Feminism and Twilight

Okay, as promised (or maybe I didn't actually say it but was just thinking it. My mind is a mysterious place) I am beginning a series of more academic Twilight articles. The snark was fun, but I think Twilight deserves more intelligent criticism. Well, maybe not deserves. After all, Twilight doesn't care about ME and MY brain cells. But I think I will try to get my point across from a more academic point of view.

So today's theme is feminism. Also planned are "Smeyer hates science", "Twilight is terribly written", and "Edward is an abusive boyfriend."

First, here is the evidence for anti-feminism in the Twilight books:
1. Bella is obsessed with Edward.
2. She has no discernible interests outside Edward. Sure, she likes classic literature, but that's more of a token Mary Sue character trait, just like her clumsiness is a token Mary Sue flaw.
3. Edward leaves and Bella goes into a zombie-like state for four months, illustrated by BLANK PAGES in New Moon. BLANK. PAGES.
4. Bella never does anything to save herself, instead waiting for Edward to do everything.
5. And not just Edward. She has to let everyone do everything for her. This is less of a feminist thing and more of a Mary Sue thing, which we will discuss later.
6. She completely lets Edward push her around and tell her what to do.
7. She lets Edward decide who she should be friends with. Edward goes so far as to DISABLE HER CAR so she can't go see her best friend. He also lets his disdain for Bella's human friends show every time they're around them.
8. And then there's Jacob, who forces a kiss on her and she does nothing except break her wrist on him (which does nothing, natch). Then she goes home after breaking her wrist and her father CONGRATULATES JACOB.

There's more, but it would take up my whole blog post.

So anyway, according to Stephenie Meyer, Bella is the opposite of an anti-feminist character. Why? Well, see for yourself:

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."

Let's break it down. I agree with Stephenie Meyer that feminism is about choice; the ability to do what you want. For the most part, I don't have a problem with Bella choosing to be with Edward over everything else. I mean, it's a little weird to me because it's not what I would choose, but whatever, I can live with it. A woman can choose to give up her career or whatever to do stereotypical woman things, like taking care of kids. My mother was a teacher but gave that up for about fifteen years to take care of the kids, and she's a feminist. I don't think my home life would have been as good if she was working, and I definitely wouldn't have been as close to my family, so it's a good thing that she gave that up. My mom and Bella did the same thing: gave up a career to stay at home. Now, what makes my mom a feminist and Bella an anti-feminist? Well, let's take a look at the distinction. Even though my mom chose to be a stay at home mom, she still retains everything that makes her unique, even if my dad doesn't share her interests. For instance, she's a big sci fi fan, like me (we bond over Stargate and Firefly) but my dad HATES sci fi. My mom still maintains her interests, like Dean Koontz, Boggle, Trivial Pursuit, Criminal Minds, stuff like that. Bella gives up everything that makes her HER for Edward, but Edward doesn't change a thing. Bella gives up her family, her friends, her humanity, her education, and a potential career to be with Edward. It's not feminism just because she chooses to do that. It's anti-feminism because she's changing for Edward, not for herself. It's a fine line and somewhat difficult to make the distinction, which is probably why Stephenie Meyer sounds a little mixed up in answering the anti-feminism question.

Feminism, especially modern feminism, is sometimes seen as a bad thing. This is taken from a feminism thread on the "I Hate Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse Fan Club":

A few weeks ago a Twilight fan, in the middle of bashing me, called me a feminist. I was confused. I am a feminist--not radical, but I am. Yes, I wear makeup/shave my legs/flirt with guys/what have you, but I do it because I enjoy it--not to make men happy. I believe that women should not need a man to define them, and that they should be able to pursue careers and education if they so desire--regardless of the "stay at home mom" stereotype that society expects us to follow.

I was more confused as to why Twilight fans seem to consider the word "feminist" an insult. It's clear that Bella Swan is the furthest thing from a feminist--she's a sniveling girl who relies on her boyfriend for everything, becomes suicidal when he isn't around, and gets married right out of high-school with only brief consideration of college and no consideration of a career.

The stereotype of feminists is that they are non shaving, man hating lesbians. This is not helped by Allecto's infamous take on Joss Whedon and Firefly:
http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html
(I could go into that article, but I'm not going to. It's just ridiculous: Joss Whedon considers himself a feminist, and Firefly is one of the most feminist shows in recent years, and Allecto is just redonk, but WHATEVER, we're not talking about Firefly here.) Young people (I sound old) don't know that feminism is merely rejecting female stereotypes. Stephenie Meyer is not helping that view by calling feminists backwards and saying that Bella, the whiny, co-dependent Bella who gives up her whole life to be with her man, is obsessed with him, and has no interests outside him, is a feminist.

So in conclusion, Stephenie Meyer has a twisted view of feminism, and this is why she's under the impression that Twilight is not an anti-feminist series. If anyone thinks that Bella is a feminist hero, they, frankly, are on crack. (I tried to make it as academic as possible. Sorry that the drug reference got in there).