The reason that aliens were used as analogs for touchy subjects is because the subjects were, indeed, touchy (at least according to the network). Thrupples (throoples?) are pretty non-mainstream.
What's your unpopular opinions on SNW?
- Thread starter AmandaSmith
- Start date
- Status
As long as we are talking about “unpopular” opinions (Don’t yell at me! I did not start this thread! This thread invited dissent! Don’t continue reading if you can’t bear an honest opinion!!) then here goes: I think SNW is sexist towards men.
TOS, despite its “progressive” values (for the time), is still undeniably sexist towards women. That’s fine… evolution does not operate on any individual’s time table. But for my money, TNG mostly rectified this and nailed the balance of male/female equality. A few hiccups notwithstanding, female authority was extremely well written (I’ll use Shelby as the exemplar) and I think the show was pretty earnest in pushing gender equity (though the cast was still male dominated).
DIS and SNW show that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The Hollywood mood of our current era is, of course, “diversity at all costs”, where the cost is a certain lack of realism. When it comes to “strong women”, therefor, there is both an emphasis on physical prowess (like fighting or super strength), but also pushing “women in authority”. This can take the form of on-the-nose casting of women in leadership roles that in reality are typically occupied by men (to the point where it seems nearly every executive position is held by a woman), or it can be the way that the bridge crews of DIS and SNW are almost entirely women.
But the sexism I am referring to is the very obvious and artificial way that the writers try to reinforce women’s authority by, quite often, showing the female actors playing against subordinate men who are either very slightly built, or overweight, or cringy. There is also a tendency to refer to men in belittling terms, in order to prove who is in charge.
I am not saying that as a man I can’t take it, but it makes me roll my eyes every time, because it is so cheap and only reminds me that these women really aren’t in charge, because the writers don’t know how to write a female character who has the genuine respect of a male subordinate. Not always, but often, the woman has to be larger, more attractive, or just belittling of the man in order to sell that she is “tough”.
If TOS Kirk had routinely slapped nurse Chappelle on the ass, it would be no less sexist than what SNW is trying to get away with. Some of you are going to try and deny this, but the men here know exactly what I mean.
TOS, despite its “progressive” values (for the time), is still undeniably sexist towards women. That’s fine… evolution does not operate on any individual’s time table. But for my money, TNG mostly rectified this and nailed the balance of male/female equality. A few hiccups notwithstanding, female authority was extremely well written (I’ll use Shelby as the exemplar) and I think the show was pretty earnest in pushing gender equity (though the cast was still male dominated).
DIS and SNW show that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The Hollywood mood of our current era is, of course, “diversity at all costs”, where the cost is a certain lack of realism. When it comes to “strong women”, therefor, there is both an emphasis on physical prowess (like fighting or super strength), but also pushing “women in authority”. This can take the form of on-the-nose casting of women in leadership roles that in reality are typically occupied by men (to the point where it seems nearly every executive position is held by a woman), or it can be the way that the bridge crews of DIS and SNW are almost entirely women.
But the sexism I am referring to is the very obvious and artificial way that the writers try to reinforce women’s authority by, quite often, showing the female actors playing against subordinate men who are either very slightly built, or overweight, or cringy. There is also a tendency to refer to men in belittling terms, in order to prove who is in charge.
I am not saying that as a man I can’t take it, but it makes me roll my eyes every time, because it is so cheap and only reminds me that these women really aren’t in charge, because the writers don’t know how to write a female character who has the genuine respect of a male subordinate. Not always, but often, the woman has to be larger, more attractive, or just belittling of the man in order to sell that she is “tough”.
If TOS Kirk had routinely slapped nurse Chappelle on the ass, it would be no less sexist than what SNW is trying to get away with. Some of you are going to try and deny this, but the men here know exactly what I mean.
Is she ?
Okay! But far superior to your use of emojis would be you addressing some of the points I raised. Because while you may have a different take than me, I don't believe at all that you haven't noticed the elements I am critiquing.Speaking as a man of some decades standing, I can only respond "
Such a burn! But again: Why not actually give me you analysis of the parts of the show I am critiquing? I am sure you do not take exception to my observing the sexism of TOS, of course. Is it not possible that a Star Trek show pitched to a female audience might also do feminism in a problematic way?
Same.Speaking as a man of some decades standing, I can only respond "
It's so problematic I didn't even notice it. What with Admiral April being a leader, Pike taking in ideas as to a course of action, M'Benga and his story. Spock telling Chapel to follow his lead.
I'm sure glad I was told to be offended as a male!
It’s not worth a serious analysis.
I never said that there were no redeeming qualities to the men. What I am saying is that, far from the progressiveness of a show like TNG, this show is often written to make the women appear stronger by making the men appear weaker. And I do find that insulting as a Trek fan.
I believe the writers want to portray female assertiveness, but since they aren't really good at writing it, their only solution is to take the men down a peg. I am sure I could point out any number of moments of this, but I think people would only counter with moments of men being assertice or positive, which is not my point. My point is why diminish the men at all? I thought we were in a future where, to quote Picard, "That nonsesne is centuries behind us."
Let me balance this with a critique of another show that was generated by the Kurtzman School: Clarice. This was a show that was meant to give us the further adventures of Clarice Starling following the events of Silence of the Lambs. It was God awful, not the least bit because the writers decided to take Clarice back to square one and ignore her empowering arc from Silence of the Lambs. So in the first fifteen minutes of ep. 1, Starling is bullied by everyone around her and treated to innumerable sexist incidents, because that is what these sorts of writers think of female empowerment: You are either a ballbreaker or a helpless farm girl from the 18th century. Either treatment, however, is alienating to the male viewers, because the men are made the enemy.
Ball's in your court, Spock.
Which I don't see and never find a show insulting.
It's a show. Not a personal attack.
Star Trek often shoes that not to be the case, especially in TOS era.
As someone who has always considered himself a "man's man" I can safely say.......that I have no idea what you are talking about. SNW does not belittle the man in order to make the women look stronger and I've watched both seasons. The way the crew interact with each other is exactly how it works in any work atmosphere with multiple sexes. I have not seen Pike nor Spock demeaned in any way. You're going to have to provide examples because I think we're watching different shows.
I never said it was a personal attack, only that I personally find it mildly insulting.
I sometimes see the issues you talk about in shows and movies but they are usually bad shows and movies. I don't see that issue in Strange New Worlds. Strange New Worlds isn't in the same category of some of those later season Arrowverse shows that were terribly written and had corporate interfering all over them. Just because Pike isn't the kind of hardass Captain type that you might suspect him to be by Jeffrey Hunter's performance isn't the same thing as him being written to look weak so the women characters can look better.
*shrugs*
For something to be insulting to me it has to be personal. Otherwise, it's mildly annoying.
I’ll have to pore over the episodes to find more than a couple of examples that I can quote off the top of my head. One that I think represents the overall tone I am detecting is not from SNW but from DIS, the Short Trek with the guy who mutates the tribbles? Here you have a young, small woman character who is in a commander’s role, (several reasons why a man might be intimidating), and to make her seem more in command, she is pitted against a subordinate who is a fat doofus who she is free to basically rip a new asshole in. This is a single example in a comedy episode, of course, but I think this is the general tone of these shows specifically when it comes to proving how a woman is in charge. She basically has to be a dick, and the men often don’t respond like men actually would.
If I compared this approach to the Beth/Jerry dynamic of Rick and Morty, would that resonate? But that show is a comedy… it is much more grating when the man isn’t simply the butt of a joke in an over-the-top situation, but is actually being mildly humiliated.
Again, it is subtle, but so was the sexism on TOS. For its era, most people probably accepted it as par for the course. In this era, with a specific agenda at work, I think SNW suffers from an equal and opposite level of disregard for its audience.
Actually, I tend to exempt Pike from this critique (although I don’t think he is a very exciting captain… I don’t think he is convincingly written to exude authority). The fact of the matter is, I actually think Anson Mount’s performance is somewhat gay-coded: He has a pretty flamboyant hairstyle and is often shown in a domestic capacity, which is FINE WITH ME… but I do think it is conspicuous.
I’ll say again what I have always maintained: Both SNW and DIS are deliberately targetted at a female/gay audience much more so than any other Trek program ever was, and that means different writing priorities tailored to the audience the producers expect. My critique is not of the effort, but its execution.
As for corporate fingerprints/committee thinking, I can’t speak to Arrow, but I do feel the HR department’s influence on this show. The problem is that, as with Star Wars, Trek is a commodity that the corporate masters aren’t that interested in improving on, They simply want to milk all the accumulated good will, which is why we are all the way back in the Kirk era again instead of going past DS9. It takes too much work to grow a new audience raised on new iconic characters and moments. Everyone knows the Enterprise, even overseas, so that is what they are trying to wring the cash out of.
Last edited:
Because posting nonsense deserves a nonsense response. This isn't the first time you've railed against the supposed "feminization of Star Trek." You were laughed at then, you're being laughed at now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
