Discrimination Against Single Women
Carrie Bradshaw from the television show "Sex and the City" attends a friend's baby shower and is forced to take off her shoes at the door because the family likes to keep their floor clean. "But...." Carrie attempts to bargain, timidly, "This is an outfit," as she eyes herself from head to toe. Still, a guest is a guest, gotta abide the house rule. At the end of the party, another size-seven shoe-aholic with undoubtedly impeccable taste has apparently stolen her shoes. The Manolo is nowhere to be found and remains mysteriously vanished for weeks. Carrie's friend then offers to pay for them until she learns the price and gasps, "I don't think we should pay for your extravagant lifestyle, Carrie." in her own defense, Carrie claims that her friend used to wear Manolo herself. She admits, and yet she insists that is only before she has a life.
As "romantically challenged" as Carrie Bradshaw, I can't help it but wonder -- what is considered "having a life"? Having a husband? A ring that lives on your second last finger? Baby showers? Clean floor? And what is considered "not having a life"? Having seventeen pairs of shoes and twenty two bags? Having three closets in the house? Having a cat instead of children? Having a ridiculously busy, packed schedule instead of a male companion? Carrie then announces that she is getting married to herself. Her friend receives an invitation and is advised to pick up her registered gift -- at a Manolo shop -- she already knows the price beforehand, of course. So, who says we can't get married to ourselves? True love seems to be an idea that exists legitimately only in Jane Austen’s nineteenth century novels. Romance can only be played out by actors on stage with scripts and props and Shakespeare’s fourteen-lined sonnets that make sense merely in the context of Renaissance period. It's twenty-first century and some of us will reach our mid/late twenties. What do we have besides Manolo and martini? He’s Just Not that Into You?
I am against discrimination against single women.
Labels: Romantically Challenged
posted by Amanda Sung @ 1:07 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
It's interesting that you took such a defensive take on this "episode". I don't really see it as discrimination against single women. By putting it that way, you're stereotyping single women as being a bunch of Carrie's. The issue is not so much about being single; it's about chasing after materialism.
Perhaps her friend meant "having a MEANINGFUL life", one that's not lived only for money and nice things. Is it possible for people to "love" fashion and nice things the way they love people? And it doesn't have to be in a romantic kind of way. Humans are made to feel deeply and meant for relationships with one another- whether it's with friends, family, etc.
In my opinion, the fulfillment that material things give us just can't quite match up to what love has to offer. Again, I mean love of all kinds, not just romance.
The television show Sex and the City is entirely focused on the life of each of the four single women in New York, Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha Jones, Charlotte York, and Miranda Hobbes. The story evolves as they, or some of them, meet their soul mates, get married, have children, divorce, and so on. If this scene had not occurred in this particular television show, your point might have been valid. However, in the context of Sex and the City, the issue was most probably about being a single woman in her mid-thirty. I am not sure how closely you follow Sex and the City, but Carrie Bradshaw is definitely one of the most loving friends in New York. She has gone out of her ways to celebrate her friend’s birthday, written beautiful poetry for her friend's wedding, and so much more. It was unlikely that her married-with-a-husband-and-kids friend was attacking Carrie's lack of fulfillment that love can offer. In my opinion, she was attacking Carrie for investing so much into something that her friend considers her past. The friend used to wear Manolo, too, but now, she is married and has a family, so that qualifies her as a woman with a life. On the other hand, Carrie, a woman of the same age, still does not possess what the married woman does. Therefore, according to the married one, has no choice but gear all her attention to shoes. In short, I feel this episode points out the trend that some married women in the Western society tend to feel superior to single women because having a husband and children provides the former "a life", which, in turn, then no longer requires Manolo. This is how I decode it. I see it as a message to women, both single and married. Any woman has the right to live her life the way she sees fit, or however that makes her happy. It could involve a husband, children, a huge closet (Carrie's case), religion conversion (Charlotte becomes a Jew for the man that she loves), lots of sex (Samantha, as usual), and so on. There is no such thing as married women having a life, whereas single women do not. Carrie's defense is merely a mirror, for the viewers who happen to be single women, to reflect that they need not to envy or emulate to the married women out there. They are not superior. So what if they have husbands and children? If that is the life they want, that's great, good for them, but just because a single woman doesn't want the same thing, it doesn't mean she got no life.
So having said that, I am almost certain that the scene was not about the chase after materialism. It is much deeper and more complex than just a pair of shoes. There is indeed a sense of horror in the minds of many single women for being unmarried and childless at the age of mid-thirty. Perhaps it is a feeling that we 20-something young girls have not yet been able to completely grasp, but I could somewhat conjure how lonely and terrified some of them may occasionally feel. After all, it is the convention, the standard of the Western society, for a woman to be married and have children by the time they turn mid-thirty. Not everyone fits that profile. Some will be bound to deviate, in one way or another. Some turn to shoes, while some turn to other things. Does it mean they have no life? Oh, far from it! :)
Thanks for the explanation hun. I see what you're getting at now and it makes a lot more sense. It's quite interesting to hear your analysis of the show, esp since I don't follow it at all. Wouldn't it be interesting had that friend changed her mind and became one of those trendy moms that dress their kids in baby Dior?
But either way, there'll always be these stereotypes. How else will advertisers sell to these target markets? lol. Another way to look at it however, is that many of the married women (like the friend) are jealous of the single women (like Carrie) and made those comment in order to comfort themselves (not that it justifies anything).
I guess in a way, I can catch a glimpse of it because as you enter married life and eventually family life, your priorities are often forced to change. Some may give up on the finer things willingly but I'm sure at times, they too will miss the good single days and the perks that come with them. So perhaps those married mothers aren't trying so much to be arrogant or flaunting their superiority. Women need to sympathize with each other more and recognize that not very many of us can truly "have it all".
We are such communication nerds eh? ;)love it!
Yes, we are such Communications nerds, and I love it! But I love YOU more, Joyce. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home