Meg Ryan is not standing by silently and letting people label her actor son Jack Quaid a nepo baby, a term used for kids of famous parents. Quaid is the son of Ryan and actor Dennis Quaid. In a new…
Yes, the opposite of nepotism is reward based entirely on merit. But nepotism doesn’t mean that someone is entirely without merit. Consider the first example they give, legacy admissions. Nepotism can get you further than a better applicant but you still had to have some degree of merit to get into the school. Or the example of Murdoch’s daughter, who was overpaid for a tv channel but still had to have one etc.
I’m not misunderstanding. You dishonestly left out and ignored the last part of that example - “primarily on the basis of their family connections.” The entire point is that you don’t have to get the good grades and do the volunteering that everyone else does. You gain entry just by virtue of the family connections aka “legacy admissions”. And the Murdoch example is also disingenuous because her father owned the network doing the purchase. He didn’t overpay because she had a great station. He overpaid because she was his daughter. That is clear nepotism.
“In education, nepotism occurs when the children or relatives of wealthy or influential people are admitted to elite schools (known as “legacy admissions”). **It can also occur **when they receive better grades and more opportunities primarily on the basis of their family connections.”
Again, you are misunderstanding. Yes, nepotism can be made without any merit at all but that’s a rare case. More often they have merit but not as much as their peers. Look into legacy admissions, it doesn’t mean you can barely read and write and still go to Harvard, more that your grades don’t have to be at the same level.
It’s a classic “all” sort of error and totally understandable. Nepotism is advancing/promoting etc someone because of their connections rather than their merit but while someone can be advanced without any merit that’s not a requisite condition for nepotism. Does that make more sense?
No, it doesn’t. If two people are equally qualified (meaning that their level of qualification is irrelevant) and one person gets the job because of who their family is, that’s nepotism. If their family connection isn’t taken into account or is unknown, it’s not nepotism. Unless Jack Quaid got selected because of his family connection, it’s not nepotism even if his opportunities were greater in number because of his wealth or his exposure to those opportunities was greater because his family already worked in the industry. That’s privilege but it’s not nepotism unless the result is directly and primarily on the basis of those connections.
To he clear, you think Jack Quaid’s name was never passed along to producers, casting agents and the like because his parents were iconic actors? Sure, capable actor but the reason his name is passed, in your mind, was never because of Ryan or Quaid?
Or, that he wasn’t as good as the next best choice but given the role as a favour to Meg who banked how many reliable hits? Like casting agents and producers just forgot who Meg Ryan is?
Frankly, that’s such an adorably innocent view of Hollywood I’d rather just let it be.
The first part you say was guaranteed to happen no matter what. That also happens with rich people who aren’t actors. The 2nd part is far less likely as the types of films and shows Jack works on have very little overlap with the type of work Meg Ryan does.
If my view of Hollywood is innocent then what’s yours, considering that I work in the industry?
The first part you say was guaranteed to happen no matter what. That also happens with rich people who aren’t actors.
Nepotism is still nepotism whether it happens for actors or rich people with connections.
The 2nd part is far less likely as the types of films and shows Jack works on have very little overlap with the type of work Meg Ryan does.
It only takes one or two to get the ball rolling.
If my view of Hollywood is innocent then what’s yours, considering that I work in the industry?
Less rose tinted and more objective. Also, you mean to use “than” when comparing things, not 'then." Another simple misunderstanding, also pretty common though!
First off… you don’t need to be a condescending ass, especially when you’re wrong. I used the correct “then” as I wasn’t comparing two things so take your misunderstanding and shove it back where the sun don’t shine.
Secondly, someone having opportunities that others don’t based off of wealth isn’t nepotism. The shared root of the word nepotism comes from the word “nephew” as the entire etymology of the word comes from a king who appointed his nephews to roles to keep his family in power, ignoring their qualifications for the roles to which they were appointed. So, unless people who are wealthy are also being given those opportunities because of their family connections, it’s still not nepotism. Stop trying to redefine the term, especially incorrectly, because you don’t understand what it means or what its historical context is.
Lastly, unless you have evidence of “one or two” instances where Jack Quaid was given roles that he didn’t deserve because he was Meg Ryan’s kid, the point still stands and your response is just as dismissive as the rest of what you’ve said.
This is just getting silly. Again, re-read the definition of nepotism:
Nepotism, the unfair practice of granting jobs and other favours to relatives, whether by blood or marriage.
Passing along Jack’s name to producers, casting agents etc is a favour which is being granted simply because of who his parents are. Which is exactly the definition of nepotism.
Secondly, someone having opportunities that others don’t based off of wealth isn’t nepotism.
Sure, if Meg Ryan paid for extra acting classes etc, that’s a different type of privilege. But, her passing along his name to folks on the basis that she’s his mom, that is nepotism.
Look at literally the first example of definition of nepotism:
In education, nepotism occurs when the children or relatives of wealthy or influential people are admitted to elite schools (known as “legacy admissions”). It can also occur when they receive better grades and more opportunities primarily on the basis of their family connections.
If his mom is passing along his name and giving him more opportunities primarily based on being family, that is nepotism. I’m not sure how to break it down for you any further. You can insist that Britannica is wrong but that just seems silly.
I think you’re slightly misunderstanding.
Yes, the opposite of nepotism is reward based entirely on merit. But nepotism doesn’t mean that someone is entirely without merit. Consider the first example they give, legacy admissions. Nepotism can get you further than a better applicant but you still had to have some degree of merit to get into the school. Or the example of Murdoch’s daughter, who was overpaid for a tv channel but still had to have one etc.
I’m not misunderstanding. You dishonestly left out and ignored the last part of that example - “primarily on the basis of their family connections.” The entire point is that you don’t have to get the good grades and do the volunteering that everyone else does. You gain entry just by virtue of the family connections aka “legacy admissions”. And the Murdoch example is also disingenuous because her father owned the network doing the purchase. He didn’t overpay because she had a great station. He overpaid because she was his daughter. That is clear nepotism.
Here’s the entire text of that example:
“In education, nepotism occurs when the children or relatives of wealthy or influential people are admitted to elite schools (known as “legacy admissions”). **It can also occur **when they receive better grades and more opportunities primarily on the basis of their family connections.”
Again, you are misunderstanding. Yes, nepotism can be made without any merit at all but that’s a rare case. More often they have merit but not as much as their peers. Look into legacy admissions, it doesn’t mean you can barely read and write and still go to Harvard, more that your grades don’t have to be at the same level.
It’s a classic “all” sort of error and totally understandable. Nepotism is advancing/promoting etc someone because of their connections rather than their merit but while someone can be advanced without any merit that’s not a requisite condition for nepotism. Does that make more sense?
No, it doesn’t. If two people are equally qualified (meaning that their level of qualification is irrelevant) and one person gets the job because of who their family is, that’s nepotism. If their family connection isn’t taken into account or is unknown, it’s not nepotism. Unless Jack Quaid got selected because of his family connection, it’s not nepotism even if his opportunities were greater in number because of his wealth or his exposure to those opportunities was greater because his family already worked in the industry. That’s privilege but it’s not nepotism unless the result is directly and primarily on the basis of those connections.
To he clear, you think Jack Quaid’s name was never passed along to producers, casting agents and the like because his parents were iconic actors? Sure, capable actor but the reason his name is passed, in your mind, was never because of Ryan or Quaid?
Or, that he wasn’t as good as the next best choice but given the role as a favour to Meg who banked how many reliable hits? Like casting agents and producers just forgot who Meg Ryan is?
Frankly, that’s such an adorably innocent view of Hollywood I’d rather just let it be.
The first part you say was guaranteed to happen no matter what. That also happens with rich people who aren’t actors. The 2nd part is far less likely as the types of films and shows Jack works on have very little overlap with the type of work Meg Ryan does.
If my view of Hollywood is innocent then what’s yours, considering that I work in the industry?
Nepotism is still nepotism whether it happens for actors or rich people with connections.
It only takes one or two to get the ball rolling.
Less rose tinted and more objective. Also, you mean to use “than” when comparing things, not 'then." Another simple misunderstanding, also pretty common though!
First off… you don’t need to be a condescending ass, especially when you’re wrong. I used the correct “then” as I wasn’t comparing two things so take your misunderstanding and shove it back where the sun don’t shine.
Secondly, someone having opportunities that others don’t based off of wealth isn’t nepotism. The shared root of the word nepotism comes from the word “nephew” as the entire etymology of the word comes from a king who appointed his nephews to roles to keep his family in power, ignoring their qualifications for the roles to which they were appointed. So, unless people who are wealthy are also being given those opportunities because of their family connections, it’s still not nepotism. Stop trying to redefine the term, especially incorrectly, because you don’t understand what it means or what its historical context is.
Lastly, unless you have evidence of “one or two” instances where Jack Quaid was given roles that he didn’t deserve because he was Meg Ryan’s kid, the point still stands and your response is just as dismissive as the rest of what you’ve said.
This is just getting silly. Again, re-read the definition of nepotism:
Passing along Jack’s name to producers, casting agents etc is a favour which is being granted simply because of who his parents are. Which is exactly the definition of nepotism.
Sure, if Meg Ryan paid for extra acting classes etc, that’s a different type of privilege. But, her passing along his name to folks on the basis that she’s his mom, that is nepotism.
Look at literally the first example of definition of nepotism:
If his mom is passing along his name and giving him more opportunities primarily based on being family, that is nepotism. I’m not sure how to break it down for you any further. You can insist that Britannica is wrong but that just seems silly.
Edit: Handy link so you don’t have to hunt for the definition