New Star Trek Show - The Feminists Are Taking Over - Yikes!

I've talked a bit about tough chicks. They exist. But do they beat people up? Do women want to see women beat people up? Do women want to go around beating people up? Do they believe in that? Do women want to see other women going around killing people?

I argued they don't. I still believe I'm right. But the trend in Hollywood is not strong women, but tough chicks. You know. See above. Whatever. That's not what I want to repeat here. The topic today is the new Star Trek show, Star Trek Discovery, which I watched and will  probably not watch again.

I'm not a Feminist, and that's why I won't watch it. Star Trek Discovery is a show that caters to the Feminist audience. I know that in this time of equal rights, there should be equal rights. But I will never agree that women should be fighting wars. Why would women want to fight in wars anyway? Do women want to fight in wars? Heck, men don't even want to fight in wars. That's why men like Muhammad Ali dodged the draft. He'd rather be in jail and fed than to be in Vietnam and dead, isn't that what he said? And I'm not saying I blame him, by the way.

So do women want to fight in wars? Do they really? Do they want to get their heads blown off? Do they want to come home from a battlefield with their legs blown off? With their faces blown off? Crippled for life? Why don't women get it? War and fighting is not some glorious thing like Wonder Woman would have you believe. It's not like Star Trek. Which brings me to my point.

Starships are warships. I don't believe a woman should command a warship of men. It just isn't right. I know women are good leaders in a school. I am a teacher and most of my principals have been women. And (for the most part) they have been great. But a school is not a battlefield. And women, imo, do not belong on a battlefield. Do they want to be on a battlefield?

I can't imagine why a woman would want to be on a battlefield. Anyone who would want to be on a battlefield would be by definition unqualified to be on that battlefield. Because that person would be mentally unstable. That ends the argument right there. Who would want to be led by an unstable person. No one. And too many times leaders have been unstable, because men who had wanted to be on a battlefield to lead have indeed been unstable. So there you go.

Okay, so again, back to Star Trek Discovery. We already had the woman starship captain in Star Trek Voyager with Captain Janeway. Quota fulfilled. Nope. Now we not only have another woman captain, but on top of that, we have the first officer also a woman. So the top two stars of the show, the captain and the first officer are women. Okay. No men. None. No testosterone, so to speak. But the first officer is providing the testosterone. She has a man's name, Michael, and she's all gung-ho in firing the first shot at the Klingons, as advised by Spock's dad. (Presumably, before Spock is born.)

So yeah. There are no men in the show, except in very minor and subservient roles. The men are the lowly officers and crewmen, relegated to taking orders from the women, and that's the premise of the show. It's a Feminist's dream, so to speak.

So if you're a Feminist and you like the Star Trek universe, this is the show for you. I like women, of course, been married to the same woman for almost thirty years, and I am all for equal rights and equal opportunity. But I will stand by my belief that women do not belong on a battlefield and women should be glad that society doesn't require them to be on a battlefield. And I will repeat this point because I think it is important. If a woman wants to be on a battlefield, then she is probably mentally unstable. And the same thing is probably true for a man.