For sure. And on top of that, this attitude completely overlooks Gene L. Coon and Dorothy C. Fontana, both of whom, in my opinion, added as much to Star Trek as Roddenberry did. Star Trek is a mix of ideas and a co-creation - sure Gene Roddenberry came up with the initial idea, but that initial idea doesn't account for what all that is essential to Star Trek. Just my two cents.
I think most of the fandom do give a lot of credit to Coon, especially in that without him the third season suffered a lot. Fontana probably is still too overlooked but big fans realize she did contribute a lot especially to Spock.
Edit:
the sexual politics of a woman in Starfleet longing for a dominant man to take over her life, and then Khan doing just that and she falls for him after he's borderline assaulted her? That's, um. That's some misogynistic sexual politics there, and they're not all Khan's politics; a lot of that is the narrative's politics -- it depicts McGiver's submissiveness uncritically.
I don't know about outright progressive but it actually does seem at least pretty inclusive even for today to admit that submissives exist and make mistakes and regret and correct them. Khan is obviously dominating but him declaring "Go! Or stay. But do it because it is what you wish to do" seems far from misogynist, likewise him and the episode concluding that Marla being willing to join Khan in the challenge is admirable.
I also don’t see how it’s either rare or offensive to have and intend to have female characters in a movie or show be attractive, appealing to male viewers.
Last edited: