Hetero White Males underrepresented on British TV

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Upstart Crow is another example of SJW progressive activism because it dares to feature actual women and minorities!

Upstart crow is great, aside from the barmaid though who is an ethnic minority in it? I wouldn't know not being able to see the actors.

[Ostroeuropa]

I wonder where all the people who complain when there's insufficient "diversity" in media are right now.

They're busy creating Facebook posts about how it's "impossible to be racist against a white person" as they've been called out on their racist hypocrisy so now they're moving the goalposts by suggesting that racism against white people isn't actually racism because "1700s [reeeeee noises] system of privilege [more noises]"

Or suddenly adopting the position that equality in representation doesn't matter despite having spent decades claiming it does. Which is why I say it's a movement based around gaslighting people and operates chiefly in bad faith. The arguments and ideas they use are not sincerely held principles, but rather weapons to empower a particular group at the expense of another. The goal of that empowerment is also not equality, because when it comes down to it, they'll oppose the same arguments and ideas being used to empower whites or males when they are in a disadvantaged position.

The only consistent thing about the movement is hostility to whites and males. This hostility is cloaked in egalitarian arguments and rhetoric which are not sincerely held or believed, because they are abandoned and opposed the moment they might benefit whites or males. It's like a movement "hating heroin" and demanding everyone be locked up for using it, right up until whites start using it more than black people, at which point suddenly they become pro-legalization.

You would rightly be able to conclude that anyone who engages in that behavior never really cared about drugs, just hating black people.

Similarly, I would bet you many of the posters here who have claimed this isn't a problem have previously argued about things like the Bechdel test and called people sexists for not seeing why it was important.

The thread I posted a while ago about how progressive rhetoric and framing of issues does not actually increase empathy for minorities, only decrease empathy for white people should give insight into this tendency.

We also can't confidently say they actually care about the groups they purport to represent, because as I've noted several times issues of inter-minority racism and the problems it causes, as well as things like the Duluth model of DV resulting in women being at more risk of injury or death, don't seem to result in re-evaluation. Instead, the focus is on harming whites and males. Given the option to empower minorities, or hurt minorities but hurt white people more, there's a good case to be made the latter would be opted for. See the domestic violence issue, where decades of evidence that DV is equal has been ignored and suppressed, as well as the evidence that the model used results in worse outcomes for women than a more equal model. That's one that shows how not only do they not sincerely care about the issue of domestic violence, but also don't sincerely care about women and their wellbeing. The policy stance adopted by the broader feminist movement is one where they are fine with more women dying if it means more men go to prison. They would deny this about themselves, but then, why is the evidence ignored? Because fixing it does not give them what they really want; which is to demonize and harm men. They may not even be aware of this, but that is what they are emotionally driven by a desire to do. Like if I convince myself I love arresting criminals but only go after black people, and when a white person is a criminal I just kind of drag my feet and cba and whatever, he got away, oh well. I could claim I care about ending crime, but that's not really what I care about, and it's why I never bother to actually achieve anything except hurt black people. Confronted on this I can rationally tell you "Ofcourse white criminals should go to prison", and it's necessary I do this because my self-image is as someone who cares about stopping crime and is deeply passionate about it. Having the self-awareness to realize what I actually emotionally get invested in is harming black people would be too much for my self-image. So it goes for many progressives.

The evidence is ignored because doing something about it isn't something they're interested in, so they slack off, basically. That's the "Unconscious" explanation for it. Some are probably consciously aware.

This is also why things are framed as "White privilege" and "Male privilege" rather than "Black disadvantage" and so on. (Despite, as I noted elsewhere, the fact that east Asians aren't getting shot by cops at the same rate. So how can it be white privilege rather than black disadvantage? Because the latter doesn't enable a hostility to white people, which is the actual goal.).

[Chessmistress]

I'm still waiting for specifical answers by Ostroeuropa to my points:

viewtopic.php?p=36780153#p36780153

viewtopic.php?p=36780131#p36780131

Specifically: is it women having 1% more a real sign of sexism?

Don't mess with me about that, I always said that 52:48 or 48:52 it's not a real problem, whatever the proportion of the sexes would be.

1% difference is within technical fluctuations, absolutely negligible.

Second and more important: since the representation of BAME is TWICE than their actual demographic weight, isn't that affecting even white women, exactly as it affects white men?

Then why do you frame it as White MALE problem?

Third: LGBT are not overrepresented.

[Celritannia]

I'm still waiting for specifical answers by Ostroeuropa to my points:

viewtopic.php?p=36780153#p36780153

viewtopic.php?p=36780131#p36780131

Specifically: is it women having 1% more a real sign of sexism?

Don't mess with me about that, I always said that 52:48 or 48:52 it's not a real problem, whatever the proportion of the sexes would be.

1% difference is within technical fluctuations, absolutely negligible.

Second and more important: since the representation of BAME is TWICE than their actual demographic weight, isn't that affecting even white women, exactly as it affects white men?

Then why do you frame it as White MALE problem?

Third: LGBT are not overrepresented.

You'll be waiting a while XD

[Chessmistress]

I'm still waiting for specifical answers by Ostroeuropa to my points:

viewtopic.php?p=36780153#p36780153

viewtopic.php?p=36780131#p36780131

Specifically: is it women having 1% more a real sign of sexism?

Don't mess with me about that, I always said that 52:48 or 48:52 it's not a real problem, whatever the proportion of the sexes would be.

1% difference is within technical fluctuations, absolutely negligible.

Second and more important: since the representation of BAME is TWICE than their actual demographic weight, isn't that affecting even white women, exactly as it affects white men?

Then why do you frame it as White MALE problem?

Third: LGBT are not overrepresented.

You'll be waiting a while XD

I know, as a Feminist I always avoid to complain about differences such as 1% or 2% among the sexes, because it's silly and it's likely to cast a negative light even on serious, much wider, gaps.

But here there' much more: he's framing as a MALE issue something evidently affecting even white women, this is a fact because the math is easily done:

White women have 52% of the 77% aka 40% - perfect balance should be white women having 51% of the 87% aka 44.4%.

How that could be a white MALE issue since also white WOMEN get LESS representation compared to the mathematically perfect representation?

Still, I don't think it's a very relevant issue.

[The Black Forrest]

You'll be waiting a while XD

I know, as a Feminist I always avoid to complain about differences such as 1% or 2% among the sexes, because it's silly and it's likely to cast a negative light even on serious, much wider, gaps.

But here there' much more: he's framing as a MALE issue something evidently affecting even white women, this is a fact because the math is easily done:

White women have 52% of the 77% aka 40% - perfect balance should be white women having 51% of the 87% aka 44.4%.

How that could be a white MALE issue since also white WOMEN get LESS representation compared to the mathematically perfect representation?

Still, I don't think it's a very relevant issue.

To me it depends on the story. Why does there have to be fair representation of women or for the thread white males if the story doesn’t have them or need them?

[Vassenor]

I'm still waiting for specifical answers by Ostroeuropa to my points:

viewtopic.php?p=36780153#p36780153

viewtopic.php?p=36780131#p36780131

Specifically: is it women having 1% more a real sign of sexism?

Don't mess with me about that, I always said that 52:48 or 48:52 it's not a real problem, whatever the proportion of the sexes would be.

1% difference is within technical fluctuations, absolutely negligible.

Second and more important: since the representation of BAME is TWICE than their actual demographic weight, isn't that affecting even white women, exactly as it affects white men?

Then why do you frame it as White MALE problem?

Third: LGBT are not overrepresented.

Because those factors would make this not a feminist-progressive-SJW plot to destroy white males by -checks notes- acknowledging the existence of women and other ethnic groups in mass media productions.

[Gormwood]

Seriously, Ostro sounds like he'd be an ideal Sad Puppy. Griping about how most, if not all stories should be centered around white males.

[Celritannia]

You'll be waiting a while XD

I know, as a Feminist I always avoid to complain about differences such as 1% or 2% among the sexes, because it's silly and it's likely to cast a negative light even on serious, much wider, gaps.

But here there' much more: he's framing as a MALE issue something evidently affecting even white women, this is a fact because the math is easily done:

White women have 52% of the 77% aka 40% - perfect balance should be white women having 51% of the 87% aka 44.4%.

How that could be a white MALE issue since also white WOMEN get LESS representation compared to the mathematically perfect representation?

Still, I don't think it's a very relevant issue.

It isn't, because someone a few pages ago brought up a good point. Depending where and when a show is set, the more urban, metropolitan, and modern a show the more BAME actors you will see.
Plus, acting talent supersedes any race, gender, or sexual orientation. It is also not uncommon for LGBT actors and straight actors play heterosexual and non-straight characters respectively.

[Ayytaly]

I wonder where all the people who complain when there's insufficient "diversity" in media are right now.

They're busy creating Facebook posts about how it's "impossible to be racist against a white person" as they've been called out on their racist hypocrisy so now they're moving the goalposts by suggesting that racism against white people isn't actually racism because "1700s [reeeeee noises] system of privilege [more noises]"

It's possible to be racist to white people. Thing is, it's difficult to come up with names that piss them off, as white people pretty much have monopolized xenophobia since the Barbarian Invasion.

"Nordcuck" comes to mind, and that was created by mediterranean memers who started reading Sergei's book debunking Nordicism on 4chan.

[Rojava Free State]

They're busy creating Facebook posts about how it's "impossible to be racist against a white person" as they've been called out on their racist hypocrisy so now they're moving the goalposts by suggesting that racism against white people isn't actually racism because "1700s [reeeeee noises] system of privilege [more noises]"

It's possible to be racist to white people. Thing is, it's difficult to come up with names that piss them off, as white people pretty much have monopolized xenophobia since the Barbarian Invasion.

"Nordcuck" comes to mind, and that was created by mediterranean memers who started reading Sergei's book debunking Nordicism on 4chan.

Cavebeast, elamite, white devil, cracker, honkey, ice people, etc etc are all anti white slurs. And at days end racial slurs aren't what matter anyhow. If racism worldwide had always just been words, no one would even care. It's the violence and discrimination of racism that people care about, and in places like Haiti or Zimbabwe, anti white violence has taken very dark turns.

[Rojava Free State]

I'm still waiting for specifical answers by Ostroeuropa to my points:

viewtopic.php?p=36780153#p36780153

viewtopic.php?p=36780131#p36780131

Specifically: is it women having 1% more a real sign of sexism?

Don't mess with me about that, I always said that 52:48 or 48:52 it's not a real problem, whatever the proportion of the sexes would be.

1% difference is within technical fluctuations, absolutely negligible.

Second and more important: since the representation of BAME is TWICE than their actual demographic weight, isn't that affecting even white women, exactly as it affects white men?

Then why do you frame it as White MALE problem?

Third: LGBT are not overrepresented.

Because those factors would make this not a feminist-progressive-SJW plot to destroy white males by -checks notes- acknowledging the existence of women and other ethnic groups in mass media productions.

Media ought to represent the country it is set in. Britain is mostly white

[Ayytaly]

It's possible to be racist to white people. Thing is, it's difficult to come up with names that piss them off, as white people pretty much have monopolized xenophobia since the Barbarian Invasion.

"Nordcuck" comes to mind, and that was created by mediterranean memers who started reading Sergei's book debunking Nordicism on 4chan.

Cavebeast, elamite, white devil, cracker, honkey, ice people, etc etc are all anti white slurs. And at days end racial slurs aren't what matter anyhow. If racism worldwide had always just been words, no one would even care. It's the violence and discrimination of racism that people care about, and in places like Haiti or Zimbabwe, anti white violence has taken very dark turns.

Quite few and far and sporadic to leave an impact, though.

[Celritannia]

Because those factors would make this not a feminist-progressive-SJW plot to destroy white males by -checks notes- acknowledging the existence of women and other ethnic groups in mass media productions.

Media ought to represent the country it is set in. Britain is mostly white

Depends if it's in a major town or city.

[SD_Film Artists]

Because those factors would make this not a feminist-progressive-SJW plot to destroy white males by -checks notes- acknowledging the existence of women and other ethnic groups in mass media productions.

I didn't even have to read your first post to know that you'd be taking that angle in this thread; I wouldn't go as far as calling it a 'plot' but there is a pattern.

More to the point, there's a difference between 'acknowledging the existence of women and other ethnic groups' and actively un-personing characters who are white or male.

[Rojava Free State]

Cavebeast, elamite, white devil, cracker, honkey, ice people, etc etc are all anti white slurs. And at days end racial slurs aren't what matter anyhow. If racism worldwide had always just been words, no one would even care. It's the violence and discrimination of racism that people care about, and in places like Haiti or Zimbabwe, anti white violence has taken very dark turns.

Quite few and far and sporadic to leave an impact, though.

I wouldn't consider a fair number of refugees to be "not an impact." A large amount of the French population of Louisiana are descended from refugees fleeing haiti. The events in Haiti also led to stricter slave codes in the US

If you wanna know more about what happened in Haiti, here's an article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

[SD_Film Artists]

They're busy creating Facebook posts about how it's "impossible to be racist against a white person" as they've been called out on their racist hypocrisy so now they're moving the goalposts by suggesting that racism against white people isn't actually racism because "1700s [reeeeee noises] system of privilege [more noises]"

It's possible to be racist to white people. Thing is, it's difficult to come up with names that piss them off, as white people pretty much have monopolized xenophobia since the Barbarian Invasion.

"Nordcuck" comes to mind, and that was created by mediterranean memers who started reading Sergei's book debunking Nordicism on 4chan.

There is 'gringo' but we (the white lizard media overlords) have reappropriated that to mean the DEA.

[Rojava Free State]

It's possible to be racist to white people. Thing is, it's difficult to come up with names that piss them off, as white people pretty much have monopolized xenophobia since the Barbarian Invasion.

"Nordcuck" comes to mind, and that was created by mediterranean memers who started reading Sergei's book debunking Nordicism on 4chan.

There is 'gringo' but we (the white lizard media overlords) have reappropriated that to mean the DEA.

I thought gringo is just a Spanish term for Americans of any race

[SD_Film Artists]

They're busy creating Facebook posts about how it's "impossible to be racist against a white person" as they've been called out on their racist hypocrisy so now they're moving the goalposts by suggesting that racism against white people isn't actually racism because "1700s [reeeeee noises] system of privilege [more noises]"

Or suddenly adopting the position that equality in representation doesn't matter despite having spent decades claiming it does. Which is why I say it's a movement based around gaslighting people and operates chiefly in bad faith. The arguments and ideas they use are not sincerely held principles, but rather weapons to empower a particular group at the expense of another. The goal of that empowerment is also not equality, because when it comes down to it, they'll oppose the same arguments and ideas being used to empower whites or males when they are in a disadvantaged position.

The only consistent thing about the movement is hostility to whites and males. This hostility is cloaked in egalitarian arguments and rhetoric which are not sincerely held or believed, because they are abandoned and opposed the moment they might benefit whites or males. It's like a movement "hating heroin" and demanding everyone be locked up for using it, right up until whites start using it more than black people, at which point suddenly they become pro-legalization.

You would rightly be able to conclude that anyone who engages in that behavior never really cared about drugs, just hating black people.

Similarly, I would bet you many of the posters here who have claimed this isn't a problem have previously argued about things like the Bechdel test and called people sexists for not seeing why it was important.

The thread I posted a while ago about how progressive rhetoric and framing of issues does not actually increase empathy for minorities, only decrease empathy for white people should give insight into this tendency.

We also can't confidently say they actually care about the groups they purport to represent, because as I've noted several times issues of inter-minority racism and the problems it causes, as well as things like the Duluth model of DV resulting in women being at more risk of injury or death, don't seem to result in re-evaluation. Instead, the focus is on harming whites and males. Given the option to empower minorities, or hurt minorities but hurt white people more, there's a good case to be made the latter would be opted for. See the domestic violence issue, where decades of evidence that DV is equal has been ignored and suppressed, as well as the evidence that the model used results in worse outcomes for women than a more equal model. That's one that shows how not only do they not sincerely care about the issue of domestic violence, but also don't sincerely care about women and their wellbeing. The policy stance adopted by the broader feminist movement is one where they are fine with more women dying if it means more men go to prison. They would deny this about themselves, but then, why is the evidence ignored? Because fixing it does not give them what they really want; which is to demonize and harm men. They may not even be aware of this, but that is what they are emotionally driven by a desire to do. Like if I convince myself I love arresting criminals but only go after black people, and when a white person is a criminal I just kind of drag my feet and cba and whatever, he got away, oh well. I could claim I care about ending crime, but that's not really what I care about, and it's why I never bother to actually achieve anything except hurt black people. Confronted on this I can rationally tell you "Ofcourse white criminals should go to prison", and it's necessary I do this because my self-image is as someone who cares about stopping crime and is deeply passionate about it. Having the self-awareness to realize what I actually emotionally get invested in is harming black people would be too much for my self-image. So it goes for many progressives.

The evidence is ignored because doing something about it isn't something they're interested in, so they slack off, basically. That's the "Unconscious" explanation for it. Some are probably consciously aware.

This is also why things are framed as "White privilege" and "Male privilege" rather than "Black disadvantage" and so on. (Despite, as I noted elsewhere, the fact that east Asians aren't getting shot by cops at the same rate. So how can it be white privilege rather than black disadvantage? Because the latter doesn't enable a hostility to white people, which is the actual goal.).

I think they operate on an 'us vs them' culture as the idea of a mixed-race person debunks their concept of white original sin and (non)victimhood.

[SD_Film Artists]

There is 'gringo' but we (the white lizard media overlords) have reappropriated that to mean the DEA.

I thought gringo is just a Spanish term for Americans of any race

And that, which gets interesting if the person in question is black and European. The same thing goes for calling a Brit of Jamaican decent "African American".

[Proctopeo]

I wonder where all the people who complain when there's insufficient "diversity" in media are right now.

They're busy creating Facebook posts about how it's "impossible to be racist against a white person" as they've been called out on their racist hypocrisy so now they're moving the goalposts by suggesting that racism against white people isn't actually racism because "1700s [reeeeee noises] system of privilege [more noises]"

Sounds about right.

Seriously, Ostro sounds like he'd be an ideal Sad Puppy. Griping about how most, if not all stories should be centered around white males.

You're purposefully misunderstanding/misrepresenting his position.
Dunno much about the Sad Puppies campaign, but you're probably misrepresenting that too.

[Cekoviu]

-snip-

Ah, and there go the goalposts. That didn't take long!

[Chessmistress]

I know, as a Feminist I always avoid to complain about differences such as 1% or 2% among the sexes, because it's silly and it's likely to cast a negative light even on serious, much wider, gaps.

But here there' much more: he's framing as a MALE issue something evidently affecting even white women, this is a fact because the math is easily done:

White women have 52% of the 77% aka 40% - perfect balance should be white women having 51% of the 87% aka 44.4%.

How that could be a white MALE issue since also white WOMEN get LESS representation compared to the mathematically perfect representation?

Still, I don't think it's a very relevant issue.

To me it depends on the story. Why does there have to be fair representation of women or for the thread white males if the story doesn’t have them or need them?

Because the study shows the sum of ALL the stories in TV, not just a single story.

What makes no sense it that he seems to wish something where the time on air is EXACTLY the same as demographics, while little variations can exist.

My point are:

Women are 51% population and get 52% representation: difference being negligible, totally irrelevant.

16% women in UK had at least a lesbian experience in their lives, men percentage was littler, I don't remember it exactly but it was probably 7%: LGBT sexuality get 11.9% representation. It's more or less the fair - mathematically fair - representation.

BAME are 13% population and they get 23% representation: here the difference is relevant, it's not just a single point like 14% rather than 13%. Still, IMHO it's not very relevant, but it's fair to admit that here - and just only here - Ostro have a point.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Well this thread turned into a dumpster fire quickly.

It was an entertaining read tho.

[Chessmistress]

Plus, acting talent supersedes any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Actually that's false, very often the reality is the very opposite: positive discrimination is a thing.

I support positive discrimination, but not to the point to pretend that it doesn't exist when someone highlights that positive discrimination is exceeding its goal.
I'm for substantive equality, not for supremacy of someone over someone else through manipulation.