Interesting insights.
Well, you may struggle with adjusting to the concept of not having a role model like yourself, given The Doctor is female and the age of one of the companions is not in a demographic you can relate to. There is something comforting and dare I say it, validating seeing reflections of ourselves succeeding. I have a love for really quaint whodunnit mystery stories. I don't really see the sleuths as role models though - I am neither a Poirot or Miss Marple BUT I am kind of loyal to these fictional characters being as I have loved them. (Like in the remake preview of Murder on the Orient Express - 2017, that blessed moustache on Poirot is insane!)
It's a bit of a challenge, as much as imagining possibilities sometimes we are more comfortable with the tried and true. I find with most of the Doctors I like them the most when they decide to leave or regenerate. Yet as a female it was nice seeing a male as a role model for men, too. Obviously not to emulate but to see a decent bloke/Timelord. As much as male representation has been traditionally established it has not always been of notable 'role model' worthiness. I repeat from earlier there is nothing wrong with men (and women) wanting or seeing a male play a character like Doctor Who and I think the future will re-open opportunities for that again, amongst others. I do think it is very important that in empowering equal rights we don't dehumanise our men OR anyone else.
I feel a little nervous for the weight of expectation on the new Doctor. I want her to do well and it would be encouraging if say a male looks to her and although may not identify gets that fellow human pride in seeing a good female role model like I have felt in reverse on behalf of my male counterparts.
My biggest concern is that I just may not click with the presentation of the character. I struggled with Capaldi at first. These Doctors can be manic so I hope she doesn't try tooo hard.
There's an aspect of Doctor Who you want, and I concur with you, that if the new series is to survive, Whittaker should be less "Manic" like a hyperactive child, and more subtle, like a sleuth, or good detective. If Chibnall (Chernobyl as I call him, which for me means disaster) concentrates on writing good mysteries in the series and steers clear of virtue signalling, shilling for the BBC image on that as well, then the show can make strides to succeed. The last viewing figures for the Christmas special were 7.9 million. Higher then the previous specials since 2014, yes..but not by much when you look at the context of the ratings decline.
There is a divide between nuWho and Classic Whovians, I used to believe that the new series was a continuation of the classic, yet I can now see why some..
Not me yet..(which is why I'm debating the Kelvin time line theory with other Whovians here trying to learn more about the divide some see)
Some see the new series breaking with the tradition of the old.
Let me be clear here tho, because I've had a lot of knee jerk labeling assigned simply because my initial reaction did not explain why I was and am still against Whittaker playing the part.
These are the factors that led to my viceral reaction.
1. Subtlety in political pandering or presenting one POV and not another was lost in Moffat's era. I love Capitalism. Apparently socialism is promoted and that's unfortunate as it seems blatant, and subtlety is gone. Subtle references I can stand. Advocation, is annoying for me, especially when repeated over and over.
2. Pandering and virtue signalling becomes prominent and the focus of episodes as we get closer to Bill and series 10. I divide classic Who by Season, whereby the New ver. By Series.
3. Based on the way things were going with 1 & 2 above, the play to cast a woman was presented as being fair. Males and females auditioning for the role, and it was said Whittaker just nailed the part the best of them, which I was thinking okay, so maybe a bit bias, seeing as how Whittaker works with Chibnall in Broadchurch. However later we discover that no. That's not the case, that whether a male actor was presented better in range and depth, they had no chance, as Chibnall always wanted a female to play the part. The gender reveal being kept secret was not as big a deal, except the leftist media fawning over that as it fits their political ideology. Sad tribalism at play there, and money, and virtue accalaids abound.
4. Demonizing people who are shocked by the change, before they have a chance to embrace the idea, this creating a divide and battle between fellow fans.
5. Media doubles down and attacks fans with divisive articles, and personal attacks of Misogony and sexism fly like rapid fire from German Housers by the thought police. This adding more fuel to the fire.
6. Culmative as these reasons are, I believe a female doctor should hapoen, however with all the political pandering and attacks on fans, it didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy with the reveal. They intentionally teased Whittaker in a cloak in the woods. No feminine finger nails, a male sort of boot and jacket, the subtle nuances of trying to visually trick the viewer until the hoodie is removed.
Wasnt their best move..along with the words that Whittaker herself touring as a feminist and telling scared little man babies to not be afraid of her gender, and so on..
7.those advocating for the gender role change not even taking 1 second to look at it from the other side, and attacking Peter Davison on Twitter until he had to bow out, simply for bringing up a simple and altruistic point, that a role model for little boys is going to be missing for a time. Prompting a backlash hounding him off Twitter. Tom Baker coming out with his way to help the divide by saying if it doesn't work, just fire the new doctor who and cast someone else.
What I think is happening, is when you want to explain your reasons for being skeptical about the casting choice, it's not as binary as sexism vs progressivism, or tolerance and parody for some, it's the culmulative message of pandering before the casting and the blunders making things worse after that have driven my comments, with no real time,to articulate them correctly against knee jerk criticism and judgement in defense of said casting.
Bottom line, for some like me, it's more complicated then the straight sexism some would like to portray for whatever reason gives them comfort and ignores the reasoning some have that is culmulative based on a series of factors which may have validity.
In other words, it's easier to get sexist then it is to listen and learn about why someone isn't keen on the casting choice and how it feels on the surface like pandering.,let alone ones personal view of Whittaker as an actress. Had the change and the PC police been more tolerant of the detractors and worked to bring them into the new tent, rather then flaming and labeling fans off the get go, there may have been more acceptance of the move. Time heals all wounds, and the future is not set in stone yet, but come mid season, the viewing figures will determine how much of a success this gamble will be received by classic and new Whovians alike. I got one hope they drop the pandering and political identity focus and concentrate on universal themes that anyone can relate to, outside of one sided politics. I wish the show the best, but won't be onboard with BBCA until after I read about each episode and what's really going on in the role and storylines. I may jump on, if they don't go 3rd wave feminist, and present the Doctor as just happening to be female, but if it becomes a platform for political identity ideology and socialist philosophy, then I'm sorry it won't be in my viewing list going forward
I think at this point. I've had quite enough of that with series 9 And 10.
