The Sexist Legacy in Star Trek’s Progressive Universe https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-sexist-...utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=twitter
The sexism across the first five series is the reason why I dismiss anyone's complaints that DSC's cast is too heavily female. And it's why I treat the complaints about Burnham being a "Mary Sue" like the sexist observation it really is. They had five shows with heavily male casts with women as sex objects. In VOY, it was really schizophrenic. You have Janeway, the first female Captain who's the lead of a Star Trek series and Seven of Nine presented titillatingly but depicted as far opposite of that as you could get. So that made it easy to tell who was only focusing on Seven's looks. In 1998, I had no idea why Terry Farrell really left DS9. I kept thinking, "Why can't she stick it out for one more year?" But after I found out what she went through, my thinking shifted to "How could she stand to stay on for as long as she did?" For Jeri Ryan, it wasn't just the rivalry with Kate Mulgrew, but also the way the production staff treated women in general. So Jeri talking about how different the experience is on Picard, it's really different in more ways than just one.
The thing about Mary Sue is that the definition has swayed from how it was originally intended. I think Burnham falls a bit under that original meaning but not so much the new one. There probably needs to be a new term for the newer meaning (and maybe the old) that is applicable to a character regardless of gender.
She's not any version of Mary Sue. Despite what the Kane Steels of the world will say. I addressed this at length two-and-a-half years ago: Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3 | Link 4 | Link 5 | Link 6
This one? Michael is quite flawed. She's not an idealized version of the author. And as the protagonist she can't upstage her self.
I think my thoughts were from reading about the original story on wikipedia was that Michael being the unmentioned lost sister of Spock and daughter of Sarek and the way she was always correct about everything about the Klingons in the few episodes of Discovery I've seen reminded me of the Mary Sue in that original short story, who was half-Vulcan somehow and always right about everything. But I might be wrong about Burnham and that's fair enough. I've only seen two and a half episodes of Discovery so it's probably not fair to make sweeping judgments.
She wasn't right. She royally fucked up and her Captain ended up dead. Nick Meyer was a consultant for the early part of the first season of Discovery. I'm of the belief that the Battle at the Binary Stars was modeled after the Kobayashi Maru. There was no right or wrong and there was no way to win. It was a test of character. We got to see how the crew dealt with a no-win scenario as it was unfolding. The Klingons were primed to go to battle no matter what. Sarek even tells Burnham that what worked for the Vulcans might not work in her situation -- this is something people on the other side of the argument either always forget or deliberately ignore -- but she didn't listen to that part of what Sarek said and mutinied against the Captain when she didn't get her way. I personally sided with Georgiou every step of the way. Then the rest of the first season was mainly about Burnham's redemption. But the main focus of the article Danja posted is on how the portrayal and prominence of women on Star Trek has changed not just from the TOS Era but from the Berman Era to the Kurtzman Era. Seven of Nine provides an opportunity to look at how the same character is treated by two different production eras. She represents where the women of Star Trek were and where they are now.
The TOS attitude towards women was coloured by the fact it was made in the 60s, so whilst it may have been progressive is some ways it was still very much of its time--whilst we may scoff at the miniskirts now they were a sign of women's liberation, though more often than not female characters were relegated to little more than a space-secretary or love interest. The fact the Number One was given the chop was due to Gene not wanting to sack his mistress and not that test audiences reacted badly to her, had he replaced Majel then whose to say what TOS might've been like. TNG again made advances, but still wasn't great for representation. Not only is Troi in a low-cut jumpsuit throughout, but every woman is in a one-piece costume as opposed to the two-piece for men, but when they got Troi back into uniform Marina Sirtis has said herself that they character found her brains again. In DS9, Dax was given the spots we've all become accustomed too for Trill because the PTB didn't think she looked good enough with the original (or amended) forehead piece. Kira's costume was also changed to make the character more appealing to the target 18-40 demographic. Of course there will also be more going on behind the scenes and closed doors that we may never find out, but Trek is a business, one run in a very sexist and male-dominated industry, where the main focus will be on getting the most sought after demographics and as such women have been and will continue to be exploited until there is some actual change in perceptions and societal values. Yes, this is starting to happen, but when women are still paid less and still have a hard time getting into the writers room or directors chair or have real power in the board room of studios then we've still got a very long way to go.
I guess I was in that demographic when the 90s show were airing but I never found making those characters look "sexier" actually made them sexier. I always appreciated ladies like Sarah Connor, Ripley, Commander Ivanova, Shane Vansen, Delenn, Samantha Carter. They were smart, capable and took no shit. It's weird to me this idea of trying to pander to males in the complete opposite of what I want and I wonder if it worked or not. If anything, with Seven I loved seeing her in the Borg suit in flashbacks or alternate versions but I get not doing that makeup every episode. I liked seeing her in the science uniform in Relativity.
If you make the character great then who they are will always be more attractive than the fact they're in a skimpy bikini or catsuit. Carter is a great example, she was almost always in bulky fatigues and combat gear, but anyone looking at her would see she is an attractive woman whilst also being smarter than the rest of them, loyal, brave, and dealt out a lot of ass-whooping. Seven, Troi, T'Pol all looked far better in uniform, you could take them seriously on par with male counterparts without having the fact they've all got boobs being rubbed in you face (yes, I know how that sounds). From what little I've seen of STD, I have to give them credit for having women in normal uniform, presenting themselves as the same as men in the cast.
I was never crazy about T'Pol. Berman and Braga were trying to clone Seven of Nine, but she came across as being just another Vulcan. Nothing sexist here :
I was meaning in the episode “Twilight”, where the alternate future saw her becoming Captain after Archer was incapacitated.
I generally agree with the article, things could have been better, Better stories for Troi and Crusher, and even Yar, but I don't blame the lack of stories on sexism, the writers didn't know what to do with them in general, same as Eternal Ensign Kim, or Chakotay, etc. But the article is looking at the past with a 2020 rose colored glasses, and not taking in to account the times the show was in. Not saying anything that happened to the women like Troi being askes to stay skinny, or Jeri in the catsuit that took 20 minutes to take off to go to the bathroom, thats just wrong at any time. But in a slight defense, a woman dressing sexy isn't a knock on feminism, Women like to look good in general, and with star trek being a mostly male demographic, having a good looking woman dress up nice is nice to see, just not taken to extremes by the producers like catsuits or Decon chambers.
That article is kind of a fail in being far too preoccupied with Seven of Nine and only mentioning Kira once in passing. Unacceptable! Kira was the first female Trek regular in a command position, who, in Nana Visitor’s words, was written as a person rather than as a woman (and what that entailed in 20th century Trek). From beginning to end, Kira had one of the best character arcs of any Trek series. That said, they tried to Berman-ify her in the fourth season with her new skintight suit, high heels and the Princess Diana haircut. Fortunately, following the fourth season restyling the writing remained strong, but man, I wish she’d been given a more professional looking uniform.
I mean Jadzia is not my favourite character, but.. They told Terry Farrel she'd be working at K-Mart if they didn't employ her? Wasn't Farrel a fashion model? Yeah she'd totally have to work at K-mart Plus you know when she did end up leaving DS9 she went straight from that to working on a sitcom. And I'm still dumbfounded that Roddenberry thought 3 women were "too many" in a cast of 9. Or that he told Crosby that he didn't that he wanted the show to focus solely on the captain character...for what did they create all those characters then? Well, she did get that Starfleet Uniform in the last season, but you're right the catsuit with the high heels made no sense for her character. Plus, unlike the experiences Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis and Denise Crosby had on TNG, from what I know Nana Visitor was able to make her voice heard on at least some things, like vetoing the planned relationship between her character and Dukat would have been nice to hear more of Visitor's experiences in this article
I always have to ask this: Unmentioned by who? In-universe her relationship with Sarek and Spock is well known. It's a matter of public record. That we as viewers are unaware of this is irrelevant. It's no different than TWOK's revelation that Carol Marcus is Kirk's ex-girlfriend. It's something the characters know but is new to the viewers. Even the fact David is Kirk's son seems to be known to at least Kirk. Michael's never been "lost".
Indeed. I am always amused by the idea that because we the audience don't know then the characters must not know.