This blogger raises an excellent point.

I am loving the show more and more, but the handling of woman and minorities leaves much to be desired.

ALL the women and minorities are in subordinate/retroactive roles to the cooler/proactive white males.

Even Hiro, who is arguably the show's most popular character, manages to remain in the popular asexualized Asian stereotype.

I don't fully agree-we do have moments of "girl power" and inversion of stereotypes(Micah, the poor inner city kid being the technology genius while Hiro can't work an American car), plus the two main villains- Sylar and Linderman- are white males.

But the points made in the aftermentioned article are salient.

Actually, there is a long-running stereotype that Asians can't drive (I'm obviously not advocating this stereotype, just saying it exists).

This is a great article. It should be noted that it was written several months ago and is therefore a bit out of sync with how a few of the characters have developed, but the basic points still apply.

Here's one quote I particularly like:
The author is suggesting that the show's writers should create a character and then ask themselves "Couldn't this character be female? Couldn't this character be non-white?" It's an excellent point. The writers of Heroes have definitely made efforts to create a diverse cast, and they should be applauded for it. The problem of unconscious stereotyping still exists, however. A character from a non-dominant culture is created that way specifically ("and we'll have this character be Japanese") instead of a great character being created and then having the writers ask "Which of the many multi-cultural actors at our disposal would be great at this role?"

As the essay's author suggests, the Heroes writers don't practice this stereotyping intentionally. He says,

The Heroes writers are for the most part white men--a dominant culture. They simply don't recognize that they are using stereotype. People who are members of the dominant culture generally have this problem. Members of non-dominant cultures (in this country, people who are black, Hispanic, poor, and/or female, for example) don't have the opportunity to not recognize the society's inherent stereotypes. Members of the dominant culture, however, have to be trained to look for them.

(I myself have had just one class during my masters-degree studies that began teaching me to think multiculturally. I still have a long way to go. But that course began opening my eyes to what it means to be part of the dominant culture, and what effects the dominant culture has on people who are part of non-dominant cultures.)

With all of that being said, there are also some points made by this author with which I disagree. Most of them have to do with elements of the show itself--what the point of the show is, the roles of certain characters, etc. I will refrain from arguing those points here, although they do have some bearing on the overall analysis this essay attempts. I think I've said enough for one day!

/soapbox

Boy, where to begin with this one..

(Understand that this blog the writer references was written in December 2006)

This is just another rambling, holier than thou, load of left wing clap trap that comes up whenever a popular show attempts to place an ethnic mix into its lineup. Here's where that blathering nonsense runs up onto a few holes:

While true that the women on the show appear to play a subordinate role to male characters that is just not the case. One perfect example is that of Mama Petrelli. Another is that of the FBI agent Elisa Thayer (in Seven Minutes to Midnight and Godsend); both of who are independent, strong female characters in their own right, which throws the writer's theory about subordinate women out the window. The second point he makes about changing the gender assignments of the main male characters into that of female roles also doesn't hold water. This is just the writer's opinion and shouldn't be taken as fact. I can say that there would likely be no different feeling if, say, HRG was played by Claire's mom and her dad was the one who took care of Mr Muggles and did the cooking. Anyone want to have a sane disagreement? You can't because this discussion would be all speculation.

As per the discussion about race on the show, its just placed there to get your bleeding heart enraged at the unfairness of the treatment of minoroties in this country. Yes, minorities are more often in lower socioeconomic groups; yes, minorities tend to be sterotyped in white culture; yes, minorities in this show tend to have less "strong" powers; but the reality of life today is that white society tends to incorporate the more powerful positions and pass them onto other whites. Minorities do have an unfair disadvantage when it comes to education, jobs, health care, and just about any other socioeconomic factor you can name. This is reality; Heroes is a fictional TV show.

Why people want to scream about the unfairness on a television show is beyond me. If the thought is that the discussion will open up more eyes and cause some kind of change in society, then the writer couldn't be more wrong. I believe that we as a society know that there are problems out there. If you are truly outraged, then YOU can physically do something about it. What that is, is up to you to decide. Don't get mad a television, what television shows is just a reflection of what current society believes.

So, rant and rave all you want. Whatever inequities you feel exist on this show be it due to race, gender, powers, or whatever are in your own mind alone. The truth of it all is that the real world is much, much worse than whatever is shown on this show. The writer of this blog may state the unfairness of it all, but in the end, what has he done to attempt to correct the situation other than typing a few (unsubstantiated) words out on his screen? In my mind, that's the true ridiculousness of this whole piece. Words are cheap, but action is the true value of mankind (sorry for the cliche)

I hate this. You can't even bring up the topic of race without being accused of ranting and raving.

I'm actually confused as to what point you're making here. I think you're saying that TV is reinforcing the inequities already present in our society, and you seem to be saying that you don't have a problem with that. Can I be understanding you correctly?

See my reaction above. I believe that one of the actions that people can take is to call attention to elements of the media that perpetuate the problems of society. We can't start dealing with problems until people start admitting that problems exist. I will agree with you that an internet blog is not the most effective forum for this call to action, but it is a start. And who's to say that this author isn't taking action in some area of his real life? That's you making an unsubstantiated claim.

If I understand you here, you are claiming that because there are bigger problems in the world than Japanese young men being sterotyped as comic geeks, then we shouldn't make any complaint about those parts of the world that reinforce the sterotype of Japanese young men as comic geeks. I have to disagree with you. While I certainly support your statement that there are worse problems in the world (genocide in several African countries comes to mind, as well as the fiasco in the wake of Hurricane Katrina), I do not believe that's an excuse for failing to address the problems that are right in front of us. You start where you can.

I agree with your assessment that the writer is "off" on his analysis of Angela Petrelli and the other FBI agent. He does make a few sweeping generalizations. (This is part of what I mentioned that I wasn't going to talk about in my previous post!) However, his major point is a valid one. He suggests a course of action: the writers should attempt to be aware of their own inherent stereotypes.

It's unfair to say that the dominant culture should be accepted as it is just because it's the dominant culture. That is what you appear to be saying here:
It's true that these are the facts of life in this country right now. But that doesn't mean that we should accept them without question.

I believe that your heart is actually in the right place, texgrog. Your call to action instead of words is a valuable effort. You do acknowledge the problems of inequity and prejudice that exist in our society. But you seem to be saying that it is acceptable for our media to present these problems as the status quo, without presenting the possibility that it could be different. This type of attitude will continue to perpetuate the status quo, and will result in failure to take action to fix things. Talking about it is the first step.

...Thinking this needs to be moved to a different forum!

Texgrog, THANK YOU.

Took the words right out of mouth.

Let me reply to CurlyMarie's detailed and empassioned comments:



I am saying that TV mirrors the inequities that exist in society. I am not placing a value judgement on that.



Again, I am not saying that the media perputates the problems of society, just reports them. Yes, the media can create some problems, but societal inequities? We can discuss the problems in forums, chat rooms, TV talk shows until we are blue in the face, but what then? Do we do this in the hope that Mr. or Mrs. X can then take up where we left off and solve the problem? That won't happen, and all you have done was make yourself feel better by raising your voice and rattling your sabre. So, go ahead and shout all you want about these societal inadequacies, but until you put action to words, it means little. As a matter of fact, this is more or less how beurocracies work, all talk and no action; and we all know how effective they are.

See above. Again, I am not condoning the stereotypes, but stating that we know they exist.



I may have misstated myself here and for that I apologize. All I was attempting to do was refute his theorem that all women in this show are treated as subordinates by showing these two examples.



I am not saying that the dominant culture should be accepted just because it is the dominant culture, just that it exists for a reason. White males hold the power in this country and likely will for a long time. White women have recently made some inroads, but where are the minorities?



Once again, I am not saying any of the societal problems are okay, just that they exist. I am not saying that media or television perpetuates the problems, just documents that they exist.

I appreciate your comments, and applaud you for your thoughts. My whole point was that I was upset that this author raised his voice about a topic we are all aware exists. I didn't like how he used generalizing arguments to defend his attack on the generalizations of societal injustice. It's poor argumentative skills.

And, oh, by the way CurlyMarie, the you's placed in my discussion were not related to you personally, but you as society

Wow, some really smart and impassioned people around here. I think Heroes, despite what charges may be levied against it does a much better job with race and gender than most TV shows so while not being exactly the model for diversity, Heroes is a decent example of sneaking a bit of subversiveness into a show that otherwise clings to norms. Or something. I've never really looked at the show in this way- I mean, I watch 24 and Lost with a political eye for one, but never Heroes until this and the Registration issue came up in the show.

Time to rewatch episodes with a new point of view.. my views will most likely change on this while watching it with a socio-economic-racial perspective.

In conclusion- Heroes is neither Jim Crow or Martin Luther King, but a show that both breaks and keeps certain stereotypes while still being better than the average when it comes to the issues we are discussing.

Or something.

as someone stated before, the blog entry in question was written in december, long before ma petrelli was a "main player." and even still, without spoiling anything, it is (strongly) suggested that she has a very passive power herself.

also, the author DID address elisa thayer in his blog, mentioning that she was a strong, "independent" type female, but was STILL playing accessory to a white male: matt parkman. IIRC, the author said that the white male was right, and the "independent" female was wrong, which was true.

i don't want to spend too much time arguing over all of this, but i agree with most of the blogger's points. this show has a long way to go before achieving a truly diversified universe for these characters to live in.

How much of this is a case of art mirroring life and vice versa?

probably too much. it wouldn't hurt if the artists (see: writers) tried "envisioning a brighter future" by incorporating some of the race and gender equalities that we would like to see translate to reality.

I haven't read anyone's post in this thread, i just read the blog, but when i see stuff like this i really think that they're overanalysing things. It really gets to me when the blooger has to sarcastically point out that Sylar, the most powerful character in the series, is white, or that the Haitian is a 'silent lackey to a white guy.'

Here's another line that gets to me: 'he only time some chick makes him do anything he doesn't want to do, it's Eden, and we saw what happened to her, and it serves her right for being a bossy ****** and having the balls to go up against a man.'

Wtf.

Like Gene Roddenberry's original vision for Star Trek! Exactly what I was thinking. Though while you do want to envision a brighter future, not at the expense of disregarding real social problems- a hard line to tip-toe for sure.

Thanks, Tex. I do understand where you're coming from. I agree that it's always easier to "talk big" than it is to "do something." I still maintain my view that talking about it is the beginning of action. It is not the end of action, naturally, but it is a start. I'd definitely agree with your point that talk should lead to action.

I disagree with you somewhat on your stance that the entertainment field merely reflects, but does not perpetuate, stereotype. Certainly one major purpose of art is to reflect the society that produced it. But because of the type of influence the media and entertainment industries have in this society, I believe that "reflection" also leads to perpetuation here.

I have to be honest now and tell you that this statement drove me crazy:
It sounds like you feel that no one should make an effort to change things because "that's just the way it is." I'm hoping that's not what you meant, but it did come out that way, and I couldn't help being upset by it. I feel that we, as members of the dominant culture, take advantage of the luxury of being happy with the status quo--why wouldn't we, when the status quo means that we're dominant? But this leads to constant perpetuation of the problems. Here's a place, perhaps, where we should apply Spiderman's movie mantra, "with great power comes great responsibility." (Watched that on TV recently--can you tell? )


Yep, got it. Though I admit that I did have to stop and remind myself of that fact more than once. As you noted, this is a topic I have some strong feelings about, and it's easy to respond with a knee-jerk emotion instead of thinking about it rationally.

Now, I am not going to post in this topic any more! I've said my piece, exhausted everyone, and descended into repetition. My opinions have been stated and people may now do with them what they will. There's nothing more to be accomplished by my continuing to harp on the same point. Thanks for sticking with me this long!


But before I go:
Lovely points, Dezzie and Leemellon (below). Thanks for getting this discussion back on track!

Well, as this thread shows, race and gender are always a touchy subject. I don't think anything is wrong with what the writers have done with the characters on the show. As long as you bring up a problem with the race or gender of a certain character, there is a problem with the race or gender of a certain character... it's all how you perceive it.

If Sylar were played by a woman, you could be mad that she is painting a poor picture of a dominant female. If Nathan (who is written as down in the polls anyway) was black, you could say he needed help to win just because he was a man of color...

It's silly to give stereotypes to stereotypes.

Let the characters be how they are written and enjoy them. Who cares what color their skin is or bathroom they use?

I know I don't...

The women are smart, strong, brave...Hana (a minority by way of being jewish) is strong, smart, brave.. F Hiro is sexy and dangerous and heroic..Isaac (hispanic?) is talented and creative and super sexy..Mohinder (Indian) is sexy, smart and heroic.. HRG is a white male..Thompson is a white male...I would hardly call them cool.

Yes, I will post just once more here as well, but just to clarify this one point of yours. I am not saying that we have to accept the status quo, but any attempt to change it will be met with difficulty, which is why change doesn't happen quickly. We have seen change with women over the last 20 years, but the minorities haven't made similar strides, and why is that? Also, who is to say that any change will make the situation better? The people of 1930's Germany turned to a charismatic leader who would bring their country to world prominence and improve the ecomony which was ruined by World War I. This was a change the people of that country enthusiastically endorsed. We know how that turned out. So, change isn't always better for the society (this is a gross, general example however). Sometimes a known evil is better than an unknown prospect of good.

I am glad you are passionate about this CurlyMarie. I hope that you are active in your community to bring about the changes you feel need to be made. I hope you can rouse the spirits of your compatriots to do the good you feel needs to be done. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours. You have the rest of your life to bang your head against a wall of ineffectivity before you may see that what I am saying makes sense. I hope that you never do, and if that is the case then you will truly be one of the rare people who can and does make that difference.

But remember, the more people yell about inequality without actually performing some action about it, then the message just gets diluted in all the other loud, angry, fist waving reactionaries, and people are going to get tired of hearing about it, even those whom you are trying to help. (i.e. the boy who cried wolf).

I have to say that many of these things are sorta-kinda proven wrong in the last few episodes. No strong females? Au contraire. In the last few episodes, both Claire and, to a lesser extent, Niki, have proven to be quite strong. Angela is quite powerful, as well.

Steoreotyping other races? When was the last time you saw a (hot) Indian guy kicking the butt of a psychotic, brain-eating/examining serial killer? Episode 19. Or how about a short, kinda pudgy Asian man doing kicking SWAT booty? Episode 20.

Or how about all the inter-racial relationships going on, where the focus of their relationship is on their love, and not the fact that they're interracial? Or how about a show showing the diversity of human kind - how people of different races and ethnicities can get along - and its not their primary focus - the relationships are all as a result of these people being human, and nothing else? Or how about a show that made you have to think for a second that the characters are different races and genders and remember what they did unstereotypically, as the characters are not written under any flat stereotype but simply as "human"?

Heroes is the first one I've seen do all this in a very long time. It's done wonders for diversity, if you really think about it.

And there's only one problem I have with the writers thinking up a character and then asking themselves if the character could be a different race/gender/ethnicity/etc. - it's saying that the writers could not possibly think of no one who was male, white, all-American, or another "dominant" group if they didn't specifically think about those factors. It's saying that minorities and women (who are, incidentally, in the world's majority) cannot possibly get anywhere in Heroes unless people are focused specifically on including them - and that just irks me in ways I can't describe. I'm working on planning a novel, and the characters have walked into my head this way (I didn't even think about their ethnicities until later, just how they looked when they dropped into my mind and said "hi"): caucasian American rebel boy, half Syrian/half caucasian rebel girl, Irish-American goody-two-shoe girl, and Korean football player boy.

I draw my characters, and I didn't even realize the football player should be Korean until I drew him - he didn't like him if I tried to draw him any other way. *shrugs*

*semikindarant over*

This is indeed a very touchy subject, but I was pleased to read the thoughtful discussion going on in this thread. I tend to agree with the blogger's comments (although he did make some generalizations I don't agree with). I think it's just part of our culture to expect a strong male character to take the leading role in a story - especially in fantasy-type stories like this. Think about it: name some comic book heroes. Who comes to mind? Superman. Batman. Spiderman. Wolverine. Lots and lots of guys. While there are plenty of female heroes, none of them are the big names. I'm not crying or complaining about it, I just wish there were more leading roles for women in stories like this.

And if you don't think Heroes has a bit of a gender imbalance at the moment, just check out the (awesome BTW) group pic in Entertainment Weekly: (EDIT: Beware, the article has spoilers!)

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036782_2...0037536,00.html

I count TEN male characters and TWO females. One of them is a teenage girl who, while very brave and resourceful, isn't in control of anything - her most important role so far is being saved. Niki is the only strong female in the picture, but so far she doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with saving the world. There are other powerful female characters in the show to be sure (I hope we see alot more of Mama Petrelli), but if this picture is supposed to represent the main characters, it's clear that men far outweigh the women in terms of controlling the outcome of the story.

As far as the racial issues go, I think the show is doing pretty well so far but could do better. Mohinder started out as just a boring, smart Indian guy, but lately he has proven that he can take action and be a hero even without powers. I wish they would give DL more to do, but at least he's a loving father determined to to anything to protect his son. And Hiro, though he is a pretty stereotypical nerdy little Asian guy, isn't exactly asexual - he did fall in love with a certain cute waitress. And I think the fact that he manages to be a lead character while NOT being particularly strong, or tall, or white, helps to make the stereotype a non-issue.

So to sum up, I just hope that when we see a cool group pic for next season, maybe there is a better ratio of men to women, and maybe a couple more minority characters in there. It is about a global phenomenon after all.

Nice pic (And I agree there should be more leading women), Charlie Nakamura, but no one read the article if you want to avoid spoilers!

Thanks Technopath - edited my post. Yeah I've avoided reading the article so far myself. Entertainment Weekly is bad for printing MAJOR spoilers. I love spoilers but I'm trying to avoid them for the last few episodes...

Hmmm, I don't know that I agree with this blogger. He's kinda wrong. I like the characters the way they are and the way they are written. For one thing, I think the Haitian is one of the most important and powerful characters and he follows his own agenda so I can't see him as truly subordinant. I think the women on the series are strong too. I just don't see where the blogger coming from. Maybe the blogger is just bitter and having a bad day :shrugs:

Heroes immerses us in a world which we recognize as our own--not just materially, but psychologically. To that extent, especially in the earliest episodes, it has been necessarily descriptive-- both of the world and its inequities, and our society's collective psychological state. Hence (unfortunately) the gender inequality (think passive powers in every female except whats-her-name-who-blew-her-head-off(I can't recall her name)) and some racial/cultural stereotyping. (Ando, Hiro, Kaito, Kimiko, the Haitian,Mohinder).

But good art ought also to be normative, that is, to convey something of what our world, or some part of it, ought/should/can be. We have seen some of this; Angela Petrelli, Kimiko Nakamura (w/respect to gender concerns), DL, the new manly-heroic Mohinder, and future character develpment promises much (Hiro, Ando)--so it's not all bad. Let us hope that as our heroes continue to shape their world, it becomes what we hope for it.

How fitting that would be.

I gotta agree with texgrog that this article is overly left and overanalyzing the show. There is always someone out there who wants to cry "racist" or "sexist" when it comes to something in popular culture. A few years ago you had people crying racist over Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. I'm not knocking intelligent thought or anything, but IMO these people think too much and reading into things that aren't there.

The only thing I think could be seen as possibly too stereotypical is DL being an ex con. Other than that though, I think the female characters are written well, except that I've had a hard time sympathizing with Niki whatsoever. Does Hiro show some stereotypes of foreigners? Sure, with the broken English and times of awkwardness, but I don't think we as an audience are supposed to think any less of him for that. If anything it makes him a more relateable and sympathetic hero, because he isn't perfect like the Superman type.

I would love to see Jessica/Niki to take a more active role apart from villainy. Maybe next season we'll see that.

I am pleased and pleasently surprised by the number of posts by people who actively tried to step in the blogger's shoes before dismissing his thoughts as baseless. Jumping the gun into a knee-jerk reaction before critically thinking about the points raised, usually leads to illformed opinions.

I still love this show. And I love that the cast is diverse, but there is nothing "left" or "overly-sensitive" about pointing out what could be improved about the handling of certain characters with regards to the sex and/or ethnicity.

Someone pointed out that Hiro did have a love-interest, but he didn't even get to kiss her, before she was killed. The Haitian, still has yet, to have a name or anything beyond hints of an ulterior motive. Claire, though played wonderfully, is motivated thus far by what she's told to do or she's reacting to something. I'd like to see her become more proactive.

I like Angela Petrelli, but I'm hoping she truly is able to make a real impact before she's killed.

It's not based in the writers being bigots. They just write what they know.

I can't speak for the blogger, but for me; I don't actively look for things to offend/annoy me based on my race/sex. To imply that smacks of blaming the victim for complaining, i.e. a battered wife was asking for it. Again, it's difficult for one who's lacking in empathy to imagine what it's like to not be default.

I do see improvements happening lately, though. With a certain spoilers about women and people of color in the finale, that I won't reveal here.

Again, thanks for the contributions.

I dare any female or member of a non-dominant culture to denounce this blog as worthless. Honestly... I don't think some of these guys understand what dominant culture is, they just say "Oh, I can't see it, it must not exist! The article is overanalysis!"

Do you realize that no one has called anyone racist? The people who see the subconcious stereotypes at play have gone out of their way to explain that it's NOT RACISM, but blind defenders who claim that it's all coincidence loudly decry their innosence of racism, to which I ask: If you're not listening, why should anyone listen to you?

The BEST defense of the subconcious sterotyping I've heard is that art is SUPPOSED to immitate life, to which I laugh. It sounds like you bought into the stereotype. Most of the women I know are very proactive, and if SGs are random, and based on the person's personality and need at the moment, then having TEN males and TWO females with passive powers is putting subconcious stereotypes first before the story you're trying to tell. That's pretty bad.

Furthermore, if you think Hiro is how all Asians are, even Asian comic book geeks, or that women and minorities are not power players in today's society (especailly with randomly distributed powers), then watch Oprah for crying out loud. Get real. Subconcious stereotypes might perpetuate those stereotypes but they do NOT reflect real life.

Yet another interesting note someone said was that they hate changing white males to others because they feel like that's saying that females/minorities can't be XYZ. Well, that's a bit too close to the truth. The truth is, if I have unconcious stereotypes in my head, then when I'm thinking of a businessperson to be in the shadows, I will ALWAYS think of an older white male. That will always be my power player, and unless I concoiusly change the unconcious stereotype, I'll never make progress. People are stuck, and they have to CONCIOUSLY unstick, unless you want to erase the last 50 years of books, TV, music and movies out of their heads.

Another point someone brought up is that this only occurs on diverse shows, to which I say: indeed. Shows like Friends and Will and Grace, which don't want black people obviously you don't see the subcioncious stereotyping... there's no one to stereotype (though sitcoms will regularly have stupid men and smart saavy women, also unfair, and not true to life). Or shows like CSI or american cartoons that have minorities there for tokenism... either the ignore the cultural difference, run the stereotype or give so much focus to that one character that they make him work, stereotype free.

But with a show like Heroes that is successful in showing a wide range of cultures... the stereotypes can't help but shine through... the stereotypes we all have... they come out and can be seen as clear as day. Passive women. Supporting minorities. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Heroes gets kudos for doing a great job, but they also stepped out from the hiding behind all-white-casts that most shows do, and showed their spots... so we called them on it.

It's not like they can't improve. Get some women power-players... move Angela Petrelli up front, make a female the center of next years catastrophe storyline. Give us 4-5 great women regulars..

I barely skimmed it. When I saw he spelled Ando as "Endo" and he called HRG "Claire's dad" I decided the blogger's opinion isn't exactly the best one. "Claire's dad"? Couldn't you call him Mr. Bennet, HRG, even Glasses guy would work! And "Endo"? The name is literally spelt out on screen! I'm not gonna waste 10 minutes reading his rants.

I agree and disagree with what's been said both in his post and here on this forum. I think the one thing that I take from the responses here is that you're never going to have a situation where everyone will be happy. Although the creators/writers/whatever of Heroes can obviously do more to promote equality/betterment/improvement of the image of minorities, they're not doing a bad job at the moment. They're doing pretty damn well in including a decent mix of people from various backgrounds and putting them in various situations, although the ONE thing I would slightly disagree with is to cast a Korean-American (James Kyson Lee) as a Japanese character (Ando), which plays on the stereotype that Asian cultures are interchangeable.

lol. This guy seems more racist than he claims the show is. He pretty much reduces every single story concept and character role to 'she's/he's female/minority. Coincidence? I think not'.

Some good discussion in here, i think. Enjoyed reading the blog and everyone's viewpoints.
One of the (few) issues I have had with Hereoes is this: The original premise of the show was that the Human Genome Project found that our genome is mutating at an increasingly rapid rate, and that these emerging special abilities are the result of one of those mutations. But if this is the case, countries like America and Japan wouldn't be the first place such abilites would show up. They would appear first in so-called 'underdeveloped' countries where the generations are shorter (i.e. women have children younger). Shorter generations leads to more mutations per time unit and this leads to faster overall genomic change. So what is happening elsewhere on the globe? I'd love to see that way these abilities are percieved in, say, Rwanda, where war, poverty, and hunger are bigger issues than politics and gambling.
Why, then, don't we get to see abilities in these places? The writers have to connect with us...those of us who can afford TV's in 'developed' nations. Understandable. They have to consider their audience.

Yes, it's hard for American/European/Aussie audiences to identify with characters from Rwanda. But, if the rumors are true, Nathan will end up far away from his family, possibly in another country and unable to get back home for some reason (some have speculated that he's the one that gets amnesia next season). Also, there's supposed to be something happening in South America, possibly a new hero from there, or that may be where Nathan ends up.

interesting!

I agree. More women and more people from other countries. And more females with abilities that aren't anorexic and/or skanky! I think that's part of the reason I don't really like Hana, Candice or Niki/Jessica. We need more heroes like Dale and Charlie!

They didn't portray Claude as some tea obsessed, for Queen and country, crumpet eater, and for once the British guy isn't one of the bad guys, so I'm happy.

Whilst I felt that the original blog entry was using a jackhammer to push in a thumbtack and was put off commenting in this thread before because I am generally pleased with the racial diversity of the cast and whilst the gender imbalance bugs me, the academic feminist discourse was too much for me to engage with. But having read some of the discussion here, I thought I’d join in, eventhough this thread seems long dead. I must say though that right now the fact that a discussion like this is totally buried under an avalanche of ‘who is hot’, ‘shipping’ etc threads is all that needs to be said about the willingness of the average TV viewer to critically engage with what they are passively consuming.



Just document?!? Wow… the media is just a little girl taking pictures with her little instamatic in your world story, not the calculating whore of the dominant culture I understand it to be.

First of all, all media is created through a process; subjective and biased human beings select what to present, how to present it and what emotions to elicit from the audience for it. Fiction does a better job of shaping people’s world views than the news, as not only the viewer is more emotionally involved with what they are watching but also watching it with less of a critical eye. Subconscious suggestion is a very effective method of control.

TV is mega mega bucks business and to even pretend that the existing power holders in the world do NOT exercise their power over this selection process is a bit naïve to say the least. To pretend that the media does not directly affect the world we live in is to suggest that every time a totalitarian regime made controlling all media out put as one of its first steps to power, it was being rather silly. To suggest that the power holders are not aware of the power of the media to help them retain their power or gather more of it, is suggesting that Rupert Murdoch became one of the most influential people in the world by sheer dumb luck.

I think the appropriate term here is ‘re-enforce’, as in the media re-enforces the stereotypes which in turn re-enforce the inequalities that exist in our societies. To not challenge an injustice (and yes stereotyping leads to many an injustice) is to enable it to be perpetuated. To re-enforce that injustice as unquestionable fact is to hold the victims down whilst they are stripped of every last ounce of human dignity.

An example that comes to mind is of a conversation with a 15 yr old Korean girl who hates her physical appearance and amongst a plethora of plastic surgery procedures, wants to have her eye socket cut opened and rounded because to her it is a FACT that beautiful women have round eyes because all the pictures in her fashion magazines are of white women with round eyes. I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to lay the blame solely at the feet of the media but just to say that it is absurd to deny its influence.



Man I hate it when people bring up Hitler to prove whatever point. First of all, which ‘society’ are you referring to? German? Western? Jewish? The world as a whole? Seems to me that the Aryan race which Hitler wanted to advance through his endeavours did pretty well out of WW2, having its dominance over the world re-enforced. Secondly, Hitler’s use of the media to gain and retain power is well documented most notably his stereotyping of certain parts of the population as vermin… and we all know how that turned out…:P… sorry I just couldn’t resist bonking you over the head with your own stick.



Shame you weren’t around to advise Bush/Blair before they decided to bring about regime change in half the world…:P



I have written here http://www.9thwonders.com/boards/index.php...53297&st=50 about this but just wanted to say that I prefer the ‘shorter generations’ argument for a higher proportion of evolved humans in under-developed countries rather than the ham-fisted higher populations argument.

As I said before, I think the racial diversity in Heroes is commendable. It is nice to see the Japanese characters always speaking Japanese amongst themselves and for the ‘sub’ titles to be spread throughout the frame somewhat replicating a comic book frame. But why do the Indians speak English even when in India? (or did I imagine this?)

I am not sure what the writer of the original blog means by the females having passive powers, but it is pretty damn obvious how female characters;

• do a hell of a lot of dying e.g Charlie, Eden, Dale, Simone, Hana, Mrs Grey

• being victims in general e.g Merdith used and abandoned by the rich boy, Claire killed in an attempted rape, Eden abused by a step mother, Niki and Jessica abused by a drunk father, implication that Candice was victimised due to her appearance, Mrs Bennet losing her mind, Hana losing her mother & grandmother;

• or be in the service of the powerful white man; Eden, Candice, Jessica.

It’s not just that women are being portrayed as victims and objects but also that this is highly disproportionately so when compared to the men. For example; DL escapes from prison by his own powers, whilst for all her strength, Jessica needs the white man to get her out, contacting him via violence against an intelligent black female.

Another basic misogynistic stereotype is the Madonna/whore dichotomy of which Niki/Jessica is a living embodiment. In a more subtle way this is re-enforced in Janice Parkman; adulteress redeemed via motherhood.

Whilst it is pertinent to this point to note that female characters often find their powers as a reaction against the abuse, Eden and Jessica being examples of that, it must then be noted that till their last redeeming actions, they use their powers to assist the bad guys. Also how many male characters find their powers through abuse; ‘I was neglected by my father’ (Mohinder, Peter) isn’t quite the same as ‘I was killed by my father after a lifetime of abuse’ (Jessica).

And I best not start about the physically strong woman initially being a woman dead through abuse or that the ‘socially’ strong woman ie Mrs Petrelli is willing to sacrifice her son (Medea anoyne?!?) or the fate of the world hanging on saving the blond perpetual virgin .. or the serial killer just needing his mommy to accept him .. or my head will blow up! LOL

My Goddess… I sound as bad as the blog I claimed to be over egging the pudding (yes I changed the analogy … ). But the fact is, the misogyny is there whether conscious or unconscious and the token strong, good, non-victim, non-object and alive female would not address this imbalance even if such a creature existed in the Heroes verse.



Totally agreed.

And finally this is where I get pre-emptively defensive & state that I am a non-white female who works in the field of social justice. I walk this talk every day….

Women in refrigerators!

To be honest, I never really quite noticed this until I saw this thread/read the blog/whatever. At least it's not like some television shows, where minorities are just there as filler characters intended to not get sued. They actually get some action. Hiro stabbed Sylar, DL killed Linderman, Niki got to beat up Candice AND Sylar. It's not just Peter who goes off trying to kill people.

And yes, you're right. The Indians did speak English in India. Maybe it has something to do with Britian ruling over India for a looooong time.

@ last serenade. I read somewhere that Christopher Eccleson (Claude) was asked to play Sylar, but he declined saying something along the lines of "the Brits are always the villians". Go CE!

yes…educated Indians/Pakistanis speak the 'queens English' better possibly than the English... it was certainly my experience in moving to Britain. In the Indian subcontinent, English is taught from pre-school in all fee-paying schools and speaking English is a sign of social status and as such many middle and upper class people choose to converse in English (I call it post colonial mentality… we stopped the white man ruling our lands but not our minds…LOL). Not being allowed to go to India however means that I cannot comment on whether the extent to which Indians conversing in English is shown in Heroes is realistic, though I seriously doubt it.

India was Officialy the 'jewel in the Britsh crown' for 90 years...from 1857 to 1947.

With respect to deconstructing the dominant discourse for its misogynistic content, I found Backlash by Susan Faludi to be an excellent text. Sorry I noticed your age after writing this and at the risk for being patronising, I would say that that text maybe too much to handle for you but there are plenty of sites out there which can provide you with explanations of concepts such as patriachy, misogyny and ojectification. Hope you do have a look ...

They need more female characters with active/offensive power. Apart from Niki and Eden, there's no such character in this series.

First of all, I'm not going to waste my time reading the blog nor am I going to read all of posts on this debate because I've read enough posts to understand what's going on here. The author of the blog (whoever it may be) obviously doesn't know the definition of stereotyping. Please allow me to shed some light on the subject.

There are basically to different types of characters in story writing: round characters and flat characters. A round character is someone who has a complex personality that develops and even changes throughout the story (just like real people). A flat character however, has only one or two personality traits and this type of character doesn't develop or change during the course of the tale. And a stereotype is an extremely flat character.

Now, I don't think any of the main Heroes characters are flat, let alone stereotyped. Last I checked, they all had more than two personality traits and all of them have developed and changed a bit over time.