Women and positons of power in TOS

Why do we need to assume or interpolate at all on this point? Kirk himself says in "The Menagerie" that he took over command of the Enterprise from Captain Pike. Thus, it's established directly in the dialogue that command went directly from Pike to Kirk without Number One or anyone else being given command in between.

 

I find "twisted" the operative word in that, not "reflection".

Which is the problem, isn't it? We know nothing of Number One's fate. She might have died, she might have been promoted and transferred to another ship (maybe even to command a Starship of her own) - in either universe - before Pike's captaincy of the Enterprise ended. In the first event, it says nothing about women and captaincy either way, in the latter case the same way, unless it was to captain a starship.

Hence, using her against women and captaincy, especially the mirror-universe never seen Number One, where she might never even have been born, let alone what other different choices she might have made throughout her life - or made for her - and never even have been on the Enterprise, is rather a logical fallacy.

 

I agree that one emphasizes "twisted" if you oppose the idea, and "reflection" if you favor it.

We know something of it in both universes: There's no indication that she commands the Enterprise permanently, and evidence in both universes (irrefutable in the main universe, as per CoveTom's statement, and strong inferential in that of the Mirror Universe) that she doesn't.

Sorry, but ... while it's by no means conclusive, it's nothing of the sort.

 

From T'Pring's words, pookha, we may infer that in many ways she's already Spock's property before the ceremony begins (though the relationship was unconsummated whilst they were children), and that the challenge simply gives her a chance to become the chattel of another instead of his.

That's sheerest speculation, designed to dilute the impact of hearing a woman called "property"—right up there with "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Since we're not privy to all of Vulcan's inner workings, we must reasonably assume that "property" means what it customarily does, since that's the word they chose. If property is yours, you own it.

And we know from canonical statements throughout the various series that females undergo the pon farr, too, so it seems both genders are in some sort of peril during this time—though not necessarily of their lives.

The idea they're definitely going to die if they don't mate is patently and demonstrably untrue. Spock does not have sex, and he lives. Tuvok simply masturbates with the 24th-century equivalent of a blow-up doll, and he lives. Vorik does not have sex (or also falls back on a hologram), and he lives. T'Pol does not have sex in either of her occurrences, and she lives. It seems from the canonical evidence that cathartic violence is more critical to a Vulcan's ongoing survival than is sexual congress.

You raise some points worth considering, though, Maryh. I'll definitely ponder them.

A thoroughly enjoyable discussion thus far, ladies and gentlemen.

 

i honestly dont see how you get that from what tpring said.

she said what she did because she had called the challenge and it had taken place.
and spock won the challenge so that yes she had become his property then.

it is just tpring stating that yes she called the challenge and spock won.

as for the it would be the same, that is in reference to the other scenarios she described.
that in each she was going to be with stonn.

but, it all goes back to what tpau said.


and i dont see why the commissioners not being explorers has to do with my point about the enormous amount of power they wield including being able to remove a captain from command .


isnt the title of the thread women and positions of power in trek.

any way why would a woman be trusted with a position like a commissioner that appear to be galatic roving trouble shooters but not a starship captain.

and since this is women and positions of power i will point out again tpau is seen as the most powerful vulcan and because we found out she turned down a position on the federation council that being a woman wont keep you from being on the council.

any this whole thing is just going around and around..
so as i said before to me trek was how things could be.
if it was just supposed to be reflection of how things were that bridge crew woulndt exist.

 

I agree. Much of this is a matter of interpretation. There are valid points on both sides.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

To address the matter of the 23rd-century "glass ceiling": It's possible that Janice Lester simply saw things her way and no amount of arguing would convince her otherwise. Or maybe women weren't being offered starship captaincies for a particular time period simply because of the attitudes of whoever was Chief of Starfleet Operations at the time. Perhaps that person truly didn't think women belonged in command of starships, or maybe there was a dearth of qualified women during those years. Janice could have been referring to that and exaggerating.

To address the matter of T'Pau: I doubt that being offered a place on the Federation Council is something one would turn down lightly. T'Pau must have had an overwhelming reason for doing so. One was put forth in one of the novels (can't recall which one, sorry): T'Pau, like other Vulcans, is telepathic. Some Vulcans are able to function among other more emotional, less-shielded species than others. The reason given in the book for T'Pau's refusal was because she believed her shielding would be inadequate to protect her from the stresses of being among so many unshielded/undisciplined minds.

To address the matter of T'Pring: The word she uses -- consort -- implies that a normal marriage is more equal than the relationship that would ensue from the Challenge. I would suggest that the woman becoming the property of the victor is meant to strongly discourage the woman from challenging the marriage for any but the most dire of reasons -- because to do so would mean giving up her freedom (note that we are never told if the status of "property" is permanent or just for a set time). Yet the right of challenge exists because it is only fair and logical(!) that the woman have some escape available if the marriage would be detrimental or intolerable to her. Most Vulcan marriages probably proceed normally. And as to why Sarek and Amanda weren't there... was "Amok Time" before or after "Journey to Babel"? I never saw them in the proper order, so I don't know. But maybe parents don't usually attend weddings anyway? Maybe they were sick or off-world? Who knows?

 

You aren't completing the quote. She fully explains what that means -- it would be the same, I would have your name and your property and Stonn would still be there. That is exactly like it has been before Spock entered Pon-Farr and what it will be like no matter if he frees her or not. IMO "becoming the property of" means "you WILL mate with the victor". She could simply pick another champion after the combat should she not want the victor. The laws forbids this and forces her to mate with the victor.

You also did not complete the quote from T'Pau "This is our heart, this is our soul, THIS IS OUR BE". This is the very existence of their species and continuation of the species obviously is protected in the laws too.

You are judging TOS as being mysogynistic by embellishments added decades later in VOY and ENT. We must judge TOS only by what was presented at that time. We certainly see a Spock who is very obviously compromised physically and mentally by Pon-Farr, and a T'Pring who appears very sane, logical and healthy. We can conclude, based only on TOS without the later redefinitions, that males are the vulnerable ones, and the females are less affected. Dr McCoy clearly stated Spock's life was in danger and Spock himself said "we are driven by forces beyond our control to take a wife or die trying".

Also, we aren't sure what would have happened should the male decide he wanted another woman for a wife.

We don't know for certain why Spock snapped out of Pon-Farr. I will speculate that the combat may do it. I base this upon T'Prings words "If you had been the victor you would have freed me because I had dared to challenge". If the males life was still in danger it seems unlikely that he would put pride before his very existence and free her thus condemning himself to death by not mating.

 

I always assumed that because Spock was half-human that both of them were hoping that he would never enter into Pon-Farr or that he would be killed in Star Fleet, a distinct possibility. Also the line "I would have your name and you property and Stonn would still be there". This leads me to speculate that she just might be Spock's legal heir much like a wife is on this planet at this point based only on the bonding without the full marriage. It seems like there was some advantage to her remaining in limbo, perhaps standing to inherit should Spock be killed or never enter Pon-Farr while having Stonn also. If there was no advantage to remaining Spock's fiance, it seems she could have contacted him and possibly broken it off, and he could jump Nurse Chapels bones instead.

 

Well, I'd bet that T'Pring would never have made him plomeek soup just to make him feel better!

 

But we don't know why! We don't even know why in "our" universe, we don't even know if she existed, and if she did, whether she was ever on the Enterprise in the Mirror Universe. Therefor, you can't use the Mirror Number One as an argument, since we don't know anything about her, if she even existed.

Sorry, but it is. The only way that Number One not commanding the Enterprise has anything to say on any glass-ceiling or not, is if she didn't get to command that Enterprise because of that glass-ceiling. You then go on to try and prove this glass-ceiling by taking in the mirror universe and use a mirror Number One. Which is the logical fallacy. There is NO mirror Number One in Star Trek, whether there actually was one or not! One can't use a non-existent character, one we've never even seen a glimpse of, then fabricate an unknown history for her to parallel "our" Number One, a history you don't even know either!

At this point it's all fantasy. I can prove the non-existence of a glass-ceiling in the same way by pointing to my fantasy epilogue to the episode, and go, "See, Victoria Ivanova captains a starship, there is no glass-ceiling!" There is no difference.

 

We don't have to know why! We just know that it never happened on screen, and there's no way to infer that it occurred off screen simply because wishful thinking has women commanding starships in this period. On the other hand, there's some evidence that it didn't occur in the Mirror Universe (because Kirk succeeded Pike via assassination). In addition, there's strong evidence that it didn't occur in our universe because Kirk, according to CoveTom, says so in "The Menagerie."[See below.]

Sorry, but it's not.

You're perhaps mistaking reason for logic.

Again, it's not fallacious, because I've not said that my comments about Number One in either universe lead deductively and inescapably to the conclusion that women did not command starships in this period. If I did, your label of logical fallacy would be time on target. I'm instead saying that nothing about her lends significant credence to the conclusion that they did, and that's a huge difference.

Because Mirror Pike was mentioned as having been assassinated by Mirror Kirk, it is somewhat reasonable to assume (and I'm readily granting that they are, indeed, assumptions) both that Mirror Number One existed (because Mirror Pike did, and it is the Mirror Universe, after all) and very much more reasonable to assume that she never commanded Mirror Enterprise permanently as per the course of events related by the Mirror computer. Do we have a guarantee of any of that? Of course not.

[You're perfectly welcome to say, however, "That chain of reason's way too flimsy for me," and I'd respect that. Anything other than the canon, including interpretation of statements from the canon, is speculation, after all. I would assume, though, you'd agree that referring to T'Pol's command of Enterprise in an alternate reality as bearing on TOS is equally absurd?]

Others, though, have implied that Number One's status as Enterprise's X-O (whether permanent or temporary) in the main universe serves as strong evidence that women did command starships in the TOS era. I have simply pointed out there's no canonical evidence that she ever took that next step (which is not to conclude that she didn't) ... but that there is canonical evidence, in "Turnabout Intruder," that women were not permitted this step during TOS.

It's the difference between interpreting and re-interpreting what was said.

In short: One cannot logically conclude that since Number One was an X-O, women commanded starships in the TOS period. [You might reason to that, and it wouldn't necessarily be a poor job of reasoning, but it's not logically provable.] One can, however, logically conclude that neither a woman as X-O during the TOS era nor women commanding starships in either a pre-Federation period or alternate universe proves or even necessarily implies women commanded starships during TOS.

I really don't think there's much more to be said—other than the fact that I don't agree in the least with some of the above takes on "Amok Time."

I think we're pretty much done here. I know I am.

 

We DO have to know why. If we don't, she does not support your position, no matter how much you like it to do so.

Sorry, but it is!

No, I'm not.

No, you're using a non-existent character we know nothing about, that you sucked out of your thumb, sucked an equally unknown history out of your thumb paralleling an equally unknown history. You can't fantasize something up and say it supports your position, regardless of whether it proves it or not. If that can support your position, Victoria Ivanova that I sucked out of my thumb can support mine - indeed prove it to boot.

No, actually, it is not reasonable to assume she existed. It is not reasonable to assume she was executive officer on the Enterprise to boot. It is not reasonable to assume she still lived and/or was on the Enterprise by the time Kirk assassinated Pike. Indeed, as Kirk never served under Pike to succeed him in "our" universe, and obviously Kirk did in the Mirror Universe, you have a significant difference right there.

Also Kirk took command of the Enterprise, yet Number One is no longer on the Enterprise, which means that Number One is either dead or left the Enterprise before or at the same time Kirk took command. Which of course, means "our" Number One doesn't support your position to begin with. If we go with your "reasonable" fantasies, than Mirror Number One was gone from the Enterprise before Kirk assassinated Pike in the same way, and can also not be used to support your position.

As I said before; the only way any Number One can support your position, is if she was still on the Enterprise, alive and well, and at first glance fully capable of commanding the Enterprise, when Kirk took command. Since we don't know, she can't support your position. What would be supporting your position is the fantasy history for Number One (twice over, indeed) you sucked out of your thumb that she indeed was still on the Enteprise and didn't get to command it. I don't mind you yourself looking Star Trek like that, but when it comes to discussions, fantasies cannot be used to support a position. Using a fantasy as evidence is a logical fallacy.

Hell, yes it is. I wouldn't even use standard Enteprise timeline to use with TOS. Hell, I don't use Enterprise at all.

Number One is indeed strong evidence women did command Starships, whether she took the next step or not. The fact that she was able to command the Enterprise without getting even a hitch from the male crew members suggests that nobody, not even males, considers it odd that a woman can command - even if it is apparently new that women get to be on the bridge of a Starship. Especially if you combine it with other portrayals of female positions in power.

Which comes from a character also shown to be a looney tune with no, or at best a tenuous grasp of reality. That evidence, thus, is extremely suspect, if not outright useless to begin with.

Nope. Re-interpreting only occurs when someone interprets something a second time over themselves, possibly with use of newly found evidence. People interpreting things differently than you, does not make them re-interpreters.

Actually, that's not concluding anything one way or the other. The only thing we can say is that we don't know conclusively, and that there is evidence to support both positions. (Which is the good part, because we can all INterprete TOS on this issue the way we want.)

 

I'm now exhaustively familiar with your viewpoint, 3DMaster. I don't see any purpose to continuing this. There was nothing in your last post that hasn't already been addressed—obviously not to your satisfaction, but ... c'est la vie. Anything further would simply be a reiteration of our perspectives. Everyone may now walk away thinking they more strongly supported their take, as usually happens in these discussions.

[Note to other readers: Assume another "yes, we may," "no, we mayn't," ad infinitum here, to go right alongside the "sorry, but it is," "sorry, but it isn't" ad infinitum begun above.]

Agreed. Canon and intent seem behind one position, common sense and the right behind the other.

I think we can say more than that, but ... we obviously don't agree on that point, either ...

... and there's no need to go over that again.