Working nine to five… what a way to make a living.
In 1980 Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda teamed up with the Dolly Parton in the hit film “9 to 5” and made life a living hell for their misogynistic on-screen boss.
Thirty-five years later and it appears not a whole lot has changed for women in the workforce and Tomlin, 75, and Fonda, 77, certainly aren’t going to stay quiet about it.
The pair who are currently starring in Netflix comedy ‘Grace and Frankie’ revealed at a recent press event that they are being paid the same as the male supporting actors in the show.
For the record, Tomlin and Fonda are the lead actors in the show which, in any other world, would mean they would be paid more.
The pair were pretty peeved about it, and they made that abundantly clear to a room full of media-types.
“[Tomlin] found out [Sam Waterston and Martin Sheen] are getting the same salary that we are,” Fonda said, of the actors who play their ex-husbands in the series. “That doesn’t make us happy.”
That’s despite Tomlin and Fonda being the, er, stars of the show, which means more screen time aka far more work.
“No. The show is not ‘Sol and Robert’—it’s ‘Grace and Frankie’.”
Turns out their fans were pretty angry as well and created an online petition to get our gals a pay rise.
“This just goes to show that gender pay disparity is everywhere,” the petition reads.
“But changes are being made incrementally in Hollywood. When Charlize Theron found out she was making less than her male counterpart in ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’ she demanded the difference be remedied and WON.”
Here’s hoping.
Want more on the wage-gap?
Salma Hayek has some kick-arse ideas about tackling sexism in Hollywood.
Jennifer Lawrence made Hollywood $1.4billion this year. But The Rock got paid more than she did.
What do the 9 highest paid actors in Hollywood have in common?
Top Comments
For the entertainment and sports industry, you are only as marketable as your pulling power. It's simply not like the rest of us on a set hourly wage in an office or factory and trying to make a direct comparison.
There are many dancers and singers better than Hugh Jackman (love his work by the way so no criticism here) however he has the ability to draw an audience if he is playing Wolverine in the movies or Peter Allen in theatre. His ability to get an audience is what matters. The backup dancers or special effects people do not make nearly as much money.
Similarly, a one set exhibition re-match between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova is going to draw more viewers than two players ranked in the hundreds playing three sets, even though the women or men ranked 100 and 101 would kick their butts.
True, but there is also a presumption that men have more pulling power than women. I personally am a big fan of Jane Fonda so that would make me watch more than if Martin Sheen was in the show. I think Martin Sheen is great, but I wouldn't switch the show on just for him, but for Jane Fonda I would. Of course others may feel the opposite, as everyone has different taste, but the problem is is that producers in paying women less are assuming that men have more pulling power than women, when I don't think they can make that assumption.
In paying women less they are jumping to the conclusion that everyone prefers to watch male stars than female ones, and really without evidence I don't think they can jump to that conclusion. Most likely it is complicated, some male stars may be much more popular than their female co-stars, but it could easily be the other way around also.
Interestingly enough in Hollywood's golden age the assumption was that they tried to make the movies more appealing to women (so often the female stars were considered the bigger draw card) because the thinking then was that women made the decisions as to what movie to go to, and men just went along, probably because in those days when social mores were policed, a lot of guys would tolerate any movie for the opportunity to be alone with their girl in a dark room.
The husbands roles are actually pretty big, after the first few episodes the show becomes more of an ensemble despite it's name.
I'm actually surprised Sheen isn't paid considerably more than the rest of the cast given he's the biggest 'get' for the show.
Sheen the biggest "get", that in itself is extreme sexism. I'm a huge fan of Jane Fonda, and I can tell you not only has she been Oscar nominated an amazing 7 times but she has actually won TWO best actress Oscars, a rare accomplishment for anyone.
I don't know as much about Martin Sheen's career, but I had a quick look at his Wikipedia page and according to that not only has he not won an Oscar but he hasn't even been nominated for one!
Of course Martin Sheen is a fine actor who has certainly done well in other festivals, but the Oscars are the pinnacle for any Hollywood star.
I'm not knocking Martin Sheen, he is an actor I also enjoy watching and should be proud of his accomplishments but there is no doubt to me that Jane Fonda is a much bigger "get".
I think Sheen possibly has been in more things in recent years than Fonda, but that's got a lot to do with the fact that there are more roles for aging screen gods than goddesses, but even so I'm struggling to think of many things Sheen has been in in recent years other than a guest appearance on his son Charlie's shows.