EW, WHY DOES Sex and the City keep betraying their awesome roots by making horrible movies that involve living happily ever after whilst traveling to foreign lands? (Did you see the first movie? Will you see this one?)
Despite its annoyingly shameless focus on consumerism, I used to love watching the show. In the early seasons especially, the writing was fresh and funny–the female friendships, complex and compelling. But with this new movie coming out, I’ve been inspired to do some critical thinking (and reading) on the show’s ever-controversial relationship to feminism. Here goes–and I’d love if you’d weigh in with your own thoughts below:
Better days: a still from the first episode of season 2.
With the impending release of the first Sex and the City movie in 2008, Alice Wignall, a writer for The Guardian, embarked on her own exploration of this vexing topic. In her article “Can a Feminist Really Love Sex and the City,” she weighs both sides of the issue. Yes, the television show exposed taboos about women’s sexuality and offered something different to mainstream TV. And while the show was about women and was written for women (something rather novel in the late 90s), it wasn’t actually made by women. So by the very nature of the show’s male production, Sex and the City holds and holds up the problematic male gaze inherent to mainstream television and cinema.
And then Wignall raises the question of how a show meant to wrestle with the challenges that heterosexual women face while navigating love, sex and careers in an urban setting so often just devolves into obsessing about men. Even SATC‘s own Miranda laments in an early episode, “How does it happen that four such smart women have nothing to talk about but boyfriends?” But even though Miranda acknowledges what many feminist viewers might have feared, SATC was never able to keep its tongue firmly in cheek.
But whether you accept the concept of contemporary “post-feminism” or not, it’s hard to believe that the Sex and the City franchise is evolving with the times when neither the show nor the movie has ever offered any thoughtful analyzation of class or race.
Men only become more and more of the show’s obsession as the seasons roll on, and SATC begins to resemble, nay embody, the classic rom com. (A genre that was once reviled by the very characters of the show.) And with all four women eventually ending coupled-up in the show’s finale (and now beyond to movie-dom), SATC ultimately does little, if nothing, to challenge the standards of this largely female-debasing genre.
Sex and the City’s own Kim Cattrall (who plays Samantha Jones on screen), rebukes Wignall’s argument altogether. She claims that the SATC franchise is an answer to the muddled “post-feminism” society in which we currently live. In a conversation with The Wall Street Journal Cattrall says “Post-feminism has been really confusing…It influenced so many women to leave a lot of their feminine qualities behind and assume the business suit.” She attributes the franchise’s success to its ability to re-embrace a femininity that was once lost. “That’s why it’s captured so many women’s imaginations. It’s truthful and it’s real and it’s now; it’s not dated, and it keeps evolving,” Catrall explains.
But whether you accept the concept of contemporary “post-feminism” or not, it’s hard to believe that the Sex and the City franchise is evolving with the times when neither the show nor the movie has ever offered any thoughtful analysis of class or race. Not to mention that the show’s intermittent foray into queerness over the last 10 years has been portrayed through a completely hetero-normative lens.
Story-book ending 101: Carrie and bad boy Mr. Big wed in the first SATC movie.
Courtney over at feministing.com has even named Sex and the City #2 on her list of the “Top Five Feminist Posers.” Perhaps her attitude is most like mine: “I have to ask how we can consider something truly feminist that has NO CLASS or RACE ANALYSIS. I enjoy it. I’m down to watch it. But do we have to call it feminist?”
Blogs and critical texts alike are awash with feminist criticism of the SATC franchise. But one surprising thread that these many writers have in common is that they like (or liked at one time) watching the show. Even the radical of us feminist (myself included) acknowledge that the ladies of SATC hold/held allure. But I think Feministing‘s Courtney is right, let’s call it like it is: there will be nothing remotely akin to feminism in the movie Sex and The City 2.
But I’ll probably be forced into watching it at some point.
No related posts.
First time here? Here's the idea: 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
BRAVO! I agree that the relationship between the 4 women is compelling, amusing and well done over the years, and even in the first movie. But, especially in the first movie, any positive aspects of acting and female camaraderie were way over-shadowed by the male obsession and offensive in-your-face, excessive wealth glorifying masquerade. Not to mention, the female character marrying a man who had continually blown her off – a little like Nathan and Adelaide in “Guys and Dolls”.
haha, the “Guys and Dolls” reference here is essential. I thought of that musical, too while I was writing this post!
“let’s call a spade a spade”
“The phrase predates the use of the word “spade” as an ethnic slur against African-Americans, which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur.”
Sindu, I had no idea about that idiom’s origin! Wow. Thank you so much for informing me. As a linguist, I’d like to think that I would know better!