I am rewatching Sex and the City, and oh dear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys, enough with the "we've had this thread before, do a search!" posts. I am not OP and don't even care that much about this subject, but sometimes people want to start and have an actual conversation, not just read a year-old post on the subject. It's more understandable when you see repeated threads about a clear question with a definitive answer that has been covered before, but when people are just musing about stuff they are thinking about, it's okay for them to want to talk to people in something resembling real time.

OP didn't say "Hi, I am the first person to ever notice this, but this enormously popular show from the late 90s/early 00s didn't age great!" She just made an observation, people weighed in. That's pretty much the point of a message board. If you aren't interested in the topic, just don't follow the thread. It does not harm you in any way.

Nah. It’s the exact same threads over and over. You care enough to rant about it so you can settle down and let people call out the repetitive threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I enjoyed it back when it was airing as well but now it just feels cringe-y. I remember reading a criticism of it back in the day by someone who said it was "stiletto feminism" -- the easy feminism of rich white women who think being able to buy a pair of $400 shoes means independence. I felt like this was way too harsh and kind of petty at the time. But when I rewatched a couple seasons later, I couldn't stop thinking of that essay. That's exactly what it is. Super shallow and overly focused on consumption to an embarrassing degree.

Agree Cynthia Nixon/Miranda and Kim Catrall/Samantha are the only characters with a little more going on. It would be interesting to see a similar show told more through the perspectives of these characters. They both make digressive choices and wrestle with but ultimately become okay with the consequences. Whereas Carrie and Charlotte have these extremely naive, fairy tale ideas about what it means to be a woman. And that's the narrative that really dominates the show. It's kind of sad.

Really? I think Charlotte evolved the most with her marriage and falling in love with someone she never expected. It does seem that all evolved based on relationships, except Carrie. I would put Samantha after Charlotte, and then Miranda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is bad is because it is not sympathetically written about women in those situations, it was written by a team of gay men and really it should have been about gay men in NYC it would have been a lot more entertaining and still interesting to watch now. Because of that disconnect it was and is, terrible.

lol, why do dumb dumbs keep repeating this?

hello? it is true

[Anonymous]

I actually found Charlotte’s character the most difficult to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually found Charlotte’s character the most difficult to watch.

Yuppers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is bad is because it is not sympathetically written about women in those situations, it was written by a team of gay men and really it should have been about gay men in NYC it would have been a lot more entertaining and still interesting to watch now. Because of that disconnect it was and is, terrible.

lol, why do dumb dumbs keep repeating this?

hello? it is true

OK, list the writers. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nixon is terrific? Lol. Everyone always hated her character. Everything about her is repulsive.

Nixon was gross and an obvious lesbian, so it was impossible to take any of her story lines seriously.

Carrie was not attractive at all so believing she was a Manhattan bombshell was

The pretty WASP one ending up with a gross but "sweet Jewish boy"... wow, who could see that coming.

And the 45 year old whore... you go girl!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is bad is because it is not sympathetically written about women in those situations, it was written by a team of gay men and really it should have been about gay men in NYC it would have been a lot more entertaining and still interesting to watch now. Because of that disconnect it was and is, terrible.

I assume all of the writers were gay and/or Jewish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nixon is terrific? Lol. Everyone always hated her character. Everything about her is repulsive.

Nixon was gross and an obvious lesbian, so it was impossible to take any of her story lines seriously.

Carrie was not attractive at all so believing she was a Manhattan bombshell was

The pretty WASP one ending up with a gross but "sweet Jewish boy"... wow, who could see that coming.

And the 45 year old whore... you go girl!

SJP has dated some of the most attractive men on earth (a la JFK JR). As a 20 something living in NYC I idolized her looks. Interestingly enough, my husband thinks she’s hideous.

I agree with the posters who say that we shouldn’t take the show so seriously but I think the problem with that notion is that the show took itself very seriously. The actors when interviewed never approached it as anything but “the right take on feminism”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is bad is because it is not sympathetically written about women in those situations, it was written by a team of gay men and really it should have been about gay men in NYC it would have been a lot more entertaining and still interesting to watch now. Because of that disconnect it was and is, terrible.

I assume all of the writers were gay and/or Jewish.

Why would you assume that the writers were Jewish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually found Charlotte’s character the most difficult to watch.

Yuppers

Genuine question, not snark — why?

[Anonymous]

The women I knew who truly loved it were all wannabe Charlottes dating nonstop and pretending to care about their careers while actually just hunting for rich husbands. The rest of us didn’t take it very seriously - just another shallow piece of entertainment you consumed and instantly forgot about. Like reading a harlequin novel or an issue of cosmopolitan magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nixon is terrific? Lol. Everyone always hated her character. Everything about her is repulsive.

Not everyone. She was always my favorite back then. I haven’t rewatched so we’ll see if it hold up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I enjoyed it back when it was airing as well but now it just feels cringe-y. I remember reading a criticism of it back in the day by someone who said it was "stiletto feminism" -- the easy feminism of rich white women who think being able to buy a pair of $400 shoes means independence. I felt like this was way too harsh and kind of petty at the time. But when I rewatched a couple seasons later, I couldn't stop thinking of that essay. That's exactly what it is. Super shallow and overly focused on consumption to an embarrassing degree.

Agree Cynthia Nixon/Miranda and Kim Catrall/Samantha are the only characters with a little more going on. It would be interesting to see a similar show told more through the perspectives of these characters. They both make digressive choices and wrestle with but ultimately become okay with the consequences. Whereas Carrie and Charlotte have these extremely naive, fairy tale ideas about what it means to be a woman. And that's the narrative that really dominates the show. It's kind of sad.

Really? I think Charlotte evolved the most with her marriage and falling in love with someone she never expected. It does seem that all evolved based on relationships, except Carrie. I would put Samantha after Charlotte, and then Miranda.

She married a rich guy who supports her lifestyle and lets her live exactly the way she wants, which is what she always wanted. He happened to be bald and Jewish, which she didn't expect. But she did EXACTLY what you would expect her to do and "sacrificed" on looks and background in order to get the $$$ and the lifestyle. I don't consider that a huge evolution, personally. She wanted a prince and she got one. Shrek did this story better, frankly.

Miranda didn't really evolve either, but I found her problems and reactions to life way more relatable. Dealing with professional ambition and both dating and motherhood. Dating men who are less ambitious and have less money -- this is an increasingly common issue for professional women. Being considered undesirable by men who aren't even that good looking, despite being smart and successful (and perfectly lovely, just not having model looks). Struggling with friendships when you are the only mom in your friend group, or dealing with a surprise pregnancy you somewhat unexpectedly decide to keep. These are all things I or women close to me dealt with in our 30s.

Samantha was less relatable to me personally but I really appreciated that she was a character who always prioritized her own needs over her partner's, unapologetically. I actually think that was a really powerful image of a woman to portray on such popular show, and to show that it didn't result in her becoming some sad lonely old shrew. Samantha is probably the most empowering message on the show, which is why rebooting with out her seems like such a bad idea to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nixon is terrific? Lol. Everyone always hated her character. Everything about her is repulsive.

Nixon was gross and an obvious lesbian, so it was impossible to take any of her story lines seriously.

Carrie was not attractive at all so believing she was a Manhattan bombshell was

The pretty WASP one ending up with a gross but "sweet Jewish boy"... wow, who could see that coming.

And the 45 year old whore... you go girl!

I truly worry about our children.