|
Post by onebluestocking on May 29, 2019 16:01:23 GMT
Power of the Dog is a good project to put this in action. He and Elizabeth Moss' character should have nearly equal screen time, if it follows the book.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 29, 2019 18:03:40 GMT
It would be very ironic if a Jane Campion movie pays less to the female protagonist. Anyway it's not a big Hollywood production so I doubt any of them would be pay too much.
The comments below the Instagram post are very funny... again. It seems it's a very contentious theme! More that it should be. A lot of guys seems not to undertand or not wanting to understand the obvious: he is not being literal and saying he would only accept the same paycheck that any of his female co-stars without considering the difference of the roles they are playing in the movie. He is talking about equal pay for the same amount of work! I think the best example is Claire Foy and Matt Smith in The Crown. Wasn't that example what he was talking about, anyway? The quote is straight forward and sounds very simplistic without context and I guess that's the reason it become viral. I wouldn't be surprised if Sebastian Shakeaspeare or other Daily Mail type is already checking his paycheck and comparing it to his female co-stars. One day we will have a tabloid article about how he is gaining more than Girl #6 and how he is a big hypocrite!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on May 29, 2019 19:21:34 GMT
Some nimrod on Twitter said he can’t be a feminist b/c he’s a man. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 29, 2019 22:31:02 GMT
That's actually a very common idea by Second Wave feminism: That there are very few things exclusive for women so why men should be included in a political movement designed for advancing women's issues? Fair, I guess.
My defense to BC is that it wasn't his idea to wear that shirt! It was part of a campaign by Third Wave feminists. A lot of celebrities were photographed wearing them by Elle magazine, which helped them to promote it.
The campaign ended abruptly after a Daily Mail article claiming they were made exploiting poor women in Third World countries. I remember the group showing receipts on Twitter debunking the tabloid but it was too late.
In other words, I really doubt it was his objective to steal feminism from women! He was just being nice and accepting to wear a silly T-shirt for a few minutes meanwhile he was being photographed for a photoshoot for a profile on the magazine!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 29, 2019 23:29:58 GMT
It always surprises me that there are women who are against feminism.
I’ve mentioned before, I’m sure, that I had a friend in university who thought that men should be paid more than women. She insisted that it wasn’t just her opinion, but a necessity. She said that the economy would never survive if women were to be paid as much as men. She also believed in making men feel more “manly” by pretending to know less than them. We once ran into a family friend of hers who was heading off to study at Oxford on a scholarship. I was hugely impressed that this brilliant girl had accomplished so much, but my friend later commented “She’s never going to find a man who will marry her if she’s smarter than he is.” What nonsense!
I should mention, too, that a few years ago I ran into the teacher I had in grade 8, and as we chatted and caught up, she told me that she would always remember me as one of the first feminists. “Really?”, I asked her. She said that our class was once discussing mothers working, and I announced “Well, my mother has always worked, and my sister and I are just fine!” Ha!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on May 30, 2019 1:03:15 GMT
I’m a bit ambivalent about fixed gender roles, but I do think there was some comfort in having your own little kingdom within a marriage, and the other person worried about whatever the other half was. But it’s also very nice to not have those limits imposed on you by society or other people and figure it out between the two of you (or three, if you’re in a thruple).
When my dad retired, the first thing he did was take over the kitchen, reorganize everything and started to do all the cooking. He enjoyed it, but my mum felt kicked out of her one remaining realm.
He had, however, taken over all the housework, cooking and shopping when she went back to school to get a second master’s degree. I was at home and it was kind of interesting. The good part was that he would buy m&ms. The bad part was my shirts came back from the laundry the size of postage stamps, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Lee on May 30, 2019 3:10:28 GMT
I’m a bit ambivalent about fixed gender roles, but I do think there was some comfort in having your own little kingdom within a marriage, and the other person worried about whatever the other half was. But it’s also very nice to not have those limits imposed on you by society or other people and figure it out between the two of you (or three, if you’re in a thruple). When my dad retired, the first thing he did was take over the kitchen, reorganize everything and started to do all the cooking. He enjoyed it, but my mum felt kicked out of her one remaining realm. He had, however, taken over all the housework, cooking and shopping when she went back to school to get a second master’s degree. I was at home and it was kind of interesting. The good part was that he would buy m&ms. The bad part was my shirts came back from the laundry the size of postage stamps, lol.
I think the important thing is that within a marriage, the two partners decide for *themselves* what those little kingdoms are. In your parent's case, the friction was that they didn't decide together, but they eventually figured the balance out.
Where the "equal pay" issues come into play is that without equal pay standards, society is making those decisions FOR the individuals. My first job, when I was in high school, was working at a local bank. There was a very elegant, well respected older woman who managed customer service (as in if you walked into the bank, she managed all the people who would help you who weren't tellers making deposits/withdrawals) One day I was chatting with her, and she told me about HER first job - she'd come to work at that same bank when she'd finished high school 30 years before. She'd loved her job, worked her way up from clerk, to teller, to manager. And then one day, her wonderful life got even better - her boyfriend proposed! She was going to get married! And when she came to work the next Monday, her work colleagues and bosses threw her a giant party. She was surprised and happy. But mostly surprised...why such a big party just because she was getting married in a few months? Her manager pulled her aside and said "Don't you understand? It's not a "congratulations you're engaged" party, it's a going away party. Because OF COURSE if you're getting married, you can't work here anymore" They basically fired her because she got engaged. She had no choice in it and it was just accepted that that was the way it was. She didn't get to figure out the division of labor, who gets the bacon, who cooks the bacon split with her fiance/husband. Because the bank manager and the entire town had decided it FOR her.
Maybe today it isn't quite as blatant. But I can tell you that in the last 10 years, I have personally heard a senior manager of a large-multinational company say about two professional employees, both with full time upwardly mobile jobs, both with MBA's: "Well, yeah, she has a higher position and performance review rating, but he's got a wife and kids at home, so HE should get the bigger raise" (in total wages and percent increase in wages) A high-performing promotion track woman got a lower raise...less money and a lower percentage increase than a man who was rated lower, at a lower position...one step above being fired, simply because he was a man with a wife and kids (note - no one bothered to ASK the woman if SHE was supporting anyone - she was: an elderly parent with no income and a disabled family member) And because of the way that corporate pay raises work, that decision to short HER pay raise meant that a) her future raises were smaller (which, BTW would also impact c-g FOR THE REST OF HER WORKING LIFE b) she didn't qualify for certain promotions which would raise her base pay too many steps higher c) the stock options she was granted were smaller d) the bonuses she received were lower e) the company paid short-term disability and long-term disability benefits she was entitled to were reduced f) her retirement benefits (based on her gross wages) were reduced (in the US, Social Security benefits paid based on historical gross wages), g) were she to be laid off/fired, her severance wages and unemployment benefits would be reduced.
And those were employees on the same career/job path. There are all kinds of discrepancies that come out with different job classifications that tend to be gender split (think hotel housekeeper vs janitor - basically the same skills/tasks....but guess which one tends to have higher wages (hint: it's the job title that tends to have more men-janitor) Nurses,mostly women, paid less than other healthcare professionals...men get into the profession? Wages go up. Civil engineers (mostly men) get paid more than women in similarly skilled roles? So women pursue and get jobs as civil engineers? Guess what! Wages for civil engineers go down. (Basically if a role gets populated by more women, the wages go down PLUS women get paid less than men in the same role)
So good for Benedict and anyone else with the power to do so who says they will only work on projects where ALL employees are paid fairly, regardless of their sex/gender.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on May 30, 2019 5:25:32 GMT
All excellent points, Hannah Lee! When I first started working, they could ask you if you were married and/or pregnant. If you were they wouldn’t hire you. Then they made it illegal to ask the question, but interviewers still did. It was so awkward trying to figure out how to tell these people that they were breaking the law asking those questions (which immediately labeled you as a rabble rouser), so most women just answered them.
When I was a state employee they had a fixed pay scale for all workers. You got step raises at set intervals; there was no asking for raises. It was a great system, b/c it took the weird money question out of the equation altogether. The focus then became doing the best job you could. Of course they changed it to a merit basis, and all kinds of strange stuff started to happen and it got ruined. Too bad.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 30, 2019 6:07:25 GMT
I used to work at a place that had an employee-of-the-year kind of incentive each year. It was usually older employees who were honoured, which made sense. Both men and women received the awards (you had to be nominated by your co-workers). But there was a “service to the community” award that only ever went to men. It was for charity-type work, outside of office hours. One year, the recipient had mentored at-risk youths on weekends. The last time it was awarded, the man who got it had organized a charity golf tournament. The local paper did a big story about the wonderful things this man had done on his own time.
But someone put in a complaint about that award. Another employee - a woman - pointed out that all the men who had won the award were married. The only reason they were free to do their charity stuff was because they had wives at home doing their cooking and cleaning and washing their clothes and caring for their children. Most of the wives had jobs, too but they still had all the responsibilities at home waiting for them after work. Even with the equal-pay-for-equal-work that was in place for us, men still managed to benefit! Sure, men and women were paid the same, but men were just a bit better so let’s create an award for them!
After additional complaints, that award was eliminated. It was agreed that workplace awards be solely for accomplishments that were part of your job, during work hours.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 31, 2019 16:13:33 GMT
Apparently the DM published indeed an article using BC's image as one example of a "poseur" that claims to be a feminist or someone who is falsely worried for feminist causes. Someone who according to the headline women shouldn't trust and apparently it's worst than men that plainly reject feminism. Well, if you believe only women can be feminist and men are *just* allies then cool but suggesting that BC, in particular, is dangerous to women without any proof except he once wore a T-shirt that a feminist campaign asked him to wear then it's just defamation. No every person in this world is informed of the ugly fights between feminists to know a fraction doesn't like men call themselves feminist (or believe men can't wear certain clothes!) meanwhile another one is asking men to do it! The rest, again, is defamation and fanaticism!
|
|