![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Star Trek and Fraternisation
Star Trek military is loosely based on the US Navy, but there are some major differences.
It's interesting to speculate as to why.
A conversation with a friend sparked off a few thoughts.
The original Star Trek series aired in 1966. I'd wondered (given the lack of fraternisation restrictions in Trek compared with newer shows like Stargate) whether Trek predated women in the US Navy.
Murray did some searching on the US Navy's website, and found a lot of information here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq48-1.htm
It appears that women were first recruited in 1908 as nurses, then more were recruited for clerical jobs in 1917, just before the USA entered WWI. They were, however, kept ashore. It was only in 1979 that women were posted aboard ship, and then on ships that would not be in combat. Such postings did not take place until 1994.
Which seems to back up my premise. Women on board ships came long after Classic Trek (so all credit to Gene Rodenberry).
We know relationships were allows in Classic Trek as there's a marriage between two crew members in one episode. (and indeed, with a mixed crew on a five-year mission it really could not be any other way). The more important consideration is relationships between people of different ranks, specifically officers and enlisted men. (And doubly so if they're in the same line of command)
I think being a Stargate fan made me especially aware of the line of command issue. The ongoing 'almost romance' between Carter and O'Neill was frozen for season after season for this reason (and also, because the network knows that UST sells better...).
So, where does this specifically relate to Trek?
Kirk for example, in the Classic series, was wise enough never to have relationships (canonically) with members of his crew. A wise decision and one the US Navy would probably have approved. It's very hard to avoid the appearance of favouritism, it's probably bad for morale and it may well affect the decision as to who to send into a dangerous situation.
See the US Navy on their fraternisation policy. Note that it isn't just sexual relationships that are prohibited, activities like lending money also constitute fraternisation between officers and enlisted man.
So, Kirk is in the clear. He may still be James 'T for tomcat' Kirk, but he only shags women outside his crew. He might have gotten away with a relationship with a bridge officer as they're officers, but probably not a very good idea in practise as they're direct line of command.
However, my big issue with the movieis Spock/Uhura. This is probably a viable relationship when they're both serving on Enterprise, but was totally wrong at Starfleet Academy. The US Navy list of prohibited relationships specifically includes instructor/student, and it's very clear that their relationship was ongoing when she was still a student. And it's also clear that the relationship did impact on their actions - which is precisely why such relationships are forbidden. Initially Spock does not assign her to Enterprise in order to avoid the appearance of favouritism - when her standing in the class should have sent her there. Then, equally badly, Uhura uses their relationship to change Spock's inital decision.
It's a lovely romance, and I actually quite like the relationship between them, but I am very very surprised that Spock, who would be totally familiar with both the regulations and the ethics of such a relationship, would ever have allowed it to happen.
It's interesting to speculate as to why.
A conversation with a friend sparked off a few thoughts.
The original Star Trek series aired in 1966. I'd wondered (given the lack of fraternisation restrictions in Trek compared with newer shows like Stargate) whether Trek predated women in the US Navy.
Murray did some searching on the US Navy's website, and found a lot of information here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq48-1.htm
It appears that women were first recruited in 1908 as nurses, then more were recruited for clerical jobs in 1917, just before the USA entered WWI. They were, however, kept ashore. It was only in 1979 that women were posted aboard ship, and then on ships that would not be in combat. Such postings did not take place until 1994.
Which seems to back up my premise. Women on board ships came long after Classic Trek (so all credit to Gene Rodenberry).
We know relationships were allows in Classic Trek as there's a marriage between two crew members in one episode. (and indeed, with a mixed crew on a five-year mission it really could not be any other way). The more important consideration is relationships between people of different ranks, specifically officers and enlisted men. (And doubly so if they're in the same line of command)
I think being a Stargate fan made me especially aware of the line of command issue. The ongoing 'almost romance' between Carter and O'Neill was frozen for season after season for this reason (and also, because the network knows that UST sells better...).
So, where does this specifically relate to Trek?
Kirk for example, in the Classic series, was wise enough never to have relationships (canonically) with members of his crew. A wise decision and one the US Navy would probably have approved. It's very hard to avoid the appearance of favouritism, it's probably bad for morale and it may well affect the decision as to who to send into a dangerous situation.
See the US Navy on their fraternisation policy. Note that it isn't just sexual relationships that are prohibited, activities like lending money also constitute fraternisation between officers and enlisted man.
So, Kirk is in the clear. He may still be James 'T for tomcat' Kirk, but he only shags women outside his crew. He might have gotten away with a relationship with a bridge officer as they're officers, but probably not a very good idea in practise as they're direct line of command.
However, my big issue with the movieis Spock/Uhura. This is probably a viable relationship when they're both serving on Enterprise, but was totally wrong at Starfleet Academy. The US Navy list of prohibited relationships specifically includes instructor/student, and it's very clear that their relationship was ongoing when she was still a student. And it's also clear that the relationship did impact on their actions - which is precisely why such relationships are forbidden. Initially Spock does not assign her to Enterprise in order to avoid the appearance of favouritism - when her standing in the class should have sent her there. Then, equally badly, Uhura uses their relationship to change Spock's inital decision.
It's a lovely romance, and I actually quite like the relationship between them, but I am very very surprised that Spock, who would be totally familiar with both the regulations and the ethics of such a relationship, would ever have allowed it to happen.
no subject
I mostly bought it in the hopes there would be more of the cut scenes material, but aside from the one Sarek and Amanda scene, that was about it that I could see. Gaila doesn't even have a name, the 7 ships destroyed at the Battle of Vulcan are never named, and most of why I buy novelisations is to check canon as I write, yet this one was so different from the film itself that I skimmed bits and have never reread since. But novelisations have always been considered fanon--I've been going off the film itself as the only canon that's actually binding, for when I'm writing.
I am genuinely looking forward to the DVD in part becasue I can't wait to see the arguments in some of the nerdier parts of the fandom for DECADES TO COME about the canoncity of the deleted scenes, writer interviews, and commentaries. Because I'm a dork that way.
no subject
I know exactly what you mean about wanting novels for reference material. That's one of the reasons I bought it. I was after details like names of admirals.
I'm wondering if my hearing of 'aural'/'oral' is a US/UK accent thing.