That noise the TARDIS makes


















Sia, 15, Hong Kong, I am your mummy.



POLICE TELEPHONE
FREE
FOR USE OF
PUBLIC
ADVICE & ASSISTANCE OBTAINABLE IMMEDIATELY
HOVER TO OPEN

1 2 3 4 5 »

elevenshearts:

x

8 hours ago on April 18th, 2014 | J | 710 notes

hankered-waistline:

he totally nailed this role, just sayin’

16 hours ago on April 18th, 2014 | J | 107,437 notes
1 day ago on April 17th, 2014 | J | 4,849 notes

I think the reason that lots of people think Steven Moffat’s version of Doctor Who is sexist is because it repeatedly acts and sounds sexist. It may be that Moffat consciously tries to craft his Who as feminist or pro-feminist. If so, I don’t think there’s any better illustration of the crucial point that, in a sexist society, however much of an ‘ally’ you may be, if you’re a man then you still enjoy male privilege, and probably don’t realise it half the time.

The Doctor describes Clara as “a mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a skirt that’s just a little bit too tight”. The Doctor describes Marilyn Monroe as though she really was nothing more than the stereotypical ‘man crazy’ ditz she played in some of her movies. Rory likens being married to Amy to being trapped inside a giant robot duplicate of her. We get dialogue like “Why did she try to kill you and then want to marry you?” “Because she’s a woman”. Osgood, a scientist, is shown to be secretly obsessed with jealousy towards her prettier sister. A Dalek develops a female alter-ego, and she spends her time cooking.
[…]
In Moffat’s show, women are overwhelmingly defined by their traditional gender roles or bodily functions. It doesn’t matter that their excellence in these gender roles is praised by show and lead character. It doesn’t matter that we’re supposed to be impressed by the virtuosity with which River tricks people using her feminine wiles. It doesn’t change anything that the Doctor goes into rhapsodies about the wonders of motherhood. That isn’t liberating; it’s still the mapping of male, patriarchal conceptions of female value onto female characters.

River exists entirely because of the Doctor. Who the hell is River? She is an assemblage of gender essentialist tropes and wisecracks. When does she ever – beyond, arguably, her first appearance – behave like an academic or a scientist? When does she ever display anything resembling erudition or intellectual curiosity? When does she ever do or say anything to show or engender love? Admittedly, the Doctor seems to be sexually aroused by the way she shoots people… which is just charming. In ‘Let’s Kill Hitler’, she is incarnated as Mels, a character we’ve never seen or heard of before, and plonked unceremoniously into the story out of sheer, brazen convenience. She stalks Amy and Rory (her unwitting mother and father) for years, pretending to be their friend, all because of her pre-programmed monomaniacal desire to get to the Doctor. She regenerates while “concentrating on a dress size”. She spends the rest of the episode obsessing over her hair, clothes, shoes and weight. River’s instability is finally conquered by the love of a good man. This seems intensely hostile and patronising. If that isn’t what was aimed at, then somebody is a very bad shot.

It doesn’t matter that River is ‘powerful’. Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings.

-

Steven Moffat: a Case for the Prosecution

[…]The reason I feel ill when the Doctor snogs River’s ghost at the end of ‘Name of the Doctor’ is not that I hate emotion in Who, or that I want – because I’m a sexually and emotionally repressed nerd or something – Doctor Who to be emotionless.  Rather, the opposite of this is the truth.  The reason I feel ill at moments like that is rather that I hate fake emotion, cheap emotion, unearned emotion.  Commodified emotion.  Packaged, marketed, profitable, sugary, junk emotion.  Sentimentality, in other words. 

Sentimentality is disgusting because it’s not fundamentally about other people, or relationships.  It’s about oneself.  It’s self-regarding, self-comforting, self-pleasing.  It isn’t social.  It’s narcissistic.  This is precisely what is so horribly wrong with all those Moffatian emotional tornadoes.  How can they be touching when the characters and relationships are so shallow?  When we’re watching narcissists adoring their own reflections in their partner’s eyes?[…]
 I don’t like having to hate this show.  I want to love it.  
1 day ago on April 17th, 2014 | J | 2,976 notes
2 days ago on April 16th, 2014 | J | 2,001 notes
gallifreyan-fez:

jassmarie:

my13roses:

the12thdrbetterbeginger912:

orion-spirit:

umbrafelis:

Stare at him lustfully.
Stare at him lustfully.
STARE AT HIM LUSTFULLY.



otp

wat


may i point out

ARE WE ALL GOING TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT IT SAYS DEAN AND CASTIEL RIGHT BELOW THAT

OR KIRK AND SPOCK RIGHT ABOVE IT OH MY GOD SHELDON I KNEW YOU WERE A FANGIRL BUT I DIDNT KNOW YOU WERE THAT KIND OF FANGIRL

gallifreyan-fez:

jassmarie:

my13roses:

the12thdrbetterbeginger912:

orion-spirit:

umbrafelis:

Stare at him lustfully.

Stare at him lustfully.

STARE AT HIM LUSTFULLY.

image

image

otp

wat

image

may i point out

ARE WE ALL GOING TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT IT SAYS DEAN AND CASTIEL RIGHT BELOW THAT

OR KIRK AND SPOCK RIGHT ABOVE IT OH MY GOD SHELDON I KNEW YOU WERE A FANGIRL BUT I DIDNT KNOW YOU WERE THAT KIND OF FANGIRL

2 days ago on April 16th, 2014 | J | 119,989 notes
3 days ago on April 15th, 2014 | J | 25,954 notes
3 days ago on April 15th, 2014 | J | 3,614 notes
4 days ago on April 14th, 2014 | J | 1,547 notes
4 days ago on April 14th, 2014 | J | 32,136 notes