50
I was giving Enterprise another chance, and even Archer was starting to grow on me in season 2. Then season 3 happened and he became a war criminal. (beige.party)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/startrek@startrek.website
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was giving Enterprise another chance, and even Archer was starting to grow on me in season 2. Then season 3 happened and he became a war criminal.

#StarTrek
#Enterprise
@startrek@startrek.website
@startrek@lemmy.ml
@StarTrek@mastodon.social

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

So not liking a character that was just here to be an objectified woman is sexist?

How the fuck do you even reach such a stretch?

The character of seven was not just an objectified, sexual thing, she was also debatably a kid (mentally) being sexualized as, let's not forget it, her individual growth was halted when she got assimilated.

And also, I'm waiting for anyone to try to explain to me why a borg would have heels and a boob-armor, which is obviously absurdly nonsensical and showing that she's just here to make a bunch of creeps get boners.

If I had to describe voyager, I would probably end up saying "an okay show, if you manage to pretend seven doesn't exist"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Seeing a character as nothing more than her body is sexist.

    It's sexist to create and cast the character for it.
    It's sexist to dislike the character for it.

    In both cases you're judging a character/person solely by their appearance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    This logic makes no sense.

    Seven is a symbol of sexism by the fact that she was just here to be a sex object. I dislike the character (partly, as I mentioned there are a lot of reasons to hate this shitty character) because it is the typical product of sexism where the woman is supposed to wear hills and show her boobs, even if she's a braindead robot.

    I am judging the character by the purpose of it. There is no person that I'm judging, I'm attacking the concept and the people who made it.

    Also, I struggle how it is sexist considering that it's unrelated to gender. Harry Kim is an equally bad character that was just put here because the actor was elected sexiest man of the year or some other stupid shit like that; the difference being that he was not put as a central character, and didn't completely destroy the coherence of the show.

    On a side note, I really don't understand what is the goal of trying to say that pointing out sexism is sexist. You'd rather have people not point out anything and let sexism happen freely? Now that sounds sexist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    because it is the typical product of sexism where the woman is supposed to wear hills and show her boobs, even if she’s a braindead robot.

    Maybe the Borg just realized sexy drones serve as great tools to distract (overwhelmingly male) enemy soldiers in combat! The Borg weaponized the male gaze! :D

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    Attacking a character for their character is fine.
    Attacking produces being driven by sexism is fine.
    Attacking a character because they were created by sexist producers, is sexist.
    Attack the creation process, sure. But judge the character on the character.

    You just attacked Harry Kim as a bad character. That's fine. It would be nice if you were more specific, but it's not important.
    Your critique of 7 have been all about her appearance. (Comming up more substantive criticism of 7 now, would only seem a justification after the fact. I wouldn't recommend it.)

    Another argument is: In US entertainment, nearly everyone is cast largely because of how attractive they are or aren't. Even the "uguly people" in movies, are usually just kind of average looking. Singeling out the "sexy one" for being cast by their appearance is sexist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

    Seven is wearing heels and a boob armor as an objectification. The reason this is more significant than, I don't know, some random action movie crap objectifying women, is that star trek (and I would say, especially voyager) was not overall sexual, but they went out of their way to make a character that is overly sexual compared to both the tone of the show and the concept of the borg.

    My criticisms were not about her looks, but about the goal of her looks and the implications of them. As I said, it is not only gross to try to make a character just to make people get hard while watching the show, it is also incoherent with the universe of the show (as before, borg and heels don't make sense) and extremely immoral (again, the character is shown as having the mind of a kid, not understanding sexual matters as you would expect from a kid, and yet the show is fine showing her as a sexual object).

    The people responsible for the character are pieces of shit, the character is an abomination, and the looks are part of the package and a big symptom of why the character is bad. On their own, her looks wouldn't be the problem, if it didn't raise a lot of problems. As an example, if star trek was showing all characters wear overly sexual outfits like seven's, then this would be a different matter; but this is not the case. TNG was a bit like that sometimes, with Picard and Riker's pajamas that open down to the knees and weird stretching yoga sessions, and as such it's hard to specifically pinpoint a character, as it's just a general ambiance. Voyager doesn't have that.

    Also, you keep on talking about sexism, but complaining about objectification is not even related to gender so I struggle seeing how that even fits. Objectification is always bad, no matter the gender, it doesn't make sense. The difference with seven is that her objectification wasn't a "once in a while" thing, it was permanent, as it was the whole purpose of the character, and it's not like the writing surrounding her saves anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

    Exactly. Your conflating the character, with its creation. Your calling her bad not for who the character is or who she became, but solely for the process that created her based on looks. You're implying or assuming, a good character couldn't come from a bad process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah so you're ignoring most of what I'm saying on purpose.

    I explained multiple times why the looks of seven, on top of being pure objectification which has negative consequences outside of the universe of the show, also have a pretty bad impact within the show, making it a bad character both from a meta and in-lore perspective.

    I even said that if everyone was dressed like her it wouldn't have the same impact (even though it would be far from fixing the character).

    If you're not going to debate in good faith there is no point, have a good day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Literally everything you've mentioned was about her looks, and how they were the basis for her being put on the show. You've mentioned nothing about the characters actions, choices, relationships with other crewmembers, or Jeri Ryan's performance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Her outfit matters as it makes the character incoherent. No one in the show wondered why a battle robot would wear heels. She didn't say why either. As such, her character already doesn't make sense. It is heels and a boob armor, it could have been a broom up her ass, either way it doesn't make sense and it's not about "her looks" but about the implications of the character deciding to wear something like this. Borgs are supposed to be ultra-rational, this makes her character stupidly incoherent.

    And how is the fact that a kid is shown as being sexualized and romanced by adults characters about her looks? My point was that she's a kid mentally, and yet portrayed sexually, how is that about looks? Of course, the underlying meta explanation is that she was just a sex object put in the show for her looks, but my point was precisely that characters in the show, since they don't know that, are apparently fine with dating a kid. This is a horrible character, no matter her looks.

    Overall, most of my points were not about her looks, but they do relate to it since the character was made badly just so that it could be objectified. To try to make you understand, her looks are not the problem, but the main reason that pushed the writers to make a bad, incoherent, shitty character. And of course I didn't even start digging into the things you mentioned because they are too many and less bad than what I mentioned, but yes, her actions and choices are incoherent, her relationships weird and bad and basically child abuse, and her performance was pretty abysmal. I just focused on the initial, core problem of the character, which is that it was written lazily because they didn't care about it making sense, about picking a proper actress, or about thinking about the moral implications of their choices, as all that they wanted was an object-woman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Ok.
    It's hard to see one's own bias.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, indeed.

    Still waiting for you to explain how something is sexist when it's not related to gender btw.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Sex and gender are two different things. It wouldn't be related.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yes and sexism is about gender, not sex.

    But sure, let's continue on this bad faith argument, since my point was that I am against objectification of both men and women, so whether it is about sex and gender it's the same since it's related to neither. So how is it sexist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    How many times have you been upset at a male being cast for their appearance? I mentionned before nearly all actors in US media have been cast for their attractiveness.

    Do you rail against the unrealistic body standards of male superheros in comic books, the same way you would women?

    Be honest, nobody does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yeah so you're really set on talking to yourself.

    I am talking about objectification. The concept of showing someone as primarily an attractive body, as if they were nothing else.

    And yes, just in star trek I mentioned instances of it, and I didn't even get started on shits like Enterprise.

    Of course comic books have an extreme tendency to show unrealistic body standards, and the fact that the idea of a "normal" guy now is a bodybuilder says a lot, but that's not about objectification. When Star Trek shows Riker naked in his bathtub just for the sake of it, yeah, that is. And yes I'm against it.

    I think you are so stuck in your vision of things that you just cannot admit that someone would see things differently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent