1. I'm aware of POC in stories that in their time and place would not have the mixture that is portrayed. It doesn't bother me but I am aware of it and why it is being done. These actors of all the races are so attractive that it is hard not to like them. Will whites be able to play roles of POC?
2. Do POC playing white roles mean that the days of objecting to non-disabled actors playing disabled rolls and straight playing gay are over?
3. I am super concerned that all these women that physically defeat men in these movies and video games will create a false reality for men and lead to more violence against women in the real world. After all, women can defeat men in these forms of entertainment. I think, unfortunately, that many boys/young men are no longer being told to never, ever hit a girl/woman. Females have to be the same, maybe better, than males. The feminists who insist on "equal treatment" have created a dystopia for the average or lower than average women. Fewer marriages means more poverty for women and less protection.
When it's done well, colorblind casting works. Denzel Washington played a chilling Richard III. David Oyelowo was an unconventionally gentle Henry VI. And Cush Jumbo, who is black and female, turned in a truly bold performance as Hamlet. But that's the point. Woke casting isn't done well.
What's more, it only works one way. Non-disabled actors cannot play disabled roles and you'll never see a white actor play Dr. King because the purpose of woke casting is not to produce great art, but to use art as a vessel for political messaging. It's propagandistic by nature, which I would dislike regardless of the politics. But I'm a classic liberal, so I dislike the politics too.
As for your third point, I've thought about this a lot. We cannot tell everyone that girls are just as strong and capable as boys while at the same time preserving the notion that they deserve special care, such as the Birkenhead drill (women and children first) or the prohibition against ever hitting a woman. Chivalry is a good thing, actually. And yes, men can be feminists and chivalrous at the same time.
But the feminist movement self-destructed when it hit the third wave by asserting that the only difference between men and women is gender and that gender is entirely a social construct. That's how we ended up believing trans individuals need affirmation rather than therapy, or that men who identify as trans should be permitted to punch women in the face so long as it happens on the canvas of a boxing ring.
1. I'm aware of POC in stories that in their time and place would not have the mixture that is portrayed. It doesn't bother me but I am aware of it and why it is being done. These actors of all the races are so attractive that it is hard not to like them. Will whites be able to play roles of POC?
2. Do POC playing white roles mean that the days of objecting to non-disabled actors playing disabled rolls and straight playing gay are over?
3. I am super concerned that all these women that physically defeat men in these movies and video games will create a false reality for men and lead to more violence against women in the real world. After all, women can defeat men in these forms of entertainment. I think, unfortunately, that many boys/young men are no longer being told to never, ever hit a girl/woman. Females have to be the same, maybe better, than males. The feminists who insist on "equal treatment" have created a dystopia for the average or lower than average women. Fewer marriages means more poverty for women and less protection.
When it's done well, colorblind casting works. Denzel Washington played a chilling Richard III. David Oyelowo was an unconventionally gentle Henry VI. And Cush Jumbo, who is black and female, turned in a truly bold performance as Hamlet. But that's the point. Woke casting isn't done well.
What's more, it only works one way. Non-disabled actors cannot play disabled roles and you'll never see a white actor play Dr. King because the purpose of woke casting is not to produce great art, but to use art as a vessel for political messaging. It's propagandistic by nature, which I would dislike regardless of the politics. But I'm a classic liberal, so I dislike the politics too.
As for your third point, I've thought about this a lot. We cannot tell everyone that girls are just as strong and capable as boys while at the same time preserving the notion that they deserve special care, such as the Birkenhead drill (women and children first) or the prohibition against ever hitting a woman. Chivalry is a good thing, actually. And yes, men can be feminists and chivalrous at the same time.
But the feminist movement self-destructed when it hit the third wave by asserting that the only difference between men and women is gender and that gender is entirely a social construct. That's how we ended up believing trans individuals need affirmation rather than therapy, or that men who identify as trans should be permitted to punch women in the face so long as it happens on the canvas of a boxing ring.