I wanted to quote Spock but I'm too fucking pissed!

[eumelia]

Okay.
So Kirk and Spock have been having an epic (Slash) love affair for 40 years, of this there is no doubt. They are the Slash couple. They are in fact, as far as I'm aware, the namers of the genre, named after the "/" that goes between their names: Kirk(Slash)Spock.

In canon they are the best of friends - in the New!Canon they are primed to be quite good friends with an ally of their own at their sides, Uhura backing Spock and Bones backing Kirk.

The old dynamic refurbished for the 21st century, I like it. It was refreshing see a successful relationship happening aboard the Enterprise, especially between Uhura and Spock, whose differences in manner and temperament make the whole thing so damn pretty.

My own fannisheness aside.

Star Trek as a franchise, in the 60's and to a certain extent up until the 80's was considered ahead of its time (hah!) when it came to representation of charterers and social issues. That isn't to say it wasn't or isn't flaws, we all know it is, but the ideal of Star Trek is that of the IDIC as much as it is to Boldly Go...

Now here's the pickle.
To Boldly Go... and the idea of IDIC aren't the co-optation and appropriation of Real Life issues and Human Rights in order to push a pairing a very particular and overly fethishised NON-Canon pairing in the name of Equality.

No really, it is not!

This campaign - started here and I quote:

From Gene Roddenberry: "Yes, there's certainly some of that - certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal - we never suggested in the series - physical love between the two. But it's the - we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century." Roddenberry directly stated that Kirk and Spock loved each other and that their level of love for one another was sufficient for a romantic relationship, and while he did not confirm or deny this relationship, he did mention essentially that if homosexuality was to be accepted in the 23rd century, then the relationship between the two characters would indeed be possible.

We've seen Brokeback Mountain, and we've seen other homosexual relationships on screen. However, the relationships are generally either the focus of the film, or comic relief. It would be a big step indeed to see the Captain and First Officer of the Enterprise in a relationship that is simply a normal part of life. The push is for equality in the media; for the normalization of GLBT relationships in movies and television.

See... it would have been okay, maybe, if the concern actually was LGBTQI representation in media and NOT the objectification of queer sexuality on screen.
Also, Brokwback Mountain, I've said it once, twice, three times a gentleman!
"Gay Movie for Straight People!"
Along with this little campaign which I hoped dies in obscurity into a fiery pit dowsed by torrential rain, there are people who just don't see the problem.
Like this precious quote:

Hm. I'm...Buhhh. I really like the K/S focus, to be honest. But I don't want to be stubborn and obtuse and cause unnecessary trouble by not agreeing. ._.
I really think it's a bit...silly? For people who support LGBT interests not to sign the petition or support us because they don't support the pairing. It's like if civil rights supporters decided not to support the movement because they didn't like MLK Jr.. Progress is progress, as long as we're not harming anyone, I think it's fine.
No offense to anyone, that's just my opinion.

From See Trek Love.

Crack open a book why don't you.

I'd like to add that the focus on a particular Fanon pairing and attempting to push it for Canonisation ostensibly in the name of Queer Rights is downright nauseating.
No really.
It is.

Especially since one is willing to pretty much "guilt"(?) a creator to change fictional character dynamics in the name of social change. I know that this may come off as hypocritical considering the very long debate I had not too long ago here regarding the same subject, namely Queering Kirk.
That really was just an example of how the Reboot could have been a little bit more awesome and more inclusive when it came to the Queer.

The new movie, though far from being terribly progressive, did see a huge leap for Uhura who was crucial to the plot and was not undermined by the fact that she is romantically involved with a superior officer, both of them concerned (as well they should be, I really like that they showed that concern) with the issues of Hierarchy.
That too was a little push of the envelope when it came to heteto representation and mixed-race couple representation.
Go Trek.

Again. A push for a specific same-sex pairing "in the name" of Queer Rights stinks of appropriation and an utter misunderstanding of what Queer Rights are and what media representation actually is.
You want to have more queer characters? I know I do, then campaign for THAT, not for an on-screen kiss between Chris Pine and Zack Quinto.
Seriously.

In the comments of the link at newtrekslash there are a few prime examples of cluelessness, racism and misogyny. Because Uhura is using her Nubian Wiles to keep Spock from his OTL Kirk.
Excuse me while I go vomit.

I urge you. Do Not Support this campaign. If you're going to mention it... mention that you oppose it. Please. This is just another example of the unwitting (though it really shouldn't be) homophobia found in fandom and should be not be tolerated, just like any transphobia, racism, misogyny and other forms of oppression should not be tolerated.

Ces't Tout.

Any questions?

Comments

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

As people said over at rm's journal, it's not like people haven't been campaigning for gay characters on Star Trek for decades. And it seems like they don't want "the wrong" gay pairing - ew, it might be lesbians, or old people, or people of colour, and not the pretty white main characters of their fantasy.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I know! Let's open a campaign for Uhura/Gaila! That way no "unwanted" icky boy kissing will occur... it'll only be girl-on-girl like it should be!

Garrgh! Do people not realise!? Really?! Grrr Arrrgh!

I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

Haha, you know, I actually listed Spock/Uhura as an interest on my lj profile? I didn't become a real fan of Star Trek until I saw the most recent movie and was pleasantly surprised to know that those two characters apparently have had a thing since the original series - a black woman and a male character that's been dubbed in many ways a Jewish character (not just because the actor himself is Jewish but all the comparisons between Jewish and Vulcan culture). Plus, Spock's not the stereotypical dashing white leading male, more the quiet and thoughtful and reserved sidekick of the dashing white leading male. I was so tickled when I saw Spock and Uhura together and have now been researching old episodes with Nichelle Nicoles and Leonard Nimoy.

Like, dude, check it out - Uhura sings to Spock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmgYMTO6Th4). She totes digs him.

Anyway.

Look, I want queer rights as much as the next person but forcing two of your favorite male characters together so you can drool over them fucking is not it. And petitioning Roddenberry about it? What is it about fandom that makes people so entitled?

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

Also? Issues of entitlement, appropriation, racism, misogyny, and general shenanigans aside ... I just don't see Kirk and Spock together. It's so contrived. It's weird. Yeah, I see the love between them, but it never leapt out at me as anything romantic or lustful or sexual. I've read Trek fiction and haven't ever read a good or convincing Spock/Kirk pairing. There's probably a reason for that.

Reply to both your comments

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I love that clip of the music flirtation going on between Spock and Uhura.
Apparently the "first interracial" kiss was supposed to be between Nimoy and Nichols, but Shatner got between 'em stating that if anyone was going to kiss Nichelle it would be him.
There were some fucked up gender politics going on behind the scenes.

I'm a slasher, I was totally surprised by how much I loved the het between Spock/Uhura for much of what you mention, the subversion of a couple with a difference in power, class and race (and species :P).

I try not to judge on people's desires, especially in what they like to read and in fanfic and specifically Slash. But this is just leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
I can totally see Spock and Kirk being comfortable around each other and being intimate... though I doubt it would be romantic, simply because that is not how they roll, in my mind.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the K/S vid for NIN's "Closer"? I'm not a slasher (okay, I totally believe Xander had a crush on Oz, and that he and Riley were sexing behind Buffy's back, but that's it!) and don't care for K/S in particular, but that whole video's pretty hot.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

That video gave me the creeps!

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Really? Why's that? Serious question.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Nothing I can articulate really, other than the fact that I find Shatner totally unsexy.
Add to that, the various inappropriate words to the very appropriate Spock... I guess it just rubbed me the wrong way.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Ah. I don't really have a thing for either character or actor, but I do think Shatner was pretty handsome in his thirties, so I can dig the aesthetics. It's kind of weird . . . the only thing I really like independent of that vid is the song (I'm not even a fan of the original Star Trek. I really only like its movies), but they brought everything together in such a way that it really did it for me.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[sadie-sabot.livejournal.com]

implication of non consent was what bugged me about it, but up until the end I kinda loved it.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Is it possible to keep fannish pairing preferences out of this? It's a hell of a lot bigger than that...

The way the original petition is written seems... harmless? I dunno. If it's been co-opted by fetishizing fans who just want it so they can drool over it, that's not his fault. I know I'm opening myself up to some fan-fail here. If someone can explain to me why the original wording of the petition is itself offensive, I'm all ears, because I can't detect it myself.

Media portrayal is part of civil rights movements, and of course nobody can ever agree on what's a positive portrayal and what's not. And the original Trek was incredibly progressive for its time in terms of depicting racial integration and sexual almost-equality (I can't bring myself to say 'equality' in a Trek context without the spectre of Janice Lester looming in the back of my brain, but I digress).

I wonder if a lot of fans jumping on this bandwagon are doing it because they remember how influential and progressive Trek was in the '60s. I think that's a simplistic view, though -- you can't artificially recreate that circumstance again.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

It may not be his fault, but the language has not been changed.
And media portrayal may be a part of human rights and we all (well I) want to see pretty people with whom I can identify and manage to portray facets of identity that are not "default" going the fan-service route of eye-candy.

The reason for fans to be jumping this band wagon is neither here nor there. Sci-Fi (and Fantasy) is notoriously bad when it comes to the portrayal of Queers (excluding the relaunched Doctor Who and Torchwood, the franchise of which is British - this whole debate is very US-Centric, which funny because I'm, well, very much not American).

I've had a few correspondences with Lance the petition organiser and the whole focus on K/S (and to a certain extent Trek) has left a sour taste in a lot people's mouths.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

Oh and by "Spock and Uhura have had a thing since the original series", I mean, it was strongly hinted that something was going on. But you know what? Ultimately there are only a few instances here and there, for example where Uhura sings to Spock. But the original series didn't take it that far. It was still forty years ago and nobody wanted to touch that yet, I guess.

So really, it wasn't until this most recent movie that the show's makers very explicitly said, "Hey, look! Spock and Uhura are a couple!"

You'd think people who claim to be so vested in progress would point at that and get excited, but instead they want to throw out Uhura because she's in the way of their fantasies. C'mon, people! Okay, I'm done now, I promise.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I mention the pushing of that envelope, which I really liked.

Uhura not being undermined and reduced to "girlfriend status", while still acknowledging the problem with the power dynamics of fraternisation, is WIN! in my book :D

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

I like the power dynamic thing. If she could say "Put me on Enterprise" and he could respond with "Okely dokely", he probably realised he could trust her to still do her duty while serving on the same ship.

Re: I just realized, I need Star Trek icons

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

I loved her and Spock in the original. She was flirty, but not throwing herself at him. I think if he responded, she would have liked that and they could have had a relationship, and if he didn't she was having fun anyways.

I'm probably the other way around from everyone here. I'm finding the new Kirk & Spock to be far more slashable than the originals (who I was content to let have a good old-fashioned bromance).

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

MOAR SOCIAL REALISM!!1

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

*raises fist*

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

I was a little scared when I saw your tweet and then starting reading this entry that you were going to be supporting this petititon, but I'm really pleased to see that you agree with me that it's ridiculous and I can continue adoring you.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Oh my! I really upset you with my Queering Kirk discussion didn't I?!

I'm sorry! I was illustrating a point at the time! *snuggles* I adore you too *smooch*.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

I'm exaggerating for effect, dear. I was a little annoyed at the time, sure, but it's nothing that's ate at me or anything.

Even if you *did* support this campaign, I wouldn't really care. It's just media, and I'm not going to let something like this make me think less of someone.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I know, I know :)

Exaggeration goes both ways.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Bah.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

And they are such blithering idiots I cannot quantify how much I hate the fact that as a Slasher I'm even remotely associated with such blind and oblivious people.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

We're Trekkies. We should both be used to being surrounded by the clueless. :p

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

True. But then, I avoid Trekkies IRL generally speaking and I try to avoid wank as a rule, as it is usually nothing more than fan!drama.

But this. This is symptomatic of something else and far more distressing.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Wank? I'm more familiar with that in the context of rationalizing continuity errors. I guess the really hardcore could consider this to be fanwanking, and considering the context . . . ew.

Sorry you're having to deal with this. Personally, I follow the "out of sight, out of mind" school of mind, but that way lies ignorance. At least you combat yours. :)

[thecityofdis.livejournal.com]

I have never seen that Roddenberry quote before, and it makes me delightfully happy. But this:

I really think it's a bit...silly? For people who support LGBT interests not to sign the petition or support us because they don't support the pairing. It's like if civil rights supporters decided not to support the movement because they didn't like MLK Jr.

O RLY? OH HAI GUYS, CANON LEGITIMIZATION OF YOUR FAVORITE COUPLE IS JUST LIKE THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON. HOW COULD I, AS A GAY, NOT HAVE KNOWN THIS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR OPENING MY GAY GAY EYES.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I always like your concise and accurate summations of issues.

Also, icon love!

[thecityofdis.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, thank you. Your icon made me laugh, too.