My wife and I have been talking a lot about the recent cultural trend of feminism in our media and how we think it isn't healthy and only promotes further sexism, especially against men. See the recent season of Dr. Who, there's tons of examples of misadry. It makes me so sad! Also, we've noticed that the message seems to be that in order for woman to take more prominent roles they must either be Mary sues(where they're too good at everything) or they must be stoic or masculine(kinda like rogue one)
In Rogue One, they told a specific story about a team getting the plans to the Death Star. There were arcs about Jyn's relationships with her dad, with Saw Gerrera, and with Cassian Andor, but the mission necessitated focus from all the characters. The relationships gave the actors a subtext to play, but ultimately, it was a story about people who knew how to do a job and do it pretty well. In that way, it was a lot like Star Trek. I don't really see much that's particularly masculine or feminine about that, or about stoicism. But Vulcans are associated with stoicism, no matter their gender. Since Michael Burnham was raised by Sarek and Amanda, and aspires to a command career track, and since Phillipa Georgiou is a Starfleet captain, stoicism is absolutely necessary to their characters to demonstrate their professionalism. That said, Burnham certainly sounds like she'll be played and written as someone flawed, who must go on a journey of self-discovery.
As much as I sincerely want discovery to be great, I'm super worried about it and I don't want them to overly politicize the show and make it out right militant. It's not the Star Trek way.
I guess what I'm trying to discuss is, what are the chances that Discovery will follow this media trend and have a forced opinion on the matter instead of an intellectual look at it? What are the chances that they'll make our new hero two dimensional? I want to see a strong female character that can be feminine and strong. I want to see her struggle and grow.
I just feel it's an important discussion for Star Trek to have.
All shows, including all the various Star Trek shows, have points of view. It's impossible to avoid. Fiction isn't a fact-checking website, there simply to relay facts in a cold manner. It's a vehicle for stories that take a look at things from the point of view of the writers. Merely spotlighting that isn't forcing an opinion on others. It's just not denying one's own views on the matter.
The whole point of Star Trek, according to Roddenberry, was to use allegory to provide commentary on social issues from his point of view. His opinions often overruled the writers in ways that infuriated them. Sometimes he was right. Sometimes he was wrong. But one could easily interpret him as forcing his opinion on both his staff and the viewers, especially when it came to things like religion, sex, the perfectibility of humanity, and having a ship that represented all of humanity. He tried to make his Enterprise as diverse as he could, and even promised a gay character a few times for TNG. I like to think he would have supported the casting on DSC, whether he would have liked the show or not.
I'm not out to hurt feelings, I'm here to discuss an art I am deeply passionate about.
I hope so. Given the past few pages of posts, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what others have said.
