Harry Potter vs Twilight

I will fully concede 3 things: 1) Harry Potter is far more feminist-friendly than Twilight 2) The character Harry Potter is brave. 3) Edward is slightly pedophilic and creepy in terms of how young he goes in women since his mental maturity should make personality-bonding very difficult for such a relationship. Here is what I will not concede and why: 1) Harry being brave and Bella being rather timid is not a reason to claim that Harry Potter is better than Twilight. Bella stood up to Jacob (broke her own hand punching him in the face). She showed extreme determination and courage in less obvious ways than the overt bravery of Neville Longbottom but she is still a very brave character. She kept extreme secrets from everyone she knew for so long, in fact Harry Potter rarely delves into how wizards keep their identity secret (if at all). The entire point is that everyone can relate to Bella in some way, all her struggles and helplessness in the love triangle are things that many of us can emotionally relate to even if we haven't been in love triangles. The entire story was about a relentless struggle, not between good or evil, not between bravery or cunning but between two arguably equal rewards (Edward and Jacob, and since Edward refused to ever grant Bella eternal life at the start you couldn't argue that she took this into account as the way she became a vampire was so unforeseeable). It's a story of a skinny guy actually out-charming a hot, more masculine one simply by opening up to a woman and being honest and in its own way so beautiful. Harry's bravery is so irrelevant, he was hardly the bravest of the characters. I would say Lupin, Neville (as well as his parents) and Ron were all far braver and more determined than Harry in the face of animosity. In actual fact I would say Tom Marvolo Riddle himself (AKA "Lord Voldemort") was perhaps the bravest of all characters despite the entire wizarding world trying time after time to not just take his life but make him suffer severely. 2) The militant feminist need to have women without men is ridiculous. Women (as a whole) would be nowhere without men. Men hunted and helped our species dominate by forming political structures to begin with, all women were good for was producing the men. Sure, over time they have admittedly excelled in many fields of work but without men altogether our species would die out after one generation and also be without guidance since even today poltiics is heavily male dominated[http://unstats.un.org...], ergo the world is since politics runs the world. 3) Bella's character is not just some timid pathetic individual with no will of her own. She is someone with deep secrets, urges of being dominated (somethign any feminist should understand is present in females who are fans of BDSM[part 1 - https://www.psychologytoday.com...[[part 2 - https://www.psychologytoday.com...][http://www.dailymail.co.uk...]) if you read my sources you will even realize that dominant men rarely enjoy submisison while dominant womena re amongst the highest group fo peopel to passionately crave it. Women enjoying submission and having strong men (albeit not 'men' if they are not human) fighting over them is not a problem at all and is a great thing for people to understand and delve into. Look how wide sold 50 shades of Grey was [https://www.lifesitenews.com...]. It's a great thing to have insight into women who may not be that dominant or be your stereotypical feminist, are you suggesting that only feminists are worth reading about? One could easily argue that while Bella was a damsel in distress, Alice was your kickass feminist who saved a man in distress and fell in love with him eternally as a result of it. Perhaps you didn't read or watch enough of Twilight to know the story of Alice and Jasper but it is one of the most beautiful feministic love stories in probably all of fiction.