Are the Academy Awards sexist?
March 6th 2010 21:58
VYOOS EDITORIAL
The Academy awards are sexist because the Best Actor Awards are separated into genders. We don't have separate Best Actor awards for black and white actors, so why should we have them for men and women?
This argument for a single-gender Best Actor category at all festivals of film has been put forward by Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the Center for Study of Women at the University of California, Los Angeles, and has gained prominence this week after Elsesser wrote this article about it in The New York Times.
"Separate is not equal," says Elsesser. "While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances. The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined.
The Oscars, she says, have separated male and female actors into two categories to make sure women get their share of the awards spotlight. "In the 21st century women contend with men for titles ranging from the American president to the American Idol. Clearly, there is no reason to still segregate acting Oscars by sex."
Nice try. Sexism is an important issue, and any suggestion of sexism deserves to be met with the full force of objective public scrutiny. Sexism within the ranks of a venerable institution such as the The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is even more headline-worthy. Wait until the week of the Academy Awards to publish your story, and you have done everything possible to maximise the impact of your story.
If you think I am suggesting Elsesser's claim is cynical opportunism, you are right.
At the heart of the argument is the claim that having Best Actor gongs for men and women insults women. Rubbish. How does it insult women? And if it does insult women, why doesn't it insult men too?
Kim Elsesser suggests the actor awards were separated from the beginning (the first Academy Awards were in 1929) because at that time women had only recently won the right to vote and "so perhaps it was reasonable to offer them their own acting awards". Isn't this turning a positive into a negative? And the argument doesn't make sense, because if that were really the Academy's motivation, why didn't it make the directing, screenplay, music, costume etc awards separate too?
The Academy created Best Actor awards for men and women because it was an eminently sensible thing to do. It reflects the fact that the roles of men and women in films, as of course in life, are different. There are naturally different physical and psychological responses to events. There are largely single-gender issues such as motherhood and priesthood. The roles of women and men are as separate in film as they are in the real world which film reflects.
Recognising that does not create inequality.
"Collapsing two major categories into one would have the added value of reducing the length of the awards show, a move that many viewers would laud," says Elsesser towards the end of her article. Some may laud it, but they have the option of going to make a cup of tea if they get bored, or not watching in the first place. For the industry and for the fans, this night of nights can't go long enough, and for them the thought of losing two of the biggest, most drama-filled moments of the Academy Awards is as unthinkable as it is unnecessary.
Ingrid Bergman won three acting Oscars, but Kim Elsesser says we may have to change that number
| 78 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
For the actors themselves, I think reducing the number of opportunities to win an award would be catastrophic. Even for the filmakers and the promoters it would be a blow having less opportunities to tell the world about their films. For these reasons, I dare say, joining the two categories is pretty much out of the question.
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Pretty much out of the question indeed.
When the academy (and not just the American academy) chose to separate male and female acting awards, but unified everything else, I think they did so for the very reason that Elsesser appears to deny - that acting roles fall very distinctly into two gender categories, just as life does. For those who direct, write words or music, create costumes or light the sets etc, there is no distinction.
I hope all is well in Sinney town,
Chris
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
i dont know, its a tough one, i wouldnt object if they did just mesh them all together, but the actors might because it would halve their chances of winning
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
I tell you what, I'll give you $100, you delete your comment, and I'll slip the line into - oh, wait, dammit, Janet will know.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't think it's sexist to split the categories. A female character calls for a female actor. The role of the director on the other hand is gender neutral, hence creating a female category is actually akin to creating a consolation prize and ensuring women directors will be even less recognised than they are now.
You know what IS sexist? The way they insist on calling female actors "actresses" (seriously does any one say manageress anymore?) and the way they always call out and list the male actor category before the female.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
"Gender neutral" is another term I wish I'd thought of. Those two words sum it up better than I did - everything behind the camera is gender neutral, everything in front of it ain't.
Ruby, it's an interesting speculation about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford - formidable actors indeed. However, in both cases their film careers began in the early '30s, and they wouldn't have affected the thinking of the organisers of the first Academy Awards in 1929.
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
It's a good point. There's also Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, Julie Andrews in Victor Victoria and any number of gender-swapping episodes in the Carry On and Monty Python moves. And Glenn Close is reportedly getting close to making "The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs", about an impoverished woman in 1860s Ireland who disguises herself as a man to get work.
The thing, though, is these were women playing a role as a man (or vice-versa), and therefore still a single-gender exercise (because a man can't play a woman playing a man, if you see what I mean).
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
On the issue of the word "actress". I don't know if I am imagining this or not. A few years ago, it was common to call a lead female actor, a female actor rather than an "actress". They seem to have reverted back to the "actress" tag.
There are similar other jobs that seem to have reverted also., A waitress was at one time called a femaile waiter and I had a debate about this lately.
We don't call a female behind a bar a barmaid anymore nor do we call a flight attendant an "air hostess". But somehow things seem to be reverting back in some fields. Really interesting.