Politics & Policy

Lena Dunham’s Body-Image Problem

Lena Dunham in Girls (HBO)
Why Girls’s efforts to change cultural expectations of women are doomed.

Imagine me clearing my throat. Okay, here goes: If there’s one thing in the world we’re not remotely in danger of talking about too little, it’s Lena Dunham’s body. We have these big national discussions about it every six months or so (has someone figured out how to chart the changing of the seasons by how long since our last very important discussion of one chubby Brooklynite?), and nothing is ever really resolved because we’re back at it again with barely enough time to lick the wounds from the last round of pointed Twitter barbs and angry Internet-comment arguments. At this point, we might even have talked about Lena Dunham’s body more than Kate Upton’s(!).

With that preface to make me feel better about myself for writing this, I want to talk about people talking about Lena Dunham’s body. Last week, it was back in the news because, at a panel, a less-than-eloquent journalist asked the young actress and HBO-show creator why she spent so much time naked “at random times for no reason” when it obviously wasn’t titillating.

#ad#Though the question drew a blog firestorm, Dunham’s answer itself may be more telling. After saying that the nudity was a function of verisimilitude, she added, “If you’re not into me, that’s your problem and you’re going to have to work that out with professionals.” And that highlights a weird dissonance in the portrayal of women on the show. Let me try to explain:

On the one hand, as she states, Dunham wants it to be okay for her to be naked regardless of any sex appeal — in effect, she wants it to be socially acceptable for non-conventionally-attractive people to show their butts on TV. On the other hand, though, Dunham shot back at the questioner for suggesting she wasn’t attractive, even (we must assume sarcastically) suggesting he should get professional help for not being into her. The underlying, unarticulated assumption seems to undercut the overt aim I just laid out. And that assumption is that if women are getting naked on TV, it’s probably for straight dudes, so they damn well better like it.

We all know TV shows normalize things (Will and Grace, Sex and the City, etc., etc., etc.). Girls pretty overtly seeks to normalize bodies like Dunham’s. That’s a perfectly admirable goal. But it kind of has a tree-falling-in-the-forest problem; a TV show can’t normalize anything if no one watches it. Its third season premiered to a series high of 1.1 million viewers — not bad, and much better than last season’s finale, which drew only 632,000 — but not awesome. It’s plausible that every single person who has watched Girls has written a thinkpiece on it for Salon (or, fine, National Review Online).

And that’s why the now-fabled question touched such a nerve: It got at the fact that the show’s success as a force for cultural change is predicated on the exact people watching it who, well, might not really want to.

Dunham wants to normalize her conventionally unattractive body by showing it to people on screen, but the people she most needs to look at it don’t particularly want to, and therefore the people who have to see Dunham’s body for her project to work are the very people who don’t want to see it and, thus, the project is doomed. Doomed! Doomed, I say!

That’s probably going overboard. These things work in subtle ways, and to the extent that Dunham’s tummy can counteract the normalization (and fetishization) of a largely unattainable standard for female beauty, I think it’s great.

At the same time, though, the feminist Internet fury that erupted over that question makes sense. It’s because, as sexually progressive as some progressives will tell you we’ve become, we’re still as an aggregate completely uncomfortable with seeing the naked female body as good for much at all besides titillating dudes. As far as mass media is concerned, sexual liberation is for straight guys. Slow clap.

— Betsy Woodruff is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More