Patricia Arquette - Oscars

Bipolar Joe · 24-02-2015 03:02PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

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.

.

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Sure.

ShowMeTheCash · 24-02-2015 03:12PM

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.

I have immense respect for doctors, nurses, teachers, bus drivers, the guy that makes my sandwich down the street who fanes interest in my life and a whole array of different people in different professions.

Making it in acting is for most people is a pipe dream, bit like me winning the lotto!

I hate when people say they "worked hard for it" some how justifiying they deserve 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 30 million a movie... Bringing in "how hard" they work is annoying it means absolutely nothing... Hard in comparison to what???

They are lucky!

Eugene Norman · 24-02-2015 03:15PM

Xeyn wrote: »

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.

Concentrating on the greater justice actually makes the only sense particularly because eliminating the latter eliminates the former.

Why are people who believe in equality in male and female pay ok with any other equality. That between the tall and short, the good looking and the ugly, the old and young. Most importantly the rich and poor. Why one equality and not another. The intelligent alien would wonder why the term equality is used at all in such unequal societies. And why feminism is in fact bigger in capitalist societies. In fact 3rd wave feminism isgenerated from capitalist hegemonies like the US

You can divide any unequal society into unequal sets of predefined groups. Eliminating the differences between rich and poor, or significantly altering them would get rid of most of those differences in the wash. Oh, you say we need those differences because of economic efficiencies? I doubt if we need bankers to be paid so much, or CEOs, or actors; but why wouldnt forcing companies to pay equal wages for equal work ( meaning the average male annual review woukd be gender balanced in case men did better than the women) also create economic inefficiencies?

In fact getting these arbitrary groups to be equal in stunningly unequal societies is nigh impossible.
It's also just hides real power and privilege. We could make women on average richer by increasing the pay of female actors to that of male actors and pay for it by reducing all other (non-actor) male pay in Hollywood. This would make the male poor poorer but reduce average income inequality between men and women, as would the women actors getting richer. So the rich get richer but there is more bogus feminist equality.

Which is the aim. If somebody rich and from the centre of world capitalism is bleating about inequality correcting that inequality is not going to butter fewer parsnips in her house but might in yours.

suicide_circus · 24-02-2015 03:16PM

I get all my options from celebrities

24-02-2015 03:22PM

Grayson wrote: »

i was going to mention that. Even the super wealthy film stars are affected by this.

She should sack her agent then. It's their fault

ceegee · 24-02-2015 03:24PM

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.

To be fair, having a parent and siblings already in the business helps as well

floggg · 24-02-2015 03:28PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

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

Her "social concern" is about making herself richer.

I don't think you understand the nature of equality or are economic system.

There is nothing objectionable with an actor being paid more than a nurse as long as both have equal opportunity to enter and pursue either career without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation etc.

Nor is there anything wrong with differing levels of talent or output being rewarded differently.

There is inequality though if two persons entering the same profession being assessed by different standards, or their worth being determined on race, gender etc and not their respective outputs.

tritium · 24-02-2015 03:28PM

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.

Strangely enough Christina Hoff summers would describe herself as a feminist.

Which given her work and how broad a church feminism is would seem pretty credible

God forbid that otherse who in many cases also describe themselves as feminists might be just looking to tar her with a negative slur.......

Apparently Erin pizzey is an anti feminist too!

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 03:34PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Concentrating on the greater justice actually makes the only sense particularly because eliminating the latter eliminates the former.

Why are people who believe in equality in male and female pay ok with any other equality. That between the tall and short, the good looking and the ugly, the old and young. Most importantly the rich and poor. Why one equality and not another. The intelligent alien would wonder why the term equality is used at all in such unequal societies. And why feminism is in fact bigger in capitalist societies. In fact 3rd wave feminism isgenerated from capitalist hegemonies like the US

You can divide any unequal society into unequal sets of predefined groups. Eliminating the differences between rich and poor, or significantly altering them would get rid of most of those differences in the wash. Oh, you say we need those differences because of economic efficiencies? I doubt if we need bankers to be paid so much, or CEOs, or actors; but why wouldnt forcing companies to pay equal wages for equal work ( meaning the average male annual review woukd be gender balanced in case men did better than the women) also create economic inefficiencies?

In fact getting these arbitrary groups to be equal in stunningly unequal societies is nigh impossible.
It's also just hides real power and privilege. We could make women on average richer by increasing the pay of female actors to that of male actors and pay for it by reducing all other (non-actor) male pay in Hollywood. This would make the male poor poorer but reduce average income inequality between men and women, as would the women actors getting richer. So the rich get richer but there is more bogus feminist equality.

Which is the aim. If somebody rich and from the centre of world capitalism is bleating about inequality correcting that inequality is not going to butter fewer parsnips in her house but might in yours.

I agree with your stance on greater inequalities existing. However I don't agree that saying you are anti gender inequality and saying you are anti any other equality are mutually exclusive. They aren't. There are bigger inequalities than the 1% vs the rest. Poverty is rampant in Africa and generally speaking when people campaign to close the pay gap they are talking from a first world perspective and disagree with the fact that (to borrow your example) a grip gets paid a lot less than a leading actor. (There are obvious reasons why a leading actor gets paid so much more than a grip but that's another discussion )
you claim people should only campaign for the greatest cause, well bringing an end to poverty in 3rd world countries is a much greater cause than bringing a waiter and a politician/banker closer to parity, so wouled you drop your stance on closing the pay gap over ending poverty? Or would you agree that, that is the only injustice we should be concerned with?

24-02-2015 03:44PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Concentrating on the greater justice actually makes the only sense particularly because eliminating the latter eliminates the former.

This is about as true as saying that outlawing guns will prevent people from being stabbed.

floggg · 24-02-2015 03:50PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

Patricia Arquette was not the only one to speak out on political or social issues at the Oscars.

John Legend, Common and the Birdman director all spoke out eloquently on various issues affecting their communities - and common eloquently addresss a diverse range of other injustices from lgbt issues to the democracy movement in Hong kong.

In each case, they have accumulated considerable wealth and acclaim - and I would hazard John Legend and Common likely are far wealthier and better known than Patricia Arquette (don't know much about the director).

They are all likely to be largely immune to the injustices they spoke out against due to their position, wealth, public profile and privilege. There is certainly little danger of John Legend being gunned down by a cop in Ferguson.

Why then is it only Patricia Arquette, Mertl Streep, Jennifer Lopez and Oprah (who had nothing to do with the speech) who can go **** themselves?

Apart from bring women of accomplishment, what's the difference between them and the men who spoke out?

Why can Meryl Streep, J.Lo and Oprah go **** themselves for cheering on a speech on social issues, yet you pass no comment on the men making speech about social issues?

Wompa1 · 24-02-2015 03:52PM

I'm a little worried that a push for equality will kill the ability to negotiate for my own terms and pay.

Like somebody said a few posts again. She should fire her agent if she's not happy. You can bet your @ss somebody like Meryl Streep is not taking a bum deal. The ladies on the TV show Friends got paid out the @ss because the entire cast negotiated together but that was their perogative. I'd argue, if they negotiated separetly, Jennifer Anniston would have got the best deal, she had the highest profile.

Roseanne Barr was the highest paid person on TV for a few years when her show was killing it in the ratings. Until Seinfield came along.

Saralee4 · 24-02-2015 03:53PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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!"

I actually think it is better when they use the Oscars to voice an opinion on something they feel is important to everyone because the Oscars in general to me are very pretentious.

All these rich people who basically play dress-up for a job, all gathering together to congratulate each other on who played the best is quite attention seeking and self glorifying.

At least if they try to talk about something that actually is important then maybe some people will really take something from watching the Oscars other than celebrities celebrating how great they are.

I saw a link on facebook of reasons why Marlon Brando turned down his Oscar. I thought this was rather honourable and showed the hypocrisy of the actual Oscar award and he tried to deal with something that was really an important issue in film.

"On March 27th, 1973, actor Marlon Brando refused to accept his Academy Award for Best Actor for The Godfather. In protest of the treatment of Native Americans in film, Native American actress, Sacheen Littlefeather appeared on the podium in his place and refused to accept the golden "

While I do enjoy film, I definitely agree with this quote by Brando:

“An actor is at most a poet and at least an entertainer.”

_Whimsical_ · 24-02-2015 03:57PM

Why can't we just respect the people who use their celebrity for something positive? Yes they're lucky, no they don't "deserve" the riches they're rewarded with, no they don't deserve an international platform to air their views more than the rest of us. But when someone speaks up to use that privilege to draw attention to inequality or suffering why do people recoil in disgust?

If she'd stood up and gave a rousing speech for gay marriage everyone would be cheering her on loudly. There definitely seems to be a bias of greater support for people speaking on certain issues than for others.

I have no idea why anyone was offended by it.

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:01PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

I'm a little worried that a push for equality will kill the ability to negotiate for my own terms and pay.

Like somebody said a few posts again. She should fire her agent if she's not happy. You can bet your @ss somebody like Meryl Streep is not taking a bum deal. The ladies on the TV show Friends got paid out the @ss because the entire cast negotiated together but that was their perogative. I'd argue, if they negotiated separetly, Jennifer Anniston would have got the best deal, she had the highest profile.

Roseanne Barr was the highest paid person on TV for a few years when her show was killing it in the ratings. Until Seinfield came along.

This isn't about two completely different acts competing in a market, it's about people performing the same job and being paid less - Cooper, renner and bale got paid more than lawrence and Adams in the same movie.

_Whimsical_ · 24-02-2015 04:02PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

I'm a little worried that a push for equality will kill the ability to negotiate for my own terms and pay.

Like somebody said a few posts again. She should fire her agent if she's not happy. You can bet your @ss somebody like Meryl Streep is not taking a bum deal. The ladies on the TV show Friends got paid out the @ss because the entire cast negotiated together but that was their perogative. I'd argue, if they negotiated separetly, Jennifer Anniston would have got the best deal, she had the highest profile.

Roseanne Barr was the highest paid person on TV for a few years when her show was killing it in the ratings. Until Seinfield came along.

Well I think those leaked Sony emails revealed that women don't get paid as much as men for leading roles in Hollywood. I cant remember all the specifics but I think it was American Hustle that saw the two female leads receive 2% less pay than male leads. No one could argue that Jennifer Lawrence isn't a big star and a huge draw at box offices in recent years, yet her participation was not seen as equally valuable to that of male stars.

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:09PM

new_balls wrote: »

accept that would be against the law both here and in the usa , those who claim that women are paid less than men ( or that nigerian immigrants are paid less than the average irish person ) due to institutional bias are very selective with facts and figures

women tend to work less hours per week than men , beit because of commitments in the home or whatever , women also tend to leave the workforce earlier in order to raise families , wage rates as usually based on seniority in a possition , therefore someone with twenty years experience will earn more than someone with five

to say women are paid less purely by virtue of their gender is a lie however , if patricia arquette was able to deliver the kind of box office that tom cruise or robert downey jnr does , she would be paid just as much as those average actors

You are missing the point entirely. The argument is not that an intern should be paid the same as a consultant. It's that a female intern should be paid the same as the male intern. If Amy Adams plays a leading role in a movie then she should be paid the same or more than jeremy renner who had a smaller role and is not a bigger name than Adams. All the statistics on equal pay are like for like, so the argument that a twenty year employee should be paid more than a five year employee is irrelevant as it is not what the debate is about.

donfers · 24-02-2015 04:10PM

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.

No, what invalidates the point she is making is that it's untrue

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:10PM

new_balls wrote: »

because cooper , renner and bale are bigger box office draws , movie studios invests in actors based on the promise of financial return

Utter nonsense that renner is a bigger draw than lawrence

ShowMeTheCash · 24-02-2015 04:10PM

floggg wrote: »

Patricia Arquette was not the only one to speak out on political or social issues at the Oscars.

John Legend, Common and the Birdman director all spoke out eloquently on various issues affecting their communities - and common eloquently addresss a diverse range of other injustices from lgbt issues to the democracy movement in Hong kong.

In each case, they have accumulated considerable wealth and acclaim - and I would hazard John Legend and Common likely are far wealthier and better known than Patricia Arquette (don't know much about the director).

They are all likely to be largely immune to the injustices they spoke out against due to their position, wealth, public profile and privilege. There is certainly little danger of John Legend being gunned down by a cop in Ferguson.

Why then is it only Patricia Arquette, Mertl Streep, Jennifer Lopez and Oprah (who had nothing to do with the speech) who can go **** themselves?

Apart from bring women of accomplishment, what's the difference between them and the men who spoke out?

Why can Meryl Streep, J.Lo and Oprah go **** themselves for cheering on a speech on social issues, yet you pass no comment on the men making speech about social issues?

Well the reasons are simple.

I really only care about 4 awards in the Oscar's lead and supporting roles for male and female the rest I did not even listen too so I might start a new thread after I listen to them.

That being said, it was the nature of the topic.
Having a cause or being in support of something is fine.

It was more the fact that a wealthy individual with the reaction of Streep and Lopez two more extemely weathly individuals are pointing out issues with pay when there is a much larger issue of the wealth and greed which they are complicit in that I find hypocritical.

I want the right to get paid a larger more disgusting salary to bring me in line with my male co-stars!

anncoates · 24-02-2015 04:11PM

A rich and famous celebrity making the point will still reach far more people - and even influence them - despite the irony and inherent hypocrisy

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:13PM

donfers wrote: »

No, what invalidates the point she is making is that it's untrue

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. All proper data shows that even when taking into account leave, pregnancy and hours actually worked women still get the short end of the straw.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

Wompa1 · 24-02-2015 04:16PM

There's a theory that young men, graduates place a high value on themselves and thus negotiate for better pay out of the gate. If you start on more, you will make more in the long term when you get a raise too.

http://graziadiovoice.pepperdine.edu/salary-negotiation-tips-for-female-graduates/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/business/to-solve-the-gender-wage-gap-learn-to-speak-up.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

When I started my career, I was getting paid less than women who were doing the same job or even a lower job. Because by the time I entered the work force, Salaries were decreasing. A pay freeze as also put in place about a year later.

Meanwhile, I worked my arse off and got paid less than them and other male colleagues who did less.

Sometimes you need to put your neck out to get more. If you're truly a valuable employee, if you line up another job for yourself and say give me blah blah or I'm leaving, They will pay.

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:18PM

new_balls wrote: »

where did i mention interns ?

and a female junior doctor in ireland will be paid the same as male junior doctor , twenty years down the line , the male doctor may be earning more however as the female doctor may be working fewer hours due to family constraints etc

the point is their are many mitigating factors which appear to show a pay gap but the issue is framed in a simplistic

men earn more because they have a penis ( full stop )

It wasn't meant to be taken literally it was an illustration of why your argument is not valid for the argument which was originally being discussed. Compounding factors still put women below men, so again your point is sImply not true based on reports (see link in my post above)

Wompa1 · 24-02-2015 04:19PM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well I think those leaked Sony emails revealed that women don't get paid as much as men for leading roles in Hollywood. I cant remember all the specifics but I think it was American Hustle that saw the two female leads receive 2% less pay than male leads. No one could argue that Jennifer Lawrence isn't a big star and a huge draw at box offices in recent years, yet her participation was not seen as equally valuable to that of male stars.

You know how much Zach Galifanikis got paid for the first Hangover movie? Or what Jeff Daniels got paid for the Dumb and Dumber?

Zach was the draw in Hangover, Bradley Cooper got paid by far the most.

Jeff Daniels got paid a tiny fraction of what Jim Carrey got paid, yet he had equal billing...

Is it about their gender? Or is it about their negotiation skills and their drawing power?

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:19PM

new_balls wrote: »

i could just as easily pull a paper which shows that women receive far more lenient prison sentences for the same crimes committed as men

you wont hear arquette spouting about this or streep and lopez cheering

How on earth does that make her stance less valid?

Xeyn · 24-02-2015 04:21PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

You know how much Zach Galifanikis got paid for the first Hangover movie? Or what Jeff Daniels got paid for the Dumb and Dumber?

Zach was the draw in Hangover, Bradley Cooper got paid by far the most.

Jeff Daniels got paid a tiny fraction of what Jim Carrey got paid, yet he had equal billing...

Is it about their gender? Or is it about their negotiation skills and their drawing power?

Did you read the post you quoted?

nokia69 · 24-02-2015 04:27PM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well I think those leaked Sony emails revealed that women don't get paid as much as men for leading roles in Hollywood. I cant remember all the specifics but I think it was American Hustle that saw the two female leads receive 2% less pay than male leads. No one could argue that Jennifer Lawrence isn't a big star and a huge draw at box offices in recent years, yet her participation was not seen as equally valuable to that of male stars.

but she only had a small part in the film, she was only in a few scenes

I bet she gets far more money for the hunger games

hollywood only cares about box office numbers not gender

Wompa1 · 24-02-2015 04:27PM

Xeyn wrote: »

Did you read the post you quoted?

Yes, You used an anecdote about Jennifer Lawrence to highlight your point. How much did she get paid for Hunger Games? She wasn't a draw for American Hustle...

I used two other examples. Jeff Daniels was a dramatic actor before Dumb and Dumber. He had the most to lose too. Do you think Chris Helmsworth or whatever his name is, got paid as much as Robert Downey Jr for The Avengers movie?

Nope, Downey held out for more.

Both starred in Marvel movies, Downey had less screen time in the Avengers and got paid a lot more.

You can pick many, many examples. If you want more and you believe you are worth it, don't accept less.

BUT don't kill others abilities to negotiate in order to have uniform pay for everybody.

SEPT 23 1989 · 24-02-2015 04:27PM

was her frock nice?

Patricia Arquette - Oscars

Comments