My dad has always been into science fiction, and although his interest rarely got above casual – he has donned no strange outfits that I am aware of – he is sufficiently obsessed that even now I retain some useless information on the differences between Romulans and Vulcans. He still reminds me, when we talk of books, that I ought to read Dune and Stranger in a Strange Land before I die. (And I still remind him that my imagination has always preferred to roam the moors in empire-waist dresses and climb apple trees in late nineteenth-century Prince Edward Island.) So while the parents were visiting this past weekend it seemed only natural to see the big screen version of Star Trek, directed by Geek Extraordinaire J.J. Abrams himself.
Many other blogs have covered the new film’s gender trouble, or perhaps more accurately put, its near-total lack of interesting chicks. Oh sure, dress Zoe Saldana up as an “expert in xenolinguistics,” but her miniskirt and “exceptional oral sensitivity” (oh how I wish I were joking) belie, Mr. Abrams, something of a lack of commitment to this whole grrrl power thing.
Interesting chicks, of course, have never been a forte of the Star Trek universe. One imagines that the creator, Gene Roddenberry, didn’t know very many. And were I writing the kind of post I sometimes do where I am making fun of weird male geek proclivities (like Transfuckingformers) I would chalk this up to the usual kind of nerd longing for what he fetishizes as unattainable beauties (read: self-fulfilling prophecy) and be done for the day.
Abrams has changed the tenor a bit, as I’ve mentioned, both explicitly (space-time continuum disruption) and implicitly (no. more. odd. pauses). But it’s more than slightly depressing, to me at least, that of all the things the production team thought to change/rev up, the lack of strong female characters was not one of them.
Not to make mountains out of molehills, of course, but this is more distressing in Star Trek, to me anyway, than it would be somewhere else. The thing about Star Trek is that it is something of the idealist among the largely romantic denizens of the science fiction genre. Its adherence to logic extends beyond Mr. Spock. Other epics are concerned with myths and archetypes, but Star Trek tends to be bloodless, rational, almost antiseptic at times. This new movie, for example, has the most blood I have seen in any of the movies/television series so far; hand-to-hand combat is less prevalent in Star Trek than being stunned and/or killed by summary phaser blast. And the overarching themes of the series seem, sometimes, to have emerged from post-colonial studies classes: the first law of Starfleet, known as the Prime Directive, holds that Starfleet does not interfere with the internal affairs of other civilizations, and more particularly that it will not interfere in the indigenous technological development of those civilizations.
Of course, women are ignored all the time, everywhere, but there’s something particularly stinging about being written out of the future of civilization itself. I hate to paint such grand strokes about what sometimes is a wooden and cliche-ridden piece of popular art, but I will maintain until my dying day that the way we imagine things is sometimes equally as important as the way things actually are. Put differently: fantasy life matters because it tries to set out what we wish we were, instead of what we are. And the more wooden and idealistic, the more this fantasy is solely about our aspirations. And I guess some people don’t find inclusiveness a necessary element of their utopian ideals.
It is a lot to ask, I know, of most of these geek men, this kind of recognition. Having always seen themselves reflected at the helm, encouraged from birth to steer themselves and their families because it is What Men Do, they hardly can tell what exclusion feels like. They like to tell us that they are not sexist, look at this TV series starring a woman oh and over there I totally gave her a PhD to make the point that women can have those too. Sexist is a dirty word these days, nobody wants to be one, and as soon as you bring it up you may be assured you will be be bombarded with self-defense. “Do you think all art has to be inclusive? Art is apolitical! It’s just a TV show.” And so on, and so on…
Count me as one of the people who is disappointed on more than purely representational grounds that there are still dudes out there who do not think that this kind of thing demands serious revision, remake or no remake. I’m not looking for a mirror in popular culture. I am looking for a place in your utopian ideals. I want women to be the kind of people we imagine steering the universe one day, not casually, not as accessories to wise men, not as that one seat on your guiding councils, not as background extras. In front, unquestioned, not your mothers or your sisters or your sacrificial lambs. Not wearing go-go boots or leather catsuits or any other kind of ridiculous uniform of the sexuality that seems to be the only thing you find noticeable in us. Just there, in whatever we felt like wearing that day and without some other reason to justify our presence. There because we belong – not just to your future, but to our own.
This maybe why Voyager was the only Star Trek that I watched consistently.
This bothered me as well, but damn it, I just can’t stop loving Star Trek…
I made a similar comment in PhDork’s “Glee” thread below, but I think the whole “Wholesome Straight Male Of Non-Minority Heritage, In This Case, White, Has Adventures That Are Extremely Important, Everyone Else Is A Bit Player” thing is a cultural trope that has its roots in…well, probably as long as people have been telling stories.
And how can we challenge that? I mean, it seems like the stories that capture popular attention are always the ones about a guy. Usually a straight, young, attractive white one. And this, of course, has its roots in the way privilege works. We’re socialized to want to root for the straight, young, wholesome white guy protagonist, because his narrative and his story and his appearance are the overriding narrative and story and appearance that we’re supposed to like.
There’s no Harrieta Potter, no Lucy Skywalker, no Jane T. Kirk (Janeway was nice, but I don’t think Voyager enjoyed the same success as ST: TOS or ST: TNG.) I think Battlestar Galactica probably made an honest attempt to showcase people of different genders and origins as people, but alas I’m not as familiar with it. If a woman is portrayed as a strong, competent character, more often than not this aspect is “sexed-up” (Oh look, Trinity understands The Matrix! This means she is really sexy, look how sexy she is, isn’t it so cuuuute when women understand the Big Scary Science?) or as a gimmick or a deus ex machina or a convenient plot point. If women are given competent, believable lead roles, then it will be assumed that the script is for women, and it is assumed that men won’t watch it.
So make the lead protagonist someone everyone is supposed to like: a straight white guy! (EVERYONE can identify and sympathize with straight white guys, right? Right?) And that’s probably what happened in the 1960s when the original series was created, and that’s what happened in 2009 now that there’s a movie to pay tribute to the original series.
I have to admit, I sort of love the entire Trek franchise in general. I don’t think Star Trek: TOS universe is going to change anytime soon. What we do need, however, is other movies and shows and stories and ideas in the pop culture narrative to show that women can and SHOULD be strong central characters–not just as a gimmick or the “sexy” factor or for tokenism, but as you said, an honest-to-god human being with strengths and weaknesses and a practical wardrobe.
There was a great article in Bitch about female Star Trek fans. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to be online, but it’s issue 40, summer 2008 if anyone has it at home. From what I recall, women were the driving force behind the first Star Trek conventions.
Also, I am going to have to figure out how to make my comments not look and/or read like novels. I’M IN UR COMMENTZ, CREATIN MY OWN POP CULTURE NARRATIVEZ.
Tscheese, I think a double-return between paragraphs will do it.
In theory, star trek is supposed to be a highly evolved world where all races, nationalities, and ” life forms” get along and play nice. Though I feel like gender was never taken into the equation.
I think this is especially sad since the original Star Trek was such a pioneer for just SHOWING minorities on t.v. and all integrated and stuff. It was a future view of the world where everyone worked together – even if the white men were still in charge.
Also, and completely off-topic. Have you read The Thirteenth Tale, PSoul? If not, it’s amazing and moor-filled.
bellacoker, had to ask – The Diane Setterfield novel The Thirteenth Tale? Because that was so so much fun to read, one of the craziest things i read that year. I love a good bit of gothic.
Re Star Trek, I have to admit I was never a sci-fi fan (although I er do have a soft spot for some fantasy) but the recent Battlestar Galactica, which I adored, does actually tackle gender roles in an interesting way. Much more so than any other sci-fi show i’ve seen but then again I’m not an expert on the genre.
I used to be really into slash fanfiction for various sci-fi/fantasy universes, and then because I was into it, spent a decent amount of time analyzing it. One of the big reasons slash is so prevalent in certain fandoms is because there are way more interesting male characters than female characters. The male characters are just more fun to play with. In fact, one of the main reasons I’m not into slash any more is because I’ve started actively seeking out stories that have compelling, well-rounded female characters in them.
One of the reasons the lack of gender representation in Star Trek disappointed me so much, as it happens, is because I find Lost does a pretty good job with this, and as far as I know, Alias did too. I understand homage, faithfulness to the original text, etc. But honestly, the movie didn’t feel much like Star Trek to me, anyway, and if they were going to change things, they could have made changes like that, too.
Not wearing go-go boots or leather catsuits or any other kind of ridiculous uniform of the sexuality that seems to be the only thing you find noticeable in us.
I love this PS, and I think this is what makes this commentary so pertinent to sci-fi and comic culture (hell, ALL pop culture) in general, and not simply this film or this director.
I feel like there’s been so much of this lately, too, and it almost seems like a backlash to increased female visibility. Like a way to comfort the terrified menz and allow them to “remember” that we are, after all, just T and A.
This bugged me, too, especially given Abrams’ history of woman-centric entertainment (Alias, Felicity, and so on…). We can only hope that the next installment goes beyond the 60s nostalgia present in this movie’s gender politics and gets a bit realer.
This is why you should be watching Battlestar Galactica. There’s *some* gender trouble, but plenty of strong, realized, independent women.
@emilyanne-
I was about to say the same thing about Lost. Part of why I love it is that the show has such great bad-ass female characters. You’ve got Juliet, who is the only one who can stand up to Ben, really. Kate is whiny, but holds her own against Jack. Sun evolved from being Jin’s sidekick in wacky Korean adventures to being a smart businesswoman.
FWIW, I haven’t finished the past season yet, so don’t spoil me, please!
But… but…the cool space effects? come one! kidding. I totally get what you’re saying. I agree with what others are saying, that while you can find some television shows that do a better job incorporating women into more kickass roles, sci-fi and adventure movies are the WORST.
Maybe this is why women read more than men do — so many stories that aren’t about men, and even if they are, it’s easier to imagine a woman in the role than it is in a movie.
I went to Star Trek, loved it, and am already writing fanfiction (shut up.) I’m also a die-hard Alias fangirl, so I’m usually all about the J.J. At least to start with, I won’t get into my complex feelings about Lost here.
However, I was, in retrospect, disturbed by some of the gender themes, which included not one but two Helpless Pregnant Women. I didn’t mind Uhura, actually, despite the miniskirt, but I felt that both Winona and Amanda had the opportunity to be more interesting characters, deeper characters, especially given that his most interesting, most complicated character in all of Alias was Irina Derevko, Sydney Bristow’s mother.
At the same time, to continue the Alias analogy, Sydney Bristow, who supposedly embodies the ideal of kickass female leads…always annoyed the crap out of me, because she appears kickass, but in reality is the Worst Spy in the World, gets too personally involved in everything, and has histrionic, emotional fits far too often for more liking.
In short, I wasn’t surprised by the lack of strong female characters, because my experience with JJ is that he talks the talk, but only rarely manages to deliver.
You should read Dune and watch the movie if you pine for strong female leads. Also read ‘A Voyage to Arcturus’ if you can find it by I believe David Lindsay. You would be amazed to discover Arcturus even includes a third gender , pronounced ‘ae’ !
I believe Spock was mentioning her “aural” sensitivity, not “oral”, which is beside the point you’re making, but it takes the vulgarity out of the statement.
Xeno, I’m sure the homophone was lost on no one.
I did love this movie. I’d pay to see it again in theater (which I did last for Rachel Getting Married, There Will Be Blood and Brokeback Mountain but nothing else I can recall quickly so suffice it to say this is not something this cheapskate does lightly). I feel Quinto was born and perhaps engineered even to play Spock and I loved most of the story and on and on. It seriously pissed me and my mother the lifelong sci fi fan with whom I saw it that Uhora was pursued by Kirk at all and then was in the relationship with Spock. From our recollection of the series, Uhora, despite the miniskirt, was an exemplar of professionalism. That’s why we liked her in the first place. To see her character become more of an object and less of an expert was disheartening to say the least. I know they wanted to give backstories to the leads, but at least they were creative with Kirk and Spock to a certain extent. You can just imagine the brainstorming session: “What about that chick? Oh yeah, uh, well she’s smart right? Let’s have her boning the professor.” Horrible.
@emilyanne:
Yup, that one. Oh, yeah. It’s a complete homage to the gothic novel. I wish I could have it sucked out of my memory so I could read it again for the first time.
Beautifully written, Pilgrim Soul. I was troubled when I left the theater too, because of how much I enjoyed the movie, and how much I dearly wished there had been a single Star Fleet captain, or any character in a leadership role, who was female. I tried to justify it to myself by saying that it had to stay true to the canon- it couldn’t just introduce a female Enterprise captain, or there’d be no continuity at all. But then I thought- there were pleeeenty of other places they could have introduced a strong female character. The head of that Vulcan council? A dude (though there was at least one women sitting there silently). Same with the directors of Star Fleet- it seemed like Tyler Perry did all the talking, though there was at least one woman- again, sitting silently.
And also, it would have been very powerful to see a woman filling a leadership role in a movie that emphasizes leadership skills that women are often accused of lacking- logical reasoning, for example, or the ability to continue functioning when grappling with fear. To not take advantage of that opportunity was a loss.
I felt disquieted, because I WANTED to just enjoy the movie and have fun, but it’s really troubling to see a future that looks just the same as the present- everyone in charge, everyone “wise”, is male.
A caveat: I am not a science fiction fan, and I don’t know much about its generation and consumption aside from the geek/nerd fan-boy stereotype. As I write that, it occurs to me that premising a comment on a stereotype is probably not a good idea. But here goes anyways.
I’ve always imagined that the reason so much science fiction features the cool, rebel male prototype is because the geek/nerd guys who create that brand of it are playing out their own fantasies about being the top dog in a world where they too are often marginalized and seen by their male peers as being on the lower end of the masculinity/coolness/whatever spectrum.
Not that that’s an excuse for ignoring women or anything. (Nor is it a statement specifically on JJ Abrams, who I know nothing about.) But generally thinking about it in this way does take a little of the sting out of it for me.
“they hardly can tell what exclusion feels like.”
You really think geeks don’t know what exclusion feels like? I can assure you, most of us do…
I agree so much with pretty much everything that’s been said here. The main thing I want to add is that after the movie I found myself particularly unsettled by Kirk.
I LIKED Kirk in the movie. A lot. I was not expecting to – I have little experience with the original series, but everything I’ve heard about it, and everything I know about Shatner (and the fact that he doesn’t act, he just IS) told me that I wasn’t going to like Kirk at all. Smug, womanizing, rule breaking, roguish, “charming”… these are all characteristics that we so commonly see portrayed as “positive” (in men) but in reality end up being dangerous (to women.)
But I liked him.
Just like I like Han Solo and Indiana Jones. I don’t like to see encouragement of that kind of behavior *but he was just so damn cool*. Ack!
“Just there, in whatever we felt like wearing that day and without some other reason to justify our presence. There because we belong – not just to your future, but to our own.”
This. So perfectly put. It’s a shame and sad that this is something we have to fight for.
Oh sure, dress Zoe Saldana up as an “expert in xenolinguistics,” but her miniskirt and “exceptional oral sensitivity” (oh how I wish I were joking) belie, Mr. Abrams, something of a lack of commitment to this whole grrrl power thing.
“aural”
Otherwise it would just be stupid. But then again, JJ Abrams…
The original Star Trek always had massive problems with gender equality. Those things started to change in the films, and later in TNG etc. And this was less of a ‘reboot’ and more of a retelling of a similar story. It would be pretty hard to get a massive change like that and still cash in on the Trek fandom.
That said, Starbuck on the BSG-reboot flies in the face of that logic and succeeds in kicking major ass.
@tscheese, I’ve been having these same thoughts. I actually just got into a discussion/argument with my BF about how, as a girl, I should be interested in male and female lead characters but when he sees a female lead he always asks “oh, is this a girl thing?”. He’s not a sexist ass (I swear) but he’s just clueless sometimes. Like it never occured to him that yes, he should be just as interested in female leads. Ugh!
@Tiktaalik – Let’s be frank here. Exclusion based on who you are as an individual is not the same thing as exclusion based on your class. Having experienced both, it doesn’t feel the same, and it can’t be fixed in the same way. And apparently “geeks” as a group haven’t been able to translate their experiences of individual exclusion into empathy for those who are excluded as a class, because sci-fi and fantasy are, generally speaking, extremely hegemonic: ruled almost exclusively by straight, white, able-bodied, cisgender men. The women in these genres are exceptions, and treated as such. When Harlan Ellison can still grope a presumably respected female author, at an awards ceremony, *on stage* and claim it’s that doing so is a harmless joke, sci-fi is not yet a safe place for women.
[...] If more people thought of it in these terms, maybe romance would cease being viewed as the most sexist, anti-feminist literary genre out there. It’s not even close to being that; science fiction and fantasy, in my opinion, wins that one hands down – this is, after all, a genre where its acceptable for Harlan Ellison to grope a female author on stage and pass it off as a joke. [...]
We can’t put *all* of New Trek’s gender troubles on Abrams. It’s my understanding that the script (by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) was locked in place because of the writers’ strike. Although it’s usually common practice to make changes, often huge ones, after the “final” draft has been delivered, it would have been in violation of union rules to do that through the first few months that they were filming.
(Memory Alpha reports, for instance, that Abrams wanted to give Nichelle Nichols a role in the film but was unable to add new material because the strike was on.)
“Interesting chicks, of course, have never been a forte of the Star Trek universe. One imagines that the creator, Gene Roddenberry, didn’t know very many.”
According to Nichelle Nichols’ autobiography, Gene Roddenberry worked hard to keep her on the bridge of the original series; the network was very unhappy about it at the time. (Remember that this is 1966; not a lot of “adventure” type TV shows featuring women that year.) The two of them were actually in a relationship for some years.
Got nothing for ya on the recent movie though; they can reboot pretty much the entire canon but they couldn’t do any better than that with female characters? Lame.
Suggest you only read Heinlein (especially Stranger in a Strange Land) when you are a bit short on rage. In SiaS he actually has Female Lead tell the Jeebus-type “thanks for rescuing me from a rapist, but next time don’t run so fast, I’ll deserve what I get” (I paraphrase, I don’t have a copy)
Suggest instead: ‘The Handmaiden’s Tale’ by Margaret Atwood, and ‘The Sparrow’ by Mary Doria Russell.
[...] this is an amazing post that better illustrates my concerns with the movie. I particularly love this quote: Of course, [...]