In a society tilting steadily toward gender neutrality, the separate-but-equal awards that divide actors into one camp and actresses into another have the whiff of a moldy anachronism.
True, the Association for Women in Science gives honors to encourage female success in male-dominated fields. But to mark enduring achievements, would its members ever yearn for a Women's Nobel Prize in physics?
In contests of intellect or artistry, should gender ever matter?
"It's not like it's upper body strength," Gloria Steinem dryly observed of the requirements of acting.
The separate labeling of male and female performers is losing favor in the industry. The women often swat the distinction away by calling themselves "actors," standing shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts.
Usherettes are long gone from movie theater lobbies, after all. And defense officials said Wednesday the Pentagon will be lifting its ban on women in combat.
SAG, which held its awards ceremony Sunday, edged toward neutrality with its trophy dubbed the Actor, although the guild gives separate honors to best performance by a male actor and by a female actor.
That cracks the door open, but only slightly.
"That's a great idea," said Mark Andrews, writer-director of the animated film "Brave." "At the end of the day, we're all storytellers, and I don't think when we're defining a character that the gender is the major defining factor."
In all other awards-eligible fields, including directing, writing or cinematography, everyone is "going for it," male and female alike, Andrews said.
That may be progress in theory for performers but not in practice, according to Sally Field, an Oscar best supporting actress nominee for "Lincoln."
"If you do that you won't see any actresses up there (on stage) at all," she said. "The percentage of roles is so weighted toward actors. That's the way it's always been."
Exactly, said Naomi Watts, Academy Award nominee.
"There's so much competition in life and I do think we are different," she said. "Yes, we should be able to have the same things as much as possible ... (but) life's a battle already and there's so many great roles written for men. Women are definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to volume."
As Field pointed out, the bedrock challenge is that women get fewer substantive roles than men. Ironically, that's obscured by the artificial parity on stage each year at awards shows. Five women compete, five men compete, two winners are crowned.
So what's the problem? A quick numbers check makes it clear: Females comprised about a third of the characters in the 100 top-grossing films in 2011, according to the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University.
Feminist leader Steinem sees legitimate reason to retain separate acting awards. When two unequal groups are combined it's the less-powerful one that loses, she said, as when 20th-century U.S. school desegregation lead to mass layoffs of black principals and administrators.
Let's give two-time Oscar winner Field the last word in this debate.
Actresses "should be in their own category because they ARE in their own category," she said. "They face their own specific kind of difficulties surviving in this business that actors, bless their hearts, don't face."
More Life Headlines
New cookbook 'Sea and Smoke' a love song to the Pacific Northwest Six books perfect for quirky gifts Today in History With sectarian strife cooled, time to delve into Derry Pair of cookbooks take pies to the next level ‘In Winter’s Kitchen’: Eating local despite harsh conditions Williams-Sonoma’s new braising bases offer a tasty shortcut to fall flavors How much food do you need to serve? We’ll tell you
Our to-do list full of ideas for your weekend
Our new comment system is not supported in IE 7. Please upgrade your browser here.