Comments on: Star Trek and the Male Imagination

By: My Weekend « Gallivant by POPPY GALLICO

My Weekend « Gallivant by POPPY GALLICO — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:02:25 +0000

[...] this is an amazing post that better illustrates my concerns with the movie. I particularly love this quote: Of course, [...]

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:29:37 +0000

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.

By: greening

greening — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:11:30 +0000

“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.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Sun, 24 May 2009 18:20:13 +0000

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.)

By: zonkered.net » Feminism and Romance

zonkered.net » Feminism and Romance — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:27:16 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: baraqiel

baraqiel — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:38:39 +0000

@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.

By: romastrega

romastrega — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:22:41 +0000

@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!

By: aspiringexpatriate

aspiringexpatriate — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:43:33 +0000

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.

By: Preeti

Preeti — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:03:02 +0000

“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.

By: Liz N

Liz N — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:46:10 +0000

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!