I gather that Claire Foy (whoever she is) was recently paid less than Matt Smith (whoever he is) for appearing in “The Crown”.

Whatever that is.

No doubt a tidal wave of feminist outrage is sweeping towards us even as I type, with various wimmin demanding to know why women are paid less than men “for doing the same job!”

Well…………maybe Claire Foy is a less well-known actor?

Or we could wonder whether Matt Smith had other offers and she didn’t, when their roles were offered?

We could even just ask why she (or her agent) didn’t simply ……….ask for more money?

No wait – maybe he should have demanded less, like a reverse Oliver Twist?

You know…………..to save her the trouble. And so it was fair.

Perhaps she thought that the role would place her well for other roles – presumably sometimes actors accept a lower fee to perform a role that gives them good exposure and might lead to other more lucrative work later?


Perhaps one day a feminist will accept that in many jobs in society, your freedom to negotiate is quite significant. You can ask for more money, or more leave, or shorter hours, or easier conditions, or bonuses, or the key to the executive washroom, or a neon pink Porsche, or a statue of Charlton Heston. Or Switzerland.

You are FREE – free as a bird.

Free to say no when they fail to agree to your perfectly reasonable demand for a private Bat-tunnel to be carved through the bedrock separating your garage at home from your new office car park.

Just as the prospective employer is free to tell you that no, you cannot have the bedrock tunnel, but he will agree to a subsidised rail pass.


Surely that’s what we’re after, isn’t it? Surely we are not being told that if a man demands more, the woman should then get the same automatically?

If Matt Smith’s agent had done a great job and got him an extra million quid, Claire Foy should have just been told by her agent “Great news Claire – I got the most money I could for you given the role and what they felt you were going to bring to it, but luckily Matt Smith’s agent bargained hard (risking them giving the role to Christopher Biggins instead) and now they have to pay you the same! Ker-ching!”?

Men have to do women’s pay negotiating for them now?

Can I suggest that woman are responsible for negotiating their own pay and conditions, just as men have always been?

The alternative of course is that women realise that they never need to negotiate at all – just wait for some bloke to get a pay rise and then all demand parity.

Send him in to do your dirty work for you.

Doesn’t sound very “empowering” though, right?

Support Continental Telegraph Donate


  1. One of the rarer arguments against raising the minimum wage, and against Obama’s campaigns against worker exploitation (such as student interns at the baseball stadium working for course credit) was that these policies deny novices the option of working for less/free to get a foot in the door, one of many ways that government activism “kicks the lower rungs off the employment ladder.”

    If California, true to form, were to legislate that actresses be “paid the same for the same work,” Nevada would beckon, and movie studios would consider daily charter flights for its actors a bargain compared to inspection and litigation.

  2. If it were that the pay gap resulted from discrimination by employers then this might be a solution. I would still oppose it simply because I’m like that but fining people who discriminate illegally does have a certain effectiveness to it. The problem with this solution is that it is already illegal to pay people different amounts for the same job based upon their gender. This also isn’t a problem in UK society – even the varied court cases wending their way through the system are based upon the idea of similar work, not the same.

  3. I don’t know why we can’t just acknowledge that there is a widespread unfair bias towards tall, light-skinned men who don’t go bald, and that _everyone_ else is getting screwed by that to a greater or lesser extent.

    “There were 681,000 men earning £100,000 or more in 2015-16, according to new HMRC data. It compares with only 179,000 women. The latest figures show that 17,000 men earned £1m in 2015-16, while only 2,000 women did so.”

    • Dave wrote it two days earlier on a different thread. A poster using the name of Diogenes did a similar copypaste today with one of my replies of two days ago. Allowing forgery is a problem with the software.

    • If you think there is only one individual motivated to wreck a new website, you have not been an Admin of a wiki. There is an entire website of kids exchanging ways and places to do so just for the Lulz. On the other hand, if it is still one of Murphy’s little brown-nosers, he might do so in many ways, including forgery and name-calling, as it beats achieving. Unfortunately, acknowledging them, trying to engage them, showing them they are getting under people’s skin, or giving them notoriety, are all rewards.

  4. The concept of starting an equal pay campaign based on comparing the earnings (or perhaps in this case per sitting rates) of male v female models sounds like a good un. Hilarious.

    Spludge and imposters. Where’s my AR15?

  5. You’ve never heard of Matt Smith? Admittedly he did disappear for a while after Manic Miner and Jet Set Willy leaving Flesh Eating Chickens from Mars unfinished, but such such creativeness behind him he deserves every penny of what’s paid to him.

  6. You ready for who the real vicitim is here?

    Claire Foy.

    ‘Now that Claire Foy has become much more famous on the back of The Crown‘s success, she’ll be able to earn a lot more money for her future roles: that’s how show business works.’ – Delingpole

    No. Foy has been fvcked over by Kathy Newman and her gal pals. Foy, through no actions of her own, is now perceived as complaining about her pay. Newman has triggered the denouement of Foy’s career.

    Foy is just a tool for these social justice harpies. They don’t care about her; they care about their cause.