Bad Essay on Harry Potter and Feminism

[tuckerphez]

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/feminism.shtml

(warning for Pottermore spoilers)

Some of the highlights include:

-Harry and the Weasleys made Ginny stay in the Room of Requirement during the Battle of Hogwarts because they are sexist. It's not like she was underage and they wanted their girlfriend/sister to not die or anything.

-All of the single women (Umbridge and Rita Skeeter) are evil, so not feminist

-Every married woman is a submissive housewife without a career.

-The only acceptable women are strong and independent, because god forbid women have varying personality traits.

-Tonks was cool until she married and got pregnant

-Cho Chang is bad at quidditch, so sexist

I'll give the author a point on Ginny Weasley and slutshaming though.

[Patsy]

I'll read the essay when I get home, but it sounds like I'm going to agree with most of it. I love those books, but JK is an utter reactionary and far, far less liberal than she seems to think she is.

[Ariel]

Overall the author states that Harry Potter is a feminist text though.

-Harry and the Weasleys made Ginny stay in the Room of Requirement during the Battle of Hogwarts because they are sexist. It's not like she was underage and they wanted their girlfriend/sister to not die or anything.

This is, as the author states, because the wizarding world is not feminist, not because the book is not feminist.

I do agree on the part of the portrayal of married women vs. single women. It would be nice if there had been one good single woman. There were lots of good single men. Also, not really noted by the author, but the single women that don't get married also have a tendency to get tragic/unhappy endings. That may be a result of their bad behavior as opposed to their singleness though.

And! Tonks was cool until she got married and pregnant!!!

When I was reading the books Tonks seemed so out of character when she spent all of book 6 moping about a guy. Book 5 Tonks would not act like Book 6 Tonks at all!

The moral of the Remus/Tonks love story was "Hey, if the guy rejects you, don't move on, just follow him around moping until you make him love you!"

[MysteryHaggis]

Overall the author states that Harry Potter is a feminist text though.

This is, as the author states, because the wizarding world is not feminist, not because the book is not feminist.

I do agree on the part of the portrayal of married women vs. single women. It would be nice if there had been one good single woman. There were lots of good single men.

Wasn't McGonagall single ? She was awesome all round. Or am I misremembering?

[MajorMajor]

Wasn't McGonagall single ? She was awesome all round. Or am I misremembering?

I was going to mention McGonagall. Even if she wasn't single ( though I always assumed she was) she certainly wasn't a submissive stay at home wife with no career.

[tuckerphez]

Minor spoiler for Pottermore about McGonagall:

McGonagall was briefly married before the start of the series. She married very late in life, and her husband died of a bite three years later. She worked while she was married and continued to work.

From the Harry Potter wikia "Always something of a feminist, she kept her maiden name upon their marriage, to the dismay of pure-blood supremacists who disapproved of her keeping her Muggle father's name."

[Conuly]

Minor spoiler for Pottermore about McGonagall:

McGonagall was briefly married before the start of the series. She married very late in life, and her husband died of a bite three years later. She worked while she was married and continued to work.

From the Harry Potter wikia "Always something of a feminist, she kept her maiden name upon their marriage, to the dismay of pure-blood supremacists who disapproved of her keeping her Muggle father's name."

Good for her.

And even if she wasn't perpetually single, the fact is that it never shows up in the books. I refuse to analyze people who were married outside of canon as married for the purpose of this sort of conversation.

[crazyforkate]

Yup, and Amelia Bones was never stated to be married in the books. She seemed like an all-around cool person. Agree about Tonks though!

[emiliawasframed]

Reductive essay. Just because Molly Weasley is a homemaker with a bunch of children doesn't mean she's not feminist. She obviously made it a point to raise Ginny to be an independent thinker who isn't afraid to work hard and prove herself (remember her sneaking brooms to hold her own in Quidditch?), and she and Arthur have an egalitarian marriage and consult each other when making decisions, and she's not afraid to stand up to him when she thinks he's wrong.

[FreeJosie]

Good for her.

And even if she wasn't perpetually single, the fact is that it never shows up in the books. I refuse to analyze people who were married outside of canon as married for the purpose of this sort of conversation.

Agreed. And I think McGonagall qualifies as "single" as much as Umbridge or Skeeter does. JKR could easily give those characters a marital history outside of canon too.

Most of the female Hogwarts staff members aren't known to have spouses either - Pomfrey, Hooch, Sprout, etc. They're minor characters but certainly come across as good single women.

How does the author of the essay conclude that Bellatrix is single "with an asterisk?" Bellatrix is married to Rodolphus; that's clearly stated.

I also think that Molly and Arthur are a great example of a healthy marriage.

On Tonks and Remus, I didn't see their story as Tonks pouting until she made Remus fall in love with her. Remus did love her, he just didn't want her to face the backlash that would have come from dating/marrying a werewolf. Tonks was depressed but still showed up to do her job all through book 6. I really like Tonks because I think she is fiercely loyal - loyal to the man she loves in spite of outside prejudice and loyal to her cause, showing up for battle soon after giving birth and dying for what she believed in.

[Rescinded and Mended]

Reductive essay. Just because Molly Weasley is a homemaker with a bunch of children doesn't mean she's not feminist. She obviously made it a point to raise Ginny to be an independent thinker who isn't afraid to work hard and prove herself (remember her sneaking brooms to hold her own in Quidditch?), and she and Arthur have an egalitarian marriage and consult each other when making decisions, and she's not afraid to stand up to him when she thinks he's wrong.

Exactly. Molly Weasley doesn't have a submissive bone in her body. Has the author of the essay forgotten Molly's crowning moment of awesome at the Battle of Hogwarts?

"NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" :lol:

Also, I hate to dispute the Remus/Tonks relationship, but there are moments where he comes across as not loving her. I hated seeing Tonks mope over Remus for a full volume of the series, but at least she was prepared to fight for her relationship with him. Remus, on the other hand, was ready to abandon Tonks and their unborn child in favor of going into hiding with Harry and his friends. Before that, Remus had left her. Harry rightly calls Remus out for this.

It's a painful moment to read, but at least Remus goes back to her after that. From there, you could probably make an argument for Remus loving Tonks, but most of that is offscreen, so to speak. (even at the final battle, she's the one to go looking for him)

Admittedly, this situation occured because of Remus's werewolf status, but still. It always irked me because Remus seemed more forward-thinking than that as a character.

Edited because I can spell.

[Conuly]

Admittedly, this situation occured because of Remus's werewolf status, but still. It always irked me because Remus seemed more forward-thinking than that as a character.

All the Marauders (and Snape) were a little immature, like their personalities had frozen after the first war. Lupin lived most of his life with two friends dead at the hands of a third*, and no other friends at all. It's not that surprising that in a time of stress he reverted to avoidance.

Which really makes you wonder how that generation turned out relatively stable, if the epilogue is anything to go by.

* yes, yes, big reveal. I don't think that made it better.

[FreeJosie]

All the Marauders (and Snape) were a little immature, like their personalities had frozen after the first war. Lupin lived most of his life with two friends dead at the hands of a third*, and no other friends at all. It's not that surprising that in a time of stress he reverted to avoidance.

Which really makes you wonder how that generation turned out relatively stable, if the epilogue is anything to go by.

* yes, yes, big reveal. I don't think that made it better.

Yep, agreed. Remus did annoy me in book 7 when he was ready to run out on Tonks, but he did do the right thing in the end and was elated when Teddy was born. I wish that there had been time for JKR to flesh out Remus/Tonks a little more in the books, but I understand that they were minor characters in the large scheme of things.

[Rescinded and Mended]

I see what you mean, avoidance does seem more likely when you've been shunned for being a werewolf. And I do agree that more should have been written about their relationship. It's just always felt to me like it was more about Tonks being in love with Remus instead of the other way around.

For example, if Remus had been the one to ask about and go after Tonks right before the last battle began, instead of the other way around, it would have gone much further toward balancing any positive dynamic in their relationship. I'd be more inclined to think he wanted and needed Tonks, no extra exposition needed.

[nellautumngirl]

I always thought of Remus as an introvert and Tonks more of an extrovert, so to me it made sense that she was the more proactive one in the relationship. I agree though, it could have been fleshed out a bit more.

But JK Rowling not a feminist? She has said that she always has been influenced by smart, independent women from the time she was young. The only thing I can think of that was a bit controversial was that she said that the love of a mother is something special that cannot be matched by any other relationship, including a father's. Then again, her mother died young and she and her father never got along.

[FJismyheadship]

Hermione Granger. Top of her class, best at almost everything... how is that not feminist? She believed she could do anything. Therefor, she did it.

And as someone else said Molly and Ginny Wesley.

[FreeJosie]

Hermione Granger. Top of her class, best at almost everything... how is that not feminist? She believed she could do anything. Therefor, she did it.

And as someone else said Molly and Ginny Wesley.

I love Hermione Granger. Such an awesome role model for young girls.

[Letgo]

-Harry and the Weasleys made Ginny stay in the Room of Requirement during the Battle of Hogwarts because they are sexist. It's not like she was underage and they wanted their girlfriend/sister to not die or anything.

Ginny was underage. Wizards come of age at 17 and Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all 17 in the 7th book, when they did not return to school for their last year. Ginny was nearly 18 months younger than Ron and would have been only 16 during the battle.

[Gertie]

Ginny was underage. Wizards come of age at 17 and Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all 17 in the 7th book, when they did not return to school for their last year. Ginny was nearly 18 months younger than Ron and would have been only 16 during the battle.

Underage, yes. But I can't get on board with "it's not like they wanted their girlfriend/sister to not die or anything" as justification for leaving her behind. Obviously they don't want her to die. But she doesn't want them to die either, and she doesn't force them to stay behind.

Also: McGonegal is awesome!

[tenth muse]

In addition to Molly's awesome line in the Battle, she was also shown to be a more than equal match for Bellatrix as far as magical ability goes.

[tuckerphez]

Underage, yes. But I can't get on board with "it's not like they wanted their girlfriend/sister to not die or anything" as justification for leaving her behind. Obviously they don't want her to die. But she doesn't want them to die either, and she doesn't force them to stay behind.

Also: McGonegal is awesome!

There was an agreement that anyone who was underage (aka under 17) would leave the castle. Ginny was mad that she was expected to wait at home and wait to hear what happened to her family and friends. There was a compromise that she could stay in the Room of Requirement so she would be nearby if anything happened but away from the battle.

When Harry needed the Room of Requirement to find the diadem, Ginny had to leave the Room of Requirement. Harry wanted her to go back in when he was done, but she left and joined the battle anyway.

(Also Colin Creevey fought in the Battle of Hogwarts and he was underage. And then there's Luna but we don't know when her birthday is.)

That being said, they are disregarding the fact that Ginny knows how to fight/has been fighting the Carrows all year.

[No Cure for Stupid]

Exactly. Molly Weasley doesn't have a submissive bone in her body. Has the author of the essay forgotten Molly's crowning moment of awesome at the Battle of Hogwarts?

"NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" :lol:

Also, I hate to dispute the Remus/Tonks relationship, but there are moments where he comes across as not loving her. I hated seeing Tonks mope over Remus for a full volume of the series, but at least she was prepared to fight for her relationship with him. Remus, on the other hand, was ready to abandon Tonks and their unborn child in favor of going into hiding with Harry and his friends. Before that, Remus had left her. Harry rightly calls Remus out for this.

It's a painful moment to read, but at least Remus goes back to her after that. From there, you could probably make an argument for Remus loving Tonks, but most of that is offscreen, so to speak. (even at the final battle, she's the one to go looking for him)

Admittedly, this situation occured because of Remus's werewolf status, but still. It always irked me because Remus seemed more forward-thinking than that as a character.

In addition to Molly's awesome line in the Battle, she was also shown to be a more than equal match for Bellatrix as far as magical ability goes.

That was not a crowning moment of awesome, it was completely out of character. Up until she faces off with Bellatrix, Molly hasn't even taken off her coat which suggests the entire time that the battle was going on, she was just standing on the sidelines instead of helping. Nowhere in the books is it ever suggested that Molly ever did anything battle-worthy and even armies need support staff which Molly appears to be. Neville and Augusta should have been the ones to defeat Bellatrix.

The entire Remus/Tonks situation strikes me as a girl getting pregnant to land her man. They never talked, never had interaction, and Tonks getting all whiny after Fleur tells Molly off about Bill in the infirmary just bothered me a lot. Fleur and Bill had a lot less interaction, but their relationship felt better-written.

[tenth muse]

It would have been perfect if Neville and Augusta had defeated her, but I do still like the fact that even if Molly hadn't been taking an active role in the fighting, it was shown at the end that she was a powerful witch in her own right, and that she was not confined to her role as a housewife, which was pretty much the only thing anyone else saw her as.She broke her own stereotype.

[Patsy]

Even the most amazingly well-accomplished and thought out feminist works have problematic things you can pick apart and criticise, but on top of that, I don't think these books are particularly feminist in the first place. I mean, the books say say "girls are just as good as boys!" in words, but so does every kids' book in the market atm; there's nothing radical about it. What it doesn't do is consistently show that message, rather than just tell it. And when it does show that message, it's often through things like "one time a person yelled real loud and that person? WAS A LADY!!!!!" while you can simultaneously find several examples of problematic stuff to accompany it.

As I've mentioned in previous HP threads here, JK claims the wizarding world is feminist because there's been a 50/50 ratio of Ministers and Heads. Fine. In the BOOKS, though (what we are shown, not told), we see three male Ministers (Fudge, Scrimgeour, Thicknesse), and a fourth male Minister is confirmed in interviews (Shacklebolt). We see four male Heads (Black, Dippett, Dumbledore, Snape) and one female (McGonagall), who has to retire in her 70s (again, according to interviews as I recall) even though Dumbledore hadn't in his 110s.

I mean, Dumbledore was awesome, and also gay, but as fucking if that means the books are the epitome of queer-positivity and representation. They're not. I ALSO seem to recall that JK said in interviews that she figured wizards reacted much the same as muggles to homosexuality (even though their world was perfectly feminist, as she also stated in interviews? how does your world manage to destroy sexism without destroying homophobia? I mean, perhaps there IS a way that a world might do that, but I really doubt she figured that out and that's why she went with it that way).

In several ways JK really, really, really fucking sucks at world-building, and one of those ways is that as much as she says "ladies is okay and they have lots of jobs", she does not then extrapolate from that a society that would result from that and then show that in the background of her writing. And one of the ways that comes through is the various examples of problematic stuff that just aren't cancelled out by ladies yelling swears, or pointing at some numbers that never appeared in the books.

[Patsy]

(Another example of show don't tell: she had this whole rant about calling girls fat on her website years ago, yet she pretty consistently and cartoonishly depicts baddies as being ugly and fat. Voldemort isn't fat and neither is Snape, but that doesn't eliminate the trend.

Another example of bad world-building: she's awful at maths, but even the overall big picture concepts of it. The possible range of the wizarding population of Britain is, like, 1000 to 100,000, or something, depending on what features of the book you extrapolate it from? Which is a fucking insane amount of ambiguity. So you look at the way their main shops work, and you'd expect their government to work a certain way based on that, but nope! It's something completely different.

Example: Harry's grade, there are five Gryffindor boys, three G girls, 5 Slytherin boys, 3 S girls, and pff who cares about the other houses, so there's 112 students in the entire school, 150, being a little generous? But she says there's 700, 1000 students? MASSIVE range. How many classes run each day? How many people do you know by face but not by name? Those are important things that build up the atmosphere of your story!

And okay, even assuming there is 1000 students, that means 99% of your 11-18yo population = 1000 people, so even assuming lots and lots of people live past 100, you've got a total population of ... what, 15,000? But the population can sustain about three separate apothecary franchise chains and dozens of quasi-professional Quidditch teams? duuuuuude when you can't figure out what the society is from what you see of it to any real degree of certainty, the picture you are painting is so vague it's dissatisfying)