FROM THE INTERSECTION: When Gender Equity Is Oversimplified

The recent Equity In Theatre report was centered almost wholly around gender.  It must be acknowledged first and foremost that gender equity is EIT's primary mandate and to their credit, the dearth of statistics about non-white artists contained within the report was not due to a lack of interest in or effort made to include this information on EIT's part. Rather, it was the result of a frustrating lack of recorded data from which to cull this information, which was itself addressed within the report.  (It is shameful, negligent and woefully short-sighted that this information is not readily available in 2015.)  When such data is not compiled and therefore excluded, discussion of gender equity takes place without simultaneous consideration of the dual variables of race and gender.  To have this discussion with gender as the one criterion can lead to a perception that is greatly misrepresentative of the larger picture. 

For example, that female playwrights and directors are associated with fewer than a third of professionally staged productions is a huge imbalance, and a fact.  It is also a fact that the majority of substantial characters in these productions are male.  Where the problem lies is that in keeping gender as the sole criteria – even in a discussion specifically about gender equity – we imply the following strand of logic to be true.

In the Canadian theatre industry, men are overrepresented compared to their female peers. Therefore,it can be inferred that in the positions of playwright, actor and director, men of colour are overrepresented compared to Caucasian women.

Right there, a major problem.  One would have to be in significant denial to believe that this postulation is correct.  I do not have stats on the percentages of directors, actors and playwrights in Canadian theatre who are men of colour, but I do have eyes and ears and while I am passionateabout working towards gender equity, I am also committed to the whole truth in meeting that end.  That truth is that in the last five years, I have been aware of more produced plays that were written or directed by white women than I have plays written or directed by black, Asian, Hispanic, Native and South Asian men combined.

So where does that leave us?  

It leaves male theatre creators of colour in a position in which they are told how much of an advantage they have over white female creators, when their actual level of visibility does not support that.  It may also lead Caucasian female theatre creators to believe that all men are being granted more opportunities than them, when that is a fallacy. The reality is that the only women over whom men of colour have a sizeable advantage is women also of colour.  This is not to say that there aren't male artistic directors who will program a black male playwright over a white woman – allegiance to testosterone can indeed trump racial likeness – but I assert that there are just as many male A.Ds who would easily choose to program “Susan Jones” in their seasons over “Muhammed Singh”.  This is why the gender stats on their own, while well-meaning, useful to a degree and important to note, are problematic.  They are lacking information intrinsic to a thorough understanding of that inequity. 

Up to this point, it would seem that examinations of gender equity in Canadian theatre are simply not broken down beyond male numbers vs. female numbers.  Some would argue that further breakdown is not necessary.  When colour and culture are not factored into these stats, however, what we are essentially left with is a generalized truth that applies to the majority only.  Think about how inherently incomplete it would be to speak of the privileged status of the white German male in the 1940s without including that if you happened to be white, German, male and Jewish – uh, not so much. 

To have this conversation excluding the glaring determinant of intersectionality is to not have the full conversation.

What “In the Canadian theatre industry, men are overrepresented compared to their female peers”, actually means – devoid of racial consideration – is “In the Canadian theatre industry, the cultural majority – white men – are overrepresented compared to their female peers, white women.”  If we are to be stone-cold honest, we must recognize that that is what that actually means.  It means this because, as a predominantly white society (Canada, not Toronto), those in power who have created the “categories” have decided that “men”, women”, and “minorities” are three distinct subgroups of people.  Men means white men, women means white women, and minorities means everyone else.  It is the grossest of oversimplifications.  It reduces each human being to one category only, with the default colour being white unless otherwise specified.  The dismissal of intersectionality is easy to be guilty of by those in the power position, as they are not affected by the prejudice affecting those in the subgroups. 

Imagine gender equity in theatre as a 200 metre sprint.  Caucasian males are permitted to begin the race 150 metres in, Caucasian women at 100, men of colour at 75, and women of colour at 25.  That's not an unrealistic representation of where we are at present.  (Some may argue the placement of white women vs. non-white men; I am speaking based on my personal observations and welcome discourse).  How can we possibly speak comprehensively about gender equity if we ignore this?  We can't.  If all men were sitting at 150, and all women at 100 or 75 or 25, we could streamline the conversation.  But that is not the case.

And so, gender equity is virtually impossible to assess beyond the basics – boys this many, girls this many – until we look at the experience of the cultural subgroups in comparison to the experience of the cultural majority.  There is nothing close to parity in our industry between white men and men of colour.  There is nothing close to parity between white women and women of colour.  Nor is there parity between white women and men of colour, although preferences may be shown one way or the other depending on the circumstance.  It is an inarguable assertion that we must acknowledge that overarching, disproportionate number of opportunities that are given to men.  At the same time that we continue to support and applaud those with commitments to gender equity, however, we must be cognisant of the areas of intersectionality that make that assertion significantly more complex.  For as long as racial inequities and intra-gender discrepancies exist, our analysis of this issue will continue to be a well-intentioned oversimplication.

_____________

T. Taitt