I love the show Sex and the City & I’m aware it is good, fun entertainment. While many women look to Carrie Bradshaw and her friends as fashion icons, the show itself isn’t a beacon of progressive values & feminist ideals. Sure, the women are independent and open about their sexuality, but upon closer inspection these women are not examples of strong female characters.
For example,
1) Not all men are crazy! The main cast members of Sex and the City (SATC) are constantly dating the most dysfunctional and insane men. Remember shoe fetish guy? The guy who took a shower after sex because of Catholic guilt? The list of crazies that the women run into is pretty extensive and the depiction of men is not very realistic.
2) Why do these women choose $400 shoes over paying the rent? Viewers are constantly hit over the head with blatant consumerism. Demand for Manolo Blahniks increased after the show was released merely because they were Carrie’s shoe of choice. You know, because accumulating more crap is good for the economy and all.
3) Maybe I’m the only one who finds this odd, but how do these women have NO friends or lovers of color? I know it’s the Upper East Side, but come on! Okay, so there are a couple of episodes where one of the women dates a black man but these relationships are weighed down by Hollywood’s favorite interracial couple stereotypes (for example: the white woman might be with the black man because he has a big penis; the black man’s sister is upset that he’s dating a white woman so she gets between their relationship).
4) Every SATC episode sends conflicting messages to women: “Be strong! Be independent! You are incomplete without men!” The message of women’s sexual liberation & independence is pretty heavy-handed throughout the entire show. Yet, the show is focused on the women’s relationships with men. Pick a side, HBO, and stick to it.
5) Considering the show is often centered around women eating together in a café, you’d think there’d be a broader range of body shapes instead of skinny, skinnier, and then Miranda…the “fat” one. Right. I know it’s Hollywood, but stop shoving this tripe down our throats!
6) Where are the lesbian woman? Gay men are a regular “accessory” on the show; the women bring them to parties or clubs when they don’t have a “normal” date. However, there are only a few episodes that feature gay women. During these episodes (surprise, surprise), these lesbian women are depicted as either incapable of being friends with straight women or they’re throwing plates in fits of jealous rage.
7) The women talk about men all day long. What about politics or some other interesting topic? I would find that to be compelling, but apparently it’s not marketable. Miranda’s character does complain about all the conversations centering around men but she’s basically as guilty of it as the rest of the women. The show never really deviates from their time-tested formula: four women discuss men and how stupid/amazing/good in bed they are.
8) The whole premise is just so darn unrealistic. Sex columnist in B-rate daily newspaper spends all her money on expensive shoes, restaurants, and Hamptons timeshares while being friends with other skinny, surprisingly wealthy white women – all the while encountering no people of color, no lesbian women or transgendered people. Yet these women manage to sleep with every mentally deranged man in New York City & the surrounding areas.
So, what are your thoughts? Do you have anything to add to this list? Are there any shows out there with more realistic depictions of people or would that be expecting the impossible from Hollywood?
Happy New Year,
Dollface
Photo Credits
Oh I totally agree 100% with this post! As much as I love the show too, as far as my limited knowledge of NYC goes, it can’t possibly be realistic – could Carrie really afford her lifestyle on the proceeds of one newspaper column?
I find it entertaining, and the characters are likeable as far as TV characters go, but I think if I knew them in real life I’d find them all shallow and exceedingly irritating!
I’ve never seen Sex & the City, so I don’t know… but it sounds like a good analysis to me. Isn’t a bit relieving to write something like this about a show you enjoy but you know is problematic on a feminist level? It allows you (if only in a small way) to express criticism while still enjoying television. :)
I really liked this =]
I can’t really get into the show; I guess it’s not my cup of tea. But, I’ve seen a few episodes because my roommate is in love with it. I thought it was cool that the women seemed sexually liberated, and I liked that they seemed independent (though, after reading your criticism, I realize that they’re not quite as independent as I thought).
That is kind of bizarre that they hardly run into people of color in a place like New York city though.
I don’t watch tv that often unless it’s a show on the discovery channel, tlc, or the history channel. But, I do adore House! House seems to be a tad bit more diverse than SATC…and the story takes place in New Jersey.
I think the point of the show was largely about human flaws and breaking conventions, and having people in your life who will love you for those flaws. And not so much about being a good role model.
I remember there were quite a few lesbians/lesbian encounters on the show. Samantha was a lesbian for a couple of episodes. Charlotte kept her sexual ambiguity when she was trying to impress her lesbian friends. And Miranda was mistaken for a lesbian by her boss.
Being independent and open about sexuality is pretty strong female, and male, characteristics to me. And all I know is, if we all dated dysfunctional people and have unrealistic financial stability, then we wouldn’t be watching television.
[...] Yesterday, Dollface of The Rotton Little Girls made a post containing “8 Reasons why Sex and the City is not a good Role Model“. A brilliant post, she makes some really good points, it’s definitely worth a read if [...]
I have only watched the show a few times (I’ve never really liked any of the characters – I think they’re all pretty shallow or weird in some way or another), so it never became a favorite, but I did see the film recently, and I think all your criticisms apply. There were good things about it – well, mostly just the fact that someone bothered to make a film about “older” women who are sexually active. But the film itself left so much to be desired. I think my biggest problem with it was the way they worked through all this stuff to get to a pretty decent “message” at the end of the film – that Big and Carrie didn’t have to be married to be happy together. Then they went and ruined it by having the two of them get married anyway. *sigh*
I think the premise has some potential, but sadly, they really haven’t chosen to do much of anything with it. Not anything meaningful, that is.
Well said friend. It’s insulting to men (and to women, really) to be portrayed in such a light. I can never get behind huge sweeping statements like ‘men are pigs.’ It’s ridiculous and exhausting.
Well, I just bought the box set so I am a fan but I do agree with these criticisms! Since I have been with my boyfriend for 2 years and am very happy with him, I do find it annoying when it’s like ‘Men are idiots, you’ll never find a normal one, they’re all weird, let’s be single and moan about it!’. There ARE good men out there! But, at the end of the day, it is entertainment watching it. I think it is that it is so different to anyone’s real life yet (slightly) realistic which makes it entertaining.
I find it more upsetting how Anglo they all are:
Carrie Bradshaw
Miranda Hobbs
Charlotte York
Samantha Jones
Couldn’t throw in even a Jewish or Catholic white protagonist, let alone an Asian or Latino or Black one. I guess if we want any semblance of diversity, we have to go to the supporting characters (Harry Goldenblatt would be the token Jew, I guess).
I thought it was a real hoot that even after all the unprotected sex she was having, Samantha was free and clear of any stds when she was so dramatically tested. :/
Great post! I’ve watched SATC maybe four times and I gotta say I really despise it. When the movie came out here in Australia there were a couple of articles I read where people were espousing the show as “so empowering” to women, which is an idea I just couldn’t get behind, and you’ve done an excellent job of saying exactly why.
Empowering because they have a lot of sex, sure. But when the entire show is just talking about men, men, men…what’s empowering about that?
I don’t know. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I’m not really willing to watch the show again to find out.
I never really got into SATC. At the time it was meant to be this big liberal thing – women having (promiscuous) sex and actually talking about it! However, me and my friends had already been doing this for years, so we kinda didn’t think it was that forward thinking of the network..
I didn’t like the movie – everything tied off so neatly. Even Samantha leaving her relationship to be single again was too neat. It’s a show that is overly manufactured (and that shamelessly abuses product placement) pretending to be a show that’s real.
Thanks for the comments everyone!
I made it through the 1st season when the hype was it’s peak & never got any further. Everyone swore season 4 was great & I’d grow to like it but I just don’t have the time to put in 3 seasons worth of television watching for a couple of good episodes. Do love the clothes, though, when I see them in pics.