This is, by far, the single worst chapter of the book. The others weren’t that bad, I’ve learned my lesson.
It’s like someone did a personal study to find out all the things I hate most (politics, stupidity, hypocrisy, politics, etc) and compile them into a single, concentrated form. I mean you hear the stories about the radical (read as: idiot) feminists, the ones that are so over the top that you think they can’t possibly be true – you know: strawmen – but then you actually find one.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is one of the most elaborate practical jokes I’ve ever seen but no, it really isn’t. So to head off any claims that I’m making fun of a strawman, or being unfair or misogynist or any of the other thousand “wolf” excuses, I am going to reproduce the entire chapter, I’ll even be able to use a lot of the author’s own arguments against her own essay.
Oh, and I got falconempress (FE) and the drunk fox (DF) to help me (NW) out.
DF: Hello!
FE: [waves]
Hello!
FE: I honestly wonder when I will start regretting this. What is the title?
Bella Swan and Sarah Palin: All the Old Myths Are Not True.
FE: Hm. Excuse me for a second.
FE: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
DF: Well that was fast!
NW: She almost beat my scream record there.
FE: Frail nerves. A remainder from my Assling Grey sporks.
Having It All
The four volumes of Twilight support a coherent narrative of development and transformation, from a classic situation of a young girl in love with a wonderful older man, into a mature relationship of full equality.
FE: Something about the phrase “wonderful older man” makes me think about one of those old guys sitting in a park, playing chess all day and spouting wisdom at anyone who decides to join the game. And then buys them a cup of cocoa.
NW: So far all I can agree with is that Twilight does indeed cover four volumes. (Midnight Sun, the Bree story, all of these I don’t count as they’re just the same with different wrapping paper.)
Thus at the outset, Edward Cullen, who was born in 1901, far exceeds the contemporary high school student and mortal, Bella Swan, in mental and physical talents.
NW: But that would be true of anything Bella dated, from Mike to a sea sponge named Bob.
DF: Team Bob FTW!
FE: But if he indeed does exceed any contemporary high school student and mortal, then why does he still go to high school? In my book “exceeding” means passing a certain point, outgrowing it, so to speak. Him infinitely repeating high school seems to signify that he has not exceeded it at all.
He is also more beautiful than she. By the end of the fourth volume, however, Bella, as a newborn vampire, is physically stronger than Edward, just as mentally acute, and at least as beautiful.
NW: So… Bella becomes stronger than Edward, but their relationship becomes one of “full equality”? We’re just now out of the first paragraph and she’s shot her thesis in the foot.
DF: They’re not equal unless the woman is better. So sayeth the author.
FE: Also if she is not equally hot. Because superficial beauty is so much more important than being able to have an actual conversation with the person by the time they are fifty and you are lying in your bed in silence, quietly chewing the pillow in frustration.
From Bella’s point of view, Edward changes from an exalted all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful demigod, to a devoted lover and husband, whom she is able to protect with her own special gift of psychic shielding. Edward admires and supports every stage of Bella’s coming into her own powers, and is even able to accept the love of both Bella and their daughter for Jacob Black, the werewolf/“shape-shifter,” whom Edward earlier despised.
DF: He wasn’t all-knowing; if nothing else, he couldn’t read Bella’s mind. Granted, there wasn’t really much to read, but he still didn’t know that.
FE: She used the word demigod. This cannot end well.
NW: Wait! There’s a set up for discussions on werewolf imprinting…
Edward is very much the new sensitive and caring man to Bella’s new able, powerful, and courageous woman. He is even a so-called vegetarian vampire who kills animals for their blood instead of preying on humans.
NW: Awww drat. No imprinting talk.
DF: Oh, good, no imprinting talk.
NW: I was being sarcastic.
DF: Well I wasn’t, so there.
FE: And apparently, “creepy, obsessively controlling stalker” equals “caring husband” these days.
NW: So what you’re saying is that I need to stalk you (either of you) to prove my worth as husband material?
DF & FE: *NO!*
Every Western ideal of romantic love and the contemporary success of heterosexual women is thereby fulfilled for the heroine of Twilight: She marries the vampire she loves and thereby joins a rich, cultured, and loving extended family, after which she skips through pregnancy in a couple of months, becomes a vampire to save her life, and attains the powers of a superheroine. Talk about “what women want!”
DF: I TOTES WANT TO BECOME A VAMPIRE! ESPECIALLY AFTER HAVING TO HAVE MY DEMONSPAWN BABY RIPPED OUT OF ME BECAUSE IT WAS KILLING ME FROM THE INSIDE!
So fantastic!
FE: OMG THAT IS TOTALLY ALL THAT I WANT FROM LIFE TOO! HIGH FIVES!
If escape fiction as riveting as Twilight is really about our own mundane life and times – which I assume it is – then its fantastical elements may pinpoint exactly what young women aspire to in “having it all.” (Or else, Twilight is a sublime send-up of the notion of having it all, although the author gives no indication of that.)
DF: Because that would have made it worth reading.
All of the Myths are True
The most fantastical element of the Twilight quartet is not so much its content, which the reader accepts as a basic premise, but Bella’s frequent pronouncement that all of the old myths are true. This self-reflexive incantation deftly connects the world of vampires and werewolves to everyday life, making it easy for the reader to vicariously live the story as her own mundane, mortal self.
NW: Yes, that’s what Tolkien had to do to get Lord of the Rings to connect to readers. /sarc Such a statement isn’t an “incantation” to connect worlds, it’s world building shorthand, plain and simple. This sheer inability to just grasp simple concepts is going to plague the author throughout.
FE: Aw, come on. Admit that you needed to see Legolas deal with his issues of self – identity and sexuality to really buy into the premise.
DF: Also, just because she says it, doesn’t make it so. We’ve seen vampires and werewolves shapeshifters that are remarkably werewolf-like for creatures who have nothing to do with them. True werewolves are alluded to, but never seen. So if all of the old myths are true, where are the alicantos, the wendigos, the salmon of wisdom, and all those myths? We don’t ever hear a word about them! Heck, if those are too obscure for you, how about where are the dragons? XP
And so, the genre of children’s fairy tales is thereby harnessed to the desires, yearnings, and aspirations of women in the early twenty-first century.
NW: ARGH! First of all, the “old myths” were not for children! Especially those nasty ones involving blood sucking and shape shifting.
DF: Sure they were, Nate! Kids love those!
NW: Well… true we they do. But considering they only became “kiddiefied” in the most recent century or two… There’s just so – much – wrong in that ONE SENTENCE.
I take it back! I wasn’t sarcastic. I really wish we were going over imprinting again!
For although the Twilight series is categorized as reading for young adults, Stephenie Meyer has reported getting fan mail from women in their thirties – and they in turn may be the “scouts” for their older sisters, mothers, and grandmothers.
FE: Twilight – now spreading the creepiness to all demographic groups!
NW: What… what does that even mean? And is it really an issue for something to have broad base appeal? Adults can’t enjoy Dr Seuss without it having some kind of ‘meaning’?
DF: Dr. Seuss doesn’t have meaning?! MY LIFE IS A LIE!
Consider Sarah Palin
NW: NO!
FE: Oh Jesus Christ.
NW: ;_; Well, there goes any effort to make this essay timeless.
If I were a conspiracy theorist,
NW: Oh she’ll demonstrate about the intellect and capacity of the craziest conspiracy theorist.
FE: Pssh! Don’t insult the conspiracy theorists.
I would suggest that Bella softened up many young white women for Sarah Palin, because the series has already sold millions when Palin began to campaign with presidential candidate John McCain in fall 2008.
NW: 1) “Young white women”? You just said earlier that women in their thirties and up expressed appreciation of the saga. I cannot find any hard data on the twilight saga’s fanbase, only this anecdotal article from the examiner, much less that it trends only in one racial direction.
2) Correlation does not equal causation, and these two “timings” doesn’t even qualify for correlation! (The first book was released in 2005, the last book published in early August of 2008 (Sarah Palin was governor in Dec of 2006 and VP nominee at the end of August 2008.) You could pick any books that had sold millions and link it by this “logic”. (I say the Very Hungry Caterpillar caused all those votes for McCain-Palin – maybe Captain Underpants.)
DF: A cunning plot indeed… sage nod
NW: 3) As the author points out later, Obama/Biden got several million votes themselves. How do we know Twilight didn’t “prep” people for them rather than McCain/Palin? Where’s the surveys documenting the predominant leanings of Twilight fans? Of anti-fans? (See? I know a lot here complain about how much linkage I do in my articles but that’s because I like to see something substantiated in making a claim.)
FE: Bad political analogy is bad, but worse yet is bad political analogy without any foundations. What exactly is the connection between the two? How are the two related? Why is this even here?
However, at this writing, Bella seems to have greater staying power than Sarah Palin, insofar as Palin’s team lost and Bella has been reincarnated in the movies.
NW: That’s going to be true of nearly ANY fictional character vs a real one. Hell, Shakespeare has more staying power than most of the English royalty if you go by pop-culture memory. Oh, and nobody tell the author about Sarah’s TV deal with fox news. Or her speaking engagements.
DF: Can we mention the book to her?
We should remember, though, that Palin retreated to Alaska, where she remained governor of an energy-rich state until she announced her resignation in July 2009. So in the long term, her assault on reality may turn out to be just as triumphant as Bella’s.
NW: The phrase “assault on reality” is going to be very funny later. And… why should we remember that Palin “retreated” to Alaska after the election? I’m pretty sure 99% of all candidates go HOME after failing an election.
DF: Just as I suspected! Further proof that politicians are cowards!
FE: I’m sorry, I am still baffled by this. The supposed similarities drawn between Palin and Bella are so random and forced I could take any two persons and make a similar connection.
NW: Prove it!
FE: Erm – Hitler had a dog named Blondie. The dog died. This, of course, is highly reminiscent of the band Blondie who, while past its zenith of fame and recognition, was added to the hall of Rock and Roll fame. Therefore, even those the two share a staggering number of similarities, the band has managed to overcome its troubles with aging much better than the dog which is not going to be immortalized in the Hall of Rock and Roll Fame because he was, in fact, a dog and is now long dead.
There. that was about 90% more thought than the author put into this “essay”.
NW: Hmmm… that definitely warrants further research. Here, have a professorship!
A Lesson for Serious Feminists
NW: A contradiction in terms! rimshot
No really, by the end of this, you’ll be convinced that there’s nothing “serious” anywhere near here.
Self-styled serious feminists have much to learn from these two mass heroines, who can only be dismissed if one ignores the yearnings of existing women.
NW: Well yes, existence is usually a requirement for yearnings. You can’t really be called serious if you have concerns about non-existent people/things now can you?
DF: I wouldn’t put it past the author.
FE: Based on the rhetoric the author is using here – do you think she is bitter much?
DF: Yes. Yes I do. Also pretentious.
NW: So a typical woman? […] Ow! Ow! I take it back!
The Twilight books have sold twenty million copies and the first movie grossed $150 million in less than a month. Fifty million people voted for McCain-Palin, a number that was roughly half of the electorate, despite Barack Obama’s landslide in the electoral college and an additional three million votes. 1 Both Bella and Palin offer clues about how the dreams of contemporary young women are historically innocent to the point of complete ignorance.
NW: Really, miss “children’s fairy tales”? The phrase “historically innocent to the point of complete ignorance” is also one to watch for.
FE: So? Those are just numbers. If they provide any clues it is that people nowadays will go for just about anything if the packaging is nice enough.
Indeed, the absence of history in both trajectories is perhaps the most striking fact about them. For example, in the Twilight quartet, Jacob Black, the Native American shape-shifting character, lives in LaPush, Washington, which is the name of a real place, where the Quileute tribe has lived for at least eight hundred years. But nowhere in the Twilight publicity were these real people acknowledged, and so far as I know, no attempt has been made to recognize the literary license taken with their identities.
NW: Just to prove I’m a fair guy, I will admit, that is a legitimate point.
Similarly, in Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin generously referred to the North Slope of Alaska as a source of still-untapped natural resources, in a manner that suggested she was completely oblivious of the effects of further drilling on natural habitats, ancestral indigenous lands, or global warming.
NW: This? This ONE speech by her is enough to label Palin as “historically innocent to the point of complete ignorance”? That’s just… insane. But also we can see that the author is just plain ignorant herself. From one, just ONE article, we can already see:
1) “In the rhetorical wars between those who favor drilling the 1002 and those who don’t, the caribou issue raises conflicting claims.”
2) “But north of the mountains, many Inupiat Eskimos in Kaktovik on Barter Island favor onshore oil leasing for the economic opportunities it might bring them—especially if oil is found on their coastal land.”
And as for global warming, not only is that still being debated, but historical knowledge – well there’s still talk on it, namely we’re trying to figure out how much we do know about the history.
Hmmm… looks like the author here is completely oblivious to many things.
It is difficult to avoid the judgment that both Bella and Palin are American primitives, if not savages. Consider the picture of Palin (well circulated online during the fall of 2008) kneeling with one of her young daughters, behind a moose she had just shot. 2
FE: What? How is that considered “primitive”? Does the author have any idea what purpose does licensed hunting serve? That it is mostly about selecting out the weak and deformed members of the population in order to improve the bloodline of the entire given group of animals? How is that “primitive”?
NW: You know, I wonder if Palin & Jr (or whoever it was) were Native Americans hunting in a ritual, would she be as critical… (notice that in the previous linked article, one of the NA tribes do hunt caribou – does that make them “American primitives, if not savages”?)
Not to mention that hunting has always been a traditionally “male” environment. Where’s the praise or recognition that – at last – women can participate too? (Remember: Smith & Wesson, Winchester, Colt – they are some of the giants of true feminism and making everyone equal.)
Their expressions are cheerful and matter-of-fact. This picture is uncannily reminiscent of a scene from the last Twilight novel, when Bella, with her young daughter nearby, is interrupted while drinking the blood of a moose. (It should go without saying that when Bella becomes a vampire, she adopts the so-called vegetarian practices of her husband and family.)
NW: Once again, let’s look at some of those troublesome facts. Here’s a compare contrast between google searches for “breaking dawn” and “sarah palin moose”. Notice how the book PRECEDES Palin. The announcement for Breaking Dawn’s release date was in February of ’08, which means Meyer had to have the book finished or nearly so before then. For this… whole deal to make any sense, Meyer has to have the most freaky psychic powers.
FE: So is moose the connection between them? Somebody just please explain because I apparently lack the capacity to notice it myself.
Ordinary women identify with Bella and Palin. Bella’s mind is very accessible, because most of the events in the four novels are presented in the first person by her.
NW: She’s also a blank slate deliberately made indistinct and “average” to better allow reader projection onto the character. Her “mind” (using the term loosely) has almost nothing to do with it.
FE: But in that respect, Bella an Palin are not really that different. Bella is a blank slate created as such in order for the reader to project themselves against her vacuous presence. Palin is, as John Cleese had put it, a parrot with no actual in-depth understanding of major issues or any real opinions on them, used solely to project those told to her by others and repeat what they think. Ah! Connection! I have finally found thee! Oh, the glee!
NW: Wait… I think the above applies to every politician.
DF: …John Cleese hates every politician?
NW: He truly is a wise man.
Less is known about Palin’s inner life, but her fans have no trouble in identifying with her, based primarily, it would seem, on her successful heterosexuality and working-class background.
NW: “Successful heterosexuality”? You mean… motherhood?
FE: Yeah, what does that phrase even mean? That she never so much as fantasized about being with a woman? How can a sexual orientation be considered “successful” or “unsuccessful?”
DF: Did…did the author ever learn how to write clearly and concisely? I mean, granted, I’m still learning that particular skill, but I’m not trying to sound intellectual, either.
In these current female versions of Horatio Alger, successful upward social mobility is a broad prize, not unlike the imagined joy of winning the lottery. What is important to multitudes is being able to identify with where the heroine starts out. The prizes she gets need not be either earned or deserved.
NW: And you base this upon… what? Need I also point out that existence itself is a prize that cannot be earned or deserved by anyone?
It is sufficient if those who identify with her would value the same prizes. On this note, while critics who never liked Palin to begin with might make much of the hypocrisy involved in her $150,000-plus makeover, it is unlikely to perturb supporters, who may themselves have developed similar aspirations from watching early twenty-first-century makeover shows on television.
NW: What hypocrisy? How is her wardrobe proven to be hypocritical? Shall we really start totaling up the costs of other presidential candidates? Further irony? CNN anchor Campbell Brown noted that there is a double standard of appearance for male public figures v female public figures – yet here we have a “feminist” perpetuating that double standard. Is it ok or preferable for public figures to wear nice things or not?
What, you may ask, is the feminist point of all this?
DF: Obviously, this one person is the expert on that!
FE: Oh this is gonna be good.
NW: Forget feminist, I’m looking for ANY point by now.
bq.The point is that serious scholarly feminists seem not to be aware that these three things are very important to a majority of young American women: practicing heterosexuality in the form of fulfilled romantic love and fertility;
NW: Well that’s going to be very important to a majority of women EVERYWHERE. It’s called natural selection (while Newton may be the most dangerous son of a bitch in space, Darwin’s the most dangerous one on Earth). If you don’t breed, you’re not a majority for very long, that’s just math.
looking good according to the prevailing beauty norms of consumer culture;
NW: The fact that she says this right after the previous point about “romantic love and fertility” is just so “historically innocent to the point of complete ignorance”. If one is interested in finding a mating partner, they are going to try and “look good” according to the desires OF THE PARTNER THEY SEEK. And the “consumer culture” doesn’t define beauty, it reacts to it because the norms of beauty are encoded into our very genes (with some limited variation depending upon the time and settings of course). I’ll bet anyone $10 this author failed biology – if she even took it.
and attaining power in the world as it is, rather than the world as it should be.
NW: Wait. waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait-
DF: What already?!
NW: Remember the phrase the author used earlier? “assault on reality”?
DF: …Yes?
NW: “The world as it is” – may I remind you – is a good definition of R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.
“The world as it should be” is a D-R-E-A-M or an ideal.
The author criticizes Palin for dealing with the world as it is while earlier claiming that she was assaulting reality? Lady, by YOUR OWN WORDS, you are the one assaulting reality.
DF: And now I know!
NW: That’s half the battle right there.
The good news is that these values and aspirations do not appear or feel like the psychic attitudes of an oppressed and exploited gender. The bad news is that this idealized configuration is not accessible to all members of the female mass, almost by definition: The chances of the majority of female teenagers finding true love with vampires, or of becoming governors of a state after they are beauty queens, are next to zero.
DF: Actually, in the case of the vampire one, the chances would be zero, because VAMPIRES DON’T EXIST.
NW: And how many feminist idealized configurations are accessible to all members of the female mass? How many get to be feminist study professors? Hell, by this logic, Hilliary Clinton is bad news to feminists because not every member of the female mass can be a senator of New York, or Secretary of State, or…
What’s even funnier? Men have been dealing with this F-O-R-E-V-E-R. What’s the chance of the majority of male teenagers becoming king of Gondor, finding true love with elves, blowing up the Death Star, or of becoming president? Next to zero I’m sure.
FE: My head hurts.
DF: That’s normal in these situations. ><
The question is whether feminists ought to further distance themselves from existing women by repudiating idealized heterosexuality, objectified beauty,
NW: I repeat: Natural Selection. How exactly are you going to have feminism, if you don’t have more women being born? Without “idealized heterosexuality”, your movement ends in 100 years.
and male-identified power for women; or if they should make a more conscientious attempt to at least bridge their culture gap with the masses.
NW: What the hell does “male-identified power for women” even mean? I’m pretty sure having your hand on the button of a thousand nuclear bombs is power regardless of who identifies it.
Who Are the Real Elitists?
DF: The first two guesses don’t count.
Contemporary feminists are not alone in their elitist doctrinal purity.
NW: No, there’s a lot of groups that have issues with elitist doctrinal purity.
FE: Again – bitter much?
As philosopher Richar Rorty (1931-2007) pointed out, there is a persistent and unacknowledged problem with how class is dealt with in higher education. He wrote:
It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of “needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions.” …[S]tudents who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own… The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire “American liberal establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students… we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons the German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank. You have to be educated in order to be… a participant in our conversation… So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours. 3
DF: So in other words, the answer to your question is still you.
NW: …
Let me get this straight.
This person, just argued for the eradication of the culture and worldview of an entire people.
Some of this sounds familiar…
“When an opponent says, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already… You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community” -Hitler
Yes, Rorty’s quote is pretty much an unintentional summary of this book:
There, now you don’t have to read it.
I mean, it’s not often you get to see someone declare war on an entire culture in the name of ‘tolerance’.
“We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours” could be rephrased by many intellectual feminists as: “We are not so pro-woman as to tolerate the values of women such as you.”
FE: Or, in layman’s terms: NO U
NW: Funny how well that phrase can apply to the author.
In fact, I’m going to start using it any time I hear a woman talking.
DF: Hey…
NW: Shut up girl! I’m not so pro-woman as to tolerate the values of women such as you!
DF: Well I’m not so pro-… … …Your face is stupid!
And more specifically, we might add that contrary to what some in the mass media proclaimed, Palin is no more a real feminist than Bella is a real vegetarian. Behind such harsh rhetoric is a concern not for words but for what they stand for.
DF: STOP MAKING WORDS NOT MEAN ANYTHING.
NW: What words stand for is what they mean. I have a novel idea, let’s talk about what reality means and whether you have a concern for it or not.
Vegetarianism stands for not eating animals, and feminism stands for the interests of women and not merely their sexual or gendered identities.
NW: umm… if you take away the sex and gender of women… aren’t you no longer left with women?
DF: SHUT UP, MAN. I’M NOT SO PRO – wait.
NW: _
That is, since most of us already do not eat human flesh, it is a strange appropriation of the practice of those who already do not eat animal flesh to use the term “vegetarianism” as a positive label for those who abstain only from human flesh.
DF: But vampires don’t eat human or animal flesh; they drink blood.
NW: I almost hate to say this but… the author is right – for the wrong reasons. Yes, most of US PEOPLE do not eat humans, but most vampires (the ‘them’ referred to) do. Not to mention that from everything we know, vampires MUST eat something living, there’s no other choices for them other than animal or human (except for Duckula).
DF: And Bunnicula!
And insofar as feminists, who have mostly been women, have fought long and hard for recognition of a right to choose abortion, as well as for recognition of the value of natural environments, it is a strange appropriation of feminism to contract its meaning to gender alone, so that it can be applied to someone who is militantly prolife and aggressively exploitative of nature.
NW: Environmentalism is feminist?
DF: Sure, why not?
NW: But the environment affects everyone! We all have a stake in taking care of it. That’s not feminism, that’s humanism.
FE: Hello again, pointless and groundless connections! I missed you so much! Oh wait, no I didn’t.
The interests of women consist of social goals that would benefit large numbers of women in more or less equal ways.
NW: Remember this a moment, we’ll come back to it.
DF: Well what if I don’t want to?
The error of the Bella and Palin fans is less in the content of their aspirations but in the inherent elitism of those aspirations. How many vampires could the Pacific Northwest support without a significant decrease in the human, if not the animal, population? And as posed, how many women can be beauty queens, mothers of five, and governors of states, while running for vice president and possibly president after that, not to mention also modeling new wardrobes that consist hundreds of thousands of dollars? The point is that the lifestyles of Bella and Palin are not sustainable on a mass level.
NW: 1) I repeat: what about Hillary Clinton’s career? How much did her wardrobe cost? I guess her lifestyle isn’t sustainable on a mass level? Does that mean she’s not ‘feminist’? (whatever that means)
2) I can’t believe I have to point this out, but how sustainable is abortion on a mass scale? Would it involve a “significant decrease in the human… population” if a large number of women engaged in it?
3) Finally, men HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR LIKE… EVER! So, if the above is reasoning that such is not feminist, then guys being in charge, books like LotR, HP, etc etc means that it’s not patriarchal. Thus, there’s never been such a thing as the patriarchy. Good news gals! You were never repressed!
The contradiction inherent in their mass admiration is that all of their fans because they want what they have, cannot all have what they have.
NW: Man, that puts a whole new light on Chuck Norris. =(
Rorty is mistaken if he is implying that the important difference between American fundamentalists and the college professors who educate their children is the content of their ideas or how they justify them. The important difference would have to lie in their life values, insofar as those values structure how they live and enable others to live the same way. Or in other words, do American Christian fundamentalists have sustainable lifestyles, capable of including multitudes on an egalitarian basis?
NW: But… neither would your lifestyle. Man, I don’t even have to work to disprove you.
DF: I love the false dichotomy here; anybody who doesn’t agree with the author’s views is a Christian fundamentalist, onoes!
Their homophobia and strong prolife positions alone would seem to exclude the well-being of a significant number of their very own children.
NW: Wait! How can being prolife exclude the well being of children? Children have to kind of exist in order to have any sort of being. Oh, and remember how “anti Christian” the author was earlier? So if we can take being “anti” something inflicts harm on someone, take a tally of the number of gays in the population, then the number of Christians, and do a number crunch on which “anti” position will do the most numerical harm.
Not that I wish harm on anyone, I just find it funny that this author complains about 1 wrong, then proceeds to do that same wrong on a larger scale!
So how can intellectual feminists bridge their gap from those young women who aspire to have what Bella and Palin are presented as having? First, I think it important to engage those mass views and ideals that are strongly opposed to one’s own and try to analyze what is important and pleasurable about them to those who hold them (the compassionate move).
NW: My method? Mocking yours.
DF: HEY! That’s MY method!
NW: My method also includes stealing.
Second, I think it’s necessary to distinguish between views and ideals that are salient only for individuals in independent, exceptional, and possibly isolated ways, and views and ideals that within them include the well-being of multitudes (the Kantian move).
NW: Like your whole idea on abortion? That’s not exactly works well for the multitude.
Third, I think it’s necessary to ask individuals to consider how their views and ideals are realized in their own lives and what practical steps it is possible for them to take to attain their ideals (the pragmatic move).
NW: You first.
DF: Also, as I recall, isn’t it considered bad to use first-person pronouns in an essay like this one?
FE: Yes, it is. But then again, this is a book of essays which talk about different philosophical and political aspects of Twilight. I think we should all be grateful the pages are not covered in glitter, pictures of Robert Pattison and the word “Squeeee!” at the end of every paragraph.
DF: Fair point.
NW: Wait a second…
[several issues of teen beat and a pair of scissors later]
Yes! It does improve this book!
A Lesson for Feminists
FE: Or, in other words: “I am so much better than youuu! Listen to meee!”
The most telling lesson of Sarah Palin’s success for feminists is that gender inclusivity alone at this point barely registers as a political goal.
NW: Then it seems you should dump the title “feminists”, then.
DF: And yet said title will remain, for some reason.
NW: Why don’t we just call it “leftism” or whatever already?
DF: Feminism sounds better, especially from a PR standpoint.
FE: And you can put the “feminism” label on anything. Like environmentalist movements and agendas. Because shut up.
DF: Yeah, why do you hate women? :P
NW: On the plus side, now none of my complaints here can be labeled as misogynist, because gender and sex have nothing to do with it!
What does and should register is group interests that political candidates and officials represent and seek to further. Until scholarly feminists succeed in broadly explaining to women what their common interests as women are, everything that they have worked for is vulnerable to being stifled by having its label “borrowed” by those who serve goals that are not in the common interests of women.
NW: You honestly think it’s up to you to tell women what they want? How does that make you any different from the idiot males I can find around the internet making the same point?
The lesson for feminists in Stephenie Meyer’s success is that young women do want it all, and unless these young women are painstakingly taught that all the old myths are not true, they will all too willingly suspend their disbelief and escape into a fantasy in which eating animals is vegetarianism and endless death is endless life.
NW: WHAT? What is “endless death”? What about this mythological group you’re referring to that makes it endless death? Especially since earlier you yourself labeled them proLIFE.
Having It All in Real Life
The idea that women can have it all has already pass into myth by compressing the components of “all” in the the lives of exceptional individuals, all at once.
NW: Or stuff like this passes into myths because of limited time and resources.
DF: No! Time and scarcity of resourses are constructs of the patriarchy!
FE: 
DF: SEE?!
NW: Man, I had no idea we poor men were so repressed all these years.
In that mode, many young women are now vicariously having it all, although it is likely that the nature of what they are identifying with owes its magnetic cathexsis for them to an underlying fear that they might not have anything.
NW: How is this feminist? Men deal with that too – we have to make choices and pick trade offs. It’s just life. DEAL – WITH – IT and stop assaulting reality.
In reality, in the United States, women still lack universal child care, not to mention universal health care. Those who work outside their homes – the majority – still take on a second shift in domestic and family work. Women are disproportionately subject to domestic violence as well as violence by acquaintances and strangers.
DF: No they’re not!
NW: I repeat: a lot of those things affect men too. Stop being so sexist, author.
Half of all marriages end in divorce, and economic hard times will doubtless intensify the feminization of poverty.
NW: First of all, the idea that “half of all marriages end in divorce” is a sort of statistical trick, it’s not actually true the way people read it. Second of all, the latest economic hard times we’ve been experiencing have been predominately affecting men. DO – SOME – RESEARCH!
But also in reality, women now live much richer and longer lives than they ever did, and their potential remains untapped. Over the course of their long lives,
FE: Yes, your husband may beat you and you are so poor the rats under your floor have a higher standard of living than you, but you will get to enjoy it longer! Hooray!
NW: That’s why gun ownership should be encouraged. Shoot that abusive bastard!
they may indeed come to have it all, and more, but at different times. For example, if they choose to have children and significant careers, the intensity brought to each of these projects might vary over the decades of a much longer mortal life than enjoyed by poor Bella, who feels pressured to marry, die, and become a vampire herself before she is nineteen, so that she will not look too much older than Edward, who will be seventeen for eternity.
DF: Actually, I’m pretty sure Bella was pressuring EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE BOOKS.
FE: Yes she was. I think somebody should write an essay about how Bella is becoming this domineering dictator, manipulating everyone into doing what she wants, twisting the world around her and people in it into a realization of her own dreams and fantasies. They are the victims here, not Bella.
NW: I think the YAB series deals with that.
(thanks to the girls for helping out, now if you don’t mind, we’re going to go drink this out of our memory)
Rorschach on 13 October 2010, 21:12 said:
Good Lord.
I almost want to get a copy of this book if only to laugh myself into hysterics. This author is stunningly incapable of intelligent thought.
On the plus side, I did quite enjoy your sporking of it.
swenson on 13 October 2010, 22:58 said:
No, just… no. Absolutely not. You don’t even know how much not. Just NOT AT ALL.
And what on earth does Twilight have to do with Sarah Palin?! Whether you like Palin or not, I think we can all agree that she wasn’t in support of stalking and unanesthetized C-sections with your husband’s teeth.
…yeah, that is about where I gave up trying to respond to this. “Gibbering” would be appropriate to describe my thought processes right now. This chapter completely and swiftly contradicts itself several times in quick succession, using even worse logic every time to come to an utterly incomprehensible conclusion with no basis in actual fact. The author demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of just about everything, including politics, history, philosophy, and real life. And common sense, for that matter. It’s
worse thanat least as bad as the original series, because at least Twilight didn’t overtly try to sell itself as life philosophy, despite some of its thicker fans taking it that way.(oh, and one final thing that’s a Real Life Beserk Button and not necessarily connected to this: anyone who, in the name of tolerance, denies another the right to believe whatever wacko thing they feel like deserves to be taken on a nice little vacation to outer space, so I can kick them out an airlock. You are allowed to disagree with what I say; you are not allowed to disagree with what I say because you are so tolerant you can’t tolerate my intolerance. Because that’s just dumb.)
NeuroticPlatypus on 13 October 2010, 23:12 said:
So, this chapter was basically nonsensical rantings that tried (and failed) to make connections with Twilight and Sarah Palin? Lovely. I commend you for your efforts, all of you. Now if you’ll excuse me…
brain implodes
Licht on 13 October 2010, 23:32 said:
mature relationship of full equality.
When did that happen? o.O
He is even a so-called vegetarian vampire who kills animals for their blood instead of preying on humans.
What’s wrong within this sentence? Oh! Right. Vegetarian AND KILLING ANIMALS. (endangered animals, I might add)
I will SO answer „marry the vampire I love“ if anyone ever asks me what my aim in life is. YYEEY!
All of the Myths are True
Yea. Only that Smeyer doesn’t have a clue what those Myths might be. BECAUSE SHE IS TO FUCKING LAZY TO DO THE RESEARCH!
harnessed to the desires, yearnings, and aspirations of women in the early twenty-first century.
Ok. That’s it. I’m done. I refuse to be a woman in the early twenty-first century. First this THING in this Greyham bullshit and now this. Oh fuck off. I’m done with this.
I would suggest that Bella softened up many young white women for Sarah Palin, because the series has already sold millions when Palin began to campaign with presidential candidate John McCain in fall 2008.
Wait… what?! What did I just read? O_O”
Is the other of this thing somehow pissed that Palin’s team lost? Why does he/she/can’t remember need to make such… unrelated comparisons? It’s just… EW.
I’m sorry… I can’t stand this bullshit anymore. Why is it even allowed to be called Philosophy? And are there actually people, aside from the author, who believe this shit? Oh, dear goddess T-T
I love to read your comments, but I can’t stand this crap anymore. This never happend to me before… I’m shocked… I need… coffee… and… something sweet… I adore you for being able to stand through this.
Licht on 14 October 2010, 01:29 said:
We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons the German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank. You have to be educated in order to be… a participant in our conversation…
WTF?!?!?!?
Gimme a fucking blunt butter knife and I’ll slice this woman up from her head to her feet and enjoy it!
I DON’T believe it! I just… DON’T believe it!
Because, you know, all Germans were and are and ever will be “Jewphobic” and need to see how it is to be Anne Frank.
I think I have to vomit.
Excuse me a second.
BAAAAAAAHHH!
Die book! Author, you’re a moron!
I don’t know if you’re just THAT bad with words or if you’re just THAT much an idiot.
Ok. Just for the account. We still read The Diary of Anne Frank at schools. Because it is a great book and it teaches a lot about HUMANITY. It never was and never will be to “Show evil Nazis that Jews are people, too.”
And YES. This is what YOU, author, just assumed there.
>.<
dragonarya on 14 October 2010, 09:41 said:
Excuse me while I laugh myself silly.
This is what I can’t understand. What is wrong with SMeyer? Is it that difficult to write a normal relationship? Why does she have do result to this? WHY?
Yes, they are too obscure! I fail as a self-professed mythology lover. OTL But that’s a good point. Where’s the rest of them? I guess they’re not sexy enough. thinks of You Slay Me and screams
What? You’re telling me stuff like… someone being tied to a rock by his own sons’ intestines with a snake dripping vemon over his head and causing him to writhe about so much causing earthquakes is for kids? Also, I really, really despise the hijacking of folklore and myths for modern… ‘values’, I’ll call it.
Oh god. No. You (the author, not you wonderful sporkers suffering for our amusement) just have to bring politics into a discussion on literature. (If you can call Twilight literature.) Must… Not… Allow… Head to… asplode in utter rage…!
Proving once again that we of II deserve professorships far more than the actually professors. :P
So the key is black/white/red/abstract cover after all! Whoever did it must be able to write their own paycheck now.
That made me giggle.
Wha? No, really? tilts head trying to grasp the concept
Well. I’m just kinda staring at the words trying to understand, but I can’t, I just can’t. Enjoy those drinks, guys. I think I’ll join you.
By the by, I don’t have a lot of free time, but.. >.> <.< …how does one get in on this sort of thing? I’d love to write the occasional article for II.
Kytescall on 14 October 2010, 10:00 said:
And as for global warming, not only is that still being debated …
Actually no. I know a lot of people get that impression, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find a professional in the field who wouldn’t agree that climate change occurs and is anthropogenic. It’s kind of why the Republicans had to resort to calling a science fiction novelist as their expert witness before the US Senate, no less. It has less to do with science than PR budget.
But that’s neither here nor there.
dragonarya on 14 October 2010, 10:03 said:
@Kytescall: “But that’s neither here nor there.”
I hope we don’t degenerate into a political debate here…
Kytescall on 14 October 2010, 10:12 said:
I am pretty close to finishing up my science degree. I am a pedant when it comes to something like this. I can’t not be. For example, I now have to point out that a debate about a scientific issue is not a political debate. See? There is no rehab for this kind of thing.
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 10:28 said:
This is not to debate AGW, only on whether there IS a debate or not.
First (and I almost can’t believe I have to point this) “professional” isn’t a bad place to start with science, but it is one to end. Recall that neither Einstein nor Darwin (nor many, many others) were “professionals” in the fields they revolutionized. Second, you don’t have to be that hard pressed. Here’s a list from wikipedia (all standard caveats regarding wiki of course) of scientists’ disagreements ranging from the amount of human impact to consequences.
Let’s face it, you don’t have to look back at science’s history long to see that the only thing “settled” is math. The rest is subject to to be overturned tomorrow.
the Armourer on 14 October 2010, 11:06 said:
QFT. Though even math gets additions at times as well.
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 11:16 said:
Ok, I think we can all agree that the Armourer needs to be PUNished there… ;-)
Kytescall on 14 October 2010, 11:44 said:
Ah, the Einstein argument. The problem is that practically every crackpot with a minority view thinks he is the next Einstein or Darwin. If I had a penny for every time I’ve heard someone all but explicitly claim so, I… Well, I wouldn’t be rich, but I could probably afford to buy a book. More often than not, they just aren’t. The likes of Darwin and Einstein are exceptions, and moreover they were quick to gain concensus because they produced ideas that had merit, which is something your average crackpot pretending to be on a crusade against dogmatic elitists cannot claim.
Regarding that list, did you notice how many of them aren’t professionals in the field? Mathmaticians, astronomers, nuclear physicists, solid-state physicists, chemists, professors of mining geology… There are people on that list with relevant credentials yes, but why are all these others taking up space when they could have listed more relevants? It’s because they couldn’t; there aren’t many. When you look at actual data instead of anecdotal lists (for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf), it becomes obvious that basically no one in the field is debating this.
The view that everything in science is “subject to be overturned” at any moment is simplistic, and wrong. I will say with complete confidence that there will never be a moment where we find out that, whoops, Earth actually isn’t round after all. The whole point of science is basing ideas on empirical evidence. Evidence accumulates, and while this continuously refines our world view, situations where we find out we were completely wrong about everything don’t crop up very often.
SlyShy on 14 October 2010, 11:54 said:
Kytescall, I just want to say that I’m amused at “finishing up my science degree”.
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 12:27 said:
Of course it is. I was just writing a quick comment, not another doctrinal thesis. People already complain about how much I write and how many links I bury in my stuff.
What’s funny is someone used that exact metaphor when it was discovered that people can, in fact, inherit mitochondria from their fathers.
As for the rest: dude, just let it go. I’ve majored in Computer and Biology science so you’re preaching to someone who’s already heard the spiel and got the t-shirt.
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 12:28 said:
Oh, and my statement on debate was fueled by incidents like this one.
Klutor the Ninth on 14 October 2010, 13:59 said:
Sweet merciful Cthulhu – how can something stuffed up with so many long and clever-sounding words be so godawfully STUPID? I suppose I could ask how it managed to get published, but then again… we’re all wondering the same thing about Twilight itself, aren’t we? bq “young girl in love with a wonderful older man”.
Wonderful, my ass.
“creepy, obsessively controlling stalker”
Thank you, Falconempress.
“What is wrong with SMeyer?”
dragonarya, I think she is highly disturbed. That’s the only explanation I can manage. Remember, RPattz himself said that she’s insane and “in love with her own creation”.
“Because, you know, all Germans were and are and ever will be “Jewphobic” and need to see how it is to be Anne Frank.
I think I have to vomit.
Excuse me a second.
BAAAAAAAHHH!
Die book! Author, you’re a moron!”
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Licht. Unfortunately, a lot of people like the Theme Park Version of entire races/nations/cultures, immediately labeling them and reducing them to crass, insulting stereotypes. and what’s worse is when they then try to “fix” these other people, whom they perceive as inherently wrong, without checking first to see if the cultural cliche is even applicable to the individuals in question.
Damn… longer post than I thought it would be.
Hope it made sense, though.
dragonarya on 14 October 2010, 14:18 said:
@ Nate and Kytescall:
Oh dear, is this (argument?) my fault?
I was just saying that I hope we don’t start discussing what’s true and proven and what isn’t, and what’s right and what isn’t, since this is supposed to be an article and a site about literature and writing, not politics or science…
Klutor: Yes, she is highly disturbed. It’s got to be the only plausible explanation. Maybe her own husband was her stalker and it’s the only form of love she knows. Though if that’s the case, I don’t feel even the slightest iota of sympathy for her, not after inflicting her “saga” (barf) upon the world.
Kytescall on 14 October 2010, 14:37 said:
I’m not impressed. 160 physicists disagreed with the APS statement. Out of almost 50,000 memebers.
And I’m not sure that a rare, freak mutation proves that everything in science is “subject to be overturned tomorrow”, or whatever opinion you have but can’t be bothered to write. Actually, why do you even respond if you’re only going to strawman yourself?
@Slyshy: You find education amusing?
Kytescall on 14 October 2010, 14:39 said:
Oh dear, is this (argument?) my fault?
No. Mine, really.
Asahel on 14 October 2010, 16:25 said:
Just wondering: Does anyone see any irony in the fact that a lot of people are arguing about something that’s not being debated? Because I sure do.
Kytescall on 14 October 2010, 17:24 said:
Is it irony if it’s an actual tactic? It’s obfuscation. Creationists do it, antivaxers do it, everybody with a cause to sell does it. If you get enough media coverage, or god forbid, if an expert of the opposing view gives you inadvertent publicity by reacting to you, you’ve just created a “controversy”.
And the rest of us is stuck trying to convince everyone that it’s all just hot air.
I hate puns.
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 17:49 said:
Vaccination: discovered in the 1700s (ignoring the Chinese & Indians earlier toying with it way back)
Evolution: Darwin published in 1859
AGW: Depends on how you want to define it, the least debatable date seems to be 1950ish.
I say AGW has a bit more time of proving itself before it can be invoked along with vaccines or evolution.
Asahel on 14 October 2010, 17:58 said:
Obfuscation? I was talking about arguing. I didn’t say one thing about obfuscation.
dragonarya on 14 October 2010, 18:59 said:
sigh of relief I’m trying to make a name for myself and get along with everyone, heheh…
Aaaand just when I thought it was cooling off, here we go again with irony vs. obfuscation vs. arguing… mild head spinning
Asahel on 14 October 2010, 19:36 said:
Just wait ‘til I get going!
Where was I? Australia?
Guivre on 14 October 2010, 20:57 said:
Holy hell in a hampster bowl, this author flings around words as badly as Smeyer does. I bet the author doesn’t know the meanings of half the words they’ve thrown into their babbling, let alone how to use them properly. cringes
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 21:00 said:
I thought we were discussing the merits of land wars in Asia.
dragonarya on 14 October 2010, 21:48 said:
Or was it the properties of the noble gases? XD
Nate Winchester on 14 October 2010, 21:52 said:
Better than the gases of nobles.
dragonarya on 14 October 2010, 21:56 said:
You said it!
The Drunk Fox on 14 October 2010, 22:54 said:
@Klutor the Ninth
By not understanding that there’s a significant difference between using long and clever-sounding words and actually showing wit and intelligence, perhaps?
Super-Secret-Alias on 15 October 2010, 00:35 said:
Some of this stuff deserves to be on a shirt. It’d be like those shirts with funny quotes, but instead of merely wasting time, they would drive people to drink away the pain.
The Angel Islington on 15 October 2010, 01:44 said:
This just all makes me so mad. Just…it’s so incorrect. Just all of it.
Because f*** you, that’s why.
Kudos to DF for the link to Cracked.
The Drunk Fox on 15 October 2010, 01:47 said:
Actually you’ll have to give kudos to Nate. He’s the one who linked me to it in the first place.
Klutor the Ninth on 15 October 2010, 06:53 said:
@ The Drunk Fox – yeah, must be. Any idiot can throw words like “existentialism”, “amalgamation”, “conflagration”, “incandenscence” or hell, even “chagrin” around like giant bowling balls – but not everyone has wit and intelligence. Well said.
swenson on 15 October 2010, 10:23 said:
Hey, I remember reading that article on Cracked! Cracked may not be the most accurate source of information, but it certainly presents poorly-known facts in an entertaining manner.
(yes, I’m an avid reader of Cracked’s “Top However-Many-We-Feel-Like Somethings That Did Something” lists!)
dragonarya on 15 October 2010, 13:37 said:
“Conflagration.”
giggle I’ll never, ever forget that for the rest of the my life.
Super-Secret-Alias: Hell yeah! People wouldn’t know what the words on the shirt mean, but it’ll sure make you sound smart!
Nate Winchester on 15 October 2010, 18:53 said:
I just realized that, in all the chaos, I forgot to tag this.
Is it much trouble for the admins to tag this up?
Rorschach on 16 October 2010, 00:16 said:
I’m pretty sure you can add the tags after the fact. Just log in to textpattern, click on the article, add the tags, and then save it again.
Nate Winchester on 16 October 2010, 01:06 said:
Yeah… that’s not an option for me, Rorschach (no save button).
NeuroticPlatypus on 16 October 2010, 09:06 said:
I think if you ask Virgil in the forum, he’ll tag it for you.
Snow White Queen on 16 October 2010, 16:13 said:
Holy crap, that was unintelligible. I commend your sporking, DF, FE, and NW!
Thea on 27 October 2010, 22:30 said:
So she doesn’t like Twilight…?
That was really awful. Just really bad.
I consider myself scholarly, and even a feminist. Does that mean I can walk behind her on her crusade, reasuring her victims that they have a say too?
Alex on 24 November 2010, 13:37 said:
I feel my brain rotting. This chapter needs more substance, less blabityblah. I can see where the author is going, but the way she conveys her ideas make them entirely worthless. She contradicts herself and makes too many generalizations, most of which are easily misconstrued. But I believe (and I may be entirely wrong) the point she is trying to make is somewhere along the lines of, “Feminism is too elitist, Bella/Palin fans are too idealistic – let’s meet somewhere in the middle.” Which is fine. Just make a better case next time, namely by taking out all the extraneous and often groundless statements and replacing them with with a simple, clear argument with solid references. Please. rubs aching forehead
Sarah Syna on 11 May 2011, 09:47 said:
I’ve no flipping clue what she was going on about half the time, but I have the vague feeling I should punch her in the face, especially since I count myself as a feminist. I’m one of the non-radical types that believes that both genders are getting messed up. There’s nothing elitist about “Hey, we’re all awesome. Let’s work towards a world that recognises that.”
Also, go away, Textpattern. My comment isn’t full of automatism, so shoo. Shoo, I say! Godammit.
Stephenie Rowling on 4 July 2011, 23:37 said:
Heh this was hilarious. Like the best thing ever. So much fail in one chapter. Kudos guys I can’t even comment I feel I will ruin it.