Racial representation

I felt the same about "Racism isn't about non inclusion."

 

I don't think that you understood my example. I was originally going to refer to a restaurant being full of white men, but didn't want to deal with the age complication, so I switched to a classroom. My point is that it's obvious that a crowd of all one category is unrealistic; it's less obvious when that crowd is narrowed to a few characters.

 

What I said wasn't to exclude this, as I agree with you. That's what I meant by going out of your way to do something. If it doesn't fit the story, if you have to cram something there, it feels PC, it feels like you're trying to appease everybody. In my example regarding my and T's story, I feel like I excluded something that definitely should have been in the character. I knew in my bones this character is gay, but I was set on exploring the other paths he was to take (relevant to the plot) instead of the one he's been on all his life. Besides, even the roughest and the toughest get lonely, and when they get lonely, they long for that someone, and in his case that someone goes against the norm of his society.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'd keep an open mind and read the book first, then decide whether every character is a PC cut-out or not. But I agree, a Spice Girls cast put together for the sake of political correctness feels deliberate, or as you said, insincere. But sometimes you find yourself in a party where you've got men, women, gays, latinos, blacks etc hanging out together. Anything can be done well. Of course it's more likely in more diverse places, not necessarily in that predominantly white smalltown.

I'm not sure what you mean by Every woman warrior being as dangerous as every male warrior = insincere . Maybe I was supposed to read it as "every woman warrior being as big and strong as every male warrior is not sincere," 'cause, you know, that sounds like a fantasy.

 

Yes, some parties will be diverse, though, let's say I write about a club in Manhattan- do I need to spell out the diversity?

Maybe the most dangerous male and the most dangerous female would be equal, but there are certainly more dangerous males than dangerous females. It's not just bigger and stronger. It's bigger and stronger and more aggressive. It's called testosterone. And the "technique trumps strength" is a bit of a fantasy, especially considering that technique is available to all.

 

And this is why I like to write fiction as if race was never even a consideration. Racism puts a sort of a scarlet letter (which refers to any symbol of "otherness" that a group places on an individual) on certain people arbitrarily, and the solution is not to single out people who wear that scarlet letter and celebrate them in order to compensate for people who wear it not getting the recognition they deserve (which merely reinforces the distinction between people who wear it and people who do not), but to remove the scarlet letter entirely, or just to pretend that it does not exist.

Therefore, I write like someone who has no reason to notice that scarlet letter, which means I have no reason to mention characters' race in the first place. And that is not a deliberate (you might say "contrived") attempt to correct a social ill, but a genuine representation of how I perceive people -- the source of which perception is not specific to the issue of race, but rather, a comprehensive philosophy of individualism or self-determination or whatever you want to call it.

 

To spell out anything feels inherently bad. If you mean describe characters, if you are the type of writer who does that like quite a few do, I'm not sure if mentioning cornrows or calling a character Juanita counts as spelling out. In my book it doesn't. Plus a white person could sport cornrows just the same, so even that mental image would depend on the reader.

Yeah, testosterone does ring a bell. I must've come across it in a few dozen conversations I've had about fighting men and women before . But it's kinda hard to talk about this 'cause I'm not sure how you define dangerous and aggressive here. In a fight I see aggression as what prompts you to keep on attacking... Both sexes are capable of it. I've been taught no-holds-barred, vicious aggression, and the amount of estrogen in my system hasn't really come in the way there. In sparring, guys and gals can be either-or, you can be a stalker-sniper and sneaky or you can be in-your-face aggressive and bulldoze your way to victory. However, it's possible that if a woman becomes a warrior in the first place, she's a tad more aggressive (the way you define it, I presume) than other women, so if you've got a bunch of fighting women, they could be as aggressive as guys when it comes to the will to fight and win. At least I'd find it plausible. Kinda depends on how it's written, how much in the know the author is about this stuff.

I'm not particularly deluded when it comes to the physical/biological differences between men and women -- including testosterone -- so that's why I just think we're talking about different things here.
ETA: And yeah, men are considered more aggressive than women, so I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to think if I could find your scenario plausible.

 

Plausible, sure, but not representative of history or current times(I hope that's a fair statement?). So it would have to be speculative fiction or, something derived to appeal to a larger audience.

 

Spelling out anything is bad. If the MC is born and raised in NYC, corn rows might not be a significant observation for the narrative. In fact, a multicultural function might be simply taken for granted, and the reader will just have to live with it.

 

You know... I think I can see the resemblance.

 

@ Selbbin :

I see you recognised yourself in my comment, and promptly made it into something I never said, so you can beat it with a stick. My comment was general, applicable to all privileged Anglo males who rant angrily about there being no discrimination.

I don't have time (or inclination, to be honest) to go through your entire tirade again, but I reacted to your privileged BS speech about lack of diversity being purely due to 'what audiences want' not some discrimination. Yawn. Heard that from the male media execs before, and they've been called out on BS loads of times by women's groups but most importantly actresses, who are objectified through misogynistic roles and and actors of race different than white. It's going on in all of media, including fashion world, news, sports etc. So I am not interested in yet another argument with a privileged white male about something that's if not common knowledge, then it is painfully obvious.

I don't care what your characters are, or anyone else's. However, I maintain my encouragement of all artists, including writers, to attempt to diversify their characters. You've got a problem with that?

 

In my neck of the woods University classrooms are if not 50:50 then 60:40 in favour of women (especially medicine, in recent years, but overall University enrolments too). So if you are setting your story in today's America, I suppose someone could object to the 10% discrepancy, although, why the hell would they object in the first place? Unrealistic male presence in the media is something we all have to put up with for decades now, if not centuries, so really, someone needs to get over it (not you! I'm speaking in general)). But in my world, 50:50 would be about right.

 

This is just to settle a possible misconception regarding aggression and gender/sex:

Like has been mentioned before, it depends on the context. Combat sports like MMA are constantly gaining popularity among women, and if you go to your average muay thai or kick boxing gym in, say, western Europe, chances are, about half of the fighters there are women (my muay thai class had 17 girls and 15 guys, including yours truly). Granted, BJJ and submission wrestling gyms don't have many women 'cause women seem to greatly prefer striking over grappling, but be that as it may, those who are drawn to those "harder" styles, tend to be more competitive and aggressive to begin with than your average woman. Then again, the same could be said about male fighters; you don't encounter many wimps in styles where hard contact is a part of every class.

Also, here's an interesting observation from several friends of mine who work as bouncers, cops, and guards: when they see men fighting, usually it's a lot of shoving and shouting, sometimes punches are thrown, but when the staff or police step in, the guys break it off (save for the fewer exceptions).
Now, women don't fight as often, but when they do, as a general rule, they are far more vicious and ruthless than men; they try to tear the other girl apart and really hurt her. They don't give a shit whether a bouncer or a cop is trying to break them apart; they keep trying to hurt the other girl until they are either dragged off her or immobilized etc.

I remember vividly a 3 vs. 1 fight between 4 girls in my school when I was 14. The lone girl was a friend of mine and thanks to her ferocity and aggression, she wiped the floor with the 3 other girls and wouldn't have stopped if a few guys hadn't literally dragged her away from stomping a downed girl's head. Another girl tore off the tongue piercing from the mouth of her adversary. Neither the copious amounts of blood pouring from the other girl'a mouth nor her tears awoke any pity in the aggressor and, again, people had to step in to stop the beating.
Needless to say, fights between boys were more common, but only very rarely equally vicious and violent.

To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure what to make of that. Maybe that men tend to rely on physical competition to settle arguments when words fail them quite often; it doesn't need to be such a serious argument to deteriorate into a physical fight, whereas when women fight, they fight for real, they fight when they want to decimate their opponent. In general, of course; exceptions exist on both sides.

Anyway, like @KaTrian has said in her earlier posts, we've struggled with the whole otherness issue in our current WIP since all 3 MCs are essentially "others": a tall, very muscular female soldier, a gay male soldier, and a mixed race girl criminal.

As writers, we've both had to consciously work to step off our nurture-produced Euro- and white-centric perspectives and try to step into the shoes of people unlike us. It's been a lot of trial and error, like trying to figure out when we have to use the annoying tag of "female soldier" instead of just "soldier." It's frustrating because the character isn't sexualized, she isn't flirty or traditionally effeminate, but, rather, just a soldier focused on doing what she does as well as she can. She's not defined by her sex, by what she is, but what she does.
Yet at times we feel we have to draw attention to her sex so we don't confuse the reader needlessly or ignore the story's context where women in the front lines still aren't the norm, so if we want to be realistic, the people around the character will notice her sex and its relationship with her profession and skill level.

The same goes for the two other characters, which gets pretty frustrating when we'd just rather show people doing people stuff instead of drawing attention to their otherness. But we value realism too much to sacrifice it for what is essentially a politically loaded agenda.
Now I lost my train of thought...

ETA: @jazzabel, same here. Actually, more often than not, in my faculty lectures, guys are the minority; more than once I've been the only guy in a class full of girls even though the subject I study is nothing more sex-specific than English.

 

@T.Trian : I observed the same. I wonder if the reason is because men are taught how to fight and stand up for themselves and others, since youngest age. Patriarchal values are still evident in the fact that girls are expected to be kind, sensitive, and 'feminine' (whatever that means!) all the time, and they aren't taught to manage their aggression in day to day life. Boys will be encouraged to play rough, even to measure their strength against each other. By the time they have a serious fight, it isn't the first time, and they know how to fight. They might even feel empathy for their opponent, knowing how much it hurts to be hit, so there's a more measured approach.

Two girls having a fight in school, it might even be the first physical altercation they ever had. They never had much guidance or training in it, and a lifetime of pent up frustration or rage, because they aren't meant to settle arguments physically so have to keep bottling it up, leads to a wild, disorganised and unpredictable style. I had one such fight in PE class in sixth grade. Both I and the other girl and I ended up almost naked, we scratched and bit and pulled until we tore both our shirts off. She was missing a chunk of her hair even, I had a massive black eye and a split lip. We made up in the end, I think we were both shocked by what just happened.

 

We used to have this fighting game as kids where two of us would face off in a wrestling, shoving match. I think we pretended to be transformers or pokémons or somesuch, but it always led to bruises, and sometimes tears. Everyone had their own style. The big girls brawled and bulldozed, skinny girls like me learned to be quick and eel-like. There's aggression within girls for sure, and I wish everyone was able to find an outlet for it so it doesn't get bottled up and burst out uncontrollably, like you explained. I don't advocate schoolyard fighting, but you get my point.

 

I have read a sci-fi novel set on Earth in the far future where everyone had brown or black hair and brownish skin. It was not directly stated but as I was reading the book I slowly realized that this is because the races have mixed so much that all differences disappeared over time.
I've read this something like 15 years ago (sorry, can't remember the title) but it still comes into my mind from time to time. Is this really our future? How long does it take to get there? Will cultural differences disappear before or after the visual ones?

As for racism I recommend everyone to watch some Russell Peters videos on Youtube. He makes fun of the cultural differences (even mimicking the "white man accent"). If a white man were doing it, he would be tagged as racist but as Russell is Indian, he can get away with it

 

I think something similar has already happened in Brazil. I don't know how long it would take for the rest of the world, it depends on degrees of segregation, both physical and cultural. The stronger the racism, the longer it'll take. But apart from deliberately isolated communities, it's bound to happen, sooner or later.

@KaTrian : I like the fact you guys played such games. All I ever wanted as a kid is to be a ninja, but I had to go to tennis and choir instead.

@T.Trian : I was following the debate about the male:female discrepancy in Australia, and they concluded it is the jock culture (our friend Patriarchy again) and expectations on men to put their efforts into sports and ridiculing 'nerds' etc that resulted in dwindling numbers of boys who performed well enough in school to gain admission to Uni, especially into top courses like medicine, law, dentistry etc. Blokey culture is very strong in Australia, especially in rural communities, and accordingly, we had a highest rate of suicide in young men in the world one year. It's not good, but they started addressing it, I don't know how successful they've been because I left Australia and haven't kept my eye on the issue. In the UK nobody really gives a toss about anything much, it seems, people are fed up with the vampires in power and shit weather But Aussies are very proactive.

 

This. A thousand times this. Nurture plays such a huge part on how we develop as people and it just sucks how much more stifling and limiting the up-bringing of so many girls is in comparison to that of a lot of boys. It's no wonder so many girls grow up to be timid, frightened individuals with no belief or trust in their abilities when they've been put down and controlled since birth. In fact, so many girls are DIScouraged from picking up music instruments, taking up sports etc. even if that's what they loved whereas boys are ENcouraged to do just that; to improve themselves, push their limits, compete against others, pursue perfection, and, most of all, rely on themselves. Because that's masculine. And, in the case of girls, because that's not feminine.

Masculine and feminine as concepts are generally useless and idiotic; their use should only be reserved for the broadest generalizations, yet people apply them on a micro level all the time, which creates a lot of confusion and even misconceptions. On an individual level, trying to adhere to what is masculine or feminine can even be damaging, especially when applied to little kids by their parents, teachers etc.
A girl's self-esteem can be seriously damaged if she's constantly exposed to the Barbie and Bratz ideals and notions of what's traditionally seen as "feminine" (which could be freely translated into worship of weakness) if she has naturally small breasts, a flat butt, no waist, and a muscular build thanks to her love of sports and competition, i.e. she's taught to see herself as a freak, a weirdo, a non-feminine oddity, a "masculine" (which could be translated into worship of strength) girl, implying she's less of a woman than the physically weaker, bustier girls who enjoy (or pretend to enjoy) things like playing with doll babies, make-up, fashion, cooking etc. How is that healthy? There's nothing inherently wrong with any of those things, but evaluating and ranking girls (and boys!) according to their likes and dislikes is just plain wrong; if she's into the "feminine" stuff, if she's weak, she's more of a woman than if she's into traditionally "masculine" things even if they made her stronger and taught her to believe in herself, to rely on her skills and strength.

Studies have even shown that on average parents are quicker to react when a baby girl cries whereas far more often they ignore a crying baby boy. That alone helps set the tone for their futures; boys learn at an early age that they need to be self-reliant, that crying doesn't solve anything etc. whereas girls are conditioned to rely on others instead of themselves, to cry when faced with obstacles, even to use tears to gain what they want. To me, that dichotomy is sick.

The same could be said about racial issues; how many times have we seen white leads with PoCs as their sidekicks? Hell, it's even a trope that if there's an interracial group in a horror movie, the black guy always dies first. And he's used for comic effect through racial stereotypes. Moreover, the heroes and heroines are often these Aryan ideals; blonde, blue-eyed, beautiful, and, of course, so very white. What does that teach non-Caucasian kids? Is it a wonder that when there was a study where black girls were asked which doll they preferred, one white, one black, most of them chose the white doll?

ETA: @KaTrian, wrestling with you really is like wrestling with an oiled eel. It's no wonder you were a trickier opponent than some of the guys much bigger than you in our BJJ class 'cause some of them were so used to just relying on size and strength that when they went head-to-head with a bigger and stronger guy than them, they were defenseless and easy to overpower and tie into a knot.

 

@T.Trian : Interestingly, the real Aryans migrated from the Balkans to India thousands of years ago, and there they got the name. So suffice it to say, Hitler misinterpreted it, especially when he went to exterminate all slavs because they are, in a way, the original Aryans (the blonde, blue eyed folk who came to the Balkans 12000 years ago from Siberia, that later migrated to Scandinavia, and the pale, red haired Celts, who were also about at the same time). So the whole 'racial supremacy' thing is totally bogus, just ego-boost for idiots.

I couldn't agree more with all your points. I know just how damaging parental stereotypes are, even more to boys because they deprive them of opportunity to truly explore the sensitive side, and so many men grow up with emotional intelligence much lower then they are naturally capable of, because it's been inhibited from day one.

I'm reading '1Q84' now, it, together with 'Colourless' (his newest book) are the first books by a male author that explore the issue of rape and assault on a female in astoundingly insightful ways. Btw the book is incredibly interesting, and his writing so sublime, I'm gushing and smiling on almost every page! Highly recommended. I love Murakami, he is the proof that men are capable of being as emotionally intelligent about women's issues, if given a chance.

 

This is an interesting topic. In the novel I am currently working on, Tony Clayton is a young black man. He lives in a mostly black neighborhood. Growing up where I did, I had interactions with more black and Latino kids my age than white. I am white by the way.
That being said, I still struggled a little with how to show he was black. I just waited for an opportunity and it showed itself in the second chapter. I did not see how to make it work in chapter one where he is first introduced. As you all know, you can't just say 'Tony Clayton is a young black man.'

Here is where I showed he is Black.

Her focus then turned to Tony, with the look of a proud mother; she looked him up and down and said, “My, my, look at you Tony Clayton. You are all grown up. You have become quite a handsome young Black man. Get over here and give Auntie Aretha a big hug,” He hesitated, glancing at the pretty young girl behind the counter. (who the reader has already ascertained is black because of the location of the diner)

Because my main used to be a (white) beat cop who worked a predominately black area of town, it only made sense there would be some black people in the story. In fact, Tony is an important part of the story. So I would say this. I did not put people of color in the story just to be inclusive. I put them in because it fit the story.