In Which I Weigh In On The Sex and the City

Yesterday Emily Nussbaum, The New Yorker's television critic, shared her most recent critique with the twitterverse, sparking much debate, dialogue, and discussion. Nussbaum bravely addressed the struggling legacy of a still relevant HBO series: Sex and the City. I say "bravely" because in the world of television criticism, SATC's "legacy" hasn't aged very well. Actually, it is a regularly divisive topic among not only critics, but audiences as well. For example, Vulture's Sitcom Showdown pitted SATC against the very recently departed and beloved 30 Rock and ultimately gave the win to SATC. The comments exploded in so much ire and shock that Vulture actually compiled the best (AKA most disappointed and angriest) reader comments and devoted a whole other post just to that. Because it was one thing for 30 Rock to lose in the first round. But for it to lose to Sex and the City (!?!?!) was absurd. (The fact that the winner would then have to face off--and surely lose--against Seinfeld seemed irrelevant at the time). Similarly, when Nussbaum linked to her SATC piece yesterday, much twitter debate followed. And eventually other writers weighed in with their own think pieces. [1][2][3] Because how could Sex and the City even compare to quality shows like The Sopranos? How could we compare Carrie to Walter White? How is SATC any more groundbreaking than The Mary Tyler Moore Show or Golden Girls or Six Feet Under? Is Sex and the City even that feminist of a show?

I for one completely understand the divisiveness surrounding Sex and the City. Even my own opinion on the show is at odds with itself, which you will see if you continue reading.

I've seen every single episode of Sex and the City, but I was never a die hard fan. It was funny and entertaining, but I never admired it or looked up to it. I never took cues about how I should dress or act or what my drink order should be. But then again, I was also never a girl who loved romantic comedies, which SATC arguably is (don't get me wrong, there are great romantic comedies but in general I'm not much of a romantic). So I always realized this show wasn't necessarily for me. I don't really enjoy sitting around talking about my relationships. I don't use conversations about sex to relate to other people. Not that there's anything wrong with that type of person. Some of my closest friends are that way. Even my sister. And they love SATC. To be honest, I was always under the impression that most women are that way and that most women love SATC. They sit around at brunch and talk about their relationships just like the SATC quartet. And not always in an emulating way, but in a realistic way--because that happens to be an actual thing many women do. I'm female. I've been there. I've seen it. Its how some people relate to the world. Whereas I use conversations about TV (duh), films and books--and others use politics or music or sports or comedy--some women use conversations about their love lives to connect with others. What SATC did was validate those conversations in an unprecedented way. Even though I never really related to it too intensely, I always recognized what it meant to the people that did relate. Ultimately thats the root of SATC's legacy.

So to everyone calling SATC out for its faux feminism, lets just ease up a tiny bit. I'm not necesarrily defending the show, but SATC wasn't made for people like me and it wasn't made to be picked apart. It wasn't made in the day of weekly recaps and blogs about television. Or when there was a buttload of top quality programming being produced. Yes, there are much more feminist shows. Shows that are actually grounded. That have flawed heroines and a wider range of female "types". Shows that actually have a lot to say about femininity. Like Girls, Orange is the New Black, and Enlightened.

But that's not really fair to SATC. Because SATC was made in a different time for a different type of audience. It was approachable and oftentimes hilarious. And it was at one time a hugely groundbreaking show that has absolutely influenced today's television landscape. Its values have not held up well. And its schmaltzy voiceovers sure as hell haven't. But what it means to women still has. Otherwise there wouldn't be a freaking prequel on air (Carrie Diaries) nor would other shows explicitly reference its influence on today's women (see Shoshanna on Girls or Maggie's meltdown on The Newsroom). In some ways SATC ushered in a new type of female. And that is exactly why it has touches of feminism. As Nussbaum explains:

"Most unusually, the characters themselves were symbolic. As I’ve written elsewhere—and argued, often drunkenly, at cocktail parties—the four friends operated as near-allegorical figures, pegged to contemporary debates about women’s lives, mapped along three overlapping continuums. The first was emotional: Carrie and Charlotte were romantics; Miranda and Samantha were cynics. The second was ideological: Miranda and Carrie were second-wave feminists, who believed in egalitarianism; Charlotte and Samantha were third-wave feminists, focussed on exploiting the power of femininity, from opposing angles. The third concerned sex itself. At first, Miranda and Charlotte were prudes, while Samantha and Carrie were libertines. Unsettlingly, as the show progressed, Carrie began to glide toward caution, away from freedom, out of fear."

Now that's all well and good and there's absolute value in what SATC was trying to say about womanhood. But to me, a truly feminist show isn't a show just for woman. A truly feminist show also has male viewers and presents men and women as equally capable and equally flawed. A truly feminist show actually passes the Bechdel Test.

Yeah, I turn my nose up at Sex and the City as much as the next pretentious critic. But I still acknowledge the impact of the show. And the fact that these intense analyses and conversations continue to happen implies that SATC deserves a tad more scrutiny. And last spring, when SATC lost to 30 Rock (a show I much prefer and which is much more in line with my personal tastes, humor, and outlook), I sort of agreed with it. Because as much as I love 30 Rock and admire Tina Fey and her charming yet influential little show, I also value characterization, risks, story lines, emotional moments, and actual consequences. And while much of what I just listed isn't SATC's strongest suit, it goes for it. And its everything 30 Rock isn't. 30 Rock is pure humor and doesn't give a crap about development. So I hate to break it to the commenters, but Vulture got it right. Believe me, it pains me to say it because to me, SATC can be irritating.

Because to me, there's more to a woman than her relationships and her shoes. And don't get me started on Carrie's stupid little puns and thoughtful glances out the window in the smokey glow of a laptop screen (which is literally me at this very moment). I personally don't need to pick apart every aspect of mine or anyone else's romantic interactions (and don't really see why we need to). And I certainly don't need male attention to validate who I am. Because I already know who I am. Women love saying they're a Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, or Charlotte. But I know I'm none of them. I'm an entirely different kind of female New Yorker. I'm Liz Lemon.



(See? It's divisive.)