Bookman

I'll keep that in mind if I ever catch an episode of ST: Voy again. I didn't watch the series that much, so I concede there may be something to what you say. However, I'm convinced that your absolute statements (No male ever came out well in the series. No female came out badly. Whenever a man made a decision it came out badly. Whenever a female made a decision it turned out alright in the end.) aren't true.

It could well be that I never noticed it because I have little use for traditional gender roles. :shrug:

By the way, I do agree with the first line of your post. Voyager was terrible, which is why I didn't pay as much attention to it as I did to ST: NG (and to a lesser extent ST: DS9). None of 'em could hold a candle to Babylon 5 in any event.

Far be it from me to try and change your mind about something so trivial.

Bookman

Titanpoint

Read what I wrote just before viewing it again. You'll get the idea.

Traditional gender roles are rooted in biology.

Ah a Space Opera fan.

I must admit, I have gone off Star Trek.

None of the SF series comes near to the depth of "Blade Runner" or "Momento" IMO

Bookman

Thank goodness we've learned to transcend some of the limitations of our biology, no?

More of a storytelling fan who likes the fact that what happens this week has some discernable impact on next week.

I think you mean Memento, and yes those were both excellent.

Bookman

Silent Dave

TitanPoint, I agree with most of what you said -- and would only add that it's why many people LIKED the series.

This reminds me of part of an email interview with ST writer Ron Moore, during the latter part of the DS9 series . . .

Q: I wonder if I could get a reaction from you on excerpt from a recent NEWSWEEK article on Babylon 5. The following is a quote from B5 creator J.Michael Straczynski talking about B5: "It was a five year long epic set on a massive space station at the hub of a galactic war, with stories about stuff that makes the "Star Trek" writers cower: religion, homosexuality the media, politics...."

MOORE: I'd rather not get into a shouting match with JMS (even one by proxy). I don't watch his show and it's clear from this statement that he doesn't watch mine.


Dave

Titanpoint

Jeebus! A connoisseur of crap!

Bookman: You can no more transcend your own biology than transcend gravity.... As I said: a Space Opera fan (straight from E.E. "Doc" Smith)

The only other comment I'd make about ST:Voyager was about science and rationality. Although all series had a certain amount of irrationality, ST: Voy took it to an entire plane of nonsense about the supremacy of female intuition over logic and never lost an opportunity to emphasize that without women around, the men fall apart because they don't have female "sensitivity" and other-worldly "understanding"

My wife watched ST:Voy for a long while. After I mentioned the above commentary she started laughing at how blatent it all was. I thought it was just tedious.

Certainly a dominant theme of the second half of the series was to get the logical, masculinized character of Seven of Nine to find her female "intuitive" side. Bleargh!

Never mind.

Huginn

The discussion here has become far too interesting for the Humor forum. I think it deserves a better home in Media and Popular Culture.

Off we go...

Bookman

Fortunately, modern man has transcended both. Or are airplanes and the space program figments of my imagination?

I don't wish to get too far afield of the topic, but I disagree the notion that we are bound by our biology to embrace roles that have been traditional for decades, centuries, or even millennia. I have two young children; while it is inarguably true that I am biologically unable to breastfeed them, there is no corresponding limitation that prevents me from loving them, nurturing them, understanding their feelings, preparing meals for them, bathing them, or keeping a clean and pleasant house for them. In the US, most families have two parents in the workplace, and traditional roles from as recently as five decades ago are not well-suited to modern realities. Perhaps you can set me straight on what you perceive the limits of your biology to be.

I hear you. However, it is less about the scope of the stories than the persistence of the setting.

Bookman

Vorkosigan

I hated ST:V too. And speaking of Seven of Nine....Seven of Nine ate my balls

Vorkosigan

Titanpoint

I'm about to have (or rather my wife is about to have) our first child. I'm not going to be transcending my biology but fulfilling it.

I have no idea how you can transcend (go beyond) your biology. As you say you don't breastfeed, but also there are other mental abilities that most men lack: multitasking being the most obvious.

I'd say that you'd not transcended your biology but you have demonstrated that society's (or rather feminism's) view of men is restrictive and false.

Enough!

Lets get back to beating Star Trek: Voyager into the ground!

:banghead:

tronvillain

Titanpoint:
*shrugs* I enjoyed Voyager immensely, and as far as I know have seen all of the episodes more than once. While I disagreed with a lot of their moral stances and decisions, I prefer to criticize the ridiculous use of technology and treknobabble.

Well, who exactly were the males and the females in the series? Males: Chakotay, Tom Paris, Neelix, Tuvok, The Doctor, and Harry Kim. Females: Katherine Janeway, Belanna Torres, Seven of Nine, and Kes.

Chakotay may have been in touch with his feelings, but I do not recall him being shy or unsure. Tom Paris was almost never shy, unsure, or in touch with his feelings. Neelix could be shy and unsure, especially about his contributions to the ship and relationships, but then he could be extremely outgoing and confident as well. Tuvok was a Vulcan, which seems to guarantee being sharp and emotionally retarded, though not inventive. Next, we have The Doctor, who tended to arrogant and self-centered, and while he may have had moments of being shy and unsure, those tended to involve the opposite sex, and he was anything but in touch with his feelings. Finally, we have Harry Kim, who is as far as I can tell, the one male main character who might accurately be described as shy and unsure.

Katherine Janeway was Captain of the ship, so it is unsurprising that she was sharp and inventive rather than shy and unsure, but I do not think I would describe her as "emotionally retarded." Belonna Torres was half Klingon, which seems to make one a little less shy and unsure and in touch with one's feelings. Next we have Seven of Nine, who spent almost her entire life as Borg, and so tended towards being arrogant and emotionless, though tended to be shy and unsure when it came to "being human." Finally, we have Kes, who would probably be the one female character who might accurately be described as shy and unsure, but she was two years old and came from an extremely sheltered environment.

I think the question we have to ask ourselves here is: What show were you watching? Also, when were gender roles defined as "males are sharp, inventive, and emotionally retarded" and "females are shy, unsure, and well connected with their feelings?

Well, the Captain and the Chief Engineer of the show were female, and in every Star Trek series extremely key decision seem to be made by those two individuals. Would you care to provide some examples? Without any evidence this is not a convincing assertion, especially considering that I watched a lot of episodes and do not recall any particular bias that could not be explained by the Captain being female.

Again, can you provide any examples of this? Obviously we have the somewhat barbaric and extremely patriarchal Kazon, but other than Seska (who was more devious than any Kazon) we essentially never saw a female with them. Then we have the Borg, a collective represented by a Queen. There are the Vidiians, who are forced to harvest organs from other species to keep themselves alive, and the one female we saw for a significant amount of time was a doctor not a harvester. Yes, many of the more primitive societies Voyager encountered were patriarchal and oppressive, but is that especially surprising? Many were not.

Nonsense. The only two males who might be accurately described as "man-boys" were Tom Paris and Harry Kim, but they were immature in different ways and changed over the years. Anyway, The Doctor frequently came up with original ideas, as did the rest of the males. Of course, as I pointed out before the Captain and the Chief Engineer were female, and in every Star Trek series those two are fountains of ideas.

Oh no, a woman in an extremely tight outfit and a push-up bra! Her character could not possibly interest people for some other reason than sex. Perhaps that you percieve her as "the unnattainable prom date" and "the 'anti-man' of feminist and lesbian fantasy" says more about you than about the character itself. If you think that she is the most ridiculous and obvious piece of sexual eye-candy every created in a TB series, obviously you don't watch enough television. *chuckle*

Did you really ever watch the show? While they never made sexuality all that explicit in the show, there were many references to relationships, especially early on. I recall Tom Paris talking about how everyone was pairing off and that if he and Harry didn't get moving (on twins if I recall correctly) they would end up alone. Beyond that we had the relationship between Neelix and Kes, Neelix and a large Klingon who initially had eyes for Harry Kim, Janeway and a hologram and at least one alien that I recall, The Doctor and a Vidiian, and so on and so on. That there were no sex scenes or overt sexuality does not mean that the crew led their lives in "monk-like sexual repression."

What a pathetic analysis. Oh, and Enterprise is a terrible show, but perhaps you are referencing TOS and TNG.