Sexual Harassment and Objectification in Star Trek

If this thread is inappropriate, please delete it. I'm not trying to cause problems nor to slander anyone. I"m not trying to incite a flame war or immature discussion. But my question comes on the heels of George Takei being accused of sexually harassing/assaulting someone and the current interest in powerful men in Hollywood in particular using their influence for salacious purposes.

This is not the first time such an issue has been leveled against someone connected to Star Trek. Roddenberry is alleged to have been a fan of the casting couch, or at least have engaged in affairs with his actresses. There have also been rumors for years that Grace Lee Whitney suffered an assault that may have led to years of substance abuse and other issues. For years, such things were either not discussed or, if they were, treated merely as speculative and therefore inappropriate.

There was also a great deal of criticism of how Star Trek in its more recent forms exploited women -- the cat suit on Seven of Nine and T'Pol, for instance, with no compelling explanation for why other than it made them look sexier. Brannon Braga would go on to date Seven of Nine's Jeri Ryan. Star Trek, despite wrapping itself in the diversity flag, also seemed quite resistant until recently to having "outed" gay characters.

Braga, who seemed to be among the proponents of the cat suit, also was accused of homophobic remarks against a writer, something Braga later admitted to, at least according to this source: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Brannon_Braga. All this suggests a climate behind the scenes that may have been less than pleasant for some women and LGBT people.

So, I guess the questions are have there been latent sexism and homophobia in Star Trek all along? Is it time to begin to ask the same questions about sexual harassment of the Star Trek franchise as is being asked of other Hollywood Institutions, like the Weinstein Company or on the set of House of Cards? Or is Star Trek so important to the concepts of diversity and inclusion, that it's a sacred cow above reproach? While I don't think an accusation is the same thing as a conclusion of guilt, should past accusations now be taken more seriously in the light of recent events? I fear even asking the questions in some ways, but society seems to be at a turning point with how it will deal with such. And Star Trek, in many ways, has led a lot of the discussions about how society deals with social issues.

 

This is true, but have we, the fans, kind of looked away or downplayed the potential sexism or homphobia in Star Trek? I hear and read all the time about how important Star Trek was to diversity, yet the show seemed curiously behind in these two areas, despite being around for 50 years and thousands of episodes/movies. In a lot of ways, Star Wars, with fewer films, seemed to treat women better overall, though it, too, has issues.

 

True, though its representation of diversity is pretty flawed in that whites not only appear to be in the majority but also occupy most of the positions of authority. Whites then and now have always been a racial minority on Earth. But this is part of what I'm talking about. Fans are so quick to trumpet how great Star Trek has been to diversity -- to the point of overselling it in a lot of cases -- they seem resistant to anything that might tarnish that image.

 

I would think this would, in some ways, silence women and minorities from speaking out about problems with Star Trek, behind the camera or in front of it.

 

To be fair, until Discovery, Star Trek was primarily aimed at American audiences which are predominately white.

As far as sexual harassment and poor treatment of women go, Star Trek was made in the same Hollywood. So I would think it was just as rampant on its set as any other. We even had inklings that Roddenberry was the one that assaulted Whitney.

 

That's the practical explanation, and it makes sense. But that's what I mean about fans overselling the show -- any criticism of Star Trek not being quite so diverse gets deflected by the audience issue. Having it both ways is a problem. It can't be a great exemplar of diversity if it stops well short of being diverse, for instance. At the same time, in the sense that other contemporary shows routinely showed as much diversity, too -- Mission: Impossible!, Ironside, and Land of the Giants, for instance, and there were set in the present -- it wasn't so revolutionary.

 

Fans always oversell aspects of things they like to get attention to it. Diversity has always been oversold in Star Trek.

Roddenberry was a better salesman than most. Making a living going to college campuses in the 70's to sell Star Trek's future.

 

The show is an American one and tends to be viewed through the lens of America. So its take on diversity and inclusion is an American one. Americans are only now beginning to look beyond the black and white view of diversity.

 

White Americans maybe. People of color have always wanted to see more diversity but were largely ignored.

 

True.

 

Not sure anyone has said otherwise. But, even now, almost two-thirds of Americans are white. That is power, whether one likes it or not.

 

Yes, but that goes back to the fantasy that Star Trek represents diversity and the reality that it paints a picture mostly for its audience. These may not be one and the same. This perhaps explains, too, the cognitive dissonance between some Star Trek fans who espouse the diversity ideal but bristle at the notion of Star Trek being more inclusive or treating women better.

 

Is it dissonance when there are examples of sexism and racism in even the show, and among the production staff?

 

There is a bit of cognitive dissonance there, yes. You see people of all kinds of political viewpoints who love Star Trek.

I still consider myself a Star Trek fan but am under no illusions that every episode was morally or aesthetically perfect, that the vision of the future depicted should be accurately replicated and above all, that everything was perfect behind the scenes. As Flork mentioned, Gene Roddenberry developed a show that inspired many for the better, but he was also a womanizer who rolled out the "casting couch." Grace Lee Whitney suffered at the hands of a nameless "studio exec" which led to much anguish for her for years. On the subject of fiction, the original series and later iterations too kept using less than politically correct tropes. Yes, I love Star Trek, but I also know it was far from untarnished.

 

It certainly could be if people say they subscribe to IDIC and talk about diversity in all its facets at conventions and the like. I don't know that it extends to the production staff per se unless they maintain the public persona that it matters to them. Certainly, they are creating fiction with the show, and that means it doesn't have to subscribe to their personal points of view. However, over the years, I've read and scene many things from the franchise that suggests diversity is not only important but vital to the show's integrity.

 

It does create some challenge separating what the show appears to represent from the actual beliefs and practices of the people who create it.

For example, I'm watching Enterprise right now, and the writers and producers didn't miss a beat in putting T'Pol into a sexual situation. Would we expect that to be the case with a male character? Do we even question why the female character must find herself in such a predicament? The show further goes on to subject T'Pol to mind rape. Again, this seems something reserved for the female characters, or at the very least, seems to happen more to them than the males.

 

Certainly there is a desire for diversity. My question is more that it is inconsistently applied, even in the show itself. So, if the show demonstrates some dissonance at times with its own state beliefs, are we really surprised by audience members demonstrating the same dissonance?