I'm probably going to catch a lot of heat for saying this from female tv/movie watchers, but I am not a Sex and the City fan. I don't hate the franchise, but I didn't run out to see the first movie and I won't see the second (unless there will be alcohol beverages on hand). SATC feigns to be a show about female empowerment and individuality when in close inspection the show purports 1950's values dressed up in designer clothes. Fancy Ferragamos don't fool me into thinking that the characters on this show are strong independent women. Nice try.
Each character's main focus throughout the run of the series was catching a man, maintaining a man, keeping a man, putting up with a man, etc, etc, etc. Tiresome. Banal. Trite. The series tried to pull out story lines of the characters exhibiting sexual independence, but each foray into sexual empowerment ended with the character, in truth, wanting a man or wanting something from a man. Sexual fulfillment really had nothing to do with it at all. Tiresome. Banal. Trite.
From Carrie to even Samantha, these characters would toss away career opportunities, meaningful experiences to fulfill themselves, and anything else that would contribute to their personal enrichment for a man. In Carrie's case, she is more than willing to endure the trials and tribulations of a dude that pretty much treated her like an insignificant piece of furniture since their introduction. But, in the end, Carrie won over this sack of shit who, in real life circumstances (not in pretend tv/movie land), would probably only have stayed with her simply because any other woman who cared and respected herself wouldn't. Mr. Big is really not a prize unless you like unreliable and selfish men. (Some of you do. Yes. You do.)
And I won't get into the show’s blatant display of neoliberalism. As a feminist, a Marxist, an anti-capitalist, and an anarchist, SATC can kiss my ass. I’ve watched episodes of the franchise. I have to admit it is good fun to dismantle and uncover the “feminist” ideals of the show.
So, don't let me stop you from watching SATC 2. Everybody loves a train wreck. The women of the City are back to have "sex" just as long as there is male validation involved.
Yawn. Yawn.
Each character's main focus throughout the run of the series was catching a man, maintaining a man, keeping a man, putting up with a man, etc, etc, etc. Tiresome. Banal. Trite. The series tried to pull out story lines of the characters exhibiting sexual independence, but each foray into sexual empowerment ended with the character, in truth, wanting a man or wanting something from a man. Sexual fulfillment really had nothing to do with it at all. Tiresome. Banal. Trite.
From Carrie to even Samantha, these characters would toss away career opportunities, meaningful experiences to fulfill themselves, and anything else that would contribute to their personal enrichment for a man. In Carrie's case, she is more than willing to endure the trials and tribulations of a dude that pretty much treated her like an insignificant piece of furniture since their introduction. But, in the end, Carrie won over this sack of shit who, in real life circumstances (not in pretend tv/movie land), would probably only have stayed with her simply because any other woman who cared and respected herself wouldn't. Mr. Big is really not a prize unless you like unreliable and selfish men. (Some of you do. Yes. You do.)
And I won't get into the show’s blatant display of neoliberalism. As a feminist, a Marxist, an anti-capitalist, and an anarchist, SATC can kiss my ass. I’ve watched episodes of the franchise. I have to admit it is good fun to dismantle and uncover the “feminist” ideals of the show.
So, don't let me stop you from watching SATC 2. Everybody loves a train wreck. The women of the City are back to have "sex" just as long as there is male validation involved.
Yawn. Yawn.
No comments:
Post a Comment