• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

GLAAD grades the networks

Special interest groups are all about personal agendas. That's why they're "special interest" groups.

PETA is an example of a group where all publicity is NOT good publicity. They make the news for the most asinine things they do, and some people say that's why they did it. But when you can't take them seriously and view them all as a bunch of raging lunatics without any brain cells, what happens if they actually voice a legitimate concern?
 
Fortunately there are other groups who actually do get attention for appropriate treatment of animals (although PETA, ALF, Greenpeace, etc tend to overshadow them) so PETA never has to actually have a legitimate concern outside of their next publicity stunt. Animals don't have rights but humans do have certain responsibilities to treat them right.

"Animal rights" groups typically have no care for the welfare of the animals themselves, though they put on the pretense so they can get attention for their activism. Any group that tries to promote animals as having any sort of rights then turns around and treats them like PETA does doesn't deserve the time of day.

I'd rather give money and attention to a group like the ASPCA or another legitimate group that does promote true welfare and proper treatment of animals instead of faking it to gain fame.

That sort of leads into my opinion of many special rights groups; often they seem more interested in representing themselves than whatever or whoever they claim to represent. Not all of them do but there are enough special interests whose interests aren't the obvious.
 
Overall, the existence of these groups has backfired; by promoting individual "communities," they have ultimately promoted the Balkanization of American culture. Back in the Civil Rights Era, the goal was integration, to bring the ideal of the Melting Pot closer to reality; but, instead, the special interest groups have to our current era where the socially conscious types are actually promoting "self-segregation."
 
CBS gets the lowest marks yet has the highest rated shows ever. :lol: When will GLAAD learn that not many people care about the LGBTXYZFDSERT communities?
 
RJDiogenes said:
Overall, the existence of these groups has backfired; by promoting individual "communities," they have ultimately promoted the Balkanization of American culture. Back in the Civil Rights Era, the goal was integration, to bring the ideal of the Melting Pot closer to reality; but, instead, the special interest groups have to our current era where the socially conscious types are actually promoting "self-segregation."
Click to expand...

What? You don't think a group protesting some sort of social injustice by blocking interstate traffic of people that had nothing to do with it is a great rally cry for their cause?
 
Wow, I don't see what everyone's all worked up about. First of all, GLAAD has a point that there are very, very few GLBT characters on TV. Plus, in many cases they are just stereotypes. This happened for some time when African-Americans first appeared on TV and in films. It's also happened with other racial and ethnic groups. I'm glad they're at least bringing attention to this, since the networks aren't exactly in any rush to cast more gay characters.

Oh, and it's pretty obvious that the whole planned 'lesbian' thing on 'Heroes' is a desperate ratings grab.
 
Sci-Fi should get some extra points for having a gay commander of Galactica twice, even if one of them was a mutineer and the other was only admiral for a short amount of time.

Also they aired Doctor Who episodes with Captain Jack. :techman:
 
RJDiogenes said:
Overall, the existence of these groups has backfired; by promoting individual "communities," they have ultimately promoted the Balkanization of American culture. Back in the Civil Rights Era, the goal was integration, to bring the ideal of the Melting Pot closer to reality; but, instead, the special interest groups have to our current era where the socially conscious types are actually promoting "self-segregation."
Click to expand...
Could not say it better myself.:beer:
 
Aragorn said:
RJDiogenes said:
Overall, the existence of these groups has backfired; by promoting individual "communities," they have ultimately promoted the Balkanization of American culture. Back in the Civil Rights Era, the goal was integration, to bring the ideal of the Melting Pot closer to reality; but, instead, the special interest groups have to our current era where the socially conscious types are actually promoting "self-segregation."
Click to expand...

What? You don't think a group protesting some sort of social injustice by blocking interstate traffic of people that had nothing to do with it is a great rally cry for their cause?
Click to expand...
Obviously, inconveniencing people is not a great tactical move, but I'm not even talking about anything so blatant. I'm talking about promoting an impression of separatism by having all this separate groups, especially when these groups promote things like separate parades, awards, beauty contests et cetera. Then the idea of separatism is perpetuated in society at large.
 
It's been my experience that the groups who are most vocal about diversity and tolerance only want that for people who think and act the same as they do. It's like the South Park episode where in order to become an emo rebel who does his own thing separate from conformist society, the kids had to dress and act exactly like all the other emo rebels.
 
Messianni said:
Like anything else, a character's nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should just be one aspect of the character, not what defines them. If you do all you get are cut-out stereotypes. Characters are there to serve the story, not special interest groups. I can see it now:

Head Writer: "Ok, so we've got our white guy, a black guy, our asian female, their gay best friend... shit, we're forgetting someone aren't we?"
Writer 1: "We still haven't cast an Austrailian aboriginee."
Head Writer: "Son of a bitch, I knew it! I dunno, make him the annoying neighbor."
Click to expand...

I don't know, it can be extremely fun in a guilty pleasure sort of way to watch shows with narrowly defined characters.

They could, for example, make this an 80s style action series about a team of international mercenaries battling terrorists across the world. The white guy is the leader ( of course) the black guy is the lancer, the asian female is the chick (who knows kung fu (or eskrima, just to be different)), the gay best friend is the smart guy, and the Australian is the big guy (He can carry the minigun.) Throw in the leader's Native American half brother as the sixth ranger later on.

It could be well written in spite of the initial shallowness of the characters and it could have explosions. Explosions are always good.
 
hyzmarca said:
Messianni said:
Like anything else, a character's nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should just be one aspect of the character, not what defines them. If you do all you get are cut-out stereotypes. Characters are there to serve the story, not special interest groups. I can see it now:

Head Writer: "Ok, so we've got our white guy, a black guy, our asian female, their gay best friend... shit, we're forgetting someone aren't we?"
Writer 1: "We still haven't cast an Austrailian aboriginee."
Head Writer: "Son of a bitch, I knew it! I dunno, make him the annoying neighbor."
Click to expand...

I don't know, it can be extremely fun in a guilty pleasure sort of way to watch shows with narrowly defined characters.

They could, for example, make this an 80s style action series about a team of international mercenaries battling terrorists across the world. The white guy is the leader ( of course) the black guy is the lancer, the asian female is the chick (who knows kung fu (or eskrima, just to be different)), the gay best friend is the smart guy, and the Australian is the big guy (He can carry the minigun.) Throw in the leader's Native American half brother as the sixth ranger later on.

It could be well written in spite of the initial shallowness of the characters and it could have explosions. Explosions are always good.
Click to expand...

So basically, a highly diverse A-Team. :lol:
 
GLAAD should remember who watches Sy-Fy. :D ;)

That said, I am a straight female who watches some of Sy-Fy's programming.
 
RJDiogenes said:
Overall, the existence of these groups has backfired; by promoting individual "communities," they have ultimately promoted the Balkanization of American culture. Back in the Civil Rights Era, the goal was integration, to bring the ideal of the Melting Pot closer to reality; but, instead, the special interest groups have to our current era where the socially conscious types are actually promoting "self-segregation."
Click to expand...

If GLAAD is pointing out that GLBT people are not represented (or underrepresented) on certain networks, aren't they pointing out that they've already been segregated out? Isn't it clear that they want to be integrated in entertainment, with the hope that the image will drive the change in society?

Like you say, the goal of the Civil Rights Movement was integration... and it began with people pointing out that society was not treating people equally, that society was segregated.
 
There are ways to do it and ways not to do it. I still think a direct communication with the behind the scenes people would be more productive. It's not a confrontational approach like this is and people often react to confrontation by getting defensive and fighting back.
 
Aragorn said:
It's been my experience that the groups who are most vocal about diversity and tolerance only want that for people who think and act the same as they do. It's like the South Park episode where in order to become an emo rebel who does his own thing separate from conformist society, the kids had to dress and act exactly like all the other emo rebels.
Click to expand...
Be original. Be a Pepper. It was ever thus.

Yassim said:
If GLAAD is pointing out that GLBT people are not represented (or underrepresented) on certain networks, aren't they pointing out that they've already been segregated out? Isn't it clear that they want to be integrated in entertainment, with the hope that the image will drive the change in society?

Like you say, the goal of the Civil Rights Movement was integration... and it began with people pointing out that society was not treating people equally, that society was segregated.
Click to expand...
That's true, and that was and is the correct goal. But my point is that an unforeseen and unintended side effect of these advocacy groups has been to actually exacerbate segregation to some degree.
 
Teelie said:
There are ways to do it and ways not to do it. I still think a direct communication with the behind the scenes people would be more productive. It's not a confrontational approach like this is and people often react to confrontation by getting defensive and fighting back.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that a direct communication with people behind the scenes is worth less than the paper a letter would take. The networks are only interested in money - they would like ideally to walk a line where every minority feels respected and every bigot is unoffended. If GLAAD can shame them a little, or sway some viewers and thus some advertising dollars, why not?

RJDiogenes said:
But my point is that an unforeseen and unintended side effect of these advocacy groups has been to actually exacerbate segregation to some degree.
Click to expand...

People make the same argument about the Pride parades. I'd guess that most of these advocacy groups don't feel they have much to lose in terms of integration. If the choice is shut up and deal with the world ignoring you, or flaunt it and draw attention to yourself (and all the attending... stuff), I know which I would choose.

I don't think you mean to offer this as a reason not to advocate - but if you did, you could offer it to MLK 45 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top