[ SECRET POST #4148 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4148 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Will and Grace season 9]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Elizabeth Olsen]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Stranger Things, Billy/Mrs. Wheeler]


__________________________________________________



05.
(Grimm)


__________________________________________________



06.
[Antoni Porowski, Queer Eye 2018]


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Crown]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #594.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I have some problems with this argument.

First of all, I'm not sure it's actually really possible to look in detail and quantify how much of the difference in pay was because he was famous from being the Doctor. And I'm not comfortable assuming that all of the difference is because of their previous careers, especially in an industry and a world that endemically underpays women (or underpays them more than it underpays men, anyway).

Second, just because there's an explanation, in terms of capital and profit and loss, for why it happened, that doesn't mean that you have to accept that explanation as the way that it has to be.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, this!

[(Anonymous)]

I mean... sure, it's not possible to quantify in exact dollars and cents how much more Smith got for being the more famous actor. But it doesn't take an accountant to look at their IMDB history and think well, the guy who played the Doctor in one of the UK's most popular shows and most successful imports will probably get paid more than the lady who hasn't had any roles half as big as that. That's not unusual or suspicious, it's the industry norm. That's why suggesting that maybe it's a sexism thing when there's a much more obvious, simple answer sounds ridiculous to a lot of people.

[(Anonymous)]

But is all of it because of that? That's the question. Things can have more than one cause at the same time.

[(Anonymous)]

It's possible. But like I said, there's a really obvious answer as to why there's a difference in salaries, yet the outcry has been about sexism and gender. IMO, the very real issue of sexism and women getting paid less than men for the same work is undermined by people using this particular case as an example when it's not.

[(Anonymous)]

it's interesting to me that you think sexism is not a simple or obvious answer. wage gaps between men and women are hardly some obscure concept

na

[(Anonymous)]

And yet "main star" is usually paid more money than "supporting role". So she's getting paid less for *more* work, and a role that's much more likely to typecast her.