Is Star Trek Sexist/Racist? (Split from another thread)

[Invader Zim]

Except I'm right so that puts me on like the Enterprise in space while you are on a rickety raft.

Which is full of sexists and other prejudiced types. I guess you fit right in.

[baronci]

Which is full of sexists and other prejudiced types. I guess you fit right in.

the irony of this is astounding

[#FF0000]

Which is full of sexists and other prejudiced types. I guess you fit right in.

I was gonna say TNG not TOS but I was reminded that even Kirk was pretty damn progressive and kicked the shit out of racists.

[Invader Zim]

the irony of this is astounding

How so? Or does the meaning of the word 'irony' elude you?


I was gonna say TNG not TOS but I was reminded that even Kirk was pretty damn progressive and kicked the shit out of racists.

1966-1995, two full sets of crew and seven feature films, and no female Captain. That, and the fact that TOS was rampantly both sexist and racist.

http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/trek.html

But whatever.

[#FF0000]

1966-1995, two full sets of crew and seven feature films, and no female Captain. That, and the fact that TOS was rampantly both sexist and racist.

http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/trek.html

But whatever.

Yo I mean I'm not going to say TOS was perfect by any means but it was markedly more progressive than any other show in its time -- and even a good chunk of science fiction today. And I don't know if you're talking about Star Trek as a series here but Voyager had a female captain.

It's cool that you're broadening your horizons and finding another thing to be totally wrong about (especially by posting a thing you haven't read, apparently -- I encourage everyone to read it and wallow in second hand embarrassment for Zim, here) but we should probably get back on topic.

Or better yet lock the thread because it might be beyond saving at this point.

[Invader Zim]

Yo I mean I'm not going to say TOS was perfect by any means but it was markedly more progressive than any other show in its time -- and even a good chunk of science fiction today. And I don't know if you're talking about Star Trek as a series here but Voyager had a female captain.

It's cool that you're broadening your horizons and finding another thing to be totally wrong about (especially by posting a thing you haven't read, apparently -- I encourage everyone to read it and wallow in second hand embarrassment for Zim, here) but we should probably get back on topic.

Or better yet lock the thread because it might be beyond saving at this point.


And I don't know if you're talking about Star Trek as a series here but Voyager had a female captain.

"1966-1995, two full sets of crew and seven feature films, and no female Captain."

Learn to read, count, or better yet explain why you think that sexist language is necessary to make your points.



especially by posting a thing you haven't read, apparently -- I encourage everyone to read it and wallow in second hand embarrassment for Zim, here)

"Clearly, Star Trek gives rather short shrift to women at almost every turn. It turned down the opportunity to break new ground in the area of women's rights and opted for a largely passive and secondary role for its female characters. This is reflective of America during the late 1960's where the feminist movement was starting to gain momentum but failed to exert the force that it came to during the early 1970's."

Real embarrassing. And ironically, it sums you, and large swathes of 'internet' culture, up in one go. Especially given the needless sexual objectification of women in the latest Trek film, and your needless deployment of sexist language, you are a definite product of that self same environment. Tell me I'm wrong.

[#FF0000]

"Clearly, Star Trek gives rather short shrift to women at almost every turn. It turned down the opportunity to break new ground in the area of women's rights and opted for a largely passive and secondary role for its female characters. This is reflective of America during the late 1960's where the feminist movement was starting to gain momentum but failed to exert the force that it came to during the early 1970's."

Whatever, Sunshine.

We should have this discussion in another thread.

[MarxArchist]

Yikes!
1K7lwwfUrcY


The original "pick up artist"
nh3ogt2j72w]


But at least they had this (which was more sexism but less racist, still racist though as he's not taking her seriously. Sexist in so far as she's totally submissive/damsel in distress shivering in the powerful arms of Kirk).
cDp1sAx09pg

[Quail]

Actually, in the original pilot for TOS (The Cage (http://www.revleft.com/vb/george-zimmerman-found-t181954/index6.html)), the first officer was a woman, which I suppose would have been better. When you see Star Trek TOS you have to look at it as a product of its time. Despite a lot of sexism in the casting (the lack of female main characters), the costumes and some of Kirk's behaviour, it's clearly intended to give out progressive messages. It's explicitly said many times by characters that in the federation people are equal, regardless of sex/race/etc., and racism in particular is shown as something that is wrong (for example Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_%28episode%29).

It's perhaps disappointing that until Voyager there wasn't a female captain, but there were still some good female characters in TNG such as Dr Crusher and DS9 such as Kira and Dax, so I don't think women were portrayed particularly badly in those series. The problem was more that there weren't enough women.

I think perhaps in Voyager and Enterprise there is a bit of sexism in the costumes. 7 of 9 and T'Pol (who I think are both well-developed and interesting characters despite this) both wear unnecessarily revealing uniforms and are kind of obviously there for "eye-candy".

[#FF0000]

Oh cool I'm so glad this thread was started but oof that thread title. Of course there was sexist and racist (mostly sexist) content in Star Trek TOS: it was on television in the 60's. But it was certainly far beyond other contemporary television shows and like Quail (and the article Zim posted without reading) pointed out, there were strong female leads originally written into the script.

And in that piece, they point out that the female characters that were left in TOS were generally passive but, yo, Uhura was like 4th in command on the Enterprise, was portrayed as an extremely capable member of the crew and not stereotypically "female and incompetent" and rescued herself by kicking the shit out of evil-twin Sulu.

And they say all of this in the thing you posted, Zim, because what you posted is a criticism of it's many shortcomings that also points out where it was incredibly progressive for its time.

[Invader Zim]

Actually, in the original pilot for TOS (The Cage (http://www.revleft.com/vb/george-zimmerman-found-t181954/index6.html)), the first officer was a woman, which I suppose would have been better. When you see Star Trek TOS you have to look at it as a product of its time. Despite a lot of sexism in the casting (the lack of female main characters), the costumes and some of Kirk's behaviour, it's clearly intended to give out progressive messages. It's explicitly said many times by characters that in the federation people are equal, regardless of sex/race/etc., and racism in particular is shown as something that is wrong (for example Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_%28episode%29).

It's perhaps disappointing that until Voyager there wasn't a female captain, but there were still some good female characters in TNG such as Dr Crusher and DS9 such as Kira and Dax, so I don't think women were portrayed particularly badly in those series. The problem was more that there weren't enough women.

I think perhaps in Voyager and Enterprise there is a bit of sexism in the costumes. 7 of 9 and T'Pol (who I think are both well-developed and interesting characters despite this) both wear unnecessarily revealing uniforms and are kind of obviously there for "eye-candy".

The problem is that while, even by the 1990s, the female characters were stronger, they were always subordinate - and usually eye-candy as you observe. Even the strongest characters that the franchise actually produced were regularly reduced to their sex appeal aimed at titillating male viewers:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMoHpDUblDg5ueBxXV-w-ZanOLj4TZlWTp0u4juW7bXZlnwPYHwA

And the original article I posted entirely acknowledged the point I was making, the fact that the series was sexist - and so it remains. The fact that it also observed that within the standards of its day it was only the run of the mill sexism hardly alters the point. It is also worth noting that the latest incarnation of Star Trek, and the Enterprise, is entirely wedded to the same "values":

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/alice-eve-star-trek-into-darkness-spinach-diet.jpg

[#FF0000]

The problem is that while, even by the 1990s, the female characters were stronger, they were always subordinate - and usually eye-candy as you observe. Even the strongest characters that the franchise actually produced were regularly reduced to their sex appeal aimed at titillating male viewers:

And the original article I posted entirely acknowledged the point I was making, the fact that. The fact that it also observed that within the standards of its day it was only the run of the mill sexism hardly alters the point.

Yo, but no one is denying that it was bogged down by run of the mill sexist baggage. We are pointing out that it also did other things extremely well. That there is good and bad. It's almost as if there is nuance and the world is a complicated place where things are shades of gray instead of black and white and problematic and progressive

EDIT: Also Enterprise was shit so I'm not even going to defend it

[Quail]

The problem is that while, even by the 1990s, the female characters were stronger, they were always subordinate - and usually eye-candy as you observe. Even the strongest characters that the franchise actually produced were regularly reduced to their sex appeal aimed at titillating male viewers:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMoHpDUblDg5ueBxXV-w-ZanOLj4TZlWTp0u4juW7bXZlnwPYHwA

And the original article I posted entirely acknowledged the point I was making, the fact that the series was sexist - and so it remains. The fact that it also observed that within the standards of its day it was only the run of the mill sexism hardly alters the point. It is also worth noting that the latest incarnation of Star Trek, and the Enterprise, is entirely wedded to the same "values":

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/alice-eve-star-trek-into-darkness-spinach-diet.jpg

I think the first picture you posted is actually from the "evil" mirror universe, where the women did wear less and were seen as objects by the men, but also in the TOS era humans were violent and war-like and by the DS9 era humans were slaves trying to free themselves. So the mirror universe isn't a good example to use because the women wearing more revealing clothing and being reduced to objects was probably being depicted that way in the mirror universe for a reason.

The second picture I don't recognise. I haven't seen the second new film, but I don't really like the way Star Trek seems to be going. To me, Star Trek has always been thoughtful and in a lot of ways progressive. I didn't really get that from the first new film though.

As a TV show, Star Trek was undeniably progressive compared to the values and attitudes of the time. It wasn't perfect by a long shot, but it did try to promote equality and peace. In TOS The Cloud Minders (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Cloud_Minders_%28episode%29) comes very close to promoting socialism. Spock notes that one class does all the work and another reaps all the benefits, and that isn't a good way for society to be arranged. In the DS9 episode Bar Association (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bar_Association_%28episode%29) Rom quotes Marx when he forms a union against Quark's crappy working conditions. For every example of implicit sexism or racism, there is probably an example of the show trying to promote the opposite idea.

[#FF0000]

Oh, wait, is that second picture from the film?

That's JJ Abrams doing a thing and you're wondering why it's shitty, Zim?

[Invader Zim]

[QOUTE=Quail]I think the first picture you posted is actually from the "evil" mirror universe, where the women did wear less and were seen as objects by the men, but also in the TOS era humans were violent and war-like and by the DS9 era humans were slaves trying to free themselves. So the mirror universe isn't a good example to use because the women wearing more revealing clothing and being reduced to objects was probably being depicted that way in the mirror universe for a reason.[/QUOTE]

Kind of. In the other 'universe' women were not subordinate, rather the entire Bjoran civilisation had been annexed by the Cardassians, and Nana Visitor's character was in charge of DS9 (I maybe wrong, its been a while since I watched these episodes). But I don't think that this frame is taken from that stories sub-set. But the issue is somewhat irrelevant given her uniform which was all about highlighting breasts, preceding the arrival of 7 of 9 and indeed Kes.

[Ele'ill]

After Startrek can we break down Firefly? I think Firefly had interesting themes that a lot of people misunderstood. If not here I can go pick a fight with someone in a serious thread and just have it split.

[Invader Zim]

Yo, but no one is denying that it was bogged down by run of the mill sexist baggage. We are pointing out that it also did other things extremely well. That there is good and bad. It's almost as if there is nuance and the world is a complicated place where things are shades of gray instead of black and white and problematic and progressive

EDIT: Also Enterprise was shit so I'm not even going to defend it

You, after using some pretty harsh pejorative language likened yourself to the Enterprise - and you were spot on. You might have been mildly, while still more than a little sexist by modern standards, progressive when it came to gender politics in 1960s, but neither your modernday online persona nor the crew of the enterprise were light years ahead of the curve, even by the standards of 1966. If you want to use slurs like 'dumb twat', 'dumb c**t', 'dumb b***h', etc., then you obviously have a vast amount of catching upto do before you reach the modern left.

[#FF0000]

You, after using some pretty harsh pejorative language likened yourself to the Enterprise

yeah the ship dummy, not the show.


You might have been progressive when it came to gender politics in 1950s, but neither your modernday online persona nor the crew of the enterprise were light years ahead of the curve, even by the standards of 1966.

hmmm right or wrong i don't think you can reasonably draw all that from calling someone a twat one time.

[Quail]

Kind of. In the other 'universe' women were not subordinate, rather the entire Bjoran civilisation had been annexed by the Cardassians, and Nana Visitor's character was in charge of DS9 (I maybe wrong, its been a while since I watched these episodes). But I don't think that this frame is taken from that stories sub-set. But the issue is somewhat irrelevant given her uniform which was all about highlighting breasts, preceding the arrival of 7 of 9 and indeed Kes.
Sure I recognised that dress as one that was worn by both Kiras in one of the mirror universe episodes, but I can't find a picture of it on memory alpha so perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm not entirely convinced that Kira's uniform is particularly sexist given that a similar uniform is worn by male Bajorans. I also didn't think that Kes was particularly sexualised, at least nowhere near on the same level as 7 of 9 and T'Pol.

Also (on a bit of a tangent) one thing I thought was kind of cool in TNG was this:

[/URL] Introduced alongside the standard duty uniform jumpsuit, a skirt or "skant"-style uniform was also available to Starfleet officers as early as 2364. Similar to its jumpsuit counterpart, the skant uniform was a short-sleeved one piece skirt, that could be worn with or without trousers, and included thigh high, or shorter, black boots.
It was worn by both genders - though men tended to wear the shorter boots - until it was phased out of service in late [URL="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/2365"]2365 (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_%282350s-2370s%29?action=edit&section=3).


http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120205072234/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/6/64/Enterprise-D_lieutenant_in_skant.jpg/119px-Enterprise-D_lieutenant_in_skant.jpg



Although it wasn't seen in any episodes later than the first season, I thought it was interesting they had dress type uniforms as a gender neutral thing.

[MarxArchist]

Oh, wait, is that second picture from the film?

That's JJ Abrams doing a thing and you're wondering why it's shitty, Zim?

I know, and he has a lot of control over Star Wars now. Vader weeps. Like he did at the end of the prequels.

[Invader Zim]

yeah the ship dummy, not the show.






So, calling a person a 'twat', or if you were being equally crude a 'b***h' or 'c**t', is ok in your book? Not in mine. I'm up for disagreement, and even being called 'dumb', but there is no reason to gender your language, certainly so it doesn't serve to uniquely insult me but instead also insults women via comparison. That's my issue here, and it annoys me a great deal. What is inherently objectionable about femininity? You used the term so explain why you thought it was appropriate. Don't give me excuses or evade the issue as you have done, just explain.


hmmm right or wrong i don't think you can reasonably draw all that from calling someone a twat one time.

Perhaps, but one time or not, you need to re-evaluate how you talk to people. It isn't ever necessary (because it implies things you don't necessarily mean as I believe that this thread shows) to use that kind of language and certainly not to wish death on people. All I wanted in that thread, after we started arguing, was you to show a bit of clarity and think about what you were saying to other members and how you were saying it.

Finally, normally I enjoy reading your posts so I hope that we can clip this issue in the bud here. Feel free to insult me however you like, but I will not as a matter of principle continue debate while I think that prejudiced language is in play. I just won't (i've been on the receiving side of that kind of bullyboy tactic too many times to let it rest here) it is unnecessary and politically harmful. I hope you get where I'm coming from.

[MarxArchist]

Although it wasn't seen in any episodes later than the first season, I thought it was interesting they had dress type uniforms as a gender neutral thing.

Communism = Blue coveralls for all. Is it a thought crime if I don't want to wear a uniform? But I guess that's what gender neutral clothing is, revolt against the uniform practices of men wear this and women wear that. There's just no winning sometimes. The rabbit hole can spiderweb into a million different directions.


On a related note do you think children in school should be called hens (as an alternative to he or she)? Are there ZERO differences between male and female? Where is the line drawn (braces self for accusations of sexism)?

[MarxArchist]

So, calling a person a 'twat', or if you were being equally crude a 'b***h' or 'c**t', is ok in your book? Not in mine. I'm up for disagreement, and even being called 'dumb', but there is no reason to gender your language, certainly so it doesn't serve to uniquely insult me but instead also insults women via comparison. That's my issue here, and it annoys me a great deal. What is inherently objectionable about femininity? You used the term so explain.

And, one time or not, you need to re-evaluate how you talk to people.

I agree twat is generally no different than calling a person a **** or pussy. In England I think "****" might have a different "social role" than it does in America but I think twat, in the same manner, is used to belittle a person by comparing them to a woman's vagina and thus a woman. Anyhow, I'm leaving home now to go enter the streets of confusion. Carry on these important discussions without me :)

[Quail]

Communism = Blue coveralls for all. Is it a thought crime if I don't want to wear a uniform? But I guess that's what gender neutral clothing is, revolt against the uniform practices of men wear this and women wear that. There's just no winning sometimes. The rabbit hole can spiderweb into a million different directions.

Eh, what? I don't think there's anything wrong with men wearing dresses or women dressing like men or whatever. How did you get that I think people should all wear uniforms in a communist society? :confused:


On a related note do you think children in school should be called hens (as an alternative to he or she)? Are there ZERO differences between male and female? Where is the line drawn (braces self for accusations of sexism)?
I don't think we should make a big deal of children's gender, especially when it comes to toys, play, emotions, etc., because children shouldn't feel they have to conform to a particular role because they're male or female. Children should just be children and play however they want. Making a big deal of their gender is likely to socialise them into more rigid roles, which we should avoid because gender roles are limiting for everyone, male or female.

This also has fuck all to do with the topic of the thread.
Edit: I also noticed you're trolling in another thread, so you should probably stop.

[#FF0000]

words

Nah I personally think "twat" (and "****" for that matter) or more offensive because they are harsh and ugly sounding words. Something like "pussy" or "*****" would be different because I think they really express that femininity you're talking about.

But of course I'm not the authority on how words are interpreted -- I know this and obvs I should have known better when using the word, but hey I was actually legitimately mad about a thing that was wildly unjust and may/probably will have wide-reaching implications while people (like you!) were defending it and insisting people look at a legal lynching with cold rationality.


And, one time or not, you need to re-evaluate how you talk to people.Nah I just need to find words that are as harsh and ugly as twat and **** without the baggage.

EDIT: lol one word is censored and not the other. I wonder what the "official take" on it is, then?

[Quail]

Well according to dictionary definitions, it is a sexist slur (albeit not one people use very often), so I'd refrain from using it in the future. I think it's a British equivalent of the American usage of c-nt, but it's not seen as being quite as bad.

[connoros]

ToS had the first white-black interracial kiss on American television. I'm being so specific because, while I hear it was the first interracial kiss on television in general, I'm not absolutely positive about that. But, think about the situation: it was a white man kissing a black woman. Would the scene have made it to air if it were a black man kissing a white woman?

I can't really say Star Trek has been light-years more progressive than any other show, although the franchise has had some moments. I don't really follow the franchise, but my understanding was that there really haven't been any openly gay characters on the show, even though there have been gender-bending and non-sexed extraterrestrial beings.

There was that one episode about the "Khans" and the "Yangs" fighting against each other. It was such a carefully constructed, nuanced metaphor for the Cold War that they fucking had the American and Soviet flags hung up and the American side was right all along, you guys! So, yeah, it has it's moments, but it's television.

[Invader Zim]

Nah I personally think "twat" (and "****" for that matter) or more offensive because they are harsh and ugly sounding words.

Well, you're wrong. I don't think, as our current administrators do, that it should result in admin action (at least when it comes to US terms, given their massive US-centric bias), but it needs saying. Hey, I used to disagree, but then is was explained different by a partner, who had escaped from an abusive relationship, precisely the power of these words.


Something like "pussy" or "*****" would be different because I think they really express that femininity you're talking about.

Not really. They serve the same purpose, either to degrade femininity or to do so subconsciously.


But of course I'm not the authority on how words are interpreted -- I know this and obvs I should have known better when using the word

OK. Well, in my book we are good then. That is all I wanted from you. Now we can have a proper discussion.


but hey I was actually legitimately mad about a thing that was wildly unjust and may/probably will have wide-reaching implications while people (like you!) were defending it and insisting people look at a legal lynching with cold rationality.

1. You were not legitimately mad. I, am entirely with you that the Trayvon Martin case resulted in the wrong result from a point of view of justice. But My problem is with the entire system at play - not with the decision of the jury. I'm sure you get that. So we agree on the main fundamental points.: so why are you 'mad'?

2. I was not at any time defending Zimmerman or his actions. Indeed the precise reverse is true, as I hope a cold rational viewing of my posts will show. I think he was guilty of murder, and at the very least manslaughter, but that for various legal obstacles the prosecution was unable to prove it satisfactorily to the jury.

I hope that this clears this up and we can put this issue under the bridge.

[Invader Zim]

Well according to dictionary definitions, it is a sexist slur (albeit not one people use very often), so I'd refrain from using it in the future. I think it's a British equivalent of the American usage of c-nt, but it's not seen as being quite as bad.

You're from Sheffield UK, right? Well I've lived all across the UK, and it only has had one meaning wherever I've been.

[Quail]

You're from Sheffield UK, right? Well I've lived all across the UK, and it only has had one meaning wherever I've been.
From Derbyshire actually, but live in Sheffield. I though I knew what it meant but thought I'd check in case there were other meanings.

[#FF0000]

I hope that this clears this up and we can put this issue under the bridge.

You are still wrong about Star Trek

[Quail]

I can't really say Star Trek has been light-years more progressive than any other show, although the franchise has had some moments. I don't really follow the franchise, but my understanding was that there really haven't been any openly gay characters on the show, even though there have been gender-bending and non-sexed extraterrestrial beings.
This is true, unfortunately. I think the closest it got to a gay relationship was Rejoined (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rejoined_%28episode%29), where a woman whose symbiont's previous host used to be married to the Dax symbiont's previous host comes to DS9 so she and Dax have a bit of a thing. I don't know if the lack of gay characters was partly to do with the limitations of needing to not upset a conservative audience though. Sure I read somewhere that Roddenberry wanted to include a gay character.

[Invader Zim]

You are still wrong about Star Trek

Fair enough. Though to nuance my point, the first multi-racial TV (regardless of circumstance) kiss has to be worth something.

[bcbm]

This is true, unfortunately. I think the closest it got to a gay relationship was Rejoined (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rejoined_%28episode%29), where a woman whose symbiont's previous host used to be married to the Dax symbiont's previous host comes to DS9 so she and Dax have a bit of a thing. I don't know if the lack of gay characters was partly to do with the limitations of needing to not upset a conservative audience though. Sure I read somewhere that Roddenberry wanted to include a gay character.

this is worth a gander: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Star_Trek#LGBT_in_Star_Trek

basically says roddenberry and a lot of other cast members wanted gay characters on the show and to deal with those themes but met with heavy resistance from the studio because they wanted to keep it a 'family show'

[Orange Juche]

The thing is, Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek was a very progressive one of equality of all peoples regardless of race, sex, etc... and I tend to think that were he alive and aware of this discussion, he'd be frustrated with himself that the original series didn't live up (in the minds of some) to his vision.

Heck, I think it's one of the most important pieces of television of its time for some of the things it had done. For example, Sulu being a guy who happens to be Asian and Uhura being a woman who happens to be black normalized them - it treated them as it should, as people - more importantly, equal people.

Kirk had his personality, but other than that I don't see it as some male-domination, and I think you're really looking for sexism if you see it in Star Trek (not counting Abrams, what he does isn't Star Trek, it's $tar Trek).

As someone who also loves Star Wars, I find that profoundly "more" sexist.

[fgilbert2]

If Captain Kirk lived today, he would be gay.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Within the context of the American mainstream, the original Star Trek was the midcentury-liberal view of utopia: people did fufilling professional work for "the greater good", society was racially liberal, national competition and bigotry was a thing of the past (a Russian on the ship!), and the only thing resembling a military is used for the advancement of humanity and networking with other life... a benign state-capitalism/keynsianism. In terms of historical context, the show's optomism was fueld by the thaw of McCarthyism, the "space-race", and advancement of racial liberalism IMO. This was at a time before affermative action was widespread and long before any idea of PC or multi-culturalism and so even if racial conflicts were sort of "magically" or wishfully eliminated (just like in the later shows, the problems of capitalism is magically gone through technological advancement or replicators) I think it still shows a very optomistic and relativly progressive liberal vision.

If the show took on themes of race more than of sex, I think that's also likely due to wider social issues: namely that the women's movement really didn't exist outside of some books and small groups whereas there was a very established and developed movement for racial progress. The next generation is better in some ways than a lot of other shows at that time in regards to sexism but it's also sort of confused and contradictory: often portraying a sort of idea of inherent gender traits on the one hand while also having characters who subvert this in other ways. So there's a female head security officer, but also a female head "nurturer" in the Councilor (and one is played "masculine" 90s and the other "feminine" 90s). After the security officer is killed, even through there are some strong female characters, the main circle of decision-makers on the show are male while most of the support (emotional or technical) are women.

That being said, Next Generation is fantasticly enjoyable - both when I was a kid and it was new, and now in a half kitch sort of way (mostly because of the way things have aged, the stories are usually still good).

[Decommissioner]

As much as I love TNG, there are plenty of eyeroll worthy examples of sexism and racism in the show. Nothing overtly malevolent, just a lot of naive "this is the way things are" kind of stuff.

The way they treat Deana Troi throughout the series is pretty bad, but one episode "The Price" is so bad I can't watch it. There's even a scene where they get Troi and Dr. Crusher together to bend over and do stretches (in front of a mirror, just so you get to see everything) together while talking about boys. It's just terrible.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Communism = Blue coveralls for all. Is it a thought crime if I don't want to wear a uniform? But I guess that's what gender neutral clothing is, revolt against the uniform practices of men wear this and women wear that.

Talk about putting words into people's mouths. So basically, gender-stereotyped clothing is good because the alternative is 'everyone wears the same'? That's an obviously false dichotomy. It's silly and I'm surprised that you didn't realise this when you posted it.



On a related note do you think children in school should be called hens (as an alternative to he or she)?

Do you have to differentiate gender in third person pronouns? If so, why? Many languages don't differentiate between male and female pronouns (including a language I can speak), and there is still debate within the linguistics community on whether gender-stratified language, such as that found in Germanic languages, can add a preconceived perception of gender stereotypes. So at best it's a small triumph for gender equality and at worst it's a harmless social experiment.

And how is this related to 'sexism in Star Trek'?


Are there ZERO differences between male and female? Where is the line drawn (braces self for accusations of sexism)?
What do you mean by this specifically, monsieur extremely vague?