I edited my initial post. I think people are too quick to either assume what's motivating people or at least say it out loud to increase leverage / generate outrage.

Let's not speculate. Or assume. Or lecture. That's precisely the problem here. We have no idea what the numbers are, what they were based on, what back channel communications occurred prior to negotiations, and frankly what the gender was of those negotiating. I also don't see how someone is thought of as a…

No idea why they offered her less to begin with. Presumably thought they could get away with it—the same way everyone's boss thinks they can get away with paying us less than infinity. It's how jobs work. They're not greedy for trying to pay us no more than what it takes to keep us, and we're not greedy for…

Why are they greedy jerks? Because they were trying to not spend more money? This is what contract negotiations are all about.

Which movie ends up making more money — an X Files with only Scully or one with only Fox? Looks like the producers were betting on the latter (or obviously bluffing that they were) and adjusting their offers accordingly. There's no law that demands everyone (or even every lead) in a movie get paid the same amount.

And for what it's worth: yes the reviewer is 100% doing a disservice to the job of reviewing this album. Visitors of the site who aren't going to spend the time reading his poorly reasoned review are going to see the letter D and assume the album is bad. (That's why, of course, they have letter grades to begin with…

I don't normally jump into frays like this, but this is embarrassing.