Disgruntled Janeway fans: try a carrot

[Thrawn]

There's so much backpedaling here, it's ridiculous. And mixed with so much Straw Men, they're basically reproducing like tribbles. I've read your posts in this thread. You have pulled out the idea that Janeway will probably come back, and now you're taking that back? Oh-kay.

And your biggest Straw Man to date: that I think killing Janeway is "an attack on all woman-kind instigated by men who are terrified of or just generally dislike strong women in general" LOL. I work in the entertainment business. It is a fact that women are still having a tough time having strong roles written for them. Hollywood being a Good Ol' Boys Club is fact. Janeway was created in Hollywood before she was taken to the literary world. Misogynism exists. It is fact. Your refusal to take any of that into account doesn't interest me. And that's not because I have no tolerance for differing points of view, but like you, the quality of the argument is what interests me. I don't see that here so far. I posted my angle regarding the feminism in case no one had the guts to bring it up.

And your last line is a supposition with no connection to anything I've posted; it's just puerile.

I never argued that misogynism didn't exist; it clearly does.

I never said a damn thing about Hollywood.

We're talking about Janeway's treatment in the books, and in the books only.

I also never said that I expected Janeway to come back; I noted that the deaths of her, Kirk, and Sisko were equivalent in that all three left options open for DIFFERENT WRITERS to revive them in the future. That's what one does in tie-in fiction. Kirk was revived by someone else; as was Sisko. The current creative team doesn't plan to revive Janeway, but neither did either creative team associated with the previous deaths.

Do you understand the difference between "the possibility was left open for a return in the future" and "I think she'll return"? It's pretty simple.

My question is this - do you see misogyny in her treatment in the books? Yes or no.

 

[Thrawn]

It's unequal because of the glee and venom which which it is discussed and pronounced here. Not by you, but others, and because of they way Janeway was dishonored as a character in her death. Something I know you don't agree with.

Right, but on the flipside, you don't see anyone arguing that Kirk's death was because he was a man, do you?

The hysteria most certainly runs both ways.

 

[Thrawn]

And yes I do think it was sexist, heavily influenced by the sexism in the fandom toward Janeway.

So, then, you think that Janeway should be treated equally to all the other captains, and death should be an option with her as it was with them, but that in this particular case the killing was sexist because it was called for by people who hated her because she was a woman?

I'm just trying to make sure I don't mistake your argument; misunderstandings make this all much worse.


EDIT: Mods, sorry for the triple post; I try to not let that happen, just got a little carried away here.

 

[Monty]

Again, I told you. I'm not a Trek fanatic. And I have no interest in sticking around a bbs with so much vitriol for my favorite character (you, notwithstanding). You can accurately deduce that I don't read every book. So therefore, I am here with regards to her character death (which happens to be in a book), not because of the books. And I would have no problem with the opinions of others if it didn't seem so I-don't-give-a-crap-anyway-it's-not-my-favorite-character-so-shut-up-about-it-already. If that's not you, Thrawn, then why continue to get your panties in a bunch?

And why should I care that anyone's uncomfortable about bringing up feminism if it exists? Regardless, my original post said that I wasn't calling everyone who was okay with Janeway's death a misogynist. But you and JD seem to have glossed over that and taken it personally anyway. Which is too bad. It's so sad that this is the best that the Trek BBS has to offer.

 

[Thrawn]

I'm really enjoying how you keep responding to my genuine attempts to understand your point of view with insulting me for being stupid; it's always a joy to argue with people who think they're smarter than me for no reason at all.

But aside from that, you made a giant post about misogyny in which you complained about Janeway's death. It seemed as though you were trying to make the point that her death was a misogynistic act. Did I get that wrong?

Accusing the writers of a set of stories that I rather adore of misogyny is a strong enough accusation that my "panties are in a bunch" (and what amazing amounts of sexism that statement could imply) because I thought it was unfair, and wanted to dissuade you of that belief. Because I feel it is a false one.

So I ask again the question you still haven't answered: do you think Janeway's death was a misogynistic act? If so, what evidence do you have to support that?

And if not, why are YOU here?

 

[CoriM]

Thrawn, I'm tired. but I think you hit it on the head this time. I have no problem with Janeway eventually dying, but I do have a problem with it here because I think her death was called for and given to the readers because people who hated her asked for it. Something you would hate to be the reason behind Kirk's death. I don't know how much of it was motivated by sexism, but judging by the posts I've seen, it was at least a part of it.

CoriM-Whose disability affects her motor coordination and who can't keep up the typing speed of the debate right now.

 

[donners22]

I think it is very simplistic to blame the reaction of some fans towards Janeway as sexism. The behaviour of the character could certainly justify some dislike, regardless of gender.

I personally do not dislike the character, but I can understand those who do - as I understand those who do like her.

 

[Thrawn]

Thrawn, I'm tired. but I think you hit it on the head this time. I have no problem with Janeway eventually dying, but I do have a problem with it here because I think her death was called for and given to the readers because people who hated her asked for it. Something you would hate to be the reason behind Kirk's death. I don't know how much of it was motivated by sexism, but judging by the posts I've seen, it was at least a part of it.

CoriM-Whose disability affects her motor coordination and who can't keep up the typing speed of the debate right now.

Ok. In that case, what evidence do you have, if any, that the editors were any more swayed by that element of the fanbase than by yours? There's even, in this very thread, a post by one of the professional authors that write these stories saying that that's complete nonsense, so I'm curious why you think otherwise.

Feel free to answer in the morning; it is getting late

 

[CoriM]

I think it is very simplistic to blame the reaction of some fans towards Janeway as sexism. The behaviour of the character could certainly justify some dislike, regardless of gender.

I personally do not dislike the character, but I can understand those who do - as I understand those who do like her.

I said that sexism plays a part not a whole.

 

[Brit]

There's a subgenre of fan fiction involving Kirk in a sexual relationship with Spock, B'Elanna as a dominatrix and so forth. I wouldn't want that to appear in published books - though the latter already has.

And why is it that your desire to not see that takes presedence over theirs.

We are all Trek fans in the end.

Brit

 

[Thrawn]

I think it is very simplistic to blame the reaction of some fans towards Janeway as sexism. The behaviour of the character could certainly justify some dislike, regardless of gender.

I personally do not dislike the character, but I can understand those who do - as I understand those who do like her.

I said that sexism plays a part not a whole.

My reason behind bringing up all the other strong female characters was not to imply that they were replacements for Janeway, but rather to refute this precise statement here. I don't see a single other creative decision in all of Treklit that demonstrates sexism, and far from it, there are several obvious examples of characters intentionally created to explore stories of strong women that even Voyager never touched. So why would you think this decision had anything whatsoever to do with sexism?

 

[Thrawn]

There's a subgenre of fan fiction involving Kirk in a sexual relationship with Spock, B'Elanna as a dominatrix and so forth. I wouldn't want that to appear in published books - though the latter already has.

And why is your desire to not see that take presedence over theirs.

We are all Trek fans in the end.

Brit

Right. We are all Trek fans in the end, and we all have our own desires of ways to see the story go. I'm quite pleased with Janeway's death, you aren't.

So allow me to turn your argument back around - why do YOU think she should still be alive? Why should your preferences take precedence over mine?

 

[donners22]

There's a subgenre of fan fiction involving Kirk in a sexual relationship with Spock, B'Elanna as a dominatrix and so forth. I wouldn't want that to appear in published books - though the latter already has.

And why is it that your desire to not see that takes presedence over theirs.

We are all Trek fans in the end.

Brit

Indeed we all are. I very rarely buy Trek books these days, because I don't like the direction they've taken. It's because I'm a fan that I get so angry about that, but there's nothing I can do to change it.

I'm sure it is very frustrating for Janeway fans to be denied the chance to have their favourite character explored and developed in the relaunch. I was certainly outraged at the treatment of Tucker in the Enterprise finale, and was glad to see the books try to set things straight.

In the end, though, all I can do is vote with my wallet. It's the same for Janeway fans, which was the whole point of this thread originally.

 

[Thrawn]

donners - Out of curiosity, do you mind if I ask what you thought of Janeway's development in Golden's relaunch books?

 

[donners22]

Right. We are all Trek fans in the end, and we all have our own desires of ways to see the story go. I'm quite pleased with Janeway's death, you aren't.

So allow me to turn your argument back around - why do YOU think she should still be alive? Why should your preferences take precedence over mine?

Because Janeway has more value from a storytelling perspective alive than dead.

 

[Thrawn]

Right. We are all Trek fans in the end, and we all have our own desires of ways to see the story go. I'm quite pleased with Janeway's death, you aren't.

So allow me to turn your argument back around - why do YOU think she should still be alive? Why should your preferences take precedence over mine?

Because Janeway has more value from a storytelling perspective alive than dead.

Obviously, the people writing the stories disagree. Shouldn't it be their prerogative to do so? After all, if the editorial staff changes and the next people agree with you, they can always bring her back!

I think the most important thing is that the people in charge produce the stories that they feel most passionate about writing. Writers who write stories they aren't excited about produce crap.

 

[William Leisner]

I think it is very simplistic to blame the reaction of some fans towards Janeway as sexism. The behaviour of the character could certainly justify some dislike, regardless of gender.

I personally do not dislike the character, but I can understand those who do - as I understand those who do like her.

I said that sexism plays a part not a whole.

Partly sexist or wholly sexist, it's still an ugly insult to hurl about baselessly at people you do not know.

 

[MilitantJaneway]

Janeway was picked specifically to tell a certain story with the leftover characters

This pretty much sums up the attitude towards Voyager. Leftover characters?

 

[Thrawn]

Janeway was picked specifically to tell a certain story with the leftover characters

This pretty much sums up the attitude towards Voyager. Leftover characters?

Heh, bad choice of words.

I meant, Janeway was killed because they felt it would make a much more compelling story for the rest of the cast; the people in charge deemed that that story was worth the sacrifice of Janeway to tell.

If anything, that means that they consider those characters MORE important, not less. My apologies for the linguistic error.

 

[Monty]

I'm really enjoying how you keep responding to my genuine attempts to understand your point of view with insulting me for being stupid; it's always a joy to argue with people who think they're smarter than me for no reason at all.

But aside from that, you made a giant post about misogyny in which you complained about Janeway's death. It seemed as though you were trying to make the point that her death was a misogynistic act. Did I get that wrong?

Accusing the writers of a set of stories that I rather adore of misogyny is a strong enough accusation that my "panties are in a bunch" (and what amazing amounts of sexism that statement could imply) because I thought it was unfair, and wanted to dissuade you of that belief. Because I feel it is a false one.

So I ask again the question you still haven't answered: do you think Janeway's death was a misogynistic act? If so, what evidence do you have to support that?

And if not, why are YOU here?

I don't think I'm smarter than anyone, but I don't think your typing hands are any cleaner than mine when it comes to insults. I posted that the show's Janeway was handled in a misogynistic fashion. Has she been allowed to have a relationship, family, children, all the trappings of being a woman AND the full breadth of her captaincy before her death? Is she allowed to have it all the way I would hope one woman in the 24th century would be given a chance to? Or is she still like a 21st century working woman, married to her command and her command alone?

If you can tell me that she's had this and what book it's chronicled in, I'd gladly read it. I know it's pittance to SOME readers, but part of futuristic feminism I'd like to see is allowing a woman all the choices a man has without the sacrificial imbalances inherent at present.