Aych emailed me an article about theater bias. Female playwrights have complained for years about sexism in the industry, so Emily Glassberg Sands conducted a study to determine the nature of the bias. She found that there was sexism; however, it was not exactly what she expected to see:
For the second study, Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker), while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.
Amid the gasps from the audience, an incredulous voice called out, “Say that again?”
Ms. Sands put it another way: “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”
Ms. Sands was reluctant to explain the responses in terms of discrimination, suggesting instead that artistic directors who are women perhaps possess a greater awareness of the barriers female playwrights face.
It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would actively and intentionally discriminate against their own group just because their awareness of the barriers their group faces. By playing to what appears to have been a skewed audience, Sands misses an opportunity to challenge the conventional wisdom that all the barriers women face are because of men. Her own studies suggest that women are more likely to discriminate against other women. The appropriate response should have been to ask why.
The other two studies are worth reviewing. The first study demonstrated that men were twice as prolific writers than women, resulting in artistic directors receiving more plays from men than from women. This goes against the typical assumption that women produce the same amount and quality of work, but male artistic directors simply will not accept women’s work. The third study is slightly more interesting, at least in how Sands interprets the results:
For the third piece, Ms. Sands looked specifically at Broadway, where women write fewer than one in eight shows. She modeled her research on work done in the 1960s and ’70s to determine whether discrimination existed in baseball. Those studies concluded that black players had to deliver higher performing statistics — for example, better batting averages — than white players simply to make it to the major leagues.
Ms. Sands examined the 329 new plays and musicals produced on Broadway in the past 10 years to determine whether the bar was set higher. Did scripts by women have to be better than those by men?
Of course, there are many ways to define “better,” but on Broadway, with the exception of three nonprofit theaters, everyone can agree that one overriding goal is to make a profit. So did shows written by women during that period make more money than shows written by men?
The answer is yes. Plays and musicals by women sold 16 percent more tickets a week and were 18 percent more profitable over all. In the end, women had to deliver the equivalent of higher batting averages, Ms. Sands said.
Yet even though shows written by women earned more money, producers did not keep them running any longer than less profitable shows that were written by men. To Ms. Sands, the length of the run was clear evidence that producers discriminate against women.
I am not certain whether I agree with Sands conclusion that women have to be better than men, particularly since what is popular is not necessarily a reflection of talent or skill *cough* Michael Bay’s Transformers films *cough*. I am also not convinced that the length of the run is clear evidence of discrimination because it is unclear whether or not successful plays and musicals written by men were treated in the same fashion.
What does appear clear is that the discrimination that does exist seems to be driven by women. As I mentioned before, it would have been better to ask why that is rather than play to the crowd and dodge it. There may, however, be some insight into what might drive that:
Ms. Sands also found plays that feature women — which are more commonly written by women — are also less likely to be produced. Kathryn Walat, a playwright who attended, said, “Most startling was the reaction to women writing — and I think of my own work — about female protagonists and the unlikability of those characters.”
One must wonder about how much the likability of female characters and the types of stories women write play a role in the discrimination. It is doubtful that only a few women write likable female characters, but it is possible that the types of characters and archetypes female writers my use might not resonate much with the audience. There are a number of possibilities, and it is unfortunate that Sands was not more in-depth in her research. It would be interesting to know what plays and musicals written by women were successful. What type of stories and characters did they present? Was the work similar to something that was already popular? Did it play on the audience’s expectations? Those things also play a role in how an audience, a producer or an artistic director might respond.
It is more likely, however, that women may simply be more critical of other women’s work. They may reject plays and musicals that they feel represent a stereotype. It is possible that women expect other women to try something new and different, i.e. to break barriers and work outside of the box, while on the other hand they expect “typical” work from men. That higher standard could certainly play a role, and it is probably what lead to the discrimination Sands saw. While Sands and other women might be uncomfortable with acknowledging that it is women holding women back, dodging that apparent fact does not make it any less true.
