Shonda Rhimes speech about "diverstiy"

[Midwest88]

imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/241496493

This is part of a whole speech during 2015’s Human Rights Gala held in Los Angeles.

I don’t know if anyone has noticed but I only ever write about one thing: being alone. The fear of being alone, the desire to not be alone, the attempts we make to find our person, to keep our person, to convince our person to not leave us alone, the joy of being with our person and thus no longer alone, the devastation of being left alone.

The need to hear the words: You are not alone.

The fundamental human need for one human being to hear another human being say to them: “You are not alone. You are seen. I am with you. You are not alone.”

I get asked a lot by reporters and tweeters why I am so invested in “diversity” on television. “Why is it so important to have diversity on TV?” they say. “Why is it so challenging to have diversity?” “Why does Cyrus need to be gay?”

I really hate the word “diversity”. It suggests something…other. As if it is something…special. Or rare.

Diversity!

As if there is something unusual about telling stories involving women and people of color and LGBTQ characters on TV.

**I have a different word: NORMALIZING.

I’m normalizing TV.

I am making TV look like the world looks. Women, people of color, LGBTQ people equal WAY more than 50% of the population. Which means it ain’t out of the ordinary. I am making the world of television look NORMAL.

I am NORMALIZING television.**

You should get to turn on the TV and see your tribe. And your tribe can be any kind of person, any one you identify with, anyone who feels like you, who feels like home, who feels like truth. You should get to turn on the TV and see your tribe, see your people, someone like you out there, existing. So that you know on your darkest day that when you run (metaphorically or physically RUN), there is somewhere, someone, to run TO. Your tribe is waiting for you.

You are not alone.

The goal is that everyone should get to turn on the TV and see someone who looks like them and loves like them. And just as important, everyone should turn on the TV and see someone who doesn’t look like them and love like them. Because, perhaps then, they will learn from them.

Perhaps then, they will not isolate them.

Marginalize them.

Erase them.

Perhaps they will even come to recognize themselves in them.

Perhaps they will even learn to love them.

It’s not anything new to those who pay attention to pop culture, and those who are aware of the constant demands of those who lean heavily towards the SJW camp.

And what’s the deal with “normalizing”? Does she think so lowly of the average American that they aren’t aware of people of color and the LGBT? Instead of focusing on quality writing in narrative, character development and entertainment she turns her speech into "need more blacks here and need more LGBT here … " It’s a demeaning and condescending speech.

Make sure you read the comments on that thread. Most are .

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Thanks for leaving out women in your comment.

Have you watched her shows? I’m a #tgit viewer. I have been watching Greg’s Anatomy since I was in high school. And I totally understood Meredith’s and Christina’s friendship because that’s how me and my best friend are. My best friend is my person too.
Oh, and How To Get Away With Murder? It had amazing twists and turns. Everyone who watched the first season was on the edge of their seat during the season finale. And finding out who killed actually killed Lila was an OMG!!! moment. Albeit, she didn’t create the show, but she does produce it.
Scandal is fabulous and if I was in a bind I would want Olivia Pope on my side.
People are women, people are black, and people are gay. I don’t think she just plugs people in, their characters make sense.
She is right, it is absolutely normal to see fantastic doctors who are women, gay men in more than just fashion and aren’t cliche, etc. I’m fine with seeing “normal” people on my TV. Don’t like it? Don’t watch. She’s doing fine without your approval.

 

[MacBP]

I don’t know, I think she has a bit of a point. It’s a lesson we need to learn as people of faith. One of the reasons the LGBT movements has been so successful is their effective use of media. My positively portraying members of the LGBT community,and by negatively portraying those opposed to the LGBT community, the media helped foster the West’s current attitude surrounding gay rights.

The problem, for Christians, is that we have the opposite phenomena is happening. When is the last time you’ve seen Christians portrayed well in mainstream media? Almost never. Actually, the only time you see Christians portrayed at all is as fundamentalist villains. That’s a problem, because many people will only encounter Christians through the media. If the only encounters people have are of villainous, irrational, hateful Christians then people will naturally think that all Christians are villainous, irrational, and hateful. That’s makes discussions surrounding religious liberty difficult (why give rights to villains) and makes evangelization difficult (why listen to villains). So Rhimes has at right, but we should be using it for our purposes instead of letting it be used against us.

 

[Midwest88]

Thanks for leaving out women in your comment.

I didn’t do it on purpose. Just slipped my mind while I was typing.

 

[edwest2]

imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/241496493

This is part of a whole speech during 2015’s Human Rights Gala held in Los Angeles.

It’s not anything new to those who pay attention to pop culture, and those who are aware of the constant demands of those who lean heavily towards the SJW camp.

And what’s the deal with “normalizing”? Does she think so lowly of the average American that they aren’t aware of people of color and the LGBT? Instead of focusing on quality writing in narrative, character development and entertainment she turns her speech into "need more blacks here and need more LGBT here … " It’s a demeaning and condescending speech.

Make sure you read the comments on that thread. Most are .

It’s a “celebrate perversity” speech. Straight and gay sexual perversity. Speaking as a professional editor and storyteller, it’s obvious that she wants TV to embrace things that are contrary. To embrace a TV/Media that took decades to turn it into “sin is OK.”

Do what you want in the privacy of wherever you live, but reject this. Reject it.

Ed

 

[Havard]

Thanks for leaving out women in your comment.

Have you watched her shows? I’m a #tgit viewer. I have been watching Greg’s Anatomy since I was in high school. And I totally understood Meredith’s and Christina’s friendship because that’s how me and my best friend are. My best friend is my person too.
Oh, and How To Get Away With Murder? It had amazing twists and turns. Everyone who watched the first season was on the edge of their seat during the season finale. And finding out who killed actually killed Lila was an OMG!!! moment. Albeit, she didn’t create the show, but she does produce it.
Scandal is fabulous and if I was in a bind I would want Olivia Pope on my side.
People are women, people are black, and people are gay. I don’t think she just plugs people in, their characters make sense.
She is right, it is absolutely normal to see fantastic doctors who are women, gay men in more than just fashion and aren’t cliche, etc. I’m fine with seeing “normal” people on my TV. Don’t like it? Don’t watch. She’s doing fine without your approval.

God bless you, Kendra, but Shondra Rhimes’ shows are, IMO, close to the bottom rung for me.

She’s banking on the fact that sex sells. Raking it in. Especially premarital sex, adulterous sex, and gay sex. Sure, her shows have some interesting plot lines also, but so do a lot of other shows that aren’t using sex as such a shameless, audience-pandering tool. That is the biggest reason why I don’t support her shows.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

God bless you, Kendra, but Shondra Rhimes’ shows are, IMO, close to the bottom rung for me.

She’s banking on the fact that sex sells. Raking it in. Especially premarital sex, adulterous sex, and gay sex. Sure, her shows have some interesting plot lines also, but so do a lot of other shows that aren’t using sex as such a shameless, audience-pandering tool. That is the biggest reason why I don’t support her shows.

In the real world, people have lots of sex. Do I think that on call rooms are used as sex rooms? I hope not as much on Greys, but I’m sure it happens. There have been presidents like Fitz, who had a mistress, JFK comes to mind. Gay people do have sex in the real world.
I don’t think that kids should watch these shows, they are impressionable. I can honestly say that I wouldn’t have an affair with the president or have gay sex or even start a new relationship with a guy without getting an annulment after my divorce is finalized.

 

[Havard]

In the real world, people have lots of sex. Do I think that on call rooms are used as sex rooms? I hope not as much on Greys, but I’m sure it happens. There have been presidents like Fitz, who had a mistress, JFK comes to mind. Gay people do have sex in the real world.
I don’t think that kids should watch these shows, they are impressionable. I can honestly say that I wouldn’t have an affair with the president or have gay sex or even start a new relationship with a guy without getting an annulment after my divorce is finalized.

It’s coarsening. It may not be porn in the technical sense, but it still dangles sex to titillate and strips it from it’s beautiful, intimate context. IMO, you deserve better than this.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

It’s coarsening. It may not be porn in the technical sense, but it still dangles sex to titillate and strips it from it’s beautiful, intimate context. IMO, you deserve better than this.

It’s primetime TV. If a TV show that comes on local channels sexually excites someone, they need help. It’s rated TV14 so it is similar to PG13 movies.

 

[Havard]

It’s primetime TV. If a TV show that comes on local channels sexually excites someone, they need help. It’s rated TV14 so it is similar to PG13 movies.

If social media reactions, or entertainment news stories, or ads for the shows themselves, are anything to go by, then yes, the shows do excite them. Not surprising, sex sells.

FWIW, I really do like and respect you, and I don’t want to back you into a corner to make you defend a couple of tv shows. I just hope you consider what it is I’m pointing out about them. God bless.

 

[DerekTM]

The problem, for Christians, is that we have the opposite phenomena is happening. When is the last time you’ve seen Christians portrayed well in mainstream media? Almost never. Actually, the only time you see Christians portrayed at all is as fundamentalist villains. That’s a problem, because many people will only encounter Christians through the media. If the only encounters people have are of villainous, irrational, hateful Christians then people will naturally think that all Christians are villainous, irrational, and hateful. That’s makes discussions surrounding religious liberty difficult (why give rights to villains) and makes evangelization difficult (why listen to villains). So Rhimes has at right, but we should be using it for our purposes instead of letting it be used against us.

If you live in the United States the idea that “many” people will only see Christians on TV is absurd. Christians are so plentiful and normal that people don’t need to talk about it on TV. Do you want to watch a show where people spend half of the air time in Mass? No. Just like you don’t want to watch people go to the grocery store for 30 minutes, or sit at the DMV, or file paperwork - fiction that interests people should involve things that will grab our attention not remind us a normal day.

People get tired of the “persecuted” majority act.

 

[Havard]

If you live in the United States the idea that “many” people will only see Christians on TV is absurd. Christians are so plentiful and normal that people don’t need to talk about it on TV. Do you want to watch a show where people spend half of the air time in Mass? No. Just like you don’t want to watch people go to the grocery store for 30 minutes, or sit at the DMV, or file paperwork - fiction that interests people should involve things that will grab our attention not remind us a normal day.

People get tired of the “persecuted” majority act.

MacBP never said anything about the only time people will see Christians, period, he said the only time people see Christians portrayed. Seeing many faithful Christians portrayed in a negative way, and just about none in a positive way, reinforces negative stereotypes.

I couldn’t care less about who is tired about that.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

It’s a “celebrate perversity” speech. Straight and gay sexual perversity. Speaking as a professional editor and storyteller, it’s obvious that she wants TV to embrace things that are contrary. To embrace a TV/Media that took decades to turn it into “sin is OK.”

Agreed, I’m afraid. And totally sickening. How about more embracing of just doing good works and thinking of others besides ourselves? That’s all it is. Me, me, me, me. What I am…what are my rights… Damned sick of it.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/241496493

This is part of a whole speech during 2015’s Human Rights Gala held in Los Angeles.

It’s not anything new to those who pay attention to pop culture, and those who are aware of the constant demands of those who lean heavily towards the SJW camp.

And what’s the deal with “normalizing”? Does she think so lowly of the average American that they aren’t aware of people of color and the LGBT? Instead of focusing on quality writing in narrative, character development and entertainment she turns her speech into "need more blacks here and need more LGBT here … " It’s a demeaning and condescending speech.

Make sure you read the comments on that thread. Most are .

Yes, people know that there are people of color and LGBTQ, but don’t see them as people that are just like them, people that they want the same things. Often minorities are portrayed using stereotypes or caricatures and it perpetuate the one-dimensional perception of a given minority.

For people that are more open watching a TV show or movie may give them a vicarious experience with group or culture they don’t have the opportunity to interact with. For others, it makes the bigots stand out (because they gotta say something) and gives the rest of us an idea of how far we still need to go.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed, I’m afraid. And totally sickening. How about more embracing of just doing good works and thinking of others besides ourselves? That’s all it is. Me, me, me, me. What I am…what are my rights… Damned sick of it.

It’s about debasing what human sexuality really is and turning it into “normalizing.” Normalizing what? I don’t watch “entertainment” to get a perversity lesson. It’s called “behavior modification” and it works in stages:

Stage 1: Just like you and me.

Stage 2: Less like you and me but only after there is certainty that Stage 1 worked as planned.

Stage 3: A lot less like you and me, but it’s the same characters, so how could it not help you forget what normal human sexuality is?

It reminds me of those anonymous “bi-curious?” ads in certain magazines.

Ed

 

[Havard]

Yes, people know that there are people of color and LGBTQ, but don’t see them as people that are just like them, people that they want the same things. Often minorities are portrayed using stereotypes or caricatures and it perpetuate the one-dimensional perception of a given minority.

For people that are more open watching a TV show or movie may give them a vicarious experience with group or culture they don’t have the opportunity to interact with. For others, it makes the bigots stand out (because they gotta say something) and gives the rest of us an idea of how far we still need to go.

Humanizing is good. Sexualizing is bad.

I am all in favor of portraying people of every kind, and doing so in sympathetic ways. I am not okay with marketing them based on (at least in large part) their sex lives. Especially since they are always unmarried. When was the last time you saw a plot line that featuring the hot and heavy love life of an already married couple? Not that I am suggesting such a thing, but I’m just demonstrating what kind of sex is being pushed.

 

[edwest2]

Humanizing is good. Sexualizing is bad.

I am all in favor of portraying people of every kind, and doing so in sympathetic ways. I am not okay with marketing them based on (at least in large part) their sex lives. Especially since they are always unmarried. When was the last time you saw a plot line that featuring the hot and heavy love life of an already married couple? Not that I am suggesting such a thing, but I’m just demonstrating what kind of sex is being pushed.

You are right. Real committed love has been replaced by sex.

Ed

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I think this is part of a bigger answer when it comes to diversity in any place:

Would we want to sacrifice quality for equality?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Humanizing is good. Sexualizing is bad.

I am all in favor of portraying people of every kind, and doing so in sympathetic ways. I am not okay with marketing them based on (at least in large part) their sex lives. Especially since they are always unmarried. When was the last time you saw a plot line that featuring the hot and heavy love life of an already married couple? Not that I am suggesting such a thing, but I’m just demonstrating what kind of sex is being pushed.

I don’t watch TV so I can’t name anything current but Firefly’s Zoe and Wash is an example. Not sure if this is true but I read that TPTB wanted to break up Zoe and Wash for some reason but Joss Whedon, the genius creator of Firefly, refused because their marriage was important to the story.

I might think of others but I’m limited to stuff on Netflix and Amazon (and I gave that up for Lent so I shouldn’t really check for titles right now.)

 

[Havard]

I don’t watch TV so I can’t name anything current but Firefly’s Zoe and Wash is an example. Not sure if this is true but I read that TPTB wanted to break up Zoe and Wash for some reason but Joss Whedon, the genius creator of Firefly, refused because their marriage was important to the story.

I might think of others but I’m limited to stuff on Netflix and Amazon (and I gave that up for Lent so I shouldn’t really check for titles right now.)

I’ll help you, there’s not much out there. I watch Castle (which, besides starring Nathan Fillon, has a lot of Firefly references and cameos, btw). That show has only gotten better as various characters have gotten married - focusing on their building their relationships up, not unwinding them for cheap drama. And they’re still cool, still “sexy”. Not that that’s what’s important. But Castle is one of the few exceptions, not the rule. The Mentalist was another example, but that series ended.