Deepika's 10% Profit Share Controversy Shows How Women Are Punished for Knowing Their Worth

I love it when women know their worth. I love it even more when everyone gets offended by it. Deepika Padukone allegedly asked for a 10% profit share for Spirit, and suddenly the number has become more interesting than the film itself. Sandeep Reddy Vanga's movie hasn't even completed shooting, but we're already dissecting Deepika's contract like she tried to terrorise the Vanga brothers with her 'outrageous' demands. Clearly, it has made everyone uncomfortable. © Instagram/Deepika PadukoneHowever, what fascinates me is that when Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan or Salman Khan negotiate profit-sharing deals for their big-budget films, we're happy to call it business. When Deepika allegedly does it, suddenly we're discussing whether she's asking for too much. Wow. How progressive of us. Why is a man's ambition called business, while a woman's is so often called ‘greed’? Take Aamir Khan, for instance. He has been quite open about his profit-sharing model, explaining that he doesn't necessarily take an upfront acting fee and instead earns a percentage once the film has recovered its costs, including production and promotion. In fact, he has described taking a higher cut because he is also taking the risk of not getting paid if the film doesn't make money. And Aamir isn't the only male star to do this. © Reuters This is an industry where being a bankable actor can mean negotiating beyond a straightforward salary. Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, Yash, Allu Arjun and others have also been associated with backend and profit-sharing arrangements over the years. For male superstars, the idea that an actor can participate in the financial upside of a film is hardly treated as an outrageous concept. It makes sense, too. If a star's name can help sell a film, bring audiences into theatres and turn a Rs. 200-crore production into a blockbuster, why shouldn't that star negotiate a piece of the upside? The bigger the star, the more leverage they have. © Red Chillies EntertainmentWhich brings us back to Deepika because apparently, when a man negotiates his commercial value, he's demonstrating that he understands the business. However, when a woman does it, we're suddenly calling her ‘difficult’. This isn't even a uniquely Indian problem. Hollywood has its own long history of actors negotiating profit sharing deals. When Barbie became a billion-dollar phenomenon, of course there were conversations around a sequel. However, it was widely reported that the producers were not too happy about Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling receiving a share of the profits for Barbie 2. © Mattel FilmsNow, nobody is arguing that every actor deserves every percentage they ask for. That's not how negotiation works. If Deepika asked for 10% and the producers thought it was too high, they were perfectly entitled to say so. They could counter. They could restructure the deal. They could decide her value didn't justify the number. That’s called negotiation. The strange part is what happens after the negotiation leaves the room. Because suddenly the conversation has become about a woman being too demanding. Too difficult. Too ambitious. And this is where I think we need to examine our vocabulary. © Instagram/Deepika PadukoneWe have no problem calling a man ‘shrewd’ for knowing exactly how much money his name can generate. So, why do we call a woman greedy’ for doing the same maths? We tell women to know their worth, until they put an actual number on it. Then everyone suddenly wants to know who she thinks she is. Perhaps that's the real problem with Deepika's alleged 10% request. Not the percentage, but the idea that a woman might look at the value she brings to a film, calculate her worth and negotiate accordingly, without first asking whether everyone else will be comfortable with it.