The Danger of "Sex and the City"

I understand the wild popularity of the HBO series “Sex and the City” among women, although I myself have never been a fan. Presumably, when the movie came out, vast majority of the audience in the movie theaters were women – there may have been a few men in the theater, who were dragged into it by their spouses or girlfriends. While I have only seen bits and pieces of just a few episodes of the HBO series, I did watch the DVD of the movie.

I have wanted to write down my impression of this “Sex and the City” phenomenon for a while, but I have struggled on how to crystallize my thoughts. Generally, there is no point analyzing the reason behind the popularity of any shows, because entertainment does not need justification. It is only when some pretentious critics decided to elevate a TV show to the level of a “phenomenon” and make statements on how it portrays the modern women and what it means for modern women that I feel like saying something.

Simply put – “Sex and the City” is just a modern-day rendition of the same old Cinderella story, dressed in designer clothes, polished with pseudo-intellectual remarks, and staged in a nice neighborhood in Manhattan. At first glance, it may seem that these women are different from the Cinderella types – they are all educated, accomplished, and even, “independent”. But when we take a closer look, we realize that these women exist for the sole purpose of catching men.

It is a fantasy story just like the Cinderella story – in that die-hard female fans of “Sex and the City” perhaps wish or dream that they could be like one of the characters in the show, or at least live like them and look like them. Hardly anyone above the age of 15 would dream of being a Cinderella, because it is not “real”. But to be like one of the women in “Sex and the City”? – That may be (just may be) within the realm of possibilities. In a nutshell, “Sex and the City” reaffirms women’s subordinate roles in the society, while masquerading that by showcasing these women as witty, strong, and often difficult and bitchy. – Somehow, if a woman is portrayed with an attitude or a temper, as opposed to behaving docilely as women from the Victorian era did, she must have been an “independent” woman, and therefore labeled as a modern independent woman. Looking closer, however, we see the fallacy of this argument. Their sole mission is to find the “ideal” man, and throwing temper tantrums is one way to sort out or identify the “ideal man”. Clearly, if a man cannot pamper them or indulge their temper tantrums, he cannot be the ideal one. Therefore, “Sex and the City” might as well be called a modern rendition of “finding good husbands and keeping them” or “getting rid of bad husbands sooner than later”.

I am by no means a fan of the opposite of the “Sex and the City” culture, which would be the extreme and radical branch of the feminist movement, calling women to act like men and forget about their looks. Perhaps Candace Bushnell was rebelling against that branch of feminist movement in her writing by going to the other excessive extreme – these women seem to be living for the clothes, the shoes and their own sizes. Just as I do not see the harm of the Cinderella story, I do not see the harm of “Sex and the City” if it is honest about its theme being as much of a fantasy as Cinderella. The danger lies in a fantasy story being delivered as if it were plausible, so that people get the wrong idea planted in their heads.

Michael pointed out that one of the most popular Hollywood films “Forrest Gump” was partly responsible for the anti-intellectual movement that dominated American culture for the past decade. Our politicians were terrified of being seen as smart or intellectual, because the American people seemed to believe that the “right” heart with no brain would work out just fine – Just look at how successful Forrest Gump was! Now, that was a fantasy story, but the filmmakers did not put a disclaimer on it.

Likewise, had the makers of “Sex and the City” put a disclaimer on it as a modern rendition of Cinderella, people would still be able to enjoy this frivolous show. There is nothing wrong with frivolous fun, but let’s not make it larger than it is, as if it were more cerebral or profound than silly shows like “Friends”. By the way, I loved “Friends” – it is completely light and forgettable, but that’s what it was meant to be.