Do you like it when there always has to be one of each race or stereotypical group as main characters in a TV show, even a handicapped person? Or do you think characters should be created to be natural to the story?
I don't think Glee is really as forced as the other cartoon examples you posted since Glee basically revolves around how everyone is different from what I've seen of the show.
Society in general is diverse, and it's actually more unrealistic to feature a show with a bunch of white/straight/cis etc. people only versus a show with more diversity
The swift backfire of this thread I get what you're trying to say though. There's a difference between having a diverse cast and having a cast which is clearly doing the bare minimum in terms of diversity to pass as socially acceptable. Like, there's a soap here in the UK called Eastenders which has won a ton of awards for it's progressive approach to diversity among its cast and representing a wide spectrum of cultures and lifestyles because there are quite a lot of Asian characters for example. However there are still far too many shows with a ratio of 10:1 white cast members to black, or 10:1 straight people to homosexuals, etc.
No, I think it's great for people of all races to be represented. Especially in children television shows, when kids are beginning to realize that they look a little different than some others. Why should children of colour be forced to only watch and admire white people because they make up the majority of the US/'better reflect reality".
Additionally, with how much power the media has over people today, it's great to see diversity done in a positive light.
Forced? Are there no POC or disabled people in school?
But literally picking one of each type (black, asian, latino, red head, wheelchair) and running amock by fitting them in stereotypical roles that instigate the cycle of stereotypes to the general public?
Now that I see that pic, you can tell that Ryan Murphy definitely did a "one of each" sort of thing for the Glee cast but "forced" is a reach. All were natural to the story and it's not like they came AFTER complaints about no real representation. They were all there from Day 1
Yes, I appreciate diversity in media. No, I don't like when minorities are shown stereotyped.
idgi what "forced diversity" means tbh
That's what I mean. It's forced because they're cast in stereotypical role. Ain't nothing wrong with diversity, but putting them in stereotypical roles does more harm than good because it will enforce these roles to general public.
Yes. And it's not forced. The real world is diverse. I think you've just exposed your own racist ideologies tbh.
I never said "ONLY CAST WHITE PEOPLE", I'm just saying that this picking of character traits and putting them to stereotypical ideologies of how a person of a certain race is acting only enforces those stereotypes.
In its first season, the asian character was basically under the radar, rarely had her own solos and was treated basically like a minor character. The two main characters who had all the solos were the white attractive ones. Mercedes was the curvy black female who could sing but wasn't the star. Don't get me started on the gay one.
It ridiculously enforces the stereotypes we have of races (at least in season 1). Why couldn't an asian guy play the football jock that turns into a singer? Why couldn't a black girl be the main love interest and star of the show? Why couldn't the gay one be not flamboyant? Just because there is diversity in a cast doesn't mean that it solves the undercurrent problems we have.
The swift backfire of this thread I get what you're trying to say though. There's a difference between having a diverse cast and having a cast which is clearly doing the bare minimum in terms of diversity to pass as socially acceptable. Like, there's a soap here in the UK called Eastenders which has won a ton of awards for it's progressive approach to diversity among its cast and representing a wide spectrum of cultures and lifestyles because there are quite a lot of Asian characters for example. However there are still far too many shows with a ratio of 10:1 white cast members to black, or 10:1 straight people to homosexuals, etc.
Eastenders is set in East London which is filled with non white people, why should they be applauded for properly representing the area? Like shouldn't it be expected?
I never said "ONLY CAST WHITE PEOPLE", I'm just saying that this picking of character traits and putting them to stereotypical ideologies of how a person of a certain race is acting only enforces those stereotypes.
Get it straight ya'll.
Well I think I sort of get what you're saying now. Mercedes being the "sassy black girl" w/ not much depth, character development or back story, Brittany being the "dumb blonde" and cheerleader, Santana being the "spicy Latina" that switches between English and Spanish when she's angry and threatening to cut people, Kurt being the feminine gay boy that loves Gaga and Madonna, Rachel being Jewish w/ a big nose, Tina being the "smart Asian" since she was class president and what not. Like that you mean? If so, you worded it wrong. I don't like characters that are walking stereotypes either.
I get what you're trying to say though. There's a difference between having a diverse cast and having a cast which is clearly doing the bare minimum in terms of diversity to pass as socially acceptable. Like, there's a soap here in the UK called Eastenders which has won a ton of awards for it's progressive approach to diversity among its cast and representing a wide spectrum of cultures and lifestyles because there are quite a lot of Asian characters for example. However there are still far too many shows with a ratio of 10:1 white cast members to black, or 10:1 straight people to homosexuals, etc.
