Kirk drift—misremembering a character…

[CorporalCaptain]

I think it's clear that our man Chris has the hots for Orion women, and he may have sexual fantasies about having them serve him as slaves, but I'm not sure if he should be judged by his sexual fantasies. I'm sure a lot of people have sexual fantasies that would be considered unsavory if they were known by the general public. The question is if Pike would actually do it. If Pike actually had the chance to own Orion slaves, would he? I doubt it, but YMMV.

Exactly.

This nuanced perspective is a far cry from the premise that Star Trek is devoid of any and all misogyny. The fact that there are characters present who sanction it, who engage in it without rising above it the way Pike might/arguably would/probably would, is enough to find it a mistaken premise.

 

[MikHutch]

Exactly.

This nuanced perspective is a far cry from the premise that Star Trek is devoid of any and all misogyny. The fact that there are characters present who sanction it, who engage in it without rising above it the way Pike might/arguably would/probably would, is enough to find it a mistaken premise.

Yea yet there are people who get offended by this being pointed out but say everyone else is too offended

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Getting back to Kirk, by his own admission he is a flawed character. Exhibit A, his climactic speech in "A Taste of Armageddon," after he's initiated his gambit apocalyptic [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/23.htm]:

ANAN: There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves. We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your General Order Twenty Four.
KIRK: All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative I've given you. Peace or utter destruction. It's up to you.​

 

[MikHutch]

This is the kind of Kirk people always forget. He also followed the regulations often

 

[Sci]

In “The Cage” there is no mention of the Federation (given it hadn’t been invented yet). There is also nothing to establish the Orion colonies are also Earth colonies, although it’s not impossible. Humans could have established deep space colonies that didn’t necessarily follow the conventions established back on Earth.

So the Orion colonies are either alien worlds where slavery is an established part of their society or they’re worlds (or world) where a human society has regressed to re-embrace slavery.

We simply don’t have enough information. And as mentioned upthread green slave women might be the most notorious aspect known of the Orion colonies, but certainly not the only thing that goes on there. Given what we learn when the idea of the Federation is introduced into TOS it’s highly unlikely, but not impossible, the UFP would have members where slavery was an accepted norm. Much more likely such worlds would be alien cultures and not actual members of the Federation.

None of these in-universe hypotheses are relevant to a real-life analysis of whether "The Cage" is a misogynistic text.

 

[T'Bonz]

Can we quit trying to act like the past is some precious thing beyond criticism? Because I'm beyond tired of that. We can judge the past and we should because not everyone back then liked it. Otherwise we'd never actually progress

I'd rather confront the past then hear people whine about how the present is too woke or whatever else such nonsense

The problem is, too many act as if people in the past were exactly the same as people today. They weren't. Different times, different society. So you can't fully judge them by today's standards.

I could say more, but this is TOS not TNZ, so I'll drop back other than to say since we're here today, obviously today's actions are more important to us (or should be) than yesterday's actions.

Kirk was a typical male action hero of the 1960s. He wasn't all alpha, interestingly enough, which in my viewpoint made him even better. Alphas tend to be narcissistic pains in the ass.

 

[Sci]

The problem is, too many act as if people in the past were exactly the same as people today. They weren't. Different times, different society. So you can't fully judge them by today's standards.

Of course you can. It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, to judge both the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation and its 1915 fans as being white supremacists, even though both reflected a very different society than we live in today.

You just have to accept that the goal of such evaluations does not include feeling sympathy or empathy for the subjects being so evaluated.

 

[Phoenix219]

This is why I sometimes feel like every Star Trek show after the original are sequels to The Wrath of Khan.... As if TOS and TMP were the alternate universe and everything else takes place in a new one.

Obvi it's not the case, but that's the feeling I get.

I've always kind of liked that idea. Both stories involve Kirk getting his command back, and I'd like to think in one universe, he learned it early, and anything after TMP is wide open for new adventures.

Then in the other universe, the ship was old, and had already looked that way, explaining all of the inconsistancies in II and III, and Kirk had been benched the entire time, after TOS. He didn't need to learn his lesson twice. He got his command back once in each universe. In the second universe, its post TVH instead of post TMP.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I'm pretty sure that the OP has said at several points in this thread that the topic is not limited to the character of Kirk; it's meant to be about character drift generally.

Well maybe he should've titled it "Character Drift," then.

 

[MikHutch]

The problem is, too many act as if people in the past were exactly the same as people today. They weren't. Different times, different society. So you can't fully judge them by today's standards.

I could say more, but this is TOS not TNZ, so I'll drop back other than to say since we're here today, obviously today's actions are more important to us (or should be) than yesterday's actions.

Kirk was a typical male action hero of the 1960s. He wasn't all alpha, interestingly enough, which in my viewpoint made him even better. Alphas tend to be narcissistic pains in the ass.

Idk. I feel it's fair to judge the past because its mistakes are part of what our present actions are trying to fix. I just get annoyed at fragile folks acting like the past is some sacred cow and get more offended by things like pointing out racism existing back then than racism existing back then. I actually like when shows improve as time goes on and I don't feel defensive when anyone acknowledges history was often awful

Of course you can. It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, to judge both the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation and its 1915 fans as being white supremacists, even though both reflected a very different society than we live in today.

You just have to accept that the goal of such evaluations does not include feeling sympathy or empathy for the subjects being so evaluated.

Yeah, I'm not going to ignore a show or being racist or sexist back then, for example. If a modern show is more progressive then I would accept it's better than an older one that wasn't

 

[Warped9]

Of course you can. It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, to judge both the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation and its 1915 fans as being white supremacists, even though both reflected a very different society than we live in today.

You just have to accept that the goal of such evaluations does not include feeling sympathy or empathy for the subjects being so evaluated.

It is always easy to expect that more could have been done in the past if only people had tried harder. But change rarely happens overnight. More often than not change is gradual and people do what is possible given the circumstances that exist. It’s not a cop out, it’s the way it is.

It’s also easy to assume things are automatically so much better today. In many cases that can be true, but sometimes it’s not. Today’s television landscape is very different than it was in the 1960s and ‘70s. It’s certainly more visually graphic today, but I would argue television can often be more cowardly than in the past in dealing with controversial subjects.

 

[MikHutch]

How in any way is modern tv more cowardly? You couldn't even show an interracial couple back then

And how does "the way it is" somehow mean people have to be so fragile when talking about the past?

 

[Warped9]

Who is being fragile? The one who can look at the past and put things in context or the one who gets uncomfortable faced with a controversial subject.

Seems to me some are upset because others are not getting their shorts in a knot over something controversial. Slavery was not okay then either, but we can put it in context and not take it as as obvious evidence the people who wrote the story must be degenerates just because they made a reference to it.

 

[fireproof78]

Hyperbole over people being offended is not helpful.

Yes, the past had its bumps. We are looking at it now and our current reactions. Rather than dismissing them, it could potentially be helpful to acknowledge them even in the point of disagreement.

I've always liked Pike; doesn't make my discomfort with some aspects of the Cage any less.

 

[Warped9]

Hyperbole over people being offended is not helpful.

Yes, the past had its bumps. We are looking at it now and our current reactions. Rather than dismissing them, it could potentially be helpful to acknowledge them even in the point of disagreement.

I've always liked Pike; doesn't make my discomfort with some aspects of the Cage any less.

Fine. But sometimes things are put into a story to be uncomfortable. “Plato’s Stepchildren” is an excellent example. These things are supposed to be disturbing.

And no one here is dismissing things that were uncomfortable in the past. We just see it differently.

 

[fireproof78]

And no one here is dismissing things that were uncomfortable in the past. We just see it differently.

As do I. As I said, I have no problems with seeing it differently. But, if we are going to say "This character is different from the past" and utilize this character going forward how do we explore this character in a 2023's context.

 

[M'Sharak]

Well maybe he should've titled it "Character Drift," then.

Perhaps, but "Kirk Drift" is also referencing the title of the linked article.

In any case, it's meant as a starting point, since the Kirk character presents so many examples of the effect. Ultimately, the article doesn't adhere only to that character, so there's no real reason for this discussion to limit itself to only Kirk.

 

[T'Bonz]

I don't think anyone dreamed of Trek lasting for uh, eh, 50+ years, you know? It's only natural that things would change greatly during that time, so of course portrayals of characters may well change too, and in our modern opinion, for the better.

Lots of shows set in the 1960s, 70s and 80s contain things which offend some. The trick is to find the good (if any) in the shows and recognize that the shows were a product of the societies of their times. At least, in my opinion. As always, your mileage may vary.

As for being offended over stuff? More often these days it's a matter of being pissed off that someone disagrees with you (generic you). I'm old enough to say "toughen up buttercup." That's not counting stuff that one should be offended over, but more often than not, it's stuff that just doesn't matter or happened so long ago, that it shouldn't matter anymore. Again, YMMV.

 

[Pauln6]

Perhaps, but "Kirk Drift" is also referencing the title of the linked article.

In any case, it's meant as a starting point, since the Kirk character presents so many examples of the effect. Ultimately, the article doesn't adhere only to that character, so there's no real reason for this discussion to limit itself to only Kirk.

A more obvious modern example would be Chapel drift!

 

[Warped9]

Am I bothered by the idea and existence of slavery? Unquestionably.

Am I bothered that a show has referenced slavery in context of its worldbuilding? Not at all.

Is it thought provoking within context of the story? Of course.