I recently watched several episodes of HBO's "Girls". Offensive. Shocking

[cali]

but not because of the sex or talk about sex; it's because it's a paean to privilege. And not very well done to boot.

Yeah, it's a realistic slice of life of the young and privileged and reflects the lives of its cast who grew up in that world, but it glorifies nasty, small minded self absorption in a way that I'd never quite seen before. And no, it doesn't cut it as being post-ironic.

It's truly bad. The great reviews are mind boggling to me. Emperor's new clothes and all that.

I'm glad I'm not the only one:

I hate the show Girls. Hate it. On a very fundamental, visceral level, I hate this #### show. It’s not because its poorly produced. It’s exactly what it wants to be and I try to appreciate it as a successful piece of art in that respect. It’s not because I can’t relate because I should be their audience. I’m a young writer fresh out of college trying to find his footing in the world. It’s not even because of the racial issues surrounding the show. No, I hate girls because it validates and glorifies crappy people. Girls presents itself as this coming of age tale about our hipster/tween generation and all of the missteps toward adulthood but it comes off more as an exploration of how vapid and awful privileged people are and how horrible it is for them to live with slightly less privilege.



The show’s supporters have told me that its aim is to humanize these well-to-do white girls and show that their youthful transgressions are just as ridiculous, unfortunate, and awkward as the rest of us but this simply isn’t true. The first episode I saw of the show concerned one of the titular girls getting an abortion and how her friends threw her an abortion party. I believe that you can find humor in any situation and that no topic is off limits. I’ve been in situations where I’ve had to deal with abortions and they are awkward and they are emotional and can be kind of funny. It’s a topic ripe for exploration for any young writer and something I wish that more of us would tackle but the show’s creator/writer/star/ (Lena Dunham) tackles the subject in the most frustratingly childish way possible that I can’t help but wonder why she bothered. In the entire episode (that also featured a subplot concerning the protagonist not getting a job because she doesn’t know how to conduct herself professionally and only seemed to make her less likable as a character) not once did anyone mention the cost of this abortion. A safe abortion is not cheap and for most young people who have to even think about the subject cost is the first conversation.


As I said before, Girls is exactly what it wants to be. It very accurately represents the lives of a very slim sliver of the American population. I have more associates in this population than I care to and it speaks to them and that’s awesome. The show feels real to them and, personally, I think it adds some validity to their lifestyles. And it does feel very real but Girls highlights an aspect of reality that is kind of ####ty. There are no minorities on Girls because the characters are terrible and boring people. As a black man I know I wouldn’t want to hang out with any of them (the Brit’s cool). Verisimilitude aside, the reason I really hate Girls is because it feels like a huge wasted opportunity. As if all of the attention and acclaim it’s garnered is as unearned as everything else in those girls’ lives.

http://boards.adultswim.com/t5/Rants/HBO-s-Girls-is-terrible-just-just-terrible/td-p/64823998

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/04/tv-review-girls-hbo-lena-dunham

this is horrible show that glorifies and revels in privilege and entitlement.

[Prism]

1. I really don't understand why Lena Dunham is so celebrated

I suffered through the first season and couldn't find anything redeeming about the character or the writing. It was a paean to shallow self-absorption and how to use people to meet one's temporary emotional needs. Her book doesn't promise anything better.

Totally stymied as to why she's being shoved into culture's face by Hollywood. I think I read she's buddies with some influential producers.

[Cleita]

2. The fact that it's about kids, not just girls in their early twenties, it would

seem realistic to me to portray the self-absorption that young people have at that age. They mentally really haven't fully matured yet. I remember myself and my peer group at that age. We didn't have all the sex they had being birth control pills had barely been invented and abortion was illegal, but I think it's pretty accurate. Of course, back in my day you could live on a minimum wage job and there was plenty of work so it wasn't about privilege either.

[cali]

3. you miss my point. And no, most people aren't privileged and entitled enough

to have the luxury of being that self absorbed.

Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. Yes, it's realistic for a small slice of upper crust twenty somethings but it's the glorification of that and the the smug wallowing in it that's repulsive. It really doesn't demonstrate any insight.

As for the sex. pfft. I came of age in the 70s and had sex with lots of people. That doesn't bother me in the least.

[LanternWaste]

58. Specifically how is that life-style being glorified rather than merely depicted?

Specifically how is that life-style being glorified rather than merely depicted in an entertaining way appropriate to the medium, regardless of any insight contained therein?

As an aside, the most self-absorbed people I know are quite poor rather than successful... quite often, I imagine that they are poor because they are indeed, that self-absorbed.

[enough]

5. I agree Cleita, my young-womanhood goes back to that time before legal abortion

and the pill, but I found the first season to be fairly accurate as a description of a certain slice of life. The thing that amazes me about it is that I would expect young women now to be much more self sufficient and less pathologically obsessed with male approval. I am sorry to see that, at least in that little piece of the world, they seem to be even worse off in that regard than girls were back in the day.

It's just amazing to me that well-educated affluent young women are not more psychologically self-sufficient than this. I certainly hope there are a bunch of them out there who are NOT being portrayed in this series. I'm sure there are.

Or maybe the whole thing is just a misogynistic fantasy, and that's why it's popular.

[Squinch]

29. This is very interesting. Because you are, apparently, just a bit older than I am and you recognize

these young women as being similar to your cohort at that age. I grew up after the pill and abortion were readily available, and just as women were gaining ground in the workplace. We were all out to conquor the world, and men thought that was pretty cool. I don't recognize myself or the women I knew when I was in my twenties in these characters.

Which begs the questions: have we gone backward, and why?

I do know some current twenty somethings who are age-appropriately self absorbed, but who have ambition and an understanding that they need to take care of themselves. Which is a relief.

[redqueen]

12. Yep.

And it wasn't an 'abortion party'.

This guy doesn't pay attention.

[JaneyVee]

55. Love it or hate it, it's actually a very accurate portrayal of the life of early twenty-somethings

hipsters living in Brooklyn. As a Brooklyn native transplanted to Manhattan I can attest to the reality of the show, even if it didn't mimic my own life it sure does mimic the lives of many young Brooklyn hipsters. And they're not really privileged, they're all struggling with almost no money and worried about their futures. The main actress is so worried that her anxiety & OCD has come back and she punctured both ear drums.

[Cleita]

56. We didn't quite have the same anxiety about money, but there were always jobs

to fall back on if you found yourself out of work, until you could get back on your feet. Like I worked as an administrative secretary but I knew I could always get a job at Penney's or Sears to tide me over until I found a better job. Also, you could pay rent and eat on minimum wage back then.

[RZM]

4. I thought that was kind of the point

The main characters are self-absorbed and don't know shit. I think that a lot of the humor picks up on that.

[cali]

7. nah. I don't buy it. I think it's glorifying these traits not looking at them

in any biting sort of way.

I actually grew up in that milieu and I recognize the familiar smugness.

[Arugula Latte]

37. At the end of each show Lena Dunham talks about the episode.

One time she pointed out that most of the characters are self-absorbed and that leads to trouble. She said that Sasha is one of the few who seems to think of others' feelings, sometimes. I truly don't think it's intended to glorify smugness, but to show it, warts and all.

[RiffRandell]

6. I hate it.

I posted about it last week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018330416

[HereSince1628]

8. I find myself unable to watch the variety shows on the Spanish language channels

available thru our provider. They give me cognitive dissonance.

[SoCalDem]

9. It is a gross show..

I don't find any of the characters appealing.

[frazzled]

10. I love it

And I'm an older woman who is not part of the "privileged" class. I do understand the New York (mostly art scene) culture out of which it arises, however. And having spent my salad days in lower Manhattan, many decades ago, I get what is going on with it.

I'd suggest you don't watch it. If you're complaining about class issues (which, by the way, it makes fun of ... especially the idea that the main character is living off her parents' largesse as she fails at increasing numbers of menial jobs), there are way worse shows on television to complain about. These girls are not living on the Upper East Side and wearing designer fashions. They're not buying $10.5 million dollar apartments. They're bohemians with trust funds lying in wait (Dunham's real mother is the successful artist Laurie Simmons) who live downtown and wear used clothes in novel ways and struggle with the sexual and job-related problems that many young women who hightail it to New York in their twenties encounter. It's hilarious, if sometimes shocking ... but perhaps it's just not to everyone's taste.

ON EDIT: You might understand it better if you watch Dunham's indie film "Tiny Furniture" first.

[cali]

11. Uh, I'm not going to watch it. I watched several of the episodes in the first season

to give it a fair shake.

And I did grow up in much the same milieu, went to the same kind of private schools, etc. And no, it's not making fun of it. And it's not really making fun of her living off her parents. That's a sort of inside joke.

Nothing about it shocks me, my dear, except for the glorification of certain kind of privilege.

[bettyellen]

17. Her parent paying was a totally made into a joke- she skewered herself over it.

But you didn't see all the episodes.

I think if you didn't grow up privileged like you did, it's a lot easier to find them funny. But if you find memories of yourself and cohorts in it, naturally it would be a bit uncomfortable.

[redqueen]

14. Me too. Love it. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. How privileged are they?

Well, they are college grads, I suppose.

Hannah is a struggling writer who's had to scramble for crappy jobs to pay the rent.

Marnie (?) lost her art gallery job and is reduced to being a hot-pantsed hostess.

Jessa (?) seems to sleep with rich guys and then vanish.

That fast-talking virginal girl, I don't know what she does, but she has a self-described "loser" boyfriend.

My partner and I enjoy the show, although we don't find the characters particularly praise-worthy. more like self-absorbed and narcissistic. But hey, they're 20-somethings.

[cali]

16. Quite privileged

they all went to very expensive colleges without having to worry about paying for it. Hannah's parents had been completely supporting her 2 years post grad. Jessa has traveled all over the world and lives comfortably without working. They all clearly share the same upper middle class background.

[Comrade Grumpy]

22. Okay. Such people do exist. And they make TV shows about themselves.

I guess I'd concede that they are relatively privileged, but still struggling, apparently except for Jessa, who just flits around and marries rich guys.

Maybe someone else will make a show about immigrant farm workers or something.

[pnwmom]

35. Hannah's parents cut her off in the first episode. Do you think the fact

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2013, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

that she's been suffering from at least one mental illness (OCD) might have been part of the reason they had been contributing to her support? (OCD can start in childhood, around the age of 10, and is often linked to anxiety and depression.)

I guess I haven't watched enough or carefully enough to realize that all of the girls had come from the same financial backgrounds -- except for Jessa. I'd gotten that about her. OTOH, aren't a large number of shows on TV (30 Rock, Mad Men, etc.) about basically upper-middle class people?

[redqueen]

52. "aren't a large number of shows on TV (30 Rock, Mad Men, etc.) about...upper-middle class people?"

Yep.

This guy is wrong in several ways.

I grew up poor, am lower middle class now (if that) and I've been working since I ran away from home at 17.

I love the show but not because it 'validates my lifestyle' or whatever he said. I also bristle at his foray into the topic of abortion.

[Arugula Latte]

36. Their self-absorption is part of the story, part of the depiction.

I don't think it's that inaccurate, having been in my 20s once myself.

I don't think the show is saying: "Look! These girls are completely full of themselves! Isn't that great!" A lot of the plots center around the mess they make of things because they can only think of themselves.

And, so what, privileged people exist ... We're only supposed to watch shows about dirt poor people?

[Whisp]

39. I think all of those shows are scripted.

So wouldn't be surprised if they ratcheted up the selfishness just for effect and gasps.

Can't wait to not watch Rich Girls go Hillbilly Hand Fishing vs. Dumbest Bartenders on Wheels.

[Comrade Grumpy]

49. Girls isn't one of those reality shows. It's a work of fiction.

Although loosely based on Lena Denham's life, I suppose.

[elfin]

15. I find it sloppy and meandering

Cannot figure out why Dunham is so celebrated and why HBO seemingly has offered her to do another series.

The sex is anything but erotic, but it is constant and prosaic and emotionless.

If this is the way "real" young women lead their lives, I am disheartened.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Did "The Sopranos" "glorify" the Mafia?

Aren't these fictional characters, following a fictional storyline?

[redqueen]

26. Oh interesting... I had a visceral aversion to that show...

simply because of my perception that it would include a sympathetic portrayal of mobsters.

[bettyellen]

40. strangely enough that is why I loved the Sopranos.... it really played with the contradictions

that these were human beings with very mundane concerns and normal upper middle class lifestyle. But some of them could become savage animals at any turn. But most characters weren't 100% evil at all times.
They did a whole season that was more about the women, how they wanted to compartmentalize what was going on and believe they were good people, and were in denial about the blood on their hands. Some great performances.
I loved the last few episodes, which had the family all freaked out and hunted for a couple of episodes, and *spoiler alert* they end up in a diner kind of forgetting it all happened. While you wonder where the next hit is coming from, they are having a happy little family dinner. Loved that.

[redqueen]

54. Yeah, I guess I had the same aversion other people have for Girls...

Mobsters are people whose first-world problems I don't seem to have much interest in. (To borrow from Mineral Man's terminology downthread)

[bettyellen]

59. Yep, I thought the concept was stupid too. I got sucked in because the supporting actors and script

were so darned good. And watching how they portrayed the kids growing up in denial, and seeing acceptance creep up on them over the years was kind of fascinating. The actors who play his wife, sister, and nephew are just wonderful in it though.

[redqueen]

60. Ha, that happened to me with House.

I don't want to like an asshole!


Then later...

Oh my, this is goooooood.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. The thing about Girls though is that I don't think it's intended to make its characters look good.

The Hannah character is basically your archtype anti-hero.

If you watch it knowing that you aren't supposed to like or necessarily identify with the characters, you probably will end up enjoying it a lot more. I do actually watch and enjoy Girls.

To tell you the truth, I enjoy Girls much, much more than HBO's previous "four women living in New York" show, Sex and the City.

That show also featured vain, shallow, unlikeable characters. The difference between Girls and SATC is that SATC portrays its characters as if you are supposed to like and identify with them, whereas Girls makes no such pretense.

[devilgrrl]

21. Good observations...

I totally agree with you on SATC too.

[redqueen]

27. +1

[Glimmer of Hope]

64. I prefer Girls too because of the rawness.

[vankuria]

66. Exactly!

I watch the show and see it as an honest depiction of 20 somethings, making bad decisions, struggling, etc. I was a fan of Sex and the City, but I never saw the show as an honest reflection of young single women, with the perfectly toned bodies,designer clothes, fabulous apts. and male model boyfriends in perfectly tailored suits. "Girls" show young women who are anything but perfect, especially Lena Dunham's character who looks like a typical young woman, she doesn't have the perfect body, wardrobe, job, etc. I wish there was a show like that on when I was a single woman and struggling through bad boyfriends, self doubt and crappy jobs.

[devilgrrl]

20. I grew bored of it rather quickly.

Young people worried about things I long stopped caring about.... T.V. off!

[Floyd_Gondolli]

23. Meh, it's a TV show

It's at times entertaining, and other times, not so much. High art it isn't and probably was never intended to be.

[olddots]

25. She's on the cover of The Rolling Stone

There is a hype machine behind this all so I checked it out and it made as little sense as most hype.
I wanted to know why the show offended me so much then realized that is why its popular .

[Marr]

28. Couldn't agree more. Ever notice how television dramas slowly migrated to this sort of

'inside the lives of the rich and empty' type of show? I remember being a kid in the 70's and early 80's, and most of the TV shows were about regular people for the most part. All in the Family, One Day at a Time, Three's Company... these people weren't rich.

In the 80's it seems to me, it slowly started changing. Now television is about the idle rich, for the most part. The exceptions-- things like Honey Boo Boo, for instance-- aren't sympathetic at all. They're more like twisted nature programs, where the viewer is invited to gape and laugh at the antics of the ignorant beast.

I have to wonder how much that reflects our increasingly unbalanced wealth distribution. Producers, TV executives, all the people who actually greenlight these shows live in a world that is more and separate from the masses.

[octothorpe]

53. How are they considered rich?

At the most they seem to be middle-class. Most of them seem to live in shitty apartments and barely get by on their own. This just happens to be about some 20-something year olds living in the city, as opposed to some middle-aged people and their kids living in the suburbs.

[HiPointDem]

57. i agree; though the people in a lot of shows aren't generally labelled as 'rich,' their lifestyles

are clearly above the median.

but they're sort of presented as though they're normal.

[cbdo2007]

30. So what. Watch something else.

I'm guessing we could show any show to you today and you'll find some reason to not like it.

My only question is why you spend so much time and energy invested in things you don't like. I do the opposite. If I don't like something, I do something else that I actually enjoy rather than spending hours and hours analyzing why I don't like something and trying to convince everyone else they should not like it as well.

[cali]

31. You would be wrong. There are quite a few shows I like

And no, I don't spend so much time and energy invested in things I don't like. I try to find things I do like and I try to give them a fair shot- like watching several episodes of Girls. My question is why are YOU spending time and energy whining bitterly about my having an opinion and expressing it on a discussion board? Oh, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. But whatever, honey.

[cbdo2007]

43. Great, so what are 5 shows you like watching?

You don't like porn and you don't like Girls, so what do you watch, honey?? Give us some perspective here, otherwise your opinion you are expressing is tantamount to me creating a whole discussion topic about why I don't like brussel sprouts.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

48. What shows do you find entertaining?

Obviously television/books/films are highly subjective but when reading your OP this was a question I wanted to ask merely out of curiosity.

Feel free to tell me to fuck off or its none of my business if you wish, but I was just curious.

[otohara]

32. Girls of Famous Parents

I like Girls and sometimes I don't.

[Quantess]

33. I haven't seen it but,

I know someone with cool taste who really likes the show.

But then, I enjoyed the film Showgirls. It's a terribly great classic. The bad reviews miss the genius of it.

[Arugula Latte]

34. I love that show.

Sorry, I can't get enough.

[redqueen]

41. Same here... as soon as the season finale was over

I was trying to find the air date for the season 3 premiere.

[Arugula Latte]

42. I am going to check Lena Dunham's movie "Tiny Furniture" of of the library

for a "fix."

[redqueen]

45. Oh I hope you like it!

It's similar to the show, I want to see it again now.

[Arugula Latte]

50. Thanks!

[Chiyo-chichi]

63. I watched it for the first time last week on Netflix streaming. Enjoyed it.

And I enjoy Girls.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. I agree. It's a great show

Hardly "offensive" and "shocking".

[BainsBane]

38. It's said to be the female Entourage

I have never seen Girls because I no longer have HBO, but I did see a couple episodes of Entourage. Suffice it that Jane Lynch's joke at the Emmy's summed up my thoughts about that show:

"People ask why I'm a Lesbian. (pause) Let me introduce the cast of Entourage."



I don't know if Girls has the safe effect on men.

[MineralMan]

46. I've tried watching it, but simply can't.

Self-absorbed people struggling with first-world problems just don't hold my attention. Nothing is important in the show. I suppose there is a fascination with the awkward porn focus of part of it, but I'm not entranced by the main character's relationship issues. First-world problems.

Of course, I'm not 20-something, I don't live in NYC, and I may be missing something I should be seeing. I don't think so. My wife watches it, but can't explain why. I can only shrug.

For me, it seems a lot like a boring satire of 'Sex in the City,' another show I couldn't watch, simply for lack of interest in the lives of the characters. More first-world problems.

[pnwmom]

47. I think Hannah is a textbook "anti-hero."

From Wikipedia:

"In literature, an antihero (or antiheroine as the feminine) is a protagonist who has no heroic virtues or qualities (such as being morally good, idealistic, courageous, noble, and possessing fortitude)."

As such, she's kind of creepily fascinating.

I can't think of a female anti-hero on TV before. There are female antagonists (bad guys opposing the good guys), but I don't remember a female anti-hero before. Maybe that's why she's so shocking.

[octothorpe]

51. I actually kinda like the show

I don't go out of my way to watch it, but I watch it on-demand when I get a chance. I find it amusing because the main character totally reminds me of someone I know in a lot of ways.

[kwassa]

61. It is not a paean to privilege, you just don't get the jokes.

I have only seen a few episodes, because we did away with our HBO subscription, it makes fun of privilege, satirizes privilege, makes fun of a certain art scene milieu in New York City. I thought it funny and very original, particularly in the unstinting and almost scathing look at the current state of male-female relationships in the 20 somethings.

It is the antidote and polar opposite to "Sex in the City", the mirror opposite, young women full of themselves in the big city, with unsatisfactory results. It is far more real than "Sex in the City" and is rather courageous in the way it shows bad sex and the way people in need abase themselves.

It is the one show I miss since giving up HBO.

[ecstatic]

62. Though it's jumped the shark a little, the first few episodes reminded me

of my college days. I cringe when thinking about some of the things I did back then. The show has jumped the shark because the writer is desperately trying to please random bloggers who don't speak for most people.

[olddots]

65. Do a search for Hanna's dad's " art work "

this will explain something or maybe not .

[Butterbean]

67. I tried to watch it once, and found it boring and the characters

to be maddeningly immature. I wanted to strangle them and kept rolling my eyes, so I changed the channel and never watched it again. *shrug*

There are lots of crappy shows on tv. Hell, one entire network (the CW) seems to be devoted to vapid teen dramas. Barf.