Gloria Steinem and Marlo ThomasPosted on 01/29/2013 10:37:09 AM PST by NOBO2012
It’s feel good Tuesday and to be honest it’s getting harder and harder to find things that can accommodate this category.
Butt as I was purging my hard drive this morning of all superfluous Sundance-Hollywood-movie related images and viruses I did find this, that I think may do the trick:
Gloria Steinem and Marlo Thomas
The case for aging naturally: Gloria wins, if we were still allowed to keep score
Here we have author and activist Gloria Steinem with actress, author, and activist Marlo Thomas on deck, discussing one of today’s most pressing issues: gender issues in Hollywood. Specifically, whether the trend towards gender neutrality (which Gloria practically invented) should be extended to the field of acting by eliminating the distinction and recognize them all as simply “actors.” That would eliminate separate “best actor” and “best actress” prizes and allow men and women to compete against each other for the “best actor” award. That seems sexist on it’s face to me, butt what do I know? Or Claire Danes, for that matter (at 37 second mark)
Apparently this is a far more nuanced issue than I thought. As always the central concern is fairness: trying to make sure everyone gets a fair shot to do their fair share of giving it a fair shake on a level playing field.
Life ain’t fair, kiddo. Once you get that the rest is easy.
“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.(snip)
Sally Field (actress) comes down firmly on the other side of the argument - in favor of keeping them separate (butt equal) because, as she points out, the deck is still stacked in favor of men:
“As Fields pointed out, the bedrock challenge is that women get fewer substantive roles than men. Ironically, that’s obscured by the artificial parity onstage each year at awards shows. Five women compete, five men compete, two winners are crowned.(snip)
Since Big Guy just leveled the playing field for women in combat I’m guessing that he would stand with Gloria, Marlo and Sally in this unfair War Against Women.
Butt here’s something I’m still unclear on:
BO told The New Republic:
“I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football.”
Butt if Big Guy wouldn’t let an imaginary son (who would look just like him) play football due to the inherent danger, would he let the Wee Wons (who do look just like him) play front line combat soldier? Or would he not put them in harms way either? Even though he’s cleared the way to put your daughter there?
I may have to go in for a tune up. I seem to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance in my logic region. I keep getting conflicted data output messages. Like these:
It’s okay for women to have “assault” weapons when pressed into mortal combat on the front lines.
Butt it’s not ok for women to be armed with the same type “assault” weapons to defend themselves?
That just can’t be right. I know our Prezzy is the titular (can I say that?) leader in the War against the Republicans War on Women, so this just doesn’t make sense to me.
Oh, by all means! Especially if it makes things fairer.
(snip)For that matter, imagine if Stanley Ann had done the same thing for her son…
“Life’s not fair Barack, and it’s your job to fix it.”
who can tell the difference anymore anyway?
Oh good! Now there will be fewer awards and that stupid Academy Awards show won’t run so long.
Time to eliminate the racist of all award shows BET Awards.
Gloria Steinem, the crazy old Commie, looks like an older version of her previous self. (Sort of the way my mother looks like an older version of me.) Marlo Thomas looks like some did a bad-parody Photoshop of her with his eyes closed.
Sure, wait till one gender dominates the other in number of awards won, then it won’t be equitable.
Sally Field hit the nail on the head. For most actresses over 40 the roles offered mostly boil down to 1) The protagonist’s wife/girlfriend, or 2) The protagonist’s mother or 3) An aging hooker. And they are usually much smaller roles.
But that's impossible. Hollywood is run by liberals, and liberals believe that women are equal to men - hell, are BETTER than men in many cases. Why on earth would women get less substantive roles if that were true?
(/sarc)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.