(Note: I did not write all of this, some of it was collected from rants I found on the INTERNET and concise arguments on forums. I edited it and grammar-a-fied it. I did not ask permission for these rants. However, some stuff is minse. Yes I do realise now that Twilight fans will hate me for bashing twilight, and anti-twilighters will hate me for stealing some of their work. That's okay. If I stop posting it's because one group or another has tracked me down and killed me... Enjoy!)

3. Sexist towards Females

Throughout the three books of the Twilight books that I have read (I could not stomach the other one) the main thing that stuck out at me was how all the female characters where portrayed. It seems, for some bizarre reason, Stephanie Meyer hates women. You don't believe me? Ok, just a quick list of characteristics that affirmed my belief in the deep-seated anti-feminism at the roots of this series.

Bella's girl friends: Described again and again by Bella as shallow and superficial, whereas the guy friends are given personalities and shown to be generally good guys--Mike, Tyler, etc.

Alice: A powerful vampire, but obsessed with the same things as Bella's 'superficial' friends--parties, clothes, etc. And, her ability is iffy, inconsistent, and unreliable as compared to Jasper's, Edward's, or Carlisle's (forget the other boy vamp--he's just super strong, right?)

Rosalie: Holds a grudge, is gorgeous, and is generally disliked by Bella. Her back story reinforces her as a victim who just wants to get married and have babies. This is compared with Jasper's life-and-death Serious back story where he was all soldierly and manly and stuff.

Bella's mom: Described as flighty, inconsistent, and needing constant supervision, is unable to take care of herself, whereas Charlie is the solid, caring, responsible guy who stays put in one place.

Esme: We don't hear that much about her. She's just a maternal figure and we hear more about Carlisle's and Jasper's history than hers.

The girls on the reservation: They get "imprinted" upon--basically chosen by the men to be their wives/future loves/whatever and have no say in the matter whatsoever. This imprinting is performed by the males and is absolute; there is no reverse imprinting where the women choose the men. Also, the pack leader's girlfriend does all the cooking and caring for the pack. I assure you I will go very in-depth on on imprinting in other chapters. The one girl who turns into a werewolf, instead of being a strong character, is petty and judgemental and hung up over the pack leader romantically.

Okay, now lets get to Bella.

Bella: Damsel in distress, makes bad decisions (going to the alley, putting herself in danger to hear Ed's voice), seductive temptress (wants to get into Ed's pants), cannot survive without Ed (melts into a puddle of goo during his absence), doesn't want to attend college now that she's met Edward, she's the root of all conflict (James wants to get a taste of her, James' girlfriend wants to kill her, Jacob loves her/creates friction between the pack and the vampires, all those people die in Seattle because James' g/f is trying to get at her), cooks and cleans for her dad because what else could a homemaker do? This is compared to Edward, who is the White Knight, makes good decisions, the morally strong (wants to wait to get down 'n' dirty until they're married).

But wait, there's more.

Twilight fan's will defend the book series by say it's not sexist and I'm an idiot. Ocassionally, you come across a more concise argument such as:

"But feminism is about choice, and Bella gets to make her own choices!"

It seems a compelling argument at first glance, the fact is that it's just as bad an argument as many of the others I've addressed over this series.

But why?

First, let's talk about feminism. What is it exactly? Well, in a word it's equality. If I were to expand that definition, I would say that feminism is about the right be treated and judged the same as those of the XY persuasion, to have the same opportunities, and to have the right of freedom of will the same as any man.

So, it's not so much about choice as it is the equal right to "choose," if choice is the end object. For example, if men can choose to remain a bachelor or to be promiscuous without judgment, so too should women be allowed that choice with the same repercussions (or lack thereof) as in men's case.

So, let's bring this back 'round to Twilight. What choices does Bella make? Let's sample three of her decisions throughout the series.

1. She chooses to follow James' instructions at the end of Twilight
If you're arguing for Bella as a strong female character who is feminist because she is "allowed" to make her own choices, this is one bad example. Why? Because this choice was a bad one. It revealed Bella as stupid and incapable and led to Edward needing to swoop in to save her. Why? Because she, the weak and silly woman, was too dumb to see through James' unoriginal scheme and to her detriment made a bad choice because of that. This doesn't prove that Bella is strong, or that she's a feminist just because she made a choice. In fiction, the existence of the decision is not so important as the results of that decision themselves and how those results affect the perception of the decision-maker. Here, Bella's decision forces her into the weak damsel in distress figure yet again, thus propelling the charges of sexism and anti-feminism even further.

2. She ignores Edward's mandates against visiting Jacob and La Push.
This one is a bit tricky. On the surface, it seems like an empowered decision. If you push deeper, however, more unsettling truths emerge. For example, why does she stay with Edward despite his abusive actions? Why does she submit to his attempts to control her behavior the rest of the time? Then, if you turn to the action itself (and forgive me but I don't have a copy of the book on hand), Bella says something to the effect of 'I know I won't get away with this' or 'I know Edward's not going to be happy' (or something like that), acknowledging his role as an authoritative and dominant partner. She doesn't like his behavior. She doesn't appreciate his attempts to control her, yet she exhibits no sense of strength or empowerment and Meyer treats the event like Bella's "breaking a rule" (Edward's rule) rather than having the right to do as she pleases. Not only that, but when his actions finally do irritate her--after she realizes that he removed her engine--she doesn't dump him or bitch at him or say, "fuck off, I'll do what I want" - instead, she leaves her window open. Even though Edward imposed his will on her and upset her with his abusive and controlling act, she doesn't respond. She doesn't get angry. All in all, she thinks of herself as powerless and acts powerless. The choices of an empowered female? I think not.

3. Her "choice" to become a vampire.
Throughout the series, this was the one thing that simultaneously irked me and made me glad for her character. On the one hand, I was annoyed that she wanted to give up her humanity, her future, and her friends and family. The fact that she had zero ambition other than gluing herself to Edward's side for the rest of eternity bugged me. On the other hand, I was glad that she'd made a choice and stuck by it even in the face of Edward's obvious disapproval and anger over her decision. In books 1-3, Bella did intend to become a vampire. But there are three problems with that. 1) Her becoming a vampire was contingent upon Edward's agreement (Edward's choice), 2) it took the Vulturi's decision and the Vulturi's timeline to make Edward agree, not hers, and 3) becoming a vampire was never within her power to begin with. It was an illusion of choice, not actual choice. However, Breaking Dawn completely destroyed whatever tenuous thread of empowerment existed. She didn't get to choose to become a vampire--she was unconscious. She was dying, a broken and bleeding husk. Edward decided when the time was right. Edward chose to make her a vampire. Bella didn't have any choice in the matter at all, from beginning to end. Becoming a vampire was completely out of her control and even if it weren't, even if Edward was going to abide by her wishes and make her a vampire in some special candlelit room... that was taken away from her. That illusion of her "choice" was irrelevant in the end because it was Edward who made the decision.

So, what "choices" does Bella make?
1. The "choice" to nearly get herself killed due to her monumental stupidity.
2. The "choice" to submit to abuse, even though it's emotionally damaging.
3. The "choice" that didn't actually give her a choice.

Those don't sound much like choices to me.

Obviously, women are supposed to like clothes, cook and clean, not get a proper education, do whatever their told and drop out of school to go get married. No, I think not. I for one could not care less if I look like a freak, in fact I purposely do sometimes. And I would rather go to University and full fill my dreams then marrying my boyfriend and make lots of babies. Meyer sets this piece of "literature" on the table and sets women back. What was she, attacked by angry feminist's whilst young?

I don't blame them. GO FEMINISTS

In class I showed this essay to a twilight fan (Yes I am always adding small parts to this). She said it was like this because its more exciting this way. Misogyny is exciting? No. Just no. I deny this claim! Having a well rounded female character can be exciting, I've read plenty of books where the main FEMALE character was not Happy Homemaker Ditzy Blond in Disguise.