The paradox of inclusion and equality in the Dutch Golden Calf awards

From the 24th of September to the 2nd of October 2021, the Dutch film industry celebrated its 41st edition of the Netherlands Film Festival. During the festival, deserving Dutch actors, producers, and films were recognized with the Golden calf awards, likening to the Oscar and Golden Globe Awards. This took place at the Grolsch Golden Calf Gala award ceremony on the evening of Friday the 1st of October 2021 in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Unlike previous years, the organizers of the Netherlands film festival announced that there would only be a single award for both the best lead acting and supporting roles, rather than separate awards for actors and actresses. Also, the Drama Series category would have only one Golden Calf each for Best Leading Role and Best Supporting Role. In addition, a new award for the Best Leading Role in a Short Film was introduced by the organizers, and all of these changes were made in consultation with the Dutch Academy For Film (DAFF) and the Dutch actors’ association ACT.

The processes and measures needed for this new style of awards were carefully thought over and implemented to meet the new and growing awareness of gender neutrality in the Netherlands. Therefore, to be inclusive meant that awards would not be assigned to "performers" based on their gender identity and/or biological sex assigned at birth, but based on the inherent capacity as performers instead. Justifying the need for this "new style" awards, Jenny Booms, director of the Dutch Academy For Film (DAFF), said, "As an Academy, we want to unite all makers, regardless of profession, background or gender. Inclusiveness in the industry is a key focus for us. Together with NFF and ACT, we investigated whether there was a desire for change in the industry among actors and among our members. In view of the predominantly positive reactions, it is only logical that we as DAFF should respond to the call".

However, what happened on the 1st of October 2021, was not what many expected, especially the DAFF and the ACT. For the first time in the history of the awards, no individual identifying as "female" won a golden calf in the categories of leading and supporting performing roles, considered to be the most important awards. What followed in the news and social media was a backlash of this decision, and a national outcry criticizing the outcome, both within and outside the film industry. Some even questioned the wisdom of gender neutrality in its totality because only male performers won in all of these categories.

While the decision by DAFF was a bold and affirmative step towards equality and inclusion, the outcome of the decision did not support many people's expectations. This might not be surprising though for individuals who belong to underrepresented minority groups and work in health care, politics, education, or corporate business. Why? The answer is simple; as a rule of thumb, many underrepresented minorities are familiar with having to perform in contexts where the "playing field is not level." These are situations where the odds of winning are against them, to begin with. Most of the time, these odds are implicit, but on many occasions, evident. Several descriptions of this phenomenon (such as the coin model) explain how these contexts define who is privileged or not. #Privilege, for example, is often determined by one's gender, genetics, inherent abilities, and also by predefined social structures linked to wealth, class, or geographical location.  Hence, at some point in our lives and depending on our personal situations, we ultimately find ourselves in either a privileged or oppressed group. These contexts can also change over time, resulting in us losing or gaining privilege depending on the situation.

So, what happened with the gender neutrality decision in the Dutch Calf acting awards is the reality of what underrepresented minorities face continually in most western societies. Implicitly, gender neutrality was aimed to address #equality and level the playing for all performers regardless of gender identity or expression. However, the decision, which was well-meant, failed to help those who identified as female. Instead, Dutch actresses were further put to a disadvantage in an implicitly male-biased industry. It also meant that their chances of winning awards were cut in half (Reductionist approach). Meanwhile, from a holistic point of view, it would have made sense to use a "gender-just" approach where those who do not wish to be identified as male or female could participate in a third "gender-neutral" or even a fourth, "transgender person," category if applicable (Holistic approach). That way, the interests of all performers, regardless of gender, would have been acknowledged, respected, and served at the same time.

The Paradox

Therefore the paradox in this decision was that the organizers actually and unknowingly created a (new) disadvantage for those identifying as a female in attempting to resolve the perceived gender disadvantage in the first place. Their assumption was (probably) that nominations and voting were objective and took place in equitable and just contexts. However, for those of us who belong to underrepresented groups, we know that that is a far cry from the truth. In hindsight, injustice was unintentionally done by the DAFF and ACT to the Dutch actresses due to this well-meant procedural change.

Conclusion

While I fully endorse and advocate for promoting equality, equity, and inclusion in our educational and professional institutions, the golden calf drama reflects that the Netherlands is yet to achieve the level of maturity needed for just and equitable participation in society. Still, regardless of gender, ethnicity, color, and sexual orientation, efforts must continue to promote diversity and inclusion in the film, healthcare, educational, and corporate industries.