longtime dc fan and i think a lot of people are angry because alex is obviously one of the most culturally relevant instances of misogyny in media. that being said being more culturally relevant doesn’t mean it’s the worst instance of misogyny and i think bumble definitely experiences more profound misogyny in the way the actual content is presented, if that makes sense
I get you, and that's a charitable way of looking at it.
I think what's rustling my jimmies is that like, there was a couple of WC fans being mildly dismissive of Alex in that note minefield, after dozens of comments of "fuck you how could you let the fridge woman lose" and "Bumble didn't deserve to win ANY rounds" and "how could A CAT experience misogyny." But then WE get blamed for the toxicity because THEY were butthurt that the Funny Cat People have the 'audacity' to win something they feel entitled to.
Like, we've gotta be endlessly charitable as we get openly insulted because they're upset about Alex losing, a very well-known and culturally relevant character with a legacy so massive we have a whole term named after her. But condemnations of "She's just a cat, letting WC into this poll was a mistake, Bumble can't even be a victim of misogyny" only started coming around once I started talking about it.
as if it's OUR fault people got passive-aggressive or even OPENLY aggressive towards us, and that we're "just as bad" for retaliating
But like you said, it's not a "Most Culturally Relevant Misogyny" tournament, it's a "Canon Misogyny Victims" tournament. And you're not even supposed to give a shit that Bumble died. The fat, woman abuse victim is beaten to death by a dictator, and your takeaway is meant to be, "It's so sad that Clear Sky is being blamed for murdering her, now they're all preparing for self-defense against a homicidal maniac, oh nooo :("
And I think that DOES make her deserve the win here! Alex is a MARTYR. Everyone with a brain agrees what happens to her is bad. It happened in her canon because it was bad. We talk about her and keep her memory alive. Bumble gets dismissed entirely out of hand because she's "just a cat in a kid's book" as if that doesn't make it worse, and as if the kid's book didn't treat a domestic abuse survivor like a moron for even asking for help.
Anyway, just to reiterate, I love DC fans. It's not all of you guys. Alex was done dirty and deserves justice-- and it's even kind of a shame that all she became is "The Fridge Woman." I haven't even heard people talk about how she was a wary, responsible person who was still ready to rock with Kyle's new weird glowstick powers, or that she was a journalist, or that she just got brought back in another edition as a Green Lantern only to be revealed as an illusion and re-absorbed back into Kyle's mind. Nope. Even her fans just remember her as The Fridge Woman.
65 notes
·
View notes
Rant 1/waiting for the department head to open his bloody e-mail/TDF doesn't work, really
The Doctor Falls is literally the highest graded Master episode on IMDB, and I'm not denying that it's a good episode, and also know that for some it is there that they like the Saxon Master best, but tbh for me it just doesn't work. Or perhaps works, but in that weird way where a work meant to send one message gets celebrated in a completely contradicotry way, Don Quixote style. Yes, Simm!Master's fans have been critcising it since 2017 as erasing his story in s3-4 (and tbc, I am pissed at the the way in which the Blasting of Rassilon was framed by Twelve, also bad at driving? the guy who repeatedly went back and forth between the end of the universe and 2007 UK? coming from the "oh I might have missed my mark by a few centuries" guy?), to which it is questioned if he really had a development, to which others ask if Missy had an actual development, and so on and so forth, but to me the problems go way, way deeper. At the same time, I always welcome pointing out if I missed something and general criticism (consider it a practice in waiting for the comments from my supervisors)!
First off, a simple question: did the Doctor have an actual plan that involved the Masters, or he was just expecting them to happily turn his sacrifical suicide into an expanded one for no practical reason??? Like, his only plan is "and then someone stays here and blows up the entire platform so Cybermen can't get higher up, and that's gonna be me because I'm dying and tired". So did he want the Masters to "stand with him" to, what die too? Leave with the colonists - and then what, live as retired alcoholic gunmen farmers, Clint Eastwood-style? Because the part where the colonists get away was achieved anyway! I guess they could get up to the Doctor's TARDIS all the way up and then even go fetch him, but I suppose that would elbow the sacrificial part away. Also, the option where at least some of the colonists pack themselves into those lifts and everyone gets onboard the Master's TARDIS is like. There. And wouldn't those guys know where more lifts were, like that's how they got to the level in the first place???
I'm not saying you can't headcanon an alternative plan that the Doctor had, but it sure as hell wasn't communicated to the audience, which, to clarify, I am focusing on here, like I'm analysing the episode as a work of fiction that someone was in charge of, not a documentary of strategic mistakes done by people under pressure.
Second: Missy just had to, had to, keep her plans a secret from the Doctor. Why???? I don't even have much to elaborate on here, I just could never understand this, and a more serious problem here is:
Why did Missy have to kill Saxon in the first place??? Like, seriously. Why. Do you really look at this guy and think he would have thought twice about running away on his own if he got to the lift and noticed she wasn't there??? Oh yeah, but "he's worried about his future!". Well everyone would be if they saw their future standing in awe of the protagonist doing exposition for ten years of your own timeflow, but frankly I just can't see this guy as not prioritising the here and now of his own (very nice) ass needing to run! Like, was he actively STOPPING HER from staying with the Doctor? No, he just strolled the fuck away without turning back! Oh, but maybe Missy knows he has to die now to regenerate into her, so it's all about keeping the timeline going. Soooo, she does remember these events after all? The Master went out of plot timeline overlapping induced memory loss at just the right moment to realise he's dying of a stab wound on a Mondasian colony ship, but also to already be onboard the TARDIS? Very convenient. Again, I wouldn't be raging if this was actually communicated, but it wasn't.
Which finally leads me to Missy's "sacrifice". What sacrifice? No, really, did her death actually change anything, because that's like the definition of a sacrifice? Leaving aside the whole problem of whether or not the Masters staying with the Doctor would have changed anything, Saxon was letting her get away until she started talking about her reasons for staying. Which she did because?... Like, again, it's not like either of them is going to remember anything of this. Yeah, but it needed to be communicated for the audience. Ok, then this is exactly when bad writing steps in. Like, if you need the characters to do something incredibly illogical for the audience's sake then you didn't write it in a way that would be naturally incorporated into the story.
Missy didn't sacrifice herself. She died of character exposition. She crashed into the fourth wall like a bird into glass door. She's shuffled off her screentime coil, run down the literal curtain, and joined the bleedin' incidental music orchestra invisible. She's not pushing daisies only because BBC's budget didn't include them.
Ok, I railed myself up, but really, the fact that Missy's death is usually framed as a sacrifice is one of those moment where I literally wonder if there are some glaring version differences between the episode I watched and that watched by everyone else.
But you know, I get it. As the Doctor explicitly laid out in his speech (which is its own can of worms on whether it's logically solid, that I'll get down to while waiting for my principal to open his bloody e-mail), this is not about winning, this is about doing the kind thing. Which is where the actually interesting interpretation of The Doctor Falls comes in. Which is the clash between deontological and utilitarian ethics.
Crash course: deontological ethics relies on viewing certain acts as good or evil by their very nature, while utilitarianism wages moral value in reference to some specific goal, which is not neccessarily "gain", but for example, preserving the lives of as many people as possible. To use the trolley dilemma (which is a thought experiment! it's meant to illustrate things, you're really not doing a "gotcha!" by asking about mass transport quality and regulations, though I appreciate this as a rethoric device), a deontologist will say reverting the train to one person instead of five is wrong, because at this point it becomes murder, while an utilitarianist will say reverting is right, because more people are saved than killed. To use a less cliche and reconfigured example, is it moral to blow up a planet if that's the only way to stop a war that's literally warping time into nonexistence? I've argued elsewhere that the deontology vs. utilitarianism is also the contrast made by John Smith vs. professor Yana. Yeah, I know the usual reading is "oh, look, the Doctor can be kind of a dick and the Master a good person!", but if you scratch down to the bottom of things, it's more the case of "the Doctor will focus on the values of people they identify with and the Master will focus on a goal; should they land in an environment where they will respectively identify with bigots, and have only one goal left in the universe and that's preserving life, they will be how they ended up being". Self-sacrifice becomes a matter of calculating yourself as the most expendable party.
In TDF, the Doctor is placed on the deontological side of the dilemma by everything he says during his speech(tm): it's kind. It just is, by its very nature. And to clarfiy for the pissing on poor website: I am not denying this! This is a very, very soild point! What I do argue is that Saxon Master isn't just being very bad because he never heard the music uwu, but that there's an ethical standpoint to his actions too! He's an utilitarianist, as the Master's always been! Why, just why is it wrong to mind control people if they clearly can't make the right choices on their own? Why is absolute power evil if individual will keeps going astray? Why is it wrong to body posses people if this saves my own life? Why shouldn't I change history if there are very good people in need of saving? Why shouldn't I run away if the only plan to save others will include me dying and no gain in return?
Again, the Doctor's speech is its own can of worms, but arguably the biggest leap done there is jumping from guilt vs. shame to "to thy own self be true" arguments. When you think of the Master as a utilitarianist... it's Saxon who fell where he stood. He stood on the side of "This is a pointless endeavour and I reject pointless. And if I'm to become someone who goes for pointless, then I won't be myself anyway and I might as well die." Absolutely not the intended reading, but death of the author, baby.
15 notes
·
View notes