OPINION: Time to merge Best actor/Best actress

I really like the whole award ceremony season that runs from mid-January to the end of February: the Golden Globes; BAFTAs; Brit Awards; etc. and, of course, the OSCARS. I know some see it all as meaningless baubles but I enjoy it and enjoy comparing my opinions with those of the judges.

What I find odd, anachronistic, is the fact that all the ceremonies have awards that divide the shortlisted by their gender.

Increasingly actresses call themselves actors, and this is right. Actors and actresses are all people who act. In the modern world there is no justification to give a separate award to men and women, unless you're saying there's no way that one group could win over the other - it's a consolation prize. That is a sexism which has no place in the 21st century.

No one would dare suggest having separate awards based on skin colour or sexuality would they? It's nearly 50 years since Sidney Poitier became the first black actor to win the OSCAR for best actor. At the time it was revolutionary, but today, particularly in the music world, awards are won by people of all skin colours.

Why aren't women offended that they are being patronised by all these awards ceremonies? Or don't they realise the negativity in having separate awards based, for no good reason, on the genitalia of the recipient?

Surely Jodie Foster or Olivia Coleman or Hlenn Close or whoever would like to be the best actor, judged against all her peers? It's not as if there are separate awards for male and female director, or male and female record producer. It is only when it comes to the frontline talent.

I'd love a female who wins best actress to reject it publicly, highlight the nonsense. Maybe it will happen at this year's OSCARS?

I can dream.

It's time to stop this nonsense and eliminate the blatant sexism that is inherent in the current system.

OPINION: Positive discrimination is just discrimination

Yesterday evening, I was accused of being a misogynist. This seemed particularly bizarre when, at the time, I was arguing in favour of equality!

Let me explain.

I strongly believe in equality, the equality of opportunity. Everyone should be given the same chance to succeed and everyone should be judged equally on their merits.

When a shortlist is being drawn up I don't care if it is 100% men, 100% women, 100% koalas (!)... what they are is irrelevant, what they can do is what matters. Any shortlist should have those most suitable for carrying out the task and not have less able candidates because they are part of a particular sub-group of society.

Why on earth would anyone argue that a shortlist should be 50/50 men and women if it is not the strongest set of candidates?

The situation gets worse when we look at politics and the nonsense that is the Labour Party. Not only do they insist on shortlists with ratios and not simply ability but there are times when they have all-women shortlists - instantly eliminating half the population!

Some bandy about the term "positive discrimination" to describe this and claim it redresses imbalances.

What rot.

Positive discrimination is just a different form of discrimination. It is bigotry and should to be tolerated in a modern society.

Do you really want a prospective MP selected by their genitalia first rather than their ability? That is what positive discrimination achieves. Wouldn't you rather have a prospective MP selected because they are the best candidate?

The Labour Party makes much of its claim that it fights for equality but it is currently the most bigoted political party in the UK. The likes of Harriet Harman regularly argue for inequality.

Of course, those accusing me of being a misogynist said I didn't understand because I'm male and have never been sidelined and discriminated against. They knew... because they are women!

They may be female (I didn't ask for proof) but they are bigoted.

There is nothing positive about positive discrimination; it is bigotry and should not be tolerated.