The real move here is probably to allow the Nominee to select the category that they think best suits them.
this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
158 points (100.0% liked)
Television
998 readers
526 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
Other Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
-
Be respectful and courteous to all members.
-
Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
-
Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
-
Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
-
Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
-
Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags. ****
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
non-binary wouldn't fit in either existing category. The real move here would be to eliminate gendered categories since this isn't even a sport and no gender has any distinct advantage.
"Women don't exist and don't need recognition"
Women exist and are equal to men in artistic spheres. There is no reason they can't compete for the same award.
The need for separate recognition of men and women implies separate standards for men and women.
If Hollywood considered them equal, they would be paid the same as men for similar roles. While that can happen, it's still the exception. And usually only happens for women who've won awards.
When Hollywood stops basing pay on gender, then we can get rid of the gendered awards.
And having separate categories solves that how? You're just perpetuating the very thing you're declaring is a problem.
The current system is less than ideal, but at least with gendered awards, women have a shot at getting awards which translates into bigger future paychecks. What you're proposing is that the same industry that currently ignores equal pay for women is somehow going to recognize them in a category against the men who are already getting paid more than them?!
This doesn't solve equal pay, it just perpetuates the misogynist notion that women aren't good enough to compete with men.
But not if they still pay the woman less no matter how many awards she gets. How does it translate? How do you feel about men making way less in the adult film industry? Would men winning more awards change anything?
There's at least one study showing men get an 81% increase in money after a big award win, whereas woman get much, much less but usually something more and greater creative control of which projects they do. If they're all lumped in the same category, men continue to win the awards and get pay bumps and women get nothing at all.
Not going to bother with an opinion on the adult film industry as that's ostensibly a similar business but has hugely different economics. Not sure it's really relevant to this discussion as generally, female performers in adult films go through much more difficulties than their male counterparts - they're literally not doing the same job, whereas in the mainstream film industry they are.
Lol it's almost like they are good at acting and that is why they get the award in the first place. How is it to live in a world where the sun only rises because your rooster crows?
Just say you never have watch porn. "Difficulties." Is not a very mature or healthy way to describe sex. Sheesh men take dick too homie very narrow minded of you.
Let me guess, you are against affirmative action as well.
That's a bad guess.
And having separate categories solves that how? You're just perpetuating the very thing you're declaring is a problem.
load more comments
(6 replies)
No actor is paid the same as any other actor wyd?
They each have an individual value in the industry. Like if the rock is acting alongside Jennifer Aniston then the rock is obviously going to be paid more.
Like if the rock is acting alongside Jennifer Aniston then the rock is obviously going to be paid more.
Dude you can't write that and forget the /s
Are you telling me there isn't major sexism in Hollywood?
Please don't reply to me with your misogyny.
I think they were trying to call out that women are still underrepresented in a lot of different ways. Removing gendered based awards reduces the opportunities for women to be recognized, if you believe they are underrepresented.
load more comments
(1 replies)
While I agree in theory the problem in practice due to industry bias and sexism is basically only men will win
And again, this doesn't solve that problem.
It solves the problem of Women not being recognised for their work.
No it doesn't. There's a giant asterisk on every award that they're given. It's degrading.
Yeah I'd have to say I'm in the "we need to keep the categories" camp but I admit I don't know how we would properly acknowledge bi or non-gendered or anyone between or betwixt.
And we should have a way because there is no reason someone like Bella (love them btw) won't give an award winning performance as a bi-sexual or something and then wtf do we do.
I don't know the answer.
That's true as well. They could also create more categories I suppose.
“I have a guttural, ‘That’s not quite right,’ instinct to [being called an actress],” Ramsey said. “But I just don’t take it too seriously… it doesn’t feel like an attack on my identity.”
So, genuine question. If someone is non-binary (which I believe Bella has said they are), does that mean that they are in the run for best actress? Or best actor? It sounds like it's best actress but it seems like a bit of a difficult one. What would happen with someone with pronouns opposite of their birth gender?
Bella addresses this in the article. But it’s just their personal take. It’s an easy read.
Based.
Once again the title of the article says 'gender' but the entire article only mentions sexes. Come on...
A brief explanation:
'Man' and 'woman' are now binary references to the individual's gender if known to be such, or appearance if said individual presents as mostly masculine or feminine in a social setting, as the terms have always been used to refer to a person. In contrast, 'male' and 'female' are references to the individual's sex and genitalia. Gender is not sex.
Additionally:
Gender is the name given to an aspect of personality relating to a few traits that have been defined by current societal ideals as masculine or feminine, quantified with a whole set of labels because people must be quantifiable by tickboxes, apparently. Sex is originally assigned at birth by many hospitals and population censuses once the existence of reproductive organs on the individual has been verified as male or female, and regardless of whether an internal reproductive system transplant takes place, can be changed.
Older folk are confused, because they've been referring to sexes as genders for decades. We need to get this right.
The definition of a word is how people use it.
We need to get this right.
Step one is going to be working out vocabulary among yourselves before you start trying to teach it to us. I used to try to be correct, but the "correct" tends changed from person to person, group to group, and every six months or so.
Once you've figured it out, let us old folks know, and most of us will, I hope, make the adjustment.
You can try to use the new corrections every six months or so? As for who to go for, it's legitimately your choice. In the end the flow of language has to be ridden rather than restricted aha
No idea about the context of this, and I refuse to read the article. The title strikes me as implying women wouldn't be able to win awards if the categories were unisex, which I don't agree with.
The "Ensors", awards for the Flemish audiovisual sector introduced gender neutral awards last year.
Surprise, all awards went to men.
There's a huge inequality within the sector already, it's not surprising that that reflects in the awards given. It's the same as being surprised that the CEO of the year awards yet again goes to a rich white guy.
You assume an objective judgement; "if you're good, you'll succeed" (which goes straight into "see? they didn't win, that means they didn't deserve it"). The problem isn't that women aren't able to win, the problem is that the people in charge will just stop nominating women, let alone name them the winner. All of these people, in every field, everywhere, at the top, who do not have women among them, they do not care. There is money in not caring. They were not raised to care, and they raise no one to care. You have to force them.
I understand that, but I would counter:
-
When no women won or were nominated it would reveal the bias and we could then make adjustments to the electors
-
That bias would still exist if categories were segregated. Who is to say the best performers are actually winning? If they're willing to pass over a woman in favor of a man, then they're probably willing to pass over the deserving nominee in favor of another one they're biased towards - across the board.
We already know there's bias, and we already know the winner isn't always the one that deserves it. It's not just men and women categories - foreign films, animated films being the most noticable victims after gender. This is true for any award ceremony, sometimes it's more obvious that it's a PR stunt or a popularity contest more than actual recognition of the value of somebody's work. And no, the bias does not get addressed, even when we know it's there. At some point, a lot of viewers just assume that the ones that didn't win didn't deserve it, and the show moves on, because no one cares enough.
I mean, that seems relatively obvious to me (best actor and actress being separate categories that is), and I bet they’re trying to stir up shit from a really simple statement she made? Quite possibly they also stoop to hand-wringing about “whatever category should we put a transgender person in?” too.
I refuse to read the article and give them clicks though.
gross
How misogynistic of you.
Why can't you both preserve and add to?
Who fucking cares. Why is this even being posted? Move on.
Do you...not know what community you're in?
view more: next ›