In the midst of a feministe post examining the intriguing spectacle that is Dawn Eden (aka Everything I Ever Learned About Women I Learned From 'Sex in the City'), a commenter said something i thought was worth highlighting:
As for Sex & the City, I hated what I saw of it because I was living in Manhattan at the time (Columbia student), and it seemed to romanticize the classism I saw there. I think most conservatives hate it because (a) it has “sex” right there in the title, (b) the women are sexual agents, and (c) they can take general criticisms of shallowness and materialism and piggyback their sexual agenda on them.
As I said over there:
yupper. and i think that (c) is the real killer, not just with stuff like this but also the whole, o, gay men are so much richer than the rest of us! (lesbians don’t exist so much) just look at all these portrayals of Chelsea folk living the high life! see, o hardworking Just Folks out there in the mythical Heartland (because also, all gay folk and “independent” women who like teh sex live in the citay, on the coasts) they don’t need any more rights! in fact, their very existence is taking away from you! “let them eat quiche.”
There's not enough to go around; but don't for heaven's sake look at the origin of that idea; don't really concentrate on, say, why -are- we holding up people who live in some mythical bubble of fabulous wealth as ideals that we can never, ever live up to, but somehow should? (sex optional). And pay no attention to the billionaires and corporations behind the curtain. Just assume that this much is right and proper; the real problem is all those other people and "special interest groups" fighting over the crumbs that are left for the rest of us, be those material goods, civil rights, safety, food, clean water, shelter, good health, freedom, beauty, sex, love,friendship, attention, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," or anything else that one might desire. That's what it's all about, after all, right? There's not enough to go around. That's how it -has- to be. How else would we know that what we had, or indeed we ourselves, were worth anything?