And it shouldn't even be used as that ... that place is so utterly different from "our" Star Trek universe there's nothing there that can be used to say anything about "our" Star Trek universe, least of all the status of women.
I disagree, strongly.
It is supposed to be a twisted reflection of the 'main' universe, and since Kirk succeeds Pike there directly via assassination, one reasonably assumes he succeeds Pike here directly via assignment, because those are the methods employed in each respective universe.
Thus, in neither universe did Number One succeed to permanent command of
Enterprise. It is a valid interpolation based on the available information.
Again, I'm
not saying Number One didn't go on to command a frigate, destroyer or other ship, or that she didn't fully merit a starship command—only that she didn’t get one during this period.
I wasn't talking about the prejudice itself, I'm talking about how it doesn't make any sense for the Star Trek universe as we've seen it.
Obviously we don't and won't agree on that. As I've said, I'm trying to reconcile disparate and perhaps even contradictory canonical information, as opposed to ignoring that which I find distasteful and emphasizing what we with our ‘enlightened’ 21st century mentality consider proper behavior.
But it did happen, or the Vulcans would never have been part of the Federation. They would never have joined a place where women weren't allowed to captain a ship.
No, it's not, it's directly on topic. It shows how inconceivable and impossible it is for such an "Old Boys' Club" to survive more than a century after the Federation was formed, if someway it even managed to exist to begin with.
So it’s your assertion that the Vulcans show no sexual discrimination, and further would have no tolerance of it? Not so.
In "Amok Time," it's established that a Vulcan woman becomes the
property of the man after the marriage is confirmed. This is no blessed union of equals, but rather a subservient/superior relationship between bride and groom. Isn't it “inconceivable and impossible” to think that a modern, strong, dynamic 23rd-century Vulcan woman would tolerate such a relationship—a legally-binding relationship, one sanctioned by Vulcan's strongest female … who was, by the way, there to perform and thus
de facto support and sanction the ceremony?
And yet there it is—
undeniable canon from this very era.
In "Journey to Babel," the below exchange occurs, and confirms the above interpretation:
Amanda: Shall we continue, Captain? My husband
did request it.
Kirk: It sounded more like a command.
Amanda:
Of course. He's a Vulcan. I'm his wife.
She even goes on to say that the Vulcan way is "a better way than ours." While she's at that point speaking more about the father-son relationship, it still bears in large measure on the fact that she's
not considered Sarek's equal, by either Sarek
or herself. This is another piece of evidence that insofar as equality of the sexes is concerned, humans may well be
ahead of Vulcans in the 22nd and 23rd centuries, which explains both Hernandez and T'Pol. It is the
human-administered
pre-Federation Starfleet in which both make their mark.
Those two canonical occurrences (unlike T'Pol in permanent command of
Enterprise in a future that
never unfolded)
decisively cast the idea that TOS’ Vulcans had established complete equality of the sexes to the four winds. Clearly more than just the vestiges of 'traditional' gender roles existed on Vulcan during this time ... and just as clearly they existed within Starfleet, at least (and, hopefully, at most) at the very highest level. It's also
just as clear that these roles exist alongside other, more progressive (and in my opinion proper) attitudes—attitudes that allow for T'Pau to turn down a seat on the Federation Council and bully a powerful admiral into forgiving Kirk's transgression ... that allow for a female ambassador to earn great honor ...
etc.
Sexism, like most forms of discrimination, has to be challenged aggressively and weeded out. Sometimes you don't get all of it, and it takes root once more. This is obviously the case in the
Star Trek of the 23rd century, at least insofar as
TOS is concerned, where absolute equality for women has taken something of a hit—not a shattering one, but a noticeable one. It infuriated Lester, and her already twisted mind fixated on
that as an excuse for her own shortcomings and problems. Kirk also noticed the disparity. His comments in "Turnabout Intruder" confirm this for anyone not looking to explain it away as opposed to simply explaining it.
Inside Star Trek, the little book that opened up the behind the scenes.
That seems to me a strong indication that you may be right on this point. See below.
A voice and a barely there recurring role versus the female lead of the show that stands practically as much in the limelight as the captain? You can't see how that is a massive difference that might reflect badly on the show, the very creator behind it, and thus ratings should it come out?
In the 1960's? Even numerous
women in that period might have scoffed—wrongly, granted, with the hindsight we have today—at women in command of a starship.
You're looking on such shenanigans as being the exception rather than the rule or a common occurrence in this period. The phrase "casting couch" wasn't invented on a lark.
I think it's a difference between reflecting very poorly and reflecting
extremely poorly, to be frank. It's a difference, not a
massive difference.
Actually, I never listen to what a writer or creator says about a subject. It's not important, and doesn't really matter. Just like a painter's ideas don't matter, what matters is what someone feels when looking at his/her painting.
Your analogy is flawed: If a painter was using the written word to convey his ideas, the spoken word would bear more on it. You can't necessarily explain colors on canvas with words. You
can, however, often explain words with more words.
With a tv show and movies this is even more so, as there isn't just one artist, but many.
Not in a situation where the story creator is speaking, and simply confirming what is apparent to those not looking to whitewash an unpleasant reality.
What one of the artists may think, may be completely contrary to what another thinks. And as each puts their own vision and ideas in the project, it's an amalgam of many. What matters is what's on screen, nothing else.
To illustrate, do you think the writer who wrote Kirk and McCoy be reverent and in awe of T'Pau of Vulcan would think Kirk and McCoy are misogynists who will happily go, "She could have been as happy as any other woman."?
Like you said ... it's an amalgam. Contradictions and paradoxes exist in
any person's thinking—in
any society's moral infrastructure. They're obviously there on Vulcan and in the Federation Starfleet during this period.
I think this point started the entire discussion: Early on in "Turnabout Intruder," Lester makes the comment about Kirk's world of starship command not permitting women, and how it's not fair. Kirk
agrees. It's not a placating tone; it's not an attempt to defuse Lester. It's wholehearted agreement with her that such
is bullshit. The conclusion one
must draw is that he's not a misogynist or even a staunch chauvinist, but instead can see that such an obvious injustice still exists in this period, and disapproves of it.
As a matter of fact, we could lionize Kirk even further by speculating that during his stint as Chief of Starfleet Operations between
TOS and
The Motion Picture, he put the final nail in that particular coffin by making certain women were given starships. Maybe, just maybe, Madge Sinclair's character owes her command to the notorious James T. Kirk? Certainly this would reconcile all the canonical facts we've seen (as opposed to simply ignoring the ones we find unseemly), reflect on Kirk well, and put the issue to bed once and for all.
Who do you think started the myth to begin with?
That's another good point.
