Was it really necessary to show James at the end?

[EllieVee]

So your argument is now that we should ignore what the writers actually wrote into the episode (what is there and what was ultimately cut) and just make up a BS reason so that you can justify their completely quasi-sexist writing?

Yep.

[MattSilver 3k]

So your argument is now that we should ignore what the writers actually wrote into the episode (what is there and what was ultimately cut) and just make up a BS reason so that you can justify their completely quasi-sexist writing?

Whatever helps you sleep at night and stops this thread in its tracks... Because, if you're looking for a TV show with sensitivity to all kinds of groups - feminists, gay/lesbian groups - maybe you shy away from this one, seeing as its predecessors are written by the same people who have the same ideals and will tout the same stereotypes. Rewatch SG1 and Atlantis, count your blessings, and then decide if it's all worth it.

And yeah, I'm changing my argument since you're ignoring all the points of my first one.

[The_Asgard_live]

So your argument is now that we should ignore what the writers actually wrote into the episode (what is there and what was ultimately cut) and just make up a BS reason so that you can justify their completely quasi-sexist writing?

The end game is to justify/defend the show/characters. We've all been there with something we liked or loved. Unable to accept any criticism. Although I do find it funny this isn't supposed to be worthy as a topic of discussion. Is anything? Its all made up BS.

I don't know if you ever seen firefly but Zoe, now there was a bad-ass chick. Her husband Wash by comparison took the "fem" role. When he was killed in the movie, she didn't cry. It just made her mad. But this isn't firefly, and these writers aren't Joss Whedon

[Mike.]

So your argument is now that we should ignore what the writers actually wrote into the episode (what is there and what was ultimately cut) and just make up a BS reason so that you can justify their completely quasi-sexist writing?

If it makes you feel better you should do just that. This "discussion" is not a debate anymore because you're unwilling to accept any opposing points and just repeating yourself. No new content, this makes this thread useless.

It's not sexist, not in an offensive manner as you consider it. And there no reason to force it to be.

[FallenAngelII]

If it makes you feel better you should do just that. This "discussion" is not a debate anymore because you're unwilling to accept any opposing points and just repeating yourself. No new content, this makes this thread useless.

It's not sexist, not in an offensive manner as you consider it. And there no reason to force it to be.

I've said it time and again that it's probably not deliberate on the part of the writers. But it is not I who refuse to accept the opinion of others, it is you. I have never said "Well, this couldn't possibly be due to anything but sexism". I'm not the one arguing as if the opposing side consists of loons who are categorically wrong.

I merely have not yet been persuaded by the opposition. My opinion is still the same as when this thread started. It is an opinion and just as valid as yours. We disagree. However, I would never have the gall to say "It is clearly sexism and that is all it can be!" as opposed to some people who state "It's not sexism! Not at all! Never ever!".

I don't speak in absolutes when it comes to my personal opinion and personal interpretation. Because I'm cool like that.

[Jill_Ion]

This just doesn't happen in real life.

Huh? You're kidding, right? People don't cry?

[maxbo]

My first reaction to that sobbing-James scene was an eyeroll because after seeing sobbing-Chloe, sobbing-Camille and sobbing-TJ, I knew it was just a matter of time before we would see a sobbing-James and a sobbing-Park. Stargate's writers always did struggle to write for women, but these sobbing-female scenes have become redundant and strangely amusing because each time I see one, I wonder which female character will be sobbing next.

My second reaction to the sobbing-James scene was that I was being too harsh and that I should just view the scene in the context of the rough day that James had survived - being on a ship attacked by aliens, trying to keep her shipmates safe, helping out in the infirmary, seeing crew members die and/or get hurt, and risking her life to save them.

Given all that she had gone through - not for one moment did I believe that she was sobbing her eyes out because of a man. As silly as I found the speculations that she was crying over the new guy, I found the reality that she was crying over Scott, of all people, just as silly because like the Scott/Chloe hook-up, it came out of nowhere.

The end game is to justify/defend the show/characters. We've all been there with something we liked or loved. Unable to accept any criticism. Although I do find it funny this isn't supposed to be worthy as a topic of discussion. Is anything? Its all made up BS.

I don't know if you ever seen firefly but Zoe, now there was a bad-ass chick. Her husband Wash by comparison took the "fem" role. When he was killed in the movie, she didn't cry. It just made her mad. But this isn't firefly, and these writers aren't Joss Whedon

Yeah, I'm also amused that, for some, this topic is suddenly not considered worthy of disussion. The criticism that these writers can't write women well has always been a timely topic of discussion because these writers keep providing reasons to keep related discussions going.

As for Zoe in Firefly, yes, she was a great example of a bad-ass female (and, the other characters were well-written too), but as you said, sadly, these writers aren't Joss Whedon. As a result, I expect to see each female character written with the same basic template, with a few modifications to highlight which stereotype she represents to the writers.

I've said it time and again that it's probably not deliberate on the part of the writers. But it is not I who refuse to accept the opinion of others, it is you. I have never said "Well, this couldn't possibly be due to anything but sexism". I'm not the one arguing as if the opposing side consists of loons who are categorically wrong.

I merely have not yet been persuaded by the opposition. My opinion is still the same as when this thread started. It is an opinion and just as valid as yours. We disagree. However, I would never have the gall to say "It is clearly sexism and that is all it can be!" as opposed to some people who state "It's not sexism! Not at all! Never ever!".

I don't speak in absolutes when it comes to my personal opinion and personal interpretation. Because I'm cool like that.

Thanks for starting this thread because ever since I read Mallozzi's clarification of the sobbing-James scene, it's been interesting reading the reactions on the various boards and I find it strangely noteworthy that the first reaction is often disbelief.

As for whether the writers are trying to be sexist, I have to agree with you that, no, they're not *trying* to be sexist. Unfortunately, I believe that the reality is even worse - that their view of women is so inherently sexist that they're not even aware that they are sexist. If they're not aware that they're sexist, then they're not likely to write their female characters better anytime soon.

[Naonak]

I don't know if you ever seen firefly but Zoe, now there was a bad-ass chick. Her husband Wash by comparison took the "fem" role. When he was killed in the movie, she didn't cry. It just made her mad. But this isn't firefly, and these writers aren't Joss Whedon

Then there's Inara, who broke down into tears when Mal hooked up with Nandi.

Just sayin'.

So your argument is now that we should ignore what the writers actually wrote into the episode (what is there and what was ultimately cut) and just make up a BS reason so that you can justify their completely quasi-sexist writing?

Yup, that Scott moment was cut. Why not ignore it? Hey, you're the one who said in the Chloe thread that we "work with what we have" rather than going to the blog all the time.

Considering the situation, "stress" is hardly making up some BS.

[s09119]

I don't see what's wrong with a girl crying over a boy treating her like ****, regardless of age, but okay.

[Commander Zelix]

Huh? You're kidding, right? People don't cry?

It was sarcasm obviously. As I said, her crying over her loneliness in private felt real. I have no problem with it. She's obviously more emotional than other people, but that's life. We're not all alike.

[Jonzey]

What man would you rather have cry in that scene?

[carmencatalina]

We've seen Rush cry (in the first episode), and I also think we see a tear drop from Young's face as he looks at his wedding ring in his quarters during "Darkness". As others have mentioned, Scott cries in his flashback scene.

So some crying by the boys, as well.

[GateroomGuard]

You know I was thinking today and this quote came to me. I'm pretty sure it came from Mark Twain but I can't seem to find it online, probably wording it wrong, but the idea of it is this, "A parent will tell a child not to cry when their kite gets destroyed. To an adult the kites not worth crying over, but to a child it is. So don't tell a child not to cry over something when you are not percieiving it as they do."

What caused James to cry may not have made some people cry but that doesn't mean it wouldn't make her cry. There isn't a universal rule for these things, its up to the individual.

I know this from expierence. When my grandfather died a few years ago, a man I've known and loved since I was a child I didn't even shed a single tear. My eyes may have gotten a little wattery but I never cried. When my uncle, who I've know just as long and as well, died a year ago I was bawling my eyes out for days. But I also cried just as much when I got a progress report back that had less than stellar grades. My uncle meant a lot more to me than getting a few Cs in school yet I cried the same. Why would I have drastically different reactions? I don't know, thats the point. I've cried maybe 4 times total in all my life, other than that I'm as emotionless as Mr. Spock, but simply because I don't show emotions doesn't mean that a series of variables won't send me to the floor in tears.

James cried, why I can't tell you other than what I've listed before. Should she have cried over it? Why not? I can't percieve things how she percieved them but would I have cried? Probably. If variables were different would she still have cried? I don't know, maybe. I have an event happen to me twice in my life thats exactly the same, one time I laugh at it the other I cry. Thats what being human is.

Thats why I think there is nothing wrong with James crying. Why I think the writers wanted James to cry is a lot less difficult to explain. They wanted to show that she's human and crying is the easiest way to express that because we've all done it, we can all relate.

just my two cents.

[PG15]

Crying due to stress, that's fine. Crying because Scott treated her like crap (which is what JM says it is)? Umm... no.

I'm tired of people pulling up JM's blog of "What could have been". We work with what we have.

.

[The_Asgard_live]

Then there's Inara, who broke down into tears when Mal hooked up with Nandi.
Just sayin'

That she did (I think, been awhile), but that was her role right? The ultimate female companion, not warrior. Her and Mal were secretly or not so secretly pining for each other. It works.

I don't think the question is, is it plausible that James cried? Of course it is. The question (I think) for FallenAngel, and I know for me is did we really need another female (or person for that matter) crying on this show? Why not give us one Zoe for this show? I have 2 goals for this show

1. To be entertained
2. For it to stop being a show where my brother walks in during the latest cry-a-thon and says "my wife makes me watch shows like this, why do you do it?".

Besides, call it a hunch, but I would bet big time that most or all those explaining away how
"real" it was that she was crying would be doing cartwheels if the show unfolded in the way I offered it could have. If they had showed Scott disrespect James and she knocked him on his ass and called him a pansy. Instead just alot of making excuses for what we got. At least there was no biochemical breakdown as to why real humans cry to explain the actions of the character. (Chloe thread). Really, is that where we are at now?