Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[the dancer of spaz]

Field time does NOT even out time in rank.
Even if it did, Cam has 'field time' as well, flying 302's and fighters as shown in teh flashback in CD.
THere is a lot TPTB have not explained about this season, due to their pussyfooting around the command issue.

While I agree about TPTB's wussy decisions, as you well know, I disagree about how their experiences have been evened out. I'm not saying that that's how it is in real life; I'm saying TPTB must've thought it would fly by the way they've treated both characters. It's never been discussed, it's never been mentioned, and I don't believe Mallozzi even commented on it when it was asked of him (though I could be wrong). Cameron's time in grade has evidently been overlooked by the characters and TPTB in favor of co-leadership.

And I find it interesting how you think typing "Irrelevant" after every paragraph in someone's post qualifies as a counter-argument. Especially when this thread has been off-topic for several days. Was it even necessary to respond? Just wondering.

[RyantheGreat]

I know! Amazing, isn't it? Because everyone knows sexism was wiped out in the television & film industry, like, 50 years ago!

Now we're confusing the real world with a fictional one which imitates the real world. A fictional world at that, which mirrors military protocol (you know, standard pay grades, etc), and a secret stargate, which no doubt has few and far between capable officers for command.

My point being? I tend to think of views of SF, and Stargate in general to be enlightened individuals, who would look at a character's talents and abilities rather than their gender. The only way Sam's gender is relevant is in the sexual tension it created between her and Jack.

I really, *really* don't think there are people on this board who want Mitchell to be in charge and not Sam just because of anatomy.

If I'm wrong, then those who do believe as much should be ignored and relegated to the dust bin of SF history...

[RyantheGreat]

For the sake of playing devil's advocate...

An argument could be made that Teal'c should lead SG1. After all, I think it's probably safe to say that First Prime outranks a Lt. Colonel.

[stargate barbie]

sorry, i was just skimming through and this caught my attention so i'll just make a couple of points.

See, that's my point. Shards' friends thought it was Mitchell, your friend thought Carter. So far, no one who hasn't been exposed to Joe's comments has thought of co-command. IT's NOT clear.

actually, i have a friend whom i hadn't spoken to since before christmas until about a week or 2 ago, and he figured they must be co-leading when the subject came up.

if there was a need to observe strict silence, then they would have SAID that.

umm... thats not very silent. surely a signal to speak with a lower tone of voice should suffice to a supposedly experienced military man.

sorry if this has already been dealt with or responded to or whatever. like i say, i'm just skimming through.

[the dancer of spaz]

Now we're confusing the real world with a fictional one which imitates the real world. A fictional world at that, which mirrors military protocol (you know, standard pay grades, etc), and a secret stargate, which no doubt has few and far between capable officers for command.

A fictional world that is dictated by the real life world of demographics and advertising. A fictional world that is heavily dictated by the concerns and fears of the network through which said world is broadcast. This is where science fiction meets reality. Big time.

I really, *really* don't think there are people on this board who want Mitchell to be in charge and not Sam just because of anatomy.

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse anyone on this board of being sexist. That's just ludicrous. Is it possible that it's on a more subconscious level, based off of how that person was socialized? I wouldn't rule it out. But the suggestion really comes from how we believe the network thinks, not any individual posters on this forum.

[the dancer of spaz]

For the sake of playing devil's advocate...

An argument could be made that Teal'c should lead SG1. After all, I think it's probably safe to say that First Prime outranks a Lt. Colonel.

The time for Teal'c to lead a team was in COTG. Yes, there was the trust issue. But why not after that? He's got years on Hammond and Landry combined. If he wasn't more qualified than Jack (which we all know he was), then we can assume that it's highly unlikely for an alien, no matter how trusted, loyal or brave, to lead an SG-team.

Sad that an alien leading a team on a permanent basis is as likely as a woman, though.

[RyantheGreat]

A fictional world that is dictated by the real life world of demographics and advertising. A fictional world that is heavily dictated by the concerns and fears of the network through which said world is broadcast. This is where science fiction meets reality. Big time.



I wouldn't go so far as to accuse anyone on this board of being sexist. That's just ludicrous. Is it possible that it's on a more subconscious level, based off of how that person was socialized? I wouldn't rule it out. But the suggestion really comes from how we believe the network thinks, not any individual posters on this forum.

Fine.. but that's an entirely different argument. It has nothing to do with Cameron's leading style, or Carter's rank. You can't confuse writing with real life gender politics.

At the same time, I'd point out that UPN ran Voyager with a female Captain. (UPN being a larger network than Scifi) Threshold had a female lead... NBC. Babylon 5 had a female Captain at the end. I could even point to the phenominal success of Commander in Chief (ABC) but the network's done everything they can to destroy that one...

Oh.. and on this same network as Stargate is BSG, which has a female president. And, silly me, Stargate Atlantis, with Weir.

So I truly beleive it's a weak argument. Anyone who pays for advertising on Scifi or SG1 in particular is well aware of their audience- namely scifi geeks. Which, usually include, I might add, the target male audiance which actually gets off on women in authority. (Xena comes to mind)

So no, if there was an argument for sexism, it would actually play in Carter's favor. (Xena, again)

[RyantheGreat]

Sad that an alien leading a team on a permanent basis is as likely as a woman, though.

Maybe it's because he's a black alien? I mean... if you want to play the discrimination cards..

[DEM]

Fine.. but that's an entirely different argument. It has nothing to do with Cameron's leading style, or Carter's rank. You can't confuse writing with real life gender politics.

Wouldn't writing be the aspect that is subject to real life gender politics? In any case, the argument about sexism has more to do with that thing you didn't mention: Cameron's rank (and, relatedly, BB's very casting as lead).

So I truly beleive it's a weak argument. Anyone who pays for advertising on Scifi or SG1 in particular is well aware of their audience- namely scifi geeks. Which, usually include, I might add, the target male audiance which actually gets off on women in authority.

This is an interesting hypothesis. Media research shows that male actors continue to occupy approximately two-thirds of all protagonist/lead roles (as recently as 2003, I believe), and are similarly over-represented among supporting roles. In addition, when female actors are in lead roles, they are surrounded by more supporting characters than male actors are. However, I have not come across any studies that break out scifi/action/adventure shows to examine whether women actually fare better there -- after controlling for differential population sizes, of course. Something for the weekend, perhaps....

But this?

Maybe it's because he's a black alien? I mean... if you want to play the discrimination cards..

Was just weak.

[Uber]

I know! Weird, eh? You mean money-making decisions are still based on the lowest common denominator? Get out of town!

I'd say that the issue of sexism is more about the apparent bent of TPTB toward reviving the old dynamic...dashing but rash male hottie leading man with his team of intrepid explorers etc. And who better than the guy who played John Crichton so well?

However there are many reasons why this reasoning is faulty on OH so many levels.

1. A John Crichton-esque character doesn't seem to fit into this team dynamic. It worked on Farscape because of the chemistry of the show and the characters. SG-1 is just different in that regard and as a result the team feels forced. The dynamic's forced. The relationships are forced. Chemistry either is or isn't...and right now, it isn't...and the leadership issue is one of the key reasons for this problem.

2. The idea that they needed a male leading hero figure is tragically passe and cliche. Audiences these days have grown to accept and appreciate strong leading female characters and therefore the push for the "male lead" shows a lack of understanding of the general viewing audience.

3. The canon of the show...which I know, is of no interest to many these days...had it so that Sam was positioned as someone who grew in her experience and training and then was given charge of the team. Using the pathetically contrived "she left and SG-1 disbanded" argument is thoroughly insulting. The writers WROTE that FCOL. There could have been all kinds of reasons to explain her absence for the first 5 episodes and they chose that route. We live with the consequences still today.

4. Sam simply has the essence of someone who is in charge. Her experience, her training...the VIBE of her personality is of the "take charge" nature this year more than most. Regardless of how many times Mitchell identified himself as the "leader" this year, it seemed so forced to me. I know people would love to pigeon hole Sam as the tech girl but really, how fair is that? People grow and change and it seems awfully limiting to hope she stays in her precious little science box and offers up a well timed "yes sir" and "theoretically speaking, sir" when prompted. And frankly I've seen her do more this year by way of commanding than in Season 8 when she was the team leader of record.

5. Mitchell's essence is of someone who at first wanted to learn from the best but is too immature and impetuous for any kind of serious leadership role of the flagship team. At least for right now and especially with Carter around, reminding us with her mere presence that she runs rings around him without even trying...so do Daniel and Teal'c for that matter. And truly, if he ever "put his foot down" (as opposed to "in his mouth" like he does on a regular basis), I'd either laugh my head off or I'd roll my eyes as harshly as Sam and Daniel do when Mitchell goes off on one of his "how cool is this!" verbal sprees.

[stargate barbie]

also, i've seen the argument that they aren't or shouldn't be co-leaders because thats not how its done in the real life military. yes, then that couldn't be the situation because stargate never does anything that wouldn't happen in the real military.

its a tv show, and while in certain circumstances of saluting and hat wearing and such, and generally whatever suits and whatever they can't argue themselves out of, they do go by what the military advisors say, this is not the case for everything. so the co-leadership thing can't be thrown out because of that really.

[Deevil]

Originally Posted by chocdoc
That's what I'm seeing now---co-leadership. I don't see Sam following or Mitchell giving any orders to Carter.

*****

What about in the scourge when he runs into the outpost and tells her to hurry up?
Seemed like an order to me. She didn't snap or anything, just told him she was hurrying.

Actually, they have all used the phrase "hurry up", I cannot see how this in anyway constitutes an order... but once again it's a question of perception.

Seriously, this is a TV show and for that reason I have no problem with the idea of co-command. I don't care if it really happens in the military, and you wanna know why? Because I am pretty damned sure a stargate doesn't really exist in the military. It's called dramatic licensing.

I just want someone to address it a little better then it has been. Although I do agree with what coco-doc said I have also seen the co-command in action, and have also had friends think the same thing who haven't followed the online chatter, and who I hadn't advised of any of it...

He just told me "It was a natural conclusion", and while I personally don't actually agree with the naturalness of said conclusion - I have to say I found it interesting.

As for Teal'c leading the team, never happen because he isn't US military - or any recognised military for that matter. Same with Daniel... And yes it's also true no matter what Teal'c does he will never really and truely be 100% trusted by the higher ups, anyone remember what happened in Affinity?

So it's down to Sam and Cameron and hoping they address the issue in S10, which I believe they will.

[RyantheGreat]

But this?
Was just weak.

Simply illustrating a point. If we're going to argue that Carter's sex is a factor, why not Teal'c's skin color? If that's a can of worms we want to open, we can't pick and choose the worms, can we?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that...It should also be noted that SG1 is not, in fact, created by Scifi channel, but an independant production studio which in turn sells the episodes to the Sci Fi channel. At the same time, the studio employs the writers while Sci Fi channel sells the advertising time, therefore, there's still more of a buffer between the writing staff of SG1 and the advertising sales team of Sci Fi.

Any way you boil it down, it's a weak argument. If people want to debate Carter and Mitchell's right to lead based on rank, leaderships style, whatever... that's one thing, but the sexism argument is a strawman.

[RyantheGreat]

Another thought on Co-Leadership, bear with me.

Star Trek's V, and VI.

Both Kirk and Spock held the rank of Captain, yet clearly Kirk was in charge. Why? Because Starfleet Command designated him as Captain of the Enterprise. (Just as the SGC has designated Mitchell as team leader of SG1)

[Uber]

Another thought on Co-Leadership, bear with me.

Star Trek's V, and VI.

Both Kirk and Spock held the rank of Captain, yet clearly Kirk was in charge. Why? Because Starfleet Command designated him as Captain of the Enterprise. (Just as the SGC has designated Mitchell as team leader of SG1)

The problems with that analogy are that firstly, Kirk was always in command of Spock. That was always true...so for the sake of the continuity of the canon, Kirk would always be in command. Fact is, if that had ever not been the case, the chemistry would have been off and would have affected the dynamic of the show (or movies).

Secondly and along the same lines, Spock was not in command and then superceded by a newcomer who was written in over him. And frankly, had they done that, then fans would have a right to get perturbed by them writing in some new guy coming in and trampling on his feet. (Hmm...seems like a familiar sentiment somehow).