"Prediction is difficult, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Question #92682 posted on 10/17/2019 10:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Emma Watson, famous for her role in the Harry Potter movies, recently became a spokeswoman for “HeForShe,” a campaign to invite men to support feminism. In her address to the UN she said that “I think that it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts.” At first glance this seems fair and equitable —equal pay for equal work—but then I thought about what that would mean in practice. It is not unusual in a movie for either the male lead or the female lead to be a much bigger box office draw than their counterpart. Let’s say Emma Watson will bring in a hundred million fans just because she is in the film, but her male counterpart will bring in only ten million fans. Should the superstar, who may contribute ten times as much as the counterpart to the economic success of the film really earn the same?

So, do you agree with Emma Watson that she should be paid the same as her male counterparts, or should she be paid according to the amount she earns for her employer as determined by the employer?

-Pat

A:

Dear Pat,

Sure, if a male actor is far more popular and is going to make the movie more popular, it would make sense that he would get paid more, right? So like, I would assume that Kristen Bell and Ted Danson are getting paid more on The Good Place than the 4 'baby actors' (they've used that term themselves) because Kristen and Ted are more famous and more high profile and likely bring in more revenue for the show. Does that bother me? No. But if they, as the two main white actors in the show, were getting paid more simply because they were white, then I would have an issue. 

So, Daniel Radcliffe making more money from the Harry Potter movies than Emma makes sense to me, and I don't have any beef about it. Lead roles and more famous actors deserve their pay. 

However, a lot of times that's not how it happens. I mean, just recently Adele Lim, a co-writer for Crazy Rich Asians left because her pay offer was (reportedly) about $110,000, while her white male counterpart, Peter Chiarelli, was offered $800,000 for the same job. Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pay Peter more. He's not particularly a more experienced writer, plus Crazy Rich Asians is a story about a rich Asian woman. Do you really think Chiarelli's work on that project is more valuable? Almost definitely not. And there are plenty of other significant women and minorities that have left projects based on pay gaps that aren't as justifiable as if it was just about 'popularity'. 

Sometimes things are really complicated too. The women's US soccer team is a better team, but as this really interesting article helps lay out, figuring out how big the pay gap between the men's and women's teams is hard because exactly measuring the worth of a person and how much money they're bringing in is an exceptionally complex, perhaps an impossible task. Often, the very structure and organization of the system make it harder to parse out who deserves to be paid more. 

So, say there's a movie where a woman - let's say someone like Jennifer Lawrence - is the lead role. Her male co-star, maybe... Zac Efron, why not, is getting paid less than her because his role is less significant in this film. However, the difference in pay raises an eyebrow, because the ratio of pay increase doesn't make a lot of sense. JLaw is making more, but not that much more, relative to her popularity as an actress and the importance of the lead role. So, while she is objectively making more money, it's clear that Efron's work is more valued because he's getting paid at a higher rate for a less significant role (and, I'd have to argue that Efron isn't going to "bring in as much revenue" as JLaw.) But that's pretty hard to prove, it's hard to tease out, and it's hard to use as convincing evidence to the "THE WAGE GAP IS FAKE" crowd (newsflash, the evidence says they're wrong.) 

Relying on employers to "determine the monetary value" of an actor has some inherently flawed assumptions. I mean, when you ask this question, you need to wonder why we are so androcentric as a culture.  Why are, in general, men's jobs better paid and more valued than women's jobs? Or, if women are working in the same job as a man, why are they often perceived as less competent? A little while ago, this video with good ol' Benny Shapiro and the Daily Wire showed a discourse about how 'female comedians aren't as funny, and if they are funny it's only because they're imitating men. Humor is a masculine trait' which is bogus and incredibly sexist. But, the evidence does seem to suggest that the work that men do is valued higher than women's - in medical fields, in academia, in artistic work, in professional spaces, in economics, in business (Why are secretaries, who do ALL of the grunt work for CEOs so easily made fun of, undervalued, and stereotypically overworked?), and in general (Teaching is a majorly female profession, and it deserves much higher value and wages than it gets). 

The wage gap is bigger than acting, and it's bigger than Emma Watson. It's about the devaluation on a broader scale of women's work in the same fields as men. It's systematic and institutional, and I don't think we can count on institutions to equally value men and women unless we talk about it and fight for equality. 

It's also important to keep in mind that Watson isn't just advocating for equality because she's trying to convince you that she deserves to be paid equally. Money is not something that she's worried about. She is using her privilege to speak up for the people who don't have as much power to make a difference as her, the people in smaller acting jobs where it has a lot less to do with whether Daniel Radcliffe is bringing in more money or if Emma Watson is. 

I think what's happening here is that you're misunderstanding the use of the word equality as a social science term, creating an easy way to debase her argument. I believe she's not talking about equality of outcome, but equality of condition. 

So here's what I'll tell you. I do think that people deserved to be paid according to their value. And that's what Watson is fighting for too - it's not about equal across the board. As an actor, she knows that supporting roles will make less than lead roles. It's about equal value, that a female lead role deserves to be valued just as much as a male lead role. And that is something that certainly is worth fighting for. 

Hope this answers your question, at least to some degree. 

Cheers, 

Guesthouse


0 Corrections
Question #92702 posted on 10/17/2019 6:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm attending the salt lake temple this week for my first time before it closes for renovations. I have a few questions for those who have experience with this temple:

What's the cafeteria like? Is it good? How do I get there?

Has anyone had any luck "exploring" the temple? Is there anything inside that I should try to see?

Any other tips for this temple?

-My Name Here

A:

Dear you,

I mean, the cafeteria is fine, I wouldn't say it's great, but it's not bad. I can't remember how to get to it, but if you ask any temple worker, I'm sure they'll be able to help you.

The temple is beautiful. In my opinion, the rooms where the endowment takes place are the most beautiful, especially the celestial room. Honestly, the architecture and layout of the celestial room in SLC temple is what I think you should try and see the most.

~Anathema

A:

Dear you,

I've never eaten in the cafeteria so *shrugs*.

There's a number of sealing rooms off of the celestial room that are beautiful. Probably don't open doors that are closed, but feel free to explore open rooms because the worst that will happen is a temple worker will ask you to leave. Going through all open doorways in the celestial room, and admiring all the sealing rooms beyond them, is the most exploring I've done.

I'm sure if you ask a temple worker, specifically mentioning wanting to see more of the temple before it undergoes renovations, they'd be willing to help you see more of the temple.

Make sure you look around at all the walls and ceilings in each room, because the SLC temple is truly a work of art.

-guppy of doom


0 Corrections
Question #92700 posted on 10/17/2019 3:54 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Does anyone know of any cheap wedding venues? Like under $1200 cheap. It turns out they can get expensive, so if any of you know something we'd really appreciate the help!

-Wedding on a Budget

A:

Dear Penny Pincher (Hey same!) 

I have some! For starters, It's much cheaper to do a weekday, so if you can pull off renting a venue on a Thursday night, you should go for it. One venue I found was Willow Springs in Springville. The weekends are still a little pricey, but acceptable. There's also the Copper Creek Event Center, which offers their Garden Room on the weekends for $699 (4pm-10pm). 

Generally, I've found that looking online can yield some decent results. It just takes a little bit of digging. 

Also, don't hate on using a church building/cultural hall for free. If you play your cards right, you can spend WAY less money on decorations making it look cute than you would paying for a venue. Just keep that in mind. 

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

A:

Dear wedding bells,

People's backyards. I've seen a few weddings/receptions done in nice backyards that have been decorated to look beautiful. See if you have any friends or family friends who have a nice house and backyard.

Also if you want more wedding tips in your next question let us know where/when you're getting married! Guesthouse and I are currently planning our individual weddings so I'm sure we'll have a ton of tips (and we'll also enjoy someone to commiserate with).

-guppy of doom


0 Corrections
Question #92695 posted on 10/17/2019 3:53 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What's a philosophy or point of view that you have recently changed?

-Pensive Pete

A:

Dear Pete,

Can I tell you a story or two? It’s not strictly necessary, but I feel like it might provide some good context. If you’re in a hurry, skip to the end. I promise I won’t know.

Part 1, in Which Josefina Becomes Weirdly Nostalgic for Her Non-Existent Small Town Upbringing

A few weeks ago, I was hanging out (read: pretending to do homework) with two good friends of mine. One of these friends put on country music to play in the background. Dear reader, one thing that you should know about me is that I am really not a fan of country. I’ve had enough people try and convert me, though, that I finally asked these two country-lovin’ kids exactly what the appeal was.

In response, they took turns telling me about some of their most significant life experiences and which country songs they associated with each. A few of the songs described their youth to a T, but even the ones that didn't were able to remind them of their time growing up through the good values and emotions that they expressed. My friends told me that there is a country song for every situation, so there is a lot of nostalgia associated with the genre. It was really impactful to hear their stories as told through music. It was a great and unexpected conversation; there were tears involved.

By the end of that conversation, I realized that I might not love the sound of country, but I can respect country music for what it does for people. And I might even be coming around to a couple of the less twangy songs (SSSHHHHHHH. Do not tell my friends yet, please. This is going to take some personal rebranding, and I appreciate your respect as I navigate this trying time.)

Part 2, in Which Josefina (Kind Of) Stops Being a Snob About Sports

Another thing I’ve never really been able to relate to is the fandom surrounding sports. I didn't grow up watching most sports, so I’ve always shied away from it a little bit. I just didn’t understand what was so exciting about some guys throwing a ball around. I am ashamed to admit that I may have felt a little above the whole thing.

But, a few months ago, I watched a video by John Green called “On Sharing The Walk” that changed my perspective. In that video, he describes why he feels so passionately about soccer:

“Sports are about winning and losing, heartbreak and joy, grief and celebration. They provide simple narratives when life only provides complicated ones. But more than that, I think they are about celebrating together, and grieving together, and being together. Sports remind us that what we have is not as important as what we share, and that we are never truly alone, not in loss and not in victory.”

And suddenly, I understood the appeal. I can get behind the silliness and hype when I understand the community that it offers. I love that same aspect of many of my own weird obsessions. Communities hold us together, even though those communities may look very different from one another. (A similar sense of community is actually one of the things that initially attracted me to the 100 Hour Board. It has its own mini-culture, and inside jokes, and I loved the respect and even camaraderie that I saw between writers.) So, I've recently recruited my friends to help me understand football. I've even been watching some Sunday night games with them, whenever I can. Trying to follow a football game still feels a little bit like I'm a first-semester language student trying to follow a conversation between native speakers, but I'm getting there.

Part 3, in Which Josefina Finally Gets to Her Point

So, those are the perspectives that I’ve changed: I have never liked country music, or been able to relate to football fans, and now I am one step closer to Getting It. But I think those two things are indicative of something that I need to remember going forward: as it turns out, people generally have good reason for what they do. If I haven’t seen the appeal of something popular, it’s very possible that I just haven’t been paying much attention. This is not to say that it’s always best to just go with the crowd, but it is worth at least looking into things to see what all the commotion’s about.

I apologize for the novel, but this question got me thinking. Also, I didn’t feel like doing my homework.

Best,

Josefina

A:

Dear Pete,

So for my first few years of college I was all about doing all the things. I felt like it would be the best way to get experience, build a resume, have fun, and make the most of college. 

For a while that was true, but then suddenly I was doing too many things. Furthermore, my involvement in the things grew. As a sophmore/freshman I'd switch clubs/activities every few weeks, but now that I had several things I was more involved with I couldn't drop them all as easily because I had commitments to others. I'm involved in too many things to do any of them at the level I want to do them with.

Now I believe it's best to do 1-2 things you really enjoy and put a lot of effort into them. And now I am in the process of dropping things until I reach that point.

Peace,

Tipperary

A:

Dear you,

Integration into existing teams with one or two people having a specific specialization may be better than forming multiple teams with distinct specializations.

~Anathema

A:

Dear friend, 

Comic Sans, actually! I used to be a huge font snob, but I learned that comic sans is a really helpful font for people with dyslexia (or other types of impairments that might make reading hard) and since then I've decided to acknowledge my abled privilege and stop being so whiny about something that really shouldn't matter that much to me. I think it probably shouldn't still be used in professional graphic design, but for things like my Relief Society newsletter? Totally acceptable. I'm glad to help ensure that others have opportunities to learn better. 

Also, the doctrine on Heavenly Mother. I follow an awesome account on Instagram that has been debunking myths about Her and also this week my Foundations of the Restoration professor said that the idea that She is too sacred to learn about or talk about is a myth that was created by the cultural body of the church and is not a claim supported by doctrine so if we feel like we need to better our relationship with Her we should totally do it. I've never understood that, so this really awakened my soul and I've been trying to learn more about the divine feminine and get in touch with Her love and honestly it has changed everything for me. I'm so glad they changed the young women's theme to say "a beloved daughter of Heavenly Parents" instead of just Heavenly Father. I can't wait to learn more.

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

A:

Dear Thoughtful Todd,

It's okay to take time for yourself and be gentle on yourself when you're experiencing depression or anxiety. I used to be the kind to keep pushing myself, and so a few months ago when I experienced extreme depression and anxiety I kept beating myself up for, say, crying uncontrollably because I was so anxious about going outside. Turns out these emotions were side effects of my birth control. It's taken a few months and I'm mostly back to normal (besides the odd day of depression, anxiety, and feeling nauseous), and I've realized that I need to be gentle with myself when I'm going through those emotions. While the depression and anxiety don't usually last more than two days, the way I treat myself in that time (such as telling myself I'm a horrible human for being unable to go outside) can negatively impact how I view myself, and that's never good.

Also flu shots. I've never gotten the flu shot and thought I would never need it, until I got the flu two weeks ago and am still sick. Everyone, get your flu shot. The flu sucks.

-guppy of doom


0 Corrections
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Question #92701 posted on 10/16/2019 11:06 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Does Siri still randomly turn on and listen/record things if Siri is turned off on your phone? I hear that Apple has recordings of private conversations, people sleeping together, and other such things because phones are designed to randomly turn on and record for "quality control."

Thanks,
suspicious

A:

Dear wary werf,

I assume you’re talking about this report from July, which describes Apple’s quality control program for Siri. According to the article, Apple used to sample recordings from people’s interactions with Siri and have contractors review them in order to record data about the quality of those interactions. Of course, it is exceptionally easy to inadvertently trigger Siri, so this program had some awkward results (as you mentioned) when recordings of people living their daily lives were sent to Apple to review. Even worse, Apple hadn't really disclosed to their customers that there was a potential for their Siri recordings to be placed on Apple servers and listened to by non-employees. Once the report came out about this program, Apple responded to the situation by suspending the program and issuing an apology.

Now, according to Apple Insider, they have reinstated the program, with some changes for privacy on the new beta for iOS 13.2:

“At the end of August, Apple completed its review and confirmed changes would be made, including the option to opt in for audio sample analysis, a process that could be opted out from at any time, and that only Apple employees would be allowed to listen to the samples. Apple would also no longer retain audio recordings of Siri interactions in favor of using computer-generated transcripts to improve Siri, and would also "work to delete" any recording which is determined to be an inadvertent trigger of Siri.”

If you’re worried about privacy and want to ensure that Apple isn't currently storing any recordings from your phone, here’s a helpful article from the Verge that shows you how to delete your recordings.

Best,

Josefina


0 Corrections