Trek's female characters

[Captain Seafort]

Yet nobody ever actually gets a promotion, nobody ever advances to a higher position - okay, rare exceptions in Worf becoming head of security and Geordi becoming Chief Engineer. But those happened in season 1/2; six years later and they're all on the same ship, in the same jobs. Real life just isn't like that.

Exactly - and it's something that's made even worse by the films, by the end of which the crew stuck together, more or less, for over a decade and a half. To make a RL comparison, in a similar period Mike Jackson went from commanding a brigade to CGS, with seven different appointments along the way. Among the TNG crew Worf had an usually prolific five appointments. Even the promotions you mention were only there to fill holes in the main cast, with character development being a distinctly secondary concern.

[Graham Kennedy]

Indeed it is eminently possible that there would be a woman who would act like Picard. It is far more likely to find a woman who acts more like... well, a woman. You could as easily ask why Riker didn't constantly try to nitpick nonexistent subtexts in Picard's orders to him - it would be possible that he had that type of personality, but it's not "typically" male.

I think you and I must have known very different women in our lives.

[Mikey]

No, I think you misunderstand me. I'm certainly not saying that men and women have no ground on which to communicate; rather that men and women approach things differently, and as such an accurate characterization should reflect that. You're looking for better character development of 'Trek's female characters, and I'm in agreement with that; I'm just saying that "better character development of female characters" =/= making them men with tits.

[Graham Kennedy]

No, I think you misunderstand me. I'm certainly not saying that men and women have no ground on which to communicate; rather that men and women approach things differently, and as such an accurate characterization should reflect that.

I understand what you are saying. I still think you and I have known very different women in our lives.

You're looking for better character development of 'Trek's female characters, and I'm in agreement with that; I'm just saying that "better character development of female characters" =/= making them men with tits.

Not "men with tits". Characters who just happen to be female whilst being every bit as smart, logical, competent, brave, and even flawed as the guys.

I see no reason Janette Picard couldn't have difficulty interacting with children. I see no reason she couldn't be a little stiff and pompous with Riker on first meeting him, no reason why she couldn't love to quote Shakespeare, enjoy archeology and riding. Don't see why she couldn't have a habit of pontificating sometimes. I don't even see why she couldn't have a fling with Vash on Risa, with Vash being gender swapped or not as you like.

And I don't think any of that would make her "a man with tits".

[Mikey]

I understand what you are saying. I still think you and I have known very different women in our lives.

Probably. Vive l'difference, eh?

Characters who just happen to be female whilst being every bit as smart, logical, competent, brave, and even flawed as the guys.

I have no problem with that.

couldn't have difficulty interacting with children. I see no reason she couldn't be a little stiff and pompous with Riker on first meeting him, no reason why she couldn't love to quote Shakespeare, enjoy archeology and riding. Don't see why she couldn't have a habit of pontificating sometimes. I don't even see why she couldn't have a fling with Vash on Risa, with Vash being gender swapped or not as you like.

And I don't think any of that would make her "a man with tits".

No problem with any of that either. My point has been, and is, that those similarities may be present, yet there will still be a distinct, female aspect to Janette's personality is absent from Jean-Luc's, as much as there is a masculine aspect of Jean-Luc's which would be absent from hers.

[Graham Kennedy]

Well perhaps, but if you're not going to share what those might be then we're at an impasse.

[Mikey]

OK - typically (I know how loaded that is, but hey - we're speaking in terms of believability of a character, which goes back to what's most likely) a woman would tend to have a more emotional, less analytical reaction to a novel circumstance. I do NOT mean weak, frail, or the 13th-century connotation of the term "womanly" - "emotional" could as easily refer to anger, mettle, resolve, or what have you. A woman would tend more than a man to look for hidden subtexts in communication. A woman would very likely be more apt to think tactically in three dimensions, a la Spock's advice in TWOK. A woman would also be more likely to come to terms with issues of time travel, being predisposed to more spatial thinking and less linear thinking. A woman would very likely react more strongly to a threat to civilians.

This is, of course, in reference to human women, and assuming hormone or gene therapy hasn't become commonplace in the 24th century. Let me reiterate that I do NOT expect all woman to act the same, any more than I do so for men. Again, we're talking about "most likely."

[Nickswitz]

Probably. Vive l'difference, eh?

Psst... It's Vive la difference,

Only thing I remember from french class.

[Mikey]

Yeah, I'll make sure to stop my life to worry about French.

[Atekimogus]

A woman would very likely be more apt to think tactically in three dimensions, a la Spock's advice in TWOK.

Really? I thought three diminsional thinking was one of the view areas were males have a slight advantage, beeing the hunters of the tribe etc....

Well, at least it would explain the female parking habit. It will all work out as soon as we get anti-grav-cars.

To the rest I more or less agree with you.

[stitch626]

Really? I thought three diminsional thinking was one of the view areas were males have a slight advantage, beeing the hunters of the tribe etc....

Nope, most men are supposedly horrible at 3d thought.

[Tyyr]

Really? Huh, guess my feminine side is stronger than I thought.

[Graham Kennedy]

"Feminine side", grrr.

I think this whole thing is nonsense. We define a bunch of traits as female and a bunch more as male... and because the reality is that if there are gender differences at all there is so much overlap in terms of individual variation that anybody can have any trait to pretty much any extent, we then make up the concept that men have a "feminine side" and women have a "masculine side", which is just absurd on its face.

I think it's absolute nonsense to suggest that a female Picard would be far more likely to react in such and such a way to a certain situation. Women are not a block, they're individuals, and the ones who act in certain ways are not "masculine women", they simply disprove the idea that those reactions are masculine in the first place!

[Atekimogus]

Nope, most men are supposedly horrible at 3d thought.

Interesting, maybe we mean something different when talking about 3d thougt but all articles I ever read suggest that in general males have the advantage at visualizing how to rotate a shape or object in two-dimensional or three-dimensional space.

quick google search

Not that those statistics "mean" anything as far as I am concerned since I do know girls who are really good at maths and quite horrible at multi-tasking .

[Tyyr]

Not that those statistics "mean" anything as far as I am concerned since I do know girls who are really good at maths and quite horrible at multi-tasking .

Yes, most girls are ok with a single math. Its when you ask them to start juggling multiple maths at once that they fail.