One unfortunate side of the punditry and blogosphere is the endless dissecting of pop culture for deeper spiritual, political and societal meanings. It happens every time there’s a blockbuster movie, hit song or TV show. Among Christians, Harry Potter has been a divisive issue. Apparently, New Moon of the Twilight series is that way to feminists. Is Twilight that bad, or is it targeted because the author is a conservative Mormon? When compared to other examples in Vampire lore, the feminists are on shaky ground.

Over at Fourth Wave Woman, I’ve written about the left’s attack on Stephanie Meyers and how it seems to be a front for an attack on conservative Mormonism. Then, I ran across a post by Sarah Seltzer at RH Reality Check on how to get over Edward Cullen in four easy steps. Seltzer compares Twilight to other vampire series, namely Buffy and Sookie Stackhouse.

Unlike most of the articles about Twilight that I’ve read, I agreed with a few points, especially the first one. However, the author fails to note that all of the romantic interests of the highlighted vampire series have major issues. As a fan of all three, I deeply disliked the main love interests. Angel (Buffy) and Vampire Bill (Sookie Stackhouse) are just as creepy and controlling as the despised Edward Cullen from Twilight.

Years after the series ended, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the paramount modern feminist heroine. This is despite her weakness for a controlling and domineering vampire boyfriend  in the case of Angel. I loved Buffy because she was a short, blonde who kicked butt and wore cute clothes. I always hated that she was so entangled with someone like Angel.

In all three examples,  I always preferred the alternate love interest (Spike in the case of Buffy, Eric in Sookie Stackhouse and Jacob in Twilight). Unlike the romantic lead, these men/vampires/werewolves respected the heroines and proved steadfast. Angel, Vampire Bill and Edward Cullen all leave the main characters in the lurch. It’s up to the other guy to always pick up the pieces and inevitably rescue the heroine in her time of need. In fact, if feminists are going to fault Twilight, they need to fault the wider vampire oeuvre. Within the pages of fantasy and vampire lore, sexism is rampant, and the heroine is generally in love with a dark, handsome…jerk.

Last summer, I read the Twilight series. After despising the first movie (Kristen Stewart cannot act, and Robert Pattinson needs a shower), I refused to watch any others. For about a three-month period, I was obsessed. As I said before, Meyers did a brilliant job capturing teen angst and first love. The people who write Bella off as weak apparently  never experienced heartbreak. They also apparently escaped the awkward, insecure teenage years. Aside from the dramatic romance, I believe this is the biggest appeal of the books. Bella is an average, awkward teenager who falls in love. Unless you’re a feminist, who doesn’t identify with that?

Then I realized how silly the books were. Edward was controlling, moody and brooding. Basically, he’s Mr. Darcy from P&P as a vampire. For some absurd reason, the Darcy archetype has been heralded as the romantic ideal since Austen wrote the original. Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre are also examples of brooding romantic ideals. Call me crazy, but pouting, mood-swings and self-righteousness are not strong foundations of a relationship. Think about it. Would you really like to date Fitzwilliam Darcy?

If the feminist outcries were based on the characterization that Hollywood has perpetrated this ideal of romance through endless remakes of Austen plots (settle down. I’m a Jane Austen fan. Just tired of the Darcy idolization), I might agree with them. However, most of the attacks are aimed at the positive values found in Twilight, which stem from Meyers’ Mormon faith. Did the feminists attack Sookie Stackhouse for staying with a manipulative and troubled character like Bill? Nope, in fact Seltzer claims:

For me, the Sookie Stackhouse novels, recommended by a feminist friend who had ravenously read Twilight after I lent her the books, were a near-total cure. Compared to Sookie, a sassy heroine who bites her undead lovers right back after they bite her, stakes and shoots her rivals when they threaten her life, and still has time to go to the tanning salon, Bella seemed unbelievably drippy.

Let’s compare Sookie to Bella: 1. Sookie was  virgin until she dates Vampire Bill (she’s really empowered there). 2. Sookie is considerably older than Bella (26 compared to 18). 3. Sookie was a mind-reader and deemed an outcast by her small community. Conversely, Bella was a normal, well-adjusted but insecure girl. 4. Sookie refuses to better herself, dropped out of college and works as a barmaid.5. She only gets involved with the supernatural world and defends herself after her grandmother is brutally murdered. In fact, most of the books are spent by Sookie trying to escape that universe. Given these points, how is Sookie superior or more of a feminist than Bella? She’s merely older.

So, feminists hate Twilight. As alternatives, they praise Sookie Stackhouse and Buffy. However, both of these women remain with loser boyfriends despite many signs of dysfunctional relationships. Any hypocrisy here? What could the problem be? Is it possible that feminists hate Twilight because it encourages traditional values such as marriage and abstinence?

Apparently, urging young people to not be sexually active is a bad thing. Funny. I thought encouraging teens to delay sexual activity and decreasing their odds of getting pregnant or an STI would be construed as a good thing. Given the recent spike in teen pregnancy, you’d think feminists would be happy that sex ed was engaged in pop culture.  Stephanie Meyers is hardly throwing Bible verses at readers. She merely postpones their sexual activity until they’re married. It’s not a religious issue. As a vampire, Edward is from the early 1900s. He treats Bella with the same respect and social norms in which he came of age. In other words, he’s a gentlemen.When given the option, Bella decides to wait until they’re married despite the charge that Edward “controlled” her sexual activity as some of the articles state.

It should also be noted that unlike the double-standard that feminists love to complain about — girls must be virgins while boys need “experience” — Edward is also virgin when he is married, and Bella is his only sexual partner. Why has that not been highlighted? Vampire Bill has certainly been with a number of women. Both he and Angel are portrayed as being violent womanizers until some “change of heart” moment when they become the tortured romantic.

Furthermore, since Twilight was written as a Young Adult series, there’s a limit on sexual content. From the way that these women carry on, you’d think that Edward should be standing outside of the school in Forks tossing condoms to his fellow students. The books are aimed at girls 12-16. What was Meyers supposed to do? Have Dr. Cullen give them a speech about waiting until you really love someone and demonstrate how to use a condom with a banana? Even Judy Blume books, which feminists love, have less sexual content than Meyers’ novels. The characters may  not have sex, but there’s no shortage of sexual tension.

Then Seltzer takes a rib at Bella’s choice to have her baby:

So you’ve read Sookie and followed Lestat and you still have a yen for Twilight? Have you really looked closely at the last book? With its really rabidly anti-choice plot (Bella refuses to abort the demon baby that is literally killing her), its incredibly creepy resolution to the Bella-Jacob romance (Jacob “imprints”–falls in future-love with, Bella’s newborn daughter, thus neatly explaining his attraction to Bella herself), and its complete failure of a climax (no one fights after two huge armies are mustered), Breaking Dawn dashes all hopes that turning Bella into a vampire would provide redemption for the lackluster character.

I agree that the ending is anticlimactic and the Jacob angle is creepy. However, abortion? Bella is married. Feminists also keep trying to pull a fantasy world into the realm of reality. Breaking Dawn clearly explains that Bella’s pregnancy is far different than a human one. For starters, her stomach has the same hard marble appearance that the vampires’ skin has. Also, from the earliest days, the baby is clearly sentient. After about two weeks, she has some type of mental connection with the fetus. If abortion was even possible, the developing creature inside of Bella is clearly alive and cognizant.

I never even realized that Meyers wrote a best-selling teenage book series to be a puppet of the Bush administration. Perhaps Karl Rove’s Jedi-mind tricks go past the Beltway and into pop culture? I’ve been shocked to read these articles because the “political” messages in the books never even struck me. Are feminists so desperate for something to write about that they’re picking on a book series for girls? Are they trying to make feminism appeal to a young generation? If the feminists could actually get the facts of the book straight, it would be good for them to look at the larger world of vampire fiction. Going after Meyers only reveals their latest hypocrisy. This anger isn’t a result of weak female role models, but the fact that the author professes a deep faith that offends the majority of these harpies.

Tags: Abortion, abstinence, Angel, Breaking Dawn, Buffy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Edward Cullen, Eric Northman, feminists, Harry Potter, Jane Austen, Jane Eyre, Mormonism, Mr. Darcy, New Moon, Pride & Prejudice, RH Reality Check, Sarah Seltzer, Sookie Stackhouse, TrueBlood, Twilight, Vampire Bill, Wuthering Heights

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 26th, 2009 at 11:56 pm and is filed under Pop Culture, books, feminism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.