intriguing slant in this article:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.danceinsider.com/f114b.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.danceinsider.com/f114b.html</A> <P>about perceptions of women and men and careers in dance.

can't believe no-one responded to this - it's worth a read...

Thanks for posting this, Grace. I agree with the idea that dance is not perceived as a real job. I mean, I agree that many people do not perceive dance as a real job! Oops!<P>I have friends at my ballet school, whose parents, when they said they wanted to become a ballet dancer, asked, "but what will you do for a living?" How ignorant~~although I sometimes wonder that myself, given the low pay that dancers and other artists receive. <P>And I don't see why it should be true that someone who has a passion for computers or math gets well~paid, but someone who has a passion for bringing joy to others and themselves doesn't. <P>------------------<BR>~Intuviel~

apropos of this subject, i like this quote i saw this morning from alexandra: "For the past twenty years, the male star dancers of a company were suddenly given the "right" to direct it when they turned 30, but now it's just musical chairs. It's a long way from Diaghilev."<P>although we could come up with quite a respectable list of female company directors (by pooling our geographically diverse information and trying hard!) it has always been the case that it's easy for a male danecr to move into artistic direction, but for women, less encouraged.

surprised at how little attention this thread got - but bringing it to the top at this point because there are now related threads about women as choreographers, and other gender issues.

I know that -- even after I've been doing this for many years -- my Dad is still hoping that I'll get a "real" job.

It seems to me that the article above takes two directions...

l. The first theme is that dance is erroneously not considered a legitimate (responsible) way of earning one's living, or making one's way in the world.

2. The second theme is when men do it, it is considered worthy - and worthy of consideration of moving into other supervisory situations such as artistic director, etc., whereas when women do it, they are not encouraged to advance.

That's two separate - but important - areas of discussion.

I would say that both these concepts apply to a lot more than dance. Most artists face the problem of not having their art - and therefore their means of supporting themselves - taken seriously.

And there are many areas in which women are not encouraged - or even considered - to move into supervisory (read that as better paid) positions.

Throughout history most of the things that women have created are considered crafts - sewing, knitting, basket making, pottery, jewelry making, weaving rugs (beautiful oriental rugs!!) etc. Personally, I consider the above just as artistic as writing an opera - silly me.

But, these are generalizations, and hopefully becoming archaic. We see women becoming doctors as well as nurses, lawyers as well as legal secretaries. I took special care how I phrased the above two sentences. I could have said:

Women are becoming doctors not just nurses. But I said as well as nurses. The first phrase puts down nurses, the second accords them the importance they deserve. It's not an either/or situation, but an 'in addition to'. Each is as worthy of respect.

And that to me is the essence of the problem. We have to learn to accord each the respect they deserve; doctors/nurses; cooks/chefs; dancers/artistic directors; people.

<small>[ 08-12-2002, 07:02: Message edited by: Basheva ]</small>

My mother and father both entered the same technical PhD program. My father received funding from the deparment. My mother was told that since she was a woman, she should be supported by her husband (who was barely being paid a living wage as a grad student) and received no funding.

At least in the technical professions, that seems to be a thing of the past.

This is the first time I saw this thread, as I was not posting 2 years ago, and I see a LOT of truth in it. It's not just dance; women cook as a matter of "duty" but until very recently chefs at major restaurants and hotels were men. And yes, as a biologist I was told by my college advisor to pursue nursing and teaching since they were easier programs that would not interfere with my (presumed) desire to have children, which I never wanted!
Gelsey Kirkland talked about how little she was paid compared to Baryshnikov when they danced together.
My question is: while overturning sexism in dance is part of overturning sexism in society, what about pay scale? Should a company have a set scale depending on position & years of service? Thoughts?

While I agree with most of what's been said here, I'm not sure we're not comparingattitudes and plies on this one; as good as Kirkland was, she wasn't in Baryshnikov's league.

Mind you, she'd probably not have been paid as much even if she had been....

Salzberg, just out of curiosity (why else would I ask?), what female dancers would you consider to be in Baryshnikov's league?

Hmmm....probably none. A dancer like that comes along once in a lifetime, and this time, it happened to be male.

<small>[ 08-12-2002, 12:58: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

What is it about him that you think hasn't been matched by any female dancers?

What matters from an economic standpoint is the question, asked from the producer's point of view: "Are there other dancers who would work just as well with Baryshnikov?" and "How much in demand are those dancers?"

In other words, was Kirkland unique, or would the show have worked just as well with any of a dozen other female leads?

Hmmm....probably none. A dancer like that comes along once in a lifetime, and this time, it happened to be male.