She’s 47, which means that according to Hollywood’s fickle rules, the only parts left to her are grandmother roles.
Unless she makes waves, like now, in which case it is her farewell speech to the industry.
Not only hypocritical (the actrons are paid a wage way more than the average Jane or Joe) but tendentiously distorted.
When normalized for experience and skill the parity is better than 90% for women and growing. There are valid reasons for many women to want to dabble less deeply in the wage job market than men. Reasons such as desires oriented towards those quaint old fashioned ideas of family and household. It also discounts other nontraditional ways that women can earn what has been derisively called pin money, that men are more ill positioned to take advantage of.
For a group so obsessed with diversity, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for la difference.
I definitely want wage equality! I want to make millions of dollars too for minimal work just like Hollywood actors.
I wonder what they all pay their maids, nannies, etc.
There is nothing stopping her from demanding a fee equal to what the top male performers in the industry receive. If the producers feel she’s worth it they’ll give her what she wants. If not, they’ll hire someone else who is willing to work for less.
Since they ask constantly what the Saviour would do, why don’t they follow His advise and give their wealth to the poor and follow Him.
(blasphemous, disrespectful, revolutionary fools)
IMHO
Patricia Arquette has $24 million. She has not shared any of that with her female co-workers.
So let's propose a professional surtax on any celeb salaries over $250,000 per year to distribute to low income members of SAG. Any Hollywood celeb who opposes such a proposal will be branded a hypocrite.