@Xtra Spice Mikey it's usually an umbrella term for basically anyone what isn't 100% straight and/or 100% cis. So like, yes, but also other things. And some other people don't like the term at all (mostly older people) because it was used to target them in a negative way (oh boy trauma). Some people like using it as their only label. (I've also seen 'gay' used as the same thing, an umbrella term for LGBTQ+ people, but it's less common).
This shit drives me nuts. It's like when people say, "oh I don't want it being made so political." Everything is political, *not* casting women, POC and LGBTQ+ people is just a different kind of politics - status quo politics.
Ah yes, the status quo of not wanting your work to be infested with boring, safe Mary Sues because dipshits will get offended if you make them anything less. The horror.
I've never heard no one wants woman or black people, but since 2016 writters are bashing our head with their politics, when it should be on the bavkgroung of a story not in the foreground. Look i like better a character like Monica Rambeau or even the old miss marvel than a character like carol danvers(2016-present).
The reason I love your videos is because you cut the crap around things and say "Let's look at this for what it really is." Your capitalism point is super important, no matter which side of the coin you come from. I feel like deleting the "agenda" cry from the argument and focusing on whether or not the representation was honest, genuine, and non-gratuitous (by gratuitous I mean badly written and badly portrayed simply to try to capitalize) would greatly increase the level of conversations that we could have around the subject. Again, Fabulous video!
I think to many, if not most, the argument about whether or not there is an ulterior motive (an agenda) is the same as whether or not it is honest or genuine, and usually when it comes across the most gratuitous or shoehorned you see the agenda argument the most. In this polarized era, people are becoming hypersensitive to feeling as though they're having an agenda shoved down their throats. In particular, it's not a concern over the disadvantaged being elevated so much, but rather the feeling that whites, males, heterosexuals, and CIS-gendered people are being attacked - and, rather than having these concerns assuaged, responses to these feelings tend to be further attacks invalidating these concerns, or being told outright that they are alt-right racists, sexists, homophobes, and transphobes. It's why so many have rejected identity politics to the point where they were willing to elect someone as unsavory as Donald Trump into office; they believe the political left as a whole has become completely inimical to their identity group, doesn't genuinely want peaceful coexistence and equality, and will stop at nothing short of turning the tables of oppression (as opposed to ending oppression outright). I think too often these groups end up speaking past one another, and can't look past the misgivings - or subdue the knee-jerk reactions they may have - in response to hearing another groups' perspective and concerns. While it's true some people aren't amenable to reason, responding with anger or invalidation will only serve to amplify each other's aggression and tribal impulses. Anger begets anger, hate begets hate.
Well, there are a lot of dishonest players in the discussion. I guess, I will explain my point of view on the matter by using an example: When Disney hired Ava Duvenay to direct A Wrinkle in Time, I really didn't like the decision at all. Not because she is a WoC, but because I knew that all of her movies are about the black experience, so to speak. I knew that her "agenda" so to speak, would lead to her not focussing on making a good adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, but on using the property as a vehicle to push the kind of message she likes to push. And I wanted an adaptation which would be bold enough to focus on the philosophical aspects of the story. And in the end, I was right with my concerns. All this said, the reason why A Wrinkle in Time got mixed reviews is not because it is a bad adaptation. There are a lot of great movies which are actually terrible adaptations - and those include "The Shining", "Die Hard", "Rocky" and "The Little Mermaid", to mention just a few. Weather I like it or not, adapting a property with a new angle is a perfectly valid approach. And I think that is something one has ALWAYS keep in mind: "Forced Diversity" is just a way to say: There was some really bad writing in this, and since there were some characters which are not straight white males I blame THEM for it instead of the bad writing or directing. Also, it is just a movie. I didn't get the version of A Wrinkle in time I wanted this time around, but hey, I always have the book.
I totally agree but wish he could have used a different word to capitalism. People wanting money, and doing things they wouldn't otherwise do to get more money, is not unique to the owners of businesses, or to capitalist societies.
I think every time someone says "[blank minority] is only in this because of an agenda" we should just reply with "why is that bad?" Because that response pretty much forces people to either admit that they just don't want minority characters in their media or makes them bend over backwards trying to justify why it's bad, usually with very shaky results.
I would say it's bad because it means the minorities being represented aren't being treated like any other actor, they're being treated like "here's the female superhero, here's the black superhero". And while the immediate result is the same, I don't think it's actually helpful in the long run. I think it maintains that sense of "otherness". That we default to white male and have only as many black/female characters as needed to keep the public happy. I think most people would agree that the ideal future scenario is a world where race/gender/whatever doesn't influence decision making whatsoever (which would result in diverse casts), and treating minorities as something to be included either because you have to, or because you want to make a point with their inclusion, is still putting emphasis on their status as non white male. It's better for sure, but it's still quite a bit off from treating them the same. (btw, not watched the video yet, sorry if he addresses these exact points and counters them)
@@darkvoid9329 I can see where you're coming from, but I think "look at this black superhero" "look at this female superhero" is where we're at right now. I do think we'll get to that point where we don't have to automatically point out those aspects, but it won't happen overnight. We still need better representation and wider societal acceptance. I once saw in a comic where the author was like "I want to get to a point where labels don't matter, but until then I'll proudly be known as the gay comic book artist" or something along those lines, and I have to agree with the sentiment.
Nerd in the Library because what happens when this occurs to an agenda you DONT agree on. The principle of the thing really starts to shift then doesn’t it?
aran carr-brown aran carr-brown I don’t know if this will surprise you but, as a gay white man (being upfront with my characteristics for honesty) I kind of get where you are coming from. I also kind of agree with the premise. I do think the way SOME (not all) media portays diverse casting is incredibly problematic and leads to making us special (in a bad way). I agree the better world is where an actor is not hired because of their gender, colour, sexuality and etc but because of their innate talent and ability to fill a role and shine. The problem, and the question I ask to you, is this... what’s a better solution? Right now, I cannot see a better way forward that will actually be successful. I doubt I am the only member of the LGBT etc community who doesn’t want to feel “special”, I want to be seen as normal. I want those who come from my community (and other minority’s and genders) to be seen as normal when they fill a role. Whether in the media or other industries; We should appear as, and be treated as, normal. I do genuinely believe there is a lot of media out there that has hired actors based on talent and not as “diversity hires”. However, I also can see the point of view that some shows are very clearly dog whistling to my community. For now I am going to take the same stance as they (unsure of which pronoun) have in this video; the good of the diversity outweighs the negatives. Until we as a society finally catch up to our moral responsibilities to treat everybody equally, we must continue to push ourselves out there. This issue is far more than just “fill that role with a minority/other gender to shut them up”; this is an issue of social equality in all aspects of life. Here in the UK we have achieved: - Marriage Equality [Royal Assent granted 2013] (came in to force, 2014. Excluding Northern Ireland) - Discrimination on supply of goods or services banned [cannot refuse to supply hotel rooms etc based on gender identity or orientation] (2007) - Homophobic hate crimes illegal [it’s own offense vs normal assault etc](2005) - Civil Partnership [essentially Gay Marriage Lite] (2004) - Gender Recognition Act [allows legal gender change] (2004) - Employment Discrimination ban [regarding LGBT] (2003) - Section 28 Repealed [S28 banned positive discussion of homosexuality in schools. Teachers could not support or provide resources about different sexualities.”] (2003) - Equal rights to adoption as a couple [if LGBT] (2002) - Equal age of consent [lowered from 18 to 16, thus matching hetero] (2001) - Lifted the ban on serving in the Armed Forces [no longer enforced but remained on the statute book till 2016] (2000) - Lowering of age of consent to 18 [regarding gay men](1994) - Gay (male) sex no longer illegal for those aged 21 and over [though “privacy restrictions of the act meant a third person could not be present and men could not have sex in a hotel” photographing or recording gay sex was also illegal. Many were still targeted by police with indecency and public order laws for public affection or “soliciting”. “...police stake-outs in parks and toilets...‘pretty police' as bait“] (1967) Yet still to this day hate crimes exist at a high level. A 2017 Stonewall study showed hate crime or incidents had increased 78% over the past 5 years. Confidence to report and differences in how hate crime is recorded can account for SOME of the increase, not all. Recent research shows that up to four in five incidents of hate crime go unreported; those that are reported often either do not lead to conviction or receive short sentences. Although typically the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be supportive of the LGBT community/are more liberal it still occurs; 45% of respondents to Stonewalls 2017 School Report experienced bullying for being LGBT. This was a fall of 10% from 2012 and 20% from 2007 BUT it’s still almost half. We clearly are not there (equal utopia) yet. I didn’t just bring this up because its horrific. Multiple studies/surveys show an uptick in approval and acceptance for the community, as a whole, following each of these equalizing moments in history. Whether there’s a law change (marriage equality, age of consent etc.), a social change (LGBT members are more outward with their identity) or a change in media (female doctor, gay lead characters [Will & Grace] etc.) the acceptance of women and the LGBT community increases. To me, the data seems to indicate that once people are shown, even if they don’t want to be, we are not evil or alien and have the same basic wants and desires, people start to accept us; essentially, we’re human too. This is anecdotal but take my father for example, I remember as a child he was against civil partnerships and gay marriage in the lead up to CPs becoming law. However, just before I came out (not long before gay marriage), I asked him whether he still felt the same way, he didn’t; this was incredibly surprising to me. I asked him “What changed?” and his response was touching, though as blunt and lacking in empathy of emotion as normal due to his Aspergers “I didn’t understand them because they were weird and I didn’t get why they wanted something that was ours. I think now that they just wanted the same legal protection, and stuff, as us and that’s okay to me. They didn’t do anything silly with it.”. This started a long conversation about how experiencing the law change felt to him (angry and confused to understanding and accepting) and led me to then look in to the data on attitudes toward LGBT and other minorities. Much as we want people to understand, accept and not vilify us because of who we are, we have to do the same to those who don’t get us. That conversation made me realise that to my dad, we were strange and confusing and what he needed wasn’t to be vilified for his misguided beliefs but to have something he didn’t have control over change, see the result (nothing changes for him) and come to accept it himself. Yes we can try the gently gently route but sometimes things need to be forced to gain acceptance. We can force things in ways that aren’t aggressive like hiring someone because they are a minority. Yes, this may feel shitty to those who are LGBT. It may irritate those on the other side; those who hate not just positive diversity hiring but a minority in a role at all. BUT a more gradual route than gives them a chance to see it won’t effect them negatively is better than the alternative. The alternative that’s been tried time and time again. Insulting and shouting at them hasn’t ever, and won’t ever, work. Aggression gives them a reason to be defensive; acting like this makes them retreat further and further in to their echo chamber, a place where they can feel oppressed and that it’s “Us VS. Them”. Take the Stonewall Riots, they pushed people to realise they had to fight, create groups and pride marches and actually talk. It wasn’t the violence (on either side) that enacted real positive change at the end of the day. As it always will, the change came from communication. Discussion, planning and persuading is what all wars finish with in the end. Violence will always beget more violence. I don’t know, this may be utter gibberish that’s been droned on and on by someone who hasn’t slept for 32 hours *shrug*. I just think that the history of LGBT acceptance and general approval has some lessons we should remember now and again. We may not be there yet but a lot has changed in just my lifetime (24 years); it’s a lot easier for kids to come out now than when I did and that was only 10(ish) years ago. It’s my belief that the change hasn’t come from taking teams and hurling abuse. We can act all high and mighty and moralistic about changes being forced but until we have a better solution, this seems better than violence.
hardfugoo Between the two of you (Nerd in the Library and Yourself), you have both highlighted the issue with all of this. I touched on this in my essay of a response. Nerd in the Library generalises everyone who disagrees with him and you then proceed to attack them with an aggressive “yeah, so what. You do it too”. In what way are either of you progressing the issue? Neither of you are going to accept the differences in opinion nor, apparently, can you see that each of your arguments have flaws. You both could, and should, have been better here. Nerd in the Library should have said something along the lines of “In my experience when the other side is called out on what they are saying about this, they struggle to find an explanation other than hate. If someone who feels this way would like to discuss their root cause with me and help me understand I’d be grateful” It’s still an anecdotal piece of evidence (so essentially useless) but gives others a chance to explain. As for you, you could have said “The problem with your response is you are generalising all of the other side on this issue. Here is why I feel this way about this *insert why you disagree*. What parts do you disagree on and why?” All without either of you being half veiled dicks to each other. What could have been a productive conversation and a learning experience for everyone, instead turns in taking sides. What the fuck is the point, apart from making yourself feel good for “sticking it to the man” that is the other side? For example, gun control. I come from the UK where guns are pretty much banned (apart from shotguns for sport shooting). Unsurprisingly considering our backgrounds with gun laws and the school shooting that triggered the ban, when I (and most other British people) look at countries with much laxer gun laws, wrongful police shootings and frequent mass shootings, we wonder why they hold on to them so tight. Why do they feel they must have them? Why do all police (instead of specially trained and highly culpable units that go through an extensive evaluation and training program) need to carry them? However when I discuss with a gun rights supporting American I don’t get aggressive or high and mighty, I don’t match their aggression if they throw around flawed statistics or try to bend knife crime in the UK stats to fit their agenda without looking at population size or distribution. I instead try to understand their point of view and give them mine. If they use stats that are either incorrect or misrepresented, I try to explain why thats the case and show them. This constant “Us VS. Them” rhetoric in the US that’s now bleeding out to other countries is pointless and reductive. No change is ever going to happen if all either side does is say the other is wrong aggressively or partake in whataboutisms. What exactly were either of you hoping for by denigrating the other side? Watching both sides on any issue act in this way would be hilarious if it wasn’t so concerning. We’re better than this.
My s/o and I were actually talking about this just last night, the main thing we talked about was that a lot of the times in comics, when writers are adding diversity for the "wrong reasons" it often doesn't pan out well. I think it was definitely easy to look at it like that when we were looking at cases of bad representation after the fact and then looking at the motivations behind the creative teams. I rarely see anyone looking back at good examples of representation and dissecting the motives behind it. That said I do agree that a piece of media in question should be judged more on its own, instead of based on what the motivations behind the added diversity were.
I feel like this analysis is not just about LGBTQ+ representation but moreso about all representation about what we widely consider to be diverse, which I like :) Also... sorry, but your necklace looks like eyeballs staring at the audience.
Doing it "out of the kindness of their hearts" would be labelled agenda pushing as well. Since your motivation is to help minorities or whatever. You basically can't win with these people who argue that way.
True capitalism should not see race, creed,color, or sexual orientation. Before I became disabled I was in retail for a lot of my working life. In 93 at Christmas time I was working at a shop with quilts and lace and decor. A gay couple came in and ask to look at the lace curtains. None of the older ladies I worked with would wait on them. I stepped up and did what I could to help them and ended up selling them over $400.00 in lace curtains. The supervisor found out the next day and read the old ladies the riot act and she gushed over my sale.
It reminds me a lot of what happened to women's rights during WW2 - a lot of women were given the opportunity to work only because the men were out fighting, but all in all it still improved equality in the end.
Again, interesting insight. Not the direction I was expecting (tbf not sure what direction I was expecting) but thoughtful and honest as usual. Here in the UK we had a situation at the start of the year that i think from what you were saying has relevance. A well known baked goods chain released a vegan version of their most popular product and the media and social networks went crazy. "PC gone mad!" etc. Thing is it was clear that they weren't doing this for any politically motivated reason but financially to open up a new demographic to sell to. In fact in the resulting furore, the vegan version was their best seller for over a month. I'm not entirely sure where I was going with this but it seemed important to say it when I started typing this comment. You know what, delete this if you want I think I'm just rambling. I'll stop now. Now
That was my takeaway from the whole 'vegan sausage roll' thing too. All those people droned on, up in arms about how they were "pandering to vegan liberals" and "insulting meat eaters", while I just saw a company finding a new, less tapped demographic they could market to, and so they did. And it fucking worked. I was curious to try one myself but I didn't get the chance for ages because they flew off the damn shelves. It was a classic financial, capitalist move, but because it was marketed towards *THE VEGANS*, all those numpties on twitter and facebook thought it was some big liberal conspiracy to replace meat sausage rolls or some shit. It was beyond self-parody.
Great video. I tend to roll my eyes every time I hear someone say something along the lines of “they are doing it for the wrong reasons”. Especially when there is no way they could possibly know the reasons of the casting directors. They just see diversity and instantly label it done for the “wrong reasons”
I had many conversations about "agenda" over the years. You're spot on about it derailing a discussion about any piece of media. The saddest part about this is how much a "victim" mentality seems to occur. "But don't you see? They are attacking my identity. It's a conspiracy to them and it makes me honestly a little sick to my stomach.
The representation is *there*, at the end of the day (!), and people will get used to it. Unlike the necklace, which was constantly... staring... at... me... :D Another excellent piece. A LOT more people need to see these!
These are all good points. For me personally, it's not so much agenda that is an issue, but execution and whether or not it serves the story or derails it. This doesn't even just apply to representation. Throwing in relationship drama when it's not needed and derails the story is a problem for me.
i'm late to the video but I agree 101% with you. esp. when the thing has an established fanbase and canon. there is no need for it and just makes me roll my eyes. I'm a gay woman but it pisses me off that, for example, Stranger things executives think their show will "appeal" more to me just bc they made a minor character gay. NO. that's not why I like it, I just like the sci-fi stuff, the kid's friendship and Winona Ryder. I watch a lot of shows bc they are gay but ST is not one of them and that's fine. I don't need a 2 min.scene that doesn't move the plot forward nor gives me a side plot or a topic that would be further talked about, just for the sake of "inclusion". If they wanted they could have created dept to it and It would have been cool tho. There is also the case of Dumbledore. HP fans are A LOT and long established so it was not for the money, I suppose(most LGBTQA+ folks are HP fans, anyway lol). If JK only wanted to show she is not a homophobic monster couldn't she just have made comments about it on interviews and stuff(? or maybe write a statement?? like, was it really necessary to "make" a canon character gay when he had shown none sexual preferences nor romantic feelings for anyone whatsoever in the course of 7 books, 8 movies and 20 years of existence??? it makes literally no sense and pisses fans off.
As a white girl I actually was annoyed by the "agenda" of diversity in colour at first but after I read an Interview from Lupita Nyongo who suffered in school because she thought she was ugly because she wan't represented in media until Whoopie Goldberg. After that I actually understood what it means to be not represented. And about the LGBTQ+ representation: I 100% agree with your thoughts on your Crimes of Grindelwald video. I could not care less if any character was gay or straight or whatever. I as a watcher like relationships more than screen-sex. I wish more movies or series would focus on relationships more than on sex. If I wanted to see sex, I could watch porn tbh. I just think it is sad that the sexuality gets the focus so much in the media. Why would I care if somebody is gay or trans? Good for you. Now let's just live your life. I would be so happy if everybody just be themselves but the big discussions which result out of making a character gay or another colour or gender show me that it is still a long way to go.
Reset the wreck, no, that can work in certain cases (e.g. Stephanie Brown's murder or Pimp!Falcon). And yeah, I think a lot of anti-diversity talk is at least partly based on emotion. Years ago, I thought along the 'impure motives' lines, partly because I associated discourse about race, sex, et al with guilt-tripping (which, given I had and still have really low self-esteem, is a sore subject for me). I realized I was going overboard, though, and I'm more able to check myself now.
The saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." is one that has quite a bit of truth to it; there is a long history of movements that promised people a moral purpose and a brighter future, and ended up delivering misery and humiliation. This is a sobering reality and one everyone should be aware of. However this phrase is also overly simplistic, if taken too far it can lead to unwarranted cynicism and passivity, and there is also a long history of well intentioned movements that did succeed to producing substantive improvements to the world. Abolishing slavery, LGBTQ rights, Decolonization, the idea that women are capable of rational thought and should have the same rights as men, ending absolute monarchies, the idea that war is a humanitarian tragedy, not a fun game and great way build character, removing lead, removing asbestos, removing CFCs, clamping down on the ivory trade, deglamorizing tobacco, bans on whaling, ending judicial torture, ending human sacrifice, ending witch hunts, and establishing mixed economies, mostly free speech, secular governments, social safety nets, public education, and modern hygiene norms are just a few examples. If I were to revise this phrase I might say: The road to hell is paved with simplistic utopian visions, contempt for alternative perspectives, intellectual overconfidence, and indifference to the real world costs of implementing your visions. The road out of hell is paved with good intentions + serious self reflection + respect for facts + willingness to update ones world view + willingness to make tradeoffs and compromises that work with the world as it actually is.
You got me. I came here prepared to be angry -- but you ended up saying exactly what I think. The reasons don't matter. The representation matters. Thank you. Subscribed. (And I'm surprised you hadn't been recommended to by youtube's algo before now!
Also, your hair is amazing and I love your overall look. I’ve seen you come out of your shell in your videos and it warms my heart. Keep making these videos, hopefully the world will be better for their existence.
i never thought of it like that... i'm used to reading manga and webcomics that are usually written by a single person, or discussing stories with friends who do their own writing, so i always view diversity in stories a bit differently! i still believe there is one wrong reason, well, more accurately, a "wrong way" to do diversity. i see a lot of stories that have a "gay character" instead of a "character that is gay" or trans or muslim or whatever group they're trying to portray. by that i mean, the fact the character is gay/trans/muslim/black/etc. IS the character, rather than having a fleshed out personality. it comes across more as "look at how diverse i am" without the effort put into actually representing and normalizing certain groups, a bit like how some writers will come out and say "this character in my book is actually this!" but never actually deliver on that in their stories. but these are things created by one person rather than a team or company. so, i always see diversity as a personal investment rather than used in the way you described. so, needless to say, you've definitely inspired me to look at it a bit differently when considering diversity in media as a whole! also, your hair is super nice and and i love your voice, and i just needed you to know that
As one genderfluid to the next, your look in this video was ON POINT! :V And this is basically my opinion on the matter, too. It's why I still appreciated the razer ad about being a nice, non-asshole man, and other similar instances. It still gets people thinking, and we can use whatever support we can getA
"about being a nice, non-asshole man". Kind of the issue with it though. lol If someone thought so little of you that they thought you needed to be told not to act like an asshole, wouldn't you feel offended? They weren't even talking about just "some" men, btw. They explicitly said that in the ad. They think non-asshole men are in the minority. Despite the fact that the asshole attitudes are committed by a minority of men. I don't know if you knew this, but generalising an entire group based on a minority is kinda fucking prejudiced. Where's all the ads about telling women to stop abusing their kids, committing infanticide (not meaning abortion), marrying a man for his money, or diddling kids in primary to high school? Those are mostly committed by women.
I think the motivation behind diversity is important to discuss, or at least have in mind, but only in a kind of behind the scenes kind of sense. Like, I find it interesting to follow these kinds of developments and talk about/examine what they might say about a given culture's development on a given issue. But as you stated, in many ways, when it comes to media diversity, it often times wraps back around to Capitalism and money, and what is more lucrative for the company at the time. Which, also as you said, means there is some positive movement to know that diversity is more monetarily beneficial to them. But I also think looking into motives is more important when discussing government and things like that, than why Disney is hosting a Pride event or why a show has a diverse cast. I don't often worry about it for the most part, as the quality of the representation is more important to me, and the overwhelming majority of the time I see the motivation argument used in bad faith, though I know some make it honestly. Following the motivation back to the studio is just kinda a fun peak behind the curtain and academic conversation, but I don't think it's especially important compared to the quality of outcome.
This is a really interesting video and should give people food for thought. I don’t fully agree in places, I think it’s ok to be frustrated with characters being changed to fit a demographic instead of coming up with a new (or using a ready created) character to use in the medium. I absolutely agree about companies not having an agenda other than money, but that does not mean the creators don’t if that makes sense? This doesn’t matter in the majority of cases but I’ve become frustrated with ‘hand me down’ stories or just badly done ones and my voice ( and thousands of others) is drowned out by 100 dude bros yelling at the creators and then the creators screaming that everyone who doesn’t like it is a misogynist, racist, white boy. Tbh I think I’m just tired of all the fighting over it. Diversity is important, even if you take the representation being important argument out of it. Having movies/books/games with the same ideas and same characters is just boring.
Hello! Just wanted to pop by and say: thank you, and I appreciate you so much for building this platform for yourself, and using it to speak about LGBTQ+ issues. So many fanbases surrounding scifi, and other related cultures are so susceptible to toxicity in GENERAL, but especially with regard to... Literally anything with regards to gender, race, sexuality, etc. in lieu of cishet, white men and as someone who's none of the above it's so disheartening to hear time and time again that my existence is unrealistic, an agenda-pushing, with regards to things I love very dearly. Hearing someone speak up, with such levelheadeness and thought, is very comforting and well appreciated by myself, and many others!!
I thought Into The Spider-Verse was good organic representation for multiple different characters of diversity. Well...Good start I think is probably a better term, and I also think organic is the operative word when it comes to representation. As you can clearly see organic versus forced when you watch a film or TV series.
I personally think there's an argument to be made that support genuinely given for the sake of supporting us and doing the right thing is extremely valuable and should be celebrated, but at the end of the day it's a bonus, not a requirement. Not to mention, people rarely do things for just one reason; heck, it's completely arguable that those of us who are LGBTQ+ putting LGBTQ+ content in our work is less than pure just because it advances the interests of the horse we have in the race. There's no such thing as a completely pure motivation for _anything_, it's all relative degrees of motives, and as you said in the video, the most important thing is what something manages to accomplish; requiring a "pure" motive is disingenuous and really just asking the impossible (which, of course, is to certain segments the point of making said argument).
First of all, you-my friend-look GORGEOUS in this video your entire look is on fleek. Second, thank you for eloquently saying what I've been thinking for about a year now. Thirdly, THANK YOU for these monthly videos!! I discovered your channel around the time I first started questioning my identity and your videos were a big help to get me to realize that I'm NOT cishet like I thought I was but grey ace, panromantic, genderfluid, and possibly on the aro spectrum and that that's OKAY!! You are an inspiration and an idol to me and I hope you have an amazing life and get to keep doing what you love. (Congratulations on the sponsor, by the way, you totally deserve it.)
I love love LOVE seeing my gender identity being represented here on TH-cam! You don't see a lot of content creators who are genderfluid, and I applaud you for embracing that. Thank you for creating this video!!
Favorite representation is definitely Rosa Diaz and Raymond Holt from Brooklyn 99 (literally cried during "Game Night"), and Syd (Elena's significant other) from One Day at a Time. Syd and Elena's getting together was the cutest thing ever, and I'm so glad that TV has evolved far enough for that to happen. Does anyone else remember when TV wouldn't allow Tara and WIllow to be lesbians together so their entire S4 development had to be a magic metaphor? so weird.
I always look forward to these videos!! I think you approached this topic in a really thoughtful way. I definitely appreciated your take on the capitalist aspect of representation- it's so easy to feel cynical about how transparent it is sometimes that companies are simply broadening their demographic. but when it's done well, when it hands creative control to women and creators of colour, when the stories are GOOD- does it matter? i can't help but get excited at how much money black panther made, and how much captain marvel is making now. it's proving to the people making those decisions that YES, they can tell these stories and still make $$$$$$$ doing so, that they can and should continue to diversify. and at the end of the day, that means we get more diverse stories, from all kinds of creators. and that's a good thing.
Sadly, if a cast is chosen on their own merits and happens to be diverse, there are too many in the peanut gallery who will insist it is solely for representation and not talent.
To sum it up in the words of Major Kira, played by the fabulous Nana Visitor: You cannot judge a person by what they think, or what they say, only by what they DO. Over the course of my life I've come to the realization that any reason behind an action is 100% irrelevant. You can go on a quest to achieve utopia by wiping out an entire civilization. There's a minimum of one example for every historical era that tried exactly that. But you know what I really liked about this video? The 'business argument'. It's so logical it almost baffles me that I haven't heard it yet, or even thought about it. It's a good angle to come from, so thank you for that. :) Great video as usual! Have a nice day!
I hate to quote Lord Cutler Beckett from the 2nd and 3rd pirate movies, but it's "Just good business". I agree, I don't think the motivation negates representation.
Just wanted to say that, as a first-time watcher, I appreciated the self-introduction in the beginning. When I clicked on this video, I was a little unsure about what direction this might be going in, so it was nice to know off the bat that this was an LGBT+ perspective and not something... else.
You can be both the Q and the T! (I saw someone make that pun already so I won't, but I consider myself to fall under several letters of the acronym). I agree with you. Under capitalism, there isn't such things as pure motives, but I'll take what I can get.
This is also my argument to people who yell about the whole "Happy Holidays!" thing. It's because money. I'm always happy to see more lgbt+ representation, and initiatives, even if I question their motives. More exposure means more acceptance in the long run.
Re: the charity analogy, I used to work at a shelter, and there was this woman who would go to second hand stores and pick up clothing to bring in. The thing is, with non-money donations, we would have to ask what the value was for the receipt, and she would always grossly overestimate that value, comparing the items she was donating to new clothing prices.
I would tend to agree. As nice as it would be for people to do things for purely altruistic reasons, the instances of that happening are so vanishingly rare as to be nonexistent. Not that there's anything wrong with getting something for giving. There've been times when I wound up giving more than I'd originally intended just because I want a specific perk. (Hello, Project For Awesome) Also like you, I'm thrilled to see corporations line up to join Team Ally because it means they see us as a valued, worthwhile, and let's be honest, lucrative market. I'm perfectly willing to be shilled to if it means I get to see rainbow cookies, women getting married, children with two fathers, and any other iteration of representation that happens to show up. I want to be seen, as I'm sure many of the commentariat here do. If it takes less than pure motives to do that, that's a trade-off I'm willing to make. Don't even get me started on the whole "crying agenda-pushing as a derailing tactic" angle, I'll be here all evening. Again, if anyone not a cis white hetero guy being represented is an "agenda", then I'll cop to having one all day long. (Yeah, it's been a day on that front.)
In my opinion, while yes having a diverse cast should not be a big deal, there are numerous instances when having a character of certain types would be wrong, in most cases that relates to fantasy and historic fiction. An example that immediately comes to mind is Bediver from that awful Arthur movie. It's one thing if he was a trader or whatnot but he was part of the nobilty, it makes zero sense for him to be black in medieval times, when people were xenophobic AF and most rarely left places they were born. Or black Achilles in the fall of Troy. Because yes, when we're talking about stories taking place in modern America it makes for a lax attitude towards characters race. But when we're talking about history, yes white is a default when casting a european. As for the whole: there is no bad reason for diversity, when it comes to modern times, sure but the execution is what often grinds my gears. I had zero issue with the wheel-chair guy or the black guy in extreme ghostbusters back in the day, heck wheel-chair guy was the most badass. But ghostbusters 2016 are walking talking stereotypes, who are women to cash in the femism check. I don't see agenda in having a black guy in black mirror for example but i sure as hell see loads of agenda in black Achilles. As for representaion of gueer/trans characters, i think that in this case community is its own enemy with its puritanism. You see most people don't particularily want to watch such characters, and guys ith money know that. To counteract it they hire famous and beloved actor to play the role, which is something i see most queer people don't like, they protest cis-gender actor and boom actor gives up the role. What happens? Movie gets cancelled. See rub and tug for example. So now there won't be a film telling the story of a transperson, because the choice of actor displeased the puritans. Sorry for the stream of conciosness, i prefer organic characters instead of cardboard cutouts inserted for the quata.
I have often thought something being done for the 'wrong reasons' is bad, but after a lot of thought and going round in circles I finally came to the same conclusion as you present at the beginning of this video- that intent shouldn't negate from the result. I hadn't considered the idea of money, at least not in the way you talk about it, but it's an uplifting thought to realise that companies believe the majority want more inclusion as that means more people are becoming inclusive and expect that representation which is definitely a positive thing.
I use that argument a lot, it was never my intention to stall the conversation but looking back on it that is definitely what happened. Thank you for pointing this out I will endeavour avoid saying this when the conversation isn't going in that particular Direction.
I love that flower accessory. Just saying. Also, with Doctor Who, since the 9th Doctor, it's always been diverse. We've seen more representation as the show went on, but it never really felt out of place or shoehorned in when there were diverse charcters since they were sort of always there.
I do agree with your points. You are right, pointing out the capitalistic motives behind pretty much anyone's actions - anyone big enough to have some power - because truthfully that's just how the world works, as much as we may hate it. I gotta say though, that I feel like the argument of "Wrong reasons" is often due to a prejudice, that may or may not be valid, namely: that representation for the sake of "wrong motive" falls into the category of token-representation. It's the difference between an author genuinely feeling that their story should have a "minority" representation in their story, because it helps them bring across their point, because it is of importance for the narrative, or whatever... and the author adding the "minority" just to appease the voices that demand representation. In a way, I feel like it's not inherently dangerous to bring up the question of motives behind the representation, but I think it shouldn't be seen as a final argument, but rather as a starting point, to help illuminate the context of that representation, and to then judge it's merits. Like, if the author's intention was decidedly positive, and they truly wanted to integrate their "minority" character+plot, but simply weren't skilled enough to do so efficiently, I feel that they should be judged differently than somebody who just added a token character+plot, does that make sense? You end up with a lackluster example in both cases, but one of them should still be valued more than the other, don't you think? Again, I understand your point in saying that we shouldn't refuse or deny representation JUST because it's motivated by potential profits, but I also feel like the argument in itself shouldn't be denied or demonized either
I'm going to have to step in here with devil's advocate that in THIS case that I find Whittaker genuinely poor casting, which does suggest they didn't look for the best candidate (and if the best candidate was female then so be it, but it sure wasn't her). Also Yaz seems to be a gratuitous addition, not for HER as a character but an opportunity to explore her family and her historic origins. This smells of an agenda to me. Versus something like Star Trek Discovery, which some people for some reason see special motives behind the casting & characterizations. Diversity is nothing new in the Trek universe and is handled as naturally as though we could have evolved socially another 200 years.
I have to agree with you. When I was younger I would have been overjoyed to have a female doctor but when it was announced I saw it as a quota being filled and was genuinely worried about that, I now feel justified. I do not see this version of the doctor as a hero, or even someone I enjoy watching, and that is harmful as representation. What does it say when the men are really fun and fantastic to watch and the woman's boring, it means a woman will be less likely to get the chance again and reinforces the thoughts of the wrong people. I'm going to say something so against my principles next but I think it needs to be brought up in this conversation. I don't know about lgbt % but in the UK we have approximately 45% of our population is Cis white men. The BBC currently has a diversity project to hire only 10% of their staff as cis white men. In essence that means if a person of a different ethnicity enters the interview they don't have to be half as good as the cis white man trying to get a job. They want 50% of their workforce to be women, race or sexuality not mentioned. I'm not against diversity in any way but that should not be put before character or talent, there are so many fantastic actors and actresses of different races and backgrounds they do not have to do this kind of quota hiring without regard to the story or the best person for the job. A fantastic example of talent before race goes to Dumezweni being cast as Hermione in TCC despite the character being previously portrayed as white. Even if she was explicitly white in the novels I would have been behind this casting because I believe in equal opportunities, not quota hiring
@@clothcat3071 "reinforces the thoughts of the wrong people" People who wrong in...what way? By pointing out the same stuff you did, just more bluntly? Unless you mean actual no-shit Nazis, I fail to see the problem here. Your ideological opponent's view being validated from a practical standpoint means that yours don't work in reality. So revise your approach on that particular issue, and try again. This isn't some black and white dichotomy.
@@clothcat3071 In regards to your comments about workforce %s... while 45% of the general population are cis white males, I don't see numbers of what their representation is in the workforce. So to not have all of the factual data of the baseline, there is no way to have a real conversation about what the diversity hires actually mean in said workforce. It is as if you are saying 45% of the produce in a grocery store are leafy green vegetables, and someone wants to increase the produce variety of in each home to include other colors, textures, & fruit... yo be able to increase anything, or argue that it shouldn't be, you have to know what the actual numbers are for the area that is being addressed.
I really like the charity analogy, partly because in my head I go to the Friends episode where Joey and Phoebe argue about how no instance of giving to charity is ever purely altruistic because if it were purely altruistic, you wouldn't get anything out of it, and that just doesn't happen. I mean, if you give to charity, regardless of whether you get tax benefits, you feel good about that. Which is a thing that you get out of being altruistic. Personally, I feel that there is no wrong reason for representation. I mean, sure it's disheartening to find out Company Leader X is a bigoted, heartless ... person, but if the company they head does positive things for the community, why argue? I don't even particularly dislike badly done representation ... if people learn from it and realize it's badly done, that is.
When the Whosphere went nuts over Jodie’s casting and swore up and down that they’d lose their fan base, I thought it was interesting that they believed for one moment that the BBC didn’t carefully weigh which part of their fan base was the most economically safe to back. For them, it was those that didn’t care or actively wanted a female doctor.
I think this is the most compelling and well-worded opinion piece I have heard by you. :) This subject is not discussed enough, and I think your perspective will influence how I approach problematic (or perceived problematic) representation.
Really interesting topic! I was actually having a similar discussion with some of my work colleagues the other day. I hear where you're coming from with your points, but for me personally ulterior motive is still important. Call me stubborn, but as a gay man I find the idea of being seen as a tick box more derogatory than not even having the representation in the first place. But hey, thats just my opinion 😜 Hopefully we can agree to disagree ❤
I see it differently, even cheap gay romances make me empathize more than better straight romances, so I'll take them as long as they're not offensive and as long as it's not the end of a development.
It would be really interesting if you could cover the recent LGBT issues in countries like Egypt and Iran. In Egypt a reporter was interviewing a member of the LGBTQ+ community and was arrested just for speaking to them. Ironically the reporter was actually homophobic but it raises an interesting topic about how countries are avoiding human rights by lying about the reasons those of our community are being arrested whilst in truth being gay is truly seen as a crime
I don't feel properly equipped to try and address those kinds of things outside my own country. I'm not a journalist and would very little faith in my ability to do it justice. Should be talked about, I just don't think I'm up to the task.
When you said that companies promote diversity for profit, I immediately thought of the brouhaha a few years ago when someone asked Barilla if they’d make an ad featuring lgbtq+ people, to which the company responded with quite virulent homophobia. At which point, several other pasta companies, San Remo being the one I remember most clearly, jumped up and said, “We will!” And promptly released ads with lgbtq+ representation. Now, that was a good thing to do, but are we going to pretend it wasn’t just those other companies seeing an opportunity for some great publicity and a chance to boost their profits? No, of course not. BUT it was representation that didn’t exist before. Isn’t that a good thing, in the end?
I would say for me whilst the “why” aspect of representation not just of the LGBTQ+ community but of any minority group does not matter nearly as much as the merit of the rep. However personally it has more importance in my eyes than it does in yours. Motive can influence merit and it is interesting to see how far motives behind representations can be linked to the accuracy of them. Also I find that when the motives for representation are “impure” for want of a better word it can lead to instability, all it takes is for one high powered individual within a media conglomerate to decide to reverse decisions relating to representation if as they see it there is a better way of making money. But on the whole I do agree with you whilst also sympathising with those frustrated with the issue of motive. A solution for those people would simply be to avoid mainstream media, there is plenty of independent media content out there containing representations with meaningful motives behind them. *phew* got a bit carried away there
Honestly, I really do enjoy all the lgbtq+ videos you make. I’m really glad you made this one. You put how i feel into words I couldn’t have thought of myself.
Two points: 1) Re: the "Connect the dots" argument -- literal connect the dots puzzles are all numbered for a reason -- because otherwise, you could start and end anywhere you like, and end up drawing a picture that confirms an idea you already had; "connecting the dots" proves nothing. 2) The capitalist motive undercuts the "Forced" diversity argument. Studios are now putting diverse characters in their stories because they've come to realize that there is a diversity of real people in their audience who are buying real tickets (and snacks, and drinks, and tie-in toys and costumes) with real money. And point #2 is what marginalized people have been saying for years (decades): the only reason you "need" for representing minorities in your stories is that it makes your stories more realistic. P.O.C. exist, people in the QUILTBAG exist, women exist, disabled people exist. Period.
an interesting perspective i didn't really think of before!! i was kinda too caught up in the hate of people just profiting off us, without considering that we do, in fact get something in return. it's definitely not perfect but!!! Something! great video!
I realize that this comment is coming in well behind time, but I just wanted to tell you that I find your commentary eminently sensible, clear-minded and reasonable. Such a breath of fresh air, certainly on YT. Thanks for being, and being here :-) .
As always, love your video and agree with many points, but in this case I fear Doctor Who might not be a great starting point: Because the BBC is, in its core, not a capitalistic enterprise, but dedicated to a if not political, than at least public cause. (That's how I understand it, I'm not British...).
The BBC is a weird beast. There is a general directive and policy written by the government because people have to pay a licence fee to see their content. HOWEVER the BBC is still trying to make money, which is why Doctor Who remains one of its premiere shows/cash cows and they made a lot of mint on Bodyguard, so all in all, a very strange beast. Some people are theorising it should become a subscription service but it's still the BBC who use taxpayers money to provide universal radio - still a must for shipping and so on.
There's quite a difference between the vision, however flawed, of an individual creator (Defoe, George Eliot, Paul Scott) and the generation and regeneration of a branded, owned "character" at the hands of dozens of writers, illustrators, and executives. DC and Marvel and the rest can of course continually remake and retcon their characters according to market and reader responses.
I must confess: the economic aspect of why companies are showing diversity didn't even cross my mind! I actually thought that they did think that diversity matters. And who knows? Maybe some of them are actually also thinking that while pondering About the financial success...I wouldn't bet on it though.
I have a problem when creators want praise for doing basically nothing. They are as loud as a chainsaw about it, which is usually annoying, on surface level but nothing of substance is actually going on.
Amazing argument, didn't think of that before and wholeheartedly agree. Thank you very much for the idea. The only instance I can't aply this is the "fake representation", but for the rest it fits like a glove and just makes me happier.
I posted this as a reply to someone else’s comment but I think (maybe wrongly) that it deserves to be it’s own comment. I may be wrong but I hope posting in the main comment thread gives it an opportunity to reach out and explain a side to this to someone else who’s confused or disagrees. Maybe, just maybe, it helps someone else’s opinion develop to incorporate the other side *shrug*: Op comment (shortened) : "I would say it's bad because it means the minorities being represented aren't being treated like any other actor...And while the immediate result is the same, I don't think it's actually helpful in the long run. I think it maintains that sense of 'otherness'..." My response: I don’t know if this will surprise you but as a gay white man (being upfront with my characteristics for honesty) I kind of get where you are coming from. I also kind of agree with the premise. I do think the way SOME (not all) media portays diverse casting is incredibly problematic and leads to making us special (in a bad way). I agree the better world is where an actor is not hired because of their gender, colour, sexuality and etc but because of their innate talent and ability to fill a role and shine. The problem, and the question I ask to you, is this... what’s a better solution? Right now, I cannot see a better way forward that will actually be successful. I doubt I am the only member of the LGBT etc community who doesn’t want to feel “special”, I want to be seen as normal. I want those who come from my community (and other minority’s and genders) to be seen as normal when they fill a role. Whether in the media or other industries; We should appear as, and be treated as, normal. I do genuinely believe there is a lot of media out there that has hired actors based on talent and not as “diversity hires”. However, I also can see the point of view that some shows are very clearly dog whistling to my community. For now I am going to take the same stance as they (unsure of which pronoun) have in this video; the good of the diversity outweighs the negatives. Until we as a society finally catch up to our moral responsibilities to treat everybody equally, we must continue to push ourselves out there. This issue is far more than just “fill that role with a minority/other gender to shut them up”; this is an issue of social equality in all aspects of life. Here in the UK we have achieved: - Marriage Equality [Royal Assent granted 2013] (came in to force, 2014. Excluding Northern Ireland) - Discrimination on supply of goods or services banned [cannot refuse to supply hotel rooms etc based on gender identity or orientation] (2007) - Homophobic hate crimes illegal [it’s own offense vs normal assault etc](2005) - Civil Partnership [essentially Gay Marriage Lite] (2004) - Gender Recognition Act [allows legal gender change] (2004) - Employment Discrimination ban [regarding LGBT] (2003) - Section 28 Repealed [S28 banned positive discussion of homosexuality in schools. Teachers could not support or provide resources about different sexualities.”] (2003) - Equal rights to adoption as a couple [if LGBT] (2002) - Equal age of consent [lowered from 18 to 16, thus matching hetero] (2001) - Lifted the ban on serving in the Armed Forces [no longer enforced but remained on the statute book till 2016] (2000) - Lowering of age of consent to 18 [regarding gay men](1994) - Gay (male) sex no longer illegal for those aged 21 and over [though “privacy restrictions of the act meant a third person could not be present and men could not have sex in a hotel” photographing or recording gay sex was also illegal. Many were still targeted by police with indecency and public order laws for public affection or “soliciting”. “...police stake-outs in parks and toilets...‘pretty police' as bait“] (1967) Yet still to this day hate crimes exist at a high level. A 2017 Stonewall study showed hate crime or incidents had increased 78% over the past 5 years. Confidence to report and differences in how hate crime is recorded can account for SOME of the increase, not all. Recent research shows that up to four in five incidents of hate crime go unreported; those that are reported often either do not lead to conviction or receive short sentences. Although typically the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be supportive of the LGBT community/are more liberal it still occurs; 45% of respondents to Stonewalls 2017 School Report experienced bullying for being LGBT. This was a fall of 10% from 2012 and 20% from 2007 BUT it’s still almost half. We clearly are not there (equal utopia) yet. I didn’t just bring this up because its horrific. Multiple studies/surveys show an uptick in approval and acceptance for the community, as a whole, following each of these equalizing moments in history. Whether there’s a law change (marriage equality, age of consent etc.), a social change (LGBT members are more outward with their identity) or a change in media (female doctor, gay lead characters [Will & Grace] etc.) the acceptance of women and the LGBT community increases. To me, the data seems to indicate that once people are shown, even if they don’t want to be, we are not evil or alien and have the same basic wants and desires, people start to accept us; essentially, we’re human too. This is anecdotal but take my father for example, I remember as a child he was against civil partnerships and gay marriage in the lead up to CPs becoming law. However, just before I came out (not long before gay marriage), I asked him whether he still felt the same way, he didn’t; this was incredibly surprising to me. I asked him “What changed?” and his response was touching, though as blunt and lacking in empathy of emotion as normal due to his Aspergers “I didn’t understand them because they were weird and I didn’t get why they wanted something that was ours. I think now that they just wanted the same legal protection, and stuff, as us and that’s okay to me. They didn’t do anything silly with it.”. This started a long conversation about how experiencing the law change felt to him (angry and confused to understanding and accepting) and led me to then look in to the data on attitudes toward LGBT and other minorities. Much as we want people to understand, accept and not vilify us because of who we are, we have to do the same to those who don’t get us. That conversation made me realise that to my dad, we were strange and confusing and what he needed wasn’t to be vilified for his misguided beliefs but to have something he didn’t have control over change, see the result (nothing changes for him) and come to accept it himself. Yes we can try the gently gently route but sometimes things need to be forced to gain acceptance. We can force things in ways that aren’t aggressive like hiring someone because they are a minority. Yes, this may feel shitty to those who are LGBT. It may irritate those on the other side; those who hate not just positive diversity hiring but a minority in a role at all. BUT a more gradual route than gives them a chance to see it won’t effect them negatively is better than the alternative. The alternative that’s been tried time and time again. Insulting and shouting at them hasn’t ever, and won’t ever, work. Aggression gives them a reason to be defensive; acting like this makes them retreat further and further in to their echo chamber, a place where they can feel oppressed and that it’s “Us VS. Them”. Take the Stonewall Riots, they pushed people to realise they had to fight, create groups and pride marches and actually talk. It wasn’t the violence (on either side) that enacted real positive change at the end of the day. As it always will, the change came from communication. Discussion, planning and persuading is what all wars finish with in the end. Violence will always beget more violence. I don’t know, this may be utter gibberish that’s been droned on and on by someone who hasn’t slept for 32 hours *shrug*. I just think that the history of LGBT acceptance and general approval has some lessons we should remember now and again. We may not be there yet but a lot has changed in just my lifetime (24 years); it’s a lot easier for kids to come out now than when I did and that was only 10(ish) years ago. It’s my belief that the change hasn’t come from taking teams and hurling abuse. We can act all high and mighty and moralistic about changes being forced but until we have a better solution, this seems better than violence.
This was an elucidating post for me. What do you think of the arguments people make against movies like Captain Marvel, or characters like Rey from the Star Wars sequels? Specifically, that people loved strong female characters like Sarah Connor, Princess Leia, or Alita, but found these other characters contrived Mary Sues? It just seems to be about authentic writing. I feel as though gay characters could be written in a way where everybody loves them, including the majority of those maligned for disliking Captain Marvel or the SW sequel characters.
@@jamesk7256 Thanks for reaching out and continuing the conversation mate :) I'm genuinely incredibly pleased that my, let's face it, inchoerent ramblings helped even one person see this side more clearly. Honestly, I believe their arguments have a lot of merit. I agree with your viewpoint on them and the situation 150%. I'm not really a fan of Star Wars (I know, perish the thought) and so I came in to the reboot unblinkered by hopes and expectations. Even I couldn't stop my brain repeatedly going "Why the fuck are they making this new character so absurdly strong yet somehow weak willed and unrealistic. I get your strong but you can still be strong with faults ". Writers repeatedly keep doing a disservice to minority characters and it just gives fuel to the homophobes and misogynists. Strong, powerful, AND endearing/authentic minority characters are far too rare. It's been shown in the past it's possible yet for some reason the industry has forgotten how Take my "minority"; the vast majority of gay male characters are constantly written in to a corner. A gay character must be at least 3 of these things in Hollywood: -Camp as fuck -The gay best friend -An Uber Fashionista -Be so Queeny, it makes even my skin crawl -Be mentally ill (depressed or experience suicidal ideation) -Hopeless at Love/Dating -A slutty power bottom who needs to have fucked two guys every evening -Appear incredibly confident but deep down they still just can't seem to love themselves because they're gay -Be in to some super kinky bondage/Sub/Dom/Drug fuelled sex -Lust after the "super hot" straight guy-next-door/match winning quarterback/best friends brother. -Have an affair with an older man (while barely at the age of consent) It's not just unrealistic for the majority of gay men, it's insulting. Real gay men have layers. It creates unlikeable, forgettable, cringey characters that fulfill all of the worst opinions of homophobes. Hollywood and Mainstream writers, do you want to know how to write a gay male character? Draft out a realistically strong straight male character. Now make him a leader, one that has issues they struggle with yet manages not to spend 95% of his screen time in a self pitying malaise. Right, here's the "hardest" part...Make him sexually attracted to men. BAM! Job done. Hollywood, do you know how I like to spend my evenings as a gay man? Curled up on the sofa, my head on my (*ahem* I'm recently single but this still works) partners lap, watching TH-cam. "BUT BUT BUT" screams Hollywood "That sounds like you enjoy a submissive role so you would have to be a subby bottom, right?" Wrong, I'm an occasional Vers (rarely and only with long term partners I trust) but majority Top; a dominant top who often likes it rough, at that. I (and men like me) do not exist as a character in writers eyes, I'm too normal. I'm a diverse, sometimes confusing, character with extensive breadth and depth to my personality. Sadly that doesn't fit the niche writers want filled. I think my point is this, I said in my last post we need diversity hires because exposure leads to a milder negative response that will eventually become positive. I'd like to take what you brought up and change my point slightly. "We need diversity hires. Diversity hires that play well-rounded, believable, not overpoweringly strong nor pitifully weak, NORMAL roles. The data tends to show that exposureleads to a milder negative response that will eventually become positive." I hope that helps James. I didn't mean to become quite as worked up about gay characters. It's something that really really pisses me off and I caught your notification after I've had a wine or two (not drunk, my inhibitions just are lowered a tad XD). Characters like the ones I complained about are the role models that depress gay kids that are still discovering themselves. They don't want to act like them but think they have to, if they want to be a real gay. I was one of them once,I know the feeling and it sucks.
These are very good and well thought out points. I think this video is important, definitely seems as though it helps you to vent about this while also being respectful and informing people who may be on the other side. Keep it up!
dotn have time to watch this video at moment but the title did make me want to say something i dont think there is a "Wrong reason" as representation is still representation which has a impact and moves things forward a good example legend of korra and its ending while there is debate on how well set up the ending was (i personally saw it coming) it did cause massive changes and in just 4 short years sense it happened we have had alot of same sex couples in children animation and those only did it because korra opened that door
This was pretty helpful, and confirmed what I was worried about when posting on Doctor Who's more recent rounds of diverse characters. I'll definitely keep this video in mind when examining future media. Cheers 😄
I agree with you. However I have 2 points: 1) Charity is a bad example: if, instead of tax cut, we uses the tax, it souls be more effective. 2) Bad motives often induce flaws in the action.
The very fact that it has to be said that companies whose sole aim is to make money think diversity may push away others is so sad to me. I love for a world where nobody has to worry about alienating people in the name of diversity. This is the reason good representation is so hard to find and the reason we as a community have become so expert in seeing it even between the lines and in subtext alone. It’s high time representation was unapologetically explicit and that companies behind it stopped caring about who they will alienate in the name of diversity. I realise that as long as people are still implicitly prejudiced this will never happen. But I can dream right.
I always value good representation and diversity because the visibility in main stream media help people get used to diversity, even if they don't have someone from a minority in their direct vicinity that they know of. People fear what they don't know or aren't familiar with and mainstream media is a great way to familiarize people with minorities. Especially when done with quality representation. The second reason why I think it's important is to show people that it is possible to be different. For me that could have been a huge difference in my life. Little over a year ago I came out as transgender. When I was young there was barely any characters with an LGBTQ background, let alone that I knew what transgender was. I knew what I felt like, but I couldn't put it to words and when I found myself wishing I had simply been a boy I thought I was stuck in my body. I didn't know transgender people existed until 2015. If there had been representation when I grew up beyond some freak documentaries my life would have been easier. I now make videos here on youtube helping writers learn about transgender people so they can write good transgender characters and good, realistic, representation. I'm a writer myself so I combine my knowledge of character development with my personal experience and education. I consider it one of the most important things I've ever done. I've been watching your videos for a while now and I like your confidence and insights. Thought I would finally pop in and say hi.
This whole idea that capitalism exists in an ideologically pure vacuum is thoroughly discredited nonsense. The thing about bigotry is that it's not logical, and often trumps logic. Wealth is often a secondary concern to hate.
i think why most people have an issue with those new diverse caracters is that most of their personality is them being gay/lesbian/a woman/etc.... I heard many complain about that for the new batwoman series. While i personally don't mind it cuz i'm a huge lesbian and i need that gay stuff, i can see why it would alienate some that already in the trailers the fact that she's a woman seems to be the core thing to her character. I know that this is alredy the case with her original character in the comics (and that there are good explanations for it), but for someone who doesn't know this it must seem like the character is just that.
i think its super important to have good representation. i think its also important to be able to see your self in people who are not like you so diversity is good for that too. i don't care if its because they want my money there are finally more women in star wars! one of the doctors companions is dyspraxic (even if they didn't handle it great) and cartoon characters are starting to have more and more lgbtq+ characters and explore that and i didnt realise how much i needed that growing up.
Thanks for this? I needed that. I feel like I despite being trans fall into this trap, of like questioning the motive, but like...it’s representation? Representation is goodand necessary to start taking apart the harmful elements and building BETTER representation. This was good :) thanks for thie
When Nike used Colin Kaepernick as their spokesman, a lot of people claimed that they didn't really support his activism (whatever you think of it) but were doing it solely because controversy sells. Duh, it's Nike. But there's nothing wrong with taking him into account when thinking about what brand of shoes to buy. So the only thing that really matters for me is whether the representation itself is respectful. As CHVRCHES says, good intentions are never good enough. Selfish intentions are more common than most of us care to admit. Deal with it.
I totally agree w/ you my only problem is with stuff like what JK Rowling did w/ Dumbledore which wow i know what a surprise but yea I do think its dumb to say a character is gay to get the brownie points or whatever and then not ever actually show in canon anything about it when she really did have the chance with the new trainwreck of a movie
I enjoy the videos that I saw of yours and find it rather educational. To commet on the phrase you said about the children, I say educate the children. They need to learn about all types of communities, especially the LGBTQ+ community. Thank you for putting your videos out there to help people understand the world a little more.
The only thing I ask for when a character is changed to be another race or gender is that they bring something with it. It doesn't have too but examples like Miles Morales Spider-man shows how even though Miles is really different than Peter Parker the core values of Spider-man remain and in the process creates a unique new story that shows and talks about issue black people face. Again authors don't have too, but since this is a trend nowadays I wish more authors took advantage of this to not only create more unique stories but to show what other races and genders go through.
I don’t see it as being diversity for the “wrong reason” i don’t generally care if people get represented more, I think it’s awesome. I understand that being represented is important to some people because it helps validate who they are and how they feel and that’s wonderful for them. I think just sometimes we over saturate the amount of representation, to the point where I can kinda see why people roll their eyes at the idea of it. If every single movie or show takes out specific character traits or gives specific character traits just because they want representation, doesn’t always mean that it’s a good way of going about it. Sometimes these instances of representation do the opposite of what they were meant to. Sometimes they’re poorly written and to me it kinda ends up being insulting to the people they were meant to represent. But great video and honestly very interesting to hear the point of view of someone who feels under represented for a different reason than I do.
Yes. Inclusion and noticing LGBTQ+ as a cash cow - is a bit of a win in itself. The companies are seeing the value in accepting. It’s not moral maybe, but not everyone ( maybe a lot of others?!) who are being introduced to this “acceptance “ will realize that either. They will just see LGBTQ+ as more acceptable and widely prevalent. Great video!
Interesting points. My issue with the 13th Doctor was how poorly she was written rather than the idea of a female Doctor in and of itself. Gender swaps have been done well before like the transformation of The Master into a woman during the 12th Doctor's tenure. It was handled really well and helped develop the character.
I don't think that "I *would* like this, but the motivation. . ." is an argument many people make in good faith. It's one I almost never hear at all. I think the far more common is "I do *not* like this change, and it annoys me *further* because I am suspect of the agenda behind it." Like if a character change is made because it would narratively result in a better *story,* that's one thing. But if the choice is made because it is pandering, then it is more pathetic. It's always the change made that is the core issue though. If a character is killed off and replaced because that character was defunct and the new character is intended to function better, then fine,most people don't even notice. If a character is killed off even while still being quite *popular,* and replaced by a "more diverse" option, then that is an insult to those who still enjoyed the original, and they will react in kind. And as to the "they do this because Capitalism" argument, exactly. This is why so many boycotts have sprung up to actively support the status quo. It doesn't have to be a fight though. Comics were plenty diverse a decade or two ago without any of this kerfuffle. It's pretty simple,*add diversity,* but don't *reduce* the current options. Don't kill off popular characters to replace them. Don't turn male characters female or straight characters gay. Add *new* characters that are more diverse, allow the market to support the ones they want to support. If the market genuinely wants these characters, then they will buy the more diverse characters books, and the less diverse characters will lose sales, and it will eventually reach the point the "representation matters" crowd wants. *If* that's what the audience wants.
Except that no, comics weren't really diverse decades ago. Most heroes were either white, straight, cis, men, or some combination of the four. Also, it's really hard to actually get a comic to sell well, even the more well established ones like Batman or Superman. The only real option for diverse characters in comics is to change pre-existing characters or at least heavily tie them into ones, because making a brand new superhero from scratch is not financially viable unless they make their debut in the movies.
Very cogent but I kept thinking about marcel duchamp and man ray and dadaism and the guy in the old spike jones record imitating peter lorre: "Those eyes! They keept weenking and bleenking at meeeeee!"
In a capitalist structure entertainment in particularly caught in a stangle hold. It's not just comics and TV etc, but also sports, I mean Jacky Robinson and Moses Fleetwood weren't allowed to play because a moral stance, but because it put asses in seats. Even Steven Universe with an obvious agenda continued because it was marketable. If it wasn't making money, it would have died years ago. Playing the game as SU team did was and is amazing. The artists may have beautiful intensions but the company publishing them, paying them, has a singular focus. At the end of the day of course positive representation matters, but so does inclusion at all. How we achieve that inclusion and representation will always be a struggle.
Can't support the use of Marvel Comics as an example where "Money" was the primary focus of a change toward "Diversity" - there is just too much idiocy with that entire situation to boil it down to "That's where they thought the money would be.". Marvel started to really "diversify" their Comics during a time where it was painfully obvious that there was a significant resistance to that idea in ALL Entertainment. This was in the 2012-2015 era, where you had the emergence of Anita Sarkessian and later on the "Vivian James" kerfuffle, all showing a significant portion of the normal target audience of Marvel Comics were unsupportive of a pivot towards "diversified" entertainment. No one competent would have pivoted into that kind of environment to increase sales. Particularly not in the short term - and the reaction to the fall in comic sales after that pivot is a clear indication that the pivot was for ideological reasons, justified to the suits with wildly inflated expectations (something like "The Core Audience will stay with us through thick and thin, and we will grow to NEW audiences at the same time, while becoming the Industry Leader in Diversity!" and the suits going "Avengers just made a Billion dollars, we can hire these new "creatives" for half the cost of the old creatives, they'll do most of the marketing for us... let's do this!") and after they did the pivot and the sales dropped significantly, they tried to bring the financial stuff back up in the only ways they knew how - gimmicks. Relaunches, All New #1, short-term Publicity Stunt writer hires (Ta-Neshi Coates, anyone?), courting controversy to get more publicity, forcing stores to buy comics the stores knew they weren't going to sell, etc. Nothing about the Marvel Comics pivot towards Diversity indicates that it had a financial plan in mind. Or really, ANY plan in mind.
My friends and I are writing a book and one of them wants to make an established character trans. (We haven't written the book yet, so it wouldn't be a change in the narrative). I have no personal issues with this (I'm a complete and utter feminist), I'm just worried from a writing standpoint (both areas of which you have a hand in). Unless there have been edits to her character (last I checked, we have a fairly fleshed out character). I don't know how important gender identity is for trans people (I have an idea, but have never lived it so I don't know the full extent) and how much of their life it effects. I would love a trans character in this book, I'm just not sure how much of an already established character it will change. (Also, spoilers: She's killed off somewhere around the middle of book 1, so she doesn't have *much* of an arc). It's not a huge deal to me whether or not the character changes a bit (I wouldn't want to rewrite her, but that shouldn't happen if she's trans), I just want to make sure it's done right. Got any thoughts?
I seriously enjoy your videos. They're really well done. No matter how much I agree/disagree with them, I love hearing your thoughts. This made me think about this topic differently. I completely get why this irritates you, and I'm glad you made this video.
The Q *or* the T? I will accept no less than 'you are a Q-T!'
Yes! This comment wins. I agree.
You beat me to it!
I see what you did there!
@Xtra Spice Mikey it's usually an umbrella term for basically anyone what isn't 100% straight and/or 100% cis. So like, yes, but also other things. And some other people don't like the term at all (mostly older people) because it was used to target them in a negative way (oh boy trauma). Some people like using it as their only label. (I've also seen 'gay' used as the same thing, an umbrella term for LGBTQ+ people, but it's less common).
GlitteryGarbage noice
This shit drives me nuts. It's like when people say, "oh I don't want it being made so political." Everything is political, *not* casting women, POC and LGBTQ+ people is just a different kind of politics - status quo politics.
Ah yes, the status quo of not wanting your work to be infested with boring, safe Mary Sues because dipshits will get offended if you make them anything less. The horror.
I've never heard no one wants woman or black people, but since 2016 writters are bashing our head with their politics, when it should be on the bavkgroung of a story not in the foreground. Look i like better a character like Monica Rambeau or even the old miss marvel than a character like carol danvers(2016-present).
Everything can be read as a political statement, it's arguable if it actually means everything is political. But yeah, you're basically right.
The reason I love your videos is because you cut the crap around things and say "Let's look at this for what it really is."
Your capitalism point is super important, no matter which side of the coin you come from.
I feel like deleting the "agenda" cry from the argument and focusing on whether or not the representation was honest, genuine, and non-gratuitous (by gratuitous I mean badly written and badly portrayed simply to try to capitalize) would greatly increase the level of conversations that we could have around the subject.
Again, Fabulous video!
I think to many, if not most, the argument about whether or not there is an ulterior motive (an agenda) is the same as whether or not it is honest or genuine, and usually when it comes across the most gratuitous or shoehorned you see the agenda argument the most.
In this polarized era, people are becoming hypersensitive to feeling as though they're having an agenda shoved down their throats. In particular, it's not a concern over the disadvantaged being elevated so much, but rather the feeling that whites, males, heterosexuals, and CIS-gendered people are being attacked - and, rather than having these concerns assuaged, responses to these feelings tend to be further attacks invalidating these concerns, or being told outright that they are alt-right racists, sexists, homophobes, and transphobes.
It's why so many have rejected identity politics to the point where they were willing to elect someone as unsavory as Donald Trump into office; they believe the political left as a whole has become completely inimical to their identity group, doesn't genuinely want peaceful coexistence and equality, and will stop at nothing short of turning the tables of oppression (as opposed to ending oppression outright).
I think too often these groups end up speaking past one another, and can't look past the misgivings - or subdue the knee-jerk reactions they may have - in response to hearing another groups' perspective and concerns. While it's true some people aren't amenable to reason, responding with anger or invalidation will only serve to amplify each other's aggression and tribal impulses. Anger begets anger, hate begets hate.
Well, there are a lot of dishonest players in the discussion.
I guess, I will explain my point of view on the matter by using an example: When Disney hired Ava Duvenay to direct A Wrinkle in Time, I really didn't like the decision at all. Not because she is a WoC, but because I knew that all of her movies are about the black experience, so to speak. I knew that her "agenda" so to speak, would lead to her not focussing on making a good adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, but on using the property as a vehicle to push the kind of message she likes to push. And I wanted an adaptation which would be bold enough to focus on the philosophical aspects of the story. And in the end, I was right with my concerns.
All this said, the reason why A Wrinkle in Time got mixed reviews is not because it is a bad adaptation. There are a lot of great movies which are actually terrible adaptations - and those include "The Shining", "Die Hard", "Rocky" and "The Little Mermaid", to mention just a few. Weather I like it or not, adapting a property with a new angle is a perfectly valid approach.
And I think that is something one has ALWAYS keep in mind: "Forced Diversity" is just a way to say: There was some really bad writing in this, and since there were some characters which are not straight white males I blame THEM for it instead of the bad writing or directing.
Also, it is just a movie. I didn't get the version of A Wrinkle in time I wanted this time around, but hey, I always have the book.
I totally agree but wish he could have used a different word to capitalism. People wanting money, and doing things they wouldn't otherwise do to get more money, is not unique to the owners of businesses, or to capitalist societies.
Now, now, hold on, Nathaniel, you're making intelligent and balanced points. Don't you know that's against the "rules" of internet debates?
Great vid.
I'm gonna save this quote
I completely agree with you on your choice of earrings, but completely disagree with you on your choice of necklaces.
Woodsie89 have to agree. It’s like looking at eyes.
The necklace does complement the top, though.
Same. It looks like fat toes with tiny nails, and I hate it.
Oh. My. Argus. Your necklace is staring me down.
I know, I don't even want to bring up such a admittedly trivial point but I found those eyes disconcerting too. I missed the cute bead string.
Me too
HBHaga actually I think they’re all staring directly away from me
(laughing)
"I will take a insincere gesture of generosity than the genuine gesture of apathy" - Todd in the Shadows
Valid, I guess.
Personally, I feel the opposite way.
It’s so weird when you see that different you tubers you like acknowledge each other.
I agree with the sentiment.
@@marinettedorien8236 I *know!*
I think every time someone says "[blank minority] is only in this because of an agenda" we should just reply with "why is that bad?" Because that response pretty much forces people to either admit that they just don't want minority characters in their media or makes them bend over backwards trying to justify why it's bad, usually with very shaky results.
I would say it's bad because it means the minorities being represented aren't being treated like any other actor, they're being treated like "here's the female superhero, here's the black superhero". And while the immediate result is the same, I don't think it's actually helpful in the long run. I think it maintains that sense of "otherness". That we default to white male and have only as many black/female characters as needed to keep the public happy.
I think most people would agree that the ideal future scenario is a world where race/gender/whatever doesn't influence decision making whatsoever (which would result in diverse casts), and treating minorities as something to be included either because you have to, or because you want to make a point with their inclusion, is still putting emphasis on their status as non white male. It's better for sure, but it's still quite a bit off from treating them the same.
(btw, not watched the video yet, sorry if he addresses these exact points and counters them)
@@darkvoid9329 I can see where you're coming from, but I think "look at this black superhero" "look at this female superhero" is where we're at right now. I do think we'll get to that point where we don't have to automatically point out those aspects, but it won't happen overnight. We still need better representation and wider societal acceptance. I once saw in a comic where the author was like "I want to get to a point where labels don't matter, but until then I'll proudly be known as the gay comic book artist" or something along those lines, and I have to agree with the sentiment.
Nerd in the Library because what happens when this occurs to an agenda you DONT agree on. The principle of the thing really starts to shift then doesn’t it?
aran carr-brown aran carr-brown I don’t know if this will surprise you but, as a gay white man (being upfront with my characteristics for honesty) I kind of get where you are coming from. I also kind of agree with the premise. I do think the way SOME (not all) media portays diverse casting is incredibly problematic and leads to making us special (in a bad way). I agree the better world is where an actor is not hired because of their gender, colour, sexuality and etc but because of their innate talent and ability to fill a role and shine.
The problem, and the question I ask to you, is this... what’s a better solution? Right now, I cannot see a better way forward that will actually be successful. I doubt I am the only member of the LGBT etc community who doesn’t want to feel “special”, I want to be seen as normal. I want those who come from my community (and other minority’s and genders) to be seen as normal when they fill a role. Whether in the media or other industries; We should appear as, and be treated as, normal.
I do genuinely believe there is a lot of media out there that has hired actors based on talent and not as “diversity hires”. However, I also can see the point of view that some shows are very clearly dog whistling to my community. For now I am going to take the same stance as they (unsure of which pronoun) have in this video; the good of the diversity outweighs the negatives. Until we as a society finally catch up to our moral responsibilities to treat everybody equally, we must continue to push ourselves out there. This issue is far more than just “fill that role with a minority/other gender to shut them up”; this is an issue of social equality in all aspects of life. Here in the UK we have achieved:
- Marriage Equality [Royal Assent granted 2013] (came in to force, 2014. Excluding Northern Ireland)
- Discrimination on supply of goods or services banned [cannot refuse to supply hotel rooms etc based on gender identity or orientation] (2007)
- Homophobic hate crimes illegal [it’s own offense vs normal assault etc](2005)
- Civil Partnership [essentially Gay Marriage Lite] (2004)
- Gender Recognition Act [allows legal gender change] (2004)
- Employment Discrimination ban [regarding LGBT] (2003)
- Section 28 Repealed [S28 banned positive discussion of homosexuality in schools. Teachers could not support or provide resources about different sexualities.”] (2003)
- Equal rights to adoption as a couple [if LGBT] (2002)
- Equal age of consent [lowered from 18 to 16, thus matching hetero] (2001)
- Lifted the ban on serving in the Armed Forces [no longer enforced but remained on the statute book till 2016] (2000)
- Lowering of age of consent to 18 [regarding gay men](1994)
- Gay (male) sex no longer illegal for those aged 21 and over [though “privacy restrictions of the act meant a third person could not be present and men could not have sex in a hotel” photographing or recording gay sex was also illegal. Many were still targeted by police with indecency and public order laws for public affection or “soliciting”. “...police stake-outs in parks and toilets...‘pretty police' as bait“] (1967)
Yet still to this day hate crimes exist at a high level. A 2017 Stonewall study showed hate crime or incidents had increased 78% over the past 5 years. Confidence to report and differences in how hate crime is recorded can account for SOME of the increase, not all. Recent research shows that up to four in five incidents of hate crime go unreported; those that are reported often either do not lead to conviction or receive short sentences. Although typically the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be supportive of the LGBT community/are more liberal it still occurs; 45% of respondents to Stonewalls 2017 School Report experienced bullying for being LGBT. This was a fall of 10% from 2012 and 20% from 2007 BUT it’s still almost half.
We clearly are not there (equal utopia) yet.
I didn’t just bring this up because its horrific. Multiple studies/surveys show an uptick in approval and acceptance for the community, as a whole, following each of these equalizing moments in history. Whether there’s a law change (marriage equality, age of consent etc.), a social change (LGBT members are more outward with their identity) or a change in media (female doctor, gay lead characters [Will & Grace] etc.) the acceptance of women and the LGBT community increases. To me, the data seems to indicate that once people are shown, even if they don’t want to be, we are not evil or alien and have the same basic wants and desires, people start to accept us; essentially, we’re human too.
This is anecdotal but take my father for example, I remember as a child he was against civil partnerships and gay marriage in the lead up to CPs becoming law. However, just before I came out (not long before gay marriage), I asked him whether he still felt the same way, he didn’t; this was incredibly surprising to me. I asked him “What changed?” and his response was touching, though as blunt and lacking in empathy of emotion as normal due to his Aspergers “I didn’t understand them because they were weird and I didn’t get why they wanted something that was ours. I think now that they just wanted the same legal protection, and stuff, as us and that’s okay to me. They didn’t do anything silly with it.”. This started a long conversation about how experiencing the law change felt to him (angry and confused to understanding and accepting) and led me to then look in to the data on attitudes toward LGBT and other minorities. Much as we want people to understand, accept and not vilify us because of who we are, we have to do the same to those who don’t get us. That conversation made me realise that to my dad, we were strange and confusing and what he needed wasn’t to be vilified for his misguided beliefs but to have something he didn’t have control over change, see the result (nothing changes for him) and come to accept it himself.
Yes we can try the gently gently route but sometimes things need to be forced to gain acceptance. We can force things in ways that aren’t aggressive like hiring someone because they are a minority. Yes, this may feel shitty to those who are LGBT. It may irritate those on the other side; those who hate not just positive diversity hiring but a minority in a role at all. BUT a more gradual route than gives them a chance to see it won’t effect them negatively is better than the alternative. The alternative that’s been tried time and time again. Insulting and shouting at them hasn’t ever, and won’t ever, work. Aggression gives them a reason to be defensive; acting like this makes them retreat further and further in to their echo chamber, a place where they can feel oppressed and that it’s “Us VS. Them”.
Take the Stonewall Riots, they pushed people to realise they had to fight, create groups and pride marches and actually talk. It wasn’t the violence (on either side) that enacted real positive change at the end of the day. As it always will, the change came from communication. Discussion, planning and persuading is what all wars finish with in the end. Violence will always beget more violence.
I don’t know, this may be utter gibberish that’s been droned on and on by someone who hasn’t slept for 32 hours *shrug*. I just think that the history of LGBT acceptance and general approval has some lessons we should remember now and again. We may not be there yet but a lot has changed in just my lifetime (24 years); it’s a lot easier for kids to come out now than when I did and that was only 10(ish) years ago. It’s my belief that the change hasn’t come from taking teams and hurling abuse. We can act all high and mighty and moralistic about changes being forced but until we have a better solution, this seems better than violence.
hardfugoo Between the two of you (Nerd in the Library and Yourself), you have both highlighted the issue with all of this. I touched on this in my essay of a response. Nerd in the Library generalises everyone who disagrees with him and you then proceed to attack them with an aggressive “yeah, so what. You do it too”. In what way are either of you progressing the issue? Neither of you are going to accept the differences in opinion nor, apparently, can you see that each of your arguments have flaws.
You both could, and should, have been better here. Nerd in the Library should have said something along the lines of “In my experience when the other side is called out on what they are saying about this, they struggle to find an explanation other than hate. If someone who feels this way would like to discuss their root cause with me and help me understand I’d be grateful” It’s still an anecdotal piece of evidence (so essentially useless) but gives others a chance to explain. As for you, you could have said “The problem with your response is you are generalising all of the other side on this issue. Here is why I feel this way about this *insert why you disagree*. What parts do you disagree on and why?” All without either of you being half veiled dicks to each other. What could have been a productive conversation and a learning experience for everyone, instead turns in taking sides. What the fuck is the point, apart from making yourself feel good for “sticking it to the man” that is the other side?
For example, gun control. I come from the UK where guns are pretty much banned (apart from shotguns for sport shooting). Unsurprisingly considering our backgrounds with gun laws and the school shooting that triggered the ban, when I (and most other British people) look at countries with much laxer gun laws, wrongful police shootings and frequent mass shootings, we wonder why they hold on to them so tight. Why do they feel they must have them? Why do all police (instead of specially trained and highly culpable units that go through an extensive evaluation and training program) need to carry them? However when I discuss with a gun rights supporting American I don’t get aggressive or high and mighty, I don’t match their aggression if they throw around flawed statistics or try to bend knife crime in the UK stats to fit their agenda without looking at population size or distribution. I instead try to understand their point of view and give them mine. If they use stats that are either incorrect or misrepresented, I try to explain why thats the case and show them.
This constant “Us VS. Them” rhetoric in the US that’s now bleeding out to other countries is pointless and reductive. No change is ever going to happen if all either side does is say the other is wrong aggressively or partake in whataboutisms.
What exactly were either of you hoping for by denigrating the other side? Watching both sides on any issue act in this way would be hilarious if it wasn’t so concerning. We’re better than this.
My s/o and I were actually talking about this just last night, the main thing we talked about was that a lot of the times in comics, when writers are adding diversity for the "wrong reasons" it often doesn't pan out well. I think it was definitely easy to look at it like that when we were looking at cases of bad representation after the fact and then looking at the motivations behind the creative teams. I rarely see anyone looking back at good examples of representation and dissecting the motives behind it.
That said I do agree that a piece of media in question should be judged more on its own, instead of based on what the motivations behind the added diversity were.
I feel like this analysis is not just about LGBTQ+ representation but moreso about all representation about what we widely consider to be diverse, which I like :)
Also... sorry, but your necklace looks like eyeballs staring at the audience.
It looks a bit like contrapoints gothic weird costumes. For good or bad,it is uncanny.
I wondered if anyone else felt that way about the necklace. Lol. I totally was weirded out by them. Though otherwise love the outfit.
Yep. Definitely eyeballs.
Thank god, it isn't just me. It kind of freaked me out.
Doing it "out of the kindness of their hearts" would be labelled agenda pushing as well. Since your motivation is to help minorities or whatever. You basically can't win with these people who argue that way.
True capitalism should not see race, creed,color, or sexual orientation. Before I became disabled I was in retail for a lot of my working life. In 93 at Christmas time I was working at a shop with quilts and lace and decor. A gay couple came in and ask to look at the lace curtains. None of the older ladies I worked with would wait on them. I stepped up and did what I could to help them and ended up selling them over $400.00 in lace curtains. The supervisor found out the next day and read the old ladies the riot act and she gushed over my sale.
It reminds me a lot of what happened to women's rights during WW2 - a lot of women were given the opportunity to work only because the men were out fighting, but all in all it still improved equality in the end.
I don't see anyone mentioning it so I have to say- that blue hairclip is absolutely lovely!
Again, interesting insight. Not the direction I was expecting (tbf not sure what direction I was expecting) but thoughtful and honest as usual.
Here in the UK we had a situation at the start of the year that i think from what you were saying has relevance.
A well known baked goods chain released a vegan version of their most popular product and the media and social networks went crazy. "PC gone mad!" etc. Thing is it was clear that they weren't doing this for any politically motivated reason but financially to open up a new demographic to sell to. In fact in the resulting furore, the vegan version was their best seller for over a month.
I'm not entirely sure where I was going with this but it seemed important to say it when I started typing this comment.
You know what, delete this if you want I think I'm just rambling.
I'll stop now.
Now
That was my takeaway from the whole 'vegan sausage roll' thing too. All those people droned on, up in arms about how they were "pandering to vegan liberals" and "insulting meat eaters", while I just saw a company finding a new, less tapped demographic they could market to, and so they did. And it fucking worked. I was curious to try one myself but I didn't get the chance for ages because they flew off the damn shelves. It was a classic financial, capitalist move, but because it was marketed towards *THE VEGANS*, all those numpties on twitter and facebook thought it was some big liberal conspiracy to replace meat sausage rolls or some shit. It was beyond self-parody.
That was actually a good point.
Yeah, I agree. Also, love the format
Good morning from the UK. Always enjoy these topics so going to happily learn more about LGBTQ+ stuff in media while waiting for a university meeting.
Great video. I tend to roll my eyes every time I hear someone say something along the lines of “they are doing it for the wrong reasons”. Especially when there is no way they could possibly know the reasons of the casting directors. They just see diversity and instantly label it done for the “wrong reasons”
I had many conversations about "agenda" over the years. You're spot on about it derailing a discussion about any piece of media. The saddest part about this is how much a "victim" mentality seems to occur. "But don't you see? They are attacking my identity. It's a conspiracy to them and it makes me honestly a little sick to my stomach.
The representation is *there*, at the end of the day (!), and people will get used to it. Unlike the necklace, which was constantly... staring... at... me...
:D
Another excellent piece. A LOT more people need to see these!
These are all good points. For me personally, it's not so much agenda that is an issue, but execution and whether or not it serves the story or derails it. This doesn't even just apply to representation. Throwing in relationship drama when it's not needed and derails the story is a problem for me.
i'm late to the video but I agree 101% with you. esp. when the thing has an established fanbase and canon. there is no need for it and just makes me roll my eyes. I'm a gay woman but it pisses me off that, for example, Stranger things executives think their show will "appeal" more to me just bc they made a minor character gay. NO. that's not why I like it, I just like the sci-fi stuff, the kid's friendship and Winona Ryder. I watch a lot of shows bc they are gay but ST is not one of them and that's fine. I don't need a 2 min.scene that doesn't move the plot forward nor gives me a side plot or a topic that would be further talked about, just for the sake of "inclusion". If they wanted they could have created dept to it and It would have been cool tho.
There is also the case of Dumbledore. HP fans are A LOT and long established so it was not for the money, I suppose(most LGBTQA+ folks are HP fans, anyway lol). If JK only wanted to show she is not a homophobic monster couldn't she just have made comments about it on interviews and stuff(? or maybe write a statement?? like, was it really necessary to "make" a canon character gay when he had shown none sexual preferences nor romantic feelings for anyone whatsoever in the course of 7 books, 8 movies and 20 years of existence??? it makes literally no sense and pisses fans off.
As a white girl I actually was annoyed by the "agenda" of diversity in colour at first but after I read an Interview from Lupita Nyongo who suffered in school because she thought she was ugly because she wan't represented in media until Whoopie Goldberg. After that I actually understood what it means to be not represented.
And about the LGBTQ+ representation: I 100% agree with your thoughts on your Crimes of Grindelwald video. I could not care less if any character was gay or straight or whatever. I as a watcher like relationships more than screen-sex. I wish more movies or series would focus on relationships more than on sex. If I wanted to see sex, I could watch porn tbh.
I just think it is sad that the sexuality gets the focus so much in the media. Why would I care if somebody is gay or trans? Good for you. Now let's just live your life.
I would be so happy if everybody just be themselves but the big discussions which result out of making a character gay or another colour or gender show me that it is still a long way to go.
Reset the wreck, no, that can work in certain cases (e.g. Stephanie Brown's murder or Pimp!Falcon).
And yeah, I think a lot of anti-diversity talk is at least partly based on emotion. Years ago, I thought along the 'impure motives' lines, partly because I associated discourse about race, sex, et al with guilt-tripping (which, given I had and still have really low self-esteem, is a sore subject for me). I realized I was going overboard, though, and I'm more able to check myself now.
The saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." is one that has quite a bit of truth to it; there is a long history of movements that promised people a moral purpose and a brighter future, and ended up delivering misery and humiliation. This is a sobering reality and one everyone should be aware of.
However this phrase is also overly simplistic, if taken too far it can lead to unwarranted cynicism and passivity, and there is also a long history of well intentioned movements that did succeed to producing substantive improvements to the world.
Abolishing slavery, LGBTQ rights, Decolonization, the idea that women are capable of rational thought and should have the same rights as men, ending absolute monarchies, the idea that war is a humanitarian tragedy, not a fun game and great way build character, removing lead, removing asbestos, removing CFCs, clamping down on the ivory trade, deglamorizing tobacco, bans on whaling, ending judicial torture, ending human sacrifice, ending witch hunts, and establishing mixed economies, mostly free speech, secular governments, social safety nets, public education, and modern hygiene norms are just a few examples.
If I were to revise this phrase I might say:
The road to hell is paved with simplistic utopian visions, contempt for alternative perspectives, intellectual overconfidence, and indifference to the real world costs of implementing your visions.
The road out of hell is paved with good intentions + serious self reflection + respect for facts + willingness to update ones world view + willingness to make tradeoffs and compromises that work with the world as it actually is.
👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
You got me.
I came here prepared to be angry -- but you ended up saying exactly what I think. The reasons don't matter. The representation matters.
Thank you.
Subscribed. (And I'm surprised you hadn't been recommended to by youtube's algo before now!
Also, your hair is amazing and I love your overall look. I’ve seen you come out of your shell in your videos and it warms my heart. Keep making these videos, hopefully the world will be better for their existence.
i never thought of it like that... i'm used to reading manga and webcomics that are usually written by a single person, or discussing stories with friends who do their own writing, so i always view diversity in stories a bit differently! i still believe there is one wrong reason, well, more accurately, a "wrong way" to do diversity. i see a lot of stories that have a "gay character" instead of a "character that is gay" or trans or muslim or whatever group they're trying to portray. by that i mean, the fact the character is gay/trans/muslim/black/etc. IS the character, rather than having a fleshed out personality. it comes across more as "look at how diverse i am" without the effort put into actually representing and normalizing certain groups, a bit like how some writers will come out and say "this character in my book is actually this!" but never actually deliver on that in their stories. but these are things created by one person rather than a team or company. so, i always see diversity as a personal investment rather than used in the way you described. so, needless to say, you've definitely inspired me to look at it a bit differently when considering diversity in media as a whole! also, your hair is super nice and and i love your voice, and i just needed you to know that
As one genderfluid to the next, your look in this video was ON POINT! :V
And this is basically my opinion on the matter, too. It's why I still appreciated the razer ad about being a nice, non-asshole man, and other similar instances. It still gets people thinking, and we can use whatever support we can getA
"about being a nice, non-asshole man". Kind of the issue with it though. lol If someone thought so little of you that they thought you needed to be told not to act like an asshole, wouldn't you feel offended? They weren't even talking about just "some" men, btw. They explicitly said that in the ad. They think non-asshole men are in the minority. Despite the fact that the asshole attitudes are committed by a minority of men. I don't know if you knew this, but generalising an entire group based on a minority is kinda fucking prejudiced. Where's all the ads about telling women to stop abusing their kids, committing infanticide (not meaning abortion), marrying a man for his money, or diddling kids in primary to high school? Those are mostly committed by women.
It's hard to find something that is actually enough of a bad reason to do something good so it wouldn't be worth it
I think the motivation behind diversity is important to discuss, or at least have in mind, but only in a kind of behind the scenes kind of sense. Like, I find it interesting to follow these kinds of developments and talk about/examine what they might say about a given culture's development on a given issue. But as you stated, in many ways, when it comes to media diversity, it often times wraps back around to Capitalism and money, and what is more lucrative for the company at the time. Which, also as you said, means there is some positive movement to know that diversity is more monetarily beneficial to them. But I also think looking into motives is more important when discussing government and things like that, than why Disney is hosting a Pride event or why a show has a diverse cast. I don't often worry about it for the most part, as the quality of the representation is more important to me, and the overwhelming majority of the time I see the motivation argument used in bad faith, though I know some make it honestly. Following the motivation back to the studio is just kinda a fun peak behind the curtain and academic conversation, but I don't think it's especially important compared to the quality of outcome.
This is a really interesting video and should give people food for thought.
I don’t fully agree in places, I think it’s ok to be frustrated with characters being changed to fit a demographic instead of coming up with a new (or using a ready created) character to use in the medium.
I absolutely agree about companies not having an agenda other than money, but that does not mean the creators don’t if that makes sense?
This doesn’t matter in the majority of cases but I’ve become frustrated with ‘hand me down’ stories or just badly done ones and my voice ( and thousands of others) is drowned out by 100 dude bros yelling at the creators and then the creators screaming that everyone who doesn’t like it is a misogynist, racist, white boy.
Tbh I think I’m just tired of all the fighting over it. Diversity is important, even if you take the representation being important argument out of it. Having movies/books/games with the same ideas and same characters is just boring.
Hello! Just wanted to pop by and say: thank you, and I appreciate you so much for building this platform for yourself, and using it to speak about LGBTQ+ issues. So many fanbases surrounding scifi, and other related cultures are so susceptible to toxicity in GENERAL, but especially with regard to... Literally anything with regards to gender, race, sexuality, etc. in lieu of cishet, white men and as someone who's none of the above it's so disheartening to hear time and time again that my existence is unrealistic, an agenda-pushing, with regards to things I love very dearly. Hearing someone speak up, with such levelheadeness and thought, is very comforting and well appreciated by myself, and many others!!
I thought Into The Spider-Verse was good organic representation for multiple different characters of diversity.
Well...Good start I think is probably a better term, and I also think organic is the operative word when it comes to representation.
As you can clearly see organic versus forced when you watch a film or TV series.
I personally think there's an argument to be made that support genuinely given for the sake of supporting us and doing the right thing is extremely valuable and should be celebrated, but at the end of the day it's a bonus, not a requirement. Not to mention, people rarely do things for just one reason; heck, it's completely arguable that those of us who are LGBTQ+ putting LGBTQ+ content in our work is less than pure just because it advances the interests of the horse we have in the race. There's no such thing as a completely pure motivation for _anything_, it's all relative degrees of motives, and as you said in the video, the most important thing is what something manages to accomplish; requiring a "pure" motive is disingenuous and really just asking the impossible (which, of course, is to certain segments the point of making said argument).
Every time I watch your videos I am wowed by how well you discuss subjects. Fantastic video! :) :)
First of all, you-my friend-look GORGEOUS in this video your entire look is on fleek.
Second, thank you for eloquently saying what I've been thinking for about a year now.
Thirdly, THANK YOU for these monthly videos!! I discovered your channel around the time I first started questioning my identity and your videos were a big help to get me to realize that I'm NOT cishet like I thought I was but grey ace, panromantic, genderfluid, and possibly on the aro spectrum and that that's OKAY!! You are an inspiration and an idol to me and I hope you have an amazing life and get to keep doing what you love.
(Congratulations on the sponsor, by the way, you totally deserve it.)
I love love LOVE seeing my gender identity being represented here on TH-cam! You don't see a lot of content creators who are genderfluid, and I applaud you for embracing that. Thank you for creating this video!!
Favorite representation is definitely Rosa Diaz and Raymond Holt from Brooklyn 99 (literally cried during "Game Night"), and Syd (Elena's significant other) from One Day at a Time. Syd and Elena's getting together was the cutest thing ever, and I'm so glad that TV has evolved far enough for that to happen. Does anyone else remember when TV wouldn't allow Tara and WIllow to be lesbians together so their entire S4 development had to be a magic metaphor? so weird.
I always look forward to these videos!! I think you approached this topic in a really thoughtful way. I definitely appreciated your take on the capitalist aspect of representation- it's so easy to feel cynical about how transparent it is sometimes that companies are simply broadening their demographic. but when it's done well, when it hands creative control to women and creators of colour, when the stories are GOOD- does it matter? i can't help but get excited at how much money black panther made, and how much captain marvel is making now. it's proving to the people making those decisions that YES, they can tell these stories and still make $$$$$$$ doing so, that they can and should continue to diversify. and at the end of the day, that means we get more diverse stories, from all kinds of creators. and that's a good thing.
Sadly, if a cast is chosen on their own merits and happens to be diverse, there are too many in the peanut gallery who will insist it is solely for representation and not talent.
To sum it up in the words of Major Kira, played by the fabulous Nana Visitor: You cannot judge a person by what they think, or what they say, only by what they DO.
Over the course of my life I've come to the realization that any reason behind an action is 100% irrelevant. You can go on a quest to achieve utopia by wiping out an entire civilization. There's a minimum of one example for every historical era that tried exactly that. But you know what I really liked about this video? The 'business argument'. It's so logical it almost baffles me that I haven't heard it yet, or even thought about it. It's a good angle to come from, so thank you for that. :) Great video as usual! Have a nice day!
I hate to quote Lord Cutler Beckett from the 2nd and 3rd pirate movies, but it's "Just good business". I agree, I don't think the motivation negates representation.
Just wanted to say that, as a first-time watcher, I appreciated the self-introduction in the beginning. When I clicked on this video, I was a little unsure about what direction this might be going in, so it was nice to know off the bat that this was an LGBT+ perspective and not something... else.
you are an amazing person. love from the L camp!!
You can be both the Q and the T! (I saw someone make that pun already so I won't, but I consider myself to fall under several letters of the acronym). I agree with you. Under capitalism, there isn't such things as pure motives, but I'll take what I can get.
This is also my argument to people who yell about the whole "Happy Holidays!" thing. It's because money.
I'm always happy to see more lgbt+ representation, and initiatives, even if I question their motives. More exposure means more acceptance in the long run.
Re: the charity analogy, I used to work at a shelter, and there was this woman who would go to second hand stores and pick up clothing to bring in. The thing is, with non-money donations, we would have to ask what the value was for the receipt, and she would always grossly overestimate that value, comparing the items she was donating to new clothing prices.
I would tend to agree. As nice as it would be for people to do things for purely altruistic reasons, the instances of that happening are so vanishingly rare as to be nonexistent. Not that there's anything wrong with getting something for giving. There've been times when I wound up giving more than I'd originally intended just because I want a specific perk. (Hello, Project For Awesome)
Also like you, I'm thrilled to see corporations line up to join Team Ally because it means they see us as a valued, worthwhile, and let's be honest, lucrative market. I'm perfectly willing to be shilled to if it means I get to see rainbow cookies, women getting married, children with two fathers, and any other iteration of representation that happens to show up.
I want to be seen, as I'm sure many of the commentariat here do. If it takes less than pure motives to do that, that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.
Don't even get me started on the whole "crying agenda-pushing as a derailing tactic" angle, I'll be here all evening. Again, if anyone not a cis white hetero guy being represented is an "agenda", then I'll cop to having one all day long. (Yeah, it's been a day on that front.)
In my opinion, while yes having a diverse cast should not be a big deal, there are numerous instances when having a character of certain types would be wrong, in most cases that relates to fantasy and historic fiction. An example that immediately comes to mind is Bediver from that awful Arthur movie. It's one thing if he was a trader or whatnot but he was part of the nobilty, it makes zero sense for him to be black in medieval times, when people were xenophobic AF and most rarely left places they were born. Or black Achilles in the fall of Troy. Because yes, when we're talking about stories taking place in modern America it makes for a lax attitude towards characters race. But when we're talking about history, yes white is a default when casting a european.
As for the whole: there is no bad reason for diversity, when it comes to modern times, sure but the execution is what often grinds my gears. I had zero issue with the wheel-chair guy or the black guy in extreme ghostbusters back in the day, heck wheel-chair guy was the most badass. But ghostbusters 2016 are walking talking stereotypes, who are women to cash in the femism check. I don't see agenda in having a black guy in black mirror for example but i sure as hell see loads of agenda in black Achilles.
As for representaion of gueer/trans characters, i think that in this case community is its own enemy with its puritanism. You see most people don't particularily want to watch such characters, and guys ith money know that. To counteract it they hire famous and beloved actor to play the role, which is something i see most queer people don't like, they protest cis-gender actor and boom actor gives up the role. What happens? Movie gets cancelled. See rub and tug for example. So now there won't be a film telling the story of a transperson, because the choice of actor displeased the puritans.
Sorry for the stream of conciosness, i prefer organic characters instead of cardboard cutouts inserted for the quata.
I have often thought something being done for the 'wrong reasons' is bad, but after a lot of thought and going round in circles I finally came to the same conclusion as you present at the beginning of this video- that intent shouldn't negate from the result. I hadn't considered the idea of money, at least not in the way you talk about it, but it's an uplifting thought to realise that companies believe the majority want more inclusion as that means more people are becoming inclusive and expect that representation which is definitely a positive thing.
Your commentaries are honestly the very best on youtube. I genuinely love listening to how you put your ideas together. Thank you so much for this.
You're being sponsored! I'm so happy for you! Also, big necklace energy. -Matt
I use that argument a lot, it was never my intention to stall the conversation but looking back on it that is definitely what happened. Thank you for pointing this out I will endeavour avoid saying this when the conversation isn't going in that particular Direction.
I love that flower accessory. Just saying.
Also, with Doctor Who, since the 9th Doctor, it's always been diverse. We've seen more representation as the show went on, but it never really felt out of place or shoehorned in when there were diverse charcters since they were sort of always there.
I do agree with your points. You are right, pointing out the capitalistic motives behind pretty much anyone's actions - anyone big enough to have some power - because truthfully that's just how the world works, as much as we may hate it.
I gotta say though, that I feel like the argument of "Wrong reasons" is often due to a prejudice, that may or may not be valid, namely: that representation for the sake of "wrong motive" falls into the category of token-representation.
It's the difference between an author genuinely feeling that their story should have a "minority" representation in their story, because it helps them bring across their point, because it is of importance for the narrative, or whatever... and the author adding the "minority" just to appease the voices that demand representation.
In a way, I feel like it's not inherently dangerous to bring up the question of motives behind the representation, but I think it shouldn't be seen as a final argument, but rather as a starting point, to help illuminate the context of that representation, and to then judge it's merits.
Like, if the author's intention was decidedly positive, and they truly wanted to integrate their "minority" character+plot, but simply weren't skilled enough to do so efficiently, I feel that they should be judged differently than somebody who just added a token character+plot, does that make sense?
You end up with a lackluster example in both cases, but one of them should still be valued more than the other, don't you think?
Again, I understand your point in saying that we shouldn't refuse or deny representation JUST because it's motivated by potential profits, but I also feel like the argument in itself shouldn't be denied or demonized either
I'm going to have to step in here with devil's advocate that in THIS case that I find Whittaker genuinely poor casting, which does suggest they didn't look for the best candidate (and if the best candidate was female then so be it, but it sure wasn't her). Also Yaz seems to be a gratuitous addition, not for HER as a character but an opportunity to explore her family and her historic origins. This smells of an agenda to me.
Versus something like Star Trek Discovery, which some people for some reason see special motives behind the casting & characterizations. Diversity is nothing new in the Trek universe and is handled as naturally as though we could have evolved socially another 200 years.
I have to agree with you. When I was younger I would have been overjoyed to have a female doctor but when it was announced I saw it as a quota being filled and was genuinely worried about that, I now feel justified. I do not see this version of the doctor as a hero, or even someone I enjoy watching, and that is harmful as representation. What does it say when the men are really fun and fantastic to watch and the woman's boring, it means a woman will be less likely to get the chance again and reinforces the thoughts of the wrong people.
I'm going to say something so against my principles next but I think it needs to be brought up in this conversation. I don't know about lgbt % but in the UK we have approximately 45% of our population is Cis white men. The BBC currently has a diversity project to hire only 10% of their staff as cis white men. In essence that means if a person of a different ethnicity enters the interview they don't have to be half as good as the cis white man trying to get a job. They want 50% of their workforce to be women, race or sexuality not mentioned. I'm not against diversity in any way but that should not be put before character or talent, there are so many fantastic actors and actresses of different races and backgrounds they do not have to do this kind of quota hiring without regard to the story or the best person for the job. A fantastic example of talent before race goes to Dumezweni being cast as Hermione in TCC despite the character being previously portrayed as white. Even if she was explicitly white in the novels I would have been behind this casting because I believe in equal opportunities, not quota hiring
@@clothcat3071 "reinforces the thoughts of the wrong people" People who wrong in...what way? By pointing out the same stuff you did, just more bluntly? Unless you mean actual no-shit Nazis, I fail to see the problem here. Your ideological opponent's view being validated from a practical standpoint means that yours don't work in reality. So revise your approach on that particular issue, and try again. This isn't some black and white dichotomy.
@@clothcat3071 In regards to your comments about workforce %s... while 45% of the general population are cis white males, I don't see numbers of what their representation is in the workforce. So to not have all of the factual data of the baseline, there is no way to have a real conversation about what the diversity hires actually mean in said workforce.
It is as if you are saying 45% of the produce in a grocery store are leafy green vegetables, and someone wants to increase the produce variety of in each home to include other colors, textures, & fruit... yo be able to increase anything, or argue that it shouldn't be, you have to know what the actual numbers are for the area that is being addressed.
I really like the charity analogy, partly because in my head I go to the Friends episode where Joey and Phoebe argue about how no instance of giving to charity is ever purely altruistic because if it were purely altruistic, you wouldn't get anything out of it, and that just doesn't happen. I mean, if you give to charity, regardless of whether you get tax benefits, you feel good about that. Which is a thing that you get out of being altruistic.
Personally, I feel that there is no wrong reason for representation. I mean, sure it's disheartening to find out Company Leader X is a bigoted, heartless ... person, but if the company they head does positive things for the community, why argue?
I don't even particularly dislike badly done representation ... if people learn from it and realize it's badly done, that is.
When the Whosphere went nuts over Jodie’s casting and swore up and down that they’d lose their fan base, I thought it was interesting that they believed for one moment that the BBC didn’t carefully weigh which part of their fan base was the most economically safe to back. For them, it was those that didn’t care or actively wanted a female doctor.
"It...doesn't stay put."
Have I said how precious you are, Nathaniel.
I think this is the most compelling and well-worded opinion piece I have heard by you. :) This subject is not discussed enough, and I think your perspective will influence how I approach problematic (or perceived problematic) representation.
Really interesting topic! I was actually having a similar discussion with some of my work colleagues the other day. I hear where you're coming from with your points, but for me personally ulterior motive is still important. Call me stubborn, but as a gay man I find the idea of being seen as a tick box more derogatory than not even having the representation in the first place. But hey, thats just my opinion 😜 Hopefully we can agree to disagree ❤
I see it differently, even cheap gay romances make me empathize more than better straight romances, so I'll take them as long as they're not offensive and as long as it's not the end of a development.
It would be really interesting if you could cover the recent LGBT issues in countries like Egypt and Iran. In Egypt a reporter was interviewing a member of the LGBTQ+ community and was arrested just for speaking to them. Ironically the reporter was actually homophobic but it raises an interesting topic about how countries are avoiding human rights by lying about the reasons those of our community are being arrested whilst in truth being gay is truly seen as a crime
I don't feel properly equipped to try and address those kinds of things outside my own country. I'm not a journalist and would very little faith in my ability to do it justice. Should be talked about, I just don't think I'm up to the task.
When you said that companies promote diversity for profit, I immediately thought of the brouhaha a few years ago when someone asked Barilla if they’d make an ad featuring lgbtq+ people, to which the company responded with quite virulent homophobia. At which point, several other pasta companies, San Remo being the one I remember most clearly, jumped up and said, “We will!” And promptly released ads with lgbtq+ representation. Now, that was a good thing to do, but are we going to pretend it wasn’t just those other companies seeing an opportunity for some great publicity and a chance to boost their profits? No, of course not. BUT it was representation that didn’t exist before. Isn’t that a good thing, in the end?
ULGROTHA yeah, me either.
I would say for me whilst the “why” aspect of representation not just of the LGBTQ+ community but of any minority group does not matter nearly as much as the merit of the rep. However personally it has more importance in my eyes than it does in yours. Motive can influence merit and it is interesting to see how far motives behind representations can be linked to the accuracy of them. Also I find that when the motives for representation are “impure” for want of a better word it can lead to instability, all it takes is for one high powered individual within a media conglomerate to decide to reverse decisions relating to representation if as they see it there is a better way of making money. But on the whole I do agree with you whilst also sympathising with those frustrated with the issue of motive. A solution for those people would simply be to avoid mainstream media, there is plenty of independent media content out there containing representations with meaningful motives behind them.
*phew* got a bit carried away there
Honestly,
I really do enjoy all the lgbtq+ videos you make. I’m really glad you made this one. You put how i feel into words I couldn’t have thought of myself.
Don’t forget the phrase “the ends justify the means”
Two points:
1) Re: the "Connect the dots" argument -- literal connect the dots puzzles are all numbered for a reason -- because otherwise, you could start and end anywhere you like, and end up drawing a picture that confirms an idea you already had; "connecting the dots" proves nothing. 2) The capitalist motive undercuts the "Forced" diversity argument. Studios are now putting diverse characters in their stories because they've come to realize that there is a diversity of real people in their audience who are buying real tickets (and snacks, and drinks, and tie-in toys and costumes) with real money.
And point #2 is what marginalized people have been saying for years (decades): the only reason you "need" for representing minorities in your stories is that it makes your stories more realistic. P.O.C. exist, people in the QUILTBAG exist, women exist, disabled people exist. Period.
an interesting perspective i didn't really think of before!! i was kinda too caught up in the hate of people just profiting off us, without considering that we do, in fact get something in return. it's definitely not perfect but!!! Something! great video!
I realize that this comment is coming in well behind time, but I just wanted to tell you that I find your commentary eminently sensible, clear-minded and reasonable. Such a breath of fresh air, certainly on YT. Thanks for being, and being here :-) .
As always, love your video and agree with many points, but in this case I fear Doctor Who might not be a great starting point: Because the BBC is, in its core, not a capitalistic enterprise, but dedicated to a if not political, than at least public cause. (That's how I understand it, I'm not British...).
The BBC is a weird beast. There is a general directive and policy written by the government because people have to pay a licence fee to see their content. HOWEVER the BBC is still trying to make money, which is why Doctor Who remains one of its premiere shows/cash cows and they made a lot of mint on Bodyguard, so all in all, a very strange beast. Some people are theorising it should become a subscription service but it's still the BBC who use taxpayers money to provide universal radio - still a must for shipping and so on.
There's quite a difference between the vision, however flawed, of an individual creator (Defoe, George Eliot, Paul Scott) and the generation and regeneration of a branded, owned "character" at the hands of dozens of writers, illustrators, and executives. DC and Marvel and the rest can of course continually remake and retcon their characters according to market and reader responses.
I must confess: the economic aspect of why companies are showing diversity didn't even cross my mind! I actually thought that they did think that diversity matters. And who knows? Maybe some of them are actually also thinking that while pondering About the financial success...I wouldn't bet on it though.
I have a problem when creators want praise for doing basically nothing. They are as loud as a chainsaw about it, which is usually annoying, on surface level but nothing of substance is actually going on.
*Looks at J.K Rowling*
Amazing argument, didn't think of that before and wholeheartedly agree. Thank you very much for the idea. The only instance I can't aply this is the "fake representation", but for the rest it fits like a glove and just makes me happier.
I posted this as a reply to someone else’s comment but I think (maybe wrongly) that it deserves to be it’s own comment. I may be wrong but I hope posting in the main comment thread gives it an opportunity to reach out and explain a side to this to someone else who’s confused or disagrees. Maybe, just maybe, it helps someone else’s opinion develop to incorporate the other side *shrug*:
Op comment (shortened) :
"I would say it's bad because it means the minorities being represented aren't being treated like any other actor...And while the immediate result is the same, I don't think it's actually helpful in the long run. I think it maintains that sense of 'otherness'..."
My response:
I don’t know if this will surprise you but as a gay white man (being upfront with my characteristics for honesty) I kind of get where you are coming from. I also kind of agree with the premise. I do think the way SOME (not all) media portays diverse casting is incredibly problematic and leads to making us special (in a bad way). I agree the better world is where an actor is not hired because of their gender, colour, sexuality and etc but because of their innate talent and ability to fill a role and shine.
The problem, and the question I ask to you, is this... what’s a better solution? Right now, I cannot see a better way forward that will actually be successful. I doubt I am the only member of the LGBT etc community who doesn’t want to feel “special”, I want to be seen as normal. I want those who come from my community (and other minority’s and genders) to be seen as normal when they fill a role. Whether in the media or other industries; We should appear as, and be treated as, normal.
I do genuinely believe there is a lot of media out there that has hired actors based on talent and not as “diversity hires”. However, I also can see the point of view that some shows are very clearly dog whistling to my community. For now I am going to take the same stance as they (unsure of which pronoun) have in this video; the good of the diversity outweighs the negatives. Until we as a society finally catch up to our moral responsibilities to treat everybody equally, we must continue to push ourselves out there. This issue is far more than just “fill that role with a minority/other gender to shut them up”; this is an issue of social equality in all aspects of life. Here in the UK we have achieved:
- Marriage Equality [Royal Assent granted 2013] (came in to force, 2014. Excluding Northern Ireland)
- Discrimination on supply of goods or services banned [cannot refuse to supply hotel rooms etc based on gender identity or orientation] (2007)
- Homophobic hate crimes illegal [it’s own offense vs normal assault etc](2005)
- Civil Partnership [essentially Gay Marriage Lite] (2004)
- Gender Recognition Act [allows legal gender change] (2004)
- Employment Discrimination ban [regarding LGBT] (2003)
- Section 28 Repealed [S28 banned positive discussion of homosexuality in schools. Teachers could not support or provide resources about different sexualities.”] (2003)
- Equal rights to adoption as a couple [if LGBT] (2002)
- Equal age of consent [lowered from 18 to 16, thus matching hetero] (2001)
- Lifted the ban on serving in the Armed Forces [no longer enforced but remained on the statute book till 2016] (2000)
- Lowering of age of consent to 18 [regarding gay men](1994)
- Gay (male) sex no longer illegal for those aged 21 and over [though “privacy restrictions of the act meant a third person could not be present and men could not have sex in a hotel” photographing or recording gay sex was also illegal. Many were still targeted by police with indecency and public order laws for public affection or “soliciting”. “...police stake-outs in parks and toilets...‘pretty police' as bait“] (1967)
Yet still to this day hate crimes exist at a high level. A 2017 Stonewall study showed hate crime or incidents had increased 78% over the past 5 years. Confidence to report and differences in how hate crime is recorded can account for SOME of the increase, not all. Recent research shows that up to four in five incidents of hate crime go unreported; those that are reported often either do not lead to conviction or receive short sentences. Although typically the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be supportive of the LGBT community/are more liberal it still occurs; 45% of respondents to Stonewalls 2017 School Report experienced bullying for being LGBT. This was a fall of 10% from 2012 and 20% from 2007 BUT it’s still almost half.
We clearly are not there (equal utopia) yet.
I didn’t just bring this up because its horrific. Multiple studies/surveys show an uptick in approval and acceptance for the community, as a whole, following each of these equalizing moments in history. Whether there’s a law change (marriage equality, age of consent etc.), a social change (LGBT members are more outward with their identity) or a change in media (female doctor, gay lead characters [Will & Grace] etc.) the acceptance of women and the LGBT community increases. To me, the data seems to indicate that once people are shown, even if they don’t want to be, we are not evil or alien and have the same basic wants and desires, people start to accept us; essentially, we’re human too.
This is anecdotal but take my father for example, I remember as a child he was against civil partnerships and gay marriage in the lead up to CPs becoming law. However, just before I came out (not long before gay marriage), I asked him whether he still felt the same way, he didn’t; this was incredibly surprising to me. I asked him “What changed?” and his response was touching, though as blunt and lacking in empathy of emotion as normal due to his Aspergers “I didn’t understand them because they were weird and I didn’t get why they wanted something that was ours. I think now that they just wanted the same legal protection, and stuff, as us and that’s okay to me. They didn’t do anything silly with it.”. This started a long conversation about how experiencing the law change felt to him (angry and confused to understanding and accepting) and led me to then look in to the data on attitudes toward LGBT and other minorities. Much as we want people to understand, accept and not vilify us because of who we are, we have to do the same to those who don’t get us. That conversation made me realise that to my dad, we were strange and confusing and what he needed wasn’t to be vilified for his misguided beliefs but to have something he didn’t have control over change, see the result (nothing changes for him) and come to accept it himself.
Yes we can try the gently gently route but sometimes things need to be forced to gain acceptance. We can force things in ways that aren’t aggressive like hiring someone because they are a minority. Yes, this may feel shitty to those who are LGBT. It may irritate those on the other side; those who hate not just positive diversity hiring but a minority in a role at all. BUT a more gradual route than gives them a chance to see it won’t effect them negatively is better than the alternative. The alternative that’s been tried time and time again. Insulting and shouting at them hasn’t ever, and won’t ever, work. Aggression gives them a reason to be defensive; acting like this makes them retreat further and further in to their echo chamber, a place where they can feel oppressed and that it’s “Us VS. Them”.
Take the Stonewall Riots, they pushed people to realise they had to fight, create groups and pride marches and actually talk. It wasn’t the violence (on either side) that enacted real positive change at the end of the day. As it always will, the change came from communication. Discussion, planning and persuading is what all wars finish with in the end. Violence will always beget more violence.
I don’t know, this may be utter gibberish that’s been droned on and on by someone who hasn’t slept for 32 hours *shrug*. I just think that the history of LGBT acceptance and general approval has some lessons we should remember now and again. We may not be there yet but a lot has changed in just my lifetime (24 years); it’s a lot easier for kids to come out now than when I did and that was only 10(ish) years ago. It’s my belief that the change hasn’t come from taking teams and hurling abuse. We can act all high and mighty and moralistic about changes being forced but until we have a better solution, this seems better than violence.
This was an elucidating post for me. What do you think of the arguments people make against movies like Captain Marvel, or characters like Rey from the Star Wars sequels? Specifically, that people loved strong female characters like Sarah Connor, Princess Leia, or Alita, but found these other characters contrived Mary Sues? It just seems to be about authentic writing. I feel as though gay characters could be written in a way where everybody loves them, including the majority of those maligned for disliking Captain Marvel or the SW sequel characters.
@@jamesk7256 Thanks for reaching out and continuing the conversation mate :) I'm genuinely incredibly pleased that my, let's face it, inchoerent ramblings helped even one person see this side more clearly.
Honestly, I believe their arguments have a lot of merit. I agree with your viewpoint on them and the situation 150%. I'm not really a fan of Star Wars (I know, perish the thought) and so I came in to the reboot unblinkered by hopes and expectations. Even I couldn't stop my brain repeatedly going "Why the fuck are they making this new character so absurdly strong yet somehow weak willed and unrealistic. I get your strong but you can still be strong with faults ". Writers repeatedly keep doing a disservice to minority characters and it just gives fuel to the homophobes and misogynists. Strong, powerful, AND endearing/authentic minority characters are far too rare. It's been shown in the past it's possible yet for some reason the industry has forgotten how
Take my "minority"; the vast majority of gay male characters are constantly written in to a corner. A gay character must be at least 3 of these things in Hollywood:
-Camp as fuck
-The gay best friend
-An Uber Fashionista
-Be so Queeny, it makes even my skin crawl
-Be mentally ill (depressed or experience suicidal ideation)
-Hopeless at Love/Dating
-A slutty power bottom who needs to have fucked two guys every evening
-Appear incredibly confident but deep down they still just can't seem to love themselves because they're gay
-Be in to some super kinky bondage/Sub/Dom/Drug fuelled sex
-Lust after the "super hot" straight guy-next-door/match winning quarterback/best friends brother.
-Have an affair with an older man (while barely at the age of consent)
It's not just unrealistic for the majority of gay men, it's insulting. Real gay men have layers. It creates unlikeable, forgettable, cringey characters that fulfill all of the worst opinions of homophobes. Hollywood and Mainstream writers, do you want to know how to write a gay male character? Draft out a realistically strong straight male character. Now make him a leader, one that has issues they struggle with yet manages not to spend 95% of his screen time in a self pitying malaise. Right, here's the "hardest" part...Make him sexually attracted to men. BAM! Job done.
Hollywood, do you know how I like to spend my evenings as a gay man? Curled up on the sofa, my head on my (*ahem* I'm recently single but this still works) partners lap, watching TH-cam. "BUT BUT BUT" screams Hollywood "That sounds like you enjoy a submissive role so you would have to be a subby bottom, right?" Wrong, I'm an occasional Vers (rarely and only with long term partners I trust) but majority Top; a dominant top who often likes it rough, at that.
I (and men like me) do not exist as a character in writers eyes, I'm too normal. I'm a diverse, sometimes confusing, character with extensive breadth and depth to my personality. Sadly that doesn't fit the niche writers want filled.
I think my point is this, I said in my last post we need diversity hires because exposure leads to a milder negative response that will eventually become positive. I'd like to take what you brought up and change my point slightly. "We need diversity hires. Diversity hires that play well-rounded, believable, not overpoweringly strong nor pitifully weak, NORMAL roles. The data tends to show that exposureleads to a milder negative response that will eventually become positive."
I hope that helps James. I didn't mean to become quite as worked up about gay characters. It's something that really really pisses me off and I caught your notification after I've had a wine or two (not drunk, my inhibitions just are lowered a tad XD). Characters like the ones I complained about are the role models that depress gay kids that are still discovering themselves. They don't want to act like them but think they have to, if they want to be a real gay. I was one of them once,I know the feeling and it sucks.
These are very good and well thought out points. I think this video is important, definitely seems as though it helps you to vent about this while also being respectful and informing people who may be on the other side. Keep it up!
i agree with your points but i would consider making money an agenda, even if it's just a feature of capitalism.
Love the videos, thoughtful and open. In answer to a question you had at the start i can say that " Time, is on my side" great movie call out
never seen one of your videos before but that intro sold me, that transformation ruled
dotn have time to watch this video at moment but the title did make me want to say something
i dont think there is a "Wrong reason" as representation is still representation which has a impact and moves things forward
a good example legend of korra and its ending while there is debate on how well set up the ending was (i personally saw it coming) it did cause massive changes and in just 4 short years sense it happened we have had alot of same sex couples in children animation and those only did it because korra opened that door
This was pretty helpful, and confirmed what I was worried about when posting on Doctor Who's more recent rounds of diverse characters. I'll definitely keep this video in mind when examining future media. Cheers 😄
I agree with you. However I have 2 points:
1) Charity is a bad example: if, instead of tax cut, we uses the tax, it souls be more effective.
2) Bad motives often induce flaws in the action.
The very fact that it has to be said that companies whose sole aim is to make money think diversity may push away others is so sad to me. I love for a world where nobody has to worry about alienating people in the name of diversity. This is the reason good representation is so hard to find and the reason we as a community have become so expert in seeing it even between the lines and in subtext alone. It’s high time representation was unapologetically explicit and that companies behind it stopped caring about who they will alienate in the name of diversity. I realise that as long as people are still implicitly prejudiced this will never happen. But I can dream right.
I really like those particular shades of the rainbow streaks in your hair today. Very pretty! :-)
I always value good representation and diversity because the visibility in main stream media help people get used to diversity, even if they don't have someone from a minority in their direct vicinity that they know of. People fear what they don't know or aren't familiar with and mainstream media is a great way to familiarize people with minorities. Especially when done with quality representation.
The second reason why I think it's important is to show people that it is possible to be different. For me that could have been a huge difference in my life. Little over a year ago I came out as transgender. When I was young there was barely any characters with an LGBTQ background, let alone that I knew what transgender was. I knew what I felt like, but I couldn't put it to words and when I found myself wishing I had simply been a boy I thought I was stuck in my body. I didn't know transgender people existed until 2015. If there had been representation when I grew up beyond some freak documentaries my life would have been easier.
I now make videos here on youtube helping writers learn about transgender people so they can write good transgender characters and good, realistic, representation. I'm a writer myself so I combine my knowledge of character development with my personal experience and education. I consider it one of the most important things I've ever done.
I've been watching your videos for a while now and I like your confidence and insights. Thought I would finally pop in and say hi.
This whole idea that capitalism exists in an ideologically pure vacuum is thoroughly discredited nonsense. The thing about bigotry is that it's not logical, and often trumps logic. Wealth is often a secondary concern to hate.
i think why most people have an issue with those new diverse caracters is that most of their personality is them being gay/lesbian/a woman/etc.... I heard many complain about that for the new batwoman series. While i personally don't mind it cuz i'm a huge lesbian and i need that gay stuff, i can see why it would alienate some that already in the trailers the fact that she's a woman seems to be the core thing to her character.
I know that this is alredy the case with her original character in the comics (and that there are good explanations for it), but for someone who doesn't know this it must seem like the character is just that.
i think its super important to have good representation. i think its also important to be able to see your self in people who are not like you so diversity is good for that too. i don't care if its because they want my money there are finally more women in star wars! one of the doctors companions is dyspraxic (even if they didn't handle it great) and cartoon characters are starting to have more and more lgbtq+ characters and explore that and i didnt realise how much i needed that growing up.
Thanks for this? I needed that. I feel like I despite being trans fall into this trap, of like questioning the motive, but like...it’s representation? Representation is goodand necessary to start taking apart the harmful elements and building BETTER representation. This was good :) thanks for thie
When Nike used Colin Kaepernick as their spokesman, a lot of people claimed that they didn't really support his activism (whatever you think of it) but were doing it solely because controversy sells. Duh, it's Nike. But there's nothing wrong with taking him into account when thinking about what brand of shoes to buy. So the only thing that really matters for me is whether the representation itself is respectful. As CHVRCHES says, good intentions are never good enough. Selfish intentions are more common than most of us care to admit. Deal with it.
I totally agree w/ you my only problem is with stuff like what JK Rowling did w/ Dumbledore which wow i know what a surprise but yea I do think its dumb to say a character is gay to get the brownie points or whatever and then not ever actually show in canon anything about it when she really did have the chance with the new trainwreck of a movie
I enjoy the videos that I saw of yours and find it rather educational. To commet on the phrase you said about the children, I say educate the children. They need to learn about all types of communities, especially the LGBTQ+ community. Thank you for putting your videos out there to help people understand the world a little more.
The only thing I ask for when a character is changed to be another race or gender is that they bring something with it. It doesn't have too but examples like Miles Morales Spider-man shows how even though Miles is really different than Peter Parker the core values of Spider-man remain and in the process creates a unique new story that shows and talks about issue black people face. Again authors don't have too, but since this is a trend nowadays I wish more authors took advantage of this to not only create more unique stories but to show what other races and genders go through.
I don’t see it as being diversity for the “wrong reason” i don’t generally care if people get represented more, I think it’s awesome. I understand that being represented is important to some people because it helps validate who they are and how they feel and that’s wonderful for them. I think just sometimes we over saturate the amount of representation, to the point where I can kinda see why people roll their eyes at the idea of it. If every single movie or show takes out specific character traits or gives specific character traits just because they want representation, doesn’t always mean that it’s a good way of going about it. Sometimes these instances of representation do the opposite of what they were meant to. Sometimes they’re poorly written and to me it kinda ends up being insulting to the people they were meant to represent. But great video and honestly very interesting to hear the point of view of someone who feels under represented for a different reason than I do.
Yes. Inclusion and noticing LGBTQ+ as a cash cow - is a bit of a win in itself. The companies are seeing the value in accepting. It’s not moral maybe, but not everyone ( maybe a lot of others?!) who are being introduced to this “acceptance “ will realize that either. They will just see LGBTQ+ as more acceptable and widely prevalent. Great video!
Interesting points. My issue with the 13th Doctor was how poorly she was written rather than the idea of a female Doctor in and of itself. Gender swaps have been done well before like the transformation of The Master into a woman during the 12th Doctor's tenure. It was handled really well and helped develop the character.
I don't think that "I *would* like this, but the motivation. . ." is an argument many people make in good faith. It's one I almost never hear at all. I think the far more common is "I do *not* like this change, and it annoys me *further* because I am suspect of the agenda behind it." Like if a character change is made because it would narratively result in a better *story,* that's one thing. But if the choice is made because it is pandering, then it is more pathetic. It's always the change made that is the core issue though.
If a character is killed off and replaced because that character was defunct and the new character is intended to function better, then fine,most people don't even notice. If a character is killed off even while still being quite *popular,* and replaced by a "more diverse" option, then that is an insult to those who still enjoyed the original, and they will react in kind.
And as to the "they do this because Capitalism" argument, exactly. This is why so many boycotts have sprung up to actively support the status quo.
It doesn't have to be a fight though. Comics were plenty diverse a decade or two ago without any of this kerfuffle. It's pretty simple,*add diversity,* but don't *reduce* the current options. Don't kill off popular characters to replace them. Don't turn male characters female or straight characters gay. Add *new* characters that are more diverse, allow the market to support the ones they want to support. If the market genuinely wants these characters, then they will buy the more diverse characters books, and the less diverse characters will lose sales, and it will eventually reach the point the "representation matters" crowd wants. *If* that's what the audience wants.
Except that no, comics weren't really diverse decades ago. Most heroes were either white, straight, cis, men, or some combination of the four. Also, it's really hard to actually get a comic to sell well, even the more well established ones like Batman or Superman. The only real option for diverse characters in comics is to change pre-existing characters or at least heavily tie them into ones, because making a brand new superhero from scratch is not financially viable unless they make their debut in the movies.
What a great perspective on this matter. This opened my mind and look at this topic from a bigger point of view. Thank you!!
Very cogent but I kept thinking about marcel duchamp and man ray and dadaism and the guy in the old spike jones record imitating peter lorre: "Those eyes! They keept weenking and bleenking at meeeeee!"
In a capitalist structure entertainment in particularly caught in a stangle hold. It's not just comics and TV etc, but also sports, I mean Jacky Robinson and Moses Fleetwood weren't allowed to play because a moral stance, but because it put asses in seats.
Even Steven Universe with an obvious agenda continued because it was marketable. If it wasn't making money, it would have died years ago. Playing the game as SU team did was and is amazing. The artists may have beautiful intensions but the company publishing them, paying them, has a singular focus.
At the end of the day of course positive representation matters, but so does inclusion at all. How we achieve that inclusion and representation will always be a struggle.
Can't support the use of Marvel Comics as an example where "Money" was the primary focus of a change toward "Diversity" - there is just too much idiocy with that entire situation to boil it down to "That's where they thought the money would be.". Marvel started to really "diversify" their Comics during a time where it was painfully obvious that there was a significant resistance to that idea in ALL Entertainment. This was in the 2012-2015 era, where you had the emergence of Anita Sarkessian and later on the "Vivian James" kerfuffle, all showing a significant portion of the normal target audience of Marvel Comics were unsupportive of a pivot towards "diversified" entertainment.
No one competent would have pivoted into that kind of environment to increase sales. Particularly not in the short term - and the reaction to the fall in comic sales after that pivot is a clear indication that the pivot was for ideological reasons, justified to the suits with wildly inflated expectations (something like "The Core Audience will stay with us through thick and thin, and we will grow to NEW audiences at the same time, while becoming the Industry Leader in Diversity!" and the suits going "Avengers just made a Billion dollars, we can hire these new "creatives" for half the cost of the old creatives, they'll do most of the marketing for us... let's do this!") and after they did the pivot and the sales dropped significantly, they tried to bring the financial stuff back up in the only ways they knew how - gimmicks. Relaunches, All New #1, short-term Publicity Stunt writer hires (Ta-Neshi Coates, anyone?), courting controversy to get more publicity, forcing stores to buy comics the stores knew they weren't going to sell, etc.
Nothing about the Marvel Comics pivot towards Diversity indicates that it had a financial plan in mind. Or really, ANY plan in mind.
My friends and I are writing a book and one of them wants to make an established character trans. (We haven't written the book yet, so it wouldn't be a change in the narrative). I have no personal issues with this (I'm a complete and utter feminist), I'm just worried from a writing standpoint (both areas of which you have a hand in). Unless there have been edits to her character (last I checked, we have a fairly fleshed out character). I don't know how important gender identity is for trans people (I have an idea, but have never lived it so I don't know the full extent) and how much of their life it effects. I would love a trans character in this book, I'm just not sure how much of an already established character it will change. (Also, spoilers: She's killed off somewhere around the middle of book 1, so she doesn't have *much* of an arc).
It's not a huge deal to me whether or not the character changes a bit (I wouldn't want to rewrite her, but that shouldn't happen if she's trans), I just want to make sure it's done right. Got any thoughts?
I seriously enjoy your videos. They're really well done. No matter how much I agree/disagree with them, I love hearing your thoughts. This made me think about this topic differently. I completely get why this irritates you, and I'm glad you made this video.