Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

In Hollywood, Creative Women Are Still at the Back of the Bus; Way Back

By Melissa Silverstein, Women's Media Center. Posted June 4, 2007.


Less than a fifth of Hollywood's screenwriters are women, and the reasons behind this disparity are less than encouraging.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Ever read the credits of your favorite TV show or movie? Chances are it was written by a man. A recent report from the Writer's Guild of America West, "Whose Stories Are We Telling?" shows us why. The story the report tells is of an industry whose "business-as-usual-practices have been wholly inadequate for addressing the lack of diversity among writers."

The news is bad for women writing for TV, and worse for women writing in film. According to Darnell Hunt, the lead author of the 2007 Hollywood Writers Report and director of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA, "women are still under-represented about 2 to 1 in the industry and that's pretty much across the board. In some places you see signs of progress, but overall it's pretty stagnant and quite distressing considering this has been a story we have been telling for a couple of decades." The report also covers minority writers who are also struggling at 10% of TV writers and a mere 6% of film scribes.

In film, the percentage of women writers of features has hovered between 17% and 19% since 1999. Why are there so few? Kimberly Myers, newly appointed director of diversity at the guild, believes that some of the problems stem from the Hollywood blockbuster obsession.

"Executives increasingly are looking for blockbuster movies that are going to appeal to a youth audience that they think of as more male than female," says Myers. "Therefore, they are likely to be more interested in what male writers are pitching." When they do get a job, women tend to make less money: the median women's earnings decreased 6.1% while male earnings increased 16.1%. In a single year, between 2004 and 2005, the gender pay gap doubled from $20,000 to $40,000. While neither Myers nor Hunt has a complete explanation for the gigantic jump, Myers attributes it to the continued consolidation of the industry: "all it takes is one studio to change their policy about the number and type of films they are making and it can impact the whole industry, which is not that large to being with."

On a slightly more positive note, the TV business is way ahead of film in understanding that women are consumers of entertainment. TV executives recognize women as a viable demographic, search out women's stories, and hire women to craft those stories. Women writers still have a long way to go, making up a consistent 27% of TV writers. But earnings have increased, and the pay gap is only about $300. The guild figures may not be reliable for upper echelon earners, however, since it only requires writers to report on the first $6,000 made per week. Particularly at entry or midlevel jobs, says Darnell Hunt, "pay scales are becoming more regularized in TV no matter who you are. At the upper level there is more gender inequality than at the lower levels -- that would be my guess."

Why are women writers better off in TV? Partly, it's the nature of the jobs, which are more institutionalized in TV. You start out as a staff writer and work your way up, as compared to the one-shot deals screenwriters get. Still, the TV pipeline is overfilled with men. As of February 2006, 58% of the pilots in consideration for the season that just ended had no women as principals.

White male writers still make up 72% of guild membership. While the organization should be commended for continuing to bring attention to gender and other inequities with the annual report, it should really think about having writers report their full earnings in order to get a realistic sense if, and where, there are disparities in earnings, especially at the highest level.

But, this guild is clearly trying to address issues that others in Hollywood would be happy to continue to ignore. Kim Myers, who has been a producer at Turner and Fox, emphasized that "we live in an extremely diverse society. If you really want to engage your audience, you have to have diverse people writing, with their own experiences to draw on, in order to tell those stories in an authentic way."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, hollywood, screewwriters

Melissa Silverstein is a freelance writer and the web editor of the WMC Daily Update.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fascinating
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 4, 2007 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems like prime time TV is getting more female-oriented in some areas. I don't know if you would have seen something like the Gilmore Girls do as well 10+ years ago.

The attempt to be more "chickish" has been wreaking havoc on crime shows. A lot of them have noticeably moved their focus from crime to relationships, sentimental flashbacks, music videos, and other gimmicks in a lame attempt to appeal to a female audience. Bones is a good example of a show that jumped the shark for that reason.

Needless to say, not all women fall for that crap, and many appreciate a real crime show, so maybe it's the dopey male exectutives who assume that women want to see stereotypical chick stuff. Who knows? I guess that's show-biz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fascinating Posted by: babs
» RE: Fascinating Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: Fascinating Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» I'm gabberflasted Posted by: hagwind
Isn't it evident?
Posted by: easter on Jun 4, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women have a long way to go and it seems like the ever-increasing objectification of women (and even more, their willingness to objectify themselves) has everything to do with it. Haven't we learned that sexualizing something publicly disenfranchises it as well? Whether it be women, those in the LGBT community or race minorities , sexualization is the primary way to continue the disenfranchisement, yet somehow many of these groups have sought the VERY SAME venue that has disenfranchized them to FREE them. Why? If those with the most freedom are the same that are the least sexualized (white heterosexual males) why would we do the opposite of what they are willing to do? Go to www.thegoodfight.site.io/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Isn't it evident? Posted by: hagwind
I'm confused
Posted by: suprmark on Jun 4, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering this guild knows it has fewer than 38% female members, why did it need to commission a report to tell it that 27% and 18% of tv and film work respectively go to those members? Especially when they seem to know the answer, that the most consistent consumers of their product are young males and executives find male writers tend to write in a manner that more appeals to that audience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps women are simply choosing to pursue other careers?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 4, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the author would like to see more females conforming to her idea of what they ought to be doing with their bodies?

Meh. If I was into stereotypes, I'd offer the observation that, given the current run of garbage on duhteevee and at duhmoovees, a paucity of females writing this stuff is a credit to their gender.

But I'm not given over to stereotypes, and I lack the anti-choice sentiment to be onboard with judging females for not choosing to dumb down digesters of duhpopmeeedeeya. So, I'll just let this author and maybe...hmmm...Falwell(sp?) debate (someday) the finer points of what more women-folk ought to be doin' with their lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ironies abound
Posted by: DaBear on Jun 4, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially when it comes to lived experience, ironies get wierder still. My writer's group has noticed something strange over the years. While there are indeed marked large disparities based on gender overall (i.e. who is writing and working), simultaneously, women writers tend to land deals for most if not all of their jobs while male writers tend to be less than 50/50 landing jobs. A male writer can expect a complete crapshoot to land a deal (usually having to write twice as many scripts to sell one) while a woman can expect to land deals for most or all her written work. Fewer women overall but much more successful amongst those few. Not that this is better or improvement by any means. Even worse, for women to be successful they have to write horror or rom-coms to be amongst that successful minority. It's a tough biz for anyone, period.

It would be a much better world creatively to have more women overall writing and involved in every aspect of production (pre & post as well). What's needed is a larger more diverse and broadly funded industry not a smaller one or one that kicks out all it's male writers (you wanna kick people outta jobs, go look at the top-heavy VP corps amongst the big studios for shites' sake). It's already overcrowded, artificially, by Big Money and Big Studios and with the Internet, it doesn't need to be that way. Although, another irony, this is Amerika and only "certain" ideas are safe and only "certain" folk get to make money. It's a race to the bottom.... why? No reason other than, it's the way it's always been done. God bless 'Merkuh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Creative Women" = oxymoron?
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jun 4, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The standard charge in all fake discrimination cases is that the absence of proportional representation in any field is conclusive proof of bias. Determining the supply of qualified candidates is wholly unnecessary. It is an article of faith that female representation matters.

For a fembot, being a woman is qualification enough. Why? Because she is providing THE FEMALE PERSPECTIVE. This belief in the essential difference between male and female 'voices', of course, utterly contradicts the premise of equality and interchangeability.

> ...the TV business is way ahead of film in understanding
> that women are [big] consumers of entertainment. TV
> executives recognize women as a viable demographic...

...which men are better able to serve than women. It somehow seems that being the consumer while others labor to produce is not exactly "the back of the bus", especially when the huge spending power of the female demographic are giving the bus driver his directions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Makes you think Posted by: kepstein7777
It's all about the $
Posted by: JohnTodd on Jun 4, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Truth is, it's all about the $. They (the industry heavies) aren't discriminating, per se, but they are playing 'favorites' by using the same-old people (writers, directors, etc.) over and over.

It's a fiscal conservatism that is crushing Hollywood, as the aforementioned "run of garbage" attests to.

When women write stories, etc., that make the big $, then they will rule. Then the men will complain, but hey, it's the same system either way. If it keeps men in business, then it's fair if it keeps women in business, too.

Please don't anthropomorphize the industry - trust me, they just want the money, not the art. They couldn't care less about anything else even if had a thousand focus groups to help them.

just my POV, not meant to offend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Credit for the Thumbnail cartoon?
Posted by: fork on Jun 4, 2007 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The illustration accompanying this article is tiny, and I don't know how to enlarge it. The style looks like Lynda Barry (loooove her work).
Does anyone know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You can't enlarge the thumbnail. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Thanks. NM Posted by: fork
Hollywood has 'Internal Rules' about gender
Posted by: ggg on Jun 5, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Hollywood, there a number of ironclad rules about gender that normal people might be surprised to hear of (and which are totally unconvincing!) but Studio execs believe them, and that's all that counts.

They have to do with character and market share, and may help explain a part of this bizarre disparity in pay between male and female writers.

Rule #1: It is considered orthodoxy that "women will watch men, but men will not watch women." In other words, audiences accept male characters as universal, whereas female characters are only for women. Therefore, all heroes must be men. Main characters must be men. Children's animated films must center around little boys, and not little girls. Unless you are making a film for girls only.

Of course, both men and women think this is total crap, and simply want rich, compelling characters they can identify with - male or female. But the studio execs are convinced that this 'law of gender' is a scientific fact, and thus dictates market share. As a result, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because very few compelling lead characters are ever made female (except in the sub-genre of 'womens films') and so, by definition, films with women leads don't gross as much, because they barely exist.

I am a man, and in my own work, I have been told, point blank that a story is great, the characters are great - but you must change the lead to a male. No exceptions. Not a hint of apology. As a result of all this gender orthodoxy, it follows that more men are hired as creators because they tend to write male characters, which dominate the casts of most major films. In contrast, Women are hired when a 'women's voice' is needed.

I write for young audiences, and I think that there is a serious lack of compelling female lead characters across the board, at all ages, and it shortchanges audiences, and our culture at large. As writers, we need to keep fighting for authentic characters and stories, and if it works better as a female lead, so be it!

But if you think that's bad. Wait til you here rule #2, which concerns race: "non-white people will watch white people, white people will not watch non-white people". In other words, all lead characters must be light skinned people. Nuff said. And you wonder why hollywood consistently puts out stories about white males? It's no accident. It's the law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've no doubt that their is sexism amongst Producers
Posted by: may261989 on Jun 5, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet, the author offers no real alternative, why?, because there really isn't one. Should a production company only accept a limited number of scripts from men, what if one is still better than all the scripts submitted by the females? A good script is a good script regardless of the gender of the author. I'm sorry but as a struggling male writer, its tough enough for me to get a gig without promoting a situation where I would be shooting myself in the foot , most writers would agree. Its a brutal world out there and we are all hustling for our next scrap of the industry pie. Entertainment is a fickle world, its a combination of who you know , talent and a hell of a lot of luck. This may not favour women over men, I agree, but there's so few jobs out there, I really can't get excited about reducing my limited job opportunities in favour of women gaining more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement