Countless examples exist. I'm sure you have a favorite. One of mine: After Yeoman Rand brings Kirk his meal in "The Corbomite Maneuver" Kirk vows to give the person at headquarters who assigned him a female yeoman hell to which McCoy slimily replies "What's the matter Jim? Don't you trust yourself?"
Yuck.
There are certain things you need to ignore when watching Star Trek, just like there are certain thing you need to ignore when watching the quintessential American fiction, Huck Finn. Same thing today ... we still have issues ... ask Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.
shareThe men sensibly wore long pants. The women wore micro-miniskirts. That's exactly as stupid as having Kirk go on all the landing parties.
shareThe lack of either of these things would have sunk the show.
I always tried to view Kirk's inclusion with the landing parties through the lens of 18th century maritime norms. A captain would always be among the first ashore at a new island (partially to assure that no crew could skim on the plunder). The Enterprise's sensors would verify the lack of immediate danger so Kirk would be confidant about his safety. So his presence at least had the benefit of a general making decisions from the front line. An intellectual band aid but sufficient for me.
But how often did Kirk find himself in danger when taking part in a landing party? Basically every single time. Yeah, the human race probably developed some broken chromosomes by that time, but you'd think after the 20th hair-breadth escape they'd have figured out it was dangerous to have Kirk on those landing parties.
Of course it was silly and cartoonish -- which was probably why my parents laughed every time they walked through the room while my brother and I were watching it. They did it all for dramatic reasons, and they had the women dressing like sex kittens because that would gain viewers. It would even gain viewers amongst budding feminists, since the feminists were, at that time, using all of their brain cells and coming up with ideas like burning bras to strike a blow against male chauvinism and being considered sex objects. Why they didn't just go all the way and then have wet tee-shirt contests to REALLY show those men they weren't sex objects just baffles me.
I like to think that between every episode there are weeks or months of a bunch of nothing going on. Landing parties of no note. So the captain could be lulled into a sense of safety.
As I have said before, I recognize the absurdity of the female uniforms. I also love them. They wanted to dress as they liked concurrent to the era and no male was going to keep them down. Lets face it, men are going to like watching women do anything, regardless. Sophisticated men of high breeding would, once upon a time, break a mild sweat at the sight of a lady's ankle. Beasts!
At least the Star Trek thing was ostensibly a win/win scenario in its own time. I know I feel like a winner.
I don't think you are giving the sexual revolution of the time proper credit. Without the 1960's pushback on female 'demure' attire, ( which is partly what the short skirts were about). Women wearing yoga pants in public today would be arrested for indeceney.
shareI lived through the '60's pushback on female "demure" attire. We were told it was "liberating," but even at the time I thought it was just giving men what they wanted -- jiggling boobs, lots of leg, and the "liberation" of being sexually available to men with "no strings, no rings." Single motherhood skyrocketed, as did women's and children's poverty rates. Women weren't liberated enough to ask the man to put a little overcoat on their John Thomas. Still aren't, apparently.
Most women are not built for yoga pants, which explains the first joke I saw on Twitter this morning -- "Seeing women in yoga pants makes it difficult to believe they do yoga." I don't think the garment adds anything to society, and if there were a crime called "visual assault," a lot of the women who wear them would qualify.
I for one am not insulted.Lululemon,the company that kicked off the craze, charges some $125 for a pair, making the company a tidy profit.
Women it seems are willing to pay for them. The stock is up some 40 percent this year. I liken it to an arms race, if you are a young women of childbearing age, trying to attract a man, you will not go to the gym in sweatpants when some other woman gets a date or more attention because she is wearing tight yoga pants.
It could be worse for women, during the correset craze in the 1800's a thin waste so was desirable that some women removed their lower ribs.
It's usually older people who try to look their best to be as young as possible.
This includes getting into trends not associated with their demo, such as fitting into tight yoga pants.
Sometimes, the attempt comes off looking silly, no different from anyone else aspiring to appear hip or youthful.
~~/o/
The sexism never really bothered me too much, but they did treat the women in Kirk's time very differently than they did in later Star Trek series. I just say that it's a product of the 60s and go with it.
shareI love Star Trek and how it has continued to stay relevant throughout the years. But this is one particular aspect that dates the show, and we are forced to remember when it was filmed. The next time you watch through the series, count how many episodes pass the Bechdal test (i.e, 2 named female characters have a conversation with each other about something - anything - other than a man). I have been observing that, in this particular series, it's so uncommon that it surprises me when an episode actually does.
Compare that to ST: Voyager, where the test is passed in nearly every episode.
Again, I love the show, but this is one aspect of it that doesn't age well.
Safe to say the writers had absolutely nothing to base their writing on since the notion of females serving on, say, a military vessels or piloting a fighter jet was, no pun intended, totally alien to them. This was a leading edge concept back then.
shareI'm glad someone brought that up, because yes, showing women as military officers was probably a first for American TV, if not TV in general. I mean, I know of feminists who absolutely ADORE Uhura, partly because she was a black woman playing an intelligent professional at a time when that was revolutionary, and partly because when the shit hit the fan and the Klingons attacked...
Uhura stayed in her seat on the bridge and did her job.
That was absolutely a first, showing women in a combat situation as a participant who faced the same dangers as the men, rather than as someone who's there for the hero to rescue. That was so far from the mid-20th-century idea of what was right, that it could only be show in a science fiction scenario.
What a load of garbage. In the scrapped pilot, both men and women more or less the exact same uniform. Why invent bullshit to explain why the women were dressed the way they were on the show, when you could just do your research?
http://www.myneatstuff.ca/store/img/startrek/tos-pilot.jpg
It was the sixties.
Star Trek was fairly progressive for its time. Black crew members treated as equals to the whites. First interracial kiss on television.
The original Trek could have done better when it came to rising above the sexism of its time, though, sure. You didn't see many really high ranking women and they had to wear those short skirts which didn't seem that practical, though the lady crew members looked nice in them. The show did better when it came to some things than others.
It was the sixties. Who wouldn't sign up for a five year mission when all the women were wearing miniskirts?
shareWaaah!
My feelings!
My feelings!
I am offended by this 50 year ols show!
Waaah!
Waaaah! A young, hot, bold, decisive, hot for the ladies space captain TV character offends me!
I am so special...my feelings trump all.
I am so sensitive, I am a good person by finding "bad" everywhere and being offended over it.
I find "isms" in the most random places and display my virtue outrage.
Hard-on inducing sexy birds in miniskirts and go-go boots! If you didn't fantasize about Uhura while you were having a pull as a teenage boy in the late 1960s, you were probably gay (not that there's anything wrong with that). Thank you, Mr. Roddenberry.
share