Disgruntled Janeway fans: try a carrot

[Monty]

To say that just because the people involved are women, then there is no sexism involved is simplistic and unsurprisingly ignorant. To inventory the times Janeway has been in the books and say "that's more than enough" is simplistic and arrogant. Because sexism is genderless. A woman can be as sexist as much as a Black man can be racist. And that's because we still live in a mostly-White run, patriarchal society. Most women are brought up to believe that you can only have one or the other or are in positions where they have to compromise their beliefs to fit in a male culture. And male culture is dominant. There have been strides made in the past, but it's not perfect and won't be until men teach their own sons to share the burden of work and family equally without expecting women to give up one over the other.

If you don't give a crap about this argument, then just say so. It's disingenious to argue the merits when you don't care about the argument to begin with. Just as racism has changed over the fabric of time, so has sexism. It may not be as obvious or overt, but it's still there.

And here's the crux of what I think the Janewayphiles are getting at on this bbs. I have been on many message boards in my time. Say this is an XTC board. The band replaced a keyboardist and a drummer during their active years. If a faction of people decided to deride either member, it would disrupt the board. Because it is a community of people interested in all things XTC and since they are mindful of excluding any one group, they would have the decency to refrain from ad-hominem attacks on any particular band member.

This is a Star Trek bbs. It seems to me that this board is very exclusionary in that this thread does not so much debate Janeway's manner of dying (at least regarding the OP) than it is about telling Janeway fans to put up or shut up. But mainly to shut up. I have no problems with anyone who doesn't like Janeway. We all have our favorites. But to basically say "I don't care about your favorite character" is really pointless. And to be precious about your favorite authors but to deride someone's favorite character seems highly hypocritical and not in the interest of discussion but to quash any meaningful debate - unless it has to do with your specific agenda. I'm supposed to apologize because I brought up sexism as a possible factor in the decision to kill Janeway? Please. I know that nothing I say here influences anything the authors, editors, etc. do. But do I have a right to express an opinion along these lines? Apparently I do, because I haven't been thrown out of your bbs yet.

Look, by virtue of the fact that this is a Trek BBS, we are all nerds, geeks here. But it seems to me that within the geek herd, you have decided to pick on a minority that is even more marginalized than you are. I'm not saying that everyone in this thread is doing that, but the OP opened it with that sentiment.

 

[Steve Roby]

Hi, I'm the OP of this thread (as opposed to the various others on this topic, some of which preceded it).

But it seems to me that within the geek herd, you have decided to pick on a minority that is even more marginalized than you are. I'm not saying that everyone in this thread is doing that, but the OP opened it with that sentiment.

Allow me to retort: bullshit. My sentiment was, there were three or four people making claims on behalf of a silent majority of fans, and I suggested a positive and practical way for those fans to demonstrate that this large fanbase exists and to positively reinforce the kind of stuff they want more of.

Perhaps you're thinking of some other thread.

 

[JD]

You people just don't seem to get it, it's not your opinions that are pissing us off, it's that way you are stating them. If you just said you didn't agree with the descion to off Janeway there would be no problem, but when you start calling the people who do this stuff names, and saying that they obviously don't give a damn about the character, or are sexist then people get mad. So baisically what I'm trying to say, is that perhaps we should try to keep this focused solely on the event, and not on the people who caused it, and what motivated them. Because that is where we are running into problems. In fact I've seen several people say that they didn't like the descison, and nothing more and there was not problem.
You have to understand, we like these books, and the people who write them, so when you start attacking them it's going to get us mad.

 

[Ktrek]

Monty - I do think they way you presented the sexism aspect was not as a "possibility" but as a perceived fact by you. You do not know and cannot know motives and to attribute such without evidence to support it is was makes other posters upset with you. I have been a member here for quite some time and a lurker even longer but I have not seen any Voyager members treated with disrespect except for the extreme radical Janewayites who, much like religious fundamentalists, believe that their way is the only viable and right way and anything that touches their sacred cow comes under attack and they will use any wild statements and theories to support their views. You talk about respect but as far as I can see the Janewayites have not shown much respect to the authors and editors involved in the process or even to the members here at TrekBBS who do not support your extreme views.

It has kindly been told to you by authors themselves that posts on any message boards like this one do not affect the decision making process and yet you insist in debating us fans who support the direction that Pocket has taken in the books even though we have nothing to do with the process either. What you hope to achieve through all your virulent and aggressive behavior is beyond my comprehension. Like I said earlier in another post you guys do nothing but give my wife and I something to chuckle over a couple of times a day, and for that I suppose I am grateful to you all, but the extreme stance you take seems not to be in the spirit of Trek at all.

Again..the above is MY, and my wife's, opinions only.

Kevin

 

[Monty]

Hi, I'm the OP of this thread (as opposed to the various others on this topic, some of which preceded it).

But it seems to me that within the geek herd, you have decided to pick on a minority that is even more marginalized than you are. I'm not saying that everyone in this thread is doing that, but the OP opened it with that sentiment.

Allow me to retort: bullshit. My sentiment was, there were three or four people making claims on behalf of a silent majority of fans, and I suggested a positive and practical way for those fans to demonstrate that this large fanbase exists and to positively reinforce the kind of stuff they want more of.

Perhaps you're thinking of some other thread.

Do you read your own posts before you hit send? Because I just read your OP again and not only is your idea inane (put it to any organized protester or unionizer and see how hard they laugh at you) but your attitude regarding the "3 or 4" Janewayphiles (taking potshots at J/C fanfic being one of them) is less than helpful. You decided to be snarky because you think we're insignificant. And you still do.

So the bullshit really comes from you.

 

[LightningStorm]

We're walking a fine line here. Let's keep it civil people, lest Warnings will be issued.

 

[Monty]

Monty - I do think they way you presented the sexism aspect was not as a "possibility" but as a perceived fact by you. You do not know and cannot know motives and to attribute such without evidence to support it is was makes other posters upset with you. I have been a member here for quite some time and a lurker even longer but I have not seen any Voyager members treated with disrespect except for the extreme radical Janewayites who, much like religious fundamentalists, believe that their way is the only viable and right way and anything that touches their sacred cow comes under attack and they will use any wild statements and theories to support their views. You talk about respect but as far as I can see the Janewayites have not shown much respect to the authors and editors involved in the process or even to the members here at TrekBBS who do not support your extreme views.

It has kindly been told to you by authors themselves that posts on any message boards like this one do not affect the decision making process and yet you insist in debating us fans who support the direction that Pocket has taken in the books even though we have nothing to do with the process either. What you hope to achieve through all your virulent and aggressive behavior is beyond my comprehension. Like I said earlier in another post you guys do nothing but give my wife and I something to chuckle over a couple of times a day, and for that I suppose I am grateful to you all, but the extreme stance you take seems not to be in the spirit of Trek at all.

Again..the above is MY, and my wife's, opinions only.

Kevin

You don't know the motives behind business/creative decisions any more than we all do. You really think a press release by your favorite author tells the truth? Do you know anything about PR work and spin? Again, if you don't care or believe in my "radical," "fundamentalist" ideas, then go ahead, have your chuckle. Do I care what you think any more than you care what I think? No. I made my point, found out that this is an exclusionary Trek bbs and will promptly leave for more open-minded climes. You can have your little Old Boys Club. The internet is vast and the reason why I am open with my ideas is because I really don't need this place.

And your remarks about bbs seniority and decorum is really funny. So you have to be a long time member to be snarky? And I'm virulent and aggressive? Now I'm chuckling.

 

[Monty]

You people just don't seem to get it, it's not your opinions that are pissing us off, it's that way you are stating them. If you just said you didn't agree with the descion to off Janeway there would be no problem, but when you start calling the people who do this stuff names, and saying that they obviously don't give a damn about the character, or are sexist then people get made. So baisically what I'm trying to say, is that perhaps we should try to keep this focused solely on the event, and not on the people who caused it, and what motivated them. Because that is where we are running into problems. In fact I've seen several people say that they didn't like the descison, and nothing more and there was not problem.
You have to understand, we like these books, and the people who write them, so when you start attacking them it's going to get us made.

Look to your OP at how opinions here are stated. Who took the first shot? Unpopular opinions aren't appreciated here. Censorship of ideas is most desired. Point taken. Will gladly leave.

 

[Trent Roman]

14: Kim (#1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 26, along with Gods of Night and Mere Mortals).

Should I assume that the lack of a 27 on Kim is an error, or is Kim actually absent from Full Circle?

99.9% of all fan fiction is terrible.

That's a bit pessimistic. I'd say more like 90%.

If you don't give a crap about this argument, then just say so. It's disingenious to argue the merits when you don't care about the argument to begin with. Just as racism has changed over the fabric of time, so has sexism. It may not be as obvious or overt, but it's still there.

It's not that your argument doesn't touch on important issues, it's that your argument is inapplicable in this context. I didn't like either the decision to kill Janeway or the manner in which it was done, but there is absolutely zero evidence that gender/sex had anything to do with it, and mountains of evidence to the fact that the authors, editorial, licensing et al. do not apply any sort of gender test in determining what positions characters can occupy and what characters may do. You need to be able to point to something concrete, some aspect that we can actually debate; otherwise, there should be no surprise that people are having a hard time ascribing any legitimacy to such Dworkinian conspiracy theories.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Monty]

Trent, supporting female captains who are treated well in the franchise don't move me. And it's not because I prefer Janeway when it comes to this stance in particular. Janeway has the largest fanbase of any female captain, right? She started as a captain on the show. When it comes to casting and story, that's pretty revolutionary for TV Trek. So to kill her off prematurely, without giving her a storyline that will capitalize on the large female fanbase she has garnered over the years is bad business sense. Because if I were a big book buyer, I wouldn't be reading for the lesser characters. I'd be reading for the starring ones. At the conventions, how long are the lines for Kate Mulgrew as compared to TrekLit female captain #33? I'm not patronizing when I write that, btw. I just don't know any other ones. Which should tell you something about the fanbase.

We may lurk, we may not come out in 3000 strong on message boards - probably because we have children to raise, pick up from soccer practice and dinner to cook, or law briefs to type, patients to treat, etc. But in between picking up Junior, taking care of aging Mom and Dad and being there for hubby, we do read. And we want to read about a high-profile woman who has the same issues we do.

Giving us stronger supporting female characters and not developing the biggies is not progress, in my opinion. And it brings to question the idea of sexism. You'll give us drips and drabs, but not really anything revolutionary. Just enough to keep the masses quiet. But Trek is supposed to be about stretching the boundaries of the future and hopefully inspiring young women as well as young men to reach for something more than what they have at present.

 

[KRAD]

Should I assume that the lack of a 27 on Kim is an error, or is Kim actually absent from Full Circle?

YIPE! Yeah, that was an error, and that's been fixed....

 

[KRAD]

Janeway has the largest fanbase of any female captain, right?

Well, one of the female captains we're talking about is Kira Nerys, who is now a Starfleet captain in the books (Bajor joined the Federation in Unity, and Kira was commissioned as a captain in Starfleet; she remains in charge of Deep Space 9). That may be irrelevant to you, but Nana Visitor gets a goodly number of people on her autograph lines at conventions, too.

Not that that's really any kind of useful yardstick for book sales, really, I'm just addressing that specific question.

 

[Monty]

Janeway has the largest fanbase of any female captain, right?

Well, one of the female captains we're talking about is Kira Nerys, who is now a Starfleet captain in the books (Bajor joined the Federation in Unity, and Kira was commissioned as a captain in Starfleet; she remains in charge of Deep Space 9). That may be irrelevant to you, but Nana Visitor gets a goodly number of people on her autograph lines at conventions, too.

Not that that's really any kind of useful yardstick for book sales, really, I'm just addressing that specific question.

Again, I'm talking about a character who started out in TV as a captain. I'm sure Kira is popular. I'm not here to slam other people's favorites. I'm just trying to understand why people think it's okay to slam mine.

 

[elaithin]

My god, you're a died-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist, aren't you?

What makes you think the rest of us don't have lives as well? For your information, I attend 19 hours worth of three and four hundred level university classes a week, and spend all the time on that that goes with homework. I also have a very satisfying marriage that's on it's ninth year, with a wife who's currently seven months pregnant. I have a four year old daughter, who takes up plenty of my time (and I'm happy to give it.) I also read quite a bit - books, news, etc. - spend time writing, as well as playing video games, I'm active in my local chapter of the SCA, and I manage to cram all of this into my time with plenty of time for such things as opining on a message board. Your argument, sir, like so many of the others in this thread is specious. And I submit that if THAT sort of day-in-the-life material is the genre you would like to read of, you are missing the point entirely of Star Trek, and should perhaps seek alternative entertainment.

No one has told the die-hard Janeway fans who are upset over her death to "put up or shut up" in this thread. What they've said is - okay, if you're right, DO something about it. But the rest of us have not seen this silent majority. MANY of us are fans of the Janeway character - and yet, are perfectly happy with the way the character has been treated. This seems inconceivable to some, but it is true nonetheless. And again, certain folks keeping asking certain other folks to give their opinions respectfully, instead of engaging in slander. (Or libel, I guess. I'm not sure what an internet bbs qualifies as.)

You're absolutely allowed to disagree. Just don't be an asshole about it. Don't act like you're being persecuted, because you're not. Don't ascribe motives to people that you have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence of, because that's bullshit.

(As an aside, there is no such thing as a "lesser" character. There are only characters whose stories have not been told.)

 

[Sci]

Janeway has the largest fanbase of any female captain, right?

Well, one of the female captains we're talking about is Kira Nerys, who is now a Starfleet captain in the books (Bajor joined the Federation in Unity, and Kira was commissioned as a captain in Starfleet; she remains in charge of Deep Space 9). That may be irrelevant to you, but Nana Visitor gets a goodly number of people on her autograph lines at conventions, too.

Not that that's really any kind of useful yardstick for book sales, really, I'm just addressing that specific question.

Again, I'm talking about a character who started out in TV as a captain. I'm sure Kira is popular. I'm not here to slam other people's favorites.

But thats exactly what you've done. You've accused the writers of sexism for killing Janeway, and when they pointed out the numerous strong, non-sexually exploitive female characters in leadership positions as evidence that they are not sexist and have no problem with female leadership, you've argued that those ones don't count because they aren't Janeway.

In other words, you have defined sexism as the state of not wanting the fictional character of Kathryn Janeway to be in a leadership position!

 

[Trent Roman]

Monty, I'll agree that Janeway's fate was all the more shocking for her being a series lead. I can also agree that Janeway is the female captain with the greatest visibility, and that's something to take into account when dealing with the Trek public outside of the novels' continuity. But you must also realize that you are applying a hierarchy--'biggies' and 'supporting' characters--that is not really in effect in the books. So-called 'supporting' characters, including females in strong role, have in many cases received more and better development than Janeway has; it isn't done in drips and drabs, but equal time with all other characters, and evincing a full range of development. One could argue that trashing the most visible instance of a female captain is a poor editorial deicision vis-à-vis the audience, but I don't see where sexism comes into play.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Monty]

My god, you're a died-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist, aren't you?

What makes you think the rest of us don't have lives as well? For your information, I attend 19 hours worth of three and four hundred level university classes a week, and spend all the time on that that goes with homework. I also have a very satisfying marriage that's on it's ninth year, with a wife who's currently seven months pregnant. I have a four year old daughter, who takes up plenty of my time (and I'm happy to give it.) I also read quite a bit - books, news, etc. - spend time writing, as well as playing video games, I'm active in my local chapter of the SCA, and I manage to cram all of this into my time with plenty of time for such things as opining on a message board. Your argument, sir, like so many of the others in this thread is specious. And I submit that if THAT sort of day-in-the-life material is the genre you would like to read of, you are missing the point entirely of Star Trek, and should perhaps seek alternative entertainment.

No one has told the die-hard Janeway fans who are upset over her death to "put up or shut up" in this thread. What they've said is - okay, if you're right, DO something about it. But the rest of us have not seen this silent majority. MANY of us are fans of the Janeway character - and yet, are perfectly happy with the way the character has been treated. This seems inconceivable to some, but it is true nonetheless. And again, certain folks keeping asking certain other folks to give their opinions respectfully, instead of engaging in slander. (Or libel, I guess. I'm not sure what an internet bbs qualifies as.)

You're absolutely allowed to disagree. Just don't be an asshole about it. Don't act like you're being persecuted, because you're not. Don't ascribe motives to people that you have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence of, because that's bullshit.

(As an aside, there is no such thing as a "lesser" character. There are only characters whose stories have not been told.)

Who are you and others to decide the point of Star Trek? 'Libel'? 'Slander'? I don't feel persecuted. I just think that when a Trek board discounts a fanbase that's included in their masses, both sides should stand up and be counted. There's a lot of overreaction here to just ideas. Again, does what I say or how I say it really matter to the authors, editors? No. It's talk. And it pisses the hell out of you. Good. That's what opinions are supposed to do. Better that than it be considered boring. No one on this board has evidence to either side. It's just speculation. Which I see no harm in doing; but apparently, people like you do. If you don't like the way I've expressed them, look to your own members for your own lack of decorum. Look at yourself and the hysteria you type. 'Libel' 'Slander' - that's precious.

And in the business of entertainment, there are 'lesser' characters. In the creative mind, your quote works, but not anywhere in a practical money-making sense.

 

[Thrawn]

If you want, you can find sexism anywhere you care to look for it. If you want to ascribe Janeway's death to sexist motives, feel free. But it is abundantly clear that the people in charge don't have any problem writing stories with all the kind of content you want, Monty. It isn't that they didn't feel those STORIES didn't deserve to be told, it's that they felt Janeway the CHARACTER made better stories doing something else.

Just because there could be sexist motives for a decision doesn't mean there were, and you have no evidence other than your own assumptions to support your position. None.

 

[Thrawn]

In other words, you have defined sexism as the state of not wanting the fictional character of Kathryn Janeway to be in a leadership position!

Not just that; wanting the fictional character of Kathryn Janeway to be in a leadership position and a stable relationship raising a family.

Which I really find hilarious; you don't find it at all sexist or limiting to insist the character never reached her full potential without kids?!

 

[Monty]

Monty, I'll agree that Janeway's fate was all the more shocking for her being a series lead. I can also agree that Janeway is the female captain with the greatest visibility, and that's something to take into account when dealing with the Trek public outside of the novels' continuity. But you must also realize that you are applying a hierarchy--'biggies' and 'supporting' characters--that is not really in effect in the books. So-called 'supporting' characters, including females in strong role, have in many cases received more and better development than Janeway has; it isn't done in drips and drabs, but equal time with all other characters, and evincing a full range of development. One could argue that trashing the most visible instance of a female captain is a poor editorial deicision vis-à-vis the audience, but I don't see where sexism comes into play.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Thank you for getting that. Yes, it is about the female character with the highest visibility. In the film and TV world, the fanbase starts with that. People buy books based on the most visible character first. That's just common sense. Without you knowing it, your post supports the question of sexism. Why develop the supporting characters more than Janeway? Of course, if she comes back with a bang, that will be my proof that it wasn't a sexist choice. Sexism - at this point in society - is about the fear of smart, powerful feminine influence of the highest visibility. Male culture doesn't want to compete with women who are truly equal. If women do compete on the same level, potshots are taken at them for their lack of femininity - yet they are expected to be like men and think like them in order to succeed. This is one of many examples of the double-standard. I'm sure men feel the same financial pressures and that the gap is narrowing, but I disagree with the idea that the problem has been solved in an analogous sense within Trek.

Again, if you don't believe that, then there is no debate. Proof is all-around, but unless you are willing to see it and contain your own biases and some of the mud-slinging (that I'm a conspiracy theorist, for example), you will never understand what I am saying.