Straight White Males as default: How it's wrong.

[Esternial]

Also, since when is Tolkien "historical"?

Comparing Middle Age demographics to Middle Earth's would makes no sense at all.

[The UK in Exile]

Did... did I seriously spawn a 15 page argument because I pissed off some My Little Ponies fans?

Jesus Christ.

forget it Mags.

its brony-town.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Did... did I seriously spawn a 15 page argument because I pissed off some My Little Ponies fans?

Jesus Christ.

forget it Mags.

its brony-town.

I mean, I don't care, pissing off Ostro is like sprinkles on a cake to me... but I mean.

I don't think he could have proved my point better if he tried.

[Nimilia]

The problem tends to be that most readers of speculative fiction are straight white males, as are the authors, and many of them feel more able to identify with someone as close to an idealized version of themselves as possible. As more women, gays, and people in other ethnicities read and write speculative fiction everyone will realize the breadth of people with whom one can identify. I see it more as a problem of simple ignorance rather than racism, sexism, or homophobia.

^This. As a straight white male, I actually tried writing a story about a dialogue between a gay man and a straight man. One meaningful one. It was poorly received by my creative writing class - especially the one explicitly gay guy in our class.

It's demographics at work. If it offends you, write something for the audiences you want to reach out to. But don't expect writers to write outside of their expertise - most of them being SWMs, as you put it.

Probably about half of them aren't, though.. Just saying.
And I do expect writers to try and brush up against the edge of their comfort zone now and then; how else are you going to improve?

[Southern Patriots]

Also, since when is Tolkien "historical"?

Who is making that claim?

[Dakini]

Which is bullshit spread by fearmongering racists.

I'm not convinced. The world as a whole is a lot less diverse than in most majority White nations which have lax immigration policies which are letting in lots of non-Whites who are subsequently reproducing at a faster rate.

...until the second generation when they start having the same number of children as the national average.

The Chinese for example, comprise a little over 19% of the entire world population at 1.35 billion people and the vast majority of them belong to the Han ethnicity.

If you want to talk about people who are about to have a population crisis... I mean, the ratio of men to women (especially among the young) is ridiculously skewed and the current laws surrounding marriage and divorce are such that a lot of women are like "fuck that shit, I'm better off alone" (despite constant reassurance that they're no good).

The total number of White people world wide? Estimates have it between only 800 to 900 million, barely even half as you can see.

So what?

Oh, poor you. Why does this idea trouble you? Do you think that you'll get treated as poorly as minorities are currently treated?

Perhaps, but at any rate; I don't like the idea of living where I don't have the social privileges that I'm used to. I admit that I'm a mild racist in that I don't believe any race is inherently superior but I still believe in self segregation and prefer my own.

So wouldn't be just as threatening to have everyone treated equally? Then you wouldn't have the special privileges you have, you would just have the same rights as everyone else.

[Neo Art]

But don't expect writers to write outside of their expertise

This is true. George R. R. Martin was a prolific dragon hunter in his day. And have you read Thomas Harris' op-ed in the New York Food Review on the best way to cook human liver? Fantastic.

Or to put it another way, of COURSE we expect writers to write outside of things they're familiar with. They're WRITERS. That's what they DO.

[Forsher]

It's the same thing with homosexuals or Asians or even being a white male. If a character does not need one of those things to be his defining trait than you might as well not mention it at all.

You know, it's possible to write characters who aren't Smurfette. A character can be Asian without their Asianness being a "defining trait." (See, for example, the previously mentioned Joan Watson on Elementary.) Bob can have "just married and very much in love" be a defining trait (or "cheating on his spouse," or "widowed," or "missing his spouse back home" or whatever) exactly the same way when his spouse is named Roger as when his spouse is named Lisa. The perception of "not a straight white male" as a "defining trait" is exactly the sort of thing those of us advocating against a "default" sort of character are trying to address.

I should think that Roger is a somewhat unfortunate name for a gay character.

"You Bastard."

"No, that was a camel."

*chuckles*

The sad part is that I can't remember which specific book that was from. One of the ones in the so called Gods Trilogy I think.

Did... did I seriously spawn a page argument because I pissed off some My Little Ponies fans fifteen pages ago?

Jesus Christ.

Well, it's lasted fifteen pages... it isn't a... hey that definitely said 15 when I read it.

[The Steel Magnolia]

What the fuck?

Nevermind that this is in no way analogous and that you're arguing some bullshit strawman, there's a huge fucking difference from me saying that most of television is not targeted at my demographic when most of them aren't and you (who is part of the target audience for 90% of what's on television) complaining that some show that you enjoy is not targeted at your demographic like almost everything else on television.

Clearly, having 90% of all the stuff isn't enough.

I'm not complaining it isn't targeted at my demographic.
Are you saying you aren't placed in the demographic for 90% of television? Got any proof?
Because the way I see it, male leads are marketted to both genders. You're in that demographic.
Female leads are marketted to females.
If you want to see more female leads, start marketting female leads to the entire population.

...Are you seriously making the argument that people not thinking that women leads can sell well is sexist against men?

Your persecution complex astounds me.

[Neo Art]

The reason why I bring up Neo Art's little story

I think we all know the reason.

[Nailed to the Perch]

You know, it's possible to write characters who aren't Smurfette. A character can be Asian without their Asianness being a "defining trait." (See, for example, the previously mentioned Joan Watson on Elementary.) Bob can have "just married and very much in love" be a defining trait (or "cheating on his spouse," or "widowed," or "missing his spouse back home" or whatever) exactly the same way when his spouse is named Roger as when his spouse is named Lisa. The perception of "not a straight white male" as a "defining trait" is exactly the sort of thing those of us advocating against a "default" sort of character are trying to address.

Are you arguing with me or against me? Because I can't tell. I explicitly made a point of saying that unless it actually is a defining character trait none of that needs mentioning. To use your example. If the author just says "spouse" and newer goes beyond that including not giving a name than any and all assumption about said spouse including gender are in the mind of the reader.

I'm just not sure why "it doesn't NEED mentioning" is an argument. Authors don't NEED to mention that a character is wearing a yellow shirt, or likes seafood, or was born on the Magical Isle of Nurglibork, or, y'know, anything. They can, if they so choose, write only existential dramas about faceless people floating aimlessly in undefined grey spaces. But they mostly don't. And as long as they're giving any description at all, the idea that calling Bob's spouse "Roger" when he happens to come up requires that "Bob is gay" be a defining trait rather than something entirely equivalent to "Bob's brown eyes filled with tears" or "Bob ducked as he went under the low ceiling" or "Bob eyed the powder-blue tux his mother had picked out for him with dismay" is silly, and fundamentally founded in that idea of straight white men as the default sort of human.

[Unitaristic Regions]

It's all culture. It'll change in time.


That being said, I really should revise my own writings now. I do need more diversity.

[Gravlen]

Of course, anything else would be mispheniscidry! And everything is better with penguins -_-

...how do you even FIND these things?

snip

did you make that?

If I had made it, there would not be a "not" in there

[Esternial]

Also, since when is Tolkien "historical"?

Who is making that claim?

From the OP:
"The first is that if you're describing a medieval fantasy, then having only SWM as important players is ahistorical since women, people of colour and yes, even people who aren't straight did more than sit on their asses in the middle ages."

He claims a medieval fantasy is ahistorical and uses this as an argument against the standard supposedly set by Tolkien, as claimed by the author.

Since when has a medieval fantasy ever had to stick to history?

[Abatael]

My goodness, get over it. Stop being so sensitive.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

^This. As a straight white male, I actually tried writing a story about a dialogue between a gay man and a straight man. One meaningful one. It was poorly received by my creative writing class - especially the one explicitly gay guy in our class.

It's demographics at work. If it offends you, write something for the audiences you want to reach out to. But don't expect writers to write outside of their expertise - most of them being SWMs, as you put it.

Probably about half of them aren't, though.. Just saying.
And I do expect writers to try and brush up against the edge of their comfort zone now and then; how else are you going to improve?

Got a sauce for that stat?

I know at least 80% of people here are male (if one running thread tells the truth). Why should it be so strange they should also be Caucasian and straight?

I don't disagree with the idea that you have to explore and find your boundaries. (I would not be more and more happily Catholic if I did not.) There are so many directions to go in; the female sex, the gay mentality, and the black race are three of thousands, maybe millions, of things outside of a WASP.

[Southern Patriots]

Who is making that claim?

From the OP:
"The first is that if you're describing a medieval fantasy, then having only SWM as important players is ahistorical since women, people of colour and yes, even people who aren't straight did more than sit on their asses in the middle ages."

He claims a medieval fantasy is ahistorical and uses this as an argument against the standard supposedly set by Tolkien, as claimed by the author.

Since when has a medieval fantasy ever had to stick to history?

Oh, I must have misread your post in regards to the OP.

You're right, it is a weird claim to make.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Books should have gays. It's only logical.

[Forsher]

The reason why I bring up Neo Art's little story

I think we all know the reason.

What? It's a perfectly decent illustration of the point I was making?

Oh, wait, I see... it's that other thing. Let it go dude, it was creepy the first time you brought it up now it's like, what, an obsession. All you ever have in reply is some variant on creep.

[Kubrath]

Jesus Christ! And I'm an Atheist, too!

What is wrong with some people today? I'm beginning to believe the First World is running out of real problems or is starting to not give a damn about them and instead chooses to focus on non-existing ones.
If I'm getting this straight, the complaint here is that authors, the people who devise the plot and characters and utilize them to write a story, from the medieval fantasy strata are, as implied by the OP's conclusions, sexist and racist, on the basis that they do not portray Their Own Characters the way some pretentious douchebag wants them to.

One thing should be bloody clear about this - an author's characters are their own damn business and no one has an iota of a right to tell them they ought to construct them in a different manner than of their own preference. If someone does not find their author's characters appealing, then they should not read such literature and should instead turn to something of their liking. If they cannot find anything, then tough luck.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Jesus Christ! And I'm an Atheist, too!

What is wrong with some people today? I'm beginning to believe the First World is running out of real problems or is starting to not give a damn about them and instead chooses to focus on non-existing ones.
If I'm getting this straight, the complaint here is that authors, the people who devise the plot and characters and utilize them to write a story, from the medieval fantasy strata are, as implied by the OP's conclusions, sexist and racist, on the basis that they do not portray Their Own Characters the way some pretentious douchebag wants them to.

One thing should be bloody clear about this - an author's characters are their own damn business and no one has an iota of a right to tell them they ought to construct them in a different manner than of their own preference. If someone does not find their author's characters appealing, then they should not read such literature and should instead turn to something of their liking. If they cannot find anything, then tough luck.

Yup. Agreed.

[Neo Art]

Jesus Christ! And I'm an Atheist, too!

What is wrong with some people today? I'm beginning to believe the First World is running out of real problems or is starting to not give a damn about them and instead chooses to focus on non-existing ones.
If I'm getting this straight, the complaint here is that authors, the people who devise the plot and characters and utilize them to write a story, from the medieval fantasy strata are, as implied by the OP's conclusions, sexist and racist, on the basis that they do not portray Their Own Characters the way some pretentious douchebag wants them to.

One thing should be bloody clear about this - an author's characters are their own damn business and no one has an iota of a right to tell them they ought to construct them in a different manner than of their own preference. If someone does not find their author's characters appealing, then they should not read such literature and should instead turn to something of their liking. If they cannot find anything, then tough luck.

I remember when I was 14, the world seemed a lot simpler then.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not complaining it isn't targeted at my demographic.
Are you saying you aren't placed in the demographic for 90% of television? Got any proof?
Because the way I see it, male leads are marketted to both genders. You're in that demographic.
Female leads are marketted to females.
If you want to see more female leads, start marketting female leads to the entire population.

...Are you seriously making the argument that people not thinking that women leads can sell well is sexist against men?

Your persecution complex astounds me.

No.
I'm making the argument that the marketting system has sexist results against women, but stems from stereotypes about men.
As usual, sexism effects both genders.
In this case, by telling males over and over not to watch shows that may be good (MLP:FIM being one example.) and judging them for accessing that part of culture.
And as a result of that, female leads are less common which provides sexism against females.
As usual, as soon as someone thinks gender is relevant, it immediately nosedives into sexist results.


Incidentally:

1,032,400 viewers for A Canterlot Wedding. (Season 2 finale, best results so far.)
Most censuses and such place Bronies as numbering far larger than this.
Bronies are practically guaranteed to watch the show.
Little girls are not.

[Nailed to the Perch]

How to write a gay relationship:

Write a straight relationship. Now, change all the times you refer to one of the characters in that relationship as "he" or "she" to the other pronoun. If their name is strongly gendered, change it to a different name. Gay relationship written!

How to write a woman:

Just write a person, and then name that person "Susan" or "Marla" or "Nancy" or something. Woman written!

That works if you're writing for children.

If you're writing in a fashion that really explores a character, you have to understand that people aren't clones of each other and things like gender, sex and sexual preference impact part of what makes a person who they are (or even how they act).

"People aren't clones" is quite literally a huge part of my point. There is no "how to write a woman character" beyond "write a person, and make that person a woman" because there is no "female" personality, no "female" interests, no "female" desires. There's only the personality and interests and desires the author gives that particular character. If you are capable of creating a character who is not you in the first place, there is no reason why "I am not a woman" or "I am not gay" should prevent you from writing a character who is female or gay, any more than, to borrow NA's example, "I am not a cannibalistic serial killer" prevented Thomas Harris from creating Dr. Lecter.

[The Steel Magnolia]

...Are you seriously making the argument that people not thinking that women leads can sell well is sexist against men?

Your persecution complex astounds me.

No.
I'm making the argument that the marketting system has sexist results against women, but stems from stereotypes about men.
As usual, sexism effects both genders.
In this case, by telling males over and over not to watch shows that may be good (MLP:FIM being one example.) and judging them for accessing that part of culture.
And as a result of that, female leads are less common which provides sexism against females.
As usual, as soon as someone thinks gender is relevant, it immediately nosedives into sexist results.


Incidentally:

1,032,400 viewers for A Canterlot Wedding. (Season 2 finale, best results so far.)
Most censuses and such place Bronies as numbering far larger than this.
Bronies are practically guaranteed to watch the show.
Little girls are not.

Well thanks for proving my point I guess?