Was TNG considered a "family tv show" at the time? And anyway, what does "family tv show" mean?

[Skipper]

"Little House on the Prairie" was considered a family TV show and they talked about adoption, alcoholism, faith, poverty, blindness, prejudice of all types (including racism), drug addiction, leukemia, child abuse, animal abuse, and rape.

So it's not like this type of show talked exclusively about unicorn breeding and manicures.

 

[at Quark's]

I don't think being a family show necessarily precludes tackling any specific serious topic - it's more about how they tackle it.

 

[Skipper]

It's not that things have changed much today. I saw a LOT of people complaining about a m/m kiss on The Walking Dead. "I can't watch this show with my kids anymore now!" A show where people and/or zombies are often killed in the most brutal manners available and they let their kids watch this without hesitation but then get outraged about the kids seeing two men kissing on the same show. You can't make this up.

So, is it really far-fetched that Berman was, well, LBGTQI+ intolerant? (I don't use "homophobic" because it seems that for some people it's a too strong word. I don't know why. To be homophobic you don't necessarily have to go around with pitchforks and torches and foaming at the mouth looking for gays to burn at the stake. Even less is enough.)

 

[Alexander Corrino]

So, is it really far-fetched that Berman was, well, LBGTQI+ intolerant? (I don't use "homophobic" because it seems that for some people it's a too strong word. I don't know why. To be homophobic you don't necessarily have to go around with pitchforks and torches and foaming at the mouth looking for gays to burn at the stake. Even less is enough.)

I think David Gerrold is the only one who has openly called Berman "a raging homophobe" (?).

I think the term you're looking for is "low-key homophobic" tho. It's used for people who aren't screaming anti-gay slurs at the top of their lungs but use other means to show their disdain... such as deliberately but quietly preventing gay characters from
appearing on their show and never really giving a real answer as to why when they're asked about it.

 

[valkyrie013]

So, is it really far-fetched that Berman was, well, LBGTQI+ intolerant? (I don't use "homophobic" because it seems that for some people it's a too strong word. I don't know why. To be homophobic you don't necessarily have to go around with pitchforks and torches and foaming at the mouth looking for gays to burn at the stake. Even less is enough.)

Untill someone comes up with better than anecdotal or hearsay evidence of Berman, I'd rather not put any labels on him. You don't have to be "Anti" or "Phobic" or "Intolerant", labels are thrown around to easily.
We don't know.

 

[Skipper]

How many family shows were depicting LGBT characters though?

Ok, from the 1990 to the 1994 (the last year TNG aired), these tv shows depicted LGBT characters. You have to decide if they are "family shows".

• Quantum Leap
  
• Designing Women
  
• 21 Jump Street
  
• American Playhouse
  
• Doctor, Doctor
  
• The Fanelli Boys
  
• The Golden Girls
  
• L.A. Law
  
• Law & Order
  
• Lifestories
  
• Married... with Children
  
• Northern Exposure
  
• Roseanne
  
• The Simpsons
  
• Wings
  
• Beverly Hills, 90210
  
• Coach
  
• Dear John
  
• Roc
  
• Street Justice
  
• Cheers
  
• Civil Wars
  
• Dream On
  
• Herman's Head
  
• Murder She Wrote
  
• Murphy Brown
• Picket Fences
  
• Seinfeld
  
• CBS Schoolbreak Special
  
• Doogie Howser, M.D.
  
• Life Goes On
  
• Blossom
  
• The Commish
  
• ER
• Evening Shade
• Frasier
• Friends
• Hearts Afire
• The John Larroquette Show
• Lifestories: Families in Crisis
• Living Single
• Melrose Place
• My So-Called Life
• Ned & Stacey
• NYPD Blue
• Party of Five (I mean, if it isn't a family tv show this one...)
• The X-Files

 

[Christopher]

They needed someone like that on Voyager.

Essentially, yeah. Brannon Braga got a lot of fan hate for his tenure as showrunner, but if you look at Braga's overall body of work, the one unifying thread is that there is no unifying thread. His skill set is taking other people's ideas, or ones he co-created with other people, and doing journeyman work turning them into TV series. I've seen it argued, and I find it plausible, that the problem with Braga on Trek was that he wasn't strong-willed enough to stand up to Rick Berman and assert his own independent voice, the way Piller or Taylor or especially Behr could.

I don't think being a family show necessarily precludes tackling any specific serious topic - it's more about how they tackle it.

Yeah. "Family show" basically just means keeping sex, violence, and cussing within limits or avoiding them altogether. There's not much more to it than that. You can talk all you want about war or bigotry or genocide, as long as there are no bedroom scenes, graphic bloodshed, or F-words.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Ok, from the 1990 to the 1994 (the last year TNG aired), these tv shows depicted LGBT characters. You have to decide if they are "family shows".

• Quantum Leap
  
• Designing Women
  
• 21 Jump Street
  
• American Playhouse
  
• Doctor, Doctor
  
• The Fanelli Boys
  
• The Golden Girls
  
• L.A. Law
  
• Law & Order
  
• Lifestories
  
• Married... with Children
  
• Northern Exposure
  
• Roseanne
  
• The Simpsons
  
• Wings
  
• Beverly Hills, 90210
  
• Coach
  
• Dear John
  
• Roc
  
• Street Justice
  
• Cheers
  
• Civil Wars
  
• Dream On
  
• Herman's Head
  
• Murder She Wrote
  
• Murphy Brown
• Picket Fences
  
• Seinfeld
  
• CBS Schoolbreak Special
  
• Doogie Howser, M.D.
  
• Life Goes On
  
• Blossom
  
• The Commish
  
• ER
• Evening Shade
• Frasier
• Friends
• Hearts Afire
• The John Larroquette Show
• Lifestories: Families in Crisis
• Living Single
• Melrose Place
• My So-Called Life
• Ned & Stacey
• NYPD Blue
• Party of Five (I mean, if it isn't a family tv show this one...)
• The X-Files

Of those, I’d say a great, great many are not family shows, but there are definitely some that are.

Quantum Leap, I’ll grant you.

The Simpsons didn’t tackle the subject of homosexuality until ‘97.

The rest… at least the ones I’ve heard of are shows, for sure, but I don’t think things like courtroom dramas or police procedurals are family shows. Likewise stuff like Seinfeld, Cheers or Frasier.

I’ve been watching Friends again recently and it… does *not* handle representation well. It’s about 6 straight white people and the three males often react with absolute horror if it’s implied they are gay.

Edit - But then there’s Ross’s marriage breaking down and his gay-ex I guess.

It’s a list of shows alright, but I think the majority of it is made up of shows that were aimed at specific demographics and age-groups. Few of them have the same cross-generational appeal as TNG does.

 

[valkyrie013]

Were going in circles here.. We here "Kind of" have to agree on a definition of "Family Show' were kind of all over the place. Can't answer the question if we don't know what the question is asking.

So What does "Family Show" Mean to Trek BBS?

What age to start with? 7 years old, like say Y7 for fictional violence? Not like Barney, Teletubbies G rated?
What level of Sex, Violence, etc?
Stuff like that?

 

[Skipper]

Were going in circles here.. We here "Kind of" have to agree on a definition of "Family Show' were kind of all over the place. Can't answer the question if we don't know what the question is asking.

So What does "Family Show" Mean to Trek BBS?

What age to start with? 7 years old, like say Y7 for fictional violence? Not like Barney, Teletubbies G rated?
What level of Sex, Violence, etc?
Stuff like that?

I linked to an article in the OP that basically said, that there is no real single definition of what a "Family Show" is. In the end it boils down to how to rate a show to set parental rating levels on a device.

 

[Oddish]

It's not that things have changed much today. I saw a LOT of people complaining about a m/m kiss on The Walking Dead. "I can't watch this show with my kids anymore now!" A show where people and/or zombies are often killed in the most brutal manners available and they let their kids watch this without hesitation but then get outraged about the kids seeing two men kissing on the same show. You can't make this up.

There's an interesting Freudian reason for that, and it has nothing to do with wanting to boff your mother.

To be homophobic you don't necessarily have to go around with pitchforks and torches and foaming at the mouth looking for gays to burn at the stake. Even less is enough.)

There are definitely both levels and types. And not every "homophobic" remark is actually that. Warning a person about hell is often a sincere attempt to save them from it.

I think the term you're looking for is "low-key homophobic" tho. It's used for people who aren't screaming anti-gay slurs at the top of their lungs but use other means to show their disdain... such as deliberately but quietly preventing gay characters from
appearing on their show and never really giving a real answer as to why when they're asked about it.

Possible but not certain. Berman had his reasons, undoubtedly. We can only speculate what they were. Maybe he even convinced himself that it was finances, when it was actually something else.

Untill someone comes up with better than anecdotal or hearsay evidence of Berman, I'd rather not put any labels on him. You don't have to be "Anti" or "Phobic" or "Intolerant", labels are thrown around to easily.
We don't know.

Indeed. People these days pull the "racist", "sexist", and "_______-phobia" alarm way too readily!

I’ve been watching Friends again recently and it… does *not* handle representation well. It’s about 6 straight white people and the three males often react with absolute horror if it’s implied they are gay.

I call that "personal homophobia", which is basically "it's Ok for you to be gay... but I'm TOTALLY not into that". It's been played for laughs quite a bit, especially with guys. A certain female pop star might sing "I kissed a girl and I liked it", but a guy who kissed a guy and liked it will probably need therapy.

 

[Skipper]

I found this on Memory Alpha:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the alleged homophobia of Berman, Mangels, Star Trek's only openly gay writer, has later observed, "I have never met Rick Berman, and he has never expressed any specific attitudes directly to me. That said, not one single actor, staff member, or Paramount employee has ever once defended him from charges of homophobia, and many have accused him of it. Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star Trek." [27](X) Mangels' "waffling" statement referred, among others, to a December 2002 interview Berman had given to USAToday.com, commenting on the matter, "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who were constantly at us. But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, if he's not really homophobic, I have to say he didn't do a good job of keeping people from thinking that.

 

[valkyrie013]

I found this on Memory Alpha:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the alleged homophobia of Berman, Mangels, Star Trek's only openly gay writer, has later observed, "I have never met Rick Berman, and he has never expressed any specific attitudes directly to me. That said, not one single actor, staff member, or Paramount employee has ever once defended him from charges of homophobia, and many have accused him of it. Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star Trek." [27](X) Mangels' "waffling" statement referred, among others, to a December 2002 interview Berman had given to USAToday.com, commenting on the matter, "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who were constantly at us. But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, if he's not really homophobic, I have to say he didn't do a good job of keeping people from thinking that.

Again, hearsay..
But, I will agree with you that he is "probably" the person who killed any idea of a LGBT+ character on screen, but as said, what was the actual reason? Personal? Business? Not wanting any ripples? Etc. We don't know, were far removed from knowing him, not really able to attach any label.

now was he an Asshole? Oh yes, Typical Women in tight clothing neandrathal? Yep.

 

[Christopher]

Warning a person about hell is often a sincere attempt to save them from it.

No, it's judging their identity as evil. Even saying that gay people need to be "saved" from simply being themselves is bigotry, because they're not doing anything wrong. You know, there was a time when left-handed people were considered sinners who needed to be "saved," and the "saving" involved conversion therapy that was essentially torture and caused them neurological damage. And then there were all the people that the Inquisition, the Crusaders, and the conquistadores "saved" from heresy or heathenism by torturing them into conversion or just killing them. Bigots have a long history of claiming that their intolerance of difference is actually a benevolent attempt to rescue others from their own evil. But it's really just about being control freaks. True morality is about policing your own behavior, not other people's.

 

[valkyrie013]

No, it's judging their identity as evil. Even saying that gay people need to be "saved" from simply being themselves is bigotry, because they're not doing anything wrong. You know, there was a time when left-handed people were considered sinners who needed to be "saved," and the "saving" involved conversion therapy that was essentially torture and caused them neurological damage. And then there were all the people that the Inquisition, the Crusaders, and the conquistadores "saved" from heresy or heathenism by torturing them into conversion or just killing them. Bigots have a long history of claiming that their intolerance of difference is actually a benevolent attempt to rescue others from their own evil. But it's really just about being control freaks. True morality is about policing your own behavior, not other people's.

"Saviourism" still goes on today.. We must save the Vietnamese because inside each one of them is an American!
Alot of politics, even everyday people attempt to "Save" someone when most of the time, don't require any help or any acknowledgement from said person. Often called "Virtue Signaling"

 

[Michael]

The concept that something or someone can only be homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc. if it’s with intent doesn’t make much sense. I can have the best intentions and consider myself absolutely free of any bigotry and still say something or act in a manner that’s homophobic, transphobic, sexist or otherwise reproducing bigotry or stereotypes. The implication that someone can only be, act or say something homophobic if they do it on purpose is not how these things work in reality. The narrative that these are insults and not merely ways to describe a problematic viewpoint is what makes the discourse between conservative and progressive people so incredibly tedious.

 

[Oddish]

No, it's judging their identity as evil...

Since we want to keep this about Star Trek TNG's questionable policy of exclusion, I will let you retain your definition of homophobia. And I will retain mine.

 

[Christopher]

The concept that something or someone can only be homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc. if it’s with intent doesn’t make much sense. I can have the best intentions and consider myself absolutely free of any bigotry and still say something or act in a manner that’s homophobic, transphobic, sexist or otherwise reproducing bigotry or stereotypes. The implication that someone can only be, act or say something homophobic if they do it on purpose is not how these things work in reality. The narrative that these are insults and not merely ways to describe a problematic viewpoint is what makes the discourse between conservative and progressive people so incredibly tedious.

Yes, absolutely. These are culturally ingrained attitudes that many of us don't realize we have, or if we do have them, it's never occurred to us to examine and question their validity. Throughout my life, I've repeatedly had to learn to recognize prejudices in myself that I needed to unlearn. Getting insulted at the suggestion that one may have flaws is simply an excuse to avoid addressing them.

Also, a lot of prejudice is systemic and institutionalized. It's built into the way the system works, and it gets perpetuated automatically if people just take the system for granted. So if you're not actively working to change the system for the better, that makes you part of the problem, intentionally or not.

 

[Michael]

Yes, absolutely. These are culturally ingrained attitudes that many of us don't realize we have, or if we do have them, it's never occurred to us to examine and question their validity. Throughout my life, I've repeatedly had to learn to recognize prejudices in myself that I needed to unlearn. Getting insulted at the suggestion that one may have flaws is simply an excuse to avoid addressing them.

Also, a lot of prejudice is systemic and institutionalized. It's built into the way the system works, and it gets perpetuated automatically if people just take the system for granted. So if you're not actively working to change the system for the better, that makes you part of the problem, intentionally or not.

100% this, yes. I know from own experience that learning that some belief I’ve held for years (or perhaps even my entire life) is problematic can be really difficult. I think it’s only natural to at first react dismissively and with denial. No-one likes to think of themself as someone who’s harboring problematic views, obviously. And I freely admit it’s not always resulting in accepting that a view or behavior is actually harmful or problematic. But IMHO it’s wrong to go through life thinking that just because my intentions might be pure, the resulting behavior can’t be problematic.

 

[Oddish]

And maybe Rick Berman, or some other suit who was managing things, had these unconscious or cultural issues. Problem is, it's information we don't have. This person's actions might well have been similar to the canceling the YEAR of hell, the decision not to take Harry in a new direction, the deletion of Seska and Suder, and basically everything else that turned VOY into TNG 2.0... an unwillingness to try new things. Or maybe he really didn't like LGB people. All are plausible, none are provable.

And I guess now it's time to sit back, put on my 3D glasses, grab my popcorn, shut my mouth, and wait for the topic to degenerate into a general discussion of homophobia and gay rights, which an irate moderator will undoubtedly close.