Guy Explains Why Equal Pay For Male And Female Actors Doesn’t Make Sense
143Kviews
You may or may not be aware that there is, at this point, a petition with over 25,000 signatures on it calling for ‘The Crown’ actor Matt Smith to give up part of his salary, and donate it to the legal defense fund for the Time’s Up Movement.
This came after revelations by the show’s producers that Smith, renowned actor and former ‘Doctor Who’ star, earned more while working as a support actor on ‘The Crown’ than lead actress Claire Foy, who played the Queen.
With the gender pay gap being a hotly debated issue at present, the petition, which originated from the Care2 organization, has already an effect. “Going forward, no one gets paid more than the Queen,” producer Suzanne Mackie has said about the issue, while explaining that Smith was previously paid more due to his previous ‘Doctor Who’ fame.
It is right at this point that Imgur user YurgenGrimwood steps in with a simple and clear argument. According to this argument, Smith’s heftier paycheck doesn’t come down to sexism at all, but is rather just the realities of show business economics. He is more recognizable and therefore creates more value to the show than the highly talented, but previously unknown Claire Foy.
So while the gender pay gap is certainly a pertinent issue in the overall fight for gender equality, YurgenGrimwood believes that this particular petition may have missed the target. What do you think? Should lead actors always be paid more, regardless of previous fame? Should Matt Smith donate the difference in his salary to the Time’s Up movement? Let us know in the comments below!
This petition began after it was revealed that co-star of ‘The Crown’ Matt Smith was paid more for his role than lead actress Claire Foy
Image credits: Robert Viglasky/AP
This guy, however, disagreed with the petition and decided to explain his opinion
Many people seemed to agree with this perspective
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below!
143Kviews
Share on Facebook
I have to agree. When there are both men and women doing the exact same job, but there is a difference in pay - THAT is where the problem is. The issue above is similar to if someone who's got 10+ years experience in their field with evidence of high performance and another who has 4yrs experience in the same field with very little evidence of high performance. The latter is obviously going to get paid less. Gender here doesn't even come into it. People need to stop being so ready to jump on every tiny little thing and turning it into a problem!
You pay your dues like any industry. He’s a marquis actor and she is not (yet). I’m sure Winston Churchill and her father in season 1 didn’t make nearly what Matt Smith made.
Oh, and he won an Emmy for the role, too.
Marquee. He's not a Marquis.
You realise that John Lithgow, who played Churchill, is an even bigger name than Matt Smith? I wouldn't be surprised if he was paid the same, despite having much less screen time.
Well John Churchill Lithgow was quite famous so...
Exactly. Pay gap is a problem when there is 2 people of different gender doing the exact same job, bringing the same quality or adding the same value to the work. In this case, it is different because they have different amount of work experiences.
Meritocracy would be nice, wouldn't it? Wrong industry, kitten. A fresh face that happens to be popular despite only one series done, can be paid exponentially more than someone with baftas oscars and what have you. It's not about equality, it's just about money. More likes, more money. More experience, nobody cares.
if she does not do the job as well, or is not as available, as him, why should she be paid the same? And thats just one example.
Let's thing on oposite version. I want to make mate a show starring Jennifer Lawrence and some John Doe. Of course, I am going to pay more money to Lawrence than to the other guy.
That's what happened in passengers... Jennifer Lawrence was paid a lot more than Chris Pratt... he became world famous thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World Bad luck for him... but at the moment she was a bigger star
Reply to Kate: Maybe she has a better agent. It's also possible he wanted to work with Lawrence so he chose to work for less so they could get Lawrence what she (or her agent) wanted. Also possible his pay was part of a guaranteed, pay-or-play, multi-picture deal for him. Part of the "equal pay issue" (that goes unsaid) is that equal pay seldom exists even for those of the same gender doing the same work within the same company. Also, seniority and/or tenure rules affect "equal pay".
Actually Pratt ahd already been in those movies and was famous at the time of Passangers, he also had like twice the screen time of Lawrence. I never got why she was paid more, her feminist pushing maybe?
Think*
Personally, I think the Queen's corgis should be paid the most....
I couldn't agree more.
lol yeah
I have to agree. When there are both men and women doing the exact same job, but there is a difference in pay - THAT is where the problem is. The issue above is similar to if someone who's got 10+ years experience in their field with evidence of high performance and another who has 4yrs experience in the same field with very little evidence of high performance. The latter is obviously going to get paid less. Gender here doesn't even come into it. People need to stop being so ready to jump on every tiny little thing and turning it into a problem!
You pay your dues like any industry. He’s a marquis actor and she is not (yet). I’m sure Winston Churchill and her father in season 1 didn’t make nearly what Matt Smith made.
Oh, and he won an Emmy for the role, too.
Marquee. He's not a Marquis.
You realise that John Lithgow, who played Churchill, is an even bigger name than Matt Smith? I wouldn't be surprised if he was paid the same, despite having much less screen time.
Well John Churchill Lithgow was quite famous so...
Exactly. Pay gap is a problem when there is 2 people of different gender doing the exact same job, bringing the same quality or adding the same value to the work. In this case, it is different because they have different amount of work experiences.
Meritocracy would be nice, wouldn't it? Wrong industry, kitten. A fresh face that happens to be popular despite only one series done, can be paid exponentially more than someone with baftas oscars and what have you. It's not about equality, it's just about money. More likes, more money. More experience, nobody cares.
if she does not do the job as well, or is not as available, as him, why should she be paid the same? And thats just one example.
Let's thing on oposite version. I want to make mate a show starring Jennifer Lawrence and some John Doe. Of course, I am going to pay more money to Lawrence than to the other guy.
That's what happened in passengers... Jennifer Lawrence was paid a lot more than Chris Pratt... he became world famous thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World Bad luck for him... but at the moment she was a bigger star
Reply to Kate: Maybe she has a better agent. It's also possible he wanted to work with Lawrence so he chose to work for less so they could get Lawrence what she (or her agent) wanted. Also possible his pay was part of a guaranteed, pay-or-play, multi-picture deal for him. Part of the "equal pay issue" (that goes unsaid) is that equal pay seldom exists even for those of the same gender doing the same work within the same company. Also, seniority and/or tenure rules affect "equal pay".
Actually Pratt ahd already been in those movies and was famous at the time of Passangers, he also had like twice the screen time of Lawrence. I never got why she was paid more, her feminist pushing maybe?
Think*
Personally, I think the Queen's corgis should be paid the most....
I couldn't agree more.
lol yeah