If Abrams thinks he knows his audience he is mistaken
- Thread starter Paniscus
- Start date
Who's stopping you? Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for the content of speech.
If homosexuality were an "anomaly"--a negative trait--it would be strongly selected against as you suggest, and exist very rarely if at all. However, it is widespread, and appears to be well-represented historically, in every human population group on this planet.
This is strongly suggestive of a beneficial or at least neutral adaptation.
It's not particularly hard to see why that would be. Humans are borderline useless outside of social groups. However, humans organize those groups hierarchically, with significant and very often violent competition for physical and sexual resources among men. If the competition is violent enough, it destroys the group social fabric, and renders the group unable to fend for itself on an economic or survival level. Most of the social adaptations we take for granted--such as monogamous marriage, socially and until recently legally restraining mates from seeking extra-pair fertilizations--are secondary responses to this basic problem.
Homosexuality is very likely to be a primary response to it--whatever the precise chemical mechanism (a strengthening immune response by the mother with multiple sons is credited by some researchers). The link between older brothers and male homosexuality is well-established. This mechanism would explain its persistence. By providing more workers who contribute to the health and wealth of the group as a whole, but putting soft limits on the breeding behavior of the group and hence number of mouths to feed, the mother ultimately increases the fitness of her genetic contribution.
In other words, homosexuality is not an anomaly. At worst, it is a neutral adaptation, like red hair. At best, it is a solid evolutionary strategy.
Neither are white people, if normal means >50% of the population.
Is true.
Oh, come on. Who does this?
But useful to heterosexuals in the population. I can't think of anything that is a greater waste of time than persecuting gays or even coming to the conclusion that it should be eradicated from the population like a disease, when their existence ensures a greater supply of available females for the rest of us.
According to the rules set forth in Aladdin, which I presume are accurate, genies cannot make people fall in love with me. However, I have found a loophole--if I ever find a magic lamp, wish number one is to turn every male in the world gay, except myself. Genghis Khan and Wilt Chamberlain will have nothing on me.
Nerys Myk said:
Yeah, I agree. I think it's a bit inconsistent to have a matriarchy and practically worship a dude. Not impossible, or even implausible, but inconsistent. Whatever the intentions, one woman wielding political power does not a matriarchy make. Unless Elizabethan England or Russia under Yekaterina Velikaya could be termined matriarchies.
Something tells me that even in the real-world, they already beat you (and the world) to it. Some of history's greatest warriors and warrior-groups famously went both ways, and Chamberlain was alive and well in the 60s
"I'm not offended by homosexuality. In the '60s I made love to many, many women – often outdoors in the mud and the rain – and it's possible that a man slipped in. There'd be no way of knowing."
--Creed Bratton
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Folks say the same kinds of things about Mother Teresa, but that doesn't make us a matriarchy.
For all we know, vulcan became a matriarchy BECAUSE of Surak ... his teachings of peace may have triggered off a round of lysistrata [sic], the 'we won't put out for hubbies who fight' stuff, one that actually garnered significant results.
Point is we've seen both women and men of great power and respect on Vulcan. Seems that their sex is not a factor. So a matriarchy or patriarchy is not very likely.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Again, the writer is the source. Sturgeon, who is probably the best writer who ever worked on the show and had a lot more going on creatively than any of the regulars (and I say that as a huge fan of Gene Coon), had a point of view. If you choose to ignore the implications that are clear in the ep, especially an ep produced in that era, it's your loss.
As I observed upthread "Amok Time" by no means implies a matriarchy. T'Pring's role as a woman conniving behind the scenes to manipulate the rules of marriage to her advantage is, hell, the classic image of a successful woman in a repressively patriarchal society.
And by repressive I mean more feudal and ancient than 1950s.
And dude, don't invoke Lysistrata, because that's intentionally ridiculous. It'd be like trying to prove the paranormal by invoking Ghostbusters.
There are no "clear implications" in "Amok Time," just one politically powerful woman. Sturgeon may have intended for Vulcan to be a matriarchy, but this was never established, and later installments of Star Trek are therefore not changing anything when they refrain from depicting a matriarchal Vulcan (which was the original, erroneous, claim in this particular subset of the discussion).
You got a quote on that? He's a great writer, but in Trek he was just a guy hired to pitch some ideas and write a script. It was up to the regular staff to decide if the backstory he had in mind was to used or ignored. Nothing else we see of the Vulcans in TOS supports the idea of a matriarchy. In fact some might say they show the opposite. Sturgeon didn't create the Vulcans so I'm not sure if his unscripted and unaired ideas have any merit. His reputation or status as a writer has little if any bearing on this.
From what I can tell T'Pau is a powerful figure on Vulcan with great influence. Either T'Pring or Spock's family is connected well enough that T'Pau officiated at their wedding. (No where it it implied a man couldn't do the job) So is there some where between the lines that I should be looking?
The matriarchy thing sounds a bit like Spock being the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Something that seaped into Star Trek from speculation and misinterpretation on the part of fans.
I feel like ST09 gave Uhura the personality of woman using her sexuality to climb the social ladder... on to the Enterprise. The guy she has this deep relationship with is one of her instructors at the academy. Does it make a difference who is nabbing the girl if the game is still to nab the girl? How about having a bar fight to see who gets to nab the girl. So yeah, I still think this movie was super patriarchal and heteronormative. Gender dynamics don't appear to have changed much from our time.
1. I'll certainly grant you that one. Its the idea that it could live up to that promise that frustrates fans like me.
2. You're right about that too, but ST09's world view, if we actually look into it, is authoritarian, patriarchal, and all around Star Wars-ish. I don't have a problem with epic adventures for their own sake either, but I want to be able to expect more from Trek.
3. I don't feel any characters were established well in this film aside from repeating their catch phrases, and Kirk being a violent frat boy *explative*.
Because, of course, a popular film cannot be socially aware. After all, most people aren't as smart as you and I.
What was that you were saying about egalitarianism?
There's the populism of the Facist/authoritarian/reactionary variety and the populism of the liberation/egalitarian/revolutionary variety, and this film has more of the former than the latter. Of course you can make a smart film with mass appeal, that's what ST has tried to do in it's best moments, but this film is cynical because it operates under the assumption that you can't. It goes for the lowest common denominator; offering titties, explosions, non-sequiter action sequences and not much else.
I agree with all of this. I found it rather shocking that ST09 seemed to be taking a step backwards in terms of the gender divide. Several women in positions of authority who were around at the time and could have been involved in the film were absent (notably Number One and T'Pau), there were very few female captains or admirals featured in the background, and few women shown as part of any ship's command staff, the Vulcan Science Acadamy featured 3 men and 1 woman, and Amanda's powerful personality and strong sense of humour were largely neutered so she appeared like a very passive character.
Uhura did better in terms of screen time and a more rounded personality but I actually thought she came across as less professional and less efficient than her TOS counterpart.
I agree the scene in the bar where the alpha males fought over Uhura was wtf moment. Bad enough that Kirk was transformed from a bookworm to a bad boy to 'improve' his appeal but stereotypical hicksville shenanigans has no real place in the 23rd century, especially since they should be drinking synthehol.
I'm sorry, but until nuUhura says to Kirk, "Captain, I'm scared!" in the middle of a crisis, or another female officer wants him to hold her, you can't reasonably say ST09 took a step backwards in terms of the gender divide.
Number One was absent, but so was Jose Taylor. Does this mean that the film is taking a step backwards on acceptance of Latinos too?
Why would T'Pau be present at all? She's a character who appeared once in one episode of TOS and was never a member of Starfleet.
There were very few male captains or admirals, too. Again, not persuasive evidence of sexism.
While I agree that Amanda in this film came across as being too passive, I have to laugh at the phrase "Amanda's powerful personality." If you actually watch "Journey to Babel," she's a very passive, stereotypically submissive wife to Sarek.
Nonsense. NuUhura did her job without asking the captain to reassure her when frightened and without needing Spock to rewire her computer every five minutes the way she did in TOS. Again, until we see Zoe crying, "Captain, I'm scared!" it's unreasonable to call TOSUhura more professional.
Actually, they weren't fighting over Uhura. "Cupcake" was never shown to be hitting on Uhura at all -- he probably was just trying to help out a fellow officer-cadet who was being harassed in his own mind.
Um, TOS had bar fights. "The Trouble With Tribbles," anyone? Humanity has not evolved beyond bar fights in the 23rd Century and Trek never claimed it had.
Synthehol wasn't invented until the 24th Century.
ETA:
I find it amusing that the people complaining of ST09 being sexist consistently overlook the major legitimate piece of sexism in the film -- those female uniforms! I mean, hell, the female uniform variant doesn't even have rank indicators! Talk about putting appearance ahead of practicality!
I'm not saying that TOS wasn't sexist by today's standards, simply that for its time, it was trying to push the feminist agenda forward. Uhura's line was awful but it was probably originally intended for Rand, and even at the time, Nichelle wasn't particularly happy about it.
I also understand that it may be possible to justify the individual situations with the female characters in ST09 but the overall result of all those individual justifications is a sexist movie. They are also the kinds of individual justifications that continue to contribute to ongoing sexism in modern society. They should have been looking for reasons to include the women not excuses to exclude them. For example, Number One was Pike's first officer (she needn't have been at helm) and could easily have been included if Spock had just been science officer who gets bumped to XO when she is injured or killed at Vulcan. T'Pau was the leader of Vulcan and Vulcan was under attack. On the other hand, Jose's appearance would have interfered more with the original crew's dynamic as he was a bridge officer. Plenty of captains and admirals in the final scene - not many women among the senior officers.
We clearly see Amanda differently. I see a human woman who had learned to adjust to Vulcan society whose own strength of personalty and sense of humour allows her to tolerate their culture and remain sane. Behind closed doors her relationship with Sarek is far more equal than their public relationship and that at least did come out in ST09 even if her original personality didn't.
To a point, you're right about the bar fight (although why did Uhura need to be protected?) and the skirts (but they're so iconic I think it's better to have them on balance, although they should indicate rank). My real issue with the bar fight is my problem with Kirk the Jerk instead of Kirk the Bookworm (as mentioned in WNMHGB). Again, you can provide reasons to justify their decision to make youg Kirk more macho, its just a shame that they decided to go for a more stereotypical hero in place of a gentler more thoughtful one who is forced to step up in a time of crisis(the subtle complex character variations in Generation Kill spring to mind here).
I also understand that it may be possible to justify the individual situations with the female characters in ST09 but the overall result of all those individual justifications is a sexist movie. They are also the kinds of individual justifications that continue to contribute to ongoing sexism in modern society. They should have been looking for reasons to include the women not excuses to exclude them. For example, Number One was Pike's first officer (she needn't have been at helm) and could easily have been included if Spock had just been science officer who gets bumped to XO when she is injured or killed at Vulcan. T'Pau was the leader of Vulcan and Vulcan was under attack. On the other hand, Jose's appearance would have interfered more with the original crew's dynamic as he was a bridge officer. Plenty of captains and admirals in the final scene - not many women among the senior officers.
We clearly see Amanda differently. I see a human woman who had learned to adjust to Vulcan society whose own strength of personalty and sense of humour allows her to tolerate their culture and remain sane. Behind closed doors her relationship with Sarek is far more equal than their public relationship and that at least did come out in ST09 even if her original personality didn't.
To a point, you're right about the bar fight (although why did Uhura need to be protected?) and the skirts (but they're so iconic I think it's better to have them on balance, although they should indicate rank). My real issue with the bar fight is my problem with Kirk the Jerk instead of Kirk the Bookworm (as mentioned in WNMHGB). Again, you can provide reasons to justify their decision to make youg Kirk more macho, its just a shame that they decided to go for a more stereotypical hero in place of a gentler more thoughtful one who is forced to step up in a time of crisis(the subtle complex character variations in Generation Kill spring to mind here).
They could have included Jose Taylor and Boyce (the film refers to Sulu and McCoy replacing McKenna and Puri respectively, we'd just need name-changes for those lines) but Number One presents a difficulty. They want this movie to be about Kirk, Spock and the gang, and Number One would be yet another character - worse still, a ranking one. There's enough horseplay about who's the first officer and who's the captain in this movie, giving us another one really would not help the story at all.
That said, could they have included more women? Definitely. The Faran Tahir character could have been a woman, that guy at Starfleet handing out medals and such could have been a woman, and so on. Heck, Nero could have been a woman! Let's have a wife grieving for her husband and kids for a change, no?
But none of those would have had a too appreciable influence on the film because all of them, Nero included, are teritary characters - background flavour, as it were. You want to do TOS, you're stuck with Uhura. Well, and maybe Chapel (and even less likely, Rand) but they're not in this movie for the same reason Lieutenant Kyle isn't.
Yeah, I mention Number One and T'Pau because they could have been included without changing the plot in any significant way. Number One could even have been reassigined to command another ship in a quick two line scene. T'Pau could have nicked a couple of Sarek's lines without changing too much or have been given the speaking part on the science panel. Olsen could also have been a woman.
I'm still hopeful that Rand will be included in the next movie as a tertiary character. She could easily be attached to a security detail or if they want to give her a bit of comic relief, as Kirk's over-protective martial arts trained yeoman who is keen to 'protect' him from alien sluts.
Olsen yeah, he'd fall under my category with Robau/that admiral guy/Nero, he could be a woman but it wouldn't amount to much. I don't see much point in including Number One beyond the film's reference to Nurse Chapel, though (what would she be called if captain of another starship, anyway?).
And did T'Pau have anything to do with the Vulcan Science Academy? That would seem rather out of character for her, perhaps.
Since it's possible Kirk gets a love interest next movie, I'd like it to be Rand - after all, if Chris Pike can get into movies why not her? Yet I disgress, and I'm
T'Pau could have been a scientist in addition to being the Vulcan leader. One assumes that they choose their leaders based on merit. She did appear as a young woman in an Enterprise episode but I don't recall her background.
I'd rather see Carol Marcus (perhaps introduced to Kirk by Gary Mitchell) as Kirk's love interest with Rand carrying a torch quietly in the background.
That'd actually have been pretty neat. Although I'd bet there'd be complaints about the sexist portrayal of a madwoman, whose ovaries have predictably overwhelmed her reason.
As for Number One, I guess we can just assume due to the Kelvin disaster killing one of their captains and apparently pushing the Starfleet budget skyward and production schedules closer, she got promoted.
Now, of course, she's part of a debris field orbiting the black hole where Vulcan used to be. Oh well, can't win 'em all.
If she's in charge of the fleet in the Laurentian system you are in sooo much trouble. Maybe they can draft in Michelle Forbes to play her.
T'Pau's background was that she became a minister in the Vuclan cabinet. Anyway, by TOS time she's the grand old dame of Vulcan politics; the Maggie Thatcher, if you'll forgive the analogy. What business would she have deciding whether or not so-and-so enters the Science Academy?
Honestly, it smacks of small world syndrome; there's just one Vulcan authority figure we know of so she must be doing everything worth being authoritative about.
And Myasischev: Yeah, a female villain would have been interesting. If nothing else it would turn the dead wife cliche on its head a little.
Anyway, who's to say Number One didn't quit command, switch to nursing and stop dying her hair black? Hmm? She could have been Chapel all along for all we care.
Honestly, it smacks of small world syndrome; there's just one Vulcan authority figure we know of so she must be doing everything worth being authoritative about.
And Myasischev: Yeah, a female villain would have been interesting. If nothing else it would turn the dead wife cliche on its head a little.
Anyway, who's to say Number One didn't quit command, switch to nursing and stop dying her hair black? Hmm? She could have been Chapel all along for all we care.