Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

Girls Sucks, and You Suck for Liking It

girls-hbo

If this post makes me seem behind the times, I don’t really care. I don’t watch TV, don’t even have cable, and I’ve seen exactly two movies in the past year: Django Unchained and Gangster Squad. I vaguely followed the media fracas around Girls when it debuted last year, and by “vaguely followed” I mean I just slapped my forehead at the idiotic accusations of racism against the show’s writers. I’m half-convinced that Lena Dunham hired Ryan Holiday or some other media manipulator to gin up a completely bogus controversy that would stir interest in this otherwise unwatchable show.

No really, Girls is garbage.

It’s not funny. It’s not truthful. It’s not even entertaining in a “so-bad-it’s-good” kind of way. All of you people in the manosphere who think that Girls somehow espouses red pill truths are completely wrong, and even if you were right, so what? Am I required to rubberstamp every piece of shit that crosses my desk just because it reaffirms my worldview? If Lena Dunham is the voice of my generation, I don’t want to be part of this generation any more. Will you GenXers take me?

Here are the big reasons why Girls sucks.

1. Lena Dunham is intolerably ugly.

Dunham isn’t the ugliest actress working today, but she’s certainly trying to snag the top (bottom?) spot. She was already dealt a bad genetic hand in her gargantuan cow thighs, tiny breasts and flat ass, but she’s inexplicably decided to worsen the problem by refusing to exercise in any way, giving her a stomach that protrudes out further than her chest, flabby arms and a hideous double chin. Combine that with her freakishly translucent skin, tasteless tattoos and premature aging caused by a poor diet (she’s only a little older than I am and she’s already developing forehead wrinkles) and I almost feel like I should offer her condolences for whatever life-threatening disease she’s fighting.

And yet, in some lunatic inversion of common sense, Dunham is the only actress on the show who ever gets naked.

girls-lena-dunham

Okay, that’s not quite true; in one episode, we get a nude scene from Dunham’s character’s mother, the only woman on the show I want to see naked even less. Who’s the idiot at HBO who green-lit this? Girls has a veritable plethora of attractive women, from Allison Williams (who resembles an old high school crush of mine) to Jemima Kirke (who resembles one of those shapely Russian women who pose nude for Met-Art or Femjoy). Even Zosia Mamet, with her creepy beady eyes, is decent-looking. And yet they never show us more than their thighs, leaving us to watch Dunham’s numerous vomit-inducing sex scenes, where she looks like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man getting stabbed with an icicle.

The worst part is that the idiots in the mainstream media are heralding Dunham’s disturbing lack of shame as a great leap forward for American culture“Omigod it’s so wonderful that a REAL woman is being depicted on TV!” What the fuck is wrong with you people? Since when was there a law that requires entertainment—something we engage in to escape the dreariness of our existence—to be a perfect mirror of our everyday lives? I have to look at fat, pasty white girls every day, at the bank, the gas station, the supermarket and more, and they usually have bad attitudes and bastard spawn along with their jiggling rolls.

Why would I want to watch fat, pasty white girls for fun?

2. Girls is not funny.

This is easily one of the most badly written shows I’ve ever watched. The worst part is that Girls is crummy on purpose: it’s firmly rooted in the mumblecore aesthetic, one of the most loathsome cultural movements spawned in the history of film. For those of you not in the know, mumblecore is a genre conceived by upper middle-class Brooklyn hipsters featuring non-professional actors, ugly cinematography, “realistic” improvised dialogue, and thin plots revolving around the tedium of post-college life.

In other words, it’s the kind of movement that could only be spawned by arrogant trust-fund nihilists.

Prior to Girls, Lena Dunham’s only artistic achievement was the mumblecore film Tiny Furniture, and it’s clear she learned nothing from the experience. The bland, wordy dialogue in Girls makes watching it, particularly the early episodes, an exercise in frustration. The pilot episode is so bad that were it not for Dunham and her co-stars having rich and famous daddies, it wouldn’t even be fit for public access TV. There’s no wit, no bite, no filter, just a nauseating smugness that permeates the entire episode. The only time I even chuckled was during the scene where Hannah passes out while talking to her parents because she can’t handle her opium.

In the show’s defense, the second half of the first season is a little funnier, but even then, the writers seem hell bent on sucking out what little comedy Girls has, like a clown mainlining helium from a balloon. Every time the show actually starts to get good, Dunham and her girlfriends find some way to wreck it. For example, the scene at the end of episode five, where Hannah walks in on Adam jerking off, starts off funny but deflates quickly due to the poor writing:

Adam: Does it turn you on, to watch me touch my own cock?

Hannah: Kind of, yeah.

Adam: Or does it disgust you? Do you think I’m really bad?

Hannah: No, I don’t think you’re bad. I mean, everyone does it—

Adam: You think I’m pathetic and disgusting?

Hannah: Yes, actually.

Adam: You do? Why?

Hannah: Because there’s a woman standing less than ten feet from you and all you can do is play with your own cock.

Adam: Is it bad?

Hannah: It’s really bad. It’s pathetic and bad and disgusting and weird and lazy.

Adam: Plus, if you have a big cock, you should use it on a woman.

Hannah: It’s not that big.

Adam: It’s not?

Hannah: No. Maybe that’s why you don’t want me to touch it; maybe you’re embarrassed because it’s not that big.

Adam: Maybe…

This is the kind of writing that you’re supposed to have beaten out of you before you finish your freshman year of college. And this isn’t even the full scene; it goes on for another two minutes, the dialogue constantly circling around the point. The other great scenes in the first season come from episode eight, where Adam pisses on Hannah while she’s showering and when Jessa and Marnie get picked up by a high-strung businessman who tries to guilt them into a threesome. The former is about the only scene in the show that is actually done well, because it’s short and gets to the point, while the latter is—once again—ruined by the fact that it drags on too long.

3. Girls is blue pill to the core.

This is the biggest sin of all. Lena Dunham has duped about half of the manosphere into thinking that her show is somehow espousing anti-feminist truths about sex and women. The reality is that Girls is a box of blue pills in red pill packaging. It’s a celebration of the flakiness and uselessness of modern young women disguised as a satire, in the same way that Stuff White People Like and Portlandia are self-gratification disguised as self-abasement.

It’s true that Girls’ protagonists, with the possible exception of Mamet’s character Shoshanna, are self-absorbed, ignorant, lazy shits. Marnie is a flaky snot who detonates her relationship because she can’t handle dating a man who actually respects her the way society tells him too. Jessa is a carefree slut who causes pain and grief to those around her, whether she misses her abortion appointment to have sex with a stranger she met in a bar or incites a gang of punks to beat up her boss. Hannah is the worst of all, a mooch who callously uses her friends, who leads Adam into thinking that she’s interested in a relationship only to dump him at the last minute, who thinks her parents are obligated to endlessly fund her frivolity.

The problem is we’re supposed to root for these characters.

Girls is framed in such a fashion that we’re required to sympathize with the main characters and view their flaws as pluses. For example, the pilot episode ends with Hannah waking up in her parents’ hotel room, trying to order room service on their dime, then stealing the tip they left for the maid. We’re clearly intended to feel sorry for her because her miserly parents and selfish roommate have reduced her to stealing from the poor just to survive.

The supposed “red pill” elements in the script—Hannah’s and Marnie’s relationships with their boyfriends—are clearly framed in a pro-feminist manner. Yes, Adam is an aloof asshole who makes Hannah live out his sick sexual fantasies, like pretending that she’s an eleven year-old girl that he’s raping. But their relationship isn’t framed as a result of Hannah’s hypergamous impulses and poor decision-making, but as a result of how she’s misunderstood and mistreated by the world at large. And when Hannah misleads Adam into falling in love with her, only to break his heart at the last minute, he’s treated as mere collateral damage in her quest for self-actualization.

She’s an empowered independent woman! She doesn’t have to honor her commitments if she doesn’t want to, you sexist misogynist pigs!

I could go into greater detail with Marnie’s and Jessa’s relationships with men and how they fit the same script, but you can figure it out on your own. Girls is yet another example of the mainstream media co-opting underground culture for its own purposes. Much in the same way that the Clash was designed to de-fang punk rock, or how Tom Wolfe’s books were designed to neuter gonzo journalism, Girls’ primary purpose is to inoculate an entire generation of women against the red pill.

“So what if you’re fat and slovenly? You’re fine just as you are, girl!”

“Stuck in relationships with losers? It’s not your fault, you’re a strong, smart woman and guys simply can’t appreciate your awesomeness!”

“Parents cutting you off, making you get a real job? They’re just big meanies who don’t understand your genius!”

It depresses me to see guys in the manosphere praising this cultural gentrification as a good thing.

I should mention that this post was based solely off of the first season; the second season isn’t yet out on DVD and I have no intention of watching it. I don’t need to lick every turd in the litter box to know I’m dealing with a pile of shit.

Click here to buy Girls: The Complete First Season.

Read Next: Day Bang: How to Casually Pick Up Girls During the Day by Roosh V

  • Duped half the atmosphere? Really? Never read a good word about it. Didn’t even know who Lena Durham was before she got banged by (then encouraged the rest of female America to do the same) Obama.

  • Manosphere … duh.

  • I’m surprised you watched a full season, I couldnt get through more than half of the pilot

    Who in the sphere is deluded enough to praise this? I haven’t seen anyone other than Susan Walsh and her suck ups do so, but that was a year ago before I stopped reading her. Its a vile piece of trash that’s completely in line with the mainstream and reaffirming lazy ass millennials that dont have the drive to make their own way, as well as saying its cool to prolong hookup culture past college. Its the new sex and the city for my generation and its sickening to see people praise it.

  • I knew this show was trash as soon as I saw the promo’s. Thankfully the mandatory show of support for the show by the mainstream media has faded for it, as far as I can tell anyways.

  • I’ve only heard of that show through the manosphere. Always thought it was fishy. Now I know why and I haven’t even suffered through one episode.

  • Sounds like the only red pills involved are the narrative requirements of reality; anything explicitly blue pill would but obvious fantasy, so they start with reality, then spin it in a way that affirms the womens’ egos.

    Glad I haven’t bothered with this nonsense.

  • Rotten

    The show people praised is not the show Girls turned out to be.

    Sex & the City damaged the culture: Spoiled entitled women everywhere though that show was not a comedy but reality and modeled their lives after the show. The show was a fantasy aimed at women, but pretending that the fantasy was real, modeling life around the fantasy would only lead to disappointment for women. We all know the fantasy: move to new york, sleep with tons of high calue men, create your own drama, and life the life well into your 40s. Reality soesnt work like this. Yet a ton of women did model their lives on Sex & The City.

    There probably is a good show or movie to be made contrasting Sex & the City with the uglier poorer real life wannabes who treated that show as a gospel and modeled their life around it. But despite sharing a similar cast of 4 New Yorkers, a writer, a businesswoman, a slut, and a goody to shoes, Girls is not that show.

    For one thing, the show dipped into “the player gets played,” movie trope as its central plot device. So any alpha that you saw in the show was just act one and by act 3 the women will demonstrate that they are superior and move on. This happened with all of the relationships with all of the men on the show.

    Second, it becomes obvious that even though the show pokes fun of the characters, we are supposed to understand (and not automatically reject) their choices. We’re supposed to like characters who do horrible things. This means that the show is blue pill.

    Third, Lena Dunham is the only girl to get naked on the show. What really makes the show blue pill is that while pairing her with a weird freak seems about right in the SMV, she later paired herself with a string of hot successful guys. This is classic Sex & the City fantasizing. The show seems to say that Even overweight jobless tattooed women can get a procession of hot successful guys.

  • “I don’t need to lick every turd in the litter box to know I’m dealing with a pile of shit.”

    That made me laugh. Great take down.

  • Sure, we’ll take you in Gen-X.

    I’d never heard of “Girls” before reading this post. I doubt I’ll ever be watching it.

    I love the comparison to “Sex And The City”. Around 2000, most of my coworkers were talking about this “Sex And the City” show, and telling me I HAD to watch it. It took me about 2 1/2 episodes to decide, no, I do not HAVE to watch that crap.

    If a major selling point to the show is a girl getting naked, there are millions of pictures of naked girls around the Internet that don’t force you to watch bad drama to view them. I feel sorry for somebody who would watch a bad show just because a “realistic” looking girl supposedly gets naked.

  • Here’s the deal with shows like *Sex and the City* and *Girls* that no one talks about. For one, the women who praise these shows in the media are, at the VERY least, from the Upper McMansionland, spoiled rich-bitch caste. They’ve never worked a real job in their lives, merely using their family and rich-kid connections to go straight from snarking for the student paper at a high-end university (either Ivy League or private) to a cushy writing gig with Gawker Media, Conde Nast, etc. These women have never taken insults from a customer, never held a mop, never so much as cleaned up after themselves, nor could they even imagine doing such a thing. They look down on people like you and me who have worked blue collar jobs (I had to drop out of college to work in a steel mill). Especially if you HAD to work, and weren’t doing it as part of some Life Experience with the Peasants, Peace Corps-style thing.

    Which makes it all the more amusing when women who work less glamorous jobs idolize the likes of Lindy West, et al,, because even gross, repellent fatasses like Lindy West look down on these women as dumb trash for having to work. But these writers praise this show to the skies (Dumpy Grrl Power!), Lena Dunham cannily retweets the splutterings of the “professional” feminists (I know this because I used to follow Patton Oswalt, who turns out to be an “ally” who also retweets these things), and all the cubicle slaves and HR ditzes go nuts thinking they are onto a Socially and Culturally Significant Thing. Guys like us, we see a tatted-up hobbit get banged by Hollywood-handsome men with options and wonder if this is one of those zany SyFy Saturday monster movies it’s now hip to laugh at. But the beta boys want to look cool to the girls, so they pretend to like it,too.

    For my part, I make a point of excusing myself permanently whenever the subject of the Hip New Show You Gotta Watch ever comes up in a social situation. Just as we used a liking for *Sex and the City* to screen out stupid flakes, we now have *Girls.*

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    Yeah there are a lot of tards in the manosphere at all levels. Even if Girls did have so called red pill content, so what…

    It’s like someone offering you a turd with your name scrawled in it. It’s still a god damn turd. It doesn’t matter if Girls has content in agreement with us, it’s still repulsive content. There are lots of guys eager to see any validation of their beliefs from the mainstream, instead of just contenting themself with their own pursuit of truth.

  • Smoove T

    And an Amazon associates link at the end?

  • Pat Hannagan

    Thanks for the review, not that I would ever watch it (I’m a Mudcats watcher at best) but I knew I hated it the moment I read about at Piggies.

    Lena Dunham?! Lena Dunham!!!? Fuck, mate, point #1 hits it in one. That head, my God that head. Some msm article on the onesie fad had a pic of her in one. I wanted to go to America and stalk her into an affair just so I could take her on a mountain top drive and loever’s lookout to push her off a cliff.

    That Dunham head is enough to know these are the last days of Sodom.

  • Pat Hannagan

    Eminently slaughterable:

  • Pat Hannagan
  • Alright I will dissent (a little) and I do kind of get the appeal of Girls. I will admit I kind of enjoy it in a “watching a car wreck” kind of way. I won’t disagree with your criticism of the style and your criticisms of the quality are spot on. Then again the wife and I sat down and watched Sharknado over the weekend and enjoyed it, so you might legitimately criticize my ability to watch and enjoy the truly awful.

    Still, part of what makes it interesting to watch and why I think some people have described it as having “red pill truth” in it is that it actually does. Not intentionally in don’t think, I agree the show is irredeemably blue pill and represents a fantasy for Dunham, but the truth leaks in it seems. Probably the part that attracts some “red pill” types is that the leakage seems quite unintentional. At least that is part of what I find interesting about it. It isn’t intended to be there.

    I have never felt any sympathy for the characters, they fuck up and are miserable because of their choices. I guess we are supposed to feel sympathy for them, but that aspect is lost on me. Maybe I’m just callous.

    Call me names if you like, but I figured I would at least offer a dissenting thought. It is garbage but not as irredeemably so as you think Matt.

  • jesus christ matt, your such a martyr .
    OH I CANT WAIT TO BUY THIS FROM AMAZON AND WATCH IT! At least I can substitute that for ipecac for weight loss no?

  • Another thought, you touched on it above but I noticed it watching the show. The character of Marne, quite an attractive woman in her own right, ditches he loving and loyal boyfriend for a “cad” who uses her and then after the loyal beta makes it big she suddenly finds herself attracted to him again.

    This struck me as an example of modelling the behaviour and attitudes of young women that really showed them in a negative light when you thought about it. However I think the behaviour was meant to be excused or regarded as an example of an empowered woman instead of the example of the worthless fickle bitch it made her out to be.

    Again, show pretty mediocre, but the truth does slip through even unintentionally.

  • Apollo

    Echoing what leap of a beta said – I didnt make it through more than half of episode one. That was more than enough “turd licking” for me to decide I wasnt going to watch any more. You must have been very determined to write that review, Matt.

    There was a Hell of a lot of hype around this show when I obtained episode one and watched it, and a lot about how realistic and representative of the american youths of today it was. Well, I dont spend a lot of time around people of that age group, nor am I american so I wouldnt really know if thats accurate – maybe someone else can confirm. If it is accurate though, I can understand Matts desire to disassociate himself from them. Who would want to be connected in peoples minds with such a bunch of lazy, dull witted, affected, self entitled, delusional, untalented and immoral f*ckwits? I couldnt even stand to watch them on TV, theres no way I would put up with them in person.

    As mentioned, theres not even any TnA eye candy to redeem this POS, something HBO can usually be counted on for. The one sex scene I was unfortunately subjected to during my 20 or so minutes of viewing involved Lena, the frumpiest 20 something on television, exuding all the sex appeal of a menopausal housewife, having mechanical passionless sex with some pasty, listless, skinny-fat drug-using slacker. I suppose this was intended to be edgy, to demonstrate the disconnection between people and general degredation caused by hookup culture, or some such, but all it triggered in me was a sense of nausea. Get the message HBO, all instances of nudity and sex in your shows should only feature attractive women and should be completely unrelated and inconsequential to the overall plots of said shows.

  • Cicero

    Lots of dumb young sluts watch this shit too. Just last week I was in the grocery store and overheard a group of them talking about this show. Shit for brains, the lot of ’em.

  • Starke

    I recently visited an old friend from college who I’d once abortively attempted to introduce into the red pill world.

    I noticed two additions to his life in the 4 years since graduation;
    1. An obese, nose-ringed girlfriend with a degree in Inter-Cultural Studies.
    2. An opened box-set of ‘Girls’ lying atop the DVD player.

    Guess I was a terrible teacher.

  • The breaking point for me with Girls was the scene when LD is back home in Michigan – btw, hat tip to casting for keeping Becky Ann Baker as the quintessential apron-string-agonizing MI housewife after all these years – and she stares in the mirror, telling herself she’s interesting because she lives in New York. I honestly can’t tell anymore whether Dunham was parodying many of the New Yorker hipper-than-thou transplants I absolutely despise, or whether she’s pretending to parody it while truly believing it deep down. I suspect the latter.

  • Pingback: Father Knows Best: Mid-Summer Edition | Patriactionary()

  • Dr. Rattporn

    Dunham is a native New Yorker–so her parody is definitely pretend. I’ve read that both her parents are artist and that the family maintained a second home in Greenwich, CT, if that tells you anything. Dunham attended Oberlin College in Ohio, which is probably how she got the idea for casting herself as a Midwestern transplant trying to “make” it in the big city. I came upon the show after reading a very positive review of it in “Uncut” magazine, a magazine I normally respect. Dunham wrote most if not all of the first season’s shows and then pretentiously appears at the end of each episode to discuss the whys and wherefores of what she wrote. If this show represents reality then I long for euthanasia. New York has some mighty fine women and to think that this cow, Dunham, an obese “2” (and that is being generous) is regularly copulating with decent-looking or downright handsome men and that these men are willingly doing this copulating–it shames the entire male species. I do not favor the artificial parsing of the generations via labels but if this is the sort of tripe the “millenials” are putting out then our society is definitely at its nadir.

  • Lena Dunham Fanboy

    Isn’t Lena Dunham far far far more successful than you? As we all know, success is the ultimate arbiter of quality, especially when it comes to people like Lena Dunham whose rich daddies help them get TV shows.

    Lena Dunham is not intolerably ugly. I personally love her shapeless stomach, double chin, ghostly pallor and lack of breasts.

    [CensorBot sez: To each his own, I guess.]

  • Wow, you’re an asshole. I never heard about and don’t give a fuck about this show, but I was randomly surfing and randomly stumbled on your post, and then I had to go see why you say Leena Duham is intolerably ugly. And then I had to see her naked.

    You’re a sadistic fuck, aren’t you?

    The disgusting thing is I fucked a chick who looked almost exactly like that, with small tits and everything. You should see her 250 pounds later. She’s a gym coach of all the fucking things. I shit you not.

  • Capt Kirk

    Couldn’t agree more. This is the type of shit we get when over protective parents make kids feel like their crap is something special. This broad is intolerably dumpy and full of herself on top of it. She can pretend she’s comfortable with herself by continuing to get naked on TV, but that doesn’t change that fact that she’s a dumpy, ugly douchebag. Just that she’s comfortable with it. God help us all if shit like this continues to make money and networks seek a new army of douchy, self promoting hipsters to force feed us more of this shit.

  • Kyle Bull

    At least sex in the city was well written, funny, and “sassy.” It made me feel horrible about myself and about the state of women, but at least it was an entertaining show. This girls show is just shit. Horrible acting, horrible writing, and they think they’re some kind of cultural revolution.

  • Pingback: Lena Dunham And The Hollowness Of Millennial Girls()

  • Tianna Kelly

    I find the show to be a realistic depiction of what young girls actually act like. they’re not perfect, but neither is anyone else, and the show recognizes and highlights those imperfections. also, her physical appearance has nothing to do with anything other than highlighting how callously superficial this page’s author and it’s readers are.

  • Tianna Kelly

    Edit: after scrolling through this site a bit, I realize that it’s a woman-hating archive of incitement, so the level of ignorance in this post actually makes sense. carry on with your silly pathetic lives, all!

  • Tianna Kelly

    you’re just saying things that are not true now.

  • Scully

    Well said. I’ve always thought Lena Dunham was very hard to look at and even harder to watch act. That Zoisha chick is hideous and ape like.

  • Pingback: Social Justice Wars – Right On()