At 10:43 AM 8/29/97, Teragram wrote re: Star Trek, the Original Series:
>It seemed clear that there was nothing for me to aspire to in
>their roles - I feel the same dissatification when I see a current movie or
>series that runneth over with heros and villians with the few women
>characters reduced to pretty wallpaper and comfort bearers. I can't see
>myself - nor anyone I'd want to be - I don't exist in these scenarios, and
>neither does any other women I know. Why would I want to watch them?
True, the Original Series and the Next Generation both suffered from this
pattern. tOS only had Uhura who rarely did anything but expectantly wait
for the Captain to give her an order. Apparently, the fact that she was a
regular on the show and was stationed on the bridge was a breakthrough in
itself, but I certainly didn't feel empowered by Uhura's example.
The Next Generation had Crusher, Troi, Tasha Yar and Ensign Ro.
Crusher and Troi could both be classified as "comfort bearers" as Crusher
was the ship's doctor and Troi was the Counselor (and in fact never seemed
to do anything but "sense" things that were obvious anyway). Yar was new
and different for Star Trek -- she was a competent and aggressive Security
Chief, but of course the actor decided to leave the series and that was the
end of Yar... The only other decent female character was Ensign Ro, who I
believe was only on temporarily ...? I was not watching much Next
Generation at that point. Oh -- and there was Guinan, who was pretty
interesting, actually, though she did not appear too often.
Things are a bit different on the two current series, though. There's
been much argument about Kira and Dax on Deep Space Nine being "feminized"
from their original personas, but they are still complex, assertive,
physically competent characters who are often the focus of individual
episodes of the show. And god knows Voyager sucks, but the captain IS a
woman and there is B'Elanna Torres, who is impetuous, aggressive and even,
occasionally, lusty!
So there has certainly been progress in Star Trek's treatment of women
characters over the years, though I would love to see a lot more.
At 12:17 PM 29 Aug 1997, Tracy Zollinger Turner wrote:
>about Star Trek
>being part of a military complex. It's true... but I think (in Next
>Gen., etc.) we find a military that is primarily focused on scientific
>research, and reluctant to go into battle. Plus, I think to write off
>the show for that reason would be shortsighted, simply because the
>writers use that environment to explore very human relationships between
>the crew characters themselves and with other species.
Though there is not that much battle in any of the Star Treks, there is a
lot of emphasis placed on the military hierarchy and "direct orders". On
tNG especially, conversations often seemed like mere shouting matches. Part
of the reason I like Deep Space Nine better than any of the other shows is
that Star Fleet really is not the only game in town. There is Bajor, an
independent planet whose inhabitants seem to value mystical experience more
than military or technical prowess. There is the station itself, which was
originally Cardassian and has been occupied by Star Fleet. There are the
various merchants whose interests do not necessarily coincide with Star
Fleet's (Quark, Garak) and the very interesting Star Fleet rebels, the
Maquis. The show seems much more realistic to me as a result.
May the next season stretch the boundaries further...
-- Janice
-----
Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT
http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm
Listening to: Songs of Faith and Devotion, Depeche Mode
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:37 PDT