You're placing a lot of weight on that ONE conversation between Jennifer and Elizabeth in "First Strike", where Jennifer expresses self-doubt. But Elizabeth and Carson had a very similar conversation in "Intruder", where he also expressed doubt about his ability to do his job.
Carson jokes the candidates are all more qualified than he is, and complaining about choosing between them. He doesn't suggest that any of them actually take over from him - presumably, if he'd wanted to leave, he would have. Elizabeth isn't forcing him to stay. While as Keller actually is asking Elizabeth to find someone to replace her, and Elizabeth brushes her off.
ETA: I also have to point out that the Jennifer-Elizabeth conversation in "First Strike" is Keller's very first scene, her establishing moment as a character; I don't think it's amiss to put a fair bit of weight on it. The first thing we hear about her is that she doesn't think she's qualified for her job - and Elizabeth disagrees, but doesn't offer proof.
Do you also take Carson's statement at face value -- that because he feels some of the people working under him are more qualified to run the department, then he's right, he shouldn't be in charge?
Actually, yeah, I could totally believe some people under him could do as well or better. But Carson doesn't promote any of them - he whines about their qualifications, but if he wanted to step down, he could. He doesn't.
What confuses me about Keller is that it's presented like she doesn't have the option to step down. That no one else wants the position, that no one else can do the job but her. There really aren't any better-qualified doctors on Atlantis? Really?
Yes there is -- the EXACT same reason why John and Carson both kept their jobs in "Intruder". Because Elizabeth had faith in them and thought they could do the job.
Okay, point! Am I allowed to wish that Elizabeth's belief in Keller was based on more than blind faith? At least with Carson and John, she had both worked with them for a year and had seen them do their jobs and presumably been impressed with their performance (possibly questionably, but whatever.) Keller had done nothing to earn Elizabeth's trust (at least not anything that we're told about). I guess you can blame this on Elizabeth being an idiot - that's okay, I'll accept that, there's a lot of supporting evidence that Elizabeth is an idiot. It's still bad writing, damn it!
You're taking those same omissions in Keller's life that ALL the characters suffer from, and using them to build a case against her.
I do think that Keller has more omissions than most of the other characters - but I might be biased.
Gnine has a theory about this - it might be in her comments somewhere, I'm not sure what she's posted where - what it basically comes down to is that a character introduced later into a series has more of a burden of proof than a character introduced from the start. Because we the audience bond differently with characters we know from the beginning, versus ones introduced into an already developed dynamic; we're more inclined to be hostile. So Keller is being subjected to a double standard, but it's not because she's a female character, or a doctor, but because she's a newcomer. The reason so many of us here are anti-Keller is that the writers are not handling her properly for a new character. And I don't feel like defending their mistakes!
Re: second part
Carson jokes the candidates are all more qualified than he is, and complaining about choosing between them. He doesn't suggest that any of them actually take over from him - presumably, if he'd wanted to leave, he would have. Elizabeth isn't forcing him to stay. While as Keller actually is asking Elizabeth to find someone to replace her, and Elizabeth brushes her off.
ETA: I also have to point out that the Jennifer-Elizabeth conversation in "First Strike" is Keller's very first scene, her establishing moment as a character; I don't think it's amiss to put a fair bit of weight on it. The first thing we hear about her is that she doesn't think she's qualified for her job - and Elizabeth disagrees, but doesn't offer proof.
Do you also take Carson's statement at face value -- that because he feels some of the people working under him are more qualified to run the department, then he's right, he shouldn't be in charge?
Actually, yeah, I could totally believe some people under him could do as well or better. But Carson doesn't promote any of them - he whines about their qualifications, but if he wanted to step down, he could. He doesn't.
What confuses me about Keller is that it's presented like she doesn't have the option to step down. That no one else wants the position, that no one else can do the job but her. There really aren't any better-qualified doctors on Atlantis? Really?
Yes there is -- the EXACT same reason why John and Carson both kept their jobs in "Intruder". Because Elizabeth had faith in them and thought they could do the job.
Okay, point! Am I allowed to wish that Elizabeth's belief in Keller was based on more than blind faith? At least with Carson and John, she had both worked with them for a year and had seen them do their jobs and presumably been impressed with their performance (possibly questionably, but whatever.) Keller had done nothing to earn Elizabeth's trust (at least not anything that we're told about). I guess you can blame this on Elizabeth being an idiot - that's okay, I'll accept that, there's a lot of supporting evidence that Elizabeth is an idiot. It's still bad writing, damn it!
You're taking those same omissions in Keller's life that ALL the characters suffer from, and using them to build a case against her.
I do think that Keller has more omissions than most of the other characters - but I might be biased.
Gnine has a theory about this - it might be in her comments somewhere, I'm not sure what she's posted where - what it basically comes down to is that a character introduced later into a series has more of a burden of proof than a character introduced from the start. Because we the audience bond differently with characters we know from the beginning, versus ones introduced into an already developed dynamic; we're more inclined to be hostile. So Keller is being subjected to a double standard, but it's not because she's a female character, or a doctor, but because she's a newcomer. The reason so many of us here are anti-Keller is that the writers are not handling her properly for a new character. And I don't feel like defending their mistakes!