Pick-A-Dax

[Shatnertage]

I tried reading through all of the arguments in here, but alas, I couldn't. After the first few pages, this song described how I felt about the whole thing gender stereotypes thing:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5VYJjXL05E[/yt]

Please, watch it and let the healing begin.

 

[Rush Limborg]

And I am absolutley baffled at your stubborn adherence to the idea that people who have a more negative interperetation of Jadzia's character are sexists who want to suppress women's rights.

First of all, I didn't accuse anyone to "wishing to suppress" anything. What I said was that some very negative judgements of the character of Jadzia were influence by a backward attitute about gender roles.

And wouldn't you contend that someone who doesn't like that women are "free" would therefore prefer that that freedom be nonexistent--suppressed, if you will?

Perhaps it is the context of our individual points which are original...?

wut?

Well, at least now you are admitting judgement of character is about "shades of grey". It's an improvement already.

Improvement over what? I never claimed otherwise.

I though it was clear, but let's try again.

People have argued that Jadzia was "arrogant", "self-absorbed", "ball-busting", "hard-charging", "gung-ho", "disrespectful", "aloof", "loose", "manipulative", "uppity", "bitchy", "know-it-all", "condescending", "vapid", etc.

(Side note: You've once accused me of being "condescending" as well, as I recall (it was preceded by the F-bomb, I remember)--for calling you "sir" of all things. Overreacting is a universal problem. Moving right along....)

Now--here's something which I'd say expresses the "disrepectful" element. In "Looking For Par-mach..." she blurts out to Sisko something which Worf clearly wanted kept private--his crush on Grilka--and does so with a smirk on her face. Just an example.

Now, I and others saw nothing of the sort in the character. In fact, I would describe her as "self-assured", "collected", "free-spirited", "irreverent", etc.

It follows that the former assertions could not be a string of objective facts, but on the contrary a bunch of personal opinions.

Of course--and the same goes for the latter assertions, that her attitude should be viewed in a more positive light. I'm with you, so far.

Personal opinions are funny, because by their very nature are inextricably rooted in the fundamental beliefs of the people formulating it.

On this...I suppose we can agree. Personal experiences and philosophies help infuence one's interperetations of the facts on the ground. Still with you.

So, such strongly-expressed negative opinions against a character who displays traits (self-confidence, competence, competitiveness, sexual freedom, etc.)--

Hold on. Here is where we disagree. I think the problem is the use of euphemisms. "Oh, that's just self-confidence. You're not against that, are you?"

Uhura and Janeway are certainly self-confident. You don't see us whining about then. As far as we are concerned, they are not arrogant nor condescending. (I should point out that Janeway is a captain--and that, myself, I would be proud to serve under her command.)

However, self-confidence, taken to the extreme, becomes arrogance and condescension. Those who don't care for Jadzia simply feel that she has crossed that line.

Now for "competence". Surely you're not claiming that we don't like Jadzia because she's good at what she does? Of course not! As a general rule, all Star Trek regulars--women or men--are competent. (Even Neelix, in his own way....)

Surely you would not call Ezri incompetent. Sisko would certainly disagree with that. I would argue that she is very competent at her job.

"Competitiveness". Now, this is a little vague. What do you mean by "competitiveness"?

"Sexual Freedom"--big euphemism, here. Vague doesn't even begin to describe this. Aren't Kirk or James Bond or Julian Bashir "sexually free"? And yet womanizing heroes on the screen is considered sexist--degrading towards women--treating them as playthings to be discarded! What do you mean by "sexually free"?

See, the problem is doublespeak--vague terms which can be stretched. Because of this, the two sides in this debate cannot come to a common ground--because they use two different dictionaries. And it leads to frankly unfortunate conclusions, like so:

--that I consider expressions of women's liberation and emancipation, brings me to think that such vehement opinions are rooted in some strong-held beliefs about rigidly-defined gender roles, an adherence to more traditional dynamic between the men and women, and a disapproval of the recent trends in society about women's role.

I cannot believe I had to spell it out for you.

I'm grateful you did--because now, I see the roots of the disagreement.

Obviously not, because criticism of Ezri's whinyness is not rooted in a Victorian view of women's roles and attitudes. Find something else to suit your purposes: hating girls with short hair, I dunno.

Okay...let me explain how it would be sexist:

Criticism of Ezri, for her personality, implies--by your reasoning--a distaste for her kind of femininity. Thus, women who possess that sort of personality are to be held in lower esteem than, say, the more "aggressive" and self-assertive Jadzia.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Oh, I'd prefer to see it as...self-confidence, in my competence and competitiveness.

Now, in all seriousness, I do not compare myself to Socrates in matters of intellect, per se. I compare myself to him in the idea of being One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment.

That--and his method, his way of holding others' feet to the fire, is an admirable characteristic which I try to emulate whenever I can. I'm not at his level...but he's a darn good role model.

If you are to quote Ayn Rand, you should at least be honest about her job.

She was both a philosopher and a writer--as you should be aware, if you're going to be like that....

But I guess you are allowed your own fantasies.

My, my, iguana! I wonder what your criteria are for a "true" philosopher? There are many historical figures considered "philosophers", whose ideas are frankly laughable. Karl Marx, for one. Still, I wouldn't laugh at his being called a philosopher.

The same goes for those philosophers who claim that there is no objective truth--and expect us to take that statement as objective truth....

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It's hilarious how those suggesting dislike of Jadzia must be because certain people want women to be de facto subordinated to men, seen and not heard (like children), ignore the fact that traits like arrogance, self-absorption, disrespectful, manipulative, and condescending (highlighted terms being ones I have personally used) are not gendered traits. Men and women are equally capable of fitting that description, and it is equally distasteful regardless of gender.

How is it that if I say Kirk or Dukat are all of those things (obviously Dukat to a more sinister extent), and the earlier incarnation of Bashir, that it isn't a gender issue, but if I say Jadzia is, then somehow I have a backwards view of my own gender's role? Anyone who knows my track record of posting will know that I have leveled those exact criticisms against male characters just as much as I have against Jadzia. Check out any thread debating Gul Dukat's moral character and you'll see it. And while I'm not one to discuss TOS often, anyone who has ever seen me discuss Kirk will have no doubt what I think of him. And of course I have made it clear what behavior of Bashir's was unacceptable, and indeed, disrespectful.

Another term that I have used repeatedly is parity, and equality. How is this a Victorian conception of male and female roles? For a relationship to be even--for its constituents to be equal partners is certainly not a misogynistic wish. I do not believe that a truly equal relationship can be founded on disrespect from either party towards the other. I don't care whether it's the man, the woman, or both, who is disrespectful, degrading, abusive, dishonest, or anything that is not an expression of equal partnership. It's distasteful. And I don't see how that is supposed to be sexist, Victorian, repressive, or any other disparaging term.

 

[Distorted Humor]

^+1000

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

"you're sexist"

"no, ur sexist"

"no, u"

"no, u"

"nuh uhh"

"yah huh"

"nuh uhh"

"yah huh"

 

[Rush Limborg]

It's hilarious how those suggesting dislike of Jadzia must be because certain people want women to be de facto subordinated to men, seen and not heard (like children), ignore the fact that traits like arrogance, self-absorption, disrespectful, manipulative, and condescending (highlighted terms being ones I have personally used) are not gendered traits. Men and women are equally capable of fitting that description, and it is equally distasteful regardless of gender.

How is it that if I say Kirk or Dukat are all of those things (obviously Dukat to a more sinister extent), and the earlier incarnation of Bashir, that it isn't a gender issue, but if I say Jadzia is, then somehow I have a backwards view of my own gender's role? Anyone who knows my track record of posting will know that I have leveled those exact criticisms against male characters just as much as I have against Jadzia. Check out any thread debating Gul Dukat's moral character and you'll see it. And while I'm not one to discuss TOS often, anyone who has ever seen me discuss Kirk will have no doubt what I think of him. And of course I have made it clear what behavior of Bashir's was unacceptable, and indeed, disrespectful.

Another term that I have used repeatedly is parity, and equality. How is this a Victorian conception of male and female roles? For a relationship to be even--for its constituents to be equal partners is certainly not a misogynistic wish. I do not believe that a truly equal relationship can be founded on disrespect from either party towards the other. I don't care whether it's the man, the woman, or both, who is disrespectful, degrading, abusive, dishonest, or anything that is not an expression of equal partnership. It's distasteful. And I don't see how that is supposed to be sexist, Victorian, repressive, or any other disparaging term.

Amen, QFT and ITA!

I should add this note: Wasn't the Victoria of the "Victorian" Era the Queen of the most extensive empire in the world?

 

[Thestral]

Two thoughts on this dude. First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just because we never see him before or after doesn't mean there wasn't anything there.

We don't even hear about him, either--Jadzia never brings him up again, and neither do any of the other characters.

Like I said. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Second - and far more importantly - who the hell cares if it was a one-night stand? You're making the bizarre assumption that because she had a one-night stand with somebody it means she was "using" him without providing any evidence thereof.

I was using the statements of the authors as the evidence-

You're missing the point. Supposing he was just a one-night stand, that's in no way evidence of Jadzia "using" him.

I'm letting the "original intent" thing go because that's deserving of another thread entirely. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede that the guy in "Playing God." Lieutenant Atoa we'll have to accept as an unknown, because what Ron Moore said is he "thinks" Jadzia would have slept with him, but it's not as though he's the only writer.

Likewise with the question of canonicity - suffice to say that's there's plenty of things that don't line up (except via very creative hurdles) and judgment calls have to be made. But sure, "Let He..." has to be looked at.

He had every right to be jealous. That may sound odd and "old-fashioned", but the fact is Worf took their relationship very seriously, viewing it with a long-term perspective, and Jadzia having a date (albeit a lunch date) with an ex-boyfriend seemed to imply to him that she didn't view their relationship as long-term as he did. Competition, if you will.

This isn't old-fashioned, this is ridiculous and Worf deserved to be called out on it. If a woman (or a man for that matter, I know men that've gone this route) chooses not to spend time alone with a former lover even in public for the sake of the couple, that's her/his business. But for it to be expected, and for Worf to go into a jealous snit because of a lunch date *in public* is the sort of thing high schoolers do. The immature one in that case was Worf. Jadzia wasn't being insenstive, she was being a normal adult who didn't ask for or expect such restrictions.

I'm going to let go for now the question of Atoa's dancing at Jadzia's party and chalk that one up to cultural differences, but my point in bringing up the bachelor party example was that it's an area where very few people bat an eye about men engaging in such behavior.

And I find it reprehensible for the groom to engage in that kind of behavior, as well. This isn't about gender.[/QUOTE}

Honestly? While you and I might find this objectionable from either gender, I would guess the great majority of people in the world are more relaxed about it. And we don't even know what Worf thought about the whole thing (if he found out) only what Sirella thought.

As far as "using" Atoa - is there ever any indication that he's harmed? That he feels taken advantage of and used? That we wasn't perfectly happy to be the life of the party?

Not at all; that is not the point. Still, I think he shares some responsibility; he knew Jadzia was going to be married, and he allowed the flirtation with no trouble from him.

So, why bring him up?

Regarding Bashir, I direct you to my fairly lengthy theory (on page 10) that Nerys Ghemor already analyzed to see my thoughts on that. Though really, calling Bashir a "hard hitting womanizer" is pretty silly too, because he was kinda pathetic.

If we were talking about consensual roleplay, of the sort that adults engage in knowing what they are doing, then I would not see anything to object to. There would be, despite appearances, parity. But Bashir's ultimate reaction (to give up) makes it clear he did not know he was playing a game, and as far as he was concerned, he was toyed with over a period of years and then rejected.

So what we have is a miscommunication and misunderstanding. Bashir puffed his chest out and tried to play in the big leagues as the nuanced and suave man - it's an act of misjudgement, not of cruelty, that his "quarry" took him at face value.

If Jadzia is indeed as old and experienced as we are told she is, then she should understand the ethics of someone with her age and power manipulating someone who is so clearly unable to cope with it in her level. There is an implicit power relationship here--not quite on the level of, say, teacher-student or boss-employee, but there is a disparity and she took advantage of it when as the older and more experienced party she should have known better rather than manipulating someone susceptible to it, for her amusement.

Even people that are old and experienced can make mistakes - I can't even imagine what you'd think of the Doctor's complete misreading of Martha Jones on Doctor Who. And let's not forget she was also newly in the body of a young woman about the same age as Julian, and still relatively early in her life as Jadzia Dax. Let's also not forget that she didn't simply lead Bashir along - she had at least one boyfriend during that time (somebody she was close enough to that years later she still considered a friend and who she considered hooking Kira up with).

But even if we discard that possibility, why does Worf not have a right to be his own being, even if that's different from what others think he "should" be?? Jadzia has no right to criticize him as wrong or make fun of him for adhering to his values and his conscience.

Like iguana said, nobody's immune from being criticized - indeed, criticism for the purpose of improvement is pretty common.

And my point is, if Jadzia is indeed going to make that sort of value judgment--that she is the "superior Klingon" to Worf, and not accept him on his own terms, and decide that he should be another way, rather than what he is, then she is not approaching the relationship from a position of respect. If she would rather have a Viking than a samurai (which I think are the best comparisons for how, say, Martok and Worf each approach being a Klingon), she shouldn't try to remake him into her desired image. His strict following of the Klingon bushidō code is a minority approach, but I would not say it is unheard of in Klingon society. There is no proof that it is wrong. (The monks of Boreth being the best comparison...though I use the term "monk" loosely since I have not seen any evidence one way or the other that celibacy is or is not required for such devotees.)

Look, this isn't a matter ultimately of Worf belonging to a minority tradition, it's a matter of him being a stick in the mud. Honestly, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but that's one thing that I really do value from "Let He Who is Without Sin..." because Worf's "little boy playing soccer" story makes a whole lot of sense and illustrates to the audience, and to Jadzia, a big part of why he is the way he is. But it doesn't make him any less a stick in the mud.

You can't choose who you're physically attracted to, for sure, but it's possible to step back and look at the potential compatibility of a relationship without taking that into consideration, and not pursue a relationship that is ultimately not a compatible one. Sometimes that means giving up the physical/romantic companionship that might seem like fun in the moment, if there is a lack of compatibility that will lead to heartache in the long run. It's not easy to do when blinded by attraction, but quite doable if you make the effort.

You know, that there is a two-way street and Worf could've broken it off just as easily.

I don't think that's fair at all to discard her as broken or as "damaged goods." She had a rough past, but that is not all there is to her.

That also discards the idea of such integration being possible for her; this "criticism" (which I find undeserved anyway) would only be valid if we saw her not grow as a person. I think we saw her work towards that over time. I think there was still some distance to keep going at the end of the series, but the trajectory was quite obvious, to my mind.

I also don't think that a character should be considered less because of her faith or that she did have a rough past.

Pardon, but I was definitely, definitely not criticizing Kira and I'll thank you not to assume I was. My point was, when it comes to narrative archetypes, the woman who's been violated and clings to her faith as a source of strength is a much more traditional character and thus more palatable to a traditional worldview.

ETA: My, how this thread has moved along!

Also, Rush? When it comes to "having to spell it out"? There's places out there which cover Feminism 101 (not that I'm any expert myself) which would be a huge thread derail.

 

[JoeZhang]

After trawling through this thread I would agree that a lot of the american posters on here seem stick in the 1950s - it's weird how backwards american culture is at times.

 

[Distorted Humor]

After trawling through this thread I would agree that a lot of the american posters on here seem stick in the 1950s - it's weird how backwards american culture is at times.

Stuck in the 1950s since we prefer the nice and friendly version over the aloof and manipulative version?

 

[JoeZhang]

After trawling through this thread I would agree that a lot of the american posters on here seem stick in the 1950s - it's weird how backwards american culture is at times.

Stuck in the 1950s since we prefer the nice and friendly version over the aloof and manipulative version?

No in that the american males her seem to be afraid of the character of Jazdia.

Bashir a "hard hitting womanizer" is pretty silly too, because he was kinda pathetic.

Hard-hitting womanizer? Whuz? In what Universe did that occur? He was always whinny and hopeless when it came to women.

 

[Distorted Humor]

And I thought this was going to be the last post I was going to make..haha...

Both Terry Farrell and N. De Boer are stunning lookers, and by all accounts from what I have read that they are nice , decent people. And I don't want this as a major slight to Terry Farrell, as I watched hellrasier II solely since she was in it.

N. De Boer is a better actress then Terry Farrell, and a lot of how much you like a character on TV or a movie is how good the casting is. Garak and Winn are both bad people, but are likable (as far as enjoy watching, though Winn your supposed to hate) due to the great acting that they did.

Dax is a "hero" in the sense she one of the good guys, and she never played as a "anti-hero". J. Dax was written all over the board. For example, I love her in "The Quicking"(ok, I misspelled that) where she calls out Bashir for being a arrogant jerk. I liked her in some of the early episodes, where she was slightly aloof, strong, and wise. I would hope that I would know someone that wise as a friend, and I enjoyed how Sisko mined his friendship to deal with issues. After blood oath with a rare exception, they ruined J. Dax and made her much more boring. Ezri was a breath of fresh air and I also enjoyed her force of personality after the first three episodes she was in when she called out Worf.

For example, I am not going to adore a character who had serious concideration of sleeping with a random guy/girl the night before his or her marriage (And before you call me nuts, The writer (Moore) said as much.) I could almost understand if its a long lost love or a long term friend, but not some random person. (For example, if Miles was tempted to sleep with a random girl before his marriage, I would of hated him for that, or Sisko, or anyone. But to use anther show, I could understand Sheridan freaking out

Spoiler: Spoiler for Babylon 5 Seasion 3

When his thought long dead wife shows up right as him and Delenn are starting to get serious, and if he was tempted to be with is wife, I would understand.

)
As a note, TOS I have the same issues that Kirk is a "Man-ho" who gets it on with any girl of the week, and Riker gets old real quick, though I do love the fact that his true love is a holographic program. That is why Commander Shelby is one of my fave Guest stars as not only is she a badass in the best of starfleet tradition, even if she is a attractive women she is not the random love interest of the week. (And if you think I am just saying that, look up my review of BoBW in the TNG forum a few months ago.)

However, even though I spent a lot of time bashing J. Dax, she still one of my fave characters in Star Trek.


and that is all I am going to say. I will let the other posters deconstruct on how I am a vile, sexist pig that only thinks women should be in a kitchen since I do not find the feminism hero of the Klingon Party Girl Dax as interesting or likable as the previous "old wise man" J. Dax or Ezri.

 

[Shatnertage]

From what I've seen so far (and it's not much), he's basically a poor (wo)man's version of Hugh Grant, down to the little umm...umm... thing. Seems very inoffensive, and maybe even kind of endearing.

I am an American male and I'm not afraid of Jadzia or stuck in the 1950s and I don't consider myself particularly backwards. Ironic that you're trying to be condescending about other people being unenlightened...by resorting to knee-jerk stereotyping and indiscriminate lumping people together based on their national origin. What's up with that?

 

[iguana_tonante]

And wouldn't you contend that someone who doesn't like that women are "free" would therefore prefer that that freedom be nonexistent--suppressed, if you will?

I don't "contend" anything. I made an observation, make of that what you will.

Well, at least now you are admitting judgement of character is about "shades of grey". It's an improvement already.

Improvement over what? I never claimed otherwise.

Side note: You've once accused me of being "condescending" as well, as I recall (it was preceded by the F-bomb, I remember)--for calling you "sir" of all things.

I already explained why I find it condescending, and I'm not going to repeat it. It seems all I do in these kinds of debate is explaining things to you, and I'm getting tired of that.

Hold on. Here is where we disagree. I think the problem is the use of euphemisms. "Oh, that's just self-confidence. You're not against that, are you?"
(...)
See, the problem is doublespeak--vague terms which can be stretched. Because of this, the two sides in this debate cannot come to a common ground--because they use two different dictionaries.

Now you are arguing semantics, and you know it. Not that it's a bad tactic generally speaking, but it's way too apparent you are just trying to increase the entropy of the debate. It's inane. "Oh, but what do you mean by 'sexual freedom'?" I mean sexual freedom. In context, the meaning is crystal clear. Since I'm not going back and trying to argue "oh but, what do you mean by 'arrogant'? and 'manipulative'? are we sure we are talking about the same thing? when you say 'bitchy know-it-all', what do you really mean?", please extend me the same courtesy. This debate is already long enough without the need for word-playing.

Okay...let me explain how it would be sexist:

I'm not interested. I never said anything about Erzi. I don't care.

Oh, I'd prefer to see it as...self-confidence, in my competence and competitiveness.

Self-confidence should be backed by experience. So I reserve my judgement.

Now, in all seriousness, I do not compare myself to Socrates in matters of intellect, per se. I compare myself to him in the idea of being One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment.

That--and his method, his way of holding others' feet to the fire, is an admirable characteristic which I try to emulate whenever I can. I'm not at his level...but he's a darn good role model.

And yet... you complain about people being mean to you when subjected to same treatment. There is a word for someone who doesn't hold himself to the same standard he holds others to.

My, my, iguana! I wonder what your criteria are for a "true" philosopher?

I'll leave you wondering. That's matter for another debate.

I should add this note: Wasn't the Victoria of the "Victorian" Era the Queen of the most extensive empire in the world?

So? Are you going to argue that since the monarch was a Queen, the sexual mores of the times could not have been repressive against women? Seriously? Beside from being so historically ridiculous that I have an hard time taking it seriously, it's just plain silly. Oh, look, Cleopatra was ruler of Egypt in the fist century BC (or better, BCE ): it must mean that sexism and oppression of women was already fixed by then! Come on.

"you're sexist"

"no, ur sexist"

"no, u"

"no, u"

"nuh uhh"

"yah huh"

"nuh uhh"

"yah huh"

nuh huh

and that is all I am going to say. I will let the other posters deconstruct on how I am a vile, sexist pig that only thinks women should be in a kitchen since I do not find the feminism hero of the Klingon Party Girl Dax as interesting or likable as the previous "old wise man" J. Dax or Ezri.

Since nobody ever said anything even remotely similar to that about you, I don't really know what you are talking about and why you are so upset about it.

 

[Shatnertage]

Anyone else think "Klingon Party Girl" would be a pretty awesome name for a band?

 

[Distorted Humor]

Anyone else think "Klingon Party Girl" would be a pretty awesome name for a band?

Ok, I will break my self-imposed rule (since this is off topic) and say "yeah" though Klingon Party Girls" would be better.

edit: No longer saying I am not going to post, silly me

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, that was fast.

But I have to agree, it would be excellent.

 

[Thestral]

Klingon Party Girl would be a pretty sweet name for a band, yeah.

and that is all I am going to say. I will let the other posters deconstruct on how I am a vile, sexist pig that only thinks women should be in a kitchen since I do not find the feminism hero of the Klingon Party Girl Dax as interesting or likable as the previous "old wise man" J. Dax or Ezri.

Since nobody ever said anything even remotely similar to that about you, I don't really know what you are talking about and why you are so upset about it.

What he said. Jaysus, DH, it's been said before but you're fine on this topic; why are you looking to fight? Or I guess run away now?

 

[Rush Limborg]

And wouldn't you contend that someone who doesn't like that women are "free" would therefore prefer that that freedom be nonexistent--suppressed, if you will?

I don't "contend" anything. I made an observation, make of that what you will.

As you wish.

Improvement over what? I never claimed otherwise.

I already explained why I find it condescending, and I'm not going to repeat it. It seems all I do in these kinds of debate is explaining things to you, and I'm getting tired of that.

As am I. Of your repetition, anyway.

Now you are arguing semantics, and you know it. Not that it's a bad tactic generally speaking, but it's way too apparent you are just trying to increase the entropy of the debate. It's inane. "Oh, but what do you mean by 'sexual freedom'?" I mean sexual freedom. In context, the meaning is crystal clear.

Is it? That term's been used to justify some reprehensible behavior. I'm sure adulturers would excuse it with "sexual freedom". And again--I'm sure James Bond and James T. Kirk would consider their hard-core woman-chasing as "sexual freedom".

Since I'm not going back and trying to argue "oh but, what do you mean by 'arrogant'? and 'manipulative'? are we sure we are talking about the same thing? when you say 'bitchy know-it-all', what do you really mean?", please extend me the same courtesy. This debate is already long enough without the need for word-playing.

And I agree.

I'm not interested. I never said anything about Erzi. I don't care.

Somehow...I'm not suprised.

Self-confidence should be backed by experience. So I reserve my judgement.

A wise decision.

And yet... you complain about people being mean to you when subjected to same treatment. There is a word for someone who doesn't hold himself to the same standard he holds others to.

There's holding others' feet to the fire...and then there's putting words in people's mouths.

I'll leave you wondering. That's matter for another debate.

Again, a wise decision.

So? Are you going to argue that since the monarch was a Queen, the sexual mores of the times could not have been repressive against women? Seriously? Beside from being so historically ridiculous that I have an hard time taking it seriously, it's just plain silly. Oh, look, Cleopatra was ruler of Egypt in the fist century BC (or better, BCE ): it must mean that sexism and oppression of women was already fixed by then! Come on.

It may have been fixed--in Egypt. And as I recall...it was Queen Vicky who was setting the English standards of women's fasions, at the very least....

BTW...I would contend that the Victorian model of womanhood is (at least judging from the literature of that era) somewhat similar to the "proud", "austere" pre-"Blood Oath" Jadzia.

But as Dennis Miller would say, "'Course, that's just my opinion--I could be wrong."

and that is all I am going to say. I will let the other posters deconstruct on how I am a vile, sexist pig that only thinks women should be in a kitchen since I do not find the feminism hero of the Klingon Party Girl Dax as interesting or likable as the previous "old wise man" J. Dax or Ezri.

Since nobody ever said anything even remotely similar to that about you, I don't really know what you are talking about and why you are so upset about it.

I suppose he was referring, of course, to the idea supported by your comments that said accusations refer to the more "intense" Ezri fans on this thread--in general.

 

[Distorted Humor]

Humpph, dangit, I didn't want to post.

Some posters where generalizing that all Ezri fans that prefer Ezri is due to that we are somehow afraid of strong women, even if we happen to like a lot of other strong female characters, (Kira, Ro, Shelby, ect) but it the character of J. Dax that we had trouble with. I get peeved when there is ANY type of stereotyping. Sorry if some of the barbs thrown where not aimed at me, but other posters. (I am not going to assume why they like or dislike a character.)

For example, that american men are backwards since we don't like Jazdia, even if not all the posters are men, and not all are from America!

DH

But as I said, since its more clear that the barbs thrown on this thread are not meant at me, I have calmed down But don't put all Ezri fans in the same boat.

 

[Distorted Humor]

Double post