Hear that high-pitched scream in the background? It’s either a traveling castrato choir, or Sex and the City 2 is opening in theaters this Friday.The sequel is set in Abu Dhabi, and I’m not really sure what it’s about. I looked up the trailer and watched it (just for you, readers), and it shows “the girls” doing various rich lady things. There’s even a scene of them riding a camel, for Orientalist good measure.
Now, I didn’t see the first Sex and the City, and have no plans to see the second. But I did watch much of the series in college with an ex-boyfriend, who really liked the show (yes, he is straight). My reasons for loathing the franchise are personal and political. You see, my first name is Carrie, and, over the years, some people have exclaimed upon my introducing myself, “Like “Sex and the City!” This is a sign we will not become close friends.
I identify more with aspects of second-wave feminism than that of the third wave. Obviously, a stay-at-home mom can call herself a feminist just as much as a woman who pursues a high-powered career. However, in an effort to be inclusive, some third-wave feminists defend a woman’s choice to do pretty much anything. There’s not even the suggestion that perhaps one woman’s life choices may be better than another’s.
Do we really have to champion everything a woman does? For instance, are Michelle Duggar’s “achievements” just as laudable as Michelle Obama’s? Don’t forget the former inspired the internet poster “Vagina: It’s not a clown car.”
Some applaud “Sex and the City” for its depiction of close female friendships, and the fact that it showed unmarried women having guilt-free sex. That’s all well and good. My problem with the TV show was its depiction of conspicuous consumption, or what I would term “feminism through buying.” For six years, “Sex and the City” presented a lifestyle unobtainable to most women, even in a more robust economy. The economic inequalities in a city like New York are never examined. But more importantly, why is it a feminist statement to own hundreds of painful, impractical shoes? When did it become empowering to pay money for a stranger to pour hot wax on sensitive body parts and rip out the hair?
Perhaps most importantly, why are we so starved for female-centric entertainment that four very one-dimensional, shallow characters became so important?
This is a powerful statement. I agree. The question remains: Why so popular?
Kim Cattrall is popular only because she played Gracie Law in “Big Trouble in Little China.” Oh, and she was on a Columbo episode (the one with the dobermans trained to kill w/ the word “Rosebud.”). Other than that, ask Crow T Robot
Uhm… she was the mannequin in the Andrew McCarthy summer blockbuster “Mannequin” and “Mannequin 2: Electric Buggaloo!”
Also, Police Academy films!
Cinematic masterpieces never to be trumped!
The feminist designation seems completely undeserved, though I can’t confirm. I’ve seen neither film and have no plans to, and have watched maybe 6 episodes of the TV series. And those were in reruns, presumably edited—- maybe they edited out the feminism? I do think this may be a case of “every single thing a woman chooses is a feminist choice.” Even if that choice is shallow consumerism.
The designation of this franchise as comedy, and I am confident in saying this, is utterly undeserved. All the episodes I’ve seen were actively unfunny—puns, SJP speaking in a cutesy “ghetto” voice, and the laziest stereotypes of gay men and straight women I’ve ever encountered.
Mary Tyler Moore had a show in the goddamn 60s that portrayed the challenges of urban single career-womanhood more realistically. And it was actually funny. Even the “Friends” women had better one-liners and more realistic living situations (okay, crazily huge apartments, but they had to have roommates and they, like, wore jeans, and Rachel’s materialism was the butt of jokes, not something to aspire to.)
I do feel protective when people bag on this movie because the women have aged. I’m sorry, now women have to figure out how to stop time if they want to act? Because they are no longer considered fuckable by the Dudebro Council of America, they should simply vanish? So maybe in a meta sort of way, the act of deigning to appear onscreen as a sexual being past the age of 40 is a feminist act. MAYBE. If only the content were engaging enough to live up to that…
What Katie said.
Hang on, dudes — how did she find out about the Dudebro Council?! WTF that was supposed to be a SECRET!! Duuuuude. Okay, everyone have their stuff out of the cave by Monday.
First rule of Dudebro Council? Nobody talks about the Dudebro Council unless it is in the form of a burp.
In all honesty Katie, I only pointed out the Rue/Kim relationship to display how age and sexuality have changed in the media over the last 30 years – not to bag on old chicks getting their freaks on.
Oh, sorry, Dudebro Council just told me it’s “old broads with long stems getting their freaks on” – sorry about that. 
Dudes, I have infiltrated Dudebro Council HQ! I have seen the secret handshake, and it is DISGUSTING.
Chris P., my point about age wasn’t directed at your comment, which seemed free from judgment, but at general internet reaction to the film. Some of it is pretty nasty w/r/t the ladies’ ages and freakability.
And everyone knows Rue McClanahan is hot.
[...] by Carrie’s post, I thought I’d show you this video explaining The Bechdel Test for movies (created by [...]
That’s not our hands we are shaking!
Full disclosure: The DudeBro handshake is the Elephant Walk.
Little known fact: Kim Cattrall is now older than Rue McClanahan during Golden Girls’ first season.