inconsiderable media power more wisely.
But I think Moffat’s writing problems spring from the fact that he thinks (or, you know, I think he thinks) that sex and the ability to have sex is the most important thing about a person. Sex gives you power, sex gives you control, sex gives you children. That’s why neither Sherlock or the Doctor can be asexual, why Amy, River and Irene all use sex as a weapon- to Moffat, that’s what makes characters good and makes them interesting. Sex and everything it creates.
Which brings me to Moffat’s attitudes on women, specifically. With only Moffat the writer to go on, not knowing the man…I think he’s jealous of them, in a way he probably doesn’t even know about. Womb envy or whatever it’s called. If sex is the most important thing, and if he thinks a woman can use sex as a weapon (or as a distraction- see Space and Time), and if he thinks a woman can have a baby and bond with it in a way a man probably can’t…I think The Doctor The Widow and the Wardrobe hinted that Moffat thinks being a mother is the most important thing in the world. And he isn’t one. Hence bad stuff. I doubt he even considered how traumatic a situation he put Amy in at the end of The Almost People– according to DWM, he “wanted Amy to have a baby just like that,” and thought about time
compression to reduce her pregnancy period before settling on the Ganger thing. And in the end poor old Amy suffered more than anyone, with things that wouldn’t have happened if not for her gender.
I wish he’d pay attention to his critics. (I do suspect The Doctor The Widow and the Wardrobe was a reaction to the misogyny criticism, just not the most well-thought-out one.) He badly needs to get some women on staff, for a start, and he needs to think about what his female characters can do rather than what can be done to them. Amy deciding to kill Kovarian was a good start, but River needs more interests outside the Doctor, and Irene needs to come back and kick everyone’s arse (including Sherlock’s) in style. I know Moffat will never read this, but I hope he picks up somehow that people want less Strong Female Characters (i.e. sex, guns, rock n’ roll) and more…female characters. If that makes sense. I think he can do it, he’s a great writer. Someday he may even be a good one.
Recently Moffat was rightly criticised for saying asexuality was boring. His worldview really does seem to revolve around sex and procreation, and I hope one day it doesn’t. I don’t know for sure if there is a place for me, or for many others, in Moffat’s Whoniverse. But I’m gonna force my way in anyway- I love Eleven and Amy and Rory and River and they, I’m sure, would welcome me with open arms.
I don’t really trust Moffat to make improvements, he has reacted badly to criticism so far, but I believe and hope that the world isn’t divided into good people and misogynists. (Paraphrasing the fabulous JK Rowling there- hey, maybe she should join the writing staff!) And regardless of what happens with my future children, I will be married, because I want to be.
January 27, 2012 @ 12:27 am
This was so well put! thanks for sending it to the world! I have this huge issue with Moffatt too, I thoroughly enjoy his worlds and characters, but feel lessened by his attitude towards females, at least for what can be see from his female characters and the way he talks about women in interviews. I am glad you put the right kind of thought into it to make perfect sense of what I felt discomforting too.
January 29, 2012 @ 12:44 am
Thank you! :D
January 27, 2012 @ 1:49 am
Yes. Just – yes. To everything in here. You’ve put into words what has been bothering me about Moffat’s treatment of female characters and the storylines he gives them. Something else that bothered me about that particular quote of his was the suggestion that marriage isn’t an entirely different kind of relationship. It suggested that marriage itself doesn’t create a new family but is just a declaration that you want to ‘date’ one person exclusively for the rest of your life – until you have a child, that is, and then you’re a proper new family. That makes me angry, because a lot of my friends got married in the last couple of years and it’s just so obvious that the entire relationship dynamic changes. They’re not just ‘dating’ any more – each couple has become a family unit, and will continue to be a family whether or not they have kids. I was going to say something about how Molly Hooper is one of the few female characters in a Moffat-helmed show who is an actual female character as opposed to a Feisty Femme Fatale (although she’s by no means a particularly well-rounded character), but the episode that I think shows her strengths (The Reichenbach Fall) wasn’t written by Moffat. So, draw from that what you will…
January 29, 2012 @ 12:48 am
Thank you! I know Moffat has a wife and kids, I guess he never considered that that’s not by any means the only family you can have? I was going to say something about how Molly Hooper is one of the few female characters in a Moffat-helmed show who is an actual female character as opposed to a Feisty Femme Fatale (although she’s by no means a particularly well-rounded character), but the episode that I think shows her strengths (The Reichenbach Fall) wasn’t written by Moffat. So, draw from that what you will… I love Molly to bits, but yeah, not cos of Moffat (I can never remember who actually wrote The Reichenbach Fall…) Although… …maybe Sally Sparrow from Blink is a good example? She has men flirt with her, and she ends up in a relationship with one of them, but she’s definitely not all about the sex. Hmm. What happened?
January 28, 2012 @ 1:20 am
User kate_swynford referenced to your post from Friday, January 27, 2012 saying: […] has thoughts on Steven Moffatt, sex and female characters […]
January 28, 2012 @ 2:12 am
Ugh – just wondering, where/when did he say that? I think you’re right about TDTW&TW being a ham-handed attempt at rebutting the misogyny criticism. I think the CENTRAL thing that he needs to do, is learn to write characters-who-happen-to-be-female, and not females-who-happen-to-be-characters. He keeps falling into that trap, and it’s very offensive imo.
January 29, 2012 @ 12:50 am
I found it in The Doctor Who Companion: The Eleventh Doctor. I think it was in Doctor Who Magazine too… Yes! He needs to do that and soon. I do like Madge from TDTWATW though…
January 28, 2012 @ 6:34 am
I come here from who_daily and I LOVE THIS POST. It’s everything I feel is wrong with Moffat’s writing for Who and Sherlock, especially towards females.
January 29, 2012 @ 12:50 am
Aw thank you. :D
January 28, 2012 @ 10:40 am
Saw this in who-daily as well. I totally agree with what you’ve said here. Moffat has this tendency to make his ‘strong’ female characters complete caricatures. They lose anything beyond being a sexual object whether literally in the case of Irene Adler or in the sense that their only purpose is for procreation… Eg. Amy Pond and Madge (Forgot her surname). It makes me wonder, do women serve no other purpose in his world view other than sex and kids?
January 29, 2012 @ 12:56 am
Thank you! See, the thing about Amy, River and co, to me, is that they are really interesting people but Moffat just wants to put them into boxes marked ‘mother’ or ‘dominatrix’ or whatever, when people are so much more interesting than labels. If that makes sense…
January 29, 2012 @ 2:50 am
It makes complete sense to me. A character is so much more than a label. Amy and, especially River, had a lot of potential, but they’ve been turned essentially one dimensional and it does not make them at all likeable or interesting as characters for me. If it was a one off it might be acceptable, but all of Moffat’s female characters seem to suffer the same fate.
January 28, 2012 @ 5:38 pm
Hi, I’m here through who_daily. Thank you for writing this. To me it’s clear he does elevate motherhood to a pedestal. I would say it is his personal belief, too, not just a trope, because it underpins so much of his writing. The plot resolution to “The Doctor Dances” hinged on Nancy admitting she was Jamie’s mother. What we saw of River’s computer afterlife was about being a mother. Only Madge can carry the Tree People to safety; Lily is (to paraphrase) strong but not strong enough. Elevating someone to a pedestal, however, IMHO not only involves idealization, but also involves fearing them to some extent. Either way, it means setting someone apart from everyone else. Womb envy or whatever it’s called. If sex is the most important thing, and if he thinks a woman can use sex as a weapon (or as a distraction- see Space and Time), and if he thinks a woman can have a baby and bond with it in a way a man probably can’t…I think The Doctor The Widow and the Wardrobe hinted that Moffat thinks being a mother is the most important thing in the world. And he isn’t one. Hence bad stuff. It’s fascinating how he treated Amy’s pregnancy in text. She was asleep and unaware of what was happening to her body until the end, which means she was denied the journey–most importantly, she was denied the bonding process that starts before birth for a mother, a kind of bonding the vast majority of men can never experience. There’s something of–I don’t know, maybe leveling the playing field between Amy/woman/mother and Rory/man/father in this scenario, since neither could bond with Melody until after she was born. Definitely a case of womb envy. I wish Moffat had used time compression. It would’ve achieved the same goal without all the misogynistic implications that Amy’s story had. And his attitude about marriage–sheesh. It’s not just about a prelude to having children. I am so sorry you were hurt by Moffat’s insensitive statement.
January 29, 2012 @ 1:00 am
This! Basically. You said it incredibly well. I never even considered the ‘leveling the playing field’ thing, but it makes a heckofa lot of sense. *hugs* Thank you. I just hope that no people who want a baby and can’t have one ever read that quote, because he basically said…well, he basically said that a marriage isn’t a marriage without kids. Which is an attitude I thought died with the Victorians, at least…
January 28, 2012 @ 6:29 pm
I don’t know Moffat the man, I only know him through interviews and his writing. It seems to me that he’s one of those traditional misogynists that mistakenly think they’re progressive and almost feminist because of Strong Women Characters, but really, those are the women you have flings with, not the ones you bring home to momma. I think he probably wants the world to go back to the 50s and 60s, when men were men and the Doctor was an intellectual action hero.
January 29, 2012 @ 1:04 am
It’s like…well, I can’t remember where I heard this story, but it went something along the lines of “A man paints a beautiful woman and takes great pleasure in painting her. Then he paints a mirror in her hand and titles the painting ‘Vanity’. That is what misogyny is.” So it’s like, replace the mirror with a gun and the title with ‘Strong Female Character’…I think that’s what Moffat is doing, without even knowing.
January 28, 2012 @ 9:04 pm
I had enormous problems with the ending of The Almost People, and with Amy’s pregnancy basically without her knowledge. I’m no longer ranting and raving the way I was in June, but I still have huge issues with it. And what I have even more issues with is the fact that I express my displeasure to people outside my circle of close friends, and most of them go, “what was the problem with it?” So many people saw absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that Moffat wanted her to have a baby, but didn’t want to take the time to show Amy pregnant on screen, so he appropriated her body for the villains, as part of the plot, so that she went into labor even without knowing it. So thank you. Thank you for articulating this so well. The next time someone asks me why have a problem with it, I will definitely direct them here.
January 29, 2012 @ 1:07 am
It took me a while to get actually cross at The Almost People, but I did feel a bit uncomfy when it first aired, because Doctor Who is a children’s show (hell yes!) and ‘woman kidnapped, duplicated and forced to give birth in a scary white tube’ ain’t a concept for kids, really. Adults are gonna understand the implications, but children probably aren’t. They’re probably not gonna ask ‘who took Amy’s clothes off, then?’ when I do, and it’s not really a fun thing to think about… Thank you kindly for your comment! :D