Other than the bullying segment in episode 1 (clearly inverting anti-bullying initiatives in schools), I struggled to understand what satirical points they were trying to make, if any. Presumably I just don't 'get it'. Not that it has to be earnest satire but if it's not funny either than that's also a problem.

Po faced answer: the first episode is saying something about what girls want in a guy (strong, decisive, an alpha male - PUA type insights). The second episode is saying something about women hitting "the wall" at 30 yet with ever-escalating expectations (another PUA insight). The third episode is about... er... bad boyfriends, hipster gourmets and loser teachers. I'm not sure they knew with that one.But... no I don't think it's earnest. Is "earnest" even a good thing? I see it like PFFR. They'd do whole episodes of shows where e.g. you think there's some analogy being constructed between squatting and the pro-life stance, but ends with the 2001 universe baby mock-profoundly saying "it's my squatter's right to life." So is it pro-choice and anti-squatter? Or pro-squatter therefore pro-life? It's just laughing at you. Same with this show - no they're not really saying that girls find prissy gay guys attractive; there they're taking "negging" to its logical conclusion. So is it anti PUA or artistically interpreting their talking points? It's just laughing at them and you if you try to over analyse it.And as I said... I don't find much of it funny in the slightest, so it seems kind of pointless to analyse it for political content. ...but hey I'm doing it anyway...