Presumably out of fairness in the first place.

"female actors" are called "actresses". Maybe that's what you should be complaining about.

except for Oscar and Emmy night. They also don't want there to be half as many awards, either.

From a couple of years ago...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/opinion/04elsesser.html

MANY hours into the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony this Sunday, the Oscar for best actor will go to Morgan Freeman, Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth or Jeremy Renner. Suppose, however, that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences presented separate honors for best white actor and best non-white actor, and that Mr. Freeman was prohibited from competing against the likes of Mr. Clooney and Mr. Bridges. Surely, the academy would be derided as intolerant and out of touch; public outcry would swiftly ensure that Oscar nominations never again fell along racial lines.

Why, then, is it considered acceptable to segregate nominations by sex, offering different Oscars for best actor and best actress?

Since the first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929, separate acting Oscars have been presented to men and women. Women at that time had only recently won the right to vote and were still several decades away from equal rights outside the voting booth, so perhaps it was reasonable to offer them their own acting awards. But 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....

I just wondered what the Feminist group thought about it.

I think one could make a case either way . . .

we can revisit this conversation.

I sometimes teach a movie critique unit in one of my classes, and it's really difficult to find movies with a strong female lead that's not a romantic comedy.

Sure, there're a few, but comparatively, a very few.

but I think Shaw (Frank Sinatra) was the lead, imho.

with a limited amount of time and audience attention in which to develop characters and tell a story, hollywood often relies heavily on stereotypes to convey a character. they cast people with a certain sex, weight, build, and even body of prior works as a shorthand way of communicating the character. of course, they could spend a few minutes out of their precious 90 to tell us that the lead character is a macho muscle man, but just casting ahhnold does the job and leaves more time for action.

i would LOVE to see a movie where every character is counter-cast against the traditional hollywood stereotypes. male actors playing women, female actors playing men, young actors playing the old, debonair actors playing low-lifes, etc. i mean, THAT's what acting's all about, isn't it? it has to be more than just happening to BE very nearly the character in some script.

but then, that would BE the topic of the movie, the whole point. there's not much room in 90 minutes for many themes and sub-themes. so a script-writer picks and chooses, and by relying on stereotypes, there's more room left to tell other stories and develop other themes.

i'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying what it is.

in this context, separate male/female categories at the oscars is just par for the course. no better or worse than what hollywood does with virtually every movie it makes.

Sarah Bernhardt . . . but I don't think there's been a female Othello and a male Desdamona . . . that would be interesting.

nt.

Is have a separate women and men public restrooms sexist? You could add that to a lot of arguments.

"Best Actor" or "Best Supporting Actor".