A hopefully non-controversial thought on character diversity in media.

[Zhukov]

a) Can we agree that people derive enjoyment from heroes that reflect an aspect of themselves?

Honestly, no. I like quite a few characters that I have nothing in common. I'm a straight white male. And yet, I like Sazh of FFXIII (not talking about the rest of the game), Steve Cortez from Mass Effect 3, plenty of characters from anime who are definitely from Japan, and let's not forget Finn and Rey from Force Awakens. I could pretty easily go on. I don't think you need to have anything in common with a character to enjoy them.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. Enjoying seeing a character that resembles you in some way is not the same as needing a character to resemble you in some way to enjoy them.

Seems to me that you're imagining contention on this one. I have no ill will towards you. Nor do I think your opinion invalid. I just disagree with it in part. Though, you haven't really given me any reason to believe that you extend the same respect to me.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you and I had any contention. I meant the subject and thread in general. I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said thus far.

 

[Silvanus]

A lot of complaints about "diversity for diversity's sake", already (of course). Who are you to assume the motivation of the writer?

And why is "the default for the default's sake" not equally objectionable?

Actually, I think I know the reason.

 

[Saltyk]

a) Can we agree that people derive enjoyment from heroes that reflect an aspect of themselves?

Honestly, no. I like quite a few characters that I have nothing in common. I'm a straight white male. And yet, I like Sazh of FFXIII (not talking about the rest of the game), Steve Cortez from Mass Effect 3, plenty of characters from anime who are definitely from Japan, and let's not forget Finn and Rey from Force Awakens. I could pretty easily go on. I don't think you need to have anything in common with a character to enjoy them.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. Enjoying seeing a character that resembles you in some way is not the same as needing a character to resemble you in some way to enjoy them.

Honestly, if you need a character to resemble you in order to enjoy them, I think the problem is you. You should be able to enjoy a well written and performed character for their own sake. You should be able to emphasize with a down trodden character, cheer for a hero's success, and despise a villain despite their arbitrary characteristics.

Unless the writing or acting is just bad. Then, you can ignore the work and find better media.

A lot of complaints about "diversity for diversity's sake", already (of course). Who are you to assume the motivation of the writer?

I do think there is an argument against diversity for diversity's sake. Especially if that means changing established characters. At it's best, diversity for diversities sake is extremely shallow and condescending. I'd much rather the character be strong. If their race doesn't matter in the work, it's perfectly fine to pick the best person for the part or to write them as a whatever you choose.

And why is "the default for the default's sake" not equally objectionable?

Who sets what is the default? Are Bollywood films immoral for featuring Indian actors? Or is it okay because that's not what you arbitrarily define as the "default"?

The vast majority of characters in Japanese media are Japanese. Wouldn't Japanese be the "default"? Does this make those works less valid? The entire cast of the Attack on Titan movie were Japanese despite the fact that the series features primarily white people. Is that laudable or wrong?

I mean would not the "default" for characters in Harlem be black? Would not the "default" of characters in Mexico be Mexican (or at least Hispanic)? Would not the "default" of characters in Pakistan be Arab? Would you be okay with us changing some of those around? After all, shouldn't we avoid the "default" for the sake of diversity?

I'm all for diverse characters, but let's not pretend like every character that isn't "diverse" is an affront to common human decency. Nor is a character being diverse an affront to common human decency, for the record.

Actually, I think I know the reason.

Oh boy. Is this the part where you accuse everyone you disagree with of bigotry? No need to answer that question. That's exactly what you're doing. Moral high horse, away!

 

[Thaluikhain]

I mean would not the "default" for characters in Harlem be black? Would not the "default" of characters in Mexico be Mexican (or at least Hispanic)? Would not the "default" of characters in Pakistan be Arab? Would you be okay with us changing some of those around? After all, shouldn't we avoid the "default" for the sake of diversity?

Ah, but then should not the default in a diverse setting (or nation) be diverse by the same logic?

 

[Saltyk]

I mean would not the "default" for characters in Harlem be black? Would not the "default" of characters in Mexico be Mexican (or at least Hispanic)? Would not the "default" of characters in Pakistan be Arab? Would you be okay with us changing some of those around? After all, shouldn't we avoid the "default" for the sake of diversity?

Ah, but then should not the default in a diverse setting (or nation) be diverse by the same logic?

Yes. I am not arguing against that. I'm fully with you there.

On the other hand, in America 72% of the population is white. According the the recent census, blacks make up 13%, Asians makes up just under 5%, mixed race makes up about 9%, and the remainder of the population is much smaller groups. The data didn't specify Hispanic, but from what I gathered, they might be largely included in the white statistics, however that doesn't seem to be a large percentage based on what I could extrapolate. So, a majority of characters in American media would be white with other groups making up a smaller proportion based on these numbers. If anything, you could say minority groups are being overly represented based on that.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that we should use such data to determine the cast of a film or movie. I'm merely offering another explanation to the perceived lack of diversity that doesn't assume bigotry. I'm going to reiterate that the character should be written in a way that fits the character and/or the writer's vision and that the best person for the role should get it.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

 

[MeatMachine]

Diversity is cool, so long as it doesn't seem too much like:

-That character's "diversity" isn't routinely pointed out as an oddity (black character getting barraged with black jokes all the time, e.g.).
-That character's "diversity" fits their environment (like an openly transgendered woman who fights in the Golden Horde, or something way too much of a stretch to be taken seriously).
-The character's "diversity" isn't the main substance of their actual character (a gay character whose role largely revolves around their homosexuality).

Diversity is great, provided the motivation for striving for it isn't superficial. Diverse traits should be played off of, sure, but when the spotlight is focused on general traits that separate the character from most of the others, rather than the unique traits that make those characters their own fleshed-out individuals, it stinks of lame bullshit to me.

EDIT: I guess it also depends on the plot of the story. If we're talking about a TV show that is about a young transgendered person trying to find their way in the world, I wouldn't be nearly as judgemental on that as I would a generic sitcom that just has a transgendered character as part of the cast. This is an important distinction to make when talking about diversity, in my opinion.

 

[Silvanus]

Honestly, if you need a character to resemble you in order to enjoy them, I think the problem is you. You should be able to enjoy a well written and performed character for their own sake. You should be able to emphasize with a down trodden character, cheer for a hero's success, and despise a villain despite their arbitrary characteristics.

Unless the writing or acting is just bad. Then, you can ignore the work and find better media.

People don't need characters that reflect them all the time, but if you almost never see them, then it's certainly nice when you do. It's also somewhat alienating when they never crop up. This is something that people who are very often reflected in TV, film and literature won't readily notice; people take for granted what they've often enjoyed.

I do think there is an argument against diversity for diversity's sake. Especially if that means changing established characters. At it's best, diversity for diversities sake is extremely shallow and condescending. I'd much rather the character be strong. If their race doesn't matter in the work, it's perfectly fine to pick the best person for the part or to write them as a whatever you choose.

Almost all of the examples of established characters having their demographics switched tend to be "legacy" characters to some degree-- Thor, Spiderman, Green Lantern. In all of these instances, the mantle has previously gone to somebody who shares the originals' demographics, without criticism. Again, the default for the default's sake, but this is fine, it seems.

Who sets what is the default? Are Bollywood films immoral for featuring Indian actors? Or is it okay because that's not what you arbitrarily define as the "default"?

That's precisely my point. The demographics of the original are assumed to be the default, which is nonsensical and arbitrary. I'm not saying they should be the default; I'm saying they shouldn't, and that most of the time, demographics can freely be changed.

I'm all for diverse characters, but let's not pretend like every character that isn't "diverse" is an affront to common human decency. Nor is a character being diverse an affront to common human decency, for the record.

Nobody, but nobody, is saying that characters not being diverse is an affront to anything. This is not an argument of individual examples, but of trends. If a film casts a brown-haired white straight guy, that's absolutely fine, no problem. If every hero follows the same grizzled mould, then it becomes much more obvious, much more eye-roll-inducing.

Oh boy. Is this the part where you accuse everyone you disagree with of bigotry? No need to answer that question. That's exactly what you're doing. Moral high horse, away!

Oh, pull the other one. I didn't accuse anybody of that, and nor do I think anybody in this thread is a bigot.

I think people have unrecognised double-standards. That's not the same damn thing. If you see any criticism as an accusation of bigotry, that says more about the knee-jerk nature of your response than anything I said.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On the other hand, in America 72% of the population is white. According the the recent census, blacks make up 13%, Asians makes up just under 5%, mixed race makes up about 9%, and the remainder of the population is much smaller groups. The data didn't specify Hispanic, but from what I gathered, they might be largely included in the white statistics, however that doesn't seem to be a large percentage based on what I could extrapolate. So, a majority of characters in American media would be white with other groups making up a smaller proportion based on these numbers. If anything, you could say minority groups are being overly represented based on that.

Over-represented? Are we seeing more than 28% of characters of mainstream US films as PoC? Particularly in starring roles. Now, you can certainly argue that various minority groups are over-represented compared to each other, but white people are still dominating films disproportionately. We aren't seeing 1 in 4 superhero films be about PoC, for example.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that we should use such data to determine the cast of a film or movie. I'm merely offering another explanation to the perceived lack of diversity that doesn't assume bigotry. I'm going to reiterate that the character should be written in a way that fits the character and/or the writer's vision and that the best person for the role should get it.

Certainly, we should, only in practice when we keep seeing something dominated by the same sort of people that were dominating it when bigotry clearly was the reason, it looks rather suspicious.

Now, not saying there aren't more stories about white people to tell, but when it comes to maybe telling stories about people that aren't white, it's far less likely to happen.

 

[Barbas]

Basically, can we all agree that people generally enjoy seeing fictional heroes that reflect aspects of themselves?

I often don't, because I want to see a world from a different perspective. Or that could just be what I tell myself because I don't want to see a character so close to me that they remind me of my own shortcomings. What I really want is for them to be better than me, and do all the things I want to do but fail to.

 

[Thaluikhain]

EDIT: I guess it also depends on the plot of the story. If we're talking about a TV show that is about a young transgendered person trying to find their way in the world, I wouldn't be nearly as judgemental on that as I would a generic sitcom that just has a transgendered character as part of the cast. This is an important distinction to make when talking about diversity, in my opinion.

Why should a story with trans characters be about being trans? There's no reason why the default must be adhered to.

This very forum is nominally about games, but has trans users, for example. If a film about this place was made, but wasn't specifically about being trans, should the trans users be removed from the film?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

"Diversity for diversity's sake"

So what the hell is "default", and why?

Default should be a character who actually HAS character. Such as Luke Cage, guy who took up being a hero for hire after being imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit but is still a good hearted soul and often ends up turning down the payment in his stories because of said heart. The why for this is fairly simple. It makes for a more interesting character, and more interesting stories.

For an example of the reason FOR the why, look at Lady Thor. Lady dying of cancer, so she uses the hammer to stave it off, but she had a chance for it to be cured entirely and she turned it down because "magic has a price". It basically takes the old characterization and spits on it without really giving a good reason for it.

Heck, the lady knight idea mentioned above is a good example of this. Which would you rather read about. A woman who has to struggle and strive to earn any recognition for her skills, or someone who just thrashes everyone with ease just cause?

It also doesn't help matters that a number of heroes are basically being hijacked to cram in more diverse characters who don't really have a lot TO their characters beyond their race or gender. It's basically saying these characters can't make it without taking over for more established characters and what a moral that is. "Hey minorities! Wanna make it in this world? Better take positions from whitey!"

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, are we talking about diversity in media or diversity within a single piece of media? When it comes to the latter I'm not that keen on it needing to explicitely adress every race/gender/orientation under the sun.

 

[Saltyk]

On the other hand, in America 72% of the population is white. According the the recent census, blacks make up 13%, Asians makes up just under 5%, mixed race makes up about 9%, and the remainder of the population is much smaller groups. The data didn't specify Hispanic, but from what I gathered, they might be largely included in the white statistics, however that doesn't seem to be a large percentage based on what I could extrapolate. So, a majority of characters in American media would be white with other groups making up a smaller proportion based on these numbers. If anything, you could say minority groups are being overly represented based on that.

Over-represented? Are we seeing more than 28% of characters of mainstream US films as PoC? Particularly in starring roles. Now, you can certainly argue that various minority groups are over-represented compared to each other, but white people are still dominating films disproportionately. We aren't seeing 1 in 4 superhero films be about PoC, for example.

I don't pretend to know the numbers. Nor did I mean to argue that point. I was merely saying you could make that argument. As you said, it really would depend on group we're talking about. For example, most estimates put the percentage of gay people in the US at 10% (and some argue that may be too generous). But there's a ton of gay characters in media. I'm not sure the actual numbers, as I really don't care, but it is a possible example of a group that gets too much representation.
It should be pointed out that I'm not making a judgement on whether that is a good or bad thing. Merely using it as an example.

I'm more concerned about good characters.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that we should use such data to determine the cast of a film or movie. I'm merely offering another explanation to the perceived lack of diversity that doesn't assume bigotry. I'm going to reiterate that the character should be written in a way that fits the character and/or the writer's vision and that the best person for the role should get it.

Certainly, we should, only in practice when we keep seeing something dominated by the same sort of people that were dominating it when bigotry clearly was the reason, it looks rather suspicious.

I find assuming bigotry to be distasteful. You seem to be implying that bigotry is at the heart of such things. There could be any number of other explanations for that sort of thing. Lack of talented people of a group interested in the role. That such casting would require major rewrites. Or simply that it wouldn't be profitable for one reason or another.

Now, not saying there aren't more stories about white people to tell, but when it comes to maybe telling stories about people that aren't white, it's far less likely to happen.

This could be due to lack of audience interest. People don't go see movies as much as they used to. And when they do, they often opt to see exciting films. It's very likely that studios will be unwilling to fund films that are not action packed epics. A film about the trial and tribulation of some poor family in rural America likely won't get many people excited for it (regardless of what the people in the film look like).

What's the last movie you saw at the theater? Mine was Dr Strange. And before that... The Force Awakens(?). Hell, I'm looking forward to the eventual Black Panther movie. Chadwick Boseman was great in Civil War. Have they made any announcements on that?

I highly doubt I'm too much of an outlier in that sort of movie going rate. Though I probably saw more movies last year. At least one of those was to see how bad it would be, BvS.

It's never wise to assume ill intent when other explanations can work just as well.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Heck, the lady knight idea mentioned above is a good example of this. Which would you rather read about. A woman who has to struggle and strive to earn any recognition for her skills, or someone who just thrashes everyone with ease just cause?

Either? Both? Depends on the type of story, really. Why is it that only the dudes that get to be the bland powerhouses? Would Guts' story change significantly if Guts had been a gal? Would Halo have been altered significantly if it was about Master Chief Amilie and her AI companion Cortan?

And about your objections to "changing" the genders of established characters:
A) they didn't "change" Thor's gender, there's just another person running around as Thor, original Thor is still running around doing shit, and
B) that whole kettle of fish is distinctly not what Zhukov had in mind when creating this thread.

Well, are we talking about diversity in media or diversity within a single piece of media? When it comes to the latter I'm not that keen on it needing to explicitely adress every race/gender/orientation under the sun.

Diversity in media in general. Less about every game ticking every box, more about more games ticking more boxes. Wide variety of characters in general appealing to more people in general than they have in the past.

Main thing I find weird is that I'm coming in from a different angle that Zhukov, in which I've become so very bored of characters designed specifically to appeal to me that it's started becoming an active strike against media that leans on it.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I had this conversation with my brother who's well and deep into the SJW/PC/36-Genders-and-counting-crowd and he and I reached somewhat of an agreement.
My point was that diversity for the sake of diversity, or diversity that doesn't effect anything in a story or come across in gameplay in a game is meaningless. It started when i mentioned some people wanted Samus to be Trans, and he said it wasn't a terrible idea. I agreed, but said it was meaningless because it'd never come across in gameplay or the story.

My point was if she never speaks, you never see her face, and she never interacts with anything not a slobbering alien goat, you could say she's a trans-puppy gender-lava Afro-Asian and it be utterly meaningless. Likewise she could be crippled, have autism, or a skin condition or a billion other affliction people want to identify with, but all we ever see is her running, jumping, rolling and no acknowledging any of it. So why bother? What does it add in any way?

And that's were we agreed. The Diversity has to be seen and known and come across in some way. Just adding modifiers and descriptive terms to a character's identity without ever actually changing their identity is completely token.

Now if you want to have Samus being a trans-puppy gender-lava Afro-Asian, go for it! But for God's sake, don't waste the opportunity.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, are we talking about diversity in media or diversity within a single piece of media? When it comes to the latter I'm not that keen on it needing to explicitely adress every race/gender/orientation under the sun.

Diversity in media in general. Less about every game ticking every box, more about more games ticking more boxes. Wide variety of characters in general appealing to more people in general than they have in the past.

Main thing I find weird is that I'm coming in from a different angle that Zhukov, in which I've become so very bored of characters designed specifically to appeal to me that it's started becoming an active strike against media that leans on it.

I can't really tell what's going to appeal to me before I see it though. I can assume I might like it based on certain criteria, but sometimes things can either possitively or negatively surprise me. Sometimes revealing a character to be gay has a possitive effect on me, and sometimes it can bug the shit out of me. Both of which you can find examples of in The Last of Us and its DLC.

When it comes to diversity in media I'd assume that media would shift as to where the money is. So the question might not be 'Where is the [insert representation] in media?', but 'Does the [insert representation] we currently have in media pull in the audiences?' It wasn't long ago that there was a pretty big gay fad going on in media.

 

[Mechamorph]

Well Zhukov, if being able to identify with the characters rocks your world then all the more power to you. If people enjoy seeing characters they can identify with in their media and get to see it more often, that is a good thing overall. The caveat is that this does not compromise the quality of the media itself. By the by Zhukov, if you can get a hand on Astro City's "The Tarnished Angel" trade paperback I recommend you give it a whirl to see how comics have progressed since the Dark Age of Comic Books. The main character is not a super hero at all, he does have powers but he is an ex-con trying to put his life together. His epic quest? To afford a nice angel gravestone for his beloved mother who died when he was incarcerated. Basically using C-list supervillains as a metaphor for that long, hard climb out of poverty.

One thing that does bug me though is tokenism. A character is assigned a trait because the author wants such a character in his works and the problem being is that this trait is ALL the character is. The character is SO girly that she is an army ranger that complains when she chips her nails and brings a manicure set onto the field. The chap is SO gay that he hits on every guy and acts incredibly camp to the point where he is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen. He is SO Chinese that he talkee like Charlie Chan with buck teeth. That is just sloppy writing and dipping into stereotypes just for characterization is pretty lazy.

Some friends of mine once asked me what I thought of the Chinese characters in a particular show and I replied that there weren't any. They boggled because there were a few Asian Americans in the cast. The thing is that none of them act Chinese, they act American. Change their skin tone and they are the same character. None of them think or react as if they have Chinese values, culture or morality. Basically ask any European if a Norwegian, German or Russian thought alike and they would likely scoff. They might look similar enough but all have very different cultural mores. Heck Italy, Spain and France are next door neighbors but are culturally distinct. It does disappoint me when the purported diversity is nothing more than a coat of paint, sure they might be visually distinct but under the hood, they are pretty much interchangeable. Have a different performer play the role and the character remains the same regardless of ethnicity save for a few stereotypical behaviors.

In part I theorize that this is due to the writers simply not have a very deep understanding of foreign cultures, something that one can hardly fault them for. They are writers, not diplomats after all. Another is that any media company's first market priority is its home domestic market. Hollywood will use mainly White actors with some Blacks thrown in because history has shown that this is what sells. Sometimes they take a chance but how many Asian American leading men do you know? When was the last time one headlined a blockbuster? Similarly I do not see Japan, Hong Kong or Bollywood trying out too many Serbian actors for lead roles since such a thing is risky in their market.

 

[KissingSunlight]

My entire point was

a) Can we agree that people derive enjoyment from heroes that reflect an aspect of themselves?

and

b) Is there any reason to deny or begrudge that small pleasure to people who get it less often?

Seriously. That was my entire point. As the title says, I was hoping it wouldn't be a contentious one. But alas.

So, you are trying to state: Can we all agree that having a drink with friends and family is a good thing? Then you get upset that someone brings up alcoholism and drunk driving.

Oh well. Let me address the questions you asked me earlier.

Also, when people needlessly change characters in established IP's that damage the integrity of the story. *ahem* Fantastic Four (2015).
I'm going to spit your own words straight back at you on this one.

"It's about bad writing."

Would casting a white dude as Johnny have made 2015's Fantastic 4 any less of a stinker? Do you really think that is what damaged the integrity of that story?

Or does the bad writing caveat only go one way?

Let me add, the political correct side that are for diversity have been more bigoted this year. When they complained that Zoe Saldana was "not dark enough" to play Nina Simone. http://newsone.com/2039971/zoe-saldana-nina-simone/

You... did read that article that you linked, right?

Also, you might want to look up the definition of "bigotry".

About The Fantastic Four, the casting was a red flag for me that they weren't going to do a good, reasonably faithful adaptation of the IP. That suspicious was confirmed when I read the reviews and eventually saw the movie on cable.

Criticizing a person for being "Not Dark Enough" has been a bigoted slur in the African-American community for a really long time. For people who claim they are "Pro-Diversity" supporting that criticism is well...*checking to see if I am posting in Wild West forums* Ummm, that is claiming you are for one thing and doing the opposite of what you are claiming you are for.

Come to think about it. Complaining about people who make legitimate criticisms about how diversity are done, because all you care about is seeing people who are just like you on the screen. That should make you stop and reflect if you are harboring any bigotry yourself.