And sequence matters, particularly since it doesn't look like effort really played much of a role at any point. An affirming review of a television show by a (celebrity, but still) reviewer is followed by a largely unnecessary snarky comment about said show by a random poster on a messageboard.

Everything seems in its place.

Speaking of sequencing, I think you're also talking around the Hegelian Whiplash for "Girls" into which our man Bomb is inserting himself. It can be a fine TV show* without being an important cultural landmark, and people don't like being told that a sitcom that's fewer than two dozen episodes# in has accomplished something culturally transformative. "The Mindy Project" meets your criteria for shows-created-and-starring-women and it doesn't inspire nearly the same amount of teeth gritting. It's just a plain, old pretty good sitcom. And an improving one. Last night's episode was stellar. Ditto for "Whitney," which possesses an absolute quality ceiling of "eh" but will sink or swim based on the public's willingness to swallow that mediocrity just like a mostly shitty sitcom created by a man.

Everything in its place.

There's a few things that are different about "Girls" and being created by and starring a woman is only one of them. I rather wish it were seen just another sitcom so we could avoid the vigorous hand-waving that seems to accompany any discussion of it. But, since before it even existed on air, it's been something bigger and more important for no discernible reason.

*and it is

#semi-relatedly, my wife's family is crazy into British television and they always bring up the superiority of these six episode seasons (series?) on BBC. They are wrong. I appreciate the desire for some kind of editorial restraint, but good TV characters and storylines have shelf lives of much, much longer than a handful of episodes. I'd much rather have a show overstay its welcome like "How I Met Your Mother" than bow out quickly like Gervais' "Office."