Kirsten Dunst's Shocking, Homophobic Comments in Support of Her Stay-At-Home Mom ...or more insane internet outrage!

Once again, Twitter and several online media sources EXPLODED with coverage of a celebrity's highly controversial remarks.  This time, the comments didn't come from a voice from Christian circles, but from the original Mary Jane herself, Kirsten Dunst.  While it wasn't surprising when Phil Robertson made remarks on homosexuality which caused a big stir, this round is far more interesting because Kirsten Dunst is a Hollywood insider. A quick Google search for "Kirsten Dunst gender roles," and you'll find articles calling her statements offensive, shocking & disappointing, controversial, homophobic & messed up and (my favorite) warrior in the on going gender debate.

So what were these shocking statements?

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 how relationships work. (From the May issues of Harper's Bazaar)

So let's break down these horrifying statements:

1. We have undervalued the feminine
2. We all need a job
3. A mom staying at home and nurturing her kids is valuable
4. SOMETIMES, you need a knight in shining armor
5. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman
6. That's how relationships work

That's it!

SHOCKING!  HOMOPHOBIC!!  MESSED UP!!!  A WARRIOR FOR A CAUSE!!!!

Let's go through each of these offensive statements real quick!

We Have Undervalued the Feminine

I'm not sure how this could offend anyone.  No matter which side you're on, this seems like a safe thing to say.  Interestingly, either side could have opposite interpretations of this statement.  

• TRADITIONAL - We have undervalued traditional feminine roles and pushed women towards traditional male roles.
• PROGRESSIVE - We have undervalued the feminine in all roles except the home.

That one shouldn't offend anyone.

We All Need a Job

I can't imagine that offending anyone. In particular because this is coming from a hard working woman who is a millionaire.

She Valued Her Stay-At-Home Mom

Once again, if you're offended that she respects how her mom raised her, there is something wrong with you.  She praised her mother's nurturing nature.


Let's recap where we're at:

• We need to value women
• We need to work
• She respects her mother for nurturing her and staying home

Up to this point, it seems that she has made some of the most vanilla statements you can make.  Then, she jumps the shark!

Sometimes You Need a Knight in Shining Armor

I can understand how this would offend hardcore feminists who are offended by the mere concept of a knight in shining armor in the 21st century.  For the rest of us, this is timeless romantic imagery which permeates our pop culture.  I'm not arguing that every woman is helpless and needs a man (though I would argue most men are pretty helpless and gross without a woman), and neither is she.  However, there are times when men can help women (which is not at all a shocking statement). 

You Need a Man to Be a Man & a Woman to Be a Woman

Honestly, I really don't understand the criticisms of this statement.  Yes, I understand that a small minority of men feel more comfortable in the role usually held by the woman and a small minority of women want to take the role usually held by the man.  I understand a small number of women are physically stronger and more aggressive than some men.  I understand some men are more nurturing than some women.

That's not a good reason to pretend like men and women aren't different.  The point isn't to shame people who don't fit obvious gender stereotypes.  The point is to acknowledge the obvious: we're different.  On the outside, we have some obvious differences, and on the inside we have some variations in our organs which produce different hormones.  You're living in a fantasy world if you're offended by me saying that men are physically stronger than women.  

Here's where things get stupid: The two articles which were most offended by her comments were from feminist liberal websites for women called BUSTLE and THE GLOSS.  Stereotypically, women are more interested in fashion, gossip, relations, and beauty.

Let's take a look at the menu bar of each of these websites:

BUSTLE

THE GLOSS

Do you notice anything unusual about the tabs?  Both feature fashion, beauty, relationships, and celebrity gossip sections.  They're attacking someone who seems to have affirmed gender stereotypes while creating a website which is built on gender stereotypes.  

So you can use stereotypes, but you can't acknowledge that they exist?

That's How Relationships Work

I can understand how this statement following the previous statement could step on some toes.  Once again, she wasn't writing a book on gender roles. This was an off-hand comment.  Attempting to dissect the greater meaning of each statement seems a bit silly.  

The Obvious

Kirsten Dunst didn't write a book.  This wasn't a planned out speech. These comments were from an interview.  She wasn't trying to be a warrior  for a cause.  She wasn't making a statement about homosexuality.  She made some off-hand comments about men, women, stay-at-home moms, and relationships.  None of this is worth caring about.  If you read most of the critical articles, they even point things out like, "If she'd said 'For me, relationships work when a man is a man..." but this is just semantics.  It's silliness expecting specificity in an interview that should be reserved for more precise mediums.

But, once again, in certain media outlets, you're not allowed to say anything which doesn't line up with an extremely liberal view of gender roles.  And, somehow, the issue of homosexuality gets worked into the mix as well.  

The confusing part to me is that these same media outlets don't seem terribly concerned about the message that Miley Cyrus and Beyonce are sending.  They may report on their antics, but they present them as empowered women.

Miley Cyrus is an empowered millionaire who clearly believes she has to use her body and sexuality to remain successful.  Beyonce is an empowered millionaire who is friends with the President and feels she must sing songs about being required to give oral sex in the back of her limo.  How is that empowerment?

There's a version of Feminism which is about ACTUALLY empowering women, and providing them greater opportunities.  I can respect and support that cause.  Then, there's this version of Feminism. It isn't so much about empowering women as it is about attacking traditional values and gender roles.  

Let's Stop Going Nuts

As a final thought, can everyone on both sides stop overreacting to everything? Can we all stop assigning meanings to other peoples actions? Can we all stop to consider both sides to issues?

Let's run down the list:

• Saying "Happy holidays" is not waging a war on Christmas
• Not wanting to pay for birth-control for your workers which may be abortive is not waging a war on women or denying them contraceptives
• Pro-Choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion
• Pro-Life isn't about telling women what to do with their bodies
• Not supporting gay marriage doesn't mean someone is a hate-filled bigot
• Democrats aren't just trying to buy notes with welfare programs
• Republicans aren't heartless monsters who just want the rich to get richer

And Kirsten Dunst seeing value in traditional gender roles is not shocking, controversial, messed up or homophobic.