But then should we create categories only black people can win, only gay people can win, etc? Where does it end? Should women never compete against men in anything?
I think it’s best to try to make the judging fair and impartial and let women compete against men unless it’s something men have an inherent advantage in, like weightlifting.
The problem is that judging (and promotion and opportunity) are not fair and impartial, which is why female categories have to exist. I think most people would prefer the mixed-sex fair and impartial approach, but as societies we are no closer to making that happen. If anything, we’re drifting further away from it, at the moment.
It’s true that the same is true for people of colour, but there’s a difference because of the overlap: black men are men, but men are not women. So while they are both definitely problems, they are not quite the same problem. And I think that fixing those societal biases will require different things.
I was nodding along in agreement until I realized this kept Elizabeth Moss from winning. Now I have mixed feelings, since in my opinion she is awful in Handmaid’s Tale (I otherwise like the show, aside from the middle seasons dragging a bit).
“there are plenty of awards set aside for Black people or for gay people. Why shouldn’t there be?”
That’s fine, but I mean there’s not categories at every major acting awards show (like the Oscars, Emmys, etc) that only black people or gay people can win, so why women? Are women more underrepresented or unfairly judged in acting?
Most definitely yes. Women get a far smaller percentage of screen time in the first place, so how could it be fair for them to have to go up against men for best acting awards?
Most Hollywood movies star a man, a man, a man, and a man.
Yes. More roles for men. Better roles for men. Films aimed at audiences who expect films to be about men and told to expect films to be about men. Awards committees that pander to the men who make the films about the men that audiences are told they should want..
The playing field is not level and reviewing the judging process isn’t going to solve that.
But then should we create categories only black people can win, only gay people can win, etc? Where does it end? Should women never compete against men in anything?
I think it’s best to try to make the judging fair and impartial and let women compete against men unless it’s something men have an inherent advantage in, like weightlifting.
But it’s not just about “competitions” or even just “fairness.” It’s ultimately about the safety, and well-being of women. Trans-identified males are not women, can not be women, and never will be women. By being “kind” and pretending they arewomen is to buy into the delusion that changing sex is possible, and that all you need to do that is to grow your hair long, put on a dress, simper, and tilt your head. Normalizing the idea that men can be women in any way whatsoever, in any situation, manner or capacity at all, erodes the safety and wellbeing of women. It makes no difference whether they are “really” trans or not; the ever-expanding “trans umbrella” has rendered whatever meaning the original concept of “trans” may have had irrelevent. The demand for relaxed “restrictions” on what is portrayed as bigotted “gatekeeping,” of “womanhood” is, in reality, a demand for the erasure of women’s boundaries. The medals and awards that should have gone to women, but which have been stolen by men (with the collusion of the organizations and institutions presenting them), is a big, deliberate FUCK YOU to women. Anyone who applauds, or nods approvingly, of men stealing women’s awards, recognitions, and opportunities is reinforcing that message, and making it easier for more organizations and institutions to do so.
Awards like this are the poisoned sugar-frosting on much more serious violations of women’s safety, but they are just as much a part of it. Acceptance of men-who-claim-to-be-women taking trophies and titles from women is of a piece with men-who-claim-to-be-women being housed in women’s prisons, or admitted to women-only hospital wards, or women-only shelters. It’s all the same thing. It’s all a consequence of pretending that men can be women, and that some men are women. Neither of these is true, but we are not permitted to mention or discuss this, let alone question it, without accusations of “hatred” and “genocide.” Those who dare raise doubts or start discussions openly are harassed and threatened, and told that they are not entitled to speech without “consequences.” Yet trans activists demand the acceptance, and enthusiastic affirmation of lies without consequences. They demand that women willingly collude in their own oppression. Sadly, there are women who do.
The endorsement of the lie that men can be, or are women, harms women. That these lies are endorsed nonetheless, simply proves that women don’t matter. Going along with these lies sends a message. There is no space or position that women are allowed to have away from men, not even a prison cell. Men’s needs, desires, and whims will always over-ride the safety and well being of women. Men are too important to be denied; women are too unimportant to consider. Whether it is on the podium, or in the cell block, women are expected to swallow the lie and accept the consequences with, if not a smile, then at least compliant silence. If smiles and silence are not forthcoming, then any resistance will be hidden by the authorities, and smiles and applause will be provided by far too many people who are far too eager to say FUCK YOU, WOMEN!
Actually, gay men are not underrepresented. They are actually overrepresented, present and working in much higher percentages than they are in the population in both live theatre and Hollywood. Also, some venues (live theatre, I know; I don’t know about the others) have done such a good job of including people of color and promoting their work that they are slightly overrepresented now. In fact, the most underrepresented group in theatre is…white women. We are represented at less than half the percentage we make up in the population; white men are the most overrepresented at more than twice the percentage they are in the population. People of color have reached parity, and a little above, but because people in the fine arts seem unable or unwilling to understand anything mathematical or scientific, they continue to promote the work of people of color at the expense of white women (never at the expense of white men).
So yeah, there are lots of things that do base decision making on the color of a person’s skin or their sexual orientation. In fact, almost every competition I see now for women specifies black women, indigenous women, or lesbians. I will admit I think lesbians are probably underrepresented, but I don’t have any data for that, and indigenous people are underrepresented.
I have no beef with promoting the work of BIPOC; I have a beef with the fact that it is at the expense of white women, not the expense of white men. The dominant force in live theatre (possibly also in Hollywood) is white, gay, Jewish men. (I had no idea about the Jewish part until some guy being promoted said he was in the dominant group – he fit all of those. He accepted the job and proceeded to ensure women couldn’t get their stuff heard because….reasons.)
If awards for “best actor” become single categories for both sexes, women will have very little chance of ever winning such an award. Not because they “can’t compete with men” when it comes to acting, but because they are rarely given the opportunity. I can flick through my umpteen tv channels and see movie after tv show about men and their adventures, struggles, achievements, hopes and dreams. Male actors have always had (almost) the entire spectrum of human experience to portray, while female actors get to pop up for just long enough to establish whatever it is the audience need to know about the male character. How much skill does anyone need to play Mr Bigstar’s wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter? They are so often just backstory, plot devices, scenery, prizes to be won, loved ones to be avenged. But at least they have been indispensable in those roles until now – in the sense that if there is a female role, it’s because the story requires that character to be female. Now it seems female actors are going to be pushed out of that niche as well, by men who are considered to be able to woman just as well as actual women, if not even better. Why? Because women aren’t really people, are they. They are just social roles, defined by their relationship to a man.
And, the firsts woman to win more than a $million on Jeapardy is also, now, you guessed it. A woman.
https://ew.com/tv/jeopardy-amy-schneider-wins-over-1-million-dollars/
Not a woman. A man.
But then should we create categories only black people can win, only gay people can win, etc? Where does it end? Should women never compete against men in anything?
I think it’s best to try to make the judging fair and impartial and let women compete against men unless it’s something men have an inherent advantage in, like weightlifting.
Otherwise you send the message women just aren’t good enough to compete against men in, say, acting.
Anna,
The problem is that judging (and promotion and opportunity) are not fair and impartial, which is why female categories have to exist. I think most people would prefer the mixed-sex fair and impartial approach, but as societies we are no closer to making that happen. If anything, we’re drifting further away from it, at the moment.
It’s true that the same is true for people of colour, but there’s a difference because of the overlap: black men are men, but men are not women. So while they are both definitely problems, they are not quite the same problem. And I think that fixing those societal biases will require different things.
I was nodding along in agreement until I realized this kept Elizabeth Moss from winning. Now I have mixed feelings, since in my opinion she is awful in Handmaid’s Tale (I otherwise like the show, aside from the middle seasons dragging a bit).
Maybe Elliot Page can return the favor.
@3 I don’t think I understand…there are plenty of awards set aside for Black people or for gay people. Why shouldn’t there be?
https://www.jhalakprize.com/
https://lambdaliterary.org/awards/
There are awards for disabled people, Welsh people, people under 25…I don’t think that means that people in any of these categories are inferior.
“there are plenty of awards set aside for Black people or for gay people. Why shouldn’t there be?”
That’s fine, but I mean there’s not categories at every major acting awards show (like the Oscars, Emmys, etc) that only black people or gay people can win, so why women? Are women more underrepresented or unfairly judged in acting?
@8 the answer is clearly ‘yes’.
Most definitely yes. Women get a far smaller percentage of screen time in the first place, so how could it be fair for them to have to go up against men for best acting awards?
Most Hollywood movies star a man, a man, a man, and a man.
Yes. More roles for men. Better roles for men. Films aimed at audiences who expect films to be about men and told to expect films to be about men. Awards committees that pander to the men who make the films about the men that audiences are told they should want..
The playing field is not level and reviewing the judging process isn’t going to solve that.
But it’s not just about “competitions” or even just “fairness.” It’s ultimately about the safety, and well-being of women. Trans-identified males are not women, can not be women, and never will be women. By being “kind” and pretending they arewomen is to buy into the delusion that changing sex is possible, and that all you need to do that is to grow your hair long, put on a dress, simper, and tilt your head. Normalizing the idea that men can be women in any way whatsoever, in any situation, manner or capacity at all, erodes the safety and wellbeing of women. It makes no difference whether they are “really” trans or not; the ever-expanding “trans umbrella” has rendered whatever meaning the original concept of “trans” may have had irrelevent. The demand for relaxed “restrictions” on what is portrayed as bigotted “gatekeeping,” of “womanhood” is, in reality, a demand for the erasure of women’s boundaries. The medals and awards that should have gone to women, but which have been stolen by men (with the collusion of the organizations and institutions presenting them), is a big, deliberate FUCK YOU to women. Anyone who applauds, or nods approvingly, of men stealing women’s awards, recognitions, and opportunities is reinforcing that message, and making it easier for more organizations and institutions to do so.
Awards like this are the poisoned sugar-frosting on much more serious violations of women’s safety, but they are just as much a part of it. Acceptance of men-who-claim-to-be-women taking trophies and titles from women is of a piece with men-who-claim-to-be-women being housed in women’s prisons, or admitted to women-only hospital wards, or women-only shelters. It’s all the same thing. It’s all a consequence of pretending that men can be women, and that some men are women. Neither of these is true, but we are not permitted to mention or discuss this, let alone question it, without accusations of “hatred” and “genocide.” Those who dare raise doubts or start discussions openly are harassed and threatened, and told that they are not entitled to speech without “consequences.” Yet trans activists demand the acceptance, and enthusiastic affirmation of lies without consequences. They demand that women willingly collude in their own oppression. Sadly, there are women who do.
The endorsement of the lie that men can be, or are women, harms women. That these lies are endorsed nonetheless, simply proves that women don’t matter. Going along with these lies sends a message. There is no space or position that women are allowed to have away from men, not even a prison cell. Men’s needs, desires, and whims will always over-ride the safety and well being of women. Men are too important to be denied; women are too unimportant to consider. Whether it is on the podium, or in the cell block, women are expected to swallow the lie and accept the consequences with, if not a smile, then at least compliant silence. If smiles and silence are not forthcoming, then any resistance will be hidden by the authorities, and smiles and applause will be provided by far too many people who are far too eager to say FUCK YOU, WOMEN!
#8 Anna
Yes, and I for one would not oppose such categories being added to such events if they wanted to.
Actually, gay men are not underrepresented. They are actually overrepresented, present and working in much higher percentages than they are in the population in both live theatre and Hollywood. Also, some venues (live theatre, I know; I don’t know about the others) have done such a good job of including people of color and promoting their work that they are slightly overrepresented now. In fact, the most underrepresented group in theatre is…white women. We are represented at less than half the percentage we make up in the population; white men are the most overrepresented at more than twice the percentage they are in the population. People of color have reached parity, and a little above, but because people in the fine arts seem unable or unwilling to understand anything mathematical or scientific, they continue to promote the work of people of color at the expense of white women (never at the expense of white men).
So yeah, there are lots of things that do base decision making on the color of a person’s skin or their sexual orientation. In fact, almost every competition I see now for women specifies black women, indigenous women, or lesbians. I will admit I think lesbians are probably underrepresented, but I don’t have any data for that, and indigenous people are underrepresented.
I have no beef with promoting the work of BIPOC; I have a beef with the fact that it is at the expense of white women, not the expense of white men. The dominant force in live theatre (possibly also in Hollywood) is white, gay, Jewish men. (I had no idea about the Jewish part until some guy being promoted said he was in the dominant group – he fit all of those. He accepted the job and proceeded to ensure women couldn’t get their stuff heard because….reasons.)
If awards for “best actor” become single categories for both sexes, women will have very little chance of ever winning such an award. Not because they “can’t compete with men” when it comes to acting, but because they are rarely given the opportunity. I can flick through my umpteen tv channels and see movie after tv show about men and their adventures, struggles, achievements, hopes and dreams. Male actors have always had (almost) the entire spectrum of human experience to portray, while female actors get to pop up for just long enough to establish whatever it is the audience need to know about the male character. How much skill does anyone need to play Mr Bigstar’s wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter? They are so often just backstory, plot devices, scenery, prizes to be won, loved ones to be avenged. But at least they have been indispensable in those roles until now – in the sense that if there is a female role, it’s because the story requires that character to be female. Now it seems female actors are going to be pushed out of that niche as well, by men who are considered to be able to woman just as well as actual women, if not even better. Why? Because women aren’t really people, are they. They are just social roles, defined by their relationship to a man.