Feminist Analyses

[Dirty Blond]

Originally Posted by Powder

Except for Michael Jackson, who has ever been more interesting after having their color changed? What a ridiculous concept. It's like you're going out of your way to look super tolerant but instead you're making yourself look foolish.

That's what happens to people who engage in identity politics.

[Hannah]

I am reminded why I don't come here more often.

[Dirty Blond]

Originally Posted by Hannah

I am reminded why I don't come here more often.

I like you!

[BabyTurtles]

wait I'm confused.....are we still talking about the girls or what? XD......

as for changing someone's race, I don't want that :3 I like April as April and Casey as Casey :3 I also like Xever as Xever and Karai as Karai and so on XD

why change them? they are okay now!


speaking of which simple question.....is Angel black? or mixed?? cause she looks black....but I could be totally wrong :3 ( I like her purple lip-stick)

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by Powder

Except for Michael Jackson, who has ever been more interesting after having their color changed?

I liked Michael Clarke Duncan's portrayal of Kingpin (yes I admit to liking Dare Devil), my favorite Green Lantern is probably John Stewart (I guess this one doesn't count). Just a couple off the top of my head.

The ultimate one though is Aqualad. He also technically doesn't count because lame ass Garth still exists (and steals his girlfriend lol) but Kaldur'ahm is one of my favorite super heroes. I never would have believed you if you told me 2-3 years ago that I'd be a huge Aqualad fan someday.

In the realm of TMNT, I think Hun would work better as an Asian-American. But as far as character's that have already had their race changed, only one I can think of is Baxter. It ultimately didn't matter too much because he turned into a fly, but I can't stand the PC reasoning behind making him white in the OT.

[BabyTurtles]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

I liked Michael Clarke Duncan's portrayal of

The ultimate one though is Aqualad. He also technically doesn't count because lame ass Garth still exists (and steals his girlfriend lol) but Kaldur'ahm is one of my favorite super heroes. I never would have believed you if you told me 2-3 years ago that I'd be a huge Aqualad fan someday.

.

I love Aqualad(Kaldur)!!! they made him awesome!

[demonsweat]

Originally Posted by Hannah

The problem is that you are assuming that any female/POC inclusion means it's just happening to satisfy a certain audience, and not for the purpose of the story. If your writing for a show set in New York City doesn't involve women and people who aren't white more than occasionally, then your writing isn't at it's best.

Nah, I'm not assuming that. This show has diverse characters. I don't think any of them are in there to satisfy an audience, and I believe they do fit the story. I just don't think it's fair to label the show as sexist/racist/whatever because it doesn't have more of those characters.

Originally Posted by Hannah

Also, it's not just that there are fewer ladies- there are only two female characters while there are what, like, 23 male characters?

Citation needed. But yeah, okay - there are more men than women on the show. My point is this: a disproportionate amount of genders in a work of fiction does not warrant the ugly label of sexism, no more than a disproportionate amount of races warrants the label of racism. You're only seeing this because that's what you're sensitive to. For example, the African-American characters on the show are fewer and have gotten even less air time than the female characters. Are we correct in assuming that the show is racist towards African Americans, then? It's all relative, y'know?


Anyways, here's a cute turtle picture to lighten the mood. I like to think of this one as Raphael, pre-mutation.

[demonsweat]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

But as far as character's that have already had their race changed, only one I can think of is Baxter. It ultimately didn't matter too much because he turned into a fly, but I can't stand the PC reasoning behind making him white in the OT.

Now that I agree with. Whitewashing baaaaad.

Wasn't April originally of a mixed race in the Mirage comics, or am I remembering wrong?

[BabyTurtles]

Originally Posted by demonsweat

Now that I agree with. Whitewashing baaaaad.

Wasn't April originally of a mixed race in the Mirage comics, or am I remembering wrong?

IDK...maybe??

heres a pic:

Spoiler:

[CyberCubed]

PL said April was always white, the only reason she looks dark skinned in some Mirage issues was because Kevin was trying to make her look like his real-life girlfriend at the time, who was in fact named, "April" and was black.

[BabyTurtles]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

PL said April was always white, the only reason she looks dark skinned in some Mirage issues was because Kevin was trying to make her look like his real-life girlfriend at the time, who was in fact named, "April" and was black.

really? cool info :3

[Hannah]

Originally Posted by demonsweat

Citation needed. But yeah, okay- there are more men than women on the show. My point is this: a disproportionate amount of genders in a work of fiction does not warrant the ugly label of sexism, no more than a disproportionate amount of races warrants the label of racism. You're only seeing this because that's what you're sensitive to. For example, the African-American characters on the show are fewer and have gotten even less air time than the female characters. Are we correct in assuming that the show is racist towards African Americans, then? It's all relative, y'know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_characters

I count 23, not including the Kraang or Foot Soldiers.

It's not really outright sexism or racism, but under representation of minority groups is a problem that contributes to and benefits from both sexism and racism.

[demonsweat]

Originally Posted by Hannah

It's not really outright sexism or racism, but under representation of minority groups is a problem that contributes to and benefits from both sexism and racism.

Okay, that is true. However, I believe the solution is not to force an equal amount of every type of human being into every work of fiction. I would more like to see new IPs that shake up the status quo, such as (like I said) action oriented shows with average-looking female leads, or maybe an African-American cop with a white guy as his sidekick.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Changing established characters races or gender's just for "token diversity" is a ridiculous thing to do. Introduce a new character if you want your token black/spanish/asian/indian/gay/lesbian character.

There's no reason to change what characters have been for over 25 years.

Originally Posted by Powder

Except for Michael Jackson, who has ever been more interesting after having their color changed? What a ridiculous concept. It's like you're going out of your way to look super tolerant but instead you're making yourself look foolish.

Off the top of my head? Boomer and Starbuck from the revamp of Battlestar Galactica.

Nick Fury from a little comic book called Ultimate Avengers, who was then awesomely played by Sam Jackson.

Kingpin was already mentioned.

Alfred Molina as Doc Ock.

Then there's Idris Elba as Heimdall and Tadanobu Asano as Hogun.

Shall I go on?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Hannah

I am reminded why I don't come here more often.

: (

Originally Posted by demonsweat

I don't oppose a diverse cast at all. I just don't think it necessary to create characters based on whether or not they represent real life groups. Let the story drive that. If the writers want to put in female characters, great. If not, I'm okay with what we have. See, to me it's more important that the existing female characters are portrayed well (ie, not as stereotypes). This isn't a show about April and Karai. They are supporting characters only -they should get about as much air time as any of the other male supporting characters, right?

See, there are really three things going on here:

1) It's not just that it's uneven. There are two women and god knows how many men, from the main cast to ancillary characters.

2) Poor ratios or poor gender portrayals are just unrealistic. Diversity should be a requirement for stories because it's a fact of life. You know more than two women. Even the Turtles, at the rate they're meeting people, should know more than two women. And while the portrayals have been pretty good (though again, not ideal), we're not hitting this mark yet. So short of any moral/socio-political posturing aside, a story is never hurt for adding a more diverse, accurately portrayed cast.

3) This is a children's show, and a really good one at that, so it's fair to be more concerned with how it approaches issues of gender. We may be watching this fully formed, but it's reaching a lot of kids who are still very much forming their views of the world. So, yeah, I think it'd be boss if it could show girls something really positive.

All of these issues apply to depictions of race as well, which is why, if we're going there, I would have no problem with a non-white Casey. Sometimes race is an essential part of a character, but I'd say with Casey it really, really isn't. And to the extent that Turtles has a certain core cast to work with, NYC is extremely diverse, and I'm all for getting another non-white character into a major, non-stereotypical role in a popular children's cartoon, hell yeah, I'd be down for that. Sure, changing an established character's race has the potential to be patronizing, but that all rests on the execution.

Citation needed. But yeah, okay - there are more men than women on the show. My point is this: a disproportionate amount of genders in a work of fiction does not warrant the ugly label of sexism, no more than a disproportionate amount of races warrants the label of racism. You're only seeing this because that's what you're sensitive to. For example, the African-American characters on the show are fewer and have gotten even less air time than the female characters. Are we correct in assuming that the show is racist towards African Americans, then? It's all relative, y'know?

I think people get confused on this. 1) Sexism (or racism) doesn't have to be intentional or malicious; it just has to reinforce the existing institutions. 2) I don't think anyone has said Turtles is doing anything those lines; it could just do better still.

I do understand the concern for a lack of identifiable females and/or role models in the media. I'd just like to see more females in non-traditional, non-stereotypical roles all across the board. Which is something I think this show is doing a fine job of so far. My little girl runs around the house pretending to be Karai - not because she's "hot" or Leo's love interest... but because she's as ass-kicking ninja.

So, see, this does have a positive effect when it's done well. There's nothing wrong with wanting it to be even better.

Also, Occulus Orbus had a great post a page back.

[demonsweat]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Off the top of my head? Boomer and Starbuck from the revamp of Battlestar Galactica.

Nick Fury from a little comic book called Ultimate Avengers, who was then awesomely played by Sam Jackson.

Kingpin was already mentioned.

Alfred Molina as Doc Ock.

Then there's Idris Elba as Heimdall and Tadanobu Asano as Hogun.

Shall I go on?

Not trying to argue, but were those characters more interesting because of the change in race, specifically? Sam Jackson is pretty awesome, but that's because he's awesome, not because he's black. [slight threadjack: he was SO GOOD in Django Unchained.]

[plastroncafe]

Those were characters argued by fanboys, and in the case of Starbuck the original actor to play the role, to have been ruined by casting.

[demonsweat]

Originally Posted by Cipher

See, there are really three things going on here:

1) It's not just that it's uneven. There are two women and god knows how many men, from the main cast to ancillary characters.

2) Poor ratios or poor gender portrayals are just unrealistic. Diversity should be a requirement for stories because it's a fact of life. You know more than two women. Even the Turtles, at the rate they're meeting people, should know more than two women. And while the portrayals have been pretty good (though again, not ideal), we're not hitting this mark yet. So short of any moral/socio-political posturing aside, a story is never hurt for adding a more diverse, accurately portrayed cast.

Ooh, gotta call ya out on this one. Some stories cannot be told this way. War flicks, for instance, aren't going to feature many women. And that's as it should be, because of historical accuracy (something that is changing today and is awesome, allow me to add. I hope future war flicks will do so AND be historically accurate to boot. ). Another example: I used to work in the software industry and I gotta tell ya, that's a heavily male-dominated workforce. Any movie portraying that industry would not be accurate if it featured an equal ratio of men to woman. To focus on female roles outside of this story (say, delivery women, mothers, I dunno... wives, etc.) might take away from the story being told.

Bottom line, every story cannot be equally diverse and satisfy every group. My hope is that more stories will be told from non-traditional POVs, that Hollywood might finally realize that they can put a black man in a lead role without marketing the whole thing towards "the urban crowd." The turtles... well, they could add more females. And they might. But the story centers on the four guys, everything else is gravy IMO.

Originally Posted by Cipher

3) This is a children's show, and a really good one at that, so it's fair to be more concerned with how it approaches issues of gender. We may be watching this fully formed, but it's reaching a lot of kids who are still very much forming their views of the world. So, yeah, I think it'd be boss if it could show girls something really positive.

Totally could not agree more. I guess I don't find fault with this show because the females here so far (and again, it's pretty early on yet) have been kick ass. I'd much rather let my kid watch this show than the junk aimed at girls - all the tween crap, the bratz dolls, the monster high stuff... that stuff is junk. It's all about fashion and boys. Which is fine to an extent, but damn... let the girls read a book or discuss physics for an episode.

Originally Posted by Cipher

I think people get confused on this. 1) Sexism (or racism) doesn't have to be intentional or malicious; it just has to reinforce the existing institutions. 2) I don't think anyone has said Turtles is doing anything those lines; it could just do better still.


So, see, this does have a positive effect when it's done well. There's nothing wrong with wanting it to be even better.

Casual racism, casual sexism. Point taken. Me, I actually think it is being done well... I don't care for April myself, but I freaking love Karai. She's so badass and she's got a sharp wit. She leads teams of Foot soldiers. I guess that's what I'm saying - instead of upping the ratio of male:female, spend more time really developing a few solid female characters and I'll be happy enough.


And another cute turtle pic, for good measure.

[demonsweat]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Those were characters argued by fanboys, and in the case of Starbuck the original actor to play the role, to have been ruined by casting.

Eh, fanboys. Heard the same junk when they cast that one guy in the Thor movie, but I didn't see a problem with it. It's not like Thor is even remotely similar to Norse mythology, so who cares if every character looks like a Nord, it's just fantasy.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by demonsweat

Ooh, gotta call ya out on this one. Some stories cannot be told this way. War flicks, for instance, aren't going to feature many women. And that's as it should be, because of historical accuracy (something that is changing today and is awesome, allow me to add. I hope future war flicks will do so AND be historically accurate to boot. ). Another example: I used to work in the software industry and I gotta tell ya, that's a heavily male-dominated workforce. Any movie portraying that industry would not be accurate if it featured an equal ratio of men to woman. To focus on female roles outside of this story (say, delivery women, mothers, I dunno... wives, etc.) might take away from the story being told.

No.
It's historically inaccurate to pretend that women had no historical role in war.
Also, anecdotal evidence should not be confused with data. Women have been involved with the computer industry from the get go.

But by all means, let's continue building this straw man to prop up the idea that women are only necessary when the plot depends on it. Because...it's not like they're real characters, or have real stories to be told.