Sign in to follow this  
Maltz

Kirk's relationship with Janice Lester

Recommended Posts

Maltz   

Does anyone have any ideas to when Kirk had his brief relationship with Janice Lester, from "Turnabout Intruder"? I've been wondering if they might have first met while serving on board the USS Farragut, between 2254 and 2257. It was after she and Kirk parted ways upon the Farragut's destruction (or perhaps Janice had already left Starfleet by then) that Kirk got involved with Carol Marcus, with their son being born around 2260 (assuming David was about 25 in TWOK and TSFS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zef'No   

The Okuda's chronology says that Kirk and Lester shared a year together when Kirk was attending Starfleet Academy (which is says was from 2250-2254 and includes service on the Republic).

It also suggests that David Marcus was conceived and born in 2261, assuming he was 24 in TWOK. This was presumably shortly before Kirk was involved with Janet Wallace (from The Deadly Years) and could have been during his time on the Farragut.

(Also note that Chekov does not enter the academy until 9 years after Kirk graduated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maltz   

For me, it goes like this:

Ruth (from "Shore Leave"), 2250 - 2254

Janice Lester, 2254 - 2257

Carol Marcus, 2258 - 2261

Janet Wallace, 2261 - 2262

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Okuda's chronology says that Kirk and Lester shared a year together when Kirk was attending Starfleet Academy (which is says was from 2250-2254 and includes service on the Republic).

It also suggests that David Marcus was conceived and born in 2261, assuming he was 24 in TWOK. This was presumably shortly before Kirk was involved with Janet Wallace (from The Deadly Years) and could have been during his time on the Farragut.

(Also note that Chekov does not enter the academy until 9 years after Kirk graduated).

All hail the almighty Okudas.... their research is simply phenomenal. I don't know HOW they keep all of that straight and still find time to do their graphics and assist in the remastering of the TOS and TNG dvd/blurays...

They are incredible.

:worthy:

I'm glad I got their autographs at the last ST convention I attended. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder about her comment that starfleet command didn't allow women captains. Now, I wonder if she was just generalizing because SHE washed out of the Academy, or did she REALLY mean that SFC did NOT physically allow women captains in that part of the 23rd century? We see Capt. Hernandez WAAAY back in the 22nd century captaining the second NX class starship. We see in "The Voyage Home" the captain of the Saratoga was also a woman (and played by Geordi's future mom, too; the late actress Madge Sinclair). And of course there's Janeway, too (and many others). Astronaut Eileen Collins even commanded a real life space shuttle mission.

So again, I wonder; was this all just post-de-facto retconning, or was SFC really some kind of barbaric, stone-aged thinking boys' club in those days? I understand that ST TOS was a product of its time (so am I; I was born the year TOS debuted), but it seemed that for a show with a female exec in it's pilot ("The Cage"; footage of which was also seen in "The Menagerie"), the future would be much more of an equal opportunity employer.

It may have been (and I know I'm reaching a bit) that she was just angry, lashing out and generalizing. Like a black man who doesn't get a job and (perhaps out of bitterness) assumes it was because he was black, for example. I hope that was the case for Lester. Otherwise, I'd hate this episode more than I already do (its bad on a variety of levels; very few of them actually entertaining).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder about her comment that starfleet command didn't allow women captains. Now, I wonder if she was just generalizing because SHE washed out of the Academy, or did she REALLY mean that SFC did NOT physically allow women captains in that part of the 23rd century? We see Capt. Hernandez WAAAY back in the 22nd century captaining the second NX class starship. We see in "The Voyage Home" the captain of the Saratoga was also a woman (and played by Geordi's future mom, too; the late actress Madge Sinclair). And of course there's Janeway, too (and many others). Astronaut Eileen Collins even commanded a real life space shuttle mission.

So again, I wonder; was this all just post-de-facto retconning, or was SFC really some kind of barbaric, stone-aged thinking boys' club in those days? I understand that ST TOS was a product of its time (so am I; I was born the year TOS debuted), but it seemed that for a show with a female exec in it's pilot ("The Cage"; footage of which was also seen in "The Menagerie"), the future would be much more of an equal opportunity employer.

It may have been (and I know I'm reaching a bit) that she was just angry, lashing out and generalizing. Like a black man who doesn't get a job and (perhaps out of bitterness) assumes it was because he was black, for example. I hope that was the case for Lester. Otherwise, I'd hate this episode more than I already do (its bad on a variety of levels; very few of them actually entertaining).

From what I know, the fandom interpretes this in two ways - one, that she really meant it. It would be consistent because we never saw a female captain on TOS. (As for ENT... it was shot DECADES later and the writers of that show bent canon beyond credibility in many cases anyway, which is one of its major problems, so, I wouldn't count on ENT in any way when it comes to this. It's also entirely possible that the writers conveniently forgot Lester's words - wouldn't be the first time they deliberately or not deliberately ignored previous canon.) The "Voyage Home" captain was way after TOS, Starfleet might have changed its policy then. So, what I'm saying is that this really might have been the case. No female captains. As for "The Menagerie"... Number One was Number One. Not the captain. Maybe first officer was the highest rank a woman could achieve back then and even then she had to deal with sexists like Pike who were actually not very thrilled about "the idea of a woman on the bridge".

The other way the fandom interprets her words is that Lester is simply kinda... not herself and just states nonsense, but somehow I don't buy that one. I really think she actually meant it that, at that point in the Trek timeline, no woman could ever be the captain of a starship. It's really stupid and it contradicts the whole "everyone is equal in the 23rd century", but it DOES reflect the general opinion on women in the 60s. Unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder about her comment that starfleet command didn't allow women captains. Now, I wonder if she was just generalizing because SHE washed out of the Academy, or did she REALLY mean that SFC did NOT physically allow women captains in that part of the 23rd century? We see Capt. Hernandez WAAAY back in the 22nd century captaining the second NX class starship. We see in "The Voyage Home" the captain of the Saratoga was also a woman (and played by Geordi's future mom, too; the late actress Madge Sinclair). And of course there's Janeway, too (and many others). Astronaut Eileen Collins even commanded a real life space shuttle mission.

So again, I wonder; was this all just post-de-facto retconning, or was SFC really some kind of barbaric, stone-aged thinking boys' club in those days? I understand that ST TOS was a product of its time (so am I; I was born the year TOS debuted), but it seemed that for a show with a female exec in it's pilot ("The Cage"; footage of which was also seen in "The Menagerie"), the future would be much more of an equal opportunity employer.

It may have been (and I know I'm reaching a bit) that she was just angry, lashing out and generalizing. Like a black man who doesn't get a job and (perhaps out of bitterness) assumes it was because he was black, for example. I hope that was the case for Lester. Otherwise, I'd hate this episode more than I already do (its bad on a variety of levels; very few of them actually entertaining).

From what I know, the fandom interpretes this in two ways - one, that she really meant it. It would be consistent because we never saw a female captain on TOS. (As for ENT... it was shot DECADES later and the writers of that show bent canon beyond credibility in many cases anyway, which is one of its major problems, so, I wouldn't count on ENT in any way when it comes to this. It's also entirely possible that the writers conveniently forgot Lester's words - wouldn't be the first time they deliberately or not deliberately ignored previous canon.) The "Voyage Home" captain was way after TOS, Starfleet might have changed its policy then. So, what I'm saying is that this really might have been the case. No female captains. As for "The Menagerie"... Number One was Number One. Not the captain. Maybe first officer was the highest rank a woman could achieve back then and even then she had to deal with sexists like Pike who were actually not very thrilled about "the idea of a woman on the bridge".

But if Pike were injured or killed, that would automatically place Number One in command; captain by default .... just saying. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder about her comment that starfleet command didn't allow women captains. Now, I wonder if she was just generalizing because SHE washed out of the Academy, or did she REALLY mean that SFC did NOT physically allow women captains in that part of the 23rd century? We see Capt. Hernandez WAAAY back in the 22nd century captaining the second NX class starship. We see in "The Voyage Home" the captain of the Saratoga was also a woman (and played by Geordi's future mom, too; the late actress Madge Sinclair). And of course there's Janeway, too (and many others). Astronaut Eileen Collins even commanded a real life space shuttle mission.

So again, I wonder; was this all just post-de-facto retconning, or was SFC really some kind of barbaric, stone-aged thinking boys' club in those days? I understand that ST TOS was a product of its time (so am I; I was born the year TOS debuted), but it seemed that for a show with a female exec in it's pilot ("The Cage"; footage of which was also seen in "The Menagerie"), the future would be much more of an equal opportunity employer.

It may have been (and I know I'm reaching a bit) that she was just angry, lashing out and generalizing. Like a black man who doesn't get a job and (perhaps out of bitterness) assumes it was because he was black, for example. I hope that was the case for Lester. Otherwise, I'd hate this episode more than I already do (its bad on a variety of levels; very few of them actually entertaining).

From what I know, the fandom interpretes this in two ways - one, that she really meant it. It would be consistent because we never saw a female captain on TOS. (As for ENT... it was shot DECADES later and the writers of that show bent canon beyond credibility in many cases anyway, which is one of its major problems, so, I wouldn't count on ENT in any way when it comes to this. It's also entirely possible that the writers conveniently forgot Lester's words - wouldn't be the first time they deliberately or not deliberately ignored previous canon.) The "Voyage Home" captain was way after TOS, Starfleet might have changed its policy then. So, what I'm saying is that this really might have been the case. No female captains. As for "The Menagerie"... Number One was Number One. Not the captain. Maybe first officer was the highest rank a woman could achieve back then and even then she had to deal with sexists like Pike who were actually not very thrilled about "the idea of a woman on the bridge".

But if Pike were injured or killed, that would automatically place Number One in command; captain by default .... just saying. ;)

Yes, but what if that wasn't done in a permanent way? For a short time, maybe. They could always look for a male captain to take over and push her back into the first officer position (sounds like something that 60s Trek would do without hesitation). I mean there's never any guarantee that a first officer will take over command permanently after a captain has been severely injured or killed, everyone always assumes that, but it's always possible that they'll place someone else in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder about her comment that starfleet command didn't allow women captains. Now, I wonder if she was just generalizing because SHE washed out of the Academy, or did she REALLY mean that SFC did NOT physically allow women captains in that part of the 23rd century? We see Capt. Hernandez WAAAY back in the 22nd century captaining the second NX class starship. We see in "The Voyage Home" the captain of the Saratoga was also a woman (and played by Geordi's future mom, too; the late actress Madge Sinclair). And of course there's Janeway, too (and many others). Astronaut Eileen Collins even commanded a real life space shuttle mission.

So again, I wonder; was this all just post-de-facto retconning, or was SFC really some kind of barbaric, stone-aged thinking boys' club in those days? I understand that ST TOS was a product of its time (so am I; I was born the year TOS debuted), but it seemed that for a show with a female exec in it's pilot ("The Cage"; footage of which was also seen in "The Menagerie"), the future would be much more of an equal opportunity employer.

It may have been (and I know I'm reaching a bit) that she was just angry, lashing out and generalizing. Like a black man who doesn't get a job and (perhaps out of bitterness) assumes it was because he was black, for example. I hope that was the case for Lester. Otherwise, I'd hate this episode more than I already do (its bad on a variety of levels; very few of them actually entertaining).

From what I know, the fandom interpretes this in two ways - one, that she really meant it. It would be consistent because we never saw a female captain on TOS. (As for ENT... it was shot DECADES later and the writers of that show bent canon beyond credibility in many cases anyway, which is one of its major problems, so, I wouldn't count on ENT in any way when it comes to this. It's also entirely possible that the writers conveniently forgot Lester's words - wouldn't be the first time they deliberately or not deliberately ignored previous canon.) The "Voyage Home" captain was way after TOS, Starfleet might have changed its policy then. So, what I'm saying is that this really might have been the case. No female captains. As for "The Menagerie"... Number One was Number One. Not the captain. Maybe first officer was the highest rank a woman could achieve back then and even then she had to deal with sexists like Pike who were actually not very thrilled about "the idea of a woman on the bridge".

But if Pike were injured or killed, that would automatically place Number One in command; captain by default .... just saying. ;)

Yes, but what if that wasn't done in a permanent way? For a short time, maybe. They could always look for a male captain to take over and push her back into the first officer position (sounds like something that 60s Trek would do without hesitation). I mean there's never any guarantee that a first officer will take over command permanently after a captain has been severely injured or killed, everyone always assumes that, but it's always possible that they'll place someone else in charge.

Nooooo! Don't burst my liberal bubble.... :P:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder about her comment that starfleet command didn't allow women captains. Now, I wonder if she was just generalizing because SHE washed out of the Academy, or did she REALLY mean that SFC did NOT physically allow women captains in that part of the 23rd century? We see Capt. Hernandez WAAAY back in the 22nd century captaining the second NX class starship. We see in "The Voyage Home" the captain of the Saratoga was also a woman (and played by Geordi's future mom, too; the late actress Madge Sinclair). And of course there's Janeway, too (and many others). Astronaut Eileen Collins even commanded a real life space shuttle mission.

So again, I wonder; was this all just post-de-facto retconning, or was SFC really some kind of barbaric, stone-aged thinking boys' club in those days? I understand that ST TOS was a product of its time (so am I; I was born the year TOS debuted), but it seemed that for a show with a female exec in it's pilot ("The Cage"; footage of which was also seen in "The Menagerie"), the future would be much more of an equal opportunity employer.

It may have been (and I know I'm reaching a bit) that she was just angry, lashing out and generalizing. Like a black man who doesn't get a job and (perhaps out of bitterness) assumes it was because he was black, for example. I hope that was the case for Lester. Otherwise, I'd hate this episode more than I already do (its bad on a variety of levels; very few of them actually entertaining).

From what I know, the fandom interpretes this in two ways - one, that she really meant it. It would be consistent because we never saw a female captain on TOS. (As for ENT... it was shot DECADES later and the writers of that show bent canon beyond credibility in many cases anyway, which is one of its major problems, so, I wouldn't count on ENT in any way when it comes to this. It's also entirely possible that the writers conveniently forgot Lester's words - wouldn't be the first time they deliberately or not deliberately ignored previous canon.) The "Voyage Home" captain was way after TOS, Starfleet might have changed its policy then. So, what I'm saying is that this really might have been the case. No female captains. As for "The Menagerie"... Number One was Number One. Not the captain. Maybe first officer was the highest rank a woman could achieve back then and even then she had to deal with sexists like Pike who were actually not very thrilled about "the idea of a woman on the bridge".

The other way the fandom interprets her words is that Lester is simply kinda... not herself and just states nonsense, but somehow I don't buy that one. I really think she actually meant it that, at that point in the Trek timeline, no woman could ever be the captain of a starship. It's really stupid and it contradicts the whole "everyone is equal in the 23rd century", but it DOES reflect the general opinion on women in the 60s. Unfortunately.

You're forgetting option 3: that she meant it doesn't admit RELATIONSHIPS into their lives. And clearly it didn't as many captains seemed to be single or "married" to their career (Kirk, Picard, etc). As in "your life in Starfleet doesn't allow the time for you to have women".

It clearly is not meant to be taken as women couldn't be in Starfleet as that doesn't make any sense at all. I'll grant you that ENT cannot be used in the argument because it fooled around with canon at times but....still. Hernandez was a captain. There were even ALIEN captains in SF, but they wouldn't allow human women into the position? What reason would the "enlightened" SF have to not let women be captain? Why the hell would women have even bothered joining such a sexist organization? I can't imagine women in THIS era accepting it, much less the 23rd century.

Even if you use that out of universe argument that it was the 60s and women were discriminated against... Still kind of weird that Roddenberry broke trends by having a Russian person (at the height of Cold War) being on the bridge and an African-American woman. But he won't break the trend of women being submissive to men at the "work place"? I call BS on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zef'No   
Still kind of weird that Roddenberry broke trends by having a Russian person (at the height of Cold War) being on the bridge and an African-American woman. But he won't break the trend of women being submissive to men at the "work place"? I call BS on that.

I don't know... Roddenberry seemed rather uncomfortable or out-of-his-depth with women; all his female characters were pretty, but usually somewhat lacking in the brains department. They were usually depicted as the caring, sensitive, emotional type that invariably needs rescuing by the strong males. - It may be just the nature of TV in his lifetime, but I'm not sure he truly viewed them as equals. - Uhura, Rand and Chapel on TOS - never once were any of them put in any kind of authority position (even an irregular redshirt was given command before Uhura was). Same with Troi and Crusher on TNG. Number One was the only exception that comes to mind.

I think the line in question was purely sexist (as I think even Roddenberry later admitted). You can interpret it how you like in retrospect, but I'm fairly sure the original meaning was that women couldn't captain a starship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still kind of weird that Roddenberry broke trends by having a Russian person (at the height of Cold War) being on the bridge and an African-American woman. But he won't break the trend of women being submissive to men at the "work place"? I call BS on that.

I don't know... Roddenberry seemed rather uncomfortable or out-of-his-depth with women; all his female characters were pretty, but usually somewhat lacking in the brains department. They were usually depicted as the caring, sensitive, emotional type that invariably needs rescuing by the strong males. - It may be just the nature of TV in his lifetime, but I'm not sure he truly viewed them as equals. - Uhura, Rand and Chapel on TOS - never once were any of them put in any kind of authority position (even an irregular redshirt was given command before Uhura was). Same with Troi and Crusher on TNG. Number One was the only exception that comes to mind.

I think the line in question was purely sexist (as I think even Roddenberry later admitted). You can interpret it how you like in retrospect, but I'm fairly sure the original meaning was that women couldn't captain a starship.

Thats a fair point and you could be right, but that really doesn't really fit in with Trek. In universe, there is no explanation for it outside of what I said. Otherwise, we're supposed to accept that in the 23rd century, out of the blue, they suddenly demeaned women and women accepted it. Out of universe, I agree that Roddenberry was not the brightest star i nthe sky with women in media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still kind of weird that Roddenberry broke trends by having a Russian person (at the height of Cold War) being on the bridge and an African-American woman. But he won't break the trend of women being submissive to men at the "work place"? I call BS on that.

I don't know... Roddenberry seemed rather uncomfortable or out-of-his-depth with women; all his female characters were pretty, but usually somewhat lacking in the brains department. They were usually depicted as the caring, sensitive, emotional type that invariably needs rescuing by the strong males. - It may be just the nature of TV in his lifetime, but I'm not sure he truly viewed them as equals. - Uhura, Rand and Chapel on TOS - never once were any of them put in any kind of authority position (even an irregular redshirt was given command before Uhura was). Same with Troi and Crusher on TNG. Number One was the only exception that comes to mind.

I think the line in question was purely sexist (as I think even Roddenberry later admitted). You can interpret it how you like in retrospect, but I'm fairly sure the original meaning was that women couldn't captain a starship.

That was my take on it; she said 'your world of starfleet captains doesn't allow women.' It seemed pretty unambiguous (and contradictory of "The Cage" as well). But this is why I have my mental 'pick & choose' canon (the same way people do with "Spock's Brain" or some of the movies). What my brain heard (deliberately incorrectly) was "your world of starship captains didn't allow ME!" Which makes it more palatable to my old brain.... :P

Kidding aside, this is one of the many situations where a retcon is not unwelcome.

And you're right Zef'No; the standards for women on TV at that time were fairly limited. Even women leads in US TV shows like "That Girl" or "Julia" or "Honey West" (a female detective long before Charlie's Angels) were still testing parameters as to how far they could go. Even '70s icon "Mary Tyler Moore" was originally supposed to be a divorcee until the network balked and made her a never married 'single gal' instead (the sight of an independent career woman living happily without a man was inconceivable to male network execs, I suppose...). Women in the '60s were nowhere near as empowered as they are today. Lest anyone forget; TOS ST was from the era of "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie"; where two virtually OMNIPOTENT women have their powers (i.e. their sexual identity as well) kept in check by the powerless men in their lives (Darren telling Sam, "I forbid it!" when she can wish him into the cornfield any time she chooses; ridiculous!). Or an immortal genie (blonde, blue-eyed, BTW) forced to live in her bottle and call Major Nelson her 'master.' NONE of that s#!t would fly today, and rightly so.

Say what you will about current TV (I happen to enjoy much of it; "Walking Dead," "Mad Men" etc), but you never have to worry about a woman 'getting out of line' with her man, or some other stoopid sexist crap...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SLWalker   

I chalk it up to Lester being off her nut. I think she was disqualified because she was unstable, and it had nothing to do with her gender. I'll admit it's retconning, but it's a really sensible retcon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still kind of weird that Roddenberry broke trends by having a Russian person (at the height of Cold War) being on the bridge and an African-American woman. But he won't break the trend of women being submissive to men at the "work place"? I call BS on that.

I don't know... Roddenberry seemed rather uncomfortable or out-of-his-depth with women; all his female characters were pretty, but usually somewhat lacking in the brains department. They were usually depicted as the caring, sensitive, emotional type that invariably needs rescuing by the strong males. - It may be just the nature of TV in his lifetime, but I'm not sure he truly viewed them as equals. - Uhura, Rand and Chapel on TOS - never once were any of them put in any kind of authority position (even an irregular redshirt was given command before Uhura was). Same with Troi and Crusher on TNG. Number One was the only exception that comes to mind.

I think the line in question was purely sexist (as I think even Roddenberry later admitted). You can interpret it how you like in retrospect, but I'm fairly sure the original meaning was that women couldn't captain a starship.

That was my take on it; she said 'your world of starfleet captains doesn't allow women.' It seemed pretty unambiguous (and contradictory of "The Cage" as well). But this is why I have my mental 'pick & choose' canon (the same way people do with "Spock's Brain" or some of the movies). What my brain heard (deliberately incorrectly) was "your world of starship captains didn't allow ME!" Which makes it more palatable to my old brain.... :P

Kidding aside, this is one of the many situations where a retcon is not unwelcome.

And you're right Zef'No; the standards for women on TV at that time were fairly limited. Even women leads in US TV shows like "That Girl" or "Julia" or "Honey West" (a female detective long before Charlie's Angels) were still testing parameters as to how far they could go. Even '70s icon "Mary Tyler Moore" was originally supposed to be a divorcee until the network balked and made her a never married 'single gal' instead (the sight of an independent career woman living happily without a man was inconceivable to male network execs, I suppose...). Women in the '60s were nowhere near as empowered as they are today. Lest anyone forget; TOS ST was from the era of "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie"; where two virtually OMNIPOTENT women have their powers (i.e. their sexual identity as well) kept in check by the powerless men in their lives (Darren telling Sam, "I forbid it!" when she can wish him into the cornfield any time she chooses; ridiculous!). Or an immortal genie (blonde, blue-eyed, BTW) forced to live in her bottle and call Major Nelson her 'master.' NONE of that s#!t would fly today, and rightly so.

Say what you will about current TV (I happen to enjoy much of it; "Walking Dead," "Mad Men" etc), but you never have to worry about a woman 'getting out of line' with her man, or some other stoopid sexist crap...

I wanted to briefly chime in on this one. (BTW, the other problem CBS execs had with making Mary Tyler Moore's Mary Richards a divorcee instead of a never married single woman is that they were worried that the audience would interpret that she had divorced Dick Van Dyke's 1960's Rob Petrie, even though Moore was playing entirely different character than Laura Petrie -- yes, network thought that us audience was that dumb at the time. And btw, even the other liberal woman of the 1970's, Bea Arthur's Maude was very submissive to her many husbands and Arthur really wouldn't play true strong independent woman until she was one of the 1980's Golden Girls, Dorothy.)

As far as TOS, though, one of the things you do have to give them and Roddenberry credit for, even if she was somewhat submissive to the men around her, Uhura was actually in my opinion two decades ahead of many women characters on TV if not real life women in the fact that she was able to fight back and even sometimes rise above in intellect and knowing right from wrong than many of the men on the show. (I mean look at the way she handled herself in Mirror, Mirror, definitely my fave for Uhura as well as Nichols or how she was even more intellectual then Spock in asking the right questions, at first, in That Which Survives -- Spock literally came across as more dumb, at first, in that episode which was very unusual at that time in the 1960's to see on TV; granted in the 1960's we never got to see Uhura or any female in the Trek universe reach Captain but I dare say I wouldn't want to AS A MAN to get into a intellectual discussion {or match wits} with Uhura or get into a fight with her -- again very unusual for a women in the 1960's let alone an African-American woman on TV of that era.) And I would argue that even Charlie's Angels or even a bit earlier, Police Woman Pepper (played by Angie Dickinson) in the next decade weren't at all up to Uhura's level and weren't really that much of a moving the true spirit of equality for women along on TV. I would dare say that the first time that I saw a woman on TV being an equal to a man wouldn't happen until very late in the 1970's, 1979, with Stephanie Powers in Hart to Hart. That was one of the reasons why that show Hart to Hart was one of the my favorites of all-time. Both the Harts were true equals and were truly matched in strength and intellect (kudos to Robert Wagner for playing the other half of that couple.) But in many ways it was not until the 1980's, two decades after TOS (and yes that includes TNG) that really got to see on TV that strong of independent women as what should have been seen via Roddenberry in TOS.

But as far as Lester's comment, I like the interpretation, because she didn't actually literally say that women weren't allowed to be starship Captains in Starfleet, but that there wasn't time for a woman (and I'm assuming that was true if it was a woman Captain for a man in her life, i.e. look at how Voyager's Janeway had to deal with that issue and that was three decades after TOS and well into the next century in the Trek universe) in the "life" of male Captain.

Edited by Midknight123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And btw, even the other liberal woman of the 1970's, Bea Arthur's Maude was very submissive to her many husbands and Arthur really wouldn't play true strong independent woman until she was one of the 1980's Golden Girls, Dorothy.)

I remember "Maude" very differently than you.

This was the same Maude who usurped her husband constantly and went on to have television's first ever abortion (long before other TV shows could even say the word, let alone depict it). She broke the mold as a feminist character; especially in the 1970s. "Maude" was FAR more groundbreaking than you give it credit for being. It was the spinoff of the equally challenging comedy "All in the Family" (a show as topical today as it was 40 years ago). I used to watch those (and MASH) as a kid. If only comedies today were 1/10th as challenging as the sitcoms of that era. Now they're all about groups of attractive 20-somethings standing around couches trading silly bon mots with each other...

ST's Uhura (as much as I loved her) was little more than a galactic switchboard operator; more groundbreaking for her presence than any actual duties (and it was only in TAS' "The Lorelei Signal" that we ever saw her take the conn).

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, even the other liberal woman of the 1970's, Bea Arthur's Maude was very submissive to her many husbands and Arthur really wouldn't play true strong independent woman until she was one of the 1980's Golden Girls, Dorothy.)

I remember "Maude" very differently than you.

This was the same Maude who usurped her husband constantly and went on to have television's first ever abortion (long before other TV shows could even say the word, let alone depict it). She broke the mold as a feminist character; especially in the 1970s. "Maude" was FAR more groundbreaking than you give it credit for being. It was the spinoff of the equally challenging comedy "All in the Family" (a show as topical today as it was 40 years ago). I used to watch those (and MASH) as a kid. If only comedies today were 1/10th as challenging as the sitcoms of that era. Now they're all about groups of attractive 20-somethings standing around couches trading silly bon mots with each other...

ST's Uhura (as much as I loved her) was little more than a galactic switchboard operator; more groundbreaking for her presence than any actual duties (and it was only in TAS' "The Lorelei Signal" that we ever saw her take the conn).

I never wrote that Maude wasn't liberal, because she certainly was and actually agreed with her about 90% of the time on issues. And I also didn't write that she wasn't a feminist. But she certainly wasn't independent and that's what I wrote about her. Arthur's 2nd character of Dorothy on The Golden Girls (from the more conservative era of the 1980's) was much more independent -- and Dorothy certainly didn't go around marrying more men after Stan except the guy near the end of the series run in 1992. And Dorothy was equally, if not even more of a liberal and a feminist than Maude was and that was much more difficult to be in the 1980's then in the 1970's.

And we have a difference of opinion about Uhura. But I certainly wouldn't write that Uhura was subservant to the men on the show. (And yeah that includes on TAS.) And I wouldn't put down that she was a switchboard operator, switchboard operators put up with a lot of flack back then and earlier but weren't afraid to use and speak their mind (on that I'd go to Lily Tomlin's Earnestine character that she first presented on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In the first time during the fall after Star Trek left the air in 1969.)

By the way I was raised by a single mother, due to being a widow from the time I was 8 years old in the middle of the 1970's that's why I think I can write with some clarity that Maude was NOT independent, she may have been liberal and a feminist, in thought, I'll give you that, but she always did that in the fact she needed a man -- therefore her many marriages -- so unlike my mom at the time and so unlike Arthur's later character of Dorothy. And similar to Uhura in the last decade my mom had to take a job where she was rather second to many men, but she took initiative as well when she needed to and my mom was later a big fan of the Janeway character on Voyager.

Edited by Midknight123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, even the other liberal woman of the 1970's, Bea Arthur's Maude was very submissive to her many husbands and Arthur really wouldn't play true strong independent woman until she was one of the 1980's Golden Girls, Dorothy.)

I remember "Maude" very differently than you.

This was the same Maude who usurped her husband constantly and went on to have television's first ever abortion (long before other TV shows could even say the word, let alone depict it). She broke the mold as a feminist character; especially in the 1970s. "Maude" was FAR more groundbreaking than you give it credit for being. It was the spinoff of the equally challenging comedy "All in the Family" (a show as topical today as it was 40 years ago). I used to watch those (and MASH) as a kid. If only comedies today were 1/10th as challenging as the sitcoms of that era. Now they're all about groups of attractive 20-somethings standing around couches trading silly bon mots with each other...

ST's Uhura (as much as I loved her) was little more than a galactic switchboard operator; more groundbreaking for her presence than any actual duties (and it was only in TAS' "The Lorelei Signal" that we ever saw her take the conn).

I never wrote that Maude wasn't liberal, because she certainly was and actually agreed with her about 90% of the time on issues. And I also didn't write that she wasn't a feminist. But she certainly wasn't independent and that's what I wrote about her. Arthur's 2nd character of Dorothy on The Golden Girls (from the more conservative era of the 1980's) was much more independent -- and Dorothy certainly didn't go around marrying more men after Stan except the guy near the end of the series run in 1992. And Dorothy was equally, if not even more of a liberal and a feminist than Maude was and that was much more difficult to be in the 1980's then in the 1970's.

And we have a difference of opinion about Uhura. But I certainly wouldn't write that Uhura was subservant to the men on the show. (And yeah that includes on TAS.) And I wouldn't put down that she was a switchboard operator, switchboard operators put up with a lot of flack back then and earlier but weren't afraid to use and speak their mind (on that I'd go to Lily Tomlin's Earnestine character that she first presented on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In the first time during the fall after Star Trek left the air in 1969.)

By the way I was raised by a single mother, due to being a widow from the time I was 8 years old in the middle of the 1970's that's why I think I can write with some clarity that Maude was NOT independent, she may have been liberal and a feminist, in thought, I'll give you that, but she always did that in the fact she needed a man -- therefore her many marriages -- so unlike my mom at the time and so unlike Arthur's later character of Dorothy. And similar to Uhura in the last decade my mom had to take a job where she was rather second to many men, but she took initiative as well when she needed to and my mom was later a big fan of the Janeway character on Voyager.

But bearing in mind that divorce was such a hot-button taboo in those days, even having a woman marry multiple times was progressive; much in the same way that a guy like Hugh Hefner marrying multiple times is depicted as a 'playboy' (rather than codependent), so was Maude. And Maude was NEVER submissive... not to her husband or anyone. She married multiple times not because she 'needed' a man; but rather because she was sampling the buffet table (just as men who habitually cheat on their wives claim to be doing). A man does that and he's a 'playboy' or 'player'; a woman does that and she's depicted as a needy slut. A terrible double standard. But again, I used to love the show precisely because Maude was so non-conforming. She didn't 'need' a man so much as she chose to be with one.

And don't get me wrong about Uhura; I love her. She was awesome (and Nichelle Nichols is an absolute sweetheart!).

But she was hardly a role model for women's lib from her actions on the show; it was more her presence (a black woman as part of the command crew of a spaceship) that was noteworthy rather than what she actually did on the show (sadly, not so much). But Nichols gave the character a charm that was undeniable (and very memorable) despite what she may or may not have been allowed to do on the show.

PS: While recognizing that you are a child of a single mother, I was a product of my mother's third marriage (my dad was my mother's third husband) so I think I might also be qualified to speak on women of multiple marriages. ;) Some people simply fall out of love with one spouse and then move onto another; that's not being submissive or 'needing' anyone. The reasons for multiple marriages are manifold.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as far as Lester's comment, I like the interpretation, because she didn't actually literally say that women weren't allowed to be starship Captains in Starfleet, but that there wasn't time for a woman (and I'm assuming that was true if it was a woman Captain for a man in her life, i.e. look at how Voyager's Janeway had to deal with that issue and that was three decades after TOS and well into the next century in the Trek universe) in the "life" of male Captain.

Exactly how I interpret that. I won't argue that Roddenberry was a product of his time in terms of gender equality, but in the context of the Trekverse, it makes no sense that an "enlightened" society would be enlightened in every way but they wouldn't allow women to captain a starship. What? Did Roddenberry put a transparent aluminum ceiling to replace the glass one? I doubt it very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as far as Lester's comment, I like the interpretation, because she didn't actually literally say that women weren't allowed to be starship Captains in Starfleet, but that there wasn't time for a woman (and I'm assuming that was true if it was a woman Captain for a man in her life, i.e. look at how Voyager's Janeway had to deal with that issue and that was three decades after TOS and well into the next century in the Trek universe) in the "life" of male Captain.

Exactly how I interpret that. I won't argue that Roddenberry was a product of his time in terms of gender equality, but in the context of the Trekverse, it makes no sense that an "enlightened" society would be enlightened in every way but they wouldn't allow women to captain a starship. What? Did Roddenberry put a transparent aluminum ceiling to replace the glass one? I doubt it very much.

Even though my view may not be the accurate one, given that Pike had a female XO many years before "Turnabout Intruder", I just assume that Lester washed out of the academy for personal reasons (duh; she's a psycho) but tried to blame it on the institution of Starfleet as a whole. Kind of like when someone of a particular ethnicity doesn't get a job or a promotion and prefers to blame it on racism rather than a lack of qualification on their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as far as Lester's comment, I like the interpretation, because she didn't actually literally say that women weren't allowed to be starship Captains in Starfleet, but that there wasn't time for a woman (and I'm assuming that was true if it was a woman Captain for a man in her life, i.e. look at how Voyager's Janeway had to deal with that issue and that was three decades after TOS and well into the next century in the Trek universe) in the "life" of male Captain.

Exactly how I interpret that. I won't argue that Roddenberry was a product of his time in terms of gender equality, but in the context of the Trekverse, it makes no sense that an "enlightened" society would be enlightened in every way but they wouldn't allow women to captain a starship. What? Did Roddenberry put a transparent aluminum ceiling to replace the glass one? I doubt it very much.

Even though my view may not be the accurate one, given that Pike had a female XO many years before "Turnabout Intruder", I just assume that Lester washed out of the academy for personal reasons (duh; she's a psycho) but tried to blame it on the institution of Starfleet as a whole. Kind of like when someone of a particular ethnicity doesn't get a job or a promotion and prefers to blame it on racism rather than a lack of qualification on their part.

You could very well be right on that. I unfortunately did not see this episode so I don't know anything of this character beyond her infamous quote.

I vow to the Omeda Sector community that I WILL watch TOS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I vow to the Omeda Sector community that I WILL watch TOS!

Just try to be a little charitable (the show is literally as old as I am!) :giggle:

And if I were you, I'd start with the remastered (2007) versions. That way, the jarring variance in quality of the original FX won't pop you out of the show; also the remastered FX fill in a few plot holes as well. It'd be a smoother ride. ;)

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vow to the Omeda Sector community that I WILL watch TOS!

Just try to be a little charitable (the show is literally as old as I am!) :giggle:

And if I were you, I'd start with the remastered (2007) versions. That way, the jarring variance in quality of the original FX won't pop you out of the show; also the remastered FX fill in a few plot holes as well. It'd be a smoother ride. ;)

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it.

Haha, don't worry. I'm not one of those young teenyboppers that lose interest if there isn't an explosion every five seconds. I know TOS was mostly story with some exciting FX. ;) But I can finally interject my points on TOS when we all discuss and not have to constantly add "but that's just what I heard...I never saw the episode..." :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vow to the Omeda Sector community that I WILL watch TOS!

Just try to be a little charitable (the show is literally as old as I am!) :giggle:

And if I were you, I'd start with the remastered (2007) versions. That way, the jarring variance in quality of the original FX won't pop you out of the show; also the remastered FX fill in a few plot holes as well. It'd be a smoother ride. ;)

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it.

Haha, don't worry. I'm not one of those young teenyboppers that lose interest if there isn't an explosion every five seconds. I know TOS was mostly story with some exciting FX. ;) But I can finally interject my points on TOS when we all discuss and not have to constantly add "but that's just what I heard...I never saw the episode..." :P

Well, the original FX of TOS (Emmy-winning then; laughable now) are a bit distracting to a modern audience.

But the remastered DVD/blurays did a beautiful job of 'smoothing out' the rough spots. They also kept the look consistent with the TOS universe (the Ent model is exactly the same; as are the shuttlecraft, etc). They resisted the urge to "Lucas-ify" everything. They don't add things that weren't there previously; no hordes of extra creatures flying about, or bottomless warp cores added to 1960s sets. Most of the modifications are things like phaser blasts, matte paintings (some of which are just tweaked a bit, not replaced) and all the space shots. IMO, as CGI-enhanced special editions go? The TOS SEs are a model of elegance, restraint and exactitude for others to follow.

Again, can't wait to hear your thoughts on it. :thumbup:

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this