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 much about the series, but is it true that the girl gets pregnant with a vampire fetus and has it bitten out of her? can someone explain that? that is so over-the-top, I'd like to read that excerpt for political undertones.

As i understood it, they were abstinent or something.

I give a big HELL NO to this entire franchise. I prefer the "Mists of Avalon" books by Marion Zimmer Bradley and other fantasy stuff with strong female characters (and decent male characters as well).
And no,vampires DO NOT "sparkle". Bleh.

I'm not interested in reading Twilight, especially after all the criticisms I've read about it. Yet everyone in my college seems to love it, and they're obsessed with Edward. I fail to see what is so amazing about an emotionally abusive (abuse isn't only physical, gals), too perfect vampire who doesn't even deserve the vampire label (sparkling in the sun???)

I don't care that it is a vampire story. I love Buffy and even Spike is a more interesting character than Edward. Just because a character is supernatural doesn't mean he can't have flaws.

For example, check out Tamora Pierce. Her fantasy books have magic, but the characters are all multi-layered and realistic, even with their supernatural powers. Her female characters encompass a wide spectrum of strengths--physical, relational, emotional, intellectual--and don't need to rely on men to have meaning in their lives. If teenage girls want a guy to swoon over or girl to admire, Pierce's characters are a much better choice than Meyers's flat and one-dimensional tripes.

And I don't care that Bella doesn't understands Edward's world and he wants to protect her. The author could at least show that Bella has interests/talents that have nothing to do with needing Edward. I know it's romance, but this drivel is not at all romantic to me. True romance is when people see each other's flaws and connect despite all the other odds, helping each other grow and change in new ways. Being attracted to a guy because he's so hot is not my definition of love.

I think I'll stick with more empowered heroines (and heroes). And I'm glad to see that someone is pointing out the blatant anti-feminism of it all.

Haven't read the Twilight books and not terribly inclined to, being past the "target demographic" and the yearning for deflowering that a certain type of romance novel turns on, though I DO suspect that the whole vampire thing is a "safe" way to entertain the whole forbidden fruit scene as well as some light S&M flavoring.

I DO like the Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter series by Laurel K. Hamilton, for some of those same reasons but more more down and dirty ...lots of edgy, graphic, fetish, magical, otherworldly influenced sex and violence. But Anita really IS a strong, pushy, kick-ass main character who entertains multiple suitors (sometimes more than one at a time) and rules the roost by fighting along side the boys and with them...definitely an adult guilty pleasure :)

I read it for the lulz, and stayed to rant about the sexism.

http://cleoland.pbwiki.com/Twilight#Bookdiscussionentries

Above are some recaps/discussions of the book that mirror my feelings are are also indescribably hilarious.

I wrote a long and ranty post about these books in another forum, so I hope you don't mind if I just quote instead of rewriting. It's kind of spoilery.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH TWILIGHT

1) Bella/Jacob. She uses him in order to avoid dealing with an unhealthy obsession, he sexually assaults her, mocks her for trying to defend herself (a joke that her father gets in on, 'cuz haha, it's funny when women try to deter their aggressors and only end up making things worse for themselves), manipulates her into sucking face on the grounds that he will go on a suicide mission if she does not...and she realizes that she loves him? And has always loved him and has just been so blind? Thereby excusing his constant persistence and borderline harassment all throughout their extremely sketchy friendship because she wanted it all along even though she didn't know it? Deeply disturbing. I would rather my teenage daughters read Maribou Stork Nightmares.

2) The contribution to rape being "sexy". See above, plus the glorification of Edward's constant desire to literally destroy Bella, how he often states that he's afraid he just won't be able to help himself, and how that is so casually and easily intertwined with sex. I'm not saying that people can't have rape fantasies. I'm just saying that if you're going to write a book to appeal to young teens, maybe barely-restrained-rape-as-the-ideal-relationship isn't the coolest message. Like, ever.

3) The pregnancy/delivery. Straight up, I am so uncomfortable reading about how a fetus literally tears it's way out of a mother's womb in the context of the times. With the possibility of all forms of contraceptives and abortive methods being criminalized in some states, it's profoundly disturbing to see the importance of a fetus' existence win out over that of the actual human being carrying it. Now I know that it was crazy Bella's idea to do this and pretty much everyone in the history of everything was against it, so I'd be willing to consider it a commentary on the current state of affairs if it weren't for the fact that all of crazy Bella's crazy schemes turn out to be the exact right thing to do. Oh, and that everybody loves the baby more than life itself and is so glad she had it after all.

4) Laughing off Dartmouth. Who needs higher education and greater chances of self-sufficiency when you're in love? With an older man? At seventeen?

5) Staking everything on a guy whose primary level of attraction for you is physical. Seeing as Bella and Edward have no personalities (because clumsy and sparkly are not personality traits), but neither of them can stop going on about how hot/tasty the other is, I'm inclined to think the frenzied craze is entirely sexual, or at least, that's all that's important about it. In fact, it's all Bella really thinks about the moment their lips touch. Defo wrong to teach young girls that any man who swoops in and can't stop talking about how irresistible you are will love you forever. Sometimes he will. Sometimes he most definitely will not.

I'm not going to lie... Twilight is my (un)feminist guilty pleasure/indulgence. I know Twilight isn't feminine-friendly at all, but I devoured the books.

Though there are many reasons why Twilight is not an example of strong, feminist characters, and plenty of bloggers have pointed out those reasons. However, I was very impressed with Edward because he actually said no to sex. There is a scene in the third book where Bella lightly pushes him away and he immediately stops. What a beautiful concept-- no actually means no.

I really don't want to get into a Twilight debate, because this is something that I've struggled with. I read the first book when it FIRST came out. Way before the book "took off". I LOVED the first one.

However, I balked, and big time, at Edward's condescending ways toward Bella. I didn't like it. He seemed amused by her. But I loved it anyway, because I couldn't help but be sucked into the story.
Then I read the second one, and Bella does get better in this one is some ways, because she is without Edward, but she is mentally very messed up. She goes into a walking zombie state because he isn't there, and then progresses to putting herself in life threatening situations, just because she "imagines" him scolding her when she does something dangerous. That's not only EXTREMELY unhealthy; it's kind of sick.
I read Eclipse and I hated HATED HATED it. My love for the first book was dwindling at that point, I admit. Jacob forces himself on her, mentally abuses her, and she falls in love with him. The whole ending of that book is just WEIRD.
I mean, feminist issues aside, ugh. And you don't want to get me started on Breaking Dawn, which is the most poorly written book I've ever read, and I've read a ton of them. It was awful, just barely a step up from "fan-fiction" and that is saying something bad. I had to actually stop reading it, because the whole premise was so stupid.
So while I still like the first one (notice: like not love like before), I cannot say that these books are great. In fact, they are all poorly written, and have some seriously bad messages in them.

And for those who justify it with saying "it's because he's a vampire and he wants to protect her", I understand. I used that defense of the first one. But I can't let my WANTING to like something stand in the way of what is actually right. I don't care if a guy looks like Edward Cullen, it wouldn't be funny that he is so condescending, or that he OR Jacob are so obsessive. He broke into her room to watch her SLEEP! While in a book that somehow to teenage girls seems romantic, in actuality it is very creepy. In fact, it's even creepy in the book. I have no problem with a story of "soul mates", but these characters (especially Bella) couldn't stand on their own without the other, and that is not good writing.

I am a fan of Twilight. However, as I read the series, I became gradually more disappointed. Twilight and it's sequel, New Moon, are worth the read. Yep, you have some abusive stuff. However, Bella gets her moments in New Moon to do stuff on her own. However, as a character, I found Bella progressively annoying as the series kept progressing. Meyer's wasn't really trying in the third and fourth book, and that's where the worst parts of the series happen.

In Eclipse, I really, really hated how Bella went from 'I want to be an equal partner' to 'Oh no! I don't know which guy I like! I'm going to let them fight over me and be helpless and selfish.' The third book is all about Bella getting protected, but I give her mad props to resist the marriage proposal for so long because she didn't want to get married young. However, ooops!, she did anyway. *groans* I hated the wedding and the entire 'purity' theme with sex in the entire book. Female sexuality is a theme that is tightly bound up with the vampire story, and Bella's need to get bitten and have sex is made out to be disturbing and unnatural. I personally think that's bullshit, and I would have liked to see the books not have 'stay pure' be the main message. However, Meyers inserts her own beliefs into this book with the issue of romance, and in New Moon, it's made quite apparent that the series is what happens if Romeo and Juliet had lived.

Let me explain. Romeo and Juliet worked because the lovers died. Twilight falls flat in a feminist sense because young lovers are dumb. They aren't making social conscious decisions. They want to be around each other all the time. Well, Edward CAN do that, so he does, and it's creepy, but Bella really has never had a boyfriend before this, so she wants the attention. Falling in love with your first boyfriend isn't something that you usually base on deep, idealogical principles. Sometimes, your first guy isn't the most socially conscious person ever, especially if you started dating in highschool (and usually in college . . .). However, sometimes you don't care if your guy's ideals align with your own. The two of you want to cuddle, make out, and fuck.

A huge area where Twilight falls short is that it says is a-okay to be in that first-love, teenage type romance for the rest of your life, or in this instance, eternity. Most of us will grow up and dump the guy that we only were physically attracted to if we realize that he's kind of a jerk and a tad bit creepy. However, Bella never acknowledges how creepy Edward is, but instead, she refuses to see his flaws and places all the blame on herself. Bella and Edward both ignore each other's flaws and only focus on their own, and placing the blame all on yourself all the time is annoying.

I'm not sure if the book actually condones domestic violence. It happens, but unlike the pregnancy thing, it isn't hammered throughout the entire series as being the right thing all the time. However, domestic violence is typically over-looked and eventually covered up with faux feminist 'it's her choice to go back to him!' without any real discussion on the side about how men dominating in relationships is wrong.

And why did I like the book? Simply because the story is interesting. Has it been told better? Yeah, but maybe because it is so flawed, it's compelling.

Kind of an off-subject comment:

I think it's interesting that we as a country can be swept up in a vampire-human romance (and eventual werewolf-human romance with nary a thought about the implications. I mean, considering that the dichotomy is vampire/human, meaning that vampires aren't even human, shouldn't our "sanctity of marriage" alarm bells be ringing? It makes me think of all the slippery-slope bullshit that's used to argue that gay marriage will lead to legal bestiality.

This seems like it is a version of bestiality. We're all over obsessive vampires and teenagers entering the union of marriage, but we still won't allow for a real-life love story between two consenting human adults. I guess it helps that the books have a no-sex-till-marriage theme, and arguably a strong anti-choice theme.

I haven't fully hashed out this line of thinking, I find it all very bizarre.

I might give this a peek. I love Buffy, Angel,Anita Blake, Blade, Ginger Snaps...Damn Bella kept her baby, lock her up!

I've read a lot of speculative fiction, including my share of vampire fiction, and I've played both versions of White Wolf's Vampire RPG. So I think I can say with some authority:

An author may use a character's vampirism (or lycanthropy, or whatever) as a reason for them to do awful things, but not as an excuse.

I haven't read the Twilight books, so tell me: does Edward ever get called on his stalking and controlling of Bella? Does she ever tell him something like, "Look, I know you had my safety in mind, but sabotaging my car so that I can't be with my friends? I will not tolerate that, not even from you." Is Edward ever made to feel remorse for his actions? Does the author ever do anything to indicate that Edward's justifications ought to be setting off alarm bells in the reader's head?

As an aside, I'd like to point out how humanity loss is roleplayed in Vampire. If your character does something particularly bad, even through a temporary loss of control, you make a test. If you pass, your character realizes that she's done wrong and feels upset about it. If you fail, she comes up with a reason justifying her actions, feels no shame or remorse... and loses a point of Humanity.

Another point: Bella knows she's in danger, both from supernaturals and from mundanes. Does she make any attempt to fight back? Does she do any research to learn the weaknesses of these creatures she finds herself surrounded by? Does she bother to learn any techniques to defend herself from ordinary human attacks? Something I liked in Smallville was that Lana Lang, sick of being targeted by every crazy in town, finally learned kickboxing. She still needed an awful lot of rescuing by Clark, but she was able to fight off at least one stalker.

Slightly off-topic: there is, oddly enough, a justification for both the "sparkly vampires" and the lack of any problem with sunlight. Lilith is said to have borne Adam "shining sons and glittering daughters", and the Lilim are often depicted as vampire-like. Also, the first portrayal of a vampire actually burning up in sunlight is in the film Nosferatu (though if anyone can prove me wrong on that, I'd love to hear it!).

i admit that i wanted to jump on the band wagon and know what my friends were talking about. So i picked up a copy of Twilight and finished it in two days, but even then i didn't really love the book, it was just addictive. Kinda like smoking, it was a bit icky but i couldn't put it down. i normally keep all my books after i read them, but i gave Twilight away about a month after i read it because i couldn't see myself picking it up again. i haven't read books 2, 3, and 4.

Because both Twilight and the Harry Potter series are fantasy books aimed at teens written by mothers there has been a lot of hype about Twilight being the next Harry Potter in terms of a cult following. This actual offends me on a personal level. i'm a hardcore Potter fan (yes, i listen to Wizard Rock) and i see no similarities between the two besides what i've just mentioned. To compare a poorly-written novel about a whiney teen who can't function without her boyfriend present to a set of independent heros and heroines who thrive in their own seperate and complete world is laughable.

i've been having the "Bella is weak, Edward is a jerk" argument with some of my friends for a while now, but i've recently found a group of like-minded people. i just started dancing at a new studio (full of actual artists, not just skinny, freakishly flexable people) and the first thing we talked about before class was how all eight people in the room hated Twilight. Sweet!

Wow leveling, Warcraft power leveling, Cheap WoW Power Leveling Store
we professionally focused on providing wow powerleveling service and offers 24/7 non-stop power
leveling service. With the quickest speed and best service we will satisfy your powerleveling
aspiration for your game. We only employ the most professional players and assign only those familiar http://www.iwpls.com ">buy WOW Gold
with your specific class to play your characters. So your character can be leveled by our professional
players who are expert in World of Warcraft,We have helped thousands of players reached their desired
levels at their appointed time. In addition, we have a strong credit standing and the safety of your
account will be protected forever. Our motto is "Do what you wish!".And our high quality service, good
reputation and competitive price will make you enjoy your purchase from us.
NOTE:We use real players (WOW Power Leveler) to level your character, ALL HAND MADE. Your account
will be safe and secure,GUARANTEED.
Non-stop service is a fast powerleveling that from the order confirmed to the end time you required.
The merits are:fastest,unnormal and cheapest. You will find an expected surprise after finishing the
service,In order to avoiding something unnomal happened, please do not change your password or login http://www.wowlevelingus.com ">Wow power leveling
by yourself,your friends or any other people. when we are playing for you . If that ,we will not
undertake the loss and disputation .
Part time service is we will not keep your powerleveling for 24 hours, we can do it within the time
you offered. For example: you require us do it during the time (24:00-8:00) you are sleeping, we ca
not do it during any other time except the one you offered , until finish your powerleveling. The
adventage of this is not only you could play the game, but also can keep the speed of powerlevling
when you are not online. At the same time, In order to keep the speed and the security of your
powerleveling, we want to say "please do not play game or change your password when we are playing it
for you". If that ,we will not undertake the loss and disputation .
cheapest World Of Warcraft Power Leveling service
Compared with part time service, Variable Time Service is more flexible. You need not worry about
your labour union activity or being logout when you are playing with your friend.Do not even worry
about the trouble logined by yourself and our guys at the same time. Opposite,you can play your game
for a whole weekend and holidays with nobody interrupt you. The advantage of variable time service is power leveling cheap
you could check your order at our powerleveling report ,and sent SMS to break off our service by
pressing "pause".we promise we will logout within 10 minutes.in order to insure your successful
logining. In the same way, you could let us start your powerleveling when you are tired or you do not
play the game. we will go on it within 10 minutes.
Our 24 hours online service makes that your problem can be resolved at any time.

I just don't get why Edward wants Bella to go to college and have a successful career whereas she just wants him to change her into a vampire so she can spend eternity with him, doing nothing for herself.

hmmm...you see, i'm not even going to bother reading the book; it really is the latest Harry Potter...a series which i loathed...even as a 10 year old i found the books dull and...mainstream so to speak...and twilight has been compared to that so yea, i'm staying well away, especially now that ive heard about it from a feminist point of view.

Finally, is Twilight simply one of those popular phenomena that blow over really quickly and to which critics are overreacting?

Unfortunately, fandoms have a method of way outlasting their cannon. Even if the main readership dies out, there will be women and girls out there writing fanfics for years to come. So sad.

I'm really surprised Twilight has been such a huge point of argument. I've read all the books and loved them. I watched the movie and loved it. They're not perfect by any means, but what it comes down to is that it's just a good, fun story. Honestly, sometimes it's nice to read a few books that aren't so intellectually stimulating. I don't think they were ever meant to incite such debate, and I think people are reading way too much into it. I really don't give Stephenie Meyer that much credit, because her writing isn't that great. There aren't multiple levels of the book, with hidden meanings. It is what it is. I'm a feminist, but even feminists get sucked into things like Twilight. I'm not even ashamed.

Every defender of these books (which I have not read - nor have I seen the film) says "Yeah, it has these problems, but you can ignore them and still enjoy it."

Why is it OK to ignore them?

It is precisely in this sort of context that we need to be most critical of sexist messages because they insidiously creep into the readers' subconscious. You sit down to read this fun, stupid story and so you turn off your mental defenses, so to speak. Then whatever stupid, horrible messages the book might subtly promote just walk right into your brain wearing the armor of these characters you love. Suddenly you are willing to explain away unacceptable messages and behavior as unimportant, irrelevant, or even OK. That sounds dangerous to me...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's this sort of pervasive, insidious, low-grade sexism that does the most damage to our culture.

All this makes me want to write a book that actually deals with fantastical relationships in a REAL and BELIEVABLE way. Seriously...fantasy or not...it's so corny.

The novels are not feminist literature.
The film is not a feminist film.

There are many feminist films.
Not every film out there, not even every film you spend 10 dollars on, is feminist. Be truthful, observant and above all, compassionate.

Films that are more feminist to rent, if that's what you're looking for:
What's Love Got To do With It?
Ever After
Aliens 1 & 2
The Color Purple
Hula Girls
North country
Norma Rae
Harold and Maude
Hand Maids Tale
Girl Interrupted
Bend it Like Beckham
The WOmen Of Brewster Place
9 to 5
Crooklyn
Frida
G.I. Jane
Elizabeth

Twilight was recommended to me by a dear friend, so I read it... and in about 3 days. I really related to Bella because I remember what it was like being an awkward teen. Sure, Bella's awkward, clumsy, inappropriately snarky, and has self-esteem issues while going through an intense and obsessive first love, but in book 1 she also had her strengths and her moments of giving (not related to Edward). I related to it as a modern Beauty & The Beast - male's love turns girl into woman, woman's love socializes the outcast male.

But by the time I got to Book 2, I started asking myself why I was still reading. Book 4 I actually put down because it was so offensive. I managed to pick it back up just to see how bad things could actually get.

Here's my take:

After what's happening in book 4, it seems clear to me that the author is using vampirism - with it's attendant immortality, extraordinary powers of mind and physical body, ability to have dominion over the more terrestrial world - as a metaphor for her religion's concept of everlasting life, becoming gods (or at least god-like) through physical (though apparently not material) asceticism, families are forever, and "living in the world, not of the world" ideal.

I find it interesting that the only way Bella can achieve that "immortality" is first through motherhood as a human and then being awarded that immortal "blessing" via a "gift" of venom from a patrilineal line (as in, say, the priesthood carried by males), which goes against the grain of traditional matriarchy - that immortality is a woman's gift - being liked like a spiral to the generations through time.

Bella wanted Edward to turn her so she'd be tied to him in that way - her blood became his as his venom became hers (a more skilled analyst could make something there about the Eucharist/sacrament). Theoretically, any vamp could've turned her, but only the skilled vamp Patriarch (I forget his name) could've done it "safely". While Edward didn't want to turn her - he was afraid she'd lose her soul. He only agreed to turn her after they were married, which Bella didn't even want. Conveniently, she became pregnant on the wedding night, then became overprotective of the baby that she could not and would not be turned until it was born or she died first. So really - she could only reach immortality through motherhood first. Which I guess satisfies the matriarchal version of immortality. Except the vampire (patriarchal) version of immortality - a "gift" she was to receive by patrilineal lines - comes along with physical asceticism (no drinking human blood, the natural diet of vampires) and god-like special talents (ike being a shield against mind control) AND then the worst part - ultimate physical supernatural ability and beauty.

The intense, inevitable love affair between Bella and Edward that never really was explained why they're so inexplicably drawn to each other is more about predestined plans and immaculate conception - Adam and Eve who then give rise to the "outcast from Eden" human bloodline.

I'm wondering why Bella's introduction to motherhood had to be so graphic and so graphically grizzly (oh, and it was grizzly!)? Surely there is more to it than just protecting youngsters - making it seem bad so they don't run off themselves and have babies at 16. Maybe it's because the patriarchy paints the pain of childbearing as a punishment for The Fall/Original Sin rather than giving the female the credit for realizing immortality really does come through spawning generation after generations - like the Demeter and Persephone myth illustrates.

I was really hoping after the first 3 books we'd get more on Bella developing her own strengths (as a human woman) in book 4, but she really doesn't until she's both a mother and a luscious, powerful vamp.

What makes the series sexist is that Meyers has an obvious disdain for every single female character in that book, save for April and Esme (and *only* because they are relatively asexual and represent the Good Mother figures (like the typical fairy godmother figure)), and romanticizes the female stereotype, even the parts where being controlled is considered "only a little over-protection". And if you really think Bella had choices, I'd say she had to be swayed and protected from the choices she made by the characters who supposedly knew better... primarily Edward. It isn't until Bella arrives at the quintessential female stage - married and mothering and, I'd argue, aligned with the patriarchy - does Meyers give Bella any strength and self-confidence.

I won't be seeing the movie, but I hope the screenplay was better than the books.

No. I've read the first book, was thoroughly disgusted by it, and pretty much threw it across the room the moment I finished. Every conversation that Bella has with the other girls at her high school are about guys. Who wants to date who, who is in love with who (hint: EVERYONE is in love with Bella!), etc.

The book is horrendously written, the Bella character is the worst "Mary Sue" I've EVER seen in published fiction, and her relationship with Edward is terrifying only because teenage girls are identifying with it and think that this emotionally abusive stalker is "totally romantic." These are likely the same young girls who (if they actually read it) would think that Heathcliff of Wuthering Heights is totally romantic.

And finally, the religious propaganda in this series is appalling. The whole "sex might kill her" crap is a convenient tool for the author to push her abstinence only message. The killer fetus whose mother refuses to abort even though her own life is in jeopardy is another plot device meant to push her pro-life message.

Far from it. While I know that there are more than a few teenage girls who can't separate fantasy from reality, I would not hesitate to say that the majority can; it would be insulting to their intelligence otherwise. I'm curious as to where in my post you find evidence for your claim. What bothers me about the book is the sexist messages, and how it's somehow being twisted into some sort of literary behemoth worthy of critical acclaim. I don't think it is.

And I never suggested that the alternative to this book would be a cast of characters that have no flaws. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to suggest that the characters in Meyer's book ARE portrayed as saints DESPITE their flaws (ie Edward stalks Bella because he's a vampire and wants to protect her and loves her so much and is never called out on it. Ever.) Edward is not portrayed as domineering, he is portrayed as a knight in shining armor. Jacob is not portrayed as a man capable of sexual/mental assault, he is portrayed as a potential love interest. Not only is it infuriating, I agree, it also makes for very boring reading at times.

Take for example Maribou Stork Nightmares, a book I mention in another post - it's from the POV of a man who can certainly not be described as a saint in any way, and I consider it WAY better reading material than Twilight. As a matter of fact, all my favorite books contain nuanced, flawed characters who are portrayed as such because that's what makes them interesting - I'm sure you agree.

Please don't try and pin me for things I haven't said. Stephenie Meyer wrote a cheesy book with sexist and extremist pro-life messages. I'm criticizing her for it. We are both in our right to do this.

What?!

I haven't read the books (or seen the movie.)

But one of my dearest friends SWEARS that I
am Bella (although she believes that Bella is a strong character - so I "guess" it's a compliment?) - and is constantly trying to get me to read the series (to which I recoil internally and make excuses about having too much grad school work to do). After doing a bit of research and reading other arguments of the Bella weak v. strong...I used to be offended by the comparison.

Until today.

I never read about the incest vampires OR the pregnancy or the baby being bitten out of her. I'm sorry, I know it's terrible on so many levels - but overall, that's just funny to me.
Like a vampire spoof - it's just absurd people are seriously defending this! Come on. It's like the wife turned zombie giving birth to the zombie baby in Dawn of the Dead (the one with Sarah Polley)?

So. I guess I need to find my vampire, and get pregnant with a vampire baby...are there any match.coms specifically deisgned for that?

It's funny to me, how much feminists get up in arms about Twilight.

In a movement claiming to be about "choice", you can see that feminists only respect choices made by women/girls that reflect what they want them to choose.

When you have absolute hordes of girls charging towards material that reflects traditional gender roles (instead of the "feminist-superwoman-does-it-all-and-never-needs-men" material they'd prefer them to read), there is nothing but freakouts.

A lot of the feminist community FEARS the idea that girls might actually LIKE traditional gender roles, instead of the artificial ones they've tried to instill. That despite 30 years of propaganda, young girls still want and crave traditional gender roles.

Funny, that.

What's abusive about it? Does he beat her?

Just admit that feminism hates it, because it shows that girls like traditional gender roles, and that's Very Very Scary to feminists.

I'm just reading the first book, and I see all of the points here, on both sides. Edward's behavior for 3/4 of the book--as far as I've gotten--is domineering and manipulative. Red flags for an emotional manipulator?

--Feels overly protective of her, and tells her so
--Stalks her and invades her personal space often(there's no getting around this as a very bad deal, even if it turns out that she likes it)
--Laughs at Bella--a lot. Always smirking, grinning, chuckling at her when she is serious.
--Can dish it out but can't take it, whether it is teasing, interrogation or physical intimacy
--Tells her what to do instead of asking
--Wants to know everything about her, then sometimes uses her answers against her, while often opting not to answer her questions
--Isolates her from her friends and family

Bella is so far a flat character. The book may be from her point of view, but Edward is the center of the story. Bella is often unable to control herself, particularly when in physical situations with Edward, and is often "dazzled" by him. She is rescued from death by Edward on at least three separate occasions. She is also a subservient wife substitute for her father. The only time she seems to exert any strength is with the other human female characters--making "real" women virtually insignificant--or when she is using her sexuality with Jacob to get the skinny on the Cullens. This does not make a strong female character, but I also don't think Bella is meant to be a role model of any kind. She is an empty vessel through which the story of Edward is told.

Even knowing all of that, I love the story. I'm a little obsessed with Edward too. It is a book, but it is a book aimed at teenaged girls, so I'm hoping there are lessons to be learned about blind obsession and damaged men. I plan to read all four books, and hope I'm not still disappointed with Bella at the end. I'm crossing my fingers that there is a reason for all of the "damsel-in-distressing" she pulls in the first book.

Maybe I come from a different perspective. I by no means believe this to be a feminist happy book, but I also do not believe it to be the center of all things anti-feminist I appreciate the books on a level though because they get children to read. Some may believe that they need to be reading better books, but with some kids it is all you can do to get them to read.

I think that it is important that they understand this is not how the real world workds, but I believe that the complete and total fantasy of this book puts the actions in a safe enough place that most kids and teens reading the book understand what happens in this book is so dramatic that it isn't acceptable in real life.

I'm not excusing the complete lack of feminist ideals, but at the same time most of what happens is Bella's decision...her decision to be with Edward, her decision to keep her baby (with much opposition from everyone except Rosalie), her decision to become a vampire, her plans...also you forget the other women in the story...Alice is completely kick ass...and Rosalie...she's a tough woman who is not to be messed with...

So in the end I totally get the unfeminist of this book and series, but I also don't wish to completely ban or hate something that gets so many kids to read...because once they start to become readers they can get involved in other books and other ideas including feminism...this book can also spark some really "well that is so uncool" reactions to what happens with Bella in this book...that can make them realize the need for feminism...or lead to books by Frank Beddor, Tamora Pierce and Chris Crutcher that I believe every person should read...as long as there is definite acceptance and pointing out of the problems with teh book then I don't suppose there is as much of a problem, because for me they provide me with ways of getting my kids (students) to read.

--Feels overly protective of her, and tells her so

Vampires want to kill her. She's accident-prone. She cannot protect herself against things like vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural entities that are far more powerful than a mere human.

--Can dish it out but can't take it, whether it is teasing, interrogation or physical intimacy

He cannot be physically intimate with her, and it's not because he's "emotionally abusive". He's a vampire, with skin like stone, and the strength to throw cars around, coupled with the fact that her blood smells to him, like your most favorite food does to you.

He has to be careful, to avoid killing her for her blood, as is his nature as a predator of humans, and were they to have sex, he could very well kill her completely accidentally. That does not make him physically abusive, either. It's a simple ratio of strength.

Again, she's rescued by him because there are situations that she isn't capable of doing anything in.

She's dazzled by him, as it were, because *he is a predator*. Much like animals can be dazzled and dazed by that which preys upon them, so too is it the same with this.

I'm not excusing the complete lack of feminist ideals

Also, to this:

Why does every book have to have "feminist ideals"? Again, we come to the fact that feminism hates when women choose things that they don't agree with.

Every book needs to have feminist/humanist ideals.
Every movie does.
Every advertisement does.

No, they don't.

Real women aren't feminist superwomen that are perfect and never need/want men.

Deal with this.

I know it's difficult to understand, but, characters in fiction are often written as, you know, human. Fallible. Imperfect. A lot like real people. So, there will never be an age where all women characters are written as not needing anyone for anything, ever, never wanting men, never wanting marriage or families, and having the best jobs, and making billions of dollars.

Instead, you'll continue to see flawed, human women, instead of your ideal feminist superwoman.

See, thing is, if you advocate choice, and the right for women to choose what they want, then, by default, you cannot criticise women that choose to be traditional. You cannot criticise women that write about traditional gender roles.

In doing so, you are telling women that those choices are "wrong", and they are wrong for making them.

I suppose one could find gender oppression in anything if one is willing to change the facts to suit her diatribe.

With all due respect, the author doesn't really favor "choice" in the least but is hell-bent on insisting that a woman cannot be a "feminist," as she defines it, if she chooses to love a man and enter into a relationship where both become make sacrifices for the other -- because that's what happened in the film. I saw the film and -- newsflash -- Edward gave himself to her every bit as much as she gave herself to him. They were two lovestruck kids, but there is not a hint of subjugation or oppression in their relationship. I saw two equal moral agents -- and the conflict that drove the plot was that he happened to be a vampire.

I am sorry, but the author's post reminded me of that tired business about women needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle -- which for some people has taken on this whole anti-marriage connotation.

The problem is that men and women routinely fall in love, something the author doesn't bother to consider much less deal with. It is silly to twist and pound the normal sacrifices that lovers make for each into oppression to women when, in fact, there is no oppression to women present. You need to pick your spots better or else you lose all credibility. In this particular movie, the girl freely chose to act out of love, AND the boy made sacrifices at least as great for her. Neither lover discarded their independence.

With all due respect, the fact that persons such as this author insist on metamorphosing garden variety teen "love" -- as nutty as it might seem to an adult -- it into something it is not -- oppression and subjugation of women -- strikes most people as inane and engenders disrepute of feminism. We need to put a better face on feminism than to put every damn chick-flick that comes down the pike under the gender microscope and throw hissy fits because a film doesn't tell the "ideal" feminist story, whatever the hell that is.

Sheesh! Let's focus our attention on real oppression and stop seeing it ooze from every crevice.

Twilight is awful, and rather than write a novel-length comment here, I wrote a community post about it.

Shameless self promotion:
http://community.feministing.com/2008/11/yes-another-twilight-post.html

I have never read Twilight, but I have heard enough to come to this conclusion, why would be so terrible if Bella was a strong female character?

What if she found love but also realized at her age there is a lot of experiences that she would be missing out on if she got married young and became a mother? It is not because women who are mothers=lifeless drones, but it is the fact that motherhood or any lifelong commitment is a huge deal and shouldn't be weighed lightly.

Why couldn't of Bella pursuit her own dreams and ambitions before making a decision that dictates the course of her natural and I suppose unnatural life?

Bella is allowed to be a person who has flaws, I mean come on who doesn't, but can she be her own person as well. Plus if Bella was a feminist role model, then it would make the success of the novel, film (written/directed by women) all the more sweeter.

But in my humble opinion Twilight is to The Vampire Chronicles is what Sarah Palin is to Hilary Clinton.

i completely disagree with anyone who says that twilight is a book that has antifeminist values in any way.
i dispute the point about Bella obsessing over Edward so much and worrying about her insecurties. If you look into the draft of Midnight Sun, the book from Edwards view, he is the same way. He is insecure about himself and constantly obsessing over the wonder that is Bella.
there is a point that many stories are portraying women as damsels in love, but do no pigeon hole any female character who is acting in the name of love becuase that in itself does not seem feminist
BOTH bella and edward put alot at risk at one time or another for eachother. try not to make it about gender but about emotion. they are deeply in love and it is an equal relationship

truly, bella is strong willed
and twilight is not unfeminist

How is the unwarranted forgiveness of domestic and sexual violence towards women not unfeminist?
How is the glorification of emotional abuse towards women not unfeminist?
How is the fact that the female characters are defined by their male counterparts and the only ones that aren't either getting married or giving birth portrayed as the bitchy ones not unfeminist?

Perhaps one could argue that their relationship is equal. But I don't think one could argue that Twilight the book is not unfeminist.

a lot of the posters on here make it sound like bella gave up everything to become a wife and mother. first of all, edward wanted to get married because a) he didn't want bella to miss out on any human experiences b) he loves her and wants to be with her for the rest of his life/eternity c) he is afraid that as a vampire he no longer has a soul, and doesn't want to risk bella's by having sex outside of marriage- because bella insists on having sex before she is turned into a vampire- and d) he grew up in the early 1900's when getting married at 18 was completely common.
on the subject of bella becoming a mother, first of all it wasn't either of their intentions for her to become pregnant. for all they knew, it was impossible. second of all, renesmee (bella's daughter) isn't exactly the same as the crying screaming keep-you-up-all-night responsibility you would imagine if you hadn't read the book. she's brilliant, and fairly self-sufficient, and sleeps through the night (not that bella needs sleep as a vampire) and is nearly as strong as the other characters, not to mention she'll be an adult in, what? 7 years?
it just doesn't seem like the same issue as bella choosing to be a mom just because that's what society tells her she shoudl be and because she's just "got that womanly urge" or anything like that.

I can't relate with Bella the way she is now. I cannot relate to someone who does not have goals for later in life and is obsessed with one guy. Nowhere in the series is Bella ever talking about the future or college or what she will do when she graduate high school. She is seventeen, about to graduate, but yet, we do not ever hear a single suggestion of what she will do later in life. Once she meets Edward, it's Edward, Edward, Edward, and not much else.

NO one ever said Bella need to be perfect. I'm all for flawed characters. Bella is not portrayed as flawed. She is portray as that sweet, clumsy girl who everyone loves and has a good personality. Instead, as you read the story, she uses and think less of the people around and then ditches them just for Edward. If someone called her out on these flaws, then that would be realistic.

Instead, when she calls Mike a golden retriever, manipulate Jacob for info, it's seen as okay. It's not a real, supposed flaw for Bella. Like when Bella depends solely on Edward for everything, and when he's gone, she just falls apart. It's seen as okay and when Bella is being called strong, female character, everyone thinks that these are good qualities.

She does not need to be Supergirl. No one ever said that. She could have realize her faults, and not depend so much on Edward. She could do all that and still be human.

When her human strength and abilities are no match against the supernatural, Edward could save her and I wouldn't have given a damn about that. It is when she jumps of a cliff because she could not live without hearing Edward's voice in her head, that's when she is weak and not a strong feminist character. There was nothing supernatural there. It's was just her and her unhealthy need for Edward. And she never gets completely over it. Only when Edward is back, that she is well again.

I do not want a super strong, brilliant Mary Sue as a character. What I want is a flawed human character, where she overcome her problems, and learns from what she did, mostly by herself, without clinging onto anyone. Bella isn't that. Whatever she ever achieves, it's because of Edward, and her supernatural friends, never her own unique human qualities.

Also, yes, in real life, people do obsess and live only for one thing. But when do we ever see them as strong? No. People pity them and hope they can do better.