<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for atomickarma</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.atomickarma.co.uk</link>
	<description>Thoughts, musings and updates</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Commentary to Controversy by SK</title>
		<link>http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/2010/01/commentary-to-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>SK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/?p=10#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Coming rather late to this party,  but I did just want to say thanks for this explanation. 

As an old skool female Who fan, it didn't even occur to me that you were using "fangirls" there in the derogatory (and, yes, misogynistic) sense of calling men who act weak or silly "girls." I had assumed that you were genuinely referring to the (much larger now than it was back in The Proverbial Day) female sector of the fandom. Since I'd been seeing both men and women expressing resistance to Matt Smith's incoming tenure as the Doctor in roughly equal proportion, I did find it rather annoying that you seemed to be identifying it as a primarily female response -- not only because it seemed somewhat sexist, but also because I thought it *wildly* inaccurate. Your explanation, while hardly reassuring on the sexism front, at least makes the title make more sense!

One of the more interesting effects of the growth of the internet, in my opinion, has been its role as a catalyst in forcing people to realize just how problematic or parochial our language choices can sometimes be. It's certainly happened to me. It's good for us, really, if sometimes rather painful. Apology accepted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coming rather late to this party,  but I did just want to say thanks for this explanation. </p>
<p>As an old skool female Who fan, it didn&#8217;t even occur to me that you were using &#8220;fangirls&#8221; there in the derogatory (and, yes, misogynistic) sense of calling men who act weak or silly &#8220;girls.&#8221; I had assumed that you were genuinely referring to the (much larger now than it was back in The Proverbial Day) female sector of the fandom. Since I&#8217;d been seeing both men and women expressing resistance to Matt Smith&#8217;s incoming tenure as the Doctor in roughly equal proportion, I did find it rather annoying that you seemed to be identifying it as a primarily female response &#8212; not only because it seemed somewhat sexist, but also because I thought it *wildly* inaccurate. Your explanation, while hardly reassuring on the sexism front, at least makes the title make more sense!</p>
<p>One of the more interesting effects of the growth of the internet, in my opinion, has been its role as a catalyst in forcing people to realize just how problematic or parochial our language choices can sometimes be. It&#8217;s certainly happened to me. It&#8217;s good for us, really, if sometimes rather painful. Apology accepted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Commentary to Controversy by nel</title>
		<link>http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/2010/01/commentary-to-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>nel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/?p=10#comment-24</guid>
		<description>well. Was so annoyed at the title that i was just about to post something about it on twitter when i saw your mea culpa here. However, the current title isn't really any better, especially since for me at least it's the "get over it" part, not the fangirl part that pisses me off.
I can understand some Who fans may feel Matt Smith isn't being given a chance, and i agree there are immature annoying fangirls, but i believe they are in the minority.

what i don't understand are the folks who don't get that it's possible to be upset over and mourning the departure of Tennant's Dr. while also 1) still being a fan of DW and 2) looking forward to seeing what the new season will hold. Humans are complex; emotions aren't always black and white. ;) 

And your article also makes it seem like fans have been weeping for years, which is really disingenuous. you state that it's been over a year since Tennant's departure was announced so get over it already. Um, there's a big difference between Tennant announcing his departure and then actually seeing that very emotional departure fulfilled on screen, and that happened less than a month ago, even less from your article date.

look, i've been a fan of your site for a while, which was one reason why the article annoyed me, plus i can't stand the "you're not a true fan if " arguments that tend to erupt in all sorts of fandoms but scifi in particular. But your current article title just makes the site seem as immature as the fangirls you're railing against. 

any actor who followed Tennant was going to have his work cut out for him. I've never seen an actor and a role so well-matched as Tennant and the Dr., and by your own admission he did a brilliant job and millions of people feel the same.  it's a simple fact that many many people will be mourning Tennant for some time...while also enjoying the new series. believe it or not it can be done. but telling people to "get over it"? that's not helping one bit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well. Was so annoyed at the title that i was just about to post something about it on twitter when i saw your mea culpa here. However, the current title isn&#8217;t really any better, especially since for me at least it&#8217;s the &#8220;get over it&#8221; part, not the fangirl part that pisses me off.<br />
I can understand some Who fans may feel Matt Smith isn&#8217;t being given a chance, and i agree there are immature annoying fangirls, but i believe they are in the minority.</p>
<p>what i don&#8217;t understand are the folks who don&#8217;t get that it&#8217;s possible to be upset over and mourning the departure of Tennant&#8217;s Dr. while also 1) still being a fan of DW and 2) looking forward to seeing what the new season will hold. Humans are complex; emotions aren&#8217;t always black and white. <img src='http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>And your article also makes it seem like fans have been weeping for years, which is really disingenuous. you state that it&#8217;s been over a year since Tennant&#8217;s departure was announced so get over it already. Um, there&#8217;s a big difference between Tennant announcing his departure and then actually seeing that very emotional departure fulfilled on screen, and that happened less than a month ago, even less from your article date.</p>
<p>look, i&#8217;ve been a fan of your site for a while, which was one reason why the article annoyed me, plus i can&#8217;t stand the &#8220;you&#8217;re not a true fan if &#8221; arguments that tend to erupt in all sorts of fandoms but scifi in particular. But your current article title just makes the site seem as immature as the fangirls you&#8217;re railing against. </p>
<p>any actor who followed Tennant was going to have his work cut out for him. I&#8217;ve never seen an actor and a role so well-matched as Tennant and the Dr., and by your own admission he did a brilliant job and millions of people feel the same.  it&#8217;s a simple fact that many many people will be mourning Tennant for some time&#8230;while also enjoying the new series. believe it or not it can be done. but telling people to &#8220;get over it&#8221;? that&#8217;s not helping one bit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Commentary to Controversy by Sabrina</title>
		<link>http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/2010/01/commentary-to-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Sabrina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/?p=10#comment-22</guid>
		<description>I've not read the article, but I did hear about and and rolled my eyes at the title. You did well in changing it to remove the sexism, but the title you've left isn't all that great either. Trashing Matt Smith is not good and is reprehensible, but fans are allowed to be upset by the Tenth Doctor leaving and telling them to "get over it" isn't helping anyone. People can be upset but still feel goodwill towards Matt Smith and end up as his most enthusiastic supporters. It just takes time. 
And really, the reason any person may have to watch a show is their own prerogative. I'm sure Matt Smith and the new series will be a treat for fans of the show as a whole, but if David Tennant was the major draw for someone, and they won't watch Doctor Who anymore without him, that's their decision. Better than watching a show they don't enjoy and ragging on about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve not read the article, but I did hear about and and rolled my eyes at the title. You did well in changing it to remove the sexism, but the title you&#8217;ve left isn&#8217;t all that great either. Trashing Matt Smith is not good and is reprehensible, but fans are allowed to be upset by the Tenth Doctor leaving and telling them to &#8220;get over it&#8221; isn&#8217;t helping anyone. People can be upset but still feel goodwill towards Matt Smith and end up as his most enthusiastic supporters. It just takes time.<br />
And really, the reason any person may have to watch a show is their own prerogative. I&#8217;m sure Matt Smith and the new series will be a treat for fans of the show as a whole, but if David Tennant was the major draw for someone, and they won&#8217;t watch Doctor Who anymore without him, that&#8217;s their decision. Better than watching a show they don&#8217;t enjoy and ragging on about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Commentary to Controversy by Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/2010/01/commentary-to-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/?p=10#comment-20</guid>
		<description>I read the article without knowing of the controversy. Probably a good call to change it because the anti-Smith behavior seems to be coming from both sides of the DNA pond. Otherwise, though, your article was indeed bang-on accurate. The only thing I'd add to it is the fact that this is also a replay of the Daniel Craig situation when he was cast as Bond. At least I haven't seen any "Mattsmithnotdoctor" websites yet.

Matt Smith is entering during a difficult period in SF fandom (if not society in general) where it seems to many people's behavior has only 2 settings: utter apathy and complete over-the-top psychosis. Back in 2005 you had people grumble about Tennant - and Daniel Craig - but they got over it fairly quickly and moved on. Now you have so-called fans shouting from the rooftops that they'll never watch Doctor Who again, on the basis of 30 seconds of Matt Smith. It's insane. Couple that with the fear and loathing about a possible US Torchwood, and much as I don't want to think about it, Doctor Who could be entering its most danger period (in terms of survival) since Michael Grade put Colin Baker in the penalty box for 18 months back in 1985.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read the article without knowing of the controversy. Probably a good call to change it because the anti-Smith behavior seems to be coming from both sides of the DNA pond. Otherwise, though, your article was indeed bang-on accurate. The only thing I&#8217;d add to it is the fact that this is also a replay of the Daniel Craig situation when he was cast as Bond. At least I haven&#8217;t seen any &#8220;Mattsmithnotdoctor&#8221; websites yet.</p>
<p>Matt Smith is entering during a difficult period in SF fandom (if not society in general) where it seems to many people&#8217;s behavior has only 2 settings: utter apathy and complete over-the-top psychosis. Back in 2005 you had people grumble about Tennant - and Daniel Craig - but they got over it fairly quickly and moved on. Now you have so-called fans shouting from the rooftops that they&#8217;ll never watch Doctor Who again, on the basis of 30 seconds of Matt Smith. It&#8217;s insane. Couple that with the fear and loathing about a possible US Torchwood, and much as I don&#8217;t want to think about it, Doctor Who could be entering its most danger period (in terms of survival) since Michael Grade put Colin Baker in the penalty box for 18 months back in 1985.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Commentary to Controversy by &#187; Get Over it!</title>
		<link>http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/2010/01/commentary-to-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Get Over it!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.atomickarma.co.uk/?p=10#comment-19</guid>
		<description>[...] Commentary [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Commentary [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
