sex sells
Since the release of Sex and The City 2 women have been flocking to the cinemas. They have been dressing up for the event. They have been shaving their legs, tanning their limbs, and teasing their hair. Why? Because SATC isn’t just a franchise, it’s a lifestyle.
The hugely popular HBO series followed the lives of four women living in NYC: Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), Charlotte (Kristen Davis), and Samantha (Kim Cattrall), with a particular emphasis on Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker). The television series was praised for its depiction of women living the lives they wanted. The show appeared not to shy away from the dirty ‘f’ word. Yes, ‘f***ing’ – but more importantly, ‘feminism.’ The explicit program depicted women having a lot of casual sex, but also pursuing the careers they wanted, and refusing to settle for less in their personal lives. The show sung the praises of ‘the sisterhood.’
Of course, the feminist credentials of the show could be debated – for women who have so much going on in their lives, why is the purpose of their life still to snag a man? – and these fears came to the fore in the first film. SATC, the movie, saw Carrie finally accomplishing what should be every woman’s dream – getting a man to put a ring on it – and settling down with her on again-off again paramour Mr Big. Combined with a number of snide comments about “letting yourself go,” directed at a character after stress-related weight-gain, it became clear that SATC was not the saviour of the sisterhood at all. In fact, it was sexist.
SATC is, at the root of it, pure escapism. Women may want to be like the characters on the show: fashion-forward, fabulous, and free. The franchise has created a reputation for itself, that it apparently shows the very best of what it means to be a woman. And many women have bought – quite literally – into the lifestyle. The television series popularised Cosmopolitans, skyrocketed sales of sex toys, and directed fashion trends. Manolo Blahniks never looked so good.
The problematic aspect of SATC is that it portrays only one type of womanhood. And if you don’t subscribe to the standards of the show then, well, can you even call yourself a woman? Women, so SATC would have the viewer believe, are interested in three things: f***ing, fashion, and being fabulous. Being single, or temporarily celibate, is not an option. The fact that all four characters are constantly on the lookout for “the one” means that women who genuinely have other priorities – oh, say, careers or creative fulfilment – are left unrepresented.
The fashion fetishism of the show is also troubling, not to mention the beauty standards that the characters are held to. Unfortunately for viewers, SATC is a fantasy that bears little resemblance to reality. Although Carrie might often bemoan her lack of funds, she is still able to wear thousands of dollars on their feet. For a franchise that features women who are now in their mid-40s, the characters are also strangely unforgiving about each other’s flaws. Changing facial features, wrinkles, and weight gain in new and exciting places – it’s all part of getting older. But the characters on SATC are held to higher standards than mere mortals – and by association, hold their mortal viewers to these higher standards as well.
Feminism should be about women making their own choices: being allowed to be what they want, and whom they want. A woman can choose to enter the fast-paced business world, or she can choose to be a homemaker. She can choose to have children, or she can choose not to. She can choose to be interested in fashion, or not. A woman doesn’t have to have hairy underarms to be a feminist – but if she wants to, then she should be allowed to.
That final point is perhaps precisely why SATC – the television series, the first film, and the second – is anti-feminist. Because women are still expected to conform to a particular way of thinking, living and looking. Samantha must be sexually confident; Miranda is allowed a career, but at the end of the day, she must find herself a man; and Charlotte is allowed to divorce her husband (thanks feminist foremothers), but must re-marry again. Carrie and her friends, instead of breaking new ground, are really just carrying on the same old sexist standards. Even more dangerously, they sell them to women. Sex, after all, sells.
Yeah, I don’t understand being empowered through buying shoes. I think there are other alternatives to flagrant consumerism. And it is a little worrying just how much these women obsess over men.
I read a particularly cutting review here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715
“SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human — working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it’s my job — and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car.”
Ouch.
I haven’t seen it though. I remember thinking that the show was fairly cutting edge at some point, but it’s kind of boring now, it has stopped offering anything interesting or new.
I enjoyed the friendships and the dressing as a woman thing, though I must state that these people are consumerist whores as am I, females have been targeted for a long time now, we are cashed up bored and a wee bit stupid, stillettos what an absurd design.Whats the solutuion? androgyny, war, I think the best solution is stop thinking about your self and make the world a better place somehow, buy a windmill or something.
My main qualm with this whole parade of women dressing up to go see the second movie is whether it’s an attempt to buy into that lifestyle, and if it’s actually for themselves. I’m all for a woman putting on whatever clothes she wants if it’s what she wants to wear and if it makes her happy, be it expensive shoes or a poncho, but when it gets to the level of this franchise it’s more about dressing for others, to keep up with your friends and with other women. If a woman is motivated by fashion and wants that lifestyle that’s a valid choice, but it shouldn’t just be another thing we use to judge each other, and especially those who choose something else.
I know so many people who see SATC as the ulimate ‘girly indulgence’… but everyone needs to remember that like Melissa pointed out this is just showcasing one kind of femininity, not what we all need to be!
This is why I’ve never found SATC appealing. Because I am *not* that kind of woman. I consider myself a feminist, sexually liberated, independent and confident. But shoes don’t really get me hot and bothered.
Yes, SATC is (was?) ground-breaking, in that it depicted women being sexually confident (or, “anti-prudes” if you will). Thats a great thing for modern women, that we can be confident about our sexuality. It’s a great thing that we can now see it on TV (because, lets face it, TV defines our reality, and gives us our role-models).
But honestly, thats just one part of the feminist revolution. And after 10 years, the “ground-breaking” lable wears thin, and the SATC gang start to seem as stereo-typical and sexist as the rest of the media.
The Fashion Fetishism is definitely the most troubling part of SATC. It’s reinforcing that really trite stereotype. Ok, so Carrie and Co. are sexually liberated. But are they really liberated? They’re still trying to conform to this image of women as beautiful, superficial and appearance oriented.
(And you know what? It’s even a sub-stereotype, because they’re all obsessed with the *same* kind of fashion. Not one of them is a punk/gothic-lolita babe. Argh! The conformity!)