Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
Although Deepika has a “Padukone” in her name, she has made her own mark in one of the most idolized industries in India. The bollywood. Not only did she show her acting artistry in Hindi movies, but her forays into non-Hindi movies like Kalki cement her stardom as one of India’s premier actresses. Then, it is safe and fair to start with an assumption that Deepika Padukone is a PAN India star. QUESTIONS: So, what is all about her recent exit from Spirit movie helmed by Sandeep Reddy Vanda (director of the recent Animal movie)? What does it say about Deepika? What does it say about Sandeep Reddy Vanga? Is it a big deal? Or not? Before we get consumed by whatever may be happening in Indian media, let us try to zoom out a bit and try to make some objective observations out of it.
Since the endeavor, i.e., the movie in focus, involves a female actor who seemed (bear with me for now) to have been subjected to unfairness, let us take an example of another industry that anyone reading this can understand. Our IT industry. Let us take a multinational company where the company is helmed by not one but two CEOs. A female CEO and a male CEO. Like a movie, where a producer sets out the success criteria, there shall surely be objectives set out by a company’s stakeholders or investors. This is nothing but the bottom line of the company’s Profit & Loss statement, similar to a movie’s profits/earnings. This is nothing but the Return of investment on the monies risked by the investors. For fairness, let us assume that the female CEO as well as the male CEO are 30 years of age. Both have completed graduations from the same college, in the same year, in the same discipline, both started off their careers from this company where they now are CEOs. In more fairness, let us assume that they became CEOs on the same day. Let us also assume that both get the same salary and monetary benefits, and both put in the same amount of hours day in and day out. Now, let us consider that the female CEO just found out that she is pregnant and decides to take a maternity leave. The company gives her a break, without any loss of pay, while her duties are being taken over by an interim CEO, who is not as skilled as her. She comes back, takes up her role again but decides to reduce her weekly work schedule by a meager 2 hours a day, which is 8 hours in a 5 day week. Again, the company out of respect to her, allow this without any loss of pay. While all things being equal, the male CEO’s output is more by 8 hours than the female CEO. And output here translates to the company’s profit and loss. What are we, as outsiders, to make out of this situation? If we were one of the investors, do we continue to advocate for equal pay for both the CEOs? Or do we compensate them proportionally based on their relative outputs? Let us take some more examples before we try to answer the QUESTIONS posed in the first paragraph of this article.
USA’s NBA is the 3rd most lucrative sporting league in the world, followed by our IPL. (https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/kenya/most-profitable-sports-leagues-in-the-world-with-revenues/ar-AA1yJq8q). Can we guess whether the male leagues of the female leagues make the most of a year’s revenues? What if we apply the same question to IPL, assuming we have a female IPL? Let me flip this around. Which models can we guess get the most money? Female models or the male models? Which nurses make the most money? Female or Male? Let me come back to the topic so as not to bore the reader. Which movies have made the most profits? Female lead or male lead? And now the questions. What does all of this say about the owners of NBA, IPL, Modelling company, and movie industry? Are they unfair and misogynist in the case of NBA, IPL, or movies industry? Are they unfair and philogynist in the case of the modelling industry? Would they be termed as fair, non-misogynistic, non-philogynist if they paid the same salary (equal pay) and gave the same benefits to both males and females, everything else being equal, i.e., their skill, number of work hours, experience, etc? Let us for a moment assume that this does not make sense. Then, why not? Read on.
Isn’t it because whoever produces more (for a company), attracts more (to stadiums), attracts more viewers (for modelling) , gets more money and benefits? But hold on. This is unfair. Why should the female CEO be penalized just because she has become a mother and decides to spend some time with her children? Why should the male model be paid less just because he does not invoke just as equal or more sensual feelings that of a female, from the world populus? At the heart of all of this is the fact that biologically male and females are different, even if they are the same intellectually, and this may mean differences in interests, skills, priorities, etc.. There are also well known studies that throw light on these aspects. (https://emilgrom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj25671/files/media/file/wage5-equalpayequalwork.pdf).
If Deepika did, she should not be wronged to ask for more and to drop out of a movie. If Sandeep Reddy Vanga did, he should not be wronged either not for compensating her the same as the male star of his produced movie. Whether I like it or not, whether I am a male or female, free market economies are but a reflection of the choices each one makes in their lives.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.