Gender Specific Grammy Categories...

[Phlop 4,773]

At this point in the industry, males are always going to win those type of categories over a women. Except if they’re huge like Adele or Taylor that usually sweep Grammys.

I don’t get the whole “They only give the big awards to albums and songs that were commercial success”. When they’ve given AOTY to Arcade Fire and Beck (not surprisingly when Gaga and Beyonce could’ve won those categories those years).

[judxs 762]

There's a difference in male and female music in every single genre so I think splitting it up is a good thing, the Brits do it.

[PrinceGaga 7,246]

Yeah why not. It honestly doesn’t seem like segregation. They would be highlighting men and highlighting women. More people are recognised for talent. It would put this whole #Grammyssomale thing to rest. I think it’s a pretty good idea to me.

The Oscars do it. 

[LadyLuca 2,316]

But to be fully honest. Is there really a problem? I dont even think this grammy president meant to be an ass.. eventhought it was just unfair with "step up"

 

But yea-In grammy history, werent there event where many many females one...it was just this year right? is it really that hard for a woman?

Spoiler

Still 6 grammys to bruno.....hell no

 

[StrawberryBlond 13,352]

Yes, it's a good idea. The only and I mean the only downside is that this means that untalented women will now unfairly get nominated and maybe even win because there needs to be a category with 5 female nominees in every section. If you only think 3 women are good enough, that means that an extra 2 that don't deserve to be there end up getting nominated, which I don't think is right. There are plenty of female artists out there who are just as guilty as men when it comes to bad vocals, lack of musical creativity and making music purely for success, money and fame. I won't name names but we know who they are. Well, there's a big chance we're going to see more and more of them being nominated and maybe even scraping an award or two if this is the case. But I would still prefer that to the shambles that we currently have.

However, it'll be ideal in every other sense. The biggest reason why I disapprove of mixed gender categories is because when push comes to shove, men always have a much higher rate of winning than women. Women, as well as men, just seem to respect and trust male artists more because of our very sexist attitudes fed to us by the industry. We have to realise that most of the arts have gender segregated awards for a reason - because gender produces very different types of art that relate to different people. In music, a straight man will sing songs about women, a straight woman will sing songs about men. Very different dynamic there. Actresses take on dramatically different roles in film than men, sometimes involving very different standards (sex industry professions, nude scenes, the victim of a rape scene, a victim of battery). That is a very different type of acting that needs to be separated. In theatre, women sing differently to men, in different registers. You can't just put everyone together and think it's all quantified the same way. It's not so much about awarding people for being a gender, it's about accepting that different genders produce different art and can't be merged as one.

Here was an article about the case of Emma Watson and Millie Bobby Brown recently winning the first gender neutral acting awards at the MTV Film & TV awards and the downside that this will involve:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/may/08/gender-neutral-awards-mtv-emma-watson

But let's not beat about the bush here. The idea of making awards gender neutral as of late in many fields is very little to do with gender equality and more to do with the demand for gender fluidity, gender non-binary and various other gender identities to be recognised and not reduced to 2 categories that won't suit everyone. Once again, everything has to be changed to meet the demands of the 0.01% of society, which causes the other 99.9% to suffer. Ironically, by becoming more inclusive and progressive, we will only become more exclusive and anti-progressive. It's like that saying: "If you make something for everyone, you make it for no one."

19 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

I'd say no. If there wasn't a reason to so before the Grammys then not now. People are only upset. 

The only reason the Grammys did this was because there were too many awards to give out in the past, the ceremony went on past midnight, people were complaining about the length of time it took and they were likely losing ratings because people grew bored of an endurance test of a ceremony on a weeknight. They didn't give the reason of "the nomination process was a nightmare" but that was probably part of it. Some categories were also merged or dropped completely. It was nothing to do with gender equality and progressiveness, they just wanted to save time and effort. And I understand why, but that's not unfair to a newer generation of artists who started out when this rule had come into effect, meaning they have a lower chance of winning than previous generations of artists.

2 hours ago, Phlop said:

At this point in the industry, males are always going to win those type of categories over a women. Except if they’re huge like Adele or Taylor that usually sweep Grammys.

I don’t get the whole “They only give the big awards to albums and songs that were commercial success”. When they’ve given AOTY to Arcade Fire and Beck (not surprisingly when Gaga and Beyonce could’ve won those categories those years).

That's exactly it. Only the biggest female names might edge it and the biggest names, as we know, aren't always the best.

And yeah, they have given awards to lesser successes over the years which makes me think their process goes like this: "nominate the 4 most successful pieces of the year plus 1 outsider and then give the award to the best one out of that lot." They definitely don't always nominate based on one principle alone and it sure isn't "most commercially successful." And very true, even if categories where females are the biggest names, their commercial success alone can't save them when they're up against men. When you see nonsense like a female being nominated for AOTY yet not being offered a performance slot and a female's album being the best rated in nominees yet the lowest rated album by a male wins, you have to wonder if women have anything going for them at this ceremony.

2 hours ago, LadyLuca said:

But to be fully honest. Is there really a problem? I dont even think this grammy president meant to be an ass.. eventhought it was just unfair with "step up"

 

But yea-In grammy history, werent there event where many many females one...it was just this year right? is it really that hard for a woman?

  Reveal hidden contents

Still 6 grammys to bruno.....hell no

 

Yeah, women never had a problem winning for years...until they introduced gender neutral awards. That's where we've now seen the true colours of academy members - men are the main attraction, women are mostly nominated because they have to be.