first of all, i love twilight. i'm not going to lie. i just finished the last book and immediately flipped open the first because i missed it. i also went to the midnight premiere of the movie.
that being said, i think that the fact that twilight is so far off being "realistic" does actually have some weight in various arguments for it. i know many people are appalled by the abusiveness of edward's relationship with bella, but it's important to note that edward is, afterall, a vampire. nearly every instance of abusive behavior in the book is in response to some life-threatening situation. it would be very different if it were simply "edward is jealous and controlling, and therefor tells bella what to do and who to hang out with", but in reality the situation is much more like "bella's life is threatened by vampires who are intent on her destruction and edward, who knows vastly more about the vampire world, doesn't want bella to be alone or vulnerable because she's his soul mate and he can't stand the thought of her getting hurt"
i think the issue of choice is also very interesting, especially since the stephenie meyer is mormon. it's very obvious throughout the book, most notably when edward refuses to have sex with bella until they're married (to save her soul, of course *eye roll*) and later when bella refuses to terminate her pregnancy, even though the half-vampire, half-human fetus is slowly killing her and will eventually have to bite it's way out of her, which will certainly result in her death.
i think, however, that moments like these can be overlooked easily and still leave a wonderful book, bad writing and underdeveloped characters and all. bella does have moments of brilliance though, and especially in the last book she really rises to the occassion and shows her strength. i think again one of the reasons she seems so weak in comparison to the other characters is because she's human and really has no great way of dealing with the threat of vampires besides allowing edward and his family to protect her.
whew. sorry for the rambling. :)

By my understanding, the movie is a different animal than the book. I haven't seen it yet, but apparently Bella in the movie is much stronger. Which is good, because the people claiming that the Bella of the book is strong are horribly mistaken: she doesn't get points for making decisions, and she never stands up for herself or really considers if the decisions she makes are in her best interest. All of her focus is around being with Edward, and while that doesn't make her a bad person or character, to be feminist the book needs to realize how wrong and stupid that is. (See: Romeo and Juliet, where the relationship has a similar dynamic, but the whole point is that the two star-crossed lovers are morons.)

However, regardless of if Bella is strong or not, a huge part of the plot is the danger of female sexuality. Bella deeply, deeply wants to have sex with Edward, and partake in the equally sexual act of being turned into a vampire. Edward, noble stallion that he is, protects her virginity and mortality, which she is too naive to appreciate. Sorry, but barf, that's not feminism.

I, like Geneva, am a huge Twilight fan.

I've read several posts (in several places) that describe the series as anti-feminist and I must disagree.

I wouldn't call the series a bastion of feminism and I don't say it gets a gold star or a cookie or anything, but I think when compare to similar tales, it does fair much better.

Bella isn't looking for something. She doesn't feel she's lacking anything. She's not looking for someone to make her whole or anything. She shows tenacity and determination. Yes, she does have some self confidence issues, but she's supposed to be a 17 yr old girl.

I also find that in most of these critiques, that not all of the saga has been read. I think it's absolutely necessary to have read the entire saga, b/c Bella's story doesn't end when "Twilight" does. Things do change.

There are several points in the series where I just very nearly stopped reading (or listening, mp3 books) because I was so infuriated with what was happening, but yet again, things change.

I, also like Geneva, don't think that you can't really remove the fictionalization while analyzing the series. The entire story really hinges on the humans interacting with the supernatural. However, I don't think these fantasy elements give it some sort of protection against criticism.

There are also things that Edward does that really speak more to being a vampire than anything else.

And I'm kind of stalling out b/c my other points involve the other 3 books, but they haven't been mentioned, so I'll stick to Twilight.

The argument that it's ok because it's fantasy is so, so dangerous. I don't have a problem with people reading this book and loving it...well, ok, I do. But I could keep that to myself if people would just straight up admit that the book is not only anti-feminist, but violently sexist (I won't go so far as to call it misogyny, though). My room mate loves the series, and she acknowledges its anti-woman aspects, and, therefore, I have no beef with her.

But to hide behind the fantasy element is absurd. It's this kind of logic that perpetuates not only sexism, but violence against women- it's not real, it's not really happening, let's just close our eyes.

P.S. The assertion that it's okay because she's only 17 is also absurd. I'm a teenage girl. Please don't insult my intelligence.

i don't think roxie is saying it's ok because she's 17, she's just saying that a lot of 17 year old girls have self confidence issues, just like bella.
and just to clear it up, edward is never violent toward bella. his entire goal in life is to keep her safe, and any time she is in any pain, physical or emotional, it kills him.
i'm not saying that abuse is ok if it's set in a fantasy world. i'm saying that because it's a fantasy world, the circumstances are different. bella isn't some girl who's boyfriend is overprotective and controlling, she's a girl who's life is threatened by vampires, and the only real protection she has against that is... edward.
luckily for her, he's pretty invested in keeping her alive, being hopelessly in love with her and whatnot.

I'm so glad I don't feel the need to try and intellectually justify Sports Illustrated.

The "but he's a vampire" argument is absurd. Buffy caught on pretty quickly, as did most of the humans that came into contact with Anne Rice's vampires. Heck, even Mina Murray tried to say no to Dracula. Meyer's vampires feel so allegorical, because they honestly lack the teeth (sorry about the pun). Edward is the "perfect man," i.e. a provider who does all the thinking for you. I agree with the good Count on the subject: Bleh.

I'm glad someone finally said this. I can't stand all of the Twilight hype.

I've just finished reading the book, and personally, I don't understand why so many feminists are up in arms about this.
Obviously, we all have a right to our opinions. But having read through this book armed with all the criticism I'd read previously, it doesn't merit most of it.
There are several parts of the book where Bella stands up for herself. In the first book it's her own plan that they use to keep her safe, for example. She doesn't just let them do whatever they want blindly. She knows what she wants and keeps going after it.
Yes, the 'no sex till marraige' thing is stupid. Yes, her blind adoration of Edward is, well, blind and unreasoning. But for a character, with the whole 'first love' thing thrown in, it's kind of the reaction I'd expect from a 17 year old in love for the first time. And I positively love the fact that one of her arguements for why he should turn her into a vampire was that wiht her as a human and him as a vampire, their relationship was unequal. I believe her phrase was 'needing an equal playing field' (paraphrasing).
So it's not fantastic. It's not a feminist manifesto. But it's not full of 'violent sexism' either.

Two things-

I've been sucked into the Twilight-verse, and actually enjoyed the books, even though I spend most of the time rolling my eyes at Bella's poor choices. And I'm still trying to figure out how it is that Edward is themostgorgeouscreatureever. Whatever. I also agree with the original post, and most of the critiques in the comments.

I just file it under "Un-Feminist Guilty Pleasure."

I read the first book years ago and thought it was awful, so I'm not sure I can comment on the sexism. I was much more offended by the terrible prose and complete lack of character development.

Later on, in one of the books I didn't read and never plan to, there's a huge anti-abortion message. I wonder how the movie is going to handle that.

whoa. I don't know mu