Sex and the City - One of the guys???

For those of us who are fans of Sex and the City, we are willing to admit it has an overtone of consumerism, a focus on fashion labels, a presentation that some feminist commentators will criticise as being misrepresentative of the notion of choice (how free are we really if we are still spending energy primarily on choosing which shoes go with which outfit) and reinforces stereotypes of body image and values which we should question.

But we fans will also tell you SATC is a commentary on so many issues which women in the 21st century face. We strive to have fulfilling careers, find meaning outside our fashion, find support in our circle of female friends and sisters, try to combine children and mothering instincts with our need for independence, and the juggling act of all of this with finding a partner who will support us in our career and still fulfil us as women. And it is a commentary on the kind of men we are looking for (for those of us who are het. There is an interesting heterosexism which is never addressed in this show, especially given the fact there are various gay male characters in SATC, fun-loving companions who share the women's view on the world, inclduing love and fashion, but no mention is made of the fact that actress Cynthia Nixon, who plays working mother Miranda, happens to be a lesbian).

There are so many issues dealt with in a way so many of us can relate to - single motherhood, unfulfilled wish for children and fertility issues, breast cancer, sexual identity, career choices, balancing between career and love, where we seek our sense of fulfilment and sense of self, what is success, what is age, what is beauty. And the formula of Carrie Bradshaw's question-asking columns works every time to get us nodding or looking in the mirror and wondering.

It's just a pity, then, that when I read a short interview with Sarah Jessica parker about the first SATC film (which even to die-hard fans was a "light" and therefore highly unsatisfying version of the real thing) she twisted this identification women have with the characters into a gender conversation that totally misses the point. She rightly commented that the fact that the characters talk so openly about work and sex and what they do and don't like or want is a move forward for female characters in popular media. She unfortunately said this meant we are finally "one of the guys".

Why can't this be about what we are all looking for? What it is to be a woman in the 21st century. Why does this have to be about being in a man's world, and qualifying sexual and career emancipation and the open discourse as "being one of the guys"? Sorry, Sarah Jessica, you lost me on that one.