Pike's "woman on the bridge" line

[Methuselah Flint]

Given everything in the Trek universe produced after the pilot, especially Discovery, could Pike's sexist line from The Cage be retconned to suggest he doesn't feel comfortable with having a 'woman' as opposed to a female officer, on the bridge? Colt appears very young and fresh out of the academy, and functions really only as a yeoman. Perhaps he feels a front line ship's bridge is really no place for inexperienced non-commissioned personnel?

 

[Timo]

...Why?

Pike is uncomfortable with having a woman on the bridge. That's it. Why alter anything?

(Of course, Pike isn't unfamiliar with having a woman on the bridge. At the time of speaking that line, he has two, in addition to Colt, who's the recent replacement to a boy Pike apparently felt close to. Perhaps that's why he's uncomfortable? Perhaps Number One and Pike have some issues, which is why he then clumsily jumps to an awkward apology aimed at her, not Colt?)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ZapBrannigan]

It was just bad writing, and it happened because behind the progressive facade, Roddenberry was very much a "male Chauvinist." First episode, last episode. If anything, he went downhill.

 

[Timo]

Why is it bad writing? The whole adventure then revolves around Pike being insecure around women, even ones he himself dreams up! It's a major plot point, a defining trait for our hero.

Except it is a temporary trait - the story is one of the hero overcoming his initial state and moving on to his ultimate state, as in all good stories. Pike is a brooding, self-centered and insecure individual at first, but this is not how the adventure concludes for him. So again a plot point. ST:TMP would have been no good had Kirk not been an utter asshole when the adventure begins. (The same really goes for TWoK, which appears to retell the same story a bit better.)

Remember, this is the guy who hears an SOS and says "Forget it, I'll be in my cabin, drinking." This is Pike's story. This is how it begins. But it's not how it ends.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[suarezguy]

Roddenberry gets a lot of grief for having both flawed characters and, later, highly idealized characters. Having the former somehow means he SHOULDN'T have had, had no Right to have, the latter.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Remember, this is just after the fight on Rigel VII which cost the lives of many of Pike's crew, including his yeoman. Perhaps that yeoman was female, and this is why Pike doesn't want another female yeoman on the bridge - it reminds him of what he lost.

 

[ChallengerHK]

It was just bad writing, and it happened because behind the progressive facade, Roddenberry was very much a "male Chauvinist." First episode, last episode. If anything, he went downhill.

If you read the interview with Majel from People magazine, she says something on the order of "Gene is very much a feminist, but not in his house."

 

[TIN_MAN]

I like to think he was just teasing Number One, trying to "get her goat" as it were, which judging from her reaction, he succeeded in doing.

 

[uniderth]

Yeah I see no reason to change it. Given the context of the situation Pike is directly referring to the fact that his new Yeoman is not his former Yeoman. Her being a women is the most obvious thing Pike latched on to when making his comment. Then he realized how dumb that comment was and offered a ham-fisted apology to Number One. He probably felt like an idiot after the whole thing. Which one of us hasn't said something dumb, but then just kept digging the hole?

 

[Tenacity]

Pike's sexist line

Why get complex about it? Pike is a actual sexist, that's it.

 

[jfordny]

Given everything in the Trek universe produced after the pilot, especially Discovery, could Pike's sexist line from The Cage be retconned to suggest he doesn't feel comfortable with having a 'woman' as opposed to a female officer, on the bridge? Colt appears very young and fresh out of the academy, and functions really only as a yeoman. Perhaps he feels a front line ship's bridge is really no place for inexperienced non-commissioned personnel?

Okay. What do we do with Kirk complaining about having a female yeoman in the Corbomite Maneuver, then? Or Spock thinking a sexual assault is an opportunity for a joke in the Enemy Within?

We're going to be awfully busy if we attempt to fanwank all of the lines that are products of the sexism of the 1960s.

 

[Damian]

Okay. What do we do with Kirk complaining about having a female yeoman in the Corbomite Maneuver, then? Or Spock thinking a sexual assault is an opportunity for a joke in the Enemy Within?

We're going to be awfully busy if we attempt to fanwank all of the lines that are products of the sexism of the 1960s.

Yes, I agree. People have to beware when watching a show (or movie) from decades ago that they are watching a show that is a product of its time. Things that would be completely unacceptable today simply weren't back then.

We have two choices. One is the more extreme....don't watch anything made before 2000, or 2010, or 2019, because as society changes what is acceptable changes. I think of the whole "Snow White" debate from about a year ago when some actress, Kristen Bell maybe, won't let her child watch Snow White because the Prince kissed her without her permission (sort of a bizarre complaint as the alternative was to let her die and she obviously wasn't in a position to grant position....but I digress). But that's one way to approach it.

The other is to watch them and just be aware of when they were made and things that were acceptable back then would not be today. In the 1960's it wasn't all that common for women to be in significant positions on military vessels. Pike's comment in 1964 when it was made, was likely not controversial at all. In some ways it goes back to something featured on one of the Tom and Jerry Spotlight Collections, I think Volume 2--they have Whoopi Goldberg make a statement about how those old cartoons portrayed Mammy Two Shoes---that basically it was a product of its time and to pretend it didn't exist would be to pretend racism never existed, which would be just as wrong. It's ok to enjoy old shows as long as you keep it in perspective. Liking "The Cage" does not make you a chauvinist. You can disagree with Pike's comment and still enjoy the rest of the show.

Probably the best thing for current writers of Star Trek to do when dealing with Pike is to simply ignore the line. It's obviously anachronistic today and while some have made a gallant attempt to explain it away, you can't really. It's probably just best left in the past.

 

[Kemaiku]

Pike doesn't bat an eyelid to a ship with more women than men on the bridge, even taking their suggestions onboard or even outright letting them take charge when the mission matters. This is a 2019 Pike, not a remnant of 1960's thinking.

 

[suarezguy]

It is pretty interesting that even within the episode the attitude and line feels fairly anachronistic/dated, what with there being a female second in command, as if Roddenberry wasn't sure how socially-advanced he wanted his future humanity to be or he thought it would be more interesting if there were internal contradictions about how advanced/egalitarian it was.

 

[Methuselah Flint]

Yes, I agree. People have to beware when watching a show (or movie) from decades ago that they are watching a show that is a product of its time. Things that would be completely unacceptable today simply weren't back then.

We have two choices. One is the more extreme....don't watch anything made before 2000, or 2010, or 2019, because as society changes what is acceptable changes. I think of the whole "Snow White" debate from about a year ago when some actress, Kristen Bell maybe, won't let her child watch Snow White because the Prince kissed her without her permission (sort of a bizarre complaint as the alternative was to let her die and she obviously wasn't in a position to grant position....but I digress). But that's one way to approach it.

The other is to watch them and just be aware of when they were made and things that were acceptable back then would not be today. In the 1960's it wasn't all that common for women to be in significant positions on military vessels. Pike's comment in 1964 when it was made, was likely not controversial at all. In some ways it goes back to something featured on one of the Tom and Jerry Spotlight Collections, I think Volume 2--they have Whoopi Goldberg make a statement about how those old cartoons portrayed Mammy Two Shoes---that basically it was a product of its time and to pretend it didn't exist would be to pretend racism never existed, which would be just as wrong. It's ok to enjoy old shows as long as you keep it in perspective. Liking "The Cage" does not make you a chauvinist. You can disagree with Pike's comment and still enjoy the rest of the show.

Probably the best thing for current writers of Star Trek to do when dealing with Pike is to simply ignore the line. It's obviously anachronistic today and while some have made a gallant attempt to explain it away, you can't really. It's probably just best left in the past.

Not disagreeing with this, or any other comment on the thread. Just opened the thread for debate. Of course The Cage is a product of its time, and of course we can't retcon everything. Just interesting to see how we each view the canon and chronology of TOS given we now have DISC.

 

[Damian]

Not disagreeing with this, or any other comment on the thread. Just opened the thread for debate. Of course The Cage is a product of its time, and of course we can't retcon everything. Just interesting to see how we each view the canon and chronology of TOS given we now have DISC.

Yeah, it's probably like many threads here where some of us go on a bit of a tangent.

For me, probably the best way to handle it is to ignore it. That would be my vote anyway. I have a hard time trying to think of ways to make his line more palatable or understandable. It doesn't make a lot of sense because he has 2 women on the bridge even before Yeoman Colt comes on scene (one of course being Number 1 and the other being the woman at the station--communications maybe, that receives the printout). So it already didn't make much sense. It was obviously written to provide some context for Number 1's disappointment when he says she's different and later when she is transported to Pike's cage to potentially be his 'Eve'.

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah, she gets in his way so I would take it to be that he's not used to a woman running around the bridge. The other women stay at their stations.

Number One makes her own decision to destroy everyone and he backs her without hesitation. I don't think Pike is habitually sexist.

I do think that the producers were putting them under a certain amount of pressure to keep the women in line. Colt had a line that was cut before beaming down stressing that she had the same training as the men. Technically, she was asserting that despite her lack of experience, she was fully trained, but the line doubles as a feminist cry that was silenced and she becomes servile like the later yeomen.

 

[MANT!]

Dear God, it was written in the early 60s...Mad Men time..when Men were Men and the sheep were running....
Nothing says "Product of it's time" than that line... I can't look at it with an early 21st century lens..I have to look at it with an idea of the period in which it was written...Personally, I just ignore it..as it makes me cringe,even in the 80s when The Cage was first released on VHS..

 

[Maurice]

Trust me, you think that line is bad, you should see the rampant sexism in some of the behind the scenes memos. It bubbled up from inside the staff, not just GR. In a memo on “Friday’s Child” Bob Justman suggested replacing a tribesman bringing food with "A plenty good looking serving wench serving the guys? You know, dressed like an Arabian belly dancer." Oy.

 

[Refuge]

One day fans will be cringing at Discovery Pike too for not representing (their) current world view.