Vuitton Girl Might Punch You (SatC2 London Premiere)

So Roger Ebert finished his — let’s call it ‘scathing’ — review of Sex and the City 2 with the following question:

Reader, I must confess that while attending the sneak preview with its overwhelmingly female audience, I was gob-smacked by the delightful cleavage on display. Do women wear their lowest-cut frocks for each other?

I’m going to disregard the appalling sexism on display here for a moment and just answer with this picture:

These four women, and the crowds of women behind them, are not dressed for YOU, Roger. They are dressed for ME. And for each other and for their fans and for the idea that fashion is fun and that that is a part of the appeal of Sex and the City.

Yes, what is fashionable is dictated by a predominantly male-dominated society. Yes, wearing their “lowest-cut frocks” is not in and of itself waving the flag of feminism. But, seriously, that question makes me want to punch you. And if I did, THAT might count as waving the flag of feminism — isn’t it odd how women acting “like men”, i.e. aggressively and violently, is what counts as “strong”?

Amanda Holden. Girly.

Alexandra Burke. Might punch you.

Stacey Soloman. Girly.

Karen Gillan. Might punch you. And with that Louis Vuitton belt, my pick for Superheroine of the Night (instead of Wonder Girl, she’s Vuitton Girl!)

These women are dressed up because they are at a movie premiere, because lots and lots of people will be looking at them and taking their picture. And sure, lots of people will look at their low-cut bodices and high-cut skirts. But that is still not the point, and it is certainly not the point for the women who go to the movie without the red carpet and the photogs and the bloggers like me posting their pictures for discussion. If you want me to value your opinion, Mr. Ebert, stick with the critique and keep your sexism to yourself.

About these ads

---