judith warner's juxtaposition of sexism with regard to the hillary clinton campaign and with regard to sex and the city strikes me as extremely odd. blame men for the former, but surely you can't blame men for the values embodied in sex and the city, values even its devotees refer to by the summary term "manolo." and i don't think she makes any connection. well, what is the connection? i'm pondering. so the "ball-busting" thing indeed captures a big male anxiety. but what has that got to do with women buying tickets for sex and the city? it can't be that women deserve sexism or something. whether they do or not, all the connections are displaced in this juxtaposition. or if they do, do they deserve it in virtue of their preternatural castrating power or their frivolous commitment to cosmetics and cosmopolitans? it can't be both. or it could be, but how could it be? or maybe the connection is that sex and the city represents the false consciousness of the victims of misogyny? i don't know, surely not, exactly. hillary, more and more, seems squarely second-wave ms-mag feminism. what kind of feminism does sex and the city represent, if any? well it also doesn't represent mere happy capitulation in subservience. got no idea, brothers and sisters.