Pick-A-Dax

[Distorted Humor]

The bad part of Lara Croft is that they decided that the entire series needed constant fan-service. but it sold a LOT of games, and that is what they wanted in the end.

And it was no accident that we see J. Dax in a bathing suit on one of the bad episodes. They had to have SOMETHING to get people to watch that bad episode. But I always thought that bathing suit was rather Conservative for J. Dax and Risa...

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.)

Giggle, she kept making her saving throws

 

[Distorted Humor]

double post

 

[Rush Limborg]

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.

I ignored nothing. I put it in that post.

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.

Indeed. That is actually a good explanation. I may well stand corrected.

Finally, why not give a "simple explaination"?

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

Than why question my competence for offering a different perspective?

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.

Is it really so "obvious" that I don't have a point?

My point was, simply, that history is not a chronological, orderly, step-by-step progression of women's rights. There are highs, and there are lows. There are highs followed by lows.

Was there discrimination against women in the Victorian era? Absolutely. That does not mean we can look back at history and say, "See? Women can be leaders--and respected leaders."

How they got there is irrelevent. Victoria was a confident leader of a vast empire, bloodline or no. She was also a woman.

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.

And I am not patient when my character is attacked. When I am accused of sexism, I get impatient. When the explanation doesn't make sense to me--and the explanation of that explanation is "you wouldn't understand", I get impatient.

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?

What if I'm correct?

So the refutation is not able to speak for itself, without mockery?

Let me put it this way: mockery is a common rhetoric tactic promoted by Saul Alinsky, for one, because he felt that it could not be refuted, as it appealed to emotion, not logic.

I addressed your historical points. Make what you will of them. But vitriolic wording does not convice the other side of your point of view, nor does it indicate an open mind in the discussion. I am willing to be corrected on things, provided the other side does so in a reasonable, respectful manner. But frankly obnoxious wording as a rule puts people on the defensive--it angers them--and it makes them less willing to see your point of view.



On a side note: I apologize to the readers of this thread for instances where I have lost my temper in this long discussion. I simply do not appreciate being attacked personally, when I am trying to have a discussion.

 

[Thestral]

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?

Maybe, maybe not. The point is it's an opinion.

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.

In the sense that everyone has the "right" to be a jealous, moody, self-righteous windbag that wants to control his mate's every move... sure.

(on Idaris from the same ep)

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

You might have a point if people were saying Jadzia was perfect or never did anything hurtful. People tend to say and do things they ought not to when fighting with a lover.

But I'll tell you what. In the interests of argument, let's mutually agree that nobody was behaving well in "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." and just drop that episode entirely; I'll give up my point about Worf's pathetic jealousy over a lunch date, you give up Jadzia's flirtations with Arandis.

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.

Doesn't sound to me like there was any disrespect or manipulation involved. Everybody was having fun, including Atoa. This one's a dead end when it comes to disrespect.

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.

Heh, fair point, I guess he wasn't as pathetic with women in general as I remember.

On K'Ehleyr (because I didn't feel like quoting that whole post): I think she's great myself, and I think it's telling that of the three relationships we see Worf get into, 2 of the women have similar personalities. Methinks Worf does protest too much when it seems he likes that kind of woman.

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

Why not? That's very convenient for your argument that she didn't but why can't she have?

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.)

No worries. Great show though. He does have relationships, fall in love, and have feelings though and is visually indistinguishable from humans. But it was mostly a side comment, so no worries.

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.

I don't mean gender awkwardness or not really knowing what it meant to be a woman, I mean a re-orienting of life and worldview that takes the new, whole person of Jadzia Dax into consideration. The common thread in all the Daxes is Dax, but they're not carbon copies or clones, each incarnation is different.

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 think you're mischaracterizing as predatory what can be more easily chalked up to misunderstanding and taking people at face value. Should she have seen Bashir as inexperienced and emotionally immature? Perhaps, at least when it came to his affections for her. On the other hand, as Rush has reminded us, he demonstrated ample evidence of being confident enough to woo (and bed?) several different women. As with Worf, he's old enough to take responsibility for his own actions, it's not as though Jadzia's some sort of physically/chemically irresistable person.

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.

Such a condescending argument! On the other hand, they clearly loved each other deeply and felt they could make it work (and did, at least for the short time they had), so why not let them decide whether or not they were being disrespected?

As a sidenote, when it comes to respecting cultural traditions, it's funny how Jadzia's not allowed to tease about Klingong stuff... but we never even see any Trill cultural traditions. Frankly, it's kind of glaring especially at the wedding that Jadzia has essentially given up any of her heritage to completely blend in with Worf.

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.

Different argument there, but suffice to say I disagree. I think it's good that Star Trek showed us a couple that wasn't perfect and always in lockstep agreement with each other but stuck with it anyway and made things work out of dedication to each other.

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 think you're confusing the narrative logic here and putting the cart before the horse. I wouldn't say Kira was "made" any particular way to appeal to a certain subset of people - certainly we didn't consciously get a character whose terrible background was mitigated by faith simply to make certain people happy; Kira was created and written to be a good, interesting chracter. However, looking at people's responses to certain character archetypes, the difference in the strength of Kira and the strength of Jadzia is what I was referring to, and that to a traditional mindset of gender roles, there's always been a place for someone like Kira, whereas someone like Jadzia is more of a challenge.

Also, what does Ezri have to do with this?

{ Emilia }][/B]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.

Indeed. That is actually a good explanation. I may well stand corrected.

You "may well" stand corrected? You lost this point, just let it go.

 

[Rush Limborg]

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?

Maybe, maybe not. The point is it's an opinion.

And as his is the only interperetation we have from TPTB on that ep, it's the one I'll go by.

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.

In the sense that everyone has the "right" to be a jealous, moody, self-righteous windbag that wants to control his mate's every move... sure.

...You might have a point if people were saying Jadzia was perfect or never did anything hurtful. People tend to say and do things they ought not to when fighting with a lover.

But I'll tell you what. In the interests of argument, let's mutually agree that nobody was behaving well in "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." and just drop that episode entirely; I'll give up my point about Worf's pathetic jealousy over a lunch date, you give up Jadzia's flirtations with Arandis.

As Nerys pointed out, while Worf's concerns were understandable, he did overreact.

In a sense, he had the right to be "jealous"--that is, in the sense of wanting complete faithfulness. "Moody"--well, that's Worf's nature; I have no opinion on that. "Self-righteous"--well, "self-righteous" is quite a common flaw. "Controlling"--I think Jadzia was setting up a bit of a straw man when accusing Worf of that, but...he was taking things a bit too far.

Doesn't sound to me like there was any disrespect or manipulation involved. Everybody was having fun, including Atoa. This one's a dead end when it comes to disrespect.

It's not a question of "disrespect", so much as the use of men, whether the man feels disrespected or not.

On K'Ehleyr (because I didn't feel like quoting that whole post): I think she's great myself, and I think it's telling that of the three relationships we see Worf get into, 2 of the women have similar personalities. Methinks Worf does protest too much when it seems he likes that kind of woman.

Oh, I agree on that--Jad and K'Ehleyr are very much alike. And again...I think the claims of those like iguana that she's just being "confident" are in fact the opposite of the truth. Worf was on to something when he noted that K'Ehleyr's snarky, sarcastic whit was a "shield". Basically, she was putting others down to build herself up--to make herself feel better about herself, she mocks her surroundings.

Taking that to Jadzia...I think, somehow, her general irreverence shows that her self-confidence is only skin deep. And indeed, her fears about confronting Curzon--and her accusations of Worf "controlling" her--kind of support that.

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.

Indeed. That is actually a good explanation. I may well stand corrected.

You "may well" stand corrected? You lost this point, just let it go.

I'm simply saying--and this is my "stubborn" side, I suppose--that until I give a comprehensive look of my own on the subject, I won't lean either way.

Also...iguana was incorrect in claiming that I despise politicians in general, for word games. I actually am studying Poli-Sci, and am very fascinated in the art of The Game--"weaseling", if you will. It can be used for evil (such as, to deny that you said something, when you clearly meant that), or for good (such as, to reserve judgment on an issue until you properly inform yourself).

In this case, I was using it to keep the door open for my own historical analysis, rather than simply taking { Emilia }'s word for it. It's happened before: someone posts "information" that seems to completely shatter my points...but then, when I check the issue when it's all over, it turns out that said poster was dead wrong. "Fool me once", and all that.



Side note: Kestrel, I thank you for your taking part in this discussion. You have been very civil and dignified throughout--and, though we disagree, we still are allies in getting to the heart of issues, and searching for truth.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Why not? That's very convenient for your argument that she didn't but why can't she have?

It's not impossible, but I think the odds got lower and lower with each lifetime Dax led. (With the exceptions of Joran and Ezri, because both of those joinings were not ideal for different reasons.)

I don't mean gender awkwardness or not really knowing what it meant to be a woman, I mean a re-orienting of life and worldview that takes the new, whole person of Jadzia Dax into consideration. The common thread in all the Daxes is Dax, but they're not carbon copies or clones, each incarnation is different.

They're not clones; agreed. I still think, though, that the more experience Dax has, and when you take into account training given to both host and symbiont, then it becomes less likely that it was an accident.

I think you're mischaracterizing as predatory what can be more easily chalked up to misunderstanding and taking people at face value. Should she have seen Bashir as inexperienced and emotionally immature? Perhaps, at least when it came to his affections for her.

Considering how early Bashir specialized in making an ass of himself, I think it was pretty obvious.

On the other hand, as Rush has reminded us, he demonstrated ample evidence of being confident enough to woo (and bed?) several different women. As with Worf, he's old enough to take responsibility for his own actions, it's not as though Jadzia's some sort of physically/chemically irresistable person.

Obviously she isn't irresistible, and I think if you go back to my earliest post on the Bashir-Dax dynamic, you'll remember that I called it a "double fault" situation because Bashir was behaving quite badly as well. That said, I don't see two wrongs making a right. Which is a similar point to below...

Such a condescending argument! On the other hand, they clearly loved each other deeply and felt they could make it work (and did, at least for the short time they had), so why not let them decide whether or not they were being disrespected?

I think that the two of them did express feelings of having been disrespected, during the courtship.

I don't see how it's condescending to suggest that they shouldn't try to make each other over into clones of each other. (And I can certainly acknowledge Worf trying the same thing in reverse.) I think both of them would have done better in relationships with other people, than paired off together.

As a sidenote, when it comes to respecting cultural traditions, it's funny how Jadzia's not allowed to tease about Klingong stuff... but we never even see any Trill cultural traditions. Frankly, it's kind of glaring especially at the wedding that Jadzia has essentially given up any of her heritage to completely blend in with Worf.

Perhaps something else we didn't see (i.e. something in the bedroom, or even the whole honeymoon, assuming they ever had one) was done in Trill fashion--but you're right, there was an omission in the writing, for sure. And if there wasn't any compromise, then it's further evidence to my mind that this was a fundamentally incompatible marriage.

You know, though, you've just given me a story idea here. I'll probably never get around to writing it because overall I find the relationship unappealing to watch, but I think that in repayment, Worf should have agreed to embody one of the previous hosts' personalities for Dax's next zhian'tara. (Based on their bios, he probably would've made a good Torias. While Curzon was a Klingon afficionado, Torias is the one with combat experience, prior to Jadzia.)

Different argument there, but suffice to say I disagree. I think it's good that Star Trek showed us a couple that wasn't perfect and always in lockstep agreement with each other but stuck with it anyway and made things work out of dedication to each other.

I think I would feel differently if there weren't kids. I could much more easily watch a Sisko-Yates argument than watching the O'Briens argue.

(That was even the same thing that bothered me about Everybody Loves Raymond--it was a stupid show, but I hated watching the parents lose their cool around the kids.)

However, looking at people's responses to certain character archetypes, the difference in the strength of Kira and the strength of Jadzia is what I was referring to, and that to a traditional mindset of gender roles, there's always been a place for someone like Kira, whereas someone like Jadzia is more of a challenge.

Also, what does Ezri have to do with this?

Sorry I didn't explain well. Basically, there have been people in this thread asserting that the men who prefer Ezri or Kira only prefer them because they have been "put in their place," so to speak, compared to the "liberated" Jadzia. That these men must be sexist.

That's something I do not agree with. As I've stated on multiple occasions, the behavior that I dislike has absolutely nothing to do with gender in my mind. I don't see why it's different for me to criticize Jadzia, when I would criticize Kirk, Riker, or Dukat for the same behavior. (Though of course Dukat embodies the worst extreme: the outright pervert, predator, and criminal. The others don't come near that line.) Given that, I am not going to jump to the conclusion that the men who share my opinion about Jadzia must be sexist. I mean, I'm not sexist against myself!

 

[CaptainStoner]

Basically, there have been people in this thread asserting that the men who prefer Ezri or Kira only prefer them because they have been "put in their place," so to speak, compared to the "liberated" Jadzia. That these men must be sexist.

That's something I do not agree with. As I've stated on multiple occasions, the behavior that I dislike has absolutely nothing to do with gender in my mind. I don't see why it's different for me to criticize Jadzia, when I would criticize Kirk, Riker, or Dukat for the same behavior. (Though of course Dukat embodies the worst extreme: the outright pervert, predator, and criminal. The others don't come near that line.) Given that, I am not going to jump to the conclusion that the men who share my opinion about Jadzia must be sexist. I mean, I'm not sexist against myself!

The suggestion that a sexually liberated person is on any kind of continuum with a sexual predator is sure to be offensive, as well as wrong.
It is also fairly common for women to be sexist against their own gender. (Look at Islam) It is the product of a sexist culture, after all. And one of the mainstays of that culture is the demonization of feminine power, suppressed into a predetermined, societal role. And it is a double-edged sword which harms men as well, who do not fit the cookie cutters.
I haven't read the whole thread and am not sure what your, or others, opinions are. But the notion that Jadzia is some kind of morally inferior person is rooted in the same sexist, puritan cultural vein that would consider Riker a degenerate as well (but most likely turn a blind eye due to his gender).
The people expressing such opinions are most likely good people, but if you're drinking from a tainted well it's hard to avoid the sickness.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Oh, I agree on that--Jad and K'Ehleyr are very much alike. And again...I think the claims of those like iguana that she's just being "confident" are in fact the opposite of the truth. Worf was on to something when he noted that K'Ehleyr's snarky, sarcastic whit was a "shield". Basically, she was putting others down to build herself up--to make herself feel better about herself, she mocks her surroundings.

Taking that to Jadzia...I think, somehow, her general irreverence shows that her self-confidence is only skin deep. And indeed, her fears about confronting Curzon--and her accusations of Worf "controlling" her--kind of support that.

Nope. K'Eleyr and Jadzia are completely different characters. K'Eleyr was written as a child of two worlds, always in tension between her human and klingon side: her sarcasm and wit was most definitively a shield to cover for insecurity about herself and her place in the universe. Jadzia, on the other hand, was written as an old soul in a young body, someone with the wisdoms and experience from several centuries, free again to enjoy all the wonderful things that youth has to offer. Her "tension" was between the obligations and memories of her past lives and the need to build new experiences of her own.

The fact that both had a "tension" just means that they were well written. All good characters have some kind of tension inside them, but not all tensions are a result of personal insecuries that leads to sarcasm as a defence mechanism.

Also... "Jad"?

Indeed. That is actually a good explanation. I may well stand corrected.

You "may well" stand corrected? You lost this point, just let it go.

I'm simply saying--and this is my "stubborn" side, I suppose--that until I give a comprehensive look of my own on the subject, I won't lean either way.

So I suppose this means that you are going to come back to us and confirm you were owned after you gather a good perspective on the issue? That would be the honest thing to do.

Or are you just going to drop it and hope everybody forgets about it, because you are apparently biologically unable to admit you were wrong, as usual?

Also...iguana was incorrect in claiming that I despise politicians in general, for word games.

Ok, I took your comment as meaning you disliked politicians for their weaseling tactics. If you don't, good.

Of course, this doesn't make your use of cheap rethorical tactics less apparent or more honest, but at least you are not an hypocrite about it. So, kudos. I think.

In this case, I was using it to keep the door open for my own historical analysis, rather than simply taking { Emilia }'s word for it. It's happened before: someone posts "information" that seems to completely shatter my points...but then, when I check the issue when it's all over, it turns out that said poster was dead wrong. "Fool me once", and all that.

On the other hand, not that you are even gonna admit it if you were wrong, of course.

I actually am studying Poli-Sci, and am very fascinated in the art of The Game--"weaseling", if you will.

we still are allies in getting to the heart of issues, and searching for truth.

These two statements are in opposition with one another. You are either trying to "weasel" out of a discussion to get the upper hand, or you are interested in searching for the truth. Those goals are mutually exclusive in both purpose and execution.

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.

Nobody has ever talked about anything "superior" or "inferior" in this thread, except, well, you. You can disagree with something, even fight against it, without branding it as "inferior" (which is something I never, ever do: so please don't put those words in my mouth).

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.

Again, nope. I criticized people for the reasons they listed for disliking Jadzia ("arrogant", "condescending", "loose", "bitchy", "know-it-all", etc.) not for the reasons they listed for liking Ezri. It's not the same thing, even if you don't seem to understand the difference.

Before you talk about "dichotomies", you should check you are not entrenched too much in your own.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The suggestion that a sexually liberated person is on any kind of continuum with a sexual predator is sure to be offensive, as well as wrong.

Don't make assumptions. You also failed to read, or chose to read it in a way that conformed to your biases--I made it very clear that Dukat went to a very, very sick extreme, but you decided to twist it to suggest that he was close to Jadzia in his behavior patterns, when I made it clear that he was out on a very long limb.

There's a huge difference between being sexually liberated and putting down other people or manipulating them. One does not have to come with the other. You can have a person who is very freewheeling sexually who never belittles others. Or, you can have a person who is a predator and focuses it all on a single spouse. Or you can have someone with both characteristics.

And you can be very sure that I don't care what gender arrogant or disrespectful behavior appear in, and have no problem calling out men on it too.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Jadzia Dax, pre-Blood Oath. Not that she was such a great character, but better than Klingon Jadzia and certainly much better than constantly whining Ezri.

Hell yeah. I love that scene where Garak totally dresses her down.

She is an awful shrink, and just plain silly.

 

[Deckerd]

And you can be very sure that I don't care what gender arrogant or disrespectful behavior appear in, and have no problem calling out men on it too.

You must have real problems with some of the actions Sisko took, then.

 

[{ Emilia }]

And you can be very sure that I don't care what gender arrogant or disrespectful behavior appear in, and have no problem calling out men on it too.

You must have real problems with some of the actions Sisko took, then.

I think arrogant and disrespectful men are called "badass".

 

[Deckerd]

I was meaning some of the ethically questionable and downright unethical actions he took.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I was meaning some of the ethically questionable and downright unethical actions he took.

I really didn't like "In the pale moonlight"

 

[Distorted Humor]

I was meaning some of the ethically questionable and downright unethical actions he took.

I like Sisko, but his "Poison a planet" vs. the Marquis has to be one of the worst choices that a starfleet officer has made this side of section 31. I have more tolerance of someone who is deceptive at war then in interpersonal relationships.

As for "In the Pale Moonlight" Most the blame goes to the resident anti-hero Garak.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

And you can be very sure that I don't care what gender arrogant or disrespectful behavior appear in, and have no problem calling out men on it too.

You must have real problems with some of the actions Sisko took, then.

While overall I like the character--yes, there are certain actions that VERY much get on my nerves. Using WMDs (and just because of a personal grudge...yeah, that is arrogant), for one, and also there's no doubt that what he did in "In the Pale Moonlight" went over the line. Yes, it got the right result, but he did cross the line to get there. Not all of that can be blamed on Garak--he most definitely lied, cheated, and did some things on his own that were over the line (including putting material for WMDs on the black market).

 

[Rush Limborg]

Oh, I agree on that--Jad and K'Ehleyr are very much alike. And again...I think the claims of those like iguana that she's just being "confident" are in fact the opposite of the truth. Worf was on to something when he noted that K'Ehleyr's snarky, sarcastic whit was a "shield". Basically, she was putting others down to build herself up--to make herself feel better about herself, she mocks her surroundings.

Taking that to Jadzia...I think, somehow, her general irreverence shows that her self-confidence is only skin deep. And indeed, her fears about confronting Curzon--and her accusations of Worf "controlling" her--kind of support that.

Nope. K'Eleyr and Jadzia are completely different characters. K'Eleyr was written as a child of two worlds, always in tension between her human and klingon side: her sarcasm and wit was most definitively a shield to cover for insecurity about herself and her place in the universe. Jadzia, on the other hand, was written as an old soul in a young body, someone with the wisdoms and experience from several centuries, free again to enjoy all the wonderful things that youth has to offer. Her "tension" was between the obligations and memories of her past lives and the need to build new experiences of her own.

The fact that both had a "tension" just means that they were well written. All good characters have some kind of tension inside them, but not all tensions are a result of personal insecuries that leads to sarcasm as a defence mechanism.

If it's a central element of her personality--as it was with K'Ehleyr--then I stand by my point.

Also... "Jad"?

As I have said--over and over and over--I could easily see Jadzia as a buddy. Just not as a close friend.

I'm simply saying--and this is my "stubborn" side, I suppose--that until I give a comprehensive look of my own on the subject, I won't lean either way.

So I suppose this means that you are going to come back to us and confirm you were owned after you gather a good perspective on the issue? That would be the honest thing to do.

Or are you just going to drop it and hope everybody forgets about it, because you are apparently biologically unable to admit you were wrong, as usual?

Ok, I took your comment as meaning you disliked politicians for their weaseling tactics. If you don't, good.

Of course, this doesn't make your use of cheap rethorical tactics less apparent or more honest, but at least you are not an hypocrite about it. So, kudos. I think.

On the other hand, not that you are even gonna admit it if you were wrong, of course.

iguana, I don't see you admitting when you're wrong. You, sir, are every bit as stubborn as I am. (Of course, in your case, it's called "holding the other side's feet to the fire"....)

The difference is...I'm one to admit it.

These two statements are in opposition with one another. You are either trying to "weasel" out of a discussion to get the upper hand, or you are interested in searching for the truth. Those goals are mutually exclusive in both purpose and execution.

Once again, read my entire quote. "Weaseling", in its more "technical" sense, is using vague language for evil--evading responsibility for someting one does believe, or does say. But vague language can also be used for good--if you honestly don't know enough about the issue.

The latter can be used in the search for truth. The former cannot.

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.

Nobody has ever talked about anything "superior" or "inferior" in this thread, except, well, you. You can disagree with something, even fight against it, without branding it as "inferior" (which is something I never, ever do: so please don't put those words in my mouth).

Hmm...you are lecturing Nerys on "putting words" in people's mouths?

"You hate Jadzia because she's confident, competent, capable--you prefer women to be solely in their old 'traditional' roles--" need I go on?

And--here, we see an example of...weaseling. Your side did not specifically say "inferior". Your side did say "old '50's-era", or "Victorian"--or "old-fashioned". The implication is that the mindsets you see us as expressing are out of touch with "modern" ways--that they are not "progressive".

Therefore...you think those ideas are "inferior".

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.

Again, nope. I criticized people for the reasons they listed for disliking Jadzia ("arrogant", "condescending", "loose", "bitchy", "know-it-all", etc.) not for the reasons they listed for liking Ezri. It's not the same thing, even if you don't seem to understand the difference.

Again, it is by implication. You say we do not like Jadzia for those reasons.

You surely must be aware that the vast majority of expressions of contempt for Jadzia were included in comparisons to Ezri--we like Ezri better than Jadzia for these reasons.

Once clearly therefore infers that the characteristics the posters in question do not like in Jadzia are not present in Ezri. Therefore, like it or not, the two concepts--dislike for Jadzia, love for Ezri--are interconnected.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I was meaning some of the ethically questionable and downright unethical actions he took.

I really didn't like "In the pale moonlight"

I was meaning some of the ethically questionable and downright unethical actions he took.

I like Sisko, but his "Poison a planet" vs. the Marquis has to be one of the worst choices that a starfleet officer has made this side of section 31. I have more tolerance of someone who is deceptive at war then in interpersonal relationships.

As for "In the Pale Moonlight" Most the blame goes to the resident anti-hero Garak.

I liked "In The Pale Moonlight", because it shows how sometimes, some very dark things are necessary to do what has to be done.

However, in "For The Uniform", he crossed the line even further than that.

And this is what was disturbing: in "Pale Moonlight", he is wracked with guilt for what he did...but finally resolves to learn to live with it. He knows it was morally wrong--but he knows it was necessary.

In "For The Uniform", he and Dax JOKE about it, in the end!

 

[Deckerd]

And this is what was disturbing: in "Pale Moonlight", he is wracked with guilt for what he did...but finally resolves to learn to live with it. He knows it was morally wrong--but he knows it was necessary.

In "For The Uniform", he and Dax JOKE about it, in the end!

I just remember watching every dodgy decision he made and thinking "Picard would have found an honourable way".

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Frankly, that's what makes DS9, in some ways, better than TNG. In TNG, there is rarely, if ever, a "hard choice" that has to be made. Many times, Picard and Co. struggle a bit in the ep--but in the end, everything somehow works out.

In DS9, it's less black-and-white. It's more realistic.

I recall TPTB used the analogy of Batman and Superman. With Superman, he always knows the right thing to do--he sticks to "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", and never compromises himself, never really makes a "hard" choice that one would call controversial. (Frankly, that's why I prefer the original ending of Superman II, instead of the revised cut: instead of magically setting everything right, he accepts the consequences of his initial inaction, and humbly tells the president, "I won't fail you again....")

Batman, of course, is a lot more dark and shades-of-grey. He has to do a lot of controversial things in order to do what is necessary. He has to be "dark" in order to combat the darkness in Gotham, bending and often breaking the law.

As TPTB said, Superman is more popular, but Batman is more interesting--because of that.