Question - does that commitment to diversity and representation include those whose beliefs fall on the conservative side of things? Or is that a step too far, even now?
Ideally. But this is the same industry that seems to go out of its way to alienate half the country...and then wonders where it’s audience has gone. If you’re right and the it’s all about to fall apart like a house of cards, there are plenty of folks living far away from the bright lights and insane rents of LA who will look on and say, “they brought this on themselves.”
I think it's time to redefine what "conservative" beliefs are. Because if conservatives are feeling alienated now that people of color and women are asking for more representation and more pay, or that LGBT people are having their voices and stories told in conjuncture with cis-straight people, how can Hollywood commit to representing those "diverse" beliefs without reinforcing decades of anti-diversity? Just a thought - G.
I suppose it depends on how you define "diversity." Because the current definition contains a serious internal contradiction - it is, literally, skin deep. It considers only external characteristics: race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation (ignoring the messy complexities of human existence) divided them up into groups based on those characteristics, decries an excess of supply in some groups and a scarcity in others, and demands that this be rectified.
But when it comes to whats inside their heads, what they actually think and believe, diversity disappears. Anyone who does not follow the current party line is cast out. They may look different, but in thought and deed, in what they believe, they are all the same.
As for the question, how can you have diversity without promoting 'anti-diversity,' lets consider two scenarios:
A young male African-American who has shown himself to be a director of great promise, and is now looking to move up the ladder to bigger and better things. He is also a devout Evangelical Christian who holds to traditional beliefs regarding sexuality and gender, and has publicly praised the current President and declared his intention to vote for the man in the next election?
Or, a queer female who has proven herself a brilliant screenwriter and is looking to make her mark...who is also anti-abortion, posted photos of herself at the March for Life, and is also a firm supporter of the Second Amendment?
Both those hit the diversity sweet spot when it comes to their backgrounds (POC, LGBT.) But when it comes to their beliefs, what they actually think, they are 'anti-diverse.' So...which should take precedence? Can you accept one part of who they are that you like, along with the other parts you don't? Should a liberal white male be pushed aside so one of the above can take his place?
As for what conservatives actually believe...that would be a long and interesting conversation. But a good place to start would be the works of Roger Scruton, G.K. Chesterton, and Edmund Burke.
Sobering and necessary discussion.
Question - does that commitment to diversity and representation include those whose beliefs fall on the conservative side of things? Or is that a step too far, even now?
No that's something different but this isn't academia. Ideally people's political views would have nothing do with their Hollywood careers. Ideally
Ideally. But this is the same industry that seems to go out of its way to alienate half the country...and then wonders where it’s audience has gone. If you’re right and the it’s all about to fall apart like a house of cards, there are plenty of folks living far away from the bright lights and insane rents of LA who will look on and say, “they brought this on themselves.”
I think it's time to redefine what "conservative" beliefs are. Because if conservatives are feeling alienated now that people of color and women are asking for more representation and more pay, or that LGBT people are having their voices and stories told in conjuncture with cis-straight people, how can Hollywood commit to representing those "diverse" beliefs without reinforcing decades of anti-diversity? Just a thought - G.
And if those ~aren't~ the beliefs you're talking about, what ~are~ the beliefs you feel are not being represented?
Apolologies in advance for the long reply:
I suppose it depends on how you define "diversity." Because the current definition contains a serious internal contradiction - it is, literally, skin deep. It considers only external characteristics: race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation (ignoring the messy complexities of human existence) divided them up into groups based on those characteristics, decries an excess of supply in some groups and a scarcity in others, and demands that this be rectified.
But when it comes to whats inside their heads, what they actually think and believe, diversity disappears. Anyone who does not follow the current party line is cast out. They may look different, but in thought and deed, in what they believe, they are all the same.
As for the question, how can you have diversity without promoting 'anti-diversity,' lets consider two scenarios:
A young male African-American who has shown himself to be a director of great promise, and is now looking to move up the ladder to bigger and better things. He is also a devout Evangelical Christian who holds to traditional beliefs regarding sexuality and gender, and has publicly praised the current President and declared his intention to vote for the man in the next election?
Or, a queer female who has proven herself a brilliant screenwriter and is looking to make her mark...who is also anti-abortion, posted photos of herself at the March for Life, and is also a firm supporter of the Second Amendment?
Both those hit the diversity sweet spot when it comes to their backgrounds (POC, LGBT.) But when it comes to their beliefs, what they actually think, they are 'anti-diverse.' So...which should take precedence? Can you accept one part of who they are that you like, along with the other parts you don't? Should a liberal white male be pushed aside so one of the above can take his place?
As for what conservatives actually believe...that would be a long and interesting conversation. But a good place to start would be the works of Roger Scruton, G.K. Chesterton, and Edmund Burke.