She's playing the main character in a beloved franchise and jewel of the BBC. Her getting paid as much as the last Doctor is common sense, same role-same pay. Why does her being a woman make any difference? It doesn't in any rational way, except to the pea-brained men in our society who are so easily threatened by women that they can't stand to see them do well or occupying some position that a man once had. I do understand that these specific men aren't that intelligent, deeply insecure about themselves and identity, and instead of blaming themselves for their lot in life blame women.
A problem that women have experienced for decades while working part time or flexibly. But now that it affects men, it's a travesty?
I agree in principle that equal work = equal pay. Similar qualifications and experience demand a level playing field, at least at a baseline. Two people with the same qualifications doing the same job and producing the same results should always mean equal pay.
Anecdotally, there are always exceptions. I personally know of an instance where a male was passed over for promotion in favor of a supposedly more qualified female who turned out to be massively unsuited for the job. By then it was too late. Until, that is, she took another position in another state, and the previously passed-over male was offered the job and over time undid the damage done. This is only one instance, most certainly not the rule, but it does happen. In both directions.
I had never heard of either Smith or Whittaker. Do you really think Whittaker has the same acting experience and caché as Capaldi?? I have no problem with her getting as much money as her agent could negotiate and there is both pressure and attention because she is the first female Doctor but surely she's not as established as Capaldi.
Your reasoning is pretty flimsy. Why not just not pay anyone then?
That's funny!
