Like replied to you many times before my issues with Starbuck aren't related to her being female (although she is as much part of this "masculising feminism" the author of the article writes about) ,the acting of Sackhoff ,her backstory or her character arc isn't the issue it is just because she was written very unsympathetically she was in many respects quite the opposite of what the original Starbuck was about is why we like her less.

I prefer the Ladies and gentlemen call me old fashioned but I just think it sounds more polite ,personal and civilized than the generic "passengers "(ugh) next thing you know some interest group comes along and criticizes that passengers is inappropriate since not all passengers are persons or sentient beings and we all get reduced to "Things"

But since ALL of US have BOTH a MASCULINE and a FEMININE SIDE to our PERSONALITY, imo, what they're saying also has NO VALIDITY.

But that is exactly what the article is saying that most female characters in the current trend are written TOO MASCULINE AND IS WHY THESE MOVIES KEEP FAILING AT THE BOX OFFICE AND BY REDUCING THE MALE CHARACTERS AS SUBSERVIENT TO WOMAN OR BEING LESS THAN WOMEN THE WHOLE POINT OF GENDER EQUALITY GETS LOST,SINCE WHEN IS GENDER EQUALITY ABOUT REPLACING THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF WOMEN WITH MEN? BECAUSE THERE IS VERY LITTLE EQUALITY IN THAT.

what FILMS need to do is STOP STEREOTYPING CHARACTERS and CONCENTRATE on the PORTRAYAL of people who have A BALANCE of BOTH kinds of PERSONALITY TRAITS.

AT LAST SOMEONE GET"S IT!! Which is exactly what the movie companies fail to understand and why the majority of the gender swap female characters are written too masculine and this is why these movies fail !And when someone calls them out for that, which I would consider viable criticism ,they get branded racist,misogynist cellar dwelling man babies!And from that perspective the Starbuck from the original was actually far more in touch with his feminine side than the reboot Starbuck

Again this whole discussion has resulted in a stale mate I have my opinion and you have yours but still you keep on trying to convince me why you think I am wrong .Fine be me but I am not going to change opinion since I have given ample reasons why I feel this and given ample examples to illustrate this if you don't agree fine that is your right.And now cased close and let's get back to the original topic which was about DISC .

I still think the old Starbuck is more sympathetic. tada

@Nexus71 said:

AT LAST SOMEONE GET"S IT!! Which is exactly what the movie companies fail to understand and why the majority of the gender swap female characters are written too masculine and this is why these movies fail !And when someone calls them out for that, which I would consider viable criticism ,they get branded racist,misogynist cellar dwelling man babies!

Or "UNDER MEN." Don't forget "UNDER MEN."

And from that perspective the Starbuck from the original was actually far more in touch with his feminine side than the reboot Starbuck

DEAREST UNDER MEN

Wow what is your problem Invidia? The OP has gotten enough reasons and examples by a lot of posters here that what he spoke was not the reason the majority of Trek fans don't like the series but he keeps on bringing up the same issue while that isn't the point why people don't like it and it predominately has to do with the fact that the producers claim that this a Star Trek series but what most of us have noticed that it was that (apart from bringing some familiar Star trek characters in the show) has very little to do with Star Trek ,Although I just saw episode six of season 2 and that actually felt like a Star Trek episode and that the story had that classic Trek story telling,And what one notices is that after Les Moonves and the team of writers got sacked the show is actually turning more into a "Star Trek series" which kind of proves the point that they made a mess of season 1 and that those who criticized it for being a generic SF series with a Star Trek logo slapped onto it and now that CBS has to pay for the production costs(Netflix payed for the brunt of the budget of season 1 so it was a relative cheap show for CBS) but now they have to rely on the earnings of the subscribers to CBS all access ,they start changing the show into a more Star Trek related series .

Also if the producers had actually been honest about why this show ,but also the reboot movies look so different from what was previously considered the "Star trek look" the fans would have been more willing to accept this. But the main reasons for why it looks so different has very little to do with them wanting to be more creative with the look but the main reason was that of which company held the right to which certain particular pieces of the Trek IP .After 2000 the IP of Star Trek had been divided over two companies CBS and Paramount which meant that each company could only use certain pieces of the Intellectual Property that the other could not use and vice versa.The reason why the reboot Paramount movies look the way they do was because Paramount only had ownership of those specific pieces if they had wanted to use all of the IP needed for the full Star Trek look they would have has to pay CBS for making use of their property and what happened with Discovery is a similar story.Also another factor that might have come into play with the reaction towards DISC were the lawsuits against a fan financed project called Axenar that after seeing the trailer of that proposed series/movie fans got really excited by it since it was done by actors producers and crew that had worked for star trek previously and also featured actors who were familiar to SF audiences such as Richard Hatch(playing a klingon) and the actress who played Ellen Tigh in BSG.CBS got wind of this and since their series (Discovery) looked nowhere near as Star Trek like like this series did they feared competition and that fans might actually like that project more than the genuine Trek project they were working on .But in stead of making a deal with the producers and letting Axenar be made under the umbrella of CBS (which the producers of Axenar even proposed to CBS)they decided to put up this moratorium and strict guidelines for fan fiction films,maximum running time, maximum budget etc etc.While this all happened DISC was only in it's early pre-production phase while with Axenar they already had a complete story line,fully developed characters,they already had complete designs for ships ship's interiors costumes etc etc basically all CBS had to was provide for the budget and Axenar could have been the series we would be watching now and was a series that most trek fans were really enthusiastic about.But in stead of using all this know how and experience they decided to go for DISC.And when the series was finally released one could probably understand the less than steller reviews for this show ,because the Trek show that most fans had wanted got banned for a show that didn't even look like a Star Trek show and was far from what fans had wanted from a new Trek Show.During the production of the first season the situation of the IP changed and the ownership of the entire IP of Star Trek was in ownership of one parent company again and is when things from the other IP are coming into the show (like capt. Pike)Also the head of production at CBS Les Moonves was a bad choice to have since it was he that was responsible for the early demise of ENT (there is an interesting video on youtube with Berman and Braga talking about working on ENT and why (largely because of meddling from the head of production (which was later revealed to be Les Moonves))the series failed and what kind of nonsense from him they had to deal with preventing him of making even a larger mess of ENT 9boybasnds and stuff like that).And when most of the former Trek crews has left and after the success of the reboot movies Les Moonves got the chance to make a Star Trek series the way he felt should be made(and according to that same interview with B&B he didn't know anything about Star Trek and worse didn't understand SF in general).So it hardly comes as a surprise that DISC was met with the criticism as it did.And as a pavlov reaction the studio started playing the gender/race card (like the OP keeps doing)to silence this criticism while they already knew that this was the reaction they would be getting and was also pretty obvious to those Trek fans who had kept an eye on the media and the stories about the troubles during the production of DISC.

The LIE is obviously also on YOUR PART not their part Nex.

No it is not because I can contradict his claim by using various Trek episodes as examples why his assumption is false (Plato's Stepchildren,Let That Be your Last Battle field,The Cogenitor,The Measure Of A Man,the whole Jadzia/Enzia Dax/Trill story lines seem to be an analogy for gender fluid characters,The Outcast (featuring a society where homosexuality is the norm and hetrosexuals are considered deviant)TOS had a bridgecrew of a Russian,A Vulcan A Swahili Communications officer,an Asian ,A Scott,We had a female captain, with Janeway in VOY, a black commander with Sisko in DS9,Stigma (an episode with a very strong analogy towards gay relationships and how we treat people who are HIV positive) to name but a few examples that prove has remark that the reason why people don't like DISC is because Star Trek fans don't like all inclusiveness which considering the various examples I just named is ridiculous.

And the WORST PART of it is the way you chose to LIE to yourself rather than keep an OPEN MIND and being willing to LEARN MORE in regards to WHO the FEMALE STARBUCK character was and what that character was about.

I know most of things you wrote about the Starbuck character since I recently watched the entire series plus all the trimmings(extended episodes,deleted scenes,related movies,webisodes ) why do keep on arguing about a thing that is determined by personal taste which is subjective.I know of her abusive mother,and Leoben's mind tricks on New Caprica(having Starbuck believe the girl is her daughter),her experience in The Farm.But she of all people should be the last to lecture Adama on high mindedness and responsibilities,since she seems to be running away from responsibilities herself most of the times ,Also IMO the reason she ends up with Anders probably has a lot to do with that she is afraid to commit to somebody she really loves(Lee) probably in fear of losing him like Zack. Also do you think it is odd that Adama has issues with plugging a Cylon into the ship ,the very thing that enables him to defend him and the last remnants of his people against those same Cylons .Also Adama has been brought up for over 50 years in distrusting the Cylons and always wondered why the last war ended so abruptly and that he spend the years since the last war fearing what might come when the Cylons would return(remember his speech during the decommissioning ceremony at the begin of the miniseries (which turns out to be at the heart of the conflict).That he now has to turn over the control of his ship (his last bastion of defense) to a member of the Cylons who was responsible for the creation of the same Cylons that killed billions and billions of his people and you think it is odd that he hesitates?And to which end should I learn more ?Until I actually agree that Starbuck is awesome ,Starbuck is God and bla bla bla?.She is an obnoxious,high minded,full of herself ,disrespectful,disobedient character throughout the majority of the series her troubled past ,and the trauma's she goes through may explain her behavior but should that permit her for acting very unsympathetic to others?.And that's why I prefer the old Starbuck and FYI I don't like 99% of the reboot characters for similar reasons because they weren't meant to be likable so if I ask myself with which of the characters I would like spend a night out having a couple of drinks reboot Starbuck would not be my choice(especially after she had a couple of drinks too many lol).Sure they are far more interesting to watch and the writers have done more with the characters and for that I like watching the reboot but likable characters NO

But that's also YOUR LOSS, not OURS, and if you chose to remain in an IGNORANT STATE of mind in regards to that character, then that's also YOUR CHOICE as well.

What would be my loss since it is obvious a matter of tastes,and apart from all the things you wrote about and I saw while watching the entire series .you are acting like Starbuck is the second coming of Christ she is just a TV .character

But you've also no right to INSIST that someone else STOPS discussing the CHARACTER or the matter simply because YOU SAY SO, and because you don't happen to LIKE the way that what they say PROVES what you say about that character is WRONG.

I never insisted anyone to stop discussing anything I simply wrote that I was retreating from the discussion since we are not going to agree on something, And of what you wrote most things are true but that still doesn't change my point of view (which is subjective)that I find a character unsympathetic .and since this is a matter of personal taste this view is highly subjective,If Starbuck from the original series would have acted in a similar fashion iI would find his character unsympathetic as well.

No problem NEX. IF you UNDER MEN chose to remain there inside of your VERSION of PLATO'S CAVE (Zarathustra also lived in one) watching the SHADOWS playing upon the WALLS instead of coming outside into the light to get ENLIGHTENED in regards to what's happening with the FEMALE STARBUCK character, then SO BE IT.

Since I watch both the reboot BSG (and have the complete series in my DVD collection) and Discovery I am always willing to give things a try .The reboot of BSG I really like and enjoy watching all the characters and stories and think it is interesting and thought provoking series,as for DISC season 1 not much of a fan of season 1 but season 2 is actually turning out to be interesting and above all more in the spirit of Star Trek also I watched all these other reboots (including some of those with an all female cast ) and movies with an all female casts(on Netflix there is this movie called Annihilation with an almost all female cast with Natalie Portman,Jennifer Jason Leigh which is a pretty good movie with pretty good female characters),also watched this movie called Rough Night with Scarlett Johansen,Zoe Kravitz(daughter of Lenny of which I have a song dedicated to her on her father's CD) which is sort of a female counterpart to the Hangover movies which I thought was pretty funny.Some of these I like others not so much.So I think that Plato's cave seems I bit harsh since I try all kinds of movies and series some of these I like others I don't which is a matter of taste not because I am stuck in a old fashioned or traditional mindset.Also there is this movie called Legend where Tom Hardy plays both part of the Kray twins one of which is a very openly gay(which for the period (50's/60's in the UK )was quite unusual since homosexuality was a criminal offence in the UK until the early 60's,what I talked to you about discussing Turing) and he is actually the most interesting one of the two brothers are the Kray's likable characters? NO(or at least not in the ordinary sense of the word) interesting YES.Also love this movie called Velvet Goldmine which is partly based on the life of David Bowie and is an ode to the Glam Rock of the 70's and which is partly responsible for putting these whole notions of bisexuality,gender fluidity and questioning traditional gender roles more mainstream and that they helped promote these ideas.

As for Starbuck in re-BSG I thought Sackhoff did a marvelous job ,and that I found her character interesting ,enjoyable to watch and sometimes I do feel for her but in the overall series I just find her not that likable .What's wrong with that? Also I really loved Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game(who I think should have won that years Oscar for best male actor)which is a biopic about the life and struggle of Alan Turing (who was also gay) who's life was destroyed only because of his sexuality but thanks to his work in computers helped save the life of millions and had shortened WWII by at least two years.

Discovery‘s introduction of a more roguish presence in “Choose Your Pain” helps. Mudd isn’t quite so enjoyable for Lorca, though. Klingons enter the cell and brutally beat a third prisoner, Starfleet Lt. Ash Tyler, and Mudd shrugs it off. The Klingons order prisoners to “choose your pain,” he explains — to take a beating upon themselves or defer it to fellow prisoners — in order to prevent bonding. “You look conspicuously free of bruises,” Lorca retorts.

The scene when Mudd is holding a Tribble and ASh Tyler's reaction towards it is quite revealing in light of what is revealed in the final couple of episodes of season 1 (think The Trouble With Tribbles).But I am not going to spoil that for you since you still have to watch season 1 .

You still don't seem to COMPREHEND how SEX isn't GENDER. SEX involves the PHYSICAL COMPOSITION of a BODY, whereas GENDER involves the PSYCHOLOGICAL MAKE UP of someone's PERSONALITY.

Sorry if I wasn't clear when I wrote this but it wasn't meant to be about gender in particular but about ALL INCLUSIVENESS I gave these examples to illustrate that Star Trek over the years had developed quite a track record concerning all inclusiveness as a reaction to the remark that fans of Trek don't like Discovery because of the gender/all inclusive content and that Discovery is the first to delve into this which as these examples illustrate is simply not true.

Also if we actually scrutinize Discovery on the merits of these LGBT/race /gender fluid/all inclusive criteria what do we actually got on this show what is to related to this topic ?We have a black female main character who is not the captain with the name of Michael ,well in TWOK we also had a female Vulcan they called Mr. Saavik (I actually recently posted a thread on this very topic on the TOS board).We have Stamets who is in a gay relationship with Dr. Culber (who gets killed halfway through season 1),we saw in Beyond that Sulu was also in a gay relationship but they actually do very little with them being gay in this series apart from them hugging and kissing each other that in fact the old Trek episodes that dealt with this issue actually do far more with that premise to question our traditional perceptions towards it than this show does.Also we had a black main character in DS9(Sisko) and a female main character in VOY(Janeway) so that is not original either. And what else have we got we had a female Captain Georgiou who gets killed pretty quickly and returns as Mirror universe Empress Georgiou who the series kind of suggest was in a relationship with Mirror Universe Michael Burnham although later Empress Georgiou mentions that she treated Burnham like a daughter so it may have been that but we don't know because the series doesn't delve deeper into that.And we have a female admiral of which several examples we already had in the past (Admiral Nechayev from TNG comes to mind) And that's about it for Discovery considering LGBT/Race/Gender fluid/All Inclusiveness content of the series and also with that content they do very little to nothing to question or change our perceptions towards these matters that as a matter of fact the older Trek series delve much further into these issues than Discovery so far has done.

So when people accuse others for not liking Discovery because of the previously mentioned content ,I almost want to reply what all inclusive content? and what is so groundbreakingly original about it? since they do very little with that premise that it feel like these characters are there just as token all inclusiveness characters and not because they have anything interesting to tell about these characters.So this whole notion of Discovery being more all inclusive than previous Trek shows or movies to me comes across like a marketing gimmick rather than actually dealing with these matters in an interesting thought provoking way.And I agree with your pov that gender and sexuality are entirely different things and I'm sorry if I mixed them up but understand my mind has to translate things from Dutch into English before writing them down so some errors might occur.

So my initial reaction might have been harsh (and I apologize for that) but understand one tends to get a bit tired after having explained to persons,that like Discovery very much and they keep pulling the Race/gender/all inclusiveness card for other people not liking it as main reason for them not liking it ,for dozens of times.Especially considering what I wrote here above that it is not the issue,sure there may be some bigoted ,narrow minded a-holes who don't like it for that reason but that is only a very tiny minority and in general most Trek fans have no issues with these subjects which I tried to illustrate by using the various episodes I mentioned.

You ASKED why I found a B CLASS ACTRESS so interesting. ONE then PROCEEDED to try to EXPLAIN the reasons why to you. And since you also ADMITTED she did a GOOD JOB in that HIGH HORSE SCENE, does that also mean you've been TOO HASTY to stick that kind of a label upon her???

Sorry I meant B-list category actress(you know the Dutch-English thingy I talked about') ,and that classification doesn't say anything about the acting qualities of that actress but rather her place in the hierarchy of Hollywood .Sackoff like a lot of B-list actors are very good actors/actresses and sometimes are even better than there A-list counterparts.But Sackhoff is a B-list actress the biggest thing she did after BSG was that third Riddick movie in which I find her pretty enjoyable and actually think she plays a sympathetic character(have the complete Riddick series on DVD).

She said he was UP on his HIGH HORSE (which is an expression we use over here to describe ARROGANT PEOPLE who refuse to be REASONABLE).

Didn't Starbuck show similar traits as well in the series?She was pretty arrogant with those rookies and also showed to be unreasonable on various occasions.So what gives her the sole right to criticize others since she herself is guilty of similar foibles? Because she is an ace pilot?

And she was RIGHT, because the REST of them did BEND OVER BACKWARDS and BLEED as a way to try to PLEASE HIM. Especially when he ORDERS STARBUCK to MURDER COMMANDER CAIN on the PEGASUS. And after she does all of the CRAP that she does for him, he can't GRANT HER that one request??

Well they do not do these things to please him but because of the chain of command and Adama being their commanding officer,they are orders not requests.Also they do these things not for him but for the fleet and the survival of their race.And we are Talking about Helena Cain the same woman who committed mass murder on civilians and has no regards for civilians or her responsibilities towards them.The same Helena Cain who was turning into a paranoid psychopath and did not care for the survival of the fleet and only cared for bringing the fight to the Cylons a scenario where under her command it would most likely have resulted in the death of all of them and their entire race.The same Helena Cain who allowed those under her command to rape and lynch Athena.And would execute those men who prevented that officer from raping Athena(Helo and Tyrol)without a thought.When Adama gives Starbuck the assignment to kill her it is because she is the only one that can come close to Cain at that point and he is doing it to protect the fleet and the thousands of survivors he has responsibility for.

As for PLUGGING a CYLON into the SHIP … THEY were also ON A CYLON SHIP at the TIME ADAMA refuses to HOOK ANDERS up to the CIC. Look at the window area in the BACKGROUND of the scene where ANDERS is in the TUB and you'll see the PULSATING RED EYE stuff.

Sure the Cylons did some refurbishment on Galactica ,because she was falling apart after 50 years of service.But the Galactica is still his ship and he is still her commander so yes I do understand him being hesitant to do that since he also has to think about his responsibilities towards all those survivors in the fleet.And also because Adama is now effectively is turning over control to a former enemy who not so long before that tried everything in their power to exterminate him and his people.

It was a KNEE JERK REACTION instead of something that he'd taken TIME to think about

Yes a knee jerk reaction as a result of having been living with the image of them being the enemy for 50 years and his earlier experiences during the series, and the events in Blood and Chrome not to trust them.And having had these questions and worries about the Cylons in his mind since the last war.Thoughts he talked about during the decommissioning speech of Galactica in the miniseries.And the fact that those same Cylons probably murdered the best part of his family and his species does not help either.so his reaction was knee jerk but understandable.

No one is saying she's a GOD. But she was the BEST PILOT and, imo, she was also one of the MOST interesting characters in the show (more so than LEE … whereas we both also agree about how HATCH was the MOST INTERESTING character in TOS).

She sure was one of the more interesting characters in the show sure together with Baltar,Tom Zarek ,Calvin,Athena,Ellen Tigh,Leoben and Helo.And yes I really like Hatch as Apollo but he was also very interesting as Tom Zarek.So sad he died since the original BSG was the show that really got me into SF and he did the Axenar thing (Have you seen the prelude to Axenar video on YouTube Invidia?)a couple of years ago prior to his death since he had hoped to play in that movie series but that was prevented by CBS so sad now we never get to see Star Trek with Richard Hatch (who was a big Star Trek fan himself)in it .I remember his death came quite as a shock because nobody expected it to happen and since he looked so good for his age.I remember seeing several interviews with him and I found him to be a mild mannered,charming,intelligent ,humorous and quite down to earth guy,such a great loss.did you know that the actor playing Doc Cottle also died recently?

Now you sound like her MOTHER …

Well maybe because she acted that way most of the times.

Which scene did you have in mind???

Not one scene in particular but she did act that way towards those Rookies,Cat,Lee Adama,Saul Tigh (although they both share blame here but she was being insubordinate),Geeta to name but a few.

Not even TYROL??? I thought you liked him. What about ATHENA and HELO???

They are part of the 1% although Tyrol I believe did some questionable things in the resistance on New Caprica.

All one is doing is trying to EXPLAIN the reasons why one thinks she's more than just a B CLASS ACTRESS.

As I already explained I meant B list which says nothing about her acting abilities which I do not put into question.

One could also say the same thing about HATCH as well due to the way he had a ROLE in a SOAP OPERA called ALL MY CHILDREN prior to being hired for BSG. Do you also consider him to have been a B CLASS ACTOR as well???

Unfortunately yes Hatch was also a B-list actor the only A-list thing he did as far as I know was Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen featuring Peter Ustinov,Brian Keith,Angie Dickinson,Roddy McDowall and Michelle Pfeifer.He also tried to restart the old BSG with a short movie The Second Coming which featured most of the original cast in 1999 which also featured John Colicos(who was also no stranger to Star Trek ) whose Baltar I still adore.

One still suspects there may be MORE to it than that. And that the reason you don't like her or find her SYMPATHETIC has something to do with the same things that DIRK was saying about her before he finally CALMED DOWN to admit that he'd been wrong.

I hope I have explained everything here above that that is not the case.And I wish you a fine Saturday evening

Nexus: Invidia seems to be a very angry, very leftist woman.

When I watched this film had NO IDEA that it was based upon BOWIE. But what's interesting is how you don't like the FEMALE STARBUCK when the BOWIE character in this film was an even WORSE character (due to the way that he treated his wife and the other people in his life in that film).

What I love about Velvet Goldmine has not so much to do with the characters but it´s depictions of the '70s and the music of the time,being a smal child in the ' 70s I remember them pretty well plus I have fond childhood memories of the era.I like the movie for it's overall atmosphere.And Bowie could also sometimes be a though bastard.

Mostly the problem is the ATTITUDE expressed by KNIX (who is also the one who brings up the PC ISSUES and the GENDER FLUIDITY topic which one had also NEVER HEARD about before he mentioned it).

Well my post was mostly a reaction to the OP and other Pro- Discovery posters who kept bringing up that particular issue again and again as the the sole reason why people and Trek fans did not like Discovery which I then tried to disprove with all the material provided for in previous posts. And actually in all fairness Knix was also trying to disprove this notion of the OP and other pro/Discovery posters.He may have not put it in refined words but the aim was the same.

AGAIN, imo, GENDER isn't ABOUT one's SEXUALITY.

I agree

It's more about the PSYCHOLOGICAL make up of one's PERSONALITY (whether or not one is MOSTLY MASCULINE or MOSTLY FEMININE or operates from having a BALANCE of BOTH TRAITS). And from interacting with him one would also say that KNIX is someone with TOO MUCH MASCULINE WAR LIKE TRAITS, whereas you have a BALANCE of both TRAITS (due to the way you're also willing to submit and admit it if you make a mistake whereas he NEVER DOES this). But KNIX also tends to bring out your MASCULINE SIDE in discussions here from time to time (thus the UNDER MEN reference).

Again I agree ,but I think what is important is that Knix is of an older generation than I am most of these during his early life were probably were considered taboo while I as child of the '70s was brought up in an atmosphere of free sex ,women's lib,feminism,gay liberation and what else you've got.So that might explain the difference in attitudes.

And it's also interesting to NOTE how when I also display my MASCULINE SIDE to you then you also IMMEDIATELY want to know WHAT'S WRONG with me.

Probably my feminine side Invida ,like the movie Fight Club says we're a generation brought up by women,My mother was a housewife so she was always at home for us plus I had a sister so that might explain that.

Yes and this INCLUSIVENESS STUFF is what KNIX and the OP keeps BRINGING UP, but which is also an IRRELEVANT ISSUE from my POV (due to the way we ALL have both A MASCULINE and a FEMININE SIDE to our PERSONALITIES).

That was what I was responding to Invidia because I thought the OP's remarks were untrue and that he was generalising with his remark that al people that don't like Discovery was because of these issues which I tried with my replies to disprove while he kept going back at it hence my slightly aggravated later reply.

And that's also WHY it shouldn't be RELEVANT whether or not the STARBUCK character is FEMALE or not. But in that scene with ADAMA it would probably also be LESS EFFECTIVE if she were MALE. And there are also other scenes where the story would also be LESS EFFECTIVE as well if she were MALE instead of FEMALE.

No it shouldn't be relevant ,but I guess for effectiveness it does help and also it gives the scene,how should I say this eehm....a different charge(I hope that makes any to you?but -i could be using the wrong expression)

Imagine The scene where she has SEX with LEE ADAMA, for example, and he YELLS about how much he LOVES her before making her do the same thing. Somehow it just wouldn't work as well with DIRK or another MALE doing the scene in that part.

In the setting of the original it would be particularly awkward since he is practically a brother,that would have made for an uncomfortable episode especially in '70s and considering the original show was targeted at children the parent would be having a lot of explaining to do ¨mommy why is that guy riding the other guys back?¨

See there's the SAME PROBLEM again. Since ALL of us have BOTH a MASCULINE and a FEMININE SIDE to our PERSONALITY from my POV this ALL INCLUSIVENESS ISSUE is SILLY, MAKES NO SENSE, and isn't even worth mentioning.

Again that was me replying again to the OP's continued bringing up this issue as the sole reason for those not liking the show which I tried to disprove.

Again, IMO, NONE of those ISSUES are worth mentioning because if one is GAY, then one STILL also has both a MASCULINE and a FEMININE SIDE, and he REAL ISSUE would be WHICH SIDE do we see DISPLAYED MOST of the time. In TNS, in STARBUCK's case, it would be how she MOSTLY DISPLAYS too much MASCULINE ENERGY.

Again read previous reply although what I do notice is that a lot females characters nowadays are written with to much masculine energy(which why I gave you the link to the article) that it looks like Hollywood can only write this type of female characters .that it in itself has become a cliché.

And since you also CONFESS to the way you still have OLD FASHIONED IDEAS and STILL prefer the TRADITIONAL form of LADIES and GENTLEMEN as a form of ADDRESS, that also makes one SUSPECT the way you feel about that matter may also have something to do with the reason why you don't LIKE the FEMALE STARBUCK character (due to the way you may also still PREFER seeing a FEMALE sticking to the TRADITIONAL way that you've seen them portrayed before).

I guess I am a bit of both with the matter of the Ladies and Gentlemen has very little to do with nostalgia or longing back to a time where men were men and etc etc or that I need an affirmation of traditional gender roles but rather that in this increasingly impersonal ade-humanizing anonymous digital World some personalized and civilized treatment is just nice.My appreciation or feelings towards a female Starbuck have nothing to do with being old fashioned but rather her personality.

And this also wouldn't be something that you're AWARE of or are CONSCIOUS of NEX. Because our MOST of SUB CONSIOUSNESS is also like an ICEBERG (with MOST of it HIDDEN below the SURFACE where we're NOT even AWARE of it being there).

Maybe but I am not the sort of guy who throws out the old things just because there is something new especially the when the old thing has proven to be reliable and satisfactory and perfectly good for what it was used or designed for.But I can' t say for certain it's not that I have these lengthy discussions with my subconscious.

Think of COMMANDER CAIN in TNS. She was also someone UNBALANCED who NEVER DISPLAYED her FEMININE SIDE. And she had also HAD an AFFAIR with GINA (the SIX CHARACTER that she had CHAINED to the FLOOR and invited other members of the CREW to REPEATEDLY RAPE).

And Gina in the end is the one who kills Cain ,Karma I guess.

And that's also part of the reason why ADAMA ORDERS STARBUCK to KILL CAIN.

Which is also true but in the end it is Gina who kills Cain.

And there was also ADMIRAL CAIN (who also PULLS RANK on CAPTAIN ADAMA when they encountered each other).

Well she is his superior because he is stil commander,he was promoted to admiral after Cain's death since he then had command of two battlestars (Pegasus and Galactica) and admirals are usually in command of more than one ship.'

AGAIN this ALL INCLUSIVENESS stuff is stuff that the OVERLY MASCULINE KNIX keeps bringing up (not me).

again was replying to the OP by proving that this whole issue is not a point and that that the show's so called ¨all inclusiveness¨ image is actually based on very little.And that old trek dealt with these issues in a far more deeply and thought provoking manner.

And THE ORVILLE has also GONE even FURTHER into the MATTER than ST ever did BEFORE with it's introduction of the MOCLAN culture (who FORCES babies born FEMALE to have SURGERY to MAKE the MALES). But IRONICALLY the STAY at HOME housewife MALE MOTHER who raises it is also the one who FORCED the child to have the SURGERY whereas the other MORE TRADITIONAL MALE FATHER figure is the one who OBJECTS to that being done to their child.

And that's also what leads to HIS PORN ADDICTION (because he's PISSED OFF at his MATE and what they had done to their child so the PORN ADDICTION becomes a way to PUNISH the MATE while at the same time NOT taking away anything from himself). In other words, by having SEX in the HOLODECK he gets to BOTH EAT his CAKE and have it at the same time (both PUNISH his MATE by withholding SEX from him while NOT withholding it from himself).

Which is also the reason why most Trek fans prefer The Orville over Discovery.and from what I read in your posts the show seems to be far more in the ¨spirit of Star trek¨then discovery so far has been although like I said episode six actually gave me that star Trek vibe.

But we also never see anyone in THERAPY in ST for such a matter.

Maybe the whole Riker -Troi thing was therapy,Riker to me seems like a prime example of sex addiction

Then PERHAPS you'll also ENJOY watching THE ORVILLE more than DISC???

If only some channel would pick it up so I could watch The Orville and I am not a fan of watching shows or movies on a small screen when I have a big screen and the perfect audio video equipment for good cinema sound so I rather watch it that way.And before I criticize something(Discovery) I generally will at least make an effort in watching something before I pass judgement.

So it's OK for ADAMA to behave BADLY because of all of these other BACK ISSUES from HIS PAST, but NOT OK for STARBUCK to MISBEHAVE due to all of the ISSUES from HER PAST???

I did not say that I said that I can understand it whether it gives him the excuse for behaving badly I think not.In that scene I was for neither of them they were both behaving like alpha males .BUT because of what Adama is about to do by linking Anders with Galactica and because of the things I mentioned previously(concerns for the fleet etc etc) I can understand his hesitation before doing it.But only by a narrow margin.

BUT still NOT STARBUCK'S???

Neither of them have my favor but under those circumstances As I explained previously but in the end she gets what she wanted so in the end she wins.

Yes I know. And it's also a SHAME that he was never able to achieve his DREAM of bringing back the show, but at least he got to be TOM in the VERSION that did get made.

So say we all.

The education problem is definitely there. Most children these days may have just female teachers all the way up through high school, in addition to often being from single-parent homes with only a mother, the rest of the time.

Meanwhile, gender is either male or female. The rest is just preference, or "orientation" if you want to use a fancier word. Invidias and other people can spin all the yarns they want to try and make it seem more complicated and hence deserving of other legal machinations, but when you look at it closely, all of that breaks down. And, like I pointed out earlier, bathrooms are set up based on physical attributes, not how anyone feels about them. There is really never any need for more than 2 types. And which one any individual uses, would be determined by the equipment they have, not by how they feel about it.

Parents take their children into their own bathroom all the time. 9 has nothing to do with it. Nor are unisex bathrooms a cure-all. How many boys or girls do you think might be attacked by going into a unisex bathroom with the opposite gender present?

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE

Nexus71 said:

"TOS had a bridgecrew of a Russian,A Vulcan A Swahili Communications officer,an Asian ,A Scott,We had a female captain, with Janeway in VOY, a black commander with Sisko in DS9,Stigma (an episode with a very strong analogy towards gay relationships and how we treat people who are HIV positive) to name but a few examples that prove has remark that the reason why people don't like DISC is because Star Trek fans don't like all inclusiveness which considering the various examples I just named is ridiculous."

This response was not directed to me but I think it is the essence of the entire " I don't like DSC because..." debate. This statement represents the righteous indignation defense of those fans who are eager to deny their instinctive reaction to DSC . The first part is entirely correct: TOS broke ground by allowing diversity on the bridge where hitherto, there had been none on TV. This is important because it became a hallmark of ST... to include others and to break ground. It is also correct in that some diversity issues such as 'homosexuality' and 'societal discrimination' have been addressed in other ST episodes and series. The statement's conclusion however: "the reason why people don't like DISC is because Star Trek fans don't like all inclusiveness...(which considering the various examples I just named)... is ridiculous." is erroneous.

The best way to see why this is true is to consider that ST's (diversity/inclusiveness) should to be viewed as in a continuum, not a static context. In the 1960's to have a bridge like TOS was groundbreaking and courageous. To have that same sort of bridge today in 2019 is cowardly and really only trying to maintain the status quo!. This is REALLY why many ST fans like The Orville and dislike DSC. The Orville's bridge replicates the original TOS bridge and suits these fans better. This imho is NOT really " going where man has not gone before" It is NOT imagining a BETTER future of TRUE inclusion.

As groundbreaking and forward thinking as the TOS bridge was it still maintained a situation where the "others" were in subservient and one dimensional roles. How much did we learn about Zulu or Uhura? Each episode was formulaic and always consisted of Kirk being victorious over ALL other aliens. Same with Piccard. I understand the heroes always has to win out in the end, what I am asking is that in these shows, how much of of the success of the Enterprise was due to anything BESIDES the genius of the Captains? How fallible were they show as? What flaws did they exhibit? How much did the "others" contribute to this success?

With Janeway, a start was made to show this Captain as "not completely" superhuman and a crew with more human complexity. And in Sisko we finally began to see a flawed and fallible hero AND more importantly we began to see 'villains' who weren't completely one dimensional. We understood Ducarte's POV even as we hated his Bajoran occupation and what it entailed. We saw Quark's careful study of people have advantages beyond simply accruing wealth. ENT went back to the TOS formula but we had a more human Captain in Archer. Still, in ALL these shows (with the exception of DS9) not much REAL fleshing out was done of any other characters and issues other than the Captain's. We saw little exploration of disabled people or homosexual and their issues or any other quite human vices for example.

The Orville uses that original TOS formula, only slightly tweaked. It speaks to issues of diversity and homosexuality but does so at arm's length. Otherwise the position of the "others" replicates those in TOS. Homosexuality is someone else's problem not, for example, a part of the life of ONE of the main characters which is explored at some length. Bortus and his partner's relationship is shown as foreign and perhaps tolerated, rather than embraced by the Union. Indeed, all the none humans are treated as 'tolerated' on that show.

Whereas, the 'others' on DSC's bridge are now given more focus. We explore their's histories; their broken childhood as an orphan; we explore their weaknesses; prejudices; their love and see their growth. This imo leads to a better and more realistic understanding of them as characters. DSC even imagines the villians ( Klingon's) as more nuanced and multidimensional. No, our current society isn't quite there yet. There are still too many anti-gay and anti everything not white, male, protestant and heterosexual people for DSC's dream to be our reality. Like the original TOS bridge however, the DCS bridge SHOULD be what ST is PROJECTING as our future!! The fact that many, many so called fans of ST are dissing this show and holding up The Orville, trying hard to fault characterization, writing, acting, canon any and everything they can, leads me to believe they have not really understood Roddenberry's original vision.

Some of these fans have been more honest and pointed out to me that the only white male on the bridge in Season One of DSC was either the villain and killed off or a gay guy who seemed to be added only because he was gay. The producers also got their message and guess what? we now have Captain Chris Pike. Even so, some are complaining he seems to be sharing the chair with Saru.

This is the problem with DSC. It is NOT the show, it is the fans...they are can not see beyond their narrow selves! It shouldn't matter what sex or ethnicity the main character is, should it? After all this is Star Trek...right...not The Orville?

Exactly. It doesn't matter what sex or ethnicity the characters are. If they're badly written, or poorly portrayed, etc, then it's bad writing/a bad show. Unlike others such as yourself, apparently, for many including me, merely changing the ethnicity or gender of the character does not produce some kind of automatic shield against just noticing those problems. We may also notice that the apparent racism of changing two main characters - Tighe and Boomer - from Black to White or Asian, which people like you would be expected to object to in any other situation, doesn't seem to get noticed much. The implications of hypocrisy etc are unavoidable.

@Nexus71 said:

Sorry the point other than the female cast being the issue were made before Rian Johnson had his melt down on twitter and when you have criticism on how a character was written or acted you are not having criticism on the character because she is female but because of poor writing or bad acting which is something entirely different .Also it kind of puzzles me why having female leads should be a problem for male viewers,nobody complained that Ellen Ripley was female or Sarah Connor or Complained that Sisko was black or Janeway was female.

Two reasons for the rise in misogyny/racism: The Internet and Social Media. Back in the day neither was as all pervasive. Now it's easy to find others with similar views and shout them from the rooftops. Ask someone who isn't a heavy user of either of the above their thoughts on TLJ or GB2016 and their views will likely be in the "meh" to "I liked it" range with a lot of "didn't watch it"s. A "normal" person won't go off on a "WORST FILM EVAH!!!" rant.

Two reasons for the rise in misogyny/racism: The Internet and Social Media. Back in the day neither was as all pervasive. Now it's easy to find others with similar views and shout them from the rooftops. Ask someone who isn't a heavy user of either of the above their thoughts on TLJ or GB2016 and their views will likely be in the "meh" to "I liked it" range with a lot of "didn't watch it"s. A "normal" person won't go off on a "WORST FILM EVAH!!!" rant.

If the internet or other social media are to blame why wasn't there such a reaction with both Prometheus and Alien Covenant ? since both have female leads and feature both a male and female crew?What happened with GB2016, TLJ and DISC was that there may have been some people complaining about this issue but that was only a smal minority to have issues with that but that the studios jumped on these few posters and used them as an excuse to claim that when these movies failed or came under criticism was because of misogyny of ALL that had criticism on these movies,because that is what happened people who had genuine criticism despite having issues unrelated to the whole race /gender thing were equaled with that very small group that did THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE !And what is even more ridiculous is that when Oceans 8 bombed despite not having an outcry on the internet or social media the studio still wants to insist on this fabel that Oceans 8 bombed because of male misogynists which is utter Bull,

And even if we probably look more closely at the criticism of those that has issues with the gender or race one would see that probably half if not the majority had issues with how the characters were written or how they were portrayed(i.e. how bad these were written or portrayed) .For example don't any of you here found that the Leslie Jones character in GB2016 wasn't offensive or racist?Where her character was written according typical stereotypes and clichés of black female characters personally I found that far more insulting than those gender related remarks on the internet..And they may not be the worst movies of all time but they were certainly the worst movies of each of their respected franchises(although in case of the TLJ it still has to compete with the abysmal Prequel Trilogy movies which suffer from similar issues that it raises the question whether how much Lucas was responsible for the success of the Original Trilogy).

Sorry Invidia Starbuck or Janeway are not the issue here ,the issue here was the studios using a minority of views that had issues with the gender of characters in these movies and using them as an excuse to hijack ALL criticism as being a result of misogynist males or fanboys while the majority of criticism was about unrelated issues and had nothing to do with these gender issues.I also gave the Oceans 8 movie as an example that this tactic has become a gimmick for studios to fend off valid criticism or as an excuse for a movie failing which blames audiences for not liking the movie rather than ask themselves what was wrong with their product and what they should do in the future to prevent them from happening again which is hire better,more inventive,original writers rather than milking these franchises to the ground.

Also I would not refer to Starbuck or Janeway as badly written female characters I gave the Leslie Jones character in GB2016 as example for a badly written female characters in particular since her character was written and portrayed according these very(white) racial stereotypical views(bordering on racism) of black females.And with GB2016 it was actually proven that Sony knew it was a bad movie before it's release and from the start had the specific intend of pushing this gender agenda with that movie as the leaked Sony Email correspondence between Amy Pascal ,Paul Feig,Sony management and the producers of GB2016 prove and also showed how actors like Bill Muray were forced to appear in the movie(also the rumored extra $30+ million for re-shoots confirm that there were serious issues with the movie prior to it's release).