957
It's free real estate (thelemmy.club)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/tenforward@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 24 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

I've always thought it was an odd change. I get why they did it, but the original clearly wasn't being used in the way the change implies.

It has the same energy as saying that you can't use the term "whitelist" and must substitute "allowlist", or "master bedroom" to "primary bedroom", or that time they changed "monkeypox" to "m-pox".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    "Master bedroom" being changed is such a silly one. That term wasn't even used until the 20th century and referred to the master of the household. It has nothing to do with slave masters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It speaks to a larger cultural ignorance or poor literacy to even consider it, in my opinion. I've seen similar reactions to talking about "plantation-style" home architecture. It's as if many people have only ever heard these words in connection with slavery from their lessons in school.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    A place I worked out stopped carrying "Plantation" brand peanuts because somebody complained.

    Nevermind the fact that the word "plantation" existed long long before America ever existed and associated it with chattel slavery in the minds of Americans, or the fact that the peanuts in question literally come from a modern, active plantation still today!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah it’s be hard to argue TOS was excluding women in that sentence given the presence of female bridge crew members.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You mean space secretary and space operator? The pilot had a woman as first officer but we couldn’t keep that for some reason…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You mean the Yeoman and Communications Officer?

    Those are actual roles on warships that at the time women were not allowed to fill. How come when a woman is in those roles you reduce them “secretary” and “operator”?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t. The show did.

    As I pointed out there was a woman first officer, but we could not keep that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The show didn’t, you did. The show put women into positions reserved for men at the time. The men in those positions weren’t called secretaries or phone operators, the female characters in Star Trek weren’t called secretaries or phone operators. The only person being reductive of their roles is you lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It kinda seems like you’ve never seen the show. I’m well aware of what a Yeoman does on a ship and it is not limited to bringing the captain tea and having the log dictated to you (or you just stand there while dude writes it). Those are, however, things that a secretary did in the 60s. I’m not reducing their roles, there’s a reason that women were only given positions on the bridge that were traditionally filled by women in 60s offices and that the female first officer was removed from the show.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    But they weren’t given roles traditionally filled by women. They were given roles traditionally filled by men. They make a point of it in the show when Kirk is upset that the Yeoman they assigned under him is a woman.

    You keep talking like these roles were works of fiction, created solely for the women of TOS to keep them out of having an “real” role. I don’t understand why you refuse to acknowledge the unarguable fact that these are actual, real roles on real human naval ships, for men, that go back centuries.

    Why is it that despite these being real, traditionally male roles, when you see two women doing them you reduce them to “Secretaries”. Gene Roddenberry himself regretted not showing a female starship captain in TOS, but he didn’t denigrate the role the women played just because they were women.

    Like, are you really just trying to argue that there’s something wrong with Star Trek because despite how unprecedentedly progressive it was at the time, it’s somehow misogynistic because it wasn’t wasn’t unprecedentedly progressive enough?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I’m not arguing that there’s something wrong with Star Trek. I’m arguing that people are giving way too much credit to the 60s. They were not given roles traditionally filled by men, men could not even type in the 60s. It was seen as beneath them. That they had the woman answering the phone on the starship wasn’t seen as oh they gave a woman a traditionally male navy roll. It was seen as oh look they still have a woman answering the phone even in the future. Most of the people who watched the show weren’t in the Navy and weren’t drawing those kinds of parallels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    They were not given roles traditionally filled by men, men could not even type in the 60s. It was seen as beneath them

    They were. These were men’s roles, that men were doing, in the Navy, in the 1960’s.

    It was seen as oh look they still have a woman answering the phone even in the future.

    No, it wasn’t, except by you lmao. You are projecting here.

    Most of the people who watched the show weren’t in the Navy and weren’t drawing those kinds of parallels.

    They absolutely were drawing those parallels. Everybody in the 1960’s was fully aware that women weren’t allowed posts like that on naval ships. It would have been implicitly understood by literally everyone that women being allowed these roles on a ship in the future was a progressive idea. The fact that women were allowed permanent posts on a combat vessel at all was a novel idea at the time, much less a woman serving as a commissioned officer on the bridge of the vessel.

    Would you also reduce O’Brien from TNG to an “Elevator operator”, or are these reductions of yours reserved for women only?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Okay well now you are just blatantly ignoring my point to make yours. I’ve literally talked to women, like my grandma, who lived through this time period and specifically asked them how they felt about these things. I encourage you to do the same. You don’t have to trust me, but I hope you don’t take offense to me trusting these people more than I trust you. My grandpa was in the Navy in the 60s and also felt this way about the portrayal. I hope you have a good day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    My mother and grandma both lived through the 60s and were a Navy family. They got me into Star Trek initially as they were big fans of the series. They, as well as many other women at the time very famously found Star Trek to be uniquely empowering for women among the TV landscape. The concept of women serving in science and technology and even leadership roles on a ship, as well as being treated as experts in their fields and with equal respect to the male crew was unheard of for the time. In fact it was a woman who started the letter campaign to get Star Trek back on the air for its second season. I guess your grandma didn’t tell you that.

    It’s disheartening to see that in the big 26 there are still men like you who want to denigrate women in those roles and the lasting positive impact they had on our society. Do better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The reason was Gene Roddenberry had cast his mistress in a costar role, and wasn't yet the Lucas-esque TV god that could get away with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    That’s true, but they could have kept the part as a woman. There were other motivations in removing the role entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    They told Roddenberry he could keep Spock or Number One, but the network didn't think the 1960s audience was ready for both at once.

    Look it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I honestly don't know if Majel minded that much in retrospect; she's still the only actress to voice the Enterprise herself. She died in 2008 and most recently voiced the Enterprise D in what? 2024?

    Progress happened. Uhura wore Lieutenant's stripes so Janeway could wear Captain's pips.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Progress happening doesn’t negate my original point.

    Fun fact: The first on-screen woman captain was in The Voyage Home.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Someone else posted that they didn't consider getting rid of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben as big wins.

    Most of the changes are performative and not material. imho.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    They were big wins the same way getting rid of the Redskins was a big win for Native Americans. It’s not about the specific instance. It’s about what growing up in a world that tolerates that kind of portraying of ethnicity does to young minds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent