I'm sure lots of us are aware that in the episode "Reunion", Gowron tries to bribe K'Ehyler into supporting him by offering her a position on the Klingon High Council, but later, in "Redemption, Part 1" Gowron states that women aren't permitted to serve on the Council. Could Klingon laws have altered in such a short space of time?
"Women may not serve on the Council."
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
- Status
I think that's the most likely explanation.
Writers often make alien species sexist and rarely to the benefit of the women of the species. If there are species where women have the upper hand they are often treated with surprise and the female federation characters tease the men about it.
Azetbur could have been voted under emergency measures so she was serving as a proxy of her father as his only progeny. She may have had to give up her place for formal all-male elections once the crisis was resolved.
Azetbur could have been voted under emergency measures so she was serving as a proxy of her father as his only progeny. She may have had to give up her place for formal all-male elections once the crisis was resolved.
Yeah um the Klingons aren't big on the whole elecetion process, now she still could have gotten the job from emergency measures, but if anyone tried to tack her job from her she killed them in combat. Also she could have put a bid for the job and killed any other challengers for the position in combat.
Maybe he had a bad experience with a woman and decided that he didn't want them anywhere near his High Council.
Actually, Azetbur is the mistake. ST6 was written AFTER TNG already established that women weren't on the Council, to its the TOS-written-after-TNG thing that didn't follow continuity. A LOT of ST6 doesn't follow what was already written before by TNG.
Does it need to? TUC takes place 100 years before TNG.
Yeah, maybe a woman kicked him in the nads and that's why his eyes bug out like that...
70 years, actually. But yes, if TNG says something that concrete about something in Trek and than a TOS work written AFTER that blatantly disregards it the writer should have the decency to explain why this continuity snarl exists.
TNG showed that the Klingons were still capable of fighting a total war against the Feds for a 20 year period in "Yesterday's Enterprise", but TUC says that they can't. TUC also says that they have to evacuate the Klingone Homeworld when TNG shows there's nothing wrong with it.
If they had just said that "a few years of our help will make the planet habitable again" instead of "evacuate", as well as say that their military will be back to its old level of power soon as well, then it all fits much better.
Was her reign so odious that the rules had to be changed? Could be an interesting story behind that.
And, I imagine Gowron would feel he could change the rules again any time he wanted, if He became Chancellor.
Then again, once he WAS the Chancellor, what good are promises to a woman (probably a dead woman soon after) with no political power to rival his own?
He'd just claim it was never said and so it would be written in the history books, until the Next conniving, ruthless young Klingon came along to take the job, somebody who might want to paint his predecessor in as unflattering a light as possible.
perhaps the no women rule was Gowron's rule. he could easily change his own rules
The balance of evidence is indeed on women serving, in the late 23rd and mid-24th centuries alike, except for the anomalious occasion of "Redemption".
Which is based on this single bit of dialogue, never revisited or otherwise supported:
Gowron's answer appears a non sequitur of sorts: Picard asks about leading the Council, Gowron speaks of servitude. It seems out of character for Klingons to consider holding the top public office "serving"... Being Chancellor is not servitude in practical terms - it's superiority over those who serve. And nothing indicates that the Council Members would be power peers to the Chancellor.
Perhaps Gowron knows (but doesn't explicate) that it's impossible for Lursa or B'Etor to directly vie for Chancellorship (because although they inherited Duras in many ways, they didn't inherit all the special privileges, favors and political capital that made him eligible for Chancellorship candidacy), and that they would have to work their way up through the ranks, like any other Klingon, by first becoming Council Members - a path blocked from them by the current legislation?
But never mind that. The dialogue confirms that Lursa and B'Etor specifically cannot be on the Council, at least not in the role of Chancellor. They might be special cases for "women", but if women in charge of their own Houses can't serve/lead, then it appears unlikely that any other women could, either.
So my money is on the legislation changing. Klingons apparently aren't big on written law anyway; they probably rewrite their rules as often as they rewrite their history, because the sword remains mightier than the pen.
The other option is that Gowron's word "women" in this case carries a special meaning that only applies to the Duras sisters. Possibly women who ascended to House leadership through no action of their own, simply by having the House run out of male heirs, are specficially prevented from grabbing power? That'd make some sense: DS9 suggests the Alpha Female holds extraordinary financial powers, and it would be bad form to allow those to combine with political powers unless the female in question gains the political powers through her own Klingonlike action (that is, she slays her worthless husband or something). Lursa and B'Etor would be ineligible for Council positions exactly because they held ultimate power in their House now, and there'd be a quarantine period or a requirement for them to demonstrate "true" leadership before they could apply - things that a male heir would never face even if he ascended to House leadership by similarly honorless/honor-neutral means (say, Mogh ascending because somebody else killed Worf), because a male would not carry the compromising additional financial powers and thus would not be a threat to the power balance.
Pretty convoluted, and certainly not preferable to the legislation simply changing, but that could be a Klingon way to see things.
Timo Saloniemi
Which is based on this single bit of dialogue, never revisited or otherwise supported:
Gowron's answer appears a non sequitur of sorts: Picard asks about leading the Council, Gowron speaks of servitude. It seems out of character for Klingons to consider holding the top public office "serving"... Being Chancellor is not servitude in practical terms - it's superiority over those who serve. And nothing indicates that the Council Members would be power peers to the Chancellor.
Perhaps Gowron knows (but doesn't explicate) that it's impossible for Lursa or B'Etor to directly vie for Chancellorship (because although they inherited Duras in many ways, they didn't inherit all the special privileges, favors and political capital that made him eligible for Chancellorship candidacy), and that they would have to work their way up through the ranks, like any other Klingon, by first becoming Council Members - a path blocked from them by the current legislation?
But never mind that. The dialogue confirms that Lursa and B'Etor specifically cannot be on the Council, at least not in the role of Chancellor. They might be special cases for "women", but if women in charge of their own Houses can't serve/lead, then it appears unlikely that any other women could, either.
So my money is on the legislation changing. Klingons apparently aren't big on written law anyway; they probably rewrite their rules as often as they rewrite their history, because the sword remains mightier than the pen.
The other option is that Gowron's word "women" in this case carries a special meaning that only applies to the Duras sisters. Possibly women who ascended to House leadership through no action of their own, simply by having the House run out of male heirs, are specficially prevented from grabbing power? That'd make some sense: DS9 suggests the Alpha Female holds extraordinary financial powers, and it would be bad form to allow those to combine with political powers unless the female in question gains the political powers through her own Klingonlike action (that is, she slays her worthless husband or something). Lursa and B'Etor would be ineligible for Council positions exactly because they held ultimate power in their House now, and there'd be a quarantine period or a requirement for them to demonstrate "true" leadership before they could apply - things that a male heir would never face even if he ascended to House leadership by similarly honorless/honor-neutral means (say, Mogh ascending because somebody else killed Worf), because a male would not carry the compromising additional financial powers and thus would not be a threat to the power balance.
Pretty convoluted, and certainly not preferable to the legislation simply changing, but that could be a Klingon way to see things.
Timo Saloniemi
This about sums it up.
The line in Redemption was stupid, so I ignore it. Everything we've seen from Klingon society indicates equality between men and women. The wedding vows between Worf and Jadzia aren't about a woman serving a man, but instead two powerful warriors standing side by side fighting their enemies.
I don't know why so many are putting so much weight behind something Gowron said. When its all said and done, he was a bit of a tool. About the only thing that made him any more palatable than Duras as Chancellor was the fact the he wasn't a Romulan collaborator. But that said, he did have a tendency to speak out of his ass quite a bit. He was more politician than warrior, so anything he said should be taken with a grain of salt.
- Status
Similar threads
