I'm asking a very simple question. You said it doesn't matter, then proceeded to explain why it matters in favor of women. So what is it? Does it only matter when a white straight male is made something else?

Alright….against my better judgement, I'll try this one last time, and I'll try to keep it brief.

The original question you raised towards LuccaCardoso1, was something to the effect of "why does a male character have to be justified?" To which my response was basically, it doesn't have to be justified any more or less than any other choice. My reasoning for this, as I thought I had made quite clear - both originally and subsequently - is that it's always up to the individual artists/writers/directors/etc what kind of story they're trying to tell, and who is or isn't a part of that story. It's artistic freedom, plain and simple. 

You then turned that back to the question of why women care so much about getting more strong female leads. Which I explained pretty succinctly, and you can go back to that post for reference if you like, but it seems you are just generally hung up on this question of "Does 'it' matter?" A question which you seem to be asking as if there was only ever one point of view involved here, which obviously there isn't. There's the perspective of the creator, and the many many perspectives the various consumers of said creator's work. As a creator, it's my prerogative to make whatever characters, and tell whatever stories I so choose. As a consumer, I'm entitled to feel whatever I feel about said created characters, just as I'm also entitled to look at the general depiction/representation divide between various types of characters, and feel whatever way I feel about that. Which, in the case of several groups of people, may be "hey, I wish there were more stories about such and such."  

I really don't think I could have been any more clear, and I don't understand why you keep phrasing your question as if this were a black and white issue (no pun intended), coming at it as if there was only one point of view to consider. In any case, I've now said my piece on it multiple times. I believe that's sufficient. If you're still not clear on what I'm saying, or you just don't care, so be it.

Well, for you forced diversity is essentially anything that isn't 100% accurate, even when we're talking about a game that takes place in a county that doesn't exist, so how are we even supposed to argue with that or understand what you're trying to argue for?

While it's hard to say that Ghostbusters never could have worked with a female cast, it's not hard to argue that if you had replaced those female main characters with men, the film more than likely would have been more feasible and would've made more money. Men acting like idiots/morons is typically found to be more acceptable than for woman since men are usually seen as easier to replace. They would have had to find a new formula to make the franchise work, but instead they kept the same flavor and just used different toppings this time.

It's no different than if your gas car breaks down, you typically take it to a mechanic, not an electrician. There's nothing saying that sparky couldn't do the job, and heck, they may even do a better, faster, cheaper job, but that would be a very rare scenario. Now, if you decide to purchase yourself an electric car instead, while it's a different type of vehicle, it's still similar, and get's the same job done, but now the electrician would be just as useful as the mechanic.

I think Ocean's 8 is going to have a similar problem, just maybe not as bad. Woman for the most part are seen as caring and giving and are more about equality, so trying to portray them as greedy thieves isn't going to be easy. As for woman being a bit crooked in their own way, that is more realistic which should allow the film to do better than Ghostbusters did. In order to make it a big hit, they will need to change the formula from the franchise as it exists now.

While I don't personally like when great franchises are changed similar to how they have been more recently, I do understand the business decisions behind it. If Hollywood tried this inclusivity type of casting with brand new unknown films, it would have been even harder to market them. Using the established franchises that are guaranteed to reach the greatest number of audiences initially and pay back/profit as much as possible, is a much safer bet. It does make you question however, the merit of the content, since strong content typically leads to strong viewership regardless of the backing, most of the time. That's not to say it's the main reason why they are using known franchises, but it no doubt comes up as a question.

Trying new idea's using existing brands is a big bet though, so it's not to be looked at solely as wanting to push an agenda. PS3, XB1 and Wii U are good examples. All three consoles really strayed from what made their brands sales so strong, and look how it turned out for them. Nin had to take a whole new approach with Switch to get back to their glory days in terms of sales so far. While PS has been able to recover with PS4 by focusing on the core, the likelihood at this point that 'XB2' will be able to come back as strong seems unlikely, without going back to it's roots or branching out even further.

Time and the free market will tell how the future unfolds as per usual.

Well, if only 8% of applicants were female, the question would then have to be asked why that is the case?

Individuality and free will? People are heavily influenced by societal factors, so for women, who are constantly in a lower social position than men, will be influenced by that and thus would become less inclined to apply.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gender-pay-gap-a-persistent-issue-in-canada/article34210790/

http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence#CRIME

https://www.osler.com/osler/media/Osler/reports/corporate-governance/Gender-diversity-disclosure-practices-in-Canada-2016.pdf

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11546-eng.htm#a13

You think that society is just?

Usually diversity quotas are filled by setting a minimum standard that a candidate has to met, so it's not to do with rewarding lack of talent. It's addressing unconscious bias because typically all the top stuff does go to straight white men regardless.

Nobody cares unless it’s forced and obvious pandering. Their targeted activism becomes the soul of the character, it’s unnatural and unhinged. They ruin established characters with it, I agree. It’s a one dimensional character like Kratos with his rage but instead it’s just a 1D character with whiny first world problems. Just make good characters, the emphasis should be on their character. They could be a giant duck for all I care. That one mutant game looks awesome.

I saw polygon getting upset at Detroit because QD didn’t “go into the androids blackness”. To them he was a black character and that’s was it. His “blackness” was his trait. That collectivist mindset tricks people into thinking they are individuals by joining a certain group. Left wing white liberals love defending a minority for no reason. It’s not even the minorities themselves complaining most of the time which is odd.

OK, if I needed a citation, you show me sources for your claims.