Stargate College Class! Help!!!

[Whistler84]

Okay, this may seem weird, but follow me for a second before you start scratching your heads in bewilderment. At my college, UC Berkeley, there's an option for students to *teach* their own elective classes, about whatever frivolous topic they want. They're called Decal classes. The topics range from pop culture to politics to medicine to whatever. Some classes focus on TV shows. This is treated as a legitimate class, that gets college credit (pass/no-pass). The student simply chooses the topic, and heavily prepares for the class the semester before (and goes through a whole bunch of hoops before being allowed to start their own decal class). For obvious reasons, they're extremely popular among students and is truly a one-of-a-kind opportunity that doesn't exist in many other colleges. I, myself, have attended two decal classes over the last year: 1.) Simpsons and Philosophy. 2.) Batman: The American Mythology. Both have been entertaining and, quite simply, a great experience.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm starting my own decal class next semester, and am in the middle of preparation right now. My class will focus on 'Feminism in Science Fiction,' which will range from TV shows, movies, to books. I'll talk about how feminism in sci-fi is unique and different from most conventional feminist definitions. I'll talk about the pros and cons of most stereotypical females in science-fiction, and how that relates to images of women in real life.

Basically, I'll talk about a variety of deep-seeded feminist issues, but I'll relate it to popular female science-fiction characters.

For instance, one day, I'll cover Ripley from Aliens, then Dana Scully from the X Files, then Hermione Granger in HP. I'll take about the characters and how their image relates to the underlying themes and motifs that permeates through science fiction. Why are these women popular? Do real life women, like me, relate to them? Are they merely fantasies with no tangible connection to real life? Etc . . .

I also want to devote at least a day or two to the Stargate universe, and the women in it.

My question is, how do I go about discussing the females of Stargate? My personal fav is Weir, but I don't want to be biased towards her, 'cause Sam and Teyla deserve major props, too. Also, should I bring up Vala? Fraiser? What examples should I use? How should I describe these women? Are each of them good examples of typical science fiction women, and do they portray women in good light? I wanted to get some input from you guys on this, so any feedback or recommendations would be highly appreciated.

[Qasim]

Pop into Sams a great character and Weir appreciation and you will get lots if inspiration and help

Vala is a touchy subject but I would bring it up

[Morbo]

vala is the antithesis of feminism.

as for the class itself, why not just do a class on stargate lore and mythology and social and societal impacts.

[Whistler84]

vala is the antithesis of feminism.

as for the class itself, why not just do a class on stargate lore and mythology and social and societal impacts.

I could. In fact, I believe in previous years there has been a Decal class on Stargate @ UC Berkeley. It was quite popular, but it was before my time. And I've only been into SGA for 7 months, and have only a passing knowledge of SG-1. I'm not enough of an expert on it. But I do have a general knowledge about science fiction in a variaty of media. Add that to the fact that I've taken a lot of Women's lib classes, I thought I'd stick to what I know. Thus, "Feminism in Science Fiction."

[CatGoddess]

Darn, I *knew* I should have gone to Berkeley. Where I went to college, students did have the opportunity to teach courses, but they were not for credit. I taught a beer tasting course twice... but I digress.

If I were you, I'd talk about Sam in addition to Dr. Weir. They are both strong female characters, intelligent women, and leaders in their fields. They are able to hold their own - actually, more than hold their own - in male-dominated environments. Check out those threads Qasim mentioned - I haven't perused them thoroughly myself, but I'm sure there is a lot of material there.

Can you post your syllabus once it's drawn up - or PM me with it? I'm curious

[Whistler84]

Darn, I *knew* I should have gone to Berkeley. Where I went to college, students did have the opportunity to teach courses, but they were not for credit. I taught a beer tasting course twice... but I digress.

If I were you, I'd talk about Sam in addition to Dr. Weir. They are both strong female characters, intelligent women, and leaders in their fields. They are able to hold their own - actually, more than hold their own - in male-dominated environments. Check out those threads Qasim mentioned - I haven't perused them thoroughly myself, but I'm sure there is a lot of material there.

Can you post your syllabus once it's drawn up - or PM me with it? I'm curious

Already *very* familiar with the Weir and Teyla Appreciation thread, but having only been a recent convert to Stargate (mainly SGA), I know next to nothing about Sam and SG-1. I *know* Sam is a great character, whose much better developed than Weir, but my knowledge really is superficial.

I've also posted some links in all the appreciation threads to this thread here, so hopefully I'll get some die-hard fans to give me some feedback. Plus, I want the average Stargater to give me info too! I, of course, value Weir-Fans, and Sam-fans, and Teyla-fans, etc . . . but I want to know if anybody has anything critical to say about them. That type of stuff you usually hear from 'casual' fans that don't have allegiences to these women. They tell you the faults that you need to acknowledge. Somebody already mentioned that Vala was the anti-feminist. Why? Or, if you disagree, why not? That's the type of discussion I'm hoping to get from this.

P.S. And, yes, Berkeley does rock!!!!!!!!

Edit: Oh, and yes, of course, I'll post the syllabus up when I get the chance.

[Purpleyin]

My question is, how do I go about discussing the females of Stargate? My personal fav is Weir, but I don't want to be biased towards her, 'cause Sam and Teyla deserve major props, too. Also, should I bring up Vala? Fraiser? What examples should I use? How should I describe these women? Are each of them good examples of typical science fiction women, and do they portray women in good light? I wanted to get some input from you guys on this, so any feedback or recommendations would be highly appreciated.

Obviously you're doing Weir, interesting as she's a leader and until BSG and SGA I don't recall many shows that had such strong females in a power position. Sam (and Frasier) are interesting examples of women in the military and she's been through alot, so I imagine there are plenty of things you could talk about. In S1 they did at first play up the 'I'm a woman but I'm as good as all the guys and I'll prove it' - in the pilot and emancipation, so you could consider how she got on fitting into being on a frontline team, especially since she's also a scientist and she fills two roles.

Teyla might be more controversial for some (the debate about TPTB's portrayal of her as a sexy alien babe and how even though she's much more some of the audience don't see past that front, and arguably TPTB use that part for PR but I digress... that topic got real hot fast!), though Vala is much more controversial but still definitely worse discussing. I know many hate her character but I find it interesting to see a flawed woman, she may be the anti-thesis of feminism for some but I find it more interesting to see women portrayed as flawed. She's using sex and everyone's taught that's wrong, so alot boo over that, but I at least don't always want near perfect women - (besides you could say she makes others look better in relation ) Vala's had a difficult time and she hasn't handled it well, she's not an admirable person but do they always need to be? It's like was being discussed on the Weir thread, women being held to higher standards, almost as if they are being iconised as outstanding role models... Err, I think I've lost my point now, this isn't relating much to feminism of Stargate.

But anyway, I think recurring roles also need a brief look at. Chaya could be an interesting example. I'm not sure what for, but the way she was shown was rather different from the way the lead females get - almost like recurring roles are more stereotypical and 2D - Chaya came to Atlantis for Shep - and the leads while more 3D are judged more, though their motivations aren't always clear unlike the recurring females. Does that make sense? Allina could be another one, strong, good but not perfect. Sora too - alien, military, well trained and capable, yet young and foolish in her quest for revenge.

I'm going to stop talking now, hope some of this is food for thought.

[SapphireJewelledQueen]

I'm not really that deep into all these characters, but I am very interested in what other people have to say. You should get some interesting 'discussion' on this thread

Would love to see the syllabus as well

EDIT: I wish I went to a college like this

[Whistler84]

Obviously you're doing Weir, interesting as she's a leader and until BSG and SGA I don't recall many shows that had such strong females in a power position. Sam (and Frasier) are interesting examples of women in the military and she's been through alot, so I imagine there are plenty of things you could talk about. In S1 they did at first play up the 'I'm a woman but I'm as good as all the guys and I'll prove it' - in the pilot and emancipation, so you could consider how she got on fitting into being on a frontline team, especially since she's also a scientist and she fills two roles.

Yes, I was planning on bringing up the infamous quote of "And just because my reproductive organs are on the inside instead of the outside, doesn't mean I can't handle whatever you can handle." I wanted to show how the ptb decided to start off their only female character, and how Sam evolved from that. And why it was not only necessary to have her be military, but also a scientist. Does that personify that ideal that women have to be twice as good as men to get half the respect?

And Weir, if for simply the reason of her leadership position, provides an example you don't get to see very often. Her actions have been critiqued very closely, and I've often wondered that if she had been a man, would the same strict standards apply? People have called her unemotional and cold in season one. Then, in season two, she's too emotional. If she had been a man, would either of these criticisms become popular opinion? Compare her to a man, for example. When O'Neill was emotional over the several times Danial was thought to be (or actually was) dead, no one ever called him weak. Is this an indication of the double standards between men and women?

Teyla might be more controversial for some (the debate about TPTB's portrayal of her as a sexy alien babe and how even though she's much more some of the audience don't see past that front, and arguably TPTB use that part for PR but I digress... that topic got real hot fast!), though Vala is much more controversial but still definitely worse discussing. I know many hate her character but I find it interesting to see a flawed woman, she may be the anti-thesis of feminism for some but I find it more interesting to see women portrayed as flawed. She's using sex and everyone's taught that's wrong, so alot boo over that, but I at least don't always want near perfect women - (besides you could say she makes others look better in relation ) Vala's had a difficult time and she hasn't handled it well, she's not an admirable person but do they always need to be? It's like was being discussed on the Weir thread, women being held to higher standards, almost as if they are being iconised as outstanding role models... Err, I think I've lost my point now, this isn't relating much to feminism of Stargate.

No, that very much relates to feminism in Stargate!!!

Interesting that you bring this up, because I recently discussed this in the Teyla appreciation thread. I am a big Teyla fan, but have never been a fan of her clothing. I thought it was reducing the worth of her character, yet at the same time, almost contradictorily, I was perfectly fine with the portrayal of Vala. My initial defense was this (Note: this is only a small portion of a lengthy discussion that took place, so if you're interested in reading further, go ahead and check out the Teyla Appreciation thread for opposing views that I found valid as well):

Again, never had more than a passing interest in SG-1, so I can't really speak about Vala intelligently. All I know is, despite her sex-me-up attitude, I found her extremely funny and entertaining. I've never really dissected her character, though, and I'm sure that if I were to, I'd still tend to like her. Here's the thing you gotta know about me - I'm very open. I have never actually hated any character on SG-1 or SGA. In fact, I liked Chaya. Yeah, you read right. I liked Chaya. I tend to see characters as how the ptb see them, and even if it isn't properly executed, I'm always open. It takes a lot for me to dislike a character. I may have issues with them, or criticize them, but I've never really had any malice feelings towards any characters on any tv show (the exceptions to this are Diana Fowley from the X files. Cordelia, season four, from Angel. And Vaughn, for admittedly no justifiable reason, from Alias.) I seriously like all other characters, or at the very least, am indifferent to them.

That's why I was so shocked to come to GW ('cause I'd never attempted a forum before that) and see so many character-haters. Weir-haters to the right of me. Teyla-haters to the left of me. And me, wondering what the hell was going on in the middle. Naive as I was, I was honestly surprised to see such a division between fans. I loved SGA from the first time I watched it, a little over seven months ago. I loved all the characters and so forth.

So, when I watched SG-1, I didn't have any reservations about Vala whatsoever. If she made me laugh (and she really really did), that was reason enough for me to like her. Even if she does go over the top more often than not. Point was, I hadn't found a character like her so amusing in quite some time, and I rather liked her character for that and gave her the benefit of the doubt. She *is* too obsessed with sex, but oddly enough, as a feminist, I have no problem with that. She's allowed to be in touch with her sexuality, like ToasterOnFire said earlier. I just don't think her character is all about sex, despite the first (and second, and third) casual glance.

I really am trying to verbalize why I feel comfortable with her showing off her sexuality, but with Teyla, I find what the producers are doing with her to be done incorrectly. But I'm having major trouble relating the two characters at all, beyond the superficial stuff of 'they're both hot mamas.'

But you know what? She's more like McKay that way. Not the obsessed-with-sex thing, because um, McKay isn't (Thank God!). But that, you have oodles and oodles of reasons to not like him (or in fact hate him), but you don't. Rodney is whiny, rude, arrogant, and at times (not always) cowardly. You would think most people would hate him, but he's one of the most popular characters on the show. You have reason to dislike him, but you can't help but love him a little. Similarly, Vala has a lot of vices, but I find her character amusing and entertaining, and just plain fun. I really like her character. Its kinda because of her many problems that you find her character redeeming. That make any sense?

Yes, that’s exactly it! While Vala uses her sexuality for a means to an end, Teyla isn’t about that. She’s about strength, courage, and spirituality. Having her in half-naked clothes, for me, distracts from that. With Vala, it does the opposite. It adds to her persona, much like having Rodney freak out over some new phobia.

Agree with me? Think I have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about? Please, respond in a post. I promise, I take opposing views with a smile on my face.

But anyway, I think recurring roles also need a brief look at. Chaya could be an interesting example. I'm not sure what for, but the way she was shown was rather different from the way the lead females get - almost like recurring roles are more stereotypical and 2D - Chaya came to Atlantis for Shep - and the leads while more 3D are judged more, though their motivations aren't always clear unlike the recurring females. Does that make sense? Allina could be another one, strong, good but not perfect. Sora too - alien, military, well trained and capable, yet young and foolish in her quest for revenge.

I'm going to stop talking now, hope some of this is food for thought.

Thank you so much! This is exactly the type of debate and conversation I want going on. Anybody want to add or disagree?

[Whistler84]

I'm not really that deep into all these characters, but I am very interested in what other people have to say. You should get some interesting 'discussion' on this thread

Would love to see the syllabus as well

EDIT: I wish I went to a college like this

Whatever you have to add to the conversation is greatly appreciated. And as for the syllabus, I won't get that completely done until November/December. Right before the new semester starts, but I will post it up here. Thanks for the interest.

[stargate barbie]

i would talk about sam carter, because she is one of the strongest and most believable female characters in sci fi and is an amazing role model for the most part. however it might be worth talking about the fact that most female characters in sci fi are primarily created by and written by men.
sorry if someone has already said this, but i'm tired so i didn't read everyones posts.

[Whistler84]

i would talk about sam carter, because she is one of the strongest and most believable female characters in sci fi and is an amazing role model for the most part. however it might be worth talking about the fact that most female characters in sci fi are primarily created by and written by men.
sorry if someone has already said this, but i'm tired so i didn't read everyones posts.

Agreed. A lot of fans have remarked that the ptb don't know how to write female characters because they're all men, and don't quite have a grasp of the illusive female mind.

[stargate barbie]

Agreed. A lot of fans have remarked that the ptb don't know how to write female characters because they're all men, and don't quite have a grasp of the illusive female mind.

i think that stargates fat cats handled it pretty well after the first few episodes and and have only had a few set backs, but no more so than with their male characters i suppose. i find that stargate and the x-files write females better than most tv shows.
i know that amanda tapping did help them out a bit in season 1 by going to them and basically saying, hey look, women don't talk like this.
i found, after many years of watching, from childhood to immature adulthood, that the writers of star trek are terrible at writing believable women.

[Whistler84]

i think that stargates fat cats handled it pretty well after the first few episodes and and have only had a few set backs, but no more so than with their male characters i suppose. i find that stargate and the x-files write females better than most tv shows.
i know that amanda tapping did help them out a bit in season 1 by going to them and basically saying, hey look, women don't talk like this.
i found, after many years of watching, from childhood to immature adulthood, that the writers of star trek are terrible at writing believable women.

Amanda gave them pointers? I find that amusing.

[Purpleyin]

Yes, I was planning on bringing up the infamous quote of "And just because my reproductive organs are on the inside instead of the outside, doesn't mean I can't handle whatever you can handle." I wanted to show how the ptb decided to start off their only female character, and how Sam evolved from that. And why it was not only necessary to have her be military, but also a scientist. Does that personify that ideal that women have to be twice as good as men to get half the respect?

I think lead characters almost do. Women are sometimes made Mary Sues, - people want them to be human but at the same time they have to be strong all the time - like with Weir, too cold on season, too emotional the next. Where's the middle ground? I mean I agree it's to do with TPTB portrayal and they haven't given Weir many moments of strength that weren't kickass or subtly threatening and/or emotional - so much conflict in season 2 - so now some people seem to think she's emotional and weak compared to last season. They wants consistency and yet change. I know some of it's TPTB's fault for shifting so much, or rather not clearly defining characters sometimes but some of it feels like people's perception of the characters, and I do often feel people are more critical of females.

And Weir, if for simply the reason of her leadership position, provides an example you don't get to see very often. Her actions have been critiqued very closely, and I've often wondered that if she had been a man, would the same strict standards apply? People have called her unemotional and cold in season one. Then, in season two, she's too emotional. If she had been a man, would either of these criticisms become popular opinion? Compare her to a man, for example. When O'Neill was emotional over the several times Danial was thought to be (or actually was) dead, no one ever called him weak. Is this an indication of the double standards between men and women?

Yes, Hammond was close to his people and yet professional and no one had much gripe with him when he did what he thought best for his people over what he was being suggested he ought to do by others of influence. But with Weir people did criticise her for not following the rules, even though the situation was'nt easy and there were alot tougher calls to make- using prisoners for experiments, almost arms tading etc. I find it odd people compare two very different things, Weir isn't Hammond and Atlantis isn't the SGC, and it's like people judge Weir harshly despite the situational differences. The context may well be it's Weir making a decision, not it's Weir making the decision in this context. Like she's the context, and not the actual sitation. I don't mean to suggest this always happens though and yet again I'm rambling...

Interesting that you bring this up, because I recently discussed this in the Teyla appreciation thread. I am a big Teyla fan, but have never been a fan of her clothing. I thought it was reducing the worth of her character, yet at the same time, almost contradictorily, I was perfectly fine with the portrayal of Vala. My initial defense was this (Note: this is only a small portion of a lengthy discussion that took place, so if you're interested in reading further, go ahead and check out the Teyla Appreciation thread for opposing views that I found valid as well):

I'm not sure if this could be covered under the difference of treatment for lead/recurring females but it does seem like Teyla should be more and so people expect more, they are more critical of her protrayal, maybe because they are invested in her onscreen time - Teyla is a key part and what people don't like they will be vocal on wanting change, change as in improvement. With Teyla it's more about wanting more, but for Vala alot of people aren't liking what they see first off and they then don't want more from her, don't look further into the character like you might a lead role. I'm not sure if that idea helps understand it or not. For me, I think the reason I am one of the small number who like her (at least it seems like a small number, but I may be wrong - though the fanbase is divided on her) is I see the front and then I figure there's more. The vices are like symptons, something else caused her to be like that and I want to know more, want to find out why. Others judge her on her front and the fact canon doesn't provide more to it right here and now is probably what puts them off - I suppose it would be they can't invest in her character, and they don't like it as it is either.

Personally I wonder if nationality, and national attitudues, plays a part into this, I don't mean to offend but I noticed alot more Americans fussing over costume decision for the current seasons - there were concerns over Vala's but also Lam's costume - Vala's are provocative and they're meant to be obviously but for Lam I never saw what was wrong with her outfit in the photo in question and I'm not sure but it might be something to do with the British being less conservative (/prudish?) on some things, like cleavage. I certainly can recall alot more British (and European) fans who like Vala than American. Still, it's only a thought and it might be complete tosh, it's not like there's a poll for it or anything, and I'm writing at 1.30am so if my wording/writing is a bit off then you know why.