For the handful of (regular) members in this thread, other members in this forum, Star Trek fans in general and/or the producer(s)/writer(s)? Another group, maybe?
When did the Janeway hatred truly start to coalesce?
- Thread starter Ragitsu
- Start date
For the handful of (regular) members in this thread, other members in this forum, Star Trek fans in general and/or the producer(s)/writer(s)? Another group, maybe?
Sisko put a permenant note in Worf's file because he screwed over a mission, to rescue his wife from certain death, who died a year later, that should have made it impossible for him to become Captain.
Shit happens.
There was no official reprimand due to the super secretive nature of the mission and Worf did screw up royally because Lasaran had crucial information about the war. Sisko told him, though, he would likely never get a command of his own after that.
But Sisko did at least let him know that as a man who was married he would have done the same thing. I completely respect that because I have been in a similar scenario when I was ATL where I had to give a Corrective Action but I honestly felt the person l had to give it to was more in the right.
But Sisko did at least let him know that as a man who was married he would have done the same thing. I completely respect that because I have been in a similar scenario when I was ATL where I had to give a Corrective Action but I honestly felt the person l had to give it to was more in the right.
Last edited:
I think that the long story short here is that there were many reasons why a person might not be happy with Captain Janeway. This might even be true of people who like her overall, myself included. And, this is not true of her alone. Picard's callousness in "Homeward" and Archer's refusal to help in "Dear Doctor" are two examples that come readily to mind.
That being said, I think that few fans of Berman era Trek would have had issues with her sex. TNG had already shown multiple women in positions of authority, including Dr. Crusher bossing around male nurses, and DS9 had a very strong woman as first officer, and another as science officer. Most of the "barefoot and pregnant" crowd would have taken off in disgust already (and good riddance).
That being said, I think that few fans of Berman era Trek would have had issues with her sex. TNG had already shown multiple women in positions of authority, including Dr. Crusher bossing around male nurses, and DS9 had a very strong woman as first officer, and another as science officer. Most of the "barefoot and pregnant" crowd would have taken off in disgust already (and good riddance).
Fan bases can be weird; I've noticed a fair amount of blatant right-wing sentiments within our own.
Some people wonder what conservatives like about Star Trek... it's actually more conservative-friendly than many people realize: it condemns overpowered and oppressive governments, supports individual rights and freedom, and defends constitutional rights like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. And, most characters take moral/religious beliefs, ethics, and commitments quite seriously.
But I reiterate, while TOS had its sexist moments, by the Berman era, that was almost a memory. So while some centrists and conservatives might follow it, I don't see why a sexist would.
But I reiterate, while TOS had its sexist moments, by the Berman era, that was almost a memory. So while some centrists and conservatives might follow it, I don't see why a sexist would.
You know what I find hard to accept? The fact that you believe and keep repeating this sexist B.S. argument. I don't think one person in this thread "hates" Janeway because she's female. They dislike some of the boneheaded and inconsistent things the writers had her do. By and large I find the character of Janeway to be fairly strong and I quite like her and Mulgrew's portrayal.
We're done with the sexism tangent in this thread. That goes for all. Carry on.
On the other hand, The Federation undeniably boasts a robust social safety net; you never have to work for the essentials and military or "military" service is not a compulsory toll (hello, Heinlein). Everyone has access to sustenance, shelter, healthcare, a university-level education, transportation, et cetera, just because they're alive. "A government strong enough to provide for everyone is strong enough to oppress anyone." is a sentiment I've heard on more than one occasion when it comes to the United Federation of Planets as it is perceived by the United States right-wing.
Like the right to have an abortion, yes? Also, I'd contest that notion of "freedom" in this particular context, as there are more than a few Maquis sympathizers in this fan base.
Interracial relations are so old hat that no human ever wastes an iota of brainpower contemplating them; indeed, humanity has moved onto interspecies relationships (still rocky in some situations, but a heck of a lot better than the social dynamics we have today). Then, there's the matter of every sexuality outside of heterosexuality being far less taboo.
I don't recall the right to own personal weapons being a (noteworthy) point of contention in the series.
The UFP is firmly secular and arguably agnostic/atheist leaning.
Not solely the purview of conservatism.
Last edited:
I agree with Oddish on many of those points. I also agree with Ragitsu on many of those points.
Basically, I have come to view STAR TREK as what it looks like when the right and the left stop bickering and fighting each other, actually get their heads out of their collective asses and listen to each other, take the good points of both sides, and make real progress.
Exactly what is NOT being done currently.
One note regarding religious belief: I don't think Oddish meant to say the Federation is religious. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) I think the point was the Federation respects other people's religious beliefs and doesn't interfere. Great example: Picard in "Ethics". While he certainly doesn't want Worf to die, he understands that in his view, his life is over and must perform the ritual. One of Picard's greatest strengths as a leader was respecting his officers' right to choose and freedom of belief. He never overrode someone who felt otherwise on those grounds.
Basically, I have come to view STAR TREK as what it looks like when the right and the left stop bickering and fighting each other, actually get their heads out of their collective asses and listen to each other, take the good points of both sides, and make real progress.
Exactly what is NOT being done currently.
One note regarding religious belief: I don't think Oddish meant to say the Federation is religious. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) I think the point was the Federation respects other people's religious beliefs and doesn't interfere. Great example: Picard in "Ethics". While he certainly doesn't want Worf to die, he understands that in his view, his life is over and must perform the ritual. One of Picard's greatest strengths as a leader was respecting his officers' right to choose and freedom of belief. He never overrode someone who felt otherwise on those grounds.
Last edited:
A more relevant example lies in "The Enemy": Picard does not force Worf to donate his biological material in order to save the life of a dying Romulan (whose death could have easily been the pretext for military action that might have erupted into full-blown war between The Federation and The Romulan Star Empire). Who is more likely to push the "Sacrifice one to save a zillion." philosophy, hm? Ordering a subordinate to become a donor is far from a sacrifice...it doesn't even register as a blip on their radar.
I was going to cite that example, but that did not deal with religious freedom. It was a personal bias because the Romulans murdered his parents, while his wanting to perform ritual suicide was a part of his cultural and religious beliefs. My point was more about religious freedom in Starfleet and the Federation, but the example in "The Enemy" is a great one for respecting freedom of choice.
Not a lot of civilians in the Trek-verse to gauge this, but I do remember Quark and Guinan both owned weapons.
Which the Federation upholds, as seen in "The Child". Once Troi made her choice, the discussion was concluded.
As to abortion in the present, let's confine that to its own topic, if there is one on this site. It's too much of a hot-button issue to do otherwise.
Very true. And we see that almost happen in the "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" two-parter. However, compare the Federation with, say, the Cardassians. The Federation is based in freedom and self-determination, the Cardassian culture seems to be all about the individual's rights being subordinate to the state. Which would you rather live under?
The option to have an abortion is - by and large - opposed by conservatives (US variety, anyhow).
You missed the point: they never want government to ever reach that size.
What are the chances that your average dyed-in-the-wool military man (often conservative) would respect their officer's conviction when the alternative is unbridled conflict? This is one reason among many why Star Trek is deemed optimistic.
And as a pro-life centrist, I will be happy to discuss the rationale for that belief with you or anyone else. IN THE APPROPRIATE FORUM.
Exactly why I like it, even as a right leaning centrist. I love Star Trek because it espouses the idea of mutual cooperation, and individual strengths to solve the problem.
I really don't.
Let's assume in Star Trek, that they can take a baby out, at 3 weeks, and put it safely in an incubator until maturity.
I always thought the next emanation was a bad episode for Kim.
"Hey Dude, your religion is bullshit, this is a suicide machine, but aliens and star ships are real."
Then what?
It turns out that this is one of the few religions in the universe where heaven is real.
Harry would have been kicked out of Starfleet if they were still in the AQ.
Last edited:
Actually, Kim was trying not to be matter of fact about the other side with the Vhnori.
He only said what he saw, but he also said he didn't know if that was the end of it for them or if more occured, and said he doesn't even know what happens to his own people when they died.
I think he tried to keep the interference and society contamination to as little as possible, given the circumstances.
Considering his youth, inexperience, and the situation, I think he acquitted himself well as a Starfleet representative.
The episode may not have been the best, but it did highlight Kim being a good officer with a good decent on his shoulders.
He only said what he saw, but he also said he didn't know if that was the end of it for them or if more occured, and said he doesn't even know what happens to his own people when they died.
I think he tried to keep the interference and society contamination to as little as possible, given the circumstances.
Considering his youth, inexperience, and the situation, I think he acquitted himself well as a Starfleet representative.
The episode may not have been the best, but it did highlight Kim being a good officer with a good decent on his shoulders.
Must have been a shitty situation for him anyway. People expecting him to have the answers to some existential questions they had just because he came from 'the other side', whereas the mystery was as unfathomable to him as to them and anything he would say could have damaged their beliefs to a severe extent.
And that's without even considering the 'dying to get back home again' part yet.
And that's without even considering the 'dying to get back home again' part yet.
Similar threads
