Storyteller Insights: Differing Perceptions of Foster Care Portrayals
Youth with first-hand foster care experience were 3.43 times more likely to believe the portrayal of foster youth in the movie “Instant Family” was accurate compared to youth with no first-hand foster care experience.
This research snapshot highlights a striking revelation: youth with foster care experience are over three times more likely to view Instant Family as an accurate depiction compared to those who have never experienced foster care. This underscores a crucial point—real stories resonate.
The film was inspired by the personal adoption journey of director Sean Anders, who also wrote the screenplay (with John Morris) and served as one of its producers. On the other hand, those unfamiliar with the system approach the film with skepticism, illustrating the need for media to bridge the gap between fiction and reality.
A SHIFT IN FOCUS
In a world where media shapes perceptions, the portrayal of foster care has long been mired in stereotypes, casting a shadow over the real experiences of those within the system. In the past, for example, issues like child abuse and neglect have dominated storylines, painting a picture of dysfunction. Yet, films like Instant Family break this mold. These narratives veer away from one-dimensional portrayals, offering a richer, more empathetic view of the foster care experience.
This research snapshot shows that in order to create positively impactful stories that resonate with audiences, storytellers must engage those who have lived experience with the complex human and social dynamics they seek to represent. Instant Family and other nuanced portrayals of the foster care system challenge long standing misconceptions, and pave the way for a more informed and empathetic understanding of foster care by embracing authenticity over cliché.
Below we break down the findings.
THE STUDY
This research snapshot is based on the findings from a larger research study, in which we surveyed 42 youth, aged 18-26, across California. We examined the differences in how young people with foster care experience and those without foster care experience perceived the accuracy of the depictions of foster care included in Instant Family and other, recently released films that depict the system. For Instant Family, participants viewed a scene that featured one of the children fostered by the protagonists (description below). The data were then analyzed to identify significant differences.
Our findings reveal a profound divide in perceptions of Instant Family between youth with and without foster care experience. Those with firsthand experience found the film's portrayal of foster youth to be strikingly authentic, identifying closely with the characters' emotional journeys, especially in scenes depicting complex feelings like betrayal and disappointment. They lauded the film for mirroring the multifaceted realities of life within the foster care system.
Media Example Synopsis: Instant Family
Instant Family follows the story of two foster parents, Pete and Ellie, who unexpectedly foster three siblings whom they later adopt at the end of the film. The specific scene shown to survey participants takes place after a court hearing where Pete and Ellie attempt to gain legal custody of the three foster children through adoption. The eldest of the foster children, Lizzie, reads a statement to the judge, detailing a negative experience with the foster parents, resulting in the children being placed back into the custody of their biological mother. The next day, the social workers on the case arrive with unexpected news–that the children’s biological mother was not ready to take them back. It becomes apparent that Lizzie took the initiative to complete the paperwork for the family’s reunification, despite her mother’s renewed struggle with her substance addiction. Overwhelmed by this revelation, Lizzie runs away in tears, with Pete and Ellie chasing after her. They eventually catch up with her and offer reassurance of their love.
FINDINGS DISCUSSION
Our findings reveal a profound divide in perceptions of Instant Family between youth with and without foster care experience. Those with firsthand experience found the film's portrayal of foster youth to be strikingly authentic, identifying closely with the characters' emotional journeys, especially in scenes depicting complex feelings like betrayal and disappointment. They lauded the film for mirroring the multifaceted realities of life within the foster care system.
“I have been in this situation before and the way the actress portrayed the foster youth’s betrayal felt so similar and real. It was an accurate representation…the girl was behaving appropriately to her situation, but people [who are] unaware of the care system might have perceived this reaction as negative and over emotional.”
In contrast, those unfamiliar with foster care were more critical, viewing the movie as an overly idealized representation. They pointed out the disparities in the foster care system, such as varying levels of support and resources, and felt the film offered a rosier picture than the actual experiences. This difference in perspective underscores the impact of personal experiences on media interpretation, especially around sensitive and complex issues like foster care.
“There is so much case to case variation, but foster parents don’t often have the money/resources for the “perfect” house, case workers aren’t always so engaged with youth, etc. This clip makes foster care look a lot better than reality. It is a hopeful view of foster youth (including reunification), but maybe not the most accurate.”
CALL TO ACTION: The findings highlighted in this research snapshot demonstrate the need for more accurate representations of the foster care system in media that serve to bridge the gap between perception and reality. In addition, many individuals’ views and behaviors are heavily influenced by the stories they encounter in film and TV. Emphasizing harmful stereotypes of foster youth in media can contribute to the further stigmatization of foster youth and discourage potential foster parents. Storytellers can play a vital role in promoting a more informed and compassionate understanding of foster care.
“Children and young adults in foster care are often depicted as villains in media. These negative images are rooted in deficit-laden ideas of who they are and reified through harmful stereotypes and tropes.”
“I think when people hear the words ‘foster care’ it brings to mind a lot of negativity and fear, and what I found in my travels through the system, over and over again, is that you meet the kids, and you go ‘Oh, they’re just kids. They’re just kids, and they need families and they need love, and they have love to give, just like any other kids.”
Recommendations for Storytellers
We offer the following recommendations for storytellers:
Consult with People with Lived Experiences: Collaborate with foster youth, foster parents, biological parents, and case workers who have experienced the foster care system firsthand to ensure that stories are authentic to real-life experiences.
Diversify Representation: Incorporate a broader spectrum of experiences and stories related to foster care, including positive and nuanced portrayals, to counteract the perpetuation of negative stereotypes.
Raise Awareness: Use storytelling as a means to raise awareness about the foster care system, its challenges, and its successes. This can help create a more informed and empathetic public.
Challenge Stereotypes: Consciously challenge and debunk stereotypes and biases that have been historically perpetuated in media. Showcase the positive contributions of foster parents, case workers, and the real-life experiences of foster youth being normal kids rather than overly inspiring and resilient or hopeless “charity cases.”
By adopting these recommendations, storytellers can play a crucial role in reshaping public perceptions of the foster care system and contributing to a more accurate and compassionate understanding of this important social issue.
Authors: Demontea Thompson, Emma Terrell, Dr. Alisha J. Hines
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by:
Many thanks to CSS interns Jessica Dam and Fernando Becerra for their assistance with this study. Thank you to the Center for Scholars & Storytellers Lab, an amazing group of people who consistently helped refine the data collection and analysis in this project.
Thank you to our Advisory Council, Taylor Dudley, Thomas Lee, Nicole Cadena, Cheyenne Cobb, and Mike Farrah who mentored and guided us along the way toward understanding the impetus of this work and deepening our understanding of the populations we aim to impact.
To the survey respondents, we thank you for shedding light on the issues presented in the original survey. And to the foster care community, thank you for being vocal about what matters to you.
To see the methodology and references for this report, click here.
To see our Foster Care and Adoption Toolkit, click here.
The Social, Political and Personal Effects of Trans Media as told by Tre’vell Anderson
Queer history is not often what society’s heteronormative lens perceives it to be. Queer history dates back to a time when the word did not exist but people who expressed their truest selves did. Tre’vell Anderson, in their book “We See Each Other: A Black, Trans Journey Through TV and Film” explores their own journey of self-discovery as bookmarked by queer media throughout the ages.
Anderson is a journalist who co-hosts podcasts FANTI and What a Day and advocates for trans visibility through their board position in the National Association of Black Journalists. Their inspiration for “We See Each Other: A Black, Trans Journey Through TV and Film” was a culmination of the questions and comments they had on the history of trans images on the big screen.
“Often film and television in our culture is deemed as superfluous, having no meaning or not being important or significant. But, for so many of us film and TV has been a possibility model in terms of how we could potentially show up in the world and it became important in the telling of this history.”
The Morning Consult and Trevor Project reported that out of 2,000 American adults polled, only 29% said they know someone who identifies as transgender. Anderson is quick to point out that most people merely believe they haven’t.
“Trans people have always existed, we are existing in everybody’s community right now. Perhaps you don’t know that trans people exist in your community or you don’t know that you’ve met a trans person because you, the individual, have not made that space around you safe enough for that trans person to tell you.”
Hollywood’s Role
GLAAD has been tracking the presence of trans characters in its annual Where We Are on TV report for many years, noting that in the most recent season of TV analyzed, five percent of characters were openly trans. This represents a higher percentage than the number of openly trans Americans in recent data, meaning that many Americans likely have a better chance of encountering a trans person on TV than in their hometowns.
Many Americans have learned everything they know about the trans community from the media and the trans narratives they feature. Media is still showing transgender individuals in scenes and experiences that are intended to implant the idea that being transgender is synonymous with something “ridiculous, horrible and abhorrent,” as Anderson states. It plays a large role in not just the erasure of trans history but it creates a complacence in audiences where they don’t question these narratives of transgender people that are being constantly perpetuated.
“What people learn about us as trans people is coming from film and TV, coming from our cultural productions. So how does what we see on TV and in movies manifest as the very real violences that we as trans people, especially black trans people and especially black trans women see in film?”
In Anderson’s opinion, films like “Psycho” and “Silence of the Lambs” that show transgender people or people in drag as killers, predators, groomers, and/or criminals promote dangerous ideas to their audiences. They feel that audiences are more inclined to accept seeing trans people on the screen being killed because, subconsciously, they do not value the lives of these characters as they might other characters in the story.
“You don’t even question it, which is evidence of how in a lot of ways, so many people, trans people included, become complicit in transphobia and anti-trans hate, transmisia... So a lot of my work at this moment is about getting people to realize the ways in which we are all complicit in the violence that we say we are against.”
However, Anderson points to the people who spearheaded trans visibility in media: Candis Cayne - the first transgender actress to play a recurring transgender character on the primetime show, Dirty Sexy Money, Chaz Bono - whose transitioning journey was highlighted in the documentary, Becoming Chaz, and was screened at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival and appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Network, and Laverne Cox - the first transgender person to be nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award and who later won a Daytime Emmy Award for being an executive producer on “Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word.”
“You have these people but then you also have a generation, generations of trans folk who are working actors, working directors, producers, who are visible on social media and beyond at the same time.”
Political Backlash
Despite this progress, Anderson explains how they, in their book and in their life, see trans visibility as a double-edged sword. While this visibility is impactful in portraying the trans community in a complex and positive manner, it also places a spotlight on the community that can be exploited to stoke fear, political action, and in some cases, violence.
“That visibility, which has allowed so many people to be seen, which has allowed so many people to actualize their truth because they now have an example of what that could look like at the same time this means we are seeing the trans community in particular, but the LBGTQ+ community more broadly, facing legislative attack.”
Supporting the trans community has become highly politically charged. It is all too common for conservative social media users to post angry messages about listing personal pronouns or for conservative parents to appear on the news complaining about trans athletes competing against their children. Legislatively, this culture of outrage has resulted in laws over who can use which bathroom, bans on gender-affirming care, and even the regulation of speech surrounding LGBTQ+ issues in schools. These harmful policies dehumanize trans people, deny them basic human rights, and send a message that how trans people express themselves is intolerable.
Even before the term transgender existed, people who identified as such were present. In these instances, the lack of language perhaps offered them some reprieve from the hatred transgender people experience today. Anderson points out people like Marsha P. Johnson - who wasn’t calling herself a transgender woman - and Slyvester James Jr. - who wasn’t identifying with today’s terms like gender non-conforming or non-binary but was still expressing oneself in an androgynous manner. Now language is being weaponized by people who are too narrow-minded or hateful to expand their words and perspectives.
“By weaponizing the visibility of a community that folks feel like they don’t know because of language, while also exploiting what is just a natural gender ignorance, folks who don’t know this new language or haven’t heard it, who aren’t in social justice or socially component communities when it comes to transness and non-binary identity are doing this because it allows them to have a greater base of support of hate.”
Supporting the Trans Community
Anderson’s book, “How We See Each Other” is an essential resource in not only understanding the good and bad ways that transgender people have been represented in the media overtime, but also what storytellers should be doing to support the trans community when they need it most. Within its pages, Anderson encourages everyone to look at what content they are consuming and employ that awareness to create a safer environment for trans people in everyday life.
“What I’m talking about in the book is how so many of these images have helped me create out of the depths of my imagination this being, this person that I am today.”
While there exist people whose only intention is to erase and diminish, to tell the transgender community who they can and cannot be, Anderson preaches a brave and earnest freedom that has been the antidote to all of this hatred.
“I’m going to be who I know I am. I’m going to articulate myself based on the truth of my own internal knowing not what you or a doctor or the Republicans or the Democrats say we are.”
The conditioning that says your autonomy and freedom should be stifled or that you are confined to the box that society has placed you in based on the gender you were assigned at birth is rightfully being broken with this proud way of thinking and existing.
Media corporations and people in society as a greater whole can all contribute by starting simply with looking at their own actions and beliefs. Anderson urges everyone to look inside themselves and recognize whether they are creating a safe space for trans people in their local communities. Whether you know or not that you are coming in contact with a transgender person, there should be an inherent respect and safe intention in everyone’s actions.
For Anderson that means fighting back on transphobic jokes, asking employers if the insurance offers gender-affirming care, advocating for gender neutral bathrooms in communities or any other small but impactful step you can take locally.
In the film industry, this means working to create more opportunities for transgender people to find jobs and find fame simply by being who they are.
“We don’t have a transgender movie star, like a transgender Will Smith or Denzel Washington or Viola Davis. That largely connects to the opportunities that trans actors and actresses have been given and offered. In this industry we don’t have a Hollywood studio led by any trans people.”
These are institutional changes that society should make to broaden the scope of knowledge and human experience that the media is showing but more than that, it starts with a single person’s actions.
“I know it sounds innocuous but the reality is that we need people to stand up for and assert the humanity of trans people proudly and loudly.”
For Anderson, they believe that if there had been this education and awareness of transgender communities when they were growing up, they could have had an entirely different experience, one that they are hoping young transgender people can finally have today.
“Who might I have been if I knew the outsized impact that Black folks have had on culture and society since the beginning of time? Who could I have been if I had known about the trans pioneers? Imagine who I could have been if I had all of those things, imagine who [transgender people] could be when fully equipped with the information that accurately reflects the society that we live in currently and that we have always lived in.”
This bittersweet provocation proves the importance of enriching society with more culturally component resources and education and not allowing the erasure of entire communities from history.
“It requires us to remain vigilant in our storyteller, in our advocacy and everything else in between.”
This issue of trans-visibility and trans-violence is not just an issue for the moment. It is something to consider and combat everyday through education, compassion and practiced acts of inclusion. Storytellers and filmmakers can use their platforms to create more content that inspires audiences who, like Anderson, struggled to see themselves reflected in the media. Writers and journalists can tell the stories of individuals who are queer and can accurately comment on the experiences they face. It is the responsibility of creators and consumers alike to increase visibility with everyday small but important actionable changes.
The Symbiotic Relationship between Researchers, Storytellers, and Gen Z in Authentically Representing LGBTQ+ Youth
Media has the power to shape our communities, and that is especially important when we look at the representation of historically marginalized groups like the LGBTQ+ community. The ideas and beliefs contained in media content, both positive and negative, directly impact audience attitudes about the world around them. When featuring queer adolescent characters, it’s essential to listen to the perspectives of today’s teens and young adults and create stories that implement the real change and representation they want to see in their communities. In a cycle of listening, creating, and learning, storytellers, adolescents, and researchers can and should collaborate to create authentic depictions of LGBTQ+ adolescents that inspire and positively impact audiences.
Sheena Brevig, a filmmaker and the Workshop Director for the Center for Scholars & Storytellers (CSS), draws from her own experiences as a queer person to foster more accurate representation of LGBTQ+ communities in film and television. Whether it be through facilitating workshops for large entertainment companies or working on smaller film projects, often in collaboration with other queer creators, she “really believes in the power of storytelling to break down walls and foster conversations that might be hard to have.”
For Brevig, the most beautiful part of this is creating projects that others can watch and relate to, find bits of themselves in, and serve as parallel experiences for the queer community.
“It’s about increasing visibility for the queer community as well as breaking down stigma. Particularly in queer communities of color and in my case, Asian and Japanese queer communities.”
For instance, Brevig’s LGBTQ+ Identities workshops have created vulnerable moments of sharing and healing between strangers.
“People end up sharing really vulnerable things and it seems to be somewhat cathartic, or it seems to start a conversation for the company on their end. We have played the role of this unique kind of start-the-conversation-space.”
Brevig and her team have even worked to tackle areas often not addressed when considering diversifying media landscapes, like the gaming industry. In collaboration with Activision Blizzard King Gaming, Brevig ran one of the most interactive workshops to support the breaking of old patterns and toxic representations of gender. The Body Diversity Workshop, which ran in collaboration with Warner Media explored “body-type diversity, representation, and character creation. It was something every single person in the audience could relate to, it doesn’t matter what gender you are or how old you are.”
Many industries and companies stick to stale tactics of performative LGBTQ+ representation – like adding rainbow colors to their company’s logo for Pride Month – and think it achieves the impact queer youth are asking for. In actuality, these are tiny changes that check a box but do not appease the greater audience who want more acknowledgment and action. These audience demands are long overdue and Brevig encourages the calling out of companies that have not completely embraced this wave of much-needed change.
“The queer community is critical of what they’re seeing and they want to feel represented, they will call out things that are through a heteronormative lens. ”
It is not just about quantity but quality of representation, for example expanding past just the gay white male lens and including all queer communities. This pursuit for intentional content that creates a genuinely positive impact is one of the best outcomes of Brevig’s workshops. They unify and inspire others to learn from her team’s guidance and plant seeds of change wherever they go.
Clearly, the impact is evident, with people who participated in CSS’ workshops applying learned empathy to shows and movies they create. After attending the workshops, Tim Federle, the showrunner for High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, a show that ran on Disney Channel starting in 2019, was able to bring a fresh awareness and perspective to the writers' room when developing his diverse cast of queer characters. “It was a really full circle moment where I saw how the workshops we put on were applied. As a viewer, I saw how much I could reap the benefits of seeing this more inclusive and more accurately, authentically representative content,” said Brevig.
For Nare Aghadjanian, a rising sophomore at UCLA, who identifies as queer and fights for queer rights every day, seeing shows like High School Musical: The Musical: The Series and other recently diversified shows is something she has a personal stake in. For Aghadjanian, feeling safe and represented is equally about a physical and digital environment.
At UCLA she says that at first she “wasn’t expecting to feel as safe being out as queer at [school] as [much as she] ended up being.” But Aghadjanian found a community.
“There was a Pride Admit Weekend that I attended online that made me feel really glad about going to LA for school, I knew that no matter what I would always have a community, and after being surrounded by a lot of homophobia that led to major mental health issues, it was a breath of fresh air to see the resource center and queer groups at UCLA. ”
Digital and intangible representation is just as important and impactful and Aghadjanian fiercely highlighted all the negativity and misrepresentation that is not being addressed. “I see so much racism, misogyny, transphobia, sexualization, and ableism.” She echoes the need to break free of the heteronormative patterns industries have fallen into, saying how mainstream movies and novels only focus on what makes them comfortable rather than what actually incites change. “When aiming for representations of marginalized groups it’s important actually to have it represent the general public - these movies shouldn’t be focused on the sexual aspect or just be one big coming out story.”
Nuanced storytelling is what Aghadjian is fighting for and she encourages every young, eager queer person to fight for it too. “I hope one day queer representation will turn towards actual representation and not just be a glorification of a white gay man, even if that representation is critical as well,” she said. The amplification of voices like hers is another step industries, researchers and creators alike should take, expanding their hearts to listen and implement what the youth actually feel.
“Queer people are not just a coming out story or solely experience violence, there should be an incorporation of all love.”
The benefit is nothing if not a win-win, allowing audiences to feel more seen, reflecting the world as it really is, and allowing studios to find more success and respect in the industry.
Research is the root of all this change and communication between researchers and creators is the conduit to representation that reflects the truth of queer stories and real-lived experiences. Adriana Manago, Ph.D., a cultural development psychologist, has been researching LGBTQ+ adolescents and the power of social media. She’s found that social media was not an obstacle but a tool for LGBTQ+ kids to explore themselves and use the language of the Internet to develop their queer identities in a place full of community and validation.
“There are three key navigational strategies on social media for engaging with cultural narratives for gender and sexuality on social media platforms: seeking and sharing information, creating queer community, and making choices about visibility and permanence.”
By engaging in all of these activities, LGBTQ+ teens can branch past the restrictive definitions of gender that Manago said are part of the hard-to-break rigidity of youth identity development. More than anything, a supportive environment whether digital or family-based is key to offering the honest and authentic space LGBTQ+ teens need to feel understood and represented in the media they are consuming.
“LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith. My students and I have examined variations in social media use and consequences depending on family contexts and intersections between gender, sexual, and ethnic identities. In these studies, we are finding that LGBTQ+ youth who have more supportive families and who provide resources for exploration and validation are less likely to rely on social media to understand and construct the self.”
Being proactive and utilizing the various intersecting identities of individuals to initiate change is one of the most important and beautiful tools of research. LGBTQ+ teens are using social media to find a safe space and to understand themselves, and so perhaps if creators understand this intimate need for a space to grow, this quest will be satiated much sooner. If Brevig’s comments and Aghadjian’s input are taken to heart, compounded with the robust research of psychologists like Manago, real change is on the horizon and this Pride Month brings us one step closer to it.
The Marginalized Group Inclusion Spaces Forgot to Include
My family comes from a small, persecuted, indigenous people from the Middle East. We have been refugees for a painfully long time. When my grandfather was a child, he was lined up with his family to see how many people a bullet could go through. His family thankfully got away and fled to the US. My other grandfather experienced segregation here. My father was regularly beaten up as a kid for his marginalized status.
I grew up in a middle-class home, but my parents still gave me the talk that almost every child in my tribe gets — either informally and/or once a year — when the elders share our national story. It goes like this: “In every generation our enemies rise up to destroy us.” I had nightmares throughout my childhood of when that day would come. This is not uncommon for people in my community.
My darker skin was called out throughout my childhood growing up in New Jersey, and I was verbally harassed for my marginalized status. My classmates noticed that I looked “ethnic,” and I was regularly asked what I “was” or if my mother ate too much chocolate when she was pregnant with me. My sisters and aunts have fairer features, but as far as we know, no one in our family ever married outside of our tribe. Systemic violence against our foremothers in past generations was common, but there is a lot of shame around this topic, so it is not often discussed.
In my teen years, I began to derive pride in our homeland and strength from the spiritual practices of our people, which I adopted. In the last year, both of my daughters were called slurs on the street because our traditional clothing gave them away. My community is the most attacked religious minority community in the US right now as well as the most attacked racial group per capita*. On TV and in movies, my tribe is portrayed through a colonialist lens. We are shown as having outdated values and practices that need fixing. Characters from my community only receive praise when someone is “courageous enough” to leave.
I am a Jew.
An Orthodox Jewish woman, to be precise.
Defining the Jewish Experience in Progressive Language
If the plight of Jews was seen in the aforementioned light, we would have been part of DEIA spaces from the very beginning. But Jews are rarely regarded like this. Even though our story of oppression — tracing the violent exile of the Jewish people from Israel by the Romans, including the murder of 1 million and the enslavement of the rest, blood libels, Crusades, expulsions, inquisitions, forced segregation behind ghetto walls, pogroms, and the Holocaust — is completely true. So is the systemic racism against Jews in the US that began with the limitation of voting rights and the ability to hold office in some states, quotas in Ivy League schools, Asiatic immigration restrictions, redlining, segregation in pools, hotels, and beaches, and gatekeeping in professional industries, like law and publishing and some country clubs, that persist to this day.
Instead, Jews are seen as European whites (thank you, Whoopi!), who magically sprouted of out Poland a couple hundred years ago. Too rich, too privileged, too powerful to be a protected class. All of these ideas are antisemitic tropes that are baked into progressive ideology. This needs to change.
Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews are considered brown, but as a Jew whose family was expelled to a land where they eat gefilte fish, I was led to believe that I am white, even though my lived experience has shown me that the world doesn’t view me this way. To be brown, and simultaneously gaslit that you are not brown, is very confusing.
I grew up as a proud Conservative Jew, the only Jewish girl for most of my years in public school, where I was told “Jews killed Jesus” and “Jewish people howl at the moon and pray to the devil.” A double murder/suicide of a classmate and her brother by their father when I was 8 years old pushed me into an existential crisis. After 7 years of off and on insomnia and minor panic attacks, I met an Orthodox Jewish teacher at an after-school Hebrew high. He was nothing like what traditional media had led me to believe he’d be like. He was kind and compassionate, a feminist and wise. I slowly grew in my observance, proudly retaining all of the wonderful parts of my secular identity, but adding wisdom and spirituality to my life. As an Orthodox Jew today, my family and I are identifiably Jewish on the street. I have been victim-shamed, told that we are the ones who choose to wear our yarmulkes and wigs and skirts. If we “only” looked more American and visited our kosher stores, yeshivas, and synagogues less frequently, we could be safe.
For Jews who are secular and white-passing, they are subjected to a purity test that other white-passing marginalized individuals are not. And richness negating marginalized status does not seem to apply to other groups such as Indian Americans, even though they are the wealthiest ethnic group in the US.
Success Does Not Negate Past Trauma and a Sense of Foreboding
Inter-generational trauma is a phenomenon that affects nearly all Jews, no matter how they look or what they practice. So is the foreboding most of us feel towards the future. Many of us have been feeling it more than ever, since Kanye made antisemitic rhetoric mainstream. Jewish baggage is never being able to fully unpack. And the one place we might have to flee to one day, to unpack in, is riddled with complicated politics, when so many of us simply want a place to exhale and to live in peace.
The “talk” that most Jewish parents give their children happens during the Passover seder. For some, it includes being told to always have your passport ready. With the most lethal attacks on Jews in American history occurring in the last five years and with Jews being the most targeted religious group, despite being only 2% of the population, more and more of us are wondering when we may need to dust off those passports.
Next week is Holocaust Remembrance Day, but frankly I’m sick of the Jewish people only being remembered as a group that was murdered often or a people too privileged to need protection. Instead, I want to be known and celebrated for the proud, vibrant, self-actualized Jewish life that I live, which bursts with meaning and joy. But since it’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, I’ll invoke the Nazis who used propaganda to turn the world against Jews. They are a reminder of how damaging media can be for a marginalized group and the responsibility the entertainment world has to prevent and counter-act this.
A History (And Present) of Harmful Media Portrayals
The vilification of Jews throughout Western media started much earlier than the Third Reich. In ancient Egypt, in the third century B.C.E., Jews were accused of being the Hykos people and spreading leprosy. Jews being seen as vectors of disease continued with them being blamed for spreading the Bubonic Plague, the Nazis accused Jews of being lice and spreading tuberculosis, and shockingly, this trope has appeared in modern day traditional media. Blood libels of Jews began in the Middle Ages, when Christians accused them of kidnapping Christian children to bake their blood into matzah. Depictions of Jews as bloodthirsty baby-killers has popped up in communities all over the world and continues to this day. Also in the Middle Ages, a mistranslation of the Old Testament led to Jews being depicted with horns. This trope recently appeared in a Netflix advertising campaign. The Book of Revelations describes the antichrist as having horns and a tail and clubbed feet. With Jews already having horns, this resulted in the portrayal of Jews as all out demons. Starting in the 12th century, Jews became hooked-nose in paintings. The two church councils in 1267 forced Jews to wear pointy hats. Those hats, coupled with the hook-nosed trope, led to Jews becoming the inspiration for witches.
Jon Stewart was right about the goblins in Harry Potter looking Jewish, not because anyone associated with the films is necessarily antisemitic, but rather because little men with big noses counting money is yet another trope that was born out of the Jew-hatred. Take 3 minutes to watch Funny or Die’s animated short on how greedy, big nosed Jews became cartoon villains. The practice of “stage Jew” began in the 1600’s, when non-Jewish actors would dress up in Jewish garb to mock and make fun of Jews. While Sarah Silverman popularized the term “Jewface” to mean non-Jewish actors regularly getting cast in Jewish parts — a topic worthy of discussion in its own right, especially when contemporary movies put large noses on gentile actors to play Jews (see Maestro) — it has an older and even more sinister origin.
Jewface was done in vaudeville-style minstrels, both in Eastern Europe and the US, starting in the 1800s. Sometimes it was secular Jews mocking their religious brethren. Other times, antisemitic regimes, like the Bolsheviks, manipulated secular Jews with the promise of self-preservation to throw religious Jews under the bus. (Tragically, the Bolsheviks ended up killing those Jews too.) Nazis also employed Jewface in their 1940 propaganda film “The Eternal Jew.” Jewface persists in Hollywood today, often perpetrated by fellow Jews (see our mini documentary “Hollywood’s Orthodox Jew Problem”), even though this practice is thankfully verboten for other marginalized communities.
On that note, let’s dig into the trope that Jews run Hollywood. Jews don’t run Hollywood, but they founded it because more prestigious industries shut them out due to antisemitism. The Hollywood founders hid their Jewishness, assimilated and relied on self-deprecation to survive. Sadly, many of today’s Jews in Hollywood seem to have internalized so much Jew hatred that the depictions we often see are caricatures who are not fully human and are often insufferable. Non-Jewish writers and producers are also guilty of embedding these tropes into storylines. A CSA member recently told me that Jewish actors usually play down their Jewishness, lest it negatively impact their career. In an age when every other marginalized group is proudly leading into their identity, when will the Jews be ready for this too??
Reshaping Jewish Identities in Hollywood
What if Jews on screen could be more often portrayed as endearing individuals, with shared struggles and shared joy? While the viewer may never get to know someone from this background in real life, the screen can be a conduit to building a relationship of admiration and respect. That’s why my organization launched the first and only Hollywood Bureau for Jews last year. No one had done it before, because no one was ready to lay this out like we are. And if you’re wondering why a small nonprofit that no one ever heard of had the chutzpah to take on Hollywood, there is nothing more Jewish than being a little guy, who doesn’t know his place. Or in my case, a little woman.
Fortunately, my inspiration to be courageous comes from looking at Jewish heroines from my tradition, like Queen Esther of Purim fame (movie idea, people!), instead of taking cues from the meek and voiceless Orthodox Jewish women Hollywood depicts.
Already, we are commissioning an in-depth character analysis and impact study with a leading academic entertainment group, to explore bias in media and the negative ways inaccurate depictions of Jews shape viewers’ opinions. We’re about to have a panel at Sundance on problematic Jewish representation in Hollywood (the first of its kind) and attended the Television Academy Inclusion Summit in November. We have met with all the major studios and are creating materials with the Think Tank for Inclusion and Equity (TTIE) to train showrunners. In time, we hope to place consultants and proud and knowledgeable Jewish writers into writers’ rooms so that we can prevent harmful tropes and silly caricatures of the secular nebbish Jew, the evil, extremist Hasid, or the only-white Jew. Characters like these increase judgement, derision and hate.
#Neveragain is feeling closer than ever, but meaningful changes in the entertainment industry could stem the tide. We will usher in a new generation of Jews who are ready to lean into our heritage and demand proud and authentic representation. Perhaps when we Jews see our heroes on the screen, we’ll be overcome with self-love, and then the world will follow.
*Annual rates of hate crimes against Jewish people and Black people in the US are nearly the same number despite the Black population being almost ten times larger.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Scholars & Storytellers.
Adopt: A New Perspective
Being the youngest child in a sibling group of five brings some unique challenges that can build character, a thick skin, and a can-do attitude. Some "good ol' fashioned" ribbing from older siblings or running as fast as you can to keep up with the cool older brothers never hurt anyone. I hold those memories dear, and I am grateful for them, as they helped to shape me into who I am today. But in retrospect now as an adoptive parent and social worker in the field of foster care and adoption, what I remember as "good ol' fashioned ribbing" sheds new light. My older siblings would say to me, "Mom and Dad haven't told you yet, but you were adopted." I remember feeling scared about what that meant, too young to quite understand. But what I knew for sure was they were attempting to convey bad news, and it revealed I didn't belong in the same way the older four did. I actually was quite younger than the older four and was a pleasant surprise to my parents, as they thought their family was complete at four children. Needless to say, I joined the Guilfoyle family the same way the rest of the crew did and it was not through adoption.
Where did my siblings learn to believe that adoption was something negative? Media has a major influence in our society, establishing norms and beliefs representing how we see ourselves and how we see "others." These messages are then passed on through our relationships within our families, neighborhoods and communities. While my experiences may have been in the 1970s the negative connotations, some 50 years later, still exist and are easily slipped in as a joke or passing comment without a second thought to their effects.
Recently on Good Morning America, host Amy Robach interviewed actors Martin Freeman and Daisy Haggard from the FX show "Breeders," which is described as a dark and honest look at parenting. The focus of the interview was on the actors’ and host’s children in real life.
In the episode clip that followed, the parents are chatting about parenting woes. The wife says to her husband, "Should we just give the kids up for adoption?" Her husband responds with "Done." And they laugh.
In 2021, adoption continues to be used as a punch line by writers in TV and film. When I hear "jokes" like this it takes my breath away—not because of any leftover anxiety from my older siblings’ teasing—but because I have felt and seen, first hand, the effects via my experiences as an adoptive parent as well as a social worker who has assisted children and families on their own adoption journeys. I immediately think how this "joke" lands on and impacts these children and my son. What does it say to a parent who has made a plan of adoption for their child? Such a difficult, heart-wrenching decision should not be made into a punchline. What does it convey to a child or adult adoptee about their adoption experience and their place in their family? I must have done something wrong. I must have been bad.
I hear the counterargument ringing in my ears as I type, and it goes something like this: "Kids need to toughen up these days. We are creating wimpy kids. Everyone is so easily offended, lately." Truthfully, I do not want to create an argument through this blog, instigating each person to defend their opinion. Rather, I am hoping for writers to consider not using adoption as a punch line because they know there are real children and real adults who have a connection to adoption in their viewing audience. Some of these children are in foster care waiting for a family to say "YES" to their adoption plan and certainly have experienced enough in their short lives. Being on the other end of a "joke" in media or learned through media is cruel.
I believe kids can build resiliency, character, perseverance and determination from healthy and natural outlets and experiences without being figuratively “poked in the eye” with intention.
Consider the response to seeing an adult walk up to a child and purposefully poking them in the eye, causing the child to cry, believing they did something wrong to deserve it. Would the response be, “Buck up,” or “It will make you tougher for the road ahead” or “It builds character”? Participating in a sport or learning to play an instrument, whiffing at strike three, or forgetting the notes to a song and coming back to try again and again, build those characteristics we see as valuable. Children have plenty of real-life experiences to draw from to assist in building healthy resilience, fortitude and strength. Let us not create artificial and hurtful experiences through media that beat them down.
Our son does not need to live through punchlines about adoption to build his resilience. He does not need to be exploited through media, with other children learning these punchlines and using them on the playground to build his character. My hope is that writers and actors will keep in mind that their audience includes families and children with connections to adoption, and understand that perpetuating negative connotations impact the real feelings of real people.
When we know better, we all have it in us to do better.
Actionable Insights
Content creators have an opportunity to influence viewers with their storylines and narratives about adoption. Using adoption as a punch line by suggesting a child is less than because of their connection to adoption or that birth parents created a plan of adoption for their child as a flippant decision can negatively impact the self-image of a large number of children and adults. The implications of a content creator’s writing can also create positive change for how adoption is perceived by an adoptee, prospective adoptive parent, birth parent, and peers on the playground. Using positive adoption language, not stereotyping adoptees or birth parents, and simply removing adoption in any format as a punch line provides an opportunity to create positive change in our community.
Consider these statistics:
There are approximately 120,000 children just in the United States in foster care waiting to be adopted.
One out of every 25 US families with children has a child who joined their family through adoption. About half of these families have both children through birth and adoption (US Census).
Approximately 7 million Americans were adopted.
Around 140,000 children are adopted by American families each year.
Nearly 100 million Americans have adoption in their immediate family, whether this includes adopting, placing a child, or being adopted.
Six in 10 Americans have personal experience with adoption, meaning they themselves, a family member, or a close friend was adopted, adopted a child, or placed a child for adoption.
It is estimated that between 1 and 2 million couples are waiting to adopt, yet only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies make the decision to place their children through adoption.
On average, children wait 3 years for an adoptive family and the average child waiting for an adoptive family is 8 years old.
Marianne Guilfoyle
Chief Innovations Officer, Allies for every child