I know I’ve already replied to you but I came across this short interview with the actress that played Dr.Crusher in TNG and why she was fired from the show then came back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYsemEvV3-Y Oddly on point to what we’re talking about here.

The insane thing is that even with all that they were exceptionally progressive… in comparison to what else was out at the same time. The issue of doing this sort of social comparison is that you really need to keep it in context with history. Weird example. The Honeymooners regularly had a punchline of threatening violence against one of the wives (The infamous “One of these days Alice! BANG! ZOOM!”), 10 years after the last episode Star Trek The Original Series started which (unless I’m remembering wrong) didn’t use violence as a joke.

Sometimes it takes a while for things to change… Other times it gallops along.

Ahhh 90’s TV… So there was a lot of issues during the 90’s when it came to scripts. One of the issues was that TV Execs now acknowledged the existence of women but they weren’t to sure what to “do” with them. You can see this in many many shows but one of the things that pops up is you might have a strong female character that has a few really good episodes or seasons but at some point the writing flips to they want to get pregnant and married (not saying either is bad but when it comes out of left field a bit it’s clearly just tacked on plot).

The reason I bring the above up is that much of Trek (even TNG) women are treated in many plots as merely props in a narrative to move a story forward not as actual characters. Unfortunately this is also why the Federation seems so blasé to how they’re treated, because they’re not fully treated as a proper character. So, hilariously, the execs of the time (and writers) are somewhat caricatures of their own creations, the Ferengis.