During the hyper-inflation years of the early 1980s a researcher very
concerned about the under-representation of women in top museum jobs
checked out with me the draft of a paper dealing with international
comparisons.  The main conclusion to be presented was that Central and
South America was decades ahead of North America and Europe in promoting
women top museum jobs, the evidence being that in many countries museum
directorships were overwhelmingly held by women professionals.

After a bit of cross-checking with colleagues in the ICOM International
Committee for Training of Personnel in Latin America confirmed the fact,
but pointed to an entirely different explanation.  Far from being
extremely progressive, pro-feminist the governments and trustees concerned
turned out to be the exact opposite - pay levels were set at (literally)
below starvation level, on the assumption that the jobs would be filled by
women with either rich husbands or private fortunes (preferably both).
For example the salary of the Director-General of the National Museum of
one Central American country was equivalent to US$25 a month - when the
government's own published figures showed a minimum survival cost of
living level of US$80 per month per person.

No doubt any comparison between all those Generals and Colonels who were
running Latin American military dictatorships 15 or 20 years ago
and the present-day trustees of allegedly financially distressed American
museums will be regarded as deeply offensive.  However is there really any
difference when well-trained professionals in their mid-20s (or indeed the
museum janitors) are expected to work for a salary that would barely cover
the rent of the most basic accommodation in any large or medium size
city - and therefore are expected to subsidise their job from either
their private wealth or the earnings of their spouse or other partner?

Patrick Boylan