The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Page 2

OnyxBat · 06-10-2011, 03:25 PM

Just correcting and clarifying your comment.

Grausamkeit · 06-10-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxBat

Just correcting and clarifying your comment.

My comments need no corrections or clarifications.

OnyxBat · 06-10-2011, 03:28 PM

Nice to know that you dont but I beg a differ.

Grausamkeit · 06-10-2011, 03:34 PM

Beg all you want, the answer is still no.

OnyxBat · 06-10-2011, 03:34 PM

didn't ask

Grausamkeit · 06-10-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxBat

Nice to know that you dont but I beg a differ.

Actually, you would beg to differ, but I digress.

Y'all really need to remember what the hell you type.

OnyxBat · 06-10-2011, 03:48 PM

Thank you for doing the favor and correcting me!

Murder.Of.Crows · 06-11-2011, 02:07 AM

Ah. Thank you for the grammar lesson, I needed that. No sarcasm implied. No, I wasn't defending Twilight, just would much rather rational statements to reason your dislike. The majority of Twilight reactions are either " oh mah god, I wants sex with Edward." or " I'm too cool for Twilight, Meyer is a slut and sparkly vampires are bullshit." Both these statements irritate me. Now, if you had provided said rational reasons, we would not be having this argument.

I wasn't comparing Harry Potter to Twilight, I was comparing the way people reacted to it. There were people who said how dangerous and terribly unoriginal and poorly written it was. Then, there were also people who claimed the opposite. I merely can't help, but to see the same thing.

JCC · 06-11-2011, 03:14 AM

Jacob doesn't cast a spell on the baby, he himself loves the baby, and it's not in a romantic fashion but in a kind of protective fashion. Some werewolves have romantic relationships with the people they are protecting but Jacob's role is implied to be more of a godfather. I still think the storyline sucks, Meyer is a morally backwards misogynistic pig and Twilight should just be forgotten forever but let's not create controversy where there is none.

Saya · 06-11-2011, 03:31 AM

Twilight fans disagree!

http://twilightsaga.wikia.com/wiki/Imprinting

Basically, he's not going to fuck her while she's a baby. But he is going to get obsessive, think of no one else, and fuck her when she's old enough. And even though it says you can't imprint without consent, I'd argue its hard to get the consent of an infant.

Isn't it romantic, though?

ETA: I really shouldn't have looked at that wiki. Apparently Bella's daughter (born on Sept 11! SUBTLY!) grows at such a rate that she'll look 16 or 17 when she is SEVEN YEARS OLD and stop aging then. So Jacob will probably fuck a seven year old?!

What the hell is wrong with that lady?!

Saya · 06-11-2011, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

Ah. Thank you for the grammar lesson, I needed that. No sarcasm implied. No, I wasn't defending Twilight, just would much rather rational statements to reason your dislike. The majority of Twilight reactions are either " oh mah god, I wants sex with Edward." or " I'm too cool for Twilight, Meyer is a slut and sparkly vampires are bullshit." Both these statements irritate me. Now, if you had provided said rational reasons, we would not be having this argument.

I wasn't comparing Harry Potter to Twilight, I was comparing the way people reacted to it. There were people who said how dangerous and terribly unoriginal and poorly written it was. Then, there were also people who claimed the opposite. I merely can't help, but to see the same thing.

I think there's a big difference between "Twilight romanticizes abusive relationships and outdated gender roles" and "HARRY POTTER IS DANGEROUS AND WILL DAMN YOU TO HELL!"

Besides, the first few Potter books were pretty kiddy, I read the first two in one night when I was 11 or 12 (now I feel old, this was way before there was a huge hype at least on this side of the pond, Mom watched Rosie O'Donnell I think review it, and decided to get it for me). So, I did understand when adults were reading those that there would be people saying "ITS FOR KIDS GAWD" like people get with Twilight Moms lusting over Edward and Jacob. But the cool thing about Potter is that it grew with the audience and the characters, Rowling really evolved.

MissCheyenne · 06-11-2011, 03:59 AM

If twilight romanticizes abusive relationships and outdated gender roles, you have to wonder just how far society itself has actually moved on if people still find these things acceptable. I read the first half of the first twilight book and got rid of it because I thought the writing was appauling and total and utter bullshit but my question is, if that stuff is what she's writing about, who the hell is still imprinting it on society as a whole that those roles and attitudes are still acceptable? It didn't start with twilight and it won't end with it either.

Murder.Of.Crows · 06-11-2011, 04:06 AM

No, I was just thinking about that too. Pretty damn bad, or weakly though out. Oh well. I just feel bad for her. she tried to make a book, she did and it became popular. It shouldn't have. But, I feel like if we demonize her, what stops us at others.

Poe wrote about a guy killing his wife, because a cat was haunting him. I read that story in middle school and fell in love with Poe's dark and dreary worlds. He may have been an impression on my weak and feeble adolescence. Should we burn his books as well?

I mean, if you think Meyer's books are crap, then don't read them. Done. You don't need to demonize somebody for being shitty and well, stupidly ignorant at the images they portray.

As for Rowling, I loved the fact that it did grow up with the audience. I felt like it was more real, not only the characters grew up, but the way they saw the world did as well. Harry Potter was great. Why cant the new generation have something like that?

OnyxBat · 06-11-2011, 04:18 AM

Its not really demonizing her its just pointing out the fact that she is writing unmoral things that have now attracted alot of young fans. (is having sex with a 7 yr old a moral thing to do when your 16?)
I get what you mean with having a generation obsess over something but twilight was not as genuine as harry potter, no one copied the concept of harry potter. Now you walking to a book store like Barnes and noble and go to the teen fantasy section and see all vampire books. Same goes for poe and ann rice, no other authors succeeded in making books like theirs. Twilight it not worthy of obsessing over, I all I Know is the romance that attract people and not the actually non romantic story line.

Saya · 06-11-2011, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

If twilight romanticizes abusive relationships and outdated gender roles, you have to wonder just how far society itself has actually moved on if people still find these things acceptable. I read the first half of the first twilight book and got rid of it because I thought the writing was appauling and total and utter bullshit but my question is, if that stuff is what she's writing about, who the hell is still imprinting it on society as a whole that those roles and attitudes are still acceptable? It didn't start with twilight and it won't end with it either.

Excellent point! I do believe Meyer thinks its harmless and absolutely fine, just like the guy who wrote Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus probably really did think that relationships would be better if women just learned their place, and the lady who is hawking Forty Beads right now really does think women need to suck it up (pun not intended) and have sex with their husbands whenever he demands it, and Dan Brown didn't think it malicious to compare being transgendered to being bulimic, and it goes on and on and on. I get annoyed at every one, as a symptom of patriarchal society but also as a conservative push against progress.

Ever read Backlash by Susan Faludi? She argued that after each wave of feminism, there's a push by conservatives to take away what was gained, and then some. Women got to vote, then feminism was declared outdated and unneeded, during WWII women were valued as workers, then in the 50s the obedient housewife was the ideal and you should be ashamed if you're not, 60s and 70s saw the third wave, eighties saw Reagan, Thatcher, Operation Rescue, and a push to "nesting" and reclaiming "femininity", even Betty Friedan said that a woman with short hair, a computer in her room who doesn't bake cookies like a woman ought to is really dead inside. I'm making it short but she looks at everything, politics, mainstream media and the effect on women.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is when I was a tween, yes there were bad media influences on me, but Girl Power was all the rage for all the commercialized empowerment it was, all the YA books I read at that time had strong female characters who were equals to their partners, I didn't encounter anything like Twilight far as I can recall. The Bush years and the Conservatives up here saw that women's rights were pushed back again, and I think the popularity of "traditional" romance that's springing up is a symptom.

Saya · 06-11-2011, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

No, I was just thinking about that too. Pretty damn bad, or weakly though out. Oh well. I just feel bad for her. she tried to make a book, she did and it became popular. It shouldn't have. But, I feel like if we demonize her, what stops us at others.

Poe wrote about a guy killing his wife, because a cat was haunting him. I read that story in middle school and fell in love with Poe's dark and dreary worlds. He may have been an impression on my weak and feeble adolescence. Should we burn his books as well?

I mean, if you think Meyer's books are crap, then don't read them. Done. You don't need to demonize somebody for being shitty and well, stupidly ignorant at the images they portray.

As for Rowling, I loved the fact that it did grow up with the audience. I felt like it was more real, not only the characters grew up, but the way they saw the world did as well. Harry Potter was great. Why cant the new generation have something like that?

Eh? Criticizing a horrible book isn't demonizing her, we're not throwing bricks through her windows and I'm sure as a Mormon housewife she'll be crying that a feminist in Canada said her work is misogynistic and she's a bad writer while she cuddles into all the millions that she made. Media and how we interact with it is part of the public sphere, we participate in it and it reflects on us as a society when something is popular. No, she didn't invent misogyny, but she sure as hell makes it cool to be a repressed woman.

Also, Poe explicitly stated that he thought a dead maiden was the saddest thing in the world, his dead women were women in the refrigerator, yes, but it was the equivalent of saying A PUPPY DIED to evoke sympathy. So there's a world of different between Lenore and the slut dying first in a slasher film.

Murder.Of.Crows · 06-11-2011, 04:31 AM

Alright, now I believe I see your point here. Tis probably worst than I thought it.

On a side note, I wonder what the mods think about this. This thread was created for ad fodder and we turned it into a huge debate. Lol, I love this place.

Murder.Of.Crows · 06-11-2011, 04:34 AM

On a further side note, (like one of those sticky notes you wrote three days ago and realized it had now become a bookmark, for some random book under a large pile of cloths.)

I've been meaning to ask you, Saya. In all your wisdom in feminism, what is your opinion on transgendered people. Most feminists i've read of hate the idea, so I was a tad curious. Probably shouldn't thread jack this thread, but you could ignore this and let it die in obscurity, if you want.

quriama · 06-11-2011, 04:40 AM

thank you!!!

Saya · 06-11-2011, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

On a further side note, (like one of those sticky notes you wrote three days ago and realized it had now become a bookmark, for some random book under a large pile of cloths.)

I've been meaning to ask you, Saya. In all your wisdom in feminism, what is your opinion on transgendered people. Most feminists i've read of hate the idea, so I was a tad curious. Probably shouldn't thread jack this thread, but you could ignore this and let it die in obscurity, if you want.

In mainstream "third wave" feminism (and many who are not mainstream!), transphobia does not fly. At the feminist gathering I went to three weeks ago, we talked a lot about transphobia and anyone who identified as female or genderqueer were welcome to the gathering.

Generally speaking, transphobia was far more acceptable in the second wave, in the 60s and 70s, and thats probably who you're reading about. The second wave was intense. At the time sexism was just the way things were, you couldn't ever have an abortion, birth control was hella controversial, date **** was called seduction, you could get locked up for being a lesbian, and marital **** was not only legal, but never seen as ****. So in that kind of environment, you have to appreciate the rage that arose. So among radical feminists especially misandry was fine, political lesbianism was encouraged (basically, the idea was that you weren't safe with a man, and if everyone identified as a lesbian, well, they couldn't lock them all up), I once read an article by bell hooks who said that at the time, she was seen as a traitor because she slept with men, Margaret Atwood's Cat's Eye talks about this too. ANYWAY, to keep this lecture shorter, one of the major flaws with the second wave was that they believed in the idea of "universal womanhood". Most feminists who got any attention were white and well to do, Friedan, Steinem, Greer, etc. Women of colour weren't well represented in the more mainstream movements, and the justification was that womanhood was universal, so white middle class women could represent black women. So even when they were arguing "biology isn't destiny" for women's rights, many saw transwomen as men in dresses who didn't belong in this universal sisterhood. Gender wasn't really seen yet as a totally social construct.

Then in the 90s Judith Butler descended from heaven and gave us Gender Trouble, and queer theory is treasured and loved, except for that music festival down in the states that insists on a bullshit "womyn born womyn" policy, but for the most part being transphobic will get you booed out of a room, and you will hear the word "intersectionality" fifteen million times in a room full of feminists. I just hope you know that I'm generalizing, there were (and still are!) second wavers who are not at all transphobic, and there are third wavers who are.

Murder.Of.Crows · 06-11-2011, 05:09 AM

Ah, good to know. I was edumacated!!! But, no, really thanks, I have been a bit curious on that. Especially since it seems no one is fighting for transgendered people. The term "man in a dress" isn't something I haven't heard before. So it feels good not to be left in the rain there.

Grausamkeit · 06-11-2011, 07:19 AM

As a feminist(although not nearly as well-educated on it as Saya), I feel that Feminism is not just about 'female' rights, but equal rights for everyone no matter their race, sexuality, sex, or gender. I need to read Gender Trouble & Backlash. That could explain a few things to me. I'm always thinking, "But, but, we were liberated! Why is this misogynistic crap being praised instead of vilified?"

I've also been troubled about people wanting to do away with the title of 'feminist' and call us 'equalists'.

Saya · 06-11-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

As a feminist(although not nearly as well-educated on it as Saya), I feel that Feminism is not just about 'female' rights, but equal rights for everyone no matter their race, sexuality, sex, or gender. I need to read Gender Trouble & Backlash. That could explain a few things to me. I'm always thinking, "But, but, we were liberated! Why is this misogynistic crap being praised instead of vilified?"

I've also been troubled about people wanting to do away with the title of 'feminist' and call us 'equalists'.

Just a heads up that Gender Trouble is hard to read. The idea is wonderful! Just wasn't written accessibly.

For more up to date reading, Jessica Valenti is really good, I liked The Purity Myth, which is TOTALLY RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD because its about the idealization of virginity and waiting until marriage, and abstinence only education, and how harmful it actually is, she was one of the editors of Yes Means Yes: Visions Of Female Sexual Power And A World Without **** which is one of my favourite books, and I haven't read it yet but Full Frontal Feminism looks really good as an intro book. There are other good writers, but most other books I read are on more specific issues, and she writes in such a way that you don't need to know a whole lot about feminism to follow along. Not that I'd think you mind but other people are a bit put off by her humour and her swearing. She's the founder of the website Feministing, which does champion LGBTQ issues and I learned a lot about trans politics from there.

Backlash was published in the very early nineties before "The Third Wave" lifted off, so it very much focuses on the eighties, and she didn't know that relief was around the corner, but it was still really good and I hope she or someone else writes a similar book about the 2000s.

Alan · 06-11-2011, 07:29 PM

Don't take this the wrong way, but even though I knew you were the feminist poster child of the forum I never knew you were this versed in feminism. Not that I thought you were stereotypically feminist but reading what you said really surprised and impressed me.
Is this your field of study and I just hadn't known?

Saya · 06-12-2011, 02:01 AM

Haha, thanks dude. Yeah, its my field of study, where an honor's degree takes up a lot of my credit hours I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to double major with Women's Studies, but within Religious Studies I'm focusing on feminist issues.