Of course it's possible. It's a show about the lives and loves of four gay men. They just have female actors portraying them so they can increase the audience.

Salon BS takes on another like totally important issue to educated and empowered women everywhere.

Let me know which one wins. I'm rooting for Femmzilla.

"Sex and the City" is (was?) also a book, by Candace Bushnell. The ending of the book is very, very, very different from the ending of the TV series.

Why are we still single?

We are single because we want to be.

Check it out.

IMO the whole series was ridiculous. Somehow four women find true freedom by banging every guy out there. Sounds like a male fantasy to me.

"News flash: Heterosexuality is not anti-feminist."

The irony is that variations on an argument which imply that it is keep cropping up like an annoying internet meme. As in the 'Are Men Necessary?' book, the pursuit of female independence (from men) becomes both economic and, by implication emotional/sexual - 'proof' of your politics. The more interesting point is that sexual desire isn't simply a subset of feminism: if the SATC quartet 'have it all' on a social/economic level, getting what (and who) they want is a whole different issue. Hence Samantha's non-monogamy doesn't 'fit' into a feminist agenda because monogamy itself isn't inherently feminist.

Brilliant.

It seems that no one can agree on what feminism is, so there's no answer to that question. If feminism means the belief that men are optional and life would be perfect if they all jumped off a cliff, then no, it's not possible to be a feminist and like the show. If feminism means that real women, with a variety of attitudes towards men, should be allowed to pursue happiness, then yeah.

...for one feminist to determine what is or isn’t feminist for another feminist?

So clearly, it IS possible for a feminist to like SATC.

It's just not possible for anyone with any taste to like it ...male or female.

The reason so many women were turned off by the series finale was not simply that they all ended up paired off, living "happily ever after," although that was hardly an inspiring message either.

It was the compromise each character was all too willing to make in exchange.

The entire show was supposed to have been predicated on the idea of staying true to yourself during your "quest for love." But by the end of the series, Our Fearless Heroines were scrambling to renounce their most integral elements of their lives - career (Miranda), sexual independence (Samantha), identity (Charlotte) and self respect (Carrie, not that she had much to begin with, but it would have been nice to see her dump that jerk Big once and for all) - for the sake of what were, in all honesty, some pretty sketchy relationships. And critics hailed this as a "triumph of choice," and evidence the characters had somehow "matured" and "grown up," rather than calling it what it really was: a big fat cop-out.

You can argue that relationships are all about compromise, I suppose, but unless you count Big's "putting up with Carrie's whining" as a sacrifice, I didn't really see any of the male characters making similar concessions.

So, instead of being what it had pretended to be for six years, the show turned out to be cable television's most enduring Harlequin Romance. And then had the nerve to tell single women, "This is YOUR LIFE."

"Sex and the City" is about gay men. I know they all looked like heterosexual women, but they were stand-ins for gay men. Didn't you get the memo on that?

A funny anecdote...I was on vacation with my sister, stepsister stepmother and father when the finale aired. We of course watched the marathon leading up to the finale and then the finale. My dad sort of silently sat in the background kind of watching, mostly watching us watching. Finally, he couldn't contain it anymore. "They're all whores!" he exclaimed! "Whores!"

Yes Dad, they are whores, and guess what--so is your daughter and probably every woman you've ever dated. Deal with it.

And you're wrong, they're not obsessed with men, they're obsessed with shoes.

In my mind, the show seems to be about self-obsessed people that don't really exist. Their primary function is gossiping, drinking and screwing. They don't have 'real' jobs, (except the red-head, who seems like someone I could actually talk to). They don't have hobbies. They have 0 interest in anything of worldwide importance. They spout thoughts no deeper than designer eye-shadow.

Hell, they live in New York and they've never been mugged, or attacked, or people peeing in the subway. Hell, I don't think I've ever even seen a single black man on that show. Honestly, they live in a princess paradise that doesn't exist.

I know lots of feminists who watch the show (and I can understand the allure of watching sexual characters having adventures that you don't necessarily want for yourself). I just can't deal with the shallowness. (But then, I have the same problems with Friends/Desperate Housewives etc etc)

Just when I thought I didn't have to hear any more about this ridiculous show.

Admittedly, I haven't seen a lot of episodes - maybe fifteen or so - mostly because I was at someone's house who insisted on watching.

I find every character loathesome. This show isn't about feminism or love or NYC. It is about fucking and buying. Fucking and buying. Fucking and buying. If you can't fuck it or buy it, the characters aren't interested. They live in the one of the most exciting, vital cities in the world and they piss their days and nights away, fucking and buying. Museums and the arts are just sets to show off what they've bought to hang on their bodies.

All the parts of NYC that make it so interesting are carefully purged - the street life, the accents, the hurly-burly of millions of diverse people trying to live on one small island. Gah! Please let this stupid show die with the probably even more stupid movie.