He didn't?
Is Star Trek homophobic?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
- Status
But there was still the watching public to report to and I don't think in the late 80s/early 90s were quite ready for an openly gay character or at least one with any ability to be in control of a starship.
To have a gay character for the sake of a gay character is pandering. I think it can definetly be done and should be done but not if it's to appease. It should have a point and perhaps that point could be that in the future, we've become more accepting and have truly embraced the diversity the galaxy has to offer.
To have a gay character for the sake of a gay character is pandering. I think it can definetly be done and should be done but not if it's to appease. It should have a point and perhaps that point could be that in the future, we've become more accepting and have truly embraced the diversity the galaxy has to offer.
Star Trek: The Next Generation aired in first run syndication from 1987-94 in the United States, which meant Paramount sold it on a station by station basis.
But couldn't the same be said about the woman first officer Number One (who he was also bangin') or a black woman in a position of importance on the bridge? Which he seemingly had no problem pitching to the suits at Desilu and NBC.
I don't think it was progressive after the original series. Someone asked why it was ever considered progressive and I answered.
Pay closer attention to what the TOS actors say in interviews. Only Takei and Nichols address this subject. None of the others, you know, the white men ever have, at least, not that I've seen. I sometimes get the feeling that if Takei and Nichols hadn't been a part of it, they would've been fans. Or at least one time viewers.
A TV show that posits a future in which blacks, whites, and Asians are all equal, in which war has been eliminated and the world united, in which all cultures are seen as equal and united (on both an intraplanetary AND interplanetary level), in which there is no more poverty and the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving motive of most of people or society's powerful institutions, in which a large government supervises the distribution of wealth for the benefit of all people (as established in "Journey to Babel") -- this doesn't strike you as marking Star Trek as being about what life is like after the ultimate victory of Progressivism over Conservatism?
Well, it might have been progressive and risk-taking back then, but now it's just applied market research.
We live in a country where a significant percentage of the population honestly believes that the sitting President of the United States is a foreign citizen who is a secret fundamentalist Islamc "Manchurian agent" out to destroy the country, with no evidence, solely because, whether they will admit it or not, he happens to be a black guy whose name rhymes with "Osama." We live in a country where about half the populace is convinced that they'll be rich one day and that therefore an economic system that privileges wealth and extorts money out of the working and middle classes and into the hands of the corporate aristocracy is a good thing. We live in a country where a hell of a lot of people still think a woman's place is at home, wearing sexy underwear for her man while she makes him a sandwich. We live in a country where a hell of a lot of people basically want permanent war against any country that doesn't suck up to us.
Trust me, the idea of equality for all is still very Progressive.
btw, I happen to hate all gays (men and women) I know for being total arrogant assholes and nasty bitches, and because of their really strong "in your face" attitude about their sexual orientation. Does that make me homophobic?
Wow, Sci, you're even more cynical than I am. I also think your assertion that a "significant" percentage of the population think Obama's a secret Muslim assassin is a bit much. Yeah, there are some whack jobs who do, but you claiming a significant percentage believes this holds about as much water as my earlier assertion in a different thread that Obama was elected because he was black.
You might wanna change your avatar then...
Is your name "a hell of a lot of people?"
I don't know. Do you hate heterosexuals you know who are just as in-your-face about their sexual orientation?
I'm just realistic about how prevalent Progressive ideals are in this country. We've come a long way, but racism, patriarchy, and economic oppression are still very real problems.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ho-think-obama-is-a-muslim-nearly-doubles.php
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...t-president-was-born-in-u-s/?fbid=S7VzajvA2O3
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html
http://www.livescience.com/culture/obama-anti-christ-100325.html
The whack jobs aren't the majority by any means, but when you're talking 10%-15% of the population, that is a significant number.
I always thought it would have been good to even see in passing a same-sex couple. Or even a reference to one even once. But then I don't let this sort of thing ruin Star Trek for me.
As a side note, if anyone really wants to see a gay character in a Star Trek show, I suggest trying a "little" fan show called Hidden Frontier a try. It's a little basic in the first few seasons but as they got better technology, the effects got better.
As a side note, if anyone really wants to see a gay character in a Star Trek show, I suggest trying a "little" fan show called Hidden Frontier a try. It's a little basic in the first few seasons but as they got better technology, the effects got better.
Let's look at this logically ... There have been 628 episodes of Star Trek. Counting The Cage, that's 80 episodes of the original series, 22 Animated, 178 of the Next Gen, 176 of DS9, and 172 of Voyager. There's also 11 movies.
Not once has there been even a passing reference in the background of single scene showing a same-sex couple. And yet every main character of every version of Trek has been in a relationship at least once. Even the robot and the puddle of jell-o on DS9 got some nookie.
Seems pretty obvious to me they have a policy against same-sex couples.
Well, you know I don't like numbers, and I don't always trust methodology of pollsters. That said, even lopping a liberal 10% off the top of this stat still leaves it way too high. That's frightening that so many people believe that. My guess would have been around 1/10%... Just wow...
I completely agree. That's why I think it's important to recognize that the Progressive ideals Star Trek espouses are not today, as JarodRussell argued, "applied market research" that's universally accepted. A frighteningly large percentage of the country -- not the majority by any means, but still frighteningly large -- embraces a lot of ignorant, prejudiced nonsense.
Which means that Star Trek is still, at heart, a story espousing Progressive ideals -- and one that was blatantly inconsistent with its own Progressivism by not making the same effort to depict LGBT characters that it did to depict women and racial minorities.
I don't know how you can read that article - and similar comments by the likes of Ron D. Moore - and not conclude Trek is homophobic.
And why a homosexual character should have appeared in some way in Trek is pretty well summed up by the results of that poll underneath the story ...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
