I had NOT seen that, and I love it so much! Thanks for posting.

Adorable? I found it sexist.

I get your point, Shir.

Speaking only for myself, I have no high expectations from DW when it comes to feminism, although they do get a lot of points from me for River Song.

I didn't like this one at all.

Now, I understand that little will tickle me as much as 10 Teaching English Literature to Lauren Cooper. Still, the lascivious jokes just fell flat to me, and seemed like the sole reason for the entire set up.

An up-skirt joke, Moffat? Really? You are so much more clever than that.

Adorable? I found it sexist.

Really? The jokes were a bit obvious (but then it was only a few minutes long), but I didn't think it was sexist. And I usually find rather a lot sexist...

I also thought it was adorable.

Really? The jokes were a bit obvious (but then it was only a few minutes long), but I didn't think it was sexist. And I usually find rather a lot sexist...

I think some of the sexist sting was taken out of it for me because Rory IS her husband and they are newlyweds, and the Doctor doesn't actually care about Amy's legs in and of themselves.

ETA: Anybody else now want to see any incarnation of the Doctor going "Guh" over Queen Elizabeth I's ankles?

I think some of the sexist sting was taken out of it for me because Rory IS her husband and they are newlyweds, and the Doctor doesn't actually care about Amy's legs in and of themselves.

Quite. And you can't tell me Amy wouldn't have looked up Rory's Roman costume at some point.

Plus I thought the "Pond, put some trousers on" tone was rather consistent with the way the Doctor usually reacts to Amy's distractions of various kinds.

And it was for Comic Relief, after all. Nothing for that is meant to be too serious.

Yeah. Really. Because just the fact that all of this special was based on jokes about Amy's body and/or her sexuality tells me a thing or two about the writing abilities of Moffat.

They haven't reduced her to a prop (almost), which is something, I guess. It's kind of what Sarkeesian is saying here: [link] and while I fairly believe that some of DW fans can be "inside the joke" (which is fair and common and OK among friends), the show just can't do it. They have responsibility, as a cult TV show. And when they fail at it, we get comments (on YouTube, where I watched it) such as Amy is such a slut :) . Not to mention the non-existent line between the "she has a short skirt" and "she was asking for it"/"it's her fault".

I don't have a lot of feminist expectations from DW as well, but they really crossed the line there. Because for some reason, they don't glorify Amy as a character as they do with the damn uber hero worshiping that's the Doctor. And I give them that, most times. But if all of the characters in your show are just used in various ways to shine on the overly-worshiped as is main character without being full characters in themselves (Amy is usually is. But not in this special), and you got nothing left but sexist jokes to do it with, I'd say you have a problem as a writer, and not just with me as a fan.

Phew. It felt good to write all this down now.

Shir, I see your points. But this wasn't 'the show'. It was Comic Relief. If you don't live here, you won't understand the context. Dozens of shows do very short specials, which are basically parodies of themselves. They are never serious, because the whole night is based around comedy. Moffat was parodying himself. I thought he was a good sport to do that, as were the actors. This is not canon and would never be thought of as such. Have you seen the one with Rowan Atkinson? Or 2007's (I think) where Peter Davison appears and chats to Tennant about whose doctor he is, and it's clearly just Moffat being a fanboy?

I do think you have to understand the context, as much as it might be problematic in some ways. I see that focusing on Amy's skirt is a bit silly and could be seen as sexist. But they've sort of done it throughout, and they've objectified Rory just as much. They really really have.

As for 'it's all her fault', I can sort of see where you're coming from there. But I think Rory is blamed just as much for being easily distracted. I also don't see your problem with the idolisation of the Doctor. That's the entire point of the series. The journeys of the assistant are based around that. Martha leaving vs Rose wanting to change her life to fit him. Donna having to have her memory wiped. And they're not all in love with him, either, and I like that. The companions are much more self-aware and is control than they used to be, Amy included. None of them are there just to scream anymore. *That* I objected to.

I guess I worry when feminism says that any fun around women's sexuality is dangerous. I see its point there, but I can't agree. I think women have agency even while structure is a problem, and that sexuality - as subjects or objects - isn't necessarily objectification.