Scarlett Johannsson earns more money in a minute than I probably will in a lifetime.
She has money. You know it, I know it and she knows it.
ScarJo knows none of us will ever earn what she does. And she doesn’t want to talk about it, she doesn’t want to acknowledge it and she certainly doesn’t want dwell on it.
And if the story stopped there, it would be okay. It’d be lovely, in fact.
A rare dose of self-effacing modesty and self-awareness that doesn’t come in leaps and bounds in Hollywood. It would be an anomaly in a world where money is indispensable and dollar bills fall from pockets.
So when ScarJo told Cosmopolitan this week that it would be “icky” for her to talk about the pay gap given her fortunate position, it would almost be okay. Almost.
To be specific, she told the magazine, "there’s something icky about me having that conversation unless it applies to a greater whole".
“I am very fortunate, I make a really good living, and I’m proud to be an actress who’s making as much as many of my male peers at this stage.
“I think every woman has [been underpaid], but unless I’m addressing it as a larger problem, for me to talk about my own personal experience with it feels a little obnoxious,” she said. “It’s part of a larger conversation about feminism in general.”
Top Comments
Actually I applaud Johannson for being unwilling to appropriate the victimhood of others. She is correct, a person who is experiencing a gender pay gap is far more qualified to discuss its impact, and unless it is in the context of a wider discussion it is "icky" to hear the privileged elite wax lyrically about situations outside of their experience. She is not "standing under her million dollar umbrella refusing to shelter others in the shit storm" she is standing under her million dollar umbrella saying "I'm not negatively impacted by this shit storm, direct the resources towards and give a voice to the people who ARE".
Her refusal to appropriate the victim label doesn't disempower or discredit people who have been victimised, it keeps the emphasis on genuine real life examples instead of distracting the conversation with invented accounts of victimisation. The focus SHOULD be on the people who are genuinely experiencing discrimination, not on insisting those who are deeply privileged are in fact automatically victims because of their gender. Insisting Johannson should leap at the opportunity to be the spokesperson for the gender pay gap is no different to claiming Gina Rinehart would be the best spokesperson for alcohol related road incidents' because a drunk pedestrian once spilled a beer on the pavement next to her Mercedes.
I found Johannsons argument to be intelligent, humble, and deeply inspiring. I found this articles author's insistence that Johannson both identify as a victim, and make the conversation about her victimisation/potential for victimisation "icky".
If you add all male and all female wages and divide by total number of males and females, you get a figure around 80c average for women to $1 for men. This is the pay gap.
It is the result of women's choices, what jobs they choose, what hours they are prepared to work, time off for children, further study or vacations. It is not caused by men and women being paid different rates for the same job. It would be illegal to do it. Any EBA, award or agreement would be struck down. The papers would be full of cases in court, not celebrities parroting dogma.
If it were true that you can get the same quality and output from a woman over a man for just 80% the price of men, why would any men be employed in the country? Businesses from coast to coast, already dominated by female HR departments, would fire men left right and centre and replace them with women to save 20%. Yet, this is not the case. People cry the wage gap but we can't see that operating in the real world and we can't find masses of examples of different pay rates for the same job.
Perhaps broaden your reading on this topic. You'll find that your argument has been debunked by at least 80% of the serious literature.
Do you cut and paste this same commentary all over the Internet? Many jobs are not covered by awards or EBAs. Many professional salaries are derived from negotiation and promotion. These decisions regarding raises in salary are often derived from unconscious bias. By way of example, I have experienced men with newborn babies at home been given work opportunities that were not offered to me when I had a much older toddler at home. Apparently, I needed to rush home to care for my family but the men didn't! That assumption was not good for the dad co-worker or me! But guess who got the next promotion?
Also - what do you reckon my options are in that scenario that don't end up with me being tagged as a problem worker? Say nothing was my option.
"It is the result of women's choices, what jobs they choose, what hours they are prepared to work, time off for children, further study or vacations."
The problem is they are often not choices.