Homophobia Rampant in the Star Trek fan community?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 8:42 AM GMT
    Here's an interesting article that covers some homophobia concerning fan-produced Star Trek episode "Blood and Fire".

    http://www.syfyportal.com/news425689.html

    What do you think?

    How ironic that so many fans of show that's about accepting people has so many bigots. I've been active part of the online sci-fi community for over a decade, homophobia is definitely alive and well there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 8:59 AM GMT
    I came across a few trekkies discussing the new star trek in the online game EVE. They were talking about Jeri Ryan as usual, being the sex-starved bunch of nerds that they are, LOL, but when I said that I was gay and didn't really care much for Ryan's boobs, they just shrugged. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 9:03 AM GMT
    Sedative saidI came across a few trekkies discussing the new star trek in the online game EVE. They were talking about Jeri Ryan as usual, being the sex-starved bunch of nerds that they are, LOL, but when I said that I was gay and didn't really care much for Ryan's boobs, they just shrugged. icon_razz.gif
    You gotta love her Borg Implants, though! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 9:11 AM GMT
    She's a gurl! I'm allergic to those creatures. Borg or no borg, icon_razz.gif
  • Sayrnas

    Posts: 847

    Dec 27, 2008 12:34 PM GMT
    I love you Jeri!!!and the borg!!!


    ironic..oh yes,but not unexpected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 12:55 PM GMT
    There is a new Star Trek?

  • Dec 27, 2008 1:27 PM GMT
    lol unl have you been living under a rock? There is a new prequel coming out. My favorite part is that Sylar from Heroes is playing the young Spock.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 1:52 PM GMT
    Yeah, been under a rock, or deployed or something.

    What channel? Time?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 3:36 PM GMT
    It is a shame since it goes against the original spirit of optimism and inclusiveness Gene Roddenberry infused into the series.

    But really: Dorks vs Fags? That is high school writ large - all you need is the Rich Jocks to come along.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 5:22 PM GMT
    cougarwalker79 saidlol unl have you been living under a rock? There is a new prequel coming out. My favorite part is that Sylar from Heroes is playing the young Spock.


    Sorry, Cougar, but you're the one living under a rock. LOL. The OP's talking about the online Phase 2 fansite series.

    Here's a great review from Michael Jensen at http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/star-trek-fan-boys-react-set-phasers-to-whine

    >Last week we wrote about the Star Trek: Next Generation episode "Blood and Fire" just released by the fan site Phase II that injected a desperately needed dose of queer into the Trek universe.

    Curious how the episode was playing amongst the teeming hordes of straight Trek fans, I beamed over to TrekMovie.com and found a review of the episode posted on that site. Then I read the comments. Dear, dear, dear — talk about troubles with Tribbles.

    Here are some of the comments.

    From Mark:

    I think the episode would have been better without the gay scene. In fact, I think you could have replaced the Freeman character with a woman, and very little of the drama would be removed. Having the gay scene means, as a father, I’m not sure if my eight-year-old son should watch this episode. He’s seen and enjoyed all the others. I’ve never had to worry about screening anything Star Trek before. ... I also think the gay storyline is the least interesting thing about the episode. The real drama is how Captain Kirk is going to avoid killing Spock and the others and still do the right thing. If Peter Kirk had been in love with a female crew member, I think all the great drama of the story would still be there. Also, younger kids could see what is essentially a very cool Star Trek episode.

    From Brad:

    What the hell is with the two guys dry-humping each other?? I’m sorry, but I’ve just lost a TON of respect for the Phase Two guys. Pushing blatant homosexuality in our faces is NOT the kind of Star Trek I want to watch! >icon_surprised.gif( Completely uncalled for and not in the spirit of Star Trek. Disgusting!!

    From Steve:

    Is there really a need to shove the gay relationship down the throat of the viewers and try to preach to the viewers that such a relationship is ok?

    Sigh, it's almost as predictable as a redshirt character getting offed on an away mission. And I didn't include any of the shockingly ignorant comments about AIDS.

    It just cracks me up to read these guys going on about how hard it was to sit through the 3 1/2 minute "gay" scene and how blatant the sexuality was. Yeah, because Star Trek has always been so subtle about male heterosexuality.

    Jeri Ryan as Seven-of-Nine, a character completely appropriate for four-year-olds — as long as they are still breast feeding

    The women of Star Trek

    Clearly, male heterosexuality has nothing to do with these female characters. Hey, in the future, finding material to make clothing out of is very hard to do thereby requiring very short and/or skintight dresses. And those breasts are only so perky because there is no gravity in space!

    And let's not forget Mudd's women who were basically being sold off to men.

    Because objectifying women as items to be traded is just the message to send to young children. As long as they aren't being traded to other women. That would just be disgusting!

    Ai yi yi! Talk about heterosexual privilege!

    Listen up all you straight boys who have a problem with this episode because I have a few things to say. First off, shut up already. You do not own Star Trek or science fiction. I've endured four decades of Star Trek doing nothing but "shoving heterosexuality down my throat" and survived just fine. Grow a pair and deal with it.

    Second of all, no, you can not object to gay content that is comparable to straight content, whine how you don't want to see it and it isn't right, and then claim you aren't homophobic. Yes, you are homopohobic. Change or grow a pair and deal with it.

    Third, if you think your four-year-old, eight-year-old or whatever-old is old enough to watch a crewman be graphically devoured by bloodworms or to ogle Jeri Ryan's ginormous bazooms, then they are old enough to know that sometimes men fall in love with men and that they even kiss. And get married. Again, GROW A PAIR!

    That being said, it must be noted that there are many positive comments on the site that are from straight men including James Cawley, Phase II's executive producer, who is in large part responsible for getting the episode made. While it is very disheartening to know that even in 2009 a single episode of an online fan series can generate this much homophobia (imagine the straight-boy vapors that would happen if the actual Star Trek movie next summer included a gay character!) it is very heartening to know that there are also a lot of straight guys who do get it. At least they can boldly go where these others cannot. <

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 5:25 PM GMT
    are we really going to put our lives on hold for even a few minutes, because of what a few star trek fans think? c'mon.
  • cmdrkoenig67

    Posts: 163

    Dec 27, 2008 5:36 PM GMT
    Star Trek fans are unusually rigid, many of them even have problems accepting any other type of science fiction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 5:42 PM GMT
    One of my work colleagues became the editor of Star Trek magazine a few years ago and one of the taboo subjects for it was homosexuality. They would get lots of letters from nerdy homophobes if they so much as mentioned that sort of idea for storylines.

    I've never thought Star Trek was particularly progressive - here you have a series about white, anglo Saxon males surrounded by submissive women (one of whom is basically a telephone switchboard operator) roaming round the galaxy. He is not supposed to interfere in other worlds' affairs but what does he do constantly? Make war and blow up the Klingons on the starboard bow.
  • vindog

    Posts: 1440

    Dec 27, 2008 6:43 PM GMT
    cmdrkoenig67 saidStar Trek fans are unusually rigid, many of them even have problems accepting any other type of science fiction.


    What they need to come to realize is Star Trek, Battlestar, Heroes, Rome, Sopranos, 6 Feet Under, Carnivale, etc etc etc are just different versions of Days of Our Lives with better production values, writing, etc.


    They are all just SOAP OPERAS, whether we want to admit it or not (most of the above shows I like). Days of Our Lives in space, or with super powers, or in Rome, or in a funeral home, etc. Human problems are generally the same, no matter what context or time period you put them in.

    icon_razz.gif


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 6:46 PM GMT
    Yep, they are just fancy soap operas.

    Star Trek didn't even have any decent monsters unlike Doctor Who.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Dec 27, 2008 6:54 PM GMT
    I think the whole thing is kind of odd to me. I'm kind of a skeptic when it comes to this idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 7:10 PM GMT
    cmdrkoenig67 saidStar Trek fans are unusually rigid, many of them even have problems accepting any other type of science fiction.
    Very good point, Star Trek's hardcore fans ARE unusually rigid! Its ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 7:12 PM GMT
    andymatic saidIt is a shame since it goes against the original spirit of optimism and inclusiveness Gene Roddenberry infused into the series.

    But really: Dorks vs Fags? That is high school writ large - all you need is the Rich Jocks to come along.
    Ha! So true!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 7:14 PM GMT
    onejock saidare we really going to put our lives on hold for even a few minutes, because of what a few star trek fans think? c'mon.
    Just because we are having a little discussion about it, doesn't mean our lives are being put on hold. You can still file your nails while talking about various issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 7:49 PM GMT
    I think the main issue >putting down nail file< is the hypocrisy. Star Trek is lauded as being this breakthrough series that was the first to embrace the notion of diversity. Uhuru, Solo and Chekov represent cultures and nations previously viewed as 'other' and 'suspect'. The new aliens are supposedly there to teach us to respect and accept what is initially strange, different and scary to us.

    How perfectly the gay issue dovetails with the mission. And yet - no. It freaks a lot of these Trekkies out completely. Could they so blind that they've missed the fundamental philosophy? And what of the position that the Tribbles episode symbolised the HIV outbreak? Was that coded too deeply for them to grasp?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 7:53 PM GMT
    Tonyvoyager saidI think the main issue >putting down nail file< is the hypocrisy. Star Trek is lauded as being this breakthrough series that was the first to embrace the notion of diversity. Uhuru, Solo and Chekov represent cultures and nations previously viewed as 'other' and 'suspect'. The new aliens are supposedly there to teach us to respect and accept what is initially strange, different and scary to us.

    How perfectly the gay issue dovetails with the mission. And yet - no. It freaks a lot of these Trekkies out completely. Could they so blind that they've missed the fundamental philosophy? And what of the position that the Tribbles episode symbolised the HIV outbreak? Was that coded too deeply for them to grasp?
    Well, like cmdrkoenig67 said, Star Trek fans can't even accept other forms of science fiction. I think that speaks volumes about the mindset of this group of people. They are not as mature as the content they are watching.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 9:22 PM GMT
    redheadguy saidYep, they are just fancy soap operas.



    Redheadguy, don't call those tv shows fancy SOAP operas. For one thing, they aren't SOAP operas, SOAP operas are SOAP operas and second, none of them are fancy. SOAP operas are fancy.

    ...........................................................

    Those sci fi television shows I can't real watch unless my friends on YouTube doctor them up first.

    ...........................................................
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2008 9:28 PM GMT
    I guess I would be worried if I weren't a fuckn' beast and could woop all their asses. Seriously who cares if a bunch of douche bag losers still living with their mom are talking some shit. I'm not threatened one bit by these losers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2008 2:45 AM GMT
    If you look closely into any fanboy community, you'll find rampant homophobia, racism, and sexism. (Unless that fan community is Doctor Who.) You should have seen the offensive bullshit spouted on Newsarama.com's message boards (a comic book news site) when it was rumored that Will Smith was in talks to play Captain America. The blatant, horrifying racism displayed there was staggering, unlike anything I've witnessed since moving away from rural South Carolina.

    It makes me ashamed to be a geek.