Kim Elsesser wrote:But separate is not equal. While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances. The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined.
Surely I'm not the only one to notice the gap in causation here. Just who exactly is suggesting it's the
females that would come up short on victories if the categories were combined? The exact same evidence proves equally well that it's the males who would suffer and that the segregation panders to them. If your evidence is so equivocal that it equally proves the exact
opposite of your argument, you've embarressed yourself.
The burden of proof is this: in order to claim sexism against women in this case, you must prove that the academy is protecting the women from the men and not the other way around. Without that you have nothing beyond vaguely suspicious feelings, and you can't base an argument on nothing more than gut reaction (which is just begging for an accusation of bias). If you're going to claim sexism you have to prove it, and if you can't do that, be quiet, no one needs you debasing the standards of discourse on important issues.
Kim Elsesser wrote:For next year's Oscars, the academy should modify its ballots so that men and women are finally treated as full equals, able to compete together in every category, for every nomination.
Indeed. That way when a female nominee wins, you can write an article about how you helped the cause of progress. When a male nominee wins, no matter, your next article just gets to call the academy sexist all over again. Win-win for you...
...brain death for your readers.