EDIs - your thoughts? Is it being pushed too hard or is it the right amount?

[Charmander]

Alight so here is a topic of debate and discussion that is always on the go at our home. For those that are not sure what EDI stands for it stands for Ethnicity, Diversity and Inclusion. As per the Justice Institute of British Columbia ([Only registered and activated users can see links]):



"Equity involves creating equal opportunity for all and eliminating barriers like discrimination and bias. Diversity recognizes and celebrates differences, including individual, social, cultural and political differences. Inclusion represents the meaningful action that connects the concepts of equity and diversity."

Now I do want to clarify that I am all for equal representation and inclusion of minorities, this is NOT a thread that is against it. This thread is to discuss what is going on currently in reference to EDIs and if you feel like is it too much, not enough, or even it can cause some job safety issues (Will discuss this later). Also given the clraik community is so wide and diverse there will be different levels of how the EDI wave is being implemented based on your country. It would be interesting to see some different geographical views as well. So I will touch on two areas that are of hot topic in our home. EDIs in the workplace and as well now in the media. mainly movies/TV shows.

EDIs in the Workplace

Spoilering this at I am referencing some IRL aspects.

So without giving too much away my partner works in a very male dominated profession that has some high physical demands. For example lifting heavy weights, having high endurance. In the past few years his employer has implemented EDI policies that state that a certain number of new hires must be of a visual minority (ethnic, gender, sex/identity). As a result of this there are new hires that may not meet the job demand requirements that are being hired over applicants who are meeting or surpassing the job demands who are not getting hired due to the EDI policy.

In addition, in applying for a different job under the same employer he was literally asked on the application if he identified as LGBTQ2S+. He stated no and was then told by the form he did not qualify for the job and could not advance in the application process which then asked about job related experience .

My personal opinion is applications should be open to EVERYONE however jobs should only be awarded to those who meet the demands of the job. For example if I was in an emergency situation I would rather have someone who could meet the job demands to rescue me rather than someone was given the job to meet an EDI policy who may not be able to rescue me from my emergency situation. I feel like in these instances where employers want more diversity in their workforce more promotion to minority groups should be done to show the employers is open to hiring everyone however that there are still specific job demands that still need to be met. THis promotion could be done in the form of experience camps where you can literally experience the demands of the job and receive education on how to meet those requirements. The largest things too is making sure things like this are accessible to individuals of all economical standings, and not just those who can afford to take unpaid time away.


So here are my discussion points from this:


Should someone get a job based on if they meet the job demands alone?
Should someone who is part of a minority (race, gender sex) who does not meet the full job demands/requirements get a job over someone who does meet with job demands, just because of EDI policy?
Should job requirements be modified to enable more female applicants are hired when it comes to physical demands of an occupation? Should someone be excluded from applying for a job if they are not a minority?


Also feel free to bring up your own discussion points on this.

EDIs in the Media

Alright so here is another topic of discussion in our home. I am all for a strong female role as well as having more LGBTQ2s+ and minorities represented in the media. We do need more of it so EVERYONE can have role models and someone who represents them to look up to. I am loving that the Marvel and DC female superheroes have their own title movies and that Black Panther was produced and now will have a female playing Black Panther (even though this is in the Marvel Storyline) it is something that would not have been put in the media even 10 years ago. Likely what would have happened was they would have re-cast the role of Black Panther with another male lead. Even having Sam Wilson (The Falcon) take up the Captain America shield is progressive and well overdue.

What come to discussion in our home is when EDIs are "pushed" a bit more. For example, when a female role performs an action in a scene that clearly could not be completed by that actor/character and could be completed by a male counterpart. Does this come across as emasculating the male roles? Now personally when I am sitting down to watch a show or movie I generally have an idea what I am getting into. For example if I am watching Bridgerton I am know I am watching a Shonda Rhimes show which is full of promoting EDIs and the EDI message. So having the Queen being a strong black female is right up her ally and I watch the show for just entertainment value and not comparing it to historical fact. However, if it was a historical fact based show I may have more opposition. I feel like we should still represent history accurately as we still have lots to learn from it. Especially the bad parts of our history. It should not be something that is ignored.

So here are my discussion points from this:


Is the current EDI culture in the media representing minorities appropriately? Should there be more or is it becoming too much where is is being overly pushed?
Could the EDI movement start to emasculate males in the media and entertainment industry?
What would you like to see more of?
What would you like to see less of?

Also feel free to bring up your own discussion points on this.


WARNING: This can be a touchy subject, please stay on topic, do not spam and most of all be kind! If there are any themes of racism, bigotry etc. that go against the community rules this thread will be killed ASAP.

[DarkSkies]

Well this is a wide topic indeed. So i'm gonna start with the work part. In my actual job I know it was also implemented the diversity policy, though to be fair there's so many ppl it's impossible to know them all so I'm not sure how is that going out.

Anyway I absolutely vouch for getting someone that meets the job requirements whatever their likes or origin. Why? Some roles in job are very important and by having someone that cannot fulfill the tasks, they very probably will generate problems that others would need to fix and also this creates this problematic vision of "I have more time here, more experience, but someone who doesn't know how to handle this got a better position??" This is discouraging for the qualified ppl that didn't get the job and the ones that are actually working there.

About the women stuff, I'm one myself and I work in a place that requires physical stuff mixed with office. I believe that if there is a way to balance that should be no problem, but I don't agree in increasing hiring women if they're gonna be put through some job that's gonna affect their health in a harsh manner (unless they have the physical strength).

What I'm trying to say is that I'd prefer to get a qualified employee (everything else besides skills should not biased this) and for the minorities to get all chances needed as long as it won't compromise their well being and they're able to do the tasks given.

About the media, while I like more just seeing and enjoying, I do agree sometimes is being forced. But yes we need more of this content, maybe not rushed, because most in my country are still with the idea that that's ok when talking to strangers they don't know but it's wrong when imposing to them or their family.

Women doing men roles in movies? Sure if possible why not? Just as always choose someone who can do it otherwise you'll get another whatever underrated movie. I like seeing this progress advance, with good performance and development, not just something throw in a box carelessly and pray it's gonna be awesome.

Uff, ok I'm gonna stop here. Wide topic, but would love to read other opinions too :)

[Charmander]

Dark Skies thanks for the input. I do agree with your movie part as well. If the role and person portraying the role can realistically do something then yes have them complete the roll then heck yah do it. However, having a 115lb petite non super hero character taking down a 280lb opponent I becomes a bit of a stretch for me. I feel like when movies/TV shows throw in scenes like these is almost does an injustice to the EDI movement and can do more harm than good. You start setting unrealistic expectations and also to be considered a strong woman you need to do all of these masculine things. Like She Hulk coming out is gonna grind my gears that I likely won't watch it. We can have strong leading female roles without having them be masculine or even showing they "can do more than a man." I feel like if this gets pushed too much and thrown into movies just to be on brand with the current EDI culture then we will eventually lose the true meaning behind equality diversity and inclusion.

[Zapdos]

For example, when a female role performs an action in a scene that clearly could not be completed by that actor/character and could be completed by a male counterpart.[/CENTER]

I'm kind of curious about examples of this, can you share some if possible? :)

[Charmander]

I'm kind of curious about examples of this, can you share some if possible? :)
I can't remember which movie/show it was but there was a scene where there was a large heavy object to move/break and there was as strong male action character and the female character was physically smaller and the storyline took the female character as the one to move the object. It seemed like a large stretch for sure. As I watch some more things I'll be sure to keep tract and bring some more examples here to discuss.

PS I am loving your Baked UB! Holy smokes it's amazing!

[Shazi]

i definitely think diversity in media is an important thing. i'm all for it. my daughter is black/white mixed with crazy curly hair and every time she sees a character that looks like her (ada twist scientist, gabby's dollhouse, etc.) she gets SO excited. every kid/person should have that feeling. however sometimes i think things are just forced like for example in umbrella academy when vanya transitioned to viktor. i'm not against trans people in media at all, i just feel like the way they handled it was so forced and just for like "woke points" and not genuine at all. i feel like better examples are euphoria and oitnb. as for jobs, i think people should get them based on their capabilities. applications should be open to absolutely everyone.

[Charmander]

Thanks for sharing Shazi! I'm so happy that your daughter has someone relatable in the things she watches. That should be what EDI is all about. But I do agree that some shows handle it better than other. The feeling of it being forced and don't for no other reason than to be current and as you said "woke" defeats the purpose and does an injustice to the movement.

[Druid]

however sometimes i think things are just forced like for example in umbrella academy when vanya transitioned to viktor. i'm not against trans people in media at all, i just feel like the way they handled it was so forced and just for like "woke points" and not genuine at all. i feel like better examples are euphoria and oitnb. as for jobs, i think people should get them based on their capabilities. applications should be open to absolutely everyone.

I haven't seen the show so I can't speak to the writing at all, but Elliot Page was cast as Vanya before he came out. when he transitioned his character also transitioned because having him continue to play a woman would be a) unconvincing and 2) shitty. it wasn't "woke points", it was genuine inclusion of that specific actor.


I have a lot of thoughts on EDI in general that I'll come back and add when I have more time, but overall imo it's not nearly enough (not just like volume-wise, but in terms of ongoing policy and advocacy for the minorities involved)

[Charmander]

I haven't seen the show so I can't speak to the writing at all, but Elliot Page was cast as Vanya before he came out. when he transitioned his character also transitioned because having him continue to play a woman would be a) unconvincing and 2) shitty. it wasn't "woke points", it was genuine inclusion of that specific actor.


I have a lot of thoughts on EDI in general that I'll come back and add when I have more time, but overall imo it's not nearly enough (not just like volume-wise, but in terms of ongoing policy and advocacy for the minorities involved)

I feel like this is a great example of EDIs being done correctly! You have an actor who's role has been adjusted to continue to fit the actor and their persona as well as what they represent! Thumbs up 👍 to the writers of Umbrella Academey for making that decision!

I can't wait yo see what else you have to share Druid 😀

[Druid]

I can't wait yo see what else you have to share Druid 😀
be careful what you wish for lmao, I started this and blinked and it's been 2 hours oops. OKAY here we go

I'm vehemently pro-diversity. I also think EDIs are far from a perfect system, but for reasons that haven't been touched on in here. I'll get to that, but to start off based on the OP...

I think there's a misconception of EDIs, "confirmed" by examples where they're implemented incorrectly (like your partner's job), that give diverse hiring in general a bad reputation. EDIs are not about giving jobs to minorities over qualified applicants for diversity's sake - also separating "minorities" from "qualified applicants" is extremely harmful. the point they're meant to correct is that qualified minority candidates have been consistently passed over in favour of people who say, "fit in with the company culture" more. also, most companies are made of a variety of roles - is every position at your partner's company physically demanding? who's doing the bookkeeping, are there any women on that team? are there a bunch of strong dudes of colour around who would be good at this job, but have either not been hired or maybe not even bothered applying because they saw kind of an exclusive fraternity happening and didn't want to deal with that?

I will add the caveat that their success depends on diverse communities outside of any individual workplace. in a super homogenous town with like 10 POC, should every employer be vying for those 10 people, regardless of field or qualifications? of course not! prob worth examining what's keeping minorities out of the town though.

but yeah, in a diverse, metropolitan area, there just are qualified applicants of all backgrounds for basically every role. the problem historically has been prejudice, whether conscious or not, making employers believe that applicants who look like them are more qualified than applicants who don't. they're wrong! not every time, sometimes the best applicant really is a straight white guy, but more often it's not just like stats-wise, so picking that guy is picking a middle-of-the-pack option over someone excellent. diverse companies consistently perform better - they've chosen from a much bigger pool of applicants, while non-diverse companies have limited themselves and averaged out to mediocrity.

that said, EDIs without a broader culture of inclusion absolutely do encourage tokenism, and do nothing to protect minorities from everything that comes with Being The Minority Employee: constant microaggressions, harsher critique and less praise for equal or better work, unfair pay, having few or no people to relate to, being excluded from work-adjacent activities (think "deals on the golf course"), being othered and exoticized... all of that burns people out, because of course it does, which leads to problems with retention. I actually just read a really great essay ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) by a Black lawyer about her experience with law school and top firms. it's long to just like, link on a forum, but a very smooth & conversational read. definitely valuable if this is something you've been thinking about!


and then in media your points on gender roles/realism/emasculation stick out to me. I'm not really into action, least of all the superhero stuff, so again can't really speak to your specific examples, but when you say "a female role performs an action in a scene that clearly could not be completed by that actor/character and could be completed by a male counterpart".. like what, and what makes you say that? for sure it's true that on average men are stronger than women, but that means nothing about individuals. Serena Williams could absolutely destroy Robert Pattinson in a fight (and I'm 100% sure he knows that and is fine with it). size too, while a factor, isn't binding - look at any female olympic gymnast (vs any male actor who worked out for a role then went on all the talk shows to say how hard it was and how glad he is it's over). a friend of mine, a ~5'2" woman, is super into weightlifting, and she could absolutely kick the asses of all the 6'+ guys I know who look reasonably fit but just from like beer league softball. I'm not huge and when I played rugby as a teenager I could (and did) absolutely take any of my male friends to the ground - all of them were bigger, some of them were probably stronger, but I had the training and could tackle well. also not for nothing, couldn't basically everything these characters do realistically not be completed by basically anybody? as long as there's an entire genre about superhuman feats of strength, why limit it to stereotypical power dynamics? wouldn't that make it boring and predictable?

emasculation is a whole other topic i would love to tear to shreds but that's too much of a tangent. lightning round: of course it's fine for men to have traditionally masculine qualities, and to be proud of them, but if the idea that some women are also strong feels like a threat... yikes. similarly, men feeling like displaying "feminine" qualities (emotion, affection, gentleness, practicing arts...) emasculates them, also yikes. fundamentally the concept of emasculation is that men see women as beneath them, so being more similar to women would lower their own worth. hate that! we're all entire people who experience every facet of human identity and experience, each to different degrees depending on the individual. it genuinely stresses me out how prevalent the idea that men and women are practically different species is, especially on the part of men measurably imagining women to be lesser ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).


re: race vs historical fact, I do think it's fair to say realism in racial casting is important in historical works that are meant to be realistic. however hollywood has a long history of pulling Bridgerton-in-reverse. consistently for decades white people have played Egyptians, Middle Eastern biblical figures, Native Americans... and that's without even touching blackface (/brownface/yellowface), these groups are just depicted as white. also once we're past that and looking at racially correct historical media, it's worth thinking about what stories we're telling and who's being glorified (vs who's being used as trauma porn). Bridgerton isn't just a fun romp in race-blind casting, it's an intentionally tongue-in-cheek commentary on who has historically had power and been put on pedestals. we love a period piece about European royalty with the ladies in the powdered wigs, and we love a period piece about slavery, but it's extremely rare to see anything historical about POC communities, let alone nobility.


this response got LONG so I'll keep my own new note quick: there's all this talk of how much diversity in media is too much, when like... reality is diverse. it's actively unrealistic to keep hollywood as cis, straight, white, able, etc as it's always been. characters being LGBTQ+ or racial minorities when it isn't relevant to the plot isn't pandering or forcing anything - frankly what IS doing those things is making every character white and cishet by default. stories about minority group issues (coming out, homophobia & transphobia, racial injustice and prejudice, women's lib, the struggle of being disabled or raising a disabled child, etc etc etc) are of course important, but more important is letting people like that in on the fun stuff. i don't want to have to choose between my Genre Of Choice or seeing someone like me, and neither does anyone else! and looping back to the employment side, the only reason this hasn't been happening from the beginning is that the people making media have been so homogeneously non-minority that it never occurred to them.

[Shazi]

I haven't seen the show so I can't speak to the writing at all, but Elliot Page was cast as Vanya before he came out. when he transitioned his character also transitioned because having him continue to play a woman would be a) unconvincing and 2) shitty. it wasn't "woke points", it was genuine inclusion of that specific actor.


I have a lot of thoughts on EDI in general that I'll come back and add when I have more time, but overall imo it's not nearly enough (not just like volume-wise, but in terms of ongoing policy and advocacy for the minorities involved)

yeah i know that's why the transitioned the character, i'm just speaking specifically about the way it was handled in the show, the other character's reactions, etc. it didn't feel authentic to me at all. i feel like it could've been written way better. definitely wanna read the rest of your thoughts when you have time for it though.

edit: oops, didn't realize you posted them! gonna go read it now

[Charmander]

be careful what you wish for lmao, I started this and blinked and it's been 2 hours oops. OKAY here we go

I'm vehemently pro-diversity. I also think EDIs are far from a perfect system, but for reasons that haven't been touched on in here. I'll get to that, but to start off based on the OP...

I think there's a misconception of EDIs, "confirmed" by examples where they're implemented incorrectly (like your partner's job), that give diverse hiring in general a bad reputation. EDIs are not about giving jobs to minorities over qualified applicants for diversity's sake - also separating "minorities" from "qualified applicants" is extremely harmful. the point they're meant to correct is that qualified minority candidates have been consistently passed over in favour of people who say, "fit in with the company culture" more. also, most companies are made of a variety of roles - is every position at your partner's company physically demanding? who's doing the bookkeeping, are there any women on that team? are there a bunch of strong dudes of colour around who would be good at this job, but have either not been hired or maybe not even bothered applying because they saw kind of an exclusive fraternity happening and didn't want to deal with that?

I will add the caveat that their success depends on diverse communities outside of any individual workplace. in a super homogenous town with like 10 POC, should every employer be vying for those 10 people, regardless of field or qualifications? of course not! prob worth examining what's keeping minorities out of the town though.

but yeah, in a diverse, metropolitan area, there just are qualified applicants of all backgrounds for basically every role. the problem historically has been prejudice, whether conscious or not, making employers believe that applicants who look like them are more qualified than applicants who don't. they're wrong! not every time, sometimes the best applicant really is a straight white guy, but more often it's not just like stats-wise, so picking that guy is picking a middle-of-the-pack option over someone excellent. diverse companies consistently perform better - they've chosen from a much bigger pool of applicants, while non-diverse companies have limited themselves and averaged out to mediocrity.

that said, EDIs without a broader culture of inclusion absolutely do encourage tokenism, and do nothing to protect minorities from everything that comes with Being The Minority Employee: constant microaggressions, harsher critique and less praise for equal or better work, unfair pay, having few or no people to relate to, being excluded from work-adjacent activities (think "deals on the golf course"), being othered and exoticized... all of that burns people out, because of course it does, which leads to problems with retention. I actually just read a really great essay ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) by a Black lawyer about her experience with law school and top firms. it's long to just like, link on a forum, but a very smooth & conversational read. definitely valuable if this is something you've been thinking about!


and then in media your points on gender roles/realism/emasculation stick out to me. I'm not really into action, least of all the superhero stuff, so again can't really speak to your specific examples, but when you say "a female role performs an action in a scene that clearly could not be completed by that actor/character and could be completed by a male counterpart".. like what, and what makes you say that? for sure it's true that on average men are stronger than women, but that means nothing about individuals. Serena Williams could absolutely destroy Robert Pattinson in a fight (and I'm 100% sure he knows that and is fine with it). size too, while a factor, isn't binding - look at any female olympic gymnast (vs any male actor who worked out for a role then went on all the talk shows to say how hard it was and how glad he is it's over). a friend of mine, a ~5'2" woman, is super into weightlifting, and she could absolutely kick the asses of all the 6'+ guys I know who look reasonably fit but just from like beer league softball. I'm not huge and when I played rugby as a teenager I could (and did) absolutely take any of my male friends to the ground - all of them were bigger, some of them were probably stronger, but I had the training and could tackle well. also not for nothing, couldn't basically everything these characters do realistically not be completed by basically anybody? as long as there's an entire genre about superhuman feats of strength, why limit it to stereotypical power dynamics? wouldn't that make it boring and predictable?

emasculation is a whole other topic i would love to tear to shreds but that's too much of a tangent. lightning round: of course it's fine for men to have traditionally masculine qualities, and to be proud of them, but if the idea that some women are also strong feels like a threat... yikes. similarly, men feeling like displaying "feminine" qualities (emotion, affection, gentleness, practicing arts...) emasculates them, also yikes. fundamentally the concept of emasculation is that men see women as beneath them, so being more similar to women would lower their own worth. hate that! we're all entire people who experience every facet of human identity and experience, each to different degrees depending on the individual. it genuinely stresses me out how prevalent the idea that men and women are practically different species is, especially on the part of men measurably imagining women to be lesser ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).


re: race vs historical fact, I do think it's fair to say realism in racial casting is important in historical works that are meant to be realistic. however hollywood has a long history of pulling Bridgerton-in-reverse. consistently for decades white people have played Egyptians, Middle Eastern biblical figures, Native Americans... and that's without even touching blackface (/brownface/yellowface), these groups are just depicted as white. also once we're past that and looking at racially correct historical media, it's worth thinking about what stories we're telling and who's being glorified (vs who's being used as trauma porn). Bridgerton isn't just a fun romp in race-blind casting, it's an intentionally tongue-in-cheek commentary on who has historically had power and been put on pedestals. we love a period piece about European royalty with the ladies in the powdered wigs, and we love a period piece about slavery, but it's extremely rare to see anything historical about POC communities, let alone nobility.


this response got LONG so I'll keep my own new note quick: there's all this talk of how much diversity in media is too much, when like... reality is diverse. it's actively unrealistic to keep hollywood as cis, straight, white, able, etc as it's always been. characters being LGBTQ+ or racial minorities when it isn't relevant to the plot isn't pandering or forcing anything - frankly what IS doing those things is making every character white and cishet by default. stories about minority group issues (coming out, homophobia & transphobia, racial injustice and prejudice, women's lib, the struggle of being disabled or raising a disabled child, etc etc etc) are of course important, but more important is letting people like that in on the fun stuff. i don't want to have to choose between my Genre Of Choice or seeing someone like me, and neither does anyone else! and looping back to the employment side, the only reason this hasn't been happening from the beginning is that the people making media have been so homogeneously non-minority that it never occurred to them.

Oh my goodness I just wrote out a huge long response and my clumsy fingers erased it by pressing back and it did not save FML. So I will try and type my response again.

In response to my partner's employers there are lots of other departments where there is more diversity and women are highly represented in the work place. This is one of the departments that does not have a lot of women or POC and the employer wants to have more of it. As a result standards for example strength have been modified to have more women hired in that department. So say the benchmark for men to lift is 200lbs but for women they make is 150lbs. I feel like this is harmful and puts people at risk as in the real working works when you have to move that 200+lb object it's not going to suddenly become 50lbs lighter because you are a women. In this specific area the benchmarks are set in order to complete job demands and if you cannot meet those demands no matter who you are you should not be hired. The fraternity culture is also an issue in this department as is also something that needs to be dealt with to make it more appealing for those of race or gender minorities. Another aspect that needs to be addressed is the application process. I think I may have mentioned this earlier. If the employer wants more diversity in their workforce they need to make the application process for the department easier. For example this department requires multiple days for the process. This pulls individuals from their full times jobs they currently have for just the chance at getting hired by this department. For individuals who are single income and cannot afford to take time away from their jobs to apply for this one they are automatically excluded. My overall opinion is my partner's employer has done a shit job in implementing their EDI policies and it feels like they are just making sure they tick the boxes to have gender minorities and POC in all departments even if those individuals aren't qualifies. If you want to chat more I am willing to DM as well as I don't want to give out too much info.

In regards to the movies etc I have to go back in my movies to find that specific case. I just remember it sticking out to me as something being out of reach. Like random example The Rock trying to break down and door and can't and then along comes Black Swan days Natalie Portman and the door crumbles in one swift kick. There are for sure many exceptions to the power dynamic stereotype! And you have listed many fantastic ones. I just feel like if you are going present it make sure it is relaistic like those examples you gave or if they are outlandish then they are in more superhero settings or in satirical settings where you are poking fun at that power dynamic. I hope this is coming across right. I just feel like throwing in a strong female moment in a movie just to be woke is not the right way to do it. In regards to emasculation, in regards to who I think are having that opinion of emasculation are the "rah rah rah beat on your chest "masculine" individuals" who are note open to change. Showing empathy, compassion, emotion, and labeling them as feminine qualities also does a disservice. These are emotions that EVERYONE feels and experiences in addition to anger, aggression, and the also inappropriately titles "masculine" emotions. These are emotions and qualities we ALL feel and express. Just to varying degrees! This is was makes us all unique! So instead of thinking a male role is being emasculated because they are showing more emotion or empathy or that a female is showing more aggression and strength than a male, it should be seen and demonstrating the true diversity humanity has and what is possible across all gender roles.

UPDATE: Sorry I had to submit to make sure I did not lose it all again. So continuing on...


this response got LONG so I'll keep my own new note quick: there's all this talk of how much diversity in media is too much, when like... reality is diverse. it's actively unrealistic to keep hollywood as cis, straight, white, able, etc as it's always been. characters being LGBTQ+ or racial minorities when it isn't relevant to the plot isn't pandering or forcing anything - frankly what IS doing those things is making every character white and cishet by default. stories about minority group issues (coming out, homophobia & transphobia, racial injustice and prejudice, women's lib, the struggle of being disabled or raising a disabled child, etc etc etc) are of course important, but more important is letting people like that in on the fun stuff. i don't want to have to choose between my Genre Of Choice or seeing someone like me, and neither does anyone else! and looping back to the employment side, the only reason this hasn't been happening from the beginning is that the people making media have been so homogeneously non-minority that it never occurred to them.

[/QUOTE]

I agree that it is unrealistic to keep hollywood/media cis, straight, white etc as you are right that is not reality at all. And I am loving seeing the changes Hollywood is making. As you mentioned earlier having white actors playing none-white roles, this is something that I feel is changing thank goodness and as well hearing those stories of those who did have injustices committed against them as well as having that stories shared by them and accurately told! I just wanted to clarify what you meant by " but more important is letting people like that in on the fun stuff. " Are you referring to making sure that those people are the ones portraying the roles as the "fun stuff" or is there more?

[Juna]

xxxxxxxx

Edit: Re-reading my post, I completely misunderstood this topic, and did not portray what I wanted to say correctly.
Feel free to delete this post. :)

[Druid]

Oh my goodness I just wrote out a huge long response and my clumsy fingers erased it by pressing back and it did not save FML. So I will try and type my response again.

In response to my partner's employers there are lots of other departments where there is more diversity and women are highly represented in the work place. This is one of the departments that does not have a lot of women or POC and the employer wants to have more of it. As a result standards for example strength have been modified to have more women hired in that department. So say the benchmark for men to lift is 200lbs but for women they make is 150lbs. I feel like this is harmful and puts people at risk as in the real working works when you have to move that 200+lb object it's not going to suddenly become 50lbs lighter because you are a women. In this specific area the benchmarks are set in order to complete job demands and if you cannot meet those demands no matter who you are you should not be hired. The fraternity culture is also an issue in this department as is also something that needs to be dealt with to make it more appealing for those of race or gender minorities. Another aspect that needs to be addressed is the application process. I think I may have mentioned this earlier. If the employer wants more diversity in their workforce they need to make the application process for the department easier. For example this department requires multiple days for the process. This pulls individuals from their full times jobs they currently have for just the chance at getting hired by this department. For individuals who are single income and cannot afford to take time away from their jobs to apply for this one they are automatically excluded. My overall opinion is my partner's employer has done a shit job in implementing their EDI policies and it feels like they are just making sure they tick the boxes to have gender minorities and POC in all departments even if those individuals aren't qualifies. If you want to chat more I am willing to DM as well as I don't want to give out too much info.

In regards to the movies etc I have to go back in my movies to find that specific case. I just remember it sticking out to me as something being out of reach. Like random example The Rock trying to break down and door and can't and then along comes Black Swan days Natalie Portman and the door crumbles in one swift kick. There are for sure many exceptions to the power dynamic stereotype! And you have listed many fantastic ones. I just feel like if you are going present it make sure it is relaistic like those examples you gave or if they are outlandish then they are in more superhero settings or in satirical settings where you are poking fun at that power dynamic. I hope this is coming across right. I just feel like throwing in a strong female moment in a movie just to be woke is not the right way to do it. In regards to emasculation, in regards to who I think are having that opinion of emasculation are the "rah rah rah beat on your chest "masculine" individuals" who are note open to change. Showing empathy, compassion, emotion, and labeling them as feminine qualities also does a disservice. These are emotions that EVERYONE feels and experiences in addition to anger, aggression, and the also inappropriately titles "masculine" emotions. These are emotions and qualities we ALL feel and express. Just to varying degrees! This is was makes us all unique! So instead of thinking a male role is being emasculated because they are showing more emotion or empathy or that a female is showing more aggression and strength than a male, it should be seen and demonstrating the true diversity humanity has and what is possible across all gender roles.

UPDATE: Sorry I had to submit to make sure I did not lose it all again. So continuing on...





I agree that it is unrealistic to keep hollywood/media cis, straight, white etc as you are right that is not reality at all. And I am loving seeing the changes Hollywood is making. As you mentioned earlier having white actors playing none-white roles, this is something that I feel is changing thank goodness and as well hearing those stories of those who did have injustices committed against them as well as having that stories shared by them and accurately told! I just wanted to clarify what you meant by " but more important is letting people like that in on the fun stuff. " Are you referring to making sure that those people are the ones portraying the roles as the "fun stuff" or is there more?

great point about the hiring process itself being a barrier! that paired with the general patterns of race vs class caused by systemic racism & generational wealth is for sure a problem for more minorities than not. without getting into much detail, I can see arguments on both sides of different lifting benchmarks by gender. on one hand a lower benchmark means they're not building the team with the highest possible lifting power, but surely not every object they're lifting on the job is in that 150-200lb range, and if they work in teams I feel like having a variety of perspectives could outweigh a division of labour where the stronger people focus on the heavier stuff. there also certainly are women who can lift 200lbs, but whether any of them are local & interested is a factor too. anyway yeah we don't need to pick that example apart.

re: the Rock vs Natalie Portman show of strength thing, is this sci-fi/fantasy? I would assume that was to show that her character was particularly powerful, while maybe the Rock is just a normal guy or has a different kind of power? if it was presented as realism I might feel like it was more sus, but otherwise I don't think that's any different than like, Harry Potter surviving the killing curse as a baby because of Love, or the feral horse some city girl begged her gruff cowboy neighbour to let her train winning the Big Race in every horse movie, or Ash's pikachu crushing like every other pokemon.

& to that last point, I'll use queerness as an example because it's easier to describe one thing at a time and that's most relevant to me specifically. what I mean is while queer media is great, as long as there's "queer media" and then there's "normal media" it isn't enough. for a long time there was just absolutely nothing - that obviously isn't true anymore, but we're still kind of in a phase where if you're including LGBT characters it's to really focus on the concept of queerness, almost always in a really heavy way. Moonlight and Carol and Euphoria are wonderful, but they share a very specific tone. if I feel like watching a superhero blockbuster, or a zany stoner comedy, or a space epic, or a thriller/horror thing, or a romcom, or a cartoon fairytale, and so on and so on, I know going in that 99.9% of the time no one in them will be like me. there will be romance to varying degrees in almost all of them, whether it's like the main point or just like people's partners are around/mentioned, but it will be straight. and I'm of course not saying there should be NO straight characters and EVERY movie from now on should be gay, but the reverse of that is how it's always been! basically there are all these different "types" of people, for lack of a better word. if things were equal we would all be watching movies with characters unlike us more often than not, just like based on numbers. instead of that, straight white able thin/athletic cis (and so on) people - primarily men, though female-led as an inclusion thing is a few steps ahead of the others - have seen themselves in almost everything forever, while the rest of us have a tiny fraction (which we FLOCK to every time - Glee is a terrible show and almost every queer person I know, myself included, has watched it at least twice). we're all watching say, Star Wars, or Harry Potter, but only non-minorities have that feeling of "they're just like me but in a cooler world!". and yeah it's slowly improving - third gen Star Wars has two POC and a girl who isn't in a bikini as main characters - but it's still massively out of balance.

[Ridley]

I think the more concessions you ask the audience to make the less likely they'll be to stick around and explore whatever it is you're writing or producing. "Concessions" can be as simple as being asked to accept the presence of something that's not commonly seen in media, a certain genre, etc. or something that otherwise makes the audience scratch their heads, such as a new sort of character appearing. This is typically why producers, marketing committees and other vital pieces of major entertainment corporations seek to create things that are easily-digested, appeal to a very common denominator and don't require an incredible amount of (for lack of better word) 'worldliness' to properly understand.

EDI tends to build up instances of that idea of "concession", less because of anything pertaining to society's opinion on this or that but more because the things EDI strives to do - include less common things or people for the purposes of diversity, - are diametrically opposed to popcorn entertainment. It's easy to watch yet another action movie starring a muscular well-known movie star and understand what you're getting into. It's significantly more difficult to grasp the nuances of a historical period piece, or an incredibly uncommon sort of person who EDI might include in a story, or that same action movie except it stars a 110 pound woman.

If the audience has to suspend their disbelief too many times they'll just watch, play or experience something less demanding.

[Druid]

I think the more concessions you ask the audience to make the less likely they'll be to stick around and explore whatever it is you're writing or producing. "Concessions" can be as simple as being asked to accept the presence of something that's not commonly seen in media, a certain genre, etc. or something that otherwise makes the audience scratch their heads, such as a new sort of character appearing. This is typically why producers, marketing committees and other vital pieces of major entertainment corporations seek to create things that are easily-digested, appeal to a very common denominator and don't require an incredible amount of (for lack of better word) 'worldliness' to properly understand.

EDI tends to build up instances of that idea of "concession", less because of anything pertaining to society's opinion on this or that but more because the things EDI strives to do - include less common things or people for the purposes of diversity, - are diametrically opposed to popcorn entertainment. It's easy to watch yet another action movie starring a muscular well-known movie star and understand what you're getting into. It's significantly more difficult to grasp the nuances of a historical period piece, or an incredibly uncommon sort of person who EDI might include in a story, or that same action movie except it stars a 110 pound woman.

If the audience has to suspend their disbelief too many times they'll just watch, play or experience something less demanding.

I agree with you about the concept of concessions, but equating inclusion with concessions only makes sense for people who already see themselves in everything.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

(and fair enough that a nuanced period piece is more demanding than a superhero thing, but Hollywood hasn't really slowed down on making those period pieces - it's worth making other "demanding" stuff too)

[Ridley]

I agree with you about the concept of concessions, but equating inclusion with concessions only makes sense for people who already see themselves in everything.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

(and fair enough that a nuanced period piece is more demanding than a superhero thing, but Hollywood hasn't really slowed down on making those period pieces - it's worth making other "demanding" stuff too)

If we're speaking in terms of raw statistics the western market for film, television, etc. was (and from what I see on Google still is) majority straight white people. I'm speaking demographically and referring to the national census spanning many decades. Thus the reason there is/was such a glut of media centered around straight white people is that's simply who there was more of in the United States, France, UK, Australia, etc.; and much in the way you enjoy seeing people like yourself in mass media the same is (I assume) true of straight white people. There was more of X group, and Company Y wants to make the most money possible, so everything is made to appeal to X group and rake in X group's money. You see the same thing continue to apply in other countires like Japan, China, India, Russia, Africa, South America, etc. where the respective majority demographic is what appears in everything.

The United States is way more diverse than it was as little as 30 years ago, so there's definitely a unique challenge when it comes to answering the "who/what should we put in everything now?" question. "Just throw in absolutely everyone" doesn't work; it starts to become distracting in entertainment mediums dedicated to escapism. If you can notice (and count) the production studio quotas your suspension of disbelief is going to be wrung up again and again. So those companies look back at what worked in the past, shrug their shoulders and once again try to appeal to the largest groups of consumers, which at the moment is either straight white people or straight hispanic people (it's roughly even in the U.S. according to Google.) Diverging from that is still as much of a gamble as it was in the past (something big corporations are historically allergic to) because you run the risk of not only not appealing to those big demographics with the most money (and running into the concession paradox I described earlier) but you also risk executing the product badly and not appealing to (or worse: offending) those smaller pockets of consumer.

We have to ask ourselves: how do we make a movie about someone who is - for example - asexual when we have virtually no prior examples that have worked in the past? (Bear in mind we're also looking to turn a profit.) Movies focused on sexuality didn't exist for over half the industry's total lifespan. Discussions concerning sexuality, gender identity, etc. also weren't common in the mainstream until recently. We would need a Stanley Kubrick-esque film visionary who can produce an amazing story that appeals to everyone and they need to be passionate about writing this particular topic, all of which is A) very rare statistically and B ) going to have a very hard time breaking into an industry that's historically very nepotistic, allergic to change or new ideas, requires a profit in order to stay alive, etc.

But race is a low-hanging fruit when it comes to discussion of brainstorming artistically-driven products. I think if a movie like New Jack City can become a cult classic that also happens to have a lot of non-black fans I feel like it's not impossible to create an "EDI product" that wins people over. But we have to accept there's a massive amount of small yet distinct pockets of people asking why they aren't represented, and from a pragmatic standpoint actually including everyone on the regular is borderline impossible. Even the Burger King Kids Club had to stop at seven ... and they still forgot to include an asian kid, among others.

[Wandas]

Conceptually I'm fine with EDIs, given the history of most of the world a group that has been suppressed for most of that history should be given a little leg up to help boost that group out of poverty but I also think its a difficult topic because jobs are quite literally our livelihoods and it makes things very tense and heated. Feeling like you've been unfairly cheated out of something tends to make people lash out even if its not the case.

But what I will say is that as an autistic person who luckily can mask as neurotypical relatively well for a while when job applications ask if I am neurodivergent for inclusion purposes, I always say that I'm not. While discrimination is very hard to prove in the court of law, in my personal experience as a teenager/college student I've never gotten a single response or interview request when I've been honest about my neurodivergency. I don't feel like I will get a job if I disclose that I am autistic because to be honest, who would want to hire an autistic person with the same qualifications over a neurotypical person with the same qualifications. I'm only open about being neurodivergent AFTER I have sufficiently proven myself and have a chance because sadly, people just see us as inferior.

If you can mask as neurotypical even for only the week of onboarding/training, I'd advise you to lie in your application because EDI can't stop individual bias in employment

[Baklava]

Not really sure how to respond to this topic, if it comes off as rude u can delete.

In regards to edi in the workplace, I know it probably all started from the gender-pay gap issue.
From there, i don't understand why it ballooned into such an political issue. If the candidate has a portfolio and they can meet the job requirements, then I would say hire them.




In addition, in applying for a different job under the same employer he was literally asked on the application if he identified as LGBTQ2S+. He stated no and was then told by the form he did not qualify for the job and could not advance in the application process which then asked about job related experience .


Yea..at that point i'd be pretty bothered and would think its discrimination. This edi thing is a double edged sword. Probably not a company worth working for if they wrote your partner off just like that.


Edi's in entertainment have really bothered me in the last few years. It's why I rarely watch any new disney/marvel releases. They are just playing games with the audience to make money.
I actually just tend to watch seasonal anime as it tends to be nonsensical fun entertainment.
After Avengers Endgame, marvel seems to lack ideas for better stories and just incorporate randomness into the films.
In short, I think it has become pushed a little too much in odd places. Take the recent Lightyear film for example. They could've done anything with that movie, they're in space for heck's sake, and what did they do? Make it political... I mean, was anyone asking for representation from toy story?

What would you like to see more of? I want to see more ORIGINAL stories, more authentic exploration of sexuality and races. Why couldn't Disney use halle bailey and her amazing voice/beauty in an original black mermaid story? Why did they flash America's two moms for 15seconds in doctor strange multiverse without any lore behind the scene?

I want to see women/women identifying characters that just work like catwoman did. The she-hulk series was obviously not a hit...
Remember tia dialma from pirates of the caribbean?
50784
Would like to see more original characters like this make it into new content. They can be any race, just make them actually feel authentic and not inserted into the story.