Twilight discussion

To be fair, guys, by the final book, Bella has come into her own. (view spoiler)[ She is admired by the Cullens because she's able, so early in her transformation, to control her vampire urges, and her gift is perhaps the most powerful of all. (hide spoiler)] If she starts as a confused kid who can't believe this beautiful boy wants her, that's part of what makes her accessible to the readers.

Name a popular work of fiction and you'll probably find behavior in it that we wouldn't want our kids to emulate. Responsible parents should be paying attention to the books their kids read, the TV shows and movies that they see, and taking the time to talk with them about the stories and what their kids are taking from them. Instead of banning books they should be opportunities for "together" time and helping kids to form their values.

That second paragraph is my sentiments exactly Elle, and I can't disagree with the first one. But maybe you should turn that first one into spoiler text. (It's like italics, but instead of "i" between the "<>", you have the word "spoiler". The end result should be like this: (view spoiler)[Zomg, Bella turns into a vampire! ,.., (hide spoiler)].)

I don't think TWILIGHT has anything to do with feminism. The problem I have with Bella as a character has nothing to do with what gender role she chooses to play and more to do with her codependency.

Josh wrote: "That second paragraph is my sentiments exactly Elle, and I can't disagree with the first one. But maybe you should turn that first one into spoiler text. (It's like italics, but instead of "i" be..."

Sorry. Is that better?

Of course it is, Bella is the biggest Mary Sue character of the decade.

Kali wrote: "Josh; back then? I'm 23.

Emma already expressed what I meant rather better than I could.

Regarding your response to Emma, I would like to reiterate..."

Yeah, got you and Emma a little confused there. Emma was the one who mentioned kids reading Twilight at eleven, which was why I mentioned age, and the number eleven in particular. Elle pretty much says what I think in response to your argument, a lot more succinctly -- I agree that Twilight doesn't demonstrate a realistic, healthy relationship, but denouncing it or keeping people from reading it (and books like it) isn't a real solution -- they'll just turn to drugs instead. Better to talk with them about what they read, and to show them books that demonstrate alternate values.

On that point, were you one of the people talking about good feminist books? See that's what I'm talking about... it's a lot more constructive than having a go at books you don't like.

Elle wrote: "Sorry. Is that better? "

Yeah, but no need to apologize... probably everyone knows the end/doesn't care by the time they get to this thread, but better safe than sorry.

Sabrina wrote: "Of course it is, Bella is the biggest Mary Sue character of the decade."

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. http://my-poetry-place.blogspot.com/2...

Kali wrote: "We're not actually arguing."

Yeah, that's my impression at this point... like I said, I mixed your comments up with what others were saying.

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 ..."

good points. Biology makes a female smaller (generally) in most species. It's what you do with what you have that should matter. Just as treating others decently should be a goal for everyone. Everyone should hold the door for the next person, not because they're old or female but because they're there and it's not polite to drop a door in someone's face.

I should put my money where my mouth is and make a few suggestions of my own for feminist fiction. Note that not every one of these books exactly demonstrates what I believe in, but that's fine with me because I think the important thing is to learn a lot of different ideas and make up your own mind. So...

The Millennium Trilogy
The Bell Jar
The Left Hand of Darkness
The Handmaid's Tale
Kafka on the Shore

That last one, Kafka on the Shore, isn't particularly feminist, but there's a particular bit that I always remember, when Oshima basically does a little rant about narrow-minded people. I've integrated the ideas from that part into a lot of my beliefs, including my approach to feminism.

Can anyone think of good kids books for this kind of thing? I've heard The Hunger Games Trilogy Boxset might be a good one (really gotta read that), maybe His Dark Materials? Ultimately I think any book that teaches you to think critically will tend to give people feminist leanings because there's rather a lot of sexism in the world that anyone can see if they know how to think for themselves. Hmm, with that in mind, maybe The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid/The Golden Apple/Leviathan... but that one may cause people's heads to explode and is almost definitely in the 'not for children' category for most people.

I think Bella is a whiney, poor me manipulative person. She does "grow up" later in the series. HS kids think everything is the end of the wolrd. I've seen a HS kid almost cry because they forgot their picture money (I take photos in the schools). The series is about young love, and not particularly about being a feminist or not. Maybe a little about treating others well even when they are so different then yourself (acceptance).
Society tends to dictate what teh gender roles are. My boyfriend is about 6 inches talles then me, but he cleans the bathroom & does the cat boxes because he has no sense of smell. I take the garbage to the curb. We do what needs doing because we're a team. Those who are secure in themselves will treat others with respect as a fellow human being regardless of gender. I hold a door for the next person because they're there, and would hope that others would do the same for me. To hold back or deny a gender by the other gender is a power issue. Education is the key and denying education to one gender is a control/power issue to keep them down.

Josh wrote: "@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 ..."

What we do now as 11 yr olds is so different then what a 11 yr old did in the 1920's. Good and bad differences between the two eras. Kids showed respect to elders then, but by 11 they were finishing their childhood, now they're still kids for many more years. It also depends on where you grew up. My sister grew up in upstate NY, but currently works in a private retirement home in NC and she's heard some of the residents who grew up in NC, refer to the staff that is colored as derogatory names. The first time she heard one of the residents say that it kind of stopped her in her tracks. It's a difference in how she was raised compared to how they were raised. If you were born in the 1800's you were lucky to live 50 or 60 years, now a days we routinely live 90 years or so, times change.

Josh wrote: that you really just have to teach children to think for themselves and have faith that they aren't stupid

This isn't a question of smart kids vs. dumb kids. It's a question of preparing kids to deal with deeply ingrained societal belief systems. That goes beyond, "think for yourself", especially since you seem to be advocating not bothering to speak up.

If nobody says anything to the contrary, where do you think even the smart kids are going to get the information to say, "hey, this is wrong"?

even if you're reading the same kind of stuff and nothing else, you'll eventually start to question it.

No, this is, literally, how cults work. They bombard their members with the same messages, repeatedly, with no dissenting opinions. It can suck in even smart people.

your environment in real life is much more important than your fictional environment in any case.

I think this is the one thing we can agree on. You just seem to be under the impression kids aren't getting the same messages from the world around them, that are being reinforced by Twilight.

Josh wrote: Hah, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm sexist, or even that I'm not a feminist.

It's not the disagreement, it's the outright dismissive attitude that sexism in popular culture is best handled by saying "keep an open mind" and hoping kids will ignore messages they're being bombarded with from all sides.

Frankly, my dear, your privilege is showing.

Josh wrote: 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.

Actually, no. Are you seriously saying the best way to fight antisemitism, in this case, is to sit back and hope kids don't read it?

And frankly, books like Mein Kampf aren't the ones that are really dangerous. The portrayal of Shylock in Merchant of Venice is probably more dangerous. You have a bunch of Jewish stereotypes thrown at readers, in a classic work of literature, possibly in a classroom setting. Whether it gets addressed or not, is probably a toss up.

People who go to the extremes aren't society's main problem when it comes to racism, sexism, etc. Those are the people who are easy to dismiss as nutbags.

The problem is, our culture still exposes everyone to a lot of the same attitudes, expressed in very subtle ways. You can't expect kids to notice it, because too many adults don't notice it.

Josh wrote: 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?

Better questions are, if the roles had been reversed, would it have even been published? Would have sold anywhere near as many copies? Sorry, your question fails until those two can be answered.

And, as a note, I've never said Bella "betrayed her sex." The concept is complete hogwash.

And how about this question: Would Twilight have been hurt, improved, or not effected in the slightest by Bella being a strong woman who didn't solely define herself by her relationship with Edward?

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've read it. Are you truly that naive? Hint: You can be a racist and not run around in white sheets. You can be anti-Semitic and not be a Holocaust denier. You can be a Misogynist and not run around killing women. Everything comes in degrees. One example being less extreme than another does not make it a non-example.

Like I said earlier, your privilege is showing.

Josh wrote: PS: Which government? Which germs?

Read The Stand. That would be the book I mentioned reading at around that age. It's by Stephen King. You might have heard of him.

@Emma,

You seem to be very passionate about the idea that more strident measures must be taken in order to combat incorrect messages in literature. I'm curious, what practical measures do you think need to be taken?

However, if you can't answer this question in a respectful manner, just ignore it.

Not trying to be a jerk here Emma, but are you familiar with codependency? You know, the condition that family members of alcoholics and battered spouses tend to suffer from, where they take the responsibility of others behavior onto themselves while trying to control what they can’t? Because Bella’s attitudes and life decisions read like a manual for this condition and it’s not exactly a gender issue. A power issue, absolutely, but men and women both suffer from this.

My dad, for instance, is steamed rolled by my mother ALL THE TIME. But he’s happy to give up the power in the relationship if it will make her happier. Not that this really works because she still complains about his behavior. She’s a woman; he’s a man; and she’s constantly added up all the ways he has advantages over her and saying she’s oppressed because he’s a man. Never mind that he’s a complete push over and lets her run everything. My mother sees my father through a negative lens because she grew up in a home with a rageaholic father. Her mind is made up about gender issues. And I had her views shoved down my throat as a child.

After I got married and moved out of my parents’ house, I lived next door to a couple with three young children. Please understand, after hearing my mother go on about inequality for over a decade, I believed women were victims and men were the ones with all the power. But since my husband and I lived in a town house and shared walls with our neighbors, I soon learned how wrong I was about the victim/power dynamic because this woman we lived next door to verbally and emotionally abused her husband like nothing I had ever witnessed. Things were broken, the police were called, you don’t even want to know how she screamed at her young children. The husband in that relationship was severely codependent, and when I read a statement like the one on the back of TWILIGHT about how Bella would rather be with someone who could kill her than live without Edward, I think of the young family that I lived next to then.

Codependency happens in homosexual relationships, in mother daughter relationships, father son relationships, it can even happen between close friends and is an issue that transcends gender inequality. I grant you that there are many countries where women are owned as property, but the United States is not one of them. As a woman, I’m grateful to Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton and others like them who got us the right to vote. I’m grateful I can work where I choose, have my own bank account, and own property. But at some point we need to step back and see that progress has been made, take stock in how fortunate we are, and notice that there are issues with more gravity than whether or not Twilight comes across as "anti-feminist." There are women in Pakistan and India who are forced into arranged marriages before they even hit puberty, places where women can't drive or vote or play sports. Talk about coming from a place of privilege. Are we really fighting over Bella Swan?

Wow, this is really long... maybe I should try to cut it down, lol.

Emma wrote: "Are you truly that naive?"

"your privilege is showing."

"You might have heard of him."

These are a few examples of how your language is tending towards insulting. You're probably at least a little aware that you're doing this without the need for me to point it out. If you want to win this discussion, keep this up because I guess that once I stop responding to you it could definitely be said that you've won. But if you're interested in exploring ideas together, then this is my request that you please stop it if you wish to continue.

Emma wrote: "You can be a Misogynist and not run around killing women. Everything comes in degrees."

Misogyny is by definition 'hatred of women', which to me implies a really high degree of sexism. That being said, I just looked up misogyny in wikipedia and saw that the word is often used in ways that suggest fairly permissive ideas of hatred, so I guess I can see why you'd use it.

Emma wrote: "Better questions are, if the roles had been reversed, would it have even been published? Would have sold anywhere near as many copies? Sorry, your question fails until those two can be answered.

I agree those are two very valid questions and that, as you're hinting, that the answer to both of them is probably no, though we would need the correct alternate universe to be absolutely sure. (Hmm, actually, anyone know how Beautiful Creatures sold? That story is kinda sorta vaguely like what I described; girl with special powers, guy without any who does what he can but can't actually do much.)

Anyway, I don't think those answers or the lack of them prevent you from considering my idea, and in fact I suspect that not considering my idea gets in the way of changing the answers to those questions. I know I phrased it as a question, but it's really a concept for you to ponder, and the important part was that litmus test I mentioned. The point I'm making with that idea is that while promoting strong women is important, I don't think anyone's helping the cause by picking on those who aren't trailblazing new roles for women, whether that's in literature or in real life. What does it really mean if you think the story would be improved if the woman was protecting (or stalking/manipulating if you like) the man rather than the other way around? Isn't this creating another set of double standards where it's okay for men to be weak but not for women? Okay, the story could have only strong people in it, but doesn't that create another set of issues? Is it not okay to write about weak people? Or is it only okay to write about them in a certain way?

Emma wrote: "And how about this question: Would Twilight have been hurt, improved, or not effected in the slightest by Bella being a strong woman..."

The simple answer is that it probably would be improved by her being stronger, but that's just in my opinion. Regardless of whether you think that everyone who doesn't share my opinion is wrong, I don't think the issue would be addressed by such a change, because then it would be a different book. It goes back to the question of whether or not it's okay to write about weak people. Seems to me like it should be... the real problem though is the lack of acknowledgement in literature (and elsewhere) that men can be weak or dependent and to some degree the lack of acknowledgement that women can be strong and independent, both particularly within certain genres. But laying out the flaws in any other book that exists won't solve that issue, only publishing different kinds of books will. (Thankfully we now have the internet. I know of at least one author of the kind of story that would never get published by the 'official' publishers, who makes her living writing web-serials. That means there will be others.)

Emma wrote: "This isn't a question of smart kids vs. dumb kids. It's a question of preparing kids to deal with deeply ingrained societal belief systems. That goes beyond, "think for yourself", especially since you seem to be advocating not bothering to speak up."

You misunderstand me if you think I'm advocating not speaking up. Most of what I'm saying is pure psychology -- you want someone to behave in a certain way, then showing them how to behave is much more important than showing them how not to behave. So while an in depth discussion of Twilight might be a good idea, it seems a bit less important to me than an in depth discussion of a story with a good feminist message.

Also, I think that the degree to which people can "deal with deeply ingrained societal belief systems" is pretty much the degree to which they can think for themselves. I'm not perfect in this regard of course, and anyone who thinks they are is kidding themselves; it's one of those things that works in degrees.

Emma wrote: "If nobody says anything to the contrary, where do you think even the smart kids are going to get the information to say, "hey, this is wrong"?"

I assume that being smart, they're going to look for it themselves. I'm not the smartest person in the world, but that's what I did. These days the internet is a lot more accessible than when I was a kid, which I think makes this process even easier -- back in the day I depended on the school library or the local library for most of my reading.

Emma wrote: "No, this is, literally, how cults work. They bombard their members with the same messages, repeatedly, with no dissenting opinions. It can suck in even smart people."

That's not what I meant when I referred to people reading the same kind of thing over and over. I mean, I think we can agree that there's a bit of difference between mainstream society and a cult. Also, I think we're referring to different understandings of the word "smart" if you think that's true.

Emma wrote: "Are you seriously saying the best way to fight antisemitism, in this case, is to sit back and hope kids don't read it?"

"It's not the disagreement, it's the outright dismissive attitude that sexism in popular culture is best handled by saying "keep an open mind" and hoping kids will ignore messages they're being bombarded with from all sides."

You've misunderstood my point here. Children are going to grow up and make their own decisions at some point, so teaching them to think critically of this or that book that reinforces cultural stereotypes isn't enough. If you can't teach people to do this kind of critical thinking for themselves under all circumstances, then they'll just be hoodwinked by some other piece of sophistry instead. My understanding is that critical thinking is a critical part of being open minded... I mean, it doesn't count as open minded if you're not considering the counter-argument to whatever it is you believe in. I've met a lot of people who are anti-racist but sexist, or feminists who are racist or people from either of those groups who are homophobic, and so on. The issue with all these things is that the person hasn't learned to look at things critically for themselves; they've just learned to look critically at one particular aspect of society and stopped there.

Emma wrote: "And frankly, books like Mein Kampf aren't the ones that are really dangerous."

Hmm, I agree that what you're saying is true today, but that's only because society has changed for the better. Imagine a society in which people are openly debating whether or not Mein Kampf makes valid arguments. My point being that progress has been made in the past, suggesting that more progress can be made in the future. So there's room for cautious optimism. I say this because I think that anger and negativity pretty much works against whatever people try to achieve.

--Josh.

PS: Is The Stand still good now that you're no longer eleven? I've read and enjoyed just two of his books, and have been meaning to pick up another at some point, but it's difficult to choose since there are so many.

"It seems that the logical conclusion of your statement would be the idea that we shouldn't talk about equal pay until every woman has the vote, or we shouldn't talk about the espousal of unhealthy relationships until every woman has the right to choose whether and who to marry."

Please do not put words into my mouth.

I disagree that it's logical. It was a statement about the importance of TWILIGHT in the grand scheme of all things "feminist." It was certainly not meant to be added upon to include political agendas like "equal pay for equal work."

Any statement, no matter how innocent, can be taken to an extreme. I like classical music. Does that mean I think everyone in the world should listen to it, be required to learn about Beethoven and Bach, and try to play an instrument?

Mickey wrote: You seem to be very passionate about the idea that more strident measures must be taken in order to combat incorrect messages in literature. I'm curious, what practical measures do you think need to be taken?

Openly discussing them. And not just on threads titled things like, "Is Twilight anti-feminist?"

@Kali. You have a point. I'm sorry for getting testy.

I found TWILIGHT quite disturbing, but more from Bella's lack of self-esteem than anything which made me think of feminism.

I'd like to believe the problems inherent in Bella's dysfunctional relationships are human issues that apply to both genders.

I wish there were more services for men in abusive relationships; I wish it weren't such an embarrassment for men to admit their wives can hurt them; I wish the law would take them seriously when they report violence and that children under the care of abusive mothers weren't constantly second guessed by society due to the mother/nurturer belief.

As far as the messages Twilight sends, I see at as more of a barometer than a corrupter of teenage girls. What struck me was that so many young people could relate to it, that they didn't see the numerous red flag behaviors of Edward Cullen as a problem.

I almost didn't read the second book because it left such a nasty taste in my mouth.

What kind of girl says no when they really mean yes and likes it when someone watches them in their sleep? What kind of boy drags someone across the parking lot by the back of their shirt after being asked to stop?

What have all the women who loved the first book been taught about what to look for in a man? Do they have any idea how to say no? The same could be asked of men too. Do they go after forceful women who push them around--do they expect the women in their life to make decisions for them--can they say no and respect when others say it?

For me, these are the most relevant issues of the Twilight series.

Josh wrote: "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 don't think that is what she meant to say. :)
It's rather that we are much more trained to pick up the subtleties of racism and are much more critical of it than we are of sexism, and that is where books like "twilight" could pose a danger in the long run.


Josh wrote: "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."

Do you really think that people would react less to the idea of a 16y old boy deciding to drop his whole education and have a wife and raise children over the first girl he falls in love with (or obsesses about)?

That they would think him less insane (and possibly suicidal) if he started to engage in reckless, dangerous activities only because it makes him hear (literally hear!) her voice?


Kali wrote: "I feel that it would be a better book, literarily speaking, if it had more conflicting opinions, since I feel that the author's close-mindedness regarding the importance of children, and her ideas about romance, are too heavy handed...."

That pretty much mirrors a similar critic I encountered about "twilight" in an earlier discussion (back before or around the time the movie came out), in which one poster noted that Stephenie's main problem, and thus the main problem of "twilight" and Bella and Edward, is that she's shy of creating real conflict between her main characters.

Josh wrote: These are a few examples of how your language is tending towards insulting.

1)I wasn't aware that "naive" was considered an insult. It generally indicates a certain innocence on a subject, generally due to lack of real exposure to it. Which brings us to...

2)You are male. You are involved in a conversation about sexism. You have privilege. This might help: https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/...

3)Okay, maybe the sarcasm was a bit uncalled for. But this is not the first time you seemed to have missed something in one of my posts. And frankly, it's not as bad as your earlier "It's okay, the book is fiction and teenagers know this." So let's drop the tone argument.

Josh wrote: Anyway, I don't think those answers or the lack of them prevent you from considering my idea

Twilight is a symptom, not the disease. I find the fact that you agree it's unlikely that book would sell well, even if it got published shows the flaw in trying to defend Twilight with a genderflip. If, as a society, we were open to those ideas, Twilight wouldn't be a problem.

Josh wrote: Regardless of whether you think that everyone who doesn't share my opinion is wrong,

*snort* Sorry, but nice Freudian slip there. :)

And no, I don't think you're wrong. I can actually understand what you're saying. And forgive me, because I know you don't like the word, but the really isn't a better one, I just think you're being woefully naive about the effect books like this have and how they reflect society as a whole.

Josh wrote: I don't think the issue would be addressed by such a change, because then it would be a different book.

I'm not convinced, the first one at least, would have been that significantly changed, plot wise anyway.

Consider the following changes: Bella moves in with her dad, and he asks her to help out around the house, and since she's a mature teenager, she doesn't consider this a big deal. Her reaction to finding out Edward has been sneaking into her house to watch her sleep, is to sit him down and discuss the boundary issues. What if, instead of just ignoring Bella's interest in going to college, she sits down and does some soul searching about whether that's still want she wants from her life, now she's met Edward.

Josh wrote: It goes back to the question of whether or not it's okay to write about weak people.

It's fine to write about weak people. The problem comes when the author thinks they're actually writing about a strong character. From the descriptions of Bella, do you really think Stephanie Meyer thought Bella was weak girl getting involved in an unhealthy relationship?

Josh wrote: So while an in depth discussion of Twilight might be a good idea, it seems a bit less important to me than an in depth discussion of a story with a good feminist message.

Okay, I seem to have misunderstood you, however, I still disagree. I think an in depth discussion of Twilight is important, simply because more people will be familiar with the source material. Simply asking "Okay, what could Bella (or Edward) have done differently here?" will get people thinking.

Josh wrote: Also, I think that the degree to which people can "deal with deeply ingrained societal belief systems" is pretty much the degree to which they can think for themselves.

People still often need things pointed out in order to actually notice them.

Josh wrote: so teaching them to think critically of this or that book that reinforces cultural stereotypes isn't enough.

I think we may not be as far apart as it seem here. If you start teaching them to think critically about problematic material, they're going to find it easier to start thinking critically about other things they're exposed to: books, movies, tv, politicians, and so on.

Josh wrote: My point being that progress has been made in the past, suggesting that more progress can be made in the future. So there's room for cautious optimism. I say this because I think that anger and negativity pretty much works against whatever people try to achieve.

You're probably not going to like this, but that's what's called a tone argument. Basically, it's saying "hey, it's not as bad as it use to be, so I'm not going to take you seriously if you're going to be upset!" It's a symptom of privilege.

I'd suggest looking past emotion and trying to see what it is that's making the other person upset. Or simply accepting the fact that, yes, they are allowed to be upset, and they are allowed to express it.

Josh wrote: Is The Stand still good now that you're no longer eleven?

I haven't fully reread it since then, and I've never read the expanded edition. I really liked the Dark Tower series, it starts with The Gunslinger, but it's more fantasy than horror.

@Emma. I want to thank you for that link about privilege. It had some really good points, and I liked it so much that I shared it on my facebook page.

@Mickey: "I already am equal to men. Feminists didn't bring that about. What makes women equal to men isn't if they exhibit certain (masculine) qualities or conform to the ways feminists deem acceptable or strong."

Yeah, but that's not the point. Feminism isn't about deciding WHICH women are equal to men. It is a GIVEN that women are equal to men for feminists. The reason feminists (or egalitarians, to use the less controversial label) exist is to ensure women are TREATED equally, which is NOT a given.

As for Bella, everyone has good points. My problem with her is that... I don't know. I don't agree with her choices, and I'd never make them myself, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to choose marriage and motherhood over everything else. her choice, yada yada yada. My problem with her is that she doesn't even have any HOBBIES or INTERESTS outside of Edward/her family.

I mean, we see her read a book, once. Do you know any stay-at-home wives and mothers who don't have a single interest? For me, though I wouldn't make the choice for myself, there's nothing wrong with choosing the life of a stay-at-home parent, but there IS something wrong when that parent has NOTHING that is solely for THEM. She doesn't like fishing, or sewing, or cooking, or writing, painting, watching movies, learning things, going rockclimbing, you know, whatever. She has NO life that is seperate from her husband and child, and that is what makes her weak for me. A woman who loves caring for others and dedicates her life to raising children, and I dunno, loves to knit and cook in her spare time? Not weak. A woman whose life revolves SOLELY around her kids/partner with no thought for herself or her needs which do not concern them? Yes. There's something wrong there.

I think I rambled a bit there, and my point got lost a bit...but still. IMO someone who cooks/cleans/cares for their family at the expense of ALL their individual activites...that's not a choice. that's another way of saying they don't matter.

"Mickey wrote: You seem to be very passionate about the idea that more strident measures must be taken in order to combat incorrect messages in literature. I'm curious, what practical measures
do you think need to be taken?

Emma wrote: Openly discussing them. And not just on threads titled things like, "Is Twilight anti-feminist?"

We don't openly discuss books now? I suppose the problem is that people now have the right not to discuss. How can we effectively link books to their correct message?

Maybe a good solution is to keep all the books in a central location (like a library, maybe) and allow people access to them only in a setting where it can be properly discussed? Would it be open circulation or will people have to apply and be approved for each book? Will all books be allowed or not? How would you entice people to read socially sound books and discourage people from requesting unsound books, (if you permit unsound books at all, that is)? What happens if a person rejects the instruction?

Maybe you could just have people complete a short course on the correct way to view a book before they are allowed to check it out. The problem is in making sure that they pay attention, so maybe a short test would work.

Maybe you had something else completely different in mind.

I definitely think Twilight is anti feminist for many of the reasons already mentioned. But I also find that Meyer is sexist towards men. Bella, who is clearly just a representative of Meyer herself, rejects all the boys who kind to her on her first day of school on shallow reasons and then becomes fixated on Edward because he'shot. She never expresses a reason for loving him based on his personality. Edward is shown as the ultimate ideal male. The reasons being that he is attractive, strong, protective, the fact that he has apparently never had so much as impure thought about another woman despite living for a century.
All the vampire males are shown in this light-also I don't understand why being becoming a vampire also means you have to become extremely attractive.
The best male character, in my humble opinion, is Charlie. He is the most believable and genuinely caring, however I don't think it was S.Meyers intention for him to come across that way.
It seems the men of Twilight are in two camps; the worthy ones who love Stephanie..sorry I mean Bella,and the unworthy ones who merely perv on her and who are beneath her notice. Charlie sort of falls into the first category since he blindly loves her which some times is touching but makes Bella even more unsympathetic as she does not appreciate how lucky she is.
All of the worthys are in relationships,this seems like Meyers reward for a good character.Again Charlie is a slight exception but he is apparently still besotted with his ex wife.
Jacob features as a worthy, because he wants nothing more than to protect Bella to the extent that she becomes his whole life.
Bella is so self absorbed that she finds the idea of Edward ever having found another woman attractive a terrifying threat. I believe Meyer intended for that to be read as vulnerability but for me it was just plain stupidity.
It all leads up of course to the moments in the book where Meyer gets to dispense her wisdom on relationships. Where a poor misguided girl like me was able to benefit from being told that having sex outside of marriage will result in my being barred from heaven.This relates back to the idea of Edward and the other worthys as perfect men because they are all too happy to encourage waiting for marriage.
The message behind every character is that in order to reach the standard of a worthy you have to be a romantic stereotype.

Rachael E. wrote: " A woman who loves caring for others and dedicates her life to raising children, and I dunno, loves to knit and cook in her spare time? Not weak. A woman whose life revolves SOLELY around her kids/partner with no thought for herself or her needs which do not concern them? Yes. There's something wrong there."

So, are you saying that the recreational cooking and knitting makes her a strong person? Without that part of her, she's weak? Because that's the only difference you presented between the two women.

Let's flip genders. A man has a demanding job (maybe lawyer, doctor, CEO-I know all those jobs require people to spend huge amounts of time working), when he gets home, he crashes. He's up early the next morning and goes to work. He has no outside interests besides his job. He doesn't sew or rock-climb or watch movies. Is he weak? Is he still an individual?

Why the difference? Because woman's work is not valued. You are saying that being a wife and a mother cannot be areas that are satisfying to a woman's individuality. How she takes care of her family can not be a way to express who she is or something that she gets her satisfaction from.

Now, I know women who need interests beyond being a wife and a mother, and I think that's perfectly understandable. Women should have choices about how to live their lives and how to be fulfilled without having everyone deciding whether it's correct or not. After all, we are discussing grown women here and not children.

IMO someone who cooks/cleans/cares for their family at the expense of ALL their individual activites...that's not a choice"

I'm very curious about this statement. What do you mean, 'that's not a choice'? She's not making that choice? Who is making that choice for her? Or are you suggesting that such a thing should not be a choice for her to make? Could you clarify?

Kali wrote: "Mickey, I think you're being a little unfair with that extrapolation. I got the impression that Rachael gave examples of interests, not that she was specifically discussing or giving value."

On the contrary, she said someone with a hobby was not weak and then claimed that a woman without a hobby had something wrong with her and later on said that those without interests outside of the family 'don't matter'. This gives tremendous value to the hobby as the deciding factor. Now, why a hobby would be so important in deciding a woman's value has to do with how little value most feminists place on the roles of wife and mother. Although a woman raising children and being a wife plays a crucial role in her family, it is not as important as what she does outside of that sphere.

There's obviously a value judgement there.

Define Anti-feminist.. I would say that if you think that this didn't have a by-line about "Girl Power" that you didn't read the series. This was all about Bella "finding herself" . It wasn't all about the love story. It was ultimately about Bella and the choices she made for herself.

It is sooo not anti-fenenist I have met tonnes of guys who have read the series and honestly think that it is a good down-to-earth book series

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..."

Now that is well said! Postmodern feminism and the 'ladette culture' does have a tendency to equate equality to a meal ideal, drinking pints, belching, watching sports, etc.

The main point is that feminism is about strong women, stay at home mums can be as feminist as high powered lawyers, if they are executing their right to choice. (look at the sex and the city characters for example-all different women with strong views about life and all feminists in their own way).

however gettign back to Twilight, I see the plot as an extension of Meyers personal beliefs as a Mormon, the whole book is about chastity and abstinance on lots of different levels, and that would have even me curling up in a ball and dying.

I was more uncomfortable with the stereotyping that went on throughout the book on many levels, my personal bug bear being the way all blonde women are portrayed as shallow or bitchy, being blonde myself. It seemed like Meyer just used every cliche going to create a protagonist that would be sympathetic and the result was that I just didn't believe it. Bella is portrayed as being unselfish, hard working, intelligent, caring,not vein.And of course the cliche extends to how she looks (she's really beautiful but doesn't think she is).
And of course she doesn't fit in and nobody appreciates her.
I felt like I was being treated like a four year old while reading each book, as though I was being given little life lessons at each step according to a very closed minded bad teacher e.g sex before marriage is definitely wrong and I should go to hell. Blonde women are all shallow and evil. Anybody who doesn't have a partner is doomed to a life of misery.
Oh and gay people just don't exist in this 'ideal'world.We're all just waiting to find our soul mates which will obviously be of the opposite gender.
Also I learned that I'd been wrong all these years in thinking that the sewers of London weren't built until the 19th century, because according to Meyer they were there 200 years earlier, but what do I know I only grew up in the city, and since its not really part of Meyer's world I'm guessing it didn't deserve any proper research.

Emma wrote: "*snort* Sorry, but nice Freudian slip there. :)"

Lol, not a Freudian slip, but an intentional joke. I'm considering using tags like and so on, since that kind of thing doesn't translate to text very well. Hell, people seem to miss my tone in real life for that matter, so I really can't blame you here.

Emma wrote: "...frankly, it's not as bad as your earlier "It's okay, the book is fiction and teenagers know this.""

Notice how that line doesn't attack you personally though? Feel free to call my arguments stupid and to satirize them or make sarcastic comments about them, but insulting me is something different. Most people won't even take the time to explain this kind of thing... they'll just walk away feeling insulted and ignore the substance of your argument.

Emma wrote: "You're probably not going to like this, but that's what's called a tone argument. ... It's a symptom of privilege."

No, that's a symptom of long periods during which I've used similar styles of argument to yours in the past, and of having observed that it was ineffective at changing people's minds, unless turning them against me counts.

There's a conversation in Alyzon Whitestarr where it's suggested that long-term protesters have to let go of their anger at some point, because eventually the pervasiveness of injustice is too difficult to deal with if you're always angry about it. To back this up, I've had conversations with people who basically said that they used to get all riled up about the problems in the world, but that they gave up on those issues out of frustration. So I argue against anger and negativity because I'd prefer that socially conscious people don't give up.

Anyway, while we're talking about privilege,

Emma wrote: "You are male. You are involved in a conversation about sexism. You have privilege. This might help:"

So, what if the dog sees two lizards arguing about what the right temperature is?

I actually have considered the idea that I might not understand what it‘s like to be without my particular privileges, though I might not have used that particular term. How about you? I've had the experience of people trying to 'empower' me in one way or another and I've realized that the experience basically sucks, especially when it's coupled with a bunch of negativity. I know I can't relate particularly to the experience of a woman that someone is trying to 'empower', but are you sure that you can? I may have joined in with you calling Bella weak earlier, but I actually think that all the condescending language like that, which is also at least partially aimed at Stephenie Meyer herself, is really a case of both of us talking trash about people whose perspectives we don’t understand. When a woman says she’s happy living a life that you can’t imagine being fulfilling, and you’re saying that if she could just experience this better way that you believe in then she would like it better, are you more like the dog or the lizard in that analogy?

A lot of your arguments seem to be aimed at someone who doesn’t believe that sexism exists; someone who isn’t me. I was already under the impression that Twilight reinforces cultural stereotypes before coming to this discussion. It’s not like you had to convince me of that. My arguments with you have been based around questions of effective approaches to feminism in the current literary environment.

So, consider this: I’m noticing that there’s a lot of negativity aimed at books like Twilight on the internet, particularly from people who calling themselves feminists. Since these books are often written by women, what this means in effect is that we have women attacking women. So, maybe because of my privileged position I can see that from the outside this looks a bit like someone’s divide and conquer strategy worked. (That’s just an analogy; I’m not a conspiracy theorist.) Also it seems to me like all this ‘controversy’ around Twilight is likely to make publishers want to print more like it, not less.

Now, I was thinking about why I said that my gender flip idea wouldn’t be popular, and you know, at the time I was considering the idea of if the story was published today. But I do think that if such a story was published instead of Twilight at that time, it would have been popular, because the way Twilight filled the YA paranormal romance niche when barely anything else like that was around was probably a really important aspect of its success. So if you want to criticize something, look at the people who are choosing what makes it to your bookstores and libraries. (Fortunately I think that as web fiction becomes more popular, the fact that there’s no industry deciding what’s available to the public on the internet will change things in unexpected ways.)

Emma wrote: "It's fine to write about weak people. The problem comes when the author thinks they're actually writing about a strong character. From the descriptions of Bella, do you really think Stephanie Meyer thought Bella was weak girl getting involved in an unhealthy relationship?"

I understand that your point is that books like Twilight reinforce behavior that can cause problems for people later. My problem with that kind of argument (and this is why I used the 'it's just fiction' line) is how much it sounds like people who say that they killed someone because they watched too many violent movies, and all the various permutations of that kind of excuse. Hmm... but as long as your solution to this is discussion rather than removal of this material, I don't have a problem with that.

So, to add to that discussion, I think that if you consider that this is some people's favorite book of all time, you might see that people will hear you a bit better if you ask instead, do you think Stephenie Meyer meant for Twilight to be realistic? It's important for people to realize that Meyer wrote Twilight as a fictional story, and that as a paranormal romance, it's a meeting of the fantasy and romance genres. I don't think authors of either of those genres expect their books to be taken completely seriously. I mean, who puts vampires in a story and expects people to think they should act like them? For this reason it’s pretty standard to create a separate set rules and behaviors for supernatural beings and people with supernatural powers. It’s part of the whole ’other than human’ trope. Just as it would be a bit weird for a real person to drink blood, it would be a bit weird for a real person to sneak into a girl's room and watch her sleep.

Connected to that, I haven‘t read the genre extensively, but I suspect it’s pretty standard for a romance story to use extreme behavior as a way of depicting extreme emotions, but in real life stalking a girl would be creepy. I hardly think that Meyer meant for men to be stalkers or for women to encourage them. (I guess part of the romantic fantasy is a world in which women don't sometimes need to be wary of people they fall in love with.) And if Bella isn’t shown as having interests outside her love life, this is more about the focus of the story than the idea that women don’t need hobbies. Again, probably not written with the intention that people emulate that behavior; clearly, having written five books, Meyer isn't quite like that herself. Incidentally though, that careful consideration of college options is in the third book I think, and I pretty much thought that she would probably end up going to college after the end of the series. Though once again this is possibly a bit unrealistic given her circumstances. (view spoiler)[Real children don't grow up overnight. I don't think Meyer would be against the idea of women having children out of high school, but it's not meant to be a realistic depiction of how children are raised either. (hide spoiler)]

By the way, if you change the story of Twilight, would it still be Twilight? My point being, if you want to talk about ideas to improve the story, what you’re really doing is what I suggested – talking about a different story. I was never saying that a discussion of Twilight isn’t worthwhile though, just that discussion of other stuff might better suit your purposes.

Josh, thinking a bit more about that gender reversal thing, there sure is one major aspect that would practically get dropped from the whole discussions:
I can't see much people questioning the idea of 114 year old Edwardina, who happily still looks like a seventeen year old teen, hooking up with 16 year old Bello.

Natalie said: "however gettign back to Twilight, I see the plot as an extension of Meyers personal beliefs as a Mormon, the whole book is about chastity and abstinance on lots of different levels, and that would have even me curling up in a ball and dying."

Being Mormon myself, I disagree about the Mormon bit. Bella was a total pushover when it came to sex and didn't know how to set any boundaries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Stephenie Meyer wrote from her own world view to an extent, but so does every author in existence. Do you think Jane Eyre is pushing a Christian agenda?

And if you want to read an author that actually uses Mormonism to shape the plot of their book, check out Orson Scott Card's "Enders Game." In it he echoes some of the plot points in the Book of Mormon.

Eliminating men from agruements about feminism is reverting to the same perverted ideas of eliitism that necessitiated the rise of feminism.

Angela wrote: "Natalie said: "however gettign back to Twilight, I see the plot as an extension of Meyers personal beliefs as a Mormon, the whole book is about chastity and abstinance on lots of different levels, ..."

I dont think Meyer is trying to push any agenda. However, I am refering to what I read in an interview with her in a broadsheet newspaper, she herself stated that she used her own beliefs to translate the need and desire of every teenager in love, while using the text as a blueprint for what she herself believes in; being a mormon.
this may be due to her own personal circumstances, and in her own words owes alot to her own religious belief. Many authors do this, including Bronte.
I have very little knowledge of the religion, and I have no desire to read about mormonism, having said that I was not trying to be offensive in anyway. I am merely reiterating an analysis of the themes of the book from Meyers own viewpoint.

I think every author puts a bit of themselves into what they write and tries to fill their characters with some of their own values.I just think Twilight pushed it too far to the point where it became preaching. I felt as though Meyer was writing with idea that her audience would already be aware of bible stories and wholesome Christian American values, and then people like me,an accidental audience would come to it and be enlightened.
I think I could have overlooked even this if it were for the fact the protagonist was clearly a Mary Sue who was only there to represent the author within the text. I think if Bella had been a well constructed character then I would have believed that these were her opinions and understand why she believes in them even if I personally disagree with them.
In the works of Charles Dickens the author frequently condemns institutions such as the workhouse and the debtors prison and is highly critical of the idea of high society. In reality this was because of his own experience of being made to work off his father's debt but in his books the characters are shaped by experiences other than his own. I completely believe in Mr Brownlow's (in Oliver Twist)love for the orphans he tried to help because of the thought and originality that went into shaping the character.Just as also believe in John Jarndyce's (in Bleak House) determination to protect his wards from their involvement in a corrupt legal system. The characters acted according to their own instinct, nature and experience, rather than having an opinion just because
Dickens would have done so himself.

@Suzanne You'll get no argument from me when it comes to Bella being a Mary Sue.

And Becky, I'm sorry I got your name wrong. I tried to use the reply button, but only half the text showed up, so I went with my memory and that didn't end up going so well either.

I know Stephenie Meyer put something in there about drinking Coke or Pepsi, don't remember which now, but found that spot supremely annoying. Lots of LDS people drink caffeinated soft drinks, that's just Meyers personal interpretation of things. Which, granted, she is welcome to, I just wish she wouldn't credit her character's obvious codependency on the religion. Probably she doesn't know the difference between the before mentioned condition and Christian principles.

I wouldn't have been able to tell by the story alone that Meyer is a Mormon, and frankly long as she doesn't write flaming hate tirades against gays, or tries to justify why they shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else, and doesn't go and condone child marriage, I don’t think we should care to much about that.

Personally I thought Edward the virgin vampire that fears for his soul to be to be one of the more interesting aspects of "twilight" - and no, I didn't see any sex before marriage will send you to hell messages apart from what Edward believed in, this is actually one of the few points within the story where I would have to concede to Mickey and say far as I could tell while I read the novel it was about choice.

And if in the end we share the arguments that stood behind Edward’s no sex choice, is of no importance* - I think the important aspect here is that I didn't see "twilight" at any point say you don't have the right not to make that choice for yourself, because Bella could have had sex before marriage if she wanted, just not with Edward.
For me this was about respecting other peoples choice to have sex when they want it too, not when just you happen to want it.

And I'm aware of the irony of my statement, because what is the discussion of freedom of choice when and under which circumstances to have sex, if not one directly linked to questions of feminism.



* Morally spoken it is of no importance to us, I would still hazard to say that fear of going to hell is posing a strong limiter on what choices you are able to make, meaning that Edward, as opposed to Bella, isn't in a position that allows him to make a choice.

I think one of the reasons people are so passionate with their love or hatred of twilight is that is so closely linked with religion, beliefs, choices,and feminism. These are things that transcend the world of literature because we are all too willing in the real world to literally fight for them.
I would consider myself a feminist, in that I believe a woman should be free to make her own choices whether that be running for government or having babies. I have no problem with anybody's decision to wait until marriage to have sex I just resent being told it's what I should do. This is where I feel Twilight is most anti- feminist.Until the 20th century women's sexuality was owned and controlled by men. And still today society is far more judgmental to women when it comes to sex and promiscuity than it is to men.
In the book Edward explains that he left Carlisle for a brief period and actually killed people. It would make sense to me that this would have been the ideal time for some sexual experimentation, after all he was an eternal teenage boy and according to Meyer he does have a sex drive. But when it comes to sex both main characters are completely pure.It seems that in Meyer's world pre-marital sex is deemed worse than killing to feed and uncontrollable hunger which in itself is similar to a sexual urge.
I wonder how Edward would have reacted if Bella had loved him, but also had a string of ex boyfriends with whom she had been sexually active. This could still have been her first love just not her first sexual intimacy.
All of the characters,the good ones at least, seem to come to us in a little parcel of innocence. Neither Bella or Edward have considered sex before,Jessica gets excited about being kissed at the age of seventeen with all the enthusiasm of an eleven year old. Meyer takes for granted that this is what is right and therefore we must believe it too.
Given that this judgement of sexuality is what causes the great injustices done to women in the world today, the must be at least in part anti feminist. Or it could be considered a vehement rejection of a modern idea concerning innocence of both men and women. I think S. Meyer has been pretty clear what her views on this issue is so I don't understand why Twilight fans are so surprised that the many people who hold the opposite view don't like this element of her writing.

@Suzanne Whether or not to have sex before marriage is a deeply personal decision, and yes, many times it is for religious reasons that a person chooses to abstain.

That said, I'm religious. I consider myself an equity feminist, and I waited until I was married to have sex, which was my choice.

My husband also waited, which was his choice.

And I did not see anyone forcing Edward to make the choice he did in regards to this. Nor did I read anything in this book that shamed non-virgins. Are you saying that fictional characters should believe in having sex before marriage in order not to be anti-feminist?

I read books all the time where characters don't wait until marriage for sex, but I don't feel their view of the world is any sort of threat to mine. I can read about homosexuality without feeling like authors expect me to change my lifestyle. I can read bodice rippers without subscribing to the view that all women should test men out in the bedroom before committing to love.

I grant you there are many feminists who do not agree with me. There are even feminists who think the term Christian Feminist is an oxymoron: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...

Maybe the name of this thread should be "What Is Feminism" rather than "Is Twilight Anti-feminist." This is rather an impossible question to answer if there's no set measuring stick for what constitutes a feminist.

Suzanne wrote: "I was more uncomfortable with the stereotyping that went on throughout the book on many levels, my personal bug bear being the way all blonde women are portrayed as shallow or bitchy, being blonde ..."

Wow, if you didn't like it so much, why did you keep reading it?

I'm not trying to be mean, this is meant to be an honest question, I am genuinely cruious. I have found so many people that don't like these books, but then say that they read all four and continue to comment on feeds. If I don't like a book, I won't chat about it. What's the point?
Yes, I happen to love Twilight. Through goodreads I've learned that alot of people don't, and I'm okay with that, they have that right. Just curious. : )

When I first read the title of this feed. I was ready to blow a cork! I'm tired of the "Bella bashing" "she's so weak." "Edward is controling her." "To not be able to live without a man is pathetic." ETC!
But after reading a few comments, I love what alot of people are saying. It's all in the way that you define "feminism"
I do recal a few times in the story when it's Bella that comes up with an idea to a problem and pretty much demands that it be that way. What about when she takes control of Edward when he refuses to change her? She takes control of the suituation and puts it up to a vote with the family. It's her life.
And like someone else said, I too am married to my soulmate. And if he were to leave me, for what I believed was forever. I would curl up for a few days and trun into a sloth. And I would be depressed for a few months. It would take a good friend, (man or woman) to bring me out of it. That dosen't mean that I am a poor weak pathetic woman.

I don't think that Bella was intentionally written in an anti-feminist way, though I can see why many would say that. She does seem a tad too clingy and insecure, and completely intertwined in Edward's life, to the point of obsession. I remember being a teenager and being so in love that I thought I would die at the thought of losing him. Would I have acted on it? Hell no! But, I remember loving him so intensely. That's why the story appeals so much to so many people. Because it's the promise of true, undying love, without fail. Bella, was never my favorite character and, in my opinion, made some questionable choices/decisions, but it was the overall story that I loved. She was not your typical heroine, far from it, but she did display that insecurity and vulnerability that some people feel today. Some people identify with her quirky way.

Lindis wrote: "Wow, if you didn't like it so much, why did you keep reading it?"

I know this question wasn't aimed at me and that I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that for starters you'll get this reaction from people who read a lot. It might seem a bit weird if you carefully select every book you read, but if reading is your primary source of entertainment it's not unusual to read a series of books in the same way that people who watch tv just because it's on.

Of course, you might ask, aren't there lots of good books out there? Why not drop the one you don't like and go find them? The problem is that all the obviously good books are classics. I'm sure you'd understand if I said that I don't always feel up to reading something like Moby Dick. Sometimes you just want to read something easy, and at that point the newest hottest thing that all the kids are reading is... well, one place to look. Sometimes you might come across something brilliant.

I'll also add that for me, I read a lot of fantasy fiction, and that before the pnr/uf became big I was often thinking to myself that it would be interesting to see fantasy in a more advanced setting, instead of the ones stuck in the middle ages. Now I've read a lot of pnr/uf and sadly, the situation is not unlike the old fantasy genre, with publishers only printing stories that are similar to what's already on the market.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in years to come with the internet, since no one decides what's available here. I'm expecting that at some point someone with a really good story will realize that publishers were stupid enough to turn down Harry Potter several times and decide that it might be easier to simply go digital. I already know of at least one web-novelist who writes for a living, and it's not like she's wildly popular or anything.

Angela wrote: "@Suzanne Whether or not to have sex before marriage is a deeply personal decision, and yes, many times it is for religious reasons that a person chooses to abstain.

That said, I'm religious. I con..."

Its not that I think that all fictional characters should have sex before marriage its just that this particular book seemed to be promoting a message about abstinence that I strongly disagreed with and therefore I reacted strongly to it. In fairness the author has every right to do this, just as she would have the right to preach free love.
I do react to this kind of message stronger than most because I have been affected strongly by it in the past.I've been called a slut and had gossip spread about me. I have only had sex with three people(my current partner included) and I have been referred to as promiscuous and dirty by men who have had a far greater number of sexual partners. I have also had to listen to members of my family being called names like this and worse. This may be partly the nature of the area where I grew up, which has a bad reputation and is getting worse. But I do find it occurs in the wider world as well. If a man sleeps about then he's being a lad and having fun, if a woman does the same she is dirty. I come from a town in England called Stevenage, which has a very high number of teenage mothers, many of whom are on welfare,some of my friends included. These women are blamed for the state of the town and face heavy criticism where hardly any blame is put upon the men. In areas nearby I have encountered people referring to Stevenage girls in the most derogatory way, we're dirty, we spread diseases, we're whores, we deserve what we get. So it does make me sensitive, probably over sensitive to any judgement seems to befall on a person for their sexual history.
I have no problem with anyone waiting until marriage to have sex, like you say its just about choice. I do not feel guilty about my sexual past and I hope no other woman on this thread is made to o so.
I do feel that Twilight has had an affect on many young girls Britain. Its actually quite sad that instead of inspiring young girls to wait until they are older its actually increased the sexing up of adolescence- where I live at least, I understand this won't be the case in some communities. I worry because now these young girls,which in Stevenage are not really being encouraged to do much except have babies young and go on welfare, are now longing for a man like Edward to come along and say he will die for them. I know many sleazy men are just going to take advantage of this, promise a love like the one they now long for, get what they want and leave them, maybe with a baby. A message about abstinence is of no use in this situation,sex is already too much a part of our lives and our culture- again I'm speaking about a specific area. I always knew I would lose my virginity before I was sixteen. Luckily I was educated enough about sex to be able protect myself. I think a message concerning safe sex and waiting until you are ready to experience is better than a message of abstinence and waiting until you find your true love, I don't believe in that either- again just my opinion other people are free to believe otherwise and begrudge no one that right.
Of course I'm not saying the book is to blame for this
or that Meyer has to take responsibility for how others interpret her values.But when a book becomes such a huge part of our culture it needs to be looked at in greater depths and the values and ideologies behind it.
I don't really know what category of feminist I fall into, but my personal hope is that one day young women stopped being judged in this manner because they have maybe trusted the wrong man and been let down by a community that should do more to educate than condemn.
The part of reading Twilight which really upset me was when I read this quote from Eclipse 'I'm not that girl, Edward. The one who gets married right out of high school like some small-town hick who got knocked up by her boyfriend! Do you know what people would think? '. A lot of readers will have been just that.And again it probably wouldn't annoy me as much if I genuinely believed this was the characters point of view rather than Meyer opinion, plus the fact that the tone of the writing gives me the impression that she believes this is the way everyone thinks and any girl who gets knocked up while she's still in school is stupid and deserves little sympathy.

Okay so this reply went on longer than I intended, didn't mean to get into too much personal history and I hope it doesn't offend anyone. Like I said this part of my belief is very personal so I can only explain through personal experience.

@Suzanne, Now that you've shared your personal history, I very much understand where you're coming from. And for the record I always thought Bella kind of snobbish.

The way she made fun of the nerdy boys who followed her around and the girl with the bad perm in the first book. That "ugly girl" was me in high school so I didn't really appreciate that either. And I would put the quote you shared earlier about not being "that girl who gets married right out of high school like some small-town hick" in the same category. What gives her the right to make fun?
It reads like something a pampered brat who has only ever been in the in-crowd would say.

My husband said the same thing, "You can tell that Stephenie Meyer was a popular girl in high school."

Maybe that's not a nice thing for me to say about popular girls. I've met a lot of nice, non-snobbish people in the in-crowd, but for some of them it is hard to fathom what so many of us go through in high school with feeling awkward and like we don't fit.

Lindis wrote: "Suzanne wrote: "I was more uncomfortable with the stereotyping that went on throughout the book on many levels, my personal bug bear being the way all blonde women are portrayed as shallow or bitch..."

I work in a book shop so I've read quite a few books that Idon't like because they are selling well and customers are bound to ask about them. We have a cute debate team at work, myself and a couple of other girls are anti- twilight and a couple of others are twilight lovers. Of course we respectful of each other since part of working there is an understanding that everyone's tastes are different. Usually we have to read the books that are on offer which is really annoying as we then have to push them at people. The books themselves could be great but they not going to be to everyone's taste and I'm sure everyone hear would appreciate its not nice having to be the pushy sales person. I would rather people just chose how they please.
I first read Twilight when it was still emerging to the craze it has now become.The synopsis sounded interesting and I like a lot of vampire and Gothic fiction so gave it a go, at this point I had no preconceptions. I soon realized it wasn't what I thought it was and that I wasn't enjoying. I am always loath to give up on a book but I just had no interest in any aspect of what I was reading so I stopped.

Then the craze really took off. People kept asking me if I'd read them and saying they were the best books ever and how I was cray not to have liked them. I thought ok maybe I missed the point and tried to re read it but I still couldn't get into it. By this point I had many a twilight fan telling me I was insane, whatever reasons I gave for not liking it were deemed not good enough. The most annoying responses were, 'well you just don't get it', and 'you've probably never been in love like that'. How would they know???
They also made the point that since I hadn't read them all the way through how could I judge what I hadn't read. This is a fair point and after all Twilight was her first book published so her writing may have improved as she went on. However I still could not connect with the writing or see what all these other people did in it. By then however it was too late and according to a lot of Twilight fans I know, I'm just too prejudice to appreciate its genius.
This I find unfair,as I have pointed out that there are things about Twilight that I like.I did like Jacob at first until he fell in love with Bella and seemed to do nothing but mope over her. I really love Charlie he's an original well rounded and actually quite a funny character.I enjoyed reading his parts of the story most,just a shame there wasn't more of him. I also liked the use of the town the idea of the rain and the isolation. I loved Bella's relationship with her truck, this was a good bit of character development, which makes it a shame that it was the only good example in Bella I could find. I also liked the fact that this is something which she disagrees with Edward over. I was really hopeful when I heard that a Native American Tribe were going to play a bigger role in the story but I found that this quickly became cliched.I read a good series of young adult books concerning Native American history and have since become very interested in their culture, and having studied it in school probably fueled my disappointment in this particular representation of them. Thinking about it now probably my main reason for not engaging with and enjoying the story was because I found the minor characters far more interesting than Bella and Edward but since the story is all from their perspective I had little access to the elements I did enjoy.
I have the first three books and intend to read the fourth at some point in the future. I still get picked on for my reasons for not liking them. But in order to critique a book you have to read it first.I would have no right to praise or criticize based only on hearsay. I don't believe that reading any book, even a bad one, is a waste of time. Its a shame I could not take away more positives from reading Twilight, but even the negatives were worth experiencing. Even if all I've learned is that I don't think that particular writing style is effective,so in my own work I will avoid it. If you think about the books we study at school, usually there are a number of students who really don't enjoy that particular book, but that doesn't mean they can't get something out of it, whether it is do with literature in general or the issues represented in a writers work.
I'm not saying everyone should apply this to every book they read but since books are my life, and my living, it makes sense for me to apply this to myself.
And if I'd never read Twilight I wouldn't be on this thread exchanging ideas about an issue which I hold dear where I have learned a lot even from people who disagree with me. So even though I didn't enjoy the experience of reading Twilight I don't regret sticking with it.