Awards specifically given to men or women are becoming less common. After the Golden Calves, Grammys and Brit Awards, the organization of the Televizier-Ring has also chosen not to distinguish between presenters and presenters. Does this development lead to more equal opportunities?
By Michiel VosTelevizier says that the change is mainly made to make room for an extra category. Although inclusiveness also played a role in the decision, they have no desire to get involved in the social discussion about gender-neutral prices. There was little to no commotion about the change.
That was different when the Netherlands Film Festival announced last year that it would no longer distinguish between actors and actresses at the Golden Calves. The organization says it wants to promote gender inclusivity, but that is not well received by everyone.
Yorick van Wageningen even ended his membership of the Academy that selects the winners, because the decision was not discussed with the members. Actress Katja Herbers wondered aloud on Twitter for whom it is actually good to merge the categories.
“At least not the woman (who still has fewer roles at her disposal than the man) nor the Dutch film, which generates attention for two films less,” the actress wrote. Her concerns are not unfounded: at the last presentation of the Golden Calves, four of the five acting awards went to men.
The male-female division
Javier Koole, researcher at Atria, knowledge institute for emancipation and women’s history, thinks the issue of gender-neutral award shows is too complex to simply state whether it is a good development or not.
“Of course it is to be encouraged that non-binary people or others who do not identify as male or female have a chance to win a prize. At the same time, there are also snags: by making prizes gender neutral, you erase the differences between men. and women. While there is still no equal opportunity in much of the entertainment industry.”
“Making awards gender neutral is not enough if women are less likely to star and are more likely to be presented in a serving role to the male character.” Koole argues that the sectors should take a critical look at how they can be more “gender-sensitive”. That is, it looks at how gender equality can be promoted. “That is a long-term process,” says Koole.
Diversity at all levels
Koole explains that inequality starts with movie screenwriters. Movies are still far more often written by men. “A man writes a female character from his own perspective. That often leads to stereotypical roles such as the dependent woman. Diversity is necessary among writers, because then you automatically get a more diverse set of protagonists and role models.”
Koole gets the series and film Anne+ as an example. Maud Wiemeijer wrote the script for this, because she felt that there were too few lesbian and queer characters in films. “Then you suddenly see a lesbian girl in the lead. Women become Anne+ portrayed in a completely different way than in many other films. And it has been a success.”
Koole believes that making prizes gender neutral makes no sense if the jury that selects the winners is not diverse and inclusive. “If such a panel is not diverse, there is little chance that the winners that roll out are.”
Organizations of award shows should take a critical look at themselves, Koole believes. Making prices gender neutral is not enough. “Don’t be afraid to see whether the goal of inclusiveness is really achieved with such a measure. Has the list of winners really become more diverse after a few years, or has the measure had the opposite effect?”
“If you want to create a fairer competition, fair conditions and equal opportunities are important. We are not there yet.” Koole cites a study by Women in the Picture, which shows that, despite improvement, there is still less representation among women. “The title of the study says it all: ‘Better is not good’.”
