Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina

Posted on Comments

“If you’ve ever watched Girls or have been aware of the things Lena Dunham says, you’d see a portrait of narcissism and entitlement. …
“It is the idea that the women on the show are entitled to men wanting them. Despite any flaw — whether it be physical, emotional, or a lack of accomplishments — they are owed a relationship with a man. Based on this premise, any poor behavior or lack of interest in their appearance cannot be the cause of why he didn’t call back.”
— Amy Otto, Nov. 12

“Why is it that every single issue of Cosmo has a ‘how to masturbate’ article or a ‘how to have better orgasms’ article or some variation thereof? And why are these magazines in racks at the supermarket checkout line, so that the minute your kids learn to read, they’re confronted with cover-blurb headlines like ‘Super Sex Secrets to Drive Him Wild’? …
“If you’re not happy with your sex life, you’re not going to find the answer in Cosmo.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, June 28

More than a century ago, Karl Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels first used the term “false consciousness,” a concept that was developed by later Marxist-Leninist thinkers to explain why the proletariat failed to respond to communist calls for violent revolution. Workers who did not share the Marxist sense of class struggle — who did not share the radical agenda of overthrowing the bourgeois state, abolishing religion and the market economy — were said to be in the throes of false consciousness. Opponents of Marxist revolution, it was said, were deficient in knowledge of the historical processes of material development, and therefore influenced by “myths,” including the belief that they might improve their condition under the existing industrial capitalist system.

What does this have to do with Lena Dunham’s vagina? Everything.

Dunham’s show is a sort of propaganda for postmodern feminism, and Amy Otto critically examines the tenets of this ideology:

So since the central conceit of feminism (that one is owed a man’s attention) cannot be questioned — yet results in women being quite incapable of sustaining a relationship — we must pretend that obtaining said relationship is no longer important. We wouldn’t want to dispute the tenets of feminism:

  • He should love you and put up with any behavior you throw at him.  Its “quirky” and not deranged that you question him about everything he feels at every moment.
  • You don’t have to be particularly accomplished or worthy of his time. Being a woman is enough. You go, girl!
  • You are as beautiful as a supermodel no matter who you are — and men who dare to seek out a woman of similar or slightly higher attractiveness are craven idiots. You deserve a man as handsome as you would like him to be.
  • If it’s something that females experience, everyone else should pay for it too.
  • Corporations purposely pursue “sexist” strategies to exclude 50% of the market. Society is so inherently sexist that profit comes after the deliberate exclusion of women.

I say all these things as someone who was fed this nonsense by our culture and who partially bought into it for years — years of being single I might add.

You should read the whole thing, because her point is that beliefs about sex and relationships — beliefs influenced by popular culture, including Cosmo magazine and TV shows like Lena Dunham’s Girls — have a meaningful impact on politics. This is why free-market advocates are mistaken if they think they can win the War of Ideas strictly by making libertarian arguments for economic freedom, while ignoring the so-called “social issues” that are involved in the Culture War.

Yes, there are pro-choice lesbians who embrace economic liberty, but when you start examining electoral demographics and opinion polling, you find a strong correlation between the bourgeois lifestyle (marriage, religion, property) and the bourgeois belief system. Anyone who has examined exit polls understands that the “gender gap” could more accurately be called the “marriage gap” or the “religion gap”; disadvantages for Republicans among women voters are mainly a function of whether women are married and attend church regularly.

In 2012, 53% of married women voted for Romney, whereas 67% of unmarried women voted for Obama. While the published exit poll data did not correlate gender and church attendance, we do know that those who attend religious services weekly (whether male or female) voted 59% for Romney, whereas those who never attend church voted 62% for Obama. Those who believe that abortion should always be legal voted 76% for Obama; those who believe abortion should always be illegal vote 79% for Romney.

‘Giddy, Sex-Starved and Desperate’

There are some who look at data like that and draw the incorrect inference: “Social issues are hurting Republicans! The party is too beholden to the Religious Right!” But ask yourself this: Do the irreligious, the unmarried and the pro-abortion voters otherwise support the Republican agenda? Or, as I believe could be demonstrated — if sufficiently detailed data were available — is it the case that support for economic freedom is strongly associated with the bourgeois values represented by poll data on marriage and church attendance?

And don’t you think Democrats know this?

Annica Benning says this controversial ad for ObamaCare “portray[s] women as giddy, sex-starved and desperate”:

Amy Runyon-Harms, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, defended them, saying: “People get upset when you portray women as independent.”
That is interesting — independence can now be defined based on sexual promiscuity?
In fact, the underlying message is not independence, as government-funded birth control doesn’t convey any form of personal independence, certainly not financially.

But that’s just it, see? Democrats want women to be “independent” from men — i.e., unmarried — so that they will then be dependent on government. And if these allegedly “independent” women are “giddy, sex-starved and desperate,” they’ll eventually need a scapegoat to blame for their miserable loneliness: Blame the oppressive patriarchy! Blame “corporate America”! Blame Republicans!

Defining “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity” not only undermines marriage, but it also (a) results in women being infected with diseases, for which they require medical treatment, (b) creates demand for legalized abortion, and (c) fosters unwed motherhood, with more children growing up in poverty. The propaganda of Lena Dunham thereby helps grow the Democrat Party coalition.

And what about basic Judeo-Christian bourgeois morality, which Engels derided as “false consciousness”? It’s not just about sex, you know. The strongest possible condemnation of the liberal Welfare State can be summarized in four words: Thou shalt not steal.

It is fundamentally wrong to demand that government give you “free stuff” you have not earned, paid for by the taxes of people who work hard for their money. Amy Otto notices the “narcissism and entitlement” in Girls, which we might also call simple selfishness.

An irresponsible, self-centered attitude — Veruca Salt demanding, “I want it now” — is really what contemporary feminism is all about. Disassemble the ideological infrastructure, get past all the elaborate pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, and feminism is about the avoidance of responsibility: “Bad things happen to me because . . . sexism!”

It’s like the lazy young hippie punk with no skills who nevertheless refuses to take a “dead end job” at a fast-food restaurant because he’s not about cooperating with The Capitalist System, man.

‘A Culture of Complete Anarchy’

The same bourgeois morality that discourages sexual promiscuity also encourages hard work, thrift and honesty. Values matter, and the values upon which the American republic was founded were not the values celebrated by Lena Dunham’s Girls.

If America is to endure, to find the strength of will necessary to recover from the disastrous policies of the Obama administration, it will need a faith powerful enough to inspire courage. Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has a few words:

Rather than moral absolutes governing what’s right or wrong, Driscoll said that there’s a general view that people should be true to themselves — that they should essentially stand by their feelings and desires.
“We’ve shifted from a worldview where there is a God who makes laws, and they apply to you, to whether or not there is a God it does not matter — ‘I don’t recognize any laws external to me. The only thing that guides me is my own internal convictions,’” he said. “Authority has shifted from external to internal, from God to me. And what you end up with is not a discussion of morality but a defense of personality. And that’s the world we live in.”
Driscoll believes that there is “a culture of complete anarchy in the name of tolerance and diversity.”
“One in four women sexual assaulted, one in six men, people that are sexually addicted, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, rampant debt, broken families, suicidal,” he told TheBlaze. “The number one category of prescription medication is antidepressants. Somebody’s gotta stand up and say, ‘This ain’t working — we gotta try something else.’”

If we are heading toward “a culture of complete anarchy,” why? Because we have rejected “a God who makes law,” so that the law is whatever we want it to be, including a law that compels insurance companies to let you stay on your parents’ policy until you’re 26, including a law that compels pro-life Christians to pay taxes used to fund abortion and contraception for irresponsible women who don’t want to pay for the consequences of their degenerate lifestyle.

The Politics of Vagina — the “narcissism and entitlement” celebrated in Lena Dunham’s Girls — is defended by feminists for the same reason ProgressNow Colorado promotes “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity.” Democrats know who votes for them and why, and they know that “a culture of complete anarchy,” without morality or religion, will yield more votes for Democrats.

Of course, this culture will also destroy America as we know it, but destroying America as we know it is what Democrats are all about.




 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

 

 


241 comments

  1. “Its “quirky” and not deranged that you question him about everything he feels at every moment.”

    My wife is not a feminist, but she does this quite a bit.

  2. The strongest possible condemnation of the liberal Welfare State can be summarized in four words: Thou shalt not steal.

    Not to quibble, but let me suggest that “Thou shalt not covet” is actually the more appropriate commandment for contemplation when we discuss the welfare state. It is wanting what someone else has without the desire or inclination to work for it yourself, that leads to the “theft” you describe.

  4. Marriage laws are so absurdly biased against men, only men who are irrationally optimistic, clueless, or completely cowed by their woman get married anymore. Conservatives should go to work on that if they want people to get married.

  5. Case in point — A friend referred me to a blog just yesterday, and within one of the posts was the following comment:

    “I am entitled to state my opinion without being subjected to insults.”

    *smh*

  6. it is not marriage laws, but divorce laws, that are the problem. Therefore, the key is to avoid the kind of marriage that ends in divorce.

    The history of these laws is interesting: So-called “no-fault” divorce was the first and most significant step away from the traditional expectation of lifelong marriage as normative. The next really big step was the Lee Marvin-Michelle Triola “palimony” case, which created marriage-like obligations without the necessity of an actual marriage.

    Yet you cannot view these trends outside the context of the liberal heyday, i.e., LBJ, the “Great Society,” the 1960s “Sexual Revolution,” and a whole series of related phenomena that had the effect of undermining the traditional family and Judeo-Christian morality.

    Just FYI, I reject the “Men’s Rights” movement as a foolish fight-fire-with-fire response to the identity politics of feminism.

  8. Just FYI, I reject the “Men’s Rights” movement as a foolish fight-fire-with-fire response to the identity politics of feminism.

    I do not think that is a description of Dalrock or Badger, who are primarily critics of prevailing social and cultural phenomena.

  9. One other thing. Family court and matrimonial law in this country are a scandal, so a discussion of people’s lawful privileges and immunities is appropriate regarding these. This has been what Glenn Sacks and Helen Smith have been writing about.

  12. “it is not marriage laws, but divorce laws, that are the problem.”

    Fair enough. I would have been more accurate to say laws pertaining to divorce, as well as family courts.

    “Therefore, the key is to avoid the kind of marriage that ends in divorce.”

    This is like telling an abuse victim he/she should have chosen their spouse better.

    “So-called “no-fault” divorce was the first and most significant step away from the traditional expectation of lifelong marriage as normative.”

    Interesting you fail to mention that Governor Ronald Reagan was the first governor in the US to sign no-fault divorce into law. Those darn LBJ liberals!

    “Just FYI, I reject the “Men’s Rights” movement as a foolish fight-fire-with-fire response to the identity politics of feminism.”

    And wrongheaded thinking like this is why the GOP is gradually vanishing into extinction. Fixing laws regarding divorce and family courts is not “identity politics.” It is sound policy that actually follows up on “defense of marriage” the GOP claims to stand for. Though it would certainly help some men get a fair shot in the courts, the main benefit is that it would help preserve marriage. But you don’t have to take it from me. The religious conservative author Suzanne Venker has written extensively on this, as has Dr. Helen Smith (wife of instapundit.)

  14. Of course, there is no shortage of purported conservatives who wish that “social issues” would simply disappear from the discussion, so that they can concentrate on the “serious” economic stuff. The problem is that economic prosperity does not occur in a vacuum, and that vacuum is not filled by merely reading Hayek and Adam Smith. The philosophy of individual rights and responsibility is, first and foremost, a moral philosophy which is predicated on Judeo-Christian ethics. You cannot rid yourself of the all-knowing, all-powerful nanny state unless you have a robust institution taking its place, specifically the traditional nuclear family. The fact that progressives have spent over a century attempting to destroy the family is lost upon those self-described conservatives who fail to see any correlation between the destruction of marriage and the family with our current state of affairs. Instead, those of us who decry abortion, gay marriage, sexual promiscuity and the like are told we are the cause for the decline of conservatism. In truth, such “conservatives” are like any of a number of mainstream Christian denominations which have tossed off traditional morality in favor of a modern “God loves everybody; do your own thing” morality in order to stay relevant. If political conservatives go down that road, they will suffer the same fate as the modern church. They will whither and die.

  15. Your comparison to “identity politics” would work if it weren’t for the fact that there are, indeed, a large array of very male-specific issues in criminal and civil law that go unnoticed or are treated with contempt.

    When those issues are addressed, we should hope and expect the men’s rights movement to fade away. But as long as both conservatives and liberals heap scorn on the legitimate civil rights complaints of men and boys–the list is fairly long, if anyone cares to look–you can expect this movement to continue to grow. Many of us consider it a necessary evil; I certainly know I want to see it go away in my lifetime. But that requires the issues to be addressed first, and equal rights under the law to be established. Until then…

  16. This is like telling an abuse victim he/she should have chosen their spouse better.
    Yes. Yes it is.
    Well spotted.
    As that dusty old knight in “The Last Crusade” says… “He chose… poorly.”
    A lot of happiness in life is based on not being an idiot with bad taste.

  18. I would also add that Democrats have the votes of women and minorities tied up for the forseeable future, so it may be productive for the GOP to consider making up that lost ground by trying to do men a solid.

  19. Dalrock is a strong advocate of adjusting divorce laws and family courts. He has taken the conservative movement and the Church to task innumerable # of times for their capitulation to Feminism on these issues.

  20. I’m glad that you have a crystal ball that can divine what a spouse will be like 15 years down the road, but the rest of us are not so equipped.

  22. The “Men’s Rights” movement is a reaction to the perversion which Feminism is at its heart: the desire for Power. Although Feminism speaks with soaring language about “equality,” it is really about obtaining and asserting power. And because it is sex based, that power is directed at men, in all manner of ways, not the least of which is the denigration/subjugation of boys in the educational system, a system which is designed to purge “maleness” from boys’ character. The examples are legion and familiar to readers of these pages, I assume.

    While the moniker “Men’s Rights” might strike some as silly or contrived, it’s purpose is actually absolutely necessary for the continued prosperity of this country. From the exercise of C.S. Lewis’s Cardinal Virtues, to spiritual leadership within traditional families, men must assert themselves and indeed, fight against those things in society which diminish men’s roles with society’s framework.

  23. I don’t disagree. The purported separation of “conservatism” into “social” v. “economic” components has done great damage to, what Jeff Goldstein calls, “Classical Liberalism,” which is conservative in orientation. It’s a shift in the philosophical paradigm as insidious as the separation of Truth into “spiritual” v. “material” components which began to rear its head during the Enlightenment.

  24. “Instead, those of us who decry abortion, gay marriage, sexual
    promiscuity and the like are told we are the cause for the decline of
    conservatism.”

    Thank you, YES! How shameless it is of them (who are the ones emptying out conservatism and all too happy to become liberal pigs – “it’s all for the election votes, people”) to try to shift the blame onto the real social conservatives who are the backbone of whatever decency there is left in society.

    This.

  25. She’s girl next door cute. A bit of lumpy thigh and a tummy bulge, but otherwise easy on the eyes. A ton of women with worse looks have had happy lives with decent men.

  26. It was recently announced that a new species of humans had been recognized – Homo Dimocratus. It seems there are many subspecies. Dupidus seems to be the most common and is generally harmless until election time. Stupidus has a mild venom that tends to gain in potency as elections approach. Duplicitus has a potent venom that consistently maintains it’s strength. Republicratus seems to be brain damaged as it constantly dances about looking utterly confused. It is harmful mainly to itself unless it falls under the influence of Duplicitus, then it makes the Krait (see “Asian Two Step”) look positively benign.

  28. But that’s the problem: all of those average women are continually looking over their shoulders, worried that some sweet young thing is going to come along and snag those decent men. It used to be that women who copulated with married men suffered serious reputational damage, and that was what kept it (partially) in check. Now, well, heck, they’re jus’ doin’ what comes natural, you know?

    Women are women’s worst enemies.

  29. The simple fact is that “slut shaming” was the primary cultural tool used to control sexuality in the past. Every society up until “modern” times has recognized the power of sex to totally fornicate up society if left unchecked, and instituted cultural controls, to legitimize, support and nurture children. The vast majority of those societies used the “reputational” control of girls as their mechanism.

    But we, of course, are just so must smarter and wiser than our ancestors, and have done away with all of that. Please, ignore the burgeoning bastardy rate; that has just nothing to do with anything.

  30. Now there is a twist – a lot of ugly, disgusting women go sexually harass or bring their perverted come-ons to other women in ways that never happened in the past. So do married women target other women.

    The US has become a tremendously closeted sewer, along with all other countries that have normalized homosexuality. It’s clearly this is not something specific to the US. The minute you start normalizing homosexuality, the LGBT pigs increase their unwanted sexual behaviors exponentially no matter what country you’re in.

Comments are closed.