Let's Talk About Sex: Gender Equality in Theatre

Today, I was going to write about Christmas vacation. For serious! I have all the pictures uploaded, edited, and everything ... but, there's an important discussion going on in Australian theatre circles that is quite near to my heart. I usually try to keep most of my theatre-related thoughts on Twitter; but on this issue, I simply cannot fit my thoughts into 140-characters.


For those of you in my readership who are not that interested in theatre, you can skip this one (though, I do think that the underlying problem acutely relates to larger societal issues in Australia and the U.S., so maybe you'll still find it interesting ...).



Without further ado - let's talk about sex, baby.

More specifically, let's talk about playwrights and what it means for them to have boy-parts vs. girl-parts.

Short and unquestionable answer ... There is a significant gender gap in productions between male and female playwrights.
In the U.S., the number hovers at somewhere around 17% of mainstage plays written by women. This weekend's article from the Sydney Morning Herald points out that Australian stages are programming women at an even more alarming rate of 12%.

50% of the population. 
12% of the productions.

You don't have to be Gloria Steinem to know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

A little background:

-The lack of productions is not due to lack of female writers. In the U.S., anyway, more than 50% of grad school playwrights are women.
-A well-known study by a Princeton student showed that a woman's name on a play makes Artistic Directors and Literary Managers less interested.
-Female Artistic Directors are just as likely, if not more likely, to pass over female writers than male Artistic Directors.

Having been on the programming end in my previous job, I once got interested in the numbers in my own Literary office and found out that:
a. My theatre was consistently programming a shockingly low number of female writers, and no one was even aware that there was a problem.
b. In a given year, only 25% of the submissions to the theatre (solicited and unsolicited) were by female writers. Again ... 50% of the population. 25% of submissions. I could only think that perhaps women did not feel that their work would be welcome at my theatre.

(Our local theatre critic did a piece on this issue, in which I said a few words, in case you're interested in a bit more on my experience).

A lot of work has been done on this front in the U.S. in the last few years, but it remains largely an uphill battle. (50/50 in 2020 is a great group committed to gender parity in theatre in the U.S.).

The issue has come to the fore recently here in Australia, especially in the wake of a marvelously historical move by theatres across the country to employ significantly more female directors, after an outcry about the disparity in that area.  I have to think that the entire industry is going to benefit from this new diversity of perspective.

Now, female theatre writers - rightly so - want their parity.

The SMH article suggests that some female writers are asking for quotas at theatres who receive public funding.

My mind immediately thinks ... ooooooh, quotas, ech, eech, and my shoulders tense, and I get a little itchy rash on my right arm. Can quotas really work in the arts? Aren't quotas a form of censorship?

OK, ugly word, "quotas," but then I do think -- should theatres who do not represent the Australian populis really be receiving public dollars? Didn't Title 9 work wonders for allowing women entry into sports in the U.S.? How do you break down walls if not sometimes by force?

Still, quotas in the arts feel wrong to me. Art has never been created paint-by-numbers. And, from what I can see, the amount of funding that any Australian theatre receives from the government is so inconsequential to the overall operating budget, that even if funding were lost, nearly all would continue operating in whatever manner they see fit.

The more important question to ask is how can plays by women become more enticing to Artistic Directors?. How do female voices begin to rise to the top without the government inspector coming to call?

First of all, as someone who sat on the programming end, I can honestly say that no one is making the decision to not program women. It's not a conspiracy. A conspiracy would be easier to fix. Rather, Artistic Directors are making the decision to program men. They're not even thinking about women. Men write plays that feel familiar, comfortable, establishment. In other words, sell-able. (I've read so many hundreds of contemporary plays that I feel comfortable making this sweeping, sweeping generalization that of course, is only a median average, not an absolute).

Plays by women may not look as profitable, but my opinion is that's a ridiculous superstition that will prove patently untrue as soon as female writers are pushed to the fore.

-Artistic Directors: You must think about gender disparity as a moral concern. An entire population of worthy artists are not working. The numbers don't lie. This is a civil rights issue in your industry. You know that women are not writing "worse" plays than men, so what is your part in their inequality? Perhaps, for a few seasons, you are going to have to self-impose the challenge of programming half female playwrights in the season. If you're not getting the submissions, ask yourself if your theatre looks welcoming to female writers. Pick female writers for development/commissions and commit to a production. Make the effort on the forefront, and I will guarantee that after a couple of years, you will begin programming plays by women naturally. Your money back, if I'm wrong.

-Artists: Keep on fightin' the good fight, y'all. Female writers, of course, keep speaking up; but moreover, male and female theatre artists of all disciplines ... speak up and do your part. Talk up the female writers you love. Suggest their scripts to Artistic Directors. Limit the work you are willing to do for theatres who don't program women.

-Audiences: Go to see plays by women. You know how, when there's a big hit movie and then suddenly there are all sorts of copycat films capitalizing on the same theme/style? By the same token, if plays by women become a success, theatres are going to program more plays by women. They may not consciously say, "More plays by a lady, just like that one!," but they will say, "Look! We can do plays that challenge established aesthetic norms/feature female characters/center upon with 'women's issues.'" Extra credit - write letters of support for plays by women. Trust me, theatres read letters sent by their audience, and if Artistic Directors know that more representation of women is a priority for the audience, they will take note when it's time to do their programming for next season.

I go to the theatre to see a world of intellectual and aesthetic perspectives played out in the most present and urgent form. I can recall so many theatrical experiences which have changed my perspective on who I am, where I live, and who inhabits this planet with me. When I think that 88% of what I see is written by just one gender, I have to wonder how much depth of thought and experience is missing. It's not an issue of filling quotas in a government form, but authentically pushing new, different voices into the conversation. Their  whispers are present - mostly in developmental programs and small experimental stages. That is not enough. Step one is recognizing the problem. Step two is a commitment to change by a hearty chorus of theatre-makers and theatre-lovers who declare that whispers of women's voices are not enough for our ears.

Comments welcome. What do you think?