There's been a lot of buzz recently among some of my women friends about gender division in the Oscar nominations and awards. Many of them feel that it's time for the Oscars to go gender-neutral.

A case can be made for this, certainly. There aren't separate Oscars for Black, Hispanic, Asian and white actors – so why separate men and women? The awards for directors, costume designers, photographers and all the rest of the tech side are gender-neutral – why divide men and women?

And of course, there's the time factor. If the Oscars are made gender-neutral, there will be far fewer awards, resulting in a shorter show. That appeals to lots of people, including me.

But on the whole, I disagree with the idea of closing the gender divide. Gasp! This may come as an awful shock to my friends, who correctly perceive me as a strong feminist, but I think the acting awards should remain gender-separated. Why? I'm glad you asked. Here's why:

One reason is practical. Hollywood and the film industry – like most industries – are top-heavy with men. There are more jobs for men, there are more really good roles for men, and men are still paid more than women for similar work. According to an article on change.org by Pamela Levy, [Kathryn Bigelow's] nomination (and hopefully her win) [for Best Director] should not give the illusion that men and women are now equal in Hollywood. Instead, Bigelow's nomination should be an instructive conversation-starter, drawing attention to the oft-overlooked marginalization of women in the film (and television) industry. In 2008, only 6 of the top 50 grossing films starred or were focused on women; meanwhile, women were a whopping 9 percent of all directors and 12 percent of writers. A Forbes article last year on the issue cited the fact that "most mid- to big-budget films are made for a 14- to 25-year-old male audience." (Feb 7, 2010 womensrights.change.org © 2010 Change.org).

Eliminating gender-specific acting awards would further marginalize women ... while giving the male-centric Hollywood establishment the appearance of a feminist stand. They'd be having it both ways – and wouldn't that be just lovely for them.

But a less jaundiced-view reason is that as long as roles are gender-specific, the actors hired for the roles will be too. Of course there are interesting and significant exceptions, but aside from these few exceptions, women actors are cast as women and men are cast as men. I don't audition for Lear and my buddy Oscar doesn't audition for Cordelia. (Although, come to think of it, that would be a fun acting exercise: a white 50-ish woman Lear and a Latino 25-ish male Cordelia. I wonder could we overcome the obvious obstacles and play it for truth? Hmmm.) But I digress. Audiences don't pay to see fascinating acting exercises – they pay to see good acting, and the Academy rewards good acting. In general, women playing men (and vice verse) is less about the acting than it is about the spectacle.

But good acting is good acting, right? Well, yes and no. Men and women actors work differently. Their artistic approach is different, the way they internalize their characters is different, the way directors interact with them is different. It's not too much of a stretch to say that women playing women is a subtly different art form than men playing men. To make the Oscars gender-neutral would be like asking the Academy to choose which is more beautiful: a da Vinci drawing of the human form, or the work of a gifted surgeon in repairing the human body. Both are magnificent, but they cannot be compared or chosen between.

There you have it: I say keep the Oscar acting awards gender-specific. Discuss among yourselves.