Sex and the City: The Verdict
So now that I have seen all six seasons as well as the movie of this much-hailed testament to modern-day feminism, I feel that I can fairly pass judgment.
Sex and the City is, in a word, the ultimate guilty pleasure (I realize that was more than one word stfu already). Not a guilty pleasure in its inanity or reliance on cliches or utter ridiculousness (I am not reluctant to admit, after all, that I love VH1 reality shows, Burn Notice, or certain Bollywood movies, so to me they're not really guilty pleasures). It is a guilty pleasure in that I am ashamed to admit I enjoyed watching it.
For a show that was so venerated for its liberated view on female sexuality and women's role in society in general, it is one of the few TV programs geared toward women that I can fairly dismiss as sexist trash without any socially redeeming value. These women are so liberated that they can sleep with whomever they want, whenever they want, without an ounce of guilt, just like men can. The problem is that, as liberated as these women supposedly are, their lives as portrayed in the show are held entirely hostage to men: dating them, sleeping with them, marrying them, divorcing them. They supposedly have these fabulous careers (as writers, PR reps, lawyers, and art curators), but we hardly ever see them much interested in their work beyond its use as a plot device to further their relations with men (the notable exception being Carrie, whose work as a sex columnist highlights the theme of each episode). No, the focus is on their sex lives. (And in the movie, on their married lives.)
I get that the show is about sex and dating. But I don't like to see it touted as some feminist revolution when it's just another way of putting women in their place: rotating around men as their universal center.*
The show was also praised as portraying the lives of "real New York women". I don't know what tiny percentage of females they might be referring to, but I don't think it accounts for the majority of women in Brooklyn, Queens, or even Manhattan. These women seem to have bottomless pocketbooks (Carrie in spite of her fairly modest columnist's income), enough to be able to eat out practically every meal of the day, buy overpriced shoes, and take trips to the Hamptons.
Sex's overall approach comes at the expense of a couple of things:
In spite of all this, Sex and the City is a very well scripted, funny, and yes, addicting franchise. That's what really makes it a guilty pleasure, in that as much as I disagreed with its sexism, materialism, and lack of realism, I was hooked for about a month watching one season after another, and I finally watched the movie the other night. I console myself with the thought that I downloaded everything.
So did those of you who've seen Sex and the City have as negative a reaction to it as I did? Or am I just a crazy femi-nazi?
*And the show is an affront not just to women but to gay men. Besides the stereotypical portrayal of Sex's two main gay characters Stanford and Anthony, I can recall a specific episode that really got under my skin. In episode 28 from season 2, a male gay couple invite Samantha to have a threesome with them. The (perhaps unintended) implication here is that gay people are not just gay but sexually deviant. In fact, a gay couple is not even capable of monogamy because their whole existence revolves around sexual experimentation and they really just want to get off any perverse way possible.
Sex and the City is, in a word, the ultimate guilty pleasure (I realize that was more than one word stfu already). Not a guilty pleasure in its inanity or reliance on cliches or utter ridiculousness (I am not reluctant to admit, after all, that I love VH1 reality shows, Burn Notice, or certain Bollywood movies, so to me they're not really guilty pleasures). It is a guilty pleasure in that I am ashamed to admit I enjoyed watching it.
For a show that was so venerated for its liberated view on female sexuality and women's role in society in general, it is one of the few TV programs geared toward women that I can fairly dismiss as sexist trash without any socially redeeming value. These women are so liberated that they can sleep with whomever they want, whenever they want, without an ounce of guilt, just like men can. The problem is that, as liberated as these women supposedly are, their lives as portrayed in the show are held entirely hostage to men: dating them, sleeping with them, marrying them, divorcing them. They supposedly have these fabulous careers (as writers, PR reps, lawyers, and art curators), but we hardly ever see them much interested in their work beyond its use as a plot device to further their relations with men (the notable exception being Carrie, whose work as a sex columnist highlights the theme of each episode). No, the focus is on their sex lives. (And in the movie, on their married lives.)
I get that the show is about sex and dating. But I don't like to see it touted as some feminist revolution when it's just another way of putting women in their place: rotating around men as their universal center.*
The show was also praised as portraying the lives of "real New York women". I don't know what tiny percentage of females they might be referring to, but I don't think it accounts for the majority of women in Brooklyn, Queens, or even Manhattan. These women seem to have bottomless pocketbooks (Carrie in spite of her fairly modest columnist's income), enough to be able to eat out practically every meal of the day, buy overpriced shoes, and take trips to the Hamptons.
Sex's overall approach comes at the expense of a couple of things:
- These "girls" are apparently best friends but you never see them bonding or fighting over anything that doesn't have to do with relationships or sex. There is no other way to develop their friendship. In season 4 episode 64, Carrie decides to buy her apartment and gets a loan from Samantha, Miranda, and, after some hesitation, Charlotte too. Carrie promises to pay her back but tells her it will take some time, and the episode ends happily. I expected that plot point to be taken up some time later with Carrie running out of money or forgetting to pay Charlotte back on time, and that leading to some conflict. Nope. Real-life trials and tribulations are apparently not scandalous enough, and beneath the glamorous lifestyle Darren Star et. al. wanted to portray.
- They all fall in and out of love fast enough, but other than how good the romantic and sexual chemistry is, you don't really see what attracts these women to men in the first place, and what keeps them in relationships. They don't bond over hobbies or intellectual conversations or a shared affinity for a certain lifestyle. It's all superficial sparks. (I complained similarly about Brokeback Mountain: the protagonists' relationship was built entirely on sex and didn't even hint at anything deeper.) When you think about it, how likely is it that in real life a Harvard-educated attorney like Miranda would date and then marry a high school-educated bartender like Steve? Not that education makes you a better or smarter person or whatever, but it's much more difficult to connect with someone not on the same educational wavelength as you. There are exceptions, of course, but the point is that if Miranda and Steve's relationship is only based on sex and romance, they (and the filmmakers) don't have to worry about a deeper connection between them.
In spite of all this, Sex and the City is a very well scripted, funny, and yes, addicting franchise. That's what really makes it a guilty pleasure, in that as much as I disagreed with its sexism, materialism, and lack of realism, I was hooked for about a month watching one season after another, and I finally watched the movie the other night. I console myself with the thought that I downloaded everything.
So did those of you who've seen Sex and the City have as negative a reaction to it as I did? Or am I just a crazy femi-nazi?
*And the show is an affront not just to women but to gay men. Besides the stereotypical portrayal of Sex's two main gay characters Stanford and Anthony, I can recall a specific episode that really got under my skin. In episode 28 from season 2, a male gay couple invite Samantha to have a threesome with them. The (perhaps unintended) implication here is that gay people are not just gay but sexually deviant. In fact, a gay couple is not even capable of monogamy because their whole existence revolves around sexual experimentation and they really just want to get off any perverse way possible.