Pick-A-Dax

[Rush Limborg]

Two thoughts on this dude. First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just because we never see him before or after doesn't mean there wasn't anything there.

We don't even hear about him, either--Jadzia never brings him up again, and neither do any of the other characters.

Like I said. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Unless the absense is so readily apparent. We don't hear from Grilka again after "Looking For Par Mach..." It kinda implies she and Quark were not a long-term item. I seem to recall one of our big-name TrekLit authors wrote a story to that effect....

You're missing the point. Supposing he was just a one-night stand, that's in no way evidence of Jadzia "using" him.

I'm letting the "original intent" thing go because that's deserving of another thread entirely. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede that the guy in "Playing God." Lieutenant Atoa we'll have to accept as an unknown, because what Ron Moore said is he "thinks" Jadzia would have slept with him, but it's not as though he's the only writer.

And have any of the writers contradicted him on that?

Likewise with the question of canonicity - suffice to say that's there's plenty of things that don't line up (except via very creative hurdles) and judgment calls have to be made. But sure, "Let He..." has to be looked at.

Absolutely.

This isn't old-fashioned, this is ridiculous and Worf deserved to be called out on it. If a woman (or a man for that matter, I know men that've gone this route) chooses not to spend time alone with a former lover even in public for the sake of the couple, that's her/his business. But for it to be expected, and for Worf to go into a jealous snit because of a lunch date *in public* is the sort of thing high schoolers do.

Is it really? Faitfulness is faithfulness--and frankly, I doubt it'd be considered rediculous and immature were they already married. But behavior before marriage, I think, helps serve as pointers for how the marriage would go.

BTW--note how, after Worf storms off to the Essentalists, both Quark and Bashir are sure to note (to her face) that, extreme reactions or not, Worf may have a point about her antics, and the "wrong idea" it had a serious risk of causing.

Frankly, I think that episode got Jadzia to slow down a bit. Though she implores Worf to give her his trust...still, I think almost losing him humbled her a bit, as her own attitude softens when Worf tells her the story of his childhood.

The immature one in that case was Worf. Jadzia wasn't being insenstive, she was being a normal adult who didn't ask for or expect such restrictions.

A "normal adult" who didn't get, at first, how she was hurting Worf inside. And again, I think their reconciliation at the end of the ep was a learning experience for both of them.

And I find it reprehensible for the groom to engage in that kind of behavior, as well. This isn't about gender.[/QUOTE}

Honestly? While you and I might find this objectionable from either gender, I would guess the great majority of people in the world are more relaxed about it. And we don't even know what Worf thought about the whole thing (if he found out) only what Sirella thought.

Then you agree with me that it's objectionable.

Again...majority behavior ("Everyone's doing it") does not convey what should necessarily be acceptable or not acceptable. To whit: "If everyone jumped off a cliff--would you?"

So, why bring him up?

Because he was allowing himself to be used, to make Jadzia feel better about herself. Again, "consentual" use--assuming, of course, her flirtatiousness didn't cause him to momentarily forget the context. Either way, it's not admirable.

Regarding Bashir, I direct you to my fairly lengthy theory (on page 10) that Nerys Ghemor already analyzed to see my thoughts on that. Though really, calling Bashir a "hard hitting womanizer" is pretty silly too, because he was kinda pathetic.

He was pretty darn succesful, TBH--just not with Jadzia. He just didn't hold on to women--and as my own analysis noted, I doubt he'd have cared to.

Like iguana said, nobody's immune from being criticized - indeed, criticism for the purpose of improvement is pretty common.

Of course! Provided that is its purpose.

Also, Rush? When it comes to "having to spell it out"? There's places out there which cover Feminism 101 (not that I'm any expert myself) which would be a huge thread derail.

No need. I think iguana has given me a sufficient demonstration of that mindset--including their vocabulary....

Furthermore, I've had quite a few dealings with feminists--many of them not particularly pleasant. Still, YMMV when comming to feminists--many of them I've met are quite civil, and actually agree with me a great deal.

I once clashed against a feminist who was whining about Laura Croft, who claimed--I kid you not--that the character was demeaning. Her reasoning was, because Croft expresses her vulnerabilities to her boyfriend, and draws support from him, it's an insult to a woman's sense of independence!

Afterwards, another feminist, who was listening to the whole thing, basically said to me, "Well, I'm a big 'Girl Power!' person--but that girl you were taking to is nuts!" Frankly, her brand of feminism is, one could say, quite akin to my own.

Feminism is relative, to be frank. One person's feminism is another's insanity--and one person's feminism is another's treason to the female gender.

 

[Thestral]

A few notes.

Jim Kirk was not a "hardcore womanizer," I would say. And also, if you need the difference between James Bond (criticism of whom can be taken too far anyway, and who was occasionally called on his actions within the context of the movies) and a woman who has no more than two romantic encounters (that we know of) over a four year period and otherwise just flirts explained to you, there's places for Feminism 101 out there.

Relatedly, just because one particular woman rises to a position of power, like Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, or Cleopatra, it doesn't then follow that women of those places weren't oppressed. It just means that a particular woman - almost always of a higher social class than the great mass of people - was able to make her way in the world. For example, look at Joan of Arc. To quote Wikipedia,

Joan of Arc was not a feminist. She operated within a religious tradition that believed an exceptional person from any level of society might receive a divine calling. She expelled women from the French army and may have struck one stubborn camp follower with the flat of a sword.

Now, Jeanne became a hero to an incredible number of women, and for understandable reasons of course, much like the Queens noted above. But let's not make the mistake of assuming that a few exceptional women mean that the society at large had no problems with women being oppressed.

 

[Distorted Humor]

What he said. Jaysus, DH, it's been said before but you're fine on this topic; why are you looking to fight? Or I guess run away now?

Sorry, some of the posters where putting ALL Ezri Fans in the same boat, (heck, there is a poster on this page here that says that all these backwards american men who dislike Jazdia, even if we are not all men, and very well may be not all american! ) And since I am a unabashed Ezri fan that means those are fighting words!

Sorry if I lost my cool, I DO want to be the manager for the Klingon Party girls band Big question, will they have the TOS makeup, the movies makeup, or the TNG/DS9 makeup

 

[Rush Limborg]

Humpph, dangit, I didn't want to post.

Some posters where generalizing that all Ezri fans that prefer Ezri is due to that we are somehow afraid of strong women, even if we happen to like a lot of other strong female characters, (Kira, Ro, Shelby, ect) but it the character of J. Dax that we had trouble with. I get peeved when there is ANY type of stereotyping. Sorry if some of the barbs thrown where not aimed at me, but other posters. (I am not going to assume why they like or dislike a character.)

For example, that american men are backwards since we don't like Jazdia, even if not all the posters are men, and not all are from America!

DH

But as I said, since its more clear that the barbs thrown on this thread are not meant at me, I have calmed down But don't put all Ezri fans in the same boat.

QFT and ITA.

But, DH...I'd recommend no more promises about it being yout "last post". When you're serious about never posting in the thread again--it's best not to go back to the thread, and encounter temptation.

Still, I think your threads are welcome. Just no more of such "promises".

 

[Thestral]

Sorry, some of the posters where putting ALL Ezri Fans in the same boat,

Look, I'm an Ezri fan. If something don't apply to you, it don't apply to you. That's why I didn't respond to the "Americans" thing.

Sorry if I lost my cool, I DO want to be the manager for the Klingon Party girls band Big question, will they have the TOS makeup, the movies makeup, or the TNG/DS9 makeup

TNG/DS9 of course! Though preferably without the Duras sisters boob window on the armor, that was just silly.

 

[Distorted Humor]

Still, I think your threads are welcome. Just no more of such "promises".

yea....I removed that, and also somehow I ended up triple posting...

Sorry folks having a bad day and it showed...bit redfaced here acting like a petulant little kid.

And the side boob armor was GREAT...at least when your a 13 year old boy who only got to see basic cable till then. I still think that the younger Duras sister was cute for a klingon, even if she would break me in two most likely.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I actually find Lady Grilka quite attractive--both in matters of physicality and personality. Funny, coming from an old-fashioned, 50's-style, sexist American white male chauvnist such as myself!

(Still, I think she was at her hottest when she and Quark were playfully interacting with each other after their holosuite visit.)

I do not, however, care for K'ehleyr. Interesting note, considering how her wisecracking attitude is quite reminiscent of Jadzia's...Worf's words about her using humor as a shield could well apply to Jad. Perhaps she's not as "self-confident" as she lets on...?





On the band: I could see it now...

It was 20 years ago--to-DAY
Lady Sirella taught the band to PLAY!
They've been goin' in and out of STYLE!
But they're guaranteed to raise a SMILE!

So let me introduce to YOU--
The act you've known for all these YEARS:
SIRELLA'S KLINGON PARTY GIRL BAND!!!

 

[Distorted Humor]

Perhaps we should do a poll on which is the fave Klingon Female. I am sure Lady Grilka would get a lot of votes, as she is awesome, been too long since I seen those episodes.

 

[Thestral]

Lieutenant Atoa we'll have to accept as an unknown, because what Ron Moore said is he "thinks" Jadzia would have slept with him, but it's not as though he's the only writer.

And have any of the writers contradicted him on that?

On his random opinion? Why would they when it's his opinion?

Faitfulness is faithfulness--and frankly, I doubt it'd be considered rediculous and immature were they already married.

In what way is having lunch with somebody an act of faithlessness? And yes - it would be immature were they already married, especially if, as is likely, not having lunch with an old lover wasn't something they agreed to. Because it's dumb. For pity's sake, I've gone to lunch with a former girlfriend when her husband was at work.

BTW--note how, after Worf storms off to the Essentalists, both Quark and Bashir are sure to note (to her face) that, extreme reactions or not, Worf may have a point about her antics, and the "wrong idea" it had a serious risk of causing.

Have we not established already that Jadzia wasn't always a perfect person and her actions with Arandis when Worf was already upset may demonstrate that?

...as her own attitude softens when Worf tells her the story of his childhood.

Yes. Because she saw how deeply upset he was and how it was still something he struggled with all those years later. You know, a healthy response, especially from a romantic partner.

Then you agree with me that it's objectionable.

Again...majority behavior ("Everyone's doing it") does not convey what should necessarily be acceptable or not acceptable. To whit: "If everyone jumped off a cliff--would you?"

I recognize that I have a rather more puritanical view of sexuality than the great majority of people, yes - and I'll say as much. I also have questions about the appropriateness of strippers at a bachelor party from a feminist perspective, but since you don't share that language or viewpoint I don't see how that part matters here.

Because he was allowing himself to be used, to make Jadzia feel better about herself. Again, "consentual" use--assuming, of course, her flirtatiousness didn't cause him to momentarily forget the context. Either way, it's not admirable.

That word you are using ("use") - I do not think it means what you think it means.

He was pretty darn succesful, TBH--just not with Jadzia. He just didn't hold on to women--and as my own analysis noted, I doubt he'd have cared to.

Have we got any evidence that Julian was successful with women? Like... at all? Maybe there is and I just can't think of any.

Feminism is relative, to be frank. One person's feminism is another's insanity--and one person's feminism is another's treason to the female gender.

Le sigh. Look, no matter what, the list of words that iguana noted have been leveled towards Jadzia (and the lack of evidence we still have), means that no matter what "wave" or "flavor" of feminism you're dealing with, it ain't cool. What you're doing here is trying to swim in the deep end (the differences between feminists) before you can doggy-paddle.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Lieutenant Atoa we'll have to accept as an unknown, because what Ron Moore said is he "thinks" Jadzia would have slept with him, but it's not as though he's the only writer.

And have any of the writers contradicted him on that?

On his random opinion? Why would they when it's his opinion?

Because he's one of the writers of the episodes. Apparently, then, he was the only one who was asked about, or expressed his opinion about that?

In what way is having lunch with somebody an act of faithlessness? And yes - it would be immature were they already married, especially if, as is likely, not having lunch with an old lover wasn't something they agreed to. Because it's dumb. For pity's sake, I've gone to lunch with a former girlfriend when her husband was at work.

All right then. To each his own on that. It still doesn't strike me as particularly comfortable. Again, Worf had every right to be concerned. His actions, mind you, were probably extreme--but I understand his point completely.

Have we not established already that Jadzia wasn't always a perfect person and her actions with Arandis when Worf was already upset may demonstrate that?

Do you agree with my point in brining it up, then? As I said, it's the mindset and attitude behind that particular flaw.

Yes. Because she saw how deeply upset he was and how it was still something he struggled with all those years later. You know, a healthy response, especially from a romantic partner.

And a mature one. Here we agree.

I recognize that I have a rather more puritanical view of sexuality than the great majority of people, yes - and I'll say as much. I also have questions about the appropriateness of strippers at a bachelor party from a feminist perspective, but since you don't share that language or viewpoint I don't see how that part matters here.

On the contrary. I despise degredation of women wholeheartedly--and prostitution is frankly a form of slavery. That may not be from an honest-to-goodness, true-blue "feminist" perspective, so much as a "libertarian/conservative" perspective, but...this is an area where the two groups can find common ground.

That word you are using ("use") - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let me say: he was allowing her to use him to satisfy her ego. I doubt he understood that that was her motive--perhaps he was blinded by his own feelings. But I doubt most of the people at the party knew about her clash with Sirella.

He was pretty darn succesful, TBH--just not with Jadzia. He just didn't hold on to women--and as my own analysis noted, I doubt he'd have cared to.

Have we got any evidence that Julian was successful with women? Like... at all? Maybe there is and I just can't think of any.

In "Dax", Jad mentions two women he'd been involved in (the ones he referred to as "substitutes"). In another first-season ep--the one where he first mentions the "preganglionic fiber" tall tale--he is clearly successful in charming the gal with the tale.

Then there's Melora...Leeta, of course...the Risan girl...the female doctor in "Explorers"...Sarina (albeit, that didn't last long).

Again, his problem was long-term relationships.

Feminism is relative, to be frank. One person's feminism is another's insanity--and one person's feminism is another's treason to the female gender.

Le sigh. Look, no matter what, the list of words that iguana noted have been leveled towards Jadzia (and the lack of evidence we still have), means that no matter what "wave" or "flavor" of feminism you're dealing with, it ain't cool. What you're doing here is trying to swim in the deep end (the differences between feminists) before you can doggy-paddle.

Well, other than the fact that the vast majority of that list are comments which I didn't say...well, c'est la vie!


As for the limited evidence--remember, Jadzia is, again, a fictional character--a type, defined by what we do see.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm not going to reply point by point, for a very good reason: Rush will keep replying until he gets the last word, even if it means keep giving laconic rebuttals devoid of argument like "Absolutely", "I agree", "Not at all", etc. So I'll leave it to him anyway and move on with the discussion.

There are only a few parts I feel are worth to discuss further:

It may have been fixed--in Egypt. And as I recall...it was Queen Vicky who was setting the English standards of women's fasions, at the very least....

Are you seriously arguing that the presence of female monarch in ancient Egypt and in the British Empire is proof that women were not oppressed during those times? I mean, for real?

Or, to quote Kestrel:

Relatedly, just because one particular woman rises to a position of power, like Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, or Cleopatra, it doesn't then follow that women of those places weren't oppressed.

I once clashed against a feminist who was whining about Laura Croft, who claimed--I kid you not--that the character was demeaning.

Wow, who in their right mind could ever think something like that???

I actually find Lady Grilka quite attractive--both in matters of physicality and personality. Funny, coming from an old-fashioned, 50's-style, sexist American white male chauvnist such as myself!

Funny maybe, but not surprising at all. Think about it.

 

[{ Emilia }]

It may have been fixed--in Egypt. And as I recall...it was Queen Vicky who was setting the English standards of women's fasions, at the very least....

You say many things that can be seen as incoherent at best and as ridiculous at worst but this... are you really serious?

As a historian I just have to laugh out loud at your naivity. Whether or not a country was ruled by a female monarch had absolutely no influence on the actual freedom or suppression of women in said country.

A monarch is a monarch most of all. Gender mattered less than you might believe and it certainly had absolutely no influence on the lives of "normal" people who made up 99% (not exaggerating) of the population.

The Victorian era wasn't an age of freedom for women. I'm not going to give you a simple explanation. It was a very complex age that still suffered from a significant suppression of women (and also of prudishness but that's a different if somewhat related story).

Now Cleopatra's Egypt... I don't really have to reply, right?

Edit:
Apart from that I have no interest in even arguing with you because you use way too many cheap rhetoric tactics that remind me a lot of sophism where the only goal of arguing is winning the argument and not actually discussing the topic in an open-minded way.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Apart from that I have no interest in even arguing with you because you use way too many cheap rhetoric tactics that remind me a lot of sophism where the only goal of arguing is winning the argument and not actually discussing the topic an an open-minded way.

And if I may use your comment to make a personal addendum, he's not even making a good job at it.

For someone who apparently despise "politicians" so much, as commented in this very thread*, he surely argues like one.



*

Language is a tricky thing, Deckerd. While I commend the use of weaselers such as "impression" and "suspect"--nonetheless, it is a favorite tactic of politicians, for one, who don't want to get into trouble for what they said, who want to be able to wiggle out of any trouble by saying, in effect, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

So what we have is a miscommunication and misunderstanding. Bashir puffed his chest out and tried to play in the big leagues as the nuanced and suave man - it's an act of misjudgement, not of cruelty, that his "quarry" took him at face value.

I think you've characterized Bashir pretty accurately. However, I just don't buy that Jadzia could possibly have misjudged him that badly.

Even people that are old and experienced can make mistakes - I can't even imagine what you'd think of the Doctor's complete misreading of Martha Jones on Doctor Who.

Not a fan of that show, so I'm afraid I'm completely missing that reference. From what little I know--isn't the Doctor a far more alien being than a humanoid? (Be gentle on me for that...I'm honestly not sure what a Time Lord is or isn't.)

And let's not forget she was also newly in the body of a young woman about the same age as Julian, and still relatively early in her life as Jadzia Dax.

If we'd been dealing with a symbiont that hadn't gone through the gender switch before (and more than once), I would've been much more likely to buy that argument.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a problem with gender-swapping only contributed to Tobin's social anxiety. (Total speculation, but seems fitting.) If you'll recall, Lela, Dax's first host, was female, but then the next host after that was Tobin, a male host. The behavior we saw O'Brien exhibit during the zhian'tara certainly suggested such a personality (uncertain of himself in some fashion).

But, over the course of the history of the Dax symbiont, we have more gender changes: male to female (Tobin to Emony) and female to male again (Audrid to Torias). The next transition (Curzon to Jadzia) marks the fourth gender switch the Dax symbiont has gone through. It is possible to count a fifth, depending on how you want to define it, when you count Dax first being joined to Lela, going from a being with no conception of gender whatsoever to a humanoid notion of gender. "Female" would have been foreign to Dax.

We also know that the Symbiosis Commission is heavily involved in training hosts, to prepare them for combining with the symbiont. It is possible (though never explicitly stated) that symbionts receive some sort of training as well. One would expect gender transition to be a topic that Jadzia [Idaris, if we go by Treklit] had to be prepared for beforehand, especially since hosts get to request a symbiont ahead of time and Jadzia and the Symbiosis Commission were well aware that Dax was coming from a male host.

In light of this, the fact that the transition from male to female was in fact Dax's fourth (or fifth) gender change, I am far less apt to buy the awkwardness argument than I would have in the case of a younger symbiont that might not have known what it was doing. (Lela and Tobin would be far more likely to get a pass from me, and possibly Emony as well.) By this point, Dax has been around the block several times and ought to know better. AND even the host (Jadzia) received preparatory training before taking on the symbiont.

Given all of that, it's pretty hard for me to believe that Jadzia Dax did not know full well what she was doing to a man as young and inexperienced as Bashir. I won't quite say exploitative, given that Bashir was a legal adult, but certainly it was a choice to use and manipulate another person, whom she knew was not emotionally mature enough to cope with it. And there's no denying Bashir manifested ample evidence of immaturity, lack of experience, and a tendency towards substituting his idealistic fantasies for reality.

I have no problem using those words. I use those same words on Gul Dukat--though in his case, to describe more dangerous behavior, a far, far more extreme and more sinister version of the behavior I saw Jadzia exhibiting.

Look, this isn't a matter ultimately of Worf belonging to a minority tradition, it's a matter of him being a stick in the mud. Honestly, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but that's one thing that I really do value from "Let He Who is Without Sin..." because Worf's "little boy playing soccer" story makes a whole lot of sense and illustrates to the audience, and to Jadzia, a big part of why he is the way he is. But it doesn't make him any less a stick in the mud.

There's no doubt that incident had a very painful impact on his life.

However, I do also think that he made certain decisions as an adult, too, on how he wanted to believe and to lead his life. I would not assume that because of that incident, he is unable to make such choices, including religious practice, as a rational adult.

You know, that there is a two-way street and Worf could've broken it off just as easily.

And that's absolutely a valid criticism of Worf; I think he should have had more self-respect than to put up with that. If Jadzia could not give up her Pygmalion project (attempting to make over another person in her desired image), then Worf should have broken it off himself. Neither one should have pursued that relationship to marriage, in my opinion; it was wrong all around. I think I may have said that in another thread awhile back, but I can't recall.

As for Keiko and O'Brien--a similar situation--that one gets tougher because there are children involved. But I think that at the outset, before they married on the Enterprise, the two of them should have given more consideration to whether their life goals, and willingness to compromise...which was apparently not high on either end...would make them compatible as husband and wife and thus prepared to take on the responsibility of parenthood, or not. (Even had they not formally married, I would expect the same level of responsibility because children need a stable home and should not have to worry about their parents fighting, being abusive, or leaving.)

Pardon, but I was definitely, definitely not criticizing Kira and I'll thank you not to assume I was. My point was, when it comes to narrative archetypes, the woman who's been violated and clings to her faith as a source of strength is a much more traditional character and thus more palatable to a traditional worldview.

Excuse me if I did jump on you. Given the turn this thread had taken, it had seemed as though "traditional" (or at least a certain conception of it) was being made out to be bad and inferior, and "non-traditional" was being made out to be good and superior. I apologize if you didn't buy into that dichotomy as it seems some in this thread did.

As to the stereotype itself, another reason I reacted so strongly is the suggestion that she was made in order to be more palatable to a certain stereotype of men, and thus had to be broken (put in her place) first. I have a problem with the assertion that many are making in this thread that the men here only like Ezri because she was put in her place first.

I apologize if I misunderstood you to be making that assertion as well.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I'm not going to reply point by point, for a very good reason: Rush will keep replying until he gets the last word, even if it means keep giving laconic rebuttals devoid of argument like "Absolutely", "I agree", "Not at all", etc. So I'll leave it to him anyway and move on with the discussion.

Frankly, iguana, it seems to me a desire to just get the last word isn't exactly limited to me in this discussion.

I once clashed against a feminist who was whining about Laura Croft, who claimed--I kid you not--that the character was demeaning.

Wow, who in their right mind could ever think something like that???

Let's recap:

A tough-as-nails, confident woman who is for all intents and purposes superhuman in her fighting skills? With razor-sharp wit? Who just happens to be hot?

Yeah. Absolutely sexist.


BTW--kindly read my entire account, rather than take snippets out of it for the purposes of twisting what I say. Recall what the feminist's line of reasoning was.

I actually find Lady Grilka quite attractive--both in matters of physicality and personality. Funny, coming from an old-fashioned, 50's-style, sexist American white male chauvnist such as myself!

Funny maybe, but not surprising at all. Think about it.

Oh? "Laconic rebuttals devoid of argument" indeed....

There are only a few parts I feel are worth to discuss further:

It may have been fixed--in Egypt. And as I recall...it was Queen Vicky who was setting the English standards of women's fasions, at the very least....

Are you seriously arguing that the presence of female monarch in ancient Egypt and in the British Empire is proof that women were not oppressed during those times? I mean, for real?

Or, to quote Kestrel:

Relatedly, just because one particular woman rises to a position of power, like Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, or Cleopatra, it doesn't then follow that women of those places weren't oppressed.

It may have been fixed--in Egypt. And as I recall...it was Queen Vicky who was setting the English standards of women's fasions, at the very least....

You say many things that can be seen as incoherent at best and as ridiculous at worst but this... are you really serious?

As a historian I just have to laugh out loud at your naivity. Whether or not a country was ruled by a female monarch had absolutely no influence on the actual freedom or suppression of women in said country.

A monarch is a monarch most of all. Gender mattered less than you might believe and it certainly had absolutely no influence on the lives of "normal" people who made up 99% (not exaggerating) of the population.

The Victorian era wasn't an age of freedom for women. I'm not going to give you a simple explanation. It was a very complex age that still suffered from a significant suppression of women (and also of prudishness but that's a different if somewhat related story).

Now Cleopatra's Egypt... I don't really have to reply, right?

Depends on whether you're really in this discussion for the sake of the discussion. But more on that later.

Let me put it this way: a woman is in command of an entire empire. This begs for the question of how on earth such a "suppresive" society would allow itself to be ruled by a woman. A woman was able to rise to the position of greatness in a nation. In some cases, it was through luck or bloodline. In other cases--such as the aforementioned Joan of Arc--greatness was achieved through merit.

Is there still oppression? Maybe. Does this diminish the significance? Absolutely not.

Finally, why not give a "simple explaination"?

Edit:
Apart from that I have no interest in even arguing with you because you use way too many cheap rhetoric tactics that remind me a lot of sophism where the only goal of arguing is winning the argument and not actually discussing the topic in an open-minded way.

If it's so cheap, how could it remind you of the goal of winning an argument?

Frankly, a common "cheap rhetoric tactic" involves taking little snippets of a particular comment, and "refuting" that specific part, out of context. I'm not accusing you of it, I am simply pointing it out.

Another is the use of language like--

You say many things that can be seen as incoherent at best and as ridiculous at worst

--or--

I just have to laugh out loud at your naivity.

Now--as for winning the argument, as opposed to an "open-minded discussion", let me say this:

First--of course I care about winning the argument. If that were not my concern, I would not have taken part in this for as long as I have. People takes sides in arguments that they believe to be right, and they defend it as far as they are willing and able.

Second, as a rule, I am not "open-minded" to an opposition which distracts from what had been a good, civil thread by making accusations of bigotry, sexism, idiocy, etc.--or when they go out of their way to say, as an aside, "Oh, by the way, your arguments are full of cheap rhetoric tactics and you don't care about logic."

If you disagree with my point of view, fine. If you want to challenge my point of view, fine. But if your idea of a rebuttal is an ad hominem attack--than you are right in saying that argument is pointless. But if you can refute what I say--that refutation should speak for itself. Mockery does not a good argument make.


Frankly, this thread has been pulled so far off course by this vitriol about sexism and disrespect towards women (neither of which I, or anyone else who has expressed discomfort with Jadzia's personality, possess) and who is being condescending to whom, and who is using reason, and who is not--that frankly, I'm not even sure what the point of all this is, now.

I will respond to any debate which comes my way. But I do not appreciate attacks.

Think what you will of this post. I'll be gone for now.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I tried to post this before the BBS went down, so I'll try this again. Hopefully without any double posts.



As to why Lara Croft bothers a lot of people...it's the scantily-clad, eye-candy aspect. She may carry a gun, but her clothes and disproportionately-drawn body are basically fanservice writ large. I do not like that part of the character either. At all. It makes me very uncomfortable because I would not want to be an object for staring at. Granted, I'm no Angelina Jolie, but it is very uncomfortable to imagine men's reactions if I were made to wear such clothes. To display myself for their pleasure. I would hate every minute of it.

That said, if we take the simple description of the plot you provide, Rush, and we look at it independent of the Lara Croft character (rather, as "generic female soldier," and a soldier with clothes and not drawn as a caricature of a woman's body), then there is absolutely nothing offensive or sexist about that storyline, and the argument your friend advanced--that it's sexist for her to show emotion and go to her boyfriend for support--is spurious. We see men seek comfort from their wives and girlfriends before they go off to battle, in movies, and that's not degrading. True, some men seem to think it ruins their image to be seen having emotions, but it doesn't in my book. That is fine for either gender.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Exactly.

I agree 100%. Again, the issue at hand at that time was the character--and the movie, not the game--as opposed to the "figure".

Still...Jadzia, for one, had no qualms about "showing" off in "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." And it goes to show some women--such as our friend Miss Croft--don't consider modesty as much of a virtue as others.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

That is why Commander Shelby is one of my fave Guest stars as not only is she a badass in the best of starfleet tradition, even if she is a attractive women she is not the random love interest of the week. (And if you think I am just saying that, look up my review of BoBW in the TNG forum a few months ago.)

She's the only woman the Riker Magic doesn't work on. He must have looked at her dozens of times throughout both episodes, and she didn't so much as flinch.

There may be a resistance quotient to do with Riker Magic - maybe its more in physical makeup or neurochemistry, cause Major Kira fell under the metahuman influence of Riker Magic in rather short order (proving that the Riker Magic x-gene is hereditary.)

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I agree 100%. Again, the issue at hand at that time was the character--and the movie, not the game--as opposed to the "figure".

Right.

Still...Jadzia, for one, had no qualms about "showing" off in "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." And it goes to show some women--such as our friend Miss Croft--don't consider modesty as much of a virtue as others.

I blame the writers of Lara Croft for that one. Jadzia's bathing suit made sense on Risa--beachwear, after all. But just like the stupid miniskirts on the TOS and early TNG uniforms for women, Lara Croft's outfit is so utterly stupid for a military woman (who needs protection against the harsh elements so as not to get all scratched up when cutting through dense brush and who knows what other hazards) that you know it's pure fanservice, nothing else. I doubt that in real life, a woman who was serious about treasure-hunting as Lara Croft was portrayed to be would place showing off above her safety on the "battlefield." (In that respect, I think Samus Aran is much more "realistic.")

 

[{ Emilia }]

Let me put it this way: a woman is in command of an entire empire. This begs for the question of how on earth such a "suppresive" society would allow itself to be ruled by a woman. A woman was able to rise to the position of greatness in a nation. In some cases, it was through luck or bloodline. In other cases--such as the aforementioned Joan of Arc--greatness was achieved through merit.

What does Joan of Arc have to do with monarchs? And even then one exception would hardly have an impact on the general rule. I'm sure you realize that.
Monarchs don't "rise" to their position. They are born into it. They weren't elected, you know. I'm sure you ignore that little detail on purpose. And if they happen to be female more often than not their reign was challenged but in the end in that position gender mattered less than bloodline (it still mattered a lot, though). Again: That had no influence whatsoever on the lives of 99% of the population. The few exceptions at the top of society don't change that.

Nobility (especially the royal family) in general was seen as so different from the rest of the society that people didn't make a connection there.

Finally, why not give a "simple explaination"?

Because there are no simple explanations in history. Stuff is complex, you know.

If it's so cheap, how could it remind you of the goal of winning an argument?

The mere fact that it's obvious that you're trying to win the argument with the use of sophist tactics instead of actually having a point doesn't mean that you're doing a particularly good job at it.

Another is the use of language like--

You say many things that can be seen as incoherent at best and as ridiculous at worst

--or--

I just have to laugh out loud at your naivity.

I'm not patient when I see blatantly stupid comments about fields of study I know and care about.
You post bullshit, I'll call you out. This isn't some Internet carebear club. If you want a hug, get in line.

If you disagree with my point of view, fine. If you want to challenge my point of view, fine. But if your idea of a rebuttal is an ad hominem attack--than you are right in saying that argument is pointless. But if you can refute what I say--that refutation should speak for itself. Mockery does not a good argument make.

See, that's what I mean. Cheap rhetoric tactic. You choose to ignore the point I explained only because you feel that I think yours was stupid.
Now what if I'm correct?

Think what you will of this post. I'll be gone for now.

Promise?