• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x05 - "Spock Amok"

Hit it!


  • Total voters
    232
Slavery is the ownership of people. Arranged marriages are not ownership. Let's stop broadening words into meaninglessness.
You really should read up on on arranged marriages in historical context. It's slavery, plain and simple, gussied up to be socially acceptable.
 
For a long time in the 70's all I had access to were the James Blish adaptations. I got to see many of the episodes in first run in '66-'69, but not all, and the book adaptations helped fill in the one's I missed, but with some big differences. It did give me a unique perspective of TOS though.
Yeah, I was a Blish guy in the 70's too. My memories were mix of Blish and syndication cut as well.
 
You really should read up on on arranged marriages in historical context. It's slavery, plain and simple, gussied up to be socially acceptable.
Don't presume that people who don't agree with you are more ignorant than you.

In many arranged marriages, neither of the spouses had anything to say about the match. It was arranged by the parents more often than not. Clearly the spouses aren't one another's property. And once the marriage is a done deal it says nothing about the freedoms and responsibilities of either party (though see below).

We shouldn't confuse arranged marriages in and of themselves with any other but equally backward ideas such as women being second-rate citizens, or certain people being property. The fact that there's significant overlap between these in many periods and places doesn't mean that they are one and the same
 
Understanding definitions has nothing to do with experience.

But seriously, would you rather be in a marriage not of your choosing, or be considered an object by law? The latter is clearly far worse, although the former could be considered a step toward it.
This seems like a false dilemma argument to me. There are people enslaved right now that are not "objects by law" all over the world. Forcing a child to marry for status and/or money seems awfully close to me.

I agree though that the marriage being discussed is not slavery. But she was prepared to become the property of the victor, (having weighed potential outcomes) so there is that.
 
Eh, officer is literally in his rank "Chief Petty Officer".
The term is "non commissioned officer." One of the technically enlisted rates, but still has officer as part of the description. Any officer worth their stripes listens to their noncoms.
 
I agree though that the marriage being discussed is not slavery. But she was prepared to become the property of the victor, (having weighed potential outcomes) so there is that.
I haven't seen the episode in quite a while. Was that stated explicitly?
 
I haven't seen the episode in quite a while. Was that stated explicitly?
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/34.htm
MCCOY: Ma'am, I don't understand. Are you trying to say that she rejected him? That she doesn't want him?
T'PAU: He will have to fight for her. It is her right. T'Pring, thee has chosen the kal-if-fee, the challenge. Thee are prepared to become the property of the victor?
T'PRING: I am prepared.
 
I haven't seen the episode in quite a while. Was that stated explicitly?
T'Pau asks T'Pring, "Thee are prepared to become the property of the victor?"
To which T'Pring replies, "I am prepared."

EDIT: Kai Winn Scenario beat me to it.
 
Don't presume that people who don't agree with you are more ignorant than you.
You might want to take another run at that. I don't think it came across nearly as arrogantly bellicose as you intended. But thanks for thinking of me as ignorant. I'll keep that in mind should I have the misfortune of conversing with you again. For the record, I was not insinuating that you are ignorant, just underinformed. But bluster if you must.

In many arranged marriages, neither of the spouses had anything to say about the match. It was arranged by the parents more often than not. Clearly the spouses aren't one another's property. And once the marriage is a done deal it says nothing about the freedoms and responsibilities of either party (though see below).

We shouldn't confuse arranged marriages in and of themselves with any other but equally backward ideas such as women being second-rate citizens, or certain people being property. The fact that there's significant overlap between these in many periods and places doesn't mean that they are one and the same
In the preponderance of arranged marriages, when the male comes of age he can reject the female, though there is considerable social fallout if he does, especially if the dowry has already been paid. The female gets no such option. She is chattel. Her function is to maintain the house and produce children, preferably male, though females are marketable for business alliances. Marital rape in such situations is considered de rigueur and not a punishable offence. Sounds like slavery to me.
 
I don't think it came across nearly as arrogantly bellicose as you intended. But thanks for thinking of me as ignorant.
I never called you ignorant, and never called you bellicose or arrogant. I asked you NOT to assume that people know less than you just because they disagree.

In the preponderance of arranged marriages, when the male comes of age he can reject the female, though there is considerable social fallout if he does, especially if the dowry has already been paid. The female gets no such option. She is chattel. Her function is to maintain the house and produce children, preferably male, though females are marketable for business alliances. Marital rape in such situations is considered de rigueur and not a punishable offence. Sounds like slavery to me.
Again, that's because you're only considering some cases of arranged marriages and ignoring the rest. I repeat: overlap does not imply sameness.
 
I've head canonned that as ceremonial language.
GNHucl2.gif
 
Meanwhile, T'Pol's like, "Screw tradition." She only marries Kos out of convenience, and he's not insensitive to this.

But that's another story.
I'm head-canoning hard but I always thought Spock was a rich kid from an old money kind of family (or whatever their equivalent is) and T'Pol on the other hand was just a regular person from regular people. Maybe the stakes weren't as high (typically) and rituals were not so rigorously adhered to? Plus there was no pon farr thingy going on.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top