Sex and the City. The "shocking, groundbreaking, and innovative" (Warren 4) television series of 1998. Never before had a television series gone where Sex and the City went: a show about four very powerful single women living in New York City who openly discuss their successful jobs and sex lives. This show is surprisingly often associated with feminism. Not "butch, hairy, angry, man-hunting, anti-marriage, anti-pornography, bra-burning, dungaree-wearing lesbians" (Warren 1) but feminism in the sense that women can be as successful and as powerful as men. Feminism has developed a negative connotation, but SATC strove to take this negative connotation and make it positive; feminism can be sexy too. The show began, documentary style, really aiming to stress the power women could attain (keyword: power), but by season six the show had turned almost completely to the fact that the women were madly in love with their men in typical television sit-com style: the show now basically focused all of their "man issues". Uplifts Magazine's blog post Sex, Shoes, Cosmos, and... Feminism? raises this interesting question: did SATC lose hope on the feminism idea and turn to the old 'women need men' lifestyle, or can strong women desire a husband too?
Sex and the City did not lose hope on the feminist idea, rather the show beat the feminist stereotype. Just because the girls of the show strut the streets of New York City clothed in Dior dresses, Manolo Blahnik stilettos, and carrying Birkin bags “does not deny them the right to seek advancement, empowerment, and equality” (Scott) in the world. Women have the ability to be powerful while looking good. People have convinced themselves of the stereotype that if a women cares about her appearance, she must not be powerful. Only ugly women who wear tacky pantsuits can be powerful. No offense society, but what a dumb idea. The feminist side of SATC put it in society’s face that this stereotype must be defeated. There are powerful women everywhere who can do anything, and maybe even more, that any man can do.
But is there a man behind all of these successful women? According to SATC, there is not. And I completely agree. Women have the ability to stand powerfully on their own without a man helping them out. For example, character of the show Miranda Hobbs is a single (for most of the show) successful lawyer, and she got there without a man. Once she had all of her success, she married a much-less-successful-than-her bartender. Miranda got married not because society told her it was right to do so (Miranda is the type who could care less about having a husband) but because she wanted to get married. She was a strong woman, and desiring a husband did not make her any weaker. Women have the ability to multitask. So why is society so against powerful women who are multitasking by working hard and finding themselves a man? The idea that powerful women desire men scares some men: no man, unless he is completely secure with his masculinity and couldn’t care what society thinks, wants to be less powerful than his wife. Society looks down upon these men, which leads to society looking down on powerful women also desiring men. Miranda’s relationship was worked into the show to prove to society that men, even if they initially feel threatened by a woman’s success, can date successful women and still be accepted by society.
Sex and the City taught viewers that you do not have to be a stereotypical feminist to support women with power. And women in power are not weakened if they have a boyfriend or husband. Society needs to accept the fact that women are becoming more powerful and that there is no reason to be threatened by the rising female success. Men used to be the hunters, the heads of the household, the providers, and many men still are, but it is just recently starting to be acceptable for women to be providers too- something butch and sexy feminists have been fighting for for ages. There is nothing wrong with being a feminist, and there is nothing wrong with being an anti-feminist, but there is something wrong with stereotyping women for their views on feminism.
Works Cited
Warren, Holly. "Sex, Shoes, Cosmos, and... Feminism? ." Weblog post. Uplift
Magazine . 29 Jan. 2009. 18 Feb. 2009.
Sex and the City did not lose hope on the feminist idea, rather the show beat the feminist stereotype. Just because the girls of the show strut the streets of New York City clothed in Dior dresses, Manolo Blahnik stilettos, and carrying Birkin bags “does not deny them the right to seek advancement, empowerment, and equality” (Scott) in the world. Women have the ability to be powerful while looking good. People have convinced themselves of the stereotype that if a women cares about her appearance, she must not be powerful. Only ugly women who wear tacky pantsuits can be powerful. No offense society, but what a dumb idea. The feminist side of SATC put it in society’s face that this stereotype must be defeated. There are powerful women everywhere who can do anything, and maybe even more, that any man can do.
But is there a man behind all of these successful women? According to SATC, there is not. And I completely agree. Women have the ability to stand powerfully on their own without a man helping them out. For example, character of the show Miranda Hobbs is a single (for most of the show) successful lawyer, and she got there without a man. Once she had all of her success, she married a much-less-successful-than-her bartender. Miranda got married not because society told her it was right to do so (Miranda is the type who could care less about having a husband) but because she wanted to get married. She was a strong woman, and desiring a husband did not make her any weaker. Women have the ability to multitask. So why is society so against powerful women who are multitasking by working hard and finding themselves a man? The idea that powerful women desire men scares some men: no man, unless he is completely secure with his masculinity and couldn’t care what society thinks, wants to be less powerful than his wife. Society looks down upon these men, which leads to society looking down on powerful women also desiring men. Miranda’s relationship was worked into the show to prove to society that men, even if they initially feel threatened by a woman’s success, can date successful women and still be accepted by society.
Sex and the City taught viewers that you do not have to be a stereotypical feminist to support women with power. And women in power are not weakened if they have a boyfriend or husband. Society needs to accept the fact that women are becoming more powerful and that there is no reason to be threatened by the rising female success. Men used to be the hunters, the heads of the household, the providers, and many men still are, but it is just recently starting to be acceptable for women to be providers too- something butch and sexy feminists have been fighting for for ages. There is nothing wrong with being a feminist, and there is nothing wrong with being an anti-feminist, but there is something wrong with stereotyping women for their views on feminism.
Works Cited
Warren, Holly. "Sex, Shoes, Cosmos, and... Feminism? ." Weblog post. Uplift
Magazine . 29 Jan. 2009. 18 Feb. 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment