guardian.co.uk: But Pascal has a more interesting – and perhaps more controversial – argument: that the woman issue can be better addressed through Arts Council England. "I think unless we have equality being demanded at funding level, equality of employment for women at all levels, this is not going to change. I think the arts council needs to demand that this is implemented. I think it is purely financial – nobody will change unless they are forced to. There has been a massive push for disability equality, but there hasn't been the same for gender."
Friday, October 07, 2011
Fair play: should gender equality in theatre be mandatory?
guardian.co.uk: But Pascal has a more interesting – and perhaps more controversial – argument: that the woman issue can be better addressed through Arts Council England. "I think unless we have equality being demanded at funding level, equality of employment for women at all levels, this is not going to change. I think the arts council needs to demand that this is implemented. I think it is purely financial – nobody will change unless they are forced to. There has been a massive push for disability equality, but there hasn't been the same for gender."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
To tell the truth, I'm a little bit torn about this issue. While I obviously support the presence of more females in high positions, acting-wise, administratively, and creatively, I also am not sure that I support the implementation of enforced quotas like what is happening in the business world. I think that mandating that this happens creates the possibility of hiring people who may be less qualified or have less experience. I think that people should be hired based on merit, experience, and "rightness" for the job, not just gender. I think that what I would be more supportive of, rather than quotas, may be some added incentives to having a higher percentage of women on the board or of writing and producing plays with strong female leads. That way, companies can benefit from hiring more women or producing more female-centric plays without the pressure of reaching a certain quota. That being said, I agree that something has to be done about this problem, so if quotas are seen as the best solution, then they should happen.
I am very strongly against the implementation of quotas in any industry in order to hire a more diverse group of people. I believe it is better to have the best person for the job rather than someone the company was forced to hire because of their gender or race who will be merely adequate. Push it to the absolute extreme. Do you want your favorite football or hockey team to sign a player because they are a certain gender, or do you want them to sign the player that is going to win? If your house is on fire and you're trapped inside, do you care that the person who is rescuing you is a woman or part of a minority group, or do you care that they were the best person for the job and are going to be able to rescue you quickly and successfully? So why does it matter anywhere else? If you're a woman who wants a job in an industry that doesn't hire a lot of women, either make yourself better than every other woman in the industry, or get out of the industry.
For the entire article, I was pretty one-sided in saying that there should be more women in the higher standing positions. However, the end of the article posed an interesting question, do we hire based on merit or based on diversity. Of course, there is a little bit of both happening in many different areas but it is something an employer has to ask themselves. Personally, I think that it's exciting to have more female-run shows. Maybe show the audience a different perspective for the shows. Honeypot seems like it would be an interesting show to see. It's true, there aren't many shows like it, there is one on television right now, Pan Am, but it would be good for the theater to get a show like that.
I agree that the industry needs more women in higher-level positions, but quotas are not the way to do it. If two people, one male and one female are competing for a certain position, and the woman is chosen solely because of a quota, then we have a huge problem. This is however, exactly what quotas would do. Unfortunately, there seem to be no good ways to promote gender equality in theatre. The fact is, in many circumstances women have to work harder than men to prove that they are just as good at their job. This is however, rapidly changing, just look at our freshman DP class this year. So much has changed in terms of gender equality in the theatre in just the last decade or two. Instead of forcing the issue, it may be fairer to simply let time continue to do it’s work, or try less forceful measures to promote gender equality.
While I certainly support having a more equal workplace and industry, I almost think that enforcing quotas to an extent perpetuates sexism rather than eradicates it. By saying, you need to hire more women, it takes the emphasis off of the skills of the applicant, and places it on her gender. I also think that it sets the tone that companies would not hire women unless they were forced to. I see no way that this could be beneficial. In fact, I'm wondering if it is even legal, given equal opportunity employment laws? Frankly, when I to see a show, I care about whether it's a good one, not the gender of the writer, the cast or the creative team.
This article brings to light yet again a theme that has been part of our country for the better part of the last century: Do we select based on merit or diversity? Since I believe that quotas are a rather elementary solution to this complex issue, I would hope that more thought is put into how a reasonable elucidation can be reached. The caveat in this particular circumstance is that this is not a life or death situation. It’s art, which is subjective. Quotas can only be imposed on a definitive value – in this case being gender – however, they cannot be applied to matters of opinion. So the true question lies not in genders, but in the subjective tastes of the board of administrators who select productions. Maybe instead of having quotas on which productions they select, there needs to be more a more diverse board. This would cause the burden of selection to be placed not on the arcane practice of quotas, but on the intellectual opinions of the people in charge.
I agree with everyone who has disagreed with the hiring of anyone based on gender rather than their qualifications. I do however think that the writer if the article mentioned some very interesting points from prominent female artists in the industry. We still live in a male dominated society and I do not think that I will be alive to see this change occur, however it is up to women to ensure that they qualify themselves to challenge men for the jobs in whatever industry they desire.
The change however is occurring and women are slowly being integrated into previously male dominated work forces. I think that it is better that this occurs by merit rather than by achieving a quota!
Mandating gender equality is entirely counterproductive in my opinion. I believe that gender equality in the workplace is incredibly important, however it is unfair for someone with less credentials to be employed over someone better fit for the job. By having a set quota to fulfill the right people are not necessarily being employed. Gender blind employment is essential. Everyone must earn their positions through the quality of their work; gender is irrelevant. I'd love to see more women in higher positions, but I'd like to see them there for the right reasons. Women are just as capable as men at being incredible theater artists, technicians, and managers but a mandate is not the right way to show that.
I don't think this should even be a question. Of course women should have equal opportunities in the theatre. They should have equal opportunities everywhere! It makes me sad to see that we still have a semi male dominated society and still have to ask ourselves why are women treated differently. Playwrights should write more strong female characters and recognize that women don't have to be the secretary or mistress
I think it's true, women should be equally financially supported for their lead roles. However, I don't really understand how this legislation would be passed or what process it would have to go through. I also don't think the complaint stems from a "solely financial" stand point. Theater began as a predominantly masculine field, and although it's not explicitly noticeable, theater may very well still be a man's world.
Post a Comment