A Joke?

A comment to the 2026 British film „Ladies first“.

The film has three themes. One is obviously men & women, and this theme is in the foreground. However, the other two themes may also be of importance, at least beyond the film itself.

On men & women

The film takes you on an entertaining tour in a world turned upside down. How would it look like if women where in charge and behaved like men, let’s say at their worst, in the „normal“ world? And if men silently had to succumb to that?

I think the film ingeniously shows how unfair and basically destructive oppression is. E. g. it points at the very narrow „window“ open to the oppressed sex being caught between being attractive (beauty) on the one hand and being taken seriously on the other hand. Push your attractiveness too far, and you are literally out of business (and basically into prostitution).

The oppressor is guilty of all this, right? However what if the oppressed fight back? In the real world women long have, and in the upside down film we see the „oppressed men“ rather successfully fighting back and climbing towards the top. They are pushing their sexual attractiveness, now that they have to – like woman in the real world, supposedly. But is there a limit to this? How successfully can the oppressed sex push back before the positions actually are switched?

Pursuing the latter perspective, you can add interesting questions. Like WHEN will the positions switch, or have they already? If so, how long ago? Or even more radically: Are you sure the sex supposedly in charge ever really was? Some ways of being in charge are more visible than others, but they are not necessarily the most effective.

In any case, „Ladies first“ has a happy end. At a moment of fierce rivalry between between the lead woman and the lead man they suddenly embrace – and now for „real“ (film real)! They actually love each other! This is the turning point of the film. Soon after we are back to normal, but to a much improved normal. Men have learned to respect women as colleagues and persons.

Fair?

Does the film give a fair account of the two sexes? In my opinion no. In the first 20 introductory minutes, before things are turned upside down, we get a presentation of the position of the two sexes, which to-day is a caricature. Men oppress openly. And more importantly, even after things have been turned upside down, the now „feminized“ men appear as the aggressors. Would that be a critical description of female aggression in the „normal“ world? I don’t think it works that way. Firstly, this aggression is also carried out by male actors. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the now „female aggression“ carried out by the male actors appears very openly. In the real world, however, female aggression is not open. It takes the form of discrete manipulation. We don’t see that in the film (or currently in any film).

To which extent is there in the real world actually such a thing as discrete, manipulative, female aggression? This is an empirical question.

On the marketing industry

The film plays in a marketing industry environment (a type of environment which admittedly is likely to be sexist, but which is also the perfect environment for anti-sexist counter-measures). People are working on a campaign for Guinness beer. Working as creatively as they can, they end up with the slogan: „Love takes time, but it’s worth it!“ What’s that got to do with Guinness? Nothing, of course, except a glass filled with brownish liquid displayed with the slogan. What do we get from that? Out in the real world I guess there would be three possible answers:

A) The campaign promotes beer as well as love.

B) The campaign promotes beer.

C) The campaign promotes beer, but wears down the concept of love.

On young and adult

There is a particular detail in the film to which I to would like to call attention. The above mentioned turning point is consolidated in a certain conversation between the lead female character and the lead male. However, there is also a third person present. He (or she, that’s not quite clear to me) doesn’t say anything, however he nods at decisive points. Speaking to the lead female character, the lead male suggests reconciliation between the sexes by certain steps, and for each step the lead female hesitates, and then looks to the third person who is her child. The child nods, and then the mother accepts.

„Ladies first“ is not the first movie in which children appear to be smarter, or even wiser, than the adults. The child is here given the authority to conclude. Benevolently interpreted you can say, that it is in the interest of children that the presumed adults cooperate sensibility. Perhaps the film wants to remind us of that? But I am afraid there is a deeper meaning (and a hard one) embedded in this particular detail. Perhaps most people of adult age today are so corrupt, that an immature child is likely to make better moral judgements? Or, even worse, you can see the film as ignoring the difference between adult and child, undermining the whole idea of adulthood and maturity.

A serious joke

In conclusion, „Ladies first“ is a joke. But it is a joke playing with a lot of serious stuff. If you see the movie, you will laugh. But don’t leave it at that. The film and what you think of it (or if you don’t think) may influence the way you see men and women.