Feminist Emma Watson can't quell hypergamous desires; dates head of the Patriarchy

Do you mean she got paid less because she's a girl?

Obviously he would earn more as the star, but his contract appears to have been better than hers in terms of things that are normally the same amongst lead players, I am not a technical expert on film finances, but I saw a thing about it that implied he seemed to be getting a disproportionate share of ongoing revenues compared to her, even discounting the fact that he was the lead.

That seems to be quite common across the movie industry, as we saw in the alleged North Korean hack of Sony revelations, where it came out that some women get paid less than the men even when the woman has the lead part.

I'm not making a case that film stars are the oppressed of the Earth, just that it's interesting that sexism plays a part even at that level of fame and fortune.

Reply 41

Snagprophet

17

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Obviously he would earn more as the star, but his contract appears to have been better than hers in terms of things that are normally the same amongst lead players, I am not a technical expert on film finances, but I saw a thing about it that implied he seemed to be getting a disproportionate share of ongoing revenues compared to her, even discounting the fact that he was the lead.

That seems to be quite common across the movie industry, as we saw in the alleged North Korean hack of Sony revelations, where it came out that some women get paid less than the men even when the woman has the lead part.

I'm not making a case that film stars are the oppressed of the Earth, just that it's interesting that sexism plays a part even at that level of fame and fortune.

So I'm guessing all the non-lead male characters were paid an identical sum of money then?

Reply 42

SerenityNow

1

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Obviously he would earn more as the star, but his contract appears to have been better than hers in terms of things that are normally the same amongst lead players, I am not a technical expert on film finances, but I saw a thing about it that implied he seemed to be getting a disproportionate share of ongoing revenues compared to her, even discounting the fact that he was the lead.

That seems to be quite common across the movie industry, as we saw in the alleged North Korean hack of Sony revelations, where it came out that some women get paid less than the men even when the woman has the lead part.

She is worth more than Rupert Grint, the other ''supporting wizard'' (60 mill compared to 50). I assume the ''Sony revelations'' you speak of are concerning "American Hustle" and how the men got more by a couple of % in back end deals? That was because the men were the leads and the movie's main attraction. Same way the ''J Law'' (who was in that movie as well) got paid far more than her male ''Hunger Games'' co-stars:

Jennifer Lawrence's co-stars have been left hungry for more after learning of her astonishing $10m deal to appear in the Hunger Games sequel film.

Liam Hemsworth, 22, and Josh Hutcherson, 19, have apparently been offered $2m each to star in the Catching Fire follow-up.

The Hollywood Reporter explained that the figure is a combination of 'salary, bonuses and escalators', but if the movie does well at the box office, 21-year-old Jennifer could earn significantly more than $10million.

Hardly a gender pay gap issue. Capitalism doesn't care what sex you are. The same reason female models make 50 times more than male ones. You want to talk about celebrity pay gap issue, look at Wimbledon where men are bringing in most of the money through TV rights, ticket prices, sponsors, ratings and so on yet are being paid the same as the women (or far less if you measure if by hours/sets played).

Reply 43

Dodgypirate

6

Original post by Algorithm69

http://mashable.com/2015/02/20/prince-harry-emma-watson-dating-rumor/

You couldn't make it up.

It's a 'rumor'/gossip, so it's likely untrue.

Reply 44

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by SerenityNow

Hardly a gender pay gap issue. Capitalism doesn't care what sex you are. The same reason female models make 50 times more than male ones. You want to talk about celebrity pay gap issue, look at Wimbledon where men are bringing in most of the money through TV rights, ticket prices, sponsors, ratings and so on yet are being paid the same as the women (or far less if you measure if by hours/sets played).

I very much doubt that pure market capitalism is the only thing at play. Women face barriers and pressures in many areas of employment that have little to do with capitalism and everything to do with men gaining advantage in numerous hidden and overt ways. Even right wing Bloomberg seems to think there's something in the story that J Law has ended up with less unfairly on American Hustle.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/sony-s-pascal-defends-paying-women-like-jennifer-lawrence-less

The reason given, that "women ask for less", is typical of what happens - not a free market thing based on their actual worth to the studio, but a result of manipulations in the writing of contracts, taking advantage of women's lack of confidence, or access to the best and most combative lawyers and agents.

It's interesting to note that one reason why Emma Watson has done so well financially is that her mother already knew the business and her father is a lawyer.

Reply 45

SerenityNow

1

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I very much doubt that pure market capitalism is the only thing at play. Women face barriers and pressures in many areas of employment that have little to do with capitalism and everything to do with men gaining advantage in numerous hidden and overt ways. Even right wing Bloomberg seems to think there's something in the story that J Law has ended up with less unfairly on American Hustle.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/sony-s-pascal-defends-paying-women-like-jennifer-lawrence-less

The reason given, that "women ask for less", is typical of what happens - not a free market thing based on their actual worth to the studio, but a result of manipulations in the writing of contracts, taking advantage of women's lack of confidence, or access to the best and most combative lawyers and agents.

It's interesting to note that one reason why Emma Watson has done so well financially is that her mother already knew the business and her father is a lawyer.

First of all, with people like that (as with footballers) their agents are many times far more important in negotiations than the ''artists'' themselves. Watson and Lawrence can afford the best agents and lawyers money can buy and I doubt they lack confidence. Many actors/actresses haven't had a big movie for years yet still ''command'' huge salaries, same with footballers who get huge contracts even though their recent history is utter **** and haven't had a good season in years. Why? Because the employer is convinced that will change and they also probably have a great agent/negotiator.

And that's exactly what the free market is. You maximize profit without breaking the law. If women ask for less, whose fault is that? These aren't fixed salaries, they're not stacking shelves at ASDA. Is the employer supposed to beg her or her agent to ask for more? They're running a business, not a charity. They will pay the least amount they can get away with. If the starlets don't like they need to change their ''people'' or grow some balls. A studio shouldn't be forced to pay 2 leads the same way, the only questions should be : 1. How much value is she/he adding to the movie? 2. What's the lowest amount I can get away with?

I'll give you an example : Julia Roberts and Richard Gere played in 2 big movies 10 years apart. He was the bigger start in the 80 while she became huge in the 90's. He made a lot more than her in Pretty Woman but 10 years later in Runaway bride she made 17 mill compared to his 13, not to mention she also had her name on the left side of the poster (emphasizing she was the main star) and I'm betting higher royalties as well.

Also:

TOP EARNING MALE MODELS

Sean O'Pry, $1.5 million

David Gandy, $1.4 million

Simon Nessman, $1.1 million

TEN TOP EARNING FEMALE MODELS

Gisele Bündchen, $42 million

Miranda Kerr, $7.2 million

Adriana Lima, $6 million

Free market....

Reply 46

Quady

20

Original post by Algorithm69

http://mashable.com/2015/02/20/prince-harry-emma-watson-dating-rumor/

You couldn't make it up.

And there was me thinking the head of state is a woman...

Reply 47

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You're being a bit harsh. It's hardly her fault that as a child her parents secured a fantastic (but apparently not as good as Daniel Radcliffe's!) contract in a huge money spinning machine and that now therefore she is loaded. I suppose it's a manifestation of the unfairness built into the movie industry and the way it rewards staff. However, she's hardly an 'aristocrat', she didn't inherit it, she earned it, albeit in a strange way.

Lots of jealousy coming through in the thread, but also rage that a young woman can have a lot of money.

I'm not talking about her money machines (although she better dam well pay tax). I'm comparing feminism which is about equal opportunities to the institution of a monarchy which has nothing to do with equal opportunities.

Reply 48

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I very much doubt that pure market capitalism is the only thing at play. Women face barriers and pressures in many areas of employment that have little to do with capitalism and everything to do with men gaining advantage in numerous hidden and overt ways. Even right wing Bloomberg seems to think there's something in the story that J Law has ended up with less unfairly on American Hustle.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/sony-s-pascal-defends-paying-women-like-jennifer-lawrence-less

The reason given, that "women ask for less", is typical of what happens - not a free market thing based on their actual worth to the studio, but a result of manipulations in the writing of contracts, taking advantage of women's lack of confidence, or access to the best and most combative lawyers and agents.

It's interesting to note that one reason why Emma Watson has done so well financially is that her mother already knew the business and her father is a lawyer.

The confidence thing isn't just about women and men though. The guy that discovered how to make diamonds was completely ****ed over by the company he worked for. It is a class thing as well. Plus I am massively susceptible to lack of confidence, it already happened in my current job. I'm on min wage whilst someone else who started at the same time as me is on more than me just because he effectively asked for it :frown:

Reply 49

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

The confidence thing isn't just about women and men though. The guy that discovered how to make diamonds was completely ****ed over by the company he worked for. It is a class thing as well. Plus I am massively susceptible to lack of confidence, it already happened in my current job. I'm on min wage whilst someone else who started at the same time as me is on more than me just because he effectively asked for it :frown:

Yes, Emma W is probably not a girl lacking in confidence, given her background and education. However, I also think there's a bit of a myth around about the extent to which confidence is everything. In a way, it's another bit of divide and conquer by employers and business, but it can also be something that's just dressed up as 'confidence', but is really about class, accent, demeanour, looks, etc.

Reply 50

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Yes, Emma W is probably not a girl lacking in confidence, given her background and education. However, I also think there's a bit of a myth around about the extent to which confidence is everything. In a way, it's another bit of divide and conquer by employers and business, but it can also be something that's just dressed up as 'confidence', but is really about class, accent, demeanour, looks, etc.

I'm totally fine with feminism to be honest. Any complaints are more applications or policy, I got nothing against the core part of the ideology. It's just most high profile (by which I mean gets mainstream attention) feminism seems to just ignore every other aspect of division in society that isn't gender. So a male and female oligarch have equal chance to **** over vast swaves of people. Men and women can all race to the bottom on equal footing. Wupty-fukcing -doo :rolleyes:

Yay, both men and women can work, but now both parents have to work.

So whilst labour are driving around in stupid pink buses lets totally ignore any analysis that looks at the social-economic class representation in Westminster. I want more MP's like Caroline Lucas ( :love: