Female Characters

[Coela Bellatore]

I disagree - and I appreicate that you have experience with these units, but the tiers till exist and are useful labels. The SAS and SBS for example are both a Tier 1 and Tier 2 unit. But we shouldn't dismiss the tier system because of that.

I also completely disagree that SOF and SF should just be accepted as inter changeable, just because many use it that way - such an attitude is born of ignorance (note not saying YOU are ignorant, but many are who can't be bothered to learn the difference). The British Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) is very much SOF, and can not ever be said to be SF at all. They differ vastly in size to the SAS or SBS as well, and in the manner of operations they undertake. For another example, I'm sure you would agree with me that there is a collosal difference between US Rangers - who are essentially an elite infantry unit specialising in raiding operations (SOF) and Delta Force who are Special Forces.

I do however agree that the jobs used help define them, but that largely fits them into the tier system - you also can't overlook HOW they do their jobs.

The definitions exist, I've outlined them, it's just most people can't be bothered to study the subject in significant detail. As for many all they want to know is SF/SOF = Cool.

Hmm I guess it makes sense but your analyzing it from an outside perspective. If people all started calling dogs "cats" and cats "dogs" then the terms would cease to define the unique species and instead both refer to quadrupedal domesticated mammals. Army Special Forces (Green Berets) repeatedly refer to themselves as SOF (Delta Force is almost complete composed of 18X so you might call it Army Special Forces on steroids) and Rangers rarely refer to themselves as SF or SOF. So while their dictionary terms might be different, in practical application with the people that they are actually describing they are just general terms for the SOF/SF community.

As for the Tier system it has been completely abandoned by the US Military and I thought by the British. There were too many situations were different units would have to do different things and because some missions were labeled as "Tier # only" they would end up using forces that were really not meant for that just because they were in that tier. This is how it breaks down now:

Hostage Rescue/ HVT Hunting/ WMD finding: SAS, Delta Force.
Direct Action, yeah thats pretty much it: Navy SEAL's, SBS, NZSAS, CCT's.
Force Multiplier, Infiltration, Hearts+Minds: Army Special Force ODA's, OGA's.
QRF: Rangers (ODA's), Force Recon (SEAL's), Parachute Regiment (SAS), Royal Marines (SBS), 4RAR (NZSAS).
Weird ****: Pararescue (medical), SOWT (weather).
Nothing: MARSOC, KSK.
???: French Parachute Commandos, seriously this is above OPSEC even for me.

All of the above with the exception of "Nothing" do regular SF work plus Direct Action.

Super Derailment of thread complete.

[Spirit]

Actually, it's because I'm so used to seeing men in these positions in reality...

Yes you get women, which is why I have no issue with Janeway, but they're not that common. The amount of women on my squadron is quite low, with only one in a position of leadership - and that's not the senior level.

Okay, that's fair. I'm sure that is true for most people. And you're also right that they are not common which is why I raise the question of "why not?"

I mean I can understand why there aren't as much women in the military. But time are changing, more and more women are serving in the military. Then again I want to point out that military in general was originally designed for 'male' in the past. I mean correct me if I am wrong.. I'm not familiar with the military at all. Women had to fight for their rights to serve their country back in the days.

I mean I'm glad you have no problem seeing women characters on televsion, you better not. >:-) Women are such a big part of society. And it's only fair that they get reflected as such, IMO

[Spirit]

Hmm I guess it makes sense but your analyzing it from an outside perspective. If people all started calling dogs "cats" and cats "dogs" then the terms would cease to define the unique species and instead both refer to quadrupedal domesticated mammals. Army Special Forces (Green Berets) repeatedly refer to themselves as SOF (Delta Force is almost complete composed of 18X so you might call it Army Special Forces on steroids) and Rangers rarely refer to themselves as SF or SOF. So while their dictionary terms might be different, in practical application with the people that they are actually describing they are just general terms for the SOF/SF community.

As for the Tier system it has been completely abandoned by the US Military and I thought by the British. There were too many situations were different units would have to do different things and because some missions were labeled as "Tier # only" they would end up using forces that were really not meant for that just because they were in that tier. This is how it breaks down now:

Hostage Rescue/ HVT Hunting/ WMD finding: SAS, Delta Force.
Direct Action, yeah thats pretty much it: Navy SEAL's, SBS, NZSAS, CCT's.
Force Multiplier, Infiltration, Hearts+Minds: Army Special Force ODA's, OGA's.
QRF: Rangers (ODA's), Force Recon (SEAL's), Parachute Regiment (SAS), Royal Marines (SBS), 4RAR (NZSAS).
Weird ****: Pararescue (medical), SOWT (weather).
Nothing: MARSOC, KSK.
???: French Parachute Commandos, seriously this is above OPSEC even for me.

All of the above with the exception of "Nothing" do regular SF work plus Direct Action.

Super Derailment of thread complete.

I'm not really sure what you guys are talking about here, probably the military but it's not really relevant to female character

[SGFerrit]

First of all the accent is British, not French (how you couldn't tell the difference between the two is beyond me) and secondly I believe it sounds very great indeed. Amanda Tapping does it very well (as expected given she is half British) and it goes very well with the character of Dr. Magnus given her aristocratic and scientific background.

I was under the impression that Amanda was actually totally British (in terms of family) just raised mostly in Canada?

[Skydiver]

i said ENOUGH of the accent discussion please.

It's not the topic here and is bogging down what is the real discussion.

You want to discuss helen's/amanda's brit accent, go over to the sanctuary area

[Cherriey]

I think perhaps I've just been under the impression that there were many great female leads because they became my favorites in various shows. When something is one's favorite it tends to blanket nearly all of one's vision. At least in my case it did.

Trance on Andromeda for instance... I barely remember the other characters (except for maybe Harper... but he made me laugh). Then again the whole show is named after the ship who has a female AI and hologram... was she the lead character then or was Kevin Sorbo the 'be all end all' of that series?

[Skydiver]

I think gender bias is so pervasive that people don't even see it.

Like an example, Amanda and Michael both asked to direct at the same time. He got to a year before she did, and she ONLY got it because they HAD to let her do it. and then she wins an award for her directing.

Other shows are getting better with female roles. take 11th hour for example - the us version, never seen the bbc version - there's a female officer that's protecting the male civilian.

or 'the mentalist' where a woman is the boss of the cbi unit. or 'castle' where she's the cop.

Of course, in ALL these cases, there IS a male lead, even if he isn't in the most powerful position (as in the one carrying the gun and making the rescues) and they're not scifi.

Look at what they did with Stargate. Yeah, I've heard it that when rick wasn't there, the crew considered amanda the 'lead' character. Not 'lead' as in more important than the other two, far from it, but 'lead' as in the character that tied episodes together. neitehr Teal'c or Daniel were characters that could tie a plot together all 43 minutes every week.

but, then rick left for good and they had a new face first in the credits and....well cam never got the story arc that i personally felt he deserved, but he became the SG1 whipping boy and whumping boy and, even though he never carried a long running story arc (they gave that to daniel and vala) he walked in off the streets and got his name first in the credits...why? in my opinion, because someone in an office had the idea of 'omg, we got a scifi show we GOTS to have a male lead so get us one'. And they did, even if the writers never treated his character as a true lead, they still had the 'male lead' to keep the networks happy.

Scifi is very male dominated. And breaking that history isn't always accomplished by simply hiring a bunch of women. A man can write a good story centered around a female character, if that man employs his imagination and pushes himself out of his comfortable little 'let me project myself upon the 'white male action hero' of the show' box and really tries.

But that's hard, cranking out the predictible stuff is easy, and it keeps the networks happy because they all have and support the idea that the scifi audience out there is mostly younger males, thus that's what they cater to with their male leads and - most often - submissive females. (females in the expected caring, care givers roles. girlfriends, sexy alien of the week, supportive and mothering adult female, love interest for the hero)

The gender bias is so ground in and expected that people don't even see it.

This is NOT going to dissolve into a rehashing of the 'who should lead' thread, however, the treatment of sam in season 9...it was seen as perfectly natural that the 8+ year veteran and leader of the team would willingly and gratefully step down to co-leader to accept the new male leader that the writers didn't even question the 8 year veteran following the lead of a 'gate virgin' who'd never even SEEN it before, much less gone on a mission.

Yet, if it had been Lt Col. SAMUEL Carter, an 8 year vet having to submit himself to Lt Col Cam Mitchell, the gate virgin, that never would happened, or they'd have written something like 'mitchell's father pulls strings to force him onto a team and mitchell has to overcome that favoritism to really prove himself'

but they didn't do that because it seemed appropriate and natural to the writers/execs that the female step down to let the male lead.

Thinking like that is why it will be YEARS or longer before we see anything approaching gender equality in scifi. And why it'll be YEARS if ever that we see females treated as more than a support network for the male stars of the show.

[Flyboy]

Hmm I guess it makes sense but your analyzing it from an outside perspective. If people all started calling dogs "cats" and cats "dogs" then the terms would cease to define the unique species and instead both refer to quadrupedal domesticated mammals. Army Special Forces (Green Berets) repeatedly refer to themselves as SOF (Delta Force is almost complete composed of 18X so you might call it Army Special Forces on steroids) and Rangers rarely refer to themselves as SF or SOF. So while their dictionary terms might be different, in practical application with the people that they are actually describing they are just general terms for the SOF/SF community.

As for the Tier system it has been completely abandoned by the US Military and I thought by the British. There were too many situations were different units would have to do different things and because some missions were labeled as "Tier # only" they would end up using forces that were really not meant for that just because they were in that tier. This is how it breaks down now:

Hostage Rescue/ HVT Hunting/ WMD finding: SAS, Delta Force.
Direct Action, yeah thats pretty much it: Navy SEAL's, SBS, NZSAS, CCT's.
Force Multiplier, Infiltration, Hearts+Minds: Army Special Force ODA's, OGA's.
QRF: Rangers (ODA's), Force Recon (SEAL's), Parachute Regiment (SAS), Royal Marines (SBS), 4RAR (NZSAS).
Weird ****: Pararescue (medical), SOWT (weather).
Nothing: MARSOC, KSK.
???: French Parachute Commandos, seriously this is above OPSEC even for me.

All of the above with the exception of "Nothing" do regular SF work plus Direct Action.

Super Derailment of thread complete.

Admittadly I'm discussing it from an outside perspective in that I'm neither SOF or SF - but not from an outside military perspective. Additionally, I've also studied strategy and tactics which have included a significant study of Special Forces (personally I prefer the use of airpower, but each to their own). If Green Berets are referring to themselves as SOF and Rangers referring to themselves as SF then something HAS gone wrong imo. The bottom line is, there IS a difference. A Special Forces unit is exactly that a Special Force, where as SOF are forces that engage in Special Operations. Subtle distinction, but one that is vital.

Yes SOF and SF may work side by side, but they're still significantly different. Size, secrecy level, selection. SOF very often work in direct support of SF (hence the fact that Britain's key SOF unit is known as Special Forces Support Group). The difference is, SOF are STILL conventional units, but they enage in special operations. Failure to appreciate the dfference can have significant consequences of soldiers with conventional training and organisation culture end up being sent on missions designed for special forces units.

It's interesting as it's the US that seems to have forgotten the distinction, despite their being a *very* real difference. Rangers are elite, but they will never be Special Forces - nor would SFSG. The unique nature of an ACTUAL SF unit, and the small unit missions that they undertake, disregarding rank and standing, and even traditional military ways of life, can't be replicated in SOF. Though I can understand why the tier system may be becoming redundant, the SOF/SF divide should never be. And I would argue, to use your dogs and cats anaology - that the difference is still there, you just have a bunch of very confused dogs who think that they can call themselves cats.

The key thing is that an SOF unit can undertake special operations and conventional operations, but you would never EVER use a SF unit for a conventional op.

I'd also like to point out that though the SAS and SBS draw heavily from the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines respectively, they are not in anyway subsets of each other or branches thereof. Both the SAS and SBS (and the SRR) are in fact all arms units that recruit across all elements of the British Armed Forces with their own distinctive cap badge. But even then you'd never call a para or Marine SOF, and certainly never SF.

EDIT: As I mentioned earlier, I've both studied Special Forces, and am involved with the military - as part of research special forces and speical operations forces, I've studied a fascinating book called 'Special Forces, Strategy and the War on Terror' by a Doctor Alastair Finlan, who is on the British Military Education Committee and has taught at Britannia Royal Navy College. It is in my opinion, one of the most well researched and comprehensive academic texts on Special Forces.

Okay, that's fair. I'm sure that is true for most people. And you're also right that they are not common which is why I raise the question of "why not?"

I mean I can understand why there aren't as much women in the military. But time are changing, more and more women are serving in the military. Then again I want to point out that military in general was originally designed for 'male' in the past. I mean correct me if I am wrong.. I'm not familiar with the military at all. Women had to fight for their rights to serve their country back in the days.

I mean I'm glad you have no problem seeing women characters on televsion, you better not. >:-) Women are such a big part of society. And it's only fair that they get reflected as such, IMO

For a start there are the significant issues about front line duty - rightly or wrongly. But in the exception of instances that REQUIRE a woman, usually for cultural appreciation reasons, a woman will never be used in front line operations (though interestingly enough, this has not always been the case - the Russians at what point had some VERY effective female combat units). You will also find that the military does not GENERALLY appeal to female audiances. Despite equal oppertunities in non front line roles, there's still more men wanting to join, and a lot of women WON'T be able to hack it. Many will. But more won't. And that's not just the physical demands - but the culture as well. In my experience, women on my squadron often end up 'being a man' through their behaviour just so that they can fit in. Many women don't want to do that - but if they don't, they won't gel with the team. Which is unfortunate.

[Spirit]

Skydiver, I feel like there was this itchy part somewhere on my back that I've been reaching to scratch but couldn't quite reach. Then there you are, came along and scratched it for me.

Now that felt good... I didn't understand why people can't seem to understand what I was trying to point at. I guess you're the better writer

[Spirit]

I think perhaps I've just been under the impression that there were many great female leads because they became my favorites in various shows. When something is one's favorite it tends to blanket nearly all of one's vision. At least in my case it did.

Trance on Andromeda for instance... I barely remember the other characters (except for maybe Harper... but he made me laugh). Then again the whole show is named after the ship who has a female AI and hologram... was she the lead character then or was Kevin Sorbo the 'be all end all' of that series?

I'm not sure about that. I haven't seen any of those shows u mentioned. But as for what you said about your impression~ I think most if not all, has similar experiences like yours. I used to feel that way. Never really noticed or cared about who were playing the lead roles, just as long as they're good characters and good storyline. But these days I hear people talk. I'm a lot more aware of the things that goes on around the world. And I definitely watch way more SciFi now.

I think a lot of us don't care enough to notice things like that. But as far as I am concerned now that I see the lack of diversity, I want to see more balance I foresee myself enjoying a lot of SciFi shows, so I want to be able to relate, you know?

So bring out those creative juice and spike up that diversity! I have faith in Stargate franchise but if they're going to go further beyond their current audiences, they better start bringing in more different kinds of characters unlike the usual, typical, ones that they have now.

On the side note, I thought that bringing in gay character in SGU was a start of something different and new AND brave. I'm excited to see how it's going to play out. And also they seems to have a little more female characters than the previous SG1 and SGA.. There's 3 now! But it's still a male predominant and male lead... You see the trend?

Seriously, I have nothing against male. They have their part of the role and I like seeing them too. But geez, there are a lot more female population out there than represented on these shows, give them the reflection too

[Spirit]

I think gender bias is so pervasive that people don't even see it.

That just sums it up. Based upon the response I've gotten so far here. It didn't feel like people cared nor even noticed it.

Like an example, Amanda and Michael both asked to direct at the same time. He got to a year before she did, and she ONLY got it because they HAD to let her do it. and then she wins an award for her directing.

Wow, really? I did not know this...

Look at what they did with Stargate. Yeah, I've heard it that when rick wasn't there, the crew considered amanda the 'lead' character. Not 'lead' as in more important than the other two, far from it, but 'lead' as in the character that tied episodes together. neitehr Teal'c or Daniel were characters that could tie a plot together all 43 minutes every week.

That is actually a very good point. I've been trying to say that Sam is not on the lead role. But people thought otherwise... Even on SGA, she wasn't on the lead role.. She was the "leader" of the Atlantis expedition but not 'lead role.' Yet again you helped me pointed out the obvious.

but, then rick left for good and they had a new face first in the credits and....well cam never got the story arc that i personally felt he deserved, but he became the SG1 whipping boy and whumping boy and, even though he never carried a long running story arc (they gave that to daniel and vala) he walked in off the streets and got his name first in the credits...why? in my opinion, because someone in an office had the idea of 'omg, we got a scifi show we GOTS to have a male lead so get us one'. And they did, even if the writers never treated his character as a true lead, they still had the 'male lead' to keep the networks happy.

When Mitchel first came into the show, I thought it was ridiculous for the writers to have placed him to lead than Sam or Daniel. I understand why Daniel or Teal'C might not have been able to lead since they're not military personnel, especially Teal'C since he's not even human! They could have step up a bit and write something for Sam so it fits more into her character as the leader of SG1.

Scifi is very male dominated. And breaking that history isn't always accomplished by simply hiring a bunch of women. A man can write a good story centered around a female character, if that man employs his imagination and pushes himself out of his comfortable little 'let me project myself upon the 'white male action hero' of the show' box and really tries.

I'll have to agree on that. Sexism is not what I want to promote. I've always thought that male can write a great female character if they put their creative juice at work. I mean of course it'd help for women to write about women to some extend but honestly, I kind of enjoy the occasional touch of a different gender to another gender. It helps keeps it creative, IMO.

But that's hard, cranking out the predictible stuff is easy, and it keeps the networks happy because they all have and support the idea that the scifi audience out there is mostly younger males, thus that's what they cater to with their male leads and - most often - submissive females. (females in the expected caring, care givers roles. girlfriends, sexy alien of the week, supportive and mothering adult female, love interest for the hero)

Keeping the network happy? As in the producer and owner, etc? I thought it's more important to keep the audiences happy? The SciFi audience out there is mostly younger males is because there isn't 'enough' female characters. I think people likes to watch shows that they can relate to or surprized by or etc, etc.. I am still curious as to why exactly they cancelled SGA. They said it is because of money matters (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think it's more because they aren't getting enough rating (correct me if I'm wrong again.)

The gender bias is so ground in and expected that people don't even see it.

I so absolutely agree. Period.

This is NOT going to dissolve into a rehashing of the 'who should lead' thread, however, the treatment of sam in season 9...it was seen as perfectly natural that the 8+ year veteran and leader of the team would willingly and gratefully step down to co-leader to accept the new male leader that the writers didn't even question the 8 year veteran following the lead of a 'gate virgin' who'd never even SEEN it before, much less gone on a mission.

Yet, if it had been Lt Col. SAMUEL Carter, an 8 year vet having to submit himself to Lt Col Cam Mitchell, the gate virgin, that never would happened, or they'd have written something like 'mitchell's father pulls strings to force him onto a team and mitchell has to overcome that favoritism to really prove himself'

but they didn't do that because it seemed appropriate and natural to the writers/execs that the female step down to let the male lead.

You hit it right on the spot.

Thinking like that is why it will be YEARS or longer before we see anything approaching gender equality in scifi. And why it'll be YEARS if ever that we see females treated as more than a support network for the male stars of the show.

No it won't because there are audiences like, myself, who wants more diversity. I will ask for it And I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants that. But I think not enough people see it just quite yet how sexist our television shows still are. (I hope that doesn't offend anyone )

[Cherriey]

Perhaps (this is just me randomly speculating mind) one of the reasons for casting so many males in lead roles is that they can draw more female viewers with these 'heart throb' leads. Of course I could be way off.

[Falcon Horus]

Perhaps (this is just me randomly speculating mind) one of the reasons for casting so many males in lead roles is that they can draw more female viewers with these 'heart throb' leads. Of course I could be way off.

They're aiming at the 18 to 35 male demographic... who they believe only want teh sex in female characters and not substance.

[Flyboy]

They're aiming at the 18 to 35 male demographic... who they believe only want teh sex in female characters and not substance.

Carter was built up from day one has having 'the substance'...

[jenks]

They're aiming at the 18 to 35 male demographic... who they believe only want teh sex in female characters and not substance.

Really? Where did you hear that?