why i hate sex and the city
Okay, I guess I get it. Wouldn’t it be nice to be rich and (relatively) young and live in New York and go to cool bars and restaurants and have a close circle of friends to chit-chat with?
But here’s my issue: Sex and the City was considered groundbreaking because it featured women who were independent and successful in the way that men are. However, to me, it seems misogynistic that the show implicitly suggests that when women gain independence and parity with men, they use it to have casual sex and engage in rank commodity fetishism (see Carrie’s repeated declarations of love for overpriced shoes). Seriously, are these best representatives of womankind we can find? I think not and, yet, girls and women across the country idolize these insipid, callus, consumers.
Not convinced that Carrie and friends are as bad as all that? Check out Roger Ebert’s review, which makes the SITC movie sound like a Farrelly Brothers flick.
I hate it because while these women claim to be liberated, they hardly are. All that consuming and seeking, for what? Not just sex, but to get a boyfriend. The show is not feminist, it holds up the patriarchy (not to mention capitalism) as much as ever. The show seems to be saying “Now that you have an ounce of agency, the correct route is to spend it all desperately obsessing over and seeking the things that will leave you still trapped.”
(I also strongly dislike the “Article with a question answered by the end for another trite truism.” and the writing in general.)
Laura
June 2, 2008 at 11:09 am
Yes! Totally.
andrewska
June 2, 2008 at 5:57 pm
[...] and the film that appealed to so many millions of female around the world. Maybe I will find my answer one day but until then I intend to read as many articles I can about SATC in the faint hope that I [...]
Kamla Bhatt Blog » Books, Movies, Music, Televison Americas Living In America People » Sex And The City or SATC
June 3, 2008 at 1:49 am
I agree, I totally don’t get it.
I do, however, understand why some women (including my girlfriend) absolutely love it. We (as liberated sociologists) can despise the messages and gender roles inherent in “Sex and the City.” When i talk to her about this, she agrees that these women are pretty much ridiculous caricatures, and that the plot is weak and rife with ridiculous consumerism. Still, she tells me, “it’s fun!”
So for her the movie is fun, probably because of its ridiculous nature. And just as I don’t get my girlfriend’s obsession with sex and the city, she certainly doesn’t understand why i would ever enjoy a movie like “Ironman.” But isn’t Ironman, or movies like it, doing the same sort of thing for men? While sex and the city is a caricature of rich, female gender stereotypes, Ironman was a caricature of rich, male gender stereotypes (the suave cocky guy who randomly hooks up with girls…the list goes on).
Despite the blatant ridiculousness of things like Ironman (and Ironman certainly has its elements of consumerism), i still like it. Why? It’s a lot of fun to watch.
Flying Dutchman
June 4, 2008 at 9:10 am
Agreed (even though “Ironman” was great and Robert Downey, Jr. is almost inarguably the best actor of his generation). I guess my point is that there are any number of positive independent male role models in the media and not so many female ones.
andrewska
June 4, 2008 at 10:25 am
Could be that the SatC characters were created and largely written by men. That they’re gay men seems to mean something to some people, as if that makes it way different, but I honestly don’t think it does.
Ang
June 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I just had a big argument with a friend about this whole thing last night. The crux of the fight was whether or not the mere existence of things like SiTC (and My Super Sweet Sixteen etc. etc. etc.) actually make the world a worse place, and whether or not the people who watch them (particularly the ones who watch religiously) cannot possibly also be critical thinking intelligent people.
Now, as my friend knows, I have never been into either of these shows, and I smugly judge people who are. However, Ironman? Loved it. Acknowledged the stereotypes and then went on to say “But it’s fun!” Apparently, I have stereotypically male taste. And I have a few other guilty pleasures up my sleeve as well. Anyway, my point was/is that Ironman and other movies and shows about adventure, crime solving, aliens etc. surely contain ridiculous stereotypes, but the stereotypes are not the focus of the entertainment. There are broader and, in my not-so-humble opinion, fundamentally more interesting themes.
My friend (who by the way is male and shares my taste), argued that the difference between the two types of entertainment is merely one of preference, and that one cannot make sweeping generalizations about a person based on their taste in entertainment. I remain unconvinced. I think that these shows’ endless attention to shallow materialism and, as Laura points out above, mostly anti-feminist themes is damaging. Even for the people who claim that they recognize the issues with the shows but still watch them every week. It’s one thing to stumble across something and find it diverting for 30 minutes of your life. It’s another thing entirely to TiVo it and watch 6 episodes in a row on a Saturday afternoon.
The only argument against Ironman and the like that I can see as valid is that the very fact that the stereotypes are not the focus makes them more insipid and damaging. Critical thinkers will go in, see the stereotypes and count them as a drawback of the film. But most people aren’t critical thinkers. Most people will go see that movie and walk away with a slightly altered lexicon of stereotypes in their head without really thinking much about it.
kristina b
June 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm