Doctor Who Hires Its First Female Writer in Six Years

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Good for her? I honestly don't see the big deal here. Gender does not a good writer make. A good writer can anyone
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
Zero=Interrupt said:
Who cares about the gender of the writer? If they're good, then hire them. If not, then don't. How hard is that?
Men and women will see things from different perspectives, and I'll be dammed, if I watch another episode where Moffat is a sexist dick lord.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
In six years, there was NEVER a woman worthy of writing for Doctor Who? No one woman talented enough? Not one woman hired to write?
That's not at all weird to people who claim it's no big deal?

It's not something I'm outraged over, the 6 year gap, but I do think it's weird.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
:/

It seems like these articles exist purely for the "female" bit of the title and little else, just because it gets people gabbing away or making inconsequential posts/comments like...well, the one I'm writing right now.

I'm glad they hired her and I hope her output is good, but the gender isn't important.
Rebel_Raven said:
In six years, there was NEVER a woman worthy of writing for Doctor Who? No one woman talented enough? Not one woman hired to write?
That's not at all weird to people who claim it's no big deal?

It's not something I'm outraged over, the 6 year gap, but I do think it's weird.
This isn't just directed at you, Rebel, apologies for singling you out here:

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

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.

A gender gap, even one that large, is not explicitly indicative of sexism, no matter which gender it is that is the majority.

Sincerely, if it were a 95% female to male ratio, I wouldn't immediately view it as being motivated by sexist behavior on the part of human resources.

I can certainly understand an incredulous viewpoint, given the length of time and ratio, but...hell, benefit of the doubt?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
kenu12345 said:
Good for her? I honestly don't see the big deal here. Gender does not a good writer make. A good writer can anyone
Apparently not, since the options here appear to be discriminatory hiring practices or the notion that women just aren't as good as men. The idea that it's 87 to 6, and it's been five years since #4, would indicate one of these two. One way or another, you would think this would be noteworthy: either because a sausage fest actually hired a woman, or because they finally found a chick who could write like man.

Rebel_Raven said:
In six years, there was NEVER a woman worthy of writing for Doctor Who? No one woman talented enough? Not one woman hired to write?
That's not at all weird to people who claim it's no big deal?

It's not something I'm outraged over, the 6 year gap, but I do think it's weird.
Or, in other words, what RR said.

The "right person for the job" so often means "the right man for the job," and I think these numbers kind of show it.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
LostGryphon said:
:/

It seems like these articles exist purely for the "female" bit of the title and little else, just because it gets people gabbing away or making inconsequential posts/comments like...well, the one I'm writing right now.

I'm glad they hired her and I hope her output is good, but the gender isn't important.
Rebel_Raven said:
In six years, there was NEVER a woman worthy of writing for Doctor Who? No one woman talented enough? Not one woman hired to write?
That's not at all weird to people who claim it's no big deal?

It's not something I'm outraged over, the 6 year gap, but I do think it's weird.
This isn't just directed at you, Rebel, apologies for singling you out here:

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

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.

A gender gap, even one that large, is not explicitly indicative of sexism, no matter which gender it is that is the majority.

Sincerely, if it were a 95% female to male ratio, I wouldn't immediately view it as being motivated by sexist behavior on the part of human resources.

I can certainly understand an incredulous viewpoint, given the length of time and ratio, but...hell, benefit of the doubt?
It's all good. ^-^ I'm still gunna reply with no hard feelings, though! :p

Personally, I don't believe much in people as a group/whole. Some stand out, but as a whole? They don't really get the benefit of the doubt. I don't see why they get to have it some times.
I used to give the benefit of the doubt pretty easily, but decades of it taught me that they don't always get it. I'd need some reason to believe that it wasn't because of a boy's club mentality over it not. The boy's club method of hiring is just soooo easy to get away with, even these days regardless if it's actively sexist, or due to some other reason that just happens to make an excuse to exclude women.

I figure if we just let this sort of thing slip by, not calling out an unusual hiring ratio, and applauding the end of an unusual hiring policy just leaves the doors wide open for the unusual ratios to keep going because no one cares they exist, so a status quo that can be harmless at times, but isn't harmless at others continues.
It's okay for people to not care (even if they get annoying as a whole with snippy replies), and it's okay for people to care. I'm just glad for this event, and I hope it works out coz I'm still expecting a good show no matter who's writing.

I dunno, I just can't blindly give people the benefit of the doubt. Especially when it's a situation like this where the vast majority of it favors one group so much. It just feels a bit too wrong. Like I said before, it's hard to imagine that it takes so long to run into a person that's not the usual sort to do something that pretty much everyone can do equally, and have been famous for. In this case,it's women capable of writing a script suitable for a tv show. Gap's way too big in an industry notorious for not being the best to women.

But hey, on the bright side, if they occasionally keep hiring women that are good at their job, this won't ever be news/brought up again until they stop for a long amount of time.
 

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
kenu12345 said:
Good for her? I honestly don't see the big deal here. Gender does not a good writer make. A good writer can anyone
Apparently not, since the options here appear to be discriminatory hiring practices or the notion that women just aren't as good as men. The idea that it's 87 to 6, and it's been five years since #4, would indicate one of these two. One way or another, you would think this would be noteworthy: either because a sausage fest actually hired a woman, or because they finally found a chick who could write like man.
No offense man I barely know you and all, but that came off really odd to me. Probably cause I just see people as people or something I don't know, but isn't there just a chance that not many (in this case)woman applied over the years or that they just haven't need to change writers that much. I mean I all for cheering on women when they do something that challenge something obviously misogynistic, but just seems to be a bit of random circumstance that kept a woman from this position for this long. Either way, as I said good for her. She got a job woot woot
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
Rebel_Raven said:
It's all good. ^-^ I'm still gunna reply with no hard feelings, though! :p

Personally, I don't believe much in people as a group/whole. Some stand out, but as a whole? They don't really get the benefit of the doubt. I don't see why they get to have it some times.
I used to give the benefit of the doubt pretty easily, but decades of it taught me that they don't always get it. I'd need some reason to believe that it wasn't because of a boy's club mentality over it not. The boy's club method of hiring is just soooo easy to get away with, even these days regardless if it's actively sexist, or due to some other reason that just happens to make an excuse to exclude women.

I figure if we just let this sort of thing slip by, not calling out an unusual hiring ratio, and applauding the end of an unusual hiring policy just leaves the doors wide open for the unusual ratios to keep going because no one cares they exist, so a status quo that can be harmless at times, but isn't harmless at others continues.
It's okay for people to not care (even if they get annoying as a whole with snippy replies), and it's okay for people to care. I'm just glad for this event, and I hope it works out coz I'm still expecting a good show no matter who's writing.

I dunno, I just can't blindly give people the benefit of the doubt. Especially when it's a situation like this where the vast majority of it favors one group so much. It just feels a bit too wrong. Like I said before, it's hard to imagine that it takes so long to run into a person that's not the usual sort to do something that pretty much everyone can do equally, and have been famous for. In this case,it's women capable of writing a script suitable for a tv show. Gap's way too big in an industry notorious for not being the best to women.

But hey, on the bright side, if they occasionally keep hiring women that are good at their job, this won't ever be news/brought up again until they stop for a long amount of time.
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?"
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
Good for her! And great that this is being reported on.
Considering that women are so underrepresented in this area, it's necessary that they get some time in the spotlight.
 

Zacharious-khan

New member
Mar 29, 2011
559
0
0
Better headline suggestion: "Doctor who hires first female writer since just before the series began going downhill"
All I can say to Catherine Tregenna is good luck. You're going to need it.
 

frobalt

New member
Jan 2, 2012
347
0
0
Mr Cwtchy said:
roseofbattle said:
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.
DiM/EoTD came out in series 3, TSS and TPS in series 4. Unless writers write episodes in a very bizarre order I think these may be backwards.
Also, I know most people weren't fond of DIM/EotD but I highly doubt they were written a year after they aired.
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
YaY I get to soapbox rant about this!

One of the biggest consistant issues Doctor who has had has been with its companions. So far in the 'new who' Rose has been the best, and ,at best, she was an eastenders rip-off ( basically a soap opera character ), None of the writers have been able to create an interesting character, and at best they are used as end-of-series maguffins , with the exception of martha jones, who still got an "it takes me to save the world" ending.

I'm not going to rant about the other flaws that there are/have been in who, as frankly they are small fry compared to this. I know quite a few fans of 'old who' who now refuse to watch because of the companions. Sure 'old who' had some not great choices, but even back in the sixties we had some better women assisting the doctor. And yes I'll admit that the change in format doesn't help, Genesis of the Daleks is almost 3 hours long, something you never see in new who at all.
 

scotth266

Wait when did I get a sub
Jan 10, 2009
5,202
0
0
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. Unfortunately, the only people who really know how many women submit scripts to Doctor Who are the people in charge of Doctor Who.

The number still seems really low though.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,536
118
Res Plus said:
Are you will to accept that it's just possible that there are other reasons for this mix of gender?
What, that there weren't any female writers whatsoever good enough to write any Dr Who in the last 6 years? That the right person for the good just happening to be a man for each of the last 70 odd episodes? That, no matter how god-awful some of the writing for those episodes were, a woman would have done it worse?

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

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,536
118
Res Plus said:
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.

Res Plus said:
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.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
When your show's basic premise is "male alien who has a friend," then it's going to be pretty difficult to not have "female characters tied to men." I'm all for gender variety in media, but watch a different show if that's your problem. They might make the Doctor female one day, but it hasn't happened yet. Also, it's sexist to assume that just because they're hiring a female writer that automatically she's a feminist who is going to fall in line with the arbitrary and ever changing standards of gender in media set by The Internet. That's not her job.

However, I did think Amy Pond was a horrible character - a classic TV stereotype of a woman who despises men, herself, and fun in general. She was like Jill Taylor on Home Improvement. Clara on the other hand, was fantastic. Without getting into spoilers, I adored her last two seasons.
 

fletch_talon

New member
Nov 6, 2008
1,461
0
0
Cool, now that we've all enjoyed listening to a bunch of people flinging accusations of sexism hither and thither, I think its time we all read the damn article and took a close look at the part where the "sexist BBC" and specifically "Sexist Moffatt" had reached out to female writers who had either declined or been unable to do the job due to scheduling issues.
But then maybe this is just "sexist Gaiman" trying to cover for his fellow members of the exclusive boys club. Y'know despite having brought attention to the unfortunate lack of women writers in the first place.

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) I'm gonna throw my own theory out there.
The real reason there haven't been more female writers is because the female writers have pre-emptively decided that its a sexist boys club and decided not to waste their time. Knowing just how sexist Moffatt and the BBC are, they've then rejected any offers of episodes to write because that'd be working for the enemy. Because all female writers are obviously radical feminists y'see.

And good for them, cuz knowing just how prevalent the patriarchy is, and how every aspect of modern society is designed to keep women in the kitchen (when they're not popping out babies or looking pretty for our sexual gratification) they'd probably only get to write an episode where the Doctor takes Clara through time and space to find the perfect souffle recipe. Clara being a woman, buggers things up by being emotional and the Doctor laments the fact that he ever thought these female companions could successfully function outside of the kitchen/bedroom/maternity ward. Moffatt will personally write the final scene which is the Doctor posting a "No Gurlz Aloud" sign on the TARDIS.
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
zelda2fanboy said:
When your show's basic premise is "male alien who has a friend," then it's going to be pretty difficult to not have "female characters tied to men."
except this was managed many times in it's original run, and yet not once has the doctor had a male companion and not a female companion in the new run. Nor is the doctors sex anything to do with it, as it has been demonstrated ( several times now), that they can change sex during regeneration.

Frankly, I don't care with the ( frankly lazy ) choice of all women companions, it annoys the heck outta me that they are shallow barely 2-dimensional maguffins used only for some end-of-season twist so it doesn't involve the doctor. Is the writing team sexist? no, but they sure as heck can't write a good companion. Show me one that compares to Sarah-Jane Smith, Liz Shaw or Leela....

Ok now I mentioned Leela, I need to go lie down