During the podcast, John and Craig discussed a 2009 NYT article, Rethinking Gender Bias in Theater.
The article references a study exploring why women playwrights have a tougher time than men in getting their work to the stage. To test if this was a result of gender bias, the same stage script was sent to male and female theater directors and literary reps -- one with a male name, the other, female name.
The surprising results -- the script with the female name was judged more harshly by women directors and reps. Not their male counterparts. According to the researcher, “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”
Craig and John touched on how this appears to support some female stereotypes (bitchy, jealous). Then Craig and John both mentioned it concerns them as Dads with daughters -- which I'm very glad to hear they're looking at as Dads. Then Craig Mazin asked, "What is that?"
I think the answer is more complex than it first appears. A small part has to do with the Queen Bee syndrome. A phrase coined in the 1970s after studies published in Psychology Today. In my opinion, the Queen Bee Syndrome applies more to office environments where a woman, who has climbed her way to a top position, makes efforts to keep other women in subordinate positions because she wants to be the only woman in the boardroom. This does exist. And as a woman I've experienced it in office settings.
However, I think the results of this theater study -- which was about men and women assessing the quality of what a woman writes, not day-to-day office politics -- has less to do with the Queen Bee syndrome and more to do with women holding other women to a higher standard than they hold men. Why?
From my own experiences, I have found that women simply have higher expectations of other women when it comes to being representatives of our own gender. When a woman acts out negatively, or does poor work, other women tend to feel she's making all women look bad; she's not being a good ambassador for all women. I've realized I've done this myself, unconsciously, and only became conscious of it in recent years.
I think it has something to do with the fact women have had a subordinate role in our society for so long and progress is still slower than we'd like. We want to keep the Superwoman mystique going because otherwise we may all lose ground.
As a result, I think women will judge the general work quality of other women more harshly than the same quality work produced by a man.
If a female gatekeeper (director, rep) allows mediocre (ETA: or just average) work by women writers to move forward we're risking that somewhere down the line someone is going to point out this script written by a woman sucks and its suckishness proves "all" women can't write.
Women are acutely aware of the dangers in confirming negative stereotypes about women, like, "Women can't write as well as men." And it's not an unfounded concern. All societal minorities cringe when someone from their "group" appears to legitimize a negative stereotype because there's a real possibility everyone in the "group" will suffer the backlash.
My point is in part supported by another point made in the NYT article by a woman playwright:
I think, in general, women (some consciously, some unconsciously) resent seeing unlikable women characters publicly displayed because "it makes us all look bad." And we may resent it even more (consciously or unconsciously) when a woman writes an unlikable female character. If our secret flaws and failings are revealed through unlikable female protags we can't maintain the Superwoman myth. We must be Superwoman -- how else can we rise up the male-dominated ladder if we cannot appear "better" than men in every way? What will happen if everyone finds out we're not "better" or "worse" because we have a vagina -- we're just our individual, flawed human selves?
This is the psychological burden of all societal minorities -- the fear of being judged against stereotypes before we're judged as individuals. ETA -- to clarify, this fear of legitimizing stereotypes leads to a situation where "we" will judge members of our own "group" more stringently than those outside of our "group" judge them.
The article references a study exploring why women playwrights have a tougher time than men in getting their work to the stage. To test if this was a result of gender bias, the same stage script was sent to male and female theater directors and literary reps -- one with a male name, the other, female name.
The surprising results -- the script with the female name was judged more harshly by women directors and reps. Not their male counterparts. According to the researcher, “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”
Craig and John touched on how this appears to support some female stereotypes (bitchy, jealous). Then Craig and John both mentioned it concerns them as Dads with daughters -- which I'm very glad to hear they're looking at as Dads. Then Craig Mazin asked, "What is that?"
I think the answer is more complex than it first appears. A small part has to do with the Queen Bee syndrome. A phrase coined in the 1970s after studies published in Psychology Today. In my opinion, the Queen Bee Syndrome applies more to office environments where a woman, who has climbed her way to a top position, makes efforts to keep other women in subordinate positions because she wants to be the only woman in the boardroom. This does exist. And as a woman I've experienced it in office settings.
However, I think the results of this theater study -- which was about men and women assessing the quality of what a woman writes, not day-to-day office politics -- has less to do with the Queen Bee syndrome and more to do with women holding other women to a higher standard than they hold men. Why?
From my own experiences, I have found that women simply have higher expectations of other women when it comes to being representatives of our own gender. When a woman acts out negatively, or does poor work, other women tend to feel she's making all women look bad; she's not being a good ambassador for all women. I've realized I've done this myself, unconsciously, and only became conscious of it in recent years.
I think it has something to do with the fact women have had a subordinate role in our society for so long and progress is still slower than we'd like. We want to keep the Superwoman mystique going because otherwise we may all lose ground.
As a result, I think women will judge the general work quality of other women more harshly than the same quality work produced by a man.
If a female gatekeeper (director, rep) allows mediocre (ETA: or just average) work by women writers to move forward we're risking that somewhere down the line someone is going to point out this script written by a woman sucks and its suckishness proves "all" women can't write.
Women are acutely aware of the dangers in confirming negative stereotypes about women, like, "Women can't write as well as men." And it's not an unfounded concern. All societal minorities cringe when someone from their "group" appears to legitimize a negative stereotype because there's a real possibility everyone in the "group" will suffer the backlash.
My point is in part supported by another point made in the NYT article by a woman playwright:
“Most startling was the reaction to women writing — and I think of my own work — about female protagonists and the unlikability of those characters.”
This is the psychological burden of all societal minorities -- the fear of being judged against stereotypes before we're judged as individuals. ETA -- to clarify, this fear of legitimizing stereotypes leads to a situation where "we" will judge members of our own "group" more stringently than those outside of our "group" judge them.
Comment