LGBT representation in adverts/films/TV

[Butts]

To put it simply, I don't want to see gay characters in movies, any more than I want to see disabled characters, Muslim characters or black characters.

What I want in films are characters who gay, characters who are disabled, characters who are Muslim, characters who are black, etc.

In other words, characters who are in the film/tv programme because they are well written and move the story along - and who also happen to be a member of a protected* group - rather than characters who are there just to tick a box.

*In terms of equality law.

I think a classic example of what you allude to is Midsomer Murders which has gone from one extreme to another after the row about hardly any Black characters being featured.

It is set in an English Rural Village type environment in which very few if any Black people live.

However every episode now features a significant number of Black or Asian characters that simply wouldn't be found in this sort of rural location.

The writers are transferring multi-cultural populations from London where they probably reside to the English Countryside which looks ridiculous and appears to be tokenism.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think a classic example of what you allude to is Midsomer Murders which has gone from one extreme to another after the row about hardly any Black characters being featured.

It is set in an English Rural Village type environment in which very few if any Black people live.

However every episode now features a significant number of Black or Asian characters that simply wouldn't be found in this sort of rural location.

The writers are transferring multi-cultural populations from London where they probably reside to the English Countryside which looks ridiculous and appears to be tokenism.

I actually think that this kind of tokenism is not only box ticking, but actually makes things worse because it trivialises the issue of tolerance. Developing a society that is tolerant to people of all diversities will not come around by simply insisting on implanting, and emphasising characters into stories simply to avoid any complaints from the watchdogs, which is exactly what happens in those kind of television programmes. It needs to be organic, so like you say trying to represent all cultures in the setting of a small, rural village (with a frighteningly high crime rate BTW!) just looks ridiculous, and I'm sorry to say feeds the bias of people less tolerant. That's not to say writers should never include anyone not seen as typical rural village stock, but give them a story, help the viewers understand and empathise with them.

Its a really fine to balance on, push diversity too far and people will (and do) push back. Don't include enough and you further marginalise people. Having lived in one of Britain's most multi-cultural cities for most of my life, one thing I have learned is to try never to label people but to simply treat them as equal, although I must confess I don't always succeed. Labels are for clothes, not for humans. We shouldn't need to identify as one cultural / sexual / neurological / religious group or another, we should simply be able to identify as being a person with our own personal traits. There should not be a need to justify your background, your personal beliefs, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, how we think & perceive the world, what we choose to eat, or any other human trait. I honestly believe that this current need to identify is actually making things worse, we should be teaching people to simply accept people for who they are, so long as that doesn't hurt anyone else.

And this is all entirely possible, because I see it all the time when out walking. For some reason people walking along rivers, canals, through woods or on top of moors seem to just be able to greet each other with a warm smile & a hearty greeting more often than not, regardless of race or sexuality. I like to think this is a solid starting point for our species to move forward to just being tolerant to each other.

 

[Requeststop]

Every day is a school day! I had no idea that Wilfrid Brambell was gay.



"Queer" doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor do any of the other derogatory words used to describe us. I once walked into a pub (with my dad) and heard someone mutter "Gaylord"; my first thought was "Lord of the Gays - Yay!" I've no idea why they thought that - perhaps I was better dressed

Maybe you'd feel differently if you, like me, had been pushed to the ground by a group of hostile men and be punched and kicked and being called a "F*cking Q" and end up in hospital for a couple of days, scared out of your wits especially when unfriendly police want to question you about what happened.

 

[najaB]

Maybe you'd feel differently if you, like me, had been pushed to the ground by a group of hostile men and be punched and kicked and being called a "F*cking Q" and end up in hospital for a couple of days, scared out of your wits especially when unfriendly police want to question you about what happened.

I'm sorry to hear that happened to you, and I hope you don't see this as me being patronising, but the problem was the people rather than the words.

They would be pieces of [redacted] no matter what words they used.

 

[GS250]

The last two Star Wars films, The Last Jedi and the Rise of Skywalker saw a big representation of female leads with some LGBT representation too. I disliked these two films and made my feelings clear on a forum. However I was then accused of 'hate' by some merely because the presumption was I didn't like seeing a 'woke' movie. Nothing to do with that...I thought the plot, acting and destruction of the original trilogy was appalling.

 

[alxndr]

the use of the Q word is deeply offensive to me and many other gay people, not least because most ‘Q’ people are same-sex attracted, ie straight.

I'm a bit confused by this, did you mean to say "not same sex attracted" perhaps? In which case I'd be very surprised, most people I know who refer to themselves as queer are not straight, including myself. I use that word rather than gay (although would never use it for another person due to its complicated history) because I know I'm not straight, but beyond that I don't know or care to figure out which particular box I fit in.

the LGBT etc alphabet soup is all driven by gender identity activists who have effectively hijacked the gay rights movement. Sexuality and gender identity are two wholly unconnected issues, there is no logical reason to link them, yet we’ve seen gay men forced away from ‘pride’ events just for stating this.

A lot of trans people don't particularly want lumping in with LGB people either because it confuses matters for them too. But there are several shared experiences and parallels between people seen as a minority due to their sexuality and their gender identity, and there has been a shared history throughout the decades. Both groups of people have faced inequality arising from not fitting neatly in the traditional straight cisgender box.

It may just seem as though trans people are more prominent at the moment as gay acceptance is there legally and increasing socially. Trans rights are on the verge of legally going backwards, and social acceptance has always been tenuous at best.


As for the main point of this thread, have more diverse characters, but don't force them in. Have them happen to be gay/trans/black/disabled etc (or maybe even more than one!), but don't make it their main plot point. That said, do bother to represent it properly, lazy, unresearched "representations" are what smacks as tokenism to me.

 

[ComUtoR]

Exactly this!
the use of the Q word is deeply offensive to me and many other gay people, not least because most ‘Q’ people are same-sex attracted, ie straight.

I am very much at odds with this as my era used gay as a slur. The word has changed its meaning and understanding over time. So has the word queer.

It is this change in language that helps drive inclusivity. When that power to offend someone can be lessened or removed. Equality may take some time but people, can, and do, wear those names as badges of pride; rather than something to be ashamed of.

Words can be very powerful. I am acutely of aware that. Personally I do not wish to give someone else that much power over me.

If Pride showed us anything. It showed how many people are prepared to wear those names openly and with honour.

 

[GusB]

Maybe you'd feel differently if you, like me, had been pushed to the ground by a group of hostile men and be punched and kicked and being called a "F*cking Q" and end up in hospital for a couple of days, scared out of your wits especially when unfriendly police want to question you about what happened.

I have been in a similar situation where I've ended up spending time in hospital and a good few weeks off work recovering from the broken ribs, the broken nose and the panda eyes. I also experienced a "you must have asked for it" attitude from the police at the time.

It wasn't the words that did the damage, though; it was the fists and boots of the people that laid into me. Anyhow, we're getting away from the main topic of this thread.

 

[Runningaround]

While it is definitely possible, I have to say that my preference is that - where the protected characteristic is integral to the story and the character - that it be portrayed by someone who has/is that characteristic.

Both from the perspective of representing that group numerically, but also because they are less likely to play into any stereotypes of the group. It's inevitable that a straight actor playing a gay role i s- even with the best will in the world - going to have a natural tendency to "act gay", in the same way that a white person playing a black role is going to try to "act Black", an atheist/Christian playing a Muslim is going to try to "act Muslim", etc. Not because they are have any ill will but just as an attempt to bring the character to life through their acting.

Doesn't it depend on the ability of the actor. Sacha Baron-Cohen has done a pretty good job of convincing his interviewees in real life situations that he's a Black Muslim and in another character Gay.

 

[najaB]

Doesn't it depend on the ability of the actor.

Indeed it does - which I why I stated it as a preference as opposed to being dead-set against it as some people are.

Sacha Baron-Cohen has done a pretty good job of convincing his interviewees in real life situations that he's a Black Muslim and in another character Gay.

That said, he does deliberately play into stereotypes.

 

[HullRailMan]

I'm a bit confused by this, did you mean to say "not same sex attracted" perhaps? In which case I'd be very surprised, most people I know who refer to themselves as queer are not straight, including myself. I use that word rather than gay (although would never use it for another person due to its complicated history) because I know I'm not straight, but beyond that I don't know or care to figure out which particular box I fit in.

A lot of trans people don't particularly want lumping in with LGB people either because it confuses matters for them too. But there are several shared experiences and parallels between people seen as a minority due to their sexuality and their gender identity, and there has been a shared history throughout the decades. Both groups of people have faced inequality arising from not fitting neatly in the traditional straight cisgender box.

It may just seem as though trans people are more prominent at the moment as gay acceptance is there legally and increasing socially. Trans rights are on the verge of legally going backwards, and social acceptance has always been tenuous at best.


As for the main point of this thread, have more diverse characters, but don't force them in. Have them happen to be gay/trans/black/disabled etc (or maybe even more than one!), but don't make it their main plot point. That said, do bother to represent it properly, lazy, unresearched "representations" are what smacks as tokenism to me.

Apologies, yes, I meant to say most people, in my experience, who use the Q word to describe themselves are not same-sex attracted. Surely the letters LGB cover all forms of sexual attraction, so why the need for Q at all?

I understand the point that words are just words, but society seems to accept that the use of historic racial slurs are unacceptable, and there is little evidence of words like n****r or p**i being ‘reclaimed’. The same goes for derogatory words historically used to describe those with certain disabilities. So why then do people my age have to accept the use of a word that has been used as a slur for generations but is now seen by youngsters as somehow ‘trendy’?

 

[AlterEgo]

there is little evidence of words like n****r...being ‘reclaimed’.

You must be living under a rock if you don't hear some black people call each other that word.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2022 ==

So why then do people my age have to accept the use of a word that has been used as a slur for generations but is now seen by youngsters as somehow ‘trendy’?

Because language moves on. Even "poof" has been largely reclaimed, but of course context is always key to figuring out if the word is a slur or not. If a drag queen says "I'm just a big poof in a dress", we would accept that as self-describing, perhaps self-deprecating language by a camp gay man. If I call you a poof, especially during a disagreement, that is clearly well over the line and a slur.

 

[westv]

You must be living under a rock if you don't hear some black people call each other that word..

The group NWA perhaps being an example.

 

[alxndr]

Surely the letters LGB cover all forms of sexual attraction, so why the need for Q at all?

Not everyone fits neatly into the boxes of lesbian, gay, or bisexual. As I stated in my original post: "I use that word rather than gay (although would never use it for another person due to its complicated history) because I know I'm not straight, but beyond that I don't know or care to figure out which particular box I fit in."

I thought I solely liked women and was in a straight relationship with my ex for seven years. Then I thought I was interested in no one. Then ended up in a gay relationship. Am I attracted to women still? Have I ever really been attracted to them? I don't know and I don't particularly care. I wasn't intending to get into the relationship that I'm currently in, and I highly doubt I'd go searching for another partner if this relationship broke down, so it doesn't really matter. The only thing I can be confident in is that the label "straight" doesn't feel right for me.