The Sizist returns, with righteous ire

So, here I am again. Let’s pretend I didn’t go anywhere and that people still give a shit about what I think, eh? Good.


So, today’s anger is directed at Linda Stasi of the New York Post, who wrote this review of Season 2 of ‘Girls’. Now, I’m not about to start moaning at someone for disliking something I like and giving it a bad review. Writers give their opinions on stuff, it’s how that works, I’m doing it now, isn’t it nice. What I do have a problem with is people commenting on body size when the body is not what needs to be reviewed.

Lena Dunham is not a supermodel, her job is not to take her clothes off or to be a personal trainer. She is an actress and a writer. The part she has written for herself in ‘Girls’ just so happens to be one of a 20-something woman who gets naked sometimes. Are we all stunned yet? Young woman has naked sex in Brooklyn. So far it’s pretty believable. And here, less than a hundred words in to the article, is where Stasi starts to take issue with Dunham’s body.

“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.”

If you feel somewhat duped by this sentence, you’re not alone. It starts out as if it’s going to praise Dunham for having a ‘normal’ body (I have my own issues with that terminology, but that’s a whole other blog), but then the venom strikes in the second half of the sentence. “Giant thighs”? Do they affect the plot of the show? Or the writing? The characters and their nuanced relationships? No. Don’t think so, Linda. Though you’re creative use of language in the phrase “sloppy backside” makes me and, I’ll wager, everyone else who reads it, think of diarrhoea.   So that’s something to bear in mind.

“It’s a boon for the out-of-shape”

How!? ‘Out of shape’ people are taking off their clothes in droves now, are they? As if people are sitting on their couches, saying, “Hey, I never knew it was okay to be naked until I watched Girls”. I don’t understand why whenever someone who isn’t a size tiny becomes famous, suddenly they are an advocate for the ‘large’ or the ‘curvy’ or even worse, ‘real women’, whoever the hell they are. Here’s an idea, instead of asking these people to be an advocate of a body type, and as a consequence, speak on behalf of an arbitrary group of people, how about you talk to them about their work, their past or their passions?

“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.”

Another dig. Keep ‘em coming Stasi. I’m counting.

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 — even when they aren’t in character.

Can this be serious? How is this a worthwhile review of a TV program? It’s nothing but bitchy insults and jibes.  This isn’t supposed to be an opinion piece on Lena Dunham, it is supposed to be a review of her work, not her body.

Dunham doesn’t need anyone to rush to her aid and flatter her with praise. She has a body. She bares it when her character’s part requires it. From reading this article, Stasi quite clearly has residual body issues and obvious prejudice when it comes to anyone who doesn’t fit her ideal of ‘beautiful’. But that’s something she needs to deal with herself. It’s the underlying premiss that all it takes to be in a successful relationship is to be gorgeous that I have a problem with. Who could possibly believe that Marnie’s character is the one unlucky in love? She’s so beautiful! Maybe if she’s have reviewed the program rather than her own feelings, she’d have been able to draw a more solid conclusion. Oh and p.s. shitty things happen to hot people all the time. It’s not that unbelievable.

3 Comments

  • 1
    Manatee
    January 10, 2013 - 12:09 am | Permalink

    I cannot agree with you more.
    What I love so much about Girls is that the show is an extremely realistic view of a group of friends. The “pretty girl gets the best car/grades/boy/career” character is so unrealistic, and from TV shows of old. Girls has been praised for breaking the mould, that writer is obviously a tool.

  • 2
    January 10, 2013 - 12:49 am | Permalink

    I bought this month’s iD with Lena Dunham on the cover on the strength of her brilliant ‘staunch’ tattoo alone. I am yet to see Girls, but I expect I am going to enjoy it.

    http://tinyurl.com/azglsac

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>