By the way, this post is about more than just defeating the myth of womanizer Kirk, I just didn't know how to fit that in a title. This should give a good idea of how it's looking to explain why...
By the way, this post is about more than just defeating the myth of womanizer Kirk, I just didn't know how to fit that in a title. This should give a good idea of how it's looking to explain why and how this happened:
Why am I bothering to make this argument again, if Womanising Kirk has already been exposed as some nonsense? Because the facts have not yet displaced patently incorrect common knowledge, and because I think there are reasons why they haven’t. These misreadings are supported by a subterranean network of ideas about masculinity, pop culture, and the past that consistently reinforce them, hitting refresh on these dank memes. I don’t think all the connections have been made here, and all the implications unfolded.
I’m also trying to illustrate how different interpretations are held to very different standards of proof. Constructing an elaborate chauvinist narrative is normal and invisible as work, while other interpretive perspectives must, under ridicule, press against this “received truth.” Again and again we see female-dominated media fandoms’ interpretations dismissed as emotional and ideologically motivated. But what is all this vast effort to butch up Kirk but clear evidence of at least equally goal and emotion-driven work on the part of male-dominated sectors of fandom and popular reception? The amount of labour you have to put in to get from “Catspaw” to ‘Kirk scored!’, and from Kirk the character to Kirk the womaniser is considerable. What drives this casual or fannishly dedicated unseeing but male emotional need [7] to attack vulnerability, to uplift and venerate dominating strength, and to project their desires onto texts and from there, life? Male emotion is here, as in most spheres, parsed as neutral, rational, and just: “obvious.” Its emotional content ceases to visibly exist, because male desires are so naturalised as to seem the state of the world.
This is great work. Thanks for sharing it with us! Another good bit: I hope that's an accurate description! I should check.
This is great work. Thanks for sharing it with us!
Another good bit:
To go back to other potent cheap serial fiction, let me quickly point out that we remember Dickens as a novelist, but not as a lifelong radical who fronted a journalists’ strike at 20, made his name initially as a parliamentary reporter as much as anything, ran a major women’s shelter for years, directed a vast array of others’ charitable projects, visited every new form of prison to open in his country and wherever he traveled to as part of his effort to stay an informed advocate for carceral justice, edited liberal periodicals for decades and promoted many female authors therein. Etc., etc.
There is a massive project, in all the nation-building, heritage-canonising costume drama adaptations, which tend to minimise class in their every visual and story-telling choice, to erase “Dickens as activist.” The one (one!) Dickens biopic (Dickens of London) attempts to render his activism entirely personal—muted, projected self-interest (when it really, really wasn’t)—and thus acceptable to the audience. If you’re familiar with his biography and/or certain areas of English Victorian history, you’ll know what a massive project this is: we are building an oubliette as deep as the Mariana Trench. This is psychic work on par with Abbie Hoffman’s attempt to levitate the Pentagon with the power of his fucking mind.
I hope that's an accurate description! I should check.
While Kirk may not be sexist, the show is definitely designed to titillate. The skirts were really, really short, and the outfits very snug. Star Trek is a classic, in that it is still as...
While Kirk may not be sexist, the show is definitely designed to titillate. The skirts were really, really short, and the outfits very snug.
Star Trek is a classic, in that it is still as fascinating to watch today as it was 40 years ago.
I watched the show as a kid. Upon rewatching as an adult, I was surprised at three things.
William Shatner's acting is not bad. Kirk's character is not one dimensional at all. At least, no worse than any other actor on the show.
The multi-cultural aspect just seems so normal now, even though it apparently caused a stir at the time.
By the way, this post is about more than just defeating the myth of womanizer Kirk, I just didn't know how to fit that in a title. This should give a good idea of how it's looking to explain why and how this happened:
This is great work. Thanks for sharing it with us!
Another good bit:
I hope that's an accurate description! I should check.
While Kirk may not be sexist, the show is definitely designed to titillate. The skirts were really, really short, and the outfits very snug.
Star Trek is a classic, in that it is still as fascinating to watch today as it was 40 years ago.
I watched the show as a kid. Upon rewatching as an adult, I was surprised at three things.