• Tue, Jan 8 2013

This Review Of Girls Is Shockingly Inappropriate

girls

New York Post, I love you, but you bring me down. There’s a review of Season 2 of Girls that declares:

It’s not every day in the TV world of anorexic actresses with fake boobs that a woman with giant thighs, a sloppy backside and small breasts is compelled to show it all. It’s a boon for the out-of-shape, and perhaps a giant economic loss for high-end gyms, especially in Brooklyn…

 

This season, Hannah has grown a pair, sort of, and is no longer the sex slave of the slob slacker. In fact, Adam as well as another man are now obsessed with her and can’t get enough of her blobby body.

Look, I don’t really require a lot of political correctness in writing. And I think Girls perpetuates the myth that there’s something free-wheeling and exciting about being a woman child, when, really, it is pretty exciting to be able to do stuff competently (this is my way of saying I will watch for Marnie but only Marnie who I think I could have nice dinners with, which we could cook).

So, what I’m saying is that there are, to my mind, a lot of flaws with Girls. But none of them are a result of Lena Dunham’s “blobby body.”

Her body is fine. Her body is a perfectly acceptable body type and indicating that a woman with Lena Dunham’s body ought to make her undesirable – or for that matter, that slimmer actresses are anorexic – is just ridiculous.

Good. Glad we cleared that up. I will resume watching Downton Abbey over and over.

Picture via Girls/HBO

From Our Partners

Share This Post:
  • Fabel

    And then there’s this part, too: “Interestingly, the gorgeous Marnie is the one who is now totally unlucky
    in love. Sometimes it just doesn’t pay to be smart, breathtakingly
    beautiful, nice and kind. Not when there are blobbies who are willing to
    take their clothes off in public constantly.”

    So not only is she basically saying that it’s shocking & undeserved when gorgeous people have love problems, she’s calling women “blobbies” (wtf) & shaming them for having the audacity to be unclothed. AND implying, seemingly, that men will leap at anything that’s naked, ignoring the “nice, kind, & beautiful” (“higher quality”, modest, not “vulgar” I guess she means?) women. I’m almost embarrassed for this writer, as this peice seems mostly to be highlighting her glaringly wrong world-view instead of actually reviewing a television series.

  • CMJ

    Ho-ly crap that “review” is vile (a word, unfortunately, I have been using waaaay too much to describe people and things lately).

    What is the point of that timeline at the bottom? To further the point that blobby blobs can be successful and still be shamed?