|
Post by Martini Girl on Jun 9, 2018 14:02:12 GMT -4
My bias totally showing: I can't reconcile her life as a respected attorney and the way she dresses. The two just don't go together in my mind. Half the time she looks like a Jersey shore girl.
|
|
|
Post by Beyle on Jun 9, 2018 19:53:35 GMT -4
I still can't get over that she changed her name. "Successful, prominent, feminist human rights attorney." Okay. There was a twitter thread when that happened, a few female journalists talking about "Did she really change her name?" without naming her, it was hilarious. And his career as an actor/director is getting a bit long in the tooth. I suppose the 233 million from the tequila sale can continue to prop us his forays, but nothing he's done has really stuck since The Descendants. I'd say Gravity was a fluke, totally owned by Sandra. I've never bought into George and Amal's marriage, tbh. I'm quite impressed, though, with how her biography's been kind of scrubbed clean. Now she's a human rights lawyer, but wasn't she on the team who represented Assange and other human rights violators? I don't begrudge the kind of work she does, but I'm not sure she deserves the designation of "human rights lawyer" just because she recently picked up a case or two that qualifies. I won't get started on her decision to change her last name, despite having had a lofty career pre-George, although it's obvious why. To each her own.
|
|
|
Post by petitesuite on Jun 9, 2018 20:41:32 GMT -4
She was a prosecutor at The Hague for six years so I think her human rights credentials are pretty legitimate, plus she has done some very significant U.N. human rights work since then. I will mock her fashion to hell and back but she has done quite a bit more than “pick up a case or two.” She did represent Assange—my personal feeling is that you need both sides to be represented at every judicial proceeding in order to get true justice and because preserving fairness matters, but certainly I can understand how someone would find Assange so repulsive that you might want an exception just for him.
|
|
|
Post by Babycakes on Jun 10, 2018 0:42:28 GMT -4
I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she changed her name for the sake of the kids. I'm one of those judgmental people that side-eyes people when the whole family all have different last names. I have far too many of these in my own family.
|
|
jenm
Valet
Posts: 47
Nov 9, 2016 4:27:38 GMT -4
|
Post by jenm on Jun 10, 2018 6:02:43 GMT -4
Bloody hell I’m sorry I clicked on this topic. Women are fucked. If this board, which is pretty left leaning can be this harsh on a successful accomplished woman because of how she dresses? We don’t need men to drag us down. We do it to each other just fine.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 14:19:43 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 12:04:02 GMT -4
I doubt anyone made her change her name. And my understanding is that feminism is about freedom of choice, so if she chose to change her name when she got married, then that's her business. If she had chosen not too, that also would've been her business. It's her name and she can do what she wants with it. Hell, I've met some older women who still insist on being addressed in writing as Mrs. HusbandsFirstName HusbandsLastName. I'm sure as hell not going to criticize them if that's what they want to go by.
|
|
luminosa
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,431
Dec 16, 2008 12:12:11 GMT -4
|
Post by luminosa on Jun 10, 2018 12:26:03 GMT -4
Bloody hell I’m sorry I clicked on this topic. Women are fucked. If this board, which is pretty left leaning can be this harsh on a successful accomplished woman because of how she dresses? We don’t need men to drag us down. We do it to each other just fine. For me at least, I don’t care for the way she dresses at all. But that doesn’t diminish her work or life accomplishments. I think I should be able to say that I don’t like a dress she chose to wear without the implication that I’m dragging her whole life down. We talk about all aspects of famous people here. Are someone’s sartorial choices the most shallow of what we talk about? Probably. But it’s unavoidable and not off limits. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has discussed/and has had her different collars reviewed at length. Hilary Clinton gets dragged endlessly for her pantsuits. No one is saying she’s a failure because of it. Good or bad, fashion is going to always be discussed in conjunction with women.
|
|
|
Post by petitesuite on Jun 10, 2018 13:57:53 GMT -4
I really disagree that we should just accept that we're always going to talk about what women wear and there's no point in fighting it, and I think your example of Clinton is actually a really good explanation of why. I think Amal's outfits are definitely up for some discussion because 1) she clearly puts a lot of effort and thought into her fashion, which makes some discussion of whether or not she succeeds acceptable and 2) she participates in events that are entirely about fashion; critiquing what a host of the Met Gala wears is pretty much the definition of fair game. On the flip side we have someone like Clinton who pretty clearly (to me) has little interest in fashion, it's not at all relevant to her ability to do her job well, and she hasn't ever put herself in a position where her fashion is the point (except, perhaps, by virtue of being a woman and surely we can all agree that's not a good reason?).
That got a bit wordy but in short--if a famous woman wants to put herself in a position where her perspective on fashion really matters, commenting on her fashion is fair, otherwise I do not see the value in it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 10, 2018 14:19:38 GMT -4
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has discussed/and has had her different collars reviewed at length. Hilary Clinton gets dragged endlessly for her pantsuits. No one is saying she’s a failure because of it. Good or bad, fashion is going to always be discussed in conjunction with women. My personal rule is that if women don't want to play the fashion game, then they shouldn't have to, and I'm not going to critique. Hillary Clinton wears appropriate professional attire and it shouldn't be an issue. But Amal Clooney is playing the fashion game and playing it hard. Every outfit she wears screams, "LOOK AT THIS OUTFIT! LOOK HOW FASHIONABLE I AM!" Even her thirsty husband has made it one of his talking points to praise her publicly for her fashion sense. Hell, she was a co-host of the Met Gala. She posed for the cover of Vogue. She is eagerly participating in the media's attempt to make her into a fashion icon. As such, I have absolutely no qualms about looking at the outfits she wears to public events and saying I like or don't like them. That's exactly why she's wearing them. I'm sure she'd personally prefer nothing but breathless praise, but you can't have all praise and no criticism ever.
|
|
|
Post by prisma on Jun 10, 2018 15:01:46 GMT -4
I think this echoes Tom and Lorenzo's policy on who they will and will not critique. They only critique people who are in the fame game, wearing expensive clothes often provided to them by designers, who are using fashion to cultivate an image. They've always said they wouldn't dare critique a regular "real life" woman. They did give Hillary a little coverage in the campaign but I think they were grading her on a curve of someone who's not into fashion. There are other stars who they put on that same curve (Tina Fey is one; I think Keri Russell is another)--people who know they need to look nice but otherwise don't seem to get off on fashion.
|
|