Industry NewsOpinion

Can ‘Feminist’ Lena Dunham Sink Any Lower?

Lena Dunham is having a tough time of it of late. And it could get much worse.

It all depends how invested the media and feminist leaders remain in defending the one-time “It” girl.

The far-left star of HBO’s “Girls” has been pummeled by embarrassing headlines in recent times. Think the dustup with an animal shelter over her surrendering an adopted pup. Or how she insinuated football great Odell Beckham, Jr. was a jerk with zero proof beyond her fertile imagination.

What about how she attempted to shame two American Airline workers for “hate speech” without much evidence to back it all up?

Now, combine all of the above with her recent gaffe, a doozy that shredded her feminist bona fides. She instantly branded a woman who claimed a male “Girls” writer sexually assaulting her a liar. That broke Dunham’s woke commandment: Thou shall believe every woman who claims she’s been sexually assaulted.

Dunham quickly backtracked. The damage was done.

All of the above may just be a warm up act.

The Weinstein Scandal Gets Uglier

A shocking new report by The New York Times could make Dunham’s life much more complicated. Not to mention the damage it might do to her remaining feminist credentials.

The Gray Lady’s liberal biases have been clear for some time. The paper’s latest expose on the Harvey Weinstein scandal appears rock solid all the same. It’s also unbelievably damaging to a number of parties beyond the now-disgraced film producer.

It turns out several members of Creative Artists Agency (C.A.A.) not only knew about Weinstein’s harassment history but allowed female stars to meet with him privately without warning what might happen.

At C.A.A., for example, at least eight talent agents were told that Mr. Weinstein had harassed or menaced female clients, but agents there continued to arrange private meetings.

It’s a nauseating revelation.

Enter uber-feminist Lena Dunham.

The newspaper reports that Dunham attempted to warn the Hillary Clinton campaign not once but twice about Weinstein’s activities last year. The same activities, mind you, that remained secret for 30-odd years to the general public. Weinstein’s extensive ties to the Clintons were legendary. And that could be an issue, the “Girls” star feared.

“I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Ms. Dunham said she told Kristina Schake, the campaign’s deputy communications director. She recalled adding, “I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fund-raisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.”

Later that year, Dunham tried again.

With the Democratic National Convention approaching in summer 2016, Ms. Dunham said she also warned Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton who was leading efforts with celebrity campaigners. As far as Ms. Dunham could tell, the campaign had not responded to her concerns about Mr. Weinstein.

Dunham knew enough about Weinstein to be alarmed at what his presence in and around the Clinton campaign might do to the candidate’s White House hopes.

Yet she didn’t say a word about it to anyone else. Not the press. Not fellow celebrities who might team with her to expose the threat once and for all. All she cared about was Clinton’s presidential campaign, not the women who continually were exposed to Weinstein’s appetites.

In fact, had the Weinstein scandal not broken in October even more starlets might have been left alone with the producer. Others might be heading his way now, as Oscar season reaches a fever pitch.

Why didn’t Dunham say something? Do something?

Why the Silence Endures

Many actresses did know something about Weinstein’s antics and remained silent. There are several reasons for that. Some feared being ostracized in the business or having their careers end overnight. Weinstein wielded massive power at the height of his career.

Or they simply didn’t want to relive the horrors they allegedly endured at his hands.

RELATED: Carolla: Here’s Why We Can’t Roast Lena Dunham

Yet Dunham is a feminist warrior, ready to fight for her fellow actresses in the industry. Allegedly. She didn’t mind leaking what she knew about Weinstein to a major political campaign. Yet when the campaign brushed off her warnings she did nothing in response.

Or is something else in play?

The Clinton campaign denies hearing Dunham’s warning. It also said Tina Brown’s similar account didn’t happen, either. Did Dunham try to inject herself into a toxic news story?

Someone is lying. If Dunham is making up her side of the story it speaks terribly of her, of course. In a way that version of reality isn’t as damning as the other one. That’s where a 21st century feminist let a Hollywood monster off the hook.

Show More

30 Comments

  1. Something that has totally escaped commentary in this whole Hollywood sexual assault fiasco is how many actresses allowed themselves to be molested in order to advance their careers. Quite of few victims have come forward, but that can’t possibly be all the would-be actresses who went through these sexual predators office doors.

    1. The pay to play doesn’t bother me if the actresses were willing to go along to advance their careers. It’s the rape and masturbation bullying that stick in the craw.

      1. It mostly bothers me that so many never reported it, leaving perhaps hundreds to suffer from unwanted sexual attacks for decades. As we’re now seeing, Harvey Weinstein is the tip of the iceberg in Pervertwood.

      2. Such prostitution is a form of corruption and affects many more than the one woman who sells herself. It’s like a town where the police are offered bribes to tear up speeding tickets. If it happens often enough, the cops will start to expect to find bank notes fold up in the vehicle registration.

    2. Seems much of this activity is a “barter system” in action. Supply of unknowns massively outstrips demand. How to get selected from among the faceless masses? Barter your short term physical perfection for a chance to demonstrate other talents. I would think this has been done since a “second Eve” showed up in the garden of Eden with her own apple. In this, bitter losers tend to become angry and seek revenge. Or maybe they didn’t barter what they had, initially, well enough. Jeez! Don’t we ALL know this?

    3. I always thought most of these talentless hacks being shoved up our rear ends was due to Nepotism. Not all I guess, lol…

    4. Did you see the reaction to Pamela Anderson’s statement that basically makes the same point? She won’t be invited to any of the cool parties anytime soon.

          1. Pretty much.

            I can honestly say that I have never watched any TV show or film featuring Pamela Anderson, with the exception of her appearances on Home Improvement. (Which was ironically the last prime time comedy show that I watched.)

  2. There is a chance, however remote, that Dunham is telling the truth. And yeah, it doesn’t make her look good. The simple explanation goes back to the Clintons love of money; Harvey quite simply had more to give to Hillary than Lena did, so Lena’s warnings about Harvey were ignored. That Lena didn’t tell anyone else about those warnings just means she didn’t want to alienate herself from Hillary (but, as the article says, at the potential cost of other women being molested by Harvey).

    Dunham’s desire to be famous as an SJW trumped by Hillary’s desire for money. It’s about as simple as that.

  3. Goodness……everyday is X’mas for Trump supporters!

    There are so, so many hypocrites and down right scumbags among the Left `Elites’, I dare expect to have at least one `scalp’ a week, or maybe 2, or 3……

  4. Lena’s most heinous act, of course, being the self-revealed molestation of her younger sister.

    I’m certain the absence of that tidbit was merely an oversight.

  5. These are the same Hollywood people who threw Roman Polanski’s underage rape victim right under the bus in hopes they could still land a role in one of his films.
    They’re virtuous as hell when they think it cost nothing and gains them cred. But if it costs them a juicy role or fame or money? Screw you, bitch.

  6. As if the Clinton campaign cared that a serial rapist was present at fundraisers. Dunham should have said “Harvey will be the second rapist, next to Bill at the fundraiser”.

  7. Lena Dunham wouldn’t be the first feminist to put party over country. When faced with the knowledge of Bill Clinton’s assaults, Anita Hill advised that the democrats should focus on the good that he could do and sweep the other under the rug. This is nothing new for these people.

  8. Many people said Hollywood was full of perverts. They were ignored and made fun of by democrats for being prudish and unable to handle sex.When we objected to Polanski they called us repressed. When we protested Woody Allen they called us un-hip and out of touch. When we called out President Clinton, they called us partisan haters and called the women bimbos, and called Ken starr a repressed pervert. Don’t any of you dare to now claim so few spoke out. Many spoke out but the press covered up for democrats.The real question now should be, why were so many on the left willing to allow this crap to happen to women? All while trying to vilify republicans and making fun of Romney for having binders full of women who would make good candidates for hiring.

  9. Wait, so, she made up a FAKE RAPIST from her college years but then did nothing while someone she KNEW WAS A RAPIST was allowed to prey on more young women.

    And now, somehow regular guys are supposed to become “woke”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
Close