Except that it's not true, but whatever, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots
Why no women captains?
- Thread starter uniderth
- Start date
How the economy with no money works, I've always assumed, is the service gives you status, and more resources, to play with than if you're just a cow, which equates to money I suppose.
So the women that want into the service, so that when they can eventually get out to have children, they have a bigger house in a better location, and maybe some childcare help, to raise their children in a more humane environment.
Ipsofacto promotions to women work two ways. You can trick them into staying by giving them a great and interesting career, or you can make sure they get to a level they are comfortable dropping out from, before their eggs dry out.
So the women that want into the service, so that when they can eventually get out to have children, they have a bigger house in a better location, and maybe some childcare help, to raise their children in a more humane environment.
Ipsofacto promotions to women work two ways. You can trick them into staying by giving them a great and interesting career, or you can make sure they get to a level they are comfortable dropping out from, before their eggs dry out.
Last edited:
That's just repulsive.
Infertility starts these days for women in their mid thirties.
It's super hard to become a Captain under 30.
Maybe women have more child bearing years in the future, or maybe the husband is going to raise the children, or maybe shes having kids first, and a career second.
There are biological limitations if a woman wants to become an admiral and have a family, that are not difficult to overcome.
It's super hard to become a Captain under 30.
Maybe women have more child bearing years in the future, or maybe the husband is going to raise the children, or maybe shes having kids first, and a career second.
There are biological limitations if a woman wants to become an admiral and have a family, that are not difficult to overcome.
Are you really being serious or is this a parody? I'm not being flip. I just really can't tell. All of the above a based on the very bizarre assumption that women, especially ones who have chosen a life in the service, want families and babies any more than men. And even if it was the case that women all just gotta have the babies, yes, there are plenty of women in high positions today who have families. None of this is an issue.
I didn't say that all women in Star Fleet want babies.
I said some women in Star Fleet want babies, and there are hurdles for that choice.
I barely remember TNG Interface, but it feels like Edward La Forge was a stay at home dad for 20 years, while Sylvia was moving through the ranks and Captaining her Star Ship...
Madge Sinclair?
Geordi's mum had been a Star Ship Captain since the Whale Probe ripped Earth a new one... So in her 75 year plus careea, she could have easily had a 20 year sabbatical to nurture a special needs child.
I said some women in Star Fleet want babies, and there are hurdles for that choice.
I barely remember TNG Interface, but it feels like Edward La Forge was a stay at home dad for 20 years, while Sylvia was moving through the ranks and Captaining her Star Ship...
Madge Sinclair?
Geordi's mum had been a Star Ship Captain since the Whale Probe ripped Earth a new one... So in her 75 year plus careea, she could have easily had a 20 year sabbatical to nurture a special needs child.
There are methods of preserving fertility now (take some eggs when you're young and preserve them or coax stem cells to form egg cells) that would be simple in the 23rd century so age isn't the issue limiting careers.
I can see parents not being keen on long distance long term postings which is why starship duty might be skewed somewhat.
I can see parents not being keen on long distance long term postings which is why starship duty might be skewed somewhat.
It was a bad line about a bad idea in a bad episode. Just throw it away.
He's being Guy Gardener, which makes the question kind of a Schrödinger's Cat conundrum.
He's being Guy Gardener, which makes the question kind of a Schrödinger's Cat conundrum.
Last edited:
95 percent of Starfleet duty is (probably) on a planet or a Starbase.
Having a career in Star Fleet is not antithetical to raising a family, but Star Ship life is, if your spouse and children are not allowed on the Star Ship were you live.
That's how Picard got the best crew in the fleet, because until the Galaxy Class, all his people, the best in their fields, were stationed on Planets and Star Bases, and never considered ship life, because that would mean missing half of their children's childhoods.
There was a typo.
Left out the word "that" which made it sound like I was talking about all women, instead of a few woman who definitely see babies in their future, and have to make plans for their lives accordingly.
It's not my intention to derail the thread to discuss statistics. I spoiler-coded the math for that reason. The issue of statistics was actually raised by another poster. I read that post and recognized several errors in it, which I believe that I've corrected. My post is presented as-is, but I've shown my work. If there's a problem with what I've posted, it shows there.
To clarify, I'm not saying, nor did I say, that we must attribute the lack of female starship captains in TOS to sexual discrimination. The post I was replying to made the assertion that "[t]here's no evidentiary basis for assuming there weren't female captains" using a fallacious appeal to statistical expectations. It was that that I was primarily concerned with correcting, by demonstrating that appealing to statistics in fact provides a great deal of evidence to the contrary, indirect though that evidence may be, yet nevertheless implied by the data. Despite the weight of the evidence, it's not 100% conclusive. However, in my opinion, coupled with the obvious sexism on display in many episodes, it's overwhelming; YMMV.
I have, by the way, made an addendum to the original post that increases the precision of the statements. It includes a table of numeric values giving the probabilities of the various numbers of possible female starship captains.
Isn't this only true if we view the captains we've seen in episodes as a random sample? I could be completely wrong; most of what you wrote is well beyond me and my humanities degree.
That clearly wasn't the episode's intent. And if you are already willing to set aside intent, why jump through all these hoops instead of going the simpler route of saying Lester was delusional?
I'll point out that making assumptions about a specific individual based on observed trends about their gender can still be sexist. Heck, isn't that what a lot of sexism *is*?
In American families where both spouses work, 70% of the time it's the man who makes more money, but it would still be pretty sexist to automatically assume a woman makes less than her husband.
That's one of the assumptions, yeah. But I was refuting the idea that what was on the show was compatible with the statistical expectations of the selection of starship captains without sexual discrimination, a proposition that makes essentially the same assumption, so I thought it was fair game for that purpose.
Kirk has a reputation.
The Female Captains who do not have a history with him, are avoiding him, because they do not want a history with him.
The Female Captains who do not have a history with him, are avoiding him, because they do not want a history with him.
She just assumes that her boyfriend will be able to tag along on whatever Starfleet ship she commands? That just sounds kooky, especially if he's also a serving officer.
So if I'm interpreting this right, there was no rule preventing a woman from becoming a starship captain. The odds were against it but we only have Lester's word to attribute this to gender bias?
Assuming essentially equal numbers of men and women in the pool of possible starship captains, which would imply parity in factors like numbers of men and women entering Starfleet, following career paths that lead to starship command and staying in those career paths long enough to acquire the requisite experience. Which doesn't seem unreasonable, but I'm not sure is demonstrated.
Yeah. It's an artifact of its time. It was very early in the age of The Pill, and a lot of people had grown up with the idea that career women were single women and if they got married they left their work. That attitude would change drastically in the following decades as more and more women gained the ability to control conception at key education/marriage/career decision points and avoid, delay or space out pregnancy as desired.
Thank you for articulating that. That's one of the unstated or hidden assumptions, definitely.
I was taking it for granted that it was reasonable to assume it. I think it is reasonable, in fact. But, yeah, it was unstated.
Kooky is definitely a word that fits Janice Lester. I think she knew what she wanted, but hadn't necessarily thought it through.
Yes. It's sort of a middle ground solution.
I think the evidence indicates that there are not equal numbers of men and women in Starfleet. Is indicated by Gary Mitchell's comment about there being almost 100 women onboard a ship with either 203 or 430 crew members.
Add to that McCoy's statement and there's even more evidence that there is a higher ratio of men to women.
Agreed 100%. When looking at McCoy's statement I dont think it indicates sexism in the 23rd century. Rather it is just a statement that, for whatever reason, in the 23rd century there is a trend of women choosing to leave Starfleet to get married. Clearly that's not ALL women, but enough that its a thing.
Well let's expand beyond just captains.
Ann Mulhall (a biologist) iirc was the only female lt. commander, no female commanders, no female commodores, no female admirals. The vast majority of women do not rise above the rank of lieutenants. So it not just a sample size of five captains.
How many female security guards did we see, were they seen as too frail?
It might be something that exists only in the starfleet at the time. Or only Human personnel and doesn't effect other federation member with their species starships (unless they have something similar in place for themselves). Human civilian culture as a whole might support this or not, as we saw the policy did eventually change a couple decades later.
These were the people who created the TOS universe. But how is that any different that the people who created the Discovery universe putting their own world view into that show? if there is a Star Trek show/movie a half century from now, most probably the culture standards of the producers and writers will be the ones on the show.
TOS doesn't depict a perfect world, despite anything Roddenberry might have insisted after the fact.
Shall we also delete Mudd's women seeking a better life through marriage? And were willing to take a drug to accomplish this? Or the federation sending a starship to a apparent pre-warp world to establish a "treaty port?" Or in the same episode a high government official stating with confidence that he could simply send a starfleet officer to a penal colony?
Women generally not being able to rise above the rank of lieutenant in starfleet isn't fair, but Human culture during TOS isn't depicted as being completely fair.
Star Trek, warts and all.
Might be the same for men as well. Starship crews don't just go out for six month deployments, they disappear for years on end. Although Sulu did father a child at some point and remained in starfleet.
Last edited:
Similar threads
