GeekHaven.tk

Okay, okay, I know I'm probably getting some sort of reputation as That Raving Feminist Looney or something. But I just thought a discussion would be fun and this was the first maybe-many-sided geek-culture article that presented itself.

So. There was an interesting rant on io9. I'll wait while you look over it. *waits*

So what do you think? Is sci fi (and other geek hobbies) becoming "softened" to try to reach a female audience, to the detriment of quality? Or are the differences in storytelling just a natural evolution of the genre? And do the attempts by, say, Syfy to reach a female audience really have an impact?

Or any, uh, tangential thoughts on the subject? Seriously, this is just meant to brew discussion; by all means, bring up anything that comes to mind that you'd like to pursue.

I'll come back with my own thoughts later.

(And mods, if this isn't in the right place, sorry!)

James Cameron has been making chick flicks for years that define the genre of Sci-Fi. Aliens is about the struggle of two mothers to protect their children. The Abyss is at its heart a love story between the two main characters, and that love is what saves the human race from nigh-omnipotent water-dwellers. Dark Angel CAN be construed as eye-candy for adolescent boys, but Jessica Alba really was quite the ass-kicker.

Last, but not least, the entire Terminator series is a Mother Mary allegory about a woman protecting her child who will protect the world. T2 took the notion further, especially with Sarah's speech about creation vs. destruction. T3 was lame by comparison, but even then, it was Kate Connor who sent the cyborg to save her husband. Sarah Connor Chronicles was FANTASTIC Sci-Fi that used the Cameron Mother vs. Mother element in Season 2, and used both Sarah and Cameron as John's protectors.

I think the main issue with Sci-Fi today is that, similar to today's music industry, it's being diluted to an audience that uses TV as background noise between snack breaks. It was once said that Smallville epitomizes this problem, in that they were required to dumb down the show to fit this requirement. I wish I still had the reference for this, as it explained a lot about the show.

If Sci-Fi is "ruined" by relationship drama, then it's also doomed to linger in obscurity amongst Asperger kids who read car manuals for fun. Star Trek (in ANY incarnation) had relationships at the heart of the story and used technology to facilitate the storytelling. Relationships are what make us care about the story, unless real life takes a turn for the ironic, and we ARE replaced by Skynet.

Women are not to blame for bad Sci-Fi. The fault lies in writers who've never had a relationship with another human being and are therefore incapable of writing compelling stories.

I’m going to respond out of order. Because I can. Bwah.

Star Trek (in ANY incarnation) had relationships at the heart of the story and used technology to facilitate the storytelling. Relationships are what make us care about the story, unless real life takes a turn for the ironic, and we ARE replaced by Skynet.

Agreed completely; sci fi is, at its heart, not about things in space or stuff getting blown up. It is, and always has been, about the human element against a fantastic setting, and about the conflicts and problems and joys of the human experience—even when the experiencers (totally a word, shush) aren’t strictly human themselves.

Last, but not least, the entire Terminator series is a Mother Mary allegory about a woman protecting her child who will protect the world. T2 took the notion further, especially with Sarah's speech about creation vs. destruction. T3 was lame by comparison, but even then, it was Kate Connor who sent the cyborg to save her husband. Sarah Connor Chronicles was FANTASTIC Sci-Fi that used the Cameron Mother vs. Mother element in Season 2, and used both Sarah and Cameron as John's protectors.

Eh, there’s no chance of saving my reputation anyway, so I'm just going to go ahead, put my Raving Feminist hat back on, and cringe a little at this. Oooh, look, a soapbox, you don’t mind if I—no? Oh, good.

*ascends soapbox*

The idea that a female character is still distilled not to her personality but to her role--whether it's as a mother, a love interest, whatever--and then applauded for that is troubling to me, but all too common amongst current entertainment in general and sci fi especially. There are an increasing number of female characters in sci fi right now, which is awesome. There are, however, not that many incredibly dynamic, individual female characters in sci fi right now, with real quirks and strengths and weaknesses and who are, above all, individual, self-contained people in addition to figures in a relationship.

I could discuss the history of the Mother Mary allegory in literary criticism, and how alarming it is that the medieval Pure Mother Mary vs. Temptress Eve mentality still seems to be the essence of female characters in fiction these days, but . . . that would probably bore everyone. So. I won’t.

*descends soapbox*
*removes Raving Feminist hat*

(I'm also going to switch hats to my Show Pimping hat and mention that my raving feminism is part of why my current TV infatuation is Syfy's Warehouse 13. The women in these series are such well-developed, round characters, just as the men are. They still engage in relationships—deep, powerful relationships--but they aren’t defined by them to the point where they overshadow the characters as individual.)

Psychography wrote:Dark Angel CAN be construed as eye-candy for adolescent boys, but Jessica Alba really was quite the ass-kicker.

Not just for the adolescent boys. Hello, lightly stubbled Michael Weatherly in glasses.

P.S. If you made it through that post, you totally deserve cookies.



(I swear I can talk about other things. Really.)

Well... that was completely demoralizing.
I had a huge post written up, about my observations, and when I hit post, the board had one of it's glitches it likes to do with my web connection, and logged me out instead.

Let's try to repete what I wrote:

Psych,
I think you're responding to a completely different thing than the article I just read.

Yeah, Sci fi is chock full of strong female characters, both support and leads. From Ripley to Major Kira.
But that doesn't seem to be the issue at all. The subject seems to be about the distinct lack of women behind the scenes. There are very few female creators of sci-fi. Very few writers, and almost no directors.

Though, it is my personal observation of almost every woman I know who's into such things that they prefer vampires to vulcans. They will all go see movies like Star Trek, ALIENS, and Transformers, but most vastly prefer the likes of Harry Potter, Pern, Ann Rice, and Twilight.
The fantasy genre is almost dominated by female creators now. If not, then it's certainly near 50/50.
But because of my personal experiences with this, I had always assumed the lack of female creators in the genre of sci fi, with so many in the genre of fantasy, and given the fans I know having a distint preference to fantasy... I had always assumed that there were so few female creators due to lack of interest.


This is a quite a bit shortened and less meaty post than I originally made.

I'm really enjoying the discussion--I hope I'm not being obnoxious by responding so frequently, but I find this really fun.

Crazy Jetty wrote:I think you're responding to a completely different thing than the article I just read.

Yeah, Sci fi is chock full of strong female characters, both support and leads. From Ripley to Major Kira.
But that doesn't seem to be the issue at all. The subject seems to be about the distinct lack of women behind the scenes. There are very few female creators of sci-fi. Very few writers, and almost no directors.

It's not exactly the original article, but it's still a related issue, so I don't think it's like off topic or anything. Part of why women do not participate in the creation of sci fi is because they aren’t included in the end product, in part due to the lack of strong and dynamic female characters. And I do still maintain that there are NOT as many strong and authentic female characters as one might hope.

Though, it is my personal observation of almost every woman I know who's into such things that they prefer vampires to vulcans. They will all go see movies like Star Trek, ALIENS, and Transformers, but most vastly prefer the likes of Harry Potter, Pern, Ann Rice, and Twilight.
The fantasy genre is almost dominated by female creators now. If not, then it's certainly near 50/50.
But because of my personal experiences with this, I had always assumed the lack of female creators in the genre of sci fi, with so many in the genre of fantasy, and given the fans I know having a distinct preference to fantasy... I had always assumed that there were so few female creators due to lack of interest.

*raises hands* I prefer Star Trek and Doctor Who to Pern, Anne Rice, and Twilight, but I do understand what you mean. BUT the problem is not in the stuff found in sci fi versus the stuff in fantasy; it’s the way it’s presented. (I mean that on both sides—I dislike Pern, Rice’s Vampire Whinicles, and The Adventures of Bella and her Sparkly Boyfriend as individual works, not an issue with the genres.)

My old signature featured this article, “What Chicks Don’t Like About Sci Fi.” The gist of it is that your assumption—girls aren’t interested in skiffy—exists for a reason: “If there's something keeping women away from enjoying science fiction, it's not spaceships. It's not "aliens on some far-off planet." It's the fact that people on our very own planet keep telling us that women aren't supposed to like science fiction. It's a self-confirming prophesy, because the more that scifi creators are told this, the more they imagine that their audience is all boys” (Newitz).

In other words, women are not interested in sci fi because we’re told we’re not supposed to be interested in sci fi, and the creators don’t expect us to be interested in sci fi, and so they create sci fi that ignores the female audience completely, and so women are not interested in their sci fi, and so there is the continued belief that they won’t be interested in sci fi, etc. etc. etc. So of course there aren’t prominent female creators—we’re not even supposed to watch the shows, forget writing them.

It has nothing to do with Vulcans versus vampires. After all, the Star Trek reboot has a huge female following, as does Doctor Who, as do Warehouse 13 and Eureka. This is in part because for once, they’re presented as something that girls are actually allowed to like.

P.S. You’d be surprised how many female sci fi writers there are who write under initials or an assumed male name, frequently to great success. D. C. Fontana, for example, wrote some of the best Star Trek episodes under that name and the name “Michael Richards.” That's also, by the way, why J. K. Rowling wrote under her initials: her publishers didn't think boys would buy a book written by a female author.

What determines an authentic female character? What encapsulates the female experience and the female persona? The article points out Janeway vs. Seven of Nine, and while one might argue that Janeway is more of an authentic woman, I'd also argue that the concept of Seven is a strange and ill-conceived way to drum up pubescent male viewership. It appears to me that your usage of authentic is a synnym for well-rounded and believable characters. Kirk is a strong character, but he's also a bit of a stereotype lothario. Picard is strong, but he doesn't even cry when Cardassians give him a purple nurple. Sci-Fi is filled with stereotypical men doing stereotypical "male" things, but I don't know what qualifications to use to pick out an authentic male character.

As for women behind the scenes of Sci-Fi, it's the same hurdle women experienced in literature, in business, in the military, and in action figure case ratios. Despite Mary Shelley actually founding the genre of Sci-Fi, it's since been overpopulated by male writers who have since created the very stereotype of which you speak. Since ambiguity and lack of neat little categories frustrates and befuddles those who market works of art, the TV and books and movies that make it to market commonly fit within stereotypical and fiscally safe boundaries (ala "J.K." Rowling).

Unfortunately, once those creative boxes are transcended, the market struggles to recapture and reclaim the contents. After Harry Potter's success, magic became the hot topic for young adult novels and TV. Same with Bella's Sparkly Boyfriend. All it'll take is one REALLY successful female sci-fi author to forever change the industry, because the gatekeepers of media will find that it's profitable.

Shame that they'll never make that realization in regards to quality TV... Reality shows vex me...

Psychography wrote:What determines an authentic female character? What encapsulates the female experience and the female persona?

Nothing. That's the thing: there is no "female experience" or "female persona." What is true for one woman is not true for all, because we are not just women, we are actually unique individuals. Some aspects of a specific woman may be consistent with female stereotypes (I am currently wearing pink and trying to find my eyeshadow), some may not (I am also posting on a sci fi message board), and the point is that the characterization is authentic and consistent with that individual.

That's my problem with women in sci fi. They are not frequently permitted to be individuals; they are tropes or cliches, they are identified by their relationships to others rather than by who they are themselves. Males in entertainment are permitted both strengths and flaws, and quirks, and they are permitted to grow or change as a series or book continues. Female characters, frequently, are not given this same freedom.

The article points out Janeway vs. Seven of Nine, and while one might argue that Janeway is more of an authentic woman, I'd also argue that the concept of Seven is a strange and ill-conceived way to drum up pubescent male viewership.

The catsuit aside, I will agree that Seven's actually in many ways a more authentic character than Janeway. I love Janeway largely due to the badassitude of Kate Mulgrew, don't get me wrong, but she suffered from a lot of inconsistent writing. Seven, however, has a lot of internal and external conflicts, and she changes a great deal--and subtly--over the course of the series in a way that feels organic to the character and her experiences. [s]With the possible exception of her ending up with Chakotay, because WTF?[/s] The real problem with Seven, though, is that while her writing and acting were very authentically characterized, she was nonetheless presented to the audience as a sex object rather than a character; it's sort of alarming that you can only introduce a female character if she's got a magnificent rack and a catsuit.

It appears to me that your usage of authentic is a synnym for well-rounded and believable characters. Kirk is a strong character, but he's also a bit of a stereotype lothario. Picard is strong, but he doesn't even cry when Cardassians give him a purple nurple. Sci-Fi is filled with stereotypical men doing stereotypical "male" things, but I don't know what qualifications to use to pick out an authentic male character.

Picard's lack of crying I think is consistent with his character, rather than appealing to a stereotype, and that’s the whole point. He is reserved, and he is strong-minded; the moments that he breaks are all mental breaks, not physical, and that’s also consistent to me. An authentic character isn’t one that reacts the way you do, it’s one that reacts the way he or she would. *shrug*

As for Kirk, yes, he is a bit of a trope and a flat character, I agree—a persona more than a person—but the other male characters of TOS are less so, while Uhura, Rand, Chapel are more often than not relegated to be The Skirts In The Background™, to say nothing of the Kirk Romance Of The Week™. And I would maybe argue that, in the movies especially, Kirk becomes a bit more dynamic, and some of his strengths also appear to be his flaws, which is actually really fun to watch, but I can’t remember what my point was so I guess I’ll just stop here.

I mean no offence by the title I gave you Gats, but I found it humorously appropriate given almost every post you make since coming here, you start with "I don't want to seem like a raving feminist," that it was inevitable. (We need a kissing icon)

No, dude, I thought it was hilarious. I feel special now. A little embarrassed, but special.

This topic kind of reminds me of "The Jane Austen Book Club", the whole "guys' fiction vs. gals' fiction" element just really fits this discussion. There's even quite a bit about Science Fiction in there, including a scene specifically about women who wrote Sci-Fi. If you haven't seen it, it might be worth a watch.
As far as determining if Sci-Fi is sexist, as a guy, I'm really not in a position to make any kind of statement. On the other hand, if "feminizing" means stories that explore characters and relationships in a Sci-Fi setting, I don't feel threatened at all by that, either.
My interests run to the mechanical. It's probably why I became an auto mechanic, why I work in an auto parts store, etc. I like interacting in a world with an underlying order to it, with "rules". I don't really think it's a "guy" thing, just the way I relate to the world. With that in mind, my Sci-Fi interests run to the mechanical. I love almost anything with robots, like Transformers, Gobots, or Macross. I like Star Trek, with the established tech of that universe. To a lesser extent, I like the ships and droids of Star Wars, though I am less than enthused about the mysticism of the Jedi. I really enjoy shows like Doctor Who and FIrefly, even when they don't explain the tech, you get the feeling that they could if they had to. I like the old radioactive giant monster films, and the modern genetically engineered versions, as long as there's even a tenuously plausible origin for them. Conversely, I have very little patience for, or interest in, vampires, zombies, ghosts, wizards, or magic in general.
In short, if a series fits within what I consider "true" Sci-Fi , and doesn't inject too much, or rely too heavily on, fantasy, then it matters not a bit to me who wrote, directed, or starred in it, or even if the target audience was men or women. What's important is that it's well-written and populated by actual characters and not caricatures (although a caricature can be good for a laugh now and then).

haywire28 wrote:As far as determining if Sci-Fi is sexist, as a guy, I'm really not in a position to make any kind of statement. On the other hand, if "feminizing" means stories that explore characters and relationships in a Sci-Fi setting, I don't feel threatened at all by that, either.

Guys can't recognize sexism? Why not? I'm not saying I expect anyone (including other women) to get as in-depth and overanalytical about it as I do, because, y'know, I'm a feminism dork. But that doesn't mean a guy can't be aware. *shrug*

My interests run to the mechanical. It's probably why I became an auto mechanic, why I work in an auto parts store, etc. I like interacting in a world with an underlying order to it, with "rules". I don't really think it's a "guy" thing, just the way I relate to the world. With that in mind, my Sci-Fi interests run to the mechanical. I love almost anything with robots, like Transformers, Gobots, or Macross. I like Star Trek, with the established tech of that universe. To a lesser extent, I like the ships and droids of Star Wars, though I am less than enthused about the mysticism of the Jedi. I really enjoy shows like Doctor Who and FIrefly, even when they don't explain the tech, you get the feeling that they could if they had to. I like the old radioactive giant monster films, and the modern genetically engineered versions, as long as there's even a tenuously plausible origin for them. Conversely, I have very little patience for, or interest in, vampires, zombies, ghosts, wizards, or magic in general.

That's really, really interesting to me, since I like many of the same shows but the mechanical is the last thing I care about in sci fi--just how my brain and interests work, and robots are probably among my least favorite skiffy elements. I dunno, I love that modern sci fi can accomodate various tastes like this.

What's important is that it's well-written and populated by actual characters and not caricatures (although a caricature can be good for a laugh now and then).

Agreed.

I think the discussion died, but thanks for playing, everybody. And of course, by all means, resurrect it, whatev.

Robots don't interest me hardly at all, inless they're actual characters in their own right. Marvin, Data, Transformers, and the like. They're all actual characters, have their own thoughts, and operate on their own. Macross, Robotech, Gundam? Never once interested me, at all, ever.
That said, I'm as obcessed with Star Trek starships as others might be about US jetfighters, or cars. I loves them.

Gatsby wrote:Guys can't recognize sexism? Why not? I'm not saying I expect anyone (including other women) to get as in-depth and overanalytical about it as I do, because, y'know, I'm a feminism dork. But that doesn't mean a guy can't be aware. *shrug*

It's mainly a personal perception problem. Honestly, I'm not aware of much of anything unless it smacks me right in the head. Partly, I'm just not terribly informed on who's behind the scenes in Sci-fi these days. I knew some of the producers of Doctor Who are women, and there's at least one woman on the writing staff (I think). For all I knew, I assumed that was the norm for most modern shows, but the existence of this thread would seem to indicate otherwise. So, from my limited point of view (up to now), unless there had been NO women involved in the production of Sci-fi, I would have been unlikely to percieve it to be sexist. To restate, I generally don't know who makes the things I like; I just know that I like them. Which, unfortunately, reveals a certain ignorance on my part.