To think society is too focused on equal representation?

[Confusedabouttheworld23]

Watching the news today, I saw how there is outrage over a lack of BAME winners at the BAFTAs. As an Indian heritage person myself, I fail to see how this is a huge problem from a few key reasons.

Firstly, , statistically the UK is predominantly a White country and therefore it is not statistically significant if one year there were no BAME winners. In fact a statistician tweeted that you need to look over a period of 5/6 years to see if there is systemic racism in the BAFTAs. In fact in 2021 or 2022, half of the winners were BAME, showing that you cannot read too much into such a small sample size.
As a subpoint, BAFTA voters are predominantly going to be White if this is representative of the UK Population. If it is true that people resonate with those who predominantly look like them, it is no surprise and not a huge issue that the majority of UK award winners are White. If one were to go to India for example, most if not all award winners would be of Indian heritage, this is completely fine and reflective of a country’s demographics,

Secondly, with so many other issues in the UK, I feel that a focus on equal representation is being totally blown out of proportion. We need to focus on just working hard, trying to better ourselves and get through the tough economic times we are experiencing at the moment.
A lack of diversity in acting seems almost trivial compared to other significant issues affecting the UK population - I am much more concerned about rising inflation, housing costs than the number of people who I feel represent me in film.

Thirdly, it is argued that we need to encourage more people from diverse backgrounds to go into film and other arts in the UK, and the main way to do this is to award and recognise BAME artists/actors. However, is it really a huge issue if those from BAME backgrounds go into other sectors of the economy. For example, Indian heritage people often go into STEM, finance etc, rather than the Arts which has resulted in them being one of the most economically successful groups in the UK. This is not a huge issue therefore, and hence there is not a need to push for increased diversity in the Arts to the extent that we are doing so today.
I just feel that everyone needs to just work hard and get through life, rather than focus on issues which in the grand scheme of things are not that significant.

Maybe it's focused on equality inclusion for people of colour but not for everybody. Disabled people are hardly ever represented in anything and nobody seems to give a shit

I didn't meant that to sound like I didn't agree with equality and inclusion I think it's fantastic we are moving towards a more inclusive society I just wish it were inclusive for all

It's a bit like all women shortlists. Great to promote more women into Parliament etc, but are all types of women represented. Or is it women of a certain background who are more likely to be represented.

And why just have all women shortlists? There are other under represented groups who maybe could benefit from a short list.

OTOH, if it's on merit, then there are groups who stand less chance of getting on such lists and having such opportunities because of barriers, lack of opportunity etc. Whilst some other people seem more likely to succeed.

Any award should be deserved because of performance alone. Not because of race, sex or any other category.

I don't agree with shoving anyone in for the sake of it, to complete a tick box exercise.

However, if some stellar performances have been over looked because of race or sex, then that's absolutely wrong and needs addressing.

If the major roles aren't going to minority groups, then that needs addressing. That's what needs to change.

If we don't focus on inclusion we end up with posh white men tickboxing and I can't think of a single field where that is a good thing. Let's focus on real ability instead because we're missing out.

We’ve gone too far in the direction of making it solely about whichever diverse group you fit into though rather than ability.

There should be equal opportunity for winning, but winning should be based purely on ability and nothing else.

We can take that further. Let’s look at employment for instance, if you have three candidates, one is black, one is white and one is disabled, and there is an expectation on your company to employ more people who are black and more who are disabled, should you pick those two candidates purely because they represent those groups even though the white person may be better able to do the job? Conversely, do people who are of ethnic minorities and who are disabled really want to win based on their background rather than their ability? I have a disability and I sure as hell don’t. I want to be given the same opportunities to be in the position, i.e. if I get to interview then I want to be on a level playing field, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be given a job because I have a disability rather than that I was the best candidate for the job.

And when this happens (and it des happen), you are going to end up with the opposite in that you are going to end up with people who felt they were capable/more capable but that they have been overlooked because they’re white. And that is no more fair than being overlooked because you’re black. People should win based on merit.

If there have only been white winners then we need to ask:

Was the vote really biased because of racism?

Or were the films containing white artists simply better hence why the white artists won?

As for albums, if Adele released ten albums and George Ezra released one, I would buy his one album and wouldn’t go anywhere near any of Adele’s. That has nothing to do wth the fact that she’s a woman, and everything to do with the fact that I don’t like her music. But should I buy one because it’s not fair that as a woman she gets less sales?

I used to go on the film reviews over a couple of sites, one being rotten tomatoes. We took a chance on some with low scores. I started to realise that those with female casts, who wasn't highly sexualised, got low reviews. Likewise all black cast films. I don't think that the reviewers would even watch if the cast had disabilities in. I agree that it isn't an issue if there are less winners, in line with the statistics of society, but some performances seem to get completely overlooked. I thought that this was going to be about adverts tbh, which massively over represents ethnic diversity, not that it matters.

Was the vote really biased because of racism?

Or were the films containing white artists simply better hence why the white artists won?

How can anyone seriously still be asking this faux-innocent question after so many decades of disproportionately white people winning?

In my hoop have we gone too far. That really grinds my gears.

We'll have gone too far when we've had 60 female PMs and 50 female POTUS. We'll have gone too far when the boards of the Footsie have been 85% female for 100 years. We'll have gone too far when there have been no white male BAFTA or BRIT winners for 50 years.

That's what going too far looks like. Inconceivable.

Yet, equal.

This is so true. And filmmakers keep making films for this demo because 'women don't watch films' - dudes, if you made something worth watching...

No, I think diversity is really important.

One thing the entertainment and media industry needs to focus on massively is class, though. It's hugely upper middle class.

Even if it was somehow true that the 'white films' were 'better', you are missing the point. Why are they better? Are non-white actors getting the same exposure and opportunity to star in the best movies (the answer is no).

The idea that things in life are handed out on merit, and that equal opportunity is the default in the Western world, is one of the biggest fairytales people choose to believe in.

25 awards
18% none white in uk - so expedition might be 5 of the award winners would be none white if everything was equal there is 1% chance that this happens

A 1 in 100 year event

I don't think I need to see it happen 5 times to suspect there may be an element of racism in there

Yes to merit
But not when racism is dressed up as merit , not when people feel a white person has more merit be cuss they feel more comfortable with them, less challenged ,

If you watched TV adverts in the UK you would think most families have a black/white Dad and black/white mum. Massive over representation.

This

The idea that things in life are handed out on merit, and that equal opportunity is the default in the Western world, is one of the biggest fairytales people choose to believe in

and this

"Imagine if thé olympics said ‘you know what guys, I don’t care how fast you are at the 100m, we actually want each race to participate equally in this final so we’re gonna have to bump a few of you.*

You couldn't have picked a worse example. 100m is purely on merit. The fastest runner wins. The winner is measurable. It's where you have awards where "best" is subjective, like best actor, that you run into problems with bias, and where race or sex or class or any other number of factors come into play.

And even the Olympics try to overcome this as there are a number of places given to athletes from developing countries who otherwise would not qualify due to lack of opportunity. Look at Eric the Eel as a famous example.

You may be right that adverts are showing more mixed families

Or you may notice just because it's unusual

We know racism occurs across all society and harms the chances of people - people lose out because a weaker white person is seen as better

Anyone who cares has a responsibility to try and eradicate that false perception- because it's fairer and because our society and culture would be stronger if it was based on merit

And one way to eradicate bias against is to try and promote those society is biased against , to normalise seeing underrepresented groups in all settings , to reward pointedly when they do well because they will have had to work harder to get there . So if you end up with a "merit" selection that doesn't represent our society you should be asking yourself some bloody hard questions - am I biased , did I miss opportunities to promote equality ( say a category where the judges were split )

And this is a… problem? Why?

@BeetleyCarapace why are you thinking it is? I don't. It's an observation

I grew up in a mostly white area and live in a majority white area, yet I can still think of several friends, family and acquaintances who are a mixed race family. This leads me to believe it is not that uncommon!

And how does it adversely affect you if you are white if mixed race families are over-represented anyway? In my view it reduces racist attitudes if this is seen as normal.

People mistake equal representation for equality. People should be treated equally, this does not mean that (in the example of race) there should be equal representation or even proportional representation in the case of award winners for instance.

If 90% of the population were white and 10% were people of colour (I believe POC is the correct term now, "BAME" is now considered offensive) then, assuming that all candidates or potential candidates for an award were of equal merit, any given award should have a 90% chance of going to a white candidate and 10% to a POC candidate.

That would be a fair representation. Of course it doesn't mean the split will be exactly 90/10 because each award would be an individual event.

You can easily test this for yourself by writing the numbers 1 to 10 on ten identical pieces of card or paper. Put them in a bag and jumble them up, then take out your "winner". If it's 1-9, it's "white" and if it's 10 it's "person of colour". Make a note of the winner, put the card back, shake the bag up and draw again. Over an infinite period of time the ratio will be 10% for each number but there will be long periods where ten doesn't come up at all, and other long periods where it comes out every time.

But who makes the decisions about who is signed? Who assigns the budgets for marketing music? Who runs the music industry and film industry? Oh yes, that'd be the white men. Award ceremonies won't change until a whole industry evolves. Oh and also 'merit' is subjective.

Mysoginy in the music business is all-pervading.
How many successful women in music can you think of who aren't completely beautiful?
Men can be munters and hugely successful, women not so much.
Plus all of the critics and music writers have historically been men, so women musicians are not as valued as men.
Find a list of the top 100 albums ever (voted by men) and it's almost all men. Kate Bush or Joni Mitchell might get a nod as an afterthought.
Kate Bush is a genius, but she's also uncommonly beautiful.

I was definitely disappointed not to see recognition for Viola Davies (Who gave the best performance of her life in Woman King); Lashana Lynch (fantastic in both Woman King and Matilda) Sheila Atim (although I believe she won Rising Star last year?) and especially Deadwyler whose performance in Till was heartbreaking.

it was boring to see Cate Blanchette win yet again.

Also, bear in mind that it is really the role that pushes the performer forward. If women of colour are denied those leading roles then they have less chance of winning the gongs.

finally the OPs point about less women making albums this year: Have you considered why that might be? At what point do you think discrimination begins?

The more I think about it the more angry I feel about engaging with someone so ignorant. As a pp said stay in your lane and please don’t come crying to us if your head crashes into a glass ceiling - just work harder at banging it against the glass.

I find the emphasis on ‘equality’ for people of foreign heritage here rather hard to stomach compared with the total lack of interest in equality of opportunity in terms of economics and also in terms of sex. Britain has gone backwards on both of these points.