Read on Twitter
I find myself increasingly skeptical of the prescription "have more ____ in the writing room" of shows and other media. Clearly, I want to see people get that money, because I& #39;m far more concerned about fair and compensated representation in labor than just the final product
But so often I see it used as a reductive sort of fail-safe against "Bad Stories." Like, whew boy, this story is sure problematical, this would never happen if you had a ____ in the writing room
As if these creators are just here to temper the most vile impulses of corporate art
As if these creators are just here to temper the most vile impulses of corporate art
"We certainly wouldn& #39;t have all these sexual assault storylines if we had more women in the writing room!!!"
I mean, if that& #39;s the sole function of women writers, we have a larger problem
I mean, if that& #39;s the sole function of women writers, we have a larger problem
"We can fix this [PROBLEM] in my favorite thing by shoving a writer in there to prevent it" is a woefully unhelpful way to look at the collaborative process of any work (yes, even a corporate product) and the contributions of marginalized artists on their own terms
Because I rarely see it framed as bringing in people who are good at what they do and deserve the opportunity, and more so just a check on the ticky box to avoid good faith criticism of the lack of opportunties in the first place
You know
Structural shit!
You know
Structural shit!
Also, to be clear, I don& #39;t believe Representation = Good Art, especially good corporate products, because a corporate product exists to make money, not serve the public. But reducing underrepresented artists to safeguards against "bad stuff" sucks a whole lot
