Zoe Saldana believes that Hollywood should pay for her childcare

Zoe Saldana

Here’s Zoe Saldana at the LA premiere of Infinitely Polar Bear. She wore a one-sleeved, Louis Vuitton throw rug. I think this would have been a passable dress with no sleeves. It’s notable that Zoe took a break from her beloved Dolce & Gabbana.

Zoe has a new interview about juggling parenting and work. From the moment Zoe thanked the media for invading her privacy by noticing her pregnancy, I knew she’d be full of opinions. Zoe has not disappointed. Since giving birth, Zoe’s given her thoughts on archaic” sleeptraining, frustrating” body struggles, and how it’s okay to be a self-focused mom. My take is that Zoe thought motherhood would be much less difficult than the reality.

Zoe’s latest crusade involves the high cost of childcare, which is common knowledge for anyone with kids. Zoe thinks we don’t know this already. She told USA Today about how she argued with studios over who should pay for her nannies. This is amazing:

She nearly lost jobs by getting pregnant: “Let me tell you something, it will never be the right time for anybody in your life that you get pregnant. The productions I was slated to work on sort of had a panic. I heard through the grapevine there was even a conversation of me being written off of one of the projects. I was like, ‘Oh, my God, are you kidding me? It’s this bad?’ Right when I just feel super-duper happy, is that inconvenient for you? That me, as a woman in my thirties, I finally am in love and I am finally starting my life? And it’s (screwing) your schedule up? Really?”

Zoe thinks studios should pay for nannies: Studios “spend more money sometimes ‘perking’ up male superstars in a movie [with] a really phat penthouse or them staying in a yacht instead of them staying on land. But then a woman comes in going, ‘OK, I have a child. You’re taking me away from my home. You’re taking my children away from their home. And you’re going to make me work a lot more hours than I usually would if I was home. Therefore, I would have to pay for this nanny for more hours — so I kind of need that. And they go, ‘Nope, we don’t pay for nannies.'”

[From USA Today]

The paper got ahold of Paramount, the studio behind the new Star Trek movies. Paramount wouldn’t talk, so Zoe’s rep clarified: “The issue had been resolved prior to when this interview was conducted.” It sounds like Zoe doesn’t consider the issue resolved. Either the studio refused to pay for nannies (and Zoe’s mentioning it to shame them), or the studio gave in (and she still wants to talk about it).

Zoe does sound a little entitled by insisting employers should pay for her nannies because most women don’t receive any such perk. USA Today did the legwork on employers who do pay for childcare. They quote a study that says only 5% of companies contribute (even just a tiny bit) towards these expenses. Some people think that actresses who make millions shouldn’t complain, but thinking of this in terms of equality changes the argument. If male actors are getting crazy perks too (like penthouses and yachts), nannies aren’t too unreasonable of a request for an actress.

Zoe Saldana

Marco Perego

Zoe Saldana

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & WENN

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

151 Responses to “Zoe Saldana believes that Hollywood should pay for her childcare”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MAC says:

    Great last paragraph. Totally agree.

    • Annie says:

      Yeah, when you put it like that, she’s right. I was about to rip her a new one because it seems tone deaf compared to working class mothers who get nothing, but it’s true. Studios spend millions on yachts and cars for their male actors, and so many other things that are just dumb luxuries. Rolexes, expensive gadgets, expensive booze, lavish parties, exotic vacations. Everything.

      • MP says:

        Plenty of male actors have kids. Do studios pay for their nannies or have they agreed with their wives that she will take care of the kids while he works? In my opinion that’s how you deal with having kids. You make plans with your partner on how to take care of them, who will work and when.
        She should have asked for a nice penthouse too. Then she would have had room for her husband and/or nanny to come take care of the kids.
        I really don’t see the problem here since it’s not only women’s issue.

      • swack says:

        @MP, totally agree with you.

      • jaye says:

        @MP-But what about the actresses who don’t have partners? Or the actresses whose husbands are just as busy with THEIR careers? The fact of the matter is that, generally, it is the mother who is the caregiver, whether you believe that is right or wrong. There’s nothing wrong with a woman, in ANY career, asking for more time off to spend with her kids, and or paid childcare. If a male actor can get ridiculously expensive perks when on location, having a nanny paid for by the studio isn’t asking for much. IMO.

      • MP says:

        There are also many male actors who are no longer in a relationship with the mother of their children and who share the custody.
        I think either the actors Zoe was talking about were bigger names and the studio was willing to give them more perks than her or maybe the studio draws a line with paying for extra staff like nannies, personal trainers or astrologers etc.
        When you are offered a job no matter what it is you need to think about what you get from it versus what it takes from you and negotiate based on that and make sure you get compensated for all the trouble. If she knew the job would take her away from home and make the child care situation difficult she should have included the price of the nanny in her salary request.

      • Miffy says:

        @MP in an ideal world.

      • ozmom says:

        Three thoughts:
        1: a lot of the perks actors receive probably cost the studio little, if anything. They are probably gifted items because when the actor is pictured with that Rolex or mentions that alcohol in an interview it’s advertising for that company
        2: she shouldn’t assume people were inconvenienced or unhappy she became pregnant. The show must go on and business can’t halt because she’s expecting. All businesses still have deadlines to meet and if a person can’t fulfill the role for whatever reason many times that person is replaced. It’s not personal.
        3: there may be legal reasons studios don’t pay for childcare. What if the studio pays a nanny and that nanny accidentally gives a wrong dose of medication or the child breaks an arm while in the nanny’s care? Doesn’t that leave the studio open to a lawsuit?

        Benefits are negotiable and she’s free to ask for whatever she thinks she’s worth but I don’t care for the “it’s not fair! Look what he/she got!” line of defense.

      • Ash says:

        ozmom- I agree with everything you said.

  2. missmerry says:

    ” If male actors are getting crazy perks too (like penthouses and yachts), nannies aren’t too unreasonable of a request for an actress.”

    absoultely right when you put it like that.
    However, you know the males would have a FIT if the studios said ‘we’re not paying for nannies so we’re not paying for yachts and perks anymore either’

    • mark . says:

      Actresses get these things aswell. Looking on this site you’d think some of these hollywood actress were slaves

      • Annie says:

        So many actresses are low key though. You don’t see them drinking and partying like Leonardo DiCaprio. They don’t seem particularly into expensive cars either. All I’m saying is, if the actor picks his perks, then an actress should too. I doubt Zoe parties at yachts.

    • OhDear says:

      But I think that’s comparing apples and oranges. If she was denied a penthouse or yacht while her male co-stars got them, or if her male co-stars were allowed to have nannies while she got denied that, that’s one thing. But we don’t know if her male co-stars were/would be denied nannies if they asked for one.

      • mark . says:


        Are you serious? Actresses don’t go out partying and drinking or buy expensive cars & yachts? You are seriously deluded if you don’t think women in the entertainment industry don’t take advantage of the same things that Leonardo does. The studio didn’t force the baby on her or force her to audition. Is see going to demand that they pay her cable bill next?

        I couldn’t see a reply button on her this isn’t a reply to ohdear.

      • perplexed says:

        I think Shailene Woodley had her cell phone plan paid for by the studio. I think that was implied or maybe even stated outright when she claimed that she didn’t own a cell phone, and then she was pictured with it. The explanation seemed to be that the studio paid for it. She wasn’t even that big of a star then. Therefore, Saldana’s request doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

      • OhDear says:

        But I’m not saying that her request was unreasonable. I’m saying that you can’t compare her asking for a nanny with male actors’ getting penthouses and yachts. She’s saying that it’s sexist that the studio denied her a nanny. However, we don’t know if the studio had also denied a male actor’s request (surely some of them have kids) for nanny or other childcare.

      • jaye says:

        But what if those perks (yachts, penthouses, cars) weren’t of value to an actress (or actor for that matter)? Shouldn’t they be able to say “I don’t need that, but what I do need is a nanny for my kid(s)” and not have the studio balk about providing one?

      • Timbuktu says:

        I’m a little confused by this logic, though. These are PERKS. It sounds like studios try to tailor them to actors. Meaning, if they know an actor really really wants a Rolex (I’m sure that they let those things be known, if it’s so common), they won’t go get him a Jag instead just because that’s what they got for the guy before him, right?
        Just because USUALLY MALE superstars want penthouses and parties does not mean it is the LAW and only that is allowed, if a woman is ready to trade some of her other perks for a nanny, then I say she has every right to do so, even if she’s the first one ever to ask for it.
        As far as I’m concerned, if it’ costs about the same amount of money as their “normal” perk package, let them have at it.

      • OhDear says:

        Sure, she can request a nanny and tell the studio that she’d prefer that over a house or a car during contract negotiations, but we don’t know why the studio said no. The studio may be concerned about possible legal or other issues that come up with regard to childcare that don’t come up for perks like houses or yachts. She’s saying that the studios are being sexist for not giving her that perk, when it could be for other reasons.

      • Timbuktu says:

        But we don’t know that they didn’t do it for sexist reasons, either, and while I understand that there are 2 sides to every story, I do think that of all of us here, Zoe does have a better grasp of that situation, so I’m not going to immediately dismiss her claim and presume that the studio had good reasons to deny her a nanny. They do deserve the benefit of the doubt, but so does she.
        And I’m sure there are plenty of risks associated with giving a spoiled wealthy womanizer with (most likely) a history of substance abuse and reckless behavior a boat for a few months, and yet, they do it anyway. I’m sure that hiring a nanny is not an unsurmountable obstacle for corporate lawyers.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Under the law, everything must be equal between similarly situated employees. So, if the perk is a yacht for one; the perk is a yacht for the other. If the perk is child care for one; the perk is child care for the other.

    • DIANE says:

      Yeah. Actresses should be able to get more perks based on their elitist status in our world. Just like the actors. They all make me sick. Rich people who really don’t contribute to the greater good but think they deserve more than the rest of us.

  3. jinni says:

    But can’t her husband look after the kids while she’s on set? I get that her point, but it’s not like he can’t take care of them while she works.

    • AcidRock says:

      But what if he’s at work too (just speculating; I have no idea what he does…or if he does anything)?

      • jinni says:

        He’s a painter. Since he’s self-employed I’m sure he could paint when not watching the kids.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Jinni, who wrote: “He’s a painter. Since he’s self-employed I’m sure he could paint when not watching the kids.”

        That’s not how the creative process works for most artists (musicians, painters, writers … even computer programmers, etc.). You can’t just turn it on and off. If he were watching the kids while in his studio painting (which you wouldn’t want anyway unless he’s a water colorist) he’d check on them, go back to work, and look up again and it’s 6-hours later.

        Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow’s mother) famously had ‘on set Breastfeeding Breaks’ clause written into her contract for baby Gwyneth when she landed a starring role in “Adam’s Rib” (a television series that aired in 1973).

      • Backstage Bitchy says:

        … And, @emma, not only is that not how the creative process works, it’s also not how the “PARENTING” process works! Twin infants? That’s constant, round-the-clock care and monitoring. He can paint in the breaks. There are very likely NO BREAKS in the parenting part. And her days on set may be 15 hours.
        I’ll also venture to say that I think the point she’s making was for when she’s on location, not all the time. Her argument is, she would t normally be in this place, away from home, is she weren’t shooting this film. Being away from home means she needs more support (nanny time) so she wants a to be compensated for the difference (between set/ location life and her regular Life)…

  4. perplexed says:

    In this instance, I don’t think she sounds entitled. I think she sounds logical. If an actress like Nicole Kidman can have it worked into a contract to have her hairdresser follow her around, then it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility to ask for nannies. I don’t know if name recognition plays into how these contracts are worked out. But if you’re allowed to negotiate, I don’t see what’s wrong with asking. It seems dumb not to. Hiring a nanny actually seems cheaper to me than paying a hairstylist to follow you around everywhere. Hairstylists probably charge more.

    I also think it’s misleading to say that she’s asking Hollywood (as if all of Hollywood has to put up with her) to pay for her childcare. She’s asking the company she’s negotiating with.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      Studios pay for an actor’s appearance, it makes sense to provide for hair and makeup in the production budget, child care is a completely different situation. What studio would ever pay for an employee with kids when they could easily hire one without kids if they are compelled to pay for childcare? This is why unions are important. If workers want childcare they need to unite and fight for it. It’s either we get it for everyone or we accept that employers are not responsible for childcare costs. I pay a great deal for other people’s children, it’s part of the social contract, but there is a limit to how much everyone else should have to pay because someone decided to have children.

  5. QQ says:

    They are Not an Unreasonable request but also LADY get an EFFING GRIP you are a MILLIONAIRE, You can front your own nanny!!!

    Lord, people are trying it far and wide with this relatable Mom Stuff, you have NOTHING in common with a regular woman that has to do a patched up maternity leave or really has a job but has to figure childcare before going to work with a still nursing little one!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Right. I support the family friendly workplace idea, but she does come off as thinking she has so much in common with regular folks and she has no clue. Some people have to choose not to work at all because childcare is so expensive. Or they can’t afford the babysitter they need to get to the job interview. I have no problem with her asking for whatever, but Pleeasee stop pretending you’re just like “us.”

      • QQ says:

        Ughhh Tell me about it, Like Take my sister, a Good job, but Student loans, two Kids, One surprise one on the way, a husband with seizures that barely works a Mortgage, all their insurance, a Lady that watched their kids when they both do work… she barely can manage anything, like a bill or her phone getting water is Utter Financial Chaos in the making, if they didn’t have this neighbor watching those kids purely out of love and pennies on the dollar she would be completely SOL and for someone with all the means in the world to try to equate her situation to that just makes me HOT in the face

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I don’t blame you. I’m sorry for the situation your sister is in. But it warms my heart to hear of people helping her out with her kids. In many ways, I think people without a lot are much more generous than rich people, even rich people who give lots of money, because these people helping your sister are really giving something besides money they don’t need.

      • Birdix says:

        I hear what you’re saying and you are absolutely right. But I also think until there is affordable childcare, women (like your sister) will continue to struggle. And in a less dramatic way, all the women who stop working because childcare is too expensive (separating out those who want to stay home) struggle too, to get back into the workforce, for lower pay and less responsibility. I know people are against big government, etc, but when there is affordable/accessible childcare, then feminism can take greater strides forward. So I don’t mind her bringing it up, as a celeb, because I wish more people were bringing it up. (Although looking at people’s reactions, she only seems to be hurting the cause, so maybe I’m conflicted.)

    • HH says:

      Exactly! At face value her argument makes sense, however, I’m questioning the entire Hollywood machine. If they aren’t getting paid millions so THEY can afford childcare; if they aren’t getting paid enough so THEY can afford temporary housing; if THEY aren’t spending money on clothing and jewelry, but instead given these items for promotional means…. THEN…. why are they being compensated SO much?! Celebrities make a ridiculous amount of money to request further compensation.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        Heck, they aren’t just given clothes and jewelry to wear for promotion, they are often actually paid to wear it!

        I can see her reasoning in terms of male actors get perks that cost a lot, so why can’t I get this perk… but she does come off sounding out of touch with regular folks. But then most millionaires do when they complain about how tired they are from looking after the kids, cooking, running errands or whatever and they have a staff of people to help them. It’s kind of hard to have any sympathy.

    • writeitoff says:

      Amen QQ!!!!

    • Chinoiserie says:

      I feel it was completely reasonable to ask but it makes her unsumphatetic to tell us about this.

      • Linn says:

        I think it’s great of her to tell us about it. One of the reason so many women get payed less than their male counterparts is that they are to shy/don’t feel entitled enough to ask.
        And in many cases that’s the case because they are still taught that females are supposed to be all nice and humble and demure.
        Female celebrities actually asking for what they want (and in this case apparently getting it) can hopefully have positive effects on the mindset of women in other areas, too.
        And maybe it shows the bosses that they won’t be so able to treat women worse than guys so easily in the future.

    • Newgirl says:

      Yes I agree!

    • Guest says:

      I remember when I contacted my HR department and they told me that their maternity leave provided 4 months of leave, some paid maternity classes, and that I qualified for a flexible spending account that would provide cover childcare expenses for qualifying agencies and/or programs. I was so elated while I told my husband and yet I could see the dread in his face. His reaction was, “wow, four months? We’re going to be so behind on our payments.”
      I was so angry at him because his reaction felt selfish to me. However, I soon started to see it from his perspective. We have a mortgage, two car payments, multiple credit cards, utility bills, and (at the time) an upcoming baby. It sounds like we’re in debt over our eyeballs but we each have decent jobs. We have enough to pay our bills and enough left over to put in a savings account we never touch but if either one of us falls behind, even a little, the strain is definitely felt. In the end, few programs were suitable for childcare and I elected to hire an independent nanny. I should be rooting for Zoe because I know that the struggle in providing adequate care for your child can be a heavy burden. But this woman… she’s so… abrasive, un relatable, unlikable, privileged… I wish it had been someone else that had brought up the point. Could the possibility be that the studio probably just doesn’t like her enough to bend over backwards to her demands? Maybe the studio doesn’t think she’s as big of an audience draw as some of her male counterparts.

    • CatFoodJunkie says:

      Here Here, QQ !!! Any woman in the workforce, with kids, would LOVE to have the company pay for domestic help. It just doesn’t happen. I don’t know why Zoe feels that the studio should pay for her nannies… it isn’t like she was FORCED to take that job, as many moms are, to keep food on the table. She chooses what she wants to work on, and if the studio must accommodate her pregnancy, as many employers do, that’s her choice, and her timing. It is irrelevant to me what male actors may receive as perks — she’s placing herself as a working mom among other working moms, and it ain’t working for her… her privileges and resources are nearly endless for heaven’s sake. Like the rest of the US (at least), children do take time and money and hardly any employer is shamed for not providing domestic help.

    • booboochile says:

      Feminism across the entire economic, social, spectrum? I don’t know…No hate from me.

  6. ISee says:

    Woman has baby and acts like she is the only one to ever have undergone this process.
    That being said, if the film requires the actor to spend a long time away from their children then they should be paying for nannies etc.

    • Pandy says:

      Let’s be realistic. In the “real world”. employers would have employees changed to their desk or counter 24/7 if they thought it would make more $$$. And we aren’t paid for childcare either … that’s where you get family, friends or just cough up the dough to get by. F*ck off with your millions and nannies.

      PS: Dress is making me nauseous.

    • Odine says:

      “Woman has baby and acts like she is the only one to ever have undergone this process.”

      where she did such a thing????
      obviously, she got asked about her own personal experience and talking about her own personal experience. She knows that she’s not the only one and probably that’s the reason why she mentioned that.
      If you ask me how I feel and I tell you I have a cold and I feel like shit, would you think I’m ‘acting like I’m the only one who ever had a cold ever? that’s dumb

      I really don’t understand this reasoning some of you have. She’s an actress not a politician, it seems like you want to dehumanize her all the while preaching about people’s having their own personal problems too.

  7. blue marie says:

    This is probably not going to be a popular opinion, but kids aren’t required, if you have them then you pay for them. This is part of the reason I don’t have them myself.

    • perplexed says:

      But actresses are in a position where they can ask for certain perks. Some want rose petals all over their hotel bedroom (I can kind of picture J-LO asking for that); she wants a nanny. I think it would be dumb not to see if you could get the nanny worked into the contract.

    • QQ says:

      No Blue Marie, you make TOTAL sense, i pretty much said the same on that Kate is Skinny again Post

    • AcidRock says:

      Very true. Part of the thinking that needs to go into taking care of children, BEFORE having said children, is how the whole childcare situation will pan out. What/how much can be afforded is absolutely a critical part of the decision to bring a life into this world.

    • Samtha says:

      Neither are a lot of the perks men get for showing up. If they want a special penthouse, etc., why can’t they pay for that? If the studios accommodate men, they should do the same for women.

      • Sammy says:

        Yep. This has nothing to do with the real world. Studios are already paying for stuff we’d never dream of… yachts and Rolexes and personal assistants. So what’s the problem with nannies?

    • Tifygodess says:

      @blue no I totally agree. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head saying you have to have a baby. It is a choice. Everytime this woman speaks I just want to say – “b*tch please”

      I also have no issue with her wanting to get childcare paid for since we know celebs do recieve perks but the way she comes across is so off putting that I just can’t with her. If she wants to Have an educated conversation about inequality, sexism and the problems with it – great but most of the time she just comes off all wrong and it does nothing for the cause.

    • Lara K says:

      I’m going to disagree with you, on a purely societal scale. As the baby boomers age, we are going to be ain a world of pain because there aren’t enough tax payers to support them. It’s going to be VERY bad.
      So when I’m old, I want there to be enough kids working and paying taxes to pay for roads, schools, military, etc.
      So companies and government have to offer some incentives for children. You don’t have to have them, but you will benefit from them down the line.
      If you don’t believe me, look at Japan. In about 20 years, 40% of their population will be over 65, and they are crapping their pants about it. We do NOT want to be in that situation.

      • hoopjumper says:

        Thank you. I am childless, and it’s pretty clear to me that all the work my friends are doing as parents is going to benefit me down the line exactly as you said. Why shouldn’t I contribute? No one thinks childless adults should be exempt from paying for public schools, why not childcare?

      • littlestar says:

        You make a very good point! We also have to look at ourselves though and our lifestyle choices. A lot of baby boomers are having health crises that are putting a strain on our healthcare systems around the world that COULD have been avoided had they made better health choices. I just saw a clip on CBC’s The National last week on the very high rise of diabetes around the world – something that can be avoided if people ate properly and exercised. I think for countries that are facing a crisis like Japan (I live in Canada and we are going to face the same crisis as well), baby boomers need to stop worrying so much about who is going to fund their healthcare and start worrying about how they can take care of themselves to prevent a huge strain on the system.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        Like we’re not already paying for all these kids! I’m not “anti-child” or anti-breeding but you’re way off base if you think they’re not enough young people on this planet. The problem for us is they are not here paying into our jacked up social security system. That doesn’t make it okay to continue overburdening the planet which is already in a very dangerous state due to over population and our rampant consumerism.

  8. OhDear says:

    I agree that childcare should be covered generally, but her comments are so tone deaf.

    Though I disagree that thinking about it in terms of equality changes the argument. Male actors can ask for nannies for their kids, too and it’s unclear whether or not there are some who have and also got shot down.

  9. Livealot says:

    I agree with her!

    And f*ck this “entitled” shit . Like Kev Hart said – Know your worth! Just because you’re afraid to request certain things does not make those that aren’t “entitled.”

    In industries across the board, I think all companies should provide maternal assistance/childcare. I think it’s apart of the feminist movement. Society needs to scale in favor of mothers and motherhood…that includes women who hold jobs as well.

    • hoopjumper says:

      Yes to all this. A big male star would have to request *two* personal islands both fully stocked with hookers and blow before he’d get called out as acting “entitled” in a contract negotiation.

    • sigghh says:

      I agree.

    • Kelly says:

      She’s more than likely the primary breadwinner in her marriage, considering that her husband’s an artist. That seems to be common among high profile female actresses, including Keira Knightley, Scarlett Johannsen, and Natalie Portman. Difference is with the first two they don’t seem to have put their careers on hold for their husbands and families, but Portman has slowed down since Black Swan. There’s no way that his position with the Paris Opera pays for their lifestyle. More than likely, it’s her acting income plus the Dior contract that are the primary income. Amy Adams also strikes me as the primary breadwinner in her marriage.

    • Dhavynia says:

      I don’t understand why she’s getting all this heat. Studios also ask more of women amd are dismissive of them because of their appearance more than men are.
      It’s so easy for a man to take on projects, go on business trips and whatnot because most of them rely on their spouse to take care of kids. If your company requires you to go away regardless of who or what position you have then they should provide for the care.
      This is a huge problem in this country and yes we all know she makes more than all of us but that doesn’t mean she can’t fight the issue. Sometimes it takes someone like her for people to start noticing the issue, rich or poor.

  10. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    It would be even better if the studio gave her a workspace or trailer with room for the baby and paid for the nanny and baby to be near her during the day. They could do the same for fathers if the fathers wanted it. I wish our whole culture would be more family friendly.

    • Absolutely says:

      Yes, but sadly it’s still up to women to worry about that stuff. I bet if a man asked for a nanny he’d get it. And be lauded for being the most amazing dad in the world.

  11. Sherry says:

    When I read the headline, I was not sympathetic; however, after reading what she said in full context, I’m on board. If they can pay for expensive rental houses, personal trainers and chefs for the male leads, then why not nannies for the women?

  12. kri says:

    Hmmm. Normally, she gets an eye roll per paragraph from me. And even though she makes tons of money, I see her bigger picture here. I just wonder about women in Hollywood who aren’t stars. Like stuntwomen, female directors, casting, etc. I think this country treats its working parents (moms especially) terribly. It’s like having a baby is such an interruption. We need better family leave/childcare policy.

  13. Audrey says:

    She can negotiate it into her contract.

    But saying she’s being taken out of her home is silly. This is her chosen profession, she chooses to be an actress and travel to film sets.

    If she doesn’t like it, perhaps she should do television so she can have a steady location.

    I personally support the idea of women getting access to childcare so they can go back to work. But I think that she’s being a bit dramatic here.

    • Algernon says:

      That’s what she is saying, though, that she tried to negotiate it in a contract and ran into friction. And yes, she could get a tv job and have a more stable home life, that is true. But she was cast in a movie, and she saw her male costars getting frivolous perks and she asked for something that is actually important and they tried to deny her. Whatever we may feel about rich people problems, that simply isn’t fair.

      “But saying she’s being taken out of her home is silly. This is her chosen profession, she chooses to be an actress and travel to film sets.”

      So you’re saying that actresses shouldn’t have families because they travel a lot? I am not an actress and I travel a lot. Do I not get a family? (I don’t want one, but that’s not the point.) Also, somehow, an actor having a family never results in someone saying, “Ben Affleck should get a job on tv so he can be home more.”

      • Artemis says:

        It sounds to me like people (as usual) have this archaic idea that a woman’s life should center around her family (like figure it out yourself, work shouldn’t figure it out for you) when a man isn’t being held up to the same standards. A woman shouldn’t adjust her career because her work place isn’t willing to meet her in the middle for what I believe is a reasonable question.

        In the Sony hack, there was a part about Leo getting his travel expenses paid for when they had nothing to do with work (e.g. flying his mother and girlfriend around and partying) but when a woman asks for childcare, that’s crossing a line apparently. All these rich people can afford travel and accommodation but none of them pay for it. These people don’t even pay for their own clothes but childcare is crossing the line? Studios waste so much money on frivolous things, childcare would not be a frivolous expense and it would set an example actually. I knew Hollywood was backwards but it seems a lot of people feel the same way, which is odd.

        Surprised of how many are against Saldana’s request tbh.

      • Audrey says:

        I’m not saying that women shouldn’t have babies if they are actresses. Not at all.

        I’m just saying that she knew the demands of her job when she decided to have kids. So I think she should plan and expect to have their dad free to watch them or have a nanny while working.

        I think what bothers me is her going on about the studio making her work more hours than if she was home. She’s lucky to have this career which pays her very well. I have a lot more sympathy for women who pay for daycare every day out of their pocket just to get by. Maybe she should be campaigning for the government to subsidize daycare for all women?

      • Algernon says:

        @ Audrey

        Yes, her comment about working meaning hours away from home was kind of dumb, but it doesn’t invalidate her point.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree with you. The studios aren’t forcing her to do anything. It’s her choice to work in that field. And she should be negotiating nannies in her contract if she can. If she’s bankable she can probably negotiate anything she wants.

  14. hoopjumper says:

    It’s just a matter of her knowing her value and interpreting it a certain way. I look at this the same way I look at JLaw holding out for $20m–it’s not about what non-rich women get, it’s about powerful women demanding to be valued the same as powerful men.

    • perplexed says:

      That’s how I see it too.

    • Algernon says:

      But you can even trickle that down to a more everyday person level, and say that any woman who sees her male counterparts getting paid more for the same job ought to hold out, too. It’s just that in JLaw’s case, we’re talking millions, while an average person might be talking only a few hundred extra a year, or maybe a few thousand. It’s not about power, it’s about not getting caught up in the numbers. Whether it’s a famous actress or an office drone, the point is that women should be demanding to be valued the same as men, full stop.

      The only reason I get annoyed when someone like Zoe Saldana talks about stuff like this is because everyone gets stuck on “well you’re rich so this isn’t really a problem for you,” but it’s not about that. It’s about equality regardless of station in life.

      • hoopjumper says:

        Exactly! I have my fingers crossed for some trickle down, although I think that might take awhile.

  15. FingerBinger says:

    That dress looks like a blanket.

  16. Sixer says:

    Well, I guess it’s a sauce for the goose thing, but rich people’s problems, eh?

    Do low earners not get any help with childcare costs stateside? Here in Britland, you get up to 70% of your childcare costs paid (sliding scale of help, depending on earnings, so it’s only the bottom end that get the full 70% and high earners don’t get it at all). Plus, when your child is 3, you get 15 hours a week of free childcare or early years education, you get to choose which, and that’s for everyone. Lower earners get this when their child is 2. And they’re about to double it to 30 hours.

    • Jenna says:

      You can get a tax credit for a portion of childcare costs (I believe it is currently $3k/yr…that is, if you spend $3k on childcare you don’t pay income tax on that money, NOT you get $3k deducted from your tax bill. So if you spent $3k on childcare and were in a 50% tax bracket, you would have a $1500 reduction in your tax bill). Aside from that, I’m not aware of any provisions to help with childcare costs, though if someone else with actual experience knows of any, please post! We are in the investigatory phase only right now 🙂

      Actual costs of childcare vary wildly from location to location but I’m pretty sure in most of the US full-time childcare will cost more than $3k/yr, unless you have relatives helping out and providing some/all care for free. I live in one of the most expensive parts of the country (SF Bay area) and “cheap” childcare is around $12k/yr and can run quite a bit higher, especially for babies (<18 mos). My employer actually has onsite childcare but it is quite expensive–around $18k/yr for a baby, $15k/yr for a toddler/preschooler. If you have 2 kids and no family to help you are probably looking at a couple of years where you pay in excess of $20k/yr. Unless you have two high-earners, the short-term economics of both parents continuing to work can be quite grim. My husband and I were doing some back of the envelope math recently and determined that you need to be making (individually) at least $60k/yr to make full-time childcare+continuing to work a sensible short-term decision.

    • Sixer says:

      Thanks, Jenna. Most of your subsidies are tax allowances while ours are welfare benefits, I think. For example, we also get child benefit, which are payments to everyone for each child. But I think I’m right in saying that yours comes in the form of a tax allowance, right? Probably because we pay tax at source, the employer deducts it, not annually, like you guys.

      Average childcare costs (full time, at a nursery, childminders are cheaper) are about £6k per year, so it’s expensive here too – but perhaps not quite as expensive?

      • Absolutely says:

        Most people do get it deducted from their employer, and then if there is overpayment you get a refund at tax time.
        The tax credits don’t amount to much. It’s pretty disgusting how maternity leave and child care are handled in this country.

    • Audrey says:

      You can apply for a voucher to help but there is usually a very long waiting list. There are preschools like head start which have a sliding scale based on income.

      If you have social services involved or are on welfare, you get a lot of help or free care. My sister was a single mom making $16 per hour, she was given a reduced rate of $125 per week. She was very upset because she asked for more help and they asked if she was on welfare. She said no, no government assistance, she was just hoping for more help with the cost of daycare. She was told that she could get more help if she was on welfare but otherwise no. My sister had to live with my mom just to be able to afford day care, car, food, other necessities, etc

      The US system is awful. I’m in Canada now. The daycare system is still bad(same thing, you can try for a subsidy). Otherwise the cost for daycare in someone’s house is at least $800 per month where I am. More if you want a daycare centre. But we do at least get a year of maternity leave at 55% of our pay(there’s a max).

      I am a stay at home, partially because good daycare is too expensive, it would take so much of my earnings that we don’t see the value of it. I’ll go back to work part time when my daughter starts school

    • Sixer says:

      It does all sound pretty dire. But bear in mind – in the UK these subsidies and welfare benefits are also used as tools to pressure parents into full-time work – however low paid – before their children get to school age, even when both parents are in the home and one of them is already working full-time. So there are downsides to it.

      • Audrey says:

        Canada is doing the opposite and really encouraging families to have a stay at home parent

  17. Algernon says:

    There are two levels to Zoe’s comments. One is the systemic problem underlying what she’s talking about, and that is that corporations in every industry do not do enough to support working parents. From family leave time to childcare options, the whole system is rotten. We, as a society, put so much emphasis on the having of family, and yet we do nothing to actually support families.

    The other level is the movie star thing, which is frustrating because yes she’s rich and can afford her own nannies/assistants, but why should she have to? If the studio is paying for a male costar to stay in a penthouse for $20,000/week, they can spring for an on-set nanny for Zoe. I’ve seen this happen on commercial sets, so I assume it’s far, far worse on movie sets where the perks can be insane, especially on big blockbusters.

    • lucy2 says:

      Good post!
      I’ve heard of actors (and some actresses) who have the studio hire personal trainers, chefs, assistants, personal hair stylists, etc, to be on set with them, I see no reason why a nanny would be any different.
      Which makes me curious about the situation where she asked for it – was this some low budget project with no perks? Is there an actor on the same project who is getting perks? Did she ask for a ridiculous amount of money for the nanny?

      • Algernon says:

        I read it as her asking for this while making a big budget movie, but I could be wrong about that. Just the way she words it, it sounds like she knew her (male) costars were getting perks so she asked for her childcare to be covered and the studio at least tried to say no.

    • KellyBee says:

      But the studio is also paying for Zoe and other actress houseing while they are filming also.

      • Algernon says:

        And yet, according to her remarks, her male costars were asking for above and beyond the housing being offered. Everyone is asking for more, but their “more” is frivolous (the digs a studio will get you will be choice), and Zoe’s is practical. But she’s the one we’re lambasting.

  18. Corrie says:

    Zoe, I love you… but you definitely sound like a new mom going thru new mom blues. Many of us get there, esp when we don’t get how hard it is until we are in it. That said, I don’t think childcare is an unreasonable request considering – the happier and less stressed mom is, happier the children are, the better the film. And nanny care for them is not putting them in bankruptcy. I’m sure they will make their payment commiserate with other perks given to actors/actresses. Equality people… and just because no one else has gotten it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t ask.

  19. Loopy says:

    She needs to tone it down with her comments, she will get blackballed for being a big mouth, whether what she is saying is true or not.

    • Ash says:

      Loopy- I thought the same thing. I’m ashamed to say that because I don’t think what she’s asking for is unreasonable. But it’s Hollywood and we know how their system works for actresses. :-

  20. iheartjacksparrow says:

    If I was making the money she is, I’d be too embarrassed to ask for my nannies be paid for. And all above the line stars (which is definitely is) get big trailers, so I’m sure she can fit in two babies and two nannies. And if she doesn’t want to be taken away from home there’s a simple solution: don’t sign up for the project.

    • KellyBee says:

      Most actress have their young babies on set with them in their trailers with the nanny, especially if they’re breastfeeding.

    • Algernon says:

      Why should she be embarrassed?! Her male co-stars are asking for yachts instead of hotel rooms and luxury penthouse apartments and no one i saying anything about that! She made a reasonable request and it’s all, “Well just don’t take the job then,” like she doesn’t get to work anymore because she had children! This is the *entire problem*, and it happens at every level, not just hers. I mentioned in a previous post that I’ve seen women with children in my company get sidetracked and this is exactly why, because everyone just says, “If you want to spend more time with your kids then don’t work,” like working and having children is incompatible. Well it shouldn’t be, not for those who want to have kids, and that is what Zoe is getting at. Having children should not prevent her from pursuing her career. But the lesson, as always, is that movie stars make bad messengers.

      • Absolutely says:

        We’re still at a level where men are supposed to ask for what they think they deserve and not be embarrassed, but women are supposed to just be grateful for whatever they’re offered and make it work or find something else. Ugh.

      • Dara says:

        Too right! Every situation is different, and every actor has a different level of worth to the studio, but why is Zoe vilified and Chris Pratt lauded for asking for what they think they deserve? If a woman like Zoe gets crucified for that, what hope is there for us little folk just trying to get by?

  21. Aussie girl says:

    Her man’s hair looks better than when I just throw mine up. I’m a little bit jelly, that is all.
    Side note: since I’ve had my baby my hair has gone to shit. As in, it’s lost that love and feeling. I know they say a baby takes a lot out of you ( body, sleep and lack of caring when it comes to dress sense), but not the hair!!!!

  22. Mia4S says:

    I hate to break it to Zoe but I pretty much guarantee if Sandra Bullock wanted something for her kid, or Julia Roberts back in the day, they got it. It’s called negotiation…you’re just not that big a deal. It speaks volumes that they were talking about replacing her.

    • Chrissy says:

      Bingo! Maybe she’s not considered an A-List star but she thinks she is. Or maybe it’s the fact that she has twins is the issue with the studio?

    • renee28 says:

      Yes. Actors get all sorts of accommodations made for them and their families. If she’s not getting them then it speaks to her status and relationship with the studio more than anything else.

    • Odine says:

      “It’s called negotiation…you’re just not that big a deal. It speaks volumes that they were talking about replacing her. ”

      actually, she is a big deal because a) she got what she wanted anyway so maybe it was right for her to ask for it, after all b) It speaks volumes that they suggested to write her character out of one movie INSTEAD of replacing her completely because they apparently didn’t want any other actress for that role but her.

      this is not someone who is bitter because they got fired or didn’t get what they wanted. She still has her job and she got what she wanted, but she’s still honest and keeping it real about what happens to actresses when they get pregnant. You don’t know, maybe it happens to all those A lists you are talking about too and they negotiated their contract just like she did but they won’t admit they had to fight for it.
      If she didn’t mention what happened behind the scenes, you’d just think they gave her child care by default or that her pregnancy had never been an issue for the producers.

    • Ash says:

      Yeah. I wondered about this because I’m pretty sure bigger name actresses have scored perks along the same lines as big name actors. I think it depends on how great your negotiating skills are and if you have stellar representatives (i.e. agent, manager) in your corner.

  23. Pumpkin Pie says:

    Is it wrong of me to say I disagree with her? She does sound entitled. That said, I do believe that it would be great if all women who want to would get the chance to have their children close to them when they are at work. And I remember this collection of short movies shot in Paris where an actress (Colombian I think) played a nanny while she had to send her own baby to a nursery.
    Also, the whole thing with perks offered to actors rubs me the wrong way,

  24. nicegirl says:

    I do not consider this an unreasonable request. Us ‘normal working folks’ have been trying to get equality in the workplace forever.

    It has got to start somewhere. Trickle me down some childcare credits, I’ll take em.

  25. Tulip says:

    What she should do is demand the penthouse or the yacht. Men have kids to budget for as well, and since their perk is real estate (of a sort) then she should ask for that.

  26. cujokay says:

    I think all employees should pay a REASONABLE amount for child care. National limits (based on where you live/work & the cost of living/working in those areas) should be established. Anything over those limits should be paid by the parent(s).

    • Janis says:

      Why should someone without children be forced to contribute towards someone else’s childcare? Ridiculous!

      • Lara K says:

        So when you are retired, please reimburse my children whose taxes will pay for your roads, police, fire department, military, government and any other public service you use. Without other peoples kids you will rot in your old age. So think bigger.

        In the famous words of George Costanza, “We are living in a society here!”

      • bluhare says:

        It’s called social responsibility. Sometimes it’s not about just you.

      • Goats on the Roof says:

        It’s called PERSONAL responsibility. Don’t have children you can’t afford to care for properly, and don’t ask for preferential treatment because of your personal choices.

  27. mark . says:

    ‘If male actors are getting crazy perks too (like penthouses and yachts), nannies aren’t too unreasonable of a request for an actress’

    You do know actresses get these crazy perks aswell?

  28. Ava says:

    I get what she is saying, but she is not like a regular mom. I agree with many of the other above opinions. She is an actor, I am sure it depends on how in demand you are = more perks. She comes across as trying to get “equal rights for woman” but that is not what she is doing. She needs to hire a pr woman to write her “speeches” I used to like her and the more she talks the more I dislike her. Instead of coming across as a spokeswoman she comes across as entitled. She’s not trying to help women she is trying to help herself….

  29. renee28 says:

    She talks about male costars staying in penthouses like she’s not getting those perks too. Unless you’re working on an indie, first class accommodations are standard. It’s not like they’re putting her in a Super 8 while her male costars are staying at the Four Seasons.

  30. SolitaryAngel says:

    I see what she’s saying and I agree that ALL men and women should be paid the same for the same work; regular women should definitely have better access to daycare if they work and have children. I just think that she comes off as entitled maybe more than she realizes.

    Also, her Little Rug On The Prairie dress hurts my eyes so much I *almost* couldn’t roll them properly. 😉

  31. lucy2 says:

    My general feeling is that if actors are getting big perks, then she should certainly ask for a perk she wants – a nanny for her kids while she’s working.
    I don’t agree with her regarding being upset that the productions she was signed up for weren’t thrilled she was pregnant. Unfortunately for acting work, it could have an impact depending on the character she was hired to play, and if a project is scheduled, financed, and everyone else is hired to go on it, I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect them to change it.

  32. Mila says:

    it comes down to negotiations and star power. its not like every male actor gets a yacht. Hollywood will never be same pay for same work.

    if you make that much money a nanny should really be affordable and a partner can easily stay at home.

    its way worse for a struggling actress to do any of those things and i think there could be a discussion if there should be support for them.

  33. perplexed says:

    Honestly I think it’s strange that studios will cover stylists and make-up artists for promo tours but not a nanny. If you cut off having a nanny, might as well cut off the rest. But if you give the other stuff, then give the nanny. Would a nanny even cost that much? (Didn’t Shailene Woodley get her own cell phone plan through the studios).

    The only issue I could see here is that maybe Zoe Saldana doesn’t have much star power, but I thought the response from the studios that “we don’t pay for nannys” as if it’s their status quo for all actresses to be odd. It might have made more sense for them to say “we don’t pay for nannys who aren’t A-list”. (And maybe they did, and I’m not sure if she’s leaving that part out). But maybe leveraging in the media is how you get what you want in their system? I’m not sure. Amy Adams was criticized for not speaking out about her lower pay, and here Saldana is being criticized for speaking out about her want for a nanny, so maybe you get critiqued either way.

  34. InvaderTak says:

    Well that’s definitely a Hollywood problem. She has a point. I think she has pretty good points but when she spouts off in an interview about things like this she does some across as really tone deaf. Idk, we all know the actirs we follow arent like us and live lives of privilege but at the same time I think it’s on the celebs to find some community ground and have enough self awareness to know their privilege. It’s a weird feeling of oh cry me a river and she has a point and all these people need a reality check. And it also makes a differnece that she pulled this with a major studio and not a small production that maybe couldn’t afford it.

  35. RobN says:

    I don’t quite get why an actress doesn’t understand that getting pregnant is a big deal to filmmakers. Schedules on $100 million dollar projects matter, having to alter how you shoot a character changes entire scenes, resulting in rewrites and delays that cost money.

    It’s not a matter of inconvenience and she’s stunned that they’re raining on her parade and thinking of using somebody else. She’s living in a very self-important little world.

    She’s one of the actresses that is going to stop getting work, and she’ll blame it on racism or ageism, but really it’s that people in the industry are just sick of her.

  36. mememe says:

    Why should producers care that she is “in love and finally starting her life?” It is a business. I can’t imagine the amount of eye – rolling a producer would give to any woman or man who couldn’t uphold their contract because they are in love! The money machine moves on. And the timing of pregnancy can be very off, but she can’t get mad about losing projects in an image – based profession when her image changes. This chick has a chip the size of Texas on her shoulder.

    And I’m just going to bite my tongue about how her life is just starting. Life begins at marriage, or kids? (Okay, I didn’t bite my tongue. )

    • Jeanne says:

      I thought the same thing. So people who don’t have kids don’t have a life? Between this and being a millionaire complaining about her job not picking up child-care costs, she is just completely tone deaf and living in a bubble.

      And boy is she in for a rude awakening – having kids is when your life ends, not begins! 😉

  37. Dara says:

    Didn’t Chris Pratt mention recently that he had 20 plane tickets for his family written into his contract when the studio wanted him to film overseas? Didn’t the press in general fall all over themselves to appoint him Father of the Year because of that? I’ll concede Pratt is such a hot commodity right now that he could ask for anything and get it, but some are talking about Zoe being an entitled diva while Chris is being a good parent for asking for basically the same thing. I say good for both of them. What did someone say above- know your worth? I agree with that 100%.

    • Don't kill me I'm French says:

      My opinion is that the powerful or real A list actors can have all they want from the studio but Zoe is less powerful than she thought.
      Sharon Stone wrote in Basic Instinct 2’s contracts when the studio paid her nannies during all the filming ( even if they were not on set)

      • Moonic says:

        Are you serious? Zoe is more popular and known than Chris Pratt especially when they did gotg where he supposedly asked for perks too.

        Frankly, judging this from an outside usa perspective in my country among the movies zoe is in people only know zoe saldana, zachary quinto and chris pine.
        Chris Pratt might be the star of gotg but few knew him and a lot of people mistake him for the guy who did avatar.

        I consider Zoe A list. She is on many franchises all together and she is often featured in magazines abd her interviews are everywhere. Even the sites in my country always talk about her instagram pictures.
        If she were white you’d have no doubt she is successful.

  38. M.A.F. says:

    If she is doing a film for a major studio that has a huge budget then yes, day care should be provided but for every single person working on that film set, not just the actors. Same goes for T.V production. But if she is doing a smaller indie film that has a very limited budget, then she can figure out the nanny/ day care like everyone else.

    But this issue affects everyone and should be a no brainer to fix but it comes down to the willingness of government to do it.

  39. Debb says:

    I honestly have no sympathy for this broad. Is that all she does is complain? She’s never happy.

  40. Barbara says:

    I can’t stand this entitled woman. Try raising 3 kids with no child support coming in. Going to court never helped. I would have loved my employer to assist, but knew that was just a dream.

  41. Susan says:

    Hands raised if you have experienced this:
    1. Almost lost a job due to pregnancy. Anyone?
    2. Your employer paid or reimbursed you for a nanny. Anyone?

  42. A.Key says:

    She makes a valid point while managing to sound entitled at the same time, figures.

    However this, “That me, as a woman in my thirties, I finally am in love and I am finally starting my life?” is annoying as hell. You’re finally starting your life because you got pregnant? REALLY????
    How sad is that.

  43. shi_gatsu says:

    Don’t like her

  44. FLORC says:

    She lost me at the 1st paragraph.
    She gets the roles she gets because she’s thin and athletic. Is it so outrageous to her that a film production would rather hire someone else or put the entire production on hold for about a year? To suit her pregnancy? This sounds like a large case of entitlement and disconnected from the world.
    But maybe it’s more reasonable for everyone to reschedule and put off their paychecks until she gives birth and decides to return to work.

    2nd half… if it’s so important for her to get her nanny care paid for by who signs her checks per project she should do something about that. Because how can she be expected to pay for a nanny when she’s only receiving 7 figure pay checks per project. Not including seperate allowances for red carpets, travel, and maintenance like keeping in shape for roles. All covered by others. No sympathy.
    Fight for what you feel you’re justified to. Don’t make it sound like you’re unable to hire nannies for those extra hours.

  45. Odine says:

    I swear sometimes I wonder if people on the internet possess a brain to use at all because it’s just not possible that people can have such big reading comprehension.
    This article is misleading, if you don’t like Zoe ok but her point is VALID and it’s not entitlement. Hell, her point is not the one you make it seems that it is. Of course she can pay for a nanny BUT for the love of everything that is holy stop pretending that sexism is not a thing when it comes to women vs men in ANY working environment. Because her comment is about THAT! It’s about the double standards in that if the studios can afford to give private jets to actors as well as any other stupid extras they ask for and which weren’t included in their contract (and they can as well afford with their own money since they actually are paid more than actresses too) then I’m pretty sure they shouldn’t make it such a fuss when actresses ask for a NANNY who can take care of their kid while they are doing their job on the set. It’s not unreasonable. JFC women are the worst enemy of women! Don’t complain then when tomorrow you will be the one facing similar issues just in the context of your own kind of job because you know what? if you can’t have compassion for other women facing the same issues how can you expect anyone to be fair with YOU? By calling Zoe entitled you’re saying that every woman who calls gender double standards out and fights against sexism is whiny and you’re actually making up excuses for a society that favors men over women and, judging by how women responded to this, WILL ALWAYS DO THAT.

    • jaygee says:

      Correct. And let me add, she doesn’t sound entitled at all, and if I had the sort of bargaining power that she does–with her face and name headlining major productions–I too would ask my employer to pay for my childcare. Heck, if I had more clout in my present job, I’d ask for that. I’m sure female executives do. And why not? Given the high cost of childcare, and the sorts of perks that are handed out to stars, male and female, asking for childcare expenses to get covered seems very reasonable and (unlike paying for penthouses, yachts, massages, whatever) receiving good childcare would actually improve her work ethic and let her focus well on her job.

    • Danskins says:

      BEST comment ever @ Odine!!

      ^^ This so so much!!

      It’s sad how much women can hate other women over issues that should be uniting us instead.

  46. boredblond says:

    My first thought was sure, if their dad’s name is Harry Hollywood. The actual answer is it’s negotiable..perks are part of contracts and depending on the actor’s profit (past and projected) potential and how good their agent is, the perks can cover a time period that exceeds the actual work time..they can get that apartment or private plane for a year after wrapping, for example, or a big clothing allowance for premiers..it can be anything.

  47. Liz says:

    She seems like such a pill. She needs to get over herself.

  48. MadMenluv says:

    UGH she is soooooo annoying! Just stop talking please…I hate it when these lame no brain actresses all of a sudden try to have “opinions”

  49. Melanine says:

    Ugh, there is so much cringe in these comments. So many of them perfectly illustrate why America is ranked last in the first world when it comes to all things mother/parenthood and work/life balance. It’s like What’s the Matter with Kansas: Motherhood Edition in here.

  50. kanyekardashian says:

    I’ve always found her completely insufferable.

  51. Don't kill me I'm French says:

    For Salt filming,Angelina Jolie’s entourage was paid by the studio.The problem is that Zoe is less powerful than she thought

  52. Ms. D says:

    There is nothing wrong with Zoe’s stance on this. The only thing that makes it ridiculous is that studios will gladly pay for Leo DiCaprio’s indulgences (and let’s be honest his entourage too) but are aghast when an actress is asking something normal like a nanny and not yatchs, blow and hookers. Hollywood is such a f***ed up place and yet has the audacity to preach to the rest of the world about human rights, decency and what should be accepted in this world. Ugggghhhh….

  53. LaurieH says:

    I’m sorry, but I think Hollywood already pays for her childcare with her super-sized paychecks.

  54. Kiki says:

    So she is disappointed that work people were concerned about how her pregnancy affects work?

    Work is work and their first priority is the work. They may personally be thrilled for you, but have to consider how one woman’s pregnancy impacts budget, staff, schedules, etc.

    Of course there are good and bad ways to handle this situation as an employer, but she doesn’t seem to show much empathy or awareness.

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      Thank you! People fall all over themselves to insist that employers ought to offer paid maternity leave and childcare and be accommodating of a mother’s need to come and go to care for her children. Um, no. These are businesses. It is their purpose to offer a good or service and to make a profit whilst doing so. Paying only part of the workforce for time not actually worked due to personal whims is not only preferential (dads don’t get this treatment, and women who elect not to have children certainly don’t), it can really affect a company’s abilities to keep their doors open.

      • Bellona says:

        Exactly! Making movies is a business. In a business, the priority is to turn out marketable goods and services for a profit.

        In order to retain quality personnel an employer will typically offer a competitive compensation package.

        You can accept what is being offered or move on to greener pastures. But an employer doesn’t owe the employee anything beyond a paycheck for services performed.

        And perks are just that. I was issued a company paid cell phone and laptop from my employer. Not to improve the quality of my life, but so I could be reachable when out of the office and perform work outside of office hours.

        I would’ve preferred paid child care. However, while having a great impact on my life, it would’ve done very little to impact the company’s bottom line.

  55. Debutante says:

    God, are her 15 minutes up yet ? Can’t stand this dopey broad .

  56. Danskins says:

    Here we have a smart, informed actor making a perfectly reasonable request, an important topic that doesn’t get enough media coverage and attention as it is, and people jump down her throat for it.

    What’s the matter, are Zoe’s words less important because she’s too dark for your liking? Are feminist issues reserved for non-WOC only? Why are so many invested in dehumanizing Zoe when what she’s saying is extremely important, timely and relevant? The U. S. has a terrible history of treating working parents and working moms deserve better treatment and support in the workplace. Is there any other reason why we’re the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t have a paid pregnancy leave policy in place?

    Why is the idea of paid childcare so controversial and difficult for some to accept, especially women? Why are some so gleeful to tear another woman down because she’s too “entitled” or “opinionated” (or too black?)

    Childcare, much like healthcare is right and not a privilege. It’s sad some people refuse to accept that because of our country’s messed up social policies. When will this issue finally get the proper attention and discussion that it deserves?