Newsflash: Gender Neutral Oscars

Leading up to the Oscars this year, more than any other year, there has been increased curiosity into the practice of awarding Best Actor and Best Actress awards, instead of one gender neutral award. “Ladies and Gentlemen: Thoughts on the Oscars’ Gender Gap” by Rachel Maddux discusses this precise debate. Ever since the Oscars were established in 1929, separate acting awards were presented to men and women. The state of women’s rights at this time is very different from present day; women only received the right to vote nine years before and the Equal Rights Amendment was over four decades away. Thus, maybe it was acceptable back then to have separate awards as Maddux points out.

"Is it not fair to assume that an awards program established at a time when
American women were systematically discriminated against in almost every single aspect of life wouldn’t also consider the work of female performers to be fundamentally different from -inferior to- those of men?"

The Oscars are not alone, especially within their respective industry. The Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild, and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts all use sex as a form of separation for acting nominees. However, when one travels outside of the movie industry, many of the most prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize, fail to make the same gender separations. Obviously, the reporting and science industries were dominated by men when they were first created, but they still acknowledged the fact that women should be competing with men once they enter these industries. Athletics comes to mind when one thinks of gender distinction in awards. Yet, this is widely accepted by the physical differences between male and female athletes. Biological differences do not affect acting the same way they do athletics, thus this needs to be immediately thrown out as an excuse.

Furthermore, no other award given out by the Academy is separated by sex. There is only one Best Director, Film Editor, or Make-up Artist each year. The best actor and actress, along with the supporting roles, are the sole group that requires a need to “distinguish individual nominees beyond their basic professions” by using sex. Maddux brought up an excellent point that actors and actresses are on the small list of gender specific titles left today (ie. a stewardess is now commonly referred to as a flight attendant).

Gendered Oscars for Best and Supporting Actor/Actress are seen as another insult to women. The separation implies that women would never win when competing against men. This relates to when women were confined to the home to cook, clean, watch the kids, and make sure everything was perfect by the time their husbands got home. They were essentially part of “The Feminine Mystique,” which is when women find their identity through their husbands and children. Both of these examples separate women and men from each other because they are supposedly “different” and require distinct occupations. Women were also secluded from obtaining an education comparable to men. Many of the most prestigious universities were male only and women had to attend a girls only college, where they learned what it takes to be a good housewife, possible prompting the “problem that has no name” occur. Colgate did not even open its doors to women until 1970! However, Kathryn Bigelow’s win over her ex-husband for the Best Director is a first and may lead to men and women being looked at the same, which makes sense because their jobs are identical.

The creation of a gender neutral Oscars stirs a debate in which two different feminism beliefs would support opposing sides. Minimizers, which also tend to be liberal feminists, believe that differences between a male and female should be minimized since we are fundamentally the same. On the other hand, the maximizers, think it is necessary to understand these differences and work around them in order to achieve equality. These two feminism groups would be on the opposite side of the deliberation over removing the gendered awards. The minimizers would be completely for the creation of one Best Actor and Supporting Actor award each because male and females are the same and should be able to compete against each other. On the contrary, maximizers are content with the gender separation because women are treated equally. Therefore, the Oscars represent gender equality since two women, just like two men, are honored every year for the contributions to the movie industry.

Allan G. Johnson, a male feminist, discusses patriarchy as feeling somewhat invisible today because we are used to acting in such a way to conform to its ideals of male superiority. By conforming to this type of society, we all are taking the “path of least resistance” because we are following the norm and not trying to change. Thus maintaining the separation of gender for the Best Actor/Actress awards is the “path of least resistance.” Furthermore, as Johnson points out, patriarchy is “more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30), since it is something that everyone in our society is apart of. Thus, in order to change this institution that has been around for almost a century, individuals and society as a whole must find little ways to resist. It takes just one person to initially raise questions about the existence of this gendered honor, and then more people will follow. This year’s awareness that the Oscars and other acting awards are some of the only industries to separate their top honors based on sex is an important step because it is now a mainstream discussion. If this conversion continues then it will constantly be in people’s minds, forcing open discussion.

How are gender and sex defined? The simple definitions state that sex is the biological makeup of a position (nature), while gender encompasses the social construction we face and how we personally identify (nurture). Based on these definitions it seems that the Oscars are gendered because our socially constructed ideals would explain why men and women cannot complete on the same stage for Best Actor. Women tend to play more emotional characters than their more aggressive male counterparts, thus many would cite this reason alone as to why they cannot be compared. However, the other categories the Oscars choose to honor involve similar differences, yet they choose to only have one award. Similarly, the actual Oscar trophy the winners get to keep is quite gendered. It fails to resemble any characteristic of a woman, but displays of that of a man. The male genitals are even up for view!



The fact that no other award category besides the Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress has multiple winners is the most apparent issue. Why is there a need to separate men and women in the same profession? If it is because many think women would not win, that’s absurd! Since women have been viewed as inferior to men from the beginning, we have fought extremely hard to make up ground and even surpass men in many professions. Thus, there is no harm in handing out only one Oscar for each category. On the other hand, keeping the awards separate for men and women is a way of recognizing diversity that exists in the different characters and approaches men and women take when portraying an individual. However, this is not necessarily saying one sex is inferior to the other, but rather their unique styles are both deserving of recognition. Thus, what is better? Celebrating equality between the sexes or recognizing unique performances?