Copyright 1992 Carolyn Gage

Published in The Dramatists Guild Quarterly, NYC, 1992.

WOMEN'S THEATRE AND HOMOPHOBIA

Mainstream theatre, which is dominated by the work of male playwrights, has never
been overly concerned about themes of male bonding and violence against women.
There is no such expression as "women-bashing." When the male lead demonstrates
more of an affinity for his male colleagues than he does for his girlfriend, there is no
accusation from producers that this represents a homosexual theme which might not be
acceptable for mainstream audiences. In patriarchy, it is considered normal for men to
act out violently against women and to bond with each other. In fact, violence towards
us is frequently depicted as a male bonding ritual.

But there is a double standard for women playwrights. We are not allowed the same
degree of allegiance to our gender. Our plays are neurotically scrutinized by male and
male-identified producers for th slightest evidence that we might prefer our own
company to the company of men, or that we bear any grudge against the gender which
has historically prevented us from voting, from testifying in court or serving on juries,
from gaining an education, from earning or keeping a living wage, from exercising the
right control our own bodies, from owning our children, from defending ourselves
against violence or sexual aggression, from access to health care and from participating
in the culture. That we might actually recommend alliances between women as a
political expedient is taken by mainstream culture as an indication that we are not to be
taken seriously as writers, or women.

Between the red herrings of "men-bashing" and "lesbian propaganda," many women's
plays rarely receive a fair reading. And what is behind these labels? Censorship. Just
as the fear of being labeled "communist" was used to scare writers away from socialist
or pro-union themes in the reactionary 1950's, the fear of being called a man-hater or a
dyke has frightened women away from themes which would address our oppression,
and therefore make it visible.

When a playwright writes a play which is concerned with the intimacy between women,
she must expend considerable energy reassuring her audience of these women's
heterosexual credentials. Stories in which women confront men are either trivial in
theme, or the women must play out the Hedda Syndrome and self-destruct at the end.
Thelma and Louise did nothing radical. Ibsen's heroines have been driving themselves
over the edge for a hundred years, and for the same reason - defying patriarchy. Now...
what if Thelma and Louise had realized they loved each other? What if they had
realized they could meet their needs without depending on men? They would never
have found a producer, that's what. The supposedly heterosexual culture which
imposes such strictures on the story lines for female companions does not exercise the
same censorship regarding male buddies. They are allowed - encouraged, even - to
dump the girl and ride into the sunset.

1
Women's theatres are not flourishing, and neither are women playwrights. We have two
ways of fitting into the existing institutions. We write plays which are comfortable for
audiences which identify with male interests (and we will never do this as well as men),
or we restrict ourselves to a sort of dramaturgical ladies room, where we can write about
women in beauty parlors or steam rooms - and even here we must be careful to
circumscribe the limits of female bonding and keep the anger out of our voices.

Women are either oppressed, or we are not. What other liberation movement in history
has had the responsibility of reassuring those in power that their movement is not really
a threat? And when this reassurance is mandatory for the expression of our culture,
can we really speak for our own interests? When women playwrights must attend to the
concerns of men, what can we say for ourselves? Does our work constitute a culture
with its own identity, or does it just become a colonized version of the established male
culture?

Women's theatre should take a page from the history of men's theatre. We should start
with all-women companies, where the women cross-dress the male roles. We should
take our plots all the way to tension, where we can write the passionate love between
women and the murderous rage towards men - which is in no way analogous to women
loving men (ambiguous at best, when men are so obviously our predators) or women
killing women (which, as a displaced action, lacks resolution).

We should write for audiences of women, presuming that the men who accompany
them will adopt our perspective in viewing the play. After all, men have presumed our
consensus with the misogyny of their theatre for centuries. The issue is not one of
vindictiveness, but of survival. At this point in history, the common ground between the
genders is small and certainly not the stuff of drama.

Let us write for ourselves, about ourselves, and serving our own interests. And when
we are charged with men-hating and lesbianism... let us smile and bare our teeth.