>but yeah, "Directed" is new. And they're both taking the
>similar "low-rent, less together version of me" approach to
>their breakout creative children.

Though Mindy's job isn't low-rent there, I suppose. She's got writer, actor, and executive producer credits there. And the show is named after her, which is worth something if the argument is that neanderthals are reacting poorly to autonomous women ruining our story time with their own ideas.

I don't know what else I was watching on Tuesday nights, maybe the dearly departed "Don't Trust the B," but I really like her show after a kind of iffy pilot.

Whitney Cummings has the same three tags as those two on her own terrible show, and two of them for the similarly wretched and women-starring "2 Broke Girls." At the very least, it's an impressive energy level for miserable television.

And I rather like the catch-all "creative children" here. I don't want to be uncharitable to what smuts is doing here, but the three-fold crediting process he's brought up is doing more to exclude shows that are unambiguously the product of women's creative efforts than it is to highlight something unique about "Girls". I don't think Tina Fey's apparent disinterest in directing made 30 Rock any less *hers* and I don't think any viewer ranging from casual to moderately serious would point to the list of directors for that show (which include a ton of women) and say that somehow muddies its from-a-woman-ness.

This whole thing is starting to be less fun. I kind of like "Girls." Not enough to pay for an HBO subscription, but enough so that when I was staying someplace with HBO this summer I sat through the end of a lot of shitty movies because an episode of "Girls" was only about forty minutes away. I just don't really think it's a big deal, and though I'll entertain an argument on that point I'm also pretty comfortable being a jerk when people guess at retrograde motives for not thinking it's a big deal.