I like to watch shows about people I can root for, or at least like, in situations I find interesting. I found the characters of Sex and the City to be nasty, self-absorbed, shallow, and boring.
The comment about them not being like me or my friends was more in reference to the cultural, ‘these four characters are archetypes for all woman-kind’ thing.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought this. Yikes. I can only imagine what he’d think of Golden Girls!
I found the show enjoyable and witty, even as I reflected that I loathed the main character and found all of them pretty worthless human beings at least some of the time. It’s a show that works on a fantasy level only, for me. If they were real people I would feel saddened and/or disgusted by them.
I think it’s a fine line to walk to make a story about despicable people, and make it entertaining. Sometimes I watch something like that and I’m entertained by their ridiculous exploits, and sometimes I’m just like, “Why would I want to watch these jerks?”
I wouldn’t consider myself a “fan” but I watched the show occasionally when it aired (I didn’t have HBO but a friend did) and have caught many episodes in re-runs (I can’t recall where it re-ran though - was an edited version run on cable at some point?). I’d say I’ve probably seen about 60-75% of the episodes.
I’m with ThelmaLou - I don’t need to relate to the characters to enjoy the show. I never once felt that the show accurately represented women or womankind or even wealthy thirtysomething women in New York. And certainly not me or my friends! It’s story-telling. It’s entertainment. I don’t have to want to be the people in the show - or even think they are realistic - to enjoy stories about them.
The implication - which even my husband likes to indulge in - that all women who enjoyed SATC spent hours of their lives debating if they were more of a “Miranda” or a “Samantha” and oogling over Carrie’s shoe collection is far more insulting to women than anything portrayed in the show. I never once felt like the show spoke to where I was in life or my relationships. Neither did Friends. Or Seinfeld. Or ER. Or The X-Files, or Twin Peaks, or the Simpsons. Or any other show that I avidly watched and enjoyed in the 90s. So why is it so astonishing that one could enjoy a TV show without being accused of secretly wanting to own a closet full of $400 shoes? It’s infuriating.
And at what point did it become appropriate criticism to evaluate a TV show on the sexual attractiveness of the principal cast? It’s fine if you think they are all trolls, but how does this, in itself, make it a terrible show? Even if I didn’t particularly like the show, the unmitigated hatred and bile spewed against women considered less than bang-able when they DARE to ooze across a TV screen (I’m looking at you, Stink Fish Pot) literally sends shivers up my spine. If the counter-argument is “but the whole premise is to show the glamorous lives of four gorgeous women sleeping their way through New York” then you simply don’t get the show at all. [/rant]
Apparently in later seasons, which I didn’t see much of, the show did slip farther into the absurd fashion- and wealth- fetishism that the show was always accused of but it didn’t really deserve until later in its life. I am not sure what season it occurred but turning “Mr. Big” into a real character - a viable future for Carrie, as opposed to the “Prince Charming” unattainable fantasy - was where it started to go off the rails for me. I blame Chris Noth for being popular so viewers probably wanted more of him and the writers indulged. But making this archetype - the indescribably wealthy and fucked-up fantasy object a la Christian Grey - a genuine love interest skewed too far into self-indulgent fantasy for me. At that point I paid more attention to the fun stuff happening to the other characters - Charlotte’s failed marriage, Miranda’s single motherhood, Samantha’s struggle with monogamy.
The first film was an extension of this line. I wasn’t much into the premise, so I felt pretty Meh about it. I didn’t bother with the second, for obvious reasons.
But when the show was good, it was really good. Snappy writing, good jokes, characters and story lines that felt authentic in a sitcommy sort of way. And a premise based on the friendship between four very different women who were more concerned about navigating their own lives and supporting each other than focusing their entire being on pleasing a man. Maybe that is what pisses men off so much about it - on SATC men were secondary characters. Men tend not to like that very much. 
I admit that I have never watched one episode of this show nor have I ever had the desire to. I read about the show on occasion and quite frankly I never knew any women who behaved that way. Perhaps I just didn’t hang out in those circles.
You have to be kidding, SITC indulged in the worst female stereotyping around. Women according to the show are obsessed with cock, clothes, and shoes and not one other thing. Entourage is the male version of SITC, and just as unwatchable. I hear enough of that garbage in my real life just being a guy, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to watch a show about it.
My wife once commented that SITC did not represent actual “girl talk”, but more like what men imagined women talk about over lunch.
Behaved what way? Since you never saw the show…??
Sex And The City (SATC), not Sex In The City (SITC).
The city was meant be a character in itself.
@Thelma Lou: I said that I READ about the show. Women searching for non-committal sexual relationships and living high-powered lives did not introduce themselves to me in my mid-western world.
But that’s not an accurate description. Charlotte only wanted the white-wedding dream and was hardly high powered. Miranda tried to balance work with personal life, and later, a child.
Samantha was the only one that even fits the characterization. And you don’t have high powered women who like flings in the Midwest?
@Ivory Tower Denizen: I have no doubt that there are women here in the midwest who do live the high powered lifestyle, however none of them were in my social circles. While I pride myself on being respectful to most people, socially I tend to hang with the proles and the plebes. FYI–my wife is a professional but I would not refer to her as living a “high powered lifestyle.” That is, my social circle mostly consists of men and women who are middle class workers, regular folks, and not any real movers or shakers, although i have been with those types from time to time.
I think your experience is not limited to the Midwest. I’ve lived on the west coast, east coast and Midwest and in my experience, for the most part, you meet all types.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your post- I thought you meant the Midwest did not have those types of women.
Yes, but that’s an watered-down misrepresentation of the program. I HAVE watched it, so my opinion is based on primary knowledge. Anyway, do you relate to characters in Dickens or Shakespeare? Peanuts or Calvin & Hobbes? Or in the Bible, for that matter? Human nature is human nature–buckskin or Blahnik. Don’t matter. Love, sadness, loss, humiliation, joy, success. The show was not just girly fluff. Don’t mind me. I also get annoyed when people reject food, music, books, and art that they know nothing about based on other people’s opinions.
@Thelma Lou: No I don’t mind you. And yes I admitted that I never watched the show. I did see previews of it and I admit that it never grabbed me, and yes I did read some articles about it. That being said, (and perhaps this would be great for another thread) I have to care about the characters in any story to want to see what happens to them. I don’t really identify with the characters from “Mad Men” or “The Sopranos” but I cared enough about them to see what happens to them. SO perhaps I should have posted that from what I’ve seen in the previews (which are supposed to peak the viewers’ interests) and what I’ve read in articles about “Sex and the City” that there was nothing that grabbed me or made me care about the characters whereas previews for “Mad Men” and “The Sopranos” did make me want to take a look.
I guess I sound like people who hate Rush Limbaugh but never listen to him; they just listen to what others say about him. My apologies.
I’ve only ever seen one or two episodes of SITC, not enough to have an opinion on the OP’s question.
But I am taken aback by the language used by some posters, about what is after all just a TV show. “Heinous cunts”, “dyke”, “dried-out hags”; them’s some powerfully misogynistic words you’re throwin’ around there, fellas.
HBO and the media were pumping SJP and the other stars as sex symbols when the show aired, I’m guessing it is in response to that.
Family Guy and other comedy shows have made a tradition out of comparing SJP to a horse.
Although their series runs overlap somewhat (*Sex and the City *from 1998 to 2004 and The Sopranos from 1999 to 2007) SATC isn’t part of the current ‘Golden Age’ of TV which I personally date from the start of The Sopranos. This could explain why SATC the series has dated so badly. I can speak about the movies (which I confess to never having watched).
I can’t even take this seriously. If you think that’s how SATC portrayed “women” or even these particular characters, it’s clear you didn’t watch much of the show.
It’s hilarious to me how men get *so furious *over SATC for its terrible, horrible stereotyping of women. Oh yes, please tell me how much more of a feminist you are than I am because I enjoyed a show focused on women characters and you think they’re all stupid cunts.
As I recall, they shot both “clean” and HBO versions at the same time so the clean versions could be put into syndication on network TV without looking chopped up and edited. I believe WGN used to air them here in the Chicago area but I could be wrong.
My wife watches sometimes and I’ve seen multiple episodes just from being in the same room. I find the writing awful and the show itself to be dire but I suppose I’m not the target audience.
I’m not criticizing anyone for enjoying the show, but don’t hold up the characters as real women facing real life issues. Samantha and Carrie are both caricatures, they are cartoons that couldn’t exist in real life. Samantha’s sole defining character trait is being a slut, and Carrie supports her outlandish lifestyle and shoe addiction by working less than part time.
I’ve seen more of the show than I cared, it reminded me of Entourage ugh.
Although you’re attacking characters on a TV show, your language here is more inflamatory than it needs to be outside the Pit – especially the word “dyke,” which is highly offensive.
Dial it back.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator