Hours after the story broke that Shailene Woodley does not understand feminism at all she was spotted at the Met Gala hanging out with Kirsten Dunst, another confused-about-feminism actress. In an interview with Time Magazine published Sunday, Woodley said she wasn't a feminist. But why, Shailene? "Because I love men," she responded. "I think the idea of 'raise women to power, take the men away from the power' is never going to work out because you need balance."
I know, just reading that makes me angry. Angry at Woodley, angry at whoever taught her what feminism means, and angry that if we can't even convince women to be on our side, how are we going to tackle the opposite gender (many of whom still like to argue that women can't be breadwinners.)
But then Woodley made things worse when she showed up to the Met Ball and got chummy with Dunst who has her own issues when it comes to understanding feminism. A month ago, Dunst said this about gender roles:
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.
Woodley and Dunst's views on women are problematic enough on their own, but when they get together, it hurts my feminist brain to see a pair of women so confused about their own gender existing in the same photograph.
In 2012, Dunst spoke about Woodley saying, "If I had to pick someone, I'm happy she's following [in my shoes]." Dunst is great and all, but I'd prefer if Woodley picked a different part of her shoes to walk in, because this confused-about-feminism thing has got to go.
Here's hoping both ladies find some new friends ASAP who can help them understand why their views on gender roles are so upsetting. Perhaps Amy Poehler is free to give a tutorial?
Image: giphy; pandawhale
