Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

Isn't this countering the the stereotype that women don't run inmportant shit?

I feel like if you go down the path in that manner then you could make anything out to be considerably problematic when an aspect of the status quo you're trying to break is objectification and marginalization.

Issues with media representation and problematic depictions to that regard usually have to do with the trends of the media first before generally understood stereotypes they might be associated with IRL. In other words we'll still have archetypal story structures with good guys, bad guys, and a conflict that's illustrated with more or less familiar nuances. Concerning depictions do garner awareness, but it's a more formal development, and also tends to still be subject to conventional narrative considerations.

[Karha of Honor]

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

Isn't this countering the the stereotype that women don't run inmportant shit?

I feel like if you go down the path in that manner then you could make anything out to be considerably problematic when an aspect of the status quo you're trying to break is objectification and marginalization.

Issues with media representation and problematic depictions to that regard usually have to do with the trends of the media first before generally understood stereotypes they might be associated with IRL. In other words we'll still have archetypal story structures with good guys, bad guys, and a conflict that's illustrated with more or less familiar nuances. Concerning depictions do garner awareness, but it's a more formal development, and also tends to still be subject to conventional narrative considerations.

Those are vague terms that just wait for charlatans to abuse them.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

Isn't this countering the the stereotype that women don't run inmportant shit?

I feel like if you go down the path in that manner then you could make anything out to be considerably problematic when an aspect of the status quo you're trying to break is objectification and marginalization.

Issues with media representation and problematic depictions to that regard usually have to do with the trends of the media first before generally understood stereotypes they might be associated with IRL. In other words we'll still have archetypal story structures with good guys, bad guys, and a conflict that's illustrated with more or less familiar nuances. Concerning depictions do garner awareness, but it's a more formal development, and also tends to still be subject to conventional narrative considerations.

Those are vague terms that just wait for charlatans to abuse them.

Vague but effective.

[Yukaphile]

I guess Slash is right it depends on interpretation, but that's my view of it, especially given Trek's past misogynistic history.

[bronnt]

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

If you never show women as villains, then you're being just as sexist as always showing women as villains. One story where the villains are predominantly female is a perfectly fine thing, and is perhaps a sign that you're focused more on the specific characters than the generalization about whether or not they have a penis.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

If you never show women as villains, then you're being just as sexist as always showing women as villains. One story where the villains are predominantly female is a perfectly fine thing, and is perhaps a sign that you're focused more on the specific characters than the generalization about whether or not they have a penis.

Well he was talking about them being conniving.

[Yukaphile]

I was talking about making every single leader of the enemies female. The central villains in "Redemption" are, in fact, the Duras sisters and Sela, everyone else is minor. Toral is just a puppet. Picard, Worf, Kurn, Gowron, they're all good guys, and they lead the others, with the exception of the rubber-stamp admiral. What's weird is Chuck noted Crusher wasn't left to command a ship and just noted that this was an "interesting" approach to diversity. I thought he'd have more to say about that, which would be negative. As he himself has said, he's supposed to stand for consistency, and it didn't feel like he was doing that here...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I was talking about making every single leader of the enemies female. The central villains in "Redemption" are, in fact, the Duras sisters and Sela, everyone else is minor. Toral is just a puppet. Picard, Worf, Kurn, Gowron, they're all good guys, and they lead the others, with the exception of the rubber-stamp admiral. What's weird is Chuck noted Crusher wasn't left to command a ship and just noted that this was an "interesting" approach to diversity. I thought he'd have more to say about that, which would be negative. As he himself has said, he's supposed to stand for consistency, and it didn't feel like he was doing that here...

Well for one, it's rather empowering. Two, it's not a trend in media. Three, it's not a real world stereotype that serves to marginalize or archetype unfairly.

[Karha of Honor]

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

Isn't this countering the the stereotype that women don't run inmportant shit?

I feel like if you go down the path in that manner then you could make anything out to be considerably problematic when an aspect of the status quo you're trying to break is objectification and marginalization.

Issues with media representation and problematic depictions to that regard usually have to do with the trends of the media first before generally understood stereotypes they might be associated with IRL. In other words we'll still have archetypal story structures with good guys, bad guys, and a conflict that's illustrated with more or less familiar nuances. Concerning depictions do garner awareness, but it's a more formal development, and also tends to still be subject to conventional narrative considerations.

Those are vague terms that just wait for charlatans to abuse them.

Vague but effective.

To do what?

I guess Slash is right it depends on interpretation, but that's my view of it, especially given Trek's past misogynistic history.

Make the case that Star Trek hates or ever hated women for me.

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

If you never show women as villains, then you're being just as sexist as always showing women as villains. One story where the villains are predominantly female is a perfectly fine thing, and is perhaps a sign that you're focused more on the specific characters than the generalization about whether or not they have a penis.

Why would having an entire series with woman baddies be a problem?

Because if the leaders of the bad guys are all women and the leaders of the good guys are all men, it subscribes to that ancient and awful stereotype that women are conniving, scheming liars and manipulators out to undermine and destroy powerful men. That view Shakespeare had, which you know, needs to fucking DIE already.

If you never show women as villains, then you're being just as sexist as always showing women as villains. One story where the villains are predominantly female is a perfectly fine thing, and is perhaps a sign that you're focused more on the specific characters than the generalization about whether or not they have a penis.

Well he was talking about them being conniving.

That is a very common baddie trait.

[Yukaphile]

@BridgeConsoleMasher How is it empowering when literally the entirety of your enemy leaders is female, and literally the entirety of your good leaders are male? That's serving an agenda, even if it wasn't written with that in mind.

@Slash Gallagher Are you blind? Chuck has covered Trek's past history of misogyny way better than I have. Go watch his videos. If you seriously think Trek isn't misogynistic, then you're just trolling for the sake of trolling. Hate nihilists, defend dicks. No wonder. Because you're acting like one.