June 6, 2008, - 1:11 pm

As If: Toronto Star Columnist Calls Schlussel “Sexist,” “Threatened” By “Sex & the City” Hags, Compares Them to James Bond (?!)

By Debbie Schlussel
Methinks Toronto Star columnist Peter Howell surrendered his man card.
In a column decrying the film critics–including myself and Roger Ebert–who didn’t like “Sex and the City,” he calls us “sexist” and claims that we are “threatened” by the success of these four non-existent, fictional sailor-esque man-chicks:

A lot of people who should know better are stunned and appalled that Sex and the City made the Earth move with its $57 million opening weekend, the most ever for an R-rated comedy. [DS: I wasn’t shocked. I predicted it. Most American women are incurable sheep-ettes.]
Could it be these people feel a little threatened, too? . . .


Ad Absurdum: Columnist Claims This Equals This

Even female scribes have been hexed by Sex. Film blogger Debbie Schlussel socked it to the sisters with a screed titled “Hags and the City,” in which she declared the release of SATC to be “a national IQ test for women” that many failed when they bought a ticket.
“Unfortunately, (the SATC foursome) are Delphic oracles to far too many American women, if the long lines of drooling women who packed four large theatres at a promotional screening I attended were any indication,” Schlussel wrote.
Why do so many critics and commentators have Sex on the brain? Are they unable to accept a movie about four successful women?

Um, you mean the movie about four successful men. They wear skirts and make-up, but they behave like the aging frat boys in “Old School.” They don’t act like women. And they sure don’t act like ladies.
And, FYI, they’re NOT successful, with the exception of the sluttiest–and most masculine among them–Samantha, the sex addict. Miranda, the lesbian-looking, emasculating red-head lawyer whose bartender hubby is the shrewed up chick in the relationship, isn’t doing so well. Another, Charlotte, doesn’t work and marries rich men. Gold-digging is not a profession. Or maybe it is. The starring role, Carrie, is a loser who lost her column, whose books aren’t that big, and who needs to marry a man to get her gold, as well.
And you never see these women work. They just gab, lunch, shop, swear, and have sex in various positions. Their success is a figment of Hollywood.
But here’s my fave part of Peter Howell’s column:

I can actually think of a rough male equivalent for SATC. It’s a film franchise about a man with a huge ego and unfettered sense of entitlement, who cavorts with people who have spectacular budgets for clothes, cars and travel. Our hero consumes vast quantities of liquor and caviar and thinks nothing of trashing his high-priced toys.
His name is James Bond. His 22nd movie, Quantum of Solace, is currently being filmed. And when it is released this fall, you won’t find anybody seriously suggesting that the enjoyment of it is a chance to get men out of the house, a degrading of the national IQ or a recruitment opportunity for the Taliban.
And why is that?

Peter, if you need to ask, that means the castration procedure was a success.
Carrie Bradshaw is the new “James Bond”? Please help me stop laughing.

4 Responses

The idea of women’s lib was to empower women, not to make them into a bunch of overgrown teens with too much time on their hands. The fact American women appear to cotton to SATC is a statement on their intelligence. And don’t get me started on James Bond. He may have had beautiful women but sexual conquests weren’t his first calling. It was saving the world. The four aging harlots in SATC have nothing on him in the what did you do with your life department. Sleeping around with a succession of indifferent men is something no one will put on their tombstone marker.

NormanF on June 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Sex & the City really seems to be the movie of the day. Several organizations I am a member of are having Sex & the City parties (which I decline to go to); it is seldom they have had comparable events for any other movie.
I’m a little surprised that it is this particular post that seems to have struck such a nerve, with everything you write about the disloyal pro-terrorist Muslims, the immigration farce, and so on. Maybe part of the reason is the narcissism of the elite & those they influence. Their lives rvolve around immediate gratification & maybe they see your comments as a threat to this.
If they are downplaying 9/11, I guess it doesn’t take much to just ignore what you are saying about Muslims, since it hasn’t hit home the way sex does — look at the cutting-edge nature of abortion for the elite. Immediate self-gratification.

c f on June 6, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I hear there are openings for people with extreme cases of mental problems and such. That guy who critized you and others for telling it like it is, should seroiusly look into that.

Squirrel3D on June 6, 2008 at 5:00 pm

that canadian writer should worry less about debbie and worry more why there health system is a failure and why they put gravy on french fries

PNAMARBLE on June 6, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field