[martok2112]

Actually, the Empire does commission female officers.
In Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, a video game which is considered canon in the SW universe, a female Imperial Officer is assigned to be Starkiller's pilot and aide.

In the novel "Death Star", there is a female admiral who rose through the ranks on her own merits, much to the chagrin of other male officers, especially of equivalent rank. She is also the love interest of Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin.

So, the Empire does indeed have female officers.....the only visible one was in the Force Unleashed game. We've not seen them in any movies, but one did appear in a game that was considered canon.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by Pauln6

I'd like to think that Geneva Convention type arrangements are as much about how we want our society to behave as they are about tit for tat treatment of prisoners. How do we feel when our enemies torture and kill prisoners? That should be at the forefront of our minds when treating our own enemy prisoners. Once you give up the moral high ground you end up in intractable tit for tat situations like Northern Ireland and Israel.

For example, Kirk pays lip service to offering help to Nero. Would any Romulan viewing those recordings feel that the offer was genuine based on what comes only moments later? Mind you, TOS Romulans would prefer death to dishonour so they'd probably still be rooting for Nero either way.

For the scene to have any moral authority, Nero should have destroyed himself when his own weapons fire was sucked back to his ship or detonated by the gravity well. That would have sent the right Star Trek message IMO. 'Hate is self-destructive', not 'execute those who have wronged you.'

I'd like to believe that it's about how we want society in general (and not just our own) to behave, however I'm also too cynical to accept that that's good enough motivation for a majority of people. And besides to my knowledge there has never been a war or an occupation in which embarrassing and unforgivable things did not happen to either prisoners or innocent bystanders. Even when our own chiefs of staff and intelligence agencies are fully on board with the Geneva Conventions, there is always, always that unit of military grunts that just has to go frack it up for everybody (and why not? These are people physically and psychologically trained to be prepared to shoot the enemies of the state). And then the whole world media cries foul because it just happens to be the US that's the guilty party this time.

I think Kirk's offer was sincere enough, but it also was what it was, an ultimatum for surrender. However he does seem to overdo it with sticking around to fire 'everything' they've got. I hardly think that was necessary.

[martok2112]

Hehe... well, one can also take it as:

"Nero, we can either rescue you....or mercy kill you. Which will it be?"
"I'd rather --blah blah yadda yadda evil honor type stuff"
"Mercy kill it is. Mr. Sulu, arm phasers and photons, fire everything we've got."



I'd be happy with that.

[Pauln6]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Actually, the Empire does commission female officers.
In Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, a video game which is considered canon in the SW universe, a female Imperial Officer is assigned to be Starkiller's pilot and aide.

In the novel "Death Star", there is a female admiral who rose through the ranks on her own merits, much to the chagrin of other male officers, especially of equivalent rank. She is also the love interest of Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin.

So, the Empire does indeed have female officers.....the only visible one was in the Force Unleashed game. We've not seen them in any movies, but one did appear in a game that was considered canon.

Lol - bless them for trying but seriously in the 21st century are sci-fi writers still writing in that men are intimidated by women in positions of power, that a woman has to be exceptional to reach a rank as good as a man, and that a female officer also has to be the love interest for a male superior...?

I will admit, I get a bit irked when historical dramas apply feminist ideals (the Game of Thrones tv adaptation just about hits the right balance for me) but sci fi writers are in a position to set the rules of the future and yet they seem to set the bar spectacularly low for women, quite often even lower than they are in the real world - lol.

[martok2112]

"There is nothing sexier, believe me, gentlemen, than a woman you have to salute in the morning." Col. Nathan Jessup, A Few Good Men

Such has become the demand of feminism lately that a story like Robin Hood can no longer have Maid Marion be in the traditional and time honored role of "damsel in distress". No, now she has to be an *** kicker of equivalent or superior skill to Robin Hood.

And now, in contemporary stories, one cannot have damsels in distress, period! Not without a massive outcry from the uber-feminists. "Women are capable of action! Why is that woman, the heroine of the film/story, tied up to a chair, suspended above a pool of water with a shark fin circling it, and with a razor sharp pendulum swinging closer to the suspension ropes over her head, her chair rigged with a rope that is tied to the trigger of a shotgun leveled between her eyes...and a ticking time bomb off to her right?! Why must she wait on the man of the movie to save her from a predicament that she should've been smart enough, or capable enough to avoid?! And if she must be the one to be rescued, then why not have a womyn rescue her?!"

The reason I like the damsel in distress approach is because I should hope that my girlfriend (should I ever luck out to have one again someday) would look up to me as her protector, as well as her lover and best friend. While I would certainly ensure that she has the means to take care of herself, I sure in the hell don't want her resenting me if I should have to rescue her...because otherwise, I'd likely just say: "Ok" and give her back to her captors. "Fend for yourself. I'll be at home when you get finished."

Women are demanding to be allowed onto today's military battlefield. That's all well and good. I can applaud that. It is an honorable and noble cause. But, and I do not say this to be snide or insensitive, they do have a certain, ummm....medical tendency....comes once a month....that would not be conducive to the combat environment they wish to support. My God, just imagine the ramifications?!

I mean....if we let women onto the battlefield to fight alongside men, and during some of the most terrible fighting some of the women have their "monthly bill" come due....well, you can see where this is going.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I mean....what's gonna be left of the enemy for our men to kill?

(ha ha ha ha....had ya'! Admit it! )

To be honest, I should hope that a woman in a position of power (especially in terms of the military) is an exceptional individual, just as I hope that the men and women like what I served under when I was in the military are exceptional individuals that I can model myself after.

[Pauln6]

I think it is possible to find a balance. Not every heroine needs to be equivalent in every way. For example:

Princess Leia is a fantastic movie heroine. She is a freedom fighter but her skills set is not so broad that she outshines the heroes in all things. Sometimes she needs to be rescued and sometimes she's the rescuer.

Ripley in Alien and Aliens is a well rounded character who doesn't particularly outshine the others but when, in the second half of Aliens and in subsequent movies it becomes all about her instead of the story, she loses some of what makes her a great heroine and slips into cheesiness.

Emma Stone's Gwen is a fantastic heroine without outshining anybody else.

Padme is an example of a poorly designed heroine. She works as a fiesty politician in the first movie but turning her into an action heroine in the second film worked poorly since there was no reason for her to be one in her history and background. Then in the third film she becomes purely decorative, contributing nothing to the political or action arena. Having a second character to be an acton heroine (like Asoka) would have been better because they could then have focused on giving Padme a niche that could have been written into the story in all three movies.

Overall, a character's contribution need not be determined by their combat prowess. I want Uhura to be trained to shoot and fight because she is an officer but she is essentially a technician. I'd be happier if they had another character like Janice Rand (who most often acts moe like a security guard in the ongoing comics) to fill the role of action heroine and let Uhura be Uhura.

Having said that, Starfleet or the Imperial navy are not the modern US military. There is no genuine hardcore reason why the officer and technical support ranks cannot be staffed by equal numbers of both men and women (assuming we accept that soldier ranks should be domonated by men - not something I adhere to personally but hey ho) beyond the sexism of the writers and casting directors.

Steering back on track - some of the problem lies in the writers wanting to make their all-action heroes and heroines good at everything so that they dominate the story. That's not something I favour in an ensemble like Star Trek. I don't really want Spock to be carrying out complex engineerig repairs - he's a physicist, mathematician, and computer expert. Let the characters shine in their niche and succeed out of their comfort zone in a pinch but don't let them be accomplished in whatever the story requires for the sake of convenience - that just gets annoying.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

besides to my knowledge there has never been a war or an occupation in which embarrassing and unforgivable things did not happen to either prisoners or innocent bystanders.

Bingo. I'm fairly sure such a thing doesn't exist. Although I haven't as yet seen any proof to the notion that innocents were taken down with the Narada so far.............so it feels like a bit of a stretch pending something concrete to support it.

I think Kirk's offer was sincere enough, but it also was what it was, an ultimatum for surrender. However he does seem to overdo it with sticking around to fire 'everything' they've got. I hardly think that was necessary.

I think that's one of those areas where a suitable level of response may vary. I guess my approach would be if that is the action you commit to, you may as well ensure the job is completely done.

[Pauln6]

Originally Posted by kevin

Bingo. I'm fairly sure such a thing doesn't exist. Although I haven't as yet seen any proof to the notion that innocents were taken down with the Narada so far.............so it feels like a bit of a stretch pending something concrete to support it.

Yes, I think the issue for me is about the lack of any effort to establish whether there were any innocents. In addition to that, the level of culpability is up for debate. Is Yeoman Tomalok, who serves Nero his tea and does his washing, deserving of execution because he wasn't really in a position of power to stop Nero despite his personal objections. It's the global assumption that everybody on the ship deserves death because Nero and his command crew are psychotic that I find a bit troubling.

[kevin]

Well that's really the crux of the problem when trying to speak for henchmen and crew of the villian really.

You or I have no idea whether or not everyone on Nero's ship knew and were complicit in the actions. It seems highly unlikely after 25 years they would be oblivious. And if they were aware then................tough. Assumptions are not evidence in either direction. We don't know if everyone on Kruge's own bird of prey knew why he was going to Genesis and why he was attacking a Federation ship or if every grunt sent to the Enterprise knew why they were there before Kirk blew them up. We don't see Picard attempting to run scanning passes of the Scimitar to make sure that when he rams his ship into it he doesn't accidentally sandwich the ships cook against a hotplate when the Enterprise caves in half the Scimitar. He just makes sure his own crew are moved out as I recall. Situations don't always allow for all the boxes to be correctly ticked first.

Normally henchmen/crew are taken for granted in that respect and I see no compelling case to act differently in the Narada's example really.

[Pauln6]

Originally Posted by kevin

Normally henchmen/crew are taken for granted in that respect and I see no compelling case to act differently in the Narada's example really.

Again, if we're making assumptions, innocent until proven guilty springs to mind. Even making assumptions that the henchmen are fully culpable is swimming against the tide of Federation idealism.

This also highlights the difference between fighting a vessel that remains a threat and attacking a sinking ship. Of course the henchmen are going to die during a battle but it was the Nazis, once they started losing the WWII, that ordered their ships to leave enemy combatants to die in the water. That just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what the Federation stands for.