C/D LENA DUNHAM (THE DEFINITIVE POLL)

Wow this National Review bullshit has really gotten some traction.

yeah I don't even know what's going on anymore

"transparent envy of her career and privilege"

Um, NO.

At least NR is appropriately evil here. I wouldn't expect anything else from them. Entertaining, robust debate I must say.

as Ian Bogost has mentioned on Twitter, people weren't meant to talk to each other this much

or memoir before they're 30

Not all of us are old enough to relate to being 30.

not all of us are afraid to hear what people have to say

bah sorry, that was kinda nonsensical. basically just mean i think that bogost thing is dumb.

so was my post about not being 30 so I think we're square

Whether or not you think Lena Dunham is appropriate or boundary respecting, I'd say any dialogue that begins with accusations her of being a sexual predator is pretty much one not worth having.

Nobody accused her of that, the article in question just quoted the text in which Dunham compared herself as a sexual predator.

i think calling her a "sexual abuser" given her age at the time is probably unhelpful, yeah. but it sounds like a lot of this qualifies as abuse/bullying and her sister's defense of her on twitter seems like pretty textbook abuser protecting. and her attitude toward it now in retrospect is...probably not normal or healthy

I was being severely bullied as a kid and can't count how many times the bully just needed to come across as being honest to get away with it. Once he said 'yeah I was being a jerk' he was exonerated, worst still he was the suddenly one having problems and whatnot, suddenly he was the one with issues that needed to be dealt with and basically I was once again relegated to the background, it's the constant attention seeking that made him win. I guess it's okay, we each learn how to deal with those things as we grow up but christ at age 28 I wish Dunham could have a little more self-criticism about it, it's okay to show yourself as being gross in the past (who wasn't) and yes that could be material for good jokes still but when the only punchline is 'lol i have issues who doesn't' it brings me back there. Maybe that's a purely non rational way of seeing it and in this case I'm sorry but I needed to express that.

i think calling her a "sexual abuser" given her age at the time is probably unhelpful, yeah. but it sounds like a lot of this qualifies as abuse/bullying and her sister's defense of her on twitter seems like pretty textbook abuser protecting. and her attitude toward it now in retrospect is...probably not normal or healthy
--k3vin k.

Say what? I don't read her sister's response that way at all.

i think calling her a "sexual abuser" given her age at the time is probably unhelpful, yeah. but it sounds like a lot of this qualifies as abuse/bullying and her sister's defense of her on twitter seems like pretty textbook abuser protecting. and her attitude toward it now in retrospect is...probably not normal or healthy

― k3vin k., Monday, November 3, 2014 7:49 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think you can say it's definitely not 'abuser protecting' but ... you can't say it is, either. what she said is true; someone in denial could say that stuff, but so might someone who doesn't feel they've been abused

and, what she thinks might not even be germane bc she might not KNOW how she's been affected.

but the point is, i dont think its fair to say its 'textbook abuser protecting'

also those are tweets and we have no idea how honest they are being so i wouldn't read too much into that.

the victim is usually one of the less reliable source to understand a bully's behavior, also.

maybe i'm reading it totally wrong but i can't even make sense of what she's saying.

Grace Dunham @simongdunham · 9h 9 hours ago
heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others "normal"; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that

i have no idea what "heteronormativitity" has to do with the response to what's detailed in dunham's book and elsewhere.

btw "her attitude" = lena's

I compared her to Sedaris earlier because, similarly, his humor comes from bringing the reader slowly into a situation, often a family story, that moves from normal to grotesque. Reading a climactic paragraph of his about, what, jizzing in a sibling's hair or something, would be very different from getting there by reading from the start.

bc pathologizing of behaviors that the mainstream determines are not 'normal' has a not proud history of oppressing for example gay people

xp

I have little doubt the New Republic's only editorial interest in this story is merely to throw mud at a celebrity who strongly and publically identifies as a liberal. That is a shitty position, regardless of how one views Lena Dunham's revelations about her seven-year old sexual activities with her sister. The NR is, if anything, victimizing the sister yet again for their own political purposes.

So, hats off to the semi-official organ of conservative intellectualism! Huzzah!

(btw, I deliberately chose not to GIS "organ of conservative intellectualism")

I read her sister's response, too. I'm sure that because it belongs to HER, it is easier for her not to dwell on it. However, it's the former 7-year-old in me (also with a baby sister) who is nonetheless disgusted.

You mean the National Review, not the New Republic

It's a little more aggressive than "playing doctor" and other excuses I've seen.

Yes, National Review. (smacks self)

Sorry but I have to play this disgusting tweet also: https://twitter.com/emilygould/status/529425645361590272

ENVY OF HER PRIVILEGE

take that poc

― jello my future biafriend (roxymuzak), Tuesday, November 4, 2014 12:59 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is what gawker's obsession with her is about tho, right? That's always how I've taken it.

I have little doubt the New Republic's only editorial interest in this story is merely to throw mud at a celebrity who strongly and publically identifies as a liberal. That is a shitty position, regardless of how one views Lena Dunham's revelations about her seven-year old sexual activities with her sister. The NR is, if anything, victimizing the sister yet again for their own political purposes.

The writer in question, Kevin D. williamson, has been dumping on Dunham a bit as of late.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/390591/lena-dunham-and-barry-kevin-d-williamson

And there is another piece about voting that I can't find right now wherein he harps to savage extent on her liberalness.

Nobody accused her of that, the article in question just quoted the text in which Dunham compared herself as a sexual predator.
--Van Horn Street

Isn't the title of the article in question "Lena Dunham describes sexually abusing her sister"?

Wait, here we go: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388945/five-reasons-why-youre-too-dumb-vote-kevin-d-williamson

this is what gawker's obsession with her is about tho, right? That's always how I've taken it.

― Matt Armstrong, Monday, November 3, 2014 8:12 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

emily gould hasn't worked there in several years iirc

Emily Gould is straight up making fun of "social justice warrior womanists" for their response to this - as if womanist is a corny tumblrism and not a term invented by women of color who felt excluded by white feminism

bc pathologizing of behaviors that the mainstream determines are not 'normal' has a not proud history of oppressing for example gay people

― deej loaf (D-40), Monday, November 3, 2014 9:02 PM (54 minutes ago)

sure but the statement makes no sense in this particular context. these things are very clearly not normal and it's not simply a matter of wearing straight ppl goggles

Whoa. Being gay is normal. Looking at your one year old sister's vagina to see what it looks like is, like, controlling, domineering behavior.

She was 7 years old.

Do you guys know how young 7 is? That child is not the same person who today, as a 28 y/o is writing about it. And unless you've read the book I don't know how you can determine that her attitude toward thjs is incorrect or not reflective enough. In terms of her later controlling relationship with her sister, from what i can tell she is interrogating that in her book, not saying it is good. But even if you don't accept that -- which is fine -- the weird adult behavior (outing her sister, even the masturbation anecdote) is not molestation, and the issue is that people are accusing her of sexually abusing her sister. That is such a serious charge.

And the right wing attempts to brand her as a deviant is totally sbout heteronormativity as well as misogyny.

You can like her or not like her or think she is creepy or whatever but please think about where this narrative is coming from. If other corners of the internet who disliked her for other reasons have seized on this too, i'm sorry but they are being opportunistic, even if most of the rest if their critique of her is valid

Dunham has spent the last year, in her political pronouncements, being a tool of Christine Quinn and Andrew Cuomo. She's about as liberal as Hillary Rodham.

(I know people's definition of "liberal" is generally built around gay rights and abortion, the only two issues that matter -- bombs away and call my stockbroker!)

She's preferable to the guy who started this, who once said that women who get abortions should be hanged.

There are imperfect, compromised figures and then there is the right wing. The latter hate lena dunham for very shitty reasons.

saying that we have to "take sides" is kind of facile, dude

i feel like this conversation will go in the right direction now

you can refuse to participate in (and actively denounce) the obviously sexist right-wing campaign against her without refusing to acknowledge that some of this shit and her attitude about it is pretty messed up xp

sure but the statement makes no sense in this particular context. these things are very clearly not normal and it's not simply a matter of wearing straight ppl goggles

― k3vin k., Monday, November 3, 2014 9:01 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there was a time when being gay was "very clearly not normal"...

deej...

Emily Gould is straight up making fun of "social justice warrior womanists" for their response to this - as if womanist is a corny tumblrism and not a term invented by women of color who felt excluded by white feminism

― jello my future biafriend (roxymuzak), Monday, November 3, 2014 8:27 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah that was completely absurd

anyway a bunch of dudes debating this at 1030 at night probably isn't the best look so imma call it a night