I’ve decided to photo recap Star Trek: Voyager. For reasons.
I’ve decided to photo recap Star Trek: Voyager. For reasons.
Disney princesses meeting their princes for the first time.
it progressively gets more awkward each movie
"Cinderella never asked for a prince. She asked for a night off and a dress."
For the purposes of my totally biased personal ranking of shows I watched the week runs Saturday through Friday. These posts may include spoilers.
This week’s contenders:
Game of Thrones: “The Lion and the Rose”
Summary: Joffrey gets married and then gets murdered. It was awesome.
Thoughts:Margaery is flawless. Olenna and Tywin deserve a spin off series. Sansa is an amazing character and I can’t…
A few years ago I went for a first date with a guy I met online. It was almost unreal how much we had in common. As we played Scrabble at a coffee shop we kept bringing up more and more things we had in common. At one point I asked if there was any foods he disliked, and he said no but that he was somewhat allergic to peanuts.
After the extended coffee we went for a walk and were having such a great time that we decided to tack on dinner, too. We went to a nearby sushi restaurant and the food was taking a really long time. My goma-ae came and I totally forgot about his allergy and offered him some. A few minutes later he stopped chatting so freely, and a few minutes after that he said, “Um, was there peanuts in that?”
I gasped and stammered that there probably was and I must’ve forgot. I was pretty mortified.
"Yeah, um, I might have to go throw up," he said quietly.
I apologized over and over and he said, “Well on the bright side we found something we don’t have in common: I don’t think it’s ok to poison someone on the first date.”
I was chewing a piece of sushi when he said it, but I was so nervous I laughed out loud and spat rice across the table at him. It was a miracle we even ended up friends.
But as embarrassing as that date was, there could always be a worse date. There could always be a Geordi La Forge date.
But before I get into that part of the plot of “Galaxy’s Child”, first I want to talk about the other plot-line in the episode, which is that the Enterprise encounters a space-dwelling alien, which looks like a giant floating clam, and accidentally kills it. They quickly realize the alien was pregnant and lashed out at the Enterprise in self-defence. The fetus is still alive.
Crusher suggests delivering the baby alien by using the phasers to perform a C-section, despite knowing next to nothing about “the bio-functions of the adult, much less the child”. A minimum phaser blast killed the mother, so using phasers around the fetus doesn’t seem like a genius move.
However, the procedure is successful. But the baby immediately attaches itself to the Enterprise and starts draining its energy. Eventually, they manage to get “Junior” back to its relatives before it destroys the ship.
In her book Sexual Generations: “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and Gender, Robin Roberts looks at this part of the episode and how it relates to societal views of pregnancy and reproductive rights.
I never liked this episode for Geordi. How can someone who acknowledges the personhood of an android and has a Starfleet captain for a mum fall right into the “nice guy” cesspit? He used his knowledge to try to pick her up not to offer her friendship and when she’s rightly upset about the misuse of her image he acts like that’s her fault.
I also didn’t like the way they killed the alien, saved the baby & just left. In the film Insurrection, Picard asks “Remember when we used to be explorers?” Well, here was a great opprtunity to explore and connect with a new species & they kill one & think it’s okay because they saved it’s baby & don’t bother to stay & try to communicate with and study the group.
I love it! That’s such a perfect summary of this episode’s issues. I love the connection you made about Geordi’s behaviour to the “nice guy” thing. If anyone isn’t up on the discussion on that, it’s basically looking at how some guys proclaim they’re “nice guys” and complain that women keep choosing “jerks” over them to date.
The two problems with that is that it often seems like these “nice guys” aren’t really thinking about how they’re really coming across, and there’s a sense of entitlement that somehow women owe it to them to date them. I think this cartoon from Eat That Toast sums it up perfectly.
Geordi totally fits that bill in this episode when he blames Leah Brahms instead of his own creepy behaviour and totally unrealistic expectations.
Listen to Guinan, Geordi! She’s always right!
To paraphrase my brother “The importance of the position of Ship’s Counselor can be summed up in four words: Geordi LaForge’s dating habits.”
Awhile back, someone sent me an ask about this drabble on Susan Pevensie, wondering if my little story was agreeing with JKR’s quote or disagreeing. I answered a bit then, but I wanted to talk a little more about it if that’s alright.
“There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because she found sex. I have a big problem with that.” - JK Rowling
So, here we go: yes, I agree with Rowling. I have a big problem with that. (I think I read it more as she discovered vanity, rather than sex, but same idea).
Susan doesn’t show up in The Last Battle. She is not saved. That, alone, is fine— this is a story about faith, and having someone who loses faith is important to that story.
BUT the way Lewis explains to us that Susan is lost is something along the lines of she started liking lipstick, nylons and invitations.
He gives us a couple of lines from people who are not Susan, and they sum up her existence as lost. Because lipstick.
Let’s look a bit closer at this. There were so many choices here. She could have discovered Nietzsche, or atheism, or both. She could have told too many stories to her mother, who got her counseling and medication for her hallucinations. She could have gotten bullied at school until she bowed under the pressure. She could have gotten angry, gotten furious at being kicked out of a world she loved, at doing puberty twice, and shoved all of it away, lost faith as an act of retribution.
That would have made her a kind of vicious, sure, cutting off her nose to snub her face, but at least she would have been doing something. Here, other people tell her story. Here, “lipstick, nylons, and invitations” is used like it’s a complete thought.
I don’t have a problem with Susan losing faith, but it bothers me that “faithlessness” is synonymous with these things, these stereotypical assets of a young woman. Oh lord, she cares about her appearance. How can she also believe in a magical land and the bravery of childhood and the faith of the innocent if she cares about her appearance?
Susan is shamed for growing up. Now, there are a lot of ways to grow up as a woman, let alone a person, but this is the way we are told to grow up: a coming of age, boys and banter, giggles and lip gloss. We’re sold this brand of femininity. Susan embraces it and she is dismissed as a person for the crime of acting out the story they were selling her.
She cares about her appearance, just as we tell women they should, so she is vain. She is vain, so she is silly, she is foolish, she is faithless.
To be fair, this is a story they still tell about women. That caring what you look like makes you vain, and not caring makes you sloppy. We want beautiful girls. We want them to be all-natural. “You’re prettiest without makeup on,” they tell some girl who spent fifteen minutes this morning plucking her eyebrows and putting on invisible foundation to cover her blemishes. It makes sense why Lewis told this as Susan’s story and thought it was enough. I don’t think he did something wrong writing it. I think he did something ignorant, but that doesn’t make the story any better.
Or maybe this isn’t me being fair. Maybe this is me being furious: this is a story they still tell about women.