nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Patricia Arquette - Oscars

ShowMeTheCash

So I have watched a few bits and pieces of the Oscars. But watching Arquette's rant on equal pay for women and then Streep and Lopez go nuts I nearly p1ssed my pants!

Anyone else think this is just a big f##king joke?

Maybe the super wealthy feel the need to take up a cause to justifiy their extortionate wealth.

My exceptance speech would have been.

"F##k you Arquette, f##k you Streep and f##k you (don't look me in the eyes) Lopez......... Oh and f##k you too Oprah, you are full of sh1t also!"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Xeyn

nokia69 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

some one should pass the link on to Patricia too

To back up her claim that women earn less for the same work despite legislation? It plainly states that while things have improved in 2004 women still only got 80% of mens salaries.

It is completely irrelevant hat she is rich, the point is that they should be paid on an equal footing to men which they are not. How people cannot see this is baffling.

Pompey Magnus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Women are at the mercy of their employer if they want equal pay to their male colleagues working at the same job, so if their employer is an Ayn Rand-reading selfish prick, they're shit out of luck.

Or indeed if their employer is a feminist like Hillary Clinton, who as Senator paid female staffers on average over $15,000 less than their male colleagues.

Bipolar Joe

Myth 5, made into a simple to read couple of paragraphs for you all.

ShowMeTheCash

Karl Stein wrote: »

What part of what she said is it you have the problem with?

The issue is not with what she said, it is with who is saying it where.

The Oscars is a venue where the super rich and famous applaud each other for their ability to entertain the masses, as someone already said it is a venue whereby the most egotistical people on the plannet stroke their ego's just that little bit more.

For the most part they are entertainers who demand extortionate salaries and are extremely fortunate.

Her rant was aimed towards equal salaries for woman making mention that they give birth to future tax payers... A fair point, but coming from someone who earns at the top 1% of the plannet and then have Streep and Lopez almost lose their biscuts over it I find hypocritical...

The gap between the wealthy and the poor is not only shocking it is grotesque, but I rarely see actors turn around and say "Hey this is way too much money for 6 months work..." Or split it amoung the crew around the set... Empty words from people who live in their own little bubble!

And as for saying "They highlight a cause" I reckon for the right money you could get them to support just about anything!

Their only quality is that they are popular, a powerful one granted but it has little to no real substance.

Eugene Norman

super_furry wrote: »

Just because they've made money they're not entitled to voice their opinion?

It's a dumb form of equality. The real issue is the wealthy galloping away from everybody else.

nokia69

Xeyn wrote: »

To back up her claim that women earn less for the same work despite legislation? It plainly states that while things have improved in 2004 women still only got 80% of mens salaries.

It is completely irrelevant hat she is rich, the point is that they should be paid on an equal footing to men which they are not. How people cannot see this is baffling.

PopePalpatine claimed here's no legislation in the US (at least on a federal level) mandating equal pay for women and men, so I posted the link

its against the law in the US and most western countries to pay someone less because of their gender, I have no problem with this

and still we have feminists telling lies about the so called pay gap

Eugene Norman

Xeyn wrote: »

To back up her claim that women earn less for the same work despite legislation? It plainly states that while things have improved in 2004 women still only got 80% of mens salaries.

It is completely irrelevant hat she is rich, the point is that they should be paid on an equal footing to men which they are not. How people cannot see this is baffling.

Why shouldn't everybody be paid the same then?

Either you are in favour of unequal societies or not. If not the first challenge would be making Patricia Arquette a lot poorer.

touts

She had a point up until she included herself and her fellow superstar actresses in the list of the oppressed. The problem in the film industry isn't that female stars aren't paid enough it is that the male stares are paid too much. There are a lot of uncredited male actors working on her films who would have been queued up waiting for a bus outside the studio wondering where their next meal is coming from while she is whisked past them in her limo bitching on the phone to her agent that she needs a pay rise because her male co-star is on $20mil while she is only on $15mil.

floggg

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No, but if you are getting paid 15 million a movie and pay your nanny minium wage you are complicit in that injustice!

Trying to take the moral high ground in some side issue is laughable.

And who would that be then? And do point us to a story about her nanny.

Karl Stein

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Myth 5, made into a simple to read couple of paragraphs for you all.

The author 'Christina Hoff Summers' is an 'anti-Feminist' 'free' market shill and fellow of the conservative think tank AEI which pushes climate change denial and gets contributions from people like Exon Mobile.

There's a fairly well referenced an expose on her here.

Eugene Norman

Top 0.001% of women not earning same as top 0.001% of men shock.

Bipolar Joe

Karl Stein wrote: »

The author 'Christina Hoff Summers' is an 'anti-Feminist' 'free' market shill and fellow of the conservative think tank AEI which pushes climate change denial and gets contributions from people like Exon Mobile.

Sure.

Eugene Norman

Karl Stein wrote: »

The author 'Christina Hoff Summers' is an 'anti-Feminist' 'free' market shill and fellow of the conservative think tank AEI which pushes climate change denial and gets contributions from people like Exon Mobile.

Maybe but are her facts wrong? The facts she is disputing sound nonsense.

mickstupp

I find it slightly disturbing how many people actually believe that this woman's personal circumstances somehow invalidate the point she was making.

It's irrational.

Karl Stein

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Sure.

Awesome refutation there Joe.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Maybe but are her facts wrong? The facts she is disputing sound nonsense.

Tbh I couldn't be bothered dissecting the stats. I think the fact that she makes her living from espousing anti-feminist, 'free' market, conservatism casts enough aspersions on her motivations for her to have credibility issues.

If a fat guy tells you there's not enough food to go around you're going to be a little suspicious.

conorhal

brevity wrote: »

Didn't someone else on here have a problem with a speech that Emma Watson gave? I think it was about gender equality as well.

Strange coincidence eh?

Yeah, but she was making a speach to the UN, an appropriate forum, the Oscars however? Not so much.

Remember when the Oscars used to be a bit of fluffy escapism and entertainment? God I miss those days.
The current crop of bubbleheaded celebrities that have had a sudden rush of blood to the head and assume that winning an oscar and standing in front of an audience of a billion people requires them to say 'something important' just irritate me.
During the acceptence speaches we had oscar recipients talk about suicides, failed suicides, ill judged political polemic and all manner of tedious navel gazing bollox. Well sorry, I'm not interested and it's the wrong forum for it, let them save it for their shrink's couch.
Personally I wish that they'd hey show some dignity, accept their award, or fall down on their way to the stage and amuse me.

I see Arquette is already getting a #tag backlash for her ill judged post speach guff that makes me fell sorry for her, it only took minutes before her right on liberal friends began to parse every word of her speach and then turn on her by attempting to crucify her with words like 'intersectionality'.

I generally prefer my acceptance speeches to be witty, gracious and above all short. Somehow far too many last night 'pulled a Brando' and confused 'acceptance speech' with 'speech about acceptance' proving that once again, most of Hollywood is pretty dim. For a solid reference on how to do it right people, see Colin Firth.

KungPao

These awards ceremonies have become unwatchable.

Black people accept an award, then spend 10 minutes talking about being persecuted. Everyone cheers.

White man (filthy rich) accepts an award and whines about capitalism and the poverty in the USA.

Woman complains about sexism.

Just accept your award and **** off.

Bipolar Joe

Karl Stein wrote: »

Awesome refutation there Joe.
Tbh I couldn't be bothered dissecting the stats. I think the fact that she makes her living from espousing anti-feminist, 'free' market, conservatism casts enough aspersions on her motivations for her to have credibility issues.

Honestly, when your rebuttal is a wordpress blog rambling on about how she agrees with the #GamerGate crowd, you're not on to a winning argument. The "Takedown" you posted is so stupid it's laughable, and then to not even bother look up what she's saying is just laziness, no matter what you decide to call it.

Eugene Norman

mickstupp wrote: »

I find it slightly disturbing how many people actually believe that this woman's personal circumstances somehow invalidate the point she was making.

It's irrational.

Of course it does. Why should women Hollywood actors be paid on average the same as men but actors paid vastly more than the first grip?

Bogus identity politics "equality" is bogus. It's like if in Downton Abbey one of the aristocrats lectured her male staff about female inequality and the patriarchy.

She's part of the real problem which isn't the 20% difference between average male and average female wages but the vast difference between the 1% and the rest.

B_Wayne

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I disagree that they work "hard" to get there.
We live in a society where people are rewarded more not by how hard they work, but by how much they can lie, cheat and steel, they are rewarded by how popular they can make themselves or how good they look, they are rewarded by how they can manipulate the system.

To be a great actor or actress, it requires a lot of perseverance, criticism(and criticism over your appearance but mainly against actresses) and rejection. It's not an easy profession to make it in. Also, vast majority of actors that are simply good looking tend to fizzle out and disappear in long run.

Also, have immense respect for those who voice their concern on social issues regardless of if they are directly affected or not.

mickstupp

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Of course it does. Why should women Hollywood actors be paid on average the same as men but actors paid vastly more than the first grip?

Bogus identity politics "equality" is bogus. It's like if in Downton Abbey one of the aristocrats lectured her male staff about female inequality and the patriarchy.

She's part of the real problem which isn't the 20% difference between average male and average female wages but the vast difference between the 1% and the rest.

No, when you use that person's circumstances to question the validity of their argument, what you're effectively doing, in my opinion, is engaging in a logical fallacy. I see that as irrational. You're saying the point they're trying to make isn't valid simply because of who they are. That's rubbish.

Guy:Incognito

Lapin wrote: »

This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

And what a dystopian world that would be. Thank god for Patricia Arquette.

Karl Stein

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

and then to not even bother look up what she's saying is just laziness

You rumbled me. I can't bring myself to care enough about the issue and couldn't be bothered dissecting statistics and figuring out how much credibility each study has.

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

Alberto Brandolini

Eugene Norman

B_Wayne wrote: »

To be a great actor or actress, it requires a lot of perseverance, criticism(and criticism over your appearance but mainly against actresses) and rejection. It's not an easy profession to make it in. Also, vast majority of actors that are simply good looking tend to fizzle out and disappear in long run.

Also, have immense respect for those who voice their concern on social issues regardless of if they are directly affected or not.

Difficult compared to surgeons or nurses? Firefighters or even stressed office jobs.

Her "social concern" is about making herself richer.

Xeyn

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Of course it does. Why should women Hollywood actors be paid on average the same as men but actors paid vastly more than the first grip?

Bogus identity politics "equality" is bogus. It's like if in Downton Abbey one of the aristocrats lectured her male staff about female inequality and the patriarchy.

She's part of the real problem which isn't the 20% difference between average male and average female wages but the vast difference between the 1% and the rest.

Just because one injustice is greater than another does not invalidate the lesser injustice. Every fight against inequality should be championed not just a few which you deem worthy enough.

Irish Guitarist

The only thing that makes the Oscars or any awards show worth watching is the hope that something unexpected, and possibly unpopular, will happen.

Eugene Norman

mickstupp wrote: »

No, when you use that person's circumstances to question the validity of their argument, what you're effectively doing, in my opinion, is engaging in a logical fallacy. I see that as irrational. You're saying the point they're trying to make isn't valid simply because of who they are. That's rubbish.

I'm not. Im saying she is representing her own class interests. I'm saying her feminism is equality for the rich.

Why is the wage difference between male and female important but not the much larger difference between elites and non- elites?

Xeyn

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'm not. Im saying she is representing her own class interests. I'm saying her feminism is equality for the rich.

Why is the wage difference between male and female important but not the much larger difference between elites and non- elites?

She never argued that it was. Only she knows her motives but if it highlights the persistent inequality between genders then there is nothing wrong with that.

Shemale

Callanutd wrote: »

on a side note how the hell did she win, awful performance in an awful film!

I have watched the awards three times now, I just can't find the bit where Kayne rips the Oscar off her to give it to Beyonce.

Pompey Magnus

Karl Stein wrote: »

The author 'Christina Hoff Summers' is an 'anti-Feminist' 'free' market shill and fellow of the conservative think tank AEI which pushes climate change denial and gets contributions from people like Exon Mobile.

There's a fairly well referenced an expose on her here.

And here is an expose on the biases of your source you did the expose on Christina Hoff Summers. And now you can find an expose on the person who did the expose on your source who did an expose of Christina Hoff Summers.

And that there is the reason why normal discussion tries to avoid ad hominem attacks such as yours.

edit: Boards swear filter strikes again...replace the **** if you wish to view