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.Really? It does, like, categorically? Does anyone believe this? One could argue that, say, the best WNBA team would get smoked by the Nets, but is there anyone out there who thinks that different categories mean that Meryl Streep couldn't compete against Paul Walker or someone?
There was a time, of course, when acting wasn't something that women were allowed to do. That was before the history of movies. The reason it is separate, I would imagine, is that the whole thing is a meaningless back-slapping affair, and most of the point is to have a lot of beautiful people dressed up nice. You can have more beautiful people if you have more categories. Yes, one could expand Best Actor to 5 men and 5 women, or any combination of 10, but then you lose a lot of what makes the Oscars fun: seeing people get super-excited and cry or laugh or hug if they win. The whole thing is goofy, pointless fun (or a pointless drudge if you don't care).
I hate- hate- people who proudly say "Well, I'm not PC" and use that as an excuse to be an asshole. No one is "PC" anymore. It is practically a strawman. But articles like this give ammunition to those who see liberals as a bunch of whiny, elitist, ivory-tower idiots, who invent enemies and cry wolf at the most meaningless slights. New York Times, I am begging you: please stop printing stuff like this.