Has “Sex and the City” Wreaked Havoc on the Female Psyche?

By Jason Fender

“Sex and the City” wrapped up its final season last year, but its deleterious impact lingers through endless HBO reruns and DVD sales. SATC seriously reinvented the singles’ dating scene. And the result isn’t positive, especially if you are a guy .

The SATC narrative has rendered the modern male a one-dimensional personality incapable of nuance, depth, or mystery. Whatever happened to the brooding mystique made popular by all of those Johnny Depp roles? The collective female consciousness is forever changed. If you are a man who doesn’t fit a basic archetype made popular by Carrie and the gang, the woman will have difficulty understanding you. She may be unable to process your complexities. She will likely not date you.

I don’t lay the blame entirely on SATC. But SATC creator Darren Star bears significant responsibility for creating one dimensional archetypes in such early Fox classics “Beverly Hills 90210” and “Melrose Place.” But today these 90’s teen/twenty something dramas appear a bit cartoonish in their flat, stereotypical caricatures. Like the Spin Doctors, 90210’s rude and
beachy Steve Sanders character just doesn’t hold up.

The creators of the “Real World” probably should be stoned for plying us with the Pedro & Puck dichotomy, and the ironically challenged Eric Nies male template. However, “Sex and the City” is so damn dangerous and relevant to the female soul right now that is deserves closer study.

SATC has relegated male identity to such simple archetypes as Mr. Big, Skipper, the cute bartender with an alliterative name, and the religious Jew. These simplified personas are no longer restricted to premium cable fiction. These SATC one-dimensional male personas have created a predictable lens through which real women understand men and dating. I thought that by the time women had reached their twenties, the pernicious remnants of the Sweet Valley High literary franchise would have evaporated. But no way. Savvy HBO executives cashed in on continuing the one-dimensional male personality with SATC. And HBO cast the former star of “Square Pegs” to lead the female narrative. Television programming brilliance, unless you
are a guy of course.

The problem is that SATC male characters have created a male model persona that millions of dudes are now compared with. This has its advantages to hook up if you resemble a pee-happy political paramour or a jittery jazz chap. If a guy can slink into one of these archetypes, he is in like Flynn unless of course he wants a relationship. If a dude wants more than just sex, it helps to morph into a thoughtful, if not morally rigid furniture designer ala Aidan Shaw’s SATC character. Or even better embrace clever one-liners and the sensitive soul of a dreamy writer like Carrie’s Jack Berger. [But only if you eventually plan to abscond late night leaving only a Post-it note for posterity.]

For a show that has won countless Emmys and critical acclaim, SATC’s male characterization is no more sophisticated than a trite network sitcom. I would be willing to put up Ray Barone from “Everybody Loves Raymond” against SATC’s Mr. Big anytime to see who is the bigger stereotypical male archetype. Ray Barone is a predictable and doofish Long Islander with a
nice looking family. Mr. Big is a nice looking bloke with a clichéd Manhattan appreciation for Armani suits, jazz, and finance. One is refined and hip if he embraces the SATC urban schematic. Would a guy get a second date if he trotted out that he TiVos “Everybody Love Raymond?”

The most disturbing aspect of the “Sex and the City” phenomenon is that its loyal female viewers identify so closely with the characters. On countless occasions, I have had frightening exchanges with otherwise smart and beautiful women where they compares themselves to Carrie, Samantha or one of the other female leads. The ease with which this real comparison to televised fiction rolls off the tongue in casual conversation is remarkable.
Does this mean that whatever happens to the show’s characters directly affects them? If Carrie moves to Paris, will a Carrie-phile seek international adventure in consistent identification with her “character?” On an optimistic note, SATC might actually inspire philanthropy; Samantha’s
work for breast cancer survivors might actually rally real life volunteerism in the show’s mortal followers. That is if she identifies with Samantha.

“Sex and the City” is a just a show. But I try and spin the program‘s success into delusional sociological relevance. Perhaps, SATC is just revenge for the objectification of women via the “male gaze” that has dominated visual narrative. SATC is dishing it back at the patriarchy by
providing one-dimensional male archetypes to be consumed by a long dormant, yet voracious female appetite. I doubt this was the motive behind creating this series, but it makes the show’s popularity a bit more palatable.

I fear that SATC’s unipersonal approach will become so central to dating life that I’ll need a singular persona just to make conversation with whomever I am dating or attempting to date. Being interesting has been replaced by being identifiable. The persona I adopt depends on who I am dating. Is she a Miranda or a Charlotte? But that might be easier for us guys. For a gender that embraces Vin Diesel and FHM magazine, we are a simple lot. The creators of “Sex and the City” might have tapped into something after all.

Ok, ladies ... everyone calm down and take a deep breath. If you feel that you are *indeed* Carrie re-incarnated and have a bone to pick with Jason, he can be reached at freetvfeedback@yahoo.com