Doctor Who vs. Agents of SHIELD--Creating Strong Female Characters

Doctor Who vs. Agents of SHIELD—Creating Strong Female Characters
By Cynthianna

As a follow up to my critique of the Doctor Who 2014 season finale (The Death of Doctor Who), I thought I’d give you some insight into how I formed my opinion. I read manuscripts for a living; I edit manuscripts for a living; I write manuscripts for a living. In other words, I help create characters on a daily basis. Top that with an education in film studies and psychology, and you can understand why I don’t watch TV in quite the same way as others watch TV. Many viewers simply turn on the telly in order to lull themselves to sleep at night. When I switch it on, I analyze characters, de-construct plots, and ask difficult questions of those in editorial control. Sometimes it lulls me to sleep, too.

This introduction leads to the point of this piece: Creating strong female characters and how it applies to two current science fiction television series, Doctor Who (new version) and Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD. How are strong characters created on screen? In visual mediums we see characters acting out their personality traits through dialogue and actions. We don’t read captions proclaiming “shy girl” or “bad guy” or “nerd” under the face of the actor to tell us the character’s disposition or his/her role in the story. We infer their personalities by watching the actors bring the characters to life through their interpretation of the dialogue and physical direction given in the script. Therefore, we see a little girl hiding in a corner, a sneering mobster wielding a gun, or a computer jockey entranced in front of her keyboard. 

The actors don’t create the characters per se—they are simply the means by which the characters written in the script are shown to the viewers. The final responsibility for creating strong characters rests with the TV show's writers and producers—not its actors. Sometimes fans confuse these two groups and blame the actors for a show's failures when nothing could be further from the truth.

My biggest disappointment with the current season of Doctor Who, besides the producer’s apparent lack of respect for sci-fi fans’ sensibilities and intelligence, is its failure to create strong female characters. It’s not enough for a producer to state, “This is a strong female character because I say so.” Viewers need to see female characters acting strong and competent in a consistent manner; otherwise, why should we believe this claim? Just as an out-of-tune guitar string after a few strums becomes annoying and irritating, so does an inconsistent character. We long to experience a character in tune. Many fans will give up on a TV series when the characters seem out of tune. Once an exodus of viewers begins, it can be difficult to halt.

All is not lost in TV-land in 2014, however. Excellent examples of consistently strong female characters in a science fiction setting can be found on Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD. While Doctor Who has only one regular female lead this season, Agents of SHIELD presents Agents Melinda May, Jemma Simmons, and Skye. These characters are all portrayed as capable career women who concentrate on the task at hand. Simmons is a biochemist with two Ph.D.s, and Skye is a computer hacker second to none. Ace pilot May runs intricate operations as the second-in-command and kicks butt with her martial arts skills. She isn’t a twenty-something, either. It’s really nice to see a television series that demonstrates women do get better with age!

In every episode this season so far May, Simmons, and Skye have worked hard to keep the world safe and to clear SHIELD’s tarnished name. None of these characters waste much screen time putting theirs or their male companions’ romantic needs before the mission objective. Men and women in Agents of SHIELD are portrayed as equals, fellow agents working together in a just cause. Sure, there is a minor storyline of one minor character, Agent Bobbi Morse, and her ex-husband working together (and possibly reconciling), but the screen time devoted to this subplot is minimal compared to the overall story and doesn’t detract from the integrity of the characters. The female agents of SHIELD have a job to do, and they do it well. 

By contrast, the Doctor’s lone companion in the TARDIS this season is Clara Oswald, a young woman in her mid-twenties. Clara, a middle school English teacher, has a romantic companion in the character of Danny Pink, a former soldier turned math teacher. Unfortunately, Danny doesn’t become a regular companion in the TARDIS as many viewers had hoped after seeing previews. Danny’s character is written as a stereotypical “baby-killer”, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. A more sensitive portrayal of a young soldier would have been appreciated, since many sci-fi fans currently serve or have served in the military.

Viewers quickly learn that servicemen who served in an unpopular war are still worth fretting over by female characters, however. Clara worries how her boyfriend Danny will cope with her obsession with the Doctor and her desire for exotic exploits. In fact, much screen time in the season’s premiere is spent on Clara dealing with her conflicting emotions over the Doctor’s newly regenerated form. How can Clara have romantic feelings for a thousand year old Time Lord who now appears to no longer be a twenty-something but a silver fox of fifty-ish? Science fiction fans could be excused for thinking they were watching a Downton Abbey repeat, or some other soap opera, instead of a sci-fi/fantasy adventure. What has the Doctor’s sex appeal for Clara got to do with his ability to save mankind or travel through time and space?

The character of Clara Oswald in episodes written by producer Steven Moffat demonstrates to viewers—particularly impressionable young girls—that a woman’s primary function in life is to please her man. For Clara, this could be construed as either Danny or the Doctor depending on the episode. The inconsistent rendering of her character becomes irritating, but the missed opportunity of turning Clara into a strong female role model is more than annoying—it’s tragic. Apparently Moffat did not create the character of Clara to be an equal to either the Doctor or Danny. She could have easily been written as a compassionate teacher with reserves of patience and courage (such as classic series companion Barbara Wright), but instead we witness her rudely slapping the recently-regenerated Doctor. (Is corporeal punishment still allowed in British schools, and is it ever acceptable for adults to slug their friends? Ouch.)

Clara’s poorly crafted character isn’t unique in Moffat’s Doctor Who. Most of the female characters in the Moffat-written episodes fail the Bechdel Test. (The Bechdel Test was developed for films. To pass, a movie must have at least two women in it who talk to each other about something besides a man. Read more: Sexism and Doctor Who)  The Doctor’s female companions generally don’t work side-by-side on projects as the female agents do on Agents of SHIELD. Instead, they focus their dialogue and actions on the male characters’ needs and directives. (One exception: Donna Noble and Martha Jones did work together in a few 2009 episodes. They have much higher Bechdel Test scores than more recent companions.) But it could be argued that the new series Doctor Who female characters have been created simply to serve as window dressing. Male characters get to make the important decisions.

A troubling question could be asked of show runner Steven Moffat: Were the female characters in this latest season of Doctor Who created solely to please male fans without a thought to how women fans may view these same characters? It’s possible. At least, it appears that some reoccurring female characters have been created to entertain males. The Silurian sleuth Madame Vastra and her human sidekick Jenny, lesbian lovers in Victorian England, seem to be added as titillation for teenage boys. After all, porn movies with lesbian action are aimed primarily at heterosexual males, are they not? (Notably absent in Moffat’s era, the reoccurring character of Captain Jack Harkness, a bisexual. Is Moffat afraid Jack's bisexuality wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men?)

If Vastra and Jenny are to be seen as equals to the show’s male characters, why aren’t they shown doing more science and making less references to their mutual attraction? Work is work. What you do in your bedroom stays there during work hours. How do repeated references to any of the characters’ sexual orientations help the Doctor save the day? Sexual expression is a topic for late-night adult programs. Better for an earlier-in-the-evening series to present characters working together as equals and allow them to get on with fighting monsters and saving the world without unnecessary interruptions.

Romantic subplots and sexual innuendos were few and far between in the classic series of Doctor Who and for good reason—they detracted from the storylines aimed at a family audience. Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD seems to have taken the place of Doctor Who as a family-friendly television show for sci-fi/fantasy fans with a minimum of adult soap opera theatrics.

Child-friendly show or not, creating strong female characters should be at the top of every television producer’s list. Women watch a lot of television, simply put, and mothers exercise control over what they allow their children to watch. It’s foolhardy to disappoint such a large portion of the viewing audience.

We sometimes forget that it’s been less than one hundred years since women gained the right to vote in the United States and in many other countries. We sometimes forget that women are still victimized and kept “in their place” through violence and rape. We sometimes forget the horrors of human trafficking and sexual slavery still exist. It’s time that we stop forgetting and take positive action in all our forms of entertainment to teach children—and adults—that women and men are equals. Female characters deserve to be created and portrayed on the screen with respect and dignity. Female characters should act as positive role models and not reinforce negative stereotypes.

To sum up, women aren’t just eye candy to gain television ratings. We have brains and abilities. To denigrate one of us is to denigrate us all. 

  grammarly.com/grammarcheck

The Death of Doctor Who (As Engineered by Steven Moffat)

An excellent Doctor in need of a decent producer.

The Death of Doctor Who

(As Engineered by Steven Moffat)

by Cynthianna

After viewing Doctor Who’s final episode of the season, Death in Heaven, my husband said he could write a review of it in two words: Train wreck. I told him I could use only one:

Ugh.

Okay, okay I’ll explain myself: After eight months of anticipation brewing, we, the venerable sci-fi/fantasy show’s fans, eagerly looked forward to spectacularly talented actor Peter Capaldi gracing our television screens in the title role. Alas, many of us found ourselves rather disappointed in the twelfth Doctor’s rather weak presentation to the world in his debut episode (read my I Got the Doctor Who Let Down Blues). We didn’t lay the blame for its failure to inspire on the great actor or our beloved series’ basic premise, however. It was all too obvious the weak script poor Peter and company had been given to work with was to blame. I felt that the actors and craftspersons involved honestly did the best they could do with the material, but you could sense they were struggling at times. 

One of the better episodes not written by Moffat.

Holding our breath (some might say our noses), we, the long-suffering fans, continued watching the remaining episodes of the season hoping the quality of scripts would improve. After a few rare glorious moments, many fans felt we had caught glimpses of the magic from the earlier Doctor Who era—particularly in strongly-written episodes such as Mummy on the Orient Express, Flatline, and In the Forest of the Night. Huzzah! So, you could well imagine the crushing feeling fans like my husband and I experienced when we turned on the series’ two part finale… ugh. Not only had the beauty and strengths of the original source material and cherished characters been denigrated, but our hopes for a long run of the revived Doctor Who series have flagged.

Once again, my husband is right in saying our disappointment can be summed up in only two words: Steven Moffat.

Mr. Moffat is the show’s producer, to put it in American terms, or “show runner” to use the Beeb’s vernacular, and that makes him the person responsible for making editorial decisions. As a published author and editor myself, I know that responsibility for the success or failure of a creative venture rests with the person in charge of its editorial content. It’s up to the editor/producer to put his or her foot down sometimes and say, “We’re not going there.” Intelligently choosing scripts and hiring good scriptwriters to produce story lines is a big part of the job, in other words. It’s not a task to take lightly, especially when producing the fifty-plus year television milestone which is Doctor Who.

Alternate title: Mary Poppins Flies Again!

I’m not really the type of fan who has either the time or inclination to go around the Internet griping about the producers of Doctor Who (I’ve encountered fans who do), but I have to agree with quite a few of my fellow Whovians this year. We’ve been let down by Mr. Moffat. There’s not much positive one can say about the situation. There aren’t words enough to express how sad one feels watching what was promised to be a revival of the series’ special something, that je ne sais quoi, being flushed down the drain. And yes, it’s emboldened me to speak out before it’s too late.

For there is one other word that springs to mind apart from ugh to describe my reaction to Moffat’s Death in Heaven:

Disrespectful.

There’s a niggling sense of fan disrespectfulness in many Moffat-written or co-written episodes of Doctor Who, but perhaps they’re not all fully realized until this season’s finale. The fans’ sensibilities are once again taken for granted as the Cybermen’s genesis and motivations are co-opted in order to do a remake of Marvel’s Iron Man. Throw some very poor science into the science fiction—the part human/part cyborgs can now “grow” out of “pollen” that is “planted” into dead bodies—and one gets the feeling that Mr. Moffat doesn’t take the genre seriously at all. Zombies are all the rage now? Throw them into the mish-mash along with Iron Man!

“Look they can fly like Tony Stark can!”

You can almost hear Mr. Moffat laughing in the background… “Research? Bah humbug! Those silly Doctor Who fans don’t care about well-crafted sci-fi/fantasy. I mean, if they’ll believe a newborn space dragon can lay an egg the size of the moon a few minutes after it hatches (the premise of Kill the Moon) then they’ll believe anything. They’re all thick! They’re adults watching a kid’s show! We can do whatever we want and they’ll buy it.”

It’s a disrespectful attitude and insulting. Yes, another one word review: Insulting.

Whatever the failings of classic era producers and scriptwriters at least fans didn’t feel as if they were being talked down to, belittled or openly scorned for loving a family-friendly, sci-fi/fantasy television show. Yet Death in Heaven goes on to new heights of insulting fan sensibilities by turning the Doctor’s archenemy the Master into childhood icon Mary Poppins complete with the big hat and flying umbrella—because somehow ripping off recent zombie hits and Iron Man wasn’t enough. For the record, I’m not against the Master changing genders at all, but I am against a non-original and sexist interpretation of the beloved villain from the classic series. Which leads me to another one word charge that many, many female fans have leveled at Mr. Moffat:

Sexist.

"Love me--please?" (Or co-dependency is cool.)

There’s a great scholarly article on Sexism in Doctor Who (http://rebeccaamoore.com/2014/05/29/university-study-on-sexism-in-bbcs-doctor-who-infographic/) that I won’t reiterate here, but the author makes a very strong argument that many of the Moffat-written scripts fail the Bechdel Test—and fail it miserably. For the most part women in the classic series (1963 – 1989) were presented as strong, intelligent, reasoning individuals with distinct personalities, equal in ego-integrity to the Doctor. In other words, worthy companions. Sure, some female companions screamed at a monster now and then, but so did quite a few of the Doctor’s male companions. Nasty things jumping out from the shadows or dark alleyways can do that to a person of either gender.

Rest assured, the Moffat era of Doctor Who has put women in sci-fi firmly in their place—right where they belong beneath the men! Young, good-looking females are depicted as simply “girlfriends” who suffer from hormonal fluctuations of emotions which make them constantly fret about whether the Doctor is still their boyfriend or not (if he ever was) and occasionally even slap him. Careers? For women? Get real! It’s not deemed important to show the current crop of female companions as successful career women. The female companion’s career takes a backseat to all the worrying and fretting about the Doctor and her human lovers she is forced to do because of her inferior biology, just like it does for most twenty-first century women, right?

Angst-riddled dialogue and silly arguments abound among the romantic couples in Moffat’s Doctor Who, bringing back memories of the good ol’ days of seventh grade crushes and break-ups in the junior high cafeteria. Female companions need never mature to an emotional age of beyond twelve or thirteen it seems in Moffat’s fictional world. Ditto for their male lovers. The new era of Doctor Who has become an adolescent packed space opera—or is it simply a soap opera? Original Doctor Who producer Verity Lambert had it all wrong! (She was only a woman, you know.) Who needs intelligent characters working on solving problems intelligently using the scientific method?

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...and down...

This is particularly true if you’re a brilliant male scientist and you find yourself regenerated into the body of a woman. The Master, formerly depicted on screen as a capable, dedicated and determined evil genius, once converted over to the female gender gives himself a girlie nickname like “Missy” and dresses up like every little girl’s favorite Edwardian nanny, Mary Poppins. He/she still wants to take over the world, but now she does it while wearing bright red lipstick and trying to stick her tongue down the back of the Doctor’s throat. How grown up!

Moffat seems to be giving a wink and a nudge to all the sexist male fans, intimating that once a mad scientist has lost his masculinity he certainly wouldn’t want to impress people that he was still an evil genius by acting like…well, like an actual genius. A person with a brain and intelligence and a plan...but hey! Once you’re wearing a dress and lipstick you can’t act any smarter than a seventh grader, right? Must be those girlie hormones!

Sarah Jane's bravery and intelligence--awesome to watch.

No wonder fans of the classic series of Doctor Who despair. Where are ace scientist Liz Shaw, investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith, and master teacher Barbara Wright when you need them? Thank heavens for those of us who can receive the Retro-TV channel in the U.S. Episodes of the classic series are broadcast five nights a week, and you can see these strong feminist role models there, a breath of fresh air compared to the twelve year old antics of Moffat’s female companions.

Thank heaven indeed—which leads me to another word that describes Death in Heaven: Tacky.

Perhaps tasteless would work as well as tacky. At one point in the story, the Doctor tells the U.N.I.T. team that they don’t want Americans involved with dealing with the Cybermen crisis because all Americans do is “drop bombs and pray.” Asking for Divine Guidance is a big no-no apparently since only stupid people (women?) would ever think it was a good idea. And perhaps attracting and maintaining American viewers isn’t at the top of the BBC America’s list of profitable things to do, either? 

Tacky jokes cracked about the vast majority of TV viewers’ faith in a Supreme Being shows rather poor judgement on Moffat’s part. Sure, he can be atheist and anti-American, but he doesn’t have to be mean-spirited about it, does he? Didn’t political rhetoric, which insulted the conservative-minded BBC chairman, get the original series cancelled back in the 1980s? 

R.I.P. Brigadier

My husband found the idea of “resurrecting” the late Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart in the graveyard to be in extremely poor taste. Even if you don’t believe in an afterlife or heaven, why would you condemn a righteous and moral character such as the Brigadier to become a mindless cyborgs puppet for all eternity? There’s that ugh factor creeping in… Tasteless and tacky shouldn’t be words associated with a family-friendly show, but in this day and age of nasty trolling and snarky musings, I guess it was bound to happen to Doctor Who, too. So sad that Mr. Moffat couldn’t rise above it for the good of the series.

Because, in the end, it appears that Mr. Moffat wants out of Doctor Who. Why else would he risk insulting folks with tacky and tasteless quips, repeatedly show female characters in a stereotypically sexist light, and show outright contempt of the classic series and disrespect for the intelligence of the sci-fi fan base as a whole? Why would he do any of these rash and insipid things unless deep-down he wants the program to be canceled? Moffat’s production of Sherlock has done well in the ratings, and perhaps that’s where his heart lies. Certainly writing for a character such as his version of Sherlock Holmes, an autistic, emotionally-stunted savant, seems to fit better with Moffat’s outlook on life. He can express himself creatively there.

Disrespectful, insulting, sexist, tacky… ugh. I won’t even bother to point out plot holes, heavily-telegraphed plot points, and others inconsistencies in Death in Heaven. Nick Frost as Santa Claus—or should I say Father Christmas?--will probably fill them all in in the holiday special and tie things up with a nice big bow in a neat little package, right? For an atheist like Mr. Moffat to put so much faith in a saint (St. Nicholas) to perform such a miracle of scriptwriting during the one the holiest seasons of the Christian calendar is too bizarre to contemplate.

Time to move along, Steven.

Steven Moffat should depart Doctor Who and move on to pastures green, and he should do so now before the show loses any more support from the fans. Peter Capaldi’s portrayal of the Doctor deserves a chance to shine away from the dross of the Moffat era. Doctor Who deserves fresh air, fresh ideas, and maybe even some female writers and producers this next time out?

Are you listening, BBC?

Inequality--Blog Action Day 2014

http://www.blogactionday.org

From time to time I go off the rails. I mean, I get serious and stop posting fun snippets from my books or talking about attending sci-fi cons and actually write an opinion piece. This is one of those times. You can leave now if you wish. You've been warned.



 

If you're still reading, welcome to Blog Action Day 2014. This year's topic is inequality. Bloggers around the world are posting pieces about inequality today. The above Facebook meme really speaks to me about inequality because it directly affects me as a woman. Just because I was born with two X chromosomes this somehow it means I need my life choices regulated by a bunch of old farts in the statehouse or Washington, D.C. That thought really raises my blood pressure.

What is it with these men (mostly men--I realize there are some "good ol' gals" among these politicians who toe the party line) that they feel women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies? Are we an inferior species? If that's the case, then why did the Creator give us the ability to bear children and nurse them? Seems to me women are far from inferior creatures! It could even be argued women are both physically and psychologically superior to men since God thinks we're the gender with the best attributes to carry and nurture babies. But apparently women are mentally and morally deficient--and the government has to step in and tell us how to think and act for our own good.

Could these myriad of U.S. regulations aimed at controling women's bodies be an attempt to keep us in our place? Think about it. If women are free to do as they like, we might do things that men (especially old farts) don't like. We might decide that they don't want to stay at home in the kitchen all day long, barefoot and pregnant. Women might use their minds to study and hone their skills and have--gasp!--actual careers! Women might even aspire to position of powers over men... The horror!

Insecure males can't have females competing against them for jobs and positions. It's just not done! Here's a telling quote from an article about a recent remark made by Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella saying that it’s “good karma” for women not to ask for a pay raise, but to “trust the system” to eventually reward them: 

Nadella’s words have struck a sensitive chord with the public, as the discrepancy in salaries women and men get is notable. US women received 78 percent of what equally qualified men received in 2013, according to research by the American Association of University Women, cited by Reuters.(Full article at http://rt.com/news/194740-karma-women-microsoft-criticism/   Another good article about women and how they are perceived in the workplace: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/learning-to-love-criticism.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1 )

Women throughout history have been forced into second class citizen roles to keep us in our place. Less pay, less chance for advancement, less reward for our hard work... What better way to shut women up permanently and keep us at odds with each other than to attack us at our most vulnerable spot--the very control of our bodies?

We've all heard the old adages "good girls don't" but that "boys will be boys." By legislating a double standard we impose a twenty-first century equivalent of slavery on the female gender. If forcing women into sexual and economic slavery doesn't count as inequality, what does?

We're unequal before the law. A woman can't even make an intimate decision about her reproductive health with her doctor without some buttinski politician forcing his opinion into the mix. The decisions women are forced to make are sometimes terrible, agreed, but I do believe no woman takes these types of decisions lightly or believes she has a better option at the time. Let's trust that women who need to make these decisions aren't moral or mental defectives. Let's trust them to make their own decisions about their bodies and health. Let's leave them in peace and give them the privacy to do so.

By making access to birth control more difficult through legislation which actively prevents medical coverage for it, the double standard shines brighter than ever. Viagra is covered under many health insurance plans, but the Pill isn't? Why would any sane person in the year 2014 think that making birth control methods harder to obtain is going to stop women from have sex? After all, a male can forcefully use a female's body for his own sick pleasure, but she is stuck with the damning labels of "adulteress" and "murderer" if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy his vile actions caused? Why are the victim's rights and mental/emotional/physical health not as important as her rapist's?

I think Jesus said it best: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Inequality is sin. Women are God's creation, too. God made us capable of making our own decisions. Old farts--leave our bodies and our decisions alone!

Look for these hashtags to find more Blog Action Day posts on the topic of inequality: #BAD2014, #Inequality, #BlogAction, #OCT16, and #BlogAction14

Racism: Not MY Science Fiction!

 

I'm a nerd. Like my earrings?

Some days I have to pinch myself and ask, "What year is this?"

To be clear, I don't drink and I'm not on any medications. It's just that sometimes people and events strike me in such a way that I can't quite believe I'm living in the twenty-first century. For a writer of speculative fiction, it's doubly odd to think that others who love to read, write, and discuss science fiction/fantasy books, TV, and film like I do would hold onto outdated beliefs of racial superiority and want to celebrate these beliefs by honoring a publication that prints such content.

I won't mention the names of the publication,the  sci-fi convention, or the individuals involved because this isn't a rant or tirade to tear down the reputations of these institutions or individuals. (I'm honestly worried about them.) This is just an attempt to come to terms with the horribleness of a situation that fills my heart with fear and dread. And, as a writer, I work through weighty problems in prose.

I think the Twilight Zone moment came for me when I expressed my horror on an online forum at the idea that a beloved sci-fi con would even contemplate honoring  a science fiction-oriented publication that would print racial slurs as "humor". I was told I was on a "witch hunt" and trying to "censor" free speech. When I tried to explain that an editor of an ezine is both legally and morally responsible for the contents of said publication and must take responsibility for the outrage that its content could incur, it seemed to fall on deaf ears. Here's what I said:

A "compiler" (of an ezine) is still considered an "editor"--they are the person or group of persons who put together a magazine or ezine. They put their name(s) on the publication as the person(s) who take responsibility for its contents. If this editor doesn't want to take responsibility for the contents of his ezine, then he should have struck his name off it a while back. I have nothing against the man personally--never met him--but as a professional writer/editor I have to make judgement calls on what is suitable for publication all the time. (I'm paid to do this!) If the writing of a manuscript is substandard--the book doesn't make it out of the slushpile. If the content is offensive to the majority of readers in 2014 (that's 2014 not 1854), I have to tell the publisher that the content is possibly something they wouldn't feel comfortable publishing. It's the way the publishing world works. If you are "self-publishing" you are essentially taking on all the legal responsibility of a publisher upon yourself as "editor/compiler". 

So, once again, does the convention want to "honor" (give credit and glorify) racist jokes? I would think the majority of convention attendees would be adults who wouldn't find racist humor funny. I never said that this editor couldn't attend the con or that he has never helped out at other cons. Good for him! However, if he has taken on the responsibility of publishing racist commentary and his name is on the publication, then he must accept the outrage publishing such racist commentary can incur in the year 2014. 

 That's about it. I grew up loving science fiction in the era of the original series of Star Trek where Mr. Spock talked about "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" and other such nonsense. Thing is, I believed it. Uhuru was an African professional woman who worked alongside an Asian navigator and people from diverse Caucasian backgrounds on the bridge of the starship Enterprise. They didn't make juvenile racist jokes at each other's expense. They reflected Gene Roddenberry's dream that some day soon all of mankind would live in peace and harmony. 

It's a beautiful dream. Why are some folks in the twenty-first century trying to kill it?

Are they afraid it's coming true? You look into any elementary school these days and you won't see what I saw when I entered first grade in the South. You see white kids and black kids and red kids and yellow kids and brown kids and kids who are something altogether unique. We've become a multicultural and diverse society. Star Trek is coming true! My heart soars!

But for others... they're afraid. They don't like change. They want to live in the nineteenth century where slaves and women knew their place and don't speak back to their superiors. And so they lash out through the glorification of demeaning, bigoted humor to put people of color, women, homosexuals, and other minority groups in their place. The worse thing of it for me is that these haters dare to call what they write science fiction.

Oh, Gene! Please come back! We truly need your shining optimism about mankind's diverse and peaceful future!

Do those who espouse racist beliefs have the right to exercise free speech under the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Do these same people deserve to have their racist speech honored at a volunteer convention where some of the volunteers aren't white, heterosexual males of a certain age and social status? No, they do not. If the white heterosexual males of a certain age/status can't see why some volunteers might feel nervous and uncomfortable knowing they're not really accepted by the convention's board of directors because of the color of their skin, their gender identity, or other minority protected status, then it might be time to take the board to a first grade class and introduce them to the next generation of science fiction fans.

Because what it comes down to is this: a fan-run sci-fi convention is about the fans. They are a diverse and lively lot, and they live in the year 2014--not 1854. 

Let's not take a step backward. Let's "boldly go where no one has gone before!"

True science fiction fans celebrate diversity. They do not attempt to squash it.

(Feel free to leave a comment below. Please act like adults and use your manners--no profanity,  name-calling, or finger-pointing. In other words, plese refrain from cursing or other nasty words. This is a family-friendly blog. Thank you.)

(P.S. If you like my TARDIS earrings in the photo above, check out my hubby's Etsy store: http://www.etsy.com/shop/TheophilusSaxe )