Doctor Who memories
21 September 2019 at 23:52 #68122ichabod @ichabod
Winston: Maybe a female Doctor will get a whole new bunch of people watching and loving the show so it keeps going. . . . I always understood that to be politically correct just meant being polite and kind and being considerate of everyone no matter who they are.
Thank you, Winston; nicely put. The “origin story” that I’ve read about the term “politically correct” is that it began as a sort of political inside-joke among left winger used to spotlight the martinet-like, exaggeratedly “pure” demands of their own further-left extremists, alluding to how much such people’s “standards” of what was acceptably left at all came across as old-style communist propaganda out of Russia. It was meant satirically, but was immediately seized upon by the Right as a pejorative turned against those who had come up with it in the first place. People on the Left then gave up on it altogether (because who wants to have to explain such a tangle every time they use a phrase with its original meaning as a satirical rebuke to Left wing extremism?), and so the Right’s version of its pejorative meaning became the only meaning left.
No one among the many Left winger folks I hang out with ever used the term seriously, and none of them use it seriously (or at all, unless as mockery of the Right’s stupidity) now. The last time I ever heard it even discussed seriously is back in the nineties at an SF convention at which Ursula LeGuin was told, in an accusatory whine from an audience member, that her political comments verged dangerously into “politically correct” territory. She snapped back, “I AM ‘politically correct’. I’m against slavery, the oppression of working people and the poor, misogyny, child labor, racism, and sexism. Are you saying that you are FOR those things?!” But even by then, the battle for the term had been lost to the Right. And, apparently, no one had told the jerk who’d complained that Ursula, in addition to be smarter than anyone else in the room — any room — and also smaller and slighter in build, suffered fools not at all and took no prisoners.
I’ve never heard the term used approvingly by anyone on the Left since then. Now it’s strictly a term of abuse employed by the Right. This is how its usage play out here in the US, at any rate.22 September 2019 at 15:41 #6812423 September 2019 at 08:42 #68126ichabod @ichabod
@pedant — Ha! Wonderful! There’s jargon, and then there’s self-satirical jargon, but such nuances do tend to get lost outside the fold.26 September 2019 at 04:58 #68128
For me, Political correctness means:
Not calling people Wops, Wogs, Yids, Yanks, Frogs, Krouts, Niggers etc. Which I never have.
Then the lunatic fringe got working on it, and we get Spokesperson, Batters instead of Batsmen or woman and Chairperson – one must never say man or woman. *rolls eyes*
I could say more, but I’ll leave it there.
Missy28 September 2019 at 01:55 #68129
@ichabod Thank you for that history lesson. I’m old enough to know … but a reminder of the context certainly helps. That awful “PC” backlash has really muddied the waters, to the point where everyone forgets that it’s mostly about trying to put oneself in the other person’s shoes, and imagine how we would feel if we were called (fill in the blank), or wronged in the countless ways that so many outside the mainstream have been. There’s nothing wrong with being reminded of that, but the backlash has caused some to feel they are well within their rights, and they need not concern themselves with what the impact may be.28 September 2019 at 05:03 #68131
@missy I think that when titles get changed like batsmen\women to batters and chairman to chairperson it is about inclusion. Including the female half of the planet is a good thing from my point of view as a member of that half and a Granny to 2 granddaughters. It is nice to be included. (says the person always picked last for the team.)
One of my memories of Doctor Who is how he accepted and included all people no matter what planet they came from or what sex , colour or how many arms,heads,legs or lack of them, they had. As long as those people are not hurting others.
The Doctor also seems to like women of all kinds and he trusts them ,sometimes with his life and they save him all the time. Heck that’s all Clara did! He even taught one to fly the Tardis.Maybe the recent regeneration is a homage to all the strong ,brave,clever and kind women he has met and traveled with with through his many lives. Maybe this Doctor wants to honour all those women and the sacrifices they made to help her save worlds.
Just a thought , late at night, long past my bedtime.29 September 2019 at 01:00 #68133
I agree with that, @winston. I never understood why female actors had to be called actresses. They’re actors. It seems to me that some terminology became unnecessarily restrictive as women entered those fields. Maybe all firefighters used to be men, but they’re not all men now, so it makes no sense to call them firemen. Language evolves for all sorts of reasons. Inclusivity is one of them. Accuracy is another.29 September 2019 at 23:37 #68135
@nerys I agree, never understood the term “actresses”. For me when people use the word “man” in terms such as “fireman”, I always figured it was referring to mankind, as if to view us as a species instead of gender form. I really never understood why we put labels on eachother and than judge eachother for them.
Hi everyone, I see we’re still talking about Jodie’s gender. I feel I’ve made my option on the subject clear but I just need to rant for awhile. When the trailers for season 11 were being released I cried tears of happyness, not because Jodie has the same biological structure as me but because I saw a person who looked like The Doctor. I should have been sad, Peter was leaving the show and he was my favorite Doctor but I couldn’t look at Jodie and stay sad. I guess I just don’t really understand where all this tension is coming from. The only reason I was against a female Doctor was because I didn’t want people to fight over it. That was wrong of me, I want the role of The Doctor to be played by the best actor, despite their gender. Now, this past season didn’t handle the change the way I hoped it would. I don’t like that Chris Chibnall wanted to cast a woman (again, it should go to the best person despite gender). I don’t like that The Doctor mentions the gender change, in my opion The Doctor shouldn’t think about it and I don’t like that you can see the gender change affecting the stories. Some of the worse stories come from creating the theme or moral lesson first. This is suppose to be entertainment, it isn’t suppose to preach to us yet the latest season did that. However, I’m not going to complain about Jodie’s gender. She never had a choice over it, same as any of us. Really I’m just tired of hearing people looking at her outward appearance instead of her character or her acting talents since this is suppose to be a profession and not politics. I don’t like it when people look at me, see my biological structure and assume they know everything about me. That happens all the time! From the time I was a child I wondered why that was and lately I’ve been feeling stressed about it alot. Funny thing is I don’t even see myself as a woman, I just think of me as me. If I were to suddenly change from female to male I wouldn’t see it as anything different. That’s what I was hoping for with The Doctor. The point I am trying to make here is, I understand someone not liking some of reasoning behind this casting decision but I can’t comprehand how someone can hate Jodie because she is female. Especially since everyone in this world has been treated different on accounts of their gender and I’m sure none of us like it when that happens.
I’m sorry for ranting. I try not to get political on this site and I won’t do this again. I hope no one was affended since I don’t mean to sound harsh. (If this did sound harsh, hard to tell when you have read it instead of hearing it.) I just had to place my thoughts somewhere so I can keep track of them. Thanks for letting me type it out.5 October 2019 at 12:56 #68147
Because they are actresses. Why not call actors actresses?
Mind you, I could never understand some females getting uptight about being called Miss if single. Ms is just plain daft, and mean the same thing as Miss.
Peter is still favourite Doctor. “grins”
Missy5 October 2019 at 21:44 #68150
@missy So, what is the difference between an actor and an actress? If the only difference is the sex of the one doing the acting, then it strikes me as a silly distinction. I’m fine with calling them all actresses, as long as everyone gets the same designation. (Though, from a linguistic standpoint, words ending in -er or -or have a sensible constructive meaning.)
It’s like calling a female singer a songstress. The male equivalent is songster. Going by the definition of what’s actually being done, aren’t they all songsters? Or, really, singers?
As for Miss vs. Mrs. vs. Ms., truth be told, a “Ms.” could be married or single. It’s the designation that woman chooses. The problem with “Miss” is that unmarried men are not given a similar unmarried title. Men, whether they be married or single, can go by Mr.6 October 2019 at 06:45 #68151
@nerys agreed. I hated being called, “Miss” just as much as I detest being called “Mrs”. Both make me cringe. The distinctions in title are also inconvenient. I was once working in a pollie’s office addressing mail and did not know what to put on letters going out to women, Miss, Mrs or Ms because I know some older women get offended by the later. In the end I just put initial and surname for everyone but of course some people will get offended by that too.
Boys were referred to as “master” until they reached maturity when they became Mr. Girls however were not considered “mature” until married and so remained Miss so it is really deeply offensive in my view. Miss and Master are acceptable terms for children maybe, if salutations are required, but not for adults.
I have been wanting to comment on this discussion because it is topic I have been giving much thought to. Back when I was working in hospitality we all objected to the suggestion that we be called by the gender neutral, “waitrons”. naturally we all immediately pretended to be robots. We much preferred the more human sounding waiter and waitress because being identified as female was fine. However on reflection a job title is a reference to the job and therefore should be gender neutral. titles such as, “doctor, prime minister, mayor, writer, student, builder, baker, candlestick maker, denote profession not person and so why should it differ for actors or waiters?
(funny story. A few years ago our town had it second female mayor and one councillor proposed she be referred to as “mayoress”. He was laughed out of the chamber.)
Janette6 October 2019 at 19:51 #68154
People choose what they are offended by.
@missy – if you choose to be offended by people referring to themselves as Ms or actress etc then absolutely that’s your choice.
If others choose to be offended by those things as they recognise them as demeaning women as being less than men and gay people as being less than straight people, then that’s their choice too.
We all get to choose and the ability to choose is a wonderful thing.
I hope that my choices as what to get offended by reflect on my values – ie I get offended by racism, sexism, homophobia and general stupidity. Unfortunately I also get offended by other things that don’t reflect well on me, but I’m hopefully working on those and will get over them (one day… but I must try harder as it reflects poorly on the type of person I want to be).
I wish I was better but hopefully I’ll get better by working on my choices.8 October 2019 at 02:33 #68166
@janetteb Back when I was working in hospitality we all objected to the suggestion that we be called by the gender neutral, “waitrons”. naturally we all immediately pretended to be robots. We much preferred the more human sounding waiter and waitress because being identified as female was fine.
In recent years I’ve heard the gender-neutral term, server, being used to describe wait staff. As far as I know, there’s no such thing as a servette … except for a couple of sports teams Google turned up.10 October 2019 at 18:53 #68167
@janetteb @nerys @whisht Funny story about the councillor, janetteb. I don’t understand the need for the terms “miss”, “mrs” or “ms”. I’ve been called all these things along with “sir”, “mr” and once “master. (I wear clothes designed for both genders. As long as it’s pratical I’ll wear it. People also call me by nicknames that sound like male and/or female names so someone new might not know my biological structure until they see me.) I really don’t get affended when these words are used as long as people don’t mean to affend me. I just think, “Oh you thought I was male, nothing wrong with being male.” or “You might think I’m single. Well, I’ve single my whole life, nothing wrong with that.” because I don’t see anything wrong with being male or single. However, if someone were to get in my face and hiss at me for wearing mans clothes I think, “You are meaning to insult me for the clothes I’m wearing.” and I have been known to fight back in times like that. It’s really how people use the words that can set me off. However, when people talk about my gender when in a situation that doesn’t call for it, I think “Oh, your just viewing me as a label instead of who I am.” because people do that. Almost everyone does that, why don’t we view eachother as the people we are. People use these labels to indentify more than a biological structure, we use them to view a character. I’ve been pointed at and been told what my personality is, despite this person never talking to me before, all because they saw my body type and therefor felt they had enough information to know me. If these words are used like that, than I hate the way they are being used. I don’t think humans have been resposible with these words and that’s where the this problem comes from.11 October 2019 at 05:51 #68168
@gamergirlavatar Agreed. It is the intention that matters. I do get annoyed when say the boys’ school rings and calls me Mrs but I know that I shouldn’t because it is a natural assumption, no offence is intended. However when the staff in the post office query my right to pick up a parcel sent to my address because of the difference in name, I do feel entitled to get cross. They are being small minded.
I recently heard a story of a man, late middle age, being called out for referring to a “server” as “waitress.” He meant no offence and was really hurt by the reaction. He was simply using a term that he had grown up with so the person who took offence caused more harm than he did.
On a positive note, Having young people around I do think “times are a changin'” regarding, (in this backwards corner of the world at least) dress choices, which is fantastic and one of the few benefits the younger generation have. They wear stuff that would not have been acceptable when we were young. We still have a long way to go though, as your experiences show and there is a conservative backlash that we all have to keep fighting against, but that is always the way with progress.
Janette21 October 2019 at 06:14 #68193
@janetteb Sorry I didn’t reply back to this post right away. Thanks for agreeing, a lot of people can willfully ignore the importance of how a word was intended. I think it’s great that “times are a changin'” and we do get to have conversations about these topics inorder to find a solution. We just need to keep fighting inorder to progress. Thanks for talking to me about this.2 November 2019 at 00:11 #68272
Well, it must be my age, because many of our age group feel as I do. It doesn’t offend me, it makes me laugh.
It’s the people who prefer Actor for a female, and being referred to Miss or Mrs. who are offended.
I am married, therefore my title (on every form) is that of Mrs. Why people are offended by this is beyond me.
If I hear Mayor I think it’s a man. Very confusing when it’s a female. The same applies (in my book) to all the other
titles which are being changed to the male title. Isn’t that sexist? How strange that these females who are so
determined to stamp out sexism, decide to use the male title? Perhaps they would prefer to be blokes? Or perhaps
they should make up their minds what exactly they are.
Oh well, I shall carry on using the correct titles, everyone else can do what they like.2 November 2019 at 04:07 #68274
@missy if you heard the word Mayor in our town you would not think of a man, but a brilliant dynamic woman who is the best mayor this town has ever had.
I have considered your point re’ opting for the male title but I think when it comes to position titles like “mayor” that is not “male” just non gender specific. I do think there is at times a tendency to view that which men do as superior simply because the Caucasian male has been held up as the ultimate for so many centuries, for example I don’t see wearing trousers and suits as “gender neutral” or even in some circumstances better than wearing skirts and dresses, especially when the mercury it hitting 40c. I have seen men strutting about the city on 40c+ days in suits and ties looking like arrogant fools, half way to becoming blobs of lard. I prefer skirts and defend my right to wear what I want and feel for the schoolkids in England who protested when ordered to wear trousers because they were deemed “gender neutral”. Which brings me back to Dr Who. I thought the designers did a good balancing job with the design of the Doctor’s costume in the last series.
and that reminds me that though this is an interesting discussion and while I have enjoyed it, it is perhaps time it was moved across to the pub as this is the Doctor Who memories thread and we are waaaaay off topic.
Janette2 November 2019 at 11:56 #68275
Some people prefer not to be defined by their relationship to others, but in their own right. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Actor, waiter and mayor (one who acts, one who waits-on and one who leads city government) are all gender neutral terms. They only became something else when people feel the need to point out that a woman’s primary identity is not what she achieves (acting, waiting-on, governing) but that she has a vagina.
This is also true of Doctors.2 November 2019 at 18:41 #68277Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
@missy and everyone
I must have missed this one the first time round. Oh, the life of a gender neutral job title. 😀
Anyway, the use of ‘actor’ for females as well as males predates PC culture. There’s two reasons for it – one is simply that an actor plays both male and female roles. I’m an actor (f) who generally plays roles (f) – but I’ve played more than one role (m) in my time. Same for the actors (m), who often seem even keener to put on a dress than we are to put on the breeches.
The second is that – in the UK – there was a very long period where ‘actress’ and ‘prostitute’ were considered synonyms. An actor (f) is a professional woman doing a professional job. Sleeping with the producer (or the company patron) shouldn’t be part of of that job. So everyone calling themselves actors became a way of saying ‘we’re running a theatre company, not a brothel, forget the King’s Mistress stuff.’ Or, for US actors (f), ‘forget the casting couch and cast me because I can play the damn part.’
As the second reason recedes further into the past, I suspect more female actors will happily reclaim the word ‘actress’.2 November 2019 at 18:54 #68278
oh @bluesqueakpip – you and your facts.
@missy is perfectly entitled to her opinion whether its offensive to many many people.
Even if it makes other people retch or cry or shout or want to punch something.
Missy has an opinion and facts are irrelevant and her ability to not realise how offensive she is is not a reason to try and explain (however gently) how offensive she and her opinion is.
Why can’t everyone stop trying to explain how offensive Missy is?
I mean, I’m sure Missy would be appalled if she knew how offensive the opinions (thoughts/beliefs not facts) she holds are.
I’m sure she minds quite a lot that the things she holds as opinions are actually wrong and offensive.2 November 2019 at 19:05 #68279
hm, maybe I’m being too subtle.
@missy – you are a person who if you were around very young people I know, I would try to not have you present.
If you were I’d have to have conversations with them about how wrong you were.
I wouldn’t call you stupid however, as that would be a way out of owning your opinions. And I would want the kids I know that they have to own their opinions/ actions.
And no, old-age is not a defence.
Old or young, values are important and I vehemently disagree with yours.
Just in case it wasn’t clear.2 November 2019 at 20:47 #68280Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
I’m not sure I agree. Firstly, ‘Missy’ is a very particular choice of Nom de Guerre, especially given the nature of the character when our Missy joined our forum.
Secondly, how do we teach children and young people to defend themselves against the genuinely offensive if we allow them to protect themselves against ever hearing contrarian views? If we teach them that ‘this is deeply offensive to me’ is a sufficient argument?
I think I prefer the older method of debate, where it was accepted that someone might be playing the role of Devil’s Advocate. And that the bold upholders of all that is right and true would need to justify their case by presenting facts. 🙂7 November 2019 at 02:55 #68304
May I politely say, that my opinions are not just my own. Also, they are not offensive – that’s your opinion.
What I find offensive, is being referred to as a ‘guy’ whenever my OH and I go into a shop or restaurant.
Usually beginning with “Hi guys!” be assured that I have mentioned it – very politely.
This whole gender thing is, I suppose, a sign of changing times which many of you feel happy with.
To quote Princess Anne; “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Can’t remember when or why she said it. May have had something to do with Commonwealth.7 November 2019 at 11:56 #68310
To quote Princess Anne;
Bert Lance, actually.
Fact checking – it makes you look less ignorant.7 November 2019 at 13:50 #68311
@missy technically Miss and Mrs both mean the same thing. And that thing is Mistress, which came to mean something else entirely…
when it comes to ‘man’ or ‘person’ I can’t help thinking it would be easier if we’d stuck to ‘wifman’ and ‘Werman’ (I think it was) and kept ‘man’ as gender neutral. But we didn’t.7 November 2019 at 14:44 #68312
@miapatrick perhaps it was growing up in a fairly sexist household but everytime I heard the word man, I wondered why I was being left out of the conversation. I find the term sexist because we associate the word with a gender and when many people use the word, men especially, they are forgetting women are part of the story. Using the word “person” or “people” or humanity makes it clear. I caught myself out earlier tonight when I mentioned, “cameraman”. It is easier than saying “cameraperson” but to my ear at least the former is a gender specific term and, even though I am an Australian and have to keep my mouth open for as little time as possible to avoid swallowing flies, I prefer the more awkward term, though habits can take time to overcome, so I corrected myself, to the delight of the family who I am always correcting.
Janette7 November 2019 at 17:10 #68314
It is easier than saying “cameraperson”
Try ‘camera operator’, which has the virtue not implying that there is a cyborg gathering the pictures (or cinematographer – for stills there is no gendered way to say “photographer”).
Similar to the old canard of “chairman” – a perfectly proper change is to “chair” as the short form of “in the chair”. No clumsy constructions needed. But ‘moderator’, ‘convenor’ or ‘principal’ are all perfectly sound non-gendered terms for the same to role.
Just as “fireman” became “fire fighters”, dumping what gender they are, preferring what they do.
It really isn’t hard to be considerate, and to demand consideration while offering none, as does @missy, is canonical hypocrisy.8 November 2019 at 02:01 #68316
@missy If I hear Mayor I think it’s a man. Very confusing when it’s a female. The same applies (in my book) to all the other titles which are being changed to the male title. Isn’t that sexist? How strange that these females who are so determined to stamp out sexism, decide to use the male title? Perhaps they would prefer to be blokes? Or perhaps they should make up their minds what exactly they are.
OK, so now I am confused. What would you expect a woman, who is elected mayor, to call herself? Mayoress? And why would it be necessary to call a female mayor anything different than a male mayor? Candidates are running for a specific elected position: Mayor. It matters not what the sex of the candidate is.
And that is precisely why I prefer gender-neutral terms for any professional position. The name of the position describes the work being done, not specific characteristics of the persons filling those roles. I’ve worked for decades as a journalist. What would you prefer I call myself? Journalista? Why? I’m a journalist. No confusion there. I know who I am, and I certainly don’t prefer to be a bloke. But that’s just me.8 November 2019 at 05:07 #68317
@pedant I was not complaining about saying “camera person”. Just remarking that I fell into the error of not doing so and corrected myself. The family were amused because I am a bit dogmatic about not using gender specific terms so was breaking my own rule. (forgive me if I misread your response but I feel you are making the same point I made and so maybe misread my post.)
Janette8 November 2019 at 06:38 #68319
@janetteb true, but it does seem man once was truly gender neutral, till ‘man’ dropped the prefix. Theres something fundamental about it isn’t it – that this word is at the same time supposed to mean this specific group – male people, and all people. Men as the default, as seen in medical testing, crash test dummies, etcetera etcetera…
@pedant good point, there always is I think a more natural gender neutral term. I like camera operator over man/person. And I’m very glad we got out of the habit of adding ‘ess’ or ‘trix’ to the end of professions, or putting ‘lady’ in front (still current in the 90’s: ‘I’m a lady vicar’. I’d read too many 19th century novels for that to sound like anything but the female equivalent of a Priest who hunts and lives off a private income.)8 November 2019 at 07:00 #68320
@missy it’s also worth noting that Mistress shortened to Mrs has historically been used by and for a woman who has achieved independent status – a cook, housekeeper, shopkeeper might be unmarried and ‘Mrs’. Or an older, unmarried, independent gentlewoman.
Mistress shortened to Miss was used more to denote a young woman still in the protection of her father or closest male relative.8 November 2019 at 12:50 #68322
@miapatrick good point. In the 19th C housekeepers were referred to as Mrs because it was considered to denote a higher status, which meant that unmarried women in general were considered lesser in status. The same is evident in the “order” in which people were presented. In Pride and Prejudice Lydia takes precedence over her older sisters when she gets married because, to quote; “I am a married woman now”. A woman’s status depended on her matrimonial status but a man’s did not. “Miss” and “Mrs”date back to those times and are outdated as the social customs they emerged from.
Agreed that the word, “man” is often used as a gender neutral term and it may be best that is is so but at least for my generation it was not gender neutral and so I prefer to use terms such as “humanity” or “person” which do not make me feel as though I am being excluded from the conversation. (even at the risk of swallowing flies, here in oz. Sorry maybe nobody got the intended humour there but there is a theory that the reason Australians abbreviate things is to avoid swallowing flies, something I now appreciate after spending a few days up north where the flies were pernicious and made talking almost impossible.)
Janette8 November 2019 at 18:00 #68326
Always love an Austen reference!
I still feel you’re not getting what I’m saying – because I do agree with you. What I’m saying is, man as gender neutral was fine – when both what we call men (and they called wermen) and what we call women (what they called wifmen) both had prefixes. And at that time, man was gender neutral for when you didn’t have a need to add the prefix to be specific about sex.
But since the word for males dropped the prefix ‘wer’ (unless talking about werewolves, in which case, confusingly, females of the species also get to use it) and the language adopted ‘man’ as both describing the race in general, and male, the default apparently (according to medical research, for example) in particular, it has in fact no longer been gender neutral.
It was gender neutral when male men and female men had prefixes, mer and wif respectively. When males no longer had the prefix, it ceased to be gender neutral. My argument is that man can not be gender neutral when it also stands to indicate the male sex. But when it didn’t do that, it was.9 November 2019 at 02:31 #68331
@miapatrick yes now i understand, did not know that bit of linguistic history, sorry, and yes, it would have been better to either not drop the male prefix or drop both male and female prefixes.
Yes “male” is also the default in design for just about everything too, which is why I need extra cushions when driving the car and cannot reach top shelves in supermarkets.. the list is endless… Though fingers crossed, this too is changing, though there is a strong conservative backlash.
Janette9 November 2019 at 12:29 #6833210 November 2019 at 02:41 #68334
@janetteb @pedant @miapatrick Maybe because I was raised in the 70s and soaked up a lot of hippie rebellion and dissatisfaction but I don’t like titles. The ress in waitress and actress sounds small to me as if it actually makes me smaller than my male co-worker and I don’t like it. Women already get paid less than men must we sound less than men.
If men and women are equal than the gender specific terms that separate us have to go . Fishermen are fishers, actors are actors, policemen are officers and firemen are fire fighters. My granddaughter wants to be a comedian not a comedienne.(that is true and she is very funny) It is how the young people think and talk and us oldies have to keep up even if it can be a minefield.
@janetteb I am sorry about your fly situation, it sounds terrible. We have mosquitoes like that in the spring here and they just drive you indoors. I have swallowed a few in my lifetime. Don’t you have one of those hats with the corks hanging on strings to keep the flies off like in all the movies about Australia. I am joking ! Seriously we have nets we wear over our heads if we have to go into the bush in bug season.We have summer, autumn, winter and bug season.10 November 2019 at 02:45 #68335
It occurs to me that the word “companion” is a non gender specific title as is “Doctor” . They could be male, female or other.10 November 2019 at 04:21 #68336
@winston, Yes indeed. the Doctor has had many male companions from Ian Chesterton to Ryan. I would also include K.9 as a companion so it is a very generic term.
@pedant Thank you for the link. When I was researching through 19c newspapers I often found the woman, (I was studying) referred to as Mr because it was assumed that only a male would so the things she was doing, ie contracting to build roads, complaining to council. One small example of women being, unconsciously, excluded from history.
Janette27 November 2019 at 01:54 #68424
Tell you what. All of you go along with the lack of a title and I’ll keep my Mrs/Miss/Mr.
To be called by my first name (which no one pronounces correctly ) by people I don’t know, to me
shows lack of respect.
When I receive phone calls from, Insurance, sales whatever and they ask is this ……..? I tell them no, it’s Mrs…..!
Up to you .26 February 2020 at 15:04 #69856Anonymous @
I started watching Doctor Who in August 1980, with the first episode of The Leisure Hive. As far as I was concerned the show was all about terrifying music, a terrifying robot dog murdering woman and some strange, aloof and mostly burgundy oddbod being ripped apart. Horrifying…. Yet compelling.
By the time The Keeper of Traken rolled around I had been devastated by the departure of Romana and K9, bemused by this strange boy Adric and mesmerised by the Doctor. Then Logopolis happened and the Doctor I was just getting used to merged with a chrysalis man and became, well, who knew because we had to wait ages.
Very nearly 40 years later, every episode (and recon, albeit a long time ago) watched and owned in some form or another, it’s safe to say that strange, terrifying show still excites, scares, inspires and transports me away from my real world troubles.26 February 2020 at 15:35 #69859JimTheFish @jimthefishTime Lord
Welcome. This is a small-ish forum but everyone is very friendly and enjoy speculating like crazy on the slightest thing…
Yeah, s18 is a really interesting jumping-on point, I think. TV-wise, I was maybe a season or two earlier. But really Who for me has always been primarily a literary thing and my childhood was spent obsessed with the Target novels. The TV show was, oddly, a separate and sometimes slightly inferior thing to me. But s18 is exciting because it was such a time of change — changing Doctor, changing look to the show, changing production philosophy even. Kind of like what we’re undergoing now.
(Can’t help imagine how it would have fared if Twitter had been around in those days….)13 August 2020 at 02:30 #70886Robsie @robsiehallert
I started watching Dr. Who on PBS in the 80s. That was my reward if I got good grades and did my chores: Dr. Who for dinner. It was unlike any other program on TV at the time and I fell in love with it. I mean, I was never a tough guy. All that was on TV at the time were these macho guys solving things with two fists. But when I saw Tom Baker’s Doctor tell hyper-violent chair-weilding Duggan to “put that down! It’s a Louis Cannes!” in City of Death I both knew I’d found my show and that I had to find out who Louis Cannes was. That was also a bit of a revelation.
It took me quite a while to even pronounce “Louis Seize” correctly.
Then I found out about Pertwee, and Troughton and Hartnel and I started buying the Novelizations and it just became my favorite show of all time.
It’s been a tumultuous long-distance affair of unrequited passion, but it’s been rewarding. There have been times when I stopped watching the show for years at a time, only to be drawn back in. There have been personal lows (Adric, Peri, kissing Grace, Amy’s Cop Outfit, Runaway Bride, whatever the heck happened with River Song, The [Shudder] Timeless Children), there have been dizzying highs (Turlough, The Rani and The Valeyard ( Trial of a Time Lord), Paul McGann in general, Rory & Clara, The rest of Donna Noble starting with Partners in Crime, Silence in the Library and Husbands of River Song, Fugitive of the Judoon and Haunting of Vila Diodati and, of course, both Rose and Rosa) and I still have some completely unreasonable expectations (The Regeneration of Susan Foreman, A Universe with Other Timelords, The Return of Romana, Seeing more of Captain Jack than a Cameo, More menace from those blue people who put teeth on their face, another brilliant Dalek episode like Resolution) and things to look forward to (more astounding Team Chibnal Historicals, finding out why The Doctor’s in Prison or whatever, absolutely stellar performances from Jodi Whittaker and the cast, a little more Graham and Ryan, Yaz, and probably some cocoa when it’s safe to produce episodes again!)
All in all, I remain smitten.13 August 2020 at 04:54 #70887whofangirl73 @whofangirl-73
<span class=”useratname”>@robsiehallert</span> – Fully agree in all you wrote, except for the new series with Whittaker at the helm (can’t stand it). But agree otherwise with your highs and lows.15 January 2021 at 15:40 #71364TheMidnightMonster @themidnightmonster
I remember the thing that first got me into Dr Who – a copy of the Time Traveller’s Almanac (Now my most prized possession) that I would read hours on end before realising I could just go back and watch every episode via BBC iplayer. I was young then, yes. The first eposide I ever saw was The Impossible planet / The Satan Pit and it remains my favourite (2 part) episode so far, next to Midnight and Turn Left.
Tennant’s still my favourite, no amount of badgering will change that.
‘Allons y’7 February 2021 at 17:58 #71403Mr D, Rogur @mrdrogur
Hello, my first post here 🙂
One of the memories I’ll never forget, even if far, far from being the first one, was when I was in my late teens or a bit older and was watching “Rings of Akhaten” episode with Matt Smith. My Mum went into my room exactly in the moment when 11th Doctor started barking. Her facial expression was priceless 😀3 March 2021 at 13:34 #71466baines @baines
Hi, this is my first post on here! I love discussing Doctor Who.
The first episode I watched was the Time of the Angels which I happened to catch on TV. I remember being so captivated by the character of the Doctor, River Song and the mystery surrounding her, and of course the weeping angels. The part that really sticks in my mind is the twist near the end of the episode. I still think it’s really well done, just completely spine-chilling.
I know a lot of people dislike the handling of the angels after Blink but I really enjoyed them in other episodes. What do you all think?4 March 2021 at 08:53 #71469
@baines Hi. Yes I like all of the angels episodes. Is the twist you are referring to the line about the local population having two heads and realising that the statues only have one. Love that moment.
Janette4 March 2021 at 08:56 #71470Dentarthurdent @dentarthurdent
[reposted cos the website lost my first post?]
I’d rate the Weeping Angels as the best Doctor Who monster ever. The most frightening. The fact that they didn’t have to move (on camera) was a big asset – many frightening-looking monsters became a little bit silly when they actually had to move and do stuff. The Angels didn’t risk that.
I think they were so beautifully handled in Blink, that their subsequent appearances couldn’t quite live up to their first appearance – but that’s like giving them a 9 1/2 out of 10 rather than 10/10. Still way more impressive than most monsters.
Moffatt understands very well that what you can’t see is often much more frightening than what you can. The Vashta Nerada. Whatever was banging on the capsule door in ‘Listen’. The creature under the blanket in that same episode. The Silents, that you forget are there the moment you look away. So the Angels make use of that – you can’t see them when they’re moving, you just see the frightening result.
So anyway – yes, Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone, and Angels Take Manhattan, were all excellent episodes. The surprise disappearance of Arthur at the end of Manhattan, and Amy’s deliberate choice to follow him, were shocking and tragic and very moving. We don’t know what the Doctor did to the angel that took them, but I hope it was something suitably drastic and final, possibly finishing with a small pile of sand, or better, dust.5 March 2021 at 00:21 #71473
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.