Article: ‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Needs to Imagine More for Its Female Characters

[AntonyF]

At Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/star-trek-strange-new-worlds-season-3-women-romance-2000660935

I feel the article has some merit, but I also feel it's grasping at straws a bit.

A lot of what it describes in terms of story weakness can be attributed to the just general writing.. and as the article acknowledges it's a large female cast, so women are going to get the brunt of that story weakness. Not knowing what to do with the female cast is a result of that storytelling not I would say as a result of them being female. M'Benga is equally neglected, for example.

He takes aim at the relationship stuff, and I do agree with that. There's too much of it and Chapel is out of one then into another - but I put that down to more of an obsession in using Chapel rather than her being a plot device for men.

"Even Una and Uhura couldn’t escape this heteronormative focusing either" and terms like that just annoy me as most people are heterosexual... there's almost this shame bestowed upon a show because a small group of people aren't swinging every which way sexually.

He also takes aim at Batel being a plot device for the male Pike but Pike is the main actor. It's no difference to people like Vash, who are there to serve the main character's plot not their own.

I feel like I'm now criticising a lot... but actually it's not a bad article. I think the author is right about a lot of the show's story weaknesses. I'm just not sure gender is the source of the issue.

 

[Starflight]

I'm normally highly sensitive to this kind of thing, but even I think the article is stretching. Una having an ex-boyfriend is hardly the character falling victim to "heteronormative focusing", that's just batshit. The character of Doug hardly cheapens Una or reduces her to a romantic prop either; on the contrary it makes it feel like she has a life outside what's seen on-screen.

The one criticism the article offers that I would agree with is that Spock's romantic connections are more about the way they affect him rather than how they affect both parties equally - though I wonder if this is more easily explained by the writers' obsession with "canon", and wanting every single minor thing that happens to Spock in SNW to be a profound emotional event that "makes him the man we saw in TOS" or whatever. But it does feel like Chapel was partly cast aside the instant her romantic drama with Spock was resolved, and T'Pring vanished entirely, so that is a fair point.

I'd venture that most of the issues the article raises are a symptom of fanficiton-influenced writing, which works brilliantly on Ao3 but terribly on a big-budget TV series.

 

[The Librarian]

It's absolutely a weakness of the show that there has been precisely one (1) explicitly LGBT character, who was a villain, and a one-word implication that maybe Chapel has considered dating a woman at some point. There have been no queer relationships at all even with side characters and that stands out given how much the show focuses romances, especially Spock's love life. It's a throwback to the Berman era and very noticeable compared to Picard, Lower Decks, and especially Discovery.

 

[FederationHistorian]

In TOS, Una, Uhura and Chapel were original portrayed as heteronormative characters. Not sure what the author is looking for here; for Uhura to be re-imagined as queer, or Una being revealed as being born a boy? There’s nothing wrong with how they are. So, there’s nothing wrong with them in heteronormative relationships. That said, once SNW revealed Chapel as bisexual, they owed it to their audience to show that. Though if they did, it would still be a romance subplot that the article takes issue with.

Next, the author does not really think critically about how these romances serve everyone.

Pike’s the main character. Batel is going to serve the development of Pike as he’s the main character. Now, if the article wanted to complain that it feels like Pike loves Batel more than Batel loves Pike, that would be a valid critique to explore. And there are probably a dozen of critiques of Batel to be made that do not have to do with her romance of Pike at all.

Una’s romance shows that she has a life outside of Starfleet and isn’t just daydreaming about Pike like in the original TOS pilot. It also gave an opportunity to show how close Spock and Una are as friends, which is just as, if not more, important to show.

Spock’s romances are to explain how he becomes the Spock of TOS. And the article is selling short how complex his SNW romances are. Yes, he’s involved with La’an – a La’an that’s progressively becoming less guarded btw, though the article ignores that development that’s been going on with her since T&T&T - but he was also involved with Chapel and T’Pring as well. Those involved with Vulcans end up with psychic bonds; this was established in ENT. They are all sharing thoughts and dreams, some of them romantic, with one another. And Kirk’s probably dreaming about those four as well. The author really does understate how Spock’s romances might affect more than just Spock once its over. And does present an opportunity for exploring relationships that are not heteronormative.

Uhura’s allows an exploration of a side of her not seen in TOS. SNW has been trying to show multiple sides of Uhura not seen in TOS before, to make up for how underdeveloped that character was.

Chapel’s romance with Korby had to happen regardless. It’s inescapable. The only question that remains is will it fade away into the background, or are they going to complicate it with a bunch of melodrama on the way to its doomed fate in TOS.

The article’s biggest issue seems to be that the romances were not written very well to ignore their shortcomings. And that S3 did not take any risks. And it remains a very safe show.

 

[Dar70]

Well considering the show has only 16 episodes left. It doesn't matter at this point.