![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This subject came up tonight at Steering Committee and there just wasn't time to explore it past the immediate issue at hand, but it seemed like there was more discussion to be had and perhaps more voices to be solicited, so I thought I'd go ahead and post about it. You don't have to be part of Theatre@First to have an opinion. I'm going to start with a poll, so I can get an overview, but I do encourage you to comment, because I realize this may have a lot of nuances and complexity for many people that won't be captured in my options.
[Poll #1498617]
[Poll #1498617]
no subject
Date: 2009-12-14 03:53 am (UTC)I'd definitely support a proposal for a play that only had male or female roles. If someone had a terrific idea for doing "The Vagina Monologues", "Agnes of God", or "'Night Mother", the group is doing a sufficient number of plays per year that it doesn't strike me as any more exclusionary that doing "Talley's Folly" which only had two roles. (I'd feel similarly about "Glengarry Glen Ross" or "Love! Valour! Compassion!" on the other face of the gender die.)
Where I'd find myself conflicted is if the play or project was chosen to push a particularly exclusionary gender agenda; that strikes me as a misuse of the organization which isn't set up for that purpose and runs on the efforts of volunteers who may or may not support the politics of the project. At that point, it'd depend a lot on what the director was trying to do and whether I thought they were sufficiently clueful to pull it off.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-14 04:08 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2009-12-14 04:57 am (UTC)