Jump to content

Enterprise and feminism?


Recommended Posts

I'm hoping there are some Star Trek fans out there that can help me with this. So I have an English professor who, in the midst of a lecture, made a statement that during the late 1960's and the sexual revolution that the reason for the design of the NSS Enterprise's saucer-like shape directly relates to femininity. Rather than a phallic shaped like craft depicting masculinity that the creators went with something more relevant to the times and wanted to relate to feminism.

 

Anybody know if there is truth in this? I couldn't find anything while looking it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 7 in the copyright 1995, 298 page, book The Art of Star Trek by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens with an introduction by Herman Zimmerman has on it, 
 

Quote

At first, Jeffries recalls, "Gene said he didn't want to see any rockets, no jets, no firestreams, or anything like that. So I bought whatever I could find on Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon and pinned it up on the wall and said, 'That we will not do.' At the time, I had been a member of the Aviation Writers' Association for almost ten years, and I had all kinds of mailings from Douglas, and Lockheed, and Boeing, and NASA. So I put all of that stuff on the wall and said, 'We won't do this either.' So now, at least, I could begin to define some kind of envelope."
The "envelope" to which Jeffries refers describes the boundaries of possible designs for the Enterprise. It couldn't look like a classic, and thus dated, science-fiction rocketship. But neither could it resemble anything on NASA's drawing boards because that would too quickly date the design. Somewhere between the cartoons of the past and the reality of the present, Matt Jeffries had to arrive at a design of the future.

 

Looks like its design had less to do with social causes and more to do with being marketable as its own distinct entity.

 

Though not providing much to answer the question here, this 2016 book about, and partly by, the fellow who built the studio models is well worth the read,

 

36695077525_6f49ac5b70_z.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Whiskey said:

 So I have an English professor who, in the midst of a lecture, made a statement that during the late 1960's and the sexual revolution that the reason for the design of the NSS Enterprise's saucer-like shape directly relates to femininity.

For some odd reason, the word retcon has come to mind.

I can't even begin to imagine what would cause that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember right the shape was derived somehow from designs of some  old sailing ships.  It was in a book that was published back when the show was on the air.  I used to have a copy but unfortunately my Mother gave away or threw away most of my things when I was overseas.  It looks like you got stuck with someone who's trying to push their P.C. agenda on students.  

 

You might try contacting a site called memory alpha that deals with the history of Star Trek or a club of fans of the show.  Now Gene Roddenbury did have a argument with the higher-ups about the amount of women of the ship.  They were concerned that if there were about a 50/50 mix then the audience might think there was things going on with the crew members when not on duty.  To setle it he proposed that only 1/3 of the crew be women.  What he didn't tell them was that he thought that 1/3 should be able to handle 2/3s, and they bought it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked him about it on Monday and he "clarified" his comments stating that the design of the ship and the reference to feminism was his interpretation. In that era all space craft that we, as humans, we launching we just tall, long, pointy and phallic shaped rockets. Then out comes this thing on a tv show that looks remarkably similar to the shape of:

61cea020f80165c5c792cc3c03736da3--venus-

 

Admittingly it is an interesting theory however as far as I have been able to find, it is just a theory. I don't have any reason to believe that he has a politically correct agenda to push on anyone as the context of his discussion was purely about events during a time that a specific story we read was written. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your prof is offering an interpretation colored by fifty years of cultural evolution.  I, too, had "The Making of Star Trek" as a youth and there were a number of designs offered for Roddenberry's approval before the final shape was chosen.  The Enterprise nearly had a sphere for the primary hull and the final shape approved was actually submitted upside-down but Roddenberry didn't like it until he flipped it, then he gave his stamp of approval.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you for searching out answers and seeking clarification rather then relying on/trusting in what your professor said. I wish more of my students would do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2018 at 2:27 PM, Whiskey said:

I asked him about it on Monday and he "clarified" his comments stating that the design of the ship and the reference to feminism was his interpretation. In that era all space craft that we, as humans, we launching we just tall, long, pointy and phallic shaped rockets. Then out comes this thing on a tv show that looks remarkably similar to the shape of:

61cea020f80165c5c792cc3c03736da3--venus-

 

Admittingly it is an interesting theory however as far as I have been able to find, it is just a theory. I don't have any reason to believe that he has a politically correct agenda to push on anyone as the context of his discussion was purely about events during a time that a specific story we read was written. 

Sounds to me to be an all too typical case lately of a professor trying to input a social issue into a subject where it has NO real basis. You could POSSIBLY stretch the argument into a sub-conscious feminine design element of the designer but I highly doubt that since the symbol for female itself is not all that feminine. And long pointy rockets, come to find out, are actually a design that is practical for launching an object into space. Go figure. When you get to that level of engineering, form follows function....like a LONG way back behind function. Look no further than the lunar module to see an example that they could really care less what it looked like. It's whether or not it worked. I think it's just wanting to make an issue where there was none in order to prove a point of view. That's just my opinion.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill (niart17) spake the truth...

 

Sadly, the rest of the students will repeat that blather as if it came from an authoritative source...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...