So how awful is Gene Roddenberry?

[Makeshift Python]

I think there’s some exaggerating over the kind of person Gene was. He was a very flawed human, but I never got the sense from anyone that he was some kind of monster.

[Karha of Honor]

I think there’s some exaggerating over the kind of person Gene was. He was a very flawed human, but I never got the sense from anyone that he was some kind of monster.

Today, Matt Damon is a monster = Gene is a monster.

[Yukaphile]

@Slash Gallagher Because I don't see women as meat? They're equal partners to men in my eyes?

@Makeshift Python What else would you call blaming women on how they "can't be trusted" for the fact your wife left you over the fact that YOU were cheating on her left, right, and sideways? That's what we can prove. What we can't prove might be worse. This is not claiming he's a monster, but to simply call him "flawed" implies his sins are within acceptable human boundaries, and I don't think they are.

[Makeshift Python]

That’s not what I implied. Flawed means he was troubled and had his own demons to deal with whether that was having affairs with mistresses or indulging in drugs and alcohol.

He’s pretty much what Zefram Cochrane was based on where he has a pretty great idea that lead to great things but was still a very troubled person.

[Yukaphile]

I'd say "flawed" is too light a word. More like disturbed and frankly a bully. If not in actions, in his mindset. Hey, if the left can pass judgment on people who never hurt a soul but simply hold mistaken views and treat them as morally equivalent to those who victimize them, why can't I do the same for Roddenberry? "Demons" also implies he's the victim in all this. It's not so simple a matter as his wife broke his heart (the way the Harve Bennett films tried to make Kirk like Gene) and thus he was constantly driven into the arms of other women. That's spin-doctoring and historical revision of the worst sort. He was cheating on her relentlessly, and kept on sleeping around like a dog long after she left. He was a man who cared more about his libido than a deep commitment. And you can blame him for the misogyny that ran rampant in TOS as well as in early TNG. It's the attitude that was common in some men back then as well as the establishment - that "a man can't help himself." It's a double standard that sadly still persists to this day, though calling it out is way easier than back then. Though calling it out on how wrong it was back then is hard, because people today think most people back then were like that. My grandfather was absolutely nothing like him, he had ten years on Roddenberry. He was a deeply religious, liberal, spiritual, committed, loving man who wept at music and treated my grandmother as an equal. They existed back then. Roddenberry was just not one of them. We wouldn't excuse it today. Why should we back then?

[Nealithi]

@Slash Gallagher Because I don't see women as meat? They're equal partners to men in my eyes?

@Makeshift Python What else would you call blaming women on how they "can't be trusted" for the fact your wife left you over the fact that YOU were cheating on her left, right, and sideways? That's what we can prove. What we can't prove might be worse. This is not claiming he's a monster, but to simply call him "flawed" implies his sins are within acceptable human boundaries, and I don't think they are.

Yuka I think your scale needs adjusting. Let's put in a few variables for balance.
Man married a woman as he left the second world war. He had a daughter while he was working and studying for a technical job. His wife had not wanted the girl and abused her emotionally. Their second daughter is born and he has to spend more time now working two jobs to help support the family. The man drink whenever he gets a chance. Still later they have their third and final child a son. To the mother he is a prince and may do as he wishes. The father rarely has time to be home for the work he does. As his eldest daughter comes of age he takes the man she is interested aside and tells him that he won't approve of the wedding till he sees a ring on her finger. Eleven years later his eldest returns and buys his house from him so he may move to where they will perform heart surgery on him and save his life. Four years later the middle daughter tries to trick and take legal claim of the first daughter's child. He speaks to both his first daughter and grand child seeing they do indeed want to get back together and only parted because of lies from the middle daughter. Promises and achieves getting them back together. Five years later dies from complications due to another heart surgery.
Rate that man on your scale. And I have a second below.

Returned from second world war. Got a woman pregnant, so he married her. He hated how scrawny his first born son was and ignored him. Working a well paying job he often ate steak or other rich food at night and his children went hungry. If he did not like something one of his children brought home they were ordered to throw it away. And they must or be beaten. His children also had to love his personal hobbies and if they acted up on say his boat were tied to the mast. Then as they were teens he got happier and divorced his wife giving her a few dollars, sold the house and left with his boss's secretary. When his only child from the second woman graduated college. Something he had never achieved. He put a gun in his mouth and shot himself.
There is a bit more on this man but it gets uglier. Please rate him on your scale.

I ask these things not because I think Gene Roddenberry was a saint. But to give a fair scale to be judged upon.

[Yukaphile]

The first one was a bit confusing, but... I'd rate the first a 1 or 2 or 3. Somewhere pretty low. My biggest problem with Roddenberry is that he was objectifying women, like in a degrading manner, as well as the hypocrisy surrounding his conquests and his first wife. I have no objections to a man who hits the bar to forget his woes, or is a bit overbearing and demanding. Right up until they physically abuse someone else, or think of them as less of a person. Then again, it was a bit hard to follow. Like, was it the wife abusing the girl or him? That's what I mean. I assumed it was her.

9 or 10 for the second one. Starving kids and tying them to boat masts is... yeargh. I'd argue he's in fact a criminal.

[Karha of Honor]

@Slash Gallagher Because I don't see women as meat? They're equal partners to men in my eyes?

Why is that your response to my post?

[LavarosVA]

I don't think you can really put people on a rating scale like that. Yeah, Gene Roddenberry did some awful, shady shit. But for his time, he was a progressive person. No one is immune to faults. After all, people still love Stan Lee, but he's done some shady shit.

[technobabbler]

I don't think you can really put people on a rating scale like that. Yeah, Gene Roddenberry did some awful, shady shit. But for his time, he was a progressive person.

Hitler did some awful things. But he was anti-smoking and (supposedly) was a vegetarian.

(allegedly) being a date raper (at best) doesn't make up for what you do during your day job.

just saying.