I am in love with Girls, Lena Dunham’s New York-based sit-com, lauded and loathed in equal measure, due to its portrayal of an arguably narrow group of twenty-somethings for whom the shit-sandwich of working for free, navigating difficult relationships, and spending 90% of their time making twats of themselves is tolerably digestible when coupled with the confident self-assurance that these FML-years are simply a trade-off for a life of creative success, spacious apartments and organic elderflower gin.
But have you been to Hackney, Dalston, Peckham, New Cross or Camberwell? Alongside a diverse demographic of city-dwellers, these places are full of ‘girls’ – dissatisfied, success-hungry, cash-starved but opportunity-rich young women just like Lena Dunham’s Greenpoint counterparts. They may be the niche rather than the norm, but isn’t it better that a show like Girls honestly portrays its minority rather than democratically try to represent everyone, and thus no one? People loved Sex and the City because it was aspirational, and Friends because it functioned as an escapist fantasy that made being young and broke seem like a white-teeth-baring laugh, not because anybody could truly relate to the catch-all characters.
While Girls’ glaring omission of racial diversity is inexcusably problematic, it does accurately nail the trials, tribulations and LOLs of a particular kind of girl, to whom it succeeds in being completely relevant. Girls might be obnoxious, and its characters potentially unlikeable, but that doesn’t mean its not punch-in-the-face relatable and refreshingly honest to a lot of people in a way no other show has been before.
So inevitably, people will hate Girls, just like they hate hipsters, raw food and ACNE. They probably live in Clapham.
Read also:
Hipster racism run-off and the search for the black Constanza – Gawker
