Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?
Of course. And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children. Women are the ones with the large gametes! That’s the definition of woman, nothing else. Screw all cis-women who don’t fit the mold.
Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
I do! “NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU DON’T!”
No matter what, Molly is nothing but a mother. There’s no character there beyond that.
And I personally know such girls.It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
You’ve missed my point. My point is, there are many ways of being a person, and many ways of being a girl or a woman. Rowling doesn’t believe that, and the narrative she pushes explicitly defines what is and isn’t from her perspective, an acceptable way of being a woman. She very clearly values men over women.
Edit: As a child I looked past these things. I didn’t see them, I lacked the cultural context. I’m no longer a child, and now it’s blatantly obvious.
These books were written by a grown-ass woman who couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to name the only fucking Chinese character Cho Chang on accident. Her name is almost Ching Chong!
She couldn’t have been ignorant to the nazi rhetoric she spewed out, or the pro-slavery bits.
The books are soaked with racism, ableism, and misogyny and I don’t understand how anyone can go back to them as an adult, having obtained the cultural context, and still think the stories are okay.
And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children.
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
There’s no character there beyond that.
Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.
pro-slavery bits.
Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don’t consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.
Cho Chang
Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn’t really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character’s origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.
And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children.
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
Book: has one character whose main sense of identity is being a mother
Critic: “THIS BOOK IS SAYING THE ONLY VALID WAY TO BE A WOMAN IS TO BE A MOTHER!!1!!1!1!1!”
It’s obnoxiously close to this broader view in society:
Woman: is a mother
Society: “SO YOU THINK A WOMAN’S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BE A MOTHER?!?!?!?!!?!”
Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?
Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?
You know what, that’s fair. McGonagall is a mostly unproblematic character, I feel. There are some moments where I feel like she meted out very strange punishments, like sending the kids out into a dangerous forest they were prohibited from being in because it’s potentially lethal, or when she locked Neville out of the Gryffindor common room while a murderer was on the loose.
There is no argument. You’re allowed to believe what you wish, wrong or not. I just don’t have the energy to waste on apologists and supporters of such heinous politics. Rowling’s politics are apparent in all of her writing, she’s always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your prerogative and I don’t think anything I say or show you will convince you otherwise.
Ergo, this conversation here is just a waste of time for the two of us.
Given that Rowling is still making money and is actively using that money to harm people, you cannot extricate the art from the artist.
If one want a whimsical world of magic, I’d recommend Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. If one wants a little darker story about a magical school, I’d recommend the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik.
Pirating Harry Potter media is the only ethical way of consuming it. When I quoted the books here it was from an epub I obtained the same way the big corpos do it.
Of course. And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children. Women are the ones with the large gametes! That’s the definition of woman, nothing else. Screw all cis-women who don’t fit the mold.
You’re not allowed to be too feminine, but also if you don’t adhere to white-feminine beauty standards you’re also bad.
I do! “NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU DON’T!”
No matter what, Molly is nothing but a mother. There’s no character there beyond that.
You’ve missed my point. My point is, there are many ways of being a person, and many ways of being a girl or a woman. Rowling doesn’t believe that, and the narrative she pushes explicitly defines what is and isn’t from her perspective, an acceptable way of being a woman. She very clearly values men over women.
Ember Green did an excellent video essay that touches on this topic.
There’s a Wikipedia entry on Jewish sterotypes. You could turn it into a drinking game, if you’d like to die of alcohol poisoning.
Edit: As a child I looked past these things. I didn’t see them, I lacked the cultural context. I’m no longer a child, and now it’s blatantly obvious.
These books were written by a grown-ass woman who couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to name the only fucking Chinese character Cho Chang on accident. Her name is almost Ching Chong!
She couldn’t have been ignorant to the nazi rhetoric she spewed out, or the pro-slavery bits.
The books are soaked with racism, ableism, and misogyny and I don’t understand how anyone can go back to them as an adult, having obtained the cultural context, and still think the stories are okay.
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.
Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don’t consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.
Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn’t really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character’s origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.
Book: has one character whose main sense of identity is being a mother
Critic: “THIS BOOK IS SAYING THE ONLY VALID WAY TO BE A WOMAN IS TO BE A MOTHER!!1!!1!1!1!”
It’s obnoxiously close to this broader view in society:
Woman: is a mother
Society: “SO YOU THINK A WOMAN’S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BE A MOTHER?!?!?!?!!?!”
Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?
You know what, that’s fair. McGonagall is a mostly unproblematic character, I feel. There are some moments where I feel like she meted out very strange punishments, like sending the kids out into a dangerous forest they were prohibited from being in because it’s potentially lethal, or when she locked Neville out of the Gryffindor common room while a murderer was on the loose.
That said, Caroline Easom did a video on the female characters that appear in the top 100 characters by mention in the books and there are some less savoury patterns in how Joanne portrays women.
“Character” as in personality, not other fictional people.
What do you mean?
“Character” can mean:
A person in a story
The nature of someone’s personality, beliefs, etc.
The person you were replying to was referring to Molly’s “character”, as in, her personality etc.
Ah, ok.
Anyway, persons from the books had different personalities.
Sure. If it makes you feel better, then whatever.
That’s your argument? Ok.
There is no argument. You’re allowed to believe what you wish, wrong or not. I just don’t have the energy to waste on apologists and supporters of such heinous politics. Rowling’s politics are apparent in all of her writing, she’s always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your prerogative and I don’t think anything I say or show you will convince you otherwise.
Ergo, this conversation here is just a waste of time for the two of us.
If you’re under the impression that I support Rowling - I’m not. Fuck her.
I’m protecting the books.
Given that Rowling is still making money and is actively using that money to harm people, you cannot extricate the art from the artist.
If one want a whimsical world of magic, I’d recommend Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. If one wants a little darker story about a magical school, I’d recommend the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik.
By the way: you can pirate those books.
Pirating Harry Potter media is the only ethical way of consuming it. When I quoted the books here it was from an epub I obtained the same way the big corpos do it.
Yet you can. The books (plot) themselves don’t become bad because of that.
No, they’re bad entirely on their own merit.
deleted by creator
Downvotes on the deleted comment? Interesting.
There wasn’t any vote on it before deletion.
Such is the nature of voting on forums