velma comments on Ms. Rachel’s hot take: Racist nursery rhymes need to be retired

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works [S] 8 points 2 days ago (8 children)

I’ve really come to enjoy these subway interviews! It’s cool to have it be on transit.

parent

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Watching Sex and the City, it really is remarkable how stuck up the ladies are. I don't think there's a single scene that happens on the subway or bus; they are forever taking taxis or getting driven (I think only one even has a drivers license).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works [S] 8 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Hah yeah I did a rewatch of Sex and the City last year and you’re soooo right - all the taxis, all the fanciest cocktails, all the white people - it’s incredibly “high class”.

I still love Samantha’s observations about some of that, it’s the best when she’s calling the other ladies out on their shit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago*

I mean, that's the attitude of people in the West Village to this day. Sex in the City was originally a column based on the author's lived experiences. They never took the subway because Carrie Bradshaw would never be caught dead on the subway or in a sub-$300 pair of shoes.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (4 children)

What do you make of the recent turn against SatC? It seems the going cultural concern is the glamorization of Carrie's psychological mess is Bad for Girls.

I'm of the opinion that we need negative as well as positive role models, but I haven´t finished the series yet or gotten to the movies, where I think it seems like the narratives lets Carrie's nonsense go wholly unexamined and uncommented on. I have gotten to the affair with Big (cheating on Aidan) and I think they handled it well.

eta: don´t remember much social commentary from Samantha.

One of my favorite things to do, as well, watching SatC is note how often episodes fail the Bechdel test.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works [S] 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I think it's good to look back and dissect the problems with the media we've consumed and normalized in the past. SatC was on the forefront of a lot social issues - hell, even producing a show that focused on single women was provocative at the time - and while they got it wrong sometimes, they got it right, too.

Samantha was the first sex-positive woman I saw in media. She also was always unapologetically herself despite how cruel society can be to strong women like that.

A guy gets angry in a meeting, he's a pistol. A woman? She's emotional."

"I will not be judged by you or society. I will wear whatever and blow whomever I want as long as I can breathe—and kneel!"

"Listen to me. The right guy is an illusion. Start living your lives."

Early in the series, Samantha introduces the philosophy that successful, financially stable New York women should "have sex like a man"—meaning with zero emotional baggage or expectations of commitment. Her behavior serves as a mirror to male privilege, highlighting how economic power grants women the same luxury to treat men as fleeting sexual objects

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

Ah, yes, I do remember that about Samantha. "They don´t call it a blowjob for nothing, honey." But I thought you were talking about class commentary, which, Miranda's boyfriend Steve aside, is mostly elided in the series.

Would you have written Samantha differently if you could? I found the criticism of her just being a gay man in a woman's body extremely compelling; she never seemed to face any of the dangers a woman would realistically face in being as openly promiscuous as she was. She is also kind of hilariously square most of the time. Any time some actual kink comes up, she absolutely freaks out.

eta - I think the backdrop of Samantha, as you presented her, is to argue that sexual politics is based on economics, not biology. I partially disagree. I think economics plays a role, surely, but there are sexual behaviors that tend to cluster around gender biologically. I don´t think gender is entirely socially constructed, though social factors absolutely do play a role.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

Ah yeah I should've pulled more examples specifically of class consciousness. I'd have to dig for more specifics there, but I do remember this conversation very clearly from my rewatch:

The ladies talking about class, wealth, and the differences between men and women who have money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4KQCd8G_t8

Would I rewrite Samantha's character? I'm not so sure. I think for the time she was the breath of fresh air for women's independence. An allowance for women to be selfish that was very much needed to be put on display. The criticism of her being a gay man in a woman's body is valid, but I think that is also precisely where the value lies. In a world where women have true freedom, why wouldn't some of us act like gay men?

It's funny you mention that Samantha freaks out when kink comes up! I always thought the opposite like when she called herself a "try-sexual" and that she would trying anything once. She took a tantric sex class and I think was pictured in a BDSM dungeon once or twice on the show. She also entered into a sexual relationship with a woman as an exploration of her own sexual identity.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I can't believe I missed the awkward framing of that conversation the first time!

Yes, I think this is precursor Girl Boss framing. Wouldn't it be great if (white) women could get to the top of the economic hierarchy? Post Sheryl Sandberg, I think everyone sees the flaws there.

As for Samantha's kinks, I have to disagree. She talks a big game, and she has a lot of sex, but when it comes to actual non-vanilla sex, she either runs away from it, or the show lets her off the hook. Two examples are when she abandons a guy tied up in his closet, and another is when she agrees to have a threesome with two gay men, but they end up being more interested in each other. The show has lots of other examples of anti-kink (like Carrie's politician's boyfriends interest in watersports was treated with ridicule, even though he was respectful about expressing his interest). Samantha is great about talking about sexual liberation (to the point of tediousness, honestly), but her behavior trends strongly vanilla.

Back to classism, the episode with the gay threesome, Samantha proudly declares that the year is 2000 and labels are dead; all that matters is that you are good in bed. Sounds good, yet Samantha almost exclusively sleeps with upperclass men with the exceptions (firemen, farmers) being explicit exceptions. So labels don't matter, but income definitely does.

I wouldn't say anything on the show wholly escapes examination, but there is definitely subtext.

Like I said, I've got to plow through the rest of the mess with Big and Aidan and get to the movies so I can be caught up, though honestly I think I might be willing to take the zeitgeist's opinion on the films at its word.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent