Star Trek: Enterprise- Cogenitor. RE: race and gender discrimination

I liked this Star Trek: Enterprise episode. I remembered watching it when I was younger and liking it back then too.

In summary, the crew meets an alien race that has three genders instead of two. There is a male, a female and a "cogenitor" which secretes an enzyme during mating to biologically allow conception. Cogenitors are assigned to couple after couple as couples decide they are ready for a child. Cogenitors remain uneducated servants when they are not helping couples mate.

Trip, an opinionated officer, finds out that they are genetically just as capable as their male and female counterparts and takes it upon himself to encourage the cogenitor (which is not even given a name) to learn how to read, play games, and develop desires to travel and see things for itself.

The alien crew denies her a change in lifestyle, so it kills itself in despair and, in turn, prevents any more couples on that alien ship from mating.

The lesson can be interpreted different ways.
I associate the resistance to education with former slaves in America. It used to be illegal to teach "a person of color" how to read or write. It was scientifically believed that people of color did not have the same cognitive ability as their Caucasian counterparts. Black people were grouped into a single category, skin color, and scientists believe they were less evolved and more monkey like.

An additional interpretation is that, at one time, females in the United States were treated in a similar way. The general belief was that females has mothering tendencies males did not. With short life expectancies, few practical inexpensive books to educate, and exclusive universities, it did not seem to make practical sense to train women in advanced degrees because they would be less likely than men to have as many years in the work force to use that education due to the expectation to raise children and take care of sick family members.

I'm glad things have changed. Both gender and skin color are too broad of categories to group people into when it comes to job discrimination. If people can do something well outside of the social norm, more power to them.

Another lesson to be learned is that when you see something different from your interpretation of what you believe the world should be like and how people should think, act, and behave, think before you speak. It is not uncommon, when making conversation, to question things that are different from our beliefs and to naturally talk about why we do things the way we do. And almost as if we are defending our position to ourselves, there can be a tendency to want people to agree with us. Perhaps there are underlying emotions or desires that cause this.

For example, if I were talking about my car, I may say something like, "It's not great on fuel economy, but it is nice to have something this sturdy. Multiple cars have smashed into it, at least one of them was totaled, but this metal beast survived without needing any bodywork done. So it is kind of nice. Also, repairs are a lot easier to make than on newer cars. I've even replaced a fuel line myself (under the direction of a mechanic). So, it is kind of nice."

That paragraph said positive things that make me look like I have smart, respectable reasons for liking the car. It may even convince a listener to start liking the car. If the listener likes the car, there is a feeling of social acceptance as opposed to the self-consciousness that may come with driving an ugly gas guzzler. By saying those words, I also re-convince myself that my car is fine to drive because I dwell on the positive aspects of it.

Tying this example back to the point, Trip talked about the freedoms that come with the human rights that he grew up with in his culture. By speaking about human rights, he re-convinced himself that his way was a better way than its way. He began convincing it by continuing to talk and by encouraging her to "try out what it has been missing" (much like I could invite someone to try out the cushy bench seats and bouncy suspension in the car).

Altering someone's opinion can have negative consequence on the other person. In Trip's case, the cogenitor killed itself because it developed desires it knew it could never fulfill, such as raising a family, traveling to see mountain ranges, etc. Likewise, a few possible consequences of convincing someone that this large metal car from the 1980's would be a good car for them would be:

1. They get killed in a car accident after buying a model very similar to mine. Their death could have been prevented if the car would have had air bags.--You feel guilty they die

2.They like the car and tell their friends they want one like it and their opinionated friends think they are stupid for wanting such an old ugly style car. They become viewed as social outcasts for their new opinion. -Should this happen? No, but it does. Parents that tell their kids that their ugly gas hog car is good because of whatever can expect their children to regurgitate that answer to their friends. Should we have to keep up appearances? No. Should we for the sake of reputations automatically associated with us because of the things we own? That is another question. --You feel guilty their friends aren't including them as often.

3. You find out that they passed up the opportunity for them to get a vehicle that probably better suited their particular needs... when it was undervalued by $3,000 by the seller... They could ave bought and sold it at a profit but didn't because they already had a(n inferior) car. --You pass them and think they could be several thousand dollars richer, didn't spend their money well, or aren't able to see a blatant opportunity. They loose a little of your respect. You feel guilty for blinding them to a great opportunity.

4. They recommend that car to a family member. The car requires extensive repairs due to it's age. They bought the car for $2,000, but ended up spending (right or wrong) an additional $3,000 to make it road worthy. The family member gets mad at your friend for recommending that car. --You feel sorry for your friend and the way his family member is making him feel. Your friend may resent you.

So what are we supposed to do?
Good question. What are you trying to accomplish?

If it is to avoid the possibility of influence in order to mitigate risk to yourself by being associate with an action someone takes because you convinced them of something, these may be appropriate actions.

1. Avoid opinions and any information that may cause someone to like or dislike your vehicle based upon what you say and how to treat it.
How do you like your car? "It is average."

2. Be complete and an unopinionated as possible..
How do you like your car? "Average fuel economy is 18 mpg according to www.fueleconomy.gov. I don't have a list of the cost of the repair bills on hand, but it has needed some parts replaced. Generally you can look at http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html for an estimate on the total cost of ownership on cars 2005 and newer. The vehicle does not have many amenities, like power anything, except power steering."

While both of these answers greatly reduce your likeliness of swaying someone else's opinion, and thus decreasing the likeliness of influence which can have negative consequences, they both kind of avoid answering the question. That is, unless you believe the intent of the question was for them to get information on the vehicle-which you gave them in the second answer.

Another option, perhaps a recommended one, is to do more listening and asking questions than answering.
"How do you like the car?"
"You can sit in it. What do you think?
Does it drive well? "Hop in and tell me what you think."
--Of course, this same script is also probably used by car sales people, but they generally smile to put the person in the right mood. You'd have to find an indifferent, yet engaging expression.


--What are your thoughts and opinions?


http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek_enterprise/video/?pid=zlemEx27KHpY3HuzZR54NBCEH_y3_T3m&vs=Default&play=true