Trek's female characters

[Aaron]

I agree with the fact that it seems Trek treats its female characters poorly, in the way you describe, but i have to point out TOS is known for being the first show to portray women working alongside men in military service and throughout the different series we have gotten to see women captains and admirals (not only in SF). I think if they were treated poorly is because of the writers' (and maybe others like directors and producers) neglect.

Some female characters i would like to see more are Robin Lefler, Lt. Jenna D'Sora, Commander Shelby (she doesn't even have a canon forename), a couple ENT girls like Amanda Cole and Talas.

Aye it was but that doesn't mean it gets a free pass either (really Uhura's only job was working the radio, the yeoman had a greater range of responsibilities), all that said it is directly the fault of the writers for not fleshing anyone out. And really in the 60's it would have been almost unthinkable for a character like Uhura to be anything but window dressing.

[Graham Kennedy]

I really liked Shelby precisely because she was the kind of woman we so rarely see; nothing alien or magical about her, simply a smart, tough character who was supremely good at her job.

You know there was some thought given to killing Picard off in Best of Both Worlds 2, leaving Riker as captain of the E-D, and putting Shelby on the show permanently as his XO?

It's interesting that male writers may struggle with female characters, or vice versa. Why would you write them any differently at all?

[Coalition]

It's interesting that male writers may struggle with female characters, or vice versa. Why would you write them any differently at all?

Write them as officers first, women second?

[Captain Seafort]

You know there was some thought given to killing Picard off in Best of Both Worlds 2, leaving Riker as captain of the E-D, and putting Shelby on the show permanently as his XO?

It would probably have been best if they'd done just that, or removed Riker by giving him his own command and made Shelby Picard's new XO. It was the only logical way to resolve the character arc they'd set up with Riker's offer of command of the Melbourne, Shelby coming in with the express intention of becoming the E-D's new XO, and Picard's assimilation. As it turned out BoBW was Riker's (and TNG's) finest hour, and he went downhill from there, culminating in his incompetence in Rascals and Generations.

[Aaron]

You know there was some thought given to killing Picard off in Best of Both Worlds 2, leaving Riker as captain of the E-D, and putting Shelby on the show permanently as his XO?

I've heard that before and I think it would have been a great idea. As Seafort points out the resolution to the Riker/Picard Captain conundrum was pretty silly and kind of pissed all over the ending. After BoBW it seemed that the writing staff didn't know how to handle him and he see-sawed between a joke and a serious competent officer. It also stretches SoD that he would willingly turn his rank in after saving Earth, the Federation and Picard.

It's interesting that male writers may struggle with female characters, or vice versa. Why would you write them any differently at all?

I'm not sure because I'm a terrible writer, they probably feel that they have to make them "distinct" in some way but haven't got any ideas on how to do it.

[Mikey]

Why would you write them any differently at all?

Why wouldn't you? The simple fact is that mean and women DO react differently to similar stimuli, have different approaches to problem-solving, etc., etc. As far as writing, it's easier to be lazy than it is to be applied. A male writer already knows what it's like to be a man; he'd have to put some actual thought (maybe even some work! Ye gods!) into writing a complete female character.

[Lt. Staplic]

The simple fact is that mean and women DO react differently to similar stimuli,

I hear men and women do to

[Lazar]

The simple fact is that mean and women DO react differently to similar stimuli, have different approaches to problem-solving, etc., etc.

But I think there's more danger in writing men and women too different than in writing them too similar.

[Graham Kennedy]

It's interesting that male writers may struggle with female characters, or vice versa. Why would you write them any differently at all?

Write them as officers first, women second?

Suppose you write a male character like Picard. Then you simply change the "he" and "him" stuff to "she" and "her". Go a little further to change "brother" to "sister" and such. But otherwise keep it exactly the same.

What would be wrong with that? Is there some reason a woman must have a "different character" to a man, act in different ways, have different motivations?

Incidentally, this has actually happened. The character of Ellen Ripley was, in the original scripts, male. When they switched to a female they changed very little of the script, and as a result people fell over themselves because Ripley was a tough, take charge sort of a woman.

[Mikey]

Is there some reason a woman must have a "different character" to a man, act in different ways, have different motivations?

"Must?" No. "Normally would?" Absolutely.

That said, I agree that a female character - even if different from a male one - should still be characterized as in depth as a male.

[Graham Kennedy]

You know there was some thought given to killing Picard off in Best of Both Worlds 2, leaving Riker as captain of the E-D, and putting Shelby on the show permanently as his XO?

It would probably have been best if they'd done just that, or removed Riker by giving him his own command and made Shelby Picard's new XO. It was the only logical way to resolve the character arc they'd set up with Riker's offer of command of the Melbourne, Shelby coming in with the express intention of becoming the E-D's new XO, and Picard's assimilation. As it turned out BoBW was Riker's (and TNG's) finest hour, and he went downhill from there, culminating in his incompetence in Rascals and Generations.

One of the annoying things about Trek is that people so very rarely move forward in their lives. These people are meant to be the absolute cream of Starfleet. Forget for a moment that they're painted absurd in the odd episode for plot purposes, we're frequently told that they're the best of the best and all that. 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.

Contrast Babylon 5, where there was hardly a main character on the show who DIDN'T move on to other things, for better or worse, and the show was by far the better for it.

[Graham Kennedy]

Is there some reason a woman must have a "different character" to a man, act in different ways, have different motivations?

"Must?" No. "Normally would?" Absolutely.

That said, I agree that a female character - even if different from a male one - should still be characterized as in depth as a male.

How so? For example, if Jean-Luc Picard were Janette Picard, how would we expect the character to be different?

[Mikey]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to compile an exhaustive list of the differences; but suffice it to say that is indeed a fact that men are more linear and literal in their interpretations and application of logic, while women tend to be more spatially-oriented. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but it's absurd to think that in general women and men would have the same sets of reactions and approaches to problem-solving - and just as absurd to watch men and women depicted as being so identical.

[Graham Kennedy]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to compile an exhaustive list of the differences; but suffice it to say that is indeed a fact that men are more linear and literal in their interpretations and application of logic, while women tend to be more spatially-oriented. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but it's absurd to think that in general women and men would have the same sets of reactions and approaches to problem-solving - and just as absurd to watch men and women depicted as being so identical.

I think there's waaaay more individual variation in there than you're giving credit for.

I can easily see a female Picard giving the exact same speeches, making the exact same desicions, etc. The only difficulty would be finding an actress who could pull it off as well as Stewart did - and that applies just as well to male and female characters.

[Mikey]

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.