sexism

I’ve finished Jack Chalker’s five volume “Soul Rider” series and since, I’ve been obsessing more and more about issues of sex, gender and sexuality raised by the work.

So here we are on this amazing place called World. There are areas that are more or less like our planet where the “conventional” physical laws work: the Anchors. And there are areas surrounding these made of “pure Flux” in which machines and certain people by willpower alone can create anything from the Flux energy. That’s pretty neat if you can control the Flux, though most folks can’t and therefore they’re afraid of the stuff.

graffiti and Jack Chalker transform life: or is this what a New Human looks like?

The series starts out innocently enough in a charming communal farm in a pre-industrial village. Three childhood friends, Cassie, Dar and Suzl are about to come of age. Through various mishaps, they’re thrown into Flux with a number of other unfortunates. Then things really start to get wild.

Chalker makes a big point about people’s conscious and unconscious desires, emotions and wishes leading to physical and emotional changes in Flux. In “Birth,” Toby Haller makes love to his future wife, Mickey, in that medium. Their passionate desire is somehow converted into this life-long emotional bond that gets hardwired into the pair. They’re both content with the arrangement. Usually things don’t go quite so well.

In “Spirits,” Dar is captured by a sadistic wizard who has his genitals mutilated. Dar survives and eventually the wound is “magically” transformed into fully functioning female genitals. Later in the series, when Dar and Suzl try to have the “curse” lifted, the spell backfires and leads Suzl to develop a fully functioning, oversized set of male genitals. In “Masters,” we learn that Coydt van Haas has a similar “curse” in which he feels like a “man” but was involuntarily given magically created female genitals that he is unable to have changed back. The reactions of the three are telling. Both Dar and Coydt are overwhelmed with distress, shame and anger; yet Suzl accepts the change and just goes with it.

These partial transformations in Flux are strange. But that’s not all. There are numerous examples of folks being completely changed from one sex to the other. Toby and Mickey Haller’s super-great grandson, Mervyn, who identifies as male, will magically transform into a woman when it’s convenient for travel in Anchor. As a punishment for failing to act in a “manly way,” New Eden courts will have men transformed into “Fluxgirls:” super sexy, over-sexed women who are mentally just a little “slower” then the men folk. That’s what happens to Suzl’s husband, Weiz. (It’s so wrong that chief Justice Adam Tilghman orders the punishment then turns around and takes Suzl as his second wife!) It kind of backfires on the old boys in “Children” when Weiz-come-Ayesha starts the ball rolling for New Eden’s eventual destruction and containment. I guess forcing guys that you don’t like into literally becoming women is a male fantasy for the sexually and emotionally insecure. But it doesn’t look like a good idea, at least in hindsight.

I’ve been wondering, too, about the whole Fluxgirl/Fluxwife concept. Men impose this on women, most of the time against their will, which seems very troubling. Yet we see powerful female wizards and intelligent, liberated female scientists choose to become or remain Fluxgirls even when they don’t have to. Maybe some people are happy with the lifestyle? But why is it so one-sided? “Fluxdudes” would be pretty cool, too. And to be honest, sometimes I think that I wouldn’t mind that kind of thing myself. Weird.

Part of the problem with the Fluxgirl idea is the suggestion that these women are somehow inferior to their unchanged female and male counterparts. That’s why folks are appalled when Cassie voluntarily commits to becoming a Fluxwife and Connie in “Birth” transforms herself into “Kitten.” What does this really mean? What is Chalker intending us to think? Is someone “less-than” or perhaps “greater-than” living this simplified life of beauty, erotic satisfaction and contentment? I wonder. It seemed ideal in the Well World series when Nathan Brazil and Terry get trapped on the tropical island with their memories blocked. Later Brazil recalls the experience as one of the happiest in his very long life. Is that the message from Kitten and Cassie and even Morgaine? It’s better?

Major Verdugo in “Children” is eventually transformed from chauvinistic man into lovely passive woman, in what the female characters seem to imply is his just desserts. We’re led to believe that the Stringer, Matson, voluntarily submits to being changed into the likeness of his daughter, Sondra, so that he can train the women fighters of Suzl’s great army in “Children.” Though it turns out that it’s a trick and it was Sondra pretending to be Matson pretending to be Sondra. So Matson himself never becomes a woman. I can just hear him thinking, “Whew!” But what’s up with that?

I cannot really think of examples of women becoming men in the series beyond Sondra’s short-lived masquerade as her father. Yeah, sure, women take on elements of male anatomy, but it sort of stops there. Even Suzl’s “New Human,” a kind of hybrid man/woman that’s fully functional as both but is truly neither, looks more like a “regular woman,” apparently because the biology of pregnancy requires it, whatever that means. Honestly, Dar was menstruating in “Spirits” but looked like a guy. Why in the world can’t the New Human look whatever way in “Children?”

Coydt van Haas becomes the mastermind in the creation of the rigidly gender-stereotyped New Eden by collecting a group of powerful men that have been used as sex slaves by more powerful female wizards in Flux. They’re all seeking revenge against women, I suppose for their sense of humiliation. That revenge turns out simply to be imposing the opposite, equally troubling, though perhaps, more familiar system of women subservient to men, on the entire population of Anchor.

New Eden’s the whole reason that Suzl rounds up her army of volunteer and Flux-conscripted women in the first place. She wants to prevent the sexist culture from spreading to other Anchors and possibly to all of World. Yet are her methods any different? She insists that everyone be female or New Human, her single-sex “solution” to the problem of gender difference. Male sex is no obstacle as she simply has men magically changed into women, whether they want to or not.

With all of this sexual stuff, obviously these characters engage in the “real thing” too. Surprisingly, or maybe not, it’s usually heterosexual or same-sex lesbian style only. There are the occasional situations with the male character with the female genitals having sex with women (e.g. van Haas) or when a male-identified character with female genitals has sex with a female-identified character with male genitals (e.g. Dar and Suzl). To me these are just creative variations of heterosexuality.

The lesbian stuff is simply everywhere! In “Birth” with the computer-manipulated formation of the matriarchal Mother Church, woman-on-woman sex is even given a religious and spiritual basis and sanction. Yet where’s the guy-on-guy action?

Suzl briefly hooks up with a gay male Stringer. It’s when she looks like a woman but is blessed with ample male equipment. It’s convenient at the time for both of them, though not perfect. She prefers women; he likes men. Plus the whole deal’s on the down low, which is awkward. We hear her earnestly confide the arrangement and problems to a woman friend. She rationalizes it at the time with the thought that she needs protection in Flux, which her bf provides, and she offers sex more to his liking while allowing him to save face in the Stringer corps. It seems that there’s just no place for a gay Stringer. How Eighties!

What possible difference can it make who you sleep with in a place where anyone can look like anyone or anything? The only time romantic same-sex male relationships are noted is in “Masters” when Matson is sent as an envoy to New Eden. He stays overnight in a small town outside the capital and observes two New Eden men kissing passionately. He’s ‘tolerant’ but makes a big point of noting that other men expressing any interest in him would be unacceptable.

Most of the story is from the perspective of the female characters: Cassie, Suzl, Spirit and Morgaine. These women are written in a compassionate, real way that makes them seem like ‘whole’ people, rather than science fiction-style, two dimensional plastic dolls. I get the sense that Chalker genuinely likes these women. The series places women in powerful roles as heads of the Church, Saint-like religious crusaders, Army commanders, heads of internal security and powerful psychologists. During the Samish crisis with the opening of the Hellgates, we learn that more women than men have been selected by the Soul Riders and Guardians to control the Flux machinery to fight off the invading aliens. I have the idea that’s supposed to suggest that women are either more powerful than men in terms of Flux control or perhaps that they have more self-restraint and therefore are more fit for the power. Of course, Matson waltzes in to provide a battle plan for the ladies…

It’s also suggested several times throughout that men are more expendable than women, as you only need a few guys to carry on the tribe. My response to that is “puh-leese!” The only reason humans exist is to procreate? Give me a break!

So what’s it all mean? Is the Soul Rider series sexist, or heterosexist? Is it an attempt to rise above gender itself or is the point to demonstrate why that’s so impossible for us? Is it somehow related to contemporary Eighties stuff? Maybe Chalker didn’t want to push the envelope too far? I don’t know. I really like the guy and his crazy novels. And these gendered questions are one of the big reasons. Probably it doesn’t even matter, as the novels are all out of print and most likely I’m the only one reading this stuff anymore anyway.

If you are into the series, please contact me! I’d love to hear your thoughts.

{ 4 comments }

What’s up with the sex lives of these Greek gods?!?

Hera, the goddess of marriage, is totally pissed off about Zeus’ fooling around. Yet she sticks it out with him for thousands of years. There’s some little quip that they went for couples counseling but I’m not that sure it really helped the divine king and queen so much. She’s still fuming and Zeus guiltily recognizes Thalia as another one of his own.

horny, frustrated and ready for more!

horny, frustrated and ready for more!

Hades, the god of the Underworld, is the classic example of a dude with a relationship handicap. As I recall he abducts and rapes his wife, Persephone. Then he goes around banging mortal woman and shoves it right in her face. It’s obvious the way P talks trash about Nico di Angelo that she’s not a happy “step-mother.” Hades himself is pretty awful to Nico as well. What’s up with him not recognizing Nico as his son for ages; verbally abusing him; lying to him when he makes an agreement to help Percy; and locking him away in that tacky Las Vegas casino for decades: all this while at the same time heavily pressuring Nico to be the hero of the Oracle of Delphi’s prophecy instead of Percy? Huh?!? The guy’s a total jerk!

Aries and Aphrodite seem to have a sweet deal. It’s true that he’s a total bully and she’s a huge diva, but hey, they act happy enough. Of course she’s got that ugly husband, but it sort of looks like they enjoy an open relationship. You don’t see any of them all bent out of shape about each other’s mortal kids, for example. Just because the two A’s irritate me doesn’t mean that they’re not living the dream. Hephestus is a little anti-social. That may be because of unresolved mother issues rather than because he’s been cuckolded for millennia. And it certainly hasn’t held him back from fathering a whole slew of heroes. I miss Beckendorf!

The Poseidon story is much the same. He comes across as this glamorous laid-back seafaring playboy type and clearly the ladies go wild for it. The huge army of Cyclopses alone suggests that this god really gets around. It’s also very clear that his divine son, Triton, and his wife, Amphitrite, are not happy campers having Percy swimming in ‘their ocean.’

It’s not all screwing around on Olympus. Aside from Hera’s matrimonial restraint, there’s Athena’s non-sexual sexual reproduction. That’s so weird! And it sort of short circuits one of the more fun parts of having a kid: the sex. Artemis, the dedicated virgin, seems to collect a huge entourage of like-minded virginal orphans and cast-offs. Maybe she’s fooling us. I always wonder if there’s a girl-on-girl thing happening in the silvery moonlight?

That raises another issue about Greek mythology: where has all of the same-sex stuff vanished to in the Percy Jackson series? These gods, godlings and monsters are a rangy bunch. Don’t they go for any cute little thing: man or woman, human or not? I’m sure that I’ve read in my Edith Hamilton about at least one or two peccadillos where the guys were after each other. Let’s face it, Ganymede didn’t become Zeus’ cup bearer only because he’s handy in the kitchen!

I know Mr. D feeds Percy this ridiculous crap that the gods need the demigod heroes to stay afloat. Blah, blah, blah! So the entire system is set up to force the gods to fool around for the sake of Western Civilization?! That’s convenient! “Sorry, honey, I needed to bang that hot mortal. It keeps the economy moving and it helps you, too, you know.” Can you imagine hearing a line like that in divorce court?


more Percy Jackson

{ 1 comment }

A friend recently sent me this funny U-tube video of Edward Cullen trying to court Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Naturally she’s completely turned off and ends up “slaying” him by the end. Apparently she didn’t like his stalker tendencies.

I agree with the Multiply writers about that: Edward’s whole stalker business is pretty creepy. Bella doesn’t seem to mind though. In fact, if I were to guess, I think that it sort of turns her on. Weird, but Bells is strange.

what's so wrong with sex and motherhood, anyway?!?

what's so wrong with sex and motherhood, anyway?!?

For one, I’m at a loss about her low self-esteem! She’s obviously a good student; she gets along well with her eccentric parents; she knows how to take care of herself; and of course, she’s a guy magnet. It’s odd how she doesn’t notice these things about herself.

The guy issue is the one that has preoccupied everyone reading, reading about or commenting on the “Twilight” series, so let’s revisit the evidence. In the first few days of school, normally a horrible experience for all shy teenagers, particularly when entering mid-year, Bella manages to get Mike, Tyler, Eric, Edward and lest we forget, Jacob, awfully interested. She complains sweetly that “I had no practice dealing with overly friendly boys.” Well, she’s getting total immersion at Forks High! Really though, what in the world does she mean when she exclaims later to Edward “Well, look at me…I’m absolutely ordinary[?]” I don’t think so. And I’m not just talking about the beauty behind the face to paraphrase Bella herself in another context (though she obviously has that in spades.)

Personally I think that sexuality can be pretty confusing for everyone. And this girl comes from a sort of sheltered background if I’m reading between the lines properly. I remember when I was a teen that this sex and guy stuff could really freak me out. Why not Bells, too? It doesn’t seem very fair, or particularly accurate, to reduce her to a mere “object of desire” as those other commentators do. To me, she seems a bit more complex than all that. And why not look at Edward in the same light? Sure, he’s wickedly strong and dangerous but don’t we all have the potential for that with the “right” motivation and weapons? Bella makes the point herself when she protests that she doesn’t “like double standards.” Failing to see how Edward gets objectified by B and all of the other girls in school while harping on how B is by E seems just as egregious to me. Ooo, Edward is so angelic, like a model, impossibly beautiful; you name it, the list is endless. That’s a lot of pressure to tack onto anyone, including a guy.

But you know what? I don’t care. Being in high school and falling in love are both irrational emotional experiences. It seems so… real the way Bells and Eddie idealize one another. Why make a huge production out of it? It’s completely over the top but that’s just how kids are. Show a little compassion!

I want to believe that Bella and Edward are really in love. Don’t you? Isn’t the story much more satisfying if you do? Yes, yes, you can reduce Bells to just someone that’s completely controlled by Edward. I get it. But why would you? That ruins the fun. The social implications might be appalling, yet maybe not. But whatever!!! This is still entertainment, no? Or is it a self-help book? The mere fact that so many folks bought into the fantasy must say something!

Probably something that disturbs you.

Other ranters on Multiply go on and on about Steph in their column, complaining that Bells is just a personification of Lady M herself. I’m not so sure about that. Maybe Steph over-identifies with Ms. Swan, but isn’t that the whole appeal of this story? Bella is just vaguely described enough and she’s “ordinary” enough that most interested readers can identify with her on some level. Steph is only human, like the rest of us. Perhaps she could have written something that is more morally uplifting that promotes individual liberation or whatever, but why should she? This series is awfully successful as is; the writer seems to have enjoyed the experience and her numerous fans suggest that they did too. We’re not in Venezuela, after all. Good for her for cashing in on the American dream! And of course Steph’s tripped up in Edward’s charm! After all, isn’t that why the series is such a phenomenal success? Almost everyone gets hooked. How can you really know what she thinks anyway? Are you her mother or her psychotherapist? Maybe the book should come with a warning label like on cigarette cartons and wine bottles? It could say something like, “Read with caution: not everything in here is PC.”

These same critics bash down Edward for his ultra-white skin, “mood ring” pupils [by the way, very cool description!] and dark circles under his eyes, claiming that he’s not attractive at all. Why would Bella be drawn to such a freak? Well, I have wondered about the racial implications of her attraction to Edward, but that’s elsewhere. Don’t they say that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and taste is subjective? (Just who are ‘they,’ anyway?) Really, haven’t any of you ever fallen for someone that your friends and relatives didn’t find that appealing? Come on, you know that you have!

And that’s my point with Bella and her self-image issues. It seems very clear that if you just “objectively” look at the facts that Bells has a lot going for her. Just because she doesn’t recognize that right away doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It simply takes some of us longer than others to get the hang of it. I believe Jasper when he tells her on their flight from James to Phoenix, “You’re wrong you know… you are worth it.” The rest of the series is the process of her discovering this one marvelous, simple fact.

You quote readers and fans that complain bitterly about the last book, “Breaking Dawn.” They didn’t like the fact that B and E finally had sex you say. What is more striking to me is your dismissal of Bella as “a traditional–and boring–teenaged mom.” Who’s objectifying whom now? Bella didn’t seem that unhappy about the arrangement. I agree that that would have bored me witless, but it can work for some. So what’s the problem? She made a choice; one that you didn’t like. Isn’t that the whole point?

Let’s look at the bigger picture for just a sec now. Bella is an inexperienced girl entering high school in an alien town to help her mother out. Already that’s weird. When’s the last time any of your teen girls wanted to be big helps around the house? Plus she’s shy, doesn’t have experience with boys and has not dated before. Her parents split eons ago and she’s an only child used to taking care of them. Suddenly she’s confronted by a guy that she finds shockingly attractive. Not only that, he takes an interest in her. And she discovers that he has some shameful secret that he’s appalled by, a secret that she eventually learns and doesn’t seem to mind. In fact, it brings them even closer together. And he has this amazing family. (I’d love to have Alice alone as a family member. Can you imagine? No financial worries and always getting the weather and your clothes perfectly right? Heaven on Earth!) They’re very nice to her too, after a few bumps in the road with Rosalie. Maybe that’s only the vamps being self serving because she accepts them as they are, but so what?

Bella comes from this messed up family but remains steadfastly family oriented. Her parents are nice and all but totally don’t get her and they seem checked out in their own little worlds most of the time. When you really look at the Cullen/Hales, what do you see? They are this big, close-knit family; all with good looking, studious, very well meaning relatives. Why wouldn’t she be into it? Alone she finds Edward to be mind-stoppingly sexy. And the others give her something that she’s never had before: loving involved sibs and parents. Wouldn’t anyone go wild over the combination?

Yes, it’s a bit pedestrian. Though isn’t that what everyone is secretly after: unconditional love, all in the context of financial freedom, eternal youth and, of course wild sex with a ridiculous hottie while having the dignity of parenting the next generation.

Bella is beautiful. And she’s smart. What a weird combination!

more “Twilight” rants

{ 3 comments }

do you think that I'd look better as a blond?

do you think that I'd look better as a blond?

I’ve been thinking about the back-and-forth comments between Rita and Deby at the end of Bella versus Rosalie. For one, who would have guessed that Madonna, who I believe is an amazing performer and is undoubtedly an incredible success in all ways measurable, could be such a lightening-rod for woman on woman strife? What is it about her, anyway, that gets people going? It also made me wonder more about Bella’s issues with other women.

I’ve touched on Rosalie in that other rant but her case could stand to be revisited here. Upon first laying eyes on R in the cafeteria at Forks High, before even learning her name, we read:

The tall one [Rosalie] was statuesque. She had a beautiful figure, the kind you saw on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, the kind that made every girl around her take a hit on her self-esteem just by being in the same room. Her hair was golden, gently waving to the middle of her back.

To me, all that we’ve learned so far is that Rosalie Hale is pretty and blond. Yet already Bells’ self-esteem is taken down a peg, just by looking at the table across the way.

There are some other blonds that Bella takes issue with in the book. Remember the hostess at La Villa Italia restaurant in Port Angeles drooling all over Edward the night that Bella was almost attacked? B uncharitably refers to her as “unnaturally blond.” Not to totally diss poor Bella, she does recognize that she’s uncomfortable with, and maybe a bit jealous of, all the attention that Edward gets. But them’s the breaks when you’re dating a hottie. Just get over it, girl!

And then there’s Lauren. You know, the girl in the same lunchtime crew of kids, sort on the periphery of Bella, Angela and Jessica? We kind of learn about her in dribs and drabs. I had to re-read a large part of “Twilight” (not that I minded!) to pull the picture together a bit. We’re first introduced to Lauren in a telephone conversation between Jessica and Bells. Jess is very excited that Mike has finally agreed to take her to the Girl’s Choice dance. Bells then suggests that Jess has Angela ask Eric and “standoffish” Lauren who “always ignored me at the lunch table” ask Tyler. This way Bella brilliantly unloads Mike, Eric and Tyler so she’s free to mope over Edward some more.

The tension between Lauren and our heroine grows when Bella starts hanging out with Edward. She overhears Lauren suggest to the other kids that B should lunch “with the Cullens from now on.” For her part, Bella notes Lauren’s “slick, silver blond hair” as she eavesdrops. I don’t know about you, but I think that that term, ‘slick,’ is usually meant as an insult. At La Push, Bells is even more brutal, describing Lauren as having “pale, fishy eyes.” What’s this hostility about?

We eventually discover pages and pages later, while shopping in the department store for dresses, that Lauren is upset with Bella because of Tyler’s infatuation with same. Apparently Lauren’s into Tyler and his interest in B bugs her. Isn’t that perfectly normal? Wouldn’t you be peeved if the guy/girl that you were into, who actually agreed to take you to a dance, was publically humiliating you by showing excessive interest in some other person that was also part of your school clique? Look at it from L’s perspective: she is under the mistaken impression that Bella has agreed to go to prom with the silly fool. And Bella! Why doesn’t she just clear the air with Lauren? It’s not like she’s into Tyler. I guess it’s kind of funny to torture Tyler by abandoning him the day of the prom but doesn’t that sort of screw Lauren too? She doesn’t deserve that! She just wants a Bella cast off, after all. What’s the biggie?

I think that Bella mishandles this for a couple reasons. She’s kind of self-involved, living in her eighteenth and nineteenth century British romance world, completely wrapped up in her fantasies of Edward. Of course the real Edward starts to take more of her time and attention too. Surely that’s a distraction. But I really think that Bella has blond envy.

She’s totally bought into the whole nonsense that blonds have more fun.

Wrong! Look at all the stereotypes attached to blonds: we’re told in a million different ways that though we’re sometimes beautiful we’ve got a bunch of other very yucky qualities too. Apparently we’re shallow if not outright dumb. Isn’t that the whole humor behind blond jokes? That cult movie, “Legally Blond,” really runs with this twisted blond notion. And just because it all works out for the Reese Witherspoon character doesn’t erase all of the blond negativity. What’s the message in “Mean Girls,” another huge cinematic hit? In this one, the “plastics,” AKA the popular shallow girls, are led by a sadistic “bad blond” who nearly becomes paralyzed in apparent brunette retribution. Sure, sure, it’s all smoothed over by the end, but all I can say is “whatever!” And then there’s the quintessential blond for girls: Barbie. It’s true; she really does have everything. Yet the one key accessory that she’s always missing is only found in the intellect department.

Maybe being blond gets you more noticed, but that’s not always a good thing. Just look what happened to Rosalie in her human life!

Madonna had “blond ambition.” She’s not really a blond. And why would she want to be? Madonna seems perfectly happy being ‘Madonna,’ thank you very much! Bella craves the attention and admiration that she fantasizes these Rosalies and other slick, bottle blonds get. She can’t see the bigger picture: everything comes with a cost.

more “Twilight” rants

{ 7 comments }

What’s up with Bella and Rosalie?

They are less than friendly in the first novel, “Twilight.” Yet by the close of “Breaking Dawn,” they’ve become the best of buds. For much of the series Bella is preoccupied with Rosalie’s beauty and seems very self-critical in comparison. We finally learn in “Eclipse” that Rosalie is completely envious of Bella’s humanity and ability to have children. By the end of the series, Bella has had a kid and become a beautiful vampire herself. Rose then acts as a kind of nursemaid/proxy mother for Renesme when Bella is recovering from her vampire transformation. The apparent dichotomy is solved.

shhh don't tell! we're a lot more alike than it looks

don't tell! we're a lot more alike than it looks

I just don’t buy this antagonism, or its resolution. Bella, despite all of her protestations to the contrary, is very conflicted about marriage and motherhood, especially early motherhood. As we learn more about Rosalie, it’s also obvious that she has a lot of “beauty issues.”

I’ve recently chatted up some of my female friends about this whole conundrum. As a guy, I’ve never quite understood this woman on woman competition in the looks department. My friends’ consensus seems to be that women do in fact compete with one-another about looks. This is then complicated by the fact that sometimes men’s and women’s views of feminine beauty do not correspond, leading to additional tension. (Personally, I think there’s a similar problem with guys, though most of us would never dare admit it.)

Then there’s that childbearing bugaboo. One of my friends tells me that it’s just sort of assumed that a woman could potentially have a child, whether she chooses to do so or not is beside the point. With this basic assumption, the idea that it is impossible for a woman to bear a child is so disturbing that it almost challenges a fundamental aspect of female identity. In this way, willingly, or unwillingly in the case of Rosalie, to give up this god-given right seems bizarre if not completely insane.

I feel like the fairy tale ending of the series glosses over some serious problems related to perceptions of beauty and biological motherhood about which both Bella and Rosalie struggle. Is it enough for Bella to “become” beautiful as a vampire, or was she always lovely, but failed to recognize this until she changed? Did Rosalie really lose something beyond her ability to reproduce when Carlisle transformed her into a vampire? Was Bella’s casual acceptance of forgoing children to marry Edward believable? Is Rosalie’s being a sort of aunt to Renesme enough to compensate her for this extreme loss that she feels? What if Bella and Edward want a second child? Steph raises the questions but seems very short on providing answers.

I am especially troubled by the section in “Breaking Dawn” where Bella discovers that she’s knocked up while honeymooning on the tropical Brazilian isle (book 1 Bella, chapter 7 Unexpected). Somehow she arrives at this explanation for her supernatural pregnant state:

Of course Rosalie could not conceive a child, because she was frozen in the state in which she passed from human to inhuman. Totally unchanging. And human women’s bodies had to change to bear children. The constant change of a monthly cycle for one thing, and then the bigger changes needed to accommodate a growing child. Rosalie’s body couldn’t change….

….And human men—well, they pretty much stayed the same from puberty to death…..Men had no such thing as child-bearing years or cycles of fertility.

Here we have this elegant “solution” which seems to conclude that a woman can either be fertile and plain or stunning and barren; just not both at the same time. Do people really believe it’s either beauty or babies? This is not the case with Edward, clearly: he looks like an angel and his stuff works. By extension, then, all men have the potential to be both beautiful and fertile simultaneously. This double standard is intolerable!

more “Twilight” rants

Related Posts with Thumbnails

{ 10 comments }