>kelley wrote:
> > This is really evident in the coffee shop scenes whenever they bring up
> > some controversial topic: spit or swallow? pussy eating etiquette. hummers.
> > to put out or not. etc. Samantha and Charlotte typically provide the most
> > extreme responses. Carrie and Miranda are always somewhere between
> > them--portrayed as the most like real (or typical) women. But, Miranda is
> > just too successful, too independent, too Redhead. She will appeal to some
> > men. And speaking of isn't it interesting: what about the class/social
> > power implications of pairing a high powered attorney with a barkeep? Liza?
> >
>
>Yeah, this is interesting. I like having her be the one with the
>high-powered job while he is the homebody, and how completely it seems to
>fit both their personalities. Their relationship and its tensions seems like
>one of the least contrived and most realistic things about the show. Also,
>Steve is a great representation of a modern working-class guy: he totally
>codes as working-class yet -- contrary to usual crude stereotype of
>working-class man, he is more attuned to the relationship than she is, great
>with the kid, etc. In a way this is an updated variation of an old cliche --
>he is the authentic feeling, sweating worker to her cold yuppie -- but
>what's unusual for TV is a portrayal of a working-class guy who is not an
>ignorant Archie Bunker or a thuggy gangster or cop or some other stock
>Neanderthal, but a really sensitive cool person who likes to read and is
>comfortable in his own skin. He doesn't need Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
>Everyone knows that's not at all unusual in life but I can't think of many
>other examples on TV.
>
>Liza
IME, it's that most of the working class guys I've known grew up in single-mom homes. They saw their mothers struggle _and_ invariably had to help out around the house. My son, for instance, is aware of how much money we have in our budget, where it goes, what needs to be cut back on here or there to have things we'd like, and what happens when mom doesn't pick up the messes all the time. (That does not mean I have a perfect kid....we still struggle over the same things that others struggle over).
In the school district he's attending, something like 90% of households are married w/ children. Of those we've come to know, the kids don't have any household responsibilities. Social science researchers have documented this trend over time and looked at demographic variables. Part of it is the fact that the kids are expected to be constantly on the go in addition to school. It's supposed to be play--sports, dance lessons, golf lessons, drama club--but it's play in the service of something else: striving and status competition.
For whatever reason, the men I've known from poorer, single mom homes tend to be able to handle strong, independent women who actually use their brains.
As for Steve.... One of the problems I have with the show is the subtext that the right man will tame them. It's kind of like Steve is standing there smirking, completely aware that the Ice Queen routine isn't really Miranda. She's just afraid of getting hurt and if he just sticks it out, she'll melt and the Real Miranda will emerge.
Charlotte, we discover, just needed was to lower her expectations.
Samantha's Smith just _knows_ that Sam's stereotypically male attitude toward sex is all an act. Sam still lurvs sex for the sake of sex, it's just now in a committed relationship. Last night she said 'boyfriend.' And don't forget the sobering experience of cancer to tame your ass because Bad Girls suffer for their Bad Behavior.
Carrie's relationships don't quite work out this way. The Sexpot, Bitch, and Virgin are the foils against which we are to, supposedly, examine the more realistic relationships between Carrie and the (Urban) Big, the (Works with his Hands Country Boy) Furniture Man, and the (Cosmopolitan Artist) Russian. (I'm not sure if I'm happy with this reading here. I'm missing something )
I'm a little relieved that they actually addressed the older man thing last night. But a little annoyed that what seems to be the subtext: The REASON why women don't find happiness is that they won't mature and leave the Company of Women.
I think I got into the show for a couple of reasons. First, it was situational: It became a kind of cherished routine: I'd work all day, put in my stint paint or refinishing furniture, take the kid to practice, come home and work out for a couple of hours. With an adrenalin high, I'd park my butt in front of the tube to catch the nightly re-runs at 8 pm EST.
Second, the conversations these women had resonated with my own life. I'd laugh at the titillating conversation and think, "Too hilarious! I remember having that conversation with Jill..." or "Oh, lord, Michele and I just giggled about this the other day." It was refreshing to hear people talking about these things publicly. This is typical, IME, of working class women's lives. People tend to speak pretty bluntly about sex and there's an acceptableness re: complaining about the men in your life. This has never been an aspect of the white bread lives of professional women I've been around. Those topics are for behind closed doors, and certainly not for the consumption of three other people. In part, it's a puritanical ethos, but it's also meritocratic individualism. If you speak about imperfections in your relationship, you're admitting to some sort of failure. Proper women don't mention their husband's impotence, affairs, failure to do the laundry.
But beyond that, one thing common across the status divide is that even when we have these conversations, analysis is verboten. (Unless you can find fellow lefties you hit it off with). In real conversations with women and men who aren't feminists, there's a tendency to stop just short of any sort of gender analysis. It's OK to engage in it by reference to things "everybody knows" or by reference to Mars/Venus bunk, but to actually examine anything a bit more deeply might entail some discomfort because then it's not all about finding the right man or fixing things by the dint of your own efforts. It might actually require something more.
This is not to say that there was much in the way of enlightened analysis on SATC, but there was a willingness to examine the topics as, possibly, about something _more_ than the foibles of two individuals. Still, whatever leanings it had in that direction, it seems undermined my the subtext: Women are their own Worst Enemy.
Kelley