Are feminists threatened by strong men? Can equality between the sexes include both a strong man and a strong woman? Or does modern liberalism demand strong women overwhelming weak “metrosexual” men?
Man-hating feminists are upset by common sense comments by actress Kirsten Dunst. The “A list” Hollywood star said in an interview in London with Harper’s Bazaar Magazine’s United Kingdom version:
“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…”
31-year old Ms. Dunst, who currently stars in “Midnight Special,” has been dating her co-star from “On the Road,” actor Garrett Hedlund since January 2012.
Of course, the important framework here is that there are two types of feminists:
- Equity (equality) feminists believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. Practically everyone outside the Muslim world strongly believes in equality of rights and opportunities between the sexes, including this author. However, equality does not always mean sameness or uniformity, they believe.
- Gender (gender-war) feminists are not interested in equality but in bashing and tearing down men. Gender feminists are at war with men and always looking for a fight, whether one exists or not. Most of all, gender feminists are at war with God, meaning they are at war with biology and Nature. They are bitter and angry at being women physically. Their goals are to reshape society by tearing down existing culture and social traditions.
Kirsten Dunst said that “sometimes” – not always – a woman needs a knight in shining armor. She clearly suggests that most of the time a woman can stand on her own two feet. There are just those moments when everyone needs practical or emotional support.
However, classy, mild-mannered Kirsten Dunst strongly endorsed independent women working on their own and earning their own money: She said in the same interview:
“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 mum created.”
The actress simultaneously endorsed women being treated equally in the work place, being responsible for themselves and their own financial support, and taking care of themselves but also she valued women who want to make different family choices as well.
In the same interview, Dunst told Harpar’s Bazaar that she wants to direct films, looking outward about three years down the line. “I would love [to]. I love getting immersed in things and being busy all the time.” From her perch near the top of Hollywood, she can easily transition to the role of Director. (Perhaps it was not always so, but of late such actor-director cross-overs are now well accepted.)
Yet shrieks of horror are wailing up from the news media, the entertainment world, and feminist activists. Feminist writer and author Ariane Sommer responded “People nowadays have to make a living and simply can’t afford the luxury of spending the entire day at home. There needs to be a modern approach to gender roles that is rooted in the reality of our day to day lives.”
But that is almost exactly the same thing that Kirsten Dunst said: “We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money.” Feminist blog Jezebel weighed in with a report calling the actress “dumb.” The star made the same point that Ariane Sommer made, yet sweet-looking Dunst has to be smeared as “dumb.”
Feminists attacked Kirsten Dunst, with such articles as “Kirsten Dunst Thinks That Women Should Know Their Place Is In The Home,” written by Stacey Ritzen on a pop culture website Uproxx. Quite clearly, Kirsten Dunst said nothing of the kind.
One would have to be delusional to think that Kirsten Dunst became an “A List” actress by being weak or lacking in personal ambition, smarts, drive, initiative, assertiveness and strength. Hollywood is intensely competitive and filled with rival talent. One does not achieve Kirsten Dunst’s level of stardom and success by being a shrinking violet.
Yet feminists recoil instinctively from any suggestion that a man should be strong — even if the woman is strong also. In modern feminism — and all throughout modern American culture, even among many conservative women — there are only two choices: Either the man is strong and the woman is subservient. Or the woman is strong and dominant while the man is a doormat.
The concept of two people both being strong together does not exist in our society indoctrinated by feminists. The concept of a man and a woman emotionally supporting each other alternately doesn’t fit in their universe. Stephen De Silva of Redding, California’s Bethel Church explains how he learned to “dance around the 50 yard line” with his equally strong wife.
This uproar reveals that modern feminism demands conformity. Personal choice by women is not allowed. The suggestion that some women might prefer to stay home and raise a family is forbidden by gender-war feminism. Unfortunately, gender feminism dominates our culture today.
Jezebel writer Erin Gloria Ryan actually tried to be diplomatic. Yet she revealed an astonishing amount about modern feminism:
“I’m not going to couch this much because Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it.”
But this attitude is amazing. A successful woman cannot express her personal preferences without toeing the officially-approved line of “gender theory?”
Jezebel generously offers a gentle, understanding nod that simple ole Kirsten Dunst is not an expert at “gender theory” so we have to forgive the actress for being “dumb about it.” So you mean there is only one correct way to live, only one correct “gender theory?” If Kirsten Dunst were not so dumb, she would necessarily have to agree with officially-designated feminist leaders.
Similarly, a twitter attack said that the “Spider-Man” star can be added to “the list of famous women who should never be allowed to talk near young girls. Ever.”
This all sounds like the dreaded “look-ism” to me. Dunst looks adorable, so feminists assume she must be a hold-over from the 1950’s. Curiously, Dunst typically plays sweet women in films, but always women pursuing their own careers. Maybe the actress’ unforgivable sin is that she isn’t angry and bitter at men.
Kirsten Dunst has strayed because she has adopted the “wrong” personal preference. Her desires in life don’t conform to the “gender theory” officially promulgated by the experts. Ultimately, gender feminists are in fact so frightened of strong men that they cannot contemplate or tolerate Kirsten Dunst’s comfort level with a strong man in her life.