that in tennis it really is true that the top tennis players would all be men, if all were to play in the same league. In order to have sensible competition, segregation is probably necessary. But why do we have separate awards for best actor and best actress? Even if men and women naturally tend to play different parts, there seems to be no reason why we should consider it difficult at all to decide if JuliaRoberts? or AlPacino? is the better performer in a given year. |
that in tennis it really is true that the top tennis players would all be men, if all were to play in the same league. In order to have sensible competition, segregation is probably necessary. But why do we have separate awards for best actor and best actress? Even if men and women naturally tend to play different parts, there seems to be no reason why we should consider it difficult at all to decide if JuliaRoberts? or AlPacino? is the better performer in a given year. I guess we will have to agree to agree!!! |
|
<-MyBox? |
Re: "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness. Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS. It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward (ducking)
Linguistically speaking, what is common usage IS correct. These females who act are, as a group, whatever the plurality of AME speakers call them, be it ActorS or ActresseS. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE!!!(Answer to A.C.) Since there is a dispute here, started by me, I will cede to the older nomenclature and possibly the majority opinion. I have created ActresseS. Wait til next year though...:-).
In both cases, there is a good reason for the distinction. If men and women played in the same tennis league, it would be extremely unfair. That's a biological fact, as far as I know. Maybe in the future, it will not be true, but for today, it is true.
In acting, it is generally, but of course not universally, the case that parts played by women and parts played by men are inherently different. It might be possible to remake, say, TheGodfather?, with MichellePfeiffer? playing the role previously played by MarlonBrando?, but... --JimboWales
Remember that I said, "generally, but by no means universally".
Perhaps in the future, the methods of makeup will have advanced to a sufficient stage that SeanConnery? could play a convincing PrincessDiana?, but for now, gender is relevant to the roles, and it is not sexism to note this fact. --JimboWales
Of course, this perhaps doesn't remove the need for the distinction. We agree that personal physical characteristics can play a major role in how a performer is perceived in a part. And so we might conclude that, in general, gender is or at least tends to be a highly important characteristic for classifying performers. So we might leave the distinction as is.
The big difference between my tennis example, and acting, is that in tennis it really is true that the top tennis players would all be men, if all were to play in the same league. In order to have sensible competition, segregation is probably necessary. But why do we have separate awards for best actor and best actress? Even if men and women naturally tend to play different parts, there seems to be no reason why we should consider it difficult at all to decide if JuliaRoberts? or AlPacino? is the better performer in a given year.
One of the beautiful things about a wiki is, of course, that someone can create a page of 'ActingProfessionals?' that lists all of them, male or female, on the same page, or in alphabetical order, like 'ActingProfessionals?/A', etc. --JimboWales