Post: #1

I’ve often wondered, as I’m sure many of us do, just how different it is to be rich and famous. Are rich people fundamentally happier than we are? Are they constantly jumping around for joy because they found that pot at the end of the rainbow? We wonder if they are, but every now and then something comes along to remind you that actually, the rich are just like us.

They still have, for instance, an unquenchable and all-too-human desire to have something to complain about, no matter what. With this in mind, Jennifer Lawrence, the world’s most highly paid actress, took to Facebook recently to complain about all those male stars getting paid more than her.

While it may be true, yes, that male stars tend to earn a bigger paycheck, the question remains exactly why this is? Can audiences just not take women seriously in major roles? There may be several reasons, but there’s one in particular that no one wants to talk about.

In regular workplaces, a big reason men tend to earn more is because they choose jobs where they experience greater risk. Its hardly surprising that, given we do the jobs that account for more than 90% of workplace deaths, us men get a few dollars an hour extra to compensate.

Like a typical working women who wonders why she gets paid less than men despite working in a comfortable, air-conditioned office 9-5 Monday to Friday, female stars just can’t work out why so many more roles are available to men. Let me try and shed some light here.

The reason is because male characters – like their real world equivalents – suffer far more than their female co-stars.

This isn’t hard to prove.

For instance, if there’s one big show on at the moment which draws the ire of feminists because of its frequent depictions of violence against women, its obviously Game of Thrones. But here’s the thing, even misogynistic, medieval Thrones shows violence that is almost exclusively between men. Don’t believe me? You can check for yourself. Somebody (with way too much time on their hands) took the trouble of making a compilation of all of the onscreen deaths in the show.

The grand total comes to 373 deaths – nearly ten an episode (and that’s just the first four seasons).

But here’s the thing. Out of the those 373, how many depict women dying? Half? Three-quarters? A third? Actually it’s a much, much smaller number. So small, I’m going to put a trigger warning on this next sentence. For those who have not yet swallowed the red pill, imminent, worldview-changing facts are about to appear.

The answer – out of those 373 deaths, the number of people who die on the show, who are women…comes to…seven.

Seven.

Not seventy. Not a hundred and seven. Seven. Against 366 men. Put another way – 98% of all the onscreen deaths in Game of Thrones are of men. Seriously, I’m going to have to put this in meme form. Please share it far and wide.

The most poignant scene of this has to be in Blackwater when King’s Landing is under siege. The men are outside, fighting and dying. There’s limbs getting chopped off. Men drowning. Men burning alive. Where are the women?

Inside, cowering and getting drunk…and if memory serves correct – they’re still fucking complaining. Really, think of any violent movie or TV show. How many women do you see with limbs blown off? With burns covering most of their body? With a sword sticking through their chest? Can anyone name the female equivalent of Sean Bean?

People complain all the time. Oh! There’s no enough women in Star Wars. Well fucking thank god! Most people in Star Wars get killed. It’s why its Star Wars.

Really ladies, which part did you want to play? The guy who gets all his limbs chopped off, is horribly burned and has to live in a suit which breathes for him the rest of his life? His son, who also gets a limb chopped off, finds himself fighting some horrible monster at least once per movie and later has to compete with his father in a fight to the death?

Perhaps the guy who is horribly tortured by the empire for information, frozen in carbonite, and nearly fed to another giant monster? Or just one of those anonymous stormtroopers or fighter pilots, who are always men, and who you see for like five seconds before they get a laser through the chest and die?

You know why women didn’t play those roles? Because the audience simply wouldn’t accept it.

Harrison Ford can cut down twenty guys, and it’s a spectacle. One woman gets a paper cut, and everyone loses their goddamn minds. In 2015, as in 1977, or probably 1348 for all I know, audiences simply won’t put up with women being tortured, having limbs chopped off or otherwise suffering horrible, violent deaths the same way as men, at least not with such flippancy.

Its just visceral. Sure they can die, but if they do, it better be at the climax of the movie. Women suffering is nearly always a major plot point. Men suffering is just entertainment. Art imitates life. Whether we’re talking about workplace accidents, car crashes, violence or suicide, men bare the brunt of nearly any kind of suffering, Our media reflects this. We simply won’t put up with women being treated like such cannon fodder.

One tiny downside for the fairer sex, as Jennifer Lawrence is starting to become aware of even if she doesn’t quite understand it, is that, yes, female actresses may be excluded from a number of the more “interesting” roles. Suffering breeds character, and without that suffering, there will be fewer roles for female actresses to play.

And to add insult to injury, its hardly the patriarchy that is enforcing these standards. Its those same feminists who screech the loudest about “violence against women” that are sabotaging their own cause. If viewers can’t handle violence against women, then Hollywood directors aren’t going to put female actresses in dangerous situations.

Hence, poor Jen has to put up with a smaller paycheck.

Read More: Did Sarah Silverman Lie About Getting Paid Less Than A Man?

Posted on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:00:04 +0000 at http://www.returnofkings.com/72660/the-r...talk-about
Comments: http://www.returnofkings.com/72660/the-r...t#comments

Post: #2

"Excited to start thinking about what to complain about"

Nobody else noticed this?

Enough said.

Post: #3

So what's the correlation between "pretend" violence and an actor's pay? I don't get the whole premise of the article.

Actor vs actress pay is strictly market driven. Their box office draw ability is way more relevant than what "happens" to their character That's true for both genders

Post: #4

^^^
I think the point is that the entertainment market demands violence, and that's easier to sell when it's pretend-done to men. Remember the fuss when the princess in Game of Thrones got raped off-screen? Mainstream and feminist calls for boycott.

Unrelated: 262nd post!

Post: #5

Y'all should Write an article on how straight male porn actors get paid less than female porn actresses.

Watch the feminists go hamster.

Post: #6

(10-29-2015 04:34 PM)262 Wrote:  Unrelated: 262nd post!

You can never post again. Nice knowing you

Post: #7

There are no "female actors". They're called actresses.

The use of "actor" in this gender-neutral way is in itself a piece of feminist cant that grates on the ears and ROK, of all places, should never allow it.

Post: #8

^^^ +1. The female "actor" thing bugs me, too.

Post: #9

(10-29-2015 05:38 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There are no "female actors". They're called actresses.

The use of "actor" in this gender-neutral way is in itself a piece of feminist cant that grates on the ears and ROK, of all places, should never allow it.

TLOZ: Excellent point.

Back around the year 2000 or so, in and around New York City, a serious attempt was made to replace "waiter" and "waitress" with the gender-neutral term "waitron." No shit! Does anyone else remember this? Thank God it never caught on. Perhaps I should not tempt fate or Satan by even invoking the word here.

There have been only a handful of instances in my life I've contemplated putting the working end of a captive bolt pistol to my own forehead and pulling the trigger. The night I was informed by a stone-faced hostess (or is that hoston?) in a Manhattan bistro that "your waitron will be with you in a moment" was one such instance.

Post: #10

Yes, waitron was a bridge too far, and certainly ahead of its time back in 2000. But they still managed to get rid of "waitress" in favor of the gender-neutral term "server", one of the most pitiless and death-dealing words in the language; a word steeped in cant and sodium in equal measure.

"Hi, my name is Terri and I'll be your server tonight"

Post: #11

Interesting premise but I don't think that the demand for violence is the main factor in this pay-gap at all.

I think it's supply and demand based on two primary factors (there might be other minor factors, like violence)

1) Ability to make a great acting performance
2) Physical appearance, both attractiveness and suitability for the role.

On the demand side, from our male actors we demand say 75% acting ability and 25% correct physical appearance to make a successful performance, but from our female actors the expectation is reversed, it's only 25% acting ability and 75% correct appearance to make a success performance.

From the higher acting ability demand from men and the higher appearance demand from the women we look at the supply side.

There are many tens or even hundreds of thousands of attractive women out there that have the physical appearance that could be applied to be a successful actress (ie. hot enough). But there are probably only a few thousand men that have the acting ability to perform to the people's standards of a big-time movie actor.

Both the supply side and the demand side compound the issue to skew towards men always making more in the movie acting business.

In reality, actresses are probably paid FAR MORE than their fair market value, but then I'm sure they receive some sympathy from movie studio heads that want to bang them, and some protection from the media that would cause a shit storm if the lead actress was only paid a couple hundred grand while the lead actor was paid 10M.

Post: #12

One big factor that Jennifer Lawrence did not mention regathering the "American Hustle" is the screen time, Bale, Ranner and Cooper have more screen time than anybody else, they are also big names, besides "The Hunger Games", Lawrence is a nobody, millennials lover her because she appeals to the lazy Tumblr user that believe they are warriors, raising 3 fingers in the air.