The House Next Door

I don't know. If it had been, say, Apollo, or Adama, or Tyrol, who had been imprisoned with a toddler he was told his own, would his reaction have been any different? Would he have killed the child or gone back for it, as Kara did? I don't think we need to look at it as the Cylons exploiting her womanhood, but rather her humanity itself.

That seems a little unfair to the BSG writers. Starbuck doesn't break quickly, she's been completely isolated and continually subjected to a kind of interrogation for four months. That she finally loses some self-control wasn't simply due to the introduction of the child but also because of the accumulated psychic toll of her extremely creepy confinement. Moreover, the reaction to the child isn't driven by just stereotypical "mother feeling." The show has established that Starbuck was abused terribly by her own mother. What breaks her isn't the child itself, but the sight of the child injured seemingly by her neglect. The shock of seeming to recapitulate her mother's actions, the one thing she has no doubt promised she would never do, is what finally breaks her iron will.

"The show has established that Starbuck was abused terribly by her own mother."

Well, this is another angle on the same issue, to my mind -- that Starbuck's kick-assedness is not organic to her, but is rather a defense mechanism or an overcorrection based on bad mothering.

"What breaks her isn't the child itself, but the sight of the child injured seemingly by her neglect."

Not to speak for The Diatribe here, but I don't think the issue is whether her reactions to the child are realistic and/or appropriate; it's that the child was brought into her character equation in the first place. It's that, sometimes, writers can't just let a competent female warrior exist; they have to "humanize" her or make her more "relatable" by letting the audience know that she's also a wife and/or a mother -- as though these roles are proof of concept for emotional wholeness.

Not that wives and mothers can't open a can on a Cylon; of course they can. This cuts both ways, this problem -- the perceived need to reconcile "butch" actions with "femme" presentation when they are not in fact mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't say mentioning some fractures in one episode equates to establishing Starbuck's horrible history of abuse at the hands of her mother. The writers are going against two seasons of character setup where the "oh yeah, she's female" comes into play once in the Farm episode. The rest of the time she's just a really fantastic pilot and military officer. Two episodes of implied psychological influence undoes years of training? She's a military officer, for heaven's sake, not a girl playing dress up. You sell her as short as the writers when you imply she would break psychologically in four months.

As for the angle of, "well, a guy would act the same," I just want to point out that Apollo's involvement with the prostitute mother and her child was made to point out his character weakness.

Sars says, "[S]ometimes, writers can't just let a competent female warrior exist; they have to "humanize" her or make her more "relatable" by letting the audience know that she's also a wife and/or a mother -- as though these roles are proof of concept for emotional wholeness."

The mommy arc of Ellen Ripley in the Alien movies is fascinating (though the execution was rather shoddy in the last two). Ditto Sarah Connor's transformation from waitress to paramilitary assassin and mother/mentor of humankind's savior. I've even been intrigued with, and impressed by, Starbuck's situation in this season of BSG. But if you look at these and other similar examples in their totality, you do see a pattern here, and I think it lines up with what The Diatribe is saying. There is, in fact, a presupposition that a woman warrior is not a complete character until her relationship to motherhood has been explored and explained; that ultimately does send the signal that women are not complete people until they've confronted this aspect of themselves (preferably by becoming a mom rather than never offering the matter for consideration at all). The subtext, of course, is that an ass-kicker like Starbuck is compensating for some trauma or lack -- an implication that's rarely visited on men in the same profession.

As a self-contained story, I found the Starbuck/Kacie story fascinating, even if its end was a bit trite (and completely expected). To some degree, series television (even good series television) falls into the trap of torturing its characters to keep the plot moving forward. Starbuck, obviously, has endured a lot (even before we first saw her), and this, at least, was a new way to make her endure something that didn't somehow involve an Adama, an apocalypse or a contrived battle with a Cylon we'd never heard of until that episode.

That said, if this suddenly turns into the Starbuck-wants-to-procreate hour, I'll be just as hard on the storyline as you were. Her compassion for a fellow (half-?) human in the occupation situation feels completely realistic and earned. Her sudden desire to have children doesn't. If she is going to have a child someday, I hope they build to it naturally.

Looking at the overarching idea of warrior women becoming mommies, as you've noted, most of these tales are written by men. And, from a purely practical standpoint, pregnancy (as I'm sure you've noticed) is something we're simply not capable of. (Sidenote: I thought I remembered reading an interview with Morgan and Wong about the lead pilot on Space being pregnant in one of their plans for later seasons, but that interview was pre-Internet, so I have no way of proving it one way or the other.) From a purely practical point of view, especially if you're a man who doesn't think of weightier, more feminist matters, it's a fascinating conundrum to consider. But it's also, as you mention, both overdone and suggests that women are only viable insofar as their reproductive status. I don't THINK BSG is going to head down this path (Ron Moore usually seems aware of what he's ripping off and what he's paying homage to), but you've certainly made me more aware of a storytelling trope I wouldn't have considered before.

And, to make this even longer, it's interesting that BSG takes place in a post-apocalyptic world but the issue of producing MORE humans hasn't come up in a completely substantive way. Granted, they have more than enough people to keep the human race going, but it's an interesting undercurrent to a show that features women in positions of authority. BSG argues that humans are better than the sort-of-apocalyptic society of (for example) The Handmaid's Tale, and I'm not sure if that's true or not.

Personally, it seems to me that it is the tough-warrior-woman-who-is-better-than-all -the-men idea that is the hackneyed cliche´. Yes, yes I know that feminism demands that men and women are mentally identical, and that the only differences between them are caused by social conditioning, and I don't have any problem with depicting this stuff in fantasy stories. But isn't it completely flipping obvious that this is nothing more than a big lie, when it comes to trying to depict gritty reality?

"These were strong, complex female leads for whom motherhood wasn’t depicted as “something missing” from their lives, or even as “an elemental part of their existence.”

I haven't seen the programs you reference, but I happen to think it's fairly realistic for strong female characters to examine their relationship to fertility at some point. If you agree that the ability to give birth is the primary biological indicator of femininity, it's pretty hard to ignore even if the character's identity and socialization are more masculine or neutral.

Many strong, career-oriented women do address this issue in their own lives. In a show like BSG that is interested in exploring all sides of its characters, (especially the dark ones) I expected them to have Starbuck deal with it. They've been setting this up since the second season episode "The Farm."

"The rest of the time she's just a really fantastic pilot and military officer. Two episodes of implied psychological influence undoes years of training?...You sell her as short as the writers when you imply she would break psychologically in four months."

Fantastic pilot? True. As an officer and a person, though, Starbuck has always been regarded as a loose nuclear warhead.I found last year's faceoff between her and the new firebrand female pilot to be a turning point for Starbuck, where she did the smart thing, and sacrificed some of her brass balls, rather than go toe-to-toe with certain death again. But she's certainly always displayed unstable behavior. I could see her going Stockholm.

Fantastic pilot. Military officer. Not necessarily fantastic military officer, I agree, so I didn't write that. But consider that other (male) officers may react brashly and get into fights or disobey orders (actually Apollo, most of the time) but no one chalks that up to their inherent instability or being a loose cannon.

greentara76writes:"I haven't seen the programs you reference, but I happen to think it's fairly realistic for strong female characters to examine their relationship to fertility at some point. If you agree that the ability to give birth is the primary biological indicator of femininity, it's pretty hard to ignore even if the character's identity and socialization are more masculine or neutral. "

Seems to me this is the crux of this entire discussion, and how you feel about it determines whether you think Starbuck's character -- indeed, Ripley and Sarah Connor as well -- were pigeonholed into reductive gender-based stereotypes by male writers, or were simply given the chance to explore the defining trait of being a woman.

Not being female, I guess I'm not qualified to have anything like a final say on this, but I don't think the ability to procreate should be considered the defining characteristic of womanhood. It takes two to tango -- men obviously have the capacity to carry on their genes as well -- but I am struck by the fact that sci-fi is full of stories about male warriors for whom fatherhood is never even brought up, much less made the fulcrum point of their personality, the Rosebud that explains pretty much everything. (To be clear, I'm not saying fatherhood isn't a big theme -- obviously fathers and sons, male mentors and pupils is probably Topic A in sci-fi -- but it's not quite the same thing as the anxiety demonstrated in this BSG storyline, where motherhood (real or surrogate) throws the female heroine's entire identity into flux.)

Am I being too idealistic? Or perhaps naive? Maybe I spent too much time hanging with campus feminists in college? You be the judge.

As greentara76 points out, Starbuck was never just a competent female warrior. The show actually has several examples of these: the master of arms we saw a good bit of in the first season, the marine captain who accompanied Sharon on the rescue mission to New Caprica. Starbuck has always been both more and less than that. She's a sort of combat genius, almost an artist, both at flying and in tactical planning. But like a lot of geniuses and artists, she's deeply screwed up in ways that make her more vulnerable than she should be, given the level of her skill.

I am always amused at how far humans will go to define themselves and others as being antithetical to their very physical nature of their gender.

It doesn't take a genius to understand what Diatribe postulates is, as my grandfather used to say in the presence of females, horsefeathers.

The whole Starbuck scenario is a logical progession of her character. It isn't that she has softened or somehow become less capable. Starbuck has begun to understand that she is more than a military officer and Top Gun pilot - that she has additional emotions related to commitment on both a physical and psychological level, that's it's a human trait and that there is more than boozing, recreational sex, fighting, carousing and gambling to living life.

To say that Starbuck is diminished by this new level of humanity is a rather odd construct given that it has nothing to do with doing her job. We have no evidence that it will affect her performance as a military officer and pilot so far. How Diatribe developed this is beyond me as it is the very model of a idealistic feminist outlook - to wit: I am women, I am complex on a psychological level, I am complex on a physical level and that has nothing to do with how I perform my duty.

With respect to other females in scifi, I think Diatribe is overstating the case. In particular, DS-9 where the writers wrote in a pregnancy scenario for Major Kira when actress Nana Visitor was pregnant with her first child. With respect to "Space: Above and Beyond" it didn't survive long enough for the intrepid crew to be involved at that level - although if you examine at least one of the story lines, it would seem likely that Vansen and Wang were developing a "thing" with all that portends.

I believe that scifi as a genre has recently taken women in roles that are much more realistic and wholly more human than the idealistic "all military, all the time" concept Diatribe seems to want to embrace.

Putting paid to my contribution to this thread, I remember one of the toughest female Marine DI I ever met turn into jelly when introduced to her baby Grandson the first time. :>)

The Diatribe wrote:

The mommy track recurs on Farscape with officer Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black). Born aboard a command carrier as part of the warrior race of Peacekeepers, she managed to make it through the entirety of the series processing her upbringing in a warfighting culture without the question of progeny -- that is, until the series closer, which revolves almost completely around her regaining her baby and giving birth. All that warrior tradition boiled down to a two-hour finale about labor and delivery.

Well, since nobody else has seen fit to comment on Ms. Sun, it ought to be me.

It's not that your assessment here lacks merit, as I think it does - certainly the last place I ever expected to see Aeryn end up was changing diapers.

That said, the FARSCAPE scenario/finale/miniseries was a tad more complex than what you perhaps give it credit for. I'll try to keep this short...

The entire concept of the series evolved into John Crichton's inadvertent affecting (and subsequent changing) of all who came into contact with him in the Uncharted Territories - all due to his quaint little human quirks. And nobody was more affected than Aeryn, and nobody fought harder against the change.

Aeryn was a soldier until the very end - indeed, even while giving birth a battle raged on literally around her. Her final act as a soldier, whilst holding her newborn, was killing that Scarran bitch without hesitation - and even taking pleasure in it.

In the final minutes of the series, she does indeed appear to give herself over totally to motherhood - but this is sound as it's really the only option available to her. The series end saw the conflict between the Peacekeepers and the Scarrans finally over. Everything she'd been groomed to be for her entire life no longer had any purpose.

Aeryn was probably in a luckier position than the rest of the PK brood, who likely lived their post-FARSCAPE lives in drunken hazes of what they once were, but can no longer be.

On a completely different note, the Sheik is now defending the artistic direction of BSG S3 - welcome to the wonderful conundrum that is Yerbootie.

Ross Ruediger wrote: Well, since nobody else has seen fit to comment on Ms. Sun, it ought to be me.

And then continued: Aeryn was a soldier until the very end

Officer Sun will always be a very capable soldier. The very core of her identity is as a Peacekeeper. She could not stop being a soldier any more than I can stop being a former Marine. It's in the blood, it's what you are.

What did change is the personal nature of Aeryn's relationship with her son. The Peacekeepers were creche raised as part of their mililtary society. Aeryn was now expected to do those things that mothers do on her own. It was an additional part of her personality - it didn't change her fundamental psyche as a soldier. Indeed, one could posit that it made her a better soldier.

Finally, you said On a completely different note, the Sheik is now defending the artistic direction of BSG S3 - welcome to the wonderful conundrum that is Yerbootie.

I am complex and defy understanding. :>)

Can it be said that Starbuck even let go of all her training? She killed Leoben in front of the child with no compunction, giving in to his demands so as to mislead him on what she actually planned to do. But your argument is not that the characters acted correctly within their characters, but that the writers seemed compelled, possibly forced by their own stereotypes, to reproduce female characters who seems to show "weakness" when it comes to children, who must be shown as "feminine" by having or dealing with children, and what that says, in the long term, about women in general in the sci-fi futuristic world.

The Diatribe writes "Unfortunately, sci-fi is written in our time. Our gender stereotypes continue to influence how our futuristic counterparts behave, even in a setting where you’d think women might finally have a shot." In introducing Casey to Starbuck's storyline, how did Starbuck lose her "shot"? Is Laura Roslin a better example that, when entrusted with the care of the Cylon baby, was not reduced in her capacity as leader even though her first priority was the baby? Does her lack of over compensatory maternal feelings toward the cylon child makes her a better female sci-fi character, or a more acceptable role model? And there are female writers in the writer's room influencing things now, especially on Battlestar, just like on Firefly. In fact, I am reminded of a moment, toward the end of the series, when Wash really wanted a child but Zoe didn't think it was the right time. For writers to ignore the maternal side of women and concentrate on the Amazon would be just as bad an example as saying that women are only complete when children are involved.

The Diatribe also writes, "This new Starbuck (Katee Sackhoff) was the best pilot in the fleet – a hard drinking, card-playing, fast flying counterpart of any man in the squadron. Interesting then, that the writers would start this new season by weakening her character in the most stereotypical way imaginable: by proving that even if a woman can be an equal in every other way, when she becomes a mother, she’s no longer a threat..." (I think Leoben would have to disagree) But if we are to talk about the stereotypical way of showing weakness - Tigh's alcoholism, Lee gaining weight - the addition of flesh as a sign of weakness - That's pretty weak and simply overdone, as an idea. But encapsulated in a series, each element can be for the strength of the storyline.

The Diatribe also wrote, "To diminish her competency in this setting, she is made the caretaker for the last surviving child colonist, Newt (Carrie Henn); as the main character, and a female, she can’t be accepted unless her rightful role as a mother is foregrounded. The female Marine Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein) is played as stereotype the other way. As the film's only other substantial female character, she has to be extra butch so that it’s clear that "normal" women can’t be warriors." What is a normal woman? The majority? Well, the majority of women would not choose to become a warrior. In a futuristic, post apocalyptic society, women warriors are made - either through science (Max in Dark Angel) or circumstance (Sarah Connor in Terminator) or they go against the grain and choose that life for themselves (Starbuck - although you might also be able to argue circumstance). And they are not going against the grain of stereotypes so much as they are going against the grain of where they've been taught to focus their strengths: their children. And as for the butch character in Aliens - would it have been better if she was killing things left and right in "gauzy togas or strappy bondage suits"?

Believe me, I get what you're saying, but as much as I don't want children, I am somehow the pied piper - children love me and my emotions are affected. My mind isn't changed, but I am affected. If I had such feelings, but was only shown strength in women as "hard drinking, card-playing, fast flying counterpart of any man..." I would somehow seek to invalidate my obviously existing maternal feelings. Just as shows from the 60s made women feel like they had to be the quintessential homemaker, sci-fi that negates any aspect of its exploration of woman does the same. Sci-fi does need to understand that women are as different as men and that men also can have more depth than giving orders, running things, or "doing what's right". Helo comes to mind in the series, risking everything for Sharon2, but even in that, wanting her and the baby, he has become, in some ways, emasculated. Maybe it is the less the idea of woman as this role, but babies as the bringers of uncertainty.

"I’m all for characters with complexity and depth, but it doesn’t have to be like this." What does it have to be like, to convey the complexity of women? So much has not been shown about the depths of women, but can they truly be shown without some maternal aspect - Even Kira Nerys has mother issues that influenced her behaviour. Janeway insisted on being called Ma'am instead of the typical Sir of Starfleet commanders. (I personally like the aspect of the head being the head - whether our patriarchal society says "Sir" to signify that or not)

And as for loose cannons in BSG - Starbuck is a loose cannon because she has a general detestation for useless rules in general, not because she is a woman carrying on in a "man's job". Apollo is not a loose cannon. He is a guy who plays by the rules unless the rules means that something he doesn't want to happen will and he steps out of his normal comfort zone. Lee would restrain himself from hitting someone that pisses him off. Starbuck wouldn't (unless it was Adama, and really, after the shoot me thing, who wouldn't think twice?).

There are definitely things that need to be explored in bringing women into a much more whole picture, whether babies and motherhood are brought in or not, but as long as we stay away from the gauzy togas or strappy bondage suits, I think we're heading in the right direction (although who doesn't have a slight girl crush and want to emulate some of the sexy/powerful coming off of Six?) In fact, I think the storyline of Starbuck's emotional attachment to Casey, but Starbuck's willingness to follow the course she has chosen versus crumpling and being destroyed from the experience may help my husband understand that, cute though they be, babies are not in the forecast for me. Not only role model potential, but truly changing the way someone thinks of the opposite sex.