Inclusivity towards women in Dragon Ball?

[JulieYBM]

We are not arguing that diversity is a bad thing at all which is a misrepresentation from the way you guys face force diversity. We are saying that adding character for the sake of pleasing the audience and keep it diverse in stories with established targeted ethnicity and country done in is far from being as sensible as you think it is, because we are in for faithful representation of characters and for freedom of the writer to choose who he wants to portray in his series, not feel limited by needing to represent what he didn't intend to do.

What is 'faithful representation of characters', when historically not only is diverse casting complained about for new characters, but it's also complained about for new interpretations of characters? Art is a living process. It changes with time and grows and is always at its best when it is flexible. When I was a girl I was raised on depictions of Peter Pan where the boy was played by a cis woman. Not girl. Woman. Historically, roles have been portrayed by diverse actors that don't fit the 'canon' depictions of those characters. And you know what? Nobody got hurt.

Hell, I remember reading Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman when I was in elementary school, and everyday I am thankful for that because it normalized something that I think is very important and something that I think is very important for us to carry into adulthood as mature people that should be capable of being even more flexible than children (the kids are beating our asses in the QRTs, y'all): art is about humans. Art is about fun. About is about love and life and all the myriad of things that make up those things.

What art is not is a competition. Art is there to speak something to a human being, and something that means Superman is a bisexual guy with a Japanese boyfriend with pink hair. Sometimes it means Arial is played by a black woman, because who the fuck cares, a black kid somewhere is going to love it and I'm way more invested in making a black kid happy or be inspired to grow up and become some kind of performing artist.

Stories and characters are there to be interpreted and remolded by humans. The arts are art, not math or science or some unchanging law of the universe or what the fuck ever.

There's also no such thing as 'freedom of the writer', especially not in a commercial setting. Torishima and Kondou Yuu were always pushing Toriyama to do the shit they wanted, none of it just so happened to be good shit like "Blooma isn't sexually assaulted again and has a marked contribution to the plot beyond nearly getting raped by two Red Ribbon Army soldiers" or shit like that.

As a writer myself I'm well aware that the things that we writers create can have a negative influence on an audience. I grew up seeing film, television, video games and books that influenced me and people like me to have negative views of themselves, and I am empathetic enough as a grown woman now to know that it actually sucks to get drawn into something you love, and then unceremoniously get smacked in the fucking face with something that says "You're a freak" or "You can only be this or that." It fucking sucks, and I would expect any adult capable of socializing with other adults to understand that and to think about the sort of art that they create and promote.

I also don't see why people of different sexual orientation for instance would be offended by the lack of it in a series, when it isn't ignoring their existence, choosing what to depict is totally at the creators discretion and as long as they don't demean any group in specific, freedom of casting and writing character they better seen fit is what should be encouraged because we want a coherent story,not a story that is done solely for people feeling well represented when those corporations (funny coming from ppl who bash capitalism) profits over it and think inclusion is a way to appease ppl and go with the tide when they're as capitalists as they come. Funny how insults are allowed as long as one side does it.

Sir, we are literally marginalized in our daily lives for being anything other than cisgender and heterosexual. As a trans woman my existence is literally being debated in legislatures across my country right now. There are entire large swathes of the nation that I cannot visit without being either hatecrimed or arrested for taking a shit in the women's restroom.

Hell, as a bisexual woman I'm out of place among all monosexuals (heterosexual and homosexual), and have to rely on monosexual allies who have educated to feel comfortable even discussing the sort of issues that I face both internally and externally.

You say that you don't "see why people of different sexual orientations would be offended by the lack of our existence in a series" and I'm just a little stumped as to why you think being normalized in our pop culture isn't important to us. For one, pop culture art is going to depict us one way or the other, but even if it didn't, not depicting a part of life in the real world is insanity. Women like me have been portrayed in media for decades, and it's only in just the last few years that our existence wasn't used to call us freaks, serial killers, rapists, or men-in-dresses. It's only within the last eight years that we've started being more than "Dead Prostitude #3" in American television.

Hell, even Japanese animation is still very slowly catching up. Queer, non-binary and trans characters have only recently been receiving sympathetic portrayals in more modern anime (Oshiai no Sora, Zombie Land Saga, I'm In Love With the Villainess). These are anime aimed at adults, too. PreCure has been slowly and stealthily fighting the fight for queer representation for decades at this point, too.

Art—even commercial art—is made for an audience. It's made to tell an audience something. Furthermore, these works of art are not made by some singular writer. Even Dragon Ball as a comic was created by a team of people, both through the production of the comic itself, its editing, and it's publishing. The idea that proper diverse representation would somehow be violating some sacred part of the process of creating art is ludicrous. Toriyama isn't scribbling shit on a napkin that you're reading, he's creating stories and comics through a large-scale publishing firm intent first-and-foremost on making money. It just so happens that JUMP and Shueisha are run by a bunch of rich guys who buy into weird shit about what is and isn't appropriate for their comic aimed at kids.

That's something I can't say for most of the current generation's attempts at female inclusivity because almost all the diversity-conscious movies suck and make the concept of female and POC representation look worse than it has to. Just look at Terminator: Dark Fate. Shitty movie, and it failed to make the new female protagonist anything close to a good replacement for John Connor; consequently the movie bombed in theaters.

If it was done well, there wouldn't be such widespread criticism of it. And it's not like the current generation is the first one to try and be racially diverse. I just think the way they do it sucks.

Current generation? The same old white men are the same people that have been greenlighting and making films for a century. That they might be hiring more diverse actors to perform in their films isn't on those actors or that diversity—it's on the fact that capitalism's desire to create profit for those old white men greenlighting these films are made-by-committee. You're absolutely not talking about indie films made on a shroestring budget and outside of the typical studio system.

Also, replacing John Connor? When the hell was John ever the actual protagonist of the two films everyone thinks is good (the first two)? Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor is the star of those films. She's the hero. Even with how the second film capitalizes on the popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't negate that what audiences are emotionally invested in is Hamilton's arc and performance.

Again: criticizing the diversity isn't going to get you better films. You're focusing on the completely wrong issue to throw diverse actors and the audiences that they inspire under the bus.


***

I try to make a habit of getting away from a lot of mainstream fictional media these days—mostly because I'm looking for shit that's actually emotionally true and relatable and Hollywood productions are really getting away from that in this the past twenty years to chase after action blockbuster money—and I've found that indie productions are definitely kicking ass right now. Monica (2022) is really good, and it's a film entirely about how diversity is ostracized and becomes the center of actual relatable family drama.

[FireFly]

That's something I can't say for most of the current generation's attempts at female inclusivity because almost all the diversity-conscious movies suck and make the concept of female and POC representation look worse than it has to. Just look at Terminator: Dark Fate. Shitty movie, and it failed to make the new female protagonist anything close to a good replacement for John Connor; consequently the movie bombed in theaters.

If it was done well, there wouldn't be such widespread criticism of it. And it's not like the current generation is the first one to try and be racially diverse. I just think the way they do it sucks.

Current generation? The same old white men are the same people that have been greenlighting and making films for a century. That they might be hiring more diverse actors to perform in their films isn't on those actors or that diversity—it's on the fact that capitalism's desire to create profit for those old white men greenlighting these films are made-by-committee. You're absolutely not talking about indie films made on a shroestring budget and outside of the typical studio system.

Also, replacing John Connor? When the hell was John ever the actual protagonist of the two films everyone thinks is good (the first two)? Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor is the star of those films. She's the hero. Even with how the second film capitalizes on the popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't negate that what audiences are emotionally invested in is Hamilton's arc and performance.

John Connor is the hope and central figure of the franchise, as is freely admitted by Linda Hamilton. In Terminator 1 all Kyle Reese did was ultimately fulfill his mission of protecting Sarah Connor and ensuring his birth, and protecting him was the mission of the most popular T-800 rendition, and he continued to reprise protagonist roles in the third and fourth movies, neither of which Linda Hamilton liked, yet she freely admitted killing John would cause far more unrest than her own character's death in the third film ever would. Furthermore, Dani Ramos did completely replace John Connor, the film even touches upon the fact that she wasn't destined to carry the womb for humanity's hero but was that herself. And it fell flat because they tried to cram two movies' worth of character arcs into one (rushed) flick just for female empowerment of the most squalid variety.

If all of that was handled tastefully akin to the second movie, I'd be the last person to complain about it. Female empowerment when done well a la Winona's character in Aliens is a must-stay. Dani Ramos... was just token Hispanic, nothing going for her.

Again: criticizing the diversity isn't going to get you better films. You're focusing on the completely wrong issue to throw diverse actors and the audiences that they inspire under the bus.

No, I just think black and female-washing is ultimately just as stupid as whitewashing was, and it's very rare that Hollywood movies do it justice enough to actually... you know, justify the change. If it was actually done well I wouldn't be here arguing with you, I'd do much more productive things.

[AliTheZombie13]

Nobody cares about "forced diversity", we care about "outright offensive and disgusting diversity."
Dragon Ball does have a gay character... and he's a pedophile.
Dragon Ball does have women... and most exist to be wives and walking sex jokes. Some of them are literally 9 year olds.
Dragon Ball does have black characters... that are literally racist caricatures.

To play devil's advocate, I do like some of these characters because offensive aspects aside, they are good characters. But if somebody tells you that Dragon Ball is homophobic/racist, rightfully pointing to characters like General Blue, Black, Mr. Popo, etc. There is no argument against it.

And by the way, I get it. This was all in the past. But it absolutely deserves to be pointed out and criticized.

[FireFly]

Tbf Blue wasn't a pedophile in the original work, just a generic bad guy. The anime adaptation was what added the pedophilic aspects to his character.

[Mireya]

I see that the essence of characters aren't represented by their skin colour... But since we are citing DN, with L's representation, if they meant to be representative for black people, why not make the actual essence of the character faithful? Why make a story that appears nothing to the original one that most fans who have watched the anime deem as trash? So they cared about representation by ethnicity but not the quality of the material in respect to its faithfulness to the original story?

[Kunzait_83]

Force diversity is meant to imply putting people for the sake of representation rather than having the author choose who he wants to put in their story without being scrutinized for not depicting certain gender or ethnicities in a proportional way... Specially in a Japanese manga, revolved around fight and violence. So long as the author isn't disrespectful towards certain ethnicity they depict, they should have the freedom to choose the profile they think best suit certain character and make an entertaining story. Pleasing people taking the liberty of choosing the profile of the character demanding diversity in many fronts is not what I seek from a story, I seek an enjoyable and entertaining one.

Name a specific real life instance where an artist was forced, against their will, to include minorities in a role they weren't intended for. If you can name at least one, then try and name at least a few others.

No seriously: give me specific titles, actors, creators, etc. where this has actually, verifiably happened.

Bonus: how often, on average, has this actually happened in real life? Either in just the last few years, or ever in totality? Has it happened enough times where it has become an actual widespread problem that's unfairly denied a non-minority, or many non-minorities, some kind of important opportunity?

What sort of actual, tangible problems have been caused? Be specific, avoid vague generalities.

Now, as I've seen other responses from you, you sound like an emotional individual who acts edge with insults, which shows how insecure you're .

Who specifically did I insult here? Name names. Did I insult you personally? If so, then please tell me where I did so.

I really don't know why all those shitty attitude and arrogance mixed with pretentious that's comes from you is constantly overlooked here, when you act like a smartass in a comfort place where there's a screen protecting you. Drop this attitude as it just makes you look childish and insecure, please. You can make your points without sounding like an ass every time.

I'm sorry, do we know each other? Have we had any kind of interaction on here before, or elsewhere? You're talking to me like we know one another or like you know me somehow or have some kind of prior relationship with me. Did I do something to you at some point that's wronged you or caused you harm in some way? If so, is it something that can be talked over and worked out?

To the best of my own knowledge, I literally have no idea who you are and don't know you from Adam.

In either case, I don't post here very often. I've barely been a presence here at all for much of the past couple years now. You can probably count on one hand (maybe two, with fingers left over) the amount of times I've been on here in the last two or three years at least. So its kind of weird to call this a "comfort" place for me.

Literally the only thing I said in my earlier post was agree with a point that MasenkoHa made, and added the reasons why I think a specific, commonly parroted argument are silly and stupid. Who exactly was harmed or insulted by that?

And given your response to that, which of us here is reacting emotionally?

The 'forced diversity' that people often complain about is just capitalists thinking that they can gain more money, rather than actually caring about women and minorities.

Also, this point seriously needs to be reiterated: major corporations - who control most major media franchises - only ever do what they think will make the most money and maximize their audience. Sometimes they succeed at this and sometimes they fail at this: but this is always the aim and goal in the end. They respond to what they see as a demand from the public.

If there's a greater number of minorities represented in media, what it usually means is that corporations see these minorities as customers to be catered to. The public is demanding more minority inclusion (in no small part because minorities ARE such a big part of the public), and corporations are responding in kind to what the public seems to want.

We're talking about money and commerce here ultimately.

Now mind you, I'm personally NOT a fan of art as commerce nor of corporate dominance of our media and art. I'd love nothing better than to see art democratized and done for the sake of love of the creativity for art itself and not solely to generate cash and revenue. I'd like to see diversity and inclusion in art and media done out of genuine care and love for all of our fellow humans and see that all their perspectives are heard and shared, and not as a cynical play for more money.

So make no mistake, none of this is a personal endorsement from me about what I just described above: its simply acknowledging the reality we're all dealing with here.

This is the world we live in and have ALWAYS lived in for generations: capitalism - the creation of revenue and wealth - is the reality of what governs our society and has done so for generations and generations now. And so long as corporate interests in generating maximum revenue for shareholders reigns supreme, that's going to continue to be the driving force behind what we see bandied about in our media.

And as it just so happens... minorities such as black and brown people, women, queer people, and so on are a large, large part of the populace... and are paying customers. They have money to spend, and these corporate entities that produce our media and art want their money as much as they do the money of cis hetero white men.

In essence, these corporate interests are in this case doing the right thing (giving fairer treatment to minority representation in media) for not-so-great reasons (because they just want more cash, not because they care about people or about bettering society).

Not sure how much more simply and plainly - not to mention politely and respectfully - I can communicate all this.

My question to all the proponents of the whole "forced diversity" narrative is simply this: why do YOU not seem to care what the broader public seems to want? Why does more public interest and demand to see more minorities represented in media bother you so much? What are you personally losing from it as a result? How is your life impacted or inconvenienced in ANY way from it whatsoever?

[Mireya]

Force diversity is meant to imply putting people for the sake of representation rather than having the author choose who he wants to put in their story without being scrutinized for not depicting certain gender or ethnicities in a proportional way... Specially in a Japanese manga, revolved around fight and violence. So long as the author isn't disrespectful towards certain ethnicity they depict, they should have the freedom to choose the profile they think best suit certain character and make an entertaining story. Pleasing people taking the liberty of choosing the profile of the character demanding diversity in many fronts is not what I seek from a story, I seek an enjoyable and entertaining one.

Name a specific real life instance where an artist was forced, against their will, to include minorities in a role they weren't intended for. If you can name at least one, then try and name at least a few others.

No seriously: give me specific titles, actors, creators, etc. where this has actually, verifiably happened.

Bonus: how often, on average, has this actually happened in real life? Either in just the last few years, or ever in totality? Has it happened enough times where it has become an actual widespread problem that's unfairly denied a non-minority, or many non-minorities, some kind of important opportunity?

What sort of actual, tangible problems have been caused? Be specific, avoid vague generalities.

Now, as I've seen other responses from you, you sound like an emotional individual who acts edge with insults, which shows how insecure you're .

Who specifically did I insult here? Name names. Did I insult you personally? If so, then please tell me where I did so.

I really don't know why all those shitty attitude and arrogance mixed with pretentious that's comes from you is constantly overlooked here, when you act like a smartass in a comfort place where there's a screen protecting you. Drop this attitude as it just makes you look childish and insecure, please. You can make your points without sounding like an ass every time.

I'm sorry, do we know each other? Have we had any kind of interaction on here before, or elsewhere? You're talking to me like we know one another or like you know me somehow or have some kind of prior relationship with me. Did I do something to you at some point that's wronged you or caused you harm in some way? If so, is it something that can be talked over and worked out?

To the best of my own knowledge, I literally have no idea who you are and don't know you from Adam.

In either case, I don't post here very often. I've barely been a presence here at all for much of the past couple years now. You can probably count on one hand (maybe two, with fingers left over) the amount of times I've been on here in the last two or three years at least. So its kind of weird to call this a "comfort" place for me.

Literally the only thing I said in my earlier post was agree with a point that MasenkoHa made, and added the reasons why I think a specific, commonly parroted argument are silly and stupid. Who exactly was harmed or insulted by that?

And given your response to that, which of us here is reacting emotionally?

The 'forced diversity' that people often complain about is just capitalists thinking that they can gain more money, rather than actually caring about women and minorities.

Also, this point seriously needs to be reiterated: major corporations - who control most major media franchises - only ever do what they think will make the most money and maximize their audience. Sometimes they succeed at this and sometimes they fail at this: but this is always the aim and goal in the end. They respond to what they see as a demand from the public.

If there's a greater number of minorities represented in media, what it usually means is that corporations see these minorities as customers to be catered to. The public is demanding more minority inclusion (in no small part because minorities ARE such a big part of the public), and corporations are responding in kind to what the public seems to want.

We're talking about money and commerce here ultimately.

Now mind you, I'm personally NOT a fan of art as commerce nor of corporate dominance of our media and art. I'd love nothing better than to see art democratized and done for the sake of love of the creativity for art itself and not solely to generate cash and revenue. I'd like to see diversity and inclusion in art and media done out of genuine care and love for all of our fellow humans and see that all their perspectives are heard and shared, and not as a cynical play for more money.

So make no mistake, none of this is a personal endorsement from me about what I just described above: its simply acknowledging the reality we're all dealing with here.

This is the world we live in and have ALWAYS lived in for generations: capitalism - the creation of revenue and wealth - is the reality of what governs our society and has done so for generations and generations now. And so long as corporate interests in generating maximum revenue for shareholders reigns supreme, that's going to continue to be the driving force behind what we see bandied about in our media.

And as it just so happens... minorities such as black and brown people, women, queer people, and so on are a large, large part of the populace... and are paying customers. They have money to spend, and these corporate entities that produce our media and art want their money as much as they do the money of cis hetero white men.

In essence, these corporate interests are in this case doing the right thing (giving fairer treatment to minority representation in media) for not-so-great reasons (because they just want more cash, not because they care about people or about bettering society).

Not sure how much more simply and plainly - not to mention politely and respectfully - I can communicate all this.

My question to all the proponents of the whole "forced diversity" narrative is simply this: why do YOU not seem to care what the broader public seems to want? Why does more public interest and demand to see more minorities represented in media bother you so much? What are you personally losing from it as a result? How is your life impacted or inconvenienced in ANY way from it whatsoever?

Names were already mentioned in this thread for specific cases.

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

You didn't insult me besides sounding like an usual ass in your last comment but I've read other threads here in the forum in which you have participated and to which your mo was calling names and sounding as arrogant and prepotent as it comes with long responses totally insulting the intelligence of the member as if you were talking to a "category 5 imbecile" who needed schooling and humiliation. That's an attitude that's disgusting and sadly overlooked done by you here whenever you feel the need to act high and mighty for how insecure you are. Insults are allowed so long as you disguise them well demeaning the other person on every front possible.

[MasenkoHA]

Names were already mentioned in this thread for specific cases.

Where?!? Someone mentioned The Little Mermaid and again the actress was chosen because the director liked her singing...in a movie where the character is supposed to sing good. That's not FORCED diversity

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

Apparently this needs to be reiterated to you a few thousand more times, nobody is DEMANDING Toriyama or Shueisha or Toei to put in more women and minorities. We're asking for those characters to not be treated like crap when they do appear.

[Mireya]

Names were already mentioned in this thread for specific cases.

Where?!? Someone mentioned The Little Mermaid and again the actress was chosen because the director liked her singing...in a movie where the character is supposed to sing good. That's not FORCED diversity

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

Apparently this needs to be reiterated to you a few thousand more times, nobody is DEMANDING Toriyama or Shueisha or Toei to put in more women and minorities. We're asking for those characters to not be treated like crap when they do appear.

Again, this need to be reiterated to you as you're incapable of following a thread's flow... That was what I took from the OP and it's first paragraph, which I later stated I was in agreement with the way women were misrepresented... And only brought this up again since the forced diversity point was brought up again, not by me. Get your facts straight before acting like you're in any way entitled to feel the need to enlighten or reiterate someone.

[LoganForkHands73]

The only true example of "forced diversity" I can think of is in regards to a relatively recent Doctor Who episode set in the 1800s where a group of British redcoat soldiers end up on Mars (long story), and among them was a black actor. Apparently, the writer Mark Gatiss objected to this as he didn't believe the British Army recruited black people and it affected the historical accuracy. Considering that the British Empire is otherwise accurately portrayed in an aggressive, colonising force, you can see his point - it doesn't look progressive from a "woke diversity" standpoint to have a black man in the uniform of the oppressing side, either. However, the casting conflict led to the writer researching and discovering that there were a few examples of black soldiers in the British Army and he came to appreciate that the history was more diverse than he believed, and ironically wished he had given the black soldier a much larger role in the script.

My only issue with media corporations' fixation on diversity for the sake of widening audience appeal and making more money is that it can make things predictable. You definitely start to notice patterns in terms of how "token" characters are largely portrayed in much more saintly, virtuous lights than white characters. But I've noticed that this has the opposite of the intended effect. Villains, sleazeballs and comic relief stooges tend to be the most popular characters in any given work because they're allowed to be flawed, entertaining personalities and may also get compelling character development. And chances are, those roles will still end up going to white actors, because corporations are terrified of portraying minority characters in realistically flawed ways. I was watching a supernatural drama series recently and I correctly predicted from a country mile away that the handsome blonde-haired white guy would be the asshole.

Let's talk about The Boondocks. Now, it would be stupid on its face to frame that series through the lens of diversity because the show and comic are obviously fundamentally about the black experience in America. Nevertheless, it gave us Uncle Ruckus: a fat, ugly, kowtowing, white-supremacist, Uncle Tom motherfucker who's hilariously ignorant that he is, in fact, 200% black. This character is horrible, but he's hilarious and memorable, and he's balanced against the completely opposing perspectives of the main protagonists Huey, Riley and Robert (plus Michael Caesar in the comic strips), who are also foils to each other. That, I feel, is the true diversity we need to aim for in more media going forward - making actual good, engaging characters that contrast each other in more ways than just their gender or skin colour. And if it does have to be about gender and skin colour, then actually make an effort to level with that, corporate cowards.

[NeoZ Duwang]

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

As an aspiring author myself, I agree. I mean, sometimes you don't even realize how your characters gear towards a specific group, I don't think there's a single important male character in the story I'm writing, and that wasn't by design, it just... happened. It's impossible every single group, particularly if you're just one person and not a company filled with different people... HOWEVER I never saw anybody asking for this, and it certainly isn't happening in this thread as far as I see it

An individual author not representing one group at all is understandable (but criticism is still valid, and there are many cases where it is needed), but the problem is not that he isn't putting women in his work, the problem is that he is, and he treats them like shit... and also because Toriyama is far from the only person involved with the series, but that's another conversation entirely

It's not that Dragon Ball needs a remake of all 520 chapters titled "Dragay Ball" where every single character is a woman and also queer though I'd love to read that, but rather, the series shouldn't treat women as baby factories that barely do anything other than what Toriyama sees as "being women"

Lastly, I wasn't sure where to put this part of the reply, so I'll leave it here: The argument of "Representation isn't important, a good story is!" is incredibly common, but also a shitty one, because once again, nobody is arguing against that. The point is not that a bad story can become good to me just because the main character is a trans woman, or that a cis protagonist can ruins a good story; nobody is asking for one thing to be favored over the other, and that's because it's really not that difficult to just... have a character who's is different than another character.

People always talk about the hypothetical character with no personality that is inserted in a story for representation points, but they never talk about the fact that... if they're a bad character, it's kind of the writer's fault? Like, I promise you that a different gender or ethnicit is not going to change a character's personality unless the author wants it like that, and at that point, I think that there's something more important to criticize than the simple inclusion of a minority

[JulieYBM]

The only true example of "forced diversity" I can think of is in regards to a relatively recent Doctor Who episode set in the 1800s where a group of British redcoat soldiers end up on Mars (long story), and among them was a black actor. Apparently, the writer Mark Gatiss objected to this as he didn't believe the British Army recruited black people and it affected the historical accuracy. Considering that the British Empire is otherwise accurately portrayed in an aggressive, colonising force, you can see his point - it doesn't look progressive from a "woke diversity" standpoint to have a black man in the uniform of the oppressing side, either. However, the casting conflict led to the writer researching and discovering that there were a few examples of black soldiers in the British Army and he came to appreciate that the history was more diverse than he believed, and ironically wished he had given the black soldier a much larger role in the script.

My only issue with media corporations' fixation on diversity for the sake of widening audience appeal and making more money is that it can make things predictable. You definitely start to notice patterns in terms of how "token" characters are largely portrayed in much more saintly, virtuous lights than white characters. But I've noticed that this has the opposite of the intended effect. Villains, sleazeballs and comic relief stooges tend to be the most popular characters in any given work because they're allowed to be flawed, entertaining personalities and may also get compelling character development. And chances are, those roles will still end up going to white actors, because corporations are terrified of portraying minority characters in realistically flawed ways. I was watching a supernatural drama series recently and I correctly predicted from a country mile away that the handsome blonde-haired white guy would be the asshole.

Let's talk about The Boondocks. Now, it would be stupid on its face to frame that series through the lens of diversity because the show and comic are obviously fundamentally about the black experience in America. Nevertheless, it gave us Uncle Ruckus: a fat, ugly, kowtowing, white-supremacist, Uncle Tom motherfucker who's hilariously ignorant that he is, in fact, 200% black. This character is horrible, but he's hilarious and memorable, and he's balanced against the completely opposing perspectives of the main protagonists Huey, Riley and Robert (plus Michael Caesar in the comic strips), who are also foils to each other. That, I feel, is the true diversity we need to aim for in more media going forward - making actual good, engaging characters that contrast each other in more ways than just their gender or skin colour. And if it does have to be about gender and skin colour, then actually make an effort to level with that, corporate cowards.

The problem isn't the diverse casting, though, it is yet again the corporation. You know how you get diverse characters who are complex? You hire us to make those characters complex. I sure as shit don't trust a cis (straight or queer) guy (lest he hire consultants or something) to tell a story about a trans fem character who just so happens to be an awful person, but I'd trust a trans woman to tell that story and do it both good and deliciously awful.

Also, there really aren't enough cishet white guys being the villains, so fuck that, make more of them (they suck) and actually tie that shit back into a real life example.

[Jord]

It really isn't surprising how a manga aimed at young boys has more of a focus on boys/men than women.
Besides, for every supposed "bad" example there are plenty of good written female characters like Bulma, 18, Caulifla, Suno and Uranai Baba. Sure, they aren't all fighters but they all have their own unique contributions to the storyline.

Just because people are mad at the path fictional characters walk, doesn't make these characters badly written.
Sometimes character traits are overexaggerated for comedic effect but that goes for both genders.

[MasenkoHA]

It really isn't surprising how a manga aimed at young boys has more of a focus on boys/men than women.
Besides, for every supposed "bad" example there are plenty of good written female characters like Bulma,

Who spends the majority of the first arc (the arc where she's most prominent) as the primary target for sexual harassment jokes even her evolution as the group techie is more incidental than by design. If Toriyama didn't need a reason for how she's able to find dragon balls so fast she probably would have been phased out after the first arc quicker than you can say Lunch

18, Caulifla, Suno and Uranai Baba. Sure, they aren't all fighters but they all have their own unique contributions to the storyline.

18 is like one step foward two steps back. Finally a badass female fighter (cool), she's ultimately just Krillin's prize for being a swell guy (sigh) but Toriyama hasn't forgotten she's a lot stronger than Krillin and gives her time to shine at the 25th Tenkaichi Budokai (cool) but he doesn't care that she's stronger she's still the wife and needs to take care of the child while he goes fighting the evil villain and his army she's better suited to go up against (sigh)

I like Bulma and 18 but wouldn't use them as examples of good written characters.

Suno is barely a character. She's nice, has a crush on Goku, and gives a coat to wear so he can survive the cold. The fact that you have to reach to use her is kind of making the larger point here.

And Baba uh she sure did exist for that one mini arc as an antagonist with some haha old lady jokes and then uh umm uhhh she ummm uhhhh

Just because people are mad at the path fictional characters walk, doesn't make characters badly written.

This isn't nearly as profound as you think it is

[Mireya]

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

As an aspiring author myself, I agree. I mean, sometimes you don't even realize how your characters gear towards a specific group, I don't think there's a single important male character in the story I'm writing, and that wasn't by design, it just... happened. It's impossible every single group, particularly if you're just one person and not a company filled with different people... HOWEVER I never saw anybody asking for this, and it certainly isn't happening in this thread as far as I see it

An individual author not representing one group at all is understandable (but criticism is still valid, and there are many cases where it is needed), but the problem is not that he isn't putting women in his work, the problem is that he is, and he treats them like shit... and also because Toriyama is far from the only person involved with the series, but that's another conversation entirely

It's not that Dragon Ball needs a remake of all 520 chapters titled "Dragay Ball" where every single character is a woman and also queer though I'd love to read that, but rather, the series shouldn't treat women as baby factories that barely do anything other than what Toriyama sees as "being women"

Lastly, I wasn't sure where to put this part of the reply, so I'll leave it here: The argument of "Representation isn't important, a good story is!" is incredibly common, but also a shitty one, because once again, nobody is arguing against that. The point is not that a bad story can become good to me just because the main character is a trans woman, or that a cis protagonist can ruins a good story; nobody is asking for one thing to be favored over the other, and that's because it's really not that difficult to just... have a character who's is different than another character.

People always talk about the hypothetical character with no personality that is inserted in a story for representation points, but they never talk about the fact that... if they're a bad character, it's kind of the writer's fault? Like, I promise you that a different gender or ethnicit is not going to change a character's personality unless the author wants it like that, and at that point, I think that there's something more important to criticize than the simple inclusion of a minority

But once again, I'm not saying that having diversity in the cast is bad and shouldn't be done... I'm saying it shouldn't be the priority. You may cast a worse actor based off their skin for the sake of representation... Can't you? It simply can. As it has happened many times when white characters were also chosen form the white color. I don't think there's an inherent bias for black people in theaters at all, I just think that the need to make it diverse may lead to inopportune situations like these. In a sexism ways, bad actresses have been chosen for roles despite lacking the acting talent for being hot... I'm just saying that the quality should be prioritized. Does it mean it cant have good quality with trans, black, women? No, never, I would never ever defend it otherwise I'd be a huge racist, sexist and would feel shame of being myself and crawl in a hole... I'm saying that making it a priority can lead very well to situations in which the ethnicity is chosen over the talent itself, which is why I think people should strive for it to be natural. And black actors, trans actors, should all have the same opportunity and same treatment from cis men actors, with prejudice from any side being condemnable, though I certainly understand moreso the angle of whoever shits on cis men as opposed to shitting on transgenders... Because transgenders had and still have a difficult position, bias against, had suffered immensely... So it's a different type of discontent because they carry different weights due to history, which can't be denied.

[JulieYBM]

But once again, I'm not saying that having diversity in the cast is bad and shouldn't be done... I'm saying it shouldn't be the priority.

It should absolutely be a priority.

You may cast a worse actor based off their skin for the sake of representation... Can't you?

This makes no sense, because a white actor isn't going to wind up being better than every actor who is a person of color.

As it has happened many times when white characters were also chosen form the white color. I don't think there's an inherent bias for black people in theaters at all, I just think that the need to make it diverse may lead to inopportune situations like these.

White people don't need to be defended here at all.

In a sexism ways, bad actresses have been chosen for roles despite lacking the acting talent for being hot... I'm just saying that the quality should be prioritized.

The answer isn't the replace that actor with a man, it's to either get a better performance from that actress or to hire a better actress.

Does it mean it cant have good quality with trans, black, women? No, never, I would never ever defend it otherwise I'd be a huge racist, sexist and would feel shame of being myself and crawl in a hole... I'm saying that making it a priority can lead very well to situations in which the ethnicity is chosen over the talent itself, which is why I think people should strive for it to be natural.

You're talking about hypotheticals that don't exist when you could be hiring a trans person of color for a cool role in a film. Or making a female character in a Dragon Ball anime have real depth and a character arc that sees them rise, fall, and rise again.

[Kunzait_83]

Names were already mentioned in this thread for specific cases.

No, they actually weren't. Look again in this thread, nobody cited anything specific that fits this.

LoganForkHands named one single example (that doesn't really count anyway, cause the writer in question ended up finding out that the diversity in question actually WAS historically accurate and came to appreciate learning about it and gave it his blessing), and that was after my last post.

I ask again: name some concrete examples (other than the one that Logan mentioned) of "diversity being unwantedly forced onto a writer/artist/creator against their will".

How many specific examples can you name, and is it widespread enough to be seen as an actual problem that is negatively impacting anyone?

I don't see how this isn't a perfectly fair and valid question, given that this is the same exact point that keeps coming up continually in these kinds of threads. If "forced diversity" is such a serious, widespread problem in today's media, then it shouldn't be ANY trouble whatsoever to name some concrete, specific examples of it, no?

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

The problem is, as has been stated already: no one is actually doing this to any authors. Barring you being able to cite some specific, concrete, verifiable examples, you're speaking out against a non-existent problem.

Diversity is a thing that has grown more prominent in media, but just about none of it is or has been "forced" on any creators. Companies and creators are embracing it willingly, because they want more money and a bigger audience from more groups of people. And the broader public wants it because... the broader public, believe it or not, is pretty diverse itself actually.

If this is such a serious, concerning problem that's being forcibly thrust onto so many authors, then surely you'll have no problems whatsoever naming off a whole bunch of examples of it.

And yet time and time again, most of the people who raise this issue tend to either A) speak in incredibly vague generalities (as you're doing right now) or B) they name examples that upon closer inspection were NOT "forced" and were done willingly and freely by the company/creators of the work in question.

So again, I'm asking you to do a very simple and fair thing: name some specific examples of creators being unwantedly forced into including minority characters into works where they did not want them. This should not be difficult to do whatsoever if you genuinely believe that this is a real problem that's worth speaking about.

You didn't insult me besides sounding like an usual ass in your last comment but I've read other threads here in the forum in which you have participated and to which your mo was calling names and sounding as arrogant and prepotent as it comes with long responses totally insulting the intelligence of the member as if you were talking to a "category 5 imbecile" who needed schooling and humiliation. That's an attitude that's disgusting and sadly overlooked done by you here whenever you feel the need to act high and mighty for how insecure you are. Insults are allowed so long as you disguise them well demeaning the other person on every front possible.

I had to do a word search to figure out what the hell it was you were even referencing here... and its apparently from a post I made from almost four years ago.

Setting aside how relatively creepy and parasocial it is that you're hunting around for and dredging up years old posts (from threads and discussions that you weren't even involved in) for complete random nobodies like myself and holding personal grudges over them: that specific post in question was with regards to the whole absurd Vic Mignogna incident, and the person that that insult was aimed at was a guy who was literally doing apologetics for serial sexual assault/harassment.

I don't ever do personal insults here, unless things cross over into important real world issues and the person in question steps over a line: which during the whole Vic Mignogna thing, a LOT of people were stepping over horrific real life red lines left and right, making apologetics for gross sexually predatory behavior simply because they had childhood warm and fuzzies for the guy's voice acting roles.

I won't ever make apologies for personally insulting anyone who tries to play defense for sexual predators: particularly for such idiotic, infantile, and asinine reasons as "I liked his voices".

Most of the time though, this forum is about a 40 year old children's martial arts comic/cartoon: so insults aren't usually warranted or appropriate, and I've no reason to even think about using them over something so trivial and silly.

So unless you want to turn this into a defense of your own for people who try to cover for the real world actions of older men who sexually harass women (and underage girls) at anime conventions... you have literally no reason whatsoever to be upset with me or my behavior here. I don't know you from a hole in the wall, and you don't know a damned thing about me either.

We're perfect strangers, and so far your big beef with me that you've gone out of your way to raise here is that you don't like how I was overly rude and insulting to some random guy on here (again, from roughly 4 years ago) who thought that a 50+ year old man should get a free pass to sexually proposition and grope the bodies of young teenage girls at anime cons simply because he likes the guy's voice acting.

This... this is not the kind of fight you want to be starting: especially out of the clear blue, in a completely unrelated thread, and for no reason whatsoever.

Or hell for all I or anyone else knows, its entirely possible that you're the same guy from that 4 year old thread back again here under a new screen name and still holding a grudge. Which... would be pretty sad if that were the case, so I hope its not.

[LoganForkHands73]

The problem isn't the diverse casting, though, it is yet again the corporation. You know how you get diverse characters who are complex? You hire us to make those characters complex. I sure as shit don't trust a cis (straight or queer) guy (lest he hire consultants or something) to tell a story about a trans fem character who just so happens to be an awful person, but I'd trust a trans woman to tell that story and do it both good and deliciously awful.

Well yeah, that's my point. And agreed on the second point.

Also, there really aren't enough cishet white guys being the villains, so fuck that, make more of them (they suck) and actually tie that shit back into a real life example.

We seem to play those parts very well, so I'm sure the smarmy white villain roles will keep coming thick and fast.

[Mireya]

Names were already mentioned in this thread for specific cases.

No, they actually weren't. Look again in this thread, nobody cited anything specific that fits this.

LoganForkHands named one single example (that doesn't really count anyway, cause the writer in question ended up finding out that the diversity in question actually WAS historically accurate and came to appreciate learning about it and gave it his blessing), and that was after my last post.

I ask again: name some concrete examples (other than the one that Logan mentioned) of "diversity being unwantedly forced onto a writer/artist/creator against their will".

How many specific examples can you name, and is it widespread enough to be seen as an actual problem that is negatively impacting anyone?

I don't see how this isn't a perfectly fair and valid question, given that this is the same exact point that keeps coming up continually in these kinds of threads. If "forced diversity" is such a serious, widespread problem in today's media, then it shouldn't be ANY trouble whatsoever to name some concrete, specific examples of it, no?

My point is an overreaching one that an author doesn't need or feel as it's his obligation to put in ethnicities and different cultures and beliefs when it's his work form the sake of making a story in which people in general feel represented, he needs to put effort in doing a coherent story that is entertaining and has values no matter the representative, soecially where the story takes place, the time it depicts, etc.

The problem is, as has been stated already: no one is actually doing this to any authors. Barring you being able to cite some specific, concrete, verifiable examples, you're speaking out against a non-existent problem.

Diversity is a thing that has grown more prominent in media, but just about none of it is or has been "forced" on any creators. Companies and creators are embracing it willingly, because they want more money and a bigger audience from more groups of people. And the broader public wants it because... the broader public, believe it or not, is pretty diverse itself actually.

If this is such a serious, concerning problem that's being forcibly thrust onto so many authors, then surely you'll have no problems whatsoever naming off a whole bunch of examples of it.

And yet time and time again, most of the people who raise this issue tend to either A) speak in incredibly vague generalities (as you're doing right now) or B) they name examples that upon closer inspection were NOT "forced" and were done willingly and freely by the company/creators of the work in question.

So again, I'm asking you to do a very simple and fair thing: name some specific examples of creators being unwantedly forced into including minority characters into works where they did not want them. This should not be difficult to do whatsoever if you genuinely believe that this is a real problem that's worth speaking about.

You didn't insult me besides sounding like an usual ass in your last comment but I've read other threads here in the forum in which you have participated and to which your mo was calling names and sounding as arrogant and prepotent as it comes with long responses totally insulting the intelligence of the member as if you were talking to a "category 5 imbecile" who needed schooling and humiliation. That's an attitude that's disgusting and sadly overlooked done by you here whenever you feel the need to act high and mighty for how insecure you are. Insults are allowed so long as you disguise them well demeaning the other person on every front possible.

I had to do a word search to figure out what the hell it was you were even referencing here... and its apparently from a post I made from almost four years ago.

Setting aside how relatively creepy and parasocial it is that you're hunting around for and dredging up years old posts (from threads and discussions that you weren't even involved in) for complete random nobodies like myself and holding personal grudges over them: that specific post in question was with regards to the whole absurd Vic Mignogna incident, and the person that that insult was aimed at was a guy who was literally doing apologetics for serial sexual assault/harassment.

I don't ever do personal insults here, unless things cross over into important real world issues and the person in question steps over a line: which during the whole Vic Mignogna thing, a LOT of people were stepping over horrific real life red lines left and right, making apologetics for gross sexually predatory behavior simply because they had childhood warm and fuzzies for the guy's voice acting roles.

I won't ever make apologies for personally insulting anyone who tries to play defense for sexual predators: particularly for such idiotic, infantile, and asinine reasons as "I liked his voices".

Most of the time though, this forum is about a 40 year old children's martial arts comic/cartoon: so insults aren't usually warranted or appropriate, and I've no reason to even think about using them over something so trivial and silly.

So unless you want to turn this into a defense of your own for people who try to cover for the real world actions of older men who sexually harass women (and underage girls) at anime conventions... you have literally no reason whatsoever to be upset with me or my behavior here. I don't know you from a hole in the wall, and you don't know a damned thing about me either.

We're perfect strangers, and so far your big beef with me that you've gone out of your way to raise here is that you don't like how I was overly rude and insulting to some random guy on here (again, from roughly 4 years ago) who thought that a 50+ year old man should get a free pass to sexually proposition and grope the bodies of young teenage girls at anime cons simply because he likes the guy's voice acting.

This... this is not the kind of fight you want to be starting: especially out of the clear blue, in a completely unrelated thread, and for no reason whatsoever.

Or hell for all I or anyone else knows, its entirely possible that you're the same guy from that 4 year old thread back again here under a new screen name and still holding a grudge. Which... would be pretty sad if that were the case, so I hope its not.

Not saying there's an specific agenda here, I talked specifically about people who go out the way and demand the author to represent such and such people, as if it were their obligations. It's not. And as admitted already, I got the title read and the first paragraph read only, which I'd advise you to read again to avoid misconceptions about what I was saying.

And as for example, here's one that comes to mind, even tho I don't see it as a prevalent thing you ever so eloquently frame me as:

Back when Harold and Kumar was first being written they were encouraged to make it about a white guy and a black guy instead of a Korean guy and an Indian guy. And that's a show that's over a decade old. And that was the first instance of two popular Asian guys being the leader.

It just pisses me off because people like you will have an intolerant attitude with eloquent way of saying things that frames people as monsters when you're the sicked individual searching for some member to make a fool of, not give them the time to answer since they're banned and come away with humiliating them knowing your yourself is immune to act like an ass constantly because of the position you follow. You aren't a member of value, you're here to frame ppl as monsters with overly exaggerated typing way, to vent whatever insecurity you may have or sadness you hold onto, the trait of a weak human being. Grudges aren't hold, though things aren't forgotten easily when the same individual comes at the same person showing again a shitty attitude that's always conveniently glossed over. You may really feel proud of yourself when you have those wins. How pathetic.

[Mireya]

To complement --- as Mireya, I've always only posted about DB here and contributed as much as I can. The first maybe controversial topic I join to be labeled as an idiot, for this is what people like you are good for, humiliation. I've dedicated part of my life for serious DB discussion while always being a good and respectful human being.