Things that annoy you beyond reason...? [Vol 3]
Discussion
Yes, that really doesn't make sense.
Would you extend your logic to insist that we call them "Black Actor" or "Asian Actress" on the basis that Othello would be s
t as a white guy?
They are all actors as their job is playing a role. There is no discrimination over whether you need to be a man or a woman to play a role. Additionally, their suitability to a given role is determined by so much more than just their sex that making that the defining characteristic is pointless and unhelpful.
Good looking or not
Height
Figure
Accent
Ability
Colour
All carry about as much weight as sex as to whether an actor gets a part or not. You say Working Girl couldn't be a man but it equally couldn't be loads of other women so irrelevant to define it as a female role.
Would you extend your logic to insist that we call them "Black Actor" or "Asian Actress" on the basis that Othello would be s
t as a white guy?They are all actors as their job is playing a role. There is no discrimination over whether you need to be a man or a woman to play a role. Additionally, their suitability to a given role is determined by so much more than just their sex that making that the defining characteristic is pointless and unhelpful.
Good looking or not
Height
Figure
Accent
Ability
Colour
All carry about as much weight as sex as to whether an actor gets a part or not. You say Working Girl couldn't be a man but it equally couldn't be loads of other women so irrelevant to define it as a female role.
Disastrous said:
All carry about as much weight as sex as to whether an actor gets a part or not. You say Working Girl couldn't be a man but it equally couldn't be loads of other women so irrelevant to define it as a female role.
The point is the hard "No". Is "Man". You can have all sorts of Woman play the role. What simply wouldn't work is any man.Same as if the script says "Susan gives birth". "Jason gives birth" really doesn't work outside of a SciFi movie. Susan and Jason can be any colour, race, or weight. What they can't be is the wrong sex.
The only people who have a problem with this seem to be those who think actress is somehow worth less than actor. But it's not. Don't change the language just because some people are sexist. Just shoot the sexist people and carry on.
Munter said:
The only people who have a problem with this seem to be those who think actress is somehow worth less than actor. But it's not. Don't change the language just because some people are sexist. Just shoot the sexist people and carry on.
True. Professional offence-takers and those looking for a cause take note.popeyewhite said:
Munter said:
The only people who have a problem with this seem to be those who think actress is somehow worth less than actor. But it's not. Don't change the language just because some people are sexist. Just shoot the sexist people and carry on.
True. Professional offence-takers and those looking for a cause take note.Munter said:
Don't change the language just because some people are sexist. Just shoot the sexist people and carry on.
Oh, I don't disagree. But also language changes. Dost thou not agree, forsooth, sirrah? Anyway, if we go with your approach then once we have eliminated all the sexist people then sexist terms will be obsolete anyway.
The Don of Croy said:
Actor / actress.
When did 'it' get decided there was to be only one term 'actor' to cover both genders?
Why does it not apply to the Oscar/Bafta awards?
It'd be great if it did apply to award ceremonies, it would shorten them considerably and save us an awful lot of screen time and gushing acceptance speeches.When did 'it' get decided there was to be only one term 'actor' to cover both genders?
Why does it not apply to the Oscar/Bafta awards?
Munter said:
Disastrous said:
All carry about as much weight as sex as to whether an actor gets a part or not. You say Working Girl couldn't be a man but it equally couldn't be loads of other women so irrelevant to define it as a female role.
The point is the hard "No". Is "Man". You can have all sorts of Woman play the role. What simply wouldn't work is any man.But I agree on principal that it's silly to worry about.
Regarding this discussion, what do you think of the Milk Tray man being acted by a women?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fitnes...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fitnes...
Cotty said:
Regarding this discussion, what do you think of the Milk Tray man being acted by a women?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fitnes...
Well she looks like a Bloke so why not ?http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fitnes...
Impasse said:
And yet, over in Hollywood there is still a considerable variance between the wages paid to male and female actors.
OK
Impasse said:
So on a basic level the females are thought of as being worth less.
So what? Reality check: If the male names pull in the punters why would you expect a less popular female to be paid the same? It's a businessAn interesting example is Wimbledon:
Until recently male finalists and semi-finalists were paid more, and played for longer. Following the predictable outcry female prize money was levelled at that of the males. But they are still on court for less time and attendances are lower than for male games. So the pay glass ceiling has been replaced by an unrealistic wage. Go figure.
Hugo a Gogo said:
well, obviously men are better, that's why 
if I said I need a lead role for my new sci-fi film, "a member of a space-ship crew is the only survivor as all their crewmates are picked off one by one by an alien"
is that necessarily an Actor/Actress ?
if I said I need a lead role for my new sci-fi film, "a member of a space-ship crew is the only survivor as all their crewmates are picked off one by one by an alien"
is that necessarily an Actor/Actress ?
If I want my film to be as successful as possible I'll try and get the most popular actor of the day. Of course, in reality the scriptwriter will have already decided the sex of the players, or have someone specific in mind.
As it happens Ripley was an amazing role for Weaver, and she made it her own. Would a man have done it as well? Unlikely.
popeyewhite said:
...An interesting example is Wimbledon:
Until recently male finalists and semi-finalists were paid more, and played for longer. Following the predictable outcry female prize money was levelled at that of the males. But they are still on court for less time and attendances are lower than for male games. So the pay glass ceiling has been replaced by an unrealistic wage. Go figure.
I was quite unaware until recently that the Williams sisters had challenged a male tennis player to a match - which the gent one in back to back sets (6 -1 and 6 - 2) in 1998. Most people remember a very high profile match between Billie Jean King and some bloke, which BJK won (but lost the rematch?).Until recently male finalists and semi-finalists were paid more, and played for longer. Following the predictable outcry female prize money was levelled at that of the males. But they are still on court for less time and attendances are lower than for male games. So the pay glass ceiling has been replaced by an unrealistic wage. Go figure.
The Williams opponent was ranked 200. They (Serena and Venus) were yet to win a major - but that happened within a few months.
Apparently the women's tour does get higher TV viewings but I didn't find any numbers.
In the name of equality....we are not equal. To think otherwise annoys me beyond reason.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff