After six seasons and ninety-four episodes, Sex and the City ended its run in February 2005. But like a case of genital herpes, the show refuses to go away. DVDs of all six seasons line the walls of every video store in the country while HBO continues to beams encore episodes into millions of homes. TBS even paid one million per episode for the syndication rights to a bowdlerized version suitable for the ever declining standards of basic cable. 
Added to that are the two movies, the first in 2008 and the second which opens in theaters today.
Sex and the City is a magnum opus, one of the seminal works of our age. Anyone who has watched every episode—all 47 hours—and both movies—an additional 4.85 hours—will have witnessed a work of genius in what is indisputably the greatest (and longest) misogynist masterwork ever to be captured on film.
HBO has produced some great dramas over the years but nothing can match the “novel of ideas” that is Sex. What is truly remarkable, though, is the way the series mirrors the work of Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger. In 1905, Weininger published Geschlecht und Charakter (Sex and Character) in which he argued that all people are composed of a mixture of the male and the female substance. Wikipedia provides a useful summary of the Austrian’s view: “The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical.”
Someday, feminist scholars will produce dissertations that clarify and outline how the series embodied the philosophy of Weiniger. The best I can do for now is point out the connection. Here, for example, is a representative passage from Sex and Character:
Woman is neither high-minded nor low-minded, strong-minded nor weak-minded. She is the opposite of all these. Mind cannot be predicated of her at all; she is mindless. That, however, does not imply weak-mindedness in the ordinary sense of the term, the absence of the capacity to “get her bearings” in ordinary everyday life. Cunning, calculation, “cleverness,” are much more usual and constant in the woman than in the man, if there be a personal selfish end in view. A woman is never so stupid as a man can be.
But has woman no meaning at all? Has she no general purpose in the scheme of the world? Has she not a destiny; and, in spite of all her senselessness and emptiness, a significance in the universe?
Has she a mission, or is her existence an accident and an absurdity?
In order to understand her meaning, it is necessary to start from a phenomenon which, although old and well recognized, has never received its proper meed of consideration. It is from nothing more nor less than the deep, her only vital interest, the interest that sexual unions shall take place; the wish that as much of it as possible shall occur, in all cases, places, and times.
. . . After mature consideration of the most varied types of women and with due regard to the special classes besides those which I have discussed, I am of opinion that the only positively general female characteristic is that of matchmaking, that is, her uniform willingness to further the idea of sexual union.
That last line sums up the entire theme of Sex and the City. The four main characters on the show are relatively wealthy, have successful careers, and live in one of the most interesting cities on earth. Yet their lives revolve around copulating, as frequently as possible with whoever is available and willing.
The nudity (usually brief) and obscene language (always raunchy) are enough to make the more prurient viewers reach for their inhaler. But the most shocking aspect of the show is how female sexuality is almost completely divorced from reality. “That’s the show,” said Marge Simpson on an episode of The Simpsons, “about four women acting like gay guys.” While Marge may be guilty of perpetuating a stereotype, she does have a point: nothing about Sex resembles how most woman view sex.
Take, for example, Samantha Jones. Here is how the show’s website describes the most promiscuous member of the group:
Samantha embraces her uninhibited sexuality with a diverse (and large) group of lovers, from wrestling coaches to power bachelors to a studly farmer. Forget wedding dreams; Samantha takes lust over love any night, and she’s proud of it. Once, she even experimented with lesbian love, but when her “girlfriend” demanded more intimacy, Samantha knew it wasn’t going to work out.
Samantha is, of course, the extreme end of the spectrum. But she is often portrayed as the exemplar of sexual liberation, the type of woman the others would be if they could shake free from what is left of their “inhibitions.”
Samantha is difficult to like and impossible to respect. But that is in keeping with the intention of the misogynistic brilliance of the show’s writers. The women are supposed to be despised because they are despicable. The men of The Sopranos may be immoral and violent but they are portrayed as having a twisted sense of honor, respect, and purpose. The woman of Sex, on the other hand, are portrayed as being worth less than their their absurdly expensive designer shoes. The show strips them of their dignity and presents them as archetypes in order that we may mock them. In doing so the series implies that all women are just as worthless as these single New Yorkers. The subtext is that beneath the Prada handbags and Jimmy Choo shoes, women are all the same: passive, unproductive, unconscious, amoral, and illogical.
That a minstrel show caricaturing women could succeed for over a decade is astounding; that such a misogynist worldview could be embraced by our culture is disheartening. While it’s obvious why Sex would appeal to caddish men, its hard to fathom why intelligent females would be drawn to Weiningers women.
May 27th, 2010 | 5:42 pm
See Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sec. 2354 – immersion in “the illusion of a fantasy world”. Pornography for shallow women.
May 27th, 2010 | 6:21 pm
Joe,
I think you miss one important theme of the show – that these women can count on each other.
In their worldview, the relationships most worth having are with your female friends. Marriage/matchmaking is not actually the hightest goal – it is an important goal, but even more important in this worldview is being able to share your experiences with your sisters.
In this, I think it fits in with Marge Simpsons critique that they women could well be gay men. I am thinking about the gay ghettos of NY and SF where many men who did not fit into their birth families found a new family in the brotherhood they shared. The brunch discussions that were pivotal scenes in most episodes could have come straight out of 90s weekend afternoon brunches of gay guys in Chelsea or the West Village.
I have always viewed Samantha as a caricature of the worst traits of male sexuality – the amoral horndog fratboy who views sex as his reason to be or the promiscuous gay man who celebrates his sexual freedom. I think the character of Samantha was so jarring because she exhibited all of these traits and was a woman.
May 27th, 2010 | 7:12 pm
c. s. lewis, writing about greek authors and philosophers, concludes that their references to pederasty are less indicative of approval but instead laced with “titillation.” in other words, the references exist not because the practice was condoned, but because of this peculiar phenomenon of prohibited excitement….
i suspect “titillation” might be a possible explanation to why “intelligent females would be drawn to weininger’s women.”
finally, marge simpson’s quotation is very incisive. how perceptive!
May 28th, 2010 | 12:21 am
I’ve always found it ironic that a show that is ostensibly about “empowered” women has them acting like pathetically crass versions of the most stereotypically “unempowered” women who they supposedly resent.
And the funniest thing about it, as Roger Ebert pointed out in a way that I hadn’t really considered, is that for all their materialism and fashion obsession, they wear really, really ugly clothes. Their outfits may be fashionable, but none of them have any style.
Just look at this and you’ll see what I mean http://www.google.com/images?q=sex%20and%20the%20city&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Ultimately I don’t think there’s any way of avoiding the conclusion you reached here.
May 28th, 2010 | 6:17 am
I’m hoping for a book to appear someday, entitled “Sex and the City of God.”
May 28th, 2010 | 8:35 am
Sex and the Sacred City: Meditations on the Theology of the Body
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Sacred-City-Steve-Kellmeyer/dp/0971812810
May 28th, 2010 | 11:05 am
I am guilty of watching SITC and have to agree about the low moral quality of the characters and the Marge Simpson assessment. However, a different view came to me through my south Asian female friend who gets together with other women from similar backgrounds (Indian, Pakistani, etc.) just to watch the tv show on DVD or see the movie. These are very conservative women in terms of their own lifestyles, with in-tact marriages, high-achieving children and strong relationships with their extended families. They feel this show presents women who don’t need men and find that idea empowering. They seem to like the idea that the women stand together (as JM noted above). They get together and hoot and holler quite a bit, I hear, for the combination of female solidarity, fashion, and soap opera plots.
One thing intriguing to me was the tremendous anger that Miranda felt when her husband Steve briefly cheated on her in the movie – she was as unforgiving as any tribal Muslim man – I think she could practically have stoned him publicly. The SITC characters place so few standards on single people yet such high standards on marriage, which is supposed to be a daily fairy tale.
Overall, the children in this movie are basically props and no one seems to have any extended family. With regard to an older generation, I can only recall parents of the various men apearing – Mr. Big’s very waspy mother appeared early on in the tv series; Steve’s blue-collar mother who suffered from dementia and was taken in by Miranda; and Charlotte’s first husband’s domineering mother, Bunny. Otherwise, the four women are their own family.
The series is quite good at presenting various New York archetypes, such as the Vogue editor Enid.
I have to admit that after buying the six-season DVD set, I did get it out of my own house, as I would not want my kids watching this!
May 28th, 2010 | 3:21 pm
A friend convinced me to watch all six seasons because she loved the portrayal of female friendship. After watching every episode and the first movie, I can say that if that is the best of female friendship, I don’t want it. They are there to have brunch and complain to each other, but they are not there to really do the real, concrete work of friendship, like watching Miranda’s baby on a regular basis.
There are glimpses of real friendship, certainly. Somewhere in the third or fourth season, Miranda and Carrie are out shopping, and Miranda “calls her out” on unhealthy behavior. But this is the exception, not the norm.
At the end of the series, there is a glimpse of them all finally growing up; the way Miranda is with Steve’s mother is beautiful. But this is destroyed in the movie, when they revert to their selfish lifestyles that don’t involve caring for other people (including each other) in any real way.
The only thing redeeming about the show is that they all seem so damn unhappy. But apparently most viewers miss this.
May 28th, 2010 | 3:21 pm
I watched much of the SATC re-runs on network television (so without the worst of the language and nudity), and I think Christians speak worse of the show than it deserves. [I have seen neither movie.] It is true that the characters are strangely without families (parents, siblings, nieces, and nephews), and they do not lead what Christians would recognize as virtuous lives. The first episodes, however, asked whether it is possible “for a woman to have sex like a man,” that is, without emotional attachment. The overall answer of the series is a resounding NO, and that’s a message those of us on the other side of the culture wars like to trumpet loudly.
As unconventional as the characters are, most have very conventional aspirations for their lives. All but Samantha are looking for a “soulmate,” if not marriage, still a life-long commitment. At the end of the TV series, even Samantha is in a committed relationship. I think the overall lesson or message of the show is actually that a woman without a man can be content, but not happy. Also, the characters have STD scares and contract STDs. Abortion is not presented favorably. So even within the show, the characters recognize some of the adverse consequences of fornication.
True, they never really recognize that it is that fornication that is preventing them from obtaining their soulmates, but, then again, the characters don’t read FT, so they haven’t read SH’s “Subversive Virginity” or T. Reichert’s article on pharmaceutical contraception from just this past May.
[perhaps an editor wants to post easy links to these excellent articles following this comment]
May 28th, 2010 | 8:15 pm
‘“That’s the show,” said Marge Simpson on an episode of The Simpsons, “about four women acting like gay guys.” While Marge may be guilty of perpetuating a stereotype, she does have a point: nothing about Sex resembles how most woman view sex.’
Don’t flinch away just because it’s a possible stereotype. Two of the co-producers of the TV show are gay men, and at least one of them was a writer for the show.
Many women will likely follow their characters’ example, and the country will be worse for it.
May 28th, 2010 | 9:04 pm
Risking a charge of bad taste, I will agree with Jay Leno’s alternative title for the show: “Three Whores and Their Mother”.
May 30th, 2010 | 12:11 pm
I thought this was an interesting and amusing analysis, until you asked how intelligent women can enjoy the show. That struck me as a very silly question.
Isn’t it rather natural to turn off ones high-mindedness at will, according to the circumstance?
Sometimes I want to contemplate the meaning of everything and sometimes I want to think about shoes and cheesecake.
Isn’t this typical of the human experience?
If you can’t turn your analytical thoughts off every now and then and just be in the moment then you might be robbing yourself of joy.
Yes, of course…misogyny abounds everywhere but so do kittens, flowers, and cute dresses. A cute kitten is still cute even when it is being held by a misogynist. If I didn’t choose to focus on the kitten sometimes then I would run around being ticked off and depressed all day….. like all those “angry feminists” everyone complains about.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact