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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Damn freaking straight.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?