Poll: Should stories be praised for being progressive?

[Ryallen]

This is something that has niggled at the back of my mind for quite some time, and I feel that I need as large a questioning base as possible. Now, that's not to say that I'm against stories being progressive. However, I don't think that adding a character simply for the sake of them being gay or black or anything like that adds anything to the narrative as a whole. One instance that really intrigued me was in Adventure Time, when Marceline's mom was revealed to have been black. Well, reveal is a very strong word. She was just kinda there. She was hugging Marceline as a mother would as she sings to her, as a very loving mother would. (Maybe)
Here's the video:

And when I went down to the comments, I wasn't shocked or angry or even mildly annoyed when I saw that a few people were praising Adventure Time for being progressive. As I thought about it, it made sense. Black people DO in fact exist, despite what people on the internet may tell you, and they can, in fact, breed demonic babies if paired with Lord of the silly equivalent of Hell.

And, later, when I was watching a review of Gatchaman Crowds by Glass Reflection, Arkada praised the show for being progressive for having two transgendered characters and a gay character in the show. This, again, made me think. I know that one of the characters, Berg Katze, has their gender androgynous for further symbolism to demonstrate that anyone can be like this, but I'm left a little curious about the character of Rui Ninomiya, whom is transgendered as well. Truth be told, this is the character that REALLY made me think about the question, as Arkada said that when the character's gender was revealed, no one was more than mildly surprised, if even that.
Here's this video

This, in of itself, seemed silly, as while transgender isn't something that's so unusual to provoke a reaction of typical anime magnitude, it IS certainly something that can be considered uncommon at best. And, after doing some research into her personality and found it to be completely unrelated to her characterization, I felt that giving this character a transgendered sexula identity did nothing to add to the character as a whole other than just a simple "jacket" in terms of importance and impact on their inclusion.

What I'm trying to say is, things like this seem token. Not everything has to be some kind of statement about who they are and how their race or sexuality affects everything. But, at the same time, I feel that sexuality does play at least a small part in how someone interacts with the world around them, and not acknowledging it does nothing to add to the rhetoric that most people have come to accept. As for the race thing, ehh... Mostly that just brought the question to my attention and kinda rounds up to the full version of the above inquiry:

Should stories be praised for having characters of differing race and sexuality than the typical white-bred male? Should it be expected in most narratives due to the steps forward we have made in acceptance for any and all? Or do you believe that we have not yet made the steps necessary for this to NOT go unacknowledged and we SHOULD praise stories for having characters that aren't white or straight?

 

[Saelune]

When its actually well done, sure. Though the best way to do it is to just do it and don't make it a big deal *cough*Ghostbusters*cough*.

By normalizing things, you remove the stigmas surrounding them. I'm sure plenty of young lesbians will cite Adventure Time and Steven Universe as making them feel ok about being gay. (I'm sure some gay boys too, but still).

The thing is though, the best examples of progressiveness isn't usually so obvious. It just is, because they just make a good character who just is this or that. Not to say there cant be any focus on it, but it needs to be organic and genuine.

 

[Silvanus]

This, in of itself, seemed silly, as while transgender isn't something that's so unusual to provoke a reaction of typical anime magnitude, it IS certainly something that can be considered uncommon at best. And, after doing some research into her personality and found it to be completely unrelated to her characterization, I felt that giving this character a transgendered sexuality did nothing to add to the character as a whole other than just a simple "jacket" in terms of importance and impact on their inclusion.

Anybody can have gender dysphoria; it's not limited to people of a certain personality type. It's no less likely that Rui has it.

You may not think it "added" anything, but that's how the writer has envisaged the character. There's not really any reason that a trans character has to justify their inclusion any more than anyone else; there's no reason a gay character has to have a reason to be gay any more than a straight character has to have a reason to be straight. In the real world, not everyone is straight, and there is no plot-related reason for it; likewise, there's no reason to just default to straight for everyone in a fictional setting.

What I'm trying to say is, things like this seem token. Not everything has to be some kind of statement about who they are and how their race or sexuality affects everything. But, at the same time, I feel that sexuality does play at least a small part in how someone interacts with the world around them, and not acknowledging it does nothing to add to the rhetoric that most people have come to accept. As for the race thing, ehh... Mostly that just brought the question to my attention and kinda rounds up to the full version of the above inquiry:

Sexuality informs who we are, but that doesn't need to be central to their story. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. See above; the vast majority of characters are straight by default, and the question never comes up as to whether there should have been a reason to pick heterosexuality. Treat gay characters the same way!

The only real exception being when an element of the story requires the character to have a certain sexuality.

 

[Zhukov]

Umm... if you want to?

So, here's the thing. Why do you think it is that only minority characters are required to justify their existence?

Why isn't the question, "Why is this character a Straight White Male? How does this add to his character? Does this character sufficiently explore what it means to be a Straight White Male? If not, why does he need to exist? Was this character just included to pander to the Straight White Male lobby?"

Anyone who does ask those questions is doing it to make a point, like I am right here, and usually gets shouted down for being a feminazi SJW etc etc.

Other kinds of people exist. Surely they're as valid a character type as ye olde Straight White Male (possibly with brown hair).

 

[Sniper Team 4]

My worry about "progressive" characters and/or stories boils down to what you said right here:

However, I don't think that adding a character simply for the sake of them being gay or black or anything like that adds anything to the narrative as a whole.

But I think I might be reading that line differently than what you mean, seeing your reaction to the transgender character.

If a character is black, or gay, or Asian, or transgender, or whatever, then I'm fine with it. And I guess other people can call it progressive and praise it all they want. Steven Universe gets praise for this all the time, and I admit that I, at first, praised it for how it handles Garret, Ruby, Sapphire, and the whole idea. But after a bit, I did what I think people want you to do with those characters. I stopped 'caring' that they were lesbians. I just saw it as, "That's just Ruby and Sapphire, nothing special." And I mean that in the nicest way possible. Them being lesbians was just normal for me, just like Greg being in love with Rose.

What makes me come to a screeching halt is when a character is put in--be they gay, black, female, whatever minority--for the sole purpose of checking off that box. "We need to appeal to x audience, so let's just toss in a new character who is x." When Abrams came out and said that gay characters were coming to Star Wars, I grew worried. Not because of the arrival of gay characters (they have already been there, because I don't care what people say, Juhani counts!), but because I was afraid they would be the "gay" character. The character whose major role in the franchise is to be the gay character. It should never be that way, because it's a insult.

 

[Phasmal]

Umm... if you want to?

So, here's the thing. Why do you think it is that only minority characters are required to justify their existence?

Why isn't the question, "Why is this character a Straight White Male? How does this add to his character? Does this character sufficiently explore what it means to be a Straight White Male? If not, why does he need to exist? Was this character just included to pander to the Straight White Male lobby?"

Anyone who does ask those questions is doing it to make a point, like I am right here, and usually gets shouted down for being a feminazi SJW etc etc.

Other kinds of people exist. Surely they're as valid a character type as ye olde Straight White Male (possibly with brown hair).

Honestly, I never get people who think anything not the 'default' needs to be justified. Are they confused by real life? Looking around going 'Well what does that person being black add to their character? Why is this person a woman?'.

OP: I guess you could say that I praise things for being progressive/diverse just because I am kind of bored of the default, so it's nice to see things which are different. I don't really understand people who do not ever get bored of the Straight White Male parade. I think, (I hope), over time that we will get to a point where it doesn't need praising because we have a wider range of diverse stories available. I don't think we're quite there yet, though.

 

[Zontar]

It should never be that way, because it's a insult.

Plus by having them be that there's the additional problem of everyone believing the way the character's fate on screen is is also some sort of message. Just look at The 100, one of the leads got a movie contract and had to be written off the show, so they killed her off. Problem is her character was a lesbian, so everyone suddenly got furious about it for no good reason, crying about how gay characters exist only to be killed (despite the math not actually supporting that conclusion).

That type of senseless backlash is only a bad thing, as it actively deinsentivises writers form making such characters. Sure people will complain about a lack of such characters, but if you have a situation where treating a gay or minority character as a character and not a token will lead to backlash, then writers will simply not write them at all. Hell they'll get backlash anyway in the current climate: make a minority character who isn't perfect? Backlash. No minority character? Backlash.

Not a good mixture to be frank.

 

[Zontar]

Honestly, I never get people who think anything not the 'default' needs to be justified. Are they confused by real life? Looking around going 'Well what does that person being black add to their character? Why is this person a woman?'.

It probably has something to do with the fact writers, and a lot of other people (especially fandoms) are so obsessed with tokenism that it's hard not to think about it. You can actually see the difference this can have for different works.

The problem is that people draw undue attention to character for being minorities or gay or women just because they are minorities, gay or women. If you do that then people are naturally going to start asking questions like that.

Then there's the problem of those characters just being viewed as an avatar for all the people who are what they are in the eyes of some, which leads to problems like the morons who did the backlash against The 100 for killing a lesbian character (who was one of many characters who died in that story arc) which actively disinsentivises writers from making such characters because if they aren't perfect some people complain, while if they are perfect everyone else complains.

 

[Phasmal]

Honestly, I never get people who think anything not the 'default' needs to be justified. Are they confused by real life? Looking around going 'Well what does that person being black add to their character? Why is this person a woman?'.

It probably has something to do with the fact writers, and a lot of other people (especially fandoms) are so obsessed with tokenism that it's hard not to think about it. You can actually see the difference this can have for different works.

The problem is that people draw undue attention to character for being minorities or gay or women just because they are minorities, gay or women. If you do that then people are naturally going to start asking questions like that.

Then there's the problem of those characters just being viewed as an avatar for all the people who are what they are in the eyes of some, which leads to problems like the morons who did the backlash against The 100 for killing a lesbian character (who was one of many characters who died in that story arc) which actively disinsentivises writers from making such characters because if they aren't perfect some people complain, while if they are perfect everyone else complains.

That's really not what I'm talking about. 'Tokenism' shouldn't even be a thing in the first place because the default for 'character' should not be Straight White Male because that is not and never has been the world that we live in, and media needs to start reflecting that. It's getting better, but it's not there yet.

And as for people complaining no matter how the character is portrayed: so fucking what. People complain about everything. What makes these complaints magically more damaging than the complaints about anything else? Nothing. If a writer is considering not writing minority characters because they worry they will be criticised, they are not a very good writer. Because you get criticised for damn near everything.

 

[Zontar]

That's really not what I'm talking about. 'Tokenism' shouldn't even be a thing in the first place because the default for 'character' should not be Straight White Male because that is not and never has been the world that we live in, and media needs to start reflecting that. It's getting better, but it's not there yet.

I don't know where you live, but I live in Canada so for many stories a Straight White Male is the default because 98% of society is Straight (as it is in all societies), the vast majority is White and for most situations that are portrayed in media it is more realistic for it to be a Male in said situations.

The Straight White Male default stems from the fact that in the countries where it occurs, it is the actual default. It's the same reason in Japan the default is Straight Japanese Male, in China it's Straight Chinese Male, in India (a country that for the past 10 years has made more movies each year then Hollywood) the default is Straight Indian Male, and for Nigeria the default is Straight Nigerian Male.

A Straight person will always be default due to our very nature as humans, the local majority will always be the default due to the fact they are the local majority, and a Male will often be the default due to the fact men and women are inherently different in how we act (and the Norwegian Equality Paradox shows this only becomes more visible in societies where equality before the law and how we are treated occurs) couple with the type of fiction that sells. Some forms of fiction will have this last one be inverted however. Just as a female cast to Generation Kill would not work, a male cast to Sex and the City wouldn't either.

And as for people complaining no matter how the character is portrayed: so fucking what. People complain about everything. What makes these complaints magically more damaging than the complaints about anything else? Nothing. If a writer is considering not writing minority characters because they worry they will be criticised, they are not a very good writer. Because you get criticised for damn near everything.

There actually is a difference between the complaining about not having minorities and complaining about treating minorities like actual characters. For whatever reason the people who complain about that have shown themselves to be more vindictive when it's the latter. Writing skill has nothing to do with it (in fact having actual skill means one is more likely to have to deal with it because of the inherent flaws interesting characters have that badly written ones don't). It's such a problem people within the industry are openly talking about the fact it's a problem, and it's becoming normal to see people in the industry tell morons making such complaints that if they keep it up they will get the least desirable response they could want due to the fact it's easier on everyone in the industry who has to put up with their crap.

I know that if I was a writer and I was entering the industry right now, I'd probably do everything in my power to not let my email address go public because of those people alone.

 

[Chanticoblues]

Yes, but works that are actually illuminating of the experiences of people that aren't often (or faithfully) represented.

Tokenism, or creators making sure their work has the right amount of x or y people feels more like a symptomatic solution to me most of the time.

 

[Phasmal]

Snip

I didn't wanna leave this hanging, but I can see we're not going to agree. It's fine if you don't think media needs more representation, but I do think that.

So I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Fallow]

It seems like an odd thing to focus on. A story should be praised for being an awesome story; whether it's progressive or conservative or representative or whatever is hip these days seems irrelevant. If an awesome story has nothing but minorities it's still an awesome story; likewise if an awesome story has not a single minority in it, it's still an awesome story. There's no need to go all identity politics here - that path is filled with SJWs.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To add to what Zhukov said, people other than the default are still the exception. The existence of people in TV shows who happen to exist in real life shouldn't be controversial, but will remain so so long as they are so dramatically under-represented in TV.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I think it should be judged on the quality of it's tale and it's deliverance of messages rather than WHAT it's messages are.

It'd be like writing a book going '...AND THEN SMELLY COMMUNISM FELL DOWN A HOLE AND CAPITALISM PREVAILED THE END - by Joseph McCarthy'

Sure, you can agree that Communism sucks or whatever but it's not exactly a quality tale for the ages. Besides, I think if you make your tale engaging and focus on that, focus on how strong the character is instead of how black/gay/autotransmission they are, it makes the message hit harder and feel richer.

Plus some really neat things you can do if you wanna put 'progressive' themes or whatever in your story is make up a society where it's the norm. Maybe even throw in two guys walking along holding hands in the background.
Putting that stuff in the background can be pretty effective; stuff in the background is usually normal.

... Basically, people can say A Serbian Film is deep and intelligent because of the symbolism and themes it uses (ones that it frankly beats you over the head with), but people are only going to remember dildos and a BBQ sauce baby.
I dunno, I feel like I'm going all over the place.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Umm... if you want to?

So, here's the thing. Why do you think it is that only minority characters are required to justify their existence?

Why isn't the question, "Why is this character a Straight White Male? How does this add to his character? Does this character sufficiently explore what it means to be a Straight White Male? If not, why does he need to exist? Was this character just included to pander to the Straight White Male lobby?"

Anyone who does ask those questions is doing it to make a point, like I am right here, and usually gets shouted down for being a feminazi SJW etc etc.

Other kinds of people exist. Surely they're as valid a character type as ye olde Straight White Male (possibly with brown hair).

This. Annnd...

OP: I guess you could say that I praise things for being progressive/diverse just because I am kind of bored of the default, so it's nice to see things which are different. I don't really understand people who do not ever get bored of the Straight White Male parade. I think, (I hope), over time that we will get to a point where it doesn't need praising because we have a wider range of diverse stories available. I don't think we're quite there yet, though.

This.
It is lazy of me to just quote, but i'd rather not waste peope's time rewording what is already said. Bloody grizzled white dudes everywhere in big budget entertainment. The weary, reluctant sighs of many a white dude i hear as they spot another person not representing them in their media, even though statistics used to be their friend. Screw you, statistics! Who gave you life? Who allowed you to prosper in society? Well i don't know, but it was probably a grizzled white dude! I'll tell you what it wasn't though, it wasn't a ginger grizzled white dude...too far, too far. Wait, what am i on about?
Ah the creaky wheels of opinions are slow and begrudging, naturally...being more inclusive and understanding requires more effort and potentially can make people feel very sad and/or guilty, which they allegedly do not like to feel. Defensiveness is natural, understandably, but eventually with greater experience, time and thought (outside of echoe chambers), people do start to think outside of themselves.

I have been and seen this change in the self and others, it is a warm, fuzzy feeling. Not at first though (and not for long either). Resistance is usually expected. Far too often i see examples of disdain for shallow minority characters labelled as "token" while shallow white characters are "cheesy, yet lovable. Dumb, but fun." (Not to be confused with "dumb butt fun" which may have been something i accidentally stumbled onto during some curious travels). "Just turn off your brain and enjoy," they (paraphrased) say. "So what if the characters are 2 dimensional, just enjoy the fun!" Then a 2 dimensional minority character or a women (who are not a minority, as far as i know) appears, "Ugh! Why do they always have to pander to the SJWs and/or feminists? Bloody political correctness gone mad, i tell you! How am i supposed to enjoy this now? Oh great...Now people are praising it for silly reasons. Good thing i'm here to show them what and how to properly praise somebody else's work!"
Anyway, you get the point, i hope.

 

[cleric of the order]

Things should be praised for being good.
If you can't write a good progressive story why should you be praised?
Not only you are doing your ideas a disservice but it greatly reminds me of the newer christian works.
Would you expect Dark dungeons or some rapture flick to get celebration because of what they are rather than how good they are? It doesn't bring lead to good art, high expectations, respect for one's audience and one's self does.

Spoiler: good christian art

Futhermore would you honestly want to watch a story that is bad but progressive and see it celebrated across platforms?
IS one even allowed to criticize works that are progressive?

 

[The Lunatic]

Nope.

I think things should be judged based on their quality and not some check list of "Progressiveness" that gives extra points.

Though, of course, naturally people may judge by whatever metric they like.

And I'm naturally just going to instantly discard any such metric that's based on such a thing.

 

[Zhukov]

The problem is that people draw undue attention to character for being minorities or gay or women just because they are minorities, gay or women. If you do that then people are naturally going to start asking questions like that.

Depends on what constitutes "undue attention".

Some people got their panties in a twist because the Division had a lesbian scientist who was shoved down their throats. "Shoved down their throats" in this case meaning she had one line in which she mentioned that her wife had once said she was better at her work than at relating to other people. One line. One single word in fact, namely "wife" instead of "husband".

Another character in the same game, a male, mentions an ex-wife. Nobody got upset at this undue attention to his heterosexuality. Imagine my surprise.

It's almost as if the mere existence of minority characters is enough to constitute undue attention in the eyes of some.

Then there's the problem of those characters just being viewed as an avatar for all the people who are what they are in the eyes of some, which leads to problems like the morons who did the backlash against The 100 for killing a lesbian character (who was one of many characters who died in that story arc) which actively disinsentivises writers from making such characters because if they aren't perfect some people complain, while if they are perfect everyone else complains.

Do you think this would happen if there were more such characters?

When there is one single [insert minority here] character then, yeah, they are often seen as representative of that group as a whole and the writer's attitude toward said group. Personally, I think it's unfair and hasty to assume underlying motivation like that, but I understand why it happens.

The Wire was a show full of nasty, scary, brutish black people. Omigosh, what a terrible racist stereotype! Burn it down! And yet nobody complained because they were in show up to it's ears in black people of all kinds.

Some for Orange is the New Black which has any number of messed up women and lesbian characters, many of whom have bad things happen to them.

... and for most situations that are portrayed in media it is more realistic for it to be a Male in said situations.

Oh yeah, gotta maintain that realism.

I was watching an action movie the other day in which the unarmed protagonist fought off six trained opponents simultaneously. I was all like, "Man, good thing he's a dude. No way he'd have been able to do that without his extra muscle mass and testosterone powers!"

 

[MythicMatt]

If the 'progressiveness' shown is a character who has no characterization beyond "I'm a [whatever minority]", no.

If the character is an actual character instead of there for the sake of being there, yes.

If everything they say relates to them piling on how 'progressive' they are, that's more of a step in the opposite direction. Sort of like asking if you're cool.

Basically, write the entire thing as though everyone was an actual person with their own quirks and personalities, then decide later if 'Eternally Optimistic Girl #3' is actually trans, and only bring it up once, in a context where it'd matter. Or, if 'Hipster Nerd Guy #2' is black, make sure it gets hammered in mentally, but don't re-write any of his lines.

Basically, the common sense answer of 'stop putting political BS in entertainment, and start putting thought into the characters to begin with.
But, it's not like I expected common sense from humans who judge other humans by appearance or outward gender.