Does representation really matter that much?

[The Outsider]

So among the many things I don’t understand about society is the representation argument often brought mentioned by people and groups who call themselves progressive. I even read some articles about it from websites like Buzzfeed and I find myself disagreeing with them. What I mean is seeing any sorts of minority people and groups in the media. This applies to both real people and fictional characters. It ranges from race, gender, sexuality, and more. The argument is framed in ways like “if she can’t see it, she can’t be it” and I take great issue with that statement. The she in this context means a girl seeing a female do something in the media. The argument states that a girl can’t go out and do something like say, have a certain career if she hasn’t seen another female do it first.

To vent about this, I find this a terrible argument. It implies that our goals and dreams are limited by what we see people like us according to identity do. It implies that our race, gender, and more are the most important things about us instead of our personalities and actions. It implies that people are unable to relate or connection to someone that’s a different race, gender, or whatever from themselves. It implies that we as human beings are so weak that we can only connect to very similar people. If, for example, someone sees the Avengers and can’t enjoy the movie because none of the six Avengers are black, than isn’t that the viewer’s fault? Why are they considering the race of a character so much more important than anything else about them? In fact I think we often end up with token minorities with little character traits because of trying to appear progressive. In other words, I feel this comes down to identity politics.

For context, I’m a black trans lesbian aspie. Now I’ll be hard pressed to find even one person, real or fictional, that matches those traits. According to those who argue why representation matters, I would be unable to relate to the struggles and victories of anyone that isn’t those things. I find this insulting to say I can’t become a game designer because I haven’t seen another black trans lesbian aspie be one first. In my youth for Halloween I dressed up as Batman and Superman despite not being white. Are some people really that limited that they consider identity traits that important? Sure there might be some issues related to specific races, genders, sexualities, cultures, and more, but many other issues are universal regardless of any of that. If I’m taking this out of context, than what is the proper context?

 

[clg114]

So among the many things I don’t understand about society is the representation argument often brought mentioned by people and groups who call themselves progressive. I even read some articles about it from websites like Buzzfeed and I find myself disagreeing with them. What I mean is seeing any sorts of minority people and groups in the media. This applies to both real people and fictional characters. It ranges from race, gender, sexuality, and more. The argument is framed in ways like “if she can’t see it, she can’t be it” and I take great issue with that statement. The she in this context means a girl seeing a female do something in the media. The argument states that a girl can’t go out and do something like say, have a certain career if she hasn’t seen another female do it first.

To vent about this, I find this a terrible argument. It implies that our goals and dreams are limited by what we see people like us according to identity do. It implies that our race, gender, and more are the most important things about us instead of our personalities and actions. It implies that people are unable to relate or connection to someone that’s a different race, gender, or whatever from themselves. It implies that we as human beings are so weak that we can only connect to very similar people. If, for example, someone sees the Avengers and can’t enjoy the movie because none of the six Avengers are black, than isn’t that the viewer’s fault? Why are they considering the race of a character so much more important than anything else about them? In fact I think we often end up with token minorities with little character traits because of trying to appear progressive. In other words, I feel this comes down to identity politics.

For context, I’m a black trans lesbian aspie. Now I’ll be hard pressed to find even one person, real or fictional, that matches those traits. According to those who argue why representation matters, I would be unable to relate to the struggles and victories of anyone that isn’t those things. I find this insulting to say I can’t become a game designer because I haven’t seen another black trans lesbian aspie be one first. In my youth for Halloween I dressed up as Batman and Superman despite not being white. Are some people really that limited that they consider identity traits that important? Sure there might be some issues related to specific races, genders, sexualities, cultures, and more, but many other issues are universal regardless of any of that. If I’m taking this out of context, than what is the proper context?

I think that what you are talking about is caused by NT's very strong drive to be like someone else. Most NT's have a somewhat clannish attitude, while most autistic people are much more independent. After reading your post, it is obvious that you will do what you think is best for you. Not what society thinks is best for you.

 

[OrSomething]

It's not like representation is the be-all and end-all of a work's quality. But sometimes it's nice for members of a minority group to see people like them and their struggles represented in media. In return, I would ask you: why do creators so often default to making characters white, straight, etc., when this often doesn't represent the reality of the world? I agree that tokenism is bad; instead, I think diversity should be seamlessly integrated into a work, with diverse characters who are also three-dimensional people.

 

[The Outsider]

I read even more articles about how important diversity is yet I'm still not buying the arguments. I see these articles focus on how good a show or piece of media is by how many non-white characters there are, especially women, non-straight romances, those who are disabled, and more. These articles claim to want to see more diversity because they also claim people can only relate to those like them which I find insulting. Why is this such a huge deal especially when I fall into a bunch of minority boxes and I don't depend on seeing people like me to function? I heard Whoopi Goldberg wanted to be an actress due to seeing a black woman on Star Trek. Okay, but we're living in a much more enlighten and accepting era these days. Just because a minority in the past had to see someone to inspire her doesn't mean that speaks for all people like me.

This is supposed to be "common" knowledge that even trying to Google counterparts is difficult. I swear nowadays it seems society, at least the vocal part of it, is obsessed over identity. I much rather define myself by my personality, hobbies, skills, and more than my race and other identity traits. I hate identity politics because I feel it reduces people to labels and focuses on aspects that doesn't ultimately affect our personality that much. I don't want to be hyper aware of race and stuff all the time because I don't want to judge people based on those factors. America society is way more accepting of queer people and I feel not making a big deal out of it helps to normalize it. Okay, so me being transgender and having Aspergers is the biggest two identity traits that factor in how I live but my hobbies like playing video games ain't directly related to those.

It's not like representation is the be-all and end-all of a work's quality. But sometimes it's nice for members of a minority group to see people like them and their struggles represented in media. In return, I would ask you: why do creators so often default to making characters white, straight, etc., when this often doesn't represent the reality of the world? I agree that tokenism is bad; instead, I think diversity should be seamlessly integrated into a work, with diverse characters who are also three-dimensional people.

I don't deny that it isn't nice to see black people or especially lesbians in my case. However, I have very mixed feelings about their struggles taking up focus in a story. Now it's one thing if the work itself is focused on a struggle. However, I feel like often I see diversity writers putting in minorities for the sole purpose of having them deal with struggles specific to their race, sexuality, or whatever. For example, I see people arguing that the new Spider-Man in films should have been black so he could go on about the struggles of being black today. This really annoys me because aside for making changes for the sake of it, it also reduces minorities to struggles. This isn't the early 1800s anymore. Heck, it isn't even the mid 1900s. I'm not saying racism is over, but I really hate it when people want black people for the sole purpose of exploring black struggles in our modern day society. Excuse me, being a minority doesn't mean there are struggles to it. Can't I just be a person that happens to be outside the cultural norm without it being about struggles? In other words, I rather someone be a minority like black or gay without making a big deal about it or drawing special attention to it. Basically treat them like people like people in majority groups would be treated as.

From what I can understand, the reason so many creators default to white straight men is because that is the default. In whatever given society someone is in there are norms and it's much more likely they are familiar with those norms. Basically people writing what they know. The reality of the world depends on one's viewpoint. What do you mean the reality of the world? Does art have to represent real life in certain ways? Unless I'm writing about a specific piece in world history and location, I personally don't care about trying to include as many people as possible just for the sake of having them. Based on my own experiences, I would have mostly lesbians. That's not to say people can't write outside their own experiences, but it's harder.

 

[Bolletje]

I keep wanting to respond to your post because I agree so much, but I literally have nothing to add. So here's a post to state my intense agreement

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

I like this,
What color was jesus?
If you look at the iconography round the world he's done differently according to where you are....
His 'hue' and facial features.
So I think that sort of links in to what you are saying also.

It makes me wonder how progress happens.... (in terms of accepting minorities and such in a wider social sense)

I think minority 'placement' leads to 'normalisation' in terms of a wider viewing public.
From a uk perspective, look at the paralysis 2012. A lot of TV coverage, lot of paralympians becoming famous..

Remer those that view things in a social sense not a logical or objective one have to be led along by the nose.

I do believe if people with aspergers were in charge a lot of these social issues , would be far more minor. Easier for us to accept and live with the idea of equality than some NT'S who are in some sort of social game they live within but are not necessarily aware of..... sort of like an emotive Borg.
Like a unitary social brain that keeps their thoughts in line .. ie trying to maintain position within the group by identifying an inferior other... repeating the mantras of the social brain.
Imagine the poem..... though lovers be lost, love shall not.
I imagine the social sort of 'cloud brain' exists after the individuals dies(lovers) but the social cloud brain remains (love)

Bit of rambling there, would need so e work to clarify, I'm sure so e of you guys get the idea.

Great post.

 

[annannannann]

I hate identity politics because I feel it reduces people to labels and focuses on aspects that doesn't ultimately affect our personality that much.

I feel I would agree with this sentiment, and your whole argument overall, if I didn't live in an area where bigotry is common and minorities (particularly sexual minorities) are few, mostly out of to fear of social repercussions if they come out. At least here, identity politics works in the opposite way: you could recite your autobiography to someone, but if you mention in the margins that you aren't straight, well that'll be what people here notice, and it hardly ever ends pretty. It's just a simple fact that, regardless of the content of your character, that one aspect will determine how many view you.

Identity politics are a crude response to an ugly set of circumstances, that require the oppressed to become caricatures of themselves in order to highlight that small part of them which their enemies find fault with. I don't like it either, as it plays into the belief of their opponents that so-and-so characteristic defines them, and fundamentally divides people into either us or them. I don't like it, but I can't think of a constructive alternative. I also don't think it'll matter how discreetly you discuss these kinds of things; you could whisper that you're gay and people would act as those you shouted it over a megaphone in their ear and down their throat. And yet not talking about it at all is probably worse, as it would let each person's own bias grow without any contrary opinion to stifle it. I wish I had an answer, but until I do I can't in good conscious discourage identity politics as a basic starting point for discussion.

Now, keeping on the topic of representation, I don't believe having, for example, gay characters on TV will make a homophone any less homophobic--they'll just change the channel or complain to the network--but representation is important for the people those characters represent. I can imagine how a gay kid in my area would react if, after a day of either keeping their sexuality a secret or being bullied, they'd come home and perhaps see a character like them on TV--a normal person with that one additional characteristic--and feel a little more validated as a person, instead of just a sinner or someone ill. Not every person needs this, but sometimes, when you're alone in the world, a dumb TV show character you identify with on one level can mean a lot.

Of course my argument is based on anecdotal evidence and mostly focuses on LGBT representation because that's what I'm most familiar with (I didn't even touch autism representation, which is its own can of worms as you probably know), but I hope it helps you understand where minority groups are coming from...Though I feel I botched up my explanation down the line...Also sorry for the word count and ranty tangents.

I needed role models like musicians, singers, women in books who did things. If I hadn't been shown that there was something else, I would have remained where I was. You personally seem to have had no role models as they didn't exist, and perhaps you didn't require them, as you seem to have invented yourself essentially out of need. Required someone to indicate to me that there was choice outside of what I experienced and saw daily, an 'other' existence that I was unaware of.

I completely agree.

 

[The Outsider]

@The Outsider

Grew up in a tiny community with few outside influences. Sunday night television and music was all that made it inside. Only whites from irish, british, scottish and french backgrounds existed there. There were differences instead in who was catholic or protestant, french or english. Women were housewives, men worked the mines and at a single factory. I was raised by nuns and trained to be a housewife and mother, cooking, sewing and how to raise children. There were no choices, unless you left.

My role models were mothers and grandmothers who worked in the home all day. Television indicated to me that there were women of every kind doing other things. Singing, dancing, creating, studying, working outside the home. If I'd stayed, my role models would have consisted entirely of women I saw daily, not that it was a terrible thing, simply limited. I would have chosen what was usual in that community. Many friends and family members did.

I needed role models like musicians, singers, women in books who did things. If I hadn't been shown that there was something else, I would have remained where I was. You personally seem to have had no role models as they didn't exist, and perhaps you didn't require them, as you seem to have invented yourself essentially out of need. Required someone to indicate to me that there was choice outside of what I experienced and saw daily, an 'other' existence that I was unaware of.

Aretha, Janis, the Supremes, Jane Eyre, Alice Walker, Virginia Woolf, indicated to me that it was possible. As did teachers outside of the convent system, as examples of females who had jobs, professions, who took chances, and made their own way in the world.

I'm not going to dismiss your experiences if role models helped you. I don't want to say role models are bad. It sounded more like their actions inspired you instead of their race or gender. I wasn't so limited by my own community as to what I could and couldn't do. If someone would to ask me who any of my role models are I would have trouble answering that. I really don't know how to answer that. There were plenty of things I wanted to be that came out of the blue while growing up like becoming an astronaut. That came and went without much thought at all.

I feel I would agree with this sentiment, and your whole argument overall, if I didn't live in an area where bigotry is common and minorities (particularly sexual minorities) are few, mostly out of to fear of social repercussions if they come out. At least here, identity politics works in the opposite way: you could recite your autobiography to someone, but if you mention in the margins that you aren't straight, well that'll be what people here notice, and it hardly ever ends pretty. It's just a simple fact that, regardless of the content of your character, that one aspect will determine how many view you.

Identity politics are a crude response to an ugly set of circumstances, that require the oppressed to become caricatures of themselves in order to highlight that small part of them which their enemies find fault with. I don't like it either, as it plays into the belief of their opponents that so-and-so characteristic defines them, and fundamentally divides people into either us or them. I don't like it, but I can't think of a constructive alternative. I also don't think it'll matter how discreetly you discuss these kinds of things; you could whisper that you're gay and people would act as those you shouted it over a megaphone in their ear and down their throat. And yet not talking about it at all is probably worse, as it would let each person's own bias grow without any contrary opinion to stifle it. I wish I had an answer, but until I do I can't in good conscious discourage identity politics as a basic starting point for discussion.

Now, keeping on the topic of representation, I don't believe having, for example, gay characters on TV will make a homophone any less homophobic--they'll just change the channel or complain to the network--but representation is important for the people those characters represent. I can imagine how a gay kid in my area would react if, after a day of either keeping their sexuality a secret or being bullied, they'd come home and perhaps see a character like them on TV--a normal person with that one additional characteristic--and feel a little more validated as a person, instead of just a sinner or someone ill. Not every person needs this, but sometimes, when you're alone in the world, a dumb TV show character you identify with on one level can mean a lot.

Of course my argument is based on anecdotal evidence and mostly focuses on LGBT representation because that's what I'm most familiar with (I didn't even touch autism representation, which is its own can of worms as you probably know), but I hope it helps you understand where minority groups are coming from...Though I feel I botched up my explanation down the line...Also sorry for the word count and ranty tangents.



I completely agree.

I hate bigotry in whatever direction it goes and I had many issues dealing with it over the years. The whole "X and proud" statement was meant to say you are part of what a bigot hates about you simply for being that. I had a lot of struggles with having to tell people I'm transgender and have them believe it. I have seen people get hate online for simply mentioning they have Asperger's. Even with hardly any TV shows and media to point to I had to stand strong. I still have too.

I feel identity politics is too far in the other direction. Instead of being a side note of who we are, identity politics makes these things a huge part of who we are. I do know a better alternate and that is not to focus on our identity. We can mention it sure, but not make a big deal out of it. It doesn't have to be never mentioning it like it's a bad thing to bring up. There is a gray and middle ground to this. You're right it does play into the hands of homophobia and other such bigotry when identity is made out to be such a huge deal. Just because they make a huge deal out of it doesn't mean I have to play into their hands. On that note of mentioning being gay out of the blue, yes people do freak out about that too. For example, for the popular game Overwatch, a comic came out that shown the mascot character, Tracer, kissing her girlfriend. It was part of an overall story about other themes. This was just a small part of her already well developed personality but many people freaked out as if the whole character was ruined for them. I was actually shocked because I thought we were beyond this amount of homophobia. At least these reactions couldn't change anything for the worse. Sadly those people are probably a lost cause.

You're also right about homophones not changing their mind simply because they see a gay character onscreen. This is another reason I'm against identity politics because you can't force people to accept you and trying to force it just reinforces their hatred. Yes it can be nice for a gay person to see a gay character on TV that's treated like anyone that's straight, but I have seen the dark side of this. In the TV show, The 100, a popular lesbian character died and some people online freaked out so much that they threaten the writers and wanted the show canceled. I heard talk of people wanting to hurt themselves over it and demanding that gay characters never die. Sure the death wasn't done that well in the show and there is somewhat of a trend of this in the media, but the outrage made it sound like a real person was murdered and that being a lesbian was said character's most important trait. Had she been straight I feel the outrage would have been a lot smaller. I think this is people putting way too much weight into the identity of a fictional character.

Despite me being a minority in so many ways, I feel I don't really belong in the same group as said minorities. I feel like an outsider among something I'm "supposed" to understand because of my own minority status. I feel I see it being the norm to define your life experiences on the race, gender, or whatever of people. I feel it's a narrow way on both ends to view life. That's not to say I haven't had struggles especially due to being an Aspie but I'm much more than that. I don't want to define or limit my life based on what I see or hear in the media.