For all its flaws, Girls Does a good job at creating believable representations of older women

It's hard to write positively about Girls without deflecting accusations of apologia. Its lack of non-white characters is still a big problem, a caveat for even the most loyal fans. But one area where Girls does surprisingly well is its representations of older women. Thought still confined to secondary roles (unless there is a Brooklynite version of the golden-Girls in the works), for whatever reason, Dunham and crew gets this right:

That was Louise Lasser as B.D. (Beedee?), the photographer whose show is the first exhibit at the gallery Marnie works at. Lasser was the lead of Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, an important precursor to this show, and if you think this series is good at making you feel uncomfortable, you should probably check that one out post-haste. (It’s also a rich, involving tapestry of a show, filled both with amazing humor and unexpected poignancy. Highly recommended.) Also: The scene with B.D. was really beautiful, particularly when she talked about how TV always portrays old women as shells. (AV Club)

There’s also the fascinating, two-line meditation on the importance of representation. Coming from Lena Dunham of all people, Beedie’s observation that part of the pain of getting old is realizing the people on TV don’t look like you anymore comes as a surprise. We know from episodes like “Flo” that Girls is perfectly capable of showing the emotional lives of non-twentysomethings. Seriously, though: a line of reasoning that, when applied to race, could have come straight from the mouths of Dunham’s critics? That’s even more on-the-nose than the Gawker/Jezebel debate of a few weeks ago. Either Dunham’s trying to show she’s learned from her detractors or she’s giving them the middle finger. Or both. (Flavorwire)

Of course, Sunday's episode could have just been a flukey stab at diversity (or a nod to Dunham's critics -- this season has been noticeably meta), but one thing I've always appreciated about Girls is that the older girls (okay, the mothers and occasional bosses) are as flawed, and at times as immature, as the twenty-somethings. It might not seem like a lot, but in a world where women over forty are often cliched "mom-bots," humanity, in all its messiness, is always appreciated.

Lena Dunham on SNL

I'll admit, Lena Dunham's hosting gig on SNL Saturday was better than I expected, but her limited range as a actress was pretty apparent. (I doubt this surprised anyone, and I'm pretty sure Dunham herself would agree.) This was hilarious, though:

)

Lena Duhman responds the furor over Lisa Lampanelli's racist tweet. But should she have to?

Lena Dunham finally responded to the uproar that comedian Lisa Lampanelli caused last week when she tweeted a picture of the two of them, referring to Dunham as "my n---." In a series of tweets made to writer, Shayla Pierce , who called Dunham out on it, she said:

That's not a word I would EVER use. Its implications are beyond my comprehension. I was made supremely uncomfortable by it. 

Perhaps I should have addressed it, but the fact is I've learned that twitter debates breed more twitter debates. 

Don't like the idea that my silence read to you as tacit approval. It wasn't. 

But 140 characters will never be enough for the kind of dialogue that will actually help us address issues of race and class. 

My personal criteria for engaging twitter debate: I wait until something just sits so wrong in my belly & bones that I must finally speak.

I agree with Jezebel's Madeline Davis, whom I linked here: I believe Dunham is being sincere, if incredibly naive.  If Twitter isn't the proper platform for discussing race, she has this thing called a television show which is a fantastic vehicle for talking about race and racism.  I also think she's been unfairly vilified for this. She herself didn't send the tweet, and there's no reason to think that she needs to apologize for it. (Lisa Lampanelli should, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.) Granted, few people are calling for her to apologize, but given Girls' lack of diversity, it was crucial that she condemn Lampanelli's use of the slur.

When I stopped hate-watching and learned to love Girls

CNN.com

 I was all set to "hate watch" it then something happened.

When I first wrote about Lena Dunham's much blogged about series, Girls, after seeing the pilot episode -- the only one I could watch for free when I was HBO-less last year -- I panned it.  Now, after finally watching the rest of season one I'm starting to dig it, and I'm eagerly awaiting what's in store for season two which premiers this Sunday.

This isn't to minimize the criticism leveled at Dunham or the show: the lack of diversity is still a big problem. (One that is apparently being addressed in season two, but I'm reserving judgement until I see it.) That the experiences of well-connected, well-educated, middle-class white women are being held as the standard is still a big problem, but Girls is extremely well-written and honest, even if that honestly is limited to Dunham's inner circle. The characters are flawed and not in adorable, or "adorkable" ways, Actually, flawed doesn't really describe it: most of them -- nay, all of them -- are pretty damn unlikeable. Everyone exists in their own narcissistic little "me" bubble. If there was ever a stereotype about twenty-somethings, this is it, and Dunham exploits the hell out of it.

Another thing I've come to appreciate, for better or worse, is that the sex scenes are some of the least sexy I've seen, at least compared to the stylized, backlit sex scenes typical of Hollywood. A lot of them are downright uncomfortable to watch. (I should also note that Hannah's middle-aged parents get to have the ugly sex too.) There's grossness to Girls that is really unheard of in a mainstream show, even one on pay cable, as if Duhnam is just daring us to watch. I don't even know if I'd call it "realness," since so many of the criticisms have to do with how unrealistic Girls is.

I'm more than a decade older than its target audience, so it's been some time since I've been in my twenties, before Facebook, YouTube, and having one's entire life cataloged and recorded for future reference. It's easy for me to look at Girls as nothing more than a curiosity, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't even a little relatable. I'm pretty sure I didn't christen myself "the voice of a generation," but I'm not so old that I can't remember what it's like to think that you know it all only to find out you actually don't. Over the course of the first season, all of the characters have shown some semblance of growth even while they're still getting it wrong. That's enough to keep me watching.

Lena Dunham's "First Time" Video

Chris Hayes had a good discussion on his show  yesterday about the appropriateness of Lena Dunham's "first time" voting video. I know conservatives are having a field day with this, so I'm hesitant to criticize it (and I'm fighting making a joke about my own "first time" with Bill Clinton), but I actually like its cheeky humor. Granted, it's playing to a very specific audience, who most likely appreciates the cheeky humor also, but on the other hand, it's more fodder for conservative pundits.

Lena Dunham, Caitlin Moran, and Why We're Still Failing at Intersectionality

After interviewing Girls creator Lena Dunham last week, writer and feminism's current it girl, Caitlin Moran, fielded this question from a Twitter follower: "did you address the complete and utter lack of people of colour in girls in your interview? i sure hope so!" Her response simply, "Nope. I literally couldn't give a shit about that." (source )

Can we talk about intersectionality now?

The problem with Girls is not so much its focus on the lives of young, upper-middle class, well-connected white women, it's that the experiences of those women are presented as universal. Moran's outright dismissal of other women --  and their lack of representation -- is part of a larger problem within feminism, and one reason why a lot of women, particularly women of color, are turning away from it. And Moran's tweet? I'm disgusted, but not surprised.

Then this happened.

I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly tone-deaf argument. Questioning that one woman's success might not be equal to the small body of work she's produced doesn't make one a"hater." I'm going to keep screaming this until someone listens: criticism is not "hating." The brunt of what's been written about Lena Dunham or her success has more to do with her being privileged on quite a few axes of which she seems largely unaware, not that she's somehow "undeserving" of her success. It's not the $3.5 million book deal she needs to apologize for, it's not responding to the very valid criticism of her work.

Jealousy is a perfectly valid emoition

This is my mantra every time I read something about jealousy -- how petty it is, and how we as women should "be above it" and supportive of each other.

The comments on this post are pretty disappointing in this respect. I'll even grant that the writer maybe seemed a little too entitled, but that doesn't mean her jealousy over her wildly successful classmate is any less valid, or that's it's something so shameful it need to be hidden away with a less than convincing declaration: "Sure, I'm happy for her -- really I am."

(Jane's marginalia is worth noting, too: "It is important to me though that we keep in mind that someone else's gain is not your loss. Especially among women where a gain for another girl is a gain for us all. Let's all root each other on and pull each other up." I wish that were true, but the gains of one well-connected, privileged on nearly every axis woman doesn't mean we're all winning.)

Jealousy itself isn't bad. Jealousy can be a fantastic motivator, plus it can provide enough awareness that we don't actually live in a meritocracy: hard work isn't always rewarded.

I think the bigger issue stems from what kinds of behaviors and emotions are encouraged in women, even within a feminist context: women are expected to be competitive, but not with each other. What really bothered me was that a lot of the comments veered too closely to the old trope that jealousy is really "unbecoming." Maybe stewing in it isn't the healthiest thing in the world, but I don't think we should be denying ourselves those emotions either.