Efforts to extinguish the light of human progress sometimes cause the candlelight to flicker, but it always burns the brighter after

Peace for Paris. Photograph: From Subjectif Art, design by Jean Jullien (License)

The world is moving inexorably forwards. More freedoms, more rights, more equality. That progress has been tempered time and again by horrifying bouts of violence and war, psychotic acts of terror and ruthless acts of sectarian cleansing. Yet humanity has continued to stumble its way out of the darkness.

Acts of violence, counter-revolutionary reaction and suppression by those would keep the world trapped in the darkness, rear up with each step forward. They attempt use fear to control and dissuade, to put out the light. Yet each act of violence has changed humanity. It forges an ever growing, ever spreading, solidarity against violence, ignorance and selfishness. It simply makes the case, and support, for peace, liberty and tolerance stronger.

Vaclav Havel was a writer and playwright who became a political dissident against totalitarian communist rule and went on to became the first President of the Czech Republic. At the height of the constant, suppressive, threat of arrest and imprisonment, Havel wrote The Power of the Powerless. In it, Havel described how under the rule of even the most desperate and tyrannical of police states, the light of dissent and liberty can flicker into life through simple acts of disobedience and the refusal to comply with the wielders of power and fear. That in these simple acts, an individual:

"...rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth."

For many, the events in Paris, or in Beirut, have extinguished their ability to see that light - or so dimmed their sensitivity to it beneath a howling storm of pain and loss that they may never see it again. For those people, there is perhaps little comfort in knowing that despite, and maybe in spite of, atrocities, the statistics say that there are only positive trends when it comes to human health and prosperity.

To those people, it may well be cold comfort that the light continues to flicker, let alone that it will grow stronger. Even so, we cannot give up on, or ignore, that flame. By its light, people have changed the world for the better with even the smallest acts of freedom.

Whether it's the struggle for human rights, civil rights and liberties, and democracy around the world, or their particular manifestations in the rising visibility of struggles for Women's rights, LGBT rights or for recognition that Black Lives Matter, the movement towards equality and respect is irresistible.

Corbyn has brought idealism to the campaign, but needs to show how public ownership can further the pursuit of a just, inclusive and power-devolving society

Jeremy Corbyn MP speaks at anti-drones rally in 2013. Photograph: By stopwar.org.uk (license)(cropped)

Jeremy Corbyn's entry has electrified the Labour leadership contest (Eno, 2015). With people beginning to ask 'what happens if Jeremy Corbyn wins?', it might be a good time to look at what it is for which Corbyn is actually campaigning (Bush, 2015).

Jeremy Corbyn was originally ushered into the Labour leadership campaign as the alternative candidate (BBC, 2015). His job was to open up the debate Leftwards, to ensure that all voices were heard and that the 'electable' candidates had to work hard for the position.

Yet the campaign has been turned on its head by his entry. Endorsements from the trade unions and a popular anti-austerity following have put Corbyn in a strong position. It is now a very ready possibility that he could, in fact, win the leadership election.

That possibility has turned the race for the leadership into a showdown between Old Labour and New Labour, each with their own rival visions of the Left. Old Labour on the one side offering idealistic solutions, so acting as the national destination for those disenchanted with New Labour, on the other side, offering their pragmatic, 'modernising', solutions. (Jones, 2015)

The trouble is that neither side is being particularly radical. Corbyn's stances belong largely to the old Left, though hardly the hard Left (Krugman, 2015), and focus on a more structured and permanent society than the one that is unfolding at present (Harris, 2015) - that is: trade unions, nationalisation and a centralised state engaged in public spending and public ownership.

On the other side, fairly or unfairly, New Labour has been seen as a surrender to Centre-Right political thought. They are seen as a negative force that is too quick to shut down idealism (Watt, 2015; Watt, 2015{2}). They are, perhaps, too cosy with big business and too afraid of public opinion (Martin, 2015), to say anything distinct, other than to maintain a determination to make everything pass through a heavily centralised state.

But society is fragmenting. Democratic politics can seemingly no longer rely on mass support, marching under one big tent banner, that supports a singular centralised state, where power is wielded by the lofty party elite.

Historically, liberals and democrats stood, as progressives, opposed to the forces of conservatism that defended the traditional, elitist, order. Liberals stood in the name of the individual, democrats in the name of the people, or of the community.

As conservatism has, ironically perhaps, evolved in order to survive, it has taken on the cast offs from democrats and liberals as they have moved leftwards. From liberals it has embraced classical liberal laissez-faire economics. From democrats it has taken advantage of populism and nationalism.

All of these elements were once used as a means to rally people against the old elite. Themes that would as unifying rallying points, that could be used to transcend the particular concerns of particular individuals or communities.

But society has moved on once more. Rather than one community united by a singular narrative of economic class, there are dozens, hundreds, of communities with their own narratives - feminist, environmental, civil rights, trade unionist - who do not believe that their cause should be secondary.

Likewise individualism has moved forward. Individuals now support many causes, shifting between them or associated freely with several at once. There is a demand, not just for choice, but also for autonomy and the devolution and decentralisation of power.

These new, fragmented forms of democratic and liberal politics require new forms of solidarity - new ideas that the old approach of the mass party using the power of state to fend of the power of corporations and aristocrats is not set up to provide.

The big question facing Labour is how it can give a community response to a country that has seen community, in all of the traditional senses, collapse? Democracy and socialism speaks of people as fundamentally based on and in communities, based on the importance of ideas like your home town, your social class and your trade. But all of these are breaking down. Permanence is disappearing and with it the conventional anchors for these traditional communities.

How does a Labour party respond to social change that has so undone its means of rallying, organising and leading?

The starting point has be in addressing the fact that Labour's view, of the people as workers, with the state as their protector, redistributor and benefactor, seems to have broken down. That system needs to rebuilt on new themes.

That themes need to encompass Labour commitment to a democratic identity, a community focus and the pursuit of justice on these terms. But it also needs build in both the pursuit of progress and the allowance for alliances and fragmentation. Labour can be a coordinator, not just a director.

The radical new horizons on the Left for democratic socialists mean an inclusive attitudes towards the new and emerging political movements which have begun to get their days in the sun, at least in glimpses. From trade unions, to environmentalists, feminists and the civil rights advocates movement, there are numerous sectional interest groups, all pursuing their own agendas.

Yet unlike conservative sectionalism, it can't be about one group asserting its dominance over the others. Labour has to learn that progress will be, ultimately, about individuals and communities cooperating - breaking down the old powers and supporting the dispersal of it widely across society.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign is already generating success (Milne, 2015), with Andy Burnham now openly advocating a gradual renationalisation of the railways (Perraudin, 2015). But it won't be enough to call upon the old centralising powers of party and state if they continue to alienate, suppress or exclude diverse movements.

More nuanced answers are needed to the complex issues of a contemporary society that is fragmented, becoming ever more temporary and fleeting. Calling upon the state, public ownership and trade unions to have a renewed role is not a bad thing. But people do need to know how those institutions can face the challenge of an ever more fragmented and decentralised society.

It is imperative that Corbyn's campaign addresses the matter of how he intends to turn these old Left mechanisms from yesterday into the inclusive, power-devolving, radical Left solutions of tomorrow.

The Fantastic Four reboot would be the perfect opportunity to put Susan Storm front and centre as a much needed female lead

The New Fantastic Four. Photograph: Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B. Jordan & Jamie Bell by Gage Skidmore via photopin (license) (cropped)

This article contains spoilers for a number of major comic book story arcs...

Trailers released for Fox's reboot of the Fantastic Four seem to suggest that the new film will stay pretty much true to its previous iteration. It appears that Reed Richards will once more be the heroic protagonist and Susan Storm will again be the love interest.

If that's the case, it will be hard to see the film as anything other than a missed opportunity. At a time when anti-hero jerks are all the rage and when there is a real clamour for female led movies - particularly comic book movies - it feels like a chance missed to revitalise the Fantastic Four. Why not embrace Reed's more difficult persona and make Susan the relatable lead?

In Fox's previous iteration of the Fantastic Four, Reed Richards was made into a kind of lovable nerd, filled with childish enthusiasm for science - and even possessed of a sense of humour. He was obsessive, but not nearly to the destructive levels of the comic books.

This seems to be the result of trying to make Reed Richards the focal point of a Hollywood movie, which appears to invariably demand that the character be made 'accessible' and 'relatable' to the audience. That tends to translate to screen as a male character, exceptional in some way, who despite flaws can be redeemed - much like Wolverine, who Fox put front and centre of the X-Men, making him much less of the violent jerk he is in the comics.

The Reed Richards of the Marvel Comics is, however, a much more detached and obsessive figure. He ignores his wife and children to a significant degree, he can be brash and arrogant, and his utilitarian 'greater good' philosophical approach can take him to some very dark places. In fact, in the mainstream continuity, many of the Reeds on alternate Earths have become supervillains. In the Ultimate Marvel continuity, Reed Richards was written to become an outright supervillain - and one the most dangerous.

Even within the mainstream continuity, it can sometimes be hard to see Reed as anything less than a villain. During the Civil War arc, soon to be translated to screen by Marvel as Captain American: Civil War, Richards creates a murderous android that murders one of his oldest friends, his methods alienate him from his friends and even his wife, and he accepts all of it as willing sacrifices, on his part, for the creation of a better world.

Hollywood clearly has trouble with these kinds of complicated heroic characters. But there are tried and tested ways of making the most out of these characters that can be learned from TV. Two of the most memorable are Gregory House, MD, and Sherlock Holmes. Both of these arrogant, difficult and aloof TV characters are central to their respective shows. But they are offset by much more relatable characters, using different approaches.

NBC's House is written with the eponymous character as the one viewers follow. Yet the writers refrain from trying to humanise him. That job is left to the expectations of the viewer, which are frequently disappointed. He is surrounded by much more human, much more relatable characters, that give him frequent opportunities to rise above his mean, cynical and selfish attitudes. Yet he rarely does.

BBC's Sherlock lets the titular character step back, becoming - like the original Conan Doyle character - the subject of the story, rather than the protagonist. For that role, there is Dr John Watson. John is the viewer's window on the world and the filter by which Sherlock's action are interpreted and grounded. This dynamic allows the writers to pen Sherlock in a way that is unrestrained - allowing him to be a full blown sociopath and jerk.

For the Fantastic Four, there is the possibility of following either of these approaches, or combining them. Reed could still be the subject of the story, but there are ready made possibilities that would allow the writers to make someone else the protagonist, through whose eyes viewers see events unfold. That role could go to Susan Storm.

At a time when there is a significant dearth of female superheroes as leading stars on the big screen, Susan Storm is perfect. At her best she is a leader, a scientist, and the most powerful of the Fantastic Four - with powers on a scale that make her, maybe, amongst the most powerful superheroes.

She combines being a mother with being a hero, and is the voice for ethics and compassion, as a foil to the much sterner and colder Reed. In the Civil War arc she is dynamic, an active participant to who rejects her husband Reed Richard's methods. She saves, and later joins, Captain America's rebels from the destructive violence of Reed's murderous android.

Susan Storm also represents somewhat the journey of women on the big screen. She began as as a crudely sexist stereotype, the Invisible Girl - a passive character who was weak, almost, token powers - who was the attractive obsession of male villains and would regularly need saving.

Yet over time she took on more active abilities and a more active role. In the Ultimate continuity, she was promoted to being, herself, an accomplished scientist.

Reducing Susan Storm, a female character who would be a compelling lead in her own right, back to being the pretty love interest for the heroic scientific genius Reed Richards would be a crude and regressive step, not unlike that taken by the characters written for Jurassic World compared to its much more feminist predecessor.

Rebooting a film franchise is an opportunity to do bold new things. The new movie has already taken the positive step of changing up the ethnicity of Franklin and Johnny Storm, increasing representation. Taking the opportunity to give Susan Storm, the female lead, a story arc that makes her more than just a damsel or a prize would be the next big step. A big part of that would be to embrace a darker and more complicated Reed Richards, rather than attempting to shoehorn him into a conventional male hero role - with all of the typical resulting affects that has upon the roles of secondary characters, particularly when they're women.

Jurassic Park is still the king of the dinosaur movies as Jurassic World fails to match its strong feminist overtones

Photograph: IMG_4881 via photopin (license) (cropped)

Jurassic World always faced a gigantic task in trying to emulate the screen success of its predecessor. Jurassic Park was a groundbreaking movie. The clever classic threw maths and science, an appreciation for nature, botany and ecology, and palaeontology at a popular audience, and fully trusted them to be excited and inspired.

The male lead Alan Grant was a grumpy and unsociable Dinosaur expert. Dr Malcolm, the 'cool' character, was a mathematician and the unorthodox voice of reason. John Hammond, the park's creator and 'villain' such as there was one, was a likeable, charismatic and ultimately very human, billionaire philanthropist.

The Dinosaurs were not monsters but animals, which inspired a gleeful awe from the protagonists. The antagonists were neither the Dinosaurs nor the limited number of 'villains' - who amounted to nothing more than wild animals or flawed humans, respectively - but rather human hubris before nature and the creeping abstract concept of chaos.

But above all else, Jurassic Park gave us a pair of strong female characters: Dr Ellie Sattler and Lex.

Lex, Hammond's granddaughter, doesn't let being a frightened child reduce her to a mere passenger. She faces her fears to outwit predatory dinosaurs and protect her brother. Then she uses her own technical skills, as a self-designated hacker, to proactively help get the park's security systems back online.

Dr Ellie Sattler, meanwhile, was the female lead and an expert in her own right, a palaeobotanist who took immediate command of the situation when she encountered a sick Triceratops. With intelligence and dry humour, she openly and unashamedly calls out sexism on at least two occasions while being unapologetically maternal in wanting children. She is also the one to call out the quixotic philanthropist Hammond on his delusions, showing her growth from being 'overwhelmed' by the marvellous dinosaur island to being frightened but resolved. She acts on her own initiative in emergency situations and is strong and dependable.

Then, we have Jurassic World. In comparison, it was just a monster movie. A dumb but entertaining movie that falls well short of its predecessor's high standard. Worse, however, it has been derided as openly sexist (Shoard, 2015; Battersby, 2015).

The core of the problem is centred on how the female lead is treated. She is a stereotype of a woman made 'unnaturally' cold by being out of her 'natural' element, who warms up by being exposed a strong male and the need to nurture and protect children (Fitzpatrick, 2015). Even being allowed a couple of instances of action movie heroics do little to redeem her from the painful stereotype. She's a smart professional who still gets ordered around by men and ignores expert advice; she's capable and informed but behaves with astonishing naivety; and makes some absurd choices, including remaining in breakneck heels in dangerous situations.

All of this, and some of the other rather bizarre plot choices, tend to overshadow what could have been a fascinating renewal of the message of the original movie. Jurassic Park was all about chaos emerging from order, as small events escalate beyond the human capacity for control (Oltermann, 2015). Somewhere in Jurassic World are messages about our short attention spanned consumerism and a very timely reminder of how easily our human constructed structures can be undermined - but it all got lost or buried along the way.

The biggest and most mystifying question is how Jurassic World, made twenty-two years after Jurassic Park, managed to be so much less progressive than the original. It was an entertaining but ultimately problematic movie that failed to break any new ground and so, in the end, will be largely forgetten. Even over twenty years later, the original Jurassic Park will still be the one viewers reach for a smart and entertaining movie.

Gender Inequality, Laissez-faire and Positive Action

Last week, in the run-up to International Women's Day, there were efforts made in Germany to tackle inequality between the genders in the workplace. While a new law was passed for gender quotas to be introduced to the boardrooms of large companies (The Guardian, 2015), there was still ongoing resistance to legislation aimed at exposing, and ultimately undoing, gender inequalities in pay (Osborne, 2015).

The fact that these moves are necessary in a wealthy and developed country like Germany - or in the UK where the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for similar moves for some time, particularly in the face of a failure of the Conservative 'voluntary' reporting system (Wintour, 2015) - highlights the scale of the problem. Quotas, in turn, represent the practical response to the continuing inequality (Saul, 2015).

And yet, resistance remains to levelling the playing field. There is an insistence in the Western world upon trusting in laissez-faire - removing the obvious formal institutional obstacles and letting the world right itself. That attitude is not helped much by gender quotas being considered an imperfect solution (White, 2015).

However, the world is uncomfortably unequal. In the face of plain unfairness, the simplistic, and false, answer to the struggles of others is victim-blaming (Burkeman, 2015). There is a determination, witnessed in the wider struggle against inequality, to shift the responsibility for unfairness from the established order and those who benefit, and to turn it into blame to be placed on those who aren't succeeding (Seabrook, 2014).

The facts are pretty clear: matters can't just be left to right themselves (Topping, 2015). It was true for the poverty and desperation in Victorian England that led to the collapse of the old Laissez-faire economics, and made way for the gradual rise of social insurance, pensions, welfare and the public healthcare. It is true now tackling gender inequality. The world needs a helping hand to combat problematic institutional biases (Dudman, 2015).

The feminist rallying-calls of public figures like Emma Watson is a reminder of how to tackle these great challenges (HeForShe, 2015): positive thought and positive action, in the pursuit of progress.

In the pursuit of social progress, the old ways of thinking have to change. The 'let alone' attitude is not good enough, particularly when the solutions of negative liberty - simply keeping people free from outside interference - don't, and can't, bring meaningful equality of opportunity, or offer the people the path to the better, and more fair, lives they want.

There is a pressing need to demand a more positive liberty. Affirmative action, in this sense, is about acting to make the principals of fairness in a free society a fact. That burning heart of feminism, is the same one that beats in the breast of all struggles for equality and fairness. Quotas may not be a perfect solution, but they are a positive and practical solution in a world that is imperfect and unfair.

Marvel finally includes a much needed female lead in their cinematic universe

The announcement of the upcoming movies planned for phase three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) contained a pleasant surprise (Brew, 2014). On the list was, at last, a female-led movie. The introduction of Captain Marvel to the MCU looks set to address the worrying lack of a female lead in Marvel's very successful movie-series (Kastrenakes, 2014).

Until now, rumours of a movie for Black Widow, portrayed in the MCU by Scarlett Johansson, had been little more than a demonstration of the extent of Marvel's dependence upon white male characters. That dependence is, however, hardly unique to Marvel. It has been shared by many a movie franchise, so much so that the success of female led films, such as Scarlett Johansson's Lucy, have resulted in expressions of wonder (Cunningham, 2014).

The Captain Marvel announcement comes then as a positive step, and follows moves made in the TV branch of Marvel's cinematic universe. On TV, with Agents of SHIELD, Marvel has at least featured a number of strong female characters very prominently. The cast has grown to become, gradually, more diverse across its first series, and now into the opening episodes of the second.

That direction is kept up by their upcoming series Agent Carter, starring the eponymous Agent Peggy Carter, played by Hayley Atwell. Carter had a significant role in Captain America: The First Avenger, and Atwell is resuming the role to head-up the MCU's second TV series.

Together, the two Marvel shows have done a good job of giving a good share of screen time, and a good share of character roles to female characters - putting women very prominently and visibly at the forefront. However, despite the critical praise for television in general that has brought increased exposure, TV still lacks quite the same high profile that movies enjoy - and the major money-making entertainment industry that it supports - and that supports it in turn.

In the entertainment industry, that seems very much to be the key. By proving that a major film production with a female lead can bring in big box office numbers, and therefore make large amounts of money, an important ceiling can be broken. That's what makes this announcement so important.

Captain Marvel, set for screens in 2018, will bring much needed exposure and visibility for lead female characters in a critically and popularly acclaimed movie universe. It is a chance to break through the myth that the only safe option for big budget films is a white male lead.

==========
References:
==========
+Simon Brew's 'Marvel unveils Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe'; on DenofGeek.com; 28 October 2014.

+ Jason Kastrenakes' '"Captain Marvel" will be Marvel Studios' first female superhero movie'; on The Verge; 28 October 2014.

+ Todd Cunningham's 'Why Scarlett Johansson's ‘Lucy’ Strikes Blow for Women With Kick-Butt Box Office'; for Yahoo Celebrity!/The Wrap; 28 July 2014.

+ Josh Dickey's 'Carol Danvers, Marvel's first female superhero, is also the most powerful'; on Mashable.com; 28 October 2014.

+ Dave Haglund's 'Stop Saying That TV Is Better Than Movies These Days'; on Slate.com; 18 July 2013.

+ David Cox's '10 reasons today's movies trump TV'; in The Guardian; 21 October 2013.

+ Stuart Heritage's '10 reasons why today's TV is better than movies'; in The Guardian; 23 October 2014.

+ Joss Whedon's 'Marvel's Agents of SHIELD'; on ABC; 2013. [Buy Now]

+ Joe Johnston's 'Captain America: The First Avenger'; from Marvel; 2011. [Buy Now]

Fear poisons the democratic well and leaves us ripe for exploitation

Over the past few weeks and months there have been attempted armed assaults on elected officials in two Western countries (The Guardian, 2014; Roberts, 2014); there has been war, kidnap and murder in the Middle East (Swinford, 2014); a deadly disease has posed a threat to three continents (BBC, 2014); and crude and aggressive attempts are being made to stop women from speaking up for their rights (Hern, 2014). All of these events have one thing in common: Fear.

In the UK, from welfare to migration (Wintour, 2014; The Guardian, 2013), fear has started to play too large a part in the political arena, much too often. A rash of issues have been blown up into alarmist struggles, with the disproportionate and scary language used feeding the negative emotions that complicate and confuse matters (Jenkins, 2014).

The US has faired little better. The arrival of the Ebola virus has sparked all sorts of animated and colourful reactions from conservative commentators (Younge, 2014). The fear these events spark upset the order of people's lives, destabilise the things that they depend upon, and that makes them feel vulnerable and afraid, and that fear can lead to escalation (The Guardian, 2013).

Fear, either as a result of fear-mongering or ignorance, is potentially extremely powerful. It can be a potent mover of public opinion, but it does so only by poisoning the popular democratic environment. It poisons debate, it drowns out reason in a howl of noise, and it corrupts our ideals. When that happens, our liberty is at stake. It is a dark road down which we travel when we let fear, and our frightened reactions, override our reason.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the much maligned Florentine political philosopher, gave us an insight into the power that fear, when we let it control us, gives to those who might exploit it:

'And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant... For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.'

That cynical view on how the fears of the people may be exploited serve us now as a warning. During the good times, when people have freedom, and their lives have some measure of stability and security, it is easier for them to think clearly and make good decisions. But when their world is upset, they feel vulnerable and so close ranks.

Fear, whether it is of change, violence, chaos or punishment, can be used to control us, or to steer us towards extreme solutions. As we retreat to familiar ground, shut out others and become less tolerant, we give life to extreme solutions. Our fears present a potentially profitable exploit to others willing to react to the situation and give us a sense of security.

However, as reactionaries offer us the extreme solutions that we, in our fear, desire, they only affirm those fears and exacerbate them (The Guardian, 2013). Fear and reaction can this way become a vicious cycle, each causing the other in turn to escalate.

We need to find a way to be calm, to be considered and thoughtful, as we take important decisions. When the world is at its worst is the time when cherished values like kindness, hope and generosity are needed the most. The answer to violence and danger, to exploitation and fear, is not to retreat into narrow tribal groups. Instead we need to find more friendship, and more support for our most cherished values, amongst more people and across many and more diverse cultures.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the terror attacks in Ottawa: hold fast to tolerance and diversity'; 23 October 2014.

+ Dan Roberts' 'Armed intruder had penetrated farther into White House than admitted'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2014.

+ Steven Swinford's 'David Cameron breaks off holiday after 'British' jihadist beheads kidnapped journalist'; in The Telegraph; 20 August 2014.

+ BBC's 'Ebola: Mapping the outbreak'; 22 October 2014.

+ Alex Hern's 'Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears'; in The Guardian; 23 October 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Welfare state presides over 'culture of fear', charities say'; in The Guardian; 18 February 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'Migration: politics of fear'; 30 December 2013.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'Downing Street’s Ebola panic is a classic case of the politics of fear'; in The Guardian; 17 October 2014.

+ Gary Younge's 'Ebola has exposed America's fear, and Barack Obama's vulnerability'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince'; from Chapter XVII; 1513. [Buy Now]

Doctor Who and the patronising, paternalistic, patriarchy

The past two episodes of Doctor Who, The Caretaker and Kill the Moon, have seen the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion Clara shift towards something a lot more paternal, and uncomfortably more patronising.

Clara began the season as the responsible adult and carer to the Doctor's increasingly alien psychopathic detachment. But the most recent episodes have seen her caught between two very paternalistic, patriarchal male figures, against whom it felt like Clara deserved to put up a greater resistance. She was, after all, once the commander of some Space Romans and said no to their Emperor, and even resisted conversion into a Dalek.

From being a strong counterpoint to the Doctor, she was flipped into uncertainty, and was somewhat patronised, as she found herself caught between the Doctor and her new boyfriend, former soldier now maths teacher, Danny Pink.

It would not be the first time that the show has been paternal and patriarchal towards female characters. That has, historically, been the result of women being written by men for men, in a less culturally aware past. There have been amongst those many strong female characters, even though they usually existed within a (very) male framework (and gaze).

But right now there is a need for more strong female characters, written for women, as visible role models. Women who can show the full and complex range of human emotions, and be strong for it, while being resolute and kind, heroic and compassionate in the face of danger.

In this latest episode, Clara's angry response to the Doctor's patronising attitude was a positive move - even if it was not necessarily helpful to follow that with this strong female character being encouraged, rather patronisingly, to calm down and act when less emotional, by her former soldier boyfriend. It did take a little of the sting out of the moment.

These latest changes in the character dynamic could all, of course, easily be part of an arc - either for Clara, or for the Doctor, particularly regarding his manipulative, sometimes quite patronising, heroism. It is too early in the series to draw any conclusions.

It would be great to think that we are in the middle of a really meaningful arc for the show, in which a lot of the old sexisms can be drawn out, critiqued and then hopefully discarded. We will have to wait and see.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'The Caretaker'; Series 8; on the BBC; 27 September 2014.

+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'Kill the Moon'; Series 8; on the BBC; 4 October 2014.

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Asylum of the Daleks'; Series 7 Part 1; on the BBC; 1 September 2012.
[Buy Now]

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Nightmare in Silver'; Series 7 Part 2; on the BBC; 11 May 2013. [Buy Now]