• Steve@communick.newsEnglish
        1·
        8 days ago

        You can see how that seems sexist, right?
        Especially when 7 and The Doctor are debatably tied, for most interesting character on the show.

          • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
            1·
            8 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
              01·
              7 days 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
                1·
                7 days 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
                  01·
                  7 days 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·
                    6 days 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
                    1·
                    7 days 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.