Far be it from me to question The Observer’s stance on equality. I am pretty sure if it was a competition they would be in the elite runners and I would walk the course.
I felt some pieces of this weren’t exactly coming from the best position.
“…is known for the nude appearances she makes on her acclaimed HBO show.” For example. OK, maybe I am being pedantic here, but why phrase it like that. Yes, there is an amount of, shall we say, infamy Dunham has attracted because of her penchant for not wearing clothes on Girls. But to phrase it like that undermines what she is actually known for – which is mentioned in the sentence*.
Why does she have to justify having an image photoshopped as a feminist? Why does anyone have to justify this? Especially why does someone have to justify it because they are sometimes in a TV show not wearing clothes? The article does link the two helpfully with the following paragraph:
I can’t even be arsed about what Vogue wants women to look like. I just don’t think someone should face cross-examination because they are into a portrayal of three-dimensional characters in a drama but let someone make a picture of them look a bit different. Is it trite to say that they wouldn’t be saying this about a man? Because they wouldn’t.
*OK, it is mentioned in the opening paragraph that she is not just someone who doesn’t wear clothes at some points of a TV show that she writes and directs**.
**If I’m being honest I am more bored that the nudity thing is a bit of an issue. However if the issue is going to be voiced, as it was to the show’s producer Judd Apatow at a recent Q & A then at least have a point to make that isn’t vile (Dunham isn’t the archetypal idealised women of Hollywood). Apatow’s point that you shouldn’t have to look any way for nudity to be questioned is bang on. I’m not so sure, however, I am used to seeing anyone nude that much in any TV show. So, I’m OK with people asking why anyone needs to be nude so much. But then I don’t like that anyone should have to justify any art. I am all of a muddle about this one eh?