It is consistently infuriating that Janeway fans think that Janeway is criticised by male trekkers just because she is female, and not because she is poorly/inconstiently written for/characterised by the writing staff (a problem which VOY suffers in general but exemplified by Janeway).
And it is equally infuriating that some males refuse to see that many other male viewers really do dislike Janeway just because she is a woman. They will make excuses for every inconsistency in a male character but never do the same for the female character. If that inconsistency is pointed out as a defense for Janeway as in the case of Sisko and “In the Pale Moonlight” we get the “yes but argument.”
Well, I am yet to meet/take seriously any males who dislike Janeway because she's a woman. None of my peers who also watch Star Trek feel that way. They do however dislike her character for the same reasons I do - that she is inconsistently characterised.
I submit to you:
1. First of all, I would seriously question the validity of any so-called Trekker's opinion if their core issue with Janeway is that "she's a woman". That's already a pretty clear indication that anything they think should be dismissed.
2. If their attitude is that bogged down in gender issues of the 1950's, again - why do you care what they think?
I always felt Archer had more of an excuse for being incompetent, by virtue of the time-period.
It doesn't excuse it entirely, but it made it easier to swallow.
And this is a perfect example of what I am talking about, Archer is excused but Janeway isn’t. It’s a double standard if you can excuse one and not the other.
Brit
I said it
doesn't excuse it entirely. It was just slightly easier to deal with (and I perhaps considered it was MAYBE an intentional quirk on the writing staff's part), because I figured they were perhaps trying to drive home the idea that Archer was good natured, but very green and very naive - which is why maybe in First Flight they wanted to show how he wasn't the first choice for Captain.
Janeway had an additional ~200 years of Starfleet's experience at her disposal which Archer didn't have, so yes, I am going to state in this comparison, I can possibly consider giving Archer the slight benefit of the doubt.
Look, I guess the reason I am quite passionate about this issue is that back in 1995, it seemed that Star Trek was really behind the ball re: having a female lead, so it was a welcome decision to make the captain a woman.
By the same token, this was a real 'make or break' situation and I always felt that the writing staff couldn't AFFORD to drop the ball with Janeway. I wanted a Captain whom I would be happy to put toe-to-toe with Picard or Sisko. Not only did I want it, Trek (a supposedly progressive show) needed it, and so I felt the most integral aspect of Voyager was regardless of whatever the hell they do, get JANEWAY right at least.
But it didn't go that way, as, like with all television shows, things change in the background, and the character had to adapt to whomever was writing/directing her, along with Mulgrew's own portrayal. The last thing we needed was fodder for idiots who would take these character shortcomings the wrong way and label any Janeway incompetence as a result of her femininity - which is just bullshit. But it happens, as disappointing as it is, since I thought Trek fans were better than that.
TPTB ruined her character because they should have gone to great lengths to make sure Janeway was a positive role model not by simply just BEING on the bridge, but being consistent in the character's portrayal, reasoning, attitudes and motivations.
But of course what hope did the show have when Brannon Braga, one of the senior showrunners I can quote as stating that character development is "not something you do on a television show" (Generations commentary), a statement which is just entirely wrong, because what ended up happening, is you had a television series with arbitrary character decisions and changes, often without precedent, and often conflicting with preceding/proceeding events!
</rant>
I guess what I want to say; Janeway needed to be a better character than she was because it was important to Star Trek, and television in general - and anything less than that is doing a disservice to women, men and most of all, Trekkers (the good ones anyway).
.
