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

[Kemaiku]

Well that just kind of makes it worse. A fanfilm made now should be free to ignore a heavily sexist remark made by an insane person at the end of one badly made episode.

Not embrace it and imply the entire world they personally continue to build is continuing some of the worst aspects of the old.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well that just kind of makes it worse. A fanfilm made now should be free to ignore a heavily sexist remark made by an insane person at the end of one badly made episode.

Not embrace it and imply the entire world they personally continue to build is continuing some of the worst aspects of the old.

Well, again, it wasn't just one remark by one insane person in that badly made episode.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well that just kind of makes it worse. A fanfilm made now should be free to ignore a heavily sexist remark made by an insane person at the end of one badly made episode.

Of course they're free to ignore it if they so choose. But it seems it inspired them to tell a story mirroring today's lack of workplace equality for women.

Personally, I too ignore Janice's line from "Turnabout Intruder", but that didn't hinder my enjoyment of "Embrace the Winds". It wasn't Continues' best, but it's heart was in the right place, IMHO.

 

[rRico]

Well, again, it wasn't just one remark by one insane person in that badly made episode.

You are still viewing the fictional future presented in Star Trek by the now gone social realities and inequities of the 1960s.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You are still viewing the fictional future presented in Star Trek by the now gone social realities and inequities of the 1960s.

No. That idea has so much wrong with it, I don't even know where to begin.

First off, Kirk's agreeing with Lester is text. It's not just one line from a crazy person in question, it's that one plus another from someone quite sane. It's actually two lines just in that one scene that require explanation.

Secondly, social inequities, by which I assume you mean sexual discrimination, aren't behind us, and I'm talking about the USA, not someplace else.

Thirdly, there are at least two more lines in the episode, including the final line of the episode, that strongly support what Lester claims. Only one line is couched in coded phrases. I cited all this upthread, and I don't feel inclined to quote myself.

There's more, but that's really enough to support a "No."

 

[rRico]

It means that Pike isn't used to there being more than one woman around, and it means that if he notices them then it breaks his rhythm. How exactly does it support the idea that men and women are on equal footing?

It's the choice I make when watching and interpreting the show. That moment represents the chauvinist attitude of a portion of men in the real 1960s.
In the fictional setting of Star Trek men and women and anything in between are equal. There is nothing in Star Trek to suggest anything else.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

"Captain, I'm...afraid."

Don't recall a male character uttering such a line (or nearly so) on the show.

 

[rRico]

First off, Kirk's agreeing with Lester is text. It's not just one line from a crazy person in question, it's that one plus another from someone quite sane. It's actually two lines just in that one scene that require explanation.

Let's just agree that the episode is terrible, the plot a disaster and the premise out of place for Star Trek.
Whatever point they were trying to make with this, I can't accept that the Starfleet of the 2260s could be as backwards as the real 1960s were. It does not make sense when looking at the rest of TOS and the franchise.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Let's just agree that the episode is terrible, the plot a disaster and the premise out of place for Star Trek.
Whatever point they were trying to make with this, I can't accept that the Starfleet of the 2260s could be as backwards as the real 1960s were. It does not make sense when looking at the rest of TOS and the franchise.

I can definitely get on board with that.

 

[Warped9]

Kirk has admitted to being afraid in "Miri." I suppose that makes him a wuss. Paladin in Have Gun--Will Travel admitted to being afraid at times. I suppose he's now as bad as Uhura.

Admitting to being afraid is not a weakness particularly if you are not paralyzed by that fear and capable of acting nonetheless.


The interpretation of Kirk supposedly agreeing with Janice Lester is a narrow interpretation of the situation particularly given Kirk now in STC is singing a different tune. That makes STC even more inconsistent.

 

[Kemaiku]

First off, Kirk's agreeing with Lester is text.

If you've dealth with someone in the midst of a mentally aggitated episode, it's not the time to start picking a philosophical argument. His silence on the statement is not taken as an agreement, his does think her situation unfair, and that she deserved better. The rest is inference.

All of which we are fully at liberty to ignore, and should.

By treating the worst case senario of that episode's possible implications as canon, yes they are delivering a message about today's sexual inequality...by saying that they'll have to suffer another 300 years of it and still not seeing progress?

What the hell kind of message is that? Fight for your right to be equal here and now in 2016, and just maybe in three centuries you might see it?

Swing and a miss.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If you've dealth with someone in the midst of a mentally aggitated episode, it's not the time to start picking a philosophical argument. His silence on the statement is not taken as an agreement, his does think her situation unfair, and that she deserved better. The rest is inference.

Kirk wasn't silent. He said, "No it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it." That's textual agreement with Lester that it wasn't fair that Kirk's world of starship captains doesn't admit women, full stop. Kirk's agreement even spans two sentences (at least in that transcript).

Infer away, if it floats your boat. Your choosing to read Kirk's reply as somehow referring to Lester's situation as being unfair instead of what Lester said was unfair is such an inference.

Incidentally, I'll happily concede that, in general, not everything is intended to be read literally. What's specifically getting me here at this moment is that the claim that there's only a single line in the episode asserting that Kirk's "world of starship captains doesn't admit women" is flat-out wrong. Kirk's reply asserts it as well. If you're going to explain away Lester's statements as the ravings of a madwoman, then you'll also have to explain away Kirk's statements in reply as not just remaining silent, but outright lying, or going along with her if you like, to try to placate her.

 

[Warped9]

Kirk wasn't silent. He said, "No it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it." That's textual agreement with Lester that it wasn't fair that Kirk's world of starship captains doesn't admit women, full stop. Kirk's agreement even spans two sentences (at least in that transcript).

Infer away, if it floats your boat. Your choosing to read Kirk's reply as somehow referring to Lester's situation as being unfair instead of what Lester said was unfair is such an inference.

Incidentally, I'll happily concede that, in general, not everything is intended to be read literally. What's specifically getting me here at this moment is that the claim that there's only a single line in the episode asserting that Kirk's "world of starship captains doesn't admit women" is flat-out wrong. Kirk's reply asserts it as well. If you're going to explain away Lester's statements as the ravings of a madwoman, then you'll also have to explain away Kirk's statements in reply as not just remaining silent, but outright lying, or going along with her if you like, to try to placate her.

He is still choosing not to argue with an obviously seriously ill person.

And later in the briefing room Kirk/Lester answers she is barred from command due to lack of training and temperament. He doesn't say because she is a woman.

 

[Phoenix219]

I figured she was talking about Kirk's *personal* world of "starship Captains" - his well established devotion to ship crew and duty above any romantic entanglement. KIRK *himself* did not allow attachment of the sort in his world.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I figured she was talking about Kirk's *personal* world of "starship Captains" - his well established devotion to ship crew and duty above any romantic entanglement. KIRK *himself* did not allow attachment of the sort in his world.

Then why is "captains" plural?

 

[Warped9]

I figured she was talking about Kirk's *personal* world of "starship Captains" - his well established devotion to ship crew and duty above any romantic entanglement. KIRK *himself* did not allow attachment of the sort in his world.

This has always been the most reasonable interpretation rather than choosing to believe the worst possible interpretation.

 

[Warped9]

Then why is "captains" plural?

People often do not speak perfectly. Nonetheless it's perfectly suitable for what Lester is saying to describe Kirk's ambition for his career.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

People often do not speak perfectly. Nonetheless it's perfectly suitable for what Lester is saying to describe Kirk's ambition for his career.

This is where it really looks like you're reaching. I mean, I thought you were reaching before, but adding "she's also making grammatical mistakes" in order for the dialog to fit your narrative is taking it to whole new level. Sorry.

 

[Warped9]

This is where it really looks like you're reaching. I mean, I thought you were reaching before, but adding "she's also making grammatical mistakes" in order for the dialog to fit your narrative is taking it to whole new level. Sorry.

No, sorry. You are evidently hellbent on seeing this in the worst possible light and cannot allow for any other interpretation. That is your choice, but it doesn't make it the only way to see it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No, sorry. You are evidently hellbent on seeing this in the worst possible light and cannot allow for any other interpretation. That is your choice, but it doesn't make it the only way to see it.

So you're implying that I'm being disingenuous?!? Okay....

I at least was giving people the benefit of the doubt that they were calling things the way they saw it, which is exactly what I'm doing.