I found this after reading and responding to this post here about early Trek fans' prejudicial negative reaction to TNG. One of my responses (see here) was to point out that any fans of the progressiveness of Trek ought to have been mindful of the room for improvement over TOS, with female representation being an obvious issue. I posed the question "when did Trek start consistently passing the Bechdel test", thinking that it didn't start happening until Voyager, which those hard-line TOS fans would never have allowed to be made (along with TNG and DS9).
And of course, someone's done the analysis with graphs and everything! Awesome! (though note the links to tumblr posts at the bottom that are now behind a sign-in wall ... fun).
The results aren't surprising to me, generally. I expected TNG to do worse, but also thought it did a pretty good job with female guest characters so it might score higher than I thought. DS9, I expected to do better than TNG, which, to my surprise is only marginally true. But I didn't expect, from memory, how much of that is attributable to so many characters breaking off into (hetero, yes even Odo) couples. Voyager obviously does very well. And Enterprise ... well we shouldn't expect much of that ... honestly, for me, this cements the show's status as a blight on this era to lean so masculine straight after voyager.
And of course TOS shows its age, which, surely by 1987, good Trek fans should have been aware of?
Beyond that, I can't help but think of SNW here, which, IMO has a wonderful cast/crew that's well balanced and which I'd expect to be doing well on the Bechdel (as low and superficial bar as it is). But, as it starts to transition into a TOS prequel/reboot (as it is trending from S2 and as the show runners are indicating), all of those TOS characters are going to carry that 60s baggage with them. They'll all be men (Uhura is already there!) and all be special miracle workers. La'an's story has already been sidelined into a Kirk romance. Pelia the engineer was already somewhat substituted by Scotty the engineer. As it goes on (presuming it does), I think it could begin to look awkward once you squint.
EDIT: For those asking about new seasons/series ... I found this page/blog by the author of the parent blog post ... which provides data for some new Trek (Disco and Picard S3 and SNW S1 it seems).
Somewhat notably to me (though only one data point) ... the one episode of SNW S1 that (clearly) fails the test is the one with Kirk in it.
In a similar vein though, while Disco generally does well (best of all Trek so far it seems), the author notes that Season two had the most episodes that were close to the line, because Michael’s arc was so intertwined with her search for her brother, Spock. That is, the more new Trek leans into TOS nostalgia, the worse this gets.
Not even one episode of season 1 TOS passed it. For shame. What were the 60s thinking?
Edit: /s by the way. I'm aware of the culture in the 60s.
I mean, it was another time. Their first pilot had number one, and that didn't fly. But that's the point, it was another time, and staying stuck in that time will always have drawbacks. As the article points out, the TOS Kelvin timeline reboots don't do well on the bechdel at all, and it's not a coincidence. If SNW heads toward more TOS prequel/reboot territory, you'll probably see it in bechdel data like this.
The first pilot literally had them talking about how weird it is to have a woman on the bridge.
That was likely added to quell reactions to a woman as a first officer. But the Network had notes even so on how negatively test audiences reacted to Majel Barrett’s Number One.
Roddenberry tried another tack with blonde, beehived, Whitney in a miniskirt as Yeoman Janice Rand. She was supposed to be a woman main character but even that was too much for the executives and she was written out by the end of the first season.
A yeoman is an odd position to write into a series.
It’s one of the most senior NCO roles, and one that interacts regularly with a captain. It shouldn’t have been portrayed as a secretary.
Roddenberry was told he couldn’t have both an alien (Spock) and a woman as a first officer.
That's exactly what a yeoman does on a modern naval ship.
From wikipedia:
That’s understating the role.
Administration does not equal secretary, except in the old British usage where the Secretary to the Prime Minister is what’s now called a Chief of Staff.
A yeoman is one of the most senior NCOs, responsible for communication with command and the admiralty, also responsible for performance assessments of all the enlisted ranks and more junior NCOs.
Yeoman can rate from E-1 to E-9 so I'm not sure why you think they are only senior NCOs.
This is directly from a naval site:
General Description
Yeoman perform administrative and clerical work. They receive visitors, answer telephone calls and sort incoming mail. They type, organize files and operate modern office equipment such as word processing computers and copying machines.
What They Do
The duties performed by YNs include:
That's a secretary, or more properly today an administrative assistant.
The level would be relative to the officer they are supporting. On a ship with a captain who was a full captain, they would be a senior NCO.
Not to mention that the ranks in the 1960s were a bit different.
Their position would increase as they increased in rank but they are still just secretaries, even at the highest level.
This is false. In the documentary Carrier (2008) which follows the USS Nimitz on a deployment in the gulf they follow a yeoman, Shaneka McReed for some of it. She is promoted during the episode to E-4, Yeoman Petty Officer 3rd Class. She was a yeoman who served on the bridge of the carrier. (I just recently watched this which is why I thought you were incorrect on your description).
I don't know about rank changing since the 60s other than in 2016 they no longer referred to sailors by their ratings, only their rank.
It’s tricky to know because technology has changed the nature of these jobs significantly, and Star Trek has tended to map to roles as they are, despite projecting further technology.
In the 60s, 70s & 80s, a Yeoman would have held the encryption keys and would have been responsible for interactions with command. (The Comms officer would have had communications engineering and codes, but not necessarily access to the highest command codes.)
Likewise, responsibility for personnel assessment and promotion recommendations among ratings was a senior NCO responsibility that interlinked with the responsibilities of the XO.
It’s easy to portray a lot of these jobs as ‘merely clerical’ and it can be a kind of erasure of the people of colour and women who were in these ratings.
It brings to mind the work of the WW2 Wrens who did all the naval gaming in the UK and in Halifax, modeling, innovating and teaching tactics to UK and allied navies, but who got no credit. Or the women ‘computers’ and code breakers at Bletchley. Their commanding officers got all the credit and they were erased.
Oh I'm not trying to diminish them, I actually think the administrative assistants and secretaries of the world do a million times more than the executives they support. Yeoman Rand probably does a ton of behind the scenes shit that keeps the ship running but on paper yeomen are assistants. They aren't the decision makers even when they are assigned to a captain or XO. The decision maker would be the Command Master Chief. He works hand in hand with the command team and does a lot of administrative stuff too but he is more of a leader whereas a yeoman is more of a supporter. There are many quirks about the military like this so I don't think it's weird she's on the bridge at all.
Understood. I suspect that Roddenberry was just trying to find a role for another woman after having such pushback on a Lieutenant Commander.
Kirk: "Rand, tell Scotty we need more power!"
vs
Kirk: "Scotty, we need more power!"
I know which one is more compelling.
Clerical duties don't make for exciting tv. It may be important in real life, but doesn't work for tv. [Insert joke about TPS report.]
Oh absolutely. I should put a bold /s up there.
That's a bit of a low-resolution phrase.
Of course it obviously was a product of it's time - but it did push the boundaries as far as it could, and had to fight for some basic scenes.
Unlike many other "products of their time" that didn't even try and move the needle for positive representation.