Retrospect

I agree that this episode has a weak handling of Seven's complaint of treatment by Kovin, it should be noted that she is taken seriously by the Doctor and the Captian. But that the idea of there being no female viewpoint in the story on the part of the writers, one should notice that both Jeri Taylor and Lisa Klink have writing credits on this episode.

I can be noted that this episode was not written by the same writer as the last. I have noticed some reviews coming from anti-male writers. The episode is indeed balanced and does represent some real life situations. People react in the way in which people do in real life.

I would say the whole point of the episode is examining the notion of questioning emotion over logic. People with "witch-hunt" types of mentality ( always guilty regardless of whether they can be proved innocent) won't like it. The reason for this is because the episode reflects real life.

Unlike the last episode people stay in character this time. 7 of 9 (contrary to some people) IS taken seriously and people do seem to jump to conclusions probably because she is one of their own.

In no way does the episode suggest that a woman's rights are less than male's... none whatsoever. It is purely reflecting on the need to use sound judgement and seek the truth in an objective manner. There are plenty of times when perpetrators of some form of violation are truely guilty; some of those people get away with it and some don't. There are also several incidents where innocent people get wrongly convicted or have their life destroyed because of false allegations. It is just life.

...and try to examine this episode in terms of complexity.

While I understand the furor over the treatment of the (metaphorical) rape victim and the indications that it was an (unintentionally) false accusation, one of the most fascinating aspects of the evolution of Star Trek over its various incarnation and series is the way the underlying themes and plots grow both heavier and more complex. TOS was...well, it wasn't exactly the most profound and deep of series. It was groundbreaking, but still a product of its times, when there was far less freedom on TV to explore the more troubling aspects of the world. TNG gradually evolved from less-than-inspiring early seasons to become far more complex and insightful than TOS ever was (and that includes most of the early movies, Wrath excepted.) With DS9, they started pushing the envelope almost immediately, bringing in issues of society and religion, war crimes. slavery, genocide, terrorism, and...oh, all the usual things you'd expect from a station located on the precipice of continuous warfare. Voyager has continued the tradition of exploring issue in more depth, if unevenly so in the first 3 seasons. And then we have this episode...

The attempts from certain portions of society to minimize the suffering of rape, especially by blaming the victim or overreacting to anecdotes of false accusations make this episode a fraught one indeed. Despite saying, and believing, that the outcome here is a dangerous one, I actually think that the writers managed to make an intelligent choice. In TOS or at least 2/3rds of the run of TNG, the episode would have ended with the accused proven guilty, the accuser vindicated, and the world returned to its balance. It feels good, it feels right (unless you are one of those angry men who can't handle the fact that rape is a serious problem in this world and among our species) and nobody would have complained (except aforementioned men.)

But....the world, and the galaxy, apparently, is not a simple feel-good place. Humans are complex creatures. Due to her nature, Seven of Nine is more complex than most. She's dealing with a horrific past, a confusing present, and a future that promises to make dealing with her past even more horrific. And that's exactly what this episode is really about. Not the metaphorical rape that appeared to occur in this episode, but by the metaphorical *life-destroying* rape that absolutely did happen when she was a small child. It's not about a false accusation of rape, it's about a true accusation of rape. As she becomes more human, she has become more cognizant of the horror done to her. Just a few episodes ago, she considered being assimilated, and her life afterwards, to be the best thing that ever happened to her. But no human that thinks like a human would take that perspective. She's starting to think like a human, feel like a human, and that includes being appalled and angry at what was done to her, like any rape victim should and would.

This was a troubling episode, no question, with an apparently troubling moral. Beneath that apparent moral, I think, is a far more complex and meaningful one, though.

When the show begins, an arms merchant and Janeway are conducting business. However, out of the blue, Seven of Nine sees the man and attacks him--claiming he had assaulted her. No one witnessed anything like this but with the disjointed story she gave, the Doctor very quickly concludes she'd been violated. His belief in this was so intense that his objectivity did seem very questionable. So what really happened?

Back in the 1990s, a major hot button in psychology was the notion of repressed memories. Many folks had recently undergone therapy and recovered memories involving sexual abuse and as a result several well-publicized prosecutions occurred. However, many psychotherapists believed that these memories were either implanted by bad therapists or were simply a witch hunt--while others felt that these memories were ALWAYS true and should not be ignored. I was very aware of this debate, as I was a therapist during this time and had investigated the phenomenon as part of a graduate school project. This time period and debate is the context for "Retrospect". Back in the 90s, the debate was very much ongoing, though today most in the field would hold such memories having little value.

So is this any good? Well, I did love that the film discussed the phenomenon but too many times the writing was poor. An important debate was occasionally one-dimensional in its discussion. But, overall it's not a bad episode...just one that has some flaws.

Enjoyable escapism? No, it's far too sincere.

Particularly well written? Not really, the characterisation is all over the place.

A satisfying resolution? Quite the opposite, it's very frustrating.

But that's why I enjoyed this episode a lot more than I thought I would from the bare premise. Because it tackles the issue of "my truth" head on, neither confirming nor denying that we should #BelieveHer.

And that's exactly the problem with any accusation of any unwitnessed crime based on two people's conflicting stories. There is no magical solution, no mind meld, no see-the-past machine.

Just flip the coin, and destroy at least one reputation, or at least one life, if not two.

Don't wander off alone with a stranger, and don't close the door. What a curiously mature and unexpected conclusion.