Me: Hola, Chicka. You just gave what some retards are calling “an impassioned speech” at the wishful-thinkingly-named Variety’s Power of Women event in Beverly Hills on Friday, did you not.
Ms. Hayek: Si.
Me: In this speech, you whined about Hollywood not hiring any women over the age of 30, correct?
Ms. Hayek: Yes, it is a serious problem.
Me: A “serious” problem, like genital mutilation or Islamic marriage laws?
Ms. Hayek: No comment.
Me: We'll come back to the 30 year old thing. In the meantime, in your speech, which I’m assuming you wrote... you did write it, right? I mean, actors are pretty stupid people and rich people rarely do their own work because it's easier to hire a team of writers. So did you actually write this “impassioned speech” on your own?
Ms. Hayek: No comment.
Me: Thought not. Moving along, you did marry a billionaire, right?
Ms. Hayek: Oh si. Francois Pinault.
Me: And no doubt he married you for your personality, right? I mean, he wasn’t looking for a hot young thing, right? You were both looking for some normal mate of average looks and income when from out of the blue, you just happened to meet this super rich guy who married you despite your looks, right? I mean, come on, we would never want to assume that you used your looks to get ahead in life. That would be horribly hypocritical since you're complaining about Hollywood rewarding actresses for their looks.
Ms. Hayek: Exactly. I would never do that. We are both very average, at least for people on the “Sexiest Woman Alive” list and the “Richest Man Alive” list.
Me: Glad to hear it. So before you married Mr. Average, you began your career as an actress, correct? I believe your first couple movies were Mexican crap and then you made Desperado with Antonia Banderas and Robert Rodriguez, correct?
Ms. Hayek: Yes.
Me: And did Robert cast you for your acting talent or because you were young and hot as f**k? Be honest now.
Ms. Hayek: It was because I was young and hot.
Me: And in that movie, did you give impassioned speeches or dramatic turns, or were you basically just flashing your T&A?
Ms. Hayek: Uh, T&A.
Me: That pattern kind of continued, didn’t it? I mean, weren’t you basically hired as eye candy? Have you seen yourself in From Dusk Til Dawn? Good Dios, woman!
Ms. Hayek: What’s your point?
Me: Well, my point is this. Isn’t it hypocritical that you got into the industry based entirely on looks rather than talent, that you continued to exploit your looks until you were well established and could then do a movie like Frida which no one cares about, and then you married a billionaire based entirely on him having a mahogany (rich version of a “woody”) for the hot chicka he saw on film... and now you’re whining that it's unfair that other women are getting all the roles because they are young and hot? I mean, didn’t it bother you when you were young and hot that a lot of good actresses weren’t getting jobs because you were taking them just because you were hot? Isn't that like a bully whining about bullying after they run across a bigger bully?
Ms. Hayek: No comment.
Me: So when you were young and hot, you were cool with the system working for you. But now that you’re older, you want to change the system so it works for you again? Tell me, do you also want to help ugly actresses or just ex-hot actresses? Hollywood only allows one fat chick at a time, are you planning to change that? Or is this just about women already in the system?
Ms. Hayek: No comment.
Me: In your speech, you said that women represent 66% of the workforce, but only get 10% of the income of the world. Did you pull that out of your curvy ass? I mean the world is roughly 50% to 49% male to female, and in many countries, women don’t really work. So where do you get the workforce figure? It doesn't seem mathematically possible.
Ms. Hayek: No hablo Ingles
Me: And this idea that women only get 10% of the income, how does that work? I mean, the gender gap in the US is supposedly 77 cents to a dollar. In Europe it’s about the same, and the US and Europe account for like 90% of world income. Moreover, in a World Economic Forum report a few years ago, even the worst sh*tholes in the world weren’t worse than 45 cents to the dollar. So uh, it’s frankly impossible to come anywhere near the figure you quote.
Ms. Hayek: No hablo Ingles
Me: Yeah, I didn’t think so. How do you say liar in Mexican?
Ms. Hayek: //silence
Me: Oh, let us continue. Now you, Oprah, Beyonce and the fashion brand Gucci have created something called “Chime for Change,” and you claim this group has “[i]n only two years... we have affected 3 million families and communities.” You say you’ve done this by “empowering women and girls the world over with education, health and justice." More specifically, you say you’ve benefited 400,000 girls and women around the world by raising over $7.3 million dollars! Yay!
Ms. Hayek: Isn’t it amazing?
Me: Yes, it is, but probably not in the way you think. First, I have to ask, how can you “affect 3 million families” but only benefit 400,000 girls? Those numbers don’t really work together do they?
Ms. Hayek: No hablo Ingles
Me: Moreover, if we divide this $7.3 million into the numbers you’ve given... and we count only the 400,000 “benefited” rather than the 3 million “affected,” then you are talking about spending a little less than $20 per girl. Does that sound like you’ve done much of anything? That’s the cost of two movie tickets to see one of your films.
Ms. Hayek: No hablo Ingles
Me: And that’s before you take your cut for “expenses,” am I right?
Ms. Hayek: geegle geegle Si. I mean, No hablo Ingles!!
Me: Interestingly, you’ve earned an estimate $85 million over your career... a tad more than the ugly fat girls seeing your movie who need to work at McDonalds because Hollywood won’t hire them—
Ms. Hayek: Is there a question there?
Me: Not in your mind apparently. Anyways, you’ve made $85 million. Your hubby is worth $15 billion. His company makes about $1.5 billion a year in profit (about $4 million a day). Oprah is worth $3 billion. And all you’ve raised in $7.3 million? I’ll bet that mostly came from women who have to save to see your films too, doesn’t it?
Ms. Hayek: I am only trying to help the world!
Me: No, you used the system to get filthy rich and now you’re trying to use that wealth to force that same system to keep giving you favors. You are a hypocrite who has never once cared about non-hot and young women until you fell into their ranks. What’s more, you hide behind a foundation that has less money than you and your friends make in a single day and you use obviously fake statistics to justify the existence of this pittance of a foundation in the hopes being able to delude yourself into thinking that you have changed the world, when all you are really doing is whining about first world problems.
Ms. Hayek: I am saving the world. “We are not going away at 30! They cannot ignore us anymore.”
Me: I'm glad you brought that up again. You turned 30 in 1996. You made 40 of your 49 films after that. In fact, you made at least one film every year between 1996 and the present except for 2005 and 2008. So can you really say that your career ended when you turned 30?
Ms. Hayek: I am an activist!
Me: No, you are an actor. You spend your life acting out the form, but not the substance of events that are inherently more interesting than yourself... much like you are doing now.
Ms. Hayek: You must hate women!
Me: No, just frauds.
Thoughts?
24 comments:
She could bring fritos and bean dip to bed and I'd still have carnal knowledge of her.
Did she say that she's an activist or a contortionist?
LL, Did she say that she's an activist or a contortionist?
Is there a difference? ;-)
For the record, she's still gorgeous at 40-whatever she is, but I find the whole idea that not hiring actresses over 30 is a serious problem to be the ultimate in whining... especially from someone who benefited from the system and then made the majority of her career after turning 30. This is extreme first-world victim-wannabeing.
I thought it was impolite to ask a woman her age?
Only after 30 apparently.
Bev, This is the kind of stuff that I think sets back the whole idea of equality. Equality comes when legitimate grievances are settled and everyone else stops caring. This doesn't do that. This creates illegitimate grievances. This is about hypocrisy, it's about helping a specific subset of women only without helping the women they don't like, it's about using fake data/lies to back up their grievance. This is discrediting and it create and unfixable gulf.
We both know where this is going, but...
...if an actress sees a problem in the world and tries to do something about it, she's "just another Hollyweird librul" who should mind her own business...
...but if an actress tries to fix a problem in her own house, so to speak, she's branded a hypocrite?
I'm NOT excusing her numbers or any factual errors here but she's also hardly the first actress to point out that roles for women over a certain age tend to be few and far between... or at least certain types of roles. It helps that she's still hot as hell, but we both know the industry has a few problems.
I figured you'd be somewhat happy that a performer was actually trying to do something about their own industry, as opposed to one they know nothing about.
And believe me, there are also plenty of SJW types who whine about things like "whitewashing" where all I can do is roll my eyes. But then maybe I'm the hypocrite for caring about one person's criticism but not another person's criticism?
You've missed the point Scott. Some points...
1. Hayek and every other woman on stage with her whined about this over 30 thing, yet each one of them had a bigger career AFTER turning 30 and continues to headline movies today. So is there really a problem or are they just whining about their fading stars? Keep in mind, the same thing happens to men... you expire after a decade or so as an actor when the new thing comes along.
2. She does not say she is trying to fix a problem that she sees, she wraps herself in the victim cloak and claims she's trying to fix a problem that has afflicted her. That's like pretending to be poor when you aren't.
3. She exploited the very loophole of which she complains. That loophole kept out qualified actresses so that sexy women could take their place. She is not complaining about that actually -- she doesn't care about the women kept out -- she is complaining that the loophole didn't guarantee her longevity beyond the point where she ceased to be the hot new thang. So how is this "for women"? It's really for former-hot chicks.
3. The statistics she uses to justify her cause are utter, utter bullshit. If your cause is just then you don't need to lie to invent a crisis to justify it.
4. While she talks about all the help "she" has done, the reality is that she donated less than a single day's pay toward that cause -- if she even donated anything. Does that seem like someone who is genuinely invested and who can lecture the rest of us? Or is that just marketing?
This has been an "issue" in the movie industry fo generations. My answer to the whiners about not enough roles for women, not enough roles for older women, etc. has always been "if you don't like it, stop whining and write, direct, and produce your own movies."
In a sort of related point, Hillary is whining today about the double standard in politics. Apparently, women need to be "strong and vulnerable" at the same time and that's really hard to fake.
Hmm. "Vulnerable" is not a word I would ever have used for Margaret Thatcher... or Gold Meir or Indira Gandhi or Angela Merkl or really any other woman who excelled in politics.
Moreover, in the touchy-feely world of the modern left, men are supposed to be strong but vulnerable too. That's why they all go cry on Oprah to show off their wussy sides. So where's the double standard, Hillary?
Bev, That's the other great point here. These women are bursting at the seams with cash, influence and the right friends. If they think there is a better way, then do it yourself... don't whine that "somebody needs to do something!"
Actually, I'm with Andrew here. This is a made up issue with Hollywood not a real one. Yes, if you are young and hot it will get a break to get started over old and fat (unless you are a Clinton). However, you will not have staying power unless you have or develop some other talent and you are a box office draw. There are plenty of women, most very good actors, who have had a long career.
Andrew -
Like I said in my last e-mail, apparently I need to start staying the hell away from the comments on the politics site. :-)
Nah, Scott! We need you here to challenge us! ;-D
While it may be a bit much to constantly be seeing women in movies kicking ass all over the place -- or at least as repetitive as Liam Neeson's on-screen character(s) perpetually warning everyone he's the wrong niggah to F wit' -- I'd say now more than ever is a great time for older women in movies. From the over-30s but not quite 40s Anne Hathaway. Marion Cotillard recently turned 40. Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Helen Mirren in many, many kick-ass (sometimes literally) roles. The entire cast of the new Ghostbusters is over 30 (sure, one just barely) fercryinoutloud.
Yup, Ms. Hayek, you're really cutting to the core with real world problems alright.
"Hmm. "Vulnerable" is not a word I would ever have used for Margaret Thatcher... or Gold Meir or Indira Gandhi or Angela Merkl or really any other woman who excelled in politics."
Or Elizabeth I or Deborah from the Bible or Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians.
By the way, can anyone imagine Hillary giving a speech that would be anything close to this speech made by Thatcher when she was Leader of the Opposition?
LINK.
I just got home and checked the site. I understand that there is some kind of an interview attached. I'll read it later. Thanks so much for the picture!
GypsyTyger
I would also add Norway's Prime Minister Erna Solberg as well as American politicians Kelly Ayotte and Nikki Haley and current candidate Carly Fiorina. I'll even toss in Michelle Bachmann.
Each managed to come across as more likable than Hillary.
Also, it is not about being "vulnerable", its about not coming across as arrogant.
Sorry I've been out today... my water heater decided to rape my budget. :(
Koshcat, That's exactly right. There are many successful female actresses well above the age of 30, and they tend to be the ones who can give you very strong, believable performance. Eye candy only women don't last.
Scott, I'm glad you contribute. :) But in instances like this, I really have no mercy for the idea that they mean well. This stuff causes problems and it does so wrongly.
Eric, This is such a "first world" problem! And you are right, there is a great list of over-30 actresses who are doing great things. Let me add Charlize Theron, Cameron Diaz, Uma Thurman, Maggie Gyllenhal, and the slew of "old" women on TV shows like Law and Order and Game of Thrones, etc.
I do believe Hollywood favors men because men are a bigger draw, but these women show that women over 30 do very well in Hollywood today.
GypsyTyger, You are welcome. LOL!
Kit, Exactly. Women of power and achievement don't worry about ticking emotional boxes in how they present themselves. That's for people like Hillary who are only faking it.
Post a Comment