Harry Potter Vs. Twilight Article: Is Twilight Anti-Feminist?

posted by SiRiUsLy_bLaCk

Stephenie Meyer explicitly pointed out that "feminism" is "being able to choose." I agree with this entirely; the right to choose is important.

But the right to choose is only part of the question. When given the chance to choose, which path do we choose? Do we choose to let men into our lives and still maintain our independence, or do we choose to allow men to dominate our lives, both physically and psychologically?

In the case of Bella Swan, she chose the second path.

In my opinion, choosing that road is no different from choosing at all. Choices, as we all know, split into right and wrong. What is the point of choosing if the choices one makes are the wrong choices?

In Twilight, Bella supposedly "chooses" to be with Edward. But to choose to be with someone also means that when you are forced to be separated from them, you have the willpower to endure it. Also, Meyer's descriptions contradict with the idea that Bella "chooses" to be with Edward. Her consistant use of quotes such as "I didn’t know if there ever was a choice, really. I was already in too deep. Now that I knew — if I knew — I could do nothing about my frightening secret. Because when I thought of him, of his voice, his hypnotic eyes, the magnetic force of his personality, I wanted nothing more than to be with him right now.” (Meyer, 139) or describing Edward as "hynotic" gives readers the impression that Edward has a control over Bella, which prevents her from being able to refuse him. THIS is not a CHOICE; it's CONTROL!

Even if Bella does have a choice, what does she choose? She chose to abandon her college education for a "person" who constantly abuses her. She chose to listen to all his suggestions and command without so much as a thought of "Why should I listen to him?" She chose to revolve her life around men, respecting her man more than herself, which, if you check any dictionary, is the exact OPPOSITE of feminism. In other words, Bella is making a choice which, according to Meyer, is "feminism". However, her choices reflect nearly everything feminism is against. In that case it would mean she's a "feminist" by choosing to be "non-feminist". Sounds to me as though Meyer is contradicting herself!

There are plenty of books out there that depict anti-feminism in a far more severe manner than Twilight, so why is Twilight getting more attention? The answer is simple: it appeals mostly to young girls. Teenage girls are at the time of their lives where they dream about love but have had little experience. As a result, when they read Twilight, they get the impression that "this" is "true love". I do not mind if people enjoy Twilight; it's a form of entertainment. However, when I hear girls saying, "Oh, I wanna be just like Bella! I want a guy just like Edward!", that's when I get angry. A book that glorifies spousal abuse, domestic violence, and stalking is being idolized. Plus, girls are being encouraged to give more to their man than to themselves, to listen to them in a manner no less than an obedient slave. These "feminist" choices are encouraging us to discard everything that past feminists worked so hard to win for us and present feminists are working so hard to protect: our rights, our independence, and our individualism.

We have come a long way since the days where women were not even considered citizens. However, we still have a long way to go. Don't let the foundations crumble beneath us before we are even finished with the building.

cassie-1-2-3 Saying a woman should not choose any option is limiting a woman's choice, weather you agree with the choice or not. A woman can choose to not be independent, in the modern sense, if she wants. It's her choice. That's what a choice is.

SiRiUsLy_bLaCk @cassie-1-2-3 yes, i know what u mean. but my point isnt the choice, my point is how this is encouraging young girls to make a wrong and potentially harmful choice. if ppl could see that these choices are wrong, i wouldnt care. what frightens me is that many girls fail to see the harm in choosing someone like Edward.

bri-marie This is the big paradox that I have with feminism: if a woman [i]chooses[/i] to do something stereotypically female (i.e be a stay at home mom, let the man take the "lead" in the relationship), is that considered anti-feminist? The answer is [b]NO[/b]. Bella did choose to be with Edward. Her "there never really was a choice" was about loving him, [i]not[/i] being in a relationship with him. Bella could have chosen Mike, or Eric, or Jacob. She could have chosen to ignore Edward when he came back to school. She could have chosen to stay away when she found out he was a vampire. She could have chosen Jacob one of the many, many times the choice was on the table. But she didn't. She made a conscious decision to be with Edward. The whole point of feminism ([i]real[/i] feminism) is that women are made equal to men, that they can choose to be whatever they want -- whether that be an astronaut, a fire-fighter, a teacher, a stay at home mom, a chef, or a librarian -- without judgement. Also: Bella hardly ever did what Edward told her. If that was the case, the entire series wouldn't exist because Edward kept telling Bella to stay away from him. Bella always did what she felt she needed to do. It didn't matter what Charlie, Jacob, Edward, Billy, Alice, or anyone else said. I also don't believe that she gave more to Edward than to herself. Everything she did for Edward, she got some benefit out of as well. That benefit may only have been seeing him happy, but, once again, that's her [i]choice[/i].

cassie-1-2-3 I'm not a believer that feminists don't ever make "wrong" (quotations because I don't believe Bella made wrong choices, but I'm choosing to play along) choices, or that making "wrong" choices is an anti-feminist thing to do. A choice is a choice, no matter what it is, and no mater what you label yourself as.

SiRiUsLy_bLaCk once again, you are misinterpreting my intention. im saying that twilight is encouraging girls to make choices that go against the fights that feminists hav been fighting to gain, such as respect and equality. bella made her choice and so be it, but that doesnt mean that her choices were necessarily the right choices. if this is the ideal life for someone then so be it. but is this the ideal life for most people? probably not. i just disagree with the choice bella makes, not the idea that women should be able to choose her path.

cassie-1-2-3 So is your article about feminism or you not liking that Bella isn't the role model you wanted? If it's about feminism, you're making a lot of contradictions.

SiRiUsLy_bLaCk i see feminism as not just the right to choose, but also choosing the right choice. to me (and remember, this is an opinion article so this is my opinion), the right choice is choosing a path in which women and men are equals to one another. i see twilight as glorifying the path which women devote themselves to men, which is again, in my opinion, a bad choice.

bri-marie And, here again, we have the paradox: what's the right choice? For all women to do whatever they want and never take their partner into consideration? For all women to go to college, get good jobs, and work all the time? To put aside of idea of a family so they can focus on their career? Bella is hardly inferior to the men in Twilight. She alone is the reason they didn't die in Breaking Dawn. She alone is the reason Edward didn't die in Eclipse. She is the reason the pack and vampires aren't trying to kill each other, and why they banded together. That's hardly an "inferior, anti-feminist" action.

SiRiUsLy_bLaCk found this, maybe u should read it. elaborates more on what ive been trying 2 depict http://www.fanpop.com/spots/critical-analysis-of-twilight/articles/29723/title/anti-feminism-bella-swan-illusion-choice

cassie-1-2-3 I've read that and I find it to be nonsense. I'm finding it difficult to understand why believing women in general should be one way is any different than believing women in general should be another way. Is saying that women should have careers and have more submissive husbands (or whatever you're trying to imply. I can't tell because this article is not specific at all), or else they are failures and different that saying women should be domestic and not having careers, or else they are failures? Shouldn't women have the choice to be either or? I realize I'm not really sticking to the topic, being Twilight, but the facts are far too jumbled and hyperbolized.

Nameofthegame If the main protagonist being a stay at home mom and not earning makes a book anti feminist, then HP should be taken into consideration too. Both important families with whom Harry stayed had housewives (Dursleys and Weasleys). The Weasleys were such a large family that they desperately needed money. Yet, Molly did not find a job. One wonders why, since she was obviously talented enough a witch (as shown in her role during the battle of Hogwarts) to get a job in Ministry. Molly has also been shown to be subservient to Arthur, and her decisions and opinions are often not taken into consideration (as shown in PoA when Arthur told Harry abt Sirius Black and OoP when Harry was confided in despite Molly's protests). She is often dismissed as an overprotective, coddling, soft-hearted person with no real picture of the way the world goes. As for Ginny, I have no words. She plays the typical blushing little girl for the first 4 books, while Harry routinely ignores her, dismissing her as Ron's younger sister, not worth his attention, while he drools over Cho's good looks. Then she suddenly gains his interest and becomes his perfect prim and proper gf, and later wife. Even Hermoine, who I really adore for her distinctive personality, is treated as a pariah in the first book, when she tries to tell Harry and Ron off. They see her only as a snotty annoying little nosy girl. She is never known to be having any other close girl friends except maybe Ginny. Is it realistic, even healthy for her? For a major part of the first book and some of the second book, she is merely a pretty showpiece in their trio, never sharing Harry's true adventures. Her contribution is purely academical. My point is that before we go criticizing Twilight in such a blog, we should have a closer look at HP. As they say, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others. And for once quoting someone other than Stephen King, see what a Yale professor, literary scholar and critic Harold Bloom has to say about HP: "Rowling's mind is so governed by clichés and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing." I'm not a HP hater. In fact I love the books. But I think we're being unfair by putting TS under the microscope and magnifying all its flaws while HP has been put on a pedestal no one should dare to criticize, else he shall be the victim of rotten eggs being thrown his/her way in form of various defensive and degrading comments.