[Note: This weekend the Sex and the City movie racked up $55.7 million at the box office, making if one of the most profitable misogynistic films in history. In honor of that achievement, I've dusted off this post from 2005.]
After six seasons and ninety-three episodes, Sex and the City aired its final episode last February on HBO. But like a case of genital herpes, the show refuses to go away. The first two seasons line the walls of every video store in the country while HBO continues to beams encore episodes of the fourth season into millions of homes. TBS even paid one million per episode for the syndication rights to a bowdlerized version suitable for the ever declining standards of basic cable. 
The expansion of venues will ensure that more people are exposed to this magnum opus, one of the seminal works of our age. Anyone who has watched every episode -- all 46.5 hours -- will have witnessed a work of genius in what is indisputably the greatest (and longest) misogynist masterwork ever to be captured on film.
HBO has produced some great dramas over the years -- from the brilliant The Sopranos to the intriguing Deadwood -- but nothing can match the "novel of ideas" that is Sex. What is truly remarkable, though, is the way the series mirrors the work of Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger. In 1905, Weininger published Geschlecht und Charakter (Sex and Character) in which he argued that all people are composed of a mixture of the male and the female substance. Wikipedia provides a useful summary of the Austrian's view: "The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical."
Someday, feminist scholars will produce dissertations that clarify and outline how the series embodied the philosophy of Weiniger. The best I can do for now is point out the connection. Here, for example, is a representative passage from Sex and Character:
Woman is neither high-minded nor low-minded, strong-minded nor weak-minded. She is the opposite of all these. Mind cannot be predicated of her at all; she is mindless. That, however, does not imply weak-mindedness in the ordinary sense of the term, the absence of the capacity to "get her bearings" in ordinary everyday life. Cunning, calculation, "cleverness," are much more usual and constant in the woman than in the man, if there be a personal selfish end in view. A woman is never so stupid as a man can be.
But has woman no meaning at all? Has she no general purpose in the scheme of the world? Has she not a destiny; and, in spite of all her senselessness and emptiness, a significance in the universe?
Has she a mission, or is her existence an accident and an absurdity?
In order to understand her meaning, it is necessary to start from a phenomenon which, although old and well recognized, has never received its proper meed of consideration. It is from nothing more nor less than the deep, her only vital interest, the interest that sexual unions shall take place; the wish that as much of it as possible shall occur, in all cases, places, and times.
. . . After mature consideration of the most varied types of women and with due regard to the special classes besides those which I have discussed, I am of opinion that the only positively general female characteristic is that of matchmaking, that is, her uniform willingness to further the idea of sexual union.
That last line sums up the entire theme of Sex and the City. The four main characters on the show are relatively wealthy, have successful careers, and live in one of the most interesting cities on earth. Yet their lives revolve around copulating, as frequently as possible with whoever is available and willing.
The nudity (usually brief) and obscene language (always raunchy) are enough to make the more prurient viewers reach for their inhaler. But the most shocking aspect of the show is how female sexuality is almost completely divorced from reality. "That's the show," said Marge Simpson on an episode of The Simpsons, "about four women acting like gay guys." While Marge may be guilty of perpetuating a stereotype, she does have a point: nothing about Sex resembles how most woman view sex.
Take, for example, Samantha Jones. Here is how the show's website describes the most promiscuous member of the group:
Samantha embraces her uninhibited sexuality with a diverse (and large) group of lovers, from wrestling coaches to power bachelors to a studly farmer. Forget wedding dreams; Samantha takes lust over love any night, and she's proud of it. Once, she even experimented with lesbian love, but when her "girlfriend" demanded more intimacy, Samantha knew it wasn't going to work out.
Samantha is, of course, the extreme end of the spectrum. But she is often portrayed as the exemplar of sexual liberation, the type of woman the others would be if they could shake free from what is left of their "inhibitions."
Samantha is difficult to like and impossible to respect. But that is in keeping with the intention of the misogynistic brilliance of the show's writers. The women are supposed to be despised because they are despicable. The men of The Sopranos may be immoral and violent but they are portrayed as having a twisted sense of honor, respect, and purpose. The woman of Sex, on the other hand, are portrayed as being worth less than their their absurdly expensive designer shoes. The show strips them of their dignity and presents them as archetypes in order that we may mock them. In doing so the series implies that all women are just as worthless as these single New Yorkers. The subtext is that beneath the Prada handbags and Jimmy Choo shoes, women are all the same: passive, unproductive, unconscious, amoral, and illogical.
That a minstrel show caricaturing women could succeed for nearly a decade is astounding; that such a misogynist worldview could be embraced by our culture is disheartening. While it's obvious why Sex would appeal to caddish men, its hard to fathom why intelligent females would be drawn to Weiningers women.
Yes Samantha's a slut but that's hardly notable...she's just a modern version of Blanch from The Golden Girls. The character, IMO, seems to exist primarily for comic relief and to provide fuel for the other characters to talk...which is what the show is really about more than sex IMO. The other women, from the few episodes I've seen, seem to follow a relatively more conventional sex life so I suspect you cherry picked the evidence to support your thesis.
Lieutenant Valeris was Kim's best roll. ;-)
A good follow-up post might involve the positions of the traditional feminists vs. the sex feminists on the topic.
Collin
This post is very interesting. I only disagree with you about the Sopranos. I think it is an amazing show and I am enjoying it for the first time as it is being syndicated on A&E. I believe it is a form of misandry in some ways because it perpetuates a false sense of true honor and integrity. It portrays men as power hungry and ruling through might and fear. These men are hipocrites and selfish. The reason I like the show is because of the glaring double standards and hipocrisy ... the interplay between human depravity and decadence. I continue to watch it because you see the characters living in denial but the truth is trying to break through.
I think it is interesting also that you quote Marge Simpson. I learned that Desperate Housewives was written by a gay identified man. Before I knew that, I turned the show off in the first 30 minutes of the first episode. I did so because I felt that it was a free flowing expression of misogyny. I didn't have the words for it but your post is exactly in line with what I was thinking. I am not claiming that misogyny is pervasive with gay males any more than it is within any other group but I do find it fascinating.
The women's fashion industry is proof enough of the misogyny of gay men.
I used to think that Seinfeld could provide a relevant examample for almost anything in life, but the Simpsons has it beat for bitingly satirical glimpses at American life that illustrate a larger truth.
Samantha is, of course, the extreme end of the spectrum. But she is often portrayed as the exemplar of sexual liberation, the type of woman the others would be if they could shake free from what is left of their "inhibitions."
Wrong.
She is a counter-factual: a wholly invented character displaying what women would be like if they had the male sex drive.
Saying she is the exemplar of sexual liberation is to miss the character's point entirely: here is a woman who approaches sex the way men do, in order to demonstrate why women -- in the real world -- will not approach sex the way men do.
Okay, I'll admit to never having seen it. But if what I gather from what I've heard about it is accurate, it's also, in addition to what this article describes, a form of moral p%rn (to be distinguished from literal p%rn.) That is, it allows women to fantasize about getting away with doing things their not-well-considered morality won't let them do, without having to deal with the real-life consequences. Literal p%rn does this with the bare acts represented; this kind of moral p%rn appeals to the "freedom to do it" more than the doing itself. It's sort of the reverse of the more excessive male-oriented shoot-em-up blow-em-up movies, that cater to some men's wish that they could hurt people with impunity, but know they can't.
And in a way, catering to and cultivating that destructive desire to escape from true morality is itself misogynist (or misandrist in other manifestations.) The sanctified mind is less allured by these things because it understands that true morality is more good and true and beautiful than its absence, and something to be yearned for rather than escaped from. Yet anyone can be tempted.
I watched a lot of SATC, which my wife liked. It seemed to me that the lives of these women were truly sad and they were profoundly lonely.
But then, in this life, my children are the most important thing, so I'm a throwback . . .
"Samantha is difficult to like and impossible to respect. But that is in keeping with the intention of the misogynistic brilliance of the show's writers."
If Samantha was a guy I don't think there would be this level of outrage.
I don't recall you Joe, getting in such a big huff when James Bond fornicated his way through his movies from opening titles to end credits.
Is his character also "difficult to like and impossible to respect."? If you were to judge him by the same sexual mores as Samantha, then the answer would have to be yes. Somehow I suspect thats not quite the case.
It seems to escape you that Samantha is a satirical portal of a man, and not even a gay man at that. If Sam was say a male Marine, everybody would be patting him on the back, cheering him on and calling him a stud. At least the rest of the Sex and the City ladies didn't display that kind of behavior.
I have to agree with "Grumpy Old Man" that the women seemed both sad and lonely. I found it difficult to watch their longing for love play out into failed relationships week after week. And really, a repetitive story line was: 1) meet an attractive man, 2) have sex, 3) discover a completely unacceptable quality in this man. Always in that order. I grew weary of watching supposedly "intelligent" women blindly repeating the same mistake over and over again.
I have to agree with "Grumpy Old Man" that the women seemed both sad and lonely. I found it difficult to watch their longing for love play out into failed relationships week after week.
It reminds me of God's relationship to his people. Always he saves them from suffering, they serve him faithfully for a while, but ever they mistake their blessings as the result of their own efforts and turn away from the Author of all blessings. Lather, rinse, repeat.
at the Golf store you can fine article, videos, book, and more
Dear Editor:
Please let Palin help these leaders for a renewal.A petition to Bishop Jeremiah J. Park to recover misused Church money
Dear Bishop Jeremiah J. Park:
Current and earlier events need the attention of your office because they will test the meaning of Christian values and of honor among Koreans.
Recently, you advocated, “No torture”, and with other religious luminaries you have marched to the United Nations to protest against the torture and abuse of suspected terrorists held at U.S. facilities in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, why have you not condemn the torture and abuse of the innocent members within your church?
Unwittingly it seems to appear the double standard of morality in the episcopacy as you overlooked the torture agony within a Methodist church.
In any event, the church should not be let alone in a Mafia image under your jurisdiction.
More specifically, Mr. Steve Park, and other church officers, had deliberately and consistently tortured and abused my family for many years while the church remained silent. He and his church underlings used the church’s name and trust fund to malign my family and me in order to rid of us from the church. It was to cover up the looting of the church money.
For instance, for one of the three frivoouls lawsuits, Mr. Park falsely accused my son and me that we planned to kill him, his family, his attorney, and other church members in one of his court depositions:
12 A “He said watch out, you asshole,
13 Specifically said you asshole, you watch out, if
14 You don’t watch your step; I’m going to kill you.
...
5 A “I’m going to kill your whole family.”
6 Q That’s what Dr. Sone said to you?
7 A “Yes.”
P. 62; 9-17, 21-23.
9 Q You’re claiming that Dr. Sone
10 threatened to kill you and your whole family?
11 A “Yes.”
Furthermore, he substantiated his assertion that more than 10 persons had witnessed our threats to murder. His witnesses included Reverend Wontae Cha, Y. S. Kim, K. D. Shin, Y. H. Lee, Y. J. Kim, D. J. Chun, Paul Choi, Y. J. Kwon, and I. C. Lee.
Rev. Cha is a good colleague of yours according to information.
Because of his false allegations, my son and I were on trial at the New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County. He used the church’s funds to finance his lawsuit against us. In his lawsuit, Mr. Park also demanded $4,000,000 in damages, while pushing us into the jail as felons.
His lawsuit had nothing to do with the church and was simply a personal vendetta against us. My only offense against Rev. Cha, Mr. Park and others was to strictly observe my fiduciary duty as the chairman of the Board to protect the church’s Building Fund. Nevertheless, according to the court records, officials from the church hierarchy and Steven Park had deceived the judge as if the case was a church-related during an ex-parte conference.
Now, Bishop Jeremiah J. Park must be responsible to identify the persons who were at the secretive meeting with the judge. He must investigate all and any conspiracy against the church and its members. The bishop’s actions matter much with the prestige of the episcopacy.
The year 2008 is the 87th anniversary of the Korean United Methoidst Church and Institute. Bishop Jeremiah J. Park, Reverend Won Tae Cha, Steven Park, Young So Kim and other such characters one day must come to the church and faithfully explain to the worshippers for the justification of the looting for either personal gain or criminal racketeering against the innocent loyal members.
The cowardly leadership owes an explanation to the fellow church members about the mismanagement of church finances: For example, an $180,000 building renovation contract lost for nothing. It only enriched the related parties. Or, another example when the chairman of the board of trustees embezzled $70,000 he is awarded with church money to pay for his legal fees and for part of his embezzlement. Also his faction paid the fines for the sanctions and the contempt of court with the trust fund although they had to pay. Another irony is Methoidst Mission Fund donated $50,000 to the trust as if an incentive to the looting
The judge and NYS Attorney General advised to recover the funds from the abusers. But, why anyone in the church leadership has done anything about these malfeasances?
Now, the time has come to your office to clarify the ultimate moral issues. On July 15, 2007, the church decided to hire a certified public accountant (excluding Korean CPA) to audit the church finances starting from year 2000. The audit is to determine if any fraud has occurred. But, since then, Reverend Chang, the current pastor, who is a friend of yours according to information, has not yet started it.
The church must recover the stolen funds from Mr. Park and the embezzlers. Perhaps, the church may file an insurance claim for the stolen funds so that the insurance company can compensate them. But, you, the bishop, must enforce church rules and order to help this church recover financially as well as morally. Otherwise, the church has no standing as “a light house” to the dark world.
Now, remember that any decent mind cannot allow our historic church to be built on the foundation of the age-old scandals, but on “the rock”. Most of all, the church should be liberated from evil capitulation still in power. If Mr. Park and others like him have succeeded to scapegoat the church scandals on an innocent family, then they would have said, “Halleluiah!!” The church should be maintained as a house of prayer, but a “den of robbers.” (Matthew 21; 13)
Without any further delay, you must recognize that the Korean United Methodist Church and Institute has been under the control of the spiritually-dead clergies and criminals who are filled with demons, falsehoods, hatreds, and deception. It does appear to be a moral crisis of the Korean Church, the NY Annual Conference, and, perhaps, the United Methodist denomination.
I am praying for your spiritual victory in good faith and for the renewal of our historic church. The Book of Discipline guarantees open meetings and free speech. Why can’t we have an open debate for the renewal at the church or a public media? The congregation wants your spiritual leadership as the bishop of the NY Annual Conference as well as the top church leader of the Korean immigrant Christian community.
Please let me remind your office that it is my duty and mission to continuously protect the church’s common interests, according to the church’s rules and the Christian teachings. That is my only way to seek justice and to restore our family name as I have learned from the church throughout my life.
Alas! The church is spiritually, morally broken as it is now.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Chae S. Sone and family
Please forward the e-mail petition to:
Reverend Jeremiah J. Park, Bishop
New York Annual Conference
White Plains, New York
e-mail address: Bishop@nyac.com
Reverend Chul Woo Chang
e-mail address: chang.kumci@gmail.com, OR WRITE TO
633 WEST 115TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY10025
Forward to our distinctuished spiritual leaders:
Media@RickWarrenNews.com
UMC: newsdesk@umcom.org.
NCC
Grassley, Chuck (R)
chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov
Charles Schumer (D)
senator@schumer.senate.gov
Hillary Clinton (D)
senator@clinton.senate.gov
democraticparty@democrats.org democraticparty@democrats.org Obamainfo@friendsofmccain.com
Let us pray for the Bishop to do His will accordingly. Especially it is a wakeup call for Korean Christian community – It is a cyber age.
__________________
Page Link Protection by
www.MailToProtector.com
bjotmyge oymgwr kiegxrv chyd cjwbplfa ctay jnwglkub