Rethinking Gender Bias in Theater
As someone who has been reading the New York Times for the better part of the last two decades and has watched the Sulzberger mafia turn the paper into one of those tawdry tabloids one might find at a supermarket check-out, I am used to reading such provocatively vapid headlines. It reminds me of one of those fantastical headlines one might find in any given issue of the Grey Lady:
World Explodes; Women And Minorities Hit Hardest, Endure Long Suffering
Just a note, that's not a real headline---just making a point.
However, it’s a slow day at work, so I decided to give this article a look. The study was done by a Princeton economics student named Emily Glassberg Sands. While not necessarily peer-reviewed per se, according to the article, "eminent economists vouched for its high quality,
including Christina H. Paxson, the chairwoman of Princeton’s economics department and the newly named dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs; Cecilia Rouse, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers; and Steven D. Levitt, the co-author of Freakonomics.”Okay, now I am getting excited. Will Ms. Sands blow the lid on the theater industry's version of Jim Crow? Let's read.
"To sort out the findings, it helps to look at the research. Ms. Sands conducted three separate studies. The first considered the playwrights themselves. Artistic directors of theater companies have maintained that no discrimination exists, rather that good scripts by women are in short supply. That claim elicited snorts and laughter from the audience when it was repeated Monday night, but Ms. Sands declared, “They’re right.” In reviewing information on 20,000 playwrights in the Dramatists Guild and Doollee.com, an online database of playwrights, she found that there were twice as many male playwrights as female ones, and that the men tended to be more prolific, turning out more plays. What’s more, Ms. Sands found, over all, the work of men and women is produced at the same rate. The artistic directors have a point: they do get many more scripts from men"
So, for the first of three studies, Ms. Sands concludes that there is NO evidence of discrimination in the realm of selecting scripts. The pool of eligibility contains more male-written scripts. An analogous situation would be as follows: If I were drawing blindly from a burlap sack with 900 oranges and 100 apples, the chances are pretty good I will draw more oranges given 30 tries. You can work the probabilities on your own.
Ms. Sands stops well short of alleging gender bias simply because of the varied outcomes of men and women. Good for her...she should have. Let's keep reading.
"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."
This passage begins with so much potential. Let's try sending identical scripts to various directors---half attributed to men and the other half attributed to women---and see if they are treated any differently. And sure enough, they are! We have our 'smoking gun.' But wait! The people responsible for discrimination of women are........female directors and literary managers? Is this possible?
Isn't this akin to claiming that Blacks discriminate against other Blacks in professional sports? Or, the idea that homosexuals discriminating against other homosexuals in the workplace is pandemic?
I'm not being facetious. Do women discriminate against other women on the basis of sex and NOT merit? I have never heard of such a theory, but my guess is that maybe some women "buy into" the idea that the theater industry IS dominated by men, and that they had better play by the rules and actively contribute to the status quo. We know, for instance, that throughout American history Blacks have kowtowed to the "white establishment" and "white powerocracy" simply because not doing so would have caused them anything from needless trouble to physical danger.
I really wish Ms. Sands would have commented on this. It seems the second phase of her study doesn't definitively "prove" gender discrimination, but leaves readers of both the study and article wondering if there are other sociological forces at work.
Moving on….
"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."
Ahah! Ms. Sands finally found her economic talons. On Broadway, women tend to write plays that sell more tickets and are more profitable, yet recently have been closed or discontinued at the same rate as male-written plays.
Forgive me if I still remain unconvinced. The entire linchpin of her gender discrimination conclusion rests on identical "run lengths" of 368 Broadway shows in the last 10 years. Ms. Sands doesn't define Broadway, but my understanding is that Broadway includes only major productions and only in the city of New York. Is this an appropriate sample in both size and scope? What about off-Broadway and "off-off" Broadway? Given the current economic downturn---not to mention the fact that all but a slight few Broadway shows are being discontinued faster than you can say "BRAVO!!!"--- is it appropriate to use production "run-length" as bedrock for your argument? Producers and managers need to be mindful of not only historical ticket sales but also projected future sales and costs. Most businesses make economic decisions based not on past performance but the economic viability of those decisions in the future.
I would love to see Ms. Sands examine several 100 Broadway and non-Broadway shows and perhaps compare critical acclaim to run-length. For instance, during a period of economic vibrancy, are male-written and female-written plays of similar artistic acclaim and quality treated differently? Is this trend repeated, or is it a statistical outlier?
Before I get savaged by hyperventilating uber-feminists, like the ones who targeted their thuggery at former Harvard President and current chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers Lawrence Summers, please note: I am not asking these questions as "denier" of gender discrimination in various aspects of our society. I am demand both high evidentiary standards burdens of proof when accusations of discrimination and/or racism are thrown about. The New York Times has been very eager to publish any study that has been confluent with its worldview that society is sodden with racism and discrimination in all forms.
Ms. Sands is going to continue her economic studies at Harvard and I sincerely hope that she studies this issue further.
Thoughts please. Except from Professor Nancy Hopkins of M.I.T.
Update: Here is Ms. Sands paper
No comments:
Post a Comment