by Honeybee » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:54 pm
If Stephanie Meyers thinks feminists look down about women who pursue traditional "feminine" activities she has no idea what feminist is and she's twisting it knots if she is. What feminists do look down upon is men who control and abuse women, and laws who support a man's "right" to do so. Her books celebrate that dynamic.
Feminism is about equality, but her implication, if I understand it, is that there's something un-feminine about being a woman who isn't traditional as she defines it. In other words, "feminine" is submission to men, home and family. I object to that in the strongest possible terms, not only because I believe that pursuing whatever interest you like can be feminine AND that being a homemaker and raising a family does NOT require a woman to be submissive to a man in any way. Plus, there are many ways to define femininity itself.
However, Stephine Meyer wrote a book that glorifies violence against women and being in a controlling, abusive relationship. She has a lot to answer for. The message of Twilight is clear - get back in the kitchen where you belong and then get on your back when your husband says so. It's vile. Those of us who don't? Well, we must be disordered, lesbians, whores or some other kind of deviant.
Buffy the Vampire slayer was conceived as giving one of the weakest people in society power. Joss Whedon has said he was disgusted by horror films that invited the viewer to take pleasure in the violent deaths of girls who were sexy and pretty. After all, just like in Twilight, sexy girls are evil and must be shamed and punished and/or pushed into roles as wives and mothers. Instead, he gave Buffy the power to defend herself. The entire show was built around Buffy bearing responsibility that nobody, at first, believed she could handle. AND, she could have this power and still be pretty, fun and have friends. But even Buffy fell in love with the wrong guy, and as painful as it was, she eventually moved on and recognized she was better off without Angel.
Now, when I'm talking about objecting to submission, I"m talking about people who believe that's femininity and the only proper role for a female in all aspects of her life. I think Mistress Euclid could talk more about this, but people in S&M relationships often have very healthy relationships because the role playing is just that, play. When it comes to each person's autonomy, they have it. Taking away a person's autonomy, as Edward does to Bella, is totally wrong.
In other words, Stephanie Meyer can start quacking like a duck, but it doesn't make her a duck. And I do agree that many women raised in misogynist societies know of know other way, so their romantic fantasies are filled with dominance and submission fantasies that the barely understand. It doesn't make it right. Follow the Warren Jeff's trial or read Under The Banner of Heaven by Jon Kraukauer if you want to see what these dynamics can produce in its extreme form.
Buffy, and books like Wuthering Heights and Dracula, have the protagonist in romanticized abusive relationships, but they end tragically. Jane Eyre has Jane gain her independence and autonomy before she can happily marry Rochester. It's true that women do seem to be attracted to dysfunctional fictional relationships, but you can write a good book that portrays them without endorsing them. A more talented writer would have written it that way.