The problem with discourse today is that people don't listen to understand. They listen to react.
> What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them.
Having gone back and re-read my comment, I have a difficult time seeing the distinction between your choice of words and how I expressed the sentiment.
To illustrate why: what does "relate to" or "empathize" mean if not to imagine yourself in the shoes of another?
I think where the disagreement might enter the picture is in the emphasis on systems and institutions. You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household.
When it comes to personal anecdotes, empirical data is always called for. I can [Citation Needed] your clarified statement of the claim just as easily as you can mine. These are just claims, at the end of the day. A claim that I find suspect because, to restate my position, if someone has a difficult time imagining themselves in the shoes of others because they see race and gender (even if it's a belief in societal systems rather than individually held prejudice), it is still a personal choice to see the world that way. And it's not a very good look on the person making that choice in my humble opinion.
It seems you're having trouble understanding my comment.
My [Citation needed] was for your assertion that "many" are making that claim.
I emphasized the difference between the two claims. Your version of the claim is that it's impossible to relate to characters of different demographics. The non-strawman version of the claim is that the how and when demographics are represented impacts people's perception of those demographics. If you want me to cite people claiming the above, I can. If you want me to cite evidence for the claim, I can also do that.
>You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household.
For someone complaining about people not imaging themselves in the shoes of others, you're sure slow to imagine yourself in the shoes of others. Read some of the comments in this thread, and you'll find plenty of examples of people who never considered that they could do something, because of their race or gender. At least, until they saw examples of positive representation in media.
Have you considered that the reason other people had difficulty imagining themselves doing something when you didn't may be because of the different messages you received growing up rather than them being prejudical?
>it is still a personal choice to see the world that way
This isn't as relevant to my point, but I would absolutely argue this isn't true. If societal systems exist (as you seem to admit) that discriminate based on race and gender, is it a personal failing when those systems make you aware of your race and gender? Have you considered that the reason you are less aware of your race and gender than others may be due to the fact that your race and gender has had less impact on you than others' has on them?
> What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them.
Having gone back and re-read my comment, I have a difficult time seeing the distinction between your choice of words and how I expressed the sentiment.
To illustrate why: what does "relate to" or "empathize" mean if not to imagine yourself in the shoes of another?
I think where the disagreement might enter the picture is in the emphasis on systems and institutions. You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household.
When it comes to personal anecdotes, empirical data is always called for. I can [Citation Needed] your clarified statement of the claim just as easily as you can mine. These are just claims, at the end of the day. A claim that I find suspect because, to restate my position, if someone has a difficult time imagining themselves in the shoes of others because they see race and gender (even if it's a belief in societal systems rather than individually held prejudice), it is still a personal choice to see the world that way. And it's not a very good look on the person making that choice in my humble opinion.