The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina

Posted on | November 14, 2013 | 241 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!

 

 


Category: Abortion, Culture, Feminism, Marriage, Religion, Sex

Comments

241 Responses to “Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina”

  1. effinayright
    November 15th, 2013 @ 11:52 am

    As every married guy eventually learns, the definition of “husband” is “a man with a wife….and a broken spirit”.

  2. Mike F.
    November 15th, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

    no, it’s “We need to talk about our relationship.” just as you are falling asleep after a long hard day.

  3. esgetology
    November 15th, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

    “A culture of complete anarchy”: http://t.co/9ikhusgC0C via @instapaper

  4. JCCentCom
    November 15th, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

    http://t.co/5lDFVZusJ9

  5. zmortis
    November 15th, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

    Ms. Dunham’s show doesn’t make me nauseous. I already know to keep moving with I catch a wiff of pig farm in the distance. I don’t need to look at the piles of dung to know it.

  6. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

    The joke relates to the fact that decent men love their wives and they don’t have to be compelled to pay attention to them or take care of them. They simply want to.

    I used a semi-joke a number o years ago about the two things wives are narrow minded about.

    1. Your paycheck
    2. Other women

    One wife said, “You got that right!” The exclamation mark was definitely in her statement.

    I read an article about what you need to do to avoid an early death and the author had a list the fundamentals he followed. On the list was “Leave the toilet seat down.” Them that knows, knows. :^)

  7. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

    That’s what I’ve been telling my other half for better than 20 years. like most aging women, she sags here and there and has gained weight, but that has never bothered me.

  8. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

    You lost just about everything then.

    Seriously, when you’re young and stupid hormones tend to rule more than otherwise and you forget the good advice. Sometimes, like me, you didn’t get it at all. Fortunately, I didn’t end up in divorce court and am still with my wife of 39 years. Can’t say that there have not been some very close brushes with getting lawyered up.

  9. Cube
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

    Right on. Besides, I learned back in high school that a great package has nothing to do with the person inside. And that person will still be there long after the package fades.

    On the plus side, pick a great woman and it’s all good.

  10. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

    Not from what I’ve seen of it. The MRA has little chance of moving anything in the direction of sanity, however, as long as you have so called “no fault” divorce as the laws of the land.

    I can understand why Reagan signed that first bill into law (his divorce from his first wife was really nasty, and “nasty” does not convey just how bad it was), but the outcome has shown the wisdom of leaving things alone. I don’t think Reagan viewed that bit of handiwork with much pride. It should be difficult to divorce, and you should not be able to break a contract simply because it’s no longer convenient to life plans. This goes double when their are kids involved.

  11. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

    The two are Siamese twins that share the same heart. You can try to separate them, but one, or both, are going to die.

  12. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

    There have been many physically unattractive women that have been in the mainstream of American life before radical feminism was ever thought of. A physically unattractive women has to make herself more valuable in other ways to be able to marry decent man. It’s rather funny, in a way, but almost everyone that wants to marry does so, no matter how they are built.

    Just because you are in the mainstream of American life, does not mean you attain any sort of fame or recognition.

  13. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

    She’s not top heavy, but she certainly isn’t flat. She’s well proportioned and that’s more important to me. I married a well endowed girl, although that wasn’t all that important. Can’t say I disapproved either.

  14. Federale
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

    I’ve known some flat chested hot chicks, but Ritter ain’t one of those.

  15. Cube
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:52 pm

    I’m not sure that’s completely true. Inherent to addressing social issues is telling people things they don’t want to hear, namely that “you’re doing it wrong”, to borrow a phrase. Its a necessary message, but hardly a popular one. The leftists have it far easier in the short run, just tell people whatever makes them feel good and never mind that its a pack of lies. By the time the bill comes due, the liars have usually moved on and you’re left all alone to pick up the pieces if you can.

  16. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:52 pm

    Gloria Steinam was not a physically ugly woman. The total package, however, is ugly as original sin. Take the nonphysical part from Steinam and apply it to any other woman, and you will get the same outcome. Physically, there is no reason to think that Dunham could not find a decent guy to spend her life with, but a radical feminist is looking at a life of being a plaything for cads or other radical feminists.

  17. Julie Pascal
    November 15th, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

    I think that you’re missing the definition of “unconditional” and “deserves.”

    Unconditional love is a wonderful thing, but if you put a condition on it it’s not *un*conditional, is it.

    Also… it’s not the woman who lets herself go who is looking for compliments. A woman wants to be praised just as much as any man wants to be praised. If she gives up trying to look nice, maybe it’s because she rightly realized that the last five times she tried to look nice you said nothing at all.

  18. Bill Peschel
    November 15th, 2013 @ 4:24 pm

    You had me until this:

    “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.”

    I watched a relative deal with working at McDonald’s, and let me tell you: It’s a shit job.

  19. SDN
    November 15th, 2013 @ 5:20 pm

    I swore an oath to God to be faithful. Case closed.

    “I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant’s faithful, 100%”. – Horton Hatches the Egg

  20. Lee Reynolds
    November 15th, 2013 @ 5:31 pm

    Social conservatives are so bad at promoting their ideas that even someone like me who largely agrees with them cringes whenever they take the stage.

    Their messages are trite, repetitive, and communicate no depth of thought or understanding, let alone comprehension of effective marketing.

    Much like useful idiots on the left, they don’t express ideas. All they do is regurgitate talking points.

    Meanwhile the left actually does have diabolically clever people who do understand effective marketing and messaging, and do think in terms of the long game, or the “long march” as they call it. They are the ones who come up with the left’s talking points.

    They understand how to sell ideas. This is why they win.

    It is no accident that Conservatives are forced to turn to Saul Alinsky to learn and develop effective strategies.

    Politics is downstream from culture, and Conservatives have been losing the culture war for decades now because we don’t know how to sell our ideas.

    This is in no small part due to our inherent honesty and an unwillingness to call the enemy out on their lies.

    We’re like Charlie brown running to kick the football. If we had any sense, we would aim for Lucy’s teeth instead of the ball.

  21. Lee Reynolds
    November 15th, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

    No accounting for taste I guess. She gives me more wood than the Tonto National Forest.

  22. Lee Reynolds
    November 15th, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

    It is hard to have a healthy and happy relationship with someone when you are eaten up with irrational hatred of the group they belong to.

    A woman who sees men as oppressors, enemies and adversaries is never going to have a good relationship with a man.

    This is why I find feminists so appalling, their persistent delusion that I’m somehow out to undermine women. They’re bigots of the first order.

  23. BlindManMark
    November 15th, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

    RT @DANEgerus: ‘Girls’ a portrait of narcissism and entitlement http://t.co/BmnfikQTNz owed a relationship

  24. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

    There have been many SoCons that have expressed the message that have demonstrated great depth of thought and were quite articulate in their delivery. The reception of those people has been identical to those that don’t do it so well. The primary problem is not with the delivery of appearance of depth of thought. The problem has the recipients have no intention of giving up their depravity and don’t want to hear any message that conflicts with their depraved desires.

  25. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 8:10 pm

    Compared with the Cherokee National Forest, that wouldn’t be much.

  26. Quartermaster
    November 15th, 2013 @ 8:10 pm

    Yeppers! Satan is just getting started.

  27. Lee Reynolds
    November 15th, 2013 @ 8:25 pm

    If that is true, then how is it that we even have a civilization to lose?

    If the default position of humanity is moral squalor and depravity, and strong messages to the contrary do no good, then why is Detroit (still) the exception rather than the rule? Where do all the Conservatives come from?

    You cannot judge the effectiveness of a good and compelling message by how it affects those souls that are already long gone.

  28. richard40
    November 16th, 2013 @ 12:41 am

    Its not a great job, but it is better than none at all. And you have to start somewhere, and gain real work experience. And somebody who would rather sit on their duff, sponging off others, rather than do a job that is “beneath their dignity” have no dignity.

  29. richard40
    November 16th, 2013 @ 12:42 am

    Libertarianism can be an equally valid morality. But I agree that leftism is no morality at all.

  30. Scotty G.
    November 16th, 2013 @ 1:22 am

    Plumbers are not impressed.

  31. Quartermaster
    November 16th, 2013 @ 11:27 am

    What is your point? Your post seems utterly unrelated to what I posted.

  32. 1389
    November 16th, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

    Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina : The Other McCain http://t.co/2u9IYrOxNG

  33. docscience
    November 16th, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

    The superior woman thinks with her “lady parts” as the Reelect Obama website once urged.

    Oh the irony.

  34. Sunday Wrap-Up | Countenance Blog
    November 17th, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

    […] *  Another one that’s finally waking up to the Marriage Gap. […]

  35. Remember the Pro-Pedophile Movement That Liberals Pretend Doesn’t Exist? : The Other McCain
    November 17th, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

    […] Nov. 15: Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina […]

  36. Lee Reynolds
    November 17th, 2013 @ 4:37 pm

    You can pretend that you don’t understand, but I am not fooled.

  37. FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short : The Other McCain
    November 17th, 2013 @ 5:30 pm

    […] Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina […]

  38. Quartermaster
    November 17th, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

    I’m not a particularly dense fellow, but I don’t see your point.

  39. noprezzie2012
    November 18th, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

    RT @rsmccain: Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina http://t.co/Rz8ADoAv3j Hat-tips @CAAmyO @AnnicaBenning #tcot

  40. Lee Reynolds
    November 18th, 2013 @ 2:22 pm

    Oh you understand quite well, but are not interested in having an honest discussion. You’re interested in arguing. But unable to find honest fault with my post, you instead pretend that it is incomprehensible, or not relevant to the topic.

  41. Quartermaster
    November 18th, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

    Whatever. You have no intention of clarifying or showing me how your rambling relates to what I posted so I guess it’s over.