"But, why can't we imagine a "female" battle hero or captain who does not have to adopt quite typical male body language and poses to be taken seriously?"
Effective combat body language is a product of thousands of years of warfare. It exists and continues to be refined NOT because it is a masculine trait, per-se, but because it works better than other forms of combat body language.
If a more 'feminine' body language proved significantly more effective in accomplishing its task (i.e. vanquishing the enemy), I am sure it would be rapidly integrated into military tactics. People use what works best to survive in a particular environment. Combat is, historically, a male endeavor. But that does not mean that women who are combat-proficient have been masculinized. It means they are effective at what they do.
Hi Aspazia,
I agree with you!!! Finally 
We do need to imagine other ways and understand the more complex roles women play in our society. In firefly, it would be great if Zoe were a Christian woman. We must imagine such heroines if we are to understand how to liberate this world from decadence.
Christ be with you,
Hillsdale Honey
Aggressive (and thus masculine) body language would undoubtedly be useful in battle situations where the combat was probably hand to hand and you could see the enemy in plain sight and vice versa. But since Starbuck is a pilot and practically invisible to the enemy (I've not seen either of the shows but assume that this would be the case), I think it would be perfectly reasonable if she was portrayed without the overt display of machismo and as a 'normal' person who is just very good at flying a plane.
Trivia: I sold Jeremy Piven some yoga pants in Santa Monica. He thanked me for my comfortable brushed lycra suggestion, and was very pleased with his purchase.
Carry on...
Za--
"Effective combat body language is a product of thousands of years of warfare. It exists and continues to be refined NOT because it is a masculine trait, per-se, but because it works better than other forms of combat body language."
So, what's interesting here is that "warrior" behavior has come to be synonymous with masculine behavior.
"sold Jeremy Piven some yoga pants in Santa Monica. He thanked me for my comfortable brushed lycra suggestion, and was very pleased with his purchase."
I love him!
I loved Firefly! Watched it all on DVD not so long ago.
Adam Baldwin lights my fire!
My favorite episode was the one that satirized religion when "Jayne" (Adam) is mistaken for a god by the inhabitants of a godforsaken planet. He has accidently done them a good turn, but he is more than willing to take the credit for helping them out.
I don't care for religiosity, which would have ruined "Firefly." Its irreverance was one of the qualities that made it so interesting. Not perfect, but far more worth watching than most TV.
irreverence (!) Oh this little spelling glitches.
It's a tight rope to walk.
The question I have is - do the male/female archetypes exhaust the dominant personality characteristics? How many of these characteristics do you need to share to be a middle-of-the-road character?
Two examples came to mind reading your post, and perhaps they will help flesh out my question. First - modern "Bond girls." Most of the recent ones have been both tough, battle types while at the same time being paragons of the female sexuality stereotype. Certainly these characters are designed to appear human in the sense of having a fully developed range of personality traits. I think they are interesting case, since they represent the opposite case to the characters you mentioned, and I wonder, how do you find the middle ground between the two?
And the second example are the female characters from the fantasy work by Tolkien. Tolkien is quite explicit that he thinks there are male and female traits,but that issue we can put aside for the example. In his works the female characters, though fewer in number than their male counterparts, are all very tough. They are mentally strong, and they do battle in a sense not tied to weapons and strength. Yet, like the previous example, here these women are still clearly tied to the female archetypes, regardless of giving them these additional traits without additional male characteristics.
In light of these examples, I am left to wonder, how many of these traits do you have to share to be tied to neither stereotype? Giving female characters toughness alone is not enough, and I am worried that the characters will always be identified with one or the other archetype simply by virtue of the fact that they have to have some of the dominant personality traits associated with one or the other. To put it more broadly, I wonder if it is the archetypes that make us interpret the characters into the molds moreso than the characters already being cast in them.
When talking about Joss Whedon shows we can't forget Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I admit, I only saw one episode of Firefly and was completely bored, but I thoroughly loved Buffy. Joss specifically set out to make it a "feminist-friendly" show. Yes, Buffy was a Valley Girl, a cheerleader, a beautiful typical high school girl...but that is what he was going for. He has said in many interviews he wrote Buffy to make up for all the sci-fi and horro movies where the pretty blond girl always ran away and got killed or had to be saved by some guy...instead, the pretty blond girl was the one doing the saving and the kicking of ass. She did so while wearing girlish attire, would make snarky comments to her opponents instead of being stoic, would complain of breaking her nail afterwards, and wasn't afraid to cry. She was feminine AND kicked ass. If you've never given Buffy a chance, I recommend it, it's so much more than what it seems at face level, as I was sure I would hate it and think it was stupid.
It would certainly be interesting to see a sci-fi show/book/movie that REALLy challenged things....how about an adaptation of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "Herland"? I doubt that'd go over well, hah!
Oh gosh, I've gotten to be a loyal Browncoat and Battlestar fan (how I miss the days when Baltar was cool) and I've seen every episode of Buffy. I'm really glad that you've gotten into them too, especially as they are up there in some of the last remaining shows that don't make me feel like brain cells are leaking out of my head. I wish I had more to contribute, but this is a topic I certainly need to muse on a bit more, but this is such a great topic and I can't wait to see what else people say. I will say thanks to Anne for bringing up the Buffy thing- that was one of the first points I thought of when reading your post. *goes back to her little shrine to Wash, singing the Hero of Canton song*
Hattie--"Watched it all on DVD not so long ago.
Adam Baldwin lights my fire!"
It's hard not to love Jayne. He has the best lines on the show. And the best hats.
Jeff-
"I wonder if it is the archetypes that make us interpret the characters into the molds moreso than the characters already being cast in them."
This is precisely what I was thinking after reading Za's comments. The fact is that personality traits need not be associated with gender or sex, particularly archetypes. And yet, we have such a long history of doing so--eons. The net effect may be that we have pigeonholed human characteristics into a narrow male/female pattern. This is unfortunate and a real challenge to artists trying to challenge this way of viewing the world.
"It would certainly be interesting to see a sci-fi show/book/movie that REALLy challenged things....how about an adaptation of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "Herland"? I doubt that'd go over well, hah!"
The Handmaid's Tale is good stuff. 
Unfortunately, rather than being visionary, it is a poignant critique of where we are headed.
Oh exactly, I know...this is why I suggested "Herland" instead...a story of an all-women utopia society. I don't think people are ready for that, but talk about thinking outside the box!
One thing I liked about Zoe, though, was her relationship with her husband.
Particularly the fact that *she* wanted kids and he didn't. Too often, the tough warrior women are shown rejecting motherhood, and I wish we had more seasons to see this plot unfold...
Um, it's a TV show, so the main characters are going to be attractive unless it's a comedy.
I'm not sure this is sexism. It's more like 'sexy-ism'. Attractive (by conventional standards) people get the lead roles in drama shows.
Furthermore, Galactica's characters are maily soldiers. I'm not sure how a military with female characters would look, but I don't think giving female *fighter pilots* a swagger and aggressive movements is a flaw.
I've known fighter pilots. They swagger. It's not a male/female thing, it's a fighter pilot thing.
"I've known fighter pilots. They swagger. It's not a male/female thing, it's a fighter pilot thing."
I am starting to be persuaded by this. I find this line of reasoning really interesting. I am fairly new to the Sci-Fi genre. And, while I was thinking far more of Firefly when I wrote this, the more I watch Battlestar, the more I am really appreciate Starbuck's swagger. I think I went about this all wrong. The problem is not that the writers are portraying the characters in male/female stereotypes, but rather that we attached certain behaviors necessary for a profession, e.g. fighter pilot, and made it synonymous with male.
This has been a fun post for thinking about these things!
I think our manners and postures and styles are just human and innate, and that there's probably nothing in repertoire that doesn't exist among both men and women. I know there's some adoption and modeling of style, but I think there's a lot of sovereign spontaneity to it too. It might be interesting to study the manner of men and women who are very high status in solitary pursuits--consuming activities in which there's no professional culture to rub off: Novel writing, distance running, painting. A guess one could always claim that these people conform to society's concept of a writer/painter/runner, which has been shaped by a history of men filling these roles. Well, my impression/belief preference is that confidence and/or a sense of oneself as prestigious and influential shapes men and men similarly. It wouldn't surprise me if a perception of one's self as being able to beat up anybody in the bar would similarly affect the way both a man and a woman would walk into it or sit on a stool.
"But, why can't we imagine a "female" battle hero or captain who does not have to adopt quite typical male body language and poses to be taken seriously?"
Just as there is a difference between sex & gender, so is there a difference between masculine & feminine principles (see Celestine Prophecies for deeper insight &, quite frankly, a better explanation). War and aggression are particularly subject to the masculine principle. So it stands to reason that female warriors, such as Zoe & Starbuck, would have masculine traits. It also explains why the Companion Inara, a prostitute is more "sensitive". Her life is centered around sex, which is either an act of procreation or a way for one human to give comfort to another (unlike rape, which is universally considered a destructive, aggressive act & not even considered sex), & therefore subject to the feminine principle.
Ummm...Buffy Summers was out years ago, did no one notice?
Commenting by HaloScan
