Debunking the 'Homewrecker' Myth after Kristen Stewart's Affair
Among classic literature's great seductresses—Becky Sharp, Lady Chatterley, Anna Karenina, and Madame Bovary—the most irresistible of them all just might be Katie Scarlett O'Hara, the vivacious and impetuous protagonist in Margaret Mitchell's American classic, Gone With the Wind. Scarlett's charm was so compelling that men seldom realized she "was not beautiful," flocking around her regardless of whether or not they already had a partner.
Growing up, I was so smitten with Rhett Butler that I never understood Scarlett's affection for the wimpy Ashley Wilkes, but the recent brouhaha over actress Kristen Stewart's affair with married Snow White and the Huntsman director Rupert Sanders casts Gone With the Wind's characters in a different light. When Us Weekly splashed photographs of Stewart and Sanders's make-out session on its cover, the bulk of the blame from media fell upon the shoulders of 22-year-old Stewart, not 41-year-old Sanders.
With a single "momentary indiscretion" that left her then-boyfriend Robert Pattinson devastated, the unmarried Stewart surpassed Angelina Jolie as "the most hated woman in Hollywood," but hardly a murmur of accusation was directed toward Sanders, the married-with-children director nearly twice her age.
As trivial as a celebrity love tryst is, I believe the public's reaction to it says something important about our view of both women and men.
Blaming women for sexual transgressions is nothing new. Studies show that both men and women often blame women for rape. Though most perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are men, mothers are often held responsible. Many believe that immodestly dressed women cause Christian men to commit sexual sin.
Fellow Her.meneutics writer Sharon Hodde Miller has written persuasively about how this type of blame-shifting is rooted in negative perceptions about women's identity and women's bodies. But I think our view of men is equally problematic: The blame-shifting reduces men to little more than animals who cannot discern right from wrong or who cannot, in the very least, control their thoughts or behaviors. While we wouldn't explicitly say that Rupert Sanders or Brad Pitt (in his cheating on Jennifer Aniston with Jolie) were blameless in their sexual indiscretions, we imply this when we talk about "the other women" and call Jolie, Stewart, and other women "homewreckers." Didn't these men play an equal part in wrecking their own homes?
I'm not suggesting we expunge women's culpability in sexual transgressions. Even in the case of affairs involving older men and younger adult women, like Stewart, the woman has agency and should thus be held accountable for her actions. I am suggesting, however, that we take a closer look at what these attitudes say about our view of Christian character and the acquisition of virtue. By focusing on the woman, we shift the blame, the epicenter of evil, as it were, outside of the man rather than within his own heart and character. Thus, we focus on external solutions to what are ultimately internal problems.
To add a comment you need to be a registered user or Christianity Today subscriber.
or
or
Bless These Hands That Instagram My Food
Don't Tell Emily Post: Guests Are Paying For Weddings Now
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 22 comments
See all comments
Nicolle Hsu
I want them each to be the type of person who cannot imagine dressing any other way, because their hearts have been shaped toward virtue.
Brenda Colijn
Halee, I appreciate your post decrying the double standard applied to men and women on infidelity. It's still true in society and in the church. However, I want to come to the defense of some of the (fictional) women in your first sentence. I would agree with your classification of Scarlett O'Hara and Becky Sharp, but the other three women are hardly seductresses. Lady Chatterley certainly had flexible morals, but so did many in her social circle, and she didn't seduce her game keeper (whom D. H. Lawrence patterned after himself). Both Emma Bovary and Anna Karenina were pretty conventional before they yielded to seduction. Both experienced guilt over their affairs, and both experienced the double standard that you're talking about. Both finally committed suicide, although not solely because of their affair. I'm saying all this not to make a literary point but to wonder why you called them seductresses. We're not always aware of the interpretations we've received. Could you be unwittingly perpetuating the double standard that you're criticizing?
Melody
Didn't Jesus have to deal with this very same issue? You know the bit in the gospels where the pharisee's drag a girl caught in an padulturous relationshi with a married man and they asked Jesus (in order to trick him) whether or not they should stone her according to the Law and Jesus kneels downand writes something in the dirt before telling them all that he who had not ever sinned should make the first throw. The girl was released but Jesus still said to her, "Go and sin no more." So he wasn't condoning her sin by protecting her. He was merciful to the girl butI think he did it to also show the double standard the Pharisee's had. My pastor once preached on this and rechons that what Jesus wrote on the ground was "Where is the man?" Since according to the law BOTH of the perpetrators should have technically been stoned. But it goes to show double standards have existed for over 2000 years in letting men off the hook.
Tim
Well done once again, Erin.
Erin
@ Marilyn | August 15, 2012 11:03 PM --- Thanks for your reply. I strongly believe that you can speak the truth without 'sugar coating' things - indeed, to do as the Bible says and speak the truth in LOVE. I truly, truly appreciate the comment that Tim (August 15, 2012 4:22 PM) made regarding the scenario when a woman was caught IN THE ACT of adultery. The response that Jesus demonstrates is one that we need to emulate. Granted, we can't forgive others' sins, but we can treat them with dignity and refuse to stoop to a level that calls names and makes snap judgements. I feel like it's all too easy to have harsh words and criticism for those we view as less-than (moms who dress a certain way, young girls who sleep around, etc), rather than pray for the individual or seek to know the person underneath the clothing/behavior before firing off your opinion/judgement and writing her off. (This is in regard to people outside your immediate family and those you do have direct influence with). Those who are not in Christ are not held to the same standard we are as women who follow Christ. Be honest: would you feel the need to give your life to Christ if someone called you a slut, whore or skank because of the way you dressed/acted? Would it create in you a desire to change, from the inside out? Or would it drive you farther into your sin, farther into the very behaviors/patterns that you are looked down on from the church and those inside? It is my firm belief that, unless you have a relationship with the person in question, I think it's safe to say that you really have no place in commenting THAT negatively or harshly on someone else's choice in representing herself. To say that is not to defend or excuse the behavior/clothing - rather, it is said to protect the dignity that the woman has in God's eyes, as someone made in His image and not too far from the reaches of His grace. Grace would help a lot with this - but that's a story for another day.
Katelyn Beaty
Hi DD, Thanks much for drawing our attention to the inappropriate language in the comments of one of our readers. You'll note that the reader's comments have been removed from the site. We strive to maintain a charitable and expletive-free tone at Her.meneutics. Thanks again, Katelyn
DD
Once again, I'm very confused about how Her.meneutics staff chooses to enforce the comment policy. I've now seen "whore," "slut," "skank," "bitch," "a$$hole" and "fcuked" permitted whereas in previous articles much milder comments have been removed. That's fine, I am not a language prude (even though I disagree with the methods and reasoning of the person using that language above), but a little consistency would be fantastic.
Soulinaearthsuit
I'm surprised, not a single mention of Mr. Sanders wife and children and the pain, shame and embarrassment they now face. If he and his wife divorce, what will the lives of those children look like now because of this affair?
Christian Lawyer
This double standard -- woman as evil seductress and man as helpless slave to his hormones -- has existed for centuries. It's not a product of the sexual revolution. In fact, it's perpetuated in part by some of the excesses of the modesty and purity movements. But, while we balance out the responsibility, it's important not to stereotype in the other direction -- man as evil predator and young woman as helpless to sexual pressure. In this case, Stewart is the star of the wildly successful Twilight trilogy of movies and was, according to Vanity Fair, the highest paid actress in Hollywood in 2010. She may be young, but at 22, she's fully an adult, and she wields an enormous amount of power in her own right. Even if we can't respect the choices she made (and we shouldn't), we should acknowledge and respect her autonomy as an adult who made those choices.
Tim
Erin, thank you. Women (and men) have a hard enough time in this world. Beating up on them is hardly a productive way to help them*. Tim *Picture John 8 if Jesus had chosen to enforce the letter of the law - Religious leaders: Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? Jesus: "Got an extra rock?" I am so glad he instead told the woman, "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin." And I am also glad he tells me the same. (Romans 8:1-2.)
*