Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
Alex wrote: "Furthermore, I agree that I am in some respects the enemy and that I've become a bit of a middle-class educated snob. I don't think that makes my arguments wrong but it adds a certain colour to what I'm saying.
Yeah, your post was kinda risky...as soon as I saw it I knew it was going to get some backlash for "OMG YOU'RE PUTTING THEM IN A BOX..." While you never explicitly did that, the way you worded your posts did kind of imply it. Like you said, though, it doesn't make your arguments wrong....but the tone of a post, I think, has a huge impact on the response.
Yeah, your post was kinda risky...as soon as I saw it I knew it was going to get some backlash for "OMG YOU'RE PUTTING THEM IN A BOX..." While you never explicitly did that, the way you worded your posts did kind of imply it. Like you said, though, it doesn't make your arguments wrong....but the tone of a post, I think, has a huge impact on the response.
Jocelyn wrote: Which is understandable, of course. BUT it can really derail the discussion by people taking offense simply by misinterpreting something.
While I do agree that Alex may come off as really rude and arrogant, I don't remember him explicitly putting people into a box because of their occupation, or thinking less of the people who made that choice, though he did kind of imply it. I don't think he should have worded it in such a way that it came off as condescending to the rest of you guys, but his main point isn't that people who have certain occupations are idiots and should have done something to get out of that occupation.
I agree that Alex's posts do make him come off as a snob at times, and like he's masking his personal preferences under the guise of making an intellectual approach to things, and that him implying that people who make certain choices show a lack of ambition and discipline was rude--but his main point, that he's glad he has the job he does now, is pretty harmless. ..."
...then why exactly was it originally so harmful to say that some women might be glad that they made the choice to be a housewife? (Oh, I forgot...because THAT choice is the inauthentic one.)
There was someone earlier in the discussion that commented that people should just say what they have to say and own their words after it has been said. I think I agree with that.
I don't want to be even more anal and go back and quote exact statements that were made....but some of them were derogatory and offensive. I did not misunderstand them and some of it was much more than just "implied". Some of those statements were quite clear.
If I come off as a bully for it, fine. Maybe this will lead to someone deciding to read even more about feminism in general and make more informed choices about what they will and won't subscribe to within the movement. Question everything...even things that start off with seemingly good intentions. They can go to dystopian levels of awry very quickly.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote:
Which is understandable, of course. BUT it can really derail the discussion by people taking offense simply by misinterpreting something.
While I do agree that Alex may come off ..."
I do agree that the post might have come off as derogatory...I agree with you on that, though on a much lower level. I definitely don't think Alex should have worded his post the way he did. I mean, I even was a little "Wait a minute, my GRANDPARENTS had those jobs, and they're honorable people..." That was actually my biggest problem with Alex's post--the way he worded it. I didn't find the actual content of the post to be totally offensive, though.
No, you didn't come off as a bully for it at all, though it may be just me because most of your posts aren't directed at me. But overall I think you were pretty civil about it.
Though a little back...well, you can see how failed my attempt was at tip-toeing around stuff, trying not to offend everyone I possibly can...and in the end, it backfired on me because it's impossible to please everyone. I would imply this annoying thing, I would imply that annoying thing, and in the end it was just pointless.
Which is understandable, of course. BUT it can really derail the discussion by people taking offense simply by misinterpreting something.
While I do agree that Alex may come off ..."
I do agree that the post might have come off as derogatory...I agree with you on that, though on a much lower level. I definitely don't think Alex should have worded his post the way he did. I mean, I even was a little "Wait a minute, my GRANDPARENTS had those jobs, and they're honorable people..." That was actually my biggest problem with Alex's post--the way he worded it. I didn't find the actual content of the post to be totally offensive, though.
No, you didn't come off as a bully for it at all, though it may be just me because most of your posts aren't directed at me. But overall I think you were pretty civil about it.
Though a little back...well, you can see how failed my attempt was at tip-toeing around stuff, trying not to offend everyone I possibly can...and in the end, it backfired on me because it's impossible to please everyone. I would imply this annoying thing, I would imply that annoying thing, and in the end it was just pointless.
Kirby wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "So what was decided? Are people who dislike Twilight obsessed with Twilight?I say no, the people who merely dislike it are not. Those who vehemently hate it, though? That..."
That is the epitome of obsessive, imo. I don't know if I could devote an entire blog for two years to a book that I despised. That would force me to have to read it everyday. I'm not seeing the sense in that.
Jocelyn wrote: I do agree that the post might have come off as derogatory...I agree with you on that, though on a much lower level. I definitely don't think Alex should have worded his post the way he did. I mean, I even was a little "Wait a minute, my GRANDPARENTS had those jobs, and they're honorable people..." That was actually my biggest problem with Alex's post--the way he worded it. I didn't find the actual content of the post to be totally offensive, though.No, you didn't come off as a bully for it at all, though it may be just me because most of your posts aren't directed at me. But overall I think you were pretty civil about it.
Though a little back...well, you can see how failed my attempt was at tip-toeing around stuff, trying not to offend everyone I possibly can...and in the end, it backfired on me because it's impossible to please everyone. I would imply this annoying thing, I would imply that annoying thing, and in the end it was just pointless.."
People react to things differently and you are right, you won't be able to please everyone. Especially, when you're trying to agrue the merits of something so broad and varied as the topic of feminism. Everything, even being offended by something, is subjective and personal. Rush Limbaugh referring to Sandra Fluke as a slut may not have been offensive some, certainly not to his supporters....but just because some say that they didn't find anything offensive in him doing it, does that really mean that it actually wasn't?
Wow, reading the Wiki page on that guy can make you a supporter for the death penalty all on its own. :/
@ Mocha Spresso
You're right. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to be offended, or you don't have a right to let others know that you're offended, btw, just to make sure.
Is it that Alex doesn't seem to be putting in any effort not to offend anyone that bothers you? It's hard to think from that perspective because, since for the most part I agree with him, it's slightly more difficult to find anything offensive to me.
You're right. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to be offended, or you don't have a right to let others know that you're offended, btw, just to make sure.
Is it that Alex doesn't seem to be putting in any effort not to offend anyone that bothers you? It's hard to think from that perspective because, since for the most part I agree with him, it's slightly more difficult to find anything offensive to me.
I dislike Twilight.I'm not obsessed by it, I'm just bored, and most of discussions here are about Twilight.
So that's why I talk a lot crap about it.
Sorry?
Mickey wrote: "Although I would also like to point out the irony that in the thread titled "Is Twilight Antifemenist (sic)?", we are discussing an obsessive blogger and on "Are People who dislike the book obsessed?" the discussion is about feminism."oh, I can't believe I didn't notice that! that's actually pretty funny, although it does- as you said- make it much more difficult to remember who said what where.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "That is the epitome of obsessive, imo. I don't know if I could devote an entire blog for two years to a book that I despised. That would force me to have to read it everyday. I'm not seeing the sense in that. "it would also appear that the woman sells t-shirts...I find it even more mind-boggling that so many people are actually spending money to proclaim their hatred of twilight.
Zoran wrote: "I dislike Twilight.I'm not obsessed by it, I'm just bored, and most of discussions here are about Twilight.
So that's why I talk a lot crap about it.
Sorry?"
yeah, a lot of my favorite books have no discussions at all...that's maybe part of the reason I've started reading more YA- they always have more discussions.
Jocelyn wrote: @ Mocha SpressoYou're right. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to be offended, or you don't have a right to let others know that you're offended, btw, just to make sure.
Is it that Alex doesn't seem to be putting in any effort not to offend anyone that bothers you? It's hard to think from that perspective because, since for the most part I agree with him, it's slightly more difficult to find anything offensive to me.."
I actually appreciated the fact that Alex showed his true colors. I actually prefer the direct honesty....even when I find that I don't agree with what is being said. Did I find his manner of delivery offensive? Yes, but I am actually more concerned with his position on the issue rather than with his manner of delivery. In other words, had he sugar coated things for me, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the discussion. It would have been exactly the same. (Which is what I suspect happened to you in this discussion. Trying to tip-toe doesn't help when it is with what you are saying that people so vehemently disagree with.)
I will speak frankly, too. Based on what I read in this discuusion, the feminist agenda that you and Alex seem to subscribe to is one that favors upper and middle class white women who choose career above all else. It doesn't serve women with families to consider(..of any socio-economic level and it especially doesn't serve housewives). It also most certainly doesn't serve poor women or even some minorities.
Why? Because how much help can you really be to someone if you are also too busy looking down your nose at them? You say that you don't intend to...but your comments have clearly demonstrated that you do. It is clear that you find the lives that they lead, some of the choices they make and some of the jobs that they have distasteful. How exactly is that mindset helpful to ALL women? You say you want "more" for them...but only if "more" involves thinking like you and making the choices that you would make. If a woman's personal "more" involves having a family, she is seen as part of the problem and her choice is automatically dismissed as being "inauthentic". You focus on how gender bias might influence life choices, but it seemed that Alex, at least, also adamantly refused to acknowledge how classism (and racism bias, btw) in society have just as much affect and influence on the choices (or lack of choice) that women may have, if not more. He dismissed the notion as "crap". The worst part is that you don't see how your brand of feminism only seems to encourage division. I can't embrace a philosophy that excludes certain women and I certainly can't embrace one that looks down on them based on the job that they have or how much money they make or how much education they have.
Like I said before, you seem to be a very intelligent you lady. Don't take any of this too personally. Feel free to believe what you want to believe and feel free to voice opinions. Just try to make sure that those beliefs are grounded in some form of truth (meaning that they were not formed via some misconception or pre-concieved notion)..and be prepared for the possibilty that you may have to defend them to those who don't agree after they are voiced.
I will speak frankly, too.
Sure, I'd love that. I value honesty and straightforwardness in a debate more than anything. (Which may seem hypocritical of me since I've frequently danced around the point a lot, but whatever.)
Based on what I read in this discuusion, the feminist agenda that you and Alex seem to subscribe to is one that favors upper and middle class white women who choose career above all else.
Ha, that would be weird of me, seeing as I'm not white, and I'm not upper class.
I don't know about Alex, but my main point is: women should consider everything before making a choice. That's all. Alex may have some more to say on the subject, but for me, that's pretty much it.
I'm not sure about "feminism agenda." It's not like we're laying out a specific "plan" for women to follow or anything, right? Or me, at least. I do understand that the supposedly "low-paying" jobs like trash collector, etc. form a backbone of the economy, and undoubtedly plays a huge role in how the world functions. I'd like to clarify a bit...I respect those occupations. Dude, my grandfather was a warehouse worker who collected trash.
Like I said: I'm fine with housewifery. I apologize if I danced around a bit too much in this discussion, but my main point is very simple: women should be careful about what they choose to do in life. That's it. Like you pointed out before, a woman's choice to have a career can be just as inauthentic as a woman who chooses to be a housewife. It goes both ways. Remember the line of doctors thing? I also said that if a woman came from a line of doctors and was being "forced" to be a doctor, she should still consider everything.
Why? Because how much help can you really be to someone if you are also too busy looking down your nose at them?
I'm not going to speak for Alex here, but...do I really look down on them?
My grandmother was a housewife.
My great-grandmother was a housewife.
My mom used to be a housewife.
My friend's mom is a housewife.
And I respect them all. My view is that...there's nothing wrong with housewifery. Really, I even think it's quite honorable of them to do so. It's very selfless to devote your life to someone else. How is that not respectable? I agree with you on this, that there is nothing wrong with housewifery.
I'm not sure it's a matter of "helping" them...I'm mostly here debating feminism because 1) I enjoy it, since it's quite entertaining, and 2) I want to learn more about it, and hear what other people have to say.
You say that you don't intend to...but your comments have clearly demonstrated that you do. It is clear that you find the lives that they lead, some of the choices they make and some of the jobs that they have distasteful. How exactly is that mindset helpful to ALL women
I don't find their lives distasteful at all. It kinda depends on context...if they do it because of patriarchy and all that, yes, I will find it distasteful. If they make a choice to do so while knowing all of their options, I won't find it distasteful at all. If anything, I'd respect them more because of it.
You say you want "more" for them...but only if "more" involves thinking like you and making the choices that you would make.
Want more? Eh, I guess you can see it that way. I think I would better like woman to SEE more, not for ME to want more for THEM. It doesn't really involve making the choices I would make--hell, I'm thirteen years old, what am I doing ordering around grown women? That would be really stupid of me. Of course I would never do that.
If a woman's personal "more" involves having a family, she is seen as part of the problem and her choice is automatically dismissed as being "inauthentic".
No, I only think it's inauthentic if they make a blind choice without considering everything. That's all. Just like you and everyone else here who argued for housewifery, I have family members and friends that I fully respect for making that choice.
You focus on how gender bias might influence life choices, but it seemed that Alex, at least, also adamantly refused to acknowledge how classism (and racism bias, btw) in society have just as much affect and influence on the choices (or lack of choice) that women may have, if not more.
I guess I was really unclear.
I don't agree with everything Alex says. He's got a much more radical approach to things than I do. I agree with him for the most part, but on a lower level.
All the things you listed DO have effects on people's choices. Forgive me if I've ever said anything else...if you don't know yet, I'm ADHD and tend to ramble.
(I'm not using my disorder as an excuse, btw, just saying that sometimes I don't think about things before I post them, and then I look back and think, WTF did I just do there?)
Mostly though, I think I was narrowing the topic to gender bias, partly because it's more relevant to the feminism/antifeminism associated with Twilight. I'm not saying that you're a terrible person for generalizing the topic or anything, I just don't remember me refusing to acknowledge anything...though if I have, let me know.
He dismissed the notion as "crap". The worst part is that you don't see how your brand of feminism only seems to encourage division. I can't embrace a philosophy that excludes certain women and I certainly can't embrace one that looks down on them based on the job that they have or how much money they make or how much education they have.
Good point, I'd never thought of that. I would never support something that excludes a certain group of women or people.
Just to clarify Mocha, I don't recall ever implying that the people who make less money or have jobs that require less education to be somehow...inferior (for lack of a better word, forgive my limited vocabulary please). Saying that people should strive to find what they want to be comfortable in life, or just to be satisfied in life, isn't exactly the same as saying that doing otherwise is bad. If they choose to do something I personally (emphasis on personally, this is not a topic for debate I'm suggesting) consider inauthentic, sure, go ahead. I won't think any less of them for it. Just as long as they consider things and are fully aware that they can do something else if they want.
I do see what you mean...I'll admit that it DOES encourage division. My view for that has always been 1) this is a debate, not some kind of plan to feminize the world, and 2) because even if it was, it will never, ever, eeeeeeeever be possible to "convert" (again, for lack of a better word, excuse my limited vocabulary) every. Single. Woman. On the planet. My, or I guess our, "feminist agenda" as you put it is supposed to "impact" (damn, my limited vocab is really frustrating) women as individuals, not women as a whole, as in like a single group. I focus more on women as individuals, while you focus on them as a whole.
Like I said before, you seem to be a very intelligent you lady.
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
Don't take any of this too personally.
Eh, don't worry. Nothing in your post was a personal attack...if anything it was a pretty enjoyable rebuttal and made me rethink some stuff.
..and be prepared for the possibilty that you may have to defend them to those who don't agree after they are voiced.
Nothing wrong with a nice conversation. :)
Sure, I'd love that. I value honesty and straightforwardness in a debate more than anything. (Which may seem hypocritical of me since I've frequently danced around the point a lot, but whatever.)
Based on what I read in this discuusion, the feminist agenda that you and Alex seem to subscribe to is one that favors upper and middle class white women who choose career above all else.
Ha, that would be weird of me, seeing as I'm not white, and I'm not upper class.
I don't know about Alex, but my main point is: women should consider everything before making a choice. That's all. Alex may have some more to say on the subject, but for me, that's pretty much it.
I'm not sure about "feminism agenda." It's not like we're laying out a specific "plan" for women to follow or anything, right? Or me, at least. I do understand that the supposedly "low-paying" jobs like trash collector, etc. form a backbone of the economy, and undoubtedly plays a huge role in how the world functions. I'd like to clarify a bit...I respect those occupations. Dude, my grandfather was a warehouse worker who collected trash.
Like I said: I'm fine with housewifery. I apologize if I danced around a bit too much in this discussion, but my main point is very simple: women should be careful about what they choose to do in life. That's it. Like you pointed out before, a woman's choice to have a career can be just as inauthentic as a woman who chooses to be a housewife. It goes both ways. Remember the line of doctors thing? I also said that if a woman came from a line of doctors and was being "forced" to be a doctor, she should still consider everything.
Why? Because how much help can you really be to someone if you are also too busy looking down your nose at them?
I'm not going to speak for Alex here, but...do I really look down on them?
My grandmother was a housewife.
My great-grandmother was a housewife.
My mom used to be a housewife.
My friend's mom is a housewife.
And I respect them all. My view is that...there's nothing wrong with housewifery. Really, I even think it's quite honorable of them to do so. It's very selfless to devote your life to someone else. How is that not respectable? I agree with you on this, that there is nothing wrong with housewifery.
I'm not sure it's a matter of "helping" them...I'm mostly here debating feminism because 1) I enjoy it, since it's quite entertaining, and 2) I want to learn more about it, and hear what other people have to say.
You say that you don't intend to...but your comments have clearly demonstrated that you do. It is clear that you find the lives that they lead, some of the choices they make and some of the jobs that they have distasteful. How exactly is that mindset helpful to ALL women
I don't find their lives distasteful at all. It kinda depends on context...if they do it because of patriarchy and all that, yes, I will find it distasteful. If they make a choice to do so while knowing all of their options, I won't find it distasteful at all. If anything, I'd respect them more because of it.
You say you want "more" for them...but only if "more" involves thinking like you and making the choices that you would make.
Want more? Eh, I guess you can see it that way. I think I would better like woman to SEE more, not for ME to want more for THEM. It doesn't really involve making the choices I would make--hell, I'm thirteen years old, what am I doing ordering around grown women? That would be really stupid of me. Of course I would never do that.
If a woman's personal "more" involves having a family, she is seen as part of the problem and her choice is automatically dismissed as being "inauthentic".
No, I only think it's inauthentic if they make a blind choice without considering everything. That's all. Just like you and everyone else here who argued for housewifery, I have family members and friends that I fully respect for making that choice.
You focus on how gender bias might influence life choices, but it seemed that Alex, at least, also adamantly refused to acknowledge how classism (and racism bias, btw) in society have just as much affect and influence on the choices (or lack of choice) that women may have, if not more.
I guess I was really unclear.
I don't agree with everything Alex says. He's got a much more radical approach to things than I do. I agree with him for the most part, but on a lower level.
All the things you listed DO have effects on people's choices. Forgive me if I've ever said anything else...if you don't know yet, I'm ADHD and tend to ramble.
(I'm not using my disorder as an excuse, btw, just saying that sometimes I don't think about things before I post them, and then I look back and think, WTF did I just do there?)
Mostly though, I think I was narrowing the topic to gender bias, partly because it's more relevant to the feminism/antifeminism associated with Twilight. I'm not saying that you're a terrible person for generalizing the topic or anything, I just don't remember me refusing to acknowledge anything...though if I have, let me know.
He dismissed the notion as "crap". The worst part is that you don't see how your brand of feminism only seems to encourage division. I can't embrace a philosophy that excludes certain women and I certainly can't embrace one that looks down on them based on the job that they have or how much money they make or how much education they have.
Good point, I'd never thought of that. I would never support something that excludes a certain group of women or people.
Just to clarify Mocha, I don't recall ever implying that the people who make less money or have jobs that require less education to be somehow...inferior (for lack of a better word, forgive my limited vocabulary please). Saying that people should strive to find what they want to be comfortable in life, or just to be satisfied in life, isn't exactly the same as saying that doing otherwise is bad. If they choose to do something I personally (emphasis on personally, this is not a topic for debate I'm suggesting) consider inauthentic, sure, go ahead. I won't think any less of them for it. Just as long as they consider things and are fully aware that they can do something else if they want.
I do see what you mean...I'll admit that it DOES encourage division. My view for that has always been 1) this is a debate, not some kind of plan to feminize the world, and 2) because even if it was, it will never, ever, eeeeeeeever be possible to "convert" (again, for lack of a better word, excuse my limited vocabulary) every. Single. Woman. On the planet. My, or I guess our, "feminist agenda" as you put it is supposed to "impact" (damn, my limited vocab is really frustrating) women as individuals, not women as a whole, as in like a single group. I focus more on women as individuals, while you focus on them as a whole.
Like I said before, you seem to be a very intelligent you lady.
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
Don't take any of this too personally.
Eh, don't worry. Nothing in your post was a personal attack...if anything it was a pretty enjoyable rebuttal and made me rethink some stuff.
..and be prepared for the possibilty that you may have to defend them to those who don't agree after they are voiced.
Nothing wrong with a nice conversation. :)
guys, please forgive me if I'm starting to sound like a parrot, but I don't think that anyone ever really answered me about this...I've loved reading this thread, and I feel like some points may have changed my outlook on certain things. however, I still don't understand how twilight is anti-feminist. I'd like to understand what about bella's particular situation and particular choices makes her "uninformed" or "inauthentic" or "anti-feminist." would anyone care to take the arguments that are being made about housewifery in general and apply them to twilight? like, what reasons would we have to think that bella was not aware that she had other options?
Kirby wrote: "guys, please forgive me if I'm starting to sound like a parrot, but I don't think that anyone ever really answered me about this...
I've loved reading this thread, and I feel like some points may ..."
Well, I'll take the honor of being the first to answer. (yay)
The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man.
I'm not saying that since Twilight has no happy singles it's antifeminist...this has a bit to do with what separates literature from real life. It's the portrayal that really gets on my nerves, a kind of annoying subtext that women cannot be happy without their man, or even just a family in general. Portrayal has played a huge role in whether I think Twilight is antifeminist or not. Using exaggeration to emphasize a point, etc. And this is certainly true when Meyer makes Bella jump off a cliff for Edward and make Esme jump off a cliff for...I think it was her lost child? Yeah, her lost child.
I remember someone pointing out in this thread that Bella is not very "girly," as a response to Alex's post about patriarchy and feminity. But Bella IS feminine. She has feminine traits that have been dominant in literature for millennia. The most prominent one being her damsel in distress persona. Also the fact that she's clumsy, a typical "feminine" trait (do you see a lot of clumsy guys in literature, after all?) The general atmosphere and tone in the scenes where Bella is in trouble or in danger (like the thing with James) is sometimes kind of...helpless. Like without Edward, she can't do anything effectively. She can't even think coherently without him. As a reader, and moreover as a female reader, I was thoroughly annoyed by that.
Also, Meyer seems to think that a girl having masculine traits makes them less of a female. Um...no. Just no. As far as I can see, every female character besides Leah Clearwater is "feminine" in some way, or the narration makes it clear she is meant to be some kind of embodiment of feminity. It's kinda the lack of variety of female characters that annoys me--they're all "feminine" in some way. Alice looks like a doll, Bella is clumsy, Esme is sweet and motherly, Emily is gentle, blah blah blah.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views.
I've loved reading this thread, and I feel like some points may ..."
Well, I'll take the honor of being the first to answer. (yay)
The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man.
I'm not saying that since Twilight has no happy singles it's antifeminist...this has a bit to do with what separates literature from real life. It's the portrayal that really gets on my nerves, a kind of annoying subtext that women cannot be happy without their man, or even just a family in general. Portrayal has played a huge role in whether I think Twilight is antifeminist or not. Using exaggeration to emphasize a point, etc. And this is certainly true when Meyer makes Bella jump off a cliff for Edward and make Esme jump off a cliff for...I think it was her lost child? Yeah, her lost child.
I remember someone pointing out in this thread that Bella is not very "girly," as a response to Alex's post about patriarchy and feminity. But Bella IS feminine. She has feminine traits that have been dominant in literature for millennia. The most prominent one being her damsel in distress persona. Also the fact that she's clumsy, a typical "feminine" trait (do you see a lot of clumsy guys in literature, after all?) The general atmosphere and tone in the scenes where Bella is in trouble or in danger (like the thing with James) is sometimes kind of...helpless. Like without Edward, she can't do anything effectively. She can't even think coherently without him. As a reader, and moreover as a female reader, I was thoroughly annoyed by that.
Also, Meyer seems to think that a girl having masculine traits makes them less of a female. Um...no. Just no. As far as I can see, every female character besides Leah Clearwater is "feminine" in some way, or the narration makes it clear she is meant to be some kind of embodiment of feminity. It's kinda the lack of variety of female characters that annoys me--they're all "feminine" in some way. Alice looks like a doll, Bella is clumsy, Esme is sweet and motherly, Emily is gentle, blah blah blah.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views.
Ha, that would be weird of me, seeing as I'm not white, and I'm not upper class.I didn't say you were. I said that the type of feminism that you and he subscribe seems to favor white upper and middle class people while looking down on poor people and minorities.
I don't know about Alex, but my main point is: women should consider everything before making a choice. That's all. Alex may have some more to say on the subject, but for me, that's pretty much it.
That's what you clarified later on in the discussion. That isn't all you initially said, though. But that's ok because I agree with this. Women should definitely consider everything before making a choice.
Bringing this back to Twilight, I think it was you that said that Bella didn't seem to think through all of her choices. I can agree with this to a certain extent. She didn't think jumping off the ledge through. She didn't think going to see James alone through. But I do think she thought very carefully about her decision to be with Edward, her decision to become a vampire and her decision to keep her baby. (I'm not saying that her rationales were valid or that I thought she made all of the right decisions....but I do think that she did seriously consider it.)
Alex mentioned something about some women liking Twilight because they take ownership in some of what happens in the book. That may also be true to a certain extent. I read a forum called TwilightMoms from time to time. (It's just like it sounds, a group of Moms who like Twilight and talk about it.) WARNING, BREAKING DAWN SPOILER.....From a mom's perspective, deciding to have a baby even though you know that it might kill you is in my opinion, one of the bravest and most selfless things that a woman can do. From reading how other Mom's who have read Twilight feel, if there was any other part of the saga that spoke to them, it probably was that part. I also think that anyone who has gone through a terrible pregnancy can probably identify with Bella's amplified 1000 times agonizing pregnancy. I think I could also make a case for over-coming fear as one of Twilight's themes. Bella spends a lot of time doing that in all of the novels. Even that foolish stunt of jumping off the cliff was rather brave. I don't like the fact the she only did it because she wanted to hear Edward's voice. That was sappy...but it was a recreational activity that some of the other Forks residents enjoyed and she was afraid of it. Bella gets critiqued a lot, from myself included. (I thought she was annoying, angsty and whiny, esp. in New Moon) ...but the one criticism that isn't valid imo is referring to her as a pushover or a coward.
I'm not sure about "feminism agenda." It's not like we're laying out a specific "plan" for women to follow or anything, right? Or me, at least. I do understand that the supposedly "low-paying" jobs like trash collector, etc. form a backbone of the economy, and undoubtedly plays a huge role in how the world functions. I'd like to clarify a bit...I respect those occupations. Dude, my grandfather was a warehouse worker who collected trash.
Like I said: I'm fine with housewifery. I apologize if I danced around a bit too much in this discussion, but my main point is very simple: women should be careful about what they choose to do in life. That's it. Like you pointed out before, a woman's choice to have a career can be just as inauthentic as a woman who chooses to be a housewife. It goes both ways. Remember the line of doctors thing? I also said that if a woman came from a line of doctors and was being "forced" to be a doctor, she should still consider everything.
Fair enough, I think Alex said the same thing, sort of. But he didn't just leave it at that. you do understand how an after-comment like "fail at school and be a dustman" or "glad that I do more than collect trash for a living" or "housewives lack ambition" can sort of contradict and even negate all of that?
I'm not going to speak for Alex here, but...do I really look down on them?
My grandmother was a housewife.
My great-grandmother was a housewife.
My mom used to be a housewife.
My friend's mom is a housewife.
And I respect them all. My view is that...there's nothing wrong with housewifery. Really, I even think it's quite honorable of them to do so. It's very selfless to devote your life to someone else. How is that not respectable? I agree with you on this, that there is nothing wrong with housewifery.
agreed.
I'm not sure it's a matter of "helping" them...I'm mostly here debating feminism because 1) I enjoy it, since it's quite entertaining, and 2) I want to learn more about it, and hear what other people have to say.
I don't find their lives distasteful at all. It kinda depends on context...if they do it because of patriarchy and all that, yes, I will find it distasteful. If they make a choice to do so while knowing all of their options, I won't find it distasteful at all. If anything, I'd respect them more because of it.
ok, fair enough.
Want more? Eh, I guess you can see it that way. I think I would better like woman to SEE more, not for ME to want more for THEM. It doesn't really involve making the choices I would make--hell, I'm thirteen years old, what am I doing ordering around grown women? That would be really stupid of me. Of course I would never do that.
I still have a bit of a hang up with the use of the word "more" in that context, but I think I'll just let it go.
No, I only think it's inauthentic if they make a blind choice without considering everything. That's all. Just like you and everyone else here who argued for housewifery, I have family members and friends that I fully respect for making that choice.
ok.
I guess I was really unclear.
I don't agree with everything Alex says. He's got a much more radical approach to things than I do. I agree with him for the most part, but on a lower level.
All the things you listed DO have effects on people's choices. Forgive me if I've ever said anything else...if you don't know yet, I'm ADHD and tend to ramble.
(I'm not using my disorder as an excuse, btw, just saying that sometimes I don't think about things before I post them, and then I look back and think, WTF did I just do there?)
Mostly though, I think I was narrowing the topic to gender bias, partly because it's more relevant to the feminism/antifeminism associated with Twilight. I'm not saying that you're a terrible person for generalizing the topic or anything, I just don't remember me refusing to acknowledge anything...though if I have, let me know.
That part wasn't really directed at you. That was more at Alex.
Just to clarify Mocha, I don't recall ever implying that the people who make less money or have jobs that require less education to be somehow...inferior (for lack of a better word, forgive my limited vocabulary please). Saying that people should strive to find what they want to be comfortable in life, or just to be satisfied in life, isn't exactly the same as saying that doing otherwise is bad. If they choose to do something I personally (emphasis on personally, this is not a topic for debate I'm suggesting) consider inauthentic, sure, go ahead. I won't think any less of them for it. Just as long as they consider things and are fully aware that they can do something else if they want..
To bring it back to Twilight again, I do think Bella was aware of her choices. It was never that she wasn't aware of anything else. Right or wrong, she didn't want anything else.
.
I think the end of Eclipse explains her chose the best.
Edward-- "Your trying to make everyone else happy. Your already giving away too much."
Bella-- Your wrong. It wasn't a choice between you and Jacob. It was between who I should be, and who I am. I've always felt out of step. Like literally stumbling through my life. I never felt normal. Because I'm not normal. I don't want to be. I've had to face death and loss and pain in your world, but I've also never felt stronger. It's(?) like being real, more myself, because it''s my world too. It's where I belong."
Edward-- "So its not just about me?"
Bella-- "No." Laughs "Sorry. I've been a mess trying to figure this out, but I want to do it right. And I want to tie myself to you in every-way humanly possible."
Edward-- "Your trying to make everyone else happy. Your already giving away too much."
Bella-- Your wrong. It wasn't a choice between you and Jacob. It was between who I should be, and who I am. I've always felt out of step. Like literally stumbling through my life. I never felt normal. Because I'm not normal. I don't want to be. I've had to face death and loss and pain in your world, but I've also never felt stronger. It's(?) like being real, more myself, because it''s my world too. It's where I belong."
Edward-- "So its not just about me?"
Bella-- "No." Laughs "Sorry. I've been a mess trying to figure this out, but I want to do it right. And I want to tie myself to you in every-way humanly possible."
Jocelyn wrote: The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man."Do you think this criticism is fair considering that Twilight is a Paranormal Romance novel?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man."Do you think this criticism is fair considering that Twilight is a Paranormal Roman..."
I agree. The other main female characters in the book were (for the most part) Rosalie, Alice, and Esme. Their relationships were already established. They'd been together for years. Of course they're going to be attached to their husbands--not to mention their 'heightened' emotions. I know some people don't like that argument, but it was a fact in the book.
I do not see the point in arguing about Twilight.Okay never mind, technically, one could argue about anything but the Twilight argument is so overdone. We in the literary world need to move on.
Okay so you hated the book?
Okay so you loved the book?
Yippee wonderfulness, rainbows and butterflies, lets go have a party.
I really do not think it matters.
It's a book. It was made for people to read and enjoy or hate. It's in the Young Adult section. I read it when I first turned twelve and I loved it! Why? Because it was made for twelve year olds and I found it interesting. That is, not to say, that other age groups can enjoy it. You can be fifty or one hundred and be a crazy twi-hard. If I read it now, I do not think I would like it as much because the writing is a little too juvenile but I really enjoyed Twilight when I first read it.
But then came Breaking Dawn. I hated Breaking Dawn.
I did not like the movies.
Or the splurge of fans.
But I would not consider myself a hater of Twilight. Because what many of my friends seem to forget is that once upon a time, we loved Twilight! A lot. Like visit Meyer's website everyday a lot a lot.
Personally, I give Twilight a good, 2.5 rating (although it says three). The sequels are another story.
I do enjoy it when people discuss Twilight, but I find some of the arguments kind of, well, silly.
And in the end, don't forget you're all arguing about a book.
A book that isn't even that good.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man."Do you think this criticism is fair considering that Twilight is a Paranormal Roman..."
Do you think that it is fair to suggest that an entire genre is equally crappy?
I didn't say you were. I said that the type of feminism that you and he subscribe seems to favor white upper and middle class people while looking down on poor people and minorities.
No, no. I wasn't denying it or anything, I just thought it would be really ironic since I wasn't. It was just a joke.
Now that you point it out...you and Angie and everyone else are right. I take my old comment back....Bella DOES think things through, especially in Eclipse. I think I also remember Stephenie Meyer saying this in an interview--she used to rush into everything without thinking it through. Good point.
Though I'd like to clarify: when I said Bella didn't seem to think through all her choices before choosing Edward, that was from a literary standpoint, not a feminist standpoint or anything else. I felt like Jacob was some kind of distraction and the whole thing didn't really feel genuine, but rather kinda forced and contrived. But that's besides the point. From a feminist standpoint, or just any other standpoint for that matter, yes, Bella does think things through before choosing Edward.
Fair enough, I think Alex said the same thing, sort of. But he didn't just leave it at that. you do understand how an after-comment like "fail at school and be a dustman" or "glad that I do more than collect trash for a living" or "housewives lack ambition" can sort of contradict and even negate all of that?
Let me just ask for clarification--are you referring to Alex's and my arguments and using them interchangeably? Because I didn't say at all that I was glad I didn't collect trash for a living (or, seeing as I'm a teenager, that I'm glad I don't expect to be when I grow up).
Yes, I can see how a comment like that will negate everything I listed up there. But like I said before, I do not agree with Alex 100%--he has a much more radical approach to things than I do. I think, though, that what he said about being glad he didn't collect garbage for a living was on a purely personal level--I don't think he thinks less of any person who makes that choice. There's nothing wrong with being satisfied with what one does have in life either, is there?
(I mean, I can see where you're coming from; I can see how you and Gerd and anyone else would be thoroughly offended by it. This is just my observation; like I said, since I agree with Alex more than I don't, it's harder to think from the other side's perspective.)
No, no. I wasn't denying it or anything, I just thought it would be really ironic since I wasn't. It was just a joke.
Now that you point it out...you and Angie and everyone else are right. I take my old comment back....Bella DOES think things through, especially in Eclipse. I think I also remember Stephenie Meyer saying this in an interview--she used to rush into everything without thinking it through. Good point.
Though I'd like to clarify: when I said Bella didn't seem to think through all her choices before choosing Edward, that was from a literary standpoint, not a feminist standpoint or anything else. I felt like Jacob was some kind of distraction and the whole thing didn't really feel genuine, but rather kinda forced and contrived. But that's besides the point. From a feminist standpoint, or just any other standpoint for that matter, yes, Bella does think things through before choosing Edward.
Fair enough, I think Alex said the same thing, sort of. But he didn't just leave it at that. you do understand how an after-comment like "fail at school and be a dustman" or "glad that I do more than collect trash for a living" or "housewives lack ambition" can sort of contradict and even negate all of that?
Let me just ask for clarification--are you referring to Alex's and my arguments and using them interchangeably? Because I didn't say at all that I was glad I didn't collect trash for a living (or, seeing as I'm a teenager, that I'm glad I don't expect to be when I grow up).
Yes, I can see how a comment like that will negate everything I listed up there. But like I said before, I do not agree with Alex 100%--he has a much more radical approach to things than I do. I think, though, that what he said about being glad he didn't collect garbage for a living was on a purely personal level--I don't think he thinks less of any person who makes that choice. There's nothing wrong with being satisfied with what one does have in life either, is there?
(I mean, I can see where you're coming from; I can see how you and Gerd and anyone else would be thoroughly offended by it. This is just my observation; like I said, since I agree with Alex more than I don't, it's harder to think from the other side's perspective.)
Jocelyn wrote: "Well, I'll take the honor of being the first to answer. (yay)"and I thank you for your prompt response! :)
"The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man."
well, my main problem with this line of reasoning is that (and I believe mickey's pointed this out before) it's not just the women who are like that- it's the men, too. that's the double standard part- it seems to be okay for men to behave that way, but it makes the women weaker. also, (and I think diane was the one to point this out) I think it's important to keep in mind that it's because of the way that twilight vampires love so much more intensely than humans do. their bond becomes powerful, all-consuming, and eternal. it almost seems like some people look at all of the relationships as entirely human. they're not human, so they shouldn't be judged by human standards. if we only look at the human side of it, before bella's move to forks, we're left with a girl who has absolutely zero interest in having a relationship. she has not spent 17 years pining for a love interest.
as for esme, I'm not really following you on how her decision to commit suicide after the death of her infant relates to feminism. can you elaborate on that point, please?
"But Bella IS feminine. She has feminine traits that have been dominant in literature for millennia. The most prominent one being her damsel in distress persona. Also the fact that she's clumsy, a typical "feminine" trait (do you see a lot of clumsy guys in literature, after all?)"
I would say that bella's about middle of the road as far as femininity. what traits in particular are you talking about? the ones that I would point to for countering this point would be the fact that she doesn't wear make-up or jewelry, she doesn't spend a whole lot of time on her wardrobe, and she is not at all a flirt. I will agree that she is somewhat concerned about her appearance, but females hardly have the market cornered on this- there are plenty of vain males.
and, I would say that I've probably encountered at least as many clumsy guys in books as I have girls. in fact, I'd never even heard the idea that clumsiness is a feminine trait. didn't you say that you like the game of thrones series? who would you call the clumsiest character in that series? I would say sam. another book I remember with a clumsy, hapless male character would be "people of the lightning." also, karin slaughter's character will trent is gangly and clumsy. and kurt vonnegut's billy pilgrim is the epitome of awkward and clumsy.
"The general atmosphere and tone in the scenes where Bella is in trouble or in danger (like the thing with James) is sometimes kind of...helpless. Like without Edward, she can't do anything effectively. She can't even think coherently without him. As a reader, and moreover as a female reader, I was thoroughly annoyed by that."
I know this has been said before as well, but I think it bears repeating. bella was helpless because she was human, not because she's female. I think it would be rather silly to expect her to be able to hold her own against nearly indestructible supernatural creatures, at least until she's turned (at which point she goes beyond holding her own and saves everyone). and, yes- her going alone to confront james was perhaps not the most brilliant idea...but, as I've said before- I hold it against her no more than I would against parents who decide to pay kidnappers and not call the police.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to about her not being able to think coherently without him...do you have an example?
and, I 100% understand your annoyance at the character and story. you don't seem to be a romance novel type of girl, which is completely understandable. what I don't understand, however, is how your (and anyone else's) personal annoyance at the character translates into anti-feminism. bella's not your type of girl? that's perfectly fine. but to make judgements like that her existence in the world of literature somehow sets women's rights back a hundred years (I know you didn't say that, but I've seen that term used)...well, y'all just completely and utterly lose me at that point. and, perhaps if I didn't see it made as a statement of fact so often, it wouldn't bother me as much. but I'm not sure I've ever read, "it seems anti-feminist to me." I feel like if I don't agree that it's anti-feminist, I'm judged as just not seeing what's clearly there.
"Also, Meyer seems to think that a girl having masculine traits makes them less of a female. Um...no. Just no. As far as I can see, every female character besides Leah Clearwater is "feminine" in some way, or the narration makes it clear she is meant to be some kind of embodiment of feminity. It's kinda the lack of variety of female characters that annoys me--they're all "feminine" in some way. Alice looks like a doll, Bella is clumsy, Esme is sweet and motherly, Emily is gentle, blah blah blah."
what masculine traits does leah have? and, are you saying that you felt she was demonized for being masculine? if so, in what way?
and, yes- I will concede that many of the characters are one-dimensional and there's not a lot of variety. but that goes for the males as well as the females. if we reduce alice, bella, esme, and emily to such simple terms, we could also reduce emmet to being the hotheaded jock, jasper as the charismatic southern gentleman, carlisle as the charming soap opera doctor, sam as the strong enigmatic native american, charlie as the loving but gruff father, etc, etc. the point I'm trying to make is that this is- AGAIN- a double standard, where the females are treated differently and scrutinized more. as some of us have been saying, that feels wrong. equality, to me, does not mean demanding MORE from female characters than we do from male characters.
and I have to disagree that the narration makes it clear that anyone is supposed to embody femininity. I didn't see it, and many others didn't see it, so I don't see how it could be called "clear." perhaps it seemed that way to you and some others, but I would chalk that more up to it being personal interpretation, not fact.
"Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views."
I understand that, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain them to me. I'm doing my best here to try to understand (regardless of whether I ultimately agree or not) how twilight is a "crime against feminism," and so far I still don't completely understand the rationale behind this. sometimes I think part of it is that so many bloggers (like the previously mentioned "reasoning with vampires") have made it their mission to comb through the books, find issues, and rant about them. I also sometimes wonder if this anti-feminism thing would have picked up such momentum if it wasn't known that meyer is mormon. sometimes it seems to me that people assume that she must be writing subjugated female characters simply due to her religion.
anyway- sorry this ended up so long- I got kinda carried away!
Kirby wrote: "and I thank you for your prompt response! :)"
You're welcome! XD
well, my main problem with this line of reasoning is that (and I believe mickey's pointed this out before) it's not just the women who are like that- it's the men, too. that's the double standard part- it seems to be okay for men to behave that way, but it makes the women weaker. also, (and I think diane was the one to point this out)
For me, the "men do the same thing too" isn't really a problem because, like I pointed out a couple of pages ago, people in general don't think of men as people who deserve "more" rights like women do. I know this is pretty biased--but I think it IS the reason why people never get annoyed at this.
And--again, this is just personal for me--the men in Twilight are active, and the women in Twilight are passive. Also, there's something else with the portrayal of them, like I said before. The guys in Twilight are strong and awesome and all that. The women in Twilight are cute little dolls. (Yes, physical traits DO matter--it's part of the way authors choose to portray characters.) The only exceptions I can think of is Leah Clearwater and Rosalie, and for me they have their own share of feminist "problems," for lack of a better word.
I think it's important to keep in mind that it's because of the way that twilight vampires love so much more intensely than humans do. their bond becomes powerful, all-consuming, and eternal.
But Bella isn't a vampire until Breaking Dawn, and her emotions seem to be pretty intense (jumping off a cliff after being dumped is intense by my standards, as is leaping off motorcycles and going into some kind of zombie state.) But even if it was only Edward who felt more powerfully about it, how would that affect how powerfully Bella feels about him?
it almost seems like some people look at all of the relationships as entirely human. they're not human, so they shouldn't be judged by human standards.
If we're still talking about how women can't be happy without their man, most of the women I mentioned are human. Bella was human when she pulled her suicide stunts. Esme was human before she tried to commit suicide. Etc.
as for esme, I'm not really following you on how her decision to commit suicide after the death of her infant relates to feminism. can you elaborate on that point, please?
I see Esme's suicide attempt as antifeminist as part of a whole. Like standing alone it's okay, but looking at the women in Twilight as a whole, Esme just adds to everything else. Like I said before, many of the women in Twilight besides Leah and Rosalie seem to be some kind of embodiment of feminity, which personally is frustrating.
I would say that bella's about middle of the road as far as femininity. what traits in particular are you talking about? the ones that I would point to for countering this point would be the fact that she doesn't wear make-up or jewelry, she doesn't spend a whole lot of time on her wardrobe, and she is not at all a flirt. I will agree that she is somewhat concerned about her appearance, but females hardly have the market cornered on this- there are plenty of vain males.
I'm not talking about those feminine traits, like obsessions with looks or anything. It's mostly the kind of thing you see a lot in literature--the damsel in distress, the clumsiness, etc.
and, I would say that I've probably encountered at least as many clumsy guys in books as I have girls. in fact, I'd never even heard the idea that clumsiness is a feminine trait. didn't you say that you like the game of thrones series? who would you call the clumsiest character in that series? I would say sam. another book I remember with a clumsy, hapless male character would be "people of the lightning." also, karin slaughter's character will trent is gangly and clumsy. and kurt vonnegut's billy pilgrim is the epitome of awkward and clumsy.
Yeah, I take that back. However, when there are clumsy guys in literature, they're usually treated as unusual in some way. While when women are clumsy, it's treated as not only normal, but cute. (That really annoys the heck out of me.) This is certainly true with Sam in Game of Thrones--Sam keeps saying he's a coward, and Jon Snow admits that he's radically different in this way and that way.
bella was helpless because she was human, not because she's female. I think it would be rather silly to expect her to be able to hold her own against nearly indestructible supernatural creatures, at least until she's turned (at which point she goes beyond holding her own and saves everyone).
I don't mean helpless as in she has to be a total badass like Hermione or Katniss, but she could at least handle things with some dignity. A few pages ago I was talking about how I found it hard to cheer for someone who doesn't actively take a stand for what she believes in. It's fine for her to sob and cry and whine about it, but at SOME point she should have said, "okay, it's time to get up and do something. I love Edward enough that I'm willing to do whatever I can, even if I'm useless compared to the vampires."
As I can see you've read A Game of Thrones as well...Arya Stark did something similar. She was weak compared to the rest of the Lannisters who took over King's Landing, correct? I mean, in this case she's in an even more helpless situation than Bella, and moreover, she's only nine years old. She broke down a bit too, but in the end she got off her ass and did something about it. Even though her sister's betrothed jerk was on the throne, even though the palace was swarming with Lannister guards, even though there was a huge possibility looming right in front of her face that she and her family could die.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to about her not being able to think coherently without him...do you have an example?
Allow me to backtrack for a bit...what I mean is that it's like Bella's physical well-being depends on Edward. In the first book, she refers to him as a life vest. In the second book, well...she has trouble breathing, stumbles more than usual.
and, I 100% understand your annoyance at the character and story. you don't seem to be a romance novel type of girl, which is completely understandable.
That's true, I don't particularly like romance, though I did enjoy Pride and Prejudice. (I think I liked Austen's writing style better, not the romance itself, though.)
what I don't understand, however, is how your (and anyone else's) personal annoyance at the character translates into anti-feminism. bella's not your type of girl? that's perfectly fine.
As I said, it was just my personal thoughts. It translates into antifeminism for me, so of course, a lot of it is going to be personal.
Bella isn't my type of girl, but I've loved and connected with characters that aren't my type of girl either. I liked Elizabeth Bennett from P&P. I liked Galadriel from Lord of the Rings. I liked Catelyn Stark from A Game of Thrones. I even liked Sansa Stark as well despite her damsel in distress-y persona. And none of those are my types of girls.
but to make judgements like that her existence in the world of literature somehow sets women's rights back a hundred years (I know you didn't say that, but I've seen that term used)...well, y'all just completely and utterly lose me at that point. and, perhaps if I didn't see it made as a statement of fact so often, it wouldn't bother me as much. but I'm not sure I've ever read, "it seems anti-feminist to me." I feel like if I don't agree that it's anti-feminist, I'm judged as just not seeing what's clearly there.
I can't deny that, a lot of anti-Twilighters call fans out for being idiots for not seeing the "obvious."
what masculine traits does leah have? and, are you saying that you felt she was demonized for being masculine? if so, in what way?
When I say Leah has masculine traits, I'm talking about how she is a badass. She isn't "demonized" by this, as you put it, but the narration treats her position as the only female wolf in the pack to be strange and super-unique in some way, as if it's "weird" to have masculine traits. Also, she is portrayed as bitter and unlikable, though I'll admit that this does change as the series progresses after her introduction.
and, yes- I will concede that many of the characters are one-dimensional and there's not a lot of variety. but that goes for the males as well as the females. if we reduce alice, bella, esme, and emily to such simple terms, we could also reduce emmet to being the hotheaded jock, jasper as the charismatic southern gentleman, carlisle as the charming soap opera doctor, sam as the strong enigmatic native american, charlie as the loving but gruff father, etc, etc. the point I'm trying to make is that this is- AGAIN- a double standard, where the females are treated differently and scrutinized more. as some of us have been saying, that feels wrong. equality, to me, does not mean demanding MORE from female characters than we do from male characters.
Yeah, you're right--females ARE treated differently and scrutinized differently, especially in literature when readers try to pinpoint the weak characters and rant about them. But again, I think this is kind of reasonable since for thousands of years, males have always been the dominant gender. Also, the lack of variety in the males in Twilight are different than the women. The women are lumped together as feminine, soft, gentle, blah blah blah. The men are lumped together as strong and capable.
and I have to disagree that the narration makes it clear that anyone is supposed to embody femininity. I didn't see it, and many others didn't see it, so I don't see how it could be called "clear." perhaps it seemed that way to you and some others, but I would chalk that more up to it being personal interpretation, not fact.
I know. As I said, these were just my thoughts, not views I was trying to impress on anyone.
But even without the narration, they still seem to embody femininity. Which you can clearly see with their personalities. Esme is soft and gentle, Alice is delicate and playful, Bella is helpless and clumsy.
I understand that, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain them to me.
Ha, you're welcome. It's entertaining to me, spelling out my thoughts for others to interpret.
I'm doing my best here to try to understand (regardless of whether I ultimately agree or not) how twilight is a "crime against feminism," and so far I still don't completely understand the rationale behind this.
I guess it's different for everyone. Part of it depends on personal interpretation, like you said.
sometimes I think part of it is that so many bloggers (like the previously mentioned "reasoning with vampires") have made it their mission to comb through the books, find issues, and rant about them. I also sometimes wonder if this anti-feminism thing would have picked up such momentum if it wasn't known that meyer is mormon. sometimes it seems to me that people assume that she must be writing subjugated female characters simply due to her religion.
I think even without Meyer being a Mormon, it still would have picked up. I thought Twilight was antifeminist before I found out. It might have picked up less, but there'd still be a lot of debate about it.
anyway- sorry this ended up so long- I got kinda carried away!
I like long posts, don't worry. Because the longer they are, the longer they entertain, whether I agree with them or not.
You're welcome! XD
well, my main problem with this line of reasoning is that (and I believe mickey's pointed this out before) it's not just the women who are like that- it's the men, too. that's the double standard part- it seems to be okay for men to behave that way, but it makes the women weaker. also, (and I think diane was the one to point this out)
For me, the "men do the same thing too" isn't really a problem because, like I pointed out a couple of pages ago, people in general don't think of men as people who deserve "more" rights like women do. I know this is pretty biased--but I think it IS the reason why people never get annoyed at this.
And--again, this is just personal for me--the men in Twilight are active, and the women in Twilight are passive. Also, there's something else with the portrayal of them, like I said before. The guys in Twilight are strong and awesome and all that. The women in Twilight are cute little dolls. (Yes, physical traits DO matter--it's part of the way authors choose to portray characters.) The only exceptions I can think of is Leah Clearwater and Rosalie, and for me they have their own share of feminist "problems," for lack of a better word.
I think it's important to keep in mind that it's because of the way that twilight vampires love so much more intensely than humans do. their bond becomes powerful, all-consuming, and eternal.
But Bella isn't a vampire until Breaking Dawn, and her emotions seem to be pretty intense (jumping off a cliff after being dumped is intense by my standards, as is leaping off motorcycles and going into some kind of zombie state.) But even if it was only Edward who felt more powerfully about it, how would that affect how powerfully Bella feels about him?
it almost seems like some people look at all of the relationships as entirely human. they're not human, so they shouldn't be judged by human standards.
If we're still talking about how women can't be happy without their man, most of the women I mentioned are human. Bella was human when she pulled her suicide stunts. Esme was human before she tried to commit suicide. Etc.
as for esme, I'm not really following you on how her decision to commit suicide after the death of her infant relates to feminism. can you elaborate on that point, please?
I see Esme's suicide attempt as antifeminist as part of a whole. Like standing alone it's okay, but looking at the women in Twilight as a whole, Esme just adds to everything else. Like I said before, many of the women in Twilight besides Leah and Rosalie seem to be some kind of embodiment of feminity, which personally is frustrating.
I would say that bella's about middle of the road as far as femininity. what traits in particular are you talking about? the ones that I would point to for countering this point would be the fact that she doesn't wear make-up or jewelry, she doesn't spend a whole lot of time on her wardrobe, and she is not at all a flirt. I will agree that she is somewhat concerned about her appearance, but females hardly have the market cornered on this- there are plenty of vain males.
I'm not talking about those feminine traits, like obsessions with looks or anything. It's mostly the kind of thing you see a lot in literature--the damsel in distress, the clumsiness, etc.
and, I would say that I've probably encountered at least as many clumsy guys in books as I have girls. in fact, I'd never even heard the idea that clumsiness is a feminine trait. didn't you say that you like the game of thrones series? who would you call the clumsiest character in that series? I would say sam. another book I remember with a clumsy, hapless male character would be "people of the lightning." also, karin slaughter's character will trent is gangly and clumsy. and kurt vonnegut's billy pilgrim is the epitome of awkward and clumsy.
Yeah, I take that back. However, when there are clumsy guys in literature, they're usually treated as unusual in some way. While when women are clumsy, it's treated as not only normal, but cute. (That really annoys the heck out of me.) This is certainly true with Sam in Game of Thrones--Sam keeps saying he's a coward, and Jon Snow admits that he's radically different in this way and that way.
bella was helpless because she was human, not because she's female. I think it would be rather silly to expect her to be able to hold her own against nearly indestructible supernatural creatures, at least until she's turned (at which point she goes beyond holding her own and saves everyone).
I don't mean helpless as in she has to be a total badass like Hermione or Katniss, but she could at least handle things with some dignity. A few pages ago I was talking about how I found it hard to cheer for someone who doesn't actively take a stand for what she believes in. It's fine for her to sob and cry and whine about it, but at SOME point she should have said, "okay, it's time to get up and do something. I love Edward enough that I'm willing to do whatever I can, even if I'm useless compared to the vampires."
As I can see you've read A Game of Thrones as well...Arya Stark did something similar. She was weak compared to the rest of the Lannisters who took over King's Landing, correct? I mean, in this case she's in an even more helpless situation than Bella, and moreover, she's only nine years old. She broke down a bit too, but in the end she got off her ass and did something about it. Even though her sister's betrothed jerk was on the throne, even though the palace was swarming with Lannister guards, even though there was a huge possibility looming right in front of her face that she and her family could die.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to about her not being able to think coherently without him...do you have an example?
Allow me to backtrack for a bit...what I mean is that it's like Bella's physical well-being depends on Edward. In the first book, she refers to him as a life vest. In the second book, well...she has trouble breathing, stumbles more than usual.
and, I 100% understand your annoyance at the character and story. you don't seem to be a romance novel type of girl, which is completely understandable.
That's true, I don't particularly like romance, though I did enjoy Pride and Prejudice. (I think I liked Austen's writing style better, not the romance itself, though.)
what I don't understand, however, is how your (and anyone else's) personal annoyance at the character translates into anti-feminism. bella's not your type of girl? that's perfectly fine.
As I said, it was just my personal thoughts. It translates into antifeminism for me, so of course, a lot of it is going to be personal.
Bella isn't my type of girl, but I've loved and connected with characters that aren't my type of girl either. I liked Elizabeth Bennett from P&P. I liked Galadriel from Lord of the Rings. I liked Catelyn Stark from A Game of Thrones. I even liked Sansa Stark as well despite her damsel in distress-y persona. And none of those are my types of girls.
but to make judgements like that her existence in the world of literature somehow sets women's rights back a hundred years (I know you didn't say that, but I've seen that term used)...well, y'all just completely and utterly lose me at that point. and, perhaps if I didn't see it made as a statement of fact so often, it wouldn't bother me as much. but I'm not sure I've ever read, "it seems anti-feminist to me." I feel like if I don't agree that it's anti-feminist, I'm judged as just not seeing what's clearly there.
I can't deny that, a lot of anti-Twilighters call fans out for being idiots for not seeing the "obvious."
what masculine traits does leah have? and, are you saying that you felt she was demonized for being masculine? if so, in what way?
When I say Leah has masculine traits, I'm talking about how she is a badass. She isn't "demonized" by this, as you put it, but the narration treats her position as the only female wolf in the pack to be strange and super-unique in some way, as if it's "weird" to have masculine traits. Also, she is portrayed as bitter and unlikable, though I'll admit that this does change as the series progresses after her introduction.
and, yes- I will concede that many of the characters are one-dimensional and there's not a lot of variety. but that goes for the males as well as the females. if we reduce alice, bella, esme, and emily to such simple terms, we could also reduce emmet to being the hotheaded jock, jasper as the charismatic southern gentleman, carlisle as the charming soap opera doctor, sam as the strong enigmatic native american, charlie as the loving but gruff father, etc, etc. the point I'm trying to make is that this is- AGAIN- a double standard, where the females are treated differently and scrutinized more. as some of us have been saying, that feels wrong. equality, to me, does not mean demanding MORE from female characters than we do from male characters.
Yeah, you're right--females ARE treated differently and scrutinized differently, especially in literature when readers try to pinpoint the weak characters and rant about them. But again, I think this is kind of reasonable since for thousands of years, males have always been the dominant gender. Also, the lack of variety in the males in Twilight are different than the women. The women are lumped together as feminine, soft, gentle, blah blah blah. The men are lumped together as strong and capable.
and I have to disagree that the narration makes it clear that anyone is supposed to embody femininity. I didn't see it, and many others didn't see it, so I don't see how it could be called "clear." perhaps it seemed that way to you and some others, but I would chalk that more up to it being personal interpretation, not fact.
I know. As I said, these were just my thoughts, not views I was trying to impress on anyone.
But even without the narration, they still seem to embody femininity. Which you can clearly see with their personalities. Esme is soft and gentle, Alice is delicate and playful, Bella is helpless and clumsy.
I understand that, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain them to me.
Ha, you're welcome. It's entertaining to me, spelling out my thoughts for others to interpret.
I'm doing my best here to try to understand (regardless of whether I ultimately agree or not) how twilight is a "crime against feminism," and so far I still don't completely understand the rationale behind this.
I guess it's different for everyone. Part of it depends on personal interpretation, like you said.
sometimes I think part of it is that so many bloggers (like the previously mentioned "reasoning with vampires") have made it their mission to comb through the books, find issues, and rant about them. I also sometimes wonder if this anti-feminism thing would have picked up such momentum if it wasn't known that meyer is mormon. sometimes it seems to me that people assume that she must be writing subjugated female characters simply due to her religion.
I think even without Meyer being a Mormon, it still would have picked up. I thought Twilight was antifeminist before I found out. It might have picked up less, but there'd still be a lot of debate about it.
anyway- sorry this ended up so long- I got kinda carried away!
I like long posts, don't worry. Because the longer they are, the longer they entertain, whether I agree with them or not.
@ Mocha Spresso
To be honest, I'm not familiar with paranormal romance, Twilight's the only paranormal romance I've read so far.
I'm not saying, though, that since everyone is part of a couple it's antifeminist--it's when they're single that they break down and go insane and stuff.
But let me know if this is common in paranormal romance.
To be honest, I'm not familiar with paranormal romance, Twilight's the only paranormal romance I've read so far.
I'm not saying, though, that since everyone is part of a couple it's antifeminist--it's when they're single that they break down and go insane and stuff.
But let me know if this is common in paranormal romance.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Do you think this criticism is fair considering that Twilight is a Paranormal Romance novel?"Isn't Paranormal Romance the modern dressed up Mills & Boone of literature. I think that if certain traits and tropes seep across into an entire literary genre that makes them more worth pointing out and condemning, not forgiving.
That said, women (as in the female demographic) like romance novels. Hey, I like romance novels too. But one needs to understand that these things are pretty conservative in their outlook.
I think it's not about Twilight at all. It's about what it represents; the whole bunch of books poorly written, based on the creepy love relationship (which is ok just because the main character is handsome, otherwise nobody would have read it). Today anyone can write a book, no matter how crappy their writing is. It's sad how much this book is popular. I don't hate Twilight, I read it and had "Meeh" reaction, but I cannot take seriously when someone says it's really good.
Tajana wrote: " Today anyone can write a book, no matter how crappy their writing is"To be fair, this has always been the case. The most popular writers have not always necessarily been the best ones.
What interests me about Twilight is how it uses Vampire iconography but has absolutely nothing to do with Vampire fiction. Why is Meyer writing a Vampire novel at all?? It's very strange.
Jocelyn wrote: No, no. I wasn't denying it or anything, I just thought it would be really ironic since I wasn't. It was just a joke.Now that you point it out...you and Angie and everyone else are right. I take my old comment back....Bella DOES think things through, especially in Eclipse. I think I also remember Stephenie Meyer saying this in an interview--she used to rush into everything without thinking it through. Good point.
thanks.
Though I'd like to clarify: when I said Bella didn't seem to think through all her choices before choosing Edward, that was from a literary standpoint, not a feminist standpoint or anything else. I felt like Jacob was some kind of distraction and the whole thing didn't really feel genuine, but rather kinda forced and contrived. But that's besides the point. From a feminist standpoint, or just any other standpoint for that matter, yes, Bella does think things through before choosing Edward.
Well, from a literary standpoint, there have been tons of agruments as to whether Twilight was well written or not and that can be a very subjective thing. I didn't think it was particularly well written either, but that wasn't one of my reasons why. My reasons also didn't stop me from enjoying the book anyway.
What exactly was forced or contrived, in your opinion?
(btw, I'm not trying to say that you are right or wrong. It was just something that I didn't see when I read it. Maybe I will if you explain it.)
Let me just ask for clarification--are you referring to Alex's and my arguments and usin them interchangeably? Because I didn't say at all that I was glad I didn't collect trash for a living (or, seeing as I'm a teenager, that I'm glad I don't expect to be when I grow up).
I'm sorry. I do keep doing that....but only becuase you said that you agree with him for the most part. I guess I'm having trouble determining/remembering what parts you do agree with and what parts you don't agree with. I may have to go back a re-read that entire thread...
Yes, I can see how a comment like that will negate everything I listed up there. But like I said before, I do not agree with Alex 100%--he has a much more radical approach to things than I do. I think, though, that what he said about being glad he didn't collect garbage for a living was on a purely personal level--I don't think he thinks less of any person who makes that choice. There's nothing wrong with being satisfied with what one does have in life either, is there?
(I mean, I can see where you're coming from; I can see how you and Gerd and anyone else would be thoroughly offended by it. This is just my observation; like I said, since I agree with Alex more than I don't, it's harder to think from the other side's perspective.)
"
It is very hard for me to accept that he doesn't think less of the person when he goes on make the assumption that someone does that job because "they've failed at school" and then makes comments on the "American underclass". You can't say that you don't think any less of a person and then go on to insinuate that they are uneducated and of a lower class than you. So which is it? Like I said before, you can't make a claim and then go on to negate that claim with other comments....and then be confused as to why someone is inclined to believe that these comments are TRULY more indicative of how he REALLY thinks.
You should see me when I get started on the bourgeois upper-middle and upper classes. :p
Jocelyn wrote: And--again, this is just personal for me--the men in Twilight are active, and the women in Twilight are passive. Also, there's something else with the portrayal of them, like I said before. The guys in Twilight are strong and awesome and all that. The women in Twilight are cute little dolls. (Yes, physical traits DO matter--it's part of the way authors choose to portray characters.) The only exceptions I can think of is Leah Clearwater and Rosalie, and for me they have their own share of feminist "problems," for lack of a better word..."
I don't think that I would refer to Rosalie or Alice as passive. They are very outspoken, opinionated and play very dominant roles in their families and in their relationships with their mates. I think of Esme as the "steel magnolia" of the Cullens. She has a quiet strength and Carlisle sees her as a partner and values her opinion just as much as he values those of them men in the family.
I also think that it is important to remember that Twilight is told from Bella's POV and those are her FIRST impressions of those women. We also need to remember that her first impressions of them are not entirely accurate because it is based solely appearances and what the other kids at lunch are saying about the Cullens, which was all gossip. Her impressions of them change as the story progresses and we learn more about their characters. Edward certainly does not think of Alice as a "cute little doll" and I suspect that he's actually even a little afraid of Rosalie.
If we're still talking about how women can't be happy without their man, most of the women I mentioned are human. Bella was human when she pulled her suicide stunts. Esme was human before she tried to commit suicide. Etc.
I see Esme's suicide attempt as antifeminist as part of a whole. Like standing alone it's okay, but looking at the women in Twilight as a whole, Esme just adds to everything else. Like I said before, many of the women in Twilight besides Leah and Rosalie seem to be some kind of embodiment of feminity, which personally is frustrating
I think to understand Esme, you probably do need to read the entire saga. She was in an abusive relationship and lost her baby as a human. I don't agree with her commiting suicide.....but I think I can empathize with how a person in her situation might be feeling.
This sort of leads back to what I was saying about feminism excluding certain women. Esme's character is seen as anti-feminist mainly because of her human life situation. I think true feminism most certainly should be able to at least EMPATHIZE (not condone, not rationalize, not allow, not uphold, not promote, not justify...empathize) with someone in her situation because there are probably a lot of other women out there like her.
I think I will edit this to add that the same way feminine discourse can empower some women, it can also ostracize others. If feminist are referring to a literary character as weak and pathetic for finding herself in an abusive relationship and handling it terribly....how does that help the "real life" woman in that situation? Is she empowered....or is she embarassed and more inclined to hide it so she won't be viewed as weak and pathetic? I think that could bery easily go either way. We can even take this further to ask if it is even really true that women in this situation are weak and pathetic?
Jocelyn wrote: "I even liked Sansa Stark as well despite her damsel in distress-y persona. And none of those are my types of girls. "As a slight aside, I think Sansa Stark is an extended deconstruction of the damsel in distress personae. I think she's one of the most fascinating figures in modern popular fiction - but then, Martin's narratives are stretching over multiple novels and 1,000's pages and so you need to get to the end of Feast For Crows to really get what I'm saying here, possibly.
Alex wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Do you think this criticism is fair considering that Twilight is a Paranormal Romance novel?"Isn't Paranormal Romance the modern dressed up Mills & Boone of literature. I t..."
Well, she said that one of the reasons why she thought Twilight was anti-feminist was because the women seem to be unhappy without a man. My question is how can you have a "ROMANCE" novel that doesn't involve two people actually having a romance?
For the record, I agree that some women in the book are unhappy without a man (Bella, Leah) but I don't think that makes the book "anti-feminist". There shouldn't be anything wrong with a woman falling in love with another person. I do have a serious problem with how Bella and Leah handle their break-ups...but I don't think that this has anything to do with feminism. Mainly because Edward handles the perceived loss of Bella equally as poorly. Jacob doesn't handle Bella's rejection well at first, either. I guess I am not sure that I understand why feminism is concerned with this. Why is being in a relationship with another person viewed as being harmful to feminism? Why is it harmful when men are depicted in the exact same light? If that is the case, is this even a feminsit issue?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Well, she said that one of the reasons why she thought Twilight was anti-feminist was because the women seem to be unhappy without a man. My question is how can you have a "ROMANCE" novel that doesn't involve two people actually having a romance? "I think you know what she's trying to say since this has been mentioned 100 times in as many different ways possible in order to clarify. The romance between Bella and Edward isn't portrayed as an egalitarian modern relationship but one with old fashioned power relationships. No-one is trying to deny romance and love, but perhaps romantic situations in which the woman shows a little more strength and independence are more desirable?
Alex wrote: I think you know what she's trying to say since this has been mentioned 100 times in as many different ways possible in order to clarify. The romance between Bella and Edward isn't portrayed as an egalitarian modern relationship but one with old fashioned power relationships. No-one is trying to deny romance and love, but perhaps romantic situations in which the woman shows a little more strength and independence are more desirable? I can see applying that to a standard contemporary romance....but Twilight also has fantasy elements. Edward is a vampire. They aren't equals. He is physically stronger than she is. When she becomes a vampire, she actually becomes much more stronger than all of vampires in the saga...even the Volturi. As to it depicting old fashioned power relationships, he is 100 yrs old and readily admits to having old fashioned ways in the books. That was consistant with his character. However, does he really hold all of the power in their relationship? He didn't want her to become a vampire. She did it anyway. He didn't want her to have the baby. She did it anyway. He didn't want her going off to see Jacob alone. She did it anyway. He didn't want to have intercouse with her while she was still human. She got him to do it anyway. I'm not saying that Edward didn't have a controlling nature....but even with that nature, he still had a very hard time trying to "control" Bella and by the time we reach the end, they do develop the egalitarian type of modern relationship that you are referring to. Some say that it's problematic that Bella has to become a vampire in order for it to happen. I think I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, I think that it started to develop way before she was turned. It started after the Cullen vote imo. Second, Bella was always in better control of her emotions than Edward was. He raged outwardly and she turned inwardly. Hence, the power that she has as a vampire that saves the entire clan. I think "strength" can manifest itself in many different ways.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can see applying that to a standard contemporary romance....but Twilight also has fantasy elements. Edward is a vampire. They aren't equals. He is physically stronger than she is. When she becomes a vampire, she actually becomes much more stronger than all of vampires in the saga...even the Volturi. As to it depicting old fashioned power relationships, he is 100 yrs old and readily admits to having old fashioned ways in the books."Struggling to see how any of this is relevant. It's a vampire romance story ergo he is a Vampire. (actually, tbh, his being 100 yrs old is pretty much the only way he's like a Vampire. other than that well known trait of Vampires sparkling in the sun, of course) See Buffy the Vampire Slayer for a better way of doing it, btw.
He didn't want her to become a vampire. She did it anyway. He didn't want her to have the baby. She did it anyway. He didn't want her going off to see Jacob alone. She did it anyway. He didn't want to have intercouse with her while she was still human. She got him to do it anyway. I'm not saying that Edward didn't have a controlling nature....but even with that nature, he still had a very hard time trying to "control" Bella.
Seems to me that every choice that Bella *freely* makes involves her making a choice to submit to men and to freely choose to accept the patriarchy as is.
Not amazingly progressive in my view. Reminds me of those rom coms (which I enjoy btw, I love rom coms) like Sweet Home Alabama in which the high flying career woman freely decides to give up her job in the city and come flying back home to an old misogynistic pig headed lover in the deep south because "shucks" she just can't be without him.
Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I even liked Sansa Stark as well despite her damsel in distress-y persona. And none of those are my types of girls. "
As a slight aside, I think Sansa Stark is an extended deconstr..."
Well, yeah. I've only read the first one and am planning to read the other. It's just that I was annoyed at her for her Joffrey-worshipping, though I'm pretty sure that was the entire point--for Martin to have the reader be annoyed, then cheer for her as she saw Joffrey for who he truly was and even started to stand up to him a little. Plus the fact that Martin never tries to sugarcoat anything, he portrays things for exactly what they are and lets them speak for itself...which was a significant improvement from Meyer trying to sell Bella and Edward's relationship as true love.
As a slight aside, I think Sansa Stark is an extended deconstr..."
Well, yeah. I've only read the first one and am planning to read the other. It's just that I was annoyed at her for her Joffrey-worshipping, though I'm pretty sure that was the entire point--for Martin to have the reader be annoyed, then cheer for her as she saw Joffrey for who he truly was and even started to stand up to him a little. Plus the fact that Martin never tries to sugarcoat anything, he portrays things for exactly what they are and lets them speak for itself...which was a significant improvement from Meyer trying to sell Bella and Edward's relationship as true love.
Alex wrote: Struggling to see how any of this is relevant. It's a vampire romance story ergo he is a Vampire. (actually, tbh, his being 100 yrs old is pretty much the only way he's like a Vampire. other than that well known trait of Vampires sparkling in the sun, of course) See Buffy the Vampire Slayer for a better way of doing it, btw.I like Anne Rice, but I won't try to argue which is the better vampire story since that is very subjective. However, I won't fault the author for creating her own unique brand of vampire lore, either. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Seems to me that every choice that Bella *freely* makes involves her making a choice to submit to men and to freely choose to accept the patriarchy as is.
This is more of the "feminist semantics" (I'm actually thinking "empty rhetoric", to be honest) that I continue to struggle with. The mere fact that a woman chooses to be romantically involved with a man doesn't have to be construed as an act of "submission" or an acceptence of patriarchy. Why can't love just be another natural human condition? The same goes for deciding to have children.
Forgive me for being obtuse...but which is it? Folks say that there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to marry and/or have children...but then when she actually does it, it is also criticized as act of submission to male dominance, an acceptance of patriarchy and deemed as not progressive enough for some. Which is it? Stop trying to be pc or whatever it is that you are doing.
Don't tell a woman that you don't see anything wrong with making that choice and then turn around and criticize a fictional character for doing it. That criticism makes it clear that you do actually see something wrong with it.
This is exactly what turns me off to present day modern feminism.
Not amazingly progressive in my view. Reminds me of those rom coms (which I enjoy btw, I love rom coms) like Sweet Home Alabama in which the high flying career woman freely decides to give up her job in the city and come flying back home to an old misogynistic pig headed lover in the deep south because "shucks" she just can't be without him...."
It's been a while since I've seen it and I don't remember the movie that well, was he misogynistic? How so? I remember that he was bitter toward her because she jilted him...but I don't remember that this turned into misogyny on his part.
What exactly was forced or contrived, in your opinion?
(btw, I'm not trying to say that you are right or wrong. It was just something that I didn't see when I read it. Maybe I will if you explain it.)
Well, a love triangle typically is to instill doubt in the reader that the main character will choose who she/he initially was going to be with, and this is definitely true in this case. Meyer used Jacob as a kind of contrasting foil, a totally different person for Bella to choose, another choice. What I'm saying is that the love triangle was supposed to raise suspense. But it didn't. It was so, so, sooooo obvious from the moment Jacob stepped in Bella was going to choose Edward. For me, at least. Jacob felt more like a distraction, rather than another choice.
It is very hard for me to accept that he doesn't think less of the person when he goes on make the assumption that someone does that job because "they've failed at school" and then makes comments on the "American underclass". You can't say that you don't think any less of a person and then go on to insinuate that they are uneducated and of a lower class than you. So which is it? Like I said before, you can't make a claim and then go on to negate that claim with other comments....and then be confused as to why someone is inclined to believe that these comments are TRULY more indicative of how he REALLY thinks.
I think the problem here is that you and Alex's approaches to feminism are really, really different. Alex approaches them as individuals. You approach them as a whole. While Alex focuses on individual women, you focus on how it will affect certain groups of women--and that's why your guys' arguments aren't sitting together too well. That's just my guess anyway.
Also--I think Alex is just trying to say that he's glad he has the job he does, not that he looks down on people who have jobs he considers undesirable. Those two aren't the same, are they?
(btw, I'm not trying to say that you are right or wrong. It was just something that I didn't see when I read it. Maybe I will if you explain it.)
Well, a love triangle typically is to instill doubt in the reader that the main character will choose who she/he initially was going to be with, and this is definitely true in this case. Meyer used Jacob as a kind of contrasting foil, a totally different person for Bella to choose, another choice. What I'm saying is that the love triangle was supposed to raise suspense. But it didn't. It was so, so, sooooo obvious from the moment Jacob stepped in Bella was going to choose Edward. For me, at least. Jacob felt more like a distraction, rather than another choice.
It is very hard for me to accept that he doesn't think less of the person when he goes on make the assumption that someone does that job because "they've failed at school" and then makes comments on the "American underclass". You can't say that you don't think any less of a person and then go on to insinuate that they are uneducated and of a lower class than you. So which is it? Like I said before, you can't make a claim and then go on to negate that claim with other comments....and then be confused as to why someone is inclined to believe that these comments are TRULY more indicative of how he REALLY thinks.
I think the problem here is that you and Alex's approaches to feminism are really, really different. Alex approaches them as individuals. You approach them as a whole. While Alex focuses on individual women, you focus on how it will affect certain groups of women--and that's why your guys' arguments aren't sitting together too well. That's just my guess anyway.
Also--I think Alex is just trying to say that he's glad he has the job he does, not that he looks down on people who have jobs he considers undesirable. Those two aren't the same, are they?
Why is being in a relationship with another person viewed as being harmful to feminism? Why is it harmful when men are depicted in the exact same light? If that is the case, is this even a feminsit issue?
Because the subtext is basically that it's impossible to be happy without a man. It's okay to be happy WITH a man, it's okay to be slightly depressed when you break up...but in my view it's not okay to go catatonic and crazy and basically lose your very identity. Meyer seems to think that the man you are with defines who you are, with the exceptions of Alice and Rosalie....and which really bugged me as I was reading Twilight.
Because the subtext is basically that it's impossible to be happy without a man. It's okay to be happy WITH a man, it's okay to be slightly depressed when you break up...but in my view it's not okay to go catatonic and crazy and basically lose your very identity. Meyer seems to think that the man you are with defines who you are, with the exceptions of Alice and Rosalie....and which really bugged me as I was reading Twilight.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I don't think that I would refer to Rosalie or Alice as passive. They are very outspoken, opinionated and play very dominant roles in their families and in their relationships with their mates. I think of Esme as the "steel magnolia" of the Cullens. She has a quiet strength and Carlisle sees her as a partner and values her opinion just as much as he values those of them men in the family.
I also think that it is important to remember that Twilight is told from Bella's POV and those are her FIRST impressions of those women. We also need to remember that her first impressions of them are not entirely accurate because it is based solely appearances and what the other kids at lunch are saying about the Cullens, which was all gossip. Her impressions of them change as the story progresses and we learn more about their characters. Edward certainly does not think of Alice as a "cute little doll" and I suspect that he's actually even a little afraid of Rosalie.
Heh, good point, I'd never noticed that. But I think the MAJORITY of women in Twilight are passive, while in turn the MAJORITY of men are active. It's that there seems to be such a distinct difference between being a man and woman. I've always believed that while males and females ARE different in probably a million different ways, they're not really as different as Meyer paints them to be. Men are not always the strong, capable leaders, and women are not always simpering weaklings who go crazy when they're dumped.
I think to understand Esme, you probably do need to read the entire saga. She was in an abusive relationship and lost her baby as a human. I don't agree with her commiting suicide.....but I think I can empathize with how a person in her situation might be feeling.
This sort of leads back to what I was saying about feminism excluding certain women. Esme's character is seen as anti-feminist mainly because of her human life situation. I think true feminism most certainly should be able to at least EMPATHIZE (not condone, not rationalize, not allow, not uphold, not promote, not justify...empathize) with someone in her situation because there are probably a lot of other women out there like her.
I think Esme's situation is at least somewhat understandable...however, I really wish the women in Twilight would handle the problems with some dignity. They don't seem to have any self-respect without a man (besides Alice and Rosalie...I will concede that both of them are not weaklings like the rest of the Twilight women seem to be). Women do not always break down without their man. They're actually capable of doing things, and they don't always need a man to be their best.
I think I will edit this to add that the same way feminine discourse can empower some women, it can also ostracize others. If feminist are referring to a literary character as weak and pathetic for finding herself in an abusive relationship and handling it terribly....how does that help the "real life" woman in that situation? Is she empowered....or is she embarassed and more inclined to hide it so she won't be viewed as weak and pathetic?
The "weak and pathetic" label comes from the fact that this is literature. We don't view characters the same way we would view real human people. If a real friend of mine was in Bella's New Moon-ish state, I would feel sorry for her. As a character, I felt zero sympathy for Bella. None. At all.
I'm a bit afraid I'm going to ramble on to a tangent...but whatever, I'll just go ahead. In the beginning of a book or series, the author's job is to introduce the main characters and make them likable to the reader, right? The reader is the only one that counts. The ONLY one. Always. And since Meyer failed to make Bella likable in any way, I didn't give half a damn to whether she was dumped or not.
If, like I said, a real human friend of mine was in her situation, I would feel sorry for her. What I'm saying is that...using real life experiences and situations in literature interchangeably can sometimes lead to really inaccurate assumptions about things.
I think that could bery easily go either way. We can even take this further to ask if it is even really true that women in this situation are weak and pathetic?
Like I said, it's literature. I saw Bella as weak and pathetic because I didn't like her, and as a fictional character she didn't show me at all why she deserved even a bit of my respect. If a friend of mine, or even just a random woman, was in that situation, I would sympathize with her. I think all women in real life have equal worth--they are equally capable of being strong. In literature, not all people are created equal. Which is why I view both things very differently.
I also think that it is important to remember that Twilight is told from Bella's POV and those are her FIRST impressions of those women. We also need to remember that her first impressions of them are not entirely accurate because it is based solely appearances and what the other kids at lunch are saying about the Cullens, which was all gossip. Her impressions of them change as the story progresses and we learn more about their characters. Edward certainly does not think of Alice as a "cute little doll" and I suspect that he's actually even a little afraid of Rosalie.
Heh, good point, I'd never noticed that. But I think the MAJORITY of women in Twilight are passive, while in turn the MAJORITY of men are active. It's that there seems to be such a distinct difference between being a man and woman. I've always believed that while males and females ARE different in probably a million different ways, they're not really as different as Meyer paints them to be. Men are not always the strong, capable leaders, and women are not always simpering weaklings who go crazy when they're dumped.
I think to understand Esme, you probably do need to read the entire saga. She was in an abusive relationship and lost her baby as a human. I don't agree with her commiting suicide.....but I think I can empathize with how a person in her situation might be feeling.
This sort of leads back to what I was saying about feminism excluding certain women. Esme's character is seen as anti-feminist mainly because of her human life situation. I think true feminism most certainly should be able to at least EMPATHIZE (not condone, not rationalize, not allow, not uphold, not promote, not justify...empathize) with someone in her situation because there are probably a lot of other women out there like her.
I think Esme's situation is at least somewhat understandable...however, I really wish the women in Twilight would handle the problems with some dignity. They don't seem to have any self-respect without a man (besides Alice and Rosalie...I will concede that both of them are not weaklings like the rest of the Twilight women seem to be). Women do not always break down without their man. They're actually capable of doing things, and they don't always need a man to be their best.
I think I will edit this to add that the same way feminine discourse can empower some women, it can also ostracize others. If feminist are referring to a literary character as weak and pathetic for finding herself in an abusive relationship and handling it terribly....how does that help the "real life" woman in that situation? Is she empowered....or is she embarassed and more inclined to hide it so she won't be viewed as weak and pathetic?
The "weak and pathetic" label comes from the fact that this is literature. We don't view characters the same way we would view real human people. If a real friend of mine was in Bella's New Moon-ish state, I would feel sorry for her. As a character, I felt zero sympathy for Bella. None. At all.
I'm a bit afraid I'm going to ramble on to a tangent...but whatever, I'll just go ahead. In the beginning of a book or series, the author's job is to introduce the main characters and make them likable to the reader, right? The reader is the only one that counts. The ONLY one. Always. And since Meyer failed to make Bella likable in any way, I didn't give half a damn to whether she was dumped or not.
If, like I said, a real human friend of mine was in her situation, I would feel sorry for her. What I'm saying is that...using real life experiences and situations in literature interchangeably can sometimes lead to really inaccurate assumptions about things.
I think that could bery easily go either way. We can even take this further to ask if it is even really true that women in this situation are weak and pathetic?
Like I said, it's literature. I saw Bella as weak and pathetic because I didn't like her, and as a fictional character she didn't show me at all why she deserved even a bit of my respect. If a friend of mine, or even just a random woman, was in that situation, I would sympathize with her. I think all women in real life have equal worth--they are equally capable of being strong. In literature, not all people are created equal. Which is why I view both things very differently.
Jocelyn wrote: Because the subtext is basically that it's impossible to be happy without a man. It's okay to be happy WITH a man, it's okay to be slightly depressed when you break up...but in my view it's not okay to go catatonic and crazy and basically lose your very identity. Meyer seems to think that the man you are with defines who you are, with the exceptions of Alice and Rosalie....and which really bugged me as I was reading Twilight."Is that really the subtext that Meyer was going for or are you just projecting? The men in Twilight are actually more like this than the women are, imo. Charlie is depicted as being lonely and having never fully recovered from his divorce from Bella's mother. Carlisle is depicted as being lonely and this is the reason why he decided to start his own family. Edward's entire family was worried about him because he never showed interest in anyone. Jasper is depicted as a lost, wayward, savage vampire until he finds Alice. Jacob is in state of constant torment over Bella. The entire concept of imprinting within the wolfpack is another example.
(btw...can Leah actually imprint? Or is imprinting only a male trait within the wolfpack? I'm thinking that she can since females aren't supposed to phase and she did. Therefore, she can probably imprint too.)
If we are just talking about Bella, you are absolutely right. She is all about Edward and acts like she can't be happy without him. But this isn't true of all the other Twilight women. In fact, it's actually more true of the Twilight men.
Jocelyn wrote: Well, a love triangle typically is to instill doubt in the reader that the main character will choose who she/he initially was going to be with, and this is definitely true in this case. Meyer used Jacob as a kind of contrasting foil, a totally different person for Bella to choose, another choice. What I'm saying is that the love triangle was supposed to raise suspense. But it didn't. It was so, so, sooooo obvious from the moment Jacob stepped in Bella was going to choose Edward. For me, at least. Jacob felt more like a distraction, rather than another choice"I do agree with this but only to a certain extent. Sometimes the love triangle in literture isn't always about who she's going to choose. Sometimes it is about "shit-stirring". (forgive my cussing, first phrase that came to mind.) That other guy is only there to make trouble for the couple. Sometimes he's the lovesick puppy that she loves as a brother or as a good friend but is never going to be interested in him in that way. Sometimes it is about what you should vs. shouldn't do. The last two are what I think really applies to Twilight. It was clear that she was never going to choose Jake. However, Jake seemed to be the safer choice as opposed to Edward.
Jocelyn wrote: I think the problem here is that you and Alex's approaches to feminism are really, really different. Alex approaches them as individuals. You approach them as a whole. While Alex focuses on individual women, you focus on how it will affect certain groups of women--and that's why your guys' arguments aren't sitting together too well. That's just my guess anyway.Also--I think Alex is just trying to say that he's glad he has the job he does, not that he looks down on people who have jobs he considers undesirable. Those two aren't the same, are they? "
No, they aren't the same but that isn't ALL that he said and I don't think that I misunderstood EVERYTHING that he said. Backtracking and trying to clean up and clarify for him after the fact isn't going to do much to sway me at this point.
I realize that his focus is on individuals. That is exactly the problem I have with it. I think feminism should be more holistic and all-encompassing.
I wouldn't particularly agree that my focus is on individuals rather than groups. *shrug*
Is that really the subtext that Meyer was going for or are you just projecting? The men in Twilight are actually more like this than the women are, imo. Charlie is depicted as being lonely and having never fully recovered from his divorce from Bella's mother. Carlisle is depicted as being lonely and this is the reason why he decided to start his own family. Edward's entire family was worried about him because he never showed interest in anyone. Jasper is depicted as a lost, wayward, savage vampire until he finds Alice. Jacob is in state of constant torment over Bella. The entire concept of imprinting within the wolfpack is another example.
All of what the men did in response to becoming single is a stark contrast to what the women do. The men strive to recover, the women go catatonic and jump off cliffs and whatnot.
I don't think it's the subtext Meyer was "going for," I'm pretty sure it was accidental. She tried to romanticize it, not to project a real message about antifeminism and stuff.
All of what the men did in response to becoming single is a stark contrast to what the women do. The men strive to recover, the women go catatonic and jump off cliffs and whatnot.
I don't think it's the subtext Meyer was "going for," I'm pretty sure it was accidental. She tried to romanticize it, not to project a real message about antifeminism and stuff.
Alex wrote: "I wouldn't particularly agree that my focus is on individuals rather than groups. *shrug*"
Not completely, but your focus is to a much farther extent on individuals that Mocha's focus is, which I think why you guys keep clashing together.
Not completely, but your focus is to a much farther extent on individuals that Mocha's focus is, which I think why you guys keep clashing together.
No, they aren't the same but that isn't ALL that he said and I don't think that I misunderstood EVERYTHING that he said. Backtracking and trying to clean up and clarify for him after the fact isn't going to do much to sway me at this point.
I realize that his focus is on individuals. That is exactly the problem I have with it. I think feminism should be more holistic and all-encompassing.
No, no. I DO understand how you'd be offended...that was just my personal reaction and interpretation to it, not what you SHOULD feel or anything. It was just my perspective of things. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Maybe you're right, perhaps feminism should be all-encompassing. But again, this is a debate, not an attempt to feminize the world. And even if it was...it's definitely going to be impossible to "convert," like I said, every single woman on the planet. That's why for me, I prefer to focus on them as individuals.
I realize that his focus is on individuals. That is exactly the problem I have with it. I think feminism should be more holistic and all-encompassing.
No, no. I DO understand how you'd be offended...that was just my personal reaction and interpretation to it, not what you SHOULD feel or anything. It was just my perspective of things. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Maybe you're right, perhaps feminism should be all-encompassing. But again, this is a debate, not an attempt to feminize the world. And even if it was...it's definitely going to be impossible to "convert," like I said, every single woman on the planet. That's why for me, I prefer to focus on them as individuals.
Jocelyn wrote: Heh, good point, I'd never noticed that. But I think the MAJORITY of women in Twilight are passive, while in turn the MAJORITY of men are active. It's that there seems to be such a distinct difference between being a man and woman. I've always believed that while males and females ARE different in probably a million different ways, they're not really as different as Meyer paints them to be. Men are not always the strong, capable leaders, and women are not always simpering weaklings who go crazy when they're dumped.If you have already done this, forgive me for asking again....but could you please give some examples of how some of the main Twilight female characters were passive?
As for being a simpering weakling who goes crazy when they are dumped...I'll give you that even though it really only happened that way to one character, Bella. Leah didn't actually go crazy and she didn't become a simpering weakling. She did became bitter, though. Esme suffered abuse and trauma. I guess you can also make a case for Victoria as crazy for becoming so vengeful after losing James.
So we have Bella, Leah, Victoria, and Esme. If you want to expand into lesser characters we can include Irina and the female vampire that attacks the Quiiliute village in the legend told at the tribe council meeting. I guess you are right in that so much of the strife among the Twilight women seems to revolve around a lost love.....but it is a romance novel.
I really do understand where the anti-feminist critique applies here, but I also don't think it is entirely fair to critique a book for having elements of it's intended genre. It's like calling a murder mystery too violent because people get murdered in it.
As an aside, I think someone also pointed this out, but the supernatural creatures in Twilight have heightened sense of emotions and because of that, typical romantic unions in the Twilight vampire/wolfpack world are depicted as being much stronger and much more passionate than human ones.
I think Esme's situation is at least somewhat understandable...however, I really wish the women in Twilight would handle the problems with some dignity. They don't seem to have any self-respect without a man (besides Alice and Rosalie...I will concede that both of them are not weaklings like the rest of the Twilight women seem to be). Women do not always break down without their man. They're actually capable of doing things, and they don't always need a man to be their best.
I don't think they are all weak, though. If they were truly weak, they wouldn't be able to pull themselves together again. Something that most of them do.
The "weak and pathetic" label comes from the fact that this is literature. We don't view characters the same way we would view real human people. If a real friend of mine was in Bella's New Moon-ish state, I would feel sorry for her. As a character, I felt zero sympathy for Bella. None. At all.
I'm a bit afraid I'm going to ramble on to a tangent...but whatever, I'll just go ahead. In the beginning of a book or series, the author's job is to introduce the main characters and make them likable to the reader, right? The reader is the only one that counts. The ONLY one. Always. And since Meyer failed to make Bella likable in any way, I didn't give half a damn to whether she was dumped or not.
Fair enough, I can understand that. I am re-reading Wuthering Heights at the moment and I don't feel sorry for Cathy or Heathcliff at all. I hate them both. The reasons why don't have anything to do with any political ideologies that I subcribe to, I just don't like them as characters.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Master and Margarita (other topics)Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
I disagree wholeheartedly. Racism and classism run rampant in feminism and always have.
Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Ain't I A Woman?
Delivered 1851
Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio
Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?
Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?
Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.
If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.
Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.
When all women supposedly got the right to vote in America...how long did it take for "feminism" to step up and address the issue that so many poor women and black women were still unable to vote because of voting laws in place? (Poll taxes, etc.) Women got the right to vote but the ugly truth of the matter is that it was mostly only wealthy and middle class white women who were actually able to do so.
Do you understand why I despise classism so much? You say that you are not promoting classism in feminism....but then you went on to make a snide comment about the "american underclass". You also made snide comments about women who choose to be housewives and lumped all of them into a similar sort of "underclass" in society....all under the guise of "feminism" and "uplifting women". But only, it doesn't seem to include ALL WOMEN. The housewives are certainly not included in this brand of feminism. They are seen as the problem.
That is what I din't like. The (intended or unintended) divisiveness of the feminist movement is what I cannot stand.