At the risk of putting the blog on fem-overload, I urge the “Yay femininity!” crowd to consider that casting Helen Mirren as an expensive sexbot for the cover of the planet’s mainstreamiest design catalog effectively reduces her from accomplished actor to whore (and overstuffed furniture salesman) in a single stroke. I know this because my mom, upon viewing Mirren’s hottt covergirl turn, remarked sadly, “I’ve lost a lot of respect for her.”
In other words, not even my mom, who wears lipstick and Manolos and believes femininity to be innate, can tolerate girly behaviors when taken to their logical pornstitutional conclusion.
By way of illustrating the absurdity of feminine affectation, I will perform the usual exercise, this time by substituting Taylor Hackford’s dudely visage for Helen Mirren’s hookerly one, whereupon the pose instantly becomes silly and the subject undignified.
Addendum: Several blamers have voiced objections to my use of the word “whore” in what appears to be a pejorative manner. I posted my response in the comments, but re-publish it here to de-confuse:
The point is valid. The post was hastily-written and poorly-worded. I allude to the ‘reduced-to-whore’ scenario in an (apparently failed) effort to convey a sense of the popular, dominant-culture disdain for prostituted women. The dominant-culture view of women is distinct from my own.
It is, of course, the position of this blog that prostituted women are human.
I sometimes forget that not everybody is a regular reader; you remind me that it is necessary to consider, when I write these things, that (a) the audience might be unfamiliar with my general worldview, and (b) I should write good.