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.
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.
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.
Grayson wrote: » i was going to mention that. Even the super wealthy film stars are affected by this.
Eugene Norman wrote: » Difficult compared to surgeons or nurses? Firefighters or even stressed office jobs. Her "social concern" is about making herself richer.
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.
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.
Eugene Norman wrote: » Concentrating on the greater justice actually makes the only sense particularly because eliminating the latter eliminates the former.
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.
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!"
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.
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
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.
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
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?
donfers wrote: » No, what invalidates the point she is making is that it's untrue
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 )
_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.
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
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?
Xeyn wrote: » Did you read the post you quoted?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5dc0c82bb5d5c9e7a358d7971a18240f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
