Brittany brought up this interesting point in both her comment on the Facebook version of my post and in our conversation--her problem with the Bella-Edward dynamic was its particular flavor of codependence. An issue that I know I hadn't considered before is how Bella uses her trelationship with Edward basically to excuse herself from accountability and responsibility. Because she has Edward, why should she need to do anything for herself? She doesn't need ambitions, or dreams, or personal aspirations--she has Edward. The reasons for this are twofold: What in her life could she possibly need beyond Edward Cullen, and what could she possibly do that he won't do for her? Apparently (this was told to me, as I haven't read beyond the first book), even Edward disapproves of this, as he has to force her to apply to Dartmouth (I think?) for college; she didn't see a need to aim higher than a community college. Why bother? First of all, she has Edward. Second of all, going anywhere besides Forks (or Alaska, I guess) would take her away from Edward.This then begs the question (or, at least, Brittany did): Who is the worst sight for a girl to aim for--Edward Cullen or Prince Charming?
I just explained the Edward side of this, and the Prince Charming case should be a familiar one by now, but I'll rehash it anyway. The entire Prince Charming concept has been plaguing feminist thought since I don't know when, but popular thought tends to trace it back to the Cinderella story, particularly the Walt Disney 1950 version (as the prince there is actually named Prince Charming--yeah, Cinderella, no Snow White, though that has plenty of issues on its own). Prince Charming, so it goes, tells girls that they don't need to bother having agency, will, or self-determination because at the big, strong, conveniently handsome man will come in to rescue them in the nick of time.(Despite what it sounds like, I actually love Cinderella with all my heart, and spent a good portion of my senior thesis in undergrad defending its virtues and Cinderella herself as a feminine [thought not quite feminist] character. I'm just trying to present the Prince Charming argument in its most insidious form, as I've had no problem doing the same with Edward and the Twilight world.)
Which is worse for girls to aim for? Honestly, I'm not sure. My own biases against Twilight in general make me lean in favor of Prince Charming. Honestly, when you strip the saccharine off this relationship, all you are really left with is something rather bland and boring. Prince Charming, I don't think, would ever have the desire to hit Cinderella (let alone eat her), and I would argue if I had the time that Cinderella is much more spunky and willful than Bella ever demonstrates herself to be. I mean, Cinderella stands up for herself at the very least to her stepmother and stepsisters...
If I am being truly honest with myself, however, I would have to admit that a generation of disempowered damsels in distress worries me as much as the generation I believe we're getting of battered women. I have been told sadly not in jest by some women that "the feminist movement never asked me if I wanted out of the home," and that disturbs me about as much the willing victims in the Bella mode. [I may expand on this later, but I'm running out of time before I have to get to class, so I'll truncate this here...]
What it comes down to is that there is middle ground, ladies. There's no problem with a guy being willing to risk everything for you, or even with having a guy rescue you. The thing is that, if it comes down to it, you know that you can do it for yourself. And co-dependence of any form is not sexy, romantic, or healthy. Just saying.
~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**
0 comments:
Post a Comment