What I'm Saying Is, The Search For Equality Is Pretty Messy

[A. E. Lowan]

When a particular message is entrenched in society, the very existence of views outside the message is a challenge to it, showing that there are other ways of being. That's what I mean by representation.

First, I love this thought, Feo.

Secondly, I want to show an example of this, so maybe we can get on the same page of what simple, representational diversity can look like without sending any overt messages. I've been watching Fringe a lot lately (I'm only on Season 3, so no spoilers! ) Of the main cast, 3 characters are persons of color, and 1 is mentally ill. Of all 4 of them, only the one suffering from mental illness has his unique situation feature as a plot point. The racial differences of the other 3 characters are not, to my recollection, mentioned at all. It's pretty hard to accuse the writers of Fringe - one of the most tightly-written science thrillers on TV for 5 seasons - of loose writing because of this. The reason? The writers didn't have to. As Feo said, these 3's very existence as powerful, sympathetic characters was enough. They just had to be themselves.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

As best I can tell from what he's said in other threads, he seems to believe that promoting female equality may (will?) eventually result in a society where women dominate and subjugate men. He's never been exactly clear, though--the most anyone's gotten out of him was that weird rant about pendulums that got a previous thread locked. I'm still trying to draw him out so I can debate his ideas properly.

Just to be clear... I do not subscribe to this thinking at all. I'm all for equality, across gender, race, nationality, orientation, etc. I have no idea what you're referring to here, or from where you would have drawn a conclusion like this.

 

[Jabrosky]

I keep a sort of mental file of the various quirks of forumites as they relate to arguing--specifically, things they believe that may or may not influence how they argue. However, since it's not written down, I sometimes get confused as to who exactly believes what. I may have been trying to argue with Foster on something that was actually said by T Allen Smith. If so, I am so, so sorry to Foster for this.

I can't really blame you for your confusion. Our community has grown humongous, and it's hard to keep track of everyone's positions on various issues. Coincidentally I sometimes get Foster and Smith confused myself.

For that matter, your earlier comment that you thought some of saellys' views on representational issues were problematic surprised me, because I would have thought you and she would have seen eye-to-eye on everything pertaining to this topic.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Just to be clear... I do not subscribe to this thinking at all. I'm all for equality, across gender, race, nationality, orientation, etc. I have no idea what you're referring to here, or from where you would have drawn a conclusion like this.

I just assumed it might have been you I was thinking of because Foster didn't seem to have any idea what I was talking about when I mentioned the pendulum thing earlier, and you're the one I most frequently confuse with Foster. (I definitely remember someone making several increasingly bizarre posts about sexism that ended in a locked thread, and I think it was someone who was somehow site-associated--either a mod or someone on the article team. It was an uncomfortable experience.)

For that matter, your earlier comment that you thought some of saellys' views on representational issues were problematic surprised me, because I would have thought you and she would have seen eye-to-eye on everything pertaining to this topic.

My reasons for disagreeing with Saellys verge on the political, so I'll avoid getting too far into that here. I can discuss it in a PM, though.

Edit: I might as well state that I'm getting nervous now. I used to post on a forum where it was very, very easy to get banned for "causing drama," and it looks like I'm the one causing drama now by dredging up something everyone's forgotten about. I know you guys aren't that ban-happy, but I'm still ready and willing to drop all this if you'd prefer.

 

[Jabrosky]

I just assumed it might have been you I was thinking of because Foster didn't seem to have any idea what I was talking about when I mentioned the pendulum thing earlier, and you're the one I most frequently confuse with Foster. (I definitely remember someone making several increasingly bizarre posts about sexism that ended in a locked thread, and I think it was someone who was somehow site-associated--either a mod or someone on the article team. It was an uncomfortable experience.)

I have a feeling that post got edited or deleted to remove the problematic content.

 

[Philip Overby]

I stepped out of this thread a while back because I felt like I said everything I wanted to say numerous times. However, I'd just like to note, let's keep it moving forward and not bring up anything that happened in locked threads.

 

[Steerpike]

Of the main cast, 3 characters are persons of color, and 1 is mentally ill. Of all 4 of them, only the one suffering from mental illness has his unique situation feature as a plot point. The racial differences of the other 3 characters are not, to my recollection, mentioned at all. It's pretty hard to accuse the writers of Fringe - one of the most tightly-written science thrillers on TV for 5 seasons - of loose writing because of this. The reason? The writers didn't have to. As Feo said, these 3's very existence as powerful, sympathetic characters was enough. They just had to be themselves.

Yes, this is a good example. The idea that diversity is an indicator of loose or weak writing, or that writing has to necessarily become weaker if a diverse cast is included, is frankly mind-boggling.

As for Fringe, I'm on the last season now