When were female captains banned from Starfleet?Were there military personnel / branches of service in...

Find the next value of this number series

Quoting Keynes in a lecture

What to do when eye contact makes your coworker uncomfortable?

How can I safely use "Thalidomide" in my novel while respecting the trademark?

How does electrical safety system work on ISS?

Why do ¬, ∀ and ∃ have the same precedence?

Circuit Analysis: Obtaining Close Loop OP - AMP Transfer function

Multiplicative persistence

Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos breaking the Tesseract and claiming the stone?

How were servants to the Kaiser of Imperial Germany treated and where may I find more information on them?

How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?

Echo with obfuscation

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

JIS and ISO square taper

Do we have to expect a queue for the shuttle from Watford Junction to Harry Potter Studio?

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

Typing CO_2 easily

How do I tell my boss that I'm quitting soon, especially given that a colleague just left this week

Boundary Value Problem and FullSimplify

When were female captains banned from Starfleet?

How can ping know if my host is down

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?

Mysterious "Two documentclass or documentstyle commands."

Why does Carol not get rid of the Kree symbol on her suit when she changes its colours?



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?













7















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





























    7















    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



























      7












      7








      7


      1






      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 1 hour ago







      user

















      asked 7 hours ago









      useruser

      1,230916




      1,230916






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13














          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.






          share|improve this answer
























          • 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
            1 hour ago



















          1














          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
            4 hours ago






          • 4





            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
            3 hours ago











          • @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

            – Paulie_D
            3 hours ago













          • I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

            – Paulie_D
            3 hours ago






          • 3





            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
            2 hours ago



















          1














          https://www.definitions.net/definition/retroactive%20continuity




          Retroactive continuity



          Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work. There are various motivations for retconning. The changes may occur to accommodate sequels or derivative works, allowing newer authors or creators to revise the diegetic history to include a course of events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.




          Let me be blunt here. There will be no point in Discovery's future in which the events of Turnabout Intruder will happen exactly as portrayed in that episode because Turnabout Intruder was just a mistake. The point of the episode, that women are as a class unfit for leadership and should just learn their inferior place in the scheme of things is one that didn't age well.



          Some people deal with that by rationalizing "Lester was delusional and Kirk was humouring her". Or alternatively you can just blame it on time travellers. Or just not work so hard to keep every work of bit of Trek in continuity no matter how bad it is. Me, I think Turnabout Intruder is more deserving of exile from "canon" than Star Trek V.






          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

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            13














            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.






            share|improve this answer
























            • 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
              1 hour ago
















            13














            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.






            share|improve this answer
























            • 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
              1 hour ago














            13












            13








            13







            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.






            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.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 1 hour ago









            Keith MorrisonKeith Morrison

            8,26711432




            8,26711432













            • 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
              1 hour ago



















            • 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
              1 hour ago

















            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
            1 hour ago





            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
            1 hour ago













            1














            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
              4 hours ago






            • 4





              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
              3 hours ago











            • @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago













            • I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              2 hours ago
















            1














            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
              4 hours ago






            • 4





              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
              3 hours ago











            • @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago













            • I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              2 hours ago














            1












            1








            1







            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 5 hours ago









            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
              4 hours ago






            • 4





              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
              3 hours ago











            • @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago













            • I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              2 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
              4 hours ago






            • 4





              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
              3 hours ago











            • @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago













            • I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

              – Paulie_D
              3 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              2 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
            4 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
            4 hours ago




            4




            4





            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
            3 hours ago





            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
            3 hours ago













            @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

            – Paulie_D
            3 hours ago







            @TheLethalCarrot TBH I'm not sure how I could edit the answer. The question was based (to my mind) on a single line that the OP assumed implied gender limits. I'm not sure extending that assumption to other ST era is helpful or useful since, AFACT, it's not true. Roddenberry's comment aside (and some disagreed) evidence of such limits in not evident (from my recollections).

            – Paulie_D
            3 hours ago















            I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

            – Paulie_D
            3 hours ago





            I confess, my original thought was alongside of the one from tbrookside (relationship-based) but I found the quote for GR and went from there.

            – Paulie_D
            3 hours ago




            3




            3





            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
            2 hours ago





            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
            2 hours ago











            1














            https://www.definitions.net/definition/retroactive%20continuity




            Retroactive continuity



            Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work. There are various motivations for retconning. The changes may occur to accommodate sequels or derivative works, allowing newer authors or creators to revise the diegetic history to include a course of events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.




            Let me be blunt here. There will be no point in Discovery's future in which the events of Turnabout Intruder will happen exactly as portrayed in that episode because Turnabout Intruder was just a mistake. The point of the episode, that women are as a class unfit for leadership and should just learn their inferior place in the scheme of things is one that didn't age well.



            Some people deal with that by rationalizing "Lester was delusional and Kirk was humouring her". Or alternatively you can just blame it on time travellers. Or just not work so hard to keep every work of bit of Trek in continuity no matter how bad it is. Me, I think Turnabout Intruder is more deserving of exile from "canon" than Star Trek V.






            share|improve this answer




























              1














              https://www.definitions.net/definition/retroactive%20continuity




              Retroactive continuity



              Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work. There are various motivations for retconning. The changes may occur to accommodate sequels or derivative works, allowing newer authors or creators to revise the diegetic history to include a course of events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.




              Let me be blunt here. There will be no point in Discovery's future in which the events of Turnabout Intruder will happen exactly as portrayed in that episode because Turnabout Intruder was just a mistake. The point of the episode, that women are as a class unfit for leadership and should just learn their inferior place in the scheme of things is one that didn't age well.



              Some people deal with that by rationalizing "Lester was delusional and Kirk was humouring her". Or alternatively you can just blame it on time travellers. Or just not work so hard to keep every work of bit of Trek in continuity no matter how bad it is. Me, I think Turnabout Intruder is more deserving of exile from "canon" than Star Trek V.






              share|improve this answer


























                1












                1








                1







                https://www.definitions.net/definition/retroactive%20continuity




                Retroactive continuity



                Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work. There are various motivations for retconning. The changes may occur to accommodate sequels or derivative works, allowing newer authors or creators to revise the diegetic history to include a course of events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.




                Let me be blunt here. There will be no point in Discovery's future in which the events of Turnabout Intruder will happen exactly as portrayed in that episode because Turnabout Intruder was just a mistake. The point of the episode, that women are as a class unfit for leadership and should just learn their inferior place in the scheme of things is one that didn't age well.



                Some people deal with that by rationalizing "Lester was delusional and Kirk was humouring her". Or alternatively you can just blame it on time travellers. Or just not work so hard to keep every work of bit of Trek in continuity no matter how bad it is. Me, I think Turnabout Intruder is more deserving of exile from "canon" than Star Trek V.






                share|improve this answer













                https://www.definitions.net/definition/retroactive%20continuity




                Retroactive continuity



                Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work. There are various motivations for retconning. The changes may occur to accommodate sequels or derivative works, allowing newer authors or creators to revise the diegetic history to include a course of events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.




                Let me be blunt here. There will be no point in Discovery's future in which the events of Turnabout Intruder will happen exactly as portrayed in that episode because Turnabout Intruder was just a mistake. The point of the episode, that women are as a class unfit for leadership and should just learn their inferior place in the scheme of things is one that didn't age well.



                Some people deal with that by rationalizing "Lester was delusional and Kirk was humouring her". Or alternatively you can just blame it on time travellers. Or just not work so hard to keep every work of bit of Trek in continuity no matter how bad it is. Me, I think Turnabout Intruder is more deserving of exile from "canon" than Star Trek V.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                David JohnstonDavid Johnston

                2,9331126




                2,9331126






























                    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

                    “%fieldName is a required field.”, in Magento2 REST API Call for GET Method Type The Next...

                    How to change City field to a dropdown in Checkout step Magento 2Magento 2 : How to change UI field(s)...

                    夢乃愛華...