Have you ever watched your favorite show from the 90s back? Like Friends or Charmed? Watching the Gilmore Girls in 2018 is a vastly different experience than watching it back in 2000, even, when I first did. The themes in there make a 2018 feminist cringe sometimes. I decided a few weeks ago to dive deep and try to rewatch Sex and the City for two reasons: Firstly: I was a child when I first watched it, being 13 when it concluded. In other words, I had no idea what these chicks were talking about when I first saw the show. And secondly, I remember how much of a breakthrough this show was, and I couldn't help but wonder: would Sex and the City still invoke a sexual liberation within me today as it did to women my age in 1998?
The answer was astonishing. I still dislike Carrie, however, this time know why. And I saw some other things that made me realize that progress had actually happened - because some of Michael Patrick Kings advanced, feminist revelations from then are super effing outdated now. And altogether, Sex and the City has some ultimate flaws that might be even more drastic in 2018 than they were then.
Do men really ask for someone's number after seeing an eccentrically dressed woman run through the rain?
Carrie gets a lot of men to ask her for her number - and then they actually call her. Miranda gets a date from meeting someone queuing for coffee. Sorry, no way! I don't know the 90s too well to know if it was really like that. Nowadays experiences are certainly very, very different. I have been asked for my number by a stranger three times in 30 years of this life - and I met a lot of men. A lot. I went out for a living in the first decade of this millennium and the only guy to ever call me was my church friend turned love interest after we had gone from friendship to romance. It was such a milestone that I remember saying to my friends that it was the first time someone had called me. And sure, this is the age of the internet, and Mr. Big didn't have the iPhone but men simply do not take charge and speak, maybe anymore. The existence of a dating app called Bumble, where women HAVE TO make the first step, says it all. Why would it be necessary to have this app if we were still in the 90s where the man calls the woman? Or text because who speaks these days…?
Which brings me to the next biggest flaw: what do some of these men see in Carrie?
Carrie is cool, the writers of the show like to show her as successful but writing a weekly column in a tabloid paper is not success and certainly doesn't pay for her lifestyle, and she doesn't care about much more than shoes. There is no problem with that, everyone can be what they wanna be. But please, Alexandr Petrovsky, the world-renowned artist thinks it's refreshing that Carrie thinks his craft is a waste of time she “just doesn't get”? Why would he? Aidan, the outdoorsy, down-to-earth neighborhood guy likes a woman who is not passionate about his dog or any of his hobbies but a 400 dollar pair of shoes? Then he gets cheated on, in the worst way, and he cannot live without Carrie. I mean, nothing's impossible but at the very least it's a little bit ridiculous. Sure, it could be desperation; but it's more likely Michael Patrick King just chose his plot in the same way he placed products in Sex and the City - The Movie.
Now that we're talking about Aidan, can someone explain his behavior to me?
If a chick cheated on me, she would be a goner. But good for him for reconciling with her despite having absolutely nothing in common with her and being very visibly not loved back. He then wants to share his life with her, builds her a new wall in the apartment, invites her to his countryside abode. And Carrie goes there and does two things: hate on everything he likes about it and invites the guy she cheated with. No self-respecting man would allow that, nevermind really cares about rescuing the relationship. He has a baby as soon as Carrie is gone so he must have had a hunch he wanted a family girl who likes the subs. So why Carrie? It makes very little sense.
And Carrie isn't just a dick to Aidan, she's a golddigger.
The show makes a very poor effort at portraying Carrie as a self-made woman which I would argue is why feminists have a problem with the portrayal. She is a columnist in NYC so like in any other show, her apartment would be completely unaffordable to her in real life. But her taste, yeah her taste, is something else. Manolo Blahniks are not attainable for writers, period. And in one episode we find out Carrie spent 40,000 bucks on shoes but has 200 in her savings account. That's bullshit - and very stupid. But of course, Carrie only hangs out with three super-rich chicks that make anything happen, and when she moves in with Mr. Big it has to be a Park Avenue Penthouse. Her writer boyfriend Jack Berger has to wear Prada. Carrie has no problem having her lifestyle being paid for by her rich boyfriends which, again, is an okay attitude to have. To portray her as a feminist hero, however, just isn't right then. I like the good life, too, yo, but I plan to earn it myself and I would like the chance to do so. Glorifying Carries gold-digging ways does not really send the right message.
Last but not least, why exactly are the four girls friends?
So yeah, Carrie is or should be, poor, the other three are not. The vast differences in wealth have an effect on real-life friends because, when Samantha wants to go to a VIP club, a real Carrie (or Charlotte before the wedding for money) would not be able to afford that. Charlotte is a judgemental conservative, Samantha certainly is not. Maybe Samatha is very tolerant but would anyone like to be friends with people who judge them? Miranda disagrees with almost all they're saying which makes me love her because she isn't a dreamer. Yet, her best friend is Carrie who has a huge poster reading “Love” next to her front door at the age of 40. Friendship, like partnerships, need things that connect people. What connects these girls?
So much for my realistic flaws about Sex and the City. Of course, if we talked about artistic problems, trivializing actual problems, glorifying clothes over human quality, I would have more to say. I would criticize that Carrie goes to work for Vogue, gets harassed by the editor, and the show makes that a funny incident rather than a critique of the existing status quo. Of course, in the post-Weinstein world, that episode would be off the air, thank God. It does show me that we have come some way since 1998 when it was okay for men to treat those four women the way they did sometimes and it being a funny turn in a TV episode. Today, we talk about it. We don't laugh about men dropping their pants at a work meeting, we accept women like Samantha. That was not the case when I watched the show the first time around. I wasn't the same, either, and I don't mean my lack of age, but my lack of different perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment