This is my lunch. It's hideously boring. That's some plain lettuce topped with this couscous/vegetable/kale pesto thing I made earlier in the week. It's showered in feta because that's how I destroy my own attempts at aggressively healthy eating: strong-arming them with cheese. And so I'm trying to be healthier and I bought that bullshit Jillian Michaels DVD because I want to look extra hot at these summer weddings. I mean really hot. I mean, like, cast your eyes to the ground, I'm an eclipse sort of hot. That kind of hot. Plain lettuce and sinewy arms. Let's go.
Is that gross? That I'm talking about how I'm eating plain lettuce because I want to look hot? Fine, it's a little gross. I agree. Here's the thing: I want to talk about Girls. I'm as sick of talking about it as you are. I don't even like it that much, although I laughed a lot during the second episode and was even moved by the third. But now I want to talk about it. Because I read this article this morning, and besides being poorly constructed, small-minded in its argument, and just as repressive or oppressive as the image it is purporting to disdain, I think it's almost harmful in how it misses the mark and submits for consideration a relationship ideal that is sure to make women feel pitiful in their failure to obtain it (it did for me!).
Kantor's chief complaint, like other criticism I have read, is that Girls portrays girls having sex that is joyless, degrading, and empty.
Well, sure.
That's what sex can be.
I've had that sex. I've had the flip side of it, too: loving, careful, tender, respectful sex. I've experienced mutual joy and satisfaction. I've had a lot of that sex, actually, and I'm going to be honest: it got super boring. I could have done something about that, sure, and I'm not in any way suggesting that all sorts of fascinating power dynamics and fetishes can't be played out in a way that is equally loving, careful, tender, respectful. I'm taking that lesson with me as I move forward, but what I'm saying is: if even I was bored by my loving, careful, tender, respectful sex, viewers of an HBO series would be really fucking bored by it. Let's try and remember that this is, first and foremost, a television show, a comedy at that, bound by all the rules of television that upend even the best of intentions. And sure, yes, I have great hopes that Lena Dunham will choose to include some of that sex at some point down the road. Does she have a responsibility, as a female, to do so? I don't know. That's a very loaded idea, and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that notion. But beyond that, that sort of sex just isn't what Lena Dunham, as an artist, seems interested in, or at least not yet. Beyond not being very dramatically compelling to introduce a character in the first episode who is entirely satisfied in their romantic/sexual life, those experiences simply aren't the ones she wants to mine. They aren't the ones I write about. They aren't the ones I dig through, panning for nuggets to help me explain why I make the choices I do. If Dunham is hoping to ask bigger questions - and I want to have faith that she is - about what it means to be female, to be lost, to be in your twenties and lonely and unsure and batted about by the media, by friends, by the many weighty generations of women of yore who frequently throw up their hands in disgust when watching how we squander our opportunities and say, I burned my bra for this?, then she has to present characters that have yet to figure their shit out.
What really twisted my knickers, though, was Kantor's (unearned) thesis statement: that we should be striving for this post-Austen ideal of a love in which sublimation and domination exist as perfectly weighted opposites.
Yeah. That sounds lovely. And man, I can't count the number of times a guy has come forward and said, Hello. I'd like to now willingly sublimate myself to you in order so that we might share our power in this mutually-satisfactory relationship.
Oh wait, yes I can. That has NEVER HAPPENED NOT ONCE. And perhaps I'm grossly missing the point of the essay, but doesn't that (yet again) give men a kind of power that I'm not really interested in allowing them to have? I mean, isn't a relationship supposed to be a dynamic, evolving entity? Don't we all have to give and take and give and take repeatedly, fight it out and figure out what we are and aren't willing to stand for? There is never a perfect balance; and frankly, for some people, that perfect balance will involve degrees of sublimation and dominance with which other people might be uncomfortable. That's part of the point: we get to choose, now. It's obvious that Dunham's character, Hannah, hasn't quite figured out what she wants. But don't we owe her the opportunity to do so? Even if "figuring it out" means electing to test her own limits?
Also, I am irked beyond belief by Kantor's assessment that Hannah, in giving her sexual self to Adam, is experiencing a worse form of submission than the 50s housewife. Who didn't have a job. Or a political voice. Or a sexual identity or the freedom to express it. Or or or or or. Every single choice Hannah makes is just that: a choice. She's choosing to experiment, to lie face down on a couch, to deaden herself to criticism, to go back to a guy who clearly doesn't treat her that well - at least on the scale that society has created for her. Elizabeth Kantor doesn't agree with her choices. Well, bully for you, Elizabeth. You get to make a different one. You are wiser, let's say, older, you've never wandered out into the minefield of modern relationships and, I don't know, made a decision you later regret? Tried something just because you wanted to see how it felt? Been mistreated and mistreated others in kind? Has it really been that easy for you? And if so, would you like to share with the class? It also feels that we, the viewers, are projecting onto Hannah a kind of emotional despair that we have yet to see evidenced. Hannah is not sitting at home weeping because she's helplessly in love, broken-hearted, worn out by pining. All we've seen her do is have vaguely humiliating sex with a guy who clearly holds more power than she does in this particular situation. Yeah, well: Been there. Enjoyed it. Become fed up with it. Learned something. Moved on. Three episodes in, maybe we can all agree to allow Hannah that same chance? Isn't choice part of what we (not me, I'm mostly reaping the benefits) fought for?
I have been called out on numerous occasions for not being enough of a feminist. I've been glib enough about it to have earned some of that, yes. But it's frustrating, for me, because what I mean when I say that I have a complicated relationship with feminism is not that I think the problem is solved, or that we should all go back to the kitchen, or that the VIDA count isn't pathetic, or that we don't need more females in positions of political power, or that we should all have our clits chopped off, or any other general, ugly, anti-female sentiment. What I mean is exactly that: I have a complicated relationship with feminism. I have a complicated relationship with my identify as a woman. I have a complicated relationship with my sexuality. I have a complicated relationship with Girls. And I am so, so lucky to be able to have that: to sometimes want to be humiliated in bed, and then to bemoan being mistreated; to have loved someone with my full self, in a relationship in which the pendulum of power swung wildly back and forth; to make hideous, obvious mistakes in my dealings with people around me, and to muddle through them for answers, for betterment, all the while knowing that I will make that same mistake again. I'd really like to give Lena Dunham that same opportunity, the chance to explore her own complicated self, the complicated selves of the women around her, to make mistakes, to put up with too much, to ask for too little, to learn. To just, like, be a girl.
Luckily, this is just my opinion. You might have another one. I'd love to hear it. And you know what's neat? We all get to have opinions, even Ms. Kantor. And I get to eat plain lettuce for a week and wish to be skinnier and feel guilty for that wish and drink a lot of wine to compensate and bend my head to read a poem against the neck of a guy who is trying, and failing, to treat me well, for whom I will continue to care, and learn from, and make mistakes with. And all of this is allowed.