Hey, John Kass? I don't give a shit whether you see this movie
posted by Silvana
Via Chicagoist, an asinine, assholish, sexist column in the Trib about how poor, poor men are being dragged by their EVIL SHOE-LOVING GIRLFRIENDS to see the Sex and the City movie.
A sample of this stereotype-replete drivel:
You know what? I think Sex and the City actually has a few redeeming qualities. Cinematically it's awful, especially with the whole "Carrie-typing-and-wondering-aloud-punny-questions" theme that appears in every single episode. Several of the characters (esp. Samantha) are pretty flat. It's an odd show, because at times it's clear that some of the characters aren't at all realistic (again, see Samantha), but then it tries to present problems of love, sex, relationship, fertility, illness, careers in a nuanced way. The show's a bitschizophrenicconfused in that way, like it's not sure whether it's a comedy or a drama, realism or high-exaggeration kabuki.
On the other hand, it was and is ground-breaking in the frank and forward-thinking way it deals with women's lives. True, the characters' lives do revolve around sex and men, at least from the slice of their lives that are presented in the show. But as a show about relationships and sex, it gives its women characters an agency, a level of autonomy and chances to break out of character that few other story arcs do.
Of course, John Kass doesn't want to talk about the merits and drawbacks of the show or the franchise. Basically his article amounts to "Ew. Girls." and the issuance of a rallying cry for men to join him in the refrain.
But really, who are we kidding? The main problem that John Kass has with this movie is that it's wholly, completely, and unabashedly about women. And we all know that there's nothing a red-blooded dude would hate more than having to watch a film where fuckdolls aren't fuckdolls, but 45-year-old women with money in the bank and friends who take priority over boyfriends.
As a final note, I have a funny story that I hope my friend won't mind my telling: about two years ago, my friend's house was robbed. The robber stole her computer, her dvd player, and almost all of her DVDs. The lone DVD that survived? Her bound-in-a-pink-book collector's edition complete set of Sex and the City.
I guess he was worried he might get girl cooties if he even touched the thing.
UPDATE: More misogyny directed at the SATC cast (the cover, not Jezebel).
A sample of this stereotype-replete drivel:
Sadly, that's just another example of the painful truth: Women Just Don't Get It. Because when it comes to "Sex and the City," women don't care about our needs, our desires, our deepest hidden longings—and our phobias about $700 pairs of Manolo Blahnik shoes. I've never seen such shoes. But if I saw the bill, I'd begin to cry.The other fun part is where he refers to the SATC cast as "terrifying, rich, aging, elitist women who whine about sex and men and purchase $700 pairs of shoes to feel better about themselves." I'm not sure what it is about the SATC characters that is "terrifying" (except for the fact that they have, you know, some agency) or why exactly it's so awful that they're aging. No, John Kass only wants to see movies with young women who never age. Duh. And yeah, god forbid women whine about sex. Not like every other goddamn movie, not to mention coffeeshop, bar, and dorm room, on the planet isn't filled with men whining about sex, namely that they don't get enough. Poor dears.
So today, and today only, I'm offering absolution to every manjack on the planet. It's your Get out of "Sex and the City" Absolution Card.
You know what? I think Sex and the City actually has a few redeeming qualities. Cinematically it's awful, especially with the whole "Carrie-typing-and-wondering-aloud-punny-questions" theme that appears in every single episode. Several of the characters (esp. Samantha) are pretty flat. It's an odd show, because at times it's clear that some of the characters aren't at all realistic (again, see Samantha), but then it tries to present problems of love, sex, relationship, fertility, illness, careers in a nuanced way. The show's a bit
On the other hand, it was and is ground-breaking in the frank and forward-thinking way it deals with women's lives. True, the characters' lives do revolve around sex and men, at least from the slice of their lives that are presented in the show. But as a show about relationships and sex, it gives its women characters an agency, a level of autonomy and chances to break out of character that few other story arcs do.
Of course, John Kass doesn't want to talk about the merits and drawbacks of the show or the franchise. Basically his article amounts to "Ew. Girls." and the issuance of a rallying cry for men to join him in the refrain.
But really, who are we kidding? The main problem that John Kass has with this movie is that it's wholly, completely, and unabashedly about women. And we all know that there's nothing a red-blooded dude would hate more than having to watch a film where fuckdolls aren't fuckdolls, but 45-year-old women with money in the bank and friends who take priority over boyfriends.
As a final note, I have a funny story that I hope my friend won't mind my telling: about two years ago, my friend's house was robbed. The robber stole her computer, her dvd player, and almost all of her DVDs. The lone DVD that survived? Her bound-in-a-pink-book collector's edition complete set of Sex and the City.
I guess he was worried he might get girl cooties if he even touched the thing.
UPDATE: More misogyny directed at the SATC cast (the cover, not Jezebel).
Labels: m. leblanc
Posted at 4:13 PM
|
