Twilight discussion

Mickey wrote: "@Elizabeth

So, she shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions? Is that the solution to the possiblity that she might make a bad choice? She was ultimately happy with the decisions she made. Pe..."

My point is that the author portrays that this is the only way Bella can be happy. She does not explore any other options.

Elizabeth wrote: "My point is that the author portrays that this is the only way Bella can be happy. She does not explore any other options."

There's the whole possibility of Jacob. She spent half of New Moon wondering if she should settle for him. Maybe that's not the 'correct' choice still, but there were other possibilities she considered.

She knew what she wanted and what she preferred. That's part of being a strong woman.

Kirby wrote: "I think that it's just ridiculous to say that women and men are equals. If we were truly equals, there would not be a need for both sexes- we would be interchangeable. Until our species can continue on w/ only one sex or the other, it cannot really be said that they are equal.
..."

I'm not sure where this wilful misreading of the term "equal" comes from, to say that men and women are not equal physically is unnecessarily stating the obvious. And one of the few points that you will find feminists of all colour to agree with is that they do not want to be men.


Kirby wrote: "I do agree w/ some of the posts on here about how some (perhaps even more than that) of self-proclaimed feminists seem to value the perception of women as equal- or, if possible, superior- to men more than they value the right of every woman to choose how she wants to live her life- including the choice to be obedient and subservient to the man in her life.
..."

Sure, you’ll find hardliners in every way of life and it’s always easier to pick those out to make your point, but they do not stand for the whole.

However, I agree that if a woman makes the choice to be “subservient” (though I would still reserve myself the right to question her mental state then) it should be hers to make. But the important point there is choice – if she sees her live as worthless without that one person (or sees no place for herself in society) it is not a choice freely made anymore. If she gets indoctrinated from childhood that this is the way a women has to behave, it is not a free choice anymore. If she’s not educated or economical independent enough to make an informed, free choice – it’s not a choice at all.

Mickey wrote: "I would have personally preferred the thread 'Is feminism anti-woman?'"

Mickey, you mentioned the straw man fallacy at some point here... you should consider that in terms of your own arguments about feminism. I agree with almost everything you've said with the exception of your stance on feminism. I would even say that a lot of your arguments about Bella's right to choice are in fact feminist arguments. I also agree that feminism isn't always about equality, but I think someone made a valid point about extremists getting more attention than the rest of us. That being said, the feminists who say that women should act in certain ways say that because they believe that doing so will create more equality. I think freedom of choice is obviously more important if you want to achieve equality, but they're entitled to be wrong.

Anyway, I'm starting to think that the argument that Twilight and other books like it are "anti-feminist" is itself sexist. I've noticed that the finger of blame in these "anti-feminist" arguments seems to be directed largely at female authors and/or female protagonists. (It's gotten to the point where sometimes I'm wondering if these people are trolls, crying "anti-feminism" followed by a rant aimed at starting an argument.) This is demeaning to women and to feminists. Twilight is just some story and the only effect it has on feminism is that feminists are (apparently) taking time out of more important discussions to denounce it.

All that said, I'm sick to death of the typical urban fantasy/paranormal romance just like everyone else who's been reading the genre for long enough (if you're not sick of the genre yet, don't panic, just keep reading and you will be). But to me this is more about my desire for variety than about the bad qualities of the books that are out there. If people enjoy books like Twilight they should be allowed to, but why can't we have books with more depth as well? (I believe I have the answer to that question, but that's another rant.)

I think what makes Bella, and Twilight, disturbing isn't the fact that she's a weak character in an obsessive and abusive relationship.

What makes it disturbing is the fact that this is a book marketed to a young audience, with nothing that balances out this behavior. That this all seems to presented as perfectly normal is a rather troubling message to send to people who haven't had much or any relationship experience.

Remember girls, if he isn't running your life for you and you aren't devastated when he isn't there, it isn't really love.

As for why this kind of discussion focuses on Bella, rather than Edward, besides the obvious, is Edward isn't human. Obsessing over funny smelling humans might be perfectly normal behavior for a vampire.

I agree with Emma, I don't think the issue with the book is about feminist or anti-feminist. It's more about the main female character and her HUGE flaws.

Bella's obsession is unhealthy, and a poor example for the young adult audience toward which these books are directed.

My biggest issue with Bella is the fact that Meyers never lets her be herself. An individual has to grow, and develop on their own in order to truly appreciate another person and their individuality.

Weak characters are a necessity in any good book, but they should not be the main character. In my opinion that portrays the wrong ideals, especially for such a young group of readers.

Emma wrote: "What makes it disturbing is the fact that this is a book marketed to a young audience, with nothing that balances out this behavior. That this all seems to presented as perfectly normal is a rather troubling message to send to people who haven't had much or any relationship experience."

It's okay, the book is fiction and teenagers know this. Think back to when you were a teenager. Would you have taken a book like this seriously? Didn't think so... have some faith in your fellow human beings.

Kali wrote: By the way, it may be worth taking a look at the fanfic Luminosity, by Alicorn. It's a revisioning of Twilight, with a Bella who's more of a rationalist and less of a romantic.

I can't imagine that being terribly interesting. A rational, non-romantic person would simply have nothing to do with either vampires or the shifters. Wait, let me guess: She's not quite that rational?

Gaby wrote: "Bella is completely dependant on Edward and feels helpless when he's not around. In fact when he does leave, she curls up in the foetal position for six months then throws herself off a cliff. Sh..."

no i don't think it's anti feminist. Bella knows Edward loves her and that she will do anything to be with him. i have seen the second film and i am halfway through the book. i think when she dives off the cliff it shows bravery, strength and courage because when it comes to Edward, i know that she can be a little of a coward...but she does it to see him. shock horror on my face when Jacob saves her!!!

Crystal wrote: "I think that's just Bella... Twilight also has strong female characters..."

so true. i like Jessica sometimes but she can be a bit creepy. angela i also like because she is a little bit of a freak but when it comes to friendships, she is lovely.

Jade wrote: "not at all I am married to my soul mate and if we split up I think I would have a right to curl up and die! love isnt all sunshine and roses sometimes it is dark and all consuming it is different f..."

that is true...i don't know why. believe me, i wish i knew. sometimes i feel like jumping off a cliff, but if i do that, my family and friends wouldn't like the idea. i often curl up in bed in the foetal position myself and it feels nice.

Rula wrote: "Crystal wrote: "I think that's just Bella... Twilight also has strong female characters..."

so true. i like Jessica sometimes but she can be a bit creepy. angela i also like because she is a littl..."

I don't really agree with your assessment of the strong female characters. I think Jessica, and Angela are about as weak as Bella. Jessica is only ever worried about Mike, or her superficial friendships. And Angela, such a sweet character, but not one of strength in my opinion.

The strong females are Alice, Rosalie, and Leah. They don't let the men in their lives define them. They create an equilibrium with their male counterparts, as opposed to simply NEEDING them. But, again, that's just my opinion.

Natalie wrote: ""Feminism has decided to only value women who act like traditional men, thus limiting our choices"
Wrong.
Feminism is about equality of the sexes, and their ability to take on any traits traditiona..."

i personally don't think Bella should die because she is a wonderful person who speaks her mind and has feelings for Edward. she may be a little annoying but i like her a lot. she relies on Edward...but she thinks the only way to be with someone who loves her very much and who will protect her. this book is not to do with feminism because it's a sensational book written by Stephanie Meyer who is a famous author and has written many books apart from the twilight series. the books that i think are feminist are Penny Vincenzi's books because they drone on and on and on about their petty lives.

Maxy wrote: "I don't think that Stephenie Meyer intentionally wrote the books to be offensive to women, but... they still are. Bella in particular is not a character this generation should be proud of."

Bella is a wonderful person, and i am very proud of this character because she is a strong, educated, and dedicated person. she loves her family and she loves Edward. i know Edward loves her and in the first book she is college bound but not interested in being a parent. she is a little weird..but she happens to be irrevocably in love with Edward. first love, first romance and everyone deserves a second chance to be with that special person. love is beautiful and like a waterfall, can change direction. being in love is not a crime and i think people ought to understand that being in love with someone who loves them and is willing to do anything for them.

Valerie wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I would have personally preferred the thread 'Is feminism anti-woman?'

Feminism has decided to only value women who act like traditional men, thus limiting our choices. (Must we b..."

what about thinking inside her head?? she loves Edward and she loves the idea of being in love with someone who is special to her. when i watched the third film...we get to see some really cool flashbacks. when it shows rosalie's life, that is feminism...because she was in love with a popular man, who likes alcohol, and smokes. coincidence??? most men drink and smoke...i don't think it's right for men to drink and smoke as well as women. is that your idea of being feminism????

Josh wrote: It's okay, the book is fiction and teenagers know this.

Well, yes. I don't expect anyone to believe that vampires and werewolves actually exist just because they read this book. If they do, any other book featuring them would probably have had the same effect.

The problem is, fiction does not exist in a vacuum.

This book is being read by both young teenagers and people who haven't reached their teens, as well as older teens and adults. What an eleven or twelve year old will take away from it, is not necessarily the same as what sixteen year old will.

Impressionable minds, are presented with a doormat(Bella) and an obsessed stalker(Edward) and told that this is a great romance. The vampires and werewolves part get dismissed as fantasy by the conscious mind, while the underlying pattern of "how romances work" is left in the unconscious mind. There it joins similar messages from other pop culture and real life sources, and reinforces outdated, creepy gender roles for both boys and girls.

This is not a good message for either gender.

Seriously, childhood is called your formative years for a reason.

Rula wrote: "Maxy wrote: "I don't think that Stephenie Meyer intentionally wrote the books to be offensive to women, but... they still are. Bella in particular is not a character this generation should be proud..."

I never said being in love is a crime. It's being clingy, desperate, obsessive, manipulative, and whiny that is the problem.

I asked for someone/anyone to tell me what behavior of edward's was abusive but received no reply. I know some that were creepy, but I'm having no luck trying to think of anything that could actually be called abusive.

but now I'd like to ask what novel(s) you guys would point to as positive, pro-feminism love stories. I can't think of any that couldn't be picked apart b/c it seems like an important element of a love story is the inability/unwillingness of the lovers to live w/o one another...

THIS is the kind of discussion I enjoy engaging in. We all have our views, as divergent as they may be, and I think it's healthy. Twilight doesn't exist in a vacuum and to claim "it's just fiction" is no reason to not examine it deeper. We do that with lots of fiction books (The Help being the most recent example), so why should Twilight be given a free pass? And before anyone launches charges of sexism, as a fantasy geek I've engaged in quite a few debates about Lord of the Rings as well as one of my favorite series, Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials', so no work is ever immune from criticism. It's also important because Twilight-clones abound in the YA genre now. It's become a popular template--loner girl, mysterious "HAWT" guy(s), instant WUV and/or love triangle. The female characters' raison d'etre is all about the boy who's always dangerous and even mean to the love-struck girl. Sorry, but that's a really screwed-up message.

Personally, I never had any real sense about this "great, life-changing, all-encompassing love" that Bella and Edward supposedly feel for each other. This "great love" of theirs is based on looks and the fact that Bella smells like a walking bottle of Febreeze, which is perfectly fine for at least one-half of a book. After that, there was no indication that this love went far deeper. What I did read was Edward using his vampiric talents to subtly manipulate Bella all in the guise of TWU WUV. That's why Bella's decisions made no sense to me. They weren't coming from a position of equality or strength. She had become utterly dependent on him. Her giving up her entire life to be with Edward is definitely wish-fulfillment, but the sad fact is these two characters are lacking in depth. It's all "I love you but, I might kill you". Uh, any guy that gives that as a declaration of love needs to be tossed in a cell, LOL.

In Twilight she's all about college and not being a parent. By the time we reach Breaking Dawn she's married and pregnant (and that part still sticks out like a sore thumb) and there was no character growth from Point A to Point B. Meanwhile the rest of the series shows her as whiny, clingy, a user of friends and shallow. She might make adult decisions, but her entire demeanor was still that of an immature teen.

As far as Bella being "anti-feminist"? The way I see her, she's more of a throwback to an age of the weak, submissive heroine of yore (and perhaps of some modern books as well...shudder), but again I think that's due more to the weakness of Stephanie Meyer as a writer. There's being rescued on occasion and learning from it, then there's Bella who cannot tie her shoes without needing Edward to hold the laces.

LOL, I freely admit I'm from the Xena school of heroines.

Kirby wrote:I asked for someone/anyone to tell me what behavior of edward's was abusive but received no reply.

I honestly don't remember the details of the book well enough for specific examples. But I've been left with impression he spent a lot of time being very controlling. That's emotional abuse.

but now I'd like to ask what novel(s) you guys would point to as positive, pro-feminism love stories.

Hmm... Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase springs to mind. The heroine is strong and has definite plans for what she wants to do with her life. And when she's "ruined" by the hero, lets just say forcing him to marry her is not her first reaction. :)

I can't think of any that couldn't be picked apart b/c it seems like an important element of a love story is the inability/unwillingness of the lovers to live w/o one another...

Um, not really. Yes, most romances end with the characters planning to spend the rest of their lives together.

But, ideally, the characters should still have their own interests and friends, and not, say, think an unplanned separation means that one of them should fake their death to in order to be together and that the other one should kill himself because he thinks she's died. (Romeo & Juliet isn't a romance, it's a tragedy.)

i woundlt say twightlight is anti feminist i would say bella is more like a drug addict and i would be the same way if my husband died i wouldnt be able to function in the slightest not that i couldnt because i take of everything in the house (bills and all that jazz) but because no way in hell would i WANT to

To the person who asked for a love story with a positive pro-feminism love story, my first thought was Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennett was a strong individual (though she lived in a very different time), who did not conform to the man she loved, but learned to understand him and who he was, and found she loved him. She did not need to change herself, or depend on this man in order to be happy. Elizabeth Bennett was a MUCH better heroin than Bella, no contest.

Kate wrote: "Rula wrote: "The strong females are Alice, Rosalie, and Leah. They don't let the men in their lives define them. They create an equilibrium with their male counterparts, as opposed to simply NEEDING them. But, again, that's just my opinion. ."

I agree... 100 %

Crystal wrote: "I think that's just Bella... Twilight also has strong female characters..."

Agreed, Bella may be weak, in the beginning, but look at Rosalie, Alice, and even Victoria, one would not consider any of them weak...

I dunno. I'm not sure it is fair to interpret the story as a political or social statement about feminism. Both characters seem to be crippled and lost without the other, so it's not a male vs.female thing. Edward is fixing to commit vampire suicide rather than live without Bella, too, right? I think the author views these characters as halves of a whole, incomplete without each other, which says nothing in particular about the relative strengths or weaknesses of men vs, women. Codependent, maybe, unhealthy, maybe, but arguing for or against feminism per se, I don't think so.

I've often been struck by how varied the interpretations are of this series. I think a lot of the criticisms are things people are projecting onto this series rather than a reflection of the actual books, such as the idea that Bella is passive, that she doesn't make her own decisions and choices, that the relationship between Bella and Edward is abusive or controlling.

When thinking about the Bella character, I've tried to isolate what's so offensive to people about her. It's not the things they say (see above paragraph), because those things aren't true. I think her personality is properly feminist (she's hard-headed, sassy and knows what she wants), but the problem is that she doesn't want what she's supposed to. She's not supposed to want a man or focus on romance. She's not supposed to marry young and have a child and have that be fulfilling to her. It's her desires and choices that make her so unpalatable to some, not her 'weaknesses'.

Every ideology has a back story that tells the way that the world should be looked at. In feminism, it's the idea that women were not satisfied and were constrained by their traditional roles. (Were there many women that this view fit? Definately. But not all women. The majority of people like to live in a way that is valued in their society. This is quite normal. Others have some need of their own that needs to be satisfied. This is fine, too. That's my view.) Bella's choices fly in the face of the idea that the traditional roles (being a lover, wife, mother) are unsatisfying. Many people can't accept that there is more than one road to fulfillment. A few different strategies are going on here to explain how to fit Bella into the feminist worldview: Deny that she is making her own decisions by calling her passive and blaming Edward for them, claim she is an unrealistic character who does not exist in real life, or claim that she is stupid or incapable of making choices because of compulsion. There are probably others as well.

Kate wrote: "I don't really agree with your assessment of the strong female characters. I think Jessica, and Angela are about as weak as Bella. Jessica is only ever worried about Mike, or her superficial friendships. And Angela, such a sweet character, but not one of strength in my opinion.

The strong females are Alice, Rosalie, and Leah. They don't let the men in their lives define them. They create an equilibrium with their male counterparts, as opposed to simply NEEDING them. But, again, that's just my opinion. "

What I find ironic about this post is you say that 'women shouldn't let the men in their lives define them', yet, you then go on to define all these women based on their relationships with men. Really, how strong a human being is shouldn't be based solely on how they deal with the opposite sex.

Kali wrote: "Twilight expresses anti-feminist sentiments by talking about the werewolf being less of a woman because she cannot bear children."

Is the author breaking in and saying,'This woman is less than a woman because she's barren' or is it a female character lamenting the fact that being barren makes her feel like less than a woman? There's a big difference. If you've ever known a woman who has had fertility issues, they may feel this way, even if you don't think that this is the correct attitude to take. It's something real women deal with. That might make it 'anti-feminist', but it doesn't make it less realistic.

Kate wrote: " To the person who asked for a love story with a positive pro-feminism love story, my first thought was Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennett was a strong individual (though she lived in a very different time), who did not conform to the man she loved, but learned to understand him and who he was, and found she loved him. She did not need to change herself, or depend on this man in order to be happy. Elizabeth Bennett was a MUCH better heroin than Bella, no contest."

Pride and Prejudice's heroine, Elizabeth Bennett, definately conforms more than any of her other heroines to our own society's view of what a woman should be like, but I think it's wrong to say that she didn't need to change herself. I think a contemporary of Jane Austen probably would've seen more of the faults she put into Elizabeth than we do today (while still finding her charming, of course). In Austen's own time, I think Pride and Prejudice would've been seen as having more in common with Northanger Abbey and Emma in that the heroines in both novels needed to come to a sharp realization about themselves and their faults. (view spoiler)[Remember the scene after she reads Darcy's letter after the first proposal and she realizes that she has misjudged the situation entirely and acted unjustly based on prejudice? It was really a time of realizing the shortcomings of her quick-wittedness and superficial glibness. People tend to gloss over that because those traits are more accepted today, but she was horrified by them. (hide spoiler)] Both parties needed to change in order to find love. Darcy had the pride and Lizzie contributed the prejudice from the title.

And you are still defining a woman based on her relationship with a man. Being independent from a man does not necessarily make a woman strong. It's too narrow an area of a person's life.

Mickey - It's not really ironic that I defined them that way, because that was the context of the topic. Bella is weak because she is defined by, and completely dependent on Edward. In opposition to that, Alice, Rosalie, and Leah do not the men in their lives define them, making them stronger characters (in my eyes).

Emma wrote: "Hmm... Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase springs to mind. The heroine is strong and has definite plans for what she wants to do with her life. And when she's "ruined" by the hero, lets just say forcing him to marry her is not her first reaction. :)
..."

Interestingly this would be the last book that would come to mind for me. :)

The heroine is given as being intelligent and well educated, and yet insists on marrying a man that throughout the entire novel shows never an honest interest in her as a person or her possible career plans - it goes that far that any interests of her simply go "puff" and dissolve into smoke for all we can tell from the story.

Nancy Garden's "Annie on my mind" comes to mind as a wonderful novel about teenage love.
(The surrounding characters lack depth much depth, given, but the relationship between those two girls is quite realistic)

Hell, even "Paper Towns"'s self indulgent Margo Roth Spiegelman is a more positive character.


Kate wrote: "To the person who asked for a love story with a positive pro-feminism love story, my first thought was Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennett was a strong individual ..."

I (mostly) agree on Eizabeth being a strong character, although the opening sentence (same as some of the shrewd ideas of "honour" portrayed in the novel) always makes me shudder:
"A man in possesion of a fortune must be in need of a wife"? (not the actual quote, I know, and there to illustrate the character of Elizabeth's mother and the society Elizabeth grew up in - but still such a terrible way to think of men and women alike)

On a side note, it's been often pointed out to me that the portrayal of Darcy has had, and still holds, a strong influence on womens views of how a man should behave himself -
if that's true I dearly hope that the bleak vision painted of Edward (or Jacob) becoming a new semi role model for male behaviour is not equally true.

(Which, I admit, is may main qualm with romance - I can't stand those pushy alpha male types)

Mickey wrote:When thinking about the Bella character, I've tried to isolate what's so offensive to people about her.

I think part of the problem you're having here is most people probably don't find her "offensive."

I personally found her to be a poorly developed character, who spends more time having things happen to her, than actually doing anything. She walks into a parking lot, she almost gets hit by a car, but Edward rescues her. She gets lost, she almost gets attacked, but Edward rescues her. And so on.

The entire book is told from her POV, but we never get any real sense of her. Stephanie Meyer goes out of her way to tell us a lot about Bella, but then never has Bella actually follow up on any of it.

Maybe she improves in the later books, but I was too bored by the first one to even consider reading the rest.

@Josh, I'll start out by saying I enjoyed your post. I hope you stick around and contribute more.

Josh wrote: "Mickey, you mentioned the straw man fallacy at some point here... you should consider that in terms of your own arguments about feminism."

I don't think I'm painting an inaccurate picture of feminism. When I mentioned 'straw man fallacy' to another poster, it was because she was calling 71% of American women ignorant for not identifying themselves as feminists (as opposed to considering the idea that there might be valid criticisms of 'The Movement' strong enough so that women don't want to be associated with it) and saying those women were being led astray by a male radio personality. She then said that some posters were using 'right wing talking points' as opposed to expressing and having their own thoughts and opinions and that these posters' views were not thoughtful or intelligent. That's creating a straw man to represent people whose views differ from yours, in my opinion. This happens all the time. Later, she called a large group of people racists for wanting a president to provide a birth certificate. (Don't ask me what the connection is.)

I have not implied that anyone hasn't thought about the issue or isn't expressing their own opinions. I'm not saying that people are being influenced by others. I do have a pretty hostile view of feminism and, frankly, the postings here aren't changing my mind about that. I still think it's inaccurate to say that women are allowed to make up their own minds, because there is still the idea that there are right and wrong choices. I'm getting this from self-declared feminists who are posting.

Josh wrote: " I would even say that a lot of your arguments about Bella's right to choice are in fact feminist arguments."

If that were true, I'd be a feminist, wouldn't I? But the truth of the matter is, in this scenario: the non-feminist is defending the woman's right to run her own life and the feminists are saying she can't or shouldn't. I'm not sure what it is like in your neighborhood, (Australia might be completely different. I know several Russian feminists who are very critical of American feminism) but here feminism has a definate ideal woman and everyone (especially characters in books) has to conform or face being called weak or stupid.

Gerd wrote: The heroine is given as being intelligent and well educated, and yet insists on marrying a man

She doesn't insist on marrying him. She ends up in a position where she really doesn't have a choice, since it's marry him or end up destitute. I also think he showed definite interest in her as a person, but the idea of her working was a completely foreign concept to him. The idea of him working would have been, for the same reasons.

I still found her staying true to herself after the marriage took place, as they tried to actually get to know each other.

Maybe some people take umbrage with the fact that Bella wants to be a wife, etc. But I think the main concern about her example for girls is that she accepts stalking behavior on his part, and her love for him becomes so "consuming" (as does his for her, to be fair) that she wastes away without him. I honestly have no problem with any of it as fiction, and I'd like to think readers understand that and realize that what looks dramatically romantic as a story of all-consuming love isn't what a normal person wants for their real life. What kind of story would it be, after all, if when they part she feels sad for a little while and then gets over it and moves on, as would be the healthy thing to do? Or if, when she learns early on that he spies on her while she sleeps, she quite rightly seeks a restraining order? Most parents would like their daughters to behave this way, so of course they are concerned when they see girls romanticizing and even wanting to emulate unhealthy behavior. The unhealthy behavior makes for a better story (can anyone say Heathcliff and Catherine?), but it isn't an example anyone wants their kids to follow. Again, I don't see the stories as particularly anti-feminist, though the author reminds us in many subtle ways that Edward is from another time, and the relationship does to some degree develop based on his generational thinking as much as Bella's. That gives their romance an old-fashioned quality, which may lead some critics to read anti-feminist ideas into it.

Meyer is, I think I read, a Mormon, so she may not be exactly PRO- feminist, either, but I don't get a sense that she's using the story for any kind of political rant.

Kali wrote: "I think that is an incredibly unfair and inaccurate generalisation to make. I'm a British feminist, and I haven't criticised Bella for making the choices she does. There are many viewpoints other than the two you cherry-picked from the thread. "

What are you talking about? I never said you specifically were involved in the conversation dealing with whether Bella had the right to make choices. (And why are you telling me you're British?)

Mickey wrote: "(And why are you telling me you're British?)..."

Because somebody brought up a distinction between American Feminists vs. those of other countries?
Just a thought... :D

RE abusive Edward, a quote from another Forum:

"Personally, my biggest problem with Twilight is that Edward basically emotionally abuses Bella and it's shown as Twu Wuv. He belittles her intelligence, breaks into her room without her consent, drags her places without her consent, tells her which friends she can and can't see (and at one point takes her car apart for the purpose of controlling her movements) and in-universe it's lauded as the perfect romantic ideal."

Let me clear up the confusion:

I stated, 'in this scenario', which were the posts centered around Bella's choices which I had with Elizabeth. Gerd also said that he didn't consider the choices Bella makes to be freely made, hence she could not make choices. This was the conversation directly before Josh's post. Did I mean every feminist everywhere? No. That's a generalization that you're putting on my post, not one I made.

Since I was responding to the point Josh was making that I was making feminist arguments, I said that maybe feminism is different in different countries (meaning I could be a feminist in those countries) and that I knew several Russian feminists that were critical of American feminism. I didn't imply that foreign feminist movements were more likely to believe that a woman shouldn't have choices unless she makes the choices feminists approve of.

And, yes, I read my own post. I know what I meant by it. The problem was I had no idea what you were talking about.

Kali wrote: " It's highly possible that Mickey did the same thing, and did not differentiate between the viewpoints stated by the feminists he meant and every other self-proclaimed feminist in the world, in which case, I have done him a disservice in accusing him of making an unfair generalisation, especially in such a hostile manner. I apologise if that is the case."

FYI, Kali, I'm a woman. (In the US, Mickey is often a nickname for Michelle.)

Emma wrote: "The problem is, fiction does not exist in a vacuum."

That's not the problem, that's the solution. Twilight is not the only story that anyone is exposed to (unless you know of some sick, twisted experiment that I haven't heard of) and it's not the only or major romance story that people look to as a guide. Even if it is the only book that someone has ever read it would still be the only fictional book that they've ever read, and the problem here in my opinion isn't that they've read Twilight, but that they don't read enough altogether.

Honestly, a reaction like this disturbs me, because while I quite clearly remember not ever being as strongly swayed by a fictional story as you seem to think people will be swayed by Twilight, I have to acknowledge that not everyone is like me. (Hell, very few people are like me.) But then I remember what my friends were/are like and breathe a sigh of relief: there's hope for humanity yet.

Which leads on to my point: if children are really as easily swayed by one single story as you seem to think, keeping Twilight out of children's hands is nowhere near enough. If you're right, we need to only let children watch things that we watch first and only read things that we read first. We should probably home-school our children because you have absolutely no control over what stories they hear from other children. But there's still a lot of chance that your children will be inadvertently exposed to a story that will make them stupid, so you probably shouldn't let them out of the house until... 15 maybe?

Fortunately, you're wrong. Children aren't as stupid as you think, even at 11. Have a little faith in humanity.

Edit: I'll add that my attitude is that more stories makes people smart and wise, and less stories make people stupid and foolish. So promoting other stories is more important than denouncing Twilight or anything else.

Kali wrote: "What on earth makes you think that? She goes for eternal life and ruling the world.

Not being a romantic doesn't mean that she doesn't love Edward. She's still Bella."

Lol, my understanding of what's rational makes me think that. If you're rational enough you can walk away from someone you love. Also it would only be logical to stay the hell away from someone who has to restrain themselves from killing you. I also think that any rational person would have no interest in ruling the world.

So my guess was correct: she's not quite that rational. It is possible to be more rational than Bella without going that far though.

I don't know if it's antyfeminist, but they do have an unhealthy relationship. Her world is Edward centered, in the second book, when he leaves, she is so pathetic, moping for over half a book, not able to move on. I understand that he is her true love or whatever but seriously! She was suicidal and completely depressed! Obsessed
Not healthy at all.

Do I think the book is anti-feminist: No. Do I believe that Bella is a weak main character and a shining example of what I DON'T want my daughter to believe love is: YES. Bella is a slap in the face to every strong female character out there. Her dependency on Edward for happiness and a full life is sickening. I did enjoy a fresh take on the author's thoughts and originations of vampires and werewolves. I like the backstory of it; but I believe Bella has left a bad taste in everyone over the age of 16, mouths. At least she left a bad taste in mine..no pun intended. Bahhahaaha

Mickey wrote: "I would have personally preferred the thread 'Is feminism anti-woman?'

Feminism has decided to only value women who act like traditional men, thus limiting our choices. (Must we be strong to be ..."

Love it! Thank you for this comment!

Mickey wrote: "I don't think I'm painting an inaccurate picture of feminism. When I mentioned 'straw man fallacy' to another poster..."

I did notice that the other poster completely missed your point and I found that rather amusing.

Anyway, the problem question here is this: do we call someone a feminist just because they say they are? I know I said that I agree that feminism isn't always about equality, but I only say that because a lot of people who call themselves feminists basically think that if women ruled the world it would be a better place (no one's been able to prove them wrong just yet :p). But my original understanding of feminism was that it was about equality between men and women... I wonder if I could say that those people aren't feminists because their arguments are more about the style of political decisions than gender equality? Obviously they would disagree with me, however... I could go on for ages, but I think you get my point -- can they be called feminist just because they say so?

Mickey wrote: "If that were true, I'd be a feminist, wouldn't I?"

Exactly. I try to call people whatever they like to call themselves though, unless it's something ridiculous. (Which goes back to my first discussion point.)

Mickey wrote: "But the truth of the matter is, in this scenario: the non-feminist is defending the woman's right to run her own life and the feminists are saying..."

Ah, but I would say "the person calling herself a non-feminist is defending the woman's right to run her own life and the people calling themselves feminists are saying..." Notice how I was suggesting that these 'anti-feminist' accusations are possibly sexist? That inherently suggests at the same time that people who make them aren't feminists.

I'm pretty sure that feminism isn't just different from country to country but also from individual to individual. I'm sure you can find some people in the US who would agree with everything you say and identify themselves as a feminist.

Equality between the sexes is at the very least what some, and at a guess it's what most feminists believe in. The problem is that not everyone truly understands what equality means (and that's obviously not just feminists). If these are the only kind of feminist that you've encountered it's no wonder that you don't believe in it.

This is why I brought up the straw-man fallacy, though it's a good point that you didn't create these people or their arguments yourself (they set themselves up that way quite nicely). But my point there is that you're asking if feminism is 'anti-woman' on the basis of what I consider poor arguments from people whom I'm not sure can be called feminists.

I'll reiterate someone else's point as well: the media focuses not on the logical, well-mannered, thoughtful feminists, but on the extremists and the crazies, because they're more entertaining. I strongly suspect that the extremists and crazies are the exception not the rule, but I can't say I know for certain that this is true.

So maybe if someone who calls themselves a feminist is making an argument that you think is about oppressing women, consider saying that these people aren't feminists instead of saying that feminism is anti-woman, because even if it's not definitely about equality, it's definitely supposed to be pro-woman.

Vixenne wrote: "...to claim "it's just fiction" is no reason to not examine it deeper."

In case that's my "it's just fiction" that you're quoting, I just want to say that I agree completely that this is no reason not to examine it more deeply. My point in saying that was that I don't think the books have the huge effect on society that some people seem to think they will. If Twilight does affect anyone in this way then probably this is the least of their problems.

Vixenne wrote: "Personally, I never had any real sense about this "great, life-changing, all-encompassing love""

See, this is your problem. This is fantasy, and fantasy is all about suspending (not giving up, just suspending) your disbelief. I daresay that every genre of fiction requires that from time to time. Of course, you might argue that other books were more successful in getting you to suspend disbelief and that therefore Twilight's author is at fault, and I can't blame you for that. Personally I try to examine flaws in a story after I've read it. I'll admit that there were times when this series seemed difficult to finish though.

Josh wrote:if children are really as easily swayed by one single story as you seem to think

Apparently you missed/ignored the following in my post in your rush to make your "point":

There it joins similar messages from other pop culture and real life sources, and reinforces outdated, creepy gender roles for both boys and girls.

Frankly, if Twilight was the only thing out there giving kids this message, I'd have just written it off as just another bad book.

However, it's not.

It is, however, one that has a lot of young people squeeing over how "romantic" it is. This going to help reinforce the unhealthy relationship messages it contains.

Josh wrote: Honestly, a reaction like this disturbs me, because while I quite clearly remember not ever being as strongly swayed by a fictional story as you seem to think people will be swayed by Twilight

That seems to be because you seem determined to misinterpret what I'm actually saying.

To clarify: No I don't think an eleven year old is going to read Twilight and instantly think, "I want a guy to control my every move!", any more than I thought, "We're all going to be killed by genetically altered flu!" after I read The Stand at a similar age.

However, our culture isn't one that spends as much time going, "Beware the germs that the government is experimenting with!", as it does going, "Women should be subservient to men in a relationship."

The more a message is repeated, the easier it is to swallow.

To sum up: Twilight's main flaw, message wise, is that it helps reinforce misogynistic attitudes towards relationships. Not the fact that it simply contains them with no counterpoint.

Josh wrote: I'll add that my attitude is that more stories makes people smart and wise, and less stories make people stupid and foolish. So promoting other stories is more important than denouncing Twilight or anything else.

Just wondering, if Twilight was promoting racism rather than sexsism, would you still think it was best to promote other books than to speak out? Would you still be dismissing it as "just one book, it won't have any effect on children's attitudes"?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Kali wrote: "Some people in this thread have some very...interesting...ideas about feminism.

To me, part of feminism is not telling someone that they are expressing their gender or sexuality incorrectly. In t..."

I've read Alicorn's story. I do prefer it to the original story because it focuses less on the romance and more on the parts I found interesting. Plus, Bella is a completely different character only because she thinks more rationally.

I don't think it was intentional on the part of Stephanie Meyer, but I wonder if what makes the book anti-feminist is the reader's reactions to it? While I did enjoy the series, the main thing that disturbs me when discussing it with other Twilight fans is the justifications that they use for some of the more abnormal and unhealthy aspects of the novels.

When I mention that Bella and Edward's relationship was unhealthy and obsessive, I'm told that I don't get it because I've probably never been in love or never experienced true love. Complete rubbish, but these are young girls and they are thinking that Bella and Edward's relationship is the ultimate representation of true love.

When I mention that Edward did have a tendency to be overprotective, controlling and manipulative, I'm told that everything he did was only for Bella's protection. I understand that he was trying to protect her...but is that a valid justification for his behavior? Some impressionable readers are thinking that it is.

Is Bella weak? Yes she definitely is. In fact, her fragility as a human was the entire basis for Edward's overprotectiveness. She is also very insecure throughout most of the novels. She constantly views herself as inferior to Edward in just about every capacity. That was actually my biggest pet peeve with Bella's character. If anything, that is what really makes the series "anti-feminist" in my view. The fact that she views herself as inferior to the man that she is so desperate to spend the rest of her life with.

@Emma: I just looked it up and saw that it was someone else who referred to the idea of Twilight being some people's only or major source of information on romantic relationships. So, sorry about putting some of my rebuttal to Kali into my reply to you.

I don't really think that this really changes my argument too much, especially because I was heading in the direction of other books with possible bad influences already. Notice how my satirical "keep your children at home away from bad influences" argument already opposes your reinforcing argument without any real need for change? I think it's precisely because there are so many different influences out there, that you really just have to teach children to think for themselves and have faith that they aren't stupid, or at least that the smart ones affect the world more than the stupid ones. Do you seriously think that the only reason you can think for yourself is that the literary scene was different back then? Really, give yourself a little more credit.

You might not be talking about one single book, but you are talking about one single perspective. My belief about this is firstly that one story that says something that makes sense is a lot more powerful than a million books that say only stupid things. Secondly I think that reading generally teaches you to think critically, so that if you do enough of it, even if you're reading the same kind of stuff and nothing else, you'll eventually start to question it. Depending on your environment, that might even happen at 11. Thirdly, your environment in real life is much more important than your fictional environment in any case.

Emma wrote: "Just wondering, if Twilight was promoting racism rather than sexsism, would you still think it was best to promote other books than to speak out? Would you still be dismissing it as "just one book, it won't have any effect on children's attitudes"?"

Hah, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm sexist, or even that I'm not a feminist. I just have a different (and obviously I think better) idea of how change can be achieved. Reading the paragraph I've written here before quoting you, you can see that my answer is not just yes, but hell yes. For instance: Mein Kampf is just one book. Well, maybe that's a bad example maybe since not many kids will bother with that piece of junk, but you get my point. It might seem like this book does affect people, along with whatever other junk neo-nazis like to read. But in situations like that, the person's environment is way more important than stupid books. Anyone who tells you they "saw the truth" after extensive reading or whatever and decided to go around wearing a pillow over their head is either deceiving you or themselves. People's real life experience growing up are much more important than anything they read, even for people who read a lot. Also, if such people were exposed to some stories with anti-racist perspectives, it would likely have a more positive effect than removing all their racist literature. (Might be even better would be if they befriended people with more balanced perspectives.) In fact I'd say that being able to compare the two perspectives might be useful to people who've only read anti-racist literature.

I won't deny that books affect people, I just think that truth (both metaphorical and literal; both abstract and concrete) makes more sense than lies, and most people can tell the difference as long as they are shown both sides and can understand them. I guess it'd be reasonable for you to point out all the stupid people in this world as a rebuttal, but it's more likely a lack of books that makes them that way than particularly bad books.

Meanwhile, Mickey has made several excellent points about Twilight in particular not being as sexist as people like to believe. In the spirit of what she has to say on the subject, let me ask you: if Ed was Edwina the sparkly vampire and Bella was Ben the clutzy human who keeps getting into trouble... in other words, if their sexes were reversed, would you say that the human male is betraying his sex? Is there anything wrong with a guy wanting to stay home and have children? This is my litmus test for sexism: switch all the gender roles, and if you think that this suddenly removes all the gender bias in the story, then you've got a sexist story. But to me Edwina doesn't really seem particularly more 'empowered' than Bella, she seems just as much like someone who could do with a life outside her romantic relationship. Ben might seem like a bit of a wuss to some, but to me he seems like a crazily brave guy who's making the best of a situation where anyone and everyone can kick his ass, not a traitor to his gender. Hell, all that reckless behavior in the second book might be expected from a heart-broken guy, but from a woman people say that it demonstrates how weak she is, which just shows the kind of double standard people like to apply to women. Also you'd be turning Alice into Aaron and suddenly the most kick-ass character in the story is a guy.

Finally, while there might be some room for arguing that Twilight is sexist (you're on the wrong side of that room in my opinion, but I'm still in the same room) but saying that Twilight reinforces misogynistic attitudes is way over the top. Have you read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? Nils Bjurman is a misogynist -- I think if you compare his behavior with that of anyone in Twilight, you'll see that they fall short on some level. Even that guy in the first book who tries to kill Bella is more of general sadist who picks on her because she's a human rather than because she's a vampire, and more to torment Ed than to torment Bella herself.

--Josh.

PS: Which government? Which germs?