• Steve@communick.newsEnglish
      72·
      2 days ago

      The hologram was the only doctor on the show.
      And the only character actually named The Doctor. Note the capitalization use.

      And thinking the show went bad because a sexy actor was brought on to up the sexiness, is sexist.
      Unless you didn’t like her evolution as a character, or thought she was a bad actor. Those would just be bad takes, not actually sexist.

      • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
        43·
        1 day ago

        So not liking a character that was just here to be an objectified woman is sexist?

        How the fuck do you even reach such a stretch?

        The character of seven was not just an objectified, sexual thing, she was also debatably a kid (mentally) being sexualized as, let’s not forget it, her individual growth was halted when she got assimilated.

        And also, I’m waiting for anyone to try to explain to me why a borg would have heels and a boob-armor, which is obviously absurdly nonsensical and showing that she’s just here to make a bunch of creeps get boners.

        If I had to describe voyager, I would probably end up saying “an okay show, if you manage to pretend seven doesn’t exist”

        • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
          32·
          1 day ago

          Seeing a character as nothing more than her body is sexist.

          It’s sexist to create and cast the character for it.
          It’s sexist to dislike the character for it.

          In both cases you’re judging a character/person solely by their appearance.

          • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            This logic makes no sense.

            Seven is a symbol of sexism by the fact that she was just here to be a sex object. I dislike the character (partly, as I mentioned there are a lot of reasons to hate this shitty character) because it is the typical product of sexism where the woman is supposed to wear hills and show her boobs, even if she’s a braindead robot.

            I am judging the character by the purpose of it. There is no person that I’m judging, I’m attacking the concept and the people who made it.

            Also, I struggle how it is sexist considering that it’s unrelated to gender. Harry Kim is an equally bad character that was just put here because the actor was elected sexiest man of the year or some other stupid shit like that; the difference being that he was not put as a central character, and didn’t completely destroy the coherence of the show.

            On a side note, I really don’t understand what is the goal of trying to say that pointing out sexism is sexist. You’d rather have people not point out anything and let sexism happen freely? Now that sounds sexist.

            • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              8 hours ago

              because it is the typical product of sexism where the woman is supposed to wear hills and show her boobs, even if she’s a braindead robot.

              Maybe the Borg just realized sexy drones serve as great tools to distract (overwhelmingly male) enemy soldiers in combat! The Borg weaponized the male gaze! :D

            • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
              11·
              24 hours ago

              Attacking a character for their character is fine.
              Attacking produces being driven by sexism is fine.
              Attacking a character because they were created by sexist producers, is sexist.
              Attack the creation process, sure. But judge the character on the character.

              You just attacked Harry Kim as a bad character. That’s fine. It would be nice if you were more specific, but it’s not important.
              Your critique of 7 have been all about her appearance. (Comming up more substantive criticism of 7 now, would only seem a justification after the fact. I wouldn’t recommend it.)

              Another argument is: In US entertainment, nearly everyone is cast largely because of how attractive they are or aren’t. Even the “uguly people” in movies, are usually just kind of average looking. Singeling out the “sexy one” for being cast by their appearance is sexist.

              • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                23 hours ago

                I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

                Seven is wearing heels and a boob armor as an objectification. The reason this is more significant than, I don’t know, some random action movie crap objectifying women, is that star trek (and I would say, especially voyager) was not overall sexual, but they went out of their way to make a character that is overly sexual compared to both the tone of the show and the concept of the borg.

                My criticisms were not about her looks, but about the goal of her looks and the implications of them. As I said, it is not only gross to try to make a character just to make people get hard while watching the show, it is also incoherent with the universe of the show (as before, borg and heels don’t make sense) and extremely immoral (again, the character is shown as having the mind of a kid, not understanding sexual matters as you would expect from a kid, and yet the show is fine showing her as a sexual object).

                The people responsible for the character are pieces of shit, the character is an abomination, and the looks are part of the package and a big symptom of why the character is bad. On their own, her looks wouldn’t be the problem, if it didn’t raise a lot of problems. As an example, if star trek was showing all characters wear overly sexual outfits like seven’s, then this would be a different matter; but this is not the case. TNG was a bit like that sometimes, with Picard and Riker’s pajamas that open down to the knees and weird stretching yoga sessions, and as such it’s hard to specifically pinpoint a character, as it’s just a general ambiance. Voyager doesn’t have that.

                Also, you keep on talking about sexism, but complaining about objectification is not even related to gender so I struggle seeing how that even fits. Objectification is always bad, no matter the gender, it doesn’t make sense. The difference with seven is that her objectification wasn’t a “once in a while” thing, it was permanent, as it was the whole purpose of the character, and it’s not like the writing surrounding her saves anything.

                • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
                  32·
                  22 hours ago

                  I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

                  Exactly. Your conflating the character, with its creation. Your calling her bad not for who the character is or who she became, but solely for the process that created her based on looks. You’re implying or assuming, a good character couldn’t come from a bad process.

                  • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    17 hours ago

                    Yeah so you’re ignoring most of what I’m saying on purpose.

                    I explained multiple times why the looks of seven, on top of being pure objectification which has negative consequences outside of the universe of the show, also have a pretty bad impact within the show, making it a bad character both from a meta and in-lore perspective.

                    I even said that if everyone was dressed like her it wouldn’t have the same impact (even though it would be far from fixing the character).

                    If you’re not going to debate in good faith there is no point, have a good day.