Deborah Ross

Losing heart | 29 May 2010

There has already been a lot of talk about this second Sex and the City film along the lines of whether the franchise is feminist, pre-feminist, post-feminist, not feminist, was feminist once, for ten minutes, but didn’t like it, or pre- and post-feminist, in which case, it’s probably best to leave them to fight it out.

issue 29 May 2010

There has already been a lot of talk about this second Sex and the City film along the lines of whether the franchise is feminist, pre-feminist, post-feminist, not feminist, was feminist once, for ten minutes, but didn’t like it, or pre- and post-feminist, in which case, it’s probably best to leave them to fight it out.

There has already been a lot of talk about this second Sex and the City film along the lines of whether the franchise is feminist, pre-feminist, post-feminist, not feminist, was feminist once, for ten minutes, but didn’t like it, or pre- and post-feminist, in which case, it’s probably best to leave them to fight it out. As Professor Susan Lipstein of the International School of Sex and the City Studies told me, ‘I’m minded to say it’s only a bit of fun, get a life, but I don’t want to talk myself out of a job, so instead I’ll say: buying handbags is always empowering, except in those instances when it’s not.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in