When were female captains banned from Starfleet?Were there military personnel / branches of service in Federation aside from StarFleet?When/How would Star Trek captains update their log?What were all the occasions where the Star Trek Captains have met each other?Why didn't they apply force on the primitive civilization which used to make Starfleet officers gladiators?Are there any non-human captains (and up) in Starfleet?When did 'Star Fleet' become 'Starfleet'?Why are all Starfleet ships commanded by Captains?From which material are Starfleet ship dedication plaques made?Why don't Starfleet captains force other Starfleet ships to lower their shields every time they fight?Why do the captains rely so much on log information when it can be unreliable?
Delete multiple columns using awk or sed
Microchip documentation does not label CAN buss pins on micro controller pinout diagram
Creating two special characters
How to get directions in deep space?
Does the Linux kernel need a file system to run?
"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?
Were Persian-Median kings illiterate?
Mimic lecturing on blackboard, facing audience
Doesn't the system of the Supreme Court oppose justice?
The Digit Triangles
Does "he squandered his car on drink" sound natural?
Did the UK lift the requirement for registering SIM cards?
What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?
How much theory knowledge is actually used while playing?
Is this part of the description of the Archfey warlock's Misty Escape feature redundant?
C++ check if statement can be evaluated constexpr
Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?
US tourist/student visa
Why is the "ls" command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?
Biological Blimps: Propulsion
What is the highest possible scrabble score for placing a single tile
Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?
Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for "negates"?
How would you translate "more" for use as an interface button?
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Were there military personnel / branches of service in Federation aside from StarFleet?When/How would Star Trek captains update their log?What were all the occasions where the Star Trek Captains have met each other?Why didn't they apply force on the primitive civilization which used to make Starfleet officers gladiators?Are there any non-human captains (and up) in Starfleet?When did 'Star Fleet' become 'Starfleet'?Why are all Starfleet ships commanded by Captains?From which material are Starfleet ship dedication plaques made?Why don't Starfleet captains force other Starfleet ships to lower their shields every time they fight?Why do the captains rely so much on log information when it can be unreliable?
In the TOS episode Turnabout Intruder, a woman who wants to be a Starfleet captain states that
"Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair."
Kirk agrees with her that it seems unfair.
Clearly about a decade earlier there were female starship captains such as Philippa Georgiou. What was this rule and when was it in effect?
star-trek
add a comment |
In the TOS episode Turnabout Intruder, a woman who wants to be a Starfleet captain states that
"Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair."
Kirk agrees with her that it seems unfair.
Clearly about a decade earlier there were female starship captains such as Philippa Georgiou. What was this rule and when was it in effect?
star-trek
add a comment |
In the TOS episode Turnabout Intruder, a woman who wants to be a Starfleet captain states that
"Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair."
Kirk agrees with her that it seems unfair.
Clearly about a decade earlier there were female starship captains such as Philippa Georgiou. What was this rule and when was it in effect?
star-trek
In the TOS episode Turnabout Intruder, a woman who wants to be a Starfleet captain states that
"Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair."
Kirk agrees with her that it seems unfair.
Clearly about a decade earlier there were female starship captains such as Philippa Georgiou. What was this rule and when was it in effect?
star-trek
star-trek
edited 10 hours ago
user
asked 16 hours ago
useruser
1,3451018
1,3451018
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
There are two interpretations of that scene. The first, and the one generally accepted these days, is that she was off her rocker, and made a statement that stated there was discrimination against her because of what group she belonged to (ie, women), thus explaining her own failings.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the original meaning. The original intent of that scene was that she was speaking the absolute truth: Starfleet didn't allow women in command.
This was confirmed by Nimoy and Shatner in a conversation with the authors of Shatner's 1979 biography Where No Man...
"What is easier for me to deal with on that particular script is the
knowledge that the writer was making a script in which his goal was to
prove, quote, 'That women, although they claim equality, cannot really
do things as well as, under certain circumstances, as a man -- like
the command function, for example. And it was a rather chauvinistic,
clumsy handling of an interesting question. What he set out to prove
was that this lady, given command of the ship, would blow it. That’s
really what the script was about. Just that simple. You see."
"Yeah," Bill agrees. “The problems were solved without really --"
Leonard cuts in, nodding. "That’s, what I was dealing with when we
were shooting that show -- the knowledge that that was the concept.
And I rebelled against the concept. I was uncomfortable doing the
whole show because I didn’t believe in the concept."
Roddenberry later admitted the line was sexist and said he regretted it. However, it was very much in keeping for him. Roddenberry's original story was even worse.
At the time he was going through a nasty divorce, and had a low opinion of women in general--and there are many reports of the time of the crap he said, including statements like "...all women are c***s who can't be trusted" (said several times at story meetings). It's reliably reported that, even putting the divorce aside, he was absurdly sexist even for the time.
You can see the same sort of thing earlier, in the original pilot "The Cage" (later re-used in "The Menagerie") when Christopher Pike makes a statement about being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman on the bridge, which then causes the bit between him and Number One about not considering her as a woman.
Incidentally, the reason Majel Barrett was dropped from the role, contrary to Roddenberry's later statements, had nothing to do with the studio/network being uncomfortable with a woman being second in command, as he claimed. What they had a problem with wasn't an actress playing the part, they had a problem with an actress then having an affair with Roddenberry playing the part, as they were nervous about the potential backstage drama that could result. But anyway...
So, long answer short, yes, the line and backstory was intended to be absolutely as sexist as it appears: Lester is justifiably bitter that as competent as she otherwise was, she could never command a starship because Starfleet didn't want women putting cooties all over their captain's seats.
However, even at the time it was recognized just how offensive that idea was, and it grew even more unacceptable, so by the time the 1980s rolled around and Star Trek IV showed the captain of USS Saratoga was a woman, it was firmly understood the idea was stupid, and everyone proceeded to ignore it. So, gradually, the contorted explanation that no, Janice Lester was just crazy and Good Ol' Gene wasn't a misogynistic ass became the accepted one. Christopher Pike, when he showed up on Discovery, didn't have any sort of issue with women in senior positions (even reporting directly to one), Starfleet had female captains right from the early days, and there was never a ban on women in the Big Chair.
2
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
2
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
1
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
2
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
2
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I'm not sure we can infer an absolute limit on gender roles based on a single line. Certainly it was not Roddenberry's meaning -
“Nowhere in my story was the statement made that this woman wasn’t qualified to command because of her gender. She lacked the qualifications on a personal level, and she also happened to be emotionally unstable. In her mind, sure, she was being discriminated against. And that could have been another theme in the story — how we can limit ourselves because of our own belief that we will be discriminated against. It can become a self-profiling prophecy.”
These Are The Voyages -TOS Season Three by Marc Cushman
Although Kirk agrees with her we could see his comment as placatory rather than actual "agreement" with her position.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
Chakotya.net
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
6
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
5
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
1
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I haven't seen Star Trek: Discovery, but I'm under the assumption that, like Star Trek: Enterprise and everything since Star Trek: First Contact, it follows an alternate timeline in which the Borg attempted to interfere with Zefram Cochrane's first warp speed journey. If that is the case, then the events of Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery seem to be on two different lines of continuity. Which means that any Earth history after the first warp launch doesn't need to agree between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery.
Although it's immensely unlikely that attitudes on gender would have been altered by the Borg's interference, it is the case that the gender attitudes of the writers have changed significantly in the past 50 years. The no female captains policy seems like an example of Star Trek: TOS's general silliness that has been subsequently retconned. Another example of retconned silliness would be the ability of the Enterprise to fly to the center of the galaxy or clear across the galaxy on a short timeline with no supernatural assistance. They also totally changed the warp factor benchmarks so that you can't exceed warp 10. The ridiculous, skimpy uniforms for female crew members were eliminated. The physical appearance of Klingons was radically altered; and then Star Trek: DS9 and Star Trek: Enterprise contorted themselves to manufacture an explanation for the change. Lots of the socially progressive, technologically progressive writing of the 60's is already old fashioned by today's standards; including the crude UI design and computing ability of the computers and hardware.
In other words, it's not necessary that all events of Star Trek: TOS be canonical and logical; and this is an example of that.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207630%2fwhen-were-female-captains-banned-from-starfleet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are two interpretations of that scene. The first, and the one generally accepted these days, is that she was off her rocker, and made a statement that stated there was discrimination against her because of what group she belonged to (ie, women), thus explaining her own failings.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the original meaning. The original intent of that scene was that she was speaking the absolute truth: Starfleet didn't allow women in command.
This was confirmed by Nimoy and Shatner in a conversation with the authors of Shatner's 1979 biography Where No Man...
"What is easier for me to deal with on that particular script is the
knowledge that the writer was making a script in which his goal was to
prove, quote, 'That women, although they claim equality, cannot really
do things as well as, under certain circumstances, as a man -- like
the command function, for example. And it was a rather chauvinistic,
clumsy handling of an interesting question. What he set out to prove
was that this lady, given command of the ship, would blow it. That’s
really what the script was about. Just that simple. You see."
"Yeah," Bill agrees. “The problems were solved without really --"
Leonard cuts in, nodding. "That’s, what I was dealing with when we
were shooting that show -- the knowledge that that was the concept.
And I rebelled against the concept. I was uncomfortable doing the
whole show because I didn’t believe in the concept."
Roddenberry later admitted the line was sexist and said he regretted it. However, it was very much in keeping for him. Roddenberry's original story was even worse.
At the time he was going through a nasty divorce, and had a low opinion of women in general--and there are many reports of the time of the crap he said, including statements like "...all women are c***s who can't be trusted" (said several times at story meetings). It's reliably reported that, even putting the divorce aside, he was absurdly sexist even for the time.
You can see the same sort of thing earlier, in the original pilot "The Cage" (later re-used in "The Menagerie") when Christopher Pike makes a statement about being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman on the bridge, which then causes the bit between him and Number One about not considering her as a woman.
Incidentally, the reason Majel Barrett was dropped from the role, contrary to Roddenberry's later statements, had nothing to do with the studio/network being uncomfortable with a woman being second in command, as he claimed. What they had a problem with wasn't an actress playing the part, they had a problem with an actress then having an affair with Roddenberry playing the part, as they were nervous about the potential backstage drama that could result. But anyway...
So, long answer short, yes, the line and backstory was intended to be absolutely as sexist as it appears: Lester is justifiably bitter that as competent as she otherwise was, she could never command a starship because Starfleet didn't want women putting cooties all over their captain's seats.
However, even at the time it was recognized just how offensive that idea was, and it grew even more unacceptable, so by the time the 1980s rolled around and Star Trek IV showed the captain of USS Saratoga was a woman, it was firmly understood the idea was stupid, and everyone proceeded to ignore it. So, gradually, the contorted explanation that no, Janice Lester was just crazy and Good Ol' Gene wasn't a misogynistic ass became the accepted one. Christopher Pike, when he showed up on Discovery, didn't have any sort of issue with women in senior positions (even reporting directly to one), Starfleet had female captains right from the early days, and there was never a ban on women in the Big Chair.
2
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
2
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
1
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
2
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
2
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
There are two interpretations of that scene. The first, and the one generally accepted these days, is that she was off her rocker, and made a statement that stated there was discrimination against her because of what group she belonged to (ie, women), thus explaining her own failings.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the original meaning. The original intent of that scene was that she was speaking the absolute truth: Starfleet didn't allow women in command.
This was confirmed by Nimoy and Shatner in a conversation with the authors of Shatner's 1979 biography Where No Man...
"What is easier for me to deal with on that particular script is the
knowledge that the writer was making a script in which his goal was to
prove, quote, 'That women, although they claim equality, cannot really
do things as well as, under certain circumstances, as a man -- like
the command function, for example. And it was a rather chauvinistic,
clumsy handling of an interesting question. What he set out to prove
was that this lady, given command of the ship, would blow it. That’s
really what the script was about. Just that simple. You see."
"Yeah," Bill agrees. “The problems were solved without really --"
Leonard cuts in, nodding. "That’s, what I was dealing with when we
were shooting that show -- the knowledge that that was the concept.
And I rebelled against the concept. I was uncomfortable doing the
whole show because I didn’t believe in the concept."
Roddenberry later admitted the line was sexist and said he regretted it. However, it was very much in keeping for him. Roddenberry's original story was even worse.
At the time he was going through a nasty divorce, and had a low opinion of women in general--and there are many reports of the time of the crap he said, including statements like "...all women are c***s who can't be trusted" (said several times at story meetings). It's reliably reported that, even putting the divorce aside, he was absurdly sexist even for the time.
You can see the same sort of thing earlier, in the original pilot "The Cage" (later re-used in "The Menagerie") when Christopher Pike makes a statement about being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman on the bridge, which then causes the bit between him and Number One about not considering her as a woman.
Incidentally, the reason Majel Barrett was dropped from the role, contrary to Roddenberry's later statements, had nothing to do with the studio/network being uncomfortable with a woman being second in command, as he claimed. What they had a problem with wasn't an actress playing the part, they had a problem with an actress then having an affair with Roddenberry playing the part, as they were nervous about the potential backstage drama that could result. But anyway...
So, long answer short, yes, the line and backstory was intended to be absolutely as sexist as it appears: Lester is justifiably bitter that as competent as she otherwise was, she could never command a starship because Starfleet didn't want women putting cooties all over their captain's seats.
However, even at the time it was recognized just how offensive that idea was, and it grew even more unacceptable, so by the time the 1980s rolled around and Star Trek IV showed the captain of USS Saratoga was a woman, it was firmly understood the idea was stupid, and everyone proceeded to ignore it. So, gradually, the contorted explanation that no, Janice Lester was just crazy and Good Ol' Gene wasn't a misogynistic ass became the accepted one. Christopher Pike, when he showed up on Discovery, didn't have any sort of issue with women in senior positions (even reporting directly to one), Starfleet had female captains right from the early days, and there was never a ban on women in the Big Chair.
2
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
2
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
1
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
2
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
2
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
There are two interpretations of that scene. The first, and the one generally accepted these days, is that she was off her rocker, and made a statement that stated there was discrimination against her because of what group she belonged to (ie, women), thus explaining her own failings.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the original meaning. The original intent of that scene was that she was speaking the absolute truth: Starfleet didn't allow women in command.
This was confirmed by Nimoy and Shatner in a conversation with the authors of Shatner's 1979 biography Where No Man...
"What is easier for me to deal with on that particular script is the
knowledge that the writer was making a script in which his goal was to
prove, quote, 'That women, although they claim equality, cannot really
do things as well as, under certain circumstances, as a man -- like
the command function, for example. And it was a rather chauvinistic,
clumsy handling of an interesting question. What he set out to prove
was that this lady, given command of the ship, would blow it. That’s
really what the script was about. Just that simple. You see."
"Yeah," Bill agrees. “The problems were solved without really --"
Leonard cuts in, nodding. "That’s, what I was dealing with when we
were shooting that show -- the knowledge that that was the concept.
And I rebelled against the concept. I was uncomfortable doing the
whole show because I didn’t believe in the concept."
Roddenberry later admitted the line was sexist and said he regretted it. However, it was very much in keeping for him. Roddenberry's original story was even worse.
At the time he was going through a nasty divorce, and had a low opinion of women in general--and there are many reports of the time of the crap he said, including statements like "...all women are c***s who can't be trusted" (said several times at story meetings). It's reliably reported that, even putting the divorce aside, he was absurdly sexist even for the time.
You can see the same sort of thing earlier, in the original pilot "The Cage" (later re-used in "The Menagerie") when Christopher Pike makes a statement about being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman on the bridge, which then causes the bit between him and Number One about not considering her as a woman.
Incidentally, the reason Majel Barrett was dropped from the role, contrary to Roddenberry's later statements, had nothing to do with the studio/network being uncomfortable with a woman being second in command, as he claimed. What they had a problem with wasn't an actress playing the part, they had a problem with an actress then having an affair with Roddenberry playing the part, as they were nervous about the potential backstage drama that could result. But anyway...
So, long answer short, yes, the line and backstory was intended to be absolutely as sexist as it appears: Lester is justifiably bitter that as competent as she otherwise was, she could never command a starship because Starfleet didn't want women putting cooties all over their captain's seats.
However, even at the time it was recognized just how offensive that idea was, and it grew even more unacceptable, so by the time the 1980s rolled around and Star Trek IV showed the captain of USS Saratoga was a woman, it was firmly understood the idea was stupid, and everyone proceeded to ignore it. So, gradually, the contorted explanation that no, Janice Lester was just crazy and Good Ol' Gene wasn't a misogynistic ass became the accepted one. Christopher Pike, when he showed up on Discovery, didn't have any sort of issue with women in senior positions (even reporting directly to one), Starfleet had female captains right from the early days, and there was never a ban on women in the Big Chair.
There are two interpretations of that scene. The first, and the one generally accepted these days, is that she was off her rocker, and made a statement that stated there was discrimination against her because of what group she belonged to (ie, women), thus explaining her own failings.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the original meaning. The original intent of that scene was that she was speaking the absolute truth: Starfleet didn't allow women in command.
This was confirmed by Nimoy and Shatner in a conversation with the authors of Shatner's 1979 biography Where No Man...
"What is easier for me to deal with on that particular script is the
knowledge that the writer was making a script in which his goal was to
prove, quote, 'That women, although they claim equality, cannot really
do things as well as, under certain circumstances, as a man -- like
the command function, for example. And it was a rather chauvinistic,
clumsy handling of an interesting question. What he set out to prove
was that this lady, given command of the ship, would blow it. That’s
really what the script was about. Just that simple. You see."
"Yeah," Bill agrees. “The problems were solved without really --"
Leonard cuts in, nodding. "That’s, what I was dealing with when we
were shooting that show -- the knowledge that that was the concept.
And I rebelled against the concept. I was uncomfortable doing the
whole show because I didn’t believe in the concept."
Roddenberry later admitted the line was sexist and said he regretted it. However, it was very much in keeping for him. Roddenberry's original story was even worse.
At the time he was going through a nasty divorce, and had a low opinion of women in general--and there are many reports of the time of the crap he said, including statements like "...all women are c***s who can't be trusted" (said several times at story meetings). It's reliably reported that, even putting the divorce aside, he was absurdly sexist even for the time.
You can see the same sort of thing earlier, in the original pilot "The Cage" (later re-used in "The Menagerie") when Christopher Pike makes a statement about being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman on the bridge, which then causes the bit between him and Number One about not considering her as a woman.
Incidentally, the reason Majel Barrett was dropped from the role, contrary to Roddenberry's later statements, had nothing to do with the studio/network being uncomfortable with a woman being second in command, as he claimed. What they had a problem with wasn't an actress playing the part, they had a problem with an actress then having an affair with Roddenberry playing the part, as they were nervous about the potential backstage drama that could result. But anyway...
So, long answer short, yes, the line and backstory was intended to be absolutely as sexist as it appears: Lester is justifiably bitter that as competent as she otherwise was, she could never command a starship because Starfleet didn't want women putting cooties all over their captain's seats.
However, even at the time it was recognized just how offensive that idea was, and it grew even more unacceptable, so by the time the 1980s rolled around and Star Trek IV showed the captain of USS Saratoga was a woman, it was firmly understood the idea was stupid, and everyone proceeded to ignore it. So, gradually, the contorted explanation that no, Janice Lester was just crazy and Good Ol' Gene wasn't a misogynistic ass became the accepted one. Christopher Pike, when he showed up on Discovery, didn't have any sort of issue with women in senior positions (even reporting directly to one), Starfleet had female captains right from the early days, and there was never a ban on women in the Big Chair.
answered 10 hours ago
Keith MorrisonKeith Morrison
8,42711532
8,42711532
2
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
2
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
1
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
2
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
2
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
2
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
1
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
2
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
2
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
2
2
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
@user Milkshake-ducked?
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
2
2
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
@MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)
– bertieb
8 hours ago
1
1
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
What makes star trek continues "milkshake ducked"?
– OganM
8 hours ago
2
2
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
I seem to recall there being a female admiral or two in some of the movies (specifically in some of the scenes where they're admonishing and/or demoting Kirk for his recklessness). Since one presumably cannot become an admiral without first being a captain, this would imply that female captains were a thing even at that point...
– Darrel Hoffman
7 hours ago
2
2
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
@OganM ST Continues is milkshake-ducked because the developer, executive producer, director, and lead actor Vic Mignogna has sexual harassment accusations dating back to 1989. A whole pile of women including both those working in the industry, and fans of his works, have come forward about being unconsensually "kissed, groped, and made unwanted comments to", some of the people reporting were underage at the time. See here
– Finn O'leary
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I'm not sure we can infer an absolute limit on gender roles based on a single line. Certainly it was not Roddenberry's meaning -
“Nowhere in my story was the statement made that this woman wasn’t qualified to command because of her gender. She lacked the qualifications on a personal level, and she also happened to be emotionally unstable. In her mind, sure, she was being discriminated against. And that could have been another theme in the story — how we can limit ourselves because of our own belief that we will be discriminated against. It can become a self-profiling prophecy.”
These Are The Voyages -TOS Season Three by Marc Cushman
Although Kirk agrees with her we could see his comment as placatory rather than actual "agreement" with her position.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
Chakotya.net
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
6
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
5
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
1
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I'm not sure we can infer an absolute limit on gender roles based on a single line. Certainly it was not Roddenberry's meaning -
“Nowhere in my story was the statement made that this woman wasn’t qualified to command because of her gender. She lacked the qualifications on a personal level, and she also happened to be emotionally unstable. In her mind, sure, she was being discriminated against. And that could have been another theme in the story — how we can limit ourselves because of our own belief that we will be discriminated against. It can become a self-profiling prophecy.”
These Are The Voyages -TOS Season Three by Marc Cushman
Although Kirk agrees with her we could see his comment as placatory rather than actual "agreement" with her position.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
Chakotya.net
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
6
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
5
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
1
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I'm not sure we can infer an absolute limit on gender roles based on a single line. Certainly it was not Roddenberry's meaning -
“Nowhere in my story was the statement made that this woman wasn’t qualified to command because of her gender. She lacked the qualifications on a personal level, and she also happened to be emotionally unstable. In her mind, sure, she was being discriminated against. And that could have been another theme in the story — how we can limit ourselves because of our own belief that we will be discriminated against. It can become a self-profiling prophecy.”
These Are The Voyages -TOS Season Three by Marc Cushman
Although Kirk agrees with her we could see his comment as placatory rather than actual "agreement" with her position.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
Chakotya.net
I'm not sure we can infer an absolute limit on gender roles based on a single line. Certainly it was not Roddenberry's meaning -
“Nowhere in my story was the statement made that this woman wasn’t qualified to command because of her gender. She lacked the qualifications on a personal level, and she also happened to be emotionally unstable. In her mind, sure, she was being discriminated against. And that could have been another theme in the story — how we can limit ourselves because of our own belief that we will be discriminated against. It can become a self-profiling prophecy.”
These Are The Voyages -TOS Season Three by Marc Cushman
Although Kirk agrees with her we could see his comment as placatory rather than actual "agreement" with her position.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
Chakotya.net
answered 14 hours ago
Paulie_DPaulie_D
15.3k25871
15.3k25871
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
6
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
5
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
1
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
6
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
5
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
1
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
This answers the now edited question (or at least I think it does) but more indirectly because it was tailored at the original question. It might be worth you doing a quick edit to bring it inline with the more specific version of the rewritten question.
– TheLethalCarrot
13 hours ago
6
6
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
I read that dialogue differently. To me she's saying that the world of starship captains excludes relationships, which a screenwriter in the 60's may have written as "doesn't admit women". This exchange is more like "But my life, my love and my lady / is the sea" and not a discrimination discussion.
– tbrookside
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
@TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).
– Paulie_D
12 hours ago
5
5
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
Yeah, it was entirely Roddenberry's intent, and he meant it. It was only later that he backtracked because it eventually got through to him what a complete ass it made it him look like.
– Keith Morrison
10 hours ago
1
1
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
I up-voted but I don't really buy it. The sentence and the manner it was said in seems very clear and direct. The word "admit" implies she is talking directly about the entry requirements for the captain rank.
– user
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I haven't seen Star Trek: Discovery, but I'm under the assumption that, like Star Trek: Enterprise and everything since Star Trek: First Contact, it follows an alternate timeline in which the Borg attempted to interfere with Zefram Cochrane's first warp speed journey. If that is the case, then the events of Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery seem to be on two different lines of continuity. Which means that any Earth history after the first warp launch doesn't need to agree between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery.
Although it's immensely unlikely that attitudes on gender would have been altered by the Borg's interference, it is the case that the gender attitudes of the writers have changed significantly in the past 50 years. The no female captains policy seems like an example of Star Trek: TOS's general silliness that has been subsequently retconned. Another example of retconned silliness would be the ability of the Enterprise to fly to the center of the galaxy or clear across the galaxy on a short timeline with no supernatural assistance. They also totally changed the warp factor benchmarks so that you can't exceed warp 10. The ridiculous, skimpy uniforms for female crew members were eliminated. The physical appearance of Klingons was radically altered; and then Star Trek: DS9 and Star Trek: Enterprise contorted themselves to manufacture an explanation for the change. Lots of the socially progressive, technologically progressive writing of the 60's is already old fashioned by today's standards; including the crude UI design and computing ability of the computers and hardware.
In other words, it's not necessary that all events of Star Trek: TOS be canonical and logical; and this is an example of that.
add a comment |
I haven't seen Star Trek: Discovery, but I'm under the assumption that, like Star Trek: Enterprise and everything since Star Trek: First Contact, it follows an alternate timeline in which the Borg attempted to interfere with Zefram Cochrane's first warp speed journey. If that is the case, then the events of Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery seem to be on two different lines of continuity. Which means that any Earth history after the first warp launch doesn't need to agree between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery.
Although it's immensely unlikely that attitudes on gender would have been altered by the Borg's interference, it is the case that the gender attitudes of the writers have changed significantly in the past 50 years. The no female captains policy seems like an example of Star Trek: TOS's general silliness that has been subsequently retconned. Another example of retconned silliness would be the ability of the Enterprise to fly to the center of the galaxy or clear across the galaxy on a short timeline with no supernatural assistance. They also totally changed the warp factor benchmarks so that you can't exceed warp 10. The ridiculous, skimpy uniforms for female crew members were eliminated. The physical appearance of Klingons was radically altered; and then Star Trek: DS9 and Star Trek: Enterprise contorted themselves to manufacture an explanation for the change. Lots of the socially progressive, technologically progressive writing of the 60's is already old fashioned by today's standards; including the crude UI design and computing ability of the computers and hardware.
In other words, it's not necessary that all events of Star Trek: TOS be canonical and logical; and this is an example of that.
add a comment |
I haven't seen Star Trek: Discovery, but I'm under the assumption that, like Star Trek: Enterprise and everything since Star Trek: First Contact, it follows an alternate timeline in which the Borg attempted to interfere with Zefram Cochrane's first warp speed journey. If that is the case, then the events of Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery seem to be on two different lines of continuity. Which means that any Earth history after the first warp launch doesn't need to agree between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery.
Although it's immensely unlikely that attitudes on gender would have been altered by the Borg's interference, it is the case that the gender attitudes of the writers have changed significantly in the past 50 years. The no female captains policy seems like an example of Star Trek: TOS's general silliness that has been subsequently retconned. Another example of retconned silliness would be the ability of the Enterprise to fly to the center of the galaxy or clear across the galaxy on a short timeline with no supernatural assistance. They also totally changed the warp factor benchmarks so that you can't exceed warp 10. The ridiculous, skimpy uniforms for female crew members were eliminated. The physical appearance of Klingons was radically altered; and then Star Trek: DS9 and Star Trek: Enterprise contorted themselves to manufacture an explanation for the change. Lots of the socially progressive, technologically progressive writing of the 60's is already old fashioned by today's standards; including the crude UI design and computing ability of the computers and hardware.
In other words, it's not necessary that all events of Star Trek: TOS be canonical and logical; and this is an example of that.
I haven't seen Star Trek: Discovery, but I'm under the assumption that, like Star Trek: Enterprise and everything since Star Trek: First Contact, it follows an alternate timeline in which the Borg attempted to interfere with Zefram Cochrane's first warp speed journey. If that is the case, then the events of Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery seem to be on two different lines of continuity. Which means that any Earth history after the first warp launch doesn't need to agree between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: Discovery.
Although it's immensely unlikely that attitudes on gender would have been altered by the Borg's interference, it is the case that the gender attitudes of the writers have changed significantly in the past 50 years. The no female captains policy seems like an example of Star Trek: TOS's general silliness that has been subsequently retconned. Another example of retconned silliness would be the ability of the Enterprise to fly to the center of the galaxy or clear across the galaxy on a short timeline with no supernatural assistance. They also totally changed the warp factor benchmarks so that you can't exceed warp 10. The ridiculous, skimpy uniforms for female crew members were eliminated. The physical appearance of Klingons was radically altered; and then Star Trek: DS9 and Star Trek: Enterprise contorted themselves to manufacture an explanation for the change. Lots of the socially progressive, technologically progressive writing of the 60's is already old fashioned by today's standards; including the crude UI design and computing ability of the computers and hardware.
In other words, it's not necessary that all events of Star Trek: TOS be canonical and logical; and this is an example of that.
answered 5 hours ago
JohnJohn
46926
46926
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207630%2fwhen-were-female-captains-banned-from-starfleet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown