Sex and the City" (1998-2004) certainly has its virtues. It's pure glamour: New York City, fashion, dating and romance. It offers real talk about women's experiences of sex, which is unusual in the mainstream media, and refreshing. In the show, women actually have agency when it comes to sex - they know what they want and how to get it.
Whether it's pursuing a traditional feminine narrative like Charlotte or rejecting monogamy in favor of sexual freedom, like Samantha, these women are empowered when it comes to sex. The close friendships between Carrie, Charlotte, Samantha and Miranda are a model of a strong community of women who support each other in the face of society's pressures.
I've heard it said, however, that "Sex and the City" is a celebration of post-feminism, or the idea that feminism is no longer needed because equality for women has already been achieved. This just might be true, and it's not a good thing. The show does glorify female sexual empowerment while continuing to promote other, more problematic, norms for women that go along with it.
The biggest problem that I can see is the centrality of men and marriage in the characters' lives and the show's plot. For all four of the women, although in different degrees, their life goal is to find a man and settle down once and for all. That is their key to achieving happiness, implying that without the men, happiness would be something unavailable to the single, 30-something New York woman.
They date serially, and the big questions they deal with together revolve around men and how other women relate to men. What do you do when increasing amounts of your friends are married and you're still single? What if the guy you're seeing is all-around great - but has some weird sex habit that you can't stand? My question is - what about other relationships with family and friends? What about personal goals and struggles? Those questions are left out, and the characters are left flat and one-dimensional, primarily concerned with romantic aspirations.
Their career goals are a tiny part of their lives. Carrie is a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid - does she ever have any other journalistic aspirations? Or a desire to write about anything other than just sex and romance? Miranda is a high-level lawyer, but this is still a small part of her life on the show. She is also portrayed as less feminine than the other three - she is more likely to wear pantsuits and overalls and has a boyish haircut - but gets just as much action.
Another thing is the shopping, which they are always doing. This clearly links physical appearance (through clothes and most importantly, shoes) to their attractiveness to men and by extension, their self-worth. It advocates consumerism as an important part of femininity. To be a real woman, you've just got to shop and love shoes and hats and fabulous style.
Carrie tends to start her weekly column with: "Do ALL women ...?" But she's really referring to only white women. The main cast and every other important character on the show are white. The romantic and sexual experiences of black, Latina, Asian or Native American women are clearly not Carrie's issue here - although she would probably argue that her advice is universal.
The show is also adamantly hetero-normative. In one episode, Charlotte befriends a lesbian couple and begins to attend their parties and gatherings. Her friends tease her about becoming a lesbian, and she laughs off the idea. The idea of non-straight love is not taken seriously by any of the women, even though it is posited in its own separate, distanced community. Carrie has the token "gay best friend" in Stanford - he is portrayed stereotypically and with a lack of personality outside of his overwhelming gayness.
So, is "Sex and the City" all bad? Not quite. But definitely not at all good either. Just some things to keep in mind for any and all of your guilty-pleasure shows.
Lily Sieradzki is a junior who is majoring in English. She can be reached at Lily.Sieradzki@tufts.edu.
