Open Forum Friday: Why Do Men Hate Sex and the City So Much?
With the long-awaited Sex and the City movie hitting theatres this weekend, I’ve been noticing a lot of grumbling, ridicule and contempt emanating from the male-dominated movie blogosphere. The thing is, I’m not sure exactly where all this hate comes from. There are plenty of other, less interesting chick flicks that come out every year, and very few seem to receive this much flack. This got me to thinking, what exactly is it about Sex and the City that puts so many men on edge?
While I admit that I’m not about to run out and see this movie myself, I certainly don’t have a problem with it existing. I’ve seen a few episodes of the show here and there, and I honestly didn’t think it was that bad. I couldn’t relate to many of the characters, but I thought it was well-written and funny and I understand the female camaraderie inherent to it. If men can have Swingers and Entourage, then women certainly deserve to have their own show to bond over. So let me throw it out to the Film Junk readers… what have you got against Sex and the City? Is it so wrong for a female-oriented movie to dominate at least one weekend during the summer months? Does liking Sex and the City make you less of a man? Is it actually a terrible show, or are men just closed-minded and afraid to give it a chance? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (98)
Because I have nothing in common with most of what they deal with in Sex and the City. I don’t give a bloody hell about shoes or having sex with dudes. I wouldn’t expect most women to give the horrid films that I like a chance.
And yes, I tried watching the show with an open mind but I couldn’t like it. A couple of episodes really turned me off. One was where Carrie went to the country with her boyfriend and was a huge bitch about it. I couldn’t stand her at that point. Then I saw the episode where she cheated on that boyfriend for Mr. Big multiple times and then I realized she was a worthless piece of crap that I couldn’t relate to in the least.
Posted by Paul on May 30th, 2008I gave this show a chance too, but I didn’t like it. I don’t think it’s a terrible show, but it’s just a show that I could never get into. If this show had a cast of beautiful women, then I’d at least be stimulated by the visuals.
Posted by Primal on May 30th, 2008Why do I hate S and the C? Easy. There are no explosions or violence and it doesn’t take place in space aboard a spaceship or on another planet (although the way they characterize the men on the show could make one wonder if the show takes place on Earth). There is sex and boobs, but the stuff you see involves SJ Parker (who looks like a foot and never shows her yam yams) and her 40 something year old friends (albeit the chick who is Charlotte is somewhat hot). Let the women have their show, but I just hate how this series or a movie like The Notebook make some women expect their significant other to write them poetry and be absolutely perfect. I have watched the show and can tolerate it, but I think it’s funny when some women (maybe just my friends) make fun of fanboys waiting in line overnight to see a movie at midnight when they go and do the same thing for this movie. It’s going to do a killing at the box office too and perhaps a sequel. Ugh.
Posted by bryan on May 30th, 2008My girlfriend is obsessed with the show, I have watched plenty of it with her and I never outwardly complain. Truth be told I do LOATHE it…the women are completely dispicable…they are lazy, self-righteous, ignorant, greedy, shallow, whores that act like the world owes them something and have ABSOLUTELY no fucking concept of reality. I guess what is most angering is how the characters themselves are PAINFULLY UNAWARE how fucking awful and delusional they are. It’s the kind of show where you just pray that the writers will make armageddon happen just to see how quickly and pathetically people swimming in high society ignorance like this will die from stupidity and lack of cell phones and fashionable clothing. The show doesnt empower women, it insults them, and unfortunately the women who love it dont seem to realize that. At least with seinfeld or Curb the characters are sick, and horrible but fully aware of it…in SATC they are sick and horrible but act like they are still genuinely good unselfish normal people. In reality, no reasonable male would want to date any of these 4 women, and I dont mean that because they are intimidating…i mean that because they are genuinly bad human beings, the show tries to disguise them and thier lifestyle as normal and innocent, but are they not all borderline sociopathic? I have never seen Entourage, but I’m told its the male equivalent of SATC…so I would probably hate that too because it would just be boring, moronic, walking hardons that treat women like shit…so fuck that show too (if I have the right idea about it). It’s not the female aspect that I hate, it’s trying to pass off horrible people as good people…would GOODFELLAS be nearly as genius if Scorsese portrayed Henry Hill as a victim who thought he was doing god’s work? The defining word is DENILE…SATC is about denile…plain and simple. Men are eternally repressed emotionally (as shown by all the cold, hard, dark, funny shit we love) and women are eternally in denile. Sorry…I’ve had to sit through the show one too many times.
ok go ahead…tear me apart.
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 30th, 2008Don’t worry, I don’t think anyone’s going to tear you apart for that opinion Bob.
I can’t really justify the actions of the characters, but I am guessing that part of the appeal is that they are indeed flawed, and thus easier to relate to. I can see how some things like the narration by Sarah Jessica Parker make people feel like the show is preachy. But I think the idea that there is a franchise that women can rally around is cool and refreshing in a way, and it’s funny how men seem offended by the idea. We all know that women have had to sit through plenty of male fantasy superhero crap over the years that leaves them out of the equation. Women can have their fantasies too.
That said, it is interesting that the show was created by a guy (albeit, a gay one, whatever that might have to do with it), and you have to wonder what it is about this show makes it resonate with women so much (aside from the fact that the 4 main characters are female). Any female readers out there care to comment?
Posted by Sean on May 30th, 2008Yeah, I think Bob’s right here…
I also think there’s an argument to me made that shows like SATC and Entourage really emphasize the kind of “gender difference” that’s just really tired. I mean, of course there’s a lot of women and men who really do act like this, but ultimately I can’t really relate to these shallow, hollow stereotypes that are supposed to be characters. Granted, I’m sure SATC can be funny, but there just seems to be nothing redeeming about these horrible, horrible (and oddly celebrated) women.
Posted by Derek on May 30th, 2008On a side note, after the L.A. Lakers won the western conference finals last night, Kobe was doing a radio interview and said he going to a midnight showing of Sex and the City. He didn’t say he wanted to, but had to.
So film junkies, how many of you guys are going to be dragged into seeing this by either your girlfriend, wife, or female friends this weekend?
Posted by Primal on May 30th, 2008in response to myself, and sean…thanks for not tearing me apart…I honestly dont have a problem with the show existing…I believe entertainment should exist for everyone…i just wish that fans of the show acknowledged that these women are not decent people. When they laugh at the show, its WITH the characters…unlike say (again) Seinfeld where its AT the characters. Women deserve better then a show that touts
I love Al Bundy…but he is aware he is an asshole, and even though he hates his life he still sticks with it and ultimately loves his family (not on the surface of course). He’s not a piece of shit (just an asshole), he wishes he had the balls to be a piece of shit, but he is, in the smallest way possible, in love with his family. If he ever cheated on peg, molested kelly or hit his children, or did anything that was ACTUALLY DISPICABLE the show would have ceased to be funny (if you are one us who find it funny at all, but you get the point). Al Bundy, unlike the SATC chicks, does the right thing in the face of everything he could do if he just left them all high and dry. If the SATC writers wrote an episode of MWC they would have al and peg cheat on eachother for real, feel no tangible guilt, and skip town to go build a new life while thier kids are left with nothing…and the whole time they would act like everything is just dandy because ultimately you should do want ever you want no matter who you fuckover…sociopathic….am I wrong?
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 30th, 2008sorry typing too fast…A SHOW THAT TOUTS WOMEN AS SHALLOW…
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 30th, 2008I’ll take a stab at this, seeing as no women have jumped in. I’ve never been a huge fan of the show but I find it entertaining and witty and it is refreshing (or was, when it began) to have a show full of women characters talking and sharing their adventures. I’m sure part of the appeal is that they are flawed…as all humans are.
I think it’s great there there that is shows a group of women friends in a positive light, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I’ve never liked the materialistic aspect of the show it’s something that gave it a real present in its own time feeling.
I know a fair amount of women who are planning on seeing it, and none of them would dare bring their boyfriends or husbands, because they want to see it with their friends as that way it’s more fun.
It’s not on my list though… I’m more likely to see Planet B-Boy.
Posted by Shannon the Movie Moxie on May 30th, 2008Bah, I had a long post but I changed my mind.
In one sentence:
If you can’t relate with the show you probably have redneck traits.
:p
Posted by dario on May 30th, 2008thanks dario…now I know the truth..im a redneck…this show is the opposite of rednickism…the exact enemy. Very well put, logical, reasonable…genius really.
With those kind of thinking skills…I bet your religious too! ZING!…ooooo…I went there!
:p
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 30th, 2008that show doesnt bother me, i dont really think about it, its just one of those easy targets to make fun of.
like this:
Posted by Goon on May 30th, 2008“Sex in the City (Spoilers)”
http://thechickensarescratching.ytmnd.com/
As mentioned, like Desperate Housewifes, SATC was created by a guy, maybe the characters are based on their lifestyles & friends, i.e shallow..
Posted by Nemesis on May 30th, 2008I don’t hate Sex & The City. I just have no interest in it.
Posted by Rian on May 30th, 2008Bob the slob wrote “the women are completely dispicable…they are lazy, self-righteous, ignorant, greedy, shallow, whores that act like the world owes them something and have ABSOLUTELY no fucking concept of reality.”
LOL.
I couldn’t have said it better.
These women are dispicable wastes of Oxygen, I could totally forgive that, if only they knew it. Someone else mentioned Al Bundy. Complete waste of oxygen,but I love the character, cause He Knows he’s a looser.
I hate clothing & shoe shopping. That probably doesn’t help matters!
Posted by colleen on May 30th, 2008Wow, Bob the Slob needed a good rant. I agree with many of his points.
The show should be called Old Nasty Whores in the City. I mean, those bitches are disgusting. Way to draw male viewers HBO. The only hot one is Kristin Davis and shes not enough. But that isn’t really a valid point…even if those girls were hot I wouldn’t be interested for anything else. Their personalities are like shallow caricatures written by a man with the misfortune of only dating whores!
I once saw an episode where the oldest, most disgusting one was lamenting over her boyfriend’s “funky spunk”. Not only has she swallowed enough to differentiate between guys, but she has a preexisting term used to describe those that taste bad. What a filthy bitch!
Why don’t women realize supporting behavior like this is why they get disrespected?
Posted by Ryan on May 30th, 2008Sean wasn’t the show based on a series of memoirs written by a woman? I’m almost positive I saw her interviewed on Charlie Rose once.
I’ve seen quite a few episodes of this show. It’s frivolous in a way that makes it easily watchable and entertaining. But it’s also vapid, self involved and decadent. Pretty much exactly how Bob described it.
But all that stuff is below the the surface. You’ve got to read into it. Entourage is guilty of all the same stuff but again it’s all in subtext.
It’s funny, people persistently like things that appeal to their lowest most base instincts. It’s frustrating but ultimately harmless. At the end of the day S&TC isn’t worth getting indignent about.
Posted by Rusty James on May 30th, 2008Also, the red head is far and away the most attractive.
Posted by Rusty James on May 30th, 2008I’ve watched a few episodes of this show in order to try and understand women. I now understand women.
Joking aside, the main thing about the show that sticks in my mind is that I saw Rayden from Mortal Kombat: Annihilation) in the flesh, including his flaccid dick. Now, is that really necessary? I guess it left an impression.
The show is very similar to Entourage, it’s just a fantasy life. I’m sure women everywhere would love to exist like the women in Sex and the City, but I for one am glad they don’t, just like I’m glad all men aren’t like the retards portrayed on Entourage. For men in LA, I much prefer Woody Allens version of them in Annie Hall. For women in New York, I can’t really say I have a good alternative. I think Mary Jane in Spider-Man 3 is a more accurate portrayal of a woman in New York than these women.
And all the new gay shows like Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty basically reads like Sex and the City with a bigger or smaller dosis of Will & Grace mixed in. The stereotypical gay man (is there any other kind? I’m only joking) can pretty much trump any fantasy a woman comes up with.
The one who plays the redhead is in Amadeus I recently found out when I rewatched it. Weird.
Posted by Henrik on May 30th, 2008I don’t hate the show, actually I kind of enjoy it. My girlfriend is obsessed about it and will go with the friends to see it. The women at work have organized a trip to the theater next week.
Posted by Swarez on May 30th, 2008Rusty: You’re totally right, it’s based on the book by Candace Bushnell. But I think that was more or less the “inspiration”, whereas I don’t think she wrote any of the actual episodes or anything.
Posted by Sean on May 30th, 2008I think it has something to do with Mr. Show not being on HBO instead.
Posted by Ian on May 30th, 2008Being a woman, I can appreciate the male perspective on this show. What you guys don’t get though is that women don’t celebrate or aspire to be like these indulgent, shallow characters on the show at all. However they do engage our fantasies in the same way that say James Bond engages the male fantasy. There are parts of the characters that reflect our desires but they are taken to an extreme. For instance I like fashion and cosmetics but I wouldn’t buy $400 shoes with feathers on them in real life. It sounds like it would be fun though to “escape” by doing that. I also have no desire to date a bevy of men through my 30’s. I’ve been with my fiance since I was 22 (I’m 29 now) but its interesting to see what life on that side could be like through these women who have seemingly no biological clock or anything. I also am a Ph.D. student in engineering and don’t see women much at work or school. Its just refreshing to come home and see something so utterly girly.
Posted by SK on May 31st, 2008Ok.. Lets see..
there are not only 4 lonely whores looking for love
( “there are something wrong about that? SJP”); there are tons of frustrated woman looking for love after 40s ( losers) and tons of guys whom been used ( there r something wrong about that?
the movie wasn’t that bad the music was good… otherwise if u r gay it was nice bodies on it;
My girl was upset’s the wedding was as the one like Carrie wants ( there is something wrong on a simple wadding?) and because this guy cheated on the hairy lawyer ( what do u wanna if she doesn’t fuck??
there were a tons of nice good looking girls on Theaters
Posted by J on May 31st, 2008what I said: sex in the city or where ever u want it!!!
Bob the slob wrote “the women are completely dispicable…they are lazy, self-righteous, ignorant, greedy, shallow, whores that act like the world owes them something and have ABSOLUTELY no fucking concept of reality.â€Â
Ok so that’s what men think of the show and I agree on that.But why the rage for these fictional characters?
I think men are pissed when their girlfriends act this way and act out this behavior.
Not that the show or watching the movie is going to change someone permanently but I think adding
support to this type of behavior is gross and only enforces more of it as commonplace.
On a side note I think it strange and a bit frustrating the same women who would talk about negative body images coming from fashion magazines or The Bratz movie would still support this movie and read cosmo or some gossip magazine.
Posted by MoriaOrc on May 31st, 2008I despise this show because it encourages young single (and maybe frustrated married) women to be care free whores.
Posted by Baychuk on May 31st, 2008It’s just amazing that men react to this film in this way. So much anger after seeing a show about women who do what they want. Now I understand all the male hatred towards the Charlie’s Angels movies.
Posted by Swarez on May 31st, 2008Well no I don’t really understand it.
Baychuk… so what about movies like Porky’s. do you despise that stuff too?
Posted by Goon on May 31st, 2008Sk, I cant completely agree with you there, James Bond might also be a fantasy, but he is still a good guy, a hero, risking his life for the common good…having him be a fantasy, male or anyones, isnt negative it’s just fantastical is all. Same goes with most male fictional idols…batman, superman, indy, john mcclane, robocop…etc…they are on the side of good…and even if you want to argue about like Goodfellas or the Sopranos…those characters are FULLY aware of what they are doing and how awful they are, they arent in denile…they just dont give a fuck.
The SATC chicks are not aware, they are not good, they only serve themselves and then expect to be served as well…when you look at them from even the most base of levels they are essentially cold dead souls that are blind to the world around them. I just dont understand why women dont deserve and want a better “fantasy”…other characters exist…buffy or ripley or even wonder woman…these women ( the STATC chicks) are lower then low and advertised as good people and the fans eat it up. I’m not angry, I just dont see any correlation between the moral repercussions of mainstream “male” fantasy verse mainstream “female” fantasy…it seems like men idolize heroes and woman idolize useless self serving denile ridden sociopaths.
I could be wrong, I just think the show insults its audience by saying “these characters are what women are like…love them”
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 31st, 2008I think women would rather be a part of a group of friends discussing clothes and dicks than they would be fighting aliens in a tank top. Buffy, Ripley and Wonder Woman are male fantasies about women, not women fantasies. Women don’t fantasize about physically dominating other people the way men do.
Posted by Henrik on May 31st, 2008I will give you that henrik.
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 31st, 2008I’d rather be fighting aliens in a tank top, then hanging out with women discussing shoes and sex. This might be why I have a lot of male friends, and almost no female friends.
Lara Croft, Ripely, Tank girl, Amelie over the four women from SATC any day of the week.
Posted by Colleen on May 31st, 2008“The SATC chicks are not aware, they are not good, they only serve themselves and then expect to be served as well…when you look at them from even the most base of levels they are essentially cold dead souls that are blind to the world around them.”
In defense of SATC, so fucking what? The Entourage guys are pretty much pieces of shit, and people like those characters for various reasons. So what? I would have to say it seems like these female characters are being analyzed in ways that we don’t do for male characters. And I’m hardly a womens studies major by any stretch. They’re just characters. If you dont like them or the show fine, I dont really care for them either, but I’m sick that we can’t just say we dont like the show, that we have to go to some extra levels and give phony hypocritical justifications.
Posted by Goon on May 31st, 2008“Amelie over the four women from SATC any day of the week.”
Is Amelie a strong female character? I dont know if you’re trying to make that argument or not, or if its even relevant. but my impression of Amelie is that she’s an adorable yet fragile, shy person. I fully support empathy for her or like of the character, but are you proposing Amelie as a role model or something?
Posted by Goon on May 31st, 2008Goon, there is a difference between a cheap laugh and some that is gratuitous. You better believe women take their cues from this trash also. And the results of these behaviors, for women, is not at all what you see on the show. It is more one of a broken and unfulfilled life where one alternates between using and being used by men.
Then again, if the shoe fits…
Posted by Baychuk on May 31st, 2008Tom, I think you’re missing the point of the show, which is that you can lead a fulfilling life if you’re single and unattached. (This is, I think, why some fans are none too pleased that the movie is about a wedding.) The double standard is that men are encouraged and admired if they can pull off this type of lifestyle (ie. Hugh Hefner), but when women do it, they are considered “whores”.
Posted by Sean on May 31st, 2008Hey! Hugh Hefner has been married several times!
Posted by Henrik on May 31st, 2008I guess I’m looking at it on a different plane of existence. I don’t agree with male promiscuity either. However,women have more to lose if they get knocked up or crudded up with STDs. This is why they get the evil eye in this case.
Posted by Baychuk on May 31st, 2008its all fetishism, for SATC its shoes, for comic book films its oiled up muscle men making things go boom. I do not see how it is any worse than the sort of mindless fun that fanboys indulge in.
While I maybe do not entirely agree with Baychuk’s moral stance, I do agree with the idea that too much excess, too many empty stories about about empty things, can and does retard the mind. Not that I think there should be some intervention, I just think as an observation we asked for something like SATC, and it is both a mirror and an influence of a kind of behavior.
fetishism is fine, but fetishism is fucking sovereign nowadays, its the standard.
Posted by rot on May 31st, 2008“You better believe women take their cues from this trash also.”
Ever think that it became a hit because they may have connected with how some women actually talk in private? I’m a guy, I’ve been around guys who say racist, misogynistic shit all the time and tell detailed sexual stories, compare girls’ tits, everything. All of this has been reflected in male characters, hero and villian and everything in between. Regardless of what you say, I have a hard time believing you hold a consistent attitude. What about Kevin Smith’s dialogue? its a comedy, and its low brow, but i think he thinks he’s doing more than cheap laughs with his 37 dicks routine.
I mean seriously, if we’re going to have this little talk, you’re going into chicken/egg territory about reflection of society vs cause, and you’re going to have to also damn everything from Judas Priest to the fucking Power Rangers.
“too many empty stories about about empty things, can and does retard the mind.”
too much of anything has the chance to turn anyone a shell of a human being, whether its an intellectual pursuit or simply chasing tail. You’d have to be a real prude to be so uppity about a couple middle aged cougars talking about their boyfriends penises on film.
Sorry Tom if this is going to far, but you’ve defended some pretty harsh rhetoric from extremist groups in the past on this site, so I have a hard time putting up with your moralizing about something like Sex and the City.
Posted by Goon on May 31st, 2008(Might be a bit off topic but whatever)
“What about Kevin Smith’s dialogue? its a comedy, and its low brow, but i think he thinks he’s doing more than cheap laughs with his 37 dicks routine.”
I think he thinks so as well, though you’d never get him to admit it, which should clue everyone in to the fact that deep down inside, he himself knows that it really just is jokes about dicks and asses.
Posted by Henrik on May 31st, 2008“The SATC chicks are not aware, they are not good, they only serve themselves and then expect to be served as well…when you look at them from even the most base of levels they are essentially cold dead souls that are blind to the world around them.”
What about the characters in Seinfeld? Those are basically THE most selfish and empty characters in TV history yet people love them to death.
I’m guessing that that most men are offended by this show because it shows strong female characters behaving like most guys do. I also guess it’s emasculating to some men to see women get by without the help of males.
Posted by Swarez on May 31st, 2008It’s all a crock of shit and you need to get over it. Women won’t turn in to lose sluts by watching this show just as men won’t turn in to bad ass ass kickers by watching the Die Hard movies.
I thought this thread was going to take awhile to read, but once I read the comment and laughed for a couple of minutes about SJP looking like a foot, I figured I’d hit the high point and just skipped to my post.
I’ve watched this show on a couple of occasions and decided I didn’t like it based on two things: 1) The constant voice-over. It’s poorly used and annoying. 2) The show makes me really uncomfortable. The fact that the group can have an 8 minute conversation about the scent of their vaginas over martinis or lattes is not cool. I don’t like that.
The oft-mentioned brilliant writing, acting, and directing no longer becomes the point. The show gives me the heebee-geebies and that’s a bad quality to have.
Posted by Greg on May 31st, 2008I think we can all come to the concensus that SJP looks like a foot.
Posted by Goon on May 31st, 2008She was given the award for most unattractive person in the world recently, and she was pretty indicted. I don’t know if she is, but she is pretty fucking ugly.
Posted by Henrik on June 1st, 2008Goon, you are still comparing a couple of snippets intended for a couple of cheap laughs compared to a constant barrage of social programming.
However as moral as my opinions are, I don’t let the media mould mine. Just because something is on the television doesn’t make it so. Shows like this are fantasy and fantasy based for a reason. Its because noboby wants to watch real life….like the news…too depressing some would say.
Just because something is in the spotlight constantly or getting TOO much publicity its not because its great, its because the population is expected to buy into it for programming. Just like the sexualizing of young teenage girls, which is usually a result of this kind of crap!
Then again, there is hope actually for a Middle Earth or a Narnia somewhere.
Posted by Baychuk on June 1st, 2008swarez, did you not read bob’s comments…he mentions seinfeld twice…the difference being that with the Seinfeld characters they are aware they are pieces of shit and the audience is meant to laugh AT them, with the SATC chicks they think they are good people, when in fact they are pieces of shit, and the audience is for some reason laughing WITH them…
Posted by billyjoe on June 1st, 2008I need a roll eyes argument… I mean Tom you may as well toss a Ron Paul bumpersticker and a link to prisonplanet.com with posts like that.
“Just like the sexualizing of young teenage girls, which is usually a result of this kind of crap!”
No, what you’re saying is a load of crap. Women have only been truly able to express their sexual freedom for a couple decades. Sorry bud, I’ve been guilty of saying quasi-misogynist cynical things in the past, be it about Hillary Clinton supporters or bra burners who want to ban porn, etc – however seriously, they were repressed and made their husbands slaves pretty much until recently, and its still pretty much prevalent now. I’m sure for some SATC is escapism/fantasy the same way cosplay allows nerds to think they have magic powers and can get revenge on bullies.
It’s not dangerous, and its in no way responsible for teen whoring. I actually am quite horrified sometimes by the ‘juicy’ ass pants out there, but this kind of crap was going on in my high school before SATC aired one damn episode, back when we only had Barbie to pin all our sexist problems on. It’s such absolute crap that we flood the world with Maxim and FHM and every female actor and singer has to be a model and followed by the press, get tossed aside in their mid 30s when they start looking like real people. Theres a lot you can blame the media for, but the media is made up of real people like you and me who are at the same time more or less giving the mainstream public what they want, and trying to tap into who we are.
So go spank your daughters and brainwashing them and forbidding their actual opinions and personalities, because fucked up as they are, the kids themselves have a better grasp of who they are and how they want to express themself, and bear more responsible for their choices than Sarah Jessica Parters foot face.
Jay, Sean – i hope you’ll make this a topic on the podcast this week.
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008comment#35 @goon
Posted by colleen on June 1st, 2008Meant to type Alice not Ameile (mind says one thing fingers type something else.
I don’t like Sex and the City. And one of its stars was Lieutenant Valeris from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
But I did like the Gilmore Girls and I do like Gossip Girls.
Would someone care to psychoanalyze this? (BTW, I’m a heterosexual man.)
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 1st, 2008I actually agree with you Goon, I think it is a mirror BUT also an influence on behavior, it reaffirms a kind of vacuous behavior that is directed at a specific REAL demographic. But it is no different than say Old School or American Pie, they too speak to a specific REAL demographic (not veiled in allegory or histrionics), they pass for entertainment but also end up being quoted (i.e. the endless MILF jokes) and in some weird way come to legitimize a level of base stupidity. Are people really as stupid as the entertainment that is pandered to them make them out to be? Hard to say, but I cannot even conceive of what entertainment value one can get from something like Grey’s Anatomy and yet people spend hours upon hours watching this sort of stuff, and caring for the characters and talking about them around the water cooler. They become a part of their fantasy lives, and as such, tinge the way they look at the world, the way they interact with people… I see it all the time… this theatrics to socializing that is right out of tv. Its a mirror but also an influence, and I think people are getting dumber the more saturated they become with it.
The only thing I will do is not watch these shows, and ignore the people that fantasize about them.
Posted by rot on June 1st, 2008oh and Goon, entirely agree about too much academic is a bad thing too… I work in an academic setting and I sometimes think some of those people are more delusional than even the most ardent Grey’s Anatomy fan. Its all about deadening your openness to new things, confining value and wanting it to endlessly repeat itself according to that confine idea.
That is entertainment serving the lowest common denominator, so people do not have to aspire for anything.
Posted by rot on June 1st, 2008Rot, you should read “Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter” by Steven Johnson. Mr. Johnson makes some interesting points although Sex and the City is not discussed.
Based on personal experience, the majority of people will always be dumb despite what I.Q. tests over the years have been telling us.
BTW, I guess I’m implying that the majority of Sex and the City fans are dumb, but I’m also saying that the majority of Trekkies are dumb, too.
(OK, Jay, it’s time for you to start defending your demographic.
)
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 1st, 2008maybe I should clarify: by dumb I do not mean we are ignorant of some particular facts, in some cases I would say we have an overload of facts, we become ignorant of ourselves, of our own potential, our own aspirations and we confine through habit to pre-made fantasies that fit a formula and do not deviate from it. The ‘dumb’ I am referring to is the mindless adopting of what Herzog would call ‘inadequate imagery’. We have stunted our imaginations, our ability for introspection because of a pre-occupation with stories and ‘entertainment’ that exists to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to sell product to a wider demographic.
I have not seen Idiocracy but from what I have heard it addresses this pervasive dumbing down of society… and Huxley in Brave New World hit upon this threat entirely with soma and bumble-puppies, and easy distractions to keep everyone pleasantly numb and easy to control.
I think there is something worthwhile to Star Trek (at least Next Generation) as it strives to make people confront their place in the universe, and question what makes someone human… I would not put it up there with SATC and Grey’s Anatomy.
Posted by rot on June 1st, 2008Star Trek is a probing of the mind, it raises our consciousness and makes us aware of the abundance of life all around us. It does not pray at the altar of merchandise, although sadly, merchandise has become a major part of Star Trek. In The Next Generation, Shakespeare is more relevant than any brandname. I think Shakespeare is infinitely more interesting and worthwhile.
I agree that people as a whole are idiots, but isn’t there something to be said for trying to remedy this situation? There is power in keeping the people stupid, but I personally see nothing attractive in power. I would prefer that people became smarter. Obviously Sex and the City in this respect becomes a tumor. But I think there should be room for tumors as well. I enjoy drinking and smoking very much. In the end, I think that if I was in charge of the world, I would have to overthrow myself.
Posted by Henrik on June 1st, 2008I think we’re probably overall even dumber than our entertainment. Most of our entertainment probably gives us as a whole too much credit.
Go find the stats about what percentage of americans believe 9/11 was an inside job, what percentage can’t find canada on the map, can’t name more than 10 states, still believe saddam had wmds, believe Barack Obama is a muslim, etc, etc. its saddening. look at how many seemingly smart people are scientologists. and then theres our own personal standards of ‘dumbness’ where say, in my case, if you cant climb the curb to recognize gay rights, or believe in evolution – i probably think on those issues you are dumb.
and i bet you could find some other set of bizarre statistics about dumb opinions about every other nation on this planet. I mean in Korea they believe in something called “Fan Death” – that if you sleep in a room with a fan and the window closed, you will DIE. – look it up, its kooky.
Anyways, even supposedly dumb movies like “Dude Where’s My Car” are written by people who are probably on some metric, smarter than the average population. To write “Old school” there had to be actual thought to capture the spirit and mindset of the very people its trying to appeal to, it’d be a hard case to say it just ‘came out’. Pro wrestlers, the Jackass guys, Tom Green – likely all smarter than the LCD or stereotypical fan of each.
I suppose someone somewhere would say that makes what they do all the more insidious and exploitative. I say that there’s no accounting for taste, and that even the most stereotypically lowest common denominator exhibitions like pro wrestling and NASCAR run the full gamut of backgrounds, academics.
So yeah, I dont really buy the ‘dumbing down of society’ thing – as true as Idiocracy seems sometimes, I’d imagine there’s always been a shitload of people who needed to be registered in a castration/dentistry program
– Even some of the dumbest people I know have at least SOMETHING they know a hell of a lot more about than I do, something they likely think is a lot more important than 70s film, power metal or the Democratic Primary. And I’d say that’s probably true for each of you as well.
The challenge is making sure the better opinions on the most important matters can also be reflected in the will of the people. I don’t really care if more people like Sex in the City than Freaks and Geeks. There’ll always be people who think a statement like that sums up everything, but its unfair. Sometimes theres just no accounting for taste.
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008When Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek, he said that television executives gave the viewing audience less credit in terms of intelligence than they deserved. Thus we have the oft-quoted description that television executives thought the original pilot for Star Trek was “too cerebral.”
I’m of the opinion that Roddenberry was being disingenuous, and was sucking up to the Trekkies to make them feel good about watching Star Trek.
I’m still waiting for Jay to chime in and defend Sex and the City, because it’s created for a specific audience and it does its job very well as shown by its loyal fans. Jay, did you read Rot’s comments about Herzog’s implied dislike of pandering with “inadequate imagery”? Haha. (Refer to Jay’s post concerning fan over-reaction to Indy 4.)
BTW, if anyone reading this comment thread is a fan of Sex and the City, please don’t be offended by any of the posts. None of us have lives to speak of.
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 1st, 2008Reed Farrington you’re way too defensive. It’s almost as if you don’t want people to think that you think of yourself as intelligent because you watch Star Trek, because you constantly go out of your way to belittle whatever intellectual content the show has. Would I be right in assuming, that the reason you don’t hold TNG in high regard is because it goes further into the realm of high-brow culture? Star Trek isn’t something that will turn you into the most knowledgable man on earth, but even you have to admit that compared to pretty much any other popular fictional TV Show, Star Trek is lightyears ahead in terms of actual intellectual content – especially The Next Generation.
As for Goons rant, I will re-iterate my controversial statement that americans are a stupid people. They are being kept that way by the capitalist society, because there is money to be made by keeping them stupid. There is no reason to educate your drones. In Danmark, people are being paid to educate themselves, and while there is still political struggle for power, distribution of wealth and tons of other things, results are clear when it comes to things like religion, human rights, free speech etc.
Posted by Henrik on June 1st, 2008@Reed
There is a whole chapter on ‘Adequate Imagery’ in the interviews with Herzog in ‘Herzog on Herzog’… and the specific reference is p.65-66, if there is any doubt of his dislike of the sea of disposable imagery around us.
but yeah I did drop the taboo word ‘pandering’ again.
@Goon
there is no accounting for taste, except we all can gage it from where we stand, and from where I stand it is bleak. I also do not put much faith in humanity, because when you give man freedom and the choice of what things to do with his/her life, there is this impulse to curl into a ball and live in denial of everything for the sake of watching reruns of the same tired formulaic fantasy that passes the time, and becomes the object of one’s fetish. If it was truly a part-time hobby and otherwise they strove to find meaning in life and find ways to improve the state of the world, then this would cease to bug me so much.
But you have to admit something like SATC is more than a time-passer, it is for some a template on how to behave, a very superficial market-serving template, but one people are drawn to because the simpler the ideas, the less confrontational the subject matter, the more people will embrace it.
Posted by rot on June 1st, 2008“I will re-iterate my controversial statement that americans are a stupid people.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates – Denmarks average IQ is only 1 point higher than the US’s, and Denmark doesnt have a West Virginia or Kentucky to drag itself down.
In defense of North America, studies have shown that different areas of the country have higher IQ’s than others, so its pretty stupid Henrik, to judge all americans as if they’re all the same. It’s even pretty much in evolutionary studies that northern cultures have higher IQs and brain masses because of climate conditions/survivalism due to weather.
And even despite this, at around 110, the average NE us citizen of say, New Hamsphire, schools your country in intelligence
Its pretty dumb of you to brag about your country’s collective intelligence though, Henrik. I mean, relying/indentifying/counting yourself among some specific group to try and make you feel superior over others… your nationalism there makes you no better than a white supremacist or religious fanatic.
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008When I say stupid, I don’t mean IQ (do you think I’m suggesting that the brains in North America work differently than any other place in the world? I’m sure any difference is neglible) as much as I mean uneducated. Stupidity and gullibility stems from lack of understanding of the real world, which is commonly achieved through education. Your IQ may be higher or lower, but that doesn’t make you a smart person.
And I don’t think I’m better than anybody else. I think the system that I was born in is better than the one in America. I can’t make a claim like that?
“and Denmark doesnt have a West Virginia or Kentucky to drag itself down.”
I’m sure either of these states are bigger than Danmark is, but while we do not have either of those, we do have Thyborøn, Ã…rhus, Randers…
I want to make it clear, that my criticism is pointed towards the system that is enforced in america, not so much the americans themselves (even though they could change it I guess, but most of them decide not to vote from what I understand, but lets leave that for now). The fact that education is not accessible to the masses, it is in fact only accesible to the people who are wealthy enough to have savings, is disgusting. Regardless of IQ you’re not going to be a smart and knowledgeable person without having a certain amount of money. Not only is it wasted potential, it is the quintessential component of a state in the machiavellian sense, a state that I personally do not find appealing at all.
Posted by Henrik on June 1st, 2008“I mean, relying/indentifying/counting yourself among some specific group to try and make you feel superior over others”
You remind me of Ted Haggard telling Richard Dawkins off for his arrogant intellectualism, completely dodging any point that has been made. Also the out-of-context quote you used for your little rebuttal was even more out of context than usually for you. I specifically said that americans were stupid only because they are being kept that way by the powers that be, in the service of capitalism.
Posted by Henrik on June 1st, 2008“You remind me of Ted Haggard telling Richard Dawkins off for his arrogant intellectualism, completely dodging any point that has been made”
Your follow up post is more helpful. what am i supposed to do with “Ameircans are stupid and capitalism hurr!”?
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html – if any of you have the stomach for this tripe, check out an ultra feminist view of Firefly.
wow.
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008Bob the slob ( and similar guys ). I know why you people hate sex and the city.
Its because, there is an insecurity in you, that the women around you(whom you love) may turn out to believe in the views shared by the sex and the city female actors. Or may be that you are materialistic and shallow to a certain extent( which is the part you hate about yourself) and this show unabashedly glorifies that part!
My Bio. I am a Man. I am from South Asia. I have been here for a couple of years. I have understood the western society to a fair extent, and I understand the eastern culture to a better extent. If you see how some people in different parts of the world live (HAPPILY) without believing in freedom of speech or by not really caring about winning or losing in life…you may not like it…but I can understand.
You have the same problem with SATC. They dont share your views of how to live LIFE!
They dont share my views either. But the difference between you and me is… It does NOT bother me!
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is a part of
Posted by SUPERSTUD on June 1st, 2008yourself. What isn’t part of ourselves doesn’t disturb us.
Hermann Hesse ['Demian', 1919]
@ “I will re-iterate my controversial statement that americans are a stupid people.”
Henrik, we all applaud you for your courageous and controversial stance. Truly you are the Rosa Parks of film junk.
@ “results are clear when it comes to things like religion, human rights, free speech etc.”
While I’ve not visited the great nation of DanMark I’m at least passably educated on world affairs so I find this statement incomprehensible in the face of what I know about Denmark.
Religion? Your country has a state sponsored church.
Human rights? Seriously? You’ve an anachronist monarchy!
Free speech? Mohammad cartoons not with standing. You’re constitution specifically prohibits blasphemy and racism?
Actually freedom of speach is one of the few areas that US has little to apologize for. Few European countries have true freedom of religion or free expression. Germany outlaws “fringe” communities and “hate speach” (an absolutely deplorable term that’s probably about to find it’s way into US law). France persecutes muslim practices. And look at the 15 year old kid in Britian who got harassed by the police for speaking out against Scientology and faces possible (but very unlikely) jail time.
I’m not really a nationalist cheerleader, I have a pretty middle of the road pessimism about the direction my country is going. But I find your self-congratulatory anti-americanism incongruous in the face of your own country sucking balls. Seriously, a monarchy? We’re being heckled for our lack of progressiveness by a monarchy? Really?
Further more,
“They are being kept that way by the capitalist society, because there is money to be made by keeping them stupid.”
eh, I’m sure there’s some degree of truth in that statement but it’s really just simplistic, half assed, poorly reasoned anti-capitolism. And Henrik, if there’s one thing I’ve come to expect from you it’s the whole ass.
I sincerely doubt you’re own country would be financing your university education (in film studies? good grief. they should force you to minor in plumbing) if it weren’t profitable down the line. I think most economists would agree that an educated population is good for the economy. Especially in a first world skilled labour economy, a literate work force is a minimal requirement. To put in your language; there’s a very good reason to educate your drones.
I’m not sure if you know this but the US does have a (third rate) public education system but only for the pre-university grades. So there’s not literally no public education, FYI.
Goon, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one to call out Henrik’s ignorant nationalism for what it is.
Reed, Stephen Johnson is one of my favorite authors. Emergence is a must read. Ghost Maps is a little obscure but endlessly fascinating.
Posted by Rusty James on June 1st, 2008“Religion? Your country has a state sponsored church.”
Indeed this was written down in 1849 (when we were not exactly a very progressive nation by todays standards. We were still highly religious I believe), and the constitution is damned hard thing to change. No government is going to put its political power on the line to change a thing like this.
“Human rights? Seriously? You’ve an anachronist monarchy!”
The monarchy has no power. I fail to see the connection to human rights? I guess from your point of view, having a state-sponsored family somehow influences the rights of the people? Since they don’t have political power, it doesn’t.
“Free speech? Mohammad cartoons not with standing. You’re constitution specifically prohibits blasphemy and racism?”
Huh? If you recall, the cartoons were in fact printed here, and nobody has been punished for it. You can say anything as long as you accept responsibility for saying it. There is a racism clause, but I don’t know of any cases where the judges have ruled in favor of the complaintant. There is a clause prohibiting insults of the majesty I think, but it hasn’t been enforced in decades – it’s in that constitution again, it’s damn hard to change. There was a big upheaval when the crownprince was to have his firstborn, because as it is now, there are no equal rights when it comes to succession. Boys go before girls, no matter the age, and they were going to change that if they had a girl. They lucked out though, a boy was born, and the constitution stayed the way it is.
All of this is minutia. Education is not.
“I sincerely doubt you’re own country would be financing your university education (in film studies? good grief. they should force you to minor in plumbing) if it weren’t profitable down the line.”
Good comedy. If it really was profitable beyond any doubt, I would assume that the capitalists in america had found that out by now. As it stands, they went another way, and if there’s one thing I know about capitalists, it’s that they know what makes money.
In the end, my attack on capitalism (and it’s no.1 guy America) has less to do with the countless laws and details of government of my own country, as it has with the general ideology behind it. There is something to be said for working together, making more things common, and less things private. Some things should be accessible to all. I think that the only real ideology worth pursuing in the world is socialism, it might be impossible, but it’s an attractive notion, it’s something that’s worth working towards, instead of away from. When people have equal rights and equal opportunity there is the greatest potential to actually lift up the minds that can change the world. What else are we here for, if not for Mozart, Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Kubrick, Bergman, Picasso, Da Vinci or Van Gogh?
Posted by Henrik on June 1st, 2008“What else are we here for, if not for Mozart, Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Kubrick, Bergman, Picasso, Da Vinci or Van Gogh?”…and the Rock.
Posted by Greg on June 1st, 2008so Henrik you are condoning one extreme to the criticism of another?
Socialism is idealism, and it is an unnecessary ideology… what is needed is an accountable democratic system, the checks and balances that the American Constitution once had but lost along the way. You need a strong public sector and a strong private sector and they need to work together towards a common human centric goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
great minds are born of adversity, and in a stale environment like socialism there is nothing to be adverse about, at least in theory.
Posted by rot on June 1st, 2008Henrik, you should know as well that atheism isnt a religious belief, its a lack of one. Comparison to Haggard’s stance of Dawkins is ridiculous, atheism is a stance on one issue. your nationalism here though, borders on the dogmatic.
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008“I think that the only real ideology worth pursuing in the world is socialism, it might be impossible, but it’s an attractive notion”
Remember when this thread was about a bunch middle aged cougars?
Posted by Goon on June 1st, 2008@ “Mohammad cartoons not with standing” – that is to say “with the exception of that incident.”
the laws written into your constitution are “minutia”? I guess it’s a matter of opinion. I’m an american, and as such I’m concerned with things like gun rights and low taxation (although I’m over all fairly liberal). These are artifacts from our cultural heritage. Sort of like your Lutheran Church and royal family (except not as stupid).
If you really think your culture is less silly than mine… well to each his own I guess. All equivocating aside I think it’s pretty embarrassing for a first world country to have a monarchy.
How you can sign off on your monarchist apology (yes, that was, an apology) with a rousing and lofty praise of equal rights and opportunity? That doesn’t seem a bit incongruous to you? And are you saying the US doesn’t recognize equal rights and opportunity for all citizens? I would strongly take issue with that.
It’s not that I deny that Denmark is a progressive democracy. I understand you’re not actually a monarchist theocracy. But you’re awfully quick to worry about the mote in our eye while ignoring the beam sticking out of your face (that’s from the bible).
In any case, the more I hear you talk about Socialism and Capitolism the less I’m convinced you have even a passable understanding of these complex and nuanced ideologies. To quote one of your country men (an expatiate who’s relocated to Portland, OR. my town) “You’re wrong on so many levels, even if you were right you’d still be wrong”. I’ll hold off on discussing the issue until you demonstrate some understanding of the issue beyond the childish caricatures you toss around.
If you happen to respond try to include some stuff about Sex In The City so we’re not so blatantly off topic.
Posted by Rusty James on June 1st, 2008I agree with you that it is ridiculous that we have a monarchy. However, I don’t agree with your statements that it somehows proves our backwards nature. When the king gave the rights to the people in 1849 (begrudgingly, but it should be noted that there was no struggle. Rationality prevailed over pride or other things that could have started a conflict), he slipped in that he should be allowed to exist still. I understand the willingness of the people to avoid bloodshed by allowing this – some things aren’t worth fighting over. The fact that they also happened to make the law extremely hard to change is an example of foresight on their part, unfortunately you can’t have it all. I would like to make it clear though, that I too am kind of embarrased that we still have royalty.
And yes, for the large part of the protocols in the constitution, for that matter a stupendously enormous part of all legislation, we’re talking about minutia.
“And are you saying the US doesn’t recognize equal rights and opportunity for all citizens? I would strongly take issue with that.”
It’s hard to argue against this. Everybody could always work more – in theory.
As for what’s ’sillier’, I never thought about it. I prefer the voluntary churchtax to having a ‘right to bear arms’. You may say that it means nothing it all, afterall you are just as free to not bear arms, but having it as the 2nd ammendment (I think this means the 2nd rule, in the first law right?) I would argue has influenced the cultural significance of weapons extraordinarily.
My views are independent of where I have been born – at least intellectually, I do feel a certain amount of romanticism for danish cultural history, that I am sure I would not feel had I been born somewhere else – and my arguing of socialism and equal rights, inciting of education and so on, I hardly feel are negated by the fact that I happen to live where there is a monarchy.
“great minds are born of adversity, and in a stale environment like socialism there is nothing to be adverse about, at least in theory.”
My choosing of the word socialism is a difficult one I admit, because I am not talking about ’socialism’ or ‘communism’. I am merely talking about a general socialistic attitude, a world where the concept of social understanding and to be frank ‘togetherness’ is incited and cherished. Working together. Being together. Trying not to hurt one another. NOT a world of materialistic values, but a world where materialism would be negligible, where everybody performs according to ability and is nurtured according to need. Idealism, yes. But what else is worth pursuing? Certainly not the middle-aged cougars in Sex and the City – from what I hear one of them looks like a foot!
Posted by Henrik on June 2nd, 2008this is on its way to becoming the most popular post on film junk
Posted by Drew on June 2nd, 2008Men certaintly don’t hate commenting on Sex and the City! Zing!
Posted by Rusty James on June 2nd, 2008Weird how long post get stuck in moderating.
Posted by Henrik on June 2nd, 2008@ Weird how long post get stuck in moderating.
I’m glad it’s not just me.
Posted by Rusty James on June 2nd, 2008I think it’s fucking amazing that somehow this went from calling the SATC chicks selfish whores to discussing capitalism, richard dawkins, and low IQs…its pretty great.
I dont feel the need to further the discussion about SATC (I’ve said my piece)…but I seem to agree with henrik…and am a huge, HUGE, fan of Mr. Dawkins…does this have a strong correlation to my above feelings about SATC?…no clue…but it’s interesting that the conversation ended up here, yet someone elses.
I will say this…My girlfriend is a DIE HARD SATC FAN…DIE FUCKING HARD…her and her best friends (also die hard fans) all hated the movie without hesitation…they basically said it was a big pile of badly written gurgling commericialized bullshit.
also, one last thing…with all the Indy hoopla lately I have been constantly talking about my love of TEMPLE OF DOOM and how anyone who says about Indy 4 “at least it’s better then temple” is not only wrong (that’s right, its a FACT…no room for opinion! zing!) they don’t like Indiana Jones at all…well…My signifigant other dislikes temple of doom ONLY because of the character of Willy (a view that I believe alot of people share, especially women)……………….
yet….
she loves Sex and the city……..
Can someone please tell me what the fucking difference between Willy from TOD and the chicks from SATC is…because there isnt one…if anything she is less disgusting by a slight margin but she would get along with the SATC perfectly if they hung out…and I believe someone mentioned above the episode of SATC where carrie goes camping and acts like a complete spoiled bitch…yeah…so the exact same way Willy acts in TOD…it makes NO sense to hate one and love the other…they are the same…i love the character of willy, but would hate her in real life, I actually love that TOD shows the stereotype of high-society women thrown into a situation where they dont get thier way…they cant deal with their fragile hallow existence being interrupted with the real world of nature and ACTUAL CONFLICT instead of night clubs and relationships…my hatred of SATC further legitimizes my love for TEMPLE OF DOOM. VIVA LA SHORTROUND!!!
Posted by Bob the Slob on June 2nd, 2008Speaking of freedom of speech and that (and I’ve got a comment in moderation, I hope you’ll all go back and read it, if anything just to get yourself more pissed off at me), it seems the danish embassy in Pakistan was bombed this morning, and eight people died. People are indeed idiots.
Posted by Henrik on June 2nd, 2008I e-mailed Sean to ask him about this moderation thing but he hasn’t gotten back to me.
To add insult to injury the top story on BBC Europe is the death of a fashion designer.
Posted by Rusty James on June 2nd, 2008Fucked up, man.
I think the endorsement of McCarthyism in Indy 4 by the powers that be at Film Junk and the selective blacklisting of comments here is not coincidental.
Posted by rot on June 2nd, 2008Hey guys, I’m not sure why certain comments are being held for moderation. Usually it only does that if it thinks your post might be spam, ie. if there are a ton of external links in it, or if you’re using a lot of words like “free online poker” and crap like that. I’m looking into it.
Posted by Sean on June 2nd, 2008It starts innocent enough…
perhaps my name “rot” sounds too much like the common McCarthyist rhetoric of the ‘rot of communism’
Posted by rot on June 2nd, 2008Free Online Poker!!! Botox injections!!!
Posted by Drew on June 2nd, 2008OK. I admit it. I loathe S and the C like I’ve loathed no other sitcom. I can’t even watch a portion of it. As I said to my wife yesterday, it’s not that the show is inherently of poor quality. It’s something more. Perhaps it’s the fact that most of the actresses are actually unattractive, making the entire spectacle seem entirely contrived. Perhaps it’s the talk of shoes and shopping (I also loathe malls. Whatever it is, S and the C actually nauseates me.
Posted by Joe on June 2nd, 2008I don’t know what it is but I just hate this show. And I’m a pretty tolerant and open-minded guy. I support both women and gay rights, but after trying to watch one episode, I never ever wanna see anything that has the SatC name on it, or anything with those actresses. I don’t think those women are unatractive, but i just havted every single character that they played. Gotta agree with Joe. Sex and the City is nauseating.
Posted by Matt on June 2nd, 2008I am a woman and a fan of the show and the movie.
They are 4 beautiful (yes! I think they are all incredibly beautiful), talented, hard working women who have managed to maintain a friendship over 20 years. They have helped each other through break-ups, cancer, pregnancy, abortion, marriage, divorce, miscarriage, adultery, financial problems, public humiliation and death.
These women are not perfect, they do not pretend to be, nor do they believe they are perfect. They realize they can be judgemental and harsh. They also realize they can be too soft and take too much crap from other people. They fight with each other. They don’t always get along, they don’t always agree. Sometimes they gross each other out with the things they say.
They can laugh at each other, and more importantly with each other. They will hold up a mirror of reality to each other when it’s needed. They love each other very much. They want only the best for each other. Come hell or high water, these friends will be there til the end for each other. They cheer for each other through everything.
They are not looking for a perfect man, just one who is perfect for them. Yes, the men are flawed, they know this, but they’re willing to accept the flaws in the right man. They accept the flaws in themselves, they accept the flaws in each other, they accept the flaws in the men they love. The relationships that don’t work in the show are the ones where one partner, wanted/expected the other to change.
As the women evolve they come to accept themselves and each other as they are. The basic element of who these women are at the start of the series is the same basic element of who they are at the end.
These women are strong, independent, funny, bright, audacious and articulate. They are also insecure, afraid to trust, romantic, driven, overly tough and hedonistic at times.
They age as the show goes on, they don’t try to stay young. They accept and celebrate each other as women over 30, then over 40 and reaching 50.
All that said, the reason I love the show is the celebration of women and female friendships. It shone a light on being single and showed that it’s ok. It’s also ok to age and deal with pain, because the people you love, and who love you will be there. And if a good man comes along, well that’s just another great thing to add to your life. They show that you can be happy no matter what comes along, because your friends will be there. As Big says in the penultimate episode of the series, ‘you three are the loves of her life, a guy is just lucky to come in fourth.’
Yes, it can be frivolous, it can be silly and decadent and unbelievable in it’s wardrobes…but so what…isn’t that a part of every show? I watch tv to escape from reality for a little while. Does anyone really think that TV and movies are reality? I hope not.
You can say it’s all about shoes, and shopping and sex talk. But it makes me laugh out loud, it makes me think, it makes me cry, it makes me appreciate my friends. What’s so bad about that?
Posted by mllp on June 3rd, 2008mllp, thx for taking the time to set us males straight with your mature explanation, especially considering the comments left by others. (Sarcasm symbol intentionally left out.)
Your comments made sense and gave me a better understanding of why the show is appreciated so much.
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 4th, 2008From a woman’s point of view, I have plenty of guy friends which is fine, but I do enjoy and relate to sex and the city sometimes because well it’s funny and most of the time true. The show is about 4 women who can be single and have fun, it’s not about being whores. First of all, if a women never put out you’d probably call her a prude, but if she does she’s a whore.
It’s awful and you know what they are flawed and it’s okay, do you go around saying you are a horrible person all the time? Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda always feel guilty that’s the reasons for propelling the show actually. Samantha not so much because her character is about her not feeling guilty or emotion well until the end of the series. Basically if you watched the show from beginning to end instead of blasting an episode from the beginning of the series you can see that each character grows emotionally. And that they actually do have feelings of guilt.
Posted by Writinmaniac on June 5th, 2008By the way it’s a drama people on soap operas are horrible people
Posted by Writinmaniac on June 5th, 2008Well, I haven’t seen this movie yet but used to be a casual fan of the series.
Posted by Grace on June 10th, 2008I think men hated it so much partly cuz they took it too seriously.
I mean, it’s just a fictional drama with funny, witty, sharp lines.
The 4 characters in SATC are anything but real. Most real women are nowhere near them.
We don’t shop like there’s no tomorrow.
We don’t sleep with every guy we met.
We don’t talk about the shape/taste/smell of a guy’s penis over brunch (well, sometimes size).
We don’t break up with someone just because we have different taste in kitchenware!
I have to admit that these characters are somewhat shallow and selfish.
But the last season really changed my mind, especially the last few episodes.
All except Carrie seem to have grown up in the last season.
Carrie is my least fav character. She’s still hopelessly childish and selfish, after all these years!
I don’t enjoy the show (shoes bore me) but I can relate to the dialog. I love getting together with my friends and talking/comparing how tight the broads we are fuckin are – LOL. I love my friends – who else is going to tell me about what it’s like to date a flappy puss or funky douche – HAHAHAAHH love you guys!
Posted by John on August 29th, 2008Women were slaves for 4000 years untill abraham lincoln, the only man who was a good person, finally freed us. You malepigs disgust me. The reason you hate the show is because you hate us. We should take revenge and make YOU slaves.
Posted by MILF in Maine on December 3rd, 2008The reason men hate Sex & the City so much is because they are right. It truly has to be the biggest load of crap I have ever come across. Any woman who supports this rubbish is deranged and certainly any woman who follows the “fashion” of the show should be shot, in order to be the ultimate example of what bad fashion is.
Posted by Angela on August 18th, 2009I don’t hate the show , I think it’s an accurate example of what many women want from men. Power, money,status.
Posted by zens on December 14th, 2009This is why many men end up living in a cardboard box with a broken heart. The only payback is that women will lose their youth and looks and then they will feel the pain of what many men deal with their entire lives. Being invisible. Now this is true for many people and the only hope for a loser is that maybe the next life he might get lucky,so while you may not have a chance in hell in this life try to be kind to yourself and never let anyone make you feel worthless.
the show is allowing women to be over the top and boorish and hypocritical like men are and that’s the point. it’s a renewal of the feminist movement by having these women not fit any prototype which is great. because women aren’t whores/saints, or spinsters/homemakers…we’re all these things and that’s fine. we’re complicated. men are. so stop judging. and sjp is cute.
Posted by emmajulie on August 14th, 2010As a woman, I hate this show. The women are shallow, and out of touch with reality. The men are pigs, who just desire to be lotharios until they are 90. It is so unattractive, whiney women crying about not wanting to be alone, turning away the good guys, falling for the assholes who jsut wanna fuck em, with absolutely no intent whatsoever to marry them. Little boys..
Posted by Dee Willis on March 2nd, 2011Leave a Reply