Gender bias in theater: The women in charge react

Last week in New York, a Princeton economics senior delivered a report on her thesis project. Normally, that's not the sort of event that attracts attendance by more than 150 strangers and coverage in the national press. But Emily Glassberg Sands is perhaps not your average econ major—her study was endorsed by the likes of a White House economics adviser and the author of Freakonomics. Of course, the topic of Sands's research comes with a built-in interested audience: she had studied gender bias against female playwrights, an area of great debate in the theater community for the last several years. The Times reports that Sands's work was at the behest of playwright Julia Jordan, who's been a leading voice in that discussion (read my interview with Jordan on the topic last January, and my concurrent report on a Chicago Dramatists panel discussion).

To almost no one's surprise, Sands found evidence of discrimination. What's perhaps surprising is from whence it came: She found that while men in power at theaters treated identical writing samples the same regardless of the purported playwright's gender, women rated the same samples lower if they had a woman's name on them. Other unexpected findings: The hoary old cliché about women submitting fewer plays appears to be true, and proportionate to the ratio of submissions, women are produced at the same rate as men. (There's more on Sands's findings at the Times, New York magazine and Salon; download her full study in PDF form here.) I asked some of Chicago's female artistic directors and literary managers (and one particularly sympathetic male) to share their thoughts. You'll find 'em after the jump.

Martha Lavey, artistic director, Steppenwolf Theatre Company: I’ve read a couple of articles, but it’s a little hard in my mind to discern exactly what the research does indicate. On the one hand, there’s no question that female playwrights are underrepresented relative to the general population. But [the reports I’ve read] were saying that the percentage of female playwrights as described by the number who submit against how they’re produced, that that puts the male and female playwrights on some parity.

I don’t really know what to make of the business about—once they are produced in a commercial venue, where the run is elastic, that there’s a determination to close the female playwrights—even when their [box office] performance not only matches but exceeds the male playwright’s production—to close them earlier.

I think Polly Carle, who runs the Playwrights' Center in Minneapolis and is going to be joining us as Director of Artistic Development—I think she would say that one of the things that people tend to charge her with is, “You develop too many female playwrights; you’re biased in that way.” She and I were talking about this controversy the other day, and I think she would say vis-à-vis the question of secularizing female playwrights—and of course this is an ongoing conversation that’s been happening in all the arts for a long time—Polly might say, yeah, sure, there are these situations where women playwrights are developed, but how many of them are produced? And I think for a lot of female playwrights, they would say that’s where the rubber meets the road. We’re developed like heck, we’re in every writing colony. When it comes to, Are you going to put this play up on the boards—that’s where there’s a real attrition.

Tanya Palmer, literary manager, Goodman Theatre: I think it’s a fascinating study. Clearly there are still obstacles to women playwrights seeing their work produced in the numbers and at the scale of male playwrights, so any investigations of root causes are helpful to overcoming the problem. Theatre doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s part of the larger culture. As a woman, I can certainly attest to the fact that sexism is alive and well. And is practiced by men and women in equal supply.

One of the findings that I think is really exciting in this study is about the profitability of plays by women: “Plays and musicals by women sold 16 percent more tickets a week and were 18 percent more profitable over all.” I think there’s been a perception, in spite of the fact that women represent over half of the population and the bulk of theatre audiences, that plays by women (and in particular, plays by women ABOUT women) are for a ‘niche’ audience. Findings like this help to dispel that particular argument.

In terms of Emily Sands’ observations about women literary managers/directors and their particular response to the plays written, at least seemingly, by women, it is a surprising finding. I don’t necessarily dispute it (full disclosure: we at the Goodman haven’t received any submissions from “Mary/Michael Walker,” so I think I’m off the hook…at least for the moment) but I did wonder, just on a practical level, how she could parse their “ratings” of the script to show that Mary’s play got “significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response” than Michael’s play—from these anonymous female Artistic Directors and Literary Managers. Maybe there’s a rating system out there that I’m not aware of, but I’ve never sent back a script with grades on it for quality, economics prospects and audience response. I can’t speak for other literary managers or Artistic Directors, male or female—but when I read, I’m looking for playwrights whose writing is distinct and surprising, who are telling stories and addressing issues that are important to us as artists and our audiences as a community, and who are embracing the theatrical form.

I do feel like women artists have a responsibility to support and encourage and advocate for other women. Clearly, the Goodman understands this responsibility: during the past five seasons alone, half of our 46 mainstage productions were authored by women. And this year, Bob Falls programmed an entire series of works both written and directed by women. The “Strong Women, Strong Voices” 3-play series included the 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winner (and Goodman commission) Ruined by Lynn Nottage directed by Kate Whoriskey; Ghostwritten, also a Goodman commission, and world premiere by Naomi Iizuka, directed by Lisa Portes; and Rebecca Gilman’s The Crowd You’re In With, directed by Wendy Goldberg.

Ultimately, I feel we have a responsibility to advocate for diversity in its many forms. I don’t want to hear the same story told through the same frame of reference over and over again—and I don’t believe our audiences do, either.

What I find disturbing perhaps even more than women or artists of color getting produced is the lack of real economic diversity amongst artists. Often the people who can survive in this business are people with great economic privilege; it’s certainly not true of all the great writers directors actors and designers out there working today, but think about how many more great actors, directors, writers and designers (and literary managers, and artistic directors, and managing directors) there might be if there was more economic support for the arts, and more attention paid to the importance of the arts in all our lives.

Jessica Hutchinson, artistic director, New Leaf Theatre: I feel like it's been the obvious and easy answer to point to the predominance of men in positions of theatrical authority when wondering where the female voices are on stage. But after what feels like a bit of an indictment from this study, I wonder if it has to do with our understanding of what audiences want shifting more like a glacier than an avalanche. If artistic directors and literary managers are trying to anticipate what will "sell" in addition to evaluating what's "good work," then I wonder if we're still operating under an old model where stories by men about men with lots of great roles for men were the norm (for men, see also "white men"). Goodness knows we're following old models in more than just the programming arenas of theater (i.e. fundraising, marketing, press relations, etc.). In the same way that there is still a visible effort to produce work by racial and ethnic minority writers, I think there's still a hyper-sensitivity to a play when it's written from a "female" perspective. It can often become about the "female" play, the "black" play, the "Latino" play—instead of the "good" play.

I was actually surprised by the number of people who were surprised that Touch was written by a woman. I'm not sure if it was more content or tone-based - but as a director and as an artistic director I was less concerned with Toni's gender and more interested in the story and characters she'd created. It honestly (embarrassingly?) hadn't much entered my mind that she was a woman until other people started asking me questions about it, or automatically saying "he" when referring to the playwright and being really surprised when I corrected them.

I do wonder if it has to do, as well, with the gender of production-specific leadership. Even though there are many female directors whom I personally admire a great deal (Jessica Thebus, Anna Shapiro, Wendy Goldberg, etc. etc.) as a female director, I still feel like directing is a bit of a boys' club. Again—glacier not avalanche. Could the ADs and literary managers be tuned in to the perspectives of the male voices that will likely be helming their most "financially viable" productions and looking for stories that will resonate with them? Did the study examine not just who was writing and producing but also who was directing? Is it possible that Ruined not yet getting to Broadway has as much to do with Kate Whoriskey as it has to do with Lynn Nottage?

My fear and hope is that all this has been done unconsciously. As much as it troubles me that women have potentially been tougher on our "sisters" without realizing it, I'm hopeful that we can take this study as a wake-up call. Not that I think female-led companies should start doing exclusively female-written plays that explore the female experience to the exclusion of anything from across the proverbial aisle—that's a pendulum swing I hope we can circumvent. My hope is that we'll be aware of what seems to be a pretty ingrained prejudice and look for stories that are compelling, for plays that are unequivocally relevant, regardless of the gender, race, or class of their authors. My hope is that that's the way to ensure something will "sell"—to take the best, most inventive, innovative plays and produce them in ways that challenge, engage, and entertain our audiences. That seems to me to have less to do with focusing on gender and more to do with illuminating our shared human experience. Which, after all, is what theatre's all about, Charlie Brown.

Meghan Beals McCarthy, dramaturg/literary manager, Northlight Theatre: After the town hall meeting held in New York by Julia Jordan, et al., I was afraid the conversation and investigation would stop there. I was thrilled to see that with Emily Sands's study, the ball is still rolling on this, and people are digging deeper into what is often a very sensitive and volatile subject. I, for one, don’t fancy thinking that I am part of the "problem," and although I think it is important to note that Ms. Sands's study cannot take in any and all considerations that go into evaluating the potential of a script at a particular theatre, this has prompted me to re-examine my own biases. That said, I have been accused more than once in the past by male colleagues and employers of “having an agenda” when it came to female writers…my usual response is to point out that I am only looking for balance and breadth of storytelling in our field.

We at Northlight are very aware that next season is comprised entirely of male playwrights. However, we are proud that it was built around pre-existing relationships with the artists we hold near and dear: male and female actors, directors, designers as well as playwrights (e.g. Awake and Sing was chosen with Amy Morton, Mike Nussbaum and Rondi Reed in mind). So, how do we bring more female writers into the fold? One way we are building relationships is through Interplay, a new-play reading series that introduces to our audience new work from both emerging and established playwrights. To date, 53% of the plays read in Interplay were written by women. Also, I am excited to note that 44% of our commissions have gone to women, particularly in the last few years. However, the next step—and it’s a big one—is to get these plays full productions on our stage. But that step cannot be divorced from the challenge of presenting new work, period, from men and women (since new work is a financially-risky endeavor for mid-sized theatres that don’t have fat endowments to support such risks). Which is the other half of my “agenda,” but I shan’t get into that now.

Tony Adams, artistic director, Halcyon Theatre, curator of the current Alcyone Festival of plays by women: I'm not really that surprised by those findings. But I also think that when looking at the scope of the issue there are two big notes that should be pointed out.

Without the name recognition and sufficient stature (of say, Ruhl, Vogel, Rebeck or Nottage), those scripts sent in under the pen name would probably never be produced anyway. Which is a deeper problem in the American Theatre, but it also works to perpetuate the status quo.

I'm surprised anytime I hear someone in theater who doesn't know the disparity in productions by gender. I don't think there's a lack of awareness that ridiculously fewer women are produced; however I do think there's a lack of awareness of the amount of great scripts out there by women. At first, I was having a really hard time finding good scripts by women that would fit this year's festival.

Then I thought, "What would I do if I was looking for an actor?" And I started making calls for recommendations the same way we usually do when casting. The response to these calls was, frankly, pretty astounding. (It's also been really encouraging that three LORT houses have contacted me recently looking for the scripts from this year's festival.)

The main call to solve the issue has always been for more artistic directors who are women. The thought is that more women at the helm would directly lead to more women being produced.

Not that there shouldn't be more opportunities for women to run institutions, but institutions with women at the helm don't fare any better than those run by men in terms of producing women. There are a lot of great scripts out there by women that just aren't making it on to the boards. Even for a company like Chicago Shakes, there's a ton of scripts by women they could do along with their non-Shakespeare programming, but they don't.

Barbara's been the AD since day one and I can't think of the last time a female playwright was produced there. Behn, Cowley, Centilivre, Inchbald, Ana Caro—the list goes on and on of women who were writing hundreds of years ago and were at the top of their game, but are never staged. And if a classical theatre run by a woman isn't producing some of them…The solution is not as simple as hiring more women in positions that are considered to be "gatekeepers" for writers.

I think if funders and audiences were to demand changes you'd see them pretty quickly, as is usually the case. While they can still do far better, smaller companies have done a much better job than the big boys. But there's such a discrepancy in budgets and funding that if a company the size of Halcyon produced The Black Eyed in every major city in the U.S., it wouldn't make as much for [playwright] Betty [Shamieh] than one production at the Goodman or Public would.

Jennifer Adams, associate artistic director, Halcyon Theatre: In a nutshell, I think that women judge other women more critically than men do with most things, and writing plays is no exception.

Also, the minute you see the name "Mary" you assume you know what the play is going to be about. Just like the minute you see "Chicago Storefront" you assume you know what it's going to be.

It's actually exactly what we're trying to tackle with the festival this year—[the idea that] "Women only write small, domestic dramas about love and family or kitchy comedies about being dumped." (aka Wendy Wasserstein) I think if a female Artistic Director sees "Mary" and has that in mind before she starts to read, and she turns out to be correct, she casts it aside because she doesn't want to continue to perpetuate the myth. So she doesn't ever find out if the writing is fantastic or the story stands up or if it has something new to say. A male Artistic Director doesn't have this option even if he wants to, because if he does he's called a sexist or a discriminator—he has to read it and therefore maybe sees more of the gems.

Ann Filmer, artistic director, 16th Street Theater: I have a lot of opinions on this female insecurity complex thing, but here's just one example of (you gotta sing this like Annie Lennox) "Sistuhs are doing it TO themselves":

In 16th Street's brief two years in existence, we have produced work by 11 female writers with just two out of the 13 offerings by men: Brett Neveu's The Last Barbecue and last season's The Ascension of Carlotta (female lead interestingly enough) by Will Dunne. When we announced our 2009 season and our second-year-in-a-row all-female Words in Motion festival, several female patrons expressed their concern that we were not featuring plays by, for or about men. They were worried that the season may be too female-centric. WOMEN worried that men were not represented enough. I was like, "Uh, don't worry about them. They get PLENTY of stage time." Nary a man made such a comment. It takes a woman. And I can't believe I just said "nary."

Here's something I just thought of: I wonder if female playwrights are reviewed more harshly than male playwrights? I'm not sure how one would track that, but it would be interesting to see.

Bonnie Metzgar, artistic director, About Face Theatre: It's exciting that we are all captivated right now by this discussion of female playwrights. Let's all do more plays by women! If any theater out there is looking for good plays by women, I have about 30 of them I would have LOVED to do next season so call me.

Although I am disappointed that the national media is focused on what I call "the cat fight" angle—the finding that female artistic directors may judge work by female artists more harshly—that is not my personal belief or experience. LOOK at all the amazing plays by women this season in Chicago: God's Ear, Ruined, The Walls, Our Lady of the Underpass, Up, Well—many produced in theaters with women in artistic leadership positions.

Krissy Vanderwarker, artistic director, Dog & Pony Theatre Company: This note spurred me to do a little digging for D&P and see whether our records would support or contrast the study's findings. I found that our top 3 highest-grossing shows were written by women (if you can count Vivian Girls having been written by an ensemble, headed by women). I think this has more to do with the strength of the productions than any gender bias.

While I recognize that there is such a thing as gender bias, I think it is very difficult to suss out how it plays out in not-for-profit theater—primarily because this is a collaborative art form, so singling out one part of the process seems very difficult. Also, not-for-profit is just that, not in it for the profit. So our play selection is really guided by what our artists are into. We have produced 4 plays by women and 6 plays by men. At no point in our season selection discussion does the race or gender of the playwright ever come up. We are evaluating the work on the merit of the writing and of the opportunity for our artists to play. Now, this might be something we need to re-evaluate, but so far has lead us to plays that seem to be resonating with our audiences.

[Associate artistic director Devon de Mayo] & I read a TON of scripts. I would guess (from a quick look at my inbox) that I average 1/3 more plays submitted by men than women, but that doesn't take into consideration the plays that are passed to us through agents or literary managers or that we seek out on our own.

In the end, I'm not sure if there's much to take away from any of this rambling. Maybe in summary, I would say that we have made efforts to read a diverse selection of plays from many different voices - some of those happen to be from men, others from women, all from many different races. But in the end, story is king (or should I say queen?).