This morning, Twitter (Thanks @lindsaysouza and @bonniekristian) sent me a distraction. I present the Manllow via ETSY.

There’s so much potential joke material here. The perfect man for a feminist, creepy Twilight memorabilia and a pillow that is eerily close to a 30 Rock episode featuring James Franco. (Hulu has taken it down, or I would have posted it.)

This is also the perfect gift to give that stalkerish friend of yours since you can customize your Manllow. This is along the lines of something Kate Hudson’s character would have made in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. According to the ETSY page:

HOW IT WORKS:

1. Send a high resolution picture of the “ideal” man’s face. Face should take up the most of the frame.

2. Make sure the face is the face you want on the pillow. There is only so much that photoshop can do.

3. Order manllow and send either link or direct file of image.

4. Face will be converted into stencil format placed onto the manllow.

5. Manllow comes to life! Now if you would like personalize with a name and/or a love letter please type in the letter in the message to seller while purchasing. Letter should be no longer than 6 sentences.

6. Manllow is shipped off.

7. Manllow gets loved.

Under no circumstance is this acceptable. Even if you are separated from your significant other for a long period of time, this is still…weird. If your Twilight obsession has reached the level of purchasing a backrest with arms and Robert Pattinson’s face, I strongly suggest counseling.

Earlier this week, I posted a link to the firestorm that Amanda Hess set off by attacking Swift’s wholesomeness. Other bloggers have picked up the theme and continue attack her for wearing sparkly dresses, the frequent use of the Cinderella theme in her videos, and the lack of man-hating in her lyrics. Now, I like Taylor Swift. I don’t identify with her music since I’m long past high school, but it’s fun and catchy. It’s great for road trips when I amuse myself by singing to my iPod.

I don’t understand the debate. Unlike Britney or Jessica Simpson who  made a big deal over their values and virginity, Swift hasn’t said anything. She hasn’t made any proclamations about her faith or values. She hasn’t leveraged her purity to sell more records, and her dad hasn’t made creepy comments about her.  She isn’t beating any sensitive, politically correct liberals over the head with Bible verses or being “intolerant.” In fact, all she’s done is put out catchy music and wear lots of formals in her public appearances. The closest thing to being “offensive” was  dating a Jonas Brother, who have made a big deal out of their faith.

I don’t know the motivations behind Swift’s image. Her parents are extremely wealthy and moved to Nashville in order to pursue her music career. Most up-and-coming singers  don’t have their own recording studios at home. Her image could be a ploy to be the good girl and then take the path well-traveled by Christina, Britney, Lindsay and Miley Cyrus once she’s solidified her fan base.

Or, perhaps Taylor Swift could just like romance and pretty dresses. What’s wrong with that?

Thus far, Swift has conducted herself with poise and dignity. She has not used sex or her body to fuel record sales. In most career paths, we would call that mature and professional. As a society, are we so desensitized to raunchiness  that when a young woman conducts herself as a lady, we question her motivations?

Are feminists attacking her because Swift is nearing 20 and not “exploring her sexuality” by putting out raunchy videos? Or, is the media getting tired of her wholesome image and trying to manufacture her downfall since Swift seems to be mature and happy? Is there not enough drama for tabloid fodder? Jezebel puzzles over this:

She’s completely non-threatening to some because she doesn’t rely on overt sexuality to sell records, and yet she’s incredibly threatening to others because her image seems to rely on the suppression of sexuality in order to sell records. Taylor Swift, in short, is confusing the hell out of everyone. As Amanda Hess of The Sexist writes, “I don’t know if Taylor Swift is a feminist role model, or a palpable pop princess sent from the Christian right to corral the youth of America into antiquated gender roles.”

These types of posts truly disgust me. Why are they giving Taylor Swift the Palin treatment simply because she doesn’t adhere to established stereotypes and frames? Not many women set out to disprove the Cinderella story. In fact, most women never quite give up the princess fantasy. Watch a few episodes of Say Yes to the Dress if you disagree.

Taylor Swift is not surreptitiously forcing old-fashioned values or “anti-feminist” ideals on anyone. She’s boldly writing music about her own perceptions and experiences in life. The fact that she’s so successful shows that she resounds with most people, particularly tweens and teenage girls. She has guts to attack ex-boyfriends by writing songs about them.

Why do women in the media spotlight have to ascribe to feminism and be feminist role models? Why do self-proclaimed “feminists” get to decide who deserves the label and attack those they deem unworthy? Taylor Swift  is another example of  a strong, independent woman who doesn’t quite fit within the narrow stereotype of the women’s movement. Unlike Sarah Palin, who was brave enough to call herself a feminist and stand for pro-life values and marriage, Swift is simply an entertainer. What has she done to deserve this backlash?

Swift isn’t a trailblazer nor is she courting the “religious right.” She’s merely being a feminine woman, something which most liberal women will never understand.  She’s like Palin in the sense that the vast majority of women identify with her. Women like to be treated like princesses and look pretty. Most women remember having their heartbroken as teenagers or experiencing unrequited love. She’s popular because most people go through those things. Most women don’t exploit their sexuality as “power” and get ticked off when treated like a $2 hooker. Most women, including myself, like men to be chivalrous. They aren’t going to propose or ask guys out like Amanda Hess complains.

The Chaliceblog does point out a hypocrisy that I noted a few weeks ago:

*It says something that when Buffy the Vampire Slayer slept with a boy who literally TURNED EVIL, this was regarded as more or less symbolic truth and I don’t recall any feminist critiques of the matter.

Women out there should be offended by these attacks on Taylor Swift. Attacks on Swift — like attacks on Sarah Palin — are attacks on women like myself. These bloggers are trying to destroy any media images of traditional values or femininity and be the sole voice for young girls and women. There’s a pattern here, Palin, Twilight and now Taylor Swift. Through these articles and blog posts, liberal women are trying to shut down any image counter to the one they support. If feminine and traditional images like Taylor Swift are allowed to succeed, that’s one more blow to their fragile movement. They simply can not allow the idea to continue that some women like the idea of Prince Charming, acting like a lady or dressing feminine. That negates all of their work, going back to Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique. In order to be successful and survive, Taylor Swift, Sarah Palin, Twilight and any other varation of tradition, romance, femininity or Cinderella must be systematically destroyed. Images of successful, happy women who choose traditional roles or even traditional ways of dressing prove that feminism is not the answer for women and exposes the movement for the fraud that it is.

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.