"Twilight" Sequel Sets New Opening-Day Record

[Rosewin]

I am simply offering a counter view. Quit trying to characterize it as anything different. I have demonstrated how your view is nothing but a feminist script word per word so it is no mystery where your view is coming from. It is not the truth it is presented, it is a very biased opinion and political view, that is all.

In S Meyer's words.

When I hear or read theories about Bella being an anti-feminist character, those theories are usually predicated on her choices. In the beginning, she chooses romantic love over everything else. Eventually, she chooses to marry at an early age and then chooses to keep an unexpected and dangerous baby. I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. Bella chooses things differently than how I would do it if I were in her shoes, because she is a very different type of person than I am. Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world. But do her choices make her a negative example of empowerment? For myself personally, I don't think so.

In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose. The core of anti-feminism is, conversely, telling a woman she can't do something solely because she's a woman—taking any choice away from her specifically because of her gender. "You can't be an astronaut, because you're a woman. You can't be president because you're a woman. You can't run a company because you're a woman." All of those oppressive "can't"s.

One of the weird things about modern feminism is that some feminists seem to be putting their own limits on women's choices. That feels backward to me. It's as if you can't choose a family on your own terms and still be considered a strong woman. How is that empowering? Are there rules about if, when, and how we love or marry and if, when, and how we have kids? Are there jobs we can and can't have in order to be a "real" feminist? To me, those limitations seem anti-feminist in basic principle.

Do I think eighteen is a good age at which to get married? Personally—as in, for the person I was at eighteen—no. However, Bella is constrained by fantastic circumstances that I never had to deal with. The person she loves is physically seventeen, and he's not going to change. If she and he are going to be on a healthy relationship footing, she can't age too far beyond him. Also, marriage is really an insignificant commitment compared to giving up your mortality, so it's funny to me that some people are hung up on one and not the other. Is eighteen too young to give up your mortality? For me, any age is too young for that. For Bella, it was what she really wanted for her life, and it wasn't a phase she was going to grow out of. So I don't have issues with her choice. She's a strong person who goes after what she wants with persistence and determination.

http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq.html

While I do not agree with the way she is using the label feminist since it is an accepted political label with a core platform and a long history, she does make a good point though overall. Feminist act like a woman who chooses romance, love, family, and children over their mad angry politics is somehow backwards, a traitor to their gender, etc...

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[Corp]

Yeah! Women of the world unite...and go make me a sandwich you dumb b****.

Of course political pawns like EW will never accept the traditional love that Twilight supports. She demands that women have 'thoughts' and 'opinions'. Heck I bet she even votes in elections when everyone knows that women just can't handle that kind of important decision. Really she should just suggest a possible choice to her husband/boyfriend and be happy with what the man decides.

[Rosewin]

That is not what I am saying at all CORP but it is understandable if you have nothing particularly significant or stimulating to contribute to the discussion regarding the social aspect of the conversation other than mischaracterizing my commentary in the worse possible light and stereotypes imaginable. Clearly we are after different types of levels and quality of discussion.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[Stormcrow]

Because Meyer makes the definition of "feminism"? I'm really not sure what her thoughts are contributing, unless you're using them to back up your own statements?

Really she should just suggest a possible choice to her husband/boyfriend and be happy with what the man decides.

I'm mute! I have no other choice.

[Rosewin]

Because Meyer makes the definition of "feminism"? I'm really not sure what her thoughts are contributing, unless you're using them to back up your own statements?

I'm mute! I have no other choice.

As my comments suggested, I disagreed with her definition of feminism. She made a valid point though of how they, the feminist movement and their pawns that repeat the same party line without any deviation or individual thought of their own, actually wish to limit a woman's choices in a few areas.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[+HerNibs]

You can get the word of a psychologist if you like, but the word of one psychologist does not really amount to much in the end, as this is of an opinionated subject matter. I can understand where you are coming from to a certain extent because this new generation of children are highly impressionable and it truly is sad when mothers join in on the "stuper twilight craze."

I will put it like this. It is more or less a sociable new age cultural phenomenon, that has amassed through all this new cinematic hype of glorifying vampires, werewolves, zombies etc., in fashionable detail that has a tendency to captivate the younger audiences.

But, does all this really make a difference in how a young adult will function later on in life? There are alot more aspects to what makes a person who they are than just a simple movie gimmick. As I said before, fads come and go with time and age.

I will leave it at that, as I personally do not see me getting any kind of relevent point across on this thread.

Actually, I will clarify some more, this added information seems needed.

Now lets bring marital relationships into the subject. For instance a family has a dad that likes to go to the strip club on the weekends, or on the other hand, the mother is a stripper, I'm sure the parents teenage kids know about this in some form or another. How does Twilight have anymore of an effect on teenagers than already troubled relationships? I would say its all the same concept, its teaching children that its ok to be that way.

Unless there is an informative inquiry of a statistical analysis showing the harm Twilight is doing to children worldwide, I will stand by my original summation.

This movie like many other movies before it, is nothing more than a fad.

Regards

I agree that Twitlight is a fad. Fads come and go as this one will.

What alarms me with Twilight is that if one young woman is harmed then that is one too many. The books and the movies glorify abusive, obsessive behavior as what a woman should really want in the "perfect man". Then having halfwit mothers emphasise to girls that they should look for their own Edward. I've heard it first hand with my idiot sister and other women at the movies and book stores. I don't need to wait to see a psychologists report or survey to know that even HINTING at this is a dangerous thing.

I also agree that it takes more than one fad or thing to shape a young person into the individual they will become in the future. But one thing can change that young person's outlook drastically. Again, all it takes is one young woman to think that "it's ok that he won't let me speak to my family. It's because he loves me sooooo much he can't share me."

In the last book, Edward and Bella have sex. She passes out. In the morning the room/bed is destroyed and Bella has bruises all over her. Edward is so very sorry. Very very sorry but she drove him SO mad (sexually) that he tore the pillows apart with his teeth. He feels bad about her bruises but he PASSES IT OFF AS HER FAULT BECAUSE SHE INSISTED THEY HAVE SEX AND HE TOLD HER THAT HE WOULD HURT HER.

WTF? It's her fault that he hurt her?

Having just one young woman find this romantic makes the series dangerous.

Now, am I out with a picket sign? No, because to a degree I agree with you about it not being a HUGE social impact for all time. But I do worry about that one girl who finds abuse, control and deception to be "romantic".

I have been an abused woman and work wih abused women, it's freaking amazing what can be rationalized as ok.

Now lets bring marital relationships into the subject. For instance a family has a dad that likes to go to the strip club on the weekends, or on the other hand, the mother is a stripper, I'm sure the parents teenage kids know about this in some form or another. How does Twilight have anymore of an effect on teenagers than already troubled relationships? I would say its all the same concept, its teaching children that its ok to be that way.

Regarding this part of your post. I again agree with your example, this situation is teaching kids that this situation is ok but why add to it? Why have a wildly popular cultural fad reinforce the idea that "as long as he says he loves me, it's ok".

I said it earlier in the thread, parents need to know their kids and need to determine the ability of their kid (daughter or son) to understand that this isn't ok.

No, you can't monitor your kids 24/7 but if you take time and talk to them you can give them the reasoning skills to know that if it hurts you, it's bad.

So yes, I've read the books and seen the movies, guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite with this but I damn sure wouldn't allow some of these VERY young girls to read or see Twilight and I would make darn sure that any girl in my care knows that it's NOT an example of a healthy relationship.

Heck, I've seen the Cell and Silence of the Lambs but I don't think either of them are apporpriate for immature people.

Nibs

[+HerNibs]

Yeah! Women of the world unite...and go make me a sandwich you dumb b****.

Of course political pawns like EW will never accept the traditional love that Twilight supports. She demands that women have 'thoughts' and 'opinions'. Heck I bet she even votes in elections when everyone knows that women just can't handle that kind of important decision. Really she should just suggest a possible choice to her husband/boyfriend and be happy with what the man decides.

Don't make me come over there.

Nibs

[Drago]

*Throws handful of papers up in the air like confetti in a very 'I give up' manner*

Welp, that's all she wrote folks. Apparently it's impossible to stay civil in this discussion because somebody won't quit taking negative opinions on the books personally and countering with statements of 'facts' that are actually opinions that they already knew offended everyone else present. Nope, that'd be too easy. Instead they have to dig deeper into the jar and spread a little more ugly on the bread.

I give up. There can no longer be any civility here. Kill them all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will know his own.

[+HerNibs]

*Throws handful of papers up in the air like confetti in a very 'I give up' manner*

Welp, that's all she wrote folks. Apparently it's impossible to stay civil in this discussion because somebody won't quit taking negative opinions on the books personally and countering with statements of 'facts' that are actually opinions that they already knew offended everyone else present. Nope, that'd be too easy. Instead they have to dig deeper into the jar and spread a little more ugly on the bread.

I give up. There can no longer be any civility here. Kill them all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will know his own.

I very very seldom use it but "ignore" has done wonders for this thread.

Nibs

[Corp]

That is not what I am saying at all CORP but it is understandable if you have nothing particularly significant or stimulating to contribute to the discussion regarding the social aspect of the conversation other than mischaracterizing my commentary in the worse possible light and stereotypes imaginable. Clearly we are after different types of levels and quality of discussion.

-> The point

-> Your head

Yes we do have different levels of discussion. See if there's someone who doesn't agree with me on some point I don't claim their political pawns who hate the idea of love. Thoughout this whole debate you've been putting words in people's mouths. You've seem to brush off all of our agruements as nothing more that hatred, linking us to a movement that you seem to have a lack of understanding. You claim that you know that there's a difference between feminists and feminazis yet you repeatedly lump them together.

Ok I'm going to try again. What you're pushing, that a girl can get married after high school and raise a family, no one had a problem with this. No one has said that women much go out and get a job in order to be a good role model. I have friends who really do nothing but raise their kids and they've very happy with their lives. This is not the part of Twilight we take issue with! What ticks me off, and others from what I've seen in these threads, is that Twilight go beyond this idea. If they had dialed back the creepy setting on Edward and had given Bella more of a backbone I won't have cared that much (except for the fourth book...nothing than redeem that). But this isn't the case. Edward is super creepy, controling, and often borderline abusive. He screws up and Bella apologise to him. He puts her in situations where she's hurt and he gets her to lie to the doctors. He says many times that he wants to kill Bella. Yet according to the story this is the perfect man. Then there's Bella who doesn't seem to get much development as a character at all. She let's Edward call the shorts on just about every part of her life, claims that it's really her fault every time she gets hurt, faints all the time, needs to be carried around all the time, and based on the way she treats her family and friends is a horrible person. And yet this is the hero of the story?

Needless to say no one is attacking romance or love, in any form. However Twilight pushes the idea of love too far. Example:

"I love you, will do anything for you, and want to spend the rest of my live with you." <- healthy

"I love you to the point that I will cut off all contact with my friends and family for you and will kill myself if you leave." <- unhealthy

That's my problem with Twilight. That it puts forward the 'perfect' man when in real life Edward would have been arrested long ago.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Corp

[Corp]

Don't make me come over there.

Nibs

Hey hey...that's an independent thought. Knock that off!

[+HerNibs]

Hey hey...that's an independent thought. Knock that off!

*lol*

Nibs

*doesn't cook*

[Rosewin]

-> The point

-> Your head

You would think such.

That's my problem with Twilight. That it puts forward the 'perfect' man when in real life Edward would have been arrested long ago.

While it is pretty clear, you do have a problem, I will allow S Meyer's words, previously posted, to respond to your lengthy response. I believe her words are quite adequate.

I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. Bella chooses things differently than how I would do it if I were in her shoes, because she is a very different type of person than I am. Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world. But do her choices make her a negative example of empowerment? For myself personally, I don't think so.

http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq.html

I am also going to defer to Moro's posts when it comes to the whole premise of your post. Feel free to review them.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[Drago]

"I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices."

Good for her. The problem is they are now, whatever she meant when she penned it. Just because Meyers is saying "I didn't mean for it to cause trouble for anyone!" doesn't mean it hasn't, can't, or won't.

"But do her choices make her a negative example of empowerment? For myself personally, I don't think so."

Good for her. The problem is that a LOT of other people DO think so.

There are things that are completely beyond the author's control. For example I'm writing a rather lengthy story with a vampire. I never meant for him to be a hero - He was flighty, half-crazed and goes into destructive rages and even more destructive depressions. He was a killing machine who obviously enjoyed his job, no matter how much he told himself he didn't after he was through with the slaughter/laugh maniacally routine. And yet the people who've read the story and commented on it name him as a favorite hero. All I could do was go 'WTF?' He was meant to be Sealed Evil in a Can, a Complete Monster who just happens to supposedly be working for the good guys under duress. But that wasn't how he was perceived.

If a lot of people read a book and draw conclusions the author never meant them to draw, then the author screwed up, not all the people who drew the conclusion.

[WoIverine]

*lol*

Nibs

*doesn't cook*

Bah! Domestic pagan!

[+HerNibs]

Bah! Domestic pagan!

*LOL*

Domestic pagan.

I love it. Need a Tshirt

Nibs

[Rosewin]

"I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices."

Good for her. The problem is they are now

...

If a lot of people read a book and draw conclusions the author never meant them to draw, then the author screwed up, not all the people who drew the conclusion.

There is no problem other than your own, which you alluded to earlier, and I can quite clearly see that your only complaint is one based on feminist ideology. You can repeat it as many times as you want...there is not much to debate. I disagree with your view. Most people are just sick of ideologies anyways.

[Rosewin]

Some of this history with how the feminist camp got involved in Twilight and a few points.

The Twilight series grew in popularity, mostly off the radar of the feminist set, until it got so popular that the feminists started to take notice -- and offense. I first became aware of this anti-feminist backlash when Meg Cabot, author of The Princess Diaries (among other girly books) responded on her blog to readers writing her to ask what she thought of the series, thusly: " I didn't take my husband's last NAME when we got married. Do you honestly think I'd like a story about a girl considering changing SPECIES for a guy? No offense to any of you, but as a feminist, I just can't go there... "

I found Cabot's take interesting because I'm a feminist myself, who also didn't take my husband's last name when we got married, but I don't happen to find the series inherently anti-feminist. Nonetheless, since the release of the fourth book in the series, Breaking Dawn, on August 2, the feminist mutterings have started to escalate to a dull roar.

I wonder if Cabot actually was the first feminist to rant against Twilight but I am sure with the way the phenomena is expanding that social historians will catalog and archive many aspects of it.

I've seen the books flamed in a various places, being called "a how-to manual for an abusive relationship," derided for the character of Bella having low self-esteem and obsessing over a control-freak vampire, and more. I just finished reading Breaking Dawn, which has, interestingly, proved to be very divisive even among hard-core fans of the series; in fact, I can't recall when I've seen any book that's a continuation of a popular series generate such ire among its fan base. (For the record, I fall pretty squarely in the camp of not being crazy about Breaking Dawn, but not for the reasons most of the feminists seem to have with it.) I want to discuss here the main beefs the feminist camp seems to have with the series in general and with Breaking Dawn in particular:

1) The Twilight series is inherently anti-feminist, because Bella is willing to become a vampire to stay with Edward forever.

One of the key things that the critics of the series seem to be overlooking is that series author Stephenie Meyer is a devout Mormon. While it's certainly possible for authors to attempt to leave their religious views out of their writing, I would submit that Meyer's Mormonism has shaped her world-view, and that influence has, necessarily, framed the male-female relationships in the series, particularly the Bella-Edward relationship.

Bella repeatedly describes herself throughout the series as plain, fragile, boring, and imperfect, while she idealizes Edward as "dazzling," perfect, eternal, and God-like. While Meyers has not, to my knowledge, ever explicitly stated that her books are intended to embody her Mormon faith, I think that looking at the series without that context is to ignore a big piece of the ideas underlying the entire series.

I am not a Mormon, so my understanding of the Mormon belief system is derived largely from my own informal study of the religion and conversations with Mormon friends. Generally, what I've gleaned is that Mormonism teaches that its doctrine is the only path to eternal salvation, and that marriages "sealed" in a Mormon temple are believed to unite a couple (and children born of that union) not just "until death do us part," but for all eternity. This understanding becomes particularly important in the Twilight series in the fourth book, where Bella and Edward's marriage vows very closely mirror Mormon marriage vows.

Looked at from the context of Meyer's faith, one could, perhaps, conclude that Bella's relationship with Edward is a metaphor for the relationship between an individual and her (or his) faith: Edward -- and by extension, Bella's desire to become a vampire herself -- represents physical perfection, a healing of all bodily human "flaws," and eternal life. Bella wants to become a vampire to stay with Edward forever, yes, but her desire really runs deeper than that; she idolizes not just Edward, but the entire Cullen family and their vampire way of life.

2) The Bella-Edward relationship is abusive and controlling.

Quite a few of the critics of the series have derided Bella's willingness to forever give up her relationships with her parents and friends in order to be with Edward, but if you read the books closely, Bella says often that she believes she'll be able to control the "newborn vampire" killing urge over time and be able to find a way to sustain those relationships while also having her vampire dreams come true.

Bella never believes that she'll be giving up her parents, or even her friends, forever. She wants to have it both ways, and her strength of will is strong enough that in the fourth book, when she does become a vampire, the Cullens are amazed at her ability to control the newborn blood-lust. This doesn't speak to me of a female character who's inherently weak and controlled by others -- she's not even controlled by her new nature, as the rest of them were; rather, she controls it, through the force of her will to make it so.

Further, throughout the series, Bella pursues Edward as much as he pursues her. It's Bella who repeatedly makes the sexual advances, and Edward who restrains himself out of fear that he'll hurt her in her fragile human state. Edward doesn't force or coerce Bella into becoming a vampire; quite the contrary -- he resists making her a vampire repeatedly, because he thinks she'll lose her soul, and it's Bella who finally coerces Edward into agreeing to her plan to join him in eternal life. She may have self-esteem issues, but she's hardly weak.

3) The fourth book in the series, Breaking Dawn, is particularly anti-feminist because Bella gets pregnant with a half-vampire child that nearly kills her during the pregnancy, but she refuses to have an abortion.

Now this one really gets my ire up, but before we delve into these murky waters, a little defining of concepts is in order. For me, a big part of my feminist beliefs have to do with the concept of choice; that is to say, I believe that feminism is about being pro-choice, which is not the same as being pro-abortion. The idea of pro-choice means supporting women in making the choice that's right for them around a pregnancy -- not proselytizing abortion as the only "right" choice.

In Breaking Dawn, Bella refuses to have her pregnancy aborted, even though the pregnancy and birth may kill her; she believes that even if she comes close to dying, the Cullens will "save" her by making her a vampire before it's too late. As many mothers can attest, the maternal drive of a woman to protect her unborn child can be very strong, even to the extent that a woman would sacrifice herself to protect her child.

Since when is motherhood and maternal impulse inherently anti-feminist? Some women choose to be mothers, some do not, and that's part of the feminist ideology of freedom of choice. But freedom of choice has to work both ways, not just your way; the right of women to choose to abort a pregnancy has to, on its other face, include the right of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, even if it endangers her life. Flip it around -- what would these feminists say to a male doctor forcing an abortion on a pregnant woman who didn't want one? You can't have your freedom of choice one way.

4) The fourth book promotes and idealizes teen pregnancy.

I find it insulting to the many excellent, nurturing younger mothers I know to imply that a pregnancy when you're an older teen (or even in your early 20s) is the End of the World. I had my oldest daughter when I was 17, and I survived and thrived. Is it the easiest path, or one that I would choose or recommend to my own daughters? No, not necessarily, but then again, my life today wouldn't be what it is without my oldest daughter as a part of my life-path, so neither would I consider it a ruination of their lives.

And frankly, I know some women in their 30s and 40s who are far worse moms than some of the younger moms I've crossed paths with. The ability to be a good mother and grow as a person from the life-changes that motherhood inevitably brings has far more to do with a woman's character and support system than the number of years she's lived on this planet.

So no, I don't believe the Twilight series is inherently anti-feminist. I also don't expect the feminist backlash to negatively impact the box office returns of the first film. I expect the series' fan base will support the movie; even those fans who didn't like the fourth book aren't going to stay away from the film version of the first. As to whether Breaking Dawn, with its gory birth scene and overall lack of action, could ever be made into a movie? Well, that's a question for another day.

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/08/11/film-clips-is-twilight-anti-feminist/

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[Corp]

Rosewin, honestly, where are you getting this feminist stuff? No one has mentioned feminism other than you. You say you're sick of ideologies but no one has stated any. I really don't know where you're getting that people to disagree with you must be hardline feminists.

I'm glad that Meyer's has acknowledged that no one should use Bella as a role model. I don't think anyone with thought process would make the same choices Bella made. However I do think the choices made by the character is a poor example of a modern woman. Maybe a hundred years ago but in the 21st century no one is going to submit their will to another person woithout having some serious metal issues. If Meyer's meant for Bella to be a stupid, weak person that no one in their right mind would try to base their life on I do wish she would be clearer on this.

[Stormcrow]

I'm still confused as to how "Twilight encourages domestic violence" turned into something about feminism.

[Rosewin]

"Twilight encourages domestic violence"

I am confused to how anyone could actually believe this, seriously. Point 2) in my previous post addresses your question though.

If we are done discussing the problems of Twilight maybe we can go back to the fun stuff and simply discuss the movie, the cast, etc...

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[Stormcrow]

Books.

Not movie.

I don't give a damn about the movie.

Read the books, then return with your argument.

[+HerNibs]

I'm still confused as to how "Twilight encourages domestic violence" turned into something about feminism.

I will guess that it's because there is a twisted mindset that thinks control, obsession and abuse is romantic, as long as the guy is sorry if she made him hurt her or if he "loves her".

Nibs

[Rosewin]

Rosewin, honestly, where are you getting this feminist stuff? No one has mentioned feminism other than you. You say you're sick of ideologies but no one has stated any. I really don't know where you're getting that people to disagree with you must be hardline feminists.

As you just saw EK brought up domestic violence. Refer to point 2) as well on that post, it clearly connects this point with feminism.

Now, you need to quit focusing on me, and focus on the topic. This is the last time I am going to defend myself from you. I have views, discuss them, if you are able to, not me kthx

Edited December 16, 2009 by Rosewin

[+HerNibs]

Books.

Not movie.

I don't give a damn about the movie.

Read the books, then return with your argument.

The books are really bad about that emphasis. Wish I had one with me...there is a quote in there from Bella who is HAPPY that Edward controls the physical relationship because she is a mere girl and therefore has no control.

GAH.

Nibs