I will not be dragged into an argument with you, have a nice day.
I don't care I am loving season 3
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
That's funny. You come in and call me narrow minded and a sexist, and then you don't want to discuss it. Okay, fine.
Indeed, that is one of my bigger questions whenever gender comes up. The ratio in prior Treks was primarily male, and human (as you often note) and that is accepted without question. In fact, with the more egalitarian future opportunities and resources the ratio should increase and see more females participating in the uniformed services, never mind that if it's accepted that the majority of Starfleet personnel are male then that means the majority were killed in the Burn and other conflicts so there would be more females anyways.
It's an odd perspective to me.
...point of view.
The death of so many in "the burn" is at least plausible. But that only covers events after they went into the future. If you remember, the last episode of TOS was basically about a woman who wanted to command a starship, but could not, because she was a woman. So that throws even more of a monkey wrench into Discos time.
Which is a reflection of an extremely sexist time and is best ignored or written off as the ramblings of a mentally unstable person, which is accurate to the episode. It's an extremely sexist episode-"Better to be dead than to suffer in the body of a women." (paraphrased because it's a garbage line.)
So, no, I don't see the monkey wrench because some sexist points of view, even from Trek, are best ignored.
Eh, well, it ruins continuity then. But, that was the norm when that episode aired, I don't believe women were allowed on combat vessels until 1993. Star Trek was pretty forward looking back then, but they sure missed that one.
It "ruins continuity" in the same way TWOK "ruins continuity" by setting the Trek period in the 23rd century, given that TOS is nonspecific, ranging from the 22nd to the 28th.
Regardless, why is one line held up as immutable? Janice Lester is shown to be mentally unstable and an unreliable narrator. If that doesn't satisfy, Roddenberry treated TOS as a dramatization of Kirk's logs, with some dramatic license taken, and allowing for an unreliable narrator of those stories.
Either way, the strict literalism is unnecessary and continuity is not ruined.
She definitely was a nut job.
So, we take her world as unvarnished truth and assume that she is accurate? That Starfleet would apply a sexist policy that would exclude a significant part of it's population from achieving command, never mind the various alien species were such policies might run counter to their cultures? This is deemed acceptable and should continue?
Because, I'm not taking the word of a person with profound psychological struggles as speaking completely honestly or accurately.
I know this might sound radical and out there... But an Optimistic Vision of The Future means the future will be more progressive than the present. I know it sounds wild and crazy, but that's the general direction things move in, even with setbacks along the way.
I'm getting sick of this stupid Culture War. It's not the Post-WWII Era anymore and it's not the Reagan Era anymore either. They're done and they're not coming back.
I'm getting sick of this stupid Culture War. It's not the Post-WWII Era anymore and it's not the Reagan Era anymore either. They're done and they're not coming back.
I've seen that plenty of times throughout my life. Size don't mean squat when the other person is a well trained fighter. I have basic marine training, but I would NEVER want to mess with a trained fighter, male or female.
Exactly, when she says "Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair...", she means Kirk's world, not Starfleet's world. Kirk's world has never had room for Janice (or indeed Ruth or Carol) because of his Starfleet career.
I don't think anyone was or had to take her word for anything. I don't think it was even questioned, though it's been a while since I saw that episode.So, we take her world as unvarnished truth and assume that she is accurate? That Starfleet would apply a sexist policy that would exclude a significant part of it's population from achieving command, never mind the various alien species were such policies might run counter to their cultures? This is deemed acceptable and should continue?
Because, I'm not taking the word of a person with profound psychological struggles as speaking completely honestly or accurately.
Having worked with people with mental illness for six years now I can tell you that arguing about delusional beliefs doesn't help. Kirk not arguing is not agreement. In any case, why take it as truth that women can't be captains?
That's the way it was presented in the TV show.
I would add that it is a little weird that in the pilot, number one was a female, but in the final episode, they are saying woman aren't allowed to be starship captains. They let them get one step away, then say "this far, no further"?
Last edited:
That's an assumption. One best left in the past as a sexist point of view, like Pike not being able to get used to a woman on the bridge.
Culture war never ends.
Judge as you wish, they never explained the reason for it. Maybe there was something that happened in between Disco and TOS where they decided to limit women's roles. I'm betting it was a class action lawsuit against the federation for not taking proper precautions, and their only option was to cut back.
Similar threads
