Should there be more women only opportunities?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tracy Dempsey on May 9, 2012 at 11:32

Personally, I think these days 'women-only' events/competitions etc. just serve to perpetuate the belief that women need more support or that it's harder for women to succeed; keeping inequality alive. I could see the need for it in the past, but not now. I'd be curious to know if the picture is that a lot less women than men (proportionally) are going for solo shows, or if they're going for them but less women than men are getting booked.

If it's the former, then it's probably a confidence issue, and I think that's better addressed through unofficial networking, peer mentoring and coaching (this isn't a pitch; I'm not taking on clients at the minute!) - with a view to growing confidence and being more proactive with all opportunities, instead of seeking 'safe' ones. I think public events that say 'women only/we support women/sisters are doing it for themselves' etc. do actually just feed the idea that women need extra help, or positive discrimination, to get on in their careers.

If it's a case of discrimination against women by bookers etc., then it's something that requires lobbying and PR from anyone wanting to change this, regardless of gender.

Basically, 'be the change we want to see in the world'!

Tracy
 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HelenCrickard on May 10, 2012 at 10:25

Tracy

It is harder for women to succeed, this is a well known, well documented fact and you are in denial.  There is nothing wrong with women only events that celebrate women, for me it doesn't reflect " we need extra help" more that we are comfortable and confident to host women only events.  Lastly if we need help from PR folk we really are in trouble.

Tracy Dempsey said:

Personally, I think these days 'women-only' events/competitions etc. just serve to perpetuate the belief that women need more support or that it's harder for women to succeed; keeping inequality alive. I could see the need for it in the past, but not now. I'd be curious to know if the picture is that a lot less women than men (proportionally) are going for solo shows, or if they're going for them but less women than men are getting booked.

If it's the former, then it's probably a confidence issue, and I think that's better addressed through unofficial networking, peer mentoring and coaching (this isn't a pitch; I'm not taking on clients at the minute!) - with a view to growing confidence and being more proactive with all opportunities, instead of seeking 'safe' ones. I think public events that say 'women only/we support women/sisters are doing it for themselves' etc. do actually just feed the idea that women need extra help, or positive discrimination, to get on in their careers.

If it's a case of discrimination against women by bookers etc., then it's something that requires lobbying and PR from anyone wanting to change this, regardless of gender.

Basically, 'be the change we want to see in the world'!

Tracy
 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TEXTFILMS - El on May 10, 2012 at 14:53

Ms B, I think we need to ask the question, what potential factors are at work in order to breakdown and understand in a transparent way, why your scanning highlights, that men appear to be getting a higher percentage of solo shows.

Hear are some factors that might potentially shape this behaviour:

1. Access to funds, independent or state funded.

2. Relationships with the insitutions that house the solo shows.

3. Work that is in public demand.

4. Content.

5. Understanding and experience of the procedure of how to apply and access state funds, private funds.

6. Curatorial decisions.

7. Institutions responsibilities to public, funding sources and board of director's.

There is probability lots more, but this information once collated would give you a decent idea why this could be apparently happening.

I would also like to make a note that I don't think an actual independent body monitors the distribution of state funded Arts in NI with regards to addressing this apparent lack of balance. 

I do know of an organisation in Belfast part state funded, that an independent team came in to assess whether they where offering content that reflected the general publics' needs and the survey came back, saying they were not. But they changed nothing.

Interesting Q Ms B. If you ever get the chance to knock up a little pie chart, post it on the site ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bronagh Lawson on May 10, 2012 at 15:28

El Gorilla girls did research a couple of years ago for ACNI with all the statistics. Im interested to know if you really think the "work that is in public demand" is relevant?  I would put on there lack of understanding of the statutory  equality requirement for organisations recieving public funds. If your not familar with it you can look on the ACNI website under any of the funding opportunities.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TEXTFILMS - El on May 10, 2012 at 17:43

http://youtu.be/NJixmdjaoxw

Ref Q, yes I do think work that is in public demand is relevant as I personally think it is fulfilling a need of sort. Ref work that is not in public demand is also relevant as well as I personally think it fulfils something other than need.

Ref statutory equality requirement for organisations receiving public funds, excuse my blindness can't seem to locate that policy doc. If you find it post it.

The GG put on a interesting show.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bronagh Lawson on May 10, 2012 at 18:48

El  maybe I should put it a different way. Do you really think that the public demand male art?

TEXTFILMS - El said:

http://youtu.be/NJixmdjaoxw

Ref Q, yes I do think work that is in public demand is relevant as I personally think it is fulfilling a need of sort. Ref work that is not in public demand is also relevant as well as I personally think it fulfils something other than need.

Ref statutory equality requirement for organisations receiving public funds, excuse my blindness can't seem to locate that policy doc. If you find it post it.

The GG put on a interesting show.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tracy Dempsey on May 10, 2012 at 20:51

Helen,

I started my post with 'personally' as my response is of course only my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to share my view or calling them 'wrong' - just re-iterating that before I reply! This is a topic I've been thinking about organising a panel on, to have a frank debate - I know it's a controversial subject, and I know how emotive it can be, so am as yet undecided! It's hard to portray tone in text so I just want to be clear I'm sharing a strong opinion without wanting to 'convert' anyone to it, and am genuinely interested in debate about it.

To clarify a bit more; I started a business in 2007, and had the same debate with a woman on my course, which was a 'women in enterprise' programme. I was making the same point I had above, and was also saying that whilst there might be 'parenthood' issues/barriers to self-employment (not insurmountable of course, but present), those weren't just 'women' issues but equally applicable to fathers and mothers, lone parents or those in a partnership. I didn't join the programme because I was a woman and felt I needed more or different support than men - I have never believed it would be harder for me to succeed as a woman and when I have come across sexism, I see that as a weakness of the person dishing it out. There was no content in the course that was specifically 'for women', the issue at stake was women not thinking they could become an entrepreneur in the first place. My friend said 'women have less confidence', and my thoughts on that were/are that that's a separate issue from 'entrepreneurship' - the problem of there not being as many women entrepreneurs is at an earlier stage, of confidence and aspiration. If the under-representation in shows is about confidence (and I don't know, I'm asking the question - and found El's/Bronagh's responses interesting!) - then I think a better solution could be peer mentoring, focused on building confidence, building strong networks (and not just female-only networks) and seeking out and creating opportunities. I was 29 when I quit my job to start the business, and I wouldn't have had the confidence to do so at any younger age, a load of stuff I won't go into here helped me build the confidence to make me believe I could succeed at self-employment. Gender was never a factor, and has never been since.

Most of my clients - male and female - come to me for confidence-building, either as the main issue, or the secondary one, and that affects abilities to build networks, seek out opportunities, or create your own. At the heart of the issue is the beliefs they have about their abilities/the 'value' of their work, their self-worth (sometimes) and the professional environment they're trying to succeed in. People's beliefs will usually shape their experience; from a neurological standpoint, we notice more of what we already believe, or what we've focused on. So if someone has a strong belief that they are lucky, for example, they'll notice more instances of them feeling lucky than unlucky. When someone believes that 'there are no jobs out there', they're likely going to find it harder to get a job, partly because that filtering effect might make it harder to spot opportunities as the brain is now focused on the corroborating 'proof' that there are no jobs out there, partly because they think 'what's the point in going for opportunities', partly because that belief will encourage feelings of helplessness, anxiety and even depression, and partly because all of that will come across when they go to networking events/interviews/meet someone who could potentially be influential/helpful. The belief 'there are no jobs out there' is a general one, and there will be 'proof' that it's right and 'proof' that it's wrong, but from an individual's standpoint, whichever they believe will have a massive impact on what they experience. AND, there's also the next step of 'there may not be many jobs out there, but I believe in my ability to get one'. This is also 'well known, well-documented science! Focusing on the positive belief to feel better and thus empowered to take positive action is at the core of cognitive behavioural therapy, neuro-linguistic programming and the entire field of positive psychology. 

So... what worries me about 'women only' events is that - I feel - IF they are done in an effort to 're-balance' things, then they're just focusing - publicly - on the idea of inequality. A lot of people have told me in similar conversations that they think they are needed because women need more help and support (and I've heard this in visual arts, in music, in business and so on). You say it's not about that, but just a celebration - but we don't have 'male-only' celebration events, because that would be seen as blatantly sexist. IF there were few or no women artists out there succeeding, then I would wholeheartedly endorse the idea of 'women-only' events to build momentum and move towards equality - my feelings are that we have come far enough that we can focus on getting on with things and focus on specific examples of discrimination when we come across them (which is where I'm talking about the need for lobbying and bringing the issue to media attention - PR is used for such things!) instead of continuing to talk in general terms about it 'being harder for women to succeed'. If an art gallery owner is being discriminatory he (she?) deserves negative press, boycotting whatever.

Lots of women are succeeding in all these fields, and for me, that forward progress gets set back by 'women-only' events where there aren't 'men-only' events too, as that keeps people's attention on inequality rather than progress. I (personally!) would rather see an event that celebrated 'artists' rather than women (or men) - UNLESS it was a show where the topic was gender, and at that, I'd be interested to see both men and women's take on it.

If I'm 'in denial', it's in denial that anyone else's experience of it being 'harder to succeed' will dictate my reality, or anyone else's. Reality is perception, and for me success comes from positive expectation, self-belief, building good relationships, seeking out opportunities, creating our own, and working smart - and gender's never come into it.

Tracy

HelenCrickard said:

Tracy

It is harder for women to succeed, this is a well known, well documented fact and you are in denial.  There is nothing wrong with women only events that celebrate women, for me it doesn't reflect " we need extra help" more that we are comfortable and confident to host women only events.  Lastly if we need help from PR folk we really are in trouble.

Tracy Dempsey said:

Personally, I think these days 'women-only' events/competitions etc. just serve to perpetuate the belief that women need more support or that it's harder for women to succeed; keeping inequality alive. I could see the need for it in the past, but not now. I'd be curious to know if the picture is that a lot less women than men (proportionally) are going for solo shows, or if they're going for them but less women than men are getting booked.

If it's the former, then it's probably a confidence issue, and I think that's better addressed through unofficial networking, peer mentoring and coaching (this isn't a pitch; I'm not taking on clients at the minute!) - with a view to growing confidence and being more proactive with all opportunities, instead of seeking 'safe' ones. I think public events that say 'women only/we support women/sisters are doing it for themselves' etc. do actually just feed the idea that women need extra help, or positive discrimination, to get on in their careers.

If it's a case of discrimination against women by bookers etc., then it's something that requires lobbying and PR from anyone wanting to change this, regardless of gender.

Basically, 'be the change we want to see in the world'!

Tracy
 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tracy Dempsey on May 10, 2012 at 20:58

Great list, I'd like to see that too! Along with statistics on the breakdown of applications from men and women; because I so often hear people saying they didn't feel they were 'of a good enough level yet' to apply for things/enter competitions/book shows. And I do sometimes hear organisers/promoters say that not many women applied, and could some more please come forward...

TEXTFILMS - El said:

Ms B, I think we need to ask the question, what potential factors are at work in order to breakdown and understand in a transparent way, why your scanning highlights, that men appear to be getting a higher percentage of solo shows.

Hear are some factors that might potentially shape this behaviour:

1. Access to funds, independent or state funded.

2. Relationships with the insitutions that house the solo shows.

3. Work that is in public demand.

4. Content.

5. Understanding and experience of the procedure of how to apply and access state funds, private funds.

6. Curatorial decisions.

7. Institutions responsibilities to public, funding sources and board of director's.

There is probability lots more, but this information once collated would give you a decent idea why this could be apparently happening.

I would also like to make a note that I don't think an actual independent body monitors the distribution of state funded Arts in NI with regards to addressing this apparent lack of balance. 

I do know of an organisation in Belfast part state funded, that an independent team came in to assess whether they where offering content that reflected the general publics' needs and the survey came back, saying they were not. But they changed nothing.

Interesting Q Ms B. If you ever get the chance to knock up a little pie chart, post it on the site ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TEXTFILMS - El on May 11, 2012 at 9:21

Bronagh, I personally at the moment enjoy the work of Lydia Holmes, because her work lends to my need to stimulate my inventive way of thinking. Her work does this with added humour, which helps my thinking process further understand why one invents.

Ref your Q, Do you really think that the public demand male art? I think you need to ask the public, maybe through a questionnaire. 

If you get a link to that policy note ref statutory equality requirement for organisations receiving public funds could you post it for me.

Thanks 

Bronagh Lawson said:

El  maybe I should put it a different way. Do you really think that the public demand male art?

TEXTFILMS - El said:

http://youtu.be/NJixmdjaoxw

Ref Q, yes I do think work that is in public demand is relevant as I personally think it is fulfilling a need of sort. Ref work that is not in public demand is also relevant as well as I personally think it fulfils something other than need.

Ref statutory equality requirement for organisations receiving public funds, excuse my blindness can't seem to locate that policy doc. If you find it post it.

The GG put on a interesting show.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TEXTFILMS - El on May 14, 2012 at 21:58

Well if I was a male and an absolute weapon it would be win win situ...y'dig ;) 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher James Burns on May 27, 2012 at 3:27

I just have to say I don't find this an interesting question.

In fact quite the opposite.

The Guerrilla girls gave a lecture while I was at art school and while it highlighted a very distinct inequality throughout art history for women (which it is important to learn about and take note of) - it is an inequality reflected through all spheres of life and society until recent times. And of course not just to the demographic of Women.

However, the age of the middle class, middle age, white man is long over. (and thank god it is.)

Since graduating a few years ago - I am close friends with just as many female artists as males and would say none of us have been afforded any more opportunities than the other and any success some have experienced more than the majority it has usually been a mixture of the strength of their work teamed with their commitment/confidence in/to their practice, but to a large extent also luck.
The choices some make as we now move on both professionally and personally in life I'm sure will dictate the direction our careers as artists and craftspeople will take, especially due to the self-employed/motivated nature of our profession.
However in my opinion, for anyone of them to claim that they have been over-looked because of their gender will be (not of course without exception but on the whole) unfounded and rather offensive to those who have experienced success.

So while I am a great believer that we should always be vigilant to discrimination and seek to help each other over the obstacles that will arise (whether they be gender-racial-class-sexuality etc specific or not); we must also always be vigilant to that individual who will be perpetually on a personal crusade to tackle the discrimination which only exists in their mind yet is the crutch to their ego and allows them to avoid the reality that perhaps... they just weren’t good enough.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion