Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
I didn't know there was dog doo on the moon.
I didn't know there was dog doo on the moon.
Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Before
- Thread starter Samuel T. Cogley
- Start date
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
^
I stand corrected!
^
I stand corrected!
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzc2d9viDW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzc2d9viDW4
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
Thanks for the newspaper front page Dennis...
...Ya gotta love The Onion.
Thanks for the newspaper front page Dennis...
...Ya gotta love The Onion.
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
However, if I remember "Broken Record" ... err, "Bow" correctly, didn't Cochrane himself actually say, "To go boldly ...?"Since the "in universe" origin of the quote was from Zefram Cochrane, I don't think there's any problem using the "man" version.
Besides, a woman's place is on the homeworld.
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
They should change it to Cylon.
They should change it to Cylon.
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
^^^ That's gonna piss off the lawyers.
^^^ That's gonna piss off the lawyers.
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
^^didn't they cancelled that thing with sharks and layers? do they know?
^^didn't they cancelled that thing with sharks and layers? do they know?
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
In in-universe terms, the change from "where no man" to "where no one" appears to be Kirk's doing, from his log at the end of ST6. Now, how would the details of this work out in practice?
I suppose Kirk's last log would become popularized at some point, when a future Chaikin writes his biography or something. And perhaps that difference of one word would become just as hotly debated as Armstrong's "a", eventually forcing Starfleet to reconsider its motto (for ships named Enterprise?) lest the silly charges of sexism or specieism mar the organization's image.
But why did Kirk change the wording in the first place? When he dictates his log, there is little incentive for him to start being polite to the females of his species all of a sudden (if anything, the kiss with the shape- and sex-changer should have made him entrench even deeper in his old ideas). There might be a bit more incentive to start being polite to alien species, as Azetbur's accusations of the Federation being a "H. sapiens only club" might have hit home.
Still, the most likely reason for the rewording would be the conflict between Kirk's winding-down career and the future awaiting his starship, other starships and Starfleet, mankind and Federation. During his career, Kirk went where no human had gone before - but at this historical juncture, he could set his ambitions higher, letting his imagination soar where nobody from any species had gone before. Sure, a place without anybody there might be a rather dull one, but it would still be a goal worth aiming for, a horizon beyond.
Essentially, then, ST6:TUC retcons the "man" to "one" change from a gender-politically correct one to an inspiring one... Also explaining why 24th century Starfleet would be happy to adopt the new version.
Timo Saloniemi
In in-universe terms, the change from "where no man" to "where no one" appears to be Kirk's doing, from his log at the end of ST6. Now, how would the details of this work out in practice?
I suppose Kirk's last log would become popularized at some point, when a future Chaikin writes his biography or something. And perhaps that difference of one word would become just as hotly debated as Armstrong's "a", eventually forcing Starfleet to reconsider its motto (for ships named Enterprise?) lest the silly charges of sexism or specieism mar the organization's image.
But why did Kirk change the wording in the first place? When he dictates his log, there is little incentive for him to start being polite to the females of his species all of a sudden (if anything, the kiss with the shape- and sex-changer should have made him entrench even deeper in his old ideas). There might be a bit more incentive to start being polite to alien species, as Azetbur's accusations of the Federation being a "H. sapiens only club" might have hit home.
Still, the most likely reason for the rewording would be the conflict between Kirk's winding-down career and the future awaiting his starship, other starships and Starfleet, mankind and Federation. During his career, Kirk went where no human had gone before - but at this historical juncture, he could set his ambitions higher, letting his imagination soar where nobody from any species had gone before. Sure, a place without anybody there might be a rather dull one, but it would still be a goal worth aiming for, a horizon beyond.
Essentially, then, ST6:TUC retcons the "man" to "one" change from a gender-politically correct one to an inspiring one... Also explaining why 24th century Starfleet would be happy to adopt the new version.
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
they've got Sam Jackson doing it:
Space, the motherfucking final frontier. These are the motherfucking voyages of the starship Enterprise. It's motherfucking five year mission to explore strange new worlds and shit, to seek out new motherfuckers, to boldy go where no motherfucker's gone before.
they've got Sam Jackson doing it:
Space, the motherfucking final frontier. These are the motherfucking voyages of the starship Enterprise. It's motherfucking five year mission to explore strange new worlds and shit, to seek out new motherfuckers, to boldy go where no motherfucker's gone before.
Re: Where No Man/Woman/One/Broad/Dame/Skirt/Chick/Sombrero Has Gone Be
Timo, you give some of the most thoughtful responses on this board. This thread isn't really that serious, but that's a great serious explanation nonetheless.
It is, of course, essentially an "out of universe" response to what some see as dated language as the English language becomes more aware of gender neutral usage.
Still, I doubt Cochrane in-universe, or Roddenberry out of it, had any sexist intentions in what was said. After all, a correct definition of "man" is mankind collectively. So technically, there's no slight to women on the face of it. It's only a sexist remark if taken as one (or if intended as one, which I'm saying it wasn't). In that context, your explanation for Kirk changing it from "no man," to "no one," makes perfect sense.
Timo, you give some of the most thoughtful responses on this board. This thread isn't really that serious, but that's a great serious explanation nonetheless.
It is, of course, essentially an "out of universe" response to what some see as dated language as the English language becomes more aware of gender neutral usage.
Still, I doubt Cochrane in-universe, or Roddenberry out of it, had any sexist intentions in what was said. After all, a correct definition of "man" is mankind collectively. So technically, there's no slight to women on the face of it. It's only a sexist remark if taken as one (or if intended as one, which I'm saying it wasn't). In that context, your explanation for Kirk changing it from "no man," to "no one," makes perfect sense.
Similar threads
