11 Ways the DGA Sabotages Women Directors

At the Center of the Web of Discrimination Against Women Directors
The DGA is the Spider at the Center of the Web of Discrimination Against Women Directors

By Maria Giese

  1. In 1985 the DGA was disqualified from leading the class action lawsuit it had filed against three major Hollywood studios on behalf of women DGA members.  Even though judge Pamela Rymer ruled that the women had a valid case, order she had to disqualify the DGA as leading the class because, illness in her view, treatment the Guild discriminates against women as much as the studios do.
  1. After being disqualified from the suit, the DGA made agreements with the studios to hire more women (FLTTA Article 19 & BA Article 15), but it never acted on most aspects of the agreements, resulting in decades of stasis and decline in the number of employed women directors.
  1. Even though industry compliance of U.S. equal rights laws should be overseen by the U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC, in the 1980’s the Directors Guild of America became the primary organization charged with overseeing lawful studio compliance of DGA-studio agreements to hire more women.  Extraordinarily, in two decades the numbers have not moved, except down a little.  As employment numbers among women directors continue to worsen, evidence mounts that the DGA is not capable of commanding this duty that has such broad political and cultural impact– globally.
  1. In 2004, DGA president, Michael Apted, initiated the DGA Diversity Task Force to oversee studio compliance of Guild-studio agreements to hire more women directors.  The two co-chairs and the entire membership of the “Force” were comprised of working directors who were actively seeking open-assignment directing jobs at the very studios they were supposed to be policing.  This “conflict of interest” resulted in unprecedented career success for some committee members, but from 2004 to present, the number of employed women directors actually declined.
  1. The DGA has still failed to provide the women of the DGA with comprehensive statistics relating to female director employment from 1979 to present in feature films and episodic TV even though the Guild has completed the study and the request for these statistics came through official channels in the DGA-WSC involving a motion that won majority vote and was approved by the Guild almost 2 years ago.
  1. In 2012, when several members of the WSC Events Subcommittee won unanimous vote approval for a day-long DGA SUMMIT for women directors, the WSC co-chairs, the DGA Diversity Department & the Guild leadership all actively tried to stop it.  Finally, on March 2, 2013, the DGA Women of Action Summit became the most important day for women DGA members in 30 years. The event was not covered in the broad media or industry trade magazines.
  1. The DGA claimed to have included a comprehensive proposal created by DGA women members in the 2014 DGA-studio collective bargaining negotiations, which only take place once every three years.  The results of the 2014 negotiations relating to women are as follows: “Diversity – Each of the major television studios has agreed to maintain or establish a Television Director Development Program designed to expand opportunities for directors in episodic television with an emphasis on increasing diversity.  Establishment of Industry-Wide Joint Diversity Action Committee which will meet at least once every four months.”  In other words, no change for women
  1. The DGA continues to refuse to publish articles in the “DGA Quarterly” relating to discrimination against women directors in our industry, choosing instead to occasionally celebrate and promote individual women directors.  Prior to 2011, when some women Guild members commenced efforts to create change, almost no images of women directors ever appeared in the publication, with the exception of photographs of actresses handing awards to male directors
  1. The DGA maintains a secret short-list of highly employed women directors that they submit to producers and show-runners seeking to hire more women directors.  As stated on the www.dga.org website:  “The DGA maintains a contact list of experienced women and minority directors to make it easier for producers making hiring decisions. The list can be obtained by any production company by contacting the DGA.”  If a female DGA TV director has not worked for more than 16 months, she is not included on this list.  This list unfairly advantages a tiny pool of highly employed women directors, while further marginalizing other women directors.  This policy encourages tokenism, maintains the status quo of under-representation of women directors, and is divisive to women in the Guild.
  1. The DGA further institutionalized discrimination against women in the Guild by mandating a “Working in the Trade” requirement, disqualifying women who have had difficulty getting work in preceding years from running for elected co-chairs seats on the “Women’s Steering Committee” which was specifically created in 1979 to help under-employed women directors.
  1. The Guild continues to promote diversity events and programs (celebrations, networking & fellowships) that have been proven ineffective for decades, without making any changes to their basic structures.

Solidarity: Crucial for Women Directors


By Maria Giese

It is widely acknowledged that (consciously or unconsciously) the male power structure in the entertainment industry often resorts to divide and conquer strategies that preserve the vast majority of the top jobs for men.

This happens particularly among coveted directing jobs, and therefore has bled into the established policies of all Hollywood production entities, as well as the Directors Guild of America.

The DGA has policies that sometimes set women against women and result in the maintenance of a tiny, mostly static pool of highly-employed women directors.  This pool is virtually impenetrable by other qualified women directors who are then sidelined from being able to compete fairly for jobs in episodic TV.

This may serve the immediate advantage of those few women occupying the small female employment pool, since they are practically guaranteed a high number of episodic directing slots each season, but the primary beneficiary is the majority block of white, male directors who hold their dominance in this lucrative profession.

Indeed, the pool of employed female TV directors has never comprised more than 16% of the total pool, and currently stands between 12% and 14%, depending on whose stats you prefer (Lauzen or DGA). This “limited supply” policy, however, produces an unhealthy lack of solidarity among women within the Guild, ultimately sabotaging the hopes of women directors ever achieving parity with their male counterparts.

This “limited supply” perception of women directors is encouraged by the Guild: even though there are 1,160 women director members of the DGA, the Guild maintains a “List” of just a handful of “qualified” women directors that it sends out to show-runners and producers who are seeking to hire women directors.  As is stated on the DGA.org website:

The DGA maintains a contact list of experienced women and minority directors to make it easier for producers making hiring decisions. The list can be obtained by any production company by contacting the DGA.”

If a women director’s name is not on that list, she is at a profound disadvantage, and if she has had the misfortune of not directing professionally in 16 months– she is NOT on the list at all.  This preferential treatment of some Guild members, and marginalization of others, is deeply troubling both legally and ethically– and it suggests the possibility that the Guild acts as an employment agency, which it claims not to do.

Statistical evidence shows that the maintenance of this very small pool of women directors, many of whom also enjoy high leadership positions on Guild committees, councils, and the governing Board, is keeping other talented, qualified women directors sidelined within their own union.  By going along with this practice, whether intentionally or not, women directors in power are helping the Guild executives and leadership keep almost all other women directors out of striking range. In this way, the Directors Guild of America itself is producing the most gaping hole in the already “leaky pipeline” for women directors.

It is critical to understand that it is not women themselves who are the real culprits behind this tokenism. The highly-employed and empowered women directors in the Guild may theoretically desire to help other women, but that would run counter to the stability of the established white, male power base itself.  Women directors exclude under-employed women directors because they operate on the theory that there is no more room at the top to bring in others.

As Warren Buffet recently wrote: “Resistance among the powerful is natural when change clashes with their self-interest. After all, who wants to double the number of competitors for top positions? But an even greater enemy of change may well be the ingrained attitudes of those who simply can’t imagine a world different from the one they’ve lived in.”

This is why creating solidarity among women directors in our industry is so important. The insidious forces of tokenism really are keeping women from achieving equality. Since our entire society and global culture at large, will benefit by having a foundation of gender balance and equal employment opportunity.  We all have only to gain by fighting Tokenism, especially in an industry that provides America’s most culturally influential global export– media.

Women directors, both the highly-employed and those striving for jobs, need to embrace each other in an effort to increase female director empowerment.  If working women directors are to serve the greater good, they must work in solidarity with all women directors to break the damaging and divisive trend of tokenism among women in the DGA and the industry at large, and get more women behind the camera.

And this is not just important for women, as Buffet proclaims: “Fellow males, get on board. The closer that America comes to fully employing the talents of all its citizens, the greater its output of goods and services will be. We’ve seen what can be accomplished when we use 50% of our human capacity. If you visualize what 100% can do, you’ll join me as an unbridled optimist about America’s future.”

A Brief History of Women DGA Directors: The Past 30 Years


Edited by Maria Giese

UCLA’s “Center for the Study of Women” published “Liberating Hollywood: Thirty Years of Women Directors” by Maya Montañez Smukler, Ph.d. which chronicles the past 30-year history of women directors in the DGA and their courageous struggle to convince the Guild to help change their dismal employment numbers. 

In 1983, the DGA launched a class-action lawsuit on their behalf against three major studios.  This action was essential to moving the percentage of women director employment from less than 1% in 1985 to 16% in 1995.

The following excerpted article involved dozens of hours of interviews with the very women directors who spearheaded the extraordinary change in gender employment ratios that came in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. 

Unfortunately, momentum slowed and after 1995 the ratio of female director employment went into stasis.  Today, less than 5% of feature films and only 12% of television episodes are directed by women.



by Maya Montañez Smukler, Ph.d.

“The 1970s was a crucial decade for women directors working in Hollywood as it marked a period of significant increase in their employment statistics compared to previous decades. Between the early 1930s up until the late 1960s, there was never more than one woman making commercially oriented movies in Hollywood or within the independent film communities adjacent to the studio system.

By the late 1960s and increasingly—ever so gradually—throughout the 1970s the number of women directing feature films grew.  Between 1966 and 1980 there were an estimated fifteen women who had made feature films targeting commercial audiences, either within the studio system or as independent filmmakers.

Throughout the 1970s the feminist movement impacted the entertainment industry in various ways influencing Hollywood’s own political consciousness-raising. On-screen the women’s movement and its objective of female autonomy were represented by characterizations and narrative themes in several kinds of movies including critically acclaimed studio films (most directed by men) such as Klute (1971, dir. Alan J. Pakula), Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974, dir. Martin Scorsese) and Unmarried Woman (1978, dir. Paul Mazursky).

Off-screen, myriad female industry employees formed various kinds of networking organizations. For instance, Women in Film, a non-political association created by established women in the industry, was formed in 1973; and in 1974 the American Film Institute, a mainstream conservatory for a new generation of filmmakers, still run by an old-guard Hollywood patriarchy, founded the Directing Workshop for Women, a hands-on program that trained individual women to become film and television directors.

Several professional guilds, such as the Directors Guild of America (DGA), Screen Writers Guild (SAG), and Writers Guild of America (WGA), were  significant in projecting the influences of the feminist movement in the United States on the film and television industries during this period by involvement with sexual and racial discrimination within equal employment debates.

Advocating for their female constituents both the WGA and SAG each formed their own Women’s Committees in 1972. From 1974 to 1976, both guilds compiled statistical surveys that explicitly documented the disfranchisement of their women members; often linking the data to a specific studio, network and in several cases individual television shows. These efforts were spearheaded by the two organizations’ individual Women’s Committees, which the press reported on widely.

The WGA addressed the low numbers of women writers working in film and television, and SAG called for improved roles for actresses. More reticent than its colleagues in matters of public activism, the DGA was late to the era’s feminist awareness not making a concerted effort to address the low employment numbers of its female directors until the very end of the 1970s.

While the DGA was slow to organize within its membership ranks around issues of employment discrimination, ultimately the Guild’s involvement extended beyond just press coverage and into the court of law.

At the end of the decade, in 1979, the DGA Women’s Committee was formed. Original members of the Committee were Susan Bay, Nell Cox, Janet Davidson, Joelle Dobrow, Cheryl Downey, Pat Eyerman, Dolores Feraro, Anne Goodall, Nancy Heydorn, Victoria Hochberg, Ann Kindbery, Valeria Kircher, Flora Lang, Lynne Litman, Lisa Rich, Susan Smitman, Leslie Waldman.  Composed of award-winning television, documentary, and feature-film directors, the group was formed because of mounting frustration with their inability to get hired within the industry.

Determined to assess their current employment status, the Committee was granted permission from the Guild to examine decades of employment records of studios, networks, and leading independent production companies. Between 1949 and 1979, according to the Committee’s findings, 7,332 feature films were made and released by major distributors. Fourteen—0.19 percent–were directed by women.

These statistics were given to the media to draw attention to tangible evidence of sexism within the industry and to show specific percentages of women hired (or not hired at all in some cases) at individual companies, studios, and television shows.

On June 18, 1980, as a consequence of the DGA Women’s Committee’s actions in publicly addressing industry sexism thirty-two executives from prominent production companies, television networks and film studios agreed to meet with more than one hundred members of the DGA Women’s Committee.

Industry representatives included Barry Diller, chairman of the board and CEO, Paramount; Ned Tanen, president, Universal Pictures; Frank Wells, president and co-CEO, Warner Bros.; Steve Bochco, MTM’s Hill Street Blues; James Brooks, executive producer, John Charles Walters Productions; and programming representatives from ABC, CBS, and NBC.

The Committee introduced affirmative-action quota recommendations for studios and networks: for every thirteen television episodes contracted, producers were requested to hire at least one woman director.  However, eight months later, discussions between the two sides had fallen apart.

Aljean Harmetz, writing for the New York Times in February of 1981, reported that “according to the guild’s complaint, each employer ‘unilaterally withdrew’ from a voluntary affirmative-action program.’” Each side staunchly opposed the others’ stance on affirmative-action quotas.

Michael Franklin, executive director of the Guild at the time, explained that: ‘the DGA was forced into the suit because of Columbia’s [and Warner Bros.] refusal to negotiate…based on a system of numerical goals and timetables.’

In response, Columbia released a press release stating that ‘despite [the studios] expressed willingness to continue  negotiations…the Guild refused to…unless Columbia acquiesced in imposing quotas as to the numbers of women and members of minority groups to hired.’

While the DGA used statistical evidence documenting the low number of women and minorities actually hired by the studios to justify their demands for the usage of such programs, both film companies held the Guild responsible for those low numbers.

Warner Bros. and Columbia cited culpability in the DGA contract which set certain provisions that controlled the hiring process supposedly making it difficult for the studios to access female and minority job candidates.

As a result of this impasse, in 1983 the DGA filed a class-action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging discriminatory hiring practices towards women and racial minorities: against Warner Bros. on July 25 and against Columbia Pictures on December 21.

In 1985, Judge Pamela Rymer ruled in favor of Columbia and Warner Bros., and effectively against the DGA.  She stated that the Guild was partially responsible for the small amount of women and minority film and television directors hired due to the way in which the organization’s contract perpetuated the ‘old boys’ club’ and ‘word of mouth’ hiring practices by stipulating that directors could choose their Assistant Directors and Unit Production Managers.

Although technically a failure, the DGA lawsuit against Columbia and Warner Bros. was significant regarding women directors in two ways. Primarily, that it was the first time that the DGA, an influential and reputable organization, had taken legal action on behalf of their female membership. Never had such attention been drawn to female directors within the industry.

Furthermore, it was an uncharacteristic gesture made by an industry organization that was not known for taking overt political positions informed by potentially controversial issues such as feminism, sexism and racism. As DGA member Lynne Littman said in the press before the case was lost:

‘The important thing about the action the guild is taking now is that it is being taken by the whole guild, not by the women’s committee. The guild is not a notoriously radical organization, and their support for us is a major advance.’

Second, speculation as to why the DGA would take such a drastic action as filing a class action suit against two major studios without precedent set in the Guild’s history suggests an effort at self-protection.

In a recent interview with me, retired DGA member Barbara Peeters, who belonged to the Women’s Committee during the 1980s and at the time of these legal battles, suggested that the Guild made those aggressive demands of the film companies in an effort to prevent their female members from accusing them of similar acts of gender discrimination.

The Guild preferred to sue the studios rather than be sued for sexism by its own associates. Ten years after the filing of the suit, Michael Franklin described the impact of the case on the Guild in a positive light:

‘Prior to 1978, the Guild had an image of a gentlemen’s club. It didn’t make waves. The lawsuit improved the Guild’s status because the industry recognized that not only did the DGA represent important creative elements within the industry, but it was a strong force for the positive improvement of society as well!’

Three decades later, accepting her Oscar last year, Kathryn Bigelow described to the audience how “this was the moment of a lifetime.” This statement is surely true for any filmmaker winning their first Academy Award. The hope for many, and no doubt the founders of the DGA Women’s Committee in 1979, is that it wouldn’t take so many lifetimes to arrive at such a moment.”

Read the entire article:  www.csw.ucla.edu

Maya Montañez Smukler, Ph.d., UCLA Cinema and Media Studies.  She is co-editor-in-chief of Mediascape, UCLA’s on-line media studies journal, and has been a part-time faculty member of the New School University’s Film and Media Studies department since 2002.

DGA Women: Memory Lane is Heartbreaking

Edited by Maria Giese


The following excerpted article, written by Nancy Mills for “The LA Times”  in 1986, puts into perspective the struggle of women directors in Hollywood during the past 30 years.

Though Michael Franklin (then Executive Director of the DGA), lamented in 1986 that little had changed in the year following the 1983-1985 DGA discrimination lawsuit against three major studios, the next 10 years would see a steep rise in the employment of women directors from less than 1% to 16% in 1995.

Unfortunately, in the nearly 20 years from 1995 to 2013, those numbers have sadly fallen– less than 5% women directing feature films and just 12% to 14% women directing episodic TV.

We women at “Women Directors: Navigating the Boys’ Club” hope that this glance back down memory lane will encourage a revival of new action toward getting women directors back on the path toward equality.


By Nancy Mills – The Los Angeles Times – November 17, 1986

“In 1980, statistics gathered by six women members of the Directors Guild of America (DGA) confirmed (…) that in the past 30 years, women had directed fewer than 1% of all major feature films and prime-time television. Specifically: Of 7,332 pictures, women directed 14; of 65,500 hours of television programming, women directed 115 hours.

Along with those bleak figures, the DGA Women’s Committee also presented to entertainment industry power brokers a detailed affirmative-action proposal for getting more women “tracked into the main talent pool of working directors.” The years since have seen lawsuits, networking, seminars, studies and conferences dedicated to increasing access for women into the prestigious guild…

…There are definitely more women directors at work today than ever before–on major projects in film and television. Women directors are an emerging minority. At the same time, conversations on the subject throughout the industry tend toward a good news/bad news pattern. Some sample observations:

“Those women who are working, by and large, seem to be doing reasonably well,” acknowledged Eileen Carhart, who along with Michealene Cristini and Thompson O’Sullivan co-chairs the DGA Women’s Steering Committee. “But there are not enough women working.”

–“I remember the (1980) meeting when those women revealed those embarrassing, shameful statistics,” producer Norman Lear reflected. “But then everybody went back to work, and I never saw any evidence of improvement.”

–“On balance, I’m satisfied that since our efforts commenced in 1978, progress has been made by women in gaining employment as directors,” said Michael Franklin, executive director of the DGA. “I am disappointed that our litigation a few years ago on behalf of women and minorities was not successful, but it, too, played a part in moving forward our goals for equal employment opportunities for women.”

–“The average person is no longer opposed to women directors,” said DGA President Gilbert Cates. “Ten years ago, the majority of studio executives questioned the ability of a woman to direct a film. Today, you’d have to dig deep in the barrel to find a fool to say that. That attitude has been put to rest.

“But the numbers are still disappointing. There’s no doubt that in relation to population, the number of women directing is very low. But I’m pleased to say that the awareness of the work of women directors is very high.”

–‘Women are now going on to direct second and third features,” noted Eileen Carhart of the DGA Women’s Steering Committee.

“That’s different, even from the early 1980s. But it’s misleading to extend that same kind of positive growth to all the women working or not working in this industry.”

The last six years undeniably have seen a lot of consciousness-raising in the entertainment industry, and conversations on the subject of women’s access tend to center around questions of socialization of attitudes as well as power structures.

Just wanting to direct isn’t enough, insists Richard Donner (“Superman,” “Ladyhawke,” “Goonies”). “In the past, I’m sure women directors were kept down,” he says while directing a helicopter scene in the upcoming “Lethal Weapon,” a buddy-buddy cop picture starring Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

“Twenty years ago it was brutal for all minorities. But over the last 10 years, if people wanted to direct, they did it. So many people sit back with the excuse, ‘I’m not working because I’m black or I’m Italian or I’m a woman.’ My feeling is there’s been the desire but maybe not the energy put in by women.”

“Directing has always been kind of a boy’s club, like most things in America,” Ned Tanen, president of the Paramount Motion Picture Group, believes. “I don’t perceive this problem as being about this business. It’s a subtext of American culture: ‘You raise the kids, you take care of the house, dear. I’ll go out and kill the bear.’

“It’s as if this is the Middle Ages or the period of the suffragettes. I keep thinking we don’t talk about these things anymore. And when we start talking about them, I say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’re still playing this game.’ ”

Tanen’s view of women directing in Hollywood: “Earlier, there physically weren’t that many women remotely equipped to direct because they hadn’t been allowed to get into that position. But now the lid is off. It certainly is here. We’re really trying.”

But old attitudes die hard. Directing has been traditionally regarded as a man’s job, complete with boots, riding whip and bullhorn. “The kind of strength needed to direct has nothing to do with brute force,” Norman Lear emphasizes. “It has to do with strength of character. A deeper voice does not a director make.”

Lear talks in terms of individuals, rather than male/female–an approach women welcome. They object to being lumped together as representatives of their gender. “When it’s a woman, they move it into a generalization,” complains Phyllis Geller, a top KCET executive and a former president of Women in Film (a group of professional women who work in the film and television industries).

“Women have to do twice as well to achieve the same thing. We do give each other a bad name if we don’t do good work. If one woman causes trouble, the next five will have problems.”

In some industries, lawsuits have been successful in improving women’s positions. But many consider the entertainment industry to be unique. “A corporate mentality will respond to affirmative action, but a creative mentality won’t,” suggests Deborah Aal, president of the Leonard Goldberg Co.

Dawn Steel, president of production at Paramount, dismisses the thought of lawsuits. “It’s about talent, not lawsuits,” she says. “I don’t want to be in the position where I thought I got the job because I was a woman. No other woman wants to be in that position either.”

The DGA did try litigation. After the 1980 statistics were made public, the DGA encouraged production companies to adopt voluntary affirmative-action programs. It also attempted, unsuccessfully, to get producers to agree to having one out of every 13 TV episodes directed by a woman.

In 1983, when it was felt that little progress had been made, the DGA filed class-action lawsuits against Warner Bros. and Columbia Pictures, alleging discrimination in the companies’ hiring of women and ethnic minorities represented by the guild.

In August, 1985, the cases were dismissed. In brief, Judge Pamela Rymer ruled on counter-claims filed by the two studios. The studios argued that the DGA contract gives directors the right to select the first assistant director, and the first assistant the right to select the second assistant.”

WD/NBC is grateful to Nancy Mills and the LA Times. Drawings by Daniel Dejean.



American Women Directors & the DGA


By Maria Giese, cialis MFA

In 1979, help there were very few women director members of the Guild— and they weren’t getting much work.  So six distinguished women director members (including recipients of a Peabody, an Oscar, and an Emmy nomination), who could not get hired, decided to ask the Guild how many women were actually getting directing jobs.

Luckily, that year the Guild had computerized their data system, and when the six women asked for and received those files, they pored over them for the next twelve months.  What they learned was disturbing: the employment numbers for women directors was just ½ of 1%. They presented the results of their research to Michael Franklin, then National Executive Secretary of the DGA.  He agreed that something had to be done.

The six directors then formed the Director’s Guild “Women’s Committee.”  The following year, they invited women of all guild categories to join.  During the next two years, from
1981 to 1983, Michael Franklin tried to get the studios and TV production companies to improve the hiring of women DGA members.  The Guild, in conjunction with the Women’s Committee, set up meeting after meeting to encourage production companies to interview women members; they circulated directors’ reels, discussed possible ‘set-asides’ (a specific number of directing slots for women)– all to no avail.

The studios and production companies were intransigent.  After one final attempt, when none of the invited executives showed up for a scheduled meeting, which included coffee and an inordinate number of Danish pastries, Franklin, fed up, made his historic decision. It was time to sue.

That event was dubbed “The Danish Debacle.”

In 1983, Ronald Reagan was president.  The Guild went to work.  It hired a law firm and expanded the suit to include ethnic minorities.  The named defendants were Columbia Pictures, Paramount, and Warner Bros studios.  Almost immediately, other studios and production companies began to find that heretofore unqualified women and minorities were suddenly stellar candidates for jobs; the hiring statistics for women and minorities began to climb.

In the interim, President Reagan had nominated Judge Pamela Rymer to a seat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  Though class action suits against police and fire departments, for instance, were common at the time, the film business was, and is, a strange combination of art and commerce.  There are no qualifying tests for directors.  Traits that might define a director are amorphous and subjective.

The Guild itself, through the hiring of assistant directors by directors, was now scrutinized using the same standards that applied to less “creative” professions.  The astonishing and ironic result was that in 1985, Judge Rymer disqualified the DGA from representing its women and minority members class certification on the grounds that some of the Guild’s own policies put it in conflict with the very interests of the women and minority plaintiffs on whose behalf the Guild had filed the lawsuit in the first place.

Judge Rymer’s ruling prohibited the Guild from proceeding with the case, but change had begun.  In the next ten years, employment of female Guild members rose to almost 16%. Regrettably, the change did not last.  In thirty years the industry has grown, and so has the Guild, yet the ratio of working women directors in the DGA has not advanced at the same pace, in fact the numbers have declined.  The numbers are so appalling that they infer violations of our nation’s basic civil rights and equal employment laws.

Is that a problem?

America’s extraordinary influence in the world is due largely to a prolific entertainment industry that provides more media content to the world than any other country.  While media is our most influential export, however, it comes almost exclusively from the perspective of male directors.  The ratios are staggering: according to recent DGA statistics, 95% of feature films are directed by men, and just 5% by women.  Episodic TV is nearly as bad, with the male-to-female ratio of working directors at 85% to 15%.

Why is the gender gap so blatant?  Why have women directors experienced so little progress in so many decades?  Why does gender disparity remain, year after year?

Let’s consider some good news…

In 2009, President Obama passed the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” and in 2013 is making equality for women an important goal of his administration.  Military women have successfully challenged the “Combat Exclusion Rule” against the Department of Defense. Women are playing a pivotal role in American politics, holding more seats in the Senate, Congress, and House than ever before in American history.  This year, thanks to Keri Putnam, Sundance achieved parity for women director participants in feature competition for the first time ever.  And now, in 2013, we women in the Directors Guild of America are pressing for equity.

It is time…

Ending discrimination against women directors is vital to establishing a society of equality and diversity of perspective.  It is of paramount importance that the film and television content we export represents male and female perspectives equally.

If women are not directing film and television content, half of the voices of the American population are silenced and half the visions are suppressed.  It is not just basic fairness and the validity of the female point of view around the world that gives this issue such immediacy.  If we as a nation are to maintain a moral upper hand in geopolitical affairs, we must start by obeying our own laws protecting equality.

U.S. laws are in place for equal employment for women in our industry. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII states:

“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to (…) sex.”

And the DGA and the studios have several excellent agreements in place.  The DGA Basic Agreement has a section on Diversity— Article 15— a non-discrimination policy which states:

“The parties mutually reaffirm their policy of non-discrimination in the employment or treatment of any Employee because of (…) sex.  The Employer shall make good faith efforts to increase the number of (…) women Directors.”

The DGA and producer signatories also have a very clear agreement documented in “The Freelance Live and Tape Television Agreement” (FLTTA), Article 19.  It reads:

“The parties (DGA & amp; Producer signatories) mutually reaffirm their policy of non-discrimination in the employment or treatment of any Employee because of (…) sex.”

The problem with these agreements is that they are not being effectively complied with by the studios and producer signatories.  The DGA entity charged with acting as the intermediary for the Guild in overseeing studio compliance of these agreements is the “DGA Diversity Task Force.”

Co-chairs and members of the “Diversity Task Force” are appointed by the president of the Guild.  Unless an appointed member happens to be a diversity committee co-chair, they have no direct relationship to the diversity committees, nor are they required to communicate with diversity members in any formalized manner.

The current Guild leadership strongly believes that Guild governance should be comprised only of working directors, but where the Diversity Task Force is concerned, a conflict of interest seems inherent. How can it be in the interest of highly-employed directors to apply pressure to the very studios who employ them to direct their TV shows on a regular basis?  Perhaps a rule should be put in place that the studios may not hire the directors who negotiate with them on behalf of DGA diversity members.

Another problem with studio adherence to DGA-studio agreements is the use of the legal term “Good Faith Efforts” which suggest that the studios will fairly and honestly attempt to hire more women.  In order to make a legal case that the studios are not fulfilling their promise, women would need clear physical and anecdotal evidence to prove a studio’s intentional malice in preventing women from being employed.

“Best Efforts,” on the other hand, is a much more onerous legal term and could do more to ensure that the studios fulfill their agreements to hire more women.  The studios would be weighted with the burden of proof to demonstrate they are indeed making real and significant efforts to hire more women.

A further problem in ameliorating the under-employment of DGA women lies in a disconnect between the Women’s Steering Committee and the Guild.  The Women’s Steering Committee was created to help women members increase their employment opportunities, but there is no functional mechanism to funnel goals or proposals from the Women’s Steering Committee into a higher DGA council.  A mode of official communication between the WSC and the DGA’s higher bodies of governance is simply not in place.

Potentially worsening the situation, this year the DGA National Board and the DGA executive staff requested that each diversity committee accept new by-laws that would deny leadership to any member who does not fulfill the “Working in the Trade” rule, meaning they have not worked 30 days in the past 7 years.

These new by-laws threaten to compromise the committees by moving them away from their original intent and curtailing the members’ freedom of speech, as they create several obstacles to democratic process and fair election policies for leadership. It is very important that we examine the proposed new laws immediately with this concern in mind.  The by-laws are intended to be enacted in April 2013.

What has the DGA been doing to solve the problem?

Over the years, the DGA, in conjunction with the studios, has experimented with a number of diversity programs the hopes of improving employment statistics for women members the Guild.  These programs include networking events, episodic TV shadowing fellowships, mentoring, panels, and education.

The programs are important to the maintenance of reciprocal good will between the DGA and the studios, but they have not yet increased employment opportunities for women DGA members.

So how can an epoch of parity for women directors begin?

Within the European Commission, right now, there is a powerful effort being made to force gender parity within European companies, mandating that a 40% minimum of women be included on corporate boards of directors.  This proposal comes with sanctions and penalties for violations in the case that corporations fail to comply.  If gender balance is of such acute concern on corporate boards, it most certainly should be an issue of immediacy in the American entertainment industry.

The DGA points its finger at the studios and the studios point their fingers at the DGA. Each shifts the blame to the other, and each responds with frustration to the suggestion that nothing is actually being done. While the responsibility of gender parity among directors ultimately falls to America’s film studios and other producing entities that actually do the hiring, the labor organization that must initiate crucial change is the one whose primary responsibility is to represent the rights of its members: the Directors Guild of America.

On February 3, 2013, the DGA reported that Michael Apted and Thomas Schlamme accepted appointments to co-chair the upcoming DGA Feature Film and Television Negotiations Committee.  The core mission of these negotiations is to “protect and extend the creative and economic rights of(DGA) members – directors and members of the directorial teams.” They will be working closely with Creative Rights Committee Co-chairs Steven Soderbergh and Jonathan Mostow.

Now is the time for the women members of the DGA to ask that the underemployment of women directors become a key issue to be addressed in the upcoming 2013 DGA negotiations with the studios. DGA Executive Director, Jay Roth has successfully led negotiations on the Guild’s major collective bargaining agreements six times since becoming National Executive Director in 1995.

The time has come…

…for Mr. Roth and the elected leaders of the DGA: Taylor Hackford, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Apted, and Thomas Schlamme and Jonathan Mostow, together will all other members of the DGA Negotiating Committee and DGA Staff, to get together with key studio executives and level the playing field for women directors.


43By Maria Giese

SUMMER 2013! With 4th of July just around the corner, it’s not too late to celebrate Hollywood’s contribution to our Summer Family Fun!

Let’s see what we’ve got for women — the primary decision-makers in American families about what movies to attend. What summer films express a female perspective?

Let’s have a look:


TOTAL MALE DIRECTORS = 45 (four co-directing teams)

TOTAL FEMALE DIRECTORS = 2 (one co-directs with a male director)

(That’s a male-to-female ratio of 96 to 4, or 4.4% women)

June 21 – First Day of Summer

o Monsters University – Directed by Dan Scanlon
o World War Z – Directed by Marc Forster

June 28

o Byzantium – Directed by Neil Jordan
o The Heat – Directed by Paul Feig
o I’m So Excited – Directed by Pedro Almodovar
o White House Down – Directed by Roland Emmerich

July 5

o Despicable Me 2 – Directed by Pierre Coffin & Pierre Renaud
o Kevin Hart: Let Me Explain – Directed by Tim Story
o Lone Ranger – Directed by Gore Verbinski
o The Way Way Back – Directed by Nax Faxon & Jim Rash

July 12

o Grown Ups 2 – Directed by Dennis Dugan
o Lovelace – Directed by Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman
o Pacific Rim – Directed by Guillermo del Toro

July 19

o The Conjuring – Directed by James Wan
o Girl Most Likely – Directed by Shari Springer Bergman & Robert Pulcini
o Red 2 – Directed by Dean Parisot
o RIPD – Directed by Robert Schwentke
o Turbo – Directed by David Soren

July 25

o The To Do List – Directed by Maggie Carey

July 26

o Blue Jasmine – Directed by Woody Allen
o Fruitvale Station – Directed by Ryan Coogler
o The Wolverine – Directed by James Mangold

July 31

o The Smurfs 2 – Directed by Raja Gosnell

August 2

o The Spectacular Now – Directed by James Ponsoldt

August 9

o Elysium – Directed by Neil Blomkamp
o Only God Forgives – Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn
o Planes – Directed by Klay Hall
o Prince Avalanche – Directed by David Gordon Green
o We’re the Millers – Directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber

August 16

o 2 Guns – Directed by Baltazar Kormakur
o Ain’t Them Bodies Saints – Directed by David Lowery
o Austenland – Directed by Jerusha Hess
o Kick-Ass 2 – Directed by Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez
o Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters – Directed by Thor Freudenthal

August 23

o The Mortal Instruments – Directed by Harald Zwart
o World’s End – Directed by Edgar Wright
o You’re Next – Directed by Adam Wingard

August 30

o Getaway – Directed by Courtney Solomon (a guy)
o Insidious Chapter 2 – Directed by James Wan
o One Direction: This is Us – Directed by Zyan Malik