Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:36 pm
Hey, even the "applying standards from today to 50 years ago" doesn't work, given my grandfather, born in 1910, would never spout the bullshit TOS did at its worst, its most aggressively misogynistic. I don't think he ever thought of women as inherently more fearful, or thought women were such timid little creatures, or what "The Enemy Within" will do with Rand.
One person, against the entire rest of society! Hmm, that's a tough one there on who may win out.
Where is the evidence the writers of TOS intended the material to be "aggressively misogynistic"? Unless you have that, then it wasn't. If you want to think that in applying your standards of today to material over 50 years old, then fine but it won't make it so.
Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:01 pm
Yes, they very much were 60s people, hence institutional misogyny, where it's not exactly conscious decisions but based on how people were brought up to see the world, which is why women had to fight so hard to get into positions of power to break out of that view of women.
I'm afraid your eyes are cast in the wrong place, society of the time put that in place, not the institution. If society of the time had people play ukuleles on rooftops every day at noon, then hey that's what any institution would have got their people do too. So in an instance like this when one is given a "wrong" upbringing, and one makes decisions based on that upbringing, are we to instantly tar them with a brush like "misogyny" and condemn them forever with it? Wouldn't it be a good idea to at least check if they got along with the times first, and changed for the better like most people did?
Seems rather sad & ironic to rush out attaching a label to those that help make Star Trek, where indeed giving people a fair hearing and second chance is one of the very cores of Star Trek.
I think you've been misreading me. I'm not "condemning" anyone, I'm just saying sexism was more prevalent in those times. That doesn't make the makers of TOS automatically wholly terrible people, it's just that they carried an unfortunate attitude towards women.
Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:01 pm
Also the whole thing about NBC not accepting Number One because of being a woman as a first officer was actually a falsehood spread by Roddenberry. The real reason was that NBC thought Majel Barret was too wooden of an actress and that she was one of Roddenberry's mistresses, which they were not comfortable with. Roddenberry spread the falsehood because he didn't want to hurt her. Robert Justman had confirmed that. In fact, part of why Barrett had to wear a blonde wig was so that the NBC executives wouldn't immediately recognize her, and once they did they let it go because her role was much more minimal anyway.
I'd be interested in a citation of this, as both Shatner and Nimoy have backed Roddenberry's account multiple times through the years.
I cite Inside Star Trek: The Real Story. I even looked more into a summary of what's stated in the book, and it appears I was only half right on Roddenberry sneaking her in as Chapel.
In their book Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Herb Solow and Robert Justman claimed that the account of NBC rejecting the female first officer was a myth created by Roddenberry. In their version, NBC was proud of gender and race diversity in its shows, and even insisted on having a strong female leading character, but they felt that Barrett was not a leading-type actress with strong screen presence, suitable for playing such a role. Apparently not wanting to hurt his mistress' pride, Roddenberry purportedly came up with this story in the 1970s-1980s Star Trek convention circuit, which he toured extensively with his by-then wife.
Although her character was dropped from the second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", after Star Trek was picked up as a series, Barrett, now disguised as a blonde, was given the role of Nurse Christine Chapel in the episode " The Naked Time" by Roddenberry, albeit surreptitiously according to Justman and Solow. Because the network did not like her role in "The Cage", Barrett donned a blond wig for her role and went by the name "Majel Barrett" rather than "M. Leigh Hudec," as she had done for "The Menagerie." In effect, the surreptitious act of sneaking Barrett back into the Star Trek production against the express wishes of NBC, turned out to be one of the reasons for Lucille Ball after she was informed of this, to ordain the firing of the pair of them on the spot, as a moral propriety valuing Ball could not abide with nepotism. Concurrently, she had become aware that a married Roddenberry conducted an illicit affair with Barrett, which was an even stronger reason for her wanting them to be gone from her studio; Ball's own marriage with Desi Arnaz had fallen apart in no small part due to his philandering. It was Herb Solow who, through an intermediary, managed to convince Ball otherwise, though he had the toughest of times doing so.
Given everything I've read of Roddenberry, this seems pretty consistent with his blustery behavior. But if you rather go with what Shatner and Nimoy have stated (which they've likely done out of niceness) have at it.
My grandfather wasn't the only liberal in 1910. And my point remains, a woman was first elected governor in the late twenties. We haven't gotten a female President today. It's shocking how sexism seemingly overstays its welcome long past the point it should. The stuff they were saying about women in TOS was outdated even by the standards of the 1960s - forbidding women from becoming captains, what happened to Rand where she was scared about getting her potential rapist in trouble (which is disgusting given what happened to Whitney and you have to wonder if Gene blackmailed her), and claiming women are more easily frightened, which is both misandrist and misogynistic because it A) Ignores men can be afraid and B) Presents women as more emotional because of enforced gender roles. Let's be clear that Feminism was going on in the 1960s. What they said was archaic even for the 1960s. We are looking back with the benefit of hindsight, but that by no means excuses it because they knew better even then.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:01 pm
Yes, they very much were 60s people, hence institutional misogyny, where it's not exactly conscious decisions but based on how people were brought up to see the world, which is why women had to fight so hard to get into positions of power to break out of that view of women.
I'm afraid your eyes are cast in the wrong place, society of the time put that in place, not the institution. If society of the time had people play ukuleles on rooftops every day at noon, then hey that's what any institution would have got their people do too. So in an instance like this when one is given a "wrong" upbringing, and one makes decisions based on that upbringing, are we to instantly tar them with a brush like "misogyny" and condemn them forever with it?
It's not forever condemning people or tarring them with a brush. It's just calling misogyny what it is, and calling misogynistic statements and actions misogynystic. If I accuse you of making a misogynistic TV episode, I'm not saying you're a horrible person or iredeemable, but I am saying that thing you did showed an anti-woman attitude. Whether that is a result of the institutions you belong to, the attitudes common in your culture and time period, or personal predjudice doesn't change that it IS misogyny.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:36 pm
Hey, even the "applying standards from today to 50 years ago" doesn't work, given my grandfather, born in 1910, would never spout the bullshit TOS did at its worst, its most aggressively misogynistic. I don't think he ever thought of women as inherently more fearful, or thought women were such timid little creatures, or what "The Enemy Within" will do with Rand.
One person, against the entire rest of society! Hmm, that's a tough one there on who may win out.
Where is the evidence the writers of TOS intended the material to be "aggressively misogynistic"? Unless you have that, then it wasn't. If you want to think that in applying your standards of today to material over 50 years old, then fine but it won't make it so.
You don't need to intend bigotry to do bigoted things, any more than you need to intend to hurt somebody to tread on their toes. Sexist is as sexist does.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Correct. That doesn't make TOS a lesser show, it just highlights how it's a product of its time when the cultural climate was very different. A joke many people used in the past like "women drivers" was probably a hoot but could only have been in its time because of how sexism was prevalent in our culture then. Now not so much, as anyone would rightfully point out how sexist such a joke is.
Having rewatched "The Enemy Within" a few days ago, I think it's an overall pretty good episode that stands the test of time, only with the exception of its outdated sexual politics.
Not cultural climate. Just that TOS was written by very primitive men and women. There were talented writers amongst them, but they were still regressive in many ways. Look at Gene Roddenberry himself. He was a crude man even for his time. I do think TOS holds up as well, despite its dating. But don't pretend they didn't know better even then, and in the 1990s during the run of TNG.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Not sure where the schism of this disagreement runs. It seems Enterprising agrees about the show in general but is trying to vindicate anyone involved? This kind of thing tends to weather in, "who's guilty of purposely doing bad things isn't really the point." Thus the description of status quo conventional institutional etc... wrongs are brought to light, and it's pretty understandable that things weren't that balanced.
The idea of rectifying indecent convention is a pretty simple enough concept that seems to be understood by everyone, so where's the contention?
