Women in Doctor Who

What I don't understand in some of these arguments is why being married is seen as such a weakness? It seems that some of the writers will just never win. If they write a character as wanting to settle down or as slightly subserviant then they are being sexist, but in reality some women just want to settle down. Just as some want to be subserviant, some want to be single, some want to sleep with different people every night, some want to be lawyers, some want to be hookers and some want to grow into old spinsters. Being single and independent does not equate to being strong or less subserviant. Rose, as an example, started out as a selfish teenager who wanted a bit of adventure. She fell in love with a man and her priorities changed. That happens in real life. A lot. Martha on the other hand had a love at first site story but because of it grew stronger and more independent and yet still settled into married life while at the same time retaining her want for adventure and battle. She was just as brilliant a person before being married and wasn't hindered because of it. It's not an either/or situation. Being married/paired up doesnt have to be seen as a way to fulfil a character but instead could be what happens because a character is otherwise fulfilled and content enough to be ready to settle down.

Amy Pond seems to get a lot of stick for marrying Rory and throwing herself at the Doctor. She doesn't marry Rory to better herself or complete herself. She does it because she loves him. Its not the most conventional love, but she has no obligation to him and is very much strong enough to tell him if she didnt want to. That isnt a weakness of either the character or the writers. The writers are criticized for making her unlikeable, shouty, emotionally up and down, impulsive etc with people saying how bad the writing of her character is, but some people are all of those things and just aren't that likeable. It may not be a characterisation that everyone loves, but it is a real characterisation nonetheless.

As for River I think most of the stick aimed at her makes no sense at all. People judge the character and say she isnt realistic or they hate that she knows too much etc, but that's like watching the ending of a movie and saying you hate it without having watched all the plots and stories that lead to the conclusion. Nobody at all in fandom knows who she is or why she is the way she is, the events of her arc that lead to the 3 stories we have seen her in or what her relationship to the Doctor is, but yet without knowing all that so many people are doing the 'I hate River' speech and threatening not to tune in to the show because of it. If we knew her complete story like we do of Rose or Donna or other characters then I could see, understand and even agree with peoples arguments about her but at the moment we know nothing and it still seems to get people throwing their toys out of the pram instead of just waiting to see how it plays out. River's could be the best story any of us have ever seen, but the impatience of people not liking the conlusion of her story without even knowing the origins of it and fully understand who she is and why she is that way has lead to a lot of bashing of the character. Its the equivolent of only watching the last scene of Last Of The Time Lords and saying Martha is a selfish **** who abandoned the Doctor because she couldnt get her own way. A valid argument if that is all you are willing to see, but completely off course when you look at the bigger picture. The same goes for River, it's just that it is over a longer period of time. We really don't know what kind of woman she is, only the type of woman she chooses to put herself across as as the Doctor, and we, learn her backstory