Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The Gender Wage Gap Is Not Due To Sexism. It's An Earnings Gap! I Think That This Is Important To Share.
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 at 11:19:17 pm CDT (Viewed 707 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The Gender Wage Gap Is Not Due To Sexism. It's An Earnings Gap! I Think That This Is Important To Share.
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 at 09:36:03 pm CDT (Viewed 682 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:
      How is one article propagating spiel, but the other is acceptable? You could almost switch articles between the two sites, they are so similar.



    Quote:
    Except that AEI does not acknowledge that there is still a pay gap as well.


That alone alone makes one story "propagating this spiel", and the other not? I think our definitions here are different.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Basically studies show when factors are the same for both genders, women tend to still lag behind and on average get paid about 93%-95% of what men do. Women have done a lot of catching up with men, but there are a lot of industries in which women are paid less than men for doing the same work or just aren't hired. Take the film industry, which is largely run by men. Only about 10% of feature film directors are women. Or you get Mark Wahlberg getting paid $1.5 million for reshoots and Michelle Williams getting paid $1,000 for the same thing. Women are catching up, but they aren't quite there yet.
      To attribute the Mark Wahlberg/Michelle Williams story to sexism, and to link it to "Women are catching up, but they aren't quite there yet" just shows your complete lack of knowledge regarding the details of the situation. It's also shows your lack of effort to understand other reasons behind pay differences. You're stuck on the old women-being-held-down-by-men story, that you're ignoring simple facts.



    Quote:
    Nope. You're clearly the ignorant one here. I've worked in the film industry.


Working in the industry doesn't automatically imbue you with knowledge of this specific case. You attributed the pay difference to simply male vs. female, but there is more to the story. They had different contracts. That was the reason for the pay difference.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Mark Wahlberg is a mega star in Hollywood. He has the clout to demand that type of clause in his contract. While Michelle Williams is best known for that Dawson's Creek tv show from 20 years ago.



    Quote:
    Wrong. Michelle Williams is one of the most critically acclaimed and well-respected actresses in Hollywood and is known for great performances in independent pictures like Brokeback Mountain, Wendy and Lucy, Blue Valentine, and Manchester by the Sea. Comparing her to Mark Wahlberg is like comparing Kate Winslet to Adam Sandler.


Being critically acclaimed does not always equate to high pay. In many cases high pay is demanded from a proven track record of drawing in audiences. Wendy and Lucy had a minuscule gross revenue of $1.4 million. Blue Valentine had worldwide gross of only $16 million. Brokeback Mountain and Manchester by the Sea earned more, but not in the range of a Mark Wahlberg blockbuster. He brings in a greater audience, which means he makes the studio more money, so in return he gets more of that money.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Either she doesn't have the same clout, or she has a management team not as smart as Wahlberg's (possibly both).



    Quote:
    Wrong again. They are represented by the same agency!


Same agency, yes. But what I said is a different management team. They have different agents within William Morris.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      There is zero evidence the pay difference had anything to do with one being a man, and the other a woman.



    Quote:
    Wrong. Wahlberg and Williams are represented by the same talent agency, which went to bat for Wahlberg but not Williams.


Same agency, different agents, who negotiated different deals. It's not as if both actors were first told of the need for a re-shoot and then afterward the agency only "went to bat" for the man. Before the contracts were signed Wahlberg had that clause included, but Williams never asked for it. In fact she told the studio that she would "be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort".

She *chose* not to ask for more money before signing the contract and afterward. Wahlberg *chose* to ask for the re-shoot clause before he signed the contract. I will repeat myself...there is zero evidence of sexism here. As much as you don't want to back down from your initial claim that the re-shoot payment difference was due to male vs. female, the facts show otherwise.

The studio was paying each actor what they had agreed to in their individual contracts. Wahlberg asked for different clauses in his contract than what Williams asked to be included in her contract.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Imagine a movie staring Meryl Streep needed as big of a re-shoot as All The Money In The World. Now imagine the movie also included the blonde guy from Dawson's Creek. Who do you think would be likely to get more money for a re-shoot? Meryl Streep or Dawson? I'm asking for an answer. Who do you think would get paid more for re-shoots?



    Quote:
    Your analogy doesn't work because Michelle Williams approaches the caliber of Streep.


The topic isn't caliber of acting, it's who commands a higher salary. The facts are that Meryl Streep has been in much bigger movies, and commands a higher salary because she is viewed as a bigger box office draw. In a movie re-shoot starring Meryl Streep and Dawson, Meryl Streep would likely get paid more than Dawson. If you cannot admit that, you are not being honest.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I'd guess Meryl Streep. Not because of sexism, but because she is a bigger star, who can demand more money.



    Quote:
    Wahlberg recognized the injustice and gave that money to the Time's Up movement.


Wahlberg recognized a good PR move vs. a bad PR move. Whatever he chose to do with the money afterward doesn't prove or disprove any sexist intent by the movie studio.




Posted with Google Chrome 65.0.3325.181 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software