|
Azuren said: 1. Those numbers don't imply anything outside of men more actively and successfully pursuing those careers. There's no evidence of sexism blocking anyone from certain positions, only evident facts. One could just as easily assume women go after different careers, or that women are just not as good. The thing about capitalism, though, is it is a meritocracy at the end of the day. That means prejudice in this case is less likely to be the culprit than incompetence or disinterest.
2. Why do they need to have a reason to be male? Your own argument turns itself on its head through just the simple use of its own adage.
3. And if you have a good writer who knows nothing about black culture being told to add in a black character, do you think he's going to write a believable character or a stereotype? |
1. Ideally, yes. In practice, we all know that often isn't the case.
2. I don't believe he was saying there needs to be a reason for characters to be male, or status-quo, just that there doesn't need be one to justify them NOT being that either. Which, tbh….it's a weird thing to say that any type of character doesn't need to be justified. All characters need to be justified via good writing, regardless of who they are. Though from the stand point of whether or not one needs extra justification for falling outside the status-quo of casting, I think we can all agree with that, if we're being reasonable. Unless the production in question is of a very specific nature, where it would be strange to see certain people represented, there is no reason to demand something beyond the scope of what we subject the status-quo representation to.
