STC Ep. 7: "Embrace The Winds" speculation and discussion....

[Warped9]

Deliberate sexism and unconscious sexism is not quite the same thing.

The failing after Number One was that of Gene Roddenberry and successive writers who didn't follow up on the idea. Did they do so consciously or not?

There is a question I have always hoped D.C. Fontana would be asked given she there: was it an actual policy on the show that women could not be cast in command roles or was it simply no one thought of it after "The Cage?" In extent during the series was the idea ever floated of casting a woman as a starship Captain or Commodore or Admiral and the idea dismissed or did it simply not occur to anyone?

On the issue of Uhura. By right of rank at some point she should have been told on at least one occasion to take the conn. Was it a deliberate act of exclusion to write it that way or did it simply not occur to the writers and creative staff that the Black woman is the more correct choice (by virtue of rank and experience) to take the conn rather than the junior white male?

TOS had an issue of (lack of) consistency which really isn't surprising given the changes in society going on when the show was in production. Indeed some of what McKenna says in "Embracing The Wind" speaks to this very point. But the underlying spiritual message of the show was positive and one of inclusiveness. So why not build on that rather than the worst interpretations of the show's inconsistencies in conveying said message?

And thats where STC falls down because they tried to rationalize the inconsistency rather than simply build on the underlying positive message.

Just because we didn't actually see any women in command doesn't mean there weren't any, and thats if you exclude the existence of Number One and what that infers. Hell, we never got to see a toilet in TOS, but we know they had to have been there.

 

[9gs]

Deliberate sexism and unconscious sexism is not quite the same thing.

The failing after Number One was that of Gene Roddenberry and successive writers who didn't follow up on the idea. Did they do so consciously or not?

There is a question I have always hoped D.C. Fontana would be asked given she there: was it an actual policy on the show that women could not be cast in command roles or was it simply no one thought of it after "The Cage?" In extent during the series was the idea ever floated of casting a woman as a starship Captain or Commodore or Admiral and the idea dismissed or did it simply not occur to anyone?

On the issue of Uhura. By right of rank at some point she should have been told on at least one occasion to take the conn. Was it a deliberate act of exclusion to write it that way or did it simply not occur to the writers and creative staff that the Black woman is the more correct choice (by virtue of rank and experience) to take the conn rather than the junior white male?

TOS had an issue of (lack of) consistency which really isn't surprising given the changes in society going on when the show was in production. Indeed some of what McKenna says in "Embracing The Wind" speaks to this very point. But the underlying spiritual message of the show was positive and one of inclusiveness. So why not build on that rather than the worst interpretations of the show's inconsistencies in conveying said message?

And thats where STC falls down because they tried to rationalize the inconsistency rather simply build on the underlying positive message.

Just because we didn't actually see any women in command doesn't mean there weren't any, and thats if you exclude the existence of Number One and what that infers. Hell, we never got to see a toilet in TOS, but we know they had to have been there.

Yes TOS does not need to be "fixed".

 

[Bixby]

Deliberate sexism and unconscious sexism is not quite the same thing.

The failing after Number One was that of Gene Roddenberry and successive writers who didn't follow up on the idea. Did they do so consciously or not?...

The only reason why there wasn't eventually an episode of Star Trek with a woman starship captain was because no staff writer came up with a plot where a new C.O. was necessary...female, Asian, hindu or white male. They managed to fill up the season without it being a necessity...

 

[Warped9]

The only reason why there wasn't eventually an episode of Star Trek with a woman starship captain was because no staff writer came up with a plot where a new C.O. was necessary...female, Asian, hindu or white male. They managed to fill up the season without it being a necessity...

But we did get episodes with other command officers of ships or bases: Commodore Stone, Captain Chandra, Captain Krasnoski, Commodore Mendez, Commodore Wesley, Commodore Decker, Captain Tracey, Captain Merrick, Admiral Komack, Admiral Fitzpatrick, Commodore Stocker.

Why couldn't even one of those have been cast as a woman?

In fairness the roles of Decker, Tracey, Merrick and Stocker would have played differently with a woman in the role given (at the time) it could have played to the cliche of female frailty. And this despite Kirk's own brush with irrationality in "Obsession."

This is partly what is frustrating with this recent STC episode. Diana Garrett could have already been a starship Captain who made a questionable choice and now there is an inquiry looking into it. Did she choose the least worst of available options or could she have made a better decision? And is she being scrutinized and held to a different standard because she is a woman?

That would have been a better story to tell given Kirk, Gray and Stomm could easily imagine themselves in Garrett's position. Hell, throughout TOS Kirk has been in Garrett's position as well as other ship Captains we saw. How many of Kirk's decisions could legitimately be questioned?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It is only Janice Lester's bitter ranting that says Kirk's world of starship Captains excludes women. And hence a decades long debate.

Yeah, no. Kirk agreed with her. Kirk agreed that the exclusion of women wasn't fair and reminded Lester that she had punished and tortured him because of it. That's been pointed out ad nauseam, yet it always gets forgotten.

Which by the way was a continuity error in "Embracing the Winds." The exclusion of women that Lester referred to was something that Kirk was already aware of, yet in "Embracing" it was news to him that it really was happening.

 

[Warped9]

Yeah, no. Kirk agreed with her. Kirk agreed that the exclusion of women wasn't fair and reminded Lester that she had punished and tortured him because of it. That's been pointed out ad nauseam, yet it always gets forgotten.

Which by the way was a continuity error in "Embracing the Winds." The exclusion of women that Lester referred to was something that Kirk was already aware of, yet in "Embracing" it was news to him that it really was happening.

Which, again, comes down to interpretation. Kirk could have been agreeing with an evidently ill, possibly dying, woman simply to keep her calm. What would be the point arguing with someone apparently ill just to prove your point, particularly if it's an argument they had had before years earlier to no agreement?

Consider, too, that Lester has been nuturing her bitterness and resentment for years over Kirk choosing his career over her, waiting for some opportunity to enact payback. She didn't go out and protest and petition the Federation and Starfleet to change their policies--no, she direct her resentment right at Kirk. She was a spurned lover who wanted revenge by taking away the one thing he chose over her.

Her actions before and after the transformation crystallize that Lester was indeed a mentally unstable individual. It's not hard to see Starfleet rejecting her (assuming she actually tried for command) not because she was a woman but because they saw indications of instability and lack of suitability.

In a different climate--something more contemporary--perhaps Lester could have concocted some scandal to ruin Kirk's career and wrest it from him. But in this story they used a sci-fy device that allowed her to not only rob Kirk of his life as a starship Captain, but also replace him with the person he spurned. It was the ultimate revenge.

"Turnabout Intruder" is not a statement of social inequality. It's a very straightforward story of revenge. Only some choose to interpret it as a deliberate declaration of overt sexism.

 

[mos6507]

Spock can be a 'stand-in' for non-white people/non-white males, but at the same time it's a weak stand-in

No he isn't. Watch Balance of Terror. Spock is used specifically as a symbol of minority prejudice when he's a target of bigotry. Kirk calls it out directly, saying (paraphrased) "I'll have no bigotry on my ship."

While the Federation as a whole is supposed to be fair and balanced, not all within the Federation were supposed to be perfect, at least not in TOS. And this issue rears up again up close and personal in Star Trek VI.

So there's a story to be told here with biting contemporary relevance, that even within a so-called enlightened society that prejudice can creep in. And the flipside rebuttal that taken to extremes the race or gender 'card' could be exploited for leverage or lead to PC witch-hunts.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Which, again, comes down to interpretation. Kirk could have been agreeing with an evidently ill, possibly dying, woman simply to keep her calm. What would be the point arguing with someone apparently ill just to prove your point, particularly if it's an argument they had had before years earlier?

Well, if that works for you, then... fine. But that still doesn't change the fact that it's not just one anomalous line.

Nor is it just two lines. The final line is Kirk lamenting about what might have been had Lester accepted the fact that she was a woman, which is something to lament really only if there is a limitation involved in being a woman that she would have to accept. There's the fact that "Turnabout Intruder" seems to be obviously inspired by, or a riff on, Thorne Smith's Turnabout, a story about how body-swapping helps a husband and wife realize that traditional gender roles are for the best. That was made into a comedy film that audiences of the day would have seen or heard of. That's but one facet of the original context in which TI aired, with the glass ceiling as the norm. It was so normal that the term "glass ceiling" wouldn't even be invented for another decade. Part of conventional wisdom of the times --still being challenged today-- is that women aren't suited "by temperament" to command in the military. That's also a reference to yet another line in TI. If you're free to interpret that line about how Lester was ill-suited by temperament etc. as a reference to her mental instability, then I'm free to interpret it as a reference to coded prejudicial language about how women are "too emotional" to command in the military. That line goes on to say that she was ill-suited by training as well, but that's just the type of circular reasoning also often employed to rationalize discrimination, viz. claiming that they don't have have the qualifications, but leaving out the part that it's because they've been systematically excluded from the get-go.

And to be clear, as you should know because I know we've had this aspect of the discussion, my position is that while this is canon, it doesn't deserve to be a part of continuity. What I'm saying about how to read TI is not an argument for what I want Starfleet to be. Officially, TI should be retconned out, I hope that Discovery does that, and I fully expect it will. "Turnabout Intruder" was an appalling episode. It should be retconned out of Prime Universe continuity, now that there's the chance for that to happen, but it shouldn't be expunged from canon. Why not? I already said: because we can't learn from history, if we don't have it to learn from it. It's straight-up sexism, and we're better than that, I hope. In my view, whitewashing history only enables the bad behavior.

Anyway, this has been argued before, and I have full faith that it will be argued again in two weeks or a month.

Countdown to "but Starfleet isn't the military" in four, three, two, one....

 

[Warped9]

Again, interpretation. Just as there are people who for some reason resent their own nationality or race there are individuals who for some reason resent their own gender. at least on some level.

"Turnabout Intruder" is something akin to the film Fatal Attraction (Michael Douglas and Glen Close) or Play Misty For Me (Clint Eastwood and Jessica Walters) only in Trek.

It's also a messy episode that shouldn't be given the weight many give it and taken so literally.

Starfleet and the Federation aren't mentioned until about midway through Season 1. Yet we don't interpret that literally as not existing in-universe before they are actually mentioned.

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

It did seem to go beyond power-envy for Dr. Lester, since Kirk believed that "her intense hatred of her own womanhood made life with her impossible." Still, she did tell Dr. Coleman that what she really craved was "the power of a starship commander."

 

[uniderth]

Just watched this episode. Man, it was almost as bad as "Lolani." Instead of subtly playing with the issues, they punch you in the face with them. There was a lot of potential here but it seemed like every line was ham-fisted. They created a really interesting backstory for Garrett but didn't even touch it. If they had made the story about that rather than becoming a female captain it would have been way better. The issue would have been better served by a few off-hand lines rather than making it the center of the episode. I did like the pitting of Spock against Garret though, it put Kirk in the hotseat.

Also instead of the hammy line about Garrett's and Enterprises, I would have changed Garrett's name and made her dark skinned. That way she could be the future captain of the Saratoga in The Voyage Home. But no hammy promonition lines about future generations and future commands.

 

[Mark 2000]

That's but one facet of the original context in which TI aired, with the glass ceiling as the norm. It was so normal that the term "glass ceiling" wouldn't even be invented for another decade. Part of conventional wisdom of the times --still being challenged today-- is that women aren't suited "by temperament" to command in the military.

TI is also, by far, not the only time Kirk and crew have made sexist assumptions. Wolf in the Fold has Spock state women scare more fully and easily than men as a biological fact. McCoy and Kirk talk about the inevitability of women all leaving the service to start families in Who Mourns for Adonais. Kirk talks about the possibility of screwing his Yeomans on a few occasions including Corbomite Maneuver and Mirror Mirror, and the entire male cast sans Spock sexually harasses Miranda Jones in In Truth No Beauty. And that's all just off the top of my head. By the time TI rolls around Trek has already set the tone for the episode's premise.

 

[Warped9]

Part of the issue with TOS given when it was produced is that society in general didn't or couldn't yet see what complete female empowerment would be like. The idea that a women could choose career over family was few and far between and somewhat alien to people of the time in general.

 

[Mark 2000]

Part of the issue with TOS given when it was produced is that society in general didn't or couldn't yet see what complete female empowerment would be like. The idea that a women could choose career over family was few and far between and somewhat alien to people of the time in general.

You can't talk about Star Trek as a progressive, forward thinking show and then give it a pass as a product of its times. I'm sure most (white) people couldn't imagine men of color in high level command positions, and yet there they are. In 1966 the feminist movement was in full swing. NOW was created that year. A group of flight attendants sued that year over being fired when they got married (interesting to compare with the Adonais conversation). By 1969 there were huge protests and Corretta Scott King expanded her husband's organization to include a women's rights platform. Trek simply faltered on women's issues, plain and simple. Gene didn't care, and he showed little sign of changing through his 70's pilots and into the 80's where he asked for Troi to have four tits and described Crusher as a strip tease queen.

 

[Zaminhon]

In my view, Trek should deal with contemporary issues, and those episodes are the one's that hit home, like Lolani and Dragon. In our world where there are women prime ministers and presidents, Naval ship commanders, astronauts and fighter pilots, this one feels dated on the question whether women should be qualified as a ship captain. If the central theme of this episode is, 'are women in power held to different standards then men?' then yes, I believe that may still be relevant , but this message was definitely muddled in this episode. I don't know the purpose of making Garrett borderline incompetent? A single scene of Kirk communicating with another ship, and having a woman pop up on the main viewer to establish a female captain would have put the whole question to rest. This was totally unnecessary. This episode felt more like a step back than a move forward.

With that said, I loved the new sets (shuttle craft interior and courtroom) and the top notch production as always and the guest actors were fantastic. I really enjoyed the scenes involving the Hood. Chris Doohan did an excellent job channeling his father. Great job by all the cast.

 

[Phoenix219]

The Heavy handedness and social messages are obviously the main "agenda" of STC and is an ongoing string beginning with the Turnabout Intruder vignette, continuing in Lolani, continuing in Fairest and Divided (more freedom/oppression themes) and now continuing in Winds.... when binge watching, the small arcs and themes will probably draw things together into a more cohesive storyline (especially when the Hood is dealt with further) ... I'm starting to think that STC will be best judged in its entirety at its completion.

 

[Zaminhon]

If they revisit the Hood, they should also revisit Garrett, because they treated her as much of a mystery and left as many questions unanswered about her.

 

[Kevin James]

It wasn't one of their best episodes, but they can't always hit all them out of the park. STC is the only real trek out there, so I accept the good with the not so good. I think the acting gets better and better with each new episode (with some exceptions). I agreee with Zaminhon that Chris Doohan's performance was wonderful!! I forget sometimes that it's not his dad.

 

[DarKush]

No he isn't. Watch Balance of Terror. Spock is used specifically as a symbol of minority prejudice when he's a target of bigotry. Kirk calls it out directly, saying (paraphrased) "I'll have no bigotry on my ship."

While the Federation as a whole is supposed to be fair and balanced, not all within the Federation were supposed to be perfect, at least not in TOS. And this issue rears up again up close and personal in Star Trek VI.

So there's a story to be told here with biting contemporary relevance, that even within a so-called enlightened society that prejudice can creep in. And the flipside rebuttal that taken to extremes the race or gender 'card' could be exploited for leverage or lead to PC witch-hunts.

I see you didn't quote my full statement on why I felt Spock was a weak stand-in. Let me elaborate. Using a white actor to represent non-white people or an issue that did and does continue to affect a lot of non-white people, is putting the exploration of prejudice on shaky ground, if not a backhanded insult, though that was not likely intended. But doing so can become an exercise of whites talking to whites, which perhaps is what the writers had intended, with non-whites being incidental to the conversation even if they are supposedly the focus of it.

And that might hurt as much as help, because it didn't create real empathy for non-white characters and by extension people. It might have been easy for whites (the potential intended audience) to identify with Spock's plight more because the actor shared their skin color, as opposed to being able to put yourself in a non-white person's shoes. As I had alluded to before, the audience might get it because it happens to a person who looks like them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can extend the same empathy or consideration to characters that don't look like them, which sort of defeats what the very special episode proposes to do or be about.

And it also reminds me of how some movies dealing with the tortured racial history of the US focus more on white characters in the piece. It has to have a white filter, whatever injustice has to be seen, understood, and judged wrong by white characters to have relevance, as if that's giving license to the audience (and not only just white people in the audience here are given that license) to care or be outraged. So in that sense Spock is a weak stand-in to use for an example of prejudice against non-whites because the actor and the character himself are not non-white.

As for the other stuff you wrote, I agree that the Federation during TOS was not perfect. I didn't say that it was. I watched Star Trek VI again the other day and I was a bit taken aback-not sure why-about how biased they allowed the characters to be, and I was fine with that because it felt more organic and real to me than having them otherwise. I also have no problem with the idea that there is a story to be told in this STC episode. As for the flip side stuff, I think I see what you're saying but I put much stock in that mythological FOX News deck of cards.

 

[DarKush]

^^ See my post above yours. TOS did in fact state Stone and another non-White character had commanded starships.

I'm leery about the one degree of deviation point, however you did make good examples with Commodore Stone and I looked up Captain Chandra. And you also made a very good point about the near invisibility of women of color on TOS.

The deviation thing concerns me because it is quite a gulf between doing an one episode or so extended cameo versus being a fully functioning, three-dimensional character, even in a one shot episode. The only non-white character that I think achieved that was Khan on TOS.

Arguably Dr. Daystrom came close but I would need to watch that episode again. It's very arguable that we got that with either Sulu or Uhura. The one degree of deviation in my mind sounds almost like equal footing here between white male and non-white male characters on TOS and I don't think that was the case, like some kind of interracial old boys club on the TOS set was taking part in stifling development or creation of female captains, and I doubt there were many, or really any, people of color (male or female) calling the shots on TOS.