it's sexist!
- Thread starter spoonunseptium
- Start date
I think Leave it to Beaver, Dennis the Menace, and The Andy Griffith Show probably were considered fairly conservative, even at the time. But I think The Dick Van Dyke Show and Star Trek were roughly equal in terms of gender politics. I'd wager Dick Van Dyke was actually more sophisticated in its gender politics than TOS. Both shows featured career women and even though Laura Petrie was a housewife, she was definitely smart, sophisticated, and not at all subservient to her husband, while still affectionately flirtatious in a way that did nothing to reduce her to a sex object. Though man-crazy, Sally Rogers was a quick wit in the office and a wonderful supporting character and foil to both Rob and Buddy Sorrell. The Petrie's neighbor was a bit of a gossipy stereotype however.
On Trek, women, even career officers were shown as overly-emotional to the point of being arguably unfit for duty, or they were shown as vengeful and power-mad, or just plain crazy. I'm trying to think of some women characters that came off truly well in TOS and off the top of my head I can cite Edith Keeler, but none of the regulars or semi-regulars. I think the female crew in The Cage came off as pretty professional though.
Of course one can be feminine and still be professional and incredibly intelligent. I think the character that's shown that balance best in Trek so far is Jadzia Dax. A close second would probably be Beverly Crusher. But I don't really see too many major characters in TOS that match that description.
Agreed!
Laura Petrie was smart and warm and just a terrific character. She was well-written and beautifully portrayed. She was also very emotional at times. (Ooooooh, Rooooooob!)
Question: Is it sexist to say that women are emotional than men, or just an established fact? Uhura expressed that she was afraid. She asked Spock to tell her she was beautiful (although, I think the intention of that moment was to show her toying with Spock, perhaps even flirting with him). They did think she was a dilithium crystal short of a warp core in Tholian Web, which seemed to assume that she was having a breakdown of some sort because they perceived her as being a hysterical female. Overall though, she faired pretty well as a character. With the exception of Tholian, does TOS's portrayal of women as being more emotional than men diminish their characters or say that it renders them incapable of being officers? Since they were in all sorts of important positions, I would say not. Does Laura Petrie's emotional outbursts make her character any less likeable or capable? I say it does not.
Now, having said all that.... there was the whole Janet Lester incident that apparently occurred because women were barred from becoming starship captains. Do you notice that they do not explain why? It is because it was an unacceptable idea in 1969 to both men and women. Remember - when were offended by the female "Number One" character. Roddenberry wanted to show women in command, but the general public did not. Even as recently as Voyager, there was a great to do about a female captain. Many male Trek fans do not like that series because of a female captain. Well, that and that it was just a horribly written show with lame characters, but I digress. They won't admit it in this forum, but it is true. The fact is, now that women are running companies and are now quite often the boss, people are thinking twice about the whole "women as leaders" concept. While I have had a few female managers who were extremely capable and inspired respect and admiration, most of them were petty and vindictive. I am sorry to say that most female managers I have encountered spend most of their time showing everyone that they are the boss. They get off on being able to tell people what to do. They get off on the authority so much that they become incapable of leading. Like I said, I have had a few really good ones too, but they are the exception and not the rule. Most males supervisors are NOT petty or vindictive. Most of them are focused on leading and getting the job done. While there are obviously males who get off on the power and authority too, they are the exception, not the rule. With women, it seems to be the other way around. Studies have shown that most people, including women, would rather work for a man than work for a woman. Why am I saying all of this. I am simply pointing out that in 2009 women are still not completely accepted by everyone in roles of leadership. In 1969, it was seen as offensive - hence the portrayal of women in the fashion that they were portrayed in Trek.
Question: Is it sexist to say that women are emotional than men, or just an established fact? Uhura expressed that she was afraid. She asked Spock to tell her she was beautiful (although, I think the intention of that moment was to show her toying with Spock, perhaps even flirting with him). They did think she was a dilithium crystal short of a warp core in Tholian Web, which seemed to assume that she was having a breakdown of some sort because they perceived her as being a hysterical female. Overall though, she faired pretty well as a character. With the exception of Tholian, does TOS's portrayal of women as being more emotional than men diminish their characters or say that it renders them incapable of being officers? Since they were in all sorts of important positions, I would say not. Does Laura Petrie's emotional outbursts make her character any less likeable or capable? I say it does not.
Now, having said all that.... there was the whole Janet Lester incident that apparently occurred because women were barred from becoming starship captains. Do you notice that they do not explain why? It is because it was an unacceptable idea in 1969 to both men and women. Remember - when were offended by the female "Number One" character. Roddenberry wanted to show women in command, but the general public did not. Even as recently as Voyager, there was a great to do about a female captain. Many male Trek fans do not like that series because of a female captain. Well, that and that it was just a horribly written show with lame characters, but I digress. They won't admit it in this forum, but it is true. The fact is, now that women are running companies and are now quite often the boss, people are thinking twice about the whole "women as leaders" concept. While I have had a few female managers who were extremely capable and inspired respect and admiration, most of them were petty and vindictive. I am sorry to say that most female managers I have encountered spend most of their time showing everyone that they are the boss. They get off on being able to tell people what to do. They get off on the authority so much that they become incapable of leading. Like I said, I have had a few really good ones too, but they are the exception and not the rule. Most males supervisors are NOT petty or vindictive. Most of them are focused on leading and getting the job done. While there are obviously males who get off on the power and authority too, they are the exception, not the rule. With women, it seems to be the other way around. Studies have shown that most people, including women, would rather work for a man than work for a woman. Why am I saying all of this. I am simply pointing out that in 2009 women are still not completely accepted by everyone in roles of leadership. In 1969, it was seen as offensive - hence the portrayal of women in the fashion that they were portrayed in Trek.
As I said before the studio would never have allowed the same level of female nudity, would they have allowed a topless Uhura or Chapel being questioned by Nazi or a female character being put into a android duplicating machine with only one bit of metal covering their middle?
Slightly off topic but there have been complaints against the new Treks Uhura's bra shot in the trailer, however will those complainers object to the new Treks topless Kirk shot we will no doubt get?
Slightly off topic but there have been complaints against the new Treks Uhura's bra shot in the trailer, however will those complainers object to the new Treks topless Kirk shot we will no doubt get?
I'm sorry, but its kind of discouraging to see some people suggest that TOS is not sexist. Of course it was. It was better than a lot of other shows of its time, but it was VERY sexist.
sometimes the women on TOS were portrayed as dummies,
but the same is true for any program on telly I suppose.
It was the time when the man was the breadwinner and the woman was a hausfrau.
And probably there would have been complaints if the women on telly were portrayed differently.
but the same is true for any program on telly I suppose.
It was the time when the man was the breadwinner and the woman was a hausfrau.
And probably there would have been complaints if the women on telly were portrayed differently.
No TV show or movie made over 40 years ago should be judged by present standards. One should always watch with the eyes of the audience targeted. This goes for social interaction as well as on a technological level (special effects, and the like).
One appreciates it more when one understands the era.
One appreciates it more when one understands the era.
The sexism paled in comparison to the stereotypical portrayal of Finnegan.
Hey, he's Oirish and he loves to fight all day long.....and he likes to sit on trees with his arms folded with a big grin on his face........where's me lucky charms?
Hey, he's Oirish and he loves to fight all day long.....and he likes to sit on trees with his arms folded with a big grin on his face........where's me lucky charms?
He's got a point.I've never understood this logic. No one is saying that the show is terrible. However it IS sexist. Being produced in the 60s does not make it any less sexist. Its just that the sexism was acceptable at that point in time.
If you saw a movie made in the 30s that had anti-semetic language or imagery, the fact that it was made in the 30s would in no way diminish the fact that it had anti-semetic overtones. There is a reason why Disney and WB don't show certain toons made prior to the 1960s. Some of the imagery was obviously racist. That it was socially acceptable to be racist during the past does not negate the fact that it was racist.
The same is true of sexism.
I find it equally disturbing that you and a few others are so hellbent on portraying it as sexist.
Uhura - "Captain, I'm frightened". What, somebody can't be frightened? We've seen Chekov SCREAM in fear more than once. In fact it saved his life once
McCoy's statements about what's her name wanting to leave the ship, get married and settle down. Perhaps HE KNEW the woman and she had told him she wanted these things?? My God, a woman wants to get married? Who ever heard of such a thing?
People saying Uhura was just a secretary.. It says a lot about you that you see it that way. . She was in charge of ships communications, how exactly is that not important? It was incredibly important. Comparing Uhura to a secretary is actually a SEXIST attitude. Would you compare a male officer or enlisted man on a modern day aircraft carrier who was in charge of communications to a secretary?
The only example I can think of that is actually a little ridiculous is the no female captains thing from Turnabout Intruder. That entire episode stunk up the place and was ridiculous anyway though.
No one is saying you shouldn't appreciate the racism or sexism in earlier movies. It's just you can't let it cloud your artistic judgement. It's a separate issue.
If I can steal an episode title from TNG, who's watching the watchers? On one, maybe a higher level, you can see the sexism. But below that, at least I have to divorce myself from that moral view and watch the piece through the eyes of its intended audience. Otherwise I can't enjoy reading one of the great pieces of American literature, Tom Sawyer. Or I don't apprecaite Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence and he just becomes a womanizing, sexually exploitive slave owner.
I would argue not separating your artistic judgements from your moral ones is limiting. Hell, it's limited me from seeing The Song of the South.
It wasn't so much that women were portrayed as more emotional in Star Trek, it was that they were portrayed as emotional to a degree that made them seem unqualified. It was good that they had a diverse crew, but the show was clearly a long way off from where we are today, and even today I'm constantly shocked by how far we still have to go in gender politics (I was doing improv for a while and it was absolutely appalling how sexist the shows were. Invariably the male performers would cast the women as housewives/mothers, girlfriends, and unrequited crushes. It was shockingly rare to see women characters as individuals unto themselves.).
Regardless of the amount of sexism in Star Trek, it's fairly sexist to suggest the above things about women in management positions--especially without citing any sources. It has not been my experience that women bosses were any more petty or vindictive than men bosses.
The fact that there were so many incidents one needs to explain away all of these incidents strongly suggests that these incidents weren't flukes to be explained away at all. And to describe Uhura as a secretary is to describe the way she was treated.
I find it equally disturbing that you and a few others are so hellbent on portraying it as sexist.
Uhura - "Captain, I'm frightened". What, somebody can't be frightened? We've seen Chekov SCREAM in fear more than once. In fact it saved his life once
McCoy's statements about what's her name wanting to leave the ship, get married and settle down. Perhaps HE KNEW the woman and she had told him she wanted these things?? My God, a woman wants to get married? Who ever heard of such a thing?
People saying Uhura was just a secretary.. It says a lot about you that you see it that way. . She was in charge of ships communications, how exactly is that not important? It was incredibly important. Comparing Uhura to a secretary is actually a SEXIST attitude. Would you compare a male officer or enlisted man on a modern day aircraft carrier who was in charge of communications to a secretary?
The only example I can think of that is actually a little ridiculous is the no female captains thing from Turnabout Intruder. That entire episode stunk up the place and was ridiculous anyway though.
^ You didn't address a single one of my points. You're just saying "well, it is still sexist". That isn't an argument.
They've been addressed before. The individual incidents aren't the point. The pervasiveness of them is what matters. If it were simply one or two incidents here and there then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
But the fact is that over and over again the episodes of TOS there were incidents like that. The ones you cite are by no means isolated incidents. Kirk routinely treated women as sex objects, and pawns to meet his needs. Both Pike and Kirk lamented gender integration on their respective commands.
Quoth Spock regarding women:
Quoth Kirk:
We can both quote examples, but when they represent such volume, then one must consider that when the exception to the rule becomes the majority, it becomes the rule.
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
But the fact is that over and over again the episodes of TOS there were incidents like that. The ones you cite are by no means isolated incidents. Kirk routinely treated women as sex objects, and pawns to meet his needs. Both Pike and Kirk lamented gender integration on their respective commands.
Quoth Spock regarding women:
Quoth Kirk:
We can both quote examples, but when they represent such volume, then one must consider that when the exception to the rule becomes the majority, it becomes the rule.
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
I like the way you debate Eric Cheung. I don't agree with you, but I respect your perspective and your approach. I don't believe the quote by Spock is referring to women, or at least I've never taken it that way, especially since he had just referred to T'Pring's reasons for the challenge as being flawlessly logical. It is true that when finally obtaining something that you have worked hard for can sometimes be a let down. It fails to live up to expectations. It is kind of like "Buyers Remorse". When the heart lusts for something, be it material goods, a mate, money or whatever, it tends to idealize it. When you actually get what you have lusted for, the idealism quickly fades and all you have left is the reality. (It just occurred to me that this is the idea that Mudd's Women was rather clumsily sort of aiming at.) His point to Ston was that bathwater might not be so hot once he has been sitting in it a while.
As far as siting sources, it is not really necessary for the type of discussion we're having here. It is not difficult to go onto a search engine and find some polling info. You will see that I am right if you do. In any event, I have worked for three major companies since 1986 and have seen the same thing in all three. Good female supervisors are the the exception, not the rule. Take your own poll. Ask 10 women you know whether they would rather work for a woman or a man and I think you will be suprised by their responses.
As far as siting sources, it is not really necessary for the type of discussion we're having here. It is not difficult to go onto a search engine and find some polling info. You will see that I am right if you do. In any event, I have worked for three major companies since 1986 and have seen the same thing in all three. Good female supervisors are the the exception, not the rule. Take your own poll. Ask 10 women you know whether they would rather work for a woman or a man and I think you will be suprised by their responses.
sorry- forgot the quote in that last one. This is what I was responding to.I think it's discouraging that there is no better substitute for a bra 300 years from now.
Thank you, I try to debate with honesty, respect, and some level of logic backed with a little bit of research.
In arguing that TOS is sexist I'm not impugning the show's merit, but trying to appraise the show in the context of what surrounded it--both in pop culture and the womens rights movements. The show itself comes from a mindset that just predates second-wave feminism (Second-wave feminism is the wave following suffrage. I refer to the mindset because it came from people like Roddenberry who came of age in the 30s and 40s and wrote for television in the 50s).
It was during the second-wave that a lot of women had to fight for jobs and equal pay (a fight that sadly continues to this day), and while TOS did show a number of female crew members, most of them were yeomen (aside from the occasional power-mad scientist or historian smitten by a dictator), a secretarial role already obviously common in the 60s.
So, if I read into Spock's line a little sensitively then it's because women had a lot to fight for at the time, perhaps more than what's fought for in the current, third-wave, of feminism, which has been criticized, rightly or wrongly, for its relative lack of focus when compared to the first two waves. Some even question if it's its own distinct wave rather than simply an extension of the second-wave.
It is through that prism that I try to empathize for women, or any oppressed people, in the workplace. I am a minority after all. Just looking at my own past job history I've had enough bosses to come up with an idea of how bosses of all kinds of backgrounds work, and I've had plenty of female bosses that have been a joy to work for, including my current boss.
The more telling variable in my experience has been the rank of my boss. The higher up the corporate ladder (or more accurately the degree to which they subscribe to a corporate mindset), the less in touch they are, and the worse they are as a boss.
Similar threads
