Elaan of Troyius - Mess of an episode

Dom, come back to the real world.

Oops wrong fictional universe but I love Michael Caine.

 

Because although obviously Picard lives in a "fantasy universe," re: the technology etc., requiring "suspension of disbelief," in order to make that work as a fictional narrative, people have to behave in ways which are consistent with their roles in that fictional fantasy universe.

Please understand--this does NOT mean that Picard has to behave in a manner which comports with the individual viewer's fictional fantasy universe.

In the "real world" (i.e. reality here on Earth) people in positions of authority have to make compromises. We can't have everything we want like tantrum-throwing little babies.

Picard's job as a star fleet officer is NOT to satisfy the political or social fantasies of a random 21st century Earthling.

Picard's job in HIS universe is to carry out his mission. Not yours.

HIS mission often involves making perhaps distasteful compromises.

That means negotiating or dealing with societies that are not as "enlightened" as Picard's.

You know, even real 21st century Earth people such as military commanders and even Presidents make these kind of decisions all the time. They have no choice because that's reality even if it's not a perfect decision or a perfect world.

Most adults understand this though.

Obviously if you want to regard Picard as a complete hypocrite that's cool, although given he's the hero, I don't think that's intended by the series creators. He is intended as an imperfect Byron sort of hero I guess.

Or you can look at what he is saying as aspirational for the Federation--yes we still have to deal with these savage societies but we still ASPIRE to be something more and hopefully in the future can help lift them UP out of that.

There's no need to have a nuanced view on these sorts of things but in that case why does anyone waste time trying to analyze it? It's trivial--Picard's a hypocrite, the Federation sucks, who cares?

 

You're forgetting the episode where Spock seduces the female Romulan Commander to get the cloaking device. I think this is the one where Kirk gets plastic surgery to look like a Vulcan and the Vulcan Death Grip.

So I think the Romulan Commander--a VERY strong female character yet who does not lose her femininity--contradicts your assertion. I don't think it really matters that they didn't show a Federation female commander. Maybe showing the Romulan female commander was a subtextual criticism of American society anyway.

But that would be your fantasy universe, not the fantasy universe of 1960's American TV Trek TOS. I like how you put in how much you would be gratified by a woman beating up on a man. Sounds misandrist a bit to me.

Maybe you should have said a female commander beating up a female redshirt. Too late, cards shown.

ETA: I'm sure you would have been outraged had it been Matt Decker, male commander, beating up on a FEMALE redshirt.

Right.

Right because of the lack of freedom of thought in today's post-1984 society. I agree with you.

 

Picard would then be able to point out how open and inclusive the Federation is, how the Federation judges neither members nor non-members.

In a thread years ago, we were discussing which TOS characters should/could have been cast with actresses.

One conclusion was that Matt Decker definately shouldn't have been cast female, because of the negative stereotype of a woman breaking under pressure when faced with tragedy. Or show her not breaking down at which point she becomes a cold bitch. No way to win.

Remember, 1960's audience.

 

Inclusive casting would be so much easier if it wasn't necessary to politicize every single fictional narrative to comport with our personal agendas, wouldn't it?

 

We must remember that times have changed from the sixties and the present day! If Star Trek was made today instead of then we certainly wouldn't have seen the female crew in mini skirts because that would have been sexist!
JB

 

I'm not the one operating in a fictional universe, Mr. Hengist/"Redjac".

(Don't think people can't see through your hopelessly transparent username.)

I could point to a hundred instances—from YouTube comment trolling to Photoshop harassment through mass media portrayals—which amply illustrate the point I made and the sentence you quoted, and which you tried to dismiss with a flip and lame Inception reference. You can't refute the point so you attack the poster.

As such, you've earned yourself a spot on my ignore list. Your posts are—staying in universe—Class-H worlds.

 

So, you tell them what shows they can watch to "protect" them from politically incorrect TOS narratives, and then do their thinking for them too?

Why not let them decide which episodes they want to watch and let them figure things out for themselves?

So? In the reboot movie there was a shot of Carol Marcus in her underware and another shot of some green chick in the nude.

Heterosexual males like to look at attractive women wearing minimal or no clothing. In fact it's risable that you actually think you have any way of preventing your teenagers from watching anything they want.

The fact that you think your kids need to be "protected" from Star Trek TOS episodes that don't comport with your political viewpoints is just....I don't know...maybe naive is the word?

 

I'd love my teenagers to watch 'Elaan of Troyius'. Any TOS episode/movie. Any series. I just wouldn't want them to dismiss the whole franchise as sexist nonsense.

They've been bought up in a world where for the most part women have equal rights, get the same pay as men, are allowed in the military, can work in the public service if they get married.

They don't relate to the days where women had to fight hard to get equal rights. Where TOS was a step-up from television they had before. They don't relate to the 'Taming of the Shrew'.

As for the Carol Marcus underwear scene, its been pretty well seen as a blatant device to get young males interested. Better I suppose than having Kirk threatening to spank Carol for hiding her identity?

And there's nothing wrong IMO in having attractive actors scantily dressed as long as its not too often and blantant (like ENT). Lets see - wev'e seen Kirk and Uhura and Carol Marcus in their undies. Next movie its Spock, Chekov, Sulu, Scott and most importantly McCoys turn.

 

It's late at night, and I might be missing some context, so apologies if I am. But this is factually incorrect. Uhura (another) and Carol both wore minidresses in STID. They also wore other things.

 

Um I think I was agreeing with you.

I'm not concerned by the dresses they wear in nuTrek. They're the same length dresses as my daughter wears. I like that they can have more practical gear in the field.
I'm not against the miniskirts they wore in TOS, they were contemporary for the times and still look 60s cool. Not even that sexist for the time excepting maybe Helen Noel's uniform (maybe hers shrank in the wash like Kirks gym pants) Still who knows what will be in fashion in the 23rd century?

Also someone has posted pictures of TOS women wearing uniform pants and shirt. So maybe the TOS miniskirted dresses were a uniform variant choice.

 

Ah, so you were being sarcastic? As I said, it's late and my sarcasm meter is down for the night.

 

Sorry I think it was johnnybear that I was responding to. About the length of skirt. I may have mixed you up in my ranting.

Just to make my stance clear - I'm not against the women uniforms in TOS or nuTrek. Don't think they were sexist - if anyone cares for my opinion.

 

Most likely not. Though, again, Charlie X... Where he actually implies the exact opposite of what you're saying.

"Man to man is a uh... Well, it's another thing."

See? In Kirk's mind, it was only right to slap a man on the ass.

Those are the extreme end, just as the feminists I was describing, which is why I went to great lengths to qualify my remarks.

I really can't see why you think it's good for people to lash out at the wrong targets. Fighting phantoms hurts the cause of legitimate feminists. It's the same reaction that provoked the unfortunate believe by the writers that "Janeway can't be questioned, or be wrong" that plagued early Voyager. It's going too far in the other direction and begins to champion regressive attitudes.

That is not what I said. I said it's a good thing that none of the "driven insane" commanders we saw were female, because it would only add fuel to the fire for extremists to proclaim that TOS was a sexist show. What I did not say was that all feminists are bad, or that it was a good thing that TOS didn't have female commanders. Indeed, it's a shame The Cage/Menagerie is the only example we have of a female commanding officer in TOS's entire run.

Well, I can certainly see that it might rub some people the wrong way, and that's fine, but I can't really agree that it wouldn't necessarily be made today. It might be made differently, but I could see the same story being told in a modern series.

I think the same can be said for other orientations as well. Let's not leave out bisexual and lesbian people here. I'm sure many gay men found Chris Pine in his skivvies a nice sight.

 

The Romulan Commander wasn't a senior Starfleet officer.

Assertion uncontradicted.

 

And yet there seems to be the same "TOS can't be questioned attitude" here. Look I can't speak for feminists. I'm just saying to me this particular episode seems sexist to me. The whole idea of training a woman to be "a good wife" or person. It happens today. Young girls are not given education or even 'language' training because they are being raised to marry off to some family friend. All they need to know is how to please their husbands and raise babies and only communicate with their immediate family.
Maybe I just have a grudging respect for Elaan as she doesn't seem willing to lie down and accept her fate (until properly trained by Kirk).

Even though I'm making a big deal out of it I know there are reasons that mitigate Kirks actions in this episode:

1.Kirk doesn't exactly go out of his busy day and find a woman to train just for the heck of it. Its not an assignment he asked for. Its not like at the end of the episode he winks and says 'all woman' need a good firm hand or something.
2.Elaan is not a child - she seems to have options to get out of the marriage. Consequences not explained.
4.She could theoretically get one of her guards to steal a shuttle if it were that bad.
5.The two planets need to unite for some macguffin reason.

And I don't think its extremist saying that sometimes TOS is sexist looking at standards today. And even within itself. I can't ever see Number One telling Captain Pike or anyone "I'm frightened".
I see TNG as being sexist at times too (don't get me started) and it was made 20 years later so had less excuses.

TOS I believe was far ahead of many other shows of the period when it showed working women in the military and even on the bridge. They could have done better but they could have done way way worse.

I can't even find myself really hating this episode. It also had intrigue, dilithium crystals, stabbings, Klingons, bombs. At least its better than yet another episode in "Lost in Space" where June and Judy and Penny spent the whole episode preparing lunch and wondering where the men were.

Did we ever get Commodores or Captains or High Ranking Officials in TOS who weren't insane or incompetent or who didn't have a grudge against Kirk ?

 

Certainly not from me. There's plenty to question. I'm looking at you, Turnabout Intruder.

"Wolf in the Fold" has some pretty nasty remarks about how because a woman screwed up, Scotty might start hating women, so let's take him to a strip club so he won't hate women... Yeah. Ouch.

There are a few things to keep in mind. The Dohlman is not "just a woman." By that I mean, we're not talking about someone who was just kidnapped off the street and put into this situation by force. She's a part of a royal family, and this is a political arrangement more than anything else. It's expected of her. HERE is where the problem is really befalling. There is a distinct difference between "Star Trek is being sexist/backwards" and "The society that Star Trek is showing us is sexist/backwards."

Now. With that said, do I think that the Dohlman's society is just? Absolutely not. I think both groups come off as rather irrational and they need to get their emotions in check. Clearly, if it's come to an arranged marriage something has gone horribly, horribly wrong here.

Does the show itself endorse the society that the Dohlman comes from as just or a good thing? I don't think it does. I'd say it seems rather indifferent on that point, and the closest it even comes to remarking on it is the sense of tragedy around the Dohlman when she is resigned to her fate. Kirk's job is to do his duty, whether he likes it or not, and that is also reflected in the Dohlman's position.

I think that's the key difference. Portraying something does not necessarily mean the show itself is guilty of believing in it.

I can understand that. However, as has been said, I don't think it's quite the same thing as... Say, having a boss who is forcing you into an uncomfortable work environment. She's the ruling class in an entire society with millions of lives hanging on her decisions. If she chooses to resign, they could all suffer for it. Is that right? No. Does that make the episode itself sexist? I can't really see that.

We could just as easily see a prince going to his princess, and needing the proper training in etiquette and all that. Though, historically, that's not how it generally goes. That certainly might have put a different spin on it from a science fiction perspective though.

In fact he tries to dodge it as long as possible, because he knows it's only going to be trouble. He just wants to transport the people and be done with it.

Indeed. I wish they had covered what the consequences might have been to her if she gave up her position. Death? Loss of title? Would have made her a little more sympathetic and balanced the books. The episode would need very little changing for that to be integrated.

Just my opinion of course, but, I have never thought it fair to apply "the standards of today" to a show from the 60s. For the 1960s, Star Trek was ahead of it's time. I think it's a fruitless argument to do that to a show that was clearly more often than not at least trying to break ground in it's time.

...Wait, what happened to 3? In your list, I mean.

I don't think any of the shows really escaped having some... Really bad sexist moments. Enterprise always sat with me the worst for it's really... In your face sexualisation of Star Trek.

There are a few. Any of whom could have been made into women without any changes required.

Commodore Mendez was fairly level headed (Though half of his appearance turns out to be a Talosian illusion.).

Commodore Wesley, from Ultimate Computer. Neither insane, incompetent, or out to get Kirk at any point.

Commodore Stone, from Court Martial. I don't recall him having a personal vendetta or anything against Kirk, he was just trying to do his job.

Any one of whom could have been played by a contemporary female.

 

Either you didn't actually watch the episode, or it was so long ago you can't remember it. Elaan is anything but a victim in the episode--quite the opposite. She's the ruler of her planet, bows to no one, and she's aggressively violent, abusive, and savage to everyone around her.

For one thing, she tried to murder the Troyian ambassador by stabbing him--a totally unprovoked act of brutal aggression. She was also a virulent racist, calling all Troyians "pigs."

The episode was about her learning to be a responsible ruler by leaving her brutality and racism behind for the good of her people.

 

Well I disagree on so many levels.

But I regard the main message of the episode was to show that Kirk loved his ship/duty so much that he could overcome biochemical influences to win the day. The main theme of mosr TOS episode is to show what man/womankind learns about himself/herself.

Other Star Trek series went on about the internal politics of the Klingon worlds etc more so but IMO many episodes of Star Trek reflect on the follies/achievements of our present day selves in a space setting.

I mean if the message of the episode is to civilise Ekaan because for one thing she is racist why doesn't Kirk slam down on McCoy's occasionalracist remarks. Or his sexist remarks at the beginning of the episode.