UNADULTERATED BOORISH OPINION: WAS THE TREATMENT OF BELINDA'S CHARACTER SEXIST?

So I've noticed the arguments fans have been making about how Belinda's ultimate fate was handled at the end of the season. Both men and women seem to be taking a strong stance against how the character was treated. One that makes them seem like tremendous supporters of women's rights. 

Which, in many ways, is great to see. I can remember a time when very few people were taking a feminist stance on anything. Back then, even a  lot of women seemed in favor of stigmas that very much worked against them. So I'm happy to see that sensibilities have changed a lot over the years. 

There is still one problem, however, with being a feminist. And that is when you develop an  opinion that sounds like it's supporting equal rights for women but doesn't actually make any legitimate sense. 

Which is what I feel is happening right now with poor Belinda.

THE ACTUAL OBJECTION 

So the basic gist of the whole argument is that RTD is meant to be some sort of sexist. Or, at the very least, he's someone who doesn't write female characters well. Or, quite possibly, does a disservice to the women he puts into his stories. Or something to that effect. It all has to do with how he eventually resolves things with Belinda Chandra at the end of this latest season. 

At the beginning of the most recent, all-too-short eight episode run, we get introduced to the Doctor's newest companion. A strong independent woman named Belinda (or "Bel") who works in a hospital as a nurse. We are quite impressed with Bel when we first meet her. She is thrown into a completely insane situation with massive alien robots that whisk her off to another world. But she still keeps a relatively cool head about the whole thing. When a group of rebels come crashing in to save her, she launches herself into assisting their wounded with little or no thought. In a heroic act of self-sacrifice, she re-activates the cute little polish robot so that she can be traced by the enemy. Thus saving the rebels from being hunted by their overlords. This woman has bravery written all over her. 

On top of all that, Belinda is even more impressive in the final few minutes of the episode. As the Doctor tries to dazzle her into travelling with him, she completely calls him out. She doesn't appreciate the All of Time and Space Sales Pitch and just wants to go home. 

It's clearly established in the very first episode that Belinda Chandra is not a person to be trifled with. Or, more significantly, she's not some foolish, weakhearted woman. She's strong, intelligent and even a bit fierce. The sort of fictional character feminist fans can definitely rally behind. 

The Belinda Chandra we get by the end of the season, however, is the polar opposite (supposedly).  After various manipulations of reality, the companion's past is altered so that she is now a mother of a beautiful girl named Poppy. Because of her new-found responsibility (well, it's sort of new-found), she chooses to stop travelling with the Doctor in the TARDIS. 

According to some fans, this is the absolute most terrible thing you could do to a female character in a TV show. Belinda was this wonderful free-spirited woman. She was putting her career first and enjoying a life of adventure with the Time Lord. Now she's been reduced to some sort of doting Mom who had the audacity to put her child's needs over her own. 

Apparently, RTD is some sort misogynistic Neanderthal for assigning such a fate to this latest companion. What a horrible message he has sent to young girls. Insinuating that, maybe, being a Mom can be as noble a pursuit as wanting a career. 

A BIT OF PRE-QUALIFICATION 

No doubt, you're picking up on my sarcasm. I don't actually think making Belinda into a caring mother was some sort of assault on her feminist rights. RTD is not some giant sexist for doing this. If you want to believe that he is, then I suppose you're entitled to that opinion. Just as I'm entitled to think that you're wrong. 

Now I know there's some visuals to consider in all of this. Being the gender that I am (male, just in case you weren't sure) means that opposing a stance that certain people with feminist sensibilities might have could, potentially, make me look bad. This is one of those situations where I wish a woman was actually writing this particular entry. People would just be less prone to opposing her. Whereas, when I state my points, I'm fairly certain some of you will be thinking: Is he actually on to something, here? Or does he just have a problem with women?! 

To help quell certain suspicions, I want to spend a few brief paragraphs pre-qualifying myself a bit. Please bear with me.  

Even before I hit my teens, I actively made the decision to consider myself a feminist. It just seemed like a no-brainer. Women are our equals and, therefore, deserve the same rights we have. Any time someone stood in the way of them getting the fair treatment they deserve, that person needed to be opposed.      

One should keep in mind, however, that I am a pretty old fart. I was a teen in the 80s. Back then, there weren't a  lot of feminists about. Very few of them were male. And the women that used that title often seemed extremely radical. To the point where a lot of women did not want to be identified as feminists. It lumped them into a group they didn't want to be a part of. Even if what they stood for was helping them in enormous ways. .  

I also grew up in a rural area were conservative opinions were quite strong. They still, very much, are to this day. When I go back and visit I can hear some very crazy opinions expressed by the people that live there. I was catching up with an old neighbor not too long ago who was actually complaining that "A lot of Arabs are moving into the area." She was saying this in the 2020s. 

To be a young boy living in such a place and proclaiming myself a feminist invited a lot of trouble for me. My masculinity was frequently called into question. Some people even used some very homophobic terms to describe me (while I objected to the slurs they used, I didn't view being called gay as an insult since I also supported LGBTQ+ rights). 

What I'm, ultimately, getting at, here, is that I'm not just a feminist. But I'm someone who became one during a time and in a place where taking such a stance created a lot of difficulty in my life. But I didn't care since it was an important cause to support. 

Now, I know this is the internet. Making such a claim about myself can be difficult to verify. But I hope you will take my word on it. And I also hope that if I do express some things that you don't agree with that you don't just dismiss me as some misogynistic incel pig or something of that nature. All I'm really trying to do is point out some inconsistencies in an opinion that has a strong feminist slant to it. I don't actively fight against women having the same rights as men. That's not what I'm about. And I hope you will believe that.    

Having gotten that out of the way, let's now look at those inconsistencies I was just mentioning: 

 

Inconsistency #1: NOTHING REALLY CHANGED 

I've alluded to this a bit, already. But let's dive into the idea more thoroughly:    

RTD crafts Belinda's decision to be a parent quite carefully. Yes, she is now a Mom. Sacrifices will have to be made in order for her to properly care for her child. But none of this actually happens at the expense of the character's goals and ambitions. 

Essentially, Belinda is still working as a nurse. When her timeline gets re-written, that's pretty clearly established. She has to be home by 7:30 AM because that's when she's done her shift and needs to relieve her Mom of taking care of Poppy. 

If Belinda had decided to sacrifice her career because she'd gotten pregnant, I'd be more inclined to say that this was a disservice to the character and, perhaps, even a bit sexist. Especially if it was implied that she'd made a better choice by doing this. But, if anything, I see this as a testament to her strength as a woman. Even with what seemed like an unplanned pregnancy, she prevails over her obstacles and achieves her career goals. 

Inconsistency #2: NOTHING REALLY CHANGED - THE SEQUEL 

"Okay Rob," some of you are conceding, "You made a good point, Bel didn't have to give up her career in order to also be a mom. But you missed something important. She did have to give up travelling with the Doctor in order to stay on Earth and take care of her daughter. So, there you go. Motherhood still got in the way of her being able to do what she wanted. Her whole character arc is sexist, after all. Get out of that one Mister I Was a Feminist Before It Was Cool to be One." 

And, of course, I can "get out of it" quite easily. By applying the same logic that I did during the first Inconsistency: 

Once more, nothing changed. 

Right at the end of Robot Revolution, she tells the Doctor she doesn't want to travel with him. Throughout the rest of the season, she does have a good time with the Time Lord and enjoys the adventures he takes her on. But we still come back to the same thing over and over. As much fun as she's having, she still wants to go home. 

Of course, in the final episode we get a sort of rewind once the Doctor re-sets her timeline. We see various scenes throughout the season where Belinda is talking about her desire to be returned to her proper place in Time and Space. But, this time, she's also mentioning that she "wants to see her Poppy". Showing us that, regardless of whether or not she had a child, her desire was the same: Quite simply, she doesn't want to travel aboard the TARDIS.

Once more, becoming a mother did not rob her of anything she wanted to do. Her motives were the same before and after she became a parent.

Inconsistency #3: THE NOTORIOUS "REVERSE IT PRINCIBLE" 

I have used this trick before when discussing the way a marginalized group is being represented. If I'm not entirely certain about the depiction, I change the scenario a bit. I envision the same context being applied to a different group. 

For instance: I looked at the way they changed Isasc Newton's race in Wild Blue Yonder and thought to myself: "Should I actually be bothered that he's not white in this Doctor Who story when History says he was?" 

So I thought to myself: "What if they'd changed Martin Luther King to a white guy in the episode Rosa?" 

The answer quickly became obvious: It's wrong to change the race of a real person being represented on the show. Regardless of what their original ethnicity was.   

So now let's see if we can apply something similar, here: 

There is actually a situation that resembles this that occurred a few seasons previously but uses a different gender. 

At the end of Revolution of the Daleks, Ryan announces that he no longer wishes to travel aboard the TARDIS. The decision, of course, was first being hinted at way back in Can You Hear Me? But, at last, he's made up his mind. He wants to stay home. 

Up until that moment, Graham had made it clear that he wanted to keep travelling with the Doctor, But, upon hearing Ryan's choice, he changes his mind. As much he likes exploring the Universe, he doesn't want to miss watching his grandson grow up. 

Shouldn't there have been complaints similar to what we're hearing about Belinda? Shouldn't we consider Graham's desire to continue being a good grandfather to be an affrontery to his masculinity? Unlike Belinda, who never wanted to travel in the TARDIS to begin with, he really is making a sacrifice when he decides to stay behind and be with his grandson. So we should be even more outraged! 

Add to the fact that Ryan was, pretty much, a grown adult who can take care of himself, whereas Poppy is an infant who definitely needs close monitoring and we should get even angrier about all this. Graham doesn't really need to watch over his grandson. He's acting purely out of sentimentalism rather than legitimate necessity. We should be calling Chibnall a huge sexist (God knows, people have called him all sorts of other things!) for writing out a character in such a way. It's a massive affrontery to male independence!  

But that's not what happens, of course. In fact, a lot of us were quite touched by the sacrifice Graham was making. 

I do get it, of course. There are some extra factors to consider. Society has had a long history of gender role issues that allowed men to not be as present in their children's lives as they should be. At the same time, women had to compensate for this by making far bigger sacrifices for their family than they ought to. So it does become that little bit easier to applaud a man who prioritizes his family but be upset when a woman does the same. The "Reverse It Principle" isn't quite so cut-and-dry, here. 

But, overall, it's still applicable. In fact, it's rather unfair to come down so hard on a woman for choosing to be with her family but praise a man when he does the same. If the choice is made free of any outside pressure, then we should just respect it. Which is what we see in both Graham's and Belinda's situations.  

Inconsistency #4: "IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DECIDE YOU STILL HAVE MADE THE CHOICE" - N. Peart 

In order to make my next point, we need to start diving a little bit deeper into the actual philosophy of feminism.

For me, the main goal of feminism has been to create a society where women can have all the same choices that men have. Even in my lifetime, I have seen that this has not always been the case. That the way women were treated when I was much younger is very different from the treatment they get today. 

I think, for example, of when I was going to school. At both a primary and secondary level, male and female educators would tell boys that, if they set their mind to it and worked hard, they could be whatever they wanted when they grew up. Girls, on the other hand, were still encouraged to apply themselves to their studies and get a decent education - but they were also told to not focus so hard on a career once they were adults. At that point in their lives, their biggest priority should be to find a decent man and be a good wife for him. Make him lots of babies and take care of things at home while he went out and earned a living. 

That sort of social conditioning at such an early age obviously made it difficult for women to empower themselves. We needed the feminist movement to come along and change the way children and youth were being educated. So that, when a woman reached adulthood, she could make clear choices about what she wanted to do with herself. 

Which brings me back to my main point. We need a society where women are allowed to choose whatever path they want in life. There should be no pressuring or cajoling of any sort as they make those decisions. Feminists are creating just such a society. There's still a way to go, but we're getting there. 

With that in mind, however, it does mean we should respect any choice a woman makes of her own free will. If she wants to be a big, tough career-centered person, then more power to her. But we also shouldn't come down on her if she decides to take a more domestic path in her life. Cause it's not about what she chooses as it is so much about allowing her to freely make her choices. 

Which, for me, deconstructs the outcry against Belinda wanting to be a Mom. If that truly is her desire, then we should just let her have it rather than claim that the whole resolution of her arc is some misogynistic piece of sexist propaganda. Provided it's presented properly (and I think, for the most part, it was) then we can still have female characters pick being a good mother over everything else. There's nothing wrong with a woman who genuinely wants to do that. 

ONE VALID POINT 

While I have gone to great lengths to negate the sentiment of certain feminists, there is one point that some of them are making that does have some validity to it. For the sake of fairness, I'll address it. And, to some extent, agree with it. 

It does look just a little bit like Belinda wasn't given a proper choice about becoming a mother a second time.. While she definitely wanted to raise Poppy before Conrad's Reality was destroyed, the Doctor does not do the best of jobs to make sure that she wants her daughter back. He does inform her of what he's up to once the girl has disappeared from existence. But then he departs pretty quickly after that to bring her back. Giving Belinda little time to voice any objections she might have had. 

Admittedly, RTD should have treated this particular moment more delicately. It would have worked better had there been a scene where, perhaps, the Doctor takes Belinda into the TARDIS and clearly explains her options to her. Just to really make sure that this is what she truly wants. The Doctor only should have departed to alter the timelines after Bel was given a good idea of her fate and allowed to voice a clear answer on the matter,

Having said all that, however, he did watch Belinda choose the risk of being trapped for all eternity in a Zero Room for the sake of her child's continued existence. That did, very much, tell him what sort of choice she was making regarding her desire to be a mother. But I do think an extra little scene where things are spelt out nice and clearly so that Belinda's sense of free will is truly respected would have sat better with everyone. 

So I will concede just a little bit to this whole idea that certain feminists are putting forward. In this aspect, things could have been handled a bit better. But, overall, I still can't get behind the concept that Belinda becoming a mother again is sexist writing. 

IF IT"S NOT SEXISM, WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SAYING IT IS?! 

Hopefully, I've done a decent job or presenting my points in this whole discussion. Might some of you even be re-evaluating your opinions?   

Of course, in any debate of this nature, there is one fundamental concept that can dismantle the sort of contrary stance that I'm assuming: Why are people even forming this opinion if you claim it isn't accurate? Which is a valid point. If Belinda's ultimate fate isn't sexist, then why do some people feel it is? It reminds me of the old saying: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's probably a duck! Or: If the treatment of Bel's character looks sexist and seems sexist - it's probably sexist! 

I believe there are two root causes to why this opinion is being formed: 

1) In certain cases, feminists are reacting sincerely. They just, maybe, should have taken a bit more time to think their opinion through before expressing it. 

I get it, though. We've seen this sort of thing so many times in fiction before. Female characters get sold short by choosing to become mothers. It's even been a bit of a propaganda message created by sexist authors. You can't blame someone for "jumpin' the gun" over something like this. 

2) This is just another episode in the saga I like to call: The Great Witch Hunt. Doctor Who fandom is in a very dark stage, right now. We've seen this all before back in the late 80s. Sadly, history is repeating itself. Which means we know where all of this will be leading... 

A certain type of toxic fan has begun to rear its ugly head, again. This fan has decided that Doctor Who has become the most terrible of shows - with little or no redeeming qualities. It's their mission to constantly let us know of their disdain. They shitpost like crazy in various fangroups or even create Youtube channels where they rant endlessly from their mother's basement. You can even expect to be berated by them should you actually be enjoying what the show is doing. 

These so-called fans look for any little flaw they can in the show and exaggerate it out of proportion. Just like the prosecuting attorneys did back in the Witch Trials of Salem (hence the name I've given to this whole phenomenon). In some cases, if they can't see any faults, they "Find patterns in things that aren't there". Basically, they will invent problems. With the weakest of arguments, they will claim there's something wrong with an aspect of the show when it's actually perfectly fine. . 

I think that most of the comments I've seen complaining of RTD's sexist writing have been from this segment of fandom. I also believe that they are totally manufacturing a defect, here. It's not a real problem. 

They're particularly happy about all this since it makes them seem a bit enlightened in the process. Which is ironic, of course. These are often the same people that are against diversity casting. They are, literally, complaining that the show is hiring too many women!