>now if I was talking to a person who was trying to tell me
>Girls was an artistic revolution? well yeah, that would be a
>different discussion. the only Girls fans I've talked to so
>far just tell me, "I REALLY LIKE IT!" because they don't feel
>the need to go around arbiting the taste of others (like,
>let's be honest here O_E, so many men do).

Because I could counter with my anecdotal examples of girls who were angry at me for saying the show "doesn't interest me" and called Dunham "the voice of a generation."

And even if the general public's ability to define an artistic revolution is not statistically measurable, the media's perception and its ability to announce an artistic revolution is unquestionable. And I'm staring at the new EW, with Lena Dunham grabbing her head pensively, with the headline, "The Brilliant, Dirty, Twisted, Beautiful Mind Behind Girls: How Lena Dunham Became The Voice Of A Generation." Not the first publication to announce her coming (or staying... or whatever).

Furthermore, the point made above how backlash against Dunham is less about her being a woman and more about the media's insistence of her brilliance is on the money. Anything that the media insists is amazing gets loved or hated on an equal scale. Anything the media generally ignores that was created by a woman isn't hated, or if it's hated, then no one accuses that hatred to be founded in misogyny.