M: The results of a comprehensive statistical survey confirm what actresses have known for a long time-that there are fewer roles for women and that when actresses do work, they’re less well paid than men and play younger roles. I spoke to Shirley Grainger who was asked by the Actors Union to investigate the situation. What did her survey reveal
W: The Union was very concerned about the anecdotal evidence they were getting when women were complaining that they were getting a raw deal and were not getting a proper chance to practice their art. But without hard evidence, which comes from a scientific investigation of the problem, it’s very difficult to persuade the producers that there is a problem that they ought to be addressing. So, I had the task of getting the data together (1).
M: So what kind of information was this
W: And the figures were really striking-I found differences between actors and actresses in all the fields surveyed, and these differences were significant at a very high level. In TV for instance, men were twice as likely to be employed as women, but in ratio that ratio went down even further, with women having only a one in three chance of getting an acting part when compared with men (2).
W: Yes... the other key finding was that women in the acting profession have their busiest working life in their twenties and thirties, whereas for men, the busiest time is when they’re in their forties. And in fact, by the time they are forty, women drop out of radio and TV altogether.
M: Well, these really are startling findings, aren’t they I mean, they do confirm what lots of people have been saying, but it’s quite something to get this information in black and white.
W: Another important thing is pay. The rates of pay in radio, for example, are based on experience, so as long as there are fewer parts of women, this creates a vicious circle.
M: So what do producers feel about this situation
W: They have tended to argue that in terms of pay, once women get the work, there is equality of treatment but our findings prove that this is not the case. In 95 percent of the cases, women came off worse than men
M: But women can only work if the parts are written for them
W: The producers say they are just choosing materials that reflect the world and the way it is. They make the point that dramatic situations are more likely to be found in the world of work, particularly in dangerous professions, where they argue men are stillin the majority (3). Then they blame the writers, who they say don’t write enough parts for women, especially plum parts. The poor writers say they don-t have any power anyway, and so they can-t be expected to initiate change. On radio, the audience figures show there’s a 55 to 45 percent ratio of women to men listening in the afternoon, so there’s a pretty clear case for providing drama that caters to this particular group. But it doesn’t mean that these dramas necessarily need to have a domestic context (4).
M: So in practical terms how do you hope the Union is going to use your findings
W: Well, it seems that one simple thing that producers can be encouraged to do is to monitor the use of actors and actresses, and then look at these figures in comparison with the sort of figures they would like to be seeing (5). Also in new plays, where the cast list indicates a profession-be it a nurse, detective, judge and so
on. producers could consider what gender this role should be. There’s no reason for rigid stereotyping these days (6). The Union will have to be consistent in its pressure for there to be an effect.