ENT - Bound

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I have to ask how Chuck can go from the idea of women being in control of their sexual appeal and using that to get the things they want from men - to "women are victimised" that's a very special type of doublethink that I've not come across that often.

I mean the entire premise of the Orion Slave Girl is that men are captives of these women and they use their bodies to get things from them, it was spelled out in the Cage ffs!

13:00 minutes in; direct quote from chuck; referring to the very feemales: "It takes a special level of arrogance to be confronted with proof of treachery and to assume you're the victim."

[AlucardNoir]

Ah, so you guys don't mean progressive, you mean whatever "we" deem as progresive. Got it. I'll no better then engage either of you in the future. I'll also know to dismiss any argument either of you might make in regards to the alt-right in the future. I mean, we all know "nazi's are bad. M'kay?" so there's no need to further bring that point up is there. Not like there are actual communists and anarchist terrorists on the streets trying to fight fascists and fascists and neo-nazis... or how the words racism and racist have been used to describe any anti immigration or pro border control policy for the past decade in the western world...

No sir, racism has been solved, neo-nazis are bad and there is no reason to keep bringing up these all tired cliches. No sir, no reason whatsoever. No sir, racism is no longer on the progressive agenda, the problem has been solved. No sir, we have a list of what's progresive and dealing with topics of racism and anti fascism is no longer on that list... someone should probably inform all those antifa nutcases though.

[clearspira]

Ah, so you guys don't mean progressive, you mean whatever "we" deem as progresive. Got it. I'll no better then engage either of you in the future. I'll also know to dismiss any argument either of you might make in regards to the alt-right in the future. I mean, we all know "nazi's are bad. M'kay?" so there's no need to further bring that point up is there. Not like there are actual communists and anarchist terrorists on the streets trying to fight fascists and fascists and neo-nazis... or how the words racism and racist have been used to describe any anti immigration or pro border control policy for the past decade in the western world...

No sir, racism has been solved, neo-nazis are bad and there is no reason to keep bringing up these all tired cliches. No sir, no reason whatsoever. No sir, racism is no longer on the progressive agenda, the problem has been solved. No sir, we have a list of what's progresive and dealing with topics of racism and anti fascism is no longer on that list... someone should probably inform all those antifa nutcases though.

Translation: ''AlucardNoir should be considered the final say on what is progressive and what isn't.''

[clearspira]

Oh, yeah, THAT subplot...man, Harry Potter has SO many issues when you go back and read it as an adult.

Most of it is "story that takes place in the 1990s when read in 2020 isn't progressive by today's standards" even though the entire series is filled to the brim with progressive messages.

Is it filled to the brim with progressive messages or is it filled to the brim with things that Rowling has tried to re-invent as progressive messages? Please name some because I am genuinely having a hard time thinking of any that are supported by the narrative.

Beyond things like the anti house elves and goblin racism? how about the fact that the books main villain is a fictional Hitler, that his death eaters are magical nazis and that the book is a fictional fight against fascism? but I guess that's not progressive.

That's what you are going with as your proof? You do realise that having a Hitler stand-in is one of the most worn out and generic villain types in fiction right? Hell, by the exacting description you just used, Star Wars was just as progressive as Harry Potter and that came out 20 years before. Bit late to the party isn't she?

It's a difference of interpretation. Star Wars used Nazi imagery but not really ideology. At least not in the original trilogy. Harry Potter on the other hand actually tackles the ideology. Harry himself is basically a holocaust survivor. More then a few wizards and witches are in the same boat as Harry. They don't just have relatives that died fighting Tom Riddle, they have relatives that were hunted and killed by the death eaters.

Star wars does a far batter job using Nazi imagery but when it comes to ideology it's more miss then hit. The death eaters on the other hand are all about the ideology. To paraphrase one of only two men worse than Hitler: one man's death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic.

While we might think of the Nazi's as stereotypically evil, they weren't, they actually stood for something. The Nazi wanted something, a better words for them and their offspring - and frankly, it's not what they stood for that's offensive but how they tried getting it that is. That's not the case for Star wars' Empire. The empire wants whatever the emperor says it wants and the emperor is stereotypically evil. Tom Riddle wants to be immortal and rule the world. Death eaters like Lucius literally want the Nazi's wanted, just with pure blood wizards in place of Aryans.

Star wars is fighting the evil empire. Harry Potter is fighting slavery and racism while not shying away from showing the reader what motivates those actions. Most wizards can fix a room and move objects with just a flick of their wand yet most also keep house elves as slaves. House elves that even without wands are shown to be around as powerful as wizards if not stronger still. Most wizards are racist towards other inteligent humanoid races like goblins and centaurs while at the same time not agreeing with the racism displayed by pure blood witches and wizards against their own kind. And then there are the "muggles" and both how wizards feel about them and how they feel about "muggle" technology.

I'm not saying Harry potter is as briliant as some people make it sound online but comparing it's treatment of the death eaters with Star Wars and it's empire, especially only the original trilogy is either playing dumb or willingly ignoring the differences to try and win some internet points.

Harry Potter is a book that captured the imagination of many people. It is also a world where LGBTQ people do not exist and neither do POCs. It is many things, but it is hardly progressive.

But... but... but... there are LGBT people in Harry Potter. Don't you know that Rowling told everyone after the books were finished that Dumbledore is gay? You didn't expect her to actually SHOW it did you? Don't you remember how much hate gays had back in 2007? There would have been riots! And as for POC representation, please do not wilfully forget the Parvati twins and Dean Thomas! Thats a whole THREE minor characters! What more do you want?

In seriousness though, this woman has become famous as f-k for pandering to marginal groups post-fact with her work to the point that her being branded as a TERF by large swathes of Twtter is almost ironic. If Rowling released a George Lucas style ''special edition rewrite'' then I guarantee half of Hogwarts would be POC, gay, disabled and non-Christian. The problem however is that having a couple of nobody characters have a lesbian kiss in the background (Hello, Rise of Skywalker) is meaningless. They might as well be part of the furniture.

[AlucardNoir]

Ah, so you guys don't mean progressive, you mean whatever "we" deem as progresive. Got it. I'll no better then engage either of you in the future. I'll also know to dismiss any argument either of you might make in regards to the alt-right in the future. I mean, we all know "nazi's are bad. M'kay?" so there's no need to further bring that point up is there. Not like there are actual communists and anarchist terrorists on the streets trying to fight fascists and fascists and neo-nazis... or how the words racism and racist have been used to describe any anti immigration or pro border control policy for the past decade in the western world...

No sir, racism has been solved, neo-nazis are bad and there is no reason to keep bringing up these all tired cliches. No sir, no reason whatsoever. No sir, racism is no longer on the progressive agenda, the problem has been solved. No sir, we have a list of what's progresive and dealing with topics of racism and anti fascism is no longer on that list... someone should probably inform all those antifa nutcases though.

Translation: ''AlucardNoir should be considered the final say on what is progressive and what isn't.''

As opposed to you and Percysowner?

[clearspira]

Ah, so you guys don't mean progressive, you mean whatever "we" deem as progresive. Got it. I'll no better then engage either of you in the future. I'll also know to dismiss any argument either of you might make in regards to the alt-right in the future. I mean, we all know "nazi's are bad. M'kay?" so there's no need to further bring that point up is there. Not like there are actual communists and anarchist terrorists on the streets trying to fight fascists and fascists and neo-nazis... or how the words racism and racist have been used to describe any anti immigration or pro border control policy for the past decade in the western world...

No sir, racism has been solved, neo-nazis are bad and there is no reason to keep bringing up these all tired cliches. No sir, no reason whatsoever. No sir, racism is no longer on the progressive agenda, the problem has been solved. No sir, we have a list of what's progresive and dealing with topics of racism and anti fascism is no longer on that list... someone should probably inform all those antifa nutcases though.

Translation: ''AlucardNoir should be considered the final say on what is progressive and what isn't.''

As opposed to you and Percysowner?

Very much so actually. Please point to the post in which I demand that you agree with me or even imply to be demanding that you agree with me.

[Percysowner]

Ah, so you guys don't mean progressive, you mean whatever "we" deem as progresive. Got it. I'll no better then engage either of you in the future. I'll also know to dismiss any argument either of you might make in regards to the alt-right in the future. I mean, we all know "nazi's are bad. M'kay?" so there's no need to further bring that point up is there. Not like there are actual communists and anarchist terrorists on the streets trying to fight fascists and fascists and neo-nazis... or how the words racism and racist have been used to describe any anti immigration or pro border control policy for the past decade in the western world...

No sir, racism has been solved, neo-nazis are bad and there is no reason to keep bringing up these all tired cliches. No sir, no reason whatsoever. No sir, racism is no longer on the progressive agenda, the problem has been solved. No sir, we have a list of what's progresive and dealing with topics of racism and anti fascism is no longer on that list... someone should probably inform all those antifa nutcases though.

No one SAID that racism is solved or that neo-nazis aren't on the rise. I'm saying that Nazis are bad is not a particularly progressive stance and it really wasn't back when Harry Potter was being written before the neo-Nazis started their rise. I was raised in the 1950s, if you wanted the audience to know someone was a bad guy, you made him a Nazi. And you know what? Harry Potter didn't HAVE to be progressive. It was and remains an entertaining tale that has helped many kids learn to love to read and has a warm place in the hearts of many fans, including you. And that is GREAT! I love tons of stuff that isn't particularly progressive. I criticize them and wish they were more progressive, but I still enjoy them. (Waves at Supernatural). I also love stories that are more progressive with more minority and LGBTQ representation. (Waves at The Magicians)

I wish JKR wasn't trying to retcon her position. She could just come out and say that she was writing a book. She had no idea it was going to blow up into an international phenomena, so she wrote what she knew, a white straight society and she recognized that girls will read books with male main characters, but boys tend not to read books with female main characters AND most fantasies have male main characters so she went with what had been shown to work. She decided to not include more minorities in later books, which was her choice. It's not a sin to not have a particularly progressive book, movie, etc. It's a little odd to try and say you have one once you get criticism for not being inclusive.

[AlucardNoir]

I'm not really the Harry Potter fan in my family, that would be my sister. She's the main reason I read the books and watched the movies a decade and change ago. I just disagree with your position. I think the books do a good job dealing with racism and xenophobia. Even better then most other works because we don't see just one perspective and even characters that might not be racist from one point of view show racist tendencies towards other "races" - ie elves, goblins and the like. In place of having a simple racism is bad message we see how even quite a lot of the wizarding world suffers from some form of racism towards somebody. Even "good" characters tend to not free house elves but are content with just treating them well. And that's why I think the books are progresive. They don't just have the massage slavery is wrong, or racism is wrong, but showcase slavery and racism from multiple perspectives and let the reader come to that conclusion.

You on the other hand think that saying slavery is wrong, or racism is wrong isn't particularly progressive. Especially not two decades ago. Why? because those topics weren't hot two decades ago. Because those topics weren't what the media was covering 24/7. Worse yet, you come with a literal list of things that are progressive. A literal list of topics a story needs to cover in order to be considered progressive. The main character shouldn't be a man. The story shouldn't be white. The character our protagonist interacts shouldn't be men, or white, or straight, or even identify with the sex they were born as.

You know that derided idea of a token black character? yeah, you're idea of progressivism is what birthed it. Yes, I agree with you that JK Rollng isn't doing herself of her work any favors with her tweets and forced inclusion via retcons, but the fact that you yourself can see a problem with that but not with your list is telling.

EDIT. and if you're going to ask why even post then, it was the end/start of the year. I had free time and nothing better to do.

[lightningbarer]

13:00 minutes in; direct quote from chuck; referring to the very feemales: "It takes a special level of arrogance to be confronted with proof of treachery and to assume you're the victim."

Yeah, I saw it, still doesn't make any sense in the context that Chuck was giving out.

See when you say "women have power over men because men can be manipulated by their sexuality" and then say "that means women are being victimised" you can't then turn around and say that bringing up sex work or strip clubs in a hypothetical means anything.

Because it doesn't mean anything. What it actually means is that Chuck didn't think of these jobs in the context that they were doing the very same thing the Slave Girls were doing.

Now you can sit there and use technobabble to come up with an excuse out of it because "oh no, the women send out pheromones that mess with men."

But you do know that happens in real life right? You do know that when a woman is nearing the prime ovulation stages she emits pheromones that attract men to her right? That those pheromones work on her body as well in making things like the lips, the eyes, the skin and many other things look more inviting to men.

BUT
This doesn't actually come to the end point with what Chuck is saying here.

He is saying that the portrayal of men being helpless slaves to women who can manipulate them is a form of victimising of the WOMEN.

When literally the men are being mind raped by these women into doing things they'd never actually do openly and freely.

So when I see a person say "women are victims" after scenes where women have literally all the power.

I have to ask how the utter idiocy of the idea comes around. Because it seriously is like Chuck looked at this and saw
"women in scantily dressed clothing" "women being sexually aggressive" "women being able to get what they want when they want"
Then conflated that with an in real life idea that the CREATORS are the monsters.

Which both damages women and men, because it 1. says women can't do this to men - and you know its not true, they can. and 2. male victims of manipulation and abuse are not anything to concern yourself with because men are just evil.

See, I want to believe Chuck was trying to push the message that Ent just did things for the hell of it and didn't think through. But the problem is that when taking ALL his points into consideration, it doesn't show that, it shows a very dark and dangerous mindset of not caring and twisting narratives to fit the way you want it to work.

It doesn't speak well of him to do this

[Admiral X]

13:00 minutes in; direct quote from chuck; referring to the very feemales: "It takes a special level of arrogance to be confronted with proof of treachery and to assume you're the victim."

Yeah, I saw it, still doesn't make any sense in the context that Chuck was giving out.

Really? Seems pretty straightforward to me. They found proof that the women were acting against them, and in reply they claimed they were the victim because their privacy was violated by having their quarters searched.

I have to ask how the utter idiocy of the idea comes around. Because it seriously is like Chuck looked at this and saw
"women in scantily dressed clothing" "women being sexually aggressive" "women being able to get what they want when they want"
Then conflated that with an in real life idea that the CREATORS are the monsters.

I guess what I took from it was that it reinforces the idea of men being basically animals who are unable to control themselves, thus excusing their behavior toward women, AND that the writers were reinforcing gender roles by not only having the whole pheromones thing and the "twist" at the end, but because of how they wrote the effect on the crew to be as far as how all the men but Trip acted the way they did, and all the women were effected the way they were, and it never occurred to anyone (writers or the characters they wrote, obviously), that they might want to assign female security guards to them when they were locked up in the brig. Kind of like how in that TNG Robin Hood episode it never occurred to anyone that the women should also take up swords or bows to help in the fight and instead they ended up using clay pots. Or in that VOY episode with the Q civil war, none of the female crew members took up arms to help in that fight.

I agree with that assessment, though I disagree with Chuck's take on the question of even doing a story with Orion animal women. I see it as very much in line with the move to make ENT more of a prequel to TOS. Chuck also seems to have a problem in general with fan service, and while I agree that often Star Trek has been rather juvenile when it comes to the topic of sex, and that ENT in particular could be pretty guilty of that, I am, however, not against the idea of fan service. Hell, I'd totally have used the Risa episode as a beach episode and had T'Pol in a bikini, it's just that I'd also have put her in something that could pass as an actual uniform rather than a spandex catsuit, so the fan service would be something every once in a while rather than constant.