Captain Picard is keyed up. He has to give a speech to a bunch of archeologists and he is nervous. But his old flame Vash is on the ship and he finds a way to relax. Until Q shows up. Then everyone is off the Enterprise and fighting for their lives in Sherwood Forest. Can Captain “Robin Hood” Picard save Maid Vash? Find out when we put Qpid in the Mission Log.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Documents


  1. JusenkyoGuide says:

    I am not a merry man!

    God, Worf got some of the best lines in this one.

  2. Wildride says:


    “There’s something I have to tell you.”
    “And what is that?!?”
    “I’m not from Nottingham.”

    *pottery smash*
    “Did you just smash a pot over that guy’s head?”
    “Seemed appropriate to the milieu.”
    “What happened to that bow and arrow you were using.”
    “Uh — Didn’t work out so well.”

    “I object: I am not a merry man.”

    “I’m gonna do you a favor: I’m gonna put you in a Robin Hood scenario.”
    “How is that a favor?”
    “Well, that Bryan Adams song did quite well.”

  3. CmdrR says:

    Fine. No sexism here. Just bash the guards with either the melon or the mallet.

  4. CmdrR says:

    I wish you would include either stills or clips on the site. You reference several visuals. Of course, there are a plethora of sites online to do my homework. But… I’m… la… zy. Anyway, great podcast! Hope to catch a few while on vacation in China. Otherwise, you’ll have to live without my snark for a month or so. Courage!
    Some pictures are worth posting:

  5. nathankc says:

    Clive Revill was *not* the original image of the Emperor. It was a visual effect – the Emperor was ‘portrayed by Elaine Baker, then-wife of makeup designer Rick Baker. Her face was composited with the image of a chimpanzee for the eyes’ – http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Sidious

  6. Lou Dalmaso says:

    I was hoping you would bring up Picard moonlighting as the King of England

    Enough with the “Q” titles, tho. if the show had gone past 7 seasons, would we have seen “Q-Tip”? where Q learns the fine art of food service?

  7. nathankc says:

    It couldn’t have been time travel because, although you made reference to the myth of Robin Hood, the historical Hood bears no resemblance to the Hood mythos, which is what Q has manifested, as elements such as Friar Tuck and Marian do not seem to appear in the earliest stories. Thus, this is as “real” as the planet with the piggy soldiers that Q made in ‘Hide and Q’ – he says it is real and there is danger but it isn’t ‘real’ in a historical sense.

    Why would Worf not know Robin Hood? He grew up in human culture. He would likely have been told stories of a heroic human warrior.

    Trek writers having trouble remembering whether Picard is French or English again. Why would Q default to Robin Hood – an English tale and not a French myth?

    • deaddropsd says:

      just another inconsistency I’d say…but really I always wished they had explained that part of Picards history. It could have taken 5 seconds…

  8. Dave Steph Taylor says:

    Such a fun episode.

    My favorite line is from Worf. “I am not a Merry Man.” So good 🙂

  9. deaddropsd says:

    UGH, I really disliked this episode. I thought Vash was never deserving of a repeat appearance, and definitely not a DS9 appearance with “Q”?!?!?!?! I understand wanting to have a fun silly episode, but this just seemed like a waste of a “Q” appearance, the money $$ for the set, and the $$ for a returning guest.

    • Mark Sabella says:

      I like how you’ve shared your thinking. You’re wrong, of course! LOL
      I kinda agree w/u re:DS9, but I’ll take what I can get when it come to Q; & Vash is too hot to pass up! Besides, it’s nice to see what happens with her and tie up that loose end; dontcha think?

  10. Troy Brooks says:

    Remember, Worf spent most of his childhood on Earth, I could see a young Klingon enjoying reading Robin Hood stories.
    Well, that and Viking sagas.

  11. deaddropsd says:

    “Vash” Jennifer Hetrick- or imo Least Deserving of Multiple Trek appearances of all time-, sorry don’t mean to be a hater…sigh

  12. Will Wright says:

    Production Still

  13. Durakken says:

    Never really liked this ep… Got some things to say though…

    I agree with the whole pot on the head thing being sexist. This is even more the truth considering it is explicitly stated in an earlier episode that all Starfleet personel is trained in some form of martial arts soooo yeah neither of these characters should be doing the pot thing.

    The commentary by Q is the writers reflecting that that view is bad by having Q say it which is funny considering the pot thing… However from an evaluation of Q’s character Q often is saying things that reflects the views that he thinks or knows the person he is messing with has which means that he is more likely reflecting Picard’s thoughts which is far more interesting to think… that Picard thinks he’s been brought low by a woman.

    You brought up an interesting thought about Risa… A planet that is promoting intimate relationships indicates that such a thing is needed which means that maybe The Federation recognizes that their military needs something like that.


    With regards to “Why would Warf know about Robin Hood”… Why wouldn’t he? He grew up on Earth going to Earth schools that would teach Robin Hood… It’d be far sillier that he wouldn’t is far sillier.

  14. JusenkyoGuide says:

    Finally done and a few comments…

    About the sexism thing, Memory-Alpha notes:

    Director Cliff Bole noted, “I got a few letters about ‘Qpid’ that the women who wrote asked why weren’t the ladies involved in a more modern way with the fighting. It was my feeling that we went back to the 12th century and we were doing the 12th century, and I can’t change history.”

    I’m not sure how you want to take that, if it excuses or not. I mean, on one hand, sure, it IS the time period… but these ARE Starfleet officers from the 24th century. You’d think… I guess I could go with it either way.

    About the 2 billion-year-old ruins…

    That is a little odd, still, given the time frame, we could also be speaking of a past species, not just civilization. The current Tagusians might not have been the ones who were around that long ago.

    One thing I was curious about though that you guys didn’t address…

    What does it say about Q that he feels he has a debt? Q is crazy, Q is unpredictable. Q is (and loves to cause) chaos. If you think about the Enterprise-D’s first few encounters with Q (Yeah, I did that), Q didn’t strike me as a being who CARED about paying it back unless you’re talking about payback. And yet here he comes back to help, in his own fashion, Picard. He gave Data that moment of laughter last time and now this… And as you guys noted, he ran off with Vash at the end. So I gotta wonder, has Q actually gotten some kind of humanity going. What do you guys think?

    • Durakken says:

      No it is not an adequate defense. Women, though rare, fought just like everyone else. It’s ridiculous to accept that as an excuse no matter how warped the view of history is especially like you said, they are from the 24th century in a fantasy setting where women fight all the time.


      They are almost certainly talking about a different species/civilization as in the Star Trek timeline the galaxy was reset about 2 billion years ago due to some super cruel civilization that took over most of the galaxy that then collapsed when a rebellion arose but that left the Galaxy a decimated ruin…


      I don’t believe that Q feels he owes a debt. I think he just likes humanity and likes messing with them a bit, but assuming he actually does I think that Q like all people evolve through their experiences. We really don’t know how powerful Q is or how long has past between episodes, or even if they’re in the order that ! experiences them… The first and the last episode of TNG can be said to illustrate this to some degree. Ep1 and the Last ep could happen together from Qs perspective with all the others coming afterwards or conversely all the experiences with Q could come before even the first episode and the reason he interferes in Farpoint is ultimately to help them and to get them ready for the final ep trial.

      • Cygnus-X1 says:

        Hey folks? News Flash:

        Women, on average, are not as physically large or strong as men. That’s just a fact of human biology, and all of the feminism and PC in the world isn’t going to change it in real life.

        So, purely in terms of tactics, it’s smarter for Troi and Crusher—whom the viewer has no reason to think would be particularly adept with medieval swords—to use the element of surprise and whatever weapons happen to be available to them—which may not even be swords! Why should there have been swords convenient to these two characters in this scene? And I think it’s fair to say that there’s a certain amount of whimsy intended in Troi and Crusher hitting the guards over the heads with pots. This is, after all, a lighthearted, comedic episode. I mean, honestly.

        • Durakken says:

          Save for the whole pre-requisite for Federation Officer thing that trains them in martial arts, one of such know martial arts concerns bo-staff weaponry, the fact that they’d always be carrying daggers, etc… yup no reason to think they could fight or have the weapons available to fight with them v.v but they’d definitely have random pots around and that would definitely be more effective to pick them up, sneak up on their target and smash it on their heads…

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            In what TNG episodes did Troi and Crusher demonstrate their sword-fighting abilities?

          • Durakken says:

            It’s explained multiple time that combat training which includes hand to hand combat is a requisite of all Starfleet officers… Troi and Crusher are both Starfleet officers ergo they have combat training. This isn’t hard to understand.

            Swords are not heavy or hard to weild so why are you even acting like they are?

            As I said they could have used any number of other non-stereotypical things, Dagger, Unstrung bow, bo-staff, sword, etc. The only weapon they’d have come up with using that might not make sense is actually a Bow, because they take some actual strength to use, but even then, many women weild bows with ease all over the world.

            So… you don’t know what you’re talking about. In those terms.

            Further they’re likely more highly trained than ANY of the guards there and if you’re going to say they are untrained then you must then accept that Data, LaForge, and Worf should not be capable of the weapons they are weilding in the episode. LaForge definitely doesn’t train regularly and doesn’t know much if anything about those weapons. Data may know about those weapons, but the algrithms to use them wouldn’t be there and while he may be strong enough to weild them, he’d weild them clunkily be fairly easily defeated. Worf would likely suck with everything other than Great Sword, Pole Arm, or Dagger… none of which I recall him using. Riker at best we’ve seen using a pole-arm. So when you claim that the men can use these weapons and the women can’t you’re massively uninformed about weight of weapons, strength needed to weild them, and the trained capabilities of the characters. Heck, Troi is probably the most likely to have weilded any of those weapons and second most experienced in those combat situations considering that part of her Therapist role has been Holodeck programs which we’ve seen tend to include combat of one sort or another fairly often.

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            Troi and Crusher are never shown to be proficient fighters in TNG. That they went through “combat training” at Starfleet Academy doesn’t mean that they can best two swords men in full armor. Combat training for those two is probably self-defense to be used as a last resort. And medieval swords WERE heavy. They were made of solid steel. Marina Sirtis looks like she weighs little over 100 lbs. The sword might be 20% of her body weight. Neither of them looks like they’d be any match for a trained swordsman. And, again, the episode is a spoof of Robin Hood and his Merry MEN. Not merry women. MEN. The roles of the characters are meant to be analogous of the roles in the folk tale. Maid Marion is portrayed by Vash, and there are no women fighters in Robin’s band. Furthermore, that folktale is set during the age of Chivalry. Hence the gender roles on display. There’s no reason for Troi and Crusher to be trading blows with two swordsmen in that scene. No dramatic reason and no practical reason.

          • Durakken says:

            As someone that is doing research on swords currently. No. Swords made in the medieval era were lighter than most replica’s today and were designed to be easily handled, only being around a pound usually and 3 pounds max. If you have a problem weilding that you need exocize.

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            Nevertheless. Swordfighting requires strength. Those two women look like they’d be made short work of by swordsmen. One or two blows and they’d be run through.

          • Durakken says:

            It requires strength but not what you’re making it out to be.

            Troi and Crusher have a much lower difference due to differences in heights in the first place, but then you take into account that Troi and Crusher are healther and fitter, They’re also able to train in much more extreme environments than anything the soldiers could ever dream of or think to do. They’re also likely just better trained from the ground up.

            The reality is that Troi and Crusher have the overall advantag, especially against likely shabby mail or gambeson.

            Even if what you are saying is correct, the better option for them would still be to use a polearm or the unstrung bow as a staff which was regularly used…

            Btw… that Troi can even use the Bow in that scenario shows she is far stronger than you think.

            In other words… Troi and Crusher, physically and experience wise compared to those guards… It would be very apt to call them Amazons.

          • John Anderton says:

            The pot-on-the-head is a trope of the genre, but more so in the past, when women characters were nearly always weak. That is why when it is done here, I think it is in fact sexist.

            It does seem obvious that Crusher and Troi can’t fight, but that is really the fault of the show treating the characters as weak, when it should not. Later, Ron Moore would not repeat this mistake in Battlestar Gallactica.

            Also, although Troi and Crusher seem weak, most of the entire cast seems weak. To specifically pick out the females for weakness is sexist. Imagine Burtion or Stewart or Frakes going up a armed guard? Absurd.

        • Muthsarah says:

          There is exactly zero reason to expect Geordi to be proficient with a sword. But he gets one (even though he didn’t start with one), and uses it to dispatch a professional medieval soldier. Picard, who at least has been/will be shown to be familiar with a foil, somehow out-fences “the greatest swordsman in Nottingham” with a much heavier blade. Picard even gets to backhand a guard (who is wearing chain mail), and we’re shown that that actually accomplishes something. Sure, it’s all nonsense, but the episode goes out of its way to show the male characters getting to play tough, while the female characters aren’t even allowed to use swords.

          Having both Troi and Crusher sidelined in a fantasy-within-a-fantasy isn’t so much lighthearted as it is unnecessarily patronizing. And since both Marina and Gates knew sword-fighting, there was no on-set reason to expect that they’d be unable to make it look convincing. It’s not a matter of biology, it’s the director (or someone over his head) specifically wanting the female characters to be given less-impressive things to do when there was no good in-universe or just in-show reason to expect they couldn’t keep up with the “boys”.

          If they were in a realistic 12th-century setting – where being “large or strong” would matter – only Picard and Worf (and of course Data) would have a realistic chance against armored soldiers familiar with period weapons, but Riker and Geordi (who is playing Alan-a-Dale, a minstrel, not a fighter) are shown to be superior fighters as well. If the characters are meant to feel they’re in actual danger, Data would have surely joined in (the 1938 movie this is based on made it explicitly clear that Friar Tuck was willing and able to use his sword). So why not Troi and Crusher? There’s no in-universe reason to assume Q would discriminate against them.

          Also, it would be a lot easier for a woman to kill/injure a man with a sword than to smash a pot over his head (iron helmet notwithstanding). Upper body strength and height would be useful for that too. Imagine what kind of damage Worf or Data could do with a clay pot. The women were specifically given weaker weapons and only allowed to knock out their opponents by sneaking up on them. At the very least, they could have let Troi shoot someone (else) with her bow that she is shown to have been given by Q. But, no, not even that is allowed.

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            “There is exactly zero reason to expect Geordi to be proficient with a
            sword. But he gets one (even though he didn’t start with one), and uses
            it to dispatch a professional medieval soldier.”

            Because this is a spoof on “Robin Hood.”

            “Picard, who at least has been/will be shown to be familiar with a foil,
            somehow out-fences “the greatest swordsman in Nottingham” with a much
            heavier blade.”

            Every member of the Enterprise crew bests the bad guys in that scene, including Troi and Crusher.

            “Sure, it’s all nonsense, but the episode goes out of its way to show the
            male characters getting to play tough, while the female characters
            aren’t even allowed to use swords.”

            Have you ever had a pot broken over your head? Troi and Crusher played “tougher” than Picard and Geordi. At least in a sword-fight, you have the chance to fight back. The victims of Troi and Crusher never knew what hit them. And I don’t recall Troi and Crusher “not being ALLOWED” to have swords. Their characters simply had other weapons in this scene, and more effective weapons at that.

            “It’s not a matter of biology,”

            Yes, it is. At least in part. Women on average are not as physically strong as men. Two women untrained in medieval sword-fighting would not be wise to try fighting trained swordsmen blow for blow. THAT would have come across as patronizing. In other words, “We’re putting this ridiculous scene in for the women, so that they don’t feel left out.” Picard and Geordie would stand a better chance just in terms of strength. Of course, they win because they’re the good guys. But, at least it doesn’t look unbelievable on its face. Having two rather physically unimposing women, whose characters are not known for having any combat ability, fighting two burly men mano-a-mano would take the viewer out of the scene.

            Again, this is a spoof on “Robin Hood.” If it were a spoof on the story of Joan of Arc, for example, one would expect a female character to be leading the French, not a male.

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            The bottom line is that little Counselor Troi and skinny Dr. Crusher
            fighting two swordsmen blow for blow would have looked excessively RIDICULOUS. Picard and Geordi fighting with swords is obviously also a fiction, but at least it mirrors the story that this episode spoofs—i.e. “Robin Hood”—so there’s a clear reason for it in terms of drama.

          • Durakken says:

            “Having two rather physically unimposing women, whose characters are not known for having any combat ability, fighting two burly men mano-a-mano would take the viewer out of the scene.”

            Ahhh I see. What you’re saying is YOU are a sexist. Great. Moving on now, because you are literally saying that women aren’t strong enough to weild weapons they are clearly capable of doing because it would “take YOU out of the scene” that because you think it’s unrealistic when it’s not.


          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            No, you idiot.

            I’m saying that THOSE TWO women are physically unimposing. The characters of Troi and Crusher are not AT ALL associated with fighting or combat skills in their duties as part of the Enterprise crew. And the actors playing those characters are physically unimposing in appearance, and thus give the viewer no reason to think that their characters would be effective in mano-a-mano combat against two swordsmen. If it were two Klingon women with tough, bellicose temperaments and reputations for example, like Lursa and B’Etor, that would be more believable.

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            And as for your foolish “sexist” remark, it’s idiocy because you and everyone else in Western society is sexist. Sexism simply means discriminating on the basis of sex to the exclusion of personality attributes. The vast majority of people believe that sexism in professional sports, for example, is a good thing. It’s certainly good for the female athletes, and you don’t see them demanding co-ed tennis leagues, for example. Neither do you see people demanding that women be allowed to play in the NFL. Sexism there is regarded as a good thing by most people. And in many other situations where sexism redounds to the benefit of women, it is also regarded as a good thing. Normal, everyday marketing practices are sexist. Public bathrooms are sexist. And myriad other things in society which are not only acceptable but preferable are likewise sexist. So, labeling people and situations as “sexist” with no further explanation, and expecting that to carry some sort of moral valence or implication, is lazy-minded and stupid.

          • Durakken says:

            As someone mentioned to you, they are trained swordmen in reality.
            As I mentioned they would be trained in character.

            In fact if I remember right Crusher beats Picard in a Fencing match in an episode. So You’re wrong on every account other than your person perception, not the reality that has been shown and is known.

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            There are women who are trained boxers. But they don’t box men.

            And Troi is not a trained swordsman. So, it is you who are wrong on every account.

            And the main point is that this is a spoof on Robin Hood and his Merry Men. Picard is Robin. Riker is Will Scarlett. Data is Friar Tuck. Geordi is Alan-a-Dale. And Worf is either Little John or Much the Miller’s Son. Vash is Maid Marion. And that’s it. There are no women fighters in Robin’s band. This story was set in the age of chivalry, and men did not typically engage in swordfights with women in these stories, and probably not often in reality, either. If you’re going to deviate from the parody, there should be a good reason dramatically. And mollifying the PC-conformists isn’t a good reason, which is why they didn’t do it. It also happens to be a fact of life that men are stronger and more aggressive on average than women. The average man will make short work of the average women in hand-to-hand combat, all other things being equal. In fact, studies have been done showing that male aggression is directly proportional to testosterone levels. But, all of this is secondary to the dramatic form.

        • TrixieB says:

          Those women are StarFleet. They are trained. Medieval women knew how to kick and punch. Size only affects the size of the impact, as it would with the clay pot, not the action..

          • Cygnus-X1 says:

            And when you’re fighting trained swordsmen who are wearing chainmail, the level of impact is more important than whether you touch the other person with the sword. Assuming that Troi, shown to be incompetent with a bow and arrow early on, is actually proficient with a sword for some reason. And women didn’t typically go into battle during the Age of Chivalry, which is when Robin Hood and this parody of it are set. And, even if they did, there’d be absolutely nothing wrong with portraying Counselor Troi and Dr. Crusher as the type of women who aren’t good fighters. Speaking for myself, I’ve never gotten the impression that any psychologists or physicians that I’ve known are good fighters, though I’m sure some exist. The point being, one would not necessarily expect a petite ship’s counselor with the temperament and personality of Deanna Troi to be a proficient fighter. Crusher is slightly more believable in that role, but there’s nothing wrong with having her smash her larger opponent over the head with a pot. Crusher doesn’t exactly look like she could match that guy blow for blow.

    • Low Mileage Pit Woofie says:

      Cliff Bole is full of it. If it was really about preserving the 12th century, everyone would be bereft of tights, speaking Middle English, would froze to death in summer and stink of livestock.

    • TrixieB says:

      Yeah, no debt about siccing the Borg on them?

      That explanation rings so false. That’s straight up apologia.

    • Mark Sabella says:

      I think that the old “pot on the head” trick was done orly for comic relief. and frankly, it looked like the two of them enjoyed playing the role. Besides, their respective characters are medically based. They’re healers [and lovers], not fighters!
      Better believe that if Tasha or Ro had been there, they would’ve been kicking some Nottingham butt! 🙂

  15. Cygnus-X1 says:

    @John Champion

    You guys are really losing credibility.

    Calling “sexism” because Troi and Crusher hit guards over their heads with pots is really jumping the shark. Are you guys under threat from a feminist organization or something?

    Hey, maybe Crusher and Troi DIDN’T HAVE SWORDS, SO THEY GRABBED WHATEVER THEY COULD TO USE AS A WEAPON. And hey, guess what—Crusher and Troi aren’t Xena the Warrior Princess. They’re not the rare 6-ft tall woman who can maybe match the average man in terms of physical strength. That’s just a fact of human biology, I’m sorry to be the one to inform you. So, why should anyone expect two woman of average size and strength—one a physician, and the other a psychologist—to try matching larger, stronger men blow for blow? There’s no reason why anyone should expect these characters to behave that way, other than being mindlessly shackled to PC-conformity. It’s only in PC-world, you see, where we ignore basic facts of life, such the physical differences between men and women.

    And, in addition to all of the above, the style of this episode is clearly reminiscent of an old folk-tale, like “Robin Hood,” which did not have physically strong or bellicose female characters.

    I’m thinking maybe I should avoid your podcast on “The Perfect Mate,” as I can only imagine how bogged down you’re going to get on the “sexism” in that episode. Hey, let me clue in ahead of time: Kamala in “The Perfect Mate” has been bred to please men. Calling “sexism” in that episode is like calling “racism” every 3 minutes while watching “Gone With the Wind.” Maybe you two boys should just skip over that episode, too. It’s going to send your PC-conforming impulses in to quite a tizzy.

    • Judie Liri says:

      Sexual dimorphism between human males and females doesn’t prevent the female from giving a good hard knee to the male groin. No swords or clay pots are necessary.

  16. Cygnus-X1 says:

    And I’ve had it with this relatively new convention of public shaming based on a PC ideology that is, at best, logically inconsistent. John and Ken aren’t merely “pointing out” sexism in every, single Trek episode. They’re pushing an agenda, and in a subtle, indirect way, publicly shaming the Trek writers for not conforming with that agenda. And the agenda that they’re pushing is logically inconsistent and arbitrary.

    Labeling things “sexist” with no further explanation, is unproductive, meaningless and just not nice. Sexism per se is often regarded as a good thing, and implying otherwise is narrow-minded and stupid. Sexism simply means discriminating on the basis of sex or gender to the exclusion of other attributes. Professional sports are “sexist.” Public bathrooms are sexist. Normal marketing practices are sexist. Sexisim exists because differences between men and women exist.

    And yet the vast majority of people regard these manifestations of sexism as good and proper. We don’t see professional female tennis players demanding to compete against men. We don’t see women demanding to play in the NFL. We do, however, see women demanding to be treated more gently and delicately than men. We see women protesting jokes involving sexual suggestions or innuendos. But, not men. Men don’t typically feel threatened by such things. At least, none that I know. When sexism redounds to women, they don’t typically have a problem with it. We’re supposed to treat women differently than we treat men. This is sexism, by definition. All of the aforementioned manifestations of sexism are deemed good and proper by the vast majority of society. And, if you’re NOT sexist in certain ways, if you DON’T treat women differently than men in certain respects, then you are regarded as impolite, uncivilized or even a criminal. So, labeling things “sexist” without any further explanation is really illogical and stupid.

    And the public shaming aspect of it is offensive. And THAT is what John and Ken are doing in these Star Trek episodes. Not merely “pointing out” some objective fact. If you’re going to make an issue of sexism, then you are obligated to explain your point. Not merely label it “sexist.” If it bothers you personally, then you need to explain why. Then the merits can be argued or at least considered. This PC convention of labeling and public shaming has gotten out of control. It’s unproductive, anti-intellectual, illogical, underhanded and intended to oppress expression. And it doesn’t make for particularly good Trek, either.

    • Judie Liri says:

      Just notice how all the people who are against John and Ken calling out sexism in Trek are men. Is there a woman who agrees that these things aren’t offensive? I’d like to hear from her.

      I also hate this feigning of innocence on your part. Like you don’t live in our world and you don’t notice how on the one hand women are excluded from things and on the other are subjected to offensive attacks – verbal and physical.

      The point is that women should be treated like regular people on Star Trek. You get more respect if you’re a rubber suited reptile than you do if you’re a woman. Deanna and Beverly are astronauts. These people go through rigorous training but despite that they are depicted as helpless things because it’s more pleasing to the male notion of saving a damsel in distress. Even this shows official damsel in distress didn’t really wish to be saved most of the time. So what does this say about all the men who watch this and thing – “yup, that’s what womenfolk are like.” It means you are grouping us into one thing and that thing is the stereotype of weakness. Sure some women don’t know how to handle themselves in a fight. But those weren’t the characters we saw on this show. They were deliberately weakened regardless of any logic.

      Even after all this time, even after almost a century of fighting to be considered human beings, women are still thought of as either harpies or victims.

      BTW, if we are victimized we’re blamed for being weak and therefore deserving what happened to us. If we fight back, then we’re angry, male-haters. Either way you win, so feel happy – You’re still the ‘master-sex.’

      • Cygnus-X1 says:

        Well, you’re conflating a lot of issues there. I agree with half of what you said. I am not feigning ignorance, nor do I believe that women shouldn’t be “treated like regular people.” What I am impugning, and what I am sick of, is the dishonest, hypocritical double-standard of PC and feminism, where women are exactly the same as men, except when it’s to their advantage to be different. There has never before been a better time to be a woman than now. Women in urban jobs today earn more money straight out of college than men do. Women also graduate college at a substantially higher rate than men do. Do feminists care why men aren’t doing as well? Hell, no. They don’t really care about “equality.”

        And, to go even further, I can cite a movement on my college campus back in the 1990s called “Womynism,” which has since merged with the feminist movement, that believed men to be inferior to women and strove to achieve a world in which men were literally obsolete. But, you don’t ever hear of “misandrony,” do you? Truth be told, I don’t mind women saying that men are worthless pond scum, so long as men are aloud to likewise complain about women when they get frustrated. It’s the irrational oppression stemming from group-think that I can’t abide. The spineless bullying in the guise of righteousness.

        And this public shaming practice that has become the signature of PC. Go ahead and tell me that I’m scum. But, don’t go shaming Trek writers in a subtle, indirect way under the pretense of analyzing the content and meaning of the episode. John and Ken, it has become clear to me, are pushing a very specific agenda. And it doesn’t surprise me that there aren’t any women complaining about it, as the agenda redounds to their benefit—and really, it’s just one or two dozen people who comment here. Maybe they feel that they deserve that benefit. Maybe you do, too. What I’m saying is that it’s logically inconsistent, hypocritical, dishonest and I’m just not having it any more.

        And, by the by, as a topical remark, I regard it as a good thing for more women to be elected officials. What I can’t stand is the divisive, hypocritical, discriminatory advocacy and tactics for achieving same.

    • Mark Sabella says:

      I get what you’re saying, but the boys really do need to address it on the podcast. There is an inconsistency of the ST message – especially in TOS – when it comes to the role of the female. This television production was a product of the times, of course, but to ignore it would be negligent.

      Of course, it wasn’t just there; it was everywhere back then. Just watch the Dick Cavet Show’s early years and listen to how the guests speak, the audience members, very Victorian and chauvinistic. I can hardly believe it.

      Show’s that predate that time period – in which the writers and corp exec’s were reared – were in line with the norm. Some of them make it hard for me to suspend my disbelief to make the movie watchable. Poor Betty Davis, Geta Garbo, Audrey Hepburn, etc. They got to be stars – but with no more life in the characters they played than the cardboard cutouts used to promote the film.

      This is no fault of John & Ken. If you took a class on Trek and the prof did not address this issue, members of the class would bring it up and perhaps ask the prof as to why it isn’t addressed – and I’m speaking to you as an educator…

      PS: Do you not think that sexism played a role in television’s first same-sex kiss on DS9 in the ’90s? They used women, because women are expected to be more accepting it played in to male fantasies & men were the majority audience…

      • Cygnus-X1 says:

        We’re way beyond the issue of John and Ken “addressing” the issue of sexism in TOS.

        They’ve been harping about “sexism” since this podcast series began. And their harping on it has not been enlightening, but merely consists of them pointing out how a woman in a given role/scene is treated differently than a man would be treated in that role/scene. And, then, rather self-righteously, John and Ken label the writing—and, by implication, the Trek writers who wrote the scene—“sexist.”

        Well, as I explained above, merely labeling a thing “sexist” is very often meaningless and illogical, being that sexism, by definition, is often demanded in our society by the very people who love to label people and things “sexist.” I provided several examples of same in the previous comment.

        So, I’m actually offended by John and Ken’s “sexist” labeling for multiple reasons:

        (1) merely labeling a thing or person “sexist” is very often meaningless and sheds no light on the matter, but is done as a passive/aggressive bullying tactic to shame people into conforming with PC ideology;

        (2) the terms “sexism” and “sexist” as they are used by John and Ken are, at best, arbitrary and logically inconsistent in their implications, as I demonstrated in the previous comment;

        (3) the regular practice of John and Ken labeling Trek writing, and by implication Trek writers, “sexist”, is condescending, arrogant and offensive in the way that it is typically offensive when self-righteous, self-designated moralizers judge others from their pedestals on high;

        (4) the propagation by John and Ken of the public shaming practice that has become part-and-parcel of the Political Correctness regime is not merely “pointing out instances of sexism” as they allege. John and Ken are anything but fair-minded about the issue when discussing it in their podcasts;

        (5) the meaningless repetition of labeling Trek writing as “sexist” over, and over, and over, over the course of hundreds of episodes is beyond monotonous by this point. If you’re going to review a show produced during a period when women were treated differently from men in certain ways which are no longer deemed tolerable, then you should make that point at the outset and proceed to review the show NOTWITHSTANDING the issue that you don’t like.

        Repeating your protestation in every, single episode is ridiculous, and suggests that you’re pushing an agenda rather than reviewing the dramatic and technical merits of a TV show. It’s akin to reviewing “Gone With the Wind” and pointing out every instance of “racism” depicted, stated or implied. Yes, we all know that Black people were treated badly in the 1860s. Now, move on and review the other aspects of the dramatic work, if you wish to review it at all. If the movie so offends you that you feel compelled to protest the same issue repeatedly throughout it, then maybe you shouldn’t be promoting that movie.

        (6) And worst of all, the whole public shaming PC ideology is designed to oppress those expressions of opinion which disagree even slightly with the ideology. Thoughtful, well-reasoned expressions of opinion made by people in good faith should not be oppressed. It is the mindless oppressiveness of the Political Correctness regime that is its most pernicious flaw.

      • Cygnus-X1 says:

        P.S. And I wouldn’t expect John and Ken to address these issues in a podcast. They’re very clearly aligned with the PC regime, and I’d be impressed if they regard anything I’ve said as other than my “looking for an excuse to get away with sexism.” I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they just label me a “sexist” and think nothing more about the matter.

        I’m expressing an opinion here which has literally become dangerous to one’s livelihood to express, especially in certain industries, as in Hollywood. But, I challenge anyone to rebut my argument in an objective and fair-minded manner. I’m not wrong about this issue on the whole. You just don’t see people expressing similar opinions in public because it has become taboo to do so. And that is what disturbs and offends me most about the PC regime, as I explained below—it’s oppressiveness. But, in private, the most reliable liberals share my opinion. I’ve had this conversation with liberal fiction writers who think likewise but would never say so in public. And I am likewise a reliable liberal, in terms of my own political leanings. Not that it’s relevant here.

  17. TrixieB says:

    Great ML episode. Really like how you addressed change, Ken. They both were wrong, and should not try to force the other to be something they were not. Clichéd sexist writing of that conflict, but your analysis was spot on.

    I always love Q episodes but this one was a tad stilted. Not Mudd territory, but not great. The plot holes were bigger than usual, and Q seemed superfluous. Not his usual role.

    Best thing is now I will always imagine Picard doing impressions!!

  18. John Anderton says:

    If one can get past the wave of nausea upon seeing the crew in a high school production of Robin Hood, one might be rewarded with Stewart’s performance, who’s enthusiasm seems so genuine you might think he wants to be another production.