Unconscious sexism behind choice of new Doctor Who's companions

ONE of the few progressive reasons put forward to preserve Doctor Who's sex was that the old time-traveller is the nearest thing Britain has to a super-hero. Across the Atlantic boys are spoon-fed a diet of self-righteous vigilantes wreaking havoc in pursuit of revenge. The message presumably being that might is right and violence solves every problem (which may have something to do with the appalling levels of violence in American society). But Doc Who is a gentle intellectual – albeit with a dark side that has been more explored by some actors than others – so now British boys have no alternative view of "manliness" to that of the solipsistic fascists over the pond. There is something to be said for this objection to Jodie Whittaker getting the part ("Doctor returns as female ... but lacking the eccentricity factor", The Herald, October 8).

My objection, however, is in the writers' choice of her companions. While Ms Whittaker charmed me with her blend of girl-next-door playfulness and laser-like intellect I couldn't help wondering why was it necessary to burden her with a surrogate family? Do the writers see a single woman who has no interest in children or domesticity as somehow weird or threatening? The usual Whovian trope is for the Time Lord to drop in – hook up with a companion – and pop off to the fourth dimension. Why has this format suddenly been abandoned? Could it be that the writers have a conservative aversion to Ms Whittaker being accompanied on her adventures in time and space by a male sidekick? It would be hard to avoid sexual tension between the characters and even harder to present the male companion in anything other than a subordinate role. Making her companion female, on the other hand, might raise the possibility of a lesbian subtext that they were equally uncomfortable with.