The Walking Dead, SGU, Voyager and women

[Joelist]

Hi all!

Reading the discussion on The Walking Dead got me thinking about an old topic we used to discuss when dissecting SGU. That topic is the depiction of women in Science Fiction TV. Some thoughts that have come to mind:

Like SGU, The Walking Dead defines its women characters by their romantic relationships. SGU did this really bad – Chloe only really existed to be Scott’s paramour. Likewise TJ was defined by her affair with Young and what little definition Wray had stemmed from her being a lesbian. None of them seemed to really exist as independent women in their own right.

On Walking Dead we see the same thing. Lori has only really been defined as a character in terms of her being Rick’s wife and/or Shane’s paramour. Maggie again is basically there to give Glenn a girlfriend as is Andrea for Shane.

To me, this is degrading to the characters. This is not to say romantic relationships aren’t important in people’s lives – in fact that relationship with the husband/wife/significant other can be the most important one a person has. But when you define characters in a script by those relationships they wind up having no depth - no real character qualities.
Now let’s contrast these shows with another Science Fiction TV show with women characters – Star Trek Voyager.

On Voyager, none of the women are defined by their romantic relationships and all are strong, independent people in their own right. Even Seven of Nine (whose catsuit is clearly eye candy) is a strongly written character and a very well done example of an “outsider” character that allows the viewer to see other characters from new angles. B’elanna is also well written with her inner conflicts that drive her and a mildly sarcastic personality that works well for the actress (Roxanne Dawson). And Janeway was superb (thank God they did not go with Genevieve Bujold like they were originally going to). Kate Mulgrew’s performance hit all the right keys and the character was complex (for example the lingering guilt over her decisions in the premiere) while still being every inch the Captain. She is my favorite Star Trek captain.

In fact, one can do a little thought exercise that shows this. For each of the SGU , Walking Dead and Voyager women characters, describe them so that someone else would be able to recognize them without mentioning their job title, physical characteristics or their romantic relationships/proclivities. For the Voyager women they all can be so described. For the SGU/TWD women one comes up blank.

Just my thinking out loud.

 

[Joelist]

Plus I thought it might be interesting for us to do some analysis of the "science fiction" shows we watch.

 

[Illiterati]

You make an excellent point.

As a woman writer, I prefer strong female characters to shrinking violets or the "F buddies" of shows like SGU. My female characters don't need a partner to "complete" them. (Screw you, Jerry Maguire!) They are fully realized people on their own.

Likewise, I do not like the trend toward pairing characters up in a show. I don't necessarily want to know about a character's private life when I'm interested in other parts of the story.

 

[shavedape]

The problem with TWD isn't just its treatment of women but its treatment of characters in general. T-Dog, the black guy, has had maybe one line of dialogue this entire season -- seriously. The male leads are horrible cliches' and cardboard cut outs of simplistic archetypes.

So it's no wonder for me that they treat the women characters so poorly because the writing in general is poor. And if I was a woman I'd be particularly insulted by the character of Lori, who is written as a scheming, evil, stupid, conniving whore even though she's supposed to be a nurturing mother. Sure she can be flawed but they write her so egregiously bad that she isn't sympathetic at all. Terrible writing, just terrible.

 

[Joelist]

Interesting point shaved - I expect you could take the little mind test I devised for the women and apply it to the male characters too - you would get virtually the same result. What it shows is whether or not a character is written with any depth or is your typical cardboard cutout.

 

[shavedape]

Interesting point shaved - I expect you could take the little mind test I devised for the women and apply it to the male characters too - you would get virtually the same result. What it shows is whether or not a character is written with any depth or is your typical cardboard cutout.

I do think SGU holds the prize for misogyinistic writing of female characters though. They way they wrote Lt. James shocked me it was so blatantly sexist. They actually wrote her as a Hooters type waitress in the wedding episode. Plus Chloe was written to be a brain dead whore. And TJ was written to be a submissive slave to her female passion for Col. Young. And of course Wray was written as the cliche, stereotypical "angry" lesbian.

The women of TWD while poorly written still aren't as collectively bad as the ones on SGU. Lori would be the exception of course as she's particularly horrible as characters go, and not in a "good" sort of way if you know what I mean. She isn't supposed to be the villian of the piece yet she's completely unlikable due to the horrible writing.

 

[Joelist]

I do agree; the SGU women were a misogyinistic fantasy.

What is interesting is running this little thought experiment on male and female characters of a lot of different shows as it is a sort of barometer of whether the character has any depth. Sometimes the results can be a little surprising.

For example, run this on all the Firefly characters and - no surprise - you can describe them even without the elements in the test. Hence they all have at least a little depth to them. On the other hand. I did this with Cassidy Yates from DS9 and she came up a blank. Samantha Carter from SG-1 passed but interestingly Dr. Keller in SGA did not - take away being a doctor and her romantic relationship with Rodney and she is very hard to describe.

Going to the TNG women, all passed. Someone who watches current shows such as Lost Girl and Being Human would have to try the experiment on those characters. A surprising to me fail was Painkiller Jane - while I did not like the show I had for some reason thought Jane had a little depth. But take out her work, physique and romance and she is almost impossible to describe.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I do agree; the SGU women were a misogyinistic fantasy.

What is interesting is running this little thought experiment on male and female characters of a lot of different shows as it is a sort of barometer of whether the character has any depth. Sometimes the results can be a little surprising.

For example, run this on all the Firefly characters and - no surprise - you can describe them even without the elements in the test. Hence they all have at least a little depth to them. On the other hand. I did this with Cassidy Yates from DS9 and she came up a blank. Samantha Carter from SG-1 passed but interestingly Dr. Keller in SGA did not - take away being a doctor and her romantic relationship with Rodney and she is very hard to describe.

Going to the TNG women, all passed. Someone who watches current shows such as Lost Girl and Being Human would have to try the experiment on those characters. A surprising to me fail was Painkiller Jane - while I did not like the show I had for some reason thought Jane had a little depth. But take out her work, physique and romance and she is almost impossible to describe.

Just on Cassidy
Athough I would not say she would "pass the test" by any stretch of the imagination, I always figured here more a a plot device attached to the Prophets and a test for Sisko, hence the very little work done on her.

As for LG, Bo can definately "hold her own", her relationship is more symbiotic as oppossed to parasitical. (which is sorta funny for a Succubus )

 

[Joelist]

Good to know.

I invite people to run the test on other characters on other shows.

On Bo specifically, how about an illustration:

Describe Bo without mentioning her physical characteristics (meaning no talking about being a Succubus), occupation or romantic interests. I'm not saying she has no depth just that she could be used as an illustration of a character "passing" the test (for example).

 

[Gatefan1976]

Good to know.

I invite people to run the test on other characters on other shows.

On Bo specifically, how about an illustration:

Describe Bo without mentioning her physical characteristics (meaning no talking about being a Succubus), occupation or romantic interests. I'm not saying she has no depth just that she could be used as an illustration of a character "passing" the test (for example).

Hmmm.
You know thats kinda hard for any character, male or female
I mean, how would you define Picard or Beverly Crusher without touching any of those subjects?

I suppose one example that gives Bo "depth" is that within the Fae community, she is one of the few who "straddle the divide" of light and dark Fae, accepting neither side as inherently "better" than the other, and this gives the character alot of "breathing room" when dealing with "fae orientated moral issues".

 

[Joelist]

Hmmm.
You know thats kinda hard for any character, male or female
I mean, how would you define Picard or Beverly Crusher without touching any of those subjects?

I suppose one example that gives Bo "depth" is that within the Fae community, she is one of the few who "straddle the divide" of light and dark Fae, accepting neither side as inherently "better" than the other, and this gives the character alot of "breathing room" when dealing with "fae orientated moral issues".

Actually not super hard. What excluding those elements does is focus on the personality of the characters and their character traits.

 

[Gatefan1976]

She's strong willed.
She believes in self determination for not just herself, but her greater community.
She would rather see someone stand or fall by *thier own* convictions and not the expectations of others.
She judges a person based on thier individual actions and not their "race"
She believes everyone deserves a chance.

 

[Joelist]

So Bo passes the test, because if you removed the word "she" and just used those atrributes and named the show people would know you are speaking of Bo. This means the character of Bo is more than a cardboard cutout and has a bit (at least) of depth. Good illustration.

 

[shavedape]

Highly sexual.
Seductive.
Irresistible even to others with differing sexual orientations.
Charming.
Intriguing.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Vague I know but those are traits that strike me about Bo. Not sure if I did the test right though.

 

[Joelist]

The irresistible part is tied to physical characteristics somewhat but even without it you were able to form a description that people would be able to identify Bo from. So she "passes".

Try the same test on Chloe from SGU. Remove the job and physical characteristics and romantic angle and what are you left with? Nothing really. No distinguishing personality or character traits. So Chloe fails and as such the character lacks depth and fits the cardboard cutout motif.

 

[lady_maneth]

Strong and strong-willed.
Able to hold their own in any company.
Smart scientist and career military.
Respected for what they can do, not their person or gender.
During the show has more than one romantic relationship, but they don't define this character as a person.

Who am I talking about?
Hint: the character is from one of the SG shows.

 

[Joelist]

That's probably Samantha Carter.

 

[lady_maneth]

Got it in one! Just goes to show how much better-written SG-1 is than SGU. That said, I don't hate the latter either.

 

[Joelist]

Thanks.

It does show that the Carter character had at least some depth. If a character fails the test described you can be fairly confident you're dealing with a cardboard cutout (or a weird misogynistic fantasy like the women of SGU were)...:joemalllozzi01: