As you all know, I know nothing about sport, and care even less, but I was wondering if any sport is totally equal between men and women. The only one I thought MIGHT fit that is golf? I remember a woman fighting for the right to compete against men, but wasn't so keen on men playing in a "women's" tournament. Hardly equality there.
Women can't compete in golf. They generally don't have the power required for the long hits. At clubs they play off tees placed closer to the greens. The only sport I can think of where male and female compete on even terms is equestrian events. Those though are more down to the quality of the horse than the rider.
Others where there is no obvious advantage to the male competitor would be shooting, archery, maybe diving?
With all the drive for equality, can anybody explain to me why there are seperate categories for male and female acting people at the Oscars etc? There aren't seperate categories for best male/female cinematography or film score.....
Isn't archery also down to the draw weight? And that differs between men and women. Didn't the archers in medieval times have much bigger forearms on one side of their body due to the very heavy draw weights of longbows?
I would also 'guess' that not only are there the obvious physical power differences, but also both mental and 'brain' differences. If the male has more of the 'hunter' background, would it be reasonable to look at whether they may have better reaction times as well? Unless you're a 100m runner that is...
That's why I think this is a minefield - we don't understand the male-female differences enough yet (but the obvious differences are good enough to split sport by gender), to even begin to grasp what transgender then implies.
Probably because historically the parts for woman were, in general, considered to be lightweight and less demanding ... the Scottish play being one obvious exception, Shaw's St Joan another. Over the years there have been more substantial roles written for women ... often by women ... but there are still fewer big parts for women in the Western canon.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I'm all for acting equality, but why are historical characters played by people of a different colour? Would anyone support a film about Mohammad Ali or Martin Luther King being played by a white actor?
I don't see why it matters with fictional or historical characters although I would probably have difficulty with someone of a different race playing a recent historical or current figure. For example if a white person played Martin Luther king or a black person played Donald Trump.
I think a real person, from a long time ago, or recently should be played by an actor of the same colour. A black Queen Elizabeth 1 or a cotton plantation full of white slaves? just wrong IMHO
I'm all for acting equality, but why are historical characters played by people of a different colour? Would anyone support a film about Mohammad Ali or Martin Luther King being played by a white actor?
As with so many things, it has to work both ways for proper equality.
If we know how a historical character looked, then for me they should be played by an actor who can look similar enough to be plausible. I have to say it irritates me slightly when I see a film or TV adaptation of a book that I've read and the fictional characters don't look how I imagined them from the written descriptions - but that's not just about skin colour. They might be taller, slimmer, prettier/handsomer, different hair colour, whatever. So the fault is probably with me.
Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Soil type: sandy, well-drained
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Would anyone support a film about Mohammad Ali or Martin Luther King being played by a white actor?
A black Queen Elizabeth 1 or a cotton plantation full of white slaves? just wrong IMHO