Women's Views on News |
| Where are the women in British theatre? Posted: 09 Jan 2013 06:00 AM PST
When Hampstead Theatre announced they were staging two all-male Shakespeare productions there was an explosion of frustration from female actors, writers and directors. In a sector where women are underrepresented, these productions were another two that women could not be part of – and they sparked a debate about women's role in the theatre. William Shakespeare is arguably the most celebrated playwright in history, known for some of the theatre's most famous characters. When Shakespeare was writing his plays, they were for all-male companies, so although small parts were awarded to women, they were few and far between. Only 16 per cent of his 981 characters were female. These days women are free to act, but it seems the theatre world has kept to his line. Following the Hampstead Theatre’s announcement, the Guardian teamed up with Elizabeth Freestone, artistic director of Pentabus Theatre who had already completed some research on women’s participation in the theatre while an artist-in-residence at the National Theatre. The latest study discovered that women are massively underrepresented in most areas of the theatre. They named this the 2:1 problem, for the fact that there are two men for every woman in the theatre. This figure is quite astonishing considering Ipsos Mori figures produced for the Society of London Theatre – albeit in 2010 – discovered that women made up 68 per cent of the audience. The Guardian and Freestone looked at the top ten subsidised theatres in England and discovered that only 24 per cent of directors were women. In the creative teams collectively (directors, designers, composers), women made up only 23 per cent. The survey discovered on that average women make up only 33 per cent of the theatres’ boards; only one, the Royal Court, has a majority female board. Executive directors were much better represented at 67 per cent throughout the ten theatres, but that is the only area where women came out on top. Men also dominate in acting: of actors employed by the 10 theatres, 38 per cent were female, with the National Theatre coming out worst at 34 per cent. So why are women so underrepresented in English theatre? When Phyllida Lloyd's all-female production of Julius Caesar opened at the Donmar Warehouse , it fuelled the debate further. Lloyd is calling for all the major theatre companies to employ an equal number of men and women as a rule, even if it means gender-blind casting. But should this rule be enforced? The concern of some is that it may change the type of plays that will be written and might possibly hinder the creative process as a result. Writing on the subject in the Guardian, Stella Duffy had several interesting points to make. She wrote that enforcing equality in the theatre would actually make better theatre. "We can stop worrying that more women will mean less artistically meritorious work. "There are more roles for men and fewer male actors. There are fewer roles for women and more female actors. "In practice this means that less able male actors often get more work. More balance of male and female characters means better actors in all roles, means better theatre.” The statistics prestented by the Guardian show that while there are more men writing new plays, there are going to be fewer women acting in the plays, so it is clear something needs to change.  |
| Posted: 09 Jan 2013 02:45 AM PST
As Orwell once said, “He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past.” It’s a quote that seems to be popping up a lot at the moment, after leaked Department of Education documents revealed Education Minister Michael Gove’s plans to overhaul the history curriculum for 5 to 14 year-olds in the UK. Although the new plans won’t be published officially until later this year, they show an enormous shift in emphasis when it comes to what our children learn about the past. And it’s out with nurses Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole, former black slave Olaudah Equiano and aviator Amy Johnson; in with Nelson, Churchill and the grand narratives of the British monarchs. For its advocates, this is about a splendid return to celebrating our country’s ‘glories’. As Conservative MP Philip Davies said: "Far too often, we are apologising for things in our past, but actually we have much in our history to be proud of. “It is essential that children learn why they should be proud of their country." You could be forgiven for wondering why Davies doesn’t consider social reform and the roots of multiculturalism as good enough reasons to be proud. Of course, comments like his simply create a false opposition between ‘proper’ history, and ‘politically correct’ history that doesn’t exist anywhere outside the consciousness of a slew of Daily Mail articles. The truth is, as any primary school teacher can tell you, Churchill and other such prominent figures are already studied alongside more recent additions. In practice, Gove’s proposals could mean a return to a curriculum in which women and ethnic minorities are ‘air-brushed’ out. But there are already voices raised in protest. In particular, resistance has centred around Mary Seacole, a Jamaican-born woman of both Scottish and Creole descent, whose acts during and after the Crimean War saw her voted as ‘Greatest black Briton‘ in a 2004 poll. Some historians have argued that her role has been exaggerated, but regardless of this, she can be used to contextualise racism, conflict and a host of other issues that we have a duty to inform children about. In fact, Seacole’s life, alongside of those of other courageous or ground-breaking figures, can act as a doorway which enables children to see that history is made up of individual people just like them. Gove’s current plans have the air of the worst kind of nationalism about them; the kind in which history is used to remind people of their places. After all, if British History is truly only the preserve of white men, then Britain today is only a country for them. None of this is particularly new of course. In 2011 Mr Gove was already signalling his intentions, claiming that history in schools ought to “celebrate the distinguished role of these islands in the history of the world” and portray Britain as “a beacon of liberty for others to emulate”. And even in 2011, opposition was already emerging, with Tom Devine, professor of history at the University of Edinburgh, declaring: “I am root-and-branch opposed to Gove’s approach. “It smells of whiggery; of history as chauvinism. “You cannot pick out aspects of the past that may be pleasing to people.” If one of the most crucial functions of history is to teach children to think critically, a curriculum in which events are deliberately chosen and presented to allow only one interpretation is bound to be the most intellectually impoverished of all. Gove may be trying to command the future and conquer the past, but in the present, we can resist what he is doing. And this petition, organised by equality group Operation Black Vote, that seeks to see Mary Seacole restored to her place on the curriculum, seems like a good place to start.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |