Tag Archives: feminism

The Fashion House Of Sununu

Really? And Republicans wonder why they’ve lost the women’s vote.

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu questioned reports that the Tracey Reese dress Michelle Obama wore for her convention address Tuesday night cost $350 on a conference call with reporters Wednesday. Sununu accused the Obama campaign of peddling several lies, including the cost of the dress: “somehow I don’t think that’s the truth either.”

First, the Obama Campaign hasn’t mentioned the cost of the dress. Second, did Sununu ask what Ann Romney’s dress cost? And third is THIS:

MODERATOR 1: OK. Which designers do you prefer?
SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?
MODERATOR 1: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)
MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)

Exactly.

(Here’s a link to Tracey Reese dresses if you want to check the costs)

Girls Just Wanna… Play Ball

First, the Pandora household has now taken to watching the Olympics On-Demand. NBC’s coverage has driven all of us away. What has also bothered us, mainly my daughter, is how the commentary surrounding female athletes has been dominated by their hairstyles, emotional moments, and uniform colors and bikini styles. So when my Cross-Country and Track loving daughter saw this Nike ad she asked me to post it on Delaware Liberal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ighxU1vYw[/youtube]

Pretty powerful stuff. More of this, please!

Men Don’t Like Being Called “Creepy”

I have never really thought about this, even though I’ve used the word “creepy” to describe certain men.

Via Jezebel:

At the heart of the “anti-creep shaming campaign” is a concerted effort to discourage women from relying on their instincts to protect themselves from harm. Laying aside its likely etymology, calling a dude an “asshole” is a way of labeling him a jerk. Plenty of people can be jerks without being predatory. On the other hand, calling a dude “creepy” labels him as a potential threat; a creep may not be imminently violent, but there’s almost always a sense that he shows consistent disregard for a woman’s physical or psychological space. This is why, as Wakeman wrote, “it’s a really freaking dangerous idea to twist a woman’s open, honest communication about her boundaries/expectations into ‘creep shaming’ that victimizes men.”

Though the word may be occasionally used unfairly (for example, to describe a physically unattractive guy’s genuinely respectful attempt at striking up a conversation), “creepy” serves a vital function. No other word is as effective as describing when a man has crossed a woman’s boundary; no other word forces a man to reflect on how his behavior makes other people feel. A guy can disprove accusations of being weak by displaying strength (often in foolish ways.) But a guy can only disprove the charge of creepiness by fundamentally altering his behavior to be more genuinely respectful of women. [emphasis mine]

That’s pretty accurate. In fact, whenever I’ve heard this word used I’ve understood exactly what the speaker was saying – there’s something off, something uncomfortable, something simmering beneath the surface. Something that can’t be defined, but exists.

And it has nothing to do with a guys looks. What I mean is that “handsome” men are labeled creepy, too. Creepy is about behavior, and how that behavior makes you feel. I also think the reason the word carries such power is because it’s used sparingly and accurately. If someone is creepy you don’t trust them. If someone is creepy it means they make you uncomfortable.

And it’s not only women labeling certain men as creepy. I’ve seen plenty of other men agree with their female friends’ assessment. Creepy may be a term used mostly by women, but men pick up on creepiness, as well. They say things like, “There’s something wrong with that guy.” That seems to be the definition of creepy.

I’m not saying that everyone labeled as creepy is dangerous, and there are times when the word is used inappropriately, but not many. In fact, I’d say that this word is probably used more appropriately than most “insults.”

Katniss Everdeen Is No Bella Swan

Before I get into this allow me to tell everyone what I tell my kids – The book is always better than the movie!

That said, I am thrilled with Katniss Everdeen! Katniss is a strong, consistent in her actions, smart hero. You can’t help but root for her. And go ahead and cheer, because Katniss Everdeen won’t let you down. There is no damsel in distress moment, no need to be rescued for stupid, reckless behavior. Not one.

It’s time for a Team Katniss!

Which is an interesting point, especially compared to her Box Office counterpart – Bella Swan from Twilight. Consider this… even though Twilight is the story of Bella Swan, there is no Team Bella. We have Team Edward and Team Jacob. And why wouldn’t we, since in every Twilight movie it’s hard to keep count of which of these male teams rescues Bella next. In fact, you could easily change the title of the series from “Twilight” to “Saving Bella.”

Not so with the Hunger Games. Katniss Everdeen’s survival is based on Katniss Everdeen.

Let me explain… Here’s what I love about Katniss:

1. She’s a strong female character with strong female relationships.

Katniss’ relationship with her sister and mother is not something we often see in our female heroines. Bella Swan’s mother is a flighty footnote who sends Bella to live with her father (surrounded by his male friends) while she follows her husband across the country on the baseball circuit. Several weeks ago we watched Hanna, a young girl raised, in the wilderness by her father, to become the ultimate assassin. Even Mulan seeks her father’s counsel throughout the film, probably because her mother is only interested in finding her a husband. The Hunger Games breaks this mold quite thoroughly.

2. Katniss doesn’t have moments of inexplicable stupidity.

Like I said, Katniss is consistent in her actions. She is who she is, and our surefooted Katniss never suddenly trips. She doesn’t make a move without thought. She is smart and skilled, and if she wasn’t these things the movie would have had a different ending.

3. Katniss isn’t self-sacrificing.

I am really tired of female leads or co-stars who sacrifice themselves in order for the male lead to save the day. Trinity, in the Matrix, comes to mind. Bella Swan, after being impregnated by a vampire with no bodily fluids, refuses to abort the unknown vampire/child/thing rapidly growing inside her and rapidly killing her. She will sacrifice herself even though she has NO idea what is growing inside her. It’s a new spin on Rosemary’s Baby – whose reaction to her frightening pregnancy was much more believable.

In contrast, Katniss’s volunteering to take her little sister’s place in the Hunger Games makes sense. If Prim goes she will die. Katniss has a chance. And while there is no doubt that Katniss’ actions are rooted in her love for her sister, she isn’t self-sacrificing for the sake of being self-sacrificing. The situation facing her is horrendous, but the decision she makes is based in strategy. The only choice before her is either her sister goes and dies, or she goes and the odds of them both living increase.

4. Which lead me to her compassion.

While Katniss’ decision to volunteer for the Hunger Games is driven by love for, and need to protect, her little sister, her behavior remains strategic. Unlike other female heroes, Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu in Kill Bill come to mind, she isn’t cold and emotionless. She retains her humanity in a way unlike the endless stream of female bad asses before her. She is compassionate, but she uses her head to reach her compassionate goal of saving Peeta.

5. She learns and understands the rules of the Hunger Games and adapts her actions to survive.

Katniss evolves depending on her circumstances. If playing the part of Juliet to Peeta’s Romeo will keep her alive and cause sponsors to send them necessary supplies, then she will play the part. There is no faux outrage, or being true to her heart nonsense. There are rules to this game and she will use them to her advantage.

6. Katniss doesn’t defer to men, simply because they’re men.

There is no ego stroking by Katniss in this first movie – although I am sure she would do it if, and only if, it led to her survival. In contrast, Bella Swan doesn’t drive her own flippin’ car. If Edward and Jacob are with her, they are in the driver’s seat. Ah… symbolism. Gotta love it.

Here’s a final thought. Katniss is an individual, her actions consistent with who she is. She does not break character, and you will not leave this movie or close this book wondering why she did something. Which is really saying something.

*This one’s for you, Socialistic Ben! 😉

Putting A Price Tag On Sex

Given all the stupid articles ever written about sex, this has to be the stupidest.

Grab a cup of coffee, this is going to take a while.

Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists. […]

“The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,” said Kathleen Vohs, of the University of Minnesota, who has authored several papers on “sexual economics.” “It might mean buying her a drink or an engagement ring. These behaviors vary in how costly they are to the man, and that is how we quantify the price of sex.”

By boiling dating down to an economic model, researchers have found that men are literally getting lots of bang for their buck. Women, meanwhile, are getting very little tat for their . . . well, you get the idea.

Do people still think this way? Does a guy still say, “Hey, Doll Face, I expect to get laid tonight after springing for that lobster.” Seriously? I doubt it.

Notice, also, how the writer portrays men as the winners. They get what they want, while women… Well, it can’t be that women want sex, could it? Could it possibly be that women can enjoy sex without (gasp!) commitment? I’m really tired of this sort of article – more tired of people who agree with it: People who believe bargaining with sex will lead to a happily-ever-after.

Here’s the deal. If a person is only interested in having sex with you, then whether or not you sleep with them will not generate a commitment. Sorry, won’t happen. It drives me nuts that society keeps telling women that withholding sex will get them what they are “supposed” to want. God forbid, a woman could have sex because she enjoys sex.

“Every sex act is part of a ‘pricing’ of sex for subsequent relationships,” Regnerus said. “If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future — that is, committing to marry?”

It always comes back to that ring on the finger. It’s also as if women are just a series of vaginas. No brains. No distinct personalities. Nothing more to offer than sex. Have sex too soon? No marriage for you, you bad girl! Who cares if you’re awesome?

So, what can women do to return the balance of sexual power in their favor? Stop putting out, experts say. If women collectively decided to cross their legs, the price of sex would soar and women would regain control of the market.

This is beyond offensive – to men, as well as women. I’m really tired of being told women are in charge of men’s basic urges; that it is somehow our job to civilize them. You know who uses that excuse? A rapist.

This summer a male neighbor stopped over. He started going off on how women dress. His exact words: They are dressed like they want to have sex. My response: Maybe they want to have sex. The expression on his face was priceless. The idea that a woman would want to have sex never dawned on him. Poor guy. After a moment, he continued: Well, they’re asking for it. Now you can imagine my expression. “Really?” I said. “Here’s a newsflash. Just because a women wants to have sex doesn’t mean she wants to have it with you.” Needless to say, he left in a huff. Oh, well.

Viewing sex as a commodity is dangerous. It takes us back to the day of the lobster dinner; to a place where wearing a mini skirt equals a discounted price. It takes us to a place where women are merely products, not unique individuals.

It’s also a load of crap. Sex and love are not synonymous. They can exist together, but pretending they always do is foolish. Wanting to marry a person because it’s the only way to get them into bed is a recipe for disaster. Telling women that not having sex will lead them to Prince Charming is a lie; Telling them that they are selling a commodity and need to up their price is vile.

Women like sex. If you don’t believe that fact… well, it must suck to be you. You, and your partner, have my deepest sympathies.

Pointy-Haired Cartoonist

Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, stepped into a huge controversy when he decided to write about Men’s Rights Activists. The original Adams post has been disappeared from Adams’s blog and mysteriously from Google Cache after Adams got lot of criticism. Feministe has the details:

But here’s where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men’s Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazenly misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on MRA and “Men Going Their Own Way” message boards. It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should “get over it” is that … well, you’d best just read it for yourself.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

As Kyle’s mom would say: “what what what??” This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade loser on a misogynist Mecca like The Spearhead. But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

I would write more about how women are now expected to work and raise children, all for less money than a man makes but my feeble, child-like womanbrain can’t process things so fast.

The Mommy Wars Leave Out The Kids

There are some things I agree with in Erica Jong’s WSJ article, but there’s a lot I do not. While she goes to great lengths to make the point that mothers shouldn’t feel guilty the point gets lost amid the guilt she dishes out.

Cooperative child-rearing is obviously convenient, but some anthropologists believe that it also serves another more important function: Multiple caregivers enhance the cognitive skills of babies and young children. Any family in which there are parents, grandparents, nannies and other concerned adults understands how readily children adapt to different caregivers. Surely this prepares them better for life than stressed-out biological parents alone.

Hmm… I smell an agenda. I also smell the need for justification. And I believe it’s this need for justification that drives both sides. This need to show the world that our parenting choices were right. Except… after 16 years of parenting I have no idea what “right” is. I do my best, and make a lot of mistakes.

But the mistake Jong – and almost everyone else who writes on this issue – makes is in focusing on parents rather than the child. I can’t sum up my parenting in a simple how-to fashion. Know why? Because I have two children who are individuals. And individuals require different methods. My son requires a more hands-on approach. He’s the kid who always needs to know why. I hover more with him, because he can’t move on without knowing. Once he knows, he soars. And I view my job as teaching him how to find the why – without me. My daughter accepts that some things just are. With her, explaining the why isn’t always necessary. She soars without always needing the why.

Different personalities = different parenting.

And in the end my job is to raise them to leave me.

Giving up your life for your child creates expectations that are likely to be thwarted as the child, inevitably, attempts to detach. Nor does such hyper-attentive parenting help children to become independent adults. Kids who never have to solve problems for themselves come to believe that they can’t solve problems themselves. Sometimes they fall apart in college.

The premise in this statement is flawed. I have rarely encountered people who have given up their lives for their child. I have met parents who justify what they do in the name of their children. And that’s a big difference, and hardly new. Parents have always hoped and dreamed for, and with, their children. The problem arises when parents insist on controlling the dream. Ever watched certain parents at a sporting event? ‘Nuff said.

Is there anyway to discuss this issue without the writer inserting their personal agenda? I’m going to give it a try.

Yesterday I was on the phone with a friend. She is a wealthy, stay-at-home mom with two children, who lives in Boston, and she was frustrated and feeling guilty. The reason for her guilt? During a parent/teacher conference she was asked what she thought of her 4th grade son’s woolly mammoth assignment. She had no idea such an assignment existed, and she feels she should have known. Why? Because as a stay-at-home it’s her job. The children are her job. And there in lies the problem. Perhaps it’s time we stopped viewing children as a job.

On the flip side I have a friend who feels the same guilt. She works full time, and is constantly trying to make up for her “absence.” Both women are driven by guilt. Both feel as if they’re dropping the parenting ball. And both have great kids. And, even though their kids are doing great, both share the same guilt. Perhaps it’s past time to take all those parenting books (all of us parents own) off the shelf and toss them into the trash?

Stay-at-home moms feel guilty. Working moms feel guilty. And both are looking to justify their decisions – to prove their situations are best for children. And yet, I’ve witnessed children who thrive under benign neglect and those who thrive under hovering. There simply isn’t a foolproof formula to successful parenting, and everyone is doing the best they can.

As a stay-at-home mom I have been both praised and condemned. Personally, I’d prefer a shrug.

Happy 90th 19th Amendment

Yesterday was the 90th anniversary of the 19th amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote. To celebrate the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a blog post titled “Equality, Suffrage and a Fetish For Money.”

There is much that was good in this article — for instance the acknowledgment that most of the current “pay gap” is the result of individual choice rather than discrimination; but I believe that the overall tone is one of those cultural changes we need to make — the idea that giving up “pay and promotions” is a “terribly steep price” to pay for time away from work. These are only two of the many things that people value and depending on the weight that you assign to each of your values giving up a little might gain you a lot. Equality is a matter of ensuring equal access to opportunity, not ensuring identical outcomes in some areas depending on which opportunities you choose to take.

On a similar note around the same time the NY Times article appeared, Don Boudreaux wrote on income inequality in general noting: “Not only does achievement of such “equality” require the state to treat people unequally, obsession with income equality also reflects a Scrooge-like fetish for money.” More from Boudreaux:

Consider a man who spends long hours at the gym. He does so for the same reasons that another man spends long hours at work: to gain an advantage and a sense of achievement. Are gym-man’s broad shoulders, bulging biceps, and ripped torso appropriate objects of envy by couch-potato man? Is this envy a social problem demanding government action? Should gym-man be scorned as greedy for working extra-hard to improve his physique – extra-hard work that likely wins gym-man disproportionate access to attractive mates? Should government force gym-man to share his beautiful babes with couch-potato man? Should gym-man’s muscles, or natural good looks, be taxed?

If we recognize that envy of other persons’ physiques is a sentiment deserving only ridicule, why do so many “Progressives” excuse – or even positively approve of – envy of other persons’ monetary assets?

So did the U.S. Chamber of Commerce state that the pay gap is no big deal and compare women to someone who doesn’t work out? Why yes, yes they did. Really ladies, you should just expect that you deserve less money because you don’t have time to work unpaid overtime. Of course, the Chamber has good advice for those pesky, greedy women who just don’t understand why being a mother should disqualify them from having a good career.

It is true that culturally speaking women are more likely to have to make the tough choices about work-life balance. But as we all seek to fit our values into a dynamic 24/7 economy, let’s not overlook the obvious, immediate, power-of-the-individual solution: choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home.

Hey, Brad Peck knows it’s tough out there for women. That’s why he’s advising not to work at a place like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or to marry a man like Brad Peck. Brad Peck and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should read up on Lily Ledbetter. I’ll bet you’re not surprised to learn that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed the legislation, along with almost all civil rights legislation:

Given all this, it will not shock you that they also opposed what would become the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which it said represented a potential wind-fall against employers by employees trying to dredge up stale pay claims.” Via Firedoglake, we learn that they have a sterling record on women’s rights:

* 1977: US Chamber opposes amendment to Civil Rights Act that would ban discrimination against pregnant women.
* 1978: US Chamber says pregnancy is a “voluntary” condition in its opposition to Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
* 1987: Family Medical Leave Act “sets a dangerous precedent,” according to the US Chamber.
* 1998: US Chamber opposes Equal Pay Act because “work experience does tend to create greater wage gaps.”
* 2007: US Chamber opposes Lilly Ledbetter’s court case for equal pay because “tear-stained testimony” prejudices against a defendant. Opposed the bill in Congress to right the wrongs against Ledbetter in 2008 and 2009 as well.
* 2007: Chamber official pledges “all out war” against Family Medical Leave Act, and in 2010 made it a “priority” to fight in Congress.
* Monday: US Chamber again cites pregnancy as a “voluntary choice.”

And, yes, the pay gap really exists and it can’t be explained away by motherhood.

Bonus: read the comments on the post of the Chamber of Commerce’s blog.

The Real Feminists

I swear I think the Republican Party has become a party of all id. All I hear from them anymore is what they’re afraid of (Muslims, immigrants), who they don’t like (liberals) and now what they want to hump. This video came from the Minnesota Republican party (watch the whole thing if you can, it’s about 5 min. long).

Funny thing, to me it doesn’t show what they want it to show. Some of the supposed “hot” GOP women are pretty scarily botoxed and plastic surgeried. Democrats are represented mostly by unflattering pictures of women over 60. I guess the new feminist sensibilities of the GOP lasted about 5 minutes, until they got bored.

For a palate cleanser, go read Amanda Marcotte’s “A short history of ‘feminist’ anti-feminists.”

Phyllis Schlafly Is Pro-Life… Sorta

I think she’s pro-life as long as the mother vows to raise the child to vote conservative.

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government…For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, yall know what was the second biggest? Unmarried women. 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider. And they know that. They’ve admitted it. And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy, which is now nationwide, running at 41%. 1.7 million babies were born in our country illegitimately last year. The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes. Republicans never could have given the amount of money they are going to get. And as Ronald Reagan said, if you subsidize something you are going to get more of it, and if you tax it you’re going to get less of it. [Applause]

Can’t wait until they revive the term bastard.

She’s Asking For It

Men’s Health list the top 10 signs to look for when trying to pick up women looking for sex. Bet there will be an app for this soon. Let’s examine part of the list…

Chatting Up The Bartender
A flirtatious woman can hardly contain herself. She won’t let a male waiter or bartender take her order without flashing a smile and saying something silly, like, “What can you make me that would be really yummy?”

Now see, my first rule would be to avoid anyone who uses the word yummy. Also, why would any man think that a woman flirting with another man is interested in him?

Game Playing

Darts, pool, pinball—women know this makes them easier to approach. That’s why they do it. It’s easy to get a man’s attention when you’re about to jab him in the ribs with a pool cue.

Ladies, did you get that? The only reason women play these games is to get a man’s attention.

Her Drink is Big, Frozen and Blue

I did not make that up. Everyone starting to get the theme of this article?

She’s a Chatterbox

If she leans forward when you’re talking or asks you endless questions, the only way to shut her up is to kiss her.

The only way to shut her up is to kiss her? There is so much wrong with this statement I’m not sure where to begin.

She’s Wearing Thigh-High Stockings

Women only wear sexy underthings when they’re expecting a man to see them. If she’s wearing a thong, she’s trying to avoid panty lines, but sex is on her mind, too. Anything black, red, pink, leopard print, or lace equals “I want you.”

Is this guy for real? Let’s sum it up this way…

So… if a woman is flirting with another guy she really wants to have sex with you.
If she’s playing darts or pool she really wants to have sex with you – even if you’re not the person she’s playing darts or pool with.
If she’s drinking a big, blue frozen drink she wants to have sex with you.
If she asks you questions… kiss her to shut her up and she’ll want to have sex with you.
If she’s wearing sexy underthings they have nothing to do with her preference and comfort she simply wants to have sex with you.

Anyone else find these “signs” disturbingly similar to a rapist’s defense? Yes, I did shudder when I typed that, but this entire article from Men’s Health could be titled “She was asking for it.” And while the author dances around the “have sex” and “have sex with you” comments his opening line is quite disturbing.

Some women go out looking for sex. Here’s how to find them and make it happen.

Find them and make it happen.

The Oprah Presidency?

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker must hate that she doesn’t have a penis. What else could I infer from her vapid column in today’s Washington Post, “Obama: Our first female president”. The premise of the piece is interesting, take Toni Morrison’s famous analogy that Bill Clinton was our first black president, and turn it on its head by saying Obama is our first female president.

Parker writes:

Generally speaking, men and women communicate differently. Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.

Obama is a chatterbox who makes Alan Alda look like Genghis Khan.

I’m still not sure of the Alda-Khan simile, but let’s let that pass. Parker looks at Karlyn Kohrs Campbell’s essay, “Hating Hillary” which Parker writes that the study “details the ways our former first lady was chastised for the sin of talking like a lawyer and, by extension, ‘like a man.’ ” I haven’t read Kohrs Campbell’s work, and cannot comment on whether Parker gets that right or not.

Parker then throws it out there that basically, we could never have a woman in the Oval Office.

I’m not so sure. The masculine-coded context of the Oval Office poses special challenges, further exacerbated by a crisis that demands decisive action. It would appear that Obama tests Campbell’s argument that “nothing prevents” men from appropriating women’s style without negative consequences.

Indeed, negative reaction to Obama’s speech suggests the opposite. Obama may prove to be our first male president who pays a political price for acting too much like a woman.

And, perhaps, next time will be a real woman’s turn.

So feminine styles do not connote leadership? WTF. Parker had so much possiblility with her premise as Obama being our first female president, but she botched it. Her political glasses got in the way of driving to the crux of the matter and maybe enlightening the reader.

I’m Glad I’m Raising A Buffy And Not A Bella

Given the Twilight series rage I purchased the books for my preteen daughter. I mean, everyone was reading them. Everyone was raving. But…

My daughter doesn’t like Twilight. She likes the Vampire Diaries and the Vampire Academy, so it isn’t the genre… It’s Twilight specifically. Which I found perplexing, since the back covers all read pretty much the same to me. So, what was it about Twilight?

“Bella never drives her own car. Whatever guy she’s with sits behind the steering wheel of her car.”

That was my daughter’s first point.

“Bella is always being rescued. She never saves anyone.”

Second point.

The third point is a doozy.

Edward is drawn to Bella because of her blood (which he describes as his own personal heroin), not her personality or her brain.

And her fourth point makes me proud.

“Edward is a stalker. Bella is always waking up and finding him in her bedroom watching her. It’s creepy.”

It is creepy. And it seems my daughter is not alone in her thoughts. The video below is priceless.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM[/youtube]