|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 26, 2024 18:46:14 GMT
Well, she's getting paid less than equivalent very wealthy white men who have all manner of advantages. It's clearly messed up. But in the grand scheme of inequalities it's one of the ones I care least about.
And, of course, it's hard to calculate what "equivalent" really means in the context of someone's name selling a movie, or being a good enough actor for a role. If her face sells a movie as well as say - to pick a random name - Brendan Fraser and she's getting paid less, then it seems that her agent isn't doing as good a job as bloke actor agents are.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 26, 2024 18:51:44 GMT
Well, it's not messed up if that's the going rate. It's an unregulated market. Does she want wages?
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 26, 2024 19:09:13 GMT
It's messed up that the going rate is lower for women than for men who draw the same size audiences.
The Michelle Williams/Mark Wahlberg/Kevin Spacey example in the article is utterly specious, though. Williams was the contracted actress for the film. Wahlberg had to get signed on as a new actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 26, 2024 19:20:43 GMT
Do they draw bigger audiences? Also, the underlying market price is informed by opportunity cost, surely? What would be the next best opportunity. In the case of women actors, that's because the alternative is usually less lucrative.
I don't think you can square that, unless you subsidise chick flicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 26, 2024 19:53:34 GMT
From the way they describe it, it sounds like they're overpaying male actors.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 26, 2024 20:26:04 GMT
That could be true, subjectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 27, 2024 9:48:58 GMT
I'm sure Olivia Colman is right that women actors get paid less than men and it's a bit rotten. But it feels odd coming from someone who is already paid quite a lot, who won an oscar for a role that only a woman could do. Of all the places to be bothered about pay disparity, Hollywood Starlets wouldn't be the place I'd start: www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68654311I don’t understand this argument. I don’t think the amount they earn matters if there is still inequality occurring. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,988
|
Post by mids on Mar 27, 2024 10:04:01 GMT
"Wah I only got 10 million for a film while my male co-star got 12 million." Back of the queue, hen.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 27, 2024 10:55:30 GMT
I'm sure Olivia Colman is right that women actors get paid less than men and it's a bit rotten. But it feels odd coming from someone who is already paid quite a lot, who won an oscar for a role that only a woman could do. Of all the places to be bothered about pay disparity, Hollywood Starlets wouldn't be the place I'd start: www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68654311I don’t understand this argument. I don’t think the amount they earn matters if there is still inequality occurring. What inequality? How are you measuring that? |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 27, 2024 13:54:37 GMT
I'm sure Olivia Colman is right that women actors get paid less than men and it's a bit rotten. But it feels odd coming from someone who is already paid quite a lot, who won an oscar for a role that only a woman could do. Of all the places to be bothered about pay disparity, Hollywood Starlets wouldn't be the place I'd start: www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68654311I don’t understand this argument. I don’t think the amount they earn matters if there is still inequality occurring. I care a lot less if someone earns $9m instead of $12m in a year than if someone earns $30k instead of $40k. It matters, but it just doesn't matter a lot once they're stupidly rich. |
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,670
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Mar 27, 2024 15:46:53 GMT
Luvvies who are paid squillions - male or female - are a poor bellwether as to the state of Joe Public's personal finances and the associated pressures they are heir to. As andy says, what is essentially a sense of unfairness, real or imagined, between two millionaires is of little relevance to that same Joe.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 27, 2024 18:24:38 GMT
There's not rational basis for any of this. Also, how do we know that she was first choice for each role and that the market hasn't fixed the price?
It's feminist cant. And whiney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 27, 2024 22:22:14 GMT
I don’t understand this argument. I don’t think the amount they earn matters if there is still inequality occurring. I care a lot less if someone earns $9m instead of $12m in a year than if someone earns $30k instead of $40k. It matters, but it just doesn't matter a lot once they're stupidly rich. But it’s still discrimination right? You may care less but it’s perfectly fine for others to think that discrimination doesn’t become ok if you happen to be wealthy. I think it still matters no matter where you sit on the income scale because the message is still the same: women and their work are inherently worth less than men. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 27, 2024 22:22:54 GMT
How have you assessed that claim?
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 28, 2024 5:49:03 GMT
"Nearly one in five teachers in England has been hit by a pupil this year, a survey commissioned by the BBC says. One teacher told BBC News behaviour was a "never-ending battle". Another said spitting, swearing and chair-throwing were among the things happening often. A union says its members are reporting worsening violence and abuse from pupils since the Covid pandemic. The Department for Education (DfE) says it has invested £10m in behaviour hubs to support schools." www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-68674568That pupil behaviour is getting worse is no surprise really. What's depressing about this tale of decline is that, as usual, we seem incapable of self-examination. Why is it so hard to look at what happens in other countries? |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,988
|
Post by mids on Mar 28, 2024 7:19:25 GMT
How queer. I went to the local comp and while there was a lot of rough, badly behaved children any trouble almost always happened out of sight of teachers. When a teacher appeared it would pretty much stop. If a teacher heard a pupil swearing there'd be trouble. Discipline, see? The unions have made a rod for their own arses here with their decades long support for " child centred education".
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 28, 2024 8:35:13 GMT
Ay, it's Marxist dogma, intended to subvert from within. If course, it's found willing fools to do its work.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 28, 2024 8:41:14 GMT
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,988
|
Post by mids on Mar 28, 2024 10:09:50 GMT
Can't argue with that.
|
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,670
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Mar 28, 2024 10:10:35 GMT
100% renationalise.
I felt a pang of sympathy for Chris Weston, since January this year the new Chief Executive of Thames Water, when interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. Clearly he's been dealt what we in the rugby fraternity deem "a hospital pass" in being offered the role, as it's odds-on that he's going to really p*ss off some people. Obviously too we have the situation where the shareholders won't stump up the cash to upgrade Thames's woeful infrastructure, their go-to response being that its customers should pay higher (much higher) bills - this at a time when most customers are feeling the financial pinch already.
Do I think the privatisation of Thames Water has failed? Largely yes as, whilst the promised ability of the organisation to raise capital on the open market has been achieved, this same capital has been used to bolster shareholder dividends at the expense of bringing its Victorian infrastructure into the 21st century.
|
|
