Okay, since no one has said anything, first I'll introduce myself (if I
have to) and then (I hate to argue on a first post...) get to my point.
My name is misha, I like to read (and watch, but that is much rarer) SF
esp feminist stuff which I discovered (officially) in various courses at
university. Currently I'm working (grad sch is expensive) but
eventually I want to become a horrid academician and I'm sure SF and
gender will fit in there somewhere, even if I force the square peg into
the round hole.
My comment, on Cary's (excerpted below): I don't think that having a
queer character on StarTrek would be catering to a special interest
group any more than, say, having blonde women would be. Since a
documented portion of the current population is queer (and most SF
reflects current populations and their issues- hopefully!), it would be
considerate or expected to have a segment reflected in the character
make-up.
This leads into my next comment. Why can't a lesbian (strong or weak)
woman character serve as a role model for the widest possible audience?
She would still be a woman? I would rather see ANY good female
characters than become picky over to me irrelevant aspects of them.
Should queer viewers of ST complain because they have no role models on
the show... if a queer character apparently cannot serve as a role model
"for the widest possible audience?"
I don't mean to attack Cary, and I feel that is what I am doing,
unfortunately. I just want to question the assumption that somehow
women devolve into their sexuality and that precludes them being
"strong."
misha
bernardm@colorado.edu
>My own attitude is "so what?"
>ST will simply be catering to a special interest group if they do it.
>Nothing new there. They still won't have a strong woman character besides
>Kira Narice(sp?) who can serve as a role model for the widest possible
>audience. I think that should be a higher priority.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:14 PDT