Why I'm Not Excited About a Female Doctor Who

I wasn't shocked when I got the news that the next Doctor would be a woman, Broadchurch's Jodie Whittaker. People have been calling for it ever since River Song kicked so much butt, and there were announcements that no, the next Doctor would not be a female. So, having convinced eager fans it wasn't to be, the time was ripe. I wasn't shocked, but I was pleased. It really is about time.

You know what else didn't shock me? All the backlash.

So, here's why I'm not excited about a female Doctor Who:

1. Because I'm a bicyclist, and I know that the world is full of bastards who oppose progress. Bike lanes have been proven, like this one in Atlanta, to increase safety on the roads, but sometimes the bastards complain loud enough, and progress is undone, like in Baltimore.
2. Because even the people who claim they aren't bastards sometimes end up being bastards. We were very ready for a female President of the United States. Just not that one, said the bastards.* And in the end, it didn't happen. As if, as the linked article points out, we're holding out for the perfect woman president, perfect woman CEO, perfect woman actor, etc.
3. Because the world is not kind to women. The internet is Bastards on the internet are often openly hostile to women. No, really, it's not like that for men. It's just because they're women.
4. Because even Peter Capaldi drew a lot of criticism from DW fans, enjoyed a lukewarm reception, and look how long he lasted. Spoiler alert: it's three seasons. I'm not saying that the fans who didn't like him got him fired. Surely there are other reasons, right? I'm just saying, they didn't like him and he didn't last long.

How long could she last? Even if the number of fans who oppose her is small, even if she is the perfect woman actor, even if - relatively speaking - she isn't opposed much more than any man would be? Those hopes for little opposition aren't looking good, by the way. And she hasn't even gotten on the set, yet.

Don't get me wrong: The world needs her. Women need her. I need her. I hope like hell she outlasts the bastards.

TL;DR - the world is full of joy-stealing bastards who win all too often, and I'm old and jaded. I love that a talented female actress has been chosen for the part. It is about damn time. I just can't let my hopes get too high, yet. But I'll be the first to throw a fancy, themed party when she's three seasons and one episode in.

* Before you freak out, I'm not saying people who didn't vote for Hillary are bastards. I'm saying that when you say, "I want a woman _____, just not this woman, let's get another guy this time, maybe we'll try this little experiment again in a few years" you're a lying bastard. If you want a woman doctor/lawyer/president/actor/CEO, you have to go ahead and hire one, or else admit you don't really want one in the first place.

Terrorists vs. Assholes

Terrorists are total assholes, but not all assholes are terrorists. While this may seem obvious, it's clear that we could all use a refresher.

Let's start with definitions.

The FBI states that domestic terrorism must contain the following three characteristics. It must:

• Happen within U.S. territory.
• Include acts dangerous to human life that violate state or federal law.
• Appear to be intended to 1) intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2) influence government policy through intimidation or coercion, or 3) affect government actions through mass destruction, kidnapping, or assassination. 

These are terrorists

Let's apply this checklist to the situation in rural Oregon:

• Happened in the U.S. - Check! (Last I checked, Oregon was in the U.S.)
• Includes acts dangerous to human life - Nope!
• Appears intended to 1) intimidate or coerce a civilian population - Nope! 2) influence government policy - Not really. 3) Affect government actions through mass destruction, kidnapping, or assassination - Nope!

Now, admittedly, that third point on the checklist gets a little murky. I could see an argument that their actions appear intended to influence government policy - that would be, the government's policy of continuing to maintain and administer federal land. However, the Bundy's redress of grievances focuses not on government policy, but on specific actions of the government. The armed militia is not trying to affect government actions through mass destruction, kidnapping, or assassination. So, that third point still gets a "not really."

These are not terrorists

While I can get behind the sentiment that had this militia been composed of anyone other than white people, the reaction would have been different, the reality is that no one was threatened or harmed in this, with the exception of the threat of violence as a response to government attempts to clear the building. It's not white-washing - they just aren't terrorists.

We don't need to apply the terrorist moniker to them to even the scoreboard - we should stop applying it where it doesn't belong. That's how you even the scoreboard and maintain perspective.

We should be taking action. We shouldn't take action because we'd take action if they were Muslims or if they were African American. That's not why. We need to make it clear that taking over a federal building - occupied or not, remote or not - will not be tolerated. Not by terrorists, not by assholes.

As funny as the terms #Y'allQaeda, #VanillaISIS, #TaliBundy, and #YeeHawd are, this isn't terrorism. They aren't terrorists - they're just assholes.

Review:

Terrorists:

• Da'ish/ISIL/ISIS/Whatever
• Al-Qa'ida/Al Qaeda/Al Kayda/However
• Boko Haram
• Those Paris-hating assholes

Not Terrorists:

• The man at work who wears a turban
• The kid with a Super-Soaker
• The asshole who pulls into the parking spot you sharked for hours to get
• Those assholes occupying an empty rural federal building

4 Things The Wiz - Live! Got Right

I watched NBC's The Wiz - Live! last night (most of it - I missed the first hour). I had never seen any version of the play. If you missed it, you should go see it - it's still available on NBC's website.

Here are four places this version really nailed it.

1. It Boosted New Stars

The lead was played by Shanice Williams. Don't feel bad if you don't recognize her name. According to IMDB, she's best known for her role in The National Dog Show Presented by Purina. Yeah, I didn't see that, either. She got the role that was previously played by Ashanti and Diana Ross in other versions, and she killed it.

Other talented, but little-known actors include Amber Riley (Glee and a made-for-TV movie), Elijah Kelley (The Butler and a few other movies), and Uzo Aduba (OITNB, mostly).

Amber Riley as Addapearle

She was framed by some major names, too - Ne-Yo, Queen Latifah, Common, David Allen Grier, and Mary J. Blige. They provided draw, boosting viewership, and lending exposure to Williams and her fellow actors.

Hollywood needs this. Hollywood needs more African American actors earning money, making great films, and supporting each other. Those awards shows are still awfully predictable. That can change. This is part of that change.

2. It Portrayed Successful African Americans

Take a deep breath and stick with me through this point, okay?

While movies are more likely now to star African Americans, the actors often don't speak or dress any differently than their white counterparts (Annie, I'm looking at you). Aside from the color of their skin, they may as well be white.

The Wiz - Live! might engender criticism for having the characters speak in slang, but these characters are African American. They aren't African Americans striving to conform to the dominant culture in order to achieve success - by dressing like successful white people, or by talking like successful white people, for example. They find success not despite their identity, not because of their identity, but within their identity. And it's glorious.

Ne-Yo as Tin Man

Queen Latifah is the successful ruler of the Emerald City as the Wizard. Aduba and Riley (as Glinda and Addaperle) are successful Good Witches. Dorothy, Tin Man, Lion, and Scarecrow face challenges and rise above them. They don't conform to the (non-existent, in this film) dominant white culture in order to do so. They do it slang, clothing, and stereotypes included. They do it as they are.

This is what acceptance looks like.

3. Positive Body Image

Shanice Williams was adorable in her little plaid skirt. Mary J. Blige looked amazing in her costumes, and Uzo Aduba and Amber Riley looked beautiful in their dresses. None of these women are exactly tiny. And I loved seeing that.

Shanice Williams as Dorothy, Uzo Aduba as Glinda the Good

I love it that the show's producers didn't choose super-skinny women to play these characters - they chose women who could act and sing and dance to play these characters.

The women appeared comfortable in their appearances. Williams never tugged her skirt down in an attempt to hide her thighs. Aduba and Riley never tugged at their costumes in an attempt to hide their lovely curves. No one commented about diets or exercise regimens.

Williams, giving a pep-talk to David Allen Grier as the Cowardly Lion

I know - that stuff wouldn't have fit in that play. It was written about characters who wouldn't have worried about those things. But gosh. It was so refreshing to see stars on stage who, I felt, sort of looked like me.

4. It Passed the Bechdel Test

The Bechdel test presents a series of wickets for a movie (or book, or video game, etc.) to hit: it has to have at least two female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man.

With Queen Latifah playing a definitely feminine Wizard (though she doesn't necessarily look very feminine at first), and Aduba and Riley as the good witches, there were a few scenes where the women spoke to Dorothy.

Dorothy (and cast) discuss the meaning of success
with Queen Latifah as the Wizard

They didn't even discuss hair, or nails, or clothes, much less diet plans and exercise routines. They talked about big stuff - identity. They talked about the meaning of success and the meaning of family.

It was women acting like women. (Mostly) supporting each other. It passed the test with flying colors.

Bonus Point: Excellent Conflict

That scene when Dorothy confronted Evillene was one of the best scenes I saw. Dorothy starts hurling insults about Evillene, and Evillene responds with, "If I'm wicked, what does that make you?"

She launches into a list of Dorothy's offences. She killed the other witch and then stole her shoes before the body was even cold. Dorothy didn't have a good comeback for that.

Mary J. Blige as Evillene, not taking Dorothy's hypocrisy

I wish the moment had been more powerful. There was potential for Dorothy to have self-doubt or defensiveness... but she kind of glossed over it.

The other point was made by the Wizard. The Wizard explained that things in Oz worked before Dorothy came. There was balance. Everyone knew their place. Then Dorothy went witch-killing and upset everything. Again, Dorothy never addressed that accusation, or even seemed to acknowledge it.

Stop Using That Hashtag

Victim Equaling

You probably already know what a "topper" is. Whatever you say, they've done it better, gotten a bigger one, done it more, or had it worse.

Victim-topping is this thing I see on the internet lately, and it's not so much topping, as it is "equaling." If you were at a party, it'd go like this: You say, "Thank God someone brought a veggie platter. I'm deathly allergic to peanuts, and they are in everything!" And they say, "Yeah, I'm a vegan. We should all demand more choices from our grocer."

The way it plays out in the internet, is there's some movement and a counter-movement. The thing is, we have movements for a reason: The status quo isn't getting it for some people. In order to change the status quo, a movement is born.

The #BlackLivesMatter movement is a good example of a movement with a counter-movement. This movement draws attention to "the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state."

That Other Hashtag is a Straw Man Argument

The counter-movement, All Lives Matter, is a straw man argument that seeks to reinforce the status quo. In this day and age, we can pretty much agree that all lives matter. Hence the straw man part. No one is going to disagree with you on that one. No one was even making that argument.

By saying "all lives matter," you're seeking to diminish the power of the request for change by changing the focus of the argument. You're working to halt the change others depend on by reinforcing the status quo.

A Constructionist Reading

When you use that other hashtag, you're using the same well-recognized format as #blacklivesmatter, which draws a comparison between the two. "All lives matter" would have no meaning without the association to Black Lives Matter. By saying "all lives matter," you aren't drawing attention to a specific problem, you're just muddying the water. Because of this association, you're drawing a comparison which brushes aside the problem Black Lives Matter tries to address; you're making room at the party for a lesser problem.

Let me just clarify here. You're probably enraged, so let me clarify. When I say "lesser problem," I'm talking about the size of the problem in terms of number of victims and the rate of victims. When compared to white people, African Americans have it much worse in the justice system. They suffer more at the hands of the state and within the system in which we all live. I'm not interested in arguing statistics. That's not what this post is about.

Lastly, I'd like to remind you that Black Lives Matter is not a zero-sum game. A system that treats black people fairly won't suddenly turn on white people. More fair treatment does not necessitate the displacement of injustice from one group onto another group.

So, stop using that hash-tag. You're not helping anyone, and you're hurting some.

20151108 Update: edited to fix a typo.