Candace Bushnell: SATC’s message was ‘not very feminist at the end’

Authors Night With The East Hampton Library

Whenever I go back and watch some of the original episodes from Sex and the City’s HBO run, I’m just struck by how superficial and selfish Carrie Bradshaw is. The more I read Candace Bushnell’s work and interviews, I’m struck by how much depth she has. It must be somewhat painful for Candace when people expect her to be like Carrie, because she’s really not. Candace has sh-t to say about aging and ageism, erasure, being a childfree woman, feminism and a lot more. Candace gave an interview to the NY Post to promote her one-woman show (based on her book) Is There Still Sex in the City? She chatted about feminism, money, sexual harassment and a lot more. Some highlights:

How she views the SATC series now: After years ago insisting she wasn’t going to answer any more questions about “the non­existent-in-reality Carrie Bradshaw,” Bushnell has made peace with her legacy. “I don’t look at the TV show the way other people look at it. I don’t parse every little bit. It’s a great show, it’s really funny. But there are fans who . . . it’s like, that show really guides them.”

Don’t base your dream on landing Mr. Big: “The reality is, finding a guy is maybe not your best economic choice in the long term. Men can be very dangerous to women in a lot of different ways. We never talk about this, but that’s something that women need to think about: You can do a lot less . . . when you have to rely on a man. The TV show and the message were not very feminist at the end. But that’s TV. That’s entertainment. That’s why people should not base their lives on a TV show.”

She’s not surprised that HBO is bringing the series back: “HBO’s going to make money on it. They’re going to exploit it as much as they can. They rebooted ‘Gossip Girl.’ If they didn’t reboot ‘Sex in the City,’ it would be really strange.”

On ‘And Just Like That’: “I don’t know anything about what the new show’s going to be about. Of course I’m going to watch it . . . I hope it runs for six seasons. I get paid a little bit of money.”

Bushnell respects Kim Cattrall: “I absolutely love Kim. But it seems she wants to do other things, and she doesn’t feel like doing the show. Maybe she doesn’t want to be that character anymore. Maybe she doesn’t want to put the Spanx on! In real life, those women are not those characters — they are the opposite. Sarah Jessica Parker, she’s been married forever to the same guy. She’s got kids. I don’t know her very well, but she seems to be very family-oriented [in a way Carrie is not]. [Parker] is rich. She is not keeping her sweater in an oven [instead of a closet, like Carrie once did], OK? When she was in her 20s, she was very successful. I wasn’t, and I was scared.”

Moving to NYC as a teenager: She moved to NYC at 19 with just $20 in her pocket and felt fear on the streets ­“every minute . . . You couldn’t walk half a block without being harassed. I mean, ­really harassed. Harassed in a way that you just — you’d feel yourself shrinking down to nothing and just feeling so ashamed. You have to figure out, ‘How can I handle this?’ ” Bushnell recalled. Her tactic was to tell off her harassers: “F–k you, f–kers!’ Because you can’t make it go away.”

SATC was about more than sex: “It was the larger idea of what’s sexy: ­Doing business is sexy, being ambitious is sexy, staying up until 4 in the morning and partying is sexy. Power conversation is sexy. Getting to the number-one table in the restaurant — that’s sexy. New York was sexy. It was exciting, but at the same time, it was filled with landmines like Harvey Weinstein. These men are freaking scary. I would actually look at these guys and I would think, ‘How could the women even be around them?’ ”

[From The NY Post]

I like what she says about how women shouldn’t pin all their hopes and dreams to landing Mr. Big, that women need to take care of themselves and their finances. In that aspect, SATC was a throwback, because by focusing so much on their love lives, it made it seem like they were just waiting for a man to change their lives (I mean, except Sam). Also this: “Men can be very dangerous to women in a lot of different ways.” Yep.

Candace Bushnell

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

45 Responses to “Candace Bushnell: SATC’s message was ‘not very feminist at the end’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Bettyrose says:

    I said this all along. The sexual freedom was always a thin veneer over looking for husbands and Carrie especially was a truly awful person who bragged about not voting. I get that it was just light escapist entertainment which is fine. But it never had a feminist message.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      If it did, they certainly buried it. I don’t think women should rule their lives by it either. Bushnell seems to have washed her hands after the book that it was based on, except for the big $$$ she gets for it. Though it’s enjoyable for entertainment, that’s about as far as the ball goes. I am glad though that she mentioned Kim Catrall, and how much she loves her! I enjoy her bringing up Catrall and how much she loves her and fully respects her desire not to do the show for other jobs or she doesn’t want to do it anymore.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Carrie pretty much became SJP and don’t get me started on the stalking of Mr Big, who yes was an a-hole but she was obsessed with him.

      • minx says:

        Remember when Carrie stalked Big at church? Then she desperately introduced herself to his mother as “I’m Carrie!” and the woman had obviously never heard of her. As far as my eventual schadenfreude towards Carrie, that ranked up there with Berger’s “Nice hat!” 🤣

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Agreed. And I’ve said from the first time the show aired, it looks like it was made by misogynists, who wanted to portray women in the worst possible light (racist, selfish, superficial, man-chasers). I never saw the appeal.

  2. Tiffany says:

    People seem to forget that Candace’ s articles and books were so much darker and realistic about her life in NYC than the material that was in the show.

    Sarah Jessica Parker had a ton on clauses in her contract which made it impossible to have the show that should have been . Then she became an executive producer and we saw what happened after that.

    • GillySirl says:

      haha – you are correct! it became a rom-com.

    • minx says:

      Yes. The pilot was grittier than what the show eventually became. SJP turned it into her star vehicle, where the plots devolved into hot men throwing themselves at Carrie. They let Kim Cattrall carry the “sex” part of SATC, no wonder she finally bailed.

      • GillySirl says:

        it turned into the perfect example of a pretty white girl failing up and always landing on her feet. her only struggle was picking bad men.

      • Sid says:

        Minx, I’ve always thought the first 2 seasons were the most enjoyable. But then there was a very definite shift in the vibe of the show around season 3 or so, and then it became insanely popular and all anyone talked about was the fashion and that overtook everything. I never connected the change to SJP becoming an EP as Tiffany noted, but it all makes sense now.

    • Katie says:

      Would you recommend reading the source books today in 2021?

      • ConcernFae says:

        I was just about to recommend that. They probably have some problematic stuff, but they would be a pretty good measure of what a self and politically aware white woman in NYC in the early mid 90s thought. I gave my copy away, but I am now tempted to see if the library has it. Don’t know if I’ll watch the new series. Probably will read the new book.

        I remember how funny and astute it was. Meaning it didn’t give platitudes. Candace called it like she saw it. She came up with the term “toxic bachelor,” which covered not just horrible men, but men who act like they want to get married, but then never get around to wanting to marry any individual woman.

  3. Sasha says:

    I think it’s important to view the show in the context of it’s time. It clearly resonated very strongly with a lot of women, so in that sense I think it was a feminist show. It focused on women’s lives, their goals, their difficulties. Yes it was incredibly male-focused too and it hasn’t aged wonderfully, but SATC will always have a place in my heart and watching it feels like eating comfort food for me – not the healthiest thing I could be consuming but it makes me happy!

    • FrodoOrOdo says:

      I think that makes it female focused, not feminist.

    • ThatsNotOkay says:

      If by “feminism” you mean “white feminism,” then, sure. Have at it.

    • Betsy says:

      I can’t bring myself to watch it anymore, and I am embarrassed that I ever thought it represented how adult humans should act. For me it’s not comfort food, it’s the kind of processed garbage that makes you feel sick almost instantly.

      • minx says:

        To me it’s a period piece, a snapshot of NYC in the late 90s and early aughts, but it became less credible when Michael Patrick King and SJP took it over. By the time the series ended I felt some affection for Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte, their story arcs were satisfying and believable. Carrie became and remained a selfish character who inexplicably got rich men to paper over the flaws in her life. I never bought that Carrie was so irresistible, charming and adorable that she ended up with the best looking and wealthiest of the male characters. At the end of the series she’s walking down an NYC street with shopping bags, Carrie again propped up by a rich guy. Ugh.

    • Isabella says:

      I will always love the term “modelizer,” which I first heard on Sex & the City. It perfectly describes Johnny Depp, Leo, and Adam Levine–among others.

  4. Eve says:

    Oh, Candace…it never was.

    I had a friend who was a huge friend of the show. I spent the weekend at her house once and was held hostage while she (or we both as I was out of excuses to escape) watched the fourth or fifth season.

    Torture is a mild word to describe what I experienced.

    P.S.: She had ALL the seasons and kept telling me she’d gladly let me borrow them anytime.

    No. Just no.

    • Anners says:

      Haha! I feel this! I had a roommate who loved the show and always tried to tell me it was a great show. Occasionally I’d watch it with her and everytime she said “well, that episode wasn’t a great example. Normally it’s amazing”. I never got to see an amazing episode. All the characters seemed vapid and silly. But what do I know 🤷‍♀️

  5. Noki says:

    Carrie Bradshaw and her obsession with a man that treated her like crap always made me ill.
    Also why cant SJP let this go,she was set to be the next Julia Roberts,Reese Witherspoon..what happened ?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Yes!!! Someone pease tell her we DON’T want a 20th reboot or series!!

      Face it, SJP is only doing it for money!

  6. Meg says:

    ‘SATC was a throwback, because by focusing so much on their love lives, it made it seem like they were just waiting for a man to change their lives (I mean, except Sam). ‘
    Huh? How did miranda wait for a a man to change her life?

    Didnt the series end with the quote more important than your relationship with a man its your relationship with yourself

    • ReginaGeorge says:

      I agree. Miranda wasn’t sitting around waiting for a man to complete her. She was the opposite. She was the one sitting at that table weekly, rolling her eyes at Charlotte and Carrie’s stories most of the time. Miranda was ready to be a single mom and told Steve that up front. It wasn’t until Steve showed up to her mom’s funeral did she really start seeing Steve as someone she could spend her life with. Her and Steve’s relationship was always the most organic to me.

      • Betsy says:

        I can’t even fault Charlotte for wanting a husband; she was very clear that a traditional life with a husband and kids was what mattered to her. Feminism does not mean you can never get happily married and have children, it means (in part) that you do not derive your entire sense of self worth from the states of marriage and motherhood.

        The ONLY character on that show that defined herself through men was Carrie.

    • bettyrose says:

      I agree that Miranda and Samantha brought some sanity to the show, but Carrie was front and center, and her character especially is a horror show by today’s standards. I can just see the Carrie of 2018 trying to get into a party thrown by Ivanka and Jerrod.

      • Noki says:

        @Bettyrose do you think Carries was a republican?

      • bettyrose says:

        No, I think she was apolitical, but while that might have flown under the radar in the 90s, in 2016 sitting out elections was highly problematic. And I totally think she would’ve wanted in on the Trump party scene in Manhattan. I don’t know if that was ever discussed in the books/show but the protagonist in American Psycho (who traveled in the same circles that Big would’ve been in) was fascinated by Trump. I’m just piecing it all together.

    • HandforthParish says:

      Miranda didn’t wait for a man to change her life, but because of a man she ended up having a child she didn’t really want, giving up the perfect Manhattan apartment that she bought and was so proud of, and moving to ‘suburbia’ (I know it was Brooklyn but for her it was leaving the city).
      She even ended up carer to his mother! There was a particularly nauseating bit in the last episode where Steve’s mother has run off and Miranda has to put her in a bath to wash her, and her weird Russian nanny looks on approvingly and tells her that she finally knows what love is… Erm, no!

      All this and the guy cheats on her because she’s not present enough??? And her friends tell her she should forget it because Steve is a ‘nice guy’????

      Fuck that. The bar was so low for men- Big was a self-satisfied arsehole, Aidan was a passive aggressive ‘nice guy’, Steve was whiny and immature… The only decent one was Smith.

  7. ReginaGeorge says:

    Carrie specifically ending up with Big was not feminism, imo. He was the worst. He treated her like crap, constantly left her when things would get serious and only came back when he’d notice she was moving on. I hated that she ended up with him.

  8. AmyB says:

    I, like many, enjoyed HBO’s Sex and the City when it aired – early 2000s. I was also, late 20s/early thirties. It was fun, and we could all live vicariously through these female characters. However, even then I could see what an utterly selfish character Carrie was (ummm….Aiden????). But looking back on it now? Some 20 years later, yeah. Carrie is a very problematic character, completely self-absorbed, narcissistic, and while I think the other three women showed growth through the series, Carrie never did. The movies? Don’t get me started on them LOL.

    I will probably check out the latest “And Just Like That” (since I already have HBO), just for nostalgia sake, but I am expecting a train wreck, much like SATC Movie #2!

    Candance is correct in her statement about SATC not being very feminist in the end. However, I think she is specifically referring to Carrie’s character IMO. Samantha, and Miranda always remained strong and independent, but grew to let their partners in. Yes, Charlotte got what she always wanted (marriage), but she showed strength & growth thru her difficulties of divorce, and infertility. But hey, it was damn tv series, meant to be fun, and enjoyable (and aired like 20 years ago). Let’s face it, some aspects of the series certainly would not work in today’s climate.

    • Nic919 says:

      I never watched any of the movies, but I did finish the series even though by the end I hated Carrie the most. Both Big and Baryshnikov were toxic men that Carrie spent her time chasing and had the show sent the message that Carrie doing this was a bad thing then that would be fine, but they romanticized some of the worst relationships. Samantha and Miranda were the only ones I could tolerate by the end as being somewhat realistic.

      It was a soap opera more than anything and any claim to feminist messages has been lost years earlier.

      It’s also a show that has not aged very well.

  9. GR says:

    Oh yeah, the guys in NYC used to be terrifying – the harassment never stopped. I know there must still be a lot of it, but at one point it was constant.

    • justtiffany says:

      @ GR Says,
      I remember being 14 in NYC and witnessing a man slap a woman on the train for refusing his advances. it was very traumatizing for me, that was how I learned to always be nice to men who try to talk to me, to find, nice, polite ways to refuse them ( even going as far as to wear fake wedding rings, although it did not help much) . now that I’m grown a no thank you for anyone who is respectful but I’m quick with the f**k off as well.

    • Emma says:

      Chicago ten years ago was similar for me. I was stunned and horrified.

  10. Veronica S. says:

    The show was fun, but it was never going to be a feminist piece because the women in it were wealthy, IMO. Money protects people from a lot of life’s issues, even if they’re female or a minority. It greases the gears too much otherwise to really dig into the ways society can be an oppressive force.

  11. AmelieOriginal says:

    I didn’t watch the show while it was on the air, I was in the middle of high school when it ended. Plus my family didn’t have cable. But after it went on the air, censored “clean” versions of the episodes started airing late night (like around 11 PM) on the WB back when it was still the WB which is how I ended up watching it. They didn’t really air in order, so I pieced together the storylines from the different seasons. From the get go, I found Carrie annoying, shallow, selfish, and a terrible friend and I was only 15 or 16 at the time. I despaired that the show’s main character wasn’t one of the other women. I would tell that to people who always acted so surprised when I did. “Oh but she’s a romantic! She’s an icon! You just want to root for her!” No, I never did. Now it seems the majority agree with me but I seemed to be an outlier in the early 2000s (I also wasn’t the show’s target demographic). It’s nice to see that the author who created the character mostly agrees with that sentiment. I have never read the books so I can’t say how Book Carrie compares to TV Carrie, but it seems they changed the character dramatically for TV.

  12. PPP says:

    Do you remember the issue about the woman with the verbally abusive husband? Carrie convinced her to leave him, but when she starts dating she’s too old/nonviable for the NYC dating scene. The solution is she goes back to her husband and gets a dog he can yell at. Like whaaaaaaaat

    • minx says:

      Yes, it was Carrie’s friend Susan Sharon who had the screaming husband. She left him but hated being single so they got back together, complete with Charlotte’s old dog. They tried to make it jokey but it was a weird storyline.

  13. Mel says:

    The end of SATC was an entire mess. Why is it “romantic” that a man who has played emotional mind games with you throughout your ENTIRE relationship, dumped you for other people and only seems to want you when you’re happy with someone else seen as some sort of prize? If someone had to get her in Paris, it should have been Aidan but the best ending would have been her telling the Russian to kick rocks and heading back home on her own.