"Gender Neutral" VMA's backfire

pjohnson

So after a massive complaint over years of putting men and women in different categories. This year featured them merged and the women duly won LESS than the men causing more grumbling from those who wanted "neutrality".

tigger123

That'll learn the wimens.

Canis Lupus

pjohnson wrote: »

So after a massive complaint over years of putting men and women in different categories. This year featured them merged and the women duly won LESS than the men causing more grumbling from those who wanted "neutrality".

Any linky links to the grumbles? Can't see anything online about it.

jimgoose

Anyone else think "VMA" was an old DEC operating system??

super_furry

I'm just surprised that MTV have anything to do with music nowadays.

diomed

jimgoose wrote: »

Anyone else think "VMA" was an old DEC operating system??

Yes. When you have to Google the opening post it becomes too much.

judeboy101

diomed wrote: »

Yes. When you have to Google the opening post it becomes too much.

Funny how women not pushing to be in the best actor category in Oscars despite insisting on been called actors instead of actress.

Boom_Bap

Yeah but, did the best person win in each category?

BoJack Horseman

judeboy101 wrote: »

Funny how women not pushing to be in the best actor category in Oscars despite insisting on been called actors instead of actress.

Funnily enough we hear of little clamour for more women coal miners & steel smelters either.
What is called 'feminism' today is rather selective.

Anyway, bring on gender neutral everything.... especially sport..... let the equality of merit reign.
I'm sure they will be happy.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

super_furry wrote: »

I'm just surprised that MTV have anything to do with music nowadays.

They're more into massive racist and sexist generalisations these days. It's a growth industry:

Alun

diomed wrote: »

Yes. When you have to Google the opening post it becomes too much.

Any post where you have to Google what the hell it's about is a sure sign that it's a load of fuss about nothing.

Victor

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Funnily enough we hear of little clamour for more women coal miners & steel smelters either.

Actually, there is little clamour for any coal miners & steel smelters. There are no coal mines and no smelters in Ireland and the general trend across Europe is towards closure. That said, the last miner I met was a female 19 year old truck driver for a mine in Wisconsin (I'm not sure, but it might not have been a coal mine).

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

jacksie66 wrote: »

Does a day go by these days that someone isn't offended, causing uproar and generally being a little bitch?

The thing is though, that these threads aren't started by people who are apparently offended at whatever it is, they are started by people who are lamenting that taking of offence - which, if it even exists, isn't in AH.

So I wish the people starting these threads would take their fight to wherever that offence is actually happening, rather than starting threads here, where it isn't.

Hector Bellend

super_furry wrote: »

I'm just surprised that MTV have anything to do with music nowadays.

They didn't to begin with

Your Face

I'm so angry but I can't find an appropriate link to post.

Larbre34

A strangle self-inflicted wound.

Many actresses don't like the term actress, prefering actor, but you can be damn sure they wouldn't agree with taking away the category of 'Best Actress / Supporting Actress' from the big awards ceremonies.

However, it is always amusing when the PC generation out-PC themselves and are left scratching their heads with the outcome.

twill

Larbre34 wrote: »

Many actresses don't like the term actress, prefering actor, but you can be damn sure they wouldn't agree with taking away the category of 'Best Actress / Supporting Actress' from the big awards ceremonies.

The thing is, roles for women are not at the same level in Hollywood as roles for men, so as the system isn't equal, there are good arguments against a gender neutral awards structure.

jimgoose

twill wrote: »

The thing is, roles for women are not at the same level in Hollywood as roles for men, so as the system isn't equal, there are good arguments against a gender neutral awards structure.

Yes indeed. Apparently many women start finding good roles hard to come by by the time they're forty-odd or so, which is grossly unnecessary and unfair on them. I heard the breathtaking Marina Sirtis (she's 62) on the radio the other day talking about this very thing, but she was saying it could be a lot worse in her case because she's able to play Israeli/Arab because of her colouring.

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

Anyone else think "VMA" was an old DEC operating system??

Ha.

You're old.

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha.

You're old.

Ha! The fact that you knew that meant I'm old means you're old too. So ner! :P

Sonics2k

Hector Bellend wrote: »

They didn't to begin with

I don't want to be a smartarse here, but I'm taking it as you were either very young or not around in the mid 80's through to the mid 90's?

MTV used to play a load of music back in the day. They eventually just found there is a lot more money in terrible TV shows.

PistolsAtDawn

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

They're more into massive racist and sexist generalisations these days. It's a growth industry:

This is shocking

the beer revolu

Actors act. Why do we need different terms for male and female ones?
An actor is an actor.

Like motorist, jockey, nurse, doctor, golfer etc etc.

The term actress is stupid and unnecessary.

pjohnson

osarusan wrote: »

The thing is though, that these threads aren't started by people who are apparently offended at whatever it is, they are started by people who are lamenting that taking of offence - which, if it even exists, isn't in AH.

So I wish the people starting these threads would take their fight to wherever that offence is actually happening, rather than starting threads here, where it isn't.

What? I'm not taking any fight anywhere. Just posted about idiots being idiots with their faux-equality nonsense. What on earth OP are you reading?

hatrickpatrick

How the hell is getting rid of male and female categories considered progressive? All it means is fewer awards overall, and a guarantee of one gender winning more awards than the other. The whole point of having separate categories is to acknowledge the very real and basic fact in mainstream pop music that men and women tend to cultivate and cater to very different audience profiles.

Banjo

the beer revolu wrote: »

Actors act. Why do we need different terms for male and female ones?
An actor is an actor.

Like motorist, jockey, nurse, doctor, golfer etc etc.

The term actress is stupid and unnecessary.

Roles are written for men or for women
Until there is gender neutrality in roles, you cannot have gender neutrality in the awards for people playing those roles or, arguably, the people playing those roles.

And with that in mind, may I present Al Pacino as Queen Elizabeth I in Scent of a Monarch.

silverharp

Banjo wrote: »

Roles are written for men or for women
Unless there is gender neutrality in roles which nobody wants so will never happen, you cannot have gender neutrality in the awards for people playing those roles or, arguably, the people playing those roles.

And with that in mind, may I present Al Pacino as Queen Elizabeth I in Scent of a Monarch.

FYP

hatrickpatrick

Banjo wrote: »

Roles are written for men or for women
Until there is gender neutrality in roles, you cannot have gender neutrality in the awards for people playing those roles or, arguably, the people playing those roles.

And with that in mind, may I present Al Pacino as Queen Elizabeth I in Scent of a Monarch.

I'd argue the same for music in a lot of ways though. Because of the different cultural expectations of male and female gender roles, a lot of songs would sound weird or downright cringey if the genders of the performers and the subjects were flipped. In fact, and this is something I personally find to be a very unfair double standard, I'm pretty sure if a man had written Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me" about a woman, he'd have been attacked as a creepy, bitter "pseudo nice guy" type.

So in other words, as long as societal gender roles exist, there'll be every bit as much a divide among musicians in terms of subject matter, target audience etc, as there is in acting roles.

Noveight

I don't think complete gender neutrality is the answer to any of our problems tbh.

drake70

jimgoose wrote: »

Anyone else think "VMA" was an old DEC operating system??

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha.

You're old.

jimgoose wrote: »

Ha! The fact that you knew that meant I'm old means you're old too. So ner! :P

I think you mean VMS. I am also old.

TommyKnocker

jimgoose wrote: »

Anyone else think "VMA" was an old DEC operating system??

That would have been VMS

Junkyard Tom

Women always want stuff.

Hande hoche!

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't want to be a smartarse here, but I'm taking it as you were either very young or not around in the mid 80's through to the mid 90's?

MTV used to play a load of music back in the day. They eventually just found there is a lot more money in terrible TV shows.

Also see the History channel and TLC.

jimgoose

TommyKnocker wrote: »

That would have been VMS

Or VME, if you're an ICL head.

fyfe79

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

They're more into massive racist and sexist generalisations these days. It's a growth industry:

Absolute gash on so many levels. I should possibly be offended that MTV decide to generalise half the white population (isn't that something that they don't believe in doing?), but that would make me a monumental 'snowflake' hipster moron. So, I'll just carry on ignoring whatever ironic message the rich white men in charge of MTV are peddling to idiots who buy that garbage and believe they're "making a difference". Mass consumption madness.

Dirty Dingus McGee

jimgoose wrote: »

Yes indeed. Apparently many women start finding good roles hard to come by by the time they're forty-odd or so, which is grossly unnecessary and unfair on them. I heard the breathtaking Marina Sirtis (she's 62) on the radio the other day talking about this very thing, but she was saying it could be a lot worse in her case because she's able to play Israeli/Arab because of her colouring.

These women need to look after themselves.


There are loads of very wealthy women in Hollywood so if they feel like women are not being given an equal chance then maybe they should consider setting up a production company that would give more female actors and directors a chance.

It's like all the whining Will Smith did a couple of years ago about black actors not being recognized by the Oscars or getting the same chance in films and all I could think was will you're worth $250 million why not use that money to make a difference instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.

keano_afc

From reading Twitter the whole thing was a leftist pity party. Katy Perry and her Handmaid's Tale garb, and then playing F*ck Trump over the PA system. Not to mention wheeling out Robert E. Lee's descendant to speak about white supremacy.

An entire event symbolising the mess that America has become.

fyfe79

keano_afc wrote: »

From reading Twitter the whole thing was a leftist pity party. Katy Perry and her Handmaid's Tale garb, and then playing F*ck Trump over the PA system. Not to mention wheeling out Robert E. Lee's descendant to speak about white supremacy.

An entire event symbolising the mess that America has become.

One thing is for sure - poor, lowly educated white people absolutely love being told what to do and especially love being told it by rich men and minorities. How exactly any of this leftist ideology is expected to have the exact opposite effect of what it will have/is doing, I don't know.

It's almost as if the elite benefit from setting everybody else against each other, but that's just conspiracy nonsense of course

The_Valeyard

fyfe79 wrote: »

One thing is for sure - poor, lowly educated white people absolutely love being told what to do and especially love being told it by rich men and minorities. How exactly any of this leftist ideology is expected to have the exact opposite effect of what it will have/is doing, I don't know.

It's almost as if the elite benefit from setting everybody else against each other, but that's just conspiracy nonsense of course

Civil War 2.0

Dravokivich

the beer revolu wrote: »

Actors act. Why do we need different terms for male and female ones?
An actor is an actor.

Like motorist, jockey, nurse, doctor, golfer etc etc.

The term actress is stupid and unnecessary.

Just like Miss and Mister, or he/him and she/her.

:rolleyes:

_Dara_

Dravokivich wrote: »

Just like Miss and Mister, or he/him and she/her.

:rolleyes:

Those aren't professions.

I've always thought of 'actor' as a word that could be applied to both men and women. If you had a group of men and women who act, you'd call them a group of actors. This is nothing new.

Dravokivich

_Dara_ wrote: »

Those aren't professions.

I've always thought of 'actor' as a word that could be applied to both men and women. If you had a group of men and women who act, you'd call them a group of actors. This is nothing new.

No, but they a nouns. Profession has nothing to do with it.

Venom

Dravokivich wrote: »

No, but they a nouns. Profession has nothing to do with it.

Profession has everything to do with what's being discussed in this thread.

Dyr

How the f**k do they tell the men from the women in pop nowadays anyway? They all look like aliens from the planet botox

Venom

Bambi wrote: »

How the f**k do they tell the men from the women in pop nowadays anyway? They all look like aliens from the planet botox

Careful now! You might be assuming someone's gender with a statement like that :pac:

Dyr

Venom wrote: »

Careful now! You might be assuming someone's gender with a statement like that :pac:

Is calling them all c**ts assuming gender?

Venom

Bambi wrote: »

Is calling them all c**ts assuming gender?

Nope.

C*nt's, as*holes, ar*ewip's and dipsh*t's is not only the correct but the only way to refer to those types

jimgoose

Bambi wrote: »

Is calling them all c**ts assuming gender?

enda1

I lament the fact that we're removing description generally from our nouns.
It's unfortunate that the concept of "ess" at the end of a profession to signify female is gone.
It just ends up in the language being less rich and more banal.

Ah well.

Dravokivich

Venom wrote: »

Profession has everything to do with what's being discussed in this thread.

Profession doesnt matter a jot when you are talking about the use of language.