If Abrams thinks he knows his audience he is mistaken

[Cyke101]

...These two sentences are on some level in direct contradiction to each other (it can't be the primary focus, but it should be blatant?), which only further illustrates my point about how it's going to be tricky to include someone without making it seem forced or as if it were catering, as opposed to being an actual out-and-out worthy character trait. If it comes across as blatant and deliberate, then you add in condescension and preachiness, and that never goes well; it actually increases the divide in dialogue.

I'm not going to say that Trek hasn't been classically biased against the LGBTQ population, but on the other hand, who's to say that Ensign So-and-So in the back there isn't at least bi/queer/fluid?

Thats just it. The heterosexuality of main characters was always blatant and deliberate, and wasn't treated as the primary focus of their character. I don't think any condescension or preachiness would be needed. If you wanted to do an episode about institutional homophobia or heteronormativity and you tried to make your LGBTQ character the driving force in that plot, then condescension and preachiness would definatly be an issue, though I think the recent ST PII Blood and Fire adaptation did things rather well. Whenever Trek has tried to address LGBTQ oppression before they've stumbled all over it because they make a big deal out of it, and think it to death instead of treating it like they've treated everything else.

I'm still iffy about the approach though I certainly respect where you're coming from. What you're asking for is a transition from a heteronormative mindset to at least a non-assuming attitude. That's certainly a noble goal, but it takes time to implement if you actively try to avoid the condescension. I imagine that had the Blood and Fire adaptation reached a larger audience, that it would only escalate (rather than elevate) discussion on the subject.

Basically, at the end of it all, I'd be more than happy (actually, downright ecstatic) to see a far more gay friendly Star Trek. However, the issue is so delicate and fluid that I can't really fault Abrams for not going down that route in his very first Trek film, either. Like the political, social, and cultural LGBTQ movements themselves, I'd say give it some time and for God's sake, don't rush it.

(In my ideal world, a Trek cast would be diverse in sexuality, and if someone in the film/show raises an eyebrow, one of our heroes simply replies, "It's the 23rd Century, grow up already." And I get the feeling that if there's going to be a cast who can do that, it's the current one.)

 

[Paniscus]

This isn't the place to promote your paper!

WTF?

Surely well constructed (and peer reviewed) debates are exactly what this forum is about? Overpoliced much? Its not like I get paid for it!

BIG THANKS to everyone who posted. I've enjoyed the discourse.

My only contributions at this stage would be:

1. Remember its not just about seeing gays holding hands (or steamy man-on-man action, which wouldnt hurt) etc. Its about queering Star Trek itself.

2. I want to queery/query the assumption that we know all the main characters are "hetero", which was stated several times above. The main idea behind queer theory (as opposed to LGBTIQ representation) is that anyone can have multiple sexual, sex or gender identities or behaviours.

The discussion of Sulu's daughter is closer to the mark. Just because he had a child doesnt make him hetero. Just because Spock and Uhura "hook up" in XI doesnt mean they dont break up and one of them has a same-sex r/ship in XII.

Isn't it time we think outside the box people?

 

[Paniscus]

I'd say give it some time and for God's sake, don't rush it.

I couldn't resist replying to this.

1. Don't bring God into it, She doesnt like it, and
2. More time? If we all had views like that the USA would never have dared to dream of Obama as President.

Why is it when it comes to race and class we are all for proactive signs of change, but minor calls to change sex, gender and sexual identities and behaviours provokes this reaction?

Besides, two decades after Roddenberrys claim that gay characters would be seen on the Enterprise seems hardly a 'rush'!!

 

[Kegg]

Surely well constructed (and peer reviewed) debates are exactly what this forum is about?

Um, no. We have plenty of poorly constructed debates which aren't peer reviewed and people don't complain overmuch.

Takes both kinds?

1. Remember its not just about seeing gays holding hands (or steamy man-on-man action, which wouldnt hurt)

We've never had steamy man-on-woman action either. Given the sort of franchise Star Trek is, there's an understandable limit to the sort of sexuality one gets. Yeah, there are a lot of references in this movie, but Saldana strips to her underwear rather than plain gets naked.

2. I want to queery/query the assumption that we know all the main characters are "hetero", which was stated several times above.

That's basically how the characters have been written and portrayed rather consistently in their appearances for the past few decades. Sulu is the exception inasmuch no relationship of his was ever explored at all.

It's possible that they are bisexual or have other identites and that's a direction Abrams and co. could go if they intended to.

2. More time? If we all had views like that the USA would never have dared to dream of Obama as President.

It took Obama a couple of decades after civil rights, and something like a century and a half after the freeing of the slaves. Time was a likely factor here.

But yes, Star Trek is behind the curveball by a decade or so far as this goes.

 

[Cyke101]

I'd say give it some time and for God's sake, don't rush it.

I couldn't resist replying to this.

1. Don't bring God into it, She doesnt like it, and
2. More time? If we all had views like that the USA would never have dared to dream of Obama as President.

Why is it when it comes to race and class we are all for proactive signs of change, but minor calls to change sex, gender and sexual identities and behaviours provokes this reaction?

I'll tell you why. Two words for you: Proposition 8. The LGBTQ movement (in particular, the Human Rights Campaign) thought defeating it was in the bag and simultaneously rushed its campaign while haphazardly and lazily organizing it. They coasted. They took the foot off the gas and wanted to see how far the car would go anyway. What seemed to be a sureshot ended up being a wakeup call after California voters approved it and nullified same sex marriage, and now the big progressive stronghold of the US is behind places like Iowa, who cultivated their racial AND sexual causes for decades (moreso than California) before enacting huge and positive change. History, past and modern, has shown us that applying that sort of NOW NOW NOW mindset to activism without any sort of nuanced and careful thought will spell disaster.

I can't speak for others, but why does it provoke that reaction from me? Because I want it done RIGHT and I don't want it to push back any forward momentum by ten years the way gay leaders did in California, that's why. Regardless of LOGO and Will & Grace and Lt. Choi and Wanda Sykes, it's still very much a delicate issue that needs to be very carefully on several fronts. Nothing is for granted, except for the need to overcome hate.

And for your comparison of this movement to race and class: Let's remember that institutionalized racism didn't begin or end with Martin Luther King. The fight began as soon as blacks were brought into the colonies, and it's still being fought to this day, and it (shamefully) took 30 years after Uhura for Trek to show a primary captain who was either Black or Female (so 2 decades of Roddenberry saying gay characters will come? How about 3 decades PLUS Roddenberry's death to show the results of 1919's Women's Suffrage and the 60s' Civil Rights?). I pray-tell that the LGBTQ movement doesn't take that long, and I bet it won't. But there's nothing minor about changes to race or gender or identity or class, nor should there be anything minor about them, they're all important.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but Dr Who does a very good job of acknowledging and normalizing homo- and bi-sexuality without being preachy or apologetic. "The Waters of Mars" has a great scene where a character talks about his brother and his brother's husband and its handled in a way that says nothing more than this is how it is in 2059.

 

[Cyke101]

I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but Dr Who does a very good job of acknowledging and normalizing homo- and bi-sexuality without being preachy or apologetic. "The Waters of Mars" has a great scene where a character talks about his brother and his brother's husband and its handled in a way that says nothing more than this is how it is in 2059.

I'm ashamed to say that I've seen that episode twice and twice have I missed that line. 3rd time's the charm

 

[Sci]

Don't be absurd. ST09 actually gave Uhura a personality, which is far more than TOS could say. And ST09 deliberately undermines the patriarchal image of the alpha male getting the girl -- if you'll recall, in ST09, Kirk literally never manages to hook up with anyone, while the "beta male" of the film is the one who is in a committed relationship that is clearly based on something much deeper than mere lust.

I feel like ST09 gave Uhura the personality of woman using her sexuality to climb the social ladder... on to the Enterprise.

The film establishes the exact opposite. The Spock/Uhura scene in the shuttle hanger makes it clear that Uhura was more than qualified, on her own merits as an officer-cadet, to serve aboard the Enterprise because she was the highest-accomplishing officer-cadet. Commander Spock re-assigned her to avoid the appearance that she had gained her seat aboard the Enterprise due to her relationship with him; Uhura made it clear that that would be punishing her for her private life and denying her an opportunity that she had fairly and completely earned.

In short, her romantic life almost cost her her seat on the Enterprise. She did not use her sexuality to climb the social ladder. The fact that you assume she did says far more about your attitudes towards whether or not a woman can accomplish something than it does about the film.

The guy she has this deep relationship with is one of her instructors at the academy.

Actually, we have no information on when Spock and Uhura's relationship began. It is entirely possible that it was not until after Spock was no longer her instructor that they began their relationship.

It's fair enough to note that it's a bad idea for Uhura to be in a relationship with the first officer of the ship she is assigned to -- but this does not mean that the film is endorsing the idea of male dominance. Especially since, frankly, I think that the relationship dynamic made it very clear that Uhura is the more dominant partner in their relationship and Spock more submissive, or at least relatively more passive. I don't think they're doing boss/secretary.

Does it make a difference who is nabbing the girl if the game is still to nab the girl?

But the game isn't to get the girl. That's the point. Kirk acts like the game is to get the girl, and because of that, he never gets a girl. Spock does not regard the game as being "get the girl;" he enters a relationship because he cares about Uhura and she about him. It's a subversion of the idea that the game is to get the girl -- the guy who thinks it is does not get a girl, and the one who treats women as people and cares about them (however stoically) is the one who loves and is loved in return.

How about having a bar fight to see who gets to nab the girl.

What about it? The point of that bar fight is to establish Kirk's combination of immaturity and personal bravery, not to endorse all of his behavior. Or do you think that the main characters should be like Dudely Do-Right, without flaw?

So yeah, I still think this movie was super patriarchal and heteronormative.

I'll grant you the heteronormativity -- though I view that as a function of the fact that the film is based on a 1960s TV series that itself had no LGBTQ characters. I don't think the filmmakers had any deliberately anti-LGBTQ agendas, and I am hopeful that future sequels will feature Trek's first LGBT characters.

But I think you're twisting the film around to claim it's "super-patriarchal." The most sexist thing about the film is the fact that they kept the female miniskirts -- and even that is mediated by the fact that there are female officers wearing the standard duty uniforms. Certainly the film went out of its way to be more egalitarian in its treatment of the characters as objects of desire -- Kirk spent as much time half-naked as the female characters.

1. Star Trek has never been as intelligent, socially aware, or tolerant as it has liked to think of itself as being.

2. That the primary goal of the film series is to deliver a well-executed action/adventure story does not mean that they can't do social commentary. See The Dark Knight.

3. That ST09 focused on establishing the characters over social commentary does not mean it lacked intelligence.

1. I'll certainly grant you that one. Its the idea that it could live up to that promise that frustrates fans like me.

2. You're right about that too, but ST09's world view, if we actually look into it, is authoritarian, patriarchal, and all around Star Wars-ish.

In what possible sense is ST09's worldview "authoritarian?" The damn thing features Kirk getting rewarded left and right every time he breaks a regulation!

3. I don't feel any characters were established well in this film aside from repeating their catch phrases, and Kirk being a violent frat boy *explative*.

Fair enough, but that's a completely subjective experience; I thought that the film managed to serve the characters well by telling the story about how two people with very different personalities and values learned to cooperate and care about each other -- interpersonal IDIC. It's a much more character-driven sort of story than the political allegories many seem to want, but I don't think it's invalid as a way of re-introducing the characters.

Because, of course, a popular film cannot be socially aware. After all, most people aren't as smart as you and I.

What was that you were saying about egalitarianism?

There's the populism of the Facist/authoritarian/reactionary variety and the populism of the liberation/egalitarian/revolutionary variety, and this film has more of the former than the latter.

Again, how's that?

And how is it that you can claim to believe in egalitarianism when you proclaim a film that has broad popular appeal to be one that "caters to the lowest common denominator" -- as though to imply that the majority of people are less intelligent than yourself?

TOS gave us bigoted Vulcans, too. So did DS9 and VOY and ENT. Let's face it: Some Vulcans have always had chips on their shoulders about non-Vulcans, and that's been present from the first time Sarek was described as refusing to speak to Spock after he joined Starfleet in TOS.

Heck, ST09 painted Sarek in a much kinder, less bigoted light than TOS did.

I got nothin here. I've clearly been defeated here, and I withdraw my earlier comments.

Fair enough.

I suppose its the fact that they're depicted as violent bullies that made it jump out at me. That just seemed unbelievable.

I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I think you should probably remember that it was actually Young!Spock who threw the first punch, not the other Vulcan kids. They were verbally abusive -- but that's consistent with "Journey to Babel," in which the Lady Amanda recalls that Spock was verbally bullied by other Vulcan children when he was a child.

 

[Zakk]

I kinda agree with ya on that, but there are always going to be hardcore trekkie fans out there saying they like the movie and there also other saying that they hate the movie, so it always 50/50 Fans are always going to have aspects of what they do or what they don't want see in the movie. As for me i enjoy Abrams Star trek film, but the thing i hated was when they distroy Valcan that PO alot.

 

[Cryogenic]

It took Obama a couple of decades after civil rights, and something like a century and a half after the freeing of the slaves. Time was a likely factor here.

As historic as Obama's election victory was, according to a 1999 Gallup poll cited by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" (that's where I first encountered it, anyway), the breakdown for the percentage of those polled who affirmed in each category (that they would vote for well-qualified presidential candidates in each category) is as follows:

- Woman: 95%
- Roman Catholic: 94%
- Jew: 92%
- Black: 92%
- Mormon: 79%
- Homosexual: 79%
- Atheist: 49%

A homosexual candidate is only as likely to get voted in as a Mormon candidate, and the situation for an atheist candidate is dire. Based on these statistics, Obama's election was precipitated years before it happened, but the American electorate clearly has enormous reservations if you belong to a fringe religion, are not attracted to members of the opposing sex or don't believe in an intervening cosmological superbeing.

Now, Star Trek, in its own way, big or small, could do its part in helping to turn the tide. In fact, if it's not pushing the envelope on social issues, what's the point? There has always been capitulation and weakness -- and oodles of compromise -- with Trek, but it DID used to have some balls, before it was completely corporatized. The notion (I can't dignify it with the term "idea") that one or more non-hetero characters would draw undue attention to themselves unless they were handled "just so" is patently absurd, and a reactionary strawman. Given Trek's chronic cowardice, we're not likely to ever see anything all that radical in terms of men kissing men, or someone crossing genders and being, perhaps, neither male or female, nor anything that rocks the boat in any visible way; at present, that would simply be too extreme, and Trek is likely, if it deals with such issues at all, to relegate them to the background, and only explicate its choices through piecemeal insinuation and innuendo.

Further, someone contested the assertion that Abrams' ST is not all that "patriarchal". Oh, but it is. A lot of people seem to have completely overlooked his trashing of the matriarchal structure of Vulcan: in the scene in which Spock goes up against the council, Spock is addressed by a male in an elevated (literally) position, who is also flanked by males on both sides; there are two women and five men on the council: http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_1367.jpg From where I'm sat, "lowest common denominator versus sophisticated, mature and intelligent" is not a false dichotomy, and with Abrams and his team in power, that won't change. I don't think they have the balls or the brains to dissolve it and integrate both, and the council scene is a striking example--Roddenberry did something better 40 years ago. STXI is not only loud and dumb, it's regressive and insulting.

 

[Sci]

Now, Star Trek, in its own way, big or small, could do its part in helping to turn the tide. In fact, if it's not pushing the envelope on social issues, what's the point?

While I agree that Star Trek should be pushing the envelope more, I do feel the need to point out that Star Trek's job, first and foremost, is to tell entertaining, optimistic stories about the future. Star Trek, after all, is entertainment, not a political movement.

Further, someone contested the assertion that Abrams' ST is not all that "patriarchal". Oh, but it is. A lot of people seem to have completely overlooked his trashing of the matriarchal structure of Vulcan:

Vulcan was never established to be matriarchal. We've seen male authority figures on Vulcan, and we've seen female authority figures. We've seen T'Pau and T'Lar, and we've seen Sarek and V'Las.

in the scene in which Spock goes up against the council, Spock is addressed by a male in an elevated (literally) position, who is also flanked by males on both sides; there are two women and five men on the council: http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_1367.jpg

So, there's one Vulcan authority agency that is established to include more men than women at that particular time. That's hardly evidence that Vulcan is now a patriarchal culture -- especially since later in the film, we see several female Vulcans from the High Council being rescued by the Enterprise.

From where I'm sat, "lowest common denominator versus sophisticated, mature and intelligent" is not a false dichotomy,

So the majority of people are not as intelligent and sophisticated and mature as you? How terribly egalitarian of you.

 

[Cryogenic]

Now, Star Trek, in its own way, big or small, could do its part in helping to turn the tide. In fact, if it's not pushing the envelope on social issues, what's the point?

While I agree that Star Trek should be pushing the envelope more, I do feel the need to point out that Star Trek's job, first and foremost, is to tell entertaining, optimistic stories about the future. Star Trek, after all, is entertainment, not a political movement.

For any thinking person, "optimistic stories about the future" -- or, rather, optimistic stories about the present, set in the future -- should mean current mores and trends are critiqued and challenged; implicitly and explicitly; literally and metaphorically; visually and otherwise.

Further, someone contested the assertion that Abrams' ST is not all that "patriarchal". Oh, but it is. A lot of people seem to have completely overlooked his trashing of the matriarchal structure of Vulcan:

Vulcan was never established to be matriarchal. We've seen male authority figures on Vulcan, and we've seen female authority figures. We've seen T'Pau and T'Lar, and we've seen Sarek and V'Las.

A matriarchy must necessarily have female authority figures, but female authority figures don't necessarily suggest a matriarchy. Once again, the council is arranged in a retrograde fashion: five males to two females, and the males occupy the uppermost positions.

in the scene in which Spock goes up against the council, Spock is addressed by a male in an elevated (literally) position, who is also flanked by males on both sides; there are two women and five men on the council: http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_1367.jpg

So, there's one Vulcan authority agency that is established to include more men than women at that particular time. That's hardly evidence that Vulcan is now a patriarchal culture -- especially since later in the film, we see several female Vulcans from the High Council being rescued by the Enterprise.

See my last point.

From where I'm sat, "lowest common denominator versus sophisticated, mature and intelligent" is not a false dichotomy,

So the majority of people are not as intelligent and sophisticated and mature as you? How terribly egalitarian of you.

Ad hominem.

My full sentence was: "From where I'm sat, "lowest common denominator versus sophisticated, mature and intelligent" is not a false dichotomy, and with Abrams and his team in power, that won't change." In other words, the earlier charge that STXI is appealing to the lowest common denominator in a pejorative sense instead of attempting sophistication, maturity and intelligence is, in my opinion, a correct claim, and this is owed to the people involved and their overall mentality; a handful of films can court a mass audience and be clever; erudition and entertainment are often separate, but they don't have to be; it all comes down to the attitudes and abilities of the individuals behind a work of art.

 

[Sci]

Now, Star Trek, in its own way, big or small, could do its part in helping to turn the tide. In fact, if it's not pushing the envelope on social issues, what's the point?

While I agree that Star Trek should be pushing the envelope more, I do feel the need to point out that Star Trek's job, first and foremost, is to tell entertaining, optimistic stories about the future. Star Trek, after all, is entertainment, not a political movement.

For any thinking person, "optimistic stories about the future" -- or, rather, optimistic stories about the present, set in the future -- should mean current mores and trends are critiqued and challenged; implicitly and explicitly; literally and metaphorically; visually and otherwise.

That's certainly one valid way of doing optimistic stories about the future, but that does not mean that every optimistic story about the future has to fit that paradigm. Nor does it mean that someone who enjoys optimistic stories about the future that do not fit that paradigm are not thinking persons.

A matriarchy must necessarily have female authority figures, but female authority figures don't necessarily suggest a matriarchy.

Which is irrelevant, since there is no evidence that Vulcan is a matriarchy or a patriarchy. We've seen prominent authority figures of both sexes on Vulcan, and there's no evidence that one holds a preponderance of power.

Once again, the council is arranged in a retrograde fashion: five males to two females, and the males occupy the uppermost positions.

So, there's one Vulcan authority agency that is established to include more men than women at that particular time. That's hardly evidence that Vulcan is now a patriarchal culture -- especially since later in the film, we see several female Vulcans from the High Council being rescued by the Enterprise.

See my last point.

I saw your last point, and it's irrelevant. One agency -- and even ST09 was careful to make it clear that the Vulcan High Council was a cultural agency, not the full Vulcan government -- that happens to have more males than females on it does not mean all of Vulcan is a patriarchy.

From where I'm sat, "lowest common denominator versus sophisticated, mature and intelligent" is not a false dichotomy,

So the majority of people are not as intelligent and sophisticated and mature as you? How terribly egalitarian of you.

Ad hominem.

Yes, you are making an ad hominem attack upon the majority of the populace.

a handful of films can court a mass audience and be clever;

That is not what you said. You said, "'lowest common denominator versus sophisticated, mature and intelligent" is not a false dichotomy." You did not include anything that indicated that something can be broadly popular and be clever; you explicitly used language claiming that there was a conflict between the two.

it all comes down to the attitudes and abilities of the individuals behind a work of art.

Then it will no doubt please you to be aware of the fact that Abrams and Company have been the creative forces behind works that are almost universally praised for their intelligence and sophistication (such as Lost) and that they have indicated in interviews that they intended ST09 as an introductory piece and intend to make its sequel a more philosophically sophisticated film.

 

[JarodRussell]

LOL, you are so going to hate me for this.


I wonder what would happen if scientists one day found out that homosexuality was a disorder, caused by hormonal imbalance or some other medical technobabble.

Which is what I think it is. Does that turn homosexuals into bad people? The fuck no! But I hate the whole PC surrounding the issue. I want to be able to point at a guy/girl in a wheelchair and say: hey, you are in a wheelchair. If that hurts his/her feelings or not is another issue, but that's freedom of speech, and what you do with it.

From an evolutionary POV, homosexuality is an anomaly because two of the same sex cannot reproduce. Why on Earth would nature want you to not reproduce? It is all about reproduction. Love, for example, it is just a tool of our sexual instinct. If you find the right partner, you fall in love. Then you reproduce, and in order to protect your children, you fall in love with them, too. And almost the entire animal world reacts to the scheme of childlike characteristics.

That's just one of many examples why I think there is indeed a "NORMAL" in this world. And homosexuality is not normal. There, I said it.

People who feel nothing when they see a little baby (doesn't matter if human or other mammal) are suffering from a disorder. Mothers who put their own children in the refrigerator, for example. That is something that nature tried to prevent by inventing love for your own children.

Then there are people out there that feel nothing when looking at women, but they feel sexually aroused by looking at cars. Would you say that is normal?

And then there are males who only get aroused by looking at other males, and fall only for male pheromones instead of female ones. I don't think that's normal either.



BUT: It is harmless, that's what it is. So everyone should be allowed to do anything they want.



But I wouldn't exclude the possibility that some day they'd find a medical reason for it, and offered a "treatment". If that "treatment" is ever put in use is another question. I guess the social acceptance of gays would be so strong that no one would ever use it.

 

[trevanian]

Vulcan was never established to be matriarchal. We've seen male authority figures on Vulcan, and we've seen female authority figures. We've seen T'Pau and T'Lar, and we've seen Sarek and V'Las.

ulcan was never established to be matriarchal. We've seen male authority figures on Vulcan, and we've seen female authority figures. We've seen T'Pau and T'Lar, and we've seen Sarek and V'Las. [/]

Sarek is just an ambassador. But T'Pau is "all of vulcan wrapped up" or words to that effect. Plus Sturgeon's intent as I recall was that Vulcan be a matriarchy, something picked up on and developed by nearly all fiction (licensed or not) followed. Now if you're one of the canonistas, none of this will matter a whit to you, but it IS germane, regardless of your take on it.

Even if I didn't agree with his view of Abrams' pic (and I do most strenuously agree with it), I'd still say CRYO is right on with his assessment.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But how important is Sturgeon's ( who is basically a hired hand) "intent" as opposed to those of Roddenberry and Fontana? ( who run the place)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

If anything, Vulcan has been shown to be a meritocracy--who deserves the job gets the job, regardless of gender.

 

[Cryogenic]

Even if I didn't agree with his view of Abrams' pic (and I do most strenuously agree with it), I'd still say CRYO is right on with his assessment.

Thanks, trevanian.

The two posts preceding your own take my breath away. I could spend a whole year just sifting through the fallacies. What a colossal waste of time so much of the Internet actually is.

 

[Sci]

Vulcan was never established to be matriarchal. We've seen male authority figures on Vulcan, and we've seen female authority figures. We've seen T'Pau and T'Lar, and we've seen Sarek and V'Las.

Sarek is just an ambassador.

Sarek was one of the most influential political leaders in the entire Federation.

But T'Pau is "all of vulcan wrapped up" or words to that effect.

Which does not mean that Vulcan is a matriarchy, but rather that T'Pau is an extremely powerful and well-regarded political leader.

Plus Sturgeon's intent as I recall was that Vulcan be a matriarchy, something picked up on and developed by nearly all fiction (licensed or not) followed. Now if you're one of the canonistas, none of this will matter a whit to you, but it IS germane, regardless of your take on it.

No, it's one particular interpretation of the canon. It's certainly never been explicitly established in the canon or in the licensed fiction; both have featured male and female Vulcan authority figures, and there's never been any definitive indication that one sex or the other has a preponderance of power.

(Actually, now that I think about it, Sarek is awfully comfortable ordering Amanda around in "Journey to Babel," and Amanda seems to respond by saying that it is her duty to obey him as his wife. One might argue that this is evidence that Vulcan is a patriarchy -- but, frankly, given the prominence of characters like T'Pau and T'Lar, I'm inclined to just take it as internal dynamic of one particular relationship and not evidence of what general Vulcan culture is like.)

ETA:

To JarodRussell:

The word for your entire argument is "heterosexist."

 

[Kegg]

I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but Dr Who does a very good job of acknowledging and normalizing homo- and bi-sexuality without being preachy or apologetic.

I don't actually watch the show, but this is exactly the sort of treatment I guess one would expect from someone like Russel T. Davies - for whom, as with the OP, this is a very important and personal issue.

For Abrams et al, and hell, me, it's more of an abstract thing.

A homosexual candidate is only as likely to get voted in as a Mormon candidate, and the situation for an atheist candidate is dire.

And women beat Roman Catholics? Interesting, since America's had a Roman Catholic President and also a candidate or two from the major parties (Democrat, typically - Al Smith, John Kerry, those guys) but I haven't heard of any comparable representation for women.

On the other hand, there are more women than there are Roman Catholics, so it's an unsurprising response.

A lot of people seem to have completely overlooked his trashing of the matriarchal structure of Vulcan:

One Celia Lovsky does not a matriarchy make. And considering we got Mark Lenard to make up for it, this is doubly true. Heck, the role of T'Pring in "Amok Time" is the conniving woman using the rules of marriage to get what she wants, which if anything suggests a rather patriarchal society (though, honestly, I feel this word is fast approaching 'fascist' as becoming overused to the point of meaninglessness. We'll see in time.)

But I wouldn't exclude the possibility that some day they'd find a medical reason for it, and offered a "treatment". If that "treatment" is ever put in use is another question. I guess the social acceptance of gays would be so strong that no one would ever use it.

People might use it the other way. They want to become gay. Or become aroused at cars. Maybe someone inherited his parent's huge portfolio of architectural drawings and decided on a whim they'd like to wank off to those.

...I do think the future will be a strange, confusing place, anyway.