“The Outcast” - and Orville, ep 3, was much better than that.
The thing is, Star Trek has classically used “aliens” to stand-in for “humans who aren’t WASPy males” in order to tell stories about social or racial or political or religious differences and how they’re not very important and can be overcome if you just use some empathy and openness.
Given that the whole point of these little morality tales is “when you come down to it, we are the same despite our differences” you really can’t simultaneously complain that your aliens aren’t really alien.
Apparently you are not much into subtlety. Unlike what Star Trek would have done with the episode, this show treated the issue with some respect. The captain has second-thoughts, mirroring exactly what you are pointing out. The argument to try and get the aliens to change their minds is based upon logic, not emotion or Earth mores. And, in the end, the aliens do the alien thing anyway, and the aliens on the Orville accept, make up with each other, and agree to move forward in a positive way.
By comparison, suppose that, despite his impassioned argument, the Federation had decided to give Data over to the guy who wanted to take him apart. Can you even imagine Star Trek doing that? Being convinced you are right, even in a chauvinistic way, is commonplace (probably among any sentient species). In this show, that didn’t end up being the be-all, end-all of the discussion.
I hope they take on more such topics!
That’s just it; aliens aren’t just funny-looking humans, and the whole crew of The Orville were treating them like they were (to the point of harassing them. It’s kind of odd that another alien would take part in the harassment of the Moclins - I guess she hasn’t realized yet that she’s liable to be subjected to the same harassment when her culture deviates from earth-normal.
My point is more that there shouldn’t have been any drawn-pit discussion in the first place; “Oh, that’s what your culture/society does? Okay.” is what they should have said.
So your assertion is that a society shouldn’t question another society’s values when those values run counter to deeply held mores of the first society? In other words, the United States shouldn’t question, say, the (until today) rule in Saudi Arabia that precluded women from driving? That countries that had abolished slavery prior to 1860 shouldn’t have been questioning/condemning the existence of slavery in the United States? I find that quite ridiculous as a basic assertion.
The notion that anything some other culture does that is different from your own is okay, and shouldn’t be questioned is unsupportable, both logically and empirically.
Further, the Moclans are members of a pan-galactic union, which means that they cannot simply hide behind their own customs and demand those customs be accepted without question. Those customs have the potential to influence the interactions of the members of the union. And you will notice that the show did a very good job of finally finding the right way to attempt intervention: rely upon the dispute resolution mechanisms of Moclan itself to deal with the issue. When the decision of the tribunal comes down, the officers of the Orville don’t protest, act disrespectful to the process or result, or otherwise lose sight of the fact that SOME method of resolving disputes has to exist, and its results have to prevail. One might suggest that THAT lesson was far more important for our current situation in the US than anything having to do with gender issues.
Except not on the Union ship Orville. The Orville wasnt messing with what the Moclins did on their own planet, but they were arguing about a Union born child, one of whose parents didnt want the operation.
I was wondering how y’all felt about the Moclin advocate’s argument, comparing a sex change operation on a new-born to something apparently as safe and/or as trivial as circumcision.
This seems to conflict with the underlying assertion (the whole reason for the trial, after all) that this operation MUST be done, because of the social stigma and loss of opportunities the child would suffer later in life.
I was left scratching my head on the contradiction.
I don’t see any contradiction in these two positions.
Have there been societies where circumcision (or lack there-of) resulted in that the male being ostracised?
Judaism?
Please elaborate. My knowledge of that society/culture is quite limited.
I think my problem is the misunderstanding of the advocates point.
When I viewed the scene, I thought the advocate was comparing [Human] circumcision to the [Moclin] sex change as being equal in social importance. But he’s not, is he?
Is his argument actually that the sex change is socially important, and since the procedure is as medically safe (trivial, if you will) as circumcision, why object to it?
His argument is that circumcision, like the Moclin sex change, is medically unnecessary but culturally mandated, and that if the Captain doesn’t object to one he shouldn’t object to the other.
Ok. Thanks! I think I got that straightened out, now!
If parents refused to have their child circumcised, I should imagine that there would be some controversy.
But would that child be prevented from holding a job, marrying, things like that?
(I forget how Boris described what discrimination he thought his child might experience.)
He probably wouldn’t be able to marry a religious Jew.
I’ll remember that idea the next time there’s a report in Canada of a young girl undergoing female genital mutilation, and see how okay you are with it.
Oh, no? You won’t be?
Well, there’s the rub. Values conflict, and sometimes that conflict can’t be resolved.
I think it has something to do with cold pools and marble rye bread…