You know what, respect needs to be earnt and is not automatic. Just thought I'd throw that in.
Poll: Janeway & Gender
- Thread starter kimc
- Start date
- Status
You know what, respect needs to be earnt and is not automatic. Just thought I'd throw that in.
to say nothing of being rude and insulting and should really have resulted in warnings if the statement 'I find you offensive' is warnable...
Brit - I love seeing alternate points of view on Trek, this thing that I enjoy so much, and I thank you for sharing them. I'm confused by some of what you post though. I hope you don't take this as disrespectful; it's hard to convey subtlety through posts instead of speech, but I am genuinely curious.
1) Where have you seen evidence that Janeway has to be "better" to be thought of as the same? In particular, in this thread, I've seen some very detailed examinations of Janeway's command style, and none of it seemed to have gender-based overtones. She was explicitly compared to Kirk and others. And I bet if you did a poll like this for Archer, the results would be substantially more negative. As a character, on her own merits, she is inarguably less consistently characterized than some of the others, as indeed I would say essentially all of the Voyager characters were. That's a complaint that can be, and has been, completely independent of her gender. Do you see otherwise?
2) Do you feel that the Star Trek writers owe you stories with Janeway in them? You make a lot of statements about fan disrespect, but I can't tell whether or not you're conflating the authors with those fans. Do you feel as if your rights as a fan have been impinged by Janeway's death, or is it just the reaction from the fans here that you have objection to?
3) Would you have found it plausible for the entire ship & crew to stay together and continue to be that family, even after they returned from the Delta Quadrant? I realize this is a separate issue from Janeway's death, and I am in no way attempting to conflate the two myself; this is a separate question. Assuming Janeway lived, would you still have thought that the relaunch books "were Voyager" if she had been an Admiral and apart from it all?
Again, I'm trying to clarify your positions, not argue against them; these are things I haven't been able to understand clearly from what you've posted. I do disagree with you on several things, but I want to make sure I don't misunderstand or disrespect your beliefs as I do so.
1) Where have you seen evidence that Janeway has to be "better" to be thought of as the same? In particular, in this thread, I've seen some very detailed examinations of Janeway's command style, and none of it seemed to have gender-based overtones. She was explicitly compared to Kirk and others. And I bet if you did a poll like this for Archer, the results would be substantially more negative. As a character, on her own merits, she is inarguably less consistently characterized than some of the others, as indeed I would say essentially all of the Voyager characters were. That's a complaint that can be, and has been, completely independent of her gender. Do you see otherwise?
2) Do you feel that the Star Trek writers owe you stories with Janeway in them? You make a lot of statements about fan disrespect, but I can't tell whether or not you're conflating the authors with those fans. Do you feel as if your rights as a fan have been impinged by Janeway's death, or is it just the reaction from the fans here that you have objection to?
3) Would you have found it plausible for the entire ship & crew to stay together and continue to be that family, even after they returned from the Delta Quadrant? I realize this is a separate issue from Janeway's death, and I am in no way attempting to conflate the two myself; this is a separate question. Assuming Janeway lived, would you still have thought that the relaunch books "were Voyager" if she had been an Admiral and apart from it all?
Again, I'm trying to clarify your positions, not argue against them; these are things I haven't been able to understand clearly from what you've posted. I do disagree with you on several things, but I want to make sure I don't misunderstand or disrespect your beliefs as I do so.
Real life conversations, for one - I think I've previously mentioned when Voyager first came out, and a couple of Trek fans I knew were not impressed - according to them, no woman could ever captain a starship. You can bet dollars to doughnuts that they were holding her to different standards - that's the way the world works for the vast majority of women.
Hell, just recently in one of the "which captain is best" polls in General Discussions, one poster, apparently trying to be fair, listed the best points of each captain as reasons for why they would want to meet/serve with them. All TV captains bar one were assessed on intellect and command ability. That one was assessed only in terms of social and sexual attractiveness. Want to guess which one? (Hint: it wasn't one of the men.)
Gender discrimination is out there, and Trek fans aren't immune. It's why killing off the most visible woman leader in Trek has hacked off some Janeway fans - there's enough discrimination out there, that the tearing down of one of the few strong role models in media with worldwide access, in a show that claims to be about hope, in a truly horrible way (violated to death, while the most powerful being in the known universe looks on and mocks) is, well, not hopeful. Let's not even get into the argument that she "deserved it".
Bad enough that she died but seriously - who thought that death was a good idea? True, at least the floor didn't assume the shape of a Borg phallus and actually rape her to death (she deserved it for not doing what she was told!), but to me the similarity was still fairly fucking plain - if you'll excuse the pun.
So yeah, it's pretty hard not to be "humourless" about that, especially when you don't even feel safe walking down the damn street at night.
Well, ok, so here we are again; I feel like I've made this exact same post before, and to you in particular to boot.
I agree and completely understand your point about discrimination, I've seen it myself. I would contend that it's much less prevalent now even than when Voyager premiered, but either way, whatever. I don't know much about it, and even anecdotally, gender discrimination still exists. I'm not arguing it.
I'm also not going to argue that "killing off the most visible woman leader in Trek has hacked off some Janeway fans" - there is a potential appearance of gender-based discrimination here that is an unfortunate side-effect of this plot choice. Again, if you're talking about how it might look, I see your point.
What I don't see is the slightest bit of evidence that the people in charge of the Trek line actually made that choice for sexist reasons, nor that author Peter David wrote his book that way. He's a ridiculous, over-the-top sort of writer, and the main character deaths he's written in other stories (his own main characters, not show regulars) have been equally bizarre and unusual. It's just how he writes. And the editors have made perfectly clear why Janeway was killed, not a single reason of which was "she's a woman" or anything similar. Moreover, aside from that one particular instance, TrekLit has been far more equitable between genders than the TV shows ever were.
So I want to make sure we draw that distinction here, between how it might look, and the motivations behind the choice. Completely independent of whether you like it or not.
I agree and completely understand your point about discrimination, I've seen it myself. I would contend that it's much less prevalent now even than when Voyager premiered, but either way, whatever. I don't know much about it, and even anecdotally, gender discrimination still exists. I'm not arguing it.
I'm also not going to argue that "killing off the most visible woman leader in Trek has hacked off some Janeway fans" - there is a potential appearance of gender-based discrimination here that is an unfortunate side-effect of this plot choice. Again, if you're talking about how it might look, I see your point.
What I don't see is the slightest bit of evidence that the people in charge of the Trek line actually made that choice for sexist reasons, nor that author Peter David wrote his book that way. He's a ridiculous, over-the-top sort of writer, and the main character deaths he's written in other stories (his own main characters, not show regulars) have been equally bizarre and unusual. It's just how he writes. And the editors have made perfectly clear why Janeway was killed, not a single reason of which was "she's a woman" or anything similar. Moreover, aside from that one particular instance, TrekLit has been far more equitable between genders than the TV shows ever were.
So I want to make sure we draw that distinction here, between how it might look, and the motivations behind the choice. Completely independent of whether you like it or not.
Look, I get your point, I do. I'm not arguing that Pocket et al. was motivated by deliberate sexism.
But lack of motivation doesn't excuse the result of how things appear. Only a small amount of people care enough to talk about this online, the rest take it at face value. And that face value is pretty damn terrible.
To take another example - imagine if Pocket had decided to kill off Ben Sisko. Now imagine if, in a fit of horrible naivete, they'd done it in an urban slum plagued by gang violence, and Sisko was shot after being involved in a drug deal gone bad. Worse, it was implied that he deserved said death, the uppity creature. That would, to my mind, be playing to the very worst of race stereotypes, and Pocket could disclaim racism all they liked, but the appearance would be the same. And that appearance, the one that the vast majority would take away, would not be "Pocket killed off its most visible African American Trek leader, and what an innovative storyline! We're giving the people the realism that they want, and let's all find hope in his death."
If Trek touts itself - and it does - on being a beacon of hope, then it should have the intellectual honesty to realise that people are affected - for good or ill - by what comes out of that brand name. Consistently, if Trek can give hope, it can also take it away. And if, after this realisation, Pocket et al. continues to insist that Trek is about hope, then they have a responsibility to have at least a basic grasp of the social realities their books are going out into. And that includes how things appear. Because that appearance matters.
So I do understand your distinction - the one between motivation and appearance. For what it's worth, in this case I tend to subscribe to it. Where we differ, I think, is in the importance we ascribe to that appearance.
But lack of motivation doesn't excuse the result of how things appear. Only a small amount of people care enough to talk about this online, the rest take it at face value. And that face value is pretty damn terrible.
To take another example - imagine if Pocket had decided to kill off Ben Sisko. Now imagine if, in a fit of horrible naivete, they'd done it in an urban slum plagued by gang violence, and Sisko was shot after being involved in a drug deal gone bad. Worse, it was implied that he deserved said death, the uppity creature. That would, to my mind, be playing to the very worst of race stereotypes, and Pocket could disclaim racism all they liked, but the appearance would be the same. And that appearance, the one that the vast majority would take away, would not be "Pocket killed off its most visible African American Trek leader, and what an innovative storyline! We're giving the people the realism that they want, and let's all find hope in his death."
If Trek touts itself - and it does - on being a beacon of hope, then it should have the intellectual honesty to realise that people are affected - for good or ill - by what comes out of that brand name. Consistently, if Trek can give hope, it can also take it away. And if, after this realisation, Pocket et al. continues to insist that Trek is about hope, then they have a responsibility to have at least a basic grasp of the social realities their books are going out into. And that includes how things appear. Because that appearance matters.
So I do understand your distinction - the one between motivation and appearance. For what it's worth, in this case I tend to subscribe to it. Where we differ, I think, is in the importance we ascribe to that appearance.
Last edited:
If only a small amount of people care enough to talk about this online, the fact of the matter is that only a small amount of people care enough to find out what happened in the first place; the novel line is a pretty small part of the overall Trek universe, either way you throw it. Janeway as a Captain onscreen was clearly an inspirational and important moment for a great many people, but percentage-wise, I would highly doubt that very many of those people even know that she was killed off in the novels at all, much less how.
Which you might very well argue doesn't excuse the appearance either, and I'm not saying it does; I just don't really think its the responsibility of the novel writers to be an inspiration to absolutely everyone. To my view, it's all still been completely consistent with "beacon of hope", particularly the Destiny trilogy, which was the strongest statement of hope I've ever seen Star Trek do. I just think they're more concerned with the stories being hopeful than with any particular symbolism, be it gender or anything else; certainly, moving on after the death of someone as important as Janeway can be a story about hope just as much as anything else can.
I think you're putting too much on them, I really do. I don't think they should be thinking "how might this look to an uneducated observer?", especially since there aren't that many in the first place anymore. I think that they should be thinking "what makes the best story, regardless of the gender race or status of our characters?" Which, as far as I can tell, they were. Now, you might disagree, but what I mean is I think they have the right priorities. This may have been dumb, but it wasn't anything worse.
Which you might very well argue doesn't excuse the appearance either, and I'm not saying it does; I just don't really think its the responsibility of the novel writers to be an inspiration to absolutely everyone. To my view, it's all still been completely consistent with "beacon of hope", particularly the Destiny trilogy, which was the strongest statement of hope I've ever seen Star Trek do. I just think they're more concerned with the stories being hopeful than with any particular symbolism, be it gender or anything else; certainly, moving on after the death of someone as important as Janeway can be a story about hope just as much as anything else can.
I think you're putting too much on them, I really do. I don't think they should be thinking "how might this look to an uneducated observer?", especially since there aren't that many in the first place anymore. I think that they should be thinking "what makes the best story, regardless of the gender race or status of our characters?" Which, as far as I can tell, they were. Now, you might disagree, but what I mean is I think they have the right priorities. This may have been dumb, but it wasn't anything worse.
That comparison doesn't map.
1. Sisko isn't shown, either in the episodes or in the novels I'm familiar with, to have any connections to urban slums, gang violence, drug deals, or criminal activity of any kind.
2. Janeway, on the other hand, is shown to have extensiv experience with the Borg, indeed to actually seek out contact with the Borg. The example of her hunting down Borg scoutships for their transwarp coils is something I've mentioned, but her infiltration of Unimatrix 001 and her role in Species 8472 and the destruction of the transwarp hub are other issues.
3. Sisko has no connection with urban dysfunction; New Orleans, for instancem, is by all accounts a happy and prosperous city. Janeway, now, has innumerable connections with the Borg that arguably determine her Delta Quadrant experience--she's even known by name to the Borg Queen.
4. Borg assimilation was experienced by Janeway as a violation, but it was established as being that long in advance of Before Dishonour. the aftermath of "The Best of Both Worlds," Picard was left struggling with that.
The optics might be unfortunate, but the death of Janeway is well-grounded in the personal history and personality of Janeway, and in the previous depiction of the Borg. She has actively sought out extensive experience with the Borg; she has been known to take dangerous risks with respect to the Borg; and the Borg consciousness has been established as being cruel and dominating.
OMG....I've been pretty much a lurker when it came to the 'Janeway will die' threads...
I do understand both points--the for and against--however, I don't understand the obsessiveness on both sides. (You can see it in some comments).
I wanted to comment on this post by Thrawn who mentioned there was no evidence of an agenda based on sexism from the authors or publishers:
I've mentioned previously on how certain characters (non-white/non-male/non-heterosexual) in Trek were handled. Basically, it is 'putting on the other shoe' and/or basically looking at history and seeing how these groups have been portrayed....
If certain groups were/are not portrayed in a certain light, and it seems to get a 'brush of the hand' you can bet that those people would (and have every right to) make a fuss.
Many set Trek to a higher standard as being very equal to various groups; however, I've personally have not seen that. (I think the 'multicultural' aspect went out in the 60s, since the 'multiculturalism' was new at the time--and even then, in the 1960s show, certain stories couldn't be told because of 'drama' behind the scenes).
Trek is supposed to 'grow.' Yet, Trek still seems to be 'catching' up to the world.
Hoshi, I think you'll find that the vast majority of fiction written by white Americans is going to star white Americans, regardless. Or at least white people that act much like Americans. And it's not out of any sense of racial injustice, it's just because people tend to write what they know. I mean, a completely proportional and accurate crew would have, what, 3 asian-ancestry characters per white character? Are we going to complain until we get that?
Again, I think you're putting too much on them. Star Trek has never tried to be about making sure absolutely every character was as inspiring as possible to people in that precise situation, nor about giving an accurate representation of various populations; it's been about tackling larger issues through allegory. The two are quite distinct. One might as well argue that TOS was culturally insensitive towards security guards, because they died so often.
Again, I think you're putting too much on them. Star Trek has never tried to be about making sure absolutely every character was as inspiring as possible to people in that precise situation, nor about giving an accurate representation of various populations; it's been about tackling larger issues through allegory. The two are quite distinct. One might as well argue that TOS was culturally insensitive towards security guards, because they died so often.
Thrawn, how it looks and how it's perceived is important. There are experiences shared by females that infuence their view points, just as there are experiences shared by people of color and by disabled people. Those experiences teach the individual to be concerned about certain behaviors.
I'll bet very few of you have been told that you couldn't hire someone for a job opening in the department you supervise because you are a pretty woman and it would look right to have a male working for you. I have had that experience and it wasn't right for either of us. That guy needed a job, I had a job that needed a person in it. He had experience but I couldn't hire him.
Did it ever occur to any of you that because of "experience" we might be seeing things that you simply over look.
Therin has a problem when I say we, but I can't say it any other way because there is a we and it's attitudes just like the ones you all express here, by pulling out one statement and ignoring others, by making fun of me and thereby making fun of the people I represent.
These threads are open, they actually come here to see what you are saying. So you see you all are not earning respect either. Actually I am owed respect, just as you would be owed respect if you came on one of my boards. We would listen to you, we wouldn't agree with you but we also wouldn't continue to ask you to prove something that is essentially unprovable, nor would an attempt be made to shout you down with taunts or strawman arguments.
Brit
I'll bet very few of you have been told that you couldn't hire someone for a job opening in the department you supervise because you are a pretty woman and it would look right to have a male working for you. I have had that experience and it wasn't right for either of us. That guy needed a job, I had a job that needed a person in it. He had experience but I couldn't hire him.
Did it ever occur to any of you that because of "experience" we might be seeing things that you simply over look.
Therin has a problem when I say we, but I can't say it any other way because there is a we and it's attitudes just like the ones you all express here, by pulling out one statement and ignoring others, by making fun of me and thereby making fun of the people I represent.
These threads are open, they actually come here to see what you are saying. So you see you all are not earning respect either. Actually I am owed respect, just as you would be owed respect if you came on one of my boards. We would listen to you, we wouldn't agree with you but we also wouldn't continue to ask you to prove something that is essentially unprovable, nor would an attempt be made to shout you down with taunts or strawman arguments.
Brit
You see, to me, that brand name increases my expectations. Trek - including its authors - speak about Trek as a hopeful force. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't feel an inclination to hold them to it. But they do, and so I do. It's naturally irritating to be told that Trek is about hope (as if it provides all things to all people) when you've been given what you feel to be a fundamentally unhopeful story. "Not to me it isn't!" you want to holler, shaking your fist in the air.
It is unreasonable, I agree, to expect Trek authors to be an inspiration to everyone. Especially as some of those inspirations are in direct opposition! (You can't provide hope to people who don't have fundamentally humanist goals while simultaneously providing hope to those who do, for instance.)
But, as I said, if those authors support the "Trek as hope" theme, then I think that they do have a responsibility not to tear down any particular humanist hope in the course of their story. And that includes symbolism - it's as much part of a story as character or plot.
My feeling is that if you're willing to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. That is not to say that bad things should not happen in Trek - but if you're going to have them happen under the banner of "hope", then minimising even the appearance of Trek condoning sexism, racism, etc. is important.
I don't find hope and the accidental appearance of sexism to be in opposition, though; as I said, though this story accidentally appeared sexist, the reaction of Voyager's crew may very well turn out to be one of the most hopeful stories Trek has written. Hope is useless unless it comes from adversity, and death of loved ones is an adversity we all face. Janeway's death could turn out to be the greatest statement of her power and importance that has ever been written.
I mean, I'm getting into touchy territory here, but a lot of very famous hopeful literature regarding African American oppression has been written about slaves. Characters undergoing historically accurate truly vile and horrifying things, and then overcoming that and being powerful in their own right. Are those things racist because they portray African Americans as being beaten and humiliated? Of COURSE not.
Janeway was indeed violated and humiliated, and then in the end saved the entire Federation in a moment of sheer personal force and love. To me, that shows how strong a person she WAS, and the aftermath could do so even more.
Is it necessary for Martin Luther King, Jr. to be alive to be an inspiration?
And before you get at me, I realize these things are not all equivalent, I'm just coming at this from some other angles because I do think it's all in the eye of the beholder.
I mean, I'm getting into touchy territory here, but a lot of very famous hopeful literature regarding African American oppression has been written about slaves. Characters undergoing historically accurate truly vile and horrifying things, and then overcoming that and being powerful in their own right. Are those things racist because they portray African Americans as being beaten and humiliated? Of COURSE not.
Janeway was indeed violated and humiliated, and then in the end saved the entire Federation in a moment of sheer personal force and love. To me, that shows how strong a person she WAS, and the aftermath could do so even more.
Is it necessary for Martin Luther King, Jr. to be alive to be an inspiration?
And before you get at me, I realize these things are not all equivalent, I'm just coming at this from some other angles because I do think it's all in the eye of the beholder.
You see, to me, that brand name increases my expectations. Trek - including its authors - speak about Trek as a hopeful force. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't feel an inclination to hold them to it. But they do, and so I do. It's naturally irritating to be told that Trek is about hope (as if it provides all things to all people) when you've been given what you feel to be a fundamentally unhopeful story. "Not to me it isn't!" you want to holler, shaking your fist in the air.
It is unreasonable, I agree, to expect Trek authors to be an inspiration to everyone. Especially as some of those inspirations are in direct opposition! (You can't provide hope to people who don't have fundamentally humanist goals while simultaneously providing hope to those who do, for instance.)
But, as I said, if those authors support the "Trek as hope" theme, then I think that they do have a responsibility not to tear down any particular humanist hope in the course of their story. And that includes symbolism - it's as much part of a story as character or plot.
My feeling is that if you're willing to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. That is not to say that bad things should not happen in Trek - but if you're going to have them happen under the banner of "hope", then minimising even the appearance of Trek condoning sexism, racism, etc. is important.
Very good post!
I think Octavia's post above mirrors on how I would answer this.
Oh, the comparison isn't perfect, I agree. But I was trying to give a basic comparison between the reactions towards A) having your most visible female "deservedly" being violated to death and B) having your most visible African American "deservedly" being killed in an unnecessarily hateful/stereotypical way.
I would have hoped that either of these things would have given ground for pause from any author/editor working under the active promotion of "hope". The appearance, if not the motivation behind it, is or would be pretty clear. And if you live life as a member of a minority group, you soon learn that how your particular minority is perceived is strongly dependent on how that minority is presented.
Hearing "Well, it wasn't meant that way" is a fairly useless argument under the circumstances - like shutting the gate after the horse is bolted. The presentation is still out there in the wider world, influencing perception.
But the point was that in this case a completely logical argument could be made that Janeway's behavior, repeatedly shown on screen, through consistent and logical application of the Trek universe, did indeed result in her death...that in that sense, she DID deserve it. Just because she's a woman, we're not allowed to point that out?
I'd say the exact same thing of Kirk's (first) death, in Generations - he stuck his neck out, in a crisis situation, to help a couple hundred people he'd never met before. Just like he did about 8,000 times before. You do that kind of thing, it'll eventually bite you in the ass. In an absolute sense I don't think anyone deserves to die, but in the exact same sense I mentioned in the previous paragraph - logical consequences of repeated risky behavior - he deserved his too.
I'd say the exact same thing of Kirk's (first) death, in Generations - he stuck his neck out, in a crisis situation, to help a couple hundred people he'd never met before. Just like he did about 8,000 times before. You do that kind of thing, it'll eventually bite you in the ass. In an absolute sense I don't think anyone deserves to die, but in the exact same sense I mentioned in the previous paragraph - logical consequences of repeated risky behavior - he deserved his too.
Last edited:
I think I've seen you post before about your frustration that there aren't any black/asian relationships in Trek. And that kind of thing is what I'm referring to in my post - when did Trek have to have an example of every possible socially awkward situation in order to be considered progressive?
Novel-based trek has far more female characters in far more powerful positions than the shows ever did. It has several homosexual characters, which the shows never did. It has undertaken the first legitimately comprehensive effort to describe a culture totally distinct from hours as heroic and noble (the IKS Gorkon series), certainly a point in favor of multiculturalism.
I just don't get your complaint. If the books are still catching up to reality, so has Star Trek been since the very very beginning.
And one, coincidentally, in which she plays a completely passive part. Our most visible female character provides the most hope only after she's dead? Well, that's nice in a Victorian "think of your poor dead sainted mother..." kind of way, but it's also damning with faint praise...
Apples and oranges. One is a (even if fictional) relatively accurate depiction of the way things were. The other purports to be a depiction of what could hopefully be. The ideal is movement forward between these two goals.
But it's something that would have been infinitely more effective coming out of any other sort of death.
Nope. But any suggestion that his main worth comes from his death belies the inspiration he could have continued to provide had he not been murdered, yes? I certainly hope that no-one would argue that it was a good thing he was shot, because that way he could provide more inspiration! And I don't think you'll find many who see his death as a fundamentally hopeful event.
Believe it or not, we actually agree. I'm certainly not trying to get at you - it's just in this case, my eye is different than yours. As a young woman who wanted to be a scientist, Janeway was one of my (extremely few) fictional role models. Seeing her effectively violated to death, and seeing people argue that she deserved it, pisses me off no end. To me, that can never be a hopeful story, no matter how many pretty bows are put on it afterwards.
Before I fully answer this post, can you explain how a relationship I am in is 'socially awkward'...?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
- Status
