S05.E23: Blaze of Glory

[John Potts]

Quote

 

To prevent a Maquis missile attack from reaching Cardassia, Sisko must force Starfleet traitor Eddington to lead him to the launch site.

 

I don't know whether they decided from the start to have Eddington join the Maquis, but he certainly got far more interesting once he did. Once you know the conclusion, you really have to admire Michael's commitment to the role of reluctant accomplice to Sisko's leader - they do say the best way to sell a con is to convince the mark that you're prepared to walk away (Sisko fails to spot that, despite using the same tactic himself!). Even the "B" story with Nog & the Klingons was believable and used sparingly enough to keep it amusing rather than tiresome (Martok: You are either very brave or very foolish, Ferengi!  Nog: Probably a little of both!)

Also I found it interesting that in the Maquis, women keep their surnames - Michael introduces his wife as Rebecca Sullivan rather than Rebecca Eddington. I can't think of a single case where a Starfleet wife kept her original name on marrying. For all its progressive values, Starfleet is in some ways extremely conservative.

[readster]

3 hours ago, John Potts said:

I don't know whether they decided from the start to have Eddington join the Maquis, but he certainly got far more interesting once he did. Once you know the conclusion, you really have to admire Michael's commitment to the role of reluctant accomplice to Sisko's leader - they do say the best way to sell a con is to convince the mark that you're prepared to walk away (Sisko fails to spot that, despite using the same tactic himself!). Even the "B" story with Nog & the Klingons was believable and used sparingly enough to keep it amusing rather than tiresome (Martok: You are either very brave or very foolish, Ferengi!  Nog: Probably a little of both!)

Also I found it interesting that in the Maquis, women keep their surnames - Michael introduces his wife as Rebecca Sullivan rather than Rebecca Eddington. I can't think of a single case where a Starfleet wife kept her original name on marrying. For all its progressive values, Starfleet is in some ways extremely conservative.

I know, it was a satisfying conclusion to Eddington's story, who had been around since season 1. I agree, he got more interesting and his turn when he revealed himself to be a Maquis was a shock. However, also think the ending where he saw all the Maquis pretty much dead, everything ruined and going: "But we were about to win." Sisko: "Yes, you drove them out, right into the arms of the Dominion." Both Eddington and Sisko were both right about the causes and also wrong. Eddington was right, the Federation should have handled the Demilitarized Zone with Cardassia a long time ago instead of just trying to be: "their best friends and let others die." However, Sisko was right too, their insurgency was not the right way to go, but understood why they did it. Even Picard understood in Ro Laren's final episode back during the final season of TNG. 

[starri]

On 6/5/2017 at 5:00 AM, John Potts said:

I can't think of a single case where a Starfleet wife kept her original name on marrying.

B'elanna.

[Maverick]

  I think Troi kept her name too.  I think she was still introduced as Deanna Troi in Nemesis after the wedding, but I only watched that dreck once so not 100% sure.  

[SVNBob]

4 hours ago, starri said:

On 6/5/2017 at 4:00 AM, John Potts said:

I can't think of a single case where a Starfleet wife kept her original name on marrying.

B'elanna.

She even suggested that Tom take her name.  While he didn't, I don't think it was for any reason other than literally not liking the sound of "Tom Torres."  Something about that alliteration just sounds odd.

Also from Voyager, there was Samantha Wildman, the first person to give birth on the ship.  Her husband was a Ktarian named Greskrendtregk.  So it seems like she not only kept her name, but passed it along to her daughter Naomi. 

[John Potts]

11 hours ago, starri said:

B'elanna.

...also a member of the Maquis. I have to say, I have no recollection of whether Troi kept her name or not (I generally try to blot Nemesis from my mind), the one I particularly had in mind was Beverley who changed from Howard to Crusher (pre-Season 1 of ST-TNG) and then (in the future timeline of All Good Things...) to Picard, which she retained even after their divorce.

Quote

SVNBob She even suggested that Tom take her name.  While he didn't, I don't think it was for any reason other than literally not liking the sound of "Tom Torres."  

That was actually my sister's reason for taking her husband's name - she said she would if it was a more sensible name than her existing one - which given a name like Potts was quite likely.

Granted, I'm generalising from a pretty small sample set, I just thought it was interesting (also probably more to do with Network broadcasters preferring "traditional family values" than the probable course of future social trends).

Edited June 11, 2017 by John Potts

[Ailianna]

Or a short hand to make it easier for the audience to keep track of who is married/connected to whom.

[Melgaypet]

On 6/11/2017 at 7:38 AM, John Potts said:

Granted, I'm generalising from a pretty small sample set, I just thought it was interesting (also probably more to do with Network broadcasters preferring "traditional family values" than the probable course of future social trends).

I think this is it. These shows may be set in the future, but they were written by people in the late 20th/early 21st century, where a wife taking her husband's name is still the default. Or perhaps I should say, in America it was/is the default, since I know that's not the case worldwide.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if by the 24th century, the practice will have died out. But if some wives are taking their husbands' names in Trek, I would have liked to see a case where a husband took his wife's surname, or they chose a new one together or something, and it was treated in a matter-of-fact manner, not as something weird. The closest we got was Picard teasingly calling Riker "Mr. Troi."

I don't if it was made explicit or not, but I'm 95% sure Kasidy Yates stayed Kasidy Yates even after she and Sisko married.

[legaleagle53]

40 minutes ago, Melgaypet said:

I think this is it. These shows may be set in the future, but they were written by people in the late 20th/early 21st century, where a wife taking her husband's name is still the default. Or perhaps I should say, in America it was/is the default, since I know that's not the case worldwide.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if by the 24th century, the practice will have died out. But if some wives are taking their husbands' names in Trek, I would have liked to see a case where a husband took his wife's surname, or they chose a new one together or something, and it was treated in a matter-of-fact manner, not as something weird. The closest we got was Picard teasingly calling Riker "Mr. Troi."

I don't if it was made explicit or not, but I'm 95% sure Kasidy Yates stayed Kasidy Yates even after she and Sisko married.

That's common even in our own time.  Professional women often use their "maiden" names (for want of a better term) for business purposes, but privately, they're Mrs. Whoever.  What HAS thankfully fallen out of favor is the practice of referring to a married woman as "Mrs. John Whoever."

[Melgaypet]

5 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

That's common even in our own time.  Professional women often use their "maiden" names (for want of a better term) for business purposes, but privately, they're Mrs. Whoever.

True, but an example of this doesn't appear in Trek, does it? Either the woman changes her name or she doesn't, no professional/private divide; and usually the former, which I do find rather unrealistic when I think about it. And a bit irritating. I don't think Kasidy was ever "Mrs. Sisko" in private, though granted, the show ended before this could be established. After her marriage, Keiko was never referred to as "Ms. Ishikawa" professionally.

I do think this just reflects an assumption mindset of the writers, not a particularly conscious writing choice. A woman taking her husband's name is still considered the default*, even as more and more women choose otherwise. Trust me, every woman who has kept her surname for whatever reason has heard some commentary on that choice from somebody and probably several somebodies. I did.

*Again, speaking from the American perspective that I (and Trek writers) have. I know many other countries have different customs.

[legaleagle53]

1 hour ago, Melgaypet said:

True, but an example of this doesn't appear in Trek, does it? Either the woman changes her name or she doesn't, no professional/private divide; and usually the former, which I do find rather unrealistic when I think about it. And a bit irritating. I don't think Kasidy was ever "Mrs. Sisko" in private, though granted, the show ended before this could be established. After her marriage, Keiko was never referred to as "Ms. Ishikawa" professionally.

I do think this just reflects an assumption mindset of the writers, not a particularly conscious writing choice. A woman taking her husband's name is still considered the default*, even as more and more women choose otherwise. Trust me, every woman who has kept her surname for whatever reason has heard some commentary on that choice from somebody and probably several somebodies. I did.

*Again, speaking from the American perspective that I (and Trek writers) have. I know many other countries have different customs.

Point taken, especially now that marriage equality is the law of the land in the US.  I've often asked myself whether I would take another man's last name as mine, insist that he take mine as his, or simply have us each retain our original surnames, even on the marriage license, and the answer is always "I really don't know what I would do." And that's assuming, of course, that I am ever in a position to have to make that decision in the first place.  But that's not the same thing as being expected to do it automatically as women are, which I believe is the point you're making.

Edited July 30, 2017 by legaleagle53

[John Potts]

1 hour ago, legaleagle53 said:

What HAS thankfully fallen out of favor is the practice of referring to a married woman as "Mrs. John Whoever."

I've heard that used in my lifetime too - it would annoy my mother when her mother addressed letters to her as "Mrs Ian Potts" (although Debretts would insist this was correct usage at the time - possibly not today). But it just goes to show how much social conventions can change within less than half a century!

ETA: Come to think of it, my fiancée suggested double barrelling our names after marrying, which seemed fair, though it would have felt a little awkward to me (it was all moot in the end, since we broke up before making it that far).

Edited July 30, 2017 by John Potts

[Melgaypet]

5 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Point taken, especially now that marriage equality is the law of the land in the US.  I've often asked myself whether I would take another man's last name as mine, insist that he take mine as his, or simply have us each retain our original surnames, even on the marriage license, and the answer is always "I really don't know what I would do." And that's assuming, of course, that I am ever in a position to have to make that decision in the first place.  But that's not the same thing as being expected to do it automatically, as women are, which I believe is the point you're making.

That is my point, yes. And you raise an excellent point, too, in our time, marriage can no longer be assumed to be between a man and woman and certainly it can't by the time the 24th century rolls around. So it seems even less likely that there would be societal expectation for a married woman to change her name. (For what it's worth, all the married same-sex couple I know kept their original surnames, except for my cousin and his husband, who went the hyphenated route. So Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are now both legally Mr. Smith-Jones. They're very happy with that, though there was some argument about whose name would go first...)

[rmontro]

The last time we had seen Eddington, Sisko was chasing him like Captain Ahab obsessed with catching his whale.  Eddington himself came off much more sympathetic than Sisko in that episode (S05.E13:  For The Uniform).  

So it's nice to see Eddington come off to a more heroic end here, and to see Sisko redeem himself somewhat by showing that he can have some empathy toward the plight of others (in this case the Maquis).  Sisko had seemed so consumed and hateful toward Eddington before though, it's hard to see where this change in attitude came from, but I'm glad he had it.