PlayPen Playwright Monica Raymond

Two families in a Middle Eastern country have keys to the same house. What happens when they try to live in it together? The fathers play chess, the mothers cook together, the lovers dare to imagine a future and war-mad children play doctor and murder. When one girl’s dreams of flight are shot down, the betrayals and realignments that follow make us question our very definition of peace. THE OWL GIRL is the recipient of the Clauder Competition Gold Medal, the Peace and Justice Prize, the Castillo Theater Prize in Political Playwriting and recognition from the Massachusetts Cultural Council.

Monica Raymond was the 2008–2009 Jerome Fellow at The Playwrights’ Center in Minneapolis. Her work has had over 60 productions and staged readings, including at the Kennedy Center in DC, Boston Theater Marathon, Actors Shakespeare Company, Stage Left (Chicago), Vital Theater (NYC),  Golden Thread (San Francisco), Samuel French Festival, New York and Montreal Infringement Festivals, Pillsbury House Theater, Bedlam Theater, and many others. Novices appeared in Best Short Plays of 2009 (Smith & Kraus Publishers), Creche received a prize from Boston Playwrights’ Platform, and Safe House received the Panelists’ Choice Award at the Last Frontier Theater Festival. Raymond has performed with the street theater troupe, CLASS ACTS, toured in “An Olive on the Seder Plate,” (a review by and for American Jews about Israel/Palestine), and hosted “Theater about Israel/Palestine” at the 2005 ATHE Conference.  Her poetry has been published in the Colorado Review, The Iowa Review, and the Village Voice, and she is a regular contributor to the online journal, qarrtsiluni.com. She has been a MacDowell Colony fellow, and has taught at Harvard, the Boston Museum School, and the City University of New York.

From Left to Right: PlayPen Playwrights Rosanna Yamagiwa Alfaro, Robert Boulrice, Deborah Lake Fortson, Amy Merrill, Cliff Odle, and Joyce Van Dyke

The PlayPen Playwrights Program was created at Central Square Theater in order to provide experienced playwrights with dramaturgical help, collegial fellowship, and the participation of directors and actors as they develop scripts for the stage. Overseen by Amy Merrill and Robert Boulrice, the program has given playwrights the opportunity to present their projects and receive feedback from their peers and from the Artistic Directors of Central Square Theater’s resident companies, The Nora Theatre Company and Underground Railway Theater. Participants in the program include Rosanna Yamagiwa Alfaro, Robert Boulrice, Deborah Lake Fortson, Amy Merrill, Cliff Odle, Monica Raymond, and Joyce Van Dyke.

On a Monday morning in October, students from several Boston-area high schools file into the auditorium of the Federal Reserve Bank, across the street from South Station. On the stage, a simple set: a purple curtain with an eight-foot-high image of a dollar bill in the center and a few small platforms with oversized models of coins on them.

It’s the set for MONEY MATTERS, a theater piece about personal finances developed by Underground Railway Theater’s Youth Underground (Central Square Theater’s resident ensemble of young actors, ages 13-25), sponsored by Cambridge Savings Bank, and toured this season by URT’s Youth Ambassadors (an ensemble made up of actors, ages 18-25, responsible for touring work developed by YU).

During the course of the performance, eight young actors, singly and in groups, wrestle with the question of what to do with the $100 they’ve received from a generous Tooth Fairy. “Non-stop shopping” for new clothes, better headphones, or other enticements at the mall? Save the money? Spend more than you have using a credit card or a payday loan? Music and dance punctuate the scenes, which tell some hard financial truths—the difference between needs and wants, the dangers of impulsive spending, how easy it is to fall into credit card debt. At the end, cast members complete the phrase: “Money matters because… it’s an opportunity… it’s freedom… it’s clothes… it’s security.” And, finally: “Money matters, but what you do with it is up to you.”

MONEY MATTERS is the third piece of investigative theater developed by YU in its six-year history. Teenage members of the group interviewed more than 80 friends, family members, officials, and bank employees about their experiences with money. Then they used that material—the voices of real people—to begin to develop the script during a six-week summer session at CST.

Playwright Betsy Bard (whose work with playwright Anna Deavere Smith introduced her to the craft of turning the words of real people into theater) and Teaching Artist Vincent E. Siders helped shape those interviews into a unified drama. The script introduces the character of the Tooth Fairy who hands out the $100 bills that the young recipients must decide what to do with, and comments on their choices.

The group has performed MONEY MATTERS a dozen times at various Boston-area locations and is available to give additional performances to high-school-age audiences.

After the Federal Reserve Bank performance, the cast invites questions from the audience. Some are about how to save money. (“Start small,” was the advice.) One student asks how to resist buying the cool clothes everyone at school is wearing. The answer from one cast member is a perfect example of youth talking to youth. “I buy cheap stuff,” he says, “but I still look good.”

It’s also your last opportunity to take a peek at our informative lobby display. In addition to bios of inspiring women in science (click here to learn more), the exhibit features studies on women’s experience in the field of science:

The Matthew Effect

In the Sociology of Science, “The Matthew Effect” was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous.  For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a graduate student. This was later jokingly coined Stigler’s Law, with Stigler explicitly naming Merton as the true discoverer.

Matilda Effect

The Matilda Effect is the systematic repression and denial of the contribution of women scientists in research, whose work is often attributed to their male colleagues. This effect was first described in 1993 by science historian Margaret W. Rossiter.

It is named after the U.S. women’s rights activist Matilda Joslyn Gage, who first observed this phenomenon at the end of the 19th century. The Matilda effect is related to The Matthew Effect, which states that eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar.

A great deal of evidence suggests that the scientific efforts and achievements of women do not receive the same recognition as do those of men: the “Matilda Effect” Awards in science, technology, engineering, and medical (STEM) fields are not immune to these biases. While women’s receipt of professional awards and prizes has increased in the past two decades, men continue to win a higher proportion of awards for scholarly research than expected based on their representation in the nomination pool.

Harem Effect

In the sociology and history of science, the Harem Effect refers to a phenomenon whereby a male scientist in a position of power hires a “bevy of female subordinates, competent but less threatening than an equal number of bright young men.” While there are numerous historical examples of this phenomenon and the practice may continue today, two examples stand out in the literature. Erwin Frink Smith, a USDA plant pathologist, hired more than twenty female assistants at the Agency to study various agricultural problems in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Edward Charles Pickering, astrophysicist and director of the Harvard College Observatory, assembled what became known as “Pickering’s Harem”—an all female staff of a dozen or more to assist in his research program to gather and analyze stellar spectra.

In the tradition of transforming our lobby for each new production, our dramaturgy team has created an expansive exhibit of inspiring women in science. You may recognize Rosalind Franklin, the protagonist of of PHOTOGRAPH 51, and Nancy Hopkins, Amgen, Inc. Professor of Biology down the street at MIT, to name a few.

[Show as slideshow]

Click on each thumbnail in the above gallery to learn about the women featured in the THE HOW AND THE WHY lobby display. And if you haven’t had a chance to visit yet, not to worry! The show has been extended through November 4 – we look forward to seeing you in the next few weeks. The lobby opens one hour prior to each performance.

ZELDA

… You celebrate each other through success, support each other through failure, but you do not entangle alliances. And you do not compromise.

–Excerpt from THE HOW AND THE WHY

What unique sacrifices does a woman make to achieve professional success? Sarah Treem’s (writer/producer of HBO’s In Treatment) THE HOW AND THE WHY – extended through November 4 – explores this very question.

In the excerpt above Zelda Kahn, well-established in the field of evolutionary biology, provides a perspective on how to maintain relationships when two partners are equally as driven to succeed – particularly if they work in the same field. The play’s discussion of the influence of achievement on personal relationships got me thinking about the 2009 Sandra Bullock-Jesse James scandal.

In the following article, Dr. Nogales uses the anecdote of Sandra Bullock and Jesse James’ split to posit a psychological explanation of the line of actresses (from Katherine Hepburn to Reese Witherspoon and beyond) who went through a divorce soon after a Best Actress Oscar win.

PsychologyToday.com: The Sandra Bullock-Jesse James Syndrome

When women earn more or are more highly regarded professionally than their partner, they generally do whatever it takes to make sure their partner doesn’t feel like he’s valued any less. Women are generally aware of the fact that, even in the post-liberation twenty-first century, a man’s identity is still very much tied up with his earning power and his success in the outside world.

–Dr. Ana Nogales

Read the full article at PsychologyToday.com.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

ZELDA

… Rachel, welcome to the game. You wanted to play with the big boys – this is how they play.

–Excerpt from THE HOW AND THE WHY

If you tuned in to this past Tuesday’s town hall presidential debate, it may ring a bell when I say “binders full of women.” If you didn’t, you likely are still familiar with the phrase that launched a thousand Tumblrs, Facebook statuses, and tweets. Mitt Romney chose these words in his response to one young woman’s question about equity in the workplace, in which she cited the pay gap specifically.

This event, however quickly it happened, spurred an incredible amount of discussion that seems relevant to Sarah Treem’s THE HOW AND THE WHY. In the quote above, Zelda Khan – established in the field of evolutionary biology – explains to Rachel – a young evolutionary biologist – some of what Rinku Sen appears to be getting at regarding workplace diversity vs. equity in the following article.

Color Lines: “The Difference Between Equity and Binders Full of Anybody”

Men of color and all women have more access to some jobs than they used to, but the ranks of decisionmakers come nowhere close to reflecting our numbers in the nation as a whole. This is the root of the “tokenism” complaint that I hear constantly as I travel the country. Tokenism means that you can come to the meeting, but no one will pay any attention to what you say. It means that the workplace will open the door to you, as long as you look (to the extent possible) and act just like the white men who are already there. It means that you’ll get invited to the party, but you won’t be allowed to make any requests of the DJ or help set the playlist.

…

Diversity is a start, a good start even, but it cannot be our end goal. The end goal has to be shared power, responsibility and reward—in short, equity.

Read the full article at ColorLines.com.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

A. Competence, hireability, and mentoring by student gender. B. Salary conferral by student gender.
Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/

A recent study by Yale researchers provides quantifiable evidence that a bias against women still prevails in the field of science. Such discrimination – by male and female professors – was found to manifest itself in significantly lower perceived competence, perceived hireability, availability of mentoring, and average salary conferral.

NYTimes.com: “Bias Persists Against Women of Science, a Study Finds”

All of the professors received the same one-page summary, which portrayed the applicant as promising but not stellar. But in half of the descriptions, the mythical applicant was named John and in half the applicant was named Jennifer.

…

On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being highest, professors gave John an average score of 4 for competence and Jennifer 3.3. John was also seen more favorably as someone they might hire for their laboratories or would be willing to mentor.

The average starting salary offered to Jennifer was $26,508. To John it was $30,328.

The bias had no relation to the professors’ age, sex, teaching field or tenure status.

–Kenneth Chang

Read the full article at The New York Times.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

And to continue the blog discussion, make sure to reserve your seats for THE HOW AND THE WHY – performances begin this Thursday, September 27!

RACHEL

I just get a little emotional sometimes when I talk about my hypothesis. Charles says if I ever win the Dobzhansky prize, he’s going to give me a Xanax before the ceremony so I don’t embarrass myself.

–Excerpt from THE HOW AND THE WHY

Recent studies reveal that tears send out chemical signals causing nearby men to experience a dip in testosterone levels. The hormone is credited as a power source “that gets corporate executives in warrior mode” (Judith Orloff, MD). It makes sense, then, that crying in response to stress creates tension in the workplace.

According to Kim Elsbach, PhD, differences in coping behaviors between men and women are due to gender-specific socialization. Men are generally taught to control their emotions, while women are not brought up to meet the same expectations.

Is handling emotion in the professional world solely “A Woman’s Burden?” What role should emotions play in one’s work? Are the interpretations of crying on the job misguided, or are they spot on?

Forbes Magazine: “Crying At Work, A Woman’s Burden”

… there are few situations where crying is ‘acceptable.’ The worst offenses… are crying in a public meeting or because of work stress, like a looming deadline or coworker disagreement, because it is considered disruptive and weak. Crying in a private performance evaluation is also considered unprofessional and often manipulative.

–Jenna Goudreau

Read the full article at forbes.com.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-famous/

RACHEL

… Why does it matter who stands behind the podium?

–Excerpt from THE HOW AND THE WHY

Who can forget the infamous hearing on contraception, the morning panel for which (pictured above) was made up of men from conservative religious organizations?

A balanced feminine perspective was clearly called for here. With Congress comprised of only 16.8% women, however, I can’t help but wonder what February’s hearing says about a broader lack of and need for women who will lend their voices to important conversations of our time. Why include women in public discourse? What holds us back from doing so effectively?

Huff Post: “House Democrats Walk Out Of One-Sided Hearing On Contraception, Calling It An ‘Autocratic Regime’”

“What I want to know is, where are the women?” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. “I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?”

–Laura Bassett and Amanda Terkel

Read the full article at huffingtonpost.com.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.