A spectre is haunting popular culture-the spectre of Carrie Bradshaw. Since the unfortunate demise of Sex and the City, I’ve revised my original opinion of the show. I really love Sex and the City; the show is incredibly funny and well-written. My old objections to it (that almost all the characters are shallow, shallow, shallow people) seemed to rise out of a stubborn opposition on my part to the claims made by earnest writers and acquaintances of mine about the “liberating” and “empowering” aspects of the show.
Apparently, according to these newly “empowered” individuals, Sex and the City’s portrayal of four thirtysomething women in New York making lifestyle choices that don’t “conform” to traditional values (i.e. Miranda the ambitious careerist, Samantha the unabashed sexualist) somehow served to motivate other likeminded women to say “no” to the old, patriarchal concept of how women should live. At least that’s the theory.
The problem I’ve always had is that no matter how I try to slice it, the main characters of Sex and The City still seem incredibly shallow to me. The idealized lifestyle led by Carrie Bradshaw and her friends (the numerous dates, the fabulous clothes, the obsession with fashion designers and their wonderful shoes) seems remarkably similar to the idealized lifestyle of a 17-year-old. The juvenile aspects of “a woman’s right to wear shoes” (I’m not being a total misogynist here, it’s actually the title of one of the episodes) and “I can eat all the candy I want” are striking to me.
We live in a society that places enormous importance on liberty and freedom. “You can be whatever you want to be” is one of the mantras continually poured into the ears of young children. But what are the consequences of this “actualize your potential,” “be all you can be” mentality? Can we really be whatever we want to be? Why has the removal of the traditional limitations on people’s personal growth left such a sour taste in my mouth?
As far as the consequences go, with “traditional” values (such as marriage, romantic notions of love, starting a family) losing their cultural purchase, it seems that the pre-given alternative is the kind of 17-year-old lifestyle chosen by the women of Sex and the City. We’ve been forced to accept a false dichotomy between “traditional” values and the values lived by Carrie Bradshaw. You’re either a traditional “good” woman or you’re a callow promiscuous careerist; or to look at the opposite side of the coin, you’re either a liberated, career-oriented woman or you’re an old-fashioned prude.
Both positions are obviously one-dimensional. The problem is that these two options are held up as the only two sides of the coin; they’re the opposite poles that women are supposed to gravitate between; leaving us in a position of choosing one or the other. Either this one or that. And it’s not really surprising that people choose the fun one.
The decline of “traditional” values has led to the creation of a generation of people who are essentially overgrown children. The society without limits has brought us the ideal of the teenager with the capacities of the adult; an excess of both child and adult, it is unrestrained in its youthful appetites and capable of fulfilling itself in a way a child never could.
I work in a very affluent area, and the 40-50-year-old residents of the area spend most of their time sipping coffee, showing off their cars, and checking each other out. The segment of society that has the most economic freedom freely chooses to live and act like teenagers. Since when did the option not to start a family eliminate the option of growing old gracefully? Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not re-establishing traditional values of the past. I’m just opposed to the sort of thinking that presents us with the “choice” of two options that are equally bad.
People tend to fall into believing that two options, in this case lifestyle choices, set against each other in a binary opposition, are the only options. Examples of this in politics include the Cold War (patriotic capitalist/totalitarian communist) or the American electoral system (Democrat/Republican). In most cases the options we’re presented with are as real as “Coke or Pepsi.”
Where does this leave us? Well, as far as Sex and the City goes, I find the show really entertaining. I love it. It’s candy. But like candy, you can’t eat it all the time. It’s not “liberating” or “empowering,” in fact it’s anything but. The characters are still shallow, and the lifestyle choices they choose are represented entirely in terms of rampant consumption (haven’t you noticed the ridiculous amount of product placement on the show?).
Carrie Bradshaw or June Cleaver? Democrat or Republican? Coke or Pepsi? Buy one or buy another. We, the public, get stuck with two equally bad options and have to buy one or the other. It’s a false choice that always leaves us unsatisfied; it always leaves us wanting more. Well, I do want more. I want my own choice. I want neither Carrie Bradshaw nor June Cleaver. I want a third option, a fourth option, a fifth option…and I want more episodes of Sex and the City.
