Women working in theatre - please help me with my research by answerin

[paulears]

I'm not aware that self-employed people have a right to anything like time-off for appointments. As for maternity leave, it doesn't exist for the self-employed, and even sickness is nobodies problem apart from your own. Sure - it's tough breaking into the industry, but I've noticed that self-employed girls don't seem to have any major issues, because their status means that they get the same treatment as a self-employed male - as in, if you fit, great. If you don't then you don't get the next job, and perhaps lose the current one.

 

Maybe a bit controversial, but maybe it's the fact that girls get special treatment employment law wise that perhaps scares off the employers? When I did employ people on PAYE (which cost me far too much money so I don't any longer) I had good experiences of employing girls, however if I now wanted a real employee, faced with maternity as a possibility - I'd be worried.

 

I can't afford to have a member of staff being paid for not being there, and it seems to me that if I have a pregnant member of staff, I couldn't afford it - so at interview I'd look very carefully at the person. The law is very clear, so as a small business I have to be even handed. Would I actually have a public reason for not taking people on, and a private one, based on my concerns about how much they could cost me? Here is where it gets difficult. Do I look at a candidate as being just a set of skills and abilities, or do I include risk to the business? Are we actually allowed to consider the possibility of getting pregnant in the deliberation? As an example of the kinds of problem, how would the X-Factor contestant fare at an interview for backstage work (assuming he actually did have some talents we are unaware of). We've seen him prone to huge emotional outburst, prone to opening his mouth when it should have been kept firmly shut, and most importantly we'e seen him the cause of much strife. Would anybody give him a job based on what we have seen? Note that we're not rejecting him because he's gay, but because he's potentially trouble.

 

I think that I have no issues with self-employed girls. Being honest, I'm not sure if the disadvantages of taking on a female as a PAYE employee would work. Maybe this also affected my decision to NOT have ANY employees? I really don't know. I do know that the disadvantages of self-employment seem to be gender neutral, so female or male makes no difference - it's simply down to their ability and personality. In panto, where I need 3 ASMs, who are all employees on short term contracts, all I really care about is that I have one who can do heavy physical work, another who can do technical things, and another who is anally into paperwork and preparedness, and can act and sing, and maybe even do a bit of dance. If I cover these bases, everything else is a bonus. I don't even think about gender.

[ramdram]

Ah well Claire, that attitude can cut both ways in the "strength department". On several occasions we have had tours into our venue where more than half the crew/cast are young women; on occasion it is myself doing the meet'n'greet tech bod job and as usual "we" always ask if they need any help lumping stuff in like steeldeck or flight cases.

 

Without exception it is the ladies who give me a quick glance and an instant RA and smile very sweetly and say "Oh, no, really that's OK we can manage".

 

You know of course they are thinking "Oh crikey no...we don't want the old geezer dropping our kit or even worse dropping stone dead on us"...(It helps to be old with grey hair and an even greyer beard of course.)

 

I "console" myself by being useful by sorting the brew and stating the obvious, "here is the sound desk" etc, etc and honour is satisfied.

 

Mind you, I continue to be amazed by seeing the girls unload the van, build the steeldeck (underneath as well) then appear an hour or two later transformed by costume, act their hearts out for another two hours or so, then disappear the steel deck back into the van again. And the girls I have had the pleaure to "work with" certainly don't try to be too silly and lift twice their own bodyweight either...they act as a team and all lift together...and ask for help if necessary.

 

Not being at all sexist but I still can't get over how strong these young ladies are! (Everyone knows that once over 60 steeldeck is too heavy to even look at let alone lift.)

 

I feel that this gender thing is only an issue because "we" let it be an issue...we should not forget during the world wars women kept the nation going by running the factories and nobody thought twice about it...at least until the end of hostilities.

[Maxmccollum]

I have also filled in the survey but think sexism is not as big an issue in the industry as ageism, I'm 22 but look about 16 it really hinders me in getting work because people look at me and think I'm too young to be doing a job or that I'm too young to know what I'm doing. I work in music more than theater and bands ignore what I say to them because (and quote) "you're too young to know what your doing". It does give me a good drive to prove them wrong (which I often do) but I still feel that age is much more of a hindrance in acquiring work than sex. It also causes issues with getting jobs where driving a van is required, although I have had a clean drivers licence for 5 years insurance companies won't touch me with a barge pole until I'm 25. None of this is my fault so why should it hold me back? Sorry its a bit of a tangent but it could be another thing to look at with regards to discrimination in the industry.

[paulears]

I'd not worry about the 25 thing for vans - amazingly common now. My son can't drive my transit for 4 years yet - my insurance company have a blanket no under 25's rule. I know it's annoying at the moment, but I can assure you looking older is NOT a benefit (once you pass the magic 25). Hang on to what you have - it runs away damn quickly I can assure you!

[Robin D]

... Hang on to what you have - it runs away damn quickly I can assure you!

Never a truer word said!

[Claire]

Ramdram re the strength thing, that's what I'm saying: I know women who are quite able to lift a LOT more than I can, and men also who can't lift what I can- but when I say 'that's too heavy' the assumption is that it's just because I'm a girl. Often. Not always. I'd rather blame the fact I'm just not that strong than the fact I'm female- I have other things (mostly organisational) I'm much more use for than loading a truck! :** laughs out loud **:

 

Re time off for appointments: if you are an employee, you are entitled by law to paid time off for appointments. There's no provision for that as self employed so if you don't go, you miss out on care, but if you do go, you don't get paid. Not ideal, and also difficult for small businesses who can't really afford to pay people who aren't there as you say but that is not the fault of the woman. What happens if a male staff member's partner has a baby and he's needed to take longer term time off because of problems? How can you tell if a woman is 'likely' to want to have a baby- how on earth do you make that judgement? (bear in mind it's not actually legal to ask that at interview). I'm 31... genuinely as someone who's been in the business a lot longer than I have, tell me straight- do you think there's people who won't employ me based on the fact I'm a 31 year old woman and *might* decide to have a baby? (honest question not being facetious).

 

Incidentally, maternity leave does exist of a fashion for self employed people; you aren't allowed to go back to work for 2 weeks postnatally I think it is and if you have paid NI contributions for a certain lengths of time you will be entitled to Maternity Allowance rather than Statutory Maternity Pay. The reason women get these 'special allowances' is because people do have to have babies (SOMEONE has to have them!) and someone has to look after them, plus also women are naturally disadvantaged career wise by being out of the job market for a period of time, etc. I wouldn't want people to think that if they were self employed they are entitled to nothing. You are entitled to certain things based on your NI contributions etc.

[kerry davies]

Claire, you asked so brutal honesty it is.

I would not hire anyone who could not do every aspect of what I would ask of them. That is not being fair to the applicant and causes grief to me and the crew in having to fill those aspects of the role.

Since I would only hire on a project or event basis then pregnancy does not enter the equation, I wouldn't take the risk of exposing heavily pregnant women to hard physical work. I am just old fashioned that way.

 

Longer term employment in this business is not such a problem with females and possible future pregnancy but because of the utterly flexible nature and instant response nature of the work I would not blame any employer for bearing that in mind when hiring.

 

Women can and do perform all aspects of all work and do it superbly. Where it becomes difficult is asking the employer to take it on trust that every woman can perform to the same levels. They can't. It is as simple as that. Experience has shown that there are certain tasks that the majority of women either will not or cannot do. Making allowances for those women is unfair to both the men who do the jobs and the relatively few women who also do them.

 

To me that isn't sexism, it is "ablism". I could be wrong, I am a dinosaur who is much more use than loading a truck but I do it all the same. It is part of the job.

[Seano]

Where it becomes difficult is asking the employer to take it on trust that every woman can perform to the same levels. They can't.

Oh, so exactly the same as men then.

 

To me that isn't sexism, it is "ablism". I could be wrong

It is, and you are. Nowt wrong with hiring folk according to their ability but there's no need to bring gender into that discussion.

[paulears]

this topic in another place

 

Some honest and detailed views on mental health issues and how it impacts on getting jobs - many people saying privately that employing people is very much twisted to their advantage. Probably biased, but honest - I think.

[GridGirl]

Experience has shown that there are certain tasks that the majority of women either will not or cannot do. Making allowances for those women is unfair to both the men who do the jobs and the relatively few women who also do them.

 

I'm very interested to know what tasks those are? I can't think of any job in theatre which I wouldn't do - except those that I'm not trained for - for example, rigging hanging points for chain motors - but that's nothing to do with me being female and everything to do with not being trained. Horses for courses - I don't look for work as a rigger and people know that if they ask me to go up to the roof and putnsome points in, I'll say 'no I can't, not trained' rather than 'no I can't because I'm a girl'. But I can't lift something on my own, I ask for help - but so do the guys I work with...I know my limits and work to them is all. I don't care if you don't hire me for the job because I don't have the right skill set, but I do care if you don't hire me because you *think* there will be tasks I will not or cannot do, particularly if you haven't bothered to ask me.

[dbuckley]

Ramdram re the strength thing, that's what I'm saying: I know women who are quite able to lift a LOT more than I can, and men also who can't lift what I can - but when I say 'that's too heavy' the assumption is that it's just because I'm a girl.

 

Amd therein hangs the difference.

 

When I say I'm not going to lift something because its "too heavy", the statement will be that I'm a wuss, and as often as not that sentiment is vocalized right there and then. If a girl says "too heavy" then the assumption is she can't lift because she's a girl, rather than a wuss, and as often as not that statement isn't made at that point in time but rather later in the mens quarters.

[erroneousblack]

Horses for courses - I don't look for work as a rigger and people know that if they ask me to go up to the roof and putnsome points in, I'll say 'no I can't, not trained' rather than 'no I can't because I'm a girl'.

 

So why do you call yourself "Gridgirl"? Just asking like!

[dhutch]

When I say I'm not going to lift something because its "too heavy", the statement will be that I'm a wuss, and as often as not that sentiment is vocalized right there and then. If a girl says "too heavy" then the assumption is she can't lift because she's a girl, rather than a wuss, and as often as not that statement isn't made at that point in time but rather later in the mens quarters.

Even if its a 40kg two man lift and no single person should be lifting it. Girl, wuss, or just someone who doesnt want a fooked back at 55.

 

 

Daniel

[kerry davies]

Seano, Gridgirl I won't try to justify my thoughts and attitude to women in the workplace, suffice to say you both have the wrong end of the stick. I would just ask that you consider whether the OP is actually in the wrong job.

I have other things (mostly organisational) I'm much more use for than loading a truck!

 

My thoughts are that if you sign up for a job that includes manual handling you do that manual handling. I fully endorse Daniel's post that there is no place for the macho and that if it takes two or more it just does. I do object to someone taking a job and then promoting themselves out of the less pleasant elements of it.

[GridGirl]

Horses for courses - I don't look for work as a rigger and people know that if they ask me to go up to the roof and putnsome points in, I'll say 'no I can't, not trained' rather than 'no I can't because I'm a girl'.

 

So why do you call yourself "Gridgirl"? Just asking like!

 

Fair call! I used to work in a hemp house where the grid had about 3 foot of space between grid and roof; I was the shortest crew member so when we needed to move lines, I was always the one sent to the grid to kick blocks....