Fourth Wave Woman

It was  bound to happen. The feminists are now attacking Twilight. Last summer,  I read the books and had about a three-month obsession with them until I realized that Edward Cullen was Mr. Darcy as a vampire. Yes, I found Edward’s actions creepy when he snuck in to Bella’s room to watch her sleep, but Stephanie Meyers really does capture what it’s like to be a teenager in love. I knew what to expect when I saw this article in the Hartford Courant. It’s the same message of sterilized “love” that feminists are always preaching.

Gina Barreca, an author and English professor at the University of Connecticut, is a vehement critic: “The big thing that really makes ‘Twilight’ a really bad book is that fear should never be an aphrodisiac. The idea that you fear your lover should not make him sexier and that is a big part of these books. … It distresses me to see that in any form, whether or not it’s supernatural.

“It’s a damaging fantasy. … It’s the idea that she feels as if she is in a dangerous relationship and she doesn’t know how to get out of it and that finally, however much in danger you feel, love has to conquer. … No, when you feel yourself in danger, you have to go away, put yourself in another novel.”

For starters, Edward is a vampire. The last time I checked, those did not exist in reality. Secondly, while there was always the possibility that Edward could bite Bella, he truly loved her and wanted to protect her. Sure, I am physically capable of leading an armed robbery, but I’m not going to do it. It’s very clear in the book that Edward would never bite Bella under any circumstances.

I also hate to break it to Ms. Barreca, but fear has been an aphrodisiac for women since creation. Going back to the Austen — how many of her characters fall for the bad boy? Elizabeth is attracted to Mr. Whickham in Pride & Prejudice, Emma to Mr. Churchill, Fanny Price toys with the idea of marrying Mr. Crosby in Mansfield Park,  and Marianne falls for John Willoughby in Sense & Sensibility. If the “wrong man” plot device is now verboten, we have a lot of classical literature to change.

We don’t always make smart decisions, but aren’t women strong enough and empowered to make their own choices about who they love? Barreca’s sentiments continue the theme that men should be emasculated in order to be appropriate “feminist” men that women are allowed to love. This next paragraph makes me wonder, has this writer ever been in love?

It wasn’t until the second book, when Bella virtually collapses after Edward breaks up with her — Meyer indicates this with entire chapters that consist of a blank page with the name of the month at the top — that she began to see the relationship as “probably not the healthiest thing in the world.”

“But people have to remember it’s a fictional thing,” said Bart. “It’s obviously not real. … Everyone falls in love with the bad boys. Edward has both sides to him. The appeal is he’s safe because he does want to protect her and spend his life with her, but there is this underlying element of danger.”

Bart said she could understand why “people think it’s probably not the best thing to be giving young girls.”

One of Meyer’s strengths is capturing the crazy, heady feeling of first love. I remember reading New Moon, coming across the blank pages and thinking, “Wow. That’s exactly how I felt.” Teenagers are not exactly known for being sensible, and Bella is a fairly typical teenage girl who falls head-over-heels with a boy. She’s crushed when he breaks up with her.

Feminists keep trying to deny human nature. It’s not always neat and politically correct. These women are so stifled and expect society to operate within the narrow confines of their worldviews. When will they admit that they can change laws, but they can’t change biology? Imagine what a dry and lonely world this would be if feminists removed all romance!

This article reminds me of Christina Hoff Sommers discussion of Gone With the Wind in Who Stole Feminism?. Feminists were aghast that a survey found most women did not see the famous scene when Rhett Butler sweeps Scarlett up and carries her upstairs as “rape” but “exciting.”

The idea of ‘mutually pleasurable rough sex’ is not high on the gender feminist list of entertainments. All the same, if the New Feminist philosophers were honest about taking women seriously, they would be paying attention to what, in most women’s minds, is a fundamental distinction: Scarlett was ravished, not raped. The next morning finds her relishing the memory. Ms Friedman’s insistence that Scarlett was raped was just another example of how gender feminists, estranged from the women they claim to represent, tend to view male/female relations as violent or humiliating to women.

Defending women who enjoy the idea of ravishment is not the same as holding a brief for any specific kind of fantasy or sexual preference. Fantasies of female domination are also popular. women are clearly capable of treating men as “sex objects” with an enthusiasm equal to, and in some cases exceeding, that of men for treating women as such. Male strip-shows seem to be as popular as Tupperware parties.

This article plays exactly into the paradigm that all sexual relationships are based on some level of violence:

One was about a character named Sam who, when he was turning into a werewolf, loses control and hurts the young woman he desires, Emily. Later, he apologizes profusely. She forgives him because he was out of control and didn’t mean to hurt her. The two get together, but Emily is left scarred forever by the event.

If you subtract the werewolf element, such scenarios sound all too familiar to experts like Mitru Ciarlante, the youth initiative director for the National Center for Victims of Crimes in Washington, D.C. “This pattern of ‘the werewolf’ losing control sounds like a dynamic we’ve heard in abusive relationships,” said Ciarlante.

Again, the character is a WEREWOLF. Logic does not apply when the character in question is more animal than man. In Twilight, the young men on an Native American reservation start turning into werewolves because vampires have returned to the area. Since no living generation had turned into werewolves, the young boys are completely without guidance and do not know what is happening. Strong emotions trigger the changes and since no teenager ever acts out abruptly, is it surprising that he inadvertently attacks a woman?

Domestic abuse is wrong. However, this is not domestic abuse. This is not a man manipulating or beating a woman because he has emotional issues or violent tendencies. This is a situation where a man is becoming an animal with animal instincts, and a woman happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anything else is just reading psychobabble into it to make a whiny political point.

But it goes on.

Suzanna Narducci, a co-founder of TweenParent.com, a website for parents of 9- to 13-year-olds, said she wouldn’t forbid kids from reading the books or seeing movies, though she admits that when Bella gives up Dartmouth, “that killed me,” and the relationship between Sam and Emily “reeked of domestic violence.”

This simply gets the plot wrong. Bella doesn’t give up Dartmouth for a “man.” She gives up Dartmouth (SPOILER!) because she becomes pregnant with a half-human/half-vampire spawn that almost kills her. You can’t go to Dartmouth if you are barely alive.

There is one glimmer of reason here:

Lisa Burns, an associate professor of media studies at Quinnipiac, pointed out that while much in the books offends feminist sensibilities, Bella gets what she wants. “You can argue that if feminism is all about choices, that she is given the ability to make the choice. … It might not be one that most feminists would agree with. … It might be putting us back to the 1950s standard, but it is her choice.”

From a feminist perspective, I can see how they would make this into a pre-feminist enlightenment issue. Meyers is a strict Mormon and did not allow her characters to have sex outside of marriage. Thus, Bella and Edward get married after high school. Just because Meyers wrote a plotline that defended traditional values does not put us back into the 1950s. If someone wants to get married at a young age, that is his or her choice. That isn’t a “1950s standard” but an individual choice that should be respected in this country.

I guess feminists aren’t allowed to read either fantasy or romance books, and I thought being a conservative Christian was deemed rigid.