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?

How to fade a semiplane defined by line?

Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank

Extract more than nine arguments that occur periodically in a sentence to use in macros in order to typset

Why does a simple loop result in ASYNC_NETWORK_IO waits?

When were female captains banned from Starfleet?

Multiplicative persistence

Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?

How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?

On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?

What's the difference between releasing hormones and tropic hormones?

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?

How could a planet have erratic days?

Is there a way to get `mathscr' with lower case letters in pdfLaTeX?

Hero deduces identity of a killer

Is there an injective, monotonically increasing, strictly concave function from the reals, to the reals?

Can I still be respawned if I die by falling off the map?

How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?

What if a revenant (monster) gains fire resistance?

How to hide some fields of struct in C?

What should you do when eye contact makes your subordinate uncomfortable?

The IT department bottlenecks progress. How should I handle this?

Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?

15% tax on $7.5k earnings. Is that right?



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?













61















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?










share|improve this question




























    61















    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?










    share|improve this question


























      61












      61








      61


      4






      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?










      share|improve this question
















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday







      user

















      asked yesterday









      useruser

      1,5051118




      1,5051118




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          77














          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.



          Edit



          Here is a clip from the trial scene in ST4. The (unnamed) Starfleet officer has an admiral's insignia, and there may have been others in that scene (I didn't check it all). One wonders if someone working on the movie wasn't making a point.



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

            – user
            yesterday






          • 6





            @user Milkshake-ducked?

            – Mason Wheeler
            yesterday






          • 6





            @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

            – bertieb
            yesterday






          • 5





            In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

            – John Bode
            yesterday






          • 8





            @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
            yesterday



















          6














          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







          share|improve this answer























          • 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
            yesterday






          • 9





            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
            yesterday






          • 11





            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
            yesterday






          • 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
            yesterday






          • 2





            Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

            – user
            20 hours ago


















          3














          The James Blish novelisation of the episode presents a slightly different version of events and opens up a different interpretation.




          She opened her eyes and stared directly into his. “The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.”



          “I didn’t stop you from going on with space work.”



          “I had to! Where would it lead? Your world of Starship captains doesn’t admit women.”



          “You’ve always blamed me for that,” Kirk said.



          “You accepted it.”



          “I couldn’t have changed it,” he pointed out.



          “You believed they were right. I know you did.”



          “And you hated me for it. How you hated. Every minute we were together became an agony.”



          “It isn’t fair …”



          “No, it isn’t. And I was the one you punished and tortured because of it.”



          “I loved you,” she said. “We could have roamed among the stars.”



          “We would have killed each other.”




          She's not bemoaning the fact that Starfleet prevents a woman from becoming a captain, but rather that Kirk's ambition to become a captain prevented them from having a fulfilling relationship because the Kirk buys into the mythos that a captain's full attention has to be given to his ship and that it can't be shared with a woman.






          share|improve this answer























          • Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

            – Keith Morrison
            11 hours ago











          • @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

            – Valorum
            11 hours ago












          • When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

            – Keith Morrison
            11 hours ago



















          0














          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.






          share|improve this answer






















            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
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            77














            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.



            Edit



            Here is a clip from the trial scene in ST4. The (unnamed) Starfleet officer has an admiral's insignia, and there may have been others in that scene (I didn't check it all). One wonders if someone working on the movie wasn't making a point.



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 6





              @user Milkshake-ducked?

              – Mason Wheeler
              yesterday






            • 6





              @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

              – bertieb
              yesterday






            • 5





              In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

              – John Bode
              yesterday






            • 8





              @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
              yesterday
















            77














            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.



            Edit



            Here is a clip from the trial scene in ST4. The (unnamed) Starfleet officer has an admiral's insignia, and there may have been others in that scene (I didn't check it all). One wonders if someone working on the movie wasn't making a point.



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 6





              @user Milkshake-ducked?

              – Mason Wheeler
              yesterday






            • 6





              @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

              – bertieb
              yesterday






            • 5





              In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

              – John Bode
              yesterday






            • 8





              @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
              yesterday














            77












            77








            77







            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.



            Edit



            Here is a clip from the trial scene in ST4. The (unnamed) Starfleet officer has an admiral's insignia, and there may have been others in that scene (I didn't check it all). One wonders if someone working on the movie wasn't making a point.



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer















            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.



            Edit



            Here is a clip from the trial scene in ST4. The (unnamed) Starfleet officer has an admiral's insignia, and there may have been others in that scene (I didn't check it all). One wonders if someone working on the movie wasn't making a point.



            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 14 hours ago

























            answered yesterday









            Keith MorrisonKeith Morrison

            8,56711532




            8,56711532







            • 3





              Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 6





              @user Milkshake-ducked?

              – Mason Wheeler
              yesterday






            • 6





              @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

              – bertieb
              yesterday






            • 5





              In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

              – John Bode
              yesterday






            • 8





              @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
              yesterday













            • 3





              Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 6





              @user Milkshake-ducked?

              – Mason Wheeler
              yesterday






            • 6





              @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

              – bertieb
              yesterday






            • 5





              In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

              – John Bode
              yesterday






            • 8





              @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
              yesterday








            3




            3





            Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

            – user
            yesterday





            Star Trek Continues (now sadly milkshake-ducked) did tackle this issue directly, trying to treat it as canon in order to tell an interesting story. Non-canon fan production of course. Thanks for the interesting and detailed answer.

            – user
            yesterday




            6




            6





            @user Milkshake-ducked?

            – Mason Wheeler
            yesterday





            @user Milkshake-ducked?

            – Mason Wheeler
            yesterday




            6




            6





            @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

            – bertieb
            yesterday





            @MasonWheeler "initially perceived as positive, only to soon after be revealed as deeply flawed" (I had to look it up too)

            – bertieb
            yesterday




            5




            5





            In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

            – John Bode
            yesterday





            In many respects TOS was enlightened for its time. When it comes to women...not so much. This is the most egregious example (the episode is largely unwatchable now), but it's far from the only one.

            – John Bode
            yesterday




            8




            8





            @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
            yesterday






            @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
            yesterday














            6














            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







            share|improve this answer























            • 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
              yesterday






            • 9





              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
              yesterday






            • 11





              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
              yesterday






            • 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
              yesterday






            • 2





              Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

              – user
              20 hours ago















            6














            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







            share|improve this answer























            • 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
              yesterday






            • 9





              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
              yesterday






            • 11





              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
              yesterday






            • 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
              yesterday






            • 2





              Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

              – user
              20 hours ago













            6












            6








            6







            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







            share|improve this answer













            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








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            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
              yesterday






            • 9





              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
              yesterday






            • 11





              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
              yesterday






            • 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
              yesterday






            • 2





              Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

              – user
              20 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
              yesterday






            • 9





              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
              yesterday






            • 11





              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
              yesterday






            • 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
              yesterday






            • 2





              Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

              – user
              20 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
            yesterday





            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
            yesterday




            9




            9





            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
            yesterday





            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
            yesterday




            11




            11





            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
            yesterday





            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
            yesterday




            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
            yesterday





            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
            yesterday




            2




            2





            Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

            – user
            20 hours ago





            Reading those three lines and watching the scene again, it sounds to me like Kirk is saying that he personally isn't responsible so it's unfair to torture him over it. He is saying that he is sympathetic but not at fault.

            – user
            20 hours ago











            3














            The James Blish novelisation of the episode presents a slightly different version of events and opens up a different interpretation.




            She opened her eyes and stared directly into his. “The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.”



            “I didn’t stop you from going on with space work.”



            “I had to! Where would it lead? Your world of Starship captains doesn’t admit women.”



            “You’ve always blamed me for that,” Kirk said.



            “You accepted it.”



            “I couldn’t have changed it,” he pointed out.



            “You believed they were right. I know you did.”



            “And you hated me for it. How you hated. Every minute we were together became an agony.”



            “It isn’t fair …”



            “No, it isn’t. And I was the one you punished and tortured because of it.”



            “I loved you,” she said. “We could have roamed among the stars.”



            “We would have killed each other.”




            She's not bemoaning the fact that Starfleet prevents a woman from becoming a captain, but rather that Kirk's ambition to become a captain prevented them from having a fulfilling relationship because the Kirk buys into the mythos that a captain's full attention has to be given to his ship and that it can't be shared with a woman.






            share|improve this answer























            • Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago











            • @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

              – Valorum
              11 hours ago












            • When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago
















            3














            The James Blish novelisation of the episode presents a slightly different version of events and opens up a different interpretation.




            She opened her eyes and stared directly into his. “The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.”



            “I didn’t stop you from going on with space work.”



            “I had to! Where would it lead? Your world of Starship captains doesn’t admit women.”



            “You’ve always blamed me for that,” Kirk said.



            “You accepted it.”



            “I couldn’t have changed it,” he pointed out.



            “You believed they were right. I know you did.”



            “And you hated me for it. How you hated. Every minute we were together became an agony.”



            “It isn’t fair …”



            “No, it isn’t. And I was the one you punished and tortured because of it.”



            “I loved you,” she said. “We could have roamed among the stars.”



            “We would have killed each other.”




            She's not bemoaning the fact that Starfleet prevents a woman from becoming a captain, but rather that Kirk's ambition to become a captain prevented them from having a fulfilling relationship because the Kirk buys into the mythos that a captain's full attention has to be given to his ship and that it can't be shared with a woman.






            share|improve this answer























            • Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago











            • @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

              – Valorum
              11 hours ago












            • When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago














            3












            3








            3







            The James Blish novelisation of the episode presents a slightly different version of events and opens up a different interpretation.




            She opened her eyes and stared directly into his. “The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.”



            “I didn’t stop you from going on with space work.”



            “I had to! Where would it lead? Your world of Starship captains doesn’t admit women.”



            “You’ve always blamed me for that,” Kirk said.



            “You accepted it.”



            “I couldn’t have changed it,” he pointed out.



            “You believed they were right. I know you did.”



            “And you hated me for it. How you hated. Every minute we were together became an agony.”



            “It isn’t fair …”



            “No, it isn’t. And I was the one you punished and tortured because of it.”



            “I loved you,” she said. “We could have roamed among the stars.”



            “We would have killed each other.”




            She's not bemoaning the fact that Starfleet prevents a woman from becoming a captain, but rather that Kirk's ambition to become a captain prevented them from having a fulfilling relationship because the Kirk buys into the mythos that a captain's full attention has to be given to his ship and that it can't be shared with a woman.






            share|improve this answer













            The James Blish novelisation of the episode presents a slightly different version of events and opens up a different interpretation.




            She opened her eyes and stared directly into his. “The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.”



            “I didn’t stop you from going on with space work.”



            “I had to! Where would it lead? Your world of Starship captains doesn’t admit women.”



            “You’ve always blamed me for that,” Kirk said.



            “You accepted it.”



            “I couldn’t have changed it,” he pointed out.



            “You believed they were right. I know you did.”



            “And you hated me for it. How you hated. Every minute we were together became an agony.”



            “It isn’t fair …”



            “No, it isn’t. And I was the one you punished and tortured because of it.”



            “I loved you,” she said. “We could have roamed among the stars.”



            “We would have killed each other.”




            She's not bemoaning the fact that Starfleet prevents a woman from becoming a captain, but rather that Kirk's ambition to become a captain prevented them from having a fulfilling relationship because the Kirk buys into the mythos that a captain's full attention has to be given to his ship and that it can't be shared with a woman.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 12 hours ago









            ValorumValorum

            411k11129883211




            411k11129883211












            • Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago











            • @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

              – Valorum
              11 hours ago












            • When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago


















            • Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago











            • @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

              – Valorum
              11 hours ago












            • When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

              – Keith Morrison
              11 hours ago

















            Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

            – Keith Morrison
            11 hours ago





            Which, of course, is itself an attempt to do away with the blatant misogyny that was originally there. It's also not an argument I've seen raised in fandom as an excuse.

            – Keith Morrison
            11 hours ago













            @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

            – Valorum
            11 hours ago






            @KeithMorrison - This novelisation wasn't written much after the TV show and was based on the original script.

            – Valorum
            11 hours ago














            When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

            – Keith Morrison
            11 hours ago






            When all the people involved are quite clear on what the intent of what was going on was, I'll take them at their word. Besides, the same script has Lester-as-Kirk say "Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now." All in all, it's pretty clear what's going on.

            – Keith Morrison
            11 hours ago












            0














            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.






            share|improve this answer



























              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer

























                0












                0








                0







                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.






                share|improve this answer













                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.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                JohnJohn

                48726




                48726



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

                    Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition

                    Marilyn Monroe Ny fiainany manokana | Jereo koa | Meny fitetezanafanitarana azy.