Cynthia Nixon reflects on how ‘Sex & the City’ was actually kind of problematic


wenn5488703

As an Xennial, I was a real-time viewer and fan of several shows which are currently enjoying a second-life popularity thanks to syndication. The younger peeps can now watch Friends and Sex and the City fifteen years after those shows were done and buried. Those younger peeps are like “you guys were really into this stuff?” Yes, we were. Friends and SATC were huge deals at the time. SATC in particular was the biggest show on HBO, and those women were on the cover of Time and Newsweek. There were so many thinkpieces devoted to “the new single woman” and “what SATC says about women” and all of that.

But here’s the question: does the original SATC TV show hold up? If we’re looking at it with 2019 eyes, are there are parts of the show or entire episodes which make us cringe? Yes. For sure. SATC changed and influenced so many conversations in that time, but there are so many big and small parts of the show – nevermind the God awful movies – which do not hold up at all. Cynthia Nixon knows that too – she chatted about how SATC would not be made as-is today:

Cynthia Nixon said that her hit HBO show “Sex and the City” would have a more diverse cast if the feminist comedy had been produced in the modern day. Nixon added in an interview published on Monday that the groundbreaking show was too centered around money and did not portray enough working class characters.

“Well, I certainly think we would not have all been white, God forbid,” she told IndieWire about the program. “One of the hardest things for me — it was at the time, too — is looking back and seeing how much of it centered around money, right? And how, Steve, my [character’s] husband, was like the closest we got to a working class guy, you know? Never mind a working class woman, right?”

Nixon’s character Miranda Hobbes was a lawyer who married a bartender and lived the glamorous life of a Manhattan pseudo-socialite. Although the actress and politician insisted the show had a feminist tone, she admitted the series was a bit divorced from reality.

“Also, I think we wouldn’t all look like that,” she said. “In terms of like, the perfection factor. In terms of always looking so incredible. And I know that’s the fantasy element, and in terms of the show that was important. But I think there’s a lot of ways that people can be visually compelling without looking — quote unquote — perfect.”

[From Page Six]

Miranda was always my favorite character because I often felt like she was legitimately the most realistic – she didn’t always look runway-ready, she had a real job as a lawyer, she wasn’t looking for a man to “save” her, and she had profound intimacy issues. It’s like Miranda was from a different (realistic) show and she got dropped into The Sugary Carrie Show by accident. Obviously, Cynthia has a point – the economics and racial dynamics within the show are kind of dumb and privileged, the women are very superficial and apolitical and clueless about anything other than sex, romance and love. It’s okay to acknowledge that, and still acknowledge that SATC did some good things too.

Still images from 'Sex and the City'

Photos courtesy of HBO and WENN.

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

143 Responses to “Cynthia Nixon reflects on how ‘Sex & the City’ was actually kind of problematic”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Cue SJP 10…9…8…

    • Andy says:

      LOL. Fingers crossed.

      • SansGasso says:

        The show was about an era of relaxed politicism, we knew that bus had a solid crew. We collectively loved top of their hustle working women, not necessarily “ladies who lunch”. Tho eating and talking was ritualized. Miranda seemed to “grow” most believably w a career and caregiver to both a baby and elderly parent. Whilst bathing her stepmother Magda leaned in and said, now THAT, is Love”. Compassion/altruism had ALWAYS been a missing element for SATC Cynthia Nixon can hold on to -her- character’s ultimate msg. Carrie giant boobs? Not so much.

  2. Becks1 says:

    I enjoyed it at the time for what it was – a show about upper class women in NYC who loved fashion and shopping and dating and drinking. And I guess for that (the dating and the drinking) it was pretty revolutionary at the time. It was a show about women’s sex lives that wasn’t shaming them (although that was part of the story lines at time, but I thought even then it was usually interesting, like when Samantha and Charlotte had that fight and Charlotte went to have lunch with the Kappa Kappa Gammas and got drunk and Carrie was like, “Charlotte should have had another kappa kappa cappuccino” LOL that I still remember the line.)

    but looking back, it doesn’t seem so cutting edge so its one of those shows that is important to look at in context.

    Of course it was problematic – Stanford was such a stereotypical gay character, Carrie’s lifestyle was totally unrealistic, Carrie and Bigs affair, etc. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t important.

    I think honestly the biggest problem is how the movies ruined the show.

    • Lala11_7 says:

      I saw way too many of my girls go through mess with men that mirrored Carrie’s and Big’s relationship to make em say that was false…

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh, the mess of that relationship I can believe. the happy ending, especially after the second movie? That I cant, lol.

      • Mash says:

        as an early 30s something…my older cousins who were 20 in the 90s was like big sisters and them and their friend hit the town and bought designer purse and what not and the carrie and big wedding (problematic) in all and the situationships and failed/ fun dating I witnessed it all as their little baby “sister” cousin

        the sex in the city lifestyle was real and it was cray now that i think about it —- AND this and the show Girlfriends & Living Single & Martin (we are black and this was it for them)

    • Lilly says:

      I honestly don’t want to watch a show about working class people in NY. That’s a hard life. Life is hard enough on it’s own, when I watch my shows I want to see glamour and successful people.

  3. Jegede says:

    Sadly Sex and The City is true to the realities of NY segregation and mono racial friendships, especially among a certain sector.

    Making it ‘less white’ for the sake of it, would have been pandering phoniness.

    • Pandabird says:

      I agree. Just gonna be blunt here, “white, apolitical, self centered”….that’s still a lot of white women today…..

      Gonna wait for #notallwhitewomen comments now.

      • hoopjumper says:

        The episode about politics where they try to make this weird “sex/politics…are they really so different?” thing happen absolutely reeks of whiteness, privilege, and white privilege. I think the show, when it was good, was actually solid TV, but that was gross.

      • Tweetime says:

        Nah, I think this is a really important point.
        Said as a white woman. I’m political and I have racially diverse friendships, but anybody who claims that white women don’t still benefit from and support systems of oppression needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.
        And being able to say you have friends of colour is setting the bar at about floor level in terms of actually helping to dismantle those systems.

      • Amy Too says:

        I remember the episode where Carrie was dating a politician and she wasn’t even registered to vote. A 35 year old woman who didn’t vote! She, and all the other women except maybe Miranda, cared so little about politics and made all sorts of “both sides are the same/just as bad” comments, it was gross, especially since I was doing a rewatch in like 2017 and still so angry about the 2016 election.

        Other things that didn’t age well: so much homophobia, so much transphobia, so much racism. There were black transgender sex workers that worked outside of Samantha’s new apartment in the meat packing district (gentrification issues, too) and they were portrayed as super ratchet ghetto annoying women that Samantha had to literally throw things at and she dumped something on them from her apartment window. And then they all became “friends” at a barbecue Samantha threw, and when Carrie interacted with them (or any other black women in the show ever), she would put on this weird, loud blaccent (black accent) and do lots of finger snapping and tongue popping and “GIIIIIRRRRRLLLL, you know it!” stuff. And then one of the only two black men to serve as love interests was quite the stereotype and very fetishized, and he had “sister issues” which were like mommy issues but with his sister—something I assume was being used to show that black people put a big emphasis on family and looking out for each other’s best interests within the family, but it was this annoying inconvenient obstacle to Samantha’s horniness.

        It was what is was: a fantasy type show where viewers (White, suburban types who could afford HBO) could live vicariously through these wealthy women with cool jobs, awesome apartments, amazing fashion, tons of expendable income, a great group of girlfriends they could talk about anything with, a fun social life with the best, most exclusive people, and lots of exciting and interesting sexual exploits that never ended in violence, stalkers, major STDs, or unintended pregnancies (unless it happened to the character with the most money and security, who maybe secretly wanted to be a mom, who had a boyfriend that would make a great father and who really wanted to be involved, and who could afford to hire a nanny and other household help). It wouldn’t have been the same show if it had been more realistic, they dressed down more often, or were struggling financially. So I’m not upset about it being unrealistic or unattainable—it was meant to be fun/aspirational. It should have been more diverse, though, and it shouldn’t have used minorities as funny/annoying stereotypes or punch lines for jokes.

      • hoopjumper says:

        @amytoo. That was exactly the episode I was thinking of! Yuck.

        I also very clearly remember the blaccent, and (tinfoil hat) think they have edited some of it out. At Miranda’s baby shower, Carrie holds a black baby while his mom goes to the bathroom. He pees on her, presumably because she’s awful, and I could swear she said he wet “hisself” in the initial run. But on HBO Roku now, it’s “himself”. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m right.

      • Megan says:

        Other than crime dramas, TV shows based on NYC are always selling the rich white fantasy: SATC, Gossip Girl, Seinfeld, Friends, Will & Grace, etc. SATC was more of the same with better clothes.

      • buensenso says:

        not everything has to be about politics. I crave shows that explore some other dimensions of life. what’s wrong with a show about relationships, friendships? those things are such a great part of our lives. also, we’re all self-centered. and that’s normal. everybody cares about their problems and wants more than other people’s.

  4. Simon the Bird says:

    Everything from season 5 onward was crap.

    Fight me.

    • Mustang Sally says:

      Agreed, with (for me) – one exception. The episode, “One,” which was the first episode of the last season. Carrie meets Petrovsky and she realizes he is an adult and that she has been ‘not adulting’ for the previous 37 years. I felt as if she going to grow up a little.

  5. Deedee says:

    I always loved Samantha’s story about being a breast cancer survivor. I think that story line helped so many women suffering from it at the time. And I remember when Kim Catrall said she thought her character was being punished for her sex life, and I thought, girl, you don’t know how much influence you have right now.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Well in light of the fact that that was when Kim and SJP started having issues and SJP was an executive producer who has a ton of storyline and script power I can totally understand why she felt that way. Those final seasons became all about Carrie and Samantha’s storylines specifically suffered for it. It’s great that so many women saw something they could relate to but the sad fact is that Kim was right about the motivations behind it.

  6. Mumbles says:

    I enjoyed the first two or three seasons or so but after 9/11 happened I would watch it and think how awfully shallow and vapid these people are (making fun of a girl for wearing a scrunchie? Gawd). The show was awful on race and class. The movies, even worse. (And yes while Miranda WAS the smartest and most down to earth, that all went out the window in the movies).

    • Skwinkee says:

      I still make fun of people for wearing scrunchies. And now people are paying mega bucks for them. So that’s a double fun making.

  7. Aang says:

    I was meh about sex in the city and hated Friends with a passion. I never saw a full episode of Friends, even though I was prime demographic, until my daughter watched it on Netflix a couple of years ago. It’s soooo bad. Homophobic, body shaming, misogynistic, white. I really don’t know how it was such a big thing.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      I watched Friends at the time of its airing and thought the same thing. I never understood its appeal.

      There were a lot of things SATC did at the time (in the earlier seasons, mainly, imo) that were great; particularly showing women having active sex lives unapologetically. And I loved Samantha’s cancer storyline. But most of it did not age well at all and the movies were atrocious.

      ETA: One of my favourite bits in the series was when Samantha was in the back massager store getting her vibrator replaced. The dude behind the counter kept trying to insist that they were back massagers. Meanwhile, while Samantha was rolling her eyes and ignoring him, she was giving all the women in the store tips on which one works the best, lol.

    • Mel M says:

      I enjoyed SATC, I was in college at the time. It was sort of a glamorous more edgy soap opera to me with all the silly drama. Some of the storylines I loved but Carrie’s were so unrealistic and overly dramatic. I am with you though as one of the few people of our generation that hated Friends. I think I watched one episode and thought pretty much every character was obnoxious. It felt over acted to me.

    • Becks1 says:

      I loved Friends at the time (I kind of feel I was the target demographic, maybe a few years younger than the target), because it was what I wanted to be – young and stylish and independent and in NYC with a group of awesome friends. That was its appeal. It was just sort of your basic sitcom, the Cheers of the 90s I guess. (I have never seen Cheers so maybe not lol.) But they both had iconic theme songs!

      But anyway – point is, when I watch it now, I think “yikes, that was a bad joke.” I still like it for the nostalgia factor, but yeah it was also problematic. (was there ever a black man on the show?) I guess the positive is that you can see how much entertainment has changed?

      Except then I watch Big bang theory and I think, maybe not.

      • BengalCat😻 says:

        @Becks, you should check out Cheers, it’s a wonderful show. Friends always made me cringe. And like another poster said, it felt overacted to me. I still have a hard time watching it.
        Eta, Carrie was the absolute worst on SATC.

    • Lexilla says:

      I teach college students now, mostly people of color, and a lot of them watch “Friends” on Netflix. More than anything, they absolutely adore “The Office.” They never mention SATC.

    • Canber says:

      I loathe Friends. Loathed in the 90s, loathe it now. Infantile and cringe-worthy.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      The early 20 somethings in my office LOVE Friends. I never watched it back when it was out because I was in high school and involved in a lot of activities. It is so weird to me that they quote it so frequently and have seen every episode tons of times. It totally confuse that they love it so much.

    • buensenso says:

      how is it homophobic? what’s wrong with it being white? there are shows that are all black. and I watched them and loved them and it never crossed my mind that I couldn’t see myself in those characters, because I could. as a child and a teen I was crazy about the prince of bel air and the cosby show. I was so in love with claire’s beauty, she was the most beautiful woman I had ever seen on tv, I wanted to be like will, so relaxed and chill and authentic and him being a man or black didn’t stop me from relating.

    • Vet says:

      I hated Friends. I’m a black woman from small town Illinois and I had a more diverse group of friends. Did I say how much I hated that stupid show?

      • Deering24 says:

        “Friends” was a complete rip of “Living Single,” which covered the exact same bases with better characters, diversity, and way sharper writing.

      • Lucretias says:

        Can I just reiterate what @deering24 said I lov love love living single! I saw friends Nd was like what fresh hell is this? They’re ripping off my show!

  8. Sean says:

    One thing I never liked was how superficial it was. I recall one episode where the characters attend a funeral for an acquaintance. During the service, they’re still yammering about dating and fashion. I found that to be in bad taste.

  9. Billbop says:

    I don’t know, I live a “boring” middle-class working mom life. So I don’t want to watch shows about my life. It is fun watching things like Sex and the City. It is fantasy, like Game of Thrones. If they wrote a show about my life it wouldn’t get one viewer (other than my kids who I would force to watch it.) 😂

    My life isn’t always diverse either, and I only have one friend who doesn’t define their gender. So does everything I watch have to have a rainbow of colors and genders? No. Every show does not have to be politically correct and please everyone all of the time. What fun is that? By adding “diversity” they are making everything less diverse. The irony…

    • Tiffany says:

      New York City is a city of diversity and the show, with the title of it in its name, did not show that.

      • elimaeby says:

        This. I remember Miranda dating a black guy (because he was hot af and I remember having a huge crush on him). That is the only POC I remember being any kind of significant character in how many seasons? It’s NYC. No one knows ANYONE who is not white?

    • MrsBanjo says:

      In your first paragraph you say you don’t want the show to represent your life and then in the next use your life and its lack of diversity to defend the show’s lack of diversity. Which is it? You want it to represent you or not?

      New York is an extremely diverse city and should be represented as such.

    • DiegoInSF says:

      I’m with you regarding the escapism about their lifestyles, It’s pure fantasy. I don’t want to see people struggling or hating their job, I want unlimited wardrobe changes and pretty makeup and hot men!

    • 90sgirl says:

      Manhattan Is a city of social clusters and some of them never cross into the other social clusters. I lived on the Upper East Side and some of those story lines happened to a lot of my friends. When I lived there, everyone in my circle of friends was so busy pursuing their careers, working to pay rent , that even finding time to date was hard sometimes. The one line of dialogue that spelled out social life in NYC was when Charolotte said “you may think we live in a classless society ,but we don’t.” That was true about life in NYC, there were unspoken class levels and it was usually based on interests, career interest , career level, money or connections or all of the above and some people just never intermingled with others not in their circles or social clusters.

  10. Jamie says:

    There were articles criticizing the show for its lack of diversity during its run. I wonder if she was just ignoring them or has decided to acknowledge the obvious now that she’s a politician.

    • tealily says:

      Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. None of these are new criticisms, but perhaps criticisms that matter to more people now than they did then. Or maybe she didn’t feel she was in a place to make these criticisms at the time?

    • wtf says:

      I don’t think she’s that cynical. She’s a failed politician….
      I also think that if she had been vocal back then, she would be in the dog house with Kim C.
      I’m actually waiting to see SJP’s response to this. Me thinks it is going to ugly in 5…4…3…2…1

  11. mycomment says:

    I also hold them responsible for the influx of Samantha wannabes, transforming the city into a less creative/diverse/interesting place to live.

    • Chimney says:

      Yes this exactly! Since SatC New York has been flooded with brand-loving boring people who fixated on the show. Once all the POCs, creative-types, and young people are priced out of the city will it even be trendsetting anymore?

      • Alexis says:

        Yes, a TV show ruined an entire major city. 🙄. I lived in NYC, and it is and always has been very diverse.

      • mycomment says:

        when bed-stuy has been overrun with trustfunders, you know the city ain’t what it used to be.

    • 90sgirl says:

      I noticed that lol. It looked like a lot of people were trying to be like a SATC character. Lol

  12. holly hobby says:

    Did you hear that? That’s the sound of SJP screaming in protest. One more ally lost. Cue the smears about Cynthia from SJP camp.

  13. Cindy says:

    I’m one of those younguns who don’t understand te hype Friends, SATC and Seinfeld got. For shows that are meant to be comedic I just find them painfully unfunny.

    Friends in particular I grew an intense hatred for – because everytime the subject of Friends was brought up and I said I thought the show was terrible, someone would come out saying I was “just trying to be edgy” and UUUUUUUUUGH. That made my blood BOIL. Being reminded of those conversations made me hate the show even more, and by association, all the actors from it (except Courtney Cox – idk what it is about her, but I like her).

    • tealily says:

      Get in line, sister, been saying this since day one. I guess I’m super edgy too. *shrug*

      (“It’s like that Seinfeld where blah blah blah…” is the one that makes my blood boil. I don’t know wtf you’re talking about because I didn’t watch a show that sucked. Stick to reality or old Simpsons references, please.)

    • Harryg says:

      I never understood the hype either. Especially Friends, with that horrid unnatural sitcom lighting that makes everything looks painfully fake, even faces. Stopping everything to wait for the laughs, ugh. People entering, waving their arms, screaming their lines.
      I hate (multi-camera) studio sitcoms, they are mostly terrible.

    • dlc says:

      Did not get the love for friends or Seinfeld! And I’m more nerdy than edgy, lol. I did watch the first season of satc in my 20s and enjoyed it. Not a super fan tho.

    • Mash says:

      if your looking for pizzazz

      Seinfield — look at Martin
      Friends —- Living Single (out first)
      SATC —Girlfriends

  14. Heather says:

    Not every show needs to be some profound statement on politics, society, etc. It’s okay for a show to just be fun. Sometimes the more currently politically correct the show, the more boring or heavy it is, especially sitcoms. TV shows, especially sit coms, can be pointless and unrealistic. As long as it’s fun, people will watch. People=viewers=ratings=ad revenue=series renewal.

    • Jegede says:

      I feel the same.

      I 🧡🧡 Amen/A Different World (Cosby Show was boring IMO), as much as I also Cheers/Golden Girls without seeking racial affirmation.

      IMO, when Aisha Tyler’s character was written into Friends, the final years, I personally found the try cringe inducing.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Sorry but comments like this are stated from a place of privilege. It’s very easy to minimize things that don’t apply to you. Especially when everytime you turn on the TV you see people who look like you. This isn’t political and I would love it if people would stop using that word as a catchall for things they don’t want to think about or discuss

      • Heather says:

        I’ll think about it and discuss it all day EXCEPT for when I’m watching scripted television. That’s my escape from everything real for just an hour or so a day.

        (I too loved A Different World, Jegede, and VV, none of the characters looked like me. It’s okay to just enjoy something without making it into a cultural comment or attempt to guilt those who just like to be mindlessly entertained in between real life).

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Heather. This comment is only further proving my point. “I don’t want to talk about race when it’s inconvenient for me” is the HEIGHT of privilege.

        And watching A Different World means literally nothing. You named one show where the characters didn’t look like you. Wow. I watched tbat show too. It was one of only two shows at the time with all black casts.
        Meanwhile most POC (including myself) have grown up with a TV landscape where 99% of it was white. You dont get a cookie for watching one all black show. 🙄

      • Heather says:

        I don’t feel that everything has to boil down to a deep philosophical discussion, especially fluff like SATC. I don’t believe that everything has to pass a checklist, this many white characters, this many gay characters, this many black characters, this many Latino/a. Especially shows that are no longer on the air and are no longer being made (and hopefully no more God awful movies). If that makes me privileged that I am able to relax with mindless TV, I will embrace that for an hour a day. At the time I liked the show on in the background. Today it’s unwatchable IMO for many many reasons, having more to do with dialogue and character development.

      • Ader says:

        VV, you are 100% percent correct. Heather, your point of view is definitely rooted in a place of privilege.

        Heather, you may not feel like everything has to “boil down to a deep philosophical discussion,” but for many of us who aren’t white, we need white people to start having “deep and philosophical” discussions about the media we consume, because whether you realize it or not, the TV shows we watch, etc…play a GIANT role in how average, everyday black folks are treated. And if we are absent from said media, it’s a problem and only serves to prop up racism. Your position contributes to “the problem.”

        You are LUCKY that you can just “escape” from racism. We can’t. You’re tired of hearing about it? Well, think about how it is to live it and never be able to escape it.

        You can “feel” any way you want. It doesn’t make you right.

      • Betsy says:

        @Heather – yeah but when even fluff is white, that’s problematic. Look, I’m white, too, and it took me a while to peer past my blinders, but it’s not “especially fluff,” it’s “even fluff.” Even fluff is white. So much in our world is white, white, white. It’s set up for our comfort. And SATC wasn’t just fluff, it was a pop culture juggernaut. How many pop culture juggernauts are not white? Mad Men? White. It made sense, sort of, from the perspective of the time and place where it was set, but it was still startlingly white. GOT – I’m not a watcher, but I’ve seen lots of pics of the cast and it looks pretty white, too. Superhero movies? Pretty uniformly white.

        The fact is that even things that are not intended to be profound, in-depth mark the lines. These people are in, these people are out. These are dollars we want. This is the audience we think is important to target. Fluff is fluffy, but it has meaning.

    • wtf says:

      @Heather
      I think the point that you are missing is that BUT FOR racism, you would naturally have diverse casts. I don’t want anyone checking off a list to make sure to include non-white, cis people either. But if there were more non-white cis people as casting directors, and studio heads etc., then the shows would naturally be more diverse. It’s possible to be fun and not racist/classist/homophobic all at the same time.

  15. SuperStef says:

    I loved the show and I think some of it still holds up. It was sex positive, addressed being independent women, friendships and sociological expectations of women in their mid-late 30′s.

    It did lack diversity and wasn’t exactly realistic but it was empowering it’s prime.

    I don’t understand the need to keep analyzing it, just enjoy it for what it was.

    • sequinedheart says:

      Thank you.; christ on a cracker, people are deep diving hard on this. It was a show relevant in the late 90′s early 2000′s and explored topics and life events then.
      I love it and I will still watch it. Yeah, it’s dated but stop trying to politicize & PC everything.
      If people want to see it through a 2019 lens, follow @everyoutfitonsatc / #wokecharlotte on Instagram.
      GREAT updates to the points of view/commentary of the topics.

      • wtf says:

        The problem with what you’re saying is that I watched the show too. And even at the time it felt exclusive. I didn’t see anyone that looked anything like me. It didn’t take a deep dive for me to feel left out. The worst part is that I still watched. And I had to internalize a lot of negative energy to do that. And STILL when the conversation comes up people like you try to silence the conversation. What gives? What does it cost you to acknowledge that it was problematic?

      • sequinedheart says:

        @wtf, I’m not trying to silence anything & I don’t claim to understand anyone else’s feelings about it. I appreciate you sharing your issues with it. I welcome that conversation to be had. I am just saying, it’s a show, it was enjoyable for me and if you look at the instagram account I listed, I very much appreciate the updated spin on the topics at issue.

      • Stef says:

        I hear you @Sequinedheart

        @WTF No one is trying to silence anyone here, which is one thing I love about this site and the comments. I’m sorry you internalized a lot of negative energy from the show. Truthfully, you didn’t have to watch it if it wasn’t for you. I don’t think either of us are trying to silence the conversation, we just think people are over analyzing a TV from almost 20 years ago and trying to politicize it to fit a modern dialogue.

        Every show is potentially problematic, I just happened to love this show for the frivolity and fantasy a lot of it was. If anything, it was a revolutionary show in it’s prime because it openly discussed sex and women, even graphically. No other show had done that yet. What’s the problem acknowledging that it was groundbreaking and has it’s place in TV history without complaining about it?

      • Ader says:

        “I’m sorry you internalized…”

        Nah. That’s the same as saying, “I’m sorry you feel that way…” It contributes to the problem. You are the problem thinking that way. Not us.

      • Market Street Minifig says:

        From @Stef’s comment:

        “I’m sorry you internalized…Truthfully, you didn’t have to watch it if it wasn’t for you.
        [We are not] trying to silence the conversation, we just think people are over analyzing…and trying to politicize it to fit… What’s the problem [with giving it its due] without complaining about it?”

        Pretend you are hearing these remarks from a man in reference to a hugely popular and otherwise groundbreaking tv show where women are under-represented or poorly portrayed. Would you find them reasonable or highly patronizing?

  16. aiobhan targaryen says:

    NYC is segregated. For all the talk of how the NYC is such a melting pot, it is segregated by race and class and the show indirectly highlighted that.

    I think the most problematic thing about the show was that it was being sold as a show about white female friends living in NYC, but their friendship seemed one sided and shallow as the series got older. It became more about Carrie and how everyone floats around her. She was not a good person, nor was she a good friend. She was needy, self-obsorbed, insecure, and immature as all fuck. She made everything about her and if the conversation wasn’t about her, she always figured out a way to change the subject so that it was about her. Look at what she did when Charlotte announced her engagement to Harry.

    I will never forget her sending Aidan over to Miranda’s place when she threw her back out or just how she treated Miranda in general. And even she went over to Miranda’s to apologize with bagels, she still figured out a way to make everything about her. Miranda was a true friend to her but Carrie either could not or would not commit to being the same type of friend.

    • StartupSpouse says:

      But don’t we all have a friend like that?

      I watched this in college. Yes, totally unrealistic, but it was escapism. I still sometimes watch it for that.

      • aiobhan targaryen says:

        Not any more I don’t. Relationsihips are tricky and are never a 50/50 thing. I do realize that. Sometimes they will do the heavy, sometimes you share, and sometimes you do the heavy lifting. It is a team effort. I believe in being a supportive friend but I don’t believe in enabling bad behavior.What is the phrase, “accept your friends warts and all”. Nope. I am not a pack mule and will not be carrying around mine and your baggage. Everyone was expected to carry around Carrie’s baggage but she could barely bother to listen let alone carry baggage. Most of her problems were self-inflicted.

  17. minx says:

    I was a big fan, it was a fun clever show for the time. It’s hard to watch it now, though, because of the Kim/SJP conflict, and also because Carrie, in retrospect, was a complete dipsh*t.

    • Betsy says:

      She was so shockingly self-centered! They’re all pretty bad in their own ways, but Carrie is the living worst.

  18. Other Renee says:

    I started watching SATC in reruns when I was going through a divorce and newly-single again. I loved it. Maybe it was because I figured if these glamorous, beautiful women could have relationship problems, I would survive divorce. Not everything has to be realistic or about real people. I wanted to escape and I felt comfortable doing so with these people. For heaven’s sake, even reality TV is most definitely NOT reality. Why should we expect fictionalized TV to reflect reality?

  19. Mario says:

    ‘are there are there parts’

  20. KBeth says:

    It was a mindless indulgence for me, I enjoyed it at the time.
    Must we overthink everything???

    • Heather says:

      +1. I don’t watch scripted television to get my morals and values, or any sort of world/society/political view. I watch it to be entertained. I want to laugh, cry and escape. I don’t need all the boxes checked on what makes it “appropriate and inclusive” this year. Sometimes it’s okay to just enjoy something!

    • GirlMonday says:

      Reconsidering and overthinking are not the same thing.

      That show was one of the biggest things to happen on TV at the time, and while it was JUST a TV show, it also deeply influenced pop culture and refreshed the country’s, if not the world’s, conversation about feminism. The elements of the show that are being reconsidered were problematic when the show aired, but having conversations about problematic stuff was not in the then zeitgeist. Women like me—who watched the show then and who both enjoyed it and also cringed at so much of it because it ignored or was disrespectful to people like me—get to have those conversations now.

      So, the show itself may have been a mindless indulgence, its place in television history is still significant. That’s why reconsidering the show and having these conversations are still significant too.
      That said, if this doesn’t resonate with you, I think you can opt out of the conversation without dismissing the conversation itself.

  21. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I loved the show and Miranda was my favorite character- not only because I could relate to her personality – I am the Miranda of my friend group – but because she was the most realistic of them. She had a real job. She worked. She eventually married a “normal” guy. But yes…SATC was HIGHLY unrealistic. I think women spent way too mich time either comparing themselves to the characters or trying to emulate them. Both of which are terrible ideas.
    And dont get me started on the racial aspects of the show. Just like Friends we are supposed to believe that these people live in NYC (one of the most diverse cities in the world) and NEVER encounter a black person or any other POC?? That didn’t ring true to me then and now it frankly just makes me angry because Im so over white-centered shows in general. But I can still watch the show and enjoy it. Mostly. With some eyerolls.

    • Tiffany says:

      I knew someone who said that her friend broke her hip ( at the time she was in her late 20′s) because she was trying to wear Manalo’s in the middle of winter….in Minnesota.

      *stares at camera*

      • elimaeby says:

        I hope your friend is okay, but I did a spit-take of my tea. At the office. All over my keyboard. I really needed that laugh, so thanks.

        In other news, my IT department would like a word with you.

      • Betsy says:

        In your friend’s defense, it sometimes feels like it’s winter here in Minnesota for about six months, so.

  22. Anon says:

    Well. For Starters:

    I’m a writer. I don’t know any writers – even ones who work in mainstream NY media, and especially “columnists” – who wear $700 shoes, much less have a closet full of them. Pure-dee fiction.

    Also, while the show might have been “revolutionary” at the time, it was problematic even then. I mean, who are we kidding? That was HBO’s imprimatur on a fantasy fiction around four grown ass women who have “problems.” Who wouldn’t love to have the problems they had? F6cking, drinking, working fantasy jobs with unlimited income and going on vacation where no one’s card gets declined? Please.

    The gay characters were throwbacks to the old Hollywood “Pansy” trope – nothing new under the sun there. Also, we can all agree that the SATC movies not only perpetuated this white, cis hetero fantasy, but also ruined what decent storylines that did manage to slip under the radar.

    And what about SJP? What woman would degrade herself into holding out for a guy who’s run through every single other option in the city – even cheating on his wife with her; dumping her *at the altar* – just so she can wear him down into… marrying her so she can have a big closet? WTF? Gurl doesn’t need to be married, she needs therapy, stat.

    But let’s talk about Cynthia Nixon: How convenient that she’s only now bringing these things up because she’s no longer getting paid by SJP and HBO to sip cocktails and talk about “butt sex.” Nonetheless, she’s correct, it would not get made in today’s climate.

    • olive says:

      it may be “convenient” that she’s talking about it now, but of all the four actresses, cynthia nixon seems to have moved on and grown the most in her career since the show ended. i’d rather deal with a bit of a hypocrisy than SJP who refuses to move on from carrie.

    • Kk2 says:

      I wonder if she is correct though- Girls is not really that different in terms of the diversity problem and self absorption. It focused on a younger group who did have some money issues (some) but otherwise similar problems. It had no problem getting made.

      SATC is fine for what it was- escapist TV for rich white women. It was always meant to be more glamorous than realistic. I’m somewhat torn on the diversity thing- I don’t think it’s unrealistic that a group of rich white women in NYC would have no non white non hetero close friends (see again, Girls). But since it’s a fantasy stylized show anyway, they could and should have written it as a more diverse group of friends. You could easily remake that with say Kerry Washington, Constance Wu, and Priyanka Chopra and have an equally glamorous but more interesting and diverse group.

      My 17 yr old niece has been watching Friends on Netflix and i am completely perplexed by it. I watched it when it was on but wasnt exactly a super fan. I don’t think it holds up that well now (like a lot of network sitcoms) and there’s just so much better stuff out there!

  23. Skeptical says:

    It was franker about sex and white career women than any show had been previously. Then it got mired down in product placement.

    Hear me Universe – no sequel.

  24. Kylie says:

    The show felt dated in some ways while it was still airing, Carrie was supposed to be a party girl but didn’t have a cell phone during the first few seasons.

  25. Alexandria says:

    In my 30s. Imho all of them did not look perfect in the show. I think they looked like real women more than models. I did not watch SATC during its heyday. After watching YouTube vids I can safely say I only enjoyed Samantha and Miranda to an extent. I could not enjoy the ramblings from Carrie perhaps because I would never be friends with someone like her.

    Anyway in terms of diversity, a lot of shows up till the 2000s could probably not hold up today. Nonetheless, it’s good that Cynthia still brought this up. Same with Golden Girls but I’ll watch the heck out of Golden Girls anytime. Love em!

    • emmy says:

      Golden Girls had the running joke of Blanche being such a slut. That word was used a lot. Nobody seems to mind.

    • Mellie says:

      Yes – Golden Girls is on every Sunday on TV Land. I still watch a few episodes when I get the chance. What a show.

  26. Mellie says:

    I was a big fan of SATC, I personally liked the bluntness of it all. Those women had to have some money to live that lifestyle, so yes, it could have been more diverse, but whatever ethnicity of women/men they chose, those people still had to be fairly rich to even buy a damn cupcake in NYC. I’m ok with that. TV is fantasy…it’s not freaking real life. I don’t dress like that and I don’t live like that and it’s all ok. If I want real life situations, I’ll go volunteer at my local homeless shelter/food bank, I wanted an escape and that show provided it. I loved it, Friends too…of course those people couldn’t afford that apartment on their salaries, but who the F#$k cares…it’s a TV show.

  27. olive says:

    “sex & the city” made me cringe during its original run, i’m sure a re-watch would be horrible. it was shallow and trashy even in its time.

  28. Lala11_7 says:

    At the core of the show…it was about women working s**t out that I identified with…dealing with emotional/psychological issues that I saw reflected in my own world….everything else was window dressing…and that STILL resonates….

  29. emmy says:

    It’s always easy to expect more in hindsight. Suddenly it was such a bad show people hated it even then. Okay fine. But 20 years ago it was new and suddenly women were portrayed as complex and often really unlikeable characters. Can we just remember how that was pretty damn groundbreaking? I don’t understand the criticism of “Carrie was such an ass.” Um, yes? Sometimes. We all are. We whine about women not being allowed to be unlikeable and then complain when one gets to be just that.

    The show was ridiculous at times, some characters were caricatures and it still deserves a lot of the criticism it received even back then. But it was not the train wreck people make it out to be. Let’s see how we talk about some of those Netflix shows in 20 years and how people seem to love their serial killer p0rn right now.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Unlikeable sure but not especially complex. The first show of its kind boldly portrayed women whose intense materialism eclipsed any hint of social awareness. The show aired during my 20s when I was also a city girl (not NYC but several intersting cities in 2 different countries), actively dating, and very politically conscious. IMO, we were ready for something edgier by then, but SaTC is what we got.

  30. JennyJenny says:

    Just escapism ~ end of story.

    While raising 3 children alone, finishing nursing school and working part-time, then being diagnosed with cancer, I wanted to watch anything that held my interest, that would allow me to NOT think of my reality for just a little while.

    It was just a fantasy, wasn’t it? We knew they couldn’t afford what they had, but did we really care?. It was just fun to watch the clothes, shoes, scenery, kooky relationships, etc.

  31. Canber says:

    This show is milquetoast and has not aged well, but it was considered path-breaking at the time. Which only puts into perspective of how male-centered and impoverished the conversation about and by women in pop culture was BEFORE the show.

  32. adastraperaspera says:

    Both SATC and Friends were backlash shows–given money from execs, press, fame and many seasons. All this while far better, more relevant and creative shows like Living Single fell by the wayside from lack of support.

    • Patty says:

      This so much! Living Single was far superior to Friends and Girlfriends was far superior to Sex and the City. Don’t even get me started on the fact that Fox and UPN/WB (now CW) all got started by relying heavily on black and urban programming and then went so white once they made it. Fox back in the day was amazeballs: In Living Color, Living Single, NY Undercover, Roc – even True Colors had its moments.

      • HELEN says:

        girlfriends *was* far superior to sex and the city. joan clayton might have been an upper-class character but by no means were class issues left unmentioned. golden brooks and persia white’s characters were both “working-class” but still joan’s best friends. colorism and race were front and center. yet it was still enjoyably escapist and hilarious!! when first watching the series years ago, i kept wondering how it was not being recognized and awarded/rewarded accordingly (emmys etc.). now i realize how the emmys work (big network lobbying money etc.) + that girlfriends was on upn and then the cw. and they were all black lol.

      • Betsy says:

        My god, I loved Girlfriends. I wasn’t the target audience and I don’t think I “got” half of it, but it was so well done.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      I LOVED Living Single. Started binge- watching again with my daughters the minute I saw it on Hulu.

    • Deering24 says:

      Damn straight. Shows like “Living Single” put Fox on the map, but were never given their just due.

  33. Hope says:

    This show wasn’t that progressive even in terms of sex especially after the third season. Carrie was a prudish sex columnist and Samantha was shamed. Pilot episode Carrie was so different from what the character became -and that wasn’t for the better.

    I watched the show on dvd when I was in college -about two years after it ended -and besides admitting that women liked sex, it seemed like it was meant to be groundbreaking for an older generation with more hangups and internalized judgment towards sex.

  34. Patty says:

    SATC being so white actually worked for what is was. Quite frankly, there’s no way that a non-white person would have tolerated their crap for so long. LOL.

    The show would have revolved around them constantly getting called out for their bs, and then eventually phasing out the non-white friend because they were sick of getting called out on their bs. The storyline would have concluded in one to two episodes tops.

    Or there would have been more of this garbage: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/sex-and-the-city-sundra-oakley

    • Ader says:

      This! White women can only handle black female friends when we don’t talk about our daily lives and the shit we go through. They want us all to be their “own personal Oprahs.”

  35. Meg says:

    It helped me feel less shame about my sexuality for sure. A woman raised in an Irish Catholic family by a controlling mother I was detached from it all together as the connotation was always negative so this show helped. But it didn’t help me feel good about having a more ‘average: body and still being sexual when the women on that show were regularly very slim.

  36. Jen says:

    I’m an xennial from the Midwest that was a fan during the first few seasons. As someone watching at 18,19, 20, it was very resonant with single young woman issues and didn’t initially bombard us with product placement, but rather, glamor. I am white and straight and noticed issues at the time, but frankly my world has extended further and become more diverse, so perhaps it was right and pushed forward conversations for a certain group at a certain time. And the issue, for a few others here, isn’t that this story of a non-diverse friend group is told. It’s that until media reflects the real world more accurately, we’ve had way more than enough of this story. Also, we can analyze and judge it to death but it was made pre-blogging culture, which really exploded in the mid-2000s with snark and think pieces and post 9/11 cultural shifts. We all are discussing through a lens that’s hard to remove.

    • Jen says:

      While Cynthia is right that it wouldn’t be green lit now, for good reason, I do believe in the way this show pushed boundaries in portraying women’s sexuality and single women over 30. I think that we have to be willing to take risks and learn and remember “wokeness” is a path, not a destination. I worry that only the most purely safe content is reaching wide audiences at this point. And both aspects of that can be true, we can learn and set better standards but still allow for learning and risks.

  37. Adrien says:

    The show was very classist and materialistic. It does not mean I didn’t enjoy it. I watched some of the episodes recently and I still enjoy them but also realized how horrible SJP’s fashion choices were. If you told a Gen Z’ers right now she was a fashion icon back then they would not believe you. The looks felt forced. That huge floral thing Carrie popularised is/was so corny it looked like a wedding corsage.

  38. sommolierlady says:

    The show was always banal and out of touch. It most definitely did not hold up well. Most of the characters were narcissistic, materialistic shallow mean girls.

  39. DS9 says:

    I enjoyed watching it like all of the other meaningless crap I’ve willfully been sucked into. I’m rewatching the Tudors and it’s even more of a dumpster fire now than it was back then. It’s told almost entirely from the viewpoint of men and not even they have anything meaningful to say. It’s just a bunch of stuff that happens.

    I think it’s a bit of a rose colored view to think that if made today, there would totally be a woman of color with good stories and a well development character arc who is given equal weight in the show.

    For starters, we are seen more often but still don’t often find ourselves given equal airtime either in quality or quantity. Secondly, the world portrayed is still rather insular. Sure, upper middle class white folks have black friends but intraracial friendships are more rare the higher you go in income bracket.

    Acquaintances, sure but true deep friendship like is portrayed? Not so much

  40. styla says:

    Why on earth would SATC have to show the working class woman? That’s not what the show was about. Also, that would be a show about my life, no thanks. On the next episode of SATC – Working Class Edition – Styla takes the subway to her minimum wage job in leggings and a jean jacket from Target. Gets hit on by creepy dude. Starbucks splurge tastes like I want my $5 back. The end.

    • Nat says:

      Because middle class women don’t struggle, don’t fall in love, break up, or divorce? Because middle class women don’t have great stories to tell? Because middle class women don’t know how to wear makeup and style themselves beautifully? Because heartbreak is only sexy when wearing heels and designer jackets? Because middle class people don’t see beauty in the world, or have amazing friendships, don’t meet great guys or do fulfilling jobs?
      Our TV landscape is oversaturated with stories of rich and privileged people, I can hardly think of a show that deals with middle class or poorer, especially ones that make a lot of waves. I once saw the statistics on it, it was something like 70% of all TV characters were upper middle class or wealthier. The rich are over-represented everywhere – in our economy, in our politics, and on our television, and I think we need to stop pretending that it doesn’t matter and that it’s just cute harmless escapism. A single show – perhaps, but the cumulative effect of all of them? Not that innocent. It affects us, I have no doubt that it subtlety shapes our favorable view of the rich and is at least in some way responsible for our extreme reluctance to tax the rich, to our own detriment.
      I, for one, would very much welcome a TV show that shows the triumphs and struggles of “poor” (as in non-rich) people and manages to show the beauty and romance without designer clothes and Manhattan penthouses – now THAT’s art and THAT’S good television. It doesn’t take a genius to make a romantic movie about a young handsome billionaire, you know…

  41. Texas says:

    SATC felt very real to me at the time because it mirrored my lifestyle aspirations to a degree. I was actually married with two kids and living a pretty privileged lifestyle, but those ladies were goals! I remember buying a pair of fabulous Manalo black pumps and wearing the heck out of them. I’m not kidding. I lived in those shoes. I later sold them used on eBay for 100 bucks! My life is very different now, and I find the show slightly annoying. Of course, I’m older and wiser. At least one hopes.

  42. kerwood says:

    I liked SATC well enough but I wasn’t a big fan. I loved a show where women were allowed to be as sexual as they wanted. And I loved the shoes. HATED Carrie and Big. HATED!!!!!

    As a Black woman who had lived in New York, I accepted that it was a White show. Sort of like Woody Allen making a movie called ‘Manhattan’ with no Black people in it. It was how a lot of White people wanted NYC to be, The reality was that for a lot of wealthy White people, the only time that they came into contact with a person of colour was when they needed something cleaned. Or cooked.

    I loathed ‘Friends’. I don’t think I ever made it through an entire episode. It was a White Hollywood person’s idea of what New Yorkers were like and how they lived. How could those no account losers afford an apartment like that in Manhattan? ‘Friends’ made Sex and the City look like a model of diversity. I also knew some people of colour who worked on ‘Friends’ and my hatred was WELL DESERVED.

    Did I mention I HATED Carrie and Big?

  43. DS9 says:

    I didn’t like Carrie and Big but I thought their narcissistic, self involved asses were perfect for each other lol.

    Even douches deserve to find love (preferably with other douches)

  44. HELEN says:

    “too centered around money and did not portray enough working class characters.”

    unfortunately, i think this was one of the hugest parts of its appeal. the women and men on the show, save miranda and steve to some degree, were so incredibly shallow.

  45. HELEN says:

    “the economics and racial dynamics within the show are kind of dumb and privileged, the women are very superficial and apolitical”

    extremely accurate. but the portrayal of female friendship and open discussion about female sexuality were indeed valuable and groundbreaking.

  46. HELEN says:

    i was wondering about the “prestige” tv from the early aughts – the sopranos, six feet under and others. would they hold up today? would rewatch all of them and judge but who has the time? lol i haven’t even watched game of thrones yet!

    anyway, if satc was indeed your thing, girlfriends (starring tracee ellis ross!) is most definitely worth a watch!!

    • Canber says:

      I re-watched the first season of the Sopranos half a year ago and it’s platinum.

  47. Sue Denim says:

    It hasn’t aged well but at the time, a women-driven drama focusing on women’s issues, desires, concerns, povs, friendships, agency, careers, interests, experiences etc was groundbreaking in its way, and at a point before the full on backlash we’ve seen since then on women, the middle class, democracy, etc. It certainly missed broader racial and class issues but celebrated something that feels lost now, or maybe never really was…

  48. Mustang Sally says:

    To me, the key words here are”…had been produced in the modern day.” It wasn’t. It was produced 25 years ago. We can’t look back at something with dissatisfaction because at that time, society wasn’t where we are now. I read an OpEd where someone was discussing Blazing Saddles (1974) – same issue. We can’t look at a series or movie with the same eyes we have now – we can’t change what was filmed in years past – we can only institute change in the present and the future.

  49. Rosie says:

    Loved SATC. For its time, it was progressive, but also hilarious, also glam escapism in one package. I was always aware of the issues that went along with it. I get the observations about lack of diversity, but am I the only one who was troubled by the lack of body shape diversity? They were constantly eating and drinking, but stick thin. Always wished there was diversity in that area. The flatness of their butts is what makes the show look dated now, lol. White women (I’m white) were always having that drummed into them – get the flat butt. Ha ha, now everyone wants a nice round butt. I love it!

  50. Marianne says:

    Sure, it may have been more politically correct to showcase more working class and or poor characters on the show but part of the big appeal was the fashion. People didnt want to tune in to see a storyline where someone struggles to pay their rent that month. They already live it. They want to Carrie strutting around in her Jimmy Choos and imagine they were her.

    • Nat says:

      I haven’t even really watched SATC, except a few reruns on TV, but I’m fairly sure that they had an episode where Carrie was struggling to pay rent.
      Also, can we stop reducing middle class and poor people to their monetary struggles? We fall in and out of love, we teach, we nurse, we literally save lives and inspire, we have amazing children, we aren’t our bank account balance. I’d never trade my friends in Target clothes for Carrie and all of her Jimmy Choos.

  51. Tuntmore says:

    I’m apparently a Xennial; I’m heavy on the Gen X, slightly Millennial. I grew up in Alabama, which was, at the time, about 2-5 years behind the rest of the country. (Now it’s, like, 100 years behind.)

    I’ve always hated SATC. Women watched it all the time at college and I would try to avoid it. And I love shoes, fashion, and sex! I thought I might like it when it first came out, but I found it so vapid and horrible. I don’t begrudge anyone for liking SATC, but I just couldn’t stand it. It seemed to be making fun of women (unintentionally or not) instead of celebrating them. It was problematic then — and yes, people were aware of and talked about those problems then, but we didn’t have Twitter — and it’s problematic now for the same reasons.

    Friends is just horrible, and the writing has not held up at all. Friends ripped so many plots and ideas off of Wings (a far superior show, although with its share of issues) and didn’t execute them with nearly the wit.

    Now Seinfeld, I still binge watch sometimes…I love nihilism, which is basically the show’s core value, and the cast is phenomenal. But I also cringe at it (cringe watch?) because it’s just so gd *mean* to women. There are other problems with Seinfeld, but women are the only group that seems “targeted.” Well, also anyone with more than 20% body fat — the amount of body shaming is absurd.

    These days I find myself unable to watch, like, 90% of 1980s-1990s TV shows because they’re so overtly hateful to women. (Plus one sitcom that isn’t but whose star is a serial rapist.) We did have Murphy Brown, Designing Women, Golden Girls, and Roseanne (another horrid star, but I still watch reruns sometimes, unlike the Cosby Show). Of course, those were all dominated by white women, which in itself is problematic. But the 1980s treated women horribly in media, so I’m taking every feminist victory I can find in that cesspool.

  52. Silvie says:

    I lived in NYC in the 90′s and this show really was the ideal for me and my friends back then, and I’m not ashamed to say that because it’s so easy now to forget what TV was like in the 90′s and how New York was, too. TV, in general, was mostly Caucasian. The Sopranos wasn’t so great with diversity, either. Neither was Friends, or The X Files (except Mr X), and even NYPD Blue was unrealistically white. SATC debuted the same year as Will and Grace, so there weren’t many shows with any gay characters at all back then. What this show really did for me was emphasize the importance of female friendship in a city where romantic relationships were (and still are) sadly pretty disposable, and that everyone’s boundaries in relationships are different. Would it or should it ever be remade? Hell no! Everything is different now. We don’t need SATC now because Gen X had it back when we did.

  53. Karen says:

    it was beginning to dawn on me, time to throw all evidence of it ever having been made into the trash and out of my home

  54. Mash says:

    I re-watched the show when i was going through the ending of a relations with a lackluster un-driven guy and buying a home in DC at the same time and the Miranda character (buying her condo and being a career woman and all and dealing with the bs) really comforted (even as a black woman watching a all white cast show)

  55. Judy says:

    It’s more problematic than just the lack of diversity. I never liked the show, because it legitimised disrespectful relationships. It took a stance of ‘if men can do this, so can we’, rather than the correct stance of ‘men shouldn’t be doing this, this is disrespectful’. It’s not ok to talk about your partner’s sex life behind their back without their consent. That’s emotionally abusive, disrespectful behaviour, it’s not ok. This show normalised and legitimised that behaviour and led to men believing that women do it too, so it’s ok for them to as well. It’s not ok.