RE: Explaining the "No Female Captains" thing. | Report this post to moderator
By: falcon (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:40:07 on Jul 24, 2004

I, too, believe in the concept of "equal pay for equal work," and I think there are way too many women in the workforce who are underpaid, underappreciated, and overutilized. Add to that the fact that there are waaaay too many old, fat, white men in "leadership" positions with most corporations (making waaaaaay too much money), and the problem seems insurmountable. As long as the "white men's club" remains intact, women will continue to have to claw and scratch their way to the top. And yes, I am a white middle-aged male, who is just as frustrated at the ceilings in place as you are, because they affect me, too.

However, later on in this thread, you comment about the fact that women are not allowed in combat positions in the military. I might beg to differ just a bit. At least in the USAF, there are women fighter pilots...some who fly F-16 Fighting Falcons, and at least one who is in training to fly the new F/A-22 Raptor. A fighter pilot's position is considered a "combat" position, in that they are dropping ordinance on targets, getting shot at from the ground, and dogfighting with other pilots. I do a lot of work with the USAF, and this is a point that comes up occasionally...especially when a Marine accuses an Air Force pilot of not being a "real man" when it comes to combat, because the flyboy is 30,000 feet above the battlespace and the Marine is in the thick of it.

But my point is that, in my opinion, there are many valid reasons why women should not be allowed to participate in ground combat, and only a couple of them have anything to do with chivalry. It is true that technology has advanced to the point where just about anyone can target and fire a Howitzer, or use an RPG. But I don't believe (and to an extent, neither does the Pentagon) that most women have the temperment to survive in a combat situation. (In fact, a lot of men lack this temperment, too.) And since the command ranks in today's military are composed of the same "old, white men's club" members, you will probably never see a woman advance to a command or flag rank, especially if they have never participated in combat. Catch-22.

I'm not advocating that women should be prohibited from achieving command rank if they demonstrate the aptitude and abililty to handle that rank and the responsibilities it entails. But that would also entail that they are able to gain the respect from their troops that is necessary to be an effective commander. There are many men in command ranks in the military who do not have the respect of their troops, and it shows in areas like morale and retention.

I am advocating that women be prohibited from taking part in combat duties because the human race must be maintained. If a major war were to erupt, along the lines of the fictional WW III (or any other fictional future war we've ever read about), the overriding goal of the survivors should be the rebuilding of the human race. That takes both men and women, but frankly, it takes more women than it does men. Without women, the viability of the human race is in question.

Take this forward to the 22nd Century, and it's quite likely that we will see the status quo maintain, and probably for the same reasons. If we see a female starship captain in ENT, it's purely for ratings.

Damn, your penchant for writing novel-length posts is rubbing off on me! :-)

--------

A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein

PCLinuxOS

falcon

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: Explaining the "No Female Captains" thing. | Report this post to moderator
By: MaxPower (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:56:12 on Jul 24, 2004

Of course things aren't perfect now, I certainly am not saying they are. But having a female captain in ENT? I have no problem with that, because to me that is what Star Trek is all about. If you want to tell a story about sexism then make it an alien race.

"Turnabout intruder" seems to fly in the face of Gene's future vision. It's like they wanted to use Star Trek to tell this kind of story even though it contradicts everything that Star Trek's utopia is supposed to be all about. Maybe since this was the last episode produced(I think) this ep was kind of rushed out, a story with a moral even though it rubbed against the ideals of Trek.

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: Explaining the "No Female Captains" thing. | Report this post to moderator
By: Darth Brooks (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:59:37 on Jul 24, 2004

Wow, look what I started!

Obviously, I was speaking from the point of view of someone who holds up the ideal of gender-equality as a matter of common sense... but of course I recognize that that standard still has a long way to go in terms of implementation.

So, no... I wasn't trying to pretend that differences don't still exist... just that while the notion of a female starship captain was virtually inconceivable in 1969, today (as made evident by this upcoming episode) it is not outside the realm of our imagination. And while we're not there yet, it's at least a nice step forward.

I'm going to continue to think of the Federation circa 2269 as a time when humans are sufficiently advanced that Starfleet would be happy to have female captains if not for some unforeseen outside factor such as the hypothetical one I suggested.

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top