Jump to content

Hollywood Sexual Harrasment/Assault Thread


cct

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Lena Dunham is a special snowflake who has been told all her life that every word she burps up is revolutionary. And for that very reason, she does not see how privileged, insular, unfunny (thanks @Khan) and clubby she really is. This is her original statement in support of that male writer:

 

"During the windfall of deeply necessary accusations over the last few months in Hollywood, we have been thrilled to see so many women’s voices heard and dark experiences in this industry justified. It’s a hugely important time of change and, like every feminist in Hollywood and beyond, we celebrate. But during every time of change there are also incidences of the culture, in its enthusiasm and zeal, taking down the wrong targets. We believe, having worked closely with him for more than half a decade, that this is the case with Murray Miller. While our first instinct is to listen to every woman’s story, our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3 percent of assault cases that are misreported every year. It is a true shame to add to that number, as outside of Hollywood women still struggle to be believed. We stand by Murray and this is all we’ll be saying about this issue."

 

The statement says it all. The grandiose self-importance. The exceptionalism (I'm a feminist, but...) as she focuses on the "3% of assault cases which are misreported." What about the other 97%?? And perhaps most telling of all, the clubbiness ("our insider knowledge") with her close friends in show business. Lena's statement reminds me of Taylor Swift, with her mediatised 'insider' squad of privileged gal pals (as if that is the pre-requisite for feminism), who calls other women (Aurora Perrineau in this case) a liar. 

 

And yes, I know she went back on her original statement... she apologized for the 'timing' of it. 

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lena Dunham has had to do so many of these "apologies" over the years.

Remember the Black NFL star that she made up that entire saga about because he was looking down at his phone instead of at her?

She believes that she should be the center of attention, at all times and how dare anyone say/do anything that is at cross-purposes to what she wants?

 

I've never believed the hype because I've met many Lena Dunhams throughout my life, at work and at school and I usually avoid them like the plague.  They're usually self-absorbed, they drain one's energy and are likely toxic personalities.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Agreed. She wouldn't have to apologise so often if she didn't have a coterie of sycophants applauding her every word fart, and if she actually sat down and asked herself questions about what she is actually putting out there as a so-called media personality feminist.

 

The statement I posted is ridden with so much ridiculous, self-congratulatory nonsense. She should have slept on it and reread it in the cold light of day with a red pen in hand. Editing and considering the weight of your words is a true lost art!

 

She is so problematic especially re: black men and people of color generally. How is she so supremely confident that the white, male writer she knew for 'half a decade' (that's 5 years) didn't rape this young black girl? Is it because he didn't come on to her irresistible self? Ergo, therefore, he CAN'T POSSIBLY be a rapist! It's like when that NFL player was minding his own business at the Met Gala. It must be because he doesn't find her attractive! hates feminists!

 

I find her and her statements exhausting. There are many, many, MANY self-absorbed narcissists in Hollywood, of all genders, but she really takes the cake. She is never not promoting her own Deep Thoughts and posting them like "I know you guys have been asking about my take on..." Who? WHO is asking?

Edited by Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lena Dunham makes me sick to my stomach. What she did to her sister, the campus rape fiasco - on and on. She's a rampant narcissist and an attention whore - she always has to make everything about her. I don't believe anyone actually likes her outside of those who peruse Jezebel. The media wanted to make her a name, they desperately wanted to make Girls a new watercooler show. She fits everything that people were SUPPOSED to like, with the new queen of "not like other girls," but it never worked. 

 

She even made a spectacle of giving away her dog.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/arts/lena-dunham-lamby-dog.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

She was the writer, creator and STAH! of Girls, which HBO was trying to make the anti-Sex & the City/new Sex & the City. She also has a 'feminist' newsletter and is constantly on Twitter as the self-proclaimed woke voice of womenfolk. Turns out she's not that woke. DRW50 and DramatistDreamer made reference some of the hinky things she has done. She's really just a narcissist who adores the sound of her own voice.

 

@DRW50 I can only concur. She does so much damage to women's issues too -- even though she thinks of herself as the spokeswhore of all things female-related.

Edited by Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What I couldn't stand the most about Lena was her so-called defense against critics who asked why her show featured no POC.  I can't remember her exact words, but the gist of her argument was, "I don't include POC on my show, because I haven't been around many POC, so I don't think I would capture their perspectives accurately."  Okay, fair enough.  But your show IS set in Brooklyn, which is not exactly "Leave It to Beaver"-ville.  And you haven't been around many POC?  Again, you live in NYC.  What does that say about you when you live in one of the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse cities on Earth and you're STILL so insulated?  Have you ever tried to get to know us, understand "where we're coming from"?  And if you really cared at all about including POC on your show (which she did, later on, and from what I have been told, rather half-heartedly) and representing us fairly and accurately, then why not hire young, African-American women, or other WOC, to work on your writing staff?  Heck, Issa Rae, I think, would have been PERFECT for "Girls," both as a supporting player and as a writer/producer.

 

It's the same criticism I have lobbed against Woody Allen in the past whenever it comes up that he doesn't include POC in prominent roles (meaning, something other than maids and whores) in his movies: acknowledging that you know nothing about us does not automatically give you a pass to exclude us from your work.  We don't have to be the lead in your movies and TV shows, but dammit, we don't have to portray the maid, the whore, or the "big, Black, beautiful buck" of a personal trainer with only one line either.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@Khan I believe when she was first asked about not having POC in her main cast, LD was like "I'm half Jewish and half WASP so I have two Jewish characters and two WASPy characters." She has a profound inability to conceive of anything outside her own experience. And no desire to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

He must've been under the assumption that his last name was "Thrust," and not "Thrush."

 

Please register in order to view this content

 

 

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thrush claims he has done so much to help women's journalists over 20 years.  He also preyed on 20 somethings who likely only hoped for a mentor or some small guidance. 

It's the Harvey Weinstein way (HW donated $$$ to women's causes and contributed to programs that helped budding women directors while simultaneously preying on women seeking a path into the business).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I thought today was still good. Leo is always awful, but the characters treating him like he's a plague feeds my soul. Rafe in particular had been very passive about him, but today was wonderful seeing him put Leo on notice. I really think it's being written that Javi is going to have to eventually take the blinders off and see Leo for who he really is. Them having sex on Gabi's desk made me want to explode. Roman taking in stray Doug was nice to see. And the mention of Frankie and Max was unexpected, but good to know they're at least being thought of. Tate being petty and a bit vindictive by going back to Sophia's as soon as he saw Doug with Holly was entertaining for me. I think I actually like Tate the most out of all of them because he's so damn messy.  Is Holly about to be kidnapped? Her first time? Also, Gabi finally revealing what happened with her the night EJ was shot and the clearing of all the other main suspects, but Johnny made this still feel like an important episode. I think Johnny will be cleared soon enough leaving everybody at a loss for the hell shot EJ. How the real shooter will be revealed is going to be interesting.  Speculation: When Kristen finally puts together that her daughter Rachel shot him, she'll agree to frame her mother for the crime, while keeping her hidden away from Salem.
    • That would have saved the Anita singing segment -- having her by herself, singing quietly and reflectively. Belting it out like she was in church did not work. The black screens fade at the end was a mistake. BTG insists on being different with these fades for the sake of being different, and it's not working.   I thought all of that was just fine. Worked for me.   I'm going to disagree with this. Martin hasn't had many scenes with his parents, but he's been around family A LOT -- and that's what matters. We also know Martin is someone with a hair trigger response. He can be very emotional when discussing an issue before getting to the logic and reason of it all.  
    • My view of Evan is that he's smart but not as smart as he thinks he is, not a good guy but not an entirely bad guy - he's a lot of things, the show never quite knowing what to do with them. I never saw him as Iris' follower because Iris always seemed a bit in over her head from the start. 
    • She was the Town Historian, who knew a bit too much about Brandon and the infamous cottage.  SF was still a pretty normal place at that time, with Nola and Reva being the most outrageous citizens....seems that Carrie Pipper would have stood out a bit more for people.
    • Credits for Tuesday, May 6, 2025: Created by: Frank & Doris Hursley Executive producer: Frank Valentini Head writers: Elizabeth Korte, Chris Van Etten Writers: Micah Steinberg, Kate Hall, Cathy Lepard Director: Tina Keller
    • Yes, I need to dot hat. Also on my list talking to the person I got these files from since they clearly have a mess, in terms of dates being wrong. And, unfortunately finding one date wrong, automatically means more are wrong, too. 
    • I'm hoping that it doesn't happen. If the show keeps putting out good performance and story it will be hard to shut it out. Daphnee, Trisha, Ambyr and Colby are earning nominations without question.
    • Speaking of correcting dates, since you mentioned it above, why don't you go back to your Saturday post and edit it and replace your wording of "DAYS Ruth Buzzi 11-2-83"  with "DAYS Ruth Buzzi 11-1-83" and add a note that the video has the wrong date of 11/2/83 on it, and that the video is actually 11/1/83. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy