Lily Tomlin: 'Girls' Is 'Too Sexually Focused,' Needs 'More Range'
Tomlin, who calls herself a feminist, said one of the fallouts of feminism is girls have become more accessible. "Maybe not wisely accessible. A lot of young girls -- they’re expected to give blow jobs now. Young, young girls, as far as I can perceive. Maybe 12 or 13 years old. I mean, that’s a rite of passage, I suppose," Tomlin said. "As a feminist, I don’t want those girls to be used."
Lily Tomlin got called a cunt by David O. Russell, because we live in a society in which it is okay to call women cunts. You are all murderers.
The sanctimonious anti-cunt crusader is having a pouty fit again.
Straight men won the war between the sexes. I'm not happy about it, but you guys probably are.
The show is sad. It illustrates how young women have come to accept being sexually available to men 100% on their terms as the same thing as being sexually free. They think having boundaries or standards makes you a stuck up bitch or a prude. They roll their eyes if someone mentions "sexism," but they think they're liberated because they'll suck a guy's dick an hour after meeting him. Yet they'll still cry and whimper about slut shaming if someone posts pictures of said blow job online to predictable results. They're lost, and it's sad.
that show isn't feminist, that's for sure
Much of what feminism has achieved is the freedom for women to behave as stupidly and badly as men do.
There aren't any shows on tv where men are naked and spend their days and hours whining about how to get a girlfriend.
R5 is spot on!
[r8]: no, on most shows men just blow shit up, fuck shit up, murder and maim.
Yes, bit it's not our fault if certain women behave like idiots.
r5 knows from slut shaming.
R8 has it right.
It's sad that young girls these days have so few true feminist role models. Now all they have to look up to is an unattractive fat girl showing her ass every chance she gets and calling it "freedom of expression."
R5? And what of the guy receiving the blowjob or even expecting it?
Double standards much?
I agree with (R5) that there is an idea, probably since Madonna's rise to fame and the easy accessibility of porn on the web, that self empowerment for girls involves becoming some sort of seductive, slut machine who can sexually function "like a man". You are supposed to be able to treat sex completely casually and/or as a power play.
The problem is that most women (and many men too) don't really function like that emotionally. And to aggravate it, we have this odd body culture going on now where the only bodies that are admired and respected are the bodies that are disciplined into being quasi machines. So if you don't have that, you are really only going to bang into disrespect and derision for trying to be the sex machine.
It's more than a little sad. I'm not suggested that the answer is to go back to a prudish sort of society. It seems like girls, as well as most of us, could use a little real liberation-the kind that says "fuck it, I'm a person and want to connect with another person in a variety of ways, maybe sometimes including a sexual encounter that only lasts a night". But that should come from an honest sexual desire or need-not from some attempt to be cool or prove something. And there is also nothing wrong with being the sort of person who needs to feel secure in a relationship either. Most of us do.
"there is an idea, probably since Madonna's rise to fame and the easy accessibility of porn on the web, that self empowerment for girls involves becoming some sort of seductive, slut machine who can sexually function "like a man". You are supposed to be able to treat sex completely casually and/or as a power play"
And this "idea" came at the time of the backlash against feminism of the 1980s. It was part of the backlash against feminism.
I don't mind women/girls treating sex casually with protection, I mind guys get theirs-girls get nothing. What is this, the 1950s?
Yes, r16. Another backlash, the G-Spot myth - resurrected from a 1950s book - didn't help.
Thank you R16 for reminding us. How I hated growing up in the 80s.
I hate women acting like sluts and acting towards other women like they are better because they are sluts.
And I am a woman. And I don't particularly appreciate being told what to do. Revenge of the nerds!
I think r15 got it and summed it up well. Young people today, male and female, really don't seem to get the chance to be whole. That means sometimes you just want your dick sucked or to suck a dick. Sometimes you want to connect. Real freedom should mean freedom to do both.
Again, bring back the 1990s.
Although we can't. There'll be no no going back to a pre-FB era where people were just people and you could just hang out and picture-taking was not an everyday thing (pictures cost money in those days!) and a guy walking in the street talking on a phone looked like a self-deluded alien
Ever since they broke up AT&T she hasn't been funny or relevant.
Fuck off R22, Lily Tomlin is very relevant
[quote]There aren't any shows on tv where men are naked and spend their days and hours whining about how to get a girlfriend.
What? The idea of a bunch of guys complaining about how they can get girls is a well worn out plotline. Hell did you see American Pie? One of the classic recent comedies that was all about that? Or 40 Year old Virgin?
Or even Wedding Crashers was all about trying to hook up with girls.
That girls have the freedom now to be just as sexual and make dumb mistakes on TV is a good thing.
And what is wrong with pop culture embracing sex? People have sex, people talk about sex. It isn't something we need to be prudish about.
Here comes the old "accept what the media feeds you as sex/sex roles, or you are a PRUDE" line.
Really tired of that false dichotomy.
No comparison to American Pie or the other joke movies about men - we are supposed to take this Dunham stuff as real, "voice of a generation" etc. The others were treated as jokes. This is viewed as something real and respected when it is the same old stereotypes dished out for women.
I was hoping the Voice of a Generation, male or female, would come with a better face and body.
But why (R26)? What does being good looking having to do with being observant or a good writer?
The show may be at most just a bit too much about sex, romance and sexual politics. The fact is it covers a wide range of other dynamics: work, parents, success, friendships, roommates, illness, creativity, fitting in and figuring it out.
Perhaps Lily, having been long-termed partnered from a very young age, doesn't realize that for many of us, most of whom aren't in that position, youth is very much about how we see love and sex.
Joni Mitchell said the same thing a few years ago in a behind the scenes clip on Charlie Rose (it's on YouTube). She observed young women have become grotesquely crude, hard and aggressive, while young men have become neurotic, weak and indecisive. She then went on to say both conditions leave youth incapable of handling the serious economic and environmental (and, I would add, cultural) challenges of today. Joni was right on the money, so is Lily, and the deranged pigs on "Girls" prove it.
So R29? Do girls need to act prim and proper and guys need to be strong and decisive?
How about everyone is free to be themselves regardless of gender roles? Not saying that has anything to do with Girls, but this idea that girls aren't being "proper girls" or boys "proper boys" is even more offensive.
R27, why can't she be a good writer behind the scenes and hire attractive actresses to say her cool, edgy, "voice of a generation" lines? No one said she couldn't write. But she needs to embrace her limitations. Lena is not attractive and no one wants to see her lumpy body naked. She also can't act.
If it were up to Lily Tomlin wouldn't no girl be giving blow jobs?
To be fair, I thought Lena Dunham was good in This Is 40. I found the movie surprisingly good, too.
This shouldn't have been a surprise though as I LOVE FREAKS AND GEEKS
Lily Tomlin is a treasure! She plays my momma on television!
REBA (who loves the gays)
I agre, R30, but I see that sometimes - gender fluidity being explored or embraced, except the fluids are taking on the WORST aspects of the opposing gender, with precious little power or "empowerment" involved. Also, we are conditioned and programmed from birth by advertising, the cult of family, the economic power structure. None of us is "free" - we need to unlearn and get back to self. I'm not suggesting policing what is "proper" for males or females (or beyond), rather observing exactly where the now-comical, violent homoeroticism of militarized "male" sports culture, as well as the crude, manipulative, shallow "feminism" of Madonna, Beyonce and other soulless pop product has taken us - all of us.
"Do girls need to act prim and proper and guys need to be strong and decisive?"
Giving without receiving is not "prim and proper." It's slavery.
R32, Lily Tomlin doesn't have to worry about us. We don't give blow jobs once there's a ring our our finger. We count on the gays to take over that unpleasant job at the glory holes and gyms.
Amen to (R36)
Many American women in their 20s will literally do ANYTHING for a relationship. They are obsessed with the idea of having a boyfriend, it outranks all other priorities in their lives, education, employment, etc. They settle for men who treat them they shit just so they can utter the phrase "oh sorry, I can't tonight, my BOYFRIEND and I are going out."
I have a hard time being friends with women my age because they talk incessantly about men as if nothing else matters on earth. If "Girls" represents this then it's just being accurate.
It's a TV show. That's all.
And kids will figure it out, they always do... and older generations always remark on how they are all screwing up, they always do...
59 year old survivor
So really nothing has changed, R40? When I was in high school ages and ages ago it was also about having a boyfriend for girls and, once you got one, the woman always gave in to the man.
The error is thinking that girls are responding to male sexuality instead of exploring their own. The fact that they didn't in ages past was a sign of male power, not weakness. In no way can you say that men "won" the battle of the sexes. That's just dumb.
Totally agree R29 & R36. Excellent. Well put.
There has been so much propaganda, bullshit etc about sex and sex roles, for decades that so many people are screwed up, brainwashed and can't think straight on the subject
good point and this mentality does not disappear in middle age. I see women in their forties who put finding/maintaining a boyfriend as top priority. Even over their children.
The Princess Syndrome is very strong in some women--I liken it to the Peter Pan syndrome in males.
What I dislike: women and men who bring a parade of partners home to their children.
[quote] She observed young women have become grotesquely crude, hard and aggressive
Joanna Lumley agrees and has been asking UK chicks to tone themselves down, particularly with the drinking and slut dressing.
[quote] No one said she (dunham) couldn't write
I'll say it. I've been watching this show for two months to see what all the hoopla is about, as it comes on after Real Time.
It's bloody awful. "Waaah! Look at me! Waaah! Let's have sex! Waaah, you don't agree with me!Waah, my OCD is back! Waaah! I can't be the only thing you like! Waaah! Why don't you like me? I had lots of wild sex with you! Waaah! Get away from me""
I have always found women who define themselves by their relationships with men to be a bore, so I find Lena Dunham's Girls to be about 4 boring women.
R47, women who do that are one-upping other women in an insidious passive-aggresive manner.
That's why we call them fraus.
How's her shitty show with Reba doing?
I disagree that we are supposed to take the show as "real and respected." I see the show as a parody of certain behaviors typically displayed by young people. It don't think it's supposed to be taken so seriously. It's supposed to be over-the-top.
The only criticism I agree with about Lena is that she's not a particularly good actress. Her attractiveness level is not and should not relevant. I don't understand why some people have such a hard time with average-looking women being represented in media. Her character is not supposed to be pretty. That is precisely one of the reasons she's so insecure and needy and acts the way she does.
[quote]I don't understand why some people have such a hard time with average-looking women being represented in media.
We don't. We just want her be less of an embarrassing exhibitionist and stop trying to look as unattractive as possible. What happened to working with your assets and playing down your deficiencies? LD does the exact opposite. Maybe she doesn't realize she could still be quirky, smart, fun, witty, edgy and cool without showing us the contents of her dirty underwear. I think her desire to shock and offend has become a crutch. Maybe that's what happens when you're insecure about your writing talent---you don't think it can stand on its own.
This cunt shows the contents of her dirty skanky underwear??!! That is just beyond gross. I am so blessed not to have been born female. Disgusting trash.
No dear, R52. That was just a figure of speech.
Thank goodness. With women you never know.
Her character is a self-saboteur and seems incapable of or unwilling to do the most basic things to help herself. Her character wouldn't know how to "work on assets" or "play down deficiencies" nor does she seem like she would care enough to learn. A lot of people are like that. That is one of the more realistic things about this show.
I had a female anthropology professor who said that the sexual revolution was bad for women. It essentially made women sexually available to men without the men having to responsible for the outcome of the sexual encounter. Young women now have a higher rate of std's and abortions which has led to a higher rate of reproductive issues later in life. In addition, there is almost no social pressure for young men to take on the responsibility of the children they create out of wedlock. More than half of all babies born to women under thirty are born out of wedlock...
As far as the Joni Mitchel comment, I see it in my home... teenage girls are so incredibly sexual aggressive as a means of getting attention and these young teenage boys have no idea what to do with all of that!
[quote]I don't understand why some people have such a hard time with average-looking women being represented in media.
Because she's not "average-looking"--she's genuinely homely. She's below average. And the show is all about her exhibitionism, and a lot of don't want to look at her or hear about her character's appalling sex life in explicit detail.
I watched one episode and thought it was completely ignorant.
Shows like that don't last very long and are easily forgotten.
[quote]Joni Mitchell said
You lost me there.
"Straight men won the war between the sexes. I'm not happy about it, but you guys probably are."
Not where lots of money is concerned, wealthy men who divorce their younger trophy wives pay through the teeth for having those types of women on their arms for a few years.
These str8 moronic men don't seem to learn from their mistakes either, they move on to yet another much younger trophy wife. I guess you can be that ignorant when you have tons of money.
Not only do these trophy wives get amazing divorce settlements, they are also crafty enough to pump out a few kids with their older wealthy husbands, which insures the money coming in for many years.
I guess the moral here is, women have become as crafty as men when it comes go money! Only they go about it in a much different way.
I see this with a lot of my female relatives. These women, who actually had successful careers (lawyers, art director, cancer nurse), suddenly stopped working after they married their wealthy husbands, so much for women's liberation!
There's nothing "sexual" about a nude Lena Dunham.
I agree with you, R50, except for one thing: the creators and writers DO expect everyone to take it seriously--as a brilliant work of art. None of the writers of that show can handle criticism of it or disagreement with it maturely. From what I've seen, the people involved with that show really are like the characters on it. They're parodying themselves? Okay. In some episodes, you can tell that trained writers have applied their knowledge, but this is a case where the real-life attitudes of the "artists" affect how I look at their "art."
"Her character is not supposed to be pretty. That is precisely one of the reasons she's so insecure and needy and acts the way she does."
I don't see Hannah as being aware of her unattractiveness, she is so self absorbed and narcissistic, I don't think she actually 'sees' herself at all.
For example, look at the way Hannah dresses, I see many overweight women walking around, most don't expose their huge cottage cheese thigh in too small shorty shorts! I think Hannah looks into a mirror and thinks she looks like Jessa or Marnie! She is completely bonkers! I actually think Hannah is mentally ill.
Another problem with this horrid show, too many aspects of the character of Hannah actually comes from Lena Dunham's real life, she has stated she likes being naked and she suffers from OCD. Dunham's father is gay, which I think she has also touched upon in the script, as her mom having dating a lot of gay men, though I don't think Peter Scolari's character is supposed to be gay.
A good writer would simply not bring too much of their real life into their scripts or if they do, not dwell on it in every episode.
Dunham is clearly an exhibitionistic narcissist, casting herself in the lead role points to her own problems. The woman cannot act, yet she is so full of herself, she inflicts her inability, and homeliness, on the viewers week after week.
[quote]I see this with a lot of my female relatives. These women, who actually had successful careers (lawyers, art director, cancer nurse), suddenly stopped working after they married their wealthy husbands
Yes, yes, this DOES describe the way the vast majority of women live their lives.
R60 needs to stop watching Real Housewives.
So true R60.
WTF are YOU talking about R64, your 'response' has NO correlation with what I posted.
Reading comprehension seems to be a HUGE problem on DL!
I don't watch ONE reality show I DESPISE them, the last reality show I watched was the first few seasons of "The Real World". I've never even watched "American Idol'! You assume from ONE post that you know a person?!! You are a dolt.
I was describing MY actual real life female relatives, most, not all, quit their jobs once they married men who make more more money they they did.
One has four kids, which she uses as an excuse to not work, even though all of her kids are teens and they are all in school most of the day, she says, 'I'm a busy mom!" Busy doing what, going to the gym and shopping?.
Meant to write:"MUCH more money than they did."
Being proud of being dirtier and meaner and nastier than the next person, without wit, depth of feeling, passion or commitment, is the current young twat's game. And they end up looking just like Ms. Dunham.
Meanwhile, she's playing a pot-smoking granny opposite Reba McEntire.
That's no worse than the shit she taking about R69.
The irony here is the people who love to deride the show for being shallow at the same time they delight in deriding Dunham for her looks.
How is it different from any soap opera--Days of Our Lives, Dallas, Downtown Abbey--other than that the characters aren't covered up?
I love Lily, but it's not "sexually focused" . . . that's just where her mind went. It's really about relationships and how young people learn to navigate them.
[quote]The show is sad. It illustrates how young women have come to accept being sexually available to men 100% on their terms as the same thing as being sexually free.
Not all the girls in Girls are sluts.
Why are the women "sexually available to men?" Don't you think they enjoy the sex just as much as the men?
Beautifully stated r15 in your first paragraph. No most people (straight people) don't function that way and too many young people just feeling their own sexuality don't understand that and instead get influenced by peers and things get twisted.
Wow some great stuff in this thread. Thank you r36 brilliant.
No r73. The girls don't enjoy the sex because too often they aren't coming together with boys to share an experience meant to be mutually gratifying. There's a gloss of equality over interactions that are still about stigmatized girls "servicing" boys who are pressured to collect notches on their belt and remain emotionally detached from the persons they're interacting with. If everyone was genuinely happy and enjoying themselves we really wouldn't have the angst and meds and humiliation.
oh my god. Story telling is not supposed to be about setting an example. Viewers are responsible for their own behaviour. Stories are supposed to expose and explore complicated aspects of our lives, look at truths or even delve into fantasies. Fictional characters are not supposed to be fucking role models. The best characters of all time reveal complicated and messy aspects of human nature. I normally love lily tomlin but this sound like sour grapes
"How about everyone is free to be themselves regardless of gender roles?"
Well r30, the problem today is NOT being free to be themselves. As a high school counselor, I can assure you that girls today are being pressured to be sexually aggressive by their peers - specifically their female friends. They're not being themselves, they're being sexual way to early because they want to fit in. I know wanting to fit in is nothing new, but it comes with a price. Seriously, do people really think 14-year-old girls fantasize about performing oral sex on boy on a first date? Or do they have a strong desire to do it, even though it has nothing to do with them being sexually gratified? Don't kid yourself. They do it because they don't want to be considered "not normal." The norm has become young girls being sexually cavalier, but down deep they want an emotional connection and someone to love them. I've seen the aftermath - confusion, depression and disease.
It wasn't too long ago that females were the gatekeepers of sexual relations. Males had to woo them, and often times there was real love. Sometimes both were virgins. Those days are gone and we can debate what caused this to happen. Funny thing, I hear a significant amount of concern from the mothers of boys these days, saying how girls are so sexually aggressive that their sons are being seduced and have no choice to really consider consequences when the opportunity is always in their face. They wish their sons had a girlfriend, and not a string of sex partners. And, most parents do not think that 14 & 15 year old having sex, even with protection, is a good idea. Protection doesn't always work and sometimes the urge to satisfy sexual needs is a priority even if there's no protection at the time.
[quote]Meanwhile, she's playing a pot-smoking granny opposite Reba McEntire.
Exactly. She needs to shut up.
I'm a straight woman in my 40's who is currently single. I am well educated, have a small circle of great friends and family, and an interesting career.
I understand why young women can be obsessed with finding a husband. Unmarried women are frequently treated poorly in our society. There's a ton of pressure for women to get married. If you don't, there is a good chance married couples will shut you out of their lives, your family will constantly pressure you about finding someone, etc. I don't think young women should be blowing every guy that comes along, but I do understand why they get desperate to find a husband. Society tells them that's what they're supposed to do and it will guarantee happiness.
"I've never been so scared. But at least I have a HUSBAND!"
If Crime and Punishment were published today people would be screaming about Raskolnikov as a bad example for our youth.
the antihero is alive and well on television and now includes women: Girls, Scandal, Nurse Jackie.
No one is screaming r82. If criticism this minimal strikes you as "screaming" you might want to do a little thinking about your own emotional balance.
As a high school counselor, I can assure you that girls today are being pressured to be sexually aggressive by their peers - specifically their female friends. They're not being themselves, they're being sexual way to early because they want to fit in. I know wanting to fit in is nothing new, but it comes with a price. Seriously, do people really think 14-year-old girls fantasize about performing oral sex on boy on a first date? Or do they have a strong desire to do it, even though it has nothing to do with them being sexually gratified? Don't kid yourself. They do it because they don't want to be considered "not normal." The norm has become young girls being sexually cavalier, but down deep they want an emotional connection and someone to love them. I've seen the aftermath - confusion, depression and disease.
I grew up in the 80s in a "posh" school and this was exactly the same. Sexually cavalier by age 11, and the earlier the better. I knew girls who had sex at 14. I knew 15-year-olds who had 30-year-olds boyfriends/lovers.
There was also a fair amount of child molestation going on, but this is another topic