A must-read today from Judith Warner in today's NYTimes ("Women in Charge, Women Who Charge") in which she argues that in a nation indifferent to the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton over the past 16 months, no wonder a film like “Sex and the City” is a hit. Writes Warner:How antithetical Hillary’s earnest, electric blue pants-suited whole being is to the frothy cheer of that film, which has women now turning out in droves, a song in their hearts, unified in popcorn-clutching sisterhood to a degree I haven’t seen since the ugly, angry days of Anita Hill and … the first incarnation of Hillary Clinton. How times have changed. How yucky, how baby boomerish, how frowningly pre-Botox were the early 1990s. How brilliantly does “Sex” – however atrocious it may be – surf our current zeitgeist, sugar-coating it all in Blahniks and Westwood, and yummy men and yummier real estate, and squeakingly desperate girl cheer....Read the full piece here.
ADDENDUM: As per urbanartiste's comment, I have yet to see the movie yet and I do expect I'll enjoy it, having been an SATC addict, nevertheless!
2 comments:
Can someone explain to me why I can't love fashion and be a feminist at the same time. I understand some of the objection to SATC, but this turning back into 2nd wave feminist expectations.
Gotta say I couldn't stand Warner's column (I never like her columns) but really adored Gail Collins' "What Hillary Won" column. Can I recommend that as a must read? Along with Bob Herbert's on Obama? Both very nice, very true, and very classy.
Post a Comment