ke Lena Dunham | B Michael Tumblr
anniewerner:

peterfeld:

Dear Follower Who Is An NYC Registered Democrat,
If you’re like me, your mailbox and TV are overflowing with ads pushing one political candidate or another. It’s tempting to flip the channel and tune out. But deep down, we know that this election is different. This is a historic moment for our City; one that offers great opportunity if we make smart choices about who to elect as our leaders. In the race for Comptroller—the city’s chief fiscal watchdog—the choice is clear: my friend, Scott Stringer, pictured above with Lena Dunham.
I’ll be honest with you, before this election, I didn’t spend much time thinking about the Comptroller’s job. But in tough times like this, the Comptroller plays a critically important role in protecting our economic future—and that makes electing Scott more important than ever.
You see, Scott doesn’t just talk about fighting for the middle class—it’s a reality that he lives everyday. He and his wife, Elyse, are raising two young sons, and he knows firsthand the financial pressures so many of us are facing.
That’s why as Comptroller, Scott will watch over our City budget and make sure every tax dollar is spent wisely — just as you and I do with our family budget. He’ll make sure that our City invests in programs that grow the economy and create jobs. And he’ll protect our $140 billion pension fund so that we can dedicate money to public schools, affordable housing, and middle class tax cuts.
Scott has a sterling 20-year record of integrity and independence in public service. So it’s no surprise that he’s been endorsed by the New York Times, Daily News, El Diario, Amsterdam News, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Christine Quinn, Bill Thompson and so many of our local leaders.
Scott is proud of his broad coalition of support, and needs your help to win. In this election, every single vote is going to count and I’m asking you to vote for Scott.  You can help put him over the finish line by reblogging this post.
So please join me in voting for Scott Stringer for Comptroller on Tuesday, September 10.
To learn more about Scott or to get involved in the campaign, check out www.stringer2013.com, or call his headquarters anytime:  212-349-2013. 
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Peter Feld 

Well said! 

If he’s friends with Lena Dunham he can have my vote. 👏👏👆👆💪

anniewerner:

peterfeld:

Dear Follower Who Is An NYC Registered Democrat,

If you’re like me, your mailbox and TV are overflowing with ads pushing one political candidate or another. It’s tempting to flip the channel and tune out. But deep down, we know that this election is different. This is a historic moment for our City; one that offers great opportunity if we make smart choices about who to elect as our leaders. In the race for Comptroller—the city’s chief fiscal watchdog—the choice is clear: my friend, Scott Stringer, pictured above with Lena Dunham.

I’ll be honest with you, before this election, I didn’t spend much time thinking about the Comptroller’s job. But in tough times like this, the Comptroller plays a critically important role in protecting our economic future—and that makes electing Scott more important than ever.

You see, Scott doesn’t just talk about fighting for the middle class—it’s a reality that he lives everyday. He and his wife, Elyse, are raising two young sons, and he knows firsthand the financial pressures so many of us are facing.

That’s why as Comptroller, Scott will watch over our City budget and make sure every tax dollar is spent wisely — just as you and I do with our family budget. He’ll make sure that our City invests in programs that grow the economy and create jobs. And he’ll protect our $140 billion pension fund so that we can dedicate money to public schools, affordable housing, and middle class tax cuts.

Scott has a sterling 20-year record of integrity and independence in public service. So it’s no surprise that he’s been endorsed by the New York Times, Daily News, El Diario, Amsterdam News, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Christine Quinn, Bill Thompson and so many of our local leaders.

Scott is proud of his broad coalition of support, and needs your help to win. In this election, every single vote is going to count and I’m asking you to vote for Scott.  You can help put him over the finish line by reblogging this post.

So please join me in voting for Scott Stringer for Comptroller on Tuesday, September 10.

To learn more about Scott or to get involved in the campaign, check out www.stringer2013.com, or call his headquarters anytime:  212-349-2013

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Peter Feld 

Well said! 

If he’s friends with Lena Dunham he can have my vote. 👏👏👆👆💪

Leagues of Fucking: Stay In Your Lane

roxanegay:

I cannot think of a show in recent memory that has garnered as much press and critical conversation as Girls. I find it a little baffling because other shows excite me more, but whatever. If this is what we’re going to talk about, this is what we’re going to talk about.

My issues with Girls are well documented so I am not going to belabor those points. The show has good things going for it too. One of those good things is that we get to see a reasonably attractive (but not conventionally Hollywood attractive) woman, Dunham, with a normal body—curves, gentle sagging, humanity.

Of course, people are going to comment because Hollywood and the fashion industry and other forces have so radically skewed our perception of what a normal body looks like but her body is defiantly exposed to us, every week. 

I was idly reading this recap of girls by some men at Slate when I stumbled on curious statements!

Daniel Engber asks, “Why are these people having sex, when they are so clearly mismatched—in style, in looks, in manners, in age, in everything? Why is he kissing her and begging her to stay over? Seriously, Dave—why?”

Later, he says, “I felt trapped by my unwillingness to buy into the central premise. Narcissistic, childish men sleep with beautiful women all the time in movies and on TV, so why should this coupling be so difficult to fathom? I think it’s because Hannah is especially and assertively ugly in this episode. She’s rude (“what did you do?” she asks Joshua, referring to his broken marriage), self-centered (“I’m too smart and too sensitive”), sexually ungenerous (“no, make me come”), and defiantly ungraceful (naked ping-pong).”

The moral here is that lesser attractive women, by this unspoken rubric of attractiveness, need to be polite, sexually generous, graceful, and selfless to deserve the penis and attention of a conventionally attractive man. 

MIND THESE RULES, LADIES! There are leagues in fucking. Don’t fuck out of your league if you aren’t prepared to be perfect in every other way. 

Now, these guys are just being honest and expressing their opinions, it’s all good, but I found the exchange fascinating and sad. I appreciate that they recognize how the rules are vastly different for less than conventionally attractive men. It’s a shame they cannot accept that there are any number of reasons people are attracted to one another that defy the nonsense Hollywood tries to shove down our throats. 

Despite my many issues with Girls, I am at least grateful that Dunham is bringing so many people’s bullshit out, so it can stink in the wide open.

I had a conversation about this episode with a friend last night (hey, buddy!), but I alas still haven’t had time to watch it. I was able to talk about it anyway, though, because his position was essentially “No one wants to look at Lena Dunham naked. She’s just punishing the viewer or she’s deluded herself into think she’s attractive. Either way, it makes for intrinsically bad TV.”

Now, I won’t even get into the levels of nakedness and middle-aged flabby sag ass I have to see in virtually every show starring someone with a relative amount of power or clout in hollywood (looking at you basically every comedian). With those guys (always guys), it’s funny. I mean, this is beyond basic. It’s supposed to be funny because of some Yiddish word I don’t give a shit about has somehow gotten scorched earth branded onto the western consciousness in re: concepts of humanity, comedy, and what’s acceptable about art. Except it has nothing to do with art. Nothing at all. Nothing to do with art. Nothing at all. It has nothing to do with art. It has to do with money. It has to do with money. It has to do with money. IT HAS TO DO WITH MONEY AND CAPITALISM.

I’m sorry not sorry. I’m not sorry. If you’re too stupid (or are too short sighted, I might mean) to realize that your reaction to Lena Dunham has been conditioned by the utter capitulation of art to the marketplace, then I am not sorry that you’re feel as if you’re being punished. I’m legitimately angry that someone has to look like Taylor Swift in order to have their version of art taken seriously or even defended very much at all by men. And women, of course, can form whatever conclusions they want. But as a man, I have absolutely zero problem watching a still-developing, thorny, sometimes entertaining, sometimes pained depiction of a form of life I at least am very familiar with, a form involving big yelling matches and even bigger feelings, even if (especially if) it involves seeing Lena Dunham as naked as she wants to be. It is, I think, the ultimate resistance of an artist to the probably inevitable total decline of art in the face of money. It is the opposite of hearing saggy gut jokes made by Louis CK. It is the opposite of seeing Jason Segal’s dick. What better symbol of chauvinist capitalist art than seeing a tubby guy’s stupid dick? And it’s the opposite of sleek, plasticized representations of human matter. It’s life and art.

I Watched “Girls”, I Did Not Like “Girls”, And I Am Going To Tell You Specifically Why That Was In Fifteen Points

First, I once knew a girl like Lena Dunham. I did not like her. Wait. No, I’m getting ahead of myself. First (really), I hate New York. Not 'New York' New York, but the kind of New York depicted on television. There are 8.39 million people in New York, so why are you showing me only five or six of those people? Show me 8.39 million or don’t show me any of them.

Second, I once knew a girl like Lena Dunham, and I did not like her. At all.

Third, I mean I really didn’t like her. She was whiny and annoying. Her hair smelled like bratwurst. I think she cheated on her boyfriend once at a house party I went to when she was on mushrooms. She was always really uptight otherwise, though. Basically, she was either like really goody-goody or kind of a bitch. I don’t think she was very happy. One time I tried to sleep with the girl like Lena Dunham to make her feel better about herself, and she didn’t want to, and I stopped talking to her after that because she was irredeemably sad and terrible. I think she probably still has a job as a PR assistant for that record label even though she obviously has a lot of money.

Fourth, Lena Dunham has a lot of money. Like… yeah. Sorry but she does.

Fifth, I don’t have a lot of money. Even though Dunham’s having money doesn’t relate to my not having it, it makes her television show not as good as shows depicting poor people like “The Wire”.

Sixth, Vampire Weekend, ok I can believe that’s just a normal music soundtrack choice. But Jay-Z? That super rich dude who brags about taking lavish vacations in Paris with Gwyneth Paltrow and his boy Chris Coldplay Martin? Now you’re just trolling us with your expensive, rich girl, privileged music. Next time, try picking some actually cool music made by someone who’s actually had to do something in his stupid life — not just roll out of bed and slip on Louis Vuitton slippers and say words into a microphone. Someone like me who has to work for a living.

Seventh, that scene in the bathroom was lame. Why is everyone always in a bathroom? I don’t like that girl who was in the bathroom with that other girl. Mamet’s daughter. David Mamet is the Jay-Z of playwrights. I literally hope he dies in a fire because I literally hope people literally die because I don’t like one or two things I sort of remember reading or sitting through a few years ago.

Eighth, I really just don’t care about girls’s lives, per se. I mean that I care about them, but I don’t care care, you know? It’s just objectively not interesting — so, as in, not personal and anti-girl. Just as a statement of personal preference, I prefer to watch things, listen to things, read things by men (guys, if you will) because I just relate to them more. That doesn’t mean things like “Curb” are better than “Girls”. It just means that I like them more. It’s nothing against girls qua girls (or even “Girls” qua girls). If you read something political or personally-invested-seeming into this, then you’re not reading it correctly.

Ninth, plus there are so many shows about girls. Zooey, Whitney (x2), Fey, Amy: all those “Y” names and nary a Y chromosome in sight. (Sort of j/k but not really.) Women have a hard time in media? It seems like these days every woman is a writer or works in media. Every byline on the Wall Street Journal yesterday belonged to a woman. Every character is either a woman or the love interest of one of the men, ie, a woman. So it’s like every character is in some way related to women. In that way, “Mad Men” is the most feminist show on television — it’s all women, and women are always the most powerful people obviously running things after the men run them into the ground. I just feel like women are already pretty successful, and having a show called “Girls” almost takes that away from them, like makes them less powerful, so they shouldn’t even really have made this show in the first place. Maybe if Dunham had called her show “Guys” and made it a commentary on how men (fathers, boyfriends, bosses) have power over all these women in really subtle and insidious ways, it would be a better show. I think it would be. #RenameGirlsToGuys

Tenth, it wasn’t anything like “The Wire” — a real show, about real issues. Me and my friends would watch the hell out of “The Wire”, and we’d actually be doing something important for society by doing so. Making a difference. Not just navel gazing and mumble coring about our own stupid problems. “Girls” is so self-serving and personally narcissistic. It’s nothing at all like watching “The Wire”, an actual act that means you’re making a difference or at least trying. Reading a Lena Dunham script is not at all like reading about #OWS or reading Matt Taibbi’s latest brutal takedown of the banking industry. And I know that writing about “Girls” is not as helpful as retweeting the right things on Twitter or giving a signal boost to important messages on Tumblr, but I feel like I should probably do my part by saying some truths about “Girls” so that we can all stop wasting our time talking about something so slight and a-political as as how about some young, rich, privileged girls (of all things) in New York.

Elefenth, everyone on the show is sort of fuckable but not really.

Twelfth, me and my friends are not like any of these people, and I can literally only watch shows about people like me and my friends. Or shows like “The Wire” or “Game Of Thrones”, which are so obviously alien and un-relatable that they’re purely entertaining. Basically, I can only watch shows I relate to, other than “The Wire”, “Game Of Thrones”, “Doctor Who”, “Battlestar Galactica”, “Justified”, “The Sopranos”, “The Simpsons” (seasons 3-12 only), “Breaking Bad”, “Dexter”, “The Walking Dead”, “Mad Men”, “Homeland”, “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia”, and “Downton Abbey”, none of which I can really relate to, per se, but that doesn’t matter because they’re more like escapism or social commentary, I cannot watch a show like “Girls” because I don’t relate to anyone on that show.

Thirteenth, the thing is is Lena Dunham just seems like a humorless person. Like, not worthless, but sort of useless and, like, untalented? She’s just not funny. I’m not really sure where she’s coming from. Like, there are no obviously funny points in the show, and there aren’t really any ironically not-funny funny parts in the show like in “Louie” or “Sunny”. It has a sort of slow, low-energy thing going on as if the show were on a vegan diet and it’s not getting enough protein or something. I just find it kind of anemic and sad-making. I only like fun people, and fun people are people who share my values and views on life (so, usually guys who are more chill, not girls who are 'neurotic' b/c that’s too stressful and not fun — joking, sort of). Which again, makes her (this is apart from her being a girl b/c I don’t even really see gender, but really I’m just being honest and saying that) she’s just not relatable to me. Because she’s no fun — not because she’s a girl. But I’m just saying I don’t think she seems like a fun or interesting person, so her TV show isn’t terrible. But it’s not really that good? Is what I’m saying. It’s nothing personal at all because I do totally like “Louie” and he doesn’t seem fun. It’s just that Lena Dunham also doesn’t seem fun or mirthful, and I basically unconsciously flipped a mental coin in my head and it came up tails and she called heads so I just only arbitrarily dislike her show. Nothing personal. She just doesn’t seem very nice or fun or fuckable.

Fourteenth, even though there’s virtually nothing about the show I like, I still find it to be a big disappointment because I feel like it lets women down and could, you know, just be about a whole lot more. Like a big, sweeping thing that solves woman-ness for all of time.

Fifteenth, even though I have no stake in race matters or social justice or equality (like, I don’t really care. I mean, I care, but I don’t have a lot of extra time to protest or hand out flyers or something), I feel like I should point out that the show is kind of racist or at least portrays racism but not like “The Wire”, which is so good.