‘Sex and the City’: A Critical Analysis from a 21st Century Feminist Perspective

 by Phoebe Clark

Recently, I decided to watch the cultural phenomenon Sex And The City for some light entertainment. Due to the nature of the program, one doesn’t have to pay much attention in order to follow the plot. However, as a result I feel that the intimations around women’s love lives, sexual activites and careers are able to create an impact through sublimal messaging. This could mean that without realising, the ideas portrayed in the program could have an effect on people’s views by promulgating misogynistic and stereotypical attitudes towards women as well as affecting the ideas about men through toxic masculinity. Of course, one must remember that I am watching, and analysing, a late nineties program from the perspective of a 21st centurty feminist. Although I might make some anachronistic assertions, it is important to realise that a program still has an impact on current viewers, regardless of when it was made. 

Firstly, the whole program, as many will already know, revolves around the love lives of a group of four girlfriends living in New York, which is not dissimilar from other television programs such as ‘Friends’. However this theme becomes an issue for me when I quickly noticed that there are no other sub-plots and no other themes that are addressed throughout the program other than sex, relationships and marriage. Sex And The City would definately not pass the Bechdel test, which was created fouteen years before the program, making this a contextual and not anachronistic analysis. The Bechdel test requires three extremely basic factors from a program in order to pass; at least two women are portrayed (this it would pass); they talk to each other (basically all they do in SATC) and finally that they talk about anything other than a man. The final step is where the romantic-comedy would fail. It not only portrays women to be obsessed with men and relationships, but also that they have nothing significant or notable to say regarding prominent issues within the world. The creation of two-dimensional characters is also reinforced by the fundamental structure of the series as a whole, with short thirty-minute episodes that have barely any continuity throughout the storyline. The lack of coherence and connection between the episodes not only means that the characters are underdeveloped and two-dimensional, so the audience has little knowledge of the rest of their lives. But it  also creates a wholly unrealistic portrayal of true life with the slower, more calm and reflective moments not fitting the ideal of a fast-paced single life with a constant stream of dates, and therefore not making the cut. 

My second vexation with the program is the overarching attitude towards marriage for women. Not only is marriage talked about incessantly throughout each and every episode but, from my perspective, promotes a disturbing opinion on the topic. Regularly, one of the protagonists, either Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte or Miranda, has a wobble about their marital future, to which they are comforted by an ideal that, in essence, is that ‘you won’t be alone forever, you will find your person’. As humans, we have a need to be loved so of course viewers find solace in this idea and enjoy this reassurance, but I feel it still encourages the societal expectation to settle down and find a husband for women. The by-product of this temporary acceptance is the outdated and frankly antiquated fear of women who are alone, that they are a menace to society. As a pretence, they are judged for being ‘ugly’, ‘whores’ or even ‘unlovable’ when in reality, a single woman is a patriarchal societies’ worst nightmare because they are not under the control of a man and therefore pose a threat to the ‘system’. I would like the characters in the program to respond to the inevitable ‘wobble’ with not just ‘you won’t be alone forever’ but ‘what’s the problem if you are’. One might argue that it is only a light and trivial program, but these subliminal messages can be quite dangerous when continually reinforced until these misogynistic views and patriarchal values are even more popular, and therefore oppressive. 

Finally, I would like to address the handling of storylines concerning adultery because the blame that is cast as a result of the action is severely sexist and misogynistic. On a number of occasions, characters within Sex And The City, find themselves in siturations of infidelity, but time and time again, the wrongdoings of the man are brushed aside and the blame finds the women concerned like a bloodhound. For example, a woman walks in on her husband having an affair with one of the protagonists, and straight away blames the woman, as opposed to her husband who promised to be loyal to her, unlike the woman he cheated with. What exasperated me further however, was how the ‘other woman’ simply accepts the term ‘whore’ and doesn’t defend herself and refuse the term. This acceptance of the blame promulgates acceptance of the double standards enforced upon women, and within the program, by other women. As a result, women are shown to be voices of the patriarchy and so many might not find as much of a problem with it when compared with if a man threw these misogynistic and sexist terms around. 

Although, there are so many pitfalls to the program, that are antiquated and simply misogynistic, the creators and directors do portray diversity within relationships, with the inclusion of gay and lesbean relationships. Overall, I think that the atitude towards sexual promiscuity, prominantly embodied and emblazoned by the character Samantha, is refreshing and modern at a time when casual sex and hook-up culture wasn’t seen to be as respectable as today. I think I will continue watching, because it is light entertainment and a welcome distraction from the pressures of Year 13, but I would encourage anyone watching to continually criticise the attitudes portrayed. This may be a good tip for the viewers of every program or film of light entertainment, so that we are not passively accepting the potentially dangerous subliminal messaging conveyed through our screens.