# Thinking Gillian Anderson doesn't look like Scully any more = sexism? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 23, 2016, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948 "2016-01-23T05:56:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/101 "2016-01-24T01:38:03Z")
How often do we get serious dramas or any kind of science fiction where a woman is the lead role? There’s plenty of sexism in Hollywood, this show is just one of many where the lead is based on a man. And there’s no reason it had to be either, Andersen could have played the Mulder role just as well. I just don’t see the point of using the renewed series as an example of sexism when there are so many other clear examples of it. Had Andersen been the main character initially it’s likely Duchovny would have had equal pay by the second season if he didn’t get it to start with, and never would have been offered half for the new series. Then you’d have a clear cut case to point out. ---
**Author:** ![T.M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@T.M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.M)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/102 "2016-01-24T01:38:27Z")
They should both get equal billing and equal pay ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/103 "2016-01-24T01:46:29Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > But as mentioned earlier…how many would watch a Big D less X files vs how many would watch an Andersonless X files? > > Talent or experience has not much to do with this. One role is apparently more pivotal than the other pop culture wise. Big D MIGHT actually be the crappier actor. While Anderson might be the better actor who has spent the past 15 years doing high quality Shakespear plays and musicals. Which means jack all for this movie. Well, that’s the thing. We know what a D-less X-files was like, but we don’t know what an A-less X-files would have been like. So we’re all just sitting here evaluating their relative contributions to the show’s success in accordance with our views on the characters. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/104 "2016-01-24T01:53:07Z")
I can see where the OP is coming from. I wasn’t a fan of \*The X-Files \*, I saw maybe 4 episodes and didn’t see Gillian Anderson again until I watched _The Fall_ a couple of years ago. I didn’t know she was in it and when she appeared, helped by her non US accent, I kept tossing up whether it was Gillian Anderson or someone who looked vaguely like a skinnier Gillian Anderson. So I checked the listing to find out. So I can see how it’s possible for someone to have a thought like, “Why pay the full whack for Scully when we are just getting a Scully lookalike. Say GA was dead and we got someone who looked a bit like her we wouldn’t have to pay the same as for Mulder.” Now I don’t think the studio thought this at all. I’m sure that absent any reason whatsoever their natural inclination is to offer as little as they think the actor will accept. Who knows they may be desperately in debt, may have shitty representatives, may really like the project, whatever. And as far as I understand things that is how striking individual contracts for pieces of work operates. Someone wants to hire you. They offer $X, you insist on $Y and a deal is done. Usually in most professional settings this is done without somehow finding out what everyone else is being paid but hey this is Hollywood. And I suppose since this story suddenly gets all this air as the series kicks off, with no confirmation that it ever actually happened, just Gillian Anderson’s say so, we can wait for just before the next episode for the outraged denials. So I vote interesting but not sexist. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/105 "2016-01-24T02:53:37Z")
OP you quoted your interlocutors’ exact words, I would like to see your exact words that they were responding to. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/106 "2016-01-24T02:58:18Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Okay. > > Looks like you are right that I was confusing what happened in the past with what eventually shook out recently. > > My bad. I think you may still be confused, because Anderson was reportedly able to negotiate the same salary as Duchovny both times. She was surprised that she had to demand equal pay all over again when she thought she’d already proven that she expected and deserved it back in the 1990s, but in both cases the ultimate outcome was the same salary for both actors. As I said, I find it depressing that Anderson did exactly what women are always being told we should do if we think we’re being paid unfairly – she insisted on the same salary as her male colleague, AND SHE GOT IT – but the studio’s original lowball offer is still being taken as evidence by some here that Anderson is less deserving than Duchovny or (as you put it) “was either stupid at the negotiating table or she sold out for less”. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/107 "2016-01-24T04:07:18Z")
I was a huge X-Files fan and I was excited when it was announced that it would be back. I will be watching tomorrow when it airs. BUT if it were to have just one of the two - either one, really – I would have gone “Huh? Well, I guess I will catch an episode on demand, see if it’s worth it.” The show was made awesome by the balance between the two actors. The new episodes will be fueled by the tensions and history already built between Mulder and Scully. They deserve the same salary- it’s not the same show if one were to be left by the wayside in the new series. ---
**Author:** ![Atomic\_Alex](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atomic_alex/32/175_2.png) [@Atomic\_Alex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atomic_Alex)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/108 "2016-01-24T23:04:05Z")
I’m really not seeing it, personally I think Gillian Anderson _(like Sandra Bullock actually)_ is more attractive now than she was twenty years ago, she’s definitely aging gracefully. I’m _really_ surprised that they’re considering a new X-Files series to be honest, they should just let it lie. Coincedentally I watched the 2008 ‘X-Files: I Want To Believe’ movie a couple of weeks ago for the first time and thought it was pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/109 "2016-01-25T07:57:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really. If one has had a much more successful career and is in more demand, then he or she is going to get paid more. I don’t follow TV personalities all that closely, but it seems to me that Duchovny has done all sorts of high profile stuff in the last decade, but I haven’t seen Anderson in much of anything. It strikes me that some Americans here think Gillian Andersen hasn’t worked for the last 15 years. From my British perspective, she has seemed far more active than Duchovny, mainly as she has taken leading roles in some very high profile series over here (she lives in London). Perhaps the US tv execs made the same mistake. For the record, I think she’s way hotter now. ---
**Author:** ![Kaio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kaio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaio)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/110 "2016-01-25T08:09:41Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > I guess what I take away from this is that I need to be a bit more careful in making statements that are negative toward specific women even if they are based solely on the merits of that particular woman. Well, that’s the thing. You are not immune to the cultural messages we receive – no one is – so none of it is based SOLELY on the merits of a particular woman (or person). You make assumptions based on the cultural “defaults” that you grew up with and live with. If you never question your assumptions, typically you don’t even realize they are there. Self-awareness takes practice and effort. Google implicit bias – they even have [tests online to measure it](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) in yourself. Google the resume test. This shit has been studied and measured. I will point out that as you’ve never met Gillian Anderson, so you have _no idea_ of the full extent of her merits. And yet you assumed that you knew enough to declare it was fine she be paid less, _based solely on her looks_ – not even considering anything else that also makes up her “merit.” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/111 "2016-01-25T09:22:57Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > They can do the X Files without Scully, they can’t do it without Mulder. This is _provably_ rubbish, since they _already did_ two seasons without him and with her. > [@](#): > > He’s the star, she really was just the eye candy. The OP’s opinion may or may not not be sexist, _this_ statement definitely is. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/112 "2016-01-25T09:49:55Z")
Well consider Mork and Mindy. Mork was the main character and while Mindy was good, almost any actress could have played the part. Nobody could have been Robin Williams though. So thats how I feel about X-Files. Mulder was the most interesting with his UFO background while really any actress could have played Scully. But then really on Xifiles all of the interesting characters were men. Consider cigarette smoking man. Consider the hacker geeks. Consider all the villains. And look at the new Star Wars. Carrie Fisher now looks so far from what she was like when she was younger they really could have brought in another actress to play Leia. Same with Chewbacca. But their was nobody but Harrison ford to play Han Solo. The juries still out on Mark Hamill as Luke. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/113 "2016-01-25T10:40:23Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Well consider Mork and Mindy. Mork was the main character and while Mindy was good, almost any actress could have played the part. Nobody could have been Robin Williams though. > > So thats how I feel about X-Files. Mulder was the most interesting with his UFO background while really any actress could have played Scully. > > But then really on Xifiles all of the interesting characters were men. Consider cigarette smoking man. Consider the hacker geeks. Consider all the villains. > > And look at the new Star Wars. Carrie Fisher now looks so far from what she was like when she was younger they really could have brought in another actress to play Leia. Same with Chewbacca. But their was nobody but Harrison ford to play Han Solo. The juries still out on Mark Hamill as Luke. What you seem to be saying is that more interesting roles are written for men. You say any actress could have played Scully but Mulder was an interesting character. Could another actor have played Mulder? Was the character interesting because of his backstory, or because Duchovny brought something special to the role? Same question for the Cigarette Smoking Man, the hackers and the villains. You go on to say that Carrie Fisher looks too different to play Leia, but why? Carrie Fisher looks exactly like Leia would after 40 years. Who could more convincingly portray that? This is sexist. Anderson and Fisher haven’t lost their ability to act; They’ve lost their youthfulness, just as the male leads have. I feel the need to clarify one point: I feel the pay offer originally made to Gillian Anderson for the reunion isn’t necessarily sexist as there is no indication of the reasoning behind it. Maybe her earnings have been lower since and she was offered compensation in line with her recent earnings; maybe her agent/negotiator is known to bargain aggressively as she was lowballed in the initial offer to give the studio more room to move in negotiations; maybe Mulder had a larger role, maybe it was straight-up sexism… I don’t know, I’m sure there are many potential factors. But while I don’t believe there’s enough information to assume the low offer was motivated by sexism, I do believe the OP’s assumption that it was because of her appearance is sexist. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/114 "2016-01-25T11:00:33Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > What you seem to be saying is that more interesting roles are written for men. > You say any actress could have played Scully but Mulder was an interesting character. Could another actor have played Mulder? Was the character interesting because of his backstory, or because Duchovny brought something special to the role? Same question for the Cigarette Smoking Man, the hackers and the villains. You go on to say that Carrie Fisher looks too different to play Leia, but why? Carrie Fisher looks exactly like Leia would after 40 years. Who could more convincingly portray that? > > This is sexist. Anderson and Fisher haven’t lost their ability to act; They’ve lost their youthfulness, just as the male leads have. > > I feel the need to clarify one point: I feel the pay offer originally made to Gillian Anderson for the reunion isn’t necessarily sexist as there is no indication of the reasoning behind it. Maybe her earnings have been lower since and she was offered compensation in line with her recent earnings; maybe her agent/negotiator is known to bargain aggressively as she was lowballed in the initial offer to give the studio more room to move in negotiations; maybe Mulder had a larger role, maybe it was straight-up sexism… I don’t know, I’m sure there are many potential factors. But while I don’t believe there’s enough information to assume the low offer was motivated by sexism, I do believe the OP’s assumption that it was because of her appearance is sexist. Hmm… good points. Maybe society just doesnt allow “weirdness” on the same levels in men and women. So cigarette smoking - woman? The hackers being women? I’m not sure I guess they could have been. The only comparison I can think of is when they made the character “M” female in the Bond films or Janeway in Star Trek. But your right on that the money issue could have been more based on her current value rather than any equality. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/115 "2016-01-25T11:36:02Z")
If other actors had been casted when the show began, we’d be having this same discussion about those actors now. Anderson and Duchovny are the faces of the characters now because they played the roles for so long, not because they brought anything unique to their portrayals. A reboot could well have given us a better Scully and/or Mulder. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/116 "2016-01-25T15:12:08Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > I feel the need to clarify one point: I feel the pay offer originally made to Gillian Anderson for the reunion isn’t necessarily sexist as there is no indication of the reasoning behind it. Maybe her earnings have been lower since and she was offered compensation in line with her recent earnings; maybe her agent/negotiator is known to bargain aggressively as she was lowballed in the initial offer to give the studio more room to move in negotiations; maybe Mulder had a larger role, maybe it was straight-up sexism… I don’t know, I’m sure there are many potential factors. But while I don’t believe there’s enough information to assume the low offer was motivated by sexism, I do believe the OP’s assumption that it was because of her appearance is sexist. Their is a saying “You are not paid what you are worth. You are paid what you negotiate for”. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/117 "2016-01-25T15:21:22Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Yeah, if it’s not sexist, it’s a powerful stupid thing to say. When it comes to remaining true to the physical features of Dana Scully they have literally cast the best possible person they could have. Exactly. 2016 Gillian Anderson looks like… what Dana Scully would look like in 2016. She doesn’t look like ca. 2002 Scully or Anderson, and she sure doesn’t look like ca. 1993 Scully or Anderson. Neither do any of the other original cast members either; people do get older. It’s just unfortunate that the Old Age Truck tends to hit women more squarely than it does men. That said, I don’t really see how Anderson should make more money than Duchovny. True, he’s a more prominent and accomplished actor in some ways, but the fact is that nobody is (or very few, anyway) watching the X-Files to see David Duchovny by himself- they’re watching the partnership of Mulder and Scully, in which she’s an equal. So by that yardstick, they ought to be paid equally, as they’re equal parts of the onscreen partnership. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/118 "2016-01-25T15:49:18Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It is a sexual role. Men and women paired on television have an implied sexual tension that frequently turns into real sex. Men are sexually attractive for more of their life than women, that’s not sexism. Are you homosexual? If not, I seriously doubt you know what makes a man sexually attractive. Donald Trump agrees with you; he’s traded a couple of aging wives in for newer models. Do those young things marry him because he’s sexy–or because he’s extremely rich? I know the answer. Men still have most of the power in Hollywood, so they allow aging leading men to romance actresses who keep getting younger. Mulder & Scully are essential to the\* X-Files\*. It’s the story of their relationship–they met in Episode 1. Otherwise, we’d have Mulder mumbling to himself in that basement office. No matter how the new series goes, at least we’ve got the original pair back together–earning the same salaries. ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/119 "2016-01-25T16:04:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t know about sexist, but that’s some powerful stupid you got going for you there. I mean, it’s been what, fifteen years since the series ended? What’s Scully _supposed_ to look like fifteen years later? And how is that different from what Gillian Anderson looks like, fifteen years later? Also, why should that have an impact on how much Anderson gets paid? Lastly, you appear to [actually be blind](http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2013/10/14/14-gillian-anderson-david-duchovney.w529.h529.jpg) if you think that doesn’t look like Dana Scully. > > Frankly, you should just go with “sexist.” You actually come off better that way. She \*is \*unrecognizable in that picture; bitch is actually smiling. Other than that, you are absolutely correct on all points. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948/120 "2016-01-25T16:16:45Z")
Gillian Anderson looks like the Statue of Liberty, nttawwt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thinking-gillian-anderson-doesnt-look-like-scully-any-more-sexism/743948.md?page=7)