StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I've been watching Discovery on Netflix and have quite enjoyed it up to episode 11 so maybe it's explained somewhere.

But why is Michael called well Michael? I thought it was just going to be that in the just gendered names aren't a thing. But then Tilly only knows of one female Michael, which is our Michael.

Or that Sarek named her and didn't get human names? But she was presumably named by her parents before they were killed.

The only purpose so far seems to be that it allowed Tilly to find out Michael was the Michael the mutineer, which she could have found out by scuttlebutt anyway.

It's a thing Bryan Fuller always does on TV shows he runs. Dead Like Me had a woman called George, Pushing Daisies had one called Chuck.

It's his thing. Like Tarantino does feet and Whedon does combat waifs and quips.

I remember reading somewhere before the first season premiered that it was going to have an explanation, but they didn't explain it in season one, or so far in season 2, and I think it's gotten dropped by the wayside.

I love it, and I don't think it requires an "explanation", because much like gender-specific clothes and gender-specific colours and so forth, gender-specific names are mostly an arbitrary social construct- of a society to which Sarek does not belong. Maybe Sarek just liked the name Michael. Who cares?

Its just a name. People have named their children much stupider things. It requires no further justification, and its only a "controversy" because some people are terrified of a world without rigid traditional gender roles.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-02-16 06:43pm I love it, and I don't think it requires an "explanation", because much like gender-specific clothes and gender-specific colours and so forth, gender-specific names are mostly an arbitrary social construct- of a society to which Sarek does not belong. Maybe Sarek just liked the name Michael. Who cares?

Its just a name. People have named their children much stupider things. It requires no further justification, and its only a "controversy" because some people are terrified of a world without rigid traditional gender roles.

You know TRR you have an amazing gift of saying things I should agree with but doing so in an utterly infuriating fashion.

I'm not suggesting there's a problem with the name or that it upsets or offends me in any way. Is it bad to be interested in the background of the character?

As I said, if no one had made a deal out of it being odd, I wouldn't have wondered. I'd have thought 'No-one in the future gives a shit about gendered names in the future, isn't that progressive?' Or maybe that Sarek gave her that name and he wouldn't know about gendered names.

But the show highlights it's an odd name even in-universe which made me think maybe they also put in an explanation. It's bad story construction to raise a point and not address it after all.

But as you say it's no big deal either way.

I'm sorry you took my comments as an attack on you personally- they were not really intended as such, though I can see in hindsight how they might have been perceived that way.

I simply don't feel any further explanation is needed, and I think that there is a mountain being made out of a molehill here- and while I can't speak to your personal motivations, I do think its fairly obvious that this wouldn't be an issue if not the arbitrary illogical of gender norms.

I'd just like to pop in and comment; I believe this is a net-positive comment but if not I apologize. TRR, I have no personal problems with you, you make solid systems-level points often; I agree with most of the actionable things you say; I respect your opinion on sociopolitical questions and I'm always happy to discuss those issues where we disagree in greater detail.

Bearing all that in mind - Crazedwraith has a point. You often come off as needlessly histrionic and/or paranoid; I, for one, am actually quite repelled by your argument style (in re: political or cultural issues) even though, as mentioned, I do in fact agree on most of the actionable stuff. Without any consideration of truth, which is explicitly not relevant to this discussion, pretty clearly you are not accomplishing what I assume you think you are. Possibly it might be worth considering modulating the overall tone an octave or two downwards.

Am I the only one who thought this was referring to Micheal Wong when I saw this thread title?