Home | Notes
Contributors
Archives | Search
Links | About
contact:
editor@ExileStreet.com
..........

Ralph Peters
Latest

Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World
Ralph Peters

..........

Julia Gorin

Clintonisms
by Julia Gorin

..........

Wounded Warrior
Please Help Those
Who Protect Us

..........

Burt Prelutsky

The Secret of Their
Success
by Burt Prelutsky
..........

.........

Burt Prelutsky

Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
..........

..........

	MORRISSEY

Sex and the City: 40 the New 20?
by Bethanie Morrissey 6/3/08

"Is 40 really the New 20?” asks Fox News, reviewing the Sex And The City hoopla that seemed to overwhelm everyone this weekend. “Pop culture expert and Party Girl author Anna David joins us to weigh in on the phenomenon…” And the burning question is, what do you make of this revolutionary idea that a woman can be single in her 30s, 40s, even 50s, and it’s not shameful, it’s fantastic?

Interesting. Let’s explore this revolutionary idea. How did Sex And The City make it okay to be single? After Anna David addresses how threatening this idea is to men—it must be, a reactionary Maxim magazine voted Sarah Jessica Parker the most unsexy woman alive (I’m sure the hook nose and the wart had nothing to do with it)—the Fox news anchor hit upon the kernel of truth in the matter almost unwittingly.

“These women seem very fashion forward, they have a lot of money, they seem to be very independent, they live in Manhatten… how realistic is this picture?”

Anna responds candidly, “Well… nobody I know who is a free-lance writer like Carrie Bradshaw has that kind of apartment, has those kinds of shoes, has that kind of a wardrobe… but you know, it’s fun…”

And then, unaware of what they’ve just stumbled over, the two women continue on to suggest that, realistic or not, the show will influence culture, women will be reassured that they can be single and it’s fabulous, and so on and so forth.

A word or two here, folks. Has no one actually registered in their brains what happens in this movie? Here’s the ending: Miranda goes back to her husband. Charlotte and her husband have a baby. Carrie and Big finally get married. Only Samantha is single at the end and frankly, it’s mostly because she’s a nymphomaniac and they get fat in relationships because they’re frustrated. Seriously. She dumps him because she’s getting fat. There’s a lot of talk about being true to herself and all, but the defining moment is when she realizes she’s put on 15 lbs. from eating too much because she’s sexually frustrated by monogamy.

So what is the message of this movie, when it ends with three of the four women firmly ensconced in matrimony, and two in motherhood? It’s rather like a Jane Austen book: they always end in a wedding. Was Jane Austen revolutionary? I don’t think so. But she was a true expert on popular culture, and I thought of her while listening to Anna David admit that these fabulous women had more money than anyone she knew.

There was indeed something about the obsessive reference to designer clothes and names and labels throughout the movie that struck me, also. And make no mistake, every frame of that movie celebrates money and lifestyle. The camera lingers lovingly on bags and boxes with names, names, names on them. None of those women ever wear the same dress or shoes twice, and the happy ending for Carrie and Big comes when she returns to his penthouse for her $550 Manolo-whatevers that have never been worn, and he kneels and slips them onto her feet just like Cinderella, and then proposes while he’s down there. This is not revolutionary stuff.

But the money, the money. These women live glamorous lifestyles and make being single alright. Is it then revolutionary to suggest that as long as you have money, being single is cool? Is this a new idea? Back to Jane Austen we go. I reference Emma, the scene where Emma councils her innocent friend Harriet on the importance of choosing a good husband. She herself, she adds, intends never to marry. Harriet is horrified.

“But still, you will be an old maid—and that is so dreadful!”

“Never mind, Harriet, I shall not be a poor old maid; and it is poverty only which makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public! A single woman with a very narrow income must be a ridiculous, disagreeable old maid, the proper sport of boys and girls; but a single woman of good fortune is always respectable…”

Now those who know Emma know that she was a young lady of random opinions, many of which were proven wrong later in her story. But she nevertheless is Jane Austen’s mouthpiece for voicing popular opinion. I suspect it was a fact then and is a fact now: women with a great deal of money have had sexual license for centuries. They can be single and take lovers, they can be married and unfaithful. As long as you do it with elegance and flair, the world will forgive you.

But even then, by a vote of three to one, the Sex and the City girls agree: single is okay if you are wealthy, but it is better to marry than to burn. Jane Austen meets the Bible. Very revolutionary indeed. ExileStreet

copyright 2008 Bethanie Morrissey

§