Not boasting or anything but sure, there was them as well.
News Jason Isaacs Joins Star Trek: Discovery as Captain Lorca
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
A bad representation of reality would be showing identical proportions across all sectors of a population.
A bad representation is having six series that are all predominantly male. Nobody expects all of them to be completely 50:50. But since the previous shows were so shitty about equal representation it's not asking too much for a 2017 show to be less stupid about it.
Equal representation would be cool, having it predominantly female is fine, too, considering all other Trek shows were heavily skewed in the other direction.
Having YET ANOTHER predominantly male cast would be lame.
I honestly don't understand why I have to explain this again and again. It's like so many people don't get representation in media.
I think you're confusing representation of reality with representation of your ideals. A two-thirds male crew is not unrealistic whatsoever. A predominance of white American humans, though, is more of a concern in regards to realism.
I gotta say, I'm not sure what else I'd expect from somebody whose avatar depicts a sociopathic robot mocking a disabled man.
In 6 series?
What do you know about what'll be realistic gender splits in starship crews centuries from now? Work at Starfleet very obviously isn't about upper body strength which might have favored males.
Your post reminds me of the people who whined about the all-female Ghostbusters because "women wouldn't be drawn to the completely fictional and fantastic job of hunting ghosts".
Of course I don't know, but if I had to guess about the future, naturally I'd draw on history. I'd expect to see certain fields skewed one way, and others another, just like we see today.In 6 series?
What do you know about what'll be realistic gender splits in starship crews centuries from now? Work at Starfleet very obviously isn't about upper body strength which might have favored males.
Your post reminds me of the people who whined about the all-female Ghostbusters because "women wouldn't be drawn to the completely fictional and fantastic job of hunting ghosts".
But you were the one making assertions about reality, so you tell me. What makes you think a 50/50 split would be realistic centuries from now, where it is not today and never has been in centuries past?
Who knows, which is why science fiction is so wonderful. You can decide how things develop.
Just 50 years ago you could've said the same about university education: Men had always been overrepresented... for centuries. Why would that ever change?!
Yet now that women aren't discouraged or banned from higher education anymore... they're actually the majority of uni students in many countries. The same is true for various jobs women were discouraged from (which basically applies to almost every job because up until very recently the expectation was for women to stay at home and not have a job) or banned from.
Considering the job profiles on spaceships I see no reason to believe men would be drawn to Starfleet any more than women.
How about the fact that, when women are given equal opportunities to succeed, they do at least as well (if not better) than men?
Women are underrepresented in a lot of fields, not for lack of capability, but because they are actively discouraged from pursuing them.
One could perhaps argue that the future might be worse in this regard, but we're talking about Star Trek: a fundamentally optimistic vision of the future. Which would suggest parity or something pretty close to it as the ideal.
Because the Star Trek is supposed to depict an optimistic take on humanity without institutionalised sexist bullshit.
There is absolutely nothing in Starfleet jobs that would make them fundamentally more suited for men. As noted, upper body strength has little use in Starfleet. Of course, it is known that on average women tend to have better colour vision than men, and the whole organisational structure of Starfleet is based on being able to easily distinguish between primary colours, so that should favour women!
Happy International Women's Day to everyone!
I'm a dwarf IRL, with other physical disabilities. The only three dwarfs I recall seeing in movies and television are Michael Dunn (deceased for 43 years), Verne Troyer, and Peter Dinklage. I haven't seen one be a main character of Star Trek yet. It honestly doesn't bother me though, because I simply don't care about representation in media. We're all human.
Is Star Trek fundamentally optimistic? I wish it was, but it's been getting darker since the 90s
When it comes to representation, it's impossible to please everyone. Because people are not just males/females, white/black. Just because someone is a white male doesn't mean that every white male feels represented. People are short/tall, hairy/bald, fat/skinny, of hundreds of nationalities, extroverts, introverts, disabled, missing a limb, different hair/eye colors, speak with a specific accent, etc. etc. etc. a "White Male" means absolutely nothing.
When it comes to representation, it's impossible to please everyone. Because people are not just males/females, white/black. Just because someone is a white male doesn't mean that every white male feels represented. People are short/tall, hairy/bald, fat/skinny, of hundreds of nationalities, extroverts, introverts, disabled, missing a limb, different hair/eye colors, speak with a specific accent, etc. etc. etc. a "White Male" means absolutely nothing.
It has, but that was a mistake.
I find it intriguing. There was a rather big deal made by Fuller about 'gender blind, colour blind' casting at one point.
If this was the result of that process, and that ideal picked these candidates as simply being the best person they auditioned for each role, would that casting ideal be quickly disqualified because it didn't yield the desired result?
I've noticed a trend of 'colour blind' casting results being praised in theory, but only continued to be praised when the result was colour-bias against one demographic. Which baffles me in many ways as being the opposite of the point :/
That's also an intriguing point. If Chris Hemsworth was truly representative of me, I'd have to put a hefty lock on my front door
If this was the result of that process, and that ideal picked these candidates as simply being the best person they auditioned for each role, would that casting ideal be quickly disqualified because it didn't yield the desired result?
I've noticed a trend of 'colour blind' casting results being praised in theory, but only continued to be praised when the result was colour-bias against one demographic. Which baffles me in many ways as being the opposite of the point :/
That's also an intriguing point. If Chris Hemsworth was truly representative of me, I'd have to put a hefty lock on my front door
I'm in complete agreement with everything here, except the last, assuming by "parity" you mean equal ratios in every career or interest group. That situation does not logically follow from equal opportunity in a diverse population, and it is certainly not un-optimistic of me to expect that this would not happen.
It is kinda tricky. Even if the person who made the casting would be an android perfectly free of any conscious or unconscious bias, and would honestly just choose the most talented person for each role, the bias would still exist because of the pool of available people to choose from. Other people choosing actors certainly have biases, and this affects the actors' careers, so if you are looking for actors with some established acting chops, the white males will already be over presented in that pool of people. Being 'colourblind (or 'genderblind') this way works only if everybody does it, and they certainly don't.
I don't want to seem like I'm blindly cutting a chunk out there - I both agree and disagree with the bias part, but I don't want to accidentally cast aspersions on any casting director out there hah!
But the percentages or ratio's are an intriguing element to consider as well. If there are, for example, ten people up for a role and seven of those ten are of a certain colour for whatever reason (and for the sake of innocence, jut assuming thats who applied!) - surely there's just a higher chance of that colour ended up in the role.
The only way around it in my eyes is to cast that demographic. Colour blind casting will always be tainted by those proposed or available for the role. Asking for something specific for the (very justified) sake of representation would be far more beneficial for casting a wider range of diversity - whereas 'blind' casting would always fall short to the statistics.
Historically, there are roles more dominated by women and others by men. For example, primary school teachers. A male primary school teacher round here is an anomaly. High school is far more mixed. Not sure if that's where they were going, but that popped into my head.
Do you think there is exactly the same ratio of inclinations among men and women, so that the only factor leading to disparity is being "discouraged" from those inclinations? Evidently, not even Emilia believes that:
Why do you think women are more inclined to university study? Could it be, perhaps, that there is somewhat more to gender than whether or not one has upper body strength?
Similar threads
- Locked
