The media seems to be obsessed with the contrasting peer characters of that of a “princess” (one who always has to look pretty, often snobby, and usually thinks mostly of boys) and a “tomboy” (hates makeup, athletic, often has a masculine name/nickname, and gets in your face if you piss them off).
Maybe she’s had a rough existence and that’s the reason for the manner in which she chose to live her life. Yeah, that’s right. She chose. The members of SG-1 have gone through their own shit, yet they have managed to avoid blatant thievery for their own selfish gain.
Eve’s mother isn’t some writers’ sad projection: she is simply a woman who uses perfection to control her environment (and it doesn’t always work). Eve’s sister is not some writers’ fantasy of a daddy’s girl: she’s a confused teenage girl working out her place in her family, and in the world. And Mozelle isn’t an object lesson in how a feminist woman is toxic to the men in her life: if she is toxic, it’s probably because of whatever makes her psychic.
…and was still complaining about Sam Carter:
Is wholesome sexbot Sam, the beautiful perfect chick who inexplicably desires dorky old coot Jack, an inducement to potential male Air Force recruits? Is the message “Join us, and find out why having chicks in the military isn’t a bad thing, wink, nudge”?
This is never portrayed as a women-only thing; I could just as easily imagine two brothers, one who looked like James Marsden, one who looked like, well, the male version of Toni Collette, going through the same thing. The beautiful one and the plain one. It never came across as a gender thing.
This is the first of a weekly column that takes a look at what we were talking about a year ago. Were we right? Wrong? Has anything changed?