rectangleshorts:rcmclachlan:kate-wisehart:joannablackhart:rhube:brigidkeely:red3blog:thevalkyriedire
rectangleshorts:rcmclachlan:kate-wisehart:joannablackhart:rhube:brigidkeely:red3blog:thevalkyriedirective:ponnearponfarrponwhereveryouare:thevalkyriedirective:(x)randomqueen14:I think this is pretty misleading. I can’t comment on the top two characters, since I haven’t seen the original or Next Gen since I was little, but I know that Kira Nerys and Katherine Janeway had episodes where they were made out to be more sex objects than characters. Also, you kinda forgot all about Seven of Nine in this picture.On the opposite side, which I can’t comment on the sequel since I haven’t seen it yet, but I know in the “original” remake, Uhura was still a pretty strong and independent character. Yes, you see her in her underwear once. Big deal. Yes, they did have a character just for the sex appeal. You didn’t see her after that scene, and it wasn’t really that focused on in the scene.I’m not trying to debunk all sexism in the world of cinema, but before you attack a series/movies because of a few scenes, you may want to do some research into what you’re attacking…Um, nope, sorry, I was trying to let this go but such blatantly false information can’t be spread.The only time Kira came even close to being portrayed as a sex object was when it wasn’t actually her - i.e. when her form was used in Bashir’s holoprogram in ‘Our Man Bashir’, when Vic used her image to make Odo more comfortable romancing the real Kira in ‘His Way’, and Intendant Kira from the Mirror Universe (which doesn’t even count really, because she used her sexuality deliberately, as a weapon). In the rest of the series we see her in a bikini once and she’s clearly uncomfortable with it, and hidden by fog, the rest of the time she’s in tasteful casual clothes or her uniform. And Captain Janeway as a sex object? I’m sorry what? I literally cannot think of an example. Maybe when Q appears in her quarters while she’s having a bath?Even then there’s a huge difference between having a female character semi-naked (which in the series we usually saw like, her shoulders or back) and what the reboot does to ALL of its female characters.The entire point of this post wasn’t that the TV series were entirely devoid of sexism, but that its female characters were given important roles - including COMMANDING THE SHIP - while the most defining aspect of the reboot women is that they’ve all posed in their underwear for the audience to appreciate.I talked about this more coherently during Reboot Week, including an entire post about the Carol Marcus Underwear Incident and the reasons new Uhura doesn’t live up to the same standard as the original. I would have let your comments slide as yet another personal willing to let this bullshit slide because ‘the women only showed up in their underwear once!’ except for THIS inflammatory remark “before you attack a series/movies because of a few scenes, you may want to do some research into what you’re attacking.” Because excuse you, but the person who made this graphic, not to mention all the people reblogging it because they agree with it, did a HELL of a lot more ‘research’ into the bullshit they’re calling out than you did. Next time why don’t you think a little more about what you’re saying before you try to call people out? Because it seems to me that the only person who needs to do more research about this issue is you. Not to mention the fact that all the women above, the pictures are of them in the captain’s chair, leading people, and that is the biggest point. Even when in uniform, with the damned little short sleeves, let’s point out that we never get to see a woman in reboot outranking a man, while in the original Treks we saw them as powerful leaders. That is the point of this post, as thevalkyriedirective said above; the way we are to see women, in older Treks as concomitant beings, while in reboot as sexually appealing objects.THIS!My goodness, this is the entire point of the graphic!Saavik, Beverly, Nerys and Kathryn could all be sitting in their undies too, but they’d still be in the Captain’s chair, they’d still be in charge, and so far the reboot hasn’t given us women who are even close to their TV counterparts.Uhura and Marcus above are both in scenes where they are seen in their underwear by a male characters without the woman’s consent. And each instance is depicted as playful or goofy as opposed to a violation of the woman’s agency. And THAT is the crux of the problem with NuTrek.Kira and Janeway were certainly sexually desired, but their sexual agency was virtually always affirmed. IF a character were to stumble into seeing them in a private situation, it would be framed as a violation. Not “boys being Kirks” like the movies did.And for all the leering fanboys, Seven of Nine’s story arc was actually ALL about respecting her agency in different aspects of her life. She had her agency first taken away by the Borg, but then also had to assert choice to continue to identify as Borg after being liberated and be respected for reconciling her experience as she saw fit. Turning her into a catsuit ignores the considerable nuance the writers took in developing her character.It does get right down to the horrendous way in which JJ Abrams related to Trek and how he views women in general and in the context of Star Trek fandom. He’s said in interviews that he wanted to make his Star Trek something “wives and girlfriends” could enjoy. He didn’t see women as people who could enjoy the franchised. Just as people to placate just enough to not interfere with the “real fans”. He thinks of 60’s Trek as all about sex and cowboys, whereas Roddenberry always knew that those aspects were a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. In this way, the original Trek was largely inverted from JJ Trek. Just enough action and sex to lure in the boys to serve the hard science fiction storytelling, as opposed to just enough romantic follies to lure in the wives to serve the sex and explosion storytelling.I was going to make a long and detailed comment, was composing it in my head, and then I read the comment directly above mine and has no need to say anything further. (yet still feel compelled to bloviate a bit, I guess.)Star Trek’s basically not getting any more of my money until someone other than Abrams is at the head.ITT an abridged version of why I hate JJ Abrhams (among other things)NuTrek pisses me off so much because it had a lot of potential — the alternate universe gives us lots of room to play around and come up with new, exciting adventures for this crew, with lovely and talented actors and AMAZING special effects worthy of Star Trek — but it COMPLETELY disregards everything that make Trek so important and wonderful.I like NuTrek as entertainment fodder but it’s one of those things I have to watch with my SJA blinders up because otherwise I just spend the whole time angry. I respect that it’s gotten a whole new generation of people into Star Trek — I know SO MANY people who got interested because of NuTrek and then went on to watch TOS, TNG, DS9, the original movies — but it’s inherent sexism (and the fact that I can’t recall off the top of my head any actual homosexual/bisexual characters) drives me up the wall.TOS was groundbreaking and TNG continued that tradition. Yeah, there were problematic aspects within both of them (an unfortunate sign of the times in which they were made), but they were SO. IMPORTANT.And honestly the most important thing NuTrek has contributed to society is introducing people to the older, more sensitive and culturally-aware canons.Can someone print this whole thing out and mail it to JJ Abrams?Let’s not forget that in the DVD commentary for Star Trek (2009) (which is full of awfulness), Abrams said that the whole reason for the bedroom scene was specifically so they could get Uhura in her underwear, not necessarily to advance the plot. How is that not objectification?This is why I’m terrified of what’s going to happen to Star Wars. The OT already had Leia in the Jabba’s slave getup. But it’s framed as a stripping of her agency in that, which she takes back when she kills Jabba (and gets her voice back in the process). Was it gratuitous? Yes. I’m concerned that it will be the awful bikini of the OT that JJ chooses to expand; and not the return of agency and power to kill the oppressor and destroy the system around that oppressor.Remember, while Leia’s in the bikini she watches her friends step ever closer to death, then she turns out the lights, she strangles Jabba with the chain he held her by the neck with, she has Artoo help snap off the last of the chain keeping her attached to a corpse, she runs upstairs, she shoots light artillery at people who threaten her and her friends, she aims the artillery down at the skiff and the skiff explodes as she and Luke swing off it dramatically. The next time we see her she’s fully dressed and ready to take on the next challenge. Jabba is not mentioned again, he was practically a non-event. Leia has more important things to do. Like bring down an Empire even if it kills her. -- source link