Sunday 8:00 PM on CBS


As I started preparing for the Emmy nominations announcement coming tomorrow, I got to thinking about how great it would be if Homeland writer (and now The Bridge showrunner) Meredith Stiehm earned a nomination for her work on the Season 2 episode "The Clearing," and about how Lena Dunham probably deserves another nomination for her direction on Girls. While both of these women are former Emmy nominees, which probably makes it a little more likely that they'll grab additional accolades, not all female writers and directors are so lucky. While I knew that it'd never been particularly easy for women to break through the proverbial glass ceilings in the big drama and comedy writing and directing categories, I quickly started to wonder just how difficult it is for women snag those prestigious nods.

Well, after some extensive research, several hours spent perusing the official Emmys database, and even more extensive spreadsheeting, I think I have an answer: It's really, really, really difficult for women to land nominations for writing and directing Emmys, in either comedy or drama. In fact, it's safe to say that the Emmys have almost entirely failed to recognize female writers and directors over the last three decades. Part of the problem here is simply that not enough women have the opportunity to work in these positions in the TV industry, but even with that consideration, the data is troubling.

Below, you'll find my consolidated data points in trusty infographic form, along with some corresponding observations along the way. A bit about the methodology: I chose 1980 as the cut-off date both because it's a nice round number and because by that time, most of the Emmys' historically shifting categories had solidified enough that the "comedy" and "drama" categories were clearly delineated. In the writing categories, there were often repeat nominees within the same year, but I counted a name each time that it appeared. So, Mad Men's Matthew Weiner counts multiple times every year because he's nominated multiple times. If anyone, male or female, appeared on the list of nominees, they were counted, repeat or not. That's also why some years, there are upwards of 20 nominees in a 5-nominee race. This gives us the truest picture of the Emmy process. Make sense? Sure it does!



Comedy Writing

As you can see, since 1980 there have been 281 total nominees (repeats included) in this category, with 239 of those names being male and only 42 of them being female. Percentage-wise, that breaks down to just a little over 15 percent of the nominees being female. There've been 7.2 men nominated per year, opposed to just over 1.3 women. Let me channel Pete Campbell for a second and say that THIS IS NOT GREAT, BOB. And here's the breakdown on a year-by-year basis:


Yow. There've been multiple years where there are more than 10 male nominees, but only one year (1992) where at least five female names made the final ballot, and just one more (1997) where there were at least four women present (and three of those women co-wrote a single script with two men). There hasn't been a single year where there were more female nominees than male. But there were nine years where absolutely no women were nominated. NINE. In this time period, only Diane English (four nominations) and Tina Fey (three nominations) had more than two individual nods, and women were part of the winning script just six times (and only English's 1989 and Fey's 2008 wins were non co-writes).



Drama Writing

Things aren't much better on the drama side. Since 1980, there've been 324 nominees: 274 men, 50 women. That's just over 16 percent for the ladies. Yearly, we've seen 8.3 men and 1.5 women earn nominations in the drama race. The good news? There are women here than there are in comedy (you know, because women aren't funny, or something). The bad news? There are more men too, so the increase is incremental. Year-by-year:

Mostly the same story. There are more co-writes and "story by" credits in the drama writing category, but that seems to have mostly helped one gender more the other. There were seven years with more than 10 male nominees and only two (1991 and 1992) where there were at least four female names on the final ballot. Not once were more women nominated than men, and once again, there were nine years where there were zero total female nominees. Robin Green (Northern Exposure and The Sopranos) has scored an impressive seven nominations since 1980, though only one of those nominations was for a solo script. Women have been part of the winning script nine times in the last 33 years, most of them on co-writes with big-time male showrunners like Steven Bochco, David Chase, and Matthew Weiner.

Taken together, the writing categories are pretty bleak: 605 names, and only 92 of them female (15.2 percent). Weirdly, despite the number of years where there were absolutely no women nominated in either the comedy writing or drama writing categories, none of those years overlap; at least one woman was nominated every year. I guess the good news is that recent years have shown a nice improvement. Twelve of the 42 female nominees in comedy writing have come in the last 10 years, whereas 17 of 50 in drama writing have come in the same period. Maybe we've turned a little corner. Hopefully.



Comedy Directing

You're probably noticing a theme here. Although there's no real recurrence of repeating nominees in the same year, women have been even more absent in the comedy directing race than they have been in comedy writing. In 33 years, we've had 166 nominees in comedy directing and only 13 of them have been women. That's a measly 7.3 percent. As far as averages go, we're looking at 5.03 men nominated each year, compared to only 0.39 women. That's right, the average isn't even close to one female nominee per year. Here's the year-by-year breakdown:

There's less year-to-year variance, but a more depressing overall picture. Somehow, women have been nominated in just 10 out of the last 33 years, so more than two-thirds of the time, there've been zero female nominees. That's pretty gross. And in those 10 years with female nominees, only twice has there been more than one female nominee (in 2009 nad 2011). Some positive spin: 2011 in this category gives us our first year with more female nominees, so yay. Less positive? Only one woman has won this category since 1980 (Dream On's Betty Thomas in 1993) and Lee Shallat-Chemel and Beth McCarthy-Miller are the only two women to earn multiple nominations, with three and two, respectively.



Drama Directing

Hey, a moderate improvement! We've seen 169 nominees in this category and a grand total of 16 of them have been women; that's 9.5 percent. The yearly average is similarly better, but still depressing: 4.64 men and 0.48 women each year. Still less than one woman each year, but still improvement! And here's your year-to-year:

More marginal increases. Whereas women have only been nominated in 10 of the last 33 years in the comedy directing category, they've appeared in 14 of the 33 drama directing races. That's almost half, you guys! Same deal with multiple female nominees in the same year, though: That's only happened twice, in 1992 and 2010. Thankfully, 2010 was another year where there were actually more women (three) nominated than men (two). Finally, we've seen just two female winners here since 1980, Cagney & Lacey's Karen Arthur in 1985, and ER's Mimi Leder in 1995, and Leder is literally the only woman with more than one nomination in the time period.

Combined, there have been 348 total nominees in the directing categories, and just 39 (or 11 percent) of them have been women. That's even less than in the writing categories, but not a surprise considering so many of the writing nominations came from co-writes with men. Similarly disturbing is that there have been 14 years where no women were nominated in either comedy or drama directing. Nevertheless, the recent improvement in the writing categories is present in the directing ones as well: Six of the 13 female nominations in comedy directing have come since 2009, while five of the 16 in drama have come since 2008.


Ultimately, though, the situation's not good guys. Not at all. The worst kind of sausage fest. Recent history has been better, but the Emmys—and the whole industry—needs to do better.

Previously Aired Episode

AIRED ON 9/20/2015

Season 67 : Episode 1

79 Comments
Comments (78)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
When I won my Emmy in 1974 (writing for Lily Tomlin's special), more women won Emmys than ever before. Because we were Strong, Invincible... Wo-mannn, we thought in just a few years we would achieve total equality. Still waiting ...
1
Reply
Flag
As you said in your intro, I think more of this probably comes from women being underrepresented in these jobs than in the nominations. Thanks for taking the time to look into it! Very interesting. We can't become complacent and just assume women are being treated as equal to men in all industries. Obviously, in some we still aren't.
1
Reply
Flag
Sadly, this doesn't surprise me in the least. I don't look at it as a "we should be hiring more women for statistical purposes", but there are tons of female writers and directors that are more than worthy of getting these opportunities. I think, while we outwardly are a more progressive society, there is unfortunately some hesitance to hire women in these avenues. I think the success of people like Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, and Lena Dunham in recent years will open the door more but it's not a trend that I see changing anytime in the near future. I mean, this is the same group of people that think that Modern Family is still deserving of all the rewards.....
3
Reply
Flag
I don't see the big deal, personally. Sure, there aren't many women nominated. But are there really many women deserving of a nomination? It's one thing to say that women are underrepresented, but compared to the current nominees, are there any female writers that you would want to be nominated based solely on their writing (and not on gender)? It really irks me when people complain about sexism but their solution is "Cater more to women!" Wouldn't that be considered sexism too?
2
Reply
Flag
This just hurts and makes it seem very hopeless when I send script after script to different networks, get told that my spec script was quite "impressive" but "not what we're looking for right now"... and sometimes I honestly feel like if I put the name "Steven" on it instead of my real name, I'd actually get taken seriously and get some real work.
4
Reply
Flag
that must be really frustrating. Hope you get a break!
3
Reply
Flag
I'm not sure i see sexism in this, at least not from the Emmy side of things. It seems like a numbers game. If you have 100,000 writers overall in television (for example) and 90,000 are men while 10,000 are women obviously more men will be nominated. I think it is more an industry thing and as more women like Lena Dunham get their voices heard and their work out there those numbers will get better. You're own pretty little graphs there show marked upswings in the last 5-10 years. Plus on the lighter side, the guys that have been writing those tv shows since the 80's gotta retire, go senile or die soon right?

Side bar: go Tatiana Maslany
1
Reply
Flag
Staff
Yeah, it's pure sexism across the board, the Emmys are just reflective of that.
Reply
Flag
Nice Job Cory, that was an interesting and thought provoking, if somewhat dispiriting analysis of the lack of female representation in the big categories. I think it would be interesting to look into the data on submissions for nominations in each category to determine if there is a corresponding discrepancy in the women submitted for nomination.
There are several good HR studies of behavior that reflect women in general are not as aggressive as men in pursuing and demanding promotions and pay raises, a factor contributing to the fact that in many fields women make an average of approx 70% of the remuneration of their male counterparts. Are women not as aggressive in submitting themselves for the Emmys?
3
Reply
Flag
Is the complaint here that the awards are biased, or that women are underrepresented? Because those have two really, different solutions. If the allegation is that the awards are biased against women, the solution is blind judging. Remove the names from the ballot and let the voters pick A, B, C, D, or E from a list of nominated works, with no names attached. If the problem is that women are under-represented, well, there's no quick fix for that. STEM careers have been fighting that battle for a couple of generations now.
1
Reply
Flag
Staff
Women are underrep'd. The bias is in the industry and it trickles down (over) to the Emmys.
3
Reply
Flag
Could it be that women writers lean towards a female demographic? Girls is popular show, but I don't see many men watching it. Is that a factor at all?
2
Reply
Flag
So, watcha gonna do?
2
Reply
Flag
As everyone has said below I think the biggest problem is the lack of women working as writers and directors in the industry, particularly directors. Maybe the first step in the right direction is to have a breakout drama that actually stars a female character, that is in there for all the awards. That I think is manageable and hopefully would have a flow on effect to the number of women involved behind the scenes.
Reply
Flag
Staff
Homeland? Primarily male writing staff.
1
Reply
Flag
Yeah I thought about Homeland after I'd posted the comment. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of a Sopranos/Mad Men/Breaking Bad show where the show is fundamentally about exploring the character depths of its lead. Homeland isn't really that kind of show (it really is one of a kind). When you look at it fundamentally it's not about plumbing the depths of Carrie's soul, it's more about the cat and mouse game. You might disagree. I don't feel that the golden age of tv has provided us with a highest-calibre show that deeply explores a female protagonist.
Reply
Flag
Orphan Black was superb though.... but yeah i see your point, generally in us shows . I would say Homeland explored Carrie and her character pretty well though, remember primarily its about terrorism but we found out about her and her illness and life, it wasnt just background noise imo.
1
Reply
Flag
Has been said before - but The Emmys and Oscars aren't biased (well at least not for sex - very much so against Sci Fi), the industry is. The Film and Television industry is very male heavy. Needs to be fixed at grass-roots, not at the top level.
6
Reply
Flag
On that note:
The TV & Film industry itsself is an extention of society as a whole, like the Emmy's are of the Industry.
So fixing it at a grass-roots level requires continued change in society. And that, as is the same with most discrimatory topics, is a matter of education and experience. imho. But it is also a process that needs time and continued struggel.
Reply
Flag
I don't disagree xub, but I don't find it inherently wrong if a industry has more men than women or vice versa (I.e. I don't think we'll ever see a 50-50 split in coal mining or mid-wifes). The difficulty is if 80% of applicants in an industry are male, you should expect a 80-20 split. The real issue is that women tend towards lower paid jobs, and that's where the discrimination is. Why is 'women's work' worth less than 'men's work'?
Reply
Flag
I'm not saying 'women's work' is worth less than 'men's work. I'm just saying the fact you pointed out is a product of society. If we (as a society) want to change that, we need to change.
1
Reply
Flag
Staff
Yeah, the Emmys are just another representative example of what's wrong in the whole industry for sure.
1
Reply
Flag
The problem with your theory is the fact that people put themselves forward for nomination in The Emmys.
Any complaints of bias or complaints about institutional problems with this particular awards show can be countered with "We can only vote for the people who nominated themselves"

Your claim that "This gives us the truest picture of the Emmy process." is a bit inflammatory as your seem to be skewing your argument around sexual bias - that the Emmys are sexist.

Should there be more female writers and directors - if they are good enough, yes.
But the Emmys always struck me as the most egotistical of all award shows, the whole "vote for me, vote for me!" aspect of it, are what i always found unappealing about it.

The argument could be made that women are less egotistical than men in the industry, based on your information
1
Reply
Flag
Staff
Maybe that was a slightly poor choice of words, I was just referring to the idea that I kept in repeat nominees, so i wasn't skewing the percentages that way. And again, as I've said repeatedly, I put in there that it's an industry problem.
Reply
Flag
I was with you up to the idea that women are less egotistical than men.
2
Reply
Flag
It's the same story on the Oscars for example. The only woman ever to win an Oscar for best director is Kathryn Bigelow. From 2000 to 2009 only two women have been nominated.
2
Reply
Flag
@lucianoabc I bet it was garbage if a woman directed it! :D
Reply
Flag
So, look back and tell us... was there a film that should have won best director that wasn't nominated from 2000-2009? And was the director a woman?
Reply
Flag
Valerie Faris who co-directed Little Miss Sunshine wasn't even nominated.
1
Reply
Flag
It's important to know how many women are working in the field and how many are eligible before trying to decide if the Emmys are being fair. And what sort of percentage of Emmy nominee voters are women? Are women voting more for women or men?

It's similar to the number of female politicians, at least on the national/federal level. Often the reason the number of national female politicians is so low is because there is a low number running. Although when it comes to mayoral politics the numbers seem to be more even, often at times seeming that women are more dominant. And half the voters are women, so it can't be blamed on male bias.
Reply
Flag
Staff
Yeah, that'd be great to know.So much of that info is so hard to find though. I wish it weren't. Hope this at least provided an interesting look.
1
Reply
Flag
Unfortunately it’s the same story in most fields. Women get degrees at a higher rate than men, and are nearly half of everyone in the workforce. But women are still only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. Meanwhile only 17% of US Senators and Representatives are women, making the US 91st in the world for share of female legislators.

But the causes are VERY complicated. Some relate to the industry (glass ceilings, old boys club, etc.). Some relate to the individual (US women still bear more child / elder care burdens, and are see themselves as less risk-loving and competitive). And some factors relate to the link between industry practice and individual preferences (women are more influenced by same-gendered mentors and role models – adding to the vicious cycle.)

If anyone’s interested, American University’s “Men Rule” study does a great job laying out the complexity of the issue – even though it’s focused on the specific field of politics.
2
Reply
Flag
It seems that film/tv writing/directing is way behind the rest of the workforce in terms of female participation. I have no idea why this industry is so poor.
1
Reply
Flag
Maybe the type of woman who would have been a good writer or director goes into producing instead? Or maybe the long hours filter out those who favor a better work/life balance, which historically has been women?
Reply
Flag
Ummm why did they choose to use circle like that.

Wouldn't a Pie Chart better show the comparisons between the two?

The bar graph is fine, but the 2 different circles are just pointless.
1
Reply
Flag
Staff
It's called a bubble chart. It makes the same comparison without the static nature of the pie chart. Different preferences sure, but it's not pointless.
4
Reply
Flag
I guess "pointless" was a bit of an exaggeration.

But still, it's kind of easier (in my opinion) to see the real difference between region A and B. Like a circle with half the radius actually 1/4th the size which is kind of hard to tell on the fly. A square being 1/4th the size of another is easy to tell, but of a circle it takes more thought.

But, to each their own.
2
Reply
Flag
Staff
No worries. Totally see where you're coming from! I originally did pie charts, but they just bored me.
Reply
Flag
Staff
Mmmm. Pie.
4
Flag
I don't know, maybe, and I'm just hypothesizing here, males are better writers and directors than females. For, you know, biological reasons.
1
Reply
Flag
Hahaha, you're obviously just trying to start shit, eh?
1
Reply
Flag
Most biological differences between males and females(Sexual dimorphism) are in appearance and some motor skills,
IQ between sexes is almost the same,
Males are 3 times more likely to get killed and 9 times more likely to kill or get incarcerated or to be offenders than females,
Males are much(more than 3 times) more likely to commit suicide than females,
Males are better at math than females(in countries with high achieving students),
Males are more likely to have dyslexia than females,
Females are better at multitasking,
Females are better with reading facial expressions,
Females "Feel" more than men
These are the statistics(mostly from the US) and facts,

So technically and scientifically you are really wrong, if anything women should get the lead because of all the previous differences(much more men dying, going to jail),

And i think that because females express "feelings" more than males and are more social creatures than males, females should be better writers than males,
But because males are more dominant and more socially(and *maybe* biologically) leader ready than females they should be better directors than females(*Technically* - "I" think)

By the way i am from Syria(a little more male dominated society than the rest of the world), so chances are that "if" i am biased, then i more likely to be biased to men than to women
More +
2
Reply
Flag
What biological reasons?
Could you list them?
3
Reply
Flag
It's hard to jump to that conclusion when there aren't as many women writers and directors as men.
3
Reply
Flag
You should tell the folks who award the National Book Award for fiction. It's been 50 / 50 for the last 20 years.
2
Reply
Flag
Nice one, douchelord.
8
Reply
Flag
Staff
You're part of the problem.
21
Reply
Flag
This is so sad.
5
Reply
Flag
Excellent work!! now there is one peice of data missing, what is the percentage of women who could have been nominated (and yes that is a blood nightmare to calculate). But this is important. While I seriously, seriously doubt that the current situation is correct you need to know how many women are possible to nominate. If there is only 30% of the possible nominations women and you get around 30% in the Emmys then things are as they should be. Then you need to ask why are there only 30% women working in this field. As it is now I am sure there are LOADS more women working than the nominations represent.
2
Reply
Flag
Staff
Yeah, would have been awesome to have that info. Unfortunately, they don't make the full historical ballots available, or it would have been included.
1
Reply
Flag
It's nice that Cory bothered to put this into the context of what percentage of Emmy-nominated (either in best writing or best series) shows have female writers on staff and how many times the generally-accepted "best" episodes of great shows are written by women.

Without any context, simply saying "OMG, a lot more men get nominated than women" is completely pointless. Frankly, it's sexist too.
Reply
Flag
Staff
A.) It'd be impossible for me to do that for this many years.

B.) "Generally-accepted 'best' episodes of great shows" is loaded with more subjective considerations than you're accusing me of.

C.) It's not pointless. It's still important, even with certain unknowable data.
1
Reply
Flag
I have studied mathematics for years (a BS in Mathematics some years ago). While this is a well researched and documented article, the "bleakness" portrayed in this article is also with its issues. If this is just taken as an overall look at the genders, then it could be seen as fine, however the discussion of nominations begs to be looked at more closely. When comparing nominations, the simple fact is that you really DO have to compare to the number of people working in their field (probably ridiculously difficult to do) AND the number of people who submitted themselves for nominations because without that information the information is unfortunately none too verifiable, therefore cannot convince me in that way (on the other side, I personally firmly believe that these are probably accurate in their portrayal of the situations, but this evidence does not securely back that up).
To support my claim:
Let's say that In Pcsjunior's Awards Ceremony for Best Writing for an internet post (e.g TV review), I take the winners completely from one article that has exactly 250 posts on it.
Let's say that 50% of those posts are men and 50% are women, so yay, gender equality in participation (fictionally)!
Now let's say that I require, as do the Emmys, my participants to submit themselves for nominations for my awards. Now, simply because that's how it shakes up (and my awards are poorly publicized, and those who do know about them would not care whether or not they would win one), let's say that there are only a total of 30 posters who submit their names for awards, with 25 of them male, and 5 of them female.
I read the posts, make my determinations of the 10 best posts, and lo and behold, I choose 9 written by males and 1 by a female. Now, I could just be operating on a 100% gender-neutral operation and it just happened that out of those 30 the male ones tended to be better then those remaining 4 female submissions. Absolutely possible (just as it is absolutely possible that the other way could be true as well). When all is said and done then, though, by the numbers as portrayed in this article, I come off as nominating a piddly 10% of women. Maybe those numbers didn't go that way and I really am a misogynist and didn't nominate the women because I do not wish to see them succeed. But maybe not.
As I said above, I believe that you are probably right in your portrayal of the honest situation. But given just these numbers, that isn't entirely verifiable.
More+
5
Reply
Flag
You should have nominated 1.7 females and 8.3 males, regardless of quality, so that you maintained the ratio of gender in the submissions. Hey appearance is everything, why risk appearing misogynistic.
Reply
Flag
Staff
*reads* ... ... *starts looking to see how to nominate himself for Pcsjunior's Awards Ceremony for Best Writing for an internet post because any award is better than no award for any writer of low self-esteem*

It would be useful to have the number of women who nominated themselves (I made a similar point down below, but without all the math because, well, numbers bad, make head hurt), but that data probably just isn't unavailable. It's probably easy to get for, what, maybe the past 5 years, if that? But no way to get it as far back as 1980.

The numbers presented, as your other side note, do speak to a larger issue, as a thread at the bottom discusses.
3
Reply
Flag
*starts looking to see how to nominate himself for Pcsjunior's Awards Ceremony for Best Writing for an internet post because any award is better than no award for any writer of low self-esteem* - you will need to see pcjsunior003, to make an appointment with pcjsunior002 and fill out form B46 (must include 2 references), this form must be filled out with black ink only.
You will also need a cheque (made out to cash), in the sum of $27.87 and include 3 pre stamped, self addressed envelopes.
You will also be subject to a colonoscopy.
You will be required to leave a blood and urine sample
And pass an intensive physical
Followed by another colonoscopy
Then a 10,000 words essay on the subject of "Badgers -Friend or Foe?"
And 1 final colonoscopy

If you do all of this you will proceed to the interview with pcjsunior002 - which i must warn you, is a lot more invasive


The award itself is made of tin, on recycled (slightly soiled) papier mache in the shape of an aroused unicorn

And is 5cm high but 4 ft wide
1
Reply
Flag
Staff
If I've already had a colonoscopy, can I just submit those results...?
Reply
Flag
Staff
I really appreciate this comment, and I think you're 100 percent. I tried to preface it all by saying that this is an endemic problem in the industry where clearly there are fewer women to begin with. The self-submission process makes it EVEN more difficult, and unfortunately past full ballots aren't available that I could find. I just tried to find the rawest data possible, but yeah, I'm not anywhere near a mathematician.
2
Reply
Flag
Staff
100 percent right*
Reply
Flag
Wow, great article. Love me some numbers like this. Not in an against women way, but in a I love numbers and trends way.
Reply
Flag
Wow that's messed up, and i thought that the TV industry had more women and lees sexism than other industries,
I don't usually watch credits or care about them but i am fairly sure that there is more women that work in TV, more than 7.3 percent anyway.
1
Reply
Flag
As a female screenwriter, this is severely depressing. Thanks, Cory.

Not that it surprises me, at least with the directing. I don't personally know many female directors, and the ones I do know take such an extreme feminist viewpoint with all of their works that it doesn't surprise me that it turns off the vast male majority and they don't get recognition. I have worked with a female director who would ONLY do films where the entire main crew was female. And she was a nightmare. Absolute nightmare. I guess it takes a special woman to simply integrate herself into a predominantly male atmosphere, not for the stance she takes on gender politics, but just by doing DAMN GOOD WORK. Which is what Meredith Stiehm does. Strong, compelling female leads, but it doesn't overwhelm the show, or distract viewers with desperate cries of "Feminism rocks!" Her work is so good you forget about all that and just care about what's gonna happen next. More women need say F-ck Feminism and just do that.

I went to Vancouver Film School and I would say the majority of the STAFF is female. Which is great because they're in the industry. But also not great because that means they aren't actually working. The student body in the writing department was a pretty even split, and discounting everyone who fell out of love with screenwriting, I know a lot of the girls have gone on to do great things. One's working on Mad Men. Another is working for HBO. I wouldn't say more guys have had better success -- I'd say the people who deserve recognition are getting it. I don't keep track of the Canadian industry as much as I should, but I think there is a better ratio over here. I'd be intrigued to see the numbers.

Thanks for posting this article and enlightening us.

More+
5
Reply
Flag
Staff
It's still pretty depressing even for directors who don't have a political bent. Pamela Fryman's been directing TV since the early 90s, and she has exactly one Primetime Emmy* nomination for directing, and she only got it in 2011.

*She has two Daytime Emmys on her shelf though, both for the soap Santa Barbara; admittedly, it's for "Directing Team" award and not an individual achievement sort of award.
Reply
Flag
"Pamela Fryman's been directing TV since the early 90s, and she has exactly one Primetime Emmy* nomination "

So what? There are a lot of people, men and women, who direct a lot of television shows and movies and never get any kind of nominations. Should we be awarding women just for being able to get a job telling the camera operator what to point the camera at or should we maybe reserve the awards and nominations for the people who deserve them?
Reply
Flag
I guess something just happens when you go to LA. I work long-distance for a small American company and as far as I can tell, they're all men. All the directors my work has come in contact with -- men. Conversation with my director and development guy -- director wants to make one of our bit parts a sister not a brother. Development guy says we can't due to FUNDING. They can't get the additional funding they need based on an actress. And they always cast the male lead first. You wouldn't have thunk it but actors got it tough too.

Interestingly, all of the agents I've heard of them working with are women though.
1
Reply
Flag
I wonder how much writing and directing females actually do anyway. I notice that I tend to see males' names more, especially with directing.
Reply
Flag
Staff
Which would be another part of the systemic gender problem in the American TV industry.
5
Reply
Flag
Or maybe writers and directors are hired based largely on talent, rathen that having to fill a quote of directors and writers with vaginas.
Reply
Flag
Staff
The TV industry is *not* a meritocracy, even with your "largely" qualifier to try and make room for it not being one.

And it's not about quotas. It's about voices and perspectives, and the under-representation of a variety voices and perspectives that this highlights.

The problem isn't limited to a gender binary, of course, but also in terms of ethnicity, GLBTQ, and so on.
Reply
Flag
Staff
Uhhh...no.
Reply
Flag
So maybe it's not a sexist Emmys, it's a sexist US TV industry?
4
Reply
Flag
It's a vicious circle. People who get recognitions (like the Emmys) have more chances of getting good gigs. And people who get more gigs have more chance of getting recognition (or at least nominations). For some reasons, male names are considered more marketable.
Since both the Emmys and the general industry (not only in the US, sadly) are pretty shy about getting a female in an important position in the making of a tvshow, it's pretty hard for female directors and writers to break through, no matter how good they are.
7
Reply
Flag
Staff
Tremendous point. It's not only a boys club, but also one built on the same people getting nominated over and over. It was even worse in the 1980s and 1990s in that regard.
2
Flag
Staff
It's likely one leading to the other. A useful (and exhausting to gather) comparison to these stats -- which serve to highlight how dire things are -- would be to look at the number of women who nominated themselves for consideration for the nominee ballots.
Reply
Flag
Follow this Show
Members
713