If you are living, you have the right to say anything. Unless you are outside of gender roles and politics .... yeh, everyone is in it, even young children and widows. So yes, everyone's opinion is valid.
Sex in the City the show was not just about women, it was about metropolitan, middle-class women who are struggling for an identity because they are not satisfied to simply be a spouse and mother. So, with this premise, you get the stereotypes and limitations you mention. And that resembles reality even though they are stereotypes. It is "in the City" not "on the Farm" or "in the suburbs" so presents a fairly narrow view of the world and it marketing, I would argue, is not bad but fits the image of middle-class metropolitan women.
When you could compare it to, say, Battlestar Galactica, it no less limited than women being only hard-bitten soldiers or stoic politicians as they are in that show, without much variation. That is because it is the focus of the show and, as demonstrated by its success, is something a lot of people are interested in.
For men, being a career-man and not settling down is our standard and is therefore not usually worthy of comment or a show. We often see Sex in the City as a little quaint or perhaps even shallow in its discussion of pursuing success as it is our traditional role. Shows about being a man interacting with his children are much more prevelent because it is a smaller, exotic subset of men and is on the rise, from the cosby show to the king of queens.
So I think the marketting is properly targeted. Truly sophisticated women know the difference. Those who are still struggling with whether they identify as one or not (which is a lot of them) will find some perspective with this show/movie.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 05:09 pm (UTC)From:Sex in the City the show was not just about women, it was about metropolitan, middle-class women who are struggling for an identity because they are not satisfied to simply be a spouse and mother. So, with this premise, you get the stereotypes and limitations you mention. And that resembles reality even though they are stereotypes. It is "in the City" not "on the Farm" or "in the suburbs" so presents a fairly narrow view of the world and it marketing, I would argue, is not bad but fits the image of middle-class metropolitan women.
When you could compare it to, say, Battlestar Galactica, it no less limited than women being only hard-bitten soldiers or stoic politicians as they are in that show, without much variation. That is because it is the focus of the show and, as demonstrated by its success, is something a lot of people are interested in.
For men, being a career-man and not settling down is our standard and is therefore not usually worthy of comment or a show. We often see Sex in the City as a little quaint or perhaps even shallow in its discussion of pursuing success as it is our traditional role. Shows about being a man interacting with his children are much more prevelent because it is a smaller, exotic subset of men and is on the rise, from the cosby show to the king of queens.
So I think the marketting is properly targeted. Truly sophisticated women know the difference. Those who are still struggling with whether they identify as one or not (which is a lot of them) will find some perspective with this show/movie.
-FW