Twilight discussion

Josh wrote: "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'l..."

"read a series of books in the same way that people who watch tv just because it's on."

Okay, I get that. I thought that I read alot. But I don't think that I could read something that just wasn't doing anything for me, just because it was something to read. I'd rather do laundry! : ) I've never watched anything on TV either that I didn't like. Just because everyone else likes it. A friend once tried to get me to watch Seinfield, sorry nope, stupidest show ever. Sorry, just my opinion.

But, I have to give thoes who will read anything some respect. It's something I can't do! : )

Angela wrote: "@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 ne..."

But isn't High School nothing but a vicious circle? I wasn't the lowest on the totem pole, but there were plenty above me. They made fun of me, I made fun of those below me. Something I'm not proud of, of course, but the truth hurts. Even the kids at the bottom make fun of others. It's not until we venture out into the world and live and learn, that we change our ways. (well, most of us)

Yes, Bella made fun of others. She was just expressing how she was raised (married - small town hick) Her mother didn't want her to do that. Renee didn't want Bella to do what she did. So don't blame the charachter for making fun of others, 97% of all teenagers do it. If you ask me, that's realism. If she was perfectly nice to everyone, that would be odd.

@Lindis. Most kids do it, yes. But not everyone. By the time I graduated high school I found a really nice group of friends who knew better than to constantly poke fun at people.

Some people never outgrow it, even as adults.

I grant you that for many, it's a measure of maturity. And all books have flawed characters, that's what makes them interesting. Twilight is certainly not the only book where teenagers poke fun at others. But I won't apologize for having a gut reaction to behaviors that rub me the wrong way.

Lindis wrote: "But, I have to give thoes who will read anything some respect. It's something I can't do! : )"

Maybe not yet, but if you really read a lot it's just a matter of time before you've gone through all the stuff that suits your tastes in your genre of choice. Scary, right?

A while ago, Emma put a link to a blog explaining the concept of privilege that contained an analogy about a dog and a lizard: https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/...

I found the analogy disturbing on a couple of different points, and since it is now a part of this discussion, I thought I would comment on some of the problems I had with this analogy, because I think it shows some of the thinking that makes most women recoil from the feminist movement.

In the analogy:

Men and women are not only shown as two separate species of animals (and a completely unnatural pairing as well), but as having needs that are diametrically opposed to each other. One cannot live in comfort without making life uncomfortable for the other. This contradicts the experience of most people (I'd say) who have lives that are intertwined with those of the opposite sex and have relationships that are largely symbiotic.

The dog (the stand-in for the male) is shown as being able to control his environment (the temperature) and being unable to sympathize with the lizard's/female's complaints of discomfort. This doesn't account for the fact that most men experience their lives as individuals who, on most levels, do not have this amount of control and experience plenty of discomfort.

The lizard/female is shown as too weak to turn the knob herself. Really. I don't think I have to explain that one. I think one of the things that could help the feminist movement is if they stopped and looked at the conditions of women in this century as opposed to continuing to push a worldview that might've been true at the beginning of the last century. (Although I think it might've been fictional then as well.)

Mickey wrote: "I found the analogy disturbing on a couple of different points, and since it is now a part of this discussion, I thought I would comment on some of the problems I had with this analogy, because I think it shows some of the thinking that makes most women recoil from the feminist movement.
..."

Using too fine a comb on it, it is, after all, only a metaphor.
However, for a lot of women it is true that they have much less control over the environment than the men in their world do. And they do live in a world that is shaped by male ideas.
See the post above.

And there simply is an insurmountable communications gab from one individual to the other, but more so from gender to the other.


Angela wrote: "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... ..."

Well, I can see where she comes from.
And I would agree with her that all ruling religions we know now are purely patriarchal instruments of power. What I disagree with is her proposed solution (no problem for me, I don't believe in the existence of a deity), if simply abandoning it is all she has to offer I wonder what exactly she intends to tell those caught in religious controlled societies-
Stop fighting, stop trying to change the way religion works, just pack up and leave?

@Gerd, It struck me as more of a rant than any sort of constructive piece of writing meant to outline measures of reform.

@Mickey, I liked the "privileged" blog post, but not so much as a model for men and women in an egalitarian society. More for the minority groups who are at a clear disadvantage (African Americans, Muslims, Atheists, and other minorities who are often thoughtlessly discriminated against).

I am a privileged white girl in that I do not have to worry about policeman pulling me over due to racial profiling. Also, I think being a Muslim after 9-11 would be really hard. USA voters are much more likely to elect a Woman for president than an Atheist or a Muslim. Religious discrimination is alive and well in the United States.

Angela wrote: "@Gerd, It me struck as more of a rant than any sort of constructive piece of writing meant to outline measures of reform."

That's what I don't like about internet rants- they are so useless, 'cept for a bit of venting. :)

Mickey wrote: "I found the analogy disturbing on a couple of different points..."

Lol, if you look at it like that, then yes, it's a very poor analogy.

Thing is, it's not especially about gender bias, but about oppression in general, and is aimed particularly at people who are well and truly ignorant of the needs of others, like the guy in the blog saying “that’s a privilege? I would love if a group of women did that to me.” or maybe someone who uses 'gay' as an insult, saying 'it's just a word' when called on it. The basic idea is that we sometimes can't understand what's offensive to other people because we haven't dealt with the kind of problems that they have.

Meanwhile, Emma posted the article to explain what she meant by 'privilege', which is different in the brand of academic jargon that she's using than it is in everyday usage, as demonstrated by the article. That's pretty typical for academia... you probably wouldn't know what I mean by 'negative reinforcement' either unless you'd cracked open a psychology book at some point. (It's when you encourage someone's behavior by taking away something they don't like.)

Gerd wrote: "Using too fine a comb on it, it is, after all, only a metaphor.
However, for a lot of women it is true that they have much less control over the environment than the men in their world do. "

When a person uses a metaphor in order to explain the way a concept works, it has to accurately reflect the situation or it fails to do its job.

What do you mean when you say that women have less control over their environment? In what sense?

Mickey wrote: "What do you mean when you say that women have less control over their environment? In what sense?
..."

In the sense that the power lies usually in the hands of men, they hold more authoritative power than women do in most places. The majority of laws is shaped after male needs and wants.

We live, all in all, still pretty much in a man’s world.

Though, I have to give you this:
Where the metaphor falls short is that it lumps together all men into one unified force and same all women, it's like trying to view feminists as a singular body or movement, it just doesn't work.

And there naturally are men that happily would like to change the house to make it more accommodating to both parties, but lack the power to do so, as there are women that hold more power than men in their field.

Kali wrote: "The lizard didn't represent women specifically, she represented any group who lack privilege. I think Josh explained it best."

Thanks. I was just thinking, similarly to the 'negative reinforcement' I mentioned, this is a kind of negative privilege, where instead of having an easier life because you have stuff that others don't, you don't have to deal with problems that others do.

Edited to add: When we're talking about a pervasive problem that someone has to deal with on a daily basis it's very easy to underestimate the negative impact that it can have, from either the privileged or non-privileged side of the fence. (For instance, if one person insults you, most people can shrug it off; not so much when it comes from everyone you know.) Emma's disagreement with me is partly that she thinks I don't fully comprehend this concept. My disagreement with her is that I think attacking Twilight and books like it serves to add to the negativity directed at women.

I think to say that the author did not intend this metaphor to include or even explain male privilege in particular is not accurate. It doesn't fit and it doesn't work, but, as I've said before, if you examine it closely, you'll see some of the more common misconceptions feminists have about male/female relations. It's misjudgements like these that keep them a minority among the people they claim to represent. This is directly from the blog:

And that [male's] response [to the catcalling example], right there, is a perfect shining example of male privilege.

To explain how and why, I am going to throw a lengthy metaphor at you. In fact, it may even qualify as parable. Bear with me, because if it makes everything crystal clear, it will be worth the time...

This is the introduction to the story. I would also say that the author strengthened the impression of the male/female association further by making the dog a 'he' and the lizard a 'she'. Really, I'm a little disappointed, because I think it's obvious that the blogger meant to describe specifically male privilege and it seems a little willful to deny it.

Another thing that bothered me about this parable was its intended moral. The wildly different animals with different needs, the inability to adjust so that everyone could be comfortable, I feel that these were exaggerated in order to drive home the point: You cannot understand another's point of view. This parable is not a call for empathy. On the contrary, this parable is to show that empathy is impossible, because our differences are greater than our similarities. But is this really the case? I don't believe so.

I think it's funny that the blog ends with the plea that if a minority member comes to you, and asks you to change something you've written or created, you should just oblige because you can't understand where they're coming from. If I contacted this person who wrote the blog, and I told her my reasons for finding this post (especially this parable) offensive, do you think she would follow her own advice?

Edit: In reality, I wouldn't ask her to change anything. I don't believe in sanitizing people's work.

Gerd wrote: " The majority of laws is shaped after male needs and wants."

Can you give me some specific examples of laws that serve male (but not female) needs and wants, Gerd?

Kali wrote: "Mickey, I wonder why you seem to disagree so strongly? I don't mean that as a challenge or criticism, simply as curiosity. I don't understand where you're coming from, and I would like to. "

With the parable? I gave my reasons. What don't you understand? I'll try to explain it.



I don't think we should open up the abortion issue. That's way too divisive.

Mickey wrote: "I think to say that the author did not intend this metaphor to include or even explain male privilege in particular is not accurate."

Due to the poor fit of the metaphor I suspect that the author borrowed the analogy, or at least aspects of it, from somewhere else. You might see what I mean if instead of asking 'does the metaphor fit gender relations?', you ask, 'in what situation would the metaphor be useful?'

When I said that it wasn't 'especially' meant to explain gender relations particularly I was referring to the possibility that it was meant to explain all kinds of oppression including gender bias.

Mickey wrote: "Can you give me some specific examples of laws that serve male (but not female) needs and wants, Gerd?"

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I can think of a couple examples. Of course, the law differs from place to place, but consider laws concerning abortion and also maternity leave. These are situations in which the laws (or the lack of them) affect women in a way that they don't affect men.

Mickey wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Can you give me some specific examples of laws that serve male (but not female) needs and wants, Gerd?"

Sexual assault in marriage.
Work regulations.
Economic (money) regulations.

(I'm not sure which generation you belong to, so our mileage may vary because in spite of my opinion of the judicial system there luckily has been some change over the years)

Actually one could say that as a women once you are married you get screwed.



Mickey wrote: "I think it's funny that the blog ends with the plea that if a minority member comes to you, and asks you to change something you've written or created, you should just oblige because you can't understand where they're coming from. If I contacted this person who wrote the blog, and I told her my reasons for finding this post (especially this parable) offensive, do you think she would follow her own advice?
..."

Tee-hee, fair point.



Josh wrote: "My disagreement with her is that I think attacking Twilight and books like it serves to add to the negativity directed at women.
..."

How so?

Nora wrote: "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..."

yes yes yes so right!

Bella is one of the weakest female characters I've ever read, and that's not the kind of influence I wish girls had nowadays.

And I don't even know if the author wished it to be this way.. as in "fighting feminism".. I just believe that's the way she is, and the way she believes the world goes and should go. I don't think she even realizes how demeaning to women this character is. And to me, that's the saddest.

I think Twilight has a damaging effect on young girls who read it. It sets unrealistic expectations and gives them the impression that it is normal, and even desirable, for your boyfriend to watch everything you do and monitor all of your contact with others. She blatantly abandons all of her friends when he comes along and when he leaves she sinks into a depression for months! After a relationship that lasted about a year! I don't agree that the heroine of a novel has to set some kind of example and I don't believe in censorship but the alarming thing is that young girls and even grown women who read twilight don't seem to just be enjoying the story, they seem to think that this kind of a relationship is the ideal when really it could not be further from the truth. I say let them enjoy the hype but younger readers should be warned that it is just a story and that the content is not, in any way, appropriate relationship behaviour.

Gerd wrote: "How so?"

Have you seen some of the reviews aimed at these kinds of books? They really often go way beyond harsh criticism into pure hate-rants, and these "reviews" usually seem to be of books written by female authors. They usually aren't solely aimed at the books, but at the authors as well, often using words like "anti-feminist", which once again begs the question of whether you can be a feminist just by claiming to be one. I can probably guide you to a few if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm starting to wonder if we would be seeing the same level of negativity if these books had been written by men. "Of course they would!" people will say, but let's not forget that a male author would most likely have had a male main character. This kind of story has been written by men (and women), but from Edward's point of view for ages without this kind of uproar. This isn't the first time that we've seen popular books aimed at children which portray unrealistic gender-related stereotypes.

Josh wrote: "Gerd wrote: "How so?"

Have you seen some of the reviews aimed at these kinds of books? They really often go way beyond harsh criticism into pure hate-rants, and these "reviews" usually seem to be..."

I think the idea is that some women feel like female authors should be portraying a stronger woman in fiction, or at least one that does something.

I also think in the case of Twilight that the whole anti-feminist thing has become just another insult to throw at the book because they can. I think it has more to do with the lead character being a female and not the author being one. It's like a buz word for any book with a female character who makes decisions and has a personality you disagree with.

The only books I've every read that I really thought were anti-feminist were the first two books of the Left Behind Series. Women are treated pretty badly by the authors. Example: For some reason both the male leads are allowed to keep their jobs, but the female lead is told she's not allowed to take classes at the local college like she wants to. Instead, they tell her the only education she'll be getting is in the church. A woman becomes the boss of one of the main characters. He proceeds to humiliate her in front of all her employees and undermine her authority at almost every turn. The authors portray that as something perfectly fine, and even a good thing. It was like it was a personal victory for the MC. The only other female in the series that I ran into before I stopped reading was constantly being thought poorly of and I have a feeling was probably going to end up being the Whore of Babylon. Then there's this bizarre hared the authors have for women who war sensible shoes. Those, I felt were anti-feminist, because the women's decisions and personal choices weren't being taken seriously by the male characters. The women themselves weren't being taken seriously. Every time one tries to assert themselves a male character, usually the protagonist, would come along and put them back in their place.

A lot of thrillers treat women as objects and yet, I rarely hear anyone call them anti-feminist.

That's true.
My guess is that for one we are so used for male authors to write misogynist scenarios and/or characters that we’ve more seldom feel the need to point it out.

And for other these kinds of books are more likely to draw readers that don’t mind to read this kind of stuff, not to say they read it because of that.

no. not at all. its just the way Bella is. There are strong female characters in the books, so i say no.

Angela wrote: "A lot of thrillers treat women as objects and yet, I rarely hear anyone call them anti-feminist."

Good point! I think there are a couple of reasons for this, actually.

Books that treat women as objects (I'll call them 'manly books') and feminist literary criticism* share a common foundation: Both simplify and ultimately de-humanize women. Manly books portray women as objects, reducing them to their uses. Femininst theory portrays women as symbols, reducing them to their 'message'. Feminists might occasionally make a show of critiquing a manly book for having 'the wrong message', but it's not considered a real threat to feminism; They have different demographics.

Books written from a female perspective that do not conform to the ideals of feminism are considered competition. I think the prevailing attitude from women today is that feminism had its uses a few generations ago, but, now that the goals have been achieved, there is no longer any need for it. (This is not my personal view.) I think feminism realizes that it's facing extinction through irrelevance and they are trying hard to hold on to the mystique that they speak for women by engaging in and encouraging the attacking of these types of books and a return to the old rhetoric of the turn of the 20th century. I have a dim memory of a quote I read once that went something like: The heretic, not the barbarian, is the chief enemy of the true faith. The barbarian has no understanding, but the heretic, once in possession of the truth, now perverts and leads astray.



*Disclaimer: I'd like it to be noted that I'm comparing manly books to feminist literary criticism, NOT the works of feminist writers. There are many feminist writers that I like, because they tend to ignore feminist literary criticism themselves.

I was talking about the books earlier and thought of an interesting point. Why do most vampires in twilight seem to be in straight traditional male and female relationships? If we take for granted that the vampires can have sex, and since they are immortal they don't have to worry about pregnancy and S.T.Ds anymore I would imagine that there would lots of promiscuity. I would love to live in a world without sexual judgement and I'm guessing becoming one of the undead would achieve this? Also you'd no longer need to abide by human conventions (unless you wanted to) so you could live as a threesome or a foursome or in a massive communal sex orgy, have as many partners you wanted of either sex.
I think if I got vamped I'd have my own little harem.
I'd really be interested in reading some fiction involving homosexual vampire relationships to see how its handled, so if anyone has any recommendations I'd love to hear them

^ Ha! You're totally describing the vampires from the Sookie Stackhouse novels. Sex, sex and more sex. Lots of experimentation and breaking of societal taboos.

Suzanne wrote: "I'd really be interested in reading some fiction involving homosexual vampire relationships to see how its handled, so if anyone has any recommendations I'd love to hear them"

Anne Rice's vampire novels, without a doubt. Much much more so than the Sookie Stackhouse novels, especially since Sookie isn't a vampire and is trying to hold on to her Christian values, while Lestat is a vampire who basically gives up his human hangups fairly quickly after being turned, and there are homosexual relationships throughout the series. Sookie never actually gets involved in all the "Sex, sex and more sex" that Torie mentioned, and honestly that might be a fair description of the tv series, but it's not how I remember the books at all. Though I guess that in all fairness, it's been a while since I read them. Actually it's been even longer since I read the Vampire novels, but my brother absolutely loves them and has read them over a few times. From his descriptions, some of the later books are exactly what you're looking for. Personally I don't really enjoy Anne Rice's writing style and so only got through the first two books, but you might like them.

^ Pam actually has sex with primarily women and has discussed that she has experimented throughout the years and found women to be her preference. Also, in the first book, the shady group hanging around Bill's house had men feeding on men, men sucking on men, and exuded promiscuity. Though yeah, this book doesn't really focus on either of these relationships, but does touch upon them.

Sookie, too, actually has been having a lot of sex--throwing caution and care to the wind. She has sex on porch swings for heaven's sake! Though I do admit, she wouldn't go as far as orgies (though in one of the first books, an orgy almost happens among humans!). The vampires in the book, however, are very promiscuous and could care less about societal boundaries or judgement.

But Anne Rice may be more focused on what you're looking for. I wouldn't know though because I didn't read it.

Torie wrote: " She has sex on porch swings for heaven's sake!..."

Sounds uncomfortable when you think about it, them not being build for it one would have to do a lot of compensations - not that I expect vampires to care a lot about comfort.
And Sook's not entirely human I hear? I guess then she won't care much either...

Valerie wrote: "Yes.

For the reasons you said, and more.

For example, the situation with Leah and her inability to bear children... it blatantly says she isn't "as female as she should be" and that's why she..."

I think bella is a bad-ass in a quiet sort of way..what teenager would willing go to her death ( when she meets james in the ballet studio)..In new moon she flies all the way to italy to save Edward knowing she may not return..in eclipse she cuts herself to draw Victorias attention to her not Edward..and in breaking dawn she definately could of had an abortain instead of risked her life for her unborn child and in the end she is the one that saves them all... i think we all don't have to be in your face types of bad-ass, but the quiet and strong types willing to face death to protect the ones she loves

Just because a woman wants to dedicate her life to her man doesn't mean she's anti-feminist.

The whole point of the whole "feminism" thing isn't for women to be like men, because we aren't. It's to give us a choice to do what we want.

Bella's choice is to be with Edward. So she makes it happen. She's clumsy and whiny, but she's brave (if damn crazy) for the the man she loves.

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 ..."

Yeah, I agree. She's not 100% weak. Like who wouldn't be utterly devastated after their boyfriend (especially a guy like Edward) left you? It's just natural to feel that way after a break up. I haven't read the book in SO long so I can't remember any particular examples from the novel that prove that she is strong. I think Rosalie's a tough one and Alice too.
I read Margaret Atwood's novel, The Handmaid's Tale for grade 12 English... I'm not into those dystopian books. I prefer a book to take me into a world of imagination: adventure, romance, magic and not of opression, fear and insanity :/ I could never really 'get into' those books, same goes for 1984.

He doesn't control her. If you read the books. She does everything he doesn't want her to do.

He is overprotective because he is indestructible and she's human.

I'm just saying, Belly and Edward being in love isn't a cry against feminism.

Bella*

In my opinion...it's all in how you read it. I never read Bella as weak...and I never read her character as anti-feminist. I read a story about true love...which yes, can be a bit melodramatic at times.

In the words of dionthesocialist:
"Twilight isn’t saying that all a woman needs in life is a man. It’s saying that all Bella wants in life is Edward, and guess what? She gets him. She makes a choice, every man in her life tells her no, and she spends four books telling them to go fuck themselves. "

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..."

I think Bella is a typical "teenager with no self-esteem". She thinkself herself as dull (of course, there's modesty, but she shouldn't repeat everytime the fact that she's ugly).

I can totally understand why Twilight can seem anti feminist. But.....Bella is a human were as all her adversaries are supernaturals. And when Bella becomes a vamp she saves everybody.....

Lauren wrote: "I can totally understand why Twilight can seem anti feminist. But.....Bella is a human were as all her adversaries are supernaturals. And when Bella becomes a vamp she saves everybody....."

So, it's actually anti-human then? :)

GERD! You are totally correct. Why is it in all these PNR or UF books humans are always the weak ones? When are humans going to have some kind of power that is like kryptonite to supernaturals? I'm sick of wishing I was a fairy or a witch. (I really would prefer not to be a vamp or were.....just a side note...)

Hardly any of the women in that novel had any choices: Leah, Rosalie, and all the poor girls that the wolves imprinted on. And Bella is viewed as weak, clumsy, dependent. It's sad, really. Plus all the female vamps have power of the mind, like Alice. Roses' only power is beauty. Leah, if you notice, is the only vampire who didn't imprint. PLus all the women are whiny. Then Edward is older, white, stronger, intelligent. It's a little down on women, even if it doesn't mean to be

Mental powers aren't less awesome than physical powers.

And you're right Bella is viewed as weak, clumsy and dependent. People tend to ignore her good traits and emphasize all the wrong decisions she made.

Leah wasn't the only werewolf that didn't imprint (if I recall correctly, Embry, Seth, Colin and Brady have not yet imprinted); although I do wish we got to see Leah happy though.

Edward is older, stronger, intelligent but so are all the other Cullens. Three of which happen to be female.

Lauren wrote: "When are humans going to have some kind of power that is like kryptonite to supernaturals? I'm sick of wishing I was a fairy or a witch."

Seems like a really good point to me. But while recently supernaturals have changed and seem to have fewer or lesser weaknesses, I think that in older stories most supernaturals had some major weakness that humans could exploit.

For fairies iron is generally poisonous to them; I've read stories where they can't even be near it. Katherine Kerr uses the most extreme example I can think of; in some of her stories, every time someone meets the sidhe (another word for fairies; apparently it's pronounced "she") while wearing iron, even just a belt buckle, the sidhe pretty much leave asap because it causes them pain. The stories of hers which feature sidhe the most are The Westlands Cycle, which is set after the Deverry series, which starts with Daggerspell.

For witches there's a lot of variation, but water is the most common thing I think. Mostly water will at least dispel magic, but for a really extreme example, there's The Wizard of Oz, which you probably already know about. I guess that on the off chance that you don't know what I'm talking about, I shouldn't tell you exactly how powerful water is against witches in this story.

(Incidentally, sunlight seems like a major thing against vampires if you think about it... Twilight is unusual there, even by today's standards. For weres silver is generally poisonous, and I recall reading somewhere that throwing an article of clothing, like a scarf, at a were would cause them to change back to human form.)

So yeah... books where supes don't go around bullying humans can be found. I'm sure there are still people today writing with these tropes as well... don't know of many who've written in the uf/pnr genre though. Oh hey... something to check out: Blessed With Suck. Tvtropes is generally an awesome site, and if you can't find what you're looking for in the literature section on that particular page (there's a link after the actual article), you might find it on another related page.

On a slightly different tangent, it seemed to me as if a big part of a woman's worth in twilight was her ability to have children. It was a big part of almost all of the female character’s personalities; Leah, Esme, Rosalie, Bella... Not every woman wants to be a mother and this was not represented.

All the Twilight books are misogynistic as hell, and Edward and Bella's dream romance is quite abusive and unhealthy. Funny how so many females seem to think it's the ideal, huh?

Kali wrote: "We've moved on from discussing whether or not the books are "anti-feminist".

There's a wonderful essay on Edward and Bella's relationship here, which I'll quote in full below;

A general dislike o..."

*Applauding*

That is one of the greatest things I've ever read. Thank you for sharing!

Zoraida wrote: "He doesn't control her. If you read the books. She does everything he doesn't want her to do.

He is overprotective because he is indestructible and she's human.

I'm just saying, Belly and Edwar..."

1. Vampires are not impervious to harm.

2. Being stronger than someone does not give you the right to attempt to control them.

3. Just because Bella doesn't always do what Edward commands, that doesn't mean he isn't trying to control her. That's like saying, "Well, that guy tried to kill his girlfriend, but since he passed out drunk and dropped the knife before he got to her, he's really an OK guy."

Please.

Jo wrote: "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..."

You're absolutely right, she is the typical teenage girl with no self-esteem; perfect prey for an abusive man.