I see ol' BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH is bleating on about equal pay for women in movies and saying that he'll be trying to ensure payment parity in whatever projects he works on. What a d*ck! Now I happen to like Benny, but on this, he's being a d*ck. Why doesn't he insist that he gets paid as much as his AVENGERS co-stars, because it's a safe bet that a few of them will be paid much more than him - more, even, than he received for starring in his own DOCTOR STRANGE movie.
But notice how it's been turned into a 'battle of the sexes' in the media. Actually, you can substitute male co-stars in place of female ones in this discussion. Note, however, that, so far (as far as I'm aware) no male co-starring actor is demanding that he should receive the same fee as the lead actor in any production. For example, SIMON PEGG isn't demanding parity with Tom Cruise for his MISSION IMPOSSIBLE appearances. Once again, women have seized the opportunity to bash men over the head for so-called gender inequality, when, in a lot of cases, it doesn't actually exist. For every woman who doesn't receive equal pay with some man, there's at least just as many men in the same position. If you're an actress (a word now under threat of extinction because of the anti-gender distinction loonies) who receives less renumeration for your part than your male co-star, it's not necessarily due to you being unfairly discriminated against because of your gender, it may simply be because you're not as big a star with the same pulling-power.
If SHARON STONE and Miriam Margoyles were co-starring in a movie where they had more or less equal screen time, but Sharon was paid more than Miriam, would anyone turn a hair? No, they wouldn't, because it's readily recognised that there's a pecking order in operation, and that Sharon's name is a bigger draw than Miriam's. It's only when the actor being paid more is a man, that any controversy arises from the situation. Men, you see (according to some women), should never be paid more than their female co-stars on a point of principle - that principle being that all men are b*sta*rds, rapists, perverts, and paedos - and overpaid ones at that.
And what about those daft male TV presenters who offered to take a pay cut to reduce their wages to that of their female colleagues? @rseholes to a man. So keen to appease misandric feminists, that next they'll be offering to castrate themselves rather than incur any form of female displeasure. Taking a pay cut only achieves a quasi-equality, and reveals the misguided philosophy that lies at the root of the problem. You see, if women are satisfied with men taking a cut in wages, it shows that their objection isn't so much that women are undervalued and underpaid, it's that they object to men - simply because they're men - getting something that they're not getting. Their objections spring from the politics of envy - the belief that men shouldn't get anything that women don't seem to be getting (that's their perception anyway), regardless of whether either gender deserve to get it or not.
What will probably end up happening is that lip-service will be paid to pay equality, with two leading co-stars of different genders being paid the same basic fee, but with the bigger star (usually the male) getting a percentage of the profits, or some kind of bonus to offset his lower upfront amount. At the end of the day, it really should be up to who's paying the bills. If you're employing two actors to do a job, shouldn't you be allowed to offer a higher amount to the one whom you believe will bring more to the project, to secure his or her services if that's what it takes? It's always been like that in the film industry, and any attempts to impose an artificial equality on what people are worth (regardless of their gender) aren't based on the realities of the situation.
Anyway, that's my view on the matter. Feel free to dispute it if you wish, but I warn you - if you do, I'll give you an intellectual kicking. (Hee hee - that should start things off.)