Meh. <shrug> I've been trying to remain lighthearted mostly, (hoping to) inject goofy, funny stuff into this entirely too somber discussion. But it feels like some people are working hard at being way too serious here on a silly gaming forum.

EDIT: that video was of poop hitting the fan. Alas it used the naughty word for poop.

Inclusivity is not a zero sum game.

I don't think you are going to be able to come up with a one size fits all fantasy that appeals equally to everyone. So it is zero sum. For some people to like it more others have to like it less.

I have yet to hear anyone say that they would have liked The Clone Wars more if Ahsoka Tano were male.

Or Game of Thrones if Arya Stark and Daenerys Targaryen had been boys.

I could go on.

Inclusivity is not a zero sum game.

I don't think you are going to be able to come up with a one size fits all fantasy that appeals equally to everyone. So it is zero sum. For some people to like it more others have to like it less.

As a preface, this comment is not me trying to bait or troll you, I'm asking a question from a genuine place of trying to understand your position:

Your implied assertion is that you (and others) are going to get less out of a Star Wars movie if a main character is, say, a female who's not sexualized at all at some point during the films? You're going to enjoy it less if a main (not supporting) character is nonwhite (the Luke-analogue of the film, for example)?

Can you explain why? Is it because it doesn't evoke the WWII imagery as well? And is that as big of a deal, now that we're 60 years after WWII, as it was in the late-70s when the chance of another World War seemed to always be a possibility?

Did you have the same problem when, say, Battlestar Galactica had several strong female characters - did that lessen your enjoyment of the reboot, if you enjoyed it (I heard people complain that Starbuck was a woman and Boomer wasn't just a woman but also Asian, but I really liked most of the reboot, so I'm curious if it affected more than just he knee-jerk "this is different" response).

As a side note, I thought Leia was consistently great. She was a princess but pretty much played into none of the "fantasy princess" tropes, she wasn't a shrinking violet, she wasn't afraid to speak her mind or enact a daring plan or shoot a stormie. Padme...she just wasn't any of that and played straight in to a lot of the "out of touch with the world" girl/nobility tropes, at least in Ep 1 (the rest was such a mess that it's hard to say how her role was intended to be, but "died of a broken heart," just come onnnnnn ). I want more characters who are like Leia.

Inclusivity is not a zero sum game.

I don't think you are going to be able to come up with a one size fits all fantasy that appeals equally to everyone. So it is zero sum. For some people to like it more others have to like it less.

This will be my last comment on this, as honestly the sheer anger of some people in this discussion about having a few more women is disturbing and sad for a Star Wars community of all places.

No one is trying to make a "one size fits all" Star Wars cast. People have pointed out, the cast as it stands is heavy on the dudes. There is nothing :natural" about that, sorry, but it is not. There are millions of women around the world who are Star Wars fans, give them more than one character that is the same sex as them and you've done all that has to be done. Women in Star Wars especially the EU have a tendency to be pretty strong and independent, so no need to make some galaxy shattering changes to the lore. I'll bet most female fans of Star Wars will continue to be fans even if we don't give them more women characters, but what is the harm in doing that. It certainly doesn't make me feel like less of a man seeing a heroine instead of a hero.

I'm a man, I grew up playing as Luke I enjoyed it until I found out he had kissed his sister, then I wanted to be Obi Wan. There were plenty of choices in the SW universe for me to jump around in. For women the films had Leia and Padme. No choices, no ability to find the right fit. What's wrong with giving them a few more choices?

Strong women are real and not an invention of modern culture. Vikings the TV show is based on history/myths. The little we know about the historical Lagertha is that she was a warrior and there were shieldmaidens, Norse women did fight and die in battle. These are not the only examples, just some of the freshest in the cultural consciousness.

We keep seeing WWII imagery, but I've yet to see any Soviet pictures where Women fought as pilots, snipers and partisans. When you're invaded you make use of every asset you have, and that's what the Russians did. I can't imagine the Rebels would have turned down a good woman pilot or solider based on her sex.

If in order to enjoy Star Wars fully you have to have fewer females, I do believe there is something skewed in your world perspective. Women exist in the world and seeing them on screen shouldn't hinder ones experience of the Star Wars universe. An all women Star Wars cast would be just as strange as a sausage party (should I make a lightsaber innuendo here?). But no one is asking for that. They are just pointing out 1 women out of 7 actors is a little odd.

But isn't it equally odd to somehow set arbitrary baselines, for same said space fantasy, in an effort to shoehorn it into conforming to real-world "standards"?

I mean, if someone wants to do a remake Amazon Women on the Moon, are you good folk going to demand men share equal representation? That's a space fantasy also, isn't it?

You know these PC Feminists would be the last people on Earth to gripe about a lack of men. Hypocrites.

So I don't want to get into the sexism debate here more than I did a few pages ago, but I want to point something out: comparing the Rebel Alliance to 40s American military isn't just wrong because Star Wars is in space and all, but it's a congregation of desperate freedom fighters who are fighting for their rights, against oppression, and for their very lives.

Why wouldn't there be women there, looking every bit as serious as the guys? This is an important question.

If you are going to use pics from WWII for reference, you would be better off comparing them them to pics of the French resistance. Just to reinforce this point.

What has all this got to do with Edge of the Empire RPG?

Are female players joining groups with their carefully created female characters and all the men laugh and say something outrageous along the lines of "go make us some coffee sweat cheeks and leave the gaming for the real men"?

If so I say to such men: "shame on you! You make me sick!"

Otherwise why? Why keep this up?

I think Lucas more than compensated for his lack of leading female roles by having one woman with a brain. No cutesy giggling Barby with hardly any clothing, but a woman who talked back to Vader, withstood torture and knew how to shoot a gun. Leia had a mind of her own and could look after herself. She didn't need any dumb males to take care of her, in fact she helped rescue both Luke and Han Solo. Then she strangled Jabba the Hutt.

Padme Amidala was a strong character too. She took care of herself, especially on Geonosis where she'd freed herself while Anakin and Obi-Wan just stood there wondering what to do. Not as competent as Leia in my opinion, but deserving of similar respect.

That's my contribution to this silly little debate.

Shall I also point out that the slaves on Tatooine were white and that the two black guys were a Jedi Master and a successful businessman.

What has all this got to do with Edge of the Empire RPG?

I believe the title of this particular thread says "Episode VII Cast" so that's what we're talking about.

I think Lucas more than compensated for his lack of leading female roles by having one woman with a brain. No cutesy giggling Barby with hardly any clothing, but a woman who talked back to Vader, withstood torture and knew how to shoot a gun. Leia had a mind of her own and could look after herself. She didn't need any dumb males to take care of her, in fact she helped rescue both Luke and Han Solo. Then she strangled Jabba the Hutt.

Padme Amidala was a strong character too. She took care of herself, especially on Geonosis where she'd freed herself while Anakin and Obi-Wan just stood there wondering what to do. Not as competent as Leia in my opinion, but deserving of similar respect.

I agree. Those are two strong female roles among the Star Wars franchise.

But current and future filmmakers, writers, and directors can continue where George Lucas ended and carry the film franchise further. They can keep the ball rolling, lift that bar higher, and everything continues getting better for everybody.

For us Browncoats, our daughters can already argue over who gets to play Zoe, or River, or Kaylee, or even Inara (or, shudder , Saffron/Bridget/Yolanda). Wouldn't things just be more awesome if they get to do that with the upcoming Star Wars movies as well? Who among us can say that would be a less good thing?

Here is how I see this entire argument: If the next Star Wars trilogy is more gender and race inclusive, then more of our children (and really, these movies are for the children) will see more positive role models for themselves. Media like movies are highly influential. How many of us grew up in the 80s pretending we were Han Solo or Luke Skywalker? Who did my two younger sisters have to play as?

I don't see how having more would be bad for anyone. If this side of the argument wins, ccarlson101 and Sylpheed, you don't lose. Inclusivity is not a zero sum game.

However, if nothing changes and we just keep with the status quo. If our daughters and our sisters and if our friends from different racial backgrounds essentially have to continue being happy with what they get because nobody cried out for anything to change, then they lose out. They all lose out. Everything stays the same and nothing gets any better for anyone else.

I really don't see how that would be desirable when we all can see that there is a better path.

Sorry I missed reading this. THIS is a line of thought I can get behind. My comment above is not against "more strong women and blacks leads" it is against the "because there isn't more women/blacks Star Wars is sexist/racist" viewpoint.

EDIT: hehe you just posted when I did. We agree sir! Just to clear up, more would be better.

Look at it this way, I'm British and is it just me or do most of the "villains" have British accents. You won't hear me screaming racism. I find it fun actually...I like being a villain muahahahaha

You're going to enjoy it less if a main (not supporting) character is nonwhite (the Luke-analogue of the film, for example)?

I, er, think it is highly unlikely I would like Star Wars as much as I do if I'd had to black up to pretend to be Luke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2495866/High-school-vice-principal-blacking-Mr-T-Halloween.html

You're going to enjoy it less if a main (not supporting) character is nonwhite (the Luke-analogue of the film, for example)?

I, er, think it is highly unlikely I would like Star Wars as much as I do if I'd had to black up to pretend to be Luke.

I don't even understand what this means.

You're going to enjoy it less if a main (not supporting) character is nonwhite (the Luke-analogue of the film, for example)?

I, er, think it is highly unlikely I would like Star Wars as much as I do if I'd had to black up to pretend to be Luke.

I don't even understand what this means.

...

Well, I believe what he means is that he would find it to be a barrier if he couldn't personally identify with the story's characters.

Which, ironically, is exactly the point some of us are trying to make with regards to inclusivity. Well done, Sylpheed!

The Force is strong with us. The Clone Wars was an excellent series with a strong female presence. Rebels looks like it'll be comparable. If the rumors turn out to be true about Lupita Nyong'o, then Ventress would be an incredible addition to the new trilogy but I'll believe it when I see it, honestly. Until then, rumors are just rumors.

My only concern is that if Hollywood starts assembling the cast by some studio mandated politically correct diversity spreadsheet than by what actually serves the story, the result is something that's more like this:

And less like this:

"Lets see, handicapped dude? Check. Goth chick? Check. Black guy? Check. Hispanic Hipster? Check! Great - lets write some scripts!"

...

Well, I believe what he means is that he would find it to be a barrier if he couldn't personally identify with the story's characters.

I'd swear people don't get that this applies to everyone.

But if you are a young man and the new, more inclusive Star Wars isn't doing it for you then you have options!

Hooper: Always some white boy gotta invoke the holy trilogy. Bust this: Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother man down, even in a galaxy far, far away. Check this ___: You got cracker farm boy Luke Skywalker, Nazi poster boy, blond hair, blue eyes. And then you got Darth Vader, the blackest brother in the galaxy, Nubian god!

Banky Edwards: What's a Nubian?

Hooper: Shut the ____ up! Now... Vader, he's a spiritual brother, y'know, down with the force and all that good ___. Then this cracker, Skywalker, gets his hands on a light saber and the boy decides he's gonna run the ______' universe; gets a whole clan of whites together. And they go and bust up Vader's hood, the Death Star. Now what the **** do you call that?

Banky Edwards: Intergalactic civil war?

Hooper: Gentrification! They gon' drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote, unquote, safe for white folks. And Jedi's the most insulting installment! Because Vader's beautiful black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty, old white man! They tryin' to tell us that deep inside we all wants to be white!

Banky Edwards: Well, isn't that true?

[Hooper pulls out his gun, shoots Banky]

My only concern is that if Hollywood starts assembling the cast by some studio mandated politically correct diversity spreadsheet than by what actually serves the story

I agree and I think it's certainly possible for writers and directors to create diverse and inclusive stories without resorting to tokenism.

My only concern is that if Hollywood starts assembling the cast by some studio mandated politically correct diversity spreadsheet than by what actually serves the story

I agree and I think it's certainly possible for writers and directors to create diverse and inclusive stories without resorting to tokenism.

I think with SW it would be quite easy to change up race and gender. As I've said before though, I don't like bullies demanding people do what they want with their own creative project.

Ideally, there will come a day when things are more equal in media, but I also think it has to happen from a real place. Everytime my boy watched Barney (I know, I know) I can't help but giggle at how the kids have all been put in their little boxes. Kids of color, white kid, disabled kid blah blah blah. It's forced and fake. (I know it's Barney)

Now, if you really want some changes in the SW movies, stop petitioning for female cast members and petition for female directos and writers. That will change things quite a bit. On that note, I actually watched a cut up of interviews with different people being asked if they'd direct a SW movie and all of the women but one said no. "It's not really my thing. I don't like sci-fi. I want to keep it real."

I'll find that **** video so people believe me.

Now, if you really want some changes in the SW movies, stop petitioning for female cast members and petition for female directos and writers.

Good news! We can do both! We can voice our opinion about wanting a more inclusive Star Wars movie cast and we can petition for more female representation in the Directors Guild of America. No one has to stop doing anything and everything can get better faster.

So petitions, protests, and debates are all forms of tyranny because "they are about imposing their perspective on others"? How do you think we've made social progress over the years? How do you think black people became treated as humans rather than property (or 3/5 humans), in the US? How do you think women gained the right to vote?

If a petition/request to the producers of Star Wars to hire a set of actors that more accurately represents its demographics is considered tyranny, I can't imagine what those other examples must be.

We aren't talking about social progress though, we are talking about %s of people represented in a photo and I point out a 50/50 breakdown is not an accurate representation of the choices women are allowed to freely make and they have chosen not to for decades.

My point is subtle and clearly lost on you, freedom and equality aren't %s and numbers, they are equal access, if people choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity, that's called freedom. If you force %s onto the scene to make the math look correct, that's tyranny. Equality and freedom are not synonyms.

And if you think one's choices can be broken down to their levels of testosterone and estrogen like freaking midichlorians, then your point isn't subtle, it's just wrong. Did you ever think that women haven't chosen to make these decisions because of centuries of oppression? Women haven't even held the right to vote in the US for a full century yet. Our Representatives do not represent the gender balance of our nation, not even close. And these are the people who make legislature. Men making laws that concern women (abortion, military service, sexual violence). And you don't think that has an effect on their choices in life? That's not even getting into religion, education, or a dozen other things.

Star Wars is a clean slate. Sexism and racism aren't necessarily a part of its history, especially its human history. Nobody brings up Lando's race. Nobody makes Leia's gender an issue. Even when Han is teasing her, it's more about her social class than her gender. There's no reason to say "Women in the Star Wars galaxy wouldn't be pilots or soldiers because estrogen" because so what ? People are shooting lasers and jumping 15 feet in the air and flying ships through hyperspace, but aggressive women and compassionate men are just too absurd to comprehend? I can barely understand anyone believing that it's an impossibility in real life, let alone in a fictional fantasy universe.

Ahh, we get to it, I'm wrong, see you just proved my point, I'm wrong and you get to label me but you're all about freedom. I think you just proved my point quite eloquently actually.

I don't know what anyone thinks, women or otherwise, and I don't try to tell them how to think or label them as wrong when I don't agree with them. I think that point is lost on you as well.

If you're going to ignore decades or centuries of science, psychology, and philosophy by breaking down human choice into hormones and base urges, I don't know what else to call you. Antiquated?

Actually, recent studies by Prof. Simon Baron Cohen at the University of Cambridge has found pretty much conclusive evidence that the amount of testosterone in a new born baby, even less than 3 months old, greatly affects how their brain functions and what stimulates it. The weird thing is, he wasn't even looking for it. He was actually doing a study on autism in male children vs female children, and then stumbled upon the evidence.

Basically, he says that babies that are too developmentally young to be influenced by any social means, still exert male and female tendencies based on the amount of testosterone.

To be fair, later on, these levels of testosterone can easily be counteracted by social influence. But the fact still remains - new born baby girls played with girl toys, and new born baby boys played with boy toys. The real question is - are we really doing the right thing by promoting a very twisted ideal of gender equality, when there are clear differences between the differences, even at birth?

Make sure you watch parts 2 and 3.

The real question is - are we really doing the right thing by promoting a very twisted ideal of gender equality, when there are clear differences between the differences, even at birth?

Answer: Yes.

Equal opportunities for people of all genders means the freedom to enjoy the same opportunities, rights and obligations in life that anyone else would have access to.

Also, we have these really amazing things called brains that can learn and that allow us sentient humans to overcome base hormonal instincts and to better ourselves beyond our chemical programming.

Equal opportunities for people of all genders means the freedom to enjoy the same opportunities, rights and obligations in life that anyone else would have access to.

For the purposes of this discussion, WRT the Hollywood machine in particular, I would argue "equal opportunity" is a goal virtually realized.

So are you asking for equal opportunity? Or mandated quotas?

Equal opportunities for people of all genders means the freedom to enjoy the same opportunities, rights and obligations in life that anyone else would have access to.

For the purposes of this discussion, WRT the Hollywood machine in particular, I would argue "equal opportunity" is a goal virtually realized.

For the purposes of that particular response, I was answering Raice's question which, as it was, had nothing to do with Hollywood.

So are you asking for equal opportunity?

Within a grander context? Like, generally speaking about the world? Economic opportunity? Workplace opportunity? What is the scope to which you are speaking of?

Or mandated quotas?

Oh... Are you now just talking about casting for Star Wars movies? Your argument seems to be jumping around a bit.

What would you say your point is?

Now, if you really want some changes in the SW movies, stop petitioning for female cast members and petition for female directos and writers.

Good news! We can do both! We can voice our opinion about wanting a more inclusive Star Wars movie cast and we can petition for more female representation in the Directors Guild of America. No one has to stop doing anything and everything can get better faster.

Everything can Progress , right Marx?

PFElton, I want you to enjoy the freedom to disagree with my ideas but I would kindly ask that you please respect me and the other posters in this forum.

Can we agree on that?

Deve,

But I was (and have been). Look, I've been largely straight in engaging your argument, I think. I consider my previous post to be clear. I'd appreciate you not trying to parse it down so far as to lose the context and misconstrue it.

Clearly the entirety of my post was prefaced with the subject of Hollywood. And, in that a good deal of your posts directly challenge gender/racial equality WRT the Star Wars movies, I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

You've debated specificly for moving the SW franchise further along the equality path using diversity. My comments and questions obviously pertained to that. You think more women/minorities is a good thing (I'm not even arguing that not to be the case, BTW - I got no problem with that). My question was, is Hollywood not already forward thinking in their application of such things? And are you advocating forced cohesion to an arbitrary quota designed to increase the numbers to whatever levels you deem appropriate?

You've debated specificly for moving the SW franchise further along the equality path using diversity. My comments and questions obviously pertained to that. You think more women/minorities is a good thing (I'm not even arguing that not to be the case, BTW - I got no problem with that). My question was, is Hollywood not already forward thinking in their application of such things?

In my opinion? As long as they keep making Transformers movies I, personally, wouldn't describe anything that Hollywood does as "forward thinking".

But I do, however, believe that there are forward thinking directors, writers, producers and studios within Hollywood. I'm not a huge Joss Whedon fan (I honestly couldn't get into Buffy or Angel), but I love what he's done with Firefly (admittedly, that's television so it's not exactly "Hollywood") and The Avengers. I believe that Pixar/Disney has done incredible... we can call it "forward thinking" work.

And are you advocating forced cohesion to an arbitrary quota designed to increase the numbers to whatever levels you deem appropriate?

No. I don't believe in arbitrary quotas in general because in my experience it tends to create "15 Pieces of Flair" situations where those who get to make decisions will simply do just what is necessary—toeing the line of the Rules As Written, so to speak, instead of adhering to the Rules As Intended.

With that said...

I do believe that the supply will respond to the demand of the marketplace when all else is equal . If more Star Wars fans start asking, "Why not three... Maybe four main female roles?" then, knowing that there is demand for such a product, the supplier then feels free to take a chance on what was previously believed to be "a risk" when it is now "a sure thing". This is how a free market works and it only works with the free flow of information—wants and desires—from the demand-side to the supply-side.

We know that they are listening so we have a duty to speak up.