Showing posts with label Twilight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twilight. Show all posts

Monday, November 23, 2009

Monday Reading List

Hugo's “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language:
In every women’s studies class I’ve taught here at PCC, and in many guest lectures about feminism I’ve given elsewhere, I use the “penetrate” versus “engulf” image to illustrate a basic point about the way in which our language constructs and maintains male aggression and female passivity. Even those who haven’t had heterosexual intercourse can, with only a small degree of imagination required, see how “envelop” might be just as accurate as “enter”.
Sady Doyle's The Edward Cullen Underpants Conundrum:
I mean, consider: Edward Cullen has no characteristics, as a person, other than wanting to “protect” Bella and being beautiful and gorgeous and perfect all the time. (And also an insufferable asshole, but that seems more like a mistake than a purposeful effort to give him a personality.) He has no goals in life other than being with Bella. He is over a hundred years old, and he’s never had sex with another person. He’s never wanted to have sex with another person. There is not and will never be a person or a thing or an event that is more important to him than (eventually) having sex with Bella. He is an object designed for the gratification of female desire. He’s the most ridiculous person who’s so amazing at everything, and he’s so beautiful you creamed yourself. And that’s it. And we’re used to dudes writing ladies this way, we’re even used to dudes writing ladies this way and passing it off as “literature,” but the idea of a female author writing a male character in this way, for the pleasure of other ladies, is profoundly disconcerting. Even to me! Because it’s backwards.
Filthy Grandeur's Presentations of violence and gender in the Twilight Novels:
Though all of the Cullens are stunningly attractive, there's a clear gendered difference in their appearances. The men are large, and strong, while the women are small and graceful. Though the women are also impeccably strong, they do not look it.
EAMD is an Angry White Girl:
First of all, I actually have no idea what, if any, of my university's admissions criteria involve race in any way. True, then I should not be arguing about them, but on the other hand, that is precisely the point--not a single goddamn one of those columns actually states how exactly race plays a role in admissions. My guess is because the writers and speculators on this campus don't actually have the slightest idea if or how race impacts admissions. They just use the assumption that it gives minority students a concrete advantage to spew unfounded bullshit about how "qualified white students" are being denied admission to make room for all the darkies who definitely wouldn't get in otherwise.

Meloukhia's Transgender Day of Remembrance:
Some people think that days of remembrance are a waste of time. Or they say that people should be thinking about this “all the time.”

Well, I do.

Every. Single. Day.

I think about it. I think about the people I haven’t known and never will know, now, because they are dead.

And I’d like you to do the same.

Because the thing about a day of remembrance is that it allows us to take a moment, together, as a collective, to acknowledge something.

From See Emily Blog, there's Books Critiquing America Series: Rethinking Thin:
Not too long ago, I thought that anyone who was overweight chose to be overweight, and that if they really wanted to be thin, they could. Many people still think this about the overweight and obese- why can’t they just eat less and exercise more? What’s keeping them from getting control of their lives? Well, according to Kolata’s book, this is a question that has been puzzling scientists for decades. And, spoiler alert, it’s rarely the obese person who is to blame for their weight.

And, because my first car handled exactly this way on ice (and snow, and sometimes rain...) a Zits comic:

Saturday, August 22, 2009

As Long As It's Out of "Love"...

Here's the thing. I have this idea in my head that I love television and television shows a lot more than I actually do. When the television is free in my house (which happens once in a blue moon, since my parents get up earlier than I do, my sisters and my father get home before I do, and my sisters stay up later than I do), I will sit there and desperately attempt to find anything on worth watching. I'm here to say - there isn't much.

I also watch a lot of shows on Hulu, because I don't spend *enough* of my time in front of a computer screen. This mostly happens when I should be writing something but am too tired, should be writing something and am awake but have no ideas, want to be writing something but have nothing gelling, or when my family has descended into chaos beyond my bedroom door. That last one happens quite a bit, what with the "two teenagers in the house who share one tiny bedroom" thing.

So, what invariably ends up happening is that I watch some bad television, like Dark Shadows, and some television I would never watch if it contained the normal length commercial breaks, like Royal Pains.

I started watching Royal Pains because it had Cliff Calley from The West Wing. Or, more precisely, the actor who played Cliff Calley. Who also played Simon Stein in In Her Shoes, and Isaac in Defiance. I really like all of those things, and I really liked Cliff/Simon/Isaac in all of those things. This may not be a great reason, but since I like the newest addition of the Cliff/Simon/Isaac line up - Hank - it's working out okay so far. But Royal Pains has never been a show I'd sit down at 10 o'clock on a Thursday night to see 'live'. And it is quickly becoming a show I will stop watching on Hulu, because it sucks. It sucks, specifically in its portrayal of the male-female romantic relationships among the minor characters.

Take, for instance, the relationship between Sofia and her husband Javier in "Crazy Love". Javier pays for Sofia's breast augmentation - and does so in order to plant a radioactive GPS tracking device without her knowing inside her body. The scene where Cliff/Simon/Isaac/Hank confronts Javier with the evidence is pretty okay:
HANK [Holding up a glass tube with the tracking device inside]: What do you know about this?

JAVIER: Nothing. What is it?

HANK: A piece of metal that almost killed your wife.

JAVIER: What? It was supposed to be completely safe.

HANK: Yeah, not when you put it inside a magnet 50,000 times more powerful than the Earth's magnetic field. We're lucky it didn't rupture a major organ. Just one of the safety hazards when you implant metal in someone without their consent.

JAVIER: I asked the surgeon to put in the GPS, but he said she'd be fine. He said she'd never find out.

HANK: Well, sure. Otherwise putting a GPS in your wife's implant would just seem crazy.

JAVIER: You must understand. Haven't you ever done anything foolish for a woman?
Except it takes a turn for the worse when Cliff/Simon/Isaac/Hank doesn't call Javier the fuck out on the fact that paying a surgeon to implant a GPS in your wife's breast without her consent isn't a foolish fucking thing he did "for" her. It is something he did "to" her; it is something he did "to" her without her consent, and it is something he did "to" her that nearly killed her, and it is something he did "to" her because his "need" to keep track of her overrode her humanity and her ability to decide that she might just want to dump his lying ass.

Instead, Hank looks slightly chastened. Not put upon, not "you fucking psycho, I'm calling the cops", but "yeah, I guess I've done something foolish for a woman" - which completely fucking fails to acknowledge that doing something like planting a GPS in a woman's body without her consent isn't 'foolish'. Well, it is. But it isn't a benign act of foolishness. It is an act that would be reprehensible even if Sofia never found out about it, even if she'd never in her life needed an MRI, even if the tube never broke and gave her radiation poisoning. Hank ignores the fact that Javier's 'foolishness' is a criminal one, one that not only put Sofia in grave danger but one that failed to recognize Sofia as an autonomous human being who is deserving of the truth and of respect. Javier's 'foolishness' was an act of violation, and it should have been treated as such by the doctor standing before him. Because even if he were only a relatively decent human being, Cliff/Simon/Isaac/Hank should recognize behavior that is this profoundly fucked up as profoundly fucked up. However, Cliff/Simon/Isaac/Hank is presented not as a relatively decent human being but a out and out good one, one who will doctor the sick regardless of who they are or their ability to pay. And because of that, his lack of adequate response to the situation before him is even more galling. Because I think we can all agree that surgically planting loved ones with tracking devices is just not cool.

Except. Maybe we can't all agree on that. I can so see Edward Cullen doing that to Bella. After all, when this starts showing up on bedroom walls (ganked from Mzbitca's What A Crazy Random Happenstance):
obviously our ideas about proper male romantic partner behavior is fairly screwed up. This is even furthered by Sofia's reaction to Javier's atrocious and potentially deadly behavior. When Javier comes to see Sofia when she is recovering from radiation poisoning in the hospital, all is swept under the rug:
JAVIER: I didn't know that thing was poison. I was just so afraid of losing you.

SOFIA: I can't believe you did that to me Javier. I had no idea you loved me so much.

[HANK and DIVYA smile]
To which I say, "Whaaa?" Again, Hank just stands there and offers tacit approval for a continuing relationship where the guy almost killed his wife (accidentally) because he was a big enough jackass to believe he was in the right to know exactly where she was and where she was going even if she didn't tell him. And Hank, our Hero, accepts the continuing of this romance. Sofia, our patient, almost revels in this gross violation and the fact that Javier couldn't just be a Big Boy and talk to his wife about the problems he was going through.

Earlier in the episode, Sofia gives a description of her rings:
He bought me this one [giant, expensive ring] because he stayed away too long on business... And then this one [another giant, expensive ring] just because he thought I looked beautiful one afternoon. You want to know what I see? I see this [small, inexpensive pink ring]. When we met in Caracas, this was the only thing he could afford. He bought it from a street vendor, and I love it.
It is sweet, and demonstrates that Javier's fears in regard to Sofia leaving him once he has lost his fortune are ungrounded. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't leave him for his crappy treatment of her. And it was, beyond crappy. It doesn't mean Javier should be forgiven, just because she loves him. What it does mean is that if Sofia had left him, or had even just suggested that planting a GPS in her chest without her knowledge was a not okay thing to do and that they would probably have to do something like get Javier's ass into some intensive therapy sessions, it would have been fairly obvious is was because of Javier's duplicitous, dangerous, and dismissive behavior in regard to his wife. It would have been hard to argue that Javier lost the woman he loved because he lost his money, instead of losing the woman he loved because he took Edward Cullen-esque stalking up a few notches.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Buffy Eradicates Edward Cullen

I just happened to discover this today, but it seems a happy kismet what with it being Joss' birthday and all. So, in all its glory, a hilarious and wonderful mash up of Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Edward from Twilight.


I think my favorite part, aside from stalking not being a huge turn on for girls, is Buffy's groan-sigh thing after Edward says, "I feel very... ...protective of you". Awesome reaction right there. Oh, and the part where Willow tells Buffy, "I'm really worried. These things can become pretty twisted". That was pretty incredible too.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

"I Forgot That I Was Brought Up Straight-Edge"

Okay, for some reason Current isn't loading well for me right now, so I'm getting my Sarah Haskins from youtube. Regardless, this is an excellent one. I like vampires. Hell, I've still got a huge crush on David Boreanaz stemming from the fact that he was Angel. But Twilight? I fail to see the appeal. Sarah Haskins' interviews, though, hold tremendous appeal.

I especially like that Daniella's mother wants illegal and immoral, and Sarah Haskins' response that Daniella is going to have a great high school life. And the infomania writer reading from Twilight for a burrito.

Monday, July 28, 2008

My Feelings About Twilight

Okay, so I've never actually read the book series Twilight. I'm going to get around to it, don't you worry. But I refuse to spend money on the book series when the descriptions of it are already making me gag, and my library hasn't really invested in too many copies as of yet. Or, ever. We still only have one of each Harry Potter book. What I do glean from news organizations and websites I visit doesn't sound too promising; in fact, they sound the very opposite of it and for that reason it scares me to think that, as popular Facebook flair (truly the most sophisticated way of tracking opinions) states:
Mostly because the guy kind of falls under the status of Grade A: Creepy. 

After doing some research, I discussed the Edward phenomenon with a friend of mine:

ME: He creeps into her room at night and watches her sleep.
FRIEND: Angel used to do that.
ME: Yeah, when he was EVIL!!!!

So, to recap: if your main character is exhibiting one of the chilling aspects of an evil vampire on that other piece of fiction detailing the love of a good vampire for a teenage girl newcomer, that isn't a good sign (and yes, I realize I'm breaking my Whedon Rule again, but it is a decent frame of reference here). Angel(us)' actions were supposed to be seen as creepy; and they were. Buffy was (rightly) freaked out by them. Because it is just weird and more than a bit stalkerish.

I'm not the first person to say this, and I doubt I'll be the last. I'm sure I'll have even more complaints once I've read the books, instead of simply focusing on the feelings of foreboding I have at the moment that the squealing about how Edward is the perfect man and this is a wonderful relationship coming from all quarters is damaging, that it reinforces patriarchy's norms, that no guy will measure up to Edward, and more importantly, that no guy should.

Newsweek, a magazine I generally find asks the tough questions or at the very least seems a little suspicious of things that seem to be too eager to validate cultural norms, let me down with their interview of Stephanie Meyers, the author:

Edward is so perfect -you've ruined regular men for a lot of teens. Do you feel bad?

Oh, a little bit, I guess. I just wanted to write for myself, a fantasy. And that's what Edward is. But it could be a good thing too. There's nothing wrong with having high expectations, right?

Nope, nothing wrong with high expectations. I like men who can cook; who don't mind having me pay for dinner half of the time; and who take me, my opinions, my wants, and my autonomy seriously and who likes me for "me". But those aren't the "high expectations" fueled by Edward mania. Apparently, he fell in love at first sniff (weird), which only reinforces that idea that guys should fall for girls the second that they see (or smell) them, and not be bothered with the little things like personality or intelligence or values or interests; as romantic as "love at first sight" is, it doesn't make much for a relationship. He is her protector, which kind of ignores girls' ability and right to, you know, fend for themselves. He keeps tabs on her all of the time by manipulating the school system and is thus in every single class with her; he uses his psychic sister to monitor her; and he forges her signature on college applications so that she'll go where he goes. 

That? Isn't healthy. And it isn't something we should be teaching our teenagers to fantasize about and hold as the gold standard of boyfriend care. Because those? Are serious danger signs in a relationship. And that dichotomy of what is romanticized and what is dangerous is very much a negative, because what girls are internalizing as "sweet" and "loving" and "romantic" goes against the actual ingredients for a healthy relationship. Space is a good; autonomy is a good. Edward Cullen's style of boyfriending? Not so good. Boys shouldn't aspire to it, and girls shouldn't want it.