STC a cautionary tale?

In today's man's world in which everything, including social values, is measured in dollars, is it any wonder that women are being commodified?

Surely since women's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and just another of the successful man's accoutrements, shouldn't unmarried females be considered freaks, unhappy threats to normal family life?

A Man's World ?

Speaking as a male, and worse, a white male, I find the notion that this is a man's world where a woman is one of my accoutrements, a little unfathomable. For me and most of the men that I know, my wife is a partner, without whom I would have a tough time surviving. We both work hard to pay the bills, keep the house, raise the kids. If either one of us could afford to stay home in the kitchen, barefoot or otherwise, believe me we would.

It's time to move on from this "man's world" idea. The world belongs to the capitalist system which really doesn't care what sex we are.

Oh please

It's nice to know that women have come so far that Heather Mallick and Dorothy Woodend can now tell us what we should and shouldn't be watching if we are to be good, upstanding, young feminists.

I see no difference between SATC and the formulaic, action-oriented drivel that men like to watch. Nobody writes articles decrying the loss of male intellectualism in the face of Bruce Willis and the Die Hard franchise (although a case could almost certainly be made.)

Must we now be twice as good as men in our entertainment choices, too?

Let's focus on the issues that really matter if women are to achieve true equality - wage parity, universal childcare and equal representation at all levels of government.

I like "Sex and the City"

I have liked it from the first time I happened to come across it ... an episode where 4 women, while eating breakfast, were calmly discussing felatio ... whether they did it ... IF they did it ... whether or not they liked it ... and when they finished eating and talking, they went to work.

I remember thinking "Omg, if only people had talked about these things in my salad days!"

I've always imagined that Dorothy Woodend would be that kind of vital human being, fully capable of talking about sex from a woman's point of view. God knows, we've had it up to here with the male point of view. Which is fine, except that, um, ahem ... it kinda left out a whole lot.

To ignore the huge contribution to women's self-understanding is downright depressing. I mean, surely we don't want any more of that dumb stuff like, "Sex ... ewwww! Let me jump up on a chair shrieking for help!" Jayzus murphy, have we made no progress whatever?

Sex in the City is a healthy depiction of sex from a female perspective. So far as I know, it's never been done before. And it shoulda been. Taken in stride, better understood, accepted as a normal part of life -- normal, healthy, happy sex talk shoulda happened long ago.

Sure the SitC women wear clothes, shoes ... wtf else? But the power and relevance of the title -- the first word in the title -- SEX -- is getting people all bent out of shape? Now? Now?

This is just too weird.

Frankly, I think there's something else you haven't learned to talk about yet. Agreed, it isn't easy. That's why SitC deserves so much appreciation.

Cheap stuff

Complete independence? More like a cheap shot aimed at both men and women.

Liberation? Hardly.

Unhip country gal that I am, (who admittedly doesn't know much about sex in the city) I would still suggest that years ago The Mary Tyler Moore Show was more of a real ground-breaker in its own unique and yes, even quite sexy way. Extremely well-written, funny, always honest.... and tender, too.

And I don't remember one show about shoes.

Sex in the......

Hi BC Mary,

Didn't see your post, busy writing mine...

I'm not a fan of the show but I think you're right about the freedom of talking about sex - I'd just question more the way sex is being perceived and sold in SITC by the writer of the show.

I've tried to watch it but it always makes me feel lonely somehow.

One day we'll have to go for lunch and discuss the raids on the legislature ....and our torrid sex lives. ;-)

Not that they are linked in any way. ;-)

froth and fantasy

that's what the TV series was. Fun to watch. An escape. Something to enjoy. How sad that the critic produces only a rather hostile, mean-spirited, negative bunch of nonsense. She missed the boat on this one.

suffrage it is not

but it is commercialism, capitalism, and corporate structure, ie, the world we live in.
Whether we like it or not, there are elements we may dislike, oppose, and disregard. What we should not discard is what we learn from being observant, historically aware, and educated/liberated by such knowledge.
I strongly agree with Dorothy, and the Canes article should be no news to anyone. It is a different world out there in the tinsel town.

... what terrible hold ...

“The world belongs to the capitalist system which really doesn't care what sex we are.”

Unfortunatley, the capitalist world does care. In fact it forms much of capitalism’s raison d’etre. Whole industries depend on it.

Next time you’re in a major dept. store have a gander at the overhead signs. The last I looked they still announce the existence of “Ladies Wear” or “Mens Wear”, etc, etc. And these announcements go far beyond clothing.

Capitalism’s recognition of , and dependence upon, sexual differences extends to all segments of society. And, despite the presence of the Hillarys, Caroles or Margrets, it’s the reason the political world continues to provide an almost insignificant role for women. They have bought into the male-controlled capitalist system.

In the physical and psychological worlds we are a long way from androgeny. The capitalist system will continue to pump out the labels and judgments needed to lubricate the wheels that keep sexually-discriminating widget- producing industries moving.

Lynn’s claim that watching SITC makes her feel lonely attests to capitalism’s thought controlling success. It’s not the show that makes her feel lonely, it’s the labels and judgments (about being male or female) previously instilled in her thinking. Watching SITC simply activates them.

Sexual equality is the last thing captialism wants.

Cannibals

I have to agree that Sex in the City is similar to the kind of action trash or porn that is aimed at a male audience. It's just instead of gadgets, cars and young gorgeous nymphomaniacs, it's clothes, shoes, and handsome extremely wealthy men.

Frank talk about sex is important for both men and women. The problem with Sex in the City is that it wraps something otherwise enlightening up in a package of sales and marketing. But it doesn't just sell useless crap, it constantly hammers a message that the only route to happiness is an endless and ever changing array of designer fashion, with a wealthy man to pay for it all. It's pushing mental slavery to wanton consumption.

Shopping and acquiring material goods does bring momentary pleasure. But by it's very momentary nature, it has to be constantly fed by something new to replace the fading pleasure.

The strongest source of happiness springs from the quality of our social relationships. The healthier and more egalitarian those relationships are between the people closest to us, where affection, playfulness and kindness are the predominant tones to the relationships, the happier and healthier we will be. There is a lot of this in Sex and the City between the four friends, although it can be hard to see it behind all the obsessive materialism.

Our current form of capitalism markets to women by encouraging them to be selfish, self-centered, greedy and wholly concerned with the status and beauty conveyed by expensive consumer goods. That's why the "bitch" stereotype is so common in so much of our media. It is the perfect consumer personality for women. But men, at least the straight ones, are in some ways simpler creatures. The most effective way to get them to buy stuff is to convince them that it will get them women. So it appears (I want to emphasize APPEARS) that they are less selfish. The perfect consumer personality for men is to have them believe that buying all these expensive consumer goods will get them young attractive women.

And judging by the article that Dorothy linked to about Cannes, capitalism certainly has succeeded in convincing quite a few people to behave in these ways. But by the sound of it, real happiness is elusive for a surprising number of them despite the vast wealth and/or beauty so many of them have. Which is really no surprise. It is after all consumption based. It encourages a mentality where you use people like you use a pair of shoes, you wear them until something better comes along. That's not loyalty, that's not friendship, and it's certainly not love.

Ahhh, vive la difference... but

Really good stuff, I think, from Lynn, KWD, and James Burns.

But the special point that needs underscoring again, in my view, is that essentially made by KWD. While I am fundamentally as hostile as nature to the notions of the beneficence or essential value of androgemy, it is true that in [i]social relations within capitalism as all other previous class systems there is an excessive emphasis placed on all those physical and social things that make all of us different rather than similar, for purposes of division and playing especially the lower orders; male, female, race, income, neighbourhoods, job descriptions and status, and titles etc against each other. And the purpose of that, of course, in the ensuing class and intra-class social pecking orders is to, by such division, divide and rule.

And divide and rule they do. It's there in the US primaries, and its here, for example, in race relations between whites and natives, in the essential class character of the formal "so-called" democratic process, and in the male-females balance and relationship visible in our universities, and still, in the wage structures extant in the workplaces of capitalism.

Capitalism feeds on "differences" even while it pays lip service to the spin notions of an "undefined" unity, for its ruling class market, even whilst it fractionalizes and caters to all the differences, and profits from it, also needs "stability" that lies in the "unity" notion.

Why this show is the air head fluff of the capitalist marketplace, catering to open sexuality issues in a vacuum, as does porn for men, is because it does not even attempt to address these underlying social realities. Instead, it is used simply as a "fashion" marketing tool, fashion in clothes and ideas, to still too many gullible "women".

Nope. You ain't come as long a ways baby as many of you seem to think you have, and "the system" seeks to fool you into thinking you have. Seems to me, there's a lot more, in fact, going backwards here socially, for the young so-called "modern" woman. It still views women as essentially "air heads", for all the frank sexual yada, yada.

But then, what the fuq do I know about women, right? :-D lol I'm just a man. :-) We don't pay any attention to women.

Not. :-)

It ain't about shoes.

.
Can't help feeling we're missing the boat here. I really don't understand why many comments on this thread are all about clothes, shoes. cash, and resentment.

For me, the SitC narrative is all about women being women ... and especially about the important secrets which are kept from women -- sometimes even by women.

Once I was invited to an Art Show in a private home on Pender Island. The artist had survived breast cancer; and her journey out of danger and back to health was recorded partly through her paintings, which she showed, one by one, and talked about each one.

Remember how cancer was something people didn't like to talk about, either, just like sex?

We all talked too (maybe 6 or 8 of us) contributing what we knew, asking what we didn't know. I never forgot the powerful aura which developed over that group as we talked, shared, encouraged one another. It was partly the sense of being "all in this together", but also of celebrating one woman's courageous life.

That's (to a lesser extent) how I feel when the 4 women in SitC talk about vital things women need to know for our own wellbeing -- vital things which women for generations hadn't known at all.

Shoes? Phhtttt. Silly fashions? Hey, have you seen the Pope lately? The Queen?

Isn't it good enough, to be able to listen in on a new kind of healthy conversation and learn something about ourselves? And about life itself?

sex is no secret

Mary, most of my friends are in their 20s. A large proportion of them are women. None of them have much of a problem talking about sex around friends. Conversely, far too many of them obsess about the designer labels and other junk they'd like to be able to afford.

I dunno, maybe it's generational thing. But from my point of view the biggest problem isn't that they keep secrets, it's that so many of them buy into the media driven commercialism of life where the real secret is the lie that consumerism is the root of all happiness.

social evolution

SITC is a statement about women being women, and about life. It’s also a statement about crass commercialism, wealth and it’s link (or not) to happiness.

But more than that it is a statement about social evolution and the fact folks in tinsel town are slightly ahead of the curve. Long gone are the Ed Sullivan days where hosts and entertainers in prime time family-viewing slots wouldn’t say shit if their mouth was full of it, or any mention of “great balls of fire” was considered taboo.

That women have to turn on SITC to “learn” about themselves and life is revealing. I guess McLuhan was right: the media is the message.

The new Voodoo

You are entirely correct, KWD, we ARE discussing social evolution. We are living in an era when we are likely devoting more time to TV watching than we've ever done for any leisure activity before.

It's incredible that more time is now spent in watching commercials that is given to the shows themselves. Even when we watch "pay TV", we can't escape them.

I've read that more money is spent on producing the commercials than the shows themselves. This is consistent with what an artist friend told me many years ago, that the leading edge in art (and the best money) is found in advertising.

As one who doesn't own a TV and who only rarely watches it elsewhere, I find myself nonplussed when a friend starts relating to me the attributes of the latest commercial that he/she likes. I try hard to be polite and show interest.

Yes, KWD, McLuhan was entirely correct in saying "The medium is the message", but even he, I think, would never have thought that one day "Life copies art" could have the ring of truth.

I am the quibbler

It's no surprise whatsoever that people spend so much time watching TV ME2, because as you say, the most money and most compelling art in the medium can be found in the commercials.

If television sucked half as much as people say, there wouldn't be so many channels and shows.

"Life copies art" is a truism as old as time. Why do you think cave paintings depict successful hunts? A plea to the gods to let life copy that art... that's why.

Mcluhan would be as utterly and completely unsurprised by Sex in the City as Karl Marx would be by observing the current death throes of late-stage capitalism, IMO.

death throes?

You are right, McLuhan would be non-plussed by SITC. McLuhan wasn’t as interested in media content as he was about the notion that electronic media are extentions of the human nervous system; hence the terms "wired world" and “global village.

McLuhan’s expression that the electric light bulb is “pure information” doesn’t really sink in until you try reading (or performing other tasks) in the dark. We are able to digest the content when the lights are on but we are unaware that the electric light bulb doesn’t impart any value or judgement to the content (information) or the task at hand.

However, I think his message had more to do with the fact that changes in electronic technology lead to profound changes in human behaviour. And once the changes permeate society, content can be used to “heat up” or “cool down” the masses.

I’m not sure that SITC signals the death throes of late-stage capitalism, probably because I think capitalism will evolve rather than die. But, perhaps you can help me out: what is late-stage capitalism and what signals are you getting from SITC?

Nuances of meaning & interpretation...

I would put the above somewhat differently, of course, than KWD, though I do not think he is entirely wrong however, dependent the meaning one attaches to such a shades of meaning concept as "evolution" and the more precise, though still subject to interpretation concept of "capitalism."

I don't think there is any question, assuming forward rather than "backward" movement, that "the economy" will "evolve", and there is only one economy, even including the underground ones. (What is "formal", as in state and ruling class sanctioned, is seldom the "entire" economy, even if it is "the commanding heights".)
The question is, "Are the class relations that rule within capitalism fixed and immutable for all time, or are they subject to more and less radical change no less than all other elements within nature, including social relations?"

And if they, capitalist class relations, are as subject to more and less radical change as all other realities of nature, as I and empirical evidence suggests that they are, what does that say then about how we can characterize "the economy" over this evolutionary period? Does "the economy" remain "capitalist" even if that class which rules it and gave it its name, evolves into something else or disappears altogether, say as did the feudal aristocracy of feudalism? And what if new class relationships, perhaps even the disappearance of classes altogether comes to characterize this new, more evolved "economy"? Does it become more correctly characterized as something else, or does it still accurately remain as "capitalism"?

"The Economy" is one thing. It endures I think, whilst its form may change, so long as humans endure anyway. But the class relations that historically have come to give a particular economic period its name; slavery, feudalism and capitalism, should not be mistaken for "the economy" per se. They reflect but a historical period in the overall evolutionary history of "the economy".

If "the economy" more and less radically evolves, it is highly likely, I would suggest, pointing to the historical evidence from tribalism to the present, that class relations within that economy likewise evolve, forms arise and disappear, and new ones take their place, and with those changes in class relationships, it is not unimportant to see the changed character description of "the economy".

Capitalism is but one form stage in a long evolutionary history of The Economy. They ar not though, necessarily forever, one and the same thing.

Accuracy in analyses is important, if it is to be as correct as we can humanly possible make it.

Well, I'm just not getting it now.

This is terrific. The guys seem to be elevating this conversation to pure theory. Me, I still see Sex and the City as a window on being human -- as the welcome depiction of sex from a female perspective. Noteworthy, James Burns, is the fact that men never join the 4 in those intimate discussions which really originate from an unabashed effort to understand.

I risk being further misunderstood, I know, but I'd just like to suggest a comparison.

First, there's Vancouver Sun's regular feature shown in their left-hand column, front page, every issue about the Pickton Trial. There, on a daily basis, people can (and presumably do) read about the 1,001 gruesome, repulsive things that can be done to women as per the Coquitlam Pig Farm. This "feature" goes on and on, every day, whether the trial is underway or not.

On the other hand, there's the media silence surrounding the disappearance of "dozens and dozens" of healthy young men in the prime of their lives, from the Vancouver region. The story came out only last week, when somebody put all the incidents together and found it downright alarming. But the media silence returned immediately.

I don't know what to make of it. I can't think of any reason why CanWest wouldn't have made Item #2 a huge issue, updating it daily, out of respect for the men involved, and their families. What's the dynamic here?

Because I'm getting the unhappy feeling that it's sinful of me to enjoy the lively discussions on Sex and the City, even though I understand that the shoes and the clothes are ... well, New York ridiculous.

I'm hearing that, to better understand and celebrate female sexuality is to bring down the empire?

But I'm thinking that to better understand the female, is to have better understanding of the male, and we could never be indifferent to their tragedies any more than to our own.

I dunno. Wow, I just sure didn't know. But I wish to gosh we could discuss SEX and the City without discussing shoes and dresses.

BC Mary, it's not sinful to

BC Mary, it's not sinful to ENJOY or even to witness the conversations had by the 4 women on SITC. It is, in my opinion, a waste of time and energy. Whoever controls the eyes will or is already controlling your mind to a large degree.

The conversations don't really depict women in a good light when it comes down to it, they actually just allign them more with the shady conversations I have been privy to my whole life while within the fold of male culture.

This weekend there was a SITC marathon on COSMO tv and in my weakness and boredom while living here in Fort Mcmurray, I watched 4 or 5 episodes.

In my 29 years I have witnessed many groups of people being tricked into thinking they have achieved some sort of liberation. This is no different, as has been put forth in the literary wanking of so many posters prior to myself.

SEX is something even a dog has little trouble figuring out. TV is something even small children have no problem extracting information from. Shows like SITC are fluffy social distractions that are designed to keep us from communicating with each other because as long as a female is living vicariously through Carrie Bradshaw, she WILL ALWAYS BE INFERIOR and so will the undersexed men that travel behind them...

I love women and I will continue to search for ONE that doesn't insist on flogging me over the head with bullsh*t sterotyping and cultural expectations. SITC and it's congregation of fart-hiding, mask wearing, and gold digging "equal people" is the real "Girls Gone Wild"

Of Sex, Shoes, Dresses and Godesses...

:-) Hmmmm. I dunno either. Though I suspect it is because in the context of this bit of a fluff as depth show, SITC, the shoes and dresses seem to be the interconnected indispensable parts of that view of the world. And of it's true... And maybe the script writers, probably male ya think :-), are right in their assessment of women. If so, the species is in deep shite.

But then, on the other hand, it really is just a chick thing. I don't know.

SEX is something even a dog has little trouble figuring out. TV is something even small children have no problem extracting information from. Shows like SITC are fluffy social distractions that are designed to keep us from communicating with each other because as long as a female is living vicariously through Carrie Bradshaw, she WILL ALWAYS BE INFERIOR and so will the undersexed men that travel behind them...

Hmmmm. Kinda liked this by newphorik. Maybe it's true, except for the one I was able to snag this long time ago now, us men really are from Mars and women are from, I'll let you choose your own other planet, ladies.

I don't really think so... but maybe a good many.

Come to think of it, my Ma did think she was a Poetess Godess. :-)

One day when I was well less than 14, the cops showed up at our place with a complaint that someone, a woman had been phoning a Mrs. Khan, accusing her of stealing her husband Genghis. The old man recalled that Ma was the favourite concubine of Genghis Khan, within whose palace she whiled away her days serving tea in the Orange Blossom Garden to his global dignitary guests and writing lyrical poetry.

After calling Ma down from her room and talking to her, they determined that it was indeed her who had been bothering the frightened Mrs. Khan, whom Ma was indeed convinced had stolen away her beloved Genghis. The solution here was to remove that page from the phone book. Simple enough. No big deal. :-)

Now I sure don't wish to deny BC Mary or any other women their TV shows. No way. They're entitled to their sex, shoes and dresses fantasies too, no doubt. :-)

We males are clearly just going to have to endure here. :-) Though, thank Godess, my Mrs. can't stand the show either. :-)

alternatives

Mary, I don't think it's sinful to enjoy Sex and the City. I just think it's important to be aware of what is going on with shows like that. I just get exasperated with the obsession some women seem to have with all the toys it advertises. As I mentioned earlier, I think the real appeal of the show for women, is social bond the four main characters share with each other.

But I have to be honest, I can think of a number of better ways to reach a better understanding of sex without that show. And while I've only watched a few episodes, the characters don't strike me as having especially healthy sexual relationships. Personally, I've had many graphic and open discussions with female friends and girlfriends about sex, including many similar to your aforementioned discussion of fellatio. I also have similar discussions with male friends about women and sex. But I can only speak from my experience. I know a lot of people are very uptight about sexual topics, and it can take a good long time for them to be comfortable talking about them. So having something like a TV show that gives them "permission" to voice their curiosity might be seen as helpful. It's just too bad it has to be a show like Sex and the City.

One example of a better approach where TV is concerned, although admittedly far too drained of real sexiness for my taste, was an 8 part British documentary series called "A Girl's Guide to 21st Century Sex" that was broadcast on Five in 2006 (it's available through a number of bittorrent trackers as a download).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Girl's_Guide_to_21st_Century_Sex

That series was extremely graphic. It also covered the nasty sides of sex, like disease. But it was definitely educational, and it wasn't also out to sell shoes.

As for your mention of the societal problems around sexuality... well that's a whole other giant topic. We only have to look at any number of scandals, including the one Harper is currently dealing with to see the loopy-ness that surfaces with any hint of titillation.

link again

since the above link got cut-off here it is again:

http://tinyurl.com/y29xtr

So it's still about shoes, eh?

Apparently the English language fails when trying to describe something significant about a 30-minute series about 4 women.

If I read the comments correctly, people who watch and enjoy Sex and the City are superficial, airheaded, consumer-illiterate, imitative, obsessed with shoes and other purchases, and altogether beyond the pale. The hell you say.

Does that describe ALL those people who are flocking to see the movie? Honest to gosh, I don't think so. And btw, I'm not flocking to see the movie.

As for consumerism (which I'm deeply, deeply opposed to), one of my most annoyingly "fashionable" friends does wear ridiculous shoes, throws out all her clothes annually, and who lectures me that I MUST wear this if I'm going to wear THAT ... actually DISLIKES Sex and the City. A very smart lady, she nevertheless allows "fashion", on an annual basis, to dictate what she'll wear, and at what cost. The 4 friends on SatC never criticize each other's choices. They have better things to do. So have we.

The other good thing about SatC is the unshakable bond amongst the 4 friends. I mean, how many catty, toxic, destructive stereotypes have we seen prancing around, tearing each other to shreds? How many is too much? I think women deserve healthy reinforcement too.

And oh, by the way, what about those "dozens and dozens" of wonderful guys in the prime of life who have disappeared from the Vancouver area ... one of them leaving the engine running and the door open on his pick-up truck? Gone, zap! Just like that. Not worth a moment of anybody's time?

This might as well be rocket science, because I don't understand how MY choices are misplaced but yours aren't. I like the 4 women, I like the way they talk things through. That's all.

more quibbles

I think you've misunderstood my analogy. I made no connection between SITC and capitalism, merely between two visionaries and the fact that current events are playing out pretty much as they've predicted.

However, Capitalism AFAIK relies on growth to survive. The planet needs a steady-state to flourish. Those two needs are colliding more each day... and the long-term odds favour Earth over Mammon in my opinion, hence the "late-stage"

Likes and dislikes

Actually Mary, I think we agree on what we don't like about the show: vapid consumerism, and what we do like about the show: positive social bonds between the four women (even if all their other relationships, especially with men are screwed up). I would have just liked to see drastically more of the positive social bond. Unfortunately, it just seems that as the show got popular it became more of an advertisement. For me there is just too much advertising to make the show bearable. Plenty of my female friends feel differently... but they're still my friends.

Lost

Dorothy Woodend is making a very interesting point, I think, that should not be overlooked. She is not so much saying that there is not a place for pure entertainment, what some would call cinematic froth, in fact she states here:

What she's questioning and rightfully so is the the obsessive level of fascination that the show has engendered. Apparently it is breaking box office records all over the place in the last few days.

Woodend makes an excellent point about the precarious imbalance of how women in particular are presently being portrayed - that "strange cultural collusion" ( the tv reality show "bitches" etc) she mentions that is defining women in ways that are extremely unsettling, disturbing even.

For me at least, Dorothy, is asking some very good questions.

Personally, I find that under the present banner of so-called "liberation" flies an increasing desire for more and more artificiality, heaps of it, like spoonfuls of Splenda. The contrived seems to be "winning" ( for want of a better word) over the spontaneous and the real every time .

We seem lost somehow. What do men and women really want?

Do we have nothing better to do??

I'd like to make a point here about SATC breaking box office records. Remember Porky's (yes, that idiotic teen boy's wet dream 80s movie) did the same- I think it may even have been one of the higest grossing Canadian movies of all time.... so- let's chill out a bit, aye? Clearly we all love our smut- teen boys (though I'm sure they weren't all teens watching it) and girls/women alike. What's with the deep analysis??

I'm with BC Mary. Love the show- and Samantha is the queen.

Fi

Fair enough, Fi. We all like different things. But Woodend isn't writing just about Sex in the City.

What are your thoughts on what she has to say here:

Chill

Actually Fii, I think it's useful and healthy to point out what's wrong with entertainment like SatC. I think the people who need to chill are the SatC fans, who get all hot under their designer labels at any whiff of criticism of their media queens.

Really?

I wasn't aware Oprah and Ellen Degeneres were complete and utter bitches.(I hesitate to mention Sarah Silverman's new show - she possibly qualifies as a bitch, but I'm not sure she's the kind of bitch the author meant.)

Woodend's argument is simply unsound. Denise Richards, Dina Lohan, and Kimora Lee Simmons all have reality shows, therefore only "complete and utter bitches" can get TV shows?

Most reality shows are based on the simple voyeuristic pleasure of watching other people behave badly. (Why else would anyone give Danny Bonaducce air time?)

Why don't we put our energies into creating real change for women instead of criticizing each other's entertainment choices? (And calling each other idiots and bitches?)

All for one and .....

From my read of this thread no one has called anyone an idiot or bitch. Reality shows, on the other hand, seem to inspire such comparisons. ;-) Their exhibitionist participants have voluntarily chosen that line of fire.....and the big money that comes with that territory.

I'm not sure though why a TV show like SITC, especially such an influential one, should be somehow off bounds for criticism. On the whole, I think this has been an interesting discussion.

"The real change" you mention, Round Two, involves thinking about and questioning the human impact of the systems in which we live. That's what most of the comments, to their credit, have centered on.

As a woman, I think the guys here have only added to the discussion.

We're all ( both men and women) in this together aren't we?