UK Female Sci-Fi Viewers Now Outnumber Males

mosel-saar-ruwer writes "The UK Telegraph is reporting that, due to the popularity of Buffy, Lara Croft, and Xena, female sci-fi viewers now outnumber males, at 51%-49%. From the article: 'People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek but it's not like that now ... There has been an increase in positive female role models, whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts.'"

Comments

Short Skirts

[Valcoramizer]

...And they mention Xena?

Re:Short Skirts

[moonbender]

Star Trek isn't just TOS, and neither Xena nor Buffy are sci-fi. That is all.

RE: short skirts

[Tezkah]

They designed a short skirt for some of the female staff in STNG. They even suggested that in the future, males could wear them too.

Interesting, is that where Futurama gets Zap Brannigan's short short skirt from?

Re:Short Skirts

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as well as appealing to men, and a large lesbian fan base, Xena (like Buffy) represented a move towards female empowerment. The women on the show were able to look good and kick butt :)

Re:Short Skirts

[Robocoastie]

add in Charmed and that %'age would probably increase. Then this season there's Threshold which has a female as the lead, Invasion which has several females as main characters of varying ages and Surface which also has a female (super-hot Lake Bell) as the lead.

Re:Short Skirts

[donscarletti]

I don't get that star trek short skirt stereotype. Granted, I've only really watched TNG and not that much of it either, but I was under the impression that Dr Crusher wears a lab coat over trousers and Counselor Troi wears the ugliest frilly lycra jumpsuit I have ever encountered. I also sure as hell wouldn't want to picture Captain/Admiral Janeway or that even older Admiral I can't remember the name of in tiny miniskirts.

But as far as I can tell, women seem to like miniskirts at least as much as I do. Especially those tiny denim ones that have been popular for the last two years and I used to love until I saw my sister in one. Think about the popularity of Alley McBeal with female audiences even when the popularity of miniskirts was at an all time low. It seems to be the consensus of most women I know that they would wear miniskirts regularly if they could know that they were safe from their bodies being criticized by other women. Of cause men know not to tease, since if he were to encourage an overweight woman to not wear miniskirts all her friends might be lead by peer pressure and of cause he has to think about the welfare of guys who have a thing for fat chicks.

However, there is one thing to consider about short skirts. In all societies that men and women both did/do wear skirts, including the Greeks up until a century ago, the ancient Egyptians and the Roman empire, it is/was always the women who wear the long garments and the men who wear the very, very short ones. This is of cause because of practicality since it was expected that a man be active in his day and a woman (at least a wealthy women) should be largely sedentary. Thus, it is obvious in todays times of neo-feminism where women neither aspire to masculinity (faded cargo pants with curry stains) nor conform to the oppressive mold of ancient times that a women wears something that is notably feminine in form but with a four millennium documented track record of practicality.

Re:Short Skirts

[Somatic]

...And they mention Xena?

Well, that's 10% right there.

Re:Short Skirts

[cloudmaster]

I personally found it odd that they mentioned shows whose main characters are generally thought of as "cute girls" and claimed that as the reason more *women* were watching...

Re:Short Skirts

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Star Trek isn't just TOS

Sorry. He meant to say that in Star Trek, all the women are aliens, wear short skirts, or wear skin-tight body suits that often strangely contravene the uniform guidelines followed by all other characters. Do please forgive him. :-)

Re:Short Skirts

[sp0rk173]

Wow. Nonsensical diatribe.

They were talking about the original star trek.

Re: short skirts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. From the first time I saw Zap I knew they were pullin' that skirt joke from the pilot of STNG. Zap's a kind of Bill Shatner in a NextGen pilot miniskirt.

Re:Short Skirts

[serutan]

The whole article is utter drivel, written by someone who not only views Xena and Buffy as science fiction, but apparently hasn't noticed how Xena and Lara Croft dress.

Side note: Nichelle Nichols was thinking about quitting Star Trek TOS because of conflicts with the studio, but Martin Luther King encouraged her to stay with the show because her role as an officer on a spaceship was setting a good example for young black Americans. Somehow I doubt that he would have felt so strongly if she had been playing a vampire slayer.

Re:Short Skirts

[m4dm4n]

Seems that lately the term Sci-Fi if often used for the whole of speculative fiction, rather than just science fiction. It is to be expected, as people who enjoy fantasy, usually enjoy science fiction as well, and visa versa.

Re:Short Skirts

[mubar]

True, but the article does not talk about science fiction, it talks about Scifi Channel, which also shows fantasy and sometimes even horror. Besides, fans of those genres often are fans of scifi too.

Re:Short Skirts

[Bush Pig]

Why are any of those (extremely crappy, in my view) shows mentioned in the same sentence as Science Fiction. Oh, sure, they're fictional, but I don't see any fucking science.

I can't be bothered with them, despite the cute chicks. (Disclaimer: I'm not a chick.)

Re:Short Skirts

[Robocoastie]

>>However, there is one thing to consider about short skirts. In all societies that men and women both did/do wear skirts, including the Greeks... You've been watching far too much TV, that or have spent too much time in textbooks that you miss the forest for the trees. What you describe may have been true for the incredibly small percentage of the wealthy (which is all TV and liberal social studies classes focus on), but the rest of the world you can bet did NOT. How do I know this? - Simple, I grew up on a farm which the vast majority of the society you describe was. Working in a real field dressed the way you describe would lead to untold numbers of cuts, rashes, allergic reactions and so on. Technology in protective clothing evolved throughout the centuries until the ultimate was invented in the late 1800's - the denim blue jean. This invention was such a success it litterally changed how work was done. The same pair of clothes could be worn all week long since it dried easily overnight and the dirt from the day before could be flicked off of it. When a pair actually was chosen to be retired it became material to patch others.

Re:Short Skirts

[donscarletti]

Wasn't that made when every women wore a miniskirt?

Re:Short Skirts

[indifferent children]

1) Buffy stayed on the air even after the main characters left college. When do you stop calling them 'girls'?

2) We tried Cagney and Lacey. Old actors get worse ratings than young actors. This is especially true of women. No it isn't fair, but TV ratings are a democracy and not subject to abstract notions like 'fairness'.

Re:Short Skirts

[Kjella]

I personally found it odd that they mentioned shows whose main characters are generally thought of as "cute girls" and claimed that as the reason more *women* were watching...

I think it's essentially the same as when guy magazines puts women on the front page to sell to men, and girl magazines puts women on the front page to sell to women. Don't ask me about the logic, but it's not limited to sci-fi series...

Re:Short Skirts

[cloudmaster]

I meant girls as interchangeable with females - though I guess maybe they'd stop being "girls" when someone considers using the term "MILF" to describe them? :) Sarah Michelle Gellar was apparently born in 1977*, putting her at 28 - I thought she was younger than that (though I'm gonna call that young since it's just a few months younger than I am ;)). And I thought that Cagney and Lacey was just a crappy show - Laverne and Shirley stayed popular (ranked in the top 3 for its first 4 seasons, including being rated number 1 for years 3 and 4)* and on the air for a long time, though. They weren't exactly young women...

* Thanks, Google - I don't know these things off the top of my head :)

Re:Short Skirts

[Aspasia13]

Ahh, but TV is not a democracy. Remember, TV shows are not there for the sake of the viewers. The viewers are the product that get sold to the advertisers. If a show pulls in good ratings, but the demographic of those ratings is outside what advertisers want, the show gets moved around.

The advertisers prefer younger viewers because they are known to spend more than older ones. They also get into buying habits that follow them throughout their life (e.g. becoming brand loyal).

But there is also a lot of personal politics in the TV business. Just like in many corporations, the personal preferences, regardless of the numbers, of those in charge affects the decisions that are made. A classic example includes Gilligan's Island, which was cancelled when it had high ratings during its first run and was influenced by a studio executive's wife who was upset that it had supplanted reruns of Bonanza. Guess which show took its place?

I would guess that the reasons that young lead actors are more common than older ones is because the younger viewers (the target demographic of the advertisers) see their age range being represented.

Re:Short Skirts

[indifferent children]

Ahh, but TV is not a democracy.

You misread my post, which said "TV ratings are a democracy". Which shows get, and stay, on TV is not decided by the viewers. But the ratings are driven solely by the viewers. They watch what they like most (or dislike least).

Re:Short Skirts

[arivanov]

Xena is not female empowerment

Now this is female empowerment in Sci Fi:

"And just one more thing. On your way back, I'd like you to take the time to learn the Babylon 5 mantra: 'Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God. And, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out! Babylon control out. Civilians." [Looks at ceiling.]

Xena isn't.

Disclaimer - I am male. I am judging by what my wife likes and what makes her frown in disgust and change the channel.

Re:Short Skirts

[Mac Degger]

"Buffy, Lara Croft, and Xena"

Lara Croft isn't sci-fi either. Oddly enough, none of the shows mentioned are sci-fi. So how can they possibly say that more women watch sci-fi than men? At most you could say that more women than men watch today's (or actually yesterday's) "hip" shows.

The only thing the article metions that is sci-fi is the Matrix, but that was a good movie (discounting the sequels), not a tv show. Seems like girls watch mopre tv nowadays; there are not (that many) more geek girls.

Re:Short Skirts

[INT 21h]

The abbreviation SF is often used to stand for speculative fiction (which is science fiction+fantasy+horror+alternate history++) and not just science fiction, so maybe the scifi-channel should change its name.

Re:Short Skirts

[AGMW]

I'd rather argue against a hundred idiots than have one agree with me.

You're not wrong there!

DOH!

Re:Short Skirts

[Analog Squirrel]

I, for one, welcome our short skirt wearing over... oh, wait...

Re:Short Skirts

[colinrichardday]

Overladies? Dominatrices?

Re:Short Skirts

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sure, they're fictional, but I don't see any fucking science.

they are more along the lines of fantasy than sci-fi, but many times fantasy and sci-fi get lumped together. check out your local movie stores and book stores. i bet there's a section called "sci-fi/fantasy" where they are all lumped together.

also, from TFA:
"Adam Roberts, a science-fiction author and a professor in English at Royal Holloway, London University, said fantasy television programmes and films were becoming more character-led...'More women are tuning in...'" (emphasis mine) so TFA talks about fantasy and sci-fi and doesn't specifically call Buffy, Xena, and Lara Croft sci-fi.

I can't be bothered with them, despite the cute chicks. (Disclaimer: I'm not a chick.)

so then you're gay? (sorry, the door was wide open for that one and i couldn't resist)

Re:Short Skirts

[JhohannaVH]

Thank you frickin' *god* for posting this. I swear. If it weren't for Susan Ivanova - I wouldn't still be in IT. I can't tell you how many times I have quoted this, beaten this, or henpecked this in to one of the victims of my mentoring. It goes well when threatening breaking fingers near console keyboards in Data Centers. :)

Re:Short Skirts

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? The only right women have is the right to fold my socks and remain silent.

I'm an overweight man

[geoffrobinson]

who watches sci-fi in well-lit rooms. So much for stereotypes.

Re:I'm an overweight man

[gstoddart]

I'm an overweight man who watches sci-fi in well-lit rooms. So much for stereotypes.

Worst episode ever!

Oh, I've wasted my life.

Re:I'm an overweight man

[Fordiman]

Doesn't this article just basically say that the same percentage of women as men watch Sci-Fi (IE: there are, generallly, 51% women and 49% men in the world, thus a 51/49 split between male / female fans is pretty normal), or, moreover, that it's become genderistically mainstream (no longer strictly a male demographic)

First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Valacosa]

"...all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts."

Star Trek would have been much more progressive if Roddenberry wasn't teathered by NBC.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[NanoGator]

"Star Trek would have been much more progressive if Roddenberry wasn't teathered by NBC."

Hehe. I have a book about the artwork done for the various Star Trek series. They designed a short skirt for some of the female staff in STNG. They even suggested that in the future, males could wear them too. There actually is a shot somewhere early in the series with a man wearing one of those skirts. They didn't dwell on it. From reading the book, I got the impression that being gay was something that would be around in the 24th century, but not something anybody particularly cared about. They wanted to indicate that it was there, but not have a big dazzling fireworks show about it. The book was vague enough about it, though, that I don't know that I quite interpreted that correctly. Still, it seems fitting.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for NBC, the women would have been topless.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[GileadGreene]

I don't quite see how "wearing a skirt" equates with "being gay". Just as one example, plenty of Scots men wore kilts back in the day. Some still do. I doubt they were all gay.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[halowolf]

Hehe. I have a book about the artwork done for the various Star Trek series. They designed a short skirt for some of the female staff in STNG. They even suggested that in the future, males could wear them too. There actually is a shot somewhere early in the series with a man wearing one of those skirts.

I think I vaguely recall that the guy wearing the skirt thing was in one of the background shots in the STNG pilot and then never seen again. But as I said, it's a vague memory.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[NanoGator]

"I don't quite see how "wearing a skirt" equates with "being gay". Just as one example, plenty of Scots men wore kilts back in the day. Some still do. I doubt they were all gay."

Kilts are not skirts. Nor are they effeminate. The point was that it wasn't the sort of thing that'd get a dude a section 8.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[TheWanderingHermit]

There is a shot -- I think during the crowd-in-corridor shots before the saucer sep in "Encounter at Farpoint" with at least one male in a skirt uniform. The Series Bible they sent me when they invited me in to pitch mentioned this. (Even though I was invited in to pitch somewhere around the 3rd or 4th season, the Series Bible hadn't changed and still had a LOT of stuff from the original ideas that were dropped.) There was a reference to the fact that men and women would be wearing skirt uniforms and that clothing would not be so sexist (although that wasn't the word used).

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[nmb3000]

There actually is a shot somewhere early in the series with a man wearing one of those skirts.

You can see it here.

Yeah, I think I'm glad they dumped those. What's too bad is they never refer to them later in the series. Why not take a jab at themselves for a laugh? For example when Riker makes a comment to Picard about how he hates the dress uniform, Picard could reply that, "at least he didn't have to wear those awful skirts."

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[drsquare]

I live unfortuanately close to Scotland and I can assure you that skirt-wearing Scots aren't all gay, they're mainly just normal transvestites.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[hunterx11]

Roddenberry originally wanted half of the crew to be female, but NBC said he couldn't do that because it would make it look like "there's a lot of fooling around going on up there." They said he could do one-third women, which he justified by saying, "Well hell, one-third healthy, young women ought to be enough."

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[EtherealStrife]

weirdly enough I was just rewatching old TNG episodes from the top, and yesterday I remember having to rewind and go through it again....I'd never noticed it when it was on television. I believe the shot is from the saucer separation, when the "battle" section turned to hold off Q while saucer escaped. This was one of the evacuation shots.

Really interesting that they would throw something like that in there...perhaps it was meant to be a scottish kilt rather than skirt?

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[geminidomino]

It actually did come up in a TNG episode.

Worf: Why do we have to wear these ridiculous uniforms?
Riker: It's a formal reception for Admiral Foobar.
Worf: [mutter] They look like dresses...
Riker: That's an incredibly outmoded and sexist thing to say! [beat] Besides, you look good in a dress.
Worf: [Klingon Stare-o-death]

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Anonymous Coward]

Which episode was that?

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[schon]

plenty of Scots men wore kilts back in the day. Some still do. I doubt they were all gay

What, you've never heard of William FitzPatrick and Patrick FitzWilliam, the gay scottish couple?

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[obeythefist]

*cough*

It's Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick. And they're Irish.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's somewhat disturbing that you have that link handy.

I don't know your sex or orientation, but I don't know of any combination for which knowing this link is *not* somewhat disturbing...

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he means Ben Dover and Phil McCracken

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[nmb3000]

It's somewhat disturbing that you have that link handy.

What are you talking about? I can't be the only person with that picture on my desktop, can I?

Actually, it wasn't that hard. Feeling Lucky punk?

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Artifakt]

With those names, more likely Welsh.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[geminidomino]

Argh... give me a few minutes...

Season 7: "Liasons".

I probably screwed up the quote slightly, but the gist of it is there (and I know I got the whole "outmoded, sexist" part right.)

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[NanoGator]

"Which episode was that?"

It was that episode where the Enterprise entered a strange area of space. Mr. Data generated a theory that correctly explained what it was they were experiencing. Riker used a metaphor to describe the phenomenon so bumpkins like me could understand it. Mr. La Forge set up some strange energy thingy to fire at it, but that didn't work. Worf suggested battle stations, but Picard didn't want to appear aggressive. Wesley knew all along what to do but nobody listened to him. Troi said people were scared. I forget how they got out of it but the effect was pretty neat. The most notable aspect of this episode was that the Holodeck was in perfect working order.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[mrchaotica]

There was also the TNG episode Angel One. Given the choice between the native men's clothing in that episode and the uniform skirt, I'd take the skirt!

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[jcr]

Oh, yeah.. That one!

-jcr

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Rob T Firefly]

Apparently, there was a lot of fooling around going on up there after all. Much of it didn't even require women.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[ravenspear]

From reading the book, I got the impression that being gay was something that would be around in the 24th century, but not something anybody particularly cared about. They wanted to indicate that it was there, but not have a big dazzling fireworks show about it.

There was one episode of DS9 where two women were pretty forward about being lesbians.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[NanoGator]

"There was one episode of DS9 where two women were pretty forward about being lesbians."

They weren't lesbians. They were two people in love in a previous life.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[ravenspear]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I'm talking about the alt universe one when alt Kira and Leeta were hitting on each other. They were definitely lesbian, and there was nothing about a previous life mentioned.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Babbster]

I'll play the pedantic geek here for a moment. I believe you're correct about alternate Leeta's orientation (it's been a while) but alternate Kira was less a lesbian and more a bisexual, hedonistic dominatrix - she went after males and females alike. For her it was all about using sex as a weapon/tool.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[h4rm0ny]

Bloody Hell! They were called "Ben Dover" and "Phil McCavity."

If you're going to crack a crap joke, at least get it right! This article is crap by the way, and Buffy is NOT Sci-Fi.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Bush Pig]

Nah, it's Ben Doover and Phil McAcerty.

I used to work with a bloke called McCracken, and I can assure you he wasn't a poofter.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Bush Pig]

That's really disturbing ... I think I'm scarred for life.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Aspasia13]

The difference between a skirt and a kilt is the male ego ;o)

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[niktemadur]

Maybe so, but Scotsmen are the worst tennis players in the world, and it was not too long ago that Angus Podgorny received an order for two million kilts by a creature from the planet Skyron in Andromeda, who was the most hideous thing you ever saw, a quivering, glistening mass. He wasn't so much a man as he was ... a Blancmange!

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[schon]

I can assure you he wasn't a poofter.

He probably wasn't a poofta either.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[gymell]

Recall that in the pilot episode of TOS that Majel Barrett played number one, and was even wearing pants!

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[Bush Pig]

Damn keyboard (and red wine). That's McAverty.

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[colinrichardday]

There was an episode where Picard is wearing a "dress"? with tights while dining with Ambassador Troi (Deanna's mom).

Re:First to defend Gene Roddenberry

[RexxFiend]

That's -1, Flamebait where I come from pal.

and anyway, we only wear skirts for special occasions, and I can tell you the things are babe magnets ;-)

Oh, those were the days

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

whoa...

[xao gypsie]

it's chilly here in Hell.

Re:whoa...

[magarity]

I like my women like I like my coffee thrown over the back of a mule and hauled over the Andes.

Re:whoa...

[kahanamoku]

I like my coffee ground up and in the fridge..... my women.... c'mon, this is slashdot!

Xena & skirts

[toetagger1]

"...in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts."

And I'm sure Xena is the best example to illustrate how this has changed! Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining!

Re:Xena & skirts

[Locke2005]

In star trek, all the women, regardless of species, inevitably fell in love with Capt. Kirk. In Xena, she never falls in love with any of the men 'cause she's already got her life partner Gabrielle. Sure seems like a difference to me! I think we should do a study on who has more lesbian fans... Uhura or Xena.

Re:Xena & skirts

[CarpetShark]

The difference is that Xena deliberately wears short skirts to dominate men. So it's OK, and not sexist at all any more :)

Sweet

[Gumpmaster]

There's still a chance for me!!!

Ooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://simplythebest.net/sounds/WAV/WAV_files/misc ellaneous_WAV_files/hallelujah.wavHALLELUJAH!

Obligatory

[tehlinux]

I am a small man sitting in a dark corner watching star trek you insensitive clod!

Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Traegorn]

*buys first available plane ticket to England*

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Mr2cents]

Great, now they have to do a recount.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate! Thy're pommy chicks they neither brush their teeth nor bathe more than once a month.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Jozer99]

They should recheck this. Just because they have ponytails and don't like professional sports does not mean they are women.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats French people you moron.
By the way did they ever think its because most sci fi programs are stupid?
Theres much better stuff on the discovery channel and other channels which have facts rather then someones hyped up fiction

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you've never been to England then.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that would be the French.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[jez9999]

Frankly, I wouldn't bother. I'm a UK male, and I don't know where the hell all these geeky women are, but they sure aren't anywhere I go. All the guys on Slashdot swooning over their nice geeky partners - whre the HELL did you meet them? Please tell the rest of us. I'm kinda assuming that these women mentioned are all middle-aged and married with children.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Hieronymus Howard]

He's right, don't bother coming to the UK to look for geeky women. We hardly have any here, and cute geek girls are as rare as hens teeth.

What we do have is a lot of women who like the kind of intelligent, funny TV shows that Joss Whedon creates. That doesn't make them geeks. My partner is certainly not a geek, though she enjoys Sci-Fi shows on TV more than I do.

Re:Hmmmm, United Kingdom they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get too excited, UK female SF fans look pretty much like UK male SF fans.

Ahh..

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Thats a good way to widen your audience -- Just misclassify things as SciFi.

Laura Croft is no more SciFi than Indiana Jones -- Its adventure.
Buffy/Xena is Mytho. No Science involved at all, just adjusted beliefs leading to an alternate reality.

Re:Ahh..

[Wisgary]

First thing I thought of as well. Next thing you know lifetime movies and the lifetime channel will be classified as sci-fi and 99.9% of sci-fi viewers will be female.

Re:Ahh..

[Xzzy]

> Just misclassify things as SciFi.

While this may be true for the shows offered as evidence, it doesn't mean the point being made is wrong. To me it just seems like the article is misattributing what is causing the rise in female viewership.

In some interview on the Firefly DVD set, there were comments made that Fox had concerns that they weren't getting reactions from the audiences they wanted. They said they got a "much bigger" reaction from female viewers than they did male ones.

Though Firefly is only barely science fiction, it only holds claim to the label because it involves a spacefaring humanity in the future, that quote from the interview has always struck me as a bit odd.

Perhaps it's nothing more than the "softening" of traditional sci-fi that is causing the shift.

Re:Ahh..

[kcarlin]

Thats a good way to widen your audience -- Just misclassify things as SciFi.

Laura Croft is no more SciFi than Indiana Jones -- Its adventure.
Buffy/Xena is Mytho. No Science involved at all, just adjusted beliefs leading to an alternate reality.

You nailed it. The article refers to viewership of the "Sci-Fi" channel and they have simply improved their female demographic by abandoning their format for gods, vampires, and the T&A clone of Indiana Jones. Not even a token space opera to provide a Sci-Fi figleaf. Then the Telegraph is clueless enough to miss the story by a hundred parsecs.

Re:Ahh..

[Citizen of Earth]

Buffy/Xena is Mytho. No Science involved at all, just adjusted beliefs leading to an alternate reality.

C'mon... What about Warren's girlfriend-bots?

Re:Ahh..

[Slow Smurf]

Or Xena's modern day cloning episode!

Re:Ahh..

[fireboy1919]

Firefly is only barely science fiction

Yeah...and the pope's only barely Catholic. Microsoft's only a little power hungry.

They've got a consistent mechanism powering the ships (spinning matter/energy converter things). They've got a complete future history that includes the mixing of all peoples (so that everyone now speaks the two widest used languages- Chinese and English), colonization of another galaxy, and a civil war. Then they deal with the results of this - including the law of supply and demand, and variations in society.

Heck, they even went so far as to explain (**MINOR SPOILER WARNING***) which part of the brain the people who experimented with River used to do it, and why.

If this isn't Sci-Fi, then what is? You don't have to explain things using the particle-of-the-week (like Star Trek: TNG) just for it to be Sci-Fi.

In all seriousness, I think you've hit upon the root of the problem. Its sort of hard to classify Sci-Fi because it means different things to different people.

I would personally consider Firefly/Serenity to be pure, uncut, and mainstream Sci-Fi. I'd go so far as to say that you could use it as an paragon example when someone asks "What is Sci-Fi?"

But I guess that's just me.

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

FireFly is more Sci-Fi than StarTrek as Joss Whedon decided he didn't need to throw out Einstein (there's no faster than light travel) and he didn't need to speculate about aliens (as if it is possible to ever realistically present alien life).

So when you see Captain Kirk go down to random-planet-X-that-always-looks-like-a-californi a-backlot think about how far we've progressed in Sci-Fi by taking the fantasy out of the show, not putting more in.

Re:Ahh..

[aussie_a]

think about how far we've progressed in Sci-Fi by taking the fantasy out of the show, not putting more in.

That's definitely arguable. The amount of space humanity lives in is questionable (and not dealt with in any of the episodes or extra material AFAIK). If humanity does live in one star system, then you're correct. Einstein wasn't thrown out. But a ridiculous amount of habitable planets are located in this star system, so many so that it's nearly (if not completely) impossible to actually occur.

Or if more then one star system is inhabited (to make the amount of inhabitable planets per star system a bit more realistic), then there is obviously FTL, as not too much time occurs between episodes.

So while Firefly did possibly do away with FTL, they replaced it with an ill-defined universe instead. I'd hardly call that an improvement over FTL.

Re:Ahh..

[ViperG]

RTFA

The article explains that the ratings for the SCI-FI channel, not just all SCI-FI, but the SCI-FI channel has the higher female audience.

Regardless of whats on the sci-fi channel, my most means it should have a higher male audience. But it doesn't, because of some of the shows.

It's not a big deal really, so I dunno what all the fuss is about. Yeah I would agree, the sci fi channel should be male dominent. Who would of guessed.

Re:Ahh..

[westyx]

i'd agree that firefly/serenity (hereafter fs) is scifi. however, they *do* mess with einsteinin space - they zip around in a system that has heaps of planets, on one planet one week and on another the next (which either involves some incredible accel/decel, or nullification of the laws of physics regarding mass). They also land on moons that have a breathable atmosphere.

okay, i just wrote that, and it's incredibly nitpicky. bah

Re:Ahh..

[westyx]

uh, he did. travelling from planet to planet in less than a month, moons with breathable atmosphere - some fairly large changes to the mass/force equations to be able to work in something interesting.

Re:Ahh..

[naoursla]

In the movie they stated that humans found a solar system with dozens of planets and hundreds of moon and they went about terraforming them. They sort of implied that such a solar system was an anomaly (of the non-temporal kind).

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

There's no if. Firefly is set in a solar system which contains no less than 12 planets, each with no less than 2 moons, the gas giants with at least 10 moons. Few of these planets/moons were inhabitable when humans came to the system (perhaps just one) but they brought teraforming equipment with them which gives every planet/moon an atmosphere and gravity as near to Earth-that-was as possible. How'd they get there in the first place? With a multi-generation space ark. All consistent with the current laws of physics.. which the possible exception of artificial gravity, which is a necessary conceit to make a space drama recognisable. There's plenty of references in FireFly to an aversion to transhumanism, suggesting that Earth went through the Singularity and FireFly is the story of the survivors. Yeah, you heard me, survivors, the few people who managed to get away from the hell of utopia. You may think having a superintellegent mind controlling your destiny is fun, but I'll take the unknown of the frontier.

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

Excuse me? If we had workable fusion technology we could travel between the planets of our solar system in days.. and that's without suffering anymore than a standard gravity of acceleration. It's all about energy consumption. The highest density fuels we have are made from dead dinosaurs or produce so much harmful radiation that you need to encase them with lots of heavy shielding.

As for the breathable atmosphere, they teraformed lifeless planets/moons so they could colonize their new solar system. Technology to do that is at our fingertips right now: it's called life. We're just so pathetic at manipulating it that we can't see the potential.

If there's anything unbelievable in the science of FireFly it is artificial gravity. Both on the ships and on the planets/moons. Our science can't explain that, but it's unfortunately necessary so us idlers can relate to the characters.

Re:Ahh..

[fireboy1919]

decided he didn't need to throw out Einstein

This is not a good comparison. Star Trek has an explaination for most of their phenomena in a way that fits in with current theory, and this is no exception. Its just that they'd never try to explain modern space-time theory in a 1-hour long episode that also has to have a plot.

But why don't we do it here? Warp drives are called that because they warp space by changing the mass of the ship. Generally speaking, the idea is that the distance between two points in space decreases as mass increases.

Its something like this:
1) Ship gets really massive - extending a gravity field (which we can do because in the Star Trek future we can use gravitons the way we use protons today) in the direction of travel, thus bending space there. Spatial locations get closer together
2) Ship moves
3) Ship gets less massive - removing the field. Spatial locations get further apart.

The result is faster than light travel (i.e. you get to a new spot faster than light does), but your velocity never actually exceeds light speed. The only time they ever actually did faster than light travel was that funky thing that Kirk did to go back in time, but I believe they came up with a reason for it. I believe they were fitting it into the theory based upon the fact that it resulted in time travel.

What's the point of this? Don't mess with the Trek. Star Trek has so many hardcore Sci-Fi fans that somebody has come up with a way to fit it into our current knowledge of the universe without calling it magic.

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

When we find exotic matter than has repulsive instead of a attractant gravity, then warp drive will be feasible. Until then, it's magic. As are worm holes. As are jump gates. It's cool, don't get me wrong, but any Sci-Fi that doesn't rely on it is stronger in my book.

Probably the worst thing about Star Trek is that it makes space cadets go "ho hum" when people talk about colonising our solar system. They consider any society that is "pre-warp" as insignificant. They talk about finding an "M-class" planet, instead of making one. In fact, the general consensis of the Star Trek universe is that teraforming is a waste of time or even dangerous.

Re:Ahh..

[Manchot]

I don't know much about the other two, but I do know that Buffy does have some sci-fi elements in it. For example, in one episode, a high school girl who wasn't noticed by anybody actually became invisible, and the explanation given had to do with quantum mechanics, not the supernatural. Also, at least three robots were made in the series which could actually pass as humans (including one made in the fifties). We can't even get a program to pass the Turing Test, let alone a robot.

Re:Ahh..

[Oligonicella]

Uh, no. Firefly is firmly in the sf category because it is speculative fiction based upon possible (though maybe implausible) as yet unknown science. The ratios shouldn't strike you as odd. Male viewers are much more prone to be satisfied with visual shoot-'em up bang bang. The interactions of the crew would draw brighter and more emotive people than your average young male.

Re:Ahh..

[Rakishi]

I believe you've just proven the previous poster's point, thank you very much.

Nowhere does it even imply your explanation, the general one seems to be that somehow a subspace field pushes the ship faster than light. Seems that the standard explanation is that a subspace field is created around the ship, and the field somehow causes the ship to move FTL (yes move, akin to the ship being in a space time bubble). In other words, it's not making the ship massive to bend space time between two locations.

Of course, nothing is self-consistent in Star Trek so there is no point in bothering with real explanations.

FTL travel, without a lot of care and explanation, either violates Relatively or Causality, in other words you either throw out Einstein or the concept time. A drive which simply moves you from point A to point B faster than light makes it trivial to move information back in time (ie: just by going FTL you are moving back in time). You need to do such fun stuff as add special frame of reference, say subspace.

Re:Ahh..

[be-fan]

There is nothing unphysical about traveling between the planets of a solar system in days. The distance from the Sun to Pluto is about 0.22 light days. If your maximum acceleration and decceleration is 1g, you can travel to Pluto in roughly 18 days, with a maximum velocity of 2% of the speed of light. If you can tolerate acceleration at 2g, you can get there in roughly 12.5 days, with a maximum velocity of 1.8% the speed of light. All of these are entirely within the realm of possibility, not only within our current physics, but with, from a physics theory point of view, fairly reasonable technologies.

Re:Ahh..

[Rakishi]

As someone else said:
-Fusion can probably do that, matter-antimatter conversion (or other mass to energy conversion) can easily do that if fusion isn't good enough. A continuous 1g acceleration/deceleration (accel half way then decel) can get you from earth to mars in a week... when they're on opposite sides of the sun.
-Terraforming

Of course I doubt the system would be stable if the planets/moons were in such location that terraforming was viable.

Re:Ahh..

[aussie_a]

Aaah, thanks. The info I had was from the show, not the movie, so my info was a bit outdated. I'm glad they cleared up that ambiguity, because while they were trying to be more hard sci-fi then most shows, that was a niggly point of mine, which seemed odd that they would leave ambiguous.

Re:Ahh..

[shawb]

And artificial gravity on the ships probably makes it a whole lot easier to film in a studio sitting on top of gravity well Earth.

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

Blah, even if they went to the 2% extra effort to hang the characters on wires and airbrush the wires out in post-production, what benefit would you get? Sure, they could add a rotating section to Serenity, but how ugly would that look?

Re:Ahh..

[AJWM]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Stargate SG-1, which certainly is sci-fi, and Captain/Major/Lt. Colonel Samantha Carter is not only a babe who can kick butt, she's smart. No miniskirts or skintight body suits, either (more's the pity ;-).

Re:Ahh..

[be-fan]

Ack, you're right. The maximum velocities are 2.5% and 3.6% of the speed of light, respectively. Ironically, I'm an aerospace student, so math realy shouldn't scare me...

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

The amount of energy used boggles out little minds, but that's just cause we're cavemen who like to play with metal.

Re:Ahh..

[fireboy1919]

Nowhere does it even imply your explanation, the general one seems to be that somehow a subspace field pushes the ship faster than light.

Pardon? I think not. While the math wasn't there, this is consistent with everything I've heard, read, or seen about Star Trek. I'm fairly certain that this is what the writers had in mind. Its not that hard to come up with once you know that gravity bends space.

I think you're confused: data is transmitted through subspace. They can use it the way we transmit radio signals now. Matter is carried along using a warp field. Its not as easy, and not the same thing. Or have you read something to the contrary that I'm not familiar with?

The general idea behind how this works predates the concept of subspace, which IIRC wasn't invented until TNG. Warp=>warp space

From that article, btw:
The on-board spaceship clock runs at the same speed as the clock of an external observer, and that observer will detect no increase in the mass of the moving ship, even when it travels at FTL speeds.

Despite all the inconsistencies, the bad physics, and the details added after the fact, there are a lot of bits from Star Trek that actually are very well thought out, and in many cases more complicated than things that have been thought up on other shows.

Re:Ahh..

[mrbooze]

"Laura Croft is no more SciFi than Indiana Jones -- Its adventure.
Buffy/Xena is Mytho. No Science involved at all, just adjusted beliefs leading to an alternate reality."

It's almost like you don't know that "Sci-Fi" is a well-established industry term that means more than science fiction, but is used to refer to all science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc.

Some people even choose to pronounce it "Skiffy" but those people are just plain wrong.

Re:Ahh..

[KDR_11k]

The problem is that while you could add gases to form an atmosphere to just about every planet or moon, it has to be fairly large to produce enough gravity to hold onto it and produce an atmospheric pressure that allows you to run around without an oxygen mask. At a few kilometers height (e.g. on top of Mount Everest) the Earth's atmosphere becomes too thin to breathe. On something the size of the moon the atmospheric density would be lower than that at ground level. Add to that the solar wind blowing away the atmosphere and you can see where the problems lie. The terraformed planets would need a mass that doesn't deviate much from the Earth's mass (maybe +-10-20%).

Re:Ahh..

[Rakishi]

"Pardon? I think not."

That is also not what you said in your previous post, although that is probably what Star Trek warp looks closest to. Of course, negative energy is itself one of those fun non-yet-found physics quirks but that is a different point.

This drive does not use a massive ship or anything like that to move two points closer together. What it does it take a region of space-time and move it forward.

"While the math wasn't there, this is consistent with everything I've heard, read, or seen about Star Trek. I'm fairly certain that this is what the writers had in mind. "

I doubt the writters had that in mind, they made up some technobabel about subspace field bending space-time (they somehow lower the mass of a ship and let it go into warp, neither of which is really needed for the other) and someone found a similar theory using real physics. So fans decided the do a retcon and claim that is how it was always supposed to work.

I mostly think this since Wiki lists the original paper as being published in 1994 while TNG aired in the late 80s to 1994. So unless the Star trek writers had a time machine they did not use this theory as their basis.

It may even be the case that official material was written using the ideas in that theory and retconed the warp engines to be consistent with those theories. Even the wiki agrees with me.

"Its not that hard to come up with once you know that gravity bends space."

It has little to do with gravity bending space, neither do the star trek engines asfaik. It works as the wiki says and as I said above, by having the region of space around your ship move FTL. It seems that this is done by destroying space in front of you and creating space behind you.

Re:Ahh..

[1u3hr]

Thats a good way to widen your audience -- Just misclassify things as SciFi.

It's defined here simply as shows broadcast by the station "Sci Fi UK", which obviously does run stuff that is undeniably fantasy, like Xena.

Re:Ahh..

[QuantumG]

Yep, which is nicely solved by the magic, err, technology of artificial gravity.

Re:Ahh..

[Anonymous Coward]

"...just adjusted beliefs leading to an alternate reality..."

Sounds like Kansas.

Re:Ahh..

[Mac Degger]

"Joss Whedon decided he didn't need to throw out Einstein (there's no faster than light travel)"

Yes there is; there's no way to get to other planets in other solarsystems without being years older when you get there. Sure, there time dilation, but that doesn't have the effect you think it has. Einstein got thrown out the window as soon as they reached another solar system and weren't years older.

Re:Ahh..

[Mac Degger]

I'd rather think it's when we find our first gravety wave and really understand space-time (and can play around with it, instead of just know it's there) that warp drive has a chance. Repulsive matter isn't neccessary if we can play around with the attractive properties and change them.

Re:Ahh..

[Mac Degger]

Negative energy is not "one of those fun non-yet-found physics quirks"; go check your quantum mechanics.

Re:Ahh..

[MenTaLguY]

Firefly takes place within a single, large solar system. Most of the "planets" are terraformed moons of gas giants.

Re:Ahh..

[Carewolf]

While they certainly try to explain many things, most explainations make no sense, and most wierd things are never explained.

I've always found it odd they could safely land and breathe on most planets, and that most if not all aliens are humaniod and speaks english, that all gravities are 1G, and sexuallity is mostly preserved in aliens (with few exception which are usually there for plots).

Re:Ahh..

[japhmi]

I'm fairly certain that this is what the writers had in mind.

I'm fairly scertain that the writers said "hey, 'warp' would be a cool word to use for our spaceship engine-things."

Re:Ahh..

[japhmi]

Yes there is; there's no way to get to other planets in other solarsystems without being years older when you get there. Sure, there time dilation, but that doesn't have the effect you think it has. Einstein got thrown out the window as soon as they reached another solar system and weren't years older.

The trip from Earth to the current 'verse' was generations before Firefly. There is NO FTL travel in Firefly.

Re:Ahh..

[SamSim]

I will agree that Firefly contains plenty of science. And it's certainly nearer the mark than Star Trek. But I tend to think of science fiction as fiction in which science, or scientific concepts, are the centrepiece of the story. And in Firefly, science isn't the star. The emphasis of the story is on people and their interactions. When Serenity breaks down, the story isn't why it broke and how they fix it. The story is how the crew comes to terms with their hopeless situation. This, incidentally, is what makes Firefly so appealing to the mainstream.

Re:Ahh..

[SamSim]

Being scientifically accurate doesn't make a show good automatically, and travelling faster than light and involving suspiciously humanoid aliens doesn't make it bad. By that metric, Friends is better than either show and Futurama sucks. More important thing is to lay down your ground rules where everybody can see them and then to stick by them. Firefly is a consistent universe - if there's a problem, they solve it within the framework of that universe (or don't). Whereas with Star Trek, it seems like every problem is solved by inventing a new kind of particle which nobody has ever heard of before and nobody will ever hear of again.

Re:Ahh..

[gebbeth]

Perhaps it's nothing more than the "softening" of traditional sci-fi that is causing the shift.

And so what exactly makes up sci-fi? Does it have to be ultra-uber futuristic? I mean 1984 was sci-fi, but the exent of its futuristic technology was two-way tv's and microphone listening devices placed everywhere and police with advanced phychology degrees. Part of sci-fi is someone's vision of an alternate (ostensibly future) reality, but it doesn't have to be future. Look at sliders, most of the worlds that they visited involved contemporary time periods. As for the fantasy aspect, at least in book stores, sci-fi and fantasy have frequently been lumped together, probably because they appeal to the same demographic.

Re:Ahh..

[westyx]

you're telling me a moon has enough gravity to hold onto an atmosphere? particularily moon which are out of the way and thus not attractive enough for intensive terraforming?

Re:Ahh..

[kcarlin]

If the folks at the Telegraph would spend less company time moderating on /. (see parent) they might occasionally find the points of their stories on their own. The loss of Nigel Short seems to have been a bad omen. (In the same vein: Weekend at the beach, checked the Sci-Fi channel a dozen times, it was all vampires and medieval warfare all the time on our samplings. There was more and better Sci-Fi on Cartoon Network.)

no way !!!

[cwtrex]

Then how come I can't find myself a sci-fi chick? They all seem to like anime/manga and want to speak Japanese. Of course, I live in America. So I'm guessing all the geeky girls live in the UK?

Re:no way !!!

[Kyrene]

Nope, you just need to look a little harder. :)

-- raised from birth to be a scifi chick

Alternate reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the males are now watching it on their computers, rather than on tv.

and when was this sci-fi?

[Solapse]

so, xena (fantasy) & lara croft (action computer game adaptation film) are sci-fi. Sci-fi being Science Fiction? I hardly think that this is a relevant argument as much as I'd like to see more females watching Sci-Fi on television, I'm unsure that this topic really sheds any arguments at all. Its almost as good as the wonderful news report from google about the star destroyiung space cloud.

Re:and when was this sci-fi?

[mmj638]

If you RTFA, you'll notice that they're referring to the percentage of female viewers of the digital television channel "Sci Fi UK", which shows both sci-fi and fantasy.

If you're concerned about it, tell Sci Fi UK's management to get a separate fantasy channel. No more "Xena's not sci-fi" comments please.

i need clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

do they outnumber the men in mass or in numbers?

-Sj53

Re:i need clarification

[nacturation]

In other words, when discussing females is it way more, or weigh more?

Re:i need clarification

[toetagger1]

Well, if they outnumber men, then its in numbers. If they outweigh men, then its in weight. Easy? I thought so!

Re:i need clarification

[Biogenesis]

Or volume? *shudder*

Re:i need clarification

[greginnj]

which would make the men more ... dense. gotcha.

Re:i need clarification

[TeknoHog]

Since we're discussing science fiction, you should remember that mass != weight :)

Re:i need clarification

[toetagger1]

hence the word "outweigh" for weight, and not "outmass"

Re:i need clarification

[gfreeman]

do they outnumber the men in mass or in numbers?

The clue is in the question, I think.

Eh?

[NanoGator]

Buffy and Xena are sci-fi? At least Tomb Raider had robots! Hehe.

My girlfriend isn't too interested in sci-fi. She doesn't hate it, just bores her. She did get into Red Dwarf and Hitchhiker's Guide, though. Comedy aside, I think she liked seeing characters react more than plots about investigating whispy wibbly warbly things in space. I think the main difference between men and women in this field is that the guys tend to be more interested in the technical stuff (what guy wouldn't want to pilot a Viper and blow the shit out of some toasters?) and the women are more interested in the lives of the characters. Of course, it isn't fair for me to generalize, but I do find it interesting that shows like Quantum Leap seemed to have a lot of female fans.

Re:Eh?

[FidelCatsro]

Its odd what gets classified as Sci-Fi these days. My theory is that they confused Xena and Xenu .

Re:Eh?

[PakProtector]

Castro, now I know why Cuba is so poor! You spent all that money to get your OT III!

Except

[Trogre]

that Star Trek is actual science fiction.

The others aren't.

Re:Except

[fyngyrz]

Star Trek is actual science fiction.

Technically, Star Trek was fantasy. This is because the plot line contains multiple elements of plot-critical fantasy, on purpose — viewers spent years pointing out that the Enterprise would not "whoosh" as it went by a viewpoint in space, that there is no science behind warp drive, that there are no nerve pathways in the neck that would allow Spock to drop humans (not to mention aliens) right and left, and so on.

Frankly, I can think of very few honest SF efforts on either video or film. It seems that as soon as Hollywood gets involved, the whole concept of SF flies right out the window. On fairy wings, no less.

It's that whole science thing. Of course, this is a nation that apparently wants to put "Intelligent Design" into our schools and is led by an extremely superstitious man, so the surprise level is pretty low here. As a nation, we're not very aware of what science is, much less being able to discern what extrapolation from current science might be reasonably considered legitimate.

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

viewers spent years pointing out that the Enterprise would not "whoosh" as it went by a viewpoint in space

Yeah, and you wouldn't hear orchestral music in the vacuum of space either. No one seems to complain about that!

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're using an overly narrow definition of sci-fi. As has come up several times, a lot depends on your definition, and no two people seem to have the same definition.

Fantasy and Sci-fi are closely related genres, simply because they both put people in a position to do things that aren't possible today in our world, as well as to interact with non-human beings. Personally, I divide the two with their explanation. If they say that people are able to do these things because of "sufficiently advanced technology", then it's sci-fi. If they say it's magic, it's fantasy. The setting is often a clue, sci-fi is often set on future earth, or an equivalent, with normal people and advanced technology like space ships. Fantasy is often set in a more medievel setting, standard for swords and sorcery. Either can be set pretty much anywhere, though. Star Wars blurs the line, because most of it is stock sci-fi, but the force is simply magic (in TPM they retroactively try to provide an explanation, but don't do a very good job, leaving it basically magic once-removed).

Now, by this definition there are subcategories of sci-fi. One important one is the purist version, where elements have to abide by known laws of physics, and generally need to be given some level of plausible explanation (This seems to be the category you look for.) I think this is overburdensome in many cases. In the distant future they will have advanced the laws of physics, so they might have figured out how to do faster-than-light travel or pretty much anything else that we think are impossible today. Going to the moon would have seemed totally impossible in 1869. As for explanations, why burden a good story with an explanation of the enabling details? I think one of the things that worked so well about Star Wars is that you get thrown into a totally new universe in a totally matter-of-fact way. The only real exposition is for the Force, the rest is taken for granted, and so you never question it.

Another great category of sci-fi is near-future. It involves likely technological developments in the next 50 years or so, Strong AI, nanotech, cloning, genetics, robots, space travel, etc., and then explores the possible implications and consequences. Some people require that all sci-fi must be about implications and consequences of technology (another narrow definition). These generally meet the above requirements (yours) as well, since they allow for only limited advances in technology. (Although something like Stargate or Sliders takes a near-future development as a tool to put us into far-future developed environments, but I wouldn't put them in this category, since they aren't about near-future tech.)

Anyway, I'm just bored.

Re:Except

[fyngyrz]

A subtitle, score or a voice-over are not in-scene effects; these exist outside of the movie's reality or frame of reference. Between the drama and you, rather than in the drama. Usually. Though I remember laughing my head off at the contemporary "we will rock you" tune done by the cast in some recent (but quite forgettable, obviously) dead-knights-page-fakes-self-as-knight-and-wins-la dy movie.

A sound effect, in sharp contrast, is designed to enhance the reality of the visual by direct association with the scene at hand. As such, we expect to hear a gunshot when a gun is "fired." We do not expect to hear a model-T horn at that juncture, nor should we expect silence. If there is air. We're supposed to be observing... if we can hear voices, we should hear gunshots. The position of the observer is as the "invisible dude(tte.)"

Similarly, when a spaceship passes in vacuum, we do not (well, we should not) expect to hear a "whoosh", and that, my friend, is one of the things that would make it science fiction... that is, if the events and visuals and sounds corresponded to the reasonable. That is the beauty of the technical side of science fiction — in really good SF, you don't have to suspend your critical faculties. Instead, you are encouraged to engage them. Read some James P. Hogan (try "The Two Faces of Tomorrow"), there's a fellow who can so slickly paint you into an imaginary scene that you won't even know what hit you and soon, you're with the story in a world you only wish existed, a feeling made all the more poignant by the fact that you can't find any reason why such a world would not exist.

As a side note, this problem isn't limited to SF. I can't count the number of times I've heard the "tires squealing on pavement" sound when a car spins out on gravel or dirt. Those wacky TV folks. :-)

For a concrete example of how space walks and space ships can be filmed, let me call your attention to 2001's space station / clipper docking scene and the HAL locks Dave out of the Jupiter vessel scene. The only time you hear sound effects in space is when the POV is inside a spacesuit, a space station, etc — in other words, where there is air which can be reasonably expected to bring such an effect to you. I'm not quite sure, but I think Alien stuck to the reasonable in this area too; I don't remember any such effects for the exterior views of the Nostromo... anyone? Alien also dumped the whole warp drive thing in favor of cold sleep, something we know can work. It managed to get a few socio-temporal displacement issues too, though I think the time spans may have been a bit too short.

I remember discussions late into the night at Milford between various combinations of Asimov, Clarke, Del Rey, Ellison, Kidd, Blish, Knight, Pohl and Merril where the entire focus of the discussion was how to hew closer to the line of science in such a way as to make the characters a lot more notable than the technology. Those were heady days. :-)

I'm not saying Trek and Star Wars and the like aren't fun for all of the strict classing into Fantasy they duly receive as a result of the distinct disregard for science; I enjoyed them both (in fact, I dragged my father in front of the tube to see Star Trek, which he knew nothing of, and as a direct result the public got the first 13 or so Star Trek novelizations.) I'm just saying that great SF won't rely on the ridiculous; the world is already sublime, and a great SF film (or book) can use that instead.

Re:Except

[fyngyrz]

Yes, my definition of SF is pretty clear-cut; it comes from being part of a family that writes, translates and illustrates F&SF, and from the fact that I own a literary agency that specializes in F&SF. The oldest one around, in fact. :-)

I appreciate your reply. One of the things that makes all this so enjoyable is that your opinion is worth every bit as much as mine is in this area. Any totally made-up genre will mutate, no matter how old-timers like myself try to pin it down.

Re:Except

[Wolfbone]

"Technically, Star Trek was fantasy ... there is no science behind warp drive..."

Well there isn't much of any substance (unless you count Avey Spheres) ;-) but warp drive technology isn't so outlandish that it belongs in Fairyland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive and anyway, I don't really understand what it means to say that ST was "technically" fantasy and is not (or was not) SF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._television_scien ce_fiction

"It's that whole science thing. Of course, this is a nation that apparently wants to put "Intelligent Design" into our schools..."

I deplore the "Intelligent Design" disease and the poor general level of scientific literacy too, but I don't think asking that SF creators extrapolate only conservatively and realistically from current science would help to cure it. Watching the movies "Minority Report" and "Gattaca" recently reminded me that near-term extrapolation of science and technology is often a device used by creators of dystopian visions of the future. Realistic technologies pessimistically portrayed in popular culture as the instruments and accompaniments of horrible disfunction in society is more worrying to me than the supreme optimism of the more speculative Star Trek. I think it's the general impressions and associations that count most - not whether any particular fictional technology is feasible - and on that score, the rational morality and robust well-being of Star Trek's scientifically founded civilisation is a positive benefit to the public image of science. The large number of real scientists and engineers who have been inspired by Star trek is testimony to that.

Re:Except

[dasunt]

Frankly, I can think of very few honest SF efforts on either video or film. It seems that as soon as Hollywood gets involved, the whole concept of SF flies right out the window. On fairy wings, no less.

Sneakers. Look closely, the McGruffin is explained by science fiction. More closely, its rather hard SF: the movie postulates that someone has found a way to quickly factor large numbers. Other than a few small plot holes (where did the security guards go on the roof scene?), its not a bad movie, it has SF elements, and it doesn't include laser guns or rocket ships.

Of course, they probably didn't know they were writing SF elements in the plot when the script was done, but oh well. :p

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at an anime series called PlanetES for some really well done (lack of) space sound effects.

Re:Except

[jschrod]

I have roughly 3000 SF (Speculative Fiction) books here at home.

And almost none of them acknowledges that `science thing'. For once, most space-based stories assume faster than light travel. Read Relativity and FTL Travel for a scientific treaty on that topic. And then check your so-called Hard Sci-Fi books and look how many handle the science right.

Frankly, I can think of very few honest Hard Sci-Fi efforts in books. In fact, there is only a few promille in the thousands of books that I own from that category.

So, my message to all posters here (not just you) who decry the missing science: Get a life. The question is not `how good is the science', but `how well is it written'. This is fiction, after all.

Re:Except

[gowen]

Technically, Star Trek was fantasy.

When you say "Technically", you mean "according to the definition that I choose to use, and must therefore be accepted by everyone else..."

Gee, I wonder how SF fans ever got stereotyped as a bunch of pedantic dullards.

Re:Except

[someone1234]

You forgot the 'fiction' part. Star Trek is sci-fi With that lot of techno babble, it cannot be fantasy. It doesn't have to be actual science, or even future science. If there are particles, warp drive and such, instead of magic and dragons, it is sci-fi :) Star Wars is a curious mixture, but it is still considered sci-fi. If you want to see real fantasy, check out Conan, or the Lord of the Rings.

Re:Except

[Johnno74]

How about most Greg Bear novels?

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

anime sucks

Re:Except

[TheWormThatFlies]

My main problem with Star Trek as science fiction is not the specific gimmicks which are so ridiculous that they must be fantastic, but the way they affect (or rather do not affect) the world around them. The existence of any or all of the established Star Trek technology in the real world would logically lead to ripple effects which would turn our society into something completely unrecognisable - yet Star Trek is a fairly ordinary space opera. Human society looks very much like it does today, except that it's in space, and they have all this neat tech which for bizarre reasons has never been taken to its logical conclusion.

It's obvious that the Star Trek writers don't think like science fiction writers. When they come up with some wacky new way to use the transporter beam, they don't consider what implications this discovery would have on the universe - they use it to save the Enterprise, and then never mention it again. There are no ripples; it disappears without a trace.

I just pretend that Star Trek is a scifi-themed superhero comic, and then it doesn't bother me. I can still enjoy the politics and the drama.

This kind of thing also happens in fantasy settings, and there the problem is usually magic - the setting is stubbornly presented as mediaeval Europe with magical bits, when the magical bits would rapidly ensure that the world no longer resembles mediaeval Europe at all.

The new Battlestar Galactica does it a lot, but it's mostly broad social phenomena rather than specific technology. Important events get forgotten at the end of each episode. These people are supposed to be refugees pursued by a dangerous foe, but they act as if it's a normal day back home. Their society appears to be a miniature replica of their normal peacetime society - if you watched the show with the sound off, you'd never guess that these are survivors of a devastating cataclysm.

Re:Except

[jschrod]

While I like many of Greg Bear's books, he also stretches physics. Take Eon's singularity description, or Moving Mars, as examples.

But, as I wrote, I have no problems with that. For me, one of the best SF books ever is Stars in my pockets like grains of sand and that is ridiculous with its pseudo-science hogwash. I don't care, because the book itself is good. Similarly, Hyperion or others.

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

A Knights Tale

Re:Except

[fyngyrz]

Yes, that's it. Thank you!

Re:Except

[Johnno74]

Yeah, I liked hyperion.

I'm a fan of greg bear because even though he streches physics, as you say, he doesn't take it too far, and everything in the book is logically consistent. Moving Mars is probably my favourite all-time book, closely followed by queen of angels.

Re:Except

[Trogre]

As a side note, this problem isn't limited to SF. I can't count the number of times I've heard the "tires squealing on pavement" sound when a car spins out on gravel or dirt. Those wacky TV folks.

Don't worry, the car doesn't even need to spin out. Any ac/de-celeration of a car in just about all telly shows have that tyre squealing sound. Cops on a stakeout pull away from the curb to follow another car slowly and inconspicuously: tyre squeal. Mum drops the kids off at soccer and drives away at 10Mph: tyre squeal.

For years I just thought that roads in America were covered in diesel. Either that or american tyres were made of solid granite.

That's not Sci-Fi

[evilviper]

Since when does Buffy, Lara Croft, or Xena count as Sci-Fi? It's "FIction" of course, but I don't see any SCIence in any of them.

Re:That's not Sci-Fi

[iapetus]

Meh. Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science, so it works out the same anyway...

Re:That's not Sci-Fi

[Slow Smurf]

I'm not sure if you flipped that on purpose or not...

Re:That's not Sci-Fi

[NeuroKoan]

Shhhhh! Stop saying that. If we let them believe that stuff is SciFi, then we are that much closer to the all-girl SciFi convention I fantasize about every night.

Re:That's not Sci-Fi

[Anonymous Coward]

SCIence in any of them

Oh but you're so wrong because Intellgent Design is science! And magic is science, and shooting sparks out of my ass, and....

Re:That's not Sci-Fi

[brxndxn]

I agree..

Buffy, Angel, Xena, Conan, Smallville (scoff)... seems like there's an agenda to call them 'scifi' just to make the scifi nerds think it's okay for them to watch those horrible poorly-written poorly-acted shows.

Why the hell is Buffy considered sci-fi while CSI, CSI Miami, CSI NY, Navy NCIS, Bones, Numb3rs all usually aren't considered Scifi?

I mean.. is Lord of the Rings-type epic stuff considered sci-fi now? I thought that was all considered fantasy-epic or some genre like that.

Re:That's not Sci-Fi

[schon]

If we let them believe that stuff is SciFi, then we are that much closer to the all-girl SciFi convention I fantasize about every night.

Unless you're female, you wouldn't be able to get in.

And if that's true, unless you're lesbian or bisexual, why would you care?

And if you're female and bisexual, what are you doing next weekend? :o)

Really?

[Doomedsnowball]

Are you sure?
Maybe they just "say" they are women.
Maybe they really are aliens in short skirts!

*runs and hides*

Re:Really?

[Seumas]

Maybe the skirts were living aliens that were just wearing women?

Re:Really?

[ohmypolarbear]

wait, don't tell me.... venusians, right?

Sci-fi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buffy is fantasy. Lara Croft is adventure. Xena is mythological. None of them are remotely sci-fi.

On a Buffy-related note, Hex has started its second series recently. There are some distinct parallels between Buffy and Hex, except Hex is centred around the Christian mythos, something I doubt USA advertising-dependent TV can dare to go near. I do believe it might be the first series with a lesbian ghost and evil Persian fairy in it.

Sci-Fi!?

[dextroz]

None of what you mentioned in your post are true "sci-fi". And hey, don't tell me to RTFA because you just focked up in you 12, 13 and 16th words!

I'll be glad to see the old stereotypes go.

[flyingsquid]

It's nice to see that people are finally realizing that all the old sci-fi fan stereotypes aren't really accurate. I, for one, am a mature, emotionally well-developed thirty-four year old male with a life and I-

-hold on, Mom wants me to clean out my room in the basement. Be right back.

Re:I'll be glad to see the old stereotypes go.

[jZnat]

I too would like to point out that the stereotype is inaccurate! My mother lives in my basement. ...well, I do also live in an upside-down house, so who knows.

Re:I'll be glad to see the old stereotypes go.

[Anonymous Coward]

I too would like to point out that the stereotype is inaccurate! My mother lives in my basement. ...well, I do also live in an upside-down house, so who knows.

Let me help you out. You either live with your mom or you do not live with your mom. The details are not important.

MOD PARENT UP

[LeonGeeste]

Buffy and Xena count as "fantasy", a similar but different category from science fiction. I don't know enough about Lara Croft, but that would probably fall under "adventure".

Hrm..

[Raxxon]

"whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts."

And some were both.

Re:Hrm..

[buyo-kun]

The best were both

Re:Hrm..

[Raxxon]

Not too sure on this point. I know that 7 of 9 didn't wear skirts and was one of the "hottest women in Star Trek" (at least per all the people I've heard discuss that subject) but I don't remember if T'Pol actually wore a skirt or not as I didn't watch that much of Enterprise. From what I remember though she wore pants and therefor only qualifies under the 'Alien' heading..
 
.... I can't believe I'm nit-picking over clothing and not acting like a rabid fanboi over said characters. I must be getting old or something.

Re:Hrm..

[TheWormThatFlies]

Well, substitute "tight catsuit" for "short skirt" and append "with plunging neckline which, curiously, isn't part of anyone else's uniform"/"and a cosmetic bit of shiny plastic far less disfiguring than any other borg implants we've seen"/"with high heels" as appropriate. The point is the same.

This didn't stop me from enjoying Star Trek, since it has consistently been a show in which the women can be interesting and sensible characters in spite of their "look, boobs!" costumes (I can't speak for TOS; I haven't seen enough of it), but that doesn't mean there isn't blatant fanservice. I don't find the silly costuming any sillier than various bits of Star Trek "science", which I accept wholesale as a kind of comic-book super-power premise, and knowing the motivations behind it doesn't make me care any more. But it irritates some women enough that it decreases their enjoyment of the show.

I don't think that Xena is any better in this regard, though, so I doubt that this in particular is a major deciding factor for all these women who have started to like the SciFi Channel. The introduction of more fantasy probably has a lot more to do with it, since this genre has traditionally attracted more women. But since there is very little pure science fiction on television anyway, I don't think this will remain much of a factor in the long run. I doubt that there is much of a split in what specific shows people of different genders watch at the moment.

While I'd like to believe it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear it's just because Friends has finished...

At least we've gotten rid of negative stereotypes

[NitsujTPU]

People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek but it's not like that now

So, what they're saying is that sci-fi fans are now small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek, and women. Nice. The men still suck, according to the article, but now they're accompanied by women, who may or may not suck.

Short skirts you say?

[neobugs]

I can't remeber any of the regular actors in Star Trek having short skirts.
Everyone in Star Trek have those tight body suits. :)

Re:Short skirts you say?

[ScrewMaster]

Well, let's see ... Lieutenant Uhura, Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Janice Rand, for starters.

Re:Short skirts you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... TOS? Uhura ? The TOS uniforms were damn short! Yum! :) :)

Re:Short skirts you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhura

Re:Short skirts you say?

[neobugs]

hmm, Didn't remeber those.
The lack of sleep must be getting to me.

Re:Short skirts you say?

[Andy Gardner]

Also, don't forget 'unnamed male crewmember'.

*shudder*

Trek women

[Wumpus]

"whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts."

Or were starship captains for a full 7 season run. At least give them points for trying, OK?

Re:Trek women

[Webmonger]

Have you considered the possibility that they were referring to Star Trek:TOS?

Re:Trek women

[vain gloria]

"whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts."

Or were starship captains for a full 7 season run. At least give them points for trying, OK?

Points for trying? Even in "the future" roughly half the human population are female, but the Equal Opportunities Captaincy Scheme only gave us a woman commanding officer after the presumably less culturally-terrifying gay and black ones :D

Re:Trek women

[geminidomino]

There was a gay CO? I must have missed that one...

Or is that a jab at Picard?

Re:Trek women

[vain gloria]

There was a gay CO? I must have missed that one... Or is that a jab at Picard?

A lazy jab at Picard, I'm sorry to say.

Look, it was either that or the old "How come he's French but speaks with an English accent" one that we've all heard a thousand times before. Or I suppose I could have composed a considered, thoughtful response after reading the f'ing article, but then this is Slashdot!

Re:Trek women

[raoul666]

Yeah, but she also ain't female like Buffy and Xena are female, if you know what I'm saying.

Re:Trek women

[Wumpus]

And what were they comparing it to? Xena:TOS and Buffy:TOS? Let's face it, the article is the best that Entertainment Journalism has to offer - badly written, badly researched drivel, put together by people who could have been doing real news journalism, but couldn't manage even that.

Re:Trek women

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Bah. Real women don't become starship captains until series 5, when they've finished the much harder job of clearing up after dubious male commanding officers for four years.

Re:Trek women

[jcr]

Have you considered the possibility that they were referring to Star Trek:TOS?

What exactly are the Star Trek Terms of Service?

-jcr

Re:Trek women

[Webmonger]

They will explore you in strange new ways.
The will attempt to determine whether your are alive and civilized
The will boldly go where no one should ever be.

Re:Trek women

[greginnj]

There was a gay CO? I must have missed that one...

Well, Sulu just came out a few days ago, and he was a CO in a Voyager episode. Not exactly before Janeway, but still...

Re:Trek women

[Punto]

Also, I know the start trek geeks hate to consider Enterprise as part of the franchise, but the captain of the NX-02 was a chick too, and she wasn't bad looking (I'll take her over the captain of the voyager any time).

Re:Trek women

[syousef]

Who? What you mean Janeway was meant to be female? Oh!!! Now I get it.

Couldn't tell because she was fugly and sounded like a man playing a woman playing Catherine Hepburn.

You gotta give me points for trying.

p.s. When I first saw Voyager, I deplored it so much that I would refer to the series as Startrek Toilet, as in gone down the (and also because the ship looked like a giant potty when it folded up).

Re:Trek women

[TheWormThatFlies]

Look, it was either that or the old "How come he's French but speaks with an English accent" one that we've all heard a thousand times before.

For the same reason that Klingons speak English to each other in private, obviously. His normal voice must be so incomprehensible that he's being dubbed into British Newsreader English by the Magical Universal Translator.

Re:Trek women

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but she also ain't female like Buffy and Xena are female, if you know what I'm saying.

You're saying a stuff bra makes you more female? (Buffy, not Xena)

ahem

[xpatiate]

speaking as a female sci-fi fan, I feel the need to point out that women can be aliens *and* wear short skirts *and* be positive role models, all at the same time.

Linking the increase in women viewers to shows being more 'character-led' might seem like a stereotypical generalisation but it rings true for me. The sci-fi I've always been most into is the kind that uses speculative, imaginary environments to explore big ideas and hopefully arrive at some interesting truths about human personalities... rather than the car-chases-in-outer-space kind.

Re:ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you doing later?

Re:ahem

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I have to ask something if you don't mind too much.

Why is anything on TV a role model? It's nothing but entertainment let alone a decent role model. I've currently reading LOTRs which gives Aragorn a positive aura how is he a positive role model any more (or less) then any of these characters?

I know a lot of female geeks who're into sci fi and fantasy and none of them ever go "it's for the positive female image!", they simplely go "because I like it". If it's a cat of 19 men and 1 woman or 19 women and 1 man it shouldn't matter. It's entertainment and to look at it any deeper then a lava lamp is like staring at static untill it makes sense..

(Sorry for the rant, it just went that way and well it's a good rant so it can stay).

Re:ahem

[xpatiate]

Yeah, concerns about role models are generally held by certain people on behalf of other (usually younger) people. Nobody watches/reads particular things because they feel their minds will be improved by the morally edifying nature of the characters.

However. For me personally, it is more fun to watch things where women are real people who participate in the action, make decisions and get some good one-liners. This is not because I think it's good for me (I already know women can do all these things), but because it means I get to enjoy the show without grinding my teeth and wanting to slap the writers.

Also, staring at static until it makes sense is fun :)

Re:ahem

[Turn-X Alphonse]

It is when you're tired as I'am now :P

But isn't giving a woman one liners also annoying to you? One liners tend to be either patheticly forced or given to worthless characters just getting a word in to seem cool. It annoys me more when they make a huge deal of some woman being a woman basicly. I never sat and watched Star trek and went "wow Janeways a woman!" I just watched it. Her character is a stubborn person trying to get home, her gender never came into it which needs to be done more often. We need unisex characters not "strong women". Just people who are people and not steriotyped pointlessly.

Re:ahem

[xpatiate]

well, yeah. I like stuff where *all* the characters are complex, fallible, interesting, realistic humans, of both genders. That doesn't mean they all have to be'unisex', and it doesn't mean making a huge deal out of what gender they are. Just spread the personality traits around a bit more even-handedly, is all I ask. (And if the one-liners are crap, I ain't watching anyway.)

Re:ahem

[dasunt]

speaking as a female sci-fi fan, I feel the need to point out that women can be aliens *and* wear short skirts *and* be positive role models, all at the same time.

Or they can wear no clothing, be aliens, and still be positive role models.

The Betazoid race on TNG was nifty in that way. They provided an interesting contrast to the nudity taboo in modern western culture.

Unfortunately, by the time of Enterprise, naked female aliens just ran around smearing oil on each other. :( Ah, progress.

Freedom

[Doc Ruby]

Uhura: black, female before a 1964 audience... a receptionist, sure, but never got anyone coffee.

Re:Freedom

[Tony Hoyle]

She did answer the phone rather a lot though.

It was probably all they could swallow in 1964...

Remember that the first officer in the pilot was female, but they changed it for the series because of audience reaction.

Re:Freedom

[Zordak]

black, female before a 1964 audience... a receptionist, sure

And probably more importantly, she was the communications bridge officer. Maybe she was a glorified receptionist, but she was Lieutenant Uhura. Plus she kissed the white Captain. That was all quite radical for the time.

Re:Freedom

[Roblimo]

My wife, Debbbie, is black, female, and kisses a white man (me) regularly.

She's also been a minor-league Trekkie since the original series. She has always watched far more movie and TV SciFi than I do, while I tend to read more *written* SF than she does.

If the Lt. Uhura "role model" is part of what made Debbie take up with me, Great!

If not, I'm still glad she did, and I think she identified more with Spock than Uhura because she has -- very cute -- slightly pointed ears.

Debbie says our next sailboat should be named "Heart of Gold," which tells you she probably likes Douglas Adams a lot. Or does it tell you she likes Neil Young (which she does), since she named our current boat "Still Waters" and she's a Bee Gees fan?

Before you get stupid about me marrying a woman who likes old Bee Gees tunes, realize that she looks as good in a short skirt as Lt. Uhura ever did. :)

- Robin

(SF reader for 45+ years, happily married to Debbie for 11+ years.)

Re:Freedom

[kmactane]

A neat trick that, considering that Star Trek didn't go on the air until September of 1966. To appear before a 1964 audience, she must have been the world's first time traveller, too.

(Yes, yes, I know she did all kinds of cool stuff, and MLK complimented Nichelle Nichols on her work and all that. I'm just nit-picking on the dates.)

Skirts

[listerine reborn]

Katheryn Janeway was human, didn't wear a skirt and was a captain.

Re:Skirts

[Dachannien]

And Troi was way hotter in her Season 7 uniform than she ever was in her Season 1 skirt or her Season 2-6 form-fitting whatever those were.

Re:Skirts

[vain gloria]

Katheryn Janeway was human, didn't wear a skirt and was a captain.

She also had an unbelievably irritating voice like a bluebottle buzzing right in your ear and a girl's name "Janeway" in case we started thinking of her as a character in her own right, rather than as a representative of her gender ;)

Scientists...

[ari_j]

Studies show that British women watch more sci-fi than British men do. The key reasons the researches found for this were that British men are less entertaining than sci-fi and that British women aren't worth taking out on a Friday night, anyhow.

Short Skirts or Aliens? why not both!

[Wazukkithemaster]

hey lets not forget 7 of 9 in our generalizations! Skin tight body suit...

Remember men....

[realitybath1]

SciFi is the Gateway Program to home repair shows, which lead on to the men's channel.
Once that happens, its only a short step to going to actual sporting events - one of the final steps in the masculinization of women.

This type of tactic was thwarted once before.
STOP THE CRAB PEOPLE!!!!

Lara, Xena, Buffy...

[Descalzo]

Funny, I thought those shows were targeted at men.

Money?

[Cave_Monster]

I'm only speculating since I'm not from the UK, but is this article an indication that perhaps the Sci-Fi channel was heading downhill with respect to other channels and not generating the necessary revenue? To combat this, the management has decided to broadcast a few popular shows, that while don't fall under the category of Sci-Fi, cause people to pay for the channel because they would like to watch those shows?

Re:Money?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

The sci fi channel is more "geek central". It shows everything from documentries to horror films to anime to classic B-movies (tremors for example). But it does appear female geeks are more common here but I think it's more because we're moving into a geeky era. Geek things are now becoming cool (look at consoles, lord of the rings, HHGG, star wars etc. ) so it's becoming more accessable (dumbed down some may say), which attracts more people. Women tend to catch onto trends faster so maybe that's why.

Or the other two options are they got lucky with the poll and got more geeky women or I'm an idiot and the 16-20 age bracket of women are more geeky then the last few.

Sci-Fi and Fantasy

[Anonymous Coward]

'Fantasy' marked Movies may not be sci-fi, but sci-fi is fantasy.

yet some networks want the stereotypes to stay

[thepotoo]

Anyone ever heard of Firefly?

Thought so, thanks to their recent bout of slashvertising.

Joss (IIRC, maybe it was Tim) said that one of the main reasons that Fox axed Firefly was that (and I paraphrase here) the women were "too strong" and the men were "too weak".

Just a cool little factoid for y'all. I'd bet that Firefly did at at least a little bit to help bring in female viewers (the women I've showed it to think that most of the men are pretty good looking). Haven't watched much Sci-fi apart from that and BSG, but I can safely say that my sister watches BSG solely because she likes Lee Adama.

Re:yet some networks want the stereotypes to stay

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Joss (IIRC, maybe it was Tim) said that one of the main reasons that Fox axed Firefly was that (and I paraphrase here) the women were "too strong" and the men were "too weak".

You would think Fox would appreciate that Firefly had one of the sexiest casts in any SciFi/Fantasy show-- the women were hot, and being strong made them even hotter. Kaylee, anyone? She's even cuter carrying around those tools. The men were hot (Even according to my feminist woman friends), and darnit, Mal and the Doc had a sensitive side, which made them even HOTTER. It was even (*gasp*) a couples show!

And gosh, and I even liked the plots and the story of the human diaspora.

Re:yet some networks want the stereotypes to stay

[Digital Pizza]

I heard that it was because Firefly (among other shows) were the "babies" of Fox's Original Programming executives, who found themselves at war with the Reality Show executives. Guess who won? The ousted execs' shows were killed off to ensure that no questions about the oustings were asked.

True? Who knows, but it's as good a story as any others I've heard.

Re:yet some networks want the stereotypes to stay

[Tim Browse]

That's probably true. A similar thing happens with movie studios - when the studio head changes, the new head looks very unfavourably on projects that were green-lit by their predecessor. It seems to have nothing to do with the quality of the project, merely that they're showing that they're in charge now. At some studios where the studio head has been changed frequently, this has been a real pain for the people working there - it makes it very hard to plan ahead, and also your career can be curtailed by showing any enthusiasm for a project that the 'other guy' approved of.

It's a source of constant surprise to me that the heads of large businesses act so much like children a lot of the time. (I know, I should have got used to it by now.)

Re:yet some networks want the stereotypes to stay

[hywel_ap_ieuan]

...Firefly had one of the sexiest casts in any SciFi/Fantasy show-- the women were hot, and being strong made them even hotter....The men were hot (Even according to my feminist woman friends)....

My wife and her online friends regularly refer to Mal as Captain Tightpants. The episode that ended with Mal buck nekkid out in the desert (and oddly pleased with himself) was a real crowd-pleaser with the ladies.

I'm not surprised

[Dark Paladin]

The last (and so far, first time) I went to Comic-Con was this summer of 2005, and I was surprised by how many women were there. And not just the classical "geek girl" (bad haircut, bad acne, overweight, etc, etc, etc), but how many smart, excited, interesting, and - to display an unfortunate level of sexism perhaps - cute geek girls there were running booths, going to events, buying things, and the like. There were whole sections that seemed to be made just for women. Not in a "ooo - pink!" kind of way or trashy romance, but stories that appeal to more than guys looking for giant breasts, but stories about relationships, or the infamous yaoi booths.

But girl geekhood is not just regulated to "romance". One lady I went with drooled with me over the Terminator 2 arm replica, and this was a woman that most slashdotters would not pick out as the "geek" of a group of similiar attractive women.

Personally, I think it's a great thing. Not just because it increases the chances of future geeks to breed and multiply, but it gives an extra dimension to geek hood. Sure, Star Trek was good, but once the sexes became more equal and women could wear more than short skirts, it got better. I've never liked my heroines with just big giggly breasts and chain mail bikinis. With more geek girls, we still have the stereotypes, but I've been seeing deeper and more interesting stories in my geek world. I wonder how well "Serenity" and "Buffy" would have been if Mr. Whedon hadn't tapped into both the male and female side of geekhood. It's been easier to show my wife good geek stuff (like "Battlestar Gallactica") as it looks to include the sexes instead of pretend one doesn't exist.

So, welcome to our new female geek overlords! While I love my wife dearly, I do wish you ladies had been in greater numbers a decade ago - but at least now I have hope for my two boys, and most importantly, my lovely little geek daughter - because now she can play in my world too.

Re:I'm not surprised

[pimpimpim]

Don't let them get too powerful, though, or they'll start their own empire, as in "star maidens - die Maedchen aus dem Weltraum"!

http://www.animus-web.demon.co.uk/maidens/ :)

(lots of short skirts in that series by the way, and fancy helmets too! just check the fashion section of above website)

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

to display an unfortunate level of sexism perhaps - cute geek girls

Jesus H. Christ man, it's not sexist to find women attractive. You're a man, you can't help finding a woman attractive, and you don't have to apologize for it.

Sometimes I wonder what this world is coming to. Reminds me of an Onion article talking about a guy who can only get aroused with naked women, and they treat it like it's some kind of horrible disease.

Re:I'm not surprised

[freeweed]

Hear, hear!

I gotta tell you, NOTHING is quite as satisfying as being dragged to a comic/toy show by my g/f. She's heavily into toys (especially hockey figures, but also a lot of other things like LOTR, X-Men, etc). I'm a recovering Star Wars/comic geek, so I enjoy the shows and occasionally buy a few things. However, it's simply wonderful to see her get involved in heavy geek-level conversations with vendors.

She ain't Hillary Duff (and is proud of it), but she ain't the stereotypical she-geek, either. It's not been a common occurence that I could walk around in public with a "trophy" on my arm, but at conventions, people positively stare at her. Pure heaven.

It was even more fun to have her suggest our third viewing of Serenity, and our recent purchase of Sliders on DVD.

We're finally destroying the geek stereotype, and it sure is nice!

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

, and I was surprised by how many women were there. And not just the classical "geek girl" (bad haircut, bad acne, overweight, etc, etc, etc), but how many smart, excited, interesting, and - to display an unfortunate level of sexism perhaps - cute geek girls

They are generally referred to as "lipstick-geeks"

Re:I'm not surprised

[Hieronymus Howard]

I like in the UK and can confirm that a lot of females (and not just the 'geek girls', of which there are very few here) seem to like sci-fi. I'm a linux [and now OS X] geek with a non-geek partner. However, it's her who likes sci-fi shows, not me. I did go out and buy Firefly on DVD yesterday, as we both love watching Buffy and Angel.

Re:I'm not surprised

[CaptainFork]

I can't believe how carefully you're tip-toeing around the issues of political correctness and the need to avoid appearring like a sad geek!

Here's what your comment is really saying:

I went to a sci-fi show and a girl talked to me who wasn't fat and spotty. Now I'm in love.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Eil]

I have to concur. My first sci-fi con was Penguicon, an Open Source/Sci-Fi con. I was amazed how the gender ratio was fairly well balanced. It did seem that most of the women there were either geeks or sci-fi fans, though. I didn't enounter many who were both.

Re:I'm not surprised

[crimson30]

On the flipside, try going to a pro-level Magic: the Gathering tournament some time. The player composition is pretty much always 99%+ male, which shows what happens when you weed out all but the truest of geeks.

Immigration to UK Website ...

[cpu_fusion]

Immigration to UK website soon to be slashdotted.

Re:Immigration to UK Website ...

[sunwolf]

The only place where it would be even remotely feasible to find a hot Jedi girl who pwns in Counter-Strike... Count me in!

Re:Immigration to UK Website ...

[JeremyALogan]

For all those lonely slashdotters out there, here's the official site on how you can move over there: British Embassy in the USA: Official UK Government website

READ BEFORE MODDING PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not offtopic - he's surprised that more women watch sci-fi and is adapting the saying "when hell freezes over" to show his surprise.

As of this posting, xao gypsie has not been modded down, but I'm just taking preventative measures.

Re:READ BEFORE MODDING PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being a retarded wanker who thinks he's so much better than everyone else that he's the only one who can make this strenuous mental leap.

UK female Sci-Fi viewers outnumber males???

[Anonymous Coward]

Full article

Its True!

[wizzdude]

I recently started uni and from what I have seen here, girls are far more into sci-fi and fantasy than boys. I've even got two girls who regularly come to watch SG1 with me and another who is lending me her Firefly boxset in exchange for my BSG.

Good ol' blighty.

Re:Its True!

[geekoid]

And to think, in my day I just found women to have sex with.

I am sure you will become their best friends.... ;)

Re:Its True!

[gstoddart]

And to think, in my day I just found women to have sex with.

I am sure you will become their best friends.... ;)

In fairness, I bet you found those women by having things in common so you could chat them up.

Unless, of course, you were hanging around the uni pub at closing time shouting "soo-ee", in which case I feel sorry for you.

Re:Its True!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going out with a geek girl who enjoys my love of sci-fi... isn't that great?

Re:Its True!

[wizzdude]

In my day, we try to not treat women as meat.

So?

[BladeMelbourne]

Considering that many western countries have a population split 51% female and 49% male - I'm not surprised.

This is due to the shorter life expectancy for males.

Why then, do females get to retire 5 years sooner than men, yet they live on average 5-6 years longer? Seems like they get 10 years more retirement than we do. I should start a Meninist movement or something.

socially challenged geeks = early adopters

[spoogle]

Sometimes nasty things come up out of your past and bite you. Those embarassing messages you posted 15 years ago to alt.sex.bdsm, for example. Or the terrible songs you used to listen to 15 years ago while posting to alt.sex.bdsm, for some reason put onto your ipod, and which pop up in random shuffle only when you are having really hoopy froods to tea.

There is an awful song by Kate Bush (lyrics here) about socially challenged geeks spending late nights with their computers. Now, of course, everybody spends late nights with their computers, logged on to chat rooms and sending email.

Likewise, the socially challenged geeks used to be the only ones who watched scifi. And now everyone does.

What next...?

Re:socially challenged geeks = early adopters

[Farmer Tim]

What next...?

Pocket protectors become a high fasion item.

Pizza-stained white is the new black.

Everyone switches to Linux (OK, some things will never happen...)

Firefly is barely Sci-Fi??

[Anonymous Coward]

A fairly well known SciFi author begs to disagree with you...

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2005 -09-30-extra.shtml

Drama?

[bariumLanthanide]

Has anyone else also noticed the increase in personal drama and more plots that are focused on emotion and intra-crew arguments in all of the current so-called "Science"-fiction TV shows?

Most of them are like soap operas now, perhaps there is a relationship...

Re:Drama?

[wombert]

You mean, totally unlike the Riker/Troi romantic theme (Ross and Rachel, anyone?) or Kirk's friendship with Spock, and other ongoing relationship developments throughout the Star Trek series and movies?

(And nothing at all like the dynamics aboard the Millenium Falcon?)

Maybe I don't watch enough "current" sci-fi shows to know whether there's actually been an increase, but intra-character relationships are always important to the longevity of a series. If you don't care about the group of people on the show, it might as well be The Twilight Zone with completely different characters each time (several of them portrayed by Shatner, of course).

Re:Drama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that Firefly and the new Doctor Who. I think I have heard about personal love crap in the Spiderman movies too though I haven't been bothered to see those.

Re:Drama?

[Bill Dog]

You are dead-on with that. I've also noticed one additional related thing, that has prevented me from ever getting into some of the later Star Trek franchise shows: everyone, even the aliens, are also too thoughtful and sensitive and they all talk about their feelings and it's just so all-the-same boring. If the writers are creative enough to come up with interesting looks for these beings, how about personalities/cultural pecularities that manifest themselves in personal interactions? Not every creature from every corner of the galaxy is going to be as emotive and eloquent as the fairer sex of this race.

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought women were aliens in short skirts!

And in other news

[abes]

49% of the sci-fi viewership *still* has trouble getting a date.

Voyager?

[Anubis350]

"whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts."

Captain Janeway? Say what you want, that character had more balls than Kirk, Picard, and Archer put together!

And I really don't think she wouldve allowed herself to be caught dead in a mini-skirt (though since I havent seen every episode of voyager I could be wrong on that one).

Re:Voyager?

[Anubis350]

oh damn, I forgot to toss Sisko on the not adequate balls pile, consider him added too :-P

Re:Voyager?

[geminidomino]

You're out of your mind.

Sure, I'll give you Janeway.balls > (Picard.balls + Archer.balls + Kirk.balls). That's a given. After all, she threatened to throw an omnipotent being out of the airlock.

Sisko did the same thing, AFTER he nailed said omnipotent being with his haymaker.

Re:Voyager?

[Anubis350]

Sisko is a pussy, flame away :-P

seriously though, you may have a point. OTOH, Sisko is annoying enough in seasons 1 and 7 of ds9 that I don't much like 'im ayway.

mmm,

[dud83]

Short skirts... *drool* Coincidentally, Buffy/Xena/et al wears short skirts as well...

Re:mmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Buffy usually wore pants, since it's hard to kick ass wearing a mini skirt.

Re:Yes

[ifwm]

it's funny because it's true

I can't believe...

[PFritz21]

...that anyone hasn't mentioned http://www.sg1archive.com/bios/at.shtmlUSAF Lt. Col. Samantha Carter, Ph. D.

Re:I can't believe...

[zerocool^]

Oh, COME ON. If we're talking female leads in sci-fi, no one kicks more ass than Aeryn Sun.

Re:I can't believe...

[soul_cmd]

From the link: "She has also appeared in feature films, including Booty Call..." While she plays a very formidable character now, it doesn't seem like she always kept her moral integrity.

Re:I can't believe...

[Reziac]

Actually, that's a good point -- but I think the reason no one mentioned Carter is because she is NOT first and foremost a female, as is the case with 99% of the female characters in SF. Carter is first and foremost a real person, so we react to her personhood rather than to her femininity. She's never played as "just another pair of tits" or as "by damn we're going to have sexual equality", unfortunate failings of too many female characters in SF/F.

Much more typical is Lost In Trek's Janeway -- we're beat over the head with the fact of a FEMALE captain, rather than being shown a captain who happens to be incidentally female.

--------
Dear Starfleet: Hate you, Hate Alpha Quadrant. Took Voyager.--Janeway

Re:I can't believe...

[Murasaki Skies]

Don't be so sure. I believe one of her lines was, "According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved booty is described as a superposition of 'decayed bootyliciousness' and 'undecayed bootyliciousness'. However, when the skirt is opened the playa sees only a 'decayed bootyliciousness/white fright' or an 'undecayed bootyliciousness/baby got back.'"

Explains why I cant find a like-minded women

[zenst]

Explains why I cant find a like-minded women, as there all watching TV.

Can see it now, multi-millionare geeks advertising singles AD's on the SCIFI channel, and i thought the Crazy frog was bad enough.

This Just In:

[Anonymous Coward]

UK lesbians now outnumber male geeks.

Re:This Just In:

[AhBeeDoi]

Neither of whom can get laid.

Re:This Just In:

[Anonymous Coward]

As a UK geek that gets laid on a regular basis (pausing only long enough to disuss the finer arts of Cardassian architecture - her topic, not mine), and also with Les/Bi gals (both her, and me), I have to take umbrage at your comment, as we get both get exceeding well laid, and certainly not always with each other even.

Show women some respect

[DavidHOzAu]

What are you doing later?

That was not very nice, and with a response like that it's no wonder you're single. I'm a single guy too, but asking every single tech-inclined lady online if they are available is not the way to find a date. If you want to go somewhere with a lady, try asking them something other than "are you available", like get their opinion on something, and show that you are actually interested in them as a person and what they believe. That, and get out of the house some.

Haven't you read the HOWTO on male etiquette? From the link:

Like any other human being, a woman wants to have friends and be appreciated for who she is. Every time she gets an email asking her on a date, she is reminded that she isn't viewed as part of the group, but instead as different, an object of desire, and is certainly not being judged on her technical merit alone.

This may be hard to stomach, but you need to not hit on women who show up for Linux events, at least not right away. In all likelihood, you are NOT throwing away your only chance at true love by not coming on to her immediately, but you are throwing away your chance to have a fun new member of the Linux community. And even if you still think you're missing a chance at true love, keep in mind that many women brave enough to show up at a LUG or your local mailing list will frequently make the first move anyway. By hitting on them at the first opportunity, you're scaring them away, and you're also scaring away all the other women who might have become interested if the first woman had stayed.

This goes double for women you meet over email or on IRC. You may think that your "Are you single?" line is hysterically witty and suave, but she's heard it a million times. Even if you're joking, even if you already have a girlfriend or are married--don't do it.

'Nuff said. I don't have enough posts under my belt to be a mod yet, (which is why I am making this point now,) but even I have been online long enough to know that treating people nicely and with respect is a Good Thing.

Moving on...

Re:Show women some respect

[wombert]

Personally, I think you should get a sense of humor before you get any mod points.

Re:Show women some respect

[DavidHOzAu]

Personally, I think you should get a sense of humor
I have a sense of humor, yet the post I was replying to was about as funny as it was respectful. If anything, he should get +5 for trying.

Actually, the point is that questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading. SLSIA, and you might want to FTL. Having a sense of humor is not the point, rather, respekt, or lack of it. :-)


  before you get any mod points.
If you read my post, I just giving some helpful tips. No one deserves to be modded down for being helpful. But at time of writing I haven't been modded anything yet, so what are you complaining about? I don't expect good mod points ever, so I try to informative or funny at least. IMHO, if a guy is posting pickup lines on Slashdot, he needs the help. ;-)

Furthermore, if I post something that is informative it doesn't matter if I get mod points or not. No moderation scheme is completely perfect, (news of a certain kernel release comes to mind,) but Slashdot does come close. That being said, mod points are a bonus, but I don't care for my own points; I prefer to let the goal of adding to discussion be my Prime Directive.

Re:Show women some respect

[wombert]

Don't know why I bothered boming back to this, but...

just giving some helpful tips
...from a site instructing people how to promote Linux to women. Classy. It's true that "are you available?" won't help your cause if you're trying to sell something, but that obviously wasn't the intent.

if a guy is posting pickup lines on Slashdot, he needs the help
If he's posting anonymously, he's either not trying to pick anyone up, or he needs even more help than you thought.

I don't expect good mod points ever
Actually, I was more concerned about you being given the power to mod. I'd feel bad for anyone who gets a negative from you because you didn't get the intent of their post.

the point is that questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading.
If a woman's posting about her geekdom on Slashdot, in response to a thread about how (surprisingly) there is a large population of female sci-fi fans, what do you expect is the intent? I assert that it is to challenge stereotypical thinking and cause others to say "Wow, you are not at all what I would have expected." The anoonymous pickup line conveys the sentiment fairly concisely, with an obvious sense of humour to avoid sounding like lame cyber-worship.

I know that if I was composing a Slashdot comment about my collection of Star Trek DVDs, Star Wars LDs (unmodified not-so-Special-Edition), and Asimov paperbacks, it would probably be just for the purpose of impressing others, not an attempt to make new friends and form deeper relationships. (Besides which, it's kind of fun to think you might be able to get a guy to drool over an attribute that has nothing to do with your looks.)

And before you ask -- my husband says I'm not available.

Re:Show women some respect

[greginnj]

Personally, I think you should get a sense of humor

I have a sense of humor, yet the post I was replying to was about as funny as it was respectful. If anything, he should get +5 for trying. Actually, the point is that questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading.

Wow, what an insufferable dingbat you are. Long-winded PC corrections of obvious harmless humor? You must be an undergrad with a more-feminist-than-thou complex.

Let me break it down for you -- if it wasn't humor, if the guy was actually trying to pick her up, the guy who wrote the 5, simple, rather-funny-in-context words, "what are you doing later?" wouldn't have posted AC! got it?

When you're a few years older, you'll understand that men and women occasionally joke about such things, everyone knows it's humor, a joke about the cliche-ness of the line itself in that context -- not a boorish pickup line as you seem to think.

Re:Show women some respect

[termos]

You Sir, are the biggest idiot I've ever bumped into on slashdot.

Re:Show women some respect

[yndrd1984]

That was not very nice, and with a response like that it's no wonder you're single.

First you chastises the him for being 'not nice', and then you insult him. You're a hypocritical prig.

and get out of the house some. ... treating people nicely and with respect is a Good Thing.

And the self-aggrandizing rant continues. Why not just say "Hi! I think I'm better than you."

Re:Show women some respect

[yndrd1984]

questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading.

No, they aren't. He obviously isn't serious (posting AC), and even if he wasn't, how could this possibly be "degrading"?

If you read my post, I just giving some helpful tips.

No, you were deliberately insulting someone for making a joke.

The only reason I can think of for your first post is that you think women have to be coddled and protected form any form of male sexual or romantic expression, even the most mild and tenative. That kind of view implys that women are too weak to handle the fact that they are attractive and/or that men's emotions are bad in some way the precludes their expression in civil society. Either way, you are being sexist.

Re:Show women some respect

[elrous0]

You Sir, are the biggest idiot I've ever bumped into on slashdot.

Hi, my name's Eric--it's obvious that we haven't met.

-Eric

Re:Show women some respect

[elrous0]

Why not just say "Hi! I think I'm better than you."

Isn't that the official Apple motto?

-Eric

I for one

[saskboy]

I for one welcome our British, sci-fi watching, FEMALE overlords. Really, really welcome them :-)

My first girlfriend was a sci-fi and fan-fiction fanatic, which turned out to be the basis of our relationship. Don't base your relationship on Star Trek, it gets cancelled too much. :-)

[yes, I'm exagerating, slightly]

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Your welcome is irrelevant. Prepare to be assimilated. <nudge> <nudge> <wink> <wink>

Love & hugs
7 of 9

Re:you forgot the second variable

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess it would be closer to 100% (those 51% women) might be hard up to. I wouldn't date one...

Re:At least we've gotten rid of negative stereotyp

[Anonymous Coward]

"...now they're accompanied by women, who may or may not suck."

Hmmm... remember this is the UK.

SciFi? Not really. Maybe speculative fiction...

[ericr]

Uh, Buffy isn't scifi. At best it's fantasy. Xena? Same thing, although I suppose you could call Xena something like "historical dramatic fiction", if you really want to stretch the definition. Lara Croft? Fantasy. See, the problem with too many writers, networks, producers, et al, is that they don't understand the if you want to call something scifi, it needs have some SCIENCE in it. Even 2001 went from scifi to fantasy about halfway through.

Sure, I'm being pedantic and purist. But it does keep Harlan Ellison from trying to kill me...

Depends on the classification

[fm6]

Buffy and Xena do borrow from mythology, but neither is true to established mythology. Most of the monsters on Buffy were invented for the show, and Xena considers mythological characters (and also historical characters, such as Julius Caesar) to be outlines they can impose their own stories on, without being at all faithful to the originals. (Note that Xena is on a first-name basis with both Julius Caesar and Helen of Troy. Helen was probably not a real person, but the Siege of Troy did happen — at least a thousand years before Caesar was born.) Both Buffy and Xena are more fantasy than mythology.

Lara Croft and Indiana Jones also rate as fantasy, since their backstories have only token connections to the real world.

Now, here's the thing: most people don't distinguish between fantasy and science fiction. It may be obvious to you and me that, say, Buffy and Star Trek are different genres. That's because we see vampires as purely imaginary, and interstellar travel as something that could happen someday. But to most people, one is not "more real" than the other, either because they're very credulous about vampires, or they're very skeptical about starships.

The problem here is that most people who read or watch (or even write) fantasy and SF just don't give a shit about what's scientifically possible and what's not. They just want to escape from reality for a while. Vampires and spaceships, magic and time travel — it's all the same to them. And to someone like that, any precise definition of what's SF and what's not is boring, dweebish nitpicking.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed :)

Which is why more and more people are calling themselves fans of SF - where SF stands for Speculative Fiction.

Re:Depends on the classification

[aussie_a]

The problem here is that most people who read or watch (or even write) fantasy and SF just don't give a shit about what's scientifically possible and what's not.

Wow, you're as misinformed as the article. The sub-genre Hard sci-fi is sci-fi that only contains science that is possible. Space opera is the sci-fi sub-genre that really doesn't give a shit about what's possible.

Re:Depends on the classification

[fm6]

And of course Wikipedia's definitions of "hard sci-fi" and "space opera" are universally accepted!

Re:Depends on the classification

[moviepig.com]

...any precise definition of what's SF and what's not is boring, dweebish nitpicking...

...performed by small men who sit in the dark...

Re:Depends on the classification

[QuantumG]

So what's the speculation in Buffy/Angel? I mean other than the kind of "speculation" you get from a session of pot-smoking?

Dude 1: What if, like, demons, right, were real.. and they like, lived among us?
Dude 2: Man, you're spinnin' me out!
Dude 1: And what if like, a vampire, had a soul right, and he did good deeds and stuff?
Dude 2: Yeah man, he could be a private detective in LA.

Don't get me wrong, it's a cool show and there's a certain modern approach taken to the rules that it is built upon, but to call it Science Fiction or even Speculative Fiction is just silly. Call it what it is: Fantasy.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Anonymous Coward]

I take some offense at the thought that writers don't care, one of the few groups that definitly belong in the more nitpickish in this area are writers. Who most definitly do care if what they are doing is Sci-fi or Fantasy.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Rakishi]

Pretty much, since wiki gives a broad definition for both. Hard sci-fi is a well known term and concept, just because YOU don't know it doesn't mean it isn't well known.

It is arguably easier and more profitable to write space operas or pure fantasy, the later it seems being where sci-fi authors go to make money.

Re:Depends on the classification

[prockcore]

The sub-genre Hard sci-fi is sci-fi that only contains science that is possible.

Wouldn't that just be considered "fiction" then? Otherwise, CSI is the most popular sci-fi show on tv.

Re:Depends on the classification

[fm6]

Who says I don't know these terms? I just don't suffer from the illusion that my vocabulary is shared by every English-speaking person. But don't take my word for it — pick 5 people who don't read or watch the same stuff you do, and ask them, "what's hard science fiction?" I'll bet you get at least 3 blank looks.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Reziac]

The problem here is that most people who read or watch (or even write) fantasy and SF just don't give a shit about what's scientifically possible and what's not. They just want to escape from reality for a while. Vampires and spaceships, magic and time travel - it's all the same to them. And to someone like that, any precise definition of what's SF and what's not is boring, dweebish nitpicking.

Exactly. While we can eternally nitpick about what is or isn't SF, and what belongs in one subgenre or another, as you say the real point is that it's all some species of escapism, and that's why we read, watch, and write it. BTW a similar argument can be heard in the Romance camp re whether "Paranormal and Fantasy Romance" (Krinard et al.) is "real" romance or not, but the bottom line is still that people read it for escapism, and debate over what qualifies or not is just "boring, dweebish nitpicking". -- Nonetheless, the argument manages to claim our interest every time slashdot mentions SF. :)

As to the nominal topic, having been involved in SF/F fandom for over 30 years, my observation is that there have always been at least as many femfen as males, but at least half the fanac and 90% of fanfic is done by femfen, whereas males are more likely to be just passive consumers (ie. TV watchers). I think what TFA's sources are really seeing is a shift in the level of passivity among femfen, rather than a shift in their numbers.

Re:Depends on the classification

[cakesy]

That is not a fair way to decide on the term. Ask 5 people what a Subdural hematoma is, and will probably get 5 blank looks.... what does that prove??

I think the term "Hard Sci-Fi" is perfectly acceptable amoung those in the know. Why consider those who don't???

Thanks for playing.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Lars T.]

Just that many things on CSI are unscientific.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Evil Grinn]

Buffy and Xena do borrow from mythology, but neither is true to established mythology. Most of the monsters on Buffy were invented for the show, and Xena considers mythological characters (and also historical characters, such as Julius Caesar) to be outlines they can impose their own stories on, without being at all faithful to the originals.

Since when was established mythology 'true to' itself? The nature of myth, legend, and folklore is that it changes over time.

What we now think of as "Greek Myth" is actually the consensus from centuries of Greek, Roman and later stories, many of which conflict with each other. And those are only the ones that have survived.

The fact that "Greek Myth", "Norse Myth", "Egyption Myth", etc. are taught in US (and I can only assume UK) high schools as fixed, unified, (dead) systems does not mean that is how it really was to people at the time.

Re:Depends on the classification

[thebdj]

Actually according to your own article hard science fiction can leave "known science" if they leave "known universe." If hard science fiction relies too much on the known science then really is it "science fiction" any more.

I mean we can arguably point to the technological devices of today in Star Trek that would have seemed completely ridiculous to people in the 1960s and some things from TNG that might have seemed crazy to us just 15 years ago. While FTL might be a bit absurd and impossible, there is a great line from Star Trek TNG I heard the other day. "Things are only impossible until they're not" - Jean-Luc Picard.

We can argue they have thrown Einstein out, but remember Einstein's Theories are just that, theories. Like the theory of evolution there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support it; however, it has not become a "Law" because the science community hasn't deemed it to such a level yet. You know something though, it doesn't matter if FTL is impossible because most fans do not care. They will still dream about living in the world of Star Trek and of the more bright future it portrays as a sort of utopia; I mean I prefer it to most the dystopias I have seen/read.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Mac Degger]

So what? I know that many more people don't know the difference between an autonomous inhomogenous differential equation and a linear equation...doesn't mean that those aren't well established technical terms; it's called jargon, and just because the general populace doesn't knwo what they denote, it doesn't mean they have no meaning/don't exist.

BTW: good examples of hard sci-fi are Greg Egan and sometimes AC Clarke.

Re:Depends on the classification

[fm6]

Yeah, good point. I shouldn't have implied that the notion of Hard SF was meaningless. I was just responding to somebody who questioned my statement that most people don't know or care about the SF-fantasy distinction. He claimed that I was talking about Hard SF and ordinary SF as if it were the same thing. My point was that to most people it is.

Re:Depends on the classification

[fm6]

You're right, mythology does change over time. But I think it's fair to distinguish a myth about vampires told by a Romanian peasant who believes that they actually exist and a story about vampires in Southern California made up by a TV script writer who just wants to tell a good story. Once you get away from traditional legends and into deliberate fabrication, you move from mythology to fantasy. Of course, there's a huge grey area between mythology and fantasy, because fantasy is built on mythological traditions and ideas. But I would insist that Buffy and Xena are nowhere near that grey area. Joss Whedon and Sam Raimi aren't at all interested in mythology, except as an excuse to tell their own stories.

Re:Depends on the classification

[fm6]

Nor do I claim that hard SF doesn't exist. I had another point entirely.

Re:Depends on the classification

[Evil Grinn]

Joss Whedon and Sam Raimi aren't at all interested in mythology, except as an excuse to tell their own stories

Agreed. But..

One age's fiction can be another age's "myth". ISTR that most of what the Romans contributed to what we now call "Greek Mythology" was not written (nor for the most part read) by people who had adopted a literal belief in the Greek gods. It was just a great excuse to tell stories.

More recently than that but further back than Buffy and friends, "Dracula" was a work of pure fiction, but has been sufficiently re-absorbed back into the Vampire mythos that the general public now think of it as being on the same level as the original folktales.

Re:Depends on the classification

[fm6]

You're right. But that only moves Classical-era literature out of "pure" myth and into the grey area between myth and fantasy. But I would still insist that Buffy and Xena are not myth.

Re:Depends on the classification

[elrous0]

Dude 1: And what if like, a vampire, had a soul right, and he did good deeds and stuff? Dude 2: Yeah man, he could be a private detective in LA.

Or a cop in Toronto

-Eric

This can't be right

[jals]

People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek

They do?

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing they're talking penis size, rather than gut size...

Re:This can't be right

[ForteMaster]

That depends on your definition of "small". Why do you think that the non-ugly geeks never get dates either?

Answer could be...

[salesgeek]

Most modern science fiction TV shows have much more deeper characters, more sophisticated intercharacter relationships and often have plot arcs that last more than 60 minutes. It also helps that 90% of everything else is recycled and rehashed.

So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[munch117]

... unless pretend-science counts.

Re:So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[LordEd]

... unless pretend-science counts.

Which part of the word fiction didn't you understand?

Fiction: An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

So yes, i believe that pretend science DOES actually count.

Re:So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[evilviper]

... unless pretend-science counts.

Not only does "pretend" science count, it is the ONLY kind of science that does count...

Science + Fiction = Made-up Science

Re:So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[munch117]

Which part of critisising the parent post using reductio ad absurdum don't you understand?

Science != technology. ST is loaded with technology, and people entitled "scientists", but very little science is practiced. Science fiction ought to be called "technology fiction", because that's really what it is.

Re:So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[munch117]

I don't see any real difference between hypercharging the reverse flux condensator and Willow casting a spell. It's just arbitrary magic in both cases.

Re:So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[evilviper]

Both may be senseless, but one is 'magic' drawn from some unknown 'force', while the other is simply modifying a machine.

It's a huge difference. It's the difference between overhauling your car, and levitating yourself where you want to go instead...

Re:So I guess Star Trek isn't sci-fi either?

[LordEd]

Are you saying that the entire genre of Science fiction is mislabeled, or that it is mislabeled under the Star Trek example?

In order to create new technologies, there is usually some form of scientific advance. I look at science fiction looking more at how science and technology is used, not how it is fictionally created. Do people take an idealistic approach to new devices that make life easy and form a utopian way of life (and does that way of life have its own pitfalls?), or do we blow ourselves up and have to salvage the human race?

Would you care to offer an example of "true" science fiction?

Another measure of equality?

[Safe Sex Goddess]

Wow, who would have thought having strong women roles would make women more interested in those shows?

We still have a long way to go to reach equality. I know some of you may disagree...but I've recently decided that a purely scientific measure of gender equality can be attained through clothing. Now if only some social scientist would work out the scale and do the research. Following is an example of what I mean.

What is your reaction to seeing a man in clothing traditionally reserved for women, such as a skirt? If it illicits no different a reaction, apart from sexual attraction, than seeing a woman in pants then that's when you'll know you have achieved true equality.

When women are viewed as having equal power with men, then women's clothing will carry the same status as men's clothing for any gender.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Minority groups in some cases make themselvs minorities. They go out of there way to go "HEY I WANT TO BE EQUAL!" which just makes them stand out because no one else is screaming it. I'm not saying that there isn't some issues about being equal but mostly we're even in the world, the only places we're not equal is in peoples opinions.

A lot of women who go into business complain they're being repressed or held back because they're women. Now this is true because most people in that type of place are asshole guys whoi want flash cars, loose women and the latest fads. This isn't going to change any time soon so yes saddly in that aspect women arn't equal to men.

But then if we look at children's carers. Any man who tries to go into that job is often looked upon with untrusting eyes and whispers of child molesting arn't uncommon at all. No matter how nice the guy is the issue is still there.

So yea maybe women and ment arn't 100% equal in everything, but no amount of TV "role models" is going to change that. Only odd things becoming "normal" will change that, give it 10-20 years and no one will careless what you have between your legs in the business world because the people comming up now will be in charge and used to women being around.

Men and women are different, they have different roles and strengths. We have to understand this and accept that's life. It's a class system, if you're a female it's harder to be good in strength, but you'll excel in other ways. Not to mention a good mother (house wife if you wish ) does a million times more work then anyone with a "real" (not my words) job does. I have more respetct for women who stay home and look after their kids then I do women going into "the work place" to "show men women can do it too".

As for the clothes. Well women wearing mens clothes is seen as normal since mens clothes arn't ment to show anything off. Most female clothes are generally ment to be nicely fitted so they make a woman look good (and women want to look good even more then men want them to look good, watch/read any fashion show/magazine). Because of this people have come to think that men wearing female clothes is a fetish and so many wearing women's clothes is seen as sexual and hence strange/odd.

But hey personally I'm open minded and I'd love to be able to wear a nice skirt and have no issues about it. I know quite a few cross dressers (men who dress as women because it feels right to them when it's not sexual to them at all) and the general feed back is "do it for a joke, but not full time because Chavs will kick your face in and it makes your life so difficult it's easier to just stay hidden".

Re:Another measure of equality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some of you may disagree...but I've recently decided that a purely scientific measure of gender equality can be attained through clothing.

Yes, I would disagree. Other than ties, male clothing is functional. Female clothing is often showy to the point of silliness. Heels, skirts, and dresses restrict movement for the sake of artificial proportions and implied access. Drag queens are funny because they show up this silliness. Drag kings would just look chic or professional.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[Anonymous Coward]

GASP.

Men and women are different. Stop pretending that we are somehow all the same.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, who would have thought having strong women roles would make women more interested in those shows?

I'm wondering why making the women more like the men is somehow "equality". Sounds like "uniformity" to me. Why is the stereotypical "male" personality (aggressive, leader, active) the holy grail for both genders, especially in America?

I have the most respect for women (in real life or in a TV show) who maximize their potential from wherever they sit or in whatever they wear. It's a lot more subtle than being the ones barking orders and yelling.

Also I'm confused about your clothing comment and why you think a man wearing a dress means that women are equal (?). Doesn't a dress represent the stereotypical female role, which is what most "feminists" today want to eliminate? I guess what they really want is to switch the gender roles.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[skyman8081]

That's still not going to make "Encounter at Farpoint" any better.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[lisaparratt]

I dunno about you, but whenever I go out clubbing, the boys in skirts and dresses are absolute stunners! *drool*

Re:Another measure of equality?

[TeknoHog]

As for the clothes. Well women wearing mens clothes is seen as normal since mens clothes arn't ment to show anything off. Most female clothes are generally ment to be nicely fitted so they make a woman look good (and women want to look good even more then men want them to look good, watch/read any fashion show/magazine). Because of this people have come to think that men wearing female clothes is a fetish and so many wearing women's clothes is seen as sexual and hence strange/odd.

So, it's OK for women to look sexy, but not men? Is it because male sexuality is regarded as dangerous ('every man is a potential rapist'), or is it because it's still a male-dominated society where women are the objects of desire for men, but not the other way around? Either way there's a huge issue of inequality.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[CaptainFork]

Your article confuses correlation for causation. That women used to wear women's clothes when they were being discriminated against is a correlation. No causal factor is implied.

Anyway, women in men's clothes generally look unsexy, which is usually what they're trying to acheive. Men in women's clothes just look silly.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[danro]

I agree.

It is interesting to note that there seem to be a trend towards more and more traditionally feminine (and masculine) things being regarded as unisex.
I'm not just talking recent Fab-Five-style developments either. The trend has been in this direction for a long time.
The wristwatch for example had a bumpy start as a mens accessorie. Wearing your time-piece the same way as a piece of jewlery was at the time considered less than manly. Now the thought seems rediculous.
Same as with pants on females, nowdays most people can't see what the big fuss was all about.

It'll probably be some time before there are (non-scottish) men in skirts in the board-room though...

Re:Another measure of equality?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I think that's also being ironed out with more men "taking care of their apperance". You have to take into account a difference between men and women here as well.

Women are curvy and sensual, they have body parts which make them look good if presented correctly (around the legs and chest being too prime examples). Where as men are little more then hairy shapeless apes. We have no curves or "sexy lines" to show off. The best a guy can generally pull off is to look smart and clean (a suit) or "arty" and go with something more free and flowing displaying a little more flesh.

As I've said in the past.

A naked woman is very sexy, a naked man is furry and has a strange but humourous thing between his legs.

But yea I guess you're right. People find the penis offensive in general so any expression of using it is instantly "sexual assault". Go figure.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[Peldor]

I don't know why women are always trying so hard to achieve equality. They already think they're superior. --- It's a joke, son. - F. Leghorn

Re:Another measure of equality?

[yndrd1984]

Usually when one group can choose from any available option, and another group can choose from some options, the group with less choice is the one that is being repressed. Since women can wear clothes that used to be reserved for men, but not the reverse, this would suggest that men are opressed.

I offer the above only in a half-serious way, but think about it. Any woman in a western country can wear a skirt, dress, pants or jeans, an noone really cares. On the other hand, any man that wears one of the first two options will be seen as tremendously odd. So, for a man, being President, CEO, a banker or a billionaire doesn't make a difference, you still don't have as many options for what to wear as the average housewife does.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[yndrd1984]

Sure. Cause women don't talk about "tight butts", "great chests", "muscular legs", "nice abs", "strong arms" or anything else like that. /sarcasm I just think men have several centuries of catching up to do in the "sexy clothes" department.

On the other hand, you have a point about men's sexuality being treated as evil.

Re:Another measure of equality?

[rocketsled]

Let me assist women viewers in being equal. NERDS! Oh wait that's me too, d'oh!

Science Fiction?

[tkrotchko]

I didn't realize that Xena, Buffy, or Laura Croft were science fiction?

Great news for sci-fi con crowd

[HangingChad]

/.ers that go to sci-fi cons now have a 2% better chance of getting laid by an actual earth girl! Wooohooo!

Correction

[geekoid]

Katheryn Janeway was human, didn't wear a skirt and was a crappy captain.

Re:At least we've gotten rid of negative stereotyp

[Farmer Tim]

...but now they're accompanied by women, who may or may not suck.

They probably didn't ask; the Telegraph is a family newspaper.

Nah, not Meninist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds too much like Leninist, you'll confuse stoopid people.

Call it Mennonite, it'll be much more entertaining when the media gets ahold of it...

One major flaw

[kentrel]

Buffy, Lara Croft and Xena are FANTASY characters. Not sci-fi. Fantasy has always been a genre that appealed more to women than men, long before these characters were created.

Meninist?

[Farmer Tim]

Perhaps not the best name: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9465067

Ok then, lets redefine 'sci fi'

[myowntrueself]

Cos if Lara, Xena and Buffy are scifi then I am not a scifi fan.

Blasphemy!

[RyoShin]

Are you implying that there's something wrong with short skirts?

Re:Blasphemy!

[SpinJaunt]

yes.. better off then wearing a belt.

Re:Blasphemy!

[Anonymous Coward]

RyoShin: plug your sig into google, it will give you an actual answer:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=sine+ cosine+cosine+sine+3.14159!&btnG=Search&meta=

Re:Blasphemy!

[isorox]

Are you implying that there's something wrong with short skirts?

Watch early TNG episodes and you wont say that again

Re:Blasphemy!

[foniksonik]

I would say more or less, that for small men sitting in the dark watching Star Trek, women are in fact "Aliens wearing short skirts" ;-p

Sci-fi Channel != Science Fiction

[grumpygrodyguy]

People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek but it's not like that now ... There has been an increase in positive female role models, whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts.

The article is way off base. The problem has never been about putting females in lead roles, the problem is the fact that most women do not like math or science.

The sci-fi channel might as well be called the "soap operas in space" channel. Dallas, Days of our Lives, General Hospital...remember those? They're on sci-fi now, except the setting is outer space and the clothing is different. I'm all for woman enjoying science fiction, but that's not what's happening on sci-fi.

This is how wikipedia defines 'science fiction':

Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals.

I.e. you take a well known scientific concept...like a black hole, or parallel universes, or virtual reality, or quantum uncertainty...then you write a story around that concept, targetting the ways in which this bizarre scientific phenomena might change the way we live our lives. The whole reason this is compelling is because it's actually plausible that we'll see these scenarios in our lifetimes.

The sci-fi channel does the exact opposite. They take a dramatic story about people, and glom some irrelevant spacy/sciency stuff onto the story and call it science fiction. It's forgettable crap, and it completely ignores what makes science fiction great...the science! I'm all for women having an alternative to the lifetime channel and oprah, but it would be nice if they were drawn to actual science fiction...rather than 'Days of Our Lives in space'.

Re:Sci-fi Channel != Science Fiction

[TheWormThatFlies]

The sci-fi channel does the exact opposite. They take a dramatic story about people, and glom some irrelevant spacy/sciency stuff onto the story and call it science fiction. It's forgettable crap, and it completely ignores what makes science fiction great...the science! I'm all for women having an alternative to the lifetime channel and oprah, but it would be nice if they were drawn to actual science fiction...rather than 'Days of Our Lives in space'.

Well, if somebody actually made a TV series like that, I would be drawn to it. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen. The average person, irrespective of gender, isn't very interested in maths or science, and until that changes we are not going to be seeing any hard SF on TV. It's the diluted product, or nothing.

Re:Sci-fi Channel != Science Fiction

[grumpygrodyguy]

Well, if somebody actually made a TV series like that, I would be drawn to it. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen. The average person, irrespective of gender, isn't very interested in maths or science, and until that changes we are not going to be seeing any hard SF on TV. It's the diluted product, or nothing.

I think it's delusional to say math and science interest isn't dominated by the male gender. At least 3/4 of every math/science major is male.

As far as the dilution from hard sci-fi...I think the sci-fi channel's attempt to draw the female audience into its viewership has dramatically diluted the science content of their programming. IMO it was a very unfortunate way to draw female viewers...because it excluded and pushed away male viewers like myself who value hard(i.e. based on actual science) science fiction. I used to watch sci-fi, I don't anymore.

Re:Sci-fi Channel != Science Fiction

[TheWormThatFlies]

I think it's delusional to say math and science interest isn't dominated by the male gender. At least 3/4 of every math/science major is male.

I think the sci-fi channel's attempt to draw the female audience into its viewership has dramatically diluted the science content of their programming.

I'm not disagreeing that at present interest in science and technology is dominated by men. However, I doubt that the SciFi channel has abandoned hard SF for fantasy because it doesn't care about the male demographic and wants to attract more women. I think that they've done it because they have established that there are more people who watch fantasy than people who watch hard SF. It's more appealing to the mainstream. The mainstream does not find science fun. The mainstream treats science with deep suspicion and likes to relegate it to bad-guy status in the media.

If they really were trying to appeal to women specifically with shows like Xena, I don't think there would be so much T&A and jiggling female eye candy. Mainstream women are, however, likely to watch any show in which women are the main characters, so their interest is a beneficial side effect.

...it excluded and pushed away male viewers like myself who value hard(i.e. based on actual science) science fiction. I used to watch sci-fi, I don't anymore.

You imply that you can remember a time when SF TV series actually were hard SF. Could you mention some specific shows that you think are a good example? I seriously can't think of any.

But that's not sci-fi...

[Anonymous Coward]

Buffy, Xena, Lara Croft...

None of the above are science-fiction. Fantasy yes, but not sci-fi...

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of overweight women living in their parents' basement continues to rise. News at 11!

Good Role Models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... How are Xena, Buffy, and Lara Croft good role models? I seem to remember the girls in High School who were big fans of these shows, seemed to have the "Girls are better then boys attitude," in order to hide there insecurity, which would than be expressed by engaging in particularly neurotic relationships with the opposite sex. Also these characters, all resolve conflicts with violence. Once upon a time, girls were conditioned to be maternal and caring. It's good that the women's right's movement has earned little girls access to role models as violent as G.I. Joe. Progress has been made!

Is Buffy Sci-Fi??

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Buffy would be regarded as science fiction. There isn't any scientific basis for vampires.

I knew it's time to go to bed (3 am here)...

[GroeFaZ]

...when I misread your comment for "Immigration to UK soon to be slashdotted".

That's Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now capitialism has a whole nother apathetic demographic to slay with brainless advertising and materialism!! Hooray!!

Science Fiction?

[paulkoan]

Interestingly, neither Buffy, Xena, or Lara Croft have anything to do with Science Fiction.

Well, Lara at a push.

these are role models?

[dlasley]

Buffy?
Xena?
Lara Croft?
Ok, I'll grant a weak maybe on Lara Croft, but the first two as role models, nope sorry. Plus, as many have pointed out, none of the three are really scifi!

How about these instead:
Samantha Carter
Aeryn Sun
(I will grant that Claudia Black did guest on Xena once, but her integral role in Farscape should far and away excuse that transgression)

What we really need are more good role models in every genre, not just scifi, but that will get me on an offtopic rant ...

John Crichton: That's my underwear!
Aeryn Sun: What does this say?
John Crichton: Calvin.
Aeryn Sun: Well, they're not yours ...

Re:these are role models?

[RedWizzard]

Buffy?
Xena?
Lara Croft?
Ok, I'll grant a weak maybe on Lara Croft, but the first two as role models, nope sorry.

I haven't seen a lot of Lara Croft so I can't comment there, but the other two are clearly extreme strong female role models. Why would you think otherwise?

Re:these are role models?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd definitely choose other role models than those, and go into fantasy some as well.

I prefer Samus and Eowyn personally. Captain Janeway's great in a leadership role. If you like the mothering thing, there's Beverly Crusher and Polgara. I'm sure there's more in literature and TV. Video games could use more strong female characters though.

Re:these are role models?

[dlasley]

My opinion is based part on the characters not being scifi and part based on their depth (or lack of) - which I admit makes my caveat ironic considering Croft is from a video game. The Croft movies, while campy, projected the character with more substance: that may be a factor of Jolie being a decent actress (sometimes even gifted, like in "Gia", "Girl, Interrupted" and "Playing by Heart").

I just got more of a sense of self-worth and true character personality from Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) and Aeyrn Sun (Claudia Black) whenever I saw either show, and both seemed to grow with the depth of story lines from each season. If I had to choose role models from the mainstream visual media - as we must increasingly do - then I am drawn much more to these characters than to Buffy, Xena, and Lara Croft.

Re:these are role models?

[RedWizzard]

My opinion is based part on the characters not being scifi and part based on their depth (or lack of)

I don't see what not being SF has to do with those characters' strengths as role models. As for depth, Buffy is a very complex character, who experienced immense growth over the seven series. Xena was more static in terms of growth (Gabrielle is a better example of character development in that show). I wonder if you've actually watched much of Buffy and Xena or if you've written them off because you perceive the shows to be "lightweight"?

I just got more of a sense of self-worth and true character personality from Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) and Aeyrn Sun (Claudia Black) whenever I saw either show, and both seemed to grow with the depth of story lines from each season. If I had to choose role models from the mainstream visual media - as we must increasingly do - then I am drawn much more to these characters than to Buffy, Xena, and Lara Croft.

I can't comment on those two as characters because I haven't watched a lot of Farscape or Stargate. However my opinion that Buffy and Xena are strong role models is based on the effect they had on audiences, particularly the female part of their audiences. Both Buffy and Xena are noted pop culture phenomena (as is Lara Croft). And ultimately what makes them role models is that people obviously treat them as role models. I haven't seen any evidence of that in the case of Lara Croft, Samantha Carter, or Aeyrn Sun.

Buffy has also received a significant amount of academic attention. According to this there are now six North American universities offering Buffy courses and several peer reviewed academic journals.

Illiterate reporters now outnumber literates...

[moosesocks]

'People have an impression of newspaper reporters being small men who sit in the dark properly punctuating their articles but it's not like that now ..."

Wait...

[thesnarky1]

They list Xena as a positive role model? And mention short skirts as being bad in the same paragraph... sheesh. Perhaps Sci-fi is just getting more mainstream,s o a wider range of people are watching it? Maybe previously mentioned geeks are *gasp* now grown up and married and imparting their *coughlackofcough* taste to their spouses? Just throwing a few things out there

Sci-fi?

[Antony-Kyre]

I don't know about Lara Croft, but aren't Buffy and Xena considered fantasy, not sci-fi?

Not just strength of character, sadly.

[vain gloria]

Wow, who would have thought having strong women roles would make women more interested in those shows?

I think it's something of a sad commentary on us all that the strength of character displayed by all three female role models cited in the article has to be matched by a physical strength for them to be recognised as such.

Tangentially related to your main point, I'm absolutely convinced that there was a male extra in the background of several scenes in the first series of ST:TNG who wore one of those minidress-style uniforms. Can anyone confirm this for me?

Re:Not just strength of character, sadly.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I can't confirm it but I'm 99% sure I've seen men wearing them same skirts in some form.

I find it curious though that in Japanese sci fi you commonly see men wearing skirts and it's not even questioned. It's "just there" in most cases. Maybe that says a lot about how we see TV on the whole..

Re:Not just strength of character, sadly.

[__aapmdj9174]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166834&cid=139 11815

In what universe . .

[Cyberllama]

. . . are Xena and Buffy considered *SCIENCE* fiction? Bizzaro, no doubt.

O Sweet, Sweet, Trends, Embrace!

[fyrie]

I can't wait 'till the day where a sci-fi nerd guy is as coveted as a female sci-fi nerd. Make it happen now, because I want teh sex ASAP!!!!

Re:At least we've gotten rid of negative stereotyp

[geordieboy]

I hate the way they felt the need to throw in a "small" there. What, is that supposed to automatically imply nerdy or weird or something? They might as well go the whole hog and say "small, ugly, socially inept male losers" just to really emphasize the contrast with the new wave of women "sci fi" fans (I suspect saying "small women who sit in dark rooms" would not be acceptable).

watching sci-fi for role models?

[PrideOfPomona]

I can't speak for any other female scifi fans, but I would hope that they wouldn't be looking to scifi television for role models. For that matter, I'm hoping that they aren't getting their role model quota filled by television at all. I'm a scifi watching female and I like star trek and babylon 5 and the like because I like shows that are entertaining -- and space, aliens, and the occasional fire fight are fun to watch.

Well, they DID outnumber the males...

[OSUJoe]

With all the immigration, it'll be back safely on the male side. I'd give it a week or two...

News quality is getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

Man I must have missed something, when did it all happen, maybe there is nothing interesting to report left anymore.

Eh, I've dated worse.

[Traegorn]

You assume I have standards.

Soap operas

[Anonymous Coward]

They've managed to turn alot of the SciFi in to soap operas.

buffy is not sci-fi

[BewireNomali]

buffy and xena are considered sci-fi?

lame.

Re:buffy is not sci-fi

[/dev/trash]

unless in your world vampires run around at night.

Re:buffy is not sci-fi

[BenjyD]

Sci-fi implies some sort of science. I never noticed much science in Buffy.

Re:buffy is not sci-fi

[rjw57]

Elves and Hobbits don't run around either but I wouldn't call LotR fantasy. Fiction != Science Fiction.

Re:buffy is not sci-fi

[/dev/trash]

and fiction implies a not true story.

Ironically

[bobsledbob]

Buffy, Lara Croft, and Xena ... all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts.

Looks like nothing has really changed.

Sci-fi and women?

[EiZei]

'People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek but it's not like that now ... There has been an increase in positive female role models, whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts.'

Was'nt Babylon 5 giving women equal treatment long before these series?

Re:Sci-fi and women?

[cyborg_zx]

Well if their great insight into sci-fi includes using Buffy and Xena as examples I don't doubt they've looked much futher than the 60's clothing of the original Star Trek to see just how socially progressive it was. It had the first interacial kiss on US TV for one thing. So basically this woman who said this didn't know what she was talking about.

And yes, with Babylon 5 we get Susan Ivanova, Delenn, Na'Toth, Lyta Alexander - a whole host of strong female characters.

Basically this article is deeply flawed because the Sci-Fi channel doesn't actually seem to show much Sci-Fi.

Buffy is not sci-fi! They kill people with sticks and spells, not phasers and technobabble!

Stupid story: handle with skepticism.

Grassroots Science Fiction

[ellcry]

I'd be interested in the gender-gap between readers of Science Fiction. You know: William Gibson, Isaac Asimov, Clark, Card, Phillip K Dick, and the like...
The masters; the genius' behind real sci-fi. I've been an avid reader for years, and I pose this very legitimate question: does Xena even qualify as Science Fiction?
A pseudo 'la-femme nakita' (sp?)/ man-slayer parading around in grandiose fashion on a horse. If that is what my contemporaries consider sci-fi, then the genre is in shambles!

...and he was carried up until he viewed a lake so vast, with an island dense at its center... but something was wrong, as he realized the lake was not a lake, but a vast eye... and the center was not an island, but the pupil of god...

Lets get serious here.

Re:Grassroots Science Fiction

[TheWormThatFlies]

Thematically, I prefer science fiction to fantasy. I've read some good fantasy, but it just doesn't inherently grab me the way that SF does. If I had to choose between an unknown fantasy book and an unknown science fiction book, I'd pick the latter. The fantasy genre is very homogenous compared to SF - the worlds and ideas it explores are too similar to remain interesting for long. It's more focused on adventure with magic than exploring interesting concepts, and too much of it consists of poorly executed Tolkien rip-offs. Sometimes I'm in the mood for that, but not all the time.

Within what is commonly defined as the genre of "science fiction", I'm an eclectic. I don't mind if it's not "hard" SF. I don't mind if the "science" is botany or sociology. I don't mind if there's telepathy or race memory. I don't mind if the story is more about people than science, as long as it has something interesting to say. I'd rather read something with minimal human interest than something full of human interaction that reads like Mills & Boon (*cough*peterfhamilton*cough*) (for much the same reason that I prefer my old SF to contain no women and no computers if the alternative is stupid, vacuous women and hilariously inaccurately predicted computers).

The important thing is that I want to feel like I'm reading a story about a real world which works according to logical rules, given a set of assumptions (some of which can be fantastic). If something flagrantly stupid breaks my suspension of disbelief, I enjoy the story less. This is why I don't like cyberpunk very much. I imagine that physicists feel the same way about FTL. I think the definition of "flagrantly stupid" varies according to one's expertise in a particular field.

My specific reading habits have partially been formed by my book purchasing habits. In South Africa, new books (which are not published here) are heinously expensive, so I never buy a new book unless 1) I really like the author and 2) it's a new book, not a new edition of something I could get in second hand for a twentieth of the price (a twentieth, seriously). This isn't as much of a factor now that I have a job, but it was very important when I didn't.

My knowledge of older SF is the broadest and most extensive, because I could get piles and piles of old books without worrying about whether I was really going to like them. I read a lot of the old masters. Then there's a big gap around the eighties, and then a scattering of new writers that I like.

Recently, a local chain of stores which sells remaindered books and magazines imported from the UK has vastly improved its merchandise, and I am often able to find good recent hardcovers - so I'm discovering more recent authors.

Movies vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

The article itself draws far too much from a pathetically small sample: Sci-Fi UK cable channel which has about 2.8 million viewers. The UK is NOT the US in myriad ways, particularly the masculine and feminine divide.

TV is dominated by women in the US; because advertisers focus on them. It's a matter of belief that women make most household purchasing decisions. Plus, most media buyers are single women in their mid-late twenties who live in urban areas. They tend to favor shows focused on them. TV (absent subscription services like HBO which has only 33% market penetration) serves the media buying customer not the viewer.

In contrast MOVIES are a lot different. Demos don't matter, only reaching the widest audience all of whom pay. While TV has continued to slice and dice and lose audience (in the late Sixties Beverly Hillbillies had 60 million viewers with only three nets and a much smaller population; Desperate Housewives draws only 22-24 million); movies have just lost audiences. They totally depend on profitability on males 12-24 who want movies aimed at them. Moviegoing went from around 79% of the population (once a week) in the late Forties to about 9% now. The big hits like Spider-Man and LoTR drive Hollywood's profitability, not lots of small movies about relationships and stuff. Yes this includes the revenue stream from DVDs and stuff.

Guys have been driven off TV, except for sports. It's not surprising to me that even on a Brit Sci-Fi channel guys are dropping. Buffy is a good example: it's totally an Anne Rice type of show in it's last years (Buffy has nasty sex by a dumpster and falls in love with her rapist). It's as guy-friendly as Bridget Jones and is in no way Sci-Fi. American guys DO love stories about relationships, just not the kind of relationships women want to see. Guys love disparate groups of guys coming together as a team to fight the enemy, see any sports team or war movie. They also like stories about sacrifice, discipline, and personal heroism. That's John Wayne to Harrison Ford to Tom Selleck to Tobey Maguire to Matt Damon to Bruce Willis to Ewan McGregor.

Sci-Fi includes stuff like Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, etc. It's aimed at MALES and has stories about relationships THEY like not female oriented stories ("I can use my romantic/sexual power to CHANGE him!"). There's also action-adventure and exploration of society. I fully expect most of the audience for Buffy re-runs to be female and most of the audience for say, Spider-Man to be male.

Sci-fi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when are Vampires Sci-fi? When did Action adventure with guns become Sci-fi? How is Xena sci-fi in any way shape or means?

Ahh..

[Create an Account]

Dude, I'm not sure about your math, there. It's been a long time since I did any math (I'm an MBA student - numbers are strange and frightening to us) but I don't think the higher acceleration yields a lower percentage of the speed of light.

Female Fans Caused the Demise of 'The X-Files'.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first seasons of that show were devoted to the alien conspiracy mytharc, but the focus eventually shifted to the question of just how much Scully loved Mulder.

The louder the female minority clamored for luuuuurve, the more the male fans tuned out, leading to the focus of the show shifting to appeasement of those women, who were now the majority audience.

Sad but true.

Not Sci Fi - Fantasy

[HermanAB]

Somebody is unable to distinguish pseudo-science from pure fantasy...

Are you sure ...

[Ranger]

...this isn't some Male Fantasy?

Pants

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, in the pilot episode Kirks fist officer is a woman, and all the women wear pants...

Re:Pants

[Bush Pig]

Kirk's fist officer? Oh dear, oh dear.

I don't think I'll ever be able to watch Star Trek again ...

And This...

[Nom du Keyboard]

in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts.

And this is bad because...?

Huh?

[Joe Kepler]

Hold on, they think that the rising number of female sci fi fans is caused by characters like Xena, Buffy, and Lara Croft? Don't get too excited guys. The kind of girls interested in those characters aren't interested in you. :(

Re:Huh?

[zmollusc]

Don't get too excited fellow /. stereotypes, any kind of girls aren't interested in you. :(

Xena lets it ALL hang out

[Excen]

It's refreshing to see Xena let her penis hang out the bottom of her skirt!

Yeah, I said it. Mark it flamebait.

You know I'm right though.

Doesn't sound like sci-fi to me.

[Ash-Fox]

"The UK Telegraph is reporting that, due to the popularity of Buffy, Lara Croft, and Xena, female sci-fi viewers now outnumber males, at 51%-49%."

To my knowledge.. The shows/movies where the charactors mentioned here star in... Aren't considered sci-fi.

Surely women are alien?

[mark99]

But then my wife says the same about me...

Star Trek, short skirts

[a24061]

whereas in Star Trek, all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts

Whereas in Buffy and Xena ... oh never mind.

Obligatory Kip...

[benjamindees]

Ugggh...

Planet Gravity

[Anonymous Coward]

You can increase surface gravity by increasing the moon/planet's density.
Have a look at Why Crush the Moon? - Wil MacCarthy.

On the other hand...

[Thedalek]

I'm fairly certain that the topless, leather-kilt-clad muscleman I saw leading his friend around on a leash in Brighton during some sort of "Pride" festival probably was gay. Just a guess.

British study, American shows?

[Thedalek]

Okay, a UK Study shows that SciFi viewers are roughly 51% female and 49% male. Forgetting for a moment that that's pretty much the same ratio of men to women globally (which basically implies that women are neither more nor less interested in SciFi than men), why are they attributing the success to American shows like Buffy and Xena? And how did Lara Croft's name get in the mix?

Surely there would be some discussion of the popular British shows on the air, like Doctor Who. No mention of them, though. Weird.

Re:British study, American shows?

[Anonymous Coward]

It only seems weird because in the article they're taking their source as the Sci Fi UK channel, which mostly shows american imports.

Dr Who is easily the most popular, break-out sci fi show on UK TV this year, but it was shown on BBC1 (ie. terrestrial channels).

Oh heck....

[pixeldiva]

I knew that giving that interview was likely to be a bad idea, but I had hoped that, being a more quality paper, it would be ok.

I was wrong.

Excuse the self link, but rather than cut and paste repeat what I've just said on my blog, it'll be easier to link just link it.

http://www.pixeldiva.co.uk/girls-like-scifi-too.ht ml

Please don't all kick my head in at once. I was pretty pissed off by the final piece too.

Still, that'll teach me to talk to the mainstream media... *sigh*

Re:Oh heck....

[TheWormThatFlies]

Ah, yes. The mainstream media. They skim through what you're saying, latch onto something simple they think they've understood, and run with it. I have cringed through many articles about either Linux, open source in general, computers in general (urgh) or some geeky little subculture I belong to, wanting very much to track down the people who wrote them, force them to write a three-hour reading comprehension exam, and then beat them severely with their own rolled-up publication. :/

MOD PARENT UP

[PeteDotNu]

It's the most informative thing on this page.

Division of labor

[Indiana Joe]

>Uhura: black, female before a 1964 audience... a receptionist, sure, but never got anyone coffee.

That was Yeoman Rand's job.

News flash: Men and women different

[Anonymous Coward]

Men are more likely to agree to spend years away from their home planet. Men are more likely to want to climb the chain of command. If you ignore those inclinations in a science fiction setting you are basically making the statement that they were never more than social conditioning. Some of it surely is, but it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that biology has nothing to do with it. In command positions, a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio sounds about normal to me. 1:1 sounds more likely in lower levels of the chain. When you add families to the ship it all evens out anyway.

UK Female viewership of Sci-fi...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will skyrocket once that David Tennant fellow debuts on Dr. Who. He was quite popular with the women on that Cassanova show from what I've heard.

Of course purists will deride Dr. Who as well...

80% - 83.2534%

[Xiver]

79.4352% to 83.2534% of statistics are made up.

skiffy, not SF

[whitroth]

As usual, the media demonstrates that they cheated on their college (and probably high school) coursework. Certainly, their vocabulary, as well as their knowledge of reality sucks, since they can't distinguish between science fiction and fantasy.

Also as usual, they confuse skiffy (tv/movies) with SF, probably because they don't read.

Clue: 99.99% of all SF is ->written-. With over 3k sf & fantasy books in my personal library, of which less than a dozen are Trek or SW, etc, I have way more than all the skiffy ever filmed, and I don't have nearly the largest personal library of a good number of other real fans.

*sigh*

            mark "do toothpaste and car commercials count
                            as skiffy (sci-fi)?"

Thats it...

[doctorjay]

Im moving

Is That What They are Watching?

[Zerbs]

Has anyone here on /. ever even been to a Sci-Fi convention? While I am a guy, and from the U.S. not the U.K., from what I've seen here Buffy does have a loyal female following, and to a lesser extent Xena used to, but they don't represent the largest female fanbase in Sci-Fi. From my observations, there seems to be more women interested in series like Stargate, Star Trek, and books/movies such as Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars.

short skirts in the Pannies sector

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that ol' skirt was NOT used in A Star Trek, then you need to see Turkish Star Trek. My God, why don't people learn that the actors can wear a skirt but it'll be a second show if the fabric is too thin? I mean, "Quirk here"; Earth to panties; Earth to panties; we have a runner in the Klingon Squadron; the ship is EXPANDING at an uneven rate; the proton torpedoes are discharging through the rising EYE of the CANON.

Of'course, reference to Turkish Star Trek review, with pictures near duplicate to my thoughts; as though I'm not the only one...