Sexist in the City

“Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein present a coherent and compelling explanation of why the third-wave feminist theory that originated in thoughtful academic discussions quickly became something else entirely. They suggest that “certain tenets of third-wave feminism are appropriated, commodified, reinscribed, and ‘sold back’ to audiences . . . in such a way that those feminist sensibilities are not only defused but ultimately rendered consonant with the dominant paradigm that they appear to resist—thus, the ultimate function of these mass-mediated representations of third-wave feminism is hegemonic.”23 As with popular appropriation of other oppositional discourses such as hip-hop music or grunge clothing, the media turned a critique into a commodity. Because the reach of popular media far exceeds that of academic discourse, the appropriated image helped define the theory in the cultural imagination. Moreover, in current popular and academic discussions of third-wave feminism, the appropriated image often is conflated with the original academic critique so that it is impossible to delineate between “authentic” third-wave feminisms and simple marketing ploys (p.7).”

This quote reveals the problem of the mass media’s appropriation of certain feminist concepts, such as equal job opportunities, and how this essentially caused the feminist movement to lose validity and oppositional power. Now select feminist ideals are simply used to sell products or values. Advertisements, films, television shows, celebrities, and political figures stridently tout their ‘enlightened’ attitudes toward women, chanting “Girl Power” slogans wherever possible and presenting a few token women in ‘strong’ roles. This usually involves conspicuous emphases on women’s athletic and intellectual abilities, and sexual ‘liberation’ (i.e. promiscuity or willingness to engage in any kind of sexual act at the beck and call of a man), as evidenced by Sex and the City, for instance. Furthermore, it persistently presents an image of a successful, ‘empowered’ woman, who is wealthy, white, attractive (within a very specific and narrow framework of beauty), and a CONSUMER! What a brilliant marketing ploy: frame “strong woman” as “shopping woman”!
Many young women would call Sex in the City a feminist show, and would certainly describe Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha, and Carrie as strong and independent. In fact, I was having an argument with my friend about this a few weeks ago. To me, these women absolutely do not epitomize female empowerment. I find it positively alarming that people are so quick to praise this show as feminist! If this is feminism, if Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha, and Carrie are the models of female achievement and strength, if that’s as good as it gets, then I feel doomed. The four of them shape their lives entirely around men! They spend their days chasing men, talking about men, writing about men, obsessing over men. The single goal that unites them is meeting men and getting married. Oh, and shopping, of course. One would think that four smart, successful, wealthy, single women would have something else to occupy their thoughts with, at least occasionally. I understand the drive to have a romantic relationship and to find a partner, but that is not the only purpose of life! Honestly, watching Carrie prance girlishly about in a tutu, agonizing over relationships, and dreaming of her perfect wedding makes me nauseous. Yet this show gained widespread recognition as being ‘feminist,’ thus inviting the respect and admiration of young women around the country. I find Sex in the City to be demeaning and limiting. I interpret the message to be: “Sure, you now have equal rights as a woman, so go have a career (and make sure to indulge in material goods)! Have sex! Experience independence! But ultimately you’ll realize how much that sucks and how you truly aspire to become a wife.” This often seems to be the message in films or television. Empowerment and a successful career for a female character often comes at the expense of having a fulfilling personal and romantic life, which can only be achieved if the woman compromises some of her independence and accepts the self-sacrificing, nurturing roles of wife and mother.

The Sex in the City women fit into this discordant media portrayal of women as ‘empowered,’ but still within the traditional frameworks of femininity. For instance, a woman may be the CEO of a company, yet she still embodies nurturing and motherly characteristics (like Adelle DeWitt in Dollhouse). Or else she is a callous bitch, of course. Also, often when a woman is cast in a traditionally male-dominated position as a doctor or detective, she nonetheless defers to a male leader in the same position, rather than demonstrate autonomous leadership. Furthermore, the consistent sexualization of women, and the complete dominance of female roles by thin, beautiful women, regardless of whether they are playing a lawyer or a stripper, signifies that a woman’s main source of power comes from her appearance and sexual self, rather than pure intellect.

The media’s subtle underlying genderization of women is perhaps more insidious than the more explicit sexism of the past because it masquerades under the guise of female ‘empowerment’ and ‘equality’, making it much harder for non-critical audiences to discern. They can proudly boast that they are progressive because they portray women doing things other than vacuuming and making pot roasts. The media appears to take for granted women’s enfranchisement on a superficial and material level, however subtextual gender roles, stereotypes, and sexist imagery continue to permeate its representation of women and systematically reinforce gender biases.