Disgruntled Janeway fans: try a carrot

[Monty]

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?!

Thrawn, your continual Straw Man techniques really don't further your argument. My posts were about expanding her choices, not forcing her to have children. To have her actually deal with the same conflicts women do and overcome them. Because they are there whether you like it or not. To pretend that she is not female, with all the inherent issues that come with being female - and continually purport that we are colorblind, genderless, etc. - is just as sexist and racist as harping on the differences in a negative connotation.

Yes, I'd love to live in a world where we are not racist or sexist, but the only way to deal with it is to allow highly-visible female characters to deal with modern, feminine issues instead of sweeping it all under the rug because traditional Trek finds it squeamish.

 

[Thrawn]

In what possible way could you argue Janeway dealt less with feminine issues than any other woman in all of Trek?

 

[Sci]

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.

Which is fair enough. You disagree with the idea that the highest-profile female leader in Trek ought to be killed, and are concerned about the inadvertent implications of it.

But here's where you go too far: Instead of saying, "You know, the decision to kill off the highest-profile female leader in Trek could be seen as sexist or as supporting patriarchy," you instead go in, guns blazing, and accuse the creators of being deliberately sexist. It's rude, it's insulting, it's arbitrary (why shouldn't the numerous TrekLit female leaders count as legitimate pieces of evidence against accusations of sexism just because you're not into them?), and it's not supported by any evidence. It's a mean-spirited ad hominem attack that you ought to apologize for.

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.

Hold on. You are arguing that within the fictional world of Star Trek, Federation society is still sexist? On what basis? Their smart, powerful, highly visible female President (against whom no one has ever leveled the criticism that she's not feminine enough)? The numerous female admirals and captains?

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.

I'm completely with you when you say that the real world is full of sexism. I have no problem with that claim. (Hell, the fact that the President only just now signed an equal pay law is disgusting -- a bill like that should have been passed ages ago.) Nor do I have problems with the idea that maybe it was a bad idea to kill the highest-profile female leader in Trek because maybe it would be better to keep her around as a pro-feminist message. What I and others do have a problem with is your jumping from that to accusing the creators of being sexist.

Thrawn, your continual Straw Man techniques really don't further your argument. My posts were about expanding her choices, not forcing her to have children. To have her actually deal with the same conflicts women do and overcome them. Because they are there whether you like it or not. To pretend that she is not female, with all the inherent issues that come with being female - and continually purport that we are colorblind, genderless, etc. - is just as sexist and racist as harping on the differences in a negative connotation.

Yes, I'd love to live in a world where we are not racist or sexist, but the only way to deal with it is to allow highly-visible female characters to deal with modern, feminine issues instead of sweeping it all under the rug because traditional Trek finds it squeamish.

For the record, if you are interested in reading about a female leader in Starfleet who is struggling with the familiar issue of how to balance career and family, you may enjoy reading the TNG Relaunch character Miranda Kadohata. She's the second officer on the Enterprise, filling in Data's role, and mother of three. She's aboard the Enterprise while her husband is raising their children on Cestus III, in an inversion of the all-too-familiar paradigm of male military officers who leave their female partners behind to raise the children during their deployments.

 

[Monty]

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!

The problem with your argument is that no other woman in TV Trek started out as a captain other than Janeway. Therefore, it's very easy for you to Straw Man me and connect that last sentence. Read carefully. It's not that they don't count. It's just that there are more fans for Janeway than for these other female book characters and that she is of the highest visibility. I'd love to champion another high-profile woman captain that was still on the air or in the books. At least that would be proof for the argument against sexism. Kira didn't start out as captain on the show. Period.

 

[Sci]

The problem with your argument is that no other woman in TV Trek started out as a captain other than Janeway. Therefore, it's very easy for you to Straw Man me and connect that last sentence. Read carefully. It's not that they don't count. It's just that there are more fans for Janeway than for these other female book characters and that she is of the highest visibility. I'd love to champion another high-profile woman captain that was still on the air or in the books. At least that would be proof for the argument against sexism. Kira didn't start out as captain on the show. Period.

Again, saying that it was a bad idea to kill the highest-profile female leader who, as you noted, started off as a captain, is perfectly legit. I've got no problem with that, nor with the idea that it's better to keep her around as a pro-feminist message. Honestly, I even agree with that.

But to jump from that to an accusation of sexism is just unfair. They cannot logically be sexist if they constantly go out of their way to create strong female leaders in non-sexually objectified roles. You may not prefer those characters, and those characters may not be as high-profile as Janeway, but this does not mean that they are invalidated as evidence of the creators' commitment to sexual egalitarianism.

 

[Monty]

But here's where you go too far: Instead of saying, "You know, the decision to kill off the highest-profile female leader in Trek could be seen as sexist or as supporting patriarchy," you instead go in, guns blazing, and accuse the creators of being deliberately sexist. It's rude, it's insulting, it's arbitrary (why shouldn't the numerous TrekLit female leaders count as legitimate pieces of evidence against accusations of sexism just because you're not into them?), and it's not supported by any evidence. It's a mean-spirited ad hominem attack that you ought to apologize for.

Again, your OP and other posters of the same ilk create the hostile environment from which I go in 'guns blazing.' Again, didn't accuse anyone on this bbs of being sexist (the only situation in which deserves an apology), but people in the public eye are fair game. Maybe you didn't know that. I haven't published anything; handed out flyers railing against the authors or Pocket Books. In the context of this bbs it's called freedom of speech - something that flag in your avatar represents to some degree.

 

[Monty]

The problem with your argument is that no other woman in TV Trek started out as a captain other than Janeway. Therefore, it's very easy for you to Straw Man me and connect that last sentence. Read carefully. It's not that they don't count. It's just that there are more fans for Janeway than for these other female book characters and that she is of the highest visibility. I'd love to champion another high-profile woman captain that was still on the air or in the books. At least that would be proof for the argument against sexism. Kira didn't start out as captain on the show. Period.

Again, saying that it was a bad idea to kill the highest-profile female leader who, as you noted, started off as a captain, is perfectly legit. I've got no problem with that, nor with the idea that it's better to keep her around as a pro-feminist message. Honestly, I even agree with that.

But to jump from that to an accusation of sexism is just unfair. They cannot logically be sexist if they constantly go out of their way to create strong female leaders in non-sexually objectified roles. You may not prefer those characters, and those characters may not be as high-profile as Janeway, but this does not mean that they are invalidated as evidence of the creators' commitment to sexual egalitarianism.

Let me clarify: I was saying that although this is progress for the 21st century, it is not progress for the 24th. The setting is the future, which allows for greater leaps and bigger feminist risks. To kill off the highest profile female captain sends a message that they are not willing to take the biggest risk.

 

[Thrawn]

So it doesn't count if the books promote already existing characters that weren't captains, only if they let the characters that already were captains keep doing so?

I genuinely don't understand how that makes any sense. If anything, wouldn't promoting the previously subordinate characters make a STRONGER statement?

 

[Monty]

In what possible way could you argue Janeway dealt less with feminine issues than any other woman in all of Trek?

Thrawn, I asked donner (go back a few pages) if Janeway ever dealt with the issues of relationship, family, children, etc. All feminist issues, btw, whether you'd like to think of them or not, and he/she didn't give me evidence. Again, it's not what you personally think is feminism, it's about what it means on a day-to-day basis being a woman that is the issue. We can't pretend that women don't deal with the issues they face today and not apply it to Trek.

 

[Monty]

So it doesn't count if the books promote already existing characters that weren't captains, only if they let the characters that already were captains keep doing so?

I genuinely don't understand how that makes any sense.

No, it's about the symbol of Janeway being the highest visible female character in Trek. I've spent already too much time trying to articulate my position and I certainly hope you are honestly wanting to read and understand instead of being only in this debate to win.

 

[Sci]

Again, your OP and other posters of the same ilk create the hostile environment from which I go in 'guns blazing.'

The OP -- and, by the way, he's not "my" OP -- is not an author or editor from Pocket Books, so taking his attitude as a reason to attack the creators is illogical.

Again, didn't accuse anyone on this bbs of being sexist

There are numerous authors and editors who post on this board, including KRAD (Keith R.A. DeCandido), David Mack, Dayton Ward, Kevin Dilmore[/b], Andy Mangels, Kirsten Beyer (author of the upcoming Full Circle), Christopher L. Bennett, William Leisner, and others. If you accuse the folks at Pocket of sexism, you are accusing people on this board of sexism.

(the only situation in which deserves an apology), but people in the public eye are fair game. Maybe you didn't know that.

Whether or not they are in the public eye is irrelevant. You are accusing them of sexism without any evidence, whilst willfully disregarding evidence of their commitment to sexual equality. You are, in fact, arbitrarily moving the goalposts in the pursuit of an excuse to engage in a personal attack on the creators from Pocket.

I haven't published anything; handed out flyers railing against the authors or Pocket Books. In the context of this bbs it's called freedom of speech - something that flag in your avatar represents to some degree.

Of course you have freedom of speech. I didn't try to censor you -- I told you you were behaving unfairly, arbitrarily, and irrationally for accusing them of sexism. I have that freedom of speech right, too.

The problem with your argument is that no other woman in TV Trek started out as a captain other than Janeway. Therefore, it's very easy for you to Straw Man me and connect that last sentence. Read carefully. It's not that they don't count. It's just that there are more fans for Janeway than for these other female book characters and that she is of the highest visibility. I'd love to champion another high-profile woman captain that was still on the air or in the books. At least that would be proof for the argument against sexism. Kira didn't start out as captain on the show. Period.

Again, saying that it was a bad idea to kill the highest-profile female leader who, as you noted, started off as a captain, is perfectly legit. I've got no problem with that, nor with the idea that it's better to keep her around as a pro-feminist message. Honestly, I even agree with that.

But to jump from that to an accusation of sexism is just unfair. They cannot logically be sexist if they constantly go out of their way to create strong female leaders in non-sexually objectified roles. You may not prefer those characters, and those characters may not be as high-profile as Janeway, but this does not mean that they are invalidated as evidence of the creators' commitment to sexual egalitarianism.

Let me clarify: I was saying that although this is progress for the 21st century, it is not progress for the 24th. The setting is the future, which allows for greater leaps and bigger feminist risks. To kill off the highest profile female captain sends a message that they are not willing to take the biggest risk.

See, here's all I think that fairness obligates you to acknowledge: That the creators killed Janeway not in an attempt to send any message one way or the other, but simply out of an attempt to take a creative risk that doing so would generate better stories.

You say that the decision to kill her sends a message that they aren't willing to take a big risk on feminism. I completely disagree -- if they weren't willing to take a big risk on feminism, the Federation President and half of the Federation government wouldn't constantly be depicted as female in the novels, nor would there be so many female leaders throughout the fiction. I will happily concede that the decision to kill off Janeway could be misconstrued as an anti-feminist act, but it seems to me that fairness demands an acknowledgement that that is in no way the creative intent.

 

[Ktrek]

No, it's about the symbol of Janeway being the highest visible female character in Trek. I've spent already too much time trying to articulate my position and I certainly hope you are honestly wanting to read and understand instead of being only in this debate to win.

There is no winning a Kobyashi Maru unless you cheat!

Kevin

 

[Monty]

Sci, you and I will just have to agree with what we agree and agree to disagree on the rest. The sacred cow at this bbs seems to be the writer - who I haven't personally and specifically accused. The media conglomerates' control trickles down, but ultimately, they pay the writers to write. To think any writer has absolute control on what he writes is not realistic. So take my accusations, criticisms, etc., and see them in the context of the money-making machine, not the creative work. I have a deep respect for writers, btw, since I am one myself. So I know the pressures and politics they work under.

 

[elaithin]

I don't care who you're attacking - it's that your attacking ANYONE bothers me. Your opinion doesn't piss me off. You're perfectly entitled to it.

The WAY you - and some of the others - are presenting your opinions.. yeah, that pisses me off, because it has no rational basis. That should bug anyone.

 

[Gorf]

A huge amount of fan fiction is intentionally devoted to stories too ridiculous to ever be published, and that's part of the fun.

(I don't actually read fan fiction myself, but I respect the community enough to know that this kind of thing is funny, but a bit unfair.)

I do believe it's been stated here before that you shouldn't judge something you haven't read so I ask...how can you judge something you don't read?

Oh and why are you still so obsessed with the possible effect of a 'boycott'; why not focus instead on the possibility of increased sales IF Pocket Books choose to focus more on the largely neglected female segment of Voyager/Janeway fans?

 

[Sci]

Sci, you and I will just have to agree with what we agree and agree to disagree on the rest. The sacred cow at this bbs seems to be the writer - who I haven't personally and specifically accused. The media conglomerates' control trickles down, but ultimately, they pay the writers to write. To think any writer has absolute control on what he writes is not realistic. So take my accusations, criticisms, etc., and see them in the context of the money-making machine, not the creative work. I have a deep respect for writers, btw, since I am one myself. So I know the pressures and politics they work under.

No, we're not going to have to just agree on some things and disagree on the rest. Your entire argument that Janeway was killed because of sexism is logically absurd and completely unfair to the authors you claim to respect. Do they have perfect control of their work? Of course not, they need CBS's approval. Guess who's in charge of green-lighting the novels? A woman and Trek fan named Paula Block.

If you respect the creators, you will acknowledge that the numerous female leaders they have created constitute legitimate evidence of their commitment to sexual equality.

If you respect the creators, you will acknowledge that they made this decision not because of sexism, but simply because they wanted an emotionally powerful story that would not "play it safe" and would produce powerful stories in the future.

Otherwise, you're just engaging in baseless ad hominem attacks against a large group of people for no reason.

 

[Monty]

I don't care who you're attacking - it's that your attacking ANYONE bothers me. Your opinion doesn't piss me off. You're perfectly entitled to it.

The WAY you - and some of the others - are presenting your opinions.. yeah, that pisses me off, because it has no rational basis. That should bug anyone.

So you want opinions expressed in a groveling manner? I'm a newbie, therefore I have to kowtow? What planet do you live on? Because last time I checked, we're both on it. I'm passionate about my opinions and if it rubs some people the wrong way, tough. If you don't like the way it's done, that's not my problem.

 

[Sci]

I don't care who you're attacking - it's that your attacking ANYONE bothers me. Your opinion doesn't piss me off. You're perfectly entitled to it.

The WAY you - and some of the others - are presenting your opinions.. yeah, that pisses me off, because it has no rational basis. That should bug anyone.

So you want opinions expressed in a groveling manner? I'm a newbie, therefore I have to kowtow? What planet do you live on? Because last time I checked, we're both on it. I'm passionate about my opinions and if it rubs some people the wrong way, tough. If you don't like the way it's done, that's not my problem.

I for one don't want you to grovel to anyone. I just want you to be fair and to not engage in ad hominem attacks on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Monty]

Sci, you and I will just have to agree with what we agree and agree to disagree on the rest. The sacred cow at this bbs seems to be the writer - who I haven't personally and specifically accused. The media conglomerates' control trickles down, but ultimately, they pay the writers to write. To think any writer has absolute control on what he writes is not realistic. So take my accusations, criticisms, etc., and see them in the context of the money-making machine, not the creative work. I have a deep respect for writers, btw, since I am one myself. So I know the pressures and politics they work under.

No, we're not going to have to just agree on some things and disagree on the rest. Your entire argument that Janeway was killed because of sexism is logically absurd and completely unfair to the authors you claim to respect. Do they have perfect control of their work? Of course not, they need CBS's approval. Guess who's in charge of green-lighting the novels? A woman and Trek fan named Paula Block.

If you respect the creators, you will acknowledge that the numerous female leaders they have created constitute legitimate evidence of their commitment to sexual equality.

If you respect the creators, you will acknowledge that they made this decision not because of sexism, but simply because they wanted an emotionally powerful story that would not "play it safe" and would produce powerful stories in the future.

Otherwise, you're just engaging in baseless ad hominem attacks against a large group of people for no reason.

You know, you are unintentionally very funny. I mean that earnestly. Y'know how the above reads? "Resistance is futile! You will comply!" I've already devoted a long post about how sexism is genderless and that women are brought up in a patriarchal society and aren't immune to the same tendencies as men. It's how we're programmed. Again, no one knows anything. Which is also a Hollywood quote, btw. People's words on press releases don't matter; it's what they do, what their action are that speak louder than those words.

 

[Monty]

I don't care who you're attacking - it's that your attacking ANYONE bothers me. Your opinion doesn't piss me off. You're perfectly entitled to it.

The WAY you - and some of the others - are presenting your opinions.. yeah, that pisses me off, because it has no rational basis. That should bug anyone.

So you want opinions expressed in a groveling manner? I'm a newbie, therefore I have to kowtow? What planet do you live on? Because last time I checked, we're both on it. I'm passionate about my opinions and if it rubs some people the wrong way, tough. If you don't like the way it's done, that's not my problem.

I for one don't want you to grovel to anyone. I just want you to be fair and to not engage in ad hominem attacks on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

I am not engaging in slander (which makes this very fair) because I am bringing up an issue involving the entire money-making system. And my attacks are not ad-hominem; they are speculative. Evidence is highly subjective in this case, as I've debated. I think we're done. Yep.