The Minority Report! Diversity In The MU.

[Kieran_Frost]

This is exactly the sort of thing that is UNhelpful in this discussion.

Everyone pulls out character lists and calculators and starts computing "we have [a] number of [b] type characters vs [c] number of [d] type characters".

Down that road lives "tokenism". "We need an Asian lesbian on the X-Men to make the 'diversity' ratios come out right."

As far as I'm aware the chart just shows the level of diversity in the comics; which is VERY helpful in this discussion; because it helps to highlight areas that are lacking. It's not about quotas or tokenism, merely pointing out "disparages." I don't think anyone believes the numbers should align perfectly, but it's interesting to see how large a disparagement is between real life and (say) female characters in Marvel (nearly 20%, that's huge). Same with latino, with LGBT. The chart is very interesting.

[Double 0]

I'm fine with people abandoning "from out of many, one", especially since for the vast majority of history, that's been an excuse for "many, under one".

[Kieran_Frost]

Tacking on "diversity" issues also has a tendency to turn books "preachy". One of the early issues of the new Ms Marvel, for example, went out of it's way to make a point of having the better part of a page devoted to a story point about the character not being able to find halal(sp?) foods at a lunch counter. Or how some alt lifestyle characters can't seem to go two issues w/o reminding the readers of their status.

Having a diverse cast isn't the same thing as talking about diversity. Young Avengers showcased Wiccan/Hulkling as the main romance, but treated it just as every other major romance in Marvel (i.e. the fact they were gay didn't come into it).

[ShadowDemon]

I disagree -- studies like this are exactly why I created...

*cut for space*

It all depends on your perspective -- where you may see it as a "quota", I see it as information that I can use as I see fit.

Firstly, I will state for the record that I have not read any of your work that I am aware of, and therefore know about it what you yourself said.

I'm not trying to pick an argument here, but asking to see if I understand you correctly: You deliberately designed your "universe" of characters with the idea of pushing forwards as many "diverse" characters as possible? That their "diversity" attributes (ethnicity, lifestyle choice, etc) were the primary focus of your creative thought, rather than their personality or story value?

As you describe it, it sounds like you've simply inverted the allegedly "insufficiently diverse" ratios of the Big Two, only placing "standard" characters in the minority position. Would someone not then be able to argue that your universe is "not diverse" and needs more WASP males to "better represent" and attract a WASP male audience?

Again, not taking a "dig", but asking for clarification.

Matt Wayne bought this up after McDuffie died (whose first and only solo monthly writing comic came 3 years before he died called Justice League and we all now how that ended). Everyone has no issue with the white guy getting chance after chance after chance when he fails. Yet we got an issue when it's a POC (mainly black males) or some women.

McDuffie had a good career on the media side, being involved in many highly successful and high-profile projects like the DCAU.

How many folks tuned out the previous New Warriors series because of the black writer (who gave us some movie series called Under World)?

I tuned it out (after trying it out because I am a Warriors fan) because I found it dull and uninteresting. I had no idea of(nor would I have cared about) the ethnicity of the writer.

Would Mighty Avengers still be around under a black writer?

If it was written to a sufficient quality to attract an audience, yes.

And that is the fear that I have. Marvel won't go look for the best but for whoever can toss out the most stereotypical troupe for attention and be the fall guy when it fails.

I don't want someone aiming for the lowest common denominator for a short term sales boost. I don't need a Storm book to be Diary of a Mad Black Mutant or Scandal.

Valid points.

[ShadowDemon]

But I think you're kinda missing my point: Why is there an assumption that this is more likely to happen when minorities are involved? There are tons of books by white writers, starring white characters, that are weak, derivative, lowest-common-denominator trash. And yet if an Iceman solo were announced, there wouldn't be any fears about whether it would be a knock-off of something. People would wonder if Iceman can hold a solo (Spoiler! He can't), whether it'll be any good, all that normal stuff. But the common concerns raised every single time a book comes out that focuses on women or persons of colour never come up for books about white dudes.

I see exactly that mentioned all the time in "why can't [character] have his own book?" discussions. Inevitably, someone makes the statement in one form or another that the concept doesn't "sell"/"be a knock off of"/etc.

The reason Affirmative Action exists is because white people are at an inherent advantage. We've held all the important positions for a long, long time. So when you're talking about, as an example, executive positions, well, white guys already make up the bulk of executives, so they've got experience, which makes them more qualified. So the positions keep going to white men. Add in to that the fact that a lot of jobs are based on who you know, and the people already in power mostly know other people like them, and so hire people like them - more white men. On top of that, since white men are the ones in power, they generally set the tone in a workplace, which is generally going to wind up being to the detriment of women and minorities. White guys will tell racist and misogynistic jokes, and when they complain, they get seen as not being "team players." Women get sexually harassed, and when they complain, it hurts their careers.

Straight white men have a huge advantage, simply by being born straight white men. It's an unfair advantage, especially the higher up you go. The only way to really combat that is to get more women and minorities in positions of power, which is generally going to mean giving them a higher priority in hiring practices. If you've got a woman who's only slightly less qualified than a man, go with her. If you've got a Latino who's only slightly less qualified than a white guy, go with the Latino.

Or, at the very least, when the qualifications are effectively equal, go with the person who's not a straight white guy.

Rather a prejudiced assumption, isn't it? That white males cannot act or make correct decisions because they are "privileged", and that the proper remedy is to force the hiring of women/latinos, etc who automatically WILL make those decisions properly because why? Because they aren't white/straight/men?

Having a diverse cast isn't the same thing as talking about diversity. Young Avengers showcased Wiccan/Hulkling as the main romance, but treated it just as every other major romance in Marvel (i.e. the fact they were gay didn't come into it).

Ok, I'll accept that as a counter-example (not a book I've read)

[Kieran_Frost]

Ok, I'll accept that as a counter-example (not a book I've read)

What books have you read? What's the most diverse Marvel comic you currently read?

[Tiamatty]

I understand the point you are attempting to make, but I disagree with your analysis.

Particularly when we are discussing a limited pool of positions (both for characters "in universe" and for creatives IRL). You ARE talking ultimately about quotas. It's inescapable. If you have (for example) 50 slots to fill (either for characters or creators), do you simply take your 50 best potentials or do you start saying "So-and-so isn't as good/popular as this other guy, but he/she is a [insert diversity group], so we need to take him to demonstrate we're 'diverse'..."

That's a quota, no matter how much people try to avoid calling it that.

I disagree with it being a quota. It's getting different perspectives. If you've got a dozen white guys who are great in similar ways, and a woman who's maybe not quite as good but is different, you go with the woman. It's also not to show diversity, it's to genuinely be diverse. Diversity is a good thing. It brings perspectives and attitudes that are different from what's normally seen.

And your argument still falls into the trap of assuming that it is necessary to have "diverse" characters/creatives in order to appeal to "diverse" audiences. If a particular character/creator is successful, who gives a rat's rear one way or the other?

It is in insult to a character like Captain America to say that Steve Rogers only appeals to white/hetro/etc audiences and that ethnic/alt orientation/etc audiences cannot find value in him.

Of course people who aren't straight white men can relate to Captain America. But at the same time, they can relate better to the Falcon. Or to the new Ms. Marvel. To characters who reflect their experiences. Everyone deserves to have characters who look like them.

This is endemic to modern group relations thought, unfortunately. We are abandoning "e pluribus unum" ("from out of many, one") for "De uno autem ex multis" ("from out of one, many") or "de multis" ("out of many, many"), sometimes popularly bastardized as "e pluribus pluribus".

[Apologizes if my Latin is a bit off, I used a translator except for "e pluribus unum", which I already knew".]

And what's wrong with that?

Tacking on "diversity" issues also has a tendency to turn books "preachy". One of the early issues of the new Ms Marvel, for example, went out of it's way to make a point of having the better part of a page devoted to a story point about the character not being able to find halal(sp?) foods at a lunch counter. Or how some alt lifestyle characters can't seem to go two issues w/o reminding the readers of their status.

Ok. Non-mainstream people sometimes find themselves having issues with the larger society. Point made. Can we get back to the story now?

This is, to me, an utterly ridiculous argument. The story of Ms. Marvel is Kamala Khan. The dorky Pakistani-American teenage girl, torn between the values of her parents and the values of the country she grew up in. The bacon ("delicious infidel meat") scene gets that across quickly and effectively. Her culture forbids pork, but the US damned near worships it. She's a Muslim and an American, and there are conflicts between those two worlds, and those conflicts are a part of her life and her very identity.

That is the story of Ms. Marvel. It's not about punching bad guys. If all you want out of a comic is good guys punching bad guys, then stick with Hickman's Avengers. Ms. Marvel is a character-driven story.

I also disagree with it being preachy. It's showing different worldviews.

Comics as polemics probably reached it's summit (or nadir depending on how you look at it) in Phase 1 of the Ultimate Universe, especially in The Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men. The writers never passed up an opportunity to showcase either American society or the American government as utterly evil, twisted, bigoted, corrupt, etc. The politics became the purpose, and it was a big reason why I dropped out of both books very early on.

Let me be clear (again): I am not saying that this must or will happen, but it has been my experience as a reader that it has a strong tendency towards happening, and I find it offputting.

The Ultimate Universe is different from the mainstream universe. Especially right now - the trend in Marvel's mainstream universe is actually towards fun. There are still some dark books, but there seems to be an increased focus on positivity. And it's worth noting that the comics most focused on pushing diversity are also, for the most part, the ones that are the most fun. Ms. Marvel, Mighty Avengers, Captain Marvel, even All-New Ghost Rider is a lot of fun, especially for a Ghost Rider title. The people involved don't want to do preachy and serious. They want readers to enjoy themselves, and for everyone to be able to see a bit of themselves in people who don't look like them, while also giving minority readers characters who do look like them.

Could some writer come along and do a really preachy book about a minority character? Sure. The same writer could do something just as preachy and self-serious with a non-minority character. I don't believe a character being a minority puts them at an increased risk of being used in some heavy-handed attempt at making a point.

And as Kieran asked, I would also be curious what you would consider to be good examples of how to handle diversity, both in terms of characters and creators.

[Alvarez]

I disagree with it being a quota. It's getting different perspectives. If you've got a dozen white guys who are great in similar ways, and a woman who's maybe not quite as good but is different, you go with the woman.

If I was hired because of something like this, I would be pissed the hell off.
It would make me feel like I'm valued for my ethnic background and not my actual skill.

I'm sorry but that would suck so damn much.
No one should be used as a tool to further diversity.
That's not the way to make things happen.

[Double 0]

If I was hired because of something like this, I would be pissed the hell off.
It would make me feel like I'm valued for my ethnic background and not my actual skill.

I'm sorry but that would suck so damn much.
No one should be used as a tool to further diversity.
That's not the way to make things happen.

Creating great, unique stories takes more than craft. Working in collaboration to create a product takes more than craft. Hell, work in general takes more than craft.

Craft isn't going to tell you how it feels to be a woman if you are man. Studying helps, empathy helps, and learning helps, but no matter what, it's incomplete.



As I said, if it took craft alone, editors would much rather train their friends than take anyone else. Marvel, DC, and the whole entertainment industry is learning that it takes more than that.

[7thangel]

one of the most important lessons to getting a job or getting into your career, is networking. who you know will get you there more reliably than your 'talent' or skill. this is especially true for the media/ent/music/art field.

biases and systemic isms in hiring and assessment shouldn't be downplayed or hand-waved away

[Tiamatty]

If I was hired because of something like this, I would be pissed the hell off.
It would make me feel like I'm valued for my ethnic background and not my actual skill.

I'm sorry but that would suck so damn much.
No one should be used as a tool to further diversity.
That's not the way to make things happen.

I just want to point out again that art is subjective, and that the creative side is only a part of the problem with a lack of diversity.

With the creative side, there's a lot of subjectivity. A lot of people hate Felipe Andrade's art, I like it. Given a choice between Andrade and Greg Land, I would choose Andrade every single time, even though some people would wrongly go with Greg land, despite Land being the biggest hack in the industry. Given a choice between Javier Pulido and Will Sliney, I would pick Pulido - Sliney's fairly good, but he's conventional, while Pulido's a bit more unique and offbeat. For writers, Kelly Sue DeConnick is one of my favourites, because she brings a very different perspective from a lot of other writers. She's talented, but she's also different. Compare her to James Robinson, who's also very talented, but isn't bringing anything particularly new or different to the table.

The subjectivity of art makes it nearly impossible to say who's better. What one can do, instead, is to see who's different. What artist brings a different style, what writer brings a different perspective. If your art looked a lot like a half-dozen other artists already working for Marvel, then yeah, you probably wouldn't really deserve a job there. If it looks like nothing else at Marvel, then you might deserve a shot.

But that's the lowest level of the company. There's also editorial, management and executive positions. And increasing diversity in those positions isn't just a moral right, it's also smart business. Different experiences will lead to different ways of thinking, and that leads to new ideas for how to do business. A woman is going to have a better understanding of how to bring in female readers than a man will. And these are the positions that are actually the most difficult for women and minorities to break into. Affirmative Action is necessary for those types of jobs, simply to offset the institutional biases.

[ShadowDemon]

What books have you read? What's the most diverse Marvel comic you currently read?

New Warriors (which is just about the ONLY one I'm reading now for a variety of reasons). But I try to at least keep up with story on many of the "biggies" as I can.

[Marvell2100]

This is exactly the sort of thing that is UNhelpful in this discussion.

Everyone pulls out character lists and calculators and starts computing "we have [a] number of [b] type characters vs [c] number of [d] type characters".

Down that road lives "tokenism". "We need an Asian lesbian on the X-Men to make the 'diversity' ratios come out right."

The objections to that approach are several:

First, exactly what numbers and ratios are going to satisfy the demand for "diversity"? Must the character roster match exactly to some census-derived proportion in the general population? How will creatives know that the appropriate thresholds have been reached?

Next, how is the diversity to be achieved? Will new characters be created and proffered for the target audience? Or will existing characters be forcibly retrofit along "diverse" lines? The latter seems to be the approach favored of late by the Big Two. That presents it's own set of issues.

Are fans of existing incarnations of key characters simply supposed to swallow without comment when the character in question is radically restructured to suit non-story purposes? And is the character in question succeeding because they are diverse, or because they are trading on the good-will and reputation of a "legacy" name? How can we tell the difference?

Lastly, leaving aside any other issue, I continue to maintain that it is in and of itself wrongheaded and unproductive to assume that characters MUST be of the same group as the desired "target audience".

I continue to ask the question: Does diversity require (for example) making Captain America an African-American lesbian in order for black and/or lesbian audiences to identify with and respond to the character? Are those audiences incapable of appreciating and being fans of Caucasian heterosexual Steve Rogers?

I feel these are fair questions to ask. They're certainly difficult questions to ask. But that's what happens when non-entertainment purposes (to wit: increasing "diversity") are grafted onto what are supposed to be entertainment properties, not social polemics.

For the record, I categorically state that I have no problems with "diverse" characters in and of themselves. I will read (or not read) such characters as I decide interest me (or do not do so).

Right now, one of my favorite "rookie" characters is Sun Girl. She certainly qualifies as a "diversity character", being both ethnic and female. Neither of those qualities are my deciding influences, however. I like her because I think her character is both well-written and interesting.

She represents, IMO, the right way to increase diversity in comic books.

The problem with this is that you're thinking in terms of quotas. "How many of this group should we have? Is this group represented?" Representations of various minorities based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender-change isn't about quotas. It's about reflecting the make-up of real world society in our comics. Whether or not you feel a connection to a character based on that criteria doesn't mean that someone else won't. And there is nothing wrong with that. If I were gay and I were drawn to the characters that were also gay, what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean that I don't like other characters who aren't gay.

I don't think anyone is advocating re-making Captain America into an "African-American lesbian" nor are they saying that is the way to attract African American lesbians to comics. But what if the next Captain America villain were LGTBS? It may or may not attract that demographic and it may not be the intent to do so. However, what it does show is that the world we live in is multicultural and diverse and we'd like the comics we read to reflect that.

Diversity is not about quotas, agendas or Swapping. It's about telling good stories using diverse and unique characters in all forms and fashions.

[Mr MajestiK]

The problem with this is that you're thinking in terms of quotas. "How many of this group should we have? Is this group represented?" Representations of various minorities based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender-change isn't about quotas. It's about reflecting the make-up of real world society in our comics. Whether or not you feel a connection to a character based on that criteria doesn't mean that someone else won't. And there is nothing wrong with that. If I were gay and I were drawn to the characters that were also gay, what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean that I don't like other characters who aren't gay.

I don't think anyone is advocating re-making Captain America into an "African-American lesbian" nor are they saying that is the way to attract African American lesbians to comics. But what if the next Captain America villain were LGTBS? It may or may not attract that demographic and it may not be the intent to do so. However, what it does show is that the world we live in is multicultural and diverse and we'd like the comics we read to reflect that.

Diversity is not about quotas, agendas or Swapping. It's about telling good stories using diverse and unique characters in all forms and fashions.

Your response is definitely in line with how I feel about the subject myself.

No on'e suggesting a quota system at all.

[ShadowDemon]

I disagree with it being a quota. It's getting different perspectives. If you've got a dozen white guys who are great in similar ways, and a woman who's maybe not quite as good but is different, you go with the woman. It's also not to show diversity, it's to genuinely be diverse. Diversity is a good thing. It brings perspectives and attitudes that are different from what's normally seen.

So you feel her different "perspective" (whatever that means) justifies picking her over a better creative whose group you feel is over-represented?

That sort of "group identity" based on an arbitrary characteristic like skin color, gender, etc. is destructive. That sort of balkanization inevitably leads to social breakdown and strife.

Especially when it's forced down people's throats from the top for arbitrary reasons.

Of course people who aren't straight white men can relate to Captain America. But at the same time, they can relate better to the Falcon. Or to the new Ms. Marvel. To characters who reflect their experiences. Everyone deserves to have characters who look like them.

More "group identity" thinking. Not to mention being based on false premises. There are plenty of characters of ALL "identities" to be found in comics/

The question that is plaguing the industry at the present time is whether or not scarce slots in production schedules should be deliberately promised to "diverseify" comics. Or even worse, existing characters should be deliberately altered in radical ways to satisfy "diversity" goals.

I object to all forms of "affirmative action" as a matter of moral principle.

And what's wrong with that?

See what I wrote above, and study the history of the Balkans (and "group identity" movements in general) and you'll have your answer.

This is, to me, an utterly ridiculous argument. The story of Ms. Marvel is Kamala Khan. The dorky Pakistani-American teenage girl, torn between the values of her parents and the values of the country she grew up in. The bacon ("delicious infidel meat") scene gets that across quickly and effectively. Her culture forbids pork, but the US damned near worships it. She's a Muslim and an American, and there are conflicts between those two worlds, and those conflicts are a part of her life and her very identity.

That is the story of Ms. Marvel. It's not about punching bad guys. If all you want out of a comic is good guys punching bad guys, then stick with Hickman's Avengers. Ms. Marvel is a character-driven story.

First, the story of Ms Marvel is the story of Carol Danvers, not Kamala Khan.

If Kamala Khan is such a compelling character, she should be easily able to forge an identity of her OWN under her own codename, not by co-opting Carol's.

I also disagree with it being preachy. It's showing different worldviews.

Are you old enough to remember the Ellen Degeneres Show? VERY funny sit-com. Or it was, until she "came out" and it became "all lesbian humor all the time". Viewers, regardless of their position on gays in general, got sick of hearing nothing but gay jokes and tuned out en masse, causing the show to be cancelled.

Same thing happened a couple of years ago with the Rawhide Kid in comics. Readers didn't want a book that went out of it's way to "show the flag" for homosexuality, and it failed. Which isn't to say that readers were necessarily "anti gay". Other gay characters (such as Northstar), with far less "preachy" approaches, quietly continued on about their business.

Could some writer come along and do a really preachy book about a minority character? Sure. The same writer could do something just as preachy and self-serious with a non-minority character. I don't believe a character being a minority puts them at an increased risk of being used in some heavy-handed attempt at making a point.

Believe what you want...the history of how things have turned out previously suggests your belief is incorrect.

And as Kieran asked, I would also be curious what you would consider to be good examples of how to handle diversity, both in terms of characters and creators.

.

Good Way: Sun Girl (currently in New Warriors). Create an interesting character who just happens to have some "diverse" traits. Put her out there and see if the readership responds.

Bad Way: "Black Fury". Samuel L Jackson notwithstanding, Black Nick Fury should never have come to the 616 universe. If people wanted to read about Black Nick Fury, they could read Ultimate titles.

In terms of creators, I really don't care. I want the best, most interesting creators with the best, most interesting characters, and as many of them as the market will support. If that means 100% of the creatives are white/hetro/males, so be it. If that means 90/10 (or whatever percentage) W/H/M to "others", so be it.

What I do not want, and will always speak out against, is the notion that an inferior talent gains a scarce assignment merely on the basis of their ethnicity or alleged "perspective".