Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by Warped9, Jun 19, 2016.
Context can change very quickly.
I'm not sure there can be such a things as reverse sexism. Since sexism is sexism no matter who it comes from. Wouldn't reverse sexism be the opposite of sexism, meaning not sexism? Just like there is no such thing as "reverse racism." There's either racism or no racism.
Which is why I don't think we need to criticize the use of mini-skirts. Because it is we who decide what something means, why choose to have miniskirts be a symbol of sexism? I choose to view miniskirts as a symbol of empowerment for women. If people want to disagree, fine. But that's what I choose and that's what it means to me.
I'm guessing that "reverse sexism" is supposed to be something analogous to reverse discrimination.
OR that fact that BOTH Nichelle Nichols and Grace Lee Whitney ARGUED FOR the female crewmembers wearing such skirts when some ofn the production staff were going, "Is this pushing the envelope too much?"
Well this just about addresses every point i made a day or two ago. Even racing to the ending at Warp Speed!
From Trek Movie:
While Star Trek “Continues”, the conclusion is in sight:
“We’ve always had an end goal in mind. We never intended to do these forever until we can’t do these anymore,” Mignoga said. The goal is to fill in the cancellation of the series and The Motion Picture, answering questions like “Why did Bones leave the service?”, “Why would Spock forego his emotional, human half?”, and “Why did Kirk give up his ship to become admiral?”
“You would think you’d have to drag Kirk at 90 years old, kicking and screaming off his ship, but he took a desk job: why? That sounds like a good story.”
The scripts for those stories are already done, the sets are built, and – perhaps most importantly – the fan-supported funding is there.
“We are working feverishly, dare I say it at warp 10, to finish these last few episodes,” Mignogna said. “Star Trek Continues, I hate to say it, will be over sooner rather than later.”
Despite some recent changes to official policy on fan-productions, which Mignogna calls “horrible collateral damage because of what one production did,” those challenges shouldn’t prevent his series from reaching its goal. He noted that CBS was very gracious to fan films for a very long time.
When he plays Captain Kirk, Mignogna “feels like I’m 12 years old again.”
“I’m not doing this for fame or money, I’m only doing this to pay tribute to the show that meant so much to me when I was a little boy.”
Try to keep in mind that this "symbol of the freedom of women" is not necessarily regarded as such by all women. And that is perfectly fine.
Not all women view wearing a short skirt as comfortable, appealing, or liberating. And that's perfectly fine.
Dismissing a critique from a female critic or viewer as "reverse sexism" (WTF even is that, anyway?) because - again - that person may not view miniskirts the way you do - while short-sighted, is likewise a perfectly valid perspective. But so is the female critic's opinion.
As I've said before - just such an opinion on the subject from a female critic is more valid than that of any man's. Dismissing the validity of that perspective is at its best foolhardy, and at its worst, smacks of male privilege and a singular line of thinking.
I'm not saying you can't have your opinion on the matter. I'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong, even if I might disagree with it. All I'm saying is that on the subject of miniskirts and their relative status as "symbols of the freedom of women," men are just about the last people who really have any right to declare this as some sort of all-encompassing, undeniable truth when there are many women in the world who absolutely disagree with that assessment.
Agreement with one side of an argument or another is not a form of privilege, male or otherwise.
This incoherent post of yours adds exactly nothing to this thread and we are all now dumber for having read it.
How, exactly, does presenting an alternative viewpoint on the subject suddenly negate the value of said viewpoint?
Isn't it more about context then opinion, which does lead to one side of this argument being clearly "wrong" or "incorrect" based on the historical truth of the matter? Going from a Puritanical "cover it all up!" mentality to being embrace their own bodies and have the freedom to confidantly own their own styles and sexuality was a big feminist accomplishment in the 60s. We are still going through that same type of thing with females in the middle east having to cover up. To call the 60s show sexist because of something that was not ever remotely sexist in the context of the time is absolutely an incorrect opinion..... IN *MY* OPINION....
Not at all.
You side with the side of the argument that didn't view "showing skin" as a liberating statement. That is fine. I'd never tell you, though, you are the last person to have the right to hold that opinion.
You declared my differing opinion on the subject - informed by the very real fact that yes, Virginia, there are women who do not view the miniskirt as a "symbol of freedom" as you have described, as invalid and worthless. You've likewise misconstrued the entire point I was making by choosing rather to hide behind pithy insults.
So there's no confusion, one more time, for those in the nosebleed seats: Not all women view the miniskirt as a "symbol of freedom," and I think that it's absolutely noteworthy, valid and worth considering that women would have more of an informed perspective on this subject than any man. (Unless of course, one is a man who also happens to wear miniskirts and views them as a sign of one's own personal freedom, in which case more power to you.)
But I digress. From a cultural criticism standpoint, there are those who do view the miniskirt as you do - as a symbol of liberation and cultural expression and freedom. I'm not disputing that some people - including women - feel this way. My point is solely that this is not the only perspective or valid opinion on the subject. There are plenty of women who do not view the miniskirt this way, and dismissing those women's opinions because it clashes with your own view of a 50 year old TV show's alleged and storied "progressiveness" is intellectually lazy and, as I've said before, rather rude.
I think it is wonderful that in 41 pages of this thread a majority of the posts are about the ideas presented in this fan film.
The miniskirt, for all its shortness, sure does cause rather lengthy rambling posts of nothing.
Again with the dismissive attacks against perspectives that do not align with your own. Again, I ask, why?
We can see here now how topical this episode is. Garret, too, saw attacks from all sides, when all it was was only different points of view or agreement with a different thinking.
Your evasiveness and cloying replies are juvenile and further illustrate a lamentable inability to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse on the topic.
I'll bow out now while I'm ahead, I think.
I'll tell you why, Karzak. Especially as I'm the one you first took issue with.
The problem isn't that some women don't agree that the miniskirt is or can be empowering. The problem is that you, like far too many of them, hold the position that all women should disagree with that idea, going back to the beginning, and the role one woman had in the development of the miniskirt back in the '50s. And that I have a problem with, as it divests women in general of agency in their own decisions regarding how they dress, and how they expect to be perceived because of it.
In brighter news, STC has posted the blooper reel for Embracing the Winds:
Please show me where I ever said that ALL WOMEN should disagree with that.
All I have said is that some women do not view the miniskirt as a "symbol of freedom," that women would understandably I think be more informed on the subject than men, and that it's foolish to discount either of these when considering or discussing this topic.
I thought Beau's deadpan comments were pretty good.
Separate names with a comma.