Feminists Unite—Against Kirsten Dunst?

Feminists unite—against Kirsten Dunst?

According to Merriam-Webster, “feminism” is defined in one of two general ways. First, “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” Second, as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”

This may have been the foundation upon which feminism was based. But it has become increasingly clear that this is not what so-called “feminists” are fighting for in America today.

I could cite the easy examples — the horrible treatment women like Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin, among many others, have seen from supposed feminists for not following feminist orthodoxy. (Palin chose to — *gasp* — bear her Down syndrome child! The horror!)

However, this time the target of feminist anger is no political person, but an actress: Kirsten Dunst.

And what did Ms. Dunst, not exactly a controversial public figure — then again, I had a crush on her for a few years after “Small Soldiers” came out, so I may be biased — say to ignite such disdain? Why, she thinks woman’s choice to stay at home is valuable, and women should look for a “knight in shining armor” to be their life partners:

I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued. We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking — it’s a valuable thing my mom created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armor. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work.

The results have been shockingly predictable, if entirely distasteful. Over at Jezebel.com, in a post entitled “Kirsten Dunst thinks ladies in relationships should wife the f%$# out,” she was accused of being “kind of dumb about” gender theory. At UpRoxx.com, one writer crassly described her “hate” for Dunst — stemming from a very mild childhood experience that has everything to do with the writer’s state of mind, and little to do with Dunst — using it as an excuse to attack the actress’ comments.

And at TheGloss.com, while Dunst gets some credit for wanting women to do what makes them happy, she also gets attacked amid a series of crude insults. (The word “dumb” makes a cameo appearance during the post.)

So what did Dunst actually say? Seems to me this working woman — she has another movie coming out soon, the latest in 28 years as an actress — was trying to get this across to our divorce-ridden culture:

  1. Independence is needed, but stay-at-home moms are undervalued.
  2. Her personal experience shows the value of having a parent working in the home.
  3. Men and women have defined roles in relationships because of how we’re created.
  4. Women should want to be with a man who treats them well (a knight).
  5. Relationships work great when men and women understand that we are equal as a whole, but different in complementary ways.

Gosh. So offensive.

But this is what happens when a Hollywood actress breaks the oppressive atmosphere that is modern feminism — which wants freedom for women, as long as they are freely choosing to destroy their bodies with contraception, killing their children through abortion, and cool with men using their bodies for base sexual pleasure.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s