Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
Jocelyn wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Alex wrote: "My argument is "Women have been deprived by the patriarchy for hundreds of years from being anything other than wives or mothers, so it's a positive thing to encourage th..."Who are all of the stay at home moms in Twilight? Esme is one. Bella's mom is a kindergarten teacher. Alice and Rosalie don't work so they can play the role of high school student so they can live somewhere longer. I don't get where you are finding all these Twilight women who are uneducated and unemployed.
Nah, not obsessed in my case. I keep a couple of sets in my school library because the kids love it( though fizzling out now). But for me, it was just dull. Meh, rather than hate.I read the first and just couldn't get into the second. Sorry!
Alex wrote: "It's actually pretty simple, us "haters" have been trying to tell you. There's a strong anti-feminist subtext to Twilight that's hard to miss. People that don't warm too well towards outmoded portrayals of men and women tend to get frustrated with it..."You know what I get frustrated with? Women who think to be forward-thinking is pushing women to their will and not man's. Feminism is about a woman's right to be whatever she chooses to be. Bella chose to be a vampire, against the two men telling her no, mind you. The girl knew what she wanted and went after it. That is a positive message for feminism. What, wanting to save the life of your child is anti-feminist now? Wanting the life you knew you were meant to have is anti-feminist? Fine, then I'm anti-feminist.
People don't latch onto Twilight because it's offensive. They latch onto it because it because it's something to do.
Amy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Alex wrote: "My argument is "Women have been deprived by the patriarchy for hundreds of years from being anything other than wives or mothers, so it's a positive thing..."
I also included the obsessive girlfriends. I'll admit that Alice and Rosalie aren't really obsessive, but is it really necessary for them to have a boyfriend? Especially Rosalie, who married Emmett because he looked like a baby, and is quite devoted to him.
I also included the obsessive girlfriends. I'll admit that Alice and Rosalie aren't really obsessive, but is it really necessary for them to have a boyfriend? Especially Rosalie, who married Emmett because he looked like a baby, and is quite devoted to him.
Dorothy wrote " Feminism is about a woman's right to be whatever she chooses to be."What it's about, on a deeper level, is understanding that it's the power structures implicit within the patriarchal system that inhibit women's right to choose what they want to be. Didn't really understand that? Ok, go away and read some books on it before taking offense at something you clearly have no knowledge about whatsoever.
Btw, I'm male so you've got a really quick win if you're inclined to take the easy way out.
Jocelyn wrote: "Amy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Alex wrote: "My argument is "Women have been deprived by the patriarchy for hundreds of years from being anything other than wives or mothers, so it's a po..."And it is so terrible that they do have happy relationships with their men? Both Alice and Rosalie seem to "wear the pants" in their respective relationships. So now it's anti-feminist because there are not enough happily single women in the story? I don't know why I engage myself in these discussions. I really don't.
I'm going to answer you segment for segment because in a moment I'm going to get hyped up and I want to A) Get these points out first, and B) Let you know that despite my vehemence, I like you and have enjoyed our conversation thus far.Jocelyn wrote: "Conversely, though, there are also many people who picked up Twilight with the intention of becoming a fan. Their friends or family raved about it, and the more they hear about it, the more they hoped to fall in love with it like so many fans. Then they get disgusted and go all,"Sriusly???" "
True, but even that level of hate is dependent on the level of love. I have an extreme hatred for eggs. As a kid, I thought they were okay. Then I tolerated them. Now, I can not stand the things. Ew. Twilight is the same way. You leave thinking, "Well, that sucked." And the more you hear about how awesome it is, the more you end up hating it.
"Like Twilight, there are reasons to both hate and love it. Hate: it's unoriginal, many times the prose is bad, Rowling tells instead of shows, many of her characters are stereotypes, her plot sometimes can be predictable, etc. Love: The characters are endearing, the plot is suspenseful and complex, the pacing is quite fast, etc. But yes, it doesn't nearly have the bad reputation Twilight does."
Omg, omg, you forgot evil! Harry Potter is the DEVIL because they use WITCHCRAFT! The story is about love and good overcoming evil, you say? Nonsense! It's only a front for its true mission: To turn young children into witches!
*ahem* Sadly, my uncle was very close to being one of these people.
"@Alex -- Yeah, I agree. Feminists just find Twilight....offensive. Like, "WTF is this, insulting my intelligence????" The gender roles are very....old-fashioned, I guess you could say, pushed way back into the 1800s."
AHHHHHHH! (Warning: This is where I get excited). Could it be possible that the reason Edward acts so old-fashioned is because he was born in the early twentieth century? I get so frustrated with this "feminist" notion that chivalry is unwanted. If you don't want a man looking out for you, opening doors, paying for dinner, etc, fine. Tell your man. Don't tell mine! I want that. Do I also want equal pay for equal work and women's rights? Hell yes! But this idea that there's only one way to be a feminist is so effing frustrating! Women are working against women half the time.
"Almost every single female character in the book is either 1) pathetically devoted to her man, 2) a stay-at-home mom with no ambitions in life, or 3) both. Even Leah Clearwater, who I personally deemed the female character with the most potential, hangs onto Sam and refuses to get over it. There are existing women who do not pine after the "love of their lives" 100% of the time ..."
You're right. There are also men who sit at home and Pine. Like Charlie, Bella's father is written. Renee is a self-possessed, if flighty, woman who ends up with a catch several years younger.
Emmett actually follows Rosalie around. That bitch rules their roost. It was mentioned several times that Jasper also went wherever Alice went. God forbid she should ask his opinion, though, right? That would be anti-feminist. And Esme wanting kids? OMG! What woman in her right mind would want that?
Yes, the women are devoted to their men. And the men are devoted to their women. It's a two-way street. As for Leah, how on Earth do you see her as having the most potential? She was a bitter bitch of a plot device used to give Jacob numbers in the last book. That is what her character meant. Bad writing? Yes. Anti-feminist? You're seeing things that aren't there.
Alex wrote: "Do you condone this? I can't say I find that particularly aspirational or very inspiring as an attitude. No, actually, I find it downright reprehensible. if you want to help teach the next generation of women to be stayathome layabouts with no ambition beyond reproducing themselves, then by all means keep giving them Twilight to read. "This comment really angers me. How dare you put down stay-at-home mothers (and fathers, btw!)? Because they choose to spend their time with their kids (a full-time job), they're somehow less than you? THAT is anti-feminist.
Dorothy wrote: "This comment really angers me. How dare you put down stay-at-home mothers (and fathers, btw!)? Because they choose to spend their time with their kids (a full-time job), they're somehow less than you? THAT is anti-feminist. "Aside from the fact that you couldn't really be bothered to read and respond to my later clarification because, presumably, it's more fun to be angry at a perceived slight than a real one, I'm not so much anti-motherhood as I am anti-housewifery. I've known plenty of excellent mothers (and fathers) who have had a broad perspective on parenting and seen it as simply part of a range of things that they want to achieve in life. I truly admire those people since being a parent is a skill I don't think I could ever have, and doing it well is one of the hardest things you can do. (I mean doing it well, not just doing it... anyone can do that). I've also known too many people who can't see any life or achievement outside of the household sphere. Their life is their child, or their husband, or their house. They don't really know how to or why they would strive for anything else. This is the kind of 50s inspired dream-world that Meyer would have us all living in, I'm sure, where yeah chivalry reigns supreme right theree next to the washing machine and the ironing board.
Oh, and stop throwing the "THAT is anti-feminist" line at me. That's anti-discussion and kinda childish.
Dorothy wrote: "Could it be possible that the reason Edward acts so old-fashioned is because he was born in the early twentieth century? I get so frustrated with this "feminist" notion that chivalry is unwanted."
I wasn't talking about Edward, I was talking about the gender roles. What I meant by old-fashioned is that it pushes feminism back over a century. Meyer is basically reusing and portraying what women have been believed to do for thousands of years, which is, essentially, shutting up, bowing down to your man, and staying at home. Edward being chivalrous doesn't really relate to the gender roles as a whole.
You're right that men are also devoted to their women. But the difference is that the men in Twilight act on their motivations, while the women stay at home, sit on their butt, piss and moan endlessly about how they're not able to do anything. Bella whines about how she can't do anything instead of ACTIVELY looking for something to make herself more useful. etc. The men in Twilight are active, and the women in Twilight are passive.
More on the gender roles: Alice is a very powerful fighter, since she's able to predict her opponent's moves, yet she stays out of the fight. Why? Because she's a girl. No logic, no practicality in that, just because she's a goddamn girl. It's almost like Meyer's going out of her way to solidify the gender roles.
I wasn't talking about Edward, I was talking about the gender roles. What I meant by old-fashioned is that it pushes feminism back over a century. Meyer is basically reusing and portraying what women have been believed to do for thousands of years, which is, essentially, shutting up, bowing down to your man, and staying at home. Edward being chivalrous doesn't really relate to the gender roles as a whole.
You're right that men are also devoted to their women. But the difference is that the men in Twilight act on their motivations, while the women stay at home, sit on their butt, piss and moan endlessly about how they're not able to do anything. Bella whines about how she can't do anything instead of ACTIVELY looking for something to make herself more useful. etc. The men in Twilight are active, and the women in Twilight are passive.
More on the gender roles: Alice is a very powerful fighter, since she's able to predict her opponent's moves, yet she stays out of the fight. Why? Because she's a girl. No logic, no practicality in that, just because she's a goddamn girl. It's almost like Meyer's going out of her way to solidify the gender roles.
Amy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Amy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Alex wrote: "My argument is "Women have been deprived by the patriarchy for hundreds of years from being anything other than wives or mothe..."
I guess if you put it that way, it's true.
But it's not that being happy with your man is BAD, though. It's the underlying message that you CANNOT be happy WITHOUT your man. Bella went through the darkest time of her life when Edward dumped her. I'm not saying that since there are no happy single women it's antifeminist, I'm saying that the women who are single, or become single, CAN'T find happiness without their man. And I have a problem with that.
I guess if you put it that way, it's true.
But it's not that being happy with your man is BAD, though. It's the underlying message that you CANNOT be happy WITHOUT your man. Bella went through the darkest time of her life when Edward dumped her. I'm not saying that since there are no happy single women it's antifeminist, I'm saying that the women who are single, or become single, CAN'T find happiness without their man. And I have a problem with that.
Jocelyn wrote: "Haha, that's exactly what I mean by "bad" plotting, because they're nonexistent. At least in my view. :)..."I have a tendency to fill in the blanks when reading or watching. If something isn't as fleshed out as I'd like it, my brain automatically connects the dots. I forget sometimes that what I think happened in the books was never actually stated, lol.
Meyer's biggest enemy was her editor/publisher. They knew they were pushing crap, but they saw dollar signs and that was end-of-story. I always wonder what Twilight would have been if it had been co-written by an experienced writer.
Jocelyn wrote: "I also included the obsessive girlfriends. I'll admit that Alice and Rosalie aren't really obsessive, but is it really necessary for them to have a boyfriend? Especially Rosalie, who married Emmett because he looked like a baby, and is quite devoted to him."When a large portion of the story centralizes around Edward being alone in a household full of couples and finally finding his mate, yes, it's necessary.
Mickey wrote: "I read the first couple of chapters of the Percy Jackson series and put it down. That's normal behavior; I think everyone does it. I don't have an interest in going near the threads to discuss why I didn't want to continue reading. I don't think less of someone who likes the series. When I talk to someone who is a fan, I generally say that I haven't read the books (which is true enough). Ultimately, I move on with my life and onto other books. This is a typical response."Are you saying that people who finish a book they're not into are displaying abnormal behavior?
Dorothy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Haha, that's exactly what I mean by "bad" plotting, because they're nonexistent. At least in my view. :)..."
I have a tendency to fill in the blanks when reading or watching. If so..."
Ha, I wonder too. The curiosity is unbearably strong every time you read a could-have-been-better book, and wonder, "what would it be like if this was executed better?"
I have a tendency to fill in the blanks when reading or watching. If so..."
Ha, I wonder too. The curiosity is unbearably strong every time you read a could-have-been-better book, and wonder, "what would it be like if this was executed better?"
Mickey wrote: "I think crusading against books because they don't espouse your ideas is supremely arrogant."It's not about not espousing one's ideas, it's about espousing an idea I'm vehemently opposed to. Meyer doesn't have to mention feminism, I'm completely cool with that. What I'm not cool with is her depiction of a young girl who is completely dependent on and defined by "her man". One does not have to subscribe to feminism to craft a character who can stand on her own, just as one does not need a Phd to identify the blatantly sexist and patriarchal undertones coursing through the Twilight saga.
Alex wrote: "Since women are 50% of the population issues regarding the portrayal of women in fiction are ever-present whether you happen to want them to be or not. You cannot write a book without touching on ..."Bravo!
Alex wrote: "What it's about, on a deeper level, is understanding that it's the power structures implicit within the patriarchal system that inhibit women's right to choose what they want to be. Didn't really understand that? Ok, go away and read some books on it before taking offense at something you clearly have no knowledge about whatsoever.Btw, I'm male so you've got a really quick win if you're inclined to take the easy way out. "
You know, I was really fucking angry with you until you declared your gender. Now I get it. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You've read books on the subject. Oh, my. Good for you on educating yourself. Not everyone who disagrees with your point of view is uneducated. You might do well to remember that.
It's so sad that this is what people think, that to be a strong woman you must be a certain way. You are no better than those forcing women into domestic servitude. So many of the women I talk with on a daily basis are stay-at-home mothers. They don't do it because they are forced there by society, because they have no ambition, or because they are uneducated. These are bright women, women who run charitable organizations, women who get involved in their community, women who read and write. These are women who are most happy at home, doing what they do.
As for your later response, at the time I wrote the first I had not read so far down the line, but I did read all of your comments and I found them ignorant and appalling. My aunt is a career woman who also takes care of a home. Key words there: She takes care of her home. So the fuck what if another woman takes care of her home without a career on the side. It is disgusting that you would look down on this person for doing what makes her happy.
As for Twilight promoting anti-feminism in this way, I think you need to give it a re-read without the jade-colored glasses. Or maybe you need to stop looking at life through them.
Mickey wrote: "I read the first couple of chapters of the Percy Jackson series and put it down. That's normal behavior; I think everyone does it. I don't have an interest in going near the threads to discuss why I didn't want to continue reading. I don't think less of someone who likes the series. When I talk to someone who is a fan, I generally say that I haven't read the books (which is true enough). Ultimately, I move on with my life and onto other books. This is a typical response."
Ironically, I am a fan of Percy Jackson :) But, that's not the point.
I agree with Katrina. Are you saying that someone who finishes a book they're not into is abnormal? That "this is a typical response" really bugs me, because it's implying that that is what we should follow. I've read plenty of books I'm not into, like, well, Twilight. I read on because I usually hope I will get better. Is that weird of me to do so?
Btw, this is not an attack on your argument, just an honest question I'm asking out of curiosity.
Ironically, I am a fan of Percy Jackson :) But, that's not the point.
I agree with Katrina. Are you saying that someone who finishes a book they're not into is abnormal? That "this is a typical response" really bugs me, because it's implying that that is what we should follow. I've read plenty of books I'm not into, like, well, Twilight. I read on because I usually hope I will get better. Is that weird of me to do so?
Btw, this is not an attack on your argument, just an honest question I'm asking out of curiosity.
Diamond wrote: " I mean there only books people if you like then you like and you don't like it then you don't like. It's get's on my nerves when I see people who just post nasty things on what they don't like. It's so stupid."Irony. Irony at its finest.
Mickey wrote: "I think crusading against books because they don't espouse your ideas is supremely arrogant."
Is it really, though? I mean, I get that what you said there is an opinion, unless you see it as otherwise. I don't think it's really crusading against books, as you put it, but simply asking: Am I alone in what I think? Am I the only one who thinks this way? Is there anyone else who feels offended or bothered by this book?
I have to question: what does it mean, exactly, to be arrogant? People who "crusade" against books are generally attacking the books, not the fans. They COULD attack the fans, but in a nutshell, they're simply stating their opinion on the subject and defending it. They don't see people who disagree with them as inferior, they only see whatever book they don't like as an insult. It's one thing to disagree with something, and another to be insulted, as many antis of ANY book out there probably feel.
Is it really, though? I mean, I get that what you said there is an opinion, unless you see it as otherwise. I don't think it's really crusading against books, as you put it, but simply asking: Am I alone in what I think? Am I the only one who thinks this way? Is there anyone else who feels offended or bothered by this book?
I have to question: what does it mean, exactly, to be arrogant? People who "crusade" against books are generally attacking the books, not the fans. They COULD attack the fans, but in a nutshell, they're simply stating their opinion on the subject and defending it. They don't see people who disagree with them as inferior, they only see whatever book they don't like as an insult. It's one thing to disagree with something, and another to be insulted, as many antis of ANY book out there probably feel.
Jocelyn wrote: "I wasn't talking about Edward, I was talking about the gender roles. What I meant by old-fashioned is that it pushes feminism back over a century. Meyer is basically reusing and portraying what women have been believed to do for thousands of years, which is, essentially, shutting up, bowing down to your man, and staying at home. Edward being chivalrous doesn't really relate to the gender roles as a whole. "Did we read the same book? On what planet does Bella shut up and do what she is told? She usually does the exact opposite of what she is told, even when it's told to her for her own safety.
"You're right that men are also devoted to their women. But the difference is that the men in Twilight act on their motivations, while the women stay at home, sit on their butt, piss and moan endlessly about how they're not able to do anything. Bella whines about how she can't do anything instead of ACTIVELY looking for something to make herself more useful. etc. The men in Twilight are active, and the women in Twilight are passive."
You keep saying, "the women, the women," but Bella is the only character you've mentioned and the only one I can possibly correlate with what you've said, even a little. Was her depression in New Moon a little over the top? Sure, but that is bad writing, not anti-feminism. When Edward does come back in the picture, she refuses to allow him to dictate her life. She makes plans to be the person (or vampire) she wants to be. And if you think there's anything passive about Leah, Rosalie, or Alice... well... I really don't know what to say. That's stretching it. Far.
More on the gender roles: Alice is a very powerful fighter, since she's able to predict her opponent's moves, yet she stays out of the fight. Why? Because she's a girl. No logic, no practicality in that, just because she's a goddamn girl. It's almost like Meyer's going out of her way to solidify the gender roles.
Um... What fight are you talking about? The one in Twilight? Because we didn't see that one. Bella passed out. There was no fight in New Moon, though Alice did take on a huge role, an important role, without her man. Eclipse, she fought. They all fought. Breaking Dawn, again, no one fought, but Alice made the decisions to ditch and go her own path.
Dorothy wrote: "It's so sad that this is what people think, that to be a strong woman you must be a certain way."
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Everyone has a different view on feminism. Feminism, like you said, is very ambiguous. That's what debate is for. To argue it, to defend your opinion, and try to see as well as possible the other side of the argument. In other words, to have an opinion and simultaneously be objective. Everyone has their own personal definition of being strong. I think what Alex is trying to say is that the gender roles in Twilight are uncreative, old-fashioned, and supports the rather repugnant idea that no woman is complete without her man. And what you're saying is, Is it so bad to be a stay at home mom? Why is it nowadays that stay at home moms have such a bad rep? Anyway, correct my interpretation of what you guys are saying if I'm wrong.
Just my thoughts, ignore it if you wish :)
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Everyone has a different view on feminism. Feminism, like you said, is very ambiguous. That's what debate is for. To argue it, to defend your opinion, and try to see as well as possible the other side of the argument. In other words, to have an opinion and simultaneously be objective. Everyone has their own personal definition of being strong. I think what Alex is trying to say is that the gender roles in Twilight are uncreative, old-fashioned, and supports the rather repugnant idea that no woman is complete without her man. And what you're saying is, Is it so bad to be a stay at home mom? Why is it nowadays that stay at home moms have such a bad rep? Anyway, correct my interpretation of what you guys are saying if I'm wrong.
Just my thoughts, ignore it if you wish :)
Dorothy wrote: "It's so sad that this is what people think, that to be a strong woman you must be a certain way. You are no better than those forcing women into domestic servitude. So many of the women I talk with on a daily basis are stay-at-home mothers. They don't do it because they are forced there by society, because they have no ambition, or because they are uneducated. These are bright women, women who run charitable organizations, women who get involved in their community, women who read and write. These are women who are most happy at home, doing what they do."Maybe I'm nuts, but that's not what I read in Alex's statement. I'm a SAHM and his comments don't offend me in the slightest. Mostly because he's referring to the idea that a woman's place should be in the home and that's it. At least that's what I took from it. In that sense, your reference to women who are stay-at-home-moms who run charitable organizations and participate in their communities would not fit into the pigeonholed stereotype I think Alex is referring to.
Yes, I'm a SAHM, but I'm also a part-time photographer with my own interests. My child/husband/home does not define me or my life. And I have to agree with Alex because when I see women who feel that they do (who have no interests or activities whatsoever outside their sphere of domesticity)...I get a little sad.
Jocelyn wrote: "Ha, I wonder too. The curiosity is unbearably strong every time you read a could-have-been-better book, and wonder, "what would it be like if this was executed better?" "Oh, man. All the time. And with TV shows, too. Revolution looked like it could have been SO good, but it's just... not. Once Upon a Time, too. I'm always disappointed with stuff like that. You see where the almost good parts are and they're lacking. It's frustrating.
Dorothy wrote: "Was her depression in New Moon a little over the top? Sure, but that is bad writing, not anti-feminism."It's bad writing that furthers an anti-feminist view of relationships. It promotes the idea that if your man leaves you, it's perfectly acceptable to stop eating, stop participating in life, essentially to stop living. Meyer may not have set out to be actively anti-feminist, but the way she depicted Bella's spiral of depression is certainly not a pro (or even neutral) feminist perspective.
Jocelyn wrote: "Isn't that kind of the point, though? Everyone has a different view on feminism. Feminism, like you said, is very ambiguous. That's what debate is for. To argue it, to defend your opinion, and try to see as well as possible the other side of the argument. In other words, to have an opinion and simultaneously be objective. Everyone has their own personal definition of being strong. I think what Alex is trying to say is that the gender roles in Twilight are uncreative, old-fashioned, and supports the rather repugnant idea that no woman is complete without her man. And what you're saying is, Is it so bad to be a stay at home mom? Why is it nowadays that stay at home moms have such a bad rep? Anyway, correct my interpretation of what you guys are saying if I'm wrong.Just my thoughts, ignore it if you wish :) "
I think you have a point, that feminism does come in different forms to different people. Personally, I think changing a word that has "man" at the end to something "gender neutral" is ridiculous. You need to fix actions, not words. But I don't think it's necessarily hurting women either. It is hurting women to say that their choice is the wrong one, that one must have a career or aspire to being something more than a wife or mother. It's extremism, not feminism, to push all women to the other side of the spectrum.
You are saying that the gender roles in Twilight are archaic (which I disagree with, lol), but Alex is saying that saying at home is sad and against what women have fought for. As someone who knows a few bra-burners, saying a woman must do anything based on the fact she is a woman is against what women have fought for.
Katrina wrote: "Isn't that kind of the point, though? Everyone has a different view on feminism. Feminism, like you said, is very ambiguous. That's what debate is for. To argue it, to defend your opinion, and try to see as well as possible the other side of the argument. In other words, to have an opinion and simultaneously be objective. Everyone has their own personal definition of being strong. I think what Alex is trying to say is that the gender roles in Twilight are uncreative, old-fashioned, and supports the rather repugnant idea that no woman is complete without her man. And what you're saying is, Is it so bad to be a stay at home mom? Why is it nowadays that stay at home moms have such a bad rep? Anyway, correct my interpretation of what you guys are saying if I'm wrong.Just my thoughts, ignore it if you wish :) "
As I said to Jocelyn, Alex has surpassed talking about Twilight. He's called housewives uneducated and uninspired. If you didn't take offense, that's fine. But I did. He then went on to call me uneducated as well for not agreeing with his opinion.
Katrina wrote: "It's bad writing that furthers an anti-feminist view of relationships. It promotes the idea that if your man leaves you, it's perfectly acceptable to stop eating, stop participating in life, essentially to stop living. Meyer may not have set out to be actively anti-feminist, but the way she depicted Bella's spiral of depression is certainly not a pro (or even neutral) feminist perspective."This is what frustrates me the most about causes. There always has to be a message in everything. But seriously, sometimes a character is just a character. Bella went into a major depression because Edward left her, and it was bad. I'm not arguing that. But to say Twilight is anti-feminist because of it? By those standards, Hermione crying in the bathroom is anti-feminism. Jamie beating Claire in Outlander is anti-feminism. Tris allowing Four to kill her in Divergent is anti-feminism. There comes a point when it's just ridiculous.
Feminism is not supposed to be against femininity or traditional choices. But it is worth mentioning that Bella could be whatever she wanted if she so chose. Esme is an interior designer as well as mother. Alice is a fashion consultant, stock market person (haha, whatever you all those). Rose is a mechanic.
But even if they were all housewives, I would still defend their choices (traditional and fictional as they may be).
Haha look at me. Arguing the same things over and over again even when I complained. I'm gonna thread bump the feminism threads to see if people post. It'd be more on topic there.
Did we read the same book? On what planet does Bella shut up and do what she is told? She usually does the exact opposite of what she is told, even when it's told to her for her own safety.
Edward orders her around quite a lot. I don't want to go through every single example I can find in the book, so I'll just provide one that really sticks out in my mind. It's when Edward kind of seduces Bella, emotionally manipulating her so she can do what she can obey his order to walk on foot instead of waiting for Edward to come back.
"'Sorry, Bella, we have to go on foot from here.'
'You know what? I'll just wait here.'
'What happened to all your courage? You were extraordinary this morning.'"
Soooo, Edward is taunting and belittling Bella to get him to do what he wants.
Onward:
"'I haven't forgotten the last time yet.' Could it have been only yesterday?
He was around to my side of the car in a blur. He started unbuckling me.'"
So not only is Edward trying to order Bella, he's forcing her to get her to do what he wants.
Picking up where we left off:
"'I'll get those, you go on ahead,' I protested.
'Hmmm....,' he mused as he quickly finished. 'It seems I'm going to have to tamper with your memory.'"
Seduction time! Sweet! How terribly not controlling and manipulative!
Going on...
"Before I could react, he pulled me from the Jeep and set my feet on the ground. It was barely misting now; Alice was going to be right.
'Tamper with my memory?' I asked nervously.
'Something like that.' He was watching me intently, carefully, but there was humor deep in his eyes."
What...so Edward actually takes PLEASURE in controlling Bella? He finds it FUNNY? Excuse me for freaking out, but I simply cannot...ugh...no. Just no.
"He placed his hands against the Jeep on either side of my head and leaned forward, forcing me to press against the door. He leaned in even closer, his face inches from mine. I had no room to escape.
'Now,' he breathed, and just his smell disturbed my thought processes, 'what exactly are you worrying about?'
'Well, um, hitting a tree--' I gulped '--and dying. And then getting sick.'
He fought back a smile. Then he bent his head down and touched his cold lips softly to the hollow at the base of my throat.
'Are you still worried now?' he murmured against my skin.
'Yes.' I struggled to concentrate. 'About hitting trees and getting sick.'
His nose drew a line up to the skin of my throat to the point of my chin. His cold breath tickled my skin.
'And now?' His lips whispered against my jaw.
[...]
'Would I let a tree hurt you?' His lips barely barely brushed against my trembling lower lip.'
'No,' I breathed."
WTF OMG WHAT DID I JUST READ?
Edward...SEDUCED HER? What? He hypnotized her with his vampirely smell, kissed all over her, and manipulated her into doing what he wanted? O. M. G. This is beyond ordering her around, this is just...ugh. This is too disgusting for me to continue.
You keep saying, "the women, the women," but Bella is the only character you've mentioned and the only one I can possibly correlate with what you've said, even a little.
Even if it were only Bella, that in itself would be enough to be considered antifeminist, because she's the main character.
But there are people who could not be happy without their man. Rosalie was absolutely miserable before she found Emmett. She's happier now. Still miserable, but not as miserable. Esme tried to commit suicide, survived, and became happy again upon finding Carlisle. Victoria's sole motivation is her mate. Not because she herself has any goals or aspirations, but because her poor little mate is dead. Even the villainess's sole motivation is her man? Bit much.
Was her depression in New Moon a little over the top? Sure, but that is bad writing, not anti-feminism.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think the prose of the book has anything to do with the messages it sends out, unless you're talking about writing in general, not the actual art of putting words together. Like Katrina said, it promotes the idea that if your man leaves you, it's perfectly okay to turn into a zombie. But you'll have to draw your own conclusions for this one, I guess.
When Edward does come back in the picture, she refuses to allow him to dictate her life. She makes plans to be the person (or vampire) she wants to be. And if you think there's anything passive about Leah, Rosalie, or Alice... well... I really don't know what to say. That's stretching it. Far.
I guess you could put it that way. However, in my view, he still dictates her life. Bella did not get over her depression by figuring out how to do it on her own, she was "healed" by reuniting with Edward. Edward, in a way, still controls her life, because of the apparent huge role he plays in her very sanity. I don't know about you, but I don't think that being dumped and going crazy is very feminist, or even neutral.
Um... What fight are you talking about? The one in Twilight? Because we didn't see that one. Bella passed out. There was no fight in New Moon, though Alice did take on a huge role, an important role, without her man. Eclipse, she fought. They all fought. Breaking Dawn, again, no one fought, but Alice made the decisions to ditch and go her own path.
In the case of Alice, my point was not that she couldn't survive without her man. If I had to pick the most feminist character in this series, it would be Alice. It's more of the gender role thing. As for her fighting, well, perhaps I got that wrong. I haven't read Twilight in quite a while. Though from what I do remember, she should have been at least preparing to fight the Volturi in Breaking Dawn, but she didn't. But perhaps you're right in this one, you're obviously remembering more stuff than I am from the books.
Edward orders her around quite a lot. I don't want to go through every single example I can find in the book, so I'll just provide one that really sticks out in my mind. It's when Edward kind of seduces Bella, emotionally manipulating her so she can do what she can obey his order to walk on foot instead of waiting for Edward to come back.
"'Sorry, Bella, we have to go on foot from here.'
'You know what? I'll just wait here.'
'What happened to all your courage? You were extraordinary this morning.'"
Soooo, Edward is taunting and belittling Bella to get him to do what he wants.
Onward:
"'I haven't forgotten the last time yet.' Could it have been only yesterday?
He was around to my side of the car in a blur. He started unbuckling me.'"
So not only is Edward trying to order Bella, he's forcing her to get her to do what he wants.
Picking up where we left off:
"'I'll get those, you go on ahead,' I protested.
'Hmmm....,' he mused as he quickly finished. 'It seems I'm going to have to tamper with your memory.'"
Seduction time! Sweet! How terribly not controlling and manipulative!
Going on...
"Before I could react, he pulled me from the Jeep and set my feet on the ground. It was barely misting now; Alice was going to be right.
'Tamper with my memory?' I asked nervously.
'Something like that.' He was watching me intently, carefully, but there was humor deep in his eyes."
What...so Edward actually takes PLEASURE in controlling Bella? He finds it FUNNY? Excuse me for freaking out, but I simply cannot...ugh...no. Just no.
"He placed his hands against the Jeep on either side of my head and leaned forward, forcing me to press against the door. He leaned in even closer, his face inches from mine. I had no room to escape.
'Now,' he breathed, and just his smell disturbed my thought processes, 'what exactly are you worrying about?'
'Well, um, hitting a tree--' I gulped '--and dying. And then getting sick.'
He fought back a smile. Then he bent his head down and touched his cold lips softly to the hollow at the base of my throat.
'Are you still worried now?' he murmured against my skin.
'Yes.' I struggled to concentrate. 'About hitting trees and getting sick.'
His nose drew a line up to the skin of my throat to the point of my chin. His cold breath tickled my skin.
'And now?' His lips whispered against my jaw.
[...]
'Would I let a tree hurt you?' His lips barely barely brushed against my trembling lower lip.'
'No,' I breathed."
WTF OMG WHAT DID I JUST READ?
Edward...SEDUCED HER? What? He hypnotized her with his vampirely smell, kissed all over her, and manipulated her into doing what he wanted? O. M. G. This is beyond ordering her around, this is just...ugh. This is too disgusting for me to continue.
You keep saying, "the women, the women," but Bella is the only character you've mentioned and the only one I can possibly correlate with what you've said, even a little.
Even if it were only Bella, that in itself would be enough to be considered antifeminist, because she's the main character.
But there are people who could not be happy without their man. Rosalie was absolutely miserable before she found Emmett. She's happier now. Still miserable, but not as miserable. Esme tried to commit suicide, survived, and became happy again upon finding Carlisle. Victoria's sole motivation is her mate. Not because she herself has any goals or aspirations, but because her poor little mate is dead. Even the villainess's sole motivation is her man? Bit much.
Was her depression in New Moon a little over the top? Sure, but that is bad writing, not anti-feminism.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think the prose of the book has anything to do with the messages it sends out, unless you're talking about writing in general, not the actual art of putting words together. Like Katrina said, it promotes the idea that if your man leaves you, it's perfectly okay to turn into a zombie. But you'll have to draw your own conclusions for this one, I guess.
When Edward does come back in the picture, she refuses to allow him to dictate her life. She makes plans to be the person (or vampire) she wants to be. And if you think there's anything passive about Leah, Rosalie, or Alice... well... I really don't know what to say. That's stretching it. Far.
I guess you could put it that way. However, in my view, he still dictates her life. Bella did not get over her depression by figuring out how to do it on her own, she was "healed" by reuniting with Edward. Edward, in a way, still controls her life, because of the apparent huge role he plays in her very sanity. I don't know about you, but I don't think that being dumped and going crazy is very feminist, or even neutral.
Um... What fight are you talking about? The one in Twilight? Because we didn't see that one. Bella passed out. There was no fight in New Moon, though Alice did take on a huge role, an important role, without her man. Eclipse, she fought. They all fought. Breaking Dawn, again, no one fought, but Alice made the decisions to ditch and go her own path.
In the case of Alice, my point was not that she couldn't survive without her man. If I had to pick the most feminist character in this series, it would be Alice. It's more of the gender role thing. As for her fighting, well, perhaps I got that wrong. I haven't read Twilight in quite a while. Though from what I do remember, she should have been at least preparing to fight the Volturi in Breaking Dawn, but she didn't. But perhaps you're right in this one, you're obviously remembering more stuff than I am from the books.
LOL. Yes Edward is a little controlling (vampire, overprotective, yada yada). But Bella doesn't have a problem with the teasing and "seducing".
My boyfriend teases me and "seduces" me and that's how I like my relationship (though I like less teasing and more "seducing"). He coaxes me to go to parties, he uses his charm, etc. Sometimes I tell him what to do and vice versa. I convince him with my boobs. He convinces me with his smooches. TMI I know. But some people would be like "eww that's not right/proper/whatever". But it's my relationship. We're okay with it and if one of us does something not okay with the other we talk about it.
It's Bella and Edward's relationship and it's on their terms. When Bella is not okay with something I see her protest, disagree, the girl basically doesn't do what she's told unless she agree with it. Like when she wasn't "allowed" to see Jacob, she called Edward out on being paranoid, and broke "rules" to visit Jake.
Oh, my God. Yes, that is exactly what you read. Him manipulating her. Because, you know, she didn't want to go watch him play baseball and is now acting like a baby. And all that belittling... because people don't tease each other at all. I'm always flabbergasted by how insignificant the things are people latch onto. I like you, Jocelyn, but your interpretation of the text is extreme.I disagree on the next segment. I just... *sigh*. Why must people constantly see vampires as human? It was made pretty clear throughout the books that vampires are different entities. Btw, Edward wasn't so much better off than Bella in New Moon. Some would argue he had it worse.
Like I said in a different post, why can't a character just be without everyone trying to read into it. Bella forgiving Edward so quickly and everything being a-okay was bad writing. But then, if you read Eclipse you know that that wasn't honestly the case. The woman had trust issues. Besides, she was healing without him, after her dad pushed her to get a move on. Again I have to point out how awed I am by the fact that teen angst read as anti-feminism to the anti-fan. It's boggles the mind.
Again you bring up the gender role thing, but I don't see it. The example you provided was wrong. Alice and Rosalie are the dominants in their relationships. Carlisle and Edward seem to be the dominants in theirs. However, as the story progresses, Bella becomes more and more his equal.
(BTW, Alice was not preparing to fight the Volturi physically because she was fighting them with the very power you mentioned.)
No, it's not mostly the seducing that bothers me (though it does bother me quite a bit), it's the fact that Bella clearly doesn't want to because of a real psychological fear, and Edward acts like he's doing some sort of test to see how devoted she is to him. I wouldn't have a problem if Edward just said, "Come on now, I won't let you get hurt." If it was something like:
"I don't want to go," I said.
Edward patted my hand. "Come on, I won't let you get hurt. Don't worry. Just this once, okay?"
I considered for a moment. "Fine, then."
"Thanks, Bella." He kissed me.
SOMETHING like that. The uh, smooching I guess, could be done as an appreciation of Bella's consent or open mindedness, rather than used to manipulate her and force her to go despite her disturbingly deep fear/phobia of, uh, trees and rain. Btw, I'm just making an assumption that this is a psychological fear, because everything Bella is afraid of, she overreacts far more than normal. I know that this scene is supposed to be sweet and teasing, but Edward really comes off as a control freak and manipulative jerk, at least in my view. It's more of the connotation of the words Meyer decides to use, not the actual seduction part of it. If, for example, Bella had said something like, "Oh, fine, I'll go," instead of "breathing" at him as a result from being hypnotized by his godly vampireness, I would have been okay with it.
But you're right. I used to think that the not-allowed-to-see Jake incident was awful, but she DID at least make a move to show that she didn't like it. I guess that for me, it came off as Meyer trying to make Bella look "cute" and "feisty," while to you it was a genuine show of Bella's underestimated strength. Like I always say, to each their own.
"I don't want to go," I said.
Edward patted my hand. "Come on, I won't let you get hurt. Don't worry. Just this once, okay?"
I considered for a moment. "Fine, then."
"Thanks, Bella." He kissed me.
SOMETHING like that. The uh, smooching I guess, could be done as an appreciation of Bella's consent or open mindedness, rather than used to manipulate her and force her to go despite her disturbingly deep fear/phobia of, uh, trees and rain. Btw, I'm just making an assumption that this is a psychological fear, because everything Bella is afraid of, she overreacts far more than normal. I know that this scene is supposed to be sweet and teasing, but Edward really comes off as a control freak and manipulative jerk, at least in my view. It's more of the connotation of the words Meyer decides to use, not the actual seduction part of it. If, for example, Bella had said something like, "Oh, fine, I'll go," instead of "breathing" at him as a result from being hypnotized by his godly vampireness, I would have been okay with it.
But you're right. I used to think that the not-allowed-to-see Jake incident was awful, but she DID at least make a move to show that she didn't like it. I guess that for me, it came off as Meyer trying to make Bella look "cute" and "feisty," while to you it was a genuine show of Bella's underestimated strength. Like I always say, to each their own.
Diane wrote: "LOL. Yes Edward is a little controlling (vampire, overprotective, yada yada). But Bella doesn't have a problem with the teasing and "seducing".
My boyfriend teases me and "seduces" me and that's h..."
And before anyone brings up the fact he had rules for her, please remember that we're talking about vampires and werewolves here. You cannot view these actions in a human light.
Jocelyn wrote: "No, it's not mostly the seducing that bothers me (though it does bother me quite a bit), it's the fact that Bella clearly doesn't want to because of a real psychological fear, and Edward acts like ..."When I was about ten, my uncle told me if I didn't get on the roller coaster, he would spank me. I was petrified of upside down roller coasters, and now? I freaking love them. He pushed me because he knew there was nothing to be afraid of. Edward, as well, knew there was nothing to be afraid of. He was trying to make it easier for her to get through it.
Dorothy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "No, it's not mostly the seducing that bothers me (though it does bother me quite a bit), it's the fact that Bella clearly doesn't want to because of a real psychological fear, and E..."
Then he could have done it in a nicer way. Your uncle is a relative. Edward is a person Bella hardly knows. He should never be so familiar with her without her consent so early in the stages of their relationship. And did you have a psychological phobia of roller coasters? (TBH, I don't know if you did or not, just asking for clarification.) Like I said, Edward could have simply said, "Bella, please, will you go with me just this once?" instead of forcing her out of the truck, cornering her against the car, and freaking seducing her, a.k.a. manipulating her, to go with him.
Then he could have done it in a nicer way. Your uncle is a relative. Edward is a person Bella hardly knows. He should never be so familiar with her without her consent so early in the stages of their relationship. And did you have a psychological phobia of roller coasters? (TBH, I don't know if you did or not, just asking for clarification.) Like I said, Edward could have simply said, "Bella, please, will you go with me just this once?" instead of forcing her out of the truck, cornering her against the car, and freaking seducing her, a.k.a. manipulating her, to go with him.
Dorothy wrote: "When I was about ten, my uncle told me if I didn't get on the roller coaster, he would spank me. "If my boyfriend did that to be now I would have no trouble with it whatsoever. ;)
Well, if you have a problem with something you tell the person. To my knowledge, Bella did not have a problem with how Edward handled the cornering and "seducing".
Jocelyn wrote: "Then he could have done it in a nicer way. Your uncle is a relative. Edward is a person Bella hardly knows. He should never be so familiar with her without her consent so early in the stages of their relationship. And did you have a psychological phobia of roller coasters? (TBH, I don't know if you did or not, just asking for clarification.) Like I said, Edward could have simply said, "Bella, please, will you go with me just this once?" instead of forcing her out of the truck, cornering her against the car, and freaking seducing her, a.k.a. manipulating her, to go with him. "Actually, at that point in the story they've already declared their love for each other. Could he have been nicer (both my uncle and Edward)? Sure. But I still fail to see how this could be misconstrued as anti-feminist.
Um, no, I did not have a phobia. I'd never been on one before. But Bella did not have a phobia, either. She was being ridiculous. It startled her the time before, so she didn't want to do it again. My parents made me get back on my bike every time I fell off as well, but I thank them for it, I don't call it child abuse.
Diane wrote: "If my boyfriend did that to be now I would have no trouble with it whatsoever. ;)Well, if you have a problem with something you tell the person. To my knowledge, Bella did not have a problem with how Edward handled the cornering and "seducing". "
Lol. Spanking takes on a whole new connotation when you're grown.
And you're right, Bella did not have a problem with it. And as far as I know, she was the one that did most of the seducing in the series.
Edward emotionally manipulated Bella. He practically controlled her feelings to get her to do what he wanted instead of letting her figure out her fears on her own. I'm pretty sure your uncle did not try to hypnotize you to get you on the roller coaster. You got over your fear on your own. Bella didn't.
That's not child abuse. I agree with you. But again, did your parents emotionally manipulate you and hypnotize you? No. While your parents helped you, it was really YOU, not THEM, who gave you the ability to bike.
And I'd also like to add: the main point of my excerpt from the book was not to talk about how seductive Edward was, but that Edward ordered her around and forced her to obey him. Which brings us back to your old argument, Dorothy: that Bella does not obey Edward at all in Twilight. I guess, again, we'll all have to draw our own conclusions about how submissive and obedient Bella really is.
That's not child abuse. I agree with you. But again, did your parents emotionally manipulate you and hypnotize you? No. While your parents helped you, it was really YOU, not THEM, who gave you the ability to bike.
And I'd also like to add: the main point of my excerpt from the book was not to talk about how seductive Edward was, but that Edward ordered her around and forced her to obey him. Which brings us back to your old argument, Dorothy: that Bella does not obey Edward at all in Twilight. I guess, again, we'll all have to draw our own conclusions about how submissive and obedient Bella really is.
I was terrified! At least Bella was calm. Emotionally manipulated. Jeez. I've been manipulated by my emotions and innocent seduction was not the way it was achieved. I think we're just going to have to agree to seeing things a whole lot differently.
Dorothy wrote: "I think we're just going to have to agree to seeing things a whole lot differently."
Agreed! XD
Agreed! XD
Jocelyn wrote: "Dorothy wrote: "I think we're just going to have to agree to seeing things a whole lot differently." Agreed! XD"
;) Like how I did that?
@Jocelyn: I can see how Edward's behavior in your examples might be not okay for some people. But Bella IS okay with it. Bella doesn't "obey" Edward unless she wants to; and other times they just come to an agreement on something. She can be submissive sometimes but not all the time. Not that there is nothing wrong with being submissive (also being submissive doesn't mean you have no power in the relationship).
Again their relationship, their terms.
Actually, no I am not obsessed. I dislike it.(Comment from the person sitting next to me.)
We all know we hate it and talk about it to aggrivate the ones who love it... Cuz they get soooooo touchy about it. Lolz :P ps: i dont like twilight
MinecraftCreeper wrote: "We all know we hate it and talk about it to aggrivate the ones who love it. Lolz :P ps: i dont like twilight "Sure. Whatever you tell yourselves to sleep at night. I totally believe you. >:D
MinecraftCreeper wrote: "Actually, no I am not obsessed. I dislike it.(Comment from the person sitting next to me.)
We all know we hate it and talk about it to aggrivate the ones who love it... Cuz they get soooooo touch..."
You hate it and talk about it to aggravate others... hmmm...
Obsessed, maybe not. Bored and immature, possibly so.
Please note that this is the person next to me that said this Dorothy. I do not try to aggravate people.(The troll sitting next to me(again))
bored- totally immature- heck no! im in 9th grade- we do it for for the joy of trolling- its not like we do it all the time, just some of the time
And congrats person sitting next to me, you may have just started a goodreads/Twilight flamewar.
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 think she misspellled "weird"