Beverly Cruher: Hypocrite.

[drew]

Who cares if she is? You know who else is hypocritical? The Beatles: "Can't buy me lo-ooove!" "MONEY, that's... what I want!"

I could give examples from any classic band really. Everyone is a hypocrite. Those who call others hypocrites are just self-hating hypocrites. Two ideas can directly conflict with each other but each be applied to different situations.

A phrase appropriate for this forum, "THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW," with which I agree in general, but if either someone close to me had to die or 1000 random strangers, those strangers would be dead if it were up to me. Millions of strangers die every day, I'm not about to suffer for random ppl. They're stupid and barbaric. This doesn't change the fact that I would apply that appropriate phrase when considering different options. Fuck absolutes. (And I say this knowing there are absolutes that I'm sure I stick to). I'm a hypocrite and I'm fine with that.

Can I say something, if it's true? Such as, "drinking is bad for you," for example? Does how much I drink change the truthfulness of the statement, "drinking is bad for you"? The answer is obviously no, so what kind of response to the original statement is, "you're a hypocrite," if I should happen to drink all day?

If I say, "drinking is bad for you," and you reply, "you drink every day, hypocrite," what you're effectively doing is dismissing the FACT that "drinking is bad for you" based on the fact that I drink. As if how much I drink has anything to do with how healthy it is to drink. It's terrible reasoning. In fact, the exact opposite conclusion is much more easily reached. The more familiar with the act of drinking I am, the more I do it, the more I should know about its effect on health. So the fact that I drink every day should really only tell you that I should know what I'm talking about. The dismissal, "hypocrite" is infuriatingly stupid.

Calling someone a hypocrite serves no purpose and it usually reflects immaturity, ignorance, stupidity, closed-mindedness, and/or denial. It's common among christians. Jesus was fond of calling others hypocrites. Someone will call him out on breaking some statute or other of god's and he'll reply in anger, "HYPOCRITE!" As if the fact that they break god's laws as well somehow negates the fact that he's doing it. It's a sad joke, really. If that is all you have to say, then you have no argument and whoever you responded to with, "hypocrite," probably had a point.

Drinking more than a serving of alcohol a day is bad for you. Whether I drink 1 or 20 beers a day, that's still true. Should I not speak the truth just b/c I drink a lot? Should I be in denial about its effect on my health? Should I not warn others of falling into the same trap? "Hypocrite!" LOL. Go away with that pathetic jesus-level nonsense. BTW I very rarely drink.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I think Beverly explained her reasons to Odan okay enough at the episode's conclusion.

Where the rub comes from is whether Beverly had a case of the "not gays" or was she being superficial. There's no way to elegantly put this, but humans are and can be superficial when it comes to the physical appearance of their (actual and prospective) romantic partners. If Beverly started out smiling, turned to see Odan and in walked in Neelix, or a Xindi Insectoid, or Ru'afo, or one of this Skrreea aliens, I imagine she would've rejected them as well.

If someone like NuKirk, or NuMcCoy, or NuKhan, I imagine her response would've been positive. Worf and Bashir too. If Dax didn't transition from long legged, cheerleader, party girl into short haired pixie with a neurotic personality, and instead into a man or an uglier woman. I doubt either would've been in a hurry to get her in her birthday suit or allow the unresolved sexual tension to affect their professionalism on the job (which happened several times in the lead up to the finale).

 

[Nightdiamond]

I don't particularly see the connection but I have always noticed Beverly's reaction.

I think the real problem for some fans comes when Beverly seemed enthusiastic when she heard the new host had arrived, but then looked visibly disappointed when she saw it was a female.

The scene strongly suggested she was expecting a male and was disappointed it was a female. She says "send HIM in". She even seems a little shocked when Odan grabs her wrists and kisses it.

Maybe the hypocrisy is how much Trek and Trek characters bragged about how 24th century humans have evolved beyond judging by appearances--Data said judging by appearance was the last of the human prejudices or something.

And then here is Beverly apologizing to Odan after rejecter her, because she says humans still have some prejudices.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I love Bev! She's The Best! Exactly the kind of Doctor I want treating me. In "The Neutral Zone," she brought three, frozen, dead bodies back to Life ... because she didn't know what else to do with them -- I mean ... come on! And the impassioned plea she made to Picard in "Symbiosis," to end the cycle of drug addiction on an alien planet. She's very knowledgeable, of course, and as skilled a physician as you're going to find. She even headed STARFLEET MEDICAL for a year, or so. And she's got a great bedside manner, to boot! I love Bev, so much ... she's my favourite STAR TREK CMO. That's it and all about it ...

 

[Hey Missy]

I remember hearing about Trekkies in 1991 making comments how Beverly was "homophobic" for not accepting Odan as a woman... but the point was that no matter how evolved and open-minded humanity is, Beverly couldn't deal with a relationship where her partner could suddenly drastically change their appearance.
Also, it was established in canon that Beverly was attracted to men, so unless the writers decided to say that she was bi, it makes sense there, too.

 

[SoullessMinion]

Can I say something, if it's true? Such as, "drinking is bad for you," for example? Does how much I drink change the truthfulness of the statement, "drinking is bad for you"? The answer is obviously no, so what kind of response to the original statement is, "you're a hypocrite," if I should happen to drink all day?

In that scenario, you're not being a hypocrite, you're stating a fact. So I would call the statement "you're a hypocrite" a false one, and your response should be, "no, I'm not." The hypocrisy would come in if you told me that I was wrong to drink all day.

As for Beverly, I don't see any hypocrisy in her actions here, though it has been a long while since I've seen either episode.

The way I always made sense of the reassociation taboo was that it was meant to prevent the joined Trill from forming an elite, near-immortal society that did nothing but hang out with each other reminiscing about the great times they had three hosts ago. So perhaps the stigma was somewhat lessened if the other relationship partner was an unjoined Trill or non-Trill, making Odan more willing to risk it. Fanwank, but I think it hangs together decently enough.

 

[Tenacity]

I think Beverly explained her reasons to Odan okay enough at the episode's conclusion.

A variation on the old "it not you ... it's me" brush off.

Translation; " I'm into guys ... now go away."

 

[M.A.C.O.]

A variation on the old "it not you ... it's me" brush off.

Translation; " I'm into guys ... now go away."

I never said it was a "good" or "serviceable" explanation. It was okay.

It could've been worse. I don't imagine many people would be willing to pursue a relations with a Trill who can change hosts and sexes so frequently.

Makes me ponder that Trill host bodies must be made of glass, because the slugs themselves have taken a fair share of punishment in TNG and DS9.

 

[thewanderingjack]

Who cares if she is? You know who else is hypocritical? The Beatles: "Can't buy me lo-ooove!" "MONEY, that's... what I want!"

I don't know who "cares" (2takesfrakes prob)... I just wanted to discuss. And yes, the Beatles (and Elvis) are hypocrites, one of the reasons I don't like them that much (the other being to me they are very popular, not necessarily very good, musicians, which matters to me)

I don't particularly see the connection but I have always noticed Beverly's reaction.

As for Beverly, I don't see any hypocrisy in her actions here, though it has been a long while since I've seen either episode.

That's because you're catching the "was/n't she a hamophobe?" side track. Th original (hypocrisy) issue was this:
She was ok with Kareel "sacrificing herself" for the symbiont.
She was not ok with Kamala "sacrificing herself" to Alrik for the peace.
In both cases a person was sacrificing their individuality for a "greater good". In each case the "sacrifice" was "natural" to the species involved. The only difference I really see is, one saved her lover (or person she loved anyway), the other didn't affect her (basically, "It's ok if it "benefits" me").

 

[thewanderingjack]

The way I always made sense of the reassociation taboo was [...] if the other relationship partner was an unjoined Trill or non-Trill, making Odan more willing to risk it. Fanwank, but I think it hangs together decently enough.

The first part makes sense, regarding why the do it. The second part I am pretty sure is not correct, i.e.: it doesn't matter if the partner is not Trill or not Joined (per Memory Alpha anyway, but I feel like I vaguely recall the conversations that said that). The reason why there was continued tension and some signs of reassociation being crossed was that it is a cultural thing, meaning, they still have a hard time with their feelings, and also when Trills are madly in love, they are willing to break the taboo despite the consequences.

Makes me ponder that Trill host bodies must be made of glass, because the slugs themselves have taken a fair share of punishment in TNG and DS9.

I think it's just like in Stargate: The host body is the one that takes most of the damage most of the time. Can't recall (as in I can't not I don't think it happened) a Trill symbiont being directly attacked (it's been a while since I watched DS9).

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I think it's just like in Stargate: The host body is the one that takes most of the damage most of the time. Can't recall (as in I can't not I don't think it happened) a Trill symbiont being directly attacked (it's been a while since I watched DS9).

Dukat's Pah'Wraith fire attack was aimed directly at Dax's midsection/stomach, where the slug is. Bashir was able to save the slug no problem, but all his efforts to save Jadzia herself were in vein. Odan's male host died, but the slug managed to survive, was later placed in a different species body (Riker's) and joined with a new female host without any significant turmoil.

 

[thewanderingjack]

Dukat's Pah'Wraith fire attack was aimed directly at Dax's midsection/stomach, where the slug is. Bashir was able to save the slug no problem, but all his efforts to save Jadzia herself were in vein. Odan's male host died, but the slug managed to survive, was later placed in a different species body (Riker's) and joined with a new female host without any significant turmoil.

I guess it does indicate a certain... vulnerability. Possible but unlikely: the wounds (in both cases) damaged key things in the host but never penetrated through to the symbiont. Another possibility is that the host puts all it's energy (in cases like this, maybe in general a lot of their energy) to supporting the symbiont (the opposite of SG), so the symbiont seems to always survive at the cost of the host. Means they are more parasitic than the Goa'uld. Lastly, maybe Trill hosts are sensitive to energy weapons of a certain type (like andorians and phasers) and both weapons were of that type.

 

[suarezguy]

There probably is some hypocrisy in her reactions but it does feel different when Kamala, due to her position, was one person who seemed to be pressured by her group into her marriage and transformation while the Trill hosts were many who seemed to biologically be very limited or incomplete on their own without taking the symbiont so the situations seem fairly different (group pressure vs. much-less-coerced group practice).

 

[thewanderingjack]

There probably is some hypocrisy in her reactions but it does feel different when Kamala, due to her position, was one person who seemed to be pressured by her group into her marriage and transformation while the Trill hosts were many who seemed to biologically be very limited or incomplete on their own without taking the symbiont so the situations seem fairly different (group pressure vs. much-less-coerced group practice).

Interesting point... . I disagree though. If anything, Kamala has a bigger biological drive to fulfill the same function she is being asked to do than Trill hosts (after the DS9 ret-con, we know most Trills never get joined, and live complete, happy productive lives. The joining is enhancement as opposed to necessity. Kamala will change, regardless of who for.) I say the social pressures are similar.

There seems in fact more brainwashing in Trill society (it is shameful to be "unworthy" of joining... people's lives are "over" when this happens) than Kamala's. Dr Crusher was the only one to suggest her kind was socially brainwashed into doing this... Kamala showed herself to be highly intelligent and perspicacious. She knew her act wasn't just for someone's pleasure or amusement, it was part of an effort to avert war and save millions of lives., and because in the end she was going to lose herself to (whatever) partner she ended up with, she chose to make this sacrifice.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I remember hearing about Trekkies in 1991 making comments how Beverly was "homophobic" for not accepting Odan as a woman...

And I never understood that. So Beverly doesn't like girls...big deal. She doesn't have to.

In fact I think she was trying to let Odan down easy, as it were. Beverly didn't want to hurt Odan's feelings, but still had to find a way to break things off as gently as possible. I don't see how she could have done anything else, really.

If Beverly had felt obligated to keep the relationship going just to please Odan, that would have been unfair to both.

due to whatever circumstances the person on the outside could change numerous times over the course of their relationship, which could undoubtedly put a strain on it--regardless on the sexual identity of the host.

That too.

 

[thewanderingjack]

And I never understood that. So Beverly doesn't like girls...big deal. She doesn't have to.

In fact I think she was trying to let Odan down easy, as it were. Beverly didn't want to hurt Odan's feelings, but still had to find a way to break things off as gently as possible. I don't see how she could have done anything else, really.

If Beverly had felt obligated to keep the relationship going just to please Odan, that would have been unfair to both.

That too.

Yeah I agree... I didn't even consider that til it came up in this discussion (which again, has nothing to do with whether she was homophobic or not), though I see why people would read it that way. To me it always did come off more about the fact that Trills change... seeing Kareel was a woman was just one more sign of how MUCH a Trill could change, and the last straw for Beverly. If anything it read as homophobic on the part of the writers (or at least as weak writing, because it could appear that the sexuality thing was the main issue).

Mostly "Beverly is a homophobe" seems part of this discriminatory thing where if you're heterosexual and are not attracted to someone of the same sex (or "open" to it) that automatically makes you a homophobe.

 

[SoullessMinion]

To be fair, the show kind of opened that door by giving Beverly that awkward line about humanity not having moved past these "prejudices." (I don't recall the exact wording.) Two problems here: 1) as has been said, it's not a prejudice if Beverly can't deal with this aspect of having a relationship with a joined Trill, especially if she's simply not sexually attracted to women on any level, and 2) maybe don't speak for all of humanity, Beverly? I'm willing to bet that there are some humans who could make this work. (Though, again, I don't think it reflects poorly on Beverly that she couldn't.) I get what the writers were going for there...but it could have used more thought.

 

[Nakita Akita]

I'm not sure that I can understand what the problem would be that she doesn't want to pursue a sexual relationship with another woman?
Is that a bad thing?

I'm a woman and having been in the military I had hsve seen more than enough naked women beautiful and not, but I still don't ever want to have sex with one.

 

[Jedi_Master]

In a symbiotic relationship, the host gains (experience, knowledge, maturity) from the changes to their body.

For Kamala, her changes meant she lost (her agency, freewill, etc)

I can see how Dr. Crusher would think one was ok and the other wasn't.

 

[thewanderingjack]

In a symbiotic relationship, the host gains (experience, knowledge, maturity) from the changes to their body.

For Kamala, her changes meant she lost (her agency, freewill, etc)

I can see how Dr. Crusher would think one was ok and the other wasn't.

Interesting point... . I disagree though. If anything, Kamala has a bigger biological drive to fulfill the same function she is being asked to do than Trill hosts (after the DS9 ret-con, we know most Trills never get joined, and live complete, happy productive lives. The joining is enhancement as opposed to necessity. Kamala will change, regardless of who for.) I say the social pressures are similar.

There seems in fact more brainwashing in Trill society (it is shameful to be "unworthy" of joining... people's lives are "over" when this happens) than Kamala's. Dr Crusher was the only one to suggest her kind was socially brainwashed into doing this... Kamala showed herself to be highly intelligent and perspicacious. She knew her act wasn't just for someone's pleasure or amusement, it was part of an effort to avert war and save millions of lives., and because in the end she was going to lose herself to (whatever) partner she ended up with, she chose to make this sacrifice.

so yes, see above... and then also, the Trill symbiosis is... questionable to me (sometimes they seem to be really blended, sometimes it seems like the symbiont has more control...).