PINK KHAKI - THE STARGATE SG-1 ONLINE MAG

How would you describe the SJHW to somebody who has never heard of you before?
We're a rather... eclectic group of people who became friends because we respected each other's opinions, no matter what facet of fandom we were in. We're outspoken and confident in our opinions, and back each other up. When it comes right down to it, however, we're friends who love Stargate and think that TPTB should be allowed to make their show without being harassed.

What's the special attraction for you on Sam/Jack?
The attraction isn't for all of us. Ironically enough, not all Horsewomen are Sam/Jack shippers - that's just how it started out. Some of us are genners, some are slashers, and some don't really care one way or the other. For those of us who are shippers, the reasons differ as they will for all fans: the chemistry, the 'angst factor', the depth it adds to the characters, the spice it has added to the show since the very beginning... etc. :)

To some parts of this fandom, you're Lucifer's faithful minions - how comes there's such a controversy around you?
It's true that we're not afraid to say what we think, and we don't suffer fools - or double standards - kindly. We stick up for each other, and, for some reason, we are seen as having some kind of 'power' or influence. Ultimately, however, it has to do with people needing easily identifiable scapegoats... and we're as identifiable as anyone. We're also one of the only places in the fandom where genners, slashers, Danielfans, and shippers can get together without a fist fight.

You've created the term "Denialites" - what makes a "Denialite" in your eyes? And why not simply ignoring them? When I surfed your site, I thought: gee, for people who are interested in Sam and Jack, there is an awful lot of Daniel Jackson/Michael Shanks on it!
It's difficult to ignore something that's constantly in your face, lying about you, spreading rumors and so on. Personal issues aside, even before Michael Shanks left, some Daniel fans were dictating what the show *should* be about; what it was *supposed* to be about. Our commentary never had anything to do with the character himself, it had to do with the behavior of the fans desiring to take creative control away from the rightful owners, the powers that be. And that's all it is: commentary.
The term "Denialite" was simply a throwaway line in an editorial that was picked up by some Daniel fans. Some even identify themselves by that name. If you're interested in knowing what it means, you'll have
to ask them.

When reading the - at times really vicious (from both sides) - arguments over the "Save Daniel Jackson" campaign, I can't help the feeling that maybe less attention would have been paid to the campaign if their opponents (for example you) hadn't so vehemently jumped at the issue. Did you ever consider that you might have unwillingly brought the campaign more exposure?
They bought themselves plenty of exposure, and purported to speak for all fans as they did it. What we did was present another opinion, because the alternative of sitting back quietly was unappealing. We didn't vehemently jump on the topic, either, and we haven't spoken about it as often as we might have. We've simply countered what has been said and pointed out some of the innate flaws in their tactics. It also goes back to the double standards in fandom. When Divide and Conquer aired, for example, thrilled shippers were called selfish for promoting what they liked on the show. When the same is done by the "Save Daniel Jackson" folks, it's called 'saving the show', no matter how rude or aggressive.

One accusation I often came across when I did some research was that you're "trolling" on various mailing lists and message boards. Is there some truth in it? Where are the origins of this?
Trolling is posting with intent to cause trouble. We *lurk* on lists which are restricted for the sole purpose of keeping us out, or those which are simply unfriendly places. We are on those lists, not to contribute nor cause trouble, but to be informed, to know for certain what is being said instead of spreading rumors. Meanwhile, lists that are seen to be in the hands of the Horsewomen, such as SamandJack and the TeaRoom, have an open membership policy - barring age restrictions - that grants unfettered access and doesn't automatically assume that a new member is a troll.

Another point that's often made is that you follow "TPTB" blindly and can't accept any critic on authors or producers, no matter how civilized its voiced .
Anybody enjoying the current season and saying so is being labeled as somebody who unconditionally worships TPTB. This is not exclusive to the Horsewomen. Criticism is fine, but what has been going on in fandom lately is not criticism because it's not civilized, polite, or even mildly restrained. If we defend TPTB, it's not because we think they can't handle critique but because we think that, as human beings, they deserve better treatment then they've been getting. Moreover, some criticisms are merely the result of personal preferences. We maintain the right to not change our minds about what we like.

I can honestly say that I don't consider your site as a "Daniel" or "Shanks" hate site. I understand Danielites don't bookmark it, though. However, when I look at your entry in the "grapevine" of December 4, 2001, you write: ".his [Shanks] fans are similarly free to feel whatever they feel, and react to it in whatever snotty and immature ways that they wish. Bottom line? Plainly, simply, factually, Michael Shanks and his denialist fans are made for each other." Which means you call Michael Shanks snotty and immature . now, that *is* a personal attack, don't you agree?
The Grapevine is not listed in the News section, and for a very good reason: it's not to be considered as fact. It's an editorial, the individual opinion of the site owner, a sounding board if you will. In that selection, neither Michael Shanks nor his fans were being called anything - the comment was made regarding their behavior, which is an important distinction.

You're often under crossfire, and most probably will not only find love letters in your mailbox. How do you deal with personal attacks? Does it get to you? Do you laugh it off? Or do you simply ignore it?
Actually, we *do* only get love letters in our mailbox, because the people with complaints air their problems in public. Our reactions to that are...all of the above. Sometimes we can't do anything but laugh because it's so completely off the wall that it can't be taken seriously. Sometimes we discuss it, sometimes we ignore it, and now and then we take a break from it altogether.

If you had free hand and could write and direct an episode - what would it look like?
We watch what the people in charge choose to give us; that's why we started watching in the first place. We all have our own preferences, but that's the domain of fan fiction. The Horsewomen are fans, and content to be so. We don't feel the need to run the show.

Last but not least: wouldn't you have more fun with the show if you'd just lean back and watch it?
We do have fun, both through watching the show and by sharing our enjoyment of it with our friends. We're as committed to the show and the fandom as any other group and look forward to the day the subject of discussion returns to Stargate and not staffing.

© Pink Khaki 2002