Image from i-live.gr Greek News magazine

With the second film in the lucrative franchise of Sex and the City ready for release on Friday, the hype is building. The sparkling images are on the sides of buses and buildings alike, Facebook is dominated with “Which  SATC character are you?” (and the ensuing snit if it turns out you are Miranda) and surely Monolo Blahnik is preparing for an upturn in sales, recession or no.

I may seem like a traitor to my gender, but I have never been an especially big fan of SATC. Nevertheless, I have seen many episodes as it runs on an endless loop of re-runs, and when faced with a choice of a SATC re-run or ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8′ – I have taken the higher ground and gone for SATC. So, taking this into account, I by no means claim to be an expert on the show. Nevertheless, I cannot fathom how this show has come to be such a defining icon of women in our times. That said, a show which has had such an impact deserves a closer look.

Central character Carrie Bradshaw has been hailed by many as a feminist icon, the show itself has been lauded as liberating women and taking women’s sexuality from a taboo topic to common conversation. All good things, no? Well yes, those things would be great actually, if they were true, but they are not.

One of the central themes of the show – the ongoing relationship between Big and Carrie does not seem terribly ‘liberated’ or even healthy. This man repeatedly treats her horribly – and every time she returns – even jeopardizing and, ultimately losing, a good relationship with Aiden for him. He however, shows his devotion to her by marrying someone else, and at another point, moves across the country without mentioning it to her first. Of course it all ends up happily ever after, he proposes to her rounding out the deal with the bribe of a walk-in-closet, only to abandon her on their wedding day. But fear not – it will work out, they are destined to be together after all. What happened to these women not putting up with men who make them feel bad about themselves? Sure, you can complain to your girlfriends over martini’s about it – but it won’t change the fact that you were treated like garbage.

The character of Samantha is often cited with forwarding the sexual liberation agenda of the show. Certainly, Samantha is sexually liberated, almost predatory, she know what she wants and who she wants it with. It seems that the writers, unable to imagine what women’s sexual liberation would actually look like – just decided gave her a rather promiscuous man’s attitude to sex. As the series progress and Samantha gets older and is hooking up with ever younger men, we are supposed to respect her. She is, after all, only doing what men have been doing for generations. While that may be true – are such people ones you would want to emulate? Trolling after people old enough to be your child is rather sad generally speaking, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman doing the trolling. It seems that as women, we have spent years complaining about men’s bad behaviour in this respect, but that to be truly sexually liberated we must behave as men have. Not exactly the original, ground breaking liberation promised on the cover there.

Of course, one of the biggest characters in the show is ‘Fashion’ – the dresses, the handbags, the shoes! SATC elevated style and shopping to a religion, designers suddenly became household names and you were not really living unless you had the latest designer shoes – forgo meals if you must, but get the shoes. I appreciate that the show is supposed to illustrate the lives of young single people with disposable income, but there is a strong suspicion that perhaps beautiful designer ‘things’ can make any problem better. The role of fashion and style provides confirmation that SATC sells not liberation for women, but conformity. This is a show about four white, slim women with good skin, good hair, botoxed and sandblasted to take a few decades off here and there, all wrapped up in a designer dress. Now, I’m not suggesting that they put ill-dressed gargoyles on the show, but please don’t pretend to be ‘liberating women’ and ‘doing something different’ when extraordinary steps are taken to have these women look like a perfect version of themselves 20 years ago. The show puts the same pressure on women to be slim and perfect as the rest of Hollywood, but now you must have a $1,000 pair of shoes to assuage the insecurities.

I will admit, SATC is not all bad. It does illustrate the flaws that we all have, the inner thoughts that we all have from time to time, and it is comforting to know that we are not the only ones that feel nervous, obsess over things and embarrass ourselves. There is a solidarity in that.

There is no doubt that this was an entertaining show in its day, and I daresay that the film will be frothy summer fun. But can we ever dispense with the insecure Carrie Bradshaws and Bridget Joneses of the world, and finally put a woman on TV who is not a total drip? Someone who does not confirm the perception that women are all calorie counting, paycheck chasing, self involved morons in Monolo Blahniks. Someone who feels the insecurities, endures the problems and lives their life anyway. Someone, dare I say it, who reflects actual women.