Patricia Arquette's Oscar Speech on Wage Inequality...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it humorous to hear a speech on wage equality come from a person who makes millions.

Are you under the impression that female actresses are paid equally to their male counterparts?

You might want to go back and look through some of the hacked Sony documents.

Actors whether male or female are paid for their box office draw. Patricia Arquette could never carry a film like Benedict Cumverbatch does and would be paid accordingly. That said, I don't think she was referring solely to Hollywood but to jobs where the difference between $80 an hour and $90 an hour is significant rather than the difference between $1 million for a film versus $1.2 million.

No one is comparing Cumberbatch and Arquette. Again, people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the larger point.

In American Hustle, we have 2 female stars with more star power and box-office success than their male counterparts (FAR more, where Jeremy Renner is concerned). Yet the women were paid more than 20% less. So this isn't about star power or box-office success. It isn't about the number of hours worked. It's not about negotiating skill, since the actors aren't negotiating for themselves, but instead rely on attorneys, managers, etc.

Now, ask yourself, why is your reaction that Adams and Lawrence should be thankful they are making millions? Is it because the little women should be thankful they get whatever crumbs they are thrown?

Why is your reaction that they should have taken even LESS, so that lower-wage people below them could make more? And if that IS your reaction, why you aren't saying that Cooper, Bale, and Renner should have taken less so that the lower-wage people below them (ahem, including Adams and Lawrence) could make more?

Sorry, neither Lawrence nor Adams have more box office draw than Christian Bale. And it is debatable whether their draw was equivalent to Bradley Coopers. Lawrence has always been in an ensemble cast of other stars. Bale has been the star in many films.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a nanny who got fired (by her "equal rights" screaming employer, no less) when she needed a sick day.

Odd how this happens. Women demand benefits for themselves, but refuse to extend similar "equal rights" for their own domestic workers.

I assume from your comments that the employer was a single mother or half of a lesbian couple? Because you aren't mentioning that there was a man/husband involved in the decision to fire the nanny.

The husband didn't get a say in the decision. The mother had made a snap decision on the spot.

[Anonymous]

I would be interested in how box office draw is measured. Is it a hard statistic? I know Jennifer Lawrence is in the tabloids a lot, but I don't know if that translates to people attending her movies. I suspect people saw "The Hunger Games" because of the source material.

If I had enough money to fund several generations after me, I would gather up my rich actress friends and basically go on strike. One Christmas season with no box-office-draw female leads, and I suspect the wage issue will change. So, while I'm a PA fan, I think it's silly that actresses would try to speak for the rest of us here. I think she would have come off much better if she'd limited her comments to wage discrepancies among her fellow actresses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with women is that many of you want SPECIAL privileges, not equal treatment. You want 6 months to a year PAID maternity leave, paid pumping breaks all day long, paid time off to take care of all your personal problems.

Equal pay, yes. Forget the rest because it isn't going to happen and I say this as a woman who has three children.

See Patricia Arquette's comments. The reason for this is that American women are giving birth to the next generation of taxpayers and citizens. We ALL have a stake in supporting women who have given birth. It's not a benefit for women, it's a benefit for society.

Alternatively, we can make it really difficult for women to have children and work, and maybe fewer women will have children. Ask Japan how that's working out.

Yup- lived for many years in a country with a bottoming out birthrate due to limited support for motherhood in the workforce- it just became less and less attractive to become a mom and within a generation or 2 if that isn't socialized into you as the "norm" believe it or not, that is just as strong as any "natural" pull we have to reproduce. The various incentives govt. has tried to put in place continue to fail, corporate and their patriarchal lingering culture aren't being addressed at all so guess what- society feels it, women make choices for themselves on an individual level but its felt everywhere.

People need pumping breaks for how long over the course of a career exactly?! Its a stupid argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a nanny who got fired (by her "equal rights" screaming employer, no less) when she needed a sick day.

Odd how this happens. Women demand benefits for themselves, but refuse to extend similar "equal rights" for their own domestic workers.

I assume from your comments that the employer was a single mother or half of a lesbian couple? Because you aren't mentioning that there was a man/husband involved in the decision to fire the nanny.

The husband didn't get a say in the decision. The mother had made a snap decision on the spot.

There is no way any mom will fire her otherwise great nanny Bc she needs a sick day. There is definitely more to this story than you know. And how do you know so much about the political leanings of the mom or the details of why she fired the nanny? Your story is bs. Anyway even if there is some hypocrite mom out there what does that have to do with the equal pay argument on its merits? You people arguing that this is about special treatment are missing the big picture. Maternity leave, pumping breaks, equal pay are good for kids and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a nanny who got fired (by her "equal rights" screaming employer, no less) when she needed a sick day.

Odd how this happens. Women demand benefits for themselves, but refuse to extend similar "equal rights" for their own domestic workers.

I assume from your comments that the employer was a single mother or half of a lesbian couple? Because you aren't mentioning that there was a man/husband involved in the decision to fire the nanny.

The husband didn't get a say in the decision. The mother had made a snap decision on the spot.

And you know this because you were there? Or is this just how it played out in your mind while you were concocting this fantasy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation..."

Damn freaking straight.

Not PC, she excluded illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it humorous to hear a speech on wage equality come from a person who makes millions.

Are you under the impression that female actresses are paid equally to their male counterparts?

You might want to go back and look through some of the hacked Sony documents.

Actors whether male or female are paid for their box office draw. Patricia Arquette could never carry a film like Benedict Cumverbatch does and would be paid accordingly. That said, I don't think she was referring solely to Hollywood but to jobs where the difference between $80 an hour and $90 an hour is significant rather than the difference between $1 million for a film versus $1.2 million.

No one is comparing Cumberbatch and Arquette. Again, people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the larger point.

In American Hustle, we have 2 female stars with more star power and box-office success than their male counterparts (FAR more, where Jeremy Renner is concerned). Yet the women were paid more than 20% less. So this isn't about star power or box-office success. It isn't about the number of hours worked. It's not about negotiating skill, since the actors aren't negotiating for themselves, but instead rely on attorneys, managers, etc.

Now, ask yourself, why is your reaction that Adams and Lawrence should be thankful they are making millions? Is it because the little women should be thankful they get whatever crumbs they are thrown?

Why is your reaction that they should have taken even LESS, so that lower-wage people below them could make more? And if that IS your reaction, why you aren't saying that Cooper, Bale, and Renner should have taken less so that the lower-wage people below them (ahem, including Adams and Lawrence) could make more?

Sorry, neither Lawrence nor Adams have more box office draw than Christian Bale. And it is debatable whether their draw was equivalent to Bradley Coopers. Lawrence has always been in an ensemble cast of other stars. Bale has been the star in many films.

She's the dang star of hunger games! I don't care if its not your thing- for many people Batman is not their thing either- but you can't deny that its a star maker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it humorous to hear a speech on wage equality come from a person who makes millions.

+a million

And seeing all those actresses whoop it up in their expensive gowns and jewels. If they really cared about wage equality outside of their Hollywood bubble, they have a platform to effect social and political change...yet I've never heard any celebrity tackle that issue...which makes me think she really was only referring to Hollywood salaries...which is supremely irritating. I really wasn't impressed with her speech ,or her dress).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it humorous to hear a speech on wage equality come from a person who makes millions.

Are you under the impression that female actresses are paid equally to their male counterparts?

You might want to go back and look through some of the hacked Sony documents.

Actors whether male or female are paid for their box office draw. Patricia Arquette could never carry a film like Benedict Cumverbatch does and would be paid accordingly. That said, I don't think she was referring solely to Hollywood but to jobs where the difference between $80 an hour and $90 an hour is significant rather than the difference between $1 million for a film versus $1.2 million.

No one is comparing Cumberbatch and Arquette. Again, people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the larger point.

In American Hustle, we have 2 female stars with more star power and box-office success than their male counterparts (FAR more, where Jeremy Renner is concerned). Yet the women were paid more than 20% less. So this isn't about star power or box-office success. It isn't about the number of hours worked. It's not about negotiating skill, since the actors aren't negotiating for themselves, but instead rely on attorneys, managers, etc.

Now, ask yourself, why is your reaction that Adams and Lawrence should be thankful they are making millions? Is it because the little women should be thankful they get whatever crumbs they are thrown?

Why is your reaction that they should have taken even LESS, so that lower-wage people below them could make more? And if that IS your reaction, why you aren't saying that Cooper, Bale, and Renner should have taken less so that the lower-wage people below them (ahem, including Adams and Lawrence) could make more?

So you think Patricia Arquette could carry a major film? Next you'll tell me Jennifer Aniston has talent.

[Anonymous]

It is against the law for employers to pay women less for the same work done by a male. If these women think they are victims of wage discrimination, they can take action. Standing up and making a speech will do nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be interested in how box office draw is measured. Is it a hard statistic? I know Jennifer Lawrence is in the tabloids a lot, but I don't know if that translates to people attending her movies. I suspect people saw "The Hunger Games" because of the source material.

If I had enough money to fund several generations after me, I would gather up my rich actress friends and basically go on strike. One Christmas season with no box-office-draw female leads, and I suspect the wage issue will change. So, while I'm a PA fan, I think it's silly that actresses would try to speak for the rest of us here. I think she would have come off much better if she'd limited her comments to wage discrepancies among her fellow actresses.

Uh, seriously, do you know how many actresses there are in the world who could out-act any US actress? Why do you think the cast of Downton Abbey is being heavily recruited to do US films? They can act and will work for Hollywood wages which are much, much, much higher than what they are paid in the UK. I, for one, would be glad to see Patricia Arquette replaced by any good British actress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it humorous to hear a speech on wage equality come from a person who makes millions.

Are you under the impression that female actresses are paid equally to their male counterparts?

You might want to go back and look through some of the hacked Sony documents.

Actors whether male or female are paid for their box office draw. Patricia Arquette could never carry a film like Benedict Cumverbatch does and would be paid accordingly. That said, I don't think she was referring solely to Hollywood but to jobs where the difference between $80 an hour and $90 an hour is significant rather than the difference between $1 million for a film versus $1.2 million.

No one is comparing Cumberbatch and Arquette. Again, people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the larger point.

In American Hustle, we have 2 female stars with more star power and box-office success than their male counterparts (FAR more, where Jeremy Renner is concerned). Yet the women were paid more than 20% less. So this isn't about star power or box-office success. It isn't about the number of hours worked. It's not about negotiating skill, since the actors aren't negotiating for themselves, but instead rely on attorneys, managers, etc.

Now, ask yourself, why is your reaction that Adams and Lawrence should be thankful they are making millions? Is it because the little women should be thankful they get whatever crumbs they are thrown?

Why is your reaction that they should have taken even LESS, so that lower-wage people below them could make more? And if that IS your reaction, why you aren't saying that Cooper, Bale, and Renner should have taken less so that the lower-wage people below them (ahem, including Adams and Lawrence) could make more?

Sorry, neither Lawrence nor Adams have more box office draw than Christian Bale. And it is debatable whether their draw was equivalent to Bradley Coopers. Lawrence has always been in an ensemble cast of other stars. Bale has been the star in many films.

She's the dang star of hunger games! I don't care if its not your thing- for many people Batman is not their thing either- but you can't deny that its a star maker.

And he was the dang star of Termination Salvation , Reign of Fire, American Psycho,Batman, and Empire of the Sun. He won an Oscar before she did. No one has denied that Lawrence is currently the it girl, but other than the first Hunger Game, why had she done prior to American Hustler that's noteworthy?

[Anonymous]

"What he she done"

[Anonymous]

She was nominated for Best actress in Winter's Bone, which was itself nominated for Best Picture, and she was also in Silver Linings Playbook