Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident

[CorporalCaptain]

From an evolutionary perspective, the egg came first

Yes, eggs, e.g. dinosaur eggs, came before chickens.

But that's an overly literal reading of the question (perhaps your winky indicates your acknowledgement of this). It's not actually about eggs... or chickens.

The rhetorically intended question, which came first, the egg-layer or its egg, is unanswered.

 

[Mytran]

Yes, eggs, e.g. dinosaur eggs, came before chickens.

But that's an overly literal reading of the question (perhaps your winky indicates your acknowledgement of this). It's not actually about eggs... or chickens.

Indeed - I just couldn't resist

The rhetorically intended question, which came first, the egg-layer or its egg, is unanswered.

Not with Star Trek - now we can have both at the same time, thanks to the confirmed existence of causal loops (predestination paradoxes) which are all over the place in the Trek universe!

 

[The Wormhole]

All I know is every time I hear about the chicken and the egg, I automatically imagine Future Picard in AGT getting hysterical with Future Riker. "It's like the chicken and the egg, Will. The chicken and the egg!"

 

[NCC-73515]

Found a funny book cover and modified it for TBBS use

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Found a funny book cover and modified it for TBBS use

I read that in Spock's voice, the way he shouted, "THE WOMEN!"

No one screws with our precious canon.

Especially our head-canon, the most precious canon of all....

 

[irons0]

The one that's been bothering me lately is from TOS. I think I remember Kirk in an episode saying that there were no female captains in Starfleet (up until that time). If that's the case then who are those imposters on Discovery then?

Does anyone remember the episode? Or am I mistaken?

 

[Donald G]

The one that's been bothering me lately is from TOS. I think I remember Kirk in an episode saying that there were no female captains in Starfleet (up until that time). If that's the case then who are those imposters on Discovery then?

Does anyone remember the episode? Or am I mistaken?

Kirk never said that. Dr. Janice Lester said that Kirk's " . . . world of starship captains doesn't admit women."
1.) That line is uttered by a mentally unstable person who is not a reliable narrator when it comes to statements of fact, and
2.) The line is worded in such a way as to be open to interpretation, and perhaps metaphorical rather than literal.

In reality, it was a sexist line representative of the social prejudices of 1968/69 and unworthy of the Starfleet of 2268/69, or even 2256-60, and has rightfully been ignored.

 

[irons0]

Thanks Donald G. I thought I remembered something, but wasn't sure what exactly.

 

[somebuddyX]

It doesn't even make sense when you think about "The Cage" and Number One, who'd be acting-captain when Pike's not around and will get her own command one day. I don't want to pile on the writer but I think they just thought it sounded good without thinking it through.

 

[Tallguy]

Re: Yeoman Colt: "She does a good job, all right. It's just that I can't get used to having a woman on the bridge. No offense, Lieutenant (Number One). You're different, of course."

Star Trek was not always full speed ahead on equality. But they tried.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Yeoman Colt: "She does a good job, all right. It's just that I can't get used to having a woman on the bridge. No offense, Lieutenant (Number One). You're different, of course."

Star Trek was not always full speed ahead on equality. But they tried.

Said when there were three women on the bridge.

 

[fireproof78]

Said when there were three women on the bridge.

Yeah.

As a line it was completely nonsensical even within the episode itself.

 

[Campe]

Nonsense? In Star Trek? No!

 

[fireproof78]

I know.

I was just as shocked as you were.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In reality, it was a sexist line representative of the social prejudices of 1968/69 and unworthy of the Starfleet of 2268/69, or even 2256-60, and has rightfully been ignored.

This is the way.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

A cop-out though this may be, I used to rationalize it this way: Pike's yeoman who died at Rigel VII was female, and having a woman on the bridge was an inadvertent reminder of the trauma of that battle.

Of course, now we know that the yeoman in question was male , so there goes that idea.

 

[fireproof78]

I think that it would be a reminder of the trauma regardless, hence his reaction.

 

[Nerys Myk]

A cop-out though this may be, I used to rationalize it this way: Pike's yeoman who died at Rigel VII was female, and having a woman on the bridge was an inadvertent reminder of the trauma of that battle.

Of course, now we know that the yeoman in question was male , so there goes that idea.

Having trouble connecting the dot here. He not used to women on the bridge because his last yeoman, a woman, died??

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Having trouble connecting the dot here. He not used to women on the bridge because his last yeoman, a woman, died??

Could have been. If Pike's last yeoman had been female, and had died under horrible circumstances like Rigel VII, having another female yeoman might indeed have been a reminder of that trauma. Pike may have been against having women on the bridge without even knowing why.

But as I said, that is indeed a cop-out. Rationalizing things that way is sketchy at best. But it was the best I could do.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Could have been. If Pike's last yeoman had been female, and had died under horrible circumstances like Rigel VII, having another female yeoman might indeed have been a reminder of that trauma. Pike may have been against having women on the bridge without even knowing why.

But as I said, that is indeed a cop-out. Rationalizing things that way is sketchy at best. But it was the best I could do.

But the line is about being used to women on the bridge. Doesn't seem to track with the trauma angle. Especially in the way it's delivered.