Minority representation in media

[Trev]

You know, I could respond to that, but your bias is literally so obvious that at this point that there's no reason to. It's clear you're set against any minority character, to which I say that I don't care. Minorities are going to exist in films whether you like it or not. Get over it.

 

[Ninetales]

That is literally not true at all. Even if it was, that doesn't mean stopping minority representation is a option. If anything, that's a reason to increase it.

I never stated that minority representation needs to occur on a smaller scale. I simply suggested that it should be less emphasized as opposed to policy. Also, whether minority representation is effective is subjective really, I haven't noticed much of a change personally. If you have, that's wonderful.

Recognizing a person's identity does focus on them as an individual.

You fail to understand my point. People are so much more than labels. Your skin colour, sexuality, etc doesn't define who you are whatsoever and it's very dangerous to view individuals based on those characteristics alone, as this is often what breeds discrimination and intolerance. My whole point was that we need to stop categorizing individuals so much because it can actually be more divisive and is often unnecessary altogether. Instead, it is essential for us to recognize and acknowledge that we are all human beings, as well as recognize people for who they are, what they do, their goals and ambitious, and what they contribute to society and to the world in general.

For instance, I'm a woman and I'm of mixed European descent, however, I don't identify myself based on those given traits. Rather, I see myself as an individual, as a human. I see no need in being lumped in a group with other individuals that are of the same gender or have a similar skin complexion. I truly believe that when we can view each other as individuals rather than collectively, we will be able to move away from racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. Moreover, we will further ourselves from harmful stereotypes and negative connotations that come with various labels. This the point that I'm trying to drive home. You are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. Like it or not, this is mine.

This topic isn't about that.

I was making a point about the utter importance of policy over minority representation, so yes, it relates to the topic. Also, I am allowed to speak my mind, thank you very much.

EDIT: Actually, no, I disagree with this. Representation humanizes people of minority demographics. Considering that one of the main forces behind discrimination is not viewing the other group as humans, I'd say representation is extremely important, as much as policy even.

Alright, we agree to disagree. At the end of the day, you can humanize minorities all you want, policies are truly what helps. Laws and rules put into place to protect and ensure the safety of minorities is what's going to directly benefit them. You can make movies about gay couples to your heart's content, however, they would still be unable to wed if it weren't for the law establishing their right to marriage. Therefore, policy is what granted this marginalized group the right to marry. Minority representation did not accomplish this, policy did. Laws did. The government and the people did.

I'm not denying that representation helps, it does, I just think that people focus on it alone and forget about policy. It's important to work on changing discriminatory laws and policies that currently exist, and instead, replacing them with ones with anti-discrimination laws that will protect minorities.

 

[gimmepie]

Not quoting that.
Two things though: those aren't characters to me. They're agendas, simple as that. They never even reach that level with me.

You basically defeated any hope of not coming off as the racist/homophobic guy who doesn't want minorities in his movies the minute you made this statement. It makes the inherent bias in your position extremely clear. It is literally an open admission that you don't apply the same degree of scrutiny to straight white characters as minority characters.

Most importantly: So you admit to hating straight white people due to past experiences. That pretty much sums it all up right there, as far as I'm concerned. The fact you now want to hate literally everything in that demographic now, despite claiming otherwise; I still see it, and it is the same thing they did to you. Be better than that, I say.

That's not what he said at all. He said that he has an inherent bias that he is aware of and that makes him cautious when dealing with straight white people are first. He was also pretty clear that he can get along just fine with those people and has no intrinsic dislike of them. What you're saying here is wildly different that what he expressed.

I feel you've missed my original point. I was only talking about "characters" that I feel don't exist for any other reason than representation, vs every single character ever. You took that to mean minorities vs the majority in terms of sexuality or race.

You've also made it clear that you don't consider minority characters that don't give either an explicit or implicit reason for being a minority as non-characters, a bias that you don't have against straight white characters. That completely invalidates any claim that you're entirely focused on the writing and minority status doesn't play a part in it.

I try and 'scrutinize' these """characters"""" to hopefully justify they aren't just part of an agenda, but it always comes out the opposite from what I've seen.

Yet you don't scrutinise straight white characters by the same standards as minority ones. Which is abundantly clear through your posts in this thread.


Now, I am 100% against poorly written characters who exist only to pander to a certain audience, but the solution to this isn't to "stop jamming minorities down our throats grr grumble" or to force people to justify the existence of minority characters, it's to start including more diversity in our media that is also well written. You don't need to justify why a character is a part of a minority demographic, you need to give them character depth that lets them carry their own weight regardless of what demographic they are a part of.

 

[Trev]

I never stated that minority representation needs to occur on a smaller scale. I simply suggested that it should be less emphasized as opposed to policy. Also, whether minority representation is effective is subjective really, I haven't noticed much of a change personally. If you have, that's wonderful.

I really have, and I?m not going to attribute it to one thing or another. I think we can both agree that representation and policy are equally important, and that there?s been both progress and setbacks regardless of which we consider more or less effective.

You fail to understand my point. People are so much more than labels. Your skin colour, sexuality, etc doesn't define who you are whatsoever and it's very dangerous to view individuals based on those characteristics alone, as this is often what breeds discrimination and intolerance. My whole point was that we need to stop categorizing individuals so much because it can actually be more divisive and is often unnecessary altogether. Instead, it is essential for us to recognize and acknowledge that we are all human beings, as well as recognize people for who they are, what they do, their goals and ambitious, and what they contribute to society and to the world in general.

I understand why you?re saying this, but I?m not saying that those other things aren?t important. What I am saying is that ignoring these identifiers is showing ignorance of experiences exclusive to those identifiers. If someone says, ?I don?t care about you being gay because you and I are just humans,? that signals to me that the person I?m speaking to isn?t being attentative to the many bad situations I?ve experienced because I?m gay. We aren?t defined by our identities, true, but they are a huge part of our lives. Ignoring them is a way for people to dismiss unique experiences for these identities and leads to less solutions on how to protect marginalized people. People are always going to be complex, moreso than characters, and ignoring parts of their identity and calling it a label is dismissive whether you intend to be or not.

For instance, I'm a woman and I'm of mixed European descent, however, I don't identify myself based on those given traits. Rather, I see myself as an individual, as a human. I see no need in being lumped in a group with other individuals that are of the same gender or have a similar skin complexion. I truly believe that when we can view each other as individuals rather than collectively, we will be able to move away from racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. Moreover, we will further ourselves from harmful stereotypes and negative connotations that come with various labels. This the point that I'm trying to drive home. You are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. Like it or not, this is mine.

I can just tell you right now that ignoring social issues and not talking about them absolutely doesn?t get rid of them. For the longest time, I never called anyone out on their homophobia around me, and it just kept getting worse the more I let it fester. As soon as I started calling it out, I stopped hearing less of it. I?ve seen similar things happen with my friends of color, trans friend, and female friends that have been sexually harrassed. Talking about discrimination makes people focus on the issue and address it. Ignoring it and the identities of the people experiencing it solves nothing and leads to more discrimination.

I was making a point about the utter importance of policy over minority representation, so yes, it relates to the topic. Also, I am allowed to speak my mind, thank you very much.

Fair enough.

Alright, we agree to disagree. At the end of the day, you can humanize minorities all you want, policies are truly what helps. Laws and rules put into place to protect and ensure the safety of minorities is what's going to directly benefit them. You can make movies about gay couples to your heart's content, however, they would still be unable to wed if it weren't for the law establishing their right to marriage. Therefore, policy is what granted this marginalized group the right to marry. Minority representation did not accomplish this, policy did. Laws did. The government and the people did.

I'm not denying that representation helps, it does, I just think that people focus on it alone and forget about policy. It's important to work on changing discriminatory laws and policies that currently exist, and instead, replacing them with ones with anti-discrimination laws that will protect minorities.

I agree that policy is important, don?t get me wrong. But policy without representation doesn?t fare well. How many people were pissed about gay marriage when it first happened versus now when we?ve made more strides in properly representing LGBTQ+ peeps in various media forms? If we just enforce things through the law, people who hate LGBTQ+ people will just hate them more because they?re now forced to tolerate them. Representation provides humanization that makes LGBTQ+ people relatable by showing audiences that they?re just like them. It is equally as important and, honestly, policy and representation compliment each other. I?ve not seen either get more focus than the other, so I think it?s not something to worry about.

 

[Ninetales]

I really have, and I?m not going to attribute it to one thing or another. I think we can both agree that representation and policy are equally important, and that there?s been both progress and setbacks regardless of which we consider more or less effective.

Yes, I suppose you are correct.

I understand why you?re saying this, but I?m not saying that those other things aren?t important. What I am saying is that ignoring these identifiers is showing ignorance of experiences exclusive to those identifiers. If someone says, ?I don?t care about you being gay because you and I are just humans,? that signals to me that the person I?m speaking to isn?t being attentative to the many bad situations I?ve experienced because I?m gay. We aren?t defined by our identities, true, but they are a huge part of our lives. Ignoring them is a way for people to dismiss unique experiences for these identities and leads to less solutions on how to protect marginalized people. People are always going to be complex, moreso than characters, and ignoring parts of their identity and calling it a label is dismissive whether you intend to be or not.



I can just tell you right now that ignoring social issues and not talking about them absolutely doesn?t get rid of them. For the longest time, I never called anyone out on their homophobia around me, and it just kept getting worse the more I let it fester. As soon as I started calling it out, I stopped hearing less of it. I?ve seen similar things happen with my friends of color, trans friend, and female friends that have been sexually harrassed. Talking about discrimination makes people focus on the issue and address it. Ignoring it and the identities of the people experiencing it solves nothing and leads to more discrimination.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't acknowledge things such as sexuality, ethnicity, race, or gender altogether, rather, I meant that we shouldn't define or perceive others based on these characteristics alone. You're right though, they do contribute to who that person is an individual, but only a small part. Ignoring these traits isn't the solution at all, it's understanding that people are more than labels. That's the point I was trying to make. Also, I'm sorry that you've experienced adversity for being homosexual (not to pity you) but it's wrong and you know that. No one should be discriminated against for loving another human being.

I agree that policy is important, don?t get me wrong. But policy without representation doesn?t fare well. How many people were pissed about gay marriage when it first happened versus now when we?ve made more strides in properly representing LGBTQ+ peeps in various media forms? If we just enforce things through the law, people who hate LGBTQ+ people will just hate them more because they?re now forced to tolerate them. Representation provides humanization that makes LGBTQ+ people relatable by showing audiences that they?re just like them. It is equally as important and, honestly, policy and representation compliment each other. I?ve not seen either get more focus than the other, so I think it?s not something to worry about.

Yes, policy and representation sort of balance each other. I just am of the belief that minority representation needs to be more organic, it needs to occur naturally. People shouldn't make huge deals if a main character is LGBTQ+ or is non-white, instead, we need to begin to normalize the casting of these characters. While I still think that policy benefits minorities in a more direct way, representation does indeed humanize them and allows individuals to be exposed to groups that they perhaps otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. I do stand firm in the belief that when our governance acknowledges marginalized groups that it sends a powerful message and thus promotes acceptance, not necessarily forcing it, although I see your point there.

 

[Trev]

I'm not suggest that we shouldn't acknowledge things such as sexuality, ethnicity, race, or gender altogether, rather, I meant that we shouldn't define or perceive others based on these characteristics alone. You're right though, they do contribute to who that person is an individual, but only a small part. Ignoring these traits isn't the solution at all, it's understanding that people are more than labels. That's the point I was trying to make. Also, I'm sorry that you've experienced adversity for being homosexual (not to pity you) but it's wrong and you know that. No one should be discriminated against for loving another human being.

I disagree about them contributing a small part. Being gay is a huge part of my life. But I can recognize that it's different for others so I won't press that part.

I agree that these identities don't define us, but usually when people say "don't categorize people by x," they just want to stop talking about it altogether. Hence why I even brought this topic up in the first place. This is, surprisingly, a mere communication issue. I might be splitting hairs obnoxiously here, so we can agree that what you really mean is, "recognize a person's identity, and recognize other aspects about them as well."

Yes, policy and representation sort of balance each other. I just am of the belief that minority representation needs to be more organic, it needs to occur naturally. People shouldn't make huge deals if a main character is LGBTQ+ or is non-white, instead, we need to begin to normalize the casting of these characters. While I still think that policy benefits minorities in a more direct way, representation does indeed humanize them and allows individuals to be exposed to groups that they perhaps otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. I do stand firm in the belief that when our governance acknowledges marginalized groups that it sends a powerful message and thus promotes acceptance, not necessarily forcing it, although I see your point there.

I agree that representation should be organic. However, I don't think society has collectively reached a stage where we subconsciously create organic representation in the work we make. I think we're still at the stage where decisions about including minority representation need to be deliberate. The reason I say this is because people subconsciously project themselves into anything they do, and when it comes to something like casting for a movie in an industry where producers/directors/writers are predominantly part of the majority demographic of the country, subconscious casting leads to a lot of the same demographics getting the same roles.

I think celebrating the ones who go out of their way to create opportunities for marginalized people puts pressure on others who don't to start being consciously aware of the choices they make. It's a very uncomfortable process, one that I go through when I choose to create characters for anything I make. But it's due to years of being pressured to examine my own biases that I'm able to do this so easily now. I think this is a process that works on a larger scale but hasn't been fully bought into by enough people. Of course, the cynic in me will point out that for some, this will be like teaching a baby to use a toilet by feeding it cookies on every successful trip, but that's why I'm constantly beating my cynic up with a baseball bat. :v

It does mean that not everyone will receive praise. People who are against minorities being in movies or believe in "reverse racism" won't be happy about the praise, for certain. But I think the balance is tipped so far in the majority demographic's direction that the praise is but another weight to the even the scales of representation. Those people will either have to catch up to the times or, well... suck it up.

And don't get me wrong, policy is uber important and it does send a strong message. The two are a yin-yang duo and necessary for normalization in my eyes.

 

[Palamon]

We definitely need more minority representation in media. Love, Simon & Black Panther were both good starts. (I have yet to see Black Panther, though). But, what I really want to see is more movies about trans people--and not just white trans people. It's always bothered me how we haven't had anything in the past few years on the big screen about a trans man/woman or a non-binary person and any other gender identity that might be out there that isn't cis. I also think there needs to be more media outlets exploring other sexualities--such as bi or pan. As for races, whitewashing really needs to stop. But, I don't feel like going on about it right now because I want to stay civil...a lot of the replies in this topic are making me angry already as is.

 

[Vragon2.0]

Jumping in for a second,

Not responding to anyone, just offering some food for thought after listening to some other thoughts in regards to this topic.

So, an interesting thought and critique about the representation nowadays, is in regards to the movie industry and them not really wanting to take as many risks. Movies are harder to make and more expensive as well as remakes and safer films being rewarded better than newer or more original films. Course, the really hard hitting movies make sooooooo much more now and the ones that aren't as good make a bit more less than the years prior. Essentially it's kinda a bit more both extremes so playing safe with movies is more common than your more risk taking ones like Fantasia or Treasure Planet.

It's interesting since smaller films or "Non-blockbuster" ones kinda need something to move it forward. It can come in the form of advertising and casting. An example being Scarlett Johansson in "Rub & Tug". For those that aren't aware of this, Johansson faced some backlash for playing a role of a trans man in the movie.

So how it relates back to what I said is like this. This is a movie about a trans person yeah, not a blockbuster film. So casting her in that role could be seen as trying to aid in selling the movie. It's kinda akin to her starring in the "Ghost in Shell" movie. A lot of what's going on is for marketing value and trying to make a profit off a "less than big blockbuster" movie.

This is just some food for thought and all. What reasons do you think Hollywood casts actors in roles where it kinda doesn't seem to fit or make sense to, or could be replaced with some other actor?