Unpopular opinion: leave Lena Dunham the fuck alone.
Too many people who should know better have seen this woman as fair game for the most sadistic bullshit ever. The fact that there has been legitimate criticism over the years doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been a fuck of a lot of sexism, internalised misogyny and body-shaming.
I’ve utterly had it with friends, and friends of friends, telling me ‘I hate Lena Dunham and I don’t even know why, she makes me sick.’ Maybe you ought to think about why you feel that way.
Bear in mind that the reason Lena Dunham became famous was that she was one of the first people of our generation to make art about the messy, tender, contradictory realities of young women’s lives. Yes, okay, she made it from a lens of immense privilege. But >
Most of the people I’ve met who really, really, really hated Lena Dunham from the get-go weren’t really concerned about structural racism or privilege-blindness. They were outraged that a young woman was making this sort of art and being celebrated for it. And they were jealous.
Yes, Dunham was rich and white and, according to some people, infuriating. She was also wildly talented and light-years ahead of her time. Most of the things people hated about Girls were the same things they later celebrated about Fleabag.
Lena Dunham was the test case for all those good woke lefty white guys who discovered it was okay to bully and humiliate women and girls as long as they pretended it was all about ‘white feminism’.
And then, of course, there were the there were the Black women whose real, substantive critiques were co-opted by the far larger mob of self-hating female creators and recreational misogynists who smelt a young woman’s pain and wanted to slurp some of it up for themselves.
Heck, *I* was jealous of Lena Dunham back in the day. When Girls came out, I was a 24-year old, struggling broke middle-class white woman writer in New York. I spent a week trying to join in the mean-spirited mocking, but it just felt grubby and dishonest. Because it was.
At 23, Lena Dunham committed the cardinal sin of being a talented, successful young woman who told the truth about her life and owned her sexuality whilst not being traditionally hot.
She was punished for it. She is still being punished for it. Fuck off and leave her alone.
Most of the people who justify their bullying of Lena Dunham on the basis that at the age of SIX ‘she abused her little sister’ (not true) are the same people who are the first to excuse white rapists in their 20s and 30s on the basis that they were just ‘young and ignorant.
Since the age of 23, every slightly annoying or ignorant thing Lena Dunham has ever done has been mercilessly held against her by people who decided they had a free pass to bully a woman.
Meanwhile, grown male predators in her industry were protected because of their ‘genius’.
Lena Dunham was not ‘held accountable’. She was *made an example of*.
What was done and is still being done to Dunham and women like her sent a message to all young female creators: expect no mercy. if you make a single mistake in public, you will be punished for it, forever.
And the most disappointing part of it all is how many otherwise decent people with good politics dived right into the feeding frenzy because sadism feels good and gets you clicks. It’s low and mean and grubby and I can’t stand it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Graham Linehan, free speech champion, has threatened me with legal action unless I delete a tweet and apologise. Here’s the apology:
I apologise for calling Graham Linehan a vile bigot. Never having met him, I have no idea if he is vile, and it was wrong of me to say so. >
I further apologise for suggesting that no publishing company should help Linehan publish his hate speech.
It was wrong of me to single him out that way. No publishing company should help anyone publish hate speech.
The original tweet is now deleted. I hope this satisfies.
The use of books as a way of signalling, or the idea that ‘I’ve read more books than you’ is a way to get one over on someone else, has always disturbed me.
I really think having or even reading lots of books ought to be morally neutral. Books are great, but I know people who are highly intelligent, knowledgeable and well-educated who prefer other ways of learning and other forms of storytelling.
I say that as someone who reads an unusually large number of books, and I don’t love to make my reading history public. I don’t want people to know what I’m reading or when. It’s special and private!
When I was 14 years old, I saved my pocket money to go and see a writer I admired give a talk. I couldn’t afford to buy the book as well (I was 14). I shyly asked if he would sign my notebook instead.
He rolled his eyes and told me to get lost.
That’s how I met #DouglasCoupland.
Many years later, I was lucky enough to find out for myself just how stressful book tours can be. Writers don’t have infinite social energy. And yes, it IS annoying when people don’t get that you’re there to sell books.
But Mr Coupland taught me an important lesson that day >
The lesson was: this is part of the work, and you are damn lucky to get to do it. You never know what any interaction with a reader might mean to them, or what someone’s going through. Even if you’re totally burned out you try to at least say a relevant sentence.
Right-wingers are now using the language of anti-rape and pro-choice activism to justify vaccine refusal- talking about the importance of consent, personal autonomy, and ‘my body, my choice’.
But the two issues are NOT ethically the same. Not at all. And this is why. >
Feminists have long argued for women and AFAB people’s essential right to decide what happens to our own bodies- that nobody should be able to force us to have sex we don’t want, or to carry a pregnancy and give birth against our will. >
> and over the centuries this has often been a minority view- the moral consensus was that compared to their duty to service men sexually and birth the next generation, women’s autonomy did not matter. Many conservative communities still believe this, openly or implicitly. >
THREAD:
The question of how to balance different peoples’ needs in public spaces is important. It’s being had in bad faith right now, by people who want to make the case for excluding minority groups- but it speaks to something important that lots of communities are considering.
As we become more connected, as difference becomes more visible and distance is truncated, our ability to impact one another is outstripping the current infrastructure we have to care for and protect one another. We don’t have good heuristics for balancing different needs.
And often- too often- a request that a particular group or person be accommodated is interpreted as a demand that other, potentially conflicting needs be sidelined. That’s just not true.