22
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Actually a Woman >>
Kim Cattrall Speaks on Post-Feminism and How Relevant Sex and the City Really Is
13 Comments | Posted by Sarah in Sex and the City, feminism
I’ve never really sat and watched multiple episodes of Sex and the City enough to really gain a solid perspective on the ladies and their story lines and I’ve never seen the SATC movies, either. From what I’ve gathered, the four stars of SATC have pretty much conquered various aspects of neo-feminism, all the while retaining their femininity. Did feminism need a television show to really reboot everything that’s been set in stone over the past few hundred years? It’s negotiable, but I guess every genre has to have it’s “moral” of the story. SATC, from what star Kim Cattrall states, has encompassed everything that a modern woman stands for.
Wall Street Journal’s Speakeasy interviewed Cattrall about the upcoming SATC sequel and Cattrall had some interesting things to say regarding the show and its pertinence to feminism. Cattrall states:
”Post-feminism has been really confusing. It influenced so many women to leave a lot of their feminine qualities behind and assume the business suit… That’s why it’s captured so many women’s imaginations. It’s truthful and it’s real and it’s now; it’s not dated, and it keeps evolving. These four women really make up one complete woman.”
While I th0ught certain characters in the episodes that I have seen to be the vapid type of woman that I really can’t stand, let alone want to emulate, she makes a good point. I’ve gained enough perspective from these woman to “see” what they’re like in conjunction with their story lines and in reference to one another; by Cattrall stating that the four characters encompass one kick-ass woman, I have to kind of agree. If you take the best (and worst) of the four female leads, you would get one amazing lady.
The show was supposed to portray four successful women living in a large city and how they adapted to constantly-changing environments in their personal and professional lives. While the show sometimes drifted in and out of what it was to be a “sad-sack” single woman, its good points kind of renegotiated its relevance to modern-day feminism. The women were fun, flirty, sometimes promiscuous — everything that pre-feminism had shunned with its big, brusque man’s index finger.
The women show what it is to be what they want to be — whether its a housewife or a woman who’d rather use their oven for storage instead of cooking with it. The show also tackles “traditional” female issues such as breast cancer, miscarriages, failed relationships and surviving thereafter.
After kind of delving into the unknown here, I think I might have to recapture some of the mystique surrounding Sex and the City. My husband (a totally metro and non-traditional male) loved the long-running sitcom and could probably give a pretty good synopsis for each season — I might have to sit down with him over an espresso and pick his brain. Then maybe, just maybe, check into purchasing the first season.
You know, just for scientific purposes.
I was always torn between liking the characters and finding them rather pathetic and distasteful. Maybe it’s because they always went for the wrong men and treated the right ones like crap (and yes, I absolutely detested Mr. Big). On the other hand, I always liked that Samantha was never so tied to a single man that she lost her own self-importance.
SJP’s character is most definitely NOT a feminist, all she does is whine about her commitment phobic BF. Her whole life revolves around a man!
Agreed. I’d say out of all of them (even Charlotte), she’s the least ideal. She’s very self-centered, often cancelling on her friends to focus on the men in her life. Hell, even her JOB revolves around men, sex and the balance in between. She truly annoys me, and if I had a friend like that I probably wouldn’t be her friend very long.
The other three, however, I feel are healthily portrayed. There’s one exception here though, and it pisses me off, because I truly love her character: *SPOILER for those who haven’t watched* Charlotte converts to Judaism* in order to marry Harry. Maybe her faith wasn’t very strong, maybe it wasn’t a big sacrifice, but it angered me that she had to change part of herself to be “worthy” of getting married. That struck a bad note with me and tainted a character I otherwise loved. Oh well.
Samantha and Miranda I truly feel represented something that is real. Neither allowed a man to bring them down, neither obsessed constantly, and both got exactly what they wanted out of their relationships and life. Niether apologize for being exactly who they are. That I like.
FYI, I’m speaking only of the series here, not the movie. The movie was a cop-out and with the exception of very few scenes, was ridiculous.
*It wasn’t the Judaism that bothered me, it was the fact that she had to change such a fundamental part of her life, let me make that perfectly clear. I don’t have a problem with those of the Jewish faith, or any faith for that matter. :)
GAH! I hate it when women change religion for the man. If the man loves you he should accept you for all that you are not expect you to change to suit HIM. IMO the only woman on the show who is truly a feminist is Samantha because she just does whatever she wants and doesn’t give a crap. I love the scene where Samantha is dating that rich playboy who gives her diamonds and she dumps him because she loves herself too much to put up with his philandering ways.
What was her religion before and after the conversion? Converting for marriage is a bit sticky biblically speaking. There are many verses in the bible that say a woman must submit to her husband in almost every way and that includes believing what he believes and asking him when she has a spiritual question. Some are old testament, some are new testament. It also says that a christian woman should show a non-christian husband the way, not through preaching but through her conversation and her actions. Converting from christianity to a strict form of judaism would be going against biblical teaching but if she’s converting to a less strict form, particularly the ‘jews for jesus’ kind of judaism then I think that might be OK. If you’re christian that adjusting your biblical beliefs once you get married is actually in accordance with your faith.
Rhonda, she was converting from Episcapalian to conservative Judaism. Do I know a lot about what conservative Judaism entails? No. But I hope that answers your question. :)
Ehm… if those spoiled, shallow, neurotic bitches are supposed to be good feminist ideals, I would dearly love to hand in my feminist card and get back to the kitchen, because the alternative is too horrifying.
Someone once told me that, unlike the books, the show was initially intended to be a gay man’s lampooning of the shallow upscale NY woman’s lifestyle, and everyone was pretty baffled when women flocked to it in droves as a GOOD representation of women. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but given the few episodes of the show that I’ve seen, I’m inclined to believe it.
In theory, the characters COULD be decent representations of different kinds of femininity. The career-focused tomboy, the sexpot who doesn’t need or want a relationship, the one who just wants to be a housewife and a good mom, and the serially monogamous once. But in actual practice? Eugh.
I saw one episode of SATC, and the only thing I liked about it was looking at the pretty shoes.
They’re all alcoholics! All they do is drink and get laid.
I could totally do that job!
Where do I apply?
Joey’s house! lol!
Your giving me ideas Sam,I could open a home for hypersexual-chemically addicted feminists. Now I need a name,that could be tough!!
And that’s a problem WHY? :)