See my response above. We can talk 'til we're blue in the face about this example or that example, but women are consistently paid less than men in this industry, because this industry consistently devalues women, a handful of exceptions aside. Your argument seems to acknowledge that, while also wanting to say that this has no bearing on the situation here, while also acknowledging that if the play were done today the situation would be different, which feels like a torturous amount of acrobatics to deny the basic reality that film, TV, and theater have gotten away with paying women less for time immemorial.
Is gender the *only* explanation for why she was offered half? Probably not. But to say it doesn't exist at all is irresponsible. |
