Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-03-2020, 10:07 PM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
What regulations? I don't recall any mention of regulations.
Sorry - I'm using "regulations" for "whatever rules Starfleet has that are equivalent to the basic rules used in militaries to prevent superior officers from taking advantage of underlings."

This story at "This American Life" talks about the non-fraternization rules on aircraft carriers https://www.thisamericanlife.org/206/transcript

"He explains that when new crew members arrive for duty on the Stennis, he personally gives the speech reiterating Navy policy on male-female relationships, a policy he sums up for them as no dating. A date, he tells them, is as simple as two people walking side by side closely, heads leaning together and talking. A date is when you sit too near each other. You should be a minimum, he tells them, of two butt-widths apart. When he spots crew members sitting closer than that, he'll ask them if it's a date, and when of course they say no, he'll tell them, well then make sure it doesn't look like a date."

Fraternization means more than romantic interest, by the way - any strong friendship that gives the impression of eroding the distinction between ranks is prohibited https://www.cpf.navy.mil/employees/f...zation-policy/ and I suspect this applies most strongly to a Captain (note that Picard didn't play poker with the rest of the crew (until the end of the series), and Kirk didn't hang out in the rec room to sing with Spock and Uhura) (and he is closest to McCoy - someone who is not a line officer).

P.S. I meant to mention above that just wearing a Starfleet uniform and being on the Enterprise doesn't put someone in Kirk's chain of command - the Enterprise has visitors from time to time who are Star Fleet, but not part of the Enterprise's crew (Commodore Mendez for example).
  #52  
Old 02-03-2020, 10:15 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,427
Out of all the lines of discussion of TOS we've belabored forever....I don't think we've talked about fraternization (Except Picards)....Im here for it.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 02-03-2020 at 10:15 PM.
  #53  
Old 02-03-2020, 10:17 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,908
Starfleet is not the contemporary American military. We have seen so many differences in the way they operate that I don't think real life U.S. military rules form a valid basis for assumptions about Starfleet.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #54  
Old 02-04-2020, 02:24 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,587
The steady background of misogyny in TOS is evident in a great many episodes, simply in the fact that the alien females are always dressed in skimpy clothing, much like most of the female comic-book superheroes. However evil and mean and bad-ass they are, they are almost always portrayed as some kind of sex kittens.

Last edited by Senegoid; 02-04-2020 at 02:26 AM.
  #55  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:05 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,503
It's a good point to note that using U. S. military regulations to judge yesterday's (late 1960s conduct) is problematic at best and certainly fails the presentism test.

So by today's (2020) standard, Kirk would fail one test and probably pass another. If she was indeed part of the crew in any capacity, he's out of line. It has nothing to do with evaluations, or how often he sees her etc. She's part of the crew, she's in his chain of command, she's off limits. Period.

If he's a senior Officer, out and about town, and he meets a mid grade Officer doctor not on his staff or command, and they hook up (with both being single) it's not a big deal and nothing will happen if they are discrete.

Now how this would have been viewed in 1967, I'm not sure. Part of the problem would have been that there weren't all that many females in the military then. I'd guess it was still at the very least frowned upon, but I can't image that he'd be sent packing by any stretch. If she was on his ship, even in 1967, I still think it would have be way out of line and he would have been told to knock it off in no uncertain terms.

By the same 1960's standards, out in town not in the same chain of command? Not an issue.
  #56  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:14 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
It's a good point to note that using U. S. military regulations to judge yesterday's (late 1960s conduct)
1960s regulations don't apply either. This is a fictional fantasy setting. We can't make those kinds of assumptions.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-04-2020 at 08:14 AM.
  #57  
Old 02-04-2020, 09:02 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
1960s regulations don't apply either. This is a fictional fantasy setting. We can't make those kinds of assumptions.
I'd disagree. You (and Roddenberry) want to have your cake and eat it too. You put the Star Trek universe in a military setting. You have phasers and photon torpedoes, phaser rifles and mortars. Military ranks, military uniforms, military courts and military regulations. You can't then have a military issue and shout "nope, fantasy!!!"

Roddenberry was a product of the military, as were many people in their prime in the mid-1960s. WWII was just 20 years ago, and many of men in their prime, in their mid-40s had been in the military, Roddenberry included.

Star Trek worked because they lived in a fantasy world rooted in a world we were still familiar within a context that we could understand. We knew when the characters were right and when they acted wrong. Without that element, Star Trek would have failed.

Last edited by spifflog; 02-04-2020 at 09:05 AM.
  #58  
Old 02-04-2020, 09:23 AM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
I'd disagree. You (and Roddenberry) want to have your cake and eat it too. You put the Star Trek universe in a military setting. You have phasers and photon torpedoes, phaser rifles and mortars. Military ranks, military uniforms, military courts and military regulations. You can't then have a military issue and shout "nope, fantasy!!!"

Roddenberry was a product of the military, as were many people in their prime in the mid-1960s. WWII was just 20 years ago, and many of men in their prime, in their mid-40s had been in the military, Roddenberry included.

Star Trek worked because they lived in a fantasy world rooted in a world we were still familiar within a context that we could understand. We knew when the characters were right and when they acted wrong. Without that element, Star Trek would have failed.
In fact, the Star Trek Writer's Bible https://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/St...ters_Guide.pdf, written by Roddenberry, explicitly says that the behavior of the crew should be comparable to 1960s military behavior.
  #59  
Old 02-04-2020, 11:55 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 44,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
P.S. I meant to mention above that just wearing a Starfleet uniform and being on the Enterprise doesn't put someone in Kirk's chain of command - the Enterprise has visitors from time to time who are Star Fleet, but not part of the Enterprise's crew (Commodore Mendez for example).
Actually, as Commanding Officer of the vessel, Kirk would have authority over anyone on the Enterprise, whether they were part of the crew or not, or even whether they were military or civilian (with the possible exception of flag officers who outranked him, such as admirals). (This is based on US Navy regulations*.) It's actually entirely irrelevant whether Noel was on board as a passenger or a member of the crew; as enlisted personnel in uniform she was clearly under his authority as Commanding Officer and thus should have been off limits. The issue of whether she was a passenger or not is a red herring.

(Even aside from that, it makes no sense that Kirk would assume that some random woman he met on board was a passenger. The Enterprise did not routinely transport passengers. When it did, they were small parties on some particular mission or assignment. It would be likely that Kirk would have been introduced to any such passengers. Even if he hadn't, if he met someone who he thought might be part of that contingent he would no doubt find out their status just in the course of small talk. Surely he would say something like "How do you like the ship?," or "How do you feel about your mission?" Even if Starfleet Regulations are different from modern navy ones, he would have been negligent if he didn't determine that she wasn't in his chain of command. The default assumption for uniformed personnel aboard his ship should have been that she was.)


Quote:
*1004. Precedence of an Officer in Command.
An officer, either of the line or of a staff corps, detailed to command by competent authority or who has succeeded to command, has precedence over all officers or other persons attached to the command of whatever rank and whether they are of the line or of a staff corps.

1031. Authority of Officers Embarked as Passengers.
1. The commanding officer of a ship or aircraft, not a flagship, with a flag officer eligible for command at sea embarked as a passenger, shall be subject to the orders of such flag officer. Other officers embarked as passengers, senior to the commanding officer, shall have no authority over the commanding officer.
Bolding mine.

Last edited by Colibri; 02-04-2020 at 12:03 PM.
  #60  
Old 02-04-2020, 12:27 PM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Actually, as Commanding Officer of the vessel, Kirk would have authority over anyone on the Enterprise, whether they were part of the crew or not, or even whether they were military or civilian (with the possible exception of flag officers who outranked him, such as admirals). (This is based on US Navy regulations*.) It's actually entirely irrelevant whether Noel was on board as a passenger or a member of the crew; as enlisted personnel in uniform she was clearly under his authority as Commanding Officer and thus should have been off limits. The issue of whether she was a passenger or not is a red herring.

(Even aside from that, it makes no sense that Kirk would assume that some random woman he met on board was a passenger. The Enterprise did not routinely transport passengers. When it did, they were small parties on some particular mission or assignment. It would be likely that Kirk would have been introduced to any such passengers. Even if he hadn't, if he met someone who he thought might be part of that contingent he would no doubt find out their status just in the course of small talk. Surely he would say something like "How do you like the ship?," or "How do you feel about your mission?" Even if Starfleet Regulations are different from modern navy ones, he would have been negligent if he didn't determine that she wasn't in his chain of command. The default assumption for uniformed personnel aboard his ship should have been that she was.)




Bolding mine.
Thank you.
  #61  
Old 02-04-2020, 12:58 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4,525
Kirk's thing, beyond any inappropriate behavior, is that while he's no monk, and has even had some semi-serious and serious relationships with women, his real love is his ship and he cares more about it than he does his own life or even his naval career if it comes down to it. Not sure if that's supposed to be admirable/optimistic, the opposite, or simply a common stereotype.
  #62  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:14 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,687
Star Trek TOS is optimistic because it posits a future where humans have conquered many of the problems plaguing the United States during the 1960s. And while it's certainly acceptable to critique the show and point to where it fell short of its optimistic message, doing so without considering the context of the time period in which the show was produced is unfair. In the 2nd season episode "The Ultimate Computer," we're introduced to Dr. Daystrom who is the foremost expert on computers in the Federation. Kirk mentions that Daystrom's work forms the basis of the computer system used on the Enterprise. Daystrom is a black man. I know that's not a big deal to us now but it was a big deal in the 1960s. For most Americans computers were practically science fiction with very few of us having any real experience with them. And to have a black man be one of the leading experts on computers in the future? We're talking about an era where many southern television stations refused to show I, Spy on account of Culp and Cosby's characters being equal.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #63  
Old 02-04-2020, 09:15 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
Star Trek TOS is optimistic because it posits a future where humans have conquered many of the problems plaguing the United States during the 1960s. And while it's certainly acceptable to critique the show and point to where it fell short of its optimistic message, doing so without considering the context of the time period in which the show was produced is unfair. In the 2nd season episode "The Ultimate Computer," we're introduced to Dr. Daystrom who is the foremost expert on computers in the Federation. Kirk mentions that Daystrom's work forms the basis of the computer system used on the Enterprise. Daystrom is a black man. I know that's not a big deal to us now but it was a big deal in the 1960s. For most Americans computers were practically science fiction with very few of us having any real experience with them. And to have a black man be one of the leading experts on computers in the future? We're talking about an era where many southern television stations refused to show I, Spy on account of Culp and Cosby's characters being equal.
I just watched that one the other night.

While the 23rd century might not discriminate on the basis of race, they sure do on height. Daystrom couldn't even fit on a sickbay bed! They had him practically folded up. I'd never noticed that before.
  #64  
Old 02-05-2020, 06:18 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
I'd disagree. You (and Roddenberry) want to have your cake and eat it too. You put the Star Trek universe in a military setting. You have phasers and photon torpedoes, phaser rifles and mortars. Military ranks, military uniforms, military courts and military regulations. You can't then have a military issue and shout "nope, fantasy!!!"

Roddenberry was a product of the military, as were many people in their prime in the mid-1960s. WWII was just 20 years ago, and many of men in their prime, in their mid-40s had been in the military, Roddenberry included.

Star Trek worked because they lived in a fantasy world rooted in a world we were still familiar within a context that we could understand. We knew when the characters were right and when they acted wrong. Without that element, Star Trek would have failed.
This is all a prime example of "presentism." You are assuming that because some things are similar to our world then everything else must be as well. That's not a valid assumption, especially in a setting that is clearly contrafactual in many important ways.

Yes, the nature of human beings may be consistent, and societal institutions may be similar in some ways and recognizable. But that isn't a basis for concluding that the details of societal and institutional rules must be the same as some analogous entity in our real world present, when there has been no explicit or implicit reference to them in the story.

This isn't "having it both ways." This is fiction.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #65  
Old 02-05-2020, 06:38 PM
Icerigger's Avatar
Icerigger is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 3,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
And the article says
"The final draft script of "Dagger of the Mind" made it clear that, at the party, Kirk presumed Noel was one of the ship's passengers, which led to "something" between them "that night." Specifically, Kirk was interested in her but, because so many of his crewmembers were present, he couldn't act on those feelings."

(bolding mine)
I just want to say Dr Noel was a remarkable in this episode in that she killed a man in self defense and took his weapon instead of leaving it on the floor. Did any other female crew member ever kill anybody in TOS?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haeATiTW-vo
  #66  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:18 AM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icerigger View Post
I just want to say Dr Noel was a remarkable in this episode in that she killed a man in self defense and took his weapon instead of leaving it on the floor. Did any other female crew member ever kill anybody in TOS?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haeATiTW-vo
Far as i can tell....only a Mirror Universe one.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017