McGivers also saved the day by releasing Kirk from death by decompression. She may have helped Khan at first but did correct her mistake.
If NBC had gone with the "Cage" version of Trek...
- Thread starter TigerOfDarkness
- Start date
I had forgotten about that! If it wasn't for her, Khan would have ultimately been successful in taking over the Enterprise and using it for his imperialist goals.
Thats usually how those plots go.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Which isn't the same thing as commanding a military ship. That there aren't any women commanding any shows that. This isn't some kind of parallel. And back then, in the 60s, if there even any company executives, they wouldn't be all the way on top, and there'd be infinitely less of them than today.
^^"Infinitely less," by definition, would have to be zero.
You misunderstand. My point is that woman in both TOS and TNG are relegated to traditional "female" roles and are often subordinate to the male characters. I am not lambasting care giving roles, but the connotations carried when placing woman in those roles on a "progressive" series such as Star Trek. In fact, I find that care giving roles are noble and are necessary. My mother is in the medical profession. My best friend is in the medical profession. My avatar and sig are Superman-related, perhaps the greatest of mankind's fictional caregivers.
I've always found, however, that Pulaski was the strongest of the female characters in TNG because she had her own opinions and didn't back down like Crusher and Troi.
I don't see that there's a difference. If you say they're "relegated" to caregiving roles, the unspoken assumption is that there's something second-rate about those roles.
Just out f interest, I did a quick search and found this on a Ministry of Defense site (UK):
Highest Ranking Female officers
Royal Navy: 1 Commodore
Army: 2 Brigadiers, 20 Colonels
RAF: 20 Group Captains
Its at: [URL]http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/WomenInTheArmedForces.htm
So there are a few reasonably high ranking women in the UK military.[/URL]
Last edited:
3D Master
Rear Admiral
And are they in command of a ship?
The answer is: nope.
Even if, they are but tiny numbers compared to the male ones, and that's TODAY. In the 60s...
Ok, so are you saying people wouldn't have accepted Number One in the sixties or that they still wouldn't today?
Which is the connotation that can be derived by placing females in those roles, and that is precisely what I am talking about. I am NOT stating that those are second-rate to anything, but the societal inference that those roles can carry as you have pointed out. Your statements prove my point. You insist on putting the negative spin on it, feeling that I am placing care givers in a second-banana position. Personally, I am NOT. I don't agree that they are second-rate positions. I am merely pointing out what can be inferred. Hence, one of the many connotations derived from such roles and the placement of female characters in them.
Last edited:
Wow, this thread has certainly delved into some pretty deep stuff!! 
Exactly the point I am making, but it doesn't seem to be sticking.
Look at the television zeitgest of the 60s. As pointed out, other shows had strong, lead females that could stand toe-to-toe with the men. Hell, Diahann Carroll's role as Julie, a nurse and single mother, was more progressive than Nurse Chapel or, dare I say, Lieutenant Uhura. She was strong, stood up to doctors and raised a son on her own. Did I mention she was a nurse, a care giver role?
The female characters on TOS were not only care givers, but subordinate to the males. Uhura constantly mentioning how frightened she'd become. Chapel swooning over Spock. Rand having to hold onto Kirk when things became tough. It is that combination of their place in the hierarchy of the cast and the manner in which they were written that made them less progressive than they could've been.
One can argue the same with Crusher and Troi on TNG. Crusher, especially in the first season, being nothing more than Janice Rand with a medical degree. Troi not wearing a duty uniform, despite being given a place in the command area of the bridge. Although, in later seasons she really came into her own as a character, a person and a professional.
Pulaski, as I stated before, is perhaps the strongest TNG female character, better yet she may be the strongest TNG character period. Why? She was opinionated, did what she thought was right and was willing to fight for it. She didn't back down like Crusher often did, and she went head-to-head with Picard.
Last edited:
Bull. You're the one who used the word "relegated." Look it up in the dictionary: to relegate is "to send or consign to an inferior position, place, or condition." You used the word "relegate," and in so doing you implicitly defined those positions as inferior. If that's not what you intended to say, then you chose your words poorly.
Whoa. Calm down. If you feel I misused a word, fine. But you are going overboard here instead of engaging me in a debate. I've brought up several additional points, but you seem willing to ignore them. Gee, if someone has a different perspective than you, you get into a pissing contest.
I'd rather you discuss the context of what I brought up for discussion rather than participating in a dick waving contest with me.
My choice of word, I am willing to admit, may have been perhaps harsher than my argument intended. But it's your blind arrogance that needs to point it out the inferiority of others ("Look it up in a dictionary.."). I am willing to concede to my mistakes. Are you?
Last edited:
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Neither. I said that men (and women) going "Who does she think she is?" and hated her in the test screenings is not some far fetched impossibility.
^^I don't think anybody said it was impossible, just that it wasn't the reason the character was dropped.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
:sighs: Yeah, that's what I said too. Someone challenged me on it though.
Similar threads
