Feminism & Sex and the City

johnnyskeleton

This has possibly been done to death already, but there was an article in the Irish Times on Friday which claimed that feminism was still relevant in modern Ireland.

What I found interesting was this comment:

Elisa O’Donovan, of University College Dublin Students and Staff against Sexism, said a snapshot of modern Ireland highlighted that the “supposed liberation of women” over the past 20 years had not been a success.


She said the popularity of Bratz dolls, Kiss magazine and Sex and the City among children, teenagers and adults respectively made her believe the liberation and empowerment of women had not yet taken place.


Irish women still had massive self-esteem and body image issues, and had one of the highest rates of self-harm in Europe.

What I don't get is that Sex and the City is made by women (it has to be) for women, so how does it prevent the liberation and empowerment of women. Has it come to the stage where it is other women, and not men, who are oppressing these feminists?

,8,1

Well there's two things going on here: one is the hypocrisy of feminists and two is the fact that feminism never allows itself to be critiqued.

So when you say that SATC [and the wider raunch culture that it symbolises] is a natural consequence of feminism, well that just can't be accepted can it! Even if it is truth. Hence you have these bogus arguments of "self-esteem" and "body issues" being put forward.

SATC is fundamentally feminist because feminism is fundamentally sexually liberal/anarchist. Anything which promotes sexual anarchism agrees with feminism, in the vast majority of cases.

Acacia

,8,1 wrote: »

Well there's two things going on here: one is the hypocrisy of feminists and two is the fact that feminism never allows itself to be critiqued.

So when you say that SATC [and the wider raunch culture that it symbolises] is a natural consequence of feminism, well that just can't be accepted can it! Even if it is truth.

SATC is fundamentally feminist because feminism is fundamentally sexually liberal/anarchist. Anything which promotes sexual anarchism agrees with feminism, in the vast majority of cases.

I wouldn't say SATC symbolizes raunch culture- it just showed women being sexually promiscuous- as men have been doing for centuries. It's hardly sexual anarchism, in fairness.

Now, let's say the show had four men acting in the exact same way as Carrie Bradshaw and co. - would that be 'feminist' as well? Because it would still be 'fundamentally liberal/anarchist', according to your reasoning.

johnnyskeleton

I would look at it from the point of view of freedom of speech. Women are free to make such programmes, other women are free to watch them and other women still are free to look down on such programmes with disdain and/or contempt.

I'm just thinking that if I were to argue that premiership football was preventing the liberalisation and empowerment of men it wouldn't even be worthy of comment (other than ridicule), yet someone saying something similar in the name of feminism gets air time in a national daily broadsheet.

If anything, it's things like that that put feminists back more than anything else in my view.

themadchef

I'm going to dumb down the thread and say...big words...lots of big words, its late and SATC was magic!
For me, the show didint revolve around men so much as female friendship. Men will come and go.....(no pun intended) but good friends are there forever.

It was fun, not change the world material.

The Sweeper

SATC the movie, to me, was a subtle effort to redress the balance by giving the harpies their comeuppance, and is frankly quite a sexist movie.

Carries goes mad on the big white wedding, and gets left at the altar. She only gets married when she comes around to Big's way of thinking.

Charlotte has a perfect life because she compromised to marry her husband by adopting his religion, selflessly adopted a daughter and subsequently gets the pregnancy she deserves, and makes love three nights a week to her husband while ensuring she always looks pretty. Voila: the ideal woman.

Miranda refuses to have sex with Steve for six months because she's too busy working, and he has sex with someone else. Miranda dumps him, is miserable, and eventually takes him back after realising, through counselling, that she was the one in the wrong and basically it should be HER begging HIM to take her back.

Samantha leaves her five-year monogamous relationship with Smith but instead of going back to bed-hopping, she admits she has to work on her relationship "with herself" (because obviously there's something wrong with her since she's such a ho).

metrovelvet

I dont think there is anything either oppressive or liberating about SATC. It may have addressed some taboos, and brought conversations to the table that may not have happened otherwise, but that is the extent of it.

However, never underestimate our propensity for mimicry, which is why in NYC you had an influx of 21 year old women, spending their rent money on high heels and acting like twats.

brianthebard

,8,1 wrote: »

Well there's two things going on here: one is the hypocrisy of feminists and two is the fact that feminism never allows itself to be critiqued.

So when you say that SATC [and the wider raunch culture that it symbolises] is a natural consequence of feminism, well that just can't be accepted can it! Even if it is truth. Hence you have these bogus arguments of "self-esteem" and "body issues" being put forward.

SATC is fundamentally feminist because feminism is fundamentally sexually liberal/anarchist. Anything which promotes sexual anarchism agrees with feminism, in the vast majority of cases.

What have you been smoking? Feminism can and is critiqued on a nearly daily basis. Just going to throw Judith Butler out there for starters.

Secondly SATC is not feminist, its a representation of female archetypes, managing to fool some people like the above who feel that just because a woman is telling the story it doesn't matter that nothing else has changed about the women or that they aren't capable of breaking out of those pre defined characterisations and they are still as two dimensional as if they came from a nineteenth century man's pen.

Nuravictus

Feminism is no very Feminine to be honest. Woman trying to have all the same rights & things as man is just wrong. Man like Woman because there not men. A Man doesnt want to know his wife has slept with 20+ Men. Males are attracted to the fact that not matter how strong a woman is there is always a fragile side which is very feminine and attractive. Men aren't attracted to other men for a reason so why would we be attracted to woman trying to be like men. Women are not equal to men & Men are not equal to women. We by nature are experts in certain things, a man can never give birth as it would stop a mans heart. Were not equal thats why we mate & become couples to get a balance.

Acacia

Nuravictus wrote: »

Feminism is no very Feminine to be honest. /quote]

Well, it's about getting the same opportunities and rights as men...

Nuravictus wrote: »

Woman trying to have all the same rights & things as man is just wrong.

...oh wait, apparently we can't do that- back to the kitchen sink, ladies!

Nuravictus wrote: »

Man like Woman because there not men. A Man doesnt want to know his wife has slept with 20+ Men.

Maybe some men find it a turn-on, who knows? Can't see why it would matter if he really loved the woman.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Males are attracted to the fact that not matter how strong a woman is there is always a fragile side which is very feminine and attractive. Men aren't attracted to other men for a reason so why would we be attracted to woman trying to be like men.

I'd be deeply suspicious of any man who found my 'fragility' attractive. What, does their ego need a boost?

Just because a woman 'sleeps around', for example, it doesn't mean she is trying to be a man. Maybe she just enjoys sex and doesn't want to be labeled a 'whore' or a 'slut'? Funny how men never get called those names, isn't it?

Nuravictus wrote: »

Women are not equal to men & Men are not equal to women. We by nature are experts in certain things, a man can never give birth as it would stop a mans heart. Were not equal thats why we mate & become couples to get a balance.

It doesn't mean that sexual double standards should exist or that women shouldn't have the same rights as men.

Glad to see the old 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' mentality is alive and kicking in 2008. :rolleyes:;)

Nuravictus

Acacia wrote: »

Well, it's about getting the same opportunities and rights as men...
...oh wait, apparently we can't do that- back to the kitchen sink, ladies!

What ? You missed my point. Even I know housework is a 50/50 deal. I think woman should get equal pay for the work they do.

Acacia wrote: »

Maybe some men find it a turn-on, who knows? Can't see why it would matter if he really loved the woman.

Look I had a lot of fights with woman & you are all the same for the most part. The minute a man calls you fat, or something related to your body your vain self imagine takes over. This might not be the case always but from my experience it is & yes its nature. Woman are by nature weaker than men but men cant have kids. So whats the issue ?

Acacia wrote: »

I'd be deeply suspicious of any man who found my 'fragility' attractive. What, does their ego need a boost?

No its more the protective nature of men that this appeals too. This is why a lot of men would beat up another man if he hurt his girlfriend.

Acacia wrote: »

Just because a woman 'sleeps around', for example, it doesn't mean she is trying to be a man. Maybe she just enjoys sex and doesn't want to be labeled a 'whore' or a 'slut'? Funny how men never get called those names, isn't it?

You forget to mention the massive social stigma men have to deal with if they don’t make a woman have a organism or if the come to fast. I know plenty of woman who dump their boyfriends if they don’t do the job in bed.

Acacia wrote: »

It doesn't mean that sexual double standards should exist or that women shouldn't have the same rights as men.

Its really not double standards in my opinion its social pressure heaped on males to be studs in bed.

Acacia wrote: »

Glad to see the old 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' mentality is alive and kicking in 2008.

Yes its nature really.

Acacia

Nuravictus wrote: »

What ? You missed my point. Even I know housework is a 50/50 deal. I think woman should get equal pay for the work they do.

It's not about housework. You said women shouldn't have the same rights as men. Which rights would these be?

Nuravictus wrote: »

Look I had a lot of fights with woman & you are all the same for the most part. The minute a man calls you fat, or something related to your body your vain self imagine takes over. This might not be the case always but from my experience it is & yes its nature. Woman are by nature weaker than men but men cant have kids. So whats the issue ?

So now we're all the same?

About the 'fat/self-image' thing, pop over to After Hours and see how many 'ugly fat burd' comments there are. Women are bombarded constantly with images of what the perfect woman is meant to look like ( and a lot of the time, by other women)- it's not vanity, it's insecurity.

The issue is- women and men are different, but equal, and both deserve equal respect.

Nuravictus wrote: »

No its more the protective nature of men that this appeals too. This is why a lot of men would beat up another man if he hurt his girlfriend.

There is a difference between being protective of your girlfriend if somebody hurts her and finding her fragility 'attractive'.

By the way,what is so un-womanly about sleeping with, for example, 20 men, anyway?

Nuravictus wrote: »

You forget to mention the massive social stigma men have to deal with if they don’t make a woman have a organism or if the come to fast. I know plenty of woman who dump their boyfriends if they don’t do the job in bed.


Its really not double standards in my opinion its social pressure heaped on males to be studs in bed.

Women are under pressure to be good in bed as well. Yet they also have to worry about not appearing too 'experienced' or 'slutty' either. It's quite the head- wrecker.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Yes its nature really.

Not with most people I know, thankfully.

Nuravictus

metrovelvet wrote: »

It depends on how you define strength.

Well in the physical sense since you ladies have a special ability to never forget anything use males did wrong to you not matter how small . I think over time most woman will dominate her mate because while us men are resistance there is only so much nagging we can take before we give in and do as told

Zaph

I have no doubt that g'em is a lot stronger than me, and probably most of the other men who post here. However, using strength in a discussion about feminism is a bogus argument imo. In general, men will be physically stronger than women. So what? Women nowadays are a lot more capable of looking after themselves physically than they were in the past, and strength doesn't necessarily have to be a factor. In this day and age it's demeaning to women to tell them that their lives will be much better if they have a big strong man to look after them. In fact, that's demeaning to men too, we have brains that we're capable of using, you know.

Sangre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What I don't get is that Sex and the City is made by women (it has to be) for women, so how does it prevent the liberation and empowerment of women.

Its created and produced by a man. Its mostly directed by men and its about 50/50 when it comes to the writing. www.imdb.com

The idea is too clever a way of making money for a woman to have come up with it.

Fanny Cradock

Acacia wrote: »

I wouldn't say SATC symbolizes raunch culture- it just showed women being sexually promiscuous- as men have been doing for centuries. It's hardly sexual anarchism, in fairness.

In the few episodes I watched I found it portrayed women (or at least a large proportion of them) as narrow, vain, utterly self-absorbed and almost completely materialistic. Surely Sex and The City was about as bogus a pinnacle of feminism as the 'Girl Power' phenomenon. In other words, a marketing construct of what a feminist should be.

MrVestek

Nuravictus wrote: »

Feminism is no very Feminine to be honest. Woman trying to have all the same rights & things as man is just wrong. Man like Woman because there not men. A Man doesnt want to know his wife has slept with 20+ Men. Males are attracted to the fact that not matter how strong a woman is there is always a fragile side which is very feminine and attractive. Men aren't attracted to other men for a reason so why would we be attracted to woman trying to be like men. Women are not equal to men & Men are not equal to women. We by nature are experts in certain things, a man can never give birth as it would stop a mans heart. Were not equal thats why we mate & become couples to get a balance.

Let's turn this around for a second. If anything you're doing nothing for men right now by living up to the men are stupid / immature / horny / self righeous / the better sex arguments. True women aren't equal to men in the sense that there can be various gender traits that seem to be present in alot of women however the same goes for men. We *are* different but they're entitled to exactly the same rights.

Maybe you need to go out and find yourself a nice intelligent women who can stimulate your brain as well as your pseudo-brain and you can form a happy loving relationship with her. Ohh wait... if said women was actually that smart she'd never look at a Neanderthal like you in the first place.

Back to the matter at hand... unfortunately alot of feminists in general can make horribly bad names for themselves and can be anarchists to a certain degree (for instance the type who will show up to protest a beauty pagent for instance). Protesting is fine as long as it's done in an organised manner but interrupting something purely to distrupt is pure stupidity.

For example all I had to do was type in feminists and violence into YouTube and this was one of the first results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

So men are having an open forum about wanting battered husband services available to themselves as these services in this particular constituency aren't available. What... do they feel threatened? About what exactly? The fact that yes... some women may actually physically or mentally abuse their partners too? We are different in some ways but the same in alot of ways.

brianthebard

*facepalm* so now the definition of feminism and anarchism are being abused in this thread, fantastic. Is it so much to hope that people will have a basic grasp of a concept before they throw it into an argument?

Nevyn

Nuravictus wrote: »

What ? You missed my point. Even I know housework is a 50/50 deal. I think woman should get equal pay for the work they do.

Well then you are a feminist.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Its really not double standards in my opinion its social pressure heaped on males to be studs in bed.

Yes there is a lot of pressure on both men and women when it comes to sexuality and being sexually active.

The creation of the pill in the 60s lead to sexual liberalisation in a pre aids world. So many countrys had the summer of shagging love and then there was the rise of the start of the porn industry with playboy and hustler.

The thing is contraception was illegal here intil 1984 so we are playing catch up this country never had the swinging 60s and 70s and it's showing.

There are feminists who think that the Pill has been a bad thing.
While it was marketed as liberating women so that they could have sex if they choose to it had been argued that all it did was make more women available to men to have sex with.

That women were pressurised into being on the pill so that we have the case of if a couple aren't having sex by the 3rd date they think there is something wrong with them or if a person is still a virgin at 18.

The thing is the pill is not 100% and we do live in a world with HIV and AIDS,
having sex is not the commitment it used to be which leaves a lot of women holding the baby and a lot of children being reared outside of the ideal family set up.

WindSock

Sangre wrote: »

The idea is too clever a way of making money for a woman to have come up with it.

Care to back that up sonnyjim, or are you just trolling?

citytillidie

Acacia wrote: »

I wouldn't say SATC symbolizes raunch culture- it just showed women being sexually promiscuous- as men have been doing for centuries. It's hardly sexual anarchism, in fairness.

Now, let's say the show had four men acting in the exact same way as Carrie Bradshaw and co. - would that be 'feminist' as well? Because it would still be 'fundamentally liberal/anarchist', according to your reasoning.

But it would never get near the TV screen these days

Nuravictus

Nuravictus wrote: »

A Man doesnt want to know his wife has slept with 20+ Men.

lol
Did I miss the part where it's any of his business?

Reku

Thaedydal wrote: »

There are feminists who think that the Pill has been a bad thing.
While it was marketed as liberating women so that they could have sex if they choose to it had been argued that all it did was make more women available to men to have sex with.

Unfortunately with some lads if they can't manage to have sex with a woman they'll try it with anything they can find:rolleyes:, I remember on "When Sex Goes Wrong" there was one twit who tried to shag his cement mixer and shredded his penis as a result. That said, there have also been women who've had to have things removed from their vaginas in the hospital too so both genders has those whose sex drives are perhaps a bit too high for their own safety and as such the pill at least gives them some more normal outlet for this internal pressure.
Then there's also that some women with PCOS go on the pill to help stabilise their hormones a bit.
Problem is not the pill, but the social pressures regarding it's use.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That women were pressurised into being on the pill so that we have the case of if a couple aren't having sex by the 3rd date they think there is something wrong with them or if a person is still a virgin at 18.

Society seems to be putting increasing pressure on people to think like this:(, even on kids and teenagers:eek:, I don't know if it's a case of we've let the worst of us be the most outspoken and lead us all down this path or that once the taboos went we became a bit too open and so gave ourselves yet another thing to compete and compare on. To be quite frank I think if I slept with a girl that soon it'd cheapen the moment, instead of being another part of an increasing closeness it would just be sex, lacking much of the intamacy.
It's strange that there still tends to be a lot of significance to a couple's first kiss, or even how one asked the other out, yet then there's often a race to get their clothes off and hop in the sack, as if it were nothing.

brianthebard

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well then you are a feminist.

The creation of the pill in the 60s lead to sexual liberalisation in a pre aids world. So many countrys had the summer of shagging love and then there was the rise of the start of the porn industry with playboy and hustler.

Porn was around a lot earlier than the sixties, I don't see the point in connecting it to the pill?

There are feminists who think that the Pill has been a bad thing.
While it was marketed as liberating women so that they could have sex if they choose to it had been argued that all it did was make more women available to men to have sex with.

That women were pressurised into being on the pill so that we have the case of if a couple aren't having sex by the 3rd date they think there is something wrong with them or if a person is still a virgin at 18.

The thing is the pill is not 100% and we do live in a world with HIV and AIDS,
having sex is not the commitment it used to be which leaves a lot of women holding the baby and a lot of children being reared outside of the ideal family set up.

Again casual sex was something that happened long before the pill. There were single parent families before the sixties, but there were also a lot more shot gun weddings. Tbh sometimes "issues" like sex and sexuality are put under the spotlight as a new and dangerous element of a modern world, but they've always been there. Ideal families are a myth. No sex before marriage is a myth. That's the point of these things, they aren't real so they have promoted.

citytillidie wrote: »

But it would never get near the TV screen these days

Because its been done to death, not because of gender. Although something like Entourage gets pretty close.

Dudess

... and Californication.

Reku

brianthebard wrote: »

Again casual sex was something that happened long before the pill.

True enough, there was supposedly a lot of it during WWII, where many of the British men were off at war and so their partners would sleep with other men while they were away, and the British men undoubtedly also slept with women on the continent.
Maybe it was just the sense of knowing you could die at any moment in a bombing....

sam34

Nuravictus wrote: »

a man can never give birth as it would stop a mans heart.
QUOTE]

what biology book are you reading??? the reason men cant give birth is that they do not possess the internal organs necessary to conceive and nurture a foetus to full term. without the foetus, there aint going to be any giving birth!

likewise, im not sure where you're getting the idea that prolonged strenuous activity and pain would just "stop a mans heart"?

sam34

Nuravictus wrote: »

You forget to mention the massive social stigma men have to deal with if they don’t make a woman have a organism or if the come to fast. I know plenty of woman who dump their boyfriends if they don’t do the job in bed.
QUOTE]

i wouldnt be too impressed by being presented with an organism in bed... an orgasm, on the other hand....;)

Nuravictus

sam34 wrote: »

Nuravictus wrote: »

You forget to mention the massive social stigma men have to deal with if they don’t make a woman have a organism or if the come to fast. I know plenty of woman who dump their boyfriends if they don’t do the job in bed.

i wouldnt be too impressed by being presented with an organism in bed... an orgasm, on the other hand....;)

lol what a typo I gota stop posting at 2am when I can't sleep.

Dragan

Nuravictus wrote: »

It was a simple comparsion between a male & a female ablities in nature.

No it wasn't, it was a statement that indicated if a mans muscular structure was implanted into a female body and that female became pregnant, saw through the pregnancy and went into labour that the heart would then explode.:rolleyes:

sam34

Nuravictus wrote: »

It was a simple comparsion between a male & a female ablities in nature.

links? proof?

Nevyn

Well why not take that arguement to fitness and stop dragging this thread of fúcking topic.

wasabi

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well why not take that arguement to fitness and stop dragging this thread of fúcking topic.

But.... but
http://xkcd.com/386/


Back on topic though.

"Sex and the City... snip... how does it prevent the liberation and empowerment of women."

Because it revolves around four well educated intelligent women who seem to have very little better to do in their lives than obsess over men. The question is whether that's deliberate policy from the writers of SATC or merely a consequence of its romantic-comedy format.

Dragan

Guys,

it's a TV show. Thats it. Not a movement, not a symbol. Like all TV shows it is just a TV show. Does it have a big impact on the world? Sure it does, it's available worldwide etc etc etc.

However, the only affect it can have are the same as anything else, down to personal interpretation.

Some people will look at SATC and think it shows women as shallow, horrible, sex driven, etc etc.

Some people will look at it and think it represents empowerment and equal rights and all that jazz.

But guess what, it's a TV show and the only thing it is designed to do is entertain those who want to watch it and move advertising revenue for the network it's on.

Thats about it.

Sangre

WindSock wrote: »

Care to back that up sonnyjim, or are you just trolling?

No need, real life will give you all the hard evidence you need.

Dudess

Elaboration? I'm a dumb woman and require it.

Sangre

Its pretty obvious that if a woman tried to come up with something that clever her heart would stop.

Galvasean

You know Sangre I originally applauded your post pointing out that SATC was created by a man (I was going to point that out myself), but now youre just trolling.

For the record SATC's creator (Darren Star) is a gay guy.

John Mason

the whole point of sex in the city is that the women are looking for the perfect man to take care of them. The women are protrayed as bimbos who think of nothing but shoes, cocktails and sex

Our celtic cubs grew up on it and now have the preception that that's what life is all about.

i for one applaud the recession, it might bring a new perception to irish culture and make people realise what a degrading show it s

Galvasean

One could argue that it's a social commentary/satire on the increase of consumerism in the 21st Century.
that or it's just a realatively meaningless piece of escapism that can make a lot of money.

Dragan

Sangre wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that if a woman tried to come up with something that clever her heart would stop.

I could be wrong but i don't normally see you trolling around boards.

What is it about the tLL that makes you think it's funny to act like a dick?

John Mason

Galvasean wrote: »

You know Sangre I originally applauded your post pointing out that SATC was created by a man (I was going to point that out myself), but now youre just trolling.

For the record SATC's creator (Darren Star) is a gay guy.

you do know that Sex and the city was book written by a woman. the book in fact bears little resemblance to the programme but still.........

Acacia

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

you do know that Sex and the city was book written by a woman. the book in fact bears little resemblance to the programme but still.........

Indeed, it was a collection of essays based on Candace Bushnell's experiences of life as a single woman in upper-class New York. Very different to the tv show.

I wouldn't exactly call the show or book feminist but I think even the fact that it is still being discussed means that it certainly has ruffled some feathers. I do think the characters are vain, self-involved, etc ( and they become pretty much unlikable in the movie.) However, I think if the show had four male characters they would be equally vain and selfish, as a alot of the men in the show are already portrayed in such a way.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In the few episodes I watched I found it portrayed women (or at least a large proportion of them) as narrow, vain, utterly self-absorbed and almost completely materialistic. Surely Sex and The City was about as bogus a pinnacle of feminism as the 'Girl Power' phenomenon. In other words, a marketing construct of what a feminist should be.

I don't really think the aim was to make a 'feminist' programme. I think it was just a snapshot of life in New York for single professional women in the modern world. To me it seems that because it had women openly discussing sex, which hadn't really happened before, it got labeled 'feminist'. If people actually watched the show, instead of complaining about how Carrie loves shoes or whatever, they would realise that it is actually about her relationship with Mr. Big and her friends.

Galvasean

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

you do know that Sex and the city was book written by a woman. the book in fact bears little resemblance to the programme but still.........

I actually didn't know that.
Although the fact that the TV show is so different from the book might make the book moot in discussing the series (in the context of this particular discussion).

metrovelvet

I didnt see the movie so let me ask someone here...

So Carrie ends up married to Mr Big? Who wants to bet in Sex and the City 2 he cheats on her or leaves her.

And the stepford wife who converted to Judaism [every NY Jewish boys dream - to find a waspy shicsta who'll convert and wont have a christmas tree in the house in December] remains married?

And Miranda is with that whiney Steve guy?

Zaph

Sangre wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that if a woman tried to come up with something that clever her heart would stop.

Sangre, if you want to troll kindly take it to AH/TCN/The Thunderdome/wherever the fcuk you like, but do it again here and you won't be able to for a little while.

EamonnKeane

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Miranda refuses to have sex with Steve for six months because she's too busy working, and he has sex with someone else. Miranda dumps him, is miserable, and eventually takes him back after realising, through counselling, that she was the one in the wrong and basically it should be HER begging HIM to take her back.But reverse the sexes: man won't have sex with girlfriend, so she cheats on him - you'd probably see that as an expression of sexual freedom.

Samantha leaves her five-year monogamous relationship with Smith but instead of going back to bed-hopping, she admits she has to work on her relationship "with herself" (because obviously there's something wrong with her since she's such a ho). But promiscuous male characters usually end up reflecting that their lives are a bit empty too, e.g. "Alfie" (original, not the Jude Law crap).

Galvasean wrote: »

You know Sangre I originally applauded your post pointing out that SATC was created by a man (I was going to point that out myself), but now youre just trolling.

For the record SATC's creator (Darren Star) is a gay guy.

What does being gay have to do with it? Oh, of course, gay men are pretty much women. Had forgotten that.

Galvasean wrote: »

One could argue that it's a social commentary/satire on the increase of consumerism in the 21st Century.
that or it's just a realatively meaningless piece of escapism that can make a lot of money.

I've heard that the book had more of an American Psycho outlook on consumerist emptiness; at one point Samantha imagines what it would be like to murder a woman she sees in the street.

ANarcho-Munk

I seriously cannot believe that some people take SATC as being feminist orientated.

brianthebard

The people who say it are generally not feminists though, and have a very stereotypical view of what feminism is, as evidenced by some posts on this thread.

Dudess

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

I seriously cannot believe that some people take SATC as being feminist orientated.

Agreed. There is nothing feminist about it.

Galvasean

As has been said before on this thread it's just a money making TV shoe show.
There's no deeper meaning than that.