I would actually argue that Cate Blanchette is invisible as she is rarely if ever at the opening night or launches of the STC shows- she is not the spokesperson for the STC- Yes she is highly recognisable but she was not the one who received all the awards at the Sydney Theatre Critics Awards- it was Andrew.
Also to provide a panel for a discussion (as opposed to having a single speaker give a lecture for the Phillip Parsons talk) did make it appear that dividing the conversation amongst women would complicate things further.
It was also a fierce group of women that day at the Parsons lecture- thats why I refer to it as an army- there seemed to be a unification in the desire for discussion about the issues raised- though I don’t assume nor expect women theatre practitioners feel particularly unified in a militaristic way… just that day and that occasion- there was alot of women keen to hear the debate.
I agree- this is not a debate solely about gender. This is a discussion about programming. Who is in the position to be calling the shots? And why does there appear to be under representation of women on the mainstages? ]]>
i agree that there are a lot of ‘invisible’ workers in theatre, however i would not count Cate Blanchett among them!
“an attempt to divide and conquer women?”
Conquer?? is that what the men are up to? 
those crazy guys at the patriarchy meetings never tell me anything!
but seriously, if we’re pitching up dividing lines how can we move forward? I know many great women artists in theatre but the last thing I would think of them as is an army – unless they counted me as a comrade i would be afraid to go unto war!
it is my personal belief that making this debate solely about gender is divisive – it’s certainly a factor, but all artists are susceptible to the culture of favours within the industry, it’s so commonplace it’s practically normal.
i’ve put together some of my own thoughts on the matter here:
]]>