IIRC Fuller was keen on hiring her from the get go.
The lack of national diversity in the Discovery cast...
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
- Status
No, Bryan Fuller's been saying for years that if he got to make his own Trek show, it'd have a black female lead. He once named Angela Bassett as someone he'd love to cast as the star.
No, that's a myth. Some people online didn't realize that "Number One" is a title used in Starfleet for first officers in general (cf. Will Riker), so when they heard that the character would be a first officer addressed that way, they jumped to a wildly erroneous conclusion.
I'm not worried about lack of opportunity for white guys per se but that we seem to be saying only those of a type can represent those of the same type. Like why try to incorporate diversity into works or represent others when you will just be called out as not being qualified to do so? Easier just not to bother and stick to your own.
It's not diversity if people with limited opportunities are denied a role so it can be played by someone who doesn't face the same adversity.
Really? I heard that she was the #2 choice, and they wanted Rosario Dawson.
Please refrain from making personal comments like this in the future or it will result in an infraction.
Broad views of whole groups of people who happen to share some immutable characteristics always break apart on the individual level. Individuals of any group do need the same consideration when their external circumstance are the same. A jobless, homeless white person needs at first the same consideration as a black trans person who is in the same situation. Then you address the issues specific to the person.
How this relates to the the very privileged position of being hired as an actress in a multi-million dollar TV-show, where your talent as an actress should weigh heavier than other factors, I don't see. Actors are hired to play characters. Good actresses are hired to play a diverse range of characters. A straight actor can play a trans character. A trans actor can play a straight character. We should not expect gays to only play gays and trans persons only to play trans persons.
As I already said, it's not about blanket generalizations. Each group faces its own different issues and challenges that have to be addressed individually. If one group is better off than another, then less needs to be done to correct how they've been treated. Equality is not about pretending that everyone is already the same and can have the same rules blindly applied to them. It's about making an equal effort to listen to what each individual or group is telling you about their specific needs and addressing them appropriately.
Of course I always try to incorporate diversity into my works, as everyone should, but I can't represent another group as well as someone who actually belongs to it and has lived from that perspective -- and if I'm the only one who gets a chance to portray that group, then I'm taking a job that could go to someone in greater need. Which is why we need to invite more diverse representation into the field. The problem is that there's too little diverse representation as it is. Again, as long as you pretend the situation is already symmetrical, then you are perpetuating the gross asymmetry that exists. You cannot pretend that the people who are already sitting at the 20-course banquet table are somehow being cheated or deprived if they're asked to share a little of their food with people who are going hungry. They already have a grossly unfair advantage. I, as a hetero white man, have an obscenely unfair advantage over everyone who isn't in that category. So I know better than to pretend I'm being persecuted if I have to step back and give someone else a fair chance. I learned to share my toys with others way back in kindergarten. I'm amazed how many people today seem to have missed that lesson.
But you are not generalizing?
Of course not. My whole point is that you can't pretend that the same logic can be applied to everyone, that the whole reason this is even an issue is because hetero white males have had the deck stacked so hugely in their favor for centuries. Pretending that bias doesn't exist is incredibly disingenuous.
The homeless, jobless hetero white male would not get the same kind of help you'd give to a homeless, jobless hetero black male? It is a stupid question with an obvious answer. You'd render help to the individual in need regardless what group they may belong to.
No idea then.
I think there is a bit of a difference between diversity with charity among the homeless and destitute, and diversity among the working mechanisms of society. No one cares about BET being so black, because virtually all other TV is so white, I mean there really wasn't a lack of opportunity for whites, so BET? No one really cares, well they also don't care because the programming sucks. But someone may say what about White Entertainment Television, wasn't that already the WB and the Lifetime Channel?
these days that gap is naturally on the closing end so eventually BET will grow to be less relevant as the natural course of diversity continues, which is ultimately a good thing.
But what about trans people? Trans People are at a point where they are under-represented in available roles per available actors, and I think a conscious effort to remedy that isn't something that's going to negatively affect non-trans people.
Few people would find it ok stipulate charitable aid of the starving and homeless based on a skin color. But I think the idea of making a specific effort towards including a diversity of people among art and entertainment can only help instead of hurt.
How in the world are trans people underrepresented?
Do folks understand that according to studies and surveys, that trans people are only roughly 3 tenths of one percent of the population? I'm all for being compassionate and caring towards people with a clearly difficult situation, but claims of underrepresentation and so on strike me as ridiculous.
I agree with other comments that much of the reaction really shows that it is a complete waste of time to try to cater to the identity politics crowd, because no matter what, there will be some fringe group shouting: "I was left out!! Bigots! Hate Crime! Bigots!" and so on.
Do folks understand that according to studies and surveys, that trans people are only roughly 3 tenths of one percent of the population? I'm all for being compassionate and caring towards people with a clearly difficult situation, but claims of underrepresentation and so on strike me as ridiculous.
I agree with other comments that much of the reaction really shows that it is a complete waste of time to try to cater to the identity politics crowd, because no matter what, there will be some fringe group shouting: "I was left out!! Bigots! Hate Crime! Bigots!" and so on.
It is a political discussion. But I think that telling about trans people being under-represented is... actually a mocking to those trans people themselves. Why should they need other people to give them special places to represent themselves into something? Are they incapable people who can't do anything / create something useful? I'm sure that there are many trans people that actually capable to do great things. In my country there were comedian trans, traditional dancer trans, singers etc. They are artists, and well respected by many people. They have a lot of fans too. So I don't think that they're being neglected. Everything depend on their own-selves. Even in my neighborhood, there is a trans that work as a singer and sing at many wedding parties.
I think being LGBT, trans, etc doesn't make them incapable to do something spectacular. They have the same level of capability and creativity as the other people. Those tranny artists, comedian, singers, etc in my country prove that. To talk that you need to make a special place for those Tranny, LGBT, middle eastern in your favorite show just proof that you think that they're cripple / idiot that can't do anything useful. It's more of insult rather than being helpful to them.
So, if you respect those people who different from us, just accept them whoever they are, and see them as the same as another people.
Last edited:
I agree. The notion that some identity group cannot get jobs because someone else hasn't made the jobs for them is frankly insulting to the group that is supposedly being advocated for.
We live in a free society. People have the power to create their own art, and create their own jobs. Capitalism works.
I think simply acknowledging that trans people are, or may be under-represented due to an industry, not utilizing them is simply that, acknowledging. I can't speak for all people or any group but I find that hard to imagine being insulting.
You shouldn't use that term, it's considered offensive.
More broadly, there seems to be some weird dynamic that people think minority groups are much more numerically dominant than they really are. For example, the average American now thinks that about a quarter of the population is gay, which is a really heavy overestimate, given only about 4% are. The same holds true for racial groups - people in the U.S. heavily overestimate how many black, Latino, and Muslim people there are in the U.S. And as was noted elsewhere, traditionally people would presume that a show with a 50/50 cast in terms of gender split was "female dominated."
I'm not quite sure what causes this dynamic. Right now gay characters are slightly overrepresented in TV (5%) and blacks are significantly over-represented (20%) but this dynamic existed for decades, suggesting that portrayals in media alone are not what drives it. It might just be a basic part of human psychology that what is different from "the norm" tends to be overestimated in a systematic fashion.
You think he doesn't know that?
I would give him the benefit of a doubt, since English is clearly not his first language.
- Status
Similar threads
