I Was Just Booed By Thousands

…and it was AWESOME. I am grinning so much at the moment that it is almost causing physical pain.

So here’s the context: MTV asked Twilight fans to submit questions for Stephenie Meyer, with the idea that she would pick out a few to answer tonight at the live concert in New York being held before the book release. I couldn’t resist asking this:

Many feminists are raising criticisms about your characterization of Bella, and her relationships with Edward and Jacob, suggesting that maybe Bella isn’t the best role model for young women since she is strongly codependent, and her relationship with Edward borders on the abusive, especially in Eclipse. How do you feel about the reactions of the feminist community to your books?

I submitted it under the name “Ari,” a nickname from college. (long story), because I was a bit, you know, embarrassed. And I thought that if the question got picked, “meloukhia” would get hopelessly mangled on air.

I really didn’t think my question would get picked, but it did, and MY GOD the audience was furious. There was some serious sustained booing, and the moderator actually said “Ari, if you’re here, you might want to leave,” because the crowd was so menacing. Which was totally awesome. Baxt and I were watching the live cast simultaneously, and the following exchange occurred:

(4:34:31 PM) meloukhia: YAY!!!!!!!!!
(4:34:38 PM) meloukhia: I AM SO EXCITED@!
(4:34:40 PM) baxt: omg
(4:34:41 PM) meloukhia: I GOT BOOED!
(4:34:47 PM) baxt: you just won the lottery, dude
(4:34:50 PM) baxt: :D

So, I was really glad that Stephenie picked my question, but I was also really disappointed with her response. As soon as a transcript is up, I will add her response here, but basically she said something along the lines of “Bella’s not physically strong, but that’s not all there is to a woman, she is mentally strong.” Now, I happen to agree with the idea that physical strength isn’t the sole criterion for being a strong woman, and I’m glad to see Stephenie saying that. That said, we concurred that the response was generally weak:

(4:35:15 PM) meloukhia: Uhm, weak response.
(4:35:19 PM) baxt: yeah
(4:35:32 PM) meloukhia: MENTALLY STRONG?!?!?!?! WTF?!
(4:35:46 PM) baxt: ouch
(4:36:22 PM) meloukhia: Nice way to totally not address the abusive nature of their relationship, Stephenie Meyer!
(4:36:38 PM) baxt: yeah, that was dodgy
(4:37:21 PM) meloukhia: It’s unfortunate because I feel like the several responses to similar questions I’ve read have all been that way. It’s like “oh she’s not physically strong, but she is mentally strong, yay!”
(4:37:33 PM) baxt: which is not….. yeah
(4:37:48 PM) meloukhia: Yeah, I mean. Yeah.

However, the fact that she very pointedly ignored the issue that Bella and Edward’s relationship is rather abusive really troubled me. She seemed to disagree with my characterization of their relationship, which means it’s bullet point time:

  • In Twilight, Edward admits to spying on Bella while she sleeps. This is stalking, and this is creepy.
  • In Eclipse, Edward pointedly tries to control who Bella associates with, ostensibly for her own protection. He has his sister kidnap her, which is, you know, kidnapping, which is illegal, and he essentially orders her to stay away from Jacob. This is abusive behaviour. This is what abusive spouses do.
  • Later in Eclipse, he chains Bella to control her. Now, arguably, this scene is pretty hot, because I’m all about putting shackles on people, but I’m also all about negotiating a scene beforehand. Given that Bella and Edward haven’t really had any conversations about sexuality and personal limits, this scene pretty much set all of my safe, sane, and consensual Bells ringing.
  • Throughout the series, Bella is portrayed as strongly codependent, to the point of becoming emotionally distressed when she is not with Edward. This is not the hallmark of a strong woman. It’s fine to be deeply in love with someone, and I’m all for that, but that disturbing level of codependence is extremely unhealthy. People go to therapy for things like that.
  • Bella is often portrayed as emotionally weak, not just physically weak, and fortunately, Edward is there to save her. I’m not sure that constantly having a male rescuer makes you a strong woman.
  • Speaking of controlling and stalking, reading the minds of Bella’s friends to gather information is a gross violation of privacy, and it’s just as abusive as reading emails, letters, and other private communications.
  • Has anyone noticed that Bella is constantly cooking dinner for her quaintly inept father, just like a good little housewife?

You know, I would go on, but I think this is a good starting point. The fact that Edward is portrayed as an ideal boyfriend is deeply disturbing to me. Edward’s obsessive, controlling behaviour is abusive, and that’s the bottom line. Reading these books is like reading the scenarios I studied when I was training to be a sexual assault/domestic violence crisis counselor. And it reminds me of some of the very real conversations I had with actual victims of domestic violence.

And don’t even get me started on Jacob, the “kiss rapist,” as Baxt calls him. Jacob’s a “nice guy,” says Stephenie Meyer, yet he’s extremely manipulative and very possessive of Bella. He forces himself on her physically several times, and constantly manipulates her emotions in a plot to “take her back” from Edward. This is not cute rivalry between boyfriends, this is abuse. Being non-human doesn’t give you a special pass.

So, Stephenie Meyer, I’m giving you an F on question-answering. But hey, thank you for picking my question. And on the off-chance that you, you know, read this, I would love to talk with you, because I freely admit that I am a fan of your books, otherwise I wouldn’t be reading them. (Or obsessing over them.)

UPDATE: My question made it into the New York Times, sort of, here. Unfortunately, the reporter focused on the “codependent” part of the question, rather than the “abusive” part. Sigh.

1 August, 2008 – 5:15 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, social justice |

Book 223: Bad Blood

I’ve known that the American blood supply experienced some serious problems in the 1980s ever since I read The Coming Plague, which is one of my favourite books. And I’ve always had a very personal interest in the safety of the blood supply, because in 1984, before the blood supply was routinely tested for AIDS and non-A non-B hepatitis (as Hepatitis C was once known) I received a blood transfusion. Given the long incubation period for AIDS, I’m sure you can imagine my delight that I continue to test negative for HIV/AIDS, but the thought that I and numerous other Americans were potentially exposed to bad blood makes, well, it makes my blood boil.

So when Vicki sent this book (thanks again, by the way), I thought it would be interesting, but that I wouldn’t learn any new information. I knew (and I hope you know too) that the blood supply was compromised in the 1980s, and that the blood banking industry was very slow to act. As it turns out, I was wrong; this book had a lot of information I hadn’t been aware of, and I think it’s a brilliant piece of investigative journalism.

What I didn’t know was how heavily involved the Red Cross was in the blood supply problems of the early 1980s, and I was also not aware that the problems with the blood supply persisted well through the 1990s, with numerous documented cases of potentially tainted blood being released for transfusion. Let me say that again, because it bears repeating: Red Cross blood banks released tainted blood and blood products for transfusion. And when contamination problems were discovered later, the Red Cross was very slow to send letters notifying donors and recipients. And that made me extremely annoyed.

The Red Cross is already not one of my favourite charities in the world, because a lot of the money they collect goes to administration, rather than actually helping people. But, like a lot of people, I had foolishly assumed that Red Cross blood services were pretty clean, so to speak. In fact, the sale of donated blood (possibly your donated blood, since the Red Cross has such a tight hand on the blood market), generates a lot of money for the Red Cross. So when AIDS emerged in the early 1980s and it became apparent that AIDS was transmitted through blood, the Red Cross response was to protect its income.

And not recipients of blood.

It’s not just that the Red Cross was slow to adopt donor screening techniques and tests which could be used to screen for AIDS, or at least to look for surrogate conditions which indicated that the donor was at increased risk of having HIV/AIDS. No, the Red Cross actively blocked efforts to make the blood supply safer, even going so far as to punish renegade Red Cross centers which tried to screen their donors.

Thanks to luck, I’m not one of the people profiled in this book, like the set of premature triplets who all got transfusion AIDS and all died, or the store owner who received blood transfusions after being shot in a robbery and learned that he might have been exposed to AIDS five years later, when the Red Cross finally got around to sending him a letter. So I couldn’t help but read this book with a “there but for the grace of God go I” feeling.

If you haven’t read this book, I would highly recommend it. If nothing else, it will probably change the way you think about the Red Cross.

Demographics:

Bad Blood, by Judith Reitman. Published 1996, 288 pages. Health.

1 August, 2008 – 4:26 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in book project, Everything |

July Book Project Report

July marked an all-time high point in the Book Project. I read 46 books, and a total of 14,393 pages. That works out to almost a book and a half a day, and a 465 page/day average. I more than doubled the January low point, and somehow I doubt that I will be topping July in the coming months. Maybe I’m wrong and I will, but this was a pretty book-heavy month. At this point, my total books read for the year exceeds the number of days so far this year, which is a pretty neat trick, if you ask me.

Anyway, the book of the month prize goes to War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, a recommendation from Vicki. I also really enjoyed The Power of the Dog, and The Physics of the Buffyverse.

I struggled with First Into Nagasaki, because I disagreed with the positions in the first part of the book, but I tried to remember that the book is a series of largely unedited dispatches, not an assessment in retrospect, so I tried to give it a break. In the middle of the month, my feminist values were severely strained. First I read Madam, Will You Talk?, a book which featured a simpering, obnoxious, apologist female character whom I wanted to smack. Then, because I am a glutton for punishment, I read Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse, featuring another totally weak, powerless female character who relies on the precious manpire in her life to save her from a horrible fate. Get ready for the Breaking Dawn review, which will be posted as soon as I read it.

At any rate, my head didn’t explode, and I read a lot of really good books last month, so I’d say it was a pretty good month. As always, I heartily encourage book recommendations from readers; I will do my best to get ahold of every book recommended (unless I have already read it, in which case I may abstain). If it’s really important to you that I read something, you can mail it to me:

s.e. smith

po box 2764

fort bragg, ca 95437

I’m also happy to accept loans of books; you can lend me books through the mail (include a slip to let me know it’s a loan!) or in person, if you’re local. I can’t guarantee that I’ll like the books sent/recommended, but I still appreciate it, because not liking something still requires critical thinking!

1 August, 2008 – 3:21 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in book project, Everything |

Reproductive Rights

If you are a vagina-owner, or you care about vaginas (and reproductive freedom), go read this Wall Street Journal article. I am too horrified by it to offer any additional comment right now.

1 August, 2008 – 12:29 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, health, politics, social justice |

Into the Woods

My friend Gowan and I have this long, carefully nurtured dream, which every now and then we embroider upon and elaborate, usually when one of us is feeling particularly morose. The dream involves owning a large plot of land, and building two cottages on it, far apart enough that the cottages can feel alone, but close enough that the other cottage is only a quick walk down the road, or hike through the woods. The land will be covered in gardens and orchards, and we will live in our cottages, grow tomatoes, and drink lemonade on the porches.

It’s a good dream. I like it. I’ve had some version of this dream ever since I was capable of rational thought, and pretty much ever since I have been capable of rational thought, I’ve known that this dream is never going to happen. Because, as Gowan pointed out recently, we live in a society where the rich live in rural areas, and the poor live in cities.

It used to be the other way around, with rich people living in cities, and the poor living in the country and feeding the city with their farms. Now, granted, rural poverty very much exists in this country, and it would be foolish not to recognize it, but people living in poverty don’t own large stretches of land with gardens. The tradition of being land rich and cash poor is on the wane. No, the idealized rural lifestyle is reserved for the rich, and gentleman farmers (who amount to the same thing), and I think that’s a great shame.

I remember reading Walden at a pretty young age, and the book affected me deeply. I loved the idea of living in a cabin and living off the land, minding my own business and divorcing myself from the outside world. But this is growing increasingly impossible in modern society. Patches of land that isolated can still be found, but you need to find a way to pay for the land, somehow, and then you have to deal with paying for the implements you will need; unless you’re independently wealthy, good luck, buddy. Being a hermit used to be a respectable pastime, rather than just being reserved for the Unabomber.

We really do live in a perfect capitalist society, with the workers trapped in their lives, and no hope of escape. As I was saying to a friend the other day, while I may be a writer (and I feel very pretentious saying that), I’m not good enough to be allowed to be a hermit. Maybe I will be, someday, and when I do land an epic book deal, the first thing I’m doing with my advance is putting a down payment on a plot of land somewhere, and sticking two cabins on it, thereby turning myself into the very thing I loathe most, a self-indulgent yuppie who feeds insanely high land prices with a vain desire to live in “the country.”

We can all dream, right?

1 August, 2008 – 10:56 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, politics |

Appropriated Wheelbarrows

How To Tell People They Sound Racist is a very brief video which explains, uhm, how to tell people that they sound racist. Key lesson: learn to distinguish what someone says and what someone is.

Trolls are the subject of a fascinating and detailed New York Times article which is well worth reading.

Twilight news, for those of my readers who know (and care) about what happens tomorrow.

An American woman has become a refugee in Amsterdam, thanks to our awesome legal system.

Serial evictees are working the system in San Francisco to get cheap rent; with rents the way they are in the City, can you blame them?

State workers are being punished because the governor and legislature can’t get the budget together.

The AIDS rate among black Americans is alarmingly high, and some activists would like to see the government doing something about it.

1 August, 2008 – 10:07 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |