Doctor Who Hires Its First Female Writer in Six Years

[theNater]

Is it truly so difficult to assume a lack of guilt/sexism, rather than...not?

I don't think it's reasonable to conflate guilt and sexism in this way. Guilt usually requires intent, and sexism doesn't.

Any number of factors are potentially at work here, including number/quality/demographic of viable applicants, how often they were actually hiring, how well applicants did in their respective interviews, the interviewer/ee's health or mood during any given interview, any number of minute details that affected either interviewer/ee, etc. etc. etc.

Theoretically, most of these factors would be expected to affect men and women equally. Unless, say, the mood of the interviewers is reliably worse when interviewing women, which would be one form of unconscious sexism.

I find it interesting that many people seem 100% sure that the lack of women being hired to write Doctor Who is due to boy's club culture/sexism. Me, I'm not so sure. What's the proportion of women to men in sci-fi writers for TV, and how many of them are trying to write for Doctor Who? If the proportion is low, it could explain a part of why so few women were hired.

If the proportion is low, that probably indicates a boy's club culture in sci-fi writing for TV in general.

To maintain this percentage would you chose a worse female writer over a better male one?

Writing ability is not realistically quantifiable. If I think the female writer is just a bit worse than the male writer, is that actually the case or am I falling prey to unconscious bias? A long string of choosing men over women suggests the latter, rather than the former.

If they keep excluding female writers, I'm going to hazard a guess that they've decided to exclude female writers.

I don't think that's fair. It probably wasn't a conscious decision at any point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You know what? Since some people here are so eager to think ill of others (especially when they just so happen to have an external set of genitals)

Of course, you can tell that people are being judged by their genitals here, but that this couldn't possibly happen at the BBC.

If they keep excluding female writers, I'm going to hazard a guess that they've decided to exclude female writers.

I don't think that's fair. It probably wasn't a conscious decision at any point.

True, I don't think it was conscious, I probably should have worded that better.

 

[DrOswald]

Sorry to bark questions at you there thaluikhain, was at work.


Two further questions:


1) I am interested that you ignored the other first two questions (if that makes sense):


"What percentage would you deem acceptable?"

"Whether you'd choose a poorer female writer over a male one in order to achieve your acceptable percentage?"


Why did you do that?

Because they had nothing to do with what I had said, and didn't appear to have been asked in good faith. My apologies if this isn't the case.

I said nothing about acceptable percentages, of needing to balance male writers with female ones, of having female writers for the sake of having female writers.

I'd suggest that while you'd probably argue you are being tolerant and open-minded, personal prejudices colour everyone's judgment and it's very easy to apply "post hoc" thinking to subjects where we "know" what is going on.

This article strikes me as actually quite exploitative of the current goodwill toward "sexism" arguments in it's inference without any proof of "sexism". What do you reckon?

That might hold true if there was an uneven distribution between male and female writers, if things were merely leaning one way. But that's not the case.

Yes, I'm not privy to everything that goes on at the BBC, but going an entire 6 years[footnote]Starting at around the time that Moffat took over, which is probably not a coincidence[/footnote] in which every single writer of every single episode is male? Yeah, I'm going to say there's some exclusion at work there.

Sure, maybe this time it's a complete coincidence. Maybe the sexism that is very obviously present in our society in general and institutions like the BBC in particular had, for some strange reason, nothing to do with this particular example. But, yeah, I doubt believe that for a second.

There is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy going on with "obviously" sexist groups and the like. It is assumed that Stevie muppet is sexist, not without good reason. So why would any woman apply to work under him? I can't blame them, why would they want to work under a sexist boss? So very few women apply to work under him, and those that do apply tend to be those who can't be too picky about where they work (read: relatively untalented, bad resume, bad reputation.) So few or no women every get a position. Which reinforces the view of sexism, which means even fewer women apply, etc.

Why would any woman apply to work there? They are blatantly sexist! How do we know they are blatantly sexist? because no women work there!

Now, mop head Stevie does have some well known problematic views about women, and it might just be him screening his writers to make sure they are make. But he has never really shown any reluctance to actually work with women and he has never shown that he thinks women are less capable in this particular area. He is just a strait up ass when it comes to actually respecting women.

I find it far more likely that capable, talented women refuse to work with Steven Moffat than the other way around.

 

[SeanSeanston]

And within those 6 years no women didn't even bother raising the Equality Act 2010 against them despite there being reasonable evidence.

Yes, and all the homeless men who don't have a job, and represent almost all homeless people are there purely by random chance or their own actions and nothing at all to do with how society is run I bet.

Jesus Christ though... sometimes I swear I've woken up in the 50s...

The 1750s, that is :O

I honestly thought the title was going to be "Doctor Who Hires Its First Female Writer" and at that I would've thought "Oh, ok... noteworthy I guess if you're into that kind of thing...", but in six years?... What next? Do we really need to know exactly how long it's been since every event that can be turned into a loaded politically-charged statement?

 

[SeanSeanston]

I find it far more likely that capable, talented women refuse to work with Steven Moffat than the other way around.

Then just get a terrible one.

Or a random woman off the street.

We need to meet an acceptable gender quota, damnit!

I'm not going to explain why, or why it's explicitly "necessary" and not even just desirable or anything less emphatic, but because I'm appointing myself Joseph Stalin of the World, I can make whatever pronouncements I want with as little evidence as I want and everyone has to deal with it.

 

[Dogstile]

Who cares about the gender of the writer? If they're good, then hire them. If not, then don't. How hard is that?

I constantly boggle at how someone can see a 93/5 split, and somehow come to the conclusion that this wasn't badly gender-biased already. Or are you making the claim that men are just that much better at writing, and 95% of the time, it just so happened to be a man was the best qualified for the job? If so, please state it explicitly.

Because if there is a disparity one way, it has to be because of gender bias and not because it only recently became cool for the average woman to like nerdy shit right?

I suppose its easier to just look at things you don't like and claim sexism though.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

~snip~

Certainly understandable.

Personally, I'm trying to be a bit more positive than my usual unrelentingly cynical, pragmatic self. Even with that mindset, I do still think people are basically good and that Hanlon's Razor is one of, if not the, best explanations for most of society's ills.

With that said, I too believe granting of the 'benefit of the doubt' does, indeed, depend on the context.

For instance: A KKK member hosting a barbecue/bonfire with a "blacks only" clause?

Maybe he's saying that people who enjoy their food overcooked or burnt are the primary target of his cookout? Maybe he's reaching out to the African American community in an attempt to better himself? In any case, perhaps a bit of caution is in order.

As for the group in question? They're writers for a BBC show popular with a wide demographic (I think? I'm actually having trouble finding statistics outside of raw viewership numbers) and are...well, just writers. I'm willing to give them the ol' BotD here.

More specifically, I'm not aware of how their hiring process works, what they look for in a writer (don't say 'a dick' >.>), or what the turnover rate happens to be. All of those are major factors, with the latter being, by far, the most important given the inference that the overall time between hiring of female writers is somehow noteworthy.

...So, I feel I'd be doing them an injustice by automatically assuming the ratio was achieved under 'malicious' circumstances.

Now, in the interest of consistency I do have to ask, as I often do in these sorts of discussions, "if the genders were flipped, would you be similarly concerned?"

I hope being more positive works out for you.

Oh, people are inherently good... in their own way at the least, but we're all human so we all have flaws. Some flaws contribute to the boy's club mentality of certain industries.

The KKK member could donate to churches, be a wonderful parent, serve their country, but that doesn't mean they can't have a bad side in being bigoted, for instance.

I agree wholeheartedly the context plays a huge role in if BotD is bestowed, and sadly, in this case, this isn't a context I can agree with giving BotD. It's just too much of a huge coincidence in a gap like that happening. While I can't pretend to know the system of hiring, I find it a little hard to believe that it allows something like 6 years of women not being hired to happen naturally, without bias.

I tried to be more vague about the wording to be more inclusive in previous posts, so yeah, I'd be similarly concerned. Especially in a role that can be done well by more than one group.

 

[fletch_talon]

You know what? Since some people here are so eager to think ill of others (especially when they just so happen to have an external set of genitals)

Of course, you can tell that people are being judged by their genitals here, but that this couldn't possibly happen at the BBC.

Oh dear me, you've caught me out, exposed the depths of my double standards.
Oh wait, not really.
Especially since I'm not saying it couldn't happen at the BBC, but rather that there's no reason to assume it has, especially given the evidence we have against that theory.

Y'see you are throwing out accusations of sexism not only without any actual evidence (pure assumption based on cynical worldview and bias against men) but you're also actually ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Until you can give a believable reason why a sexist boys club would make a conscious effort to find female writers (and apparently simultaneously exclude female writers) the evidence is against you.

So yeah, its very easy to tell that you and others like you are just looking for ways to prove that we live in a society that is anti women, and men are all misogynists who will abuse their power to keep women out of their boys clubs. If this wasn't the case then you wouldn't all conveniently skim over the facts which work against your conjecture.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Is it truly so difficult to assume a lack of guilt/sexism, rather than...not?

I don't think it's reasonable to conflate guilt and sexism in this way. Guilt usually requires intent, and sexism doesn't.

Er. As you said, guilt 'usually' requires intent. In this case, it's being inferred by other posters (whom you quote later on) that it's intentional sexism, rather than unconscious.

My phrasing is most likely awful, but I'd intended it to mean "guilty of being sexist," which someone can be or be labeled, regardless of their intent.

Any number of factors are potentially at work here, including number/quality/demographic of viable applicants, how often they were actually hiring, how well applicants did in their respective interviews, the interviewer/ee's health or mood during any given interview, any number of minute details that affected either interviewer/ee, etc. etc. etc.

Theoretically, most of these factors would be expected to affect men and women equally. Unless, say, the mood of the interviewers is reliably worse when interviewing women, which would be one form of unconscious sexism.

Well that's just unfair.

You're assuming an individual factor's weight from the overall result. One could easily make the argument that mood, of either interviewer/ee, played a role regardless of sex, but didn't affect the outcome in any appreciable way....because we have no evidence to the contrary. Unless, of course, the lack of female writers in that time period was to be used as evidence, in which case, I'd just repeat the aforementioned factors, and we'd go around in circles.

I'll make my own assumption: If anything, frequency of hirings would be the biggest contributor. If they're just not hiring people that often, then a large time gap doesn't mean much of anything. Since we don't know this, and many other variables, a knee-jerk reaction of declaring intentional or unintentional sexism comes off as putting the cart before the horse.

I find it interesting that many people seem 100% sure that the lack of women being hired to write Doctor Who is due to boy's club culture/sexism. Me, I'm not so sure. What's the proportion of women to men in sci-fi writers for TV, and how many of them are trying to write for Doctor Who? If the proportion is low, it could explain a part of why so few women were hired.

If the proportion is low, that probably indicates a boy's club culture in sci-fi writing for TV in general.

Or...it's simply indicative of a proportional difference in viable applicants from one gender for this specific field of writing, which itself could indicate a lack of interest from said gender. Declaring something to potentially be a "boy's club" or a "girl's club" (a phrase which I've never actually heard in these discussions...is that even a thing?) carries with it some pretty damning implications.

To maintain this percentage would you chose a worse female writer over a better male one?

Writing ability is not realistically quantifiable. If I think the female writer is just a bit worse than the male writer, is that actually the case or am I falling prey to unconscious bias? A long string of choosing men over women suggests the latter, rather than the former.

A quick look over at fanfiction.net or DeviantArt would let you know that, yes, writing ability is quantifiable.

Ability, by itself, doesn't take into account the tone or tenor of one's writing and that would also play a role in determining which would be 'better' suited for a position writing on a particular show with a particular style.

Now, could they be 'falling prey to unconscious bias'? Certainly! There is always the possibility, after all, but assuming that to be the case in the absence of evidence doesn't really help matters. And, again, you're assuming the length of the string without actually seeing said string.

If, ignoring all other factors, they'd hired (some arbitrary number) like 1000 men in that time period rather than, say, 1-20 (the idea being a small amount) then I'd say there was a point to be made here, but if not? It is perfectly reasonable to not assume sexism.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Gah. Meant this to be in that other post, but it won't send a "you were quoted" thingy if you edit a quote into a previous post...or at least it hasn't worked like that for me in the past.

I hope being more positive works out for you.

Oh, people are inherently good... in their own way at the least, but we're all human so we all have flaws. Some flaws contribute to the boy's club mentality of certain industries.

The KKK member could donate to churches, be a wonderful parent, serve their country, but that doesn't mean they can't have a bad side in being bigoted, for instance.

I agree wholeheartedly the context plays a huge role in if BotD is bestowed, and sadly, in this case, this isn't a context I can agree with giving BotD. It's just too much of a huge coincidence in a gap like that happening. While I can't pretend to know the system of hiring, I find it a little hard to believe that it allows something like 6 years of women not being hired to happen naturally, without bias.

I tried to be more vague about the wording to be more inclusive in previous posts, so yeah, I'd be similarly concerned. Especially in a role that can be done well by more than one group.

Ditto, actually. Let's see how long it lasts.

And, well, I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree in general here? Certainly nothing wrong with that!

I'll ask one more question though; If they'd hired all of...let's say 3-10 people over that six years, would that change the perception of bias? I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's the time itself (6 years is a relatively 'long' time, after all) that's prompting the raising of brows.

I'm also glad to see consistency in the argument. Really, so long as the concern isn't just for one gender, then I'm completely behind someone being upset, whether or not I agree with them on it.

 

[gunny1993]

Lets hope she sticks a stake through Moffat's heart and puts a bullet into clara's head.

 

[TallanKhan]

ak93]

Great!

Now get rid of Moffat!

Over the years since Davies left I've been trying to figure out what the problem's been with Doctor Who without him. It wasn't the Doctor himself, or his companions, or hell even the villains.
Sometimes it wasn't even the main villain of the season. No, it was Moffat this whole time.

Fucking really? Master-Cybermen team-up and you devote 30 minutes to-GAAAHHH

The problem is Moffat writes like a fan boy. Most of his episodes start off with the doctor being all mysterious and usually not even present. Some characters talk about how awesome the doctor is. Then he shows up and does stuff. There is then a lore contradiction (because time travel) and then it's over.

Moffat isn't a bad writter, he's a bad show runner. Blink is one of my favourite episodes, but he had to follow someone else's rules for it.

I miss Davies. He wasn't perfect, but man the guy nailed continuity, season long story arcs and the wacky intensity of The Doctor.

I haven't seen season 8 yet, but I really don't want to see my Doctor tainted any more...

OT - I really don't care what gender you are as long as you can write. I've seen a lot of crap from men and women alike.

I think also, the big problem with alot of episodes under Moffat's direction is that they just haven't gone anywhere. Looking back at episodes under Russell T Davies, most of them went somewhere, advanced something, either a season wide plot development or just told a nice little story with a tight arc and solid conclusion. Even episodes that in themselves didn't really do much often had call backs or consiquences later on.

It seems to me that under Moffatt the show became more "Doctor centric". Before, the general formula was "Trouble occurs, Doctor saves the day" - simplistic but effective. But now it is more the case that "Trouble happens around the Doctor, and the Doctor has to work to restore the status quo.

OT: I don't care about the gender of any specific writer but not having a single female writer in 6 years might suggest a lack of balanced perspectives.

 

[jFr[e]ak93]

Snip

You've really hit the nail on the head. Let's hope the addition of a new writer brings it back to the "basics" again. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Gah. Meant this to be in that other post, but it won't send a "you were quoted" thingy if you edit a quote into a previous post...or at least it hasn't worked like that for me in the past.

I hope being more positive works out for you.

Oh, people are inherently good... in their own way at the least, but we're all human so we all have flaws. Some flaws contribute to the boy's club mentality of certain industries.

The KKK member could donate to churches, be a wonderful parent, serve their country, but that doesn't mean they can't have a bad side in being bigoted, for instance.

I agree wholeheartedly the context plays a huge role in if BotD is bestowed, and sadly, in this case, this isn't a context I can agree with giving BotD. It's just too much of a huge coincidence in a gap like that happening. While I can't pretend to know the system of hiring, I find it a little hard to believe that it allows something like 6 years of women not being hired to happen naturally, without bias.

I tried to be more vague about the wording to be more inclusive in previous posts, so yeah, I'd be similarly concerned. Especially in a role that can be done well by more than one group.

Ditto, actually. Let's see how long it lasts.

And, well, I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree in general here? Certainly nothing wrong with that!

I'll ask one more question though; If they'd hired all of...let's say 3-10 people over that six years, would that change the perception of bias? I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's the time itself (6 years is a relatively 'long' time, after all) that's prompting the raising of brows.

I'm also glad to see consistency in the argument. Really, so long as the concern isn't just for one gender, then I'm completely behind someone being upset, whether or not I agree with them on it.

Huh, hope the quote problem was just bug.

I hope it lasts a while. Finding a way to be positive in light of all the BS the world can throw your way is a good thing. So long as it doesn't blind a person anyhow. I'm hard pressed to be positive about much of anything. lol But Sincerely, I hope it's a good thing for ya that lasts a while.

I agree, disagreeing to agree is a fine thing, especially when it's done in a civil manner.

The more people hired, the greater the brow raising because of the fraction shrinking. 1/3 1/4 1/5, etc. 1 out of 3 would be less eyebrow raising, but I'd it'd kinda balance out in wondering why so few writers over that span of time.

Kinda hard to put into words. It's not time, and time alone. It's the frequency. Kind of like a scale. A scale doesn't have to be perfectly weighted to keep one end from hitting the ground. A scale can start off balanced, but add more, over time to one side of the scale than the other, and eventually one end is going to hit the ground. The end in the air might shake enough to drop what ever it's holding if the other hits the ground hard enough.
Or something like that.

 

[ex951753]

Another editorial posed as "news" by carly smith and guess what it's about?

 

[Brockyman]

Doctor Who Hires Its First Female Writer in Six Years

Catherine Tregenna is the fifth woman to write for Doctor Who out of the 92 people hired to write for the show in its history.

According to an Torchwood [http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/torchwoods-catherine-tregenna-penning-series-9-story-69191.htm], EastEnders, and Law & Order: UK, and she is the fifth woman to write for Doctor Who. She's also the first woman hired to pen an episode since 2008 for the long-running show.

Writer Neil Gaiman, who wrote the Doctor Who episodes "Nightmare in Silver" and "The Doctor's Wife," spoke out on the lack of women writing for Doctor Who a lot of criticism over how he writes women who are tied to the men around them [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/11151320/Why-are-there-no-female-writers-on-Doctor-Who.html], such as River Song, Amy Pond, and Clara Oswald.

Before Tregenna's hiring, the last woman to write for the show was Helen Raynor, who wrote "Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks" in 2008, "The Sontaran Stratagem," and "The Poison Sky" in 2007.

Gaiman said Moffat and many of the producers and script editors have attempted to get women involved [http://www.themarysue.com/gaiman-on-doctor-who-gender-disparity/] in writing the show, but scheduling problems have allegedly stood in the way, and some women have declined offers.

Doctor Who now has had 92 different writers in its history, and only five have been women. [https://www.nerdist.com/2014/11/hooray-doctor-who-hires-first-female-writer-in-6-years-for-season-9/]

Source: doctorwhotv.co.uk [http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/torchwoods-catherine-tregenna-penning-series-9-story-69191.htm]

Permalink

Must have been a REALLY slow news day for this to be a story. Glad to know I haven't been missing any hard hitting new on the Escapist