“The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe,” a Doctor Who Christmas special, often evokes a sense of festive warmth and whimsical adventure. However, beneath the surface of holiday cheer and wartime sentimentality lies a narrative that warrants closer examination, particularly regarding its portrayal of gender roles. While celebrating motherhood is a valid thematic choice, the episode veers into territory that promotes a strikingly gender-essentialist viewpoint, one that clashes with the progressive spirit often associated with Doctor Who. This analysis delves into the episode’s depiction of gender, arguing that it presents a reductive view of biological gender roles as deterministic and universally applicable, a perspective that feels both outdated and fundamentally at odds with the show’s core message of freedom and individuality.
The Assertion of Biological Determinism
The most significant point of contention arises from the episode’s seemingly unwavering belief in biological determinism. The narrative doesn’t just celebrate motherhood; it elevates it to “the base code of nature itself,” implying a universal and inescapable truth that dictates the roles and capabilities of individuals based on their biological sex. This perspective becomes problematic when it suggests that all of humanity must conform to this narrow definition, effectively diminishing individual autonomy and freedom of choice. Such a rigid framework leaves little room for diverse experiences and personal identities, contradicting the very essence of a show that has historically championed embracing the alien, the different, and the unconventional.
This essentialist view is further reinforced through the character of Madge Arwell. While presented as a strong and resourceful figure, her strength is consistently linked to her maternal role. Her identity is almost entirely defined by being “a woman” and “a mother.” This characterization, while seemingly intended to be empowering, risks reinforcing stereotypes rather than subverting them. The humor derived from her supposed inability to drive, framed as a quaint 1940s trope, further underscores this reliance on outdated gender clichés. Even her grief and pining for her deceased husband are presented through the lens of her maternal identity, as she is deemed compatible with the “Forest of Pine” precisely because she embodies “A Mother” and they are a “Forest of Pine”—a symbolic coupling based on essentialized notions of femininity and nature.
Echoes of Problematic Themes in Moffat’s Doctor Who
This episode’s gender politics are not entirely isolated but rather reflect recurring themes within Steven Moffat’s era of Doctor Who. A broader critique of Moffat’s writing suggests a tendency to impose a specific worldview, often rooted in his personal experiences, onto the expansive universe of Doctor Who. Instead of promoting self-discovery and liberation from societal constraints, some narratives under his pen appear to preach a singular “right way of life,” inadvertently suggesting that those who deviate are somehow lacking or misguided.
This tendency manifests in various forms throughout Moffat’s tenure. The recurring trope of boys needing to “discover girls,” the often-conflated portrayal of sexuality as both titillating and shameful, and the normalization of women-on-men violence as comedic or corrective all contribute to a sense of a limited and sometimes problematic perspective being imposed on the Doctor Who narrative. The assertion that “women’s role” is to “bring man-children to heel” and the humorous treatment of female aggression in certain episodes (“Listen” being a notable example) stand in stark contrast to the more progressive and inclusive messages that the series had historically conveyed.
A Glimmer of Nuance, Overshadowed by Determinism
While “The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe” is largely criticized for its gender essentialism, there are hints of attempts to move beyond rigid stereotypes. Madge, for instance, is depicted as independent and separated from her husband for much of the narrative, suggesting a departure from the traditional nuclear family model. This separation, however, is ultimately framed within the context of her pining wife and mother roles, diluting the potential for a truly independent portrayal.
Furthermore, the episode’s emphasis on motherhood might be interpreted as an attempt to celebrate a traditionally undervalued role. However, this celebration becomes problematic when it morphs into a totalizing binary gender determinism, undermining other potentially more progressive elements within the same season. The earlier exploration of fathers as capable parents is arguably diminished by the episode’s portrayal of fathers as inherently “weak” and mothers as the only ones capable of “doing it properly.” This overcompensation, perhaps stemming from a realization that earlier attempts at depicting motherhood were mishandled, ultimately reinforces rather than resolves the issue of gender stereotyping.
Conclusion: Reconciling Celebration with Inclusivity
“The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe” presents a complex case study in the portrayal of gender within Doctor Who. While intended as a heartwarming Christmas special celebrating motherhood and resilience, the episode’s underlying message veers into gender essentialism, promoting a deterministic view of biological sex that feels restrictive and outdated. While there are glimpses of nuance and attempts to broaden the portrayal of women, these are largely overshadowed by the episode’s overarching commitment to a binary and biologically defined understanding of gender roles. Ultimately, the episode serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned celebrations can inadvertently reinforce limiting stereotypes when they fail to fully embrace the diversity and fluidity of human identity, a principle that lies at the very heart of Doctor Who’s enduring appeal.
