Why Jim Kirk Feels So Familiar to Women and Queer Men
Captain Kirk, while generally portrayed as the traditional masculine hero of the episodic story, is caught in a dichotomy. His character portrait features several feminine traits that cannot be separated from the shell of masculinity.
Lighting (he is often shown in similar lighting to the female characters, the soft focus that was used to smooth the skin of actresses more so than their male counterparts)
Costuming (while his ripped and disposable shirts are a point of hilarity, they also resemble the damsel trope/female heroine trope, while also mirroring in show female characters- i.e., during “Shore Leave”, Yeoman Barrows and Captain Kirk both have their clothing ripped, right down to the same area that is torn)
Sexuality (Kirk’s sexuality itself is up for debate amongst the fans, but the way he utilizes his appearance is akin to female seduction towards male characters in literature; he is often touched without his consent, stared at, remarked on for his looks; his reluctance in some episodes or “honeypot” situations also resemble female seduction- i.e., “The Conscience of the King”, he romances Kodos’ daughter in order to get more accurate information on him)
I cannot talk about the nuances of Captain Kirk without at least mentioning our dear Mr. Spock. His character encapsulates multitudes, ranging from nontraditional masculinity to racism. However, in the context of this topic, especially when it concerns Kirk, Spock is the more traditionally masculine counterpart in the relationship. Spock is focused on logic, his demeanor more closed off and guarded, while Kirk is shown to be more emotional and reckless. The First Office is often the one protecting Jim or advising him against dangerous situations. Despite being the opposite of the leading male figure, Spock ends up taking on more of the roles of traditional masculinity in ways that you might not notice right away. Kirk’s masculinity is more of a front, simply the appearance of male machoism, despite his physical body and patterns of speech (at least compared to Spock) suggesting otherwise.
But despite all of these parallels, the show never allows you to forget that Jim is indeed a man. Again, you cannot separate his inherent standing as a man in the show (and out, because William Shatner is in fact a man). The heteronormative storylines that litter nearly every episode make this fact hard to ignore, as well as the general comparison to other female characters. We see the period-typical sexism of the 1960s during which TOS was created bleeds from life to screen, as Kirk doesn’t see the same ramifications of patriarchy as the women do, or at least, not in the same way. While this is in part due to Starfleet’s message of all genders being equal, we don’t really see that more accurately portrayed more until the movies and subsequent spin off series. So, in some cases, an argument could be made that Jim is so used to being used like the female characters on the show that it does not fully register to him that they are experiencing sexism at all; after all, Kirk is going through much of the same thing.
Women are more often than not to be shown in pursuits of the humanities (i.e., Martha McGiver and Khan and 20th century studies from the episode “Space Seed”, Carolyn and the Greek gods and anthropology studies from the episode “Who Mourns for Adonis?”). Kirk’s relationship with things such as poetry and other literature is personal, revealing. His frequent soliloquies and monologues show that he is learned in many areas, from engineering to empathy. While we do see him being the competent captain and possessing the STEM knowledge expected from a science fiction captain, he is more prone to prose and Shakespeare than typical grounded explanations. His loyalty to the ship and his crew are based in the humanities of his studies and himself.
There is a facet to this male gaze Kirk argument that I would like to add: when talking about James Kirk being portrayed in the male gaze, it is done in a very queer manner. Here is the disclaimer before I go on: I do not believe that Gene Rodenberry, William Shatner, or Leonard Nimoy (yes I’m adding him in because K/S is a part of my argument) intentionally wrote Kirk as a stand-in for gay yearning and queer male representation, but in terms of making an argument for it, they certainly created a solid foundation.
All of the points I have listed craft this argument: from the lighting of the shots to his empathy to his constant partial nudity. The circumstances of our culture and especially when discussing a show made in a time when queer people were not allowed to be discussed openly lead many people to discovering their sexuality/gender identity or seeing themselves represented as otherwise heterosexual cisgender characters. Jim Kirk is a multifaceted character who stands for justice and loyalty. He also has prominent muscles, tan, smooth skin, a deep voice, and a handsome face. The combination of all these factors is appealing to not only straight women, but also queer men. In addition, his relationship with Spock is reminiscent of many queer friendships/relationships: standing close together, never apart, the two of them understand each other better than anyone else (even their own families), they change tone when together, they sacrifice integral parts of themselves (career, emotions) for each other. Even though there is no on-screen intimacy, both men are clearly drawn to one another. Since one cannot be queer without the other being queer as well, Jim Kirk is definitely colored in shades of gay (can you tell I am still thinking about that Good Omens finale…)
My conclusion is rooted in my own opinion so please keep that in mind!: This interpretation is also comforting; to see such a strong masculine lead portrayed in a manner of femininity and queerness while being taken seriously is lacking today, especially among the rise of conservatism and fascism. Although we have gotten better in some aspects of men’s characterization in media, and by no means is Jim Kirk a perfect example, it is pleasing to know that such characters like this exist, even if the intent of the characters is not the same as much of the interpretation.
P.S.: Although I do know this analysis is a bit of a mess, I also know I have a better interpretation of Star Trek than any billionaire who claims inspiration from the series. I WILL keep interpreting my space family as queer; I am more right than all of them.
