05:35
Unknown
I see ol' BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH is bleating on about equal pay for women in movies and saying that he'll be trying to ensure payment parity in whatever projects he works on. What a d*ck! Now I happen to like Benny, but on this, he's being a d*ck. Why doesn't he insist that he gets paid as much as his AVENGERS co-stars, because it's a safe bet that a few of them will be paid much more than him - more, even, than he received for starring in his own DOCTOR STRANGE movie.
Let's pause here for me to make a point. I've worked in a few shop or factory warehouses in my career (though the last time was around 42 years ago), and whenever any woman co-worker (who were all usually older than me and hence paid more - but let's imagine for the purpose of discussion that we were on the same rate) was required to do some heavy lifting, they invariably asked a man (me) to do it for them. So it was me who had to climb ladders or clamber over shelves and bring down (or put up) heavy boxes for them. In effect, I was doing part of their job for them, so don't let's hear any of this equal pay rubbish. Equal pay only applies when men and women are doing (and by 'doing' I mean actually doing, not just filling the position) the same job. If a guy has to do part of their job for them (because they're women, and apparently can't be expected to physically exert themselves in any way) then it's not an equal situation. (An office job would, of course, be an entirely different scenario.)
But back to Benny. The reason why he's spouting rubbish is because it's the film and TV industry we're talking about, and as everyone and their granny knows, there's a pecking order amongst actors. Some 'stars' are more bankable and therefore command higher pay packets for their contribution. TOM CRUISE, for example, is always going to be paid more than just about any female co-star you can think of, because Tom puts more bums on seats. If Tom (or any other big-name actor you care to name) asks for a certain fee, and the movie-makers are prepared to pay that fee to ensure his services, does that mean his female co-star (or even male co-star come to that) should automatically receive the same amount? Of course not, because 'market forces' are in operation here.
Consider the recent stushie over the NETFLIX TV show, The CROWN, where actor MATT SMITH was paid more than co-star CLAIRE FOY. Why? Obviously, Matt Smith has a better agent than Claire Foy (or perhaps the same agent who does a better job on Matt's behalf), and LEFT BANK and SONY (the production companies) were prepared to pay what his agent asked for, as was presumably the case with Claire. Or, for all I know, amounts were offered for each part, and it's then down to the actors and their agents to decide if they wish to accept. Isn't that how it should be, or are production companies now obliged to pay one co-starring actor the same amount as the other one they were really keen to have (and were prepared to pay quite a bit more to get), simply out of some ill-conceived notion of so-called 'equality'? That would mean that, because Tom Cruise was being paid a certain amount, then, if his co-star happened to be MIRIAM MARGOYLES, she would get the same. Is that fair? Movie and TV makers have to take into account 'star pulling-power' when choosing actors, and it's simply a fact that one star may have more pulling-power than the other and therefore deserve a higher fee.
But notice how it's been turned into a 'battle of the sexes' in the media. Actually, you can substitute male co-stars in place of female ones in this discussion. Note, however, that, so far (as far as I'm aware) no male co-starring actor is demanding that he should receive the same fee as the lead actor in any production. For example, SIMON PEGG isn't demanding parity with Tom Cruise for his MISSION IMPOSSIBLE appearances. Once again, women have seized the opportunity to bash men over the head for so-called gender inequality, when, in a lot of cases, it doesn't actually exist. For every woman who doesn't receive equal pay with some man, there's at least just as many men in the same position. If you're an actress (a word now under threat of extinction because of the anti-gender distinction loonies) who receives less renumeration for your part than your male co-star, it's not necessarily due to you being unfairly discriminated against because of your gender, it may simply be because you're not as big a star with the same pulling power.
If SHARON STONE and Miriam Margoyles were co-starring in a movie where they had more or less equal screen time, but Sharon was paid more than Miriam, would anyone turn a hair? No, they wouldn't, because it's readily recognised that there's a pecking order in operation, and that Sharon's name is a bigger draw than Miriam's. It's only when the actor being paid more is a man, that any controversy arises from the situation. Men, you see (according to some women), should never be paid more than their female co-stars on a point of principle - that principle being that all men are b*sta*rds, rapists, and paedos - and overpaid ones at that.
And what about those daft male TV presenters who offered to take a pay cut to reduce their wages to that of their female colleagues? @rseholes to a man. So keen to appease misandric feminists, that next they'll be offering to castrate themselves rather than incur any form of female displeasure. Taking a pay cut only achieves a quasi-equality, and reveals the misguided philosophy that lies at the root of the problem. You see, if women are satisfied with men taking a cut in wages, it shows that their objection isn't so much that women are undervalued and underpaid, it's that they object to men - simply because they're men - getting something that they're not getting. Their objections spring from the politics of envy - the belief that men shouldn't get anything that women don't seem to be getting (that's their perception anyway), regardless of whether either gender deserve to get it or not.
What will probably end up happening is that lip-service will be paid to pay equality, with two leading co-stars of different genders being paid the same basic fee, but with the bigger star (usually the male) getting a percentage, or some kind of bonus to offset his lower upfront amount. At the end of the day, it really should be up to who's paying the bills. If you're employing two people to do a job, shouldn't you be allowed to offer one of them a higher amount to secure his or her services if that's what it takes? It's always been like that in the film industry, and any attempts to impose an artificial equality on what people are worth (regardless of their gender) aren't based on the realities of the situation.
Anyway, that's my view on the matter. Feel free to dispute it if you wish, but I warn you - if you do, I'll give you an intellectual kicking. (Hee hee - that should start things off.)
But notice how it's been turned into a 'battle of the sexes' in the media. Actually, you can substitute male co-stars in place of female ones in this discussion. Note, however, that, so far (as far as I'm aware) no male co-starring actor is demanding that he should receive the same fee as the lead actor in any production. For example, SIMON PEGG isn't demanding parity with Tom Cruise for his MISSION IMPOSSIBLE appearances. Once again, women have seized the opportunity to bash men over the head for so-called gender inequality, when, in a lot of cases, it doesn't actually exist. For every woman who doesn't receive equal pay with some man, there's at least just as many men in the same position. If you're an actress (a word now under threat of extinction because of the anti-gender distinction loonies) who receives less renumeration for your part than your male co-star, it's not necessarily due to you being unfairly discriminated against because of your gender, it may simply be because you're not as big a star with the same pulling power.
If SHARON STONE and Miriam Margoyles were co-starring in a movie where they had more or less equal screen time, but Sharon was paid more than Miriam, would anyone turn a hair? No, they wouldn't, because it's readily recognised that there's a pecking order in operation, and that Sharon's name is a bigger draw than Miriam's. It's only when the actor being paid more is a man, that any controversy arises from the situation. Men, you see (according to some women), should never be paid more than their female co-stars on a point of principle - that principle being that all men are b*sta*rds, rapists, and paedos - and overpaid ones at that.
And what about those daft male TV presenters who offered to take a pay cut to reduce their wages to that of their female colleagues? @rseholes to a man. So keen to appease misandric feminists, that next they'll be offering to castrate themselves rather than incur any form of female displeasure. Taking a pay cut only achieves a quasi-equality, and reveals the misguided philosophy that lies at the root of the problem. You see, if women are satisfied with men taking a cut in wages, it shows that their objection isn't so much that women are undervalued and underpaid, it's that they object to men - simply because they're men - getting something that they're not getting. Their objections spring from the politics of envy - the belief that men shouldn't get anything that women don't seem to be getting (that's their perception anyway), regardless of whether either gender deserve to get it or not.
What will probably end up happening is that lip-service will be paid to pay equality, with two leading co-stars of different genders being paid the same basic fee, but with the bigger star (usually the male) getting a percentage, or some kind of bonus to offset his lower upfront amount. At the end of the day, it really should be up to who's paying the bills. If you're employing two people to do a job, shouldn't you be allowed to offer one of them a higher amount to secure his or her services if that's what it takes? It's always been like that in the film industry, and any attempts to impose an artificial equality on what people are worth (regardless of their gender) aren't based on the realities of the situation.
Anyway, that's my view on the matter. Feel free to dispute it if you wish, but I warn you - if you do, I'll give you an intellectual kicking. (Hee hee - that should start things off.)
Posted in: Cartoons
0 comments:
Post a Comment