I never thought you intended to imply that women are by rule less interesting, but that's how it comes off when people just dismiss the criticism that a show has too few female characters by saying general things like "what matters is that the characters are interesting". That's completely missing the point - of course we all love interesting characters, but that doesn't explain why there should be a lot more male characters than female, does it? Unless one thinks that female characters can never be as interesting as male characters. And here we were talking about one particular character - whose personality would not be significantly changed if their gender was changed. Other people's reactions to her might change, but her personality, not so much. Therefore it doesn't make sense to suggest that she should have been male, followed by a comment that interesting characters are what matters, not gender.Since we're here talking about a specific character and whether it would have been better if that character were male, this "it's not about gender, it's about how interesting and deep the character is" talk makes no sense in the context. Unless people who are using that argument are implying that the character would have been better, more interesting and deeper just by virtue of being male. Or, in other words, women are shallower, less interesting and generally lame just for being women.
Sorry, but that's the only logical interpretation of crouteru's and Navaros' arguments above.![]()
Wha? My point about Dax's new host being a male stems from a similar situation seen at the end of TNG's 'The Host', where Dr Crusher's Trill lover (I forget his name) changes host into a female body.
If Dax was put into a male host, the issue of love transending gender could have been explored between Worf and Dax. I suppose this was already covered in 'Rejoined' though.
My point is about the acceptance of homosexuality in society. I don't really know why you got the impression my comments were about women being less interesting. A new Star Trek series could have an all female cast if it wanted, so long as the characters are interesting.
- that should earn the show negative points as far as the depiction of LGBT people are concerned). They could have explicitly made Garak bisexual - Robinson said he played him that way, and I don't think anyone would have found that implausible, or that it would hurt any storylines. But they never planned or wanted to do that. Or they could have introduced some gay minor characters or guest stars without making it a fuss about it on the show. Say, there could have been a gay couple in Quark's bar or something, and none of the other characters pay any attention to it - it's just a normal and not unusual thing to see. Or maybe, some of the aliens in the show have a problem with it because it's a taboo in their society, while other aliens from some other societies don't understand why and what's the big deal, because their societies don't have that kind of attitude.
If gender doesn't matter, why don't we have 6 or 7 women in the main cast and 2 men, rather than the other way round? Or can only male characters be interesting and have depth?![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.