Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[BillJ]

If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

The only one who ever did that was Roddenberry and it was used as a sales tool. I quit buying his 'progressive vision of the future' schtick when I read that he dumped the female first officer character because he'd rather lie to his fiance than tell her the truth on why she was being replaced.

It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.

I don't want my kids getting there values from entertainment, that's what parents are for.

 

[CrazyHorse89]

If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

The only one who ever did that was Roddenberry and it was used as a sales tool. I quit buying his 'progressive vision of the future' schtick when I read that he dumped the female first officer character because he'd rather lie to his fiance than tell her the truth on why she was being replaced.

It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.

I don't want my kids getting there values from entertainment, that's what parents are for.

But like it or not, they will get some of their values-their self-perception and perception of others-from entertainment. And even if they don't, then everyone else's kids will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJqspNwGGE

27:06

 

[Ovation]

The difference is that Star Trek has always had some kind of agenda at its heart: feminist, liberal, egalitarian, whatever. If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 are not overtly sexist, but they certainly contain problematic gender dynamics. I don't think modern-Trek should treat one half of the population as window dressing or (God knows the old versions certainly did). It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.

Not really. What would really be "letting down young boys and girls" are parents who allow entertainment to substitute for the hard work of teaching values to their children. If any parent feels strongly enough about a particular value, they will take time to pass that value on to their children and ensure they've understood it. If that is done, then the children should not be so easily swayed away from that value by a 2 hour bit of entertainment. Indeed, if the lesson is well-learned, the children will raise the value conflict on their own (if they're too young, the parents are free to point out the conflict). However, the filmmakers have NO OBLIGATION to produce something that won't "let down" any particular "young boy or girl". No obligation whatsoever. We, as the audience, are NOT entitled to be satisfied on that score--ever. We merely have the right to agree or disagree with what we see and say so.

 

[Pauln6]

I think there are exactly as many women as the filmmakers intended to have and I have zero problem with that (meaning I have zero problem with the filmmakers producing a film that reflects what they, rather than anyone else, wants). I would have zero problem with that if the ratio of men to women in the film was reversed, if that is what the filmmakers wanted. What I don't want is for any artistic production to decide that it is more important to meet the requirements laid down by the Committee of the Way Things Ought to Be than to put out what they want.

Art of any type--commercial, fine, big-budget, tiny budget, (fill in the blank)--should always reflect the desires of the artist (in the broad sense of "makers of the art"). Artist wants to make a Tarantino-esque bloodbath in the Trek universe? That's ok. Wants to make a version with an explicitly pro-feminist message and theme? That's ok. Wants to make an action-adventure movie just like the one that came out last month in the cinema? That's ok. Do I have to like each option equally? Nope. It is entirely my choice whether to like, dislike, love, hate, viscerally loathe, adore…the film (or other artwork) in question. BUT, I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. I have the right to partake of the artistic endeavour and judge it according to my views. The artist has the right (one I will vociferously defend) to put out exactly what he or she wants--subject to whatever praise or criticism it engenders once in the public space. What I will NEVER countenance is the idea that an artist has an obligation to satisfy an arbitrary set of criteria to meet the expectations of the self-appointed guardians of The Way Things Ought to Be. When that becomes a requirement, it stops being art (good, bad or other) and becomes propaganda. The world has enough propaganda already, thanks.

God damn, this is a beautiful post.

And it's in the true spirit of Star Trek! Prejudice should be fought in all its forms... oh no, wait... It's also crap. The producers aren't deliberately choosing to use male characters for artistic reasons, they're simply tone deaf to gender balance.

The post is advocating the worst type of status quo - it's ok to make a movie with all the black folks are downtrodden menials if that's your artistic intent? Thank the stars Uhura survived that kind of crap.

But more to the point, since when has gender equality been arbitrary? It's one of the most fundamental things that should have been rectified in Star Trek's utopian future decades ago. TMP probably came the closest but even there all the security guards were male.

 

[CrazyHorse89]

The difference is that Star Trek has always had some kind of agenda at its heart: feminist, liberal, egalitarian, whatever. If you sell your programme or film as a 'progressive vision of the future', then don't use women as sexual objects to ogle at.

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 are not overtly sexist, but they certainly contain problematic gender dynamics. I don't think modern-Trek should treat one half of the population as window dressing or (God knows the old versions certainly did). It's boring, it's anachronistic, and it's letting down young boys and girls.

Not really. What would really be "letting down young boys and girls" are parents who allow entertainment to substitute for the hard work of teaching values to their children. If any parent feels strongly enough about a particular value, they will take time to pass that value on to their children and ensure they've understood it. If that is done, then the children should not be so easily swayed away from that value by a 2 hour bit of entertainment. Indeed, if the lesson is well-learned, the children will raise the value conflict on their own (if they're too young, the parents are free to point out the conflict). However, the filmmakers have NO OBLIGATION to produce something that won't "let down" any particular "young boy or girl". No obligation whatsoever. We, as the audience, are NOT entitled to be satisfied on that score--ever. We merely have the right to agree or disagree with what we see and say so.

Who said anything about obligations?

Unfortunately, children and adolescents are very impressionable and live in a world of 24-hour media which presents masculinity and femininity, men and women, and sexuality in a very specific way. Even with the best parenting and the strongest will, children cannot help but internalise and externalise the culture around them. Wouldn't it be brilliant if Star Trek, a show about the future, and a semi-utopian future at that, actually had a place for women who were not glorified mannequins?

Now, that's just my humble opinion. I'm not suggesting that all movies should do this or that because it's politically correct. What I'm saying is that I think certain films could deconstruct traditional gender roles in a bold, fresh, and innovative way. A way, coincidentally, that gives young people a positive alternative to the status-quo.

 

[Pauln6]

Not really. What would really be "letting down young boys and girls" are parents who allow entertainment to substitute for the hard work of teaching values to their children. If any parent feels strongly enough about a particular value, they will take time to pass that value on to their children and ensure they've understood it. If that is done, then the children should not be so easily swayed away from that value by a 2 hour bit of entertainment. Indeed, if the lesson is well-learned, the children will raise the value conflict on their own (if they're too young, the parents are free to point out the conflict). However, the filmmakers have NO OBLIGATION to produce something that won't "let down" any particular "young boy or girl". No obligation whatsoever. We, as the audience, are NOT entitled to be satisfied on that score--ever. We merely have the right to agree or disagree with what we see and say so.

How about if it's EVERY piece of 2 hours entertainment they're likely to see? Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead. Don't bother going into acting either girls because you're twice as likely to be unemployed even if you are willing to flash your push up bra on screen. This attitude doesn't surprise me but it's still wrong.

And nobody is suggesting that every movie has to have a 50/50 gender divide but a franchise like Star Trek is a golden opportunity to do so and they screwed it up big.

 

[BillJ]

And it's in the true spirit of Star Trek! Prejudice should be fought in all its forms... oh no, wait... It's also crap. The producers aren't deliberately choosing to use male characters for artistic reasons, they're simply tone deaf to gender balance.

So you're saying that every producer should have a checklist that they have to follow? Every time you write a short story, should someone come behind and make sure that you've not left anyone out that they feel should be there and that there's a fifty-fifty gender balance. What about transgendered folks? What about the overweight? The blind? The left-handed? Nudists?

Why shouldn't everyone be represented in any given story?

Your perfectly within your right to decide whether or not a piece of entertainment is acceptable to you. Your perfectly within your right to reject something that isn't acceptable to you.

 

[BillJ]

Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead.

Funny stuff. My wife works for a major tele-communications company while I stay home, which is becoming more and more common here in the States. My daughter is studying Criminal Justice with an eye on a career in Law Enforcement.

So... I honestly don't know what planet your living on.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For those not familiar with this test developed by cartoonist Allison Bechdel, here's an explanation:

1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

Star Trek Into Darkness only passed 1 of the 3 tests, and was panned by many of the ladies who use the site that the test is featured at.

Interesting as that is, the tallies it DOES have are

- A man and a woman talking about another man (2x)
- Two men talking about a woman (3x)
- A man and a woman talking about another woman (1x)
- Women who talks about alot of things other than men (multiple)
- A woman talking to an vicious homicidal alien about a man (1x)

I'm not sure how the Bechdel test even becomes relevant under such circumstances, especially considering the first movie featured a scene in which two women in their underwear discuss something other than a man just before one of them discovers a half-naked man hiding under the bed.

Of course, I'm not the first person to point that technically "Two Girls One Cup" would pass that test if you took it at face value.

 

[Pauln6]

And it's in the true spirit of Star Trek! Prejudice should be fought in all its forms... oh no, wait... It's also crap. The producers aren't deliberately choosing to use male characters for artistic reasons, they're simply tone deaf to gender balance.

So you're saying that every producer should have a checklist that they have to follow? Every time you write a short story, should someone come behind and make sure that you've not left anyone out that they feel should be there and that there's a fifty-fifty gender balance. What about transgendered folks? What about the overweight? The blind? The left-handed? Nudists?

Why shouldn't everyone be represented in any given story?

Your perfectly within your right to decide whether or not a piece of entertainment is acceptable to you. Your perfectly within your right to reject something that isn't acceptable to you.

When playing Dungeons & Dragons we use random tables! But you know what, would I think it was cool if Scotty's assistant in engineering was transgender and nobody batted an eyelid? Hell yes.

But this kind of attitude misses the point. It's a tougher call on issues like race where there are many options to choose from but gender - absolutely not. Women make up more than 50% of the population and they should be 50% of the characters in Trek. It's that simple.

 

[Ryan8bit]

So you're saying that every producer should have a checklist that they have to follow? Every time you write a short story, should someone come behind and make sure that you've not left anyone out that they feel should be there and that there's a fifty-fifty gender balance. What about transgendered folks? What about the overweight? The blind? The left-handed? Nudists?

Why shouldn't everyone be represented in any given story?

I'm going to create an adaptation of 12 Angry Men, except this time it's going to be called 6 Angry Men, 6 Angry Women, 1 of Them Might Be Gay, a few aren't white.

 

[BillJ]

But this kind of attitude misses the point. It's a tougher call on issues like race where there are many options to choose from but gender - absolutely not. Women make up more than 50% of the population and they should be 50% of the characters in Trek. It's that simple.

No it's not. They should use the people they need to tell the story they want to tell. No one should be forced to 'head count' characters. If Trek is unsatisfactory in this regard, you can simply withhold your money.

 

[Pauln6]

Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead.

Funny stuff. My wife works for a major tele-communications company while I stay home, which is becoming more and more common here in the States. My daughter is studying Criminal Justice with an eye on a career in Law Enforcement.

So... I honestly don't know what planet your living on.

The exceptions prove the rule? Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minster so women are equally likely to be Prime Minister?

To a certain extent, I would expect to see more women lawyers because lawyers know the equality laws, although I'd be interested to know how many female senior police officers and senior judges you have.

As far as movie characters go, the statistics are not all that favourable to women.

 

[Pauln6]

So you're saying that every producer should have a checklist that they have to follow? Every time you write a short story, should someone come behind and make sure that you've not left anyone out that they feel should be there and that there's a fifty-fifty gender balance. What about transgendered folks? What about the overweight? The blind? The left-handed? Nudists?

Why shouldn't everyone be represented in any given story?

I'm going to create an adaptation of 12 Angry Men, except this time it's going to be called 6 Angry Men, 6 Angry Women, 1 of Them Might Be Gay, a few aren't white.

The story would be the same wouldn't it? But actresses would be getting work they deserve. I'd have no problem with that adaptation.

Do you have a problem with it?

 

[BillJ]

The exceptions prove the rule? Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minster so women are equally likely to be Prime Minister?

What does "it is becoming more and more common" mean to you? I can't speak for wherever you live, but here is the States women are making up more and more of the work force and are becoming a larger percentage of primary-income earners.

As far as movie characters go, the statistics are not all that favourable to women.

Then it's pretty simple: withhold your money from those productions that you don't feel meet you expectations. If enough people feel the same way, then things will change.

 

[Pauln6]

But this kind of attitude misses the point. It's a tougher call on issues like race where there are many options to choose from but gender - absolutely not. Women make up more than 50% of the population and they should be 50% of the characters in Trek. It's that simple.

No it's not. They should use the people they need to tell the story they want to tell. No one should be forced to 'head count' characters. If Trek is unsatisfactory in this regard, you can simply withhold your money.

Is it right that women are denied work because of the prejudice of the writers?

What does "it is becoming more and more common" mean to you? I

It means we're nowhere near equal yet.

As far as movie characters go, the statistics are not all that favourable to women.

Then it's pretty simple: withhold your money from those productions that you don't feel meet you expectations. If enough people feel the same way, then things will change.

That would only leave me soap operas. That's not a world I want to live in!

 

[CrazyHorse89]

Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead.

Funny stuff. My wife works for a major tele-communications company while I stay home, which is becoming more and more common here in the States. My daughter is studying Criminal Justice with an eye on a career in Law Enforcement.

So... I honestly don't know what planet your living on.

A lot of us are living on a planet with a massive gender pay-gap. A planet where women's bodies are objectified and commodified in a way and on a scale that men's bodies aren't. One where women make up 51% of the population but only 10-20% of state legislatures. One where 1 in 5 women can be expected to be raped and only 2-5% of them can expect to see their attacker prosecuted. And on and on and on...

I think Star Trek could make a tiny dent in all of this. A really tiny one; but you've got to start somewhere. Why not on the Enterprise?

 

[JarodRussell]

So you're saying that every producer should have a checklist that they have to follow? Every time you write a short story, should someone come behind and make sure that you've not left anyone out that they feel should be there and that there's a fifty-fifty gender balance. What about transgendered folks? What about the overweight? The blind? The left-handed? Nudists?

Why shouldn't everyone be represented in any given story?

I'm going to create an adaptation of 12 Angry Men, except this time it's going to be called 6 Angry Men, 6 Angry Women, 1 of Them Might Be Gay, a few aren't white.

The story would be the same wouldn't it? But actresses would be getting work they deserve. I'd have no problem with that adaptation.

Do you have a problem with it?

And if the film features all 6 angry women doing a striptease and then sitting around naked while all the men wear suits, the point is moot again.


It's not about the quota, folks, it's about the content.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How about if it's EVERY piece of 2 hours entertainment they're likely to see? Because the latest study suggests that girls might as well give up on a equal chance at a career alongside men and aspire to be moms and girlfriends instead.

So you should definitely keep your daughters away from Star Trek, then, which features two different women who are both genius-level experts in their field in a way that makes their male counterparts look like useless chumps.

And even puts the "be a girlfriend!" thing into context with Uhura's line
"It's not just me, the Captain thinks so too!"
And Kirk:
"No, no, don't drag me into this! Seriously, though, she's right."

This is, in fact, the first time in Trek history that Uhura was a full member Team Enterprise in every sense that someone could be part of it. It almost makes up for the TFF "Fan Dance" scene.

And nobody is suggesting that every movie has to have a 50/50 gender divide but a franchise like Star Trek is a golden opportunity to do so and they screwed it up big.

How do you figure? Just counting the number of females on the bridge, it looks like about 30/70. Carol Marcus is a physicist and a weapons specialist and doesn't get all screamy until 1) Khan breaks her leg and 2) Khan sqishes her father's head like a watermelon (hell, I woulda screamed too).

Speaking of the Bechdel Test, I'm reminded that Insurrection actually managed to pass it due to this awesome piece of dialog

TROI: And have you noticed how your boobs have started to firm up?
CRUSHER: Not that we care about such things in this day and age.
TROI: Uh huh.

How inspiring!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When playing Dungeons & Dragons we use random tables! But you know what, would I think it was cool if Scotty's assistant in engineering was transgender and nobody batted an eyelid? Hell yes.

Considering how little we know about Keenser...

Or, for that matter, the Ensign who took Chekov's post on the bridge.