Crazy Eddie wrote:
Which is why I mentioned the difference between gender and GENDER ROLES. You continue to be obsessed with numbers -- representation, quotas, percentages -- and are entirely indifferent to the nature of that representation, the implications of gender roles, the dynamics of the relationships between men and women in a working/personal relationship. You are, in other words, advocating the PRACTICE of affirmative action without having any concept whatsoever what affirmative action is supposed to accomplish.
For the record, I myself as a male have no problem with a female chief engineer, and wouldn't have minded one being appointed in Scotty's place, but that would have entailed putting a new character in a major role in the movie that would have resulted in less screen time for one of the big seven-a great thing if this was a TV show, but fatal for a movie (and also resulting in the hue and cry about the main characters not getting enough screen time.) Until somebody decides to bring Star Trek
back to TV, this is how it's likely to be, unless you want the movie to be three hours long.
It offends me when a qualified character gets bumped to make way for one of the big 3
Then you should probably stop watching Star Trek, because that particular practice has been the basic premise of almost every Trek episode in history. "We have a crew of 400 people on board, most of whom are qualified specialists in their field with years of experience, so of course the Captain, the first officer, the ship's doctor and two random security officers will be part of every away team."[/QUOTE]
Seconded, with a repeat of what I said above about each of the main seven needing to get something to do in the movie.