Lena Dunham covered the February issue of Vogue, and as soon as people saw the Annie Leibovitz photos, many were like “Wow, she looks really retouched.” Jezebel thought that too, and they offered what amounted to a $10,000 bounty for un-retouched Vogue photos, which they got quickly. Jezebel posted the retouched photos – you can see them here. The whole situation was full of editorial and body-shaming landmines. I felt – and I still feel – that Jezebel was trying to make a larger point about the prevalence of Photoshop and air-brushing in magazines and advertising, and how these retouched images are damaging to all of us. They might have thought that Lena, with her “I’m a real girl, blemishes and all” shtick would have been all for it. But Lena was not. Lena responded to the controversy in real time last month – you can read that post here.
Lena’s argument seemed to be that magazines like Vogue are always going to be and have always been about fantasy, and if you go into it knowing that you’re going to be Photoshopped, what’s the big deal? Plus, Lena said she was happy with her editorial, and it felt like that’s where she thought the conversation should end. That’s not where it ended though. Lots of people were mad at Jezebel (for seemingly body-shaming Lena) and many thought Lena conducted herself with grace.
And now the incident is being stirred up again. Lena sat down for a lengthy video interview with Grantland, and towards the end of the interview, she discussed it again. Skip ahead to the 52 minute mark if you just want to hear the Jezebel stuff:
Lena says, in part, that the Jezebel situation was “messed up” and:
“I think Jezebel is really smart and funny, I think it’s just like once you’ve been attacked that way it’s hard to enjoy. It’s hard to enjoy once you feel like they’ve made such a monumental error in their approach to feminism… For me it was just sort of — I can’t be half-in. It felt gross. I didn’t talk to [Coen] who did it directly, but I can’t imagine the reaction made her feel particularly great… once they did post the unretouched images of me that looked so similar — I was kind of scared to see the unretouched images of me. I was like, ‘maybe I’m delusional in this and I don’t look how I think I look… and then it was the most minimal retouching. I felt completely respected by Vogue. I felt like, ‘thank you for removing the one line from my face because I’m 27 years old and shouldn’t have that there. I appreciate this.’ And instead of saying, ‘Hey, we kind of f–ed up these pictures aren’t that retouched, Lena enjoy the Vogue spread you’ve been excited about since you were 8 years old, [Jezebel] was like: ‘She’s not retouched, but she could have been.’ It was this weird almost like political maneuvering that I just had a lot of trouble respecting.”
Eh, I see what Lena’s saying. She’s saying that because she wasn’t overwhelmingly Photoshopped into oblivion, there should have been no issue on Jezebel’s part. But… I can also see how Jezebel defended posting the un-retouched photos too, because they paid $10,000 for them! If we paid $10,000 for a set of photos (Benedict Cumberbatch naked?!), we would use them too, regardless of whether or not the photos showed what we were expecting (Cumby’s auburn dong muff?!). That’s just a money/editorial decision. I still don’t understand how this becomes a “Jezebel is picking on Lena!” story when the discussion of Photoshop and any given magazine’s editorial decisions is just par for the course these days – we talk about it constantly, about many different celebrities.
Photos courtesy of Vogue, WENN.
If you’re going to wear red lipstick, I think you need to whiten your teeth. Just my opinion.
I know people on here have talked about how white teeth aren’t natural but that’s literally the first thing I thought when I saw those pics. Red and bright magenta just emphasize them and makes me think she’s either a heavy smoker or coffee drinker or both. It’s distracting. I don’t know really anything about her though so. .
Specifically, a blue based color is going to help out. Blue will counteract the yellow tones. Since I have to photoshop for part of my living, if you’re into whitening teeth in photos, you have to add a really subtle, super faded blue over the teeth to cut the yellow. Lots of layering and adjusting involved as well.
Seems like an orange-based color would be better against yellow teeth. The blue base would exaggerate the tooth color by comparison and make them appear even yellower.
Oh, you, Americans, and your fluorescent teeth obsession…
Just healthy is not good enough, huh?
White teeth are very important in American society. It’s a standard of health and beauty. Yellow teeth indicate poor hygiene, poor habits ( excess coffee drinking, smoking, drug use) and even poverty ( poor Americans can’t afford dental care). For Americans, a celebrity with yellow, dirty teeth is very odd.
But you can have healthy teeth that don’t look “white” compared to the uber-white, bleached-to-death monstrosities people walk around with. That’s where I think we are misguided. The too-white teeth are similar to tanning for me.
Healthy teeth are very important to most Americans and we also like white teeth especially in our celebrities. I do think people can go too far with the whitening, teeth don’t need to be blindingly white, it looks very unnatural.
What “yellow” teeth of the kind that Lena is having up there indicate is that a person’s tooth enamel is not stark-white, that’s it.
I’ve been advised against teeth bleaching by several of mine (not American) dentists, who all said that it’s damaging. If a tooth is naturally one color, to change it you have to change the structure of the enamel a bit. The enamel that doesn’t grow back, you know.
The US white teeth thing is really weird. It’s absolutely NOT as sign of healthy habits when someone’s teeth are the level of fake whiteness that many Americans sport. It is a sign that you have weakened your perfectly healthy but stained tooth enamel. It is a sign of class and wealth not health.
Actually, Jae, enamel is white. It’s the dentine beneath the enamel that is yellow, and I think that’s why white teeth are considered to be as “attractive” as they are. Yellow teeth indicates either staining or enamel erosion that shows the dentine beneath, neither of which are indicative of exceptional dental hygiene. It then follows that tooth bleaching is detrimental, as changing the structure of dentine to appear white is no doubt damaging.
Georgia, white, really?
Not translucent and leaning from slight yellow to bluish gray?
Once again: healthy, clean, well-mantained teeth may still not be the stark-white color. Lena’s up there are completely fine, just not as fake as people are used to.
I agree with Jae.
Not everyone has natural white teeth. My teeth have always been perfectly cleaned and taken care of, but yellow…. If I wanted to have white teeth, I should go under a long process of whitening. I asked that to the dentist and told me that I was going to ruin them. So it is NOT healthy at all, unless the white is natural and therefore you don’t have to undergo any whitening procedure.
Nah, they went after her. They were willing to pay for the goods. Not a fan of Lena’s, don’t watch her show, but there was a bounty on outing her imperfections.
I agree not only were they going after her hard (why her in particular when it could have been any person on any magazine cover really) but they have linked to this interview in another article today with no mention of what she has to say about Jezebel, just ignoring the fallout of their actions. The tone over there has really changed and just got nasty in the last two years or so.
I like that she was on the cover of Vogue, it was a nice change to have someone who is not seen as tradionally beautiful on a major fashion cover.
I read the article(s) on Jezebel and – IMHO – they were trying to point how prevalent image altering is these days, even with someone like Lena Dunham who usually seems “above” all of that kind of stuff. I never got the sense that they were attacking her looks or her body or whatnot. I mean, in one of the retouched pics her arm has been ‘shopped out…it’s not body-shaming to say “hey look, what happened to her arm?” is it?
I’ll definitely admit that a lot of the comments were way off base and were borderline rude, but I don’t think Jez’ original intention was to point and laugh.
My thoughts exactly. Maybe click-baity, but not personal.
It’s like this. Someone posts a pic of you online and you think “hey I look super hot in that one.” And you’re feeling good right? Then someone else goes, “man there is totally no way you look that good, I’ve seen you in real life. Hey! Anybody got some pics of this chick looking like she REALLY does?. Shoot I’ll pay for them! I’m so sick of people photoshopping their FB pages” You’d probably be kind of pissed. You might even think that that person was more likely an enemy than a friend. Jezebel may not have started with the intention of attacking Dunham but that is certainly what it turned in to.
I did an interview with the guardian and was asked to provide a photo. I provided a small headshot and a few people accused me of being “fake” and “photoshopped into oblivion.” It was really hurtful because the photo had not been shopped at all. Besides, the focus of the piece was supposed to be my career and I figured the commenters would focus on my a accomplishments (rather than my appearance). I’d imagine this is how Leah felt as well.
Naye in VA
It’s what it turned into via everyone’s 2 cents. Jezebel attacking Lena’s looks.
I’m with LadyMTL who summed it up perfectly.
FLORC:
I don’t think what everyone 2 cents was far from the truth. Clearly Lena felt that way as well. And you cant say much about Jezebels intent. Whatever it was it was clearly far from honorable.
Yes, however if that was the intent, then get a number of different pictures from a variety of celebrities.
I’m am pretty sure that they thought these pics of Lena were super photoshopped and wanted to really call her out since she dares show off her imperfect body all the time on her show.
They got the pics, paid a big price and whoops they were not that photoshopped, but they had to go ahead anyway. Lame.
Jezebel probably would not have outed the photos if Dunham didn’t constantly and tiresomely proclaim “I love my body as it is and if you don’t f-k off!” and “I’m naked in all my imperfect glory so DEAL WITH IT,” etc. So – if she loves her so much body as it is, why did she sign off on Vogue Photoshopping her photos to make her look thinner and therefore “more acceptable in designer clothes?” Mixed message, girl. Either you’re fine with yourself or you long to look like a thin pretty princess. Which is it? State it simply, be honest and don’t obfuscate. Can’t have it all ways, especially in today’s world of social media scrutiny.
Can’t blame Vogue, though, for trying to style her well and basically clean up her look. They’ve seen the ill-fitting monstrosities Dunham wears on various red carpets and in photo calls.
THIS. exactly this. She isn’t just asked about her body-image, she screams about her acceptance of her body from the rooftops. You don’t get to shout that and then claim that it’s also okay for fashion magazines to photoshop you at all.
“did she sign off on Vogue Photoshopping her photos to make her look thinner and therefore “more acceptable in designer clothes”
Did you see the photoshopping? It was so incredibly minor, and most of it was changing the coloring of the photo. They weren’t taking 50 lbs. off of her or anything.
Wow, she accepts her body as it is instead of cowering in shame and apologizing constantly, so it’s okay to bully her? What a world.
If she’s accepting photo shop, she is not “accepting her body as it is”. As someone who was bullied I am tired of this term being misused to defend a hypocrite. I don’t care what she looks like but if she wants to claim the flag of love me as I am or leave me alone she needs to say no to photoshop. The fact is she has a career and wants to be successful, she like every other ambitious person in Hollywood, wants to be shown to best effect on the cover of Vogue. Nothing wrong with it but don’t pretend you’re a victim when people call you out for your photo-tweaking. She made the choice and she should stand behind it and not pretend she’s helpless and hapless.
I see. So, like, if a woman says she’s happy with her face but she wears makeup on her wedding day, it’s ok to point at her and yell that she looks like crap without the lipstick. Because after all, she’s happy with her face. She asked for it.
Kiddo, I disagree. The bounty was on her hypocrisy. If anyone else had made the cover, I’m sure Lena would NOT say its all fantasy. She seemed to be the one of the few people to insist on being authentic, but she didn’t when the chips were down. What she could have said is that the artist has no control over the final results. That I would believe.
I wouldn’t call myself a fan of hers but I agree with her. That whole story was ill received almost universally by Jez readers. It was a mistake that they could never own up to. I read all the articles about it on Jez and it always came off as “she can’t possibly look this good!” The greater message, if there was one, was lost in the snark and the way, way, way over the top reaching for a story where there wasn’t really one. I mean, there could have been-just not with that particular editorial. It was a fail on Jezebel’s part.
She’s been excited to be on a Vogue cover since she was eight? Do eight year olds even really know what Vogue is?
yes
This is what’s so insufferable about her – everything she says about herself is totally overblown because she’s just soooo special and self aware so of course at the age of eight she was imagining herself on the cover of vogue. She wrote her first novella at the age of three and had life-changing revelations about feminism and the significance of her vagina while she was still in the cradle.
Lena. Just stop. Say something down to earth, even once, and you will annoy me far less.
Word. She bugs. If she would start being more of a personality and less of a persona, I might like her a little.
+1
Agreed.
Ummm…actually she was in a Vogue article when she was 11. So it isn’t absurd to think that she knew about the magazine at 8. The things she said as an 11 year old are quite pretentious, but none the less…her comments about her 8 year old dreams could very well be true.
I used to flick through my Mum’s Vogue’s as a kid, I started buying it myself when I was about 10.
I’m not a fan of Jezebel, because sometimes I feel like they just take a deliberately contrarian stance just to try to prove their feminist credentials – my personal was them trying to say that B— Door Teen Mom’s porn was actually very sex positive, and some other weird stuff about it. And the bounty for Dunham’s unretouched photos felt personal… they don’t do that for other models/actresses, so it was clearly intended to take her down a peg. I love being a feminist, but I just wish the quality of Jezebel’s writing was better.
Agree that targeting Lena seemed personal (and was stupid) .
You don’t have to read Jezebel to be a feminist! 🙂
That’s one of the things I hate about Jezebel, even thought I still read it on occasion. It’s all about “sex positive” feminism, which basically means anything a woman does sexually is “empowered”, whether it actually is or not. And woe betide you in the comments area if you disagree. I am very positive about sex. I like it a lot, and I think adults should feel free to do what they want. But, pretending that all sexual behavior is somehow fundamentally empowering, even something like Backdoor Farrah, is just logically unsound.
MaiGirl, I fully agree with your thoughts on sexuality and feminism.
Sex positive feminism doesn’t mean you have to like or agree with all of the sexual choices a woman makes or think they’re all empowering. But as women, I think it’s important for us to not erase the Lived Experience of other women (even if that’s not our intention) by saying that something can’t be sexually empowering for her just because we don’t consider it sexually empowering. Even worse is to be condescending to and personally attack the woman or women in question because we disagree. I see this in more than one area, where some feminists will automatically act like a woman is a ‘slave of the patriarchy’ if a woman either chooses a high level of ‘sexual modesty’ or ‘sexual immodesty’ and act like those choices are intrinsically anti-woman. Some feminists do either intentionally or unintentionally create a clique-like mentality where womens’ status is based on her sexual modesty, or even sexual orientation, and that all by itself is reductive, shallow, and problematic.
The idea behind sex positive feminism isn’t blindly approving of all of a woman’s sexual choices. It just means that you can’t be homophobic , transphobic, or whorephobic, you can’t slut-shame, and you can’t victim-blame. It means respecting everyone’s bodily autonomy. At it’s core, it’s about fighting the dialogue in our culture that bases the human worth and value of women and girls on their ‘sexual modesty’, and that teaches that if a female somehow transgressed ‘sexual modesty’, she’s somehow deserving of, asking for, or partially responsible for ill treatment of either herself or other females. The sex positive feminism is actually one of the reasons I like Jezebel. But I don’t agree with every single thing they say, and I don’t really like this decision they made with Lena Dunham.
There’s a difference between actual sex positive feminism and what Jezebel is doing, which is out point. And Farrah is a great example: how is her filming a p$rn to sell and then trying to pass it off as a home-tape at all sex-positive? And yet Jezebel does click-bait articles like that all the time.
Leila, I understand your point about what sex positive feminism is when practiced as intended, but I have a fundamental issue with the terminology, as well as the practice. Why on earth was feminism deemed sex negative enough to even need to add sex positive to the term? That descriptor actually buys into the patriarchy’s stereotypical views of feminism. I frankly find it offensive that as a feminist with no descriptors, I am somehow implied to be sex negative, when I am very far from it. No need, in my opinion, to continue the tradition of using semantics to stereotype feminists as sexually repressed.
Sex positive feminism as practiced by a good number of the writers and readers/commentariat of Jezebel (and in a other venues as well) is exactly as I described–a sort of groupthink “everything is empowering!” type of delusion-fest. Well, if everything is empowering, nothing is. It isn’t unfairly judgmental to have an opinion about the positive or negative effects of someone’s sexual behavior, as long as you live and let live. I am tired of being labeled narrow-minded and unfair because I don’t support the latest pr0n star “empowered” by breaking the latest g__g-b__g record. She is free to feel empowered by that, and I am free to hope she seeks help someday.
@Leila
While I agree with you on our not judging other women for their choices, my only issue is that some men will see some of these women and think that ALL women are this way or that way. Sadly it still effects us all.
@maigirl: I personally like the term ‘sex positive’ because it seems like humans views about sexuality have been pretty negative historically. VERY negative. Sexual desire has been seen as a bad thing. Sex before marriage has been seen as a bad thing- to the point where unmarried women and girls who were not virgins (or even those who people thought had lost their virginity before marriage) were considered ‘defiled’ women, and it either led to shame, ostracism, rejection, or violence. If a female came off as someone who had or would engage in premarital sexual activity with more than one man in her lifetime, or who attracted a lot of male sexual attention because of her looks or the way she came off, that has been considered shameful too (women who fall under this category have been described as ‘loose’ or ‘fast’. Even today, sexually active teenage girls or teenage girls who come off as sexual are sometimes described as ‘fast’ and considered problems to some people, and a lot of people still think that if paternalistic fathers and mothers aren’t guarding the chastity and modesty of their 16, 17, and even 18, 19, 20, and 21-year old daughters, they’re seen as bad parents). Prostitutes and other sex workers have been seen as ‘bad’ and less than human, and females have long been told and expected to dress and carry themselves in a way that seperates themselves from them. (we can still see this attitude today, like through the use of the label of prostitute or ‘whore’ to police, shame, and reprimand females for their choices,) Women had been socialized not to like or want sex- or at least not to let on that they do- and to not be very firm about what they do or don’t want sexually. Female orgasm was once seen as a sign of mental illness. Females had and have been taught to dress modestly not only because of fear that male sexual desire will be triggered, the possibility that this could lead to sexual activity outside of marriage, and the idea that sexual modesty should determine a woman’s status, but also because of the idea that if females aren’t modest, it will trigger men into sexually harassing, raping, or otherwise mistreating her or other females.
I could go on, but basically there’s been a lot of negativity surrounding sexuality- especially female sexuality. I don’t think at all that being a feminist means that someone is sexually repressed and I don’t think that’s what other feminists who use the term sex positive are trying to say either. But, just because someone is a feminist doesn’t mean that they’re totally immune to all of those negative messages in our culture. There are some women and teenage girls who have admitted that the sex-negative aspects of our culture have made them less than comfortable with their sexuality, and have even had a bad impact on how they viewed or treated others in the past, or how they view themselves, and some of the women who have admitted to this are feminists. There are also some women and girls who have mentioned that they’ve seen these attitudes in their schools or in the way they were raised. Also, I have seen- and other feminists have seen- some feminists who DO actively promote the idea that females need modesty as some sort of talisman that increases our worth, value, and status either as individuals or as a sex, and that it will keep males from committing sex crimes against females. So using the term sex positive is not to imply that feminist= sexually repressed. It’s just to make it clear that we strongly reject and are opposed to those ideas that I mentioned- in every way.
Also, you said, “I am tired of being labeled narrow-minded and unfair because I don’t support the latest pr0n star “empowered” by breaking the latest g__g-b__g record. She is free to feel empowered by that, and I am free to hope she seeks help someday.” Well, don’t you think it IS just a teensy bit narrow-minded to attempt to judge a person’s mental health based on their sexual activity alone? That’s another thing that humans have been doing for far to long- trying to classify people as mentally ill or somehow damaged based on their sexuality just because it fell or falls outside of the lines of what is traditionally or socially acceptable in a place or time.
@Delorb: In their lifetime men are exposed to literally all kinds of women, just like we’re exposed to all kinds of men. If we combine that with educating both sexes while they’re young that not all men or all women are the same in their likes, dislikes, thoughts, or behaviors, then I don’t think there will be a lot of people of either sex growing up thinking: “All women are this way, like this, dislike that, think this way, and act like this”, or the same about men. I know I didn’t grow up thinking that way.
MiaGirl: agree x 1000
I no longer read Jezebel, and it’s for many of the reasons stated here.
My sister and I used to read and comment on Evil Beet, and then gave Jezebel a try when it sprang from EB’s loins. We jumped ship after a month or so because of the poor immature quality. Am heartened to read these opinions here (above and below) about Jezebel, about it being bullying and contrarian, and hypocritical, and having poor writing.
The turn-off in Jezebel is its closeminded heavyhandedness in the guise of intelligent feminism. The brash, strident editorial bent, and the low quality impulsive writing belie the professed integrity Jezebel wishes it had.
The Internet is great and full of interesting discourse but it is also full of people who know very little and speak quite authoritatively. Jezebel is not feminism embodied, it’s entertainment and should be viewed as such. There is a large appetite for opinion in our society but it’s a mistake to presume these opinions are facts or even well-reasoned arguments.
Agree be consistent for God’s sake. But body shaming is body shaming, they burn other women at the stake for doing it then do it themselves or attack women who truly are A OK with how they look like this actress. Really F’d up. Irritating.
I agree with Lena. I used to read Jezebel (and all Gawker media) but stopped almost a year ago. They have turned into bullies and it’s not ok.
Agreed- now days I tend to stick to their cute animals posts- low snark levels on those stories!
Gawker’s pun fests are awesome. I love a good pun off (we should do them here!), and the last one I read the other day about a guy who jerked off into his supervisor’s shoes . . . well the best one was “he’s shooting Blahniks!”. That commenter is my hero(ine).
Right, ok this just isn’t me.
I used to really like Jezebel, Gawker took a weird turn for me the year prior and while I still read the articles I stopped commenting and reading the comments. Then something weird happened. There was a story I commented on because I had experienced something similar to what the author was writing about in the same city. So I wrote a quick little story conveying my experience and inserted a topical reference that I thought was funny and that anyone who was reading the news cycle at the time would totally get was a joke, right!?!?!?! NOPE.
First off MANY their regular commenters accused me showing preferential treatment to boys over girls because I didn’t correct or reprimand the kids in question. I am not really sure why that was read that way other than if their super feminist flags were flying super high that day because the reason I didn’t say anything wasn’t because they were BOYS it was becuase I don’t go around disciplining anyone else’s kid.
Then a bunch of them wanted to educate me on why my topical reference wasn’t funny and made me a racist. Well during this time many of the writers and regular commenters were using not only this same phrase but other ones that were current but because i was not part of the inner circle it wasn’t OK. Also I think they think I am white male based on my user name, I am not. I am actually a chubby, cat loving, WOC so these comments were funny.
They also yelled at me for turning in a thesis ready comment. I was like I write these in a few minutes and then move on, weirdos I don’t sit here all day waiting and hoping on of you give me acceptance. I got my gold star on Gawker in first entry so boo on you!
AND that was the last time I really commented there because I got to these sites to share ideas and read other peoples thoughts and comments not to be attacked, for sharing my person experience. While there are still a good number of the writers I like and I still go to read their stuff. I cant with the pandering and booty kissing to those who can bring you out of the gray, thats lame.
OH my. I think I might have read that. I don’t comment on Gawker because of the troll factor . . . those guys are brutal.
@relli, I had a similar experience at Jezebel. I was basically called an uneducated idiot for refusing to give my second son the oral rotavirus vaccine (after my eldest had a serious reaction to it). I stated that I am provaccine, but declined that particular vaccine because it was relatively new and that deaths due to dehydration from rotavirus were low in the US because of advanced medical treatment. These were all things I was told by the pediatrician and the research I did on my own supported what she had told me, but these commenters (many of which claimed to be physicians and research scientists) told me I was treating my kids as “one off guinea pigs” and that I didn’t deserve to be a parent because I was endangering my kids and other people’s children (when, in fact, I was endangering my eldest by giving him the vaccine; which caused him to become violently ill and resulted in his hospitalization).
I stopped posting over there immediately after that. I just can’t get on board with people who believe they’re so much smarter and could have handled our particular situations better (particularly the ones who think their degrees make them more qualified to lord over others who may be just as qualified).
I have largely moved away from them too. I’ve found that they’ve become far more hostile to open debate. Especially on Jez, you can’t bring up any subject that relates to weight gain or health unless you’re ready argue for “health at any size.” I totally get that some people can be fat and healthy. However, some can’t. But if you even suggest that maybe that might be the case, you’re a “concern troll” or “fat shamer.” It’s very hard to have a nuanced conversation there anymore. And forget about talking religion in a thoughtful way. I made the mistake once of mentioning I’m a Christian Scientist. Big mistake.
@Sam that was one of the major reasons I stopped with Jez. They take their “body acceptance” to a whole new level. I am sorry, but if you are 100lbs overweight, you are not healthy. I will never judge you or treat you poorly, but its just a fact that obesity is a leading cause of health problems in this country. The level of denial on Jez regarding obesity and how it relates to health is staggering.
@Relli I feel like the issue with the comments reflects the overall tone of the site. It’s just not very respectful..at first I liked it, because I’m liberal and it was nice to read people I agreed with. But they’ve turned into Rush Limbaugh territory recently…just mean and nasty and so extreme with their talking points.
@Relli: My sig other calls comments sections Dante’s Last Rung of Hell. My condolences on your flogging.
Same here. I gave up on Jezebel over a year ago because it gave me rage headaches. I’m a Catholic and a feminist and was attacked in the comment section for this. Apparently, it’s not possible to be a feminist and religious, unless you’re a Wiccan. I think it’s sad that an on line magazine that prides itself on promoting social justice for women has become a forum for women to tear each other to pieces over life choices they don’t understand or agree with. The level of shaming and bullying that goes on in the comments is truly disturbing. Not to mention the gross overuse of the words hetero-normative and patriarchy by college freshman who really don’t know what the hell they’re talking about .
haha yes. this!!! my final straw was they did an article about a 20 something who bought an condo in NYC and wrote an article about how she had saved since she was 14 to help buy it. Of course, he parents helped her out a little bit, so they (Gawker) went after her..the article and the comments were BRUTAL. just truly disturbingly brutal. I mean, here this girl is, just trying to offer advice and be an inspiration for people, not hurting anyone, and they FLIPPED OUT. But because she was some “little rich girl” (which I doubt. she seemed upper middle class at best) she wasnt allowed to talk about her hard work..It was completely insane.
Wow, I had no idea that other people were having similar experiences with simply voicing their opinion, I had simply chalked my experience to me getting old. Thank you for sharing!
@bluhare, you might have I was pretty heated at the responses especially given that the article was about verbal sexual harassment in SF. I had been verbally accosted by a group of kids who were so young I was looking around for their mom(s). In truth I think they were just a bunch of young punks looking for fight and singled out my husband and I because we look fairly young (spoiler we are old and I was pregnant). But my husband grew up in rough neighborhoods and worked at group home for foster kids in CA right out of the Navy so he knew better than to engage or care. What was funny though is a lot of people wanted to know why my husband didn’t “protect my honor.” I was very confused by these statements because EXCUSE ME but I can hold my own!
@ Mort, thats terrible! I have done a lot of research myself on vaccines and I know those are not easy decisions to make. I work with scientists and I am always picking their brains for information and reading the latest research on the matter. (Side note: for the longest time I wondered if you were the Morticians in their “Ask Mortician column!”)
@ Ms. Bennett, I too am a Catholic Liberal and they are not very nice to me either especially when I have said things like, hey now don’t put us all in the same box, they have exploded. They shouldn’t have gone after @Sam either, religion is a personal choice!
@TX you summed it up perfectly the comments are reflection of the overall tone of the site. The extremity of “you are either with us or against us,” is to severe for my taste as I actually like hearing from people with a different point of view.
My thoughts are Kim Kardashian must be insane with anger over Lena getting the Vogue treatment and she can’t, not even with Kanye badgering Wintour to death.
It’s awesome,isn’t it?
It’s hard to take anyone’s side in this. I initially though it amusing, then not so much. Clearly Lena is happy with her imperfections because she so often wears outfits that highlight them.
But perhaps Jezebel went after her because they thought it was _hypocritical is too strong a word_ for her to be in Vogue? If she acknowledges it’s a “fantasy” then is participating supporting the myth that this is what a 27 year old looks like good or helpful? Because I know younger women who don’t necessarily think of Vogue as “fantasy”. It’ll take a few years for that to dawn on them.
People side-eyed Oprah years ago for losing weight to make the cover. So there is precedent for those women who are seemingly the opposite of Vogue suddenly diving in and rightly or wrongly being called on it. Maybe I’m wrong about Lena, maybe she’s always been a Vogue girl. Either way I guess we should all just let her have her moment.
To me, Cosmo is the fantasy mag, while Vogue used to be high fashion in the sense of “THIS is what high fashion looks like and how it is worn.” Vogue wasn’t literal, it was photography that conveyed artistic style and attitude and fashionable high society lifestyle. Vogue didn’t present fantasy, it presented VISION; it presented the runway, and fashion flair as showcased by top photographers and top models. Back then, retouching was for zits, wrinkles, and stray hairs, not major restructuring and distortion. And yes, I was reading Vogue at 11 years old, and thinking how awesome it would be to be on the cover or featured in a spread. Stopped reading after Wintour downgraded Vogue to be her personal fantasy of stunted celebrity plasticism and a**-kissing. Given that, I am actually surprised that Wintour finds Kardashian unworthy of her pet publication! (I hope Wintour holds firm, though, to shunning all things Kardashian, because that would be one thing she gets right.)
The nerve of LD.
The story about her being fired from Mildred Pierce is kind of amazing.
I don’t like Jezebel – it’s not what it used to be and Gawker media in the past few years generally focuses more on trolling than on actually writing good artices. I do think that the call for the untouched photos was meant more to generate clicks and headlines than not.
That being said, Jezebel made a name for itself in large part because of its posts on Photoshopped images. And Dunham’s comments seem more like “I’m upset that they thought I looked fat” which seems inconsistent with her “I’m a “real” girl and I have flaws” schitck. And generally, I’m tired of any criticisms (perceived or not) of her and her show being panned as being against feminism.
OMG THANK YOU.
I am a feminist both in belief and practice-I am the breadwinner, didn’t take my husband’s name, went to all girl schools-and I HATE Girls. I hate it bc the characters are a88holes. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with being anti-feminist. It has to do with being anti-ALL a88holes, male or female.
🙂
OMG THANK YOU too
I can see her argument that Jezebel made an error in their approach to feminism… but (I may get challenged on this) I don’t see her writing on Girls as really being particularly feminist. And it doesn’t have to be feminist, but if you are critical of it, you are perceived as anti-feminist.
After watching the latest episode I was left wondering what, as a woman, there is to like about any of the 4 characters and in particular Lena’s character. Walking around in a bikini all episode when every other chatacter is fully clothed doesn’t strike me as feminist, more like shtick. I know she’s pushed back on this in the past, but in the context of what everyone else in the episode was doing, as a viewer i perceived it as forced. I would have felt the same if any of the other girls on the show did the same or if say, Louis CK did this on his show.
And much of what was being said throughout the episode wasn’t particularly feminist…. Hannah’s response to an escalating fight with girlfriends is “I miss my boyfriend”. The Allison girl whined about her pain after her boyfriend left her. One character making a snide comment that a guy who he thought was closeted had much bigger emotional issues because instead he decided to date Allisons character. After a big fight the girls re-bond by silently cleaning the kitchen.
I’m not asking Girls to be feminist…it can simply be a perceived realistic portrayal of a particular group of young women in NY. I dont happen to think it is great TV, but don’t accuse me/others who after watching dont like the program of being anti-feminist when the program itself has its own issues.
miagirl. you are pretty awesome. thanks for your thoughts.
If this were really about Photoshopping pictures and how damaging that can be, Jezebel should have put a bounty on a regular model (well, actress, I guess, since Vogue rarely does models anymore) to show how unrealistic that standard of beauty is, and that even these seemingly perfect-looking people aren’t.
It made absolutely no sense to pay for pics of someone who DOESN’T portray an unrealistic standard of beauty, and then to point out every bump and lump that was smoothed over. It felt very mean-girlish and spiteful.
So full of herself. Can’t stand her and those horrid brown teeth of hers.
I don’t know who she is, I don’t watch her tv show, so I don’t get why this girl is “a thing”. Or why she is considered like “the smartest girl around”, only because she doesn’t fit the Hollywood beauty standards.
I hate the “Jezebel was picking on her by calling out her imperfections” line. While I think that Jezebel was wrong, I don’t think they were trying to “call out” “imperfections,” simply because Jez, hopefully, wouldn’t see them as imperfections. I think what we fail to make explicit in discussions of photoshopping is the idea that women are offensive if they are not attractive, which is what we see over and over and over again in pop culture. I see men on message boards, on Facebook, in real life, get downright angry when a woman is not trying to be attractive to heterosexual males, or tries and fails. It is wrong and scary and bizarre, but it’s also so completely normalized and accepted. I think both Jez and Lena can and do criticize the insanity of that dynamic; it’s not a coincidence that Dunham spent the most important episode of the season, so far, in nothing but a green string bikini.
That said, Jezebel MANGLED the messaging, and it ended up being, “Photoshop bad waaaaaaaah we will find those photos! Jez to the rescue!” when I think they should have celebrated the fact that Vogue gave the cover and a large spread to a woman whose fame is based on her talents and her refusal to cave to body expectations in Hollywood and beyond. AND that they did several high-fashion looks that absolutely do not pander to the male gaze. I think that should have been the focal point, and if it wasn’t going to be the focal point, Jez should have made whatever their point was a hell of a lot more clear.
And then, to add insult to injury, when they got those damn un-retouched photos and the retouching was minimal, they were basically forced to run them anyway because they’d already made so much noise about it AND had spent $10,000. It was just bad decision after bad decision over at Jez.
I like Lena in this interview, and I like Season 3 of Girls.
I don’t think Jezebel’s goal in seeking/revealing the unretouched photos was to shame Lena, but to give readers some relief. It’s bad enough that models look better than you ever could; Lena Dunham has made a career out of being Everygirl, and now even she looks more amazing than you
Could ever hope to? It’s a great, affirming reality check for the rest of us who strive to see the real photos.
Jezebel are all over the place in their so called feminism. On the one hand they are calling out Dunham for retouching . On the other hand they are shipping the Botox and plastic surgery happy Kim kardashian as some kind of modern day siren and gushing about how beautiful she looks in that stupid video with Kanye which was most certainly retouched to high heavens. I lost respect for that place.
That’s not even their worst transgression against feminism: how about one writer’s unapologetic praise of how sex-positive R.Kelly’s latest album was? Even when the comment decoction went into uproar, the author basically stood her ground.
That site is basically click-bait dressed up as sociopolitical commentary, just like Gawker. I don’t any real life feminists who use Jezebel as a touchstonetouchstone or a basis source of reinforcement for their beliefs or their activism.
Agree. Jezebel and Gawker are media machines now. If they ever were a “feminist voice in the wilderness” it’s been replaced by a sterile male driven corporate view of “how many unique visitors and page views did we have in February? Who is being exposed to this crap we write and do they spend money?? And if so, who of those might buy a Michael Kors bag? Let’s hit up Macy’s to advertise on our site.” Believe me, it’s doing stories that create this kind of buzz out of pure greed. We’re better off reading novels.
If they did this with all magazine covers to show how false the images usually are, and did the same with hers as anyone else’s, that would be one thing. But making a big deal and offering money seemed like an attention grab, and also made it personal about Lena, because she’s not a typical model. I think it ended up being a poor move overall.
I agree, they chose Lena to make an example of and it’s poor form because Lena is already someone who gives lots of normal sized women some relief by just being the leading lady on a hit show. And looking like she does as opposed to the vast majority of leading ladies out there. The retouching isn’t even very striking, we all know magazine covers are retouched so why chose just her to expose. If they did this with everyone that would have been different.
If Jezebel’s goal was indeed to point out the extent of photoshopping, then they did well to sacrifice Lena Dunham to that altar (I’m not saying it’s nice, but it IS effective). If even a self-proclaimed feminist would be willing to go under the “digital knife” to fit some mass media standard of beauty, then there isn’t much hope for a new age right? This woman, who even called herself the ‘voice of her generation’, is supposed to be an emblem of things moving forward for women, in a culture that so often praises beauty and vapidness over character and intellectualism, yet even she would buy into this type of destructive commercialism. It’s not really Lena’s fault that she got pegged as this de facto “new” woman (I don’t think she really aimed for that, she was just writing her show) and I do think her weight, unfortunately, has a lot to do with that perception. In this situation, she has to take the high road here and ironically, not make this about her. Maybe Jezebel was just mean-girling her; and perhaps it was a little personal; but in the end they did make a point.
Yeah but why Dunham? Its not like she is the only self confessed feminist out there. Why don’t they do the same with say persons like Olivia Wilde or Zoe Saldana both keen on presenting themselves as feminist but most certainly appearing on many covers that have been retouched. Well wilde and saldana are both considered conventionally beautiful, with the right body for actresses. So it just seems like its easier to shame Dunham looking like she does rather than pick a conventionally beautiful woman.
+1
I can see both sides. I think Lena’s argument about “fantasy” is off base. People have been using clothes, makeup and other tricks for years to attain a “fantasy.” Photoshop, however, feels different, because makeup, at the end of the day, can only work with what you actually have. Photoshop doesn’t enhance as much as it distorts. A heavily made-up picture is still the person, just painted up. A photoshopped image isn’t an actual human image, to me – it’s a distortion of a human. It’s an impossible standard. That is what makes it so critically diffent to me.
Bla bla bla
I have a hard time listening to Dunham or her team of hipsters that make “Girls” without laughing till I pee a little bit. They all seem so ridiculously self-important while spouting newspeak nonsense like “rage spiral”.
I don’t think “Girls” is a bad show but I don’t feel it’s as great as the “Star Makin Machinery” would have us believe either.
Calling out Jezebel for showing un-retouched photos of LD is one thing, but suggesting it’s a “monumental error” in their “approach to feminism” is just more self-important blather. My guess is LD doesn’t really want people to see her as she is but can’t just come out and say that as it will collide with her whole “Hey I’m just a girl, warts and all” persona (which I feel is complete bs)
LD shows people what she looks every day on that shows of hers. I don’t think that is the problem. The fact that they were willing to pay that much for LDs unretouched photos to me seems personal… they don’t do that for other models or actresses, so it seemed as if was intended to take LD down a notch specifically.
Most likely, but then it’s an attack on Dunham herself not ‘feminism’.
I’m no fan of Jezebel btw, to me it’s just more internet bla bla.
If any party to this is acting “self-important” it’s Jezebel not this actress. They purport to represent an entire sector, identity, age group and correct philosophy of a certain type of woman how it should view the world at large. This actress is expressing her personal opinion to which she is entitled.
Well, I used to defend Lena but I just can’t anymore. As far as I am concerned she just stands for the loathsome and empty hipster way: just talking BS – but fancy, pretentious BS. I used to think she did stand for something but not anymore. She just seems wants to be cool enough to run with the guys in the rat pack. “I am 27 and I shouldn’t have those lines on my face.” Whatever. Own it or don’t. But don’t claim to own it and then not own it. Obnoxious.
If this is all you got from what she said, you missed the point of what she was saying entirely.
Girls is a good show, I like it a lot. But I’m in my early thirties, married with a child and dog so I find 20-somethings in New York to be really entertaining 🙂 I didn’t like Lena at first but she has really grown on me. Now I really dig her.
For me the issue is that they went after Dunham, only Dunham, and for a photoshoot that clearly wasn’t hugely ‘shopped. If it had of been a photoshoot where Dunham looked like a totally different person, they might have had a point, but as it was it just looked like they wanted to get people talking shit about Dunham and it backfired.
Hey Jezebel, you got called out! You can’t have it both ways. Tsk tsk.
I’m just going to put a plug in for Feministing.com, which I read instead of Jezebel.