Gay?
Are gay characters over-represented in Netflix films?
18,319 Views |
88 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Buzzy
I don't think it should be surprising to anyone that the Netflix owned properties are going to push a more leftist agenda. You are going to see disproportional numbers of non-white heteros in the stuff they produce. They have pretty much openly stated they are pretty far left on the spectrum when it comes to this kind of stuff.
The real concern should be the rise in crappy original content on Netflix.
ALF procreates asexually. Dummy
Shai-Hulud said:
ALF procreates asexually. Dummy
Then why is he always trying to hook up with the cat? /Tctts
They are aphrodisiacs to that speciesDuncan Idaho said:Shai-Hulud said:
ALF procreates asexually. Dummy
Then why is he always trying to hook up with the cat? /Tctts
third coast.. said:
You have overestimated how many LGBT people there are in America, but that is pretty standard.
Per Newsweek, "Americans have continuously overestimated the size of the gay population in recent yearsestimating 24.6 percent in 2011 and 23.2 percent in 2015. Only about 4.5% of Americans self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to an earlier Gallup study.
Per wiki, "A 2017 Gallup poll concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men."
If gay people are overrepresented in tv and movies,, Makes you wonder if people are overestimating because of the fact that most people are simpletons that think everything they see on the screen is real life or just because people are terrible with numbers.
Sidebar, I think interracial couples are vastly over represented on television, especially in commercials, but in not going to do any real research on the matter.
All true.
They are over-represented for 2 reasons.
1. Over representation in the hollywood community itself means more actors are LGBTQ than the rest of the population
2. over compensating through appeasement to the herd mentality - this is so they won't get labelled as homophobic or racist so they make sure they have representation - the more mixed the better in term of sexuality and race
Harry Lime said:
Real manly men like Rock Hudson would get to play big burly gay characters today if they wanted to, and probably encouraged by millennial doofuses who think it's edgy and cool.
Luke Evans has always been interesting to me because he is usually cast as a very masculine character and does it well in every role.
third coast.. said:
You have overestimated how many LGBT people there are in America, but that is pretty standard.
Per Newsweek, "Americans have continuously overestimated the size of the gay population in recent yearsestimating 24.6 percent in 2011 and 23.2 percent in 2015. Only about 4.5% of Americans self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to an earlier Gallup study.
Per wiki, "A 2017 Gallup poll concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men."
If gay people are overrepresented in tv and movies,, Makes you wonder if people are overestimating because of the fact that most people are simpletons that think everything they see on the screen is real life or just because people are terrible with numbers.
Sidebar, I think interracial couples are vastly over represented on television, especially in commercials, but in not going to do any real research on the matter.
Let's be honest there are probably a lot who wouldnt self report. I think it would be somewhere in the 5-7% range
Buzzy said:Six of one, half-dozen of the other.Gramercy Riffs said:Buzzy said:
Figure 10% of the population is gay, I noticed I was seeing it in a lot more than 1 in 10 movies,
If 10% of the population is gay, then your measuring stick is 1 in 10 characters, not 1 in 10 movies.
What? No. I cannot get past this statement. Respectfully, your response should have been "Good point. Thank you for helping me correct my mistake in my statistical analysis." Period. End of thread.
People are simpletons.
And if you go by percentage of the population, blacks are HIGHLY over represented in TV, movies, and everything else.
(No offense intended, just looking at numbers)
And if you go by percentage of the population, blacks are HIGHLY over represented in TV, movies, and everything else.
(No offense intended, just looking at numbers)
They should randomize gender and ethnicity for all characters in all media properties.
Gramercy Riff's "we ackshually" response was and is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is the question of whether or not gays are over-represented in shows on Netflix, or if it just appears that way due to a quirk in their ranking system.texasaggie04 said:Buzzy said:Six of one, half-dozen of the other.Gramercy Riffs said:Buzzy said:
Figure 10% of the population is gay, I noticed I was seeing it in a lot more than 1 in 10 movies,
If 10% of the population is gay, then your measuring stick is 1 in 10 characters, not 1 in 10 movies.
What? No. I cannot get past this statement. Respectfully, your response should have been "Good point. Thank you for helping me correct my mistake in my statistical analysis." Period. End of thread.
Could I have responded better than saying "same difference"? Yeah. Do I care enough to go back and correct it? No.
There has been some good discussion on this thread, including several people who have made salient points in answering the original post.
If you're someone who enjoys pointing out technicalities in order to 'win' a discussion online, sorry if this thread is stealing your joy.
If you "can't get past this statement", feel free to keep scrolling and go to another thread.
When confronted with basic math errors, don't accept it and admit that the entire premise of the thread was a mistake, instead blame the person who corrected the error.
I don't want to start a new thread for this so posting it here because it's kind of relevant. We were at B&N on Saturday and I couldn't help but notice the "New Fiction" section was almost entirely female authors with added feature that the books had female characters on the covers.
I did a quick eyeball test. 6-8 books on 6 rows so there were a total of 36-45 books. Almost every book was a female author and almost every book that had it's cover showing (~15 books) had a female on it. Just a blatant push to highlight one segment of society unless the sex mix of authors these days is 98% female to 2% male.
I did a quick eyeball test. 6-8 books on 6 rows so there were a total of 36-45 books. Almost every book was a female author and almost every book that had it's cover showing (~15 books) had a female on it. Just a blatant push to highlight one segment of society unless the sex mix of authors these days is 98% female to 2% male.
Assuming that the population is 50% male and 50% female, then ~15 books out of 36-45 featuring a woman on the cover seems a bit under represented for women. You may have also just been looking at a special female author shelf.
That would assume they ALL had a person on the cover. They probably didn't.Quad Dog said:
Assuming that the population is 50% male and 50% female, then ~15 books out of 36-45 featuring a woman on the cover seems a bit under represented for women. You may have also just been looking at a special female author shelf.
Good point. Maybe it was ~15 male, ~15 female, and ~6-15 no one on the cover.
No, it was the New Fiction section.Quad Dog said:
Assuming that the population is 50% male and 50% female, then ~15 books out of 36-45 featuring a woman on the cover seems a bit under represented for women. You may have also just been looking at a special female author shelf.
To be clear on the covers, every book that had it's cover displayed was a lone female character. Only one cover (that I recall) was not a female character.
An undeniable agenda with that. Basically equivalent to the Netflix/LinkedIn/Amazon Prime boot up banner when you log in: "Look at all of these black movies/shows/influencers you should be paying attention to".
If I go back soon I'll take a picture and post it.
It is Black History month.Quote:
Basically equivalent to the Netflix/LinkedIn/Amazon Prime boot up banner when you log in: "Look at all of these black movies/shows/influencers you should be paying attention to"
Could be it. Didn't think about that since it wasn't labeled as such. However, they neglected black male authors too if that's what it is.Quad Dog said:It is Black History month.Quote:
Basically equivalent to the Netflix/LinkedIn/Amazon Prime boot up banner when you log in: "Look at all of these black movies/shows/influencers you should be paying attention to"
Four Seasons Landscaping
Joined:
Nov 11, 2020
Posts:
2,020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just want to say I've seen a lot of dumb assery on the internet lately but your decision to double down on not understanding statistics ranks right at the top.
To be fair, most Conan books had a woman on the cover. Granted she were generally clinging desperately to Conan's leg while simultaneously falling out of her top, but she was still represented.YouBet said:
I don't want to start a new thread for this so posting it here because it's kind of relevant. We were at B&N on Saturday and I couldn't help but notice the "New Fiction" section was almost entirely female authors with added feature that the books had female characters on the covers.
I did a quick eyeball test. 6-8 books on 6 rows so there were a total of 36-45 books. Almost every book was a female author and almost every book that had it's cover showing (~15 books) had a female on it. Just a blatant push to highlight one segment of society unless the sex mix of authors these days is 98% female to 2% male.
It's been going on a lot longer than February. In the past, they would say "Celebrate Black History Month with these authors/movies, etc." They've been trying to highlight Black movies and directors on Netflix for months now, even giving them their own category. It is another form of appeasement/ attempt to show they're woke.Quad Dog said:It is Black History month.Quote:
Basically equivalent to the Netflix/LinkedIn/Amazon Prime boot up banner when you log in: "Look at all of these black movies/shows/influencers you should be paying attention to"
5th post of this thread (by third coast) said my estimate of 10% badly overestimated how many LGBT people there are in America, basically more than doubling the 4.5% of Americans who self-identify as LGBT.expresswrittenconsent said:
When confronted with basic math errors, don't accept it and admit that the entire premise of the thread was a mistake, instead blame the person who corrected the error.
Given that my 10% number was already an over-estimation, third coast's stats indicate I am seeing an over-representation of LGBT characters on Netflix. Therefore, my previous 10% stat (and the whole "OMG you applied your stats wrong, it would be 10% of characters not movies" argument) is irrelevant.
Not sure how saying "I don't care about an irrelevant stat" is 'blaming the other person who corrected the error', but you do you.
If someone saying "I don't care about an error I made earlier" is the dumbest thing you've seen on the internet lately, you should consider yourself lucky.Four Seasons Landscaping said:
Just want to say I've seen a lot of dumb assery on the internet lately but your decision to double down on not understanding statistics ranks right at the top.
I watched an MSNBC video earlier today that claimed racist property appraisers are robbing Blacks of 23% of their home value, based on one anecdotal incident.This video was presented as an example of systemic racism in America. The scary thing is, people will see that video and believe its claims without questioning it.
Buzzy said:5th post of this thread (by third coast) said my estimate of 10% badly overestimated how many LGBT people there are in America, basically more than doubling the 4.5% of Americans who self-identify as LGBT.expresswrittenconsent said:
When confronted with basic math errors, don't accept it and admit that the entire premise of the thread was a mistake, instead blame the person who corrected the error.
Given that my 10% number was already an over-estimation, third coast's stats indicate I am seeing an over-representation of LGBT characters on Netflix. Therefore, my previous 10% stat (and the whole "OMG you applied your stats wrong, it would be 10% of characters not movies" argument) is irrelevant.
Not sure how saying "I don't care about an irrelevant stat" is 'blaming the other person who corrected the error', but you do you.
Sounds like none of you are good at math. I do like how you take any post that agrees with your politics as total and complete facts with no need for further proof or questioning. Oh, someone said 5%, it's the new number. Then someone else said 2%, so that must be the fact. Herp derp derp.
Big gay here, I 100% agree. Netflix shows used to be like HBO, they couldn't miss. Now it's garbage.PatAg said:
The real concern should be the rise in crappy original content on Netflix.
There are more gays on tv, but it's not over the top. For my teenage years and 20's it was just Brokeback Mountain and The Birdcage, now we get to be normal people, not caricatures, in movies/tv and perhaps not be hate crimed or die a tragic death even Ha.
Some of you all just don't know the gay people in your lives because of your casual homophobia you drop in conversation on a regular basis. We're not telling you because you clearly aren't a person worth knowing and doubtful you'd change your opinion. Do better and hope your kids aren't gay, I assure you my parents didn't set out to raise a gay son. If they'd dropped homophobic commentary my whole life I may not be here.
I actually disagree with the contention that gays are portrayed as 'normal'. Usually if there is a gay character shown in a movie, they are portrayed as incredibly flamboyant, literally the stereotype of the over-sexualized feminized gay male.Quote:
now we get to be normal people, not caricatures, in movies/tv
Take Chick Fight, where Malin Ackerman is hetero, her best friend is a borderline-predatory lesbian, her father (Kevin Nash) is pan-sexual, and her father's boyfriend (Alec Mapa) is stereotypical flamboyant gay. Fortune Feimster is lesbian, and Bella Thorne is heterosexual.
They couldn't have Mapa just be gay, he has to fit the stereotype.
All I remember hearing from the homosexual lobby in the '90s and early '00 was "we just want to live our lives like everyone else and be left alone". Well, apparently that isn't enough, because now people want 'representation'.
I don't know if that is because they feel part of being 'out and proud' is seeing themselves on film, or if they really think being out there makes it easier for others to embrace their own identities and come out of the closet, but it just adds fuel to the social conservatives who say they're pushing their lifestyle on others.
Quote:
Sounds like none of you are good at math. I do like how you take any post that agrees with your politics as total and complete facts with no need for further proof or questioning. Oh, someone said 5%, it's the new number. Then someone else said 2%, so that must be the fact. Herp derp derp.
Wow, Google agrees with my 'politics'
Four Seasons Landscaping
Joined:
Nov 11, 2020
Posts:
2,020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Holy crap, you really don't understand where you were wrong.
Buzzy, serious question, did you go to A&M?
Did you get a degree?
Buzzy, serious question, did you go to A&M?
Did you get a degree?
I do think it's going to become my mission to find all of the Frank Frazetta covers for Conan.Claude! said:To be fair, most Conan books had a woman on the cover. Granted she were generally clinging desperately to Conan's leg while simultaneously falling out of her top, but she was still represented.YouBet said:
I don't want to start a new thread for this so posting it here because it's kind of relevant. We were at B&N on Saturday and I couldn't help but notice the "New Fiction" section was almost entirely female authors with added feature that the books had female characters on the covers.
I did a quick eyeball test. 6-8 books on 6 rows so there were a total of 36-45 books. Almost every book was a female author and almost every book that had it's cover showing (~15 books) had a female on it. Just a blatant push to highlight one segment of society unless the sex mix of authors these days is 98% female to 2% male.
I don't mind the discussion, based on the topic alone. There is no problem with asking a question and having a dialogue on that question.
However, you seem to already have an opinion that gays want to drive their lifestyle down your throat, and therefore it is permeating Netflix. So, is this a thread discussing an apparent observation, or a thread so you can find others to validate your opinion? I am willing to bet the majority of gays just want to be left alone and go about their own lives, without being caught up in some discussion of representation. Hell, I would even bet (obviously no stats here, just an assumption) that out of all the sub categories of the LGBT groups, gay men are probably the ones who push their "agenda" the least.
On the statistics part, you are completely missing the point everyone was making. You said that since 10% of the population is LGBT, then 1/10 movies should have a gay person in it. THAT is where you are failing at statistics. All the next poster said was that what the statistic means is 1/10 characters in EACH show should be LGBT. You then came back and said they were the same thing, which is blatantly a ridiculous response to someone simply pointing out your error in logic.
I stick by what I said earlier. People should be free to create the art they want to. If a gay guy wants to write a movie where EVERY person in the film is gay, then go for it. I don't know how that world would procreate, but let's call it fantasy/sci-fi and move on about our day.
It's the censorship of art that doesn't conform to the "woke" crowd, that bothers me. Is it a problem that there are a lot of gay characters in Netflix shows? Not to me. Is it a problem that someone can't get their show on any platform because there aren't enough LGBT characters? I believe so.
However, you seem to already have an opinion that gays want to drive their lifestyle down your throat, and therefore it is permeating Netflix. So, is this a thread discussing an apparent observation, or a thread so you can find others to validate your opinion? I am willing to bet the majority of gays just want to be left alone and go about their own lives, without being caught up in some discussion of representation. Hell, I would even bet (obviously no stats here, just an assumption) that out of all the sub categories of the LGBT groups, gay men are probably the ones who push their "agenda" the least.
On the statistics part, you are completely missing the point everyone was making. You said that since 10% of the population is LGBT, then 1/10 movies should have a gay person in it. THAT is where you are failing at statistics. All the next poster said was that what the statistic means is 1/10 characters in EACH show should be LGBT. You then came back and said they were the same thing, which is blatantly a ridiculous response to someone simply pointing out your error in logic.
I stick by what I said earlier. People should be free to create the art they want to. If a gay guy wants to write a movie where EVERY person in the film is gay, then go for it. I don't know how that world would procreate, but let's call it fantasy/sci-fi and move on about our day.
It's the censorship of art that doesn't conform to the "woke" crowd, that bothers me. Is it a problem that there are a lot of gay characters in Netflix shows? Not to me. Is it a problem that someone can't get their show on any platform because there aren't enough LGBT characters? I believe so.
Well, some of that is fair and "normal" is a poor choice of words, especially for a gay man, since it implies I am "abnormal". I probably should have just said not a caricature and left it there.Buzzy said:I actually disagree with the contention that gays are portrayed as 'normal'. Usually if there is a gay character shown in a movie, they are portrayed as incredibly flamboyant, literally the stereotype of the over-sexualized feminized gay male.Quote:
now we get to be normal people, not caricatures, in movies/tv
Take Chick Fight, where Malin Ackerman is hetero, her best friend is a borderline-predatory lesbian, her father (Kevin Nash) is pan-sexual, and her father's boyfriend (Alec Mapa) is stereotypical flamboyant gay. Fortune Feimster is lesbian, and Bella Thorne is heterosexual.
They couldn't have Mapa just be gay, he has to fit the stereotype.
All I remember hearing from the homosexual lobby in the '90s and early '00 was "we just want to live our lives like everyone else and be left alone". Well, apparently that isn't enough, because now people want 'representation'.
I don't know if that is because they feel part of being 'out and proud' is seeing themselves on film, or if they really think being out there makes it easier for others to embrace their own identities and come out of the closet, but it just adds fuel to the social conservatives who say they're pushing their lifestyle on others.
That being said, if you're not gay you don't really understand what it is to turn on tv and see no one like you. In the 90's being gay was equivalent to being some kind of evil parasite with HIV/AIDS epidemic in full swing. There was almost ZERO positive representation of gay people.
I guess I find having been gay nearly 40 years I'm happy to see a lot better representation in real life with athletes, politicians, musicians, etc being out. It's a game changer for kids in the closet to see that, again if you're straight you probably don't understand - everyone is "like you".
In movies/tv there is still a lot of what you wrote about of course, but can you imagine major studio movies like "Love, Simon" being made 10 years ago? I can't. That's what I'm referring to as far as improvement. There are gay people who check a lot of boxes on the stereotype list and that's fine too. I don't follow your argument or commentary about wanting to be treated the same. Let's be fair, we still ARE not and save for a few old people in Supreme Court none of our new found rights in the last 6 years are guaranteed, a major political party still has anti-lgbtq platform language and has a political track record of pursuing those platforms to excite their evangelical base.
Apropos of nothing really, but I watched 'Love, Simon' and thought it was a really good HS/teen relationship movie that I enjoyed quite a bit when I saw it. Also the gay characters aren't caricatures in any way, but are played to be 'normal' and 'traditional' high school kids. Well done movie and I can definitely see how the LGBT community would really appreciate that representation in a film.
Featured Stories
See All
Gavin Grahovac named co-SEC Player of the Week
by Richard Zane
Jorian Wilson earns SEC Freshman of the Week honors
by Richard Zane
16:33
3h ago
1.8k
Earley talks road sweep of Mizzou, what lies ahead for No. 20 A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
7:09
2h ago
1.2k
5:57
2h ago
964