The Women Of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Say The Female Future Is Here

(Photo: Getty)

This past Sunday (May 20th), Vulture Festival New York hosted a Star Trek: Discovery panel called “The Future is Definitely Female.” It featured co-showrunner Gretchen J. Berg, along with actresses Sonequa Martin-Green (Michael Burnham), Michelle Yeoh (Philippa Georgiou), Mary Wiseman (Sylvia Tilly), and Mary Chieffo (L’Rell), who talked to an enthusiastic audience about the experience of working on such a female-centric sci-fi show.

We already covered Berg’s thoughts regarding canon and plans for season 2, but here are some of the highlights of the discussion around the roles of women both in front of and behind the camera, all of which included tremendous appreciation for the men who are also such an essential part of the picture. “Divided we fall,” said Martin-Green, as the group repeatedly spoke of how they all support each other in their risk-taking storytelling.

Respect and support define the women of Discovery

Sonequa Martin-Green spoke at length about the show’s strong female characters.

I love the dynamics of the women on the ship that are in positions of leadership. From the very beginning, something we were championing, and celebrating is that this female captain and female first officer are not at odds. They are in support of each other and they respect each other, there is that professional courtesy and also that deep, maternal love.

And then you have the relationship with Burnham and Tilly. Burnham is so uplifted by Tilly and Tilly doing everything she does out of love. And Mary [Wiseman] with her wondrous performance as Tilly, I think it’s amazing. You see these women, L’Rell, you see these women not denying their femininity, but realizing the power in it, and realizing that it’s  their feminine tendencies to nurture and really, it’s their superpower to multitask. It is that attention to detail. It’s the automatic ability to improvise as well, you see how far that goes in a position of leadership. You can see how beneficial it is, and how effective it is. We see that with all the women on our show.

Mary Cheiffo got into more detail about L’Rell.

I feel that L’Rell suffered from lack of representation. She says [in the season one finale] “But I am no one.” That is part of it. It takes Burnham’s huge generosity of spirit to give me that detonator. Because, in a certain way, I caused the greatest heartbreak and instead of having a catfight, we created peace. My most successful human relationships have been with women on the show. I think there is something to that. There’s a collaboration.

Michelle Yeoh, Mary Wiseman, Mary Chieffo

The Marys bond

Equality all the way down to the underwear

Mary Wiseman talked up the importance of female leadership behind the scenes after reminding the audience, to much laughter, that “there’s still, like, a lot of men.”

It’s how occupations break down, I don’t know why. There are still a lot of men on set. But the leader is a woman. And it is run by women, and a woman’s perspective is always at the forefront.

Because Gersha is our costume designer, women aren’t wearing short dresses on set. We are wearing the same thing as the men are. And that is a visual signal that I think is important and significant. She is painting our world and she is painting the equality of gender every day in costumes.

Sonequa couldn’t resist adding some inside info.

And we all wear the same undergarment, you guys. Men and women wear the same spanx.

Mary Wiseman brought up another aspect of Discovery‘s female roles.

One thing I really appreciate about the show is that, not all the women are 25. On average, best female Oscar winners are ten years younger than their male counterparts. Why is that? When we value women who are younger, what does that say about our idea of the prototypical woman? Cornwell and Georgiou, this is so important. And also, the strongest person I know is my mom. I want to see people like that in our world, and I think they did a really good job of representing that part of our world too.

Gretchen J. Berg, Sonequa Martin-Green, Michelle Yeoh

Talking about undergarments is always fun

Party episode helped the cast bond as a family

Sonequa Martin-Green teared up a little after describing  the closeness within the team on the Star Trek: Discovery set, and spoke about how shooting repeated time loops of the party scene in the seventh episode (“Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad“) helped really bring the cast together:

It was really, really bonding for us as a company, as a cast and crew. We always aspired to be a family, from the very beginning I remember Aaron saying, “We want this to be run like a theater company, we want to be like a family.” I had come in with such strong views on that as well, and everybody came with that. Everybody made the decision together and it did have to happen that way … There is nothing but love, talent, passion, drive, appreciations and respect. Everybody comes together to do it and we are a family because everybody chose to be.

Mary Wiseman and Sonequa Martin-Green at Vulture Festival

Sonequa Martin-Green and Mary Wiseman at the post-panel photo session at Vulture Festival

Chieffo embraces L’Rell’s sexuality

After the showing of a particularly powerful scene from “Despite Yourself,” Mary Chieffo talked about the intensity between L’Rell and Tyler, beginning by telling the crowd how grateful she was that Jonathan Frakes directed them. She dug deep into the relationship between the two characters and the challenge of the slow unraveling of the Voq/Tyler storyline.

Obviously, we knew the truth and we wanted to find that balance. We actually replicated a lot of physical moments that happened in episode 4 (“The Butcher’s Knife Cares Not for the Lamb’s Cry“), particularly that scene at the end when I say, “Sacrifice everything.” But really finding that that was part of what I was trying to awaken is like these moments we had in the past. We very much approached it very much from a genuine place.

She also spoke about viewing the story through L’Rell’s eyes.

I’m just going to play her truth and I know it is going to be misconstrued, which is also very painful for me. I didn’t expect that, because in the moment everyone know all that stuff for me and then after episodes aired it was like “Aaaggh! Why didn’t you say anything?”

L’Rell’s relationship with her sensuality is so different from a typical human’s. And really leaning into that, leaning into what we interpret as very dominating sexual nature that we have been programmed to reject is actually–it’s her way of expressing herself. She is from a culture and society and species that has a different relationship with it. So that was something I leaned on a lot, not just in that scene, but in general with the character is that she has no way of knowing that this is inappropriate for a human. And that’s part of her tragedy and why she makes the choice in [episode] 12 (“Vaulting Ambition“), is that she does realize that she had more of her edification and seeing the pain that Tyler/Voq is in. She is too empathetic, actually. I think of her strengths as a character is her heart. It is one of her flaws as Klingon, I know. So, for me, it was letting it be about the heart. And the sensuality was just part of that because that is who she is as an alien.

Mary Chieffo at Vulture Festival panel

Mary Chieffo talks L’Rell at Vulture Festival 2018

Subverting norms with Voq/Tyler’s trauma

Gretchen J. Berg had more to say about the Voq/Tyler story,

There is trauma in that relationship. It’s based on misunderstanding, remembering things a different way, and his feelings are very real.

And Mary Wiseman expressed her awe of how it was handled.

It’s an allegory for how confusing trauma can be. If you’re assaulted, it might be confusing. You might be in love with the person. You might have kind of felt like you enjoyed it, but it’s still violating. That’s a beautiful allegory for me, I think you guys illustrated that so well.

“And it happened to be the man,” added Sonequa Martin-Green. Wiseman agreed. “It happens to men.” Martin-Green spoke about the power of that choice.

All the time. And they can’t, they won’t, they can’t, they feel like they can’t speak. And Shazad and I were really moved by that gender reversal, in a sense, because we associate that with women. But being able to flip that, and be the mirror, this happens to men too.

Gretchen J. Berg, Sonequa Martin-Green, Michelle Yeoh, Mary Wiseman

Gretchen J. Berg, Sonequa Martin-Green, and Michelle Yeoh listen intently to Mary Wiseman

Emperor Georgiou even scares Michelle Yeoh

After showing a clip from the episode “Vaulting Ambition,” the panel’s moderator asked Yeoh about the challenges of playing both prime Georgiou and the mirror universe version, curious to know if she played her as two people, or different aspects of the same character. “I was just playing Michelle Yeoh there,” Yeoh joked, referring to the clip of her murdering most of her inner circle.

She then answered more directly.

We talked about this with Gretchen and Aaron–because they’re from this mirror universe, does that just mean they’re just evil? We thought that was too easy. There must be motivations–why do they do that, how, why, when, what motivates her, drives her. And I guess it’s also the environment. It is a dog-eat-dog world over there. You keep looking over your shoulder. You have to kill to be the top. And so it was a very different place.

Captain Phillipa Georgiou was such a kind and compassionate woman–sometimes that was even MORE hard to do. I think it was also the look. Gersha [Phillips] with the costume, and the makeup and the hair. You look at her and … “Whoah!” She scared me too.

There is also subtlety in her character because of Michael Burnham, and I think that was a bond that traveled the universe. It was just there, she couldn’t explain it … when it comes to love, it stays with you and there’s something you can’t really explain. It really moved the character along.

I think that we’re very vulnerable, but we always pretend that we’re strong. And everybody just thinks that you’re strong, which is not true. What I see in these amazing young actors, I’m so proud to be working with them. It’s such joy, just sitting and watching them every day.

The feeling was clearly mutual. Martin-Green told the crowd how she drove Yeoh crazy by constantly showing everyone on the set YouTube videos of Yeoh kicking ass. “We have a legend in our midst,” she’d tell them.

Sonequa Martin-Green and Michelle Yeoh at Vulture Festival Star Trek: Discovery panel

Sonequa Martin-Green and Michelle Yeoh

It’s not just the women

After all this talk of strong and powerful women, Gretchen J. Berg made a point of reminding everyone how important the men of the team to the entire dynamic.

I know today is a celebration of women in Star Trek and we are really proud of that, but we have partners in our lives on this show who are men and who think like we do. Aaron [Harberts], my writing partner for 20 years, Alex Kurtzman, and Bryan Fuller … and everybody across the board. There is nobody making a fuss or a stink about the fact that we have both men and women represented. Remember Stamets saved the multiverse and Culber was the smart person who figured out what was up with Tyler, and Tyler is wonderful and Saru …  We know this, our partners, the men on the show and across the board, we love them too and they make us all successful.

Gretchen J. Berg, Michelle Yeoh, Sonequa Martin-Green, Mary Wiseman, Mary Chieffo

Photo session after the panel

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Really Great Star Trek!!! I love DISCOVERY. Great Women! All of you!!!!

How does something called “The Future Is Definitely Female” promote gender equality?

It does not.. but well, is the todays Star Trek..

It’s not even close to balancing out fifty years of the guys playing grab-ass on Trek, but it’s a start.

fifty years of the guys playing grab-ass?? Ok, it seems that we live in another universe.. I naver saw Picard grabing an ass, or Sisko… but well..

But even if you staments is correct, why you fix something wrong with more wrong? Encourage equality, the future has no gender or race, and should never have a gender or race.

We apparently were not watching the same show. Feel free to post the clip of Kirk embracing Sulu during a tense moment on the bridge, and I’ll apologize.

You fix what is wrong by acknowledging the wrong, not by pretending it didn’t occur. Then work towards the solutions in representation to allow the wrong to heal. Life is more enjoyable when we see and celebrate diversity, not by pretending differences shouldn’t exist in a misguided attempt to defend the status quo.

You said the last 50 years.. you said Picard was sexyst, Sisko was sexyst.. Was TOS, a 60ths show that lasted JUST 3 years sexysit? Maybe.. that show lasted 3 years.. you said 50 years.

And like I said, how you fix a 60th sexyst show by claiming males has no future?? Just tell me how.. I want to know that..

Please, tell me how a sexist remark in the 21 century fix a sexist show of the 60s? I want to know…

“And like I said, how you fix a 60th sexyst show by claiming males has no future?? Just tell me how.. I want to know that.”

LOL — that is the most moronic thing I have read online in ages. Are you perhaps drinking given this crackpot nonsense, combined with all of your odd misspellings and sentences?

If not, please stop making up stuff that you claim Phil said, when he clearly did not.

Don’t recall any of the Trek shows stuffing their male leads into catsuits to boost ratings. It’s amazing how open minded Trek was when the guys were leering about Betazoid weddings and such. Trek has had an issue with sexism throughout it’s history, we are a bit more sensitive to it now….except to the folks who think equal representation on the show means gutting it of testosterone. That’s your problem, not mine. Your turn – show me the Kirk/Sulu clip, and I’ll concede your point. I’m not going to hold my breath, though….

Really? They just had the males losing their shirts all the time especially Kirk. It was even parodied in Galaxy Quest.

I remember maybe two or three shirtless Kirk episodes (and it wasn’t the whole episode, sadly). Believe me, I was paying attention.

Well, he tried to hug Spock once (“Captain, please, not in front of the Klingons.”) Is that good enough? :-P

No, you are not “more sensitive to it”, you are just generally oversensitive to insignificant and non-consequential things. You live such a sheltered, pampered life, you have have so little real things to worry about, that you have to entertain yourself with artificially invented First World non-problems. I reckon that five or ten years of hard manual labor for minimum wage would do a lot to straighten your crooked order of priorities. Living from hand to mouth day after day, struggling to earn enough to feed and clothe your kids… having to choose between paying for medicine or paying for food – THAT’s what your generation needs to get a proper perspective.

Sexist not sexyst. Just saying

By the time DS9 and Voyager launched that era was essentially over and their contributions are often overlooked, both in front of and behind the camera.

Picard had a very unhealthy relationship with that fish.

Nah, let the females have a few decades first of getting over on us men, then let’s do the full equality thing. They deserve to have the advantages for a bit of time in human history.

I’m down to let women dominate for a while

Yeah… I’d like my wife to open MY car door for me for a change.

That’s called being polite and if you’re always the one opening doors for her then good on you. If you somehow have a problem with it, bring it up with her. Chivalry isn’t dead.

So women can’t be polite in that manner to men? What kind of double standard is this?

And I don’t have a problem with it. You missed the point there. However it seems to me that true equality would lead to the reduction if not removal of chivalry.

I was brought up to believe holding/opening a door for a woman was a show of respect, a gentlemanly thing to do. I still do it to this day (and most women seem shocked and pleased), and will do it for the rest of my days. As long as I’m drawing breath, chivalry is safe and sound.

Again, I have no problem doing this sort of chivalrous thing for my wife. I did it when we were dating and I still do it with no intention of stopping until I am physically unable to. I like doing it and MRS ML appreciates it. That being said, it is not possible to have true equality so long as chivalry exists. I do not consider myself sexist but doing things like opening the door for your better half is kinda sexist when you break it down.

That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard ML. I don’t think you understand the concept of politeness if you’re trying to make the argument that being polite equates to, well, inequality. That’s ridiculous. The only standards you need to hold yourself to are your own. If you want to hold the door open for someone, do it. No one is expecting you to and no one is forcing you.

Here is the problem with your comment, Albatrsity… Chivalry does not = politeness. It never did. It CAN be polite but then why doesn’t chivalry work both ways? Politeness does. True equality means what is polite for men to do for women is also polite for women to do for men.

albatrosity and Danpaine,

I marvel at how you both came away from STAR TREK oblivious as to how actions which you intend as polite and friendly overtures could be misinterpreted by others as something completely the opposite?

No gender or race? That’s what you really want? No differences. What a boring and unapealing future. I thought variety is the spice of life? I’ll pass John Lennon

Again, who’s saying no gender or race?

Cerri – But even if you staments is correct, why you fix something wrong with more wrong? Encourage equality, the future has no gender or race, and should never have a gender or race.

These replies don’t always line up right under the comment replied to.

There is no such thing as race.

Gretchen Berg:

“I know today is a celebration of women in Star Trek and we are really proud of that, but we have partners in our lives on this show who are men and who think like we do. Aaron [Harberts], my writing partner for 20 years, Alex Kurtzman, and Bryan Fuller … and everybody across the board. There is nobody making a fuss or a stink about the fact that we have both men and women represented. Remember Stamets saved the multiverse and Culber was the smart person who figured out what was up with Tyler, and Tyler is wonderful and Saru … We know this, our partners, the men on the show and across the board, we love them too and they make us all successful”

Well said.

On point!!!

The sperm count of men are falling.

Hope so, I dont want to have another child.

It only takes one my friend

Queue up Charles Darwin resting more easily in his grave tonight. ;-)

Amen brotha, over 50% in 40 years. Must be all that fluoridation!

You’re right. Given the previous 50,000 years of homosapien male behavior, if females get this year, then they will only need another 49,999 years of them having “winning years” to get caught up to men.

Aren’t hunter-gatherer societies relatively egalitarian? I think it might be civilization that’s sexist, so only 12,000 years or so to undo

Good point! Damn, I hate it when I am 38,000 years off. :-)

It doesn’t. Sexism is sexism. This “turn the tables” crap to make up for the past is ridiculous. I learned in 3rd grade that two wrongs don’t make a right.

You can’t simply reverse the tide and call it equality. Different =/= better… but Hollywood is too busy patting themselves on the back to realize that.

@Tay So what’s the wrong here, exactly? There are plenty of men in the cast and behind the scenes. I don’t see this table-turning that you’re speaking of.

@Jack, the wrong is that “the future is female” and all the other headlines and hashtags on this subject are indeed sexist. Sure it could be way worse, but praising sexism isn’t how you solve the problem.

The same could be said about racism, but that’s opening another can of worms.

If you want to praise someone, look up any speech Emma Watson has done on the subject. There’s a good role model / trail blazer.

The same could be said about racism
–Tay Dervis

I sure hope you’re not referencing BLM.

@Curious Cadet I wasn’t but so what if I was?

@Tay Dervis — then you would have missed the point, just as you are here.

…says the guy who brought up BLM two articles down from this one.

Tay Dervis,

Re: “the future is female”

To me, the phrase speaks more to the simple biological fact that when it comes to the numbers game of propagation of any living sexed species, the females are more important than the males. Perhaps even more so given the bio-technological level our civilization has achieved.

I can’t deny that as a male this simple reality has a certain creep factor in it for me, but it is what it is. If my kind manages to decimate the planet and I am the sole survivor, the human species has no chance of continuing. Whereas if a woman is the sole survivor, and she roams the planet seeking out the sperm banks littering the planet, there’s a chance for a future – not to mention there’s a possibility that she’s already pregnant.


Ummm ok….. I’d ask your point but I think that’s way off topic. Hypotheticals like that just detail the convo.

Tay Dervis,

Re: The future

What’s hypothetical about the fact that size of the female population is more important to the species having a future than the relative size of the male population in relation to it, i.e. if males are in the minority as they currently are, there is a future? I find that my fellow males, for the most part, are all for majority rules with minority rights, the exception being when the ones with the power suddenly realize they never were the majority.

No, but you can call it equity of representation.
European and/then American white guys have been patting themselves on the back for about 2,000 years. Git over it.


Get over what? What does that have to do with now and how does it relate to me or what I’m saying? Btw, I’m a white male American, whose family is mostly hard working, post civil war Irish immigrants. Aside from that there is a streak of Jewish blood in there as well.

I’ve heard a lot of stories about bad times in the history of my family. Not a lot of patting themselves on the back.

Tay Dervis,

Re: Get over what?

It was a male conception that in an ideal republic the majority rules with minority rights. What’s sexist about allowing the female majority to rule?

I feel far from aggravated by such slogans, but I also feel that slogans aren’t the way to go. Am I right or am I right?
So instead of promoting the show merely as “feminist”, “progressive”, “diverse” and whatnot — all of which it should be, by all means — and thereby unwittingly reducing it to a number of “tags” or buzzwords, they should promote characters (Mary Chieffo’s talking points were very refreshing in that regard), storytelling, excitement … and leave the audience to feel empowered, stimulated, elated or provoked in whatever fashion…

This is actually part of my problem with the STD showrunners. They go out of their way to promote their “diversity” and whatnot. That’s not for them to taut. They should just make the show they want and let others go on about how “diverse” or whatever it is. If the audience sees this and feels it worth mentioning it will come out and they can bask in that glory. I see them blowing their own horn far too much. Usually when they do it makes them look too full of themselves. They WANT that diversity label too much it seems. Maybe that’s wrong but one must admit it is not an illogical conclusion to draw.

I’m on the fence about so many of those issues, you know. While I stand by what I said, I’m sometimes starting to wonder about the “unwitting” part. Maybe it’s a deliberately confrontational stance dressed up as “this should be a no-brainer” – cause that’s what it should be, wouldn’t you say? Yes, I think diversity and equality should be a no-brainer as far as Star Trek is concerned and I can’t imagine those people being oblivious to that and seriously trying to sell it as “that new thing”.
But maybe I’ve been a fan for too long and can’t see the wider implications of trying to market the franchise to possible new audiences. Maybe a young girl or woman will see this and think: “Star Trek? – Maybe it’s worth checking out…”

[note to staff: I know that this comment will be reviewed upon submission, since I used a different e-mail address. I just wanted to say that this is the address I’ll be using from now on, since it works better with my mail-client]

In other words, “shhhhhhh, don’t let them know we’re trying to be feminist, progressive and diverse or they’ll get angry.”

I agree, though, in the sense that a surprising number of people don’t seem to understand that Trek was always, at least ostensibly and according to Roddenberry, all these things, at least a little.

Glad to know there’s no agenda and I’ve been wrong all along. With all the legitimate issues going on around the world this is what they focus on.

Yea.. they just stablish that 50% of the world has no future at all.. not only the rich white americans males, but also a 1 years old african baby has not future….. yea, that it is what Star Trek is now..

Give it up with the racist and sexist argument every time. It’s so predictable. Is that your fall back position when you are triggered. Some of these issues that these people complain about are happening in much of the rest of the world but they only complain about non existing ones here. Life must be tough for you.

If ‘triggered’ is the new synonym for ‘whining,’ who exactly is being triggered here?

Somehow my impression all these years was that the various Trek series were set in space, and consequently the issues raised were not meant as a specific rebuke to any modern nation-state or group. But then, some people must continually play the victim.

No triggered isn’t whining and I’m doing neither. Just commenting on my opinion which is what I thought these comment sections are for. Not just praising everything like a zombie. Triggered is offended which I am not. Not agreeing or liking an opinion or comment is not offended. Also, I’m giving my opinion in hopes to make the show better.

Nope you are doing both. I would guess that you are too obtuse to honestly assess yourself, that you’ve lost the ability to grow socially, and you view the world and people through a distorted lens, like “I’ve got it all figured out.” This would be my guess given your comments here.

Wrong post

Well said.

Yes, you are whining AGAIN.

I’m not at all sure what you mean here. There ARE men on the show.

The article is about a panel discussion by women about the women of Star Trek, therefore the panel didn’t include men.

Please don’t be upset by this. I promise, men still figure largely in the show and in our future.

Careful Marja, staight white testosterone-fueled privileged males don’t like being told not to be upset over something they shouldn’t be upset about.

Don’t I know it.

Exactly. A con panel promoting the strong women of Star Trek Discovery and people are shocked when they talk about the strong women of Star Trek Discovery.

LOL. Maybe cut down on using that crack-pipe?

“Glad to know there’s no agenda and I’ve been wrong all along.”

Well, that’s a start.

Star Trek is well known for being STEM rolemodels. Women are lacking in STEM fields.

Erm, G66, so sexism, rape, racism and killing are not legitimate issues?

They are but that wasn’t my point. They are clearly going after fellow Americans with different opinions and political preferences than the overwelming Hollywood majority without being fare to both sides as was was done much more in the past. I’m going by the words of the writers as well as what I see. Come on, as an example stating that the Klingons basically represent Trump voters and their racism and intolerance, etc. despipte being completely untrue and only based on what they want to believe despite all the falacies against his voters. People in this country have multitudes of different opinions and are law abiding good people yet this show, in my opinion and as I said based on actual statements from some of the writers and actors, are not giving both views to reflect on and think about. Based on comments by many on this site and out there between the Left and Right, the Right thinks the Left is wrong but the Left thinks the Right is Evil. Just look at the comments against honest non insulting opinions they dont like. Of course I’m generalizing for the people who will claim I’m lumping everyone together.

Your arguments don’t make much sense. Show me a single example of where the show itself references Trump voters.

And if you feel targeted by a show preaching unity and understanding, well then I’m not sure what to say.

The point about Klingons representing Trump voters was first brought up in right-wing media after Aaron Harberts talked about how the issues of isolationism and racism informed the writing. Harberts said nothing about “Trump voters” though, that was just some Breitbartian who felt that keywords like “isolationism” and “racism” reflected is own view.
But soon enough, certain social platforms jumped on the bandwagon and suddenly it was “common knowledge” that Discovery’s Klingons were basically Trump voters and there was much rejoicing (yaaayyy).

Good grief.


Try the Far Left website Salon which is more blunt so try being honest for a change.

Harberts’ exact quote is as follows:

It’s a call to isolationism. It’s about racial purity, and it’s about wanting to take care of yourself. And if anybody is reaching a hand out to help you, it’s about smacking it away . . . That was pretty provocative for us, and it wasn’t necessarily something that we wanted to completely lean into. But it was happening. We were hearing the stories.

This was from a Rolling Stone interview that Harberts did in early September 2017 (and again: in which he never said anything about “Trump supporters”, except for linking the Trump campaign to isolationism). But it’s true that Salon also jumped onto that — exactly two weeks after Breitbart did.

The quote was in reference to the Klingon rallying cry of “Remain Klingon!” by the way.
Here’s the Breitbart article (dated Sept. 8th):

And here’s the Salon one (dated Sept. 22nd):

Didn’t mustache twirling one dimensional bad guy evil Lorca use the phrase “Make the Empire great again!” in one of his speeches to his followers?

Was Lorca a Klingon? How about staying on topic?

It IS on topic. Lorca was the black hat of the series. Not the Klingons. And he was directly compared to Trump in using that phrase. I’m no fan of Trump by any means. But that was just lazy on the part of the writers and Issacs (who claimed to have had input on that speech)

First of all: Sorry, I had mistaken you for G66! I agree with you on the lazy writing aspect (and I’m on record right here on this site as having lamented the lazy writing more than anything), but it’s still beside the point regarding this argument, since the claim was that someone among the higher-ups stated explicitly that Klingons represented Trump voters, which wasn’t the case.

JAGT, OK. I went to the next step with who the true villain of season 1 was. But I will say that when the show started it looked very much to me like they were trying to compare the Klingons to the isolationist faction of Trump supporters.

If you had been paying attention, they also commented on Clinton with Cornwell becoming a black hat.

You obviously didn’t notice that Admiral Cornwell represented the bad decision-making and back room sellouts of integrity that is Hillary Clinton. She even looks a bit like a younger Hillary Clinton.

I would suggest you missed this because you only saw the series through the lens of your own political viewpoints, instead of with an open mind.

BorgKlingon, I disagree. I didn’t see any Clinton parallels at all. Cromwell started out as the standard out of touch Starfleet admiral we’ve seen too many times. But she did not turn out that way entirely. If you liken that to Hillary then that’s your political leanings I guess. But I sure didn’t see anything of the sort in it. At best I would guess one could argue that Clinton was more evil Georgeau. Someone Burnham thought was redeemable and worth saving. Also the opponent of the obvious Trump stand in. But admittedly, that’s a bit of a stretch…

Why yes he did. Did that trip someone’s trigger?

It tripped a facepalm trigger. But to be honest, the show had already tripped a few of those by that time.

I read Salon and, nope, it’s not “Far Left,” which is just Foxspeak for “anything I don’t agree with.”

No way Salon is far left. This is wack!

LOL thanks Michael. In the last 30 years it seems anyone slightly left of the Far Right is a flaming Commie Pinko.

Salon is far left?

The same Salon that originally floated itself on NASDAQ, still trades on OTC Markets, and now mines Bitcoin from your browser if you use an ad-blocker?

The one currently mostly funded by noted capitalist John Warnock, co-founder of Adobe, which charges you hundreds of dollars for its wares?

I guess the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right, the Old Testament reads like the Daily Worker now.

Oh, remember that there are people out there that would accuse the Wallstreet Journal of promoting socialism… and NO, G66, I’m not talking about you here; so don’t even think about taking offence to that.

If anything you could make that argument about Putin’s Russia – its turn from glasnost/perestroika into state news, hard-right nationalism, its treatment of internal minorities and dissidents, assassinations, and fomenting of dissent inside its enemies by pretending to be one of them. Sound familiar? I mean, the Klingons always were a stand-in for the USSR in the Cold War years.

JAGT I love how Breitbart shot themselves in the foot thar. LOL

Please stop insulting the Klingons. The Klingons are not morons, and they don’t generally constantly lie and just make up shit.

Lol, you have your persecutionist, myopic head buried so far up your keyster that you didn’t even notice that Admiral Cornwell represented the bad decision-making and back room sellouts of integritry that is Hillary Clinton.

And regarding Trump, the comparison is directed at the SUBSET of Trump voters who are racist and homophobic – if you think that this subset of people does not exist within the overall set of Trump supporters, you are deluding yourself.

It’s Star Trek, so there is and has been always an agenda, Einstein. And they’ve all been ones to improve our society and point out a better way to live.

Pay attention!

Perhaps you should heed your own comment. The agenda has changed. Why did both left and right love the older shows and now suddenly that’s not true anymore??? Have you noticed how brazin Hollywood has been in the last 10 years? Obviously you don’t since you probably agree with them.

Because, at one time, the Right in this country was possessed of a lick of sense. I grew up in Orange County, CA, a Republican bastion. There was plenty for me and my friends and neighbors to debate, but those discussions never to the defenses of corruption, science denial, celebrations of ignorance and other dysfunction that are typical for today’s GOP.

You are so locked in to your worldview, that like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. Star Trek was the “brazen” show in the mid-1960’s. Star Trek has always pushes the progressive envelope, and it’s great that it’s as brazen today as it was back then.

I can’t help it “IF” you became middle aged, angry and obtuse on your political views, and now you whine that Star Trek has changed. What has likely changed is YOU. I would hypothesize that you all of a sudden want Star Trek to stop progressing just because you stopped progressing a long time ago — sorry, but that’s not what Star Trek is all about.

I think I would not call Star Trek as having an agenda, they had a message. Each and every episode had a different message about the society. I think we need to separate message from agenda. Agenda involves more brainwashing I think, message is taking an issue and looking at the from all the possible sides. When you have an agenda you rarely look at it from a different point of view, but Trek always prided itself on looking at different points of view. I agree Star Trek had message, but I don’t know if you can call them agendas.


There’s voicing justified concerns and then there’s overstating one’s case.
Every time someone invokes some sort of far-reaching agenda when talking about friggin entertainment TV, it’s most definitely the latter.

Interesting stuff. Shame there weren’t more nuggets for season 2. More like a post mortem of season 1 and a discussion of themes. But interesting nonetheless.

The points that stood out to me were:

“this female captain and female first officer are not at odds”

SMG was actually *in* the show – she knows about the mutiny right?
(Btw i know she’s not talking about that – it’s just banter)

“And we all wear the same undergarment, you guys. Men and women wear the same spanx”

Finally, the Star Trek info I’ve been waiting to learn!!!

“not all the women are 25”

They must have watched DS9 – Winn, female changeling, kassidy, Sirella. Good to see the old Trek legacy that’s been around for more than 2 decades lives on in DSC.

“There is nobody making a fuss or a stink about the fact that we have both men and women represented”

^ this. Ok, I’ve read a few terrible comments here and elsewhere but that’s been a tiny minority of people and some people are always going to be sexist or offensive so it’s best just to ignore that. I just wish they’d take their own advice to heart here and stop bringing this up. It’s Star Trek. Of course it’s progressive and inclusive. Long may it live and prosper.

About the women being 25 — seems like she was comparing it to other, current, non-Trek shows, not to Trek shows that went off the air a few decades ago.

Ah fair point. I remember an episode of Boston Legal where they made a similar argument and they almost broke the fourth wall to make it. It was a good one.

I suppose you could be forgiven for thinking they were referencing Star Trek (at a Star Trek panel where they were discussing Star Trek Discovery), but I think you’re probably right in that they’re likely referencing other shows where many of the stars are young and hip and sexy. There must be counter examples of modern shows where the women are over 25? If not, that’s one of the first truly progressive points to come out of the DSC discussion that can’t be explained simply by saying “well obviously, it’s a Star Trek show”

It seems a bit silly for Wiseman to bring up Oscar winners when bringing up age. While it’s still part of the same entertainment world, comparing the ages of a cast of a TV show to the ages of Film award winners over the last 90 years seems a bit apples-to-oranges.

Most mainstream shows that I can think of have actresses in their 30s or 40s in starring roles, especially so if you remove roles that actually necessitate a particular age (teens in a show about teens or children roles in a family sitcom). If she was comparing the show to a teen drama on CW or Freeform, then she would have a pretty valid point.

The kind or remark made about “not all the women are 25” is a bit endemic to the kind of self-congratulation that Discovery seems to heap on itself, which is the only reason I’m calling it out the way I am.

As Dr C pointed out, Deep Space Nine already checks at least that “age” box, and that was 25 years ago. I’d like to also add that other than Nicole de Boer, Jolene Blalock and Linda Park, virtually all main and recurring Star Trek actresses since 1987 were over 30 (with most being older than Martin-Green and Wiseman) when they started their roles.

Comparing other Science Fiction show currently on the air have women of comparable ages in shows such as the Expanse, where most of the female cast is within a year or so age wise to Sonequa Martin-Green or Mary Wiseman. Also, Shohreh Aghdashloo is a decade older than Yeoh.

If they all wear the same underwear could she subtly be implying that they’re all Mormons? Then again astronauts all probably wear the same undies too.

Maybe they consulted with NASA to check whether everyone wears the same undies?

Or in season 2 we’ll go to Bajor and learn that someone with a higher D’Jarra will be allowed to wear silk boxers and the emissary (Burnham) will be allowed to wear whatever kind of undergarments she wants!

I miss Deep Space Nine XD

I found it rather amusing that it was Green who brought up the underwear, since the only character that had an extended underwear-scene was actually Michael Burnham. And I recall it being lace underwear… Not that I mean to call her out on it, but if I think of underwear on Discovery, that’s what comes to my mind. “Male gaze” as Laura Mulvey would’ve put it.

Just a little sexist.

Not anymore. Read the article ;)

Just another dude butt hurt that men aren’t hogging the spotlight anymore

Spotlight? But if Lorca was the best character, by far =S

I think we found some common ground

“Sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.”

So how are men being stereotyped or discriminated here?

Because there are too many women? Is that your argument? It makes zero sense.

Yeah, as much as I love TOS, I’ve never been a fan of the miniskirts. Better to have everyone in pants, like in “The Cage.” That means you too, Deanna Troi. Put on a uniform! ;-)

Skrits in the 60s were feminist, learn you history and do not judge the past with present standars.

I’m fully aware of the miniskirt as a feminist icon. It’s just when you have a supposedly serious science fiction series centered around a future space navy, women walking around dressed like cocktail waitresses breaks the illusion, somewhat, of seriousness. I mean, they could’ve easily shown women in their off hours wearing miniskirts, then wearing pants while on duty. The best of both worlds.

TOS made a lot of progress in terms of race, but with gender it comes across as a bit vapid. If they really wanted to make waves, how about a woman as a captain or commodore?

And you keep judging a 50th years old show with today standars.. TOS was not even a serious science fiction series, was a space western, but what ever, if you are happy with discovery, be happy.. if you think discover change the world, be happy.. ignore the rest of Star Trek (even Voyager for that matter).

It’s unwise to make those assumptions about me. I’ve pointed out only one thing I didn’t like about TOS, and by extension the Abrams movies. The rest is unfounded.

You need some growing up to do.

If you dont like the skirks is ok, I dont like olivs, but dont call the 60s skirts sexyst, and dont tell me Discovery is going to change the world just beacose the female characters use pants. And I know you didnt said that, but the they did.

I am trying hard not to be rude.

The 60s skirts WERE sexist. They were designed to appeal to the male viewing audience,to whom the companies which bought commercial time on TOS were advertising. [Middle-class women didn’t “have” money of their own in those days, believe it or not; their husbands “let” them work or “let” them buy things.]

The women wearing the skirts were mostly “window dressing.” Uhura, Chapel [a sexist role for a female if ever there was one] and some guest stars were the only women with speaking roles.

YES, TOS influenced many young women including myself and famous scientists, astronauts and actresses. BUT SEXISM WAS VERY VERY PREVALENT IN THE 1960s, ON TELEVISION, IN MOVIES AND IN REAL LIFE. And it persists today.

So I applaud Discovery, because if they can change some more minds to view women and people of color as peers, according us fairness and dignity, I support them till the end of time.

That is not sexism, that is capitalism. Kirk was half of the time with out a shirt.. that sell at the time.

If you have an issue with that, is to capitalism, not to sexism.

Now, In to darkness, a 21 century move was sexist, that was sexist as hell.

Ummm, Cerri … you have a strange idea of TOS if you believe Kirk only wore a shirt half the time.

Well, some times was a ripped shirt ;)

As I said, sexism persists today, but I don’t think you read all of my post.

And yes, sexism is capitalist, because exploiting women’s sexual qualities is profitable.

Discovery is breaking that mold and making money without exploiting women. To that, I can only say, “hurrah!”

LOL.. you dont even know that been feminist is the new fashion? Been a social justice warrior is popular, especialy with the new generations.

Belive me, there is $$$ behaind this.. a lot of $$$… the day feminism does not give profit, we will have a full male cast.

Got news for you — Gene Rodenberry was one of the greatest Social Justice Warriors of all time.

And I am a proud Social Justice Warrior myself. I embrace the label, as in truth, it’s progressive and it is line with IDIC.

Well bud, you’ve got to wait quite a while, because in spite of honor killings and deaths due to childbirth and preventable infections, women comprise over 50% of the world population.

But the real question is, does “sexysm” exist today, and what in the heck is “sexysm.”

I am wondering if what we are all missing Cerri’s points is that he/she is simply using a new term that is the combination of “sexy” and “S&M,” which is an entirely different topic that is unrelated to “sexism?”

I think you are racist due to the fact that you discriminate me coz I am not a english natural…….

Just joking ;)

I am thinking you are either on crack or finishing off a cheap 32 oz bottle of Smirnoff.

Just joking;)

“Discovery is breaking that mold and making money ”

They are? We have no idea what kind of profit, if any, this show is providing.

To the contrary–in its first year, TOS was most certainly a serious, if still flawed, attempt at putting serious science fiction on television.

Dude or Dudette, I was alive in the 1960s and watching the show. i saw aspects of it play out in real life. Sexism is still alive and well. The fact that Discovery is celebrating diversity is most laudable.

On the other hand, Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. Sexists.

Yea, and you were so advanced that you know what sexism was in the 60s……..

And I dont care about Trump, he is not my president, belive it or not, USA is not the center of the world.

Do you know what “I was alive in the 1960s” even means? YES I know what sexism was in the 1960s.


Trump is not “my” president either, and I don’t believe USA is the center of the world [in fact I wish I could relocate sometimes].

But the USA *is* where Discovery is produced, it is where Trek has BEEN produced since the 1960s. Believe it or not.

Well, Canada…close enough! :-)

Oops sorry! Is the production and writing staff in Canada too? I feel like such an eejit!

Rock on, Canada, O Canada. Wish I could afford to move. Will y’all be offering sanctuary to political dissidents ..? ;^)

Pellucidar is at the center of the earth, and unfortunately, people still wear skrits there, and Standars control the government.

Agreed, Fritz.
I get the feeling Cerri was not yet born in the 1960s.

Haha, a woman *couldn’t* be a captain in TOS because females were “too emotional” or something. Watch the Janice Lester episode [last of Season 3] to find out more. I think it had more to do with the sexism of TV executives and commercial sponsors than with Gene Roddenberry. He had more of a “free love and also yes, equality” attitude toward women.

And you keep incisting on that, I dont care about TOS, I care about the fact that Discovery, a 21 century show, only achivment is that is more diverse that a 60s show.

Sorry, I cant imagine Berman thinking how horrible that Picard was male when he was pruducing The Best of Two Worlds or Patrick even knowing what underwear the rest of the cast used.

If you are prund of that, good for you.. I want more The Best of Two worlds.

Cerri, you continued to use TOS in your examples. Therefore so did I.

Discovery’s achievement is significant for its casting, yes. In Hollywood, most people of color and women of color are NOT EVEN CAST, unless the role is a stereotype. FINALLY this is changing.

I loved “The Best of Both Worlds” too. Many Trek fans did. If you want more of it, I suggest a re-watch.

Yes, I mean she has mentioned TOS examples in like 10 posts today?

Weird that all of a sudden she claims she didn’t mean to use TOS examples?


“I dont care about TOS,”

Yet you keep bringing up examples from TOS??? Do you read your own posts???

By the way, “As the Best of Two Worlds Turns” is one of my favorite daytime soaps!

TOS was a first step and by the standards of that era they were well ahead of the curve. They could only do so much, limited not only by the time period but the demands of of a networks expectations. That series inspired hope for a better future in a way that no show has since.

This is true. And it was a feminist statement that most of us male types didn’t mind at all. :-)

I still think the feminist miniskirt argument is kinda crap. Wear them off duty if you want, but not on my bridge [if I commanded a ship].

And I still think they:

Will kill you 1000 times with our with out skirts.

Just google female soldier with skirt, and you will find some female soldiers that will kill you even before you said the word sexism.

So, did you google that? If you did, plz, send a mail to thouse Peoples Liberations Army females that use skirts that they are not “serius militarys”..

Having the choice to wear a miniskirt and without being shamed or harassed is feminist but the minskirt itself is not feminist.

The minskirt is just cloth..

And btw, males used skirts in Star Trek too………..

And on the planet Standar, which is part of the 3erd Realm of Middle Earth, the men wear skrits.

Oh, I agree. And folks, women in particular, were pointing out the superior practicality of the female uniforms worn in the pilots as far back as the early ’70s. It’s absurd that Uhura, an officer and communications specialist, would have to work an entire shift with her crotch mere inches from view, let alone having to don coveralls if she needed to get under her console to actually fix something.

That said, it should be noted that the skirts were the invention of William Theiss, who was gay and thus had no ‘ulterior’ motive. He just wanted the women on the ship to be stylish. :-)

And some of the actresses have said they were apparently into them (Grace Lee Whitney or Nichols, I can’t remember anymore) — which makes sense, they’re actresses and likely wanted to show off their sex appeal, plus the skirts were in style.

@Jack — correct. The feminist movement in the 1960s was complicated, because they were at once able to wear revealing clothing for the first time, and control their sexuality and bodies, while at the same time, still prevented from holding certain jobs. They were able to embrace their sexuality, but still expected to serve their men. And as usual, men exploited this as well, which leads us to the “me too” movement of today. Dressing women differently from the men today is not an acceptable option anymore. It is no longer a badge of free protest and independence.

I don’t think it’s about not dressing the sexes differently, but more that there’s freedom of choice to do or not do so. I think if women can wear whatever they want, then if they want to wear miniskirts to work I say go for it. Likewise for dudes — if some guy wants to wear a miniskirt to work, let him do it. For the majority of human history men wore dresses, skirts and gowns. Who doesn’t like being comfortable?

I am trying to remember is which season of TOS did they visit the planet Standar?

I do remember my favorite part of that episode — you remember, when they used the Guardian of Forever, it was so cool to see the difference between the past and present events of the Skrits alien race, which populates Standar.

Really? I like the miniskirts…actually I just love all 60s fashion. But if we’re seriously critiquing the uniforms for their space-worthiness then I say throw out everything from TOS cuz who goes to work in pajamas? Also agree with Marja above, if we’re critiquing the show for its sexism then the very presence of most of those women in miniskirts is sexist in and of itself for the fact that most of them didn’t do much but stand around and be beautiful or do menial tasks for the men.

most of them didn’t do much but stand around and be beautiful or do menial tasks for the men.

While I mostly agree with your points, I’d say that Uhura is the one example of someone whose job wasn’t fully explored, but by no means should assume a communications officer was a “menial” job. That’s one area I think Abrams handled deftly in 2009, while also adhering to canon.

I knew a man who was a music major, drafted into the Navy out of college and given the important task of analyzing sonar signals due to his special skill set during WWII. His was hardly a menial task, and indeed routinely saved lives, I’ve no doubt.

Now, the fact Uhura was given to shrinking from fear or emotion from time to time in the line of duty, embracing men for support from same, and rarely accompanied the men on missions, is definitely a case to be made for otherwise being subservient.

I would also make the same argument for Nurse Chapel — assisting McCoy was her job, but hardly a menial one. It’s the constant swooning over Spock, and mothering of of other male characters that makes the character sexist.

Now Rand was endemic of the kind of blatant sexism found in TOS. An attractive female who did perform essentially menial tasks. There were no Number Ones. Generally, the only strong women were depicted as b*tches.

Yo first of all how do you quote other comments like that? That’s cool.

And I definitely agree with what you said. I mean communication is obviously essential on a starship, but it also smacks of a glorified secretary role — here, let me send along your correspondence, boss. Uhura’s role was as a mediator of conversations between men, by and large.

But to your point about Rand, when I say that the women had menial tasks, I was thinking predominantly of the beautiful but often nameless yeomen shuffling to and fro at Kirk’s leisure. Is being a nurse important? Sure, but it’s also such a stereotype to have the nurse be a woman. And agreed on your points about Chapel’s character traits.


Re: who goes to work in pajamas?

I’ve heard tales of Google employees and work from home avoiding the commute types. And working in my brother’s delivery business, I’ve spied the self-employed, and creative types (writers, painters, sculptors, etc.) Then there are the actors in independent film projects that supply their own costumes from their own personal wardrobe, i.e. pajamas when called for.

And then there are the wearers of the kimono that’s actually formal wear but has crossed over into pajama territory.

I’ll leave it to you to decide if people who make money selling their own sex tapes qualify as “going to work?”

Obviously there are people who go to work in “pajamas” or extremely casual wear. But they aren’t military officers or official representatives of the government. Do we want the top brass of the United Federation of Planets in goofy looking clothes? I mean that’s just my personal critique of Trek uniforms lol I honestly couldn’t care less what they wear


Fads and fashions, even for the military, are fleeting (pun intended.)

Besides, this is STAR TREK, you are supposed to be aware enough to know that the Spanish and British Naval uniforms did indeed look goofy to the Amerinds, Polynesians and Asians who first spied them. They hardly conformed to their local community standards.

< block quote Obviously there are people who go to work in “pajamas” or extremely casual wear. But they aren’t military officers or official representatives of the government.
— albatrosity

/ block quote >

I wouldn’t say that our current military doesn’t go to work in extremely casual wear — the standard issue BDUs are extremely casual compared to even most casual business offices. I’d put them in almost the same category as hospital scrubs. I’d go so far as to say that today’s BDUs are even more casual than any uniform ever worn on TOS — and in that sense TOS was actually once again, ahead of their time. Even 4 star generals wear BDUs to important meetings with foreign governments.

Curious Cadet,

Re: I wouldn’t say that our current military doesn’t go to work in extremely casual wear…

Not to mention, what about times of crisis requiring immediate action? I happened to have been spawned by a parent who was alive and aware in Hawaii when the Pearl Harbor sneak attack occurred. Do people actually conceive in their minds that military personnel awoke that Sunday under attack and took time to don and button up their Sunday dress uniforms before manning a weapon and returning fire?

Also in Where No Man Has Gone Before. It’s interesting, the first two pilots were more feminist than the rest of TOS turned out to be. Number One, Elizabeth Dehner with a PhD, and no female yeomans. After both pilots the female element was reduced until we are left with just Uhura as our diluted feminist icon. While Uthura did eventually have a blink and you miss it moment in the chair and fix her own electronics (with praise from Spock that she was the best person suited for the job), it’s a pity TOS wasn’t more female friendly.

and no female yeomans

It’s interesting you mention that. It gives new meaning to the line Kirk has early on … ‘when I get my hands on the person who assigned me a female yeoman …’ or something to that effect — my guess is that’s Roddenberry taking a jab at the NBC.

Good point!

Colt was a yeoman though


But she was easy to miss because Pike banned women from his bridge and kept reminding Colt of it.

I had actually misread the above comment. It was about WNMHGB and I was obviously thinking of “The Cage” which was quite a different story concerning gender dynamics.

So, boxers and briefs. Cool.

Utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, I know. The fact that the points they mention are so uncommon that it’s worth writing an article about is really ridiculous. Thankfully Star Trek is a show about the future and so this type of casting will become more common soon.

How great is it to have women speaking freely about their love for this series? And acknowledging the role of the men in their lives?

There is nothing to complain about here, as far as I am concerned. Men and women have always been equal in my view and it is wonderful that society is finding new ways to accept this.

A terrific article and a very hopeful outlook — thank you to all.

Do these people not realize that when you go so overboard with trying to promote a specific gender or race for diversity that that in of itself is being racist/sexist? Do they seriously not see the irony? The brilliance of the original Star Trek was that it never tried to play identity politics, everyone in the future was equal and that was that. That’s what made it great, it was true equality because true equality means not having to put others down to prop others up because you feel it’s some kind of justice for the past. They made equality the norm instead of trying to make problems where there are none. Everyone today (at least in the U.S.) is equal so why do people keep pretending that we’re not?

they don’t and whenever I have said the same thing I get bashed on here. It’s all good.

Can we look at this positively? Where is the problem in celebrating and promoting equality?

I think that conservative views prevalent in some media outlets wish to portray a view that contrasts their opponents as strident and irrational. But if you must, look at all the leadership roles in real life and ask whether all groups are represented equally. When was the last time we had, actually, a “Madame President?”

Britain had Thatcher.

Hell, even Canada had the short-termed Campbell.

So America is equal in this sense?

Why are some of us short-tempered when it comes to matters of advocacy? Have we succumbed to reactionary politics? Perhaps.

Let us celebrate what progress is made yet understand there the future still presents challenges to overcome.

Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on truth.

Ive vote for a female president, (and not, I am not from USA) and yet, Discovery tell me and my son, that we have not future just due to the fact that we are males……….

They did not determine the headline, methinks. They said what they said. You and I have a future even if the “future is female,” since it doesn’t say that the future is exclusively so, since that would not seem in any way logical.

The future, in truth, is for all.

The writer of the headline probably wanted to convey the idea that this series promotes women as far as what was said. That’s okay. It’s an editorial decision. Let’s not be too concerned about that.

Is not just the editorial, the panel was title: The future is female and the background had it on there too.

Cerri, I am not interested in divisive politics. At all. I suggest we don’t address one another here. The reason is that you have a point of that works for you but not me.

Let us see this entertainment for what it is and no more and no less.

Oh what nonsense you are taking away from this article.

This article is about a panel discussion on Women in Trek. That is why they are celebrating and discussing the role of women in Star Trek: Discovery.

Please don’t be afraid. I’m angry but I’m an old feminist and I put up with a lot of sexist crap in my professional life.

I promise there are many male-tolerant females out there, and that you have a future.

You see, that is the issue, I am a white male that lives in a 3erd world country and belive me, we have put up a lot more crap than you in this life, and yet, Star Trek give us hope, and now Discovery tells me I have no future, that half my country mans have no future, that my son have no future, that half of africa have no future.. 50% of south america have no future, and thouse ppl have put up more crap than you and all thouse holywood actresess.

Is the “3erd world” a local slang term for Middle Earth?

That makes no sense, Cerri, and you know it.

Have you watched Discovery? There are men on it in major roles. Captain, engineer, first officer, doctor, chief of security: all male. We’ve also seen multiple male admirals (and one woman). And all the Klingons but one are male.

For all its flaws, Discovery is telling you nothing of the sort.

Which was the episode that had no men in it at all? Think I missed that one.

That makes no sense and you know it.

Putting aside the multiple major male characters on this show (Stamets, Lorca, Pike, Saru, Tyler, Sarek) there are about 550 hours or so of Star Trek with male leads — that’s plenty of future for you and your son.

Yup, I am still in wonder how in all these years the U.S didn’t have any woman president. Even here in Turkey, where we are more conservative now, we had a woman prime minister in the early 90’s.

@Hat Rick Normal people could care less what race and gender someone is. Martin Luther King Jr. himself said to judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. My mom and my grandmother are both very strong women and hate feminism and could care less whether we have a female President or not, because people’s race and gender doesn’t matter.

Ah, the standard “conservative” King-cherrypick. Go and actually read his thoughts regarding affirmative action, economic inequality, and U.S. foreign policy, then get back to me.

If you have a problem with my quote of what he stated that must mean that you’re against it. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that statement.

Do I need to explain to you what ‘cherry pick’ means?

Even if the quote is cherry picked it doesn’t matter it’s meaning still holds the same no matter what. I don’t see how the meaning could possibly change.

How can you think everyone in the US is equal? Women get paid less. Black people are shot in their own cars and backyards. Native Americans are booted off a college campus tour. All the sexual harassment is finally coming to light but that means it’s there in abundance. We may be equal on paper but that’s not what is happening.

And I don’t think being happy about female department heads is going overboard but what do I know? And they didn’t put ANYBODY down at all at least not in this article. Maybe you read something else?????? LLAP

@Marty literally everything you just said is a flat out lie. The gender wage gap is a myth, women on average tend to choose lesser paying jobs in order to spend more time with their families. Nowhere have I seen any evidence of Native Americans being booted off of colleges. The sexual harassment that is coming out to light is actually being used to persecute people before even finding the facts first and not to mention has completely omitted men especially young boys who have been sexually assaulted. We are all equal, everyone has the same rights.

“The gender wage gap is a myth, women on average tend to choose lesser paying jobs in order to spend more time with their families.”

Good God, what b.s.

How is that BS? It’s literally facts.

No. It is not ‘facts’ (sic), literally or otherwise.

Actually it is, considering it’s been illegal for decades for there to be any wage difference between men and women. The wage gap myth has been debunked countless times and when there is an wage difference it has nothing to do with the sexes it has to do with the type of job and the number of hours worked.

Here’s the story about the Native Americans being kept from a college campus tour (thanks to one “concerned” parent who thought they looked out of place):

So, “going overboard” seems to indicate you’re fine with equality if there are more white guys cast than POC, and WOC and white women? And “having to prop others up” means a put-down for who, white people?

The brilliance of the original Star Trek was that it pointed the way to the future that is represented in Discovery. In itself TOS could be sexist as hell. See my comments above, if you have even read this to the end.

“Everyone today (at least in the U.S.) is equal so why do people keep pretending that we’re not?” Wouldn’t it be pretty if this were so.

Today, POC and WOC and white women are still paid less, treated unfairly in society [lower pay for the same work] and police [black deaths at the hands of police, a huge imbalance in the administration of justice].

We are equal in fact but not treated with EQUITY by society. We are humans, but are considered to be less than that by segments of society, particularly the segment that is in power.

And poor people, by the way, are also personae non grata per the plutocrats. /rant over

And in Star Trek no one gets paid.. issue solve, equality statment made. Now give me a good story, and Discovery has failed miseravly on that.

And yet, they are proud of something Star Trek already closed ages ago… and that, THAT, is the real issue.

@Marja do you not realize how completely insane you sound? And by using the terms POC and WOC you’re actually being racist because those terms imply that white people don’t have color when we’re all just pretty much shades of beige. And yeah do you not see how many straight white males are being put down on a daily basis? Is that your form of justice? Newsflash no one alive today is responsible for the tragedies of the past so your form of justice means nothing and is actually guilty of the very things you claim to be against.

And no literally everything you just said is a complete lie. The wage gap is a flat out myth, women on average tend to choose lesser paying jobs in order to spend more time with their families. And police are not targeting black people, more white people are killed by police than black people and black people are killed most by other black people. If you really wanna get into it it’s actually the opposite considering that black people are actually 25x more likely to harm white people and it’s actually 100x more likely for assault. Less than 15% of the population yet commit over 50% of the crime, if there’s any inequality it’s the exact opposite of what you think.

No one in society is treating you any differently cause the facts literally prove otherwise. We all have the same rights so stop playing the victim card.

@TM11 That’s actually crazy talk.

Yes, we all know that the only true victims are white, conservative Christian males. How terrible for you!

How terrible that the people who claim to be the victims have never even felt actual oppression and blame entire groups of people for the tragedies of the past when not a single person alive today was responsible for it.

So, the Black guy who gunned down in an Ohio Target for carrying a toy gun he picked up from a store shelf–in an open-carry state where he had every right to be packing a REAL gun–wasn’t being oppressed? I’m certain his surviving relatives will be pleased to hear that.

Of course, we all understand that you’re the real victim here.

How do you know it was specifically because he was black? Where in any of these cases is there any evidence to suggest that these people were killed based on their race? How does cherry picking one example somehow proves that an entire race of people are being oppressed when the statistics state the complete opposite? The only reason why you only hear about black people getting shot more is because the media chooses to cover those stories and doesn’t cover it when a white person gets shot. Again the facts and statistics prove otherwise. And if you really wanna go down that road statistically speaking black people are more likely to commit crimes so even if there was racial profiling from a statistics standpoint it makes sense. It’s not racist when it’s based on facts.

Good God, but you’re morally obtuse. Here’s a clue for you, Sparky: the media in fact does cover instances of innocent white people being shot by police. It doesn’t do it at rate it happens to blacks, though, for the simple reason that it simply doesn’t happen to whites with anything like that frequency. Go ahead and give me some of your vaunted statistics to prove otherwise. And while I’m sure you’re perfectly comfortable with such unwarranted killings, racial profiling, and other depredations against civil liberties, basic fairness, and decency–just so your cowardly a$$ can feel safer–rest assured that many of us are not, whatever our skin color.

Richard Wilson Preston Jr.

Nuff said



“Everybody today (at least in the U.S.) is equal” — that’s really all you had to say to invalidate your whole argument. Put that at the top next time and save us the bother of reading your drivel.

@albatrosity what rights do certain people have that others don’t? We literally all have the same rights so GTFOH with that BS. The facts don’t lie.

But liars certainly lie about what constitutes a fact.

How is anything I said a lie? Please feel free to name a right that certain people have over others, I’ll wait.

Wow where to begin on this one, right? How about in Arkansas, where their 48 hour waiting period on abortion creates significant hurdles for rural and poor women. Is this technically curtailing their right to an abortion? Well, yes, actually. The law was specifically designed to discourage the practice, fully aware that these vulnerable communities would be most impacted. Gee, wasn’t too hard to find an example now was it. #getaneducation #stopplayingdumb

Don’t even get me started on the abortion argument. And I don’t see how a 48 hour waiting period is somehow preventing a right and what difference does 2 days make? And what about the rights of unborn children? And don’t tell me to get an education when you’re so ignorant you don’t even know that abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood were specifically created to purposefully kill as many black and poor babies as possible, so congratulations you’re actually supporting the genocide of the people you think you’re protecting.

Yes, I’m sure you’re constantly losing sleep at the thought that black people aren’t having children in sufficient quantity to sustain their numbers. Of course, once the kids are actually born your sort isn’t much concerned about spending any money to help make their lives better–but hey, winners and losers, right? (So far as I can tell, the only money conservatives are willing to spend on kids is for “abstinence” education.) If the kids can’t afford health care, that’s their tough luck, correct?

I’ll bet 1,000,000.00 quatloos that you call yourself a Christian, too.

Yeah I can see how you wouldn’t see how the waiting period is preventing a right. That’s because you can’t seem to draw the connection to the intent behind the law and how it would affect real people. It’s pretty hard to travel so far out of your way to get an abortion to the point that it discourages people from getting one. That’s how it curtails their rights. And now seriously stfu about that PP nonsense, there’s no room for that BS on this site.

Let’s see, I can think of a dozens of rights some people in society don’t have that most straight white males [btw are you a straight white male? You certainly sound like one] get to enjoy. Voting rights: you know how hard it is for certain communities or people from certain backgrounds to get valid govt IDs? Yet conservatives in power decry voter fraud and legislate to curtail the voting rights of those without such ID, even though voter fraud has never been a serious issue. Let’s talk about the criminal justice system: how many white guys are getting gunned down by police for having a cell phone in their hand? I work in the justice field and I can tell you nearly every false arrest case involves a person of color being brutally subdued without cause. Trump just rolled back an auto loan policy designed to protect people of color, because literally everything he does is to undermine the progress of the last decade. I could go on and on, man. You must be daft to think that the laws in this country somehow equate to the actual rights granted by them. In no way are things equal. I can’t even believe I have to point this out to you. Were you born yesterday? Jesus H.

Are you effing serious right now? EVERYTHING in this country requires an ID there is no excuse for anyone to not have an ID! You only want lax voter ID laws so that you can allow illegals to vote! Poor people can afford cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs but not an effing ID? GTFOH you need an ID to purchase cigarettes and alcohol! And no dude black people aren’t getting gunned down more that white people the statistics literally state the exact opposite you moron. And yeah the laws in this country do equate actual rights, what planet are you living on?

Alright wow you’ve shown your true colors, I’m not even gonna entertain your alt-right conspiracy theories here. But please go on and on about the tens of cases of voter fraud that have sullied legitimate elections. And you’re welcome to cite your sources for your beyond bonkers claims, because I sure as fk ain’t accepting them coming from your mouth.

You must think that everyone in America is granted the right to water too. Tell that to the people in Flint. You must think Puerto Ricans aren’t American citizens. Well, they are, but they don’t share the same rights as everyone on the mainland, and there are still thousands of people without power eight months on from Hurricane Maria. Can you imagine if Dallas was still without power from Harvey?

It’s like really funny how you think that legal equality grants absolute equality. It does not. Things are very unequal. Again, you’re a straight white male. I really don’t expect you to know anything about this. But would it hurt you to at least try to understand what other people are going through?

Quick reminder that this was a panel that was all about the women of Star Trek: Discovery.
The general tendency to turn entertainment so explicitly into a political matter is kinda disconcerting though.
I still liked some of the points they brought up though. For example, I never paid that much attention to the final moments between Burnham and L’Rell, which do indeed show a rather interesting dynamic.

I love TOS, but it’s definitely a product of its time. And I’m sure you adore its vision of an inclusive future where everybody gets to be ‘equal’–so long as, at the end of the day, straight white men are invariably in charge.

Idgaf who’s in charge that’s the point! You people are the ones that try to make a point about putting certain groups of people in there for diversity’s sake when the rest of us couldn’t care less! What pisses us off is that you use it as a way to demonize a group of people and put them down because you think it’s somehow justified despite the fact that you’re literally guilty of the very things you claim to be against, for example Harvard having a blacks-only graduation which is segregation, you people are going backwards! If you sit around and start looking for whether something has enough diversity in it or not there’s something seriously wrong with you, cause normal people don’t do that.

How touching, that you can take it upon yourself to speak for all “normal” people. Tell me, does that group include as a subset the Neo-Nazis, KKK members and those nostalgic for the Old Confederacy who marched in Charlottesville? You know, the group referenced by Donald Trump as being “good people,” knowing full well that they represented his base of support? Because they sure don’t have much in common with any liberals or leftists that I know.

So Discovery goes out of its way to cast women and people of color in prominent roles “for diversity’s sake,” which you find to be ipso facto racist and discriminatory. (Just as Gene Roddenberry went out of his way in 1966 to cast women and racial minorities on TOS, but of course that was entirely different.) But if DSC had ended-up with a majority white cast where the male characters always called the shots I’m guessing that we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, because you would just assume that the producers had cast the best available actors for those roles, that the actions of the characters were dictated by the story, and that there no behind-the-scenes “agenda” involved in any of it. Correct?

The KKK was started by the Democrats and the Nazis were socialists you idiot. And you like most people are taking Trump’s words completely out of context. I saw his press conference live and saw what he actually said but I take it that you only saw CNN’s version? He wasn’t talking about the white supremacists he was saying that there were non-violent people there who were legitimately protesting on both sides, he wasn’t talking about the white supremacists. And no they don’t represent his base of support you nutjob there’s only alike 6,0000 white supremacists left in the entire country! And btw do you want to see a video of every single time Trump denounced white supremacists? Cause he’s done it literally numerous times yet you people still lie and claim he never has?

And dude it’s not the effing 60s anymore get that through your head! No one cares about the race and gender of the characters IDGAF whether they’re white, black, or green! But when you have articles like this and comments from the cast and crew that are trying to put down entire groups of people because they think they’re doing it in the name of social justice that’s what pisses people off! No one alive today was responsible for any of the shit in the past get that through your head! Your virtue signaling and holier than thou attitude from you people is truly disgusting and makes me sick especially considering you think it’s moral to murder unborn children. Yeah you people are the party of morality alright. Literally you people are the very epitome of everything you claim to be against.

Bringing up the phony “Nazis were socialists” argument really equals putting a sign around your neck that says: “I’m the most ignorant of instigators”.
Get some friggin education into that head of yours ffs! Hitler himself regarded the term “National Socialism” (and the red flags) as a clever way to mislead Marxists and even wrote that exact notion down for everyone to read in that bloody book of his. Apart from that, there are just a load of factual historic clues that prove that claim about nazism being a form of socialism wrong — for example the Nazis’ stance on personal wealth, which pretty much read: “As long as you’re not Jewish, you can have it all” or the Nazis’ stance on authority and hierarchies etc. etc.
Now stop insulting everyone’s intelligence with that rubbish! It’s beyond pathetic.

PS: Godwin’s law in full effect, eh…

Yeah… this discussion thread isn’t going anywhere nice. Let’s move on…

Just one more thing: Celebrating the distaff side of life is not to disparage the role of men in society. The role of the man has traditionally been to protect, to seek, to make new families and to bring forth creative endeavors in other-than-familial ways. That’s just the nature of history: I challenge anyone to name the female equivalent of the great explorers of the world. There aren’t many, if any. All the greatest explorers in every civilization have been male — that’s the job of the male, historically. And the risks fell to males: Men have died to protect themselves, their comrades, their countries. Let’s not gloss over that.

But the fact that men have been supreme in doing the above doesn’t mean we cannot be happy that the female side of humanity is progressing. Why should it? Why?

The fact is that none of us choose to be male or female when we are born. We are born as such, or even in a less distinct way. And if that is the case, then what entitles any of us to criticize anyone for trying to be the best of who we are, regardless of what assignment society determines?

Trek is about ideas. Trek is also about a lot of other things. If we abuse ideas in the name of Trek, then I guess someone should call us out on it. But let’s not abuse these ideas to begin with, please?

The fact that all the great explorers were male had nothing to so with the fact that women were treated as possessions to traded from a father to a future husband (see coverture). Women were not educated, could not hold property, were married young and were expected to spend most of their lives being pregnant, raising children and running a household. By modern standards this would be considered slaverly.

But oh no, it’s because men are naturally great explorers that there are no female explorers.

On that we agree, women did not explore due to the fact that they couldnt, not beacose they didnt want to.

Wow, Cerri! We agree on that! :^)

Belive me, I am not a machist (or what ever is the english word), Ive vote for a female for president, to gobernm me in real life. I know that famales have issues, but statments like “the future is female” or “the force is female” (Star Wars) does not help the cause, and put ppl like me in the fence.

I would never vote for a Gobernm in real life for President, but if Suaron or Gandalf were to put an well-spoken Orc on the ticket, I would consider voting for that individual.

And a Cave Troll as VP would sweeten the ticket for me.

It was the name of a 10-minute panel discussion attended by, say, 40 people (or however many). And that threatens you and your son’s well being? Come on. Nobody is actually saying the actual future is entirely female.

And sometimes I think this site posts these kinds of headlines as click-/outrage-bait. Although it’s sad that the mere mention of GLAAD or diversity or feminism in a headline spurs endless comments about the end of civilization and the victimization of conservatives (“Why isn’t our intolerance tolerated?”).

Can we also separate the marketing of the show/comments by actors from what’s actually on the screen? Show me a single episode or scene of discovery that shows or implies that men, in general, aren’t leaders or granted equal rights and access to opportunity?

Hat Rick, I agree with the *last few sentences* of your post.

If I may:
1 – women make new families [at least 50% to men]. I suspect if men could get pregnant there would be fewer babies. Pregnancy and birth are — or at least were — EXTREMELY risky. Just look at statistics before the modern age of medicine. Childbed fever, Milk Fever, infection and many more ills occurred to birth mothers, often resulting in death.

2 – Female explorers: who would be considered “great”? Would Polynesian women count? White males did explore a lot of countries and “brought them civilization” [read, for the most part, “exploited them through colonialism” “killed them off and took their land”].

During these times, in Europe at least, women were forbidden to work outside the home [unless they were servants or hoors], and [!!!] broke barriers by writing. Ada Lovelace was that rare bird who was able to invent a calculating machine, but she was rich, considered eccentric, and indulged by her male relatives. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley not only wrote “Frankenstein” but also a treatise on the rights of women.

3 – for the most part, white males have written histories when European civilizations “ruled” the globe.

4 – Women have for centuries been the uncredited co-authors, co-artists, and members of scientific teams.

I have no reason to question your facts. I only wish to say that men were also assigned roles — and such roles were often to go and sacrifice themselves in the name of … whatever. So men didn’t always have lives of roses and champagne: Men were also deemed expendable in some major contexts.

Let us not make this a war between men and women. Men did some horrible things to women. Women have a right to equality. Can we call it a day?

That’s not really the same though, nor is it related to equality. While women were akin to slaves, it was (and still is) men who decided that men would be assigned the roles to sacrifice themselves.

“So men didn’t always have lives of roses and champagne”

Still, they probably got both more often than women.

suspect if men could get pregnant there would be fewer babies.

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that’s at least in part the reason why the US birthrate is falling. Educated, professional women are putting off motherhood until they’ve achieved some personal goals, which even 30 years ago weren’t in the realm of possibility for many adult women.

This is true across all high-income-earning, developed nations. (

But Marja’s point was that we have, in traditionalist / male dominated societies, men, that cannot get pregnant, telling the women, that *can* get pregnant, what they can and can’t do with their own bodies.

If men could get pregnant, and have to suffer all the physical effects, health risks, psychological risks, social risks (if unmarried), financial risks, not to mention having one’s plans for school and career radically changed… You bet they would champion free reproductive healthcare and embracing choice.

So, just for fun, I’m gonna make a few predictions about the story arc of the second season:

1. The Emperor will want to “redeem” herself. But this isn’t coming without a price.

2. Section 31, Section 31, Section 31 — see above.

3. There will be an erasure of certain timeline(s).

4. It shouldn’t be clear whether the Emperor is truly of good faith or not. The Emperor is essentially the “McGuffin,” however, of the piece, as her story is only one part of the overall storyline.

6. The continuation of the Federation is not assured, since Section 31 has its grubby paws in everything. The Federation could be in mortal peril — cliffhanger! This means that intercession from folks like Pike are needed, now and then — and, toward the end of the season, we should see Jason Isaacs in some form or another.

So, strong female figures, but the guys are still there. Worry not.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.


As a Woman of a Certain Age, I really appreciate this about Discovery, as Wiseman said: One thing I really appreciate about the show is that, not all the women are 25. On average, best female Oscar winners are ten years younger than their male counterparts. Why is that? When we value women who are younger, what does that say about our idea of the prototypical woman?

All people are valued regardless of age. I couldn’t care less if you were 115 years of age or more.

Essentially our intellects are ageless.

Socrates would be in his second millennia of age, I gather. His words live on.

Age matters when you need to vote, enlist, drink, or drive, or buy a gun. Otherwise, not so much.

Am curious what you mean by intellects being ageless. Otherwise I like what you said!

And why you even care who wins or loss an Oscar? Is that going to change your life? Are you so insecure that you need a “womage of age” actress to be your example in life? Is that going to solve the Palestine issue? Why do you care about the problems of some holywood actress when there is babys that die of ebola?

Oscar? To whom are you addressing the post and why are you posting such divisive messages, I wonder? This is not a current events board. Sir, I don’t think you are posting in the right place. This is a fan forum. Trek is liberal but this is not a political board.

I was adressing to Marja.

Okay. But I still don’t understand your disposition toward this discussion. Do you think anyone is going to be swayed by your references to ebola babies and such? I don’t think anyone who isn’t already contributing to charities will change their minds and make every horrible thing on Earth better, or at least try to, simply because of your comments. I mean, sir, your comments here are rather divisive and imply that First World posters here don’t care about the Third or Fourth Worlds. Brother (or Sister), some of us don’t really want to be preached to in that way, and it may tick us entirely off.

Of all people, Trek fans are probably the most liberal when measured along the broad spectrum of society. Yet none of us, and none of the West, combined, can solve the problems of the Global South.

We can harken toward such, and we raise the alarm (yet again), but the task it seems to me is not to tick people off who can help you.

I’m exasperated by folks on both the Western left and right.

I hope you understand.

When some rich holywood actress claims me and my son have no future, due to the fact that white americans males discriminate them, is an isnult to all the males that also have it hard in the life on the rest of the world.

Males are not all white american that the holywood actresses think that abuse them. Not all males are racist, not all males have a easy life, not all white males are born in a golden cage and yes, thare are white males in the world with worst conditions that females in America.. and Star Trek was a becon of hope, now they even tell us that we have no future.

Well, okay. Let’s just avoid each other because I do not understand your comments. Safe travels.

I wont avoid anyone, if you dont like what I said, you are free not to reed me, I dont care, I will still call you wrong if I think you are wrong.

Sir, or madam, have a pleasant day.

You too.

I think you’re reading too much into this pal. The article is about having an equal representation of men and women on one single TV show. No one is erasing men.

Imagine thet title was: The future is male.

True, that. ;)

Did. Anyone. Say. All males have an easy life?

If you’re not Oscar, I would be very surprise. Beh!

As you know, nobody has said that you or your son (or males anywhere) have no future.

And put yourself in your wife’s and daughter’s shoes — shouldn’t they be part of the future, too?

No, Cerri, I’m not insecure. I just haven’t seen many women my age in the movies or on TV, and I think that stinks, so I’m glad to see the few that appear.

No, that’s nothing c/w the troubles of the world.

I watch Star Trek to see a future of hope.

There are a lot of things I care about. Star Trek, I talk about here. Babies dying, I talk about in my letters to Congress, and on Twitter.

preach girl

Well said!!!

“Why do you care about the problems of dome Hollywood actress… etc…”

“Are you so insecure… (etc)”

Wait, weren’t you just saying that the casting of four women on a TV show (and the name of a 10-minute discussion panel) are telling you and your son that you have no future?

Representation, even in entertainment, is important because we take those messages to heart. And they sometimes reflect what’s going on in society. That’s why it mattered that George Takei and Nichelle Nichols were cast on Star Trek. And an older woman getting hired and winning awards shows that one doesn’t lose one’s value at 35 or 40.

It’s the exact same argument you were making before — “Discovery is saying 50% of the population has no future.” You weren’t right about that — Discovery isn’t showing that at all. But imagine if you’d gone your whole life never seeing a man or a white person in a leadership role in real life or on TV. Would it be important for you to see someone like you?

The more Women the better. Men are boring.

So many snowflakes here. Sad.

I’m not here to comment on the social commentary at all. They’re gonna do what they do. What does bother me, though, is when people who are essentially paid to tell stories written by other people for a living somehow feel that being a public face gives them both the knowledge and the obligation to speak about things which they’re not necessarily educated about or qualified to discuss well.

You do realise they were there to publicise a TV show? It’s not an academic conference, just promoting a show. I don’t think anyone is assuming a TV star knows everything about a topic.

Exactly. Actors say stuff on these junkets because it’s part of their jobs. And the Trek publicity machine has been hawking the shows’ diversity credentials for decades.

Now we know why Jason Isaacs @jasonsfolly calls himself “tightly clad space pilot” … Spanx.

Yeah but, why is Mary Wiseman dressed like April O’Neil from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Well, WHY NOT?!?! Oh wait, I get it: CBS-Paramount solidarity. Very clever, Mary. Well played, you sassy ginger.

Or maybe dressed like Deadpool in the prison scenes … oops that was a 20th-C Fox movie

Yet again Galt, belitting a female member of the cast. Your fear of women is officially more tedious than it is offensive.

Shush. That’s what he was expecting you to write.

No, i will not shush. Bigots and trolls need to be called out and publicly.

Let’s be honest. She totally looks like April O’Neil. That’s not a bad thing.

Anthony Pascale, why do you let so much racism, homophobia and sexism run rampant in the comments? I’m tired of seeing attacks on diversity and inclusion by supposed “fans” of Star Trek. It’s an embarrassment to the legacy and vision of Trek.

I dont even saw a coment about race of sex preference on the coments, but I guess that any ones that dont agrees with you is racist, sexist and homophobic. Hell, I guess that if some dont like the same food than you is homophobic.

At least you’re smart enough to realize he was talking about you

Funny how you IMMEDIATELY responded here in a defensive way…

Only sexism today. Maybe there’s no overt racism or homophobia on this thread, but they’ve shown up in plenty of others.

I do think we need to excise those comments that introduce politicism, so to speak, here, including even mine if they invite divisiveness.

I would welcome the deletion of such comments on an equalitarianism basis.

I completely agree that sexism and racism have no place on Trek — from whatever perspective.

I disagree. It’s better to have this all out in the open.

Years ago, this site would post political topics (like Takei’s videos against Prop 8, say) and moderators would ban all political discussion.

But if they’re posting political stories (and putting feminism or gay or diversity in the headline), then open discussion of those topics should be allowed.

We’re strong, and smart, enough to weather some discussion.

Agreed. If we can’t weather moronic, misguided people who have some hate for others in their heart, what kind of Trek fans are we?

I would seriously love to see an honest debate on this issue. I agree that racism, homophobia, and sexism run rampant here. But an appeal to the site’s moderator invites a more complicated discussion. How about a thoughtful post that addresses this issue directly, and invites a conversation, instead of posting predictable clickbait that drags both sides into the same tired arguments?

I have been saying this for a while now. It is mind boggling that such comments are allowed on a website that celebrates a franchise known for its celebration of diversity and equality. I can only assume that those who run this site do not share Star Trek’s values.

Maybe Anthony and other staff members just trust their site’s visitors to be able to handle themselves. Even though I would agree that some of the more obvious flaming attempts would warrant some sort of intervention — if not an outright ban, then just a bit of moderation. A mere admonition can go a long way

Yeah, this thread is becoming a parody. I just read some of the other contributions appended to this thread. My conclusion: Thanks, but no thanks.

I don’t think this comment section will be featured as among the best of this site. Political garbage should not be. It stinks.

But that means only one thing: The best is yet to be.

Onward and upward.

I just handle that nonsensical hate coming from a few here with humor and sarcasm.

Taking those clowns too seriously just gives them the platform they crave. To me, they kind of win when you and Luke make serious posts like you do…but don’t get me wrong, you have every right to say what you are saying, and I agree with you both completely.

PS: And I also feel that I “need a shower” from conversing with these types of individuals.

All this is great. Really impressive Actors all of them. One thing that no one is really talking about though is who is the new Captain?

Think there is any chance that the Federation will give command to the Emperor? That wouldn’t make any sense, but noone is talking about the new Captain.

Just a thought

Having an evil Emperor from a Mirror Universe become the captain of a Terran ship in a peace-seeking Federation would make no sense at all, which is why the idea is probably already green-lighted.

Naw, she’s in an even more powerful position (with zero oversight) now, remember she’s pulling strings with Section 31.

I, for one, never liked the entire concept of a “Section 31” back when it was introduced. It just felt wrong and forced in as a way to have some kind of moral conflict within the apparently pristine Federation. And as a result pretty much every section 31 based episode was sub par. Including the arc with Reed on Enterprise.

but the federation has never really been that pristine.
so these stories have an interesting dynamic.

“but the federation has never really been that pristine.”

True. But you don’t need section 31 for that.

“so these stories have an interesting dynamic.”

To you. Not to me. From my point of view the same or similar stories could have been told without the super duper secret clandestine organization few even know exist.

Back in March we did an entire article on the “who will be the new captain?” question :)

You learn the darnedest things from reading comments — even your own.

I was reviewing my “Southern” comments in another thread and it occurred to me that Trek has never really made a prominent issue of that fact that both the late Mr. Kelley and his character, Doctor McCoy, were from the South. I looked at the Wikipedia entry on McCoy, and found some insights about the character that never actually dawned on me before.

Thus, while the Southern heritage of both persona (the real person (actor) and the character) should be obvious, they are not in reality when we discuss a lot of political stuff. In regard to this, I think there is an undercurrent of sympathy toward the South (and let’s note that Mr. Eugene Roddenberry, Sr., the creator of Star Trek was born in Texas).

The South and the southwestern United States, thus, should be deemed a quintessential part of Star Trek, much as Iowa (Captain Kirk’s birthplace) should be as well. I think that the South that Mr. Roddenberry evokes is more like Mayberry (of Andy Griffith fame) than anything else… it is of simple decency.

Where does this leave DSC? Well, I say this: Who is the Doctor McCoy of this series? I’m asking. I believe the dynamic of the classic trio (K, S, and M) are absolutely the sine qua non of TOS. Should DSC have an equivalent, in this age, of McCoy, and who would she be? Just asking for a friend. ;-)

You know, all that animosity I’ve been witnessing in recent times, not only towards DISCO but also the fandom itself, has just led me to the following: Wouldn’t be terribly nice if – at least at some point – people (and by “people” I mean people, that applies to fans as well as execs, writers and others, even though I admittedly tend to just give actors a pass) would just stop politicising Star Trek?
Now, do I mean that I wish for Trek to be less political in general? – No, not necessarily. Even though the heavy-handedness in which some issues have been tackled in individual episodes is definitely worth a lot of refinement.
What I mean is that I wish for people to let the show speak for itself, let it be what it is for what it is (and for better or worse).
In the past I’ve been attributing that polticisation mostly to a select batch of fans, a vocal but limited group within the fandom, but I stand corrected in that this might only be half the truth. Without approving or condemning, I can honestly understand why some people are starting to feel patronised. I mean, people generally don’t like to be told what to think about what they’re seeing, and that includes me as well. I’ve taken in Discovery’s first season at “face value”, so to speak, and what I saw were characters – some of which I liked and some of which I didn’t quite like – and it didn’t friggin matter whether they were male or female, gay or straight, black or white, since they served a part within a story. And within that story, Michael Burnham could as well have been male, Ash Tyler could’ve been female, Culber could’ve been Indian and Admiral Cornwell could’ve been a genderless alien entity (who was ready and willing to commit genocide, mind you), as far as I’m concerned. And whether I liked or disliked the characters was based solely (or at the very least mainly) on their actions within that story.
Hence I really don’t like to be told that their gender influenced those characters to a greater degree than I would’ve envisioned (or rather perceived). Why should it? And what’s the purpose of marketing the show in such a manner?

When DS9 came out, I don’t recall there being a huge fuss being made about Sisko being black. I recall there being a bit of ruckus when VOY presented us with the first female captain, but I also remember how quickly it died down. Apart from that, most of it seemed to have been about her hairstyle anyway… Still, VOY is probably the only comparable example here, but: How much of a fuss was made around Janeway being female once S1 had aired? Do you remember? And what did they do differently?
In my memory (hazy as it may be, since I was really just a kid back then – but I did read a fair number of sci-fi and fandom-centered publications at that time) it was the following: They simply let the show do the talking there. In Caretaker we learned that Janeway wasn’t to be seen as a “sir” or a “ma’am” but simply as “captain”. And that’s all it took. From that point on the character was allowed to develop with all its “feminine” and “masculine” traits.
So why, oh why, do people even feel the need to constantly bring up such points and their further implications these days? A step back if you ask me. And CBS should know better.

Very good post, JAGT. Agreed. And long story short…just give us great stories, Writers. Let the rest work itself out. Make me look so forward to the next episode I can barely stand the wait. Try being a great Sci-Fi Star Trek show, not a (insert your favorite diverse group here) show, which happens to have the Trek name. And you’re right, CBS should know better.

I wasn’t a kid, and “First black captain” and “first female captain” both got a lot of press (mainstream press) back then. And Roddenberry always plugged the political aspects of the shows, even years later.

And one can get a distorted idea of the coverage on this site because it shows everything (as it should). I don’t think you average person is being inundated with Trek= Girl Power stories.

I’m aware that the general press coverage was concerned with these points quite frequently, but it appeared to me that all of it also died down rather quickly, didn’t it? But I wasn’t focusing on mainstream press coverage there, but deliberate promotional work. Do you see where I’m coming from?
Well, and of course my main concern consisted in voicing my personal humble desire for less general animosoty…

I don’t know if it died down quickly, there weren’t really many sites listing every single article back then. And it was talked about in promotional work.

I get what you’re saying — they shouldn’t be talking about it. Except they have been for decades.

This is one panel, aren’t we all overreacting a little? Plenty of shows do these sorts of things all the time.

And I don’t think actors avoiding mentions of social issues, when talking about a show that focuses on social issues, is going to stop the animosity.

BTW, I’m not a fan of the patting-ourselves-on-our-backs either, especially when, in a lot of ways, Trek is just catching up on this stuff.

I just think “shhh, don’t talk about it or you’ll piss people off” isn’t going to work either.

Are they really talking about it all that much? And this is also a year where we’ve been talking a lot about this stuff. Actors’ personal experiences and perspectives have been part of the story.

Is there an active Discovery marketing campaign that’s pushing the gay and feminist angle that I’m not aware of? I haven’t seen the bus ads. And if there is, is that bad?

And I know that some people here were angry that Fuller was talking about writing gay characters and casting gay actors on discussion panels and saw it as diversity solely for the sake of selling the show. But there’d been questions from fans and press about that for decades, so, yeah, a gay showrunner was going to get asked.

I think the animosity will be there whether there’s marketing or news coverage or interviews from actors or not. Like you pointed out, fairly innocuous statements that get made about most scifi/genre shows somehow got Brietbarted into “Discovery is skewering Trump voters.” Isn’t that’s going to happen no matter what people do, or don’t, say?

Outstanding post!

Excellent post and this is exactly how I feel. Just make a good show and people would watch it and understand the messages being said in the show.

Somthin ye can say bout Chieffo: she’s BIG!!! (not fat, BIG)

Is “tall” the word you were looking for? Or was that some quote, I didn’t recognise. Anyway: Yup she stands at around 6ft (=a bit more than 182cm). And she’s very passionate about her role, which is awesome, considering she’s not even billed as a regular. She’s a standout in more than one regard, one could say.

ALSO tall, yes indeeed. But I mean that her hole body is bigger than the rest of the cast, and some may find it attractive, yup :).
You’re damm right about her acting skills, she’s fantastic. Let’s hope she have more screen time on the 2nd season.

Yep, I can relate with most of this. Nurturing and multitasking are definitely female traits, biologically determined and imperative for survival of the species. Pseudo-feminists are trying to dismiss this notion as patriarchal oppression, as if men and women were mutually interchangeable. Except that we are not, and we never were. I can haul fifty kilos on each shoulder all the way to the sixth floor without resting, but I can’t deal with more than two things happening at the same time – I need a woman for that, and I always will, because equal doesn’t mean identical.

You’re missing the point. Feminists are not trying to ignore that men and women are different. However, they don’t want to be restricted by these. That is oppresion.

As a man, having seen the women’s lib movement of the 60s and 70s as a kid and after some friends outed a sexual harrassment scandal at work which resulted in a senior exec being fired in the 90s, I smugly felt our western world was really gender equal. But after seeing the whole #metoo campaign, seeing women friends abused by their husbands, and now three recent mass killings that seem to be rooted or partially rooted in anti-female sentiment, it is sadly obvious we still have a ways to go. If a show like Discovery can continue to empower women, both here in North America plus around the world where patriarchal societies still exist, then so be it. Yes, some may want the show simply to mirror TOS that was made in the 1960s but those days are long gone (it was still a “man’s world” back then). Discovery has a chance to really embrace the spirit of Roddenberry’s TOS but still do so with characters and stories for today’s social reality. After all, women make up 50 percent of our planet so why shouldn’t starfleet in the 24th century reflect that? Can’t wait for season 2.

I smugly felt our western world was really gender equal. But after seeing the whole #metoo campaign, seeing women friends abused by their husbands, and now three recent mass killings that seem to be rooted or partially rooted in anti-female sentiment, it is sadly obvious we still have a ways to go

Sad but true. Although I hadn’t been around to witness the 60s and 70s, I used to feel the same way… until the inevitable “reality check”. I honestly admire your passionate optimism!One can but hope…

Agreed, we have a long way to go. But as individuals, we can make IDIC happen on person at a time.

That’s great! Too bad the female future show wasn’t all that good. Maybe they hired the wrong females to make this show?

No, the wrong men. The creators are both male. One of them is Alex Kurtzman, whose work includes The Mummy 2017, Star Trek Into Darkness, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen and The Island.

You don’t need to throw Kurtzman’s resume at me. I know it ranges from garbage to mediocrity with the exception of Star Trek ’09. Everyone had a part to play in this tire fire. Including Berg.

If you aleady knew this, why were you trying to suggest it was women who caused the problem then…?

I believe he meant to say that not everything is automatically all fine and dandy just because many of the developers are female. And I agree that this would be an absolutely invalid presumption.

Thanks for clarifying. That’s definitely true. Unfortunately if one of the few female led shows fails, people very often automatically assume it has to be because of the women involved, no other reason.

I’m not in a position to “clarify”, but since the discussion — the whole general discourse, really — has become so heated that it’s very easy to read otherwise unproblematic statements in a much more acerbic “voice” than objectivity would demand, I thought I’d better try to rationalise the above comment, even if this may have been unwarranted.
Still, I believe that it’s worth pointing out that a writers staff can only be as good as its individual members and hence there can be the “right” women (or men) to do the job or the “wrong” women (or men); and whether someone is suited to the task has zero to do with gender. There were some damn good writers in Trek history, like Dorothy Fontana or Melinda M. Snodgrass, but I don’t laud them for being female, but for being good writers and story editors (plus a variety of other positions they filled). In that sense, they were “the right women”. Just as Brannon Braga and Ron D. Moore were “the right men” for a fair number of episodes.

“if one of the few female led shows fails, people very often automatically assume it has to be because of the women involved, no other reason.”

I wouldn’t make that assumption. It makes no logical sense.

Nothing about inequality makes sense but here we are.

He definitely said “make,” and the show was predominantly produced and created by men.

In this case, “make” can also mean “contribute to”, since it’s never one single person who “makes” a show. And among the “makers” of that show there are men and women – the question that’s worth asking is: Are the women currently working on the show behind the scenes well suited to the job because they are women?
Or to ask what basically amounts to the same question in a more pointed fashion: Is that “feminine element” they seemed to be heralding in that panel really a thing or is it just a cheap shot at promoting an action-adventure show, that has so far been pretty darn dreary in some places, as something far more “progressive” than it actually is just because they can say: “Hey look, we got a lot of women on the staff!”

“He definitely said “make,” and the show was predominantly produced and created by men.”

I would classify this as nit picking. As JAGT says, no one or two people “make” the show. It is truly a collaborative effort. To be honest, I would have thought this as obvious goes without saying.

Just because he can — no common sense or logic. More “fake news” from men who are insecure with themselves vis a vis women.

GQMF, I wasn’t. I was being facetious and going along with the theme of the article. Tone is difficult to convey in text.

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately it’s not always easy to tell joking from serious with these types of things.

Oh so now you’re coming clean that you realize that was predominantly men creating and producing the show, including Fuller, Meyer and the other TNG writer dude.

Maybe you should have thought this through before you posted this nonsense, eh Mensa?

Easy there BorgKlingon, this is a warning about getting into personal attacks. It’s possible to rebut people nicely.

Got it…sorry!

Dude… Chill out. Your anger seems to be getting in the way of your logic centers. I’d be pleased to clarify if you ask without jumping to absurd conclusions.

LOL Sorry, but trying to “pile on” on top of the moderator’s comment is just not compelling. I was overzealous in my posting, but my point still stands.

You got it completely wrong by claiming the show was being made by women, when it’s predominately made by men. I know that Mr. Wright and others can also see this — he was not commenting on the merits of my post, and of course you know this, as inconvenient as it may be to your position.

BorgKlingon, your point, as interpreted by me reading your post, was that you were so very bothered by my facetious comment that you went with your very first emotional response (thus the sarcastic “mensa” comment) without thinking things through. How about responding with something like, “Did you really mean X?” Or, “It sounds like you are saying X. Am I wrong?”

But I guess that just isn’t as much fun.


I wish you luck on the journey, you have chosen to embark upon.

Where’s Curious Cadet?


Which of course explains why two other posters thought you were being serious as well, and NO ONE posted back, “that was funny.”

If that was really your intent, and “nobody got the joke,” then please just take responsibility for your poorly worded post instead of trying to blame me and attempt to leverage the moderator’s comments to your benefit.

As expected did not take long for the whoa-is-me man trolls to decry the headline. Wonder why gender equality is so difficult to understand, especially among Trek fans who you think would be ahead of the curve (and yeah, I’m a guy, just not so insecure and thin-skinned about it).

What a silly title. The Future has no “gender”. Besides, it’s the present that matters, if only to correct mistakes of the past…

Why does everyone keep misreading the title? It means the future for women where they will be represented equally. It doesn’t say “the future is female”.

And the headline got me humming the 1985 Eurythmics/Aretha Franklin classic “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves.”

For Pete’s sake, it’s referencing the tongue-in-cheek title of a discussion panel.

To plagiarize, I see we have a long way to go.

Related slightly to this discussion — when did concepts like social justice, justice, and equal rights and protection under the law become bad things? To me, they seem essential to Star Trek. And, well, to life in modern society.

I see the MRAs have arrived. Sigh.

The what?


Members of the Moral Rearmament. It emphasizes personal integrity and confession of faults, cooperation, and mutual respect, especially as a basis for social transformation — OED