MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: Discovery (2017) Discussion > Why give a female character the name “Mi...

Why give a female character the name “Michael”?

posted 7 years ago by JepGambardella (492)
38 replies | jump to latest

I am really puzzled by this. What is the idea behind it? To appear “feminist” somehow? Implying that a female character needs a male name to be strong sends exactly the opposite message. To challenge gender assumptions? If so, wouldn’t it be even better to call the male admiral “Jennifer” or something? To make the point that this is the future and that things change in time? But in all previous Star Trek series the men’s names have usually been quite traditional – James (Jim), Leonard, Montgomery, Jean-Luc, William, Wesley, Geordi (OK, not so traditional that one), Benjamin, Julian, Jake, Miles, Tom, Harry, Jonathan, Charles, Malcolm, Travis.

I really can't understand the logic.

[–] r5d4d2 (694) 7 years ago

I am perplexed as well. Commander Michelle Burnham sounds just fine to me.

I also watch Doctor Who. The most recent female companion was named Bill. No explanation was given. Perhaps it was short for Billie, or nickname for Wilhelmina, but it was never addressed.

ODD!

[–] fc31 (5387) 7 years ago

I think it is to make her sound tough. To think of it she talks and acts mostly the same as a guy.

Is it possible the script is written for a male character and they cast a girl and say let's change nothing, and see what happens?

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 7 years ago

No, Fuller deliberately wanted to cast a black female from the start.

But he should have named her Mary Sue, eh? ;)

[–] Costumer (1822) 7 years ago

A quick internet check reveals that Michael is a relatively common name for a woman. The site I found lists it as #799 out of 4276 (top 19%). So while not common to most of us as a woman's name, it is far from unknown.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

The internet lied to you.

[–] Costumer (1822) 7 years ago

Doubt it. Michael Learned? Michael Michele?

I found several sites that list it as a girl's name. When the question is raised on various naming sites, several women identify their name as Michael. (Sometimes they use variant spellings. And they don't refer to feminine forms such as Michelle or Mikayla) Relative common doesn't mean you will find it everywhere.

To claim it cannot be used for a woman is simply incorrect. And who knows how naming trends may develop in the future. They could likely be some famous woman from that time named Michael, leading to parent's naming their daughters Michael.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Amazing that people still believe everything they read on the internet.

What is the link to the site?

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

If you want an explanation, probably the best one is just to say that random cultural drift over the next 300 years or so brings it into use as a girl's name.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Maybe they should name her Glub Glub, that might be a popular name in 300 years.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

Maybe it will be. Anything's possible. I like that name though; if they introduce a weird non-humanoid crew member that provides a little comic relief, I vote they call him Glub Glub.

[–] Costumer (1822) 7 years ago

No, I don't believe everything on the internet. But I did check several sites. I have no need to list them for you. You can find them yourself. It took me just a few minutes.

However, its irrelevant. I gave you the names of two women who are named Michael. Both have some measure of fame. That, in itself, is evidence that the name can be used for women.

You may not like the name for a woman. But others do. The popularity of names changes over time. Names that seem restricted to one gender can change. This is evident even now. Marion and Evelyn are considered women's names. But there are men who have those names.

How the appropriateness or popularity of Michael as a woman's name could develop in the next couple of centuries is impossible to predict. For all we now, Michael is a very common woman's name in the 23rd century.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

I didn't realize you gave me examples but I don't believe it is in the top twenty percent of women's names. Not everything on the internet is true. Actually most of what you read isn't.

[–] Costumer (1822) 7 years ago

You are making an error in interpretation. Being in the top 20 % of women's names does not mean that that a significant number of woman had it. I don't find any info on the specifics. However, If the top name is given to 10% of woman, the 2nd to 5% and so forth, by the time you get to 799 only 0.1% (to pull a number completely out of the air) may have the name Michael.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Fair point.

[–] MAGolding (1228) 6 years ago

Men named Marion? A Hollywood macho man like John Wayne wouldn't stand for a man named Marion!

[–] TandyMan (11096) 7 years ago

Hollywood agenda to destroy the male, wage war on the Christianity and blur the line between men and women in their Satanic crusade to create genderless androgyny. I threw up in my mouth every time they called her Michael. Stupid.

[–] r5d4d2 (694) 7 years ago

Don't see what Christianity has to do with it. Christianity and all religions can go bye-bye for all I care.
As for "Satanic", get a grip. Spock was considered Satanic back in the 60's.
Still don't like the name.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 7 years ago

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
- William Shakespeare

[–] Uriel (246) 7 years ago

you're dumb

[–] DeckardB26354 (1195) 7 years ago

PC Liberal gender BULLSHIT, that's why.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 7 years ago

Explanation is here:
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/star-trek-discovery/news/a834614/star-trek-discovery-female-lead-man-name-reason/

[–] JepGambardella (492) 7 years ago

Thanks for the link. The fact that the same guy has done it before doesn't make it any less idiotic, of course.

[–] LaurieGonzalez (130) 7 years ago

So basically some egotistical dude likes to give his female characters male names and gives Star Trek fans something else to hate about this monstrosity.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 7 years ago

If only this were the worst problem with this travesty.

[–] Mahrez99 (236) 7 years ago

Yeah, of all the puzzling choices in this disappointing new "Star Trek"-series the showrunners went with, this one is just the strangest. Why in the world go with a guys name on a girl like that?!? I just couldn't get over it every time her (his?) name was mentioned when watching it, and it was seriously distracting.

Overall the show sucked donkey balls anyway, so it doesn't matter too much as I won't be seeing much more of it. But it was the thing I mostly came in here too check out if others reacted to.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

So people will be arguing about the name and creating buzz
about the name and not how bad the show is.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 7 years ago

Unnecessary. CBS has all kinds of ways of co-opting reviewers and vloggers, often just by being nice to them, sometimes by granting free goodies and special opportunities.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

So you argue that CBS would just stop at one way to do things?
Not a very convincing argument. There are different ways to reach
different audiences.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 7 years ago

It would seem to have much less impact. Plus there are so many other things in the episodes to argue about.

Rather I think this is one of the few ideas of Fuller that survive his departure. Apparently all his other ideas were bastardized into what we see now.

[–] MAGolding (1228) 7 years ago

Those who complain should remember that when people started using middle names, some were personal names and some were family names, usually those of related families. Thus middle names are a mix of personal and family names.

And family names used as middle names began to be used as personal names, perhaps by people who assumed that all middle names must be personal names. And any particular family name used as a middle name and then a first name could be used by either males and females and sometimes by both. Thus there are a lot of names used equally often by both males and females.

Michael is not one of those names, but the balance between male use and female use can shift in about three hundred years.

Some future parents naming a baby daughter Michael doesn't seem any odder than Clyde and Mary Morrison naming their baby son Marion Robert (1907-1979) or James and Sarah Hogg naming Their baby daughter Ima (1882-1975).