Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?

[Rahul]

.
Yeah, no. While you are right that we wouldn't have gotten a black female captain on 1960s television, Uhura did not "break the mold" at all. Even by the standards of black people on 1960s television, Uhura was very neglected.

I'm sorry. As much as I agree with the rest of your post:
This is exactly the counter productive, revisionistv talk down of cultural achievements.

There's a fuckin' reason why Uhura's wiki page has a whole "cultural impact" section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyota_Uhura#Cultural_impact

As I said a bit earlier about culture "firsts":

I know it looks so obvious & easy in retrospect - like all "ceiling breaks", where in the end you wonder what all the fuzz was even about in the first place?

And this is a great point FOR your mentioned NCIS featuring gay characters. And yes - Stamets wasn't a cultural break-through. Just a "first" in this single franchise, and luckily a very good one.
And yes, Star Trek "missed" the chance to be the progressive, cultural fore-bearer on this topic.
That's a shame. But I won't hold it against Trek. I will applaud that the other ones that DID these firsts.

And I'm content enough that Trek didn't put its foot in its mouth before that. There's a ton of popular 90s stuff that has aged badly - like all the "gay panic" jokes on Friends et al. - and even old Trek is general non-offensive and sometimes even downright respectful to non-sexual-nrmative behaviour.
Could it have been better? For sure. Was it bad? By no means.

 

[Michael]

Just tell me, how are you going to tackly any LGBTQ topics while completely sweeping "sex and relationships" under the table? It's kind of central to the topic? At least one of the two at minimum?

You are talking about “LGBTQ topics” now, but the original question (of this thread and then the post you were replying to earlier today) was about LGBTQ+ representation through characters. You replied “Old' Star Trek had a very, very low level of "sex & relationships" in general. TOS & TNG Season 1 (with one(!) implied sex scene between main characters!) the most” and “the ONLY reason we were able to get this great, loving gay relationship on screen was because DISc was a GOT-inspired, adult oriented streaming show.”

Which is what I’m disagreeing with, because — if we take TNG as an example — they were obviously able to establish almost every single characters’ heterosexuality without having “sex scenes” (implied or not) or showing them in a relationship — on a family oriented show no less. Curious how that seems to work for heterosexual characters, but not homosexual ones.

And this is the only thing I’ve been trying to point out. It’s a fallacy to think they would have to show a gay character having sex (or even just imply it) or show that character in a gay relationship to establish their gayness. Nothing more complicated than that. I only meant to highlight how this notion is wrong and was actually one of the often cited excuses for why gay characters supposedly couldn’t appear on television, claiming it’s an “adult” topic and hyper-sexualising LGBTQ+ people in the process.

Could it have been better? For sure. Was it bad? By no means.

How can you say it wasn’t bad when this thread listed various ways in which 90s Star Trek played into LGBTQ+ tropes and stereotypes with the way they included them?

That's not good reading comprehension.

These posts give very bad kink-shaming vibes against normies.

If stuff like that makes you feel better, my dude.

 

[Skipper]

Which is what I’m disagreeing with, because — if we take TNG as an example — they were obviously able to establish almost every single characters’ heterosexuality without having “sex scenes” (implied or not) or showing them in a relationship — on a family oriented show no less. Curious how that seems to work for heterosexual characters, but not homosexual ones.

Yep. They needed to point out that Data was heterosexual too, and he was a robot.

 

[Oddish]

And a lot of people, since they themselves have never had issues with LGBTQ rights, don't realize the pervasiveness of the opposition of the time. Remember that in 2003, there were still 13 states with anti-sodomy laws in place. Figure that a law decriminalizing same-sex relations in those countries would have only required 50% vote to pass. And yet, none of those states did it on their own. When the Supreme Court struck down those laws, it wasn't about what the majority of people in those states wanted, it was about what the minority's rights were. So clearly, there was a large group of viewers out there who didn't want their entertainment to become more gay-friendly, and might stop watching if it did. So even if the powers that be at Trek thought that adding LGBTQ characters was the right thing to do, they still had pay their mortgages and put groceries on the table.

By 2017, we were on the other end of a prolonged and (by and large) well executed media campaign to present gay people, especially couples, in a positive light. Public attitudes were different, and so adding in LGBTQ characters was no longer an issue.

 

[UssGlenn]

I'm sorry. As much as I agree with the rest of your post:
This is exactly the counter productive, revisionistv talk down of cultural achievements.

There's a fuckin' reason why Uhura's wiki page has a whole "cultural impact" section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyota_Uhura#Cultural_impact

Uhura is important because she is remembered. And that is because Trek has lasted so long. But an analyst of female African Americans on TV in the mid 1960s requires more than referencing Nichols' Wikipedia page. I'd love to end this by listing some examples but I don't know the shows of the era well enough.

edit: a quick googling shows:

1963, East Side/West Side, Cicely Tyson, co star
1966, Star Trek, Nichelle Nichols, day player
1967, Mannix, Gail Fisher, co star (1970 Emmy award).
1967, Batman, Eartha Kitt, guest Star
1968, Julia, Diahann Carroll, lead

 

[Jayson1]

Disco would never have been a syndicated show as first run syndication isn't really a thing anymore on TV. If it were a network show, than I see no reason why Stamets and Culber couldn't be there.

What about NCIS? That's an American franchise that targets a conservative demographic and centers around the military, yet NCIS New Orleans had a gay character in its main cast while NCIS Hawai'i has a gay couple in its main cast. And it's produced by Paramount and airs on CBS.

Yeah, no. While you are right that we wouldn't have gotten a black female captain on 1960s television, Uhura did not "break the mold" at all. Even by the standards of black people on 1960s television, Uhura was very neglected.

It's because right wingers don't care as much about race and gender, at least when it comes to entertainment, as some think. It's all about if they see something as woke or not woke and they define wokeness by a shows political ideology. With a specific focus on anything that see as anti-Trump or anti-masculinity. Those were not really issues in the older entertainment they watched even if they had liberal ideas in them. Trump wasn't modern day Trump to the world and most shows tended to be male-centric. Stuff aimed towards first Boomer and later Gen X sensibilities.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Yes I know, it was a different time, Star Trek was a family show etc etc. The fact remains that EIGHT days after the end of Enterprise, Doctor Who (another family show) introduced this character:

I love Jack Harkness, he's a great character.

That role propelled John Barrowman's career IMO.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm sorry. As much as I agree with the rest of your post:
This is exactly the counter productive, revisionistv talk down of cultural achievements.

Hardly. Uhura was basically the Enterprise's receptionist, meaning all she really did on TOS was answer the phones. There were other shows in the 60s which had black people who contributed far more to the show.

There's a fuckin' reason why Uhura's wiki page has a whole "cultural impact" section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyota_Uhura#Cultural_impact

I see they mention the MLK story, which his own family has debunked, so I'm calling into question the accuracy of that Wiki page.

 

[Skipper]

Hardly. Uhura was basically the Enterprise's receptionist, meaning all she really did on TOS was answer the phones. There were other shows in the 60s which had black people who contributed far more to the show.

This character here during Mission Impossible (which aired in the same years as Star Trek) was a electronics and mechanical genius, as well as a forgery expert.

 

[UssGlenn]

If we are including men then, Cosby as co-lead on I Spy and Ivan Dixon as Kinchloe on Hogan's Heroes, both 1965. Funnily enough, Kinchloe was also responsible for the communication equipment.

 

[Skipper]

If we are including men then, Cosby as co-lead on I Spy and Ivan Dixon as Kinchloe on Hogan's Heroes, both 1965. Funnily enough, Kinchloe was also responsible for the communication equipment.

I'm imagining a television producer in the late 1950s. "We have nothing against black people. In fact, we're working on having a black character appear in the series. But we're looking for the right narrative reason to explain his blackness. We can't just do it appear without giving explanations as to why their skin color is different. So we will also avoid making them appear as background characters, which is why they are all white now, out of respect for blacks. But trust me, we are working on it."

 

[UssGlenn]

which is why they are all white now, out of respect for blacks.

you joke, but after the NAACP got the Amos 'n' Andy Tv show (rightfully) cancelled in 1953 (which had black actors, unlike the radio show), it took 20 years for them to work up the nerve to try again.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Have we really reached a point where things are all a-OK today tho, I wonder? I remember Michael Chabon stating that "we simply didn't have the time for a gay character" about PIC's first season (I think this was in response to someone asking if Elnor was gay). So, they had time to establish heterosexual relationships (Laris and Zhaban etc) but not a single second for a m/m one? And why does there always have to be "time" for this sort of thing? Why do we need to treat m/m relationships so differently? Why are heterosexual relationships always portrayed without a second thought and as soon as it's a m/m relationship, things are suddenly "complicated" and "need time"? And... did Disco really do enough? First thing THEY did was give Stamets and Culber the "bury your gays" trope. (I know they 'fixed' it eventually, but still.) And it's not just the ones who make the shows - look at the outrage in the fandom. The "oh my GOD the gays are now on Star Trek, I can't watch this show with my kids anymore" reactions. The "I prefer my Star Trek without the gays, I thought 90s Trek established that they had gone extinct" statements.

I'm just saying that Trek STILL has a lot to learn. Both the ones in charge AND parts of the fandom. And I couldn't help but laugh when they were like "OUR SHOW DISCOVERY HAS THE FIRST OPENLY GAY CHARACTER, WE CELEBRATE THIS!!". Nah, fellas. It's embarrassing how LONG IT TOOK YOU. This is more like a reason to be like "we're sorry it didn't happen on TNG already, we're sorry we failed to even acknowledge the lgbt+ part of our audience for decades". (Because, as several people have pointed out here, TNG should have been the show that paved the way for this.)

I realize that younger fans are thrilled to find themselves represented and whatnot and that's great of course, but to me as an "older gay", the "gay people? Not on my starship" message of the Berman era with its "we can't even have two men holding hands in the background" and "Whoopi Goldberg should say 'when a man and a woman are in love'" (kudos to her for refusing to say this and saying "when two PEOPLE are in love") nonsense is still too present and hurtful. And the fact that some of the arguments appear to still be used to day (see Chabon's reaction above, it sounded just like Rick Berman's justification) just REALLY managed to make me go "oh FFS, not AGAIN".

 

[Jayson1]

Have we really reached a point where things are all a-OK today tho, I wonder? I remember Michael Chabon stating that "we simply didn't have the time for a gay character" about PIC's first season (I think this was in response to someone asking if Elnor was gay). So, they had time to establish heterosexual relationships (Laris and Zhaban etc) but not a single second for a m/m one? And why does there always have to be "time" for this sort of thing? Why do we need to treat m/m relationships so differently? Why are heterosexual relationships always portrayed without a second thought and as soon as it's a m/m relationship, things are suddenly "complicated" and "need time"? And... did Disco really do enough? First thing THEY did was give Stamets and Culber the "bury your gays" trope. (I know they 'fixed' it eventually, but still.) And it's not just the ones who make the shows - look at the outrage in the fandom. The "oh my GOD the gays are now on Star Trek, I can't watch this show with my kids anymore" reactions. The "I prefer my Star Trek without the gays, I thought 90s Trek established that they had gone extinct" statements.

I'm just saying that Trek STILL has a lot to learn. Both the ones in charge AND parts of the fandom. And I couldn't help but laugh when they were like "OUR SHOW DISCOVERY HAS THE FIRST OPENLY GAY CHARACTER, WE CELEBRATE THIS!!". Nah, fellas. It's embarrassing how LONG IT TOOK YOU. This is more like a reason to be like "we're sorry it didn't happen on TNG already, we're sorry we failed to even acknowledge the lgbt+ part of our audience for decades". (Because, as several people have pointed out here, TNG should have been the show that paved the way for this.)

I realize that younger fans are thrilled to find themselves represented and whatnot and that's great of course, but to me as an "older gay", the "gay people? Not on my starship" message of the Berman era with its "we can't even have two men holding hands in the background" and "Whoopi Goldberg should say 'when a man and a woman are in love'" (kudos to her for refusing to say this and saying "when two PEOPLE are in love") nonsense is still too present and hurtful. And the fact that some of the arguments appear to still be used to day (see Chabon's reaction above, it sounded just like Rick Berman's justification) just REALLY managed to make me go "oh FFS, not AGAIN".

Picard season 1 did set up Seven as being gay by showing she had romantic feelings for that one lady at the space Vegas planet . PLus their was Raffi contacting her old friend which I think they were trying to set up as a former lover though granted it didn't come off like that.

 

[Michael]

This character …

I’m sorry, this is obviously besides the point being made, but as a lifelong fan of the original Mission: Impossible it hurts my little heart to see someone refer to Barney Collier (played by the late great Greg Morris) merely as “this character”. I know, you didn’t mean anything by it and the original M:I doesn’t have the pop culture recognition in Europe as it does overseas, so you’re hardly to blame for that. But I love Barney. Barney is my man. The show isn’t high art or anything (and the implications of its concept are downright politically incorrect from today’s perspective), but besides Trek, Frasier and Seinfeld there’s no show I’d rather put on to relax — and have been putting on consistently for years now — than the original Mission: Impossible.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Picard season 1 did set up Seven as being gay by showing she had romantic feelings for that one lady at the space Vegas planet . PLus their was Raffi contacting her old friend which I think they were trying to set up as a former lover though granted it didn't come off like that.

I was referring to m/m relationships on PIC, not w/w (I feel like as if I as a gay man am not THAT qualified to comment on the w/w representation on PIC, but from what I've seen from Seven/Raffi fans, a LOT of them were VERY disgruntled with the way the two were depicted... I think I read the word "ruined" and things like "they only had Seven and Raffi so that they could tick off lgbt representation and then they did nothing with them" several times tho).

From what I observed, the whole thing about Seven and Raffi being bi flew right over a lof of peoples' heads in the first season because the show did a great job at remaining vague about it. (I definitely remember Jeri Ryan having to actually confirm on Twitter that Seven is bi.) From what I remember behind the scenes the whole Seven and Raffi thing was inserted as a last minute 'gimmick', too. It was not planned. Granted, this is still a massive leap from what we were used to on TNG where it was even forbidden for two men to hold hands in the background... I will give them that. But the fact remains that PIC's first season had m/w relationships all over the place because apparently there was enough time for those but anything other than m/w was either non-existent when it comes to m/m or barely hinted at when it comes to w/w... and let's face it, w/w is STILL seen as more 'palatable' (to use a Rick Berman expression, I believe he once said that the audience would have found it 'unpalatable' if Soren from "The Outcast" had been played by a man) than m/m.

But like I said, I shall leave it to a lesbian fan to comment on how Seven and Raffi were handled, I really am NOT qualified. I was only talking about m/m was handled on PIC. And I haven't even started ranting about the P/Q queerbating in the second season. From that point of view, comments like Chabon's "ah there was no time" just sound incredibly hollow. If the show had had NO relationships whatsoever I'd have been like "sure fine whatever", but apparently there's always time for m/w, but not m/m. And THAT I find... very double standard-ish. I'm being diplomatic here

 

[Skipper]

you joke, but after the NAACP got the Amos 'n' Andy Tv show (rightfully) cancelled in 1953 (which had black actors, unlike the radio show), it took 20 years for them to work up the nerve to try again.

Never heard of it, so I've just read the Wikipedia Page.

My God.

 

[Skipper]

Never heard of it, so I've just read the Wikipedia Page.

My God.

It remembered me of this

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BillJ]

This character here during Mission Impossible (which aired in the same years as Star Trek) was a electronics and mechanical genius, as well as a forgery expert.

So? Star Trek really wasn’t this groundbreaking social experiment. Why were people expecting something of it that it never really was?

 

[evilchumlee]

It is interesting that a clearly patriarchal and sexist convention has survived into the future but is NOW currently culturally a minority on Earth.

It's an American TV show, created by Americans, for primarily an American audience.

It might be common elsewhere in the world, it is not common in the US, and would absolutely come off as odd and somewhat offputting to American viewers.

Put like this it almost seems like a conscious choice. As if the authors knew traditions and customs from all over the world but knowing that their audiences were Americans they wrote specifically for them.

You might overestimating American writers or Americans in general.

To a point, yes. American writers will write for American audiences. Just as Japanese writers will write for a Japanese audience, or Chinese writers will write for a Chinese audience. That's how it works.

But I do think alot of Americans are... ignorant would be the correct word, but I hesitate to use it in a negative context... about some other cultures. I think "Americans" get something of a bad wrap... most "American" things like this are shared with Canada as well. It's less to do with being willfully ignorant, and more to do with geography. Europeans have easier access to travel and interact with different cultures... most Americans and Canadians will spend the vast majority of their lives, if not their entire lives, in North America.

I was referring to m/m relationships on PIC, not w/w (I feel like as if I as a gay man am not THAT qualified to comment on the w/w representation on PIC, but from what I've seen from Seven/Raffi fans, a LOT of them were VERY disgruntled with the way the two were depicted... I think I read the word "ruined" and things like "they only had Seven and Raffi so that they could tick off lgbt representation and then they did nothing with them" several times tho).

Why would you not be qualified to comment? You are allowed to have an opinion.

My only "issue" so to speak with Seven/Raffi was that it just kind of came out of nowhere? Not necessarily within the show itself... yeah it's established/hinted that both had same sex relationships, and that worked fine for Raffi since she was a new character but it felt off for Seven as we have background on her and it was never hinted at before. People change, it's not actually a problem, but from an audience perspective it could seem like... well... they changed a character to tick off an LGBT representation box.

That being said, I put issue in quotes because it's really not an issue. I think there may have been a more effective way to present that. Sometimes subtle is good, this may have been too subtle. Non-LGBT people may take some issue with the fact of there being a change to the character... I can often be in that camp. I usually feel that they should just do a new character with -insert trait- rather than change an existing one. I did not have an issue with this one. I feel like it's a natural enough progression, by the end of Voyager Seven was still trying to find herself. I "buy" that as she came into her own and let her humanity assert itself she found that out about herself. Totally fine. (the opposite would be like, Picard being like "Oh hey by the way, i'm gay now!"... no. Doesn't work.)

From that point of view, comments like Chabon's "ah there was no time" just sound incredibly hollow. If the show had had NO relationships whatsoever I'd have been like "sure fine whatever", but apparently there's always time for m/w, but not m/m. And THAT I find... very double standard-ish.

The thing is though, PIC S1 really only had two depictions of relationships... three kind of. Maddox/Jurati was absolutely essential to the plot. There was "time" for it because it was a major part of the story. Rios/Jurati and Seven/Raffi were both largely irrelevant to the plot, with Rios/Jurati having at least a mild relation to the plot/character arcs. Seven/Raffi didn't really serve any story purpose at all, so Chabon was probably right in saying "there wasn't time". If we had an old school, 22 episode season... sure. Do a whole arc with them. With the time we have now? There was really no reason beyond "representation" to do it, which I think is a poor reason to do it.

And then ultimately it's largely irrelevant to the rest of the show too. Sure it gets brought up in S2 and plays a fairly minor role in Seven and Raffi's interactions, but otherwise it's largely irrelevant.

Contrast that say, Stamets and Culber in DSC. By and large, I greatly dislike DSC. But they are great, and their relationship serves a critical plot purpose. It never feels tacked on, just to tick off a box. There is an actual story reason for their relationship, and the orientation of their relationship is not the defining trait of their characters.