Twilight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

You are operating under the fallacy that gender roles are interchangeable and that feminism is a striving for masculine equality rather than a liberty to be truly feminine in behavior. Simple sexual dimorphism should tell you that biologically men and women are not the same and should not act as if they were. Furthermore, you are assuming that traditional roles and behaviors are unnatural and the product of repressive societies as a given, instead of proving your underlying premise at the outset of your argument.

"How can society be just when genetics are so manifestly unjust?"- Dr. James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize, discoverer of DNA

---

Yes, and I remember a very convincing essay I read about how women shouldn't read books because their brains were smaller, and they may become physically ill and sometimes fatally do to their brains being filled past capacity with information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Yes, and I remember a very convincing essay I read about how women shouldn't read books because their brains were smaller, and they may become physically ill and sometimes fatally do to their brains being filled past capacity with information.

---

Come on, you're smarter than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mopey Droney

Also not all feminists hold that desiring a man as a life partner or hero figure is necessarily a weakness or bad thing. They should be free to go after whatever man they feel would fulfill their needs, and saying to them: "No man will fulfill your needs" may be true, but it's just imposing another stupid set of laws upon them.

---

I agree 100%. Also it is not about needing protection it is about knowing that someone is there who loves you enough to protect you if you need it. That to someone you are the most important thing in the world even more important than their own life. I don't think that means that I am not a feminist but if it does than so be it, I like being loved and feeling safe. We all need protecting every now and again, even men, be that from ourselves or someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mopey Droney

Come on, you're smarter than that.

---

Yeah, I was being ironic. I was merely pointing out the silliness of this notion. To quote the Canadian poet Milton Acorn, when asked if he was a Chauvinist, "Absolutely, I believe the feminine sex is vastly superior."

The notion of female subversiveness is, though not an open shut issue, still not one that can be reduced to "women are biologically weaker, therefore should be dominated/subject to patriarchal control." Such notions are dated, and I think any liberal person, or better yet, any progressive person, can agree that both sexes deserve equal treatment.

Charm

I am listening to the sound track for Twilight at the moment. I didn't realise that the guy that plays Edward - sorry the name escapes me - actually wrote some songs for the movie. He actually does a pretty good job I quite like the song. I will find out the name and post it later. I left the cover at the other end of the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Yeah, I was being ironic. I was merely pointing out the silliness of this notion. To quote the Canadian poet Milton Acorn, when asked if he was a Chauvinist, "Absolutely, I believe the feminine sex is vastly superior."

The notion of female subversiveness is, though not an open shut issue, still not one that can be reduced to "women are biologically weaker, therefore should be dominated/subject to patriarchal control." Such notions are dated, and I think any liberal person, or better yet, any progressive person, can agree that both sexes deserve equal treatment.

---

True but (and I may be wrong) I don't think he was suggesting that they should have unequal treatment or that they are unequal beings; rather, that there are indisputable scientific differences between sexes and that women do not become better women than other women through "acting like men". True liberation means they should feel free to do whatever they like, whether that is to be a housewife or become the next Gertrude Stein, not to follow any sort of Woman's Rulebook, even if it is written by supposed liberators. I hope I am not coming across as Pat Buchanan here; I certainly consider myself a progressive in policy, I just get antsy when any philosophy starts telling people what emotions they should or shouldn't be feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mopey Droney

True but (and I may be wrong) I don't think he was suggesting that they should have unequal treatment or that they are unequal beings; rather, that there are indisputable scientific differences between sexes and that women do not become better women than other women through "acting like men". True liberation means they should feel free to do whatever they like, whether that is to be a housewife or become the next Gertrude Stein, not to follow any sort of Woman's Rulebook, even if it is written by supposed liberators. I hope I am not coming across as Pat Buchanan here; I certainly consider myself a progressive in policy, I just get antsy when any philosophy starts telling people what emotions they should or shouldn't be feeling.

---

True to an extent, but to what extent are the roles of women determined on genetics, or on culture? I would say mostly on culture, judging by the wide range of views on the role of women throughout history, and even today, where you have the women as equal, to women as superior, or the radical "women as manufacturers of men", But the point is, a work that automatically creates a role as the ideal isn't allowing freedom or liberty, but rather feeds a cultural assumption, and puts additional pressure on society to make that assumption a realization.

You know what else I was thinking if SM was inclined to write some more books (Midnight Sun of course first) it would be nice if she wrote books about some of the other characters. I for one would love to hear Jaspers story. I know we got a little bit of it in, damn I can not remember which book, it would be wonderful to have that expanded on.

Quote:

---

But the point is, a work that automatically creates a role as the ideal isn't allowing freedom or liberty, but rather feeds a cultural assumption, and puts additional pressure on society to make that assumption a realization.

---

I think I agree with you, but would you agree that literature that creates an ideal role based on one author's particular feminist assumptions has at the very least the potential to be just as oppressive as one based on another author's archaic assumptions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.

I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.

The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.

Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.

The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.

---

In some ways, I completely agree with you, JBI. The connotations presented by the novel's presentation of women as subordinates could definitely make an impact on the current generation of female youth.

The problem, though, is something that only Jo mentioned in an earlier post but that we haven't really examined yet: The entirety of the series is completely contradictory in it's viewpoint on male dominance and feminist independence.

Yes, as we've all stated, there is clearly the tone of the weak, female who wants and needs the comfort and protection of a male counterpart.

There is also a middle, more equal ground. The whole second novel (New Moon) revolves around the idea that the two characters are parts of one whole, and cannot live without the other. While it's from the girl's perspective and her agony seems completely preposterous, it is clear that Edward is also not able to properly function without her.

Finally, towards the end of the series (Breaking Dawn mostly), we the readers come to realize that Bella is actually the strongest of them all and is actually the only one capable of saving all the other characters.

This almost seems like a nice tidy progression of things, which leaves me utterly confused. If one follows the progression, it almost seems like the author is pushing for feminist liberty; And yet, it's still the protective dominant male that most readers are more attracted to. Many people who have read the books have stated that they don't like Bella, but would jump Edward in a second.

Charm thanks for stating what I couldn't seem to get across


Bella finds her strength when she accepts that Edward lovers her - at the end of New Moon the change begins to happen. I should point out that Bella was weak (might not be the right word) well before she fell in love with Edward. That I believe is a product of the way she was raised by her hippy mum and the fact that she came from a broken home - Charm do you agree with that? It is a result of loving Edward and finding her inner strength to save the baby and in fact all the Cullens that she becomes his equal.

I never thought that Edward was trying to dominate Bella - he loved her and he knew how breakable (his words) she was. He was actually doing everything in his power to keep her safe and in fact saves her life three times, two of which were not his fault,the car and the murders. The last time that he saved her was from James and you could argue that it was as a result of him that situation happened.

JBI I think is right in one respect that woman see Bella as weak and that is why they do not like her - I am not one of them by the way.

Why do we love Edward? Because he is in so many ways perfect and in one large way imperfect. I think it is in Midnight Sun - Charm correct me if I am wrong, where Edward explains that when you become a vampire you are fixed, your likes your dislikes your character everything and only something amazing, and for a vampire once in a life time, can change that. For Edward his love of Bella is that change. It is in that moment that he decides that even though her blood to him is the most potent on the plant that he will not kill her. That is why in New Moon he can leave her even though he loves her more than life itself, and that is why he comes back. His love of her changes him to his very core.

It is at its heart a love story and why does love sell - because everyone wants it!!!

Midnight Sun actually gives a really great look into Edwards mind and is in fact my favorite of the novels that being said I am clearly an Edward fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

Charm thanks for stating what I couldn't seem to get across


Bella finds her strength when she accepts that Edward lovers her - at the end of New Moon the change begins to happen. I should point out that Bella was weak (might not be the right word) well before she fell in love with Edward. That I believe is a product of the way she was raised by her hippy mum and the fact that she came from a broken home - Charm do you agree with that? It is a result of loving Edward and finding her inner strength to save the baby and in fact all the Cullens that she becomes his equal.

---

I actually disagree with you, Jo. I think her strange family life and having to take care of her mother gave her her independence. It's what made her so wary of having Edward take care of her and made her hesitant in accepting his protection. Her weakness isn't really weakness- she's just clumsy and oblivious, really, and I think that's because she has never paid attention to herself before because she was taking care of her mother.

Quote:

---

I never thought that Edward was trying to dominate Bella - he loved her and he knew how breakable (his words) she was. He was actually doing everything in his power to keep her safe and in fact saves her life three times, two of which were not his fault,the car and the murders. The last time that he saved her was from James and you could argue that it was as a result of him that situation happened.

---

He wasn't trying to dominate her, just take her of her. It simply worked out that way.

Quote:

---

JBI I think is right in one respect that woman see Bella as weak and that is why they do not like her - I am not one of them by the way.

Why do we love Edward? Because he is in so many ways perfect and in one large way imperfect. I think it is in Midnight Sun - Charm correct me if I am wrong, where Edward explains that when you become a vampire you are fixed, your likes your dislikes your character everything and only something amazing, and for a vampire once in a life time, can change that. For Edward his love of Bella is that change. It is in that moment that he decides that even though her blood to him is the most potent on the plant that he will not kill her. That is why in New Moon he can leave her even though he loves her more than life itself, and that is why he comes back. His love of her changes him to his very core.

It is at its heart a love story and why does love sell - because everyone wants it!!!

Midnight Sun actually gives a really great look into Edwards mind and is in fact my favorite of the novels that being said I am clearly an Edward fan.

---

Jo, I believe he explains it in one of the other novels as well.

Thanks Charm you are a doll. I don't haev my books they have been borrrowed by friends.

I see what you mean about her independence I will have to give that some more thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

Thanks Charm you are a doll. I don't haev my books they have been borrrowed by friends.

I see what you mean about her independence I will have to give that some more thought.

---

Ha, how'd I manage to fool you into thinking that? :p

oh, and by the way, I also don't agree with you that her love for Edward gave her the strength to save the baby. I think Rosalie's manipulation had a LOT to do with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Ha, how'd I manage to fool you into thinking that? :p


oh, and by the way, I also don't agree with you that her love for Edward gave her the strength to save the baby. I think Rosalie's manipulation had a LOT to do with that.

---

I can see that but I think her mind was already made up about that and that is why she rang Rosalie from the island to meet her at the airport. I agree that Ishe knoew taht Rosalie would not allow Edward to talk her into anything. Wow a conversation about the book isn't that a nice change.:p

Who desides Edward is you favorite character. I have to say Alice.