“Post-Postfeminist”? WTF???

As I was happily reading stories about how the writer’s strike has been resolved (go, labor, go!), I ran across this article about Sex and the City that disturbed me in many ways, not the least of which is the following quote:

It’s clear that viewers are more than a little Sex-starved. So we couldn’t help but wonder: In a post-postfeminist, post-Carrie Bradshaw world, will there ever be another Sex and the City?

What, exactly, is meant by that? Does that mean we are “further away” from the feminist movement in general? Are people so beyond feminism that a term requires TWO prefixes to establish a suitable amount of distance? And what, exactly, does this have to do with Carrie Bradshaw? I am terribly confused here . . .In general I am conflicted about Sex and the City. Strong women? Awesome. Women enjoying sex? Duh. Women being obsessed with shoes? Hmmm . . . not so much. Women obsessing over boyfriend after boyfriend? Ugh.I understand that lots of people find the show endearing and even empowering. However, I wonder if all the hype around Sex and the City as the hallmark of the “postfeminist” (God, I hate that word) movement turned that sitcom into simply a more amusing (and thus, scarier) way to pigeonhole women into the “virgin” (Charlotte), the “whore” (Samantha), and the “tomboy” (Miranda).I don’t want to live in a post-postfeminist world (not unless it means the two “posts” cancel each other out). And I certainly do not require a replacement SatC in order for me to feel proud to be a woman.